This week in the news and blogosphere were reports that Pastor Tullian Tchividjian has ended what he calls "age segregated worship" at the Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church in Fort Lauderdale, and has gone to a "blended" style of worship.Tchividjian has written a very compelling article about how he arrived at this view that having a church split into "contemporary" and "traditional" services goes against the unifying nature of the gospel. He even says ""[Contemporary and traditional service splits] may be good business but it's bad worship; it's bad church."
What do you think? Is Tchividjian right? Is it "bad church" to have both contemporary and traditional services in a church?
Just a word of personal testimony from a lay person (me) at a church that transitioned into a split worship model last year: as a family with three teenagers (14, 17 and 19), this put a tremendous strain on our family worship. Our teenagers understandably were very drawn to the contemporary service, where as we the parents not so much. The segregation Tchividjian speaks of ends up just not being between ages, but between families as they determine which service they will attend! This was a very difficult time in our family's worship experience as we were at times separated during the worship hour. Our church has since gone BACK to the blended style. I know that our pastor's motives were good and he was trying to reach more young people with the gospel in the contemporary service and I had no problem with that - but now looking back I can see he was also very wise to end the "age segregated" worship on Sunday mornings and return to a blended style.
Whether you agree with Tchividjian or not, I do recommend reading his August 27, 2010 article "This is the Way It Ought to Be" article giving a very compelling reason for going back to a "blended" style of worship. He talks about how unsegregated little children are in their school, and how sad it is that society teaches them by the time they reach high school to separate into cliques and groups.
My take on it is this: Tchividjian has not discovered anything that so many other pastors have known for years!! Look at First Baptist Church of Jacksonville - under Rodney Brooks the church did move to a more "blended" style of worship with a wider variety of music styles, and Jim Whitmire has continued this. Whitmire combines the older hymns with more modern tunes and even modern day hymns - and the church has never been "age segregated" when it comes to worship. To the credit of both Jerry Vines and Mac Brunson, they have taught this to their congregations, to be tolerant of a particular song that might not suit their fancy, and to be joyful and wait for the next one that does! They have resisted the trend to segregate by age and worship style preference on Sunday morning.
As Tchividjian says in his August 27th blog post:
"The gospel of Jesus Christ invites us to look across the aisle and say, "Though this song or style may not appeal to me, I see that God is using it to move you. I love you in Christ and I'm glad you're here."
Amen. I'm glad that Tchividjian has figured this out and made a change at his church. And welcome to the club Tchividjian; many of us Southern Baptists have known for years what you are just figuring out!
84 comments:
It is all silly. Where in scripture do we see believers going to a special building and having one guy teach them week after week?
Why aren't ALL the members of Body functioning in spiritual gifts? So why are so many spectators who pay others to worship for them?
Beware though. Does Tullian refer to the FIC movement? Is that where he is heading? (Family Integrated Church)
The FIC movement is quite legalistic and patriarchal. SBTS tried to bring it into most of their higher degree programs and it bombed big time. Randy Stinson to head that effort. And it means no age related Sunday School, etc. Everything revolves around the church leaders and the father of the family as the family "priest".
Some who practice this are Voddie Baucham (who said Sarah Palin should be home tending to her husband), Scott Brown, Doug Phillips. It is something that Mohler and others are trying to integrate into the SBC.
You are much more likely to find more Jesus if you stay home and invite some other believers over to pray, study and worship. Forget the temples that benefit a few men.
I have heard of that FIC movement, I think in regards to Baucham. Are you saying Tullian is too? I don't think that is related to the issue of contemporary vs. traditional vs. blended worship.
I said beware. No one would have thought Mohler would have tried this but he did. But he is a politician and when he saw it was not going over, they dropped the FIC label quick. Does not mean he dropped the idea.
http://www.ncfic.org/
Scroll down and read the article about Coral Ridge on the FIC web page.
Keep in mind they never make drastic changes. They always boil you slowly.
EGADS! the FIC!
A friend of mine rescued 2 young women from that movement. If I recall, they were in Scott Browns church.
They were about 19 and 22 and ran away from home. they had been homeschooled to a certain point but were expected to stay at home and serve their father until he approved those who might want to court them.
One had never even been to a gyn and had a huge tumor on her ovary and had been in pain for years. (It is considered wrong for a young woman to see a gyn for virginity purposes)
My friend arranged for her to have surgery. Helped them both go to college (considered a sin by many in the FIC family of churches) and get jobs. They had NO basic social skills to deal in the world. They had been kept home all their lives only learning what their mother could teach them but mostly how to serve men by cooking and cleaning.
I get the creeps when I hear about FIC and what really lies behind it. Beware of Scott Brown. He is a charlatan!
Great post Watchdog. I thought your comments on Vines and Brunson were very gracious. I too believe that there is an artificial age barrier caused by this whole music controversy in the local churches. I think that the blended service is the most fair and gives everyone a little of what they want and a lesson in deferring to others.
"On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul talked with them, intending to depart on the next day, and he prolonged his speech until midnight. There were many lamps in the upper room where we were gathered." (Acts 20:7-8) ESV
"And he stayed a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them." (Acts 18:11)ESV
Our church too here in central Florida is suffering the blues from 2 different types of music for the 2 Sunday am worship hours. On the surface it is "taste" of style/music that people choose and that can/will/may split the congregation as it has in our church. But deep down I think what really drives the people away or to complain (heaven forbid we voice displeasure to the powers that be) is that some in the church are being catered to, i.e. they have their style of music, how come I can't have what I prefer (even sometime)???
The churches that present to any all worship services the same style (be it blended, contemporary or traditional) of worship have got it right and then everybody is treated the same across the board and they can then choose the church they want to attend.
Our church is a hoot. The 1st service it is suits and ties and a choir with worship leaders, even though the music is still pretty contemporary. Then the 2nd one is a rock concert and the staff ditches the suits and ties and wears casual shirts.
All we ask is a regular old hymm, all the versus and everybody participating that wants to.
I was for the two worship styles at first. The pastor explained them, and what his motives were, and the church worked very hard to make it work.
But soon our family discovered that the time we enjoyed worshipping as a family was suddenly split, as the kids wanted to go to the contemporary service and be with their friends. So did we go to that service, and sit in the back, or do we go to the traditional service which is what we preferred anyway? It was stressful for sure.
But to his credit, the pastor sensed that it was not the right move for the church, and after maybe 7 or 8 months, he announced that the church was going back to a blended service for a variety of reasons.
That is leadership. He humbly explained what he was going to do, we got behind him, and apparently he did watch closely how this affected the church, listened to his sheep, and determined what was best for the church was to go back to blended and he gave a complete explanation to the congregation.
Excellent leadership. No arrogance, or demands, or "Hahs" about why it has to be his way or why he was right and we were wrong.
AMEN! Very REFRESHING to see what "T" is doing in this particular instance!
Jesus Christ the same yesterday, today and forever. The use of contemporary music doesn't appeal to a lot of older folks while the younger like it. The point is how does it magnify the Lord. I say if it doesn't quit using it. Billy Graham went about 30 years without it and had the greater number of salvations. Southern Baptist had their greatest growth without it. I don't recall Wesley, Edwards or Spurgeon even trying it. It was PREACH THE WORD. STUDY to show thyself approved of God a worker that needeth not to be ashamed. Hynms are one thing while the loud music that is being pushed is quite another. Like Dr. Criswell said "give me that old time religion its good enough for me"!!!
I have been out of this type of controversy since starting a church in 1992. We were all young (10 of us and 4 kids). We all had similar tastes in musical style. When we started public worship, we just played the music that we thought honored the Lord in the style of genre that we preferred. In short, we were who we are. We did not try to "tweak" the service this way or that to attract a certain crowd.
We have just proceeded ahead since.
But I have some sympathy for older congregations negotiating this issue. I am not sure there is a "wrong" and a "right" here. The only thing I would caution against is trying to be something you're not.
As for FIC, I think that is another perspective. I don't care for it. If we were in a third world country with no money and no technology, FIC would be the way it is.
But with society the way it is, I see nothing wrong with having ministries targeted to age groups - Seniors, Married Adults, College, Teens, children.
I think that all of those groups can gain something by programming targeted to them in certain settings.
Louis
Blended: A little bit of church, a huge dose of the world, and an inordinate amount of entertainment, and you have "blended".
I have come to believe that the sermon or the message is the most important part of the worship of God. Much more than the hymns or songs with music. Of course I am assuming the sermon or message is scripture driven. If it is not, then it is NOT glorifying God.
Now comes the tricky parts of sermon or message. What of preachers who "twist" scriptures to suit their beliefs or desires? If preachers are not honest with their interpretations of scripture, then they are doing a disservice to the glorifying of God.
Anonymous said...
"Blended: A little bit of church, a huge dose of the world,
and an inordinate amount of entertainment, and you have "blended"."
"BLENDED"?
Steve Gaines of Bellevue Baptist has been pushing it for years
Here
then back off when it hit the fan and then tried this approach with his son-in-law
Parody?
Also promotes Blended concerts in the Sanctuary
Like This
So Aaron what's next?
God is not the author of confusion. New members of this type of church who were believing one thing see another. The older folks who were always traditionalist are horrified. The younger most of which have little if any spiritual discernment, since they listen to rock music anyway probably enjoy it. The Bible speaks of following the traditions and what the Holy Spirit brings forward when the scripture is presented. Here's a simple question...which service would Jesus attend and which service would the Holy Spirit point one to, in seeking the Savior? Our churches are falling for contemporary values and a collective salvation which is deadly.
"I have come to believe that the sermon or the message is the most important part of the worship of God. Much more than the hymns or songs with music. Of course I am assuming the sermon or message is scripture driven. If it is not, then it is NOT glorifying God."
This is what the reformers thought. Actually they changed little except for replacing the mass with a sermon.
the only problem is that one guy speaking to many week after week is not the NT model. ALL believers were functioning the Body. There might have been 2 or 3 speaking and the others judging what was taught (1 Corin 14)
If you think about it, trusting one guy to teach week after week, year after year could really stunt the spiritual growth. Folks are assuming he is led by the Holy Spirit and spiritually mature. Perhaps this is because they pay him to be so they think this.
How we do church is simply tradition. If one thinks about it logically, it makes no sense. We should all be studying and interacting with others judging what is taught by searching the scriptures. It certainly would keep false teaching down. As it is now, few sitting in the pews ever question the great teacher on stage. That is a ripe situation for false teaching and the guy on stage feathering his own nest.
We sing in praise of the Lord and we learn a lot of our theology from the hymns we sing, because that sticks in our memory. I am not fond of "loud", whether amplified guitars and drums or organ, because it covers up the words and the message of the music, which is the important part. I also do not like draggy hymn singing -- I think a lot of young people would enjoy the hymns better if we sang them at a peppier beat. I think a lot of our older folks would like the choruses better if they were less loud, less repetitive, and if we had harmony parts for those of us who cannot sing soprano (oops, that would make them more like hymns).
What we need to do is take the best from the hymns and the best from the choruses, sing them with joy and gusto, sing them at a pace that suggests we are happy and praising, rather than walking in a funeral procession. "Blended" does not capture the essence of what is really needed.
BTW, 50 years ago, we sang choruses in Sunday School and as teenagers in Training Union. What is different in the choruses and the way we sing them.
It seems to me that we bring glory to God by the attitude we project and the way we treat others.
All the praising, swaying, raising of hands, solemn/tearful countenances, and little moans of ecstasy just appear so very affected and shallow. We silently conspire to let each other believe otherwise.
Faith has become a commodity.
"There will always be those who come along to sell us what we can have for free."
I like the idea of having a different teacher/preacher (unpaid) in the pulpit week after week. I also believe in a question and answer session (of limited time)after the lesson/sermon, whereby those attending can grow spiritually and not just sit there and fall asleep week after week. Many times the Sunday School hour is more constructive, as many teachers are much more into their Bibles, study harder and are UNPAID. Not to mention closer to their members! Look at how much more needed funds can be used to feed the poor and hungry and possibly do some visitation in a lost city that lives all around those huge buildings. Helping others both spiritually and physically "IS" what the Bible teaches in the first place. Helping a hungry brother. Instead the well fed, elitest show up in their finery, meet and greet/ back slap each other doze through a boring "talk" from the "pulpit strutter", more backslapping out the door, on to a meal somewhere, while nothing of importance transpires, then many come back later on Sunday night and do it all again. Meanwhile the hurting are still hurting, the hungry are still hungry. And all that has happened is a total waste of time on the social scene.
I forgot to add that gossip is caught up on, and business "networking" thrieves.
Does your radio station play Choir Music, Chris Tomlin, Black Urban Gospel, Bluegrass Gospel, Southern Gospel, and Organ Recitals? Answer...NO!!
We don't all like the same kind of foods, music, movies etc...is that bad?
If it is not piano and organ with a "robed Choir" you guys pitch a hissy fit! At some time in History, someone had to wear a Choir Robe for the first time...bet that was scandalous!
Let's all grow up and realize that diversity is ok and that we can love Jesus and still enjoy different forms of worship and that does not make us seperated, it can make us ONE!
PLEASE let's get off of the 50's and what is what like when Homer was here or Adrian was here....Homer and Adrian are HOME! They would want us to do "whatever it takes: to reach a lost and dying world....
"All the praising, swaying, raising of hands, solemn/tearful countenances, and little moans of ecstasy just appear so very affected and shallow."
--------------------------
Isn't that the truth. The preachers and "worship leaders" actively encourage this. So fake.
"One who is taught the word must share all good things with the one who teaches." (Galatians 6:6)ESV
This is admittedly a hot button issue with me, and the reason I no longer attend a physical church. The contemporary/traditional debate has kept the focus off the real issue, in my opinion. The whole 'reaching the lost' argument is NOT what church is about. "the church" is supposed to reach the lost, yes, but that isn't what 'church' is for. Gathering together with other believers - BELIEVERS - is what church is for, not attracting the unsaved. By trying to 'reach the lost' what church has become instead is "what will the unsaved approve of?". If the lost don't like it, then we don't do it. What happened is the church is now letting unsaved people dictate how "church is done". Christians gathering together to learn what God says is what prepares us - US - to go out and reach the lost, individually. Not drag your unsaved friends to a building so a paid preacher can tell them what they'll agree to listen to, and a music program they'll approve of. For my part, the reason I prefer the hymns is, first of all the content of the words: they're practically a Bible lesson in themselves. Secondly, what some consider dragging or boring tempo, I see as reverence for a holy God. Every time you read about someone in the Bible confronted by God, or Jesus or an angel, not one of them gave a peppy, happy song of praise to them. They all fell down in reverent fear of God Almighty. I don't see reverential attitudes in "praise choruses". Rather they're repetitious chants, similar to new-age mantras, repeating lines over and over and over til you want to scream "enough already!". And the vapid, me-centered words say little or nothing of God and what He's done for us unworthy, sinful creatures; instead they're usually about "I will..." and other man-centered things. Give me genuine hymnal worship of a holy God any day. And that, in my opinion, is what the whole debate is about: entertaining the pew-sitters or reverential praise to our holy God.
D
"One who is taught the word must share all good things with the one who teaches." (Galatians 6:6)ESV
What things do you think the Holy Spirit is talking about, Pastor?
I have noticed you really like this particular passage. That is understandable since you rely on donations from others to live. Paul made tents, btw, so as not to be a burden.
Paul also received support from churches as you like to omit.
"I robbed other churches by accepting support from them in order to serve you." (2 Corinthians 11:8) ESV
Anonymous 6:47 p.m.,
Excellent comment!
It's All About Me
Ironically (or maybe not), these videos are sold on a site devoted to selling the latest "cool" videos to pastors and churches.
Sermonspice is the world's largest library of downloadable Church videos for Church leaders to engage their congregations.
We must be relevant and must engage!
This one was said to have been shown at a staff or leadership meeting at Bellevue recently.
New BBC,
Thanks for your comment, and the videos. In one respect, it's nice to know others agree with me on the 'praise chorus' topic; on the other hand, it's sad that it's gotten so bad that parodies are even made. I loved watching Bellevue on TV and hearing Adrian Rogers' wonderful sermons, and the choir singing the wonderful hymns. Although I could tell when Jamie Parker was "song leader" I was going to be using the mute button alot, as he seems to dislike the "old time" songs and instead loves to hear his own "wonderful" voice singing. Always seemed to be an attitude of "listen to me sing - don't I have a great voice?". How sad that BBC has come to what it has.
Maybe those of us who agree should start "meeting" together online for our own Sunday church services?
D
D...Excellent comments. In trying to figure out the direction churches are going today, I have finally recognized a pattern. It starts of course, with the leadership. If the preacher is of a certain mindset, then all others must fall in line or get out of the way. So what really matters is whether or not the preacher IS CALLED BY GOD, in the first place. Many call themselves to a ministry or "choose" the vocation themselves. God having nothing to do with it. If that is the case don't expect the Lord to bless a "self serving preacher" just because he is in the pulpit. He may or may not be called.
Leadership decisions coming from a business/secular prespective will never bring SPIRITUALITY to the church. Since God may not choose to bless a secular church, what is the next best thing the secular organization can do? Gimmicks!!!! Create interest in order to "sell" the product. The product being the secular church/business. Gimmicks have taken the place of the Holy Spirit in many cases. The Holy Spirit leads the lost to saving Grace in Jesus Christ. If the Lord doesn't have His Hand on a church, it won't do much for Him. Rock music, contemporary services, dressing down, all of the things the world offers are sorry substitues and are just GIMMICKS used in place of Christ centered, and God called leadership. Not all churches/preachers are of the world,but more and more are appearing to be so everyday. This church age is not called the Church of Laodicea for nothing!!!!
Anon 10:44,
It's interesting that you comment: "all others must fall in line or get out of the way". In my last church, I well recall the Sunday morning the pastor explained to the congregation how our church would be going with "more modern" music, and that he understood some people did not like that. Then he said - granted, in a very kind manner - that he could only suggest that those who could not agree with this that maybe it would be best for them to 'find another church'. In every church where this debate happens, it is ALWAYS the hymn lovers who must change or leave. Always; never have I heard of one church where that wasn't the ultimate conclusion. For a time they try to placate "those old fuddy-duddies" with a hymn or two, as if to say "there, are you happy?", but sooner or later it comes down to, "we're doing this and you either like it or leave". Sad to see long-time church members/attenders treated this way; I was the third generation of my family in this church. Laodicea days are here for sure.
D
Its good that Dr Lindsay SR OR JR is not here to see what has/is going on within some of these buildings. They would not believe this idea of modernism and allowing the lost to dictate the manner in which sermons, music, and dressing down has taken place. If you desire to dress down go to the mall, the beach, or in your own home. This push for dressing down has just recently arrived and those of us who have been around the block see it for what it is...not doing your best or presenting oneself to be as nicely dressed as they are when they go to their job. Most salvations never occur in buildings...they occur on the street, in offices, and in homes. And yes even in jails. I for one believe the church of 2010 has lost its focus and has departed on a road to nowhere. A few more years and it will be a thing of the past if there is no real revival and a return to our core beliefs and the traditions of our forefathers. Paul had the right message PREACH THE WORD in season and out of season...in other words ALL THE TIME. CAN ANYONE GET SERIOUS ABOUT THE BIBLE ANYMORE?
"If you desire to dress down go to the mall, the beach, or in your own home. This push for dressing down has just recently arrived and those of us who have been around the block see it for what it is...not doing your best or presenting oneself to be as nicely dressed as they are when they go to their job."
I wear a suit to church on Sundays, except during the service when I wear a gorgeous robe.
"I well recall the Sunday morning the pastor explained to the congregation how our church would be going with "more modern" music, and that he understood some people did not like that. Then he said - granted, in a very kind manner - that he could only suggest that those who could not agree with this that maybe it would be best for them to 'find another church'."
That sentiment was promoted on Warren's pastors.com site in transitioning the church. You should have read what those wolves...uh pastors wrote about dealing with "dissenters".
It is all about authority and being in control. They think it is their church. Can you imagine anyone else who got their income living off others doing that?
Paul also received support from churches as you like to omit.
"I robbed other churches by accepting support from them in order to serve you." (2 Corinthians 11:8) ESV
August 29, 2010 8:14 PM
Not total support. And he traveled. He did not stay in one place forever expecting a paid career.
Now, will you point out the "pastor" of each church in the NT and their pay for us?
Then are you saying that people come to church because of the music? If you were to change music would a portion on that congregation leave or gain new members? So, that is why people come to church. It does not say much for the preaching of God's word.
Allen
We most likely will never see the likes of an Adrian Rogers or a Homer Lindsay in any church again. Much to our loss. I can tell that the very immature commentor dispariging their past ministries has never had the benefit of these Godly men and their preaching or has failed to "listen" to them. Perhaps that also is why he/she is so RUDE. One should only aspire to be anywhere near the spirituality of these men.
"I can tell that the very immature commentor dispariging their past ministries has never had the benefit of these Godly men and their preaching or has failed to "listen" to them."
Everyone thinks the guy on stage is great and godly. It is cult of personality. Perhaps if you had been at some of those backroom CR meetings, you would have a different view of Rogers. He was a big player. Player being the key word.
He also recommened Steve Gaines as his successor. So perhaps his discernment was not that great? Or maybe he was more like Gaines than folks thought...
Quit idolizing men and follow Christ alone.
One should only aspire to be anywhere near the spirituality of these men.
August 30, 2010 7:16 AM
It saddens me that you cannot see the blasphemous bent of this statement. How can you encourage folks to become like someone they only know from stage or tv or radio?
No, we are to encourage one another to become like Christ. To grow in holiness.
Shame on you for elevating men over Christ. But I do understand that many have been taught to think this way and think it is spiritual.
1 Corinthians 9:19-23 NIV
19Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible.
20To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law.
21To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law.
22To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some.
23I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.
I love church autonomy. I shake my head at the remarks which put down contemporary music.
We live in a time where many families do not come to church and reaching an unchurched younger generation with a formal and even blended service won't work.
I do though find it interesting that some here will gripe about pastors who say, do it my way or find another church but come of these same people are doing that same thing with music style.
How many of you who enjoy traditional or blended music in church would balk if your church went contemporary to reach the unchurched. James Merrit (sp?) is doing contemporary and being very successful.
Many churches are dying because they refuse to get outside their box they have built (traditional music included heavily) and really could care less if the next unchurched generation finds Jesus or not... Unless they find it in their set genre.
anon 10:52,
How do you define Success?
Allen
"What happened is the church is now letting unsaved people dictate how "church is done"."
Our lostness dictated what God did.
Christ came to seek and save that which were lost.. So should the church. In the building and outside of it.
You make it sound like lost people are not welcome and should not attend because it is not for them until they get saved.
You are way off base, but I do understand how it fits your stated philosophy to not support the church. Even Jesus went to church, among people who wanted to and soon hung Him on a cross.
Blessed are those who suffer for my name sake.
If we want we will do all that is possible to have our God without the suffering. It seems some want this badly.
To all you contemporaries: There is nothing new under the Sun. The recent downturn in church growth has been coming on strong the last 25 years. It has to do with leaving Jesus out of the service and putting an actor on the stage and thinking he is the greatest among everyone else. Until we quit allowing these fellows the millions, the perks, and elevate them higher than anyone the church will continue to FAIL. Blending won't help, music won't help, hiring your family members won't help either. Get back to the basics. As far as admiring a leader in the church as many have Dr Lindsay and Dr Rogers, keep in mind these men always pointed others to Jesus Christ. If you want to pick a fight with a denomination tell the Catholics not to look to the Pope as their spiritual leader!!!
Contemporary Christian Music is big business. This music is used to evoke emotionalism, hence the hand raising and standing. People like this music because they think that the feelings it produces is spiritual worship, when in reality, presenting ourselves wholly to God (Romans 12:1), thus giving Him glory in how we live our lives is true spiritual worship.
I am greatly saddened by the state of the church today. Our pastor quotes more from the latest Christian author than he does from the Bible. Our discipleship classes don't focus on the Bible, but rather on the latest book. The current one being "Crazy Love" by Francis Chan.
Indeed, we are the church of Laodicia. :(
We don't know the names of all the pastors but we know that the churches had them.
"This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you--" (Titus 1:5) ESV
In how many towns? In every town.
The apostles and their helpers (Titus, Timothy, Epaproditus, etc...)evengelized people and planted churches and then appointed elders to oversee the churches.
We also don't know what their pay was, but we do know that the churches were commanded to take care of them. 1 Cor. 9:1-14; Gal. 6:6; 1 Tim. 5:17, 18 You can try to rewrite these verses because they don't suit you, but the fact that this is clearly the N.T. pattern is obvious.
BTW I believed these things long before I surrendered to the ministry, and I believed them because I read and believed my Bible. Your questions are ridiculous, you know the answers to them, but you reject the clear answers of the Bible.
What usually happens in these "blended" contemporary settings is: the Bible is not taught, but rather another of the latest books, if the Bible is taught it is in the elementary vein. Nothing deep or strongly spiritual is taught, thus you have babes in Christ (maybe, if they are saved at all) learning nothing. In the meantime, the seasoned Christian (the dreaded traditionalist)...does not get fed with anything deep from the word. What you have is an ineffective church reaching no one with the Word. Therefore, the babes in Christ (if they are saved at all) learn nothing and are just being "entertained" especially with the "blended" contemporary music. After (usually) a short period of time they drop out of the contemporary service as they are not getting fed either. So everyone looses in this dilemma. Also keep in mind, and this should interest the preachers....the young contemporary attendees that just want to be entertained,....do not usually PAY THE TITHE, therefore, neither will they pay the BILLS. It is usually the "dreaded" traditionalist (older folks) that pay the BILLS. They leave and take their checkbooks with them. But some of these brilliant preachers, shun the "pillars" of the church and eventually loose the people in both camps.
Off Topic: My Utmost for His Highest [Oswald Chambers] > August 29th > SUBLIME INTIMACY
"We live in a time where many families do not come to church and reaching an unchurched younger generation with a formal and even blended service won't work.
"
The great commission is not to reach the "unchurched".
Becoming "churched" is supposed to happen when one gets saved...therefore we are to take the Gospel to them. Not a church membership. But because growing large churches is now the goal, we have forgotten the very basics.
Many churches are dying because they refuse to get outside their box they have built (traditional music included heavily) and really could care less if the next unchurched generation finds Jesus or not... Unless they find it in their set genre.
August 30, 2010 10:52 AM
Most churches need to die because they are not really the Body of Christ. It is not about "getting outside of a box". All of that thinking is worldly as in trying to "attract" people to the entertainment.
How would you go about "attracting" people to your church if Christianity were outlawed? Perhaps you would see it all differently...about salvation and eternal life.
It is the pastors who are teaching everyone to be so shallow. It is sick.
"CAN ANYONE GET SERIOUS ABOUT THE BIBLE ANYMORE?
August 29, 2010 11:21 PM
With so many leaving and choosing to be "home churched" it appears the gospel in the USA is no longer being taken serious - entertainment and socialism is the focus of today's modern churches and sad to say they are just spinning their wheels and going no where.
As for the music, standing for 20 minutes and repeating "He's An Awesome God" ten times over drives me nuts - our young people are no longer being taught the message that the hymns betray.
(BTW - I'm not an oldie :-)
It's not the music nor the dress that is causing the people to leave their churches. This blog pretty much sums up a variety of the reasons why the pews are seeing less and less of people.
John - why do we use the term "surrender to the ministry"?
It sounds as though you gave in, reluctantly, were held up.
Why don't I say, "I surrendered to engineering" or "I surrendered to being a businessman".
Is a minster who has chosen, willingly, to become a professional minister, any more called than a Christian who chooses another profession?
Would love to read your thoughts on this.
John - why do we use the term "surrender to the ministry"?
It sounds as though you gave in, reluctantly, were held up.
Why don't I say, "I surrendered to engineering" or "I surrendered to being a businessman".
Is a minster who has chosen, willingly, to become a professional minister, any more called than a Christian who chooses another profession?
Would love to read your thoughts on this.
August 30, 2010 8:51 PM
I have always wondered, too. I guess it sounds so sacrificial while they are negotiating their dental plan.
And no, they are not more called than anyone else. As a matter of fact, pastor is used ONCE in the NT and it is PLURAL. Perhaps there are many "pastors" in each Body...shepherding new believers. I certainly do not see any seminary's they had to go to before they could do so in the NT ekklesia.
One can "pastor" others and be an engineer. Only tradition has made it into an "office" with pay and sacred furniture.
How much is double honor worth? And who is paid single honor? the wage is HONOR, friend. So, start earning some HONOR.
You sure do like to come on here and proof text verses that seem to benefit you. For a while, why not put some "one anothers" up and those about not lording it over. You might even revisit Paul making tents so as not to be a burden.
Help me understand....
Choir Robes-
Big backed chairs on the stage-
King James Only Preachers-
The emphasis on a Piano and Organ-
Hymns written 150 years ago and thought of as though they were Holy Scripture-
Wearing Suits and Dresses to Services-
Big Buttons on Friendly People that say "Usher"-
Responsive Reading-
All of these things are thought of by the readers of this Blog as the only way to have "Church".
Maybe before we start throwing stones at Praise Bands, lights, haze, coffee bars and bookstores we should do a checkup from our neckup!
Anon 1:00pm
"You make it sound like lost people are not welcome and should not attend because it is not for them until they get saved."
Not my point at all. The point was that somehow we've gotten the idea that "the church's" job is bringing unsaved people in to get saved, when it's not. Church is simply the gathering together of believers to study God's word and praise Him - not to 'attract the unsaved'. Whatever you do to 'attract the unsaved' you have to keep doing to keep them there. If contemporary music is what brings them in, then they're there for contemporary music - not God's word. My point was Christians are to come together (church) to study God's word and thereby be equipped to GO OUT TO THE UNSAVED to bring them the Good News. The purpose of church is for the believers. No believer would tell an unsaved person they weren't welcome - it's just not the purpose of church. The whole idea of "the church" having to find ways to 'attract the lost' is completely contrary to the Bible. Only the Holy Spirit can 'attract the lost'. If Christians would stop trying to do the Holy Spirit's work and get back to studying & teaching the Word and let the Holy Spirit do His part, the whole debate would disappear. But the world has so infected the church that people can't even see this any more. And as another anon pointed out, the only real focus of most churches today is entertaining the people in the pews so they'll keep coming back (and giving). No one wants to teach or study the Word of God any more and sadly, fewer and fewer of today's generation know anything at all about it, and when you don't know God's word, you're the perfect prey to every false teacher that comes along. And THAT is the sad legacy of trying to contemporize churches.
D
Watchdog - I will admit the reason that I used the word surrendered is because it is a phrase we use traditionally in the church. I think that the reason we use the term is because for many it is a struggle to ascertain what their calling is. Feelings of unworthiness and inabilty affect the decision. I don't believe pastors are more called than anyone else.
Anon 10:10 - I have earned plenty of HONOR "my friend" and I have worked jobs while pastoring a church, and continue to do so. So you don't know anything about me or what sacrifices me and my family have undergone to be in the ministry. As far as the proof texting comments, that is just a straw man argument because you don't have an answer to those texts. I'd rather have a proof text as compared to your no text. The word translated in 1 Tim 5:17 “honor” is translated sum in Acts 7:16; money in Matt. 27:6; and price in Matt. 27:9 and 1 Cor. 6:20 “for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.” ESV To say that the word used in 1 Timothy 5:17 absolutely cannot mean financial remuneration is simply being ignorant of the meaning of the word. Yes the word sometimes just means respect, but what demonstrates Paul’s meaning is the next verse 1 Timothy 5:18 which says “For the Scripture says, "You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain," and, "The laborer deserves his wages." ESV This is a quote from Deut. 25:4 and Paul explains it in 1 Cor. 9:9-14. It is talking about support for preachers of the gospel. And 1 Tim 5 is specifically talking about church elders not itinerant preachers. You cannot interpret vs. 17 without accounting for vs. 18 which makes very clear what Paul was talking about.
"I'd rather have a proof text as compared to your no text."
Well stated as usual!!!
Love you Brother Wylie!!!
"The point was that somehow we've gotten the idea that "the church's" job is bringing unsaved people in to get saved, when it's not. "
The purpose of the church is evangelism. Our message is "Come" "Come" to Jesus then "go" and tell (both are biblical words).
I know its my interpretation vs yours but the thoughts above are taken from a book by Adrian Rogers. I'm not idolizing him but agreeing with him on the purpose of the church. In the walls or outside them our purpose is evangelism.
Yeah, I know some people's purpose is to set other straight on their behavior and beliefs. Sorry, that's God's job, not ours. I know some people think the purpose is to expose others faults... wrong again. I know some people think church is only about discipleship, wrong again. Wrong again. Discipleship is needed but evangelism is the purpose of the church.
Love you too Brother Rod. Thank you so much for the encouragement. Hey Brother, go to my page if you would like and email me so we can exchange contact info.
Watchdog you and I disagree often, but I appreciate your fairness, I think it takes a big person to post comments even when they're sometimes critical of you. Thanks
Thanks John. Appreciate your contributions here on the blog.
Let me see: You say
"The great commission is not to reach the "unchurched". "
Then say:
"Becoming "churched" is supposed to happen when one gets saved..."
Put these together and you get the great commission is not to reach the unsaved.
Now I understand where you are coming from.
Allen:
"How do you define Success?"
I would define it as a church focused on reaching a lost world with the gospel of Jesus.
I used James Merritt as an example of a large church which is gospel focused and lost people are being saved. I chose a large church due to the bitterness towards large churches by many here.
I attend a small successful church and we use keyboard and drums. Yes, I have been told they are the devils instruments. But my great granddad who was a primitive baptist would say a piano is the devils instrument along with pews with backs.
Searching Together > Four Tragic Shifts In The Visible Church 180-400 A. D. by Jon Zens
SearchingTogether > The "Clergy/Laity" Distinction: A Help or a Hindrance to the Body of Christ By Jon Zens
Well, one thing wrong with your verses John is, you are using an ESV. Other than that you doing OK. Bad translations cause bad translations.....
D. 10:51....another home run for you. You have expressed it perfectly.
Unchurched: A Purpose Driven term.
Yes, the hirling is due his wages, however, from what I observe most of the mega speakers don't deserve much money. Anyone can stand up and give a book report. We use to do that back in Jr High and some were very good.
I think the discussion on this article has been very helpful. Thanks everyone for chiming in.
I deviate from many here on the blog when it comes to contemporary worship.
Some have said this blog was started because I didn't like the color of the carpet, or the music, or the lack of ties on Wed nights by deacons, the pastor not using the KJV etc. or hairstyles, etc. But this blog was never about those kinds of things. Preacher uses NASB. So what. Music man uses the screens and not hymnals. I don't care. Preacher shows up without a tie, no big deal to me.
I have no problem WHATSOEVER with contemporary worship styles. I rather enjoyed the contemporary service at my church; not my preference, I absolutely love the "blended" style that we have, but I enjoy listening to contemporary Christian music on my I-pod (e.g. Matthew West, Jeremy Camp, and many others). So I enjoy it also in a worship service. Also, the preaching at the contemporary service was not ONE SINGLE BIT watered down. The preacher gave the same message, the same gospel to the contemporary crowd. I think even Junior Hill came in to preach at the contemporary service! So it is absolutely not true that contemporary worship equals watered down gospel.
But I also see what Tullian is saying at Coral Ridge, that in a sense if you hae TWO separate services it does create an age segregation in the church, and that can't be good.
And I've noted that it can also create some disruption with families who have teens, where there is pressure to have the family worship not together, but in separate services.
But I don't agree with Tullian in saying that "two services" is "bad church". It might be not be the best for his church, but I would leave it open for other churches to decide.
And there are some churches, mostly what are called the "emergent" churches that have ALL contemporary style, no choir. That is FINE! I don't have a problem with that either.
I know many of the regular readers disagree with me on this, but I hope you understand where I'm coming from, and I'm open to your criticism. :)
Anon 12:35 you said, "Well, one thing wrong with your verses John is, you are using an ESV. Other than that you doing OK. Bad translations cause bad translations....."
The problem you have that you have not addressed is 1 Tim 5:18 which shows us what verse 17 means. Use the KJV, NIV, NASB, HCSB, LITV, ISV, ASV, RSV etc... Your pat answer of bad translations doesn't hold water, because even if you translate the word "honor" as respect you still have not dealt with it's various meanings in the Greek, and you have yet to explain vs. 17's connection with vs. 18.
"The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching. For the Scripture says, "Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain," and "The worker deserves his wages." 1 Tim. 5:17-18 NIV
In the NIV the word translated honor here is translated money in Matt. 27:6; price in Matt. 27:9 and 1 Cor. 6:20, and sum in Acts 7:16. You look at the RSV, NASB, ASV and the list goes on and on and on of translations that in some cases translate this word with financial connotations. To say "oh well the word should just be translated respect" is rather arbitrary and does not take in to account word usage or context. vs. 18 is the key to properly understanding vs. 17.
"And there are some churches, mostly what are called the "emergent" churches that have ALL contemporary style, no choir."
They also have no "TRUTH"!!!
Dr.Dog the emergent church believes that there is no such thing as absolute truth in Scripture.And they believe that no one can know the Truth!And they also say that if anyone says that they know Biblical truth,then they are arrogant and presumptous!!!
The emergent movement is one of the most dangerous heresies against Biblical truth to come down the pipe!!!
Bro. Rod: I didn't mean to say I agreed with the emergents. I am with Chris Rosebrough who is one of the biggest critics of the emergent church movement. Have you listened to him? But I am just commenting on the worship styles, and I want to say that modern, contemporary, "band" type music worship does not mean that the church is preaching watered down gospel.
I don't "criticize" you WD, I just strongly disagree. God is not the author of confusion. Everything is to be done orderly. Now I know you may say that a contemporary service can be orderly. Not in my opinion. Especially when you can't tell it from a large sales meeting. When some of the same type music can be heard walking outside by a bar. It's the "beat" and the repetitive chant that is not wholesome to worship. When you can't tell the difference in music in the world and music in the church, you have a problem. As to the "relaxed" atmosphere, it also looks like a large sales meeting. The sermons seem to be a hit or miss afterthought. God deserves our best, not just a "didn't have anything else to do, so I showed up for *church*". We respect weddings and funerals as being important enough to dress properly, why not the same respect for preaching and hearing Gods Word. Hope we are still internet friends as I am a supporter of you and your blog.
John... I am not and never will be interested in being told and corrected about translations. I know too much about them, believe me I am no novice in this area. My credentials re: translations would match yours anyday!!!! Perhaps your remarks will impress someone else. Sell it somewhere else. Bad translations equal bad translations.
Anon 12:35, thank you for your kind words. After the day I had today it was nice to read.
I have an idea. Since the contemporary/traditional debate will never be "solved", why not dispense with music at church altogether? Just get together and study the Word, and have people sing their style of music away from it? At least those who came to church would be there for the right reason, and those who didn't, well, that would say what was uppermost for them. Thoughts?
D
John: You said the problem I have....Actually I have no problem. I don't read phony bibles. I will leave that to you.
Anon 9:49 - Yeah I'm real sure that you have more credentials than more than 600 years of English translation scholars. The fact that you just dismiss them as "phony bibles" without addressing my argument indicates you're not honest about your credentials. Do you offer an alternative translation for 1 Tim. 5:18 and how it corresponds to 1 Tim. 5:17? Of course not, your exaggeration is really embarrassing.
John it looks like you admire some translator altering honor to money. I believe the translation of honor means honor rather than money or wages. Otherwise the word honor would have not been used. The translators of 1611 had more knowledge of Hebrew, Greek, Latin, etc.,etc., and were quite aware of which words were to be preserved and which ones were not preferred. Those translators knew that honor was the best and only word that could/should be used in order to prevent someone using the term incorrectly. The ox was not to be muzzled in order for it to eat, while working otherwise the ox would be unable to continue to work or even die. Therefore, money is totally out of the equation and unnecessary since "double honor" would be "double money" and we all know that any God called, God fearing pastor would consider taking "double money" as a snare of the devil. I believe all those pastors who have integrity and really believe in the meaning of the words within the Bible clearly understand the difference between money and honor. This type of thinking has brought on dishonor to the so called church of our day. People within and those outside see clearly that the great motivator in ministry today IS money and they are leaving in droves. BTW, taking THEIR money with them. The Bible has many things to say concerning these type of individuals and I call your attention to Ps 39:5 "Behold, thou hast made my days as an handbreath; and my age is as nothing before thee: verily every man at his best state is altogether vanity. Selah".
Two things here that are important to note: 1) The 1611 translators did translate this same word price in Mt. 27:6,9;Acts 5:2; 1 Cor. 6:20; and sum in Acts 7:16. 2.) While I appreciate that you did offer an interpretation of the 1 Tim. 5:18 passage, Paul clearly said in 1 Cor. 9:9 that God was not concerned about ox when the phrase was written: "Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges? who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof? or who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock? Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also? For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope. If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things?"(1 Corinthians 9:7-11) KJV
Paul uses the phrase in the same way in 1 Tim. 5:18, in connection with 1 Tim. 5:17. It's talking about taking care of elders.
The word can mean Honor or respect, or it can have financial implications and it depends on context. BTW the word Honor in 1611 English did have a financial component.
" Anonymous said...
John... I am not and never will be interested in being told and corrected about translations. I know too much about them, believe me I am no novice in this area. My credentials re: translations would match yours anyday!!!! Perhaps your remarks will impress someone else. Sell it somewhere else. Bad translations equal bad translations."
August 31, 2010 4:56 PM
Spoken just like a proud Pharisee!!!
Brother Rod: You have always been a blogger favorite of mine. I have always agreed with you and thought you a knowledgeable and fine person. I am sorry to see your remarks, I would not have expected this from you. This is why I have a problem with "know it all" preachers. Not meaning you. So many preachers think they know everything about the Bible and others do not. I guess that is what keeps them in business. I do not wish to publish my credentials here, as I wish to remain anonymous. There is much more to this "discussion" than time merits. I have made my point, and am satisfied with it. I don't guess I will ever get used to abuse from preachers. They do reign supreme. It is so easy for them to wound the brethren and walk away as they think they are the authority and others must accede to them, but not this one, I have no authority but Jesus Christ and His Word.
Blessings, and kindest regards to you Brother Rod. I wish the best for you.
Anon 11:04 - Were your condescending remarks not abusive? That's what Bro. Rod was addressing. I never intended to be abusive to anyone and this is not all about money, it's about accepting what the Bible clearly teaches. What's at stake here in all these issues whether we're talking about the organized church, the proper role of elders, or even the egalitarian vs. complimetarianism debate is the integrity of scriptures. People are trying to rewrite the Bible, to suit current cultural trends.
This isn't about a paycheck, I would preach and teach whether I got paid or not, it's about what the Bible clearly says. I don't know you, and don't have anything against you, we just disagree on these issues.
John, what you call condescending I call personal belief. I believe the Bible 100% even the commas, periods and numbers, paragraphs, mapts, etc. It is written in perfect English and for me it is what it is, perfect,.... many attempt to manipulate Gods Word. They will face God on their knees one day, thats their choice. I could care less about the Greek, the verb tense, case, noun, pronoun, a preachers credentials etc. I'm a BELIEVER and you are not my authority. Authority...isn't that what this is about? You persist in trying to correct what you see as ignorance on my part. I refuse to accept you as my authority. You and I disagree and it doesn't bother me one way or the other. We all have our own set of beliefs. You have yours and I have mine. That's what makes our country great. You speak about the integrity of the scripture. That is exactly my point. I find condescension from preachers quite irritating. It appears, in many cases, counseling is not a strong point, among some preachers (not all). Many are just plain abusive. Maybe that is why so many preachers appear cold, indifferent, arrogant and generally out of touch. This makes it more difficult for the real pastors, as they must overcome much. I have been blessed to know many fine preachers of the Word during my lifetime, and have learned much from them. But, they were of a different breed than what is so prevalent today. Not all are useless, but so many are. Nevertheless, I will not tarry on this subject longer. I have made my point, you have made yours. BTW Bro. Rod can speak for himself, I believe he has a good heart, even if he did call me a Pharisee. He misunderstood my points. I have wasted enough time here. So I will move on to something KIND, helpful and instructive, like reading my PERFECT HOLY BIBLE.
"Brother Rod: You have always been a blogger favorite of mine. I have always agreed with you and thought you a knowledgeable and fine person. I am sorry to see your remarks, I would not have expected this from you. This is why I have a problem with "know it all" preachers."
September 1, 2010 11:04 AM
Anon I mean no harm;
But the way you worded your statment had the ring of pride and arrogance.I have several times worded my statments that to some may have appeared to know it all or arrogant.You may have not mean it,but the way you worded it or possibly the way I read it,it just appeared that way?
I believe after reading many of Brother Wylie comments,that we are all on the same side!!!
So though we may disagree on some issues,
at least we know where one another stands on our veiws.
But in the end I believe we are on the same side!!!
Love My Brother/Sister???
" I don't guess I will ever get used to abuse from preachers. They do reign supreme. It is so easy for them to wound the brethren and walk away as they think they are the authority and others must accede to them, but not this one, I have no authority but Jesus Christ and His Word.
Blessings, and kindest regards to you Brother Rod. I wish the best for you."
September 1, 2010 11:04 AM
Anon I know 1st hand what its like to sit under abusive,greedy,arrogant pastors,and that's one reason I blog against their abuses!
"I BORDER ON DISDAIN" for these people who distort Scripture,abuse,hurt and turn people away from true worship and reverence to Christ!!!
I can relate to your feelings!!!
With that said please remember that not all of them or bad,God always has a remnant of faithful men who are called to ministry(and I mean only a "remnant");
But unfortunately the good ones get caught up in and lumped together with the offending charlatans!!!
Love!!!
"September 1, 2010 2:16 PM"
Sorry the above comment and time was me.I forgot the sign my name.
Thank you Bro. Rod..you are a good person. I also have known some of the best preachers around. I also agree that their are good ones around today. They don't get credit for the hard work they do. Many are loyal to Jesus and to the congregations they lead. I only have a problem with those that change and manipulate the Word for their own purposes. I pray for them but, I don't allow them to sway what I know about my Bible. I feel that too many are self-serving, and therefore in it for the money (even though they protest loudly as to how they are not). I know many lay people that also are not called to the ministry, but have spiritual gifts far beyond some preachers. I have no grudge against anyone, I just don't let bully preachers bully me, especially when I know as much as they do about scripture. Sometimes one just gets tired of hearing it. Thanks for your kind words. Blessings to you.
Thank you Bro. Rod, You are a blessing not just because you encourage me, but also because you show balance and fairness on this blog, something that I need to emulate.
Readers: Go here to read an excellent article on Jim Whitmire, shortly after he accepted position at FBC Jax. In the article he says:
"A focus on Jesus, and not on worship styles, can brings people of all ages, races and backgrounds together in worship, Whitmire emphasized."
And:
Calling a "blended" repertoire the best program for established churches, Whitmire said he believes Scripture teaches congregations to worship through hymns, psalms and spiritual songs. Hymns sing "about the Trinity and teach doctrine," he said. Psalms are for Scripture memory and spiritual songs are new songs that tell about people's experiences with God.
"We need all of those," Whitmire said. He believes hymns today are still being penned by musicians such as Keith Getty, and the notion that the Baptist Hymnal is the end to all worship is erroneous.
"The canon of the hymnal is not finished," Whitmire said. "The canon of the Bible is finished."
Amen, Bro. Jim. Like I said, some knew about this way before Tullian made his "discovery".
Brother Wylie and Anon though we might not agree on everything,one thing appears we do agree on,is that Jesus Christ is Lord!!!
Lets continue to fight earnestly for the faith against all injustice perpetrated by deceitful people[Jude 4]!!!
The Love of Christ you!!!
Post a Comment