Sorry, Matt... not this time.

   So, it's been a loooong time since I blogged here, and ironically my last blog was similar as today's.  A response-type blog to another blog that was hailing conservatively-styled worship as superior to contemporary-styled worship.  So, all that to say, sorry for the redundancy ;-)  But, quite frankly, this is an area I'm pretty passionate about.  And sometimes with that passion comes a need to write.  Also, please know this blog is not a comprehensive explanation of my point of view on worship, or even my comprehensive view of the blog I'm responding to.  These are just some of my thoughts and views that are on my mind and heart, as best written as my sleep-deprived mommy-brain is capable of right now- during the kids' nap time- yeah, this definitely will not be comprehensive.  ;-)

I more often than not agree with Matt Walsh's blog posts, but there are those times I definitely don't.  His latest blog would be one of those "don'ts" for me.

To me, this blog came across as just another "curse-those-evil-contemporary-churches-that-are-to-blame-for-everything-bad" post.  Maybe it's just his style of writing that got the better of him this time?  Or maybe that really is how he would sum it up?

I mean, he does say, "I recently attended a service that might help solve the riddle of the fantastic decline of American Christianity..." as well as, "And this is the problem with Christianity in this country. Not just inside our church buildings, but everywhere."  And more bluntly, "The light of the Faith grows dimmer in this culture because of that church service I attended. Not specifically that one, but that kind of service. And not just that kind of service, but that kind of Christianity, generally." "If we want to understand why Christianity is not out winning souls and conquering the culture, look there."

Well, I guess I didn't misunderstand him then.

This "kind of service" Matt talks about was so horrible because:
1-  it was "relaxed"
2- it was "convenient"
3- it was "comfortable"
4- "the choir members dressed in shorts and flip flops"
5- "there were a bunch of acoustic guitars and drums and tambourines and a keyboard."
6- "Before the service/concert began, some guy came out to rev up the crowd."
7- it was noisy and had sounds and lights.
8- there was a "jam band for Jesus, or whatever it was" who played a song that wasn't traditional.
9- the pastor used a lot of trendy quips/metaphors/etc.
10- the specific words “truth,” “sacred,” “reverence,” “sin,” “hell,” “virtue,” “obedience,” and “duty” were not used in the sermon; but the words "friend" "help" and "tolerance" were used. "Gospel" was only used maybe only once (apparently Matt's counting abilities were hard to keep up with with all the list-making of words).
11- There wasn't "any semblance of an insight, a challenge, a truth, a call to action, or a point", according to Matt.
12- There were empty seats and disinterested yawns from the attendees.

That folks, that is the list as Matt himself says, of this church service, that apparently with one visit and this list, has made Matt discover the secret to why Christianity in America is dying.

Whoa, whoa, whoa... let's back this truck up, shall we?

The only things on this list I see as potential red flags are 10 and 11.  And quite frankly, I'd have to hear more than one sermon from this one pastor to know if he really was as shallow as I thought.  I'd also be a little hesitant to know if Matt was so totally closed-minded from the open-toed shoes that maybe this sermon wasn't as awful as he thought?

In the blog, Matt talks about how often Christians are accepting homosexuality and abortion- I TOTALLY agree that this is a problem and this is wrong. But that wasn't what happened in this God-forsaken church service.  Matt doesn't say, "Wow I went to this church service that promoted abortion and accepted homosexuality.  This is what's wrong with Christianity today."  He talks later about the dangers of the prosperity gospel and not believing in hell.  But he doesn't even say, "This church service taught there is no hell.  This church preaches the prosperity gospel."  No, he doesn't say that.

It's guitars.
It's flip-flops.
It's lights.

It's STYLE.

Look through that list again and see how much of it is style.  How much is preference.  How much is taste.

Obviously Matt has a bias against contemporary-styled services, and I get it.

I do.

Because I struggle with the same feeling of bias against conservatively-styled services.

I've seen the ugly side of suits.  I've experienced the hypocrisy of hymn-sings.  I know the terror of tradition.

Don't think I don't understand bias.  When I visit a church that's traditional, that has hymn books and dress codes and and organs, I have to check my own prejudice.  Because I know those things don't equal hypocrisy, even if in my past they often have.  I know those things don't equal holier-than-though, even if I've seen that tendency. I know that suits don't always mean secrets and dresses don't always mean proud and rules don't always mean legalism.

Even if that's the baggage I tend to carry.

I put the baggage down, and open up my mind, and work to put aside my bias, and I say to myself "This style maybe isn't for me, and yes there are hypocrites out there, but maybe this is sincere and this is worship too and I'm so glad we all worship differently and give our God glory through our eclecticism."

Matt couldn't put his baggage down.  He saw guitars and his mind went to abortion.  He saw flip-flops and thought prosperity gospel.  The sermon was lacking in his mind, so he assumed shallow.  No benefit of a doubt.  No give it another chance.  No grace.

He did worse than this though.

He wrote about it.  He publicly took his baggage and bias and handed out free samples to countless readers he has.

Matt even decides to sit in the judgment seat itself, saying "And what happens when you don’t factor these Convenientists — members of the Church of Convenience, proponents of Convenientism — into the equation at all? Are we still at 70 percent? Not hardly. What’s the real number? Forty percent? Thirty? Ten?" (These Convenientism followers are apparently anyone from someone who wears shorts to church to baby murderers, mind you).  I think this part of Matt's blog angered me and hurt me the most.  So we are to ponder who may not really make it into the Kingdom?  And Matt thinks he can figure that out?  Let me tell you, I look at the guy who wears a suit every week and goes through every motion perfectly and can be tempted to wonder the same thing.  But I stop my mind from going there, from pretending to judge someone's soul and assume to know what's really going on because of my prejudice.  Yeah, 70% Christian isn't really an accurate number; but we don't know that because someone's wearing different clothes than we like or worshiping with different music than we'd prefer.  We know that because Scripture tells us that many call him Lord but don't truly know our Father (Matt. 7:21-23).  Only God knows who really knows His name and who's simply calling him Lord.  Let's let Him alone decide who that is.

He makes another assumptive and judgmental comment when he says about the worship leader, "I got the impression that he was fishing for applause, not worshiping the Lord of the Universe."  Matt, I sure hope you went and talked to this guy if you have such a concern, as is the biblical principle (Matt. 18:15); because for you to have that kind of thought obviously showed your concern over his heart condition.  That concern better have led you to a one on one conversation with the man.  Writing that for the whole world to see is the type of gossip and criticism that we definitely do NOT need in the church today.  I know a lot of worship singers/leaders Matt would probably say the same type of comment about, and let me tell you, I know first-hand how untrue it would be.  Maybe he really was worshiping the Lord of the Universe.  How dare we judge that.

Our traditional, American church is great.  It's a wonderful option.  But guess what it isn't:  the standard.  It's not the standard of church; it's not the standard of Christianity.  It's not what was in the New Testament and it's not what's in most of the world today.  Let's get out of our bubble and realize this.  Let's stop pointing our fingers at other churches and realize the incredible danger that kind of disunity is for Kingdom work.  Yes, let's hold to our Truths- I totally agree with Matt on that.  Let's hold to our doctrine, hold to our depth, not compromising the core issues.  Let's resist the Joel Osteens and the Joyce Meyers and anyone else who spreads heresy.  But different styles does not equal heresy.

And comfortable does not equal pro-abortion and contemporary does not equal pro-gay-marriage.  How offensive of an equation.

A couple weeks ago, my church (which I adore; it's SO Christ-centered, gospel-focused, and deep in doctrine and discipleship) had an outdoor service with 14 baptisms.  Pretty much everyone was in shorts and flip-flops.  There were guitars, drums, a keyboard, etc.  It was relaxed.  It was comfortable.  It was convenient. It was noisy.  It was jammed-up.  Matt would have decided we were all pro-abortion and support gay-marriage.

That makes me sick, because that is so far from the truth.

Of the baptisms, several were women from a local recovery ministry our church works with. These women announced how long they'd been clean, explained their salvation story, and we all celebrated the power of the cross and the chains that Jesus breaks.  When the women gave their testimonies, the rest of the women with them in the crowd cheered LOUDLY and danced and cried. It was beautiful.  Far from traditional.

Matt wants us to be quieter?  The leaders shouldn't rev-up the crowd?  But he also talks about how exciting our beliefs are?  Exactly!  It is exciting!  Hence the cheering!! Hence the applause!  Hence the loud music!  Sure, maybe some churches are doing those things for show, doing them to get attention, doing them for the wrong reasons.  WE CAN'T JUDGE THAT.  Because maybe they're NOT.  Maybe they're just passionate about Jesus and serious about their faith and it looks DIFFERENT in different people!

We are so petrified of compromise that we are petrified of being different.

It is a SHAME that so many "Christians" have claimed the prosperity gospel; that they would dare support abortion; that they are pro-gay-marriage.  I get it!  That's scary!  But let's not make that more than it is!

Matt says church shouldn't be comfortable.  Well, wasn't he uncomfortable at that church service he went to? Don't shorts, flips-flops, guitars, make him uncomfortable?  C'mon.  What are we really saying here?

It's okay Matt doesn't like that style of church- that kind of dress from leaders- those kinds of instruments.  BUT LEAVE IT AT THAT, MATT.  Ok, it's not for you!  Fine!  It IS for someone else!  And that's okay!  That doesn't equal compromise!  Plently of conservative churches are full of fluff too!  We can't judge these things so simply!

Um, and empty seats and disinterested yawns?  That's one of the bad things at this church?  We shouldn't be too cool and fun and interesting, but we can't be boring either?  What is is then? I mean, empty seats and yawns describes a lot (all??) of auditoriums of all kinds.  We don't base our worship and preaching on how people will react though, right?  Right??

So I guess the contemporary church just can't win.  At least it can't win with people like Matt.  We're too cool, but too boring, too this, too that.  And so Satan has distracted us from what really matters and it's no longer Kingdom work and there's no unity and what gospel?  And we're pretty much fighting over carpet color again.

I guess according to Matt church should be uptight; inconvenient; uncomfortable; have a dress-code for the choir; have no instruments; have leaders that don't make the crowd feel excited to be there; shouldn't be noisy or have lots of lights; the pastor shouldn't make jokes or current references...

Hmm... sounds to me like that could cause a decline of Christianity in America.


"Oh, cmon... you know what he really means", you're thinking.  Yes, I do.  Do you?

Tomorrow a lot of us, as we are the Church, are going to our church buildings.  "There are still plenty of Christians who desire the true faith," Matt says.  Yes, there are.  And as we desire that, we will find ourselves tomorrow seeking and following in that faith, and we will land in different places.  Some will land in churches as casual and contemporary as the one Matt visited.  Some will land in ones as traditional and conservative as the one he hails.  I will land at one that's in the middle of the two ends of the spectrum.  And in our different places, we can all do just what Matt desires: praise the Rock; be trained for war; change our behavior.

Sure, sadly there will be some in casual clothes sitting in casual churches trying to have a casual faith; there will be some dressed up in "church clothes" and holding hymnals who are full of hypocrisy.

But there will be those in casual clothes in casual churches who are dead serious about their faith.  There will be those who dress up because that's how they want to show God respect.

And so let's not worry about "them".  Let's worry about the true false teachers.  Let's worry about the real Enemy.  But most of all, let's worry about our own selves.  

Hymnals, Screens, and Battles.

                                       

So this blog has been flying through my newsfeed lately.

I hate doing that.  I hate "having to" share the link of whatever it is I obviously disagree with, because then it gets more page views, more publicity, more attention; but I'm also not going to argue something without giving it the fair chance to speak for itself here.

I digress.


I knew by the title, "15 Reasons Why We Should Still Be Using Hymnals" that there was a 99.9% chance that I would not agree with it, and a 99.9% chance that it would even raise my blood pressure.

But, curiosity got the best of me- or was it that I was even going to give it a fair shot?  A bit of open-mindedness on my end for that .1%?

Well, that was foolish of me.

I've read similar blogs before, of course, and while the conservative-picking-on-contemporary mantra always bothers me, I normally just avoid comment reading, click out, and move on.

I don't know exactly why this one got under my skin so much.

So much, of course, that I just had to blog;)

I think it's because this one, while it still made me mad, made me more sad.

While it still got my blood pressure up, it got my prayers up more.

And while it angered me, it mostly hurt me.

I mean it really hurt me.

Dramatic?  Maybe.  But let me explain.

I will later on give some points refuting some of his, and in defense of the evil-screens.  But I'm not going to go on here about my 15 or 20 or 4 or however many reasons I could give that singing to songs that are on screens is "better".  I won't go through point-by-point of all 15 of his trying to tear each one down.

Because that's the whole part of this blog that hurts me so much.  The "better-than" mentality.  The tearing down.

It's not "15 Reasons Why Hymnals are Valid Choices for Today's Church's".  It's not "15 Reasons Why I Choose to Use a Hymnal".  It's not "15 Reasons Why You Might Consider Using a Hymnal Instead of a Screen".

It's "15 Reasons WHY WE SHOULD Still Be Using Hymnals".

And that really is the point of the blog.  Why hymnals are good and screens are bad.

It always has to be a right and wrong issue, doesn't it?  It always has to be a moral area.  It always has to be a matter of one being better than, one being the right way, and one being less-than, one being the wrong way.  And of course the people that throw this black and white paint over grey areas and areas of personal preference and freedom are the ones "in the right" and "better" position.  How handy.

A few more specific points:

I'm shocked at how much of this blog, that is apparently arguing the greater worth of hymnals and the detriment of screens, focuses on things that are personal comfort/preference and tuned (no pun inteded, har har!:) ) towards the musically inclined.  I mean, again if this was a "Why I prefer Hymnals" blog or a "Some Really Neat Aspects of Hymnals" post, then swell!  That's great to point out how all the notes are visible for those who want to sing parts (and can't by ear, I'll add) or how holding a book helps you pay attention.  Super!  But again, that's not at all the point of this blog.  The point of this blog is to say why hymnals are the RIGHT choice for a church to make, the more worshipful choice, and the superior choice.  If I'm going to read an argument from someone on why their choices in worship are more godly than mine, than I would expect, as I did, to read more biblical arguments and say, maybe even discuss the glory of God once in a while.  Even under the heading "Symbolic/Theological" in which he has 8 points, there is really only one that is "theological" and that one basically says "hymnals are theological textbooks."  The rest of the points are all symbolic, and preference and/or could be done just as well on a screen (I mean really, the point that hymnals can introduce us to new songs?  Us screen-users have been getting flack for that for plenty of time;)  Don't pick on us for singing all our shallow, unfamiliar songs that are scarily new and then not give us credit for singing new songs;)).  Unless I'm missing something, I'm also seeing NO Scripture references used in his "arguments" for why hymns are so much better theologically.  Because really, he's not saying that.  He's not even trying to.

He's saying that he likes hymnals.  That it works for him, and he sees a lot of good aspects in them.  But instead of being able to just say that, and leave it at that, it has to be a "Why I worship the right way and you don't" message.

He even goes so far as to call out and criticize Second Baptist Church in Houston (as seen in the picture at the top), who after a HURRICANE had to remodel and put up screens.  He criticizes them for "not preserving the distinctively theological and sacred space" in his added comments at the end of the blog, and in the blog calls it a "visual nightmare".  He clarifies that this is indeed a "theological issue".  And I've yet to hear a theological argument explained or verse given.  But hey, let's call out a whole church anyways, no matter how much they love Jesus and are striving towards Kingdom work.  I mean, their screens are ugly, so of course it's a theological issue and they should be publicly criticized, right?

I joked before about the point of new songs- something I've heard criticized of contemporary church's a few times, yet here used against them because of their ugly screens that apparently can't portray new songs.  Another irony of his I nearly chuckled at if it weren't so sad, is #2 under "Musical", "Hymnals Set a Performance Standard".  Performance.  Again, something often criticized of contemporary churches- that they're too "performance"-like and driven.  Yet here, it is the golden standard that the hymnal provides us with.  He criticizes contemporary worship for leaving the congregation to "individual interpretation" of how to sing the song- instead of singing like a choir basically, as he goes on to explain how hymnals "fix that" showing us how the song is "supposed to go".  Give me the individual freedom to sing to God how I want any day over feeling like I'm in a choir when I'm not and have to follow the song exactly as it's notated.  Let me harmonize as I want and can.  Let me hold out a note, or cut one short as I am LOST in praising Him and not worrying about following a musical script.  Let me WORSHIP.

Just a few more points and I promise I'll wrap it up;)

Shocking as this will be (ha! Where do I get these jokes?;)) I am currently in a contemporary church that uses screens for the songs.  They have one entire screen dedicated to Scripture that corresponds to the songs.  Sort of like a theological textbook;)  Several days before the Sunday service, the church emails all the songs that will be sung with links to listen to, so that we have access and can be prepared to sing as well, (as he makes clear is important under his #2 point under Practical.  Though I would word the importance of this MUCH differently than he would.  Again, not as "choir-performance" geared, but so I can participate fully in worship.)

I prefer the songs to be on screens. May I share why?  Not why screens are better or more "right", but just why I prefer it:

~I don't like holding a hymnal.  Has anyone ever dropped a hymnal in church before?  You'll never forget it;)  Holding a hymnal for me is distracting (more than any screen is to me, contrary to his Sympbolic #3 point).
~ Hymnals do "screw things up" (contrary to his Practical #3 point): They have typos.  Sometimes, as understandably over time, the pages are just nasty.  Dirty, sneezed on once too many times, colored on even.  And yes, ripped out at times. 
~I'm a hand-raiser, and a clapper (both EXTREMELY Biblical practices), so having my hands hymnal-free to worship is a huge blessing.

I've been in a LOT of churches.  I've been in churches that use hymnals that sing their souls out praising God and are so Spirit-filled it could make the earth quake.  I've been in churches that use screens that no one seems to care, and no one's  hardly singing.  I know screens don't equal quality worship and hymnals don't equal boring.

I also know that screens don't equal shallow and hymnals don't equal correct worship.

Because these are things.  Things.  Not right and wrong.  Not doctrine.  They're tools.  They're preference.  They're really the same thing, conduits to help us bring praise and worship of song to our Almighty.  They're both great tools.  Wonderful gifts.  Some of us like screens.  Some like hymnals.

They're things.  Tools.  Not battle lines.

Can we please, please stop picking on and judging each other over modes of worship?  WORSHIP.  Have we really forgotten what it's all for?  What it's supposed to be about?

Is it too late to remember?

Socially Acceptable

Recently I was at a women's conference that was superb.  Absolutely fantastic.  Except for one area that I must say was quite discouraging.  During the part of the music segment of worship, I was shocked to see how distracted and distracting the women around me were. Totally disinterested in singing or even just listening to the singing, they instead picked this time to catch up with one another, organize purses, or sit and take a break.

Hmm.

Since then I've noticed that while especially predominant at that conference, these tendencies are not uncommon in worship at all.  It seems like they are indeed quite regular, expected, and accepted.

Now let me say, I am more passionate about this issue because my strongest mode of worship is music.  While the preaching and prayer are certainly times of worship for me as well, I am most focused, Spirit-filled, and inspired when praising and praying through music.

Let me also say that I don't expect everyone to be that way.  I know we all have our different "love languages" with God.  Some people's main mode of worship is Bible study; others, prayer; others, quiet meditation; etc.  And of course that's not to label these our sole modes of worship.  Just the ones that seem to regularly bring the most intimate and powerful interactions with God.  I don't expect or even want everyone to worship the same way as me- it doesn't bother me if others stand and listen to the music instead of sing; it doesn't bother me that lifting hands to God in praise isn't more common.  And I don't want it to bother others that I'm not "amen-ing" through the sermon or going forward at invitations.

But it seems like we've picked the times that are musical in a church service to take care of other business.  That's when we unwrap candy, walk in late, offer our neighbors gum, and get in quick conversations.

We say it's because it's less distracting and rude.  Wouldn't want to make the preacher uncomfortable by our behavior; wouldn't want to make a scene during prayer.

But let's face it, the only one's we're concerned about is ourselves.  We blame it on others by not wanting to "distract" or "bother" them.  But really we just want to pick the most unnoticeable time for us.  So that we are not embarrassed.  So that others won't stare or glare at us. 

And so we wait.  And when that song starts, then we walk in.  Then we get that candy.  Then we share that story.

If we behaved to this extent in this way during the rest of the service we'd be viewed as immature or even offensive.  But for some reason we've decided that it's all okay when it's during a song.

Forgetting that it is during prayer.  And it is during preaching.  And it is during an invitation.

And it is during worship.

A Sad Divide in Worship

A week ago at my college's chapel service, I got the opportunity to hear a speaker I had never heard before. I will keep from mentioning his name, though some of you fellow classmates will know exactly whom I am talking about. The man said many things that I disagreed with, but which I could let go and inwardly say "Well, we all have differences". However, there was one thing he said that I find myself still churning over today. It is this that I want to seek to respond to now.



First, a little background. I currently go to a church that has a praise and worship band, and I prefer that. I grew up in a church with a piano and organ, and, though I enjoyed and worshipped with that type of music, I do enjoy more having the drum set, guitars, and other more contemporary instruments and sounds. I recognize the fact that to many more conservative worshippers this type of praise band can be offensive and carry the wrong connotations. It saddens me that they feel this way. I definitely have basic standards for worship music, such as needing to make sure the words are understood, and that it does not have a rock concert feel. But I feel in no way that these or other standards are automatically compromised by having a contemporary praise and worship band.



You see, music is my strongest way of worship. Everyone has different ways that they feel more easily connected to God in worship, whether it be through prayer, meditation, Bible study, etc. Mine is through music. When I sing, I pray and praise and the truths that I know about God become so much more tangible for me. So it hurts me deeply to see the Body of Christ divided so often over this form of worship. We look at others who raise hands and judge them. We look at different forms of music and judge it. We judge each other for how they worship. Wow. Like I said, I agree that there are definite black and whites. But what I'm saying is that we step out of those bounds and judge the greys just as strongly. We take an understandable reaction of feeling uncomfortable with how someone else worships, and turn it into an inappropriate reaction of feeling offended.



Now, back to the speaker. He discussed the praise and worship band we had at our school. He expressed how great it was, and how we had "men like him to thank for it." How much progress the church has made, he exclaimed as he looked around at our band. Then he said the real clincher. He started discussing churches with pianos and organs and "other such red-neck philosophies". I was appalled.



To this man: It is to you that we indeed owe our "thanks". Not our thanks that we have our band. Not our thanks that we can now praise in a more current way. Our thanks to you is for the dirty looks we get from those who are more conservative. Our thanks to you for the divide between the contemporary and conservative. Our thanks to you for the jaded spirit that exists in our pews and auditoriums that has replaced a spirit of peace and praise. It for all of this that our hats are off to you. For your cutting tongue and insulting labels. For your arrogant show and Pharisaical views. Thank you for the hurt feelings. Thank you that those of us who seek to worship in a contemporary way are viewed as rebels and troublemakers. Because of YOUR lack of acceptance of different worship styles we will not be accepted for ours.



So yes, we indeed can thank you.