Music in Church

2 Weeks of Pagan Christianity

Chapter 7 starts out with this statement:

“In the early church, singing and leading songs was a corporate affair, not a professional event led by specialists.”

The book traces the history of many of the musical aspects of church, such as the Gregorian chant, papal choirs, boys’ choirs, the use of instruments, the funeral dirge, hymns, and special music.

A few facts:

“During Constantine’s reign, choirs were developed to train and help celebrate the Eucharist.”

“The congregation of God’s people became spectators, not only in spoken ministry, but in singing as well.”

“The Reformers restored congregational singing and the use of instruments.”

“Through Calvary Chapel and the Vineyard, revolutionary musical changes took root in the church.”

“In many contemporary churches, the choir has been replaced by the worship team.”

Only a footnote is devoted to the “worship wars” in the church. Disagreement over traditional and contemporary music has caused division and far too many church splits in recent years.

The main argument against professionally led singing is that it “becomes more like entertainment than corporate worship.”

Personally, I have a great appreciation for talented musicians and a good song service. I think there can be a great deal of participation with musician-led singing. I’ve been in services where the audience is very involved and in services where the audience mostly watched the show. I’ve also been in small groups with spontaneous singing, although I must say that it is somewhat awkward for those who can’t sing.

The principle the authors suggest is “everyone actively participating together spontaneously.”

Is this realistic or doable? If so, how do you envision it? And what about the non-musical among us?

Sunday Best

2 Weeks of Pagan Christianity

Chapter 6, “Sunday Morning Costumes,” is a short but interesting description of the pagan history of church fashion, including the clerical collar, vestments, and the perfidious history of pantyhose.

With the development of textile manufacturing clothes became more affordable to common people. Dressing up for church is “the result of 19th-century middle-class efforts to become like their wealthy aristocrat contemporaries, showing off their improved status by their clothing.”

In 1843, Horace Bushnell argued that “sophistication and refinement were attributes of God and that Christians should emulate them in order to honor God.” Today, many Christians still believe that it is “irreverent to dress in informal clothing when attending a Sunday morning church service.”

Problems with the practice:

• The belief that God cares what you are wearing.
• Pretense and image management.
• Social class distinctions.

Clergy attire has its origin in the dress of Roman secular officials. Potential problems with the practice of clergy attire are:

• Distinguishes a professional class.
• Symbolizes spiritual authority.

This whole topic was brilliantly addressed in Andrew Jones’ classic post, Sometimes I Dress Like a Pagan.

“Wait a minute . . . where’s my pagan tie?”

You will enjoy reading or revisiting this post by Andrew.

The idea that certain clothing is appropriate or inappropriate for church is still adhered to in many churches today. What do you think?

Holy Joe

2 Weeks of Pagan Christianity

Chapter 5 opens with the wicked title “The Pastor: Obstacle to Every-Member Functioning.” In spite of the incendiary nature of the title, the information in this chapter is important in understanding the history and roots of the clergy/laity divide.

“The pastor is the dominating focal point, mainstay, and centerpiece of the contemporary church. He is the embodiment of Protestant Christianity.”

In order to read this chapter without blood pressure medication, I would suggest that you interpret the term pastor being deconstructed in the book specifically to mean the role of the pastor as a person divinely appointed to mediate between God and the people.

Not every person who serves the body as a pastor functions under this elevated perception of their role. Therefore while reading this chapter it is important to distinguish between the role of pastor as mediator and the term pastor referring to specific individuals who serve as pastors.

Again, I will provide a brief overview that cannot do justice to the detailed history contained in this chapter. The book contains much more information about the shift from priest to pastor, the history of ordination, and the changes that occurred with the Reformation.

The chapter starts appropriately with a description of mankind’s “fallen quest for a human mediator, clamoring for a king rather than living under God’s direct headship.”

In the early church, leaders were recognized by their service and spiritual maturity rather than by a title or an office. They were not set above the rest of the flock. They were those who served among them.

Since that time, the church has derived its pattern for organization from the societies in which it has been placed – despite our Lord’s warning that He was initiating a new society with a unique character.

Ignatius elevated one of the elders in each church above all the others, calling him the bishop. In Ignatius’s mind, the bishop was the remedy for dispelling false doctrine and establishing church unity. He was seen as the spokesperson and head of the congregation and the one who controlled all church activities.

By the third century, every church had its own bishop. The clergy/laity gap widened to the point of no return. Clergymen were the trained leaders of the church – the guardians of orthodoxy – the rulers and teachers of the people. They possessed gifts and graces not available to the laity – second-class, untrained Christians.

By the fourth century human hierarchy and “official ministry” institutionalized the church of Jesus Christ and hardened the arteries of the once living, breathing ekklesia of God. By the fifth century, the concept of the priesthood of all believers had completely disappeared from Christian practice. Access to God was now controlled by the clergy caste.

The clergy had the prestige of church office bearers, the privileges of a favored class, and the power of a wealthy elite. They had become an isolated class with a separate civil status and way of life. Being a church officer had become a career. Ordination created a special caste of Christian and restricted ministry to a few believers. This led to the profoundly mistaken idea that there are sacred professions (a call to ministry) and ordinary professions.

While the Reformers opposed the pope and his religious hierarchy, they still held to the belief that “ministry” was an institution that was closeted among the few who were “called” and “ordained.” Luther held to the idea that those who preach needed to be specially trained. The Reformers believed that the pastor possessed divine power and authority. He did not speak in his own name, but in the name of God.

It was the ordained minister’s duty to convey God’s revelation to His people. The minister was viewed by the church as the “man of God” – the mediator between God and His people to communicate the divine will.

Negative impact of the clergy/laity distinction:

• Divides the believing community into first- and second-class Christians.
• Privileges the ministry of one man instead of many members functioning.
• Perpetuates the idea of a professional priesthood instead of the priesthood of all believers.
• Supplants the centrality of Christ’s headship among His people.
• Places unfair demands on one person instead of one-anothering by the entire body.
• Creates a political role that isolates the leader from relationships.

Almost a year ago in my post Senior Pastor, we had a great discussion in the comments about this topic, with insightful comments from Cindy, Robbymac, John Smulo, and others. Definitely worth taking the time to read. What I said at that time still reflects my feelings on this topic:

Contextually, I think that Americans still want some type of public gathering, although that could be changing. In that case, it would be nice to be able to pay someone to take on a full-time role role of administrating and catalyzing such a gathering.

Where I would make a distinction is about the role of the full-time person. In order to not revert to the clergy mentality, I believe that it should be clear that ministry is the shared responsibility of the congregation.

I don’t believe that one person should be responsible for the equipping of the body, but rather that you will find those equipping gifts among the body. The same is true with discipling, teaching, and mentoring. None of these things should be taken on solely by the leader.

Even if this is clear in your heart as the leader, as long as there is a full-time pastor, it will be an uphill battle to prevent passivity among the congregation regarding who is responsible for ministry.

Anyway, as I struggle through my own thoughts on the role of a pastor, I want to be careful to not disrespect in any way the vision that God has put in someone else’s heart. My struggles are with particular issues concerning how we have seen this role function, not with the legitimacy of the calling of the men and women who serve well within this role.

Do you think that challenging the clerical understanding of the pastor role is valid or necessary? If so, do you believe there is a redemptive way to view this role and avoid the clergy mentality in both the leader and the church members?

When You Come Together, Each One Has a Sermon

2 Weeks of Pagan Christianity

Chapter 4 of Pagan Christianity deals with the topic of the sermon. We had a couple of interesting discussions about the sermon previously on my blog here and here. If you go to read them, don’t skip the comments because, as usual, the best stuff is always in the comments.

In my post Underlying Issues, I said this about the sermon:

We are convinced that a church system which allows believers to fulfill their weekly spiritual obligation by listening to a sermon creates a consumerist audience who have not been encouraged to step into the responsibility of being a disciple and discipling others.

Here is a little of what the book said:

“The ancient Greeks and Romans viewed rhetoric as one of the greatest forms of art. Consequently, Greco-Roman culture developed an insatiable appetite for hearing someone give an eloquent oration. Orators were given celebrity status.”

“Many of these became theologians and leaders in the early Christian church. They began to use their oratorical skills for Christian purposes.”

“So a new style of communication was being birthed in the Christian church – a style that emphasized polished rhetoric, sophisticated grammar, flowery eloquence, and monologue. Only those who were trained in it were allowed to address the assembly.”

The book continues with an interesting description of how over the years the sermon became the central focus of the Protestant worship service.

So what are the principles influenced by this practice?

• every-member ministry
• mutual edification
• participation

One final statement from the book:

“The normative church meeting is when every member of the church comes together to share his or her portion of Christ.”

Do you agree with this statement?

The Sunday Morning Service

2 Weeks of Pagan Christianity

Typical Order of Worship:

• Singing
• Prayer
• Announcements
• Offering
• Scripture
• Sermon
• Prayer
• Benediction or Closing Song

The Protestant order of worship has its roots in the early Catholic Mass. Chapter 3 of Pagan Christianity deals with the history of the worship service since the Catholic Mass and describes the influences after the Reformation by Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, and others.

“The high point of the Catholic Mass has always been the Eucharist.”

“Luther made preaching, rather than the Eucharist, the center of the gathering, but kept the same order of worship as found in the Catholic Mass.”

“Luther gets credit for making the sermon the climax of the Protestant service.”

“Reformation brought very little reform in the way of church practice.”

It was interesting to learn how Frontier Revivalism changed the goal of preaching to conversion and to read how certain practices came about, such as personal decisions, the altar call, and the sinner’s prayer.

As I said in my previous post, let’s take a look at this from the perspective of our practices in relationship to our principles. Do our practices influence and shape our principles? Or do our practices reflect our principles?

What are the principles or ideals that should be reflected in our gatherings?

• open participation
• every-member functioning
• mutual edification
• spiritual transformation

It was recently REVEALed that the typical Sunday morning service does not produce spiritual transformation. Is there a way to incorporate these principles in a Sunday morning service?

Here’s the Church, Here’s the Steeple

2 Weeks of Pagan Christianity

There was good discussion in the comment section of the previous post about institutionalism. It is worth further consideration and will likely continue to come up as we discuss the topics of this book.

Many of you have already read Bill Kinnon’s post The People Formerly Known As The Congregation (TPFKATC) which Brother Maynard recently nominated as 2007 Post of The Year. I did a response post to Bill’s post called The Underlying Issues. (Both of these are linked on my *Recommended* page, along with lots of other good stuff.)

It is interesting that almost all of the issues addressed in these posts are also addressed in Pagan Christianity. Bill’s post was regarded as polemic. However, it connected deeply with the changes and questions many people are experiencing in their beliefs about church.

In regard to these posts, I said at that time:

“Whether or not we ourselves are written off as reactionary, the church will eventually have to address the validity of these issues.”

Much of the commentary about the book so far has been about the tone of the authors. While the critiques may be valid, they are a distraction. At the end of the day, whether or not you like Frank, George, or their writing, the issues remain. Whether or not you agree with their conclusions, I believe there is value in the book’s review of the history of church practices.

Moving forward on specific issues, I would like to look at them from the perspective of our practices in relationship to our principles. Do our practices influence and shape our principles? Or do our practices reflect our principles?

The Church Building

The second chapter is about church buildings. At this point the book shifts to being an interesting overview of the history of the church building from the first century through modern times. There are descriptions of how and why various elements that are now associated with church buildings came into being, for example – steeples, stained glass, pews, and pulpits.

While there are many interesting facts and examples, the historical detail is by necessity not comprehensive. However, there are plenty of footnotes included for those interested in pursuing further study of the topics discussed.

“The early Christians understood that they themselves – corporately – were the temple of God and the house of God.”

“In 324, Constantine began ordering the construction of church buildings to promote the popularity and acceptance of Christianity. If the Christians had their own sacred buildings, their faith would be regarded as legitimate.”

“The Christians embraced the concept of the physical temple and the idea that the building is a special place where God dwells in a special way.”

“Somehow we have been taught to feel holier when we are in “the house of God” and have inherited a pathological dependency upon an edifice to carry out our worship to God. The church building has taught us badly about what church is and what it does.”

“If we equate church with sitting in a pew and taking a mostly passive role, then church buildings are appropriate for the task.”

“The social location of the church meeting expresses and influences the character of the church.”

These few quotes don’t really do justice to the extent of material covered in this chapter. But it gives you a bit of a taste.

My conclusion is that there is nothing inherently wrong with a building. I actually think buildings are helpful and sometimes necessary, but not to the extent that we have they made them monuments. I think there are great possibilities for redemptive use of the buildings that already exist.

A few things that buildings have influenced or contributed to:

• Misunderstanding ekklesia.
• Sacred/secular dualism.
• Ritualization.
• Passivity.
• Congregants as spectators.
• Lack of participation.
• Consumerist mentality.
• Attractional mode.
• Isolation.
• Stagnation.
• Lack of movement and mission.
• Overhead costs.

The problem isn’t necessarily the building, but rather our imagination and understanding of who we are and what we are called to be apart from the building. Over the years, I believe that our buildings have contributed to the calcification and lack of movement that the church has fallen into by subtly reshaping our identity as a people.

In the Forgotten Ways, Alan Hirsch said:

“One of the major blockages to unleashing Apostolic Genius is our adherence to an obsolete understanding of the church. A people whose imagination of what it means to be God’s people has been taken hostage to a less than biblical imagination of church.”

Why We Do What We Do

2 Weeks of Pagan Christianity

In the introduction and chapter one the authors discuss questioning church practices. In the introduction, George Barna asks, “Does it really matter how we practice our faith, as long as the activities enable people to love God and obey Him?”

He goes on to say:

“Adhering to the principles of the New Testament does not mean re-enacting the events of the first-century church…Just because a practice is picked up from culture does not make it wrong in and of itself.”

George describes the purpose in learning the history of our religious practices:

While we have “great leeway in the methods we use to honor and connect with Him,” we need to “sort out those cultural influences that contribute from those that detract” in order to “determine the core principles and ethos of the early church and to restore those elements to our lives.”

The idea of questioning and considering how we do church is certainly not a new idea to those involved in the emerging conversation. That is why I was somewhat surprised to see the reaction against this book by those that I would consider emerging.

These thoughts from Scot McKnight’s article, Five Streams of the Emerging Church, seem to parallel the ideas presented in this book:

“Emerging Christians believe the church needs to change, and they are beginning to live as if that change had already occurred. At its core, the emerging movement is an attempt to fashion a new ecclesiology.

Some emerging Christians see churches with pulpits in the center of a hall-like room with hard, wooden pews lined up in neat rows, and they wonder if there is another way to express—theologically, aesthetically, and anthropologically—what we do when we gather. They ask these sorts of questions: Is the sermon the most important thing on Sunday morning? If we sat in a circle would we foster a different theology and praxis? If we lit incense, would we practice our prayers differently? If we put the preacher on the same level as the congregation, would we create a clearer sense of the priesthood of all believers? If we acted out what we believe, would we encounter more emphatically the Incarnation?”

As traditional churches decline and new models and structures are explored, it seems to me it would be helpful to know the history of our practices in determining what core principles and ethos are important to carry forward with us into the future.

Also, as the discussion progresses, I would like to refrain from pitting one model against another. I don’t believe the point of any of this is traditional church versus house church. I would like to see us explore ecclesial mentalities rather than ecclesial models. When we talk about institutionalism versus organism, we should not assume that either of these traits applies to a specific model without exception.

Len at Next Reformation offers an interesting perspective about this in his post institutions and “bad faith.” He defines institutionalization as “the process of moving from personal and shared responsibility for the ongoing life of a community to reliance on mechanisms and means that may no longer relate to the founder’s purpose.”

Len also points out that the issue really isn’t about structure. He said:

The problem is, if you have an unorganized church, you don’t have a church at all. There is no such thing as an unorganized organism. All life is organized, and when it dis-integrates it dies. So, the contrast between IC and organic church is not really a debate about organization.

The core principles and ethos of church should be applicable to a variety of models and cultures rather than limited to one specific ideal of how ecclesia is expressed. I hope that as we look at each of the topics, we can look for the essence of what contributes to church life rather than attempting to prescribe a hard and fast rule that everyone must follow.

As Dan would say, peace out.

To Be or Not To Be

2 Weeks of Pagan Christianity

Beginning in the preface, Frank says:

“We are also making an outrageous proposal: that the church in its contemporary, institutional form has neither a biblical nor a historical right to exist.”

Also:

“In short, this book demonstrates beyond dispute that those who have left the fold of institutional Christianity to become part of an organic church have a historical right to exist.”

To be honest, I find myself wishing the first statement was less outrageous because I believe it will close the ears and minds of many people who would benefit from the overall message of this book.

The second statement I find more understandable. Believers pursuing alternative expressions of gathering have had to fight for legitimacy. They are continually critiqued according to other people’s standards about minimal practices required to qualify or be considered a church.

None of us like to hear that what we are doing isn’t “real church.”

2 Weeks of Pagan Christianity

The reactions to the book Pagan Christianity have been heated, both by those who love the book and those who don’t.

About this book, Alan Hirsch said, “Just don’t drop it – it is likely to explode.”

I plan on devoting the next 2 weeks of posts on my blog to Pagan Christianity. I am in the process of reading it and will post throughout my reading of the book. At the end, I will post a review with my personal conclusions.

There are 9 specific church practices which are addressed in the book – buildings, the church service, sermons, pastors, church clothes, worship music, tithing, sacraments, and seminary – something for everyone. I will have a post for each of these topics where we can discuss whether they are inherently evil, absolutely necessary, or maybe just neutral.

I will try to provide enough of a framework to start the discussion. Feel free to drop by and join the discussion on any of the topics regardless of whether you have read the book. The comments are open to all viewpoints, but let’s keep the tone respectful. I will not be responding to the comments during this series.

Let the games begin!

Index of posts:

• To Be or Not To Be
• Why We Do What We Do 
• Here’s The Church, Here’s The Steeple
• The Sunday Morning Service 
• When You Come Together, Each One Has a Sermon 
• Holy Joe
• Sunday Best
• Music In Church 
• Show Me The Money
• Water, Bread, and Wine 
• The Intellect and Spiritual Formation 
• Wrapping It Up
• Pagan Christianity: A Proper Review

Review: Everything Must Change

Review of the book Everything Must Change by Brian McLaren

2 questions and 3 systems form the framework for the thesis of this book.

The 2 questions:

• What Are the Biggest Problems in the World?
• What Does Jesus Have to Say About These Global Problems?

Brian’s answer, “If Jesus’ message of the gospel of the kingdom is true, then everything must change.”

The 3 systems:

• The Prosperity System
• The Security System
• The Equity System

Brian uses the term suicide machine to describe the combined dysfunction of these 3 systems. He describes these systems as being co-opted by destructive framing stories fueling the greed, fear, and hatred that cause human suffering. He sees these systems interlocked in a perpetually destructive cycle.

The strength of this book is in Brian’s description of an alternative framing story to the dominant cultural message of power, control, and greed.

“If our framing story tells us that we are free and responsible creatures in a creation made by a good, wise, and loving God, and that our Creator wants us to pursue virtue, collaboration, peace, and mutual care for one another and all living creatures, and that our lives can have profound meaning if we align ourselves with God’s wisdom, character, and dreams for us…then our society will take a radically different direction, and our world will become a very different place.”

Brian clarifies the emerging view of Jesus and the gospel versus the conventional view, basically pointing out the difference between the message of a gospel of personal salvation and religion versus the message of the gospel of the kingdom.

“When Jesus proclaimed his central message of the kingdom of God, he was proclaiming not an esoteric religious concept but an alternative to empire: “Don’t let your lives be framed by the narratives and counternarratives of the Roman empire,” he was saying, “but situate yourselves in another story…the good news that God is king, and we can live in relation to God and God’s love rather than Caesar and Caesar’s power.”

He describes that to be a follower of Jesus is to join in His divine plan to reveal the kingdom of God:

“Following Jesus instead means forming communities that seek peace through justice, generosity, and mutual concern, and a willingness to suffer persecution but a refusal to inflict it on others. To follow Jesus is to become…a believer in the living God of grace and peace who, in Christ, sheds God’s own blood in a manifestation of amnesty and reconciliation.”

Here is some practical advice Brian offered about what we can do to heal the inequities and injustice of the system and to acknowledge our role in it:

• First, we will seek to help the poor through generosity – feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the imprisoned, showing hospitality to the homeless.
• Second, we will call the rich to generosity, as Jesus frequently did. We will call the comfortable to turn from their own endless enrichment and to instead invest their energies for the good of their poorer neighbors. In today’s world, this would often involve using their entrepreneurial skills to create good jobs, since unemployment is at the core of so many of the sufferings of the poor.
• And third, we will work to improve the system, to detect and remove systemic injustice. More and more Christians are showing a concern to show kindness or compassion. But the number of individuals and churches focused on doing justice remains low.

This is probably my favorite quote:

“If there is a force in the world powerful and good enough to overcome the grinding, destructive momentum of the suicide machine, it is to be found, not in organized religion seeking institutional self-preservation, but in religion organizing for the common good.”

Churches should be challenged in their stewardship of the influence and resources available to them. It is high time that the power available to us collectively be turned outward to benefit our neighbors both locally and globally.

I wholeheartedly agree with Brian’s hope to “change the vision of what is both possible and desirable.”

“The revolution we need starts in us – in our minds and hearts – as an act of faith, a transfer of trust from the dominant system to a new way of seeing, believing, and living…to become a community that forms disciples who work for the liberation and healing of the world, based on Jesus’ good news of the kingdom of God.”

Conclusion

Brian is a thoughtful, provoking, and engaging writer, but to be honest, I struggled in reading this book. Having seen how the religious right manipulated the gospel to push political agendas, I found myself wary of an underlying agenda. Throughout my reading I had trouble with the inflammatory adjectives used toward the rich, capitalism, and Americans and an underlying Robin-Hood mentality. I worried that this was simply another attempt to use the message of the kingdom to promote a political agenda.

I am glad that I persevered because I think that in the end I understand better why Brian approached the topic in this way. While one may not agree with all of his conclusions, he presented his message in a way that cannot be ignored. My main complaint with the book would be that I felt like it only presented a narrow aspect of the kingdom and at times seemed to imply that overthrowing or curing worldly systems was the ultimate fulfillment of the kingdom.

Perhaps he avoided the more spiritual realities of the kingdom in order to keep the focus on addressing the practical realities of suffering and injustice rather than to allow them to continue to be dismissed by confining the gospel solely to the spiritual realm. However, the kind of transformation that Brian proposes must be connected to individual spiritual transformation and relationship with Jesus in order for the outflowing expression of generosity and justice to be a movement empowered by the life and power of God.