Amy Kaylor: "Modern Worship is Missing the Truth"

“God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth” ­
--John 4:24,

By Amy Kaylor
from The Sojourn,
the student newspaper at Indiana Wesleyan University



(Warning: this is a very provocative piece. But I think it's a worthwhile corrective to the subjectivism that dominates much of postmodern worship. --BB)

I’m sick of worshiping myself. Is anybody with me on this?

I used to be all about “modern worship.” Hymnals? Yuck! Let’s break out the Chris Tomlin, Matt Redman, “this-is-the-air-I-breathe-I-love-you-I-will-never-let-you-go” songs. But somewhere along the line, I got tired of singing about how I feel and what I’m going to do.

The problem I have with modern worship—whether in IWU chapel or in the local church—is the phenomenon of what others have so aptly named “Jesus is my boyfriend” songs. When you think about it, most of the “praise choruses” we sing to God could really be sung to a boyfriend/girlfriend, without changing much of anything.

As a result of all this emotional sappiness, our “praise and worship” has lost a whole lot of meaning. We’re not really worshiping God at all—we’re worshiping our feelings. These days, I’m hard pressed to find one slide in a worship set that doesn’t have the word “I” or “me” anywhere on it. These pronouns are problematic in and of themselves (the Bride of Christ is the collective Church, so shouldn’t it be “we”?), but the point is, it’s about us. Despite the fact that we sing, “It’s all about You, Jesus,” we sure don’t act like it.

I’m not saying using “I” or “me” is wrong; I firmly believe that there’s a place in worship for subjective, emotional response. But that’s just it—it should be a response. What are those subjective emotions based on? If they come as a response to the objective truth of God—His character and His actions—then fine. Let’s respond to those revelations by telling God how much we love Him, how desperate we are for Him, how we’re never going to leave Him.

But I don’t always feel that warm-fuzzy “in love” feeling about Christ; He isn’t always “my heart’s one desire,” and chances are, I won’t always cling desperately to Him. I’m not that constant. What sustains my faith is the fact that He is. In worship, we need to focus our attention, our songs of praise, on the One who is worthy of worship. Let’s sing about His mighty acts, His glorious deeds. Even better yet, let’s sing about who He is—sovereign, holy, merciful, loving, righteous, for starters—besides what He does for us.

If we’re singing about God, I can worship regardless of how I feel. Sure, I’d like to “feel” close to Him, but even if I don’t, I can still sing about how and why He’s so worthy of my praise. But when I don’t “feel” close to God, I can’t do much of anything in most modern worship services.

During one recent chapel, we sang: “…all I really long for is You / All I really yearn for is You…” I sat in silence because I couldn’t honestly sing those words—can you? Really? If so, please write a letter to the editor and tell me your secret…cause although I want that to be true, I long for other things besides God. I yearn for other people than Him.

I went to Sunnycrest Baptist Church for the first time last weekend, and I didn’t know many of the songs we sang. But what a breath of fresh air! We were actually singing about God, not about ourselves. We were declaring the splendor and majesty of our Creator, our Savior, our Counselor—and that made me want to respond.

Response is valuable, but only if it’s response. You’ve got to have something substantial to respond to—otherwise all that emotion is pointless. I understand that leading worship and selecting song sets is difficult; I’ve done it. But won’t our worship be a whole lot more meaningful if we start worshiping God and stop worshiping our feelings? My feelings won’t be the same an hour from now, let alone next week…but my God is the same yesterday, today and forever—and that is worthy of my praise.

http://www.indwes.edu/tuesday/worship.amy.kaylor.htm

Robert Webber: Is Worship an Experience?

(I have found many points of connection with Robert Webber on the topic of worship. Here's one of his articles from his Ancient-Future Talk site. I'll be posting some more of them later.)

Is Worship an Experience?
by Robert Webber


I have found that it is common to speak of worship as an experience. If you tell someone you visited a different church, most likely you will get the question, "Was it a good experience?" It is hard to know what people mean by this question. It is also difficult to understand what people mean by their responses: "Oh, yeah, the music was great!" "Loved the sermon." "Great skit!" "It was worshipful." "Yep, had a good time."

So what does "experience" mean? In its broadest sense, all of life is an experience. Life itself engages the whole person. We think about things, feel, make choices, move about, relate to people and our environment and engage all our senses; we smell, hear, taste and touch. And all these experiences include emotions such as fear, trust, love, anger, fidelity, and the like.

Worship is a specific experience within the broad experience of life. But usually the worship experience is defined more narrowly. For some, a good worship experience is cheerleading for God; a rally—"rah-rah"—for Jesus. For others, a good worship experience is more quiet and contemplative.

Lindsey Johnson sent me an interesting e-mail telling me her story of worship in both the approaches mentioned above. She writes: "I knew how to raise my hands at the right time and close my eyes and tilt my head heavenward. I knew the perfect time during a song to kneel down, when to bow, and when to jump exuberantly … I thought that no matter how I was feeling I needed to 'give my all' to Him in worship and that was how to do it."

Let me offer an interpretation of her experience. It sounds like the worship that arises from me (see July newsletter, 2003). This worship can become a "new worship legalism": "I can do it better than you. My worship is more intense and, therefore, more acceptable to God."

Next, she describes a worship experience more like the one I advocate in
Ancient-Future Talk. She writes: "God taught me something new about worship—the whole time filling me with His incredible, indescribable, non-contrived, and uncontainable worship for Him. This worship nourished my
heart and made me feel vibrant all over."

I interpret her second experience as worship that comes from above. That is, God is active in this worship. It is not only God who is worshiped, but it is God who acts upon the worshiper.

Worship that arises from the self is exhausting. The worshiper feels that he or she must produce worship. Essentially this kind of worship is a "work-worship." I must do it. I must act excited. I must close my eyes. Lift my hands. Tilt my head or bow my knee as an offering of my worship. Compare this worship with a worship that actually derives from God who is at work in the assembly of gathered people in Word, sign, and gesture:

One kind of worship demands of us; the other fills us.
One worship is a legalistic effort; the other is a grace-filled gift.
One worship will tire your spirit; the other will bring you to rest.
One worship will make you think, "I did it," and the other will make you aware that God's presence has filled your heart, energized your spirit, and filled you with the sense that, in spite of all your life issues, all is well.

The first worship seeks a relationship with God through the effort of self.
The second worship is union with God through prayer.

Next month I will pursue the kind of emotion each of these worships generates.

Bob Webber
Myers Professor of Ministry
Director of M.A. in Worship and Spirituality
Northern Seminary—www.seminary.edu
(See Northern's M.A. in Worship and Spirituality and D.Min. in Worship by
clicking on the website.)
http://www.ancientfutureworship.com/
© 2003 The Institute for Worship Studies

Satire by Dorothy Sayers

For an Evening Service

This hymn is suitable for the Vigil of the Enlightenment

The day that Nature gave is ending,
The Hand of Man turns on the light;
We praise thee, Progress, for defending
Our nerves against the dreadful night.
As o’er each continent and island
The switches spread synthetic day,
The noise of mirth is never silent,
Nor dies the strain of toil away.

We thank thee that thy speed incessant
Provides upon this whirling ball
No time to brood on things unpleasant—
No time, in fact, to think at all.
Secure amid the soothing riot
Of crank and sound-track, ‘plane and car,
We shall not be condemned to quiet,
Nor left alone with what we are.

By lavish and progressive measures
Our neighbour’s wants are all relieved;
We are not called to share his pleasures,
And in his grief we are not grieved.
Thy wingèd wheels o’erspan the oceans,
Machining out the Standard Man,
Our food, our learning, our emotions
Are processed for us in the can.

All bars of colour, caste and nation
Must yield to movies and the mike;
We need not seek communication,
For thou does make us all alike.
So be it! Let not sleep nor slackness
Impede thy Progress, Light sublime;
Nor ever let us glimpse the blackness
That yawns behind the gates of Time.

Utilitarianism, Pragmatism and Christian Ethics

(Senator Bill Frist's recent advocacy of embryonic stem cell research is a perfect example of how Americans hold pragmatism and utilitarianism as normative. The question I ask is, can Christians hold these ethical theories?)

"The real drive behind the argument over personhood, at least for human embryos, says Hurlbut, is that they have become a potential resource for biotechnology. 'If there was no use for the embryo,' he argues, 'people would be more willing to grant it full moral standing from the beginning.' "

"'...For years, evangelical leaders have been very clear on the question of life and personhood beginning at conception,' Hall says. 'Now that we have found a use for embryos, with the possibility of healing ourselves and healing our children, we are tempted to rethink our position on prenatal life.' She points to an irony of the evangelical pro-life commitment: 'Now that we are being called to bear the sacrifice of a witness to life, we are tempted not to sacrifice.'"
--Copyright © 2004 Christianity Today.
July 2004, Vol. 48, No. 7, Page 24
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/007/7.24.html


Utilitarianism says, "do that which provides the greatest good for the greatest number." Pragmatism says, "Whatever works is what is good." (Note: this is NOT the same as saying, "what is good will work.") Utilitarianism is the premiere ethical theory of the Enlightenment, that period of human history that celebrated the deistic "marginalizing" or eclipse of God. (Remember John Stuart Mill? Or Spock, at the end of "The Wrath of Khan?" "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few... or the one." ) Pragmatism is the premier ethical theory of postmodernism, that period of human history where the transcendent is --at best--unknowable, perhaps non-existent.

Utilitarianism and pragmatism are also favorite ethical theories for free markets, because they pose so few restraints. Two years ago, when our CAC meeting was held in Connecticut, I was amazed to see billboards along the roadside and commercials on TV advertising various fertility clinics, the same way beer or cosmetics get advertised. There's definitely a market here, and markets hate to be told they cannot expand! Our libertarian streak runs deep, particularly when we can make a profit at the same time we think we can be doing good.

With an average cost of $12,400 per cycle, infertility treatment has become a billion-dollar industry. And there's enormous potential for growth. The Association for Reproductive Medicine reports that only 5 percent of the estimated 2.1 million infertile couples have used IVF. To capitalize on this potential, a number of clinics have begun offering "100 percent money-back guarantees" and financing for patients who sign up for ART discount packages.
I have recently been diagnosed as a type II diabetic. My mother had Alzheimer's for ten years, and I witnessed her "long goodbye." I have dear friends whose bodies have been ravaged by type I diabetes. I myself have dealt with some mild infertility issues, and I have other friends who have struggled deeply with more profound infertility problems. Do I wish there was a way to end all this suffering? Of course I do! But do I wish to do so by defining away who my neighbor is? As Paul so often said, "Me genoito"--may it never be!

Like many ethicists, Scheidt is concerned that personhood is used more often than not to exclude, rather than include people. "When we didn't want to treat blacks as equal," he says, "we defined them as not persons or as three-fifths of a person in the early American Constitution. We define a fetus as a non-person, and then we can do whatever we wish with it. Most recently [personhood has] been used in arguments about people in persistent vegetative states."

Pain and suffering can make us not think clearly. It can also tempt us to grasp at any solution. That is why it is so important to think beforehand about these issues. Otherwise, our compassion may turn into cruelty, and--even worse--we might not be able to discern the difference. Chuck Colson writes: "To sacrifice one person for the good of many can never be justified. Evil often masquerades as good; the worst atrocities are performed in the name of humanitarian causes."

So, IMO, Christians of every stripe must wrestle with the question of how well the utilitarian/pragmatic moral reasoning represents the mind of Christ. People like Nancy Reagan, Mary Tyler Moore and Christopher Reeve would tell us there is no contradiction. ("Why not *use* those embryos for the greater good?") Others, like Gilbert Meilander and Charles Colson, do not operate not out of Enlightenment presuppositions, nor do they wear pragmatic postmodernist lenses as they read scripture. They find great discontinuity between current popular moral reasoning and God's word. Like Captain James T. Kirk, in the "The Search for Spock," and like the shepherd in Luke 15:4-7, they say, "The needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many."

Unfortunately, we hear the voices of Reagan, Moore and Reeve more loudly and clearly than those of C.S. Lewis, Meilander, Colson, Hurlbut, Verhey Barg and Hall. It takes real courage and faith to listen for the still small voice which says:
“If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross daily and follow me. For those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will save it. What does it profit them if they gain the whole world, but lose or forfeit themselves?

As Mother Theresa said, "It is a poverty of spirit to believe that a child must die so that you can continue to live as you choose." It takes even more courage and faith to stand beside and minister to those whose suffer, and to support those who are sacrificing themselves for the sake of the suffering. However, we are not without examples, and we are not without a Comforter who brings consolation and hope to us all, But only those with eyes to see can receive it: the Enlightenment clouded those lenses, and postmodernism has blinded us.

This, therefore, is my prayer:

Father,
may the eyes of our hearts be enlightened in order that we might know the hope to which You have called us, the riches of your glorious inheritance in the saints, and Your incomparably great power for those of us who believe. Lead us to new ways of healing, and overcoming infertility, which do not tempt us to marginalize You, and those You have given us as neighbors. And help us not to fear, but to be ready to sacrifice ourselves, as we seek to follow Your Son, who became a sacrifice for us.

For Jesus' sake,

Amen.

Chuck Colson: Biotech and Utilitarian Ethics

This article was published a while back in Christianity Today, but it is still relevant.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2001/012/34.128.html

THE NEW TYRRANY:
Biotechnology threatens to turn humanity into raw material.

By Charles Colson

The biotech steamroller, fueled by huge profits, crushes moral restraint in its path.

A pipe-smoking, tweed-jacketed Oxford don saw it all coming more than 50 years ago: Scientists and politicians debating human cloning, gene manipulation, controlling our progeny--all in the name of humanity, of course.
"If any one age really attains, by eugenics and scientific education, the power to make its descendants what it pleases," C.S. Lewis prophetically warned, "all men who live after are the patients of that power." They will be slaves to the "dead hand of the great planners and conditioners."

This is ultimately the issue facing us in today's intense debates over embryonic stem-cell research, so-called therapeutic cloning, and the like. Beyond the questions argued in Congress as I writewhether embryos are humans or merely, as The New York Times puts it, "a ball of cells"lurks the largely ignored question Lewis posed: What becomes of humanity if we become the controllers?

The biotech revolution has surged forward as the defining issue of this new century. On the one hand, it holds out great promise for medical advances enhancing life and health for all humankind. On the other, it raises unprecedented ethical issues.

Christians are not Luddites; we simply insist that science remain tethered to moral truth. But the biotech revolution is moving like a steamroller, fueled by huge potential profits, crushing everything--including moral restraint--in its path. Secular ethics, in this relativistic age, have been drained of moral content; they can be based only on utilitarianism (doing the greatest good for the greatest number) or pragmatism (doing whatever works). Thus Princeton bioethicist Peter Singer advocates infanticide for defective babies and Dutch-style euthanasia of the most infirm elderly.

Admittedly, in the political debate, the utilitarians apparently have seized the moral high ground with powerful humanitarian appeals. They offer dazzling predictions that embryonic stem-cell research will lead to cures for Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, and other diseases. Not incidentally, they appeal to self-interest as well. Who doesn't have a relative so afflicted (and who doesn't fear such affliction for oneself)? Unused embryos are going to be destroyed anyway, they argue--so using them to help the desperately sick is the truly "prolife" position.
Some 65 years ago, German doctors made similar arguments, justifying the killing of the physically and mentally retarded, whom they described as Lebens unswertes Leben--"life unworthy of life."

We need to challenge the premises of the utilitarians' case. For example, predictions of what cloning and embryo stem-cell research may accomplish have been grossly overstated, and experiments have led to some grotesque results. Nor have proponents established that only embryonic stem cells can meet the research needs; promising results have been achieved from easily harvested placental and adult stem cells--the use of which presents no ethical dilemmas.

And what about those "leftover" embryos that are just going to be destroyed? Couples who have adopted them ought to show off their beautiful "post embryos," now healthy children.
Finally, we should point out that many of the scientists involved in embryonic stem-cell research (and the so-called ethicists hired by biotech industries) are poised to make huge profits from their deadly studies. This goes largely unreported.

But our greatest service as Christians is to do what we best do, that is, raise transcendent moral arguments. To sacrifice one person for the good of many can never be justified. Evil often masquerades as good; the worst atrocities are performed in the name of humanitarian causes. And we must press the logic of the utilitarian argument to its ultimate conclusion: Sacrificing one to benefit all soon makes all vulnerable.

Christians must do more than assert the truth that life begins at conception; people dismiss that as arbitrary and outdated dogma. We must also raise the question Lewis did in The Abolition of Man: What does it really mean if we set ourselves up as the master of the future destiny of the human race?
Lewis answers: If man with his technology makes the ultimate conquest over nature, he will soon find that nature has conquered him. "If man chooses to treat himself as raw material, raw material he will be," manipulated by dehumanized conditioners.

The 20th century will be remembered for the triumph of liberal democracy over tyranny. What tragic irony if the 21st century, by exchanging transcendent moral truth for the cold calculus of utilitarianism, ushers in a new and even more terrifying form of tyranny.

October 1, 2001, Vol. 45, No. 12, Page 128

On-Line Daily Devotionals

What a wonderful resource we have in the internet, particularly when it comes to daily devotionals. Here are some of my favorites:

http://www.annarborvineyard.org/tdh/tdh.cfm
The Divine Hours
edited by Phyllis Tickle, and hosted by the Ann Arbor Vineyard Church.

The Divine Hours is a form of prayer at specific times, to be used by individuals or groups. It includes morning, midday, vespers (evening) and compline (before retiring) offices, rooted in the biblical tradition and adapted in the Book of Common Prayer. This site automatically updates the prayers according to information you give it about your particular time zone.

More than any other devotional tool, the divine hours links me not only with a wealth of scripture but with all Christians who have sought the Lord, now and throughout the centuries. To me there is something very powerful about praying in community, across space and time and denominational barriers. I also appreciate the opportunity to order my life according to a rhythm that is eternal. Much like the Church Year teaches us to follow a different calendar than the one given by the world, so the Divine Hours teaches us to follow a different clock, setting our souls by the Word. It's a foretaste of heaven, and so has become the site I most often visist.

http://ivpress.gospelcom.net/bible/
The IVP Quiet Time Bible Studies

This is probably the most traditional of the the three devotional sites I frequent, providing brief but engaging Bible study in the IV tradition. The focus here is mainly on scripture study and application: a more right-brained approach which requires a discipline which many postmoderns tend to avoid.

http://www.sacredspace.ie/
Sacred Space,
the online prayer site of the Irish Jesuits.

This is probably the most experiential of the sites. Its on-line presentation is deliberately designed to compel the reader to slow down and meditate, by requiring a lot of scrolling. The Introduction page reinforces the idea that the purpose of this site is not amassing information but encountering God by moving through six moments of prayer:

"Although they are written in the first person -- "I" -- the prayers are for doing, rather than for reading out. Each stage is a kind of exercise or meditation aimed at helping you get in touch with God, and God's presence in your life.At any of the stages, click on 'Prayer Guide' for explanation, guidance and other helps to prayer, from modern Jesuit writers.

The site is organized into the following stages which involve preparing both your body and mind, and culminating in reflection on a scripture passage chosen specially for the day:

1. The Presence of God
2. Freedom
3. Consciousness
4. The Word
5. Conversation
6. Conclusion

This site might be a little too experiential for some Evangelicals, but seems to have great appeal for Emergents.

So, what do you think of these sites? Are there others that you prefer? Or do you think the whole idea of praying at one's computer is a bit spiritually "loose?" Let me know what you think.

John Donne: "A Hymn to God the Father"

A recent conversation with Jay Eads gave me occasion to recall this poem, one of my favorites. Note the way Donne puns his own name.



WILT Thou forgive that sin where I begun,
Which was my sin, though it were done before?
Wilt Thou forgive that sin through which I run,
And do run still, though still I do deplore?
When Thou hast done, Thou hast not done;
For I have more.


Wilt Thou forgive that sin which I have won
Others to sin, and made my sins their door?
Wilt Thou forgive that sin which I did shun
A year or two, but wallow'd in a score?
When Thou hast done, Thou hast not done;
For I have more.


I have a sin of fear, that when I've spun
My last thread, I shall perish on the shore;
But swear by Thyself that at my death Thy Son
Shall shine as He shines now and heretofore:
And having done that, Thou hast done;
I fear no more.

John Donne, 1573–1631