The latest in church growth worship styles: dog-centric services:
When the Rev. Tom Eggebeen took over as interim pastor at Covenant Presbyterian Church three years ago, he looked around and knew it needed a jump start.
Most of his worshippers, though devoted, were in their 60s, attendance had bottomed out and the once-vibrant church was fading as a community touchstone in its bustling neighborhood.
So Eggebeen came up with a hair-raising idea: He would turn God's house into a doghouse by offering a 30-minute service complete with individual doggie beds, canine prayers and an offering of dog treats. He hopes it will reinvigorate the church's connection with the community, provide solace to elderly members and, possibly, attract new worshippers who are as crazy about God as they are about their four-legged friends.
Before the first Canines at Covenant service last Sunday, Eggebeen said many Christians love their pets as much as human family members and grieve just as deeply when they suffer — but churches have been slow to recognize that love as the work of God.
"The Bible says of God only two things in terms of an 'is': That God is light and God is love. And wherever there's love, there's God in some fashion," said Eggebeen, himself a dog lover. "And when we love a dog and a dog loves us, that's a part of God and God is a part of that. So we honor that."
The weekly dog service at Covenant Presbyterian is part of a growing trend among churches nationwide to address the spirituality of pets and the deeply felt bonds that owners form with their animals.
The spirituality of pets! Dog church!
{ 1 trackback }
{ 33 comments… read them below or add one }
Order of service
Sermon by :Ruff
Readings Ezekiel 37 verses 1-7
Ecclesiastes 9 verse 4
Music: Bach
Choir: Offenbach
Offering attendants: Lady and The tramp
Door:Lassie
Missionary to Humans : Rin Tin Tin
There will water and dogbiscuits after the service this morning,where we will also discuss the upcoming service with the Metropolitan Canine Church.
It interests me to see that this is not done as a “gimmick,” but as an expression of serious theology. “Christians love their pets . . . churches have been slow to recognize that love as the work of God. . . when we love a dog and a dog loves us, that’s a part of God and God is a part of that.”
This is not the only place where something is dubbed holy or Christian because there is “love.” I think, though I am not particularly well versed, that this is the basic logic of “gay churches.” God is Love, and I love my partner, therefore God must be as work in our love. A simplification, to be sure, but it seems to be the fall back position for reconciling homosexuality with Christianity.
Here it is applied to dogs.
The message/theology seems to be: pursue “love,” any love, and God is at work in you through that love.
What do you think? How does this intersect with Scripture?
In the book “Children of Men” did not P.D. James describe a cat baptism? Life imitates art… unfortunately.
“It is not right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.” Matt 15:26 Apparently something changed but I do not believe God changed His Word.
Whatever happened to word and sacrament?
If, as the pastor asserts, “The Bible says of God only two things in terms of an ‘is’: That God is light and God is love. And wherever there’s love, there’s God in some fashion,” then maybe they should consider a sunrise/mirror service or a disco ball service to encompass the whole light part.
Sure, dogs can teach us something about unconditional love, but agape love is not the kind of love most dogs comprehend. My dog does not love me for me: my dog loves me because of what I do for him–feed, water, pat, let in, let out, let in, let out. I doubt my dog will sacrifice himself for me, but he will bark incessantly at the mailman and alert me to when there is a person walking within 500 yards of the house.
Dogs? Why not cats? Birds? I have a member who recently lost her cockateal and is grieving mightily for her loss of this daily companion. Actually I find this all quite self serving and highly gimmicky. I’ve heard of some churches that bless pets once a year but to have them come all the time? Come on. Did Jesus die for our pets? I’m sorry but I just can’t see this as Christian outreach. My bad???
The full text of the article includes an assessment (by a professor of religion) that pets are a part of “changing family stucture.”
Another woman says that her pets are her “children.”
There is something cultural going on here beyond the oddity of a doggie worship service.
I’m an opponent of “sport” hunting, an advocate for the humane raising and slaughter of farm animals, and a supporter of the “No Kill Nation” movement (which concerns our dog and cat shelters – so called). But my three cats in church with dozens of other cats? It wouldn’t be a sight that brings God’s love and forgiveness to mind!
So much in the name of “reinvigorate the church’s connection with the community” in place of worship! And that is EXACTLY the problem. Our churches have totally lost the meaning of worship. Thank goodness the LCMS church continues with the liturgical service–at least 2 or 3 times a month.
Seriously, I would love to see a good study on the value, process, and theology of Christian worship. I do recall that when Jesus healed the man born blind, the man confessed Jesus as Messiah and then bowed down and worshiped him. I DOUBT that meant that he brought his pet to be blessed or that he sang 7 songs 11 times over!
When may we begin worshipping with our trees and flowers? And the farmers could bring in their sugar beets!
How about food? Why can’t I worship with my lasagna?
Yes, my LCMS church has Word and Sacrament weekly. Thank our Lord for a faithful pastor.
Christ did not die for the redemption of the animal world according to Scripture. This expression of “love” that requires us to check our leashes at the door… This “love” that pats our ego,that can be anything which we deem goes under the name…
I guess the Presbyterians (at least at that church) will have to start calling their preacher “pawstor.”
Wayne Pelling, good on you for that order of worship. Bach & Offenbach, indeed!
Are they planning to rename the church to St. Bernard’s or St. Snoopy Presbyterian?
#12: No i get the Bach / Offenbach comment. I forgot that on the left side of the Atlantic, people can’t properly pronounce German names…
#2 Dan Kempin
“1) This is not the only place where something is dubbed holy or Christian because there is “love.” I think, though I am not particularly well versed, that this is the basic logic of “gay churches.”
2) What do you think? How does this intersect with Scripture?”
Response:
1) No Dan, you are well versed, but your misconceptions blind you to what you know: There is no logic to gay men and women being passionate, sin-confessing believers in Christ our Lord. Exactly like you Dan. They are Christian for exactly the same reasons you are christian Dan: “The HS has called them by the Gospel…and keeps them, with Christ, in the one true faith.” They are most happy, therefore, to reduce themselves , along with the woman who said “even the dogs get the crumbs” when the “church” says “you are not welcome.”
2) “Love is the fullfillment of the Law”
3) The Roman Catholics have been doing this for years with the St Francis blessing of the animals have they not? Their version though is probably more liturgical…..ahem.
Before this goes too far the other way, I’d like to repost a quote I posted some time back about the Luther family dog, named named Tölpel, or in English something like Clownie, as this translator offers it:
“Asked about the restoration of all things and whether there would be dogs and other animals in that kingdom, he said: ‘Certainly there will be, for Peter calls that day the time of the restitution of all things. Then, as is clearly said elsewhere, he will create a new heaven and a new earth. He will also create new Clownies with skin of gold and hair of pearls. There and then God will be all in all. No animal will eat any other. Snakes and toads and other beasts which are poisonous on account of original sin will then be not only innocuous but even pleasing and nice to play with. Why is it that we cannot believe that all things will happen as the Bible says, even in this article of the resurrection? Original sin is at fault.’”
[from Preserved Smith, The Life and Letters of Martin Luther, (London: John Murray, 1911) p. 362. ]
Dr Veith ,thanks for that. This type of drivelthat the Pressie minister came up with would go down very well in the Uniting Church of Australia which is all about being culturally relevant rather than obedience to the Gospel
This reminds me a lot of Chesterton’s Father Brown story “The Oracle of the Dog.” It’s good to like a dog, as long as he isn’t spelled backwards!
#17 wayne pelling…
“obedience to the Gospel”… hmmmm.
Sorry fws have i upset you ?.I should perhaps be more specific and state that the Uniting Church of Australia – a union of some presbyterian, and most congregational and methodist churches in Australia in 1977-in seeking to be culturally relevant has turned its back upon Christian doctrine.although there are still many faithful people remaining within the denomination. I was a member but left 12 years ago and joined the Lutheran Church of Australia
Actually, I believe that sometimes God works through dogs to protect us, and sometimes their love for us is more than just the fact that we feed them and care for them. But a service for animals?! How horrid!
Apparently, pastor illiterate was excluding “the LORD is” in his calculations.
The Lord is:
a man of war
my banner
greater than all gods
slow to anger
forgiving
one
mighty
peace
a witness
God
rock
fortress
deliverer
righteousness
strength
stronghold for the oppressed
king forever
chosen portion
shepherd
light
salvation
…and we haven’t even through the psalms yet.
What a neutered picture of God.
Sorry, couldn’t resist.
Fws, #15,
You may be taking my remarks a bit too far. I do not question gay Christians or the right of any sinner to gather, and I know that this discussion may invoke a host of history, not to mention emotion, of which I may be unaware.
My point was not to examine gay churches in particular, but to draw out the logic–certainly used by some in the gay community, but by no means limited to it–that “where there is love, there is God.”
Where there is love there is God. That strikes me as a treacherous tenet, especially when not attached to any particular definition of love. If a molestation or bestiality (to use a crass and extreme example) is enacted out of “love,” does it become holy?
The danger of this logic, of course, is not found in the extreme example, but in the subtlety of nuance that is not so easily seen.
Put simply, when “love” becomes the means of grace and the material principle for touching God . . . what then?
This guys doesn’t love dogs. He’s using dogs. Big difference.
fws@ 15 the Anglicans have been blessing animals out here, in October of every year for quite a while and also very much in keeping with the Liturgy.
#23 dan kempín
“Put simply, when “love” becomes the means “of grace and the material principle for touching God . . . what then?”
Love=keeping of the Law/Will of God. What then? This: One more form of that work-righteousness that we all have a sin-nature that wills just that. But works-righteousness can take sundry and creative forms because even alot of LCMS christians believe that our human will and will-power is not also something that needs to be mortified as part of the “flesh” (eg: “a christian will never WILLfully sin”.)
That “gay church” you mention is as much an oxymoron as the term “black church” is. But I can appreciate that those churches exist due to the sin of “regular” churches either accepting gays while gutting their theology or else rejecting gays in ways Christ never would have done:
Our Lord did not forgive the the Prostitute and say “now go and stop committing your sin of prostitution.”
He told her that he did not condemn her (absolution here with no confession from her of her sin, as in the parable of the prodigal son) and informed her that her God required her to completely stop sinning or else (“Now go, and sin no more!”).
This is a radically different message from the “Love/works-righteousness” of both the Pharisees of her time and most LCMS pastors today.
Did you know that in Genesis it says that all animals will give an account to God?
Dr Marie
I have wondering about that verse? I also think of the countless domestic pets who have suffered cruel treatment at the hands of their ‘masters’ and wondered if they would get a chance at having a life of peace.
Dr. Marie, what verse(s) in Genesis are you referring to? I have always understood that animals are without sin (but share in suffering the curse brought on by the sinfulness of their master, Man). How, in the OT, could sinful animals have been acceptable sacrifices for the sins of the people? (I think the fact that animals are without sin, and so have no need to give an account to God, is exactly why they don’t need to be brought to a Divine Service.)
I think that’s how the NIV renders Genesis 9:5:
“And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each man, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man.”
But other versions render it differently, like the NASB:
“Surely I will require (D)your lifeblood; (E)from every beast I will require it. And from every man, from every man’s brother I will require the life of man.”
The following verse, and some other laws in Exodus, suggest that what is demanded is life for life, not an explanation out of the mouth of the perpetrator, human or animal. (The picture is quite interesting, though, isn’t it?)
FWS #26,
Just my point, really. When “love” (quotes intentional) remains undefined, we tend to fill in the blanks ourselves with anything from works righteousness to self-centered libertinism. (Is that a word?) None of these will reconcile us to God, and so a logic that says “God is in love and all love is from God” is dangerous.
You bring fair and challenging points about the church’s response to gay Christians and the sin of homosexuality. It is always easier to be dismissive than to think things through and get it right.
Still, I think the concept of “God in any love” is a much broader issue and worthy of discussion.
#32 dan Kempin.
I am not sure the concept of “god in any love” is really so profound and in need of alot of discussion.
many think of faith as a virtue or love as a virtue. It really very simply boils down to what the object of that faith or love is no?
faith and love are rather meaningless if not contexted in Christ Jesus.
There is nothing at all unique to gay men and women respecting sin or faith in Christ when they are christians who happen to be homosexual.
Be careful, I would suggest, not to refer to the “sin of homosexuality” when the bible does this nowhere. I assume you mean, very very narrowly, homosexual sex along with any other sex outside of marriage.
The problem is you are not communicating this, and so will needlessly be labeled an ignorant biggot by those who do not assume that you mean that, as I assume that you reduce “homosexuality” to sex acts/thoughts. you will by this sloppy use of the english language be rather limited in your ability to proclaim Christ Crucified to society at large.
That would be quite a shame wouldn´t it? and quite unnecessary.
FWS, #33,
“faith and love are rather meaningless if not contexted in Christ Jesus. ”
True. True. True. This, as per your first comment, is exactly what needs discussion. I could not agree more, and our culture is awash in concepts of ‘love’ that are so vague and varied as to become unattainable will-o-the-wisps.
True as well to your statement that,”There is nothing at all unique to gay men and women respecting sin or faith in Christ when they are christians who happen to be homosexual,” and to my reference to the sin of homosexuality meant, “very very narrowly, homosexual sex along with any other sex outside of marriage.”
Violating the sixth commandment is the sin, and this encompasses ALL sexual sin. True and Amen to that. I accept your correction if I communicated otherwise.