Tag Archives for Church

The day I was assaulted in church

First, let me say that I am no wimp when it comes to loud music. I lived through the sixties. I operated farm equipment for years without using earplugs. I’ve attended many, many concerts.  I’ve played electric guitar in a band, before we used things like drum cages. I typically stood close to the drummer, and had to crank my amp up to be heard over both the drums and the vocal monitor, which was cranked up to be heard over the drums. My wife claims I’m losing my hearing.

And yet, I felt that I had been physically assaulted by sound waves last Sunday during worship. I kid you not, the sound levels were incredible. I should have asked what the db levels were.  The only thing I’ve experienced anything louder was when I took my son and his friends to a Thousand Foot Krutch concert.

The Story

We have recently started attending a local church that we really like. We know several of the people (which helps) and the pastor seems to have a very strong grasp on grace. We were looking forward to going to church. But then, we walked in the door. I spent about a minute in the sanctuary, then went back out into the lobby, my ears already ringing. The sound was so loud, you had to shout to the person next to you.

My wife, who is more sensitive to sound than I am (remember, I have hearing loss), spoke to one of the ushers. He replied that several people had already complained, and that the pastor and sound guys had been told. My wife even spoke to the sound kid (early 20′s, wearing a red headband), who replied somewhat arrogantly that “he was a professional sound man, and no one had spoken to [him] about the sound.” I had heard one gentlemen yell as he walked out, “Can you make it any louder?”

A couple of times I ventured in and looked around. Most people were not singing along (you honestly couldn’t have heard yourself anyway). One guy in a red shirt played air drums.  It was not a corporate worship experience. If anything, it was a concert, and people responded accordingly (although this is not a “dancing” church).  The worship band was even applauded during the announcements.  The pastor praised the lead guitar player. Granted, they were good. I would have enjoyed hearing them, under better circumstances.

I wanted to leave. We waited in the lobby until the music was over, then went in.  The guest speaker was fine, but by that time I was in no mood to listen to anything (my ears were still ringing). When the pastor got up to close the service, his mic was so loud it sounded like he was shouting.

Again, I am no sound wimp, but this was terrible. I really don’t know if I risk going back, unless I know who’s doing worship (even acoustic sets have been too loud at times).  If anything, I may start coming at 11, after the worship is over. But, I realize that this means I’m not really a part of the church.

The Problem

The main problem is a complete lack of understanding of the nature of corporate worship. I should mention that I have been a worship leader as well as having been the sound guy in a couple of churches. Doing sound for corporate worship is not the same as doing sound for a rock concert; the two experiences are not even in the same category. The only similarity is that both involve music.  In a concert, everyone realizes that the band is the focus. That’s why people come, to hear the band.

However, worship is a corporate experience. The worship leader(s) are there as servants, to facilitate a corporate worship experience.  There are 2 key words: worship, and corporate. Music is actually optional; recall Matt Redman’s The Heart of Worship.

Years ago, while I was sound man at a Vineyard church in San Diego, I recall reading an article by Todd Hunter, who was then the President of the Association of Vineyard Churches. He made a very simple point: If you can’t hear the people around you singing you aren’t having a true corporate worship experience, and the music is too loud.

And, consider this: Putting the focus on the music and worship band is actually stealing worship. Worship, after all, is about focus.  Remember, “He must increase, I must decrease.”  You can’t be a worship leader if you aren’t first a part of the congregation, and you aren’t leading others into worship if the attention is on you. The worship leader should be loud enough so that everyone can hear and follow along; that, after all, is their purpose.

In operating a church service, one of the things we must be aware of is the old Marshall McLuhan concept of “the medium is the message.” What we do and how we do it speaks volumes—perhaps more than what is often said (way more than what many contemporary worship songs say.

Other Problems

Then, there’s the attitude problem of the self-identified “professional” sound man. The sound team in a church should be part  of the worship team. They should understand the purpose of worship, and understand that they play a servant’s role. The sound man is perhaps the 2nd most important person on any given Sunday morning. He or she have the power to make Sunday morning a worshipful experience, or an abusive one. It takes maturity and humility. It takes an understanding of what it means to be a Christian. Am I expecting too much?

There also seemed to be an honesty issue, as the sound kid told my wife no one had spoken to him about the sound levels, although it appeared that others were indeed complaining to him. Perhaps this was just a communication issue—I can imagine that no one really heard what anyone was saying as the music was too loud.

Other problems, not specifically related to this church but certainly including this church, involve the ability of the worship leaders to choose songs which appropriately create a corporate worship experience. If this is merely a concert, that’s not important. However, songs that reflect a personal attitude or an emotional state do not make great corporate worship songs. Again, it’s a matter of focus. “Jesus, I love you” is a pretty weak worship line. It says nothing about Jesus, it merely reflects the writer’s emotional state.  I’ve often sat through these worship songs thinking, “does the worship leader have the slightest clue about what this means?”  Bottom line, emotions change, truth does not. Sing truth, let people have their own emotions.

The Buck Stops Where?

Someone has to have responsibility for creating a corporate worship experience.  In the early days of the Anaheim Vineyard, the pastor, John Wimber, approved the worship list before each service. Some may call this having control issues, but seriously, someone has to take responsibility. A mature worship leader – of which I’ve known a few – can do this. Most, honestly, can not.  Again, what is done on a Sunday morning – including which songs are sung – speak more about the church than the sermon.

So yes, last Sunday I felt not only like I’d been assaulted, but I felt like I had been abused and that I simply wasn’t important.  It’s too bad.  I’ll perhaps try this church again, but not without some good earplugs.

Give pastors some grace

In the past few days a couple of former-Christians-become-atheist sites have picked up on this article (by Dr. Richard J. Krejcir) on Schaeffer Institute site about the sad state of evangelical pastors. For a number of reasons, the atheist sites present the material in a more compelling way than does Krejcir’s article. Here’s just a few of the figures:

  • 1500 pastors leave the ministry each month due to moral failure, spiritual burnout, or contention in their churches.
  • 50% of pastors’ marriages will end in divorce.
  • 80 percent of pastors feel unqualified and discouraged in their role as pastor.
  • 50% of pastors are so discouraged that they would leave the ministry if they could, but have no other way of making a living.
  • 80% of seminary and Bible school graduates who enter the ministry will leave the ministry within the first five years.
  • 70% of pastors constantly fight depression.
  • 40% of pastors polled said they have had an extra-marital affair since beginning their ministry.

The conclusion, reached by atheists and Christians alike, is that something is seriously wrong in the evangelical church. Being a pastor is certainly a stressful job, there’s no doubt about that; but I don’t think it has to be as stressful as it often is.

During my stints in church leadership positions, where sometimes my main function was merely to look out for the well-being of the pastor, I recognized some problems. I believe it is systemic. There is a really, really bad model of church that has been perpetuated in evangelical churches that in essence makes the pastor a potential victim of abuse. Some of this is actually encouraged by the pastor, as it’s what they have been trained to believe.

This usually results in the pastor – as a survival mechanism – becoming an abusive leader.

One of the problems is that the church adopted much of the corporate business model, which is essentially organized social Darwinism. It’s survival of the fittest, results matter, perform or get out. It also puts the pastor in a conflict of interest situation with regard to his finances. His continued income depends on the church growing (at least financially) and the church giving. Again, this is a set up for abuse. If nothing else, the pastor lives in conlfict.

Many pastors have never been trained for anything else; they are indentured servants of the church system. And, many of them don’t have any retirement plans, and may not pay into social security. So, when they burn out or retire, they are nearly destitute. Unless, of course, they’ve learned to make money as authors, conference speakers, and TV personalitites.

The church needs to understand that being a pastor is just a job (yes, that’s what I said). It’s a role, of which there are hundreds in any church. Rather than the pyramid-shaped CEO model that most churches use, the church was really designed as a “flat” organization, where all relationships are reciprocal in nature. That is, if the pastor helps you with his teaching, you help him with whatever “good things” you’ve got, not necessarily financial.

If everyone in the church would function on this principle of grace – sharing each other’s burdens, sharing all good things with one another, and so on – the pressure on the pastor would be relieved.

Of course, grace means freedom – which also means personal responsibility, for everyone.  Good luck getting a church to buy that.

I’ve been to this church!

“Sunday’s Coming” Movie Trailer from North Point Media on Vimeo.

via James F. McGrath

Review: Todd Hunter’s Giving Church Another Chance

Todd Hunter’s Giving Church Another Chance is an interesting—and perhaps brilliant—little book. I am sure that this is not everything that Todd Hunter could say on the subjects of church, liturgy and life, but he says just enough to make you want more, which I believe is precisely the point.

Todd has a gift of being able to “reimage” things so that we see them in a different way. In this book, he has taken the elements of the Anglican liturgy and presents them not as merely a way to worship on Sunday mornings, but as a rhythm by which to live our lives. Without being overly critical of the Vineyard or other evangelical styles of worship, he nevertheless shows us that there are elements missing—not just from Sunday mornings, but from the way we live throughout the week.

He discusses, for example, how we have become addicted to noise and excitement to the point that we don’t even allow time for quiet in our corporate worship; rather than Sunday morning worship setting the pattern for our week, we have let how we live set the pattern for our worship. Todd simply suggests that we “repractice” church, learning once again the value of contemplation, Bible reading, giving, and so on. Furthermore, just as Israel had been intended to be the means to bless all mankind, this is now our calling, to be the Church for the sake of others.

Even those of us from liturgical backgrounds will be challenged by this book to take a step back and reevaluate our attitudes toward church, worship, and life.

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from Todd Hunter to read and post a review on my site. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s16 CFR, Part 255 “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”

A different gospel?

From a local church’s website, under “Beliefs:”

It is the will of God that each believer should be filled with the Holy Spirit and be sanctified wholly, being separated from sin and the world and fully dedicated to the will of God, thereby receiving power for holy living and effective service. This is both a crisis and a progressive experience wrought in the life of the believer subsequent to conversion.

I have a couple of questions about this.  First, what exactly does this statement mean? Do any of the members—or the leadership, for that matter—of this church really understand this?

Second, and more importantly, what exactly is wrong—or right—with this statement?

I checked, and this statement of faith comes directly from the denomination. I had hoped, then, that the local church ignored this point of faith (it’s been known to happen), but unfortunately this does not appear to be the case; it seems there are even people in leadership who are suffering under some pretty heavy burdens. It is truly sad.

I found it quite interesting that the denomination’s version includes footnotes with Bible references, specifically 1 Thessalonians 5:23,  Acts 1:8, and Romans 6:1–14, which must be twisted in order to support how this particular point of faith reads. I, at least, agree with the verses, but don’t agree at all with this item of belief. According to Paul, adding any attempt at human effort to the work of Christ totally eradicates the Gospel (I am finishing work on a book which should be out this summer that explains this in detail). Paul felt very strongly about protecting the simple truth of the gospel; I wonder how he’d respond to this church, seeing what he wrote to the Galatians:

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel—which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned! (Gal. 1:6-9)

So, what is your opinion of this point of faith?  How would you react?

Managing Conflict For Church Boards & Committees

From my Conflict blog:

We all agree that bad conflict is destructive.  An apparent lack of conflict is also destructive, because there really is no lack of conflict. It’s either open and obvious, or it’s hidden; and hidden conflict is, in my opinion, far more destructive.  How many people disappear from churches for no apparent reason?  Truth is, there’s always a reason, and typically it’s an issue of unresolved conflict (although certainly that’s not always the case).  As someone once said, “wherever two or more are gathered, there is conflict.”  Conflict is a fact of life, as long as we are imperfect beings. Rather than ignore this fact, as many churches tend to do, the best case scenario would seem to be to put conflict front and center, but make it good conflict rather than bad.

Read the whole post here.

Loneliness and the Church

There’s an interesting post today at Experimental Theology called Loneliness and the Church.  I’ve read it a couple of times, and I’m still not sure what I think about it.  Here’s an excerpt:

In short, we need to think of churches as moral rather than social communities. When I go to church I need to have ethics on the brain and not intimacy. This, I think, is a huge problem with many churches. People go to church to have their relational needs met. They don’t go to get morally challenged or changed. Thus, if I have a good social time at church then church is great and fulfilling. Conversely, if church is a lonely affair I stop going and think it sucks.

The goal of church, to my mind, is to be better, not to be known. Of course, in the effort to become better I become known. I’ll need to confess and ask forgiveness. I’ll need to give an honest moral accounting of myself. And so on. These things promote community and camaraderie and even friendship.

On one hand, church is not a social club. On the other hand, it’s actually more – it’s family.  Shouldn’t we feel like we belong?  Shouldn’t we feel as connected as Paul says we are?  Is church primarily about becoming more moral people?  Is Christianity primarily “sin management” or perhaps working your way to some higher state of holiness?  Even if it is, which comes first?  Are we drawn by the Spirit (present in the Church) closer to God, or do we have to get closer to God – as the author suggests – to get closer to people?

Of course, your answer will depend upon your theological foundation; at least I think so.   Lutherans, for example, hear the words of absolution within the first few minutes of the liturgy. Other traditions never hear absolution; they keep folks working till the moment they die (and Catholics keep them working even after that).  How we feel about the origins of morality determine whether we’re interested in the subject at all.

What do you think?

Rethinking Tradition and Sola Scriptura 3

If you haven’t read Part One or Part 2 of this series, feel free to do that before continuing on.  These posts are the equivalent of my thinking out loud about the concepts of sola scriptura (the sole authority of the Bible) and Tradition (extra-Biblical teachings of a church that are held to be to some extent authoritative; this differs from “small t” tradition, which includes a number of cultural and ceremonial things that have significance, but aren’t considered either apostolic or authoritative).  I am undoubtedly wrong about some of my understanding and assumptions about various church traditions and doctrine, but such is life.  This is not an attempt to present a thesis on the issue, I’m just thinking things through and inviting you along.

In this post, I will try as best I can to outline some basic views of Tradition and authority, as I understand them.

Evangelical

“Evangelical” is a rather broad category, and for the sake of this post it will refer to modern, non-liurgical churches.  Evangelicals have their various traditions. While they will claim that the Bible is their sole authority, their interpretations are often ruled by their particular tradition.  For example, one common tradition is Calvinism; those who are hard-core Calvinists will always read Scripture through Calvinism’s Five (or Four, if they’re wimps) Points of the TULIP.  Other churches have other traditions that filter how their folks interpret Scripture, and some – not unlike the 2nd Temple Jews – have added rules and regulations to Scripture such as Tithing, not having fun, and so on.

In general terms, the modern evangelical church takes an a-historical view of tradition; that is, the ancient faith – that known in the first few centuries A.D. – is interesting, but has no merit in terms of Biblical interpretation (unless someone wants to quote Athanasius in support of the Trinity).  I have heard it claimed that modern evangelicalism is the true faith of the Apostles and therefore has the true Apostolic Succession (the teaching of the Apostles, handed down without alteration).  If this is true, then evangelicals dismiss anything pre-Calvin (Luther tends to be dismissed as he wasn’t “protestant” enough, although people like the 95 Theses concept), with some exceptions for some of Augustine’s concepts and the concept of the Trinity.  As you may have guessed, I’ve already dismissed the claims of modern evangelicalism.

Historic

Those churches I have categorized as “historic” are those with an historic view of Tradition; basically the Eastern Orthodox Churches and to some extent the Roman Catholic Church.  I say “to some extent” as the RCC has, in my opinion, departed from the original view of Tradition and Apostolic Succession.

The historic view of Tradition understands that the Apostles instructed the 1st Century Church both orally and in writing, with oral instruction no less authoritative than written. Consider 2nd Thessalonians 2:15:

So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

or 1st Corinthians 11:2:

Now I praise you because you remember me in everything, and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you.

Apostolic traditions were distinguished from “traditions of men” (Col. 2:8).   As I have mentioned in the prior posts, the “Word of God” is mentioned often in the Epistles, before the Gospels were thought to have been written.  It is obvious that the early, oral teaching of the Apostles was considered no less authoritative than the later written Epistles; and we know that not everything was written down.

Are we to then conclude that we are free to ignore those oral traditions held by the ancient church, while the Thessalonian and Corinthian Churches were instructed otherwise?   (Oh, well, when you put it that way…)

Eastern Orthodox

The Eastern Orthodox Church’s concept of Holy Tradition is possibly not what you think it is.  One description says it is, “the deposit of faith given by Jesus Christ to the Apostles and passed on in the Church from one generation to the next without addition, alteration or subtraction.”   The Orthodox, more than any other branch of Christianity, has maintained familiarity with the many other writings of the first few centuries of Christianity including 1st and 2nd Century writers like Clement, Polycarp, and Ignatius.  Polycarp, by the way, was a student of John (disciple and author of the Gospel), and knew others who had known Jesus personally; this is documented in writing (if that matters to you) by Irenaeus, who studied under Polycarp.

The Orthodox holds the Bible as the central, most important part of Apostolic authority.  Holy Tradition also includes the early Creeds (Apostles, Athanasius, Nicene), as well as the decisions made by the 7 Ecumenical Councils (of which Nicea was the 1st, in 325AD).  To the Orthodox, Tradition grounds them in the past and prevents drifting into heresy.  At the same time, the Orthodox have a very developed eschatology, so that they exist in the present, looking both to the past and to the future.

Of all of the branches of Christianity, the Orthodox are the least likely to change; the Divine Liturgy is essentially that written by St. Basil (shortened form by St. John Chrysostom) in the 4th Century.  There is certainly something to be said for having a good knowledge and record of the past (and a belief that this is the apostolic tradition that has been passed along).

Roman Catholic

I don’t really understand that much about the Roman Catholic concept of Authority, except that their concept of Apostolic Succession is more focused on the authority of men as opposed to the authority of the teaching.  At some point the Roman church developed the concept that Peter was in essence the first pope, and that apostolic succession was based in Rome; the Pope is considered “the vicar of Christ” and at times is infallible, the source of authority for the church.  In the beginning, the Roman Bishop was just one of 5; Rome, however, claimed primacy and the rest, as they say, is history.  The Roman church added 14 additional “ecumenical” councils to the original seven; apparently they redefined the word “ecumenical.”

Doctrines added by the RCC include the Immaculate Conception of Mary, adding the filioque clause to the Nicene Creed (in 1274), Papal Infallibility, the whole Purgatory and Indulgence thing, and so on.  The RCC also adopted doctrines originating with Augustine that in essence changed the Christian faith, adding the doctrine of original sin.

Lutherans

Luther, beginning with the sale of indulgences and the worship of relics and moving on to the obvious fallibility of the Pope, attempted to reform the church, bringing it back into line with the historic faith.  He even distanced himself from Augustine, to some extent.  As I mentioned before, Luther’s concept of sola scriptura was meant to strip away “doctrines of men” without tossing the original apostolic faith.

Anglican

The Church of England’s website states:

The Scriptures and the Gospels, the Apostolic Church and the early Church Fathers, are the foundation of Anglican faith and worship in the 38 self-governing churches that make up the Anglican Communion. …

  • We view the Old and New Testaments ‘as containing all things necessary for salvation’ and as being the rule and ultimate standard of faith.
  • We understand the Apostles’ creed as the baptismal symbol, and the Nicene creed as the sufficient statement of the Christian faith …

Anglicans trace their roots back to the early church, and “uphold the Catholic and Apostolic faith.”

And so …

As you can see, there is a wide variety of thoughts as to the role of Tradition.  In my next post, I will attempt to explain my current thinking on the issue, if that is even possible …

Reminder of a kinder, gentler (Lutheran) time

Whenever I visit my home town of Hallock, MN (which isn’t often), I am reminded – a lot – of Garrison Keillor’s Lake Wobegon. Besides all of the small-town weirdness and the Lutheran culture, there’s something simple and nice and decent about it.  I tend to forget this; living in a non-Lutheran culture, I forget just how civilized rural life can be among Minnesota Lutherans.

Yesterday I along with my Mom and sister were invited to the home of my high school science teacher, Phillip Peterson, and his wife, Marlys. Besides being my science teacher, Phillip was also one of my Sunday School teachers (in the Lutheran church, of course).  Marlys and my mom graduated from high school together and have remained fairly close friends.  So, knowing I was coming home for a quick visit, they called to invite us over for coffee.

I had forgotten how Lutherans do coffee.  Similar to the British tradition of Tea, Minnesota Lutherans routinely stop whatever they are doing and have coffee along with something sweet – cookies, cake, whatever.  We used to call it “lunch.”  Dinner was the noon meal, supper was in the evening, and lunch was around three P.M.

We got to Peterson’s at 2:00 and were ushered into the family room, where we had a nice talk.  After a while, Marlys went to make some coffee.  After a few minutes we were invited to the dining room, where the table was set like something from HGTV.  Upon each dish was a bowl containing 2 varieties of ice cream. There were cups for coffee, and glasses of ice water. There was a plate with 2 varieties of cookies, a plate of chocolate-iced rice krispy bars, and 2 bowls of chocolates. Just looking at the table caused my blood sugar to increase.

I had forgotten what Midwestern hospitality was like.  We’ve become so relaxed, so comfortable in our post-cultural-revolution that we’ve not only lost any concept of formality, but we’ve lost our concept of hospitality.

It’s the same with church, and even our relationship with God.  So many have lost formality, becoming so relaxed and casual that our sense of hospitality and respect for all that’s holy has been lost.

I really enjoyed my visit with the Petersons.  I was reminded of a kinder, gentler time.  I was also reminded that formality and intentionality may be rare, but it’s never out of style.

If you like singing in church, thank Martin Luther

The BBC has produced a very nice documentary on the Lutheran influence in worship, paying particular attention to Bach, probably the most well-known Lutheran organists and composers.  It’s fascinating – anyone who has an interest in worship music should find this particularly interesting.

I hadn’t realized that in the pre-Luther Roman Catholic Churches, the congregation didn’t sing; the hymns were all sung for them by “professionals” – in Latin, of course.  Luther started writing hymns like “A Mighty Fortress” and taught his congregation to sing.  This started a whole new trend in popular worship, as you could imagine.

Again, the documentary is fascinating, and features music by Luther, Bach, and others performed by The Sixteen, conducted by Harry Christophers, as it traces the influence of Luther and his followers on worship music, and specifically that of Bach.

The good news is that this is available as a series of 6 HQ videos on YouTube.  Here’s the first installment:

Paul T. McCain has also blogged about this series here, where he has provided the following links to the 6 videos:

Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dAC1lLYJpg

Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7-fUPwPHaE

Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uu1rfLUTzow

Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gZKv19KEtA

Part 5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lecMZDofRw

Part 6: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wr6g9B4nCnI

Enjoy!