Could this also be a trend?
Gamma Gamaliel
Shipmate
in Purgatory
A while back I posted some musings about my nephew who, unlike his parents, continues to attend a fairly conservative charismatic-lite church despite being more liberal himself theologically.
He does so because he likes the vibe and there aren't people his own age - he's now late 20s - in the more traditional or more liberal churches in his area.
I have to say, I am impressed with the maturity of his approach in apprising his church leadership as to where he stands and their reciprocity in their tolerance of that. They have been and continue to be very welcoming.
I wondered whether this might represent a 'trend', always difficult to quantify.
I'm now wondering whether there's a similar trend - if trend is the right term - at the older end of the spectrum.
I'm increasingly aware of people who were full-on charismatics / evangelicals in their younger days but who are now more liberal in their approach yet haven't 'moved house' as it were. They continue to attend lively evangelical-ish churches rather than more liberal or formally liturgical ones.
There are a few here on the Ship I expect.
I recently heard a fairly senior RC cleric gloat that younger people coming into his Church don't want folk mass and choruses. 'The last thing they want to see is a 70-year old playing guitar!'
Perhaps he ought to go to Castle Donington or Glastonbury.
It strikes me that they may be a number of 60 and 70 year olds still playing or singing along with the choruses even though their underlying theology doesn't 'line up' with the lyrics as it were.
Is my surmise correct?
Are we seeing a generation of ageing charismatic evangelicals who are going through the motions even though their 'heads' are elsewhere theologically?
As a general observation and by no means seeking to belittle any of this, I do get the impression that many charismatic/evangelical fellowships have 'broadened out' and become both more ethnically and demographically diverse.
I can understand how and why the warmth and 'vibe' might attract and retain people who may not necessarily go along with all of the theology.
I'm sure that applies in other settings too but with a different range of factors.
He does so because he likes the vibe and there aren't people his own age - he's now late 20s - in the more traditional or more liberal churches in his area.
I have to say, I am impressed with the maturity of his approach in apprising his church leadership as to where he stands and their reciprocity in their tolerance of that. They have been and continue to be very welcoming.
I wondered whether this might represent a 'trend', always difficult to quantify.
I'm now wondering whether there's a similar trend - if trend is the right term - at the older end of the spectrum.
I'm increasingly aware of people who were full-on charismatics / evangelicals in their younger days but who are now more liberal in their approach yet haven't 'moved house' as it were. They continue to attend lively evangelical-ish churches rather than more liberal or formally liturgical ones.
There are a few here on the Ship I expect.
I recently heard a fairly senior RC cleric gloat that younger people coming into his Church don't want folk mass and choruses. 'The last thing they want to see is a 70-year old playing guitar!'
Perhaps he ought to go to Castle Donington or Glastonbury.
It strikes me that they may be a number of 60 and 70 year olds still playing or singing along with the choruses even though their underlying theology doesn't 'line up' with the lyrics as it were.
Is my surmise correct?
Are we seeing a generation of ageing charismatic evangelicals who are going through the motions even though their 'heads' are elsewhere theologically?
As a general observation and by no means seeking to belittle any of this, I do get the impression that many charismatic/evangelical fellowships have 'broadened out' and become both more ethnically and demographically diverse.
I can understand how and why the warmth and 'vibe' might attract and retain people who may not necessarily go along with all of the theology.
I'm sure that applies in other settings too but with a different range of factors.
Comments
I am open about the things I disagree with and willing to challenge others on these; this has not negatively impacted on my relationships with the elders or members of the congregation. In some ways the church itself has also loosened up over this time; we have women regularly leading the service and worship as well as preaching. I am working towards the day when we have official women elders too and it will come.
I think it is quite belittling to describe people such as me as ‘going through the motions’ as we are quite active in our Christian lives, though I remember that you previously have described my style of worship practices as ‘entry level’ so I shouldn’t be surprised.
I retract it.
I'm not accusing anyone of insincerity. I commended my nephew for his maturity and honesty in outlining his position to the leaders of his church and equally their openness and integrity in accepting him despite potential theological disagreements.
What I should have written was something like:
'Are we seeing a growing number of people in charismatic evangelical churches whose theology no longer fits the stereotype or where these churches were at 30 or 40 years ago?'
I'd certainly ask the same question of the historic Churches and more sacramental/liturgical settings. There are plenty of people in those I'm sure who like the style rather than the substance, as it were.
I believe I apologised to you for the 'entry level' comment I made previously. If not or if I did and you missed it, I make the apology now.
I'm not sure 'trend' is the right term either, but I do meet people these days who attend charismatic evangelical style churches but who don't necessarily go along with what is preached or sung.
That could apply equally to any style of church, of course.
But I have noticed people of my age or older who are involved with fellowships of this kind but whose views don't neatly map onto what we might expect.
More generally, I would say that some charismatic evangelical style churches appear to have collectively moved in what might be called a more liberal direction, rather than it being something that a few individuals within the congregation favour.
I think there are parallels to some extent with the early Quakers, arguably a 17th century 'charismatic movement'.
By the end of the century they'd toned things down on the grounds of greater acceptability. George Fox's Journal was edited to take out elements subsequent generations of Friends might have found embarrassing.
All these things change over time.
My late wife's Anglican upbringing was far more strict than what we might find in mainstream evangelicalism today.
Does this make my OP any clearer and less objectionable?
I meant no offence but can see how it could have been given and taken.
And what exactly do you mean by people who 'like the style but not the substance?' Who gets to decide what is an acceptable way to worship God? Are you just talking about music or about attitudes to LGBT+ people and women?
Perhaps because there is no such thing as a perfect fit.
I don’t think this is a new trend, but perhaps our reasons for our choice of church are not necessarily the ones that might be expected.
Sometimes a sense of community or an individual friendship, or having a part to play, may take precedence over other reasons.
Or a sense of loyalty eg to one’s local parish church, even though the theology or the style of worship has changed beyond recognition.
Very briefly.
I wasn't necessarily thinking of Epiphanies territory @Jane R but yes, that can play into this of course.
And yes @Pomona I know that a range of views/approaches under one church roof has been the situation in rural areas for many years.
As an Orthodox Christian I might take a fairly prescriptive view of how worship should be conducted in my own setting but I'm not setting myself up as judge and jury on anyone else's.
I think it is possible to appreciate Wesleyan hymns or plain chant or contemporary worship songs or any other style of worship without necessarily 'buying into' the theology they express.
I like the song 'In Christ Alone' for instance even though I might baulk at the strong PSA element in it these days. I could happily sing along with almost any and every Christian hymn or worship song in every setting I'm aware of, but might skip the odd line for aesthetic reasons more than anything else.
I don’t object to worship songs per se but find some unsingable due to the arrangements and there are some I find rather twee.
I omit the filioque clause if I recite the Creed in Anglican or RC settings.
All that said, I might not differentiate between 'style and substance' as much as some Shipmates do. In Orthodox terms worship expresses doctrine and belief and isn't detached from it. The Divine Liturgy 'enacts' and 'represents' - as in re-presents what we believe.
We become what we are through participation in divine worship and receiving the Holy Gifts.
It's a 3D thing. Or 4D even ...
There's a didactic and pedagogical element to it too, as indeed there is with Wesleyan and other Western hymnody.
I wouldn't be Orthodox if I had an issue with iconography or with the Real Presence in the eucharist or the invocation of the Theotokos and the Saints.
Any how ... I appreciate that many people worship in places where there's not a perfect fit and that this can contribute to our sanctification, and that of other people, as @Lamb Chopped observes.
I s'pose I'm thinking aloud here about people I know who remain in churches like those I was involved with in my 20s and 30s even though they have changed in their theology and their approach.
I'm not saying they are right or wrong to do so, it's simply something I've noticed recently and I'm thinking through how that must be for them and those around them who may not have shifted position quite as much.
I wasn't thinking of abusive or extreme settings in the OP but the same applies there. People hang on in even when things become untenable.
People sticking with things shows resilience and commitment and those are admirable qualities.
There have been a "la carte Catholics" all my long life. People belong to churches for a raft of different reasons ranging from its where their social life is based, through doctrine and ethical matters to the length of the lace or the brand of bass guitars used. This is nothing new.
I s'pose I was thinking about independent charismatic evangelical churches in particular.
Those that started up in the 70s and 80s. Some have closed. Others have evolved in a different kind of way to how their founders envisaged their development.
I s'pose what I'm interested in is people whose theology has changed but who haven't abandoned the worship style or vibe. They haven't gone to more liberal or more liturgical churches but still worship in an evangelical/charismatic-lite style even though they no longer subcribe fully to that theology.
I s'pose it's not surprising. I've met Pentecostals who aren't particularly 'pentecostally' and Christians of all shades who don't conform to what one might expect.
I’m not sure if I understand what you’re saying here. I think liturgy can certainly include and usually does include some kind of stuff, hopefully good stuff, about doctrine. But especially what do you mean about doctrine being there to enable worship and love? If you mean that a good understanding of true doctrine should help us to better do both, that makes sense to me, but I’ve always understood doctrine to be primarily an expression, hopefully, of truth.
We'd have to give Alan Feduccia right of reply.
I have some thoughts on what is lacking in the doctrine or perhaps rather sermon departments but I have a feeling that they may be minority positions.
It's unrealistic for worship services of whatever kind to cover everything. However we do these things the material will be constrained by something or other - time, attention spans, format ...
Some churches, sadly in my view, will include sections against the descent of birds from dinosaurs. 😢
But doctrine about God and our relationship to Him and our neighbors, certainly. And arguably these days I think there are a lot of places where some remedial basic Christian doctrine that one would have gotten in catechism would be worth including in sermons. I will honestly say that speaking as someone who was a convert to Christianity the first place, the liturgy and the hymns have been good sources of orthodox, solid doctrine. (If a place that I might otherwise go has the reverse, then I will flee immediately.)
Yes, there are exceptions to the rule. We will encounter songs from an evangelical or charismatic stable sung in churches that don't share those characteristics.
But we wouldn't find John Bell hymns or some of the more 'liberal' hymns found in Methodist, URC and some Anglican settings sung in evangelical or charismatic churches.
There isn't much cross-over traffic.
(I have been attending Greenbelt for over 30 years; I even started dating my husband there. So I’ve heard John Bell many times. His worship style is probably not a good fit for my church as it is quite folky/Celtic, whereas we have a more international influences, especially upbeat African, as we have a multinational congregation and our worship reflects this. But I can’t see what that has to do with our theology and why Bell’s would be a problem)
The invited speaker's first words were to reassure all present that the Holy Spirit is a he.
No, but it sure was to my Uni CU and I don't think you'd have to go far to find places that would object.
My Presbyterian Church of Scotland congregation includes Methodists who don't want to drive a 36 mile round trip each Sunday to attend the nearest Methodist church, Anglicans who would attend the Anglican church only four miles away if there were regular buses on a Sunday, but there aren't, a couple who are Presbyterian, but yearn for the Free Church of their youth, etc etc.
I'm sure this has been the case for a long time.
I'm sure you are right that stylistic issued come into these things and I appreciate that your congregation will have a more 'international' feel, but I have never, ever heard any Wild Goose material sung in any evangelical setting. There may be exceptions I'm not aware of and admittedly I'm out of the loop these days.
My impression though, and this is an observation not a criticism, that the sung repertoire is fairly limited in evangelical-charismatic churches these days. A medley of 'greatest hits' worship songs with contemporary settings of a narrow range of traditional hymns - such as 'Great is thy faithfulness,' 'Be thou my vision,' 'How great thou art' and a handful of others.
They tend to be selected without much by way of a discernible theme, although there are exceptions to that general rule.
I can think of various hymns and more modern songs that could easily be sung on evangelical and charismatic settings but aren't. On one level churches of that stripe are highly creative but in other ways they aren't. They stick with a standard repertoire or copy whatever is going on at the flagship churches within their particular orbit.
You take this trend now for having a digital count-down before the service begins. I encountered it for the first time at an evangelical charismatic-lite Anglican parish last year and to my surprise learned that it's now a pretty standard feature across churches of that stripe.
Why?
Whatever for?
There's no clear theological or practical reason for it. I s'pose it's meant to stop people chatting and start engaging with the service when it begins. It doesn't seem to work if that's the aim.
I'm sure your church doesn't have an issue with feminine language in the scriptures - Sophia etc - nor does it believe that the Holy Spirit is 'male' but I'd be surprised if the leaders there would countenance singing the John Bell song that @KarlLB cites.
We wouldn't sing it in an Orthodox setting either but then we make no apologies for sticking to a similar format and repertoire, although no two Liturgies are exactly alike.
I'd be pleasantly surprised if I attended an evangelical charismatic service and heard something I wasn't expecting.
Even though I'm out of the loop I could pretty much predict what I'd see and hear at my friendly neighbourhood charismatic evangelical church these days, were it Anglican, Baptist, New Frontiers, Vineyard or Pentecostal.
Which is fine, providing nobody is pretending otherwise.
It sometimes just sounds like you have a grudge against the charismatic church. You say you can predict what you would hear. If I might ask, when did you actually attend one regularly and what type?
I'm not suggesting that your church should sign Iona songs, or 'Celtic' style songs per se - although I'd suggest there's a 'Celtic' vibe to some contemporary worship songs such as 'In Christ Alone' and the various settings of the old 'Be Thou My Vision.'
What I am saying is that I would be surprised if your church picked up on John Bell type songs because the theology wouldn't be a good match.
I'm not criticising them for that. Heck, I knew a URC minister who was mildly charismatic and theologically liberal at one and the same time. He wouldn't allow contemporary worship songs in his church, much to his wife's disappointment as she enjoyed them.
As for my own background, I was in a 'Covenant Ministries' church for 18 years - a kind of parallel 'R1'* restorationist set up to New Frontiers only with far less of a neo-Calvinist emphasis. We briefly attended an NFI church after that in order to check it out, I'd long thought we'd end up in NFI as I did tend towards the more Calvinistic end of the spectrum at that time. We decided it wasn't for us, but we had many friends in that particular setting. My late wife's sister and her husband were involved with an NFI church for a few years and we visited that a number of times.
We joined a moderately charismatic Baptist church with a somewhat 'emergent' flavour as it were and were happy there for six years before we moved 80 miles to where I live now. I have fond memories of that although the charismatic-lite worship style was no longer my thing. The preaching was balanced, sane and more moderate than what was preached in the 'new churches' at that time.
Here, we attended our local Anglican parish which was low-church evangelical with aspirations to become more charismatic and HTB-ish.
It wasn't really our thing but we hung on in there as we believed in supporting our nearest church. I was well on the way to becoming Orthodox by then but didn't do so until after my wife died, and even then not straight away.
Long-standing Shipmates may remember my struggles to come down off the fence. It took me a long time.
I'm sorry to hear that my posts sound as if I still have a downer on charismatic churches. If anything, I'd say I'm just as charismatic as I always was, only that this is expressed differently and in a more sacramental way these days.
I had a relationship with a woman from a charismatic-lite Anglican church last year and things did become 'serious' until she got cold feet. I'm not saying our different approaches were the cause of that - there were other factors such as geographical distance etc. I'll be honest though and say that I didn't like what I saw at her church worship-wise - although I was impressed by the work they were doing in the community - debt counselling, various social programmes etc. Equally, she didn't like what she saw at an Orthodox service we attended, and I get that, it's an acquired taste and it it took me a long, long time to get into it. I don't have a clue what's going on in some of our services even now.
Please don't misunderestand me. I'll still sing some of the older worship songs I know as I'm driving around or doing house-work. I'm not saying I'm writing them all off.
FWIW, although things could vary a great deal, I'd say that NFI was a lot 'healthier' than some of the groups that emerged from the 'house church'/new church movement of the '70s and '80s. I wouldn't try to 'stop' anyone getting involved with it, not that it would be any business of mine to do so.
I s'pose I could have made my point about how worship styles reflect theology without citing any particular group that Shipmates are involved with. That way it wouldn't appear as if I were criticising any particular groups or emphases.
* R1 - for those old enough to remember, the late Dr Andrew Walker the sociologist and 'canon-theologian' coined the categories R1 and R2 to differentiate two distinct strands within the 'restorationist' new churches in his influential book Restoring The Kingdom way back in 1985.
Groups associated with Bryn Jones and Terry Virgo were in the R1 category, those with Gerald Coates and John Noble in R2.
Some sharing of my own. I left the Ship about a decade ago when two members of the board kept unreasonably jumping on me about New Frontiers when I posted on some of the discussion boards, even when I didn’t mention my church. I found it stressful and intimidating, especially when I once accidentally signed my name and one of them started calling me it. This is one of the reasons I seldom post anywhere on the Ship now other than All Saints, Heaven, Circus, etc. So perhaps my experience of personal attacks on my churchgoing has left me sensitive to this discussion.
Peace be with you
Incidentally, the tune's name is pronounced 'Shlawnya', and on this hill I will die.
@Heavenlyannie - I seem to remember that happening to you, but not in detail and I was sorry to see it at the time, although I didn't say anything I don't think.
Confession time. I did go through a phase of slagging off charismatic evangelicalism aboard Ship and that was part of the process of my 'moving on' from it. I overdid it at times and probably still do to some extent.
That said, I still value much I consider to be good and wholesome about it - the strong sense of community, the get-up-and-go-ness of it.
Whenever I meet anyone from those days I feel an immediate connection with them.
It's a both/and thing. I've both moved on, as it were and I retain a lot of respect for individuals involved with it.
I apologise if I have contributed to any unease you've felt here in Purgatory or on other boards.
'Be Thou My Vision' is a translation of an Irish poem if the 8th or 9th century and nothing to do with 'St Patrick's Breastplate' ...
I ought to be contributing to the 'You know when you are getting older when ...' thread.
'You know you are getting older when you get mixed up between early Irish poems and hymns ...'
Omg that’s awful. Sending massive hugs to you!!
Or desperately trying to get people to be ready to start the service vaguely on time. We used the timer from "countdown " when we led a few weeks ago, the slightly jarring shock effect seemed to work...
I think that I was away from the ship when this happened. I'm sorry.
Fwiw as it's only a few years post NF for me I would probably have tried to over robustly stick up.for you at the time
Yes, I think that was the original intention but it seems to have started a trend whereby it's become a bit of a 'fixture' where the original intent is becoming obscured. Evangelical Anglican friends tell me it's become something pretty 'standard', along with accompanying any announcement with a video clip.
Starting on time has never been an issue for us Orthodox. People wander in at almost any point in the service, although the priest may refuse them communion if they come in after a particular point.
It's a cultural thing and in my experience converts tend to turn up on time.
It's more a Greek and Eastern Mediterranean thing, I think.
Whatever the intention of the digital count-down, my evangelical Anglican friends tell me it doesn't work ...
Well, the original reason was described above by @la vie en rouge so I don't see the reason to speculate much further than that - if something is going to go out on youtube etc at a particular time, you don't want to be broadcasting dead air.
Is there a reason you decided to focus on the subsidiary explanation instead?
Like 'Countdown' or some kind of game show. It was treated somewhat jokily as if it were some kind of game... 'the service starts 15 seconds from ... no-o-ow!' type thing.
Or the big countdown clock they have on Jools Holland's 'Hootenanay' each New Year's Eve.
I'm not saying that people shouldn't have fun or that everyone should start services the same way but it just felt ... odd.
If it were for the benefit of the video crew then it could have been done with a discreet countdown device purely for them.
I take @Twangist's point about encouraging people to 'start' on time, which is presumably why they had a big digital projection thing for everyone to see. But seeing as most people ignored it anyway it rather begs the question as to why bother in the first place?
The same question could be asked of course as to why we have 'The doors! The doors! In wisdom let us attend!' in the Orthodox Liturgy and 'Depart ye catechumens. Let all catechumens depart. Let no catechumens remain ...' when the doors aren't bolted and no catechumens leave the building.
We did have a bell which the sub-deacon or one of the servers used to ring in the run up to the service but it's unsafe to use it at the moment as the timbers in the belfry aren't in good condition.
The bell didn't 'start' the service.
An Orthodox Liturgy 'starts' when the priest or deacon intones 'Blessed be the Kingdom of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit ...'
There may have been Matins beforehand but we've not had that in our parish for a while.
I'm not suggesting that churches of other Christian traditions should start their services like we do, any more than I'm suggesting that they mark the transition between the Liturgy of the Word and the eucharistic part by declaring, 'The doors! The doors! In wisdom let us attend...'
Most Protestant services tend to start with a blessing of some kind or a welcome from whoever kicks off the proceedings.
Fine.
'Please take your seats ...'
'Let us pray ...'
'Welcome to Such & Such a Church. We hope you enjoy your time with us this morning ...'
Or similar.
What's all this digital malarkey with game-show style digital countdowns?
Lights! Camera! Action!
I'm not saying those Orthodox clergy are any better who launch into the Liturgy at racing commentator speed.
And they're off! 'InthenameoftheFather ...'
Maybe I'm just a grumpy old git.
And often this then followed by an attempt from the leader to get people to listen to what was just said as they are still busy socialising.
Within that context a visual indicator that the service is about to start can be useful - as it gives people a cue to take their seats etc.
Starting on time isn't an issue in Orthodox churches. We are used to people coming and going at anytime, within reason.
People wander around lighting candles or venerating icons willy-nilly and nobody bats an eyelid, within reason.
Clergy will remonstrate with people who gossip in the communion queue though or who chat during the post-communion prayers but the tolerance levels for that seems to vary from parish to parish.
The 'visual signal' in an Orthodox service I suppose is the opening of the curtain in the icon-screen, although it's left open at all times during the Easter period.
It's not for me to determine what the visual signal or protocol should be in Protestant settings but I can't be the only one who finds a digital clock or projected countdown device as rather gimmicky or irreverent even.
I know Orthodox people who aren't as familiar with Protestant services I am who have become quite upset - and even tearful - when they've attended some forms of Protestant worship as they find it shockingly irreverent.
Obviously, I don't have that reaction as I know the ropes as it were and understand the various Protestant traditions, but I can understand why Orthodox people who are less familiar with these traditions might react that way.
Just as I can well understand how those unfamiliar with Orthodox worship might find it alien and 'off-putting.'
We are all of us 'socialised' and acclimatised into whatever Christian traditions we inhabit.
We've moved a long way from the OP but this tangent has been pertinent to it in some ways as it shows how we become 'habituated' to however things are done wherever we are.
I was taken aback by the digital clock countdown as I'd not seen it before and wasn't aware it had become a 'thing'. People I knew in that congregation weren't that comfortable with it either but laughingly said that it didn't work as people continued chatting anyway.
Others probably take it as the 'norm' and would be surprised if they visited a service where it wasn't done.
A number of friends in churches of that ilk tell me they find it irritating but have learned to put up with it.
There'll be equivalents and parallels in my own setting. Things that irritate but which I learn to put up with.
That's how these things work and how traditions develop.
I once read that Danish Baptist churches used to light candles in their services during the Nazi occupation as they noticed that the authorities tended to leave churches alone if they could see candles flickering. They kept that tradition going after the War even though the 'need' for it had gone.
That's how these things develop and gain traction.
Apologies @Jane R.
FWIW I quite like those. I've seen them in Anglo-Catholic and RC churches.
Perhaps I ought to bring one to our services and see how many hundreds of years it takes to become standard.
Someone will now tell me it's already being done somewhere in the Orthosphere.
Likewise - people who fuss about putting hymn lyrics on screens in church miss the way in which this is a useful thing for many disabled people. Modern charismatic churches are often more able to cater for disabled people, especially if they use modern buildings. I personally don't care for Orthodox services due to having people wandering in and out because I find that really distracting, but I just don't go instead of going on about how I don't enjoy them. Nobody is making you go to a church that uses a visual countdown.