I fear that we have made into a religion for the strong, what was always intended to be a safe place for the weak.
Personally, I remember renewal as being a safe place to open my heart to God, gradually learning how kind he is and learning to trust how gently he would lead me. Yes, I had power encounters too. And I believe in, and deal with, the power of the Kingdom. But what really changed my heart were the deep times. Is there any space left for that in today’s charismatic church? Even one that claims to have been shaped by renewal? (Note I do not use the term “revival”, because I do not think that has happened-- and certainly isn’t happening now. A subject for another time, perhaps.)
Don’t get me wrong. I believe in, have experienced and taught all this stuff myself. Power, faith, the prophetic, miracles-- it’s all part of the Kingdom, and I am a Kingdom person. I have greatly personally benefited (for example) from Bill Johnson’s teachings, from Bethel, from Randy Clark and Global Awakening. But the call to be “a world changer”, the demand that “we owe the world an encounter with Jesus”, the emphasis on a “supernatural lifestyle”, all promote an urgency and a weight of responsibility that seems at odds with Jesus’ call to take his light burden, and wear his easy yoke.
I have observed that these themes, though valid, have often been overly emphasized in reaction to many years of the opposite. And by now it’s almost all I am hearing. I fear that only the young and strong, the bold by nature, and those who have a Type-A personality in the first place can and will respond well for any length of time to such emphases. What about all the rest of humanity?
Often, we in charismatic circles are really inhumane in how we deal with human weakness and frailty. Are you sick? Have faith, get healed. Are you poor? Claim those biblical promises. Are you mentally ill, or emotionally drained? Just snap out of it, God is good, all the time! We demand “faith” in “God’s plan” and by that we seem to mean an emotional commitment and/or strong mental assent to certain propositions, or a desperate clinging to the hope of a particular outcome.
What happens when it all doesn’t work the way we are told it should? And we all know it often doesn’t.
Will we resort again to empty platitudes, or worse, to shame and blame?
Who will be kind to their brothers and sisters in the face of tragedy? Who will be there to carry and comfort me when the promises were not fulfilled, when he/she died (or left me) after all, when I simply didn’t have the strength to “believe” any more, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary? Who in those times will stand by me without either feeling or transmitting shame, without a sense of failure, weeping with those who weep, humanity sharing the troubles of humanity?
Sadly, the non-charismatic church is often far more adept at this “carrying one another’s burdens” than we are. Those of us who claim to know the power of the Kingdom should be the ones who are most able to enter into another’s pain and bring the light of the presence of Christ (who has promised always to be with us, not always to fix our circumstances).
Jesus Christ: the same today, yesterday and forever; fully human, and fully God. May we not sacrifice either one for the other.
Friday, May 30, 2014
Who was that woman?
The longer I am away from my first marriage, the more I wonder how I put up with so many aspects of it. Over the years, I had gotten to where I simply let P’s self-centeredness slide off my back. It was sometimes embarrassing in front of others, true, and it often annoyed me; but I knew pointing it out or challenging it would only punish me, and not change him. So as it increased, I gradually said less, not more. Looking back, I think we probably could not have continued so long any other way. It was only the supremely self-centered handling of his love affair that brought to light, even to him, that something had to give.
But this time, it wasn’t me.
I still marvel how he never went the 2nd logical step, never went beyond learning how his brokenness through early and extended abuse affected himself, to how it affected others, most especially his wife. He always did have great difficulty facing the fact that he was the problem, even when everything he learned pointed to that. The family knew it for years. It was our unspoken secret.
When P finally, after over half a year of being in love and months of counseling, did admit to a degree of culpability to me (weeping, saying he was busted and he was sorry I married such poor material; much self-pity), his consequent behavior seemed far more to say “Okay, I've admitted I am broken, therefore you must accommodate me” rather than “I see now I am the one who is most broken, I am the problem here, therefore I should now try to accommodate YOU.” And his counselor was impatient with me because I was no longer willing to do what I had been doing for all of our married life: enable this nonsense. I had known how broken he was many years before he faced it. I think by then I had reached my breaking point; there was no longer a willingness in me to have less than the whole deal.
The abusive mindset is most clearly seen in how P reacted to the truths he learned. The logical and healthy outcome of learning that all these years one really had been largely the one in the wrong would normally be a repentant attitude, a “Oh no, what have I done to you, how can I make it up to you?” heart. His reaction was, instead, anger and offense when I agreed with all that he now claimed to know about himself. This is not repentance. Self-defense has no place in genuine repentance.
The attitude that came from him was: “I’ve been so messed up, and that’s not my fault, so you have to excuse everything I’ve ever done/said/ways I’ve hurt you because of it. And you can’t hold me accountable for any way in which I am now acting hurtfully toward you, because I’ve been far more hurt than you have, so you must support me even when you are being victimized by me.” He turned the tables and made himself the victim; there was no room for ME to be a victim, his victim. What he had learned about how the abuse damaged him was used as a buffer against holding himself accountable, rather than as a tool for doing so. And that’s what never changed, no matter what words he spoke to his counselor.
I am aware I am well out of that relationship, and relieved and glad to have the blessed chance I have been given to start a new life without emotional abuse at home. But I do wonder about the person I was, who put up with this for so long. I guess believing I didn’t have any other option was a large part of it. I married without a back door, without the thought of divorce being an option.
But when that option was extended to me, it was still very hard to actually take it. For all of our initial talk about not holding it against each other, P did not keep his word; it was a rather messy divorce, with lack of genuine communication, ridiculous quibbling and unfair treatment of me. I ended up far more materially impoverished than I would have been had we not gone the "mutual agreement" route. But as I always said when we had plenty of my inheritance left: “It’s only money.”
And so it is. What I have now, even with the pain of leaving my money, my country, my children and 30 years of my life behind, is worth far more than a dollar amount.
I still do care how P gets on in life, but it is a very distant caring. I would like to know him to be happy, but I don’t want to be involved in it in any way. It would be nice, since our children live nearby and still have regular communication with him, if he could someday wake up and comprehend the truth of certain things; but his parents (in spite of being told and shown) never did, and it’s highly unlikely he will be able to get very far if he hasn’t been able to by now.
I suppose it’s one of those bittersweet things in life: being so very thankful for my second chance while at the same time rather sad, and sometimes a bit resentful, that I so needed one.
But this time, it wasn’t me.
I still marvel how he never went the 2nd logical step, never went beyond learning how his brokenness through early and extended abuse affected himself, to how it affected others, most especially his wife. He always did have great difficulty facing the fact that he was the problem, even when everything he learned pointed to that. The family knew it for years. It was our unspoken secret.
When P finally, after over half a year of being in love and months of counseling, did admit to a degree of culpability to me (weeping, saying he was busted and he was sorry I married such poor material; much self-pity), his consequent behavior seemed far more to say “Okay, I've admitted I am broken, therefore you must accommodate me” rather than “I see now I am the one who is most broken, I am the problem here, therefore I should now try to accommodate YOU.” And his counselor was impatient with me because I was no longer willing to do what I had been doing for all of our married life: enable this nonsense. I had known how broken he was many years before he faced it. I think by then I had reached my breaking point; there was no longer a willingness in me to have less than the whole deal.
The abusive mindset is most clearly seen in how P reacted to the truths he learned. The logical and healthy outcome of learning that all these years one really had been largely the one in the wrong would normally be a repentant attitude, a “Oh no, what have I done to you, how can I make it up to you?” heart. His reaction was, instead, anger and offense when I agreed with all that he now claimed to know about himself. This is not repentance. Self-defense has no place in genuine repentance.
The attitude that came from him was: “I’ve been so messed up, and that’s not my fault, so you have to excuse everything I’ve ever done/said/ways I’ve hurt you because of it. And you can’t hold me accountable for any way in which I am now acting hurtfully toward you, because I’ve been far more hurt than you have, so you must support me even when you are being victimized by me.” He turned the tables and made himself the victim; there was no room for ME to be a victim, his victim. What he had learned about how the abuse damaged him was used as a buffer against holding himself accountable, rather than as a tool for doing so. And that’s what never changed, no matter what words he spoke to his counselor.
I am aware I am well out of that relationship, and relieved and glad to have the blessed chance I have been given to start a new life without emotional abuse at home. But I do wonder about the person I was, who put up with this for so long. I guess believing I didn’t have any other option was a large part of it. I married without a back door, without the thought of divorce being an option.
But when that option was extended to me, it was still very hard to actually take it. For all of our initial talk about not holding it against each other, P did not keep his word; it was a rather messy divorce, with lack of genuine communication, ridiculous quibbling and unfair treatment of me. I ended up far more materially impoverished than I would have been had we not gone the "mutual agreement" route. But as I always said when we had plenty of my inheritance left: “It’s only money.”
And so it is. What I have now, even with the pain of leaving my money, my country, my children and 30 years of my life behind, is worth far more than a dollar amount.
I still do care how P gets on in life, but it is a very distant caring. I would like to know him to be happy, but I don’t want to be involved in it in any way. It would be nice, since our children live nearby and still have regular communication with him, if he could someday wake up and comprehend the truth of certain things; but his parents (in spite of being told and shown) never did, and it’s highly unlikely he will be able to get very far if he hasn’t been able to by now.
I suppose it’s one of those bittersweet things in life: being so very thankful for my second chance while at the same time rather sad, and sometimes a bit resentful, that I so needed one.
Sunday, May 25, 2014
Rant Of A Foodie
Dear friends of all dietary persuasions,
If you happen to be vegetarian, vegan, gluten/lactose/sucrose intolerant, or simply choose to follow the latest fads of grain-free, paleo, organic-only or whatever it is this month/year, please listen to -- and forgive-- my rant.
All of the above, whether by personal health choice, moral persuasion, or medical condition, are restricted diets. That means: of the vast array of ingestible substances known to mankind, you have decided it is best for you not to eat some of them. In this sense, if unrestricted access to all foodstuffs is considered "normal", you eat an "abnormal" diet. Can we be agreed on this?
That is, of course, your free choice-- or, in the case of those who are genuinely allergic to or physically intolerant of a certain food, a medical necessity, and I stand by your right to make that personal choice. We all choose whether or not we even want to try eating, say, fermented Korean Kimchi or roasted grubs (both delicacies in certain cultures).
However, I would like to remind you, my fellow privileged friends (because really, only those of us in the affluent West can afford to be this choosy about the foods we eat), that this is a personal lifestyle choice, not a universally applicable moral imperative. My apologies to those of my friends who are aware of this and do not force their food convictions on all comers.
Those of us who, thankfully, experience no dietary restrictions do not need your lecture about the evils of refined sugars as we try to enjoy our one cupcake of the week. We don’t need you to throw up your hands in horror when we order a steak at a restaurant. We are embarrassed for you when you drop such comments as “I didn’t know anybody ate that any more” or “Ugh--- flesh!” or “Haven’t you read the latest studies that prove X+Y=current dietary fad?”
Please understand that your dietary choices are your choices, and are valid for you for all the reasons you made them. But please grant the rest of us that freedom, too. We do not need to be educated by you on the evils of what we choose to put into our bodies. The Internet will do that daily, whether we want it to or not. And, as in the case of several foodstuffs I years ago refused to give up in favor of chemically-laden, “better-for-you” substitutes, often fashion will eventually come around to our side again and scientists will fall all over themselves disproving their previous claims.
I do understand there are genuine medical conditions which require dietary restriction, and have great sympathy for that. I spent many years married to a severe hypoglycemic with other food allergies as well. I cooked some crazy things in those years! I know what can happen when you genuinely cannot tolerate, say, butter, and someone neglects to inform you there is butter in the sauce they serve, even when you asked (asthma attack in the night). In this case, perhaps it would be wisest (and kindest) to sometimes, as in the case of a barbecue, consider bringing your own special food, rather than require that everyone around you bend to your special needs. And I understand that’s a pain in the rear.
But I don’t believe you want to be known as a pain in the rear, either. So please: I beg you to stop preaching at the rest of us, making universally applicable what you believe to be true for yourself in dietary matters. For example, “Cow milk is for baby cows, not for humans!” I hear you cry. Well, the vast majority of humans have been doing very well on it for countless centuries, so I think I will keep right on enjoying my milk, cheese, cream and butter (in moderation, of course *wink*) unless my body, or my personal physician, tells me otherwise.
I, like most of you reading this, have the great privilege of living in the affluent West, where I have access to foodstuffs from across the world; where I can buy cheap and processed or expensive and organic, or somewhere in the vast array in between; where I have lots of choices, every day. I happen to be one of those in the majority who may enjoy an unrestricted (i.e., normal) diet. I am aware of my blessing, and intend to enjoy it. I am happy to accommodate your dietary needs, but please forgive me if I have a little less sympathy for your unrequired choices, and no patience with your wholesale judgement of any other choice.
“Eat, drink, and be merry; for tomorrow we die.” You may believe that your food choices entitle you to a great deal more tomorrows than mine do-- well, bully for you! If it is still a concern for you then, we can discuss the merits of these convictions on the other side. Until such a time, let’s bless each other in our various choices and allow each other to make them freely.
Well. Rant over. I think it’s time for a glass of wine (oh! Alcohol!), some crackers (grains!!) and a bit of aged cheese (milk products! She’s gonna DIE!).
Well, so are we all. It’s just possible I might enjoy the journey a bit more than some of my friends may. :D
If you happen to be vegetarian, vegan, gluten/lactose/sucrose intolerant, or simply choose to follow the latest fads of grain-free, paleo, organic-only or whatever it is this month/year, please listen to -- and forgive-- my rant.
All of the above, whether by personal health choice, moral persuasion, or medical condition, are restricted diets. That means: of the vast array of ingestible substances known to mankind, you have decided it is best for you not to eat some of them. In this sense, if unrestricted access to all foodstuffs is considered "normal", you eat an "abnormal" diet. Can we be agreed on this?
That is, of course, your free choice-- or, in the case of those who are genuinely allergic to or physically intolerant of a certain food, a medical necessity, and I stand by your right to make that personal choice. We all choose whether or not we even want to try eating, say, fermented Korean Kimchi or roasted grubs (both delicacies in certain cultures).
However, I would like to remind you, my fellow privileged friends (because really, only those of us in the affluent West can afford to be this choosy about the foods we eat), that this is a personal lifestyle choice, not a universally applicable moral imperative. My apologies to those of my friends who are aware of this and do not force their food convictions on all comers.
Those of us who, thankfully, experience no dietary restrictions do not need your lecture about the evils of refined sugars as we try to enjoy our one cupcake of the week. We don’t need you to throw up your hands in horror when we order a steak at a restaurant. We are embarrassed for you when you drop such comments as “I didn’t know anybody ate that any more” or “Ugh--- flesh!” or “Haven’t you read the latest studies that prove X+Y=current dietary fad?”
Please understand that your dietary choices are your choices, and are valid for you for all the reasons you made them. But please grant the rest of us that freedom, too. We do not need to be educated by you on the evils of what we choose to put into our bodies. The Internet will do that daily, whether we want it to or not. And, as in the case of several foodstuffs I years ago refused to give up in favor of chemically-laden, “better-for-you” substitutes, often fashion will eventually come around to our side again and scientists will fall all over themselves disproving their previous claims.
I do understand there are genuine medical conditions which require dietary restriction, and have great sympathy for that. I spent many years married to a severe hypoglycemic with other food allergies as well. I cooked some crazy things in those years! I know what can happen when you genuinely cannot tolerate, say, butter, and someone neglects to inform you there is butter in the sauce they serve, even when you asked (asthma attack in the night). In this case, perhaps it would be wisest (and kindest) to sometimes, as in the case of a barbecue, consider bringing your own special food, rather than require that everyone around you bend to your special needs. And I understand that’s a pain in the rear.
But I don’t believe you want to be known as a pain in the rear, either. So please: I beg you to stop preaching at the rest of us, making universally applicable what you believe to be true for yourself in dietary matters. For example, “Cow milk is for baby cows, not for humans!” I hear you cry. Well, the vast majority of humans have been doing very well on it for countless centuries, so I think I will keep right on enjoying my milk, cheese, cream and butter (in moderation, of course *wink*) unless my body, or my personal physician, tells me otherwise.
I, like most of you reading this, have the great privilege of living in the affluent West, where I have access to foodstuffs from across the world; where I can buy cheap and processed or expensive and organic, or somewhere in the vast array in between; where I have lots of choices, every day. I happen to be one of those in the majority who may enjoy an unrestricted (i.e., normal) diet. I am aware of my blessing, and intend to enjoy it. I am happy to accommodate your dietary needs, but please forgive me if I have a little less sympathy for your unrequired choices, and no patience with your wholesale judgement of any other choice.
“Eat, drink, and be merry; for tomorrow we die.” You may believe that your food choices entitle you to a great deal more tomorrows than mine do-- well, bully for you! If it is still a concern for you then, we can discuss the merits of these convictions on the other side. Until such a time, let’s bless each other in our various choices and allow each other to make them freely.
Well. Rant over. I think it’s time for a glass of wine (oh! Alcohol!), some crackers (grains!!) and a bit of aged cheese (milk products! She’s gonna DIE!).
Well, so are we all. It’s just possible I might enjoy the journey a bit more than some of my friends may. :D
Thursday, May 1, 2014
Freedom
"There is nothing inherently liberating in showing skin; there is nothing inherently restrictive in covering up; the liberation lies in the choice."
I read this quote regarding body acceptance on Pinterest and it brought together a number of thoughts I have had in the past, which have surfaced again lately, about forms of worship. Yes, I know it sounds random; but that is how my mind works! Have patience and I hope you will eventually see how it fits together.
As background, I've been involved in some form or other of Christian musical worship (the whole span: from classic church choir to Christian traveling drama/music troupe, to pop-rock Christian singing group, to writing and arranging my own worship songs, to participating in, forming and leading contemporary worship bands, to training worship leaders) ever since I was about 12 years old. To me, in my culture and my generation, musical worship is an integral part of what it means for me to express my faith as a Christian.
I first entered a relationship with God in the Jesus People era, which was dominated by the beginnings of the CCM music scene, and through the years I've had many personal encounters with God through worship of varying sorts (music, drama, dance). I've participated in "worship services" of many Christian stripes, from Roman Catholic and High Anglican to closed Brethren and kinky Pentecostal. I've traveled to many different nations and cultures and experienced their forms of worship. In other words, as regards this subject, I've been around the block a few times.
Recently A finished a major module in his theological studies: worship. One of the books he had to read for it amused me by its title: "Worship By The Book". We discussed the various views on what constituted a "proper worship service" by writers from across the Evangelical perspective, some of which I found very insular, indeed. And it got us to re-examine our own cultural biases and our own current context.
We've both been involved in the musical worship sector of our local church for awhile now, and I am seeing some of the same scenarios playing out as I had done over and over in my years as a leader. I suppose these issues are universal. There are various worship agendas in operation depending on which leader has the floor. There are people with a good heart but little talent, or perhaps lacking in the ability to team-play, who are willing but not very able. There are doubtless some able but not willing, for various reasons. There are a few who are far more than able: genuinely talented artists who, however, need some heart alterations before one would feel safe inflicting them upon a congregation. And there are a lot of fairly competent people muddling along as best they can as volunteers with little time for rehearsal.
One of the fellows with whom I recently sang when he led congregational worship was really excited to be asked to lead again, since he "hadn't been allowed" (his words) for some time. When he went over the song list with us before the service, he said things like "We have to keep the religious people happy" and "This isn't where I want to go in worship, but it's an Easter song, so I suppose we'll have to sing it", et cetera. When I asked how much time we had been given, he looked rather bleakly at me and said "__ (the leader of the service) is just going to interrupt me."
All of these statements gave me pause. There may be very good reasons why he hadn't been asked, though he is easily the most accomplished musician among us. A "worship service" is made of of many elements, all of which are a form of corporate worship. It is not an interruption of worship for the service to stop the music stage and continue on to the next stage. Nor is it an imposition --indeed, in my mind it is a requirement of the job-- for me as a worship leader to deliberately defer to the needs of the congregation (for example, to have a song or two related to Easter on Easter Sunday) above my own (when, for example, I am personally much more comfortable with a free-flowing, unplanned, spontaneous, "Holy-Spirit-led" session).
And this leads on to the above-mentioned quote. Here is my re-casting of it:
"There is nothing inherently liberating in dancing before the Lord; there is nothing inherently restrictive in kneeling quietly in reverence; the liberation lies in the choice."
I have noticed that those who emphasize "freedom in worship" usually have a very clear idea in their minds what they mean by that. To them, "bondage" means bowing heads in quiet prayer, sitting quietly in a seat or pew and singing hymns. They seem to equate silence, contemplation, or older forms of Christian worship with "dead religion". To these folks, "freedom" can only mean dancing! shouting! upbeat songs! the waving of flags! the blowing of shofars! laughter! holy abandon! So when they get up before the congregation (or if they are leading worship) and say things like: "I proclaim freedom in this house! Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom!" they will usually follow it up with some instruction like "So let's all shout to God with a voice of triumph!" or "Dance with all your might before the Lord!"
Well, I'm sorry, but to me this is just as religious as telling us we may NOT do these things in church. It places those members who actually would prefer to sit and revere quietly, to kneel or to lie down as their form of abandoned worship, in an awkward position. They are being given a subcultural definition of "freedom" which disallows their actual freedom to worship God as their nature would genuinely incline them to do. If by proclaiming "freedom" I really subtly mean "you must now dance or be judged as un-free", I am actually restricting the very value I espouse: that people should be able to worship God freely.
For some, freedom will mean never having dared to get up and dance when they felt like it, and now being able to do so. But for some, it will mean having the freedom to resist a subcultural norm with which they are uncomfortable, and to feel free to not participate in the "required" manner. Ideally, a genuinely "free" worship service would have people responding individually to the presence of God in whatever way is genuine for them in that moment; but doing it together, and comfortable with each others' expressions. This might mean some kneeling, some lying down in worship, some dancing, some singing… And this very form would make many people, comfortable with more structure than that, highly uncomfortable, so it's certainly not for everybody.
But if we are to insist upon such a high level of freedom, let's cover all bases, not just our personal preferences.
That said, personally my own preference is to have a plan --which I am perfectly willing to jettison should God indicate he has something else on the agenda. I speak from experience here. I have worked hours on talks I never gave, because at the last minute Dad said "Let's talk about something else." When I chose songs for a worship set, though, I prayed ahead of time about which ones to select. I rarely had to abandon them because for some odd reason they almost always fit beautifully with the rest of the service (though the preacher, service leader and I had not conferred beforehand). There are ways of being led by the Spirit that do not necessarily involve bedlam, and they are not necessarily bondage.
So, go ahead and wear your midriff-exposing T-shirt, or don't. Sing in tongues into the microphone, or don't. But don't call the one "freedom" or "liberating" and the other "uptight" or "bondage" without a little respect for where someone else may be coming from. And if your idea of freedom is to wave your flag in my face, dance upon my toes, or blow a shofar in my ear, remember:
It is to freedom that you have been called, my brothers. Only be careful that freedom does not become mere opportunity for your lower nature (including selfishness! my note). You should be free to serve each other in love. For after all, the whole Law toward others is summed up by this one command, ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself’.
Galatians 5:13-14, J.B. Phillips
I read this quote regarding body acceptance on Pinterest and it brought together a number of thoughts I have had in the past, which have surfaced again lately, about forms of worship. Yes, I know it sounds random; but that is how my mind works! Have patience and I hope you will eventually see how it fits together.
As background, I've been involved in some form or other of Christian musical worship (the whole span: from classic church choir to Christian traveling drama/music troupe, to pop-rock Christian singing group, to writing and arranging my own worship songs, to participating in, forming and leading contemporary worship bands, to training worship leaders) ever since I was about 12 years old. To me, in my culture and my generation, musical worship is an integral part of what it means for me to express my faith as a Christian.
I first entered a relationship with God in the Jesus People era, which was dominated by the beginnings of the CCM music scene, and through the years I've had many personal encounters with God through worship of varying sorts (music, drama, dance). I've participated in "worship services" of many Christian stripes, from Roman Catholic and High Anglican to closed Brethren and kinky Pentecostal. I've traveled to many different nations and cultures and experienced their forms of worship. In other words, as regards this subject, I've been around the block a few times.
Recently A finished a major module in his theological studies: worship. One of the books he had to read for it amused me by its title: "Worship By The Book". We discussed the various views on what constituted a "proper worship service" by writers from across the Evangelical perspective, some of which I found very insular, indeed. And it got us to re-examine our own cultural biases and our own current context.
We've both been involved in the musical worship sector of our local church for awhile now, and I am seeing some of the same scenarios playing out as I had done over and over in my years as a leader. I suppose these issues are universal. There are various worship agendas in operation depending on which leader has the floor. There are people with a good heart but little talent, or perhaps lacking in the ability to team-play, who are willing but not very able. There are doubtless some able but not willing, for various reasons. There are a few who are far more than able: genuinely talented artists who, however, need some heart alterations before one would feel safe inflicting them upon a congregation. And there are a lot of fairly competent people muddling along as best they can as volunteers with little time for rehearsal.
One of the fellows with whom I recently sang when he led congregational worship was really excited to be asked to lead again, since he "hadn't been allowed" (his words) for some time. When he went over the song list with us before the service, he said things like "We have to keep the religious people happy" and "This isn't where I want to go in worship, but it's an Easter song, so I suppose we'll have to sing it", et cetera. When I asked how much time we had been given, he looked rather bleakly at me and said "__ (the leader of the service) is just going to interrupt me."
All of these statements gave me pause. There may be very good reasons why he hadn't been asked, though he is easily the most accomplished musician among us. A "worship service" is made of of many elements, all of which are a form of corporate worship. It is not an interruption of worship for the service to stop the music stage and continue on to the next stage. Nor is it an imposition --indeed, in my mind it is a requirement of the job-- for me as a worship leader to deliberately defer to the needs of the congregation (for example, to have a song or two related to Easter on Easter Sunday) above my own (when, for example, I am personally much more comfortable with a free-flowing, unplanned, spontaneous, "Holy-Spirit-led" session).
And this leads on to the above-mentioned quote. Here is my re-casting of it:
"There is nothing inherently liberating in dancing before the Lord; there is nothing inherently restrictive in kneeling quietly in reverence; the liberation lies in the choice."
I have noticed that those who emphasize "freedom in worship" usually have a very clear idea in their minds what they mean by that. To them, "bondage" means bowing heads in quiet prayer, sitting quietly in a seat or pew and singing hymns. They seem to equate silence, contemplation, or older forms of Christian worship with "dead religion". To these folks, "freedom" can only mean dancing! shouting! upbeat songs! the waving of flags! the blowing of shofars! laughter! holy abandon! So when they get up before the congregation (or if they are leading worship) and say things like: "I proclaim freedom in this house! Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom!" they will usually follow it up with some instruction like "So let's all shout to God with a voice of triumph!" or "Dance with all your might before the Lord!"
Well, I'm sorry, but to me this is just as religious as telling us we may NOT do these things in church. It places those members who actually would prefer to sit and revere quietly, to kneel or to lie down as their form of abandoned worship, in an awkward position. They are being given a subcultural definition of "freedom" which disallows their actual freedom to worship God as their nature would genuinely incline them to do. If by proclaiming "freedom" I really subtly mean "you must now dance or be judged as un-free", I am actually restricting the very value I espouse: that people should be able to worship God freely.
For some, freedom will mean never having dared to get up and dance when they felt like it, and now being able to do so. But for some, it will mean having the freedom to resist a subcultural norm with which they are uncomfortable, and to feel free to not participate in the "required" manner. Ideally, a genuinely "free" worship service would have people responding individually to the presence of God in whatever way is genuine for them in that moment; but doing it together, and comfortable with each others' expressions. This might mean some kneeling, some lying down in worship, some dancing, some singing… And this very form would make many people, comfortable with more structure than that, highly uncomfortable, so it's certainly not for everybody.
But if we are to insist upon such a high level of freedom, let's cover all bases, not just our personal preferences.
That said, personally my own preference is to have a plan --which I am perfectly willing to jettison should God indicate he has something else on the agenda. I speak from experience here. I have worked hours on talks I never gave, because at the last minute Dad said "Let's talk about something else." When I chose songs for a worship set, though, I prayed ahead of time about which ones to select. I rarely had to abandon them because for some odd reason they almost always fit beautifully with the rest of the service (though the preacher, service leader and I had not conferred beforehand). There are ways of being led by the Spirit that do not necessarily involve bedlam, and they are not necessarily bondage.
So, go ahead and wear your midriff-exposing T-shirt, or don't. Sing in tongues into the microphone, or don't. But don't call the one "freedom" or "liberating" and the other "uptight" or "bondage" without a little respect for where someone else may be coming from. And if your idea of freedom is to wave your flag in my face, dance upon my toes, or blow a shofar in my ear, remember:
It is to freedom that you have been called, my brothers. Only be careful that freedom does not become mere opportunity for your lower nature (including selfishness! my note). You should be free to serve each other in love. For after all, the whole Law toward others is summed up by this one command, ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself’.
Galatians 5:13-14, J.B. Phillips
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)