Dude, where to start.
I am the music pastor of a congregation of over 300 in the peak times. One thing I am learning is that we North Americans love to worship, but the leaders of said worship times need time. Perhaps in a way that is very opposite to everything else in a readi-made world, worship takes time. Singing, praying, meditating etc. all take time. 3 songs here, 2 songs there, annoucncements, video, drama, blah, blah, blah. What a joke. Much like the trend in preaching towards story telling, worship seems to go the way of emotional manipulation. Don't get me wrong, worship is emotional, but is also intellectual. John talks about worshiping in spirit and in truth.
What I am finding is no rocket science. We need time, not manipulation (besides the normal energy builds and lulls that The Art's supply). We need the truth of several songs and some prayer to sink in over several minutes to free the spirit to worship. 1 Song, announcments laced with story, 4 songs, a sermon and closer just don't cut it. What are we trying to do, get through a modern day useless liturgy, or worship the Creator of the Universe? My vote is for the latter.
Sunday, September 05, 2004
Post Modernism
I recently finished a seminary course on Preaching to the Post Modern World. This was timely and interesting because I am launching, with the assistance of some volunteers at my church, a new service which is meant to appeal to a post modern person. (www.thechurchcoffeehouse.com)
Cetainly there was some philosophical, theological, and homiletic learning that took place, but being a post modern myself I guess, I find it quite easy to critique the findings of the course, especially after I have distance and a good grade secured.
One of the presuppositions of the course was that stories, metaphor or narrative is the most effective was to reach a post modern audience. I am quite sure I disagree. Not entirely wholeheartedly, only because there are always exceptions to a rule, but strongly in this: I personally find and believe most of peers find stories are less authentic than plain speak. When anyone, but especially a preacher, begins to tell a story to me, one that obviously is trying to manipulate my emotions towards and end, I balk. "Tell me what you mean to say!" my insides cry, don't try to manipulate or sell me an idea I am not sure you live, breathe or possibly even believe.
I am, as I believe most Post Moderns are, looking for authentic people, who are intelligent but communicate in plain speak. Not stories or manipulative methaphor. Just the truth as you see it. If it is worth listening to, I can figure it out. Your convivtion and passion will show your true colours, not how well you tell a story.
Cetainly there was some philosophical, theological, and homiletic learning that took place, but being a post modern myself I guess, I find it quite easy to critique the findings of the course, especially after I have distance and a good grade secured.
One of the presuppositions of the course was that stories, metaphor or narrative is the most effective was to reach a post modern audience. I am quite sure I disagree. Not entirely wholeheartedly, only because there are always exceptions to a rule, but strongly in this: I personally find and believe most of peers find stories are less authentic than plain speak. When anyone, but especially a preacher, begins to tell a story to me, one that obviously is trying to manipulate my emotions towards and end, I balk. "Tell me what you mean to say!" my insides cry, don't try to manipulate or sell me an idea I am not sure you live, breathe or possibly even believe.
I am, as I believe most Post Moderns are, looking for authentic people, who are intelligent but communicate in plain speak. Not stories or manipulative methaphor. Just the truth as you see it. If it is worth listening to, I can figure it out. Your convivtion and passion will show your true colours, not how well you tell a story.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
