I do not believe that the attractional model of church growth is biblical. The foundation of Christian evangelism and mission, is the Great Commission where we are told “to go out”…
Often the disciples inviting people to “come and see” Jesus is cited as a biblical basis for the attractional model. I would point out the following, those who did the inviting had already seen Jesus, and gone out from Jesus to their friends in order to invite them back to meet Jesus. So this is an example of going out, not attracting people in. Secondly, inviting people to meet Jesus is not the same as inviting them to church. Sometimes people who are invited to church MIGHT meet Jesus there. But people might meet Jesus just as easily walking past the station, or crying on the lounge room floor. Sometimes coming to church is an impediment to people meeting Jesus.
I think this really comes out of two things. Firstly, people are scared to be evangelists in their everyday lives. It’s uncomfortable, if you would really prefer Christianity to be a Sunday thing that we compartmentalise away from the Monday to Saturday “real life”. Secondly, we don’t feel that we’re as “holy” as our Pastors and leaders, so even if someone does come to Christ, how can we be sure that they said the right version of the sinner’s prayer?
So the question really is, how do we empower Christians to see themselves as being on the frontline in God’s mission? That they are where people will meet Jesus. In the workplace, in the home, in the supermarket?
Pastors need to be freed up from DOING the “saving” via means of the attractional / altar-call methodology to do what they are supposed to be doing, equipping the saints for the work of the ministry (Eph 4).
God bless,
Bec
Showing posts with label Church. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Church. Show all posts
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Friday, March 20, 2009
Church Structure & Institutionalisation is a Stronghold
I’m coming to think that church structure and institutionalisation is a stronghold that as a Christian community we need to overcome if we are going to be effective in spreading the gospel in our increasingly secular society.
Many of the problems we face as a church come out of making a lot of assumptions about what church should be. If we challenge those assumptions, solutions to the problems we are facing start appearing.
For example, many churches spend a lot of time, money and effort on building projects. During these periods effort and resources are diverted from mission and evangelism into getting buildings built. The argument goes, we can’t support more growth if we don’t have room for people.
However, there are a number of assumptions underlying this problem. Firstly, there is the assumption that the church needs to stay together. Why do we assume this? Why do we assume that it is only the “church planters” and “missionaries” that should be going out into the world? It seems to me that the assumption that we have to stay together drives the decision to buy property. I think a kingdom focus would see these times as an opportunity. An opportunity to plant a new church, ensuring the ongoing flexibility and mobility of the church for mission & evangelism. We need to remember how in Acts the Holy Spirit used the persecution of the church in Jerusalem to break up their cosy little community, and drive them out into the world to fulfil the Great Commission.
The second assumption is that physical space equals social space. Many churches have empty pews. There is physical space for many more people. However, that does not necessarily mean that there is social space for people. Churches tend to be very clique-y, and the use of religious jargon is an impediment for many. Most importantly though, we fail abysmally in showing people (inside or outside the church) the kind of radical, self-sacrifical love and grace that Christ showed us. Having someone meet you in the carpark is not the same as being loved unconditionally and extravagantly by your enemy.
And there are so many more examples… My point is we have to stop assuming that things have to look the way they always have. We need to challenge our assumptions. If we keep doing what we are doing, and expect different results… well we all know the saying… that’s the definition of insanity. Just as the structures of the world institutionalise injustice and need to be challenged, so do church structures that get in the way of the people of God living out the gospel in a secular society.
God bless,
Bec
Many of the problems we face as a church come out of making a lot of assumptions about what church should be. If we challenge those assumptions, solutions to the problems we are facing start appearing.
For example, many churches spend a lot of time, money and effort on building projects. During these periods effort and resources are diverted from mission and evangelism into getting buildings built. The argument goes, we can’t support more growth if we don’t have room for people.
However, there are a number of assumptions underlying this problem. Firstly, there is the assumption that the church needs to stay together. Why do we assume this? Why do we assume that it is only the “church planters” and “missionaries” that should be going out into the world? It seems to me that the assumption that we have to stay together drives the decision to buy property. I think a kingdom focus would see these times as an opportunity. An opportunity to plant a new church, ensuring the ongoing flexibility and mobility of the church for mission & evangelism. We need to remember how in Acts the Holy Spirit used the persecution of the church in Jerusalem to break up their cosy little community, and drive them out into the world to fulfil the Great Commission.
The second assumption is that physical space equals social space. Many churches have empty pews. There is physical space for many more people. However, that does not necessarily mean that there is social space for people. Churches tend to be very clique-y, and the use of religious jargon is an impediment for many. Most importantly though, we fail abysmally in showing people (inside or outside the church) the kind of radical, self-sacrifical love and grace that Christ showed us. Having someone meet you in the carpark is not the same as being loved unconditionally and extravagantly by your enemy.
And there are so many more examples… My point is we have to stop assuming that things have to look the way they always have. We need to challenge our assumptions. If we keep doing what we are doing, and expect different results… well we all know the saying… that’s the definition of insanity. Just as the structures of the world institutionalise injustice and need to be challenged, so do church structures that get in the way of the people of God living out the gospel in a secular society.
God bless,
Bec
Monday, August 25, 2008
I think I like Mike Guglielmucci's song Healer better now...
Danny Guglielmucci has made a statement about what led to Mike's cancer story:
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,24233308-5006301,00.html
I think I like the song Healer better now that I know it came out of a Romans 7 type struggle with sin/addiction than when it was about cancer. Certainly speaks to my life a lot more than before :-) THIS I can COMPLETELY understand. I think this situation coming out into the open is God's first step in answering Mike's prayer for healing from his sexual addiction.
I think he will look back on this time and be grateful that this became public. I think he will never forget how much damage and pain he has caused and I think it will give him opportunity to understand a fresh the grace of God towards him. This is God discipling Mike as a son (Heb 12:5-8) which is grace in itself. This means that Mike is still God's son, which makes him our brother. As the people of God I think we should seek to be a community of healing rather than judgement in this situation.
For everyone else we need to learn/remember the following things:
- Deal with sin, don't hide it, God won't let it stay hidden for ever, so have a zero-tolerance policy towards sin.
- Our faith needs to be based in the character of God, not of our leaders because newsbreak they are all fallible and sin, only God is 100% trustworthy.
- Take the log out of our own eyes before we try to take the speck out of our brothers. And remember that when we think are 'standing firm, be careful that [we] don't fall!' (1 Cor 10:12)
- God is sovereign and He will work even things like this for the good of those who love Him and are called according to His purpose (Romans 8:28)
I really feel that so much good is going to come out of this. I feel Joel 2:25-27 is a promise for those who have experienced devastation as a result of this situation. God is passionate about restoration. He is the God of resurrection, when things die/are put to death there is opportunity for God to do something unexpected and good. As a people we need to put our hope in God that He is good enough, and big enough to make something good out of this. And considering the size of the "sin impact zone", I think this could be the beginning of a big revival in the Australian church. I think this could be something that draws people away from their false idols (church leaders, prosperity doctrine, name-it-claim-it theology, prooftexting), and back into a deep and complex faith in Christ.
God bless,
Bec
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Guglielmucci, Bentley & Success
It's disappointing to hear that Mike G's cancer story is a hoax. It's hard when something that looks so strong in the church is shown to be weak and sin-tainted. Similar thing happened this week with the revelations about Todd Bentley (although I have to admit no surprise on that one at all). As Christians I think we really love it when things look successful. Healer is a great song that has touched many people. Bentley's ministry looked flashy and successful. But both are now questionable.
First thing to say would be that God is entirely capable (and there is biblical evidence) for God using the ungodly for his purposes. To varying extents we are all sinful and yet God still uses us. So just because these men have been shown to be in sin does not mean that God is not at work through their ministries. I think it is illustrative that while Saul was in sin, God's anointing still rested on him as king of Israel.
Secondly, I would say that there is a problem as Christians when we love things that "look good". I think we want God to break in and establish His kingdom (and vindicate our witness) through big, flashy, undeniable displays of His power and sovereignty. I think the reason we love songs like Healer is that they do provoke deep feeling, and we think that's a sign that God is at work in a big way, and that somehow vindicates our witness. It's like evidence that supports what we've been saying. Same thing with big flashy healings. It vindicates us, brings us a bit back off the ledge, removes some of the risk of faith and witness. But I don't think that big and flashy is the way God necessarily chooses to work all the time. I think Jesus is a great example of this. He "emptied Himself and took the form of a servant", he didn't arrive as the big flashy political messiah that Israel was expecting. Instead He came and He washed His disciple's feet.
I think we should be more pleased when we see Christian leaders and the church displaying the CHARACTER of God, rather than necessarily the power of God. The power of God should be exercised in ways that are consistent with His character. I think this links in with the problems with the Church growth movement. It measures church success through numbers and tends to use marketing techniques to get people to church. I have been reflecting recently that much of what the church says to bring people to Christ sounds a lot like secular advertising. Secular advertising sets up false models of salvation. This product is going to make your life better by xyz. You are going to be bigger, better, faster, more beautiful by using product abc. This is very similar to the gospel that we sometimes preach - come to Jesus, find the purpose for your life, be happier, more at peace, God will heal all of your health issues in this life etc etc. But I don't think this is the true gospel. The true gospel is about dying, dying to self, taking up our cross and following Jesus. This is completely counter cultural, and does not look at all like the messages that we get flooded with by the world. I think the church should be functioning in ways that show this dying to self and mortifying the flesh.
The thing is that I think this is goes entirely against our ideas of success. I think our flesh loves it when we can count up church attendance and let that be a measure of what we are doing. When there are lots of people there, or lots of people buying our CD / crying during our song we see that as success, and our flesh loves it. The central point of the bible is the death of Christ--this absolutely looks like failure. The church needs to concentrate more on knowing and following Christ in His death. In the end this is all about God's glory, not the glory (success) of humans. We need to remember that His strength is made perfect in our weakness not our strength (success).
God bless,
Bec
First thing to say would be that God is entirely capable (and there is biblical evidence) for God using the ungodly for his purposes. To varying extents we are all sinful and yet God still uses us. So just because these men have been shown to be in sin does not mean that God is not at work through their ministries. I think it is illustrative that while Saul was in sin, God's anointing still rested on him as king of Israel.
Secondly, I would say that there is a problem as Christians when we love things that "look good". I think we want God to break in and establish His kingdom (and vindicate our witness) through big, flashy, undeniable displays of His power and sovereignty. I think the reason we love songs like Healer is that they do provoke deep feeling, and we think that's a sign that God is at work in a big way, and that somehow vindicates our witness. It's like evidence that supports what we've been saying. Same thing with big flashy healings. It vindicates us, brings us a bit back off the ledge, removes some of the risk of faith and witness. But I don't think that big and flashy is the way God necessarily chooses to work all the time. I think Jesus is a great example of this. He "emptied Himself and took the form of a servant", he didn't arrive as the big flashy political messiah that Israel was expecting. Instead He came and He washed His disciple's feet.
I think we should be more pleased when we see Christian leaders and the church displaying the CHARACTER of God, rather than necessarily the power of God. The power of God should be exercised in ways that are consistent with His character. I think this links in with the problems with the Church growth movement. It measures church success through numbers and tends to use marketing techniques to get people to church. I have been reflecting recently that much of what the church says to bring people to Christ sounds a lot like secular advertising. Secular advertising sets up false models of salvation. This product is going to make your life better by xyz. You are going to be bigger, better, faster, more beautiful by using product abc. This is very similar to the gospel that we sometimes preach - come to Jesus, find the purpose for your life, be happier, more at peace, God will heal all of your health issues in this life etc etc. But I don't think this is the true gospel. The true gospel is about dying, dying to self, taking up our cross and following Jesus. This is completely counter cultural, and does not look at all like the messages that we get flooded with by the world. I think the church should be functioning in ways that show this dying to self and mortifying the flesh.
The thing is that I think this is goes entirely against our ideas of success. I think our flesh loves it when we can count up church attendance and let that be a measure of what we are doing. When there are lots of people there, or lots of people buying our CD / crying during our song we see that as success, and our flesh loves it. The central point of the bible is the death of Christ--this absolutely looks like failure. The church needs to concentrate more on knowing and following Christ in His death. In the end this is all about God's glory, not the glory (success) of humans. We need to remember that His strength is made perfect in our weakness not our strength (success).
God bless,
Bec
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
So the Archbishop of Canterbury does have a spine
It appears that the Archbishop of Canterbury does have a spine, and a moral compass!
http://www.theage.com.au/world/american-churches-blamed-for-anglican-rift-20080804-3px1.html?page=-1
It is a good thing that he has stopped pandering to the liberal faction of the Anglican church and has finally called a spade a spade; yes there are divisions in the Anglican church and those divisions were caused by the US & Canadian bishops who have gone against the word of God, and the beliefs and traditions of Anglicanism.
God bless,
Bec
http://www.theage.com.au/world/american-churches-blamed-for-anglican-rift-20080804-3px1.html?page=-1
It is a good thing that he has stopped pandering to the liberal faction of the Anglican church and has finally called a spade a spade; yes there are divisions in the Anglican church and those divisions were caused by the US & Canadian bishops who have gone against the word of God, and the beliefs and traditions of Anglicanism.
God bless,
Bec
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Facing suffering and grief during divorce
There's an interesting post on the Stuff Christian's Like blog today about "Painfully named divorce ministries". I was going to post a comment there, but I got too long-winded so here tis:
I think calling divorce ministries something honest about where people are actually at is providing a service. Our society is so blaise about divorce and so ignorant about how to deal with suffering. We are taught to run from it, ignore it, put on a happy face and repeatedly say "I'm fine, I'm fine, I'm fine" until we believe it. So sugarcoating divorce recovery with a nice title isn't really going to heal/help anyone if they are in the denial/avoidance mindset. I would argue naming ministries something like "Divorce Sucks" or "ARRGGGHH! Jesus please rapture me now!!" would be most appropriate.
My experience is you need to embrace the grief to move through it. It can seem like an endless ocean and you feel that there cannot possibly ever be an end to it. You feel that if you step into those deep waters of grief that you will be dragged along in a current forever, and that's if you don't drown. You can't see how you will ever be 'ok' ever again. Your heart feels like an onion, where the layers have been peeled away betrayal by betrayal. And you can't be sure what hurts the most, the other person betraying you, or your own failure and complicity in the failure of the marriage, or the complete sense of hopelessness you have because you don't have complete control over the circumstances and so cannot "fix it", and you don't understand why God isn't doing "more" when He so clearly states in Malachi 2:16 that "I hate divorce".
The only way to deal with it, so that you don't keep carrying it for the rest of your life, is to honestly face it. To dive right into the grief, to embrace it and face it honesty. You let Christ be the lifesaver that dives in with you and pulls you across to the other shore, remembering that "He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering..." (Is. 53:3) and so He deeply, deeply identifies with our pain. More than that, He "...carried our sorrows... he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed." (Is. 53:4-5) So we can leave all of it beneath the cross. All of our sense of failure. All of our anger and hurt towards our former spouse. ALL OF IT. This healing doesn't come if you aren't honest about it all, because if you aren't honest about it all then you cannot leave it all under the cross.
Some of the comments on the the Stuff Christian's Like post belittled people expressing their pain during divorce. This seems to me to indicate an underlying fear that the people don't really know what to do when others are really suffering in this way, they don't know how to respond, and they really really do not want to have to deal with it. They do not want their nice little world invaded by genuine hurt and suffering. This is in stark contrast to Jesus' attitude as portrayed in Luke 4 where He quotes Isaiah 61:1-2, declaring His "mission statement". This mission statement included two key phrases, "to bind up the brokenhearted" and "to comfort all who mourn". This was part of Jesus' mission, it should also be part of each Christian's mission. Divorcees are brokenhearted and mourning, and they need the love of Christ, and they need the support of the Church.
God bless,
Bec
Sunday, March 2, 2008
Wooohooo!
This is just a quick post, I had an amazing day today, saw the "above and beyond all that we can ask or imagine", and am just amazed at how God is moving.
My boyfriend and I have just got involved with a church that works on the multisite model, and they had their first service today at the new site in our area. We have been feeling called over the last few months to become involved and so it was awesome to finally be there today and see the vision come to be.
The expected numbers were 200 committed to the new site, however the turnout this morning was 750! And they had to turn away 50 cars, because there wasn't room to park! And it turns out that 500 of those who made it into the building are committed to the new site. As the venue only seats about 350 (there were people hanging off the balcony and standing room only!) they've decided that from next week (i.e. the second week that the site will be operating) that we'll have to go to 2 services!!
I am just so excited to see what God will do in the area through this church, and to be one of those "unworthy servants" that He will use to do it. I have a great sense of expectation, not in the church itself so much, but in Christ who "is building His church". It will be exciting and challenging to be involved in the work that God is doing in the area of Melbourne. Also feel very much at peace that this is our home, and where He has called us to be.
So yes, it's an unrestrained "Wooooohoooooo!" on my part! Our God is an AWESOME God :-)
God bless,
Bec
My boyfriend and I have just got involved with a church that works on the multisite model, and they had their first service today at the new site in our area. We have been feeling called over the last few months to become involved and so it was awesome to finally be there today and see the vision come to be.
The expected numbers were 200 committed to the new site, however the turnout this morning was 750! And they had to turn away 50 cars, because there wasn't room to park! And it turns out that 500 of those who made it into the building are committed to the new site. As the venue only seats about 350 (there were people hanging off the balcony and standing room only!) they've decided that from next week (i.e. the second week that the site will be operating) that we'll have to go to 2 services!!
I am just so excited to see what God will do in the area through this church, and to be one of those "unworthy servants" that He will use to do it. I have a great sense of expectation, not in the church itself so much, but in Christ who "is building His church". It will be exciting and challenging to be involved in the work that God is doing in the area of Melbourne. Also feel very much at peace that this is our home, and where He has called us to be.
So yes, it's an unrestrained "Wooooohoooooo!" on my part! Our God is an AWESOME God :-)
God bless,
Bec
Monday, February 25, 2008
Holy Music
A lot is said of different styles of music in church and a lot of judgements are made about what is more appropriate "worship" based on the style of music. In more contemporary churches "good worship" is defined as music that stirs us and where we had a jolly good bounce and felt good. In more traditional churches "good worship" is defined more in terms of the sung liturgy, or beautiful hymns that have been sung "by the saints" for hundreds of years.
I recently read How Christianity Changed the World by Alvin J. Schmidt. He discussed at one point the impact Christianity had made on music, and applauded the Christian music that conformed to the classic forms, whilst making an argument that since Jazz and Rock and Roll there has been a decline in the "holiness" of music, due to its discordant and rebellious themes. (I don't have the book around anymore so if I'm doing an injustice to his point, my apologies).
I personally wonder how we can make an objective assessment of whether a certain piece of music is "holy" or not. This needs to go beyond our subjective experience of it, to what musically and lyrically is pleasing / unpleasing to God. Does God have a sense of aesthetics? Does He enjoy one form of music more than another based on its "beauty"? If you divorce the lyrics from music, are there styles of music that are more honouring to God than others?
I think this is all rather difficult to answer. God hasn't revealed through His word a preference for a certain style of music. I haven't found anywhere it says, "Thus saith the Lord, I hateth Rock n' Roll, giveth me only thy praise by way of the pipe organ", and neither has He said, "Thus saith the Lord, I am bored of choral music, please someone plays drums in mine sanctuary". And if we stuck to what is literally said in the bible then musicians would be "dressed in fine linen and play cymbals, harps and lyres" (2 Chron 5:12)
I would definitely say that God has a sense of aesthetics, or else where did we get a sense of aesthetics from?? Where does our appreciation of beauty come from otherwise? C. S. Lewis wrote "The sweetest thing in all my life has been the longing...to find the place where all the beauty came from". There is something about beauty that inherently draws us towards God, as it reveals God.
There is amazing diversity in creation, and all of it He said was "good". That would include a stormy winters day as much as a beautiful spring afternoon. (And yet that winter's day is dark, broody and chaotic, as is a lot of modern music.) I think God would appreciate a peach as much as He does a pear, and likewise from a musical perspective I think there isn't that much difference in essence between madrigals and the latest hillsong jumpy song. Given that God is a creative God and that we are made in His image, isn't creating music, of any genre in some way honouring Him, particularly when the music is written or played for the glory of God? This goes to the "spirit and truth" question, what is the motivation for the music?
One difficulty in determining the "holiness" of a piece of music is really that without the lyrics, a piece of music does not communicate clearly its subject matter. It communicates and ellicts feelings, and in time you can come to associate certain strains in the music with certain subjects, but it isn't clear without lyrics who or what is being played about. This is of concern in the respect that a piece of music maybe joyful, but is it communicating and elliciting joy about God or about something else? Charles Spurgeon wrote, "When I have heard of large congregations gathered together by the music of a fine choir, I have remembered that the same thing is done at the opera house and the music-hall, and I have felt no joy. When we have heard of crowds enchanted by the sublime music of the pealing organ, I have seen in the fact rather a glorification of St. Cecilia than of Jesus Christ. Our Lord trusted in no measure or degree to the charms of music for the establishing his throne. He has not given to his disciples the slightest intimation that they are to employ the attractions of the concert room to promote the kingdom of heaven." So Spurgeon wouldn't be a big fan of Planetshakers. Are the people there worshipping God or are they simply enjoying the music? Or both?
I think a good line would be to try an ensure that any music is not distracting. I often find with the louder styles of music that my attention is distracted away from God, whereas the softer music (or silence!!) is less distracting. In which case this isn't just a question of aesthetics as such, one can enjoy many styles of music, and yet find one style more distracting than another, when the aim is not the enjoyment of music but glorification of God.
I think lyrics are the clearest way I think we can assess a piece of music as to whether it is glorifying to God. Obviously if the words are blasphemous, irreverent or promoting a non-biblical world view then there's a problem. I also think there is an issue when too much is made of "me" in the words, rather than focussing on Christ. And this is probably where a lot of modern Christian music is problematic, "I love you Lord", "I give my life", "I come to you", "I called, you answered". I, I, I, me, me, me. Rather, He first loved us, he gave His life for us, He came to us, He called us, etc. And how about, "You are everything to me". Well, is that before or after we swear at our neighbour for cutting us off in traffic? Before or after we prioritise sleep over spending time with Him in prayer? How honestly can any of us ever say that He is EVERYTHING to us? Our faithfulness to God is quite pitiful, rather it is His faithfulness to us that is worthy of song.
God bless,
Bec
I recently read How Christianity Changed the World by Alvin J. Schmidt. He discussed at one point the impact Christianity had made on music, and applauded the Christian music that conformed to the classic forms, whilst making an argument that since Jazz and Rock and Roll there has been a decline in the "holiness" of music, due to its discordant and rebellious themes. (I don't have the book around anymore so if I'm doing an injustice to his point, my apologies).
I personally wonder how we can make an objective assessment of whether a certain piece of music is "holy" or not. This needs to go beyond our subjective experience of it, to what musically and lyrically is pleasing / unpleasing to God. Does God have a sense of aesthetics? Does He enjoy one form of music more than another based on its "beauty"? If you divorce the lyrics from music, are there styles of music that are more honouring to God than others?
I think this is all rather difficult to answer. God hasn't revealed through His word a preference for a certain style of music. I haven't found anywhere it says, "Thus saith the Lord, I hateth Rock n' Roll, giveth me only thy praise by way of the pipe organ", and neither has He said, "Thus saith the Lord, I am bored of choral music, please someone plays drums in mine sanctuary". And if we stuck to what is literally said in the bible then musicians would be "dressed in fine linen and play cymbals, harps and lyres" (2 Chron 5:12)
I would definitely say that God has a sense of aesthetics, or else where did we get a sense of aesthetics from?? Where does our appreciation of beauty come from otherwise? C. S. Lewis wrote "The sweetest thing in all my life has been the longing...to find the place where all the beauty came from". There is something about beauty that inherently draws us towards God, as it reveals God.
There is amazing diversity in creation, and all of it He said was "good". That would include a stormy winters day as much as a beautiful spring afternoon. (And yet that winter's day is dark, broody and chaotic, as is a lot of modern music.) I think God would appreciate a peach as much as He does a pear, and likewise from a musical perspective I think there isn't that much difference in essence between madrigals and the latest hillsong jumpy song. Given that God is a creative God and that we are made in His image, isn't creating music, of any genre in some way honouring Him, particularly when the music is written or played for the glory of God? This goes to the "spirit and truth" question, what is the motivation for the music?
One difficulty in determining the "holiness" of a piece of music is really that without the lyrics, a piece of music does not communicate clearly its subject matter. It communicates and ellicts feelings, and in time you can come to associate certain strains in the music with certain subjects, but it isn't clear without lyrics who or what is being played about. This is of concern in the respect that a piece of music maybe joyful, but is it communicating and elliciting joy about God or about something else? Charles Spurgeon wrote, "When I have heard of large congregations gathered together by the music of a fine choir, I have remembered that the same thing is done at the opera house and the music-hall, and I have felt no joy. When we have heard of crowds enchanted by the sublime music of the pealing organ, I have seen in the fact rather a glorification of St. Cecilia than of Jesus Christ. Our Lord trusted in no measure or degree to the charms of music for the establishing his throne. He has not given to his disciples the slightest intimation that they are to employ the attractions of the concert room to promote the kingdom of heaven." So Spurgeon wouldn't be a big fan of Planetshakers. Are the people there worshipping God or are they simply enjoying the music? Or both?
I think a good line would be to try an ensure that any music is not distracting. I often find with the louder styles of music that my attention is distracted away from God, whereas the softer music (or silence!!) is less distracting. In which case this isn't just a question of aesthetics as such, one can enjoy many styles of music, and yet find one style more distracting than another, when the aim is not the enjoyment of music but glorification of God.
I think lyrics are the clearest way I think we can assess a piece of music as to whether it is glorifying to God. Obviously if the words are blasphemous, irreverent or promoting a non-biblical world view then there's a problem. I also think there is an issue when too much is made of "me" in the words, rather than focussing on Christ. And this is probably where a lot of modern Christian music is problematic, "I love you Lord", "I give my life", "I come to you", "I called, you answered". I, I, I, me, me, me. Rather, He first loved us, he gave His life for us, He came to us, He called us, etc. And how about, "You are everything to me". Well, is that before or after we swear at our neighbour for cutting us off in traffic? Before or after we prioritise sleep over spending time with Him in prayer? How honestly can any of us ever say that He is EVERYTHING to us? Our faithfulness to God is quite pitiful, rather it is His faithfulness to us that is worthy of song.
God bless,
Bec
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)