A Feast Called Worship: An Interview With Marva Dawn

In 2007 I was able to interview author, theologian and educator Marva Dawn. Dawn, author of the books Reaching Out Without Dumbing Down; A Royal Waste of Time: The Splendor of Worshiping God and Being the Church for the World; and How Shall We Worship? Biblical Guidelines for the Worship Wars, died April 18 at the age of 72. 

John Longhurst (JL): What is the purpose of worship? 

Marva Dawn (MD): The purpose of worship is to honour God and give Him the praise He deserves—period. Too often we try to use it for evangelism. But the purpose of worship is not to attract new believers. That's our job, as Christians. We bring people to Christ, and then we bring them to worship. It's a cop-out to count on the worship service to do that. 

I realize that I'm a bit of an odd ball for saying this, since so many churches today offer "seeker sensitive" services to get people to go to church. I think this is a serious theological misunderstanding. 

Church is not a place we "go to." Instead, it signifies what God's people are. We are called away from the idolatries of the world to gather with our fellow believers in worship and fellowship and education, and then we are called out from that gathering, having been equipped and empowered by it, to go back into the world to serve it. 

When we participate in corporate services, we worship God because God is infinitely worthy of our praise—the focus is not on "attracting" anybody. 

“The Bible never says that the goal of worship is to attract unbelievers.”

In the corporate encounter with God that the worship service provides, those participating are formed more thoroughly to be like God and formed more genuinely to be a community. The result will be that all of us reach out to our neighbours in loving care and service and witness, with the result that they might perhaps want to come with us to worship the God to whom we have introduced them. 

The Bible never says that the goal of worship is to attract unbelievers. The goal of worship is to praise God. The goal of worship isn't to get us anything, but to turn our attention to God, who has blessed us so richly. 

“Many churches take their model for worship services from talk shows on TV.” 

JL: If that's the case, why do you think so many churches are using worship to do outreach? 

MD: It's because the church in North America today has lost its vitality. Instead of transforming our culture, we are being transformed by it. Many churches take their model for worship services from talk shows on TV. The pastor is the host, introducing the entertainment, and the congregation is the audience. 

It's become all about marketing—finding a niche a church can serve, whether it's boomers, youth, 'tweens or older people. But catering to only one group of people doesn't give us a very big sense of the church. 

JL: It seems to be working—churches that use that model are growing. 

MD: That's true. But I think a lot of it is sheep stealing—people leaving their own church to find a better show on Sunday morning. Whatever is most entertaining and fun will always draw people. 

Church services that speak of biblical themes of discipleship, sacrifice and cost have a hard time competing with those that promise to make me happy, wealthy and healthy. 

The Bible never says that the goal of worship is to attract unbelievers. 

“Worship is supposed to be a feast. A lot of worship today contains only a few items from the menu—it's an empty feast.” 

JL: What should a worship service be like? 

MD: Worship is supposed to be a feast. and just like a good meal includes all sorts of different kinds of food, good worship involves many different kinds of activities—confession, absolution, praising, petitions, singing, Bible reading, explication of the Word, intercession and benediction. 

A lot of worship today contains only a few items from the menu—it's an empty feast. I'm especially saddened by how little the Scriptures are read in many churches; that is one of the most important things in any worship service. Good worship uses all the gifts of all the people—young and old. 

JL: What about the issue of music? 

MD: Many people make the mistake of confusing musical style with worship. It's not a matter of singing hymns or choruses—any style can be used to worship God, and all kinds of music should be used in worship. 

“I'm not opposed to contemporary music. It's just that we shouldn't have a steady diet of only that style, or of any other style, for that matter.”

 But the music should pass some difficult tests in order to be useful: Is it faithful to Scripture? Is it directed towards God? Is it about God? Too much music being used today is narcissistic—it's about us and how we feel about God.

Don't get me wrong; there are some very good contemporary pieces that call us to faithfulness. I'm not opposed to contemporary music. It's just that we shouldn't have a steady diet of only that style, or of any other style, for that matter. 

We need contemporary music, hymns, classical music, Gregorian chant, folk, roots, African, jazz or Taize and many others. each style has its place in the church. We need the whole music of the whole church to help bring us together to worship God.

It grieves me when I hear people say they don't like one kind of style or another, or they refuse to sing when a particular style that's not their favourite is used in worship. To me, that shows they don't love others in their church enough to sing somebody else's song. 

If a church is a community, then it needs to sing the songs of the whole community, not just one group. 

Style is not the crucial thing. The key is to carefully sort music and forms and styles and choose what is theologically appropriate and musically excellent. This winnowing process has usually already been accomplished in the case of songs that appear in hymnbooks and worship books. 

Though there are notable exceptions (as in the case of violent words or unsingable melodies), the hymns and liturgies that have stood the test of time have done so because their content is strong and their music felicitous. The most important question to ask in planning worship is not what style of music to use, but how we can best glorify God. 

JL: Some say a goal of worship is reconciliation. What do you think? 

MD: Reconciliation is God's goal for humanity. God wants to reconcile us to Himself. God is in the business of breaking down barriers. He also wants us to be reconciled to each other, and worship is one way we can do that. Worship can bring us together and unify us. 

“Worship is driving us apart. The ‘worship wars’ have become so destructive.” 

Unfortunately, it's doing the opposite today—worship is driving us apart. The "worship wars" have become so destructive. It's heartbreaking to see churches divide into contemporary and traditional services, one for young people, the other for older people. That means seniors can't share their songs with youth, and young people can't help seniors learn their new songs. 

As long as we think that worship is about the style of music I like, it will keep us apart. Good worship brings people together as we focus on God and praise God. And when we are reconciled to one another, we can become a reconciling people in the world, bringing others to God. 

JL: In our post-Christian and post-modern culture, some say we need to abandon the past if worship today is to be relevant. Do you agree? 

MD: No. One thing that defines post-modernism is rootlessness. Many people today have no sense of history; what's happening now is the most important thing. But this means that the great traditions of the Church don't get passed down. We have no sense of the testimony of God's people throughout the ages. 

“I don't think that the Church's worship language has ever been as narrow as it is now.”

That's one of the main problems with the style of worship being used in so many churches today. I don't think that the Church's worship language has ever been as narrow as it is now. By choosing only one style for worship, churches don't link us to our Christian forebears. 

I believe that the Church must provide an alternative to the culture—not adapt to it. But to do that, we need language, customs, habits, rituals, institutions, procedures and practices that uphold and nurture a clear vision of how the Church is different and why that matters. 

If our worship is too much like the surrounding culture it will be impossible to teach what I like to call "altar-nativity"—an alternative Christian way of viewing the world. 

In our worship, we are formed by biblical narratives that tell a different story from that of the surrounding culture. We gather together in worship to speak our language, to read our narratives of God at work, to sing authentic hymns of the faith in all kinds of styles, to chant and pour out our prayers until we know the truth so well that we can go out to the world around us and invite that world to share this truth with us. 

JL: You've been criticized by many for your opinions about the state of worship today. How does that make you feel? 

MD: It's been a painful journey. I've been misunderstood by lots of people. I've been accused of hating contemporary music—I don't. I've been called a curmudgeon, a traditionalist. But I'm not. I just want to see the whole Church included in worship. 

“It's been a painful journey. I've been misunderstood by lots of people.” 

At the same time, I've been encouraged by how many people want to thoughtfully engage this important issue. That includes many young people. A lot of young people today are realizing that the treasures of the Church from the past are being lost. They want to recover the ancient language of faith. 

They want more liturgy. They want more depth in the songs they sing. They want to be challenged to live lives of service and sacrifice, to make a real difference in the world. 

There have been times when I have felt like giving up. But the Spirit won't let me go. I've had diabetes for 40 years, my eyesight is bad, I have hearing problems, one leg is crippled, I had cancer and I had a kidney transplant last year. 

I shouldn't still be around, but God is keeping me alive for a reason. I feel a calling to do this work of teaching and writing. Every book I've written is one that I have felt called to write. It was as if the words were fire in my bones. 

JL: What is your hope for the Church's worship? 

MD: My prayer is that our worship will form us to be a people who dwell in God's reign and then carry God's kingdom wherever we go—people who are equipped to reach out to the culture around us with words of truth and deeds of faithfulness. I pray that God will grant our churches such worship—for His glory, and for the love of the world.

Religious Humour Goes Overboard with Comic Strip

 

On March 16 my regular Winnipeg Free Press column featured Man Martin, 59, the artist behind the religiously-themed Man Overboard comic. Since I couldn’t share everything he told me in those few words, here’s the transcript of my interview—replete with panels from the comic. Enjoy!

Tell me about yourself.

I am a novelist and high school English teacher living in Atlanta, Georgia.

What's your religious background?

I’m Episcopalian.

Are you a churchgoer?

Yes.  I like to call myself a “practicing Christian,” which implies that I still haven’t gotten it right, but I’m not done trying.

How important is faith to you?

It’s becoming more important as I age; nevertheless, I’ll confess my faith is about as weak as a reed. I struggle with it, and anticipate I'll keep on struggling, which is why it so often forms a theme in my cartoons.

What's your background as a cartoonist?

I realized my childhood ambition to be a syndicated cartoonist in the 1980s when Universal Press picked up my comic strip “Sibling Revelry.”  It appeared in a grand total of 36 papers until its demise.

Following that, I turned to writing fiction. It was decades before I began cartooning again.

When did you start Man Overboard?

About three years ago.  Originally, it was titled, “Inkwell Forest,” and was to be a conventional fairy-tale themed comic strip.  

When it finally sank in that the newspaper comic strip was heading the way of the dodo and the northern white rhino, I cut loose and began drawing about whatever interested me instead of worrying about trying to be commercial.

Why did you start the comic?

For years I’d been having intermittent dreams about drawing a comic strip, and would wake up thinking, “Maybe it’s time to do another strip.”  Then I’d say, “Nah, I don’t want to do that.” Finally, I acted on my dreams and it’s been a delightful experience.

What or who are your influences for the comic?

Charles Schulz was my first love, but I think I’m very influenced by Jules Feiffer, R O Blechman, and Shel Silverstein.  

My mother always said I drew like James Thurber because most of the time my characters don’t have hair and ears seem more like an optional accessory. So I’d have to say Thurber too.

Do you do it for fun or to make money off it?

I just want to have fun and hopefully provide fun for others. I released a book, “Not Easy Being God,” last year, but so far that’s been my only attempt to monetize.  

The strip is available for free on Facebook, my blog (manmartin.blogspot.com), and through email subscription. (Text OVERBOARD to 22828.)

It's more than a hobby and less than a career.  It's something I do.

What is the response?

People like it, and really makes me happy to see them share it on Facebook.  My fan base is growing, which is very rewarding.

You live if in the Bible Belt, then darn close to it. They take Christianity seriously down there. What's the reaction to the way you portray God, Jesus, the church and Christianity?

I live on the veritable buckle of the Bible Belt; oddly, though, no one has ever taken offense at my religious-themed cartoons.  

When they have taken offense, it’s been when I’ve attempted political humor.

Though sometimes I hurt others’ sensibilities, I never set out to, and it’s painful to get an email or message that such and such a cartoon rubbed someone the wrong way.  

Nevertheless, the only audience I’m beholden to is myself, and whatever strikes me as interesting, funny, or worth commenting on Tuesday morning is likely to show up in a cartoon on Wednesday.

Sometimes I may offend the reader, and for that, I apologize in advance, but if I have to avoid certain subjects for fear of crossing the line, then it just isn’t fun for me, and if it isn’t fun, what’s the point.

How did you come up with your image of God in the comic? (A play on the eye and pyramid in U.S. currency)

I chose it, because as images of God go, it is by far the weirdest and most preposterous. Showing God as a white guy with a beard isn’t nearly as goofy as showing Him as a one-eyed pyramid.  And when you’re a cartoonist, goofy trumps all.

Do people criticize you for how you draw God? Or Jesus?

Again, no one’s found fault, as far as I know, with the way I depict God, Mary, and Jesus. Indeed, some of my most loyal fans are clergy. I guess if you get the joke and see it’s all in fun, you stop and read.  If not, you skip over it.

Your comic assumes some knowledge of Christianity, biblical literacy, theology and history. Is that a challenge today when so few people know the Bible?

Maybe this is what accounts for peoples’ fondness for the cartoon. In an era when organized religion is on the decline, it’s reassuring for people of faith to see cartoons about subject matter uniquely familiar to them.

You are also critical of the church. Why? And what's the reaction?

For me, one of the great themes of Christianity is the astonishing way people just don’t get it.  Jesus can explain something in words of one syllable to his disciples, and they’re all standing around in slack-jawed stupefaction as they try to figure out what he meant.  

Right from the get-go, the early church began to break into schisms arguing about such earth-shaking trivia as whether bread can be flesh or if Mary was a virgin only when she conceived Jesus, or if she kept on being a virgin after that.  

This unfortunate tendency of losing sight of the main point is not reserved to theologians, disciples, and other crackpots; every Sunday, I am reminded there are two laws—only two—love God and love your neighbor, and every Sunday I’m back in church needing forgiveness all over again because I couldn’t do those two simple things.

You also take on consumerism, the environment, and ultimate meaning. Why?

Because those things are interesting to me and rife with absurdity.  The funniest material is mined from the most serious topics. As Flannery O’Connor said, “things are funny because they’re terrible, and terrible because they’re funny.”

Where do you get your ideas for religious ideas from? 

Same place everyone gets their religious ideas: personal experience, worship, scripture. The only difference is that in my case, religious ideas come out funny.

What, for you, is the role of humour and comics in communicating about faith?

I'm a little uncomfortable with the idea humor has a "role" in anything.  It seems to make humor subservient to some other purpose.  Humor needs no such excuse.  If it makes you laugh, grimace, or grunt, that's good enough for me.  Humor brings delight, what else would we ask from it?  It just so happens, our notions about God and spirituality are a wonderful source of humorous material.

Is there any topic you won't touch? (In the religious sphere.)

Telling a cartoonist there's a topic he can't touch is like wearing a sign that says, "Don't kick me."  As soon as I know something is out of bounds, I'm bound to go there.

How does the polarized political climate in the U.S. today affect your work? (

Sometimes I dip my toe into political humor, usually not very adeptly and sometimes to the actual pain of friends and loved ones. 

When I go to heaven, if there is such a place, and I meet God, if there is such a being, She's going to say she planted me during the most preposterous era of US politics, and She's going to demand to know what I, as a cartoonist, did with this wonderful opportunity. 

If my answer is "Nothing," I won't be able to meet her gaze. So from time to time, come hell or high water, I will do political humor.  Again, it's not my best work.  But the target is too big and juicy.

Responses & Reactions to Leaving Christianity, New Book About Decline of the Church in Canada

It was impossible to include reaction to Leaving Christianity: Changing Alliances in Canada since 1945 by Brian Clarke and Stuart Macdonald in my Free Press column—my column was already 1,900 words, and I’ve got as many words here again!

After reading the book, I contacted academics who study religion in Canada. I wanted to know their reaction—what did they think of the book?

Here’s what they told me.

Overall Response

The overall response to the book was positive, including a sense of gratitude for the enormous amount of work done by the authors.

“This book is the most comprehensive account available of the relatively recent history of the changes we have seen in Canadian Christianity in the last 70 years,” says Paul Bramadat, director of the Centre for Studies in Religion and Society at the University of Victoria.

“Their systematic and sober description is so valuable for scholars of Canadian religion, history, and society.”

“I think they're clearly right about the unaffiliated being the new mainstream or dominant group in Canada,” says Kevin Flatt, professor of history at Redeemer University College.

“I think they're also right that Canada is a difficult environment for church recruitment and is likely to remain so for the foreseeable future.”

“This book is long overdue,” says Lori Beaman, a professor at the University of Ottawa and Canada Research Chair in Religious Diversity and Social Change.

She describes the book as a “detailed and realistic look at statistical data from a range of sources to analyze the present status of Christianity in Canada.”

Rise of the “Nones”

There was no disagreement about the rise of the “nones,” although some wondered if that is a fixed category—some people who are currently among the “nones” might decide to seek greater religious involvement in the future.

Reg Bibby, a professor of sociology at the University of Lethbridge, agrees that the “no religion category has grown significantly,” but notes there is research to suggest it will level off over the next few decades—not keep growing as the authors suggest.

Plus, he says, “the pro-religious sector remains with us, and is being fueled and will continue to be fueled mightily by immigration, led by Catholics and Muslims.”

At the same time, being "low religious" doesn’t mean "no religious,” he says—Canadians continue to say they believe in God, or a higher power, and participate in religious activities such as prayer.

Impact on Society

Clarke and Macdonald suggest that decline in religion will have a significant on Canadian society—giving, volunteering, voting and other civic participation.

Nobody disagreed with that sentiment, but Beaman wonders if Canadians will come up with something to replace religion as a driver of civic engagement.

She asks: “Will new constellations of nonreligious service providers emerge, or will some religiously initiated and maintained services transform over time into nonreligious or non-affiliated services? Is that process already occurring?

“Are the social justice activities of Canadians being partially relocated to online action, amorphous communities and targeted strategic action that brings together issue-focused initiatives?

“Is the very nature of volunteering changing such that old measures do not adequately capture its new forms?”

She also wonders if the authors are too pessimistic about the state of Christianity in Canada—that Canada is now “post-Christian.”

“Christianity is woven through Canadian culture and society so tightly that it will be some time before the impact of reduced affiliation and limited Christian literacy are fully translated into public spaces and institutions,” she says.

She notes that God is referenced in the Charter, that “multiple Christian interveners regularly weigh in on issues like prostitution, assisted dying, and education that come before the Supreme Court of Canada,” and that Catholic hospitals and schools are still publicly funded.

Moreover, she says, Christian practices and symbols “are being rendered as ‘culture and heritage,’ which at least partially protects their presence in public spaces for the time being.”

But even if she doesn’t think Canada is now post-Christian, she agrees with the authors “we are well on our way.”

Conservative vs. Liberal

One of the strongest reactions came over how the decline in religion is impacting groups—and to how the authors seem to downplay the role of theological beliefs.

For Flatt, “I think it's clear from the evidence that churches' beliefs play some role, and specifically that more theologically conservative churches with definite beliefs tend to fare better than more liberal ones.”

It's not the only factor, he says, “not by a long shot.” But it is “an important one.”

The evidence is in, Flatt maintains: Mainline and liberal denominations that place a lower value on commitment are shrinking, while conservative denominations which have high commitment are growing or stable.

As a result, “I don't think it's crazy to argue that maybe the big theological differences between these two streams of Christianity play some role in their growth or decline,” he says.

He adds that “it turns out the growing churches are more theologically conservative, and that's one of the major factors explaining growth, even when controlling for lots of other things.”

At the same time, “churches of every stripe face strong ‘headwinds’ in contemporary Canada,” he says. “It's hard to grow a church here, period, no matter what your theology.”

Sam Reimer, a sociology professor at Crandall University, also feels that theological beliefs matter in terms of who comes and how long they say.

Conservative churches, he says, “tend to attract the more staunchly religious or most religiously committed,” people who are “slower to leave and less likely to be become 'nones'.”

He also notes that more conservative churches tend to place a high value on evangelism, “which boosts their numbers, if only slightly.”

He agrees with Flatt that “conservative or liberalness is not the only important factor on church growth. Conservative churches are affected by many of the same broader forces of secularism as liberal churches, which promote general decline across the board.”

However, he notes, “conservative churches do a better job of resisting cultural influences and holding on to their own, often with strong youth programs, which means they are more protected against secularism.”

For John Stackhouse, a professor of religious studies at Crandall, beliefs are also important, but not just because conservative churches tend to require higher commitment from their members.

What makes the difference for him is not just theology, but “the piety that goes with it: a genuine sense of interaction with the biblical God, with Jesus Christ, and with the Holy Spirit, versus “God-as-you-conceive-the-Divine-to-Be” and spirituality on your own terms.”

Impact of Immigration

The one area where almost everyone thought the authors didn’t give enough attention in the book was to immigration.

It’s true that changing immigration patterns have changed over the decades, which is one of the reason why groups like the Presbyterians, Anglicans and Lutherans have seen declines—their pipeline of European co-religionists was severed.

But that doesn’t mean Christians aren’t still coming to Canada, as many of the people I interviewed noted.

In fact, 48% of all immigrants between 2006 and 2011 were Christians.

With an estimated 1 million immigrants expected over the next three years, if that figure holds  it means as many as 500,000 new Christians coming to Canada.

That won’t replace all the losses, of course. But it isn’t insignificant, either—especially when you consider these immigrants tend to be more devout than people born in Canada.

It was suggested that the groups that will benefit most from this influx of new believers will likely be more conservative groups, since Christians in the developing world tend to be more conservative and morally conservative.

As a result, “immigration is going to play a huge role in the future of Christianity in Canada,"  says Flatt.

Bibby agrees, noting that the global explosion of Catholicism and projected increases in immigration numbers for Canada over the next several decades means that immigration will potentially have a significant impact on the Canadian religious landscape.

Says Bibby: “Immigration has always shaped religion in Canada; in my mind, it is the key to understanding where things will be in the future.”

Rick Hiemstra, director of research for the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, adds that these waves of Christians “from outside Canada could come and revitalize us.”

What this means for Canadian Christians, he says, is they “should welcome increased immigration.”

But Joel Thiessen, professor of sociology at Ambrose University, adds a word of caution; the unknown, he says, is “what will happen to second and third generation. Will the boost stand?”

The Future

Clarke and Macdonald are clear that the book isn’t meant to provide answers for how to respond.

But others have some ideas.

For Stackhouse, there’s something about conservative theology. But as importantly, is the need for churches—all of them—to do better when reaching out to Canadians.

“Studies have been showing how underfunded, poorly led, and otherwise weak are so many churches in Canada today,” he says.

Put another way, “if churches were all functioning as they should and these trends were still as they are, then, yes, the churches are doomed. But when churches manifestly are not doing even basic things well—good preaching, well conducted worship, strong Christian education, vital community life, effective mission—then one mustn’t over-interpret the statistics.”

Maybe, he says, “churches can improve how they cater to the market and thus reverse at least some of these trends.”

Thiessen, who also helps lead the Flourishing Congregations Institute, identifies at least three things church could do better.

First, be welcoming to immigrants. With so many of them being Christians, churches need to “examine how open they are to other ethnic groups, especially those already have an affinity for your group.”

This includes taking a look at leadership in a church; is it all white?

Second, they need to focus on leadership development.

Churches, he says, need to “create space for new generation of leaders, including them in decision-making now, enabling them to have ownership of the vision.”

This will not always be easy, since younger Christians will see things differently, and hold different beliefs on some issues—such as LGBTQ* inclusion.

The older generation, he says, has to be prepared to “ask what cost they are willing to pay to hand things over to younger leaders,” who might not see things the same way they do.

At the same time, Thiessen cautions, it’s not a one-way street.

The next generation “also needs to learn from the older generation,” he says. “It’s not all about them.”

Third, churches need to be actively involved in their communities.

“How active and present in the community is your church?” he asks.

Involvement in the community conveys to neighbours that a church “doesn’t exist only for itself,” he says.

This includes partnering with other groups, and using that as a “gateway for connection.”

This doesn’t mean “people will flood into churches,” he adds, but it could “change the perception of the church, that it’s just for someone else.”

Finally, Hiemstra cautions that nothing about the future of the church in Canada is certain. 

“History shows things can change in surprising ways,” he says, adding that he doesn’t think that we are seeing the end of the church in Canada.

The “form of Christianity is changing,” he acknowledges, and some denominations may not survive.

“Different expressions of faith will come and go,” he says, adding that “Christ never guaranteed denominations would endure. He said the church would survive.”