NeilCraigan.Com

Context Matters

In his book, Diffusion of Innovations, Everett Rogers tells the story of an attempted health innovation in Peru. It was a great idea, the introduction of innovations to the villages of Peru that would improve their health and lengthen their lives. It was hoped that they could encourage villagers to build latrines, burn garbage daily, control house flies, report cases of infectious diseases, and boil drinking water.

Clean water is critical to healthy living. I know and appreciate the great importance of clean water and if the water needed boiling I would boil . Why then after two years of working in Los Molinas did the local health worker only persuade eleven out of two hundred families to boil their water?

The answer was simple – the authorities failed to understand the culture they were trying to reach.

The campaign failed ‘because the innovation was perceived as culturally inappropriate by the villagers. Local tradition links hot foods with illness. Boiling water makes water less “cold” and hence appropriate only for the sick. If a person is not ill, he or she is prohibited by village norms from drinking boiled water.’ (Everett Rogers) The health agency failed to take into account the values, beliefs and traditions of the village and as a result a great idea was rejected, a lifesaving gift was abandoned.

As followers of Jesus we have an obligation to bring lifesaving information to the world. We have a gift to share that is more important than clean water, it is living water,  and we have to communicate it in a way that is culturally appropriate to our hearers.

In Acts 13 Paul speaks in the synagogue of Pisidian Antioch. His sermon recounts the story of God’s activity in the life of the people of Israel. He peppers his sermon with scripture quotes from the Psalms, Isaiah and Habakkuk. The people heard and understood and some of them responded to the gospel message and became followers of Jesus Christ.

On his next missionary endeavor Paul visits Athens (Acts 17:16-35) and he takes his time to look ‘carefully’(23) at their objects of worship. He was very intentional in looking for a point of contact for the gospel with the local culture. When he shares the gospel with the Athenians he doesn’t quote scripture, rather he quotes Greek poets and makes reference to an idol inscribed ‘to an unknown god.’ This then becomes the reference point for proclaiming the gospel.

The Jews wouldn’t have understood, appreciated or accepted the idol and poetry explanation any more than the Athenians would have understood the Scripture references. The form (not content) had to be tailored to the culture.

How do you contextualize the gospel to our culture?

Are you like Paul looking ‘carefully’ for ways to effectively communicate the most important story ever told or is it business as usual?

I have no doubt that the lives of Peruvians suffered and some possibly died because the good news about clean water was brought to them in a completely unpalatable manner. As followers of Jesus Christ we have far more at stake than clean water for we are talking about new life not just a healthier life for our body but also a new life for our bodies, our minds and our souls.   

May God grant us the wisdom this Holy week and beyond to proclaim the gospel in culturally appropriate form.

Church declines to discipline gay pastor - My role in it all

The last time I was interviewed for a paper was back when the Washington Post ran a story on pastors who blog. Today however I am in the papers on an entirely different issue, as a member of the prosecuting committee in a church trial on the issue on whether an officer of the church can be married to their same sex partner.

Here's the link to the article in today's Star Tribune.

As the article makes clear the Permanent Judicial Commission of the Presbytery of the Twin Cities Area was divided 3-3 on the charge before them and therefore their decision had to be an acquittal.

The next step is for the prosecuting committee to decide if we will appeal this decision to Synod. As the Star Tribune article reports, we almost certainly will be appealing the decision.

How did I become involved in this case?
Back in October of 2009 I received a phone call from the state clerk of our presbytery asking if I would be willing to serve on an investigating committee (IC) to examine an accusation that had been brought against a minister member of the presbytery. I had to agree to participate on this IC without knowing the person accused or the nature of the accusation. As a service to the church I agreed to become involved in the process.

After the IC decided there were grounds for a charge to filed, the process our church follows states that the IC will appoint from its members those who will prosecute the case, they then become the prosecuting committee (PC). It is the responsibility of the PC to represent the church at the trial before the PJC and through any subsequent appeals.

I now find myself reflecting on some of my favorite lines from Lord of the Rings. It is part of a dialog between Frodo and Gandalf.

'I wish it need not have happened in our time,' said Frodo.
'So do I,' said Gandalf, 'and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time given us.'

But it has happened in our time and my decision is to use the time I have been given to serve as faithful member of the church and see this issue through to its conclusion.  

Lord, when did we see you...

Lord when did we see you...

Hungry and feed you...

Or thirsty and give you something to drink?

When did we see you a stranger and invite you in...

Or needing clothes and clothe you?

When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?

The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.'

The Eleventh Hour of the Eleventh Day of the Eleventh Month

Armistice day. The day on which The Great War, the "war to end all wars," the First World War, finally came to an end.

My grandfather, his brother-in-law and many of their friends spent time in the frontline trenches of this war.Upon his return grandpa would never again speak of the horrors he saw as he fought for king and country. To his dying day he was willing to contribute to the Earl Haig Fund but would not wear the poppy that contributors received because it bore the name of Haig, the man who sent so many young men up the line to meet a brutal death.

The feeling of so many who fought on the front lines of this war are summed up in the words of the war poet Siegfried Sassoon...

Base Details

If I were fierce, and bald, and short of breath,
I’d live with scarlet Majors at the Base,
And speed glum heroes up the line to death.
You’d see me with my puffy petulant face,
Guzzling and gulping in the best hotel,
Reading the Roll of Honour. ‘Poor young chap,’
I’d say—‘I used to know his father well;
Yes, we’ve lost heavily in this last scrap.’
And when the war is done and youth stone dead,
I’d toddle safely home and die—in bed.

If only it had been the "war to end all wars," but it was not.

The sin of humanity, pride, greed, covetousness, idolatory pit nation against nation over and over again. Who will speak "peace" into a violent world? That is the call of the church, the people of God, we are to offer an alternative way, the way of Jesus, the way of the cross. It is not an easy way, but it is God's way.

A thought on Presbyterian Worship

In the reformed tradition there were three main lines of thought regarding music in the church.

At the time of the reformation Martin Luther was an advocate for the use of hymns, authoring several himself including the well known "A Mighty Fortress Is Our God." Meanwhile in the Swiss town of Zurich, Ulrich Zwingli, an accomplished musician himself, sought successfully to have all music removed from the worship service. And over in Geneva,  John Calvin held steadfastly to the belief that only the Psalms could be sung in worship and these were to be unaccompanied.

In my tradition, Presbyterian, it was the position of John Calvin that carried the day and the Presbyterian church became a Psalm singing church. It wasn't until 1751 that the Synod of New York rejected a challenge against hymnody and hymns began to become a more integral part in Presbyterian worship in the United States. Not so in Scotland and Ireland where it took until the mid-1800's for hymns to be accepted with the Church of Scotland formally adopting hymns in 1861.

Today Presbyterian churches can be found singing all sorts of songs, metrical Psalms, four part harmony hymns, chant, folk, praise music, rock music... all have made their way in as part of the ever evolving tradition of worshiping God.

 

 

What's your opinion of music in worship?

What's your opinion of music in worship?

I serve a congregation in which the worship service could best be described as "traditional." By that I mean play our music on the organ and piano and we have a choir that sings at least one special piece of music each week. Most of the folks in our congregation, myself included, grew up with this kind of music in worship and accept it as "normal" for a mainline protestant congregation.

However we do have a number of people who feel otherwise. I have heard comments  about a dislike of all the traditional music elements, others have questioned why the choir sings every week and why they sing an anthem every week. Still others feel like the music we sing is outdated, irrelevant and foreign to the culture we are trying to reach with the gospel, it might as well be in Latin or Greek. I have heard people question the use of the organ in our contemporary culture as an outdated instrument.

I have seen congregations throw out all the hymnody of the past, opting only for new songs. Occasionally those new songs will incude some "traditional" elements, eg The Wondrous Cross, Amazing Grace (My Chains Are Gone). I don't believe this is helpful.

I have seen other congregations refuse to sing any of the new songs because they aren't part of the "tradition." Duh, they ony become part of the tradition after they've been sung for a while and past the test of time.

I drive to worship on a Sunday with either my iPod blaring or listening to the local Christian radio station. I like my music loud, like a concert and the style of music I prefer is rarely heard in any church, whether I'm listening to the Clash, Rich Mullins, U2 or Bob Dylan. Yet my most worshipful music experiences have been at concerts by U2, Bob Dylan, Tom Petty and Chris Rea, only two of whom would even claim to be a Christian.

So how should the church handle this tough issue of music?

Are we losing our humanity to technology?

What does this commercial say about how technology impacts our humanity?
What does this commercial say about the importance of efficiency in the human equation?

 

Is technology making a reverse shift from the realm of being an extension of our faculties, the telephone as an extension of the voice, to now becoming the thing that defines what those faculties are?

Do We Have A Yellow Pages Church In A Broadband World?

Last Wednesday afternoon I pulled a small book off my shelf, it was titled, "Attracting New Members" by Robert Bast. Published in 1988 Bast notes that, “Market research indicates that people under age 40 use the Yellow Pages frequently." He then goes on to suggest that, " A wise approach is to take as large an ad as possible...”

Needless to say I found myself laughing out loud at the thought of this and decided to do my own market research (sort of).

I went home and asked my two oldest daughters, 13 and 11, not if they used the yellow pages, but rather if they even knew what the yellow pages are. My oldest daughter knew that they had something to do with phone numbers but had no idea what phone numbers and when I explained it to her she had no idea that there was such a thing as the white pages! My younger daughter simply had no idea what the yellow pages were. It's been years since a copy of either of these made it into my house, its straight from the doorstep to recycling.

If I need a phone number I simply go online and look it up.

This left me wondering, do we have a yellow pages church in a broadband world?

Research also indicates that in my denomination, PC(USA), that 79% of people in worship on a Sunday morning are over the age of 45. This is in stark contrast to the US population where 50% of the population is under 45 (these numbers don't include children under 15).

What may have been a good marketing tool 20 years ago is essentially obsolete today. 
It's only a marketing tool, but I was left wondering to what degree does the way we communicate alienate people from the church, from the body of Christ, and from Christ himself?

To quote Leslie Newbigin,  "If the gospel is to be understood, if it is to be received as something which communicates truth about the real human situation, if it is, as we say, to make sense, it has to be communicated in the language of those to whom it is addressed and has to be clothed in symbols that are meaningful to them."

Does the church speak the language of the under 45s? Does the church cloth itself in the cultural symbols that are meaningful to them? As someone who fits that demographic, I have to answer with, "No." The church as a whole has little comprehension of the cultural issues, and appears to have little desire to engage and embrace the cultural shifts that will allow for the faith to be passed on to the next generation.

What's Important?

Is there anything in your story that will matter years, decades, centuries from now? In this short video from the TED Conference Kirk Citro asks which news stories will matter in the future?

 

 

As you think about this video ask yourself what questions the church is wrestling with today that really matter, which "issues" are the truly noteworthy ones that will make a difference in a hundred or more years?
Worship styles? Aesthetics? The sexuality questions? Current Christological issues e.g. the Jesus Seminar? Epistemological questions? Others?

Can we be discerning enough to focus on areas that really will matter, perhaps for all eternity, rather than on temporal issues? I hope so.

What are the big issues I think we need to focus on? Discipleship, there is no doubt that we need to learn afresh what it means to live as disciples of Jesus in the world. This will lead to a renewed focus on mission. Mission that seeks to bring the redemptive story of the gospel to bear on all creation, calling all of humanity into a relationship with the God who has been revealed to us in and through Jesus Christ.

Preconception as an obstacle to evangelism

The problem we face in evangelism today is not so much ignorance of the gospel but rather preconceived ideas. People think they know and understand the gospel and therefore think they know and understand what they have rejected, but rarely is the thing they have rejected an authentic expression of what it means to be a follower of Jesus Christ in the world today.

I found myself laughing when I heard Hans Rosling share in his TED talk from 2006 that Swedish undergraduates, "know statistically significantly less about the world than chimpanzees!" In his class on global development he gave the students a pre-test on infant mortality rates in the world and simply asked the students to select from a pair which country had the highest rates of infant mortality. A chimp would be right half the time, the students were right less than half the time. Why? "The problem was not ignorance it was preconceived ideas."

So what are some of the preconceived ideas people hold of the gospel? Ideas that those of us who love Jesus have to take seriously in our attempt to share Christ with our world. I have no doubt there are many and they can form an almost infinite number of combinations of preconceptions for individuals. They include, the role of faith in politics and the close ties with nationalism, religious oppression, fundamentalism, exclusivity, hypocrisy, incompatibility with science, faith is irrational or anti-rational perhaps even dangerous... the list could and does go on. My concern is that the people of God adopt a form of apologetics that adequately addresses the preconceived ideas of those outside the community of faith, so they may begin to hear the truth of the gospel and have an opportunity to respond to the call of Jesus Christ in their lives.

Believe it or Not: How a church was founded

Every once in a while you come across a story that just grabs you as absurd. This is one of those stories. When I was back in Belfast I was given a copy of "Presbyterians in Ireland: an illustrated history" and began to read about the congregations I was most familiar with. One of those churches is McCracken Memorial on the Malone Road, I attended Cub Scouts there. Here's the story of that congregation as recorded in the book...

On 23 November 1907, Miss Mary McCracken gave instructions for the preparation of her will and the disposal of her estate... The bulk of her estate was to be invested until such a time as there were sufficient funds to build a church in memory of her parents. She gave instructions for the new church to be cited, 'a decent distance from Firsherwick.' [a congregation on the same road closer to the center of Belfast] Her executors were to 'chose a lovely bright spot with the sun shining on it.The will stated that the name of the new church was to be 'McCracken Memorial Church' and that the name should be carved in Granite above the door. In order to ensure that this stipulation should be complied with, she gave instructions that if the name should ever be changed then the entire property would revert to ownership by the Methodist denomination.

Further unsavory stipulations were made in Miss McCracken's will. She had an obvious umbrage against a family named Wylie for she stated: 'There are not any of the Wylie family or their relatives or connections to interfere or meddle in this church' otherwise again, the property would revert to the Methodists. Similarly she stipulated that the Wylie family were to be denied any memorial window or tablet in the new church. One wonders at the nature of the offence that produced such odium on the part of Mary McCracken.

A further clause in the will was to cause problems. She named the man she to be the first minister of the new church. By the time the church opened in 1932, this minister was sixty-five years old. He was offered £100 to renounce his 'claim' to be minister of McCracken, but he refused unless he was paid £500. Having received this increased amount he later increased his demands but eventually settled for £500. One can say that this is certainly not the most edifying episode in Irish Presbyterian history.

How this congregation is still Presbyterian and not Methodist is a miracle! Why a denomination would allow such tight stipulations, and discrimination to be associated with one of its congregations is a mystery. Does anyone know of other stories like this?

In Class All Week... thinking about being human

Imagine the future... what do you see? What does humanity look like? What are the issues for the church? These are some of the questions I'm wrestling with in class this week at Bethel Seminary.

As the course description states... "This course is designed to help you explore the new wild, wild west of western culture. In a similar way that the terms "postmodern" and "postchristian" became code words for the cutting edge of mission in the 1990s, "post human" and "trans-human" will become the code words for forward thinking mission in the second decade of the 21st century. It's time to move beyond "mere Christianity" --what does it mean to be a Christian?-- and spark a discussion about "mere humanity" -- what does it mean to be human? This is a course designed to stretch your imagination, orient you towards the future, and increase your sense of wonder and humor."

As you can probably guess, I'm having a blast!

Unalienable Rights?

It's that time of year when I seem to be unavoidably drawn into conversations about politics and why I have not renounced my British citizenship and become a US citizen. The other night I had such a conversation with a group of guys over a few beers. It was, as it usually is, a good natured, spirited time!

Part of our conversation focused on the Declaration of Independence and the phrase that all people have certain unalienable rights that include life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. My question for the group that evening was whether these three things were actually rights that all people have or gifts given to us by God?

Life, is it an unalienable right? I contend it is not, rather it is a gift. A gift from the Creator who has been revealed to us in Jesus Christ. God is the one who sustains our lives, who grants us what we need to live each day. It is because life is a gift that we treat all life with respect, even to the point of turning the other cheek and loving our enemies. 

What does Scripture teach us about liberty or freedom? It teaches that a fallen humanity is bound to sin, and that real freedom is found in Jesus Christ who through his life, death and resurrection, paid the price for our sin and won our freedom for us. Real freedom is a gift that God gives us in Jesus Christ, it is not based on any political or philosophical ideology but rather on God's action in history. It is not an unalienable right of humanity, it is a gift bestowed by the Creator on creation.

As for the pursuit of happiness, or fulfillment, Maslov may well say that based on the hierarchy of needs only those who have attained a certain level of well being can even begin to think about this. But is it an unalienable right of all people? Again I believe it is a gift and not a right. I would also suggest that the only way to truly find fulfillment (happiness) is through a relationship with God in Christ and a commitment to following Christ's way in this life. Anything else will ultimately prove less than fulfilling.

So does it really matter if we view these as rights or gifts? I think so. When we see these as gifts from God and have a proper theological understanding of them we are inclined to extend them with an open hand to others. When we see them as rights we may want to protect and defend them as political and philosophical ideals that have little to do with God, resorting at times to violence and even stripping others of their "rights" so they cannot strip us of ours (ie. war, death penalty).

What do you think, rights or gifts, and does it make a difference?
How much does it matter that we develop a solid theological understanding of these topics rather than a national, patriotic ideal?

Should Worship Entertain?

I've often heard the accusation thrown out that mega-churches are more in the business of entertaining people than in leading them to worship God. Is this really the case and do entertainment and worship belong in separate realms, exclusive of one another?

What does it mean to entertain? According to Webster's Dictionary it means, "to show hospitality" this most certainly is a biblical expectation but I know, that's not what is meant when we say worship is entertaining. It's the idea of worship as entertainment that bothers us.

Entertainment: "amusement or diversion provided especially by performers... something diverting or engaging." Is this definition of entertainment incompatible with worship?

I think we would all agree that worship is muck more than amusement, although there can be amusing times in worship. I've witnessed the most uptight of people laughing heartily as a child came up with some off the wall comment during a children's time.
Is worship a diversion? In many ways it is, it serves as a moment in the week in which we are pulled out of our normal routine and offered an opportunity to pause and reflect on something/someone else.
Are there performers in worship? Yes there are. In our congregation the performers include the Liturgist, the children's time presenter, the choir director, the organist, the pastor, the choir and the congregation.

I hope that corporate worship is both diverting and engaging, diverting our focus from ourselves to God and engaging our hearts and minds in the process so we may be better able to follow Christ in the upcoming week.

Let's be honest, if worship didn't entertain us we wouldn't be there, unless our parents make us go. Close antonyms for entertain include, bore, jade, and weary. That may be how many describe your worship service, I hope not, it's not a requirement for worship to bore, worship should engage hearts, minds and souls and entertain them in the best sense of the word.

I believe that worship, if it is to be a celebration of the life that is ours in Christ, giving glory to God for that and challenging us to live as his followers will always be entertaining.

Why Evangelicalism Is Failing A New Generation - A Response

My colleague, Carol Howard Merritt, posted a blog over at the Huffington Post on "Why Evangelicalism is Failing A New Generation." After reading her piece I felt, as an evangelical, that I needed to respond.

As I read the article I found myself wondering how Carol defined "evangelicalism"?

Does she agree with the widely held definition developed by David Bebbington that evangelicalism is built around four posts, Conversionism, Activism, Biblicism and Crucicentrism? Conversionism being the changed life that comes after a person has encountered Christ; Activism being the work of reaching out to others with the gospel message; Biblicism is the deep devotion to the Bible among evangelicals; and Crucicentrism being the central position of the cross, atonement, in Christian theology. 

At no point does Carol suggest that these core elements of evangelicalism are the reason that a younger generation is leaving the church. Rather the three reasons she gives, "pernicious sexism, religious intolerance, and conservative politics," have no place in the commonly held definition of evangelicalism. It may be a form of fundamentalism or conservatism that people are rejecting but if these are the reasons for their leaving then its not classic evangelicalism that is failing them.

As for Robertson and Dobson being the spokesmen for evangelicalism I couldn't disagree more. I've been to a lot of evangelical conferences and never once has Dobson or Robertson been on the platform. I don't believe either has ever been on the platform at Willow Creeks Leadership Summit (one of the largest, if not the largest evangelical leaders conference) which along with having a number of women on their platform they also have started offering a pre-conference day for women in ministry to help address their particular concerns and needs.

Who are the major voices of evangelicalism today? On the more senior side, J.I. Packer and John Stott still carry the banner high. Through his theological insight N.T. Wright is helping evangelicalism find a 21st century voice. On the pastoral side, Bill Hybels, Rick Warren, Andy Stanley, Erwin McManus, John Ortberg and a whole host of others are working to equip God's people. To the best of my knowledge none of these folks have ever been accused of pernicious sexism, nor are they known for displaying religious intolerance, and as for conservative politics, I don't think any of them have preached a political agenda from their pulpits. Perhaps I should add Tony Campolo and Jim Wallis to this list of major evangelical (not conservative or fundamentalist) voices.

I think every evangelical I know would agree that 'pernicious sexism' has no place in the church. I think they would all agree that 'religious intolerance' has no place either, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't engage people of other faiths with the gospel, it simply means that our engagement and dialogue should be courteous and respectful. As for 'conservative politics' we all seek to be faithful to Scripture in our civic life, at times we disagree on what the scriptures teach and often we then pigeon hole others, never a good idea.

As for the assetion, "Many Evangelical megachurches began with a specific inquiry: "Why aren't men going to church? "" I'm left wondering which congregation began with this particular inquiry.

I'm 100% behind anyone who leaves a church because of, "pernicious sexism, religious intolerance, and conservative politics." But I strongly disagree with the assertion that evangelicalism is failing a new generation.

Movie Theaters, Change and the Church

I remember when going to a movie theater meant sitting in a huge auditorium, I liked to sit with my friends in the balcony. You would wait patiently, not for the previews and adds to end but rather for the curtains to swing open revealing the screen on which you would watch the opening movie. This would then be followed by an intermission before the main feature would begin.

I remember the ladies with flashlights showing people the way back to their seats after they were late returning from the intermission or late arriving. I remember the cloud of smoke that filled the place. I remember people applauding after a good movie.

As times changed in the motion picture industry the theater I used to go to as a kid, was divided to make four smaller theaters so more movies could be shown at the same time. The sound quality was better, the seats were more comfortable, the picture was clearer, it was non-smoking. But the screen was smaller, the buzz of excitement was gone, the event was feature film only, the applause was gone. It was better, it was worse, it was different.

My dad remembers when newsreels were part of the movie experience, My grandfather (98) remembers silent films. Much has changed over the course of time, we now have movies with CGI and other innovative technologies. 

The movie industry is innovative and adaptive.

I often hear conservative preachers lament the demise of culture and morality and blame Hollywood for it.

Yet we worship a God who created the world and according to Scripture (Acts 2, Peter quoting Joel) created us to be dreamers and visionaries. So why has the church stopped dreaming? Why have so many churches decided to live in some time period and culture other than that of March 18, 2010? Why isn't the church taking the lead in creating a vision of the future? 

St. Patrick's Legacy

It's St. Patrick's day today. All over the world people will be celebrating with parades, green beer and Chicago will be dying the river green as well. But that's hardly the legacy of Patrick.

Patrick's legacy would be better marked in the church than in the pub. Patrick's legacy could be stated as innovative and creative missionary activity that brought the gospel of Jesus Christ into the towns and villages of Ireland. 

As a young man Patrick was taken as a slave to Ireland after a raiding party attacked the west coast of England or Wales. Patrick then tended sheep on Slemish mountain before he finally escaped and returned home. After returning home he entered the church and became a bishop and sensed God's call to return to Ireland. As he notes in one of the few writings we have from him...

 I saw a man coming, as it were from Ireland. His name was Victoricus, and he carried many letters, and he gave me one of them. I read the heading: "The Voice of the Irish". As I began the letter, I imagined in that moment that I heard the voice of those very people who were near the wood of Foclut, which is beside the western sea—and they cried out, as with one voice: "We appeal to you, holy servant boy, to come and walk among us.

So he returned to Ireland, most likely with an entourage of others and began to proclaim Christ to the people. Establishing small communities outside of towns he would build relationships and friendships with the tribal leaders, looking for and developing cultural connection points with the community. He wasn't looking to civilize and change the culture, he was trying to bring Christ into the culture.

Patrick's legacy would be carried forward by Columba who established the Iona community on a major shipping lane of the time and Columbanus would venture into Europe and establish several monastic communities.

Patrick's legacy is not green beer and parades, it is the faithful missionary activity of the church, taking the gospel to those who have not yet heard. This is the legacy I want to celebrate and live out in my life.

A thought on church music

I've been thinking a lot about the songs we sing on a Sunday morning during worship. Most of them come from the Presbyterian Hymnal which was published in 1990 and is now twenty years old. Work on the hymnal began in 1985 and concluded in 1989.

I decided to do a little unscientific research on the hymnal here's what I discovered... I am a lifelong Presbyterian and an ordained Presbyterian minister. I went through the hymnal, 605 pieces of music, to see how many of them I readily recognized. The number I came up with was 112. Now of those 112 some should no longer be sung in worship, Kum ba Yah for example is best left in the past. 

The question I have to ask is do I represent the typical forty-plus year old male in the church? In some ways most definitely, in other ways probably not. Most men my age have had much less exposure to church music that I have had and so would most likely recognize far fewer hymns than I do. 

What has our congregation done with these 605 songs? Fortunately we have had people keep a diligent record of the songs we have used since acquiring the hymnal in 1990. Since 1990 we have sung 260 of the songs three or more times,(three was an arbitrary cut off) although three times in 20 years is hardly enough to instill them in the collective memory. Of the 260 we have sung, 72 of have not been used in the past five years. I wonder how many really form part of the collective memory of the congregation?

I also have a book titled, "The Best Praise and Worship Songs Ever" containing 80 songs. Of the eighty songs listed I would be happy singing over seventy of them.

I can go see U2, Bob Dylan, Tom Petty, Bruce Springsteen, Van Morrison, Bruce Cockburn and a host of other artists and sing along with almost every song they play without any music or lyrics to follow. Why's that, because the music moves me and I listen to it frequently. I have thousands of songs on my i-pod, hundreds of which I can sing along to, yet in worship we still see the need to provide music and words each week.

Before anyone thinks I'm bashing classic hymns, here's my top ten list of hymns. As you can see only one of them is a modern song, the rest have proven themselves over time.

My top ten hymns:
1. And Can It Be (not in our hymnal)
2. Be Thou My Vision
3. How Great Thou Art
4. A Mighty Fortress
5. Amazing Grace
6. Christ The Lord Is Risen Today
7. I Sing The Mighty Power of God
8. Praise Ye The Lord, the Almighty
9. When I Survey the Wondrous Cross
10. I Live For You (a little known song from Mosaic in LA)

What are your favorites... old and new?

"Pastor, why don't you wear a robe?"

Every once in a while the question as to why I don't wear robes comes up in conversation. The latest suggestion was that I might consider wearing them when we serve communion. What's the big deal about robes?

On a practical level I find them cumbersome, hot and uncomfortable. On a theological level I don't believe that the office of pastor is so significantly different from other gifts in the church to require a different dress code, particularly one that dates back to ancient Rome. 

I don't see the point in wearing an academic gown to show off my level of learning for all the congregation to see, if I have something to say that is of God it may have nothing to do with my learning and everything to do with my relationship with Jesus.

It has been suggested that I could wear a gown as it creates an amorphous appearance that draws attention away from the person presiding at communion. Perhaps, but I believe that God uses individuals with their gifts and personality to shape and mold the church. Whoever presides at communion is a real life, flesh and blood person with personality and passion and, for better or worse, I don't think that should be hidden behind a robe.

When I've talked with my female colleagues many of them tell me they wear a robe because our culture has such high fashion expectations for women and, as a result, people are quick to criticize women's fashion sense and are easily distracted by it. Fair enough, but I'm not a woman and a man with a jacket and tie is rarely criticized for his look.

I believe the church is made up of people with different gifts, passions and talents. We come together in a great cacophony and in worship that cacophony finds some harmonies and is turned into a beautiful symphony. But we come together as one and don't differentiate based on dress, education or any other standard of this world. I don't wear robes because I stand as one with the people of God. I may lead worship but I too need to confess my sin, receive pardon, hear God's word read and preached (even if its my own words) and receive the sacrament. I do not stand apart from the congregation, I stand with them for I am one of them. 

Four opinions on one issue... music in worship

Following worship yesterday I was approached by four different people, all of whom wanted to express an opinion on the same part of the worship service. All four had a different thought to share!

Of the four hymns we sang yesterday only one was from the hymnal, two could be considered contemporary and the fourth was Wesley's, "And Can It Be" which I believe should be in the hymnal and I was shocked that only one member of our choir had ever heard of this classic hymn. 

So what did people have to say? The first person told me how much they enjoyed the music in the service and where delighted with the direction we were taking. The second person asked that we get a song leader to lead the newer songs for the congregation. The third person complained about only using one hymn from the hymnal explaining that the hymnal is full of good songs that we could sing. The fourth person didn't like trying to follow the repeats in the printed music for the non-hymnal songs and was delighted when I told them we would start putting lyrics up on our new screen soon. All four people were seniors.

So what is a pastor to do when he gets conflicting suggestions? 
First of all I believe a pastor has to be clear on the mission of the church and continue to share that with the congregation and not be swept along by individuals thoughts and opinions.
Second the pastor needs to listen to these voices to see if there if they represent a broaden current of discontent and then be willing to address it.
Third the pastor has a difficult responsibility in leading worship in such a way as to honor the generations that are present, so that all who come can meet with God. That being said for the sake of the future of the church there is a need to lean toward the younger upcoming generation.

How do you or your church handle things like this?