I try to avoid serious posts, because I worry about sounding like I'm taking myself too seriously. But I'm going to deviate from my M.O. today because I'm mulling over some ideas that might be of interest to some of you who are church afficionadoes like me.
The beautiful and the difficult thing about being in a church like the HOP is the fact that it is in major need of definition. This fact, plus my own personal discontent with the state of my own faith, has had me thinking a lot about my idea of the Perfect Church. I've had a hard time nailing it down because the things that I love about various church traditions seem at times to be mutually exclusive. For example:
Comfortable vs. Reverent.
We love attending Saturday night church with our friends in a very relaxed envioronment. We wear jeans, sing contemporary songs, and listen to a practical message that is delivered by a man who wears jeans and props his Bible up on a music stand. It doesn't feel like "church," it feels like a bunch of people getting together to worship and talk about Jesus. There is no stuffiness, no pretention, no pressure. I love that.
On the other hand, I remember about two churches that I have visited that have been very meaningful to me precisely because of the reverence and formality of the service. I think that there is something very beautiful in coming into a place that is quiet and holy, participating in repsonsive reading, reciting creeds, marking time by the church calendar, and singing ancient and beautiful songs without any drums or electric guitars. Those services have made me feel small in my place, and reminded me that God, and even the Christian tradition, is so much greater than my own experience. I love that, too.
Relevant vs. Transcendent
It's a paradox that is similar to the one above. Is church about bringing God to our level, or bringing us to God's level? I have been thinking about a quote I've heard recently: "We often read the Bible for God's truth, and try to apply it to our lives. What we need to do is read the Bible to see God's truth, and try to apply our lives to it." Do I need a service where God meets me "Just as I am," or do I need a place that helps me to see beyond who I am to a reality that is greater?
Traditional vs. Stuck in the Mud
As a fairly traditional person, it surprises me that I rebel against church tradition like I do. In our church, I feel like screaming because we don't feel the freedom to try new things and find creative solutions to problems. Are the walls pink? Let's try beige. Is "the invitation" actually a useful part of the service? If not, let's change it to better use that time. Our own church still operates according to the rules of Billy Sunday and the sawdust trail, and I feel stifled.
And yet, the elements that I want the freedom to play with are even older traditions: liturgy, the Apostles' Creed, kneeling to pray and reading prayers of the saints. I don't want to create a church that is so contemporary that it is disconnected from 2000 years of rich history.
And then, of course, there is the million dollar question, the "Mike Harris" head-scratcher: These are great ideas, but what will they look like in my church on Sunday morning? How do we bring these lofty notions into the practical world that we live in?
I don't know the answer, but I'm looking for it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Come on, people!
I think the dilemma we feel is the timeless one of trying to reconcile God's transcendent, majestic, sovereign Self, with His nearness and the personal relationship we can experience through the Holy Spirit because of Christ. Both are true and equally important. It seems that some churches emphasize the one, but neglect the other. I think the nice compromise is to have the Sunday morning more formal ("Temple worship") and the other gatherings during the week more relational ("Tabernacle"). My church is pretty much tabernacle all the time, but I would enjoy a little more of the rich tradition you mentioned. (I won't be getting it, so it's a moot point.) And for those who resist the liturgical elements, perhaps a time of explaining their significance and history would help make them more palatable to those who are unschooled in such traditions?
I think a lot of modern church goers dont really know anything about how nice all of the traditional things can be. I visited a baptist church in Waco that is more liturgical and it was very holy and serene, but I didn't really even know that existed before visiting there. So I think part of the key to people's resistance to that is that they don't understand it and feel it is something that should be left to other denominations or catholocism.
Ugh, I hate it when people say that.
I think it's really about what we're used to. John and I grew up in pretty traditional church settings. Therefore, it took some getting used to going to church in jeans on Saturday night. But now we love it. And there are still things about my traditional upbringing that I cherish and even miss. Although I think it would take some adjustment to go back to a church like that. Again, it's what we're used to...
And I think Carol has a point that it also about what we know. The more we know about a particular worship format, the more likely we are to embrace it.
Post a Comment