Ranting to /dev/null

Enjoyed this post a lot. I find more and more that the old things, the songs and liturgy and communal habits of 2000 years of koinonia, nourish me deeply. Yet I wouldn't completely rule out a new tune for old words, or an occasional break from pattern for good reasons. But on the whole, when I really attend to the church in history and the present, it is far more fulfilling than I ever expected. If there's a problem with my relationship to the church, it's probably the fact that I don't take enough time to properly be part of her, that I haven't shaped my life as fully as I should around her ways of timekeeping, her care for people, her love for Christ.

Why can't we use our own God-given creativity to come up with new ways to express worship? I mean the "old hymns and liturgy" were once new and innovative. I don[t agree with a lot of the Emerging Church, but not for the reasons you expressed. There are plenty of theological reasons to take issue with. New songs and creativity are not where i would start. I think you are being overly critical of some very genuine people in this movement. I know that there are a few pastors who might be classsified this way that I listen to every week. Mark Driscoll and Chris Seay are 2 of them. It's not fair of you to draw a conclusion based on one experience. If you think that all we will be singing in heaven or "old hymns" i think you are severly limiting God's creative force.

Hey Ryan, do you have an email address where I can send a paper someone I know wrote on the emerging church? I (and he) would be interested in some feedback. Also, what have you been reading? There is so much out there - some good, most bad...

Nathan: Why the constant harping on "creativity"? If you or anyone can show me, from Scripture, where God seems to indicate that "creativity" in worship is supposed to be a theological worship, I'd love to have a conversation about that. I can't for the life of me see where that is.

My biggest problem with the "new" worship is that it, well, mostly sucks. There isn't anything wrong with keeping things fresh, but if we're going to privelage any chronological status, we should be biased towards the old, not the new. The fact that a song is "new" or "creative" doesn't mean that it's worth singing. That fact that a song has been around for 1500 years just might mean that.

It's one thing to try and find a new way of doing something old. I'm all for that. But just trying to be new and different, to strike out on your own, isn't something I'm convinced the church should pursue.

I'd be more in favor of Christian expressions of creativity in worship if contemporary Christians displayed creativity in anything else.

Wow, Ryan... interesting timing. I get out to the Portland OR area pretty burned out with the PCA, stumble into the emerging church movement, then find it's your latest whipping boy! How timely.

I'm sorry, the "perfectly functioning Kingdom of Heaven" is precisely that... "of Heaven"... which means the version we have here is quite broken.

What's broken? Part of it involves those areas where we've cast into concrete things that should have remained less solid. Most of that solidification, unfortunately, is in people's minds!

Back when I was at Covenant, I would have resisted this (with my "concrete mind") as much as you are, and for many of the same reasons. But then we got out here, went to our local PCA (love the people there, but it's not as local as we'd like), visited the very close PCUSA (a very good one, where we have a lot of friends, but...), the local mega-solid-non-denom (where Luis Palau is an elder, at least "in name"), etc.

A daughter recommended we go to Imago Dei, based on having read Blue Like Jazz. I started the book, and we went and visited a couple of weeks (while finishing the book... a highly recommended read!). Bottom line... some of my concrete is now back in "clay mode"... and that's the way it should stay, I think. No, Imago Dei's not perfect, not by a far stretch. But it is fresh in a way that I love. But it's *really* not local.

So this past Sunday we stumbled into a new-to-us church (most local of churches... somewhat "walkable"), and we find denomination that seems to blend what I think is good of the PCA with what I think are improvements... and they're "Blue Like Jazz" fans! I don't want to say more until I explore why I like these people's thinking so much, and yet have never heard of them...

What's my point? I know you Ryan, and I'm not going to convince you of the need for the emerging church based on intellectual arguments, and you won't let me go experiential. That's okay. I think it's your loss, but again, I can live with that. All I can suggest is that you try looking at what you can gain from their thinking, and see if there are ways to incorporate those gains into what YOU are comfortable with. If not, I hope you enjoy the "concrete" you've settled into, because the nature of concrete is such that you're stuck with those solidified around you, at least until you break! (It's an interesting metaphor... think about it.)
--
RDS

Mesh: I hear you.

Randy: I hadn't heard you'd left Covenant. It's too bad: the ICS department really needs someone who can actually code. It's their loss. I did take Java to avoid ICS121, but that doesn't mean I didn't enjoy your class in its own right.

Read my post more closely. You'll find that I don't argue against specific elements or persons involved with the emergent church movement, nor did I criticize their assessments of problems with the contemporary church. But I do take issue with the general principle of looking beyond the church for solutions to problems in the church, a mindset of which I believe the "emergent" church to be guilty.

Furthermore, you seem to have reached a lot of conclusions about my mental state with not a lot of information. You don't know where I'm going to church, or where I've been, or what I've been looking for. I've become "burnt out" with the OPC and PCA myself over the past two years. I find them to be increasingly parochial and hide-bound, far too tied into long-outdated cultural battles of the 1920s and 1970s (the decades in which they were respectively created). Last year I attended a fantastic Episcopal church in New York city that had a delightfully refreshing take on Anglican liturgy, and I long to return to that. They've obviously got their problems, but the solutions they find tend to be from the Christian tradition, not against it.

Good post. I agree with the general thrust of what you're saying. Liturgy is about order and continuity; worship is about the community of faith, and it's all right for it to look like foolishness to the outside world. I was just thinking today on my run that the "high church" way of doing liturgy really makes a lot more sense considering the total unity of thought and experience from which it comes (the premodern mindset), whereas the Puritan school of "bare church" reason-focused worship is looking more and more to me like an aberration of typographic man. (I've been reading a lot of McLuhan lately for my SIP.) The emergent church is reacting against the bare churches, etc. but for the most part doesn't have the depth of experience to draw from that the historical Church can provide. Therefore, they run the risk of drawing their models from the increasingly fragmented and ungrounded secular culture in which we live, rather than from the Word-centered liturgical culture which can give human effort and desire meaning.

Mesh, I love that little statement you made. It's like an aphorism or something.

Just realized that my verbs/nouns/pronouns, etc. in the second half of that comment don't agree in number. I need to figure out whether "the emergent church" is plural or singular :)

Aren't the liturgies and hymns you speak highly of an example of someone's creativity? It seems that some think that just becuase it's old, that means it is good. Tradition has its place and purpose and should never be tossed out but why should we stick only with tradition? I see examples of creativity all over teh Bible. David composing songs and poems to God, God's people after being deleivered from Egypt singins a song of worship, Jesus telling wonderful and creative stories to illustrate truths, teh fact that God is creator and we are created in his image so we are creative people. If you don't see room for creativity in worship from GOd's people, I'm not sure what Bible you are reading.

The same one that deals with the "creativity" of the Israelites in Exodus 32 and I Kings 14.

In my agreement with Ryan generally, I would want still to clarify that I'm not opposed to all forms of creativity. In fact, as you said, Nathan, liturgies and hymns are products of creativity also, and a significant part of their power is how they appeal to the human desire for aesthetic beauty (something that, in my previous comment, I suggested that the emerging church people rightly recognize). However, the liturgies and hymns that have stood the test of time were the products of some pretty serious prayer and reflection on the words of Scripture, which I honestly don't see in a lot of what new movements in the church are producing today. In our culture, the attention span for that sort of work just isn't there for the most part. Furthermore, the liturgies, hymns, etc. were created almost solely to worship God - not to attract "seekers" by their resemblance to popular cultural forms of the day (in fact, for the first few hundred years of the Church, non-members were asked to leave before the Eucharist could be celebrated - the origin of the term "Mass").

There's good work being done today - I really like a new hymn written, I think, by some PCA folk called "In Christ Alone" - but overall, I think people's creativity, when working in a context as serious as the worship of God, needs to be conditioned by what God has revealed in His Word.

I competely agree that there is a standard that must be lived up to when creting new songs and new ways to worship. I take it for granted that when the idea of worship is involved, people are spending time in prayer and creating for teh purpose of worship and not only for the purpose of creating a seeker sinseitive atmosphere. I beleive there are emerging churhces out there that are doing this right and it is unfair to classify all emerging churches with this idea that they are doing it "just the do something new and weird". i would say that the the churches and pastors that are getting it right with this idea of creativity in worship, are very aware of the risks and problems that can be involved. THe pastors i mentioned beofre, Driscoll and Seay, are two that address these things openly with there church bodies. They are guys that have spent much time in prayer and study to develop the churches they pastor. They know the potential problems involved and guard against that, but tehy also will not allow there churches to sit back, like many do, and rely only on traditional songs and liturgy. They want there people to be a congregation that has such a passion for God that they are using the talents God ahs given them to give back to God and bless others with. As previaously stated, there are problems with the Emergent movement, i agree with that. There are problems with teh PCA, I'm witness to that all the time. I think the idea would be to find some middle ground. Where the PCA may lack something in it's creativity and passion, it does have a firm grasp on history and tradition. Where the Emergent church may have the creativity and passion, tehy lack somehting in understanding the tradition and history. (However, Driscoll is someone that understands and embraces the history and tradition of the early church and refers to it quite a bit in his sermons.)

wow! You have no idea how different it was to read this post. I wasn't aware that this kind of online conversation went on! Well, not in such a constructive manner at least.

My two cents would be something along the lines of this: Bearing in mind that creativity is ultimately inspired, we could hardly call creativity a "dead" thing. Presumably, in this "gyre," God inspired worship has not ceased. If that is what you think Ryan, then I disagree. I would point you in the direction of such artists as Rich Mullins or Derek Webb and the like. I don't really think that you are saying that creativity is dead though, so don't take that as an assault of any kind. While there is definately inspired music being created, I would definately draw attention to the plethora of bad music being put out these days (basically most artists on the CCM lists). That comment might be percieved as being undermining to your comments Nathan, but I think that you recognize this as well.

With that said, the majority of christian worship music that is being created is largely emotive. I think the tendency in this new "emergent" church is to cling to that kind of music. Its the spiritual "high" aspect of modern worship that I find (and I think you do too Ryan) largely unsatisfying. Its the classic "God is my girlfriend" music issue. Not to say that worship is not supposed to be emotive at all, because if I were to say that, I would be throwing out many of David's Psalms. In this case, it is partially a matter of appeal for the worshiper. I say partially because I think doing away with liturgical hymns completely would be damaging to those who are singing the praise. Hopefully songs that are sung will inspire a new sense of meaning in the singer, and please the Lord at the same time. Complexity is good in worship, and in the church body altogether. I say that not out of an elitist motive, but out of the idea that the church should be intellegent, thoughtful, and certain about the tenants of their faith, so as to point others towards christ. I think truely intellegent yet truely passionate worshipers are enigmatic to non-believers, and horribly attractive. At the same time, the church should not let itself become culturally unaware, so as to become somehow out of touch or obscure. This is a dangerous balance though.

The larger issue here is this: Is the emergent movement in the church ultimately flawed in motive? If the churches are saying "we need to water it down to fill the pews," the answer would be clear. If the churches are saying, "lets do away with the old," then I would again take the church's motives to task. I don't think these churches are saying either of those. Perhaps it would be better to analyze these churches on a church to church level, because the generalization made about the movement might be unfair.

One last thing, which I think is very interesting, is that some church movments start out rather charismatic then slowly head towards a more reformed and historically oriented direction. Take the Soverign Grace folks for example. They begain more recently turning towards reformed principles of worship, by re-writing old hymns, and have thereby created what some are calling a more "rigid" church service. Some members are actually leaving the denomination (they don't like this classification too much though) over this very issue.

In short, and without giving a "half way" answer (thought it may seem impossible to not sound like I am), I would say that emergent churches should certainly be examined for any kind of "Christian pride" in having recreated the wheel, but at the same time, we don't want the church to become obsolete in methodology. Music written for the organ in the 1700's was written for the instrument of the time: the organ. Can we only have organs now? May we not take old hymns, keep the content, but throw ina good bassline? Some people are doing this nowadays, and I think they have done it with sucess. I think this is what Nathan is saying. Should we be scared of the organ (and all things passe') and only writing worship with a guitar? I think is is what Ryan is saying, and I agree with that too. Is the emergent movement worthy of being evaluated? Certainly...and I think that Ryan outlines the danger well.

Very well put, John. Thanks for putting it all together for us. I respect the dangers associated with these things and i see the benefits. You really did a great job of summing up both sides.

Good to see a Kearns stick his head in. Welcome to the conversation, John.

When I talk about "creativity" in worship, I generally don't mean what instruments you care to play. Honestly, with the exception of instruments that just plain interfere with an atmosphere of worship (excessively disorted guitars and deafening drums come to mind), I really don't care what you play, as long as you don't suck at it. There's a temptation nowadays to play the new instruments because there are people who want to lead worship that think that 1) wanting to lead worship makes one qualified to do so, and 2) they know how to play. If I heard the same level of musicianship at a show that you generally experience in most contemporary worship services, I'd walk out. Guitar is, when it comes to it, relatively easy compared to the organ, especially the styles played in worship (we're going for the "3 great chords, 4 great albums" approach most of the time). Most of the old hymns change chords every few notes, which doesn't lend itself to the guitar very well, especially if you aren't any good at it. The church of which I was a part last year featured guitars, mandolins, violins, cellos, violas, flutes, the organ, piano, and sensible drums and percussion. Most of the musicians were professional or semi-professional and all very good. I loved it.

But they were doing the old liturgy. They use a lot of newer songs (I wish they didn't), but the better ones were generally the older ones (we sang a setting of the Sanctus by Schubert during Lent that was amazing). Either way, the person in charge of choosing them knows what he's doing and makes sure they fit the liturgy. They also don't have the worship leader making silly little introductory statements like you're at a $15 pop concert. That always sucks. Seriously folks, if you're "leading" worship and aren't the pastor, just shut up and play the songs. We aren't here to listen to you anyway.

My problem with the emergent movement is that 1) it thinks it's something new and different when it isn't, and 2) it's looking for new and different solutions to previously solved problems. The solution to vapid worship isn't innovation, it's liturgy, and there really isn't any reason to come up with any new liturgy, because the church already has wonderful, beautiful, powerful liturgy set down by people a lot wiser, holier, and more sanctified than any of us.

The story goes like this: someone gets dissatisfied with the worship at their church. They then assume that if they want better worship, someone needs to write it. The problem with this is that most people can't write a poem to save their lives, much less one with good theological content. Writing it to music is even harder. The end result: most contemporary worship songs are just awful. "God is my girlfriend" indeed. Even the best contemporary songs rarely rise above blank verse, have little attempt at either meter or rhyme, and frequently feature copious repetition: this would be bad prose, let alone verse. It never seems to occur to anyone that, "Hey, this church thing has been around for, oh, 2000 years, which seems unlikely if worship has historically been as bad as ours is today. Maybe they were doing something better than we are. Maybe we should see what's been done in the past." It so rarely happens that way.

And while I respect what Derek Webb is trying to do, I don't actually like most of what he's done. I think he's a hack who's found a niche (a descriptor that fits just about every CCM artist who isn't Phil Keaggy). I find his songs repetitive and his hymn melodies frequently worse than the ones he's attempting to replace. The problem, again, isn't that he's trying to do something he shouldn't, but that he's bad at it.
The fact that a song is intended to be used in worship is absolutely no excuse for relaxing our standards of what constitutes quality artistry. If anything, it should raise the bar.

"The solution to vapid worship isn't innovation, it's liturgy, and there really isn't any reason to come up with any new liturgy, because the church already has wonderful, beautiful, powerful liturgy set down by people a lot wiser, holier, and more sanctified than any of us."
Why is the past better - or at least those who lived in the past? I personally prefer the "non-contemporary", but probably only because time has sifted it until all the crappy hymns and liturgy were no longer repeated.
What about this - there are more Christians alive today than have ever lived and died in the past. Could it follow that there is as much collective wisdom/sanctification/holiness to create something new? Or is there something about the past that trumps this?

Great summary, John. I agree that the work of Derek Webb, Rich Mullins, and the like are a great expression of God's gift of creativity. However, that raises another issue: what should be the difference between what we listen to and create as Christian people and what we use in corporate worship? I think the one is a more inclusive realm than the other: there are songs that I love to sing that don't have the kind of solemnity that I find appropriate in corporate worship. Not solemnity meaning staidness, but just a certain sense of "this is our confession as a church, united with all the saints of history, and it's not just about me and my preferences." For example, we sung "Create in me a clean heart, O God" today in chapel at Covenant, but I wouldn't want necessarily to sing a song as informal-sounding as that in church; moreover, it's more of a song of personal devotion.

I went to a Sovereign Grace service once. They seem to be doing some good things. It took me a while to realize they had been coming out of charismatic roots. It encourages me to see people discovering richness in Reformed theology from other directions than my own, since I grew up in the PCA.

Only time can tell what will stand its test. And given the state of today's culture, be it ecclesiological, musical, literary, or secular, I'd be willing to bet that today's contributions to the church's artistic and liturgical life will not be fondly remembered.

There isn't anything inherently better about the past. There's some pretty danged awful stuff out there (the mid 19th to early 20th century is just bad, and Fanny Crosby is a chief offender). But on the whole, I think our current age is pretty impoverished in terms of its artistic capabilities. But while that may be cause for Christians to take up the cause, that in no way means that our worship needs to suffer for it.