God’s Method for Church Growth

Ask the average Christian why he or she goes to church. It is not for the dynamic praise band, or the convenient parking, or the programs, or whether or not they have a coffee stand, or because the pastor wears the latest fashions, or preaches from his iPad or possesses great leadership skills. Non-Christians may care about those things. The Christian, however, wants to hear the Word of God preached by a man who knows the God of whom he speaks. Who has been in communion with God in prayer and the study of His Word and now comes out to speak to the people. To be fed the Word of God through solid exposition. To worship the Lord with fellow believers singing songs, and hymns, and spiritual songs, encouraging one another and enjoy fellowship with one another.

 

What does the average Christian find on Sunday morning? Usually, cool music, hip clothes, a dizzying array of programs. A lot of songs, a lot of announcements and finally a 30 minute sermonette or devotional. Some personal stories, anecdotes, some jokes, and movie illustrations. And leaves, without being fed and without being nourished. Learning no more than could have been learned at home with a cursory study of the text. Leaving, neither edified, challenged, or convicted. The disgruntled churchgoer is then of course blamed for his or her lack of prayer for the pastor, coming to church for the wrong reasons and for being too critical. And while I am certain that may often be the case, that is only a part of the story.

If you were to look around at the evangelical landscape today you would see a lot of activity. 

You would see churches being planted, growth strategies strategized. Issues such as social justice or politics or how to engage the culture or how to redeem the culture (whatever that means)  are emphasized. Everything centers on man and his felt needs rather than God and His glory as seen through His inerrant Word. All of this creates  impoverished spiritual lives.  Continue at Eric T. Young

Multisite, the Poker Tell and the Importance of Presence

Any classic rock fan knows that there is nothing quite like hearing a live band.   A few years ago, I went to hear The Who (or at least Roger Daltrey and Pete Townshend, the extant members).  I remember listening on the way home to a live recording of 'Won't Get Fooled Again' just after hearing the real thing in the stadium.  Even without Moon and Entwistle, the live performance was so much more powerful than the recording which, in the immediate aftermath of the concert, sounded like an anemic cover by a wannabe boy band.  The same thing applied next day to my watching of the video of the last time the original line-up ever played together, performing that very song.  It was simply not a patch on actually being there, despite the absence of Keith and John.

Presence is important.   In a world where it is easy to simulate presence, even visible presence as by television, webcam or skype, it remains the case that actually being in the immediate physical proximity of somebody is important.   We all intuitively know this: given the choice of talking to a loved one on the phone or over a camera link up or in the same room, who would not want actually to be with them?

This raises an important question about the notion of multi-site ministry, where the preacher is piped in to various locations by satellite link-up or fibre optic cable.  Of course, this practice is susceptible to numerous lines of devastating critique.   One might suggest that it moves the church towards a model where the accent in preaching is increasingly on the information communicated, nothing more; one might also raise questions about the way it detaches pastoral care of congregations and individuals from the ministry of public proclamation.  For church officers it should surely be a nerve-wracking notion that pastors are to be held accountable for those entrusted to their care; and how can they give a credible account of such care if they do not know the faces, let alone the names, of those thus entrusted to them?  Continue at Carl Trueman

Postscript to "An Open Letter to Praise Bands"

So, I guess my little "Open Letter to Praise Bands" generated some interest. 

I'm glad that it could be a catalyst or foil for some intentional reflection on the how of Christian worship. I won't even attempt to address the array of responses it has generated. I'm content to let some misreadings spin themselves out. So I'm not out to police the ways I've been misunderstood.

However, I do think it's important to name an issue in the background that affects how we can have this conversation: not all Christians share the same theology of worship. Indeed, my concern is that some sectors of North American Christianity don't have much of a theology of worship at all. Many of us--including many congregations--have only an implicit understanding of what worship is, and we have not always made that explicit, nor have we subjected our assumptions to rigorous biblical and theological evaluation.

It is my passion for theological intentionality about worship that generated my book Desiring the Kingdom: Worship, Worldview, and Cultural Formation. It's not fair to ask those who read a blog post to read an entire book, but I would invite those who both agreed and those who disagreed with my "Open Letter" to consider Desiring the Kingdom as a fuller articulation of the theology of worship behind my criticisms.

Many of the negative reactions to my missive stem from a fundamentally different understanding of what worship is. That means we are working from fundamentally different starting points. So when someone thinks that I "misunderstand" what's happening in worship, actually I just disagree with the assumptions behind such worship.

I think this is why some have missed two crucial points in my "Open Letter"--points that were admittedly touched on just briefly. Let me reiterate them here:  Continue at James K. A. Smith

An Open Letter to Praise Bands

Dear Praise Band,

I so appreciate your willingness and desire to offer up your gifts to God in worship. I appreciate your devotion and celebrate your faithfulness--schlepping to church early, Sunday after Sunday, making time for practice mid-week, learning and writing new songs, and so much more. Like those skilled artists and artisans that God used to create the tabernacle (Exodus 36), you are willing to put your artistic gifts in service to the Triune God.

So please receive this little missive in the spirit it is meant: as an encouragement to reflect on the practice of "leading worship." It seems to me that you are often simply co-opted into a practice without being encouraged to reflect on its rationale, its "reason why." In other words, it seems to me that you are often recruited to "lead worship" without much opportunity to pause and reflect on the nature of "worship" and what it would mean to "lead."

In particular, my concern is that we, the church, have unwittingly encouraged you to simply import musical practices into Christian worship that--while they might be appropriate elsewhere--are detrimental to congregational worship. More pointedly, using language I first employed in Desiring the Kingdom, I sometimes worry that we've unwittingly encouraged you to import certain forms of performance that are, in effect, "secular liturgies" and not just neutral "methods." Without us realizing it, the dominant practices of performance train us to relate to music (and musicians) in a certain way: as something for our pleasure, as entertainment, as a largely passive experience. The function and goal of music in these "secular liturgies" is quite different from the function and goal of music in Christian worship.

So let me offer just a few brief axioms with the hope of encouraging new reflection on the practice of "leading worship":  Continue at James K. A. Smith