Death is Always a Tragedy

I should be studying Hebrew right now, but I am not. My mind is racing about a lot of things, most of which I won't be writing about here, and technically I'm on a study break anyway (because I HAVE been studying, I'm just not at this moment.) No, right now I'm thinking about death. Which is a fun topic, right? Always something you want to be deep in thought about.

But it's days like today when I'm sobered by the reality of mortality. I saw the news of Amy Winehouse's death and initially thought "well, no surprise there" because it was just last week (I think) that I heard on the radio that she had cancelled several shows due to showing up one night incoherent and detached from reality. I read a couple of articles, saw where people had tweeted about it, and then kind of went on my merry little way with this attitude of "well, she had it coming." Then, on a message board I read way too much, the topic came up and someone said "the real tragedy is the 30 dead teenagers in Norway." And for whatever reason, that comment woke me up to the reality:

Death is always a tragedy. Always.

Honestly, Amy Winehouse hits a little closer to me for a few reasons. First, because I knew who she was. It's probably not right, but it's human nature to at least be more interested in people we've heard of. But the second reason is probably the one that is the most sobering - she was 27. I'm 26. Yeah, she did drugs and made some pretty bad lifestyle decisions, but the fact that somebody my age could be alive one day and dead the next is still kind of a crazy concept to me.

But, the story about what happened in Norway is pretty crazy too. I mean, thinking about it, it's nuts. Here you have like 90 people just going about their day, minding their own business, and then all of a sudden they die.

And it's not like things like that are isolated incidents - they can happen anywhere, at any time. And it's horrible. Death surrounds us. We live in a culture where we try to fight it as much as we can, but even people who are "living right" are still a gun shot or a bomb blast away from being dead. I mean I remember what happened at Pearl High School in 1997, I saw what happened at Columbine on TV, we all remember September 11. Nobody on any of those days imagined what was going to happen, those kids in Norway had no idea what would happen, and I'd guess Amy Winehouse probably didn't think it would happen to her, either.

The real tragedy, though, is that this isn't the way things were intended to be. Death, in all of its forms, is a direct consequence of rebellion. Genesis 2 lays that out pretty clearly - eat of the tree, die. And we're bound in that as long as we're here. And so to see anyone die, whether they are (by our standards) "innocent" or murderers or drug addicts or any other number of things that cause us to say "well, that person deserved to die" is a tragedy.

The fact is, though, we're not guaranteed tomorrow. Just because Amy Winehouse was more likely to die young doesn't mean it was any more certain than it was for those people in Norway. And it's one of those things that when I see it on TV or whatever I can just kind of blow it off and be like "well we have Jesus and we'll never die" or whatever, which IS true and IS his promise to us, but when it happens so far away or to people I don't know it's easy to be callous about it.

I don't know. I'm not sure where to go from there. You just kind of sit there and think about life and death and all of that and it puts things into perspective I guess. But, it does remind me of one of my favorite hymns and keeps me on my toes thinking about this conflict "between the now and the not yet" - the promise we have in Christ but the time we must wait for that promise to be fulfilled. When I think/hear about tragedy, death, it reminds me of "On Jordan's Stormy Banks I Stand" (which I found out a week or so ago was played at my grandfather's funeral, which I was too young to really remember much from it) and this particular stanza:

No chilling wind nor poisonous breath

Can reach that healthful shore

Sickness, sorrow, pain and death

Are felt and feared no more

We don't only have the promise that sickness, sorrow, pain nor death will no longer be felt, we have the promise they will no longer be FEARED. 1 Corinthians 15:55:

O Death, where is your victory?

O Death, where is your sting?

But we also know that Christ conquered the grave, and that our final enemy, death, has been defeated:

But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is DEATH. 1 Corinthians 10:20-26 (emphasis mine).

I hope this made sense to anyone who would be so kind as to read it.

On Being A Hater, Pt. 2

I love that title. "On Being A Hater." So good. I should just change the name of this blog to that. But I won't, because it's probably already taken.

But the last time I wrote, I tried to clear up my stance (well, maybe not MY stance, but the stance of someone I agree completely with) on technology in the church. It's the second time I've written on such an issue, but to sum it up, I have no problem with technology in the church. I have a problem with wasteful spending on technology (or anything else) in the church and I have a problem with unnecessary (that is a difficult word to spell) spending in the church. Just like I have that issue with government or Ole Miss athletics or...anything. And it's a simple principle - be wise with what you've been blessed with. Are there absolutely no other needs in your church body? OK, buy that 26th flat screen TV. But if that money can be spent elsewhere, elsewhere it is needed, I believe it is the responsibility of the church and the pastoral staff (and elders, which I happen to believe are necessary for a church to function right, though that's another topic) especially to tend to those.

Please hear me - technology is not bad. I enjoy technology. It's a wonderful thing. But don't fall in love with it. It's just like in my life...I get a new phone because I need it. I have never gone out and gotten a phone I didn't need (previous one broke, changed providers, etc.).

So that's that.

The next issue is that of performance. I think I touched on that a little in my last post too (I might not have) but I want to expound on my views there a little more clearly, because again, I'm afraid what I feel about this has been misrepresented.

First off, a few things I'm not saying. I'm not hung up on style. I don't think that because you play an electric guitar in church you're being inherently flashy. I think you're just playing an electric guitar. I don't think that because you play an organ in church you're inherently doing it right. I think you're just playing an organ in church. I think somebody can be a very humble guitar player and a very flashy organist. And vice versa. I also don't think special music, special music nights, and special presentations in services are inherently bad. Meaning, none of these things are bad in and of themselves. I mean, shoot, I've spent some time playing lead guitar in a Sunday morning worship band. So I'm either misunderstood or a major hypocrite (likely both though, if I'm going to be honest about it).

So...what's the point of this? There are people that think I'm anti-everything. I'm not. I'm a huge fan of big choirs. I'm a huge fan of a band that sounds great and does a good job leading worship (again...I'd rather listen to Indelible Grace or Red Mountain Church than Hillsong, but that's another story). There's nothing wrong with that. What I think IS wrong is when worship becomes about a performance. What I think is wrong is when worship becomes all about us.

I guess the question, then, is how do you define that? How do you definitively say "that was a genuine worship service" or "that was a performance"? Maybe you can't. But I'd ask the question...who is the attention centered on? Is it on the soloist? Is it on the guitar player? The drummer? Or Christ?

See, I don't think you can compare a worship service to a movie or a concert. I expect a movie or concerts to be good because I understand a few things about them:

First, I spent good money to go there. Movies are dang near $10 now (which doesn't seem all that much, I guess, but I remember when they were $5.) I mean, I go to a movie...get a ticket, get popcorn and a drink, that's like $25. Maybe more. Concerts are more expensive. I paid $26 to see the Avett Brothers at the Lyric and that was just to get in. Nevermind the fact drinks were expensive too. Our resources are limited, and if we're going to spend them on things to be entertained, we want to know they're going to be of the best quality. I'd pay a bunch of money to see the Civil Wars play again, because it was a phenomenal concert. I wouldn't pay anything to see Soulja Boy again, because he was terrible and put on an awful show. So I guess for point 1, "It's the economy, stupid". Not that anyone that disagrees with me is stupid, that's just the quote.

Second, movies are fake. When you see a scene in a movie, they probably filmed that take tons of times.

Third, a concert IS a performance. I have no problem with a performance if that's what it's called. I have a problem with a performance if it's called a worship service. A performance is meant to draw attention to the performer, a worship service is meant to draw attention to the Father. Pretty simple. Part of why I like Old Crow Medicine Show, the Avett Brothers, the Civil Wars, etc, is the fact that they put on great performances. It's about THEIR music, and that's fine.

I mean, shoot, if your church has talented singers, let 'em sing. If your church has great songwriters, let 'em write and sing. Have a special music night. What's wrong with those things? I don't think anybody thinks there's anything wrong with that. But worship isn't perfect! Sometimes the music will be out of key. Sometimes someone will mess up the words. To me, it just serves as a reminder we're human but God still loves us anyway. It serves as a reminder that, just like in our every day lives, we're going to stumble. And I think when you take that out of worship, you miss something special. Something almost organic.

But the problem is like the story that got cited out of Elevation Church. I know I harped on that in the last post, but I'll do it again, because what they pulled was inexcusable. And then when the story said church staffers said Elevation did "worship, not ministry," it got even worse. That's ridiculous!

Also, the problem is when people do things that do draw attention to individuals. I love guitar solos. But when I'm driving down the street listening to music and I hear a guitar solo, I don't think "MAN...PRAISE GOD THIS GUITAR SOLO IS REALLY SPEAKING TO ME." I think "man that dude can shred. I wish I could do that." My attention is focused on the guitar player and him playing, not what he's singing about or whatever. Or in a song where everyone is singing and the soloists sing the verses. We're there to participate, not listen to you sing. At least I am.

Look, talent and technology have a great place in church. We should embrace them. We should not make them the object of our desire. That's what I have a problem with. And everything in the church should have a specific reason that serves a kingdom purpose. Not just a TV that looks good on TV. Not just a soloist because she (or he) won last season of American Idol.

I have no problem whatsoever with these things if they serve a valid purpose. Which can also be tied back to the fact I think all churches should have elders and open communication with the decision makers.

Anyway, I hope this made sense. I'm fading fast (5 hours of sleep last night and like 4 the night before...).

On Being A Hater

Apparently, I'm a "hater." This isn't anything new, and it's nothing unique to me. If you don't like something that's popular, you're just a hater. Never read Harry Potter? Hater. Don't care for John Mayer? Hater. Think the United States Men's National Soccer Team sucks? Despite the affirmative evidence, hater.

Think having 25 TVs in a church is excessive? Yep, you guessed it, hater.

Now, I've never wanted to be involved in a blog war. And I don't think this is one, but over the last month or so, I've become aware of the fact that (among other things) my views on things may have been misrepresented. I've been labeled a "hater."

I posted a blog on my Twitter account last night that almost perfectly sums up how I feel about church. You can read it here. And let me just say now, I agree 100% with everything Rachel Evans wrote in this entry.

Now, I am by no means an expert on...anything really, but I've read a couple of books on how "cool" and "christian" can (or can't) mix (and actually the best one of these books was Hipster Christianity by Brett McCracken. If you are interested in this issue at all, read it), partly because I'm interested in sociology but mostly because I'm interested at how hip Christianity can really be, and I'm also interested in this question: Is the church influencing culture, or is culture influencing the church?

But before I try to answer that question (which I almost certainly cannot do), I want to clarify which question(s) I am not asking.

First, I'm not asking whether or not the church embracing technology is right or wrong. I'm sure some people have thought I'm some Christian Luddite sitting in my room writing manifestos about how robots are going to take over the world if we don't stop digitizing everything. That's not the case. While I do hate the fact that it seems that buying an actual, tangible book or record or whatever is going the way of the dinosaur, it's not necessarily a bad thing. In fact it's quite alright (except for the fact that when the robots DO take over the world, I'll still have my copy of Isaac Asimov's I, Robot and I'll know how to handle the situation better than all of you, but I digress.) It's personal preference. I'd rather read my Bible in book form and not in iPad form. I'd rather listen to music on vinyl than on my iPod. It's not right or wrong, it's personal preference.

And, on top of that, technology can be very helpful. It's a major benefit, for example to have the words to the music up on a screen instead of passing out a song sheet every week. It allows for some flexibility and it saves the environment (see? I'm not a hater of EVERYTHING at least). I mean, at some point and time, installing those great big organs in old churches was the pinnacle of technology, and I absolutely love organ music in church. I think it's great.

So that's not the question. Anybody that's reasonable can understand that, and I feel like reasonable people should be able to understand this - we don't hate technology. Not by a long shot.

Second, I'm not asking which "style" is right or wrong. Those might seem like very similar questions, but to me they're very different. I like folk music, so I'm going to be more inclined to buy an Indelible Grace or Red Mountain Church album than a Hillsong or David Crowder album (that's not the only reason, but it's a big part of it).

And I think in large part, culture is affecting the Church. I mean, it's hard to see it any other way. I mean, on one hand, you have the whole gay clergy thing. On another you have the universalism thing. On another you have the bullcrap that Elevation pulled (and I couldn't care less how many items were donated to the needy - Christ's own words in Luke 17:2 say it's better to tie a millstone around your neck and jump into the ocean than to cause a little one to stumble - that crap is inexcusable).

Like I said, technology isn't the issue, and I don't think anyone is saying it is. I mean, I'm sure there were people who were pissed at Paul for writing his letters on scrolls instead of stone tablets. They probably thought "if stone tablets were good enough for Moses, they're good enough for Paul." No, technology isn't the issue, it's just a medium. Just like Twitter or Facebook or anything else isn't an issue. It's the people using it. And I think part of the problem is that we've created a culture in which "why" is a bad word. There are certain people that I would feel totally comfortable saying "hey, why do we have this" or "what's the purpose here" and they'd give an answer. And that's fine. But there are other people that I wouldn't feel comfortable asking why, because asking why is just an assault on their authority, and that's wrong because they said it was.

And, if I were completely honest, "what's really bothering me" is the need to puff ourselves up and to try to make the gospel more appealing. Simply put, that's what bothers me. So, technology isn't the issue, as I've said before. It's the fact that the church in America today doesn't think the gospel of Jesus Christ is good enough.

On a final note, back to Elevation when church employees say a church focuses on "worship, not ministries," something is gravely, gravely wrong. John Piper once said "missions exist because worship doesn't." In that same vein, I'd say a church that focuses on "worship, not ministries" doesn't actually worship at all.

And that is something I have a huge, huge problem with.