![sfs_sweetlen_intro[1]](http://onthebemainballston.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/sfs_sweetlen_intro1.jpg?resize=155%2C232 "sfs_sweetlen_intro[1]")
The first day of the American Baptist Churches Biennial in Pasadena, CA began Thursday. The major events of the day were special General Board events and other smaller group meetings. The biennial was still coming together yesterday as vendors and workers set up rooms and displays. I continue to discuss the “Missionary Situation” with many of my friends, colleagues, and other ABC attendees. In addition, I learned that one of bloggers on my blogroll, Tripp, who is a pastor of an ABC church in Chicago area, is here. I was able to be in contact with Tripp. The wonders of the globally connected world.
Day one of the Biennial, which was mainly pre-biennial events, primarily consisted of Leonard Sweet’s speaking session (over 3 hours) in which he contrasted the old world vs. the new. His phase for this contrast is the Gutenberg world (pre-1973) and the Google world (post 1973). He picks 1973 as a point of division because that is the year the internet was invented. Sweet contends that we as churches and pastors must understand that we are the google world. The google world is a world of Twitter, Facebook, Myspace, and the internet. The google world is a world of information in the form of images. The Gutenberg world is a world of texts and books.
Sweet related this concept to how churches must understand the world is changing and we must adapt. The most striking connection he made with this concept was to worship. He did not advocate for contemporary worship or innovative worship, but rather whatever worship a churches does it must be epic. He spoke of his congregation and how it was full of 20 and 30 year olds worshipping in high-high liturgical worship. He encouraged the attendees to see worship as God centered, but to think about how culture is highly image based.
Great stuff here. More to come,
4 Comments
I just can’t follow this direction the church seems to be moving. If Sweet is right, he is essentially combining the two trends in liturgy that seem most backwards to me.
The first is the movement toward higher liturgy, which I interpret as more ritual, more theater, more mysticism. As a late boomer, what makes church palatable is a focus on living in the world in a right-minded way, bringing God’s simple (that is, simple to understand but hard to live) message of love out to others. The more simple and clean a service is, the better it works for me. I grew up Catholic and transitioned into the ABC because I really liked the straight-forward way we approached Sunday morning. If Sweet is right, Catholicism should enjoy a significant rebound.
Add to that the need to be “epic”. Without context, I can only take that at face value. Epic makes me think large and dramatic. Isn’t that what the megas have been doing for twenty years or so? The image supersedes the substance. I understand the marketing aspects of the megas – low barriers to entry get large crowds pre-disposed to making the next step to commitment. It seems so cynical to me.
We wrestle with this at our church. I am not sure how this transition can go if worship becomes false and annoying to me in order to attract attention in this internet age. I had such high hopes that religion was moving to a more enlightened phase, but instead, I fear we are retreating to mystery and that pecular mixture of fear and awe that keeps the masses enthralled.
Sweet was saying that anything you do, make it epic. Not drama for the sake of drama, but making worship exciting. Robert Webber has articulated for years what Sweet said. Reading a few Webber books makes one to come to understand how to merge the liturgical with the commentary: “Ancient-Future” worship. There is a great deal of symbolism that we Baptists have thrown out with reaction against Anglo-Catholic thought and worship. There is a difference between having a “ritual” and being ritualistic. I think that is where Catholics can lose interested. Our congregation is moving to blended worship that seeks to use all forms of authentic worship and the response has been positive. Again, the people have to grow to learn and understand the “why” and “how” of blended worship. Another great book is “More than a Symbol : The British Baptist Recovery of Baptismal Sacramentalism” by Stanley K. Fowler. He traces what we have lost as Baptists and how we can get it back.
I couldn’t agree more that worship needs to be stimulating beyond the assumption that Jesus himself should be excitement enough. For many people, symbols and the meditative power of repetition are exciting. For me however, these things carry weight that I can’t spin positively for myself. They bore me and they open more doubt than they resolve. It is not a rejection of Catholicism as such. It is more of a shedding of what I see as impedements to our access to that which we know rather than embracing that which we do not. I would rather accept the mystery as unknowable and move on. What can I do to make the world better knowing that God has chosen to not reveal himself to me? The teachings of Jesus lead to many paths that all shed light. Why focus on the darkness?
Thanks for the Fowler reference. I may track it down.
If have been to a Tazie worship service, then you can experience the power in historical-type worship. I hear you and I’m not trying to convince you, but I have found the writings of Webber, Foster, Willard, and Fowler to be freeing in their approach. But, hey, if liturgy constrains you, by all means, do your own thing. I would never hold back someone from experiencing God in other God-centered worshipful ways. Peace to you brother.