I recently called an Evangelical pastor with some questions as his church website provided little in the way of substantive information.
I asked about worship and as usual got the run-around. I can
ask for doctrine but I usually get marketing language if not nebulous
confusion. Asking about worship is usually pointless as no one in the
Evangelical sphere has any clear understanding of what they are doing.
I cut to the chase (politely) and ask about things like
guitars and drums. But I've noticed this also generates confusion and maybe a
little angst. I think some men want to contextualise their answer. If they say,
'yes' to the drum (or drums), they're afraid I'm picturing something like
Animal from The Muppets or Keith Moon going ape on a drum kit. I have seen that
too. I walked out of a church about a year ago when a special turned into a
would-be Buddy Rich session.
If I want to watch someone 'kill it' on a drum kit I'll pull
up a YouTube video. It's not something I want to see in the Church – the place
where supposedly we're meeting in the presence of God and the Council of angels
and saints. I know that many believe he's simply exercising his talents. I know
an accountant who is professing Christian. Maybe he should get up and show us
how proficiently he can run his adding machine and make photo-copies. Maybe if
there's a contractor present he could go up and saw some boards and hammer in some
nails – it's all worship anyway right? So says the Dominionist.
There are all kinds of personal talents and other things that
are valid but they don't belong in Church. CS Lewis wrote wonderful
Christian-themed fantasy books but I don't think we should be reading The
Silver Chair during the church meeting – how much less accounting, carpentry
and musicianship, things a pagan can do as well as any Christian.
It's only because a flawed understanding of 'worship' that
the music bits are elevated and somehow able to be incorporated. It makes no
sense and is needless to say wrong in its entire outlook. The New Testament
places no emphasis on music and singing is barely even mentioned. What is today
the central (and lone sacramental) part of Evangelical worship is alien to the
New Testament, as unknown (and often as pagan) as are the innovations found in
a Roman Catholic service.
Anyway, in terms of the discussion, the bottom line was the
pastor in question finally admitted they have guitars and a drum – the bongo
drum craze is something I cannot understand. How did it ever enter anyone's
head to introduce bongo drums into worship? The only thing I can think of is
that it requires no training or practice. It is less acoustically abrasive (I
only said less) than a conventional drum kit which in small churches require
the drummer to switch from sticks to brushes and I notice a lot of people end
up putting the kit behind plexiglass to muffle the sound. I have a better
solution but they don't seem interested in hearing it! So I guess the bongo
drum is appealing because it's a cheap and almost anyone can get up there and
play it. Why they think it's needed I cannot say. In some cases I wonder if
it's just an excuse to 'get people involved' or build a stage presence to
create a false energy. I know one thing – singing Come Thou Fount of Every
Blessing with a bongo beat causes me to shut down, let alone some of the other
types of songs that are commonly sung.
I must confess I guess it's a generational thing, but for me
a bongo drum makes me want to start laughing every time – it makes my wife and
I think about Dobie Gillis Beatniks and episodes of Gilligan's Island.
Except of course in the case of the Church, it's not funny.
It's repulsive and sacrilegious.
Someone might say – what's the big deal? Why do you have such
a hang-up about a bongo drum? For me, as I sit amazed watching and hearing it,
the question is not why is it such a big deal, but rather – where in the world
did anyone get the idea to introduce this into the gathering of the Church? The
onus is not on me but on those who would make the case for such a thing –
something no one had ever considered until just a couple of decades ago.
After that, when the pastor assured me the service was about
as Biblically-based and conservative as you can get, I couldn't help but smile
and roll my eyes.
It's striking how worship practices that were still
cutting-edge and controversial thirty years ago are now normative and mundane.
I remember years ago raising these points and encountering defensiveness.
Today, I get the sense that these pastors can't even understand the question or
where I could possibly be coming from. It's kind of like – of course we have a
drum. Why wouldn't we?
Readers will know I argue on a Redemptive-Historical basis
that instruments have no place in Christian worship and frankly Church history
supports this as they were not present for centuries. And obviously those
coming from the Reformed heritage will also know that historically they were
rejected within that sphere of Protestantism as well.
In terms of looking at churches, I realize very few are going
to agree or even understand the issues or the nature of the debate. I can
tolerate musical instruments. I have to. But I do draw the line at certain
points and by asking such questions I'm trying to catch something of the
'spirit' of the place, of the meeting and determine if it's something I should
consider visiting or merely a waste of time.
I know that for pastors to answer such questions on the phone
is frustrating as the only fair way to judge the situation is to visit. I
understand that but at the same time their answers or their inability to answer
are often rather telling.
He insisted they were Bible- based and yet had no answer when
I said that everyone makes the same argument but have very different
understandings of Sufficiency and what that means in terms of ecclesiology and
the nature of the Christian life. I don't believe he understood me. On this
point the Presbyterians can wave about their Confession all they like – almost none
of them follow it on these points either, which renders their claims as
meaningless as Evangelicals who appeal to Scripture Alone.
I asked about some other doctrinal issues. I explained I
wasn't trying to 'pigeon-hole' him and I understand that these issues are
complicated. But I was trying to get some idea of where they were coming from.
I asked about Dispensationalism and he needed me to define it – which is not
uncommon.
I said that for the sake of simplicity I would identify it as
the theology of the Left Behind series, the system which teaches a separate
plan for the Jewish people apart from the Church with a great emphasis on
prophecy and things like the Rapture – usually pre-tribulational as opposed to
simply the Second Coming, and other issues like the modern state of Israel and
the Great Tribulation.
He denied being a Dispensationalist but then went on to say
he believed in the Rapture and that Christians won't have to endure all those
terrible things.
Okay. So in other words Dispensationalism is his default but
this 'ordained and licensed' man (as his website biography says) apparently
doesn't know what any of it is.
It makes one wonder what his sermons are like, especially
passages that deal with Biblical structure. How for example can he possibly
teach through Old Testament passages if he is unclear as to how the Bible works
and how the Old and New Covenants relate to each other?
He further assured me that it was a small-town church and
they didn't teach any left-leaning values or ideas.
'That's great,' I replied. 'I hope you don't teach any
Right-wing values either, because that can be just as problematic when people
start thinking that gun culture is Christian or that we need to take up arms
against the state.'
I could tell he was biting his tongue a bit and the point was
not well-taken. I simply said that I hoped they taught the Bible and didn't
confuse it with politics.
He said he believed they needed to stand on Biblical values –
a man is a man and that sort of thing which is almost revolutionary in today's
culture.
I said I agreed with him. We need to reject all the
sodomitical stuff that permeates the culture but there's plenty to be rejected
on both sides. He begrudgingly agreed – but I know he didn't.
I also pressed the point that a lot of 'conservatives' aren't
all that conservative. I asked about women's ordination.
"Well... I think women can be pastors but that's not the
way God really wants it to be."
Oh? I asked him if he'd have a problem with a woman preaching
a sermon.
"Well, you won't see that here because when I'm away we
have men in the congregation that preach."
It was a nice way of avoiding the question. In the end, it
was the typical Evangelical exchange. He's not that conservative – though I'm
guessing he's certainly Right-wing enough. The flag, troops, nation, war, guns,
capitalist economics – and libertarian emphasis on individual rights, he's all
for that, but traditional values about the family order, the nature of public
discourse and behaviour, restraint, manners, and ethics – let alone Christian
imperatives in the realm of cross-bearing, turning the other cheek,
non-resistance, the rejection of mammonism and so forth, not so much. In fact
he may be rather hostile to these notions especially as (if actually taught)
they would quickly empty out his church.
So what we have is someone who insists the Bible is upheld
but is in fact insufficient for ecclesiology and the Christian life.
Sanctification is it would seem accomplished by means other than Scripture or
at least beyond it. The Bible doesn't give us enough information to know how to
worship. We need Barna surveys and cultural intuition to tell us that. And what
is the Bible? How is structured? What is the nature of its Revelation? We don't
seem to actually know. How do we view culture? Does the Bible tell us? In part
at best. We also need FOX, Tucker Carlson, and GOP pundits to frame, define and
interpret the cultural and its battles for us.
And are New Testament examples and commands normative? I
realize that can be a tricky question in light of miraculous gifts and the like
but it's clear enough that an intelligent conversation is not to be had. We let
the culture lead us – and since today's Right-wing feminism is (on one level)
more conservative than Left-wing feminism, then we're okay to embrace it. This
is despite that fact that today's 'conservative feminism' (an oxymoron) would
have been deemed radical just a generation ago.
This is another case of the blind leading the blind and I
encounter it everywhere. I'm sure he means well – maybe. Maybe he's just a
hireling, an ear-tickler chasing a paycheck. I wonder sometimes.
Let's just say I'm not going to bother making a visit next
Sunday. I will check back in another ten years if I'm still around. If the past
is precedent, from what I've seen in other quarters I can guess where they'll
be and it won't be in a good place. I can pray from him and the congregation
but in all honesty the best thing would be for him to step down and re-examine the
Christian life and for the congregation to either fold or find someone else.
Under his leadership, they will only be led astray. The fact that they have him
as their leader tells me they are in trouble. He may be an ear-tickler but it
must be that the people there want to have it so. They want Christianity on
their terms and he simply gives it to them even while pretending to be devout,
determined, and courageous.