Church Matters: Traditional and Contemporary Types

The contemporary/traditional divide among evangelical churches is not new; yet, it is disconcerting to note that little progress has been made in the advancement of real dialogue about the nature of church practices among evangelicals. A central issue is, as Rosaria Butterfield has quipped, the Bible is used to end the conversation, not to enrich it. Setting aside the nature of biblical authority for the moment, this practice–of ending conversations by appealing to Scripture–may manifest both a lack of seriousness regarding church practices and a lack of intellectual integrity. My fear is that neither side of this divide is seriously listening, but is rather repeating clichéd rhetoric aimed at fortifying their positions. The aim of this post is simply to serve the conversation by noting the merits and shortcomings of the arguments.

Typology

Granted, not every church fits neatly into one or the other side of this debate. Some are very balanced in general orientation toward text or context. However, some general observations can be made of the types of churches in the American context that I am referring to as “contemporary” or “traditional.”

Contemporary Traditional
Generally moves from cultural context to textGeneral sensitivity to popular context, that is, the people among whom the church exists, especially to cultural distinctives Generally moves from text to cultural contextGeneral sensitivity to theological context, that is, the ideas among which the church exists, and their threats to the church or the gospel
Strong practical principles Strong theological principles
Preaching that methodologically begins with application (i.e. The question, “What should I preach on?” is answered topically from a sensitivity to context) Preaching that methodologically begins with scripture (i.e. The question, “What should I preach on?” is answered with a scripture reference)
Highly polished programatic or aesthetic elements (setting, traffic flow, conveniences, sound, signage, food, etc.–if this were a restaurant, one would want to come back) Purposeful lack of concern for aesthetic elements
Elements of pop musical concert in public singing (typical “band” instruments, lighting, stage set up, video feed, etc.) More traditional musical elements in public singing (can range quite a bit, but even with typical “band” instruments, other elements are intentionally passed over)
Strong presence of a screen or screens Intentional minimization of screens (e.g. only used for the words to songs)
Strong focus on “the leader” Luddite aesthetic for the purpose of drawing awareness to the gathered
Strong organizational health–special focus on leadership training and awareness of gifting Lack in good practical reasoning about a variety of issues from organizational health, community integration, leadership development, to building management
Loose or no denominational tie Strong denominational tie, or at least strong creedal or historical ties
Tend to see the “worship service” as a human event Tend to see the “worship service” as a divine event

A Sampling of Arguments

Contemporary

The single biggest argument against the traditional model is that it lacks evangelistic concern, that it makes very little difference in contemporary society. This argument is extremely difficult for a traditional church to deal with because it largely hits its mark. The five largest evangelical churches (not considering Lakewood Church, Houston, TX) are all “contemporary” (1. North Point, Alpharetta, GA, 2. Willow Creek, South Barrington, IL, 3.NewSpring, Anderson, SC, 4. Church of the Highlands, Birmingham, AL, 5. Saddleback, Lake Forest, CA). The most common response to this criticism is a deflecting mechanism of the following sort: “we’re unwilling to compromise our [theological] principles to attract people.” Vague condemnations of this sort merely distract from the fact that traditional churches have been ineffective by any measure (not just comparatively) in spreading the gospel in the American context.

An argument that is less common, is that contemporary churches share the theological commitments of traditional ones, but merely do things better practically. In other words, they are in other respects the same as traditional churches, but practically superior (hence, more conversions and attendance). Traditionalists can respond to this by arguing that so called “practical superiority” always involves “theological inferiority” (and in serious ways). Another way of putting this is that attention is zero-sum in the sense that to attend to practical concerns is to leave necessary theological considerations unconsidered.

Traditional

The single most common traditionalist charge against contemporary churches is that that they are willing to sacrifice theological faithfulness for numerical success. But this sort of charge tends to be pretty severely uncharitable, especially insofar as it gives the impression that there is intent to sacrifice theological faithfulness for success–a devil’s bargain (never mind if the traditionalists are right about what they charge). This charge seems to be the most serious area where the conversation is a non-starter, just where it would be most helpful to continue dialogue. The fault is on both sides. It would be helpful for the sake of discussion to assume that everyone is trying to be faithful to God’s commission and charge to the church, and talk about the particular risks of particular approaches. For instance, might it not be helpful to discuss constructively with both sides the hidden implications of preaching without the actual presence of the pastor.

Another common charge against the contemporary type is that these churches do not recognize that the “worship service” is not a mere human event, but also a divine event, that God meets us in worship and is also an actor. The difficulty with this charge is twofold. First, it has been difficult to find consensus about the definition and significance of the church’s gathering for “worship.” The liturgical tradition has a very well formed idea of this, but many evangelicals remain unconvinced (or are unaware of that tradition). This is an area where the discussion needs to be continued rather than cut off. Second, the implications of worship being “a divine event” are not clear. For traditionalists, the argument is generally left unstated between the premises “worship is a divine event” and “worship should be like ours is.” Granted, the regulative principle complicates this discussion. But among traditional churches that do not hold the the RP, the implications of God meeting the church in worship often are largely unspecified. For example, in a recent podcast titled “Bully Pulpit: Gobbledygook” Carl Trueman and Todd Pruitt discuss some quotes on preaching from Mark Driscoll and Andy Stanley. Todd Pruitt makes the point that to suggest that the preacher eliminate theological language from a sermon is an implicit denial of the sufficiency of Scripture because God promises to produce faith in the hearts of the hearers (God event), therefore, “my methodology becomes less important than God’s program of the word being preached and made plain.” (Todd Pruitt, Mortification of Spin podcast, September 24, 2013). Again, it is not clear what God’s activity might mean for the preacher’s activity, but in this case it is supposed to mean he should use “theological language.”

Another common charge is that the church is not for unbelievers. I’ve never heard a response for this charge from the contemporary folks. I suppose it is worth noting that there is New Testament precedence for acknowledging that unbelievers may be present. Paul seems sensitive to outsiders in 1 Corinthians 14:23 where he says, “If, therefore, the whole church comes together and all speak in tongues, and outsiders or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are out of your minds?” And yet, the traditionalist complaint seems to be deeper in the sense that they assert that the purpose of the weekly gathering is believer oriented, while they charge contemporary churches with being primarily unbeliever oriented. I think at least theoretically the complaint misses its mark because both would say the primary purpose of the weekly gathering is believer oriented, but the disagreement normally lies in what level of accessibility to unbelievers is appropriate and the degree to which this accessibility sacrifices the promotion of maturity in believers.

Some Concerns that are Not Commonly Raised

A related, but relatively undeveloped concern to the last one mentioned is the fact that accessibility is not merely a function of theological language. Some traditional churches (surely not all) are inaccessible intellectually as well as well as theologically. This raises the question, to what extent is the church responsible for the intellectual care of church members? Perhaps there will be a temptation to say, none. But this misses a crucial connection between intellectual virtue and general Christian virtue. This connection can be illustrated with two examples. First, Christian revelation is word revelation. It requires interpretation. Interpretation is only possible with intellectual virtue, otherwise heresy is common. Second, the moral field of the church is constantly changing, leaving new moral issues to be ironed out almost constantly. For this reason, intellectual virtue is necessary for acting wisely in the world. Boiling all Christian teaching down to “a third grade level” has obvious doctrinal and moral consequences.

Second, within the American milieu particularly, capitalism and consumerism are major factors. Traditional churches, since they move from text to cultural context, tend not to place a high priority on the cluster of activities involved with advertising the church. Furthermore, intentional disregard for aesthetic elements also reflects this philosophical commitment. Traditional churches will argue that evangelism is not advertising, and advertising should not be viewed as the paradigmatic approach toward evangelism. This is an area where the contemporary church needs to be especially wary, since to “advertise” reinforces consumerist assumptions that run contrary to the Christian faith in a significant way. God is not the ultimate product, the solution to all our needs. God is the sovereign Lord of the universe against whom we have sinned. To present God in the former way runs the risk of talking about a different God entirely, a sort of fawning obsequious figurehead who just wants everyone on his side.

Third, again, since traditional churches tend to move from text to context, they have the tendency not to utilize technology. The war over technology is heated, some arguing that every technology carries with it unintended consequences, others arguing that there is no point in pretending that technology can be avoided. Probably both positions are true. Technology certainly brings with it unintended consequences, and therefore, leaders must ask what these are and how to mitigate them. But certainly cars and cell phones are here to say. Some may argue that this is not a moral argument for cars or cell phones, and this is true, but the church must deal effectively with the real ever changing moral field, of which technology is a part.

Conclusion

In the end, it may seem that the divide relies on a basic tendency to adopt theological or practical ways of both interpreting situations and addressing them. And yet, the church is both a human and a divine construct. God works through human means. So perhaps the two most important questions are: 1) Does (and to what extent) the fact that God acts in the church affect my methodological commitments? 2) What is the theological freight of my particular practical decision?

Advertisements

10 thoughts on “Church Matters: Traditional and Contemporary Types

  1. Pingback: Church Matters: Church Seminary Divide | Concerning the Soul

  2. I won’t say it. Just imagine what I would say. I do have to say measuring evangelistic “success” by church size is very troubling. Also, it sounds as if you’re placing “liturgical” traditions in the “traditional” category. Very few such people would claim your description—especially lack of concern for aesthetics (among other things).

  3. Right, that’s a blind spot in my critique, especially since I’ve never been in liturgical tradition. In what ways does it not fit in the traditional category? (especially not the intentional lack of concern for aesthetics, but I also suppose that the aesthetics of the liturgical tradition are very different, less “accessible”)

    I think you’re right to point out the problem with measuring success with church size. But to push back, I’ve actually met people who’ve been converted by some of the big five churches I mentioned. They are seeing true conversions, and more than traditional churches. Perhaps you mean measuring “success” by evangelism at all is troubling? My overall point is that these contemporary churches are speaking more intelligibly to ordinary people. (Also, aesthetically I wish I were part of a liturgical tradition. It’s only the theological baggage that keeps me away.)

    (I need a sign off phrase)

    post tenebras lux (perhaps?)

  4. Also, please say it. 🙂 These three posts are designed to create discussion. I welcome criticism on these matters.

  5. Making a contemporary-traditional divide is again forcing me to make a false choice. (If I’m misunderstanding you, you need to reconsider how you present your work. This is three for three.) It is a spectrum of (dis)continuity. There are extreme cases, yes, but very few churches fit into your “types” as defined above. Churches must operate in a fusion—to use your words—of text and context. We are situated and there’s nothing we can do about that. So, we are always approaching the text from a context. The beauty and power of liturgy is through its scriptural saturation our context is re-shaped and re-formed, crafting a creative tension between text and context.

    I hesitate to say liturgy is less accessible. Church is weird for anyone who didn’t grow up with it. The whole less accessible thing, I find, is usually a low church (b)attitude. In fact in many ways liturgy is *more* accessible. There is something for the ear, the eye, the hands, the mouth—and if you go nosebleed high church—something for the nose! Quasi-related to this, I would not want to describe liturgy as believer-oriented or non-believer-oriented. I would prefer covenant-oriented. And that covenant is for all the families, tribes and people of the world; the question is if they acknowledge it, etc.

    And of course the big five, etc are conduits of our Lord’s purposes. The Lord takes pleasure in mediating his love and message through many. (And YHWH will even to stoop to conquer!) I think the binary view of evangelism (saved or unsaved) can be harmful. I’m not a fan of words like “journey” and “organic” but liturgy acknowledges the organic unfolding of our story into the Story. Sure, there are stages along the way, too. But we are all of us characters or sojourners (Jean!) or passengers. “Acts out the acts of the apostles” and all that. Bring the audience onto the stage.

    I won’t jackhammer the rest. I am curious though, Matt, what is your “theological baggage” with liturgy, etc?

    And I think you should use something in English. *Post tenebras lux* sounds like you have a messiah complex…

  6. But again, all three of these posts are thought experiments. I agree that it is a false choice; I disagree that churches do not fall into these categories. Perhaps you are limited by your own experience in this case. I think the point of my experiment is to say there are problems and merits on both sides of this (false) divide.

    Further, I think you’re just wrong about accessibility. What you’ve said sounds like the sort of internal argument, which makes sense to one in the liturgical tradition. What I mean is that to the average Joe American a liturgical service will seem very foreign. Don’t get me wrong, you may be right about the importance of a liturgy that appeals to all the senses and the formative power of this. But that’s not what is typically meant by “accessible,” which I take to be transparency of meaning/applicability.

    There may be some soteriological issues to work through here between us, but I’m in class and only vaguely aware of them at the moment because I’m in class.

    The “theological baggage” comment is indicating that my own theological perspective doesn’t align with any particular liturgical tradition, so to join one would be difficult for me. But I tend to think accessibility is overrated and like the arguments for a richer liturgical tradition (even though I’m pushing back above). I kind of wish I were Lutheran.

    I’ll drop the Messiah Complex and stick with a favorite from the Dennis Anderson of the Duluth news fame. – Good evening, and be kind. 🙂 (as always, many thanks for the dialogue)

  7. Thought experiments indeed. Still try not to make false choices. Churches bear some of those traits but to divide so sharply is not helpful. And yes *some* churches fit cleanly in one category or the other.

    I’m saying the average Jill and Joe would be bewildered by both liturgical and non-liturgical worship.

    Am I right to guess the hang up has to do with the presence and baptism? We could squeeze you into a PCA-mold, at least. 🙂

    I like the “Good evening and be kind.”

  8. I hear you and I see you. It may be that I’m touching on a debate that’s only primarily relevant in the circles with which I’m familiar. But I’ve tried in my “text to context” vs. “context to text” hit on something universal that does tend to polarize churches.

    I’ve known quite a few average Joes and Jills (or Dick and Jane) that go to contemporary churches, e.g. to Hope Lutheran in Des Moines or to Watermark in Dallas, etc. The reason that they report for going is because they can understand the pastor. Again, private thinking has its experiential limits, but I can put up a long list of churches we visited in Dallas and categorize them along these lines.

    I think partly I’m resistant to narrow statements of faith. Maybe I can become an Anglican…

    We need to discuss the baptism question sometime.

  9. Your touching on something specifically Protestant: our obsession with a good lecture. This is where the *balance* (NOT VERSUS) of Word and Sacrament is important.

    D o o d, if go Anglican your words on the first day of Prolegomena will come back to haunt you…

    We do need to talk about baptism. Everyone needs to talk about baptism. We need a seminar dovetailing biblical studies, systematics and historical theology on baptism!

  10. touché my friend, my mind is not routed for “Sacrament,” have a good break

    good morning and be kind

Kindly respond

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s