Like Button

Sunday, March 04, 2007

An Audience of One

Churches used to be a bastion of conservative. As churches climb on the "seeker-sensitive" bandwagon, there is a slide away from this trend. Older members are offended by the shift to "contemporary music". Many have been told, "If you don't like it, leave." One church I know of actually told their members, "If you don't like this music, you're just being selfish." The belief seems to be contemporary music is biblical and necessary and those who disagree are simply being disagreeable.

I have to disagree.

The primary reason we're shifting from "traditional" to "contemporary" is the perception of the audience. Churches believe if they make their music more contemporary, more "relevant", more like the world's music, then they'll attract more people to hear the gospel. And that, after all, is the point, isn't it?

Again, I have to disagree.

James wrote, "You adulteresses, do you not know that friendship with the world is hostility toward God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God" (James 4:4). That's pretty harsh language. James considers friendship with the world adultery against God and hostility toward God. And yet, our churches are moving rapidly toward friendship with the world as if it is a keystone for God's plan for evangelism. Instead, John says, "Do not love the world nor the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him." "Nor the things of the world." So, tell me ... does that include their musical stylings? Well, you decide.

The question to me is two-fold. First, who is the audience to whom we are playing at church? Second, what is the purpose of church? What are we trying to accomplish with that audience?

To the first question, I suspect the answer is much more elusive than we think because we're not paying attention. We would likely answer quickly, "Well, the people that attend, right?" It's certainly the popular answer, but, unfortunately, it's not the biblical one. The biblical answer (read "God's answer") is:
the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ (Eph. 4:12-13).
The job of the Church is the equipping of the saints. Part of the job of the saints is indeed evangelism, but that's not the job of the Church. The job of the Church is to build believers. When we shift from building believers to gathering converts, we end up with an "immature man", a "diversity of faith" -- weakness and confusion, just like we see in the Church today. Indeed, the author of Hebrews says this about the church:
Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful; and let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds, not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another; and all the more as you see the day drawing near (Heb. 10:23-25).
Our goal in gathering together is the mutual worship of God, the mutual holding fast to the truth, and the mutual stimulation to love and good deeds. None of that includes "reaching the lost". I'm not saying the lost need not be reached. I'm saying that this isn't the primary thrust of the Church.

So here we are. We've decided that the people who attend church make up the audience. We've decided that the purpose of this gathering is to reach those who don't believe as we do. And we've decided to use the methods of the world -- that segment of society that is defined as being in opposition to God. Our "best effort" is put toward making people "feel good about God", even though Peter warns "Many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of the truth will be maligned" (2 Peter 2:2). When our best worship is "feeling good toward God" and our best means is the tools of the enemies of God and our goals don't match God's goals for the Church, we're in trouble. When we forget that Church is primarily for God, our Audience of one, we're in serious trouble.

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

I can agree with this to a point. Yes, God should be our focus, not the "entertain me" lifestyle we have become accustomed to. With that said, I prefer "praise" style music, because I really can focus on worshipping God with it. With the old organ style hymns, I have to focus too hard on the words and hitting the notes that it becomes all about anything but God for me.

Today, I visited a church I am hoping will become my home church. I absoluetly loved the music, it was easy for me to focus on God as we worshipped. The thing I did not like was people clapping after every song. Don't get me wrong the band is EXCELLENT. But who is the clapping for? Because if it is clapping for the band or the great music...then yes, I do take issue. I take issue, because that should be their service and we are taking away their reward if we sit around clapping for them. We don't clap for our kids' sunday school teachers or the guy who cleans the church toilets. Why are we clapping for the band...because they entertained us? Or were they clapping for God? I mean I guess it could be that.

Anyhow, other than that, I loved how warm and "family" like it seemed. People immediately embraced us and wanted to help serve our needs and plug us in. The pastor was not stuck on us being the "best" or "biggest" church in town, but was more concerned about all of our brothers and sisters around town and lifting up their pastors to be moved by the Spirit to speak God's Word in truth. He did feed us to build us up that we might be effective witnesses in the world this week and the rest of our earthly life.

He taught against getting attached to things of this world and instead learn to be like Paul and focus on heaven...or like the saints in Hebrews who recognized they were aliens and strangers in this land.

I am very excited to find a place that seems to be focused on Jesus first and growing up His body into Him that we may be useful vessels. I think I have found a place for my family unless the Lord calls us away from this area. I want to be where the Lord wants me and always seeking His face and His will.

Scott Arnold said...

I have to disagree.
(sorry, couldn't resist)

I find it ironic that the churches that used to be a "bastion of conservative" are today theologically and socially liberal - while those that are now conservative are largely leaning toward contemporary worship styles. Given today's choices - I'll gladly worship in a contemporary but conservative church over a traditional but liberal one.

After quoting Eph 4:12-13, you conclude that "the job of the church is the equipping of the saints." I would say that the job of the church is the equipping of the saints for evangelism. I just don't think the two should be disconnected.

Also, you write: Our goal in gathering together is the mutual worship of God, the mutual holding fast to the truth, and the mutual stimulation to love and good deeds. None of that includes "reaching the lost". I'm not saying the lost need not be reached. I'm saying that this isn't the primary thrust of the Church.

Fine. But who's to say which worship practices are right or wrong over time? Are we worshiping in the manner of the 1st Century church? If not, should we be? If the argument is, "let's not change," aren't you really joining with those folks from the Churches of Christ who attempt to claim those early practices as the only Biblical form of worship? You like traditional hymns, and that's great - but when were they written? Do you suppose that perhaps they were written in at time and place that fit the culture of that period? If you had been around during the inception of all of those hymns we sing today, would you have been against them then?

Traditional churches grew and matured in a western world in which nearly all people believed in God. There was no need to appeal to non-believers - because there were almost none that needed prompting.

Today is much different. The west is steadily moving towards non-belief. Europe is nearly there already (as is much of socially liberal America). It is my opinion that God is using contemporary worship to bring people to Christ who would otherwise not give church a try. I just don't see a problem with it.

Stan said...

So far have we become that "conservative" now means "progressive". There are very, very few "conservative" churches left. The goal of the churches today is "grab onto whatever attracts people and bring them in."

I'm not recommending "keep it the same as the 1st century". I'm suggesting that we're asking the wrong questions. We're asking, "What will people like?" rather than "What does God like?" We are presumptive in assuming, "Oh, play anything for God; He doesn't care." We're wondering "What will bring in the people who won't show up?" instead of "What does God want?" And worship? Worship is "feel good toward God instead of "What does God see as worship?"

"Style doesn't matter," we say. Funny thing ... even the world's musicians know that musical style contains within itself a message, and the attempts we make at gluing togther the world's "angry music" with the Church's "praise music" is not rational.

The Church is defined as "the people of God". When the people of God gather, it is "church" with a small "c", and that is defined as "the gathering of the people of God." We know that unbelievers will be there. We know that tares will be there. But the purpose is neither unbelievers nor tares, but building the Body. If this is correct, then shifting the focus from "continually devoting themselves to the apostles' teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer" (Acts 2:42) to "reach the lost" will result in anemic, shallow Christians. And so it has.

But I'm in a minority here, I know. I can sound the alarm all I want, and it likely won't be heard. That's all I can do.

Scott Arnold said...

I agree with much of what you write here Stan (that it should be about what God likes), but here's the thing...

A year ago I worshiped in a staid, traditional Methodist Church. We sang traditional hymns every week, and did so in an environment that didn't feel like worship - it felt like we were singing because, well, there were songs to be sung. Then we heard the pastor's message - which typically included maybe a couple of Scripture references and a lot of "you people are so good."

I thought about you today in worship as we sung, and looked around at a congregation of over 1,000 people who were singing contemporary Christians songs (and yes, one mentioned blood and another crucifixion) - and I couldn't find many that didn't appear to be singing from the heart. While I can't pretend to know which of these scenarios God prefers - I'll put my money on the latter. Afterward, the entire sermon was built around Matthew 26:36-46 - a message that should have left most convicted about their own "cups" and gaining in understanding as to what faith looks like. Not much of that feel good message that I got last year.

So far your complaint reminds me of the Democratic stand on Iraq. "We're against it, but mostly we'd like to complain." I know this isn't actually true, because I've come to know you fairly well (well enough, hopefully, that you see that statement about Democrats as a joke) and I'm quite sure you have your own idea that you are willing to share about what a worship service should look like, but... you haven't shared it yet.

So, what's it look like? And does it look that way because...

that's what is Biblical, or

that's what is traditional, or

that's what you prefer, or

some mix of those points?

I'm really, really curious. Why are hymns that were written over 1,000 years after Christ OK, but worship songs written today are not? I don't get it.

Jim Jordan said...

A lot of relevant points thus far. I would add that there are two aspects of any song; the tune and the lyric. There are a lot of old hymns (and many contemporary songs) in which the words are biblical but the tune stinks (In my opinion, God cannot be pleased with bad music even if it was intended to glorify Him). As long as the tune and the lyric are representative of God's gift of music and truth, who cares when the music was written?
Whether a church insists on stinky music and great lyrics or great music and stinky lyrics, the result is the same; the worship experience begins to stink.
We should all be interested in pleasing God. Abel pleased God because he had faith, and his faith showed in that his offering was his best and his heart was good. If I was the music director I'd play Isaac Watts' "When I Survey The Wondrous Cross" (18th Cent.) right alongside Jars of Clay's "On Jordan's Stormy Banks I Stand" (21st Cent.) because God's music and truth is timeless. If the folks in the pews don't like that, then they don't want to please God.

Stan said...

Scott,

First, I have to agree with you without question. God didn't like the sacrifices He ordained when they were done with the wrong heart. Singing something that resembles "the right music" with the wrong heart is just foolish. That being said, I'm pretty sure you'd have to admit that doing the wrong thing with the "right heart" is just as foolish. I think that God has preferences, that we should find what they are and serve them ... with the right heart.

Oh, and I don't think I ever said that old hymns are good and new songs are bad. At least, I never thought it nor intended to say it. I was commenting instead on the shift of attention from God to us, from what He prefers to what we prefer, and from a congregation that worships to praise groups that perform.

I did laugh at your swipe. Not to worry. But I have launched lengthy discussions on what I think on the topic of what it should be. The first was a 5-part series entitled I Will Be Regarded as Holy:

http://birdsoftheair.blogspot.com/2006/07/i-will-be-regarded-as-holy-part-1_06.html
http://birdsoftheair.blogspot.com/2006/07/i-will-be-regarded-as-holy-part-2_07.html
http://birdsoftheair.blogspot.com/2006/07/i-will-be-regarded-as-holy-part-3_09.html
http://birdsoftheair.blogspot.com/2006/07/i-will-be-regarded-as-holy-part-4_10.html
http://birdsoftheair.blogspot.com/2006/07/i-will-be-regarded-as-holy-conclusion_11.html

The second was another 5-part series called The Heart of Worship:

http://birdsoftheair.blogspot.com/2006/07/heart-of-worship-part-1_12.html
http://birdsoftheair.blogspot.com/2006/07/heart-of-worship-part-2_13.html
http://birdsoftheair.blogspot.com/2006/07/heart-of-worship-part-3_14.html
http://birdsoftheair.blogspot.com/2006/07/heart-of-worship-part-4_15.html
http://birdsoftheair.blogspot.com/2006/07/heart-of-worship-conclusion_16.html

I did these early in my blogging, so many people likely missed them. Take your time. It's a lot of material.


Jim, your comments, of course, are going to require a whole new post. The medium is certainly an issue. Thanks.

Scott Arnold said...

Thanks Stan. I think I did glance at those back when you wrote them - but I will read them more thoroughly when I get a chance.

Blessings, Scott.