Been busy of late, not a lot of time to think, much less write. I found a great little article in Touchstone, where one John Parker writes some gentle and prodding thoughts in his Guide for the Cineplexed, Parker is an Orthodox Priest, but obviously has some evangelical influence in his past. One small point that immediately stuck out is that while so many megachurches are meeting in theaters, warehouses, theaters, schools and anyplace else that will hold lots of people and won't feel too "churchy", almost everyone wants to get married in a place that feels - like a church. The church in which he once served, went so far as to construct a "wedding chapel" precisely because of this conundrum. "Until now, this church has never had a place 'suitable' for 'that special day.' Who wants to get married on a stage? In a warehouse? In a theater? "
The reason for the "neutral" atmosphere of the seeker service is to make the service comfortable and inviting for the "unchurched". And in America, not only have the inherently "religous" trappings been removed, but also all symbols that smack of authority. We are egalitarian, at least in the image we try to present. But I think Parker puts his finger on the real issue that seeker churches have maybe not considered fully enough.
Indeed, St. Paul taught that we should become all things to all people, that by all means we may save some. To the Jews as a Jew in order to save the Jews, to the Gentiles as a Gentile to save the Gentiles, to the Romans as a Roman . . . (cf. 1 Cor. 9:20–22).
But he was speaking of evangelism, not catechism, and certainly not worship. In these (marketed) churches, Sunday morning has at once a very distinct audience and none at all. The gathered are at once considered faithful and seeker, saved and lost. It is evident in the preaching, and more evident in the growing numbers of churches that invite “anyone who loves God and is drawn to Jesus” to Communion—baptized or not, believer or not.
So the problem of the seeker service as that it tries to serve two very different purposes - to provide identity and community for the saved, and to avoid particular identity and exclusive community for the sake of the lost. To be focused on God in worship, and focused on the needs of the seeker at the same time.
A former pastor of mine tried very sincerely to make the case that worship can be for both the seeker and the believer simultaneously and had a lot of biblical references to make the case. It was at that point that I really started to ponder whether that was really true.
Understand that I have absolutely no problem with outreach events that go to great lengths to attract people from outside the church. I'm a child of the Jesus Movement, the beginnings of CCM, the coffee house craze. In seeker oriented outreach events, food, fun, creative communication styles, even secular music with a solid thematic and "thinking" purpose have a place as far as I am concerned.
But what about worship? What about catechesis? Here, the goal is different, the purpose different. Worship is about humbly bowing before God according to a pattern established in the Old Covenant and redesigned in the new. And Christian education needs to cover the deep things of theology and discipleship, matters which unbelievers, we are told, cannot grasp because the Holy Spirit has not yet removed the veil. Parker continues...
The marketed church confuses Sunday worship and catechism with evangelism and outreach. What is the difference? Mere Christian Sunday worship has always been for the Christian community (the baptized) to offer thanks to God, to sing his praise, and to feed on the Word. Evangelism has been done by conversation in the marketplace, preaching in the public square, but even more, simply by the witness of increasingly holy lives.
Could it be that churches should continue to do creative outreach events - but should separate those events from their worship and Christian Education programs? A simple idea, but maybe a valid one.
No comments:
Post a Comment