I'm a huge fan of church services that present ways in which I can worship God in a more genuinely "Courtney" way. Granted, this changes from time to time (sometimes it's really "high church style", sometimes it's just music accompanied by guitar and a Scripture reading). While reading this blog, "Doing church differently", I started thinking about whether the lines between "Traditional" and "Contemporary" really even exist (or, what they really mean). I think the post brings up some good points about how even though we may seek out ways to "do church" differently, it's really the same. Could this idea change how our culture "church shops" when we're trying to find a new community to worship with?
It made me think about how church is "different" here in Palestine and the State of Israel. In one of my first weeks here there was a visiting church that was partnering up with another local church and during the service the visiting congregation (from a Western context) offered up some different styles of worship: there was a a young adult who did a breakdance routine to a song, and then a classical guitarist who played a beautiful traditional hymn accompanied by an interpretive dance mime. As you can guess based on how people would have felt in the States, there was a mixed reaction. It seemed so "different" at the time, but was it? I still haven't fully processed that whole event, but I think it becomes interesting to think about when you frame it with two questions the above mentioned post asks: "Are the symbols and mediums we use deep in meaning? Do they reflect a fullness that exemplifies the fullness of God?"
Here are a few snippets from the blog post, but I encourage you to read it in its entirety:
....
And churches have always sought people “where they are.” I’ll admit I’m guilty of using that line, mostly because I think it’s true.
I don’t think it’s different, though. And it certainly isn’t hip.
It’s just that, well, can you actually be anywhere where you aren’t? Do you really know of a church that thinks you have to change to walk in the door? If you do, I wouldn’t argue that they’re doing church “the same old way.” If you have to change to walk in the door, they’re just doing church badly.
And if you think that just because you don’t wear robes you’re “doing church differently,” I’d ask you to read a Christian liturgy book. Robes, the clothes of a servant, were meant to give a “replaceable” quality to the leader of worship — much, I think, like the T-shirt and jeans of many of today’s preachers who think they’re doing something different. The “See, I’m no different than you” of the T-shirt and jeans is not a far cry from the, “See, you too can do this. I’m totally replaceable” of the robe.
Along those same lines, the mass-media approach of projectors, screens, TVs, and made-for-worship movies are no different than candles and incense. Engaged senses? Yes. Ordinary objects? I bet you’d find candles in the ancient home just as often as you’d find a TV/computer in the homes of today.
The rock-arena stage setting of many “doing church differently” churches reflects a contemporary concert experience. J.S. Bach and Barenaked Ladies, a contemporary rock group, are not so far apart.
So, my question is this: Why do you feel the need to say that you “do church differently”?
...
Do you try to connect people to God? Do you try to tell the story of a world in desperate need of
If you do, then you don’t do church differently; you do it in the way it has always been done. And there’s nothing wrong with that. I’m a reluctant Christian at times because, well, church branding has become a business taking its cues from contemporary advertising. In the need to feel relevant, so many places just end up fading into the same mélange of commercials bombarding people daily.
...
It made me think about how church is "different" here in Palestine and the State of Israel. In one of my first weeks here there was a visiting church that was partnering up with another local church and during the service the visiting congregation (from a Western context) offered up some different styles of worship: there was a a young adult who did a breakdance routine to a song, and then a classical guitarist who played a beautiful traditional hymn accompanied by an interpretive dance mime. As you can guess based on how people would have felt in the States, there was a mixed reaction. It seemed so "different" at the time, but was it? I still haven't fully processed that whole event, but I think it becomes interesting to think about when you frame it with two questions the above mentioned post asks: "Are the symbols and mediums we use deep in meaning? Do they reflect a fullness that exemplifies the fullness of God?"
Here are a few snippets from the blog post, but I encourage you to read it in its entirety:
....
And churches have always sought people “where they are.” I’ll admit I’m guilty of using that line, mostly because I think it’s true.
I don’t think it’s different, though. And it certainly isn’t hip.
It’s just that, well, can you actually be anywhere where you aren’t? Do you really know of a church that thinks you have to change to walk in the door? If you do, I wouldn’t argue that they’re doing church “the same old way.” If you have to change to walk in the door, they’re just doing church badly.
And if you think that just because you don’t wear robes you’re “doing church differently,” I’d ask you to read a Christian liturgy book. Robes, the clothes of a servant, were meant to give a “replaceable” quality to the leader of worship — much, I think, like the T-shirt and jeans of many of today’s preachers who think they’re doing something different. The “See, I’m no different than you” of the T-shirt and jeans is not a far cry from the, “See, you too can do this. I’m totally replaceable” of the robe.
Along those same lines, the mass-media approach of projectors, screens, TVs, and made-for-worship movies are no different than candles and incense. Engaged senses? Yes. Ordinary objects? I bet you’d find candles in the ancient home just as often as you’d find a TV/computer in the homes of today.
The rock-arena stage setting of many “doing church differently” churches reflects a contemporary concert experience. J.S. Bach and Barenaked Ladies, a contemporary rock group, are not so far apart.
So, my question is this: Why do you feel the need to say that you “do church differently”?
...
Do you try to connect people to God? Do you try to tell the story of a world in desperate need of
Divine intervention in the person of Jesus? Do you try to help people see how God is active in the world?
If you do, then you don’t do church differently; you do it in the way it has always been done. And there’s nothing wrong with that. I’m a reluctant Christian at times because, well, church branding has become a business taking its cues from contemporary advertising. In the need to feel relevant, so many places just end up fading into the same mélange of commercials bombarding people daily.
...
What are your thoughts?! Share in the comments section!
No comments:
Post a Comment