H. Richard Niebuhr described liberal Christianity thus: 'A God without wrath brought men without sin into a kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross.' For some time, I've wondered if the heart of liberal theology is the belief that man is actually not all that sinful, but is fundamentally fairly good. It is the message of Hollywood, of self-help writers, of humanism. It's the kind of position that tells us "Believe in yourself! You can do it!", "Do something for you", "It's ok if it feels good", "You might be a bit naughty but you're nowhere near as bad as your friend who...".
It's not a new lie that we are fundamentally ok. Around AD 383-410, there was a teacher in Rome by the name of Pelagius who taught against the doctrine of original sin, but suggested that sin only occurred in individual acts. He upheld that God does not hold men responsible for sins that they have no control over. He said that man's nature is still capable of choosing good and God without the help of God. He was clutching at straws.
Is Pelagian-style error creeping into our church music today? I think it may be. It's close to what is called semi-Pelagianism; following Pelagius to some degree- a position that says that humans can independently make the first move towards God, and that God completes the salvation process.
If it is, it comes subtly in the kind of songs that teach us we can relate to God casually, that encourage irreverence, that play-down sin, that make us people into something far more than we are. Songs that assume we inherrently have within ourselves the capacity to appraoch God without the need for his grace first. How many songs do you know that teach you that you're able to come to God of your own accord (i.e. without encouraging you to think about the gospel)? How many times have you sung lines like "I surrender all to You", "You're the only one that I could live for", "I'm desperate for you", "You are my one desire", "I will never stop loving You" and known for sure that you have meant it with all your heart?
A difficult question. I have sung "I surrender all to You" plenty of times, but I know full well that to this day, that still isn't entirely true of me. I pray that I can increasingly surrender my will, possessions and heart to God, but can I sing that I do until I actually do? By singing these things, am I not taking very lightly my relationship with God? The Bible is clear on all of these variations on the same theme that God draws us to Himself (John 6:44)- we do not choose Him. We have nothing of ourselves to boast in, and our songs ought to aid us in fearing and reverencing God, not relating to him as our "mate" or our "girlfriend". How we need less of "Hey Lord, O Lord, You know what we need" and "You took the fall and thought of me"; but so much more of "Indescribable, uncontainable, You set the stars in the sky and You know them by name" and "You give and take away, my heart will choose to say "Lord, blessed be Your Name".
It's symptomatic of our Pelagius-influenced retreat from the fear of God that our songs become less about the grace of God; the sovereignty of God; the holiness, splendour, immutability, awesome power and majesty of God. As church music has been influenced by the musical styles of popular culture, the songs we use have borrowed their structure, rhyming schemes and phrasing from love songs. This combines uncomfortably with our newfound conviction that we are pretty much ok in the sight of God so long as we admit we just need a bit of a leg-up: our songs gradually become more "me" focused. The songs we sing in church begin to describe more of how I feel, more of how God blesses me, more of what I intend to do for Him. They become couched in terms of love and romance: the language of intimacy, being held in His arms, declarations of love against the odds. A romance between peers.
Borrowing from the forms of popular culture, using the language of love and speaking of how God affects our lives are not necessarily wrong in themselves, but when they inform the bulk of our church music, and young people grow-up without a healthy sense of God's holiness and "otherness", we can be sure that our view of who He is has become terribly unbalanced. The holy God becomes the friend on the phone in times of stress, or the girlfriend to hold close and snuggle up to or (perhaps worst of all) the Divine Vending Machine: source of all blessings, good feelings and love. He becomes an idol.
In many ways, this is why other music forms (apart from pop/rock styles) are sometimes championed by Christian conservatives. I'm sure that often in these people there is an element of fear about letting electric guitars and drums into church, which is wrong; these things are simple tools. However, as regular listeners to pop and rock music- as fans of the genre- we must begin to recognise the limitations of its form. Writing a song with two or three 4-line stanzas and a hooky chorus is a very simple way of composing music! Yes, it is entirely relevant and workable for contemporary church situations, but let's not forget that by using it, we subscribe to the conventions of that genre.
Here's an example of it, using a song which I incidentally think is one of the better contemporary church songs:
Light of the World, You stepped down into darkness
Opened my eyes, let me see
Beauty that made this heart adore You
Hope of a life spent with You
That's from "Here I am to Worship" by Tim Hughes. Again, let me reiterate- this is not a criticism of the song. Notice how this song as an example of the pop/rock genre is composed of "soundbites"- the lines link together conceptually, but they don't run like a narrative or prose. Of course, this is fine- most people make the connection between having their eyes opened to the beauty of Christ, learning to adore Him and eventually spending eternity with Him. However, this style is not the only style of lyrics that we ought to be employing! Poets and songwriters have worked down the centuries (many inspired and illuminated by the Holy Spirit) to bring us various ways of writing and expression that we can use in our church gatherings.
An example of a more narrative style might be:
My Jesus, I love Thee, I know Thou art mine
For Thee all the follies of sin I resign
My gracious Redeemer, my Saviour art Thou
If ever I loved Thee, my Jesus 'tis now
If you ignore the dated language, you will see that these lines are formed in a more traditional poetic flow. It works today just as well to use this style except that it is simply less fashionable in the context of pop music now. Very rarely do we find more classical styled songs popping-up in our music books that enable us to employ wider lyrical styles- the same goes for country, folk, jazz or klezmer. Of course, not all of these styles will suit every church, and decisions have to be taken on an individual level as to how well churches might translate various styles into their corporate worship. But it's time we looked a little bit wider- for the sake of our theology. I think the Townend/Getty writing partnership has been great for bringing us some help here: 'In Christ Alone' and 'The Power of the Cross' are songs with a rich lyrical content and good music. But these do sound like exactly what they are: modern hymns. How do we bring this kind of lyrical depth to our churches- and especially the younger people who still find Townend/Getty to sound like 'old peoples music'? Matt Redman has contributed much in the past, and continues to- and I think his thoughtfulness and depth is ever-increasing. The same goes for the more recent Chris Tomlin. See also www.redmountainmsuic.com. Who else is out there?
We cannot forget that in the minds of most young people, when a young man like me stands up at the front of the church and begins to sing a song, there is almost no conceptual leap to: Coldplay, rock gig, good feelings, song of romance, celebrity. None of these are helpful: we lose a sense of the corporateness of our act of worship, we have to deal with worship leader worship, we have to battle the simple mental connection between pop songs on the radio and pop songs in church: connotations of stardom and romance will never be far away from a guy with a guitar! These lead us to see our relationship with God in a popular culture-influenced way: we take Him lightly and we take our sin lightly, just as Pelagius did.
We can begin to hammer these problems out if:
1. We make it loud and clear that our music is nothing more than tool to aid us in glorifying God together by singing the truth, parsing Him and spurring one another on.
2. We do not deviate from sound doctrine in the hope that our church music is a better imitation of the styles of popular culture. The idol of Relevance has no place in church: we must not be afraid to confront the truth that the gospel is not cool. It requires us to deny the overriding themes of the age.
3. We employ wider genres of music and wider styles of song texts (hence so many of us turning to hymns recently, even if they are being appropriated into pop/rock musical styles). By expanding the forms we are capable of using, we can more readily pursue more diverse lyrical settings, song structures and paradigms. We can better do justice to our theology by allowing it outlets in as many genres as possible (within reason).
4. We avoid the unhelpful teaching that our worship leaders are "leading us into God's presence": let us not forget that Christ has done that priestly duty once and for all on the cross.
Of course, the cross is where it must begin and where it must end. The Bible teaches us that the grace of God is shown to us most powerfully on the cross of Jesus, and that having taken His place on the throne in heaven, it is Jesus as "the Lamb Who was Slain" who will be the recipient of all of our praises forever. And of course the very reason for the cross is the holiness of God juxtaposed with the sinfulness of mankind. Let us never blur the distinction or try and close the chasm. Enough of our sloppiness! Enough of self-help, enough of Christianity as life improvement, enough of "Jesus is my girlfriend". Instead, let us continually give praise and glory that He alone has bridged the chasm in His grace with no contribution from ourselves, and though our sin has separated us from Him, He has made peace by His blood on the cross and drawn us near to Himself.
Let us praise Him with our hearts and emotions, but let us also praise Him with our minds (1 Cor 14:15). The puritans called it "Logic on Fire": we don't have to sacrifice passion and emotion because we are being strictly faithful to the truth of the gospel. And we must not abandon our sense of fear and reverence before God- only rejoice that in it, He has loved us and chosen us.
Let us do justice the wonder of His grace in our songs and send Pelagianism- and semi-Pelagianism- back to where they came from.
John 3:30: "He must increase, but I must decrease".
16 comments:
I thought that was a helpful article.
I would like to see Psalms sung more in church (see Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16), perhaps modern renderings like Stuart Townend's version of Psalm 23. Getting the words from the Bible is one way to ensure the theology is helpful - although the words have to be properly understood as well.
Thought provoking stuff Dan. Let's get thinking on this.
Some good thinking in there Dan. But I think you're reading more books about the church 'out there' than actually being there. There is a negative aspect in what you have written, and I think that picking Tim Hughes as an example, even with your qualifications, is not diplomatic, and comes over as fairly divisive. I wouldn't include that sort of personal 'sounding' criticism. Better to pick a further off example if you must.
I personally struggle with a soley declarative worship style because it starts with an unbiblical view of what a human being is, (all mind and will) and it seems to make a type of church culture, more important than gospel unity. It's a form of denominational projectivism, that reduces the only form of Christian worship to 'our way'. I don't buy that, biblically, or relate to it practically. It's modernism, not Christianity.
You seem to want to gunn down any kind of feelings, or experiential aspect to congregational worship. Is that right? Are you completely mad? Have I got the wrong end of the stick?
Non experiential, declarative worship only, approaches to congregational worship also need to face your own canon. The spirit of the age that came in with modernism (This brough a concentration of systems that say, "sing the songs, mean and believe the ideas, know the doctrines and life will be transformed") is also subject ot the same challenge. And as you say 'we must not be afraid to confront the truth that the gospel is not [modern/non-experiential!] cool. It requires us to deny the overriding themes of the age.'
I like the heart of what you've written, but think you've written it divisively and from a limited experience of the value of experiential congretational worship. Don't forget that the renewal that we are seeing in much of the church in Western Civilisation goes hand in hand with an honest rejection of Christianity that doesn't affect us, and the new songs have (I believe) been key to cementing that renewed seriousness about letting God into our lives.
It's my view that sung worship is less of a doctrine teaching podium and more of a shared activity. We're seeing that change, in a more feelingsy culture, it's natural to want to see some of the good old stuff continue on. I personally love old hymns as well as new stuff.
One, last comment before you all pile in!
Can I encourage you to make your explanations of Christian faith more biblical? We shouldn't ONLY talk about the propitionary, or substitutionary aspect of the atonement. We need to make sure that we don't become too narrow in defence. I believe the defence of PSA is important, but when you speak of the cross, bibically you should also be open to mentioning the other aspects alongside it, as well as the resurrection:
1. The Victory of God (Christus Victor)
2. The Sacrifice of God (Penal Substitution)
3. The Example of God (Moral Exemplar)
Okay, I'm ducking below the parapet now.
Tom, maybe postmodernism rules but I read Dan's post totally different to you. I didn't feel like Tim Hughes was being critiqued, but rather that his song illustrated something - Dan said he really liked the song, but that there was an edge we could push further. To illustrate with a lesser song would have bought the retort 'but that's just a bad song'.
I felt Dan gave an appeal for more truth, more affection, more community, more narrative and more God in our songs. All of which I'd love to see.
I think you're right we shouldn't be afraid of being affected. We must be! But, Dan's saying that we're missing huge chunks of who God is, and who we are, in many of our songs. We can have MORE than we're having so far. But we need a bigger picture of God to get there.
Dan - your observation that we need more narrative songs is excellent. We need declarative songs that tell the story of God, as many old hymns and a few new songs do. These kind of songs DO treat us as biblically human. Caught up in, and belonging to God's salvation story.
There are two targets in view here - and it's good to shoot at where we are. Dan it strikes me you have done that.
Tom you say "I personally struggle with a soley declarative worship style" - aren't you at HTB?? I wouldn't have thought that that sort of thing would be your experience of church there or where you've been before... thus, its not what you personally have to struggle with is it?
It seems that neither of we three lives in the house of 'Non experiential, declarative worship only' so maybe that's not ours to shoot...
Finally, is this a more feelingsy culture? or is it just another manifestation of a culture that hates the gospel... biblically singing is very much linked to a high view of the church community, building one another up in the gospel in deeply affectionate love for another.
It's true that Pelagius did not believe in original sin, but he had a very strong hatred of sin itself - perhaps the main reason that he disliked original sin was that he fed a complacency about sin. Also for all his faults did he really have a low view of the majesty of God.
I'm not sure Pelagius should be the villain in this particular piece.
On the use of 'I' in modern worship songs. It probably has gone a bit overboard but there are 564 verses of the Psalms including the word "I" and these include:
"But I have trusted in your steadfast love; my heart shall rejoice in your salvation."
"I have set the Lord always before me; because he is at my right hand, I shall not be shaken."
"With regard to the works of man, by the word of your lips I have avoided the ways of the violent."
"For I have kept the ways of the Lord, and have not wickedly departed from my God."
"I was blameless before him, and I kept myself from my guilt."
"For all his rules[1] were before me, and his statutes I did not put away from me."
"Vindicate me, O Lord, for I have walked in my integrity, and I have trusted in the Lord without wavering."
"For your steadfast love is before my eyes, and I walk in your faithfulness."
(and all those were from just the first 26 Psalms)
We must be careful that we are not trying to be more righteous than God here.
Another interesting thing about Psalms in church is how many modern songs are basically just reworked Psalms.
Just my thoughts. I better rush off to my guitar-free church.
Pelagius isn't the villan, he just has a passing resemblance to todays situation.... we need the I songs but we need the other ones too - more majestic songs, more affectionate songs, more corporate songs, more confessional songs, more rejoicing songs....
It's one thing for us to diagnose a problem. We need songwriters - and Dan is one ! - who will write such songs.
Dan - go compose!
Great article. As one who writes worship songs (currently unsung hehe) I found lots of things to think about. I'm not sure I agree we want to start bringing fear back into the picture. I know there's a kind of reverence we as believers have for God but I'm not sure we should fear (Hebrews 12).
I think I understand where you're coming from, but you should be aware that there are churches singing songs with great content all the time and never an intimate expression of love to God (and he to us). We spent quite a few years in just such a church. Very legalistic, with a heavy emphasis on our sin, fearing God's judgements, and precious little experience of God's presence and grace. Yes we talked about the Cross all the time, but it served to highlight our worthlessness more than Christ's worthiness. (Because of this experience, I'm not sure I agree with 'ending with the Cross' unless the implication is the whole redemptive work of Christ, including resurrection, ascension, and glorious return for his Bride.)
I guess my point is that worship songs are for believers, who should not be afraid to come to God anymore. I wouldn't bemoan the fact that people come freely to him, but be concerned about those who are still afraid to come! If there is a casual attitude, lacking passion, than perhaps we need to call on the Spirit to come and meet us. It's pretty difficult to have that attitude when God manifests his glory among us...
I think we something expect people to respond to something that isn't happening, as if faith is pretending that God is here even if he isn't (obviously I'm referring to his manifest presence). Then we try to make them feel guilty for their poor response. If God's presence is evidently manifest and people don't respond then that is a different problem altogether! I think Terry Virgo is always saying "I hate church that isn't church".
Thanks everyone for your comments. Good to read and think!
Tom, thanks for all you wrote. I think you probably have got the wrong end of the stick slightly (if it's possible to only slightly have the wrong end of a stick). I'll try and answer your objections/points in order.
I wrote this piece a while ago, and have rewritten it a few times now. In all that time, I have visited plenty of churches, been to a number of conferences, and chatted with a number of other worship leaders. My observations aren't from staying in one church and imagining the rest- they're based on experience, and also on talking with others who do the same job as me in their own churches and get frustrated with the limits on their expressions of praise and worship to be about 'me' 'I' and only experience.
I held-up Tim Hughes' song as an example of a separate point, which was that contemporary worship songs are influenced by pop music. So this wasn't supposed to be particularly negative at all- simply showing that much new material is in the pop genre, and we ought to be on the lookout for genre-busting worship songs. I'm not singling him out for criticisms in any way, only using his song an example of genre. As it happens, I think Tim is a fine songwriter within that genre, and has produced some of the very best songs we have been blessed with over the past few years.
Interesting point about declarative worship style (I guess you mean both singing and liturgy?), and the possibility of it being 'denominational projectivism' (good phrase!). You're right that reducing our expressions of faith to mere propositions is constricting and unnatural (and unbiblical). I'm not aiming at this at all, rather looking for the same balance by saying that we very often tilt towards the opposite- making it all about ourselves. I'm not calling for emotional detachment or purely objective worship songs- but a good healthy mixture of both the objective and the subjective in our corporate worship. And I've made the judgement that from my experiences, many of our churches tend too much towards the subjective.
My church background is in the charismatic free church. I'm now in a very slightly less charismatic Anglican church, and there's no way I want to gun-down feelings or experience in congregational worship! Next Sunday I'm preaching on Isaiah 55, and I'm going to quote Jonathan Edwards saying that in the gospel we're invited to NOTHING LESS than an experience of God in the gospel- he offers wine, honey, free food, a feast. The Bible actually forces the language of sensory experience on us, and tells us to TASTE and see that the Lord is good- not just know and assent to it. I'm all all for experience, emotion, and expression of feelings and subjective responses.
Only I'm also all for declaring the truth about God's character and actions when our feelings tell us it's all a lie; I'm all for knowing what about the gospel is true and real for all people as well as just in my own experience; I'm all for realising that the reality of salvation isn't just what I have known and tasted, but also much greater things that God says are true of me, and will be true of me one day. Part of the beauty of the gospel in late-modern times is that it's better than modernism and postmodernism: it is objective and subjective. It is mysterious and eternal, but it's also possible to know it truly and see its power in our lives.
So I don't think I wrote divisively at all. I think (if I may be so postmodern) that that was purely your reading of it! I write to critique my own in many ways, and I do this with some impatience and frustration, but a lot of love and appreciation. I certainly wrote it with a lot of experience of the value of experiential congretational worship- that has been my experience every Sunday for nearly 20 years I would think.
You said: "It's my view that sung worship is less of a doctrine teaching podium and more of a shared activity."
I'd like to see congregational worship at my church become more of both at the same time. I'm on the music team, and this is one of the things I'm aiming for- a climate where people can look around at each other while singing fantastic truths about God, smiling at their friends because they've experienced it in their own lives. From time to time we also encourage spontaneous singing for the brave ones- to sing their own words, or pray out loud.
Dave K- perhaps my church history needs some polishing. Apologies to Pelagius if I've cast him unfairly! Thanks for your Psalms... I guess I've said fairly clearly now what I mean about 'I' songs- they're great, but they ought not to be 100% of our repertoire. Also be aware, that simply having 'I' or 'me' in a song isn't indicative of its perspective necessarily. So some of the Psalms you quoted are very much focussed on God, but have 'I' in them. The same with many songs. "In Christ Alone my hope is found..." the focus is definitely on Christ, but there's me in it. The problem (I think) is when 'I' becomes the primary focus of the song, or the objective is totally maligned.
Jul- point taken. I have a lot of experience in those dry churches, too. I could critique them as well for their lack of passion and expression. But it is a separate issue- one that is as important and and pertinent- but one that I wasn't addressing in this piece. I hope it's clear that I've not written from that point of view, critiquing the happy-clappy doctrinally challenged- that's not me!
Dave- you've challenged me before, and you're doing it again! I'm serious about this! Thanks for encouraging me... I have one or two cooking at the moment.
Cheers,
Dan
Okay, good. I'm glad I misunderstood. I confess that I didn't read your article properly, and just reacted (always a bad idea!).
Once I read it through properly I was left wondering a couple of things:
1. You gave a few examples in this paragraph of songs that you think teach us that we can relate to God casually. I'll quote the paragraph...
"If it is, it comes subtly in the kind of songs that teach us we can relate to God casually, that encourage irreverence, that play-down sin, that make us people into something far more than we are. How many songs do you know that teach you that you're able to come to God of your own accord (i.e. without encouraging you to think about the gospel)? How many times have you sung lines like "I surrender all to You", "You're the only one that I could live for", "I'm desperate for you", "You are my one desire", "I will never stop loving You" and known for sure that you have meant it with all your heart?"
Here is where I think my earlier point has some bite. And I think I can put it more precisely that I did before. I don't think that you're right to say that it is the 'kinds of songs' that encourage a casual, irreverent, playing down sin approach. And that's why I think that picking lines like the ones you have (from well known song writers) done is divisive. You are demonising the songs, and indirectly the writers for something bigger. It sounds a bit like you are saying that the writers of those songs that you quoted lines from are guilty of playing down sin, irreverence and encouraging a casual vending machine approach to God. I think you need to look more widely at environment, leadership, balance of teaching, and other important factors etc, and not at the 'kinds of songs'.
That isn't to say that the songs are blameless, or that the kind of song genre isn't a factor. Let me put it like this I could use those same songs, and give a very objective, non-casual, reverent and sin recognising impression to you. Bottom line is that it isn't the songs themselves. It's how they fit into the service / encounter. Isn't it?
2. You sounded slightly dismissive of secular culture. Are you actually against Hollywood and "Self-help" material? I have to tell you that some "self-help" reading material is actually exceptionally helpful, (EG. The Road Less Travelled by Scott Peck, The Five Love Languages by Gary Chapman, Healing For Damaged Emotions by David Seamands) and some Hollywood movies paint an extrodinary honest picture of the underlying depravity of human nature (Memento, Insomnia, Magnolia, American Beauty, Road to Perdition, Unbreakable), okay, that might not be a vertical sense of the moral offense of sin to the holy infinite-personal God, but it is something of an honesty about the twistedness of human nature.
Tom
Reading Dave's comment after mine, I feel a bit bad. Dan, your post was good - certainly better than my comment which was rushed and typed without thinking - born out of deep seated annoyance at people pinning things on early church heretics as a lazy rhetorical technique.
But I think I haven't been heeding my proverbs. Your post was good and I just ran away with what I thought was bad. Sorry.
Keep posting.
Dan, I'm completely with you in the 'logic on fire' thinking. Our song words, prayer words, communicative words in conversation... all need to be 'logic on fire': Lk 24 experiences of seeing Christ more clearly in the grasping of the Scritpural truths about Him and from Him burning within us.
I have one hesitation and one addition to what you wrote.
My hesitation: the songs of the past which remain the songs of the present are precisely the ones which took contemporary tastes and context to heart and expressed meaningful content in contexutally and culturally appropriate ways. Wesley took the forms of the day and transformed them into vehicles of grace. I think some of Tim Hughe's lyrics have done the same, as is true of Chris Tomlin, Getty, Townend etc. Sam Chaplin (once UCCF staffworker and now f/t musician last I heard) has some stunningly good lyrics within a contemporary music vernacular. So maybe we are looking for a greater depth in content, within a contemporary vehicle?
My addition/comment: in singing ANY truth, we can do so lightly, airily and without regard to that which we sing (or say). Wasn't this the accusation against the leaders and people of Isaiah's day? (Is29:13-14) It is not so much a presumption of grace which would lead us to lip-lead worship but a disregarding of the gravity of God (cf "God in the wasteland", David Wells) and this arises out of a disregarding of the weightier truths of God; and here we are swimming up stream. Entertainment replaces information in an age unconcerned about truth. We face much that makes faithfulness hard, the provocation to 'enjoy' more than 'serve' in worship and life in general is something we face (whether we like it or not). So how do we face up to it? Some of it has to be by stealing back the definition of enjoyment (a la Piper) and some of it by subverting the aspirations of cultures gone mad with self-love. In the end we are to sing of, preach openly, communicate and hold onto and present the glory of the Lord Jesus in any and every way we can. In the words (from memory, so if faulted forgive me) of John Stott, we hold onto the gospel by giving it away, we preserve it by sharing it, we keep it pure by spreading it abroad.
Tom- On your point 1, of course the line of causality is hard to draw. If we see a church where the prevailing attitute towards God is casual and irreverent, it's impossible to nail that on their song choices. I guess the songs we sing are both a symptom and a cause of bad attitudes or assumptions (or indeed a wonderful outworking or a God-given spur!).
The song lines I quoted aren't there becuase I think they are write-offs. I do think they are possibly unhelpful, and maybe much of that is down to the way they're used. I suppose we all have experience of people using songs in such a way that pushes an agenda, or consitutes dodgy doctrine. It happens- and I'm saying "Let's be intelligent. Let's be much more careful about the words we sing."
So I'm sorry if it came across wrongly- I'm not directly blaming Hillsong, or Vineyard, or Soul Survivor for a n overly relaxed appraoch to God. I hope that these guys continue to take seriously the role they play in the Church. I think Gordon Fee said, "Show me a church's songs and I'll show you its theology." Probably bang-on. It's a big job, a scary job, and one that I've not really dared to do yet. God bless them all for giving it a go. Simultaneously, they're not perfect, and we are responsible for the words we sing and internalise and teach. Complex, eh?!
With regard to 'secular culture' I definitely believe that all truth is God's truth- anything that Gary Chapman or Stephen Speilbeg come-up with that helps me or moves me is due to revelation. I definitely believe that. And as such, when I think about how the Five Languages of Love is actually quite true, and how certain bits of certain films make me (nearly) cry, I don't think that's simply 'secular culture'- there is God at work in his world as well. I think the book of Proverbs is all about that: things that are axiomatic, true for all to see, and we shouldn't be surprised to find that our non-Christian friends find these things out and are often wonderfully expressive and clear about them.
(Mo- I was listening at Relay 3!)
But at the same time I guess in a way I am against Hollywood and "Self-help" material. It's easy to turn to self-help material because I get to help myself, which is precisely what I'd rather do than turn to the gospel. There's so much truth in what these books say, but also a danger that I just get turned back in on myself and then I'm just worshipping idols. Gray Chapman can help me see how to love my wife better (I don't have one yet), but I need the gospel and I need Christ to tell me the full story- and I need the Holy Spirit to empower me to go and DO it.
So that's all about as complex as before. Thanks for the debate... I'm enjoying this! How are you anyway? I think owe you lunch (if you see what I mean).
Andy- I think you're right about looking for a greater depth of content in a contemporary style. I guess there are many young people who will find hymns inaccessible and difficult. Can we start emulating contemporary styles that are more lyrically complex than the classic pop song? There are some great bands out there with fantastic lyricists and music to match. I guess the challenge is will our church bands be able to handle music that's modelled on Muse, or The Streets?
Dan
Hey,
I'm currently doing some posts on Niebuhr that you might enjoy:
http://tinyurl.com/2y93sb
Hello
I'll say in a moment how I found your blog and why I am contacting you. First though . . .
It is interesting to come across any reference to Pelagius. I used to go to a church that was dedicated to St Germanus, who was a follower of Pelagius. The well (or spring) where he collected his water was close to the place the church is now built. Interesting that he became a saint.
Anyway, here goes! . . .
I’m writing to people who list ‘The Hardy Boys’ in the ‘Favourite Books’ section of their blogger’s profile.
I have a blog called THE BRICKS IN THE CAVE and I’m posting a chapter a day there of an illustrated adventure story - which is also called THE BRICKS IN THE CAVE (!).
When I first wrote it, I reckoned boys aged 7 - 11 would form its greatest readership. None the less, I’m hoping other people will like it too!
It can be found at
http://bricksinthecave.blogspot.com/
It strikes me that it would be a good idea to ask those who like The Hardy Boys if it is the kind of thing they would have enjoyed when they were younger (and whether it appeals to them at whatever age they are now!).
If you do have time to take a look at it, I would be very interested to know what you think. I have already had some thoughtful comments from Famous Five fans and your opinions would be equally helpful when I approach a publisher. (And just as useful to know if this wouldn’t even be relevant!)
I can be contacted at
bricksinthecave@googlemail.com
As well as through the blog itself.
Looking forward to hearing from you.
Susan Harwood
http://bricksinthecave.blogspot.com/
p.s. Earlier chapters are easily accessible through the side bar.
Wow! I was drawn to your site because its name is similar to my site. Interesting that our thoughts are similar as well! As a pastor's wife and musician, I have faced the struggle of wanting to appeal to the masses with the more contemporary sound - which is great in some ways. But when I really, really worship - by myself with no one listening - I usually revert back to the old hymns of my childhood. (And I'm not really that old!) "Holy, Holy, Holy" is one of my favorites, but could spend all day listing so many great ones. I fear too many churches throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Hope you'll visit Morning Coffee at www.renaebrumbaugh.com .
God bless!
Post a Comment