Thoughts on Easter Giveaways

/ Dennis Griffith / Leave a comment

Field of Eggs

I was stunned the first time I read about the plan of a church in the area where we then lived to give away prizes at an Easter gathering.  And they were not just going to give stuff away, they were planning to create a frenzy.  A helicopter was leased, piloted by some guy in an Easter Bunny costume (which alone raises questions).  With people gathered at a rented junior high school soccer field, the Easter Bunny would drop plastic Easter Eggs each filled with either candy, cash, or with redeemable certificates for such items as i-pods, cell phones, etc. And they did this on Easter Sunday right after their services.  It just seemed wrong, but I held my tongue.

For two weeks leading up to the “drop” the local newspaper contained a full page ad promoting this “celebration”. But it was not until I read an interview with the pastor the day after Easter that I could stand it no longer.  His statement that set me off?  He said:  “We’re just loving on our neighbors.”

While that statement may seem benign enough, I felt compelled to respond. So I shot him an e-mail.  I had met the guy before, though did not know him well.  But I hoped he would at least consider his actions, or the potential effects of them.  So I wrote him a note challenging his notion of “loving his neighbors”.

I told him that he was not so much loving his neighbors as he was buying them, or bribing them.  True, he had gathered a large group to an Easter event, but it was not because of the proclamation of Christ crucified and resurrected (- though I assume that was mentioned at the actual church service).  How many in attendance were actually members of other congregations who were enticed only by the promise of goodies? (No, no one from the church I served attended their event.)  I conceded that perhaps such a giveaway would have been an expression of love had they chosen to hold it at one of the local public housing projects, and limited the participation to those with minimal incomes.  After all, that would have given to those who are without, and given to those who can give no more to the church than their presence.  But they had been advertising for weeks to the whole city – wealthy, middle-class, and poor alike.  They were merely buying potential “customers” – just like Wal-Mart, Best Buy, or any other consumer-driven business does.

Perhaps not surprising, I did not get a response to my e-mail.  The next year the church added a giveaway at the worship service – a new car to some lucky person with the correct number on their Easter Sunday worship bulletin.  I did not bother to send another e-mail.  I just mused in disappointment about what seems to be replacing the gospel in too many churches.

Apparently I am not alone in my distaste for this practice.  I recently read a post by Jared Wilson, who also has some concerns about it.  In his post Wilson gives ten spot-on-right reasons why he thinks luring people in with cash and prizes is not a good idea:

1. It creates buzz about cash and prizes, not the Easter event. When the media takes notice, nobody wants to interview these pastors about the resurrection. They want them to talk about the loot.

2. It identifies the church not with the resurrection, but with giving toys away. It makes us look like entertainment centers or providers of goods and services, not people of the Way who are centered on Christ.

3. Contrary to some offered justifications, giving prizes away is not parallel to Jesus’ providing for the crowds. Jesus healed people and fed them. This is not the same as giving un-poor people an iPod.

4. It appeals to greed and consumerism. There is no biblical precedent for appealing to one’s sin before telling them to repent of it. This is a nonsensical appeal.

5. Yes, Jesus said he would make us fishers of men, but extrapolating from this to devise all means of bait is not only unwarranted, it’s exegetically ignorant. The metaphor Jesus is offering here is just of people moving from the business of fishing to the business of the kingdom. There is no methodology being demonstrated here. (But the most common one would have been throwing out nets anyway, not baiting a hook.)

6. It is dishonest “bait and switch” methodology. Sure, the people coming for the goodies know they’re coming to church. But it’s still a disingenuous offer. The message of the gospel is not made for Trojan horses.

7. It demonstrates distrust in the compelling news that a man came back from the dead!! I mean, if nobody’s buying that amazing news, we can’t sell it to them with cheap gadgets.

8. It demonstrates distrust in the power of the gospel when we think we have to put it inside something more appealing to be effective. What the giveaways really communicate is that we think the gospel needs our help, and that our own community is not attractive enough in our living out of the implications of the gospel.

9. The emerging data from years of research into this kind of practice of marketing/evangelism attractional church stuff shows the kind of disciples it produces are not strong. I have no doubt these churches are going to see decisions Easter weekend. They’ll herald them on Twitter and on the blogs. As questionable a practice as that can be, I’d be extra interested in how discipled these folks are in a year or two years or three. Hype has always produced “decisions.” Would anyone argue that after 30 years or so of the attractional approach to evangelism the evangelical church is better off, more Christ-centered, more biblically mature?

10. What you win them with is what you win them to.

Numbering the Sheep on the Ranch

/ Dennis Griffith / Leave a comment

Counting Sheep

Blogger Tim Challies is at the Together for the Gospel Conference, surrounded by other church leaders.  No surprise then that he is hearing this common question all around him: “How many people go to your church?”  And apparently Challies, whose primary vocation is writer not pastor, has some concerns about this question:

I’d like to make the same two-part proposal I made a few years back: Let’s stop asking, “How many people go to your church?” And when someone asks us that question, let’s not feel obliged to give a direct answer.

Challies understands the heart challenge for the pastor in those moments when that question is posed:

For the pastor this can be a moment of pride or humility, freedom or shame…

While not presently prone to the tugs toward embellishment, I am not sure whether it is because of personal growth or just that my external circumstances have changed.  I serve a good-sized congregation, with an excellent staff, in a desirable locale.  But I know those feelings well.  On occasions in the past I’ve felt the temptation to exaggerate, such as to cite Easter attendance as if that were the norm. (I know others who have also considered that one.)  The obvious reason for the temptation is embarrassment about the reality, as if the number in attendance is somehow a precise indicator of the abilities or worth of a pastor or congregation, or of God’s pleasure in either.

Challies writes:

We all pay lip service to the reality that we cannot necessarily measure the health of a church by its size. We all know that some of the biggest churches in the world are also some of the unhealthiest churches in the world. The history of Christianity has long-since shown that it is not all that difficult to fill a building with unbelievers by just tickling their ears with what they want to hear. We also know that the Lord is sovereign and that he determines how big each church should be and we know that in some areas even a very small church is an absolute triumph of light over darkness. And yet “How big is your church?” is one of the first questions we ask.

Why is this?

I don’t know all the reasons but I’d suggest at least two. First, I think our question betrays us and shows that in the back of our minds we equate size and health. Somewhere we make the connection between big and healthy, between big and blessing. We exacerbate the problem when we ask and answer this too-easy question. Second, we just haven’t taken the time and made the effort to form better questions. Instead, we gravitate to the easy one.

So what might be some better questions to ask?  I appreciate Challies’ suggestions:

  • How have you seen the Lord working in the lives of the people in your church?
  • What evidences of the Lord’s grace has your church experienced in the last few months?
  • What are you excited about in your church right now?
  • Who are you excited about in your church right now?
  • What has the Lord been teaching you?
  • Who have you been discipling recently?
  • Tell me about some of the future leaders at your church.

These are much better to get a sense of the story in any congregation.

And inevitably when asked: “How many people go to your church?” Challies suggests answering something like this:

  • As many as the Lord has determined we can care for at this time.
  • Enough that we are actively working toward planting a church.
  • I don’t know, but let me tell you about a few of them…

Interest in numbers is not wrong.  Numbers tell us things.  But just what numbers tell us is not always readily clear.  Numbers are not wrong, it is the fascination with numbers that is problematic.  Numbers just do not tell a story.  Much more valuable is the number of stories of how God is at work in any congregation.

To read Challies’ post, click: How Many People?

Is Church Membership Really Required?

/ Dennis Griffith / Leave a comment

Concepts

by Ricky Jones

This month we will be inducting new members into the most honored body the world has ever known: the church of Jesus Christ. The initiation fee for this club is so high that no human could have ever paid it; God himself had to pick up the tab. The benefits of the club never expire. The fellowship of the club is unmatched; you receive intimate access to the Lord himself (John 17:23).

With such benefits, you’d think church membership would be held in infinitely high esteem. But for many reasons, Christians seem to think less of it than ever before. If you’re one who looks upon church membership lightly, then I invite you to reconsider.

When we hear the word membership, we immediately think of a club. A member pays dues, comes to meetings, and fulfills the obligations of a club member. When you move, or no longer have time for the club, you simply withdraw your membership and move on.

The Bible says membership is much more intimate. “For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body” (Eph. 5:29-30).

To be a church member means we are a member of Christ’s body—just like your finger is a member of your body. His blood runs through us. His Spirit animates us. His will moves us. He feels our pain, cleanses us when we get dirty, nurses our wounds, and cherishes us with pride.

Leaving the church is not simply leaving a club. When you walk away, you dismember yourself from the body. Jesus and the rest of the body sorely miss you, and bleed after your departure. You cut yourself off from your only source of life and nourishment. Like an amputated hand, you will slowly bleed out, wither, and die.

Not Possible, Biblical, or Healthy

I hear you complaining already. My, he’s being a bit dramatic. I’m a member of Christ; I just can’t find a local church I like. I’m a member of the universal church, just not of any one in particular.

I want you to understand that being a part of the universal church without submitting to a local church is not possible, biblical, or healthy.

First, it’s simply not possible. To imply you can be part of the greater community without first being 
part of the smaller is not logical. You cannot be part of Rotary International without also being part of a local chapter. You cannot be part of the universal human family without first being part of a small
immediate family.Membership Certificate

Second, it’s not biblical. Every letter in the New Testament assumes Christians are members of local churches. The letters themselves are addressed to local churches. They teach us how to get along with other members, how to encourage the weak within the church, how to conduct ourselves at church, and what to do with unrepentant sinners in the church. They command us to submit to our elders, and encourage us to go to our elders to pray. All these things are impossible if you aren’t a member of a local church. (See 1 and 2 Corinthians, James, Ephesians, 1 and 2 Timothy, and 1 Peter for references.)

Asking where the Bible commands you to be a church member is like asking where the USGA rulebook for golf insists you be a human. The whole book is addressed to the church.

Finally, living without church membership is not healthy. Independence—the desire to choose for yourself what’s right and wrong—is at the heart of sin. You need the humility lesson of submitting to flawed elders. You need the encouragement of sharing victories with your church. You need the fellowship of sharing sufferings with your church.

You need to know we’re all in this life together, and we won’t walk away from you just because you let us down or we disagree. Together we build each other up into the image of Christ; no one can make it alone. I encourage you to rethink the importance of church membership. Our fellowship may be an affliction, but we are a glorious affliction. And we will walk into glory together.

***

NOTE: This article originally appeared at the RiverOaks Presbyterian Church blog; and also on The Gospel Coalition.

Ricky Jones is lead pastor of RiverOaks Presbyterian Church in Tulsa, Oklahoma. You can follow him on Twitter

Happier Elsewhere: Singing ‘Happy Trails’ to … Some

/ Dennis Griffith / Leave a comment

On a Soap Box

I appreciate the practical wisdom Ed Stetzer provides in a post titled: Why I Have No Difficulty Helping “Issue Christians” to Move On.  Few seem to think this way in our consumerist church culture, where numbers are the only measuring stick of success, and faithfulness is but a tool to… well, numerical success – so long as it works.  Pastors are under so much pressure to produce measurable “progress” that it is difficult for many to watch any living, breathing, potentially financial supporting body depart.  Not so much for me – anymore.  I’ve learned, through the pain of many mistakes, some folks just cost too much to keep around.

Does that sound heartless?  Sometimes it still feels that way.  But nevertheless, it is true. Not just for my sanity as a pastor, but for the unity and the peace, and the health of the church,,, some people should move on.

The people I mean are not the poor, or the unkempt, or the socially awkward or even outcastes.  It is not my place to shew them from Christ’s church.  Though the world may see no benefit of having such people around, these are exactly the kind of folks Jesus expressly instructs us he wants to be made at home in any church that belongs to him. The ones I have in mind are not the outcastes, but the self righteous: those who have stumbled upon the one “key” to resolve the worlds problems – and the churches – if only enough people would buy into their one key.  What is the key? Who knows.  I’ve seen all sorts of different sure-fire “answers”.  Sadly, for such folks, “Christ and him crucified”, is never the key.  (See 1 Corinthians 2.2)  Their issue, whatever it may be, is their substitute for the gospel – or at the very least a supplement to the gospel.  (See Romans 1.16; Galatians 1.6-8)

My one caveat about encouraging folks to move on is when the gospel is at stake.  Like Stetzer, if it appears evident that person does not understand the gospel, I am hesitant to have them move on before I (or someone) has opportunity to explain it to them.  Whether the person is not a Christian or a professing Christian who seems to have adopted some issue(s) in addition to or instead of Christ as their identity, their passion, their assurance, I want to make sure the gospel has been made clear.  Once the gospel has been clearly presented, then I go on to explain that our church is passionate about the gospel, and living out the implications and demands of the gospel, that we want no other issue to drive our church.  I invite them to stay IF, now that they understand, they want to grow in this understanding and expression of the Christian faith; but tell them if that is not their desire that they’d be “happier elsewhere”.  (That “happier elsewhere” phrase is one I used to mock when I was in college, when learned that sororities – including the one my wife was in – used this as a polite “line” to cut less-than-desired pledges.  And now I have adopted it. Except… I mean it as no mere polite line.)

Stetzer provides sage advice that I encourage young pastors, and all church leaders to consider, and to appropriately apply.  You will find that in the end you gain from it far more than you lose – both in numbers and in peace.

Myopic World Vision

/ Dennis Griffith / Leave a comment

Blurry Nightlife (Pacula)

I was quite disappointed yesterday by World Vision president Richard Stearns’ announcement  that the mamouth mercy ministry “will no longer require its more than 1,100 employees to restrict their sexual activity to marriage between one man and one woman”.  While I do not agree with  the decision World Vision to cave on the issue of marriage, it was not so much the decision that disturbs me, as much as it was the gauling shallowness of the rationale.

Stearns, with an apparent lack of incredulity, declared that he made this decision for the “unity of the church”.  What a crock.  Whether the decision was valid or not, don’t hide behind such a cowardly and codnescending facade.

I initially read the article with sincere hopes that he would give good reason for the policy change.  I suspect that there are a variety good – or at least plausible – reasons an organization with the scope and mission of World Vision could be led to adopt this new policy without necessarily compromising.  These reasons would probably not apply to groups such as Young Life or Campus Crusade, which are distinctly evangelistic.  But World Vision is primarily humanitarian.  I suspect it is quite possible to make sure people have water, and food, and other necessities, without all who play a role in the logistics necessarily believing the gospel or live consistently with the implications of the gospel.

But Stearns does not come close to giving a reasonable reason – nor, in my opinion, even an honest one.  If he and the organization want to drop a commitment to Biblical authority, that would be their right I suppose.  But please spare us the baloney.

It is insulting that Stearns thinks likening this issue to differering perspectives on doctrines like baptism or ecclesiology is an acceptable argument.  That’s like comparing apples to potatos.  While he has a point that the church is inconsistent on the issue of divorce and remarriage, at least part of the reason for the inconsistencey is because there are both biblical reasons and bibilcal prohibitions for the allowance of divorce.  Each divorce requires church leaders to give diligent, thoughtful consideration in light of the biblical parameters.  Often times it gets messy, because you are dealing with hurting broken people. And while a number of churches are slack because of the complexities of individual divorce cases, it is something altogether to declare behaviors that have no biblical support whatsoever fall into the same category. Increased public support in recent years is not the same as a change in the biblical standard.

OK, no doubt one can find theologians from the denominations Stearns cited who embrace and encourage the support of gay marriage. But then again, every one of those denominations long ago forsook the Bible as their authoritative standard – to be God’s Word.  That is not to say that there are no faithful people in the churches of these denomination, only that the denominations as a whole long ago left the faith of their fathers behind.  Those holding to historic biblical principles are a minority in those groups.  So citing those who have vacated their historic standard as being the authorities on the standard they they no longer believe seems fallacious.

(NOTE:  While my perspective could easily be dismissed as merely a biased opinion, I suspect leaders in each of these denominations would proudly declare themselves to have moved beyond the “primitive” teachings of the Bible.  So I do not think I am saying anything that would be offensive to them.)

No doubt much more will be written on this subject in the days ahead.  In the mean time I thought I would post some other opinions I consider worth reading:

Of course all of these voices are speaking out against the action of World Vision.  Wantitng to be fair, I will update this post and add thoughtful opinions of proponents when I find them.

UPDATE (3/28/14) –  On Wednesday March 26 World Vision reversed plans to change their policy with regards to hiring those in same-sex marriages.  This change came less than 48 hours after their initial announcement.  Below are a few accounts of World Vision’s reversal:

Evangelistic Worship

/ Dennis Griffith / Leave a comment

Hymn Number

by Tim Keller

THE WORSHIP WARS

One of the basic features of church life in the U.S. today is the proliferation of worship and music forms.  This in turn has caused many severe conflicts both within individual congregations and whole denominations. Most books and articles about recent worship trends tend to fall into one of two broad categories.

  • “Contemporary Worship” (hereafter CW) advocates often make rather sweeping statements, such as “pipe organs and choirs will never reach people today.”
  • “Historic Worship” (hereafter HW) advocates often speak similarly about how incorrigibly corrupt popular music and culture is, and how they make contemporary worship completely unacceptable.

Contemporary Worship: Plugging In?

One CW advocate writes vividly that we must ‘plug in’ our worship in to three power sources: “the sound system, the Holy Spirit, and contemporary culture.”  But several problems attend the promotion of strictly contemporary worship.

First, some popular music does have severe limitations for worship. Critics of popular culture argue that much of it is the product of mass-produced commercial interests. As such, it is often marked by sentimentality, a lack of artistry, sameness, and individualism in a way that traditional folk art was not.

Second, when we ignore historic tradition we break our solidarity with Christians of the past. Part of the richness of our identity as Christians is that we are saved into a historic people. An unwillingness to consult tradition is not in keeping with either Christian humility or Christian community. Nor is it a thoughtful response to the post-modern rootlessness which now leads so many to seek connection to ancient ways and peoples.

Finally, any worship that is strictly contemporary will become ‘dated’ very, very quickly. Also, it will necessarily be gauged to a very narrow ‘market niche.’ When Peter Wagner says we should ‘plug in’ to contemporary culture, which contemporary culture does he mean? White, black, Latin, urban, suburban, ‘Boomer,’ or ‘GenX’ contemporary culture? Just ten years ago, Willow Creek’s contemporary services were considered to be ‘cutting edge.’ Today, most younger adults find them dated and ‘hokey.’

Hidden (but not well!) in the arguments of contemporary worship enthusiasts is the assumption that culture is basically neutral. Thus there is no reason why we cannot wholly adapt our worship to any particular cultural form. But worship that is not rooted in any particular historic tradition will often lack the critical distance to critique and avoid the excesses and distorted sinful elements of the particular surrounding, present culture. For example, how can we harness contemporary Western culture’s accessibility and frankness, but not its individualism and psychologizing of moral problems?

Historic Worship: Pulling Out?

HW advocates, on the other hand, are strictly ‘high culture’ promoters, who defend themselves from charges of elitism by arguing that modern pop music is inferior to traditional folk art.  But problems also attend the promotion of strictly traditional, historic worship.

First, HW advocates cannot really dodge the charge of cultural elitism. A realistic look at the Christian music arising from the grassroots folk cultures of Latin America, Africa, and Asia (not commercially produced pop music centers) reveals many of the characteristics of contemporary praise and worship music–simple and accessible tunes, driving beat, repetitive words, and emphasis on experience.   In the U.S., an emphasis on strictly high culture music and art will probably only appeal to college educated elites.

Second, any proponent of ‘historic’ worship will have to answer the question – ‘whose’ history? Much of what is called ‘traditional’ worship is rooted in northern European culture. While strict CW advocates bind worship too heavily to one present culture, strict HW advocates bind it too heavily to a past culture. Do we really believe that the 16th century Northern European approach to emotional expression and music (incarnate in the Reformation tradition) was completely Biblically informed and must be preserved?

Hidden (but not well!) in the arguments of traditional worship advocates is the assumption that certain historic forms are more pure, Biblical, and untainted by human cultural accretions. Those who argue against cultural relativism must also remember the essential relativity of all traditions. Just as it is a lack of humility to disdain tradition, it is also a lack of humility (and a blindness to the ‘noetic’ effects of sin) to elevate any particular tradition or culture’s way of doing worship. A refusal to adapt a tradition to new realities may come under Jesus’ condemnation of making our favorite human culture into an idol, equal to the Scripture in normativity (Mark 7.8-9)  While CW advocates do not seem to recognize the sin in all cultures, the HW advocates do not seem to recognize the amount of (common) grace in all cultures.

Bible, Tradition, and Culture

At this point, the reader will anticipate that I am about to unveil some grand ‘Third Way’ between two extremes. Indeed, many posit a third approach called “Blended” worship.  But it is not so simple as that. My major complaint is that both sides are equally simplistic in the process by which they shape their worship.

CW advocates consult a) the Bible and b) contemporary culture, while HW advocates consult a) the Bible and b) historic tradition. But we forge worship best when we consult a) the Bible, b) the cultural context of our community, and c) the historic tradition of our church. 10 The result of this more complex process will not be simply a single, third “middle way.” There are at least nine worship traditions in Protestantism alone. 11 That is why the book you are reading provides examples of culturally relevant worship that nonetheless deeply appreciates and reflects its historic tradition.

This more complex approach is extremely important to follow. The Bible simply does not give us enough details to shape an entire worship service. When the Bible calls us to sing God’s praises, we are not given the tunes nor the rhythm. We are not told how repetitive the lyrics are to be or not to be, nor how emotionally intense the singing should be. When we are commanded to do corporate prayer, we are not told whether those prayers should be written, unison prayers or extemporary prayers. 12 So to give any concrete form to our worship, we must “fill in the blanks” that the Bible leaves open. When we do so, we will have to draw on a) tradition, b) the needs, capacities and cultural sensibilities of our people, and c) our own personal preferences. Though we cannot avoid drawing on our own preferences, this should never be the driving force. (cf. Romans 15.1-3) Thus, if we fail to do the hard work of consulting both tradition and culture, we will – wittingly or unwittingly – just tailor music to please ourselves.

THE SEEKER-SENSITIVE WORSHIP MOVEMENT

Sally Morgenthaler’s interview with young pastors (Chris Seay, Mark Driscoll, Ron Johnson, Doug Pagitt, Clark Crebar) in Worship Leader (May/June 1998) “Authentic Worship in a Postmodern Culture” and Fernando Ortega’s interview in Prism in Nov/Dec 1997 are indications of some major cracks in the foundation of evangelical assumptions about what kind of services will reach ‘secular’ people.

The crisis (that is here? coming?) in the church growth movement due to the fact that the attack on seeker-sensitive worship is coming from inside, that is, from the pastors of fast growing ‘mega-churches’ (though the name and category is eschewed) filled with under-30’s. These pastors claim that the Willow Creek inspired services supposedly adapted for the unchurched were calibrated for a very narrow and transitory kind of unchurched person: namely, college educated, white, Baby Boomers, suburbanites. The increasingly multi-ethnic, less rational/word-oriented, urban oriented and more secular generations under the age of 35 are not the same kind of ‘unchurched’ people. The critique is that Willow Creek ‘over-adapted’ to the rational, a-historical ‘high modern’ world-view.

The younger pastors say that Willow Creek services do several things that alienate the seekers of their generations:

a) It removed transcendence from its services by utilizing light, happy music and tone, complete accessibility of voice, using dramatic sketches that create a nightclub or TV-show atmosphere. But their generations hunger for awe.

b) It ditched connection to history and tradition and went completely contemporary in all cultural references, from sermon illustrations to decoration to antiseptic ‘suburban mall/office building’ setting.But their generations hunger for rootedness, and love a pastiche of ancient and modern.

c) It emphasized polish and technical excellence and slick professionalism and management technique, while their generations hunger for authenticity and community rather than programs.

d) It emphasizes rationality and practical ‘how-to’ maps, while their generations hunger for narrative and the personal.

A SOLUTION: EVANGELISTIC WORSHIP

Two models, with problems

The most thoughtful members of the Seeker Friendly Service movement agree that the straight “seeker service” is not really worship, and therefore new believers are brought out of the seeker service into a weekly worship service for believers. The critics, on the other hand, generally see the worship service as the place for renewing and edifying believers who then go out into the world to do evangelism. The two models then, seem to be:

  • Seeker service (evangelism)  –> Worship service (edification)
  • Worship service (edification)  –> World (evangelism)

There are pragmatic problems with both models. The SFC model is financially very expensive, it is hard to assimilate new Christians out of seeker services into real worship services. And if the main worship service is very oriented toward seekers, the Christians often feel under-fed.  On the other hand the critics cannot avoid the charge that they are not proposing any alternative to the current evangelistically ineffective church. One critic is very typical when he writes: “”While we [the seeker-friendly church] try to entice the world to come to church to hear the Gospel, the New Testament proclaims a powerful church worshipping God going out into the world in order to reach the lost (cf. The book of Acts.) True revivals have historically proved…that a revived and healthy church reaches a dying and lost world through its own awakened people.”  This view says, “evangelism will take care of itself as long as we have great worship”. But the history of revivals also shows us innovations in outreach.

The Great Awakening was marked by two men who were remarkable innovators – George Whitefield in evangelism and John Wesley in organization. Many criticize seeker services because they are “not worship” and contain many elements of “entertainment”. Often they call us to look, instead at the revivals of the past. But they do not criticize George Whitefield for attracting huge crowds to his own “seeker programs”. He drew people into open air meetings with a kind of preaching that was unparalleled at the time in its popular appeal – his humor, his stories, his dramatically acted-out illustrations, and his astounding oratorical gifts drew tens of thousands.  At the time he was labeled an “entertainer”. His meetings were not worship nor did they replace worship, but they were certainly critical to the revival. They provided Christians with a remarkable place to do friendship evangelism. His meetings were all over the city on virtually every day of the week. Whitefield’s evangelism was enormously aggressive and passionate. His preaching was racy and popular yet pointed toward the transcendent and holy God. Yet his public meetings shared many of the characteristics (and criticisms) of seeker services today.

Whitefield and Wesley did not become instruments of revival by simply being great expository preachers and renewing historic worship.

My main problem with the two models, however, is theological. They both assume that worship cannot be highly evangelistic. I want to show that this is a false premise. Churches would do best to make their “main course” an evangelistic worship service, supplemented by both a) numerous, variegated, creative, even daily (but not weekly) seeker-focused events, and b) intense meetings for Bible study and corporate prayer for revival and renewal.

Theological basis

God commanded Israel to invite the nations to join in declaring his glory. Zion is to be the center of world-winning worship. (Isaiah 2.2-4; 56.6-8) “Let this be written for a future generation, that a people not yet created may praise the Lord…so the name of the Lord will be declared in Zion, and his praise in Jerusalem when the peoples and the kingdoms assemble to worship the Lord”. (Psalm 102.18) Psalm 105 is a direct command to believers engage in evangelistic worship. The Psalmist challenges them to “make known among the nations what he has done” (v.1.) How? “Sing to him, sing praise to him; tell of his wonderful acts” (v.2) Thus believers are continually told to sing and praise God before the unbelieving nations. (See also Psalm 47.1; 100.1-5.) God is to be praised before all the nations, and as he is praised by his people, the nations are summoned and called to join in song.

Peter tells a Gentile church, “But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.” (1 Peter 2.9) This shows us that the church is challenged to the same witness that Israel was called to – evangelistic worship. A key difference: in the Old Testament, the center of world-winning worship was Mt. Zion, but now, wherever we worship Jesus in spirit and in truth (John 4.21-26) we have come to the heavenly Zion. (Hebrews 12.18-24) In other words, the risen Lord now sends his people out singing his praises in mission, calling the nations to join both saints and angels in heavenly doxology. Jesus himself stands in the midst of the redeemed and leads us in the singing of God’s praises (Hebrews 2.12), even as God stands over his redeemed and sings over us in joy. (Zephaniah 3.17)

Biblical cases

1 Corinthians 14.24-25

Paul is addressing the misuse of the gift of tongues. He complains that tongues speaking will cause unbelievers to say they are out of their minds (v.23.) He insists that the worship service must be comprehensible to them. He says that if an unbeliever ” or unlearned one” (an uninitiated inquirer) comes in, and worship is being done “unto edification” , “he will be convinced by all that he is a sinner and will be judged by all” (v.24.) Of what does this conviction consist? “The secrets of his heart will be laid bare” (v.25.) It may mean he realizes that the worshippers around him are finding in God what his heart had been secretly searching for, but in the wrong ways. It may mean the worship shows him how his heart works. The result: “so falling on his face, he will worship God, exclaiming, ‘God is really among you’” (v.25.)

Acts 2

When the Spirit falls on those in the upper room, a crowd gathers (v.5) because a) they are hearing the disciples praising God (“we hear them declaring the wonders of God” v.11), an d b) and also because this worship is “in our own tongues” (v.11.) As a result, they are first made very interested (“amazed and perplexed they asked one another, ‘what does this mean’” v.11), and later they are convicted deeply (“they were cut to the heart and said…’Brethren, what shall we do?’” v.37.)

Comparison

There are obvious differences between the two situations. 1 Corinthians 14 pictures conversion happening on the spot (which is certainly possible.) In Acts 2 the non-believers are shaken out of their indifference (v.12), but the actual conversions (v.37-41) occurred at the end of an “after meeting” in which Peter explained the gospel (v.14-36) and showed them how to individually receive Christ (v.38-39.) It is often pointed out that the tongues in the two situations are different. But students usually are looking so carefully at what the two passages teach about tongues and prophecy that they fail to note what they teach about worship and evangelism. We can learn this:

1. Non-believers are expected to be present in Christian worship. In Acts 2 it happens by word-of-mouth excitement. In 1 Corinthians 14 it is probably the result of personal invitation by Christian friends. But Paul in 14.23 expects both “unbelievers” and “the unlearned” (literally “a seeker”– “one who does not understand”) to be present in worship.

2. Non-believers must find the praise of Christians to be comprehensible. In Acts 2 it happens by miraculous divine intervention. In I Corinthians 14 it happens by human design and effort. But it cannot be missed that Paul directly tells a local congregation to adapt its worship because of the presence of unbelievers. It is a false dichotomy to insist that if we are seeking to please God we must not ask what the un-churched feel or think about our worship.

3. Non-believers can fall under conviction and be converted through comprehensible worship. In 1 Cor 14 it happens during the service, but in Acts 2 it is supplemented by “after meetings” and follow-up evangelism. God wants the world to overhear us worshipping him. God directs his people not to simply worship, but to sing his praises “before the nations.” We are not to simply communicate the gospel to them, but celebrate the gospel before them.

Three practical tasks

2. Getting unbelievers into worship.

The numbering is not a mistake. This task is actually comes second, but nearly everyone thinks it come first! It is natural to believe that they must get non-Christians into worship before they can begin “doxological evangelism”. But the reverse is the case. Non-Christians do not get invited into worship unless the worship is already evangelistic. The only way they will have non-Christians in attendance is through personal invitation by Christians. Just as in the Psalms, the “nations” must be directly asked to come. But the main stimulus to building bridges and invitation is the comprehensibility and quality of the worship experience.

Christians will instantly sense if a worship experience will be attractive to their non-Christian friends. They may find a particular service wonderfully edifying for them, and yet know that their non-believing neighbors would react negatively. Therefore, a vicious cycle persists. Pastors see only Christians present, so they lack incentive to make their worship comprehensible to outsiders. But since they fail to make the adaptations, Christians who are there (though perhaps edified themselves) do not think to bring their skeptical and non-Christian friends to church. They do not think they will be impressed. So no outsiders come. And so the pastors respond only to the Christian audience. And so on and on.  Therefore, the best way to get Christians to bring non-Christians is to worship as if there are dozens and hundreds of skeptical onlookers. And if you worship as if, eventually they will be there in reality.

1. Making worship comprehensible to unbelievers.

Our purpose is not to make the unbeliever “comfortable”. (In 1 Corinthians. 14.24-25 or Acts 2:12 and 37 – they are cut to the heart!) We aim to be intelligible to them. We must address their “heart secrets” (1 Corinthians 14.25) That means we must remember what it is like to not believe; we must remember what an unbelieving heart is like. How do we do that?

a) Worship and preaching in the “vernacular”. It is hard to overstate how ghetto-ized our preaching is. It is normal to make all kinds of statements that appear persuasive to us but are based upon all sorts of premises that the secular person does not hold. It is normal to make all sorts of references using terms and phrases that mean nothing outside or our Christian sub-group. So avoid unnecessary theological or evangelical sub-culture “jargon”, and explain carefully the basic theological concepts, such as confession of sin, praise, thanksgiving, and so on. In the preaching, showing continual willingness to address the questions that the unbelieving heart will ask. Speak respectfully and sympathetically to people who have difficulty with Christianity. As you write the sermon, imagine an particular skeptical non-Christian in the chair listening to you. Add the asides, the qualifiers, the extra explanations necessary. Listen to everything said in the worship service with the ears of someone who has doubts or troubles with belief.

b) Explain the service as you go along. Though there is danger of pastoral verbosity, learn to give 1 or 2 sentence, non-jargony explanations of each new part of the service. “When we confess our sins, we are not groveling in guilt, but dealing with our guilt. If you deny your sins you will never get free from them.”  It is good to begin worship services as the Black church often does, with a “devotional”– a brief talk that explains the meaning of worship. This way you continually instruct newcomers in worship.

c) Directly address and welcome them. Talk regularly to “those of you who aren’t sure you believe this, or who aren’t sure just what you believe.” Give them many asides, even expressing the language of their hearts. Articulate their objections to Christian living and belief better than they can do it themselves. Express sincere sympathy for their difficulties, even when challenging them severely for their selfishness and unbelief. Admonish with tears (literally or figuratively.) Always grant whatever degree of merit their objections have. It is extremely important that the unbeliever feel you understand them. “I’ve tried it before and it did not work.” “I don’t see how my life could be the result of the plan of a loving God.”  “Christianity is a straightjacket.” “It can’t be wrong if it feels so right.” “I could never keep it up.” “I don’t feel worthy; I am too bad.” “I just can’t believe.”

d) Quality aesthetics. The power of art draws people to behold it. Good art and its message enters the soul through the imagination and begins to appeal to the reason, for art makes ideas plausible. The quality of music and speech in worship will have a major impact on its evangelistic power. In many churches, the quality of the music is mediocre or poor, but it does not disturb the faithful. Why? Their faith makes the words of the hymn or the song meaningful despite its artistically poor expression, and further, they usually have a personal relationship with the music-presenter. But any outsider who comes in, who is not convinced of the truth and who does not have any relationship to the presenter, will be bored or irritated by the poor offering. In other words, excellent aesthetics includes outsiders, while mediocre or poor aesthetics exclude. The low level of artistic quality in many churches guarantees that only insiders will continue to come. For the non-Christian, the attraction of good art will have a major part in drawing them in.

e) Celebrate deeds of mercy and justice. We live in a time when public esteem of the church is plummeting. For many outsiders or inquirers, the deeds of the church will be far more important than words in gaining plausibility. The leaders of most towns see “word-only” churches as costs to their community, not a value. Effective churches will be so involved in deeds of mercy and justice that outsiders will say, “we cannot do without churches like this. This church is channeling so much value into our community through its services to people that if it went out of business, we’d have to raise everybody’s taxes.” Mercy deeds give the gospel words plausibility (Acts 4.32 followed by v.33.) Therefore, evangelistic worship services should highlight offerings for deed ministry and should celebrate through reports and testimonies and prayer what is being done. It is best that offerings for mercy ministry be separate, attached (as traditional) to the Lord’s Supper. This brings before the non-Christian the impact of the gospel on people’s hearts (it makes us generous) and the impact of lives poured out for the world.

f) Present the sacraments so as to make the gospel clear. Baptism, and especially adult baptism, should be made a much more significant event if worship is to be evangelistic. There may need to be opportunity for the baptized to offer personal testimony as well as assent to questions. The meaning of baptism should be made clear. A moving, joyous, personal charge to the baptized (and to all baptized Christians present) should be made. In addition, the Lord’s Supper can become a converting ordinance. If it is explained properly, the unbeliever will have a very specific and visible way to see the difference between walking with Christ and living for oneself. The Lord’s Supper will confront every individual with the question: “are you right with God today? now?” There is no more effective way to help a person to do a spiritual inventory. Many seekers in U.S. churches will only realize they are not Christians during the fencing of the table after an effective sermon on the meaning of the gospel. (See below for more on addressing unbelievers during communion.)

g) Preach grace. The one message that both believers and unbelievers need to hear is that salvation and adoption are by grace alone. A worship service that focuses too much and too often on educating Christians in the details of theology will simply bore or confuse the unbelievers present. For example, a sermon on abortion will generally assume the listener believes in the authority of the word and the authority of Jesus, and does not believe in individual moral autonomy. In other words, abortion is “doctrine D”, and it is based on “doctrines A, B, and C.” Therefore, people who don’t believe or understand doctrines ABC will find such a sermon un-convicting and even alienating. This does not mean we should not preach the whole counsel of God, but we must major on the “ABC’s” of the Christian faith.  If the response to this is “then Christians will be bored”, it shows a misunderstanding of the gospel. The gospel of free, gracious justification and adoption is not just the way we enter the kingdom, but also the way we grow into the likeness of Christ. Titus 2.11-13 tells us how it is the original, saving message of “grace alone” that consequently leads us to sanctified living: “For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men. It teaches us to say ‘no’ to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in the present age, while we wait for the blessed hope – the appearing of our great God and savior Jesus Christ.” Many Christians are “defeated” and stagnant in their growth because they try to be holy for wrong motives. They say “no” to temptation by telling themselves “God will get me” or “people will find out” or “I’ll hate myself in the morning” or “it will hurt my self-esteem” or “it will hurt other people” or “it’s against the law – I’ll be caught” or “it’s against my principles” or “I will look bad”. Some or all of these may be true, but Titus tells us they are inadequate. Only the grace of God, the logic of the gospel will work. Titus says it “teaches” us, it argues with us.

Therefore, the one basic message that both Christians and unbelievers need to hear is the gospel of grace. It can then be applied to both groups, right on the spot and directly. Sermons which are basically moralistic will only be applicable to either Christians OR non-Christians. But Christo-centric preaching, preaching the gospel both grows believers and challenges non-believers. If the Sunday service and sermon aim primarily at evangelism, it will bore the saints. If they aim primarily at education, they’ll bore and confuse unbelievers. If they aim at praising the God who saves by grace they’ll both instruct insiders and challenge outsiders.

3. Leading to commitment

We have seen that unbelievers in worship actually “close with Christ” in two basic ways. Some may come to Christ during the service itself. (1 Corinthians 14.24-25) Others must be “followed up” very specifically.

a) During the service. One major way to invite people to receive Christ during the service is as the Lord’s Supper is distributed. We say: “if you are not in a saving relationship with God through Christ today, do NOT take the bread and the cup, but, as they come around, take Christ. Receive him in your heart as those around you receive the food. Then immediately afterwards, come up here and tell an officer or a pastor about what you’ve done, so we can get you ready to receive the Supper the next time as a child of God.” Another way to invite commitment during the service is to give people a time of silence after the sermon. A “prayer of belief” could be prayed by the pastor (or printed in the bulletin at that juncture in the order of worship) to help people reach out to Christ.  Sometimes it may be good to put a musical interlude or an offering after the sermon but before the final hymn. This affords people time to think and process what they have heard and offer themselves to God in prayer. If, however, the preacher ends his sermon, prays very briefly, and moves immediately into the final hymn, no time is given to people who are under conviction for offering up their hearts.

b) After meetings. Acts 2 seems to show us an “after meeting.” In v.12 and 13 we are told that some folks mocked upon hearing the apostles praise and preach, but others were disturbed and asked “what does this mean?” Then Peter very specifically explained the gospel, and, in response to a second question “what shall we do?” (v.37), explained very specifically how to become Christians. Historically, it has been found very effective to offer such meetings to unbelievers and seekers immediately after evangelistic worship. Convicted seekers have just come from being in the presence of God, and they are often most teachable and open. To seek to “get them into a small group” or even to merely return next Sunday is asking a lot of them. They may be also “amazed and perplexed” (Acts 2.12), and it is best to “strike while the iron is hot”. This is not to doubt that God is infallibly drawing his elect! That knowledge helps us to 16 relax as we do evangelism, knowing that conversions are not dependent on our eloquence. But the Westminster Confession tells us that God ordinarily works through secondary causes, normal social and psychological processes. Therefore, to invite people into a follow-up meeting immediately is usually more conducive to “conserving the fruit of the Word.”

After meetings may consist first of one or more persons who wait at the front of the auditorium to pray with and talk with any seekers who come forward to make inquiries right on the spot. A second after meeting can consist of a simple question-and-answer session with the preacher in some room near the main auditorium or even in the auditorium (after the postlude.) Third, after meetings should also consist of one or two classes or small group experiences targeted to specific questions non-Christians ask about the content, relevance, and credibility of the Christian faith. After meetings should be attended by skilled lay evangelists who can come alongside of newcomers and answer spiritual questions and provide guidance as to their next steps.

***

To download this paper in .pdf form, including footnotes: Click:  Evangelistic Worship-Keller

Evidences of a Backslidden Condition

/ Dennis Griffith / 4 Comments

Through the prophet Jeremiah the Lord dispenses a treasury of wisdom and insight. Perhaps among the most valuable of those insights, at least to my thinking, is found in Jeremiah 17.9:

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?

The Lord also reminds us, through Jeremiah and scores of other places in his Word, that he is concerned about the heart; more concerned about the heart than even the behavior.  This is because the heart is the key. Whatever owns the heart will dictate the behavior – good or evil.  Yet, according to God, in the passage above, our hearts often deceive us.  We think one thing, unaware of all that is actually going on deep down within.  All looks calm on the surface, but underneath a sinkhole may be developing.  So it is essential that we learn to plumb and decipher our own hearts.  It is at least as important to do this as it is to evaluate our actions (or lack of them).

In his remarkable book, Revival, Richard Owen Roberts suggests to us that the real problem today, in society and in the church, is backslidden Christians.  The Free Dictionary defines backslide as

  • to revert to sin or wrongdoing
  • to lapse into bad habits or vices from a state of virtue, religious faith

Or as another old sage has expressed it:

A backslider is a person who was once emptied of his own ways and filled with the ways of God, but gradually allowed his own ways to step back in until he was all but empty of God and full of himself again.

This condition, whether you accept Roberts’ analysis or not, is quite common. We see it not only in our contemporary culture, but also throughout the pages of the Scripture:

  • Israel all throughout the OT
  • Paul points it out to the Corinthians, Galatians, etc.;
  • John speaks of it to most of the 7 churches in Revelation 2-3;

This should illustrate to us that the problem of backsliding, though not a biblical term, is a biblically recognized human condition – or rather it is a universal condition of humanity effected by the Fall.  There is none of us who is immune to it.  But there is both a remedy and a preventative inoculation that will help minimize susceptibility. The remedy is the gospel. The inoculation is a frequent and regular self assessment, and the applying of the gospel to every hint of infection the assessment reveals.

In Revival, Roberts provides a list of twenty-five possible evidences of a backslidden condition.  While this list is neither authoritative nor exhaustive, it does provide a pretty good index of symptoms to look out for.

Let me encourage you to read through it, jot them down, and honestly evaluate the present state of your personal life and the life of your church:

Continue reading →

REAL Christians Waltz

/ Dennis Griffith / Leave a comment

French Waltz

Listen to how Bob Flayhart, Senior Pator at Oak Mountain Presbyterian Church in Birmingham, AL, describes a Gospel-centered Christian Life:

A Gospel-centered life is the Christian Waltz. A waltz is a dance made up of three steps. Christians need to consider the Christian three step when it comes to growth.

In the first step, we acknowledge our need as we see our sin in light of the Law. In the second step, we look to Christ to change us. In the third step, we fight against sin and fight to choose righteousness in the strength of the Holy Spirit. Repent! Believe! Fight!…Repent! Believe! Fight!…Repent! Believe! Fight!

An emphasis on the love and grace of God lays the dance floor,or the foundation, for the waltz. Unless Christians are convinced of God’s love for them and His favor over them by virtue of their union with Christ, they will minimize their sin and engage in blame-shifting and excuse- making in order to feel justified before God.

Unfortunately, many in the Church today teach believers a Two-step. The two-step is to simply repent and fight. They acknowledge their sin and proceed with new resolve to try harder to avoid sin. The problem with this approach is it bypasses the cross of Christ and the power of the resurrection.

Ministering to Missing Millennials

/ Dennis Griffith / Leave a comment

Long Road

Why are Millennials walking away from our churches? Why are a number of our own kids walking out the doors?  Why does the church seem impotent to change the direction of this rising tide?

While my wife and I are blessed to have all of our kids active in church, including our two college aged sons, who live six hours away, these are not unimportant questions to me.  I feel the blow every time I hear of the child of a friend, or church member, walking away.  They do not usually walk away angry.  Perhaps it might be better if they did.  All too often they walk away indifferent.  The faith of their fathers makes little difference to their lives – or so they feel.

There is no lack of suggestions. Most of those I hear involve, in one way or another, changing the church to meet the demands of the consumers the church desires to attract, or win back.  It works for McDonald’s, so why not the church?  But while there are things that the church can and should do better, the problem with suggestions toward such radical change is that it mistakes the mission of the church.  The church does not exist to cater to consumers.  The church should certainly not create consumers – though for the better part of the past couple generations that is exactly what we have done.  And now we are paying the price.  “Have it your way…” worked for Burger King. But the same message has left the church impotent to reach the present rising generation.

So how do we reach those who no longer see the value of the church?  That is a complex question.  But one thing we ought to do before deciding any course of action is to listen to some from this generation who have not left the church, and yet who love their peers.

A recent article I read titled Why the Church Isn’t Reaching My Un-churched Friends offers a refreshingly honest and thoughtful perspective.  Written by a twenty-something young lady from Louisville, Kentucky, she offers some candid critiques of both the cultural dilemma and the foolish things some – many – churches are trying in response.  Her criticisms are sharp, but not unnecessarily hurtful.  Her solutions: Authenticity. Christ.

While I do not propose to have the definitive answers, her suggestions are a great place to start.

Pursuing Prodigals

/ Dennis Griffith / Leave a comment

Return of the Prodigal (Rembrandt)

by Barry York

Many Christian parents have had the sad experience of seeing a covenant child grow up and wander from the faith.  To see one whom you joyfully brought into the world, baptized in the name of the Triune God, sacrificed in love to nurture and provide for, and trained to love Christ and His church, grow up only to reject his inheritance for the pottage of this world is a tragedy whose grief is carried daily by godly parents.

If the Apostle John said that he had no greater joy than seeing his children walking with the Lord (III John 4), then certainly there is no greater sadness that to see a young person walk away from Him.

Without going into all the questions this issue raises in such areas as parental guilt and responsibility, church discipline, election, etc., what exactly should be the response of parents and those in fellowship with them that are thrust into this unwanted situation of having a prodigal? It begins with taking hope in knowing that the story of the Bible is one of God pursuing His wayward people.  Just recently the words of Isaiah 29:22-24 were brought to my attention.

Therefore thus says the Lord, who redeemed Abraham, concerning the house of Jacob: “Jacob shall no more be ashamed, no more shall his face grow pale. For when he sees his children, the work of my hands, in his midst, they will sanctify my name; they will sanctify the Holy One of Jacob and will stand in awe of the God of Israel. And those who go astray in spirit will come to understanding, and those who murmur will accept instruction.”

What a wonderful promise God makes here and other places in Scripture!  Through generations of time He has been faithful to redeem straying covenant children.  So how do we actively lay hold of this promise?  Here are some suggestions.

Continue reading →

Four Streams of Worship

/ Dennis Griffith / Leave a comment

Four Streams

Worship involves action and response.

  • God’s Action:  God graciously invites us into his presence. (Isaiah 55; Matthew 11.28)
  • Our Response: We come reverently, aware of God’s holiness and significance; and we express humility by confessing our sins.  (see Isaiah 6)
  • God’s Action: God speaks the gospel of forgiveness and reconciliation to us.
  • Our Response: We celebrate our redemption with joy and gratitude.

In true, biblical worship, God always initiates, and we respond to Him.

6 Types of Athiests

/ Dennis Griffith / Leave a comment

Athiesm

Can an atheist qualify as a “minister of the gospel”?  Oxymoronic as it may be, this is apparently fodder for discussion, at least in the U.S. courts.

In what seems a peculiar story in the news recently, both Forbes and Christianity Today report that there is a case being made to include athiest leaders under the umbrella of Ministers of the Gospel in order to qualify for clergy tax exemptions for housing.  (Forbes, CTi)

This whole discussion reminds me of another study reported in Christianity Today.  In a prominent new project, University of Tennessee at Chattanooga researcher Christopher Silver documented six types of nonbelievers. Here’s a very, very brief recap of each:

1. The Intellectual Atheist/Agnostic: Sees his/herself as intellectually too advanced for religion and seeks to engage with other likeminded individuals through writings, YouTube videos and talks.

2. The Activist: Proactively works for issues connected to naturalist or humanist causes.

3. The Seeker-Agnostic: Considers the metaphysical a possibility but is comfortable with uncertainty as it concerns the interaction of science and the metaphysical.

4. The Anti-Theist: Believes religion to be evil, thus actively works against religion and religious influences.

5. The Non-Theist: Does not have much interest in religious concepts.

6. The Ritual Atheist/Agnostic: Does not have otherworldly beliefs but regularly attends a religious ceremony, finding that this meets some social or psychological need.

From Christianity Today article

God-Centered Worship

/ Dennis Griffith / Leave a comment

God-Centered

by Robert Hartmann

I recently listened to a preacher instructing other preachers on how to deliver God-centered sermons. The speaker pointed out that of the many things that people would like to hear in a sermon, and the many things that we think they should hear, a sermon is really achieving its purpose only when it is centered on the person and work of God.

While listening to this, it struck me that this is also true of our worship. Our worship songs and worship events should have only one objective and aim: God Himself. As Carol Wimber has said,

“Worship is not a vehicle to warm up the congregation for the preacher, or to soften the people up for the offering. Worship comes from Jesus and goes back to Jesus from us. Everything He gives to us, but worship belongs to Him.”

As worship leaders we have a responsibility to lead worship in a way that allows it to retain this God-centeredness.

The way we lead can enhance or inhibit worship from staying properly focused on God. Worship centered on anything less will (or should) leave us and the people we lead feeling short-changed.

What Is God-Centered Worship?

I view God-centered worship as worship that informs the people about God, inclines them toward God and invites the presence of God. In other words, God-centered worship deepens our understanding of God, opens our hearts toward God and is filled with the tangible presence of God.

This definition was illustrated by my introduction to this kind of worship at a Sunday service at John Wimber’s Yorba Linda Calvary Chapel in 1979. The fact is, I don’t remember anything about the service except the worship. It wasn’t the “music,” because though I was already a musician at the time I didn’t spend much time watching John and his band. I was watching the people worship in a way I’d never seen before! The people were communicating with God in an open, personal and relational way. They were inviting God to come meet them, and the song lyrics were all about God and this relationship they had with Him.

The idea of leading this kind of worship sounds good on paper, but when you stand at your next worship event ready to lead your group or congregation in worship what will you do? How will you actually lead worship so that it retains its proper focus? Will you just do what comes naturally and hope it works? Fortunately, there are practical steps you can take to insure that worship stays God-centered. What follows are a few tips to help you improve your ability to lead God-centered worship.

1. Know Your Intentions

Leading God-centered worship begins with our intent as worship leaders. If our primary motivation for standing up and leading is anything other than to bless God then we’ve immediately lost the battle for God-centered worship.

I don’t mean to say that only those with the purest of motivations are able to lead worship. After all, “Thers is not a righteous man on earth who does what is right and never sins” (Ecclesiastes 7.20)  We will always have a mixture of motivations that include self-focused ones like wanting to “look good,” but we are the ones who choose which motivations will drive and control us.

One very practical step you can take that will help you look past distracting motivations is to quiet yourself for a moment before worship and recall all that God has done for you. Perhaps He has healed your body, salvaged a relationship or rescued you from an addiction.  As you remember the work of God in your life you will find your focus shifting to Him and your motivation to bless Him will increase.

2. Informing the People About God

God-centered worship deepens our understanding of God. In fact, Sunday morning worship sometimes preaches a more memorable, effective and powerful sermon than the words of the preacher. In an almost effortless way, people connect at an emotional and experiential level with the topic of a song. Music deposits a message with incredible staying power. So what messages about God are we depositing in the hearts of the people we lead?

One way to answer this question is to review your last several weeks of worship sets. Look over your song selections and ask yourself what you have been teaching the people. Did your song selections accurately inform the people of the timeless truths of the person and nature of God? His righteousness, mercy, justice, grace, power, and love?

Also, did the songs inform the people at their point of need? For example, if your congregation is in a time of repentance did your song selections correctly inform them about what repentance is?

3. Hearts Inclined Toward God

God-centered worship inclines people toward God. By this I mean more than that they simply think about God. I mean that they are open-heartedly communicating with Him during worship.

At a recent Sunday morning worship service I played the final song and sensed that there was something more to do. Instead of immediately closing the worship I led the people in a prayer thanking God for all the good he has brought to our lives. I then asked the people to remain silent and allow God to remind them of specific things He has done for them and then I closed by encouraging them to quietly thank Him. In doing this, I was very consciously following the direction of the Holy Spirit to guide the hearts of the people into direct, worshipful interaction with God.

After the worship service one young woman thanked me for leading worship in this way. She broke into tears as she explained to me how good God had been to her. In the midst of worship her heart had been directed toward God and then opened to Him.  For her, the worship experience had centered on God in a very real way.

We should continually ask ourselves if the people we are leading in worship are experiencing this openhearted interaction with God.

How can you tell?

  • Open your eyes occasionally while you are leading so you can observe people and see if the connection is being made.
  • Listen for reports, like the one that I described, of communion with God during worship.

If you discover that genuine openness toward God is not occurring in worship then think and pray about how you can fix that. This may mean teaching the people how to communicate with God in worship, being more careful to choose songs that invite people to commune with God or becoming a more active listener to the Holy Spirit as you lead worship.

4. Inviting The Presence Of God

Though I am addressing this issue last, I believe that inviting and experiencing the real presence of God is at the core of worship. After all, the loving, adoring language of our songs is spoken to a real Person who actually hears what we say, so it should not surprise us when He “shows up” to receive our worship. In fact, think of worship as an invitation to God, not just a set of statements about Him.

When I speak of God’s presence in this way I am speaking of more than just the knowledge that He is present everywhere all the time. I am talking about the presence of God that is sensed and experienced in our hearts, minds and bodies. It’s something like the difference between your friend being “present” across the room or “present” right next to you where you can feel his breath and physically sense his nearness in “your space.”

It is an amazing thing to see how worship deepens when God is noticeably present, to sense that we are touching the heart of God and to see people healed or delivered as a result of God simply being present in all His goodness.

So how can we work toward leading worship that invites God to join us?

The answer is simple: “dial down” (relax) and be a worshiper as you lead.  When you worship Him you will find that He will meet you, and as He meets you others will be drawn in as you lead.

Now, I know from personal experience that while leading worship, particularly if you lead a band, there are a multitude of things to juggle at once.  However, the one thing you can’t sacrifice is the worship you give to God. The worship leaders I know who are most effective are the ones who have learned to lead without giving up their own ability to worship.

***

Robert Hartman has been involved in pastoral ministry and church planting since the early days of the Vineyard. He’s also spent many years playing, writing and leading worship.