Faith Works 7-22-17

Faith Works 7-22-17

Jeff Gill

 

Traditional means what, exactly?

__

 

Contemporary, traditional, blended.

 

These are still words that tangle up congregations from time to time.

 

As I try to note from time to time, my own perspective is Protestant Christian, and while I try to be relatively well informed about other Christian bodies, my understanding of interfaith issues may be better than most, but it's still far behind where it could be.

 

So I note sheepishly that I just don't know if Buddhist or Islamic groups have their own version of the "worship wars" controversies, where musical selections and informality of the program tug different groups within the same tradition in very different directions.

 

Judaism has seen over a century of tensions resulting in the Orthodox, Ultra-orthodox, Hasidic, Reform, Conservative, and Reconstructionist Jewish groups. They all share certain elements around the Sabbath and how to observe it, but their willingness to bend tradition runs from not at all to just about anything goes.

 

Buddhism is a universe of complexity in itself, with three major traditions of teaching (depending on whom you ask) and within those schools of practice that can be very modern in their tone, or the next assembly down the road of that same school working to create the sense that you're in a cavern in Asia, from décor to language to program outlines.

 

So when I hear people talk in Midwestern varieties of mainline Protestantism about how they worry about people making changes in "timeless" traditions of worship, I have to resist a temptation to roll my eyes. Because it would be rude, not because they're not wrong.

 

The enduring problem is that when we've grown up with certain traditions and seen only them at work our whole lives, it's amazing how easy it is to assume this is what Peter, James, and Paul did back in the day.

 

In fact, we've all – Presbyterian and Episcopal and Baptist and Methodist and Lutheran, et cetera – seen our polity let alone our liturgy change quite a bit over the last century.

 

My own particular Protestant tradition had a major rift a century ago over the use of organ music as to whether that was appropriate for corporate worship or not. Sociologically, the relative cost of pipe organs had something to do with the division, as those who could afford them said they were surely fine, while those who couldn't argued that they weren't right for anyone. There were also some practical and theological arguments together as to whether corporate worship was improved by the loud and overpowering voice of the organ overwhelming the congregational singing, and when you add in a question of Biblical essentialism to the debate, you had a split in the making.

 

Meanwhile, today we hear many of the same arguments about praise bands and electronic amplification.  All of which go along with a contemporary Christian music style, but doesn't address the overall loss of interest in group singing or musical participation . . . I've led singing at church and Scout camps for over 40 years, and I can tell you that it's just plain harder to get people to sing than it used to be. Period.

 

Which is where I think the "traditional, contemporary, blended" distinctions miss the fact that while these categories are themselves, rightly or wrongly, controversial, there are intersections with other social issues that can confuse the issue for church leaders and worshipers alike.

 

Especially when it comes to those who are (for lack of a better term) un-churched, who may be seeking a faith community but have no experience with them in general, it's important to understand that folks do come in off the street with not so much a hostility as an absolute indifference to things like singing out loud. "Oh, you sing out loud? That's nice, I'm not gonna." It's not personal, it's just totally not their experience. Meanwhile, long-time Christians tell me they worry about screens and "losing the ability to hear the church sing hymns in four part harmony!"

 

Um, when did you last hear that?

 

I do agree: we lose something in Christian worship when we don't have the worship songs sung as a corporate, communal experience of common confession and united faith. It IS a loss, I agree. But we also have to understand the assumptions people walk in with, and those are often more passive, more internal, more absorptive with the processing happening elsewhere than during the church service itself.

 

Engagement is still important to them, but not necessarily in long responsive readings or lots of singing. I'll have more on that subject next week!

 

Jeff Gill is a writer, storyteller, and pastor in Licking County; he loves to sing the bass line on "Softly and Tenderly"; tell him about your experiences with worship style and outreach at knapsack77@gmail.com or @Knapsack on Twitter.