Sunday Noise A.5 - Four Suggestions for 'On Topic' Song Selection

I often get asked something like How do you get your songs to match the sermon topic?The more appropriate question for us as worship planners, leaders, and participants should be How do we get our music to work with everything that happens on a given Sunday, not just the sermon? Today I want to help us begin to think about the tone our music sets for a worship gathering both thematically and theologically. Here's a four suggestions:

1) Don't think that every song has to match with the sermon topic: aim for one or two. If your scriptural text or theme for the week deals with healing, you don't want to have 5 songs about healing. That's too on the nose. How much more interesting would it be to use your 4-6 songs (or however many) to shepherd your people through something, and then arrive at the healing character of our God?  So what if you sung a lament song (we like When the World is Sick) which has no built in redemption, then paired it with a song about healing? (I have one I wrote called The Great Physician, a recording is forthcoming.) You can identify the sickness and then offer the remedy all in 22-30 minutes of music.

We will address this in detail in the future, but try and think about the gathering as a whole. Where is music placed in it? How can you help move people's thoughts, emotions, and attention from where they are at the beginning (drinking coffee, chatting, milling around) to where your gathering is thematically concentrating that Sunday? I would argue that you only need one or two of your songs to be 'on topic' with the sermon or theme of the day. The others can help complement and transition to that theme.

2) Know your songs! As leaders we need to know what our songs say. If you're using mainstream Praise & Worship songs, there's a good chance your songs don't say much besides 'God you're awesome' and 'I love you God/Jesus'. If you have a rich catalog of other songs and hymns, however, you might be surprised how rich and wide their content is spread.  For example My Father's World can be great for Sundays themed around creation, the beauty of nature, stewardship of what we've been given, or the don't-freak-out-God's-in-control sovereignty sentiment.

The better you know the content of your songs the more effective they'll be in helping worship be cohesive and transformative. Too often our worship leaders just pick songs at random regardless of what's going on with the rest of the gathering. Let's call our song selectors to something better than what they feel like playing that Sunday (I'm looking at myself here too).

3) Plan ahead! That said, it helps when all involved in a worship gathering are on the same page. I think both of my churches provide a good worship experience, but I can't tell you how often I ask one of my esteemed pastoral co-workers What are you preaching on on Sunday? Only to get a vague I don't know.... maybe... I'll know more on Saturday night.. Its hard (but not impossible) to provide a cohesive worship narrative when you're picking songs blindly.

I worked at a church in Champaign, IL, and while it had its issues, the pastoral and leadership staff were planning worship gatherings 6 weeks out. That helped for a lot of reasons. Most importantly, we had several weeks to put songs together, seek them out, get music 'on topic' with a clear direction.

Churches that follow the lectionary and lean heavily on the Church Calendar have an easier framework for assembling the moving liturgical parts, but with any given text a preacher can still focus on one of a hundred things.

So if you're a preaching pastor, plan ahead with your musicians!

4) Come up with something new (to your people). Sometimes you just gotta do the hard work of coming up with something new! Or at least new to your people.

I am obviously not a proponent of covering other people's praise & worship songs verbatim. If you know that there's an upcoming liturgy or gathering that is going to focus on something your catalog doesn't have a lot to offer, try one of these two things: a) Write a new song. If you're stuck on writing lyrics (which takes a lot of time for me to do well) go to an online hymnal (here, here, here are some decent examples). Search for themes (ex: servant, healing, peace, grace... etc), find one with lyrics over 100 years old, and set it to music! It might take hours to do, but you will have it in your pocket for the future.

b) Find someone else's song. Again, I never advocate covering other praise & worship songs. Find something interesting. Make someone else's song your own. A couple of examples of songs like this that I have given in the past are Jesus Gunna Be Here by Tom Waits and Holy Ghost by Low. Become a curator rather than a cover band.

I look forward to hearing what you are coming up with! Please join the discussion in the comments below or on Twitter.

Next week we'll continue looking at our song selections by approaching a normal week's songs and how you often you might use the songs from your catalog.

This is part of a series called Sunday Noise which is aimed at helping pastors, lay leaders, music directors, and worship leaders begin to think critically and creatively about the music in their worship gatherings.

Sunday Noise A.4 - Becoming Aware of Our Pronouns: What's Wrong With 'I' & 'Me' Praise Songs?

Last week I looked at the 25 most used Praise & Worship songs in 2012 and asked the question: who is talking to who? I looked at whether the songs were being sung from the voice of 'I' and 'me', or from 'we' and 'us'. What we found was that most of the songs were from the 1st person singular to the second person singular, so they are mostly sentiments between 'me & God'.Today I'm going to talk about why I think that's a problem, why we need to be aware of it, and I will finish with a note on our scriptural song book: the Psalms.

So What's The Problem Here?

I want to argue that one of the reasons that I (and many others) find P&W so vapid and sickly is partially due to this intensely individual perspective being used so much in our worship gatherings.

I have already discussed what I think the point of singing together on Sundays is: to connect to God and to connect to each other. If one of our goals in worship is to connect people to God, then it seems like most P&W has focused on that in such an American/Western way. The me and Jesus mindset is so prevalent in the US today that many of us are blind to any other type of Christianity.

Unfortunately our faith is not only about us and God. It is also about us and our neighbor. Our eternal salvation is linked to the Church universal, just as our immediate salvation is linked to God's people here and now. Stated simply: God often meets us and relates to us through his people. I see that one of the important tasks of our music on Sundays is to bring our people together as we become closer to God. It seems that this is not a concern for modern popular P&W music.

Therefore, when our worship music emulates the love-ballad nature of modern pop music by emphasizing only the relationship between me and God we're missing out on something important: each other. I have found that singing 'we' and 'us' songs helps us subtly shift the focus off of ourselves and onto the larger community in which our faith is fostered and expressed. Of course this doesn't fix all of our self-involved tendencies but I have found that it does help.

The analogy that I like to use is that of Parallel Play.  This is a technical way of talking about how young children aged 1-4 play along side each other without really engaging or interacting with each other. They're too self-involved to realize that others exist or have something to contribute to their experience. So it might seem for us to gather together in a dark room, close our eyes, and sing our hearts out to God oblivious to those around us.

There is a time and place for this but is our worship gathering, the only hour or two we all have together each week, the best venue? I would argue not.

What does this Mean for my Worship Gathering and our Song Selection?

Ultimately I want us to allow our faith to inform and critique the rabid individualism of our culture. The most powerful moments we have of sung worship each week at Servant Church are when we can all hear each other, something greater than the sum of our parts combines, and 150 voices converge to one. We make sure our instruments aren't so loud that we can't hear the congregation (aka 'the choir'). This energy combined with songs that come from 'us' and 'we' form songs more powerful and uniting than those that come from a room full of 'me's and 'I's.

Because we are aware of all of this we make sure to keep the 1st person singular songs to a minimum, limiting it to 1 or 2 of our 5ish weekly selections. Keeping it at that 20%-40% max (compared to 76% of the top 25) has helped us draw most everyone in, even the people who don't like the style of our music, or my voice, or whatever. It is unifying both practically and theologically.

An Example

Perhaps you have heard the old hymn Pass Me Not O Gentle Savior. I loved this hymn but didn't want to use it very often due to the inward focused lyrics. So what I did was simply shifted all of the pronouns that were in the 1st person singular to 1st person plural. Voila! I give you Pass Us Not O Gentle Savior. 

[bandcamp width=100% height=42 album=2324760416 size=small bgcol=ffffff linkcol=0687f5 t=8]

Now, it doesn't usually work this neatly with every song, but in this case it has become one of the most sung, beloved, and powerful selections we sing together. What a humble and unifying prayer!

Homework

Take notes at your worship gatherings for a month. How many of the songs you sing come from a voice of I or me? How many of them come from us and we? Compare this to the 76% that represent the most used songs these days. Can you, one of your pastors, or worship leaders be aware of this trend? If you are able to try something else do you see any change in involvement, participation, or impact on your community? I'm interested to hear your experiences.

A Note about the Psalms

After my post last week several people asked what a similar analysis of the Psalms might look like. In preparation for this post I began going through and making notes of who was talking to who and what I found was dizzying. Unlike pretty much every song we might sing in worship today, the Psalms change person seemingly at random. Therefore when I began making notes for each individual psalm it became easier to note which voices weren't represented rather than which ones were. Some suggest that this could be reflecting the responsive nature of the Psalm between an officiant and a congregation. If anything like this is true then I think it makes even more sense for us to be aware of how our songs use pronouns and what they say both orally and theologically. We will look at the Psalms more in depth in later posts.

In two weeks we will look at some strategies on how to make the music and the worship gathering topic match up a bit better.

This is part of a series called Sunday Noise which is aimed at helping pastors, lay leaders, music directors, and worship leaders begin to think critically and creatively about the music in their worship gatherings.

Sunday Noise A.3 - 'Me & God' vs. 'Us & God' Songs: Examining the CCLI Top 25

Me and God vs. Us and God I have already been critical of modern praise & worship songs and told you why we don't sing them. This week and next I want to get specific about one of the critiques with the hope of helping us think critically about our song selection on any given Sunday.

One of the reasons I find mainstream P&W songs lyrically anemic comes when you ask them the question 'Who is singing to who here?' I examined  the top 25 worship songs used in worship in 2012 to ask precisely this: do the lyrics speak primarily in 1st person singular voice (I, me) or 1st person plural (we, us)? More plainly, are the most popular P&W songs lyrically based around 'me & God' or 'us & God'?

This distinction, while seemingly semantical and insignificant, can be reflective of far more than simply our song's pronouns. It can be indicative of several attitudes and assumptions that we might not even be aware of concerning our worship gatherings. All get at the core question: What are we doing here?

Analysis of the Top 25 Worship Songs of 2012

Before we start addressing why I am so worried about these pronouns next week, let me show you what I found when I looked at the top 25 worship songs used in worship in 2012 (as reported by CCLI in reporting period 412). By listening to the first verse and chorus and looking at lyric sheets I was able to identify the following about the top 25 P&W:

First, nineteen of the top 25 are sung from a 1st person singular perspective (I, me & God) while only six are sung primarily from a 1st person plural (us, we & God) mindset. That's 76% in favor of the self-centered. I also noticed that these pronouns were expressive of the general theme of the songs. Meaning: 19 of the 25 songs were built around Me & God motifs and experiences.

Second, I also recorded whether each song sang TO GOD (2nd person singular: You, Thou, Your) or ABOUT GOD (3rd person plural: He, Him, His) and found that these are far more evenly distributed. 13 are sung to the divine 'you' and 13 about the divine 'God' or 'Lord' or on the topic of the gendered 'Him' (note: one sang to both).

Third and finally, it is worth noting that the most common from-who-to-whom combination was the 1st person singular -> 2nd person plural, or the Me singing to You construction. These were over half of the top 25 at 13 such instances. I would take a  wild guess and say that this is reflective of pop-music's most common I Love You sentiment.

Now to show my work:

Analysis of top 25 P&W Songs of 2012 Summary:  From: 6 of top 25 are from a 1stP perspective 19 are from 1stS

To: 13 are TO 2ndS 13 are ABOUT 3rdS

From -> To: From Me:  TO GOD: 13   ABOUT GOD:  8 From Us:  TO GOD: 3       ABOUT GOD: 3

Most popular worship songs of 2012: 1. Our God - 1stP -> 2ndS 2. How Great is Our God - 1stP -> 3rdS 3. Mighty to Save - 1stS -> 3pS 4. 10,000 Reasons - 1stS -> 3rdS 5. Blessed Be Your Name - 1stS -> 2ndS 6. Amazing Grace (My Chains Are Gone) - 1stS -> 3rdS 7. Revelation Song - 1stS -> 3rdS 8. Forever Reign - 1stS -> 2ndS 9. Everlasting God - 1stP -> 2ndS 10. Here I Am To Worship - 1stS -> 2ndS 11. In Christ Alone - 1stS -> 3rdS 12. The Stand - 1stS -> 2ndS 13. How He Loves - 1stS, 1stP -> 3rdS 14. Jesus Messiah - 1stP -> 3rdS 15. Your Grace is Enough - 1stS, -> 2ndS 16. Hosanna (Praise is Rising) - 1stP -> 2nds 17. Open the Eyes of My Heart - 1stS -> 2ndS 18. Hosanna - 1stS ->  2ndS, 3rdS 19. Happy Day - 1stS -> 2ndS, 3rdS 20. Holy is the Lord - 1stP -> 3rdS 21. Forever - 1stS -> 3rdS 22. You Are My King - 1stS -> 2ndS 23. How Great Thou Art - 1stS -> 2ndS 24. From the Inside Out - 1stS - 2ndS 25. Shout to the Lord - 1stS -> 2ndS

Next week we will talk about why this is important. Here's a hint, its something like parallel play vs. cooperative play and begs the question What are we doing here anyway?

This is part of a series called Sunday Noise which is aimed at helping pastors, lay leaders, music directors, and worship leaders begin to think critically and creatively about the music in their worship gatherings.

Sunday Noise A.1: Four Reasons We Don't Sing 'Praise & Worship' Songs at our Worship Gatherings

No 'Praise and Worship'If you stumble into a Servant Church worship gathering for the first time you will immediately notice one thing: you don't recognize most of the songs we sing together. For better or worse, you will get a unique musical worship experience at each of the community gatherings I lead. Attribute it to my deep desire to help restore creativity to God's church, my indie-rock pedigree, or sheer contrarianism: I believe that we can do better than simply providing cover bands who emulate Christian Rock radio song for song, note for note.

I start most conversations about my work by admitting that we don't ever employ any Contemporary Christian Music (CCM) or Modern Praise & Worship (P&W). No Chris Tomlin, no Hillsong, no Gungor. This is not to say that we don't praise and worship God. It is, however, to say that we don't employ music from what has become a primarily American/British genre called 'Praise & Worship'.

Why Not? I'm going to be honest, I think that most of this music sucks. I try to speak positively 95% of the time, but this is one of the areas in which I hope to be constructive in my criticism. I know that I am not alone in noticing this. Both musically and lyrically modern 'P&W' and 'CCM' music are anemic.

I should say that I understand that mainstream Christian music is helpful for some, and far be it from me to say that God doesn't work though much of it. I do believe, however, that there is a growing population that is not helped by the music coming from this highly commercialized Christian culture.

Because of all of this, the reasons that we choose not to employ mainstream praise and worship music are four-fold.

1. Much of it is Lyrically Anemic Lyrically it seems that much of it is made for children and the parents who purchase the music for them. Often they sound like intimate love songs to God.  "Jesus draw me close, closer Lord to you/let the world around me fade away." This might make sense for someone to listen to in their bedroom by themselves.  At our worship gatherings however, the short time we get together to sing and worship together every week, these sentiments can easily leave people thinking 'DO I NEED TO BE HERE FOR THIS?' There is little meaning or theology conveyed, and it seems to isolate everyone in the room rather than bring us together.

Modern P&W can too often boil down to a forced emotional message, much like that of a bad pop ballad. It might be necessary for youth groups to see God as their buddy or even lover, but as we grow up we need to nuance the nature of the divine relationship.

Similarly, most of the modern P&W deals with only eternal salvation, and hardly ever addresses the many other, more immediate forms of salvation in which Christians are called to participate.

The bottom line for me is that most popular praise and worship songs simply don't say many of the things I want to say to or about God. I have found that I am not alone.

2. Musically it is Lacking Second, musically, it seems that Christian P&W has been caught in a 1992 loop for the last two decades. We will address the musical genres involved in a later post, but it suffices to say that most contemporary music in white western churches in the past decade has been an unfortunate mixture of modern country, late-90s rock, Coldplay, and electronic elements influenced by the Matrix trilogy.

3. Christians Aren't Being Creative In Their Sunday Worship Third, in reaction to the lowest common denominator nature of CCM and P&W, I suggest that the church has got to get creative. Instead of trying to provide an alternative to the mainstream Christians need to reflect the creativity of their creator. We need to be influenced by all the same stuff that everyone else is, screw with it, mix in our own blood and sweat, and make something new that engages both our brothers and sisters in Christ as well as those around us.

While I think there is a difference in purpose between music created for creativity's sake and the songs we sing together on Sundays, I still see the need to avoid rote imitation. I want you to be able to walk in to a worship gathering and have a completely unique worship experience that reflects our unique location and role in Christ's body. I also want to be able to come to your community's worship gathering and experience something similar. I want to be exposed to a new expression of faith in God, I want to be changed, and I don't want to see a cover band.

Though you may not recognize all of our songs off the bat, I hope that they will be simple enough for you to catch on quickly, especially after a few weeks with us. More on this in later posts.

4. It Doesn't Help Us Reach Those Outside the Church Doors Fourth and finally, I want our music to not only make sense and be relevant for people already in the room, but also to people who didn't grow up in church and who have never sung a chorus of 'Lord I Lift Your Name on High'. People outside the church don't listen to Christian rock, and its not because of their poor spiritual state. It's because it sucks. Genre is language. We can't have people walk through our doors the first time and immediately realize that they don't know the language. And worse, that they'll have to learn it to participate. Our music should be as inviting and inclusive as our greeters.

So what I am suggesting is not a simple updating of our musical vessel to connect with the consumers, I hope to call our worship communities to something substantively different and better than has been the lyric and musical status-quo. We should reflect the sophisticated, complex, and beautiful God that we worship.

I certainly don't have all the answers, so I think it's time we start doing the hard work of expanding the Western church's musical vocabulary together.

Next week I'll outline the types of songs that we do use on Sundays (and there are a lot of them).

This is part of a series called Sunday Noise which is aimed at helping pastors, lay leaders, music directors, and worship leaders begin to think critically and creatively about the music in their worship gatherings.

Sunday Noise Intro: Why do Christians Sing on Sundays?

Here at richardkentopp.com I'm going to be starting a series called Sunday Noise discussing many topics related to 'leading worship'... including the fact that I think calling it 'leading worship' is often a misnomer. I recognize that every ecclesial situation is different, and I know that there's not really a way to be an 'expert' in these matters. I do, however, have a ton of experience in leading music on Sundays and hope the upcoming discussions can help pastors, musicians, and lay leaders alike assess, form, and begin to ask the right questions about the music in their worship gatherings. Over the next few months I'll be addressing some of the questions I get asked most often about my work: - how do you select and rotate songs through your catalog? - how do you make songs match up with the sermon topic? - how do you choose an appropriate genre of music for your congregation? - how do you put together a band? - should I hire musicians or draw from my congregation? or both? - what does every band leader need to show up with on Sunday mornings? - how do you lead a band, both in rehearsal and in the worship gathering? - how do you write new songs for Sunday worship? - how do I update old hymns? - how do I excavate vintage Christian hymns or poetry? what is liturgical archeology? - am I/do we need a 'worship leader', a 'band leader', or a 'music pastor'? what's the difference? - how much should we pay our 'worship leader'? - how do we evaluate our 'worship leader'? - how can we use the music at my church as an outreach to those who don't go to church? - where do we draw the line between a good spiritual leadership and good musicianship? - etc. etc.

Today, however, I want to start by sharing a sermon I delivered last fall about why Christians sing on Sundays.

Click here to listen. Here is a link to the mp3.

Here's some choice quotes: There’s the Vertical and Horizontal consequences of singing together, and I’m going to describe them through two stories...

These songs not only connect us to God, but they connect us to each other. We feed off of each other’s energy, we feed off of each other’s joy, passion, and even lament.

The scriptures are absolutely packed with songs. From the poem that describes creation in Genesis 1, to the song we sing from Revelation ‘Holy Holy Holy is the Lord God Almighty...’ songs to and about God are integral to the history of God’s people.

John's Apocalypse: So Messed Up Only Kirk Cameron Can Survive

As a conclusion to Servant Church's 7 week series on the big picture of the Bible I gave this sermon on Revelation. It is, of course, an extremely (over)simplified overview of perhaps the most complex text in our cannon. It did, however, prove very helpful for some folks in my communities.

Click Here to listen. Or you can download the mp3 here.

Here's some choice quotes:

I have heard it said that the best modern day analogy for the genre of apocalyptic is not that of a summer action blockbuster, or a grisly horror flick, but a political cartoon.

What we have in the last book of the Bible is this incredible, coded call to faithfulness to persecuted Christians around the year 100. And I think its unhelpful, and even absurd to try and find the United States, Russia, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, or any of us in the text.

What Revelation insists is that no matter how bad your circumstances are... no matter how bad things may seem... God... will... win.

"Jesus is alright with me... but I don't do organized religion"

Here's a sermon I delivered this past Sunday at both Servant Church and Mosaic.It is about the church, God's people, and why we need each other, and why the world outside needs us to be the church. It is, due to no great foresight on my part, especially apt in light of the groundbreaking political and social movement of the last 72 hours.

Click here to listen. Here is a link to the mp3. (I'm trying to figure out an embedded player)

Here's some choice quotes:

"So often we have boiled this Gospel down to the bait-and-switch good news preceded by bad news. ‘I'm a Christian... you’re going to hell... and the GOOD NEWS IS YOU CAN NOT GO TO HELL!', that doesn't really sound like good news to me."

"When we decide to become a follower of Christ, we’re not simply saved from hell and eternal damnation as some would insist. Instead we are saved INTO this thing called the church."

"In America in the past 70ish years since WWII the Church has largely stopped being about taking care of those who can't take care of themselves. Instead we’ve been consumed by saving people’s souls... forgetting about the rest of the work that God has called us to. We’ve forgotten our identity."

My Dirty Mouth (and the Middle Finger of Friendship)

Warning: If you are sensitive to obscene language you probably want to skip this post. I remember the first radio show I ever DJd for the University of Texas student run station, KVRX, back in January of 2000. I walked into the booth with a stack of CDs (that's right we used to use CDs) and was immediately greeted by a sign very similar to the one you see above. While broadcasting onto live air I was not allowed to say shit, piss, fuck, cunt [a word I had never heard before], cocksucker, motherfucker, and tits.

Evidently, thanks to George Carlin, those are the 7 words and phrases banned by the FCC.

These are the bad words.

My Dirty Mouth Most of you who know me know that cussing has been a part of my vernacular since I was in middle school. I remember leading a Bible study in the 10th grade, and while walking a bunch of Baptist classmates through the book of James I quoted a friend of mine who called Christians 'fucking hypocrites'.  The most memorable part of the Bible study was not my detailed exposition of the scripture or gut-wrenching real life examples. Instead, I still remember everyone's faces immediately following the word 'fucking'. Crickets chirped, pins dropped, and my friends' faces could easily have depicted electrocution or disembowelment.

When confronted the next day by a particpant he told me 'You can't say fuck at a Bible Study!' I asked this friend, one who used the f-bomb regularly in conversation, why it was OK to use the word in every day life but not in a study of the Bible? Why does that word have so much power and why should we have different standards for our language in certain circumstances? (See Note #1)

Generational Differences A family member whom I love very much is of the generation before me (that's my way of saying she's over 60). She confronted me about some of the language I was using on my Facebook page saying '...that word, the F-word, was never used in anything but a very ugly context when I was growing up, so its hard for me to hear it and not be just disgusted...'

One thing that is pretty evident to most anyone who watches TV is that obscenities like damn, hell, shit, and fuck are losing their power as jaw-droppers. These words are everywhere now. Kids grow up with them on social media, and obscenities flow as quickly as we can type. They are becoming more and more common place, and are a part of almost every conversation I've had with anyone under the age of 35. My friends taught their 3 year old to say shit and crack up every time she does. The bleeped out cussing of network TV these days does little to mask the obscenity and simply avoid FCC fines.

There is a generational divide when it comes to language. What happened?

Linguistic Reappropriation: The N Word and The Friendly Middle Finger Speaking anecdotally from my experience, I think that many of the obscenities of the past century have been taken over to be used in positive ways. They have been reappropriated and incorporated into our ever day vocabulary.

You can see this in the awful history of the n-word. In the last few decades it has lost some of its shameful power by being re-used by African-Americans as a term of endearment or friendship. I have walked onto many a basketball court and been greeted by a black friend saying 'what up my n-------?' followed by a handshake or hug. Due to the word's history, I (a skinny white dude of German ancestry) will never use the word in my response, no matter how friendly. I will never be black, but I always hope to be someone's 'n------'.

Similarly, this very morning I saw a friend who I haven't seen in months. He saw me from across a crowd and, with a big grin, he walked towards me with two big middle fingers. We embraced with the man-hug-pat-on-the-back, and talked about his trip. The guy's a lawyer. This is not an uncommon experience, and I would honestly say that only about 5% of the middle-fingers I've received in the last 15 years were malicious, the rest were from friends (often as greetings). The middle finger, too, has been reappropriated by friendship.

Finally, the word fuck has, in my experience, primarily come to be used as an intensifier. 'Let's get out of here...' is made more emphatic by 'Let's get the fuck out of here...' 'Yes' is way cooler and far more determined when stated 'Fuck yeah'. Words like this have become useful in language!

Christians Reappropriate Shit All the Fuckin' Time The very label 'Christian' could very well have been a negative label that was embraced and adopted by the early church. The term 'Methodist' probably has a similar story. The Christian Sabbath of Sunday was the borrowing and re-shaping of the Jewish Friday-Saturday idea. Our holiest holiday, Easter, was a reappropriation of the pagan celebration of the spring equinox. Even the holiday of Christmas was a theological remaking of the Pagan Saturnalia celebration. Christians have a tradition of taking the culture's mores and suggesting their own alternative reason or definition.

The fact that the New Testament was written in Greek instead of Aramaic is in itself significant. Though most all of the earliest Christians spoke Aramaic, the authors sought to reach people who didn't speak like them. Paul expanded the audience of the good news by employing the language of those he sought to reach.

Our Dirty Mouths? We too, as Christians in this modern world, must be able to speak the lingua franca without being scandalized by its vocabulary. When helpful, we can be masters of taking things once crude and making them holy.

Are we really so shocked by the word shit because it originally conjured feces (how did crap escape such a stigma)? Or are we shocked by it because we were told as children that it wasn't appropriate? Is the word fuck so grating to many of us because one of its many uses is the act of procreation, or because of the hard k sound and the paddling we got as children for using it?

I was once told by a friend that he couldn't trust anyone who he couldn't drink and cuss with. "Anyone else" he said, "probably thinks they're too good for me." Every time I see him we get together and drink and cuss. This is pretty extreme, and might not yet be true in your context. As time goes on, however, obscenities will be fewer and less offensive and more helpful in reaching people with a proclivity to cussing (which is increasingly everyone).

I am not arguing that we learn to put people down using explicit language in order to be relevant to others. Things we say in anger, whether obscene or not, will be hurtful. I try to never use the 7 words in an angry moment towards someone. In my book it is ok to tell someone they're "bitching", but never to call anyone a bitch (especially a woman).

The New Obscenity: Meaning It seems to me that our language is approaching the point where it is the meaning behind a word that should be shocking, and not the word itself. You can argue that that's always been true. Calling someone named Richard 'Dick' is a friendly nick name given by friends (hey Dad!). Calling a guy named Richard a dick however, is comparing them to a male sex organ. Not very flattering.

If Americans today spent as much energy being scandalized by the language (and legislation) of racism, bigotry, and divisiveness as we do getting upset about the 7 dirty words, then we'd probably live in a much better society. (See Note #2)

Here's my point: let's hold people accountable to the meaning of their words rather than their vocabulary, and maybe we should start to reconsider what a filthy mouth really sounds like.

---------- Notes:

1. I am not trying to defend the practices of my dirty mouth. Quite to the contrary, as I work with more and more folks who are offended by traditional obscenities (read: people over 55ish), I am trying to use them less. I want to connect to people, not alienate them. As I grow up and mature I realize that my job is to figure out how best to be a Christian and person and whatever context I'm in, and how best to love people where they are.
2. A comparison occurs to me: the content of a person's character vs. the color of their skin.

Five Reasons to Give a Damn About the New Pope

Since the surprising election of the new pope back in March I have been impressed. I have shared several articles about what he's saying and doing on Facebook. The response to my posts has been both positive and negative. Through some of this social media interaction many of my Roman Catholic, Protestant, and even Atheistic friends have expressed some of my same delights. The negative responses, however, have been puzzling to me.Most common, especially by my American (mostly Texan) friends, has been a sentiment of apathy. One said 'Why do you care about who the Pope is? Why should I give a damn?' This sentiment is often coupled with 'The Pope has no say over my life.'

Well, here's five reasons why I care about what our Roman Catholic sisters and brothers are going through in this incredible time of transition; and why you, protestant, atheist or other, should give a damn too.

1) The Pope is probably the most influential religious leader in the world. Over 1/7th of the world's population (1.2 billion) look to the Pope for spiritual direction, guidance, and governance. This is over half of the world's Christians. Whether or not you call yourself a Christian, it is easy to see how widely this bishop's influence reaches, especially as the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) has exploded in South America, Africa, and East Asia in the last century.

The Pope is certainly not influential in the way your local pastor is in your life. This is, of course, true even for Roman Catholics. However, the inherent power, oversight, spokesmanship, and ideological steering effect every corner of the Roman Catholic world, and thus the entire planet.

2) This dude is oh so different than any other pope before him.

• Pope Francis is the first South American Pope, the first of any American kind.
• He is the first from the Southern Hemisphere.
• He is the first modern pope to be from a place that still deals with 3rd world poverty on a wide spread scale.
• He has rejected many of the garish excesses often employed by the Papacy
• He's the first in over a millennia to take over after a Pope resigned
• He is the first elected from a Jesuit order (which is pretty significant)

All of this leads to the impression that the guy is not part of the establishment in a way that the other (mostly European) Popes have been. One commentator said that they elected a 'foot soldier' to lead them.

The installation of his predecessor, Benedict XVI at such an old age implied to many that he was merely a conservative placeholder until a Pope for the modern world could be selected. Especially following his almost unprecedented resignation, Benedict was clearly not intended to be the long-term successor to the incredibly progressive and popular John Paul II. At some level, it seems the post-Vatican II Roman Catholic world was waiting for Francis.

3) He is opening the door to the rest of the world. Since his installment in March Francis has pissed off Catholics and endeared himself to many outside of the religious fortress of the Vatican City.

• He washed the feet of a woman, something traditional Catholics are very uncomfortable with.
• Not only that, but he also washed the feet of a Muslim... girl!?! Zing!
• He is avidly leading the worldwide church in concern for the poor. And while care for the poor is something the RCC has traditionally done pretty well, Francis is ardently working on their behalf in his first three months as Pope.
• He speaks off the cuff, often saying things that the religious establishment aren't comfortable with. Does this sound like someone we've heard from before?
• He sought to build a bridge with other faith traditions, and even to atheists who share their similar values and who are doing the 'work of God'.

4) He is openly critical of the RCC, yet faithful to it. With his immediate rejection of the flashy Papal clothes and digs he has been critical of the RCC status-quo from day one. Since then he has also openly spoke out against his own institution.

He has not been afraid to address the problem of molestation that has been rampant in the Western church. Whether anything comes from his talk, we shall wait and see.

He spoke out against the RCC's fiscal excess and  material hoarding calling the church to a 'heart of poverty', not exactly synonimous with the Roman Catholic Church we've all come to love and hate.  He also called on global leaders and Catholics world wide to slow the roll of the global capitalist machine that grows at the expense the poor.

In some of his most interesting and controversial stuff to date he insisted that God is still working through those who aren't Roman Catholic when they do good works, even atheists. “The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! ‘Father, the atheists?’ Even the atheists. Everyone! And this Blood makes us children of God of the first class! We are created children in the likeness of God and the Blood of Christ has redeemed us all! And we all have a duty to do good. And this commandment for everyone to do good, I think, is a beautiful path towards peace. If we, each doing our own part, if we do good to others, if we meet there, doing good, and we go slowly, gently, little by little, we will make that culture of encounter: we need that so much..."

Of course many take this to mean he's saying that atheists are going to heaven, and the Vatican was quick to dispel that notion (despite the incredible ecumenical discussion that followed). As so often happens in Christian debates the question of who's going to heaven and who's going to hell is not really the right one here. That wasn't what Francis was talking about. The point I'm trying to make with this quote is that his words include both sides of an intramural debate, one he's probably participated for his entire professional life.

He's got a bone to pick.

5) The Roman Catholic Church is a whore, but she's our mother. Anyone who's had to take any church history knows that if it weren't for the Roman Catholic Church we very well might not still be doing this whole "Christian" thing (with apologies to my Eastern Orthodox friends). For a lot of history the Roman Catholic Church was the Church.

To anyone who calls themself a Christian in the West, we can not separate our faith lineage from that of our Roman Catholic friends any more than I can remove myself from the American legacy of baseball, apple pie, genocide, slavery, and drone strikes.

At the churches I work at, our gatherings are flush with ancient prayers and liturgical elements, much of it Roman Catholic in origin. The very scriptures we use are both a precursor to and a byproduct of God's church, which was then largely collected, preserved, and protected by our friends in Rome. There is only one holy and catholic (little 'c') Church, and the Roman Catholic brand has always been its majority.

“As to the Church, where else shall we go, except to the Bride of Christ, one flesh with Christ? Though she is a harlot at times, she is our Mother.” - Dorithy Day

To those of you who don't call yourself a Christian, it is impossible to deny the role of the RCC in the development of the Western Hemisphere. We are all influenced to our core by the Judeo Christian influence upon our thought, life, and communal practices. This has, of course, been both good and bad.

THEREFORE If you often read books by names like Mark Dricsoll, Rick Warren, Greg Boyd, or Bono; if you check in with news commentators like Rush Limbaugh, Jon Stewart, or Rachel Maddow, I suggest you keep an ear to the ground for what's going on with ol' Francis in Vatican City.

We all know that there's plenty of reasons to be critical of the RCC. My point today is that there is now, perhaps for the first time in my lifetime, a reason to be excited as well. Change is a bitch, especially for the one of the oldest organizations in human history. I will join with my Roman Catholic brothers and sisters to pray, converse, and see what direction, if any, this new rudder can exert upon Christianity's biggest ship.

Mass in Latin: A Video from Vegas

In February I was invited to speak to a bunch of young United Methodist pastors in Vegas. They made the mistake of flying out my entire band. My delivery was hampered by my exact geographic location and the events of the previous 24 hours, but I feel that the content of my talk was helpful for getting the church leaders involved to think about their worship gatherings.

[vimeo 67695222 w=500 h=375]

Richard Kentopp: Mass in Latin from Relevance Ministries on Vimeo.

Heaven and Nature Sing (a sad sad song)

Last week there was even more bad news from the sky as Oklahoma City was smacked by awfully destructive tornado.Recently many have reasked the age old question, why would a good god allow something like this to happen? Or more frignteningly, did God cause this to happen? It is a recapitulation of the problem of evil, and the relationship between nature's chaos and the sovereign will of God.

Comedian and self proclaimed atheist Ricky Gervais tweeted this last week:

His question is both unoriginal and understandable. It reminds me of one of the most underrated albums of the 90s, U2's Pop. The album is a fantastic collection of dark, electronic/acoustic hybrid songs.  It was released right when electronic music was reaching the mainstream. A lot of the album's lyrics consist of theologically dense pleas asking god to step up and put an end to all of this darkness. Perhaps the most poignant is Wake Up Dead Man. 

Jesus, Jesus help me I'm alone in this world And a fucked up world it is too Tell me, tell me the story The one about eternity And the way it's all gonna be...

Jesus, I'm waiting here boss I know you're looking out for us But maybe your hands aren't free Your father, He made the world in seven He's in charge of heaven Will you put in a word in for me?

Wake up, wake up dead man!

The bottom line for Christians is that we just run into too much trouble when we equate nature with God's will. The earth, just like all of us people, are off and need to be set right again. This is frustrating to many because of the relationship between the concept of God's sovereignty in the Bible (which is basically that anything outside our control is God's will) and God's permission for chaos to reign in all creation.

All of this, plus the discussion on social media last week, both helpful and unhelpful, got me to listening to U2 (something I hardly ever do) and playing my guitar.

While wrestling with all of this I wrote and recorded a song. It, like a lament Psalm, calls on a God who either doesn't care or doesn't want to do anything to stop nature from being such a dick to us, even though we are pretty much dicks to the rest of creation and each other. I should note that there is little redemption, but the song instead reflects the wrestling, not the conclusions. Also a bad word is used, sorry and get used to it, and please and thank you!

[bandcamp album=4206422199 bgcol=FFFFFF linkcol=4285BB size=venti]

Here are the lyrics to the song entitled Nature Sings (a sad sad song)

If the water and the wind they obey your Son, And the tempest swell will calm to bring him home. Then how come wind and water always conspire to drown all of these people that you’ve grown?

If Peter can stumble on the wild water, And nature sings your praises loud and strong, If the ocean is so fond of its heavenly father, Why can’t it leave your children’s homes alone?

Chorus: Nature sings a sad sad song sometimes, If our common Father were to give a shit we might just be all right If the rocks cry out, and the lilies dress so fine, Why does creation offer us this bitter rhyme from time to time?

Have we done something to incur the wrath, Of the lava fields and earth to cause to quake? We thought we were entrusted with their care, And as our cities bellow smoke we need a break.