The article Earthly Empires in Business Week raises many important issues. The one that I want to deal with is the church growth/mega-church movement in America. I frequently hear that ‘traditional’ churches are “dead” and need to contemporize in order to be “relevant” to our culture. What this usually means is A.) we need to start singing contemporary songs in church, IE. songs from the Christian radio station; B.) we need to throw out the organ and bring in a band; C.) we need to build a new church building, one without stained glass, pews, pulpits, Bibles, and crosses, and build one with multi-purpose “worship centers” complete with video projectors, sound systems, stages and lights; and my personal favorite D.) we need to stop preaching hard sermons and start sharing 15 minute encouraging messages that make us feel good about ourselves. Those seeking to be contemporary usually point to their attendee growth as proof that contemporizing is having an impact on the lost and that the so-called ‘traditional’ churches are not. But I don’t think they are having quite the impact they would like to think they have.
The truth is that, while mega-churches are growing, the overall number of Christians in America is not. A study by The Barna Group, among others, indicates that overall church attendance in America has not changed in decades. The growth seen in mega-churches is not conversion growth but transfer growth. In other words, the growing number of people coming to church is not due to conversion to Christianity but to church-hopping of already church attendees. Even one of the church growth movement’s strongest advocates admits this dark-side to the movement. William Chadwick, author of Stealing Sheep, writes, “Great effort is being expended, but few are actually turning to Christ for the first time. Instead, the faithful are mostly just changing churches.” The statistics are startling. It has long since become common knowledge that while there are many more mega-churches in the United States than in days past, there are no more Christians. Obviously the only way to account for this is to realize that people are moving from small churches into these mega-churches. Maybe contemporization is not the answer after all.
There are regions in the world where Christianity is exploding. Christians in Asia, Africa, and Latin America do not have the privilege of multi-million dollar buildings and cutting-edge technology. In fact, most of these Christians meet in meager churches with dirt floors and thatched roofs. People’s lives are being transformed because of Jesus Christ and the truth of God’s Word. Why then the craze in America for contemporization? I believe it is the wonderful programs, the emotion raising drama, the comfortable seats, the professional music, the building and its modern amenities, and the non-threatening non-offensive sermons. Entertainment-crazed and emotional American Christians seem more concerned with comfortable environments and encouraging therapeutic messages than God’s Word. Don’t believe me? Read the article in Business Week and then look at the statistics. Lives are not being changed as a result of contemporization, just creature comforts and consciences.
How many people would still be around if the drama was gone, the lighting did not work, the sound system was gone, and all the things that were used to attract seekers in, were gone, and it was just you and the Word of God? What really is the attraction? Is it itching ears, people’s own desires, the programs? Or is it the Word, Jesus, and what He has to say? The truth of God’s Word and the holy, distinct, set-apart lives of His people will change lives. Becoming “relevant” at the exclusion of these things will ultimately do more harm than good.
-Credit to Jessica Peabody for suggesting the article
I think one important note you left out is that so many today are seeking to satisfy self. We have allowed our churches to take on the selfish nature of our society. These “seeker sensitive” churches are filling a selfish desire in people.
Church is no longer about worshiping our Creator and Father. Instead we sing about what we can do to Him rather than what He can do through us. We seek to make people “feel good” through our music and “sermon”(if you can call it that).
We have gotten away from the “Traditional” Worship in that we have gotten away from worshipping the Triune God. We have forgotten that we have been Created to Praise and Worship our Father in Heaven, not try to feel good about him.
I believe that when we do away with the touchy-feely stuff of our seeker sensitive mega churches and get back to worshipping our Heavenly Father and giving Him the Praise and Honor and Glory deserved, then and only then can we truly worship and will we truly see growth in our churches.
There are certainly some valid criticisms of the church growth movement that need to be addressed, but I find your criticisms less than convincing. Contemporary worship services may not be the answer to all of the problems in the American church, but I completely disagree that it does more harm than good. Churches do need to guard against watering down the gospel or letting market research replace the Scripture, but let’s not make the false assumption that all mega-churches are failing to remain true to orthodox Christianity because they have adopted a culturally relevant style.
Should we criticize churches for using dramas to creatively present the gospel message, or should we criticize churches who limit their ministry by refusing to do anything remotely creative? Should we criticize churches that are trying to creatively convey the gospel message through the language and music that people in America understand, or should we criticize churches that keep the organ around because Grandma Ethel would be offended if some hippy led worship with a guitar? Obviously some mega-churches are selling out the gospel in order to grow, but let’s be very clear how they are selling out the gospel. Let’s not lump all of contemporary Christianity into a category that does “more harm than good.”
I have a lot more I would like to write here, but unfortunately I have an appointment to get to.
Tristan, I never said that contemporary worship services would do more harm than good. I said that “Becoming ‘relevant’ at the exclusion of these things will ultimately do more harm than good.” I try not to lump all contemporary churches together. However, in the effort to make a point it is a necessary evil to make generalizations. My criticism is for the movement as a whole, much like the movement’s criticisms of ‘traditional’ churches do the same. I’m not suggesting that the answer is the organ and pews and stained glass windows. I said in my post that the solution is “the truth of God’s Word and the holy, distinct, set-apart lives of His people will change lives.” I’m not trying to be unfair, but the church growth movement seems to be overly concerned with creature comforts and a clean conscience disguised as ‘relevance.’
With that said, thank-you for your response. Please do say what else you have to say. We are here to dialogue.
I agree with the fundamental truth that worship should not be centered on man but God. It is up to each member of any church to stop asking “what am I getting out of this church?” and start asking “what am I giving God?”. Worship is loving God and his word enough to be a servant.
Do we love his word like David did in Psalm 119? Contemporary or Traditional, do we truly love his word?
Sean,
I agree whole-heartedly that “the truth of God’s Word and the holy, distinct, set-apart lives of His people will change lives.” If a mega-church or a small country church loses its perspective of God’s truth and its mission to make disciples, then it is failing regardless of how relevant it is.
But here is my frustration. Why even bring contemporary worship into the conversation if it not part of the perceived problem with the church growth movement? I understand that generalizations are necessary to have conversation, but I think there are just as many generalized criticisms that can be made against smaller and less-progressive churches.
Pastors are criticized in the Business Week article for using market research, but is this a bad thing? Is it wrong to try to understand the trends in society in order to affectively communicate to society? I wouldn’t begin to defend pastors and churches who replace the gospel and orthodox Christianity with some sort of relevant feel-good message, but I think we too easily assume that is what they are doing.
Bill Hybles is a prime example. The article mentions that he used market research in determining how to build their new sanctuary. Is this wrong? Is there any mandate in Scripture that tells Christians how they must construct places of worship? The article also criticizes one of Hybles’ teaching pastors for giving a “lengthy sermon about the Christian approach to personal finances,” but how is this a valid criticism? Jesus talked a lot about money. The message of salvation isn’t just about forgiveness of sins. It is about transformation, not just in our spirits, but in how we spend money, how we care for the poor, etc… I’ve listened to a number of sermons given by Hybles and Willow Creek’s teaching pastors, and I am yet to hear anything heretical. In fact, I’ve been pleasantly surprised at how Biblical and orthodox they have been.
One last comment….One issue of dialogue that may be good to address is the tendency for the American church to mix worship and evangelism. Perhaps this is where a lot of our problems/disagreements lie. Ever since the Great Awakening, the American church has used Sunday morning worship as its prime mode of evangelism. We don’t go out and make disciples; we invite unbelievers to Christian worship in order to convert them. This is why our worship services have become user friendly. I’m not saying that this is necessarily bad or good, but it is the way things are in the American church.
Blessings to you, my friend.
Amen brother Sean and brother Jan. We are too involved in what can the church do for me and what do I get. Is it the coffee cake, first time attender gift, or donuts and coffee. I am working within our church youth and have noticed the same thing happening. When we got serious about salvation and what Christ did for each of us, I saw numbers change a little.
When we forget the focal point that worship is not about self but about God: and that worship is about giving all to Him regardless of what the other person thinks we lose lives. I am taken to 2 Timothy when Paul likens Christians as soldiers. We lose lives when we are disobedient to the Commander. Lives are lost when we don’t follow orders. How true that is to the Church today. When pastors, leaders, and elders are caught up in the contemporary lights and fashion of attraction they lose lives because the truth is rarely ever given or we think well that wasn’t political enough so do it this way so it sounds better. Authenticy is what Christ is and was about. Why can’t we just be real? I know too much genuiness results in intamacy or relationships. That what Christ and the Father expects from us. So Amen my brother and Keep preachin’ it.
LOve in Christ Heath
I find it important to be culturally relevant, except on Sunday Morning worship. Cultural relevance is subjective. The church needs to offer an objective order of worship. God is objective isn’t He? Did God tell the children of Israel at Mt. Sinai, “Hey worship, but do it however you like”? No. When we offer up culturally relevant worship (in this case in America it could actually be contemporary)we are not united (catholic, universal) in our worship.
I say be culturally relevant 24 hours a day, six days a week, but set one day aside to to worship the Objective God in an objective manner.
Could someone explain to me what objective worship is? I believe in truth. I believe in an objective unchanging God, but is there an objective and unchanging form of worship? If we are a Greek Orthodox or a Roman Catholic that still performs the Mass in Latin, then we may be able to argue that there is only one objective manner in which to worship, but I none of us are arguing from that position. So, please explain what objective worship looks like.
I’m not advocating that selfish and self-centered Christianity be tolerated, but let’s not assume that these are the motivation or end result of the church growth movement. A lot of people may go to mega-churches for the wrong motivations (they may like the music or it may make them feel good), but I think we could likewise criticize the motivation of many people who attend smaller churches.
I am by no means an theologian, nor have I studied as many of you have, but that being said, isn’t Objective worship dealing with who the object of our worship is. Just as subjective worship be an induviduals own perspective.
I may not be making that clear but I think the Bible is clear on the fact that our worship be focused on Christ.
I think the arguement can also be made that there is a time and a place for corporate objective worship. We are not only to worship on Sunday mornings, but throughout the week. Couldn’t it be said that on Monday through Saturday our worship can take on differnt “looks”, perhaps more subjectivity. But then on Sundays when we come together as a body of believers and unite as one we should worship as our father has taught us. To me that means we take away all the appeal, attraction, lights and cameras, and focus on the object of our Worship.
Again, I am not a theologian, so perhaps I am way off.
Wow, we’ve thrown around so many terms for so many different categories I believe the waters have become quite muddy. Tristan, I could not agree with you more when you said, “…may be good to address is the tendency for the American church to mix worship and evangelism. Perhaps this is where a lot of our problems/disagreements lie…” This was a point that I have been meaning to bring up and now you have said it for me. What I think Ron and Jan are saying is that when it comes to our outreach into the communities, it is those times that we need to be ‘culturally relevant’ and appeal to people who do not come to church – hence the going-out concept. It is times like this that we need become creative and do what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 9:20-23: “To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though I myself am not under the law) so that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law) so that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, so that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that I might by all means save some.”
But not on Sunday morning. We have polled the world and allowed them to determine how we worship corporately on Sunday morning. What astonishes me is that these mega-churches survey the unchurched to determine how to worship, and yet according to the statistics they’re not even coming! Besides, since when did the world ever know how to worship? God has laid down details in His Word on how to worship. I admire the Orthodox in their attempt at modeling their corporate worship around the Temple structure. Not only that, they worship the same way now as they have for almost 2,000 years despite the times and seasons and the latest fads and trends. And you know what, that church is growing in America because people want stability and consistency and a worship atmosphere that does not cater to the unchurched but is conducive to drawing the minds and hearts of Christians towards heaven. Sadly, we as evangelicals have no such roots or identity that can guide us in these changing times. We have cut ourselves off of all tradition and declared that we will worship any way that pleases us or makes us feel good. The old cliché goes something like this, “When you forget where you have come from you don’t know where you are going…” or something like that
Okay…take a deep breath. Contemplate this….
Here is a hypothesis. Maybe the traditional churches are “dead” or close to it. To be “dead” would be to be separated from God, and I do not think that is the case. Let’s use the term lukewarm, which according to scripture isn’t too far from “dead.
Maybe the contemporary movement is a result of Christians trying to bring back some life to the Church.
Maybe it worked a little too well. Maybe in all the excitement and growth they thought that it was the energy that was causing the growth, and so they just kept creating more energy.
I don’t want to get into all the controversial topics of the Holy Spirit, but… Most denominations have suppressed the Holy Spirit and asked Him not to present Himself during their services. The Wesleyans, of which I am one, in their doctrine they state that while the Gift of Tongues is a recognized Gift, they ask that members refrain from practicing it in a church setting.
Not many mainline denominations preach the power of the Holy Spirit, let alone practice it. When people are sick or hurt, we pray, and hope with all our faith, that God will heal them if He wills. Then if they are not healed, it simply wasn’t in His will.
Why don’t we look at Jesus Christ and how He dealt with the sick and afflicted. He commanded healing, He spoke to demons and commanded them to leave, He operated through the same Holy Spirit that is present today.
The same Holy Spirit that most churches state that they believe in their creeds, or faith statements, and then we ask Him to join our services and He is welcome to sit in whichever pew He wants, but please don’t reveal Yourself. Please don’t manifest yourself through your awesome and Holy power. Please don’t let anyone in our service have a prophetic word, or an exhortation for another in the middle of the service because that goes against “our” doctrine, and that might disrupt this wonderful orderly, service that we have prepared for you and get us off schedule. So just sit back and relax and allow us to worship you, but don’t forget we don’t want you involved in a supernatural way. So Holy Spirit, just keep it natural, and we will all get along.
This is what mainstream denominations do. We reject the supernatural power of the Holy Spirit in our lives, our services, and our doctrine. Can we blame people who read the Bible and get excited about His supernatural side, and want to grow in a relationship with Him?
The charismatic movement tried to correct this issue, and it only brought about more division in the Church. The charismatic movement has little structure, and thus the pastor is only accountable to himself, and he tries to hold himself accountable to God. Sometimes they last a long time, but in most cases the church splits and then they split and the cycle produces a lot of rebellious churches who are excited about the Holy Spirit but cut off from the rest of the body. (I only speak out of experience, not judgment)
The same thing is happening with the “contemporary” movement. Maybe they do not even know that they aren’t happy with the traditional churches because they lack the powerful relationship with the Holy Spirit. Maybe they just know that they are missing something, and the music, and excitement brings them into an emotional place and fills that void.
Maybe the Holy Spirit is actually present and in that energy He actually manifests Himself in those “contemporary” church services because He is welcomed to do so! Maybe it is just because their hearts are open, and willing to accept Him, and it has nothing to do with the music and the lights, and the overheads.
The problem is, the music, lights and overheads are what they associate with the moving of the Spirit, and so that’s is what they focus on.
I’ll tell you what, if Joel Osteen’s church in Dallas stops the music, turns off the production lights, and the sing Amazing Grace acapella it would be an awesome worship experience.
It isn’t the lights and action that create the excitement, but if that is what they focus on, they will soon fail.
So… maybe we all need to give a little. None of us, in all of our self righteousness, are anywhere close to Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamos, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, or Laodicea.
Sean, when we separate worship from evangelism, I can completely agree that cultural trends do not have to dictate how we do worship, but those churches should stick to the model that the church is for believers only. The problem in America is that the main tool of evangelism has become inviting people to church (for both mainline churches and mega-churches). I’m not saying this is good, but it is a reality. It seems to me that there will always be some mixing of evangelism and worship because a person cannot really be a Christian outside of the fellowship of the church.
One final note…I am not really convinced that the majority of mega-church growth can be attributed to stealing believers from other churches. Of course, it can explain some of the growth, but I haven’t found convincing statistics. One survey I was looking at considered mega-churches as any church with over 1000 weekly attendees and 47% of those churches in a America are Mainline Catholic Churches which doesn’t seem to fit our conversation. One survey that leads me to believe that mega-churches are reaching a lot of unchurched people deals with the demographics of churches. The largest group of attendees at mainline denominations is the elderly followed by Baby-Boomers, Busters, and gen Xer’s respectively. Why are many mainline churches shrinking in size? They are literally dying. On the other hand, the largest attendees of the evangelical mega-churches are Busters and Xers. We could conclude that mega-churches are stealing the younger people from mainline denominations (which has some truth to it), but these younger demographics have never attended church with the same numbers as the previous generation. Contemporary evangelical churches are the only Christian churches in America where younger attendees outnumber the older attendees.
This is a subject near and dear to my heart. For quite a number of years our family attended various Methodist churches in Ohio and Virginia. You could walk into one on Sunday and another the next week and for the most part you would have no idea which one you were in. NOW… before you Methodist loyalists have a fit, I am not picking on the Methodist church nor do I lump all Methodist churches into one bag. (Just check out Ginghamsburg UMC in Tipp City, Ohio.)
My point being this, not only many Methodist churches but many, many other denominations as well, services’ are locked in a worship setting/method that was cast 200 years ago. The church, in my opinion, has lost it relativness to popular contemporary settings. Where else do you go and sit on hard bench seats? Or listen to heavy solo organ music? I would venture to say, that there is no one reading this that can claim to have a CD of Christgian organ music in their collection. Point made!
It is, in my mind, a matter of contemporaty relevance. Perhaps we are ALL SPOILED with the way in which we receive and enjoy music, drama, and the spoken word. But that is on ones fault, but simply where we ALL live today.
So what if the church uses contempory methods to communicate the Gospel messge. Are you also going to bash them for using the internet as well?! I hope not.
While one can claim that a contemporary church setting appeals to the emotion rather than the heart, I totally disagree. I know of no emotion that is more “emotional” than love. And if a contemporary setting is used to convey the love of God through up scale music (well beyond the solo organist) and drama and ones emotions are stirred, well I wonder what is the root of the emotion? Simply hooked on a music style or is it a deeper appreciation for the message contained and presented using contemporary methods that relate to every other thing that we listen to.
However, with all this said, regardless of the style of music, the physical setting, and other aids used in the church to convey the message, the MESSAGE cannot ever, under any circumstances be altered! Jesus Christ is our Savior, we are saved by grace, He is the one and only True God, and no other path to salvation is acceptible.
I listen to contemporary Christian music. I go to a church that has drums, electric guitars, an upright bass, and yes even bongos. I enter into worship in this “contemporary” setting. I can also enter into worship in a Baptist, Methodist, or any other “traditional” church service.
I think the real problem is that gen”xers” tend to argue that they can’t really “enter” into worship with a traditional hymn. They at least say that the contemporary music helps them enter into worship.
Maybe that is true. Maybe they need that contemporary style.
The question is, how much of the congregation is actually coming to that “place of worship,” and how many are just getting good clean entertainment out of it.
In a different post, Ron refered to a community worship, as opposed to an individual worship. There is a difference, and it is relevant.
As I stated, I do enter into worship in a contemporary setting, just as so many other do too, my point is that I don’t need it. In fact it is not any easier. Although in a Methodist, or Baptist church I do get a little self conscience about raising my hands, than I do in a contemporary setting.
We can’t judge the attitude of ones heart. The problem is that those who open their mouth to give defense to contemporary worship usually argue the wrong points.
(I am refering in generality, and not to any post I have read here in this discussion)
Keep The Son In Your Eyes!
-Matt
Due to such a flurry of activity on this particular issue it’s going to be impossible to respond directly to every single point listed. This is a good problem to have in my mind and I thank-you all for your contributions. Please keep this up, dialogue is the purpose of this weblog.
With that said, I’m going to try to respond to some key points from the last 4 posts. This will be selective, but I promise that side issues will be explored in more depth on down the road.
1. Response to Matt Gaiser – I appreciate your heartfelt observations. Certainly it has taken you some time to type all that out, and for that I commend you. I will start by saying that your “hypothesis” may just be that and nothing more. I cannot speak on behalf of all churches, but I can speak on behalf of my own which happens to be old-school Methodist and I can assure you that we are not “dead.” And while visitors who are used to fancy productions may disagree, they cannot judge with any certainty the spiritual condition of my local body. If your criteria for judging “life” in a church is how loud the congregation sings then you might have a negative view of us. But your view would be narrow and ignorant, for volume of one’s voice does not determine spiritual vitality – hence Ron’s example of the prophets of Baal in another topic. I see plenty of people who sing louder than the angels in Heaven, but their lives are so shady and inconsistent that I am forced to question their sincerity. The point is, I’m not prepared to assume that so-called “traditional” churches are “dead”. I used to think that when I was in high school, but this analysis was out of my ignorance. I would not call a contemporary church “dead” just because they sing different music than my UMC. But if I applied my own subjective standards of spiritual life I might come to a conclusion that my own church is quite vital and effective.
On another note, I agree that some denominations may stifle the work of the Holy Spirit, but I do not accept your categories. Your observations are based on a premise that the work of the Holy Spirit is centered in and primarily defined by a.) miraculous healing, and b.) speaking in “tongues.” But I don’t think these should be our determining factors on whether or not a church or denomination allows the Holy Spirit to operate. Jesus made it quite clear that the primary work of the Spirit would be to direct our attention to Jesus and remind us of His words. This flows from His nature within the Godhead. The Father sends and glorifies the Son. The Son goes and glorifies the Father. The Father sends the Spirit through the Son. The Spirit glorifies the Father and the Son. This others-orientedness is fundamental to God’s divine nature. To suggest that the we should gauge a church or denomination’s “life” based on your criteria would be somewhat foolish. Just because a particular denomination does not allow “tongues” does not mean they are suppressing the work of the Spirit. First of all, I’m highly skeptical that what goes on every Sunday morning at the Assemblies of God is what the New Testament gift of “tongues” actually was (this is a side issue we can explore in another topic). A particular church or denomination may not accept “tongues” as defined by the charismatic community, not necessarily the New Testament gift. So let’s not suggest that just because a church does not make two gifts of the Spirit central to their faith and practice that they are just telling the Holy Spirit to sit silently in the pews. That same church may be embracing the Holy Spirit more than others because they focus primarily on His Person as central and then His works as marginal.
2. Response to Tristan – I’m glad that you made the point that it is a problem that “in America … the main tool of evangelism has become inviting people to church.” Nowhere in church history has Sunday morning corporate worship been for anyone other than the church. My primary objection to some of the issues raised in the Business Week article is that these mega-churches are polling the unchurched to determine how the church does its worship. I have some serious objections to that. Since when did the world know how to worship? Worship is not for the lost, it is for the elect (in the Wesleyan sense everyone, cool your jets). This is not an example of elitism; this is truth. The world cannot worship God, they do not even know God. So why then do we let them dictate how we worship? That boggles my mind! And for a pastor to remove all crosses and Bibles from his church just because surveys of unchurched people suggested that these were “offensive” is not an example of him deviating from the traditions of 200 years, but of all church history! This fundamental mentality of anti-anything-even-resembling-tradition-for-the-sake-of-not-offending-non-churchgoers is supremely arrogant and definitively post-modern.
In response to your skepticism about my figures, I cannot make you accept them. But I can say that even Bill Hybels admits this aspect of the church growth movement in his book that we read for Evangelism class (the one you and I sat together in). If the overall number of Christians in this country is not changing, and we see people leaving main-line denominations and people coming to mega-churches, is it not logical then to assume that the vast majority of their growth is transfer growth?
3. Response to John – Thank-you for posting, I was wondering when you would get into the discussion
First of all, I’m glad that throughout the Methodist Church there is some uniformity and consistency. This is a demonstration of like-mindedness of which I celebrate in a time of such fragmentation and disunity as this. Although I still think your point was more than slightly exaggerated. If you mean that every Methodist Church has stained glass windows, a pulpit, a cross, and some candles then I guess I agree.
You said, “…many Methodist churches but many, many other denominations as well, services’ are locked in a worship setting/method that was cast 200 years ago…” First of all, I don’t know why this makes a church “irrelevant”. The problem with this entire discussion is that we operate under the assumption that “relevance” is based on how much we resemble the times. But I guess my ecclesiology must be rusty because never have I thought that the relevance of the church was based on the styles and trends of the day. A church that is copy-catting the world is not automatically “relevant”. They may look a lot like the world and sound a lot like the world and – oh wait – does this not cause anyone any problems? Are we not the ekklesia, the “called-out ones”? What is so wrong with being distinct? Why not a separate genre for worship? Yes, I have Christian CDs that I listen to for entertainment, but that does not mean that I want to be entertained on Sunday morning. Furthermore, this entire discussion was not even originally about “contemporary” verses “traditional”. My original comment was, and I will say it here for the third time, “The truth of God’s Word and the holy, distinct, set-apart lives of His people will change lives. Becoming “relevant” at the exclusion of these things will ultimately do more harm than good.” The whole point was that becoming “relevant” at any cost is reckless and foolish. And, from my humble opinion, that is what seems to be happening today. Seriously, even the guy who wrote “Earthly Empires” could see that “so adept at the sell are some evangelicals that it can be difficult to distinguish between their religious aims and the secular style they mimic.” This makes my point exactly – the contemporary movement seems to be heading in a direction where such an emphasis is put on being “relevant” that the world cannot even tell the difference between them and us! Nor can I anymore.
And about the word “relevant.” I hope we are not basing our arguments on a definition of this word as having a contemporary “style.” The true relevance of the church is not found in building style, music style, preaching style, etc. True Christian relevance is in our message of Jesus Christ and through the living witness of Christian holiness. It is our distinctiveness from the world that makes us decidedly relevant. What does a church have to offer that gives the world more of the same? If we water down our messages to merely offering “an upbeat message intertwined with a religious one” we are not fulfilling our mission. Find me one true Christian revival in church history that arose from fluffy preaching like this.
You made my point when you said, “Where else do you go and sit on hard bench seats? Or listen to heavy solo organ music?” Where else indeed! Why can’t we be different? And hard bench seats really aren’t that bad. In fact, it hasn’t been until the last several hundred years that Christians even sat at church. We’re so pampered by our creature comforts that not only do we have to have a pad beneath our rears, but now we have to have our coffee close by as well (just like Starbucks). In fact, Barnes and Noble uses Wi-fi in their bookstores, so let’s just go ahead and include Wi-fi in our sanctuar- ahem, I mean “worship centers.” Besides, once again, I hope you are not basing a church’s “relevance” on whether or not they have padded seats. What about the very small churches in poor areas that don’t have money for fancy shmancy padded seats. Does this mean that God cannot move in that church because their seats aren’t the most comfortable in the world? Give me a break.
You said, “So what if the church uses contemporary methods to communicate the Gospel message. Are you also going to bash them for using the internet as well?!” No one is bashing anybody for using “contemporary methods.” Once again, I am against being “relevant” at the expense of our distinctiveness. Nowhere in ANY of my comments have I said that it is wrong to use a guitar in church. How can you suggest that anyone is bashing that? The vast majority of evangelical churches have already made the switch to different instruments and songs. I am in the minority these days. I am the one who is constantly having to defend myself against claims from the other side that we’re DEAD because we don’t have rock concerts and movies on Sunday morning! Who is bashing who in this debate? Please don’t act like you’re on the defensive here. And in addition, I am not against using “contemporary methods” to communicate the Gospel. As part of our outreach I say let’s get as creative as we can. But in our corporate worship I am not convinced that we have to be “contemporary” to be “relevant.”
I would not be so quick to equate emotions with love. Love may surface as different emotions. Love can be expressed in laughter or tears. Love is not a mere emotion. However, what is going on throughout the entertainment-oriented atmosphere in contemporary churches seems very much like simple emotionalism. Crying over a song is not being spiritual. I do not cry over songs all the time. I don’t feel emotions over songs all the time. However, if my mind is drawn to Christ and He is gloried through the words of a song then, regardless of tears or smiles, that is spiritual. I can love God and not cry a drop. I’ve seen the lyrics of contemporary songs. I sang them four days a week, every week, through four years of college chapels. I have yet to see ONE contemporary song that can match the depth and substance of a Charles Wesley hymn. This has nothing to do with style and everything to do with content. The new songs we sing today are so ambiguous and fluffy and recite the same 8 words over and over and over again. Oh yes, we can sing them to a band and have multimedia content on the video projector, and we can have fancy lights and padded seats, and the songs may not have a “thee” or “thine.” But none if that means anything if the content is poor. My wife and I listen to Christian CDs all the time and we’re the first to admit that we cannot understand what these guys mean half the time. And the ones we do think we understand there’s not much depth to them. There are some new songs that are good, but by and large no one has yet to reproduce the quality of a Wesleyan hymn. I personally like rock music more than an organ, but on Sunday morning I prefer to be distinct from an MTV-society and sing songs that actually mean something.
4. Response to Matt Gaiser – Kudos to your ability to worship in both a traditional or contemporary setting. I wish more people were as willing to do that as you are.
You said that “…gen”xers” tend to argue that they can’t really “enter” into worship with a traditional hymn…” I don’t know what your source for this claim is, but as a 24 year old I can testify that this is not universally accurate, at least not where I come from. In fact, I am seeing a trend in the other direction where people my age, and even younger, find that they prefer to worship God through song in a more traditional way – mostly for the reasons I have mentioned above. They are hungry for depth and tired of entertainment/emotional/self-oriented music like what is popular these days. The recent growth of the Eastern Orthodox Church in America is one example of this trend among people of all age groups, and they are as old-school as it gets. They make “traditional” Methodists look trendy.
You said, “Maybe they need that contemporary style.” Is what we need, or what we want really what this is all about? Is our personal preference of music style the real issue here? How sad if it is.
This is all I have in me tonight, or shall I say this morning. It is now 2:28 AM Central time and I am pooped. I sure that much of what I have said did not make the sense that it made in my head, but give me a break, I just drove for 11 and a half hours straight. One thing I do want to make sure is that none of this debate becomes personal. This should remain an objective debate/dialogue. Dad, I love you and believe that you love Jesus. I fundamentally disagree in principle to much you believe in this issue, but in the end we both love the same God and can always find common ground in the Person of Jesus Christ. Thank-you all for reading all this. It was probably a mistake to try and respond to four posts at one time, especially this late at night, but hopefully God will forgive me for missing the mark such as I may have.
This has been a fun discussion, and I don’t want to beat a dead horse, so this will be my last post.
Several things remain unresolved in your argument, at least in my mind.
1. There has been a lot of criticism with contemporary Christianity but no definition of what objective Christian worship is. My problem with skeptics is that they like to criticize beliefs without asserting any of their own beliefs. I cannot be convinced to the overall failings of contemporary church growth movement unless a clear ulternative is explained.
Singing hymns is not a part of traditional worship if we go back far enough in tradition. Meeting in church buildings is not a part of tradition if we go back to the early church or even churches under Communism. Saying that worship is objective when it focuses on the objective God is a copout because it says nothing about the manner in which we worship.
2. The argument that worship should be for believers only is valid, but that does not imply that worship should not reflect the style and language of the culture. I’m also not totally convinced that inviting non-Christians into the community of worshiping believers is a bad approach.
Sean,
Just to be clear from that last post…I’m not calling you a skeptic, just making an analogy.
Sean,
I agree with everything you said in your response to my comment.
I think that in trying to keep my posts short, I tend to make general statements where I should give specific details.
In regard to the Holy Spirit, what I was trying to say actually had nothing to do with individual gifts of the spirit, I just used some of them as examples. My point is that a relationship with the Holy Spirit is based on action. (Without getting into monergism, synergism, pelegianism in order to, again, keep my post short). Let’s just say that our relationship with the Holy Spirit can only grow, and be strengthened through our faith in Him, and our response to Him.
Many (not all) traditional denominations limit their relationship with the Holy Spirit simply by not teaching about the Holy Spirit. This has nothing to do with their belief in Him.
We are taught a lot about having a relationship with God the Father, and Jesus Christ. Many times though (note I did not say all denominations, nor all the time) “traditional” denominations profess belief, preach existence, and even pray to the Holy Spirit, but they do not teach relationship with Him.
As far as the gifts of the Spirit are concerned, I apologize if I came across as presenting that tongues, or healing have anything to do with verification of belief or even fullness.
There is no question that many, I would go as far as to say most (just based on my personal experience) congregations that practice the supernatural gifts at times do it in the wrong way, and abuse their gifts. I am sure that Paul would write many of them some interesting letters.
At the UMC in New Concord, OH that I was a member of, the pastor did a Sunday school lesson on the Holy Spirit. He did not sway from UMC doctrine, and did not focus on tongues or the supernatural controversial gifts. He simply did a class on having a relationship with Him. I’ll never forget the organ player and her husband when they broke down in tears and said, “We have been Christians for all our lives (both were in their 60s), and this is the first we have heard of such a relationship with the Holy Spirit. We have been robbed, and cheated our entire lives.” Still crying he said, “Why didn’t someone, from all the churches we’ve been to, ever tell us? What a wonderful thing this is, and now we only get to enjoy it for the rest of our lives.”
He was heart broken that he had missed out on a personal daily relationship with the Holy Spirit. These two, next to the pastor, were two of the most involved couples in the church.
My point is, many of these contemporary churches split off of traditional churches because of what “they” would consider a lack of the Holy Spirit, or because the traditional church was “dead.” I am not condoning nor condemning this. I am simply saying that because they identify themselves as being “spirit filled” insinuating that others are not, then the members of those congregations tend to “link” the worship portion of the service as more “spiritual” than those “other” churches that are not “spirit filled.”
I can’t point to an article that says this, although if it would help I could write one
. I am merely drawing from my hundreds of conversations on this in the mission fields. It is amazing when you spend a long time in a group of 20 – 40 people from all over the world, and different denominations what kind of apologetics you hear.
As you pointed out in one of your other posts, I don’t remember which one, but you said something about other countries and how they worship. They worship entirely different than we do.
What amazes me is that in many third world countries, they worship freely. There are no restrictions on how they can worship. No one will look at them funny, or say something to them about being inappropriate in their worship. If they run around the tent, or clap and shout no one even thinks it is strange. They do not have to be self conscience about how they worship. And in all of that, there is no disorder. There is just pure and true holy worship.
Our problem in the US is that we have to defend our style of worship, no matter what it is. As long as it is Holy, and orderly no one should really question it. There shouldn’t be rules (spoken or unspoken) about raising hands, or clapping and being excited.
I just wish we could be as free to worship as some third world countries are. I know that by federal law, we are. We are just constrained by the judgments of those around us.
hey all,
this is really good. but i will say that we could speak of something that maybe we all need to get back to and focus upon. JESUS! he said if you love me you keep my commands. he told peter to feed his sheep. whether we are in a contemporary or traditional setting it is about Jesus not ME. so when we get so bold to think we could explain worship to Him. if you go back to 1 Sam. 7:2-4 he said if you are turning back to the Lord with all your hearts, you must remove your foreign gods and your idols of Ashtoreth. you must give yourselves fully to the Lord and serve only Him. then he will save you from (our) phillistine.
what does that have to do with our topic? well, when i finally settle the Lordship issue in my life, God did some really cool things that took me by surprise. I stood one morning in a 3CU church and shouted to the Lord. NOT of myself but of Him. I know that all worship must be done in every aspect of the service. it is not what He can do for you, instead what can i do to show i cherish Him with all my heart, mind and soul. so many of us get lost in that. we forget our focus point. and it can truly happen in any setting, contemporary or traditional. i have seen it in both. the real thing is that we must deal with self. when self gets invovled we will lose focus of the son. some of can even use speaking in tongues, raising hands, or running ailes in the wrong manner. i know that in all things we do we must seek Him and His kingdom before we do anything, including worship. i have entered worship service before and had the wrong attitudes, and God in HIs wisdom, convicted my heart. some of are getting lost in this because we are losing focus of worship period. IT IS NOT ABOUT US BUT HIM!!!!!!
this may not help but i am an art teacher – on the subjective and objective – this may not be a definition found in webster but….when i teach photography and we look for an objective view we catch the person off guard – in perspective to what one of you said -when we are concerned with what other people are doing around us in worship (including what the world view is) we loose period. – subjective view in photography we look for that persons eyes to be looking into the camera – how does that relate – well the persons eyes are focused on the camera and cannot be misled by others forces from outside – my major point is this> when we take our focus off the ONE who worship is all about we are more concerned with what everyone else is doing thus the objective view – and my brothers and sister – too many will fall to these things in the end times because some will try to find their faith in some falsehoods (2 Timothy 4). the books that Paul wrote are full of helping us keep a watch for these things ( i am not saying that any of us are doing that but our youth in particular are searching to find something – and if not careful can fall to anything) we are missing the fact that Christianity is about evangelism and missions. we are all this!!! our churches are about Jesus, and bringing the lost to him, but the problem at times is we just bring and leave them. Where is the time invested to tell the Good News of Jesus to these people that are coming to church.
well i am done thanks.