Great discussion on the last topic. And I'd like to extend a warm Holy Crap welcome to newcomer Underachiever (great username, J.)
Okay, here's the topic:
In my 3.15 decades, I've seen church trends come and go. Among them...
- I've seen the decline of evening service...
- I've seen the decline of the Wednesday night prayer meeting...
- I've seen the rise and fall of bus ministry (man, if your church didn't have a bus in the 80's you WEREN'T a church!)...
- I've seen the rise of small groups or care groups over "bible study".
These church programming trends seemed to add some kind of value to how the church operated but just augmented how church was done.
There is one church programming trend that really troubles me because it doesn't seem to enhance church ministries, it seems to change how we "do church" altogether.
I'm talking about the
seeker sensitive church
The gloves are off: I am unabashedly opposed to seeker sensitive church; I think it's just ChurchLite (great tasting, less filling) and I don't think it has a place in our ecclesionomy. I suspect there are similar viewpoints among my honored colleagues.
In our discussion, I'd like to talk about...
How would we define a seeker sensitive church? How does it look different than "traditional" (i.e., non-seeker sensitive) churches? What is the difference between a contemporary church and a seeker sensitive church? Is there a Biblical basis for changing church so dramatically? What value (if any) does the seeker sensitive church provide? What are the drawbacks of this kind of church? What is the church's role in evangelism? If it works, does that make it good? Lastly, I sense that this trend has hit a maturity and will be on the decline in the near future. What trend do you think will replace it? (i.e., where will all these new converts go when their seeker sensitive church is no longer seeker sensitive).
At the end of the day I think churches are annoyingly resistant to change... and I don't like that resistance. But this is a change many churches are embracing that really bothers me.
97 comments:
At first blush I don't know what to say. First impressions:
I think much of what the seeker-sensitive church (SSC) tries to do is good. I think it was a good trend because it replaced (and in some places is still working hard to replace) the bunker-church mentality which expected people to learn Christianese, swear by the KJV, and enjoy the hymnody of their ancestors before they had a CHANCE to hear the gospel. The SSMovement has challenged this and for good reason. We have to be careful, I think, to not totally discredit the SS thing because some places/churches/people haven't caught on yet or are still getting with it in this regard.
I guess what I'm saying is that I don't find the principle of it troubling, in fact I find it quite biblical. We must put the gospel into people's hands, we must be concerned to have open churches, we must convey the already-relevant gospel rather than cloud it in by-gone rhetoric and render it seemingly irrelevant ... and so on.
However, where I agree with you, and what I imagine you are getting at is the Trend. The trend troubles me too. It is the new church formula and I find it boring. We're going to be doing a lot of generalizing here I imagine, but GENERALLY, and I think there are exceptions, I think we've gone and replaced the old bunker formul with a new formula that has become a bunker of its own.
Maybe what we're doing came from a sensitivity to the 80s or 90s seeker, or the baby boomer seeker, but I think we've kept what worked and we've not kept the sensitivity part. Generally anyway. Some are trying to keep it real, but there are so many followers, going to the Willow Creek Simulcasts and buying the Purpose Driven Formula without really mimicing what they should be mimicing: the passion and sensitivity and discipleship that got those guys where they got.
I'm sick of most worship service by the time the sermon comes around. Even a lot of my own. I have to come with a heart to worship come what may or it ain't gonna happen.
I hope the issue of church discipline comes up here, and the offense of the gospel, because these are not Seeker Sensitive concepts, but quite biblical.
Good topic. There's my first impressions.
Thanks, Fear.
I would agree with you a little more if the only alternative to church is a ancient-hymn/KJV/suit-and-tie church. But there are other, better options. (No, that's NOT a middle of the road argument!!!).
Part of my concern stems from my belief that evangelism is best done on a relationship basis: believers need to be in the world and showing non-believers that there's a better way. I'm afraid that SS churches give the impression that CHURCH is where evangelism is done, thus freeing believers from taking that heart-pounding leap to ask a nonChristian about spiritual things (after a relationship is built). In my opinion, that's where real gospel relevancy happens.
Another concern is with the lack of deeper truths taught, if everything is evanglistic. I know someone will eventually mention that some SS churches have a believer's service elsewhere in the week, but I think it's pretty rare.
Is it old school of me to think that gospel relevancy on a church level needs to be far more practical? (i.e., sports camps, VBS, after school programs, food drives, clothing exchange, etc.)
I've already shared my 2 cents, so I guess this makes it 3 cents.
pterodactyl
Oh yeah, I guess I'm also against it because it's trendy:
SS is to church what WWJD is to Christian fashion-wear.
polemic
Interesting. My first instinct after reading the topic was to disagree and think about our need to be relevant and bringing Christ to our culture instead of waiting for them to come to us. Fear summed this up well in the above post.
I think that indeed the SS movement came out of a pushback against the castle mentality, the church-as-an-exclusive-club mentatlity. I am more and more convinced that what God really wants is for us to have the guts to be in the world of the seeker and learning to speak to them in their culture. Acts 17 kinda thing.
The more I thought about this though I agree with Trembling in some ways. SS churches 'generally' tend to miss the beauty and impact of tradition. Usually the SS model is used as an attempt to fill the pews with new Christians but it can end up as Churchlite and simply attract church hoppers looking for the easiest place to hide. It's also an interesting point to make that one of the world's fastest growing religions (Islam) has got to be the single least seeker sensitive religion there is. Point being that seekers aren't necessarily just looking for easy, they want meaning usually.
This all comes back to the purpose of Sunday. In my opinion Sunday is about bringing the Body together for fellowship and basic non-exclusionary worship. (By non-exclusionary I mean I don't think Sunday is the appropriate time for a sermon on marriage or tithing as many in the congregation will not be married.) Some will disagree with me on that but I think a problem with our generations Sunday worship is that we haven't replaced Sunday School which is where those things should happen.
Seeker Sensitivity is and was a good idea that is poorly carried out by way too many churches. That's how I see it anyway.
and I don't think you have to be married to tithe, I just didn't quite finish by bracketed thought there.
Church NEEDS to be relevant. It falls too far short on the one side by being an exclusive club. But it also falls too far short on the other side (the SS side) by serving up too much milk and not enough meat. I think it's why SS is so popular: not because it fills pews with seekers but because it fills pews (or, rather, those cloth-covered stackable chairs) with people who don't like to be pushed past "accepting Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior".
Hey fellas,
You guys are sure quick on the draw with the discussion.
Here's some of my first impressions:
I've never really put too much thought into the SS church model and its pros/cons. I've never been to an SS service either, for the reason that I've always assumed it to be kind of church lite and felt I wouldn't get the kind of teaching that would challenge my faith.
That being said I've never had much of a problem with the model, but that may have just been because I haven't spent much time thinking about it. So cheers to this topic.
The Christian Church does a lot of things both good and bad out of the best intentions and the SS model is definitely one of those things; with plenty of both good and bad just like traditional church.
The SS church's passion for getting the gospel into the hands of the masses is commendable but like Trembling I am questioning the method.
For my part, I very strongly believe that evangelism must be relational and so I wonder if the SS church is being used as a christian cop-out. I.e. your coworker expresses some interest in spirituality so you give him the address to the local seeker sensitive church instead of taking the relationship deeper.
My next issue with the SS model is that I think it is very susceptible to fall into one of the big spiritual problems of our day; that of making converts rather than disciples. I'm worried that people often think there job is done once they get somebody in the door or hear them recite a token christianese prayer.
Here's something else I was thinking about as I read your posts. Should all our evangelism be taking place during our weekend church services. Is that not rather the time set up for the believing community to get together for support, worship and teaching in order to recharge us for actually going out and evangelising. I don't mean to say that there isn't room in our church services for the seekers and altar calls and presenting the gospel. But I think the majority of our ministry/evangelism should be done in between our church services as we interact with people at work and in our social circles.
Just some initial thoughts.
ubiquitous
If you see that you erred and your post has become confusing (re: marriages, tithing, and marriages on marriages) you can always just click the little trashcan on the bottom left of your comment and re-write it. (Or you can copy, trash, paste & correct if your comment is long). This will keep us from scaring away Tuna who doesn't like to read too many posts. We are a gracious community and don't require letter-perfect comments... but too many addendums can be confusing to us simpletons.
I'm also glad to see we losers are home on a Friday night.
On with the discussion...
by definition i think it is good to be sensitive to the seeker in our services. but too much milk, too much pew-padding, and we have a watered down faith and a wimpy feel-good worship.
no lamenting. no gripping preaching from profoundly practical texts. just how to feel good in your christian skin. discipleship is the Great Comission, not churchianity. I think the SS thing became Churchianity in many cases which is too bad.
I think I will run the middle ground between tanti and trembling on this one. I think relevant and grabbing worship services are important and that this should be a time for all to come. However, wouldn't do away with sermons on marriage and tithing and whatever else, even for the seeker, because then the faith takes on some practicality to it and people can see how it affects life.
the key is in the presentatoin and the explanation of course, for it to be seeker sensitive while still being discipleship. too often it is the topics that are watered down rather than the language being thought through and utilized.
(by the way. I am the least practical preacher who ever lived, so don't get the idea I'm on my high horse here)
Okay Tanti and Fear, I hear what you're saying, but what is it about SS churches that are more relevant to today's audience than non-SS churches? From what I'm reading in your comments, it sounds like it's the lack of church cliches (from the hymns to the language to the pews) that makes it relevant. Is there anything else?
After conversion, doesn't the SS church cease to become relevant?
And, are we confusing contemporary churches with Seeker Sensitive churches in our discussion about relevance? A contemporary church should have many elements that are relevant to today's seeker without losing the offense of the gospel.
I don't see the SS churches as being more relevant. I think they are just trying to remove the baggage that keeps the rest of the world away. Whether that be the suit and tie stuffy atmosphere, or the old school hymns and campy choruses, or the hellfire and brimstone from the pulpit, etc... The issue i think trembling is getting at is they have removed to much, some core and invaluable things.
From what I hear the SS churches tend to have a pretty transient membership among the people interested in growing in their faith. Perhaps the SS church is what brought them in and introduced them to Christ, but then they move on to a more contemporary church in order to continue being challenged.
What do you guys think about the way some contemporary churches have been adding a more seeker sensitive style service on Saturday nights to start bringing in the people. Seems like incorporating a few different style services into a church might help avoid some of the issues a strictly SS church might have.
I don't have the problem DRC has with the focused teaching that doesn't necessarily apply to everybody, i.e. the marriage and tithing sermons, etc... With one caveat mind you; the presentation of the material is key, it must be preached in such a way so that even those who may not be married or tithers can recognize the value of learning about the subject. I don't mind the occassional marriage sermon myself, because I usually find it full of good info that I might someday apply should I ever be successful in convincing the girl I'm currently spending some time with that I am in fact the guy of her dreams.
Firstly, I certainly believe there is a place for teaching about marriage and tithing. Exclusionary teachings. I just think that place should not be Sunday morning. There are enough universal truths in the Bible to preach on for years without having to resort to exclusionary teaching. It bothers me that I hear so many topical sermons that are exclusionary when much of the Bible is ignored. The place for that kind of teaching is some sort of seminar replacement for sunday school. In my opinion.
Back to the topic though. I realized after reading the last few posts that there might be a semantics barrier here. When I think of SS I think of Willow Creek and Saddleback. Both worked for their culture and their time for a variety of reasons but neither are working as well as they did in the 90's. There is a problem when a Canadian church in a predominantly non-believing city (which most Canadian cities are) tries to implement strategies that worked in Chicago in the early 90's.
I'm a big fan of diverse demoninations because no matter what you're looking to plug into on a Sunday morning we'll never all agree on style.
As far as SS watering things down I don't buy that. Some likely do but many of the most watered down church services I've ever been too have been traditional or even mainline.
Can a church be culturally relevant, scripturally sound and a non threatening environment where a never-been-to-church type person could comfortabely sit for 2 hours on a Sunday morning? I say it's possible.
Tanti,
Aren't most SS churches preaching topical, exclusionary "sermons" on a Sunday morning? (Topical in their lifestyle instruction/seminar-style with a salvation call at the end and exclusionary in their WASP target audience?)
The Sunday morning sermons that you want -- that I want too -- are powerful, fiery, Bible-based messages that call people to holiness. Those are NOT seeker sensitive sermons. The other stuff, I agree, should take place elsewhere.
exclusionary? i don't get this concept. please explain how a message on marriage or tithing is exclusionary. if exclusionary is anything that isn't directly applicable to everyone then almost everything i've ever seen in church has been exclusionary. 90% of what I sit through every Sunday morning must be exclusionary because it has very little to do with where I'm at.
i've come to accept this to some degree, and I try to make the most of it all, and realize that its corporate worship: coming together for each other and God, not just for me. However I won't deny I've been unsatisfied with Sunday morning for most of my life. It needs a major overhaul. Or maybe what I'm feeling is tired of no church being all that sensitive to me, or half the people I know. people struggling to make sense of the world and who aren't really into playing church.
Where is the corporate lament? Where is biblical, life changing preaching and teaching today? And where are our mentors?
I have problems with Sunday morning as a whole, not just the SS. Why do we sing all the time? this goes for all churches. I rarely feel like singing until after the sermon, and half the time I doubt any of knows or cares about what we are singing. playing church is an epidemic for all churches, SS or otherwise.
Sometimes I wonder if half the reason I keep going back to Bible school is because its the only place I feel like I'm experiencing church. But then again, its brainy church for the cerebral misfits, so maybe I just go there because it is the only church that seems to be seeking me.
I think I see now what you are saying Trembling about the difference between a contemporary church and a SS church. I think we all prefer a contemporary one, but what is that? some SS churches would be contemporary and some would not.
I've been impressed with everything I've seen about WIllow Creek. Little of it works anywhere else the same way, you have to pick and choose that which will fit your situatoin. My trouble is that many people buy into Willow like its the formula for success and don't really seem all that sensitive to their seekers, let alone anyone else in their congregation.
i think the point trembling wants to talk about is how the SS trend has left many churches watered down, but I agree with Tanti that this is a major problem in ALL kinds of churches, except the ideal ones.
Sorry Trembling if I'm sidetracking the topic. I guess I'm disagreeing with you that the troubling trend is in the SS movement. help me out: What is the ideal church that the SS and everything else is measuring up against?
How can anyone say what SHOULD be happening on Sunday morning? the church is disturbingly resistent to change, unless it is packaged well (ie the SS movement). but how do we get the change we need, and what needs to change?
What's needs to change are people's hearts. People need to be reminded of the many reasons to be passionate about following Christ. It bothers me when people talk about evangelism as something that is hard. I agree with the sentiments on here that evangelsim needs to happen in relationship and in that relationship the fact that you are a follower of Christ should come up naturally without strategies or forced conversations. As naturally as recommending a movie you enjoyed. Why is it so easy to tell a friend you liked a movie and so "hard" to tell them about the single most meaningful thing you believe in on the earth? Maybe because we don't make it the single most important thing in our lives.
Sorry for the slight sidetrack there. I think it ties in though. Many churches are singing and preaching watered down versions of the gospel, easy to digest versions. I guess if that's SS then I agree with much of what Trembling is saying. I have a major problem though with churches who make no effort to be SS because I believe we are called to be. So maybe as a movement of strategies and formula's the SS movement is everything Trembling is saying. But I never want to go to any church that doesn't strive to have an atmosphere where non "club members" can feel welcome.
I guess I get defensive of the SS movement too because some lump it into the emergent movement, though I haven't heard that done here.
And to expand on my exclusionary thoughts, I have a hard time believing that any sermon on a passage of scripure in context and well exegeted, would be exclusionary. Parts of it maybe but not all of it. I think there is a place on a Sunday morning for a call to stewardship, stewardship or our time, our relationships, our hobbies, our brains, our stomachs etc.. A preacher could easily touch on the idea of tithing in that without making the whole, or even half of the sermon exclusionary. Same with marriage, a sermon on 1 Corinthians 13 could deal with relationships and love without only being about marriage. We all have friends/family/co-workers that Christ called us to love.
At the end of the day I'd like to see more churches carrying out the great commission and commandment and allowing the Spirit to work despite their lame human strategies rather than relying on them. Be organized, have a plan, be seeker sensitive even but the most important part about being the Church should be loving, and even liking, the world around us.
Fear is right that there is no perfect church. I think I'm measuring the SS church against what I want church to be. That unattainable goal looks closer to the traditional church (because I'm a fairly liturgical worshiper) than the SS church. The trend thing does bother me but my bigger problem with SS is the corporate style evangelism giving believers a "get out of evangelism free" card.
As for singing in church, this isn't a sidetrack at all. I think it's very closely related so I'm fine if the conversation goes there. You need to know that I am not a singer. I DO worship through song. However, during worship services I don't sing, but I am definitely ministered to by hearing others sing. (When I sing I end up getting confused about the beat and the words and the tune because I suck at all three) so it's not worship for me.
Singing was something that people did together collectively inside and outside of churches in the past. Around the campfire many cultures would sing. In bars and taverns many people would sing. On wintry nights, people would gather around the piano and sing. But we don't sing collectively anymore... except in church. Now, I'm not saying that we need to get rid of singing. I am saying that we need to re-think our worship services to move us beyond singing because no one sings anymore. There isn't really anywhere else we go to sing collectively. (Except when 4 of us gathered around grandpa's 'shine still one day and belted out some sea chanties). Bringing it back to the SS topic, churches that strive to be SS end up doing the singing anyway, which isn't SS at all. It's very traditional. So they sing "contemporary" choruses and provide a watered down life-lesson and a gospel call and consider that a SS model. What it is, though, is still church (all the elements of church are there: singing, sermon, etc.) without the emphasis on the deeper life.
I also don't mind if we talk about contemporary worship, which I will here for a moment: when singing was something that people did corporately outside of church, I think the church kept up with the times, musically: bar tunes were changed to christian tunes (which we now consider hymns). As copyright became increasingly enforced and people no longer sang together in other settings, church could only create its own church tunes and thus no longer had a contemporary example by which it could measure itself against. And for these reasons (and many other reasons, I know), the church has slowed down in its music. Now, some churches are fighting whether choruses like "As the Deer Panteth For the Water..." is cutting edge stuff that causes splits in churches.
So I agree with Fear when it comes to the problem of singing. Our worship services need more because we're not a singing people anymore. (I would suggest multimedia but that doesn't mean PowerPoint).
I think that during the Catholic/Protestant schism of the last century Protestants got rid of anything they viewed as Catholic (including the very valuable liturgy) and unintentionally adopted their own liturgy: A package of choruses (each sung twice unless you're Pentecostal), announcements and tithe, a package of hymns (unless you're a seeker senstive or contemporary church, then it's choruses), the sermon, one more chorus, then everyone goes home. That's our "contemporary" liturgy.
We threw the baby out with the bathwater (hahahahahaha) when we discarded the liturgy as part of our anti-Catholic action. We need that liturgy and symbolism because all we have now as a form of worship is a singing tradition that is not practiced outside of church.
This makes our churches even less inviting to newcomers than we want them to be.
Okay, I've been ranting long enough and I could keep going. But I'll wrap it up because I'm eating supper soon:
No church, as long as it has singing will ever be seeker sensitive. No church as long as it has a good sermon will ever be seeker sensitive. Our churches need good sermons, good singing, and MUCH more to fulfill their mandate.
And if the rest of the conversation goes there, that's cool.
sea chanty
I feel for Fear's dissatisfaction for Sunday morning's as I'm sure most of do.
In a culture that doesn't sing together I wonder what worship through multimedia would look/feel/sound like.
Sometimes I wonder whether the resistance to change in our churches is precisely becuase we are too comfortable and are worried about what kind of people might start coming to our "club" if we made it more open and inclusive.
I like what Tanti said about evangelism. Maybe the reason so many people find it hard to hand out tracts and speak to perfect strangers about life altering stuff is because it's the wrong way to go about it. Any opportunities I've had to share some of my faith with friends and coworkers has always come up naturally and easily. In fact I'm usually not the one who brings it up.
Our traditional evangelism, I think, has always been to concerned with kicking out the one demon and not worried about the seven that move back in.
I love reading all your thoughts on our sunday services and the things we struggle with and the things we'd change. Intersting thoughts on singing. I don't care how sensitive we make our songs, we could sing Mrs Robinson and still the majority of new comers are going to feel terribly uncomfortable in a corporate singing environment.
How much do we sacrifice to make it church more approachable for the regular people out there. To me it has much more to do with the hearts of the people in the church rather than the specific model or worship style that church happens to model. It's mostly the people that make a church actually seeker sensitive.
good point about singing by definition being seeker un-sensitive. i hadn't really thought about that, was merely expressing my own dismay at the musical overdose of the last two decades. (the fact that worship is synonymous with singing is perhaps the greatest religious travesty of our times, although jabez, wwjd, and "christian" radio have to be right up there)
i wonder how naive most people are, thinking their singing is seeker-sensitive when its just the opposite. christian radio claims to be a light to the community but honestly does anyone listen to that who isn't a believer? i can't stomach it and i actually identify with a lot that is being said!
don't get me wrong. i appreciate what singing does. what better way to pray all together? i'm sorry but responsive readings and what not lose a bit of feel. on the other hand, the songs often are all feel and little else, and for those who don't dig it, well, what can you do?
i want to be clear that i love church. any church. i'll never leave it because christ loves it. and i don't think church has to entertain me or be just my style. by definition it has to be a coming together. but since we're talking about SS and trying to appeal the service to people i thought it warranted a comment or two about how aesthetically unappealing it is to me, even if i do love it on other levels.
great points by trembling on the new liturgy. and you know, i've been thinking about it, and i think i'm with you in many ways Mr. T. many SS based churches are not making up for the watered down service. they might be trying but as unit says, it depends on the people and what they make of the Sunday School, or Wed service, or small group, whether the teaching is going to be supplemented by more than the romans road four times a month.
i think a lot are trying to be Willow Creek. i can't blame them. i think Willow Creek transcends a lot of our criticisms. but the trend doesn't. so i see your point.
however. the gospel is powerful. and paul talked in his letters about how he did whatever it took to reach Jews or barbarians, educated or uneducated. he had problems with the motives of some pastors and yet said, oh well, at least the gospel is being preached.
what i fear is that some are so seeker sensitive you only get part of the gospel. the love part. what about sin? i think in personal evangelism we have the same problem. does "God is gracious and he loves you" really count as sharing your faith? part of it yes, and the most important part, but do seeker sensitive churches, or easy-evangelists, candy-coat the issue? i don't know. i'm asking.
i'll say from experience that its very natural for me to talk about god's love and grace, but not so easy to talk about depravity, mine and everyone elses. i mean this for the pulpit as well as the coffee shop.
by the way, if singing and the high you get from good group singing, is synonymous with worship at its best ... then 2 of my top 5 corporate worship experiences are Zoo TV 1994 and the Queen Live at Wembley '86 CD I listened to yesterday.
(I know, they weren't necessarily singing to God in those concerts, but what if I was? or some were? and in church is everyone singing to God? maybe everyone, but all the time? what percentage of us, and what percentage of the songs have to be sung to God, for it to be corporate worship? my argument here could be used to justify the further watering down of the service, and I don't mean it that way, i'm just saying singing ain't all its cracked up to be)
How did Jesus deal with sin when telling the world about God? I don't remember him ever stressing how sinful people were or getting in their face about it. Off the top of my head I remember the woman at the well and how he told her about herself and mentioned some sinful things in her life but he didn't dwell on her sin, he offered her life. Is that watering it down?
I leave the dealing with sin up to the Spirit when I'm talking to non-believers. That doesn't mean I pretend I'm cool with sin when "sinful" things come up in conversation. Sharing my faith with my friends for me is about telling them what Jesus means to me and what He offers to the whole world, they can take it or leave it and I'll still be their friend. The change of heart and conviction of sin is up to the Spirit.
Back to the church stuff. That is a great point about music Trembling. I've never thought of it quite that way. I know I've had conversations with friends about how we Christians sing out loud more than most people because we do that at church and they generally think it's a little weird. That being said I and my brother Fear have always differed on this, where he avoided singspiration I enjoyed it. We all have something we have a hard time getting anything out of in our modern evangelical liturgy. I have a hard time with communion with my little shot glass of grape punch and my little 1/8 of a premium plus cracker. For some though even with the lame elements communion is still deeply meaningful because they've found a way to transend the lameness. I guess I agree with Unit's point then that it's about the people not the style or the strategy or even the liturgy.
jesus taught about sin. see the sermon on the mount, some of the freaky stuff about the sheep and the goats, etc ...
people were coming to him in deep conviction. others just partied with him. others he vindicated when everyone else was pointing fingers. point is, jesus did what was needed, i think, in each case, and certainly people seemed to know where he stood.
the parallels between him and me aren't strong enough for me to justify not having to every say anything about sin (from the pulpit or in teh coffee shop). our culture is all about everyone being innocent, and i think that would have been a foreign thought in Jesus' day. (people dealt with their guilt in different ways, but was there such an outright and popular denial of it?)
i don't think you have to be in your face to talk about sin. (by the way i'm the worst personal evangelist ever. unlike some of you none of it comes naturally to me-the grace part or the sin part-so i'm talking about the ideal here, not necessarily about myself.)
i'm not exactly sure how you do it but i'm not a proponent of judging or accusing. how about personal testimony? how about social commentary? depravity touches home and i think a MAJOR problem in personal evangelism and in corporate evangelism (SS or otherwise) is that we fluff over the problem and celebrate the solution ... but its almost like an ad for Tide that hasn't a dirty sock in sight.
(Whoopdedoo we all have clean socks. What the he*l are we jumping up and down for again?)
I don't think Christians deal very honestly with life, or the world. The closest I've heard us come lately is singing "Blessed be the name of the Lord", and I love the song, but even there the lament lasts, what, 3 seconds? before we get on to the kicking bridge and chorus.
i just wonder how we can share our faith without talking about the problem in our world, and in each of us. Maybe we have been in this church culture so long (SS and otherwise) that we've bought into the "we are all born innocent" mentality too.
I bet you could sing that song in church and 80% of the people wouldn't bat an eye or move a theological muscle.
anyone leading worship any time soon? i dare you to try it.
are we off topic here? i can't tell but i don't think so.
We're not off topic here at all. This discussion is very close to my personal lament against SS churches: We want to fill pews and share the gospel so we water it down, call it SS, and watch the people come.
Because of Satan's work against the church AND because the church is full of imperfect people (of which I am chief among sinners) the community of God has a lot of work to do in order to be able to preach the gospel. We present the gospel as THE way but then we don't present a lifestyle that nonbelievers would WANT to live: we're hypocritical, judgmental, cliquish, and we sing and tithe. Who would want to be a part of that? It's not "winsome" at all.
Instead the church's evangelistic outreach -- in my opinion -- should come from two places: the relationships built between a believer and non-believer AND in practical ministries by the church (as mentioned earlier: food drives, clothing exchange, VBS, life-improving seminars not on Sunday morning, etc.). When we build relationships and meet the practical needs of the community then we'll have the credibility we need to offer something "better". Until then, we're battered by bad press and unfortunately accurate observations from the outside world.
I agree that sharing the gospel needs to contain the need for the cross (sin) but before you can identify the need we have to have the relational "currency" that comes with living a life that shows how God makes a difference. (i.e. living the fruit of the spirit).
I'm reminded of something I learned about in a Boda class: The OT community was meant to be centripital. Like gravity, other nations were supposed to be drawn to God by seeing how God blessed Israel. (Of course, sin got in the way). Today's church is supposed to be centrifigal (going out to win converts) but I think that there still needs to be some gravity pulling people in... that is, a community of people who show that God is a better way -- not just to avoid hell or for some future mansion with many rooms -- but that God makes a difference in our lives today.
No church does it effectively: Traditional church doesn't do it with cliquish judgmentalism. SS church may do it to some degree but I don't think it's drawing people to a deeper faith.
Singing is a part of the reason; it has separated us from the world. (Again, I'm not saying to get rid of singing -- we just need to re-think worship to consider other things).
And while I'm ranting, let's talk about communion: Communion is communion between God and his people, not God and his persons so I think our 1/8 Saltine cracker and shot of Welch's isnt' significant to us because it's just a little nibble while we're praying... to tide us over until lunch. We're a highly individualistic society so this type of communion is safe. I really like the kinds of communion where you serve others or people have to go up to receive: there's a greater sense of community.
agree greatly with the communion talk from you two. also agree about church outreach. i wonder what would happen if churches stopped trying to create stuff and just went and helped already existing community programs? i think we leave this up to our people to do of their own volition, and in this sense the solid lay people put the church leaders to shame. (while the leaders try to coax them to set more time aside for two service a week, the prayer meeting, or "actual ministry" involvements)
could i propose a change in terminology? is the problem with the SS churches or is it with the business-model that has crept into many churches. you know: pastor as CEO, and that seven-letter word behind everything: success.
it seems to me we (and by we I mean I) might be running on a caricature of the average lay person when really my problem is with the system, the unspoken expectations, and what our actions and our worship seem to imply are our goals.
i'm all for business model stuff helping us organizationally and efficiently but when the goal of your worship is to have more people and the goal of your outreach is find something fun that will be pre-packaged and fit into people's already tight schedules .... well .... then you have what we have today.
and i suggest the change in terminology because, again, from what I've seen Willow does everything we've said needs to be done. i think we take the easy and leave the difficult.
Wow, I just came out of my 72 hour coma and had a lot of reading to do to catch up.
In just a few days you all of made some incredible comments and I think Fear has almost excommunicated himself from the church, and that is the way he likes it. Just kidding Fear, I know you are dedicated to making the church work. I'm wondering if there should be a "chief sinner" of the month award since all of us like to make comments that make it clear that we aren't perfect.
Now to the topic on hand. I like in our church services that we are trying take the Christianize out of our services. I like most of you agree that church needs to be open to non-christians but still deep and meaningful to Christians. I'll make a sports analogy but I think it could go for the theatre aswell but I've never been. If I went to cricket match I wouldn't expect to understand all that was going on. I know a little bit about cricket but going to a match (I think they call them matches) would at times be a confusing thing. I don't think our services should intend to be confusing but I also don't think that a new comer should expect to understand everything that goes on and feel compeletly comfortable with the service. Communion no matter how we to do it is going to be confusing to the new comer, does that mean that we don't recieve communion. We can explain it, we can let people know some of the meaning behind it but still it will be confusing. It's still confusing for me. The expectation in our services shouldn't be to make everything common and ordinary but should bring us together in worship of our God. If I searching for something life changing I wouldn't buy into something that was simple and easy to recieve, that would seem to be to easy. We hurt that cause of Christianty by trying to make it to easy, Jesus made things incredibly difficult for both his disciples and the crowds. He wanted them to search for the truth. I'm not saying that we need to make our services more confusing but we shouldn't be preoccupied by striving to make them easy to swallow.
I like the discussion about evangelism. I never know if I have shared to much or to little, if I have tried to water things down. I agree that though it may be difficult we still need to talk about sin. Yes there is forgiveness but it comes with repetance. Though in taking this position it seems to be aligning myself with the person on street yelling that you all are going to hell. That isn't the way either but it seems that I am to preoccupied with trying to keep my friendships then trying to save my friends. (that's good line, I want to copyright it if it hasn't be taken already}
I do like to sing, I sing at home, I sing at work, and I lead singing at church. At work there is someone who sings constantly, not Christian songs) Yes singing collectively might be out of the ordinary but I think there is a still a place for singing together. I do think that society would love to be able to sing more. Look at karokee bars and all those awful reality shows. People are uncomfortable with singing because they think they have to do it perfectly. At my church I set the bar low so others feel comfortable (also because I am just an average singer) It saddens me to go to a big church and listen to the great music and realize that most people aren't singing. This is happening not because like Trembling they can worship without singing but because the worship team is so perfect and together that there is no need for them to sing. Our services shouldn't be about perfection in our participation but about the congregation participating, joining in together. Some of my best worship times have been when two mentally challenged men were singing their hearts out totally off key and without any sense of rythm. YOu can have your perfect services, I worship better in a place where the bar is set for everyone.
Kudos to tuna, the cricket analogy is fantastic as was your comment about singing. While I love a good band I also love a good acoustic set where the band is hardly noticeable. I think there's a place for both performance for God and corporate singing poorly for God.
Back to the sin thing. I really liked Fear's sock analogy, I imagined that Tide ad in my head and laughed. I want to be clear, I don't breeze over the fact that Jesus work is all about our sin when I share my faith. I haven't met anyone yet who claims to be perfect so even if they think we are all born innocent they will acknowledge that we've all screwed up since. This generation is very spiritual, I think a lot of that comes from a deep desire to live a life that's meaningful and that makes up for errors, our own and our forefathers'. Other religions all have works you can do for that and what always impacts people is the idea that Jesus' offer is free.
As for the Sheep and the Goats, I think it's important to note a couple of things: Jesus condemnation of the goats is based on things they did NOT do, passive sin, rather than on active sin, also the goats call him Lord and are surprised to be condemned, isn't the metaphor for believers who's faith is all talk and no action rather than being an example of Jesus calling out the world for it's sin? Why do we never hear Jesus condemning the Roman culture around him where pedophilia was rampant among other things?
And preaching about sin from the pulpit is fine, we are called to keep other believers accountable as far as I can tell. And as in the cricket analogy the non-believer in the crowd might not fully get it but they also might respect that a preacher is challenging their congregation.
I still believe that when it comes to the "saving" and heart changing part of sharing my faith there is nothing I can do except pray and ask the Spirit to move, if I've done my part. I make no apology for keeping my friends even if I can't "save" them. No offense tuna, it was a good quote and I get what you're saying but if my faith has been shared I feel I've done my part. Maybe that's a cop out but I don't feel like it is.
Hey all, I just got back from a three day cricket match.
Mr. T - Great topic with some quality discussion.
Overall, I think I side with Hoos' view. I need my meat and potatoes. Could I get that in a small group? Possibly, but I find that I can only successfully hunt meat and dig potatoes during my individual "quiet time". I do think we've errantly thrown out tradition. Can we blame that on a society that does the same? Does this make church "relavent"?
I know some will argue this ignorant view, but can "corporate evangelism" be done during the Alpha program? Our British friend's program is not watered down, yet it is easily ingested. I think it would be easier to invite a friend to a meal and video on a Wednesday night, get a taste of corporate worship over the course, and then see what Sunday church looks like.
I don't think it is SS to take Christianese out of the service. I also think that corporate repentance should be included in services because there is corporate sin that often goes unconfessed.
I guess my opinion is that Jesus needs to be preached. Jesus is offensive. He claims to be God, Truth, the Way, and Life among other things. If he watered down his message so that no one would be offended, he may have lived well into his 50's. The fact is that the message he preached offended some people so much that he was killed for it. How can you preach that to an over-tolerant Canada and be sensitive?
I think the SS movement is a trend that has brought many people to Jesus. Like fear, I love the church and seeing how a loving God guides and corrects it. However, as a meat and potatoes guy, I'm glad it is a trend. This reinforces the fluidity of Christianity and how it needs to constantly be moving and changing. What will the next "trend" be? Perhaps corporate seances? As long as the gospel is taught and the great c's are obeyed, I'm for it.
As far as singing goes, I once again fall in the same boat as Trembling. At least there will be enough 'shine to cover up the off-key chanties. To me, it is more the words of the choruses than the singing ability. I abhor the holy "la la's" and often wonder if the people know and agree with what they are singing. Action songs are also Sunday morning teeth-graters. I love watching middle-aged women doing the actions and clapping that the youth group picked up at the lasted YC.
Back to work.
Although I think that Tuna and I essentially agree with each other, I'm still struggling with his analogies:
I like the fact that the church should have a divine mystery element to it, but aren't we asking people to participate in the game of cricket (not just watch it)? I guess this line of thinking actually supports the SS model, then, but it also casts a critical light on the cliquishness of the traditional model.
The challenge I have with the karaoke comparison is that it's a performance based event while a community-in-song is a collective event. Yes, periodically people will song along to the chorus of Neil Diamond's Sweet Caroline during a half-decent karaoke... but in general I question whether the modern embracing of karaoke is a reason why outsiders should be expected to sing at a church.
That said, church should be different than modern life. And that difference will make people uncomfortable. That discomfort, I think, should come from meeting the One True God in a loving community that is engulfed in worship.
Hey there Underachiever. Glad to have you join us. I think Alpha has a decent model (or maybe I'm biased because I taught it). I was frustrated, though, at the lack of people who showed up to it... although I didn't go out of my way to invite people. The reason I didn't is because of a frustration I feel with church in general: trying to minister to people's spiritual needs without adding any real value to their lives and, in fact, taking them OUT of the world.
so i think we all agree that Sunday services which are thoughtful to the seeker yet don't sacrifice what it is to worship and serve Christ are the ideal, and that while outreach can happen there it is better suited to relational approaches and corporate action throughout the week (ie Alpha type stuff etc...) so what about my idea of more churches (especially those under 500 people) getting their people involved in already existant community programs, and yet trainign them and encouraging them HOW EXACTLY TO DO SUCH THINGS IN THE NAME OF CHRIST?
pardon me for yelling, but this seems to be a huge part of discipleship that I'm not sure the church covers all that effectively.
i loved tuna's quote and illustrations, although I think trembling picked them apart for their inherent deficiencies (something all metaphors have). i see what tanti is saying too about the quote, but i think you are saying the same thing. tuna says we can't cop out of sharing our faith for fear we'll be less popular and tanti says you can't be less of a friend just because someone isn't buying your faith. both good points.
Mr Under has a great point about Alpha, although, as Trembles has pointed out, like the SS thing, where it is merely duplicated it tends to wane but where the principle of it is utilized, adapted and vitalized for the local context it carries a powerful idea for contemporary corporate evangelism.
one last point about the church. i love it. we fall short in so many ways, but somehow there are some amazing things happening and amazing people in every church i've been in. speaking as a former pastor i can say that sometimes a single person in the church can at the same time be the greatest frustration and the greatest encouragement (and usually that person is the pastor himself). All this to say God is gracious and seems to think of the church as His redemptive vehicle.
So I guess what perhaps frustrates me most about the church is not necessarily imperfection, or shallowness, but apathy. This I can not stand. I'd rather be stark raving mad about the church than to give up on it and leave in the name of my individual strain of so-called Christian spirituality than can supposedly do just fine without the body.
(if anyone has read George Barna's Revolution they will know what I'm talking about. apparently the revolution entails a lot of people leaving the church in order to have a truer Christianity and while I can relate in many ways to their reasons for leaving I can not agree with the leaving itself. to call isolation from the body a truer Christianity is an absolute load of bunk. my that was tangential wasn't it?)
one last thing: tuna's idea of a cheif of sinners award is genius. the question is whose picture would be in the link?
Dr. Fear has brought his summary skills to bear on the conversation again, and I like it.
I also like what fear has to say about community involvement and social justice issues. My experience is that the church is usually content to simply pray for the poor/disenfranchised/outcasts etc (if we even make it that far)... And correct me if I'm wrong, but scripture doesn't teach us to pray for the poor, we are supposed to actually help them. As the chief of sinners, I am as guilty as those I'm criticizing here.
As an engineer I love efficiency, and will sacrifice many things on its altar. It is very frustrating to see so many groups and churches trying to do their own thing in order to help out in the community when there are usually a dozen organisations already helping out. I think we would be much better stewards of our resources if we would just work within some of the existing infrastructure.
Is there that much training and equipping required in order to serve in the name of Christ? Is not the act of serving enough in itself. You're doing good work regardless of your intentions, there's a verse about this somewhere, but I'm drawing a blank.
Perspicacity
Thanks for the summary, Fear.
You asked a good question: How does a church involve its members in pre-existing ministries? Training and encouraging are a part but that's not enough. I'm trained and encouraged toward holiness each week and I still sin (in fact, I'm chief among sinners). As for doing community service and outreach, I think mandating and enabling are also critical functions the church needs to do.
People might be offended by the idea that church mandates something but honestly, there are times that if it weren't mandated it won't get done. As much as I hate to admit it, there are times that if my wife doesn't mandate some type of community service, I just won't do it (i.e. food bank stuff or other volunteerism). She thinks that way, I don't because I'm a greedy, self-centered chief among sinners. And the church we attend has built into its small group philosophy some community service, which is good. Of course I'm not talking about do-community-work-or-you're-excommunicated type of mandating, but the requirement to do service should be there.
And enabling needs to happen, too. Many of us (especially me, chief among sinners) can easily find any excuse not to do something. Case in point: there's some Billy Graham Christian Life and Witness classes offered in town right now. Our church has cancelled small groups and some of the other programs and has arranged for a 15 passenger van to take people to these things... thereby taking away any excuse AND helping people who might experience roadblocks.
Sorry to use my church twice in these examples. It's not a perfect church (chief among sinful churches) but it seemed to apply.
Also, methinks that rather than spreading itself too thin, a church should adopt only a few community service projects at a time (projects that people in the church can do) and do those well.
What do you think about this: everyone shows up for church one day and the pastor says, "instead of a worship service, we're going to worship through giving... let's all walk across the street to the orphanage and distribute gruel" (or whatever it is that they do at orphanages).
The enemy makes it so easy to forget the value and joy that comes from doing good service and instead brings to mind the inconvenience and work.
Coldstorageunit,
As an engineer, don't you also appreciate redundancy? If that's the case, you should be a vocal proponent AGAINST churches becoming involved in an existing ministry. Instead, you should be celebrating churches that have ministries that mirror existing ones. haha
In the midst of considering moving on from the church we've been at for a couple years the leadership is taking action that is making me rethink that decision. Namely they are starting to do the things we are talking about here in this discussion. They are partnering with World Vision and allowing them to use the building to start up a ministry to needy single moms. They are hosting and paying for a block party with no agenda. There is more but basically the church has started to ask itself if the building burned down tomorrow would anyone notice or care in the community? They are trying to change that answer from a no to a yes and after 2 years of watching my church do very little it's encouraging to see.
Just thought I'd share that as it's so easy to fall into the trap of dwelling on the negative and only complaining. I am the worst at this I know.
Redundancy is just a euphemism to cover up a bad design. That being said, it has sure saved my bacon on a number of occasions (as the chief of sinful designers).
DRC, that is cool news about your church. I heard a little of that from G. You guys have such a huge building that could be used for all sorts of great ministries like the ones you mentioned. Cheers to SAC.
Padawan
trembling: a church that mandates. wouldn't that be something? but as you've said the authority couldn't come from instituional structures, so where would it come from? powerful, spirit-anointed, biblical, prophetic preaching that is tied an enabling ministry structure and leadership. that would be something else. of course you'd still have to have buy-in, and sometimes that takes time. in fact i think it always takes time. tanti's illustration shows that there is hope though and i pray that we see more of this. by the way, as a pastor i did not pull any of this off, making me a sinner among chiefs.
csu: perspicacity? are these random words or random groups of letters? i'd like a definition on that one.
I don't know, Fear... mandates could come from institutional structures: it works for the Catholic Church very well. And in our protestant churches you do have structures that can make it happen: our church leadership mandated that our small groups have multiplication as one of their goals. Not all small groups do multiply (and I am chief among sinners here) but buy-in at the leadership level, constant review, "talking it up", plus follow-up can help to make it happen. To be honest, it's no different than in the corporate world. In the dark days when I had a "real" job, the company I worked for mandated all kinds of things... things that no employee followed on their own. It took the actions I mentioned (buy-in from above, ongoing review, talking it up among staff, and follow-up) to make it happen. Even then it wasn't perfect but it got more people to do it.
Buy-in does take time... a lot of time! And sometimes in churches it feels like it will never happen.
Hey Tanti, thanks for telling us about your church. I really shouldn't complain either... I love the church I attend and am glad that it doesn't fit the mold in a lot of the things I'm complaining about here.
good points t.
back the truck up a second. did someone say something about corporate seances? i don't know whether to laugh or cry.
to go with our awards we should have a penalty for the most obvious attempts to garner awards. underachiever has a virtual lock on the monolith of obscurity this month. meanwhile the first chief of sinners award (predictably considering the group we've assembled) is anyone's trophy at this stage of the game.
Fear,
Corporate seances? What are you talking about?
PS, "perspicacity" means wisdom and keen discernment, according to my Gage Canadian Dictionary. Used in a sentence: "Tuna lacks perspicacity."
By the way, I don't know if it is an official spoonerism or not, but I like your "sinner among chiefs" line. (Reminds me of your victor/spoils email message line). Is that an actual spoonerism or are spoonerisms only on partial word swaps?
I agree with most that practical service is mandatory with authentic Christianity. I infrequently serve at a soup kitchen downtown (chef among sinners) and I always leave hoping my pasta prowess made a difference.
Virtual lock and it's only the 6th? Sweet meat.
By the way, the only Alpha course I've been involved in was an awful experience.
As a member of the same church as TT, it has been encouraging to see some paradigm shifts. No longer are the great c's being preached and then left out in the cold. It is now "We're supposed to love others. Here's a practical way to do that: Help our single mothers in the community." Like TT, it is encouraging to see these practical ministries happening.
trembling: the reference you seek is on 8:54am sept 5. thanks for the definition and the explanatory sentence. however i don't know what a spoonerism is
under: chef among sinners. just when i thought i had topped the joke you upped the anti. that's some beautiful crap there.
being the 6th only, i wonder where we go with this topic from here? for me personally i've been intrigued by those references that have been made to how we can do corporate worship (especially as we've thrown around the idea of incorporating lament and repentance) and corporate evangelism better (especially linking social action with Christian living).
two thoughts on my mind:
1) how do you do lament in a worship service without just being a downer?
and corporate repentance? for what? how often? who does it? how is it expressed? and is there room for individual expressions of repentence in the service (ie confession?)
2) is there a way that Christians do social/community stuff in a way that shows Christ (separating ourselves from philanthropists and other good folk) or is this even necessary? (i know the easy answer is that our service does the talking for us so don't give me that line without really tackling what i'm getting at). thing is lots of people volunteer and help out without being christian and I wonder if there is a way we do it different? this is a legit question because i think we feel we have to leave a tract on the doorknob or slip in a comment about doing what we're doing on behalf of our church or what have you. but these feel disengenuine. at the same time i do want people to know i'm doing this because i love them the way christ loves me.
I don't know that there is much volunteerism out there anymore. There are all kind of motivations to give your time to a cause, resume building, passion for the cause, and loneliness to name a few. I don't know if Christians need to advertise that they're doing it for Jesus. Hopefully if your church is involved in a community group anyone who hears that will know why you're there. If you volunteer on your own from time to time it shouldn't take long to develop relationships with people and let them know you believe in Jesus. That's all that needed I think.
I don't know if Christians need to seperate themselves from other good folk, matching them would be a good enough start.
Thanks for the definition of perspicacity Dr. Trembling. Also, I nearly laughed out loud in my quiet office environment several times over the course of reading the last few posts: Firstly, with underachiever's chef bit, and secondly with Trembling's use of Perspicacity in a sentence. Some great posts all around.
Dr. Fear, never fear, I would never make up a word, i have too much respect for language. Any words appended to my posts are purely incidental.
Spurious
tanti. i agree with what you are saying and i don't think the point is to separate ourselves from the good folk (great line about just keeping up with them for starters!), but at the same time i think it is so key that the church deploy community servers who know and embody what it is to serve in the name of christ.
for instance, at underachiever's soup kitchen, say a smelly and crass old man is in line and the volunteers are all very nice to him and serve him soup even though he is complaining the whole way.
you gotta love that. i've seen this and i've seen christians as well us unbelievers operate in such a kind way and i think it is admirable. i think it may even be possible for an unbeliever to reflect the image of God by being so stinking "nice" and gracious. kudos to those folks.
(truth is, I feel like i've seen more christians be rude in such situations than i've seen unbelievers, but that might be just because i'm only remembering the christians. if i'm right, i think this might reflect a "set-apart-ness" mindset on the behalf of the christian that forgets his or her common humanity with the smelly man which ironically causes the unbeliever to come out looking more compassionate. did that make sense?)
anyway. here's my point. what if the smelly old man wets his pants?
who helps him out?
i'm not saying the unbeliever wouldn't. but if we are there in the spirit of Christ are we the first to step up with a towel, a hand to the washroom, and a pair of pants (maybe our own?)
this may be tangential, but i think what i'm getting at is the kind of community Christ may want us to be, as a Church. and i dare say it isn't a very "successful" approach to the world. sounds more like a cross to bear.
having said all that, in some way i think my awareness of this high calling from God actually keeps me from getting involved in more social activity -- once i go there i have to go all the way and i'm fairly comfortable where i'm at. and i certainly don't feel prepared or equipped to go there alone. but what if we as a church pushed and pulled each other there?
Thanks for guiding the conversation, Fear. To answer your questions:
1. Lament and corporate repentence are hard to do in a service. I preached on Psalm 88 recently which (I thought) went well because that lament psalm ends much more darkly than other lament psalms but at the end I pointed to Revelation 21, which is where I think laments need to go. Corporate repentence, though, is much harder in my opinion. Part of the reason is that a lament can speak to everyone while corporate lament requires action but sometimes the action is taken out of guilt or peer pressure rather than legitimate repentence. Without getting into a lot of details here, I'd like to mention a very specific chapel service at CBC that seemed to be annual in which a member of a particular ethnic group stood up and accused white people of treating his people horribly throughout history. It was a forced repentence and I know a lot of people were upset about it but still went and prayed around him anyway because of peer pressure.
I don't know if this is an easy answer or not but when we do good works, we shouldn't point the person to the church but to God. This is perhaps one reason why a church may need to do its own thing rather than work with a currently established group. If you're working alongside an already existing charity, you're just a part of that charity. But if you suddenly show up and mow a widow's lawn or serve gruel at the orhpanage, it's an opportunity to say "Jesus loves you (etc.)"
I don't know.
PS, a spoonerism is named after Reverend Spooner from Oxford and is a type of phrase in which parts of words (or, I was wondering if maybe whole words counted) were switched. One funny one is "I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy"
You can learn more about spoonerisms here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoonerism There are some funny spoonerisms mentioned from TV, movies, video games, and real life. Although "sinner among chiefs" may not be an official spoonerism, it is in my books.
Fear's last post is EXACTLY the reason why I've been asking Tuna to wear pants in public.
What's wrong with Tuna's skirt?
I know I am lazy and the chief of all sinners but our world today is incredibly different then the one Jesus lived in and where Paul wrote his letters. We have health care and food banks, widows by large are taken care of. The state plays a promient role in meeting these needs and our taxes provide the cash flow. This is not to say there still isn't needy people. But I wonder what has brought them to their state of need. In my home town we have generations of families raised on welfare. It is a huge problem. I do believe the church needs to play a role in meeting these needs but in a way that addresses the root issues. I was reading through Paul's letters again and was impacted by all of the commands about working hard and the problem with being idle. I know I am coming off in this post as a right wing, cold hearted bastard but these problems that occur all around us are not going to be solved by what's already going on. More then saying, Jesus is the ultimate answer, I'm not sure what we are suppose to do but I just wanted to vent.
nicely done, i don't disagree, but i also don't know what to do either. in the end i think it is an act of grace on a micro-scale to give a "handout" but also on a macro-scale it is grace toward the universe ... you don't let the fact you are helpless against the Problem keep you from doing what you can. that said, i do very little . at what point do all these chief of sinners comments become pure hypocrisy?
anyway, i'd like to hear ideas of what can be done about the macro-problems. i think that a govt system like ours depends greatly on community agencies and that perhaps to answer your question in a vague sense maybe what the church needs to do then is offer contextual, imbedded ministry (where the person is served and known and loved and offered a sort of 'mentorship' not just handed a cheque and pushed out of sight)
i saw this at selkirk YFC where people were helped to help themselves, and offered the opportunity to serve and work and be mentored ...
on another note: corporate repentance. i agree with trembling about the repentance, or reconciliation, chapel but at the same time disagree. i think it was worth doing, and worth doing for a few years (because of new students). however, when we do corporate repentance we can't all be forced to lie and apologize for stuff we never had anything to do with. rather, it should involve concrete proposals and commitments about how things are going to be different. (repentance is after all a change of direction, not just saying sorry). if this approach is taken then people can all agree together about the sin of "old measures" and agree to the "new measures" while allowing for varying degrees of individual confession for "old measures" to take place. individual confessions could and probably should be made in public right there and then too, but it would depend on a lot of things. but the corporate aspect of it should involve everyone agreeing what was wrong and committing in the future to do what was right.
i can't really apologize for the Crusades, but I can repent of them, in a way.
corporate repentance could easily degenerate into political maneouvering in the community. that's gross. i wonder if any Christian group will ever repent of any of the junk that has come in with the business-church model, such as spin-doctoring or high-browing.
Thanks for the invitation to membership folks. I'm honored to join. I wanted to log in with my spiffy new user name, but since I was invited as "the hansens" that seems to be the only name I can log in under. True? Since I'm pretty new to blogging, let me know if I'm wrong. Anyway, please accept the following answers as my fee for membership.
1. Where are you? Chilliwack, BC
2. What do you do? I stay home and care for one intense toddler, one mommy's-girl infant, and one needy husband. (He chose his own adjective, although I don't think it's entirely acurate.)
3. Favorite book? "Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers" It was my favorite of the books, but my least favorite of the movies.
4. What was the last book you read? "The Broker" by John Grisham. I needed a fast read as I was already overdue with Abby.
5. What do you watch on TV? Football, West Wing, Star Trek: The Next Generation, The Amazing Race, and Survivor. (It feels like that list deteriorates on the way through, but whatever- it's what I like.)
I've made a mental note to not allow a week to pass before checking in on the holy crap dialogue... I had some thoughts on the original topic some 40 or so posts ago, but they seem rather out of place now. So all I have to do now is offer my suggested solution to the cyclical problem of poverty in our society and my opinion on corporate repentance... Alright, well that should just take a second.
On a macro and a micro level I struggle with the helping hand strategy. How helpful is it really when an individual or a church or charity gives money to someone who will likely be in a position of need their whole lives? On the other hand, when I find myself in the awkward position of being propostioned for spare change I always feel I should err on the side of generosity. Shouldn't the church as a whole do the same? I think it would be better to give to those who come for help and risk being taken advantage of, than to be too stingy and risk being judgmental, self-righteous, or greedy.
The problem then is the root issue remains. Maybe reaching out with love and compassion is the only way to start to address the root issues. That sounds really cliche as I type it, but I don't think it's the church's role to solve the problem of generations of families being raised on welfare.
Hmmm...corporate repentance. I haven't thought about it much before. The example trembling gave of someone demanding repentance from a particular race for acts not specifically performed by those present seems ridiculous to me. If this person had felt hurt by specific individuals in that service, then it might seem to fit, but only if they had already tried to deal with it one on one first. I don't know. I need more time and banter for this topic .
Did I miss something with the closing vocab word of the day?
Hi The Hansens. (Well, I guess it's "The Hansen", to be accurate). Good to have a female perspective on here (Tuna can finally relinquesh the role of the woman to someone who is actually of that gender - haha). The Hansen, you can get Fear to delete you and then invite you again but you should sign in with a completely different username and password. I think that should work. However, I think your username is fine. I wish my username had "the" in front of it.
Star Trek The Next Generation is still on television?
The closing vocab word is ColdStorageUnit's unintentional invention from two topics ago in which he accidentally left a word at the very bottom of a post. He adds random words at the bottom of the post. Somehow these aren't just any words, thought, but rather they always end up being funny words. My favorite so far is "slacks". I'm still laughing at that.
Back to the topic at hand: Throwing money at the problem won't solve anything.
I guess if we want to address the issue of generational welfare we need to find out what the core problem is... Is it a deep sense of hopelessness? I don't know. My first instinct is to say that the church should help them develop skills and find jobs but that doesn't address the hopelessness
(welcome hansen! feel free to state your opinion on the original topic. maybe we need that.)
as for the current state of it, here's some further thoughts:
could not corporate repentance have two dimensions to it? 1) clearing up and reconciling direct hurts and sins the group as a whole is responsible for (and culpable individuals take the lead in confession while everyone joins in the "turn from" that sin, and 2) restoring the purity of the church or clearing Jesus' name if you will (in other words, a full page ad apologizing for our part in the Crusades might accomplish this, although this example is a tough one since i think there is a lot of confusion about how much the church was actually to blame for this).
also, regarding social action. in Acts the widows and whoever were falling through the cracks and the apostles stepped up. organization took place. noone petitioned Rome to do the job. they chose 7 of their best and mobilized to do what they could
Poverty is a tough issue. The previous posts remind me of a quote, i think it was Rob Bell or Don Miller or somebody like that. He said that we can pull people out of the river of poverty all day long, but at some point someone has to go upstream and find out who is pushing these people in.
I realize alot of poverty is cause by people's own poor decisions, but there is often plenty of blame on the macro scale, i.e. governmental policies, justice system, some aspects of capitalism, etc... For example, there are some pretty good reasons why lots of major US cities are approaching the 50% level with regard to people living below the poverty line. The may or may not have a lot to do with a synonym of "shrub".
If anybody hasn't read "God's Politics" by Jim Wallis I would highly recommend it. The majority of the book is on this very topic.
Corporate repentance is pretty tricky. Though we may not be directly responsible for some of the church's more infamous mistakes, like the crusades, or the witch hunts, or the burning of the library at Alexandria, et al... I find that alot of non-christian people carry alot of baggage around because of those things, and it has a direct effect on their opinion of christians today, people like you and me and Tuna.
It's not reasonable for people to expect us to apologize for the sins of others, but I think if we express some regret and sorrow at least in regard to the damage those events have done to the reputation of our faith it can definitely help out the situation.
I like Dr. Fear's idea of the full page ad.
Welcome to "The Hansens". Feel free to leave random words as a nice little humourous addendum to your posts. If I may:
baton
I also welcome the Hansen. Great to have you.
I've gone back on forth on the hand out arguement in my life. I know for a long time I believed in the heart of the giver being more important than the way the gift is used but that doesn't speak to solving the problem. Also with the river analogy, depending on who you speak to there are many different people pushing the poor into the water and some of them blame each other while claiming to be innocent. Depends on which "facts" you base your opinion on.
From a political perspective this is a very complex issue. Stats tell us that there is an excess of beds and food in Vancouver and yet there are many homeless, hungry people. This leads to the belief that giving a hand out only keeps that person on the street rather than forcing them to go where they can get government funded food, shelter and help. This sounds heartless but under this line of thinking the most compassionate thing to do (in the big picture) is to not give to an individual but to give to groups/organizations providing the help and point the individual to them.
There are those on the other side though who disagree with these stats and say there isn't enough work, food and affordable shelter and this forces people to live on the street who can't find work or are mentally ill.
Here's the middle road arguement, the truth here is neither are fully right. There are those in poverty who are there because the government doesn't do enough for the down and out and mentally ill. There are also plenty in poverty because of laziness and a cycle of welfare and entitlement. Also it's interesting to note that the "poverty line" is a statistical anaylisis of the bottom 3rd of average income earners. So in North Van the poverty line is likely higher than any of our wages.
So what's the church to do? I believe the church could do a far better job of partnering with the groups that really are helping people up and not just handing out, (habitat for humanity, World Vision etc..) though there is a place for doing both I think. Jesus called us to visit prisoners and feed the poor etc.. he never said to visit only the innocent and feed only the victims.
One of the aspects of this World Vision project at SAC is resume building and job search help for these single moms in poverty. That's doing far more in the long run than a food hamper.
In the end I think we need to teach people how to fish as well as give them fish until they've learned to fish on their own.
As for corporate repentance, I agree.
I am, by no means, an authority on the issue of lower income folk. I agree that there is an element of laziness and entitlement that are holding them back. But there are other factors, too. I would suggest that the disparity between rich and poor is overwhelming and has the same effect that (to a lesser degree) we feel when we put off writing a paper for school. It's too much work now, we'll do it later. Only with the poor, later never comes. As well, there is pressure NOT to succeed because (in my interactions in a variety of settings) this is a very tight-knit community. Improving your lot in life is not just getting out of your trouble, but it's turning your back on everything you've known. That's hard.
As well, this is an interesting economics idea I came across this summer which applies here. (I'd quote it but I don't remember where I found it). It was an anaylsis of potato prices and its effect on poverty in Ireland. (Yeah, I was reading it). It seems that people buy cheap potatos to save money but because the potatos are cheap, they are (obviously) of a much lower quality. Thus, they have to buy more in order to feed their families adequately... and end up spending more without realizing it.
The tangent this topic has taken really hits close to home for me as I have some relatives who definitely fall into this lifestyle. In spite of excessive family efforts (I'm not trying to be self-righteous here), they continue to wallow in poverty. There is laziness and entitlement and a tight-knit community, and the cheap/expensive food factor. But the biggest thing is this:
COPING SKILLS.
That sounds like psychobabble but every time I hear a crazy story about them, it's exactly what the problem is. They have grand visions for their future but just can't figure out how to get there. They seem to dream big (like the rest of us) but make bad decisions on a daily basis that end up costing more, taking more time, forcing them to lose their jobs and accept lower paying jobs. Often, they make decisions that force them to live beyond their means. Examples include leasing cars that are too expensive or using credit cards too often. The credit card cycle is a critical influencer on poverty, I think.
Again, I don't want to sound self-righteous here (and admittedly I have distanced myself from that part of the family) but I have seen so much unreciprocated generosity from other family members to this "poor" group. Ultimately, the rest of the family is silently coming around to this decision: forget the parents and let them wallow in their own delusions and just focus on the kids: give those kids the coping skills they need to thrive. Sadly, we're only holding out hope for a couple of the kids right now.
All of this ranting, I guess, points to some of the things we need to work on as a church:
* Help an entire community, not just individuals.
* Eliminate the us/them attitude that turns into an entitlement mindset.
* Foster those grand dreams but focus on daily skills and decision-making. Enable them to live "regular lives" (one great example I've heard more than once is the idea that "my car broke down so I'm not going to bother going into work anymore... I'll look for another job later").
good insights there. you illustrate some fine points that i think show the complexity of the "poverty" situation in a way tanti was also alluding to.
being in a "class" can be defining for a person, debilitating even. need to be believed in as much as needing a chance.
i am reminded of something i've noted a few times before (I'm not saying this applies to the situations you described in your family though):
sometimes you'll hear lower-income folk derided for their laziness or lack of ambition and i think it may at times more accurately be described as ambition for different things. in other words, not being driven by the same things. not haveing the same definition of success, if you will.
this can bother us for two reasons: first of all, how then are these folk motivated? and secondly, how could anyone NOT want what I have? just a thought.
when asked for money on the street I have on a few occasions asked, "What for?" I know this can sound self-righteous and condescending but I try not to be. I'm not sure whether to continue the practice, for the reason I've already stated but also because it sort of opens a can of worms. (by the way, each time except one, and that is another story altogether, I've done this the answer has been either cigs or beer. and yes, I still give, but not as much as I would have otherwise)
What if it acually leads to a relationship? What if I end up getting involved? Even as I ask I wince at the possiblities. Therein lies the reason why I think I might be on to something. Why not ask what a person wants? Why not ask what the story is? I think handouts are a very convenient way for us to stay uninvolved, but I wonder: (and you'll have to pardon the amazingly brutal cliche here, I believe I'm using it with a different spirit than the troublesome trend indicates) What would Jesus do?
trembling, another thought. how are you feeling about where this topic has gone? are there unresolved issues from the original topic that you want to steer us back to?
It's been good to hear other people's views on SS but I'm glad that we're talking about social justice issues. Tangents are always welcome. I'm happy with where this conversation has gone.
You've made an interesting point, Fear, about goals and whether what's important to us is important to other people (including the poor). At first glance, I don't know that I agree with you, though: don't people everywhere generally want to enjoy more than they have and be better than they are, even if they can't fully articulate it? A discontentment of current circumstance drives some to succeed and others to escape but in general few people are ever happy for long in their situation. Well, those are just initial reactions; I'm going to have to think about it a bit more.
Enjoy your class next week, Fear & Tuna.
Along the lines of Fear's last post, what if someone's highest motivation in life is to do as little work as possible? I've met more than a few people in my job that work until they have enough hours for EI and then they get themselves laid off and enjoy the down time that EI provides. I'm not saying that everyone on EI, it's not even most people on EI but it's an example of a different life motivation and a different definition of success.
The question then becomes, what can you do for someone like that? They don't likely want help.
Take Vancouver as an example again, I hear on newstalk radio all the time that there is a shortage of construction workers right now, dozens of building projects are behind schedule because they are short workers. How does that line up with the hundreds of homeless people in the city? The unemployed? The only way it makes sense for me is that the homeless are ill, either mentally ill or on drugs and are not capable of day to day functioning. The illness may have caused the homelessness or vice versa, either way the question remains: what can the church do about it?
I think all you can do is give people tools. Tools like shelter and transportation and drug rehab. There will still be those who, when given those tools, cannot get out of the cycle of poverty. But is the church involved as much as she could be in the providing and administering of these tools? I say no.
I totally agree tanti. Providing and administering tools to the poor is the most that can be expected of the church in the face of this issue. I would add though that it is perhaps the evangelical church that is not as involved in this as it should be. The mainstream churches, and I'm speaking very generally here, do this really well. In fact, the few United churches that I've visited seem to make this their main reason for existing.
Good point the hansens, I'm basing my generalizations on my evangelical experience but mainline churches have been doing this kind of thing for ages.
Could they be doing more? Could the Church be more united and acomplish more that way? Could churches that don't do this well plug into some of the many great things being done by other churches so as to not reinvent the wheel?
To come full circle, I've been thinking that feeding the hungry would be the most seeker sensitive thing any Christian could do.
Interesting comment about the determination of the poverty line from DRC. I didn't know that's how they figured it out. Even so, the poverty line in the US for a family of three is $15,600 a year. Statiscal or not, that is definitely an insufficient sum to raise a family on.
You make a good point about with the example of the north van poverty line likely being higher than any of our wages; but if I actually did live in north van with my wages as they are now i would be poor. So it seems like a pretty good gauge for me nonetheless.
Calgary is a curious city right now regarding poverty. Everybody is looking to hire new employees; signs on every street, every store in the malls have "help wanted" signs, etc... Yet, the homeless shelters and drop -in centres are totally overrun with people needing help.
So my question is, trying not to sound insensitive, at what point do all these handouts merely serve to support a microcosm of free-loading rather than providing a temporary service to those down on their luck. So at what point do Aid Agencies start perpetuating a problem rather than helping to solve it.
Let me make it clear that I don't think most agencies are perpetuating the cycle of poverty; but I do think there is a real potential to do so if an agency is merely offering handouts and not teaching people how to fish.
Sorry, forgot one thing.
Perelandra
Good observation, The Hansens. And thank you for applying the tangent back to the main point, Tanti. I couldn't agree with you more about feeding the hungry being true seeker sensitivity! In fact, I mentioned that in my first post (if I may "toot my own horn" as it were). Okay, sorry for the blatant self-promotion.
Seeker sensitivity is not about creating a worship experience that speaks to the post-modern person with excessive feeling and little truth; seeker sensitivity is about reaching out and meeting needs!!! What's more, seeker sensitive churches always seem to be middle class/upper middle class... while many of the most meaningful ministries (feeding the hungry) go on in the inner city. Does the church prefer seeker sensitive because it fills pews AND the collection plate?
I had a great conversation with a couple friends last weekend about what makes someone poor and what are the reasons that people are generationally poor. We also talked about the total poverty in Latin American countries (yes, there's poverty elsewhere but that's where our conversation ended up) and they were saying that many people are poor because they are paying debts from their great-grandparents... as well, there simply is no work that can allow them to advance.
It's different in Canada & the US, of course, although in the US, someone could end up destitute if a family member has to go to the hospital for any length of time.
So I suppose the church needs to identify the needs of the local needy and look for the causes and solve them... the "find out who's pushing people into the river" concept mentioned by CSU.
It seems like such an easy "churchy" answer but I think our solution lies in trying to achieve something similar to the Acts 2:42 church:
"They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and the the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying hte favor of all the people. Andthe Lord added to their number daily those who were being served." (NIV)
Yeah, that seems like a churchy, non-practical answer but wow, does that sound good. I hope it's not a cop-out to say that the church depicted in this passage had real passion for God and that seemed to play out in their ability to share with others... ergo, our passion to serve needs to start in our own hearts. And because of that deep sense of community and of giving, people were naturally drawn to them: true seeker sensitivity.
So, will that Acts 2:42 church work today? How do we change our hearts and (as pastors and layity) how do we get Mr. & Mrs. Pew-warmer to drink in that passion too? Is there a resistence to community? Is it a pro-independence mindset? Does a possessions-hoarding mentality play a part? Are we maintaining the status quo for comfort? Can't we see how much happier we'll be if we really do have everything in common? Where do we start to make the heart change that can establish the Acts 2:42 mentality in the church of today?
As far as Tanti's previous observation about people who have tools but don't use them, I must admit that I too am frustrated by it. I tend towards supporting a workfare over welfare model to help give people something to do and if they don't work, they don't get welfare. Sounds pretty right-wing, I guess but that's my deal. Maybe I'm just coming at it from a tax-payer's perspective. As for those who don't both with welfare either and just live on the streets, it amazes me that THAT life is considered preferable to a warm bed and hot meal. Am I missing something in thinking that those things are available to anyone who wants them? In the interactions I've had with street people it hasn't been a lack of opportunity that has kept them on the street but a preference for the lifestyle, a distrust of authority, a desire to fly under the radar, a sense of community... and truthfully, in about half a dozen cases I can think of off the top of my head, there has been some mental illness or drug-use.
While I'm here, I'll mention a program we do in Winnipeg that I really like. Rather than giving homeless people money, there's this key program where you can buy keys (I guess they're just special metal tickets or something) and you can give those to homeless people instead and one key is good for a hot meal, a bed, and a few other things (maybe clothing exchange or something? I can't remember... there were a few benefits). Anyway, I really like it although it won't solve the issues of someone who WANTS to stay on the street. Actually, is there a solution to someone who wants to stay on the street?
Fear & Tuna... hope you guys are enjoying your class. I still think we should have a GPA contest. Are you up for it? Winner takes all.
CSU, I see we posted at the same time so I missed commenting on your comments. Interesting observation about Calgary. In one sense, it's not like the rest of Canada. It's a tough thing to make a comparison. A few of my clients are Calgary based businesses and they're finding that they simply can't pay their employees enough right now. People are moving there, enticed by the cash but inflation has forced prices higher -- in some cases, higher than wages can manage. Thus, a $100,000 income sounds great to an unemployed fisherman from the east coast but the $150,000 cost of living (rent, food, car, insurance, etc.) make it unbelievably difficult to live. I'm not surprised at all that the homeless shelters are full and I'm willing to bet that most of those people have decent jobs that (anywhere else) would make them middle class. I know of other companies who are struggling to find employees and have to import people from other countries and continents to keep up. It's too bad because there are so many people right around the corner but no one can afford to take a job! It's actually a very similar economic situation to the goldrush: unbelievably massive inflation resulting in people running to the hot spot (further driving up prices) and not being able to sustain a living... and sometimes, not having enough money to return home.
Sadly, it's a pressure cooker that's going to explode and there will be more people in the foodbank line-ups when the dust settles.
Some solutions, in case anyone cares, is to increase outsourcing to other provinces and the rural areas, and create regional interest rate adjustments (because a national interest rate adjustment won't solve the problem). Perhaps a savings plan incentive could help too. Okay, if I write any more, I'll have to charge you for the advice.
hey all, good stuff. class has been good. by day three tuna is lighting it up with his humour and i have been labelled the devil's advocate. (what they don't know is that i actually think what i'm saying. i sure hope that doesn't make me the devil)
before i say a couple things, i must say csu that perelandra is the best sci-fi book i think anyone will ever write.
everyone is being very practical. this stuff is good. acts 2. very good. i have no problem with what's being said. not to contradict these attempts to be realistic about how to deal with the issue, but i'm going to pull back to some more idealist comments again, just cuz that's the state of mind i'm in today.
i want to share three stories for what their worth:
1) today our professor said something to the effect of (paraphrased): "It is a travesty that the filthy rich Western Church has to be preached to about tithing in order to RAISE our giving up toward 10%, when in fact tithing is unbiblical and 10% is an offence to the God to whom ALL we have is due."
He also asked us, yes, there are different reasons for poverty, but in the end we have to ask our Western selves the question, "How would my life be different if I was born into other circumstances and why was I born where I was?" (Something tells me the answer isn't so I could have a "blessed" life.)
He also has been challenging us to think of the Christian call less as a call to blessing, but as a call to suffering.
(I know there are other sides of all these coins, and balance is needed, and yes we are to enjoy the life we are given, but these comments are hard to disregard. We wonder what's wrong with the church and how often do we change the window dressing when it is the message at the core that is rotting with individualist manure?)
2) There is an older couple in our class who have served in a counseling role among poorer first nations people for something like 33 years. Cool old folks. With our blog in mind, during a break today I asked the guy:
If I am a pastor in a town with a demographic that includes folks such as he's ministered to, what is the first thing that comes to his mind that my church should do?
He said: make friends. Get to know these folks. Have fellowship. Get involved.
When the conversation came around to financial help he said something to the effect of having to be gracious ... but to offer more than money, to offer to help in more ways. Be creative and be courageous. Be human. Befriend. That's what "they" want(I hate using this terminology in some ways by the way) believe it or not. I thought it very interesting. I figured I'd share with you whatever the guy said. And that's what he said.
3) One more thing: Another guy in class told us an amazing story. He said that he has a Buddhist/Atheist friend who hates Christians because he's read the NT and he thinks they are a joke. (OUCH!)
But get this. The Buddhist/Atheist gives the Christian guy in our class (A Wycliff Bible Translator)over $100 a month (as well as others apparently) and himself lives in near poverty because he simply wants to help people.
So he shows up Wycliffe's house once a month with a cheque, and as far as I can tell, knows full well that Wycliffe is going to seminary. Wycliffe said, and get this, that the Buddhist/Atheist lives more like a slave of Christ than many Christians.
AND THAT'S A HUGE OUCH.
I don't want this conversation to veer into a discussion over this particular fellow's salvation. That wasn't the point of the story. I'm also okay with getting back to particulars.
I just have to say: What in the world do we think we are doing?
God showed up in a big way in our class today (more terminology I dislike but you know what I mean). I wish I could keep up in action with where God takes me in my mind. I can't do this alone. We as a church need a reformation. My prof said that, and to tell the truth I have disagreed with my prof on several things this week, but on this point we are of one spirit and one accord.
God help us all. When it all comes down and the Western Church has to stand with the great cloud of witnesses, will there be golden crowns or blood on our heads?
Extreme statements. sorry if i sound preachy. these are Self-indictments first and foremost, and this is conviction talking, not self-righteousness. Do I have the courage to follow up? Do I even know where to start? Can I accomplish anything anyway? I don't know, but so help me God get my head out of my arse.
I often hear people talking about the astronomical standard of living costs associated with Calgary. I've been here two years now and I just don't see it. Moving from Regina I noticed no appreciable increases in costs. In fact many things are cheaper; car insurance, consumer goods due to no PST, lower income tax, and free money from Ralph Klein once a year.
To be fair the cost of owning a home here is a huge kick in the teeth. But the reality is, at least for me, assuming I don't have aspirations of living in a large family home in the inner city, I can maintain the same standard of living here in Calgary as I did in Regina while enjoying the economic benefits and lack of mosquitoes that fly around in thick dark clouds capable of carrying away small children.
I agree with Trembles that the economy in Alberta is unsustainable and almost exclusively linked to a commodity, the value of which is totally out of our control; black gold that is, texas tea.
Kudos to Dr. Fear on his marathon post and the conviction and frustration that is so evident in his writing.
I'm curious about how the 10% tithing standard ever got so ingrained in the western church. Do you think it's poor teaching or maybe just ignorance; maybe a combo of the two?
In dealing with poverty so far this topic seems to have been talking mostly about domestic poverty, north american poverty. When we look at poverty in the rest of the world we are dealing with an entirely different beast. There is not really any comparison. The quote if referenced earlier about people being pushed into the river was referring to this type of destitution. In my years in ecuador and chile you just didn't see people who were poor because they were lazy or chose not to work. Everybody is trying to earn a living but due to economic situations, government policies (foreign and domestic), unfair trade treaties, etc... poverty is rampant. I'm sure the African situation is quite similar.
What can our western church do in the face of that type of challenge. We send our missionaries to deal with our spiritual concerns, but I see little else valuable work going on. We smuggle in bibles in the hopes that they might at least be converted, send in short term work teams that end up doing little more than taking away work from the local construction industry, we pray for an improvement to their lot in life but neglect to do anything about it, support governments and trade policies (perhaps unkowingly most of the time) that ensure the cycle of poverty remains uninterrupted, and the list goes on.
Is more education the solution; less naivety about consequences of where we shop, who we vote for, what policies we support, what choices we make as stewards, etc...
Thanks for the stories Fear, i espcially like the one about the buddhist/atheist dude.
souffle
How can a person be a Buddhist and atheist at the same time? And why is it noble for him to give to something he thinks is a joke? I understand and appreciate the point and the personal challenge from fear, but I don't quite get the motivation of this guy in your example.
I loved what fear said about befriending, that's great insight from that wise couple.
Question about tithing: what is the generally accepted belief on what we are asked to give by God? I've always heard 10% is a minimum and I've even heard it said that 10% is what we should be giving to our local church and all other giving should go above and beyond that. I've never really studied this issue though nor have I ever heard a good biblical backing for any of these claims.
From what I generally understand the Western wealthy church, for all her bad reputation, is in fact responsible for the vast majority of charitible giving and volunteering in the world as well as having started and/or maintained most of the world's aid organizations. Am I wrong?
Could more be done, absolutely. Maybe the money be used more efficiently and effectively to avoid some of the dangers CSU mentioned in his last post. And maybe the volunteering could be focussed better as well. I'd never thought of the fact that some short term missions trips take work away from locals, though isn't this work being done for people who couldn't afford to hire locals anyway?
Mainly I'm really encouraged that our generation is talking about this stuff so much. We can debate till we're blue in the face about how the church should be more charitible but at least we are coming from the same starting point, that being that helping others in need is not optional.
couple things real quick.
tanti you are right to balance my critique of the Western church. I am definitely making broad generalizations. Certainly the Western church also has an incredible witness to Christ in the giving that DOES happen. (Part of me wonders how much that is relative though. I mean do we give more because we have more?) Anyway, maybe it would be better for us to emphasize this as core to the Western faith and build on the good example of many rather than merely make the sweeping indictments such as I have done here. That said, the indictment applies pretty broadly and the point does still stand.
Secondly, I admit I'm not totally up on my Buddhist philosophy but I think you can be a Buddhist atheist. But I could be wrong. I don't even know how the guy can claim that. I also want to clarify that I don't think that story makes the Buddhist/Atheist better or more Christ-like even than Christians, but it is striking (and here's my point) that someone can exercise more compassion for his neighbors out of what I would assume to be a conviction about our COMMON HUMANITY than many Christians are able to exercise out of supposedly higher motivations. Sometimes I think Christians are so "set apart" that we forget our "neighborship" with humanity and so if we can't summon up, or we forget, the love of Christ as a motivator than we end up doing very little by way of compassion at all.
Thirdly, good comments everyone. I think CSU is right about the cost of living in Calgary, (although I'm fairly certain I couldn't live there based on housing prices/rental costs alone. That's beside the point but just thought I'd say it cuz it was one major reason I didn't end up at school there and am therefore one of the Alliance's prodigal sons)
when you are the last post in three days you wonder if you killed the conversation.
i have to say that for the first time in many many years we are in the awkward period of church-shopping. i won't mention where, but this sunday i had one of the most painful church-going experiences of my life.
why?
there was nothing that unusual about this service. i wasn't in a great mood (kids cranky all morning and the usual excuses) so that taints it to begin with, and i know church isn't meant to be polished or entertaining per se ... but for what its worth here's what bothered me ...
long, wordy, and christianese announcements. big long transitions between parts of the service where we waited for the next person to saunter upstage. long, wordy, and yet not very theologically sound or even honest prayers (i can handle long, and wordy, but the other two factors don't help)songs. actually not that many. but they were coming out of nowhere. and i saw very few mouths moving. then the guy got up and said how great it was to worship God together. i thought, "yes, but are we in the same room?"
a video clip mocking "me-church". you seen this one? it was actually pretty funny. but something was silly about it. here we were mocking what i felt like we were in the actual process of doing. weird. also, one clip in the video had this guy saying that he likes a church where his kid can scream all he wants and no one minds. it was sort of funny but at the same time i was thinking, hey, so i guess what we want is a kidless church? then, moments later, i kid you not, one of my boys (to remain nameless) had the fit of his public life, and screamed as i took him outside. it goes without saying i was going to take him out of the room ... but the video made me feel like never coming back.
a pretty good sermon actually, all things considered. but at this point it just seemed like it was being preached into a vaccuum. it also didn't really answer the "what difference does Christ make" question.
worst thing is, i could have seen myself doing every single thing in this service myself. i've done it. also, on other occasions i've enjoyed such services. so was this just a bad day? partially perhaps. but on another level i just wonder if the new liturgy has died and yet still walks around in a zombied state.
(like perhaps this discussion, when i'm done with it)
i hate to be the church basher. in fact i hate that this blog could entail a whole lot of church bashing and little that is contstructive. so i have to say i love the church. i really do. lord help me like the church too.
i don't mind church being a sacrifice, in fact i think it should be. but should the sacrifice be my honesty, my intelligence, and my desire for authentic fellowship and worship? (i cringe at my own harshness. somebody put me in my place)
rothlisberger
Fear, sounds like you're tired of "playing church" and maybe you're right about our liturgy being dead and walking around like a Zombie.
It seems that history is always destined to repeat itself and that whenever big changes are made it doesn't take long for the new way of doing things to become entrenched. Do most reform just want to make reforms and then stick with them rather than being people who are always open to reform?
i honesly doing mind "playing along" in church. i think we have to be willing to go and play along, and get caught up in, what is going on. i don't mind this, that is, IF INDEED others seem to want to do it in the way its being done, or really find in it the expression of their faith ...
but when noone, or at least very few, seem really all that interested, and the pastor himself or herself seems to be trying to merely fill space, or fill a sort of unspoken expectation ... then i wonder what we're doing, and who we're doing it for.
first off, my apologies for the long absence. a combo of cpu power supplies going, basement suites flooding and mortgage papers being signed has hindered my ability to give this blog its due attention.
secondly, a tardy welcome the hansens.
thirdly, it's my understanding that buddhism is a non-theistic religion. if i recall correctly, it rejects a personal God (a Supreme Being - xianity, islam, etc.) as well as a non-personal, abstract God (such as Goodness personified).
moving on to the blog: great refining of the "ss" terminology Mr. T.
is the discussion moving towards the zombified evangelical liturgy? this has been a pet peeve of mine. the churches i have been involved in tend to have cc'd service orders. it is the same schedule each week: song, announcements, song package, offering, special music or multimedia, sermon, song, benediction. i bet most of us could stand up before the worship pastor politely asks us to. anyway, i have recently become slightly less jaded and more hopeful. i was recently asked to be on a creative planning committee (yes, me) that helps organize the service orders. i suggested changing a few things around. most were met with some resistance but we agreed to consider some suggestions. i think new ideas that shake up our somewhat stale "liturgy" will get the jaded pewsitters (me) slightly excited about church. wouldn't people excited about church be one of the most powerful seeker-magnets possible? like fear, i love the Church. however, sometimes a coffee and scrambled eggs in front of the tv just seems a lot more desirable on a sunday morning (especially football season). i can't wait until people get excited about church and start to actually like it.
Welcome back Underachiever.
I too love to have things run differently on a Sunday morning but I just don't see that interest out there from Mr. & Mrs. Average Pewsitter.
Lots of people equate that routine with holiness and anything apart from it is somehow unholy. I think change is considered unholy and a slippery slope in today's church. It's so frustrating to me! The classic hymn/chorus debate is a perfect example of how some churches resist change and modernity for routine... which is ironic considering the 20th century schism from Catholism as a reaction against liturgy. Fear, any insight from experience on this?
Another reason I suspect that people resist change is because change can be challenging and they want to be comfortable on sundays. They don't want to be challenged mentally or spiritually. Thus, churches running on autopilot are rewarded with a congregation marked by laziness perceived as faithfulness.
On the other hand, I'm also aware of other churches that equate no order whatsoever with true spirituality and anything pre-set is hampering the spirit. That's a problem, too.
I see a middle road award in my future.
follicle
We have also been in the awkward church-shopping stage recently, and I have to say, I've found it immensely difficult. I actually was wanting to talk about it here and hear what you fine folks had to say, but didn't think it related totally to the topic at hand...so thanks fear for bringing us here! What class did you take last week, by the way? Interesting that it brought up questions pertinent to our discussion here.
I laughed about underachiever's comment regarding the service orders being cc'd all around because that is precisely how I felt when visiting different churches recently. Same service order. Same programs. Same sermon series. How am I supposed to choose a church? What's different about any of these places? What criteria do I use to make my decision?
The people are different, of course, but since I don't really know any of them that doesn't help me. The pastors are different, but the preaching style is the same and, to be frank, their sermons pale in comparison to those of my last pastor. (I mean that fear, so don't bother posting something that downplays your sermons and such.)
Now, I'm someone who actually thrives on routine and predictability, and something tells me I might be in the minority in this crowd, so the common elements in worship services don't bother me much. But, I do wonder if we think we've found the only format for doing corporate worship in our generation. Is this all there is? Is this the only way it's done? I'm curious to know about the creative suggestions raised by your committee, underachiever, and your suggestions in particular for mixing things up a bit. I might be a bit naive and/or optimistic, but maybe mixing things up will bring a renewed excitement for the Sunday morning gathering. I think, in the average church, doing a new thing would at least raise good questions about why we do the things we do. Am I too idealistic?
A few short years ago I would have thought that doing something new and different would be embraced by any church community, since I spent most of my Christian life in a Bible college environment. I have perhaps grown a bit more cynical the last couple of years in a "normal" church environment as I have come to realize that not many church goers seem to want to change and grow and move forward. However, I do still think that implementing new initiatives at least raises good questions and just might slowly bring about change. We have to keep questioning and changing what we're doing or else, like Tanti alluded to, we'll just find ourselves clinging to our most recent reforms.
I have to add that Dwayne and I have recently mourned the fact that our change in time zones means that going to church greatly interferes with watching NFL football, as many games are over by the time we're home on Sunday. So, a little shake up in the evangelical liturgy wouldn't hurt in making staying home to watch football less tempting.
as far as the nfl temptation goes, try having only one game on your antenna and its almost over by the time you get home from church!
anyway. i'll put my pastor's hat on for a second. i recall that it is very hard to come up with a service every week. something to inspire, encourage, meet people where they're at, bring the Word home, exalt the transcendent God, and promote fellowship among newcomers and oldtimers alike ... that's a tall order on a weekly basis! unless you have a brain wave (which usually doesn't come until Friday) it is awfully comforting to have at least a cc'd order of service to fall back on!
then there's the "worship" team factor (known in the rest of the world as musicians). you have different teams who all want to plan ahead and practice ahead and unless they have it in them to create something new then in order for you to be able to plan together it, again, helps to have a structure that sort of "goes without saying".
when you have a new idea you have to sell it. that means selling it to yourself (which comes with insecurity: "who am I to go and change this?"), selling it to your "worship" team (which means asking them to put in extra effort in practice and planning, and then in turn to themselves sell it on stage), and selling it to the congregation (who have come to church for any plethora of reasons and moods and who might even be coming that day hoping for this that or the other part of the usual routine).
Add to that the memory of past changes which may or may not have gone well or gone over well. Put it all together and week to week you aren't going to have much change.
But I was in a small church. the only pastor. What I don't get is how these "Worship" pastors with these myriads of creative people and leaders around them, with their multi-staffs and such, can continue to do the same thing week in and week out. my only guess is that while i idealize their situation, in reality it is just exponentially harder the more people there are.
But there are too many givens. Why must we sing 5 songs before we've heard from the Word? Why not after? The answer is probably less theological than we might think: this would mess up the children's programming.
Where is the lament? Time for prophecy? Time for open prayer? Group prayer? Liturgical readings? Dramatic readings? Group huddles around a verse or two? Confession? Repentance? Assurance of forgiveness? Testimony? Lose-the-script heartfel prayer?
These things would be tough to initiate, but once semi-used-to-them, they would enhance the service in spades.
But they'd make it less comfortable. They'd require more of us, the congregation. Would they alienate the seeker? I think its all how you do it. But that's the thing: they'd require more of the Worship Leaders.
I'd like to hear underachievers ideas too. These are some of mine, along with the cons of initiating them. The thing is, what do we then do when these too have become routine?
I think the answer is to ask ourselves every week: "What do we need to do with God together this week?" rather than merely "What songs are we singing, what's the sermon topic, and who's doing the announcements and prayer?"
sorry for the marathon post. we're getting to the grit of the issue here and there's no easy answers (especially when for some reason not everyone seems to think there's anything wrong. just goes to show how far gone we are when 75% of the congregation is idle during the "worship" and we have absolutely no problem with that. in fact we seem to prefer it. or am i just reading everyone wrong?) okay i'm done now.
Great posts all around. I especially appreciate the pastor perspective from Fear. It's important for me to remember how difficult it is to be the one leading. I tend to make the huge mistake of assuming these changes only require the will to change.
I think changing the order of Sunday morning would be nice. I also think changing the style and order of the service now and again would be refreshing. I love a good sermon and I know not everyone does but I haven't heard many these last couple years. When I was attending our last church regularly I would avoid Sundays where certain pastors were preaching. That's horrible I know but there was nothing else drawing me to Church except a few friends who I can see anytime.
In the end for me its about an authentic experience. I want to feel like I'm not faking it and that's hardest to do when I feel like everyone else is, including the pastors some weeks.
Different worship styles make it tough, too, to plan a service. I'm an aesthetic worshipper and I demand quality (just in my worship and DEFINITELY NOT in my friends, right Tuna?) but I'll happily forgo quality for authenticity.
Sadly, I don't see either very often in church.
As well, I get way more out of hearing a great sermon and hearing people sing than I do about trying to sing.
God is big -- HUGE in fact -- and I long to see a multi-sensory service because that's when we're going to be totally involved: not wearing ties and eating 1/8 of a saltine. I think we can learn a lot from the OT tabernacle to show the multi-sensory experience. Obviously not animal sacrifice (haha) but incense burning, colors and textures, reverance, and a bell tied around the lead pastor's ankle (just kidding on that one). Anyway, that's my deal.
Having said that, my church meets in a gym and I think it's an awesome church and I've met God there on occasion.
Okay, I don't want to harsh on the pewsitters of the world (or maybe I do) but doesn't it seem that there is excess criticism whenever the routine is broken? It's a sad statement but I really think that some of the most critical people are not the nonChristians of the world but the ones in the pews: the ones reluctant to do more than host a Bible Study but so quick to give the pastor a list of things that were wrong with the service. I was not in ministry for long but I do participate from time to time and many times I'm reminded of this.
i would love to see what that list of things wrong with the service looks like. as a pastor i would have loved to have gotten a list like that so i could sit down with the person and talk about it. as it is I think pastors are really dealing with a lot of unknowns and are going with unspoken expectations. i could be wrong though. come to think of it i've seen some nasty letters. one about the evils of drums comes to mind. oh my.
so are we the new complaining pew sitters here? what are we to do about all this?
i'd be curious to know what everyone thinks is a good sermon. there is a lot of pressure (again maybe it is all unspoken) for preaching to be highly illustrative and practical. what are you all looking for?
I had the same thought as Fear last night, maybe we are the complaining pewsitters to some people. I'd like to believe we're all involved people who aren't afraid to say all these things to the leaders of the church we attend while still supporting their leadership. That's how I believe criticism needs to be done to be constructive.
I can't even claim to have sat in many pews lately though.
What is a good sermon? For me there's delivery and quality. With the delivery the ideal is someone who is a good/great communicator but at the very least they should be comfortable speaking in front of people. I hear sermons regularly where I just wish the pastor would go take a public speaking course or even just sit and listen to themselves after. As for quality the best sermons are biblical and informative. Don't just tell me what you think a verse means, tell me what it meant when it was written and why it means what it means. I can handle a topical sermon, Paul was topical at times, but I have a hard time with the ones where a verse here and there are read. I haven't seen a pastor go through a book in a long time.
My opinion of what makes a good (and bad) sermon was refined during several good and bad preaching experiences and preaching classes at CBC. However, the most significant class was Greek Exegesis class (Greek 3&4 I think?). We didn't just dip our toe into passages, we put on our scuba diving suits and dove in, mapping out the phrases with lines and arrows. Anyone else remember doing that? That was a highlight of my last years at school because it helped me connect with my Bible in a new way, both on a personal level and in the brief stints I've had preaching sermons and leading Bible studies.
Don't hear me wrong: I'm not suggesting a highly technical or intellectual sermon (although pushing the people a little doesn't hurt). I'm just saying that exegesis helped me to understand that not every passage has 3 points that all start with the same letter. Rather, I needed to let the passage dictate the *point* of the sermon and the *points* of the sermon.
For what it's worth, here's what I think makes a good sermon:
* One text (while drawing in supporting texts)... this avoids the temptation to be topical and helps to build context.
* Push the people slightly by giving Bible study tips (don't hold your cards close when it comes to showing how you discovered the point of the passage).
* Always point to Jesus's death AND resurrection.
* Connect to the contemporary world in general as well as to the specific lives of the average demographic in the congregation... with specific examples on how to live in light of the passage.
* Draw from real life for examples rather than a funny story or something printed off the internet that could eclipse the point. (I had a pastor once who felt that his illustrations were the high point in his sermon and he spent more time working on those than the rest of the sermon... and as you can imagine, no one remembered his sermons but people remembered his cute little stories).
* Acknowledge that life is sometimes good and sometimes bad and it's not always fairly doled out but believers have hope for something more. The relationship with Jesus starts today but the full reward is still to come. (Reminds me that all of the 6 sermons I've preached in the past year quoted from Rev 21... I'm not ashamed of that at all. It wasn't my main text but it was one of my closing supporting texts each time).
I think those factors should be something preachers strive for in each sermon. In spite of that, in the past 6 months or so I've come to realize that very little of it really matters: If we earnestly put in our best effort and spend plenty of time praying, we could get up there and whisper a geneology from Numbers and people would fall flat on their faces because they are meeting the living God and hearing His words. Of course our best efforts might be more than that but God's power is made perfect in our weakness and if that's all we can manage it will be enough.
Just a few thoughts after a busy day.
periwinkle
great points guys. i'd like others to chime in with tanti and trembling on what makes a sermon.
i agreed with all your points trembling, and think that last paragraph was awesome. however, i'd like to qualify your first point about using one text.
i found myself consistently coming back to topical sermons as a preacher because i felt God had something he wanted me to stay from His Word to His people and rather than impose it on one text I had to be honest and show it from several.
the danger here is that it demands more of the preacher. he or she must know his Bible. she must do his homework (and that means spending time on something other than online illustration hunts). He must take responsibility for what he is saying. she can't just go in with a point to make a proof-text her way to stardom (even though it basically sounds like that's what i'm describing).
so, i hear what you are saying about the topical sermons, but rather than discount them i'd like to see the bar raised, that's all.
bottom line, churches don't require enough of their preachers. he should be forced to spend half his work-week on the sermon. it should be sacred time. i think far too many parishioners have a low expectation of the sermon and a minimal understanding of what it takes to prepare one.
for all the times i got raised eyebrows when i told people i spent about 15 hours preparing a sermon i wanted to raise my own eyebrows and ask: "what, you think i should have spent less?" if anything i think i should have spent more.
i must add one more thing, in keeping with my tendency toward the marathon post. i think we have a church today that wants to love God with all their HEART and SOUL in church but not so much with their MIND and BODY. In seminary I think we nerds love it so much because it is all about MIND and SOUL.
How many sermons address the whole person? HEART people need to be pushed to love God with their MINDS. (And since a lot of us here are MIND people we tend to harp on that). But MIND people need to be pushed to love God with their HEARTS too, and that's what I feel like I get in church a lot of the time, and that's a good thing.
What I don't like is when I'm told that my MIND stuff is not spiritual but the HEART stuff is. I'm sorry, but I got a high from my theological reading group this morning (I'm a nerd, yes) that rivals any sort of spiritual high I've ever had in a singspiration.
It wasn't Love the Lord your God with your heart OR your mind. It was AND. We've got too many mindless pew sitters in church. Sorry, but we do. We probably have a lot of heartless ones too. Maybe I'm one of them a lot of the time, I don't know. But let's have the whole thing please. Until we do we're like the dude in Lady in the Water who only worked on one bicep.
That was hilarious.
You're right, Fear. Topical sermons aren't bad. However, I do take a fairly anti-topical stance for a few reasons:
* People aren't reading their Bibles through the week (I'm the chief among sinners here.) so Sundays are the only time they're getting exposed to God's Word. It's God's very own words! Let Him speak!
* Topical sermons can be used to address issues but the danger is that they can also be used to address pet peeves. (i.e., a couple who may be going through a divorce in a church... suddenly the pastor feels the need to preach on divorce). A middle road solution would be to preach a sermon series (there's your topic) on several passages (there's your singular weekly text).
* Proof-texting may become rampant in topical sermons: each point becomes the pastor's opinion backed up with a verse.
* Although sermons need to contain practical suggestions and ideas for dealing with the issues of daily life, they should be drawn from a call to holiness and that comes from God's Word. Sermons should drive us to holiness and that holiness should naturally stoke the fires of witness, Christian living, and faithful action. (Word > Holiness > Action). On the other hand, topical sermons give lots of great ideas about witness, Christian living, and faithful action but (in my opinion) too often leave out the call to holiness. (Action> Word... no holiness). To me, the content we use for topical sermons is often more appropriate for a Sunday School series or an evening seminar in the week.
So, if the bar on topical sermons was raised, then I'd be okay with them.
Rant!
As I touched on earlier in this discussion I also deeply appreciate humble, non-exclusionary preaching.
I don't like being told how something is without being told why, and being assured that this is one interpretation and why the pastor feels it is the best interpretation.
I also don't like hearing a sermon on one topic which doesn't apply to everyone sitting in the crowd. It's not hard to address those issues in the context of a biblical sermon that touches on other issues. ie: preaching on stewardship rather than only on tithing.
I also like a practical call to action. End a sermon on loving our neighbor with practical things your church is doing and how people can get involved or with an announcement about the local food bank needing volunteers etc..
If your church burned down tomorrow would anyone in your community realize it was gone? We need to ask this question regularly because I gaurantee everyone noticed Jesus was gone, even those who thought he was nuts.
Hey Fellas,
Sorry about my absence, have been stuck in podunk New Jersey for the last two weeks for work.
Anyways, someone asked about what we look for in a sermon:
Unlike a lot of my good friends and circle of peers, I don't think the word "topical" is blasphemous. I have always enjoyed a good topical sermon, and I stress the good part. I have friends who will rake a pastor over the coals should his sermon even smack of topicalism (don't know if that is a word).
I always love a sermon that is challenging to me, either intellectually or spiritually or physically or grammatically or whatever. Like DRC, I like bold conclusions being inferred from a text as long as they are backed up and not presented as holy writ.
As a missionary kid I was always surrounded by sermons given by missionaries which are more often than not heavy on the story and light on the hermeneutic. But I don't have too much of a problem with this usually, for the stories usually connect with my heart in a way that a typical exegetical sermon usually doesn't. I don't mean to disparage either form of teaching; I think they both have their place.
As an interesting side note, my church back in Calgary is starting a new service on Sundays at another location that is intended to be more alternative. I haven't had the chance to go yet as it only started this sunday, but it is apparently going to cater to the crowd of people that are dissatisfied with church as it stands right now. It will incorporate liturgy and singing, lots of fellowship and eating together, and plenty of great teaching from our senior pastor. As far as I can tell, it is being designed for exactly what we have been talking about in this discussion. I will report back to you fine fellows and the female half of the Hansens once i get a chance to check it out in a couple of weeks.
As another side note; earlier in the discussion alot of us talked quite a bit about the singing in church and about some of the schmaltzy and campy stuff that we hear from the stage. I am the chief of sinners when it comes to cynicism about the worship in our sunday services. However, I realized something this very morning about what it takes to make even these crappy choruses vehicles for worship.
I had the opportunity to go to Times Square Church in Manhattan this morning. It is an interdenominational congregation that meets in an old broadway theatre building that they purchased. It was pretty surreal; there were probably 3 or 4 thousand people in the building, a huge choir singing along up front, a kickin sound system, etc... They sang some of the very songs that I was making fun of earlier in this blog but it was different this time. The congregation was all involved, they were all singing their hearts out, it was loud, you couldn't even see the worship leader through all the hands raised in the air. I found it so much easier to worship, even to a set list that would have made me cringe anywhere else. I realised again that it is the people that make the difference. I'm not sure what the implications are for the typical canadian churches that most of us attend and struggle with though. I don't know how you could get the whole congregation to enter in and enjoy a service as much as the crowd I saw today did. Perhaps we just need more black people (I don't mean to be a bigot, but they sure tend to be more enthusiastic in their worship).
Another thing I was thinking about. I think most of us would agree that there is a big lack of spriritual and biblical wisdom in the church among the average pew-sitter. I used to think this was a big travesty, and dedicated my occassions sunday school teaching efforts to try to do my part to cure it. But over the last few months and years I have wondered whether Jon Q. Pewsitter really needs to be able to properly exegete some of the trickiness of Hosea or apply his newfound knowledge to inform his thoughts on how his short term missions project might affect the construction trade in Burundi, etc...I think a certain amount of people are just drawn to these kind of things, the deeper thinking, the hidden wisdom, etc... But I believe the majority of people just want to be told what to believe, and so we end up with creedal statements and church mission statements and the like. I don't really have as much a problem with this as I used to. Maybe I'm the only one that did though, who knows. Not sure where I was going with that, but I thought I would throw it out there.
Machismo
I guess that I take a fairly strong stance against topical sermons because I feel that people need to be exposed to the Word of God and it just doesn't happen as well in a topical sermon. (It can, it just doesn't).
In a Sunday School setting, it's appropriate to talk about real-life issues and back it up with Bible. I think it needs to work the other way around in church: Start from the text and talk about how that text works itself out in our lives.
Sermons are about proclamation: proclaiming the word of the Lord to his people. To me, a topical sermon falls so short of proclamation.
disagree.
sermons are about proclaiming God's Word to his people in context. If I'm preaching to the world I preach a universal message. If not I must contextualize the application. Even the sermon prep is affected by the context.
How many churches are there out there where the pastor preaches from a liturgy and never touches current issues? the people probably have a decent handle on the scriptures but will all go home and ask I wonder what we as a church should think of all this?
i know we need to avoid group counselling, but why can't preaching address stuff that is currently an issue? i agree that topical preaching is the bane of today's church because of how AWFULLY it is being done.
(two weeks ago the sermon text was a chapter of John Ortberg. i should know because i preached a series inspired by the same book, but my exegetical approach was clearly WAY different. i used Ortberg for the idea and a few illustrations, but preached topically from the myriad of passages in the BIble that talk relationships. this preacher used Ort as his text and the bible as his illustration. Same thing happened this last week at another church, although at least this pastor admitted what he was doing.)
point is, topical sermons: done right, demanding high biblical research, consistency with the whole of the biblical message, and also addressed respectfully but directly to the issues of the day ... can't be all pastors do but certainly are what i'd call bold and courageous and relevant and biblically proclamatory.
maybe this gets done with pure exegeticals every week anyway. in some ways though i think the liturgy or the purely exegetical sermons can be a cop out. pastors hiding from the issues.
the resurrected Lord, Peter, and Paul seem to have preached topically.
So yeah, i agree with the sentiment about preaching, but not the disdain for the topical in principle.
and csu: cool experiences you are sharing with the manhattan one and the one at home. keep us updated. i agree with you that not everyone needs to be scholars in the pews, but as Barth says: "everyone is a theologian," just like everyone has their faith in something, or everyone has a worldview. I agree that not everyone should be a nerd like me. however, as Grenz pointed out in a book I'm reading: for years we've rested on some theological presuppositions (called foundationalism) and haven't noticed them crumbling beneath our feet.
its time for the church to, maybe not redefine itself but at least rethink and refocus and restate itself. the songs are alright but we don't seem to meditate on them, think about them. feeling comes first, then thought. i'd like it, at least some of the time, to start going the other way around. as Ravi Zacharias says, "Let my people think"
in my experience, in SS and in the sermon time, when lay people put their minds to it and are saved the scholarly language, they can keep up with the scholars just fine and are smarter than they think.
sorry. two more quickies:
csu raised a thought. the songs can be the same, its the people, or the atmosphere that makes it. i think we often take for granted that if we sing it they will come. but you go to a church where IT is there (the unified feeling) then its reversed. We Come and We Sing.
and finally: I should mention I raised my above point about liturgical preaching being a cop out at a table of alliance pastors at assembly and got lambasted. seemed i don't rely enough on the Word and the Spirit and was trying to do too much on my own. Point taken. but i still may have a point of my own too. i'd like to hear what trembling thinks at least since he seems to be my arch nemesis on this issue.
dangblastedtrembling!
liturgal preaching can be a cop out if the pastor skips over hard truths or complicated passages. Like going through 1 Timothy without taking time to address women in church leadership.
I tend to lean toward Trembling on this, I think going through books of the Bible allows for God's timing and the issues of the day will be dealt with because application will happen in a good sermon. The danger there is looking too hard for the issues of the day in the passage you're doing which creates the 'good sermon, wrong passage' phenomenon that Ray Aldred always talks about.
I do like a good topical sermon and in fact a couple of the best sermons I've heard in the last couple years have been topical, biblical but topical.
Nice to hear from CSU again, welcome back. Good insights.
The resurrected Lord preached a topical sermon? I don't know about that... he was, after all, the Word incarnate: the clearest proclamation of God's word (compared to what we're exegeting today). He WAS the text... and backed it up with some application.
Fear, a good topical sermon done right with a properly exegeted passage is fine with me. But does it get done? I don't think that it does very often. I think most topical sermons end up being mostly opinion with proof-text because I think it's the path of least resistance for an overworked, underpaid pastor who wants to speak into the lives of his (or her) people. Their heart's in the right place but I think you and I both agree that pastors can be largely underequipped for ministry.
I'm not saying that a pre-defined liturgy is the other option. The pastor should pick a book or a passage and do a good job exegeting it. So there is some sense of topicalism in the pre-sermon stage of passage selection but the emphasis is on scripture being worked out rather than on the pastor's opinion (as good and accurate as it might be).
A properly exegeted sermon will have context and application, otherwise it's not properly exegeted because exegesis doesn't end with knowing how the passage breaks down. That's where it BEGINS. I'm with Tanti on God's timing. My experience is that it always seems to work out surprisingly appropriately, without fail.
i agree. as long as the pulpit doesn't become irrelevant. why should important cultural and life issues be dealt with only in SS and small groups, where the Word is not so much proclaimed as it is "bandied about"?
the resurrected Lord seems to have turned over a new leaf. all of a sudden the secret was out and he was expositing the "Old Testament" texts and showing how he, the Messiah, fit into everything. I'm sure he jumped around a lot.
thank you for exposing my slipshod rhetorical devices for their emotive power but factual inconsistency. if we don't do that for each otehr we are utterly lost!
Fear, I've always felt that everything you do had emotive power but factual inconsistency.
(Just kidding!)
I'm not sure how closely this relates to our discussion about topical sermons but wanted to post this quote I just read, from Stanley Grenz and John Franke's "Beyond Foundationalism":
"the [Bible's] text has its own intention, which has its genesis in the author's intention but is not exhausted by it.
Consequently we must never conclude that exegesis alone can exhaust the Spirit's speaking to us through the text. ... the Spirit appropriates the text with the goal of communicating it to us in OUR situation, which, while perhaps paralleling in certain respects that of the ancient community, is nevertheless unique.
...the Spirit's speaking does not come through the text in isolation. Rather, we read the text cognizant that we are the contemporary embodiment of a centuries-long interpretive tradition within the Christian community (and hence we must take seriously the theological tradition of the church). And we read realizing that we are embedded in a specific historical-cultural context (and hence we must pay attention to our culture).
...Although the gospel comes to us personally, God's purposes for creation find their fulfillment not in the formation of an aggregate of 'saved' individuals but in a community of reconciled people. Consequently, the Spirit's task is to bring into being a new community ..."
Not trying to sidetrack us. When I read this it made me think of our current topic of discussion. I hope the segment I've quoted is clear enough (I cut it down significantly). Any thoughts?
Dr. Fear comes forward with yet another interesting quote. I definitely agree with Grenz and the other Franke's idea. But at the same time it is fraught with difficulties. Obviously we can't put limits on the HS's communicative ability as we read and interect with a text. But then we are left with the problem of interpreting what the HS is trying to teach concurrently with our exegesis of the text. And we as we talked a bit about earlier, there are going to be people drawing conflicting views and ideas from the same text and using the HS to back up whatever conclusions they came too.
And the only way to deal with this seems to be to actually go back to the canon to see if it conflicts with what is implicit in the text being interpreted. And then again we are almost forced to limit our interpretation solely to exegesis due to not being able to "prove" what we might feel the HS is trying to teach us through the passage. Seems like a cyclic problem to me.
The third paragraph of Fear's quote seems to kind of address this problem saying that the HS's speaking through a text does not come to us in isolation, and that we are part of an interpretive tradition spanning the centuries and must take the theological tradition of the church seriously.
For my part I usually subscribe to the idea that the truth will out; it will endure. Erroneous ideologies and theologies and whatever will fade with time (sometimes quite a long time). So having a very long interpretive tradition to look back on can really be a great aid in our search for truth.
At the same time, perhaps we don't need to always be so vocal about we feel the HS might be trying to teach us as individuals, if indeed the HS actually works in that way. But that can be dangerous territory as well.
Porpoise
the third paragraph is key to Grenz/Franke's point. you do well to pick up on it. long-standing tradition plays a huge, albeit not static and definitively confining role in the hermeneutic they propose. i'm not through the book yet but they are making an interesting point that what we call tradition today is actually only about 100 years old and we (Protestant evangelicals that is) are actually very anti-traditionalist in our theology and this is a huge problem. some want to correct this problem by jettisoning all tradition including the last 100 years and then there is Grenz/Franke's proposal to let tradition, the whole of it, do what it is supposed to do, and that is to play a bigger part in the hermeneutical cycle (between Word and Spirit) and help us to come out with a surer interpretation of what the Spirit wants to say to the church today through the text.
by the way everyone, tanti will be bringing us our next topic in a few days so get your last word in on this one before we shift gears!
My summary:
We've had an interesting discussion here. I'd like to thank everyone for their input on the topic. At first I wondered if we were moving off on a tangent... but in retrospect I don't think we were.
As the people of God we want to connect others (both believers and nonbelievers) with the Creator. That's the crux of this discussion! Some churches choose to lean toward a model that tries to connect to the popular culture of the day ("seeker sensitive"). I don't lean that way because I think it leaves too much out. I've been pretty blatant in my own personal preference which is that God speaks through his Word and that word should be treated exegetically each week by preachers. Admittedly, there's a danger that this method becomes irrelevant.
No model is perfect. Ultimately, we need to call people to deeper holiness and we have to do that by carefully combining text and culture and most importantly, love, and using that to connect to believers and nonbelievers.
Of course, that statement likely makes the job harder, not easier, because it is challenging to implement well. And, I'm afraid, that exposes a critical flaw in many evangelical churches: a lack of excellence in the practicing of mission and the deeper walk. That lack of excellence results in half-assed spirituality, ineffective evangelism, and diminishes the community-oriented gravitational pull the church should have on outsiders.
Well said T. Here's my sum-up:
In principle I think we all would agree churches ought to be seeker-sensitive. It is the notion of being, or the tendency to be, seeker-sensitive over-and-above being God- or Spirit- or Christ-sensitive that is so disgusting.
Furthermore, even among churches that are appropriately seeker-sensitive the frustration I, and I sense many of us, have is with the decision churches make on what Seeker to be sensitive to. Many churches would more accurately be labelled baby-boomer sensitive, or emergent-senstive, or even worse, hymn-sensitive or matt redman sensitive. I have yet to find a church that is me-sensitive (including my own). I point that out not to say that I think there ought to be one out there but because I think their is a misperception out there that seeker-sensitive means appealing to all. No it doesn't. Many people I know are appalled and repelled by seeker-sensitive church services.
As Unit pointed out after his trip down south, the music can be the same in two churches but can be dead in one and alive in the other. I think a common problem is that often we are tring to create or conjur up something with our music rather than express something from the heart. (I think both should be involved, but so often it seems forced and it seems like the goal is to get psyched up or to "enter into" worship and I think that has erosive implications for the authenticity of not only our worship services but our lives)
In regard to sermons, as the book I've been alluding to has made me see so clearly, I think it is all about the Spirit speaking to the church through the text, aided by tradition. Too many preachers today are either forgetting the text part, the tradition part, or even the Spirit part. You need em all folks. Exegetical sermon or topical sermon I don't care ... let the Spirit speak through the Word in the church again for God's sake!
And finally, I'll get back to tremblings original point. I think I can summarize my agreement with him with this quote from a guy at my school who was in turn summarizing a leadership book he just read (by Gangel):
"The five main [leadership corruptions in the church] Gangel lists are: infatuation with bigness, giving in to the American success syndrome, the compulsion to imitate, the corruption of assertiveness, and the unashamed wielding of political clout." This guy went on to ask: "Am I willing to live the radical kind of Christianity in my culture that the disciples did in theirs? Are some of today’s Christian leaders accepting and endorsing a “suffocated gospel” in exchange for their own personal safety and comfort? How do I guard against being one of them?"
Good words. Good topic. Thank you all for your sharpening dialogue!
I will now be ending my comments with latin mottos (taken from an encyclopedia of mottoes I stumbled on in our library) Some will be relevant, some will not.
lex orandi, lex credendi (the way you pray determines what you believe)
I am sorry for abanding you all, my services were required elsewhere saving orphans from a volcano. This has been a pretty diverse month of discussion, if I would have known where it was going I might have been more dilgent in keeping up. Sadly I am more willing to give my thoughts in discussing church services and preaching but when the subject matter turned to how to help the poor and needy I become a lot less comfortable. I think I want to ignore that those issues, and those people are out there. On Sunday we might discuss briefly the physical needs of people but mostly we deal with our middle class lives and how we are "suffering for the gospel". God still has a lot of work do to in my life in this arena. So to sum up, I suck and I think many Christians suck about caring for people the way we should.
Moving on to the other issues at hand, I understand the problems with topical sermons but I think you can be exgetically correct and topical. Those don't have to be opposites. I think many people in the church need to hear what God has to say to our generation, the issues that are going on right now. That can be done in examining a specific passage and by preaching topically. Also I think preaching is about giving people tools to use in their own devotional lives. The preacher needs to explain how they came to this point and how they see this passage lining up not just within its own book but the Bible as a whole. This isn't the only function of preaching but an important and often neglected part.
Seeker senstive services have something to offer but I would not buy into the whole program. There is a point to me made about making our services accesible but we don't need to water down what we are saying. This next question might open up another can of worms but I will ask it anyway. Should we be preaching and talking about hell? Maybe in one of the following months we can tackle this issue.
I hope to stay better connected this next month, just pray that there will be no more orphans threatned by volcanos.
Post a Comment