The Holy Church of Self-Expression

A thought struck me today, which seemed like a decent topic to write about.  I listened at work to this outstanding discussion about modern praise music for the 2nd time, and was discussing some of the premises with my wife after dinner, when this topic came up.

To keep it short, here's a brief synopsis of the podcast from Issues ETC.:

• Modern praise music often suffers from several issues
• Mysticism
• Vague or absent doctrine/theology wrapped in poeticism
• Trends toward a Theology of Glory

In the discussion, 3 popular songs were analyzed for their content, and, generally speaking, found lacking.  Of course, it wouldn't have been a terribly interesting conversation if the songs delivered a faithful, confessional view of Law and Gospel.

But while talking with my wife, it struck me how difficult it was to get the concept across.  I don't totally grasp (or agree with) every point they were making about the songs, but my general understanding of their purpose was something like this:

Church worship should, as the rest of the service, be purposed to direct the congregation to the pouring out of God's grace.  And since we cannot receive such grace except through the Mediatorship of Christ, by the power of the Holy Spirit, because of His life, death, and resurrection, our worship should make this clear.  We need Law and Gospel to understand who we are and what God has done, and this should be present in the liturgy which includes the sermon, confession, absolution, and singing of songs.

This is, of course, my summation, which is likely a poor one :)

Anyway, back to my discussion.  When talking with my wife, it hit me how hands-off worship tends to be.  Even in my own mind, I find arguments like these cropping up:

• Worship is the expression of worth and value on our behalf to God -- why should we box it in?
• Isn't it legalistic to require whole sentences in a song?
• Aren't you suppressing individuals when you try to force a particular brand of worship?
• Sure the songs aren't entirely clear (or accurate), but we know what the author is trying to say.  Isn't that enough?

Simply by posting these questions, my responses to them should be obvious.  But it leads me to a whole other question: why is worship considered to be a hands-off part of the service??

In many churches I've attended, the sermon was typically held to a high standard.  If the pastor deviated from sound exegetical teaching, he would be accountable.  Most of the church conformed to this pattern: teachers were accountable for what/how they taught; deacons were accountable with how they administrated various ministries; the elders were accountable with how they oversaw the church as a whole.

Nowhere do I remember a clear and strong accountability for the words of songs which were sung on a Sunday morning.  It seemed that, once you became involved in the Sunday morning music, you're forbidden from even calling into question a song's veracity or clarity.  It's music!  Why would you call into question someone else's self-expression??

Which leads me to the title of this blog post.  My sense is, more and more, that we've created a new Means of Grace, which goes beyond the worship time itself (which I don't believe is a Biblically-defined MoG, by the way): self-expression.

Of course, all evidence for this will be anecdotal, so take this with a grain of salt :)

I remember attending a service in a town about 40 miles away.  The church is HUGE (considering my current church has fewer than 100 regular people in it) and is pretty typical of modern, evangelical churches.  They had the standard features you would expect from an independent church: a jammin' praise band; a young, dynamic teaching pastor; verses on several screens in case you didn't bring your Bible; stadium-seating; message-based teaching, centering Scripture around a theme; etc.

At one point during the extended time of singing, the music ended and the congregation sat down.  We were then treated to a very interesting (and well-done) performance by a few people: it was a combination of rock, spoken poetry, and rap.  I don't recall the underlying message, but I remember how it was presented to the congregation: the words were written by the main performer (the rapper, I guess) at a time when he had been struggling and having a difficult time.  He wanted to share it with the church, and so they hoped it would equally bless us all.

And of course, the assumption was that it would.  By listening and soaking in this individual's experience (via his own words), God would speak to my heart and I could experience Him in a fresh way.  Here was a new Means of Grace!  I could experience God in a whole new, intimate way, simply by observing a few select individuals dancing around and expressing words which had nothing to do with my life, my experiences, or Law and Gospel!

Of course, being rap, the moment was pretty lost on me.

Over the past 20 years of my life, I've observed similar trends in non-denominational churches:

• Dance routines (often by the Pastor's daughter, who happens to be a skilled ballerina)
• Rap or poetry sessions
• Drama teams
• Non-Scriptural Book Readings
• Stand-up and give us a word from God if you're so inspired" moments
• Sign-language (in churches where it's clear no deaf people are in attendance)

I'm not criticizing these things in general, but I'm certainly intrigued by the fact that they are becoming so common in the church service.  Not only are we deluged by distractions and silliness (see my Easter post if you want to observe abject absurdity), but we're also told to sit and observe people engaging in their own form of personal expression.  And in doing so, hopefully we will be blessed, will encounter/understand/relate/whatever God in a whole new way.

Self-expression is, I fear, steadily becoming an epicenter around which to focus the church service around.  No longer are we gathering together as Christ's Body; no longer are we communing as the saints; no longer are we functioning for the greater good.  Instead, we are fed a steady diet of what's best for you?? and how do YOU worship God??

In a way, we've created an interesting situation: in this environment, we cannot easily argue against doctrinal or theological issues when dealing with personal expression.  After all, doesn't the Holy Spirit lead and speak differently to each person?  Everything I understand and express is a product of my experiences and personal situation, and no one can argue about my internal state, which they've not seen!

Of course, I call BS, but no one is asking :)

Remember Willow Creek's solution to the disillusionment of their congregation?  Rather than pull back and understand why people felt like they were spiritually stunted, they decided people need to be "self feeders."  Regardless of their intent, notice the focus: self feeders.  Yes, we need to be able to read God's Word on our own; yes, we need to be in daily prayer and confession; yes, we who are saved are each God's children and thus can approach Him as "Abba, Father!"  I'm not denying the need for personal action in the life of a Christian.

But is this what we need from the church as a primary purpose?  When did the Church's responsibility trend away from Word and Sacrament, and instead directing people to both feed themselves and force their personal expression upon the entirety of the Body?

When we turn the self into the primary recipient of a Sunday morning service, it's easy to see where the slip occurs.  Rather than looking upon the congregation as the Body of Christ, we see it as a disparate collection of Body parts.  No longer unified, and thus needing consistent nourishment (*ahem!* Law and Gospel), we are instead tailoring our services to allow any given organ equal opportunity to spout off on what it's like to be them in their particular position.  Moreover, since we're not allowed to argue with an individual's experience, we really should allow them to express themselves however they see fit.

Personally, I'll take objective Word and Sacrament any day.