An Egyptian brother came to see Abba Zeno in Syria, and accused himself to the old man about his temptations. Filled with admiration, Zeno said, 'The Egyptians hide the virtues they possess and ceaselessly accuse themselves of faults they do not have, while the Syrians and Greeks pretend to have virtues they do not have, and hide the faults of which they are guilty.'
Our conversation about the Baby Boomers has proven to be quite interesting after all. What began in the comment section as an understandably frustrated response from Boomer readers has become a wider conversation on the nature of church, cultural change, and worship practice. Go here to read through the comments.One of the lines of conversation was about the difference between relevant worship or authentic worship. Now, first let me say that this is not intended to be a polemic. I think all true worship is both. But I should likely qualify a lot of that...imagine, having to qualify my terms! Egads.
Relevance:Pronunciation: 're-l&-v&n(t)s
Function: noun
1 a : relation to the matter at hand b : practical and especially social applicability : PERTINENCE
2 : the ability (as of an information retrieval system) to retrieve material that satisfies the needs of the user
Authentic:Pronunciation: &-'then-tik, o-
Function: adjective
1 obsolete : AUTHORITATIVE
2 a : worthy of acceptance or belief as conforming to or based on fact
3 : not false or imitation
I love the internet.
Okay...In some liturgical circles and church growth circles (an interesting and perhaps unexpected overlap, really) these two terms are tossed about like candy. Their meanings have been conflated and tweaked until I can hardly understand them. But I think I finally understand the issue that is at hand. I think that the underlying question is truly about the nature and purpose of worship.
WARNING: GROSS OVERSIMPLIFICATION FOLLOWS
People who speak of worship as needing to be relevant often see worship as an evangelical tool. In the comments of the first sea change post I mentioned Willow Creek as the perfect example of a congregation that seeks relevance over and above much else. Thus, the worship space is akin to a large college lecture hall. The music is contemporary. The sermons are like college lectures. There is a food court in the building. Even the building is designed to look more like a new suburban community college. The idea here is that familiarity and relevance can go hand in hand. This is how liturgy can meet people where they are. "Seeker sensitive" worship does not ask people to come too far into the culture of the church. The church bends strongly into the culture of the surrounding community. What is hoped for then is the growth and development of an authentic Christian faith that will reveal itself in the life of the faithful. And, honestly, this style of worship has been around long enough that it has become the authentic/natural/organic expression of worship for these communities and not simply an evangelical tool.
I used All Saints Orthodox in Chicago as an example of authentic worship. I have had the good fortune to meet with Fr. Patrick Reardon, a great guy, to discuss worship and "en/inculturation." That was eye-opening. The worship service is populated mostly by converts to Orthodoxy. The congregation is growing. There are no pews. The music is the same music that has been offered for centuries (no organ, a cappella chant). The liturgy is the same smells and bells Orthodox liturgy we have come to expect. There are icons. People venerate them. The first time I worshiped there, I felt a bit like I was wandering into another country. And, according to Fr. Patrick, this may be a good insight. The Church is a culture. It has a history and a tradition. It's liturgy is a reflection of/an integral part of that. So, though the liturgy was not simply dropped upon the community of followers as is, the current liturgy in the EOC is an expression of the culture of the Church first and foremost. It's relevance is in the message and theology, in the preaching and in the communal relationships formed by the gathered faithful. Well, that's clumsy, but I hope you get my point. Faith is relevant because it is the revelation of the incarnate God who still speaks to the living. So, as far as I can tell, the people at All Saints have an active, outward focused faith life. It is not simply "old fashioned." It is can be highly intellectual and engaging...especially when Fr. Patrick speaks.
So, here we are in post-modern America where Christianity can express itself as Willow Creek and a All Saints Orthodox. What do we do? I am not suggesting here that one is right and the other is wrong. Hardly. What I am interested in is figuring out which culture we are engaging and at what level. Perhaps we in the mainline church have lost the language of our culture. Diana Butler Bass (an interview) suggests that vital congregations are those that have a cultural language and are not afraid to use it. Willow Creek and All Saints have this in common.
Both examples are about formation of the faithful. One is perhaps more concerned with external form than the other. That's another conversation.
So, back to generational theory for a moment...What we have here are two cultures asking the church to manifest itself in a way that they recognize as church. The Boomers may be asking the church to do so in the way that Willow Creek has done...be relevant. Willow was founded by Boomers who wanted to offer young people something they could relate to. This is still their mission. The younger folk today who challenge this (Note: Many Emergent leaders etc come out of the mega church model, are rebelling against it.), if I understand the dynamic rightly, are asking for something that is more authentic to the culture of the church, that speaks from a place where they as seekers are not. They want depth...rootedness. Some experts suggest that this might be a response to the mercurial ad-driven culture we are in. Boomers may have been seeking relevance because the church was too staid, too much a time capsule...of the 1920's. X-ers, Millennials, and others are seeking something that will actually ground them somewhere they see as worthwhile. It's not so much escape as it is, well, groundedness.
Okay, chime in as you are inclined. I need to fix coffee for the spouse. I have my cuppa, but she is still lingering in the sack.
Posted by tripp at May 1, 2007 06:15 AM"...seeking something that will actually ground them somewhere they see as worthwhile. It's not so much escape as it is, well, groundedness."
This very truly get to the heart of why I am where I am. Church is the only place for me that is not inundated with technology. It is a place that is constant and the same. Everything changes so fast and so wonderfully, I am glad the church is a place of grounding and stability. It is an institution that is 2000 years old. There is a something comforting in the liturgy. Something stable in the ritutal. It is.
If I were wanting to go somewhere with big screens, lights, a rock band, I would go see the Stones the next time they come around.
That's an interesting way of thinking about the question -- as an expression of each generation's rebellion against what it thought was wrong about the version of church it grew up in.
To consider it that way sets aside the possibility that one version of church may be "better" than another. It's a very pomo approach.
Many church people don't do pomo too well. :-)
Posted by: Megan at May 1, 2007 03:51 PMI am so very PoMo. Heh.
Posted by: Tripp at May 1, 2007 04:14 PMNice post. Not too far in any direction other than to explore. I agree with the rebellion theme. I also understand Justin's comments. So, can one have rootedness and a grounding in tradition without a becoming mired in style over substance or superstition. I think the answer is yes, but it is a very difficult tension to maintain. I've read that one of the great truths of Christianity is that whenever one dynamic of the faith becomes emphasized, a rebel group appears to push from the other side. Perhaps God really is in the tension and how we deal with it rather than in the belief itself.
Posted by: Rich at May 1, 2007 06:08 PMI often find it somewhat amusing that folks like us Orthodox are often accused of "focusing on the externals" because of our heightened attention given to order and tradition.
But, at the risk of investing myself in this conversation more than is appropriate, I would humbly suggest that the Willow Creek model is at least *as* focused on the externals as our Orthodox parish--just under a different paradigm. It has been my experience that most such "contemporary" style worship services are as orchestrated as a rubric-laden Orthodox or catholic "high mass" liturgy.
To be clear, I find such a focus on "externals" not at all problematic, but, rather, a good thing.
(Perhaps I have misunderstood the conversation to this point, however, so, all that said, to quote modern philosopher Dennis Miller, "Then again, I could be wrong.")
Posted by: Clifton D. Healy at May 1, 2007 10:30 PMCliff,
Yeah, don't get me wrong here. Willow is very orchestrated and its symbols are the coffee shop, the video screen, and the lecture hall. It is external. You bet.
But I do think that if you were to ask the Creeker about faith, you would find something more iconoclast than symbol-laden. Theirs is the classic American Evangelical interior faith. That's what I mean.
And, yes, I am running with stereotypes here. Didn't my kindergarten teacher say something about not running with stereotypes?
Bob Webber loved having the Willow Creekers in his class. He would accuse them of Gnosticism...because they believed the external trappings of faith were not of God. You know the theological line here, O former Restoration guy. That's all I'm sayin'.
Of course, when relevant or authentic becomes more important than the God who is the focus of both, then both can become idols and you're screwed either way. If you'd like a little more reading (as if you don't do enough already) try The Threefold Art of Experiencing God by Christian Schwarz. He identifies a bipolar tension that marks healthy churches, where the iconoclast AND the sacramentalist hold each other in balance and the church renews itself through that tension. It's interesting stuff. When we go too far to one or the other (or any other polarity, for that matter) our life of faith suffers.
Posted by: Scott at May 2, 2007 07:09 AMWell put, Justin.
As you probably know I've rabbited on and then some on externals in the original thread.
<- 'Well, I'm ramblin', ramblin', ramblin'... then I'm gonna ramble some more' - our father among the saints Steve Martin
As Fr Peter Gillquist wrote in 'Becoming Orthodox' (about one of the earliest and biggest mass migrations in the Ortho-convert boomlet) in their early free-churchy phase, when they were trying *so* hard not to be liturgical, after a while they found themselves singing the same hymns all the time and the petitions ('Lord, I just want to ask you...') began to sound the same every week. Cliff's right: the Willow Creekers can't get away from it. We need liturgy and if deprived of it end up making one up.
<- Half naturally pre-modern, half po-po-mo (wasn't that a song by the Beach Boys?) or 'pre-modern by choice'
Posted by: The young fogey at May 2, 2007 07:25 AM