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.
Monday, September 15, 2014
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.
Wednesday, September 3, 2014
Awkward Moments in Support Raising
Hello again!
I have had my fair share of awkward conversations surrounding the topic of support raising as a missionary. I'm talking about the idea of inviting others to pay part of your salary because they believe in you/your work. "How can you raise a family on that kind of pay?" "There's not financial security in that." "That isn't a real job." But perhaps the most awkward and discouraging conversations go unsaid: "Are you trying to monetize our relationship?" "You want me to put a dollar amount on our friendship?" I understand these reactions as support raising too often misused by many. This grieves me because the rampant misuse of support raising hurts people. It damages relationships and can even destroys entire ministries. After enough bad experiences many people simply disengage from that kind of giving.
Here is my perspective, whether someone is inviting me to support them or I am doing the inviting. Support raising is part of our God designed the modern missions movement to run ("goers" and "senders"). The partnership between the missionaries and the funders creates a shared experience of the missions movement. Support raising is not a popularity contest because the missions movement is not a popularity contest. Rather, the partnership of the goers and senders is about fostering one thing: OBEDIENCE. The missionary has to be obedient to be willing to do the work that God has called him/her to do, and the senders have to be obedient to give their finances where God leads them to give. Therefore, the invitation to support a missionary is not an attempt to monetize your relationship or take advantage of your income, but it should be an invitation to seek the Lord and find out how/if He would lead you to give. If we understood that, so many awkward conversations and relationships would be saved! My best friend could ask me to support him but if God told me to give somewhere else, I would be obedient because obedience is the goal! "Yes" or "No" doesn't matter! Obedience matters.
That may or may not make sense, but I'll leave you with one other thought. I hear a lot of advertisements about getting a "guaranteed income for life" and "complete financial security." Americans are obsessed with that stuff, but the truth is there is only ONE PLACE where you can expect to have a guaranteed income or total financial security: radical obedience to Jesus. I don't care how rich or poor your are, all of that can change in the blink of His eye. "Seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well" (Matthew 6:33).
Practical Tip: In the event that someone does ask you to support them but you do not feel led to do so, please don't ignore them. It isn't personal, it's obedience. Just tell them "no" and they will thank you for it!
I have had my fair share of awkward conversations surrounding the topic of support raising as a missionary. I'm talking about the idea of inviting others to pay part of your salary because they believe in you/your work. "How can you raise a family on that kind of pay?" "There's not financial security in that." "That isn't a real job." But perhaps the most awkward and discouraging conversations go unsaid: "Are you trying to monetize our relationship?" "You want me to put a dollar amount on our friendship?" I understand these reactions as support raising too often misused by many. This grieves me because the rampant misuse of support raising hurts people. It damages relationships and can even destroys entire ministries. After enough bad experiences many people simply disengage from that kind of giving.
Here is my perspective, whether someone is inviting me to support them or I am doing the inviting. Support raising is part of our God designed the modern missions movement to run ("goers" and "senders"). The partnership between the missionaries and the funders creates a shared experience of the missions movement. Support raising is not a popularity contest because the missions movement is not a popularity contest. Rather, the partnership of the goers and senders is about fostering one thing: OBEDIENCE. The missionary has to be obedient to be willing to do the work that God has called him/her to do, and the senders have to be obedient to give their finances where God leads them to give. Therefore, the invitation to support a missionary is not an attempt to monetize your relationship or take advantage of your income, but it should be an invitation to seek the Lord and find out how/if He would lead you to give. If we understood that, so many awkward conversations and relationships would be saved! My best friend could ask me to support him but if God told me to give somewhere else, I would be obedient because obedience is the goal! "Yes" or "No" doesn't matter! Obedience matters.
That may or may not make sense, but I'll leave you with one other thought. I hear a lot of advertisements about getting a "guaranteed income for life" and "complete financial security." Americans are obsessed with that stuff, but the truth is there is only ONE PLACE where you can expect to have a guaranteed income or total financial security: radical obedience to Jesus. I don't care how rich or poor your are, all of that can change in the blink of His eye. "Seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well" (Matthew 6:33).
Practical Tip: In the event that someone does ask you to support them but you do not feel led to do so, please don't ignore them. It isn't personal, it's obedience. Just tell them "no" and they will thank you for it!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)