Liturgy: Tool for evangelism?

This article at the Christian post tells about how church planter and Anglican bishop Todd Hunter is discovering that the liturgy itself, far from "turning people off" can - at least in some cases - be a tool for evangelism:

"Two dechurched friends told Hunter they had never kneeled before in their life as a believer and found that kneeling was rewiring their souls. Another friend said reciting creeds is making his faith come alive.

And when he met with a young adult who frequents parties and with whom he is well acquainted, he received a vision that if she and others around her age just prayed the Prayer of Confession week after week, it would rewire their moral thinking.

When he was involved in the emerging church movement, Hunter found that there was a fascination among postmoderns with the past. Now a part of the Anglican Communion, he's discovering that liturgy can be used as a tool for evangelism."

The interest of postmoderns with the past and with many of the more ancient Christian practices is a trend that the "ancient future worship" movement has attempted to tap into. I believe that this could put United Methodist Churches in an excellent position to reach out to new people if we church leaders would be willing to do several things:

1) learn to lead our church's established liturgy, and to do so well; not half-heartedly, not sloppily, but with attention to beauty, excellence, and spiritual depth (I'll have a more detailed post on this next week!)

2) know what we are doing in the various parts of the liturgy (what they mean, where they come from) and share that knowledge with others so that both we and they can appreciate the liturgy more fully

3) be willing to incorporate contemporary music into our liturgy, using both together rather than pitting new music on the one hand against the liturgy on the other

4) understand and preach about our Wesleyan sacramental theology (perhaps re-reading his sermons on "The Means of Grace" and "The Duty of Constant Communion" and the lyrics of some of the Wesleyan sacramental hymns are good places to start, and perhaps a re-read of "This Holy Mystery" is in order)

Who are our BIG theologians?

When I consider some of my favorite theologians, or those who have influenced me a great deal, I can't help but notice that very few of them are United Methodist theologians. Several of them are Anglicans. Consider this very quickly thrown together list of my bigger influences (I have read at least one complete work of some kind - possibly several - from each of these):

St. Athanasius (undivided Church)
St. Augustine (undivided Church)
Martin Luther (Lutheran)
Thomas Cranmer (Anglican)
John Wesley (Anglican*)
C.S. Lewis (Anglican)
Albert Outler (Methodist)
Richard Foster (Society of Friends)
Thomas Oden (Methodist)
N.T. Wright (Anglican)

Now I might add more to that - William Abraham and Will Willimon are both United Methodist theologians that I like very much, but I don't get a strong sense that they are as widely read outside of the denomination as is the case for some of those listed above. Maybe in a few decades... St. John of Damascus of the ancient Church and Scott Hahn, a contemporary Roman Catholic, have also had some influence on me.

So what do you think: who are the really BIG theologians of the United Methodist Church who are making waves in the broader ecumenical church? Are there any? Who are your favorite theologians?

Lutherans plan denominational split

Last summer the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) voted to enter into full communion with The United Methodist Church. Then the Lutherans turned around and lifted their ban on sexually active gay clergy, thus formally departing from the very clear teachings of the Bible and the Great Tradition on Christian sexual morality. At that point a denominational split was simply inevitable - indeed we might say it had already begun.

Now moderates and conservatives within the Lutheran Church are planning the formation of a new denomination (for more, go here or here). No doubt these folks will be called "conservatives" or "traditionalists" in reports, but the fact that they are not seeking to join the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod (LCMS) or the much more conservative Wisconsin Synod demonstrates that these are in fact more moderate conservatives who nevertheless will not remain in communion with the ELCA if there is a departure from Scriptural teaching.

Science and Faith used to be Allies

Did you see this editorial a couple weeks back? Perhaps, if we listen to someone besides fundamentalist Protestants and fundamentalist atheists, perhaps they can be again.

Roe v Wade and the death of dialogue

A few weeks ago I ran across David Gushee's excellent editorial in The USA Today called "What Roe Started". Gushee, an evangelical Christian and professor at Mercer University, argues that the Roe v Wade decision fundamentally altered the state of civil discourse and debate in America's political life.

The abortion issue raised the stakes of cultural debate so high that it became almost irrestistably easy for people to demonize those on "the other side." Thus abortion proponents called pro-lifers "anti-choice" and saw them as attempting to extend government control even to the most intimate decisions made about our own bodies. What could be more intrusive and intolerable? On the other side pro-lifers saw abortion proponents as "pro-death" and as supporting the legal mass-murder of children, the most innocent and defensless members of our society. What could be more heinous?

And so, demonization has become a regular feature of our political discourse, now extending to many issues. The Left demonized Bush and now the right demonizes Obama. As Gushee puts it "the politics of decency gave way to blood sport." The problem is that it accomplishes nothing. Demonization of individuals shifts energy away from reasoned debate and therefore prevents deep dialogue about issues, and so demonization cannot promote rational persuasion and compromise which are absolutely necessary if we are to have a single government for such a diverse people.

There is no surprise, then, that our nation is now so culturally and politically divided. Gushee appeals for a more restrained, rational politics that seeks to find common ground, even while still profoundly disagreeing about Roe v Wade:

I myself am an evangelical Christian who thinks Roe is bad law. But I am also drawn toward any effort to find common ground, whether on abortion reduction strategies or on other issues. For this, I have been demonized. Some of these experiences have led me to reflect a bit on why, as a Christian, I am so committed to the effort to find common ground — and why I seek to resist the demonization of adversaries that I find very tempting sometimes.

I try to start by recognizing the God-given fellow humanity of everyone whom I encounter, even those I sharply disagree with. My faith teaches that every human being is made in the image of God and beloved by him. Each shares humanity's common pool of frailties and strengths. Every human being is worthy of being treated with basic human decency and respect. I try to do that. I remind myself that every human being is capable of error and sin. But I am also painfully aware that whatever must be said about the weakness and vulnerability of others must also be said about me.

And he ends on a hopeful note:

I dare to think that it's still not too late to be the kind of nation in which differences are debated honestly, the votes are cast, the decisions are made and we move forward together as one people. I would like to see Christians contribute to that kind of society, rather than to the demonization that undermines it at its foundations.

May God strengthen Christians to move beyond demonization and "argument culture" and be leaders on the way to a new age of civil, rational discourse. This too can be a strong witness to the Light of Jesus Christ for the whole culture to see.

For those readers inclined to take a trip back to the 16th Century - here is a wondeful wonderful discussion of the views of that great foundational Anglican theologian Richard Hooker on the nature of discourse rooted in faith, hope, and love. He humorously called the political and theological discussions of his own day "full of tongue and weak of brain" - sounds familiar...

Evangelism by Trendiness

At the campus ministry I serve, one of our small groups is reading Blue Like Jazz by Donald Miller. I suppose this may be a trendy thing to do. Hmmm...

In any case, I ran across this quote in chapter 10 that seems to get at some of my questions about the way United Methodist churches are trying to market themselves (as in the RETHINK campaign for example), or the hasty dash I see some churches making to throw off our distinctive traditions in order to become just like non-denominational churches for the sake or reaching new people - what is the underlying reasoning behind what we are doing? Have we thought about it theologically?

Miller writes:
"A friend of mine, a young pastor who recently started a church, talks to me from time to time about the new face of church in America - about the postmodern church. He says the new church will be different from the old one, that we will be relevant to culture and human struggle. I don't think any church has ever been relevant to culture, to human struggle, unless it believed in Jesus and the power of his gospel. If the supposed new church believes in trendy music and cool webpages, then it is not relevant to culture either. It is just another tool of Satan to get people to be passionate about nothing."

I've got no problem with good music or cool webpages, nor with churches trying to do new things. What concerns me is an attitude that if we can just make church "cool" for those outside (and usually we let the insiders decide what that means), if we can just put the right packaging on it, then we will accomplish our mission (which appears to be attendance growth).

"Give the people what they want."

But at that point have we not bought into consumerism and reduced our faith to a spiritual commodity to be marketed? The truth is our message is something un-cool: Come die with us. Come bear a cross with us. Come learn what it means to be a spiritual sacrifice, acceptable and pleasing unto God. Come suffer through mediocre sermons and un-trendy music. Come put up with the broken best efforts of other Christians who are all struggling together to live in God's grace and to be his church. Come learn how to live in a community where we love not because when we first showed up everything was as hip and cool as a television commercial (it certainly wasn't), but rather because we have imbibed deeply of the love of God through some crazy old book and weird rituals with bread and water and wine that are thousands of years out-of-fashion.

This is, I suppose, the reason for my sort of admiration for the Greek Orthodox: they carry on as if it is still the year AD 787 and they don't really care what I think of it. Good for them, I like that.

God willing, I will never become one of those perpetual, cynical, complainers about the church (we have plenty of this and it is often unhealthy). We have been given an awesome, hopeful, joy-filled, ancient faith. We are offered a sharing in the very life of the Triune God (which hasn't made it into our RETHINK commercials yet, as far as I can tell). We have been grafted into the body of Christ - the Church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the Truth. I love the Church. We should just be who we really are - with conviction (this brings up that whole denominational identity thing) - rather than trying to figure out what "they" want us to be. Will the attendance grow if we do that? I have no idea. Probably it will in some places and not in other. But ultimately all shall be well. All manner of thing shall be well.

Happy "All Souls Day"!