So an article of mine was published and this really nice guy has been sending me the longest emails in the world. i responded to one of them and felt that I did so much work that I should publish it here so that you can read it too and see how much I wrote.
But first, check out how much my buddy (I'll shorten his name to J.) wrote and the hard work he did in his criticism of my article.
Hi J.
thanks for the "note" - I think it is much larger than the actual article of mine you are responding to :-) at http://www.worshipleader.com
Thanks for the time you invested in it. I will give my comments and answers at the end of your letter.
Also, I may redeem and preserve your thoughtful arguments for the benefit of others who may be asking the same questions - if I do, I will change your name to protect your privacy.
on 9/27/01 6:13 PM, you wrote:
> A friend of mine brought to my attention your article on postmodern
> worship in the magazine _Worship Leader_. I eagerly jumped in to see what
> new thought and ideas were represented. After reading it I found myself
> reacting, but unsure as to what. After giving it some thought I believe I
> am reacting to two things. One is the lack of presentation on the more
> technical matters of what post modern worship entails, the nuts and bolts
> of it. Your article went to great depth about the aesthetics and
> philosophy behind the "new" form of worship, but did little to give me a
> clearer glimpse of what that form functionally is or a path to get there.
>
> Luckily you did mention Eno and I am somewhat familiar with his work, so
> that helps to some degree but I am still unsure how his music or style
> relates to worship. Any art form requires technique, even if the
> technique entails ambiguousness or the lack of formal technique. So your
> article did little to help me persue this "new" form for myself. It
> brought something to my attention, but doesn't really let me know exactly
> what was brought to my attention, except philosophically
>
> Which leads me to my second reaction. I don't think I am reacting to this
> new form or what drives it as much as I am reacting to your presentation
> of the philosophy behind it. What you described seems like something I
> would enjoy, especially from an artist's perspective. However, you speak
> of things that really send up red flags to me. I don't know if you mean
> what you say or mean what I _think_ you say, but then again that is the
> crux problem.
>
> Let _me_ try to explain. As Ecclesiastes so wisely and truthfully states,
> there is nothing new under the sun. Post-modern thought is not all _that_
> recent. Francis Schaeffer addressed it in its popularity infancy. With
> music there was Ornette Coleman and the phenomenon known as Free Jazz. So
> when you say "Our parents were taught that time is absolute and that
> space is closed and stable" you are either showing your age (somewhere in
> the 80's plus) or you are speaking far more ancestrally than I realize.
> String theory has been around for awhile. And quite frankly, all this
> science is still exactly that, theoretical. Maybe you could explain your
> comment a bit more thoroughly.
>
> We also have to examine where this theory finds its roots. The current
> examination of time stems from the idea that space as we know it (from an
> anti-religious point of view) either always existed or the energy that
> created it always existed. As the New York Times once queried "What
> existed before the big bang?" Popular science and modern philosophy is
> trying to explain our existance outside of God. Therefore, all things are
> relative since we define our own existance. So in light of this I would
> like to see how you explain this "new" form of worship in terms of modern
> moral relativism. How does this "post-modern" worship confront the
> post-modern philosophy that seeks to deny God?
>
> A few other things you said also urge me to question the philosphy that
> drives this form of worship, or at least what you presented. While this
> whole idea of non-linearity that results from the idea of non-linear time
> sounds all warm and fuzzy, especially with words thrown in like
> "holistic" it seems to ignore that regardless of what "time" really may
> or may not be, we exist smack dab, dead-on in linearity. God may not
> exist in a linear dimension (read Jeremiah; also the theology of God
> existing in the "eternal Now" has been around--poetically-- a long time,
> so in that regard science is catching up to God.) We have no frame of
> reference for non-linear existance beyond theory. And even that will
> always be tinted with our limited existance. So where is the honesty of
> this non-linear worship that you present?
>
> I'm not trying to dis non-linear music (which ironically always has a
> beginning and an ending or a start and a finish.) I have found it very
> intriguing, but as a form of communication it leaves many people out of
> understanding. And thus as a part of worship it will leave _too_ many
> people out of what God may have. Everything that you perceive
> "post-modern" worship as achieving is something that has always been
> achieved by proper worship, i.e. worship that reverences God, worship in
> spirit and in turth. But when you also say that people need the
> opportunity to express themselves outside of this post-modern form you
> imply two things--that this form of worship does not accomplish this and
> that worship is not an expression. But what is worship if not an
> expression? And if "post-modern" worship is not an expression, can it be
> true worship?
>
> In order for such a medium to be cross generational, as you quote it
> needs to be, then this, as best as I can understand from what you
> describe, fails miserably. It forces an ambiguous language that has no
> foundation by definition. This form actually forces the seperation and
> segmentation that you say it speaks against, especially between
> generations and most prominantly between cultures. By its nature it
> creates what it sets out to eliminate. (The quote "Don't give me that old
> time religion..." certainly falls within that result.)
>
> As for space, you again work from a presupposition that just doesn't hold
> up. When did we believe that the world and space is fixed and static? And
> on what basis do you draw such a conclusion? Another presupposition
> presented without foundation.
>
> Leading worship should already and has always been about allowing God to
> take control (or more properly, acknowledging that God is already in
> control) and focusing on listening to Him. Properly "lead" worship should
> already be out of the hands of the worship leader. The shifts of popular
> perceptions of time and space should have no bearing on these issues. It
> has already been the subject of much debate between worship leaders
> without the dominance of this "shift." This is the constant discussion of
> worship throughout scripture. If worship is changing it is only changing
> to what it should already be, not because of a shift in world thinking.
>
> The quote from Amy McDonald has always been and will always be the point
> (reconciliation). If this is a new revelation for her, I guess all I can
> say is "Welcome to Christianity!" because that is what the gospel has
> always been about. Paul said it in Romans, we are all called to a
> ministry of reconciliation. Now, if worship as it exists and as it has
> existed does not bring this to mind for her but this new form does, then
> more power to it and her, but don't repesent this new form as doing
> something new or something that other forms of worship don't do or
> haven't done or haven't sought to do. It simply is not true.
>
> And I don't know how you can say that other forms of worship are
> "disjointed" and I do not agree that segmentation is necessarily wrong or
> counter-productive. Maybe you could explain what you mean by this.
>
> This is not a differenet "kind" of worship. There is only worship or not
> worship. Now, what form that worship takes may differ (and if we are each
> as unique as God has created, it will) but there is only one "kind" of
> worship. So maybe, again, a clearer explanation of what you mean would be
> of benefit. Or maybe just use a different word.
>
> I have never thought of worship, modern or otherwise, as a "big man with
> a big voice on a big stage singing a big song to a big crowd." I was
> never a part of this kind of church. So to represent this as "the style
> of worship preferred in modern times" you need some more precise
> qualifying statements. I know people who think like you did, but that
> doesn't represent worship in modern times, it represents the
> misunderstanding of individuals. (Which to me should also be addressed,
> but that is a different matter.)
>
> Worship should already be "connected to the community that creates it."
> Otherwise it lacks, not only relevance but sincerity. This philosophy is
> not "fresh" but this style of worship may make it fresh to you. I guess
> what I am trying to say is the foundation of worship is unchanging.
> Worship is not relative. Worship is always in spirit and truth. If it is
> anything else it is not true worship of God. The form that worship takes
> (regardless of what our staunch reform bretheren may think, i.e. those
> who believe worship should not even involve instruments) may change, but
> the way we worship, according to Jesus, should _always_ be in spirit and
> in truth.
>
> But the last sentance in the first paragraph under "The Shift" is where I
> think things come into focus. When you said "the value system in our
> world has shifted profoundly" you are absolutely correct. But this is
> nothing new. The value system in the world has been in constant shift
> since the fall of man. It is the consequence of a fallen world. And as
> you present "post-modern worship" I think you present it as something
> that embraces this shifting (which I do not believe you mean.)
> Christianity and the gospel should be (and I believe _is_) about
> confronting this shifting. God, in His revealed existance, confronts
> this. He presents Himself as unchanging--stable . He presents Himself as
> the beginning and the end, not some ambiguous or uncertain quantum or
> chronotonic existance. The world constantly tries to define itself and
> toady the way it has chosen is by relativistic measure. God does not
> define us relativistically. He defines us in relation to Him. He created
> us in _His_ image.
>
> Now, having said all that. Let me reiterate that this is a reaction to
> _how_ you presented this new form of worship. I do not believe _what_ you
> tried to describe is correctly presented in that "how." God does exist
> outside of our limited, finite existance. To say He exists non-linearly
> is probably still insufficient. I believe scripture finally states
> somewhere that God is beyond our understanding. But even though _we_
> exist linearly (regardless of what other dimensions may be out there) I
> do think it is proper to explore worship as I think you were trying to
> describe. In this way we may have the opportunity to understand God more
> fully. It might even help reconcile our Calvin and Arminian bretheren!
>
> I highly suggest some deep reading with Francis Schaeffer. Any of his
> three foundational trilogy books (_The God who is there_, _Escape from
> reason_ and _He is there and he is not silent_) will serve you well in
> understanding this postmodern thought that you seem to want to embrace
> and what a more appropriate perspective on it would be. _Cornerstone_
> magazine, published by Jesus People, USA, in Chicago, IL, often has
> relavant articles to modern and post-modern thought. Also some articles
> by Glenn Kaiser at www.glennkasier.com, address worship in ways that you
> seem to think are only addressed by this postmodern worship. I don't
> think all of post-modern thought is wrong, but I think we need to be
> preceptive and critical when we start embracing such philosophies,
> especially when its "worldly" purpose is to seperate us from God and from
> the need for God.
>
> J.
ME 04038
>
>>> My email handled by Claris eMailer!
Hi Joe,
I have just got back from England where the labyrinth creators have created a Flash version of their worship experience for the internet - it will appear shortly at http://www.labyrinth.co.uk The London YFC director created the soundtrack for it - that he calls "Ambient" in its non-linear nature - which takes us back for a moment to Eno - and I am glad to find people in the Kingdom, like yourself, who dont need explanation about "vertical" soundscapes.
However, many church folk are not familiar with such terminology that people like Youth For Christ in London (for example) are using - hence my attempts to reconcile a term thrown around loosely to some of the thinking behind it - not that we all need to know the history of the words - but for some of us who read non-linear fiction (like Philip Roths "The Human Stain") or listen to Moby's or Bjork's non linear music, or watch non-linear video loops on MTV or in fact, have worship experiences that are non-sequential/non-progressive/non-linear - well - hey - sometimes it helps to know the source of the words so that we can situate the meaning. If my explanation is inadequate then I apologize.
As for your good suggestions - I have already done much of this in recent years:
Schaeffer - I have enjoyed his books - "He is there [metaphysics] and He is not silent [epistemology] - what great titles. Have you read "The Great Evangelical Disaster" (Schaeffer, 1984)?
I have also enjoyed time at L'Abri in Boston and Switzerland. I like Schaeffers way of thinking although I have to admit - I am more intrigued by apologists who are defending and expressing the good news for postmodern man without recourse to metaphysics (Jean-Luc Marion comes to mind)
Glenn Kaiser - I met him at Cornerstone '99. Delightful and generous man. I will be on the lookout for anything he wrote - although I know his background is rock rather than rave and he may not yet have grappled with the distinct elements of rave culture.
Which reminds me - at Cornerstone, most of the DJ's who were performing were camped out at our motor home/tent village - they loved being there at Cornerstone but they did complain about being given a stage to perform on rather than an environment more appropriate to the interactive, decentralised dynamics of an electronic worship experience. Many of them threw underground parties each night since there was no place for them at the festival -perhaps a sign of the church in general. I heard that this years festival was more intergrated than previous years. Thank you Cornerstone!
Also, let me congratulate you on your thinking in regards to time and space. Yes, God exists in the eternal NOW - as my theology professor Dr. David Needham explained back in the 80's at Multnomah School of the Bible - ooops - my evangelical roots are showing!
You are also correct in saying that philosphers are catching up to Christian theologians. In "The End Of Time" (a new book on timelessness which I bought a few weeks ago - may not be out in USA yet), Julian Barbour states "this way of thinking has been commonplace among Christian theologians and some philosophers, and has prompted them to claim that time does not exist but that its instants all exist together and at once in eternity." This author leans towards pantheism rather than monotheism but I am glad he is giving credit to our thinkers.
So, YOu asked for clarity on time and space issues. I am still in my 30's but the education i received at school was based on the immutable physical laws that stem from the belief that time, space and motion are absolute. New math and new physics are indeed mentioned at school but integrating that knowledge into real life is clumsy - my kids are young still learn under the "old" system, or at best, a binary system of both understandings with emphasis given to old-school). Chaos math, quantum physics, quantum mechanics, string theory (around for some time - yes) - all are attempts to explain the experience of a time that is relative and space that is changing and motion that is not constant. (I did not hear that the speed of light was probably not constant until I got to Bible College)
Now if you want me to solve the "crisis of time" and use the Wheeler-DeWitt equation to solve the dilemma of the integration of quantum mechanics and general relativity, then I say, why not leave that up to Stephen Hawking (A Brief History of Time) to figure out while you and I ask the pertinent question "Why are young people and creative people worshipping in ways that look vastly different from the ways of worship as they existed 10 years ago? 5 years ago? 1 year ago?
If science can help us, great. If not, lets ditch it and find a better explanation.
I would waste my time and yours by expounding on science and physics - and of course the readers of WL if I had chosen to dive into the sciences to that extent - which I am glad I didnt because it is a worship magazine (not a new-physics journal) and their concern, I guess, is to recognise worship in spirit and truth, interpret it, explain it and resource it.
I am glad they took the bold risk to take a look at the new worship that is rising up in postmodern areas of the world by Christians who are expressing new life in Christ in their heart language and in the art forms of their culture. Alternative worship (UK, NZ, Australia) and postmodern worship (USA/Canada) are a part of the new landscape and will be as long as believers contextualize the living gospel into their worlds and respond to God in their language. To neglect this growing "way" of worshipping, even if it is nothing new under the sun, would have been an oversight on the part of the WL magazine. I also respect the fact that they gave me enough time to consult leaders of the movement in many countries so that I could fairly represent the global spectrum of this worship.
Leadership Journal recently published an article on postmodern worship in which the contributors stated that postmodern worship is multi-sensory and "non-linear". (If you have a problem with that term then maybe you should write to Leadership Journal also) They didnt expand on the non-linear part - I guess I was filling in a little background for the sake of WL readers who may have heard the phrase thrown around and not known what it meant. - Sorry to bore you with old terminology but there are many churches that struggle to get a handle on these concepts that are new for them and very confusing to the modern way of thought and practise.
Is Sally Morgenthaller creating divisions in the Body of Christ with her reference to "Old-time religion"? I think not - her heart is to interpret and reconcile the new with the old - all the while acknowledging that there is an "old" and respecting it. You can see her great heart at her new website www.sacramentis.com
So, how to explain this worship - nothing new under the sun? you are probably correct - but then why is it so hard to expain and why so much misunderstanding.
I have taken a shot at interpreting what I see in the worship that is arising around the world. If my interpretation is incomplete and confusing, then, PLEASE, send me some of your thoughts and any useful metaphors, images, that will help me and others in finding a new vocabulary to express the wonderful freedom that God is giving us in worship.
You have a sharp mind. Could we see it harnessed in creating understanding for what God is doing around the world?
As for "nuts and bolts" on how to do alternative worship,
here are 2 web sites that may help
http://www.prodigal-project.com
http://www.smallfire.org
and of course, http://www.worshipleader.com
Lastly, your question - " How does this "post-modern" worship confront the
post-modern philosophy that seeks to deny God?
Without jumping on your generaliztion/reduction concerning post-modern philosophy - and resisting the temptation to defend pomo philosophy(s) - let me give my postmodern stance in regard to worship.
"My hope [acknowledging mystery/rejecting secular rationalism]
is built on nothing less
than Jesus' blood and righteousness. . .
I dare not trust [suspicion of text]
the sweetest frame [construct/sermon/theology/narrative]
but wholly [holistic/interconnected/(w)holy/whole self]
lean [faith]
on Jesus name.
On Christ the solid rock I stand. [post-foundationalist]
All other ground is sinking sand [deconstructionalist].
All other ground is sinking sand."
Sincerely,
Andrew Jones
