It's a little unfair to judge this guy without reading his book. What think you of his point...that the Church has settled on a "print" mentality while society has moved on? That the Church lacks or has lost or is losing its connection because its still holding on to a method of connecting that doesn't connect (I think that's what he's saying)?
http://teacon7.blogspot.com/2008/02/re-good-coffee-strong-coffee.html
ReplyDeleteI set out to write a response, and it grew into something too big for a comment. You can read it here.
ReplyDeleteMy uncle Greg read this guy's article about his new book "The Gospel according to Starbucks."
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cbn.com/spirituallife/biblestudyandtheology/perspectives/carpenter-sweet_starbucks.aspx
and then he wrote a brief thing about it in the Bat blog:
http://batiansila.blogspot.com/2008/02/gospel-according-to-starbucks.html
and asked for our thoughts. These are my thoughts.
He's got an interesting point, but eventually the kind of church he wants to have is going to run into another wall: how does this EPIrC relationship experience work?
Lemme break this down a bit:
Modern society has been changing to make us all internally focused. I don't mean selfish, I just mean that we don't think something is "real" unless it resonates with something inside our minds or hearts. If it doesn't, we either don't care, or think that it's made up. A lot of people think that modern science is always right because it connects with the little bit of science they learned in high school. Or it seems "reasonable" to them. Yet if you don't understand it, it can't be right or real. Well, no, I can't really PROVE to you that God exists, but He exists whether or not you think/believe it.
The churches in America (not so much Europe) kept up attendance by making faith an internal thing too. If you "accept Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior," you're having an internalized experience. You'll see tons of books in the self-help section about how being a Christian can help you get your financial, love, family life back in line. All about me.
This doesn't work. You're actually really messed up inside. Your mind, thoughts, and reason can work to do whatever you want them to do. People come up with great reasons to do bad things all the time. And your feelings? Feelings are so easy to manipulate that we have drugs specifically made to change how we feel. We have manipulate each other all the time to get what we want, consciously or unconsciously playing with each other's insecurities and flaws to get what we want for ourselves or what we want for them. You can't really trust a feeling for more than a minute. A feeling alone isn't a very good thing to base long-term decisions on (stuff like: God exists because I feel like He does). You'll feel awesome one minute, and the next you'll have a chemical explosion in your head and you'll feel like disemboweling babies. Thank God He's here to save us from ourselves.
When you internalize, you lose sight of a lot of other really important stuff. God, for example, who comes to save you from the deepest sin that appears inside of you. Instead of focusing on how YOU can combat your own sin, focus on Christ's perfection. Keep your eye on the ball. Don't look at your feet when you're running, or you'll run into something. Luther says that we're supposed to despair of our own works (ourselves, our individual efforts to reach God) and turn to Christ our savior. Lewis calls it giving up your personality to God, so that He can give you yourself back. St. Paul says to fix your eyes on Jesus, and run the race with perseverance. Jesus said whoever wants to win their life must lose it.
Incidentally, one reason a lot of people don't like CCM or a contemporary worship setting is because they think it's too focused on the individual and not enough on God. They think something is lost when we're too worried about THEIR individual personal connection with God. It's the same thing with the people who get WAY too into liturgy-- they focus on that and not Christ.
I have friends here at school who had never run into a well spoken liturgical viewpoint, or a liturgical church that's alive. Having stumbled across some here, more than a few have left their more charismatic traditions to get confirmed Catholic or old school Lutheran. Catholicism, or the red hymnal (TLH), started making a lot more sense to them when someone could explain it to them. Turns out, most of their experience with a more charismatic worship experience was focused on individual feelings, not God's awesomeness.
I'm not trying to start a fight about this, although if I know Greg he'll have something to say about it. I'm just stating a perceived connection between a charismatic worship experience and individualism.
So now what? Sweet's point seems to be directed against the emptiness the this self-centered "Modern Christianity" brings. I think most of us here would agree with that as well: you have to be connected to God, we can't just go for some kind of "feel-good" Christianity, because feelings don't really last. But if we're not feeling good about ourselves, and we're not culturally used to focusing on something that doesn't have to do with ourselves, where do we go from there?
Sweet suggests this: To fix the emptiness, let's focus on the concept of a relationship. Relationships with God, relationships with each other. That's not ourselves, strictly speaking, so that has a much greater chance of providing meaning. Sweet's answer seems like he wants to focus on the relationship because it's that relationship that brings us closer to God.
This might work, but I doubt it. It's focusing on something that's not God. The relationship between God and man is notable, and deserves some thought, but in the end it'll end up focusing on ourselves, not God. Why? There are two parties in a relationship, and you really can't accuse God of not doing His part. So if it doesn't seem/feel like the relationship is working, you'll have to examine your own end of that relationship with Him. This will lead to more self-examination, in the best cases some changes for the better, and a continual return to the self as a partner with God in the relationship between the two of you.
"What can I do to make this relationship work?" That doesn't hit home? How about: "How can I think differently about God, myself, or others, to make this relationship work?" It's not works righteousness, it's thoughts righteousness. How should I or everyone else feel when worshiping? Feelings righteousness. How do you know if you're right with God? How do you know if your relationship with Him is on track? These are questions that we as human beings need answered. We don't really have the capacity to answer them by ourselves though, not for lack of trying.
From the article, Sweet looks like he's onto something: we can't get to God by looking at ourselves, some of us are trying something and it's not working. Sweet's solution takes us a little farther away from most of our individualistic culture --into the relationship. That's a good start, but I don't know if it will be able to stay away from that individualism that landed us all in this mess in the first place.
Before I forget, I'll move on to Greg's questions. First off, he wants to know about the Church having settled into some kind of "print" mentality while society moves on. It seems like a lot of churches have settled into a "norm." That norm might be some kind of "yuppie syncopated praise music that no one likes" or "boring chant and organs that no one likes." That norm might be something more abstract, like the set methods of evangelization, or lack thereof.
It all seems so strange to our modern mind, because today if you want to survive in this world, you've got to "keep up." I don't mean "with the Jones'." We all know better than that by now. I mean this progress/race mindset is one we've already accepted without really thinking about the consequences. In order to stay alive and afloat in business or marketing or advertising or school assignments, you've got to "keep up" with everyone else. If you really want to go places, you actually need to be leading the pack or on the cutting edge or come up with a new witty phrase that means the same sort of thing. You've got to keep changing and adapting and evolving yourself if you can even hope to keep up with the many gods of this world.
...Really? Do we really need to do that? I'll grant you this: if you don't do that, and we stay the way we are, we won't get very many people to come to church at all. But I don't think trying to stay on the cutting edge is the best way to share the Gospel either. Good luck finding a new spin to an eternal and unchanging God.
It's entirely possible that society has moved on in directions that the church hasn't updated to yet. I'm not a huge fan of modern society, so I'll offer a different solution, rather than trying to update our church to fit into society (we can't change God, but we can and do change our individual ways of approaching Him). What if we politely chose not to fit into the way the rest of the world works? There are a few things that don't matter, but the Word and Sacraments haven't changed, no matter how much the human mind has evolved. So whenever we're coming up with new styles of worship, new songs to sing, new whatever, remember that it's not novelty that brings people to Christ. There are entire industries designed specifically to pander to our apparent need for novelty. It's okay to be different than that. Some people respect that-- they respect that you're different, and will look into why you're willing to be so different, because of that confidence.
The church, the sabbath, worship: it's resting in Him, not "keeping up with" the megachurch in Milwaukee that everyone has to be like. The church is there to connect you with the Word and the Sacrament, which as far as I understand is how God comes to down to us. Surface things like music can come and go, but do not change the Word or Sacrament, and do not pretend that we're in church for something else. If your newcomers are there for something else, they should be taught about Christ, and then they can receive the Sacrament too, and thus be connected to God.
Sweet likes coffee because it "brings people together in meaningful ways," which apparently the church is failing to do. Not just coffee, but food also does this. Remember every Christmas and Thanksgiving up at Omi's? Where there are mountains of food prepared by Omi, most of us are laughing and having a good time, sharing each other's company and loving each other. This doesn't happen to everyone every day, especially if your family doesn't eat together anymore, but sharing a meal is a great way to bring each other together. Can anyone think of a time Jesus used a meal to bring people closer to Him? Mr. Sweet might have forgotten about this.
Coffee can bring people closer to each other, but you have to pay $4.65 for a venti chai macchiato, wait in line behind the soccer moms, get in, get out, get to work. Coffee is rushed, and if you don't keep up, you're gonna get left behind, just like society. Family gatherings are different-- you don't feel rushed unless Uncle Jim is waiting behind you for seconds. If you want to leave Omi's house two hours later than you planned, because you were talking with Grandpa Du, or catching up with Heidi, or, spending time together, you will. It's worth it.
My hope is that Sweet wants that, and not the coffee-on-the-go for the church. No amount of marketing or new buildings or coffee shops in churches is going to give that atmosphere to church. Give me my awful church coffee, my friends and family, and a lazy Sunday afternoon potluck. I'll be content.
I've also got a bunch of homework. 'Ta!
BNS won't let Keaton simply draw its massive readership to his blog...
ReplyDeleteJust for fun, for debate's sake, let's propose that this argument be supported with facts, instead of suppositions.
If you think contemporary worship is focused on self, state your case and quit hiding behind "some people think."
I look on your argument style as someone who says that using Etonic running shoes causes cancer. And that cancer is awful. My own father has cancer, and he's battling daily, monthly just to say alive. Cancer is a terrible thing and we should really be doing more to stop it.
The only thing wrong with your argument is its supposition. Having a "personal Lord and Savior" causes you to be "really messed up inside"?
"When we internalize, we lose sight of other really important stuff." Hmm. So is it proposed we externalize? Live a faith that we put on clothing? Paint a face on when we go to church? Carry a Bible as we leave Church so everyone knows we're a Christian?
My thoughts on the article were mixed, but you make it easy to defend: so your thought is that relationships won't work. So we should avoid, say, the relationships of the first "churches" which met in people's homes, or the martyrs of today's Church who meet defiantly in their homes. No relationships there. No relationships between, say...C.S. Lewis and Tolkien. No relationships between a Savior who loved his friend so much he asked him to adopt his mom.
How are things between us? That's the most basic line of any relationship, and only the selfish and immature fail to ask it every day. You're taking the word "relationship" and attempting to bludgeon a thinker who is truly focused on a failure of the Church, a failure that exists and will exist until people like you stop wailing about the lexicon used to describe the failure.
(Text also posted here for your convenience.)
ReplyDeleteThis is in response to this thread.
I cited that I know quite a few people who have grown closer to God through a liturgical setting, and they like that setting because they believe it focuses more on Christ. That's Ray, Seth, Monica, Steve, Kevin, Joy, Rebekah, Gwen, Matt, Maggie, and Suzanne. I use wording like "suppose" or "seem" because I won't presume that their experiences, informing my opinion, are the only ones out there. Surprisingly, I'm not telling you that your way is wrong and mine is right. I'm reporting what I've seen and heard, and noting how it fits in with an idea I have. what standard are we using to legitimize "facts?"
On to the substance:
"Having a "personal Lord and Savior" causes you to be "really messed up inside"" is not what I was saying at all, and I apologize if that wasn't clear. That's not the supposition. The supposition is that we're sinful, and we are powerless to combat sin on our own. That's fairly supportable from scripture.
The development notes that when we pay attention to something that's not Christ, who among other things is rescuing us from our sin, we get sidetracked.
The crux of the argument is this: Because you can get sidetracked by "your relationship to God" as opposed to "God's relationship to you," it is important to meditate on God's relationship to us. It changes the way we live and relate. It "externalizes," changing the focus away from ourselves.
All of the things you proposed as "externalizing" actually had to do with the self (carrying bibles, clothing, painted faces, etc). I don't care what the person looks like. I don't care what kind of music you have in your service. When I say "externalize" I'm saying that you must meditate on God. What we meditate on, who we focus our lives around affects the way we live the rest of our everyday life, and consequently how we relate to everyone else.
Again, I may not be explaining myself in the best way possible here, but I'm pretty sure I didn't say relationships were bad. They're not, and that's pretty obvious. Relationships aren't FIRST though. Remember the tables of the Law? They're laws commanding us to love. We love the Lord our God first, then we are able to obey the second table of the law and love our neighbor. Who is the bread of life? Who is the Author and Perfecter of our faith? It is God who gives us everything we have, which is why we follow Him first, before we "go home to bury our father" second (Luke 9:57-62).
It's a question of good, better, best. Focusing on improving our thoughts, words, deeds, and feelings is good; we lift up ourselves as best we are able. Focusing on our relationships is better; we have to think about how we can best relate to others, and self-improvement follows. Focusing on God is best: when you meditate on His Love, you'll overflow with His Love (works for relationships), and you will want to obey His Law because you want to grow that much closer to Him. He is perfect, and He knows how to relate better than we do ("love one another as I have loved you").
Your cinematic last sentence, the clincher, confuses me. How is this kind of "wailing" that we need to focus on Christ causing failure in the church? It seems like I'm making a "silly lexicon distinction" only if you don't pay attention to the argument. I suppose you could say I'm being divisive and putting people down, but Sweet was the first one to say there was a problem. I'm explaining why I think that problem exists.
There's no cinematic, emotionally charged conclusion statement here. Just the facts, Ma'am, just the facts.
-Keaton <><
1. If you wanted to make an anecdotal argument, I doubt we'd have argued at all. C.S. Lewis talks about someone who visits the shore versus someone who sees a map of it. The person who visited the shore has a far different experience, one that truly touched them. The person who looked at the map understands the shore better. If you want to tell stories about people who like the shore, that's not really debatable.
ReplyDeleteBut I think you tried to make argue against contemporary worship and I think now, you're trying to retreat behind experiences.
I also think you're saying that contemporary worship is not liturgical. Which would be a much better argument than anything you've written to this point. My response: the contemporary worship I love is liturgical. See? no arguing.
2. "Having a "personal Lord and Savior" causes you to be "really messed up inside"" is not what I was saying at all, and I apologize if that wasn't clear."
That's exactly what you said. That's cut and pasted from what you said.
3. So...meditating on God. Without any consideration of ourselves. Interesting. Where would that put the confession of sins (and absolution), the creed? Where would that put hymns?
4. The tables of the Law, as taught by Grandpa Du - give him a call. the first table: Love God. The second table: Love Man.
All that's missing is the implied subject of the sentence (You).
You love God. You love man. Are those commands about relationships?
5. Good writing isn't cinematic. It's just good writing. Shall I dumb it down so it will be a better argument?
You are complaining that contemporary worship is focused on relationships instead of God. I used the term "wail" but I'll say "whine" or "complain" because they apparently aren't used in cinema. You're saying the failure of the Church is its willingness to conform to the world, a la' contemporary worship.
You are then also saying that the Church should be asking "How can I think differently about God, myself, or others, to make this relationship work?" How can WHO think differently? "I?" I thought we had a pronoun rule here, and we couldn't use "I"???
I contend you're being shortsighted and looking for a bogeyman instead of addressing the problem your Church has. How's that for uncinematic language?
posted in triplicate
ReplyDelete1. So you're going to accept the experiences of my friends as "facts" now? Are we allowed to learn from these people's experiences, or do we have to experience everything ourselves before it counts as real?
I think that you made this about contemporary worship. I was talking about a mindset, a way of looking at the world, and you brought it down into an argument about contemporary worship, if only because you were more comfortable fighting about that.
Make no mistake-you are fighting. What are you fighting for? You're championing contemporary worship like a knee-jerk reactionary. I'm championing Christ and saying we should focus on Him. Did you notice how I only had two paragraphs about a worship style? Only two? Surely you don't mean to say that my mere two paragraphs were the sum total of my pent up angst against a worship setting that I don't "get," and have to fight about in order to legitimize my way of thinking? Or perhaps, just perhaps, was my point about something different?
If the contemporary worship you love comes from a mindset focused on God's relationship to us, it's a good thing. If the contemporary worship you love comes from a mindset focusing on the self, and about how and what WE do to relate to God, you're missing out on something, and I wish I could share it with you. Since we've already moved that discussion to a private e-mail, I suggest that we keep it there and spare any other readers from having to watch the fight you want to have about this.
2.
>> "Having a "personal Lord and Savior" causes you to be "really messed up inside"" is not what I was saying at all, and I apologize if that wasn't clear."
> That's exactly what you said. That's cut and pasted from what you said.
I looked. It's not. Read it again. Then read my re-explanation of it in the second post, just so there wouldn't be any confusion. Then if you still don't get it, paste the whole paragraph where you found this and bold/italicize how you came to this conclusion from what I said, and I can explain to you how the prose, and how the point works.
3.
In a lot of speech writing, the writers came up with a phrase that they repeat over and over for emphasis. If you've read what I've written so far, you'll notice these phrases keep showing up: "God's relationship to us" and "Our relationship to God."
What does this mean? Well if I'm not using the two interchangeably, there's clearly a difference. "God's relationship to us" is about what God has done for us, who He is, and why He's awesome.
"Our relationship to God" is about what we can do for God. Now I'm not advocating that we do only one and not the other, but I'm trying to say that it's more important to meditate on God, not to get caught up in ourselves. I even prefaced the entire discussion with a talk about the mindset that goes behind each different kind of thinking.
So when I say "God's relationship to us," that means: behold God's glory, see His mighty works and be still and know that He is God. He is omnipotent without us. We get stuff, but that's a byproduct of God existing. God is. God is just; He dispenses His Law. God is merciful, He showers us with His Love. Because God is, and is like that, we benefit, thanks be to God. We are passive, recipient participants in this. We're there, but only because God loves us. Not because we're "considering ourselves."
"How we relate to God" is different. That's us serving, loving, worshiping, and praising God. That is us figuring out what we're doing and how we're doing it and how we ought to do it. That's works, whether it's something we chose, something we feel, or something we think. We're the active ingredient in this kind, and remember that our works don't actually do a whole lot. They're like "menstrual rags" to God, actually.
So your misdirection is fine. You didn't like what I'm saying so you took it to an extreme that I didn't say, because that makes it look like I want us to be Amish monks. It's cinematic, it's sensational, it's marketable, it's good advertising. It's just misdirection though, it's not an actual argument.
4. That's a great point. Thank you Grandpa Du.
So this is cool: The tables of the Law are for us to love God and for us to love man. I'm supposed to love God and man, which of course implies that we're in relationships. So when I love God and man, I'm obeying the law. Saying one is like saying the other. And of course, we're supposed to obey the law--that's how we get to heaven, right?
No, sorry, it's not. We have sinned and have fallen short of the glory of God. We can obey the law--love God and man, but not perfectly. It's important that we do, but it is God's Love for us that saves us. Not our relationships. It is by God's Love for us that we have any ability to obey the law--to love one another and Him. It is God's Love for us that matters.
5. I knew you'd respond to this one....
Your writing is excellent. You're concise, you're witty, and you're good at stating a case to make yourself look good and the other guy look bad. I wish I was that good. All I've got are these loooooong rhetorical essays that aren't very marketable. Why read what I write if we can get the sound byte of me from you? I predict a career in journalism, advertising, or as a defense lawyer in your future. They get to use sensationalism all the time: play with the people's feelings without using the facts or reason they might or might not have to back it up. I'm fairly confident you can come up with these. You're smart, I respect you a lot, and it confuses me that we have this difference, so please take what I'm saying seriously rather than just throwing a bunch of feeling at me.
So lookit, I'm not asking for a dumbed down argument. Just the opposite- I'm just asking for an argument. Or even a counterargument. We could work from that and get somewhere. Well executed sensationalism ( LIKE --> p.t. barnstable!!! <-- ), extreme diversions, or taking something I didn't say and lambasting that.
For example, you write:
> "You are then also saying that the Church should be asking "How can I think differently about God, myself, or others, to make this relationship work?" How can WHO think differently? "I?" I thought we had a pronoun rule here, and we couldn't use "I"??? "
This would be valid, but you're taking it out of context. Thinking about what WE should do is secondary to thinking about what God has done. There's a paragraph, right before that one, that leads right into what I'm saying in this example. The pronoun rule is from the e-mail-let's not get confused here.
So this is what your contention is:
"I contend you're being shortsighted and looking for a bogeyman instead of addressing the problem your Church has. How's that for uncinematic language?"
This is great. Let's take your assertion and move from there to an argument. Thank you.
6. Since when is it my church/your church? I thought it was at least "our church" or "the church"? Why are you making a distinction here? Is this an acceptance of my different "ways of thinking" analysis from earlier?
7. So does just "my" church have the problems that need to be addressed, or both of ours?
8. Shortsighted how?
9. My "bogeyman" is addressing the problem, but in a different way than Sweet or yourself do. You're thinking of treating the symptom (not enough relationships) with a direct infusion (more relationships). I'm thinking of treating the symptom (not enough relationships) by diagnosing and curing it's source (we're obsessed with stuff about ourselves and would be much better off living for Christ).
As a point of interest, I think the church could handle more "relationships" a lot of people just come, give their lip service, and go, without noticing to the rich cloud of witnesses God has blessed us with. But like I said before, focusing on ourselves isn't the best solution.
--
-Keaton
<><
p.t. barnstable
He's the bear.