Comments on “The gospel and ageing”

2005-02-19T21:49:43+00:00

Congratulation Matthew, What a nice site!! Simple and Clean!! :] Looking forward to your blogs :D

2006-02-20T16:02:19+00:00

Thanks Eric!

Hmm, just noticed and fixed a bug to do with TypeKey. It should now be possible to use TypeKey if you so desire :)

2005-02-20T11:57:50+00:00

This reminds me of a speech you did in year 7.

2006-02-20T16:02:19+00:00

Good memory, that sheep.

2005-02-20T22:17:10+00:00

Why hello sir, and congratulations on the shiny new blog, its looking good! Nothing to report currently, but I’m sure I’ll be back to annoy you at a later date…

2005-02-21T20:03:10+00:00

Oh Matthew, much as it pains me to post something so blatantly irrelevant in a comment to a post, but I must ask: were we in the same GCSE English class? I can’t remember and it’s driving me insane for some reason :S

2006-02-20T16:02:19+00:00

Yes we were, with Mrs Parish. It intrigues me as to why this should be bothering you, but never mind.

2005-02-23T03:53:03+00:00

I think there is a fine line between “dumbing down” the message and making services accessible to people without a church background. Some things I think are good—eliminating phrases that only have meanings to people who have spent a lot of time in church. I’m not a fan of shortening sermons, however. I’m absolutely not a fan of every sermon being about the need for salvation—but I don’t think that’s a feature of seeker-sensitive churches.

Perhaps one reason the Bible doesn’t speak about using meetings as evangelism time is because non-Christians wouldn’t have come to meetings of Christians. I’m comfortable in believing that had Paul had the equivalent of an Easter service where a large portion of the congregation is there because “it’s the thing to do” he would have preached a salvation message. :-)

2006-02-20T16:02:19+00:00

Eliminating phrases that only some people understand can be good, but then again, they’re almost got to learn what they mean at some point. It’s much harder to give a sermon on the end part of Daniel for example without mentioning apocalyptic literature. And surely a good proportion of sermons would suddenly become much more verbose if we had to spell out what grace meant every time it was used? Liturgy, however, I think is often off-putting – but that’s my personal opinion and not necessarily a biblical view.

I feel sure that Paul would have preached a salvation message had he had the opportunity, but at the same time I can’t think of a better time to preach it even for Christians.

2005-02-24T16:09:01+00:00

It’s more than just phrases—I think the core is eliminating superfluous practices that are off-putting to unchurched people. For example, a practice that has gone by the wayside is having visitors stand up during the service to be recognized and “greeted.” Another simple change is clarifying before passing the offering plate that the offering is not intended for visitors, hopefully alleviating the “the church is just after my money” feeling. Some churches have given up passing the plate entirely.

I think production values also are important.

Some of my neighbors started attending our church recently. We’ve made changes to become more seeker-sensitive, but we don’t have a separate seeker service like Saddleback, for instance. They came away wanting to attend again (and have.) The husband really liked the organization, professionalism and the children’s programs (he hated church growing up because it was so boring—no children’s programs.) He even liked our cafe. ;-) The sermon, however, was absolutely intended for church members—where we wanted to go, how to grow, etc. I was worried about that, but he was more than okay with it. Interesting.

2006-02-20T16:02:19+00:00

“Greeting” visitors sounds terrible! Our church sometimes has a time just to chat to the people around you – whether they’re new or not. (Our church is so big it’s often impossible to tell…) We also stopped “passing the plate” a couple of years ago for that very reason.

I think my church is pretty good to bring non-Christians to in everything but the music. The lyrics to a lot of the songs we sing are just poor.

I think we often think that for us to bring non-Christians along the talk should be specifically aimed at them, whereas a lot of the time they’re perfectly happy to hear what goes on normally. That’s the core of what I’m saying I guess – we shouldn’t have to change our services to attract non-believers (or rather, we shouldn’t have to have different services aimed at the different groups).

2005-02-26T17:35:12+00:00

Always good to have you here Cat, whether to annoy or to interest :)

2006-02-20T16:02:19+00:00

Maybe you should go to seminary and become a music pastor. :-)

Julie B.

2005-03-03T17:21:53+00:00

I don’t think I’ve heard that term before – music pastor, hmm… Anyway, worship isn’t about music, though music is sometimes worship :)

2005-03-03T20:59:31+00:00

A music pastor is the person who leads the singing, etc. We have (actually should have) two on staff. (We’re trying to hire a head music pastor.) It’s more than leading the singing, obviously. They would be in charge of that part of the service that is called (and should be) worship. You understand.

Here, you can go to seminary then apply to be ours. This position has been open for what…two years now? It’s definitely a case of “they wouldn’t hire Jesus if he applied.” But I’m sure they’d hire you. We would all find your accent charming. (Ooh, he sounds just like Mr. Darcy!) ;-) And at the rate we’re going, the position will be open after you’ve graduated from university and seminary—you could probably get hired straight from university, then do seminary later.

http://www.gccauburn.net/about/eemployment.aspx

The one worship guy we have on staff now leads worship for our two evening services—the more contemporary services aimed at twenty-somethings. He performs, writes and arranges too.

But all joking aside, if you have a passion for the Lord, worship and music…I can’t think of a better combination of skills and interests.

So, what do you call the pastor who leads the service up until the sermon? I suppose worship pastor and music pastor are used interchangably here.

2006-02-20T16:02:19+00:00

Support your local market! It’s cheap! and local! and cheap!

2005-03-04T09:20:51+00:00

Called (and should be) worship? Do you mean it’s called worship and should be called worship, or that it’s called worship and should be worship? The whole service should be worship – singing is just as much worship as prayer or listening to a sermon (or doing the washing up or working hard – it’s all the attitude we have when we do it). I sometimes think I’m being picky about terminology, but then see how ingrained the wrong theology that goes along with it often is…

Here the guy who leads the service is just one of the ministers. (My church being Anglican, that’s usually the vicar or the curate. I dislike the names, but it’s not like I’ll change century’s old tradition…) Whoever does it hands over to the band (usually led by the music director, but occasionally others such as me) for the songs. Our music director has no theological training, and as far as I know that’s normal. It’s a bonus, of course (as it gives them the right theological ideas with which to lead the songs) but not strictly necessary (I mean, I lead the songs sometimes – luckily I don’t have to pick songs though otherwise there’d be complaints from the congregation).

I have thought of doing something similar as a job – but I’m really not sure about it. I’ll see in a few years time, but at the moment youth work seems more attractive. Partially I don’t feel I’m a good enough musician (certainly not yet) to do it for a job. Partially I think I’d be driven mad having to lead songs every week…

2005-03-04T09:22:10+00:00

Woo yeah! Just don’t drive to get there…

2005-03-04T14:05:59+00:00

Called worship and should be worship. And I’m using worship a bit narrowly—maybe I mean a specific type of worship, as opposed to listening-to-a-sermon-type worship.

Our services are structured a bit differently. Our—well, we call him the senior pastor, your vicar/curate equivalent—doesn’t typically do anything in the service until the sermon. So the music pastor is responsible for the first thirty minutes of the service, and the senior pastor takes over for the last forty-five minutes for the sermon. Roughly speaking. If there is announcements that’s oftentimes done by someone else—another staff member.

The music pastor can marry and bury too.

2005-03-04T14:52:11+00:00

Yeah, it’s the narrower use of the word that I disagree with (as you’ve probably picked up by now :)). Our services do sound quite different to yours – we have songs, notices, prayers, announcements, communion and the sermon all mixed up in between each other (though the sermon always comes later, prayers are always after the sermon and communion always after that).