Alden Swan dot com

I have recently concluded that I just don’t do well in church—”church” meaning the standard, evangelical Sunday morning gathering where “worship” means singing songs and serves as a warm-up to the main act, the Sermon.

At this point in my life, I find that I go to church for 2 main reasons. One is to refocus and connect to God. The 2nd reason is social, to connect with people.  I never go to church looking forward to a 1/2 hour of overly loud rock & roll worship choruses or a 45 minute sermon. Never, unless there’s a specific guest speaker.

There are a number of reasons why I don’t do well in many contemporary churches, including that it seems they don’t really have a grasp on why it is they are meeting on Sunday mornings in the first place. It’s rare to find a church with a true sense of purpose. Often, it seems that they meet because it’s Sunday morning, and that’s when churches meet.  This kind of circular reasoning becomes quite evident after a very short time as the focus becomes just keeping the wheel turning. And, if they can’t demonstrate a clear sense of purpose for being there, what’s my purpose for being there?

Another reason why I don’t do well in some of these churches the fact that the sermon has become the focus, and pastors think they need to talk for a half hour or (usually) longer whether they have anything to say or not.  The truth is, I’ve heard many, many sermons in my lifetime, but relatively few that justified 30-45 minutes of my time. Even the best teachers/speakers can have a few stellar sermons, but I’ve never known anyone who can pull off a decent sermon every single Sunday morning.

How Sermons Became Center

A friend of mine recently directed me to a post by Robin Phillips which does a great job of summarizing the shift from the early Eucharist-based worship to a cognitive-focused approach to church. He writes,

What changed in the centuries following the reformation was more a question of what is the center of worship? If our implicit operating assumption is that we are primarily defined by what we think, then we will view church as first and foremost a vehicle for preaching the Word, for giving doctrinal instruction and for equipping the saints for another week of thinking correct thoughts. This is in contrast to a more sacramental and liturgical view of worship (and indeed, of life) which recognizes that love for Christ must be cultivated not primary through hearing correct doctrine, important as that is, but through the embodied practices of communal ritual, through material practices that educate our desires and, in so doing, shape our identity in ways that are often pre-cognitive.

Phillips points out that initially the shift to the sermon-centered service corresponded with a shift towards rationalism and a belief in the mind’s ability to know and understand truth.

When the Rationalism Fades

What I find really interesting is that within contemporary evangelicalism there is a movement away from intellectualism, which is evident in the shift from theologically-based hymns to more emotionally based worship choruses. In many churches, the worship “set” is actually geared toward turning off the mind and focusing on feelings.  So, we have a Sunday morning format which is designed to facilitate a rationalist approach to Christianity, but a Christianity which has moved away from a rationalist approach to a more emotional (“spiritual”) approach.

What we are left with is a very big, empty structure that people are trying to fill with singing and talking, often with a lack of clear focus and purpose. This would probably explain why many (probably most) contemporary sermons fall into the categories of self-help, exhortation (scolding), practical application (more things to do), and the pastor’s perspective on life.

Which all helps explain one reason why I don’t do well in those churches.

To finish off my critique of the “5 Trends to Watch for This Year” article, here’s the final section.  If you haven’t already, read parts 1 and 2.

5 Trends to Watch for This Year

Now, let’s take a quick look at the 5 named trends.

1. Lack of Organizational Trust.

To this, I reply, “Well, duh…”  I not only agree that this is a trend, I will admit to being a card-carrying member. But, I find that my lack of trust does not apply to all organizations, or even to some I happen to have major disagreements with.  Rather, I tend to distrust organizations which have a very shaky foundation, not being firmly rooted in the past. And, I find that much of the current evangelical church lacks firm historical and theological foundations.

To paint a mental picture, without any ties to history, these groups have no set trajectory. They are points floating in space, blown to and fro by every cultural breeze. So, yes, I distrust them, because they’ve given me no reason to trust them. Rainer is totally right here, in that churches must work to build specific trustworthy reputations, and that takes time.  If they aren’t rooted in or knowledgeable of the past, they have not earned trust. Watch them until they’ve established a trajectory, then compare that to the overall trajectory of the church.

2. Desire for accountability in leadership

Essentially, this is the same issue as #1.  I agree that leadership is an issue; however, the desire for accountability in the church is a by-product of the trend of contemporary churches trying to establish new trajectories.  The problem is not so much individuals, but with the organization. “Accountability” is a big word that no one understands. Accountable for what?  To whom?  On what basis?  Again, if an organization is not firmly grounded in the past, with no established trajectory, the leadership typically has a greater ability to go off course.

3. Fickle Commitment

Here, Rainer ties the fact that people change jobs more often now to them moving from church to church. I’m not sure this is the proper cause-effect analysis.  Rather, I think the lack of commitment to a specific church may relate to the first 2 trends.

4. Intimacy with the crowd

Here, I agree with his point, but don’t think this is so much a trend, although it’s perhaps tied to the development of cities, a pattern which has been repeated since people began creating cities. People simply connect to smaller groups easier than larger groups.  And yes, your mega-church is too big.

5. Weariness with overwhelming amounts of information

Now this may be the only real trend that I agree is a social trend that impacts the church, but only because of another church trend, and that is the trend of pastors believing they need to shove information down our throats every chance they get. As I mentioned in a recent post, I’m “fed up” with the assumption that I need to be “fed,” and assume most of you are as well.

At some point in the last couple of centuries among non-liturgical churches, the trend has been for the sermon to become the central point of the church service, with the sermon growing to between 45 minutes and an hour. This is not the case in liturgical churches, so this trend doesn’t apply to the church universally. I assume one reason may be simply to fill the void created when liturgy and scripture reading is removed. Another reason for sermon-glut is that it has also been the major marketing focus of the church, so the pressure is on the pastor to provide more and more compelling and enticing sermons so people will return, and maybe even come for midweek classes. Another related trend is that in more contemporary churches, the focus seems to be more and more on the pastor as an individual rather than on an individual who steps into an established role, who could easily be replaced. Think of a stand-up comedian vs. a Shakespearean actor.

The 45-minute sermon is unnecessary. It’s one thing to instruct new believers, but another for folks who have been Christians longer than the pastor. I mean, what more can you say?  Let’s be honest, I’ve never known any pastor (and I’ve known some great preachers and teachers) who could fill up 45-60 minutes week after week with great material. Once in a while, sure. But let’s face it, most sermons could easily be edited down to 10 or 15 minutes and be more powerful, especially if they’d put Scripture back as the proper focus.

 Conclusion

Like I said at the outset, this article really got me thinking, about the rather transient and vulnerable state of the contemporary evangelical church. The “recent trend” is that these churches seem to be growing, although that is not true for many of the individual churches who are withering on the vine. It remains to be seen what this segment of the church looks like in the coming decades, and only then will we know if what we are seeing was truly a trend.  Meanwhile, the gospel remains unchanged, and the trend is that it will be there waiting for us.

Continued from here.

The article – Intro

Reading the introductory section to the article’s discussion of the 5 trends, it seems that the author has a somewhat myopic view of the church, as I had already expected, and begins with some other questionable presumptions, including his opening statement, “If you do not make assumptions about the future, then you are not leading.” First, everyone has assumptions about the future. The key is basing your presumptions on something solid. Making presumptions based on an analysis of the past year or two may be fine for some things, but questionable when you’ve got two thousand years of church history to draw from. Again, look at trajectory. If you’re only concerned with the next 2 or 5 years, then a short-term analysis is fine. Even then, you’re like the kid hearing Clint Eastwood ask, “Do ya feel lucky, punk? Well, do ya?” At what point do you start trusting trends over an historical-analytical approach?  How lucky do you feel?

Rainer also states that “Good leaders are also willing to change their assumptions,” and compares still having Y2K-era thinking (Seriously, 2000 is old school?  It’s not like we’re still wearing Flock of Seagulls hairdos!) to giving your kids Pokemon cards for Christmas. (It should be noted that in certain pockets, Pokemon is still quite popular.) Of course, to a twenty-something, 13 years is half a lifetime. Again, the issue is scope and perspective.

One of my critiques of the contemporary American evangelical church is not that they don’t have assumptions about the future, but rather, that they lack knowledge and appreciation of the past. Again, you can’t address true trends without understanding past trends. And if a contemporary church is not firmly attached to its historical and theological roots, than a hiccup could indeed be a death rattle.

The next problem presumption was in Rainer’s comparison of leading a church to Ford’s assessment of consumer demand and expectations. His point is that in assessing future consumer demand, they have assessed current global trends.  Now I am not saying that there is no value in knowing what’s going on in the world; however, the danger is in applying a marketing approach to church. Looking at historical examples, we can see that following cultural trends has not been that successful; in fact, often quite the opposite.  In fact, we don’t have to look back more than a few years to see numerous failures resulting from trying to be “relevant.” Five years ago the “emerging” church thought they were on the cutting edge of the church; but where are they now? Turns out “emerging” was not a trend, but merely a passing fad.

Next, a look at the 5 Trends discussed in the article.