sacred and relevant
Christianity has always faced a difficult challenge. It is simultaneously a world-view and a way of living and a religion. As a world-view, it represents instructions on a "new way to be human" that its proponents argue is the only satisfactory way to become the thing you're created to be and really live the life you've been given. Through this, it's desperately accessible and relevant to everyone, everywhere, all of the time. At the same time, as a religion, Christianity makes certain claims about good and evil, sin and grace. It claims that mankind is broken and wicked, and presents the opportunity to encounter the sacred, the "holy and wholly other", and respectfully bow in reverence to the almighty.
Finding the proper balance in emphasis between these two aspects has often proved disastrously difficult. Emphasis on the first with disregard to the second leads to Unitarianism and Deism - a religion that is pragmatic but redemptively useless. Delving into the sacred while ignoring relevancy often leads to condemnation and exclusiveness - a church that points figures and berates; singing hymns while remaining ultimately useless. Historically, the Christian church has fallen hard in both directions. During it's early years, Paul describes the struggle in his epistles and cautions different churches to remember either the sacred or the relevant, depending on their particular struggles. In the medieval centuries, the church seems to have become obsessed with the sacred, totally disregarding relevancy to the point of absurdity. With the reformation, Christianity began to swing back towards a center, but today some modern evangelical sects seem to have opted to take the worst of both perspectives.
How do we strike a healthy balance? How can the church reach out in love and service and represent the kind of love and decency Christ did while maintaining a focus on the sacred and a healthy "fear" of the divine? With any luck, we're going to be part of a church plant here in the Denver area next year. The typical Colorado yuppie needs a church that matters (is relevant) as well as redeems (a church that is sacred), so I'm very interested in practical suggestions for what this might look like. Any ideas? I want to hear something practical and doable - not abstract references to "radical relevancy", though the term does have panache.
posted by RJ @ 8:18 AM
18 comments
18 Comments:
Redness - have you tried totally radical relevancy? It is much better than the first edition.
Seriously though, this is a concern. I think pushing the sacramental side of things is the best, but this understanding and practice of church is absolutely useless unless people are raised on the concept of no secular reason or place in society. It would be great if everyone read and understood John Milbank's "Theology and Social Theory", but that is not going to happen.
What about re-reading and studying the early Church fathers together? That might be relevant and sacred. They have a great commentary series with many of the early Church fathers' comments on Scripture in one book, I think edited by Christopher Hall. If you are really serious about leading a church plant, you really need to get your hands on Robert Webber's "The Younger Evangelicals." That book will be a gold mine for trends in postmodern church culture, I think you will really like it. That's all I've got for the moment, I am struggling with the same question for my ministry. At least I get to wear a dress.
yeah, not too much. Yet I think art can do wonders for making Christianity relevant. Much of the post-modern Christian movement has focused on an emphasis on beauty rather than correct-ness, which is a great idea given proper boundaries.
The right tool for the right job...
I am of the opinion that the gathering of the Body of Christ to worship through participation in God by Word and Sacrament has absolutely nothing to do with non-Christians. It isn’t for them and they shouldn’t be part of it. It seems completely irrelevant whether or not it is relevant to them.
That said, I think there is a definite place for seeker church organizations. I think the idea of a church plant is great so long as the goal is to be relevant to non-Christians so that they can come to faith and be formed in community such that the sacred (worship through participation in Word and Sacrament) becomes relevant to them. I don’t think this is a replacement for orthodox Christian practice, but an excellent funnel into it.
So, like I said, the right tool for the right job. The problem comes when that isn’t realized. For instance, I just finished reading The Shaping of Things to Come. The problem with this book is that it doesn’t understand that the emerging church movement is only useful in one context. It isn’t useful or meaningful if it serves as a replacement for Christian participation, practice, and worship.
I am all about alternative, emerging communities so long as they self-consciously working as a channel and not an end.
Those are excellent points, j. morgan. I'll have to think about this more. Hmm. I'm just kicking around ideas here, but tell me what you think about this: Maybe the church should focus on being relevant in seeker-oriented ways by providing 2 things. First, it should provide community. The church should be composed of a group of people who share in each others lives and invite others into their community to share in the sharing. Second, it should provide service. The church should actively be involved in the community doing things to improve it and doing it's best not to prosletyze. By providing these two things, the church is serving a real and tangible function in the community. While not irrelevant, the services should instead be focused on feeding the congregation and reflecting on the sacred. Others would always be welcome to attend, but the services would not be focused on seeker-oriented topics or styles. Hmm. I think this sounds pretty good. What say you?
J. Morg - excellent insight. Unfortunately hardly anyone knows that is what church is about, so there has to be some form of teaching. In times past this was part of the cathecism idea, but somehow that went out of fashion (probably since it was not administered in school churches dropped the ball due to a ton of other stuff on their plates). I think if we could teach people what church is really about as opposed to making church "relevant" we would solve some problems. Then again, people will differ on what church is about, but I think that is a different issue.
Redness - interesting insight and possible application of J. Morg's thoughts. I would want to stress that the service for Christians would be focused on worship, and worship alone (the prayers, Word and sacrament as means), not as a meeting point on the week ahead doing the community service, but everything else sounds fine. I think evangelism would be fine too - I think we should be more forceful about our Christianity then we tend to be. Not necessarily hellfire sermons, but not masking the fact that we are Christians. Everything we do should model the fact that we follow Christ and not Kerry. Radical difference and transformation, that would be evangelism enough. And then during the service when communion is starting we can send the seekers away and see them at coffee hour after church. When did the Church stop doing that anyways? Did we get scared of offending people? Oh dear.
redhurt, I like your community/service approach.
Is everyone agreed on j. morgan's seeker/church distinction? I'm still mulling it over--I just wanted to know if we had consensus on that. I do know that in my experience, I would never invite someone to attend a Lutheran service with me unless (1) they were already a committed Christian and (2) I knew them well. Otherwise I don't think there would be any point--there are more effective ways to minister/evangelize than vestments and organ tones, right, redhurt?
It would be interesting if we could switch perspectives for a second and come up with a list of what churches as such should expect from their members. I think we'd agree that it's the leadership's role to let laypeople know that more is expected of them than just attending for one hour a week--and it might be service, sacramental understanding, teaching, or something else that we want to emphasize. I'd like this list, this concept, to go against the sort of smorgasbord approach that some modern evangelical churches take--you shouldn't choose one or more of a variety of fun activities; certain things should be expected of you.
hans, what does "we should be more forceful about our Christianity then we tend to be" mean? I'm not attacking you--I just want specific examples. Should I be a more forceful Christian in the workplace, in church on Sundays, on the street, in the mall, in my marriage? The short answer is of course yes to all that, but as redhurt said, we're looking for the practical.
Charles - good comments. I think I am in for morg's seeker/church distinction. As far as the "more forceful" bit I mean that we need to be more explicit about being Christian. I don't think this means wearing "I love Jesus" T-shirts and it definitely does not mean WWJD (we want Josh drinking?), but it might mean talking more about Jesus. I know it sounds fluffy evangelical, but if we really see him as Lord of the universe and our lives, we should probably mention him more often.
That is a really good question though, I have a hard time with it myself. Christians should look totally different from non-Christians, right? Or at least feel different, but I am not positive as of yet on how that is applied. Right now I think it means more explicit mention of the Lord Jesus and what he is doing in our lives. We have to fight the urge to make this ridiculously trivial, but I imagine that none of those here would fall into that trap. I think it is a tough issue though, especially since I am so bad at evangelism. I am not really totally happy with this suggestion, it just strikes me as on to something.
That's all I've got for now.
I think I am for the distinction. I know it's not absolute, but I'm trying to stick with practical thoughts here and not get bogged down in abstracts.
For this reason, Hans, I've got to disagree with you on several points. First, I don't think service has anything to do with worship, unless you're going to say that service (and everything else we do) is a form of worship, at which point I'll simply ask you to keep things a little more down to earth. I want Christians to do things. I'm not going to get into why.
Second, one of the things I don't want Christians doing is talking about Jesus more. There are quite a few people out there talking about Jesus right now, and some of them are giving him quite a bad name. To steal a phrase, talk is cheap. To paraphrase that one church guy you like, words shouldn't be the primary method of evangelism, nor are they absolutely necessary ("go evangelize and even use words if you have to" or whatever.) In my perfect brand of Christianity, they'll know you're a Christian by your love as evidenced through your service. There is no group of people consistently offering to help in a variety of ways and not expecting anything in return in any community on this planet that I know of. Christians should be that.
Things I'd expect from someone in a church:
1.) Participation in some sort of smaller group than the general congregation. This group is focused on building community in a small sense and this group is responsible for being part of a service project.
2.) Regular giving. The church can't operate without money. It should tailor it's work to fit the budget available, but it still needs money.
3.) Regular attendance. This should go without saying.
4.) Accept some responsibilty in making the church function. This gets vague, but we need people to teach classes, help build things, help organize things, etc.
That's all I can think of off the top of my head. Any other ideas?
Just a few comments and clarifications:
Redness - I think we are using the same word for different things here. When I use "service" I have been meaning "the worship on Sunday in a church building" where I think you have taken it as "good deeds and community involvement." So I do not think that your use of service should be only about worship - obviously not! I just wanted to make a point of emphasis on the worship that goes on in the church (buildings). That is essential to being a Christian and we evangelicals have moved away from that, maybe following Kierkegaard?
Second point, about Jesus. I still think we need to make more of him. I know I am going to betray my evangelical leanings here, but our mission in the world is to bring about the kingdom of God by bringing people to acknowledge and follow (enter into relationship for a more touchy feely word) the rightful king, King Jesus. The Gospel is a political, social, theological, and everything else message. It is about transforming the world, but we cannot do this without the Holy Spirit who is sent from (is) Jesus Christ, the Son of God. I think we need to be explicit about this in an age of pluralism. There are plenty of groups out there who will do things for other people today, I don't think we can recognize Christians by their love as easily. I think action is wonderful, but if we are not a people in relationship and filled with the Holy Spirit, our work is in vain! I think this is important. Even the great Mars hill sermon everyone takes for making Christianity relevant (Acts 17) quickly turns into a risen Lord fest where Paul makes Jesus central to his proclaimation of the Gospel. We do all things for Jesus our King and we need to acknowledge him. We really do. The early church couldn't stop saying the name of Jesus, why are we so afraid?
In short, I think it is important to let people know that we are all about a Lordship under Jesus, that he is really present with us through the Holy Spirit and that we live transformed lives from that. We should attract people not only because we are doing good community service (that is an outworking of the Gospel being proclaimed) but also because we have a certain peace with creation and our neighbour, something that can only be understood if one has met the risen Lord. We can't lose this otherwise we turn into a liberal social gospel. Jesus must stay at the center.
hans: I'm not afraid of naming Jesus. I'm afraid of sounding like another Pat Robertson, another Rick Warren, or another Joel Osteen. It might be possible to run around using Jesus' name for everything without doing that, but I certainly don't know how. I'm not afraid of talking, but I'd rather let my actions speak for themselves. I still argue that there aren't enough other groups doing the kinds of work that Christians should be that there won't be a vast and obvious distinction in their work. Assuming the Christians are going about it the right way, it seems like that shouldn't be possible.
punnard: What the heck's a punnard? I'm not sure about how to do worship and sacrement with unbelievers. I guess if they're interested and want to be there, then it makes sense and is fine to have them present with explination. I don't know. I'll have to give this some more thought.
A punnard is like a small hackenstar with wheels.
I'm wondering the same thing, redhurt. Say I'm in the mall, shopping for shoes, with my beautiful, modestly-dressed wife. hans, do you want me to take a stand for Christ over and above treating everyone that I meet the way that Christ would? If so, what should I do?
redhurt, I like your list of expectations for members. That's exactly what I was looking for. I think that's one way to make people take church more seriously, which in itself is a way to accomplish everything you're talking about.
To weigh in on the church/seeker distinction, I'm still not sure. Communion is really where the rubber meets the road, because (1) it's crucial, and (2) it's not for non-Christians. Most, if not all people in this country have pre-conceived notions of Christianity and religion anyway, so it's not like you can bring non-Christians to church and tell them it's this great new spiritual thing they've never heard of before. So maybe that makes j. morgan right. Hmmm...
I know this post is getting long and drawn out, but I think it is a good question and we are certainly not going to decide it over this. I also think if we all sat down together we would be more in agreement than in disagreement, but blog comments always accentuate the difference. So in saying that, redness, I don't disagree with most of what you have said. I think you are right about the social evangelism and such, I think Christians can do it better than anyone else. So I would agree with you there. I certainly am concerned about sounding like a Jesus freak - but maybe it is time we took that back from the nutjobs. Just a thought.
Charles - I don't think you should shop for shoes with your wife. Secondly, I don't think I am saying you need to be in your face about Jesus with everyone. But opportunities for spiritual conversation are open, and the best way to get the started is to pray with people in the name of Jesus. My fear is that we are too reserved about being open about our Christianity. I find myself almost afraid to mention my conviction and relationship with Jesus, but that is because I am not thinking for his kingdom. We shouldn't be "looking" for opportunities to preach Christ, but they do come up and I think we are all scared to take them. That fear needs to be challenged.
So working in social settings is fine and good, you don't need to wear an "I love Jesus" pin on your shirt all the time, but when you are talking to co-workers you can offer to pray with them, invoking the name of Jesus and see where that leads. I think people are very receptive to pray once we are open to doing it. So maybe a more active prayer life (private and otherwise) is what I am aiming at. I don't think we can ever pray too much, I certainly pray too little.
Punnard - I think you are on to something with the experience of Jesus. I would say that seekers are met outside the church, maybe at an Alpha course (these are great opportunities to learn about Christianity) or something else, and then when they are ready they can join the worship and feel more a part of it. A seeker certainly shouldn't feel totally comfortable in a worship setting because he or she doesn't know what is going on or who we are worshipping. I am not talking about being too exclusive here, but the worship service is not designed directly for evangelism - it is designed for worship.
Those are some of my thoughts. Again, I think we are closer together on this than it seems. I will concede that Christians should show their Christianity by their works and love, but at the same time we must be focused on our relationship and fellowship with Jesus. People can find common ground with us through our love for others (redness, you are right on this), but they should be forced (by their own desires) to figure out who we work for. That should be explicit, but not nasty and too forceful. So basically red's position with a bit more Jesus would be fine, I think.
Is that more helpful?
hans: wow, yes; you're right. I was misinterpreting your use of "service" - it was really confusing, but now it makes much more sense. :) And I think you're right that we probably have tons in common in terms of our approach to this.
punnard: I've never experienced that sort of experience with God's presence. I like and agree with everything you've said, but I'm worried that it's too theoretical; too abstract. You've mentioned prayer with other people, but in my experience these sort of community prayer times rarely lead to any sort of real spiritual experience. Now I'm not saying everything needs to be based on our feelings, but are there any more tangible examples of ways to bring God's presence more realistically into the services?
I'm not for ever "kicking out the unbelievers." I don't want to actually make anything we do exclusive or secret, just not watered down for the sake of comfort or accessibility. I'm sure you agree, but felt the need to articulate this anyway.
redhurt:
I like your list of expectations; I think you are right on. To that list, I think I would add two things:
1) A commitment to explore the teaching of the Church, in community, with humility.
2) Ecumenical involvement that extends beyond your particular congregation.
Also, concerning your question to Punnard (“Now I'm not saying everything needs to be based on our feelings, but are there any more tangible examples of ways to bring God's presence more realistically into the services?”), I would respond in two ways:
1) I don’t think that experience and “feelings” are the same thing. We experience all sorts of things as real without any particular emotional response.
2) I think that a sacramental theology is a very practical and realistic example of “bring God’s presence... into the services.”
Punnard:
Our disagree – if you could even call it that – might just be the result of different conceptions of what communion is all about. Because I take a high sacramental view (the individual is fully realized as a member of the Body of Christ and, as such, fully participates in God through the blood and body of His Son), I tend to think of the Eucharist as reserved for those who are baptized and confirmed. As such, I just don’t think that a 3 minute explanation is adequate preparation for “a new Christian” to participate (and I never think it appropriate for a non-Christian to participate).
I agree generally, however, with your understanding of worship; in fact, I would go farther. I would argue that God is not only with us, but that we are with and in God in a mysterious union in worship. I mean, I think God does actually show up in the form of the Eucharist every time Christians worship. So, I tend not to think of our services as a starting point, but rather as an ending point.
I think there needs to be lots of opportunities for fellowship, encouragement, evangelism, and discipleship OUTSIDE of our worship services for those reasons.
I don't think punnard was advocating letting unbelievers TAKE communion - just that we don't need to "kick them out of the room" as was suggested earlier.
I don't think experiences and feelings are the same thing either, but experience most often comes down to a matter of sensation. We experience the world around us through our 5 senses. If none of these senses provides the experience in question, it can be "experienced" through some sort of inwardly perception, which requires the emotions. I have rarely if ever "experienced" God in any overt way that would be applicable to a church service. I have "experienced" him through others and through serving, but quite rarely ever during prayer or worship. And when I have, it's been purely an emotional reponse.
Post a Comment
<< Home