Skip to content

“Shout to the Lord” on American Idol

Now, I have to admit I am long since tired of the song “Shout to the Lord” but it was a pleasant suprise to hear it as a featured song on last night’s “Idol Gives Back” show and as the lead performance of the result show tonight.  What struck me the most about the song was hearing performed in the “Idol” setting.  It was the perfect example of how the lines between the sacred and secular are blurring.  Sure, there were probably some that were offended at the blatant use of Jesus’ name in a popular television show, but I think for most it probably seemed quite natural.  People are open to Jesus and open to spirituality but are becoming more and more skeptical of the church as we know it.

I try very hard to observe culture deeply and I am working hard at learning to ask better questions.  So as I was observing this collision between church and pop culture and the question that I can’t help but ask is, what can we learn about being the Church from something like “Idol Gives Back?”  I’m not talking about musical styles or light shows or over the top personalities.  I’m talking about things like where the Church should be spending our time and resources beyond the worship gathering.  We don’t have a platform the size of American Idol, but how might we through the efforts of our local church communities impact the world, using our blessings to be a blessing to others?

Any thoughts?

Posted 10 April 2008 † Brian Spahr § The Blog ‡ ° Tagged: , , , , , ,

Living Out-Carnationally - Journal Reflection

By living incarnationally we not only model the pattern of humanity set up in the Incarnation but we also create space for mission to take place in organic ways.In this way mission becomes something that ‘fits’ seamlessly into the ordinary rhythms of life, friendships, and community and is thus thoroughly contextualized. Thus these ‘practices’ form a working basis for genuine incarnational mission. But they also provide us with an entry point into an authentic experience of Jesus and His mission.

This quote is from a blog entry by Alan Hirsch from earlier this month. At first glance, the title might imply that Hirsch is simply trying to create a new word (I’m tired of new words that are simply playing on other buzz words), but the article is really about living out incarnational ministry. Incarnational ministry, according to Hirsch, “essentially means taking the church to the people rather than bringing people to the church.” Last spring while I was on internship I had a conversation with a neighbor who was not connected to any church. We were talking about the church in general and how the church I was serving was struggling to grow and he said that he doesn’t understand why the church is so set on trying to get people to come to them. He said, “There are a whole lot more people not in church than in. Why doesn’t the church just spend their time going where those people are instead of expecting everyone to show up on Sunday morning?” He, of course, did not recognize the importance of the gathering to equip and send God’s people, but his point is well taken. We have long considered the Sunday morning worship gathering as the primary evangelistic entry point. We have made it in many settings “seeker friendly” and we have challenged our people to invite their “unchurched” friends to these gatherings. I’m not saying this bad or wrong necessarily, but I think we need to consider how we spend the rest of our time. In the post, Hirsch describes the missional efforts of a few communities. He says,

In the Seattle/Tacoma region, two churches (Soma and Zoë) have chosen to collaborate in reaching students and musicians by actively moving into the social rhythms of these groups and ‘de-churchifying’ their previous expressions of ministry. In order to do this they have rented and purchased buildings and developed them as night clubs, coffee shops, and have established recording studios with direct links to the various musicians in the area. Zoë in particular has taken drastic measures to limit the attractional appeal of the ministry in order to wean members off the consumptive attendance at a ‘service’ and to get them all involved in local expressions of mission. Whilst passive attendance at services is down, the community is now highly engaged in various expressions of local community and the missional reach has been significantly increased through incarnational practices. They all feel that they are now much closer to what it means to be disciples in community.

For so long the measuring stick has been “worship attendance”, which if we are being honest can have as much to do with the offering generated as anything else. Are we willing to develop different ways of keeping score? How do we better measure ministry “success” without attaching it to the bottom line?

Posted 10 April 2008 † Brian Spahr § Journal Article Reflection ‡ ° Tagged: , , , ,

Old Church Model ‘Killing the West’ -Journal Article Review

Old Church Model ‘Killing the West’ | Christianpost.com

This is a pretty light article… simply reporting on what is being said a conference in Texas, but there is a challenging quote from Leonard Sweet. He says, “The “Achilles’ heel” of the church is the practice of attractional Christianity. “It’s all ‘come and see’ and not ‘go and be,’”

I agree with this quote, but it certainly challenges what has long been defined as “church”. The Augsburg Confession says, “The Church is the congregation of saints, in which the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments are rightly administered.” Other translations replace, “congregation of saints” with “gathering of believers”. I would not argue that this is a faulty definition of church. In fact, I would claim quite the contrary. I do wonder, however, if we might need to reconsider what constitutes the “gathering of believers”. It is good to come together as the congregation. I love to worship with my brothers and sisters on Sunday mornings (or whenever). This Sunday morning gathering has long been a place where the Word is consistently proclaimed in my life, and where I am fed by Christ’s presence in the sacrament. But are there other ways that we can be the Church in the manner described in the AC outside of Sunday morning? The challenge comes, I think in our clerical control of the administration of the sacraments. Is there a way that we as clergy might “faithfully administer” by equipping the “laity”?

If Sweet is right… and I think he is… is this realization of Church possible under the structure and systems that exist in the larger church?

Posted 02 April 2008 † Brian Spahr § Journal Article Reflection ‡ ° Tagged: , ,

Old Church Model ‘Killing the West’ -Journal Article Review

Old Church Model ‘Killing the West’ | Christianpost.com

This is a pretty light article… simply reporting on what is being said a conference in Texas, but there is a challenging quote from Leonard Sweet. He says, “The “Achilles’ heel” of the church is the practice of attractional Christianity. “It’s all ‘come and see’ and not ‘go and be,’”

I agree with this quote, but it certainly challenges what has long been defined as “church”. The Augsburg Confession says, “The Church is the congregation of saints, in which the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments are rightly administered.” Other translations replace, “congregation of saints” with “gathering of believers”. I would not argue that this is a faulty definition of church. In fact, I would claim quite the contrary. I do wonder, however, if we might need to reconsider what constitutes the “gathering of believers”. It is good to come together as the congregation. I love to worship with my brothers and sisters on Sunday mornings (or whenever). This Sunday morning gathering has long been a place where the Word is consistently proclaimed in my life, and where I am fed by Christ’s presence in the sacrament. But are there other ways that we can be the Church in the manner described in the AC outside of Sunday morning? The challenge comes, I think in our clerical control of the administration of the sacraments. Is there a way that we as clergy might “faithfully administer” by equipping the “laity”?

If Sweet is right… and I think he is… is this realization of Church possible under the structure and systems that exist in the larger church?

Posted 02 April 2008 † Brian Spahr § Journal Article Reflection ‡ ° Tagged: , ,

Old Church Model ‘Killing the West’ -Journal Article Review

Old Church Model ‘Killing the West’ | Christianpost.com

This is a pretty light article… simply reporting on what is being said a conference in Texas, but there is a challenging quote from Leonard Sweet. He says, “The “Achilles’ heel” of the church is the practice of attractional Christianity. “It’s all ‘come and see’ and not ‘go and be,’”

I agree with this quote, but it certainly challenges what has long been defined as “church”. The Augsburg Confession says, “The Church is the congregation of saints, in which the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments are rightly administered.” Other translations replace, “congregation of saints” with “gathering of believers”. I would not argue that this is a faulty definition of church. In fact, I would claim quite the contrary. I do wonder, however, if we might need to reconsider what constitutes the “gathering of believers”. It is good to come together as the congregation. I love to worship with my brothers and sisters on Sunday mornings (or whenever). This Sunday morning gathering has long been a place where the Word is consistently proclaimed in my life, and where I am fed by Christ’s presence in the sacrament. But are there other ways that we can be the Church in the manner described in the AC outside of Sunday morning? The challenge comes, I think in our clerical control of the administration of the sacraments. Is there a way that we as clergy might “faithfully administer” by equipping the “laity”?

If Sweet is right… and I think he is… is this realization of Church possible under the structure and systems that exist in the larger church?

Posted 02 April 2008 † Brian Spahr § Journal Article Reflection ‡ ° Tagged: , ,

Old Church Model ‘Killing the West’ -Journal Article Review

Old Church Model ‘Killing the West’ | Christianpost.com

This is a pretty light article… simply reporting on what is being said a conference in Texas, but there is a challenging quote from Leonard Sweet. He says, “The “Achilles’ heel” of the church is the practice of attractional Christianity. “It’s all ‘come and see’ and not ‘go and be,’”

I agree with this quote, but it certainly challenges what has long been defined as “church”. The Augsburg Confession says, “The Church is the congregation of saints, in which the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments are rightly administered.” Other translations replace, “congregation of saints” with “gathering of believers”. I would not argue that this is a faulty definition of church. In fact, I would claim quite the contrary. I do wonder, however, if we might need to reconsider what constitutes the “gathering of believers”. It is good to come together as the congregation. I love to worship with my brothers and sisters on Sunday mornings (or whenever). This Sunday morning gathering has long been a place where the Word is consistently proclaimed in my life, and where I am fed by Christ’s presence in the sacrament. But are there other ways that we can be the Church in the manner described in the AC outside of Sunday morning? The challenge comes, I think in our clerical control of the administration of the sacraments. Is there a way that we as clergy might “faithfully administer” by equipping the “laity”?

If Sweet is right… and I think he is… is this realization of Church possible under the structure and systems that exist in the larger church?

Posted 02 April 2008 † Brian Spahr § Journal Article Reflection ‡ ° Tagged: , ,

Five Streams of the Emerging Church - Article Review

The emerging church is a challenging “movement” to define. In fact, most involved in what is labeled as “emerging” would argue that it is not a movement at all, but simply a conversation. Add to this the organization “Emergent”, which has become a prominent voice in the conversation because of their published works, speaking engagements, etc. and the emerging church remains elusive to anyone seeking a nice, neat label.

Scot McKnight is a professor of religious studies at North Park Theological Seminary, the author of several books, and one of the most widely read bloggers in the emerging church. He self-identifies with the emerging church, but admittedly struggles at times to maintain his evangelical identity in the midst of that which is emerging. In this article, McKnight identifies what he calls “Five Streams of the Emerging Movement”

  1. PROPHETIC (OR AT LEAST PROVOCATIVE) - This stream, according to McKnight, believes that things in the church need to change and they live like they already have. He also admits this stream has a tendency to exaggerate to make a point. For example, Peter Rollins (author of How Not to Speak of God) says, “Thus, orthodoxy is no longer (mis)understood as the opposite of heresy but rather is understood as a term that signals a way of being in the world rather than a means of believing things about the world.” This kind of statement, McKnight says, “makes its point, but it sometimes divides.”

  2. POSTMODERN - McKnight describes this stream first by defining postmodernism, no simply as a denial of truth, but as, “the collapse of metanarratives (overarching explanations of life) like those of science and Marxism.” It is not as much, as some believe, that postmoderns do not believe in absolute truth, rather that thruth cannot be known absolutely. This stream can be further subdivided into categories defined by Doug Pagitt: 1) Those who will minister to postmoderns, 2) Those who will minister with postmoderns, and 3) Those who will minister as postmoderns. The distinctions are subtle, but important. The first two categories imply that postmodernism is something to be opposed and ministered to… like an affliction of sorts. The third category does not seek to change/cure a person of their postmodernity, rather it accepts it as an acceptable existance and asks the question of how to live faithfully as a postmodern.

  3. PRAXIS ORIENTED - Simply described, this stream is mostly concerned with how the faith is being lived out. While other streams are challenging long-standing theological understandings, the praxis oriented stream is primarily concerned with authentic faith being represented in it worship, orthopraxy, and missional orientation.
  4. POST-EVANGELICAL - This stream is , “a protest against much of evangelicalism as currently practiced…This stream flows from the conviction that the church must always be reforming itself.” McKnight further identifies this stream as 1)Post-systematic theology, meaning that god did not offer a systematic theology to capture who God is, but a “storied narrative.” 2) Post-In Versus Out. Emerging churches tend to be less interested in separating the “sheep from the goats”, per se. McKnight sees this as a weakness. He says, “This emerging ambivalence about who is in and who is out creates a serious problem for evangelism.”
  5. POLITICAL - The emerging movement often gets labled as “left-wing” politcally because of its strong emphasis on social justice issues. Emerging leaders/churches have been active in politics, garnering significant criticism from those who say that the church should not be involoved in politics. McKnight, simply calls for a proper balance, maintaining a distinction between the social gospel and the spiritual gospel.

This article identifies some helpful markers of the emerging movement, but in all I’m not sure that the categories are particularly helpful. Most of my experience has been that those in the emerging movement do not fit exclusively into any one of these streams, but are a mixture (sometimes changing) of all of the above. This article was yet another attempt at the elusive defninition the emerging church that makes some helpful points, but doesn’t quite get there.

McKnight, Scot; Christianity Today; Feb 2007, Vol. 51 Issue 2, p 34-39

Posted 24 March 2008 † Brian Spahr § Journal Article Reflection ‡ °

Technology and the Church

I am very interested in the use of electronic media and technology in the church. Yesterday I came across this short bog post that sparked a few thoughts.

Click Here for the full post.

Mark Batterson is the Sr. Pastor at National Community Church in Washington DC. They are a large multi-site church that meets in movie theaters along metro stops around DC. The only permanent meeting space they have is a coffee shop called “Ebenezer’s” on Capitol Hill. Last year I spoke to one of their pastors who shared that their primary evangelism efforts are done via internet. He called it “e-vangelism”. They are very intentionally going into the “virtual” world where people spend ridiculous amounts of time and trying to connect with them through the internet. They webcast their service as part of that outreach.

I don’t believe that watching a webcast of a worship service is anywhere near the same experience as physically gathering in worship, but I also think that we might learn something from those folks who are using this powerful medium of the internet to plant the seeds of relationships. In the blog post Batterson says,

“For what it’s worth, 54% of our attenders visited theaterchurch.com before coming to a service. This is old news but a healthy reminder: your website is the front door to your church! It’s your first impression. Especially with our demographic–about 66% of NCCers are single twenty-somethings.”

Those stats are particularly striking to me considering the results of the recent study by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.

Our natural tendency as human beings, I think, is to look at technology and immediately (and sometimes only) consider what it is going to make obsolete because it often threatens our comfort zone. Email is going to make snail mail obsolete…electronic books are going to make “real” books obsolete… chat rooms are going to make face-to-face conversations obsolete…PowerPoint is going to make hymnals obsolete…etc. There are certainly cases where this is true. The new medium is simply more effective or more efficient than the old and the old becomes obsolete. Cassette certainly made 8-track tapes and Vinyl (although some would argue vinyl has never adequately been replaced) obsolete and then CDs have done the same to cassettes. The question of what a particular technology or medium will obsolesce, however, is only one question to ask of our media and technology. Marshall McLuhan (google him if you don’t know who he is) identified four things to consider when evaluating the use of any technology:

  1. Determine what the technology enhances.
  2. Find out what, if anything, the technology makes obsolete.
  3. Figure out what the technology retrieves.
  4. Determine what the technology reverts into when pushed to the limit.

I think all of these are important to consider when we think of using technology in the church or in any frame of life. Looking again at the internet, you would be hard pressed to find any church leader that would say the preferred way to be the church is on the internet. Even LifeChurch.TV who has an “internet campus” ultimately views the internet as a means to make connections with people that will hopefully lead to face-to-face meetups. Going back to the question of “what does this technology obsolesce?” If this is the only thing we consider in our use of technology, then we may miss the possibility of what that same technology might enhance or retrieve that was lost with the use of any prior technology.

This is turning into a book. Sorry. If you want to read a book on the subject, I highly recommend The Hidden Power of Electronic Culture: How Media Shapes Faith, the Gospel, and Church by Shane Hipps.

Posted 21 March 2008 † Brian Spahr § The Blog ‡ ° Tagged: , , ,

What do we value?

A boarded-up former Denny's restaurant in Seattle's Ballard neighborhood has been designated as a landmark because of its link to the Space Needle.I came across this article today: Former Denny’s declared landmark - USATODAY.com

Basically there is a building in Seattle that is being protected from demolition because a local preservation organization fought to have declared a local landmark… and succeeded. It turns out that the architecture of the building is in the “Googie” style, which is the same style as the famous Seattle Space Needle (and every Stuckey’s at highway exits across North America). The building is in pretty bad shape and the landmark status doesn’t require the owner to restore the building so he plans to let it remain in disrepair. His plan, until meeting this recent roadblock was to demolish the building and build condos. “‘We’ve heard the arguments before from people saying it’s ugly, it’s
this, it’s that,’ says Eugenia Woo, a preservation consultant who
worked to save the Denny’s. ‘We’re not just looking at high-style
buildings or buildings for the rich and famous as buildings that should
be preserved. Seattle was a working-class city, and Ballard’s history
comes from that.’”

This whole thing got me thinking a lot about the things to which attribute value. Obviously, some people really care about things like a dilapidated Denny’s enough to halt “progress” (I’m not sure if building condos really counts as progress…but whatever.) Or maybe they don’t care and it’s just a ploy to prevent the condos from being built. Whatever the case, I wonder what we cling to as the Church that might better serve the kingdom if it was knocked down to make room for something new. I hesitantly type those words because I certainly do not want to promote simply scrapping what appears to be old for the sake of whatever new trend might be gaining momentum. I am really trying to consider this with consideration for the Kingdom. For the folks that fought to save this Denny’s, its style is symbolic of what they value…the historic working-class nature of that particular community. They are not willing to part with that as a piece of their identity. As the Church, what are we not willing to part with? What defines us to the point that we cannot imagine ourselves as the Church apart from it? In theory its pretty easy to set aside most things and claim that we will follow however Jesus leads. In reality, however, there are local churches all around us that are stuck partially because their identity is wrapped up in something that is no longer life giving. Do we define ourselves by our buildings or our programs or our theology? What are some other things that impede progress? Are we even to be concerned with progress? What is it that we should rightfully stand in front of the wrecking ball for, and what is it that we are doing so that doesn’t really matter in the long run?

Posted 20 March 2008 † Brian Spahr § The Blog ‡ °

What tools have you found useful?

I’m always curious as to what folks are using to keep there lives in order or to work more efficiently or things that are just functional and cool.  These can be online tools, gadgets, whatever.  What do you use and how do you use it?

Posted 19 March 2008 † Brian Spahr § The Blog ‡ °

  • Recent Comments