Monday, May 28, 2007

WORSHIP, TECHNOLOGY AND JESUS’ DNA

For the context of the discussion, go to

Covenant Thinklings: The Heart of Worship

William, I liked how you expressed the modern church building mindset in a way that does not cast it as traditional. As Robert has often and correctly pointed out, we don’t want lose our appreciation for ‘tradition’ as in historic heritage…but some ‘modern’ mentalities may need to be altered in order to reach postmoderns. I like the way you describe that as relational communities. That is actually where our movement started out. When I first heard about the shepherding ‘community’ in Lancaster (where Dennis Coll currently serves), it was called Hope Community. As a hippie who had just planted several communes in New England, it lit the fires of my imagination…I remember telling John M. “I didn’t know Christians could do that!”

On the importance of corporate worship. I believe it was Émile Durkheim (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Émile_Durkheim), who in his study of cultures came to the conclusion that every community, human collectivity or tribal group has some form of worship. Even though he was not a believer himself, he believed that it was an essential part of developing a cultural or tribal collective identity (Robert: I love the quote by Peterson of Keillor—Brian got me reading the book).

Robert: on your question about the influence of electronics and other aspects of modern technology on worship. Excellent question! I remember being in a little Mayan Indian church in Guatemala once, with about 12 to 15 people attending. The amplifiers were each bigger than me…when they cranked up the “worship” I could actually feel my internal organs vibrating! That’s when I started rethinking some things.

George Patterson, a Baptist church planter in Central America tells a story that has some application. He found a jungle village of indigenous Hispanics who did not have a church, priest or the scriptures. He arrived in his Jeep with a overhead projector and showed them the “Jesus Film” and led the village elders to Christ. He then taught them that they need to begin to reach the outlying families around the village. When he returned several months (or maybe weeks) later, they had done nothing. When he asked them why, they told him that they could not evangelize because they did not have a jeep or an overhead projector. The next time he visited them, he was riding a mule with a bag of Bibles in Spanish (even the Bibles can be problamatic in such a context when people are often illiterate).

In Mexico, we once visited a little church associated with Sebastian Vazquez that could only be reached by foot, or by horseback. A three hour hike up the mountain. The Pastor’s house was falling down. When we asked how we could pray for them, they gave us a “shopping” list, they need a electronic keyboard, sounds system and an electric guitar. The old acoustic guitar they had was not adequate to bring them into God’s presence. They were not a “real” church without electronics. Don’t laugh….how many us feel we are not a real church without a powerpoint projection system!

This is why I started on a process of ‘descontructing’ the church (not our historic traditions – just some of the 20th century accretions). I posted something in this process on my blog: http://c-far.blogspot.com/2007_05_01_archive.html on May 6th called DECONSTRUCTING THE CHURCH. At some point along the way, I realized that I could not keep up with the pace of electronic technology and seeker oriented strategies for growing a church so I just completely opted out....got rid of most of the technology and went back to 'simple' (2 or 3). I have heard Charles talk about the need to ‘digitize’ the church and to find out what the basic ‘byte’ of church life is (hint: I think he thinks it is the cell – where two or three are gathered).

Some people prefer the term “liquid modernity” over postmodernity. One of the reasons we need to allow new churches to be organic “bytes” (without losing our connection to historic tradition) is to be able reconfigure and flow as needed in this liquid modernity. The church needs to be able “be the church” with an acoustic guitar (or no guitar) on the top of a Mexican mountain, or to use powerpoint and multimedia with 20,000 people in Chicago or LA without one or the other being more correct or more 'church'. The church also needs to show up, and be visibly present in the midst of darkness among the tribal vampire people at Stick & Stein’s in Homestead when my daughter is bar-tending. That is why I try to always take “one or two” with me.

I think that the DNA of the church (don’t get nervous Brian!) and the kingdom and for worship is uber-flexible. Jesus’ corporate DNA can go anywhere, and adapt to and infect any people group, culture, socio-economic lifestyle, technology (or lack thereof) or world view, and like a out-of-control virus begin to transform and uplift them into his eternal kingdom--as long we don’t try to box it up.

6 comments:

  1. Joseph - I agree with what you're saying!

    I like the term "liquid modernity" because we are definitely swiming in modernity. But modernity is moving, shifting and beginning to flow. In fact there is an "emerging" website called "the ooze".

    It's a bit ironic that modernity and post-modernity have a symbiotic relationship. The post-modern mind thrives on digital technology, yet the digital technology is a product of modernism.

    We would all be "lost" if someone suddenly pulled the plug on the power grid and we were permanently without the internet, this blog, TV, electronic music, air conditioning...

    And yet, the church thrived without any of this in the 1st century, and continues to thrive without it in the 21st century in some remote areas.

    I'm scaring myself here. But speaking of the impact of culture on the church, everyone who is functioning in the environment in which we are now communicating would have traumatic withdrawl if we were deprived of our technology. But we have just been saying that the church should be able to exist, healthy and viable without it.

    So, I'm not advocating that we abandon the ocean we're swimming in, but it is important to assess how dependent we have become on technology. It is a wonderful tool and we should use it for God's glory, but it is only a means, not the end.

    I'm reminded of the bumper sticker, "Think Globally, Act Locally". If all our technology was taken away, we would be forced to act locally.

    That should motivate us to seriously engage the goal that some simple church leaders have adopted; to have a community of believers within walking distance of every human being on earth. Only a digitized church that is stripped down to "byte-sized" units can accomplish that, and truely be non-dependent on technology. Btw, that type of church would also be persecution proof (or at least persecution resistant), and would be immune from dependence on and idolization of charismatic one-person leadership.

    I think, some place along the line I stepped up onto my soap box before I realized it. I'm getting down now.

    ReplyDelete
  2. hey John, did you get my email? Whenever you have time, I have some more 'stuff' for you.

    You said a church within walking distance... my guess is that even then, a lot of people would not be reached because they don't relate to the people who live around them. I have at least 3 churches within a long walk and I don't know anyone in any of them.

    There will be also a need for "communities of faith" that connect through common interests (artists fly to New York from all around the world every Feb. to gather around Christ) and people who will only connect digitally as we are doing here. If we could only 'walk' to fellowship, that would elminate my fellowship with you!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Joseph and John, I agree with your thoughts. I get concerned that technology and all of the other complexities to church life have replaced our need for and dependancy on the Holy Spirit to be an intiator and activator in the life of the church and our meetings.

    Recently I was sitting with some friends (Joseph you remember Joseph Kazmarek) and we were discussing what church life was like in the 1st century and the importance of the leadership of the HS in the life of the church. When Jesus told his disciples that he was sending another Helper, the HS, I believe they say the HS like they saw Jesus. Someone who would be with them and guide them after he left. They didn't think of speaking in tongues, or the gifts of the spirit (charasmatic empahsis) but as an active person from the Godhead sent to earth to work with them in the work that Jesus had call them to do.

    Every where you turn in Acts it was the HS leading and guiding the church during critical and important decisions. Peter with Cornelius, the first church council, Philip with the Ethiopian, Paul and Barnaba set apart for the first mission trip..... all of this was done without visual aids!!

    I remember listening to Ern Baxter say that the Kingdom of God is in the HS. He paraphrased Romans 14:17. Wherever the HS was active the kingdom was present.

    Sometimes I don't think it would hurt the church to lose some of the technologies it uses to control the mood and atmosphere of church gatherings.
    Maybe we would find out what is hay, wood, or straw, and what is gold, silver, and precious stones.

    ReplyDelete
  4. yes, good comments Michael. I strongly agree. I like Baxter's emphasis on the connection between the Spirit and the kingdom.

    Another facet of this is the difficulty we have of getting Christians to take the kingdom (i.e., follow the Spirit) with them into the various secular spheres Monday through Saturday.

    Because we set up a 'church sphere' or a sacred space and develop rituals and technology around it, people don't know how to experience the kingdom in the work place.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I agree. That is why I believe we see the HS moving the church beyond its four walls. As I am sure you would agree, she has become to insular. I believe that the models we should be looking at are in the OT. In particular Daniel and Joseph. Both were men with high integrity that not only survived but thrived in a pagan environment. For Daniel he weathered several administrations, not easy to do in a cultures, where a dismissal was permament.

    ReplyDelete
  6. yes, I agree. Charles did a series on this back around 1989 and he used the "Daniel in Babylon" model.

    I have thought about writing a book called "the Emerging Kingdom" as sort of a contrast with the Emerging Church -- showing that the real action is mostly going on outside the organized church: the political sphere in Europe, academia, the arts, the business world.

    "Christ Plays in Ten Thousand Places" and 9,999 are outside the church!

    ReplyDelete