I subscribe to a newsletter from the Alban Institute, which
is part of the Duke Divinity School. Every week or so, they send a group of
short articles which follow a particular theme. In the most recent issue there
was an article that caught my attention about encouraging innovation in
congregations.
Now, I should tell you that I get a little irritated by some
of these articles. I think it bothers me that there are these people who get
paid to write these articles that seem to introduce a concept, but never really
offer any real ways to implement, or even experiment with what they’re talking
about. I also have to admit that I’m a little jealous that these people are
getting paid to write about ideas that my colleagues and I have had for years.
But, I digress…
Anyway, this idea of innovation is an interesting one. And
while I think this particular article “Nurturing Creative Church Cultures” by
Carol Howard Merritt brings up some really good points, again, I feel like it’s
a bit irresponsible to open the can of worms, and not offer any practical
wisdom about how to deal with it.
Effectively, the article briefly talks about the challenge
that mainline denominations, like our own, have in adapting and remaining vital
within the changing milieu of our culture. Merritt rightly talks about the
disparity between the need to continue to reinvent ourselves as the Church to
continue to be vital, as well as remaining faithful to the rich heritage that
we’ve received in mainline denominations. On the other hand, she not only
doesn’t explore what such an approach would look like, she even quotes Diana
Butler Bass (a person I’m not fond of) about the difference between ‘tradition’
and ‘custom.’
Traditions, as Bass describes them, are grounded in the
historical, and have some “ancient and universal source of authority and
meaning (see Merritt’s Article).” Customs, however, are then how traditions are
lived out in a community. Merritt uses the analogy that tradition asserts that
we use bread for communion, whereas custom is how the bread is cut…
Anyway, given all of my aforementioned caveats, I still feel
that the article brings up some very good questions. Are we short-changing
ourselves in our efforts to evangelize and grow our congregations because we’ve
just accepted that the decline in mainline denominations are a by-product of
culture, and therefore beyond our control? Do we believe that we either have to
give-up all that we love in our tradition in an effort to accommodate innovation
and growth in the Church?
Well, as far as I’m concerned, I still believe the Episcopal
Church has a whole lot to offer the world on behalf of the Church of God.
What’s more, I think other mainline denominations do as well—and it may not
require giving everything up in an effort to become vital.
Here’s what I think. It seems to me that the lure of
sensationalism, the kind that was popular in Evangelical denominations in the
1980’s and 1990’s, is not sustainable. Not only do emerging statistics support
this view, but we have only to look at the way in which the demographic for
many of these types of congregations shift constantly. There is very little
identity, or stability in the congregation to root an individual to both the
community and the Church’s mission, because (after all) the ethos is all about being
“seeker sensitive.” In other words, these places are tee-ball, they can
encourage you to learn how to hold a bat, hit a stationary ball, and run the
bases—but it isn’t the same as learning to play baseball. Eventually anyone who
wants to learn baseball has to join a team that has a pitcher, counts strikes,
and doesn’t have everyone’s parents cheering for both teams. Simply put, we all
have to grow and learn, and we can only go so far with very basic Christianity.
This is where mainline denominations come into the picture.
See, we’ve had a lot of history in mainline denominations or
clarifying who we are, what we’re about. We’ve all been around long enough that
we’ve grown out of the “adolescence” of Christian faith, and are okay with
ambiguities, paradox, and even some uncertainty. Our base is broad enough so as
to include arch-conservatives, and preeminent liberals which allow our politics
to be as diverse and complex as everything else in life. We even have
disparagingly different understandings in our theology—and that can be the case
in a single denomination!
The point is, what we have to offer is space not only to
grow in faith, but space and resource through our heritage of history and
tradition to explore our faith in a serious, even mature way.
However, what I think still holds us back from being the
kinds of churches that do draw seekers of faith is our inability to discern the
difference between ‘tradition’ and ‘custom.’ I won’t even broach the topic of
evangelism at this point—that is a whole different can of worms. But this
understanding of custom and tradition is an important matter to consider.
Here’s my point. I’ve seen, even experienced, places where
chant, the Daily Offices, even contemplative worship liturgies were enough to
draw both young people, and older adults to the same worship service. I’ve
experienced the “brightest and best” minds of the Emergent Church Movement
(when it was going strong) talk about the incongruity between the Church as it
is, and the needs of the average person… And imagine my surprise when
everything that was being postulated as a solution to this were all things that
have been part of the Episcopal Church’s heritage for generations! The trouble
is that most of us aren’t aware of that fact, and are really not that
interested in learning about, either. Perhaps because we believe the illusion
that innovation can’t possibly have anything to do with our history or
heritage. What a short-sighted and dangerous mistake to make, I think.
It seems to me that if we learn about our history—not only
the Episcopal Church, but all of Church History—we stand to learn about times
in history just like what we’re experiencing today. What’s more, I would even
imagine that we would begin to see the ways in which the people of God
stepped-up to the challenges that were presented to them, and met them in
creative ways. I would even imagine that some of their creativity was rooted in
what they had received from the generations which preceded them. This is how
the Church has survived for almost 2,000 years.
Look, the Church isn’t in danger of dying because we’re not
playing into the idea that we need to become a service industry. We’re not
losing membership because we’re not willing to be creative, or novel as the
case may be… We’re declining because we aren’t willing to learn and reflect on
who we are, who we have been, and who we will always be: First, Christ’s own
forever, and after that a Body of people who want to learn what that means, and
how to be “Christ’s own” more faithfully. We’ve done it for ages, and will
continue to do it—but we have to get it straight that our local customs, or
even our “tastes” about worship, liturgy, or music are not what define us as
Episcopalians, and certainly not Christians. Our time is short, and our need to
discern what it means to be vital is crucial. Now is the time to be
innovative—yes. But, we don’t have the luxury of trying to duplicate the things
that Evangelicals did decades ago, and are now no longer working. So, what are
the traditions that we can draw from that will help us to faithfully invite
people to know the love of God in Jesus Christ, and what are the customs that
are impediments to exploring all of the generations-worth of creative resources
available to us?
Carol Howard Merritt’s Article “Nurturing Creative Church
Cultures” can be found here.
