Unfreezing move #3- Indigenous Worship
We are continuing our look at the book by Bill Easum - Unfreezing Moves - Following Jesus into the mission field
The other posts in the series can be found here
Unfreezing move #3- Indigenous Worship
Easum notes that we are in a hinge moment of history and that:
Throughout the past one hundred years of Protestant history, worship has consisted of two styles, those with order and those with less order; and three basic theologies, liberal, conservative and fundamentalist (p95).
He believes that Church culture has also changed and that
“The issue today is not contemporary or traditional, liberal or conservative. The issue today is whether or not our worship celebrates the incarnational act of God in Jesus Christ in such a way that people are transformed” (p96)
The intent of this unfreezing move is to connect with Christians and also people who are unconnected to Jesus (interesting phrasing!). Easum suggests that to do this you should either change your existing worship service or plant an additional worship service. He makes the point that this is the most productive unfreezing move as it can often have the impact of growing the Church quickly. I would temper this by suggesting that this may be the most visible result but not necessarily the most productive.
Easum sees six characteristics of indigenous worship:
1) an emphasis from choral music to visualisation,
2) Surround sound has replaced the pipe organ,
3) an increased emphasis on “screen worship” through technology,
4) participation and interaction become critical,
5) worship has music that transforms,
6) moves people from contentment to ecstasy. (pp 97-98).
I find Easum trapped at this point, in a paradigm of worship that seeks to define worship narrowly around the use of music. It is also interesting to see that Easum has not included the place of worship in his six characteristics. Surely, the increasing move to reclaim spaces outside the traditional chapel should be listed. Spaces such as cafes, homes, and other community spaces are increasingly used.
He uses an illustration that shows me that Easum is trapped within a narrow paradigm of worship:
When I talk about indigenous worship, people in stuck congregations usually respond with the excuse that the cost of such media is too high for them to consider. I respond by asking them question “do you have a pipe organ in you church?”. The vast majority of dying congregations will answer afirmatively. Then I respond, “What I am talking about will cost much less than a pipe organ. It’s just a matter of priorities”. Most stuck congregations wish to remain stuck” (pp98-99).
While I agree that the issue is a matter of priorities, I also believe that the focus on entertainment style modern music is largely missing the point of vital indigenous worship. Vital indigenous worship incarnates itself into the language, culture and spaces of the local community. For some cultures music will be one factor but indignous worship needs to be so much more than that. Churches that can not see the priority in purchasing a new media system may not be stuck but rather need to look to releasing time and energy in other directions. The more we set the expectation that Churches require worship that is along the lines of Willow Creek and Hillsongs, we increasingly set Churches up for failure or even worse freeze them before they begin in a state of despair as they know they don’t have the resources (musicians and money) to move in this direction.
The change in worship emphasis is described by Easum by this diagram.
|
|
Modern |
Bridge |
Emerging World |
|
Speaker |
Orator |
Communicator |
Sojourner |
|
Content |
Reason |
Truth |
Experience |
|
Logic |
Deductive |
Inductive |
Loopy |
|
Role |
Pios |
Professional |
Personal |
|
Language |
Clear |
Music |
Visual |
|
Attitude |
Efficient |
Optimistic |
Skeptical |
|
Issues |
Faith |
God |
Jesus |
(diagram on p100)
March 31st, 2006 at 2:29 pm
How disappointing Phil.
I was enjoying your summaries and had even ordered the book but this has just turned it into technical Boomer church growth drivel. “Do this and they will come”… as if that is the aim! How unhelpful for missional engagement in our culture. And to describe the emerging worldview as loopy and skeptical shows how unable he seems to get out of his own box. I might have to now use the book I ordered as firewood!
March 31st, 2006 at 3:10 pm
Haha… sorry Andrew. I was posting up my thoughts as I read. I still think there is stuff in this book that can be helpful despite the captivity to the church growth mentality.
In terms of the loopy thing - I am wondering if he means loopy in terms of drawing connection type logic. I wondering if this is an Americanism that is losing something in the translation. Anyone got any thoughts?
March 31st, 2006 at 5:20 pm
Loopy as in so mixed up you can’t see the beginning from the end?
March 31st, 2006 at 5:34 pm
In Australia - loopy would be interpreted as crazy. Is that what Easum is meaning here you think?
March 31st, 2006 at 5:41 pm
Well the world thinks we’re crazy and foolish - why not?
Or maybe I’m just raving mad and belong in the nut house.
March 31st, 2006 at 8:10 pm
I found this one a bit depressing… to be thinking about unfreezing the church and following Jesus into the mission field, and yet to still get hung up on the worship service? I don’t get it. It’s like “how to make your fortress / monastery more funky for the 21st century,” missing the point as it were.
Who knows, perhaps he takes the church out of the service later in the book… I can only hope. I think that bridge-building is probably the worst image for mission possible, reinforcing the great ditch between “us” and “them” that exists mostly because the church has continued to dig it… and now it sounds like Easum is still thinking about how to make it more tempting to get people across that ditch and onto a pew. I hope he’s just taking baby steps and has a broader vision of both the mission itself and the church that exists to fulfill it.
March 31st, 2006 at 8:23 pm
Now that’s how to build up suspense for the next installment
March 31st, 2006 at 10:27 pm
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again (and I know Ab Truth will agree, if he’s lurking on this blog somewhere…):
Singing, music, and the phenomena we label “worship” in the typical Sunday church service is far removed from what people actually intuitively want to offer. Almost without exception my unchurched friends who I’ve brought to church have found the worship portion of church most uncomfortable and difficult to relate to.
In previous generations, when a good sing-along was what might have happened around a friends piano or in a bar somewhere, breaking into song might have been a natural expression. Today? Not likely.
I will admit that after a long time being exposed to church life, many people may get used to it and enjoy “worship”. But I still think we hold on to it because of it’s traditional values only. Therefore an attempt to keep “worship” relevent will miss the mark. Worship should be natural, not only culturally relevent. If we need organised worship it should embrace the tactics of our life - we tend to express worth-ship of anything outside church by speaking about it, dwelling on it and favouring it above competing interests.
Although I admire his desire to see church come “unstuck” from tradition, I don’t think the answer is just a modern looking version of the old. Funky hymns played by great muso’s are no more or less valuable than the old duck on a dodgy piano - they are still hymns (don’t tell Darlene I said that). What we need is a church that can accomodate the expressions of a post-modern world, without becoming post-modern itself. I still reckon a few people hanging out and talking at a cafe is hard to beat.
Still, if modern Christianity is to difficult to get our heads around, you can always consider the cult I’ve recently started. Please take a look at http://www.cultastic.blogspot.com
Sorry about the last minute spam.
March 31st, 2006 at 10:51 pm
bravo rollsy
April 1st, 2006 at 11:19 am
Yes I agree Rollsy. At our church (Northern Community) we have eight congregations and only one has congregational singing as an emphasis. In fact most dont sing at all.
At my wedding - some of our non-Christian friends were incredibly uncomfortable during the singing.
It is true that concerts (and the footy to some extent) provide some of the public singing experience in today’s culture. But, there seems to be a significant difference for people judging by the reaction.
April 1st, 2006 at 3:33 pm
Don’t you love that phrase ‘unchurched’. It implies that the goal is to ‘church’ them! Heaven help us!
April 1st, 2006 at 4:10 pm
It’s a sad indictment (though whether it’s of myself or the church I’m still not sure) that when I think ‘unchurched’ I also think, to an extent, ‘untainted’… which of course leaves the rather unpleasant taste in my mouth when I think about the implicit goal to ‘church’ them as Andrew said.
But when there is (or at least can be) such a vast difference between a ‘churched’ persons experience of ‘church’ and God’s mission for his church within his creation… well I can’t help wondering whether we probably have an easier task working with the unchurched than we do with those who have experienced church, who have sampled church and found it wanting. (Of course it’s easy to speculate about this from in front of my computer where I’m not actually engaged in either…)
April 1st, 2006 at 5:00 pm
hmmmm…agree with all the above. What’s interesting is also Easum’s list - it assumes that screen projectors and surround sound are the solution to everything. I actually think music’s really important - I have a bunch of friends who wouldn’t describe themselves as Christian, but who come to the taize services I run and love them…and I think taize can be quite uncomfortable for many people, particularly when the chants are repeated for quite a period (I know I struggled to stay focused for as long as the Brothers did when they last came out!) Plenty of people - “Christians” and “non-Christians” - love choral music and pipe organ. While it’s important, the music alone does not determine whether a service is transformational, participatory and interactional. I think that 1-3 are largely irrelevant and it’s all about 4-6.
April 3rd, 2006 at 11:58 am
Ahh, well if it is all about 4-6, then most of our congregations at Northern wouldn’t be participating in indigenous worship as most of them don’t have music at all, let alone music that transforms…
April 4th, 2006 at 9:36 am
uh? I was referring to this Dan - b/c I don’t see music as having any essential link to 4-6…I’d say indigenous worship is characterised by participation, interaction, transformation, and a movement from contentment to ecstasy (though I’m not sure what he means by ecstasy!)
1) an emphasis from choral music to visualisation,
2) Surround sound has replaced the pipe organ,
3) an increased emphasis on “screen worship” through technology,
4) participation and interaction become critical,
5) worship has music that transforms,
6) moves people from contentment to ecstasy. (pp 97-98).
April 5th, 2006 at 3:40 pm
Surely this person is not for real. This is just so racist and demeaning. Once again we venture into the “noble savage” myth.
Guess what there are some Australian indigenous Christians who worship in a traditional manner and some that like a more avant guarde approach. Some are Anglicans, some Baptist, some Catholic and, like the rest of humanity, some are musical and appreciate this in their services and some are not and do not.
The major issues facing Indigenous Australians are cultural disenfranchisement, poverty and racism that still, sadly, pervades most of the Australian community not creating hoky religious services that pander more to our expectations than their diverse needs.
April 5th, 2006 at 9:13 pm
Does the term “indigenous” refer to Indigenous Australians or to a worship style that arises naturally from a community of worshippers. I got the impression the latter was the case, greenman, and not the former. However, your comment leaves me in some doubt.
Could anyone clarify this please?
April 6th, 2006 at 7:00 am
You are right Kieren it is of course the later. Greenman knows this he is just giving us mock outrage.
April 6th, 2006 at 9:07 am
David’s the name, Phil.
April 6th, 2006 at 3:05 pm
You are wrong Phil, I chose to interpret it as the former and, given that, I stand by my comments. There has been far too much stereotyping of the Australian Indigenous community, which, as you know, I am involved with.
It seems that the cute view of the Australian Indigenous community is damaging in as much as it denies the reality of their existence and disadvantage, poverty and racism that they experience. It is about time that Australia focused on the real issues in the Indigenous community and recognised that we, as a society, are failing one of our most vulnerable groups. The fact that infant mortality and child health amongst our tribal aborigines is one of the worst in the world, worse than most third world countries, should be a matter of shame and not something we choose to ignore because we are clinging to the “noble savage” myth.
In fact the latter seems little more than an affectation since all religions have initially arisen from a community of worshippers.
April 6th, 2006 at 4:25 pm
Greenman, I honestly have no idea what you’re on about even after attempting to read the initial post as you seem to have…even if you read the original post as being about indigenous Australians, I don’t see any “cute view” there, or ideas of the “noble savage”, or anything else you mentioned.
I generally agree with your comments however I don’t know what you’re bouncing off!
April 6th, 2006 at 5:58 pm
I would also support the greenman’s sentiments about the treatment of Indigenous Australians. The choice of the word “Indigenous” is probably unfortunate in that its meaning would often be associated with the long-term inhabitants of Australia. Alternative terms might be “innate”, “essential”, “natural”, etc.
April 7th, 2006 at 11:21 am
It is unfortunate that western culture never bother to name the aboriginal Australians beyond Aboriginal. It shows quiet a lack of imagination.
April 7th, 2006 at 11:45 am
Not sure what you’re trying to say LovesTha??
Indigenous and aboriginal mean the same things - though in Australia both have come to be associated with indigenous Australians. Is Easum Australian? If not, I think his use of the term is entirely appropriate. Even if he is, it’s still appropriate. I certainly don’t think of people when I see the term “species which are indigenous…”!!
I don’t think “innate”, “essential” really get at the same thing - I understood Easum as trying to talk about a form of worship thats internally generated, rather than externally imposed - I guess “natural” comes closest to what I imagined he was talking about.
I’ve heard a number of indigenous and non-indigenous Christians use the term “indigenisation” to refer to the birth of new forms of worship among indigenous Australians. Interesting use of the word!
April 7th, 2006 at 12:30 pm
Bill Easum is from the USA. So why should we assume that he means Indigenous Australians when he refers to Indigenous Worship? “Indigenous” simply means “originating and living or occurring naturally in an area or environment”. Greenman, I don’t know that you can “choose” to interpret this in a totally different way and then get upset that you think he is being rascist!!
April 7th, 2006 at 3:09 pm
I was purely commenting that the world would be slightly less confusing if some other term was universaly used to describe the (more) native australians than Aboriginal, maybe we should trying and find out what the first word an Aboriginal spoke to a western was and use that, it’d be no more of a silly thing than Americans being called Indians.
April 7th, 2006 at 4:24 pm
Aren’t indigenous Americans now called “Native Americans”? (Or is that not PC anymore?) Surely the best term for indigenous Australians is indigenous Australians - or first Australians, or original Australians, or native Australians (though I’m not a fan of the word ‘native’ because of the noble savage connotations…) LovesTha, it’s hardly possible to come up with any other word to describe the entire indigenous Australian population, since they formed many nations and had many languages…it would be a bit like calling all Europeans Belgians.
April 7th, 2006 at 4:37 pm
I think that’s the point. Instead of lumping them all in together (thereby assuming that they’re all mates and lovey dovey etc) we should take the time to work out who/where they’re from.
Germans and Belgians are European, but there are enough differences in their culture, geopgraphy, customs etc that it’s important to differentiate between the 2.
When Greenman was talking about displacement etc earlier, part of that is that many Aboriginal people themselves don’t know what ‘nation’ they are from. Fortunately, in the SW of WA at least, many more are learning, and are identifying as something ‘more/other’ than ‘Aboriginal’ in discussion.
April 7th, 2006 at 5:42 pm
Same in Vic. In fact, where I come from there’s lots of debate about whether the people should be called “Kurnai” or “Gunnai” (I’m afraid I’ve forgotten all about this, but from the depths of my memory I think I recall that “Gunnai” is the feminine and it’s as much a gender issue as anything).
Personally I think that the reference to “indigenous Australians” is not an entirely bad thing - while yes, it obscures cultural differences, it prevents the splintering of a somewhat vulnerable minority into an even more vulnerable minority, and the use of the term “indigenous” has all sorts of political ramifications that referring to people as, say, Gunnai, Wurundjeri etc does not. The point is they are the original inhabitants of this land - and the use of the term “indigenous” is an impediment to people forgetting their dispossession.
I have no idea how we came to be talking about this on this thread.
April 8th, 2006 at 9:36 am
I have been at the Neil Cole conference most of the week, so I have missed the interesting style of anaylsis by Greenman. Choosing to believe an American author who talks about indiginous worship is racist because of how indiginous is used to refer to Aborigines in Australia is an illogical step.
As I know the greenman has a great capacity for logic, thinking and analysis - I choose to believe he is involving himself in “mock outrage”
Perhaps over lunch greenman you can convince me that you truly believe that Easum is a racist.