This is a follow-up post to my rant last Friday. Chris left some good remarks and questions to stir the pot [note: Chris is my long time producer/mix master and guitarist in Call Down Fire, but I assume that many may have similar questions, so I thought I’d leave a reply rather than just call him].

First off, I knew my post would ruffle some feathers and I deliberately did not tie all the logical pieces of the puzzle together because it would’ve made for a very long write-up. So here it goes and sorry about the length:

1. In my post, I purposefully focused on the comparison of philosophies of marketing between fast-food restaurants and the church. My mention of “worship styles” was only peripheral to my argument as it is only one component of a broader problem, which is catering to market trends by creating a food court approach to the way the church attempts to appeal to its congregants; in other words, “you should come to our church because we have canvassed the neighborhood and the polls show that our target demographic between the ages of 25-35 like a, b, and c. We now have implemented a, b, and c, so you’ll like it here.”

Chris asks: Does this “marketing” translate to drawing mostly established families and the elderly in the case of my local parish, which is a conservative Lutheran church and worships using a fairly traditional high liturgy? The answer, surprisingly, is no; at least not in the past year as we have grown 60% with the better part of that 60% being under the age of 45 with about half of this number being single. As I’ve got to know my fellow parishioners (many who are brand new converts, by the way) I’ve found them to be a diverse group of people with many different reasons for ending up at our church. There is a small pocket of recent Russian immigrants that grew up in the Russian Orthodox church, but have come to a protestant understanding of the gospel (they appreciate the familiarity with the liturgy). We have many ex-Catholics that have reformed. Because of our location being in the heart of Hillcrest, which is 85% homosexual, we have a growing group of young homosexuals that have become believers and are still struggling with the ramifications [note: this is a very specialized ministry opportunity God has given us that we are still trying to figure out in order to neither come off as fundamentalist or liberal, but rather, truthful and loving. Pray for us about this.]

Additionally, we do not impose a liturgy or musical style that is 100s of years old. Yes, it is a liturgy that is steeped in tradition, but the Lutheran Service Book we use was published in 2006. Yesterday I led a song that I wrote 4 months ago which was based upon a Psalm that is at least 2000 years old as well as chanted a prayer that was written 900 years ago. That my friends is true diversity and manifests the kind of blending that Dr. Robert Webber championed in his book Ancient/Future Faith. Highly recommend this book as a side note. 

2. Chris asks if it is so important to stay with one given style, where is this concept found in Scripture? Quick answer: It isn’t and in re-reading my post and the last 2 ½ years of material that I’ve written on this site I cannot see where anyone would think that is something I would advocate. Rather what I had hoped to communicate, and probably didn’t too good a job of it, is honesty and authenticity. This was my point in using the food industry as an analogy.

Here’s the long answer: The church is missional, not because of its musical style, but because of what it offers, which is the forgiveness of sins found in Christ alone. The church is missional because of her gospel message. Thus, what hungry sinners should come for week after week is not a spectacular light show and funny pastor spewing forth the latest 10 steps to a better you, but rather, word and sacrament. The proclamation that God is renewing all things through Christ Jesus and that in his mercy he has sacrificed his own son in order to close the divide that sin separated. This is done on Sunday through confession, prayer, singing, baptism, the Lord’s supper, the reading of God’s word, and of course, through preaching. Can this be accomplished with an indie-style band and Powerpoint? Sure. Can it be accomplished through a more traditional organ and hymnbook? Yes it can.

Here’s the problem. What do you do if you’re congregation is over 100 years old in a very old and historic building built for natural acoustics? What if your congregation’s age and demographics are between the ages of newborn and 96? Do you only reach out to the indie-hipsters and forsake all others, especially those who are 50+ and are largely keeping the congregation afloat, financially speaking? These questions are complex and require much thought, prayer, and I don’t believe can be solved with an off-the-shelf answer. This is why many graduating seminarians are opting to plant a church rather than take the helm of a well established church, and I completely understand the benefits of doing so. But…back to my original post.

I complained that many in my denomination are pushing various church growth strategies. My problem is not with growing, because of course, I desire to see all people praising Christ. It is the non credible means that they are pushing that troubles me. If I hooked-up a major sound system in my sanctuary and attempted playing “How Majestic is Your Name” with a full band and my Telecaster ripping in all its glory it would be a disaster. The space is not designed for this; it would isolate over half of my current congregation and not really even speak to those for whom it is intended because they do not even listen to that kind of thing, and it would not in any shape or form “fit” with the rest of the liturgy. It would come off like a burger joint attempting to make a really bad taco. In other words, it comes off sounding, and truly is, not authentic. But…and this was my point…when Crossroads Community Church down the street does it in their converted warehouse it is authentic, because it is who they are and fits with the overall scheme of the rest of their Sunday morning liturgy. This was all I was really trying to get across in my post. My point was not to say that one style is better or more Christian than the other, but that the various methods and marketing schemes and styles may all have their place at the table called Christian, but they should not be pushed upon the other in a way that reeks of not being genuine. Unbelievers can smell THAT a mile away.

3. Chris asks: Didn’t the Lutheran church start b/c it was bucking tradition? Yes, but the interesting thing was that it was a theological reformation centered upon the gospel. Luther only made minor reforms in the liturgy. Later Calvin, and especially Zwingli, came along and made more radical changes (the Puritans and Anabaptists even more). But Luther (who was a good musician and hymn writer) supported congregational song, supported the arts and artists in his parishes, and in general, attempted to use the traditional liturgy in a language that was comprehendible to the laity and participatory. He did not advocate change for change sake, and was not even trying to start his own church, by the way. I recoomend a good biography by Heiko Obermann if you want more details.

4. Chris asks: Where does the person who likes certain aspects of the Calvary style but wants Reformed content go to church? Hmm. I think that is a good question that cannot be answered with a simple fill-in the blank. It would probably be determined on a city by city basis. I’m in the LCMS but would not attend every LCMS church because some are quite frankly, awful (even in my own city). And I can vouch for my PCA buddies, too. Some are great; others not so much. The same goes for independent movements and churches like A29 churches. Some are really solid; others should probably not use the word church.

In general, Chris, I tend to think that musicians put a much higher level of importance and expectation upon the church in terms of musical style or excellence than the average church member. In terms of importance, I would put gospel content and biblical fidelity far and above musical style in choosing which church to attend. Find a church whose leadership is determined to be faithful to the teachings of Scripture, get involved, and help the music ministry out by pariticpating in it rather than sitting on the sidelines in silient judgment.

5. Chris asks: Wouldn’t it be ideal if a church could exhibit a range of styles that is true to who is in the congregation? Maybe having separate traditional and contemporary services is better? Or maybe changing up styles from week to week or a fusion of styles?

Again, I must apologize as these really good questions require a thorough answer.

A. Range of styles? The key word is in the question is that is culturally reflects the make-up of the congregation. In my experience, and I’ve lived in seven cities, and two different countries, is that most congregations are mono-cultural, which is to say, that even though a congregation may be made up of diverse ethnicities and social status, one predominant cultural entity emerges, and whatever this is, becomes the greater church culture in terms of its worship and the way in which it communicates to the broader culture. And to be honest, I think THAT is okay. Again, it's okay for a burger joint to just sell really good burgers and not try to be something it is not. If it’s a fusion, okay, but it better be an authentic one, and not something forced or coerced or its credibility will be called into question. It is akin to Justin Timberlake acting ghetto. People just laugh at him. Is he talented? Yes. But no one is under the delusion that this ex-Orlando living rich Disney white kid is from the mean streets. Just watch the first episode of Punk'd and see how gangsta he actually is.

To back up my point as far as marketing goes, popular business author, Tim Ferris recently posted something I found interesting. He speaks of the rising importance in niche marketing:

“But here’s the secret: it’s possible to niche market and mass sell. iPod commercials don’t feature dancing 50-year olds, they feature hip and fit 20-30-somethings, but everyone and his grandmother wants to feel youthful and hip, so they strap on Nanos and call themselves Apple converts. Who you portray in your marketing isn’t necessarily the only demographic who buys your product — it’s often the demographic that most people want to identify with or belong to. The target isn’t the market. No one aspires to be the bland average, so don’t water down messaging to appeal to everyone—it will end up appealing to no one.”

Now I personally struggle with any form of marketing and the church, but she must communicate her message in some shape or form. What I hope the church would focus on, as Paul did, was Christ crucified. If we made Jesus and his saving grace (bloody cross and empty tomb) our “niche,” I think we would be surprised by the attraction; the kind exhibited when he walked this earth.

B. Contemporary and Traditional Services? I’m not a fan as it creates two different congregations. I’ve attended a large church in the South for a year that attempted this and I always felt it was a failure, although I’m sure there were those who would disagree. You’d meet people at a church event and they’d ask what service you attended and the response would be, “Oh, you’re first service people,” as if we had leprosy. In an attempt to appease all people, it appealed to no one in the end, or it just divided the church into two congregations that shared the same facility.

C. Range of Styles from week to week? This depends again upon the local congregation make-up and the musicians available. As much as I enjoy myself some Bach, I cannot play one of his pieces, as least not very well, so even though my current congregation enjoys that style I have to combine it with a bit of folk and pop, which creates a unique folksy chamber pop fusion. For us this works, but I wouldn’t hold it up as THE form of worship for all churches for all time. It fits with our traditional liturgy, theology, cultural make-up, current musicianship, and yet is progressive in that it is still moving artistically forward while still enjoying our heritage as Lutherans. While leading worship at Kaleo for several years, we played around with various styles (indie, ambient/electronic, and folk/alt-country), but they were styles that were not that far apart and we had the musicians to pull this off pretty well. I know Dan Price (from the SRR band, Ish) at Riverview Church has done some similar things with great success. Again, they have the musicians to pull it off and it was a fair representation of their church. If we would have attempted hip-hop it would have been terrible as we would have been completely out of our league. I can appreciate the art form, but it would not have suited the congregation or congregational participation. I know of inner-city church plants where it works, though. Again, I don’t think the church needs to be a Sizzler buffet that attempts to cater to every persons needs. It’s a nice idea, but it does not work in practice.

6. Last question Chris asks: How can it make sense to mandate style across a denomination of churches? It doesn’t make sense, which is my point. Some denominations who desire to grow the mega-style churches they see on TV or read in Purpose-Driven books think that they must employ the same types of market techniques to get people in the door. The silly thing is that we conservative types are always 20 years behind the curve so by the time they finally get around to being so-called “relevant” they are no longer relevant. My point is that a church with a specific heritage should not run from it, nor be embarrassed by it, but own it and carry out their mission in the most excellent way possible. For example, in recent LCMS church plants they are purposefully NOT using “Lutheran” in their church name and you will have trouble finding their association with Lutheranism in their media like websites and visitor pamphlets. The same goes for Baptists and Presbyterians. Why? Well they say that recent market demographics suggest that people are turned off by such naming conventions. So…you end up with a ton of church plants named Wedgwood Community Church, even though the church is not located near anything called Wedgwood, nor any woods for that matter, and it’s all just silly to me. I’d rather people be up front about who they are. If I see a church proudly displaying they are a member of the Presbyterian Church in America at least you know they take their Westminster confessional standards seriously and represent their Calvinist heritage, theologically. If a church had the very common name of St. Peter…I’d hope they followed it up with Methodist, Anglican, or Catholic Church as the three stand in very different theological and ecclesiological spheres. They represent a theological niche in the broader Christian context. While these differences may not be ideal, and will be sorted out on the last day, they do provide an honest recognition that there are REAL differences, and for the time being, I personally think it is okay to own up to that fact rather than hide behind some kind of homogenous façade. Christian leaders are only fooling themselves anyway as the surrounding culture is dripping in pluralism and relativity.

Conclusion:

By now there are probably only two people still reading. To you I say, thanks for hangining in there. I hope some of this is helpful or has at least stimulated thought, even if you disagree with me.

If you have alternative ideas, better or more comprehendible answers to these questions, please feel free to leave a comment. I think I’ve said my peace so you can rattle off whatever you like as long as its done respectfully with a level of grace. Peace out my friends.