Choosing a church for music?

Transforming Sermons has lots of good stuff. The latest post is Choosing a church for music?...

it picks up on The Internet Monk: Looney Tunes "Praise and Worship Theology" is goofy the contents are strong e.g.:

Preaching, when done right, proclaims Christ and how to be saved every time it opens its mouth. Any theology that says God can preach through whatever He chooses is good by me. Any theology that says leave out the preached Word is a loser, in my opinion.

Having grown up and now training for ordained ministry in a church that has a long tradition of preaching, who am I to disagree.

Finding this today was serendipitous given that a few days ago I proposed a new page on the Compass Christian Wiki, within the HowTos, on HowTo find a church. At the time of writing this post that page does not exist. If that is still the case when you click on it then you can create page for the rest of us (If you have not done that in a wiki before then maybe you should first read Compass:How to start using Compass - Compass and First things First - Compass).

So I have been thinking about what should go on the HowTo find a church page. The post by the Intenet Monk is helpful, however, as I reflect I have come to the conclusion that he does not get it completely right/complete.

Of course he is right when he says:

I commend every worship leader and musician who can see the proper place of music and works to keep music as the constant servant and encourager of the Word. I intend to keep enjoying praise and worship music, and encouraging it to have a God-centered, Biblical and God-glorifying purpose.

However, the danger is that we might choose a Church based on the preaching only. I have a problem with that, although my problem may simply be a question of what comes first, the chicken or the egg. What I mean is that the context in which the preaching happens is also vital in your choice of Church. Is the Church committed to being a Gospel community? In the Methodist Church we have defined this in "Our Calling".

As so many things do, it comes down to Galations 5:19-26, by that I mean look at the fruits of the Spirit when choosing a Church. To do so is to trust God (seems like a good idea to me), if the preaching is scriptural, if the whole worship is pleasing to God, if the Spirit is encouraged and welcomed in the lives of the congregation then we will see the fruits of the Spirit (love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control) in the lives of the congregation both corporately and individually.

Yes in such a Church preaching the Word will be vital, but so will living it in the world. If you find a Church where the fruits of the spirit are clearly evident in individuals and the corporate life then preaching the Word will given a high place. (Do I really dare simplify it so far?)

We need both. We are saved through Gods grace by faith, but if that faith does not result in works then it is worthless (James 2: 14-26). Preaching alone is not enough to make a Church, it needs to be in a context where that preaching is valued within a Christian community committed to the whole gospel. When we see such a community in which the fruits of the spirit are evident then we shall see a church that is transforming the community where it is placed. That transformation will take place through all the elements of Our Calling:

• Worship
• Learning & Caring
• Service
• Evangelism

Don't be one dimensional and choose a church based on the Preaching or the Music or any other single factor. Christianity is holistic so make your decision on the whole life of the people of God.

H'mm, now there is a scary challenge. How do we measure up?

Comments

[Ian Bicking]

Hmm... I'm not a Christian, but the religious tradition I associate most closely with -- Quakerism (non-programmed) -- specifically avoids preaching, has no ministers, no church, and not much worship. It does have a meeting house and meetings, so in some ways it's just a different phrasing, but there's definitely no preaching and no minister. The idea was subversive in its time (starting in the 17th century), and if it wasn't for the largely secular and religiously diverse nature of our modern society I suppose it would still be subversive. In fact, Quaker self-critique is often decrying the fact that Quakerism isn't subversive anymore, it's not revolutionary or anti-authoritarian or theologically challenging like it once was and should be.

Of course, the irony is that Quakerism seems to produce as many Buddhists and atheists as it does Christians, and for many Quakers it's not even a contradiction of faith. I think it's the nature of subversive philosophies to be self-destructive.

But still... worship and preaching both seem peculiar to me now. The ideal of silent meeting for worship is to connect with God on a personal level, without intermediaries. And what more noble goal is there? Why should a preacher serve as a conduit, or why should a book serve as a conduit? Isn't everything that is true part of God's gospel? Quakerism, in perhaps its most subversive aspect, values personal revelation above all else, including the Bible. Isn't that the place that faith ultimately leads an individual? Ah... but give it a generation and that thinking leads secular humanists like myself. But judging theology as a meme isn't really fair is it -- too Darwinian, disrespectful of virtue and our conscious choices. IMHO Evangelical traditions are powerful memes, but often very disappointing and selfish philosophies in practice.

[DaveW]

Ian,

Thanks for your thoughtful response. I am not very well informed about Quaker issues.

Now as for worship and preaching in more general terms. I would not want to put down silent worship connecting with God alone. However, corporate worship is complimentary and to non Quakers very important.
Our view would be somewhat different for example we would not see the preacher as a conduit for worship. Whoever is leading worship (often it is not the preacher) is not a conduit, more an enabler.

One of the problems with fully personal revelation is that without external supports, checks and balances it can easily go off the rails or fade away. Another problem with keeping everything personal is as you show yourself, it does not last well, or pass on through generations.

As Churches (of any stripe) we should/would never claim to be perfect or to have got it all sorted. At best we are collections of sinners in a fallen world. However, even with that I am disappointed that you feel Evangelical traditions are disappointing and selfish, that does indicate problems with implementation - I am entirely confident that the Gospel is neither of these, but we fail to follow it well so many times.

From my own point of view I am more comfortable with labels like "open evangelical" than "Evangelical" which is now often used for a very specific tradition which is quite different to my own.

[Ian Bicking]

Evangelical might very well mean something different to you than I. When I think of Evangelical here in the US, it's a tradition focused very explicitly on expansion, and (maybe inaccurately) I also associate it with Born Again Christianity and the charismatic churches. It feels like it's mostly about personal salvation, faith more than acts, and frequently a corrupt in the leadership that's happy to give out forgiveness because they profit on the churn. And I guess "give your life to Jesus" and such truisms always rubbed me the wrong way -- Jesus doesn't need anything. The older churches have the same lines, of course, but there's more depth to the theology and the clergy. Sometimes I watch a sermon on the TV, and I'm always surprised how universally shallow they are -- I mean, I tune in twice a year and it's tedious, how could you listen to such a sermon every week? Anyway, that's the kind of thing I think of when I think Evangelical, and that's probably not an accurate term -- I guess "Charismatic" is probably better.

[DaveW]

Ian,

One of the complications when talking about Christianity is the way the word evangelical has gained a number of different meanings. It did mean "of or according to the teaching of the Gospel or the Christian religion". It then got mixed with evangelism which used to mean "seeking to convert people to Christian faith, usually by preaching". Now as Evangelical it is used to refer to a collection of otherwise unrelated attributes.

So it appears to me that when you refer to Evangelical in the US (and in some parts of the Church in the UK) people understand you to mean the combination of

- Fundamentalist on the Authority of Scripture scale
- Charismatic on the style of worship scale
- Conservative on the Theological scale
- Right on the political scale
- Confident and outgoing on the willingness to tell people of their faith scale
- High on the authority of the minister scale
- Low on the campaigning for social justice scale
- At the protestant end of the confession scale (far away from Catholic and Orthodox)
- Low on the candlestick in terms of worship (eg no incense, often no robes)
- high on calvinistic theology on the predestination scale.
- low on personal spiritual depth (traditionally strong for keen evangelicals)
- high and strict on sexual morality

This is all relatively new. To group together this particular combination of the ends of so many scales and then have so many people/churches with the same combination that they can take one generic term (evangelical) and turn it into a new specific term (Evangelical) has only happened in the last 100 years or so.

In my humble opinion there are a number of problems with this grouping.

a) It denies others use of some of these scales (eg I have met lovely charismatic, liberal, evangelistic Catholics but that confuses the press etc).

b) The combination is seen by some in a very negative light. For example it can be unpopular for those who are neither conservative or fundamentalist to be evangelistic or charismatic. Those are common postions to have held in the past.

c) Evangelicals can also appear homophobic also with a very traditional view of the role of women.

d) The relationship between Evangelicals and science can be difficult whereas the close relationship sometimes seen between Evangelicals and the business world is viewed with suspicion by other parts of the church.

e) This combination can be somewhat intolerant of difference both in and outside the Church.

Phew that was far too long for a comment. Expect a post on the subject after my essays are done.

[Milton Stanley]

David, thanks for the kind words about Transforming Sermons. Peace.

[DaveW]

Milton. It was easy, Transforming Sermons is great. Thanks for it.