January 06, 2007
That's My Church!
Interesting piece in the WaPo yesterday about Truro and the Falls Church, basically stating that they really weren't Episcopalians anyway:
But the votes appear less sudden or surprising when one realizes that for more than 30 years, Truro and The Falls Church have been part of a "charismatic revival" within mainline Protestantism, said the Rev. Robert W. Prichard, professor of Christianity in America at the Virginia Theological Seminary in Alexandria.Charismatic, in this case, refers to an ecstatic style of worship that includes speaking in tongues, a stream of unintelligible syllables signifying that the Holy Spirit has entered the worshiper. It is a hallmark of the fast-growing Pentecostal movement but unusual for Episcopalians, who are so thoroughly associated with solemnity and tradition that they are sometimes referred to teasingly as "the frozen chosen."
Instead, these two churches have the whole ecumenical evangelicalism thing going:
At least two-thirds of the worshipers are Methodists, Presbyterians or Baptists, and there is no pressure on them to be confirmed as Episcopalians, said the Rev. Rick Wright, associate rector.Wright said the diverse membership of both congregations illustrates one of the great changes in American religion of the past half-century: The divisions between denominations are far less important today than the divisions within denominations.
"I tend to feel very comfortable rubbing shoulders with folks at McLean Bible or Columbia Baptist . . . that are real orthodox, evangelical, biblical churches," said Truro's chief warden, or lay leader, Jim Oakes, referring to two Northern Virginia megachurches. "We share core beliefs. I think I would be more comfortable with them than with anyone I might run into at an Episcopal Diocesan Council meeting."
In some popular services, Truro and The Falls Church blend the traditional liturgy of the Book of Common Prayer with such megachurch touches as huge choirs, bass guitars and drums. Neither offers "smells and bells," the incense and chimes favored by "high church" Episcopal congregations. But some parishioners affectionately describe Truro as "McLean Bible with candles."
People sometimes ask me, "Tom, if you're so sympathetic to the separatists at these churches, why don't you go with them?" Well, this is why. I haven't a evangelical bone in my body. And I can't help wondering if this article isn't aimed at people like me, the underlying message seeming to be, "Do you really want to go that way, Comrade? Why not stay with the Party instead and not cause waves."
This dynamic is not confined to the ECUSA, btw. According to the Episcopal News Service, a study was recently done by an ecumenical outfit called the Cooperative Congregations Studies Partnership concerning what makes congregations grow. I find many of its conclusions decidedly depressing:
*Congregations that change worship format and style are more likely to grow. More than half the congregations that use contemporary styles of worship have experienced substantial growth since 2000.*Frequency is important as well: The more worship services a congregation holds, the more likely it is to have grown.
* Over half of the congregations that use drums and or electric guitars often or always in their worship services have experienced "substantial growth" from 2000 to 2005, the report says. "The relationship is fairly strong in the overall set of congregations, but considerably stronger among evangelical churches and weakest among mainline churches," according to the report.
*Congregations located in new suburbs are more likely to experience growth. But surprisingly the second best area for growth is the downtown of metropolitan areas.
*Congregations that have experienced major conflict are quite likely to have declined in attendance. The strongest correlate of growth is the absence of serious conflict.
*Congregations that have started or maintained a website in the past year are most likely to grow. The effort to have a website indicates that the congregation is outward looking and willing to change by non-traditional means, the study found.
*While most congregations in America are composed of a single racial/ethnic group, those that are multi-racial are most likely to have experienced strong growth in worship attendance.*More important than theological orientation is the religious character of the congregation and clarity of mission and purpose. Growing churches are clear about why they exist and about what they are to be doing.
*Congregations that involve children in worship are more likely to experience significant growth. Also, important to growth is the ability of congregations to attract young adults and children with families.*Almost all congregations say they want to grow, but it takes intentionality and action for growth to occur. Congregations that developed a plan to recruit members in the last year were more likely to grow than congregations that had not. Particularly helpful in achieving growth are sponsorship of a program or event to attract non-members or the existence of support groups.
Emphasis added. Evidently, if one wants to maintain a strong Protestant church in this country, one either has to become an Evangelical, a Unitarian or both. (And before my Catholic friends out there start sniggering, I've got two words for you: Liturgical Dance.)
UPDATE: Just to head off any angry comments, let me be clear that I'm not trying to insult anybody else's form of worship here, just stating how increasingly difficult it is to maintain what I was raised on and wish to preserve.
UPDATE DEUX: Read Mrs. P's comments. She's perfectly correct, of course so in that spirit I give you this little nugget. 'Bout sums things up, I should say:
There is a separate church, apparently been around quite a while, called Charismatic Episcopal. The pastor of the local CEC is a columnist in the Fayetteville (Ga.) Citizen and affiliated newspapers.
The CEC's website claims that charismatic... al... ism is different from evangelicalism. I wouldn't know, I was raised Catholic and became a Methodist.
Posted by: McGehee at January 6, 2007 05:54 PMI'm with you, Robbo.
The big thing sweeping Catholicism in my youth was the Charismatic movement -- which was kind of a neo-Pentecostalism that swept through colleges in the late 1970s and early 1980s. I went on a charimatic retreat -- not knowing fully what I was getting into -- and I have to say that it simply did not move me. Maybe it's just that I hate guitars, or am so lacking in faith that the Holy Spirit just figures he's wasting his time with me (I kid). But I literally had people around me speaking in tonuges, getting slain in the spirit, etc., and felt not a thing. I was like an island of skepticism (or perhaps hardened evil) in a sea of religious fervor.
I was not invited back.
But for me, prayer, Latin, and the formality of the Tridentine mass -- that all speaks to me. I'm precisely the sort of person that the medieval church was created for. For me to hear God, the world needs to be very quiet indeed.
To each, his own, I suppose.
And as for liturgical dance, well let's just say that I have only seen it on TV, and it has never failed to induce paroxysms of laughter in me. I have to count as one of God's mercies the fact that I've never had to leave mass to avoid embarrassing myself, or others.
As for the story you link, I'm not buying their theory. I think that a person who comes out of a Methodist, Baptist, or Presbyterian church and joins an Anglican/Episcopal parish is doing so because they've discovered something about it that appeals to them -- the sacraments, the concept of apostolic succession, the formality, etc. I've known many people walk the path from Catholicism to evangelical Protestantism, and a lot fewer who have walked in the other direction -- if they are drawn to the Anglican communion, my wager is it is because they are, at heart, Anglicans. Or perhaps Catholics.
Posted by: The Colossus at January 6, 2007 05:55 PMI've had the misfortune to see liturgical dance live and in person, at the Presby church I attended with my parents in CA.
You could almost have heard a pin drop when it was over, but for the sound of people gagging.
There was not a repeat.
Posted by: Russ at January 6, 2007 08:38 PMRobbo, my two cents for what they are worth..I read this article and thought it was snide but also accurate.
The difficulty for you is with the phrase "what you are trying to preserve." You were raised an Episcopalian. Most people who are --keyword-- active in the Episcopal Church today weren't raised Episcopalian. You can recall, like I can, being a kid and what church was like. It doesn't matter which camp you are in today in the Episcopal Church today, it's not the that same church, it has changed. Even if you are in the very same building. More than that, the majority of people in both camps don't want it ever to be that Episcopal Church again. They want it to be their idea of the Episcopal Church. And they are at war. People like you, who just want to live your life while being active in your church, are getting caught in the middle.
When Truro and Falls first left, I mentioned over at our blog that the truly tough times are ahead for them because, I suspected, few in the congregations agreed completely with the 39 Articles. Thirty years ago, the Episcopal Church began making the belief or adherence to the 39 Articles irrelevant to being an Episcopalian. They also did not demand that those attending The Episcopal Church be confirmed members - they just had to go through a newcomers orientation and confirmation was optional. Well, confirmation is a sacrament and sacraments really can't be optional as it creates confusion to say the least.
Then, they changed the baptismal and ordination services in '79 prayerbook. I was baptised and confirmed under the '28 prayerbook. When I closely examined the 2 services in the '28 and '79, I saw that there were in essence two different kinds of Episcopalians as a result. I was a '28-er, which considering my vows and oaths, that was good and right. But you can't be a '28-er anymore because that means you are for the subjugation of women and worse. The theological argument that these were the vows and oaths I made were made null and void in favor of politics and progress.
The whole evangelical thing came about largely in Darien Connecticut in the early to mid-'70's. I can recall my grandparents, mother, and friends discussing at cocktail parties how Rev. so and so is now speaking in tongues....What Terry Fullam, a former Baptist turned Episcopal preacher at St. Luke's in Darien did was wake up people to their baptismal vows. Now today, it was my experience that evangelical movement has turned into pita bread, clay chalices and God Amongst Us Types with rainbow crosses. Their motto is we don't need the 39 Articles, all we need is Jesus. They were as keen on disregarding the 39 Articles and the liberals were.
Historically, the interesting thing to note today is that St. Luke's is still part of the diocese of Connecticut even though they have an extremely liberal bishop and under bishops. Terry fullam has retired and he might be affliated with Africa. I'm not sure.
Posted by: Mrs. Peperium at January 7, 2007 11:56 AMIrony abounds in terms of my comments with what Kendall harmon just posted:
http://www.courant.com/features/lifestyle/hc-episcopal3.artjan07,0,3739442.story?coll=hc-headlines-life
Posted by: Mrs. Peperium at January 7, 2007 12:03 PMOops, I erred. It was St. Paul's in Darien. St. Luke's in Darien was my brother's prep school
Posted by: mrs. Peperium at January 7, 2007 12:06 PMBTW, the first fellah I worked for styled himself an Evangelical Catholic. I didn't get into it with him at the time, but I'm curious about Rome's stance toward this sort of thing. It strikes me that it would be a bit too, ah, free-lance for the Vatican.
Posted by: Robbo the LB at January 7, 2007 01:35 PMI almost hate to ask.... but what is liturgical dance?
Posted by: Zendo Deb at January 7, 2007 07:19 PMWhile I understand the idea behind the article saying that Evangelicals are moving towards the charismatic, it's a bit of a broad stroke. There are many of us (yes, I happily consider myself an Evangelical) who gag right along with y'all when the charismatics start rearing their heads. And frankly, I place the blame solely on the shoulders of those who have turned a mega-church into the lofty goal towards which every other church should aspire. In order to be a mega-church, you have to have a "seeker focus" or be "seeker friendly" - and what's more friendly to the unchurched than rock music and dancing? Heck - it's not like church, it's like a party where they pray. And then you get the whole Rick Warren phenomenon (again, all b/c of a mega church) and you suck all the meaning out and leave it simply with "feel-good Christianity" with no depth, no discipleship, and no growth. Because there isn't any spirituality, just feelings and hip music.
Most true Evangelicals are as disturbed by the trend as anyone else. In fact, I would say those who embrace the whole mega-church philosophy are not evangelicals, they're just looking for a good time with God.
Posted by: beth at January 8, 2007 07:33 AMTwo examples of litrugical dance:
In a church: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0tSLdTZWec
Stephen Colbert: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBaSWtjSUEU
The Biblical basis for it is King David dancing in 2 Kings 6:14 (2 Samuel in some version of the bible) when David danced "with all his might" before the ark of the convenant.
I think Colbert's take, though less sedate, is probably more biblical. The versions I've seen usually involve something that look like the sillier rhythmic gymanstics or synchronized swimming routines in the olympics. Which, for me, always conjures this to mind.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WxCEkhGbfM&feature=PlayList&p=9B9102637A5F968D&index=2
Naturally, for folks of a contemplative religious bent, Liturgical dance always seems destructive to piety.
I knew I didn't want to ask that question.
This seems more like something out of Monty Python than most things I've seen lately.
Posted by: Zendo Deb at January 8, 2007 11:36 AM
Image courtesy of the lovely and talented 