mo ramblings about gatherings and point #4 (this is very long. sorry!)

The thoughts posted on 11/19 were definitely not codified principles--merely observations in travels from one state o' community to another--and were meant to be fairly exploratory. However, i do make claims that they're informed observations, not just my own randomness being thrown out into cyberspace for my own benefit. And in that light, maybe have some weight when placed in conjunction with others' observations. But as any experience is, they were intended as a statement of expertise in a limited arena. Meaning if I'd done this kind of thing for 40 years in 10 different countries, I might see things entirely differently. But given where I am now, what I've been through, and what I haven't been through, these are some thoughts on my present location. Are they orderly and complete? absolutely not. Do I hope they are springboards for further discussion? always. Questions: Do these thoughts of mine mean that you O Interested Reader should respond in a particular manner? Are they just my thoughts and are thereby useless in any other context? Are they rules or principles for any one else to live by? Would someone else involved in this group see these same things? Is every observation subjective and peculiar to the observer? I don't feel like I can adequately answer any of them. All I can say is that they are based on something real and seem to have elements of applicability...but they may not. Even the assumption of applicability may itself be illusory and based on my subjective understanding of the universe. Be that as it may... I don't intend this blog to be a journal of my thoughts intended for the voyeur in all of us. This thing was originally intended as a mechanical tool of dialogue and as such will be full of untested thoughts and ideas. So I appreciate any "testing" you may level at any statement, quote, idea posted. And it's the responsibility of the post-ers to appreciate the testing process and try to work through that to form better, tested thoughts. OKAY all of that was disclaimer/introduction/explanation. The following will be further thoughts on a particular point that was questioned by a couple of individuals. Here is my attempt to think through the "testing" of the observation. Hopefully it will be logical and maybe even true. _____________ The old post: "4. music is important. the tenor of the group changes based on the type of music. bombastic music seems to move the group toward seeing the music/worship leader as someone important and separate from the group. quieter music seems to de-emphasize the leader and make it more of a group decision to worship." A test to consider: "...I would a least like to know the context for your comment...i dont feel [bombasity in worship] seperates [the worship leader] from the group. It seems to depend on the sociology of the group far more than the style of the leader. I would like to think that a good mix of strong vocal / guitar leading and softer more inviting access points provides people enough of a dynamic range to get on the boat at whatever spot they feel most comfortable." There is probably a thorough response to this "test" that is very involved and probably not too helpful unless we had a lot of time on our hands--so please read this response as an inadequate one. But it seems like some questions that inform any sort of response would need to examine: "What is worship?" "What is the response of the worshipper?" "What are the most important ways of worshipping?" "Do these ways grow out of a sociological/psychological need, a preference, a theological reason, a scriptural mandate?" "Are there any 'Sacred Cows' in the ways we worship?" "Is there 'Baby' and is there 'Bathwater' in worship and how do you distinguish between the two and what is worth throwing out?" These are tough questions. They certainly don't need to be answered every time we enter into a time of worshipping the Lord, but they are probably things we should think about from time to time. Because this group is new (in the sense that it's the first time these particular people have gotten together regularly) and because I happen to be someone who has been to every meeting, I was noting that in the context of this meeting, quiet music didn't seem to put as much emphasis on who was leading and instead let the voices blend together with the music more--it seemed less important WHO was leading or even that there WAS a leader. Instead, people were involved in singing worship songs TOGETHER. I noted this because, of the 251 times the Bible (OT + NT) uses the word "worship", it does so in the context of a group or ethnicity ("Israel worshipped the Lord," "He was a worshipper of the Lord," "He had gone to Jerusalem to worship"). Significantly, it does not name a leader or a particular style of worship. In the two NT passages where singing is talked about--Eph. 5:19 and Col 3:16--it distinctly talks about "speak[ing] to one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs" and "as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom and as you sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs with gratitude in your hearts to God." So the context of the question is one in which I am asking "Is having a worship leader a 'Sacred Cow' in charisvengelicalism?" "Does the type of music we use emphasize certain theological ideas we think are true or is it more a product of sociological ideas?" "What should the word 'worship' be applied to?" And the things I've seen so far? (1) We usually use the word worship to refer to musical expressions of love for God. (2) If we didn't have someone leading us in song using a guitar, no one would spontaneously burst into a psalm, hymn, or spiritual song. (3) Music powerfully affects the mood or "feel" of a given gathering time. (4) The more bombastic music--meaning not just louder but also more performance oriented with lots of difficult sounds or movement--seems to draw attention to the performer of the music and the audience/performer duality...the "wows" are given more to the performer than to God. (5) The performer goes through some degree of internal struggle wondering if they performed their duty well--e.g. "Did I lead people into worship?" "Did I perform well?"--and often feels insecure about their performance, even the fact that they performed! These aren't intended to be value judgements as much as simply observations, though there is an element of critique here. Is it unique to the group--a sociological construct that could change from group to group, church to church, country to country? I suppose there's no way to know unless you actually test it. And since we're talking about an implicit observation anyway, someone might say "This is the general milleu of the group" and I might say "This is the problem with having a performance-oriented model and leader." In an instance where a person who would call themselves a worship leader might say "That may be true for others but not for me," I would simply point out that the Bible stresses the responsibilty of any leader. If the point of a worship leader is to bring one to God (something to be debated I'm sure) through music and the leader simply brings one into a feeling of awe about the skills or personality of the worship leader, then there's a problem. In any case, leadership isn't to be entered into lightly. And as "worship leader" isn't in any of the lists of spiritual gifts, fruits, roles, etc. indicated in the NT, I would say the character of the person leading is much more imporant than their skill as a leader. The burden of the "cult of personality" is fully on the shoulders of the congregation/group. It is also fully on the shoulders of the individual leading. What would I suggest instead? Am I saying that everything should go back to Gregorian Chant where there is no accompaniment and everyone sings the same note so that an individuals musical performance would be indistinguishable from anyone else's--so that no one would receive glory other than God? No. I mean, that's not even practical, so it's not worth talking about. I guess as long as the Willow Creek megachurch model is held out as the ideal for any charisvengelical church, there will have to be amazing preachers and worship leaders and the cult of personality will be mixed with very real and good growth and development, worship and praise to God. Hopefully as the church moves back into a focus on smaller gatherings, discipleship, and the overall lifestyle of a Christian versus a weekly meeting centered on what goes on on stage--hopefully as the meeting itself becomes more participatory--non-experts will be involved in leadership at all levels: teaching/preaching, evangelism, playing music, singing, service, and pulling out the gifts of others. Hopefully we can move into a time where people are able to recognize the talents of individuals as the gifts of a good Giver and not gods in and of themselves. But then, that's the struggle of the whole human condition, isn't it?