Tuesday, February 21, 2012

The 20th century: a rift in the cultural continuum.


At its National Convention in July of 2011, the denomination I serve  was asked to consider a drastic restructuring plan. In (very) simplified terms, the plan was to close 40% of the regional offices that support our congregations and make the best of the ones we would have left.

In any other organization, this would be cause for great concern, yet our convention barely raised a collective eyebrow.  Everyone knew this was coming.  They knew it was coming because our church has been steadily and precipitously declining for a generation.  They also knew the reason:

Our church has largely failed to engage its own children and grandchildren.  


As one of those grandchildren who has been trained and ordained, and who presently has 4 years of ministry under his cincture, I feel that I have the responsibility to offer some thoughts and observations on behalf of "my people".

First: I need to make a confession.  Although my father is a Lutheran pastor, and I went to a Lutheran university, then a Lutheran seminary, and at 34, am as much a poster-boy for the ELCIC as anyone else is - the truth is, the church that raised me never quite felt like something that I could fully belong to.  My sense of non-belonging has not come from discomfort with our theology or our heritage. In fact, I'm extremely grateful for both of those things.  My sense of non-belonging also is not about the individual people in my congregation.  They are wonderful, welcoming, faithful, and kind and yes, I'd say this even if I wasn't afraid of offending them with this post.

The reason I barely feel I belong in this church is because the culture of the church is that of my grandparents and (to a lesser degree) my parents.  And their culture is completely different from that of my generation.

Prior to the 20th century, it was unimaginable for a child to have a different culture from their grandparents.  Yes, the generations pecked at one another as children sought to differentiate themselves from their elders, but the variations were still well within the scope of a single unified culture. 

When the 20th century hit that world, it hit like a tsunami -- everything changed and it changed fast.  Consider that:
  • At the beginning of the 20th century, most people in the world made their homes in rural settings.  As of 2008, for the first time in all of human history, most people in the world live in cities.
  • In the early 20th century, it was rare for women in North America to work outside the home.  Today, it is rarer for them not to do so.
  • In the early 20th century, short of sending a very expensive telegram, the only way to send a message across the ocean was by mail, which took weeks if not months to arrive. Today that same message takes milliseconds and costs virtually nothing.
  • Prior to the Wright Brothers' flight in 1903, it was assumed that heavier than air human flight was essentially impossible.  A mere 66 years later, Apollo 11 would bring pieces of wood and fabric from the Wright Brothers' Flyer with them as they landed on the surface of the moon in their 16 ton spacecraft.  Commercial air travel, unimaginable in 1900, has become beyond commonplace.  At any given moment 250,000 human beings are cruising overhead.
  • Computers, once rare beasts the size of buildings and requiring brilliant engineers to run them, are now several orders of magnitude smaller, cheaper, more powerful, and easier to use.  Fisher Price now makes a baby-proof case for smartphones so that children as young as six months of age can use them.
Most of the people in my congregation are old enough to remember the world as it existed before it was hit by this tsunami of technological and cultural change.  They were formed and shaped in a different world with different norms and opportunities.  They are committed to this culture in the same way an adult child remains committed to their parents.  It's hard to find any fault in this instinct.  It seems like the most natural thing in the world to me.

But here's the thing...

I was born after a great many of these changes were already well entrenched.  I was born into a different culture, one defined not by homogeneity and stability, but by diversity and constant change.  I don't have any memory at all of life on a farm.  I have no experience of war (unless you count the kind fought with an XBOX controller in hand). The social circles that one belonged to when I was in junior high school were far more likely to be determined by the music we listened to or the brands we wore than the colour of our skin or our country of origin.   At least 5 languages were spoken in the halls of the high school from which I graduated.  At the small Lutheran university I attended, I had the privilege of having 4 different friends (all exceptionally wonderful people) confide in me that they were gay, and I'm certain that there were others I didn't know about.

It was a rich and complex environment in which to grow up, and the cultures that emerged in that environment were nuanced and diverse.  My generational cohort came by its culture naturally; I do not recall any point at which we all agreed to jettison our grandparents' culture so that we could adopt a newer and better one.   But both for better and for worse, our culture is definitely different from that of our grandparents.  And it's going to stay that way.
  
The reason why the church is in such a slump compared to the way it was 60 years ago is because there is a huge cultural rift between people who were formed by the culture of the pre-20th century world, and those who are too young to have had any direct experience of that world.  Had these two groups sought common ground rather than wage war with one another, the church might be in a very different position today.   Today, the victors of the worship wars of the 1980's and 1990's are sitting in their shrinking churches wondering where all the young people are. Far too many congregations will soon go to their graves believing that they have been fighting to uphold the sanctity of their faith, when in reality, many of them were not fighting for faith at all -- rather, they were fighting to preserve the monolithic culture of their youth.

This is a shame. 

Christianity is not now, nor has it ever been a faith that is welded to any particular culture.  In his ministry, Jesus was constantly crossing cultural boundaries and transgressing cultural norms so that God's purpose could be fulfilled.  This is a tremendously important part of the good news of who Jesus is.   Similarly, the apostle Paul was far more dedicated to the content of his proclamation than the package in which it was delivered.  He was well aware that getting through to people living in different cultures would require different tactics, and he adjusted his presentation accordingly.   Paul describes this process in 1st Corinthians 9:20-23: 
To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though I myself am not under the law) so that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law) so that I might win those outside the law.  To the weak I became weak, so that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that I might by all means save some.  I do it all for the sake of the gospel, so that I may share in its blessings.
 All of my grandparents are now dead. Their culture will soon be extinct. In order for my grandparents' faith to continue to bring new life to a radically different context, my church needs to stop behaving as if Christian faith and my grandparents' culture were a single, inseparable entity.  It needs to learn from Jesus and Paul how to circumvent barriers and traverse rifts for the sake of the Gospel.  Moreover, this must not be done grudgingly or seen as a compromise made so that the church can merely survive in a diminished form.  Rather, it must be understood as an expression of profound faithfulness and commitment to the calling that the church has been given in every time, every place, and every culture - to convey the Good News by any and all means necessary and in so doing, to share in the Gospel's blessings.

6 comments:

  1. Thank you so much for putting this into words, I have felt this problem for years. I attended the most Southern Baptist Lutheran Church while at College and they did everything they could to make the "weird" art students feel unworthy and unwelcome. We (the art students) laughed at the little old gray hair who asked my friend 'Spike' if he was over his brain surgery so his hair could go back to the way it should look, not the Mohawk sans gel he wore to church on Sundays. I find many of my piers the 30-40 somethings find a odd dichotomy of the desire for the "traditional church" of our youth/parents and the reality of not being welcome in such a church as we are considered "too odd". I look forward to reading more of your blogs and hope that more of this generation can resurrect a church that takes the best of the past and adds some growth, openness, and understanding... I am defiantly NOT my grandmother!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Isn’t this cultural ossification internal to the nature of “church” itself? The very act of ritual seems to necessitate a form of standardization and fossilization, which is at once the act of religion itself (what I want to call religionization). This does not merely seem to be only the tactile conventions of the current state of society (say musical tastes), but also its intellectual habits. Ritual is, of you like, habit habitualized. Take, for example, the Copernican controversy during the Renaissance. The church resisted heliocentricism not because there was any Christian cosmology for it to contradict, but because the church had become habituated to think the solar system in Ptolemaic terms. And the Cossack worn by clergy is derived from what was at one time contemporary clothing, making it basically an out-of-date fashion that the religious orders becomes accustomed to wearing. What I am curious is where this habit forming habit that seems to be inherent in the nature of church becomes injurious to its own survival so that it is no longer dynamic but a living anachronism.

    While I am always nervous when people say that does not work anymore (I have no idea what it means for a church to “work correctly”), I think the church’s principle issue may be that it is too acultured. Not cultured in the sense you mean, but that it has simply been tamed and made bourgeois at the expense of its own radical witness.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hi Adam,

    Forgive me for not using gilded theological language to reply to your comment -- I'm trying to keep this blog as accessible as possible.

    Tradition is a wonderful medium for conveying ideas. The fact that traditions "ossify" / become set in stone over time is one of the reasons that we find them meaningful and useful. They are meaningful in that they link us to the past, they are useful in that they help us to reach toward the future.

    However, not all traditions convey ideas of equal importance. Some traditions convey central ideas. Some convey peripheral ideas. Some traditions become detached from the ideas that they were intended to convey. People then devise elaborate and usually inaccurate theories about why we do what we do.

    Consider this story:
    The new Jewish bride is making her first big dinner for her husband and tries her hand at her grandmother's brisket recipe, cutting off the ends of the roast the way her grandmother always did. Her husband thinks the meat is delicious, but says, "Why do you cut off the ends? That's the best part!" She answers, "That's the way my grandmother always made it."

    The next week, they go to the grandmother’s house, and the grandmother prepares the famous brisket recipe herself. Sure enough, she cuts off the ends of the roast! The young bride is sure she must be missing some vital information, so she asks her why she cut off the ends. The grandmother replies, "Darling, that's the only way it will fit in the pan!"

    Most people in the mainline church understand their tradition about as well as the woman following her grandmother's recipe in this story. Without understanding the meanings of their traditions, they cannot differentiate between what is central and what is peripheral. Without this ability, they cannot adapt to new circumstances, because they feel compelled to keep everything constant -- including the parts that no longer serve their original purpose.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But gilded theological language is, like, totally awesome!

      I just think the religions tend to by nature preserve all bunch of stuff in their traditions that is really not needed or the centre of the tradition, like vestments and even whole kinds of thought that get mistaken for being central. We should kind of expect this in religions traditions I think, but we should try to change. I'm not really upset that the church reflects 1950's culture so much as I am how resistant people are to changing it, like Christianity was always the same until they wanted guitars in worship music.

      Delete
    2. I guess I think religion operates like Kafka said in parable: "leopards break into the temple and drink to the dregs what is in the sacrificial pitchers; this is repeated over and over again; finally it can be calculated in advance, and it becomes a part of the ceremony."

      Delete
  4. Hey Eric, well written assessment of our current context and challenge! For me the sad thing is when young people (typically of other denominations) do not recognize when they are attempting to sustain the culture of their grandparents and assume they are protecting the gospel of Jesus, to me they are the most out of touch of all. But that's another story.

    I would also suggest the nature of any institution is to maintain what is, where boundaries are clearly defined and structure is predictable - this is what gives institutions (like the church) stability. It is also what prevents institutions from being flexible when needed, and in our current culture, flexibility and adaptability is the name of the game. The biggest question (which you have identified, and which I would concur) is "What is central, and what is peripheral?"

    ReplyDelete