|
Apr
15
|
The group’s Myspace page introduces them by saying:
“1998: A bunch of Jesus-loving, jalopy-gospel way-backers get together and do creative things: Shrieking, speaking, flailing, failing, storytelling, fear-quelling. In the process, songs and stories are smithed and written, friendships and families are stretched and shaken, stirred and strengthened. Genre-gender-class-past-death-defiers and town-crying demystifiers of mystery history lead these pacifistic, full-frontally ballistic missives. Best of all, on frequent occasions, we see entombed voices raisin’ and we peek through the haze. ***NOW: More than one dog year together, these doors’re gonna swing wiiiiide.”
The group’s unique approach to worship is borne from a unique community, The Bridge, in Portland, OR. Several years and three albums worth of material later, the lamp of creativity is still burning brightly for worship. I recently spoke with Todd and Angie Fadel from the group to find out more about them, their creative process, ideas of worship and views on “Christian” music.
- What is your typical songwriting process?
We’ve done this thing in practice for a while now. Angie and I have been writing songs together for about 10 years. One of the things I felt was really helpful going into songwriting was implementing a “no criticism” zone. We give ourselves totally leeway about anything; any words, any melodies, whatever. We record it all and then, after that time has passed, we go back and see what works, but not mid-way through the process, which I think a lot of musicians do that. Many artists get stuck because anytime something comes out, they’re critical, either of their fellow band members or whatever and they’ve got a real specific idea of how they want it to sound and impose that on everyone but that ends up being a real creativity killer. We’re really mindful of that in our process. We are not going to attack each other’s ideas, we just let them free-flow and then pick the ones that are our favorites, which there could be more than a few and we often find more than a single song.
- How did the group come about? It’s tied to the Bridge pretty closely, is that right?
That’s pretty much it. Prior to the Bridge starting, there was a really close-knit group of musicians and artists, involved in things like the TOM Festival. The result was that there was just a group of people that started hanging out together. The Bridge started after that initial group had been hanging out together for about four years. A bunch of people came down from Washington state with the hopes of starting a church for this group of people.
But what was original about the way they did it was, rather than coming down and saying “This is what we think needs to happen in a church,” they fell in love with the culture that was already existed and kind of asked “can we be you” and came into our culture rather than the other way around and then just saw how those things would play out in terms of authentic expression of worship and faith. As a result, we were really allowed to flourish in this new community and we were all grateful. But it did take some time. I think a lot of us were very skeptical at first about these people who kept saying “No one can take your future from you. You are valuable and we love you.” We had all, to some degree, been burned by older adults saying “This all sounds fine, but you’ve got to get right with God” and not giving us any direction other than saying things like “You’ve really just to tap into the Lord!” Then these other people came and just said “You show us what you’ve learned.” That sort of leadership drew a huge creative spirit out of all us in a community way.
After a good year of this community had gone by, we’d written a ton of songs and wanted to record. We rarely would do any songs that were written by people outside of our community. So we wanted to capture that in an album but didn’t know if we should call it “The Bridge.” As we were talking about it, one of the co-pastors, Ken, was praying for the music team and he prayed that God would be with these “Agents of Future,” and we just thought, “Well, that’s it,” that’s the name for the group. It wasn’t describing the music, it was describing us creative people. Agents of Future is just sort of the name for what we call ourselves as a collective. At least that’s the idea! Any time there’s any songs we want to record that come out of our community, we call it that.
- So the music we hear on the albums, is that used for corporate worship?
Yes, that’s all it is. We’ve only done three or four actual concerts out in the community with the music, just because …… Angie and I ran an all ages venue in Portland for about five years doing about 1,200 shows. It was a real crazy time in music where we had a chance to develop relationships with some really amazing artists like Death Cab for Cutie, Bright Eyes, Le Tigre, The Thermals, all the Portland bands you might have heard of, they came through the club. They’d just be starting out or we’d put them on a bill to help them get going. It developed in us a real respect that, in a very similar way as to when the people from Everett came down without imposing themselves on us, it made us realize that the context doesn’t necessarily fit. If I was 
going to open for Death Cab for Cutie, the context doesn’t fit because our point is a real participatory expression and that doesn’t work well in those performance settings.
- That brings up an interesting concept, because content-wise, you’re a worship band, but presentation-wise, you’re not what most people associate with worship and even “Christian” music.
From my standpoint, since I’ve been a part of, or at least observing the Christian music thing, I just feel like it’s really been diluted. It’s diluted the strength of people’s personalities and people’s spirit. But any type of marketing runs the risk of diluting what the people’s hearts are really about. It’s almost worse when you bring in people’s faith because then you’re taking something mystical and trying to make it quantifiable. You end up with people counting how many times Jesus is mentioned, or Bible verses, but that’s a joke to everybody. That’s a joke to artists whose audience is primarily Christian and it’s a joke to anyone else. So of course creativity does not compute when you’re talking about Christian contemporary music because it’s been divorced from it. Anybody whose creative sees that dilution happen when marketing is involved.
So the best way we can share our stuff is real directly. If people want to learn methods or us to encourage writers who are already there, or maybe even writers who don’t even know that they’re writers, artists and dancers, in their own communities, that’s what we feel called to do. We’d love to make a living at what we feel God has given us a gift for.
- You mentioned the dilution that happens when marketing becomes involved, particularly in a “Christian” music sense. But if you look over the course of history, it has often been the Church at the forefront of creativity. What happened?
Any time someone knows that they can make a living off of it, you run the risk of that. There are few people who can really pull it off, like Radiohead or the Beatles and really bring their fans along on this artistic journey. There are very few people like that, that people say “wherever they go, we’re going to follow them.”
And honestly, when the smallest run of LPs you can do is 1,000, you’ve got to figure out some way to sell it. So you’ve got to hear in a nutshell, “Why should I buy your record instead of this person’s record?” You have to get rid of your product, so it’s inherent. I was in a band on an alternative Christian label in the ‘90’s and it was hilarious trying to define for them what we were doing. I had been a big fan of Steve Malkmus’ lyrics in the band Pavement. So the lyrically approach, I got a lot of inspiration from people like him and Frank Black and most Christian labels don’t have a grid for that style, so you’re just left with words like “raw” and “passionate.” But that robs it of its organic process to become similarity driven and all inclusive.
Our goal is to show that you don’t lose your personality, you gain it. If anything, everyone finds their place in our community. There’s not a sense of one person taking over. Everybody is equally a part of it. That’s no easy task but we have really made that a priority in our community, to make sure that every single person gets a chance.
Recently, we had someone come to one of our services who lived in our neighborhood. She had a beautiful singing voice and we asked her to sing with us. We wanted to support that. She was in her mid 60’s or 70’s and just passed away. That was a reminder of how important it is to include and support people and use their talents and love them for who they are. Her daughter said that when we expressed excitement about her being involved in music, that she felt like God had answered her prayers. For me, it’s not about the music or the art, if I’m giving someone a sense that God has answered their prayers because they feel part of a community, that’s worth more than making a living at this.
- For someone who has yet to witness what you do, how would you try to describe it?
Anthems. Shouted anthems. Spirituals. Punk spirituals. Garage Gospel. Passion before precision. Female-fronted. I play the piano like Jerry Lee Lewis, so female-fronted, boogie woogie garage gospel? Garage spirituals.
- How did your collaboration with Glen Galloway of Soul-Junk come about?
That was really cool. Before the Bridge, one of the people that was part of the original group introduced us to Glen’s music and we got in touch with him. We just couldn’t believe there was this guy just singing Bible verses. Later, they came through town and we got to meet them all and they all came to church with us to our little home gathering and it was great. I was writing most of the music collaboratively even back then and we felt like we had a connection with Glen.
Then about a year ago, I decided to put together this thing called the WHIRRSHIP , a creative collaboration, sort of a workshop, but moreso just an experiment to see how many different things we could do all at the same time collaboratively. So we asked Glen to be a part of that and he came to the house and I played piano with him during his show. Then when he was doing his next album, he asked me to be a part of that which was a huge opportunity. I love Daniel Smith and we got to record in his studio. It was a great three days, I got to hang out with Lenny and Marian Smith.
- What’s next for you?
We spent a lot of time over the past few years getting to know some people from Enter the Worship Circle. Just on a whim we sent some stuff over to them. It was right after Village Thrift and I thought they might be ready for us. They weren’t. But they did tell us that out of all the stuff they got we were the only original sounding ones because everyone else just mimicked the Enter the Worship Circle style and we had been in our own little niche for so long, we couldn’t do anything but sound different. Our friend Tracy Howe who lives in Colorado and has worked with Ben and Robin Paisley, she’s doing this thing called The Restoration Project, touring with Brian McLaren on his Everything Must Change tour. She helped us be a part of the Fall Out Arts Festival. 
She’s got a bunch of different thing lined up for us this summer. We’ll probably be in Texas and then Colorado and that’s pretty much it. One of the things we really want to do is just sit down in our living room and record. We have like 36 songs that have yet to be recorded so we want to record a triple album in one night! The other thing I thought of was to record all of the songs and then release them one a week and just have people sign up to receive the songs over the course of a year, give ourselves a 36-week head start! As far as the music goes, we’re just trying to gather up these songs.
But one of the things we’re doing that would be cool to let people know about is if they e-mail or message us through Myspace, we’re going to be giving updates on a very regular basis of what we’re doing, whether it’s just putting up a new song or whatever. So we’re working on developing an e-mail list. We just want to maintain that personal connection.
We would love to work with any churches or small communities that are looking tap into everyone in their community and try to find ways to involve and include everyone and just make it feel like nothing they’ve ever felt before. Not run of the mill, this is what a worship service should look like type of thing. If they’re wanting help challenging the way of looking at things, they should let us know. We’d love to be part of that process.
We believe that every community has their own voice. It’s great if they want to use our songs, but our passion is to help them figure out what their songs are for their community.
It can tend to be for some people just “OK, everyone is doing Hillsong now, that’s what we should be doing too.” Hillsong is probably flattered (and they’re making money), that all these churches are using their songs, but how does that make them feel? Do they really think that it makes sense for a church 5,000 miles away to sing exactly what they’re singing and dress like they do?
One term I really want to introduce is “Rubinizing.” Rick Rubin is a famous producer who works with people like Neil Diamond and Johnny Cash, people that we’ve almost forgotten about and he’s helped us look at them in a different light by putting their music into a completely new context. I really believe that if we work hard at including people that have been forgotten by helping to put them in a new context, “Rubinizing” them, I think we could truly see some beautiful things happening in our own communities, realizing that maybe that 87-year old Grandmother who sews in the back of the church, maybe she’s got stories to tell, maybe she’s got artwork she’s not showing because she doesn’t think it’s important to anyone. I feel like that’s the kind of church that would attract the entire world. Not the kind of church we have right now because when an artist goes into most churches, they just don’t feel like they can justify doing what they’re doing.
- So if a church wants to take you up on this offer, how would you help them find “their voice?”
Trying everything you haven’t tried before. A songwriting game for example. If you put anything in the context of a game, it tricks our minds into feeling that things are approachable and manageable. What we do, we start covertly helping people develop this ability to not be critical of each other’s expression. We involve every age group and background.
I see it as a community being like a 50-legged race. You know the 3-legged race where you’re tied together? Everyone has one leg tied together. At the beginning, it’s the most awkward, gross feeling and you don’t know what to do but then after a while, you just count, 1-2, 1-2 and soon, you have this community, 50 people strong walking, slowly but surely to a goal. That’s possible with any community.
There’s also obviously a context because we’re not going to go and just impost a “Contemporary Service” because I don’t think that’s necessary. People just try to throw this “Contemporary Service” band-aid on stuff and it’s just silly. How do we include everyone? We find out what their voices are, not only with the young but the old people.
So we’ll play games and help people develop tools of being non-critical, helping people to look at one another in a loving, inclusive way, laying their aesthetics and preferences aside in hopes of making a beautiful collage. In fact, one of my future ideas is a media player that would show all of the different media at once. Like the YouTube players that have eight different mini-screens or something but what if the entire player was talking about Grace or something. So you have your musicians, your artists, your storytellers, your dancers, your comics, whatever expression is represented in your community and that player contains every single one of those things. But then each community has their own player and it’s all on one page. How beautiful would that be?! How beautiful is the church of the world! Realizing that these are all different people and expressions, this collage of beauty, that’s what Jesus is wanting us to do for one another. I know that’s a long-term goal, but that’s the type of thing I see happening; people looking at their lives and seeing everything, the imperfections and everything and making it into this way to appreciate what God has given them in their community.
For those who might have a bit of trouble imagining what this music might actually sound like, here are a couple of short clips:
- Visit the Bridge’s website
- Visit the Agents of Future’s Myspace page
- Read an interview with Todd at The Blah Blah
brilliant. i’m in love with no criticism zones…seriously, when people with this much good junk can make a person feel like they can’t do anything stupid, there’s a serious incubator cookin’ up!
I’m glad you posted the videos to confirm my imagination.
First, let me say that I don’t have a deep enough understanding of this band and the content of their music so I’m in no position to evaluate their work. It’s entirely possible that I’m like the person who has just heard bebop for the first time and lacks the faculties to appreciate it.
What it made me think of though, was the phenomenon I’ve seen in many acts where there seems to be a carthartic emotional outpouring that seems to be disconnected from any specific concept. Performers can be either deliriously happy or sad, and there’s a big focus on the experience rather than the content or craftmanship. It’s like an expectation of charismata.
For instance, I remember when I first saw the Flaming Lips play Austin City Limits. (Truth be told, I thought it was a near desecration of the same stage that Stevie Ray Vaughan once played!) There was confetti flying everywhere, big fluffy bunnies, and wild cheering. It struck me to be something like a celebration of randomness. My interpretation was that the artists were saying, “Life is full of randomness and death, and the only way to master it is to show no fear and be deliriously happy in the chaos.”
I don’t desire to associate the band Brent highlights today with my interpretation there. I’m just saying the post provoked some other questions for me, like:
1) The church shouldn’t be anti-art, but where do we set the bounds for public worship and the arts?
2) Is there some art where an the method and message are so inseparable that it opens up the possibility that it is disqualified from Christian worship or practice because of a fundamental contradiction with the Christian worldview?
3) Have we gone to far with making “expression” a virtue in itself?
4) Do certain standards for order and quality amount to inappropriate criticism and artistic suppression?
Please understand that these are open questions, not polemics. I think there’s much good that comes from the church learning to embrace the artistic gifts of its members. I realize that all of these same points have been raised already to discredit contemporary praise songs. Gene Edward Veith recently used this argumentation in his WORLD column, saying,
Pop music typically consists of no more than three chords in a simple melody with simple lyrics. Not much is going on. Contrast that with a hymn (whether traditional or contemporary): It consists of many different musical notes for different voices, all coming together in the unity of harmony. Its lyrics, in turn, are packed with theology, figures of speech, biblical references, and emotions. The hymn is objectively better by aesthetic standards than the pop ditty. Even greater aesthetically is the symphonic composition in which every instrument is playing a different musical line yet all come together into a majestic unity.
There is nothing wrong with an occasional indulgence in junk food, though if all you eat is sugar and French fries, you will be malnourished. Similarly, there is nothing wrong with an occasional indulgence in junk culture. But just as you need the nutrition found in a home-cooked meal, you need the cultural nutrition that comes from enjoying the best.
These are great questions, Jim.
I’m sure you suspected this, but I wanted to just point out that the posted videos don’t really do justice to our community’s struggles and failure, our history. I’m suspicious, too, of things that seem to hail style over substance when there isn’t a context.
Order and quality are elements of expression that can only be matured over time. What I’ve observed is that there are too few “entry points” for those who want to engage in the expression. We’ve build unnecessary divisions between the “amateur” and the “professional”. Criticism will never die off, but I think we could stand to back off to allow for unfamiliar, unpolished community contributions.
Expression, I agree, should never be an “end-point”. What we’re advocating for is for people to expand their aesthetics to accommodate a more kaliedoscopic collective voice. What seems to be pervasive in services around the nation is the preservation a bland sub-culture and passing it off as beautiful.
Jesus found beauty in very unlikely places. And we are attempting to model our acceptance of various expressions after His example.
Which brings me to a question: would you let us try to show you how support looks in this capacity? We’d like to support you and your expressions.
Write us @ agentsoffuture@aol.com
Thanks so much for your humble and thoughtful explanation of your mission and clarification, Todd. I really liked your point about finding beauty in unexpected places. God’s standards are so different from ours.
I love Veith on many issues, but on this one, I’m not persuaded that his point is demanded by the Bible, nor do I believe it is fully consistent. It seems to misunderstand the full range of art and culture that can be God-honoring.
hmm…
I’m having a hard time with this. Maybe it’s just because I’m a stodgy Reformed guy who likes his art to be art and his worship to be worship. Maybe I’m too committed to the ordinary means of grace and uninterested in the benefits of “every member art ministry”… Which leads me to think, maybe I have a hard time because I believe true ministry to be the simple proclamation of the Gospel in Word and sacrament and that true worship is found in humble, reverent response to that Gospel. (As an aside, I didn’t really hear anything about the Gospel in the interview, which worries me.) Doesn’t this “style” of worship throw too much emphasis on the people involved and their own creativity, while detracting from God and his grace. Church just isn’t about us or our creativity. It’s about God keeping his promises and ministering to us through his Word. And our response in worship should be in kind according to his Word. Why do we think we have to make it epiphanous and transcendent? We don’t make it transcendent; the presence of God through his Word and the sacraments is what makes it transcendent.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m zealous about defending, supporting, and promoting good art among Christians and non-Christians alike. And I can’t stand the anti-artistic attitudes that many Christians take. But I wonder if one of the reasons they get those attitudes is because people have tried to do in Church what they rather ought to be doing faithfully according to their calling in the world. (And not everyone is called to be an artist/craftsman)
I’m not trying to pick a fight. I appreciate some of the ideas behind what’s being done. Just having a really hard time buying it because I think it’s built on some shaky foundations.
Hope it’s OK that I said all that.
Wow, good stuff there, Matt. I like what I heard on your myspace page, too. Solid stuff to consider here:
Doesn’t this “style” of worship throw too much emphasis on the people involved and their own creativity, while detracting from God and his grace. Church just isn’t about us or our creativity. It’s about God keeping his promises and ministering to us through his Word. And our response in worship should be in kind according to his Word. Why do we think we have to make it epiphanous and transcendent? We don’t make it transcendent; the presence of God through his Word and the sacraments is what makes it transcendent.
I do wonder if it’s possible that certain formalistic or lecture-oriented liturgies have been wrongly seen as integral to being rooted in Word and sacrament. Could not group-oriented forms be legitimate if centered on preaching/reading the Word and the sacraments? What forms do we see in the picture of New Testament worship?
I agree though; it’s dangerous to equate holy, God-centered worship with the artistic fulfillment one gets from a group jam session, or any other art for that matter. That easily goes the direction of being me-centered.
Some further clarification seems necessary:
- I apologize if what came across in this interview was that we equated artistic epiphanies with worship. Or that we were throwing out existing forms of community that are working.
- The Gospel (God made flesh, dwelling among us, giving us the gift of reconnection, modeling a life free from distracting sidetracks, re-iterating LOVE as the greatest commandment through Christ’s death and resurrection) is clearly evident in the art and music and sharing and sacraments in our community. We were desperate for this when we came to Him.
- This all isn’t some pithy fad or hipster wisdom we’re following. In fact, it’s a miracle that some of us are still alive, let alone meeting together and wanting to connect with each and God.
- We don’t feel that all art is worship of God or that all worship translates to art that can be appreciated by all.
- What *does* seem to happen is that the craftsman lord over the “amateurs” and demean them (directly or indirectly), which is what we try to fight against. We’re offering permission to express to people that have had their offerings slapped out of their hands many times.
- I’m a dad of two, an eight-year-old and a six-year-old. I wouldn’t dream of denying them the chance to bring what they have before the Lord as an offering of worship, whatever they brought.
Pokemon cards, peacock feathers.
Now, if they were twenty and they brought the same thing when they *knew* they had more to give, it’d be a different story. That, for me, is the issue.
- We’re not advocating for a free-for-all love-fest where we all gorge ourselves on ephiphanous expressions of loud, raucous music.
Our community is chock full of very artistic folks, so having a collage that showed all of the work that we do, either fine art, recipes, film, puppetry, dance, crosswords, seemed to make sense for us. I’m sorry if how we came across was high-and-mighty, but we’re just wanting to push some sort of envelope in this in ANY way we can.
Matt, what if there was a way to draw out the more silent members of your community? Sometimes people are silent/non-participatory because they don’t prefer it, I know. But what if they were just waiting for something like what we were describing. No harm done, right?
I haven’t had chance to read through these comments until just now and I want to thank everyone for their thoughtful input. A couple of things come to mind: 1) I wonder (and this really is just me wondering aloud) how much of our “worship” is really cultural and 2) Is it necessary to clearly explicate what we understand to be the Gospel every chance we get (just so you know, this thought is also prompted by a comment left on a Rob Bell video which I hope to comment on later)?
A couple of comments on this thread.
I think we need to be concerned here not to judge other peoples intentions or heart motivation.
While I may not find a particular style of church or worship meaningful someone else may. Is that not the point? To draw us nearer to God and to glorify Him and enjoy Him.
Any form of worship can be meaningless if ones heart is in the wrong place. And I suspect any form can become wrongfully motivated, to self-serving.
We need to be careful not to set a particular rule or regulation or we are in danger of being like the Pharisees.
Scripture tells us to differ to others out of love and a concern for their faith over our own. So if this builds up another persons faith should we not be all for it? even if it does not build up our own.
I believe the Holy Spirit is powerful enough to utilize all sorts of worship types for God’s purpose and our benefit.
Robert
Todd, thanks again for graciously opening yourself up here and clarifying. Could you help us understand the context of how your community’s music is used? I’m unclear on whether the style represented by the clips is what you do just for informal gatherings, or for Sunday corporate worship.
I hear what you’re saying about encouraging the gifts your children bring to the Lord. I do the same for my three kids who are all under 5. It thrills my heart when they tell me that they are going to do something for the Lord through a drawing, an improvised song, or by playing an instrument. I love to encourage that re-creation as an imitation of God, and I hope that they grow up to be creators with an uncommon passion.
What might be the sticking point for many is the worry that our activities would upstage God’s ordinary means of grace in the church’s worship.
There’s a concern that we would slip into seeing worship as “whatever works for you”, forgetting that God is holy and worship is focused on pleasing him, lest we follow in the footsteps of Nadab and Abihu (Leviticus 10)
I don’t judge The Agents of the Future or charge them with that, I’m just articulating a general concern.
As a side note, Todd’s distinction between professionals and amateurs reminds me of a different debate happening about online culture, as chronicled in Andrew Keen’s recent film, “The Truth According to Wikipedia“. Perhaps there’s only a semantic relationship between that discussion and this one. Is what we’re discussing here the legitimacy of “Wiki-Worship”, to coin a phrase?
Brent asks a good question about culture. I believe a variety of cultural expressions are God-honoring, and that each of them should be bound together by preaching of the Word and the sacraments. Look at the community worship styles of African church and the African-American church. I’m sympathetic to the view that something gets lost when we see church as something conducted by the people up front, becoming more like a college lecture than a family gathering where the Word is proclaimed.
RW, I appreciate your reminder about the heart and how any form can become self-serving, even one that claims to be the most selfless!
What a great interview–Agents of Future are inspiring. I think there is a wonderful spectrum of non-commercial worship emerging, from AoF to the All Saints Company. Many styles, one Lord.
Jim:
Thanks, brother. I appreciate that. And I absolutely agree about the potential dangers in overly formal liturgies. I’ve been in worship services where everybody knows exactly what to do, but nobody really knows what’s going on or even cares. But on the other hand, I’ve been in services with highly structured liturgies where God was truly worshiped and the people were truly edified. In fact, the best such experiences I’ve had have been in liturgical churches (of course, ALL services are liturgical). As for group-oriented forms, what could be more group-oriented than a service where from start to finish a divine drama is being performed employing a redemptive-historical structure where God himself is the main actor replaying the significant events/elements of redemptive history. God calls us to worship with the reading of his Word, and we respond CORPORATELY with praise to him. We then hear his Law read and are convicted by, responding with confession of sin and repentance, both corporately and personally. After this we hear the gospel and are assured of pardon. Perhaps at this point we respond, again corporately with a song of praise. I’ll not continue writing out the whole service, but confession of faith, prayer, the preaching of the Word (which must ALWAYS end with gospel, not Law), and the Lord’s Supper follow. These are the elements of worship. I’m not saying this form is the ultimate way, I’m just trying to highlight the biblical elements of worship and show how they are group-oriented. Perhaps a more “group-oriented” service would consist of some sort of every-member ministry where anybody can do anything as long as they call it worship. I’m just not willing to go there because I believe that leading the people of God in worship is the responsibility of God’s appointed herald, the pastor. The gospel ministry, the ministry of the church, is primarily the work of the pastor, not the congregation. When the congregation gathers for worship they gather to hear a Word from the Lord, not primarily to offer something to God, but to receive something from God, namely the assurance of pardon found in the Gospel. Everything else serves that purpose.
Let me just blanket all this with saying that I’m confessionally Reformed, and perhaps for that reason any will not agree with me from the get-go.
This is a good discussion though.
Todd:
I really appreciate you putting this out there and being willing to discuss all of this. I hope that you’ll take my comments below with the love with which I intend them. I’m not trying to be harsh or malicious or unnecessarily critical at all.
I think that you and I are going to disagree on a lot though because it appears that we disagree on what is the Gospel. You said the Gospel is:
God made flesh, dwelling among us, giving us the gift of reconnection, modeling a life free from distracting sidetracks, re-iterating LOVE as the greatest commandment through Christ’s death and resurrection
Unfortunately, your definition of the Gospel makes Jesus nothing more than a moral example. I’m not sure what you mean by “the gift of reconnection.” Perhaps you do mean the reconciliation of a holy God and his rebellious creatures made sure by Christ’s substitutionary life and death on our behalf. In that case, we agree. But THAT is the Gospel, not the rest of your definition. The rest of your definition is Law, not Gospel. If Christ is merely a model of how to live a God-focused life free of sidetracks, all that does is leave us dead in our sins and condemn us even more as we (inevitably) fail to measure up. And, though love is indeed the greatest commandment, that too condemns us because to be approved based on our love we must love perfectly as he loved, and none of us will ever do that. Jesus explicates what true obedience and love mean in the Sermon on the Mount when he goes beyond the outward actions of murder and adultery and condemns the inward thoughts of hate and lust. Jesus comes and brings this Law not as one easier than Moses, but as a harder Lawgiver. So if that is the Gospel that is so clearly evident in your church’s art, etc., you are feeding on Law, which can do nothing saving for you. The Gospel is that Jesus has done all this loving for us and then died the death we deserved. That doesn’t mean we can live however we want. The true Christian will bear the fruits of love. (Is this sounding familiar?) But calls to love and good works are made out of response to the Good News that Jesus has done all this on our behalf and in him we are righteous.
Like I said, maybe I’m reading you wrong, but to me it is of ultimate importance to never add Law (i.e. Jesus “modeling a life free from distracting sidetracks, re-iterating LOVE as the greatest commandment through Christ’s death and resurrection”) to the Gospel itself.
At the same time that I say this, I want to say that I am glad for what God has done in your lives. He does amazing work with us wretched sinners and it is a miracle that any of us are where we are if we are in Christ.
I understand what you are saying about those who lord their artistic skill over those who have none/less. This really bothers me too. But why not teach amateurs? And why is this connected to worship? When I as a “craftsman” lead my church’s music, it’s not about the fact that I can do it and others can’t. It’s about the fact that the congregation needs someone perhaps more knowledgeable to help them learn the music and to support them with accompaniment. They–the congregation–are the main instrument in corporate worship.
Again though, my problem keeps coming back to what you are saying about people getting a chance to express themselves in worship. Worship is not about our expressions. Worship is about meeting with a holy God and hearing a Word from him and responding corporately to that Word. What you are advocating actually seems to be more individualistic and less corporate, i.e., each individual ought to be able to offer whatever expression they have. So suppose I have a professional chef in my church whose entire life is wrapped around his or her cooking. That’s all he or she has to give. Their expression then would be cooking, right? Should we install a kitchen in the sanctuary so that our chef has “permission to express” his or her offerings? Or say I have a professional tennis player or a car mechanic…I think we get the picture. Self-expression has no place in the corporate worship of God. God doesn’t need or want our pokemon cards and peacock feathers. He is not served by human hands.
Our community is chock full of very artistic folks, so having a collage that showed all of the work that we do, either fine art, recipes, film, puppetry, dance, crosswords, seemed to make sense for us. I’m sorry if how we came across was high-and-mighty, but we’re just wanting to push some sort of envelope in this in ANY way we can.
I can appreciate this situation, having so many artistic types in your church. In fact, I’m kind of jealous! :) But why not just make displaying the various works of your members part of your community experience? Why do you feel it has to part of your corporate worship service?
Matt, what if there was a way to draw out the more silent members of your community? Sometimes people are silent/non-participatory because they don’t prefer it, I know. But what if they were just waiting for something like what we were describing. No harm done, right?
I guess my answer to this would be the same as above. Do it in another way at another time. The corporate gathering of God’s people for worship is a serious time to hear from God and to feed on Christ.
Correction:
At one point I said in bold, “They–the congregation–are the main instrument in corporate worship.”
I should have probably said that they are the main instrument in corporate response in worship.
Matt H.:
Can you show where scripturally it says community worship HAS to be a serious time?
I’ve not read anything to that degree in the bible. It seems you are adding rules to corporate worship/community experience that are not found in the bible.
You can be serious but not have the right heart of worship. You could also be less serious and have the right heart of worship.
Robert
Thanks for more good comments, Matt. Sounds like you’ve been reading Horton’s “A Better Way”! I’ve gleaned a lot of perspective from writings like his. I also appreciate the Lutheran emphasis of worship being a place to receive God’s good gifts.
I like how you’re working out the concept of Law and Gospel in relationship to our liturgy. I agree that when we confuse Law and Gospel, we start to over-emphasize the offering we bring. It’s really no different from the discomfort of the disciples that the Lord would wash their feet. The Law orientation in us likes to focus on our service, when Jesus is saying, “the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45).
I do think that some of what Horton says needs to be rounded out with perspective of people like John Frame, who authored “Worship in Spirit and Truth”. There’s a really good discussion in there about the “elements” of worship, biblically. I do like the imagery of a covenant renewal service like Horton describes, but I just can’t find definitive scriptural support for that position, nor an exact list of the elements.
Lastly, let’s give Todd a bit more leeway though about the peacock feathers and pokemon. I don’t think he was putting an intrinsic value in them, rather, let’s agree that God is after our hearts, as it says in Psalm 51:17, “The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise.”
whoaa…
I have to come back to this..
I want to give a well-thought out answer.
talk to you all soon..
invite more folks here that you’d think would contribute to the conversation.
Hey, so, I read what you said Matt, and I wanted to say thanks for writing. You, too, Jim, and RW, I sincerely thank you for sharing your thoughts on this.
I have to admit though, Matt, I find it really difficult to not take the things you say as a personal judgment against the approach that my community and I take.
At one point you stated that you weren’t trying to pick any fights, but I can’t help but read that into your posts.
And given that I don’t feel very safe in sharing my views on the Gospel (or what the role of Pastor is or what the Service should look like) on these comments, I’m not sure where I can go with this.
For what it’s worth, our services may look to some like a free-for-all or a directionless mess, but they really aren’t.
And when I spoke about pokemon cards and peacock feathers, I was talking about my kids giving them as offerings. They’ve never done that LITERALLY, but yes, I *do* believe God wants them.
Todd,
To show you that I’m not trying to pick a fight, I’ll just say that you and I are going to have to agree to disagree. And that’s fine. But I think it is very unfortunate that we live in such a climate and culture that making simple truth claims is taken as an attack, especially when those truth claims are time-honored, over against things “newer.” It’s even worse that this takes place in the church. Apparently the only thing that’s taboo is believing in taboos. I only write what I write because these are grave concerns to me and I hope that some might be caused to at least think about them.
So I apologize if you took my words as a personal judgment. But from my perspective, I’m not sitting in judgment. I’m only acknowledging the judgments made by the Bible and as I believe they are well-summarized in the Reformed confessions.
Thanks for the conversation.
Matt
First let me say that it’s quite possible that some of the possible confusion here may be the result of my poor choice of videos, so let me apologize to all involved. They are not representative of the music in its full expression.
There are many issues being stirred together in this pot and it’s hard to pull one out to comment on once it’s been mixed into the pot.
I think that Matt gets to at least one chamber of the heart of the issue when he says that he “likes his art to be art and his worship to be worship.” I’m honestly not sure the two can or should be separated. This seems to be a rather utilitarian approach to both art and worship. This does not necessarily equate the two as Todd pointed out, but if we worship through music and poetry and even (to differing degrees, drama), then aren’t we worshiping through art?
I can’t escape the thought that I raised earlier in only a passing comment that much of the criticism raised is cultural conditioning wrapped in theological garments. Even the idea of being “orderly” is a bit cultural and I know that comment will bother some people. But the truth of the matter is that if you were to worship in Tanzania, China or even deep Mexico, there would be many elements that would, to us, seem disorderly but to the immediate cultural context are anything but.
My point is that there is a fine line in this discussion where tradition becomes confused for theological correctness. For example, Matt, I mean absolutely no offense, but please understand that I too am confessionally Reformed and yet I cannot go with some of the strictness you seem to advocate.
I’m also not quite comfortable with the tradition in some Reformed circles that EVERY service must include THESE SPECIFIC theological elements. The Gospel is multi-faceted and there will be times when God shines to us more brightly through different shades of the prism. This is not bad or wrong as long as we understand that it is an entire prism and is only best appreciated/understood when seen as a whole.
Mixed into this entire conversation is the tension that we feel when some emphasize doctrinal content to the exclusion of emotional engagement (which should never be the case) or emotional engagement to the exclusion of doctrinal content (which also should never be the case). Each side sees the error of the other but not their own.
Just some (somewhat rambling) thoughts for discussion.
Brent, thank you for what you said.
I have been reading all the posts and have felt a little under a microscope about what Todd and I said in the interview (maybe I should have anticipated this). Maybe it is naivete on my part, I thought we were just describing what we do; not in detail, just a picture. You can not know a place or a group of people unless you have really been there and participated. The bottom line for me as a pastor of The Bridge is that God is the center of everything we do and we are continually pointing/directing people to Him.
I love conversations. I need conversations that build me up, this does not mean that they are void of challenge.
angie
greetings from copenhagen, denmark.
(sorry for any grammatical mistakes or lack of linguistic skills. english is not my first language) :-)
i found it really inspiring and encouraging to read the interview. thanks!
i just want to comment on a few things.
matt h wrote: “Doesn’t this “style” of worship throw too much emphasis on the people involved and their own creativity, while detracting from God and his grace. Church just isn’t about us or our creativity. It’s about God keeping his promises and ministering to us through his Word.”
it is always a big struggle (no matter what we are dealing with as human beings) to keep our ego’s out of the way and let god be the center of what we do. luckily god is able to mold our hearts. but i see no point in asking whether a specific “style” or “genre” tend to be more or less in danger of detracting from god. i believe that we as humans are supposed to represent the kingdom of god on earth. the kingdom of god is many things and when i look at his creation, i am overwhelmed by the beauty, the variety, the complexity, and the simplicity of it all. i believe that as long as my heart is focused on god and his kingdom, then i am able to present a small part of his kingdom to the world. and i believe that what i can present of that kingdom is different from what todd or matt h are capable of presenting. still, it will only be hints. but i believe that we should encourage and emphasize the importance of the different hints of god and his kingdom that each of us have been privileged to present. i am done arguing over style or genre or whatever. i truly believe that each of us should be true to whatever it is god has put down in us. as long as we have our hearts set on him, then whatever we do is just a pointing towards him. our creativity becomes a pointer to the greatest creator of all time. and if we limit the unique creativity we have been given by god, then we somehow fail to present his kingdom in all it’s variety and beauty.
i stumbled over the “agents of future” on myspace and the songs i heard made me sing along in worship in my living room. i have bought the cd’s and played it to friends. some of them dig it very much and join in the worship. others are not affected by the music at all, and that’s fine. different things make it easier for different people to worship god.
i myself have been a part of playing worship at my local church for several years. we are lucky to have a variety of bands leading worship. one guy who used to lead worship loves traditional blues and 80′es glam rock. i hate that. but i knew that when it was his turn to lead worship, then he would play what he loved and present his honest way of worshipping god. that’s enough for me and i would just worship along even though it’s not my “style” or “genre”. the following sunday it could be a pianist and a cellist playing psalms. and the sunday after something different again. sometimes i will lead worship and it has it’s own way of sounding. and i have had elderly people coming up to me and say: “when you worship god, you remind me of aspects of god i had forgotten existed”. i could easily take that as something to strengthen my personal ego, but i could also just be humble and thankful and be happy that different outputs show different aspects of the kingdom of god.
i would love to see a much bigger variety in the way “the church” presents the kingdom of god to the world, and it is so nice to see and hear what todd and angie are doing. more of that (in all kind of different styles or genres), please. :-)
if anyone should be interested in hearing what musical and stylistic output god has laid down in me, you’re more than welcome to listen here: http://www.myspace.com/klosterincyberspace
blessings,
-mikael.
Great discussion. Let me start off by saying that I’m pretty biased when it comes to Todd and Angie and what they’re doing with Agents of Future and The Bridge. I think they’re awesome and I agree with almost everything they do.
It’s not pure chaos as some may think. In fact, if you go to their website, you’ll see they have a lot of writings about how they orchestrate things and encourage participation within set bounds. People with good rhythm do rhythm instruments, people with no rhythm don’t, etc. It’s not as liturgical as some may like, but it’s not chaos either.
Now, I’m no theologian, so this may not come out quite right, but I’ll do my best…
What Agents of Future remind me of is when King David transported the ark back to Jerusalem, in 2 Samuel 6. The first time, he was sloppy and Uzzah died as a result. But the second time, David was sure to do things how God said, and everything went great, but it wasn’t boring or lifeless. King David strips down to his underwear and starts dancing so much that his wife mocks him for being undignified and humiliated.
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), but the question becomes, “What are the guidelines to distinguish between too much freedom and too many limitations?”
It’s easy. Be led by the Spirit. Jesus died and fulfilled the Law of the Old Testament and now we’re bound by the Spirit instead. I think Paul laid it out well when it came to eating food sacrificed to idols and worshiping on certain days - follow the Spirit. Freed from the limitations and rules of the Law, we can’t just cast off all restraints in worship. We’re bound by the Spirit instead of the Law.
For some, worshiping in a liturgical church where things are very orderly and “safe” would hinder true worship. For others, participating in a more free-flowing, expressive, almost chaotic worship setting like Agents of Future bring would hinder their worship just as much.
This was a long way to say that I think much of what we say is right or wrong in worship is dependent on what God may be saying is appropriate for us, not what is acceptable for all.
wow. i read the posts yesterday and just finished, with much effort, the latest posts. I find it too bad that someone has to pick apart a wonderfully personal interview with members of an awesomely authentic christ worshipping community. I think one of the most humble things about the agents of future and bridge community is that they admit that their expression of worship might not be everyone’s cup of tea. So why should one spend time pointing out these areas or pick apart the way that they connect with God?
It astounds me , though it should not by now, the effort that the “faithful” put into picking apart and deconstructing sources of wonder. Rather than being happy there are all these varied ways to express faith and worship you invariably get “purists” who will, often with smiles and polite phrases, rip into anything outside of their own purity of essence.
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
i think matt H needs some defending
not that i fully agree with his position
but everybody sounds kind of mad at him
and Todd already knows I love him!
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 read some of the back-and-forth in the early comments, but some of the misunderstandings pained my heart too much, and I confess I skipped ahead to the end. (So I apologize if I am repeating what someone else said in the middle.) Anyhow, thanks Todd for sharing this and so many other fascinating posts. I want to comment now because of what AOF means to my worship personally, and because I think there is a much larger conversation here than just a single garage-worship band trying something “new” or different.
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?
What I appreciate about Agents of Future is inclusion and sincerity.
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’ve known Todd and Angie for a few years and I’ve been associated with/aware of The Bridge in some way since 2001 and to be quite honest upon first impression (or actually second) I had some problems with their approach. Looking back now this had more to with there commitment to doing things in ways I wasn’t familiar with vs. anything actually being wrong. My preconceived ideas were put the test a few months ago when Todd invited me to the church – to sing 3 chord songs on a Sunday. I was nervous heading in knowing that I had judged them. I had to confess/apologize. They forgave me. The day was great God showed up and every part of the service knit together well. These days when I see members of the bridge around town it feels like I run into family.
i am a forty-something year old woman whose been married twenty years (got two kids) and have been shouting to the Lord in different communities of faith for nearly three decades.
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.
I’ve kind of just let this conversation go at this point. I apologize; I just don’t have time to respond to everything. I realize that most of the good folks posting don’t have any exposure to Reformation Christianity (probably more likely German pietism), and I don’t have time to explicate in full what I mean by being confessionally Reformed. So I apologize for being so irrelevant. (Well, not for being irrelevant–who could be more irrelevant than those for whom this world is not a home?–but for giving no context to others in order to understand where I’m coming from) It has been said that I’ve said what I said because of personal prejudices, but I assure you I’ve probably been at some point in my pilgrimage where everyone else here is now. And I’ve come through all of that to the conclusion that the Reformed tradition, failing and at times annoyingly triumphalistic as it can be, is the one most faithful to God’s revelation in his Word. There is room there though for things to look different from church to church in worship. Theoretically (I don’t think it’s possible in actuality) I suppose garage punk worship could be ok. But my whole beef was not so much with the music itself (I like the music, AS MUSIC) as with the thinking guiding AOF’s approach to worship. Was I attacking Todd and Angie personally? NOT AT ALL. Like I said, we live in a day where disagreeing strongly with someone automatically amounts to an attack. But the fact that I disagreed and thoroughly asserted my reasons for disagreeing has been misconstrued as an attack by many on this thread.
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.
Matt,
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
This has all gotten way too complicated. To me, it’s really simple: a church’s style of worship does not have to be all things to all people at all times. To say that it does, and that only certain styles are appropriate for worship is legalism, plain and simple.
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.
[...] found this quote on the comments to a interview on ColossiansThreeSixteen, and thought it was a good perspective on different styles of worship: I, myself have been a part [...]
