Pagan Clothes, Pagan Music Leaders…

The book, Pagan Christianity, is out of control at this point.  Not only are the authors attacking things (buildings, orderly worship and pastors) for which there is no biblical prohibition (and, some would argue – see 1 Peter 5, for example – much biblical support and benefit to the Body); in the following chapters, they set up straw men to attack: dressing nice and song leaders.

Let’s see if we can address these quickly: In Chapter Six, they explain the origins of dressing nicely for worship.  Originally, many Reformers were opposed to nice dress (and, granted, the Bible is critical of dressing to impress – 1 Peter 3); and, it seems, that nice dress became the norm when a few popular pastors decided it would be a good idea.  It eventually became unacceptable in many circles to wear “street clothes” to worship.

A few Red Flags:

• This is becoming (or has become) a non-issue in most Christian communities; I cannot tell you when (or if) I’ve ever stepped into a church where there was even an unspoken dress-code.  I wear jeans to church when good (usually older, but not always) gentlemen wear their best suit and tie.  They don’t look at me askance when I lead worship in those same jeans and a polo shirt (or even a nice t-shirt).  Granted, the priest wears vestments, but the reason that has value is the symbol it represents, and I think symbol is a powerful tool of ministry.  Not to mention, I find Viola and Barna to be utterly devoid of any sense of reverence for God, and their lack of respect for Christ oozes into a disrespectful posture toward those who “dress up” for Him.
• The original reason that ties and pretty dresses became the norm are absolutely irrelevant; the question is: why do you dress the way you dress before the Lord (anywhere)?
• Last, the chapter reeks of a legalistic bias toward dressing down.  This is dangerous, because the shunning of someone for dressing nicely is as bad as shunning the person who has no nice clothes to wear.  So, who’s the legalist?  Who’s focusing on externals here?  N.T. Wright said in a recent interview with Equip: Resources for Worship, “Informality … can become a pseudo-formality.”  This was in reference to styles of worship, but it can apply to dress as well.

In Chapter Seven, the dynamic duo take on the evils of “leader-led music” in worship.  They talk of how choirs, an immitation of Roman culture, were introduced into the Church by Constantine’s reforms.  Through a long process, they tell that “sad” tale of the evolution from choir to worship team (though, for many, the choir is still a ministry in Church).  They point out that this leads to a passive priesthood being told what to sing and for how long.

Now, those of you who don’t like to sing anywhere but the shower, raise your hands if you want to do away with these scoundrels who are squashing your potential for priesthood!

This chapter depends on two proof-texts, pointing out that we are commanded (in a couple of isolated places in the Pauline Epsistles) to “speak to one another”, “singing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs”.  That’s it.  That’s the only argument from scripture for which they want to belittle those who are gifted to share music and lead people to the Throne of Grace!  They even put “lead worship” in quotes, which implies that these people don’t really lead worship!  How insulting!  Of course, I could call what they do “writing a Christian book” in quotes… but I’m above that.

Their valid points (yes, there are two) are almost lost amidst the divisive, condescending rhetoric (for example, on p. 163, they write that “Special seats were assigned to choir members to show their special status,” to which I had to respond, “No.  To show the choir where to sit.”  How many of you choir people feel utterly superior to your non-singing brothers and sisters?).  But, as I admitted, they make two valid points, and I should, in fairness, address them:

• Corporate worship so often suffers from “I” syndrome – the over-use of intimate, first-person-singular songs which should be used in intimate settings (“I Love You Lord”, “Jesus, Lover of My Soul” etc. are best used in settings such as prayer and communion).  Much better for corporate worship are “We” – centered (or, better, “You”-centered) songs: “Because We Believe” “We Bring the Sacrifice of Praise”, or even “I” songs converted to “We” songs, such as “We Exalt Thee”.  This plurality allows the Body to truly sing as a Body, and not a group of individuals.
• They desperately (and rightly) want every member of the Church to be free to contribute to the worship of God and building one another up.  They write, “There should be an outlet for this ministry to be expressed.” (167).  In my graffiti, I wrote, “There is,” and drew a little church with two wings: one wing for the formal (corporate worship in the sanctuary) and one for the informal (organic worship in the home).  But I don’t think they go far enough; since not everyone can or wants to lead a song, then we need to inspire people to share and edify the body in many creative ways (writing a psalm or a poem, using photography, sharing a devotion they’ve read or a journal entry they wrote)!  That’s what home-fellowship is for and, as I’ve stated in previous posts, this is something that should happen in every church but does not deny the validity of the entire local Body getting together for formal worship gatherings.

I finished this chapter (steaming a bit, I must admit!), and wrote in the remaining white space on the last page:

While I can barely get through their divisive, arrogant tone, I do see a lesson here [for our own Community Group meetings]: Open (not eliminate!) the structure, urge more participation, foster more creativity.  Corporate songwriting experiment in small group time, perhaps?