Trending
Is Christianity inclusive or exclusive, and how is that reflected in our styles of worship?
Contemporary worship styles of worship seem to focus their presentations aimed at finding a theological and cultural lowest common denominator to attract and engage the greatest number of people; hence such styles of worship clearly indicate the inclusiveness of Christianity. As a result, in contemporary worship services there seems to be no need to be a Christian to understand almost everything that was said or sung. So why sing "Come Thou Fount of Every Blessing" when one does not know what it means to raise one's Ebenezer stone? Or what is the "double cure" song about in "Rock of Ages?”
While church leaders rightly want Sunday services to be accessible and inclusive, they should also be asking about the limits of this strategy. Ironically, a common complaint 30 years ago was that churches alienated visiting nonbelievers with too much Christian jargon and theology. But now it seems the impulse toward accommodating the surrounding culture has pushed churches into making the opposite mistake. Has a passion for inclusiveness deluded churches into supposing that doctrinal or liturgical particularity threatens their mission to a religiously pluralized world?
The apostolic and post-apostolic churches--those nearest to the New Testament era--took a different approach. Modeled after the Old Testament tabernacle, the church was where believers encountered the “Holy of Holies.” Thus worship could not be open to everyone. The churches of the third and fourth centuries observed what was called the disciplina arcana (the rule or practice of secrecy) with regard to worship gatherings. This was to ensure that only baptized Christians partook of the Lord’s Supper and confessed the church’s creed. Hippolytus, a third-century theologian, kept a list of vices and professions that would disqualify one from baptismal eligibility. In a great many churches, the un-baptized, even catechumens preparing for baptism, were dismissed before the church celebrated the Eucharist and confessed its creed.
Now I’m not suggesting that today’s churches dismiss the un-baptized in the middle of worship, or prevent non-Christians from walking through the doors. Still, it is instructive to see how the church’s “welcome” to the world was tempered by exclusionary safeguards to its identity and integrity, especially in the early centuries. If anything, the early church’s example cautions against tossing around the pearls of the gospel promiscuously, lest these treasures fall into unprepared hands. On this score Jesus’ words are stark: “Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs” (Matt. 7:6). Failure to preserve the uniqueness of Christian motives, insights and commitments jeopardizes both the meaning and holiness of the church’s life.
Gregory of Nyssa said it well: “Theology is not for just anyone” (Oratio 29). So perhaps we should simply thank God for contemporary worship style churches that are crowded and very active. No doubt a great many seekers (if there truly are seekers) are attracted to such worship styles for one reason or another: youth programs, live loud music, adult fellowship, emphasis on missions, etc. But despite the obvious passion for such, should we not struggle with the question: At what cost have contemporary worship styles purchased its sweeping adaptations to contemporary American society? I know throughout history the church has immersed itself within its cultural surroundings in order to present an effective witness. The argument for inclusiveness is that churches should not be averse to using secular techniques showcased in popular entertainment. After all, artistry and drama in the presentation of the sacred are said to resonate with younger generations.
However, it seems to me that a church service should not rely heavily on stimulating emotional highs. Instead of facilitating an encounter with the living God, the methods themselves become the overwhelming focus. It's been noted that over the last century a hallmark of American evangelicalism, has been its ready willingness to adapt its theological content to new media technologies and popular trends in the entertainment industry. But the medium is not the message; the message (the Word) must transcend whatever media are used to convey it.
Tailoring the message to personal styles can easily result in adapting the faith to one’s own needs. Instead of allowing the gospel to challenge us, we alter the historic faith to fit the trends of our age.
Our consumerist culture has co-opted many churches, creating a mall-like environment marked by splashiness and simplistic messages. When the church becomes essentially a purveyor of religious goods and services, it reinforces the believer’s own consumerist habits, allowing him to pick and choose according to taste or functionality. Inhaling from the cultural atmosphere a mania for unlimited choice, churches breathe out as many different programs as possible, looking to accommodate as many different believers as possible.
Ironically, the weight placed on personal experience and freedom from conventional beliefs is reminiscent of early-20th-century Protestant liberalism. Updating their theology for modern fashions, the heirs of Schleiermacher and Hegel emphasized the primacy of the individual’s experience of God, setting aside complicating issues of doctrine as divisive, latently authoritarian or just plain irrelevant. After all, doctrine divides doesn't it?
But the big question remains: In what direction are such churches taking their members; and what kind of Christianity will emerge from an overemphasis on appealing to anyone who might attend a church service for any reason? When the apostle Paul became “all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some” (1 Cor. 9:22), he did not reinvent or re-orient the faith of which he said, “I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received” (1 Cor. 15:3). Therefore, doctrine matters!
If our post-denominational era continues to elevate personal freedom of choice, the stability of the church’s historical wisdom will be desperately needed. Mere entertainment techniques will never substitute for the hard work of teaching believers to acquire the divine life of the Father by the Son through the Holy Spirit; and churches that foster such must have goals that eclipse inclusiveness.