Well, this has been a week of big changes.
First, our time as dog owners has come to an end. In an attempt to remove as many possible allergens from our environment, Winston was the first casualty. We gave him to a young teacher Misty works with who lives a couple of miles from us. I think it is for the best. I would have liked to recoup out initial investment, but I am more relieved than anything else to not have a dog to worry about. Our lives are stressful enough without the added pressure to take care of an animal. This has been a process that has taken much longer than I had hoped. I guess it is all about timing. But tonight, my house seems quieter and less stress filled than it did the day before.
Of course, Wednesday was my 36th birthday. It was fine. The build-up to my birthday is always worse than the day itself. I took my older ladies choir out on their first field trip of the season. I am no longer directing them myself, but I still take them out to the nursing homes and represent the church. They are a fun bunch and very generous. They gave me a nice gift card. It was probably the kindest present I got that day. Another "friend" gave me a cane and some adult diapers, as well as some Centrum Silver and, of all things, a doo rag. This was all presented during our weekly Fellowship Supper. I had to explain to people that I was not 40, though these gifts apparently gave off the essence of 40.
I had a big Daddy weekend Friday and Saturday. Misty went to Jacksonville for a Beth Moore conference and left me with the three little angels. We took our weekly trip to Target Friday night and bought toys with gift cards sent by Aunt Shannon for Easter. We bought caramel popcorn and watched "Enchanted." You have to love a Disney princess. Then, Saturday morning I drove the girls to Panama City Beach and we went miniature golfing. Okay, Emma did fine. But Elizabeth, in the midst of meltdown after meltdown, got two legitimate holes-in-one. No joke. She could never seem to remember how to hold the club. I would have to take it from her and say, "Hold it like an ice cream cone." She did not get the hang of it, but still managed a feat her older sister could not match, much to Emma's chagrin. Madeline was just along for the ride. She would drop her ball in if she felt like it, or she would want to go again and again. She was a little difficult, but I think she enjoyed herself. I survived, but was exhausted. I have finally started back into my running regimen and had been up early, before the girls woke up, running on the treadmill. And then I got the brave idea to take them out golfing on my own. All in all the Daddy weekend went well, only a couple of meltdowns. I find that Elizabeth has more of my lesser traits, the impatience in particular, that absolutely drive me crazy. I love her, but I am not looking forward to the teen years with her. I guess we will leave that one up to the Lord.
In other thoughts:
I have been thinking a lot about what church is, what it should be, and what it can never be. I have a friend who blogged recently about how back in the 1980s many thought that the problem of relevance in the church could be solved by adding "contemporary" music. The discussion went something like churches who did not sign onto the new music signed their death warrants, but those churches that made the transition are finding that modern music came up short as well. While I agree that music is not the answer, I wonder if we are asking the right questions. I have long felt that a church's style of music was irrelevant to its spiritual effectiveness. Though I do not care for southern gospel music, I am sure that there are churches, large churches at that, which make use of this style of music and continue to grow because, at the center of the church is their love for Christ and their desire to be effective witnesses for Him in this world. Again, it is not about the music or the style format, it is about the church's ability to foster relationships with Christ within the members of the body and coming together as equally called disciples to realize change in the world.
I guess the real question for me is what is the point of church? And by "church" I mean the place we attend on Sundays and Wednesdays. I really do not think the church was meant to be a clearing house for salvation. What I mean is the church, if it is living out its Christ-given commission, should be adding to its numbers by personal evangelism, rather than by some great culturally-relevant musical offering or wonderful culturally-intuitive sermon. In other words, I don't think the church was meant to be a place where we invite sinners to come and let the wonderful words of the pastor exhort them to salvation. I think that believers are supposed to lead people to Christ before they ever set foot in a church. The way I view the early church was not a place where non-believers congregated, but believers. So, to make church about believers is really not a wild thing, or even an irrelevant thing; it is realistic, because the church was meant to be populated by believers and cater to the needs of the faithful. The problem lies in the fact that the church as a body of believers never enters the world. I see the apostles going where the sinners were. I wonder how many of us are following that example.
Now, with that said, the issue of relevance is not without gravity, especially when we consider the youth of the church. As my friend pointedly suggested, a church without youth is only a few years from oblivion. So how do we make the church a place that is hospitable to younger folks without making it unbearable for older folks? The symbols and heritage of the church are things that are worth preserving, but there is a fine line between preserving and worshipping the symbols or the music or whatever. Seeking new and "relevant" ways to worship are also significant and cannot be overlooked (I am always looking for new music or new visuals to aid in worship), but we also have to avoid seeking out the innovative for the sake of innovation.
This issue of "new" music has been a sore spot to me lately for some more personal reasons. We have this young man who is helping us with our youth worship team. I really like him and he is very talented, but sometimes he says things without knowing how they will be received. He was looking through some of the music that I use for our "contemporary" service and commented on how old it was. I laughed and said some little something about it, but it bothered me a little. So, I started looking at what we were doing over the last several weeks and most of it was what I would consider fairly new. With the exception of one song, the oldest song we used in our worship services over the last three weeks was published in 2003 (and many of them were only a year or two old). I am not one to worry about being on the cutting edge, but I am wondering if it makes me really old to think that 2003 is still pretty current.
And another thing: As much as I realize that our worship music has its limitations, I still want the people to engage in the worship time. Even though there is a part of me that thinks our God is imminent, as close as your next breath, "happy clappy" music is utterly ridiculous, especially when one considers the transcendence of God, the Creator and Sustainer of the universe; I still want my congregation to actively engage in adoration of this King. I want our young and old to enjoy being with each other in the presence of God. And when this does not seem to be happening, I wonder why we are there. It really makes me wonder whether or not we are coming from this worship thing from a completely false perspective. I wonder if we have tried for so long to give the people what they want in worship that we have failed to see what God would want (and that could be completely different for each congregation, not necessarily the pre-packaged "Songs for Worship" love track) and thereby disastrously missed the point altogether.
What's a worshiper to do?
UPDATE & NDY GIG
12 years ago
10 comments:
I really have to comment here because you’ve hit on a couple of practical points that I’ve also been pondering.
Number one; is it really that young people “hate hymns” or is it simply the old arrangements that they don’t like? There are a lot of people (Chris Tomlin, David Crowder, Matt Redman) having a lot of success, and making a lot of money, coming up with new arrangements of hymns these days that are targeted at young people. I personally love hymns if the arrangement is brought up to date. In fact, Chris Rice’s The Living Room Sessions is one of my favourite CD’s (CD?) to play on a Sunday morning, and it is nothing but wordless hymns played on a piano.
Number two; does anybody else find it incredulous that, until the 90’s, we had been singing the same hymns for one-hundred, maybe two-hundred years and then suddenly, a song was dated if it was more than ten years old? And, as you’ve pointed out here, the lifespan of new songs seems to have decreased even more so since the year 2000. Seriously, is this our age, or is something really weird taking place? Maybe it’s simply that, until the last fifteen years or so, there weren’t a lot of options. Lord I Lift Your Name On High WAS “the new song” for about ten years. But now everybody’s putting out a worship album. Maybe the sheer volume of new worship songs means that we’re able to move on much quicker than we used to. It may also be that we’re singing those songs a lot more often than we used to. In the 90’s it was a big deal when we would sing one “contemporary” worship song on a Sunday morning. Now, with an entire set list full of them, I guess there’s a greater need to have a larger catalogue.
Still, the worship ministers we grew up with only had to learn new songs for choir concerts. When I’m brought in to lead worship these days, I find myself frantically trying to figure out what new songs this congregation might expect that I might not know yet.
Mark Batterson, founding pastor of National Community Church ( Washington D.C. ) and author of "In a Pit with a Lion on a Snowy Day," spoke twice at a conference I recently attended. He devoted the better part of his first session to a discussion of right-brained leadership. He identified the physiology of the mind and pointed out the scientifically measurable tendency of the average person to shift from right-brained (creative) or more balanced thought processes to a more dominantly left-brained (logical) process as we age. He also made the following two statements which I found quite intriguing…
God designed us in His image for creativity. “What excites me… the thing that keeps me up late at night and wakes me up early in the morning is the fact that there are ways of doing church (celebrating Christ in community) that no one has thought of yet.”
“Over time and with spiritual age it is easy for us to stop worshipping God with creative engagement and start worshipping God out of memory.” He went on to say that, no matter how valuable, even desirable, developing patterns— a habit of worshipping God may be, “God doesn’t desire our ‘worship from memory.’”
I don’t believe he was slighting the importance of remembering what God has done. This is a valuable part of our thanksgiving and celebration. But, just because we’ve dug a well doesn’t mean we have cornered the market on water. Just because we’ve built an altar doesn’t mean we have identified all the places/ways God desires to meet with us. God is neither limited to our experiences with Him nor our expressions toward Him (though we may, at times, limit Him BY these things).
There are nine, prominent, (direct) scriptural references in esteem of singing a “new song” to God. (Most of them in the form of a command or charge— half a dozen in the book of Psalms alone - Ps. 33:3, 40:3, 96:1, 93:1, 144:9, 149:1, Is. 42:10, Rev. 5:9, 14:3) In fact, few times in scripture are we commanded or even encouraged to sing without the qualifier “new” or some arguable inference toward temporal/situational relevance. Though I am not certain there are none, I can think of no reference to a scriptural command or commendation for singing old songs based on the value of their age or history alone.
I would add that Paul’s New Testament charge (Eph. & Col.) to speak in/sing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs adverted to content and structure not style or age (though he may have arguably have had specific compositions in mind). Psalms: songs of testimony, commitment, experience. Hymns: declarations/recognitions of God’s glory, deeds, and character. Spiritual Songs: often spontaneous personal and corporate expressions inspired/guided by the active person/presence of the Holy Spirit in the life of a believer.
Every great move of God in ecumenical history seems to be marked by the accompaniment of new and unique musical worship expression. All have their own psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. I don’t think there should be any question concerning the high value of new and creative musical expression in worship, regardless of the style. In fact, I believe we often merely make room for, instead of promoting such things. Sad. (Consequently, Chris Thomlin has written some wonderful hymns as of late.)
That said, I believe age, musical style, ecumenical bent, etc. unfortunately serve as distraction from three much more important issues regarding corporate worship. 1) Leadership (Are worship leaders/pastors leading God’s people in celebration and worship or pushing experience, taste, style, marketing, distinctives in the name of heritage, holiness or relevance?) 2) Definition of worship (How will/do we measure this value?) 3) Attitude of the worshipper (How much of our flesh do we insist on bringing to the table? How prominent must our signature be?)
Great post James. Would be very interesting to have a closer look at the original translation of those verses to see if the word we've translated as "new" would have been translated the same way when it was written.
Tim,
Thanks for suggesting a trip back to the original language. Very cool.
A quick search through my Hebrew Old and Greek New Testaments, and Strongs (definitions) revealed:
Ps. 33:3, 40:3, 96:1, 98:1, 144:9, 149:1, Is. 42:10, - chdsh chadash khaw-dawsh' - new:--fresh, new thing
Rev. 5:9, 14:3 – kainos kahee-nos' - of uncertain affinity; new (especially in freshness;)
Might I just add, I always look forward to your perspective on Brandon’s posts. So thoughtful and insightful. I have also enjoyed reading your own blog from time to time. I love the level at which you think about these things. Heck, I love that other people are thinking about these things period. Makes me feel like less of a freak. Ha!
Thanks for the trail of thoughts. It is good to know that this post has caused a lot of good thinking.
I do want to reiterate that I am completely in favor of doing new things within the framework of a church service, my main question goes back to what or who the church service is for. Before coming to my current ministry position, the worship team's idea of "new" included much that we would consider southern gospel and 80s/early 90s worship music. Some songs I had not heard since then (and did not care for them then). So one of my first goals was to bring us at least into the early 2000s with our worship song repertoire. So, I am all for new and I think God is for new. As Beth Moore has said "You have to be looking forward to get a revelation."
But to say that we should disregard the monuments of our faith, and I don't think anyone is saying this, is to disregard more than I think is necessary. Yes, there are all of these references to something "new" and they are all correct. God knows we need to continually be searching out what God is doing now. But, the Jews, maybe to their detriment were people of memory. "Remember to tell your children when they see this monument at the Jordan that we were slaves in Egypt and God parted the waters of the Red Sea and led us to the Promised Land." So, this means that the early Church were also a people of memory. "Remember what Christ did and the stories of the Apostles." I think that is why we have the Bible, as a reminder of what God is capable of because of what He did in the past. And, truth be told, all of my research on what the early Church actually did in their worship services indicates that these were not wild and racuous events. Rather, they were fairly mellow, not much singing, no instrumental music at all--pretty much following the synagogue model of Bible study and prayer (aka, Liturgy).
Now, with that said, this post is not an apologetic for using tired old songs and hymns. I for one get nothing out of this practice. Just like the Psalmists, we need to look for new ways to express our love and worship of God. I do think that it takes longer now for a congregation to become accustomed to newer songs than it did a few years back. I am not sure why this is, and it may be because I am in a place that is not as demonstrative, or maybe has not caught the worship thing as intensely as I would like. At least my people are seekers. I fear they do not know what they seek, but at least they want something more than the same old thing from their worship services.
Consequently, while there are many other places this Hebrew word is used throughout the Old Testament, it is interesting to note that the prophet Isaiah uses it when speaking on behalf of God as a preface to verse 42:10…
‘See, the former things have taken place, and new things I declare; before they spring into being I announce them to you.’ Sing to the LORD a new song, his praise from the ends of the earth, you who go down to the sea, and all that is in it, you islands, and all who live in them.” - Is. 42:9-10
He also uses the same word when quoting God in the subsequent chapter…
“’I am the LORD, your Holy One, Israel's Creator, your King.’ This is what the LORD says— he who made a way through the sea, a path through the mighty waters, who drew out the chariots and horses, the army and reinforcements together, and they lay there, never to rise again, extinguished, snuffed out like a wick: ‘Forget the former things; do not dwell on the past. See, I am doing a new thing! Now it springs up; do you not perceive it? I am making a way in the desert and streams in the wasteland.’” – Is. 43:15-19
The Greek word can also be found throughout the New Testament, including Paul’s statement to the Corinthians…
“Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!” – 2 Cor. 5:17
And in John’s Revelation…
“‘He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.’ He who was seated on the throne said, ‘I am making everything new!’ Then he said, ‘Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.’” - Rev. 21:4-5
Hope this helps with the contextual use of these words. Again, not to diminish the value of time honored expressions. Simply to encourage caution regarding disdain for, frustration or controversy over God honored (valued), new (fresh, creative) expression. It is not just a missional, appeal to young people, throw out the old, cultural relevance thing. It is possibly a much more important part of who God desires for His people, His church, to be.
But, is it not possible to be both new and innovative and keep some of the old? Many missional folks started with an interest in the early church and an attempt to be more like them. So there was an attempt to incorporate ancient practices into the future of the church. This is where my interest in a new definition of church began way back when.
And as far as music goes, some of my favorite new songs are hymns made new. I love David Crowder's take on so many of these. I don't think these are stale and tired. They have something new to say to each generation. When reading the Bible, each generation finds something new.
And, I agree that the church ought to be more about renewing His creation through various ways, music probably one of the least of them. One of my greatest frustrations is that it takes us so long to move on to something new. Truth is, I get bored and I wonder if God does too.
And, as a point of order, I do not disdain "God-honored, new expressions" and I really don't think that was my intention in this post. The truth is, where this specific frustration came from was from a person with a different definition of what "new" is, or more specifically what is appropriate for corporate worship. This same person has no problem doing things that were popular in the mid-90s in the youth service (Jars of Clay, etc.), songs much older than anything I would do on a regular basis. I think it was an issue of taste rather than of age. So I am over it. So you can stop preaching to the choir and I will stop being the devil's advocate to keep this thing going forever.
Sorry. I really didn’t intend any offense nor was I “preaching” about this. My understanding of your original post was that you’ve been considering the “point” of church (as a weekly gathering) and challenging the idea that it should hold outreach as a primary function. You seemed to be asking if we’ve overplayed musical and topical relevance trying to be something unreasonable (or worse yet, impossible).
While I would agree that the “fellowship of the saints” may be just that, I don’t think it should be believer-centric. I feel it should be Christ-centric and therefore a wellspring in the development of a believer’s missional identity in the world. The difference I proffer here—the consideration I wished to bring to the discussion was that maybe the church should be a place where innovation in expression and ministry is encouraged; where it abounds. Not only because it can be helpful in mission (whether or not this is the purpose in design of our weekly gatherings) but because it is valuable to God. I would not, as you suggest, “avoid seeking out the innovative for the sake of innovation” as I believe it may have independent value toward God’s glory. I would seek to be innovative for the sake of obedience (God designed us for it and challenges us to live it) and encourage free, fresh expression in others. And, maybe, this “culturally relevant musical offering” or “culturally-intuitive sermon” has value in equipping believers to be, themselves, as culturally relevant and culturally intuitive as the Gospel itself—as Christ. If I’m not mistaken, the absense of this shift from consumer to producer in the life of the believer was another of the frustrations you shared.
You ask if it is possible “to be both new and innovative and keep some of the old?” I don’t believe I’ve raised any question to disaffirm this contention. I simply ask, is it not possible that we have distorted or propegated the distortion of “new” by relegating it to a glorified evangelism tool and outreach to the young? Can it not, should it not have value of its own. Maybe God could work out the implications from there.
Oh, and I was talking about newly composed hymns, not referbushed old ones (though those can be quite nice).
Anyway, I apologize again for any inadvertant offence. Next year in Jerusalem, pax romana, and all that jazz.
Point conceded. I completely agree with your proposal of the need for "new" and the great frustration that comes from relegating new to youth or evangelistic purposes. The new should have a relevance all on its own. And, I agree the church should be a place of abundant creativity, enough to drive me to be ever more creative. I think my initial aggravation is with those who see competition with the world as one of the church's raison d'etre. This, I think, is a trap.
And, personally, I am not offended at all by your comments. Peace of the Romans indeed.
I think Brandon hit on something when he used the word “renew”. Now I’m shooting from the hip here, and I admit that upfront, but I’d suggest that when God spoke of “singing a new song”, it wasn’t so much that he was tired of the old melody line, it was that he was tired of the Israelites looking in the past (holy crap, even as I type this I’m realizing what a good sermon it would be to preach to those holding on to practices, traditions, etc. that are no longer effective or meaningful…but I digress). God had something wonderful for them, but it required them to move forward. It required them to leave Egypt. It required them to leave behind the “old man” and begin living life in a new way. I think the phrase “sing unto the Lord a new song” is a poetic way of saying, “Quit singing your songs of complaint and longing for the past, and start singing songs about the faithfulness and promises of your maker”.
Post a Comment