Reform worship.

Catalyst One Day: One Man's Observation

2008-11-21T22:17:00.007-06:00

Catalyst One Day was an eight hour gathering of a few thousand pastors and church leaders (and maybe some secular business people) put on by the fellas from North Point Ministries in Atlanta, GA. This particular event was held a couple days ago at Granger Community Church in Granger, IN, the town in which I live. Andy Stanley and Craig Groeschel were the speakers and Steve Fee led a few songs. The purpose of the gathering was...well, I'm not exactly sure. I can't find a stated objective anywhere in the materials they gave us. I think it was a leadership conference, you know, like a John Maxwell thing. But at the end of the day, based on what I experienced, I would say that the purpose of Catalyst One Day was to give everyone present a bunch of pragmatic principles to grow the size of your organization.

What I found most irritating was the lack of biblical support for anything and everything they asserted "works" and is "effective" and produces "results." Additionally, the goal of all of these methods and pragmatism was never stated. Now let me give reason for my aforementioned criticisms.

Andy Stanley's first talk was called "Gaining and Sustaining Momentum." The thrust of his speech was that if you want to successfully create and keep momentum, which he defines as "forward motion fueled by a series of wins," then everything you do must be "new, improved, and improving." Now, let me just say that I went into this conference very objectively. In fact, I was really looking forward to hearing Stanley. This was my first time ever hearing anything from him (I've never read his books or listened to any sermons by him or anything). I have heard of so much good that has come out of North Point over the years and have sort of celebratized Stanley in my mind. So when I heard him say, with no biblical support and no stated goal, that everything you decide to do as church leaders must be "new, noticeably improved and continuously improving," you can imagine where my heart went, which longs for the incorporation of ancient practices and historically informed worship, not primarily because that's what I found "works," but because that is what I have found best facilitates proclaiming the Gospel, combating the culture of self-seeking entertainment, developing and qualitatively growing biblical community, and the list goes on.

But no, during and after Stanley's talk, in addition to wondering why He gave no biblical support, I was left with the following questions: If we must continuously come up with new and innovative methods, doesn't that cause the demand on us to continually increase to outdo our last program, project, or product? When does it end? Isn't God eternally unchanging and not "continuously improving"? To what end do we "improve": Growing in number by attracting lots of people? Shouldn't the source and standard of our "improvement" be Christ and His righteousness? Shouldn't the goal be reaching as many people as possible with the Gospel and seeing lives transformed by the power of the Gospel? What is the product; the most attractional, cutting-edge technology itself? Shouldn't that just be a medium to proclaiming the Gospel?

None of these questions were addressed (and he can't justify not addressing these questions by having a short "Q & A" time after his talk; one of the first rules of argument is to defend your assertions by answering anticipated objections before they are stated). Now, I know what Stanley's response would be, as well as most of yours, "In a conference filled with a bunch of pastors and church leaders, it is assumed that the goal of all of this innovation and continual improvement is to more effectively and relevantly minister to people. I would argue, however, that without someone like Stanley clearly stating that goal, and not only stating it but spending adequate time showing us what that looks like, most of the people present (represented mainly by church leaders of smaller, struggling churches who look up to the mega-successful ones like Stanley and other celebrities) will perceive the unstated goal as growing the size of your church. And that is what they'll strive for.

Think about it, let me quote a couple excerpts from the bios of these guys printed in the conference packet: "North Point Ministries is now one of the fastest growing and most influential Christian organizations in America. Each Sunday, more than 20,000 adults attend services at one of NPM's three campuses in the Atlanta area." "Steve Fee...[has] been featured at Passion and Catalyst conferences, and also as worship leader at North Point Community Church in Atlanta, one of the nation's fastest growing churches." "Craig [Groeschel's] creative leadership skills are changing the way church is done worldwide. Under his leadership, LifeChurch.tv has become one of the country's first multi-campus churches, with over 50 weekend worship experiences at 13 locations throughout the United States."

Tell me, what are we "less successful" pastors going to think after reading this and then listening to these "gods" give unsupported pragmatic principles with no stated goal? I'll tell you what we will think: We will think that success is measured by the number of people we attract and continue appealing to. This is typical Contemporary mega-church methodology, and it is initiated by their inability to measure the true spiritual growth of their customers. Okay, I'll tone it down.

Biblical "continuous improvement" is conforming to Christ's righteousness. The challenge for church leaders should be ensuring that their people are improving in this way. Read my post on "Measuring Qualitative Growth." There you will find (attempted) biblical exposition of what true Church growth should look like.

Let me say something nice. I enjoyed Craig Groeschel's simplicity and candor. Despite the fact that he only used two Bible verses (questionably in context), one to begin each of his talks, I could sense that much of what he had to say was biblical in principle. There was a short moment where Groeschel said (as an aside), "We're doing everything we can do, short of sin, to connect people to Christ." That was the closest anyone came to stating the goal of doing church ministry. Unfortunately it only lasted a few seconds.

I will also say that I appreciated what Andy Stanley said in his second talk, "Don't Be That Couch," in which he stated that we all have ugly, old couches in our houses (old, ineffective programs in our churches) that carry with them sentimental value due to years of emotional attachement. But the truth is, as attractive and effective as that old couch was at one time, in reality it is now an ugly, useless piece of junk. We need to identify those things in our churches, reveal to everyone who is attached to them the reality of their ineffectiveness, and get rid of them. So many churches nowadays, especially old and dying churches, are old and dying because they refuse to get rid of their old couches.

So if you have interpreted in what I have been writing thus far that I don't like cultural relevance through innovative technology and media, that is untrue. I think we should engage the culture in ways that meet people where they're at. But I also think the Gospel is such a radically different story than anything of this world, that it will be offensive and won't make sense to worldly people, i.e., until the Spirit circumcises their hearts. Where I think the Contemporary Church has compromised the Gospel is by accommodating to the stylistic preferences of the culture for the sake of entertaining them, giving them what they want, and thus growing off the charts in numbers. The new thing, in fact, since the mega-church is so huge now that they can't even facilitate their numbers in one location, is to notch their belts with the number of off-site, satellite campuses they can accrue. They don't raise up new Gospel proclaimers and plant churches. No, in order for a mega-church's numbers to become increasingly impressive, it launches multiple venues of the same church, broadcasting their celebrity preacher to each of them, and eventually gaining so much notoriety that their preacher is invited to speak at a conference.

One more thing, the only time the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the sacrificial atoning work he accomplished at the cross, was mentioned at the Catalyst conference was in a song that Steve Fee sang, "All Because of Jesus" written by Steve Fee.

I have so much more to say about this, but I'm sick of writing about it. I'd love to discuss this controversial matter. Feel free to totally disagree with me and comment. Call me an overly analytical pot stirrer with no love in my heart if you will. We're all beggers.

Vintage Worship: Harlots, Thieves, and Murderers

2008-11-20T05:00:00.014-06:00

In recent months I have been incorporating into our worship services moments that I call “Vintage Worship.” In a culture that seems to cycle through the decades bringing back the vintage in clothing, pop music, and even carpet (shag is back, you know), I decided to do the same with worship songs. Now, I realize this is nothing new, but I thought that putting up a special slide and really making this an intentional time of reflection in worship would create effective moments for our congregation.

The idea is to bring back an old hymn after researching it and doing my best to find out who wrote it, what was going on in their lives, what inspired them, etc. Just about every time I prepare for a Vintage Worship moment, I am astonished by what my research reveals. And then I share my findings with the church during our Sunday services.

One such hymn was recently revived by David Crowder on this album. Charles Wesley wrote "O for a Thousand Tongues to Sing" in 1739 to commemorate the one year anniversary of his conversion. It was such a big deal to him that he wrote nineteen verses! Obviously, it is impractical to sing all nineteen verses in congregational worship today, but two of the verses really stand out to me as powerful and worthy of sharing.

(verse 17)
Harlots and publicans and thieves
In holy triumph join!
Saved is the sinner that believes
From crimes as great as mine.

(verse 18)
Murderers and all ye hellish crew
In holy triumph join!
Believe the Savior died for you
For me the Savior died.

This type of language (harlots, thieves, murderers) is rarely heard in churches today, especially in songs. We have no problem (at least some of us) talking about sin and forgiveness, but we like to keep things “G” rated. I wonder if when Wesley talks about “crimes as great as mine” he was thinking of the passage in Matthew 5 where Jesus says,

You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, "Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment." But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment.
You have heard that it was said, "Do not commit adultery." But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Jesus' language is at least "PG-13," and the His Gospel message is definitely more offensive than anything "R" rated. It was probably closer to "X" rated in the ears and eyes of law-abiding Jews. Jesus raises the bar for the self-righteous, making it even more impossible for them to obey. And He rejects those who "have it all together" in the very act of accepting into His arms the naked and blood-stained. I am reminded in Jesus' and Wesley's words that I am in fact a murderer, thief, adulterer, and the list goes on.

I wonder how much of an impact this "X-plicit" Message would have on a genuine seeker or skeptic if instead of shying away from it, we honestly and openly proclaimed it in our churches. Would it more accurately portray the depth of sin and even greater forgiveness that is found only in Christ? Lyrics like this scream out, "It doesn’t matter who you are, what you've done, where you come from; you can be forgiven." Perhaps in addition to the filthy unregenerates Wesley is trying to evangelize in these words, "religious" church-goers could also use a good dose of his language in order to shake them out of their hypocritical, judgmental, holier-than-thou attitudes that many outsiders see in them. It seems to me it would be a good thing all around.

Harold Best on Worship Theolatry

2008-11-18T05:00:00.003-06:00

Harold Best, Dean of the Wheaton College Conservatory of Music, recently spoke at the Institute for Christian Worship (Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) on the subject of "The Glory of God in Contemporary Worship: A Shared Burden." In it you will hear an aging, passionate man stumble and fumble over his words trying to convey a message that even he says is impossible to tell. By the end of it you just want to cry. It's not that he is ill-prepared or under qualified to teach on the subject of worship (humanly, he is one of the most qualified), but rather it's as if in his closeness to the glory in the face of Christ, he is speechless or child-like. He began the lesson portion of his talk (about half-way through the audio file) with the following excerpt, which I definitely find worthy of posting if for no other reason than I wish we all, including myself, would stop making worship an idol.

________________________________

Who is God? What is He doing? What is central to what He does?

These three questions are infinitely important, and I mention them only to say this: These questions take precedence over what we call worship, or the question we ask, “What is worship?”, because as we know it, the evangelical church is riddled with the word “worship.” It seems to be the only subject there is: “What’s your worship style? How do you worship? What are your worship songs?” Worship, worship, worship, worship, almost to the point where it’s become a cuss word, i.e., it’s vainly repeated. And we, thereby, in talking about worship all the time, or a good part of the time, fail to ask the questions, “Who is God? What is central to what He does?”, because I think, I know I’ve been guilty of this, we tend to craft our definitions of God on our concept of worship. That is to say, our theology of worship becomes so central to what we have come to call worship, that then our theology, i.e., the study of God, becomes framed by the word “worship” and our worship practices.

There is an astonishing potential among us for whittling God down to the size and shape of our worship theology. When we do that we are committing what can only be called theolatry, i.e., we’ve made a god out of God that is less than He is, because it’s been crafted according to the parameters of something else, even though the parameters of that something else seem to have theological merit, namely a theology of worship. But if our theology of worship has been crafted without thought to who God is, what He does, and what’s central to what He does, then we’ve crafted a theology of worship which then frames God within that theology rather than our framing a theology of worship within the larger, mysterious question of, “Who is God? What does He do? What is He like? How then should we worship once we have uncovered and continue to uncover the counsel of God?”

I would argue that if we had more thought to theology and would understand the theolatry that our limited theologies of worship cause us to commit, we might not talk about worship at all. In fact, I for one would like to see the word disappear for a good decade, so that we would swear ourselves to a code, to an oath, almost, of silence about the word because it has come to master us. And as I have said in Unceasing Worship, we tend to worship about worship, or even tend to worship worship, because we are being shaped by something we’ve crafted that is less than the God Who we hope is overseeing our worship, but Who in the meantime might have been whittled down to fit inside the parameters of what we call worship.

And I say this without pointing a finger at anybody, but I get around enough to know, and I’ve heard enough dissatisfaction among young people (this is why young people are so important to me) about the strictured life of the body of Christ, of the assembly of believers. In some very loyal way, i.e., loyal to God through Jesus Christ, in some passionate way in love with the Lord and in love with, being with, each other, many of them are saying, “Something isn’t right yet. Something hasn’t been put together quite right yet. What is that?” And I hear that in any number of ways.

And when you think of it, I talk about whittling God down to the size of our concept of worship, where we find God within our worship, rather than finding out how to worship within the counsel of God, that our whittling goes even further,…where we define worship as a module on a given Sunday morning: “First we’ll worship and then we’ll…(so on and so forth).” I still hear that. Worship is that “front time” followed by whatever follows.

And then, amazingly enough, this sacramentalizing of music happens to the extent to which for many people (I’m not saying necessarily the leadership; it’s the impression the leaders give, not what they believe) music is worship. It is the worship. And I know from talking to many, many worship leaders that they don’t believe that: “Of course music isn’t the worship. We’re worshiping God.” But I’m talking about perceptions rather than orthodoxies. The perception that many worship teams, for want of the better word, give is not necessarily what they truly believe, but because of the power of music in there hands, and because of the power that music has in a pagan culture, where music is a more causal event than it should be, the impression is given that the music is the worship.

So we have this tripartite whittling: We whittle God down to the size of worship, we whittle worship down to a module, and then we whittle the module down to music being the worship. So we have God whittled, then the module, and then music as the real worship.

So the question is: “What overwhelms our worship? Is it God or artifact? What drives our theology? Is it a truncated theology of worship that somehow ends up defining God, or is it a full-blown theology of God Himself that defines our theology of worship? And then, is it our theology of worship that puts music in its place?

Screwtape the Play

2008-11-15T10:00:00.008-06:00

Last night my brother Matt and I saw The Screwtape Letters the play. This theatrical rendition of C.S. Lewis' book captures something that nothing written and just read could ever quite deliver. It was probably the communal element of being in the actual presence of the (two) actors, with all of my senses at work, that brought to new life Lewis' relevant truths with a few cultural updates.

In one word this play was convicting. I was convicted reading Max McLean's interview with World Magazine before I bought tickets. [For whatever reason the above link isn't working. Google "Screwtape World Magazine" to read the whole interview.] I was even more convicted actually watching Him act out his desire to create culture. And I was most convicted by the content of the play, particularly my own issues of pride that suddenly shone bright as noon last night.

Screwtape was one of the most creative displays of Christian worship evangelism I have ever taken in. Yes, God can be and is worshiped in secular theater. In fact, where is there a greater need for the light of Christ to shine than in this dark, public arena? (Wait! If your answer is the church, don't answer.) Screwtape was so good, so creative, that even the most anti-spiritual, secularist media were impressed. The Washington Post said that "audience members interested in spiritual reflection will certainly find food for thought—and mortification—in this dramatization. But the fiendish reality the production conjures is colorful enough to appeal to theatergoers of any, or no, religious persuasion." And I would take it one step further and say that the power of the Holy Spirit is present in this production to convict hearts hardened by both religiosity and anti-religious sentiments, including mine.

Go see this play if you can. It will be in Chicago until Jan. 4, and I'm sure it will be around elsewhere after that. I leave you with two quotes.

1. Max McLean in an interview with World Magazine:

There's a message in theater today: "There is no God, get over it." The worldview in secular theater is pretty dark. We do need people to produce [good] plays, to put the money behind it, to write those plays, to direct those plays because that's when the culture making happens. I would like to see more people thinking about "How do I create culture?"

2. C.S. Lewis in Screwtape's second letter to his nephew Wormword, his apprentice demon tempter:

My dear Wormwood, I note with grave displeasure that your patient has become a Christian...There is no need to despair; hundreds of these adult converts have been reclaimed after a brief sojourn in the Enemy's camp and are now with us...One of our great allies at present is the Church itself. Do not misunderstand me. I do not mean the Church as we see her spread out through all time and space and rooted in eternity, terrible as an army with banners. That, I confess, is a spectacle which makes our boldest tempters uneasy. But fortunately it is quite invisible to these humans. All your patient sees is the half-finished, sham Gothic erection on the new building estate...When he gets to his pew and looks round him he sees just that selection of his neighbours whom he has hitherto avoided. You want to lean pretty heavily on those neighbours...Provided that any of those neighbours sing out of tune, or have boots that squeak, or double chins, or odd clothes, the patient will quite easily believe that their religion must therfore be somehow ridiculous. At his present stage, you see, he has an idea of 'Christians' in his mind which he supposes to be spiritual but which, in fact, is largely pictorial.

An Ancient Hallelujah

2008-11-14T05:00:00.002-06:00

Michael W. Smith has a new hit song called "A New Hallelujah." I'm trying not to be too analytical about this, but if you're a musician/songwriter I'm sure you can relate to my natural bent toward critiquing new popular music. I really do give Smitty the benefit of the doubt, because his songs have greatly ministered to me and the church for years. Not to mention, respected songwriter Paul Baloche co-wrote the song with "W" and his wife. This song will most assuredly be a huge hit (the melody and music are excellent). I just have a few observations/questions about it. Maybe you can help me. Here is the video of "Mr. CCM" performing the song in Houston (lyrics below):

(verse 1)
Can you hear there's a new song
Breaking out from the children of freedom
Every race and every nation
Sing it out sing a new hallelujah

(verse 2)
Let us sing love to the nations
Bringing hope of the grace that has freed us
Make it known and make Him famous
Sing it out sing a new hallelujah

(chorus)
Arise let the church arise
Let love reach to the other side
Alive come alive
Let the song arise

(verse 3)
Africa sings a new song
Reaching out with a new hallelujah
Every son and every daughter
Everyone sing a new hallelujah

1. Notice there is no mention of God by name (other than the "-jah" part of "hallelujah" which means "God"). There is a pronoun "Him" in the second verse that refers to God, which follows the line about His "grace that has freed us." Really, the only problem I see in this is that it makes the song potentially religion-interchangeable. It worries me to see a "worship" song that people will certainly sing in Christian "worship" services all over the world, but which doesn't assertively and exclusively identify Jesus Christ, the true and living God, as the One to Whom we are raising a new song. I could definitely see Oprah endorsing a song like this, and I tend to steer clear of praise and worship songs that Oprah wouldn't have a problem endorsing.

2. Question: What does the second line of the chorus mean: "Let love reach to the other side"? I asked my wife, and her immediate response was, "the other side of the world." I hadn't thought of that. My first thought was that "the other side" refers to the spiritual realm, or the non-physical. You know, like when you die you go to the "other side," or like where the angels and demons battle. My wife is probably right, but even if it does mean "reach to the other side" of the world, why is that a "new song"? Hasn't it always been the call of the church to love people both near and far? Which brings me to number three.

3. A "New" Hallelujah? New? I'm fine with this if by "new hallelujah" the songwriters mean "new song." I'm a bit leery, however, with the modern church's fascination and need for the "new" and "fresh" and "cutting edge" material, etc. Why is it a "new" hallelujah? Isn't "hallelujah" the same as it has always been. Indeed the Persons of the Godhead have been hallelujah-ing each other from before the foundations of the world. "Hallelujah" is like "holy, holy, holy." Surely we write all kinds of new holy, holy, holy songs, as well as hallelujah songs, but the meanings of "holy" and "hallelujah" never change. I am convinced that it would serve the church even greater to get in touch with the ancient ways, get back on the ancient paths, "where the good way is" (Jer. 6:16), to join the world-wide Church in an ancient hallelujah.

4. Final observation: Man, he is one good looking dude.

That's all. Again, I mean no disrespect to the songwriters. I'm just being my usual self for better or worse. Thoughts? Peace and love.

How to Get Maximum Fulfillment out of Christmas

2008-11-12T05:00:00.003-06:00

I went to my favorite place in the world the other day, the mall (read sarcasm). Christmas decorations already up not only in the mall, but on the way to the mall on the street lamps, side walks, and everywhere else the eye wanders while driving. Christmas music playing in every retail store. "Jingle Bell Rock" is already stuck in my head. And it's the beginning of November!

So I got to thinking, it's no wonder by the time December 25th actually rolls around, we're entirely sick of the Holidays. You can't take your tree and decorations down quick enough after Christmas Day. It's as if the joy ended long before the actual day of celebration. And why shouldn't it? Why should we expect an event to hold our attention for two whole months in our culture of instantaneous gratification, where nothing captivates our minds for more than a moment?

Do you want to enjoy Christmas to its fullest? Here's what to do and what not to do:

1. Honor the Church Year. Hold off even thinking about Christmas until Advent, which begins November 30th. And when Advent rolls around, dive into it with your whole heart. Experience the emotions of anticipation, expectation, penitence, and hope as you wait anxiously for the coming Christ. I assure you, when Christmas Day arrives you won't want it to end. Heck, you'll probably want it to last at least Twelve Days. Isn't that an innovative thought, celebrating Christmas for twelve days. And when the twelve days of Christmas are over, swim in the vastness and the climax of the Advent/Christmas season, Epiphany, which is Christ's manifestation to the world, beginning January 6th. (We have a P.S. night planned to kick off Epiphany.)

2. Do not listen to Christmas music until Advent. And when November 30th comes, meditate on the greatest Advent hymn of all times (in my humble opinion), "O Come O Come Emmanuel," all eight verses. Go through the O Antiphons beginning December 17th as a family or home group and participate in this Advent season like never before (you can actually go through the prayers and readings straight off of Wikipedia, link above). Listen to Andrew Peterson's Behold the Lamb of God, the best Advent/Christmas album ever composed (fact, not an opinion). When Christmas day is here, scream "Joy to the world, the Lord is come!" Bask in the wonder of His incarnation all Twelve Days. Keep your lights and ornaments on the tree, which means you probably don't want to set up your real tree until at least the second week of Advent if you want it to last. We just ordered these really cool Twelve Days of Christmas ornaments. Teach your kids the real meaning of the Twelve Days (after learning it yourself, of course). And on January 6th, sing "We Three Kings" at it's proper time.

3. Do not fall prey to the ploys of consumer retailers, who play their Christmas music and decorate all Christmasy this early in order to manipulate your feelings into buying all kinds of stuff that most assuredly will not fulfill the life of the recipient. Give out of a generous heart. Give creatively, not obligatorily. Don't ask what someone wants for Christmas. If you don't know them well enough to know what they want, you shouldn't be getting them anything anyway (Ooo, ponder that). If you absolutely have to give a gift to someone and you absolutely don't know what they want, give them a Starbucks gift card or money with love. Generosity is the key, especially in its truest form, birthed out of the same kind of pure generosity with which the Father sent His Son to save the world. Let's face it, most of us have way more than we need, let alone want. How about serving those in need this holiday season. I'm not sure (Wikipedia didn't pull through for me), but I think Old St. Nick was known for giving to the poor. He would drop coins (money) in shoes left outside of doors. I doubt the recipients expected anything, but I'm sure they enjoyed eating their daily bread a bit more easily the next day.

I assure you, if you follow these three steps, Christmas will take on a much deeper meaning than ever before. And believe me, you will not want the celebration of Christ's birth to end the day after Christmas. His incarnation will become more joy-filled and real to you than ever.

A Peculiar People: Quote 2

2008-11-10T05:00:00.001-06:00

In Rodney Clapp's book, A Peculiar People: The Church as Culture in a Post-Christian Society, Chapter 7, "The Church as Parade: The Politics of Liturgy," begins with a rather shocking distinction between liturgy and orgy. He states that the early church could have referred to their worship gatherings as orgies had they intended for them to be privatistic and non-communal. "The Greek word that more narrowly designated religious experiences - in the modern sense of private and focused on the nonphysical - was orgia." That was not, however, how the early church worshiped. They referred to their worship as liturgy precisely because worship was to them a communal mission, they were a "people" (laos) at "work" (ergon). Clapp then reiterates, "Far from being a retreat from the real world, worship enables Christians to see what the real world is and equips them to live in it." And then he states his desire "that the worship of the church [today] leave off being orgies and return to being liturgies" (114-15). Modern history, however, has not made it easy for the Western mind to break out of the orgy (private and secluded) mentality. Here's the quote:

________________________________

What we need to appreciate is that liturgy before the printing press was quite vigorously a communal and social affair. It was a corporate enactment and celebration of God's presence. Augustine writes that people talked excitedly during his sermons. John Chrysostom mentions that his auditors cheered or wept, pounding their breasts. Other early church writers tell of gatherings that got rowdy when a presbyter or deacon omitted a portion of the rite. In other words, people participated. And they did not imagine their liturgy confined to a "sanctuary," segregated from the surrounding public. Early Christians met liturgically in tenements, forums, shrines and cemeteries. Worship could raucously spill out of a cathedral into the streets of cities and suburbs.

As Aidan Kavanagh remarks, in this setting worship was theology - it was the eminent form of "knowing God." Primary theology was done not in the scholar's study but in the liturgy, the work of the people. Primary theology was not reflection about God but an encounter and engagement with God. Theology in such a setting was plebeian in that it was done by the common people and not by academic elites. It was communitarian in that it was done corporately rather than in the solitude of the study. And it was quotidian or everyday in that it was done regularly, in a daily, weekly and yearly round of public liturgical practice.

Orthodoxy in the older and original Christian sense was "correct praise" or "right worship." The early church's stress was on faith "not so much as an intellectual assent to doctrinal propositions, but as a way of living in the graced commonality of an actual assembly at worship before the living God."

All this decisively changed with the advent of the printing press. Formerly God's Word had been fundamentally experienced in the corporate act of worship. But as books and Bibles became abundant and widely available, even the illiterate could see God's words tightly regimented and contained on the printed page. Eventually God's Word was too easily understood not as a presence especially (though not at all solely) encountered in liturgy but as something set down in horizontal lines that could be isolated and studied by the solitary individual.

Soon church architecture yields places of worship arranged like a page of a book, the people situated in rows of pews aligned like so many typeset sentences. Soon those who attend the liturgy are invited not into a dance in which all participants have necessary steps, but into a performance by a single person who expounds the printed text. The atmosphere of liturgy is no longer that of a bustling, rowdy activity where much is happening; it is now a classroom in which the pastor/instructor must be granted exclusive attention. The focus shifts from what people do together to what happens "inside" each individual. It shifts away from God's Word as a holy event to God's Word as a holy text. As Kavanagh observes, "The truth lies now exclusively in the text; no longer on the walls, or in the windows, or in the liturgical activity of those who occupy the churches." Corporate worship recedes, is no longer seen as foundational and fundamental. Now Christians can imagine their private, individual acts of worship - devotions or quiet times or daily offices - as foundational and fundamental.

Liturgy, in short, has been depoliticized. In a rush to individualism and privatism, we have gotten things backwards. Important as our individual devotions surely are, it is not they that are constitutive of the church. It is the church's actual gathering or assembly. There, in the ekklesia, we do the liturgy. The ekklesia is the body gathered to attend to its common identity and welfare or - as we can just as well say - to its political affairs. The liturgy is the work of the people that makes us a people. We are constituted, granted identity and unity, by gathering around the Lord's Table to enact the Word, by hearing and responding to the Word in Scripture.

(pp. 119-21)

A Peculiar People: Quote 1

2008-11-06T05:00:00.002-06:00

I have been reading Rodney Clapp's A Peculiar People: The Church as Culture in a Post-Christian Society. The second half of this book largely pertains to worship and liturgy, and there are at least two large sections worth quoting, maybe more, so this will be a series of at least two posts, maybe more. Clapp is a fellow former student of Bob Webber, which is obvious in his writing. Perhaps that is why so much of this book resonates with me. Or perhaps it's becuase what he is saying is true. At least I think it is. I'll leave it for you to decide.

To set up this first quote, in Chapter 6, "The Church as Worshiping Community: Welcome to the (Real) World," Clapp begins by connecting culture with worship. "A culture," as he has argued, "is a way of life. It forms and shapes a people into a distinctive community....So it is not just an etymological accident that the root of the word culture is cultus, or worship" (94). He then summarizes the first half of this book, that from the time of Constantine through the Modern era, peaking in the Industrial Revolution, Christians have largely privatized their faith and worship. "What Christians did on Sunday was removed from what they did on Monday through Saturday. Worship was an opportunity to escape politics, business and conflict. Far from being a time of intense engagement with the world, it was moved to a 'sanctuary'" (95). Worship had become an escape from "real life," rather than being the real world itself. Clapp's hope is for the Church in these postmodern or post-Constantinian times to revert back to being the vibrant, missional community, the only "true way of life," that it was before Constantine and the last 1600 years of individualism. The problem is "the world prefers illusion to the truth" (98), which launches us into the following quote:

________________________________

The church is in fact surrounded, pressured from all sides to give up its faithful practices and renounce its confession. I think of the film Serpico, in which New York City policeman Frank Serpico refuses to go on the take. But so many other cops accept bribes, and resent Serpico's refusal, that he is the one made to "feel like a criminal." At one point, when he is on the verge of giving up, his girlfriend tells him the fable of a people who drank from a poisoned well and went crazy. Only the king did not drink from the well. He alone was sane. But now the crazed populace scorns their king's difference and declares him the insane one. Overcome, the king one night drinks from the polluted well, and the next day his subjects are delighted to find him as "sane" as they are.

Like that king, Christians have a source of water other than the world's poisoned well. So it is against great odds and severe resistance that we are called to a holy madness. As Robert Inchausti observes, "To be insane is to reject the given universals, and in so far as those categories are the accepted intellectual currency of the age that produced Auschwitz, holy madness is the only true sanity." And as I have insisted, the preeminent place and time for Christians to cultivate holy madness is worship. Craig Dykstra helpfully notes,

In worship, we see and sense who it is we are to be and how it is we are to move in order to become. Worship is an enactment of the core dynamics of the Christian life. This is why worship is its central and focusing activity. It is paradigmatic for all the rest of the Christian life....To grow morally means, for Christians, to have one's whole life increasingly be conformed to the pattern of worship. To grow morally means to turn one's life into worship.

Hearing the story of God preached, through the exercise of praise, Christians learn and rehearse what it means to be Christians. Liturgy is the primary responsibility of the church because without worship there can be no people capable of seeing and witnessing to the God of Israel. Just as capitalistic Americans could never become such exquisite consumers apart from the rites of advertising and credit cards, so Christians can never achieve the skills and vision necessary to be the church without attention to baptism and Eucharist.

After Constantinianism, beyond modernism, it is crucial that the church refuse the marginalization and privatization of its worship. Liturgy is not an escape from the real world. Rather, it is constitutive of the church or, as Aidan Kavanagh wonderfully expresses it, "the Gospel of Jesus Christ become a People."

(pp. 98-99)

This Is Our God: An Objective Review of Hillsong's Album

2008-11-04T05:00:00.002-06:00

Since composing my previous post about Mike Guglielmucci and his song "Healer" I have gone back and listened to This Is Our King a couple more times. I realized that before I had even purchased it, and during my first ten listens or so, I approached the album with a critical bias, namely because of my former interpretations of Hillsong albums as shallow in lyric and strong in melody. I have perhaps unfairly cast my negative outlook of Brian Houston's quasi-prosperity teaching and the commercial identity of his church upon the musical worship and songs that have come out of Hillsong.

In all fairness, my two recent listens, which I did as objectively as possible, revealed something that causes me to look upon it with much greater generosity. In my last post I said,

"Healer" is, in my opinion, by far the best song on the album. (Most of the others are not congregationally friendly, and/or are somewhat shallow, including one that is borderline unbiblical, but we won't get into that.)

In truth, many of the songs are congregationally friendly, and many of them are filled with powerfully true words and excellent melodies, the same strong combination that has marked Hillsong from the beginning. "Healer" is an excellent song, but "Stronger" is just as strong because of its cross-centered lyrics, its congregational ease, and its unique hymn-like melody. The title track "This Is our God" is a gorgeous song professing God as the sovereign Rescuer of the world, at Whose feet we will fall and worship. Another fine song is "Desert Song" about praising God in every season and sung by two of the most beautiful female voices I have heard in a long time, Brooke Fraser and Jill McCloghry. (You might remember the name Brooke Fraser from my post on her awesome album Albertine.) Back to this album, the upbeat songs are in typical Hillsong United flavor: hooky, punk-inspired melodies with youthy words. Nothing unbiblical, but not necessarily my cup of tea. (Admittedly, clappable songs are not easy to write, and United is doing a fine job.)

Now, concerning the one song that is borderline unbiblical, it's time to "get into that." The song is "You'll Come" by Brooke Fraser. It begins, "I have decided, I have resolved to wait upon You, Lord." It continues in the hope that God will come, and then the chorus:

You'll come
Let Your glory fall as You respond to us
Spirit rain
Flood into our thirsty hearts again
You'll come
You'll come

I say this is "borderline" unbiblical because it is not entirely wrong. Yes, in addition to God always being present with us, He meets us in a special way when we decide to come to Him in worship, invoking His Spirit. It is good to sing "Come, Lord Jesus, come; Holy Spirit, come." Jesus says, "If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!" (Luke 11:13). It is biblical for us to ask God to come to us again and again in worship. On the other hand, the lyric of this song could potentially be misleading and lead people into a false understanding of worship. What this song conveys to me is that we resolve in our own hearts, tap into the well of goodness within ourselves, to bring something (an offering of worship) to God, to which He responds by sending his glory and Spirit to quench our thirst. There are a couple problems I see in this.

First, it is God who draws us to Himself in the first place by His Spirit. It is He who works on our minds and hearts so that we can decide and resolve to worship Him. Scripture is clear, "There is no one who calls upon your name, who rouses himself to take hold of you; you have hidden your face from us, and have made us melt in the hand of our iniquities" (Is. 64:7). Jesus alone draws us to God (Heb. 4:16; 7:19). Many of you will disagree, and I'm sorry you don't believe this. You see, there is nothing good in us that we have to offer God. It is Christ in us that is the hope of glory. It is the Spirit crying out from our innermost to the Father. The movement of worship begins and ends with God. (See my post "Triune Love.")

Second, continuing from the first, our decision and resolve to worship is our response to God. It is not up to us to try to get God to hear us and responsively send His glory. God draws us to worship Him by His Spirit through Christ. "For we are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh" (Philip. 3:3). It all begins and ends with Him, the Author and Perfecter. When God reveals Himself, then and only then are we able to respond in worship. "You'll Come" has it backwards. God doesn't respond to us, we respond to Him.

I wonder if anyone else caught this while listening to This Is Our God. Overall, the album is good. I realized listening to it these last couple times, objectively, that many of the songs, in and of themselves, are excellent. It's a very Hillsongish album. I'm glad I gave it another go around. I may even lead one or two of these songs in church someday.

Why I Like Mike Guglielmucci's Song "Healer" More Now Than Before He Confessed Faking Cancer

2008-10-31T05:00:00.000-05:00

It was early August when I first heard Mike Guglielmucci's song "Healer" and the testimony behind it. This heartbreaking story of a young man with cancer strapping on his oxygen tubes, walking out onto the stage, and lifting up his emotional profession to God, "I believe You're my Healer," captured my heart and caused me to immediately purchase the Hillsong album This Is Our God. "Healer" is, in my opinion, by far the best song on the album. (Most of the others are not congregationally friendly, and/or are somewhat shallow, including one that is borderline unbiblical, but we won't get into that.)

I began losing interest in Guglielmucci's song a couple weeks after getting the album, when I watched the CCLI TV Song Story of "Healer." I expected what I saw: a flippantly emotional worship story. (I would link to the video, but it seems to have been annihilated from internet existence.) Mike told of how he had been diagnosed with cancer, and that he didn't have very much time to live. So he went home one day and began crying to God, and out came the song "Healer" from start to finish in one take. I admit my disbelief that that part really happened, but what was more striking to me was the story and footage of the night of the recording. If I recall correctly, Guglielmucci spoke of how particularly weak he was before going on the stage, which is why, I assume, he needed oxygen, and that if he was going to get through the song it had to be the sustaining power of God that would do it.

Forgive my skepticism, but the video of that Hillsong event, from Mike's passionate, shaky reading of Isaiah 53 over an eliciting keyboard pad, to tears streaming down many faces as they watched a dying friend, awestruck of his faith, wreaked of mere experientialism. I did not hear anything even remotely Christ-centered in all of the Song Story video, but rather was taken aback by the manipulative power of a moving story, an emotionally melodic song, and masses of people being touched by what they deemed to be the Holy Spirit, but what I suspect was something other than God. And then...

I have two comments:

1. Joy fills my heart even more than shock, and there is no disgust or anger, or feeling deceived or victimized, or anything like that. This song has become true, and especially for Mike Guglielmucci. Despite the lies and conniving that might have inspired him to write this song, God had other plans. Could it be that "Healer" was a prophetic cry from Mike's heart that God is now answering? It is nothing less than just that. Mike (and everyone) thought the song was about his physical healing, but it turns out it is really about a restored soul. My prayer is that Mike continues down this Godly path of healing and forgiveness that began with this God-led confession, that he would see the nonsense of experientialism, and that his eyes would be opened to the activity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in worship.

2. What does this say about the capacity of each and every one of us to manipulate, emotionally control, use words, actions, vocal inflections, tears, get caught up in the moment, be led by feelings, etc., whether we are on stage preaching or leading worship, or facing the stage being taught or led, or going about our relationships with one another in everyday life? Man is fickle. We are all fakers. The most seemingly honest, tell-it-like-it-is person is still putting on a show. We all give in to the illusions of this world and constantly struggle living and deciphering between what is real and what is worldly. This tension is the nature of the Christian life. Don't fool yourself into thinking you're immune to this problem. Humble yourself like Mike, and fess up. He is in the best place of his life right now, broken, despised by many, loved by God and closer to Him than ever before. Are you?

Dislocation and Relocation

2008-10-29T10:00:00.003-05:00

I would like to expound a little, with Robert Webber's help, on something Ryan said in his last post Triune Love. He said,

I have no problem singing intimate songs of friendship and love for God when they are located in the truth of who I am (a sinner), who God truly is (the Redeemer), and a true understanding of the Gospel.

Like Ryan, I too am uneasy at times with the themes and emphases of many popular worship songs widely used in the Contemporary Church today. If it's not an individual song, it's the combination of songs in a set list that raises flags. This feeling comes when, for example, I participate in a worship service that flippantly speaks of being "God's friend," or how He "thought of me above all." It's not so much that these themes are unbiblical, but rather they must be completed or complemented by other necessary themes, bringing balance to the "Story."

I have been absolutely blown away reading Webber's Planning Blended Worship, which Ryan gave me when I visited him a few months ago (book link to the left). I would highly recommend this book to anyone who enjoys the conversations in this blog, especially worship leaders and planners. Webber's book has brought clarity to some of these common feelings described above. He articulates very well some important guidelines in choosing songs and planning musical worship, which I have now begun to use, and which have really helped me to identify what is often missing.

Webber says that when we worship we must "proclaim God's worth through the recitation of God's saving deeds in Jesus Christ.” The emphasis of worship is "not on the experience of the worshiper, but on God, who initiated a saving action toward creation, which was in desperate need of restoration." To accomplish this "recitation" our worship must contain the following themes (these themes apply to all kinds of worship activities, but I will mainly relate them to musical worship):

1) Dislocation - In our worship we must be reminded of our fallen sinful nature, as well as our current despair, disarray, or confusion. Many of the Psalms begin in this way, basically saying, "My life is falling apart."

2) Relocation - After we recognize our dislocation the story continues to completion as we are reminded of God's saving action, how He saved us fully through the work of the cross. We can also be reminded of how we have been "relocated" by reciting how God saved, healed, and delivered His people through the Bible, or in the lives of those in history, or in our own congregations.

Many of the Psalms that begin in dislocation end in relocation, a remembrance of God's saving action in history, and the psalmist breaks forth into praise. I've found that many classic hymns take this format as well ("Amazing Grace," "Alas and Did My Savior Bleed"). When we incorporate these themes in our worship we are reminded that God has worked and continues to work in our present situations.

These terms have helped me realize that it's not the "friend of God" terminology that makes me uneasy, but the absence of dislocation that does. It's one thing to be all happy and jumpy and smiley singing about Jesus my buddy, but the song takes on an entirely new meaning when an honest assessment of our human position as "God's enemies" comes before it. We as musical worship planners cannot forget to include this critical part of our worship, especially in a culture that thinks Christians are supposed to always be happy.

Webber summarizes saying, “The underlying conviction of Christian worship is that we are all in a state of dislocation. We are dislocated from God, from self, from neighbor, and from nature. But God has entered into our history in Jesus Christ to bring relocation...When we in worship hear of God's action in the past, we apply it to our present dislocation.”

Webber gives three central questions for worship planners to be guided by:

1) How does worship speak to God's glory in heaven and God's saving actions on earth?
2) How does this worship help people identify their dislocation?
3) How does this worship lead people into a relocation with God?

The congregation I lead has responded well to an increased emphasis on dislocation followed naturally by hope-filled relocation. People have gone to greater depths in heartfelt praise when they have taken part in the remembrance of the complete story. When leading a congregation I have found that I don't need to point out or explain these themes, but rather simply plan ahead to include them. It's amazing how quickly these threads become the fabric of a solid, worshiping community.

Finally, I leave you with Paul's letter to the Romans. Notice how much sweeter the relocation in verse 11 is when it is read in the context of our dislocation in verses 8-10. How much greater is friendship when enmity is first understood? It causes the heart to marvel all the more at the saving work of Christ.

5:8 But God showed his great love for us by sending Christ to die for us while we were still sinners. 9 And since we have been made right in God’s sight by the blood of Christ, he will certainly save us from God’s condemnation. 10 For since our friendship with God was restored by the death of his Son while we were still his enemies, we will certainly be saved through the life of his Son. 11 So now we can rejoice in our wonderful new relationship with God because our Lord Jesus Christ has made us friends of God.

Triune Love

2008-10-27T05:00:00.003-05:00

For the last three years I have been dancing in the wonder of the Trinity and the role of each Person of the Godhead in worship. According to James Torrance (book link to the left) Trinitarian worship is when we, the Church, "participate by the Spirit in the incarnate Son's communion with the Father." Understanding this has completely changed the way I lead worship. I must warn you now, though, that this post is more theological than practical, and it's kind of hard to put into words, so hang with me.

Torrance differentiates Trinitarian worship with two other kinds of worship. First, unitarian worship, as in the worship of theologically liberal "Christians" who view God as unknowable and Christ's relationship with the Father as unique from their own. In other words, Jesus is not divine, but rather His relationship with the Father is just like any other man's. Unitarianism is also the worship of Judaism and Islam, religions with no need for a mediator between God and man. Second, Torrance distinguishes Trinitarian worship from experiential worship, as in the worship of Christians who seek a mere "touch" or "experience" from God, but without a true understanding of their own roles and the roles of the Father, Son, and Spirit in worship.

Well, for quite some time I have been so focused on the upward movement of Trinitarian worship - the Spirit gathers us up into Christ's communion with the Father - that I have taken my eyes off of the equally important downward movement of this continuing story, which occurs before anything upward could ever be offered from my part. I'm talking about the Incarnation - (now picture this; diagram it if you must, starting with the Father at the top) the Father loves us so much that he comes down to us through His Son and touches us by the Holy Spirit both individually and corporately. This must happen first. Worship begins and ends with God's love, and we get to glorify Him and enjoy Him because of His initiation and pursuit of us.

This downward movement, this perpetual incarnation, is very experiential. However, it is a much different kind of experience than that of a mere emotionally-triggered one, detached from the Word of God and the activity of Triune love. Much of my past was rooted in this kind of hyped-up, drummed-up emotionalism disconnected from the knowledge of God as He is revealed in Scripture and a right view of my sinful condition. In fact, in settings of worship, there was very little interaction with the Bible at all, nor any real acknowledgment of sin. Instead, much time was spent singing and crying and doing whatever was necessary to get "changed" in the "presence of God" by the "power of the Holy Ghost."

Not only was my worship detached experientialism, but due to the lack of Biblical exposition and theology of the true God my worship was unitarian. Because I didn't understand the cross - what God accomplished through His Son, which can only be revealed through the Holy Scriptures - I thought I had a direct line to God and that it was ultimately up to me to prove myself, my offering of worship, as pleasing to Him. What "revelation" I did receive was whatever God "spoke" to me in the heat of the emotional moment. I didn't need Christ, the mediating Word, in order to get to God. All I needed what an emotional encounter with the god of my imagination.

Okay, heavy stuff, I know. My point is this: I have reacted so strongly, and perhaps bitterly, against my past, that I have discounted anything experiential as false. This is wrong. True worship is completely Trinitarian and extremely experiential. I experience the love of God the Father, as He displays it for me through the mediating sacrifice of God the Son on the cross, and as They send it to me through the loving, comforting, empowering touch of God the Holy Spirit, enabling me to personally and together with the Church express my love for Him, the Triune God, in return.

The Gospel in its purest form is our Triune God proclaiming, enacting, singing, and dancing His love over us; it is the Father's embrace through the outstretched arms of Jesus Christ on the cross extended to us in the possessing clench of the Holy Spirit (downward). It is only when we partake of this Triune love that we can worship Him in response, proclaiming, enacting, singing, and dancing this Gospel of love to Him (upward) and to others (outward). This activity is as experiential and as personal as it gets, and, as an aside, I have no problem singing intimate songs of friendship and love for God when they are located in the truth of who I am (a sinner), who God truly is (the Redeemer), and a true understanding of the Gospel.

Do you believe this? Do you think it is necessary for every worshiper of God to have this experienced understanding in the core of their being? I fear that this Gospel of Triune love, this foundational belief so vigorously defended by the Fathers and so eloquently proclaimed in the great hymns of the Church, has escaped, or has never entered, the hearts and minds of many in the Contemporary Church and wider church-goers today. Have we worshipers ever moved on to greater things than the Law of Moses and the seeking of signs and wonders? Have we with our unitarian and experientialist worship "spurned the Son of God, and profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of grace" (Heb. 10:29)? Hey, I'm just asking.

I leave you with the words that precede this judgment from the writer of Hebrews, and I ask, do we and those we worship with truly, deeply understand that the only way to receive God's love (downward) and to love Him back (upward) is through the shed blood of His Son and the power of the Holy Spirit?

For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near. Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, since the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have any consciousness of sins? But in these sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

Consequently, when Christ came into the world, he said,

“Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired, but a body have you prepared for me; in burnt offerings and sin offerings you have taken no pleasure. Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come to do your will, O God, as it is written of me in the scroll of the book.’”

When he said above, “You have neither desired nor taken pleasure in sacrifices and offerings and burnt offerings and sin offerings” (these are offered according to the law), then he added, “Behold, I have come to do your will.” He does away with the first in order to establish the second. And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.

And the Holy Spirit also bears witness to us; for after saying,

“This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws on their hearts, and write them on their minds,”

then he adds,

“I will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more.”

Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin.

What The Plug?

2008-10-22T23:14:00.012-05:00

Hey! Worship Leader Magazine just published an unexpected and kind review of reformworship.com! You can find it on page 85 in their October issue, "Best Of The Best: 2008 Editor's Pick Edition," or go here. The other featured sites were Bob Kauflin's worshipmatters.com, to which Ryan and I both subscribe, and Ron Man's worr.org. It is an incredible honor for our blog to be mentioned alongside Kauflin and Man.

My personal, heartfelt thanks to Ryan for inviting me to be a part of this weblog at its conception. He has inspired and challenged me in all areas of my life for almost eight years now, especially in worship. This site and discussions around it have been a great tool in that process.

P.S.

2008-10-13T10:24:00.009-05:00

Last night we kicked off a new worship event at our church called P.S., which stands for Prayer and Song. The idea came to me while dwelling on my desire to take our people deeper in intimate communion with our Triune God. The way I see it, Sunday mornings are meant for the entire church body to gather together with the purpose of celebrating God, who He is and what He does, in Word and Sacrament (Bible teaching and Communion). Music on Sunday mornings, then, is used primarily as an aid in leading people to receive and respond to these elements.

I am not satisfied, however, with that being the end of it, nor do I want our church to think that that's all there is to worship, much less church life. My desire is for this church to be a worshiping community, meaning we are able to really go after God any time, any place. We must break our people out of the checklist mentality: go to church Sunday morning, download some information, fellowship for an hour and a half, and check it off the list for the week. One of the best ways I could think of to begin transforming this church into a worshiping community is P.S. (Prayer and Song).

Think of it like the P.S. (post script) at the end of a letter. The main part of the letter consists of a greeting, a body, and a salutation. We all know, though, that oftentimes the post script conveys more emotion, excitement, and passion than anything informationally conveyed in the body of the letter. Isn't it often the case that the post script of a letter is the part that makes you smile the most?

Now think of Sunday morning Celebration as the body of a letter. We meet God in His Word and at His Table, but it doesn't end there. The post script (P.S.) invites us to experience God in a deeper way, seeking His face in His presence, putting flesh on what we heard an partook of that morning. Due to the nature of Sunday mornings, at least in our church, we can't go as deep in our worship of God as we want and need to. We need a post script. We need an opportunity to simply dwell in the presence of the Lord; to go after him with everything inside of us, passionately, whole-heartedly. That's what P.S. is. And again, the ultimate goal is for our people to develop a lifestyle of worshiping God with this kind of passion at all times.

To further this metaphor, look at the Psalms. In a sense, the Psalter is the post script of the Bible. In the main part of the letter (everything but Psalms) we read history, laws, poetry, prophecies, stories, doctrines, and other information about God, inspired by Him, of course, and absolutely powerful and essential for faith in Christ. But none of it really materializes in us until it is absorbed, fleshed out, lived, and sung through the Psalms. Dietrich Bonhoeffer says, "It makes good sense, then, that the Psalter is often bound together in a single volume with the New Testament. It is the prayer of the Christian church." It's as if everything before it contains all that we need to know about God, and the Psalter itself teaches us how to get in with God. Without the Psalms our plea for Jesus to teach us how to pray goes unanswered. Luther says, "Ah, there is not the juice, the strength, the passion, the fire which I find in the Psalter. It tastes too cold and too hard." (Yes, he is probably referring to a strong alcoholic beverage.) And yes, if the entire Bible were in letter form, Psalms would probably be the post script, passionately teaching us how to live out everything in the body of the letter.

Likewise, if what we do on Sunday mornings is the body of the letter, then P.S. (Prayer and Song) is the post script, a time for us to go after God passionately and unabashedly.

Our plan is to have a P.S. night once quarterly, that is until our people simply can't get enough of it, at which time we'll make schedule adjustments. Our next one will be January 4, and we will focus on the Epiphany. The following P.S. will be on Pentecost Sunday, May 31. In the meantime we will be having a few Church Year Family Nights, such as an Advent Night of Carols (Dec. 7), Christmas Eve Service, Ash Wednesday Service, and, I can't wait for this, a Good Friday Passover Seder.

Well, I'm off to California with my family and without my computer.

I leave you with another Bonhoeffer quote.

"Lord, teach us to pray!" So spoke the disciples to Jesus. In making this request, they confessed that they were not able to pray on their own, that they had to learn to pray. The phrase "learning to pray" sounds strange to us. If the heart does not overflow and begin to pray by itself, we say, it will never "learn" to pray. But it is a dangerous error, surely very widespread among Christians, to think that the heart can pray by itself. For then we confuse wishes, hopes, sighs, laments, rejoicings - all of which the heart can do by itself - with prayer. And we confuse earth with heaven, man and God. Prayer does not mean simply to pour out one's heart. It means rather to find the way to God and to speak with him, whether the heart is full or empty. No man can do that by himself. For that he needs Jesus Christ.

Busy Reforming Worship

2008-09-25T17:26:00.003-05:00

If you're in local church ministry, you're well aware of the amount of time, planning, and launching that goes on this time of year. Just listen to your weekly announcements. I'm sure they're stacked with events, new classes, back to school stuff, the need for volunteers, etc. This is why I have not blogged in a while.

Anyway, this Celtic Prayer has really ministered to me over the past couple months:

Lord, be it thine,
Unfaltering praise of mine!
And, O pure prince! Make clear my way
To serve and pray at thy sole shrine!
Lord, be it thine,
Unfaltering praise of mine!
O father of souls that long,
Take this my song and make it thine!

Thank you Jesus!