Mark and Bev Tindall <m_b_tindall@no-spam> wrote:
> "Rowland Croucher"
>
> > In a sentence, I heard Chris say the Church needs to be far more
> > creative
>
>
> When the churches have kicked out the truly creative paeople and are now
> addicted to Jesus Jingles, God Ads and other assorted Christian Kitsch what
> hope is there to be creative???
Too true.
Fine arts is not wanted or respected, let alone given a voice within the
church I'm currently at.
Yet that remains the whole dilemma. Without fine arts, you simply have
canned "pop" jingles that conform to a certain style (currently
folk/rock) which is then labelled as "worship music". Anything that
deviates from that design is then rejected by the powers that be as
being able to lead people in worship of Christ. (And this is an old
problem: it happened before with whether rock music was evil or not in
the early 1900s)
Develop fine artistry, and then you'll have a cultural base to speak to
people across the suburb, city, nation or world. Not this "We gotta be
like Hillsong" crap that's currently suckering in a lot of people. It
suckers them in the following ways:
1) Hillsong are "professional" so others have to do the same. The grace
of God is at risk of being replaced with a corporate work ethic as the
prime focus for people serving in ministry within churches.
2) Hillsong are big and powerful in terms of numbers, productions, CDs,
etc.., so they have a lot of clout in influencing other churches, even
of other denominations. Therefore, other churches may institutionalise
Hillsong's behaviours, work model, structures, etc.. within their own
congregations in an effort to replicate their "success".
Bells and whistles attract people, but at the end of the day, if you're
delivering bells and whistles, you're not delivering the Gospel.
> > What do you make of George Barna's (?) idea that churches
> > become large _not_ primarily because of their evangelistic
> > effectiveness or spirituality, but through more effective marketing?
>
>
> One only has to look at the large pentecostal churches to realise that is
> true.
Seconded.
Effective marketing means the "service" has to be "professional",
anonymous (so not much community), and allow those in the pews to remain
comfortable otherwise they wouldn't come..
All the mega-churches (Pentecostal and others) are doing is providing a
place for people to catch up in comfortable, non-threatening
surroundings. (And yes, I have been within such megachurches, so I speak
from experience).
> > * To what extent does the health and vigour of a church depends on
> > the enthusiasm-contagion from its leadership?
>
> A poor leader can stifle everything.
> No, we'd rather have nothing to do with church ever again. The statement
> wrongly assumes that the victim needs healing when in fact it is the
> perpetrators that are still existing comfortably within the church (and
> condoned by the church) that need attention.
Agreed.
The rot is in the churches. Getting them to admit fault however is a
long and painful process.
lawrence
Mark and Bev Tindall <m_b_tindall@no-spam> wrote:
<snip>
> It will only be a matter of time before the churches will instigate the
> "ministry of customer service, marketting and human resource management".
Or, as they've done at my church, get the laypeople to sign a Service
Level Agreement.. (and, as far as I can tell, if you don't sign, you're
not welcome to serve in ministry).
When churches feel the need to instigate the same measures as Telstra,
then you know something's not exactly right.. (considering Telstra's
level of service)
lawrence
Mark and Bev Tindall <m_b_tindall@no-spam> wrote:
> "Lawrence Meckan" wrote:
>
> > Or, as they've done at my church, get the laypeople to sign a Service
> > Level Agreement.. (and, as far as I can tell, if you don't sign, you're
> > not welcome to serve in ministry).
>
>
> I like the fact that I had to sign a lifetime secrecy agreement with a
> Christian school organisation so I could get paid the money the bastards
> owed me.
That bites.
> Apparently they don't want people like me telling the media about
> their sins and illegalities hidden under their respectable guise as
> "Christian leaders". If the people only knew what really went on behind
> closed doors!
Of course. It would tarnish their professional image and whatnot if the
truth were to be known. Since the megachurches are pitching "image" and
corporate infrastructure as the be-all-and-end-all for how they deliver
their services, performance is now the lowest common denominator for
whether or not volunteers, laypeople and those outside the recognised
"leadership" channels are valued.
Welcome to middle-class hell. The pews are comfortable, the services are
slick and can probably beat most live gigs at Telstra Dome in terms of
lighting and sound, but the Gospel message is secondary. It's all about
whether you "meet God" in the music these days while feeling comfortable
in your surroundings. (Which is itself heresy: You can meet God
anywhere, whether you're comfortable or not - the whole omnipresence
deal).
lawrence
Mark and Bev Tindall <m_b_tindall@no-spam> wrote:
> "Lawrence Meckan" wrote:
> > However, I have seen whole families ostracised and shunned because they
> > sought to rectify wrongs by leaders of the churches they have been at. I
> > have seen outright hostility and politicking going on against those who
> > seek to rectify the wrongs within the church.
>
> It is not lightly that I use the imagery "crucifixion" and "inquisition" to
> describe such acts. It is pure evil done in the name of God. You don't
> have to look to Salem in the past for "witch hunts" ... they happen in your
> local church ... now ... and are committed in the name of Jesus.
Most of it seems to be related to the way the churches manage and keep
account for their authority. And the old problem of pride - the church
leadership end up thinking their image is more important than their
integrity. (And where do they learn that "image" is important ? Media,
in the form of the culture of the day, which is displayed in Hillsong
and other megachurches)
> > Those hurt by the church DO need a
> > voice. Justice and mercy have to go hand in hand.
>
> Where is that voice???
It's there. I'm one of many people trying to voice such concerns at my
own church. I would hazard a guess to say that for every church, there
is at least someone willing to stand up and be counted in regards to
making churches safer.
> Who speaks for the oppressed within the church???
Those within the church who recognise the oppression and are willing to
do something about it.
lawrence
Mark and Bev Tindall <m_b_tindall@no-spam> wrote:
> "Bradley" wrote:
>
>
> > As a younger-ish person here I'd like to ask...
>
> More youngish people are needed in this discussion! Welcome.
> > The Church is
> > struggling to be relevant to the upcoming generations who are brought > up
> amassing hours in front of TV, computers and the like. How does > the Church
> deal with the current culture it finds itself in?
>
>
> I think a start is realising that the techniques and methods of yesterday
> may not be relevant for today.
Agreed. Culture shifts and ebbs. The Gospel message may not change, but
the form it takes has to accommodate cross-cultural and intracultural
changes.
> Example: Few people learn from what they hear in a sermon ... especially
> when questions can't be asked ... or answered if asked. I learn through
> visual means ... I can read the sermon faster that the preaching can speak
> it ... and I retain more info by this method. Others learn from doing and
> not hearing or seeing. Others learn through a mixture. Individualised
> instructuion is required.
I agree with you on this, Mark. It seems people only pick up 10% at best
of what they hear in a sermon/ lecture environment.
Would a cell group help with this individualised instruction ?
> Secondly, the church has to understand the language and thought forms of the
> day. We are living in a post-Christian age that uses postmodernism
> extensively. How many Christians understand what that means to Christian
> communication with the world?
Some do.
> Thirdly, the church must embrace the arts as good within themselves and not
> use art as a propaganda tool. Good art speaks volumes. Bad art is easily
> forgotten. In the 60s rock music was of the devil. Now it is acceptable in
> CCM. But what of rap music (and other more contemporary styles) in the
> church? By the time they ae included the kids of today will be middle aged.
Art should never be used as a propaganda tool, imho. It should at best
reflect the nature and creation of the artist, in their relationship
with Jesus Christ, no matter where they are at in their journey. As soon
as it becomes about propaganda, it misses the point of what fine art
seeks to do.
> Fourthly, the church must openly and enthusiastically embrace intellectual
> thought and discussion. The mind is not evil. It is not evil to ask
> questions. All truth is God's truth. We are all both learners and
> teachers.
Agreed.
> > Personally I'm all for getting back to more quiet times in Church..
> > rather than the latest catchy "tunes" (which I enjoy most of the time).
>
> There is definitely a place for quiet contemplation and meditaion in
> silence. Are the "stadiums" and "concert halls" of contemprary Christian
> architecture suited? Think of the transcendence experienced in the great
> cathedrals of yesterday ... the high ceilings and the stained glass windows.
Most, I'd say, aren't suited.
lawrence
Bradley <bradley@no-spam> wrote:
> As a younger-ish person here I'd like to ask...
>
> These "mega churches" are refeclecting the culture they are existing in.
> (BTW I totally agree what has been said about them!:). The Church is
> struggling to be relevant to the upcoming generations who are brought up
> amassing hours in front of TV, computers and the like. How does the Church
> deal with the current culture it finds itself in?
It keeps the current culture going, tries to replicate the "success" of
the bigger congregations by implementing the same management and
organisational structures that run the megachurches, and then tries to
spawn off cultural flavours (such as the cafe church, the club-style
church, etc..)
For a good looking picture on where the rubber hits the road in a
positive way, try www.phuture.org.
> Personally I'm all for getting back to more quiet times in Church.. rather
> than the latest catchy "tunes" (which I enjoy most of the time). I'm also up
> for some worship/praise that more closely relates to life and God (ie. not
> all "happy clappy" but some reflecting and lamenting!).
The day a lament becomes common place within a Pentecostal or other
megachurch is the day the culture has changed to recognise the openness
and frankness of today's generation. (What do you think all those teen
angst Avril/Pink/Christina Aguleria songs are about? Being valued for
who you are, even in spite of pain..)
lawrence
Mark and Bev Tindall <m_b_tindall@no-spam> wrote:
> "Lawrence Meckan" wrote:
<snip>
> > The day a lament becomes common place within a Pentecostal or other
> > megachurch is the day the culture has changed to recognise the openness
> > and frankness of today's generation. (What do you think all those teen >
> angst Avril/Pink/Christina Aguleria songs are about? Being valued for
> > who you are, even in spite of pain..)
>
>
> Didn't the Psalmist only write Ren and Stimpy "happy happy joy joy" type
> songs? ;-) I think their "Happy Happy Joy Joy Song" would work perfectly
> well in most pente churches .... and no-one would ever suspect that it was
> written by "evil secular humanists"!!!!
That's also part of the problem. I've seen a lot of megachurches treat
the people in the pews like irrelevant subject matter - pew warmers
along for the ride of the church's vision. If this is essentially true
(I seriously hope it isn't), that most people in church don't care
enough about their faith and people around them to give a damn when
something goes astray, either in the way the church leadership carries
out its business, or in the way worship is defined and expressed.
There are currently 3 different definitions of worship at my church:
1) Worship as relating to God
2) Worship as a service
3) Worship as a "professional" expression done by the musos.
lawrence
Mark and Bev Tindall <m_b_tindall@no-spam> wrote:
> "Lawrence Meckan" wrote:
>
> > > > Reconciliation and/or resolution (including judgement)
> > > > has to take place between people, because at the end of the day, if
> > > > the institution shoves the issue under the carpet (to save face or
> > > > otherwise), you're still left with hurting people. And people matter.
> > >
> > > The church's reconciliation with those it has alienated would be a good
> > > start.
> >
> > So how do you get someone to agree with you when they feel they
> > have done no wrong? (An extreme example of how the church may
> > deny alienation of people, but anyway..)
>
> I think the methodologies used in both Aboriginal Reconciliation and
> reconciliation between victims of crimes and young offenders works well.
>
> I would recommend a mediated face to face confrontation with the
> perpetrators who have to listen to the hurt felt by the victim. The victim
> tells their story with emphasis on their feelings - not justifying their
> position or actions. Example: "As a result of your actions I felt .....What
> happened to me afterwards was ....Now I am feeling ............I forgive you
> but I cannot forget the hurt." The forgiveness of the victim is important
> and a step to the victim's recovery.
OK. What happens if the perp denies it ?
> The next step is a road map for the future. How will the perpetrator and
> victim work together in the future? Can a mutual agreement be reached that
> will satisfy both sides?
It depends on how the mediation goes for this to even be considered..
lawrence
Mark and Bev Tindall <m_b_tindall@no-spam> wrote:
> "Lawrence Meckan" wrote:
<snip>
> > Would a cell group help with this individualised instruction ?
>
>
> I think it is the perfect environment. The problem I have always
> encountered is in the authoritarian control by the church hierarchy. A
> group run along the lines of Paulo Friere's "Pedagogy of the Oppressed"
> would work best. If the community gathering were restricted to a communal
> meal (of real food ... not just a wafer and a thimble of grape juice) with
> true praise and worship ... the educational side could be easily met in the
> cell group. The minister becomes an educational resource rather than El
> Supremo Presidente. The minister also becomes the co-ordinator of this Love
> Feast (communal meal) to celebrate God.
Ah. Thanks for that insight, Mark.
This may explain why they're trying to remoniker the huge, anonymous
services where there is no real intimacy or fellowship (unless you do it
before or after the service) at my church as "celebrations".
They think that by changing the labels, the world changes.
Unfortunately, you also have to work at changing the focus, values and
perspective of everyone in those services, and that isn't happening.
(Nor will it happen).
Unfortunately, some people have now got the idea that because Sunday
services are so huge and all, the same "success" can be replicated in
the youth and young adults by implementing the same structures,
management, etc.
The price of this is the community itself, and I wouldn't put it past
anyone in my youth group that they know they're losing out at the
moment.
> > Art should never be used as a propaganda tool, imho. It should at best
> > reflect the nature and creation of the artist, in their relationship
> > with Jesus Christ, no matter where they are at in their journey. As soon
> > as it becomes about propaganda, it misses the point of what fine art
> > seeks to do.
>
> Exactly! CCM has missed the point completely. Every work of art created by
> an artist who is Christian is Christian art. The subject matter is
> irrelevent. This is why Bach's "Coffee Cantata" is just as 'spiritual' as
> his "Jesus Joy of Man's Desiring" ... and Rembrandt's "Danae" (a myth ...
> with a woman's bare breast shown .... which a Christian School I worked at
> said was "pornogrphic") is just as 'spiritual' as his depiction of himself
> at the foot of the cross in "The Raising of The Cross"... and why Tolkein's
> 'Lord of the Rings' is just as 'spiritual' as C S Lewis' "Chronicles of
> Narnia" (and much better written than Lewis's books!)
Agreed.
> > Most, I'd say, aren't suited.
>
> The community involvement in the building of Chartres Cathedral and its
> magnificent beauty are something that today's church has not striven for. I
> visited Bathurst Anglican Cathedral last week. The outside shell is a box.
> No beauty. Economic rationalism and bean counters have had more say in its
> construction than any decent artist. It pales in splendour compared to the
> War Memorial directly across the road from it. Functionality has taken the
> place of beauty and Christians are worse off as a result.
Which brings it all back to fine art, even in the design of a building.
And since fine art is now shunned as a ministry expression by the Church
leadership (generally), there is no fertile ground for it to grow.
I agree (and I affirm what Sean says in his post as well regarding art
stuff).
lawrence
Mark and Bev Tindall <m_b_tindall@no-spam> wrote:
> "Lawrence Meckan" wrote:
>
> > > > For a good looking picture on where the rubber hits the road in a
> > > > positive way, try www.phuture.org.
> > > I liked the article "Traits of Postmodern Worship"
> > > http://www.phuture.org/s01_Articles/article.asp?ArticleID=66
> >
> > I think this sums up both of our positions. It is this we are fighting
> > against when we recognise the cultural of the Church.
> >
> > "Plato has influenced the church. He believed that there was a sacred
> > and a secular, and that distinction still lives in the church today.
>
>
> Actually, that is the misrepresentation of Plato's "ideas" / "forms" by
> Aristotle that was later carried on into the church which idolised
> Aristotle. Plato said no such thing. (Sorry, Greek Philosophy was my major
> for my undergrad degree.)
OK. Always pays to have someone who knows Greek Philosophy handy :)
> > Whenever a 'secular' song is sung in church it is sometimes met with the
> > thought that we are compromising by allowing something 'worldly' into >
> the house of God. This dualism of thinking allows for the great divide
> > between the world and the church. It looks negatively on the Arts and >
> culture and tries to Christianise everything so as to make it holy.
> > Hence Hymns are holier than rock music. Naively forgetting that
> > Hymns in their time were considered evil as much of the music was
> > taken from the current bar tunes of the time."
>
> This is deja vu!!!! I just wrote that in my previous post before reading
> this one!!!!
Perhaps we're onto something here then... :-)
lawrence