I figured that I have danced around this one for long enough and it would be beneficial to just get it off my back.
Music plays an integral part of virtually any worship service I've ever been a part of. It helps direct the focus, set the tone and the mood, and allows worshipers the opportunity of praising God directly. It's a huge part of any service and one that cannot be overlooked or ignored.
But what style of music is most appropriate? What is music's purpose? There seems to be a huge generational disconnect between my Grandma's generation and mine, with my parents' generation being caught squarely in the middle. The older generation is of the attitude that worship in general is supposed to be respectful and we need to be in awe of God and act appropriately. My generation and those that follow seem to have a more relational and open approach to God that alienates and even angers the older crowd.
I think it's because in their mind, the newer styles don't have respect for God as this huge entity that created everything, is everything, and has immeasurable power. On the flip side, those of us in the younger generations view this attitude as ridiculous and old-fashioned, stagnant and static, offering no room for growth in relationship with God and thus keeping God at a distance instead of allowing ourselves to be known through and through by our friend.
What we're dealing with here, essentially, is a difference of opinion of how to approach God-through respect and humility, or as a good friend who knows us intimately.
This is a tough topic in that one simply can't say that one or the other is right or wrong; both have a place in today's body of believers. I do encourage all of us to question what it is that attracts us to a particular style; is it because it doesn't require us to grow, or is it because it's how God speaks to us? If it's the former, I would really question a person's motivation for being a Christian-is it to be comfortable or to allow God to move in your life and change you into who you were meant to be?
One comment I will make is that I have noticed that the younger generations can appreciate and respect the more traditional worship style and music, but the older generations cannot seem to give the same appreciation and respect to the alternative styles of worship, which is very discouraging. Both styles are viable and have places, and it's unfortunate that some people cannot accept that simple truth and praise God that people are being reached for Jesus Christ. In their mind, there is one right way to worship God and everyone must be corrected to fit that mold and thus be the same; cookie-cutter Christians. Interesting how much that sounds like Communism, isn't it? They would rather pick apart what's "wrong" with another style, usually focusing on the music. Too much beat, they have drums, it's not respectful of God, it's clear that the music is all about the performers and not about God...on and on it goes.
What cracks me up about that last statement is that the same people who criticize the performers as puffing themselves up when they play will sit and enjoy an incredibly complex and difficult organ piece and applaud when the piece is done-isn't that the same thing? Why SHOULDN'T a musician use their talents to glorify the Lord? The style of music they play doesn't matter! Stop putting God in a box and maybe you'll get yourself out of the way so God can show you all you've been missing!
Monday, May 31, 2010
Monday, May 17, 2010
Sacred Cows
Ok, so this is going to be a touchy one.
This idea was sparked by a program I saw on TBN a while ago where one of the speakers said something to the effect of "If it ain't Jesus Christ, it ain't sacred." What I think he meant was that we often let traditions, doctrines, and other man-made methods, practices, etc. get in the way of being the church we are supposed to be; worshiping God and reaching a lost world in Jesus' name.
In my time, I have seen many things become what I call "sacred cows." From trying to "keep up with the Jones'" by upgrading technical systems every time something new comes out to letting pride and arrogance get in the way of effective outreach.
This is a really difficult topic to explain, as all my examples could be argued against me from a particular perspective. But, maybe that will serve to spark a lively discussion. So, I'm just going to plow ahead and see what happens.
So, without getting into specifics, let me paint you a hypothetical picture as an example. Let's say an individual wants to donate a large sum of money to the church (over $20,000). However, they earmark the money to be used to re-upholster the pews. Now, the pews are doing just fine, not much wear and tear on them, but this individual feels very strongly about this and will not be deterred. What should the pastor do?
My thinking is that the pastor should turn down the donation if the individual will not listen to other areas of real need where the money could be better served. Let me explain my reasoning and hopefully you'll understand.
Too often, a church will get into a situation like the one described above and they desperately want the money, but they are afraid that if they turn the person down, they might not give any more money. Here is where I come from; if the person is so focused on something as trivial as re-upholstering the seats, which is NOT a need (unless they're bright orange...;), and won't listen to other areas of real need, like evangelism, outreach, homeless ministries, etc., they their heart is not in the right place. In this particular case, I would say that the person is focused more on keeping up appearances rather than wanting to help other people. Now, again, it's one thing if the church as a body has indicated a desire to re-upholster the pews-that's a democratic decision and should be treated as such. But what really upsets me is people with deep pockets coming in and making changes in the church because it's what they want, not necessarily what the church wants...or even needs. To me, it's a selfish mentality and one that pastoral leadership should really fight more actively against.
Ok, another example: The tradition of Communion, at least in the Adventist church, consists of two parts. The first is the act of footwashing in order to remind us of humility and submitting to one another. So, a pair of people will physically wash each other's feet, as Christ did with the disciples at the Last Supper. Secondly, everyone regroups in the Sanctuary and the emblems (grape juice and flatbread pieces) are handed out to everyone. Now, I don't know if this is true or not, so forgive me for this, but I seem to remember being taught that if you did not participate in the foot-washing, you were not allowed to partake of the emblems. Now, let's pretend for the sake of argument that this was true (it's not that way now, by the way). Let's also pretend that you're a first-time visitor to an Adventist church on a Communion day and you were not allowed to participate in the second part of the service, not knowing what was happening. How would that make you feel?
This would be an example of tradition being a sacred cow. Sorry for the poor examples, but like I said, it's a difficult one to explain.
Maybe if I sum it all up by saying this: in the end, there should be no barrier between a church and the next person to walk in who doesn't know Jesus Christ and anything that gets in the way of that is a sacred cow and should be avoided. Signing a document that states you agree with 28 beliefs of a church before they'll let you get baptized? Worrying about being judged and criticized for not wearing a dress shirt and tie when going to church? Trying to behave correctly so that you can "fit in" to whatever mold a church has promoted as being "right?" Placing more importance and significance on music rather than the message, or outreach, or evangelism, or even the relationships within the church? Yeah, sacred cows, every single one. And it needs to stop. Christ is our example, and as far as I can tell, he had no sacred cows because he was all about reaching the next person.
This idea was sparked by a program I saw on TBN a while ago where one of the speakers said something to the effect of "If it ain't Jesus Christ, it ain't sacred." What I think he meant was that we often let traditions, doctrines, and other man-made methods, practices, etc. get in the way of being the church we are supposed to be; worshiping God and reaching a lost world in Jesus' name.
In my time, I have seen many things become what I call "sacred cows." From trying to "keep up with the Jones'" by upgrading technical systems every time something new comes out to letting pride and arrogance get in the way of effective outreach.
This is a really difficult topic to explain, as all my examples could be argued against me from a particular perspective. But, maybe that will serve to spark a lively discussion. So, I'm just going to plow ahead and see what happens.
So, without getting into specifics, let me paint you a hypothetical picture as an example. Let's say an individual wants to donate a large sum of money to the church (over $20,000). However, they earmark the money to be used to re-upholster the pews. Now, the pews are doing just fine, not much wear and tear on them, but this individual feels very strongly about this and will not be deterred. What should the pastor do?
My thinking is that the pastor should turn down the donation if the individual will not listen to other areas of real need where the money could be better served. Let me explain my reasoning and hopefully you'll understand.
Too often, a church will get into a situation like the one described above and they desperately want the money, but they are afraid that if they turn the person down, they might not give any more money. Here is where I come from; if the person is so focused on something as trivial as re-upholstering the seats, which is NOT a need (unless they're bright orange...;), and won't listen to other areas of real need, like evangelism, outreach, homeless ministries, etc., they their heart is not in the right place. In this particular case, I would say that the person is focused more on keeping up appearances rather than wanting to help other people. Now, again, it's one thing if the church as a body has indicated a desire to re-upholster the pews-that's a democratic decision and should be treated as such. But what really upsets me is people with deep pockets coming in and making changes in the church because it's what they want, not necessarily what the church wants...or even needs. To me, it's a selfish mentality and one that pastoral leadership should really fight more actively against.
Ok, another example: The tradition of Communion, at least in the Adventist church, consists of two parts. The first is the act of footwashing in order to remind us of humility and submitting to one another. So, a pair of people will physically wash each other's feet, as Christ did with the disciples at the Last Supper. Secondly, everyone regroups in the Sanctuary and the emblems (grape juice and flatbread pieces) are handed out to everyone. Now, I don't know if this is true or not, so forgive me for this, but I seem to remember being taught that if you did not participate in the foot-washing, you were not allowed to partake of the emblems. Now, let's pretend for the sake of argument that this was true (it's not that way now, by the way). Let's also pretend that you're a first-time visitor to an Adventist church on a Communion day and you were not allowed to participate in the second part of the service, not knowing what was happening. How would that make you feel?
This would be an example of tradition being a sacred cow. Sorry for the poor examples, but like I said, it's a difficult one to explain.
Maybe if I sum it all up by saying this: in the end, there should be no barrier between a church and the next person to walk in who doesn't know Jesus Christ and anything that gets in the way of that is a sacred cow and should be avoided. Signing a document that states you agree with 28 beliefs of a church before they'll let you get baptized? Worrying about being judged and criticized for not wearing a dress shirt and tie when going to church? Trying to behave correctly so that you can "fit in" to whatever mold a church has promoted as being "right?" Placing more importance and significance on music rather than the message, or outreach, or evangelism, or even the relationships within the church? Yeah, sacred cows, every single one. And it needs to stop. Christ is our example, and as far as I can tell, he had no sacred cows because he was all about reaching the next person.
Sunday, May 9, 2010
The story behind the last post
Ok, guys, so some of you might be wondering why I did the last post; here is the story.
Was reading a magazine called the Adventist World, a publication of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, that I receive because I was raised and am on the books as a member of the SDA church.
Here is a link to the article:
http://adventistworld.org/issue.php?issue=2010-1005&page=12
It sufficiently angered me that I felt compelled to write in; here is my letter. Please feel free to comment with your response to the article and/or my letter. Would love to know how you guys feel!
Letter:
I don't normally write letters, but I feel compelled to correct a couple things that Roy Adams wrote in his recent article, "Spiritual Perils."
First, I find it highly disappointing that Mr. Adams was not able to see past a relatively minor theological difference in order to see the beautiful message in the book "The Shack." Having read it, I completely agree with Eugene Patterson's thoughts that "this book has the potential to do for our generation what John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress did for his." And contrary to Roy's impression, there is no theological agenda other than painting a picture of God that is more approachable and relatable than the typical dry religions tend to make him out to be.
Secondly, the "clear take-away" is NOT that the dead can communicate with us, but instead that God is indeed actively interested in our lives and in us, as individuals, and deeply cares for us and offers healing and restoration for the painful and broken places in our hearts.
Thirdly, where Roy gets the entire basis of his argument regarding what "The Shack" is about is a very short scene in which Mack, the main character, sees and holds his dead daughter in a scenario orchestrated by God. So, "clearly," the book is about more than a 2-3 page scene. I'm saddened that he couldn't see that. What concerns me more is this concept that an experience like what takes place in the book couldn't take place; that's putting a box on God, and who are we to do that? According to the Bible, Moses died and was buried, yet he appeared at the Transfiguration, did he not? According to the Adventist ideology about the state of the dead, how is that explained? Would Roy be someone who, at the resurrection of Lazarus, would condemn Jesus for doing the impossible? I find it highly disturbing that this seems to be the message that is being sent by his article.
Finally, his comment about God being about "relationships," and then comparing the God of "The Shack" to the God of Jeremiah...heck, compare the God of the Old Testament to the God of the New Testament (discounting Revelation) and you have a stark contrast in the very Word of God, so that argument is null and void. And let's not forget that God IS all about relationships-he's lived in perfect relationship, perfect community for all eternity and wished to share that experience with us, so I really don't understand why Roy doesn't seem to like that idea-what does he think God is all about if not about relationship?
In summary, I'm very disappointed, discouraged, and downright angry that this article was printed as it really does more damage to the Adventist "brand," to borrow Roy's word. I think as Adventists, we should not be so afraid of something that goes against our theology that we can't allow ourselves to see the beauty that is has to offer.
Regards,
Tim Adams
PS: I wonder if Roy would try and correct the theology of a widow at her husband's graveside when she's believing that he's in a better place...? Would that be the "Christian" thing to do? When are we going to stop thinking that we have "the truth" and start acting like human beings, and not like robots that are just reciting the party line and hammering down on anyone and anything that spouts off something different?
Was reading a magazine called the Adventist World, a publication of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, that I receive because I was raised and am on the books as a member of the SDA church.
Here is a link to the article:
http://adventistworld.org/issue.php?issue=2010-1005&page=12
It sufficiently angered me that I felt compelled to write in; here is my letter. Please feel free to comment with your response to the article and/or my letter. Would love to know how you guys feel!
Letter:
I don't normally write letters, but I feel compelled to correct a couple things that Roy Adams wrote in his recent article, "Spiritual Perils."
First, I find it highly disappointing that Mr. Adams was not able to see past a relatively minor theological difference in order to see the beautiful message in the book "The Shack." Having read it, I completely agree with Eugene Patterson's thoughts that "this book has the potential to do for our generation what John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress did for his." And contrary to Roy's impression, there is no theological agenda other than painting a picture of God that is more approachable and relatable than the typical dry religions tend to make him out to be.
Secondly, the "clear take-away" is NOT that the dead can communicate with us, but instead that God is indeed actively interested in our lives and in us, as individuals, and deeply cares for us and offers healing and restoration for the painful and broken places in our hearts.
Thirdly, where Roy gets the entire basis of his argument regarding what "The Shack" is about is a very short scene in which Mack, the main character, sees and holds his dead daughter in a scenario orchestrated by God. So, "clearly," the book is about more than a 2-3 page scene. I'm saddened that he couldn't see that. What concerns me more is this concept that an experience like what takes place in the book couldn't take place; that's putting a box on God, and who are we to do that? According to the Bible, Moses died and was buried, yet he appeared at the Transfiguration, did he not? According to the Adventist ideology about the state of the dead, how is that explained? Would Roy be someone who, at the resurrection of Lazarus, would condemn Jesus for doing the impossible? I find it highly disturbing that this seems to be the message that is being sent by his article.
Finally, his comment about God being about "relationships," and then comparing the God of "The Shack" to the God of Jeremiah...heck, compare the God of the Old Testament to the God of the New Testament (discounting Revelation) and you have a stark contrast in the very Word of God, so that argument is null and void. And let's not forget that God IS all about relationships-he's lived in perfect relationship, perfect community for all eternity and wished to share that experience with us, so I really don't understand why Roy doesn't seem to like that idea-what does he think God is all about if not about relationship?
In summary, I'm very disappointed, discouraged, and downright angry that this article was printed as it really does more damage to the Adventist "brand," to borrow Roy's word. I think as Adventists, we should not be so afraid of something that goes against our theology that we can't allow ourselves to see the beauty that is has to offer.
Regards,
Tim Adams
PS: I wonder if Roy would try and correct the theology of a widow at her husband's graveside when she's believing that he's in a better place...? Would that be the "Christian" thing to do? When are we going to stop thinking that we have "the truth" and start acting like human beings, and not like robots that are just reciting the party line and hammering down on anyone and anything that spouts off something different?
Monday, May 3, 2010
State of the Dead = Hot Topic
So I was just reading an article in a monthly publication I get and it was discussing an issue that author had with the wildly popular book "The Shack." The entire article was based on the premise that the book was theologically dangerous in that it taught that the dead go to heaven and can communicate with us after they die.
Having read through the book twice, I did not get this impression at all, but this author comes from a religious environment that does not permit encroachment into any area of church doctrine, particularly the state of the dead. Now, to get it out of the way, I believe that when a person dies, they know nothing. Their spirit, or breath, or life-force returns to God from whence it came, and if they accepted Jesus Christ as their Savior then they will be raised to life again when Jesus returns to take us all home.
However, what I want to discuss this week is a Christian's ability to look past theological differences and learn to see the heart of the person behind the ideology. So many times in my life I have seen people react to a theologically "incorrect" statement in such a way that I know they are not listening to what else is being said, instead focusing on the one thing that was "wrong."
It makes me want to ask if they would walk up to a grieving widow, who believes her husband is in a better place and say, "Well, actually, your husband is dead and will stay dead until the 2nd coming of Jesus. Now that you know the truth, I hope you are comforted." I mean, COME ON! Seriously?!??!? What a person believes about the state of the dead is not going to save them. Granted, believing that people go to heaven right after they die can lead to spiritualism and other occult activities, but I think most of the people who fall into those practices more than likely have not sought out help in getting past their grief. What those people are looking for is peace that their loved one is ok. The last thing we should do in that situation is destroy their entire ideology by "correcting" it. Perhaps over time we can lead them into what the Bible teaches about the subject, but can't we get over the "truth" at some point and just comfort the person?
I had a friend whose dog died about a year and a half ago now and they took it very hard. The question came up during a particularly difficult time after we buried the dog whether or not pets go to heaven or not. Instead of saying, "Well, there's no theological evidence of why they would go to heaven," I simply replied, "I don't know-I would imagine that God would want us to all be as happy as possible, so maybe." At least it gave that person some hope instead of completely shutting down the possibility. I have no idea what God's policy is on pets, so why should I try and answer for Him?
What do you think? I'm glad you guys are commenting, it means that we're discussing things that are hitting a chord. :)
Having read through the book twice, I did not get this impression at all, but this author comes from a religious environment that does not permit encroachment into any area of church doctrine, particularly the state of the dead. Now, to get it out of the way, I believe that when a person dies, they know nothing. Their spirit, or breath, or life-force returns to God from whence it came, and if they accepted Jesus Christ as their Savior then they will be raised to life again when Jesus returns to take us all home.
However, what I want to discuss this week is a Christian's ability to look past theological differences and learn to see the heart of the person behind the ideology. So many times in my life I have seen people react to a theologically "incorrect" statement in such a way that I know they are not listening to what else is being said, instead focusing on the one thing that was "wrong."
It makes me want to ask if they would walk up to a grieving widow, who believes her husband is in a better place and say, "Well, actually, your husband is dead and will stay dead until the 2nd coming of Jesus. Now that you know the truth, I hope you are comforted." I mean, COME ON! Seriously?!??!? What a person believes about the state of the dead is not going to save them. Granted, believing that people go to heaven right after they die can lead to spiritualism and other occult activities, but I think most of the people who fall into those practices more than likely have not sought out help in getting past their grief. What those people are looking for is peace that their loved one is ok. The last thing we should do in that situation is destroy their entire ideology by "correcting" it. Perhaps over time we can lead them into what the Bible teaches about the subject, but can't we get over the "truth" at some point and just comfort the person?
I had a friend whose dog died about a year and a half ago now and they took it very hard. The question came up during a particularly difficult time after we buried the dog whether or not pets go to heaven or not. Instead of saying, "Well, there's no theological evidence of why they would go to heaven," I simply replied, "I don't know-I would imagine that God would want us to all be as happy as possible, so maybe." At least it gave that person some hope instead of completely shutting down the possibility. I have no idea what God's policy is on pets, so why should I try and answer for Him?
What do you think? I'm glad you guys are commenting, it means that we're discussing things that are hitting a chord. :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)