conjectural navel gazing; jesus in lint form

Many thanks, Tripp. I thought when I was reading the hypersync piece that really the generation before the Boomers started a lot of the things the Boomers are blamed for. (For example, how old is Hans Küng?)

Thanks be to God!

You understood me perfectly, Tripp. You've stated some of what I tried to say better than I did.

Could you provide a link to the post of Jorge's that you quote? I'd like to read that excerpt in its original context.

Done, Megan. I hyperlinked the text...

Gracias!

I am struggling with the attitude expressed in the original article that triggered this conversation. So, let me start with identifying myself as the Rich from Tripp's suburban congregation. This will immediately label me as one of those destructive Boomers.

As a Boomer, I find the tone of the original article almost smug in its putdowns of the Boomer contribution to religion in America. I can't help but believe that this is coloring the interpretation of the anecdotal data (and that appears to be all there is)to reflect his heart's desire. Fine. But, I can also accept that he may be right in that young people are looking backwards for their spiritual inspiration. The larger question is why.

Let's look at the American response to 9/11 for some guidance. Something horrible happened that had an impact on the national psyche. Over the last 6 years, an entire generation of young people forming their ideas about the world have been colored by the response of American leadership in the face of this disaster. The President of the United States had choices in how we would respond to this attack. He could have chosen a direction that did not involve revenge, that would have been measured in its approach and that achieved a clear objective to demonstrate that the United States will not tolerate an attack of this magnitude, but would not use it as an excuse to further an agenda for more control over the affairs of others. It could have been conjoined with the good will of other nations to make progress against terror without allowing the citizens of the US to feel that we were in a kill or be killed situation.

Instead, he told us that we were naive and that we had to begin this new crusade to bring about democracy and to eradicate terror. That it was almost our destiny to do so. And all of this was cloaked in quasi-religious language and in the long tradition of political leaders to use fear to manipulate public opinion.

I believe that this barrage of fearmongering has caused the "back to basics" movement more than anything else. Certainly, as the author points out, some of it is the yin and yang of generational conflict. But fear always leads people back to the past. Using the Bible as guide, it was always fear of the unknown that lead Israel back to idolatry. It was the religious leaders in the absence of a theological moral backbone that directed people to kill in the name of God. And, in the modern world, it was fear of falling behind in the world's race for the best educated youth that education adopted its back to basics movement, which decimated aesthetic education in the public schools to buy more time for the three r's.

If, as the author suggests, "the Social Gospel is dead", then, where are we really going? Back to the fealty of king-worshipping? Back to the concept that humanity's only value is that which is imputed to it by a God that is so ill-defined as to allow us to manipulate His intent to suit our immediate needs? So much of the past is offensive to me as a thinking person, and the language of the past triggers these responses.

Instead of looking for a sea change and reverting to the model that failed the Boomer generation, why not accept that our methods are not the same as our theology? Why not continue the revolution and find a way to remove the barriers to both? The basic human response comes from laziness - we don't want to try something new, we really don't want to create, and even when we do, we don't want to take the risk that this creation may not be a real reflection of the interaction of the Divine with our mortal sphere. We accept it in the Arts, because they exist on an aesthetic plane. But create a new interpretation of how God wants us to be in relationship with Him, and echoes of heresies resound.

I am reading a History of Christianity by Paul Johnson, and I find that this battle has happened in one form or another repeatedly. I am likely to look for some of the original writings of Erasmus, who appears to be a proponate of distilling faith down to its essence, stripping it of human trappings and emphasizing that we need to focus on our morality, and not on how we format our public displays of faith. How can we create a faith that teaches us how to live Christlike lives, over and above how we are to interact with God in supplication? How can we access the Divine in community and alone to best live out our destiny to be reunited in the end? There will be aspects of the past that will be worth reclaiming, but to suggest that there was a right place that we abandoned is absurd.

Rich,

I don't think that's accurate, and is probably an oversimplification. The fealty of king-worshipping? I really don't think many of us —if any of us, really— are suggesting that's where we should be going right here right now.

And it's not all about 9/11, at least not for me.

One thing that strikes and troubles me is your final statement:

". . . to suggest that there was a right place that we abandoned is absurd."

I don't think it is absurd to suggest that there are good things or right things that Boomers abandoned.

But I think this is also part of the point: that it's not all about you. It's not about rolling things back to 1920s or 1950s or 550s. What was right for your generation might not be right for the next.

There are things that my generation is getting wrong and will get wrong. And there might be things that the Boomers got wrong, too.

Hmm...

I'll say, Rich, that you make some really good points. One "correction" I have would be about the dating. The Emergent movement, the Radical Orthodoxy movement, boutique churches etc all predate 9-11. Post-modernism gave rise to a lot of this stuff.

I will admit that I do not know when "Boomer Bashing" became a passtime of these groups. And I sincerely wish it had not. I would rather just blame "modernism."

;-)

Jorge, this medium lends itself to oversimplification. Of course it is an extreme example of my perception of worship the old-fashioned way. But it is rooted in the idea that worship of God as King is an earthly idea, and one that carries extra stuff with it.

As far as the 9/11 trigger, I wasn't implying that the leaders of the movement were those that were looking for answers after 9/11 - I understand that this, like any other movement, begins with a few people with a vision. What I am suggesting that the reaction to 9/11 and the subsequent fearmongering was the wind on your flame for whatever growth may be occurring. Not the only one, but a significant force that cannot be discounted.

Finally, although my language was blurred, so I understand why you had the interpretation you did, my "we" in the last statement was not self-referential as a Boomer. It referred to the liberal church. I was raised a Catholic, so I won't even say liberal Protestant. Vatican II and the 60's created room in the Catholic church for more freedom than many people remember. The only reason I really left was that I found something better and more ecumenical. My point was, I think, similar to yours - the church has yet to get it right. Not then and not now. When I read that the current church is a failure, I say perhaps, but not any more than the church of previous generations. As Tripp will attest, I generally believe that the real problem with religion is people, but it seems to be inescapable. Anyhow, the author left me with the distinct impression that they viewed the church of the 1920's as an ideal (ie "the right place") and that Boomers abandoned that ideal. I continue to think that absurd.

As Tripp suggests, we don't get anywhere with generation bashing. I don't think younger people are wrong for wanting something different. I do think it is wrong for emergent church leaders to pander to their own nostalgia for a mystical experience as I think it obfuscates further what we already cannot understand. Just as it is wrong for the people in my generation to hold onto the trappings of their church ideal if it impairs the ability to do the real work of the church - to spread the message of God's love.

Now, let me ask you about a perception I have. Is it possible that this return to inward, reflective meditative worship is the religious manifestation of the social action of cocooning? It looks like escapism to me, but I am making a snap judgment that I question in myself.

"the author left me with the distinct impression that they viewed the church of the 1920's as an ideal (ie "the right place") and that Boomers abandoned that ideal. I continue to think that absurd."

Okay. I agree: *that's* absurd, but I don't that's what he meant.

"Is it possible that this return to inward, reflective meditative worship is the religious manifestation of the social action of cocooning? It looks like escapism to me, but I am making a snap judgment that I question in myself."

It might be for some people, but I would sat that they're getting it wrong. Inward, reflective meditative worship *is* escapist if it doesn't give people a place to move outward again.

I was raised Catholic too, Rich, but I grew up in a Catholic church where Vatican II was all there was. The churches I knew acted as if barely anything had existed before 1970 or 1964. I left because I found something better and more ecumenical, too, but it so happens that one of the ways what I found is better is that it is open to traditional certain traditional expressions of faith while maintaining an open, ecumenical, progressive/liberal position.

I honestly think that a church that is too outward looking is unbalanced . . . just as one that is too inward looking is unbalanced too.

It's the Mary/Martha question. I don't think that Mary was cocooning, although Martha seemed to think so.

Yay! An exchange!

So, when I think of mystics I think of St Clare, St. Francis or St. Ignatius...there are cloistered types as well and they were beholden to an interior life by the rules of their community. St. Francis had a vision and turned it outward. He went to the mountain, prayed, spoke with God, went to mass, and all that to empower him to feed the poor, to live a radical and challenging life. He was not an escapist.

So, Rich, tell me more about this escapism.

Not too much to say about it. Jorge hits the nail when he speaks of balance. But, growing up at the intersection of the old and the new Catholic church, I experienced many people who believed that praying the rosary and performing their prayed penance was enough to claim holiness. It became an escape from the ideal of living a Christian life because they were permitted to allow the ritual to take over. And these were the same people who resented the Mass in the vernacular. They simply hated change and they liked the fact that they were not required to understand their faith - they only had to follow the rules and, voila, salvation. To my mind, that is escapism that is facilitated by the church.

So, when I see people rejoice in the return to common prayers, I see escape from the demands of a real faith. I agree that there is a contemplative element in this, but I think the cost is too high. And, the Catholic church tried to remind people to look outward, but so many aspects of the Catholic liturgy reinforced the mystery and the lack of independent thought that many people checked out.

I identify the trend to cocooning with that. Community is a declining value in our society. And so, I have a suspicion that a large number of younger people, as they approach that time when they are reevaluating their need for church, like that ritual because they can avoid community. They go to church, they pray and think about how right this makes them with God and move back out for the week.

On the mystics - don't get caught up in the word. I was using it in the context of one who values the mysteries of the church over the need to seek the truth.

I guess, what I am saying is that I don't trust the institutional church and its leaders enough that they will challenge members to go beyond the rules for salvation. And, because I think people are basically content with the status quo and risk averse, I doubt that the reemergence of ritual and common prayer will do more good than harm.

And, just to share with others some of what I have told Tripp, I find it boring. I don't see the beauty of the King James version of the Bible. Or almost any hymn written before 1965. The real beauty of religion is outside of worship for me. It tries to explain how we fit in the world the other 167 hours each week. It introduces me to people who struggle with the same things as me and makes it possible to be part of a community that would have me as a member (as I am prone to be like Groucho Marx in that regard). So, aside from my intellectual objection to these things, my feelings about church are oppositional to embracing repetition and the use of "thee's" and "thou's." I like writing my own prayers when I serve as worship leader. I think words crafted out of feelings one has in the same time as the service will always contain more meaning for listeners than words brought in from outside of the community that address some general concept of faith. I accept that I cannot impose this on others and try to do more than tolerate that which I do not like because my core value tells me that reaching people where they are is more important than satisfying myself. But, for me to be fed, I need creativity and relevance.

I have been having fun reading this post.

As one who is part of the "emergent" movement--i guess-- (Reconciler seems to be considred emergent by many, but we don't really define ourselves as that), I do not find the return to common prayer a quick fix on my salvation. I find the community of church to be my sustaing help.

One thing I want to point out it that from my perspective, most of those who are into the "ancient future" worship come from an evangelical upbringing. I grew up in the baptist church,and have the same critiques as Rich does about growing up Catholic. I saw many people come to church on sunday, and claim to know Jesus as their personal savior...to have a relationship with Jesus, and then they do nothing the rest of the week. They cacooned themselves in Sunday piety. They did no works outside of the church building.

I became intereseted in this new form becasue it drew me into a community that was serious about thier faith. Not afraid to do the works of Jesus. A community that has renewed my faith by worshiping, working, and learning together. The liturgy is something that I did not like when I first met Tripp, but now I love. I love common prayer because it is the community praying together.

I am not a big fan of thees and thous either, but I have learned to love the communal experience, and if that means saying those foreign words from time to time...ok.

So, to conclude this mess...I think this divide can be looked at from a perspective that is not only gen x and boomer, but also evangelical and non evangelical. like i said most of the people i know in the "movement" have come from an evangelical tradition, and are looking to reclaim the commmunity that such an individualized tradition does not allow. They are also looking to reclaim some of the history that has been lost.

Wow all very interesting. Haven't had a chance to read the article that spawned this discussion, I did though read quicly Jorge's post.
I have to say that I agree with Tripp, blamming the "Boomers" is ridiculous. Primarily because I would say that this perception is in part because the "Boomers" already played that game.

However, I am always suspicious of "the church must change." I think we rarely actually examine that phrase and its meaning. What is this church that must change? Why is change a necessity? What is change? How do you even begin to place down a criteria for change in our context when we are more concerned about what subgroup we belong to and who mest things up and who's oppressing whom etc. The whole premise sounds like the malfunctioning Corinthian church, and not what we are called to as the Church the body of Christ.

Frankly I am glad someone broke with whatever 1920's American "church" was that may have become solidified in peoples minds.

But really I would say the quesiton is about continuity, or tradition verses traditionalism, as Jaroslav Pelikan put it: tradition is the living faith of the dead, traditionalism is the dead faith of the living. Seems to me Rich you are reacting to traditionalism and can't conceive of tradition. BTW I suspect that if you could survey the entire church from its beginnings until now the escapists use of liturgy and common prayers would be seen as an error, but they would not reject liturgy or common prayers. Abuse does not indicate proper use, nor mean that there can't be proper use.

I agree with Rich and he identifies abuse, but that still leave open the question for proper use.

On that note I would say that the problem may acutally be that for several centuries abuse of proper and orthodox catholic things has been allowed and it was deadly to people and their faith. So, some people always have thought get rid of whats being abused, the orthodox guardians want to protect what is being abused but in seeking to protect it don't seek to correct the abuse for fear of loosing what is good true and orthodox. Eventually someone throws the baby out with the bath water and we want to blame those people. Except it wasn't clear that there was a baby in there since everything had been allowed to become so murky.

In the end I think what ever this "return" (I am skeptical about this language as well, its all so overblown and pompous)it is possible probably because the "boomer's" did what ever it is that they did other wise we'd not have been able to see the true and proper use for all its abuse.

I can be critical of those who have come before me but in truth one way or another I can't imagine my position without them.
Really can any of you imagine a punk/goth pastor who paints icons and pastors an ecumenical church without the culture shift "Boomer" came to represent? I for one cannot not account for who I am without that. So I say thanks be to God and lets leave the blame game for reality television and Soap Opera's.

This topic is so emotionally loaded I've taken my time to reply.

It's true that every generation 'plays the blame game' with the one above and the one below it. (Which is why I'm wary of 'O tempora!' scare articles!)

Once again I agree with Tripp that it's not fair to blame the Boomers entirely. The people mostly responsible for the changes were a generation (like Dr Küng) or two before them. I'll suggest the Boomers in this case were largely followers; the changes were so widespread because there were/are so many of them.

One way for somebody like me (like Rich with a foot in the 'old church' biographically but unlike Rich planted in it, drawing sustenance from it) to look at the change is rather like Larry suggests and like my and others' view of Martin Luther. I feel for him: he made mistakes (we say) but was pushed that way by circumstances. 'There are two ways of looking at Luther, with the head and with the heart. He still inspires the Catholics and tells us who we are' an Augustinian prior recently said. Quite so.

What I'm trying to say is although as a kind of traditional Catholic I've been heartbroken by many of the changes that's not the same as saying reforms weren't needed. That's what Catholic Action (thanks, Tripp, for mentioning the Catholic Worker, likewise a flower of the 'old church'!) including the legitimate liturgical movement was trying to do!

As Larry suggests some changes were needed and good and in a way all of us got the benefit.

Larry wrote: 'On that note I would say that the problem may acutally be that for several centuries abuse of proper and orthodox catholic things has been allowed and it was deadly to people and their faith.'

Correct.

That there are so many walking wounded like Rich (if I may say that here) rather proves the need for some kind of reform, doesn't it? ('We are heartily sorry for these our misdoings. The remembrance of them is grievous unto us...')

I'd like to add that you're not the only ones. My rector and father confessor for the past 11 years, not at all a Jansenist or anal-retentive opposed to people thinking, was an RC ordinand when 'the changes' hit and ended up in hospital getting electroshock because of them and he wasn't the only person in religion going through that.

As for my own background as a born Anglican I've written this elsewhere:

'..."we are first and foremost part of the larger church" and even "our existence as a church is provisional" vs "private judgement over all else", the teaching and practice of a Protestant sect, were lessons learnt at the beginning of my life consciously as a Christian, as a churchman.

'Along with all that were informal lessons in tolerant conservatism and the importance of custom, of practice, of "rule of law"...

'Another way of putting that: "Of course we'd like you to be Catholic but won't pry; we are all sinners and understand if you don't live up to all the demands but hold up the standards all the same."

'We wanted to offer the larger church and the world the Catholic faith in the idiom of our own culture including the treasures of Christianity in English like the King James Bible and the hymns, all with a bit of fun and even camp, but of course the faith was really no joke. A culture that was both objective and Godward on one hand and yet with a spirit of moderation (like the Burkean dislike of radicalism) teaching good stewardship, being fair, doing the right thing including one's bounden duty...

'We imagined some day all this would find its proper place in the larger Catholic world among the great churches there.

'For some of us it was our home.'

So before one rubbishes the '1920s church', hey, not so fast! The High Masses and Marian devotions in it gave spiritual sustenance to the anti-apartheid movement not too many years later for example. (Knew a priest, who died recently, who was kicked out of South-West Africa/Namibia in the 1960s for that.)

I'm not about trying to bring back some 1950s Jansenist caricature of church (I'm not the kind of conservative who'd tell Tripp and Larry to get a haircut!) and Tripp in his fair-mindedness has said the '1920s church' also included Catholic Action; (traditional) Catholicism is not monolithic!

That somebody like me and liberals and emergent Christians like Tripp, Larry and Jorge can talk to each other I can attribute to an attitude very different amongst the latter kinds from the arrogance of 'Nothing before 1970!' preached by the generation before the Boomers. In short, on this point Jorge gets it: a truly liberal (as in open-minded) liberalism or liberality also lets tradition in.

As I wrote to Derek Olsen at haligweorc.blogspot.com recently we can learn a thing or two from each other. And through this medium so we are...

P.S. My rector and father confessor also helped other men get conscientious-objector status during the Vietnam War. No cocoon of Sunday piety that - and liturgically he has always been traditional.

Blame never gets us anywhere, frankly.

Probably the primary point in my inadequate post, referenced above, is that there is as much of a fundamental sea change in the way faith is understood and experienced by the tail end of Gen-X and Gen-Y as there was between the WWII Generation and the Baby-Boomer generation. The beginning of Gen-X perhaps was _just_ a normal inter-generational response, but something else is happening within younger folks beyond the normal inter-generational reactions/counter-reactions.

We shall see how things work out, but regardless, we need to be perceptive and discerning of what is actually going on.

My own experience, however, suggests that many Baby-Boomers who have been instrumental in changing the face of American Christianity (mainline Protestant, Evangelical, Roman Catholic, Anglican) are having a very difficult time recognizing that their "newly minted" way of Church is now that which is being reacted to, and often rejected.

Bob,

Thanks for your comment...and your further defining of your terms. Such a "sea change" seems to be our constant endeavor in the US. I know enough about church history, specifically the theo-philosophical history, to know we are now redefining the church at a breakneck pace...almost every decade. It's likely unmanageable. But that is another post for another day.

I wonder if we have somehow conflated "authenticity" in worship with "relevance" in worship. I don't know.

Back to the Boomers...there is a pastoral reality that is always the reality of a congregation. How do we care for those who are, in effect, losing their churches while making room for the new generation. This is not a new issue in western protestantism. But it is a difficult one to tackle.

Bob, obviously, I cannot disagree with your experiences. However, my take on the left-wing Boomers that I know is that while some of them cannot understand how to reach younger people, they do understand the necessity of it. They also are more willing to make room than you may have experienced, provided that the room doesn't push them out.

Our church has an interesting history, in that we held onto the generation of people born in the 1915 - 1930 era, but lost those born from 1930 - 1945. These are rough dates, of course. That demographic gap was a big problem for the church throughout the 1970's, but a new young pastor who focused on a very non-dogmatic approach to faith succeeded in attracting many young families to rebuild the church. Now, we have a gap in my generation and younger - people born after 1955 are very rare (1958 for me). The older generation saw the importance of allowing the church to change to allow younger people to come in. I am convinced that we are ready to model our behavior on that to a large extent, provided the general culture of the church can be carried forward.

But that last caveat may be the rub without an effort on the part of younger people to step in and take responsibility for that culture and mission. Recent articles in business publications indicate that young workers entering the work force feel a much stronger sense of entitlement and a lower sense of the need to sacrifice for the longer term goals of business. They also need business to really invest in maintaining their self-esteem. If that carries into church, the institution will not continue to sustain itself. And, one of the normal issues between generations will become exaggerated if there is this reluctance to invest and commit, because older people always want younger people to show their commitment before turning over the reins. Obviously, it can be done, and the dynamic of church may actually be the only place where young people will invest their trust, but we all need to be watchful.

It is easy to get into trouble generalizing generational characteristics. I suspect that articles like that I referenced above actually begin to make the behaviors become more universal than they would normally be.

I also can't tell whether the increase in the behaviors you cite are indicative of the post 9/11 reaction I cited above or not, but I think that it is a valid area to be checked. If so, the church ought to be reaching out and helping people get over their fears about the future without necessarily re-embracing ancient language.

I am re-reading your article while I respond, and I find your 5th paragraph interesting. I quote:

"I've also found that young people tend to want to be challenged to think and seek, but not told what to think or do by "authorities." They respect the authorities generally, but want them to help them seek and find rather than to indoctrinate them. No easy believe-ism for these folks!"

I read this and I ask - what is the real difference between Boomers and these young people? I know very few Boomers that aren't hankering for young people to stand up and disagree with the role of government or with denominational efforts at discrimination. I know our church revolts at the first sign of conformity with institutions. That's part of the reason I was so agitated by your article. I link the language of the past with a dogmatic approach to worship and therfore to faith in general. Dogma and authority go together.

This is a shameless plug, but I can't help but think that the American Baptist church, with its history of Soul Liberty and its reluctance to let dogma dictate to the individual congregations that make up this confederation of churches, is the natural home of young people regardless of their generational label. The problem is the lack of general understanding of the word "Baptist" since the SBC corrupted the congregational aspects of being a Baptist and replaced it with inerrancy - the cruelist of dogmas.

YF - I agree with your take on true liberalism - the big tent. Tradition is important. I would only add that I think that the choices of tradition adopted should be informed and not dictated by the larger church denomination. And I believe that members should be able to argue freely about the value of new things and old things to cobble together a faith for our times. Also, I wasn't too wounded by the Catholic Church. I simply found it to be bigger on form than on substance once I learned more about my own faith and how I see God acting in the world. I still enjoy the worship service in small doses, but I find most of the sermons lacking.

Tripp -

I really like you comment about "authenticity" in worship with "relevance" in worship. I'm going to think about that a bit more. I've heard a boat load of stuff about the relevancy issues and about authenticity, but putting them together in this way causes me to pause.

Plus, I agree wholeheartedly about the common nature of and the continuance of troubles trying to maintain the traditions without become traditionalists.

Rich -

A quick comment before I head out. You asked what the difference is between "Boomers" and later generations with regard to authority, etc.

I think there are similarities, as there are between all generations, but perhaps different expressed.

This is a gross generalization, but Baby-boomers tend to want to rebel against institutions and authorities because they are institutions and authorities - "conformity with institutions." The younger generations tend to have more trust in authorities and institutions. Again, they don't want to be told, "this is what you have to believe," but they also do not say, "don't trust anyone over 30."

Rich, what church are you a part of? Just wondering.

I don't think dogma and authority have to go together. More later...

A blog from somebody on my end of the spectrum who writes about the issues we're talking about:

Fr Anthony Chadwick at 'In medio stat virtus', http://fatheranthony.wordpress.com.

Bob G.

I attend Tripp's church in suburban Chicago (or Tripp preaches at our church if I want to be a real Baptist), an American Baptist congregation with a long history of a liberal, socialy conscious approach to faith. I was hired to sing there in 1981, and the place just grew on me. Just to give you a flavor, the long employed minister at the church in the 30's, 40's and early 50's was cited by others as embracing the "roominess of the Gospel" and practicing "holy hilarity". Stuff like that leads me to the sense that this congregation's history has always been more open than the average church.

I will be anxious to read your next post separating dogma and authority. I find it hard to separate the two, given my belief that dogma is a human rulebook and not authoritatively Divine. You may be able to help me unlock the two.

Tripp, please elaborate on the connection between authenticity and relevance - I can't pick up your meaning. As you know, relevance is critical to my view of worship and faith, but I find authenticity hard to establish.

Bob G, you can go here (http://www.communitychurchofwilmette.org) for more information about Rich's church. I also am one of three ministers at this church (http://christreconciler.blogspot.com). Some day I will blog about pastoring two churches that wish they could attract one another's generation to some degree. Anyway...

Rich, I'll try to blog more extensively about authenticity and relevance. I am working through the two ideas myself. In short, authentic worship expresses the shared understanding of the congregation's relationship with the Divine. Relevant worship attempts to attract people from outside the worshiping community by offering something familiar, something friendly. These ideas are not mutually exclusive, but they reflect very different understandings of worship.

Willow Creek (http://www.willowcreek.org/) seeks relevance.
All Saint's Orthodox (http://www.allsaintsorthodox.org/) seeks authenticity.

These are stereotypes, of course. And neither one, if you were to ask, would likely claim to be seeking one notion above the other. And, to be clear, I am not suggesting that traditional worship is always or only authentic and non-traditional worship is always or only relevant. But if I understand the liturgical theology of each congregation a little, they do fit the categories.

Does this begin to explain what I am after?

YF,

Fr. Chadwick's opinions are interesting. I need to step backward slightly and ask you to give me examples of banal liturgy? The dictionary definition of "banal" is "devoid of freshness or originality; hackneyed; trite". Help me understand how any form of repetitive liturgy like the bulk of the Catholic Liturgy of the Eucharist avoids banality. I remember attending Mass where the Canon was done in Latin, but I am not sure that this constituted what is known as the Tridentine Mass. In other words, what is the goal of reforming the liturgy and what is wrong with it in the eyes of the reformers other than a subjective belief in the aesthetic aspects of the text?

Thanks.

Kind of, but I think that a true expression of the Christian faith contains both a coherent shared understanding of the basics of Christ's teachings and is accessible to the common person who might wander in. "Familiar" is the word you use that bothers me a little. I don't think that worship needs to be anything but grossly familiar in its form. Things like weddings, funerals, dedications, baptisms - more so because they are rituals of passage at their heart. They are the same from time to time to make the passage appear easier than it really may be. But general worship is of the world, and needs to be for it to be of maximum value in this age of instant information. The image of recharging one's batteries to prepare for doing God's work the rest of the week is accurate in my mind. It is the act of thanking God for what we have and seeking grace to carry us over the gaps caused by what we are missing. We are overwhelmed by information, but worship lays the foundation for how we are to manage our lives in the wake of all of the data.

Curious question for you - Is there more than a semantic difference between the word "praise" and "thanksgiving" in your approach?

Tripp:

Well, brother, I have no dog in this fight, but I do want to offer one clarification about one thing you've said.

I do not believe it accurate to describe Orthodox as seeking authenticity in worship. No doubt that may be a small factor--and it probably is in the case of folks like myself who come to Orthodoxy from elsewhere, and do often seek something resembling authenticity in worship as we make our way to Orthodoxy--but once we "land" and certainly for those who've been there a while, I do not think "authenticity" accurately captures what it is we are doing.

Of course "authenticity" is, itself, a rather amorphous word and one that begs definition. But even speaking broadly "authenticity" is not, I do not think, the motive or the motivation.

I think, quite simply, we desire to worship rightly (as "orthodoxy" itself implies). That "rightly" is both an external and internal paradigm. External in the sense of carrying on the life of worship given us by the Christians who've gone before us, and internal in the sense of carrying on the life of worship made real in us by the living Christ.

So, yes, there are external norms that we accept because it's all wrapped up in the Christian life and you can't pull out one thread without unraveling the whole. And, yes, there are internal norms which are both the life-giving Spirit praying for us in words to deep to understand, and the deep furrows plowed in our hearts by the external norms we are given and we take up so as to preserve, live and pass on. You can't have the internal norms without the wearing of life-giving furrows in one's soul by the external norms. But the external norms are mere legalisms without the internal moves of the Holy Spirit. It's a both/and kinda thing.

Again, I am just describing this from an Orthodox convert view. I'm not trying to put a dog in the midst of a fight that isn't mine nor do I wish to take up. I have found that which I've sought, and am content. I don't need to make trouble elsewhere.

Tripp, thanks for mentioning All Saints', Chicago. I like what I hear about Fr Patrick Reardon. More to the point, if I understood rightly, Rich tied in the return to orthodoxy among the young to fear after 9/11; you pointed out a while back that movements in that direction pre-date that. So it is with the Orthodox convert boomlet (who saw THAT coming?), itself AFAIK driven largely by Boomers, former evangelicals who, as Newman said, read some history and ceased to be Protestants. I've also seen the slowly rising interest in restoration from young Roman Catholics at least since the late 1980s.

Thanks for the challenge, Rich! You found the definition of 'banal' that fits your non-interest in smells, bells and repetitive prayers (things several religions do BTW)... I thought it was a synonym for 'mundane'. Things like using a coffee table instead of a stone altar or street clothes instead of gold vestments, or earthenware or even wine glasses instead of gold plates and chalices. (On purpose and not out of necessity.) You can argue that God doesn't need those nice things like (and I agree) he doesn't need the repetitions! Like I blogged recently about education, echoing (but not parroting) the conservative lament that dropping phonics for most people leads to illiteracy, these things are learning aids for *our* benefit. Why externals? Why kiss your wife? Why have family pictures around? Why have Christmas dinner? Well, that's something like what God's house and ours is for a Catholic. Both stylised and very familiar all at once. Our worship is if anything sensual and holistic as befits a religion about God becoming man. And it's not about ego. (If anything traditional ritual puts brakes on the priest's ego.) There's a difference you can feel, a spiritual difference, between 'bling' to show off and things meant for the glory of God. Like the difference between Donald Trump's New York penthouse in all its gilded tawdriness and Fr Patrick's Orthodox church in Chicago...

Regarding 'reform' the legitimate liturgical movement among RCs before Vatican II wanted more emphasis on the act of worship itself and the people's participation in it which did NOT mean 'throw out the Tridentine Mass and Roman Breviary' but rather an emphasis on the quality of the altar, the sacred vessels, the vestments and the singing more than decoration and devotions getting in the way of the liturgical action (a common Irish and Irish-American RC way... a quiet Low Mass with devotional hymns played on the organ and the people praying their rosaries during the service, that sort of thing): the ideal was a congregationally sung chant Mass with incense for example. And it wanted to get more people interested in praying the office, not just priests and certain religious orders that had to. Again this was also connected in many cases to an interest in the social mission of the church (Catholic Action working for the labourer and for better race relations for example) but not to the exclusion of the spiritual one. They were not iconoclasts by a long shot and well understood Christian community. It was if anything orthodox. I'm not a pacifist but Dorothy Day's religion was a variant of mine - and it looked it - and not John Spong's.

(Anglo-Catholics, coming from a centuries-old tradition of praying in beautiful English and having wonderfully translated the Roman services in the early 1900s, were in a good position to use and get the benefit of all that.)

As for what the so-called reformers did it mirrored the Protestants making a lot of the same mistakes: get rid of the mystical, the transcendent, God didn't found a church so there really are no priests, transubstantiation is just mumbo-jumbo so let's just eat biscuits at an ordinary table then go out and do social work because that's the real mission of the church anyway. Let's have the Christian community celebrate itself and so on.

(Just what affluent suburbanites need - more self-esteem. A bit of 'shock and awe' in the divine presence would do a lot of good. 'Spirituality' as in 'spiritual but not religious' - I'm the centre of my universe; 'religion' - no, God's in charge.)

Well, surprise - if you shut God out like that, you're gonna fail both individually in your spiritual life and institutionally. Witness the near collapse of institutional RCism in our lifetimes, Rich - Fr Chadwick notes that; it's even more pronounced in France where he lives. (I'm not saying it was perfect before but you see the point.) So many people have lost their faith.

If the Canon is in Latin and done sotto voce it's the Tridentine Mass. As you can imagine I've been to many Masses with silent Canons, even served at one for an Anglican priest using the Roman Missal (Tridentine Mass) in Latin on the sly.

Thous and thees are part of my culture - and linguistically I know what they mean - but I don't think I'd go to the chopping-block for them.

Cliff,

Thanks for your comment. I am struggling to define "authentic" in the first place. And in some ways you have helped in that definition. Danke.

This continues to get more interesting as we go on.

YF - I just used the definition on the web dictionary - no editing. But, I was pleased that it matched my memory of it. Thanks for reminding me about some of the affectations adopted. Still, I think that when they were used for retreats in the woods etc..., the ordinaryness of the instruments improved the worship experience. As a musician, I agree that much of the original attempts at folk hymns were as banal as they come ("Sons of God" stands out), but it opened the door for Dan Schutte and the wonderful work of his St. Louis group.

The old Catholic Church that I remember used the same 6 hymns all of the time, and always in unison. I was amazed at how much more interesting church became as we started to sing songs about social justice as a part of church. My point in this reverie is that I think that accessibility was the thrust of Vatican II. And while it worked for me, clearly it wasn't enough to keep many more Catholics from leaving the church. Unfortunately, I don't think that was due to the change in worship.

I want to emphasize that I have a soft spot in my heart for American Catholicism. I object to smells and bells in any faith tradition because they connote literally and figuratively a smoke screen for a thinking critical faith.

In any event, I don't want to go down the road of this legitimate disagreement we have about the value of formality and historical liturgy. I respect your point of view even though I don't find that it works for me. But, I do find your lament about the substance of reform interesting. My original question was about the nature of the reforms occurring today to bring the kinds of changes you think are or ought to be happening. But this characterization of the current church as self-absorbed and acting as yet another way to feel good about ourselves creates a conflict in me. On the one hand, I couldn't agree more that the narcicism seen today is almost Romanesque. If it is true that the byproduct of accessibility is a church that allows people to be self-centered, then let's do whatever it takes to start to turn that tide. But, I also feel that the church is a place where self-esteem should be prized, more so than in the workplace. I confess, I do believe that we should be celebrating the community more than praising God, but our celebrations are because we are a community acting in God's name and striving to be Christlike.

But ultimately where we differ is that I am not all that certain that God is in charge of life on earth. He could be, but for whatever reason, He is less active than one would expect from the way he was depicted in the Bible. I suppose it's possible that He is reacting to the fact that people continue to grow more selfish and to worship earthly things more than God. But I think that God is bigger than that, and since I can't comprehend His designs, I am willing to give Him the benefit of the doubt. So, the only way I think I can experience awe of God is for Him to actually do something that I can perceive. Tripp thinks I'm a heathen too, so don't blame him for this. Jesus loved Thomas too, and although those who can believe without seeing are blessed, I find it hard to believe that Jesus loves people like me any less.

I feel like I am rambling because it is late. I'll take a fresh look at this tomorrow, as I would like to think I can do a little better. You gave such a thoughtful response that I don't want to drift too far. God be with you.

Regarding both old and new RC church music and what's often wrong with it, and for a good overall explanation of the Irish-American RC cultural landscape both old and new I recommend the books of musicologist Thomas Day.

Long story short: the persecuted Irish couldn't have nice church music and brought that mimimalism to England and America. It was reinforced by Jansenism (got from their priests' training in France?) - that artsy-fartsy stuff might be sinful and anyway the hated English go in for all that.

So the norm became, like I said, lots of devotions not really related to the liturgy and its cycles and rhythms, and a Low (short, nearly silent) Mass decorated with likewise unliturgical, devotional hymns often copied from the pop music of the time (like he wrote in an article I read 20 years ago: slow down an 1890s saloon ballad like 'She's Only a Bird in Gilded Cage' and you've got the style of every novena hymn ever written). That's probably where that little treadmill of six hymns you remember came from, Rich.

Fast-forward to 2007 and in many, many places that ethos is *exactly the same* only it's been repackaged to try to be hip. At the centre of it all is the same thing - a bare-bones service with some imitation pop songs tacked onto it. And it's always Mass. (The office? What's that? You mean that show from England?) The new book favours minimalism and now the music imitates the folk-pop that was briefly 'in' in the 1960s. (It's like the anæmic cousin of 'contemporary Christian music'.) The guy (more likely a woman) in the pew reacts exactly as he did in the 1950s - he doesn't sing and wants to get it over with as fast as possible, only now there's this 'cantor' standing in front all miked up, annoying him by waving his or arms, giving him orders and crooning at him, nice and amplified. The old do the same, putting up with it out of obedience to Holy Mother Church, then go home and back to their sturdy old-church devotions like the rosary.

Rich wrote: 'My original question was about the nature of the reforms occurring today to bring the kinds of changes you think are or ought to be happening.'

Some ideas:

1. People from traditionalists like Mgr Klaus Gamber to moderates like the reigning Pope to liberals like Episcopal Fr Tobias Haller agree that the 'Mass facing the people' craze is both unhistorical and probably a mistake. Have priest and people face the same direction, facing the altar, for prayer addressed to God. Just like the Orthodox had the sense never to drop.

2. Pick up the programme of the legitimate liturgical movement where it left off before it was cut short after Vatican II. That includes (biretta tip to Thomas Day) music, sweet music, from chant to sturdy, very singable old hymns like Anglican and Lutheran standards. (Day notes that a lot of the modern RC church repertoire is unsingable for the average person, beyond their vocal range for example; another reason why many RCs don't sing.)

2a. Have public recitation of the office in church (if you can get a minyan of people to come?)... like Episcopal Morning and Evening Prayer. Or at least encourage parishioners to pray it at home.

3. Go to many Episcopal churches, from Anglo-Catholic to high-middle-of-the-road, watch what they do and copy them. (As one of Day's fans suggested, once one works the miracle of getting RC congregations to sing, why not adopt the 1940 Episcopal hymnal?)

3a. Another working model of what liturgy should be, which in every place is entirely Catholic: the Orthodox.

4. Contrary to common knowledge Western Catholic traditionalism is not a fetish for Latin. That language is beautiful and alludes to universality (doesn't English really do the job of a universal language today?) but an answer to today's problems is to have *actual translations* not those wretched paraphrases the RCs use now. There are the Anglo-Catholic translations of the old Roman services, there for the asking. Or just about any translation in a 1950s or 1960s hand missal will work. The new Mass in the original Latin, like Cranmer's 1549 Mass, is not perfect but OK. Privately at least one person has done a nice translation of the new services only it hasn't been approved by the RC authorities. Note that I'm not demanding thous and thees. Some turns of phrase - the meaning not necessarily the style of 'grant, we beseech thee' - are more than matters of style but relate to what I call Godwardness. They say something about our relationship with God and shouldn't have been thrown out like the RCs did with their paraphrases.

5. Good back-to-basic catechesis, nothing to do with Jansenist horror stories or nuns abusing kids with rulers.

Which leads to the subject of self-esteem. There's the sin of pride and then there's the sin of tearing people down. Actually I agree with you.

Ouch. I searched the web on Thomas Day. I ran into several Catholic blogs with people fighting over the value of "Here I Am Lord" and other folky hymns. Given that I think this is far superior to hymns like "Come Thou Fount of Every Blessing", "Onward Christian Soldiers" and "What Wondrous Love", I don't think that this has any potential for being a productive discussion. Bottom line - I think it is more important to feel God's presence than to worship it. That drives my choice of music and my worship preferences.

I find it interesting that the fight about the direction of the altar continues to this day. I understand the positions more clearly, and I think it again clearly represents the separation of those who believe that worship is for the people versus for God. It's all a giant crap shoot about who's right in the eyes of God. Do you worry that God is less interested in the outcome of this than we are? I get your point from a prior post that there is an element of respect that was lost in the change and that the ritual is a key part of reinforcing that respect. But weighed against the reinforcement of God as remote all-powerful, masculine ruler, I'd rather deal with the loss of respect through other means.

Refresh me, if you will, on what the "office" is. I don't recall that from my childhood.

I appreciate your list. I do grasp that there is much more to this back to basics movement than nostalgia. It is a true expression of faith and theology for many people. Where I am starting to discern the problem for me is that so many people insist that their choice of expression is the only correct way to truly respond to God in the form of worship. If God had left a clear road map unaltered by human hands, there might be some credibility to this, but I am of a mind that God created many paths to Him. So, I think that there should be branches of Catholicism where worship can take the form it needs to take for people with Catholic ideals to give the offering that best suits their place in life. I never agreed with the ban on the priests that continued to say the Tridentine Mass in the 1970's and 80's. I thought that was a power issue tied to the dubious claim of infallibility and pentultimate power of the Pope. I can understand the moral position against abortion and birth control much more than I can understand the need to dictate the form of worship. I don't agree, but they represent a logic system applied to a conclusion. One worship for all Catholics seems like micromanagement destined to drive people away from the church.

Still, I enjoy thinking about the Catholic church again. It is the mother ship.

'Ouch. I searched the web on Thomas Day. I ran into several Catholic blogs with people fighting over the value of "Here I Am Lord" and other folky hymns.... I don't think that this has any potential for being a productive discussion.'

Probably not but do give the man himself a chance.

'...the fight about the direction of the altar continues to this day. I understand the positions more clearly, and I think it again clearly represents the separation of those who believe that worship is for the people versus for God.'

The two aren't mutually exclusive as the ideal Mass of the legitimate liturgical movement - facing the altar but with the people singing - shows.

Earlier I mentioned Fr Tobias Haller who has written a defence of the traditional direction - home.earthlink.net/~tshbsg/peoplelookeast.htm. Also, Chris Tessone - chris.tessone.net - a born Lutheran, says many Lutheran Church Missouri Synod parishes retain this.

'...the reinforcement of God as remote all-powerful, masculine ruler...'

And here we can get into the paradoxes of orthodoxy. He is remote - Moses couldn't even look at him. God the Father is in himself unknowable, yet God the Son became a man you could see and shake hands with. God is above the categories of sex - that's something he made for us and his other creatures - yet revealed himself always as masculine, most strikingly in the Incarnation. He is a ruler but humbled himself to become a helpless baby and to die on a cross, and called his disciples friends.

'Refresh me, if you will, on what the "office" is. I don't recall that from my childhood.'

It's 'the divine office' or 'the breviary' or 'the hours', including Mat(t)ins and Lauds (Morning Prayer), Vespers (Evening Prayer or when Anglicans sing it, Evensong), the little hours (mid-day prayer) and Compline (Night Prayer). It consists mostly of reading or chanting the psalms along with some readings. It's the second most important prayer of the church, and like the Mass it is part of the church's official prayer, unlike devotional things. John praying the rosary is John praying; John praying the office is the church praying with John along for the ride if you will. Just like John going to Mass.

Yet the average RC today doesn't know what it is!

It wasn't always that way. Many parishes used to have Sunday Vespers every week followed by Benediction which you probably remember. A friend of mine says radio killed off Sunday-evening church just about everywhere. TV was probably the final nail in the coffin in most places.

'I do grasp that there is much more to this back to basics movement than nostalgia.'

Thanks. I was going to write a P.S. saying that unlike much of the RC traditionalist movement which tries to bring back the 1950s church exactly, and looking realistically at the situation Day describes (unlike the fantasy I described of the congregationally sung chant Mass), I imagine Joe and Mary Gubbins in the pew wouldn't mind a 30-minute (45 with sermon) Anglican Missal Mass (that is, one in classic liturgical English), facing the altar, with some nice old Protestant hymns (and some good old RC ones like 'Holy God, We Praise Thy Name') at the main service. (Not the ideal of the High Mass but baby steps.) Hopefully they'd eventually say the responses and even sing. Once that's accomplished then think about teaching some chant and having the High Mass.

Actually the rule was every parish was supposed to have the High Mass every Sunday but not all did. In theory the High Mass with the chant, the incense and the cast of dozens in the sanctuary is the norm; Low Mass an exception. In practice it was the other way round - because the people liked it that way, nice and short.

'Where I am starting to discern the problem for me is that so many people insist that their choice of expression is the only correct way to truly respond to God in the form of worship.'

Which as you know is not what I'm trying to do. I'm talking about underlying principles of worship connected to doctrine and not demanding thous and thees, Latin, rococo and lace, or icons and Slavonic for that matter. Which leads into...

'If God had left a clear road map unaltered by human hands, there might be some credibility to this, but I am of a mind that God created many paths to Him. So, I think that there should be branches of Catholicism where worship can take the form it needs to take for people with Catholic ideals to give the offering that best suits their place in life.'

I agree and it already exists - in pre-conciliar Catholicism! That's why there are so many different rites, about 10 or 11 depending on how you count: the Roman one, a couple of non-Roman Western ones (like the one in Milan) and all the Eastern ones (like the Orthodox and others). These evolved gradually among different peoples often far away from each other and reflect the same Catholic dogma but expressed in different cultures.

Why not newer rites that follow the same principles? Why not indeed?

'I never agreed with the ban on the priests that continued to say the Tridentine Mass in the 1970's and 80's.'

Thank you.

'I thought that was a power issue tied to the dubious claim of infallibility and penultimate power of the Pope.'

I don't know if you can directly connect the two but I've wondered about that. 'It doesn't matter what the religion practised in the building is as long as you're nominally under Rome' - or as that friend puts it 'as long as it's a Wal-Mart' - doesn't work. But that seems to be how a lot of Romans think.

The Orthodox are as decentralised as the Anglicans and their worship is amazingly both traditional and relatively uniform everywhere.

'I can understand the moral position against abortion and birth control much more than I can understand the need to dictate the form of worship. I don't agree, but they represent a logic system applied to a conclusion.'

As the same friend said of the Roman moral-theology manuals' teaching on homosexuality it's certainly not popular now but it is logical.

'One worship for all Catholics seems like micromanagement destined to drive people away from the church.'

I hear you. That's been an ironic Achilles' heel of modern RCs. A lot of them really think the Irish-American way as done after Vatican II IS Catholicism, full stop. (They thought that way in the good old days too. And a lot of them still have never heard of the Ukrainian Catholic or Melkite churches for example, which are about as traditional 'smells and bells' as I am; certainly the Melkites are. More than a few don't know who the Eastern Orthodox are.) After a while, a long time ago, I realised that they and I really weren't talking about the same thing when I use the C word.

'Still, I enjoy thinking about the Catholic church again. It is the mother ship.'

:)

One quickie ...

"Which as you know is not what I'm trying to do. I'm talking about underlying principles of worship connected to doctrine and not demanding thous and thees, Latin, rococo and lace, or icons and Slavonic for that matter."

Ahh. But I also think that doctrine is subjective until you get down to the most basic level of theology. So I think that a casual worship service that celebrates people in community acting to bring humanity closer to God is as legitimate as worship that concentrates on giving praise to God in humility. Different emphasis, but same God and same goals for connection.