Glad I found your article. I miss your presence up here at Classis Columbia :(
I'm joining the conversation pretty late, but the content of your article is still viable and I'll attempt to offer a couple points from my experience and understanding of "church" from a Biblical study.
First I would say it is important to realize the church has at least two, not one, essential requirements: 1) To find and proclaim the Gospel to the Lost AND 2) to Grow the Found.
In the past I would have wholeheartedly endorsed a "church" without brick and mortar. This does work well in much of the world, of particular note would be places of strong persecution, China is a notable example. But here is the challenge (and danger) for North America: Our general culture is a very fluid one in terms of transportation and relocation. It is also one that has spawned the attitude of "easy come, easy go." These two realities make a "church without walls," or a "church on the street" pretty elusive. They tend to be constantly morphing into something other than “church.” (Both these names of church plant attempts I was personally familiar with. Neither of them made it. After 1-2 years of effort they ceased altogether). In my last church plant I continually faced the attitude of a "consumerism mentality" where people came expecting to be blessed! They stayed as long as they felt we "blessed" them. When they no long felt "blessed," they left. Again and again we were warned by our denomination (not the CRCNA) NOT to fall into the trap of becoming a "Consumerism" Church, making available religious goods and services for the taking by whomever wanted to show up, take, and leave. I think that warning was right. There is no building of ties, family, the kingdom, or the church in that kind of scenario.
What I'm getting at is this: In our culture, I think there IS a need for "brick and mortar." There is something that happens in the hearts of people in the new church when they start seeing the "building" going up. It does more than cement in the footer and foundations of the building, it kind of "cements" the hearts of the people to one another too. It tends to encourage a long term view and commitment to one another as fellow members of the same church. And it brings a focus for growing up into Christ, and not just running here and there looking for the next place to find the latest blessing.
As I plant again, I am definitely giving more thought to how the structures, even the brick and mortar structures affect the heart and mind of the church and its members. Notwithstanding, your insight to the unintended consequences of the Reformers’ teaching should not be obscured by my comments. I think your warning is very important to listen to. The flip side of brick and mortar can be a "hardening of the categories," as a friend of mine puts it. This is where, as you say in your article, the church becomes a place where certain things are done. I agree that when and where that becomes the case, we have really lost the vitality of what it means to be a Spirit-filled Biblical Church. Our "doing" supersedes our "being," and our doctrines, no matter how Biblical, can lose their life as they get framed and hung on the walls instead of getting planting in the soil of people's hearts. My old Church History Prof, Dr. Richard Lovelace called this the condition of "dead orthodoxy vs. live orthodoxy." Our goal is ultimately, to plant churches that are on fire with "live orthodoxy," being and living the true faith to the glory of God, the salvation of the Lost, and the growth of the Found. Some throw out the old structures because they seem to create stale dead orthodoxy to these new and young church planters. But I would caution, that the "new structures," of no walls and fluid edges can bring their own problems, they can be just as bad. The decisions of how to structure the church plant and what materials to build with, are important ones. But I do not think there is a "one size fits all" answer to the question. At the risk of seeming trite, the best structure for the new church is the one God gives! But I think I have observed that God gives many different kinds of structures and they seem to reflect, the planter he calls, the gifts He has deposited in the planter, the people that are gathered, the local culture within which the church is being planted, and similar characteristics.
The big "C" Church is a beautiful world-wide, multi-cultural, inter-generational, multi-millennial blend of the local churches everywhere, past, present, and future. This Church displays a wide range of structure and style, appropriately informed by, and interacting with, their local cultures. There really is NO such thing as one perfect paradigm for the planting of new churches. There is only the One Perfect Head of the Church who declared, "I will build my Church and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it."
I too come from this "tribe" as K A Smith calls it in this thread. I am also a Church planter for the CRC and am in the first few months of our church plant. My ordination in the CRC was approved two years ago. Prior to that I was in the Vineyard for 15 yrs., where I planted a Vineyard church which I pastored for almost 8 years. Prior to my Vineyard years I was a minister in the PC(USA), where I was originally ordained (1986). My MDiv was earned at Gordon-Conwell where Dr. G. Fee was one of my professors, and in fact became somewhat more, as a friend, since we met in his home for small group meetings and we both attended a new church plant in Beverly MA. We also have a Sovereign Grace church in our area. I know the pastor quite well and love the work he and his church are doing.
Now, all this being said. I do have a couple challenges for you . . .
1. Sovereign grace ministries is reformed "in part." I would not give them the unmitigated affirmation you gave them. They lack a great deal theologically particularly in the area of Covenant theology. Therefore they are baptists in practice and only practice "believer's baptism." I think because of their lack of understanding God working through covenant with entire families/people groups etc., they have a very individual understanding of God's grace and do not affirm paedo baptism in any way.
2. Given Christ's own affirmation in John 10, that his sheep do hear his voice, and follow him, I believe that we should not be skittish about claiming to hear the voice of Christ. But we should learn how to hear well, and teach others the same. I am very comfortable saying God spoke to me . . . I belive this is "normative" Christianity (as Fee would call it). For a Christian to be hesitant about affirming God speaking to him/her is what I would find to be at odds with the Scirptures, and unnatural to Christianity, not the other way around. It is my experience, that we might tend to be hesitant about hearing God speak to us, because of at least two reasons: 1) The way we've been taught in traditional Reformed and Presbyterian churches. We've been taught that either God does NOT speak directly to us anymore, or at least we should be very cautious and avoid that if we can. 2) We have not done a good job of teaching people how to hear their Good Shepherd's voice. When I was young I was taught how to listen and hear God speak to me. It has always been a regular part of my Christian life (38 years now). The main issue, at stake, which I believe you rightly identified, is the agreement with the written revelation God has already given us as the Bible. Now here is my proviso: It is my position that God speaks to me perfectly, by my hearing (and understanding) is not always so good! Finally, on this point I would suggest something I belive we Reformed people have long since agreed upon, and as far as I know, it is a pretty unanimous agreement, viz., God communicates to his people. The entire Bible affirms this truth. And in Reformed circles (and most other "tribes" of Christianity for that matter), we have made much of this truth, declaring very loudly and consistently, that the God of the Bible has never demonstrated even a slight proclivity to leave his people in a state of agnosticism. I say all this to affirm my conviction and experience that -- God speaking to his people throughout human history, from Adam onwards, is the norm, not the exception. (Notwithstanding, there is at least one occassion we are told that "the word of the Lord was rare in those days" (1 Sam. 3:1). However, it is virtually impossible to get through one page of Scripture without "a word from the Lord" being divinly imparted to a human! I agree with the Reformed tradition that this matter of God speaking, communicating to his people is the norm. And I see nowhere is Scripture where that historically consistent pattern of God is ever indicated to cease. I believe our struggle in Reformed churches is not our affirmation of this "norm," but rather our "application" of it. John Wimber (Vineyard) was marvelous at creating and opening doors to allow "applications" of our doctrines to develop. I still appreciate that "experimental" risk taking approach. For "where there is no ox, the stable is clean, but much strength comes from the ox" (prov. 14:4). In other words, we can all keep a nice clean controlled church, if we do not encourage and allow people to try applying their faith. But when we do encourage people to "go for it," they WILL make some mistakes along the way, and there will be some clean up to do after them. But in the long run, I am very happy to be on the clean up crew if people learn and grow and the church makes real advance.
I hope this adds some value to the conversation.
By the way, I came into the CRC (of course by the providence of God), but for my part, based on the need for a theology to explain what the Spirit was doing in our churches (a weak point in the Vineyard). Good theology does not resist the presence and work of the Holy Spirit in our lives or churches. Rather it, helps us understand His presence and work, and what our response, if any, should be.
I'm a church planter. Starting from scratch-without a team. I joined the CRC three years ago. I have a broad and varied Christian background experiencially, but the one common thread throughout my 38 years as a Christian, to which I find myself increasingly committed to, is "reformed theology." The structure of the denomination or even the local church is not that imporatant to me as long as the church is: <li>theologically sound, historically connected, missionally engaged, clear and Biblical in its preaching and teaching about the Gospel, unafraid of defining and enforcing discipline and, characterized by love. </li>
<p></p>
The article is a bit vague so I am eager to see the specifics that people start listing in their comments. <p></p>
By the way, Meg, I'm glad you took the risk and posted this. As members of the family, maybe it's time to call a "family discussion."
1. New Symbol is Way Cool !!! Amazing how much more positive it makes me feel.
2. Regarding the terminology; handicapped vs disabled. Frankly After chasing the latest "acceptable" terminolgy for decades, from political views, to race to physical abilities (or lack thereof), etc., I'm getting tired of doing it. Just wait long enough and the new terms will no longer be acceptable. I.e. the new acceptable will eventually become the old offensive. I'm tired of chasing the proverbial tail on the latest "politically correct" terminology. Maybe people need to lighten up a bit. I too have "handicaps," "disabilities," "incapacities," "afflictions," "limitations,"impediments," "shortcomings,"incompetencies," "weaknesses," "inadequacies," "disqualifications," "frailties," "debilities," "lassitudes," etc., etc, etc. But frankly, there are more important things for me to focus on and rejoice in -- "Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, dwell on these things." Phil. 4:8
Mark, I must agree with Rob on this. You do bring out a very good perspective that I was not aware of before reading your article, and for that I am truly grateful. It will help me process some disabilitiy questions much better now. However, in this case, I do not necessarily see the point you are ascribing to Chief Belk. The shooter obviously was "troubled" about something. Does "troubled" always mean mental illness? I don't think so. Are you over-extending your point in this case?
My wife and I have been attending a CRC church for about 5 months now. Our 30+ years of Christian experience is in more non-liturgical and charismatic churches. We find the CRC meets a need for more solid theological framing of the ministry and a more historical context for our faith. But frankly, the formality of the liturgy leaves us longing for the freedom, spontaneity, mystery, and unplanned presence and response to the Holy Spirit, and more interaction with other members of the church during worship which we are more used to. The liturgy seems somewhat artificial to how we really live our lives and experience our relationship with God.
We started using tables 15 years ago. I personally like the tables. For some of the adults, the tables are physically more comfortable, and some like the added feature of taking sermon notes. Later we added couches, etc. and created a "home-like" setting in the sanctuary. People loved it but it had a deleterious effect that we did not anticipate. Some abused it, particularly among the teens and young adults. They came in, felt at ease, and easily proceeded to send text messages, talk, write notes (not about the sermon or service!), draw pictures, plan next week's parties, etc., etc. This younger generation, apparently, did not come with the experience nor context of worship being a sacred matter of service to God, nor did they have the wherewithal to recogonize the sanctuary as a special place to be entered with reverence and awareness. We simply accommodated the un-initiative secular mindset within the framework of a "worship" service. We found that most of these young people, although they liked the music, they liked the setting, they liked the fellowship, etc., they were NOT engaging in actual worship of God. Now you may wonder how I can judge such a thing? Two means: We asked them and two, we studied the Scriptures to see what God called worship. We found a great chasm between contemporary "worship" and Biblical worship.
I am not saying Biblical (true) worship could not happen in more informal settings, I do not believe that. I am saying more informal settings can sometimes mislead people into thinking that worship is a "common" event and that there is nothing special about it as compared with other activities they do. People are not confronted by the setting with a holy call to enter into a holy place and worship a holy God. So, as far as the setting (decor) is concerned, people experience nothing different in the holy sanctuary than they experience at Starbuck coffee house. If this is so, I consider it to be a real problem that can, inadvertently, lead to shallow understanding of the loving and holy act of worship. To be fair, I think our current "formal" routines and decor can also be a distraction from true worship.
The point is, worship is a call to humble reverence before the Most Holy God where the worshiper offers him/herself in humble gratitude and joyous praise to the One who created and redeemed him/her through Jesus Christ. The Old Testament word for worship literally means to "bow down" before a superior one and pay homage.
When we either get too casual or too formal, we can easily forget about this One in our midst to whom we are privileged to bow and worship. We can be thinking more about tomorrow night's math exam, or responding to our friend's text message across the "room" or across town. When the decor is so "familiar" we can be completely unimpressed by it, other than that it is "comfortable" for us. When the decor is too "formal" we can be so intrigued by it, that our attention is on the decor instead of on God and the family gathered with us for worship.
Let us remember that worship is for God, not for us. Yes, God does meet us in worship in deeply comforting and satisfying ways, but primarily our focus and evaluation must be toward God. "Did God like the worship?" not, "did you like the worship?"
The question is not about whether Jesus is present. It's about whether those who are also present are worshipping him.
It is surely true as you say, "Wear (sic, Where) two or more are gathered in His name He will be there." According to the Gospels, Jesus was in a lot of places among people. But that fact alone does insure those people were worshipping him. A worship gathering is different than a dinner gathering, or a prayer gathering, or a recreational/fellowship gathering, etc. Worship might be a part of these types of gather, but not necessarily so. However, at a "worship" gathering, worship is NOT optional.
Hey, I'm glad you did "jump back into the conversation." I much appreciate your comments; very clear and, I believe, faithful to the Biblical idea and history of worship.
I think I might have been mis-understood. For I would fully agree with your comments regarding what worship is and what the settings for it were in NT times. But here is the concern. You say, "Worship happens when the people of God gather to come into the presence of God, no matter where that is or what it looks like." I became "somewhat" convinced that we did not introduce the tables well, so they made the sanctuary look like a common Starbuck's cafe. Consequently, the teens and 20 year olds, began to act like they were in a Starbucks--coming for personal socialization, meeting friends, drinking coffee, making plans for the week with their friends, etc. All that is fine, but not during "worship time." These church members began to loose their own sense or awareness that they were, as you say, gathering "to come into the presence of God." I know this because we talked about it and with their input we all made some changes.
I am a very flexible kind of guy when it comes to things like packaging and style. My initial post had more to do with offering a caution from someone who, sorry about the cliché, has "been there done it." I would do it again if I had the chance. But I would do it with more wisdom about how our "post-modern" culture interprets the layout and tables. I was not prepared for how the tables and couches had inadvertently served to lesson a sense of sacredness in the worship service for some, particularly the teens and 20 year olds. They liked it, but my concern as a pastor was that they disengaged somewhat from worship and engaged more in socializing during the service. I found myself growing less enthusiastic about the tables as I saw more and more socializing going on all through the sevice, almost to the point of rudeness for those around them. I'm not saying it was the tables per se. I am only saying, when you change the layout to "contemporize" the decor, it has consequences on how people feel and behave; pyschological consequences that are often not even congnitive.
Next time I do the tables etc., I will spend time before hand teaching about worship and how the sanctuary decor must support and enhance worship, not distract from it. Perhaps in your own experience you did a better job than we did at clarifying what worship is all about and introducing the new decor as a support to the worship. If so, I have absolutely NO hesitation or critique of your efforts, only praise.
May we all continue to grow in worship that is spiritual and truthful (Jn 4:24), using any and all means and tools God makes available to us.
I'm glad you shared. I've learned something from you that will help me be a better minister. Please feel no obligation, but should you have the time and interest, I would greatly value reading some more of how you introduced and used the tables, including the theology behind what you did. Your comments about serving communion at the tables particulary excites me. I am not familiar with "Temple reclining," care to share about that?
I will be on vacation for a couple weeks, so I won't be checking this every day. If you do post some more and don't hear from me for a couple weeks, please be assured it is not because I am not interested.
I believe your point about the worshippers liking the songs and other elements of worship is the core issue. Have you noticed that when a member invites a friend to church, that member will often ask something (or think it) like, "Did you like the service?" We even ask ourselves that question. I think it is one of the strongest criteria by which we "plan" our worship services, i.e. are "we" and our visitors going to like it? The real question ought to be, "Did God like your songs? Your worship?" Another question I've used is, "Today, did you worship God in spirit and truth?" I never put the question to a human, "Did you like the worship? I believe that question, in most cases, should be reserved for God.
When we come to worship with the desire to please God and do worship so that God likes it, it turns out that we "like" it too!
Having said all this, I must also admit, there is no inherent virtue in us not liking the worship!
Posted in: Of Elephants and Rabbits: Church Multiplication
Hi Joe,
Glad I found your article. I miss your presence up here at Classis Columbia :(
I'm joining the conversation pretty late, but the content of your article is still viable and I'll attempt to offer a couple points from my experience and understanding of "church" from a Biblical study.
First I would say it is important to realize the church has at least two, not one, essential requirements: 1) To find and proclaim the Gospel to the Lost AND 2) to Grow the Found.
In the past I would have wholeheartedly endorsed a "church" without brick and mortar. This does work well in much of the world, of particular note would be places of strong persecution, China is a notable example. But here is the challenge (and danger) for North America: Our general culture is a very fluid one in terms of transportation and relocation. It is also one that has spawned the attitude of "easy come, easy go." These two realities make a "church without walls," or a "church on the street" pretty elusive. They tend to be constantly morphing into something other than “church.” (Both these names of church plant attempts I was personally familiar with. Neither of them made it. After 1-2 years of effort they ceased altogether). In my last church plant I continually faced the attitude of a "consumerism mentality" where people came expecting to be blessed! They stayed as long as they felt we "blessed" them. When they no long felt "blessed," they left. Again and again we were warned by our denomination (not the CRCNA) NOT to fall into the trap of becoming a "Consumerism" Church, making available religious goods and services for the taking by whomever wanted to show up, take, and leave. I think that warning was right. There is no building of ties, family, the kingdom, or the church in that kind of scenario.
What I'm getting at is this: In our culture, I think there IS a need for "brick and mortar." There is something that happens in the hearts of people in the new church when they start seeing the "building" going up. It does more than cement in the footer and foundations of the building, it kind of "cements" the hearts of the people to one another too. It tends to encourage a long term view and commitment to one another as fellow members of the same church. And it brings a focus for growing up into Christ, and not just running here and there looking for the next place to find the latest blessing.
As I plant again, I am definitely giving more thought to how the structures, even the brick and mortar structures affect the heart and mind of the church and its members. Notwithstanding, your insight to the unintended consequences of the Reformers’ teaching should not be obscured by my comments. I think your warning is very important to listen to. The flip side of brick and mortar can be a "hardening of the categories," as a friend of mine puts it. This is where, as you say in your article, the church becomes a place where certain things are done. I agree that when and where that becomes the case, we have really lost the vitality of what it means to be a Spirit-filled Biblical Church. Our "doing" supersedes our "being," and our doctrines, no matter how Biblical, can lose their life as they get framed and hung on the walls instead of getting planting in the soil of people's hearts. My old Church History Prof, Dr. Richard Lovelace called this the condition of "dead orthodoxy vs. live orthodoxy." Our goal is ultimately, to plant churches that are on fire with "live orthodoxy," being and living the true faith to the glory of God, the salvation of the Lost, and the growth of the Found. Some throw out the old structures because they seem to create stale dead orthodoxy to these new and young church planters. But I would caution, that the "new structures," of no walls and fluid edges can bring their own problems, they can be just as bad. The decisions of how to structure the church plant and what materials to build with, are important ones. But I do not think there is a "one size fits all" answer to the question. At the risk of seeming trite, the best structure for the new church is the one God gives! But I think I have observed that God gives many different kinds of structures and they seem to reflect, the planter he calls, the gifts He has deposited in the planter, the people that are gathered, the local culture within which the church is being planted, and similar characteristics.
The big "C" Church is a beautiful world-wide, multi-cultural, inter-generational, multi-millennial blend of the local churches everywhere, past, present, and future. This Church displays a wide range of structure and style, appropriately informed by, and interacting with, their local cultures. There really is NO such thing as one perfect paradigm for the planting of new churches. There is only the One Perfect Head of the Church who declared, "I will build my Church and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it."
Posted in: What is a Reformed Charismatic?
Hi Sam,
I too come from this "tribe" as K A Smith calls it in this thread. I am also a Church planter for the CRC and am in the first few months of our church plant. My ordination in the CRC was approved two years ago. Prior to that I was in the Vineyard for 15 yrs., where I planted a Vineyard church which I pastored for almost 8 years. Prior to my Vineyard years I was a minister in the PC(USA), where I was originally ordained (1986). My MDiv was earned at Gordon-Conwell where Dr. G. Fee was one of my professors, and in fact became somewhat more, as a friend, since we met in his home for small group meetings and we both attended a new church plant in Beverly MA. We also have a Sovereign Grace church in our area. I know the pastor quite well and love the work he and his church are doing.
Now, all this being said. I do have a couple challenges for you . . .
1. Sovereign grace ministries is reformed "in part." I would not give them the unmitigated affirmation you gave them. They lack a great deal theologically particularly in the area of Covenant theology. Therefore they are baptists in practice and only practice "believer's baptism." I think because of their lack of understanding God working through covenant with entire families/people groups etc., they have a very individual understanding of God's grace and do not affirm paedo baptism in any way.
2. Given Christ's own affirmation in John 10, that his sheep do hear his voice, and follow him, I believe that we should not be skittish about claiming to hear the voice of Christ. But we should learn how to hear well, and teach others the same. I am very comfortable saying God spoke to me . . . I belive this is "normative" Christianity (as Fee would call it). For a Christian to be hesitant about affirming God speaking to him/her is what I would find to be at odds with the Scirptures, and unnatural to Christianity, not the other way around. It is my experience, that we might tend to be hesitant about hearing God speak to us, because of at least two reasons: 1) The way we've been taught in traditional Reformed and Presbyterian churches. We've been taught that either God does NOT speak directly to us anymore, or at least we should be very cautious and avoid that if we can. 2) We have not done a good job of teaching people how to hear their Good Shepherd's voice. When I was young I was taught how to listen and hear God speak to me. It has always been a regular part of my Christian life (38 years now). The main issue, at stake, which I believe you rightly identified, is the agreement with the written revelation God has already given us as the Bible. Now here is my proviso: It is my position that God speaks to me perfectly, by my hearing (and understanding) is not always so good! Finally, on this point I would suggest something I belive we Reformed people have long since agreed upon, and as far as I know, it is a pretty unanimous agreement, viz., God communicates to his people. The entire Bible affirms this truth. And in Reformed circles (and most other "tribes" of Christianity for that matter), we have made much of this truth, declaring very loudly and consistently, that the God of the Bible has never demonstrated even a slight proclivity to leave his people in a state of agnosticism. I say all this to affirm my conviction and experience that -- God speaking to his people throughout human history, from Adam onwards, is the norm, not the exception. (Notwithstanding, there is at least one occassion we are told that "the word of the Lord was rare in those days" (1 Sam. 3:1). However, it is virtually impossible to get through one page of Scripture without "a word from the Lord" being divinly imparted to a human! I agree with the Reformed tradition that this matter of God speaking, communicating to his people is the norm. And I see nowhere is Scripture where that historically consistent pattern of God is ever indicated to cease. I believe our struggle in Reformed churches is not our affirmation of this "norm," but rather our "application" of it. John Wimber (Vineyard) was marvelous at creating and opening doors to allow "applications" of our doctrines to develop. I still appreciate that "experimental" risk taking approach. For "where there is no ox, the stable is clean, but much strength comes from the ox" (prov. 14:4). In other words, we can all keep a nice clean controlled church, if we do not encourage and allow people to try applying their faith. But when we do encourage people to "go for it," they WILL make some mistakes along the way, and there will be some clean up to do after them. But in the long run, I am very happy to be on the clean up crew if people learn and grow and the church makes real advance.
I hope this adds some value to the conversation.
By the way, I came into the CRC (of course by the providence of God), but for my part, based on the need for a theology to explain what the Spirit was doing in our churches (a weak point in the Vineyard). Good theology does not resist the presence and work of the Holy Spirit in our lives or churches. Rather it, helps us understand His presence and work, and what our response, if any, should be.
Peace to all,
Randy Simon
Posted in: Deck Chairs?
I'm a church planter. Starting from scratch-without a team. I joined the CRC three years ago. I have a broad and varied Christian background experiencially, but the one common thread throughout my 38 years as a Christian, to which I find myself increasingly committed to, is "reformed theology." The structure of the denomination or even the local church is not that imporatant to me as long as the church is: <li>theologically sound, historically connected, missionally engaged, clear and Biblical in its preaching and teaching about the Gospel, unafraid of defining and enforcing discipline and, characterized by love. </li>
<p></p>
The article is a bit vague so I am eager to see the specifics that people start listing in their comments. <p></p>
By the way, Meg, I'm glad you took the risk and posted this. As members of the family, maybe it's time to call a "family discussion."
Posted in: Rolling Out a New Perception in the Parking Lot
1. New Symbol is Way Cool !!! Amazing how much more positive it makes me feel.
2. Regarding the terminology; handicapped vs disabled. Frankly After chasing the latest "acceptable" terminolgy for decades, from political views, to race to physical abilities (or lack thereof), etc., I'm getting tired of doing it. Just wait long enough and the new terms will no longer be acceptable. I.e. the new acceptable will eventually become the old offensive. I'm tired of chasing the proverbial tail on the latest "politically correct" terminology. Maybe people need to lighten up a bit. I too have "handicaps," "disabilities," "incapacities," "afflictions," "limitations,"impediments," "shortcomings,"incompetencies," "weaknesses," "inadequacies," "disqualifications," "frailties," "debilities," "lassitudes," etc., etc, etc. But frankly, there are more important things for me to focus on and rejoice in -- "Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, dwell on these things." Phil. 4:8
Shalom.
Posted in: Sadly, Here We Go Again
Mark, I must agree with Rob on this. You do bring out a very good perspective that I was not aware of before reading your article, and for that I am truly grateful. It will help me process some disabilitiy questions much better now. However, in this case, I do not necessarily see the point you are ascribing to Chief Belk. The shooter obviously was "troubled" about something. Does "troubled" always mean mental illness? I don't think so. Are you over-extending your point in this case?
Posted in: Forms: Living or Dead?
My wife and I have been attending a CRC church for about 5 months now. Our 30+ years of Christian experience is in more non-liturgical and charismatic churches. We find the CRC meets a need for more solid theological framing of the ministry and a more historical context for our faith. But frankly, the formality of the liturgy leaves us longing for the freedom, spontaneity, mystery, and unplanned presence and response to the Holy Spirit, and more interaction with other members of the church during worship which we are more used to. The liturgy seems somewhat artificial to how we really live our lives and experience our relationship with God.
Any thoughts or feedback to share?
Posted in: Worship Vacation?
But is this really "worship" or some other type of gathering?
Posted in: Worship Vacation?
We started using tables 15 years ago. I personally like the tables. For some of the adults, the tables are physically more comfortable, and some like the added feature of taking sermon notes. Later we added couches, etc. and created a "home-like" setting in the sanctuary. People loved it but it had a deleterious effect that we did not anticipate. Some abused it, particularly among the teens and young adults. They came in, felt at ease, and easily proceeded to send text messages, talk, write notes (not about the sermon or service!), draw pictures, plan next week's parties, etc., etc. This younger generation, apparently, did not come with the experience nor context of worship being a sacred matter of service to God, nor did they have the wherewithal to recogonize the sanctuary as a special place to be entered with reverence and awareness. We simply accommodated the un-initiative secular mindset within the framework of a "worship" service. We found that most of these young people, although they liked the music, they liked the setting, they liked the fellowship, etc., they were NOT engaging in actual worship of God. Now you may wonder how I can judge such a thing? Two means: We asked them and two, we studied the Scriptures to see what God called worship. We found a great chasm between contemporary "worship" and Biblical worship.
I am not saying Biblical (true) worship could not happen in more informal settings, I do not believe that. I am saying more informal settings can sometimes mislead people into thinking that worship is a "common" event and that there is nothing special about it as compared with other activities they do. People are not confronted by the setting with a holy call to enter into a holy place and worship a holy God. So, as far as the setting (decor) is concerned, people experience nothing different in the holy sanctuary than they experience at Starbuck coffee house. If this is so, I consider it to be a real problem that can, inadvertently, lead to shallow understanding of the loving and holy act of worship. To be fair, I think our current "formal" routines and decor can also be a distraction from true worship.
The point is, worship is a call to humble reverence before the Most Holy God where the worshiper offers him/herself in humble gratitude and joyous praise to the One who created and redeemed him/her through Jesus Christ. The Old Testament word for worship literally means to "bow down" before a superior one and pay homage.
When we either get too casual or too formal, we can easily forget about this One in our midst to whom we are privileged to bow and worship. We can be thinking more about tomorrow night's math exam, or responding to our friend's text message across the "room" or across town. When the decor is so "familiar" we can be completely unimpressed by it, other than that it is "comfortable" for us. When the decor is too "formal" we can be so intrigued by it, that our attention is on the decor instead of on God and the family gathered with us for worship.
Let us remember that worship is for God, not for us. Yes, God does meet us in worship in deeply comforting and satisfying ways, but primarily our focus and evaluation must be toward God. "Did God like the worship?" not, "did you like the worship?"
Posted in: Worship Vacation?
Kelib,
The question is not about whether Jesus is present. It's about whether those who are also present are worshipping him.
It is surely true as you say, "Wear (sic, Where) two or more are gathered in His name He will be there." According to the Gospels, Jesus was in a lot of places among people. But that fact alone does insure those people were worshipping him. A worship gathering is different than a dinner gathering, or a prayer gathering, or a recreational/fellowship gathering, etc. Worship might be a part of these types of gather, but not necessarily so. However, at a "worship" gathering, worship is NOT optional.
In Christ
Posted in: Worship Vacation?
Hey, I'm glad you did "jump back into the conversation." I much appreciate your comments; very clear and, I believe, faithful to the Biblical idea and history of worship.
I think I might have been mis-understood. For I would fully agree with your comments regarding what worship is and what the settings for it were in NT times. But here is the concern. You say, "Worship happens when the people of God gather to come into the presence of God, no matter where that is or what it looks like." I became "somewhat" convinced that we did not introduce the tables well, so they made the sanctuary look like a common Starbuck's cafe. Consequently, the teens and 20 year olds, began to act like they were in a Starbucks--coming for personal socialization, meeting friends, drinking coffee, making plans for the week with their friends, etc. All that is fine, but not during "worship time." These church members began to loose their own sense or awareness that they were, as you say, gathering "to come into the presence of God." I know this because we talked about it and with their input we all made some changes.
I am a very flexible kind of guy when it comes to things like packaging and style. My initial post had more to do with offering a caution from someone who, sorry about the cliché, has "been there done it." I would do it again if I had the chance. But I would do it with more wisdom about how our "post-modern" culture interprets the layout and tables. I was not prepared for how the tables and couches had inadvertently served to lesson a sense of sacredness in the worship service for some, particularly the teens and 20 year olds. They liked it, but my concern as a pastor was that they disengaged somewhat from worship and engaged more in socializing during the service. I found myself growing less enthusiastic about the tables as I saw more and more socializing going on all through the sevice, almost to the point of rudeness for those around them. I'm not saying it was the tables per se. I am only saying, when you change the layout to "contemporize" the decor, it has consequences on how people feel and behave; pyschological consequences that are often not even congnitive.
Next time I do the tables etc., I will spend time before hand teaching about worship and how the sanctuary decor must support and enhance worship, not distract from it. Perhaps in your own experience you did a better job than we did at clarifying what worship is all about and introducing the new decor as a support to the worship. If so, I have absolutely NO hesitation or critique of your efforts, only praise.
May we all continue to grow in worship that is spiritual and truthful (Jn 4:24), using any and all means and tools God makes available to us.
Blessings.
Posted in: Worship Vacation?
You're very welcome.
I'm glad you shared. I've learned something from you that will help me be a better minister. Please feel no obligation, but should you have the time and interest, I would greatly value reading some more of how you introduced and used the tables, including the theology behind what you did. Your comments about serving communion at the tables particulary excites me. I am not familiar with "Temple reclining," care to share about that?
I will be on vacation for a couple weeks, so I won't be checking this every day. If you do post some more and don't hear from me for a couple weeks, please be assured it is not because I am not interested.
God bless you.
Posted in: “Contemporary Worship” Doesn’t Have to Be Empty of History
Hi John,
I believe your point about the worshippers liking the songs and other elements of worship is the core issue. Have you noticed that when a member invites a friend to church, that member will often ask something (or think it) like, "Did you like the service?" We even ask ourselves that question. I think it is one of the strongest criteria by which we "plan" our worship services, i.e. are "we" and our visitors going to like it? The real question ought to be, "Did God like your songs? Your worship?" Another question I've used is, "Today, did you worship God in spirit and truth?" I never put the question to a human, "Did you like the worship? I believe that question, in most cases, should be reserved for God.
When we come to worship with the desire to please God and do worship so that God likes it, it turns out that we "like" it too!
Having said all this, I must also admit, there is no inherent virtue in us not liking the worship!