New e-book on church music

A nice little e-book I downloaded from Mathias media (here) the other day. It cover all sorts of issues from leading teams and services to practical technique in setting up a good mix. Well worth a look if your involved in church music and want to do it better.

more U2

great review of a U2 show from a theological point of view. here.

The new U2 show

I simply have to go when they come to Australia...

God in the House: U2 Live in Los Angeles
Relevant magazine, April 22, 2005
By Stephen Simpson

Evangelicals have long had ambivalent feelings about U2. Bono has done more to raise awareness and support for the crisis of poverty and AIDS in Africa than almost any other Christian figure. But some conservative Christians busy themselves looking at the speck in his eye. Bono and the rest of the band drink, smoke and swear, causing some to ask questions about the sincerity of their Christian faith. On April 5, nobody, including the band’s most vocal detractors, would have been asking questions. That night, U2's Vertigo tour hit Los Angeles and turned the Staples Center into a cathedral, or a revival tent, if that's your thing. Either way, God was in the house.First there was the message, highlighted from the beginning with the roaring opener, "Love and Peace or Else." In the '90s, the band used irony to soften the blow of its passion for peace, human rights and an end to poverty. Nothing was soft or ironic about the delivery. From posting the U.N.'s Declaration of Human rights on the video screens to Bono's proclamation that "all people are equal in the eyes of God," U2 didn't hide their zeal for changing the world. But they didn't just shove the message down the audience's throat; they invited us to participate. Bono asked everyone to take out their cell phones and send a text message in support of the One Campaign, an effort to provide funds for American medical professionals to work in African communities. The visual effect of thousands of cell phones, tiny blue screens glowing throughout the dark arena, was dazzling. Thanks to U2, the cell phone has officially replaced the lighter as the luminous icon of choice at rock concerts (Fire marshalls around the world are now sleeping better and buying U2 records). This is a prime example of what U2 does at their best: get people socially involved and make them feel cool at the same time. Given the emergency in Africa that's often ignored by the media, thank God someone is making noise about it.The band also made noise about God. Sometimes Bono belied his faith with a subtle gesture that only those "in the family" would catch, like raising his hands and looking upward while singing "All Because of You." But Bono was mostly loud about his Christianity. He threw in a chorus of "hallelujahs" at the end of "Running to Stand Still," showed off the crucifix that the pope gave him and quoted Scripture. The band closed with "40," which takes its lyrics from the 40th Psalm. But if anyone harbored doubts about U2 being a Christian band, "Yahweh" laid them to rest. It's a praise song. Both its lyrics and melody sound like something straight out of a Vineyard church: "Take this city/A city should be shining on a hill/Take this city, if it be Your will/ What no man can own, no man can take/Take this heart and make it break." Bono and thousands in the audience stuck their hands in the air, but it didn't look like typical rock arena exuberance. It looked like a Charismatic Christian convention. Then there was the music. I have been to eight U2 concerts over the course of 18 years, and I have never heard them play with more precision and fervor. Adam Clayton and Larry Mullen were tight, Bono hit all the high notes and the Edge was...well, he was the Edge. The guy can play the blues, rough and metallic, or make his guitar sound like an orchestra, soaring and shimmering. I attended the show with an accomplished guitar player, and he said that mortals shouldn't be able to make a guitar sound like that. The band favored the audience with old favorites, playing three "deep cuts" from their first album, but they weren't shy with their new material. A testament to U2's staying power is that fans are as eager to hear new material live as they are the old stand-bys. And they played with all the zeal of a punk band in their 20s. They tore through "Zoo Station" with such intensity that I thought someone might get hurt. After almost 30 years of playing together, U2 makes many bands half their age seem docile and safe. But their musicianship, passion and faith aren't the only things that make U2 different. They connect with their audience in a way that's rare. Even the stage lent itself to the communal experience. Some ticket holders were selected at random to stand in "the ellipse," a catwalk-enclosed area in front of the stage. Each band member entered the arena shining a spotlight up into the cheap seats, making those farthest from the stage part of the show. During "Into the Heart," Bono pulled a small boy from the audience and had him sit on stage for part of the show. The move symbolized the effect U2 has on its audience. The band reaches out, making everyone feel connected to what's happening onstage.U2 has turned almost every rock 'n' roll stereotype on its head. Rock music is supposed to be the province of the young, but these guys are in the their mid-40s. Most pop stars are aloof, but U2 goes out of their way to relate to their audience. At other concerts, the crowd cheers when the lead singer mentions smoking weed or having sex. At this concert, the audience went berserk when Bono mentioned God, human rights and helping the poor. U2 has returned rock 'n' roll to its gospel roots, making a big, shining noise that inspires and uplifts. While in line for the show, I met a girl who had never been to a U2 show. I saw her during the concert, and she had tears in her eyes. The cynics might think that's a bit melodramatic -- not believing a rock show can move someone. But when U2 hit their stride, like they did that night in Los Angeles, people leaving glowing, thoroughly entertained yet wanting to change the world. It's how Church, at its best, makes us feel. As long as U2 keeps doing that, I don't care if the guys have a beer and drop the F-bomb once in a while.

Church programs

THE PROBLEMS I HAVE WITH "PROGRAMS"
by John O'Keefe

Ever since “The Passion of the Christ,” I have been wondering why am I so “anti-program?” I know I tend to be a bit of a rebel, but I still wonder why things “programmed” drive me crazy. When I say “crazy” I mean, they drive me crazy and I just can’t seem to get a grip on why. It seems that modern churches and modern church “leaders” gravitate to the “latest and greatest” in the church program area – flashy books, great titles, cool pics and all the eye candy one can muster. I can remember sitting at a meeting of the local Pastors and hearing them talk about how “The Passion” (the newest “latest and greatest” program) was going to flood our churches with non-believers seeking to know more about Christ. What they could not grasp in reality was when I tried to explain that most non-believers do not see the church as “the place” where those questions are asked, and honestly answered. Most non-believers are going to have that conversation in the local bar, their living room or their kitchen and many be on Thursday night at the bowling ally; places where most “good christians” would never get caught walking out of (notice I did not say they would not go in, just that they would never get caught coming out).Let’s be honest. Christian books stores are filled with “programs” and each one is touted as the “latest and greatest” – The Passion, Purpose Driven “You Name it”, Pray of “Whoever,” Video Bible, you name it, it over flows the shelves – for youth, for children, for teens, for “tweens,” for couples, for singles, for divorced, for separated, for adults, for older adults, for younger adults, for older single adults, for older widowed adults, for an endless supply of what ever box you want to place a person in there is a program designed just for them. It is not my desire to pick on one program over another, because they are all equally silly in my eyes, let me select one that I believe is one of the “founding fathers” of church programs – the “purpose driven” programs. I know, for many I am about to become more of a heretic then I already am; for some I am stepping on the “holy of holies” the “foundation of the modern church” – but I have to do, what I have to do.The Main Problem:Here is the main problem I think I am having with this whole “purpose driven” thing (and in reality you can put any of the many programs in those quotes) - when I read statements that claim, “this program changed my life” or “if not for this program our church would have closed” or “I love this program because it made me see my life clearer” I get freaked, because many modern “leaders” hear those types of statements and think, "the purpose driven program will change the lives of my people and the culture of my church. We will start to grow and become a bigger church, I need that program." The problem is the program does nothing – nothing – it changes nothing as I see it. I believe the gospel message changed the people, but we give credit to the program and the author of the program, but it is the message of Christ that changes lives and church cultures. We see the program as the “change agent” and therefore we need the program to “package the gospel message. Because for some reason, we think the “program” will clean the message up and make it easier to believe. I have a feeling that the original intent of the book, “The Purpose Driven Church” was not to be a program, but was to open the hearts and minds of church “leaders” and get them stirred into action; to call their attention back to the word of God and into the lives of the church – but publishers, marketers and business minds got involved and realized they could “can a program” and sell it to church “leaders” looking for a quick fix for their churches ills. The “program” became the perfume that hid the smell of a rotting corpse, because in reality, nothing truly changed.Over time the modern church place such a heavy load on programs, the author, and a great value on when the program was started - in this case, the purpose driven, Rick and modern times. The problem becomes, the "program" has no value at all, the author is just a man and times change – but because many of the modern church “leaders” place such energy on the program, the author and times change is virtually impossible.Consumer Driven is more like itThe "PD" is driven by "quality" and in terms of church “quality” is a very modern, very consumer centered idea. When we think in terms of “quality” we think in terms of “getting the most for our buck” – “the biggest bang for our dollar” – but that is so not what church should be about. In a postmodern/emerging church that is not an issue. The central drive of the "PD” church is to be bigger, better, more building, more land, more money, more “shine” then the church down the road. This is not, or should not be, the heart of a postmodern/emerging church, so to try to fit a “PD” program into a postmodern/emerging church is like trying to fit a square peg into a sunspot – it will get fried.What still fits?I think that "the five" – fellowship, discipleship, worship, ministry, and evangelism (I would add "relational" - which I believe is far deeper then "fellowship" and “missional” which is so much deeper then “evangelism”) are still important; just not as linier as "PD" makes them out to be - they are so very connected, so very non-linier in nature and scripture. Let me take just one as an example - evangelismEvangelism should be a natural component in all the other areas - it should be "inter-twined" because every single person who is a follower of Christ should evangelize. This is not an option, but in the “PD” modern church we have created “groups” that do this, or we write a check to fund others to do it – but we are all called to share our faith - fellowship should have an "evangelism" connection (not the purpose, and totally not the reason - but an element) - discipleship should also, jesus called his disciples - they were not "believers" when he called them, they became believers. The modern church tends to see discipleship as something that happens after you become a believer, but just as Jesus modeled, discipleship starts before one believes. Evangelism in worship, very cool and missing in many modern churches; they see worship as a “show” and not as a tool to show how believers worship the living God. Evangelism as a component in ministry, showing that what we do we do for Christ - while this may seem natural, many modern "PD" churches I have talked with, interviewed with and visited compartmentalize all the five into separate "programs" - heck, some have gone as far as hiring staff based on the five.The connective nature of “the five” (and i still believe there are more) is important. While a “modern mind” may not be able to grasp the idea of “multi-tasking” and seeing the connections of all, the postmodern/emerging mind sees it as clear as day. Multi-tasking is a norm for us, and as such we see the connections – the networking of “the five.” I think a healthy postmodern/emerging church does not "box" the five as modern “PD” churches do. A postmodern/emerging outreach allows the five to flow and develop as the spirit leads – allowing the center to be the needs of the people and not the needs of the program. This can be and often is too “messy" for many in the modern church, and even seen as "chaos" to many - but I think it works.ClosingI think the problem I have with modern programs is that they place importance on the wrong things - sure, a church "leader" will say "the bible is important" but then he (or she) will turn to a canned program and say, "this will help our church grow" - never once coming to the realization that what is needed is a deeper walk with Christ, in his word and in his way. Programs make church life easier. It places less responsibility of the Pastor, and more on the program. If the church does not grow after “40 days of purpose” it’s the programs fault. The purpose driven may be calling for us to have a deeper walk; the call is not loud enough, long enough and with enough conviction to let an emerging conversation believe it. What happens is that most modern church do the program and then wait for the next program to make their next move. I think the modern church likes programs because they have something to blame, or someone to blame, for the failures of the church.Soon after The Passion hit the theaters and the group of ministers spent a ton of cash on helping Mel advertise his movie, we sat around and the funny thing is, no one spoke of how they were dealing with the massive growth in their church. No one spoke of all the non-believers who were filling their buildings asking questions that would change their lives. Funny, but wait – a new and better program is just around the corner.

How good is God

I was lucky (kind of) to be up early enough this morning to see the sunrise. Sometime we don't let our mind be taken by the wonder but this morning it was taken. The sheer beauty of Gods creation as the sun slowly and progressivly shed light on curtins of clouds was mind stretching. The collection of reds, oranges and pink was breath taking - fantastic!

The reason I was up so early is that I had to drop off my wife to the airport as she is having a final holiday pre-kids (we're having a baby near the end of the year!!) with her best friend in the Gold Coast. I have enough work to keep me quiet writting this thesis plus I seem to have heaps of other things planned as I will will be tethered only by the dog! Mind you, I do like being tethered by my beautiful wife.

The Bible: just another Text?

There is alot of good disscussion going on over at PhilBaker.net about Sin/Creation Science/evolution. Alot of it comes down to the ways we interpret and view the Bible. There are many smart people contributing to the debate but sometimes I feel that we treat the bible like any other peice of literature, especially when we refer to it as a text. As a christian I feel it is different to every other text as it was inspired by God, every part of it. Therefore I think it is a book that can communicate to many cultures, ages, eras, and even commnicate valuable information for those wanting to know about the origins of the earth. If God inspired it do we really think he would have been so small minded to aim it only at one culture (the jews) for the particular time in which it was written? God is big, lets broaden our view of his word to match the author.

new music

Two new CD's a got the other day - great new Australian music...

Lior - Autum flow. We saw him support Missy Higgins a few weeks ago and is brilliant live by himself. A really solid album.

Sarah Blasco - The Overture and Underscore. Another solid album. Slightly alternative pop but great atmospheric arangments with strong melodies and poetic lyrics.

Pro-bono

maybe I over U2 things sometimes but here is a great quote from the fella...

I'm not sure if it's Catholic guilt or what, but I genuinely believe that second only to personal redemption, the most important thing in the Scriptures -- 2,103 passages in all -- refers to taking care of the world's poor," Bono

How old is the earth? Young or Old

Good discussion going on here

Heres my 2 cents worth in the debate

This is all a very interesting subject - one that I used to be very hung up about and studying alot. As a scientist I think that it is very important to understand what I believe as christian/scientist. First and foremost I believe in the Word of God and in no way can it be wrong - you cannot pick and choose the bits you like. It should also be read literally unless there is no other possible explaination that for a different interpretation. Second, you can't apply assumptions from here and now to interpret what might of happened in the past as it might not always work - which is a fair bit of doubt.

The most impotant issue of the bible is that death entered the world through sin and this separated us from God - God offered us a way back to him by sacrificing his son who had no sin to pay the cost of sin (wages of sin is death). Therefore anything that gets in the way of this truth cannot be accepted. A theory where death is present before sin also has to be rejected (in my view) as is negates the gospel message and calls into question everything in the christian message.Therefore when we interpret things we see in the natural world we must "read" it in the context of a created world. Most scientist interpret data with assumptions of firstly no Creator and infinite time (almost). I dont know exactly how pre-fall looked or even how life worked (as cell death is an intergral part of life in higher organisms)but I know what the bible tells me.
1. God created it
2. It was good.
3. There was no death

These truths are intergral to the gospel message. Which is why I don't really think about the issue much anymore, as I will never be able to work out the detail as I wasn't there. And time spent fussing over this issue is wasted iin comparison to the bigger issue. That Jesus Christ conquored death and offers us this victory so that we need not experience eternal separation from a Father.

So after my ramblings - I am young earth (i think) non-evolutionist (non-macro-evolutionist anyway). But I'm comfortable in the fact that God knows what happened and when he calls me home one day he might even tell me how it really was.

The friendship of U2

Here is an except from Bonnos speech when they got inducted into the rock and roll hall of fame earlier this month. These are three standout memories of his mates from the past 25 or so years. Note Kodak moment number 3...


I'm going to go on and list three Kodak moments over twenty-five years I'd like to share with you.
One -- it's 1976 -- Larry Mullen's kitchen. About the size of the drum riser he uses now. It's a bright red -- scarlet, really -- Japanese kit and he's sitting behind it in his kitchen. And he's playing and the ground shakes and the sky opens up -- and it still does, but now I know why. Cause Larry Mullen can't tell a lie. His brutal honesty is something that we need in this band.

Second Kodak moment. It is 1982. New Haven, I believe. Things are not going very well. There's a punk band onstage trying to play Bach. A fight breaks out. It's between the band. It's very very messy. Now you look at this guitar genius, you look at this Zen-like master that is the Edge, and you hear those brittle icy notes and you might be forgiven for forgetting that you cannot play like that unless you have a rage inside you. In fact, I had forgotten that on that particular night, and he tried to break my nose. And I learned a great, great lesson that night. You do not pick a fight with someone who for a living lives off hand-eye coordination. Dangerous, dangerous man, the Edge.

Third Kodak moment. 1987. Somewhere in the south. We'd been campaigning for Dr. King, for his birthday to become a national holiday. In Arizona, they are saying no. We're campaigning very hard for Dr. King. Some people don't like it. Some people get very annoyed. Some people want to kill us. Some people are taken very seriously by the FBI. They tell the singer that he shouldn't play the gig because tonight his life is at risk, and he must not go on stage. And the singer laughs. Of course we're playing the gig. Of course we go onstage, and I'm singing "Pride (In the Name of Love)" -- the third verse -- and I close my eyes. And you know, I'm excited about meeting my maker, but maybe not tonight. I don't really want to meet my maker tonight. I close my eyes and when I look up I see Adam Clayton standing in front of me, holding his bass as only Adam Clayton can hold his bass. There are people in this room who'd tell you they'd take a bullet for you, but Adam Clayton would have taken a bullet for me. I guess that's what its like to be in a truly great rock and roll band.