do you sing?
I just took a call at the church from a woman asking about the time of our 2nd service on sunday mornings and after confirming that it was at 11am, she proceeded to ask if we sing hymns. I stated that we sing hymns during the 1st service, but our 2nd service does not typically have hymns. She asked me again the same question with the emphasis on hymns- "I asked, do you sing HYMNS??" So I responded again, with a sure tone, that our 1st service is a traditional service in which we sing hymns, however, our 2nd service (which she's inquired about) is our contemporary service and we do not sing hymns often. She responded with a quick thank you and then hung up.
I know that the Church in the United States has been through the "worship wars" and many churches are still in the midst of it. but i post this here now because i wanted to get a little discussion going- regarding this question. Is this a question that should be asked when looking for a church? what other questions should someone ask when they are looking for a church home? what should the primary determining factor be? And how do you get past the ambiguous questions/feelings like "I think God wants us here" for which there may be no proof except for our own feelings?
discuss.
11 comments:
When looking for a church, an exhaustive list I would use would be the 9 marks of a healthy church. If the list had to be stripped down to bare bones (as the Reformers spoke of what constitutes a true church), it'd probably be the right preaching of the Word and the administration of the sacraments.
If the woman who called was concerned with musical style of the songs, then that's too bad. If she was concerned with the content of the songs (statistically, I'd go out on a limb and say that hymns are a safer bet to be God-glorifying and theologically correct -- but there are definitely modern day choruses that are also, for sure), then that's good, but it's not beneficial to pigeon-hole the words of "choruses" vs. hymns.
I am going to go a little "liberal" in my comment.
To disagree with my respected friend Luke, the mark of a healthy faith community, in my estimation, would not be orthodoxy but fruit. Saying that the "right preaching of the Word" is one of the two true tests of a good church implies that there are faith communities who are "in" with God and those who are "out".
I would prefer to say that the fruit will set apart a healthy congregation from others, just as one can tell a true prophet from a false one: Matthew 7.15-20: 15"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them." (NIV - thanks Biblegateway.com)
All this to agree with lukemiddleton. It is too bad that people have tests of their own to decide between churches. Whether the correct genre of music is used, whether the pastor visits as he should, whether casserole dishes are properly returned after a pot-luck. Such would be tantamount to diagnosing a disease only using blood tests - the whole picture cannot be seen.
The church has been embroiled with the worship wars and it is a shame. It is just as much a shame that certain services are given to particular genres. If we have a "contemporary" service segregated from a "traditional" we are effectively sorting our congregations by age. What healthy community separates the old from the young? Us young folk need to have healthy community with our older siblings because they have a wealth of wisdom to share, and, just as Jesus said "allow the little children to come to me," the older generation is benefited by the young church's zeal and simple faith.
Interesting points, Erik. I would wholeheartedly agree that fruit is something we should look for when considering a church.
However, are not the right preaching of the Word, a Biblical leadership, a desire to share the Gospel, and a focus on membership (to name a few of the "9 Marks" I mentioned) fruit? Are a sinful people made regenerate, pursuing sanctification and obedience to preach the Word in season and out, to submit themselves to the Scriptures, and to be disciplined in their faith -- are these things not fruit of the work and grace of God?
It is not to say that some communities are "in" with God and others "out". It is to say that we have a high calling to preach the Word in season and out (2 Tim. 4:2). It is the Word that is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness (2 Tim. 3:16). There may very well be well-intentioned, sincere, Christian brothers and sisters in a congregation that does not preach the Word. Does that mean they are not Christians? Certainly not. But it does mean that there is a glaring issue that needs to be addressed for the sake of the health, growth, and joy of the church.
You are right that we need to bear fruit. John 15 says that we have been chosen and appointed to bear fruit that will endure and as we abide in Christ, we bear much fruit.
The question we're faced with is what someone should look for in a church. We both agree that this person and this church need to bear fruit. So, the foundational question seems to be: what produces fruit in the life of a believer and a church?
Faith comes from hearing and hearing from the Word of God (Rom. 10:17). Without the work of the Word, none of us could have realized our sinful condition and none of us could have been saved. It's the Word that brought us into God's community and it is the Word that sustains and continually builds us up.
It seems that the realization that no fruit is produced in us outside of the Word of God led some of the Reformers to hold such a high view of the Scripture, and also to recognize that even perceiving and understanding the Word (Matt. 13) is the work of the grace of God through the Word (the seed) -- ultimately, fruit.
Forgot to mention:
"If we have a "contemporary" service segregated from a "traditional" we are effectively sorting our congregations by age. What healthy community separates the old from the young?"
Well said -- right on. It seems Titus 2's command for older women to train younger ones is compromised in a setting like that.
just wanted to step in for a moment- luke, i agree and was going to make the point until you did- Right teaching of the word would obvioulsy lead to fruit. Erik- one thing to be defined is answering the question "how do we define good fruit that a church bears". the easiest determining factor, and many churches still use this to a fault, is simply numbers. But numbers are not hte only way to measure success/fruit from a church. And beyond that, numbers may be a bad thing from that perspective- if a peraching teaches fluffy, light stuff, or even wrong doctrine, but it sounds good and people like it, the church might be HUGE!!
I appreciate the comments on traditional vs. contemporary services- i think one thing we suffer from is older people in one service, younger in the other and the old people don't know the young people... but truthfully, i'm not sure that most of the older people who attend first service would spend much time pouring into and discipling some of the younger families, couples, etc that we have in our church... so what does that do?
just thoughts
Reid, good point about some of the older folks wouldn't pour into the younger ones, anyway. It's sometimes true and is too bad.
We still must be faithful to teach for the older to pour into the younger and to create a context where that can happen. It will make the church healthier in that some will respond and those that don't won't have a safe-haven place (a service, for example) where they are catered to and able to become apathetic and controlling. I use those negative terms as a "worse case scenario", not a blanket application to everyone. Many people will respond when encouraged and taught from the Word to do what is best.
Much of the danger in two services (two based on personal preferences) is a sense of entitlement and ownership and line drawn in the sand. Dangerous stuff, for sure, we all agree.
I have attended (regularly) quite a few churches in my relatively short time living and each of the evangelical and some of the mainline denominations would ALL assert that they are holding Scripture up as the central authority for all things communal - worship, study, reflection, discipline, etc. Let me just say that not all these congregatios were healthy - in fact, very few. So to say a church is healthy if they value scripture above everything else is almost like trying to describe a good ice cream by saying it is cold. All ice cream is cold. If someone wants to point another to a GOOD ice cream, it is best to describe the qualities one can observe about the ice cream.
This being the case, I have observed that those who claim scripture does not have actual centrality among our congregations wishes to assert that a certain interpretation or application of the scripture is missing. This is why I would stand by my assertion that observation of fruit is a better method of identifying healthy congregations. Of course it goes without saying that a healthy, fruit bearing congregation WILL hold to the primacy of scriptures.
And since I am a theological descendent of John Wesley, I would point out that the so-called "Wesleyan Quadrilateral" is just one such way to produce a healthy congregation, although I am sure there are many others. "Wesley believed that the living core of the Christian faith was revealed in Scripture, illumined by tradition, vivified in personal experience, and confirmed by reason. Scripture [however] is primary, revealing the Word of God ‘so far as it is necessary for our salvation.’” (The Book of Discipline of the United Methodist Church-2004, p. 77).
On another, related topic, notice that the Methodist Discipline states that "scripture is primary in revealing the Word of God." I think this is incredibly put. We are, after all, CHRISTians, and not BIBLEians. While the scripture is our primary way of knowing the Word of God, we are followers of Christ.
Erik, I agree that all churches believe they hold a health value for Scripture (save, as you said, the few that don't hold to sola scriptura -- Catholicism, Latter-Day Saints, etc.).
Your ice cream analogy was right-on. That's why the criteria is not just valuing Scripture, but is the right preaching of it -- that is, correct doctrine.
Scripture is our only rule of faith. Our interpretations and applications are not the rule, but simply what we believe the Bible to be saying. Example: denominations don't argue over Calvinism and Arminianism, but what the Bible says.
Holding fruit as the way to identify a healthy congregation is a good rule of thumb. 1 John speaks much of the love others will see in us if we are God's. However, fruit is not the ground level. The seed that bears the fruit is. That is why, as the question goes, when choosing a church, one should be concerned with the seed that is being planted. We must also have very disciplined ideas of what constitutes fruit, otherwise, we can end up believing that large numbers are fruit (I highly doubt you are a subscriber to that idea, I'm just pointing out and am sure we agree there).
A working example would be this: this week will be my last week attending a church in PI that has SO MUCH fruit in the area of love that it's been nothing short of very beneficial for me. But my wife and are moving to Virginia next week to become members at a church whose preaching and teaching we are in agreement with. And it is because of their preaching and teaching that their church has the fruit it has -- fruit that is desirable enough for us to move 1,000 miles to enjoy.
Wesley was right, Scripture is primary. And Scripture is what tells us what to do to be a healthy congregation (preach the Word, do the sacraments, have Biblical leadership, love one another, etc.).
I agree that we are followers of Christ. We must remember John 1, that Christ is the Word of God in the flesh. We hold the Scriptures so dear because they are God-breathed. Following the Bible = following Christ. You can't follow one without the other, they are inseperable. He wrote it, He was it, and His Words are in it. We can't fall in love with simple print and pages, but the Word (not the ink and paper) is what God works through and it is what will endure forever. I don't think anyone is trying to hold Scripture above Christ or to even compare the two -- that would make no sense at all. But there is no knowing of God for us that is outside of the guide of the Scriptures. It is our only rule of faith.
Again, all of this boils down to the chicken and the egg. What's the ground level of all this? A healthy church will have fruit, but what produces that fruit, where does it come from, and what exactly is it? The seed is the Word of God. The fruit is first and foremost salvation. In the life of the church, it is following the ordinances and obeying the commands given the church in the NT -- commands that include everything from loving your neighbor and being a loving husband to having a Biblical eldership and taking communion in rememberance of Christ.
I think we have come to the end of this particular conversation and has it ever been fun! I must admit that I had heard of the big migration and have been thinking about it a great deal lately. Following convictions is essential to our pilgrimage and I am pleased this is what you are all doing. There are many exciting days ahead for both your families and I pray the journey deepens your convictions to share God's Grace and Gospel wherever you find yourselves along the way!
(I hope I did not offend - my last few posts were restatements of the same thing I had said, trying to rephrase for clarity. I was also not trying to accuse anyone of smallmindedness. Two nights ago I had a post typed that I had to leave for a few hours because it was accusatory and generally not Kingdom-building. Yesterday's post represents the Kingdom-building version.)
Again, blessings!
I posted this blog on myspace as well- i got some comments there and wanted to share them here in case anyone is still reading the comments...
Timmy Morgan said this: "this is a great discussion. You know - I have an issue with the modern/post modern idea of "church shopping." It used to be that you went to the one or two churches near you that you could simply get to. You were forced to participate in the community and make it work or simply NOT GO TO CHURCH. Now, with cars and suburban sprawl, if there's anything we have issues with in the church, we simply go shopping for a new one. This is completely indicative of our consumerist society. We don't want to be stretched, we don't want to disagree, we don't want to be uncomfortable - so we shop for just the right church - just like we'd shop for the perfect car or couch.
You and I both know that worship IS NOT simply limited to traditional music or contemporary music. Yet most people are so ignorant about worship and so you couple this ignorance with their being completely absorded in consumerism, and you're going to get people like who you talked to on the phone.
I do NOT think Christ's will for the Church is communities of people who sing the same style of music, who all agree, who approach the bible the same way, who pray the same way and on and on. We certainly need to agree on the main points - but I think there's true beauty in a community that doesn't agree on everything but that can disagree in love.
How do we get people to embrace this idea and to dump this church shopping crap?"
David Pfnister said this: "I think it is safe to say that people are just bull headed.The style of worship shouldnt matter but our own church is guilty of this .... our womens retreat two years ago was in Canada and the girls got home with a suprised and weirded out attitude.The Canadian church danced with banners down the isle! I really do think it is about where and how people feel comfy and dont like to step out of the ol comfort zone.
my two cents..."
and i followed those with this: "Timmy, completely agreed with disgust for "church-shopping". before I went to college, i had people ask me to make sure i'd shop around before settling on a church when I got there... i promised, and intended to, and then the first church I went to just caught me- i got involved quickly and easily with youth, small groups, etc... I wonder more if this woman was simply new to the area...
However, there must be more to church than simply music style, right?
David- funny- the church i went to in college was a flag waiving, people dancing, even guys crying out in tongues kind of church. i'd never experienced it, but when i was there, i fully immersed myself in it and found validity and the heavy emphasis charismatics have on the Spirit and the Spirit's gifts and movements. I have since found myself in the middle of the scale having been on both ends. I think i draw the line whne people start barking like dogs, though... worship style, music style, however, is only a personal preference kind of thing when there are more important issues like being fed spiritually, being given the opportunity to serve (and being encouraged to do so), discipleship opportunities, the church's focus in the right place, right teaching of the word (maybe the most important thing to look for), the fruit that the church bears etc. when people relegate their decision on where to go to church based on a musical style preference, they are missing out on God's best."
Erik, was glad to hear your input. No offense was taken. Thanks for the well-wishes with the move!
Post a Comment