6:32 AM
Comment solicitation: does the term "culturally relevant" set off alarm bells in your head when applied to the Church? If so, why?
This post looks long. Don't let it scare you! It's a three-minute read and could be a wonderful opportunity for you to put me in my place.
I don't think it's a renegade practice to continually question ourselves, our motives, and our practices when these things involve our faith. On the contrary, for anyone who calls himself a Christian, his relationship with Christ is to be the core of his very life, the thing upon which everything else is based! To be set in a rut without reason is a dangerous thing. In matters of our faith, this examination is essential -- 1 Thessalonians 5:21 and 1 Peter 3:15 say this. In matters that may not seem to be so much about faith, it is still imperative for us to ask God through the Holy Spirit to reveal to us our motives and to correct us where needed. "Every way of a man is right in his own eyes, but the Lord weighs the hearts." (Proverbs 12:2, NKJV) "Search me, O God, and know my heart: Try me, and know my thoughts; and see if there be any wicked way in me, And lead me in the way everlasting." (Psalm 139:23-24, ASV)
I started with a black-and-white "tradition vs. culture" setting, realizing that there are nearly infinite points in between, to try to personally examine why "cultural relevance" seems to be a taboo phrase in the minds of many of those in the church.
I observed that the protestant church (specifically Baptists, the only view from which I can speak from continued personal experience), in my opinion, seemed to keep pace with the culture around it up until some time around the 1940's or 1950's, and then, for the most part, it got stuck in time. Song styles, building styles (matter of fact, the Catholic church was a trend-setter, establishing some beatiful art forms where buildings were concerned), town hall and school meeting styles, etc. kept pace and were relevant to the people.
It could be that this is the time frame in which the general mindset of the American populace began to deviate from a grassroots "Christian" mindset, and as a result the church felt that it needed to dig its feet in so that it would not appear to be going along.
And so I set out today to take one issue and pose a simple question about it. I chose church pews because of a scenario that our youth pastor wrote about in an article (click the link to read it). I wondered why most churches utilize a number of long, non-comforming-to-the-body benches in their primary worship areas. These things are just uncomfortable to start with, and when I consider the fact that they must certainly make "unchurched" visitors feel out of place -- a long bench where a family is sitting, spaced out fairly evenly, leaving an awkwardly-spaced gap in which to sit -- pews get another poor mark on my list.
I'd like to get one potential argument out of the way: "We do not go to church to be comfortable." Yea, verily. However, consider this simple counter-argument: "We do not go to church to be made physically uncomfortable." To me, that statement is every bit as valid as the first; actually moreso.
Would it really be bucking tradition for a church to move to theater-style seats, or even any single-seat arrangement, as opposed to pews? Does it make the room appear to be more of an entertainment area than a worship area? If so, why? As I argued in my post about lighting in a worship area, isn't it because we feel like we're borrowing from "the world" because theaters use... ah... theater seats?
For at least 1,000 years, the established tradition was to have no congregational seating in a worship area! Have we abandoned a truly sacred and valuable tradition by having seats in the first place? Possibly -- I don't discount the idea.
This honestly isn't a soapbox issue for me. I just randomly took pews as item number one (number two if you count the post about lighting) in my list of questions about the appearance of cultural relevance. I do not question the integrity or cultural relevance of any church fellowship where pews are concerned, and do not imply that they're wrong or misguided. Hey, my own church fellowship uses pews! I simply offer this question as a starting place for topical discussion.
Posted in: 
Manga, anyone?
-
[image: Serious Post Ahead warning sign]
Not my usual post, thought it needed a warning!
I was in Barnes & Noble the other day, and noticed something that ...
7 comments:
I think if you look throughout history you'll find that the "church" has on occasion had to make an effort (doesn't mean it's always done correctly) to set itself apart from the world. Sometimes that means changing, sometimes it means staying the same. If the church didn't make the occasional change, we would get accused, rightly or wrongly, of being OF the world.
For example, think about the English language. Some benign words have become bad and some bad words have become benign. So to set ourselves apart, we have to adapt to the new meaning of that word and chose to use it or not.
The church (and Christians in general) has to be careful when it goes into the world to reach people. Yes, we are supposed to do that, but not to the point that our worship becomes commercialized. It's not about us.
Which begs the question...is the church for existing Christians to worship? Is the church for winning people to Christ? Yes. How do we accomplish both of those to the greatest extent possible?
Personally we visited a church that had just installed theater seating, and for us, we felt so out of place that it was hard for us to focus on worshipping. I'm sure we could have gotten used to it, but instead we were led to WHBC (where our pews are comfortable!!).
Baba G,
You bring up a two-fold purpose of the church with which I agree. To worship and also to win people to Christ.
I ask for your best guess: what if you'd never been to a church prior visiting the one with theater seats? Would they be distracting? Would you find it more comfortable to sit on a long bench next to people you didn't know?
And if an adjustment needs to be made, who would need to do the adjusting in such a scenario? We church members who want these people to come in and come back again? Or should we expect the first-time visitor to adjust to the uncomfortable?
Reminder: this is a purely physical thing we're talking about. I'm not suggesting that someone may not need to be taken out of their comfort zone where the heart is concerned.
If I were a first-timer, I don't think I would find theater seats as much, if any, of a distraction. But sitting next to someone I don't know wouldn't bother me either. We do it everyday in the restaurants, stores, lines, etc.
So follows your question...who needs to do the adjusting? Both of us...the 'old' folks and the new folks. It's a fine line to walk in order to "accomplish both of those to the greatest extent possible". Comfortable and uncomfortable are relative to the person. You can't please everyone all time. You of all people should know that!
If we get rid of the benches, where can we lie down during the service? :) Which of course brings the comment that sleeping in church can be hazardous to your health... check out this true story to see why it's a bad idea to sleep in church!
As Paul talked on and on...ha, ha, ha!
(by the way, sorry if I misdirected the discussion with that last comment)
One argument for benches is that you can cram more people in there as opposed to seats typically being considered one per attendee. But that's purely a functional argument - I guess I'm not particularly concerned one way or the other about the seating, having not really given it much thought over the years (except that when I'm in hard wood backed, thin sliding-around cushioned bottomed pews I certainly miss WHBC's nice comfortable pews!). I guess the "old timey" pews do give a certain "vintage" feel to an old Baptist church, but typically I then think of small, country churches like the one my grandmother attends (with an attendance somewhere in the 20s or 30s on a regular basis).
I guess the seating should be relevant (to use your word) to the intended audience, perhaps... but I do often find myself wishing for a bit more legroom, even at WHBC, especially when someone's trying to move past either to get into a seat or to get out of a seat to go pray or talk with someone. I guess that might be a good reason to redesign the seating... to make it more "useful" from that perspective, if that makes sense.
Ok enough rambling from me...
ok; church pews: I like them!!!! Not just because I'm totally a traditionalist, but that does play a part, I'm sure. However, if I am 'sharing a pew' with someone, then I feel connected. If I'm sitting 3 seats down, well, I'm sitting 3 seats away from them. Just this morning, I was sitting by a girl, and by the end of the service, we were sitting close and sharing looks and whispers (not that I would whisper in church...um...). Anyway - had I been sitting 3 chairs down which I would have had to since we were the only ones on the row and it's just not right to take the chair directly beside someone you don't know, even in church, well, I wouldn't have been able to slide down without it looking awkward. When you're crowded like we get nowadays, you can always squeeze one more person into a row, but if you're in chairs, you've got your 'space' and you're not giving it up.
Just my opinion. Chairs provide a boundry of personal space that pews can bypass.
Post a Comment