I find most people don't actually read the Bible, and even those that do read a verse here, or a chapter there. Which is fine for individual application - it couldn't be bad to meditate on a verse about "giving thanks" or "loving people we don't like" - but such reading does not tell the whole story.
What about church? Surely we encounter theology in Church? Most church services today contain two major blocks of theology: the Music (most often mislabeled as worship), and the Message.
I know pastors who spend 30+ hours a week preparing a sermon, laboring over every detail of their message. Then they present those ideas, some in incredibly dynamic ways, but none-the-less to a passive audience.
What is the effect of such a presentation? The latest studies in how we learn best suggest we are active learners - we need to participate to really "get it".
Where we do participate is during the music. It's rarely the sermon points that get stuck in my head a week later, but the music does. Why is that? For one reason, it's the 7/11 model - same 7 words repeated 11x.
This may annoy some church-goers, but if the idea is communicating words about God and wanting those words to stay with people, this model works: we participate, we are physically active, not passive, we repeat (sometimes ad nauseum), and weeks after the ideas communicated in the songs stay with us.
Two questions then. One, if the goal of a sermon is getting people to retain theology, should we adopt a more participatory model of communication?
Two questions then. One, if the goal of a sermon is getting people to retain theology, should we adopt a more participatory model of communication?
Two, if the majority of effective theology is being presented through music, are we spending enough time making sure the theology we communicate is what we endorse?
7 comments:
Good questions Brandon. I think liturgy achieves both repetition and participation, and brings a visual element that is instructive, as well. As for music and theology, it has always saddened me that so often the people trained to lead music are not trained theologically to discern what the song is teaching. I greatly respect "worship leaders" but I suspect the pressure to sing popular songs often overrides the soundness of the song itself.
Adam Groza
This is always difficult as a worship leader. I like the call and response rhythm of liturgy but in practice it doesn't seem like it "causes" more intimacy with God or more devotion from the participants than a sermon-centered service. At the end of the day it has to be the individual worshiper who is the "active" one. No matter what style of service is offered it seems that there are those who will engage and be an active participant (applying truth to there lives, studying at home, etc.) and those who will be passive about their own learning and growing.
Grant
Another thought about the quality of theology in the music we choose...Here's what I battle. Lyrics are poetry (most of the time). And poetry expresses something that a doctrinal statement can't. It involves heart and connects in an emotional way where a truth statement alone tends to connect primarily in a rational way. So when we sing I certainly don't want to sing heresy (and we have definitely weeded out songs over the years because the taught wrong things) I do want to allow for poetic language that might not fully express a theological point but that does connect the singer to God in a relational way. Like I say I struggle to make good decisions as we try to provide opportunity for minds and hearts to be built up and encouraged.
- Grant
Great post Brandon! I am stunned that these days we consider "church" to be a service where we hear a message. What a terrible excuse for church - especially as many move toward the mega-church model which means even less fellowship and even more production values.
You also raise a great point about the music is what stays with people - I never considered it was repetition. And don't even get me started on the poor quality of lyrics in worship music (let alone what they're communicating and maybe even implicitly saying!)
Adam: love the participation in liturgy but do find it difficult to incorporate new people into. Plus it is quite cerebral for me and sometimes I enjoy a more emotive experience.
Grant: totally dig what you are saying about the decision we make to be active or passive. Also the poetic license is something to be aware of for sure. Some songs make me cringe but maybe that is bc I am thinking of them as doctrinal postulation and not as poetry.
Charlie: the mega-church model has helped a lot of people and MCs do a tremendous amount of good in the world. With that said people need community and it is so easy at large churches to be anonymous. Yeah, I used to think the repetition in modern worship was just to annoy me :)
just so you know, I only write 8-12 minute sermons, clearly stating a key point or two that literally sum up everything I'm talking about.
I've had students a year after I've given that sermon comment on the key point. These 50 minute sermons needs end... they're unbearable to me.
also, this is why religious rituals are helpful. Liturgy works really well... it's usually just poorly explained and doesn't get around at doing what it's meant to do.
Post a Comment