Matt, how can you say that Todd is advocating a form of law when you’re criticizing a church you’ve never been to for not including all the formulaic elements of worship you think are necessary? How is that not legalism?

The Bible does not demand that we always worship in the same style or form, only that we worship in spirit and in truth, that we worship the one true God. I can assure you as one who actually has been to the Bridge that this is their heart and their intention when it comes to worship. It’s not for everyone, and it doesn’t have to be. Since when does corporate worship have to contradict the idea of individual creativity? In God’s kingdom, they are part of the same expression.

That is all.

Hey, I’m glad you took the time to write. Honestly, I thought you had dropped off the conversation a while ago, so I wasn’t feeling it necessary to add anything.

I do see the problem you bring up, that a person who disagrees in this type of blog comment back-and-forth is often branded as an attacker, rather than someone who is furthering the discussion. I’m sorry that I pulled out so easily. I believe you are right, in some regard.

The language you used didn’t seem to leave much room for discussion, though. You believe what you believe, and I believe what I believe. I suspect that your journey to get to where you’re at now has been a rough one. My has, too. So I didn’t really feel it was my place to start arguing my position on things.

As I mentioned before, I don’t think I could encapsulate our struggles as a community towards an authentic approach to worship and connection without diluting it. That’s why I didn’t feel like I could carry the discussion further, not because I’m refusing to interact with you, as you said. This format seems to unnecessarily confuse things, and I don’t like that. Especially when it comes down to things I really care about.

Have you sharpened me? You sure have inspired me to think a bit more about how to explain why I do what I do.

I’m sure you can see that I’m very sensitive and protective of the community I’ve been a part of. We’ve fought long and hard together. That’s what you’re getting when you feel that “defensiveness”. Plus, over the years, many people in my life have talked about “sharpening iron”, “speaking the truth in brotherly love”, and just used those phrases to absolve themselves from blame while they proceed to be unnecessarily brutal with me, my family and my community. I guess it’s a once-bitten, twice-shy deal.

Your zeal for Reformation Christianity has piqued my interest. Do you have any suggested reading that specifically moved you toward taking this approach? Maybe that would help the conversation.

I hope you haven’t read through all of those previous posts and just gleaned that they were all just defending Angie and I. They all are thinking for themselves, just like you.

Sorry if you’re done. It’s taken a bit for me to gather my thoughts about this.

-Todd

If I write something online, especially if it is likely to be controversial, (as I have done here) I EXPECT people to disagree with me, and I’m offended if they dance around with platitudes and appeasement rather than just making an argument for their position and asserting my incorrectness. Many here have spoken of conversation. Then conversate! Interact with the content of what I’ve said (as Jim has and Brent), not with your perception of my tone and attitude (which is with good and brotherly intent). Really, how does iron sharpen iron? By abrasion. Two pieces of iron strike directly against each other, and each is sharpened. Todd, you’ve sharpened me in this conversation. I’ve learned at least that I need to give more background to where I’m coming from rather than just throwing it in from left field. Have I sharpened you? I wonder because you have refused to really interact with what I’ve said, the content and substance of what I’ve said. Instead, you’ve gone on the defensive. With your (good) emphasis on community, I wonder why you become so easily defensive when a brother challenges you. In saying what I’ve said, I only wanted to put a different view out there in hopes that it might challenge someone who is reading. And like I said, I didn’t mean to criticize the music so much as the philosophy behind it.

Why did I bring up the Gospel? Because we are talking about the worship of God!!! We are talking about the worship of the God to whom we relate ONLY through the Gospel, the good news of what his Son has accomplished on our behalf. Do we worship God out of duty (read Law) or do we worship him out of delightful response to what he’s done for us miserable bastards? (Yes! I feel that strongly about my own depravity and brokenness!)

Does God have any expectations as we worship him. Read the Bible. From beginning to end, worship always takes place in a somewhat prescribed way. Does that make it meaningless and insincere? No, worshipping in a biblically prescribed way does not end up meaningless and insincere unless you want to assert that God’s Word to us is meaningless and insincere. We can be insincere, but not if we are truly believing the Gospel. If I am truly believing the Gospel, then it won’t matter if I’m a po-mo punk rocker that my church is singing hymns with piano and organ (I don’t do that at my church, btw). And you will look in vain for an example of people worshipping God in their own expressive way and being approved for it. (Think of Nadab and Abihu.)

At this point I doubt it’s very fruitful to continue this conversation. Though I’d like to interact with some of Jim’s questions concerning Frame as well as Brent’s, I just doubt the fruitfulness of that here at this time. I will just say that I don’t buy Frame’s view.

This has been good to discuss. Thanks.

The Bridge is loud and rowdy and at times chaotic. It’s not for everybody, and that is Todd’s point. The same sound is not meant to be reproduced in every community. Todd’s passion is to see his brothers and sisters free from the inhibitions that keep the creative, customized manifestation of worship from organically springing up in any faith community, whether it’s a house church, high church, low church or street church or whatever. Diversity and creativity in gathered worship times is a good thing.

As for the idea of creative worship at risk of becoming self-serving rather than Christ exalting, this is the present danger for all human beings in every endeavor of connecting to God. I’ve heard of lot of self-serving sermons over the years as well as self-centered praying!

As a woman of faith who has worshiped with her brothers and sisters in all kinds of context since the 80’s I find the Bridge unique because it is just that: unique to who we are. It is not meant to be a model or template for others to copy. Finding your own sound and letting people be free to eff up and not be polished and super talented is the heart beat of the Fadel’s leadership in our community. That is truly, truly liberating and refreshing.

When a person is invited to participate, offering what they have, talented or not (or latent), they experience more personally the event they are participating in. In practice, each person learns their place, what they bring and when it’s their turn to offer it. Through this kind of experience they realize that they are valuable to the whole body and to God as an individual who He created to be part of His church.

I have experienced this in home churches.
I don’t believe the Bible supports the idea of a “Pastor” as the sole or even the primary minister in a body of believers. All members have a part. I believe that the PARTicipation in worship or discussion of the Word helps each person to internalize what God is doing/saying there and helps the body learn to function corporately as one body.

Any style of worship can be sterile or fruitful. More important than what you offer is LISTENING to what God says in response.

I like the example that Jake gave:
“So in this example you’ve got an element of order brought on by following God’s limitations and boundaries, and an element of pure unrestrained expression of joy. It’s clear both are appropriate (limitations and freedom to express)”

Any time someone can be quoted they can be misunderstood, and I think the microscope on Todd’s description of the Gospel is completely unnecessary. I feel sure that Todd understands and experiences the true Gospel through his relationship with God.

We are commanded to spread the Gospel and we do that by sharing our experience with God and retelling the story of Jesus. Even the Bible is made up of individuals retelling the story as they experienced it. So to be sure the Gospel is the message we give, we tell the story in our own words in a personal way, individually and corporately. I think Agents of Future does that by expressing their experience with God through this form of worship and it brings the Gospel to people and it brings people into the body.

What they do and what they learn through it is a process, just as it is a process for each of us to walk closer with God. There is no finished project on Earth. Love always trusts, always hopes that the process that the beloved is experiencing is drawing them nearer to God.

I am personally inspired by Agents of Future.

I am not surprised to hear comments like “built on some shaky foundations” from a fellow Christian–not because it is accurate, but because we Christians are trained to think that way. That is, we are trained to looks for certain affirmations of conformity to the acceptable practice, and then we make a snap judgment about whether the subject is “Christian” enough or not. For example, some questions put to Todd are: Is AOF emphasizing the gospel enough? Are their members all doing the “right” things? Are they making a noise “pleasing to the Lord”? Etc… And these are the kinds of things I expect to hear from people sorting which ideas fit “safely” into the realm of “acceptable” Christian understanding.

I also think Todd, Angie, and AOF must be used to prejudice from other Christians. It is odd how in an interview with a punk-rock garage gospel worship band, some readers might feel “safe” only if there is a presentation of the gospel included (even if that is not the focus of the blog nor the interview questions); yet if the band already appears “safe” by current standards (that is, if they are like what we already see everyday), do we give them the benefit of the doubt or do we analyze their theology too before popping in a CD? It might be time for all of us Christians (myself included) to take a serious look at our more shallow criteria (aka prejudices) as to what “real Christianity” looks like–we are so often satisfied by a few catch phrases and scriptures quoted out of context, while ignoring the real problems and character issues that secretly infect the deep places of our lives. Why? In Joel I read about God telling people to “rend their hearts and not their garments,” which teaches me that surface appearances are not what matters to God–our deeper selves are. Which I think is why God has called into his service voices like those of AOF, to carry out that message. Even if we are afraid to hear it.

Not that I am advocating chaos or relativism or a free-for-all idea fest to replace any truthful discussions about God, of course not. I just wish Christians would spend half as much time listening to each other as we do picking apart, analyzing, (fearing,) and deliberately misunderstanding that which might shake up our status quo and open the door for real life change and real spiritual healing.

As for the afore-mentioned shaky foundations beneath Agents of Future, no article is going to have enough evidence. Go see for yourself. I can say as an outsider who has met them, spent time with them, worshipped with them (and whiiiiirshipped with them), that the hands and feet may shake, bodies may shake, voices may howl and wail and shake and quake, human trembling and frailty may be expressed in all directions, but the ground beneath is consecrated to God, made safe by God (and God only), and indeed is as solid as rock.

Look at it from a new direction: the solid foundation of God’s grace paid for by Jesus Christ gives us freedom to be raw and cry out and fall over and snap in two if we need to, for when a physician is near it is finally okay to admit being sick. And if we are never sick, then who needs the Physician?

its interesting. to me there is no other battle more worth fighting than for the truth of who God is and how he relates with us. but there is also nothing that is so capable of dividing people to the absolute core of their being

the key is whether we can agree on the essentials vs the non essentials. thats why the early church fathers came up with confessions of faith, right? “here are the essentials”

so matt… you have a ‘list’ or ’system’ you are going by, right?

but it seems to encompass some areas where we might not all agree, right?
so either we all make things up as we go along, or we have a different list we agree on.

maybe theres a shorter catechism around here somewhere?

Q. What is the chief end of man?
A. Man’s chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever.

I have seen Todd and Angie do their thing, I have heard them talk about their faith and while i have not yet taken my family to the Bridge (blame this on having just moved into a new house in Portland) I look forward to it.

Read that again and add to it this fact, I am an atheist. My wife is not and my kids are still forming their own thoughts on the matter and thus we honor each others ways.

Angie and Todd are inclusive and creative, they bring out the best in those around them such that lives are enriched and, if you are so inclined to believe such, they have by walk and talk been stewards to the potentiality seeded by the creator.

You want to pick this apart why? I am sure there are many usual suspect reasons, sadly.

Keep doing what you do best and let that be the light you shine.

-tom