Wrestling

Once again, I'm torn. I'm confused. I want answers!

Last month, the Administrative Council voted to start a 'contemporary' worship service on Saturday evenings. Being a fairly staunch traditionalist, I'm feeling quite a bit out of my league. So, as is my nature, I've started doing some research. I went to a psuedo-mega-church in the district on Saturday night to see how they do what they do. I've been speaking to other folks who have similar services to find out their approach to the service and the resources they use. I wish I could say it's helped. But not so much. On the surface, a 'contemporary' or 'current' service (and I really don't like those descriptors, but we use what we have) differs only in music style. But the more people I talk to, the less this seems to work.

This morning, I met with someone on the staff of the big church we went to Saturday night. After a fairly condescending lecture, we got to talking about their philosophy. He began by asking about the reactions we had to Saturday night's service (a group of us went to the church to find out more), which included liking the music, but the service feeling like a performance. He acknowledged the music comment, saying it's the most typical response. We didn't get back to the performance idea until later. He then admitted to me that performance was pretty much their goal. They are a seeker-oriented church, much in the style of Willow Creek. And their goal is to make the worship experience as a basic introduction to Church. Our discussions ranged further than just this topic, but on the whole, the conversation wasn't all that helpful. He didn't appear to have ever spent any time in a small church, which to be honest, limited what he could offer to me and my context. But I just can't get past the performance aspect.

There are many reasons why this is so. On theological levels, it limits the amount the congregation can participate in worship. When we went, aside from the two songs we sang at the beginning, we sat and watched for the rest of the service until it came time for Communion (which, to be fair, I was impressed that they actually did). The lights even dimmed when it came time for the sermon! Several of my seminary profs argued that we are formed as disciples in how we worship. If that's true, then the life of discipleship eminating from this kind of worship is one in which we sit on the sidelines and watch other folks do it for us.

On a practical level, where does all the hoopla end? If this style is what it takes to speak to this generation, then it severely limits who can participate, as far as churches go. We're starting this service and we don't have any live musicians. We can't afford the $5-$20 it takes to get the snazzy videos to show. When we get all the equipment necessary, which we already have some, what else will we have to get? My biggest question is, where, in all of the materialism and entertainment, is the Gospel?

But, on the opposite side of these and many other arguments I have, is the question of if not that, then what? The 'traditional' isn't working, either. Nearly 60-70% of my congregation is over the age of 70. The Bishop is all about adding professions of faith to the rolls and clergy are being watched to see how much we can 'produce' out of the declining and aging congregations we have. Who's right? The seminary profs who say that we're selling our soul or the performance-based churches who are filling their seats and bringing new people to Christ? Which is it? Is it an either-or question? Is there a middle ground? The guy I talked to today suggested not, or at least rebuffed my attempts to find it.

I'm really not sure how to go forward here or in which direction to lead the congregation.

Way Cool

Some of you will remember the homeless ministry I participated in while at Duke. It was a special and formative experience for me. Turns out, the ministry won an award in Durham this year. Even though I haven't been involved since I graduated, it's still an exciting thing. I know pride isn't necessarily a good thing...but I am quite proud of what our group started. You can read about it here.

Politics

Super Tuesday. Tomorrow. Most of you might be thinking, 'so what?' Some of you might think, 'Finally! Now we won't have to hear about it anymore!' For me, though, it's the climax of what's been a fairly exciting race thus far.

Most of you know I'm a political junkie, anyway, but I've really enjoyed watching this whole drama play out. Forget soap operas...this is exciting! (Yes, I'm a nerd. I'm aware and I don't' care.) What makes this even more exciting is that it actually matters. If folks don't think that how we vote matters, go ask the citizens of Iraq. For better or for worse, had we not elected or re-elected President Bush, their lives would be vastly different. And this year it matters a great deal.

There have been lots of positive signs emerge from this primary season...from the record turnouts at primaries and caucuses to the rise in interest from the 18-24 age group. The most exciting aspect for me has to be the great diversity in candidates (not necessarily in their views, though).

Last Thursday, I sat down to watch the CNN debate between Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama. There had been much buildup to the debate, especially after John Edwards dropped out of the race. And perhaps I was overcome by the hype from CNN, but I had chills when that debate began. When the two candidates walked out on stage, I (perhaps embarrassingly) teared up a bit. For my whole life, we've only really read and heard about history-changing events. Whether it be Martin Luther King, Jr. or the assassination of President Kennedy or the even earlier events of women getting the right to vote. It moved me to think that I was actually witnessing a historic event--of the two viable candidates campaigning for their party's nomination--neither one was a white man.

To be sure, I have nothing against white men. I actually like them. I'm related to a lot of them. There's nothing wrong with being a white man. But this is supposed to be a democracy. In a democracy, all people should be represented. And contrary to what some might wish for, this country has quite a diverse population. So why is it that our leadership for the entire history of the country have been significantly less diverse than the country they claim to represent?

When I watched the debate that night, I had high hopes for this country. Finally, we might begin live up to what we claim we stand for--that we're all created equal and that ALL citizens, no matter their gender or skin color. Clearly, we have a long way to go. In conversations with people of varying ages and political points of view, I hear that. Quite frankly, those conversations knocked the winds out of my sails for a while. But I can't quite lose this optimism, this excitement that's gripped me.

I don't know what the future holds. I'm still not even sure who I'm going to vote for tomorrow. But I'm still excited and I'm still hopeful, and with the viability of these two different candidates, I'm starting to like my country again.


PS Go Giants! Long live the 1972 Dolphins!!