Stepping back in time at the Springfield, Mass., restaurant, The Student Prince.
Originally posted June 28, 2011, at Pastor Keith Anderson. Republished with permission of the author.
People sometimes drive many miles to church on Sunday — but that’s not the only commute they have to make.
They also have to make a cultural commute.
They commute from our present-day culture to a church culture largely created 30, 40 or 50 years ago.
This kind of cultural commuting hit home for me on a recent trip to Springfield, Mass., and the Student Prince German restaurant.
Walking down Main Street, you immediately notice that downtown Springfield is a pretty racially and culturally diverse place. However, when you turn the corner at the Student Prince, what you see is a cluster of white people — more white people than we had seen on our whole walk down Main Street — milling around the front door.
Many were being helped by the valet service — even though it was a quiet day downtown and there was plenty of free parking.
Founded in 1935, the Student Prince is a downtown Springfield institution — and when we walked in, it was like going back to 1935.
German pottery, woodcarving and beer steins line the walls and fill every shelf. Men with ties and aprons staff the bar. It was totally old-school. And it was really cool — except that it was like entering an entirely different culture with a totally different group of people.
As we sat there sipping our delicious German beer, my friend Angela and I had the same exact thought: Hey, this is just like church! It is painfully true.
The cultural commute
When people drive into our parking lots and enter our buildings, they largely have to leave their cultural reference points, experiences, struggles and questions at the door.
For those of us who didn’t grow up in this church culture, it is a disorienting experience — like waking up and finding ourselves in Pleasantville — or the Student Prince. As my friend Elizabeth recently tweeted:
“Really, really trying not to quit going to church, but, honestly, it ain’t easy.”
Not always, but very often, this is the cultural commute that happens:
- from increasingly diverse neighborhoods and workplaces to a homogeneous congregation;
- from flat-screen TVs and smart phones to no technology at all, except for a decades-old sound system;
- from an increasing awareness and appreciation for the gifts of different ethnicities to a focus on one particular ethnic tradition;
- from everyday conversational language to specialized church language;
- from digital media and contemporary art to images, art and banners that are decades old;
- from contemporary, shared, cultural reference points to stories, events, images, music and movies that happened before we were born; and
- from a majority of society supportive of gay rights to conflict or silence about it in the church.
And the crazy thing is that fewer and fewer of us in the church have actually grown up in that church culture — but since that’s what church is supposed to be like, we support and participate in a church culture that’s not actually native to any of us! Why are we doing this!?
Reverse commute
We in the ELCA need to reverse this commute. Rather than have people commute back to us, we must commute to them. Let’s start by:
- incorporating present-day stories, images and cultural reference points in sermons, confirmation and adult education;
- bringing contemporary artwork into the space or inviting our congregation to create something together;
- dropping the specialized language and trying theology as story;
- celebrating all the cultures present in the congregation — and not just at Pentecost!
- experimenting with technology and seeing what happens;
- having worship in other places — homes, pubs, coffee shops, parks, thereby letting real life surround and inform our worship, study and conversation; and
- ask a group of teenagers what they are watching, reading or texting.
What is your cultural commute like when you go to church? How are you, as a congregational leader, reversing the commute in your congregation?
Find a link to Keith Anderson’s blog Pastor Keith Anderson at Lutheran Blogs.
The church celebrates Christ, not human culture. We advocate his way of life, not any socio-political agenda. If all the church has to offer is more of the same thing that people already have in their lives elsewhere, then what makes the church unique? Marrying the church with contemporary culture is just as couter-productive as not changing as the culture changes. The church will always be a little behind the curve. If people only come to church because the art and music are so cool (and they are never as cool in church as in the secular world, no matter how cool we think we are), then they are there for the wrong reason. Christ is the only reason. He transforms culture. He is not bound to any cultural norm, even the contemporary. On our cultural commute with all our new friends, let's not leave forget Jesus and leave him standing at the bus stop!
I think there's a balance here. We tend to lose 2 things: connection to today's culture or Christ crucified, and it doesn't need to be that way. The challenge facing our church is not 'how are we relevant to today's society', but 'how do we proclaim Christ to today's society'. If it takes digital media, then we need to embrace digital media. If digital media distracts, we need to ditch it. Same with the various cultural traditions/ethnic diversity/etc.
I wonder if we can apply Darwin's theory of evolution here. Will the "unfit" survive? Is the church evolving into a future extinct species? Do other churches recognize our species, or are we a different species all together? Has our DNA changed to the point where we can no longer produce fruit with our sister species? At some point will the other birds of a feather not want to flock together? I think there is at least a little evidence that since the 15th century, the church, as a single species, has diversified to the point where there are now separate and distinct species that have less and less, if not nothing in common with the parent species. The question is; will it be better to evolve into another species to survive, or do we have better chances with our original DNA?
The church has never been a single species. If anything, we actually have less diversity today than was present in the first few centuries AD. For example, how many non-Trinitarian Christians are out there today?
The church made an effort to become one species in the year 325 (the Nicene Creed), because of the evolution that had taken place since Christ. This effort was mostly effective until the 15th century when the reformers want to get back to their original 325ad species the catholic church had evolved from. It has been "Katie bar the door" since then.
It was a bitter / sweet pill to swallow. To get back to our original species, it called for the freedom of interpretation, without being burned at the stake. Now enter the cults.
The church was a single species at Pentecost.
How many non-Trinitarian churches were there before 325ad? Where were their temples? What was there name? Who were there leaders? If you are talking about the agnostics, I wouldn't call them an official distinct species. How many non-Trinitarian churches after 325ad and apply all the same questions. Were they a true distinct species, or were they just evolving? Are they extinct now?
Peter & Davebob: Why not just study Church History -- focusing on original sources? (This is the Information Age, after all.)
I don't have one single tiny problem with church being special, different, a respite from the shiny and overwhelming world we find ourselves in.
There are many non-trinitarian churches today, non-trinitarian Messianics, Oneness Pentacostals, a number of offshoots from the SDA just to mention a few. Additionally, if one were to add in Nestorianism with non-trin beliefs, the Persian churches while very small in number are dwarfed by non-denominational churches in the US, many of whom embrace Nestorianism even though they may not necessarily label themselves as such. Going a bit further, many of Origens teachings seem to be on a rebound, again primarily in the non-denominational sector.
Getting back to the subject at hand, I dont know how many organist's I've heard repeat the same thing that Keith's friend Elizabeth tweeted. If it weren't for their love of playing music, they'd bail as the cultural divide is just too wide. Likewise, I have heard the reverse such as what Chemnitz mentioned as concerns being left behind. There doesn't seem to be an easy answer in this.
Ron: I respectfully disagree. There is an easy answer.
@Karen V I'm interested in your easy answer. I'm including a bit more commentary to see where I'm coming from, such that we don't talk past one another.
The traditional answer has been to be try to include those who self exclude and make some level of attempt to compassionately include them. Case in pt, when mid-western churches divided by language, (which was needed a 100+ yrs ago) transitioned to English, more than a few folks experienced significant loss. Norwegian, German, Polish liturgy etc brought much comfort to them. It was a connection to a home that the rest of their non-church environment had long left behind... in effect, culture, and eventually their church left them behind. Most churches made the transition gradually, alternating services etc, but ultimately some chose to self-exclude as it was just too great a change.
It would be easy to say, if they put Christ first, the cultural / language issue should not be a big deal... but I think the issue goes much further than that.
Keith,
thanks for the post. It's clear that our language and actions in the church set us apart. Your suggestion dropping the specialized language and trying theology as story is helpful.
Karen & Ron
Lutheranism past, present, and (God willing) future depends on the ability of the Holy Spirit to use our words and stories (as imperfect as they are) to convey the Word of God.
We are challenged, as communicators sharing Christ's story, to learn the language and culture of the people we are trying to reach with the Word. We might not choose to adopt all things from the culture as God honoring methods of communication, but it's wise to consider the meaning that our hearers might possibly derive from our actions and words.
We communicate not only through spoken words and our actions, choices of art, and even architecture can convey meaning that we either intend or don't intend. Being aware of what we are say and doing might help us better choose how to convey Christ's message.
Pax
John
All right, Ron -- I meant what I said, and I will not only give you an easy answer, I will give you a one-word answer: Truth. (BTW, my great-grandfather, a pastor in NY State, was called "The Father of English Lutheranism" because he convinced his fellow Germans who said: "We earn money in English, but we pray in German" to also pray in English.)
The human heart longs for several things -- love, peace... and truth. If a church offers truth, it will be successful in the long run. Jesus said a house built on rock will stand; a house built on sand will fall. Now on many blogs, I have asked the question: Who or what interprets Scripture? Everything hinges on the answer to this question: the Real Presence in the Eucharist and "the prayers" -- the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist. There must be Truth here... otherwise the "house" will fall.
Karen,
I agree with you very much. There is truth and his name is Jesus. He is the way, the truth, and life.
We are at best beggars at his table unworthy recipients of unearned favor: Grace. No human or human institution has authority to replace or supercede him. He is the truth, He is the Word of God really present in the bread and wine in His body and blood.
Because of Jesus presence I do not fear that the invisible church, the body of believers who serve and follow reguardless of denomination will fall away. The Spirit is at work today not in official denominations but as God wills calling, enlightening, and sanctifying.
thanks for your comments
John
davebob,
You've got your history a little mixed up. Constantine called the Council of Nicea because HE wanted Christianity to be unified in doctrine and practice. That didn't entirely work, as the later Council of Chalcedon showed, nor the dozen different heresies regarding Trinity. Donatism was another split in the church post-Nicea, and this all avoids the elephant in the room called the Great Schism. Also, the Reformers didn't aim to revert to Nicea, but back to Paul and his idea that it is Christ alone and only for salvation, and not adherence to any Laws, practices, etc. That's not to say Nicea isn't a faithful expression of Christianity, but that it's secondary instead of primary.
So, Peter, let me get this straight (so to speak). The Reformers went back to Paul -- but selectively? Who chooses how to interpret Scripture? Saint Paul said many things. Why are you only selecting his "Christ alone" passages? No one disagrees that we need Christ alone.
The Reformers stop at Luther, that is why we are Lutherans; at least that is what I've always been taught. Sadly, many people don't listen to the old teachings. Also, have any of you noticed the guy at exlutheran?
@Karen V I get the feeling you are looking for something like a Lutheran magisterium, and the ELCA really doesnt have much beyond the articles of faith (and as mentioned before, even those are subject to interpretation). The WELS folks otoh do have a quite rigid theology and set of fairly well developed and defined interpretations based upon scripture, the book of concord, and a number of theologians. Its probably the closest thing you could find if you are looking for absolutes. It should be noted that the vast majority of ELCA folks, even the more confessional/conservative leaning folks would likely find WELS beliefs problematic.
@Bob, I've run into any number of folks who espouse similar beliefs over the years. Much boils down to his belief that we make the choice to believe on our own apart from God. Such is then often mixed with a theology of glory... case in pt the websites he links to in his about page. Sadly, I've seen far too many folks that when their theology of glory falls apart, so does their entire faith structure. Otoh, planting seeds and prayer do work wonders. :)
Ron Amundson: You hit the nail on the head. A church, the Church, must have a "Magisterium" -- a body of followers of Christ in the line of Peter and the Apostles to decide doctrine. (Mt 16) Otherwise, the church will eventually collapse; and we are witnessing this in our time. Lutheranism has been built on a foundation of solid sand.
BTW, does Otoh mean "on the other hand"? Back in the old days, we used to say: "On the other hand... we have five fingers." This was very deep. ;-)
@Karen V There in lies one of our major differences, ie the keys of the church. Alas I referenced that before, so I'll just link to it here. Section 22-30 is a pretty decent explanation of the differences.
http://bookofconcord.org/treatise.php
As far as witnessing it in our time, yep, numbers are down, but I think the 87 mergers might have been a bit too much for some. The respective theologies and practices of the 3 predecessor bodies were pretty diverse in and of themselves. I actually find it pretty amazing that the ELCA has lasted as long as it has to say nothing of all the full communion partner agreements that have been made.
http://www.elca.org/Who-We-Are/Our-Three-Expressions/Churchwide-Organization/Office-of-the-Presiding-Bishop/Ecumenical-and-Inter-Religious-Relations/Full-Communion-Partners.aspx
Karen V.
Did you just give up your right to interpret scripture for yourself? Who is in the line of Peter? Are they blood lines or ……since there is no marriage of priests and all…. It must be by election…or whoever happens to be in the right place at the right time? How do the "KEYS" get passed down? What if there is an error... you know like a sexual predator? Do they still have the Keys? Will the church collapse with a break in the lineage? Where do the keys go? How do we prepare?
Karen,
They didn't selectively go back to Paul.
Catholic doctrine is not "Christ alone and only". It's Christ plus some Catholic doctrines. Among Christians, no one really disputes that Christ is the most important, but if anything else is necessary, it's no longer "Christ alone and only".
Davebob: I interpret Scripture for myself. Here's how I do it. Picture a little 3-legged stool. One leg is the actual Bible -- Hebrew and Greek. (I taught myself to read Hebrew & Greek when my kids were little, while I was waiting for the dryer to stop.) Also, I have accumulated dozens of Bibles, English and Spanish, because as everyone knows, a TRANSLATION IS AN INTERPRETATION.
The second leg on the stool is the Church. I call it Church/Tradition/Magisterium. I have many sins, but I am not so arrogant and stupid that I think I can interpret Scripture on my own.
The third leg is my conscience, reason and experience. I personally do not believe the Church should forbid Birth Control. This is my personal opinion. My husband and I (I am a widow) used birth control. I would never TEACH this or impose my view in any way on another person. That would be disobedient and breaking the Holy Unity of the Church. Do you understand???
The Line of Peter is his successors -- priests and bishops down to our time. And, yes, a "church" will collapse with a break in the lineage -- we are seeing this right before our eyes with the Episcopalians and the Lutherans.
Is this enough?
I can't disagree with your assessment on the Lutherans and the Episcopalians, that's for sure.
Keith,
Thanks for an insightful posting and a helpful metaphor for a real challenge. I've been deeply immersed in church culture my entire life, so it speaks me. But I can see that people who have never lived in it or who have been deeply hurt by it would not be eager to participate in it. Worship and witness always live in a culture ... but it doesn't have to be the one I lived in 40 years ago. Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
Marcus