Twelve for 2012 (2)

[ ... continued from here]

Inherently, the modus operandi of quasi-prophetic, interrogatory verbalization runs counter to long-practiced norms — and to a good many beliefs tenaciously held by the masses.  For this disequilibrious endeavor I will make no apology, but if I ever seem to be fighting the individual’s independent, sincere pursuit of Almighty God and His eternal kingdom, I sit ready to be corrected.

In my last post, I listed an initial, six things I would do in, to, and for the earthly, western church of the 21^st century, if I had the ability.  These had to do with sects and structures, the clergy role, and scriptural moorings.  The ramifications of some of these items are broad, and I’m fully aware of the audacity of some of them.  In order to be clear about my human fallibility, I am presenting my list of twelve items in half-twelve lists of six, the “number of man.”  The total number — a nice, round, “biblical” one — has more reference to the current calendar year than to biblical completion:  here, although I touch on several matters I consider crucial, I make no claim to being exhaustive.

Below, then, is the second group of six things I would do in, to, and for the earthly, western church, if I had the ability.  These six concern (1-2) relational dynamics, (3-4) concepts of worship and of the Christian gathering, and (5-6) understandings of beginnings and continuations.

1. create small groups and other home gatherings where they do not already exist
2. inject a more apt understanding of the assembly (for starters, not thinking of it as a “service”)
3. infuse a deeper understanding of the nature and extents of worship — neither a) considering it to be singing or as confined to a musical style preference (e.g., so-called “worship music”), nor b) superimposing liturgical notions of “service,” thus obscuring worship
4. balance reverence with familial informality — establishing a patently respectful, informal (although not a casual) approach to worship and other church activities
5. cause an acceptance of the biblical place of the believer’s immersion in clothing oneself with Jesus as Savior — thus identifying fully with His death, burial, and resurrection (as a result, eradicating residual trust in such items as infant sprinkling, the incantational “sinner’s prayer,” and institutional church affiliation)
6. instill a solid, long-lasting, far-reaching concept and practice of discipleship, as opposed to false security in hereditary church “membership”

Not all the twelve items (the ones above, plus the last six) are of equal importance, but they are all important to me.  They don’t represent the gamut of need within Christendom; there are other areas that need attention, as well.  I don’t claim to be all that circumspect or insightful — only ardent for pure Christianity where I find its current iteration tainted.

While the list of twelve items may contract or expand with the passing years, I have given these enough thought, through enough time, that I expect them to remain with me, to some extent, until I die — or until the Son returns to claim His own.  I do not believe m/any of the items will ever come to pass, in any appreciable measure.  In the circles in which I have influence, however, God giving me life and influence, I am resolved to encourage the absorption of these and other aspects of biblically well-founded Christianity.

Twelve for 2012 (1)

Caveat lector:  Despite my deep-and-wide-spreading neo-protestant roots, I don’t want to be a tree made of hard wood that never sways with the refreshing breezes of God’s Spirit.

I do intentionally strike a posture of challenge toward any nominally Christian element that seems not to emanate from scripture.  Plus, I’m relatively comfortable with speaking sincerely, earnestly, even prophetically (although NOT miraculously so! – I claim no special revelation, only attentiveness to the witness of God’s inspired spokesmen of old) for God and for pure Christianity.

The M.O. of quasi-prophetic, interrogatory speech necessarily counters long-practiced norms, and a good many beliefs tenaciously held by the masses.  [To friends and acquaintances who tolerate and/or love me anyway most of the time:  is this introductory elaboration helping to illuminate?]  I make no apology for speaking against cults, various human hierarchies, and merely tradition-based denominational tenets, but if I ever seem to be battling the individual’s sincere, independent pursuit of Almighty God and His kingdom, I stand ready to be corrected.

Several months ago, I was led to think anew about the tone of some of my blogposts—thus the verbal groundwork laid above.  I had actually started this piece before the beginning of 2012 but was unsure about it.  I’m still unsure about the thrust of a few items.  Although some question remains about certain extents, my reluctance stems more from insecurity over the reception of what I’ll be saying.

We’re now almost finished with 2012.  Although originally planned for 1/1/12, this post is now scheduled to be broadcast at 12:12 on 12/12/12.  Nice number, huh?  The ramifications of some of the items below are surely broad, and I don’t present them, deluded, as “gospel.”  I’m fully aware of the audacity of some of them.  In order to frame them clearly as humanly fallible, I’ll now present these items in half-twelve lists of six, the “number of man.”

I would like to present these somewhat incendiary thoughts with a special invitation for feedback.  Responses I receive may be used in, or as, follow-up posts, so if you write privately, please confirm whether you want to remain anonymous if quoted.  Perhaps we can have some valuable discussions—whether openly on the blog or on the backchannels.

Here, then, are the first six things I would do in, to, and for the earthly, western church of the 21^st century, if I had the ability.

If I could, I would

1. instantiate exegetical Bible study methods into every Christian church
2. morph sermons, with their “points” and jokes and poems, into studies with scriptural exegesis at their core
3. abolish the “pastor/minister” role altogether — this role (not to mention its attendant hierarchies) is an unknown entity in New Testament writings, and although many of these individuals clearly do good in our day, the harm inherent in the position and its ramifications is not insignificant; perpetuation of the institution is contra-indicated, although many of the persons currently in such positions could serve well in other roles
4. inculcate the principle of the Bible as “the only rule for faith and practice” — and this would necessitate a) ridding ourselves of superimposed creeds and “faith statements,” and b) abandoning residual loyalties to articulate, more or less charismatic non-specially-inspired personages, whether past or present
5. eradicate all traces of denominational pride and loyalty (if not all evidence of denominations, period)
6. sell most of the church buildings in the country, leaving only the ones used several days a week for Kingdom business and neighborhood service

To be continued . . . my next post will list the remaining six items. . . .

Revised thoughts on “church” gatherings (4 of 4)

These erstwhile opinions come from an 18-year-old letter I wrote to a now-dear friend, describing some of my “church values” at the time.  They were originally penned with a view toward a joint “church venture” that never happened.  In re-reading the letter, I found that most of the thoughts were ones I continue to affirm.  However, there are now a few differences, based on life-roads traveled, differing situations, and presumably greater insight. This final installment will offer three distinct, extracted  paragraphs, with new/revised commentary following each.

Things I would now say differently (first, the original quote; then, the current comments in italics)

I should note that I could become concerned with the lack of reverence if [certain] ideas were taken too far, but like so many other areas, we should deal with what we need now.  What we need is less formality, more personal-ness, more genuine encounter with God.  In my view, we are not generally hurting for a concept of reverence for God.  No one with whom I’ve been well acquainted has ever felt that God is just one of the guys, on our level.  If we ever get to that point, it would then be time to shift, ministering to what we would then need.  We would need more teaching on and experience of God’s otherness, His transcendence.

Now, in 2012, I still become concerned with the lack of reverence in Christian talk and gatherings — and yes, I’m one of the those that are still appalled when professing Christians use names for deity carelessly, thoughtlessly.  Speaking of God carefully and reverently is a mere baseline, but an important one.  The ubiquitous, pop-culture abbreviation “OMG” is telling.

One difference I would note now is that, based on my current experience, I don’t think we need much more informality or any more personal-ness.  Those longings were from a different place, a different time.  Since 1994, most believers I contact do indeed seem to have moved on; some almost do seem to manifest a feeling that God is on our level, or, to re-appropriate a now-popular, apt, denigrating cliché, that “Jesus is my boyfriend.”  These days, we probably need LESS personal-ness, in general; it depends on the particular setting whether one would need less or more formality.  We do still need more of a sense of God’s otherness and transcendence, in my opinion.

~ ~ ~

Spoken acclamations/”God” talk.  I would like to incorporate into regular Christian gatherings some relaxed time for progress reports on individual lives . . . how God is working for you and for me.  These comments would naturally lead into unplanned honorings of the Lord–spoken acclamations of praise which would lead into other forms of worship.

The above paragraph now bothers me on two levels:  

• “God talk” that drew me in 18 years ago now tends to repel me.  The whole “personal testimony” think is just so much foaming at the mouth, most of the time.  I used to cheerily chime in, “Well, whether God did X or Y or not, it surely wouldn’t hurt to give Him the credit!”  These days, I’m probably less inclined to speak out with phrases like “God’s goodness has really been shown in X” or “Praise God for that!”
• (Confession time now)  Although I don’t particularly aspire to being a walking “testimony” as many evangelicals would think of that, I do miss the time that I felt God was more active in my life (whether He really was or not).

~ ~ ~

More than “not having any qualms” about worshipping with instruments, I personally worship unabashedly with them.  I don’t need them, I don’t think, but I seem to tune into worship music that effectively uses instrumental accompaniments.  Such music tends to affect me powerfully and with a newness that I can also find, albeit more rarely, in “a cappella” music.  At this point in time, and in the context we’re discussing, I not only believe that instruments aren’t wrong.  I believe that they are right and should be used.

Any die-hard CofCers among my readers (there are a few of you left!) :-) will be instantly aghast that I wrote that 18 years ago — maybe back when you thought you knew me better.  I was hiding more of my scruples then! .

However — and this is a BIG however — I have since come about 317 degrees around the circle.  I don’t often use instruments in group worship times anymore and frankly don’t care for any loud sounds in worship as much as I once did.   My aversion ranges from the pipe organ, which I’ve pretty much always detested, to over-zealous “worship bands” hopped up on testosterone.  I continue to believe, essentially, that the use of instruments is basically neither here nor there, speaking biblically or theologically.  Practically, however, when there are too many instruments all at once, or when the ones used are too loud, they grate on my nerves, not to mention that — and PLEASE get this — they can easily distract, and they can easily inhibit participation from the congregation.  In many churches, “worship bands” have become masters rather than servants, and I often find myself longing for simpler music in worship — a cappella, or maybe with one or two acoustic instruments at a time.   The thoughtful reader may note that my preferences viz. instruments also have to do with my preferences viz. church size!

As always, thank you for reading.  Please feel free to comment or send feedback on the back-channels, as some of you do regularly.  

I’m within 15 of the milestone of 900 total blogposts.  At that point, I plan to lay down the blogpen for a month or so, taking a summer sabbatical.

On “church” (3 of 4)

[Continued]

These opinions come from an 18-year-old letter, written to a now-dear friend, describing some of my “church values” at the time. Some of this material pertains to the large-group celebrations, i.e., periodic gatherings of multiple cells or small groups, assembled as one large group.  The initial thoughts on worship conceivably would pertain to any Christian gathering.

On worship

I toss around in my mind the models of worship we have briefly discussed on a couple of occasions:

a)    God is beyond; worship leaders must bring Him down to the people.
b)    God is beyond; worship leaders must take the people up to Him.
c)    God is present; worship leaders must facilitate celebration of the Presence.

I think I’ve stated those relatively accurately.  I find some validity in each.  Personally, I would lead with various emphases/philosophies at various times.  If pressed to choose, I suppose I, like you, would choose the third option.  In the first, we could easily become irreverent.  In the second, the worship leader’s bearing too quickly becomes that of a cheerleader, prodding and poking people up through the spiritual “drop ceiling.”

I would work incessantly, if necessary, to completely eradicate the idea of a “worship service.”  As you well know, though the Biblical concepts of worship and service are related, they are distinct.  I worship, and I serve, but only in a very limited sense do I serve God when I worship, and I’d better not be worshipping those humans that I serve.  Service to others is service to God (Matt. 25).   Worshipping, though, is reserved only for God.

On the large-group “celebration”

The larger assembly should occur less frequently, I think, and it should be planned to a greater extent, since spontaneity would not be as effective or as feasible in a large crowd.

No pews, by the way!!  Been there, done that, and I don’t like them.  Such churchy furniture isn’t natural.

The main praise and worship session would be orchestrated by those with a demonstrated heart for corporate worship.  The entire leadership team would need to buy into the idea that large group, celebratory worship is important as both a means and an end in itself.  Worship is not to be thought of as a mere prelude to a speech or to the altar call!

The group would be ushered into a consciousness of the Presence as fully and as often as possible.

Sermons would be rare in my ideal assembly.  Teaching tools would be brief comments by any of the leaders, prepared dramatic sketches, and videotapes of movies, etc., as well as the worship music.  Teaching, though, would not be the primary goal in the celebratory large group worship gathering.  This is a time for joyful identification with the body at large, and it is a time for recognizing the God who has united us all.  What has He done for us?  Sing about it!  Who is He?  Worship Him for being His stupendous self!

I believe that the age-old argument over the supposedly conflicting priorities of vertically- and horizontally-oriented assemblies should never have occurred.  The simple fact is that we should concentrate on loving the Lord first, and then our relationships with fellow man will fall into place.  Further, and most relevant to this nearly completed document, is a truth that I have learned in my years of worshipping:  there is no more edified state than that which emanates from sincere hearts truly worshipping the Lord together.  When we truly worship, we will have meaningful relationships with each other, and we will be built up!

To be continued . . .

On “church” (2 of 4)

[Continued]

These opinions come from an 18-year-old letter, written to a now-dear friend, describing some of my “church values” at the time.  The bulk pertains to what I called “Assembly as a Small Group,” followed by some material about large-group celebrations, i.e., periodic gatherings of multiple cells or small groups, assembled as one large group.

On the activities of the gathered (small) group

One home assembly might be filled with my thoughts, my music, music I shared from my collection of other artists’ work, and reactions and reflections on all that from the whole group.  The next assembly might begin with a bunch of songs in sing-along fashion, moving right into an extended time of prayer.  And the next might be a group reading of Revelation, stopping from time to time for comments about the awesomeness of God.  I don’t believe that there is a God-originated list of five acts of worship, I hope you know, and resultantly, I would not feel the need to incorporate all of the traditional five, or all the eleven or twelve we might come up with, for that matter, into each assembly.  There might be no reading or instruction in one session, only praying in the next, and only music in the next.

The formula for spending of time would evolve over the life of the small group.  To some degree, the wants of the group would be translated into how it spent its time.  Generally, at least half the time spent should be unplanned, I think.  Large slices of time would be devoted to praise and worship music and to spoken praying.

I would personally share [contemporary] music as I felt it appropriate.  Not always “on task” but sometimes just to share something God produced through me.  I would be careful to qualify these sharings as just some of the things that worship leaders can do.   Others in the group would regularly be invited — both on-the-spot and with preparation and planning — to share their worship thoughts.  Poems, songs written by others.  Visually artistic creations.  Readings (both scripture and non).  Just thoughts from the heart in no particular artistic form.  Anything that is meaningful to a soul in his/her walk is fair game.

I’d like to experiment with [dramatic sketches].  I realize as I write that I’ve seen very little casually produced drama that was really impactful in my view, so I’m not sure how much drama done by us in the group could be used in the regular gatherings.  Personally, I really like to act, and I’d like to develop in that area.  I think an occasional prepared skit would be a terrific addition to the small group assemblies.  And “reader’s theater” types of drama could perhaps be done more regularly as a means of getting everyone into the act (pun intended) on the spot.

Praying might well be the most important component of worship.  It is the time when the heart pours itself out to God.  It can be individual, even when a group is gathered together.  And perhaps it should primarily be individual (there are only a couple of N.C. examples of “public prayer”).  But the out-loud group praying is something I have a few well-defined thoughts on.

I don’t prefer the “chain prayer” method.  I think that contributes to a ritualistic mentality.  Not everyone should be constrained to pray aloud all the time.  Rather, the atmosphere should be one of conversation.  Conversation with the Lord, in this respect, should be just like conversation with a human:  words are alternately exchanged by the parties to the conversation, as thoughts come to mind.  We stop to listen when we sense that the other person has something to say, and we talk when we believe we can contribute something of value and meaning to the conversation.

VCR/Snatches from movies.  I like that idea and had not considered it much before the last few months.  Popular movies (those in good taste!) can be tools that communicate a strong relevance and up-to-date-ness, I think.  Without opportunity to show a cut from it, I once used “Pretty Woman,” which on one level is in questionable taste, to highlight God’s grace.  I saw Edward, the millionaire, as God, who instilled a new identity into Julia Roberts (she was a hooker).  He made her what she was, regardless of her past, regardless of her lack of understanding, and though she was totally undeserving.  Of course, that particular analogy breaks down when the temporary nature of the arrangement is considered (Edward left after a week), but during the relationship, Julia Roberts really had become “pretty,” and you could see it all over her face.  The grace received had changed her inside out.  Just an example . . . .

To be continued . . .

On “church” (1 of 4)

Take this, you whippersnappers who think you know what a computer is for.  I’ve saved this particular computer-generated document for 18 years.  (Plus, I’ve never had a computer virus, ever, and I exclusively use PCs.)  :-)

I have this 18-year-old letter, written to a now-dear friend who was at the time thinking of moving back to my area to plant a new church.  Although I’m pleased that some of my ideas evolve relatively freely as time passes, I’m equally pleased to find that I was feeling and valuing many of the same things 18 years ago.

What follows are some of the salient points of that old letter, which described some of my “church values” at the time.  The bulk pertains to what I called “Assembly as a Small Group,” followed by some material about large-group celebrations, i.e., periodic gatherings of multiple cells or small groups, assembled as one large group.  While I would articulate most things in this letter roughly the same today, there are some differences, and I will save the things I now see substantially differently for last.  Here goes….

On the size, place, and nature of (small) group meetings

I, like you, believe that smaller groups should be church.  The most dynamic assembly occurrences should be in small groups.  In the words of Paul R. Smith, whose book I am reading, “When someone asks me if we have small groups, I respond, ‘We are small groups.’”

The room should be large enough to hold 20 or 25, though I think the optimum small group size is 8-15.  Chairs/couches for 10, at least. . . .  Floor space for the rest, with prop pillows and such.  Homey.  Family style.  Comfortable.  The room should not give the air of affluence (leather sofas and brass ornamentation, expensive art work might not be advisable).  Perhaps a plain, old converted garage with two or three ordinary sofas and a few chairs.  Lots of light, too!

I want to facilitate an atmosphere in which (1) God can touch lives–ENCOUNTER, and (2) people can be in touch with other people.  If things are stiff and cold, very little of either can occur without great personal fortitude.

Spontaneity is important.  Spontaneity is something to be worked at, pursued, developed.  It probably wouldn’t happen immediately, but I believe in it.  The dynamics of the early church gatherings, from the sketchy info we have in the N.C. writings, seem to have involved free sharing of words from the Lord, songs, prayers, etc.

I like the idea of meeting on Sunday nights.

To be continued . . .

Flippancy

I spied the following changeable-letter sign yesterday at a church building near Arcade, NY:

“Jesus is the rock, and He rolls my blues away.”

And I loudly reply,

Seriously?!!

I don’t often use the now-common, flippant, denigrating tone that’s associated with that usage of the word “seriously,” but it was an uncontrollable reaction to that sign, and I felt like sharing.

I’m sorry, folks.  I’m sure you meant well, but that is way, way too flippant a way to speak of the Lord of Eternity … not to mention that the whole thing is as self-centered as it is Jesus-centered.

Stupid public restroom invention # 17

This little contraption, which with its close relatives is almost ubiquitous these days in public restrooms, was apparently intended to keep people from access to what is inside, rather than aiding them in acquiring what is needed at a given moment.

Oddly and perhaps iconoclasticly, this sighting makes me think of many church experiences that seem also to put up barriers, keeping people from what they need rather than aiding them.

“Oh, for the wonderful love He has promised– promised for you and for me” is a phrase from the gospel invitation song “Softly and Tenderly.”  Running counter to this fine expression, it seems as though clergy people sometimes proclaim loudly, “Oh, for the love of doing it my way, or the way of our denomination!  And oh, that you might finally see your way through the fog me and my kind have injected … to find maybe a hint of a little bit of Jesus somewhere.”

Dimly, through the smoky plastic of humanly erected barriers, Jesus can and does shine.

And authentic access to His glowing light is neither difficult nor hindered by human inventions designed to restrict.

Wesley’s primitivist elucidation

Today, another quotation from E.H. Broadbent (The Pilgrim Church, p. 294):

[John] Wesley’s determined adherence to the Established Church prevented him from seeing those principles which are taught in Scripture regarding the churches of God, and he never attempted to follow up his Gospel preaching by forming churches, on the New Testament pattern, of whose who believed.  Yet in 1746 he wrote, “On the road I read over Lord King’s account of the Primitive Church.  In spite of the vehement prejudice of my education, I was ready to believe … that originally every Christian congregation was a church independent of all others!”

Dear John, why, if you were indeed ready to believe, did you not continue along the path of restoration?  What caused you to retain all the peripheral “stuff” of Christianity?

A piercing voice is heard, through the millennia, above Wesley’s sincere, yet ultimately short-falling, question:  why, oh why, do we continue to depend on man-made church structures?  Why do we hold so tenaciously to a-biblical and even un-biblical hierarchies?  It doesn’t matter whether it’s the Anglican Church within which Wesley was working, or the United Methodist Church that he spawned, or the Roman Catholic institution, or the Church of Christ, or “River of Grace Ministries,” a stereotypical nondenominational church where Joe Jones, “founding pastor,” calls the shots.  They are all man-made structures.

It’s been said that

1. When the early church “moved” to Greece, it became a philosophy.
2. When it moved to Rome, it became an institution.
3. When it moved to Europe, it became a culture.
4. When it moved to America, it became a business.

However, this is not the end of the story.  God, help us.  Move us backward in principle as we move forward in time.

Observations based on visits (1)

For the next two days, as I’m finishing off Harold Best’s book on worship and the arts, I’ll be sharing a few observations based on recent visits:  tomorrow, it’ll be rants about visits to the beach and to a Phillies game, but first, a recap of our visit to an old friend’s new church:

Positive & neutral impressions

• Substance
  • The “lead pastor” introduced himself with his first name only (no title)—while this might seem minor, it went a long way toward making me have a good morning.  By the way, this really is substantive:  it manifests both a non-hierarchical dynamic and a desire not to separate “clergy” from “laity” (a concocted, abiblical distinction).
  • There was an emphasis on small groups—perhaps not more than typical, but it seemed significant in the church’s life and thought.
  • The “real” style and content of the sermon (that, not incidentally, matched the website’s message and the church’s intended ministry focus).
  • Much more significant than the style of the sermon or its delivery—the preacher’s humble, transparent mentions of his own weaknesses struck me as genuine.
  • The worship content
    • was theologically quite palatable … nothing extreme
    • was more abbreviated than in most other churches I’ve visited
    • did not use scripture in any memorable, direct, or appreciable manner
• Periphery
  • An “impressions” minister who clearly cares about visitors and the “face” of the place had presumably set the tone in multiple aspects.
  • We experienced a few introductions to, and by, strangers (not everyone we passed)—very natural for this church.
  • The musical performance was mostly fine.  There was one particularly talented vocalist, and a tasteful electric guitarist who knew more than most guitarists know about playing musically.
  • An active, inviting children’s program existed.  (And the attendants loved our boychild.  [Who doesn’t?])
  • The appearance of the place was new/attractive and tastefully decorated.
  • Fresh-baked cookies and coffee were offered—the former being nice addition to the new norm of righteously above-average coffee that’s served in “relevant” churches these days.

Negative impressions

• The church assembly was based on a performance/audience model (like most other churches).
• The hall was darker than usual—like a movie theatre.  I suppose a relatively dark light-mood is more normal than not, but still should be moderated, in my view.  On the positive side, the darkness could help newcomer-seekers feel inconspicuous; on the other hand, it surely doesn’t contribute to a real “family feeling.”  See this prior post on lighting in church halls.
• The sound mix
  • drums & bass too heavy
  • audio level too loud & even dangerous for young ears (9 speakers and 3 monitors—perhaps a little excessive for the size of the room)
  • audio feedback issues
• A Beatles song was tied in to the sermon topic—a negative for me since I don’t like the Beatles.  (Don’t ask.  It’s a bandwagon thing … along with a general annoyance over out-of-tune guitars, combined with not understanding the pop culture that made these average musicians so popular for decades … oh, and there’s probably a little jealousy, too.)

So, overall, a nice Sunday morning with a church that’s trying its best to be real, to encourage discipleship, and to serve its community.  Thanks, The Journey, for your hospitality, and for making a difference where you are.  As Leroy Garrett says, “soldier on.”

Commentary on worship faddism (Ken Read article)

A few days ago, I posted an article by Ken Read; I’d now like to comment on a few of his thoughts.  First off, Read’s mention of “the very sincere song ‘The Heart of Worship’ by Matt Redman” was well-placed, but perhaps Read is unaware of the genesis of the Redman song.  Redman’s church in England had quite possibly been thinking along Read’s lines, in fact, and took a period of time off from having any music at all in the assembly.  This doesn’t make fact that Redman composed a song about no music any less ironic, but it does make the whole thing more authentic.  Worship should not, in fact, be defined as the congregational music time.” Worship is more, and music is more.  The two are not equivalent.

I was drawn in, slightly amused, and spiritually provoked by the motif “The Sunday Morning Show.”  Contemporary worship, and indeed the worship of most churches I’ve experienced on a one-time basis or over the longer haul, is an institution within an institution.  When the forms in any church are crystallized, the progression is probably toward this “Sunday show”-ness labeled by Read.

“We are growing tired of it all, and can’t quite say why.” These words are at once cliché and profound, and they represent my general feeling for 4-5 years.  Being a non-bandwagon guy, I have at other points not been tracking with many of those around me.  For instance, I remember when Keith Lancaster’s group A Cappella was riding high waves all around the country within the group of churches I call home.  I was not on that bandwagon–and mystified some by not jumping on–but I did come to appreciate some of what Lancaster was doing.  These days, some who push toward exclusively contemporary musical creations may not be discerning the aesthetic value and spiritual content inherent in other styles, and they understand even less why someone like me isn’t all that gung-ho about styles that flash and then disappear.  (In re-reading this paragraph, I find it sounds a little presumptuous.  Rather than setting myself up as being right, or more discerning, I mean to be slashing away the notion that mere contemporaneity–which is here today and gone next month–is not worthy of investment.)

Ironically, this trend is happening just as many of our churches are awakening to musical worship. I can vividly recall the feeling of a few conversations I had with other committed believers 10-15 years ago.  I was then more of a progressive in the sphere of music and was pushing in various areas.  These sisters (more than brothers) and I would talk, and they would struggle aloud with how much was too much.   One was concerned that if she accepted for her family what I was espousing and moving toward, they wouldn’t be ready for it, and might even be hurt in the process, if those around them didn’t accept the “progressivism.”  Later, after these conversations to which I refer, I found more than one of these families moving beyond—for lack of a better expression—where I was.  Looking back, I might say that they were more faddish.  Or, very likely, I was not as courageous or spiritually minded as they.  Or a little of the former, and a lot of the latter.

Either way, it bears emphasizing that fads do appear, and some do follow them, and others don’t.  Churches that lead the way should not look down their noses at churches that are unaffected or disaffected.  And churches that lag behind in contemporary trends should not, when getting on the bandwagon think to themselves “Yeah–we are finally getting it,” for next month, it may become clear that they were really just fooling themselves, having missed something more important than style.

How many times can you sing to an invisible being the words, “I see you, I long to touch you, I feel you near to me,” and not have it start to sound hollow after a while? The songs used to make (or help) us feel close to God. But an indisputable supernatural encounter never actually happened. So those songs have begun to ring shallow for many.

Oh, yes.  Wish I’d said that.  No further comment.

The whole musical package has become a Christian cliché for some, and can make worship leaders feel disingenuous as they lead people to sing in the building, but not to do the work or show the unity. Even seemingly successful worship leaders feel the pressure to do what is musically acceptable for the majority, or “cool” for the young.

My desire for those actively engaged in weekly planning and leading is that they will choose what is good and what is perceived to be of quality, but not necessarily what is cool.  “Cool” has been around for 50 or 60 years, I guess, but it’s still not a worthy enough goal to supersede others.

All worship that is chiefly dependent on the performing arts is destined eventually to grow tiresome in the near future.

Hmm.  I don’t think I would have said that with such strength.  But I can’t disagree.

Committing to one another as family better catches the spirit of community. In true community, the concept of public worship as we know it almost seems irrelevant.

Some issues that seem so crucial in “public worship” simply fade into oblivion when we envision corporate worship more in terms of familial community.  There was a time when I felt my primary spiritual, if not vocational, call was to public, congregational worship events.  These days, I’m still passionately given to those opportunities when they come my way, yet without quite the positive outlook for their ultimate usefulness in the Kingdom.  I’m probably more burdened by thoughts of relational, mutually accountable discipleship, which is something I’ve never really experienced over the long haul.   Study and worship in familial small groups holds more promise for spiritual impact on hearts, I think.

Our carefully prepared programs sometimes are the opposite of what people most long for, which is space for contemplation and meditation, not more information.

I’ve been guilty more often than not (well, OK, about 92% of the time) of over-planning things in the past.  Almost every time, my plannings do me more good—and more in the planning phase than in the leading one—than they seem to do anyone else.  I can’t help but wonder aloud whether this disconnect is because all of those of us in the pews really need more time and space between things instead of constant activity .  For me, this might mean avoiding singing during otherwise silent communion times, and possibly avoiding a current fad in my church—singing during the collection.  Maybe silence isn’t bad after all, and maybe the very idea of the “offertory” in higher-church assemblies was illegitimate to begin with!

I have in this space decried the shortcomings of “liturgy.”  For me, pretty much anything that smacks of pre-programmed, codified tradition is a lost cause.  There is no denying that on this point I am in a distinct minority in the Christian world, so it’s always difficult for me to swallow positive statements about liturgical approaches.  Try the following….  Read says,

There is an undeniable depth in the carefully written words of liturgy that causes our cliché-filled spontaneous prayers to seem trite. . . . Somehow, our chatty self-focus (“Good morning! We want to give you some material that tells you about us”) seems to ignore the transcendence of God and cheapens his mystery.

Reading that, I don’t really think I can find any  fault.  I agree that we need fewer clichés and need to take more care in the fashioning of worship material.  I may always be turned off by the word “liturgy”—and certainly by the implication that merely because it is recognized, historically attested liturgy it might be valid—but I accept that the weight of the centuries may imbue a prayer or a song with more depth than some of us give it credit for.

And the “chatty self-focus” found in many churches—whether contemporary/relevant or mixed or simply country-hospitable—can sometimes be repulsive, even as it tries to be connective.

There is renewed interest in lengthy, passionate readings without commentary, allowing the truths of Scripture to soak in during the silence after a reading.

I’m all for that.  Let’s read the scriptures aloud.  Read them well.  And avoid most/all comment.  Let the inspired thoughts of the designated biblical writers be heard.  And let us cease thinking that preaching equals “the Word.”

Thank you, Ken Read, for this call to renewed thought about worship and the Christian assembly that could, if heeded, move us past “renewal.”

Symbols

I grew up hearing that bread (read: cracker bits) and wine (read: grape juice) were symbols/emblems of the Lord Jesus.  I still believe that’s one function of those items.  But, being me, I wonder if there shouldn’t be more–much more–to the idea of the symbol in the Christian assembly.

Although we know God is always near us, at times we may need reminders.  Many of us are from backgrounds that have instilled in us a fear of symbols and other visual representations of God.  There can be great value, though, in visually artistic items such as banners, majestic nature scenes, and the like, in leading the minds of would-be worshippers toward God spiritually.  John Gallen has noted the following:

A symbol is not the pointer to something that is absent.

A symbol is the expression of something that is present.[1]

It seems to me that some exposure to visual stimuli—whether art created by members of your church, judiciously selected movie clips, or commercially produced wall hangings, for example—may be well used to facilitate the motion of the spirit in worship of God.

---

[1] Interview with Worship Leader, Dec/Jan ‘94, © CCM Communications.

A new approach

My dad sent me this article a few days ago.  (Isn’t it great to have a dad who cares about things like this?)  Wow–I wish I’d read it right away!  I’ll add emphasis on thoughts I find particularly salient with bold italics.

Is This the End of the Worship Fad? (by Ken Read)

One Sunday we were singing the very sincere song “The Heart of Worship” by Matt Redman. We had multiple well-rehearsed instrumentalists, scripted singers, and lyrics projected on a screen with high-tech backgrounds, all to say that worship isn’t about music. The irony of it all made me wonder: Are we seeing the end of the worship fad?

For the past decade or more, worship, defined as the congregational music time, has enjoyed a heyday. But I sense that the popularity of worship, as we know it, is crashing to a halt. Evidence all around tells me “The Sunday Morning Show” is going the same way as the hula hoop, the wet head, the dry look, pet rocks, discos, and chin beards. We are growing tired of it all, and can’t quite say why.

How We Got Here
The worship fad began in the 1980s, as the boomer generation was coming of age and setting a new direction for the church. Culturally relevant pop music had been used for evangelism by the previous generation. The new generation discovered the freedom of singing choruses about the attributes of God, without tacking a guilt-inducing invitation to accept Christ on the end.

There are signs that the next generation will not be as interested in either evangelism (as we had known it) or worship (as we now know it). A new generation will soon be seeking a new agenda.

Ironically, this trend is happening just as many of our churches are awakening to musical worship. Of course, worship is at the heart of the gospel, and so it will always have a central role in Christianity. But musical tastes are changing, the emphasis is shifting, the paradigm is turning on its head, and we will soon find a new vocabulary and new practices to go with the changes.

What’s Wrong with “Worship”?
If there is a fatal flaw of the current “fad” of musical worship, it is this: every meeting seems to require a 12-minute singing time, in which the worship leader “leads us into the throne room,” and then we move on, ready or not. Worship leaders who have been following this model, both young and old, are beginning to burn out under the pressure of creating a spiritual experience week after week.

Experiential-based faith, shored up by emotion-based worship, is destined to fall. I mean, how many times can you sing to an invisible being the words, “I see you, I long to touch you, I feel you near to me,” and not have it start to sound hollow after a while? The songs used to make (or help) us feel close to God. But an indisputable supernatural encounter never actually happened. So those songs have begun to ring shallow for many.

Our house of cards was bound to fall, wasn’t it? The whole musical package has become a Christian cliché for some, and can make worship leaders feel disingenuous as they lead people to sing in the building, but not to do the work or show the unity.

Even seemingly successful worship leaders feel the pressure to do what is musically acceptable for the majority, or “cool” for the young. The really popular “worship musicians” take concerts on the road and record CDs, reach celebrity status, and sell T-shirts as they personally autograph CDs. Sooner or later, this commercialization of a very narrow definition of worship is bound to come crashing down.

Some local worship leaders have seen the handwriting on the wall (perhaps it’s projected by the computer?) and have fended off the inexorable boredom or disillusionment through novelty and creativity. They may have bought themselves another five years before the crash, but I expect that all worship that is chiefly dependent on the performing arts is destined eventually to grow tiresome in the near future.

Of course, I am not heralding the end of worship per se, but the end of “The Sunday Morning Show.” That is the bad news. Is there any good news?

So, What’s Next?
The death of one fad means the birth of something else. So, what’s next? The emerging community of faith is providing us with some images of what people are longing for and the direction that assemblies are going. Let’s take a look at some of the concepts and practices that are capturing the hearts of those who are leaving behind “The Sunday Show”:

• Community. Churches longing for true community are rediscovering a more radical embodiment of Acts 2:42-47. Small groups are just the beginning. House churches come a bit closer. Committing to one another as family better catches the spirit of community. In true community, the concept of public worship as we know it almost seems irrelevant. After all, family reunions don’t usually hire musicians and motivational speakers in order to make their gathering worthwhile; the relationships are enough of a draw year after year to bring the faithful together.

• Prayer. Many are longing to stop singing about talking to God, and to start just talking to him. Sometimes “The Sunday Morning Show” eschews silence and fills every gap with a smoothly choreographed palette of sounds and sights. Increasingly it comes up empty for the person who came hoping for some extended time to focus on God. Our carefully prepared programs sometimes are the opposite of what people most long for, which is space for contemplation and meditation, not more information.

• Interactive expression. More than music, many emerging churches worship through other expressions, setting up interactive stations that use touch (using model clay or water), smell (through incense and apple pie), sight (by means of icons and construction paper), writing (journaling and writing encouragement notes), and dance (with banners and instruments), to name a few. The common thread is that people choose when and how and what they say to the Creator, rather than following the dictated script of the worship team. The Creator is worshiped through acts of human creativity.

• Acts of service. Servant evangelism is another form of worship. Rather than singing about doing things or saying that we are dancing upon injustice, many people long to leave the building and do simple deeds of service in the name of Jesus. Even token acts of kindness are truly worship, as people pray with their hands, not just their words.

• Liturgy. Lately, I am noticing many students using prayer beads (Anglican or Catholic), carrying The Book of Common Prayer, and attending masses. There is an undeniable depth in the carefully written words of liturgy that causes our cliché-filled spontaneous prayers to seem trite. The weight behind something ancient and historical has more appeal to many than being blown about by the latest trend. Somehow, our chatty self-focus (“Good morning! We want to give you some material that tells you about us”) seems to ignore the transcendence of God and cheapens his mystery.

• Scripture. There is renewed interest in lengthy, passionate readings without commentary, allowing the truths of Scripture to soak in during the silence after a reading. The cry of many is, “Stop talking about the Book; let’s let it speak for itself!” We honor the spirituality of people and we trust the power of the Holy Spirit when we allow the Bible to speak. Ironically, many outreach-oriented churches are changing to incorporate less Scripture, in order to give their time to engaging stories and explanatory comments.

A New Approach
I’m not talking about creating another program, or another way of approaching “The Sunday Morning Show.” Rather, this is an entirely different ministry philosophy, an ancient/future approach to life in Jesus. It’s not about the meeting, but about The Presence. Jesus is the heart of worship, and we will never grow tired of him.

- Ken Read is professor of music and worship at Cincinnati (Ohio) Christian University.

Again, the bold italic emphases are mine.  There’s a lot here to discuss.  And, ever unequal to such tasks, I may just dive right in on one or more of them, anyway.  Anyone out there want to start the ball rolling?  Which of the bold/italicized things strikes you hard?

Ekklesia values 10 (community)

An old friend wrote about community and relationship, as they relate to worship:

This is the very essence of what Jesus was trying to teach his disciples and all of us during his time on this earth.

It’s about relationship and community. He lived in community with 12 and taught them what community was all about. Our worship to our God and Savior is made perfect when living in community and when experienced in community.

The evil one continues to wage war as he has convinced us that “bigger is better” and we’ve moved towards the megachurch model, and as we purchase real-estate and tie up his funds in things that don’t meet community needs. Heaven on earth is experienced and accomplished in community–which at its core is all about deep, unconditionally loving, forgiving, serving, joy filled, God-praising relationships. – Dirk Smith (adapted)

This could really stand on its own … but, being by nature a verbal individual, I am impelled to comment a bit. :-) First on real estate: I do not stand aghast at churches that own real estate. But I do seriously question the ubiquity of property mortgages. It should not be an assumption that a stable, normal church must own land and a building. It just isn’t necessary. I have been offended by the nature of some buildings (mostly in the South, where we used to be “on the other side of the tracks but where we now have something to prove), and by church office remodelings, and fancy this and extravagant that.

It’s not that owning property is patently wrong, but it does seem to me that spending 80+% of a church’s available funds on property and staff salaries — a “normal” percentage in my experience — is sad. I think it’s quite possible, even in the western world, to have a church without much expense. Put more definitively: it’s possible to have a church without owning property. Renting or borrowing spaces for meetings may not be the easiest option when you’re a full-blown institution with habits and patterns that demand specific types of spaces, but if the church is small and/or doesn’t demand classroom space and a kitchen, there are lots of places that aren’t used on Sundays that could be available. Rent a movie theater or a corporate conference room . . . or even a school that would allow use of a few classrooms! It’s a win-win (well, except for the tax base of your county). The school in your community gets more money, you spend less, and existing facilities are used. Now, on to what should eclipse capital expenditures. . . .

In terms of relationships in church, I feel impoverished and have felt so for most of my life. I speak both of the vertical and the horizontal. Oh, there have been hints of riches. Glimpses of glory. Peeks into perfection. Isolated experiences have caused me to know when I am experiencing worship in community. But these have been only isolated experiences. Never for a sustained time have I been in a church in which I was regularly caught up in worship of the Almighty (or lost in edification of the saints, for that matter). We’re not talking about the checklist mentality that says we’ve “done” the “five acts” of worship; therefore, we’re good for this week. No, we’re talking about genuine, spirit-to-spirit corporate worship.

Some would say my standards are too high, or I’m unrealistic, or something. Others would say I’m too critical. In a sense, they’re all right. But I want more than churches have ever helped to provide for me, to date. I crave more.

It is my convicted testimony–based more on intuition and isolated experiences than on logical proposition–that never does a more edified state exist than when Christians worship together. Put another way: horizontal fulfillments arise best and most compellingly out of vertically connected spirits.

Above all other values, God helping me, “my church” will be a worshipping church, and the worshipping will occur in relational community.

~ ~ ~

P.S. Part of me would have preferred to end this series on church values on a Sunday. Perhaps, poetic purpose would have been better served. But church must not only be considered to exist on Sundays. And, second, maybe those of you who read this on Saturday will yearn more on Sunday . . . and will be more integral in creating more of an atmosphere of worship where you are.

Ekklesia values 9 (study and the use of scripture)

Here are some “church values” relating to scripture. My ideal church will be found

• Taking advantage of opportunities for any Bible student to teach spiritual lessons, allowing us to hear God through scripture
• Seriously investigating–and endeavoring to submit to–scripture texts
  • Elevating no scripture text out of its historical and literary contexts (in order to respect a specific religious tradition or an unwarranted individual interpretation)
  • Discarding no scripture text (in order to respect a specific religious tradition or an unwarranted individual interpretation)

In the first item I am again attempting to bolster the validity of non-hierarchical view of church leadership. I am also suggesting that a church with more than one qualified, interested Bible student should allow for more than one person to do whatever teaching and facilitating is done. I am not, however, denigrating the value of academic training in biblical exegesis. I do greatly respect the abilities and potential contributions of those with significant experience in biblical studies.

I believe the Bible is the only rule of faith and practice–a statement many “orthodox” believers have upheld, but a statement with which precious few have ever been thoroughly consistent.  (Personally, I’m better at seeing the inconsistencies than in being consistent myself, which I suppose is a start, but woefully inadequate.)  As the solid ground on which committed believers stand, the Bible must be seriously studied and heeded, and not merely put on a shelf. Neither should we assume that one man’s weekly preaching is either sufficient for life or all that significant (depending on the training and gifts of the particular man in question). Because the Bible is central to informing the Christian faith, it is to be used throughout the week, and not just in the Christian assembly.

On the two sub-bullet points above, suffice it to say that I’ve seen quite a bit of discarding in general Christian tradition, and quite a bit of elevating in my own specific tradition.

Next and last in series: the church as community

Ekklesia values 8b (non-music worship)

Besides expressing worship through music, I also believe that the spoken word is crucial.  Prayer is not the only non-musical spoken mode for worship, but it seems to be the most significant.

Prayer has more than one face and is not to be defined solely as “prayer requests.”  Literally, prayer is more about asking, but based on biblical examples, that does not represent the totality of its purpose.  Conversing with God is an area to be explored in the assembly!  Although few of us do this very well these days, it seems to me that we could use more silence, toward the goal of listening for the voice of God.  I’m not sure my ears are very well trained for that.

Another area for regular attention is the Lord’s Supper or communion.  (I stay away from the word “Eucharist” because it carries enough inappropriate connotations and is not especially biblical based in this context.)  While my own tradition strongly believes and practices weekly observance, I see nothing in the scriptures that demands this.  Frankly, my experience of communion has been spiritually lacking for all my years, and I’m more than a little tired of the insistence on observance with little or no spiritual emphasis on meaning.  Put another way, my closest spiritual siblings a) assume that they’re right in practice, b) virtually never question that they should be doing this thing weekly, and c) take as gospel that the Lord’s Supper is to be central in the Christian assembly.   The actual practice, however, rarely matches those surface-level commitments.

For me, the experience has only rarely approached what I think it can be, and I’m interested in deepening the practice of communion, not de-emphasizing it.  This desire may result in a lessened frequency, but frequency is not specified in the scriptures, as far as I can tell.  One more word on frequency:  while my particular fellowship has majored in frequency and could use less emphasis there, most other Christian churches could probably use more frequent Lord’s Supper opportunities.

In addition to worship through prayer/the spoken word, the Lord’s Supper, and music, I’m very much interested in such additions as well-conceived drama, dramatic reading, devotional reading of certain scriptures (subjugated to the practice of contextually studying and applying scripture), and various devotional activities that aid–first in vertical, and secondarily in horizontal—relationships in the church.

Next in series:  study and the use of scripture

Ekklesia values 8a (worship and the assembly)

I’ve said so much about these things over the years that I’m almost afraid to say much of anything here, for fear that I’ll not make any sense to someone who reads my thoughts for the first time.  I think I’ll just let these particular church values stand uncommented-on, for the most part.  In terms of worship and the Christian assembly, my church will be found

==> Valuing proskuneo (worship) and one-another care over ceremony

It will, therefore, be relationally vertical and horizontal–in that order–and it will not emphasize liturgical patterns.

Since music has for so long been a part of believers’ worship, and since it is integral in most Christian churches’ assemblies, music warrants a special comment.  My church’s music will

• be pure and simple . . . various types and styles
• have music subservient to lyrics
• be either acappella or acoustically accompanied, without many “trappings” of larger-scale sonic offerings

I don’t wish to suggest that this is the only way church music can be acceptable to God, nor are these absolutes.  Variety provides spice.  For me and my family, though, the above items represent the modes of choice.

Ekklesia values 7 (biblical)

The following quotation is at once quippish and laborious. Try to stay with it to the end….

I’ve heard stories of Catholics being saved from ritualism by becoming Pentecostal, Pentecostals being saved from emotionalism by becoming Presbyterian, Presbyterians being saved from rationalism by becoming Eastern Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox being saved from clericalism by becoming Baptist, and Baptists being saved from historical amnesia by becoming Catholic or Orthodox. Simple churches save people from complexity, and complex churches save people from simplicity. Political churches save people from an overly personal religiosity, and personal churches save people from an overly politicized religiosity. Exciting churches save people from boredom, and quiet churches save people from hoopla and hype. Around and around the cycle goes.” – Brian McLaren

Thanks for sending that to me, Johnny. Besides the fallacies of philosophies, McLaren’s words describe our tendency to align ourselves with movements, people, and ways of thinking. Such alignment is not necessarily wrong, but it can put us in harm’s way: if I say to myself, “Self, I am a [insert modifier of choice here] Christian,” I run the risk of giving up my independence. And I may become blind to human foibles.

Not wanting to be an island, I still put this forward this ideal for “my” church:

==> In terms of theology and church practice, it will be as purely biblical as it is possible to be—as scripture informs, and as God illuminates interpretation

• Not Arminian (for Arminius, like others before and after, might appear to have minimized the sovereignty of God as he emphasized the requisite human responses to grace)
• Not Calvinist (for Calvin, like others before and after, superimposed a human system on top of scripture)

It provokes my spirit that Christians align themselves with human personalities and movements more than with scripture and with the Master. Being on this bandwagon or that nets us zilch in the Kingdom of God. Note that I said “being on” and not “jumping on”—for most, I find that bandwagon rider positions are mostly the function of heredity and not personal study, conviction, and action.  We should realize that some bandwagons exist for the sole purpose of reactionism against the last bandwagon.  And both wagons may be traveling away from the security of camp.

Personally, I’m much more Arminian than Calvinist, but that alignment in itself hasn’t gotten me anywhere with God. In terms of the five “tulip” points of Calvinism, I think I accept about half of one point, and one-quarter of another. I suppose there’s biblical basis for most of them, but like most human systems, it has run amok.

I long to be biblically rooted—both personally and as a goal for the doctrine and practice of the church I’m part of. I do realize that relative biblicalness is, to a degree, in the eye of the individual, but I think it’s a good goal, nonetheless!

Next in the “Ekklesia Values” series: worship and the assembly

Ekklesia values 6b (top-down leadership)

If the ideal church is non-hierarchical, uses no religious titles, and instead is mutually pastoral in terms of ministering to one another, it must avoid the impression of top-down leadership.  Most church leaders I’ve known are generally good-hearted, with little to no conscious desire to be authoritarian in church life.  Yet careless speech can betray underlying, hurtful assumptions.

Recently, I  found my own language degenerating:  having become discouraged with a group I’m associated with, I heard myself talking about “they” and “them” and “the ______ ” where a few months ago it would have been “we” and “us” and “my _____.”  Pronouns can give away our inner feelings.

Lately I’ve been re-impressed with the top-down-ness of pronouns.  I’m talking about those in “top” leadership positions speaking of how “we” want “you” to know that “we” want this or that.  Rarely, if ever, would I accuse those using such language of malevolence, but someone needs to point out the inappropriateness, or at best, the unintentional unhelpfulness, of this language.  If those making pronouncements would be sensitive to the impressions given, the clergy-laity distinction could fade.  I might suggest even using names at times.  This can be cumbersome, I suppose, but it might keep a few from the tacit presumption that they are just nobodies in the pews.

Jamie and Priscilla and I were talking in the hall, and we were thinking that ….

When Mark and I meet on Thursdays, you might guess that we sometimes talk about _____ and _______ .   And you’re right!—we do talk about those things a lot.  Last week we had these ideas, but John and I don’t want you to think that we’re trying to make decisions for everyone, so what do you  think about this:  . . . ?

See how that could work?  The above examples give off a different impression from the likes of “We met, and we decided that we want you to know that …” or even an innocuous “We welcome you today and want you to feel comfortable here with us”?  Who are “we”, and who decides who is not part of the “we”?

Congregations, assuming philosophical aversion to the corporate, top-down model, need to do all within their power to avoid overt, exclusive we/you language.

Ekklesia values 6 (leadership and hierarchy)

Continuing in the “Church Values” stream today, and extrapolating a bit from the nondenominational, nonsectarian ideals  now.  My ideal church will employ

==> Non-hierarchical leadership

and is

• mutually pastoral in terms of ministering to one another

and uses no

• no extrabiblical (or reappropriated biblical) religious titles.

In the NC scriptures, I see contraindications of positional authority in the church.  Put negatively, I see no hint that there were, or were to be, hierarchical leaders.  Positional leadership is ubiquitous in churches these days–seen most starkly in such figures as the pope, but lived out in virtually every church I’ve ever been with, known of, or read about.

If we must have the “pastor” as a role, understood as most Christians understand that job today, let us at least not have “senior pastor.”  “Lead pastor” is more functional than positional, and I would rather see that modifier than “senior.”  In the eyes of some, as I’ve come to understand it, Timothy and Titus may have filled precursors of the modern-day pastor role.  But this is an assumption, an inference; it’s not particularly explicit.

In the CofC grouping, we tend to believe and write one way, and live out our polity another way.  If we really believe elders are pastors are shepherds are bishops, well, let’s do church that way.  Let us not have our preachers/ministers/evangelists in charge of everything.  Let us not conceive intellectually of an upside-down pyramid with elders at the top.  And by all means let us not live as though it’s a regular pyramid with the minister at the top, the elders in the middle, the deacons at the bottom, and everyone else referred to as “you” instead of “we.”  And, by the way, let us avoid the perception that eldering/pastoring happens primarily in the humanly invented institution called the “elders’ meeting.”

Although I’ve been taught it all my life, I’m not sure the NC scriptures really equate the bishop (episkopos) with the elder (presbuteros) with the pastor (poimein).  These may be describing similar, overlapping, but not identical functional roles.  Perhaps the ideal is more fluid than many of us have come to understand:  could it be that Timothy was primarily a functioning evangelist, and there were no deacons or elders or head “pastor” in Ephesus, while Titus was more of a “lead pastor” in Crete?  And further, could it be that

• the churches in Galatia had neither a head pastor nor elders
• the groups in Corinth and Colosse and Laodicea had several poimenoi each, like most CofC groups, and
• the church in Rome had none of the above, because they had an apostle?

It deserves mention that the early church in Jerusalem appears to have been led by few apostles/elders, and James the brother of Jesus seems to have had executive influence (see Acts 15).  The Acts 6 precedent leads us to select servants to fulfill needed tasks–giving rise to modern-day “deacons” (same word as “minister,” by the way).  Let it not go unnoticed that deacons have jobs to do.  There is no deacon, biblically speaking, who simply has the title but no designated function in the local church’s work.

Nashville’s Belmont Church (which has Restoration Movement roots but left any real association behind years ago), at least at one point, separated its elders by function.  Some were executive, and some were pastoral (caring for sheep).  Some were paid, and some were not.  This devised arrangement made some sense to me, given that no particular hierarchy is specified in the scriptures, and given the size of that particular church.  But when all’s said and done, it’s more important that people not attempt to assert or exert authority based on position or salary.  Given that we are not in the apostolic age, spiritual authority should arise naturally, along the lines of relational, respected influence.  It should be invited by people, not inflicted on them.  “Having authority,” by the way, is different from “acting authoritatively” or “being authoritarian.”

In sum:  my church won’t obviously deal in positional leadership.  Not that there won’t be leaders.  There must be leadership, and leaders will emerge naturally!  But it will not be because of some mail-order license, or a degree-granting institution’s blessing, or a denomination’s “call” (whatever that is).

Leaders serve, their leadership is respected as an outgrowth of their service, and ideally, they begin to have spiritual influence because of recognized insight and genuine relationship.  Leaders are marked by service to humankind, beginning with the household of faith, in the name of God.