How many times have I said those words followed by some great goal that I have yet to accomplish? Too many. I’m still working on my New Year’s Resolution from two years ago: to lose weight (unfortunately the number on the scale has been moving in the wrong direction over the last few years). But this new year involves much more than what I have yet to accomplish, it is about the many new things that God will be doing among His people. I forget about that perspective too often.
2009 is a year of uncertainty. Many evangelicals seem to be extremely worried about President-elect Obama and the morally erosive “change” he promises to bring. Others are worrying about the state of the economy and if we are on the verge of another Great Depression. Still more are troubled at all of the wars and recent natural disasters, wondering if perhaps the end of the world is at hand. All of these are valid and important concerns, yet the real question is how the Church will respond to all of this. This is important because how the Church responds will determine how it witnesses Christ to a new age.
We really have entered into a new age. No, I’m not talking astrologically, such as Horus or Aquarius. I’m talking about the death of the modern era. Postmodernism really is the new age in which we live. The Church has done a great job pointing out its dangers, such as its corrosive effect on the notion of absolute truth and it’s existentialist thrust that asks us to accept cognitive dissonance as the norm in religion, politics, and in our relationships. But it has done very little to address it other than to point out its faults. The game is up — postmodernism has won this generation and all subsequent ones (until the next age is ushered in, probably in a century or so).
The real question is, will the church continue battling the philosophical platform of postmodernism, or will the Church embrace its adherents? Maybe it can do both. The bottom line is, the Emerging Church has taught us a valuable lesson about reaching the postmodern generation. The Church can continue to critique its early mistakes, or it can learn from its experiences and growing success.
Recently I ran across the website of a church that has figured this out and has decided to embrace the postmodern generation. The reason this website struck me as so profound was because of the way they are doing it, and because of the denomination to which they belong. It’s not a new church plant with a fancy title like “Remnant” or “Scum of the Earth,” nor is it being run by a group of 20-somethings. This church has found a way to reach three generations: the traditional modernists, the Baby Boomers who embraced the seeker-sensitive “Jesus Movement” of the 60′s and 70′s, and the postmodern generation. Of course a person’s age has nothing to do with which generation they identify with, I know folks in their 20′s who belong in the traditional crowd and folks in their 60′s who belong in the postmodern category. Check out this church’s worship schedule before I tell you who it is:
As I’m sure you’ve mostly deduced from the bottom of the image, this is an LCMS Lutheran church located in Carrollton, Texas. Wow. Now I must admit my bias towards the LCMS at this point and rescind it. The LCMS (Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod) is well known for its hard-line patriarchy and ultra-traditional and liturgical adherence. Yet this Lutheran church has found a way to reach all of these generations harmoniously, as is beautifully expressed in the top portion of the image: “three different styles all worshiping the one true God.” What else stood out at me was the title and words they used to describe each “style” of worship:
- Classic: traditional hymns, organ, choir, liturgy
- Praise: contemporary, band, video screens, high energy
- Epic: experiential, participatory, image driven, community
These were carefully chosen words. At surface level, they may appear to simply describe each style. But these words say much more, particularly in the postmodern “Epic” worship style. These words are values. Experiential, participatory, image driven, community. All of these words are value statements that ripple through the soul of my generation. After reading those four values, I want to attend that service. If Chicago wasn’t so far from Texas, I would.
Kudos to Prince of Peace Lutheran Church and Pastor Luke Biggs for becoming part of the solution, rather than simply critiquing the problem.
“This is what the LORD says— he who made a way through the sea, a path through the mighty waters, “Forget the former things; do not dwell on the past. See, I am doing a new thing! Now it springs up; do you not perceive it? I am making a way in the desert and streams in the wasteland.”
– Isaiah 43:16, 18-19
God bless you in 2009!
Related posts:
{ 13 comments… read them below or add one }
Hey Dan, Been a little bit since I’ve commented here, but felt like I should chime in….
Okay, my main question here: Has this church really been part of the solution? Buying into this whole idea that people live in these segmented categories, and can’t worship together, because some are “modern” and some are “postmodern”?
I’d have to admit, that if I were forced to attend one of the three services, I’d probably go with number three. Then again, maybe not, but I think because the reason being that at this point, all of them are missing the point. You made the point that they all represent more than differences in style, but I don’t know about that. I’ve been to many events that billed themselves as being more “experiential” and “participatory”, than in the end were really not. A truly “participatory” meeting, to me, is one that has no semblance of a “service” at all. Maybe the Pastor might open it up for “questions” at some point, and try and make things more ‘interactive’, but still, you are nowhere close to a scenario where the Spirit himself is allowed to guide the conversation, to craft the message, to set the tone. In the end, all three of these services are just that, services. Their main purpose is to try and provide some type of styled experience that will appeal to the individual’s tastes.
The thing is, the gospel, as Jesus teaches it, does not stop and ponder the intricacies of whether a person is “modern” or “postmodern”, (or in the dark ages!…), but simply slides right on past all that, and goes straight for the heart. According the gospel of the Kingdom, we ALL have the same need (a restored relationship with God), and we all only have one means of meeting that need (Christ). Sure, maybe I might like one kind of music, while someone else prefers another. So what. In the end, it’s not that important. Rather than dividing people up into different meetings that seek to cater to our surface leanings, I am more interested in meetings that have no advertised style, that don’t have a set agenda, where any and every style could be welcomed and encouraged. More importantly, people could learn to look past those outer things, and focus on what we all are supposed to have in common, that is, new life, through Jesus Christ….
Dan,
Thank you for the kudos going out to Prince of Peace, Carrollton, TX. I personally know the pastor having served in ministry with him prior to his move to Texas. I am also a life long Lutheran and am fully aware of the perception the LCMS has regarding traditionalism & liturgical formality.
I assure you, you got this right by stating that Prince of Peace has “figured it out” by developing ways to reach the post-modern generation.”What you see is what you get” regarding the web-site.It is a factual representation not only of worship but of an entire ministry devoted to reaching “generations” living in today’s “post-modern” world… yes, through different worship styles but primarily by leading people into a healthy love relationship with Jesus Christ.
In my experience, effective leadership is key. Prince of Peace has such leadership, acknowledging that Jesus is the ultimate leader. First and foremost, Pastor Luke Biggs, is a servant of God devoted to presenting the whole, living Gospel of Jesus Christ. He devotes his personal ministry to understanding people under the umbrella of God’s forgiveness, grace and mercy. He also devotes himself to teaching and reaching people. Through “mentorship” ministry, he trains others to be Biblically based leaders so we can share the love of Christ out in our lost world.
Succinctly, what I have learned from his leadership over the years is this: We ALL live in the post-modern society and as people in relationship with Jesus Christ it is imperative that we understand the dynamics of this culture in which we ALL live and each use our unique God-given gifts and talents to love people as Christ first loved us and reach those not in relationship with Him.
A variety of worship styles may be appealing to any “age” person. We, as the church, can best serve the cultural dynamics of post-modernism by creatively thinking outside the church box to reach and serve others.
I pray one day you are able to venture to the Dallas area and visit Prince of Peace. In doing so, I hope you not only experience worship but are able to sit down and have a heart to heart conversation with this pastor.
God bless you!
Hey Daniel, it’s all good — it’s been a long time since I’ve posted
I see what you’re saying in regards to catering to people’s tastes, that can be dangerous. But I also need to commend this pastor for reaching out in ways most institutional church’s have yet to even acknowledge. I know that this pastor is well grounded in the Gospel and truth of Christ, sure he has tradition-trappings, but I believe that God honors his attempts to reach out to the postmodern generation with the compelling truth of the Gospel in a manner that flies in the face of what most evangelicals are doing. I agree that the Gospel doesn’t depend upon our surface-learning’s, and we do need to go straight to people’s hearts, this is merely a revised medium to help touch people’s hearts. The house church movement is one way to do this and appeals to many, but that doesn’t invalidate all institutional ministry. I agree much of it in America is ineffective and irrelevant, but God has promised that His Word will not return to Him void, and He is pleased to work wherever His Word is faithfully proclaimed, whether ideal or not. I think it is great what this church is doing with its Epic ministry, because whether we like it or not, postmodernism is a reality. Not that we cater the message itself, but catering the platform is exactly what Paul did when he became all things to all people, he even used Greek mythological idols to preach the Gospel to philosophers in the Areopagus!
Hello Carla! Thanks for stopping by! I also sat under Pastor Biggs ministry at Messiah in Lincoln, NE for a short period of time — he’s a great guy. I’m glad to see an LCMS church figuring this out, and in a timely and trendsetting fashion — very atypical for this denomination! Well done.
Is “postmodernism” a reality though…? (I think I’ve still yet to be convinced…) And if it is, and it is something that really alters the way people think, and therefore are able to understand the gospel, how does one of those particular services you highlighted communicate the gospel in a way that would be more easily understood by a “postmodern person” than another? Just wondering, cuz at this point, I don’t see anything that suggests a difference in the way the message is communicated, only in the style of things like music, or liturgy…
And as to Paul and the Aeropagus (one of the favorite examples of those proposing the cater-your-platform approach…), yes, he did use the example of the idols as a starting point, but, from there, it was the exact same gospel message he preached everywhere else. In fact, if Paul was so good at catering his message to the philosophical minds around him, why did most of them respond by saying “what is this babbler talking about”, or “he seems to be advocating foreign gods…”, only a few were interested in hearing more, most thought he was some crazy dude… Anyways… Daniel
Hey Daniel, I think I didn’t express that clearly. Absolutely the message should not change — but the style used to present it is fairly irrelevant so long as it does not detract from the message nor change it in any way. The Gospel is still offensive and foolish — no matter the context in which it is delivered. I absolutely agree with you that the message itself should not change, nor does it. The only thing changing here is the style, exactly as you said, things like music, liturgy, etc. I agree what you say about using the idols as a starting point, that’s what this service is, a way to get people 18-35 in the door who likely would never set foot in any normal church setting. From there, the pure Gospel is being presented — the message itself has not been altered.
Perhaps I’ll write a post soon with my thoughts on postmodernism — what it is, how it came to be, if it is the prevailing thought in the world today (it is more or less ‘emerging’, not totally dominant yet), etc. That might be helpful to define some of the terms I use a lot in my posts, and to show how I am using them.
I think my issue has something to do with that I see a distinction between simply having a good starting point for a discussion with someone (like, say, knowing that the person you’re speaking with is a atheist, for example), and trying to “get people in the door” so that you can then give them the gospel message. To me, the latter is more akin to marketing, than contextualization, but anyway…
Looking forward to reading any upcoming posts that would explain your thoughts on postmodernism….
There is no doubt that those holding to a post modern mind set need what God sent His Son to do; gain for all mankind as sinners the forgiveness we need so we will no perish but have eternal life. To do so God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law that He might redeem us. It is that while we where yet sinners, Christ died for us. All of this is the reality of the shadow during the Old Testament times. Yet, all that is said above, all quotes from the New Testament, do reflect one very important fact that Prince of Peace gets wrong when they say worship is something you give to God. Instead, in the Old testament God gave “worship”, if you will. Did He not tell Moses exactly what the Tabernacle was to be made of and contain? Did He not tell them exactly what to offer as sacrifices? Was not any departure from this unacceptable to God? Yes.
It is really no different in the New Testament, except Jesus is the Tabernacle and Jesus is the Sacrifice, the reality of the shadow. But, the “direction”, if you will, has not changed. And, in the Lutheran Church we are supposed to know this, for we do not “give” to God Holy Baptism. Instead, God comes to the one being baptized in His word connected to the water, causing what Paul speaks of in Romans 6. We do not “give” to God the Holy Supper. Instead, Jesus, in a mysterious way, “gives” to us His true body and blood “in, with, and under” the bread and wine, feeding us with forgiveness, life, and salvation. In other words, Lutheran pastors are supposed to know what we often call “worship” is really, in the old German, “Gottensdeist” (think it is spelled correctly), or “God’s service to us”, and therefore a “Divine Service” of God coming to us in Word and Sacrament. When we reverse this and make it “us giving to God”, then it is all backwards, and is beginning to border on nothing more that what pagan religions do: Attempt to offer “god” something to make him/her/it happy with us.
Instead, those of every generation need to hear over and over that God loved us and sent His Son to be the “covering up of the guilt of our sin” before God, that in Holy Baptism God robes them in the righteousness of Christ, and they stand before God a “saint”, as Paul calls the Christians in various churches, that, as Ephesians 2 says, by grace we are saved through faith, and that is NOT OF OURSELVES, but is a “GIFT” of God, not by WORKS, so no one can boast.
I am saddened that a man trained in a Missouri Synod seminary who should have been taught this truth has abandoned it. His words on the website of his church shows he has. Equally saddening is those we elect to be responsible to correct such false thinking are apparently ignoring it.
Hey Doug. I think a big difference here though is that God did not prescribe any of the forms of worship we use today outside of His Word and Sacraments. The rest of it, whether it be liturgy, hymns, etc. are man-made traditions — God did not prescribe them any more than He prescribed other forms of worship. Not to mention, Christ alone is what we cling to — not the style of worship. To say we need Christ plus any specific form of worship (or Christ plus anything) is to commit the dangerous error of the Judaizers, which is why Paul wrote the book of Galatians — to combat this heresy. The Judaizers asked believers to adhere to Jewish customs such as circumcision and other traditions, just as many churches today try to prescribe various traditions as being necessary to the Gospel’s faithful proclamation. It’s just not needed. It doesn’t necessarily do harm, but people need to wake up and realize that no one style of worship is the best or whatnot. God made different kinds of people who respond to different things, stylistic differences cater to this diversity which God created.
Worship has a lot more to do with how I live my life on Monday than it does with what I say or do on Sunday. Sunday morning is merely a microcosm of my life of worship, wherein I receive Christ’s gifts and respond to Him. In a way I both give and receive, because worship contains two aspects: sacramental and sacrificial. The sacramental aspects of worship are entirely God’s work, the sacrificial aspects are where I respond to God and offer Him my praise, prayer, etc. Certainly He doesn’t need it, but as my loving heavenly Father, He is pleased to receive it. So in reality, I do give to God in worship, but not nearly as much as He gives me. But I wouldn’t mince words over Prince of Peace’s statement that worship is something we give to God. In this context worship is merely my praise and adoration, not the contents or events of the service itself, regardless of style.
It’s great that you have your tradition, but don’t bind others in it — that’s when it becomes legalistic and stubbornly clinging to vain traditions which were made by men and not by God.
Thanks for your comment, Dan.
Actually you assign to me saying things I did not say when you said “To say we need Christ plus any specific form of worship (or Christ plus anything) is to commit the dangerous error of the Judaizers”. Did I say this? No, I did not. I commented that this pastor has reversed what “worship” really is. God comes to us in Word and Sacrament, and this is missing in that pastors “worship is what we give to God.” Certainly we sing and we speak, but if what we do is not filled with all that is in agreement with what God has given us – Word and Sacrament – then it becomes, as I said, something not much different that what pagans do – try to “ascend to God and bring Him down”.
I basically agree with what you say with “Worship has a lot more to do with how I live my life on Monday than it does with what I say or do on Sunday. Sunday morning is merely a microcosm of my life of worship, wherein I receive Christ’s gifts and respond to Him. In a way I both give and receive, because worship contains two aspects: sacramental and sacrificial.”
Yes, I agree what we do every day is our “spiritual worship.” But, Sunday morning is more than merely a microcosm of that. Instead, it is where God “fuels” us, if you will, with the “bread of life” in a “Divine Service” (gottensdeist) generally held on Sundays.
Yes, I agree no one can demand all have one certain Divine Service,” Yet, there are things that should be in them. For instance The Invocation (In the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit) reminds us God came to us in Holy Baptism and made us His own instead of what many think of baptism, that it is where I show God I am ready to now obey Him. The early writers of the “man made liturgies” recognized how God comes to us in His word, so they made almost all the elements of the Liturgy quotations from Scripture; God coming to us, for it is the “sword of the (Holy) Spirit.” To have as much of this “sword” in a liturgy is good. The Sermon is to be a proclaiming of what the Word of God (inspired, or “breathed out” by God) means and its application to our life, for “we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works which God prepared beforehand for us to walk in.” The Supper is, again, God coming to us to feed us and not just us “remembering”. the Benediction, especially the Aaronic one, we have to remember, is qualified by God telling Moses “this is how I WILL PUT MY NAME ON MY PEOPLE.” Notice the direction is from God to us.
So also, then, the hymnody, the everything, does need to reflect finally this same direction. For instance, at the beginning of last Sunday’s Adult bible study we sang a hymn from the “consecration” section of one of our two hymnals, “consecration” having much to do with how my life will be a “worship” of him, but notice the very first words: “Savior thy dying love thou GAVEST me,” and then is said “Nor should I aught withhold, Dear Lord from thee.” Here the direction is kept right.
You close by saying “It’s great that you have your tradition, but don’t bind others in it — that’s when it becomes legalistic and stubbornly clinging to vain traditions which were made by men and not by God.” I didn’t tell anyone that they should stubbornly cling to my “tradition” or to any one certain Divine Service. We use 3 different ones every month along with a Matins service, and generally throughout the year use 6 or 7 different services, but all contain the basic elements of what makes up a proper Divine Service.
Yes, I did say, and will continue to say, for it is Scriptural, what takes place on Sunday morning, or on any day that we gather in this way, what takes place is God giving to us, and is not what this pastor said, what we give God. Notice, Dan, he did not even say what you say about Sunday worship. He says nothing about God giving to us.
Again, thanks for your comments.
This is Dan’s wife here (Tiffany)…I am jumping into this great conversation a little late (I usually never make it to reading anything because blogs are on the computer!!) hahaha
I didn’t grow up in a Lutheran church or any specific denomination for that matter. I was raised knowing that Jesus Christ died for my sins. I didn’t “understand” a lot about wording, and even upon meeting Dan, I was a new Christian…I didn’t realize all that Christ had freed me from, and that was evident in the worldly culture in which I lived prior to Christ transforming me. I was a professing Christian (unattached to denomination), and I was eager to learn more and more. Jesus met me right where I was, completely entrenched in sin.
Upon coming to knowledge of Christ, I was plugged in to a mega church. I have to be honest that I don’t know that I would have ever willingly come to a “house church” to learn more about the Lord. I went to this mega church because I knew I needed something more and the way they promoted (yes, I used the word promoted) the gospel was appealing to me in my worldly ways…and guess what??? The Holy Spirit used this place and the people there to speak into my life. Christ used these people to teach me more about HIM. Of course, over the period of about a year, the Holy Spirit prompted me to move on in search of a deeper Scriptural truth (Biblically-based, of course)…
I ceased going to that church, but God used that setting to draw me closer to him. God draws people through all avenues, whether it is house churches, mega churches, mission fields, or what we would consider dead churches.
On one other note, I must say that it is great to have theological discussions about wording and nit-picking the Word to make sure that it hasn’t been taken out of context or translated in error. However, I am encouraging each person that reads this not to mince words and argue over silly things in regards to debating…when those that haven’t come to the same understanding and “deep” revelation that we have come to in regards to some biblical topics, it actually hinders the gospel message when we feud over wording…it is silly—possibly what the scripture would refer to as foolish. Of course, this blogosphere is the perfect medium to have these types of disputes, but I encourage everyone not live their lives this way, always pointing the finger, because all of us are sinners and we each look foolish in our knowledge in comparison to God. So instead of finger-pointing, perhaps we should encourage and in some cases realize that God uses ALL situations, and that NO situation (regardless of how we see things) is a perfect setting for God, because we are ALL conceived in sin. Whether a pastor focused on “giving worship to God” or whatever, isn’t the point. To quote Doug:
“I am saddened that a man trained in a Missouri Synod seminary who should have been taught this truth has abandoned it. His words on the website of his church shows he has. Equally saddening is those we elect to be responsible to correct such false thinking are apparently ignoring it.”
First of all: Shame on you!
My question to you: Have you ever met this pastor? I haven’t. How can either one of us sit here and question his training in seminary because of a silly phrase that you may find to be full of error? I will admit to you (I know that this is hard to believe) that I have made a mistake today–I don’t know what it is specifically, but I know that I made one–and I will make one by the time I go to sleep tonight. I don’t know that I can say that a Pastor has “abandoned” the “truth” of God’s word because of a small phrase about “giving worship to God.” I guess, before I make that judgment call about someone’s life, I need to ask myself, what am I actively doing today, and every day to spread the Word of God and be relevant in reaching the masses? I am not doing anything remotely close to what this guy is doing…and I don’t even know him.
Sorry about the misunderstanding Doug. I (incorrectly) thought that when you said: “in the Old testament God gave “worship”, if you will. Did He not tell Moses exactly what the Tabernacle was to be made of and contain? Did He not tell them exactly what to offer as sacrifices? Was not any departure from this unacceptable to God? Yes.” I thought you were implying that the style of worship Lutherans do today comes from God directly and thus it is wrong to depart from it. When re-reading it, I noticed the next line says: “But, the ‘direction’, if you will, has not changed.” I apologize for my misunderstanding.
In regards to your statement: “We use 3 different ones every month along with a Matins service, and generally throughout the year use 6 or 7 different services, but all contain the basic elements of what makes up a proper Divine Service.” Despite these different formats, I believe they all constitute one style, i.e. traditional. Not that anything is wrong with that style — but it is not suited for all people. It is very hard for my wife and I to sit through a traditional Lutheran service, because we don’t understand much of what is happening and it seems unnecessarily tortuous to us. It actually detracts from the service for us — because we are foreign to it in many respects. Last time I went to a very traditional service, my wife and I ended up leaving in frustration because we couldn’t follow along. In addition to using three different books/hymnals, they had different types of page numbers in them (little in front, big in back or something) and we kept getting lost. Plus they had a rubric in the sidebar that explained when to stand, kneel, sit, turn around and face the back, etc. VERY CONFUSING. The pastor changed into a cape for the communion, very weird. That makes me not want to attend the church, and I can’t focus on the content because too much is going on for me. In that case, I am not focusing on Christ giving me His gifts, I am becoming unnecessarily confused by the style.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not too happy with many praise celebration services either. Often they are very “fluffy” and focused more on making me feel good rather than simply sharing Law and Gospel with me along with Christ’s gifts. They also tend to encourage a passive laity and make a sharp clergy/laity distinction (see my post “I have a secular job” at http://390days.com/2008/10/secular-job for more on that).
I think something like the “Epic” service at Prince of Peace would be much more comfortable and accessible for me. It is experiential (nothing wrong with experiencing God, so long as my faith doesn’t rely on my feelings, but solely on Christ), community-oriented (something to which the church needs to return), participatory (a big plus, it enables the priesthood of believers to take part in worship), and image driven (a huge plus for the post-literate culture of today).
So when it all boils down to it, the style is irrelevant and secondary to Christ and His gifts in the context of the service, so long as the style does not detract from these. And for me, the traditional style often detracts from it. For you, it may enhance the experience. And that is great. Different strokes for different folks. . . . And all one body!
Thanks for the thought-provoking comments and Christocentrism Doug. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on many more posts and issues. It is good to have a variety of perspectives and inputs. God bless!
Hey, Tiffany — I love you! In Doug’s defense, I don’t believe Doug was trying to demean Pastor Biggs as a person, he was simply making the point that he believes he has walked away from an LCMS perspective on worship, which is only one aspect of his pastoral ministry. I don’t believe Doug meant to discredit the man himself simply because of this one disagreement.
I myself fully support Pastor Biggs’ approach to different styles of worship, and I believe this discussion has more to do with semantics than with genuine doctrinal perils. But I believe we’ve established that.
Everyone is certainly entitled to his or her opinion.