Newest twist on the Lord's Supper
My friend Stuart Delony wrote about this on his blog. Episcopal Churches are trying to attract people to come to their churches by playing U2 songs during their Eucharist (for all of you Baptist's that is Lord Supper). Read about it here.
I agree with Stuart here. Isn't the Lord's Supper suppose to be built around--say "JESUS." I'm all about innovation, but this is going over the edge don't you think?
I love U2, but at communion? What's next? Lynyrd Skynyrd during the invitation? How about Garth Brooks during the Prelude? Eminem during the Offering? Sister Sledge during the prayers. Why not Poison at a funeral? How about Winger at a wedding (16?). We could do Amy Grant's Baby-Baby at a child dedication.
What do you think? What other groups could be played and when?
posted by Kevin Bussey at 4/17/2006 10:00:00 AM
13 Comments:
I read about this in a paper a few days ago and I too found it very troubling. Kevin I'm with you. Innovation is one thing but I think this one went way out of bounds.
In my opinion when it comes to the Lord's Supper the line between reverence and relevance is razor thin.
Jamie,
I usually have humor in all of my messages. Of course from my blog, that is probably obvious. But we did the LS a few weeks ago and I had no humor. I don't find the death of Jesus very funny.
I don't have a problem playing a U2 song in a video or even if the praise band wanted to use "Gloria" or "Streets with No Name." But to play any rock and roll song during communion just to get people to come to church--I'm not comfortable with that.
Yea, Paul's admonition in 1 Cor 11 reeks with humor and relevance doesn't it?!?!?!?!
Well...per your "suggestion" that we play a little Lynard Skynard at the invitiation, I would have to say only if it's a little "Sweet Home Alabama"!??!!!!
That's right next to heaven isn't it? :-D
Amen David!
I love that song, but I was thinking more like... FREEBIRD!
Kevin,
I admit the idea of streamers during the "liturgy of the Eucharist" may well be out of place. I am not sure we could say an anthem produced by U2 is out of bounds for Communion. Some of the lyrics are very thought-provoking and stem from, at least it seems, an understanding of what it means to follow Jesus.
There are plenty of Baptists hymns that have less than stellar theolgical basis and yet we often find them played and sung because they are safe.
I am not condoning an "any means to get them here" posture. However, there are plenty of other illustrations more crass than playing some edgy U2.
Just my .02.
Isn't the real issue that they're trying to attract people to come to church using the Eucharist, which is supposed to be closed to the community of Christ (not the big "C" Community of Christ, which is RLDS)? I don't understand Eucharist/Communion/TLS as an attractional ministry. Forgetting what's being played in the background.
At a church I pastored about eight years ago there was a family that had Freebird played at their son's funeral service (this was before they called me - actually the church didn't have a pastor at the time and one of the deacons preached the funeral service. The grandfather got so disgusted he left his own grandson's funeral).
Sadly, when they got to the graveside it actually got worse.
Todd,
I have no problem with the U2 or even their music being played in a service. I said in a comment above I think Gloria or Streets with no Name would be great.
My problem is having a LS service revolving around U2. The service should revolve around Jesus and if you have U2 or Lifehouse or AC/DC playing just point people to Jesus.
Joe,
You are right!
Paul,
That is sad.
Kevin,
I agree corporate worship should be centered around King Jesus. I should have said a Communion service where U2 is played is not wrong so long as the music points to the King. Should the two become reversed scrap the music without hesitation. I don't believe they are necessarily mutually exclusive.
Joe,
Do you dismiss those who are not Christ-followers from your service before celebrating the Lord's Supper?
Todd,
I think we agree!
Todd, do we advertise the Lord's Supper? I mean, part of me cringes when So and So Church advertises their "contemporary worship service," but do we also advertise Communion? No. A lot of churches say, at least at some point before Communion, that it is something that really is only for Christians. I'm trying to think of something comparable. Ah, how about this. Do faculty advertise the faculty lounge to the students they teach? It's a great tease to say, "come here because we do this" and then say, "you can't do this because you're not a Christian, and if you do, you'll regret it, yada, yada, yada."
Only if you believe that the Eucharist transfers grace would you want to attract people to the Eucharist itself. Perhaps that's the root of it all. And certainly I have to disagree with that.
Joe,
I understand your point. I am not ready to say Communion "confers" or "transfers" grace. I will go on record as saying I think we take the Supper too lightly and that it may mean more/have more significance than we have traditionally given it (at least as I grew up observing the LS).
We still cannot "dismiss" folks from our service to observe Communion. There is a compelling phrase a pastor friend once used regarding guests who do not follow Jesus. It is as though they get to "over hear" what we are about/doing. In that process they come to understand how we have been given a place at the "table" by the grace work of Jesus Christ.
We may not advertise Communion. But, we should allow people to see just how we value our place near after having been so far and to reduce what we do to some merely symbolic gesture may not go far enough to communicate the declaration of the gospel of Good News in the "shared meal."
We do however agree the Supper is for the people of God.
Post a Comment
<< Home