Ben, I know I promised you a long time ago that I'd pound out my thoughts on those topics you mentioned and get them to you. That was on the 21st of September. Obviously I'm a little behind in my correspondence, but if it makes you feel any better, I'm also behind with corresponding with everyone else. I'm also cross-posting this to my own weblog, because I know of others who are interested in hearing about this.
So: my thoughts on the emergent church movement. The impression I get from other people and places, both in person and on the web, is that it's an independent, decentralized movement by mostly young or young-ish people who are dissatisfied with the traditional church, or the particular church they grew up in. There's any number of reasons for this. A big one, I'm sure, is that people of this movement feel that the church they grew up in is no longer a place where they can really meet God. Or maybe some have seen their church turn into a place of exclusion and condemnation instead of welcoming and acceptance, as it should be. They may feel that their church is pushing them to fit a certain mould, think a certain way, to be someone who they are obviously not. Or maybe their church has simply had all the life sucked out of it and is no longer a place where dialogue can happen.
Some established churches have seen this trend and have been working to reverse it. How can we attract the youth, they ask? Or at least retain those who we already have? Maybe our music isn't modern enough. If we had a worship team, some guitars and drums every few services, would that pull them in?
Nope. As we all know from Psych 101, "correlation does not imply causation".
Allow me to explain. (This is where I go off talking about modern worship music, but I will return to the earlier discussion about the church in general.) It's a fact that churches that you and I really like happen to have that "modern" kind of worship music played. Centrepointe, Worship Out Of The Box, Scum of the Earth, and many more all fall into this category. But we go to those kinds of places not because of the music they offer, but because they have real community. Sorry, I should emphasize that: they have REAL COMMUNITY. Just because the churches we like have modern music, doesn't mean it's because of the music that we attend.
I like singing hymns, I always have. That kind of music will not drive the youth away, and newer-style music will not bring them in either. At Calvin, my good friend Laura would attend a very traditional church each Sunday morning, one which happened to offer real community; and LOFT in the evenings, where most of the songs we sing have been written in the last 30 years, to the accompaniment of guitars, drums, and any number of other instruments. To think that the type of music determines whether youth will show up is based on pure fallacy.
What's more, when a "hymns church" tries to become a "praise team" church, the result is usually as painful to witness as seeing one's parents trying to crowdsurf, and for the same reason: different groups of people are naturally good at different kinds of things, and sometimes, it just isn't possible for crossover to happen gracefully. And that's an understatement. These new churches worship with that style of music because that's what its members are good at. It's just not pleasant to be at a service where a worship team has been unceremoniously inserted into what is so obviously a congregation that's geared towards more traditional forms of music.
Now I realize that this kind of mashup of old with new usually happens like this: Young people in the church grow up. Young people want to contribute to the service in ways they're familiar with, usually by leading a few praise songs on occasion. The administration, not wanting to turn down the suggestion but also not wanting to make changes that are too radical, allows for those kind of songs to be integrated into services now and then. Everyone's happy right?
Wrong. The style of music of a worship service is inextricably linked to the worship service itself. You can't expect to replace hymns with a praise team and expect the result to be graceful. Not only do you have a confusing pace of high-tempo songs right next to ones of solemnity, you also have people pulling in mic stands from the side, then moving them back, then pulling them out again, plus instruments and sound equipment all over the front (stage?), which probably doesn't match the church's decor at all. The result is a very awkward and disjointed service which, by trying to please everyone, ends up pleasing no one.
Instead, the order of worship and even the worship space needs to work with the music to create a place where worship can happen. Look at how LOFT at Calvin does it: the stage is in the center with people on three or even all four sides, there's songs at the beginning and at the end and that's it, someone in the worship team leads the service rather than constantly exchanging the role with the pastor, the order of the service is well-rehearsed and carried out smoothly, and all the songs are of a consistent style. Oh, and the worship team is skilled. That's important. If it's a chapel service during the week, all the same things apply: the songs are of a consistent style whether they're newer or older, and there's a definite leader for each service, whether it's the person giving the message or not.
But that's enough about that. What's more important than how well the music is done at a church is whether or not it offers real community for its members. It's hard to describe what real community in a church looks like, but I have a few ideas for signs that it exists...
- being invited over to someone's for no reason
- debating the PS3 vs. the Wii with the pastor
- offering and being offered rides to & from services for people without cars (like me!)
- opportunities for getting involved in the church instead of just being another butt in a pew
- church get-togethers for baseball games, some project in the community, or helping someone move; not just Bible studies
- you knowing everyone's names, and all of them knowing yours (the smaller the church, the more likely this is to happen)
- you wanting to bring all your friends with you next week so they can share in what you're experiencing
Let me also get one thing straight: having people from a "welcoming team" seek out and forcibly greet any new faces they see is not a substitute for real community. Have you ever been to a church like this? It just reeks of shallowness, even if they really are being sincere. Not only does that reveal an apathy towards new people in existing church members, it absolves them of any responsibility for reaching out. If everyone in the church were already willing to step outside their comfort zone and make newcomers feel welcome, there wouldn't be a need for a welcoming team in the first place.
I can't end this discussion without mentioning the sermon. I think that having long, dry, and repetitive sermons with no clear point, no life applicability, and nothing worth remembering is one of the most reliable ways of driving youth and visitors away from a church. It wasn't until I got to college that I first experienced attending a service where I was able to follow what the pastor was talking about, and even understand enough of it to talk about it afterwards! I'm not a seminary student, but some of what I've heard at churches is just beyond my reach. I don't come to church to be entertained, but I also don't come to be bored out of my tree either.
So back to the emergent church movement. This is not another denomination, not another flag for us to fly. This is simply a label for a fresh way of thinking, and it can happen in any existing denomination. The driving force should be a desire for dialogue and understanding. Hallmarks of this movement include listenable sermons, real community, and casual dress. Why casual dress? Because dialogue is fostered best when people are all on the same level, and not dressed up and worrying about what other people will think. Churches should not be interested in turning us into "good kids" or creating a bubble for us by dictating what we can & can't say, watch, hear, and read; instead, they should be teaching us how to analyze the world around us and therefore make decisions for ourselves. For that to happen, a church needs to have an atmosphere of dialogue, not one of close-mindedness. You may have already noticed that criticism of the church is mounting on
numerous fronts, and it's up to us to respond by pushing the church towards being effective at addressing those criticisms and into an agent for positive change.
Further reading:
(Feel free to sound off in the comments.)
