Comfort
I had the chance to read over some of the comments regarding the collar post on our sister blog Sacramental Nazarenes. To be honest I could probably go either way on that issue. However, what stuck out to me was what seemed to be a common thread running through the arguments of the detractors to clerical dress. The argmunent against such a tradition seemed to be based in large part on the perception, and in particular, the comfort level of the congregation and, especially those outside the church, who, it is perceived, would be turned off by such formality.
In my opinion, and it is only my opinion, the most destructive trend to hit the church in it's recent history is "seeker sensitivity." I don't say this because I have no regard for those "seeking the Lord". I wouldn't be in my current job if I felt that way. I care deeply for the lost, however, I take tremendous exception at the idea that the church should change or alter it's practices and/or beliefs in order to make church more comfortable for a "seeker."
Without going into a long diatribe about the idiocy of this notion, (it is my hope that the obvious problem of those on the outside dictating what is going on inside is problematic enough), I would rather raise the question: When exactly are those on the "inside", the regular congregtation, supposed to be comfortable? Are we supposed to be comfortable giving authority to a book that is 2000+ years old? Are we supposed to be comfortable living a life that is different from so many around us? Are we supposed to be comfortable when we claim that a virgin gave birth? Should we be comfortable claiming that Jesus of Nazareth was both fully man and fully God? Should we be comfortable declaring that God died hanging from a tree? Should we be comfortable claiming that He physically rose from the dead? Is it supposed to be comfortable kneeling on an altar and admitting our mistakes? Are we supposed to be comfortable forgiving, loving, and not holding a grudge? Or perhaps we should be comfortable affirming stories about arks, seas parting, giants slain, fire that doesn't consume, water into wine, and feeding thousands from nothing.
It seems to me that there should never come a point in the life of the church that even it's own people are ever completely comfortable. If we reach that point then surely we do not really believe the things that we profess, or even worse, have so corrupted the faith that it looks nothing like the gospel handed down by grace of the Holy Spirit.
To once again paraphrase the great Stanley Hauerwas, "It is the role of the church to be the church and to tell the world that it is the world because it doesn't know that it's the world." Sometimes that means professing, acting and even dressing in a way that makes people feel uncomfortable. If anything we need more uncomfortablilty in the church. I can't imagine that cross we stare at on Sunday morning was very comfortable to hang on, so why should things be comfortable for us?
Grace and peace,
Zack
In my opinion, and it is only my opinion, the most destructive trend to hit the church in it's recent history is "seeker sensitivity." I don't say this because I have no regard for those "seeking the Lord". I wouldn't be in my current job if I felt that way. I care deeply for the lost, however, I take tremendous exception at the idea that the church should change or alter it's practices and/or beliefs in order to make church more comfortable for a "seeker."
Without going into a long diatribe about the idiocy of this notion, (it is my hope that the obvious problem of those on the outside dictating what is going on inside is problematic enough), I would rather raise the question: When exactly are those on the "inside", the regular congregtation, supposed to be comfortable? Are we supposed to be comfortable giving authority to a book that is 2000+ years old? Are we supposed to be comfortable living a life that is different from so many around us? Are we supposed to be comfortable when we claim that a virgin gave birth? Should we be comfortable claiming that Jesus of Nazareth was both fully man and fully God? Should we be comfortable declaring that God died hanging from a tree? Should we be comfortable claiming that He physically rose from the dead? Is it supposed to be comfortable kneeling on an altar and admitting our mistakes? Are we supposed to be comfortable forgiving, loving, and not holding a grudge? Or perhaps we should be comfortable affirming stories about arks, seas parting, giants slain, fire that doesn't consume, water into wine, and feeding thousands from nothing.
It seems to me that there should never come a point in the life of the church that even it's own people are ever completely comfortable. If we reach that point then surely we do not really believe the things that we profess, or even worse, have so corrupted the faith that it looks nothing like the gospel handed down by grace of the Holy Spirit.
To once again paraphrase the great Stanley Hauerwas, "It is the role of the church to be the church and to tell the world that it is the world because it doesn't know that it's the world." Sometimes that means professing, acting and even dressing in a way that makes people feel uncomfortable. If anything we need more uncomfortablilty in the church. I can't imagine that cross we stare at on Sunday morning was very comfortable to hang on, so why should things be comfortable for us?
Grace and peace,
Zack
posted by Zack | 2:21 PM
40 Comments:
Amen; hear, hear. I'm so tired of going to church and not being convicted. If the gospel isn't presented in ways that will challenge me - how then do we grow, spiritually?
If all we hear is "feel good gospel", then, yes, we may feel good, but will we have grown or been changed by the gospel?
As one of the "detractors" on that other post you mention, and the pastor of what could be termed a "seeker-friendly" church, I feel like I have to chime in.
1. My concern with what the collar communicates to others isn't so much that they would be "turned off by such formality." It's that it communicates all sorts of things that I feel are, on the whole, unhelpful. It's not a "seeker sensitive" issue at all.
2. While there may be "seeker sensitive" churches who have altered their beliefs for the sake of seekers, most haven't. Ours is a new church (now 8 years old), so for us it wasn't even an issue of altering existing practices. But we did deliberately shape our Sunday morning worship activities with the uninitiated in mind. This impacts our lack of dress code, the style of our music, the language we use, etc. We see it as an expression of Jesus' "As the Father sent me, so I am sending you." We are incarnating the church in our community.
Every Sunday, regulars and guests, Christians and non-Christians, insiders and outsiders are challenged and stretched by Scripture. It's not about presenting a comfortable message, but about presenting the gospel where people live, with all of its challenge and, at times, comfort. Your long list of "Should we be comfortable?" questions doesn't seem to connect in any way with any version of "seeker-sensitive" church I've ever seen. And I've seen several.
You and I totally agree that the gospel is not about being comfortable.
In my opinion we have forgotten what a worship service is about and who it is for. It is about challenging and encouraging the saints. It is about tightening the bonds of the brothers and sisters.
A worship service is not the place for a non-believer (though in no circumstances would I turn one away) In my opinion The worship service should not be a place where we try to evangelize the lost (not that conversions cannnot happen there). I do not see Paul going into the streets inviting people to come to church so he can preach to them on sunday and then get them saved. The optimal place for evangelism is outside of the meeting of the believers for worship.
Rich,
I think this is where we just have a fundamental difference in approach to ministry, I don't know what a "new church" is. That term seems to invoke a clear breaking with what has come before. Obviously new congregations form and even new denominations, but to approach the formation of either with a "clean slate" mentality is fundamentally in conflict with who the church is. Even if we form new congregations, to claim that there aren't "already existing practices" is to ignore 2000 years of the life of the church. This doesn't mean that we all wear tunics, get rid of electricty and sing 1st century hymns. I definitely agree that to some extent the church must stay revelant, but it is the gospel we preach that makes it so.
Again I find it incredibly problematic to "deliberately shape our Sunday morning worship activities with the uninitiated in mind." We do that at my church as well, but it always makes me ask the same 2 questions: 1)Why are we shaping/reshaping worship what was ordered/structured with profound intentionality over 2000 yrs. to, once again, makes those on the outside, or even newcomers, comfortable? Will they feel a little lost the first few times they are there? Sure, but that is by no means a reason to change worship. It's a process. None of us come out of the womb understanding the Eucharist or creeds. Similarly, in our "new birth" it will take a similar journey to reach that point. We do an injustice to the "uninitiated" by not letting them experience the same journey. Which leads to my second question: 2)When do we stop feeding our congregatin of "newcomers" milk and start feeding them meat? This is a struggle we have at my church. The service is intended to draw the uninitiated, but the rest of the congregation suffers. If our Sunday mornings are structured for the new, then no one, including them, will ever get anywhere in their faith. They will always be "drinking milk" and will never have the strength to face life's storms.
I have nothing against new buildings, "contemporary worship", or powerpoint, in fact I enjoy and utilize all 3. (Except powerpoint, mediashout is much better) My concern is that we be who we are and even in our love and concern for the outsider, in fact because of it, we do not restructure and reformat to the point where people leave after church saying "wow, that didn't even feel like church." Despite what Brian McLaren claims, everything doesn't need to change.
I figured that part about being a new church without existing practices would get you, Zack. :)
The problem I see with your perspective is that you seem to assume that there's some monolithic, uniform set of worship practices, shaped and honed and perfected down through the centuries. That's just not the case. Which liturgy? Which church? Which tradition? As a lifelong member of the Church of the Nazarene, my "tradition" has very few set practices... because we're a "free worship" tradition!
In my view, there are in fact new churches. Imagine a missionary (maybe the Apostle Paul) arriving in a new city where he's not building on anyone else's foundation. He (or she) presents the gospel, some folks respond positively and begin to follow Christ... Now, what practices does this missionary pass along to this new church? Is it a set liturgy (like the Latin Mass) with no room for variation? Or is there room for creativity? Certainly, some things are appropriate while others are inappropriate. (Paul gives such instructions to some of his new churches.) The missionary may teach some practices that have been found to be helpful, and others that have been commanded by our Lord, and leave the rest up to the Spirit of God at work within this new community.
Re: milk & meat, we've bumped into this same question at our church, and we seem to have found a way to serve up meat in a way that newcomers can digest it. Or something like that. :) I'd love to share more, but I have to run out the door right now!
If the Roman Catholic church isn't a monolithic tradition with a "uniform set of worship practices, shaped and honed and perfected down through the centuries" then I don't know what is. The intentionality, attention to detail, and execution of Mass is a thing of beauty that we could all learn from.
I am not catholic and have no intention of bending knee and kissing the ring in Rome. However, I think as protestants we too often allow the bitterness of the Reformation to linger on our tongues and in our minds and in so doing refuse to learn from our forebearers, if not altogher ignore their very existence.
Again, this isn't to say that we should send our order of worship to Rome for approval every Sunday, but what I think it should do is remind us that we must hold up our worship practices up against those that have come before in order to test their validity. There is always room for growth and diversity, but not to the point that what we do on Sunday morning becomes unrecognizable as church. (I refer in particular to the garbage that Dan Kimbal tries to pass off as worship)
I do not think that in doing this our adoption of modern media or music would fall by the wayside. However, I think that the informal, lacsidasical approach that many of us take in worship would not stand. We claim to be entering in the very presence of the Creator of the universe, and yet we do so with very little respect. In so many congregations it has become an informal time to socialize with our friends and sing a few songs that make us feel good, whereas the response of the people of God throughout the Bible who have been in His presence is to fall on their face as if dead.
I take major issue with the notion that so much of "modern worship" seems to stem from: "God loves you just the way you are". Really? Then why did He feel it necessary to put on flesh and die on a cross? Probably because He loves us inspite of who we are.
As Bonhoeffer so eloquently put it, grace is costly. It is costly because it cost God the life of His own son and anything that is costly for God must be costly for us. I think that a little respect, and even formality, is a very small price to pay if we really believe that when we worship we are entering into the presence of a lamb slain for our sins.
Re: What practices does the missionary pass on? The ones that were passed on to him from the church.
The main thing I can't get past when talking about incarnational theology is the fact that Jesus was a Jew and He attended/participated in formal Jewish worship every Sabbath. From birth He grew up as a Jew. Luke tells us that his parents took Him to the temple as a baby and made the proper sacrifices of thanksgiving: two pigeons and two doves. As an adult Jesus read the Scriptures in Nazareth 'as was His custom', and in addition He taught in the synagogues, like any other rabbi would do.
What is really interesting about Jesus in regards to a discussion about incarnational theology is the fact that Jesus did attend/participate in traditional/customary/liturgical worship with a certain community on the Sabbath THEN during the week he taught/preached, etc. If we look to Him as our example; if we are to live incarnationally as Christ, we have to remember that Christ participated in worship, a worship that had been established for many many years by a certain community, and he ALSO taught/preached/lived a life of Love from Saturday to Saturday.
It seems as if this is how the early church modeled herself from the beginning. Formal gathering of the faithful one day a week and also an incarnational living like Christ throughout the week. I like to believe that this is truly incarnational living and this is an incarnational theology of evangelism.
Side Note: Another interesting thing about this understanding of incarnational theology is the fact that Christ worshipped God the Father on the Sabbath. It is a great picture of the Trinitarian community. God the Son worshipping God the Father through God the Spirit, all One in perfect communion. Subsequently, we Christians have been grafted into this worship of Trinity through the Spirit. Just thought I would add that bit.
Rich: you seem to have some gaps in your understanding of liturgical history. Nobody's advocating that every single local church worship according to the same liturgy, which as you rightly point out has never been the case. But that's entirely different from saying that, well, our worship doesn't need to retain any continuity with the basic pattern according to which Christians have worshipped for 2 millennia! Even if there are and have always been different liturgies that incorporate wordings in different languages, composed by different authors or groups of authors, integrating cultural elements and practices specific to a particular historical or geographical location...which is to say: even if there has always been a considerable amount of diversity within Christian leitourgia, there have always been certain basic, essential elements that tie Christian('s) worship all together. Things like our initial gathering together; our being called to worship; our confession and absolution of sins; our recitation of a creed; praying the "Our Father..."; the reading of sacred Scripture; the exposition of the Scriptures in homily; the passing of the peace; the anaphora, anamnesis, epiclesis and communion of the Eucharist; the singing of certain canticles, psalms and songs; prayers of intercession, supplication and thanksgiving; and a blessing and charge to go forth to be His Body in the world.
This list is not exhaustive, but it pretty well covers all that I would regard as the essential elements of Christian liturgy based on my reading and study of the history of Christian worship.
Your suggestion that we can just start fresh, because we're trying to reach uninitiated people; or your appeal to "Nazarene traditions" (note: the notion that there is a "free church tradition", while a practical reality, is really a laughable idea), really rings false to me. Further, I think you're totally kidding yourself if you really believe that what you and your church represent isn't an example of "altering existing practices," which is another way of saying, a break with tradition. Surely not, though: I suspect you're keenly aware, and even a bit proud of this fact - you seem to believe, here as elsewhere, that such a break with tradition is precisely what is called for.
With regard to the milk-vs-meat question, there is something that needs to be said here for the fact that the "meat" that we need to graduate to once our spiritual life has formed and deepened is something that we embody in ritual/liturgy as well as in sermons. This disconnect is what prompted Thomas Howard to write Evangelical Is Not Enough (1984), which is a wonderful, if unfortunately titled, book about the importance of full-bodied, historic liturgy to orthodox, evangelical faith, written by an evangelical MK and literature professor who eventually left the church of his upbringing and became an Anglican briefly before settling down as a Roman Catholic. Howard's point is that we evanglicals usually do a great job of preaching the "meat" of Christian orthodoxy - but the problem is we don't act in out in our worship. We HEAR it, and we BELIEVE it, but we don't engage in practices that reinforce it fully enough. And I think that's a conversation worth having; those are terms we need to be thinking in...does how we worship "match" what we preach? Are we practicing the faith in ways that complement and reinforce our teaching and preaching, or in fact are we often giving ourselves and our churches over to practices that actively undermine and contradict what we say from the pulpit and what we say we believe? I've encountered a lot of churches that have meaty sermons but milky liturgy; and likewise, I've been in churches that have the most filling liturgical "meat" you could want, but lame, anemic, homiletic milk, week-in, week-out. We need to allow the Lord to give us a renewed imagination about how to make these two work together.
"There is always room for growth and diversity, but not to the point that what we do on Sunday morning becomes unrecognizable as church."
Unrecognizable to whom? There are some who would argue that the formalized liturgical worship that has more or less dominated for most of church history would be "unrecognizable as church" to the Apostle Paul and his contemporaries.
Re: the monolithic Roman Catholic liturgy - Yes, but that's never been the only option. At least, not by the time "seeker sensitivity" came along. That's how you started this thread, by taking exception to seeker sensitive churches who "change or alter [their] practices and/or beliefs in order to make church more comfortable..." I'd wager that it's a pretty small percentage of seeker sensitive churches who are coming from a formal, "rich" liturgical tradition. They were already in traditions in which creativity and experimentation for the sake of mission were realities -- just perhaps not current realities. Their grandparents or great-grandparents had experimented, and then things froze again. Finally, a new generation began experimenting anew.
If you want to find fault with that experimentation, please, feel free to do so. But don't lay it at the feet of today's seeker sensitive churches.
Re: Brannon's comments -- I'm all for learning from those who have gone before us in this Christian faith. We even talk about that in our 101/intro class! It's one of our core values! So I'm not really trying to start with a clean slate. But I do believe that every generation should question and experiment and discover. And, yes, as we do that, I believe there will be a distinct family resemblance across churches, as it is the same Spirit of the risen Christ who is present in each community. My perspective is that each faith generation is passing along those things they've found helpful to the new generation, because they'll need all the help they can get! Perhaps part of the problem is that many, many people have not been finding these formal liturgical practices to be very helpful? For too many, for too long, they were simply ritualized behaviors with very little meaning associated with them. (I just had dinner last night with a couple who are new to our church, and he's searching for something meaningful... that he didn't find in the worship of his Roman Catholic upbringing.) That's not an argument for their abandonment, but I believe it does give make room for questioning and evaluation.
Perhaps my history is off. Perhaps my perspective on those crucial first 2 centuries of the church is skewed. But it's not set in stone yet. :) I mentioned on your blog that I've recently read Barna & Viola's "Pagan Christianity?" which sees great discontinuity between the earliest church and the church post-Constantine and judges most of the formalizing/institutionalizing practices to be unhelpful developments. That's just one of many books I've come across over the years making that type of argument. Of course, I've also read many books from the other side, arguing continuity. Presently, I'm finding the argument for discontinuity a bit more convincing.
I wish there were a way to edit my previous comments....
When I said, "At least, not by the time 'seeker sensitivity' came along," I'm wishing I'd said, "Certainly not by the time..." I want to affirm that the RC tradition was never the only tradition, down through the years, but that seems to be beside the point for this particular post and thread. In trying to get back on topic, I misspoke a wee bit.
Rich: I appreciate your openness and general spirit in this and other discussions. I'm sure it's not easy to be so even-keeled when many of the practices and "traditions" (yes, quote-unquote!) that you represent come under critique here and elsewhere.
Still, either you really didn't grasp my point, or else you just chose to side-step it. So here it is again: even though there has always been a plurality of liturgical practice comprising the history of Christian worship, there are certain distinct, formal elements that can be traced from the earliest beginnings all the way through to the present day; AND (and this is key) these were not only universally recognized as the essential elements of Christian worship for every time and place and people, but they were pretty much the only option until about the 19th century. Realizing this, I just don't know how you can justify dispensing with these essentials. I'm not saying the Roman Catholic or Anglican or Orthodox liturgies of today are exact replicas of first- or second-century worship - of course they aren't! they too, like all liturgies, are historically and culturally "located" - but their continuity lies in the persistence of every single one of those essential elements I listed (and more), which have made Christian worship uniquely *Christian* since the time of the apostles.
I guess sometimes I just wanna throw my hands in the air and cry, "Where in the WORLD do we get off thinking we can pick and choose which bits we like or don't like, as if we have figured out a better way??!!" The deal is, these liturgies - the forms, prayers, practices, sacraments, etc - were already in practice and beginning to crystallize well before the biblical canon came into being, and even before much of writings we now call the New Testament were even written down. Scripture doesn't detail many/most of these essentials because it assumes the universality of these practices - not their specific ritual form or exact scripted wording in any literal manner (Justin and Hippolytus both make that clear), but the fact, the necessity, that these are the things Christians do in worship.
Remember, too, that the biblical canon was not given to us a liturgical handbook in the first place - if you don't find the "answers" you're looking for, that's because you're trying to make the Bible do something that it's not meant to do: it's like looking for a recipe in a poetry anthology. But that doesn't give us permission to dispense with the God-breathed, Christ-exalting, Spirit-guided, time-honored traditions of the Church just because we don't see it addressed or spelled-out in the Bible. I simply do not buy not only that kind of logic, but in fact the entire relationship to Scripture that such a logic represents.
I'm not criticizing any one thing you or any other church is doing or not doing as wrong or false or inauthentic - Lord knows my church leaves a LOT of these essentials out on a regular basis...does this mean our liturgy is unacceptable to God? of course not! does this mean we have room for improvement? absolutely!
"Unrecognizable to whom?" To the church. If you affirm Nicea, and to be Christian you must, then you affirm "one holy catholic and apostolic church." That's who our worship services must be recognizable to.
Re: "I'd wager that it's a pretty small percentage of seeker sensitive churches who are coming from a formal, "rich" liturgical tradition." Well, I'll take that wager, because in order to be a church, then they ARE coming from "a formal, "rich" liturgical tradition" even if it was a generation or more back. Once again, re-read the Nicene creed.
Re: "They were already in traditions in which creativity and experimentation for the sake of mission were realities -- just perhaps not current realities. Their grandparents or great-grandparents had experimented, and then things froze again. Finally, a new generation began experimenting anew." I hope we can chalk this one up to a bad choice of words. The church doesn't need to "experiment". I'm not even sure what that means. Does that mean we keep changing and trying new things till we get enough butts in the seats to make us feel successful? Since when was a large congregation the measure of a "successful" church? Last time I checked Jesus talked about narrow paths and camels entering through eyes of needles. Can/should our style of music, nomenclature, and asthetics be contemporary and relevant, sure, but that is by no means "experimenting."
Brannon: I couldn't agree with you more. The current "have it your way christianity" drives me up the wall! We are not a democracy. We neither ask for, nor desire, opinions regarding our faith or practice. There is nothing more unchristian, I would even go so far as to say blasphemous if we are brave enough to call this cherry picking of the faith to suit are wants/desires what it really is: idolatry.
Imagine showing up at mosque and reinterpreting the Koran. Or saying, "You know what guys this praying towards Mecca all the time doesn't work for me. Getting on my knees in the middle of the day is uncomfortable, so I'm not gonna do it, but I still love Allah and that's all that really matters." It's absurb! And yet we have this idea that it is the role of the church to make everyone feel warm and fuzzy inside, therefore we must "experiment" with our forms of worship/who we are, till we fill up the seats and everybody feels happy. This path leads nowhere but the death of the faith.
Who gave these people the authority to "experiment"? The Holy Spirit? Because if we are going to argue that then perhaps Joseph Smith was right with his great "experiment" of the Mormon church, he didn't feel the need to be accountable to the "one holy and catholic and apostolic church" and neither does the idea of a church "experimenting" and cherry picking the forms of the faith.
Long story short, the Christian faith has already been formed for us. We ONLY have the option of accepting or rejecting it.
re: Brannon - I totally agree with you on why these things may not be spelled out in the Bible, etc. The Bible isn't exhaustive and it assumes a lot on the part of the hearers/readers. I get that. It's likely that I just need to go back and re-read a lot of those Christian history books I read back in seminary. :) I apologize if you felt I was dodging or missing your point.
re: both Brannon & Zack - It's actually pretty interesting to me to read your comments on a blog called "Nazarene Roundtable"... because Nazarenes have been a "free worship" tradition from the start! Some of those "essential elements" have never been a regular part of our worship. Again, Zack, your argument isn't with me, but with the believers several generations back who decided that experimentation in worship was OK. The fact that you continue to attribute church growth motivations to this experimentation makes me wonder if you think this all started 30-40 years ago.
I certainly affirm "one holy, catholic, apostolic church"... but today there are huge segments of that church that don't "recognize" what any Nazarene church does on a Sunday morning as valid Christian worship. Right? I mean, they recognize that we're doing our best, but unless we were to come into full communion with Rome... Or perhaps I'm misunderstanding the Roman Catholic position.
By the way, yes, I believe it's the Holy Spirit that gives us this permission to experiment... but that doesn't mean it's divorced from Scripture or the experience of the church down through the centuries. To compare experimentation in forms of worship with Smith's abandonment of Scripture and core Christian beliefs and rejection of every other church as heretical when he began the Mormon church seems like a low blow. Do these things really seem equivalent to you?
As you said, Brannon, there's still lots of room for improvement in today's church. We just disagree on what types of changes count as improvements. :)
Rich: I think that many here - or perhaps I should only speak for myself: *I* feel like the notion that "Nazarenes have been a "free worship" tradition from the start" is perhaps both laughably and tragically (or maybe just tragically) either dismissive of or ignorant of the Tradition that leads up to our little tradition...re-read the subtitle of the blog and you may begin to understand why many that populate these waters lean in this direction - because we're interested in a re(dis)covery of something that really, as you rightly point out, we've never really had, to our own impoverishment. I'm not saying your wrong; I'm simply saying, as I have elsewhere, that it is my view and my conviction that the fact that you are right, and that you basically represent the perspective that rules that day - even if one might sense the winds beginning to change - is by no means a good thing...and that we have lots of work to do.
You might be interested in an article by one of the profs at Trevecca, who in fact influenced many of the voices you're encountering here. It's entitled "THE WESLEYAN/HOLINESS MOVEMENT IN SEARCH OF LITURGICAL IDENTITY" and can be found here.
Also along these lines, I was listening today to "Speaking of Faith", Krista Tippett's American Public Media radio program, and they were doing a thing on the history of the pentecostal movement, beginning w/ the Azusa street revivals in 1906. It got me thinking - and I haven't really processed all this yet or thought through it in any complete sense - but really, it seems like no sooner than we were formed as a denomination than we began the movement away from that charismatic/pentecostal heritage, evidenced by dropping the "Pentecostal" from our name within a few years of our birth...I just wonder if what we're seeing now - this return to our Methodist-Wesleyan-Anglican-Catholic lineage, this desire to understand our small tradition(s) in light of and in continuity with the larger Tradition - isn't in some way a continuation of that initial impulse which, however much it prioritized the life- and heart-transformation wrought by the cleansing power of the Holy Spirit, and all the "freedom" that accompanies such, at the same time recognized the danger astir in the "free worship" pentecostal tradition, and, as I say, almost immediately began to pull back...just a thought.
And for the record: Zach's mormonism analogy was a bit of a low blow. I know what you're getting at, Zach, but the comparison with Islam much better illustrated your point...I don't think Rich's church, or my church, for that matter, are on some kind of "slippery slope" towards cult-status. I think we probably verge on heresy from time to time (well, heresies other than the one Protestants are all supposedly guilty of...), but I would still defend our small tradition, as goofy as it might be in some ways, as discernably Christian and defensibly (I think) orthodox...to be consistent with myself, I do have to side with Rich on the point that the COTN, too, is a product of its own historical and cultural location...but I depart from him in that I think we have to work to overcome certain aspects of this in deference to catholicity.
Low blow? I fail to see how it's a "low blow." I'm not implying any sort of "slippery slope" into cultic practice. The point I was making was that making an argument the we can create our own version of church counter to what comes before and what presently is because we believe the Holy Spirit/God told us to, without regard of testing this "revelation" against the aforementioned past and present church is the EXACT same approach that Joseph Smith took when he formed the Mormon church. So that's not a cheap shot at Rich or a "low blow" it's a fair comparison based on a historical reality. We are not autonomous Christians or churches. Even if we think God is leading us to do something we have to run it through the church first to test whether it is indeed God or our own passions. I may feel the call to preach but I must present that call to the church before I have the authority to speak.
I'll give it a read, too. I've been more or less out of this conversation since leaving seminary in '99.
When we started Living Hope, we started out moving TOWARD a more historic liturgical practice. We didn't go as far as robes or collars, but we included certain greetings & responses, the weekly praying of the Lord's Prayer, recitation of one of the creeds each time we celebrated communion (monthly, which was more often than what I grew up with), having separate Scripture readings before the messages (OT, epistle, gospel, and sometimes Psalm), liturgical colors, and just generally following a four-fold worship pattern.
Since then, we've retained some of those practices while letting others drop - at least as far as our regular weekly/monthly pattern is concerned. I'm telling you guys this both to fill out my own story a bit for you and to let you know that it's been years since this has been on my radar screen. Your blogs are serving to keep this Nazarene pastor thinking about it. :)
Holy Cow! I didn't know the conversation made it all the way to here. I'm really behind. One comment I would add is in regards to Zack's comment, "I am not catholic and have no intention of bending knee and kissing the ring in Rome. However, I think as protestants we too often allow the bitterness of the Reformation to linger on our tongues and in our minds and in so doing refuse to learn from our forebearers, if not altogether ignore their very existence." Here Here! I totally agree! Our people (in the church I currenly serve as associate) love tradition. In my mind (and bad sence of humore), I'd like to show them 'tradition' that came before what Nazarenes posed as tradition and see if lives wouldn't change and deeper intimacy with God prevail!
OK, I've read the Hoskins article linked to above (The Wesleyan/Holiness Movement in Search of Liturgical Identity)... and have just two quick responses:
1. It was interesting to see him note that Wesley (and the Anglicans who preceded him) were themselves eclectic in their (re)formation of their liturgies, given the outrage expressed here against those who "pick and choose which parts we like or don't like." Apparently it was OK for Cranmer and Wesley to pick and choose and rewrite and edit, but it isn't OK for us?
2. There's another article in that same journal that might be interesting to read as well, by Rodney Reed: "Worship, Relevance, and the Preferential Option for the Poor in the Holiness Movement, 1880-1910." I couldn't help but read it as a sort of counterpoint to Hoskins' article, though it likely wasn't intended to be. (It includes a part about dress that may apply to our other conversation about collars and vestments.)
Re: Zack and the Mormon thing - Zack, I'm having trouble taking you seriously. Are you honestly saying that any "free worship" church or denomination that doesn't continue the historic Tradition of worship that came before us is essentially abandoning Christian faith? Do you think that any of us are doing what we're doing, in your words, "without regard of testing this 'revelation' against the aforementioned past and present church"?
Joseph Smith explicitly claimed to be (re)founding the One True Church while claiming all others were impostors and heretics. We don't do anything of the sort. Our worship practices may be (slightly) different, but our beliefs are orthodox... as long as you consider the Church of the Nazarene's Statement of Faith to be consistent with Christian orthodoxy...
Perhaps I should take the opportunity to say again that I agree with what you said, Zack, in your original post here: that the point isn't to make people comfortable. The gospel is a challenging message, both to believers and non-believers.
Having said that, I think it's perfectly appropriate to adapt a worship service to fit the context of both the believers and the unbelieving community. Speak their native language. Use their styles of music. Don't put up unnecessary barriers. Etc.
I assume you agree with the basic idea (or are you a Latin Mass kind of guy?) but that we would disagree about where the lines should be drawn.
By the way, I'm also going to stop using the Name/URL option for posting and just use my Google/Blogger account. I don't use that blog at all, but I'm getting tired of retyping my name, etc. :)
Rich wrote: Apparently it was OK for Cranmer and Wesley to pick and choose and rewrite and edit, but it isn't OK for us?
The criteria, it seems to me, is continuity...not conformity. I don't want to seem like a legalist on this, because I'm not; and as I've described elsewhere, I am currently very happily serving a church that bears very little resemblance to historic Christian liturgy. And yet, I could make a good case for all the ways in which our worship is in continuity with historic Christian worship. There are some things that need (re-)introduced that have been forgotten or misplaced along the way; and there are some things that we've picked up from our culture or from other traditions that probably need to be pruned away. But it's not at all equivalent to Joseph Smith and the Mormons (I'm with you entirely on that point, Rich). On the other hand, I think the most significant shift or break in the history of Christian worship is the advent of "free worship" - insofar as this indicates the rejection of the set forms and specific prayers that have provided the "carriers" for those essential elements of Christian worship to be handed along from generation to generation.
Re: your statement above, I take your point without quarrel. And yet, to suggest that Wesley and Cranmer were promoting "free worship" is ridiculous; to suggest that they would approve of or advocate the kinds of worship practices that characterize 21st century evangelicalism is at BEST impossible to defend, and probably (let's just be honest) pretty unlikely...these guys were totally building on what came before, reemphazing what might've been lacking, pruning away that which was unnecessary or theologically unsound, sure - editing, rewriting: yes. picking and choosing: to some degree. But you know as well as I do that they weren't breaking with or rejecting the time-honored and Spirit-guided tradition of Christian liturgy: they were directing it toward a more faithful, authentic expression that had been sidetracked somewhere along the way. They were, in the truest sense of the word, re-formers. I am of the opinion that those who laid the groundwork to give us "free worship" and those who advance it today (which is not to say all those who participate in it, which I indeed do, but with the aim of calling us toward the rediscovery of our liturgical heritage...but certainly those who defend and advocate it as the right way, the future, etc), are not re-formers, but "formers" who, whether knowingly or not, are rejecting by neglecting the tradition(s) of Wesley and Hooker and Luther and Cranmer...and John Chrysostom...and the apostles.
Rich - let me clarify one more time. I don't think your church is equivalent to Mormonism, nor do I think you are sliding into cultic practice. The question I raised in the first place, and it was just that: a question, was are we going to justify our break with church tradition by saying the Holy Spirit told me I could? Because if we are then we are using the same argument people like Smith, and many, many others have used: I can do something because I think God told me to. The point I was making invoking Smith was to demostrate 1)how easily that argument/justification can be corrupted and 2)because of that danger the great need we have of testing what we think may be God against the church. (or in our case implementing something like the Wesleyan Quadrilateral)
By no stretch of the imagination do I think you are trying to start a cult, but what I am wary of is how we justify our actions. If we claim it is God leading us to do something, then we ALWAYS make sure it is by bringing it to the church. You talk about taking things "seriously", well that's exactly the issue I have with this whole discussion. I don't think many of us (my church included) take worship very seriously.
re: "Are you honestly saying that any "free worship" church or denomination that doesn't continue the historic Tradition of worship that came before us is essentially abandoning Christian faith?" If you mean that exactly how it reads, then yes, absolutely we are abandoning the faith if we abandon what has come before. That's more or less the point of this blog as well as Sacramental Nazarenes. So, if that is meant in that way then I don't know why you would be suprised. However, if you mean the adoption of contemporary music, language, etc., then no not at all. I've said several times that I embrace and utilize contemporary music, etc. Tastes in music, etc. change over time and I have no problem with that. So, depending on how you mean that statement I would say either yes or no.
re- "Do you think that any of us are doing what we're doing, in your words, "without regard of testing this 'revelation' against the aforementioned past and present church"?" Obviously we've never met, but you seem to be someone who does have regard for what has come before, or else you probably wouldn't be here in this conversation, and I am honestly glad and genuinely applaud you for trying to maintain that vital connection. However, do I think that in the greater "free worship" movement, and I would also include "non-denominational" churches with that as they seem to often go hand in hand, that there are many who do what they do without regard? Abosulutely. Maybe not all but many, particularly, or even primarily, in the non-denom world. By very definition they are breaking away from the past and present church in pursuit of their own form of worship. I don't see much regard there for anything other than what they want to do.
regarding Zack's next-to-last paragraph (beginning "re:") - I want to lend my unmitigated agreement. lex orandi, lex credendi, right? abandoning the essential elements of Christian worship (orthopraxy) is indistinguishable from abandoning the essential elements of Christian belief (orthodoxy) - some might disagree with me on this, but I don't think you can separate those two things; ortho-doxy doxa is not merely "right belief" or "right opinion" but also "right glory," proper ascription of worship befitting the glory of the One we worship - in other words, the shape, or perhaps better: language (logos, rationale), of orthodoxy is doxology. So, yeah - in sum - I'm with Zack when he writes: "If you mean that exactly how it reads, then yes, absolutely we are abandoning the faith if we abandon what has come before." I would even add (or clarify) it to read: "...we are abandoning the faith [orthodoxy] if/when we abandon the liturgical form(s) [doxology] that have been the vehicle of the faith for generations." This does not by any means imply that there is no room for reform (or even innovation!), but again: my plea is continuity.
I am pretty well in agreement with this statement, too (from Rich): ...it's perfectly appropriate to adapt a worship service to fit the context of both the believers and the unbelieving community. Speak their native language. Use their styles of music. Don't put up unnecessary barriers. Etc. There is an important difference between adaptation and acquiescence; between contextualization or cultural sensitivity and outright compromise. If/when we innovate, we must be careful not to disregard, neglect or abandon what has come before - it's that whole "Don't throw out the baby with the Holy Water" thing...
Brannon, I come so close to agreeing with you... and yet... :)
I agree with the principle that orthodoxy and orthopraxy are linked and that liturgy and theology go hand in hand, etc. The proper form of theology is prayer/doxology. No problems there. But the part that makes me uneasy is the emphasis on liturgical forms and elements. Some churches maintain all the forms and include all the elements but edit them in such a way as to remove what you and I might consider essentials (such as the divinity and exclusivity of Christ, or the unique inspiration of the Christian Scriptures).
That's why I don't see how I could agree with this: "...we are abandoning the faith [orthodoxy] if/when we abandon the liturgical form(s) [doxology] that have been the vehicle of the faith for generations." And I don't think that you agree with it, either, since you say that your own church abandons those forms, at least in part.
Is there anywhere online that describes what went on in the house churches in China for the years that they were worshiping underground (as many continue to do today)? During the years when foreign missionaries were expelled, the church in China exploded into mission, making millions of new disciples. Something tells me that their regular worship gatherings may have been missing some of those basic, essential elements...
I usually think more in terms of liturgical functions than liturgical forms. What is this particular worship element doing and communicating? Now, in this new setting, is that being done and communicated, even though it might take on a very different form? But even then, I think I'd have to say that the "essential elements" are a much smaller group than what you've listed here.
Or perhaps we're talking past each other, and I'm misunderstanding you. :)
Re: Zack and Mormonism - You might want to go back and re-read what we both wrote. You seem to be attributing some things to me that Brannon wrote, and I can't quite tell, but you seem to think I'm affirming some things I'm not. I said it's the Holy Spirit that gives us permission/freedom to experiment with worship forms, not that we make changes because "the Holy Spirit told me to." I agree that it's dangerous for anyone to blindly follow a prompting/vision/revelation without testing it against Scripture and the church community. While there may be a very few churches who would identify themselves as "seeker sensitive" who have followed that route, the vast majority have not.
Re: "abandoning the faith" -- It seems to me that you guys use this phrase a lot more loosely than I do. I don't consider the Church of the Nazarene to have "abandoned the faith" because we don't follow many of the traditional liturgical forms.
Rich: you're not misunderstanding me. You wrote: "the part that makes me uneasy is the emphasis on liturgical forms and elements...I usually think more in terms of liturgical functions than liturgical forms." I think you might have unveiled the root of the issue; we simply don't agree on one fundamental point. I think you're wrong, because I don't think you can separate form and function. Maybe it's that I've read my Marshall McLuhan and my Neil Postman and it's warped my thinking, but the medium is the message, brother, as far as I'm concerned ("what you win them with is what you win them to" - this has come up before...).
And yes, that means that I do, if you press me, have some very harsh criticisms of my own denomination, including the church my father pastors, which raised me in the faith, and the church I currently serve. Why do I stay? So I can be one of many voices seeking to point us toward a better future. Do I think that we've somehow abandoned all vestiges of the Christian faith? Of course not. But I am convinced that our struggle to embody Christian holiness in a changing cultural climate has everything to do with how much we've allowed that cultural climate to infiltrate and change how we worship; and without many of the forms and traditions and practices that safeguard and translate Christian belief to successive generations, this should come as no surprise. Ultimately, I think we can do better for the generations to come, and that we will realize that we MUST if we care at all about the future of our church.
So, I've gotta ask: what are Rich Schmidt's "essential elements"? I wonder how they stack up against mine...and I wonder how the "cloud of witnesses" you regard as supporting your position compares to the one that's got my back...
To quote the immortal Steve Hoskins: "Form and function are two sides of the same coin."
We've probably reached the point where this conversation isn't going to go much further. :)
I'm familiar with McLuhan & Postman's works, and I agree that form and function are connected, etc. But in addition to form and function there's still content. To use Postman's example of television: Let's say the form is a 60-minute television program. On its own, that's going to function to foster passivity, silence, etc, in the person watching. However, the content of the program can vary widely: news, comedy, crime drama, pornography, etc. A news program may function to inform, inspire action, etc. A comedy may function to entertain. Etc. Same form. Different content. Various functions.
So, with worship, there are churches that maintain all the forms but modify the content to the point that it can barely be considered Christianity. There are also churches (like mine) who maintain the content but change the forms in ways that, yes, have an impact. I don't deny it. :) And I'm glad you guys are here on these blogs making sure we all remember it.
I don't think I'll be able to answer the "essential elements" question without giving this a lot more thought than I have time for right now. :) But, again, this may just be that we're using the word "essential" in different ways. It sounds to me like you guys have been saying that leaving out any of these elements makes the worship somehow less than Christian or non-Christian. If that's not what you're saying, then I don't know that I'd consider them essential. Beneficial, helpful, useful, constructive, etc. But not essential.
Rich: I wouldn't say "non-Christian". I would say "incomplete." I wouldn't even say "less than Christian" insofar as that implies something otherwise than Christianity. It is still Christian - it is just less than complete. And yes, I mean this in a very similar way as the Roman Catholic church's posture towards Protestants ("separated brethren"), whom it regards as Christian, but lacking the fullness of the faith.
So, yes: essential - not merely "Beneficial, helpful, useful, constructive, etc."
I think we're pretty close to agreeing on the "form/function/content" question - I'd only continue to stress that the form and function, to a large extent, determine the content; which is to say, "content" only exists within a form. Think of a glass of water: water is the content, but there can be no content without the form of the glass; and the contents of the glass will invariably conform to the shape/form of the glass - there's no stopping it. The content is thereby determined, created, constituted by its very form. It is in this sense (to return to McLuhan) that the medium is the message.
On the other hand, I'm totally with you that "there are churches that maintain all the forms but modify the content to the point that it can barely be considered Christianity" - and that sometimes the forms need to be called into question and refashioned for the sake of the content; however, as you concede, this does has an impact. I just think we have to be very careful and intentional in considering HOW a change in form impacts the content of the faith, and do everything we can to ensure that we retain continuity even when resisting conformity; in other words, that our alterations in form are really *worth* the impact they have on our content. I am afraid, with Zack, that, perhaps not in every case, but all too often we enter into such revisions without sufficient deliberation and with more of an eye toward [secular] culture than toward Christian faithfulness.
Which is why I linked to that article on worship & relevance earlier. Many of those folks who seem to be making changes (or "experimenting") with an eye toward secular culture are doing so for the sake of Christian faithfulness. While you guys clearly see the dangers connected to liturgical change, other guys clearly see the dangers of a church becoming disconnected from the culture of its mission field and the real (negative) impact that has on accomplishing the mission. You're responding to what you see, and they're responding to what they see.
Thank you for your clarification on what you mean by "abandoning the faith." I'll hope that Zack means something similar. :)
Sure...I'll got with that. Right now I'm too excited not to agree. My Titans are 7-0!!!!
Rich: maybe we can agree (I hope, I hope!) on this - both of those voices need to have a presence, and be taken seriously, in any such ecclesiological and/or liturgical conversation. How does that sound?
Sounds good to me. :)
For what it's worth, I've read very quickly through the discussion so far. Forgive me if I've overlooked something and repeat a point. A few thoughts, though,
1. One of Evan's assignments in his Church Renewal class right now is studying the renewal taking place in Southern and Central America (e.g. Cali, Columbia). It seems the two central factors in their renewal happen to be prayer and, strangely enough, an emphasis on the Holy Spirit.
2. Does freedom mean license? I ask that because in my experience of Orthodoxy, in which I am still in the closet so don't tell anyone, their solid theological grounding in pneumatology is what gives the life and depth to their (almost) 2000 year old worship. (also see Gilquist, Becoming Orthodox) My impression of our "free church" tradition is that it's mistaken one rich with hope and meaning and mistaken it for the other. It's half a mile wide and an inch deep.
3. Therefore, it's a little funny (not funny haha, but funny queer) that more formalized or ritualized worship, at least in its Orthodox form, might be perceived as less informed by the Holy Spirit.
4. One of the best things my dearest English-major husband has told me has to do with good poetry. I think it may be true of this as well. The best poems, those that endure through the ages and demonstrate the talent of the greatest poets, are not those written in a meandering freeform verse; rather those that show great creativity and beauty are set within a highly determined structure. I think this may be true of Christian worship as well. Both the formal and informal show beauty, but which one does it more precisely and accurately? I would argue the worship sonnet.
Grace & Peace, Julia
This comment has been removed by the author.
re: Julia's final point...I do enjoy Walt Whitman and the beat poets; but none of that really compares with a well-crafted villanelle or a Shakespearean sonnet...absolutely. Great insight, Julia (and Evan). Why has THIS English major never made that analogy to worship?!?
Evan is partial to the sestina. Personally, I'm just great completing a couplet.
I see the argument of tradition and authority has landed over here from the vestments post. Keep up the good work lads! I have to go kiss the ring now.
Octosquish is me.
AF
it was good to see you this weekend, Master Anthony.
It was even better to see you, Triple Master Almost Doctor Hancock.
Post a Comment
<< Home