Category Archives: church

Change, Loss, and Sheet Music

Posted on by
8

My purpose in blogging is not to be some dissonent voice, always complaining or critiquing things that I don’t like or disagree with. With that said, however, I must talk about an article written in the Christian Chronicle

I will not include the whole article (though you can click the link above to read it) but I do want to paste below the questions that were answered by a panel of college choral directors:

Were you raised in cappella Churches of Christ? If so, what are your earliest memories of singing in the church? If not, please describe your own experience.

Some have suggested that the tradition of four-part a cappella singing in Churches of Christ is quickly disappearing. Do you agree or disagree with that statement? Why or why not?

Is it true that our congregations are singing fewer (and in some cases, none) of the great Protestant four-part hymns and are moving quickly to praise songs? If so, what does this mean for the church as a whole?

Are we losing the “common language” of the sacred song in Churches of Christ — meaning that grandchildren don’t know the music of grandparents? If so, are we experiencing a fragmentation of the main corporate activity in our common worship experience? Please elaborate on your response.

How would you describe the overall quality of singing in our churches? Better or worse than in the past? Are we producing a generation that does not know how to read music or shaped notes? What are the ramifications to moving from hymnals to singing from a big screen?

Have you noticed a difference in the quality, experience, ability to “hold a part,” etc., of students moving from high school to your university music groups in recent years? Please elaborate.

Before I say my piece let me say that the intervewiees responses were pretty solid for the most part (from my perspective) and the questions seem pretty leading.

Here are a few of my thoughts. I value a ceppella music. I would also say that I’m learning to value it more as we get deeper into church planting. And if I were to be honest I’d probably have to say that I have no sort of emotional, theological, or tradition-connected desire to worship in a ceppella style. Therefore I try to realize that many people have fond memories of this style of worship, many people have strong theology concerning what type of worship is apropriate, etc.

But seriously! Sheet music? Is reading notes and having hymnals much of a concern of the church? The churches of Christ are hemorrhaging, as a whole they have lost their voice in the United States, and do we really think that singing four part harmonies is something that we need be concerned about? What is the purpose and concern of four part harmonies anyway? Is it the beautiful sound of our voices coming together in unity? ‘Cause I’m pretty sure that happens even if we all sing the melody. Oh, and let me say real quick as a lifelong church of Christ preachers kid…I can’t read a single note to save my life.

Concerning singing classic hymns, what’s the worry? I think some hymns are beautiful and speak powerful theology. Honestly, some hymns need to go. But why are these hymns valued? Many (not all) are valued because they resonated with people, they were connected to peoples narratives, their stories, their experiences. Many hymns have value because they spoke to thier theology, worries, and concerns. But as peoples worries change, as peoples theology changes, as people find new music to ressonate with new experiences and their own individual stories it only makes sense to sing new music. Don’t get me wrong, part of our journey of faith is remembering the bigger story, remembering where we came from, and therefore valuing the past. But there is absolutly nothing more sacred about Great is thy Faithfulness and Shout to the Lord (I know even this song is dated, but I wanted something that most would be aware of). To value one generations songs over another is wrong (whether your a youngster or and elder).

Here’s what it all comes down to. If you’ve glazed over the rest of this, please read this one statement: People do not resist change, they resist loss.

I believe that if we take time to reflect on that statement it allows us to understand better where the author of those questions is coming from. It allows us to give more grace and freedom to those who do not want to let go of, what I believe to be, silly things like sheet music and four part harmonies. Many in an older generation is grieving losing reminders, monuments, and memories associated with their stories. The great problem, and one that another blog must deal with, is that the world has changed so incredibly, so rapidly over the past number of years that change must happen. So some healthy question we may want to begin asking include: what is a healthy way to grieve loss together? How do we engage in change while still valuing our stories (both past, present, and future)?

peace.

Becoming Missional?

Posted on by
Reply

This is cross posted from a website connected to my school program that I am in. We would love for you to be a part of the dialogue, for you to read up concerning what’s happening, and to journey with us in this. I wrote the following blog on that website:

The week before I left my wife, children, and the pacific northwest to fly to Rochester Hills, Michigan for our first one week intensive course as a part of Rochester College’s first Missional Leadership cohort I began to get nervous. What kind of people will I be in community with during this learning experience? What kind of learning will we be engaged in? What have I gotten myself into?! And what a generous blessing it was to be welcomed into our first classroom experience by Pat Keifert. As I attempted to explain to people connected to our faith community here in Vancouver, WA I said “You know the people that teach the people that usually teach us? He’s that guy! He supposed to teach my teachers…but he’s teaching me!” Once we walked out of the classroom experience and arrived home in our usual ministry context our heads were still spinning with information, questions, and the task of trying to understand this new framework that we left the classroom with. As I wrestle with all of this I would like to share with you briefly two ideas that have stuck with me and that are currently trying to find their place in my life and ministry.

The Mission Field
We must ask the question: do we believe that our western culture is a mission field? And if, as it should be, we answer with a resounding YES! then I believe we must follow up with some deeply disturbing and hope-filled questions and practices. I say disturbing because if you look up the definition you read ideas like “to interfere with”, “to break up the tranquility”, “to inconvenience”, and “to interrupt.” The reality my friends is that if we intend to be relevant to the world around us (not in some sort of trendy tattoos and gravely voiced worship leader type of way, but in the way that combines the messiness of the world with the transformation of the Spirit) our churches need to be interrupted, inconvenienced, and interfered with! I need MY regular routine interrupted, interfered with, and inconvenienced! We I must start thinking like a missionary. Some of you can share better than I how missionaries operate and what the implications of this is. But I would suggest that we need to start with a posture of listening to the world around us.

The Mission and the Church
I would like to share with you some of my notes. These notes have been directly cut and pasted from the file marked “Missional Church Notes”, these important and detailed notes were written during class, and they have not been altered in any way:
“The church doesn’t have a mission, the mission has a church. The church doesn’t have a mission, the mission has a church. The church doesn’t have a mission, the mission has a church. The church doesn’t have a mission, the mission has a church. The church doesn’t have a mission, the mission has a church.”
Rather than saying more about what I believe the foundation and implications of this is, I would love to hear from you. If, indeed, the church does not have a mission, the mission has a church; how does this change our values and behaviors?
peace.

Ryan Woods
Connections Minister
Renovatus Church
My Blog: downtown.renovatus.com

Are you Practicing Ramadan?

Posted on by
1

So my brother-in-law Ben is practicing Ramadan for the next few weeks in Bellingham where he works as a pastor of the Sterling Drive Church of Christ. Intrigued? Enraged? Impressed?
Read the article that ran in the Bellingham Herald newspaper, read peoples responses, and also take time to read Brian Mclaren’s blog about why he is doing it. Are you comfortable with this?

Article about Ben: http://www.bellinghamherald.com/102/story/1045056.html
Brian Mclaren’s blog: http://www.brianmclaren.net/archives/blog/ramadan-2009-part-1-whats-going.html

Let me tell you my quick thoughts about the whole thing. Ben’s not a Muslim. He’s not even trying to agitate things or “stir the pot”. I think he is doing what he can to learn to listen to the world around him, to learn to listen to the people around him that Jesus loves and died for. Ramadan is a season of prayer and fasting, both of which are traditional Christian practices. It’s not as if he’s joining in with sacrifices or or pilgrimage or some sort of practice that all Christians should not already be doing. I’m impressed by what he’s doing and I’m looking forward to hearing his observations about it. It’s not a stunt in anyway, rather it’s a willingness to go to places that Christians have often avoided, to listen to people that Christians have often been unwilling to listen to, and an openness to feast with people that have been rejected in normal Christian circles. Take some time to read through the gospels and tell me that Jesus did not feast with the “worst of sinners”, that he wasn’t willing to go to places that were considered off limits to “good God fearing folks” (do some research about Caesarea Philippi), and that Jesus didn’t listen to those who were considered rejects by the religious elite.

peace.

Seriously, Do We Really Need God?

Posted on by
Reply

Being a follower of Christ is not rocket science. I spent much of my life thinking that it was. I spent many years placing guilt on myself if I could not “sufficiently” give “proof” for my beliefs. That is, I had to be able to both show from science and history that the Bible and Jesus were everything that they claim to be, and I also had to be able to prove from the Bible that the certain set of rules that I followed from Scripture were the “right” set of rules. This carried with it the constant fear of being wrong in your interpretation of the Bible, it cultivated a defensive atmosphere and also was very good at creating sides that we could all pick and defend.

I would contend that being a Christian is not rocket science. It’s not all that hard to figure out…living it out is something entirely different!

**page break**

Ok I’ve got to shift. I’ve written this whole post now (you just haven’t finished reading it) but another post, a more important post has emerged that I’ve got to get your input on. Here’s the question, do we really need Jesus to be a “Christian” (obviously the term christian itself is worthless without the christ part, but lets thats not the point)? Jesus simplified things by saying that the whole of Scripture could be summed up in two statements. Love God. Love people. But what I’m wondering right now is how essential is the “love God” part to what it looks like to be a follower of Christ.

Virtually all of the practices that define Christianity (if we’re being positive and not deconstructive) would be and should be practiced if you lived by the one simple rule to “love your neighbor” Here are some quick examples:

  • Alcohol: If you continually  lived out of your love for people you would not drink too much alcohol because you would never want to impair your decision making in such a way as to do something destructive and to hurt people. Also it could be argued that a strong love for people can only be healthy within the context of an appropriate love of self. And if you value yourself you would take care of your body.
  • Sex: You definitely wouldn’t be sleeping around or sleeping with anyone that was not firmly committed to being “yours” (I’d consider marriage to be this appropriate context) because how in the world could you ever justify sleeping with another mans not-yet-wife! Not to mention the fact that anyone who has had sex can attest to the life changing intimacy that takes place and the fact that if you love others you cannot take that piece of intimacy away from people that you are not forever committed to!
  • Compassion: This is the most obvious of all. If your only rule in life was to love others than you would be serving the poor, collecting clothes for children, feeding the hungry, caring for widows and single mothers, etc. How could you not if you loved people (oh the irony I see in this bullet point)
  • Church: you would most definitely be a part of a church. But it might not look like churches traditionally look like. If your only rule was to love people I imagine you would be compelled to get together with like-minded people to recharge and challenge each other to go back out and continue loving people in new and creative ways.

That was a quickly assembled four examples, but I believe that you could nearly reassemble all the practices of the Christian faith under the one umbrella “love your neighbor”. So the question is, do you really need to love God? And if so, how in the world is that played out? And please tell me that going to heaven and thus avoiding hell is the only impact of bringing God in the mix!

Death

Posted on by
Reply

Death has (and should) defined following Jesus from the very beginning. Christianity is called to be a mysterious comination of life and death.

It is through the death (and the fact that he rose back to life) of Jesus that people find life. Before his death within the context of the passover meal (which is a meal centered around the Isralite lives that were spared amidst the death of the Egyptians) that Jesus told his followers to remember him by continuing the tradition of the passover within a new context. This new context was that the bread now represented his body (which died on our behalf) and his blood (that was spilled on our behalf) both of which can only be understood surrounded by the context of his life that was constantly being poured out for those around him. Jesus offered people living water, called himself the bread of life, and used metaphors associated with living things (mustard plants, growing seeds, water, bread, sheep, trees, etc.) to communicate the nature of his mission and his church. At the same time speaking about the kingdom he said that “unless a seed falls and dies…”, and “you must deny yourself, take up your cross (death), and follow me…”, and again “whoever loses his life for my sake will find it…”

Death and life.

We see this in the early church where people were willing to live radically for Jesus. When disease would break out in a city in those days everyone but the sick would leave town. It was a quarentine of sorts. But the Christians stayed. The Christians were the ones known for staying behind and caring for the sick even if it meant risking death for themselves. We can read story after story where Christ followers were willing to die because of the phrase “Jesus is Lord” that they refused to renounce. They found life in those words. They found so much life that it was worth death.

What in the world have we made being a follower of Christ turn into? We argue about carpet colors, we spend billions of dollers each year in new church buidling construction (it was 2 billion a year in the 80’s), we spend our time trying to keep all the Christians happy (in other words we’re spending time prioritizing Christian needs over those outside our doors), we spend time arguing about worship instead of engaging in it, we fight over being more right instead of “fighting” over being more sacrificial…you can fill in your own experiences here.

If I know one thing for certain its that Jesus did not die so that we could be comfortable. Comfortability is probably an enemy to living in and living out Christ’s transformational kingdom. Comfortability is in opposition to dying to self.

If we are to truly experience the mystery of the church, that is, of experiencing both life and death, we’ve got to start with the question “is Jesus Lord of my life”. If Jesus is lord of your life that implies that…

  • You’re relinquishing control
  • You’re giving him access to every aspect of your life
  • You’re willing to join him in death
  • You’re able to join him in resurrection
  • You’re invited to live resurrection daily
  • Carpet colors do not matter
  • Fill in your own blank here