The Changing Values of the Church # 3

The Value of Attendance, Part Three

My previous post identified some idols of Western culture that keep people from the assembly. But this isn't all that keeps folks away. Believe it or not, some assemblies are indeed boring. When you step across the threshold into some assemblies it's like you've stepped into a time machine back into the 1950s. Nothing has changed.

The songs are antiquated. The preaching may be an irrelevant tirade against denominationalism or change agents. It may be a rattling of many chain references (out-of-context) to defend whatever sacred cow the preacher has selected for this week. But nothing too helpful for life out in the trenches.

The seats are hard and the surroundings dull. The brown auditorium paneling has not been updated since the seventies. The cinder block classrooms are as inviting as the walls of the county jail. The children's classes assume that every child is wired with the same learning style. Crossword puzzles, worksheets, and memorization rule. Nothing too hands-on. 

There are no pictures, banners, or images--certainly no crosses. In some churches there is still no multi-media unless you count a microphone. Mothers wrestle their preschoolers, missing most of the sermon because the church refuses to do a children's program or to even have an attended nursery. Visitors are sometimes confronted by the dress code police.

And we expect the people of this generation to come out for that? Yet many churches refuse to change. The disinterested are simply written off as those who don't love the truth. Any who plead for change are simply accused of wanting to "entertain" or to compete with those churches down the street.

There is nothing wrong with church being relevant or even contemporary. We simply must speak the language of contemporary people if we want to reach them and keep them. And yes, you can dumb things down to the point that there is no substance left. And no, some people still won't come no matter what you do. But why intentionally drive people away? Perhaps more would value attendance if they felt a connection to real life and to the world they live in. Perhaps more would be interested if the church addressed their felt needs (sounds like what Jesus would do).

We are told that worship is all about God and not about us. It's our duty to be there without always asking, "What's in it for me?" That is true to some extent. There were mornings I've had to drag myself to even the most relevant churches. I just wasn't in the mood to be there, but it was the right thing to do. But when duty is consistently the only motivation, it's hard to stay motivated.

It's the responsibility of churches and their leaders to show the relevance of the gospel to everyday life. While worship is, in a sense, all about God, it is also to be transformative. God needs nothing from us, but we need to worship. We need the regular reminder of who should be at the center of our universe. Worship that speaks to who and where we are is indeed transformative.         

Comments

[Tim Archer]

What I've seen is that many Christians believe that the things you describe are exactly what went on in the first century. They suppose that Peter, Paul and others sang Stamps-Baxter hymns, sipped communion out of tiny plastic cups and listened to sermons consisting of three points, a poem and a prayer. And of course, all services began on the hour and ended on the hour.

Our spiritual forefathers adapted worship to their day; we have the responsibility to do the same.

Grace and peace,
Tim

[Jim Sexton]

I hope and pray that even handed and open minded men can see that the message and the delivery of that message are not the same thing. We cling to the message, the gospel, because it in fact doesn't change... but if we don't adapt and evolve our presentation and delivery, the message will fall on empty pews.

I like to use a multitude of translations in my study and presentations, because people need to understand what is being said. We balk at speaking in tongues, yet a quick read of the KJV by a novice will have the effect of me trying to teach without speaking his language.

It is not uncommon for me to attempt to take something we read from scriptures and try to say it again in words that people can understand in this century. "Let him him who has ears to hear, hear"... works great for me, but when I say these things to many of the un-churched here on the Cherokee reservation I get blank stares.

So I bring up visions of a childhood cartoon character (Foghorn Leghorn) who would say, "Pay, I say, pay attention son... I'm a talkin' to ya." They get that. It is exactly what Jesus was saying, but in a way that makes an impact with my audience.

We don't change the gospel, we change the method of outreach. Standing in front and reading a text that nobody understands, clinging to services that make us think more of a morgue than of a joyful, respectful, involved worship, and then making sure that nothing changes for the next 40-50 years is a losing proposition.

Not unlike burying our talents... rather than risking making the master angry, we will just stick our heads into the ground rather than even consider changing how we worship our Creator.

So, does anyone honestly believe that we worship in the same manner as the church did in the 1st century, or any century since then? So, why is the manner of worship of the late 19th and following century hold the magical formula that must not be tampered with?

God gave us a mission and we are wasting opportunities weekly when we don't make any effort to touch people where they are in a manner that they will understand.

Jimbo

[preacherman]

Wade,
Excellent post brother.

[Trey Morgan]

Wade,

Very powerful post brother ... Oh how I wish to get out this message.

[Donna]

Wade, wow! You say it all so well. My latest goal after watching squirming child after squirming child and mother after mother is to launch a children's church at our place. The place I visited regularly before going back had children's programs for both the worship service and the Sunday School. My son and his wife got so much more out of services when not dealing with a two year old.(me too for that matter)... so is that the way they did it in the first century? Probably not, but it was in their houses where kids could go play or whatever....

[Wade Tannehill]

Donna,

Thanks for both the encouragement and the inspiration. And as far as the children's church goes, good for you! I once attended a church that was careful to not call it children's "Worship," because, after all, women were leading. Ugggh.

[brian]

what?
first century churches started and ended on time??
that must have been miraculous intervention.

[Don]

hmmm?
As long as you "modern" "with it" boys realize that in 10 years your "interesting 90's worship" will be passe' to the 2020'ers.

I understand what you're saying and I agree.

I just found it interesting (my nice word) that some of those same people who commented on this post and wanted to modernize the building's trapping complain about spending money on the facility instead of sending that money to the homeless. :)

You know we can play word games with various decades but making snide remarks about "how they did it in the 50's, 6's or 70's" is no different than saying "they were wrong".

[Don]

tim-
"Our spiritual forefathers adapted worship to their day; we have the responsibility to do the same."

Now, where exactly is that historical reference found in "Bob's Big Book Of How ""they"" Did Thangs" :)

"spiritual"- I think I get that one
"forefathers"- Now that covers at least 1,000,000,000 years
"adapted"- from where to where? Would that be the 2nd century's modernization of the 1st century's archaic trappings or the 16th's desire to move out of the 4th?

Just Wondering......

[Wade Tannehill]

Don,

I'm not saying that the way any particular congregation did things in any particular decade was necessarily wrong. I'm saying that what may have been expedient for their day and culture may not always be expedient for ours. I'm saying we don't need to be afraid to rethink some of our methodologies in a changing world. We should be able to separate methodology from message and not defend what may be antiquated methodology as if it were the gospel.

And while, on the one hand, I know that the assembly is not primarily, or even secondarily, an evangelistic tool, I do always try to look at what we're doing through the eyes of a visitor. Are we alienating people? Are we unnecessarily offending people? (and not that the gospel is never by nature offensive). Are we connecting with where people live? Are we speaking their language and addressing their needs or just speaking our own inside language and dealing only with our insider issues? I don't believe in a seeker driven approach, but in a seeker sensitive approach.

In regard to the building, I do wonder sometimes if we should just completely de-institutionalize the church. Get rid of the buildings and (gasp) the paid located staff and how much more would we be able to do? Or are these institutional trappings actually one of the "methods" that have become necessary in our day and time? Just thinking out loud. But as long as we have the buildings, if they are dark, drab, and sterile, that is as depressing as living in a part of the country where the sky is gray most of the year and people have to buy special lamps to keep from being depressed.

Finally, I do realize that as I get older some of my own "contemporary" preferences will become outmoded and I'll be the fuddy duddy. My only concern is that we retain theological depth--which is one problem if we jettison all the old hymns of Watts, Wesley, and others. I don't think we should, but I think we should supplement with melodies that capture the emotions of today's generation.

The growing churches aren't necessarily the most contemporary. Not by any means. I think people go to churches whose members have made the efforts to build evangelistic relationships outside the church. People will go to a church for relationships and not for the building, the songs, or even the preaching. But if we want to spiritually form the folks we have, we need to speak their languages and address their issues. We need to build bridges to their world. That's really all I'm saying.

As for my family, we would go to church at any kind of building with any kind of singing, even if the preaching sounded like the reading of a commentary because we recognize our responsibility to be committed to the body of Christ. Not many would be that committed, but if we meet them where they are(not going so far as to dumb down the message)then maybe we can take them farther.

Just thinking.

[Jim Sexton]

Don,

I think that the comment that you made...

"You know we can play word games with various decades but making snide remarks about "how they did it in the 50's, 60's or 70's" is no different than saying "they were wrong".

... misinterprets what was stated. They weren't wrong then, and they aren't wrong now. What antiquated methodology does is hold on to things that no longer work. How things were done in the 70's was different from how it was done in the 30's and 40's. That doesn't make either way wrong, just outdated for this century and it's people.

If I was clinging to buggy whips and horse drawn carriages because "...that's the way we've always done it around here..." it would be fine... just outdated and far less effective, don't you agree?

The idea is to move into methods and deliveries that will be effective, not to change the message. Reaching the lost, that is the drive behind what I wish to do. Change of any kind that compromises the gospel has no appeal to me, but if I can change the way it is presented, so that people can understand and have their lives changed by that gospel, then I am all for moving on from the methods that no longer seem to work.

Jimbo

[Don]

Interesting.
Very interesting.

[preacherman]

I'm excited about your next post!

[laymond]

With all this keeping up to date preaching, why do we still preach Jesus was hung on the cross.? wouldn't the "chair or needle" clarify things. There is but one Gospel, and from where you deliver it should not matter to those who are truly intrested in hearing it. I'v heard a rock on the side of a mountain would work. (take up your electric chair and follow me)

[Matthew]

These are really interesting blog posts.

www.matthewsblog.waynesborochurchofchrist.org

[ben overby]

Wade,

You're invited to submit your favorite blog or blog article to be considered for the soon to be released book-----The Church of Christ is Blogging, (subtitle) The Best Blogs of 2007--Selected Articles and Essays.

Edited by Ben Overby and John Dobbs
Published by Fresh Grace Publishing, Rochester NY
Publish Date: January 1, 2008

So,get your suggestions in ASAP. I'll be researching hundreds of blogs and John and I will funnel the group down to between 30 and 50 blogs before I send the work to my printer.

Please send me the web link and the reason you enjoy the blog. The book will divide into a handful of blog themes such as some of the following: Seniors, Teens, Inspiration, Issues, Family, Doctrinal, Motivational, etc.

The book will be marketed to members of the churches of Christ. I hope to introduce traditional print readers to some of the talented writers we're blessed with in the world of electronic media by providing a wonderful sampling from each blog (with the blog author's permission of course). I'm only interested in well-written, thoughtful, blogs which are updated with some regularity (daily, weekly, monthly).

Deadline for your suggestions: November 30th 2007.
Send suggestions to benoverby@specialtywriting.com

Thanks for your help! Please forward this to your favorite church of Christ bloggers or post as a note on your blog.

Ben Overby
www.specialtywriting.com

[Wade Tannehill]

Laymond,

Last time I checked, Jesus' preaching was relevant to everyday life and the temptations we struggle with on a regular basis (i.e., the Sermon on the Mount). His illustrations were parables that the people to whom he preached in that day and culture could relate to. And the Bible was written in koine Greek, the common language of the common man.

As far as the attractiveness of the facility goes, I think those who would hear me say the problem with attendance patterns could be solved by a fresh coat of paint and new song books could not possibly have misunderstood me more. Some of the fastest growing churches have met in store fronts, living rooms, or inner city basements.

Sure, those who are interested will not care about "where" the gospel is preached. But I'm talking about how we'll attract and keep those who are not yet interested, but may become so if they have a culturally relevant experience. Not that anything should be dumbed down or watered down; and not that worship is primarily an evangelistic tool. But we are quick to say that we should become all things to all people when we're talking about the homeless or the alien. But what about the young professional who lives in a world of technology and efficiency?

[David D.]

Wade,
Your point about childrens worship, nursery,etc. are correct--we need to make it so that those with young children can engage in the worship. I say that even though we successfully and without wrestling with them raised our children in church 3rd row back. The times we had to take them out we could count on 2 hands at the most. [We used the nursery when they were nursing] But today's generation does not raise children the same way so we must not leave our facilites the same way.
It is my belief that a worship which is boring and lacks inspiration is being led by individuals who though members have left Jesus outside still knocking on the door of their heart. He has not be allowed in to sup with them.
We value relationships with people on earth but do not value relationship with our God and our Savior. Too many times it is not encouraged and we wonder why attendance lacks.

[Wade Tannehill]

David,

Good observations and I agree. I would add this observaton though, that "boring" in one person's opinion may not be "boring" to someone else. But I think we need to be senstive to this culture as much as possible without dumbing down the message. If we know that what we're doing isn't connecting we should not just say, "Oh, well, this generation must not love the truth." That is both lazy and selfish.

[Don]

Interesting.
Very interesting.

[preacherman]

Wade again, great post brother.
Keep me in your prayers I'm not doing good again.
I have walking pnumonia.

I was planning on going to my cousins in Autin for Thur thanksgiving then going to San Antonio to hear N.T. Wright Lectures for the weekend. He is going to speak 6 times over the weekend. You can see more on his website if you want to know more information. Pray that I feel better and good enough to get to go. I know it would be such a blessing to hear such a great man.

I'll talk to you later brother. I hope you have a great Thanksgiving!

[Wade Tannehill]

Preacherman,

If there is any way possible, go hear N.T. Wright. It is a great opportunity. I'll pray that you get to.

[josh from Gabbatha]

Have a great Thanksgiving!

[Don]

Interesting.
Very interesting.
{This is the only comment that seems to make it past the censors}

[Dwight Whitsett]

We talk about "going to church," spend tremendous effort on "worship services," in some building and how to attract people to them. We try to gather the right "staff," and apportion a "budget" effectively. These are concepts and emphases alien to the New Testament. Jesus never talked about these things. While there is no doubt about the importance of edifying assemblies, it has become for us the main event and the main concern. If we are truly going to be restorationists, I suggest we study what Jesus and the apostles said, did and emphasized and say, do and emphasize the same things. Is this too radical? dwhitsett.wordpress.com