Originally posted April 15, 2012, at Reluctant Xtian. Republished with permission of the author.
Spare me the hip.
You do not do church “differently” just because you meet in someone’s home. Or because you meet at a time other than Sunday morning. Or because you sing songs that aren’t considered hymns.
You do not do church differently because you wear hipster glasses, or you wear a T-shirt and jeans.
In fact, you do church just as church has always been done. Churches have always met in people’s homes — and that eventually grew into meeting in cathedrals and large buildings because, well, your living room isn’t super comfortable with more than nine in it, let alone 25.
Churches have always worshiped on different days: sometimes Saturday evenings, sometimes Wednesday evenings, sometimes three times a day, sometimes nine times a day! It’s not new; it’s ancient.
Churches have always sung a variety of songs, some contextual and some more reflective of their ancestors. Ancient Christians sang new songs, ancient Jewish songs and then some new Christian songs to ancient Jewish music. You could say the same of any church you go in today. “Amazing Grace” done on an electric guitar comes to mind.
I would argue, however, that this trend of church songs having only one theme (some variation of “Jesus loves me personally” or “God is awesome”) is fairly recent (within the last 70 years). That newness, though, doesn’t make it different, I think it should invite us to evaluative questions like, “Is this really the best we can do in expressing our thoughts about God in song” or “Is God other than awesome? Is Jesus more than just for me?”
It’s clear those questions aren’t being asked in many circles. Please, someone, ask those questions. Mumford and Sons is writing songs with more theological depth than most anyone in the world of Christian Community Music. (Gungor is creating some good stuff, but they often rely quite heavily on male stereotypes in their depiction of God.)
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”?
Spare me the hip.
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 I think Christians and churches should be asking themselves is: Are the symbols and mediums we use deep in meaning? Do they reflect a fullness that exemplifies the fullness of God?
How about we spend our time on that rather than spend time trying to convince people that we “do church differently.”
Don’t do church differently. Tell the story. Invite people into a relationship with the God shown through the Christ.
And turn off the advertising machine. It’s not different. And although it tries to be hip, it is not.
Find a link to Tim Brown’s blog Reluctant Xtian at Lutheran Blogs.
You might also want to read:
Celtic worship service
Which mat is at your door?
How do we reach unchurched people?
Tim, I offer a plain, simple, basic "thanks" in response.
And here is another thanks in response.
Here is another thanks in response to your thoughts.
I am not a fan of hip hop however I believe the church needs to continually seeking to be historical and contextual in an ever changing cultural context. This can result in some pretty poor examples of what it means to be church but can also be the first step toward positive change and reaching out to those not connected with a faith community in a manner that speaks to them. I see music as I do language. If one is going to minister to a particular ethnic community it seems important to speak the language. Many in our current culture do not speak our worship language and therefore are prone to reject the message as being irrelevant as well. I applaud attempts by the church to reach out and I applaud failures at those attempts as at least trying.
I say, "Bravo to this post!"
This might be the most disappointing article/blog on worship I’ve read in some time.
Which is sad, because there is a lot of truth in what you say.
Let’s start with the opening line, “Spare me the hip.”
You might not like what people do with worship; you might like even less the “WHY” they give for how they do worship, BUT…
You don’t get to take all of those people, cram them into the same box, and announce their motivation for doing what they “do” with worship. (I.e., that they are trying to be “hip.”)
It’s arrogant. It’s an enormous generalization, and the fact that it is slightly entertaining does not make it right.
Go to www.elca.org. (And, yes, my guess is that you’ve already done this.) Look at the five or six Lutheran congregations closest to you. Then look at their online parochial reports.
What will you see? Well, if you go down to the part that reports “attendance,” I’m wagering that you will see that it is normative for a typical ELCA congregation to have experienced at 20% decline in attendance in the last ten years.
Many, many have experienced greater declines. Thirty percent, 40%, and more…
We are more than a denomination in decline. We are disappearing.
And so some, because they love their churches, and because they love the grace proclaimed by Lutheranism, have tried to do things a little “differently.”
For the most part, they have been pounded in this process, offered little help by pastors and congregations, and made to feel that—if they dare to sing a song that’s not in a hymnbook already sitting in a pew—they might as well leave and go elsewhere.
You judge, quite harshly, those who seek change in this reality. You accuse them of wanting to be “hip,” even as it is quite obvious that the way we are doing church now is not working.
Given this reality, it’s both unfair and unproductive to trumpet the idea that “those who want to change/save the church” just want to be “hip.” Many of these individuals simply want to save their churches in a time when simple statistics, and life experience, demonstrate that their churches are dying.
Next, you appeal to the history of Christianity and liturgical practice to show why the “hipsters” you are regaling “ain’t so hip.”
You’re right (I’ve read a liturgy book—several, actually.). A function of the robe in liturgy is to minimize the “individuality” of the presider/preacher.
You’ve left out, however, the evidence that in history, when the robes of the Roman Empire where changed to the shorter, “Greek” style robes, the clergy refused to heighten the hems. It seems (egad!) that the clergy desired to not follow the fashion, but rather cling to the established “holy hemline.”
In other words, “We’re not like you. We’re set apart.”
So…human ego works it’s way into the clergy. And the clergy, desiring to show that they were different, made sure that the difference was well established. They might have been interchangeable—with other clergy—but they certainly weren’t interchangeable with the likes of a lay person. (Especially with those knees showing!)
You also decry the theologically shallow tunes the “hipsters” (your label, not mine) utilize in their services. To emphasize this point, you look to “Mumford and Sons” and the songs they are writing which, while coming from the secular world, display more theological depth than almost any of these pieces. (Quick note—this is not a new development, go back and listen to your James Taylor, Peter Gabriel, U2, etc., etc…)
But, where have the Lutherans been in the revolution of hymn writing that has occurred in the last 20 years? Here’s where—nowhere! We have clung to the organ, clung to tradition, and we have created a system that refuses to teach those who would create solid, theological, Lutheran/Christian hymns on guitar and other instruments the basic tenants of solid hymnody.
Go to the website of the Association of Lutheran Church Musicians. You can get back to me on how many guitars are pictured there (I did find one), or on any mention of “contemporary hymnody” that might be there as well.
The sad truth is there is a systemic prejudice in the ELCA against worship change—a prejudice that is active both locally and, I fear, on the national level. And the truth is, those who try to change this are often flailing in the wind without the guidance of those who could actually help them: pastors and other leaders of our church.
Your main point, stripped of diatribe, is that people who are claiming to do worship “differently” really aren’t.
Fine. Good! You could have just said that without being condescending. That would have been useful, in fact.
Instead, you created an article that will be used as ammunition by those who want to thwart (and belittle) worship change of any kind. Even though many who are trying to implement such change merely desire to bring a Lutheran interpretation of the gospel to their communities.
It was mean. It was unnecessary. And it basically said to those who want to try and help our church, “Don’t do it.”
After all, we Lutherans are too smart for that, right?
I get that you are a “reluctant” Christian. That’s pretty cool.
But as you’ve pointed out to those who have attempted worship change (only to find they’ve done what has been historically done before), being a reluctant Christian is neither new nor unusual. We all, as I know deeply, have our reluctance.
However, most of our reluctance likely comes from the actions of other Christians. As Gandhi said (paraphrased), “I love your Christ; it’s Christians I have a problem with.”
I don’t know why you are a “reluctant” Christian. But this article, if anything, made me even more “reluctant” in my faith.
You have a good message and are a good writer. Be a little more encouraging and understanding. Be a little more forgiving. Don’t fall into the trap of becoming one of those people who make you feel embarrassed when you admit that you are, in fact, a Christian.
Let folks experiment a bit—the world won’t end because of it. Promise.
Go forward with grace.
Peace.
Thanks Mike for the comments.
Just to be clear, we're innovative at my church, both in our more traditional service and our more contemporary service.
What I want to question is why there are parts of the church that want to claim that what they do is "different." I don't think its necessary; just do church.
I was neither trying to dissuade people, nor was I trying to be mean. I was trying to be sarcastic. That can be read as condescending; I get that.
I should also clarify that when I use the term "hip," I don't mean "hip-hop." I think the pic was the only one that was in public domain that used the word "hip." I love hip-hop church services when they're done well and when they're contextual.
And I also call for contextual worship change. Let's just be honest about it: we can change it, but it's not different.
I guess I could have written an article saying the same thing about high liturgical worship as it re-surges to popularity. I was not advocating for a worship style. High liturgy is not different, either. It's church.
Finally, I echo your call for new hymnody. We're at the baby stages of writing at my parish.
Do whats working, but call it what it is: church.
Sorry I'm way late to this party (I just found this post through a web search).
I get your point that "different" is just church, and I think we should be honest about the fact that it is all church. But I don't think the problem is people trying to be "hip." If the theological depth of Mumford and Sons were "just church," you'd hear those songs in more churches, rather than having a fight if CCM hits are brought in. There is much contemporary music with much more depth than either vapid praise songs or moldy hymns, but that is "different than" our tradition so we don't use them.
If we recognized people meeting in homes and pubs as "church" people doing so might not feel the need to see themselves as different. If we want to view drums and chant and hip-hop as all just church, then we need to let people use them creatively.
I don't think the issue is people wanting to be "hip" or "different." I think we have to look at the tendency to look at certain things as "normal" and the barriers to doing anything "different than" that.