From: "Clint Kerley" Clint.Kerley@wheaton.edu
The title of my Master's Thesis at Wheaton College is "A Response to Postmodernism in The Wesleyan Church". The capitalization of the word "The" in the title turns a postmodernist off and should be the first thing to change. Just kidding (kind of). Here's my thesis statement: In the Wesleyan response to postmodern culture, we must return to our Anglican heritage and the mystical and Puritan influences in the life of John Wesley in order to offer a new context of spirituality to reach a new generation.
Generation X culture is a glowing example of the impact postmodernsim has had on a group of people. Why the Anglican church? Because it provides a contact point with the ancient church, with ritual, with symbol, with tradition, with architecture, with mystery, etc. Why the mystical influences? Because it provides a contact point with spirituality, with experience, with union with God, etc. Why the Puritan influences? Because it provides a contact point with ethics, with morality, with community, with family. I believe that these are all elements of worship that Generation X desires and needs and must be combined to produce a church for the 21st century. I end the thesis with a fun look at what I believe will be some characteristics of the Wesleyan Church-2020 and structure a Generation X service. I will be sure to send you a copy of my findings.
In Christ, Jon Wiest
From: "Jeffrey S. Sykes" jsykes@nts.edu
If one was to accept the assertion that those concerned with choruses are absorbed in creed, the next logical question is "what creed?" As noted, these tend to be simple creeds. Here is my question. If Arius could say the Apostles creed without any sort of problem, how do these simple creeds teach people more than basic faith? Without discipleship and deep instruction in the faith simple choruses (that are simple creeds) produces simple Christians. These simple Christians are ignorant because they are disconnected from the learning necessary to make them mature Christians.
Thank God I went to a Christian College and am now attending Seminary. I was too simple in my faith that I was still a babe in Christ. Maybe my case is different. Maybe not. ----JS
From: Bob Younce ryounce@midcogen.com
It may very well be that today's choruses are creedal. It is interesting to compare the content of the choruses, though, with even a simple creed such as the Apostles' Creed. The Apostles' creed contains 12 simple statements, just about as easy to remember as any praise chorus, but says much more about doctrine than any praise chorus that I can think of.
Really, this concept leaves me with more questions than answers... What is the creed that we are clinging to in our choruses? What statements are we making about God? Are we outlining basic tenants of faith (as the traditional creeds did), or are we merely describing our existential relationship with God? The traditional creeds came about through centuries of struggling to define the faith. Remember the struggle they had in the Athanasian Creed about "similar substance" vs. "same substance"? If choruses are indeed our creeds, have they come about through the same struggles? Have we made the effort to insure that they are theologically sound? Are they more concerned with defining the faith or with experiencing it? (Both are equally important - Paul told Timothy to guard his doctrine as closely as he guards his life.) Do our modern chorus-creeds have what it takes to withstand the barrages of a post-modern society, that finds itself increasingly hostile to Christianity? Remember that the ancient creeds were often a defense against heresy - can our chorus-creeds hold off the New Age syncretism that you mention?
Is it possible that the intellectual content that choruses seem to lack is what is creating the desire among many evangelicals (such as myself) to pursue more traditional ("traditional" as in ancient, not "traditional" as in 1950's) forms of worship? I know that I, for one, have sung so many praise choruses that they have lost meaning. But give me the opportunity to say the Lord's Prayer or recite the Nicene Creed in unison with a body of believers, and you have spiritually made my day. Throw in communion, stained glass, and a good Charles Wesley or Isaac Watts hymn, and I feel the presence of God more than I did in any campmeeting while I was growing up. --Bob Younce
From: Brad Boydston brad@bradboydston.com
In our area the younger generation isn't really into singing praise choruses. Old Boomers like to sing choruses but the younger set has developed a musical style and repertoire that goes way beyond the repetitive simple pieces that most people think of as "praise choruses". True, it's not back to what many people think of hymns but it's become a lot more sophisticated than "He is Lord, He is Lord..." It seems to me that the question is moot or, given regional differences, soon will be. -- BRAD BOYDSTON, Turlock CA
From: Jerry L Steen bigjersteen@juno.com
Great insight. It makes me think of the church I was brought up in. They sang the Doxology after the offering was taken up. They sang the same opening and closing hymn every Sunday morning. After I started going to my wife's Wesleyan Church, I enjoyed the kind of worship they had. It was simple and not weighed down with such traditions that had lost meaning to me. What is funny is after fifteen years, I am now beginning to enjoy the doxology. I can enjoy the meaning of it and I truly worship God while singing it.
Thinking of some of your other thinking drafts, I wonder this:
Will the children of those who go to a church that sing praise choruses reject the repetitive nature of the praise choruses and begin their own new style of music that will appear more like the traditional hymns that I grew tired of as I grew up? Are we just circulating our traditions from generation to generation.
Wow! Thinking can be a dangerous thing. --Pastor Jerry Steen