[If you do not consider yourself a church enthusiast; if church is of no interest to you, then please feel free to click your way to another site. Today I will be discussing worship, Christian worship.]
There has long been much fuss in certain American Christian circles about relevance. By this is meant the relevance of Church to everyday life; the gospel to the spirit of any given age; the Christian worldview to the Sitz-im-Leben, the culture in which it is set. Of course relevance is profoundly important: If the Christian message is nothing more than the Good News that niceties are nice, then perhaps the message is not at all that relevant (or all that good). Relevance of message is everything. Of course, relevance is also psychologically important: Even for many who dwell outside the Church's walls there is perhaps no greater fear than being deemed irrelevant. For artists, writers, philosophers, scientists, architects and engineers, irrelevance is the harshest criticism that could be hurled their way; irrelevance is even far worse than being dismissed as derivative. At least the latter suggests one is part of the game, albeit without originality; the former is akin to being banished to the hinterlands. No one wants to be irrelevant. (And one need not be a genius to predict the longevity of a marriage wherein one spouse feels he or she is irrelevant.)
But let me be more specific: It is the evangelical church, in all its denominational manifestations, that is most apt to perseverate on its relevance. For evangelicalism -- by which I mean the Church's ministry of proclaiming the Gospel -- is constantly reflecting about its effectiveness in witnessing to the world. Evangelical Catholics, Episcopalians, Lutherans, Presbyterians -- it matters not which denomination -- each of these wonders about relevance, adapting a variety of church ministries to appeal to the broadest possible audience, and to appear au courant, hip and relevant. One might even safely conclude that there is in fact such a thing called the ministry of relevance.
Ironically, the Church's attempts at relevance often mean nothing more than that it has become derivative, imitative, or conformist. From hippie to holy hip-hop Christianity, from Christian coffeehouses to Christian art galleries, from The Hour of Power to the Hour of PowerPoint; evangelical Christianity is little but pastiche, and rife with marketing cliché, imitating the culture in which it exists rather than moving the culture toward something uniquely Christian. In fact, it would be safe to say that Christianity stopped producing culture, even moving culture, for the last few hundred years. Surely common folks are not storming malls to buy the latest hot Christian fad, or raiding bookstores for the newest culture-bending, zeitgeist-shaping tome. Even the enthusiastic embrace of the cinematic adaptation of C.S. Lewis' "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe," exciting as it was, was naught more than the celebration of imitation: See! Christians can write too! God forbid there should be a cultural revolution afoot among Christian artists and thinkers, pushing art and letters and music to heights heretofore unseen, unknown, unheard. God forbid that the evangelical church should have another T. S. Eliot push the broader culture toward rarefied heights when instead the Church can imitate the meter of Dave Matthews or the rhyme of Eminem, duly following the culture in the power of relevance.
Perhaps the most obvious trend in the ministry of relevance can be found in Dave Shiflett's essay, "Getting Hip to Religion," in the Friday, February 24 edition of the Wall Street Journal. The subhead to Shiflett's article is telling: "New churches are offering youth a more informal faith." I will spare the reader all the details, though my will is weak, and I must share one detail, namely, that there is a North Carolina church so thoroughly au courant, so cutting edge, that it encourages its parishioners to come to Sunday worship services with their laptop computers. Why? Answer (and I quote): "During worship we recommend you instant message the speaker with questions." I ask, from my laptop, where would we be, as Christians, without that truly innovative Christian idea of informality?
Well, we might be in better churches. For it is not informality that young or even old Christians need. Every person in America is immersed in informality every day of their lives. America by definition (perhaps) could be considered a nation built on informality, on throwing off the trappings of aristocracy, and the pageantry and pace associated with royal formalism. In fact, it might be safely said that Americans have been stereotyped by their European friends as being entirely without form; discourteous, loud, iconoclastic, lacking any formal features of custom and rite. Nay, what is needed is not more informality, but an informed formality. We do not need fewer ritualistic and customary formalities, we need more; and we need to know why we need more. It is not that Christianity needs to be stripped of black tie and tails; it needs to be adorned in black tie and tails precisely because no one knows why formality is needed, or what it even is. Christians today speak of Jesus Christ as King and Lord, royal images all; and yet they pray and sing to that King as if He was as unkingly as the nearest buddy at the bar. We have dressed ourselves and our worship in street clothes, not because we are poor, and thus these are all we have or can do; but because we want to be perceived a certain way by others. It is not about God. It is about us.
What is worship? That's simple. Worship is honesty before God. That's it. Yes, it is that simple: worship is to stand before God and declare what is true about Him, honestly, candidly, and, if possible, in good form. Not that God demands His children speak to Him as subjects addressing a great King at all times. But surely the mature subjects of His kingdom would attempt to bring formalism to their worship. God is God after all. He's not your grandfather down at the local VFW.
Let me put it this way. The purpose of Christian worship in corporate settings, where the Bride of Christ gathers as one to worship the Lord, is to destroy individuality. Corporate worship is like grandiose team play, where one learns that the lone self cannot win the game. In short, corporate worship is where each of us comes to die to self. With 168 hours each week, we set aside one or two of those for worship that is not all about the self; about what the self needs, the self wants, or with what the self is comfortable. The rest of the week's hours are there for the self to indulge. But when Christians come to worship, they should come prepared to die to self, to unite as one body, kneeling at the same time, reciting the same prayers, receiving the same cup and wafer. For this is honest, and true, and, not least, it is formal: it is honest in that we are indeed not in Christ for self-fulfillment, but for the fulfillment of others, including Christ; it is true because it reflects the sacramental realities of Christianity, that Christ is preparing us as His one Bride, adorned with one faith, one baptism, and one voice; and it is formal because it can't be otherwise: unity in Christ is a practice of self-denial, and the collective worship of the expectant Bride must be formal to ensure that the self is not the focus of corporate worship, but the Bridegroom.
This is the reason liturgical churches are structured the way they are: To foster death to self, and to encourage the vivacity of the body corporate. The only deadening thing about liturgical worship that is rejectable is not the formality. It's the ignorance with which people approach formality.
Remember, there are 166 other hours of the week wherein each soul can go about fulfilling itself. But the life of the Church will be neither long nor relevant as long as relevance is nothing more than catering to the self-needs of a very narcissistic age.
Let me conclude with one anecdote and one liturgical lesson.
When I was deeply involved in a fairly mainline evangelical church, I recall once sitting in the back of the 400-member church during "Prayer and Praise," that "relevant" point in much church worship where a praise band leads the congregants through a myriad of (usually self-absorbed) praise choruses, with said choruses projected on a screen for all to see. Well, this particular church was fairly free-spirited, encouraging those who were "moved" by the Holy Ghost to stand up with hands raised if so led; or to even leap into the aisles and, apparently like King David, dance (though not naked) in holy bliss before God. Eventually tamborines and small drums (make a joyful noise) and even banners were clanged, banged and twirled in a dizzying display of expression. Of course, many folks were led to sit still, to stay low.
Well, this one particular day, while sitting with the elderly and handicapped, I noticed a curious thing. Suddenly, one and two rows ahead of us, a group of young men, clearly on holy fire, leapt to their feet, mouths filled with song, hands raised high above their heads. They were indeed enraptured with the Lord, moved by His Spirit to surrender all. Of course, none of them noticed, or heard, that the Lord must've moved them strangely, for now they blocked the view of others behind them: the handicapped and elderly could now no longer see the choruses projected on the screen. And despite the gentle remonstrances which could not be heard over the joyful noise, the young men failed to be moved by God towards what can only be called courtesy. No doubt the young men felt fulfilled in their mighty experience of God's presence.
It is this sort of chaos that liturgical worship deplores and resists. Sort of the way baseball resists the ball-hog, the show-off who needs to be first. For ball-hogs play soccer and basketball or hockey (puck-pigs); they do not play baseball, which is a very formal, even liturgical, sport. Nay, in liturgical worship the ball-hog is rendered silent and still.
When Episcopalians march into church in grand procession, why do they carry a crucifer before them, lifted high, leading the way? Is it mere empty formality? Is it mere show and excess? No, it is neither of those things. For the message is proclaimed on high: we can only approach God through the Cross. That is why, as the crucifer passes, Episcopalians bow and kneel, honestly acknowledging a wondrous fact. Just think that every facet of corporate worship is filled with such significance, with such reason and purpose! Every item and every word is pointed toward one thing: God is King, and we must treat Him as such.
At least for an hour.
©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.
[Part II may be found here.]
(This essay could not have been written without the inspiration drawn from Evangelical Is Not Enough, the truly beautiful book by Thomas Howard.)
13 comments:
Thank you, Bill, for this post!
I think I disagree on some points, but perhaps not. Two things bother me: I don't see how to stick a child of culture into a liturgical service and expect him to thrive, and I'd like to see more sympathy for the struggles of Christian artists (/musicians/etc.).
The arts seem to be a particularly difficult area for a Christian to work in, because art is rarely so novel as to not spring from what came before. In this area, I'm happy to concede your point - but also plan on being patient with works-in-progress.
The other issue is more bothersome to me. With pandering festivals in the one hand, and stiff rituals in the other, it seems your arms are quite wide apart. I'm sympathetic to "seeker-friendly" services, but, like you, wary of the many compromises taken to get there. I like your (or your mentors') concept of "informed formality". But how can we expect Today's children to thrive when we stick them in a service so foreign to what they know? (Feel free to replace that question with a better one.)
[Nate]vw,
Far be it from me to throw a towel on the Christian arts: I know how difficult it all can be. I should have shown more restaint in my comments. But there is, indeed, a great deal of derivation that is not entirely artistic: it is driven to emulate, not emancipate. Sometimes I wonder if Christian musicians have become such simply because they are not good enough for the secular market; sort of like the now-country Keith Urban who is really a failed rocker. I am not suggesting that all Christian artists are this way. There truly are some fine folks doing fine things. My broader point is about worship; that we are really not helping ourselves by becoming more informal. It's one thing to improvise; but if the church which improvises has no idea what the classical score is that undergirds its improv; if it does not really understand the classical music from which it diverges, it is not really improvisational. It's more likely some sort of imitation. Similarly, we don't teach children in piano lessons to improvise without first teaching them the substance of the forms. What is free verse to a poet who does not understand iambic pentameter?
The Church could do a whole lot better informing us all about worship; about the purpose of sacraments, including the sacrament which is liturgical worship. Stick a child in an opera without explanation, and you'll have a bored kid. But inform him about what is going on, step by step, in every tone and inflection, and his interest will at least be piqued. But turn church into a rap session; turn church into something already knows quite well, and you'll find him yawning his way towards the door. Surely you've seen how a real rap aficionado reacts to Christian rap during church; he greets it with something like a snicker.
The informed formality is all mine, I think, though I stand on the shoulders of giants. I hope it is a helpful mnemonic. Look, there are many Episcopalians who do not understand why the priest is in vestments; or what the ciborium is for. Many folks do not know why they kneel, or stand, or cross themselves. That is too bad. But the reasons for all these details of worship are dynamic and powerful. And such things make worship exciting, engaging both mind and body. Yes, of course, all these things can become dead rituals. But even spontaneous Christian worship becomes ritualistic and rote. Just listen to a spontaneous prayer offered extempore from pulpit or lectern. You'll hear someone string together a pre-released set of phrases that are often rote, cliché and pat. The words are hardly new or fresh. So even spontaneous and informal services can become stale with repetition. My observation is that most of the informal worshippers not only have no idea why they are doing what they do; they have no idea that they are ritualistic and rote. But the danger is not in the rituals, the danger is in the human heart: it fails to stay focused on what is happening in worship. (For a simple practice, just try reciting the Lord's Prayer as a sincere prayer. Then ask yourself when you are done whether you fully meant it. Then try again. I have tried a thousand times to FULLY mean that prayer, and I've never succeeded. Liturgical worship also demands that sort of commitment: you've got to learn to MEAN it.)
Anyhow, there is much to say on these matters. Thanks for the comments and the visit.
Peace to you.
BG
What an excellent post, Bill. I really, really appreciated it. As someone who goes to a church that sounds like it could morph into what you describe, I appreciate your reference to liturgy. I am a lover of liturgy in a church that does not love it.
I read Howard's book. It was very thought-provoking.
Kim,
I am glad you've read Howard's book!
Yes, it is hard to be in a church that does not love what you love. I've been in your spot. But, of course, there is no sense being in a liturgical church if its heirarchy is bending towards heresy, as is currently the case in the American Protestant Episcopal Church (my church), I'm afraid.
Peace to you,
BG
Bill,
I appreciate your post. I come from a non-liturgical tradition (actually anti-). You have advanced my understanding and appreciation of liturgical worship. Your thoughts provide some needed traction for my own thinking about congregational worship.
Jason,
I am glad you found the post helpful. I, too, come from an anti-liturgical tradition.
Peace.
BG
Once again, thank you for the posts.
I read one of them this morning and had thought about it off and on all day, only to find your other post on the same subject this evening. Wow. Your mind works fast. So just a few thoughts:
What do we/I do with the informality of Christ? Completely accessible was he to people who were looking to be honest before God. Personally, he kept the rituals, but stood worship on its head when he declared that the most ritualistic people were farthest from the Kingdom. When 9 healed lepers continued on to the temple to take care of the rituals, he only praised the one who came back and fell on his face before him. He let a Samaritan woman know she was closer to God than anyone on the holy hills.
The instruction an apostle gave to the highly informal, dancing-in-front-of-the-handicapped, Corinthian church was for more respect, more order, but not necessarily more liturgy. Something like: When you get together as church, some will have a song, others instruction, another revelation, another a tongue or an interpretation. Just make sure you’re building each other up.
Informed formality sounds good to me. Worship where I live is rather formal, except where American influence is strong. I would emphasize respect, sharing and reverence. And balance. As I wrote on Monday, we need Ash Wednesday in a world of Fat Tuesdays.
Dear Brady,
You raise some very good questions. I wonder if anyone else might have some answers. If so, I hope they will share them.
I guess I might begin my answer by suggesting that Jesus indeed may have been "informal." But I ask, "Did Jesus worship?" That to me is a wild question, and I am not sure I've ever thought of it until this moment. One can hardly imagine Jesus worshipping the Godhead the way we do; but maybe he did. But if he didn't, then his informalism cannot help us here. What to do?
I see that Joseph, Mary and Simeon were quite formal in their obedience to Jewish custom, be it circumcision or passover. So, too, were John the Baptist's parents, Zechariah (a priest of some standing) and Elizabeth (Mary's cousin). Christ's conversations with the centurion and the woman at the well seem tense with formality; their respect of Christ, and his in return, is potent and palpable. Jesus permits his feet to be washed; and he formally washes feet. He purged the temple of informalistic money-grubbers, adamant that there was to be decorum in the house of his Father. And the Lord's Supper, most likely a Passover/Seder meal, is a formal precursor to the Eucharist many of us celebrate. Jesus paid taxes; he (nearly always) spoke without abuse or condescension to those "above" him, even politely submitting to form with Nicodemus, Caiaphas, Pilate. But perhaps I am overstating it. I do not know.
But I do know that Jesus talked about having the proper garments on for the wedding feast; or that the Church is His Bride (and the Baptist his best man); all very formal images. And there was even a procedure for the performing of miracles, like the wine at Cana or the healing of a blind man. Jesus seems to be quite formal at times, ritualistic and ceremonial. Yet I am unsure.
What I suspect is that our liturgical worship is ancient, finding its roots in the liturgical structures inherent in the cult of Judaism. Moreover, our formalism is also part of making the faith universal: that all Christians who participate in Mass can be assured that they are all partaking of the same feast, the ancient one that all Christians enjoyed. A Mass in Santiago is as familiar as one in San Diego, or Lisbon. Liturgy, formality, symbol: these all unite the faithful in true catholicity.
Of course, I am not suggesting that the Church abandon the exercise of the multiplicity of gifts offered to the Church. But clearly the ministry of worship is to be an orderly one. The gifts indeed have their place, in the context of order, propriety, decorum. Nothing is being squelched; it's chaos that squelches the gifts. The Spirit hovers over the abyss, and he brings forth life.
Not that I have helped here. I see the high formality of the priesthood in Judaism; I see the temple, the Holy of Holies, the abundant symbols in gold and cedar. And then, in contrast, I see the simple house church in Bethany or Capernaum. But then I also see the liturgical references by Paul, actual citations of Christian liturgy (or some such form), like Philippians 2:5-11; and I see the faithful along with Paul gathering in synagogues to worship Christ. I wonder. I really wonder.
Peace to you,
BG
Man, Bill. You write about worship like an Episcopalian.
You know, it took me about 10 years to be able to tolerate non-liturgical worship without thinking how much better we used to do it in the Episcopal Church. If only the church of my youth were not so doctrinally adrift I would be there still--enjoying a much higher salary as Father Milton than I do today as Brother Milton. Peace.
Because your posts are copyrighted, I'm always careful to keep quotes of your work within the limits of fair use. I was liberal in that fair use today. Outstanding work. Peace.
Milton,
Thanks for the kind comments, and for showing such restraint in quoting me. I am honored to be so quoted, of course, and I owe you much for your support of my work. But if you ever have any questions about quoting me, feel free to contact me directly.
Peace!
Gnade
Yes poor Christians. Give me a break. Christians get more breaks than anyone else in the country. I'm sick of pseudo-Christians using Christ's message for their personal agendas. If anything, the church will become irrelevant, and people will begin to live and ask questions themselves. That's not to say group worship should disappear, but people really need to get to the core message and stop the nonsense!
Dear Anonymous,
I wish I could discern how your comments relate to this essay. You seem to be fixating on something that is not discussed here at all. I am tempted to describe you as presumptuous, but I will refrain until you come back and explain yourself.
Again, as I said elsewhere to you in this blog, you appear to be arguing with a stereotype. But there is no such stereotype at this website. I beg you to be careful that you don't turn yourself into one.
Peace, always,
BG
Post a Comment