Expectations

I’ve shared before that this summer I am the one, for the most part, “holding the fort” here at the CEM office. Others have had the reunion and camp assignments. Several have had opportunities to vacation. One of them has even had the very special occasion to take a honeymoon! But because I’m not doing an extended vacation this year (at least not before November) I’m the one taking many of your calls and responding to your emailed questions.

It has occurred to me just how much we all pay attention to expectations. How many of the questions that come to me, either directly or as next-best-alternative in someone else’s absence, have to do with “what is expected of me?”

What are the expectations for persons being ordained? What is expected of me now that I have this or that new title? What do you need me to do if I accept this job? What is the likely response if I send out this announcement or that invitation or the other notice? What will be the expectations if we choose this course of action or if we decide to stop offering this service? I’ve been invited to speak; what are they expecting from me?

The list goes on and on. And here I sit as arbiter of expectations! (Who would have expected such a thing?)

All of these questions are legitimate; I don’t mind answering them one tiny bit. I’m happy to give the answers when I have them; or I’ll check with a higher authority if I need to. But very often, I find, the questioner really needs someone to let them know that what they’re planning to do is OK and that no one will be hurt or offended or upset if they happen to be wrong. Even if they’re not breaking any rule or commandment or going against policy or decree, they need to check the expectations around what they’re considering.

Sometimes there is a policy or a rule or a precedent that I can clarify or recall for them. Very often the traditions are quite local and while someone may not expect a “mere member” to offer the prayer, or even the sermon, there is no proscription against it. I am often reminded of the big, centre chair in my home congregation, since closed, and how we children would sometimes sneak in to the sanctuary, perhaps during potluck cleanup time and sit on it. Believe me, we knew for sure that we were not allowed to sit in that chair until we were grown and ordained to some very high office! I waited fifty years to sit there legitimately.

Most of the time we can consider the rules we know by heart:
“the mission of Jesus Christ is what matters most for the journey ahead.” (Section 164)

And this: “do justice, and... love kindness, and ... walk humbly with your God?” (Micah 6:8)

If you’re living those expectations then all I can offer you is my blessing.

Posted by Marion

Rituals

Prologue: the following are merely some thoughts and questions that stir an analytic mind in a few moments of quiet reflection. They are merely questions, and should not be construed as anything more than that. Above all, they should not be read as criticism of any congregation's worship traditions but should be understood in light of Corrine Ware's Discover Your Spiritual Type.

On Sunday I attended and enjoyed a lovely Christmas service in one of our small but faithful communities. There were twenty of us present, and we gathered in a sanctuary that was beautifully decorated for Christmas. In evidence were the banners, the poinsettias, the nativity scene, and the Christmas tree complete with groceries beneath, all destined for the local food bank. All of these are lovely symbols of the ritual of our Christmas worship.

As I waited for the service to begin, I began to reflect on how many rituals were represented in the sanctuary. The slightly raised dais, the sculpted oak pulpit, the lovely matching heavy oak chairs with the leather seats that have been in use for as long as I can remember; all of these have become symbols of our worship ritual. The rather formal setting with the individual chairs all set in straight rows facing the rostrum speaks clearly of another aspect of our ritual tradition. The bulletin, the order of worship, the music; all are examples of what have become formal expressions of our gathering.

Rituals can be comforting because they are familiar. For those who gather regularly to worship, the constant presence of these symbols may say that all is well in this safe, predictable space. At the same time, I couldn’t help but wonder how those same ritual symbols would be seen by those unfamiliar with traditional church worship. Would they find the symbols comforting or would their formal nature merely seem archaic? Would the forty chairs in straight rows facing the three officers at the front seem comfortable or cold? How would the seventeen people scattered across the back ¾ of those forty chairs be read? (After all, nobody is going to sit in the front row!)

What would happen if we put twenty-two chairs in a circle, providing two for our expected guests? Would the less formal setting make our guests feel more at ease or less? Would they feel more included and less ignored? What if the heart of the gathering was not about listening to a sermon, but the sharing of stories, happy and sad, that happened the previous week when we were out in the community engaged in mission? Is it possible that we would need to add more chairs to accommodate the people who were attracted to such real ministry? I'm sad to say, I do not know.

What I do know is that the patterns that come into use in one era because they make sense for that day become rituals that remain long after the reasons for their adoption are forgotten. They become "the way we have always done things!" That is not necessarily wrong, but neither is it necessarily right. And that brings me to one more question. Is it time to adapt some new rituals for our day? I wonder what those would look like.

If any of this resonates with you or if you have any thoughts on the subject, lets talk.

Posted by Carman

Accretion

ac·cre·tion [uh-kree-shuh n]
an added part; addition: The last part of the legend is a later accretion.

Accretion is a new word for me, however I find its meaning very helpful. I came across this word in the book In God’s Presence by N Graham Standish. In an early chapter, the author explains the difference between tradition and accretion, and how we often confuse the two.

Tradition has to do with the handing down of statements, beliefs, legends, customs, information, etc., from generation to generation, usually by word of mouth or by practice. In other words, tradition represents a long established practice. Accretion, on the other hand, has to do with elements that are added to our practice that are not actually part of the original. Given enough time, however, we often come to see the more recent material as also being part of our original traditions; hence the confusion.

As an interesting example, singing psalms or hymns in worship is an ancient practice that goes back to King David and beyond, and can rightly be said to be part of both Jewish and Christian tradition. (Both Mark’s and Matthew’s gospels refer to Jesus and his disciples singing a hymn together at the end of the Passover meal we call the Last Supper. See Mark 14:26 or Matt 26:30. ) On the other hand, the songs or hymns we currently sing are all accretions.

Another example is the playing of musical instruments in church, which is a relatively recent accretion. In the early 19th century, with the exception of cathedrals or very large structures, churches generally did not use instruments, and almost all church singing was performed a cappella, i.e. without instruments or “chapel style”. Presumably this is the reason that, when the Kirtland Temple was built in Ohio in the 1830s, no musical instrument was installed. Within 50 years, however, a new and controversial idea was sweeping churches: pipe organs! Consequently, when the Auditorium was built in the 1930s and after, a magnificent pipe organ was included in the structure.

Initially, the use of organs in worship was very controversial with some people wanting them while others disdained the new additions. Some churches even split over the issue. While pipe organs had been around for centuries, they were simply not widely accepted for church use. By the beginning of the 20th century, however, the instrument was becoming popular and was even proclaimed by some to be “the instrument of the church.”

In our day, some see the pipe organ (or the more recent electric organ) as being part of church tradition. It is not. It is, in fact, a recent accretion, having been in general use by churches for a mere 150 years. Singing songs in worship is traditional. The songs we use and the instruments that accompany them are merely a matter of popular choice.

Posted by Carman

Hope

Last Tuesday I was in two different churches; one in a small town, and one along side a country road. The town church was Durham Presbyterian, or DPC to use their current short form. The country church was Proton Community of Christ.

Despite their different locations, sizes and denominations, the two churches have much in common. Both have the accoutrements of a traditional church built in an earlier era, such as the gothic windows, the pews, and the raised dais. Both were built in an earlier day when we were not so concerned about such things as access for the handicapped, so both also have steps to deal with. But there was something else that both had in common. In their own way, both had made at least some accommodation to modernity.

On the rostrum of the church in Durham resides ample evidence of a church band. Drums, an electronic keyboard (now carefully covered), and lots of microphone stands were clearly in evidence. While no guitars were left on stage, it was pretty obvious where each guitar player would stand on Sunday morning. Clearly an effort is being made by the worship leaders of this church to match the musical style of choice for modern people under the age of 75. I was impressed!

The little white Proton church is picture postcard perfect. It stands beside a quiet road with its peaceful country cemetery, and a naïve city person might imagine that nothing has changed there in the last one hundred years. That person would be wrong. From the ceiling of this apparently old-fashioned church hangs a modern, digital projector, carefully aimed at the screen that hangs on the front wall. The computer age has arrived!

Somewhere, perhaps someone is reading this blog and sighing. To this imagined person, the presence of such modern tools in these lovely, traditional settings may seem out of place. For me, however, in both cases these symbols of modernity bring a sense of hope. By themselves, the presence of a praise band or the digital projection of lyrics and DVDs in worship will not guarantee the church’s survival. They are evidence, however, of the church’s willingness to try, to adapt, to present the gospel message in a new, fresh, and modern way.

Our grandparents had enough vision to install electric lights and indoor plumbing in their churches. Our parents added carpet, modernized the kitchens and added microphones to the pulpits and installed speakers on the walls. Now it is our turn to try to keep up with the opportunities before us. The gospel message may not change, but the methods we use to declare that message change constantly, and so they must!

What will the future hold? I confess I don’t have much idea; perhaps a holographic projection of the prophet/president speaking in congregations all around the world simultaneously. I am not the least bit concerned about that; it is not my job to be. It is my/our job to be concerned about how we can effectively share the love of Jesus with people who need to hear it in our day.

So good job, DPC and Proton CofC. For today, at least, you give me hope!

Posted by Carman