Ingrid Wants An Old Fashioned Church - And So Do I
To Whom it May Concern:
I’m looking for a good Christian church. I don’t want to sing songs off a wall, the same five notes, over and over and over and over again while I am lightheaded from standing so long. There’s a record of the hymns of God’s people that spans 2000 years. Why are we so arrogant as to think we don’t need those wonderful songs any longer? Have we gone through more suffering, more affliction, more pain for Jesus than those who wrote these enduring hymns? Does a semi-secular song writer in Nashville with a multi-million dollar music contract have more to say to us about God and the Christian life than the 17th-century hymn writer who lost four children and his wife during the 30 years War?
I don’t want to have my eardrums bashed in by the three kids in the “worship band” who can’t be bothered to bathe, shave, dress or comb their hair on Sunday morning. If it’s really all about the God that Scripture describes as ineffably holy, shouldn’t that be reflected in attitude and dress for those who serve in church music?
I don’t want a vampy “praise and worship” leader who is flaunting her wares at every male within view as she does her worship moves on “stage”. If we are to worship God in spirit and in truth, as Scripture tells us, than what’s all the flesh about? Can we no longer discern the difference?
I don’t want to see people in beach attire with their backsides peeping out of their shorts because they think that God isn’t worth their best efforts at dressing. “God doesn’t care about clothes, only man”, they say. But the real reason is that it’s just plain easier to cruise into church in jeans or whatever is still lying on the floor from the night before. Dressing up for worship of the Lord would cost them something, however little, and they don’t want to pay it.
I also don’t want to see all the variations on lovers’ back rubs where Chuck and Sue take turns massaging each other’s neck and shoulders during the sermon so everyone behind them is completely distracted. Behavior affects other people. Are Christians so self-absorbed that they never think about the people behind them trying to hear the message?
March 26, 2008 at 5:41 pm
Many of those 17th century hymnists were considered heretical in their day…..As far as clothing……Jesus was a carpenter and a man of little means. He wore a robe and open toed sandals and it was probably the “blue jeans” quality robe to boot. If Jesus were alive today I doubt he would carry out his ministry in a suit. I guess we can all imagine what carpenters wear…..Maybe Jesus would look like Norm Abrams fro This Old House…..I don’t know.
I do know that this falls into the category of what I call “revisionist theology”. You have to look a certain way, listen to certain kinds of music from a book not a wall…..etc.
None of this on one side or the other matters……..It is very depressing to see so munch emphasis put on these things and so little credit given to churches who do things a little bit different.
The contemporary churches exist because people were not being reached for the kingdom of God. We are not in competition and you should celebrate that a whole new sector of society is coming to know Jesus Christ. Most of these people would not go to a more traditional church so it seems like God is meeting a need for his people.
March 26, 2008 at 9:18 pm
Matt, you’ve had a busy day, yes? Thanks for visiting my blog and commenting. There’s much about Ingrid’s “letter” that I personally don’t agree with, but on the other hand, there are some things she highlights that I think even you would agree with. How about smooching in church - are you okay with that? I’ve seen it, and I find it revolting. In fact, I find smooching in any public place revolting. But that’s just my opinion. Guess I’m not cool.
But more importantly, I and many people like me are in general agreement with Ingrid’s complaint. Just what is so bad about traditional church? What is it about this generation that makes them hate dressing up a little and singing hymns from a hymn book? Why was it sufficient for thousands of years, but now it is not good enough? “Boring”, I think they would say? You said, “Most of these people would not go to a more traditional church”. Why not? When God saved me, I couldn’t wait to become part of the Church - to sing hymns, study the Bible, fellowship with Christians (and most of them were old folk). Why, O why, does it have to be so different today? Could it be that youth groups have taken over the Church and have discarded the wisdom of the Elders? And can it be that unconverted professors are demanding that the church meet their “felt” needs?
The fact is that the contemporary church condemns the traditional Church by rejecting it. The minute an older Christian protests the changes in their Church, they are immediately labeled a Pharisee by the new, young, leadership (and sometimes by older leadership that has been blinded by ambition). The Bible tells us that we are not to offend the brethren, but in the name of “relevance” or “contextualization”, some think they can brutalize the old faithful saints with rock bands and drum beats blasting their ears off, and if they don’t like it, they can leave.
So let’s have children’s church and youth group instead of “regular” church. Is that what gen-x (whatever that means) wants? The traditions are a drag. Let’s have some fun with our fav homeboy J.C.! True?
People like Ingrid didn’t really complain too much until it was too late. Now, she can’t find an old fashioned church. She let the youth movement guilt her into letting them take over her church, and now she’s having a tough time finding one that hasn’t had the same type of take-over.
I was reached by a traditional church. They preached the Gospel, the most relevant message that a sinner will ever hear. I didn’t go to church to hear a band play, or watch an egg drop, or see someone get a tattoo. I went to church because God had given me a thirst to know Him as my Lord and Savior. And I knew where that thirst could be quenched - at Church, where they opened the Bible and taught and preached the word of God.
I’ll never forget my first experience with a “contemporary” church. It was in the year 1979. Yes, they were around back then. I went with a group of guys who were mostly forced to go by the military (”go to church or stay here and work”). A band appeared on “stage”, and they took off on a rhythmically-charged dance tune. The guys went crazy around me dancing and hooting like it was a night club.
Was this church “reaching” them? I don’t think so, for there was not one confession of Christ from the entire building - only guys saying “man, that was cool, dude!” Except for those of us in the group that were already professing Christians. Now why is that? Well, it used to be that Christians were taught the difference between reverence and revelling, between sacred and secular, between holy and common. But where is that now?
Matt, I know you think that traditional churches are just “keeping up appearances”, and you think the contemporary church is seeking something “real”. Well, all I can say is, I found something REAL at a traditional church, and me and Ingrid are offended at the implication that we, and what we found, are not “real”.
March 27, 2008 at 12:24 am
Actually I don’t have a problem with traditional churches. I have probably been in one of those far more than the church I attend now. I feel more connected to my current church and I always find myself learning from the messages.
I think the difference for me is that when one of the large or small traditional churches in our town says that they had (X) number of people receive Christ my first instinct is to think man that is awesome. I think isn’t it amazing that God can use so many different types of churches to achieve the same results.
We don’t want someone to just attend our church….If they don’t like it or feel like they can be a part of what we are doing we want them to go to another contemporary or traditional church. Our main objective as a church is to see the 60,000 unchurched people in our community find a church home whether it be ours our someone else’s.
I don’t think most of the folks at Old Truth (that I interacted with) could honestly make that same claim. I don’t want ours to be the only kind of church but I don’t want to have to constantly defend its right to exist and do the mission of God either.
Anything that minimizes the work of the Holy Spirit in my view is probably a bad thing for the Christian Church at large. We as a faith are under constant attack from government, special interest groups, and in the most extreme case radical fundamentalists who would like to see Christianity removed from the earth. The amount of time devoted to tearing down other churches and ministries from these “Theologically Puritan” web-sites astounds me.
For all of the labeling and criticism that the contemporary church movement gets…..We are far more complimentary of our fellow churches that what we get in return. I think that it is far less important for a lost person to understand Calvinism, Arminianism or some other deep seeded doctrinal truth. They need to know that sin separates them from a Holy God and that asking Jesus to save them and repenting of past sin is the way to eternal salvation.
I don’t claim to be the smartest person to ever post a blog but I do care about other people and their choice to follow or ignore Jesus. I am proud of the work we are doing at Oakleaf Church and I welcome all who want to learn more about Jesus and be challenged in their lives.
March 27, 2008 at 12:58 am
Matt, looks like you were posting here while I was posting on your blog. As you’ll see by what I said there, I am opposed to numbering and boasting on professions of faith whether it is in traditional or contemporary churches. I think that as you gain a better understanding of what regeneration and conversion really is, you’ll see why it’s foolish to make such boasting.
Let me put it this way - I’ll give you the right to announce, magnify upon, and give yourselves credit for the number of decisions to accept Christ in your church, if you will give equal time and publicly take personal responsibility for each one of those professors, that you claimed was saved, dishonor God and slander the Gospel of Christ by their apostasy from the faith.
March 27, 2008 at 5:26 am
Wow …
I’m on my church’s worship team. In fact, I’m the one who runs the computer in the back putting lyrics on the wall that Ingrid finds so objectionable. I’m not really sure why … I don’t see the verse in Scripture that mandates hymnals.
It’s worth noting that there once was a time that the organ was deemed radical and totally unacceptable. There was a time when only a choir sang, not the congregation. What is now known as traditional is not, in fact, a 2000-year-old tradition.
You’re talking about disrespect, but as I read this letter, I’m trying to figure out whether she has any respect for me. I don’t wear a tie to church, no. But that doesn’t mean that I haven’t combed my hair or bathed. I’m there to worship and serve God, not to impress her with my clothes.
To switch gears … my mother is an organist. She doesn’t like to come to my church, because it’s not her style. I don’t really see where there’s a problem. We respect each other’s faith, and are just glad that we each have a place to worship.
On the other hand, this post shows a lack of respect for contemporary churches … and if someone throws an accusation of being Pharisaical at it, then it might well be deserved. (Which is too bad, I often like when Ingrid has to say.)
March 27, 2008 at 1:13 pm
You make the assumption that I don’t understand spiritual conversion…..You can’t know that one way or another. To say that we have to publicly condemn someone who at one point in their life professed salvation at the point at which they commit new sin seems to be highly judgmental. We just need to save everyone the trouble and you and I get in line first for the tongue lashing.
March 28, 2008 at 12:24 am
Matt, I didn’t say anything about publicly condemning someone. I said that if YOU (church leadership) are going to publicly take credit for the number of decisions to accept Christ in your church, then YOU (church leadership) should take the responsibility for the number of apostasies. Sounds fair to me. Of course, it’s nonsense to do either. And that’s what I’m trying to get you to see.
And let’s don’t even start on how foolish it is to “set a goal” for the number that will be saved. Three thousand were saved on the day of Pentecost, and the only one that planned the event was God.
Although the tone of this conversation has been argumentative, it has nevertheless been helpful to me to be challenged in my opinions and I hope you also will see how it is helpful for you to hear your critics. I do admire you for standing up and stating your view. Let’s pray that our understanding will be enlightened.
Since this is just spillover from conversations at your blog and on Old Truth and we are getting away from the OP (Ingrid wants an old fashioned church and so do I), I’ll allow you the last word but then I’ll have to close it down.
March 28, 2008 at 1:33 am
Wickle, thank you for your comment. Personally, I don’t agree with Ingrid on the issue of projecting the hymns on the wall, so I’ll not attempt a defense of her view. I am all for using technology in helpful ways. If you’ll notice what I said before, I agree with the general theme of Ingrid’s complaint, but not every detail of it.
But Ingrid and I both find loud beat-driven music inconducive to worship. We are offended by it. Even if it comes from an organ. What do you do about it? Show us the door and point us to the road? Hopefully, as a mature and caring undershepherd, you’re going to regulate the tone of the gathered church worship to meet the needs of the general audience.
But what I see in “emerging” churches is a particular sub-group of the general population demanding that their “felt” needs be met. The love of Christ will cause us to say as Paul said “as the world stands, I will not offend my brother”.
Hymns are purposely designed to NOT be folk music. The old churches could have had local troubadours singing folksy music just as easily as today’s churches can do it. But they recognized a greater need - the need for unity in the body of Christ and the need to reflect the majesty and glory of God in the worship. Hymns had a unifying effect because they were generally free of ethnic identity. They constituted the music of the church, as opposed to the music of the street. There is a difference, and you can see it.
I don’t think Ingrid wants you to impress her with your clothes, but she probably wants you to dress as if the gathering of the body of Christ is a sacred event. What you wear tells the world what you’re thinking. It matters and you know it. Now apply that principle how ever you want, but please, do apply it rather than ignore it.
You have to earn respect. There’s not way around it. That’s a life truism. What are you doing to earn it?
You fail to see the problem with your mother going to a different church than you. It’s like saying “my mother and I have a problem but I don’t see any problem with it”. You’ve allowed your music to come between you and your mother and you don’t see a problem. Not doctrine, not unbelief, not distance, not heresy, but YOU let YOUR MUSIC come between you and your mother. And you’re okay with that?
This illustrates a CRITICAL FAILURE of the contemporary church. God set people in families but the modern church breaks them up. I guess since we live in a culture where everyone goes off to their rooms to watch TV or play video games or whatever else, and they never do anything together, then WHY SHOULD THEY HAVE CHURCH TOGETHER?
The more that emergents try to defend their practices, the more they reveal their infidelity to the Bible. I know that’s a harsh thing to say, but I don’t know how to soften it. It just astounds me. Matt speaks of theology as if it were a cuss word. The pastor of Oak Leaf blocks Jim Bublitz’s comments on his blog and then lies about it, saying he was on a plane at the time. And now we find out that it’s more important to have offensive music than one’s own mother in church.
Okay, I admit it: I DO disrespect the contemporary church.
March 28, 2008 at 1:53 am
How can two people attending different churches represent a problem within their family?
You also reveal the fact in your statement you believe that really all churches should be the same to save us from all this confusion.
The writers of the hymns were the contemporary music of their day……It is only Old School / Old Truth now. In 50 years Casting Crowns will be the old school music.
You want church to live isolated in a time warp free form the influences of the outside world.
Many of those hymns were about the struggles that the writers were having at the time they were written. Just like the music of today. You do not have to like it but you can’t seriously make the argument that today’s lyrics are any less relevant our spiritual.
It is not 1950 anymore……..Hey its even ok for girls to wear pants…..and vote!
March 28, 2008 at 2:53 am
Very nice Matt but it has nothing to do with the OP so I deleted it. However, it looks like it would be an excellent orginal post on your blog. - Joel
March 28, 2008 at 11:36 pm
What are we doing to earn respect?
Preaching the Gospel. We are reaching out to the community and to the world. We are building powerful relationships, and educating believers in the Word.
To be honest with you, this attitude reminds me of the disciples who came to Jesus saying that there were people preaching who didn’t belong to their number — Jesus pointed out to them that anyone who is not against Him is for Him.
There should be just one standard — are we speaking the Truth? If you’re going to judge my church, don’t do it by the instruments on stage, the songs to which we worship, or whether our pastor is wearing a tie. I rather insist that I be judged by the standard Jesus defined — by our fruit. And I would argue that we are both growing rapidly and growing deeper, and that God is pleased with us.
If you can confront and challenge my church’s practices Biblically, then you have a point. If not, then why are you complaining?
Notably, of course, outside of the European tradition, churches don’t look like what you’re describing. Our sister-church (in Uganda) is attended primarily by people who aren’t wearing shoes, probably haven’t bathed in recent memory, and who love God deeply and passionately.
I’m not sure why you think that we just want to kick people out who have issues about music. This issue has come up, and being in a semi-leadership position on the worship team (and a friend of the worship pastor), I’ve been a part of these conversations.
There are people who find music a hindrance, whether too “beat-driven” or too slow. Too loud, or too quiet. We can’t necessarily please everyone on the extremes. Would it be nice if everyone just worshiped because the songs are worshipful? Of course it would. And, to be honest, that’s not a problem for me. I’m good with “Let All Mortal Flesh Keep Silence” or “Everlasting God.”
An interesting side note … in their day, the great hymn-writers were not much-appreciated. We look back on them now, and (I would argue, rightly) think that they were great. But many of them were seen in their day much as you’re speaking of modern songwriters.
I’m quite certain that the same God who spoke to David as he wrote Psalms also spoke to the Wesleys, Luther, Watts, and Crosby as they wrote song great hymns. He spoke to Rich Mullins, and He’s still speaking to Lincoln Brewster, Tommy Walker, and my worship minister.
As to your concern about my mother … frankly, why do you blame my church, which is far more active, for the division? My congregation is reaching more people, and I would argue, frankly, that we’re taking people a lot deeper (through a number of study resources) than that of my parents. I could easily reverse the charge and say that it’s people’s insistence on tradition, at the expense of quality, that has caused the division. But I’d rather not even get into blaming anyone … we have real work to do.
April 12, 2008 at 7:42 am
I would like to make a comment regarding the postmodern churches that have infiltrated our country since the Purpose Driven Books. I for one would love to find an old fashioned church, with a humble Pastor that cares more about the flock inside the church than the ungodly outside the church. I would love to find a church where the Pastors goal isn’t to become a Mega Church. I would love to find a church that isn’t trying to bring the congregation into an altered state with repetitious stanzas. I would love to find a church where people aren’t elevated in leadership because of their education, beauty, articulation, and how many books they’ve written. I would love to find a Church where scripture isn’t contextualized.
I don’t care how people dress, how they look, but I want to hear the full counsel of God without it being contextualized. I would love to find a church that isn’t trying to create utopia on earth and care more about the godless than the godly. Is there any church left that isn’t following the likes of all the new age, postmodern, emergent, liberal pastors, politicians, and talk show hosts????
Mary