Scratching Where it NEVER Itches

My daughter is a nursing student at a hospital here in the Philippines. She was looking through some of the reading materials that were left lying around. One caught her attention enough to take a picture of every page. It was a “gospel tract.” Fairly long one. I will put a few quotes here.

In response to the possible objection that spending an eternity in hell is unreasonable (or I would probably reword it as unjust), the writer states:

“It is obvious to everyone but ourselves that eternity in hell is the correct sentence for lawbreakers. A preacher once said, ‘The moment when you take your first step through the gates of hell, the only thing you will hear is all of creation standing to its feet and applauding and praising God because God has rid the earth of you. That’s how not good you are.’

… Not only does God see sin as exceedingly sinful, He is the One against whom each and every offense is primarily committed. If anyone should be angry about sin, it is God Himself. And He is. And that anger will last for an eternity.”

In a different section titled The Inevitable Verdict, the writer says,

“If God finds you guilty, and He will, you will be instantly whisked off to God’s eternal prison, hell. This is your final resting place, but there will be no rest. God’s righteous, holy, indignant wrath will rest on you for all of eternity.

Your first day of activities involves weeping, gnashing your teeth, and torment. Your ten-thousandth day is no different from your first; your suffering will never decrease in intensity. You would give anything for a drop of water or a ray of sunshine, but it never comes. Ever.

You will find no comfort in being surrounded with friends. Hell will not be an eternal party; it will be eternal punishment. And the One inflicting the punishment will be the One against whom you have committed all of your crimes: God Himself.

God, the just judge of the entire world, is going to judge you, and He is willing and able to pour out His anger and wrath on you forever and ever and ever. His holiness, righteousness, and love demand it.

You will receive only ongoing, unrelenting, and intense misery— eternal, conscious torment with no reprieve. You will forever receive the just reward for the unrighteous life you have willingly and knowingly lived.

Is there any hope for sinners like you and me? Is there any way we can escape the horrors of hell?”

I think that is enough. Here are some random thoughts to the presentation. Some are theological, while others are practical. However, my biggest complaint is the first one.

  1.  It scratches where it doesn’t itch. A survey a few years ago found that only about 3% of Americans are afraid of hell. I suspect the writer knows this because he spends 20 pages trying to convince readers that one SHOULD be afraid of hell. He seems more interested in convincing people that Hell is horrible, than that God is loving. But why do that at all? If a person’s itch is on their arm why scratch their shoulder? If a smoker is worried about money, why focus on cosmetic blemishes caused by smoking? Why not focus on how expensive smoking is short-term as well as long-term? Why not scratch where it itches? Salvation brings blessings, meaning and purpose, a place in God’s family, ability to endure struggles, give victory, and more. Why focus on the most negative (and least valued) motivations in this century to reach people?
  2. It focuses on the least interesting (or at least most ambiguous) metaphor. There are many metaphors used in the Bible for salvation. There is the shepherd seeking a person as a lost sheep. There is the adult choosing to adopt an orphan. There is the father seeking a wayward son. There is a person who liberates another from bondage. There is God as a sheltering refuge. There is God as a vinedresser grafting in new branches to an old vine. Instead the writer uses, and reifies, the metaphor of the courtroom. There is value in this metaphor— that is why Paul uses it. But it also places God in the most ambiguous position. God is the judge seeking to pass sentence… while Jesus, as God’s Son, is seen as the one acting as a mediator and payer of debt. This seems to place God the Father as wrathful while God the Son as loving.  It looks like God is schizophrenic (Mark 10:45 has a metaphor with a similar problem). Of course, this problem comes when one takes a metaphor and stretches it too far. God the Father is FAR MORE than a just God seeking to express his “just” anger against EVERY SINGLE PERSON WHO EVER LIVED, into hell for ever and ever and ever, The Father is, after all, the one who sent the Son to rescue mankind as an act of unjustified mercy. This brings the next point.
  3. The writer spends too much time defending God. Over and over again the writer says that God is just. But why would he being doing this? I think it is because he really wants us to condemn ourselves. If we can buy into the idea that God is just, and that we have violated God’s law, then we can embrace the idea that hell is where we belong. But does God really need defending? And more to the point, are we really supposed to be intellectually comfortable with the idea that our Creator truly hates us and wants us to exist forever in torment? I feel that one reason the writer spends so much time defending God is that there is a bit of an unraveling in the logic because of the next point.
  4. God is not all that just. Now before you get all bothered by this point, hear me out. The Old Testament describes two coexising qualities of God throughout… God’s justice and God’s mercy. Mercy, is, in part at least, the quality of suspending justice due to compassion. Thus, God is just… but His justice is limited by His compassion. In the New Testament, John notes that the quality that best defines God is Love, not Justice. I don’t think that it is correct to say that God is fully loving and fully just. There is an imbalance, and that imbalance is in our favor.
  5. God, as described in the gospel tract, is not all that just even in human terms, not just Biblical terms. The writer suggests that God is just for punishing even though we have no option but be guilty, that we have no formal knowledge of standards we must live by, and that everlasting torture is appropriate. This is expressed even though by every standard of justice that we have… including in the Bible (“eye for an eye” is meant to show that punishment must not exceed the act) … would make the activity seem unjust. The most comon emotion recorded of Jesus, the most complete revelation of God, is His compassion and showed great ability to spend time with, and even enjoy the company of, sinners. Also, Paul, who popularized the metaphor of salvation in terms of the courtroom, told unbelievers (in the book of Acts) that God has chosen to overlook their sins because they did not know better. It is hardly surprising that the metaphor of the courtroom is passed over to other metaphors as the role of grace is emphasized in Paul’s writings. (I am not trying to minimize the issue of sin, but to note that the Bible expresses it in a more nuanced way than is commonly expressed in morality plays.)
  6. Some of the hermeneutics in the tract is pretty awful. The writer says that if one is angry than one is guilty of murder, violating one of God’s 10 commandments. Likewise if one has sexual fantasies than one is violating the commandment about adultery. If that was so, than certainly anyone must jump in and say that God is truly unjust since these actions do not violate the letter of the law. A just judge must follow the law. Of course, the writer is drawing from the sermon on the mount, but Jesus did NOT say that anger is the same as murder, or that fantasies are the same as adultery. They are different things. That interpretation violates any sound interpretation of the respective passages. (And it is so unnecessary. The Bible says these things are sinful. That is really enough.) Additionally, the Bible does not actually say that Hell is a place of Eternal Conscious Torment (ECT). Now I know this is a hot button topic for some. I will simply say that I don’t know what hell is like… but just note that describing it in Revivalistic terms rather than what the Bible actually says tends to undermine the strength of the argument. Clearly it is a bad place, but going beyond what the Bible says should make one question the writer. Bad hermeneutics tends to lead to distrust in the reader.
  7. The tract is WAY too long. It takes 20 pages just to place the reader in hell. It takes reading that God is unjust and angry for 20 pages before one finally gets to the area where God is presented as (unjustly) being merciful through Christ.
  8. The expressed goal of the writer is to scare the reader. Is that really a good path to loving God?  Maybe, but I doubt it.

To note, I am an Evangelical (although its ties to politics and to nationalism in many circles has made me want to distance myself from the term of late). As such, I generally agree with the basic massage. We need to seek God’s love and mercy to be saved by Him. And this comes through Christ. But as Jackson Wu humorously demonstrated in his book “One Gospel for All Nations,” one can take a lot of true, or at least theologically justifiable, statements and create a hideous monster of a gospel presentation. While there are some weak or doubtful statements in the presentation, the biggest problem is that it creates a hugely unappealing presentation of the gospel. True is never good enough. One must scratch where it itches.

Maslow and Culture, Part 1

Consider for the moment Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs.

Image result for maslow's hierarchy

As the theory goes, one cannot go to the next level of need until the lower ones are satisfied. This is not so much a proven truth, but a useful way of looking at things. However, typically, this hierarchy of needs is also used by many as a guide for healthy thought and living.

But is it?

Consider a different way of showing this pyramid.


In this case, moving “up” the pyramid is moving to the right on the graph. The blue line shows whether the focus is on a person as a social being or as an individuated being. For PHYSIOLOGICAL NEEDS, one is focusing on what keeps body and soul together… so clearly the focus is on the individual (food, water, shelter, air, etc.). As one moves towards SAFETY AND SECURITY, one is now moving towards the more emotional and social aspects of a person. Few if any really feel safe or secure alone or socially disconnected. As such, there is a greater recognition of the person as a social being.

As one moves to the next level, LOVE AND BELONGINGNESS, there is the greatest recognition of a person as a social being. We were meant to be part of WE, not an aggregate of I’s. We are meant to be with others and part of others.

As one moves to the next higher level, SELF-ESTEEM, the social aspect of a person is focused on less. Abraham Maslow saw self-esteem as having an internal component and an external component. The external component is status and respect given to a person from one’s social web of connections. The internal component is the feeling of self-worth one gets through internal personal evaluation and validation.

<Note:  Some don’t agree with this. They suggest that one should not allow external influences have an impact on one’s self-esteem. However, since perhaps the only ones who can truly live through internal validation alone are the truly shameless, or perhaps the sociopathic, I am not so sure that this school of thought is worthy of embracing (at least at its extremes).>

The top level is SELF-ACTUALIZATION. This is “the full realization of one’s creative, intellectual, or social potential.” While Maslow did point out some famous people he considered to be self-actualized, he noted that fame had nothing to do with their status… it was about reaching their own individual potential, regardless of outside identification. As such, we have swung back fully to the individuated self and away from the social being.

But is this true?

Consider a story from the TV Show “House”  (Season 3, Episode 13).

In this episode, Dr. Foreman was working to diagnose and treat a 16 year old male of Romani (“gypsy”) heritage. He is found to be quite knowledgeable and intelligent and is seen by Dr. Foreman as having great potential in medicine if he would get further education and move into medical work. However, the young man has no interest in that. He is tightly connected to his family and Romani clan. As such, they have a strong influence on what he does. He doesn’t want to go against them or separate from them. The story ends somewhat unresolved. Dr. Foreman is saddened that the teenager rejects the possibility of living up to his potential in terms of a medical career. He also, however, seems a bit saddened to realize that in his quest to advance his career, he has given up a lot… in fact leaving behind family, and lacking, in many ways any deep relationships. Who has chosen the better path?

If one looks at the Hierarchy of Needs:

Both are okay in terms of physiological needs and safety and security (at least after the Romani teen was healed of his illness).

Both also seem to have decent self-esteem. Dr. Foreman is recognized as a very competent physician. If he lacks self-esteem, he hides it well enough. The Romani teen also seems to have good self-esteem. He appears to be very affirmed by a loving family, and seems to like the trajectory his life is on.

There are, however, differences. Dr. Foreman has a social deficient life… living alone, invested in his job over all other aspects of his life, and rather disconnected from his family. Still, he might be seen by Maslow as self-actualized since he appears to be living out his calling and potential as a physician.  For the Romani teen, he seems to be well positioned in a loving and supportive family so he has no problems in terms of love and belongingness. However, he would never be seen as self-actualized since his potential in terms of medical science will never be achieved if he stays on the path he is on.

Now consider this story as a parable in terms of East versus West of what is ideal. Dr. Foreman expresses the ideal of Western culture. He is highly individuated (as the term is used by Murray Bowen) from his birth family. He has found what is he is good at and gained expertise in it, and has achieved external fame, and appears to be  living up to his potential. He is living the ideal of Western culture. The teenager is of Romani heritage, which has many aspects of Eastern culture. In it, family and community have greater import. He is far less individuated. However, it is within that supportive structure that he finds his place and his meaning. As such he has great self-esteem that comes from affirmation of loved ones, and the opportunity to live out his potential as a social being, even if not as an individuated being.

Continued in Part 2.

Chapter 5. Models of IRD (part 1)

Chapter 5 from “Dialogue in Diversity: Christians in Conversation with a Multi-faith World.”

Views of Salvation

There are many views regarding Interreligious dialogue. Not only are there many views, there are many labels and many classifications for IRD. In this book, we will use a spectrum based on the people’s understanding with regards the the prime function of dialogue. Figure 5 shows the range that is loosely divided into three general approaches. However, before we get to that, we can start with a different, but very much related, spectrum— perspectives on salvation. This is based generally on Alan Race’s three basic groups: Exclusivism, Inclusivism, and Pluralism.1 These three groups are pretty well agreed upon. Two more groups are added in Figure 4– Particularism and Universalism. Some people use the terms Particularist and Exclusivist interchangeably. Here, they will each have a different emphasis.

figure 4

Figure 4. Salvation Spectrum

An Exclusivist for a Christian means that only those who are Christian, embracing Jesus as their Savior will be saved. The term Particularist is often used to describe a narrower version of Exclusivist. Such a person may believe that salvation is mediated through their own faith group or denomination. As such, one is saved by Jesus, but it is only available to those within their own specific sect, or those who embrace a certain unique doctrine, or have participated in a special denominational ritual.

At the other extreme, on the far right are the Universalists. Universalists believe that God immediately or ultimately saves everyone. Jesus’ salvation is available to all, and effective for all.

In between the Exclusivists and the Universalists are two groups that overlap somewhat. These are the Inclusivists and the Pluralists. An Inclusivist would typically say something like, “Jesus is the means to salvation, but there may be some people who are saved by Jesus who do not necessarily know Jesus.” Some may believe that Jews can be saved through the faithfulness to the Mosaic Law even if they reject Jesus. Others may say that Muslims can be saved by Christ even though they reject His role as Savior and Lord because they worship the same God (God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob). Even those who would normally describe themselves as Exclusivist, may have some Inclusivist views. For example they may believe that infants who die are saved by Jesus even though they don’t know Him. Or they may see the same with those who are too mentally disabled to understand the Gospel message and respond to it. Others may go further and say that those who have never heard the message of Christ may still be saved by Christ based on their response to the truth that they know.

Pluralists take this progression further. Some may say that Jesus is still Savior, but that pretty much anyone can be saved if they express Christlike love in their hearts regardless of their religion. Some continue further and take Jesus out of the picture and simply say that ‘There are many roads to Heaven.” For these Pluralists, along with Universalists, may consider themselves to be Christian, but would reject the uniqueness of Christianity.

Evangelicals traditionally are considered to be Exclusivists, although most would have believe at least a limited form of Inclusivism. However, the truth is that one can come across self-described Evangelicals (to say nothing of other Christians) who fit into all of the above categories.

Knowing where one fits into the above categories can be useful because the views regarding IRD correlate often with these categories. Looking at Figure 5, the spectrum is divided into three general approaches. Again, the key is not so much the fact that there are categories, but that it is on a spectrum. There is a wide range of views on dialogue that fit on to different places of this spectrum.

Apologetic Approach/Strategy. In this view, the purpose of IRD is to convert those of other faiths to one’s own faith. Therefore, argument is the most valid form of conversation. Typically, people who like this approach emphasize the differences and deemphasize similarities. This is because the goal is to correct the wrong beliefs of the other. Christians who are more Particularist or Exclusivist in terms of salvation often gravitate to this approach. This may also be described as the “confessional approach.” On the positive side, it could be said this method “gets to the point,” and “calls it like it sees it.” It is unapologetic in its faith commitment. On the other had, perhaps it can be a blurred view. To emphasize differences may also mean ignoring valuable similarities so one is actually seeing a distorted version of the other religion. Such a distorted view of the religion may hamper attempts influence the other person. Additionally, the method of argument, can lead to pushback or backfire as discussed in an earlier chapter.

figure 5

Figure 5. Dialogue Approaches/Strategies

Relativistic Approach/Strategy. Another name for this is the “Common-Ground Approach.” This view, at one extreme of the spectrum, seeks to be truth-seeking, as described by John Hick, rather than confessional when one approaches IRD. That is, one brackets one’s own beliefs or even tosses them aside so that one is better prepared to learn from those of other faiths. This approach tends to emphasize the similarities with other faiths. Those who are more Pluralistic or Universalistic Christians tend to find this approach to make more sense.2

Martin Buber has questioned that Hick’s view that this is actually “truth seeking.” He noted that if dialogue is seen as a quest for truth-seeking, why should it be presumed that a person who relativizes truth is more committed to truth than one who does not. Buber argues that what is needed in good inter-religious dialogue is not relativization of truth, but mutual respect.3

Karkkainaen quotes Moltmann in expressing a similar idea to Buber, that truth-seeking does not imply relativization of beliefs.

Dialogue has to be about the question of truth, even if no agreement about the truth can be reached. For consensus is not the goal of the dialogue. …If two people say the same thing, one of them is superfluous. In the interfaith dialogue which has to do with what is of vital and absolute concern to men and women—with the things in which they place the whole trust of their hearts—the way is already part of the goal.” Moltmann rightly says that only those people are capable of dialogue—“merit dialogue,” as he puts it—who “have arrived at a firm standpoint in their own religion, and who enter into dialogue with the resulting self-confidence.” Thus, Moltmann continues, “it is only if we are at home in our own religion that we shall be able to encounter the religion of someone else. The person who falls victim to the relativism of the multicultural society may be capable of dialogue, but that person does not merit dialogue.”4

Clarification Approach/Strategy. With this approach, one does not embrace confession/argument, but also does not relativize one’s beliefs either. In this approach, the focus is on mutual understanding. One may anticipate that if one extreme (Exclusivists and Particularists) gravitate toward Apologetic Approaches, and the other extreme (Pluralists and Universalists) gravitate toward Relativistic Approaches, then Clarification Approaches should be most attractive to Inclusivists. To some extent this is true. However, other groups can tend toward some form of Clarification Approach as well. Exclusivists, for example, often like the Clarification Approach.

Why is this? Exclusivists are often Evangelistic, meaning that they seek to share their faith with others with hopes that the others will convert to their own faith. However, not all agree as to how best this is done. Most would presumably agree that relativizing one’s beliefs would not be conducive to conversion. However, there is not so much unanimity as to whether argument (or straight up proclamation) or seeking understanding is more effective. Seeking understanding does tend to reduce misunderstanding and such a reduction is likely to reduce barriers to conversion.

<Continued in the next blogpost>

Book Finally Complete– “Dialogue in Diversity”

It is finished. The battle is over. Yesterday, January 12, 2019 I put my book “Dialogue in Diversity— Christians in Conversation with a Multi-faith World” out into the world. It has been a slow process, and am thoroughly glad it is over.

That being said, I now feel trepidation at putting it out for all to see. I suppose that is strange since many parts of the book I have put on my blog. I suppose it is because I take a topic that is quite divisive, “interreligious dialogue,” and take a moderate view. While in many cases, taking a position that is inclusive is a good idea, in religion, that is often quite risky.

One side often sees interreligious dialogue (IRD) as problematic. What they may see as IRD, is really proclamation and argument. For these people I argue strenuousl that not only are the goals of proclamation and argument not supposed to be goals of IRD, but the goals that these people do have are commonly not achieved well with the methods of proclamation and argument.

On the other side, there is a tendence to relativize truth in interreligious dialogue, looking for “common ground.” For these people I argue strenuously that those who practice their faith as true can and should desire people to share a similar commitment. Therefore, even if they hold dialogue for mutual understanding, this mutual understanding is foundational to breaking down barriers that prevent conversion.

In other words, the book is pretty much written to make no one all that happy. But I am not so sure that books are supposed to make people happy— at least generally. Generally, books should make people think. Hopefully, my book achieves that.

As of 13 January 2011 only the Kindle version is available online HERE. Hopefully, in a few hours the paperback version will be available.

What I Want For Christmas

My wife has asked me several times what I want for a Christmas. I am really not a gift person. Finally, I gave in to the fact that my cellphone needs to be replaced. It has had a big crack down the middle of the screen for over a year (some discoloration but still works), and a battery that lasts for shorter and shorter periods. I now have a new one that unfortunately doesn’t accept my SIM cards. But I am happy with it.

Later I realized what I REALLY wanted for Christmas. No, it isn’t “Peace on Earth, Good Will to all Peoples,” although that wouldn’t be so bad.

What I really want is to finish my book. I have been working on my book “Dialogue in Diversity” for a year or two now. The first draft is done, and I have been SLOWLY editing it. But I realized that I really want to have it done for Christmas.

I now have it fully edited and footnoted for the first 70 pages. But there is no way I will have it done by Christmas Day. HOWEVER, there are 12 days of Christmas, not just one. The Twelve Days are December 25th until January 5th. So my goal is to finish the book and get it online by January 5th, the 12th day. If that fails I can go with January 6th, Epiphany.

To achieve this, I will do no more posts in 2018. This makes my 124th post this year and that is MORE THAN ENOUGH.


Merry Christmas

Happy (International) New Year

Joyous Epiphany

Blessed 2019





The Joy in Not Singing

A few months ago, although I only read it today, was an article in entitled, “Why We Need to Sing in Worship Even When We Do Not Know or Like the Song” by Chuck Lawless. You can click on the title to see the link. It is pretty brief and lists

  1. It’s right to sing God’s praises.
  2. Not singing sends the wrong signal.
  3. Some songs you don’t like are quite biblical.
  4. We can learn a song best by singing it.
  5. We model worship for others as we sing.
  6. Singing with the rest of the congregation promotes and reflects unity.
  7. Singing encourages the ones leading the singing.

I will ignore part of the article that looks at those who don’t sing a song because they don’t know the words. For me that is just kind of lazy. One may as well take the time to learn a new song once in awhile. Because of that, I will ignore reason #4, since my bigger concern is those who don’t sing because they do not like the songs.

Image result for bean singing in church

I find myself sympathizing with those who do not sing because they don’t like the songs, even though I USUALLY DO sing. That is because I found great freedom in recognizing that I had a choice to sing or not.  Years ago, my family were members of a church in Virginia that had a great music program led by a very competent worship leader. But he had one specific quirk that I really struggled with. So many services he would have us sing, over and over and over, the chorus portion of “Surely the Presence of the Lord is in This Place” — a song with NO discernible merit. We would keep singing it and I would get annoyed. Over the weeks, my annoyance moved to humor. It was funny in away… like a person who can’t stop saying “Ummm” while talking (I have that problem). Then I moved to being analytical. I started going through each line. Every line was either untrue, obviously true, or trite (or a combination). Eventually, I moved from irrituation to humor to analysis and finally to anger. Why should I be held hostage by the worship leader and forced to sing a crappy song?

But then one day I had an epiphany. I don’t have to sing. I can stand there, close my eyes, meditate perhaps, and just tune out the song. My attitude improved almost immediately. Since then my experience in worship services has improved immensely because I found that unity does not necessitate uniformity. And it goes beyond simply singing. When the worship leader says things like “Clap if you love Jesus” I don’t have to see it as cyncial manipulation, but as a simple suggestion. I can also NOT CLAP to show I love Jesus!!

Looking at the reasons listed above (ignoring #4 as I said before) the one I have the biggest problem with is #3: “Some songs you don’t like are quite Biblical.” I am totally at a loss what to make of that. Eating is EXTREMELY Biblical, but I can’t see that it is wrong to skip a meal or go on a diet. A song that is strong in theology has a greater obligation to connect mind and heart than some pithy anthem. I can hardly see how being Biblical (or I would prefer theological) lowers the standards one places on a song.

Probably the reason that bothers me next most is #6.  “Singing with the rest of the congregation promotes and reflects unity.”  It points to two issues that I have. One is the suggestion (that is so common in church) that unity implies uniformity. The unity argument has been used to argue against blended (style) worship, to argue for homogeous group churches, to require all members use the same Bible translation, to maintain certain dress codes or hair stylings, and more. More generally, it supports the idea that the majority (or the clerical minority) establishes the culture and the rest need to go along to “demonstrate unity.” The second problem is the general tone that BEHAVIOR IS WHAT COUNTS NOT WHAT GOES ON IN THE HEART OR MIND.

In fact, it seems like a lot of the arguments have that as the unspoken assumptions. One could rewrite most of them to make the unspoken spoken.

  1. It’s right to sing God’s praises our way.
  2. Not singing our songs our way sends the wrong signal.
  3. ________________________
  4. ________________________
  5. We model going through the motions of worship for others when we sing as we are told.
  6. Singing with the rest of the congregation promotes and reflects uniformity of behavior that can be imagined to be worship.
  7. Singing encourages the ones leading the singing not to change a thing.

Franklhy, I am not that radical. I dislike an awful lot of songs that are popular in the church today, but I usually sing. Commonly I sing to show unity with the congregation rather than for the sake of worship since singing really isn’t my form of worship. But there are a few songs that sabotage my church (read “worship” if that helps you) experience. (That song that has the chorus “Yes Lord Yes Lord Yes Yes Lord” is one that immediately comes to mind). In such situations, I feel that embracing my diversity within a unity that does not require uniformity isn’t so bad.

Frankly, we live in a multi-ethnic, multi-generational, multi-tradition Christian world. The church really should find ways to honor this rather than simply pushing people to “do exactly what the song leader tells you to do.”

And if the worship leader starts to question the wisdom of mimicking his favorite Hillsong videos (right down to every move and intonation of the lead singer), or rapidly supplanting old songs with new because— well— they are new, or generally turning the “worship” experience into a performance-based “spectator experience”…. hey that is not such a bad thing either, now is it?  I know the counter to this is that if the congregants have problems with the songs, they should talk to the church leadership about it privately. Fair enough. But just as in church some people vote with their hands, some with their wallets, and some with their feet (regardless of leade’s preferences in this area), one should not be surprised if some vote with their singing voices, not just with their speaking voices.