Born in 1970, I am a post prayer-book Anglican. That is, I grew up in the era when formal liturgies and distinctive clergy dress were become a sign of the moribund and alien past. The outsider (so the argument ran) was alienated by such things, which were at best mysterious and at worst signs of a theology we wanted to repudiate. Formality in and of itself was part of everything that was wrong with the church of the 1960s which so many people had decided to...well, not attend.
When I was a Chaplain at the Cathedral school, following this logic, and with 90% of the kids unchurched, I moved school chapel services out of the Cathedral building itself and into the hall next door. I very rarely wore my collar. The services were informal, the music contemporary and the prayers spontaneous. The Christian students were especially supportive of this, because it was like the churches they went to. Surely the non-Christians would love it too...
But one day, one of the unchurched kids came to me and said 'look, why are you trying so hard to be like our culture? Surely the best thing you have going for you is your difference. The old thing is the thing you do best - that makes sense to me. And I can't stand your contemporary Christian songs'. (well that was the gist of it...)
Here's the thesis I am running, anyhow: The reason we eschewed formality in church services was because that was what WE on the inside wanted (or some of us, anyway) - the missiological reason was in fact only a justification for it.
There were some mistaken, or at least challengeable, assumptions here -
1 - that the outsiders prefered us to look like TV shows, and not like 'church' as they knew it
2 - that familiarity is always good, dissimilarity is always bad
3 - that formality equals insincerity and pomposity (it certainly can do, but not always)
4 - that formality equals impersonal, bumbling and ineffectual
5 - that church meetings/services should be attractional (as opposed to church communities)
6 - that a prayerbook service with a robed clergyman will be understood by an outsider as a sign of Tridentine catholic theology of the priesthood and sacraments
So - what's the evidence?
50 comments:
Mike,
I haven't grown up Anglican and first introduction was college chapel in 1996. As a Christian but an Anglican outsider I quickly appreciated the riches of the Prayer Book.
As to the missiological assumptions, I would only be guessing at the historical motives behind teh shift. In terms of 21st century ministry I think you could say:
*the building isn't such a big deal - maybe its a north shore thing but pretty church works for us and school hall is probably less attractive to outsiders. So we regularly have people walk in, Oooh at stained glass and think it would be nice place to be
*Christian contemporary music is often more Christian than contemporary. People don't know how to sing anymore. So funerals and weddings even with the best known hymns - almost every non-Christians won't sing
*robed clergymen? I've had a number of non-Christian visitors comment positively on the unrobed minister - this is the family service - whereas at the oldies service they love robing (hard to go for generalisations as there are different cultures across generations at work here)
*any Christian gathering is going to seem strange and unfamiliar to most contemporary Australians - vague memories of school chapel are what the wedding and baptism couples come to me with. Most of them are positive about the contemporary shift in church and at least say they would think about coming for that reason - I wish more of them would follow through with this...
Sadly, I have made some of these arguments myself, although more often against the trappings than the prayer book itself. But with respect no. 6, I wonder who the hypothetical "outsider" is. Assuming we are following what the Articles say about the Lord's Supper, no Roman Catholic outsider would mistake our theology for theirs. Perhaps our real concern is for the disaffected Baptist or Presbyterian theological student who might have enough knowledge to be concerned but not enough discern the difference.
Michael,
So out with Driscoll and the board shorts, flip-flops, and goaties and back in with the dog collar and clerical garb. In my exp., non-Christians expect Christian ministers to look like Christians and can suspect when someone is trying (sometimes quite pathetically) to be one of them.
Its an identical principle to the one us aging youth ministers had to learn in the first few years of full-time youth ministry.
Attempts to be 'relevant' is an idol, and eventually does make you look silly.
Give me Leonard Cohen's 'elderly statesman stage 'gravitas' over Mick Jagger's routines any day (I marvel at his fitness and commitment, but it doesn't connect)
I agree with nearly all your points, and have long thought the generation ahead of us (I was born in '67) misunderstood "original" for "authentic."
As an early and a late teen (same era as Geoff and Michael) I went to two different suburban churches: the first was of what's now the mainstream type here, and the second was much more conservative in liturgy and attitudes. Looking back, one can see (some of) both what both groups were trying to do. A question I'd ask would be: did they really find it so hard, as it seemed, to talk to each other? And if so, why? Rhetoric? The level of investment people had in their choices?
Michael: The list of assumptions rings true, and I agree that, as assumptions, they're mistaken (or at best half-truths). I'd also second Geoff's comment on originality and authenticity, in the generation above.
The point on "our" wishes as a motive force is an important one, and seems to fit. What I'd add to it, I guess, is that "we" tend to interpret our actions as in the mirror of our intentions, or, those intentions we're aware of. Others experience our actions more through their effects, which go beyond our intentions; and they can perceive intentions that we miss. If we're not insightful about ourselves and this process then we're storing up no end of trouble.
Example: what I call "quasi-liturgical glosses", i.e. explanatory comments added to the liturgy in such Anglican churches as retain part of the liturgy. I have friends currently visiting an old-fashioned church that lacks glosses, and they're confused, so I certainly see the motivation. But these things can become rusted-on to the point where they take over, and become part of the liturgy in effect.
And at this point they're a menace, because they constantly break into the mood and the pace of things; and they narrow down meaning and implication, rather than opening it up. The intention is not to create a new, worse liturgy, but I think that is the effect. And one could begin to ask whether other, less obvious intentions are also in play.
Thanks Bruce and Geoff - much to ponder there. I think the telling sign is that people have real conscience issues now about robes/collars. It is revealed by this that it isn't really a missiological issue at all. It isn't a matter of eating pork or not for the sake of the other. It has become something else.
I think the same is true of the so called emerging church. My cynical reading is that there is less missiology going on there than you think and more minister's kids trying to stay in the church...
Hi Michael,
Thanks for your reflections. I have always thought (having been a full time school chaplain for 13 years - six in Sydney and seven in Newcastle) that students want more than the outside appearance. They really want authentic people (authentic in themselves) who are interested in them and prepared to give them time and effort. It is our attitude to kids that matters. Kids very quickly see through someone who is trying too hard. In my experience kids want to see that you believe what you are saying (authentic) and they really don't care that much about what you wear or whether you use the prayer book. Most usually accept it when they see it is important to you and part of who you are. This has certainly been my experience with many hundreds of students. I think they can see through an inauthentic response immediately and they don't expect that you are like them in outward ways anyway. What they want is to know that you are there for them. In my days as a school chaplain I always wore a collar and I always used the prayer book as a basis for what happened in chapel - yes robed and in the Newcastle case in a cathedral and in the Sydney case in a chapel. Mind you on camps and the like I did not dress up and took things very informally and it seemed to work in that situation. I have reflected on this question often and so I am brought to comment here just to add my views. Kids really want to know that you are interested and that you have something to offer about Christ that you believe in - that's what makes the difference. They are just too intelligent to base their opinions on externals alone.
Brian Douglas
(formerly Chaplain at Meriden in Sydney and Newcastle Grammar School)
Brian's comments (and earlier ones) on chaplaincy certainly sync with my memory of being a student: some of that as the resident Righteous Atheist, BTW, to give it a bit of extra flavour.
Michael: I think you're right about conscience issues revealing that the issue is not missiological; or, that it isn't missiological any more. "It has become something else." There is a nice distinction here: in time, and with people growing up under this system and teaching, it has become a third thing, a tradition of its own. Your earlier point was a distinct one: even originally, it was not only a missiological point, but a second thing as well.
On some current phenomena: "there is less missiology going on there than you think and more minister's kids trying to stay in the church..." That's plausible, but why is is cynical? For in fact, the idea that changes or convictions must be justified by reference to mission is widespread. I have never believed that this is true --- for a start, it is a form of straight consequentialism, and straight consequentialism is the very devil --- but denying this view publicly is thankless. Whereas some people believe it, or think that they should, but have instincts and insights that it won't accomodate. That makes them unintegrated, but it doesn't necessarily make them insincere. And it doesn't make the insights unsound. Otherwise one would also be committed to thinking that scientists with an inadequate philosophy of science --- which is to say, most --- could not work properly, which is both implausible, and false to experience.
Great to hear from you Brian!
And you are right. Insincerity can take many forms, robed or unrobed! And kids smell it on you like you had a whiskey for breakfast.
I think this was always the point in moving away from collars and robes... it had in some eyes become a mask, a mark of insincerity. Fair enough. But the key is not changing the forms so much as actually loving people!
I could not agree more Michael with your comments. Students are very good at sniffing you out. If it is a mask that will show too because it becomes more about you than about them. Loving people for Christ's sake is the essential point in this discussion and that is where we need to be sincere. Great to be part of this discussion.
Brian Douglas
I saw something like this in my old church - located in a very alternative culture to the middle class church which ran formal, anglican church services. a new minister brought in services modeled on cafes - "people here won't step into church but they'll spend all day in a cafe, so lets make church a cafe." It was a nice sentiment. But the issue wasn't really formalism or lack of formalism. People in church weren't connected the the rest of the community.
1 - that the outsiders prefered us to look like TV shows, and not like 'church' as they knew it
- what TV shows ?
the reality is they just wanted something less 17th century and more 20th century (now 21st)
2 - that familiarity is always good, dissimilarity is always bad
I don't think that a missiological category so much as comprehensibility and incomprehensibility - or identification and alienation -or being sensible to the seeker by using current symbols and language to explain ancient and eternal truths
3 - that formality equals insincerity and pomposity (it certainly can do, but not always)
no but rote and ritual do seem at odds with authenticity and expression. you can be just as insincere in other forms - but that should stop us being contextualized and sincere.
4 - that formality equals impersonal, bumbling and ineffectual
I think in australian culture formality isn't seen as particularly relational and the heart of our message is relationship - so our forms and structures need to reflect this some how - without totally disregarding order and structure.
5 - that church meetings/services should be attractional (as opposed to church communities)
false dichotomy - its the community of grace that is attractive - and I would argument the this is both the form and substance- people need to experience
3 'r's - revelation, relationship and response - any ritual or rites as methods to these principles. too often the method gets confused with the principle.
6 - that a prayerbook service with a robed clergyman will be understood by an outsider as a sign of Tridentine catholic theology of the priesthood and sacraments
for the 30% of sydney that are of some RC or orthodox background - probably.
for the rest - just a special person in a special uniform doing special words and actions at a special time and place - but that's not priestly is it?
As I said somewhere else - you don't think you are Anglicanised - or you say you are post Anglican - but I think we have have had enough of it to be immunized - like chicken pox vaccine - so that when we are confronted by the Ancient forms, we don't break out into pussy sores like others do who are more alienated and therefore unable to relate to our strange rituals and patterns. That's why they end up in groove houses like hillsong, who have done a much better job of contextualizing and as well as poor job in over-contextualizing (and capitulating to the culture) .
I'll second Brian and Bruce's comments. When I was the resident atheist at Stannies in the mid-'90's, intra-ecclesial cultural spats had less bearing on my attitude to Christianity (which I apostacised from shortly after my Confirmation in the Roman Communion in 1995) than the vilification I recieved from "peers" or the various positive interactions I had with clerics there.
On the other hand, once my repentance in 2003 placed me within the context of what was then a High-Church parish, I found myself drawn at times to such spats partly from new-found solidarity. Since Andrew Katay assumed his incumbency in Ashfield, I've gradually come to form what I see as a more nuanced picture of evangelicals.
So Michael - where can I find this service - growing, full of young enthusiastic converts, uses the 1662 prayer book church, an organ, singing old hymns, and with the minister in full garb?
It's not something I've seen.
I can point you to plenty of such services that are dying.
Mike Doyle
Mike Doyle,
One place which comes to mind is All Saints Leichhardt's Retro Church.
It's a good quesion to ask MD!
Thing is, most Anglican clergy in our city have put no enthusiasm into these kinds of services. They have wound them down in favour of the bland 'contemporary'. They are dying off, you could argue, because those who lead them live by the assumption that they will die off.
However - I think we are in a period of rethinking our assumptions because revival has certainly not come about on the terms we thought it would - ie, with the adult contemporary style of service, yeah?
Barnies Broadway, certainly in the 90s, was very strongly liturgical, though it had a mix contemporary music + hymns. It had great preaching to go with great praying of set prayers AND extempore prayes. Collared clergy. AND we had more than one bible reading. Amazing. And it was full of enthusiastic young people.
Remember, my point is that we put too much faith in 'styles' of service to do the job, one way or the other.
Remember, my point is that we put too much faith in 'styles' of service to do the job, one way or the other.
And that's worth repeating. A real danger is thinking the "style" of service is what "real Christianity" is (or "real mission").
You can see the problem on both sides. The 8am-ers who see their service as the be all and end all, and anything outside is abhorrant. And the "contemporary" people who run rip-shod over the 8am-ers - as if they're a bunch of non-christians who must be expelled from the church.
Mike
--Thing is, most Anglican clergy in our city have put no enthusiasm into these kinds of services. They have wound them down in favour of the bland 'contemporary'. They are dying off, you could argue, because those who lead them live by the assumption that they will die off.--
Also, they often hold them at inconvenient times for parishioners, which can lead to cherry-picking evidence. Mind you, this isn't a ruse solely peculiar to current innovators; I gather that during the late 19'th Century one way Holy Communion replaced Morning Prayer as the standard Sunday Service in many parishes was by shunting MP to earlier in the morning.
Going back to the original post:
---"3 - that formality equals insincerity and pomposity (it certainly can do, but not always)"---
As one whose Semantic-Pragmatic Disorder (which forms along with being on the Autistic Spectrum and having ADHD part of my temperament) tends when I'm not sufficiently careful to manifest itself through a proclivity for unthinkingly employing jargon, I'd probably fall into the category where it does so (by contrast, I tend to 'learn' informality by rote.) Nonetheless, from what I can tell, it seems that both sides have engaged too readily in asserting missiological benefits to approaches selected on a priori grounds.
Mike Doyle's question is also mine.
Having said that, I think we should certainly revisit our traditions. I really enjoyed doing confession and the creed at the Big Day In, for example. And the BCP has some great prayers, great theology. I really enjoy the services.
However, I think there is a kind of retro fascination with tradition amongst GenY and below. The Emerging church plugged into that.
But if that's so, it could be that Michael's suggestion is not really "anti-fashion" at all, but is keeping very much in step with the spirit of the times. I'm not saying that's a good or a bad thing necessarily, just an observation.
Further to Michael's point 3, that formality doesn't equal insincerity:
shanerogerson wrote: "no but rote and ritual do seem at odds with authenticity and expression ... [and they can] stop us being contextualized and sincere"
It may seem that way, to some at least, but this isn't adequate to deal with the case of prayer. Evocative but not-fully-specific language, like that used in some PB prayers, is excellent at lifting up the specific concerns and needs of various people (which can't all be known by the prayer leader, even in a state of perfection) and giving them shape as a shared prayer in which everyone can participate. This sort of thing is of course grounded in the model of the Psalms.
Leading good occasional (e.g. for a bushfire or disaster) or comprehensive prayers for the congregation is just difficult, and time-consuming to prepare. Established liturgy is at least a good resource for this; along with others, I think it's much more than that. I have been praised for these sorts of congregational prayers on occasion, but I've usually been channeling or openly stealing bits of the liturgy; and I've seen something similar in others who have done this well.
Interestingly you can see comparable phenomena in more grounded kinds of popular music: say, Springsteen, with The Rising as a specific example. It was well-received as a post-9/11 album that had real purchase, and it was remarked at the time how the songs had application to more than one specific situation; evocative words, careful use of stock images and situations, condensed psychological insight, ... the same elements, in short, as in the Psalmic case.
I mention a secular example because I think this sort of case is part of agreed experience, but something that people's "theory" or expectations often don't take into account. To that extent, following Michael's lead: I think we can be misled by our expectations.
It is interesting to compare the attempts at contextualisation of the last couple of decades with the efforts of say, the original protestant liberals of the 18th & 19th century - like Schleiermacher. Schleiermacher just wanted to make Christianity more about personal faith in Jesus than the dried out husk of contemporary protestantism or Catholicism. He argued for preaching that moved people to consider their whole lives in relationship with God through Jesus. In fact, preaching was the most important part of Christian gathering especially when it moved people. Ah but, I here you say, he threw out the baby with the bath water!
Isn't that what contemporary missional protestantism is doing with its language of authenticity which owes far more to a contemporary cocktail of existentialism and consumerism than it does to the gospel?
What exactly is culturally authentic about being presented with your culpability in the murder of your creator and this while you were so obsessed with gap between your actual and ideal self that you thought that saving was something retailers get you to do while you give them your money?
No doubt some will say that stripping away the trappings of medieval Europe were all in service of presenting the pure gospel of God's gracious offer of forgiveness.
Yet how are we supposed to hear that through the banality of three pop songs and a preacher who either looks like a conservative politician on the campaign trail or a second-string model for an internet t-shirt company?
Set prayers and ancient formulas may well be out-of-touch with the average Ozzie but that is because the average ozzie is out of touch with the word of God on which the prayers and creeds were based. Replacing these with a tour guide commentary of "we're coming to a time of..." and the cut&paste purple passage of the week - topped off with supplications of "Yeah, just really and like" no to mention 'Lord' instead of a comma, make contemporary authenticity seem more like reality TV!
Michael,
I think your thesis is right, at least to the extent that a lot of decisions about what is counted as being "accessible" is more about what the insider likes than what really is accessible. The great thing is that the basics of Scripture read, preached and lived in community "works" no matter what the style.
A clergyman I deeply repect, wrote to me to suggest that I not robe at my induction to St Philip's York St, suggesting that a good Anglican heritage didn't require 'priestly garments'.
This was my response:
Mate, there are no priestly garments here -- this place is the home of fiercely protestant evangelical Anglicanism. This was the pulpit of TC Hammond for 25 years or so.
We were the robes at the 8:30AM, but not the 10AM.
But there is no way that I will get away with not wearing them on Thursday. It would be just plain rude and unloving.
And more, it may represent a new missional path forward in a post-Christian world: people searching for their roots and traditions.
I think that it is the old guard and people influenced by the last gasps of modernism that felt they needed to reject the robes.
We'll see.
I quickly and intuitively wrote that. But I do think that the clergy in the 70s and 80s rejected the robes and liturgies because they were rightly challenging nominal Christianity. And they needed to jolt people out of their complacency by taking away some of the idols and therefore barriers.
But we are now in a post-Christian world. Nominal Christianity is not our issue. No-Christianity is our issue.
I think that some young people now are searching for roots; where do they come from? etc. That is why Roman Catholicism is getting a good run right now.
I'm not sure where all this will end up. But I no longer feel the need to oppose tradition. I am seeking to use tradition to enhance the way we speak and appeal to young people and the outsider.
kids smell it on you like you had a whiskey for breakfast.
Sounds like you're talking from experience... ;-)
Dear J Man,
Do you feel no need to oppose bad traditions?
I recently saw photos of a mutual friend's ordination (Anglican) on facebook. The bishop was wearing a special hat, staff, medallion, fancy robes and candles in the background. The clergy entered in procession with incense burning, long stick with a cross on it, and a picture of Jesus. What does that say to the person in the pews? Perhaps it is justifiable in the Roman Catholic tradition where the priesthood of all believers denied, but this was a protestant denomination ordination.
To be honest, in Australia I never had problems with the ordination services of friends I attended. But since being a missionary in Thailand and thinking long and hard about church and church models, I see the results of bad church practices and their effects on a young church.
I'm sure my friend who was ordained would have been happy to be ordained without the garb. Unfortunately, it is go along with the tradition and be ordained or protest and be unable to be a minster in that denomination.
It may not be so much of a problem in Australia to just go along with tradition, even if you disagree with it, because what does it matter anyway. But in Thailand, traditions like this get incorporated into church life and causes great problems. In Thailand, ministers are set apart from the ordinary Christian and very much exalted above the laity. At an all church worship meeting I went to in our region, all the minister were ushered to the front 3 rows of the church. After the meeting, they went into a special room at the back of the church to have lunch together while everyone else had lunch outside.
With ministers holding such exalted positions it is very difficult to convince ordinary Christians that they can actually read and interpret the bible for themselves and apply it to their lives. It leads to the thinking so prevalent in Thailand that without a full time paid minister and a church building that you cannot be a real church. It leads to Christians leaving everything to the minister and doing nothing for themselves.
When will the day come when enough people will stop towing the line and say enough is enough. This is wrong. We need to change it. Or as some commentators foresee, will the traditional denominations in the West continue their slow decline and in some distant future the problem will solve itself.
Richo
I'd echo what both Mikes have said, that the "style" of service can become too important. Thinking back, I can see the way that I presumed that it was automatic that my service would be successful, just because it was "contemporary".
Yet at the same time, I'm profoundly greatful for those who fought for such services. For I also experienced the slings and arrows of those who opposed such changes. Like Tony Payne, I've been told that my service "wasn't church", and that I "wasn't Anglican" for attending such a service. Let's remember that what those reformers faced was the opposition of those with a calcified comfort zone, seemingly more concerned with "being Anglican" than trying to reach a society radically different from the 1950's.
And having attended a variety of styles of Anglican services, from full-blown high-church service with incense down to my regular contemporary services, I know in which I found it easier to understand what was going on.
00-Cho,
Do you feel no need to oppose bad traditions?
Yes. Of course! And the ones you refer to would most certainly be in that category. I will be praying against this, and praying for you, friend.
I wasn't referring to bad tradition in my comment.
Or as some commentators foresee, will the traditional denominations in the West continue their slow decline...
MPJ's point, I think, is that the post-liturgical church didn't holt the slow decline, and didn't produce the turn around that they were expecting. I think that is where he is going.
I want you to know that I haven't gone all traditional since we served together. I've just seen and read a bit about how people are now searching the past for good answers to the current questions they have. I think that post-moderns are embracing antiquity in a way that their parents didn't.
I should start by saying that I think all six propositions identified by Michael are false and dangerously so. Further, the tendency Michael is describing was governed not only by misconceptions as to the nature of a liturgical service, but by blindness as to the characteristics of informality. Some are:
1) Informal Christian communities quickly develop liturgical languages (of both vocabulary and gesture) which are at least as indecipherable/offputting to outsiders as that of, for example, the 1978 Prayer Book, which was the touchstone when I was growing up. Cyberpastor has identified some examples. Another is the constipated-prayer position. (This is not just a matter of style: traditional prayer postures such as kneeling and stretching out your arms are gestures of weakness and are uncomfortable, as is appropriate when approaching God.)
2) Informal services create a greater, and not a lesser, dependence on the personality/charisma of the priest/pastor.
3) For these reasons among others, informal services drive away the middle-aged and elderly. It is not surprising that Evangelicals have difficulty attracting anybody above the age of about 35 who is not already a Christian. This is not a sign of a healthy movement.
4) Informality was driven by cultural conformity in other ways besides those so far identified. In Australia at least, it was part of the rejection of identities that were embodied in traditions that looked back to “old countries” (not just England, but Greece or Italy, in the case of Orthodox and Catholic converts). Inter-generational warfare shouldn't be dressed up as piety.
Laurence
Thanks, Michael, for a very insightful post. The comments that followed are also very helpful, even the ones I find myself not resisting. I would like to comment from a non-Anglican, non-Aussie setting, which doubtless shares many of the same concerns and challenges. So, to come clean about myself for your understanding, I am an American evangelical Presbyterian, converted to faith in Christ in the early 60's during university years, and have mostly enjoyed investing my adult lifetime to the ministry of InterVaristy. A comment about our situation and a word of appreciation for an aspect of the original post that has not been mentioned will be my attempt at substantive contibution.
Most American evangelicals are products of "revivalism" of the Finney sort. So all concerns of the Christian tradition, including worship, discipleship, and Christian teaching, are subordinated to evangelism and more specifically to inducing folk to make "decisions for Chirst." In this tradition, for tradition it is, worship easily becomes evangelistic rally and especially evangelistic youth rally. The explosion of "contemporary worship" actually owes more to this background than is usually acknowledged. No danger of "smells and bells," dog collars, liturgy, expository preaching, liturgical prayer, here. In this tradition, everything is cultural style, ie. connecting with contemporary audiences. All this is to agree with with comments about the triumph of "style" in all of this, but in this context there never has been very much reflection beyond style issues. Sadly, we Americans has been responsible for exporting this around the globe.
My appreciation relates to the comment, "The reason we eschewed formality in church services was because that was what WE on the inside wanted ..." Just so! And I would like to add that the "that" that we wanted is entertainment. Or at least style that mirrored what we receive from the media giants, on whom we depend for entertainment. Here, I would urge the reading of a work, which I am not certain you Aussies would be familiar with, "Entertaining Ourselves to Death" by Neil Postman. Postman was a high-profile academic, not easy to pigeon hole. A political progressive of communitarian interests, he was among the most able critics of contemporary culture. Not a Christian, he nervertheless had a profound respect for the past and sought progress through historical retrieval. His chapter "Shuffling Off to Bethlehem" is worth the price of the book. The book is a long reflection on how entertainment has come to dominate our culture's understanding of politics, education, journalism, and religion in a way that threatens us with vulnerability to a "Brave New World." In so very many ways, in the church not least, vulnerability has given way to dominance and spiritual amnesia.
I also grew up in the 70s, but I guess I grew up in a different diocese to you (further south...). Prayer books, robes and candles were just part of my normal experience of church.
I think point 5 is interesting. How much does the format and style of your church meeting/service say about your church community? I suspect it does have something to say, but probably less than we think, and probably in different ways.
Compare the minister who made you feel welcome, despite the fact that he was wearing a dress, to the person sitting next to you who glared at you because you didn't pass the bibles in the right direction.
I think you are so right 2 things:
- it reminds me of your musings about the value of post modern thinking... I think its a useful paradigm in a christian context for stripping away that which is not absolute and freeing up our thinking... boad shorts are not more holy than vestments or vice versa. The huge truth at the core of christianity stands on a tiny cultural footprint: it prescribes almost nothing about how our christian communities will look. I sometimes think our own evangelical fear of the cultural symbols of spiritual engagement means we run the opposite directions from people's emotional needs for say, beauty and specialness. I'm not saying avoid cultural factors, use them, embrace them without fear by not confusing them with the essential. Its just perfect of Leichaardt to pick up on the word "retro" to catch the cultural value of traditional services. And the thing is, for better or worse, it inevitably creates something new: its not actually traditional church, its something knowing and modern, that uses the shape of traditional church to meet a preference of the people attending.
- We'll never make church as comfortable as bed or a lounge room. People will come because of its difference to everything else in their life. We wouldn't prescribe waking up at 6, driving 20 miles and standing in the open air on a winter's morning as a missiological recipe to attract the unchurched (and I'm not suggesting we should), but the unchurched do that to watch their kids play sport on a sunday morning, not because its been made accommodating for them, because it is a priority in their value system.
Justin said :
"But we are now in a post-Christian world. Nominal Christianity is not our issue. No-Christianity is our issue."
I think this is a misread of the culture mate. Sydney is not "no-Christian" (or "a-Christian"), it is post Christian. there's a subtle difference which I am sure you would agree with.
for many there is still a cultural memory which at least in my context is largely negative.
it is the association with institution, abuse of power, oppressive metanarratives, bigotry, grey uniformity, etc.
churchiness - robes buildings etc is still a very strong symbol of that - though by no means the only one (yet have a look at the news the next time Church and PEDOPHILE is mentioned - what images are used?!)
sure people might find the building curious, historically quaint, and the garments and ritual might pique some interest - but I doubt it is going to be the on the edge of your missional thrust. you (ie youse) would be kidding yourselves to think this is the edge.
and whoever suggested that removing traditional vestiture was more out of self interest and cultural bias I think is being plain rude - there are many who have made these kind of changes at great sacrifice out of a deep conviction that it would mean we could become "all things to all men in order to save some" (rightly or wrongly)
I am yet to be convinced that trad services - or any church service for that matter- are the best way to reach this present (sinful) generation.
contend for the faith AMEN AMEN
contexualise without compromise AMEN AMEN
Shane (?= shanerogerson?) this maybe isn't my place, as this is MPJ's blog, but:
You wrote "whoever suggested that removing traditional vestiture was more out of self interest and cultural bias I think is being plain rude - there are many who have made these kind of changes at great sacrifice out of a deep conviction [etc.]"
"Whoever" has a name. Why not engage him directly?
And as for your argument, I put it to you that your outrage is misplaced. To make the point against myself, lest there be any misunderstanding: I have done many things out of deep conviction, and some of them at considerable sacrifice, but I have not always been right. And I take it that I often have motivations that (some) others can (maybe, fallibly) discern, which aren't apparent to me in the first instance.
I also take it that this applies to other people, not just me. So let's have some substantial argument, if you please.
And your closing statement, if I may say, is the purest bluster.
Hi Bruce
yes, shane rogerson
the "whoever" was not being indirect - just lazy having read a post with 32 comments - I couldn't be bothered going back. sorry if you took offense. I can't even find it now . very sloppy.
I think the point still stands - notice I said " out of a deep conviction that it would mean we could become "all things to all men in order to save some" (rightly or wrongly) "
the rightly or wrongly bit is significant don't you think?
I apologize that my contribution is not of substance to you - it wasn't apparant to me in the first instance that it was insubstantial.
yet thank you for the rebuttal , I think we agree . I am not outraged either.
and I have no idea what "purest bluster" is but I take it you have dismissed it in some way - dare I say - without substantively telling me why ;) but the wonderful and woeful thing about blogs is that they are as much about opinions as arguments, so you may say whatever you like.
maybe we could just ignore that pure bluster and talk about whether associations with pedophilia and abusive power make for a well contextualized ministry that contends for the faith once delivered to the saints?
I would happily wear a collar if I thought it would promote the faith in my area and identify with the culture. please convince me.
Shane
" I can't even find it now . very sloppy. "
I still can't find it - and cant sleep
either I imagined it or it has been deleted?
Mr Moffatt,
--
Mate, there are no priestly garments here -- this place is the home of fiercely protestant evangelical Anglicanism. This was the pulpit of TC Hammond for 25 years or so.
We were the robes at the 8:30AM, but not the 10AM.--
Would it be safe to infer, then, that in your context 'robes' implies say the wearing of tippets rather than stoles?
It may well have been my post that Shane had in mind. (My name is Laurence Emmett, by the way, though I don’t think Shane has the misfortune to know me.) As it happens, I had in mind more liturgy than robes. I would nonetheless probably make the same point in relation to robes, though less strongly. Also, I wasn’t speaking directly to anybody’s conscious motives for getting rid of formality. All that said, if there is any residual disagreement with Shane, then I do for the present at least stand by my earlier comment.
As for the “all things to all men” point (and I don’t mean to pick on Shane – this has been said in essence by several others on this thread), I understand Michael’s arguments to be: (1) outsiders don’t care that much what ministers wear – they would much prefer the minister to be genuine; and (2) maybe outsiders should not dictate what we do in church services. I would add (3) the whole point surely doesn’t have much purchase because (a) robes/liturgy probably attract some and turn others away; and (b) there have always been denominations with informal services, so anyone who didn’t like formality could always go somewhere else.
A number of people have commented that they don’t know of vibrant “traditional” churches. Several responses have been made to this. I would like to add the observation that a congregation full of young people is likely to generate a lot more activity than a congregation of old people. That doesn’t necessarily make the young congregation better. It is quite common to hear the statement that a congregation is all over 70 used dismissively. To me, this reveals a lot about the speaker.
Finally, several people have referred to “Retro-Church” at Leichhardt. I have no experience of the place, but to me (as a conservative in these issues, in case you hadn’t guessed) the name sends all the wrong signals about traditional worship. The issue is not what was done in the 1950s. The real issue is doing justice to the fact that the faith we have received has been preserved for 2,000 years. During that time insight has been accumulated (under the guidance of the Holy Spirit) into what Christians should do when they meet together. I gave the example in my last post of kneeling to pray, which I find blindingly obvious.
Shane- you said you would wear your collar if it helped mission. Me too.
My point is that most people would not, because the reason they stopped wearing them was not missional in fact, despite the rhetoric. It was an internal theological matter. And now, we have a new legalism almost (not from you Shane), which says you couldn't possibly wear one and be kosher.
Lawrence, from the All Souls website: A return to the beauty, reverence and mystery of our ancient faith, drawing on the treasures of the rich traditions and practices of the diverse streams of Christianity.
Music is a key element as we raid the vast storehouse of ancient music for congregational singing, choral items and liturgical pieces.
While we are eagerly seeking to open up the treasures of ancient worship we are wanting to infuse them with the energies and insights of the future.
Join us on the journey each Sunday evening at 6.30pm and afterwards in our cafe.
Or join our choir.
Having served at All Souls for over eighteen months, I can say that the evening service was not trying to be 1950s. However, let's not exaggerate the success of that service. It started tiny and grew to small, which is where it has stayed.
Byron, my apologies. I hadn't even gone so far as to look at the web-site. I only referred to the name because it came up on this thread.
I also as born in 1970, in Sydney to high-church parents. I rebelled against their churchliness and loved the 'contemporary' night services we had in the 1980s... which are remarkably like the 'contemporary' services we have mid morning these days.
Coming to the close of pastoring a church which was all-prayer-book-and-robes when I arrived and now offers a more relaxed service, I have found that the new Christians love the traditional robed-and-prayer-book service and the middle-aged Christians love the 'contemporary' format.
It is interesting that as the generation of firebrand clergy whom I love much and who pioneered the eschewing of prayer-books-and-robes come to retirement, they lament that our generation is too conservative. Not theologically, but in our willingness to wear garb they fought long and hard for the right not to wear.
On the one hand, your suspicion is also mine: those who want to be 'contemporary' are "experienced" Anglicans of a certain generation. We need be no more embarrassed that Christians do distinctive things in church than motor-racing fans ought to be embarrassed that we sing the national anthem before the Fords and Holdens go round.
On the other hand, while I'm not into 'attractional' services I am aware that newcomers who are handed piles of books on the way in are instantly out of their depth. That's why I introduced our relaxed service: not to be attractional, but to be accessible.
unfortunately - or should I say fortunately - this is my last post for a while -
no one seems to have picked on what I thought was a substantive point - i.e. the issue of contextualization.
I think you misread the culture (at least of Sydney) if you think that robes etc are a neutral or even positive statement.
to borrow from Glenn, I am really not sure that ancient forms and liturgy help accessibility when you consider the culture memory and associations of Joe pagan .
by the way - the contemporising generation that preceded mine were obsessed with seeker sensitivity and therefore the mirage of attraction - but this is not the issue - it is being seeker sensible, and attractive as a worshipping gospel community.
and we worship with one eye on the unbeliever and make sure what we do is accessible for them. but you must remember that what you do and wear and say are all related. its part of the message.
do you really want to restate that relationship with God is about special buildings, special times in special places led by specially adorned people speaking special words?
give me plain speaking people in ordinary life living the gospel in community any day.
I am going on holidays!
oh one more thing MPJ
I don;t give a stuff whether I am Kosher or not - and I am glad you don't either.
Mark Driscoll (praise be the name of the prophet etc etc ;) ) said theology is a home not a prison.
I reckon he had places like Sydney in mind when he said that.
to much crap in Sydney Evangelicalism . way too much. forgive me if I have contributed. !
now holidays !
Have a great holiday Shane... but your second last post reveals that you DO have a theological reason for not robing. I don't think you could ever see it as missiologically appropriate, not really!
you have goaded me!
you cannot separate theological from missiological as if one were pure pragmatics or cultural leverage. that would be insincere!
of course I have theological reasons! do you deliberately provoke?!
they are also missiological reasons!
I will be wearing a collar on the 21st of March because I will be trying to bring the gospel to bear in another context other than my own, and I do not believe I will be compromising the reformed theology that I hold dearly. But that is partly because the symbiotic of the culture in which I wear it are not the same as the culture in which I usually inhabit. my theology and my missiology must always inform each other - as difficult as that may be.
I think you have said yourself - we need theology that is missional and missiology that is theological. of course - you can't have it any other way.
I will now holiday and not respond again.
see you in a couple of weeks. :)
My observation across many Anglican dioceses is that in those dioceses where 'traditional' plus some extras is the norm. It has not attracted newcomers in droves. In fact the opposite occurs in those dioceses it is the contemporary style which has attracted people . However, I think it goes deeper than the style of service but to the heart of the hymns/songs, prayers, bible reading and sermon.
Hi Michael,
'The reason we eschewed formality in church services was because that was what WE on the inside wanted (or some of us, anyway) - the missiological reason was in fact only a justification for it'
Is this what you are thinking? Does this mean that you thought differently, but now have changed in your thinking?
I was just wondering...I have thought a lot about these things for quite a long time...
My first memory as a young child (apart from Sunday school) attending church is the Green prayerbook, following it by myself and turning to the pages (I was only a little kid and I loved following it) no one thought strangely of it at the time and I was born in the 70's too.
Cheers,
Irene
Hi Michael,
'The reason we eschewed formality in church services was because that was what WE on the inside wanted (or some of us, anyway) - the missiological reason was in fact only a justification for it'
Is this what you are thinking? Does this mean that you thought differently, but now have changed in your thinking?
I was just wondering...I have thought a lot about these things for quite a long time...
My first memory as a young child (apart from Sunday school) attending church is the Green prayerbook, following it by myself and turning to the pages (I was only a little kid and I loved following it) no one thought strangely of it at the time and I was born in the 70's too.
Cheers,
Irene
Interesting that the Church growth stats in the UK indicate the fastest growing congregations this 21st century have been (1) Cathedrals (2) Black-led. Both almost make considerable use, inter alia, of robes. Not sure why this is the case,but plainly a lot of the assumptions about this I've made down the years need revisiting.
Post a Comment