Hello again!
I have greatly appreciated everyone that has followed me on this blog and kept up with my posts. This blog has been meaningful over the years, and for that reason it remains published if for no other reason than as a record. I would like to invite all of you to my the Arkansas For Christ Resource Blog to follow more current and new content. Thank you for reading!
Friday, September 15, 2017
Monday, September 15, 2014
Expression v. Reverence at Church
Hello again!
I recently had a very good conversation with a friend about the role of expression and reverence at church. My friend, who shall be called Billy, shared that he had attended both charismatic and evangelical churches on a consistent basis over the years. He had found that he didn't much like the expressiveness of his charismatic church and favored the more traditional teaching-focused church that appeared more reverent. He didn't intend to generalize all charismatic churches into one category, but was simply sharing his experience.
Then during the service the pastor joked about how much more engaging and expressive the congregation is on Sunday mornings after the Razorbacks win a football game compared to when they lose.
After the service Billy said that the pastor's comments bothered him. He cited an example where another church has done an experiment. Billy described how the pastor in the experiment told the congregation he would show them two video clips and instructed them to respond naturally. The first video clip was of their favorite football team scoring an amazing touchdown. Naturally the crowd went wild! The second video was a baptism, and the crowd gave the classic 'golf clap.' Of course the point of the experiment is to expose our lack of excitement as demonstrated by our lack of expressiveness at church. Why would be cheer, jump and shout at the top of our lungs for football but not for God?
I found this a funny inconsistency with Billy's comments before the service, but perhaps I misjudged. It brings up a good discussion, however, about expression and reverence. For instance, some people wear what they call their "Sunday best" to church, usually formal attire like a suit. Others dress casual or even bring their dancing shoes (you know who you are). Is one more reverent? I don't have an answer because I don't think it's about our attire, ultimately. Maybe it's both! What about the difference between one who raises their hands during worship and one who sits?
Your answer may be determined by the way you were raised, but I am encouraged to look beyond the action and into a person's sincerity. Ah, no, sincerity is the wrong word... because you can be sincerely wrong (trust me I know). I mean how/if that person is genuinely relating to God. I think both can be great! Inexpression is not always the absence of passion, and expression is not always the absence of reverence. Perhaps what we all must learn is how to judge a little less.
I recently had a very good conversation with a friend about the role of expression and reverence at church. My friend, who shall be called Billy, shared that he had attended both charismatic and evangelical churches on a consistent basis over the years. He had found that he didn't much like the expressiveness of his charismatic church and favored the more traditional teaching-focused church that appeared more reverent. He didn't intend to generalize all charismatic churches into one category, but was simply sharing his experience.
Then during the service the pastor joked about how much more engaging and expressive the congregation is on Sunday mornings after the Razorbacks win a football game compared to when they lose.
After the service Billy said that the pastor's comments bothered him. He cited an example where another church has done an experiment. Billy described how the pastor in the experiment told the congregation he would show them two video clips and instructed them to respond naturally. The first video clip was of their favorite football team scoring an amazing touchdown. Naturally the crowd went wild! The second video was a baptism, and the crowd gave the classic 'golf clap.' Of course the point of the experiment is to expose our lack of excitement as demonstrated by our lack of expressiveness at church. Why would be cheer, jump and shout at the top of our lungs for football but not for God?
I found this a funny inconsistency with Billy's comments before the service, but perhaps I misjudged. It brings up a good discussion, however, about expression and reverence. For instance, some people wear what they call their "Sunday best" to church, usually formal attire like a suit. Others dress casual or even bring their dancing shoes (you know who you are). Is one more reverent? I don't have an answer because I don't think it's about our attire, ultimately. Maybe it's both! What about the difference between one who raises their hands during worship and one who sits?
Your answer may be determined by the way you were raised, but I am encouraged to look beyond the action and into a person's sincerity. Ah, no, sincerity is the wrong word... because you can be sincerely wrong (trust me I know). I mean how/if that person is genuinely relating to God. I think both can be great! Inexpression is not always the absence of passion, and expression is not always the absence of reverence. Perhaps what we all must learn is how to judge a little less.
Spontaneity v. Structure at Church
Hello again!
I have had a few very encouraging conversations recently. One of them was about the difference between spontaneous and structured church services and the benefits of each. I thought I would share my thoughts because I greatly benefited from the conversation.
Structured church services tend to have a clear set of goals with a detailed schedule and prepared elements to help accomplish those goals. I am naturally a fan of structure and this would describe the majority of church services in the west. The difficulty with structured services is that they easily become routine and entire congregations become accused of "going through the motions" week after week.
Spontaneous church serves may have a clear set of goals but have a very flexible schedule and few(er) prepared elements. The draw of spontaneous services is the breaking of routine that insights a heightened level of expectancy in the attendees. You can't "go through the motions" when there are no motions. Spontaneous services are often criticized for emotionalism and a lack of consistency.
The conflict arrises when spontaneous services among a typically structured church service. Something spontaneous happens (maybe the time of worship is extended or the preacher changes his topic) and result is increased engagement from a partially confused yet intrigued audience. If the spontaneous accident is a success then the debate raises about if all services should be more spontaneous. Suddenly everyone in the room was on the edge of their seat in expectancy for God to do something and this radical engagement is attributed to the spontaneous nature of the service. So the conversation becomes about rejecting structure and incorporating more spontaneous elements (thus the pendulum swings).
I would guess that many of these discussions are inconclusive because (I believe) they are founded on a misconception. Where does the Bible say that God cannot be active in structure? Honestly, I think the whole thing is in our heads and that God can encounter us equally in both formats. The spontaneous element merely triggers something that should always be present: expectancy. Why can't we go to church expectant to encounter God in every form of service? Why aren't we always engaged? Honestly, it's not about spontaneity or structure, but about the readiness of our hearts to receive.
It is true that structure creates a routine and that routine can become monotonous, but that is not an inherent fault of structure but of our hearts. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy spontaneous stuff as much as the next guy, but I feel like sometimes we misunderstand structure and spontaneity. The congregation's engagement and expectancy are not the result of your church's latest promotional idea or service format. They are the result of leaders casting vision and setting the example of encountering the living God.
I have had a few very encouraging conversations recently. One of them was about the difference between spontaneous and structured church services and the benefits of each. I thought I would share my thoughts because I greatly benefited from the conversation.
Structured church services tend to have a clear set of goals with a detailed schedule and prepared elements to help accomplish those goals. I am naturally a fan of structure and this would describe the majority of church services in the west. The difficulty with structured services is that they easily become routine and entire congregations become accused of "going through the motions" week after week.
Spontaneous church serves may have a clear set of goals but have a very flexible schedule and few(er) prepared elements. The draw of spontaneous services is the breaking of routine that insights a heightened level of expectancy in the attendees. You can't "go through the motions" when there are no motions. Spontaneous services are often criticized for emotionalism and a lack of consistency.
The conflict arrises when spontaneous services among a typically structured church service. Something spontaneous happens (maybe the time of worship is extended or the preacher changes his topic) and result is increased engagement from a partially confused yet intrigued audience. If the spontaneous accident is a success then the debate raises about if all services should be more spontaneous. Suddenly everyone in the room was on the edge of their seat in expectancy for God to do something and this radical engagement is attributed to the spontaneous nature of the service. So the conversation becomes about rejecting structure and incorporating more spontaneous elements (thus the pendulum swings).
I would guess that many of these discussions are inconclusive because (I believe) they are founded on a misconception. Where does the Bible say that God cannot be active in structure? Honestly, I think the whole thing is in our heads and that God can encounter us equally in both formats. The spontaneous element merely triggers something that should always be present: expectancy. Why can't we go to church expectant to encounter God in every form of service? Why aren't we always engaged? Honestly, it's not about spontaneity or structure, but about the readiness of our hearts to receive.
It is true that structure creates a routine and that routine can become monotonous, but that is not an inherent fault of structure but of our hearts. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy spontaneous stuff as much as the next guy, but I feel like sometimes we misunderstand structure and spontaneity. The congregation's engagement and expectancy are not the result of your church's latest promotional idea or service format. They are the result of leaders casting vision and setting the example of encountering the living God.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)