Meh. It’s more of a case by case thing for me and I guess my inclusion of it is detracting from the point.
Basically, if it is for profit; sell it. If it is for the Lord (as they claim) give it away and accept donations.
I got a bad taste from that church with the music. Sure the listeners want some good stuff, but it was just their attitude. Big lights, huge stage, giant sound system…one band actually had the nerve to claim that they weren’t up there to have people notice them, they should just notice God. This was on the huge stage, with spotlight on the singer, right after a drum solo. It just went on like that, with them saying don’t listen to anyone, just God…then telling the crowd to stand up, throw up their arms, and all. Confusing.
I know there are good bands out there, but I have yet to be impressed.
I just don’t like it. It’s not the bad part, just something that I find odd. I think there is nothing “evil” about the music, I just think that you shouldn’t have to add sparkles to God to make him shine. Personal opinion.
The one reply that said I probably disliked the music because of my upbringing being the Catholic way that was more structured has a valid point. I am biased on the music thing. I shouldn’t have added it.
The point is, people should come to church to pay their respect to god. The band playing in church should be doing so because they believe in his message and they are donating their time. The fact that they are profiting from their performance casts doubt as to their true motivations.
Churches like these demonstrate a lot of hypocricy with how they handle money. They should take their donations and build a modest building, paying their staff a modest wage, and giving the rest to charity. But instead they build a lavish building, pay the top employees lots of money, and give a small amount of money to charity.
My take is that sermons are given for the evangelism of the faith, and to charge for them is to make them unavailable to poor folks. 'Nuff said about that.
Good kids and good motives. But the concept here is at issue. You can teach Christianity as commerce, or Christianity as charity. You have a car wash or bakesale, and the kids get the message that people only contribute to good causes if they get something back in return. That’s the notion that if we act one way we will be “saved” and if we act another we won’t. How about if the kids gave away car washes and cakes, and people could contribute what ever they wanted if they felt so moved? Might the kids learn that their own generosity was the important thing? And that from time to time (not always, of course) their generosity would inspire similar generosity? That would educate them more about the notion that (in the Christian universe-view) God’s grace isn’t a trade off–as in Martin Luther’s view people are saved by faith in God’s gift, not by their actions.
I have far more respect for the Christians who practice charity than those who practice commerce. Not to say that the outcomes of those who practice commerce (in this case the support for New Orleans) aren’t doing some good. But they’re teaching their children the wrong thing, in my view. But Christianity as commerce is certainly hospitable to the general American culture.
Evangelical Lutheran here. (yeah, anybody who wishes to take me to task for my half-hearted, semi-annual proselytizing can piss off! :D) Try shifting your girlfriend towards us. For you, it’s Post-Vatican 2 Catholicism without the pope and indulgences, though we sometimes have trivia nights to support a music scholarship for anyone who asks and there’s usually a table set up after [del]Mass[/del] where the ladies sell gift cards to help support our day care center. (You get the full value, day care gets a cut, the companies get a tax break.)
For her, she’ll get a nice, non-judgmental service with plenty of songs (I don’t call it High Mass 'cuz it ain’t in Latin and the congregation sings along, but my wife thinks of it that way because it reminds her of the times her grandfather snuck her into his Catholic church), though our music director recently wrote a piece, four lines, maybe 18 measures, with THIRTEEN different time signatures. Wife compared it with “Cool Jerk,” which apparently has time signatures that occur within bars. Oldest figures she wrote it as a class assignment. Me, I’d suggest she was showing off, but since both showing off and accusing a parishoner of it are Lutheran venial sins, I won’t.
Really, if you are feeling religious but don’t want that crap you described, try the ELCA. The coffee ain’t Starbucks, but it’s free.
Commerce is not some dirty word, and it’s not an “either commerce or charity” in Christianity. It can be a “both charity AND commerce”. Without commerce and profit, a lot of charitable impulses would be unfulfilled as no one could afford to give anything extra that what it takes to survive.
God, people are either over-thinking this issue or just using it to bash their particularly disliked religion.
To the OP- you’re used to a different style of church. Your GF’s church’s style turns you off. Is your GF fine with it? Is she a devout and kind person who gets spiritual nuture from the church? Is this a deal-breaker in your relationship? While I certainly believe the money thing can be overdone, and I’ve seen it in various churches I’ve visited and occasionally in my own, for the most part, it’s just people going about their lives trying to make a living. Bands & special speakers selling their CDs & literature or a church having a book/giftstore inside it aren’t necessarily out of place, though I will say they can certainly be overdone. You just aren’t used to it and so you don’t like it.
Would I be right if I were to also guess that you didn’t like…
the loud exhuberant worship style,
the more evangelistic & exhorting type of preaching that actually tells people what they should believe & how they should behave,
the activities that are going on there every day,
sending out missionaries that aren’t just doing charitable work but evangelizing and trying to convert people to the faith?
I’m thinking that this is just a conflict between a moderate-size church mainline religious view and a megachurch evangelical view.
Oh yeah, and drop the condescending “church”. It’s a real church. Or are you one of those recovering religionists who think “All churches are scams but my church is the real church even though it’s a scam also”?
The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the iniquities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who in the name of charity and goodwill shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother’s keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee.
Friar Ted “Commerce is not some dirty word, and it’s not an “either commerce or charity” in Christianity.”
No, commerce is not a dirty word for Christians. Christians can happily take part in commerce as individuals or companies. As Christians, they ought be careful about their business strategies and tactics. But congregations or church bodies (a denomination, for instance) shouldn’t be in commerce. Again, it’s a matter of what one is trying to teach or inspire. A congregation or a church body seeks, in my view, among other things, the service of others for its own sake. Commerce’s purpose for service is self-enriching, not service at any cost. Two quite different things. Let Junior Achievement do something for profit, that’s their motive. But the church’s or church body’s motive is different. The two shouldn’t be confused. In fact, it would be a great teaching moment, don’t you think, if a kid in a congregation’s youth group who was also a member of Junior Achievement asked the pastor why they shouldn’t charge for a car wash? What a great moment to talk about the differences between commerce and charity, ethics, and grace.
There is also, in the US, a legal issue. Congregations and church bodies are tax exempt, businesses are not. If, for instance, I was a commercial car wash and a church down the block was, every weekend, charging for a car wash but not paying taxes, so they could undercut me, I’d not be happy. And the federal courts have found that non-profits can’t compete against normal commercial establishments.
And, Friar Ted, you don’t speak to my distinction between teaching “works righteousness” and “grace,” the great debate in Christianity. I’d be interested in your take.
I’m all on the grace side in any question of how we are saved, tho of course, grace obtained through faith which should result in works. BUT I think you’re overthinking way too much. Feel free to encourage your church youth in such projects, but don’t judge other churches that handle it differently.
I think the ELCA and many other churches in the tradition of Martin Luther are much more that just “Post-Vatican 2 Catholicism without the pope and indulgences.” The Roman church remains, in practice, more mystical and more authoritarian than the ELCA, with or without the Pope and indulgences, or the by now ignored Vatican 2. Roman Catholics still invoke the notion of “Gospel and Tradition.” As one who was at one time a serious Lutheran, when working with Roman Catholics the question of “tradition” was an unfortunate obstacle to common work. And then there’s the question of the role of women, and celibacy. My reading also says there is quite a difference in the quality of the seminary training.
As for “non-judgmental,” again as a formerly serious Lutheran, I’d say there’s plenty of judgment, it’s just a different sort. Right or wrong is just the first take. And not to be ignored. But at the end of the day, “right or wrong” can be trumped by compassion or justice. Any ELCA preacher who is non-judgmental isn’t doing his or her job.
You’re entirely right about the confidence of Grace, it inspires charity. At least in my experience.
However, I don’t want to imply anything, I’m an agnostic, not a member of any congregation, but I have respect for those thoughtful folks who are.
You know, at the end of the day, one has to make decisions about what’s the best way to evangelize, to be true to the Gospel, to live the life, to teach others to live the life. One needs to make judgments, don’t you think? One need not rebuke, but one might have better ideas.
Let me be the equivocating agnostic. It’s ultimately a style vs substance and intent issue - how those things are balanced will determine the egregiousness factor. Anytime money is involved there’s the potential for corruption, and any time material things are put in the spotlight there’s potential for idolatry. But this can just as easily happen in a ‘traditional’ church with tithing, fundraising, and old style Jesus statues.
As long as the message is the focus, and good works are being done, the overall style of things doesn’t matter. If people are still helping out their neighbor then I say go for the Jesus cheerleading, bumperstickers, and multimedia presentations! There’s no reason religion has to be stale.
I partially agree with this. Religion is a product. Faith is a product. All products need new packaging, new commercials, new ways to use it.
I remember Polaroid first coming out with the Instamatic cameras and film. First they were big and bulky, later slimming down, bringing brighter colors to their film. For years and years and years.
But there’s no more polaroid. Why? We don’t need it. As much packaging and new uses you could come up with, we’ve got better ways to preserve the memories now.
With the OP’s girlfriend’s church, if they need to make the altar look like a “Cats” stage, it seems they’re going the way of Polaroid. Same product, but no longer needed.
If you need to dress up something so important to get people to take notice, how important is it?
I’m thinking you might want an opinion from someone who has lived in this climate:
I think a lot of it is your Catholic background. The church building is not considered as sacred in other denominations. The church is just a building. A building that is very suitable for bands.
As for selling stuff like tapes and stuff–everyone I know sells stuff at or near cost. Sure, the church should be able to give stuff away for free, but sometimes that is not economically possible.
But even if actual for-profit selling happens, nobody thinks much of it. Like I said, the church is just a building where people happen to meet. Nobody thinks you shouldn’t be able to sell stuff out in the world, so there’s no reason not to do in the church.
Oh, and Jesus’ thing about driving people out of the temple was because they actually were thieves. For example, they would often sell the same lamb multiple times. Thus the people who paid for that lamb to have it sacrificed were being cheated out of that sacrifice. Or at least that is how I was taught.
