It is interesting to me that there seems to be a great deal of credibility being placed upon the perspectives of people who are "young" and can speak for "emerging generations" or who can critique the efforts of the established church over against the prevailing culture's expectations. It also seems that many of these people are hypercritical of anything they perceive as being "old paradigm." The critical hyperbole often seems to drip with condescension.
I hear and read their critiques of everything from the forward they read in a book by an older church leader who seems out of touch with today's culture, to church signs they feel are misguided, to the way that an older person witnesses which seems presumptuous to them. I hear critiques about liturgy, about 18th century music, about blue-haired old ladies, about how churches measure success by numbers, about whether a leader is techie enough, etc. It never ends.
My perspective is a little different. I see "young" christians, "emergent" churches, old saints, contemporary worship, liturgical worship, inside the walls nurture, outside the walls missions, churchy language, plain english language, King James, Today's English Version, suits, jeans, casual, formal, etc. as representations of the incredibly beautiful and diverse Body that Jesus Christ is the Head of. We are as different as fingers are from ears or eyes are from noses -- different not better -- different not worse -- different not always right or wrong.
I believe that the efforts and the styles and the perspectives of all these people are very often inspired and commissioned by the same Holy Spirit. I believe that these very different people and these very different perspectives are necessary and even complementary in the work of the Kingdom to which we are all called. Sure we can learn from each other. Sure we can challenge one another to expand our vision. But I get really tired of the apparent presuposition that "they" have to be wrong in other for "us" to be right. Why can't we challenge one another in a complementary way, rather than in a constantly critical way?
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
10 Response to Complementary versus Critical
I think you will find that a lot of the people who are critical of what the established church has become that can only be considered young by the same standards that Paul considered Timothy young :) And the reason most are hypercritical of the the established church is what they see from the established looks very little like biblical Christianity.
Most services at denominational churches that I have been to can be called "worship" services only because they are named thus on the bulletin. Any true outsider that came to most churches that I have been too would not consider it a worship service.
Not much time now before work to explain better but the main reason most are critical is because they are somewhat angry with what they percieve as "hypocrisy" or acting one way on Sunday and totally different throughout the week.
I am also not a fan of being critical of church either. My view is we start fresh and go back to biblical principles in worship and teaching.
Being theologically PC is not my strong suit BTW :D
Les
Yes Les, but why is a "true outsider" qualified to judge what true worship is? I think seeker sensitive worship is an oxymoron. It isn't the seeker who should be worshiped, but God. Similarly, it isn't the prevailing culture who should be consulted about the relevance of the church.
Sure the church needs a lot of leadership and should be challenged in many areas, but it seems a lot easier for some people to criticize the existing church, than to criticize a sick, broken culture in need of Jesus Christ.
It seems as if we trip over ourselves constantly in the attempt to make the Gospel unoffensive to sinners. We hesitate to tell anyone that they are wrong, because we seem to be afraid this might hurt their feelings and then they won't like us anymore.
It's just easier to criticize other Christians who we feel aren't as spiritual, or as with it, or as culturally aware, or as technologically connected, etc.
All this post-modern naval-gazing has been going on for at least the last twenty years and as far as I can tell, all it has produced is worship wars and book sales. The danger is that it very well may be inspiring a sect of Christianity that is principally interested in the humanist ideal of self-actualization rather than in life for the glory of God.
Haha I think you totally misunderstood what I was trying to say. I am about as far from a "seeker service" as can possibly be. Hate tha things to tell ya the truth :)
If an outsider reads the Bible and then goes to our worship service he should definately be able to tell its a worship service and not a wake. Sorry but there is plenty of biblical mandates in the bible on how to worship. Some very visible and others not so much visible in service. The visible ones however should be there.
And to "criticize a sick, broken culture in need of Jesus Christ" would just be silly IMO. They're sinners, its what they do. God's word says that if HIS people, who are called by HIS name, will humble themselves and pray..then he will come and heal their land. Says nothing bout a sinner praying or humbling themselves. Revival starts with God's people.
The techie aspect is more cultural than church related so it's not that important in my book. I don't criticize non-techies, but I also hang out with very few non-techies because there are so many differences cultural wise. Just how it is.
I believe we are talking bout two totally different things here as I totally agree with your last paragraph. None of what I do or say from a pulpit, position of worship leader, or my day to day life will reflect of the post modern theology out there. Most of it is not biblical and I dare say a good bit is not Christian.
Les
Les, I'm not suggesting using a bully pulpit to criticize sinners individually, but I am suggesting that Christian leaders can and should offer thoughtful and critical rebuttal to cultural influencers.
Even that isn't the central point of my post though. My point is that it seems we spend a lot of time finger pointing at our own team. We can't seem to muster up enough grace to credit each other for genuine and faithful motivations.
Instead of incessantly picking on one another, why can't we allow the Holy Spirit to work through diverse believers and diverse bodies of believers. If a given church isn't a good fit for your particular calling, gifts, and graces -- then by all means go with grace to one that is or consider a new church or house-church launch!
When and if you go, don't let your criticism of the people you left become your main message -- instead allow them to serve as they feel called and led and bless their ministry as you pray for your own. Then serve as you are called and gifted to serve.
I certainly see sin in the lives of people within the Church. So far I haven't found a single group of Christian people (to include those described in the New Testament record) who have amassed a spotless record of perfect motivations, let alone perfect behavior. If you've found or produced this nirvana in your local church -- keep up the good work brother!
BTW Les, the "you" in my last comment is a general you, not you specifically.
Lol I wasn't in any way defending those who criticize the church. Taint my job nor will it ever be. I myself have preached the same sermon you seem ta be preaching at me.
I'm not here to criticise the church people or the sinners. I'm here to glorify and lift up Jesus.
And glory be where did the stuff bout me being perfect or leading a perfect church fit in?
I feel like this is prolly directed in some other direction besides mine so I'll just bow out gracefully and let ya git r dun.
Happy blogging!
Les
Hey Les, I gotta figure out how to use emoticons or whatever to communicate better in forums like these. I value your perspective and don't feel like we're really disagreeing, but maybe we're pretty passionate about two different issues here. I'm sure not aiming all I said at you, I'm just weary of so much church critique of late.
Please don't bow out gracefully or otherwise!
Your friend and brother, Ken
Well, I do think that a good definition of "Worship" is called for. I think that many young Christians today (an ironic statement, as I consider myself young at 33) have in their mind that worship must have some "emotive" action to it or the service is worthless. John Wesley often warned of "enthusiasm" as an idol that must be avoided, but I digress.
What is worship? Worship is living in and experiencing the love of the Father vicariously through the Son in the power of the Holy Spirit. Worship is a time and place to rehearse who we are and how we will spend eternity with a Triune God. If you were to base worship on biblical principles, as Les suggests, then your service would consist of prayer, preaching from Scripture, partaking of Eucharist, possibly baptism of a new believer, and the reading of letters (in our time, the reading of Scripture) These are not very emotive actions, but they are powerful, and they are worship.
Somehow, I think that young people equate certain emotive styles of worship with authentic, biblical Christianity. When they don't see or experience that particular style, they inappropriately accuse a church of looking very little like biblical Christianity.
I would argue that funeral dirges are indeed worship, because it is a declaration of faith and the living out of hope in the midst of terrible trial. Look at the Psalms, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Habakkuk. Are these persons not worshiping God?
The young have much to learn, and I include myself in that group. How ridiculous to think that we have all the answers and that we know better than those blue-haired old ladies, must less persons such as Augustine of Hippo, Ambrose of Milan, or Saint Paul. Do I have critiques of the established church and its lived-out-in-the-world behaviors right now? Absolutely. John Wesley had a cow when he saw how Christians were living in 18th century England :) However, as long as worship includes the acts I outlined above, it is authentic, biblical worship.
Well, those are my thoughts at this late hour... Love the blog Ken.
Peace my friend and brother,
John
John, I appreciate your comments. One of the things that I wanted to get across with the post was that I see so much value in the perspectives and contributions of all of these Christians (young and old). I believe all of this enhances and completes the witness of the Church in the world.
I would love if the Church can somehow learn to "provoke one another to love and good deeds" as Hebrews 10 instructs, without discounting one another's Christian sincerity or genuineness.
You are an excellent example in the way that you offer your perspective with such respect and grace.
Thanks brother!
Ken-nay, Are you aware of the freak out we have at the Rock? Let me say your post was a breath of fresh air! Holy Crow, you hit it! The Rock, in its contemporary service was a place that did not know how to be church. Sure, they could play great contemporary music. But they were to young, too self-centered. They did not take care of each other. When I added that reality to my neighborhood--Appalachian transplants-- I saw that contemporary worship was NOT relevant. Additionally, I saw that we had a unity problem. There were old folks, young folks, Hispanics, and never were they going to meet.
So we started one service. It is mostly traditional. That is, we sing hymns along with contemporary (tho more gospel oriented). APostles' Creed, doxology, you name it. I took all the flack you can imagine. 18th century hymns. Feel like we're in the 50s, etc etc. Attendance is higher than ever. Not that I care about numbers, tho. :) Keep on, Ken!
Post a Comment