Instead of falling into the temptation of offering criticism, I ask myself what is good in what has occurred? The great church revolution ”“ whether our service is expressed formally or more informally – has captured three good things for us.
First, relationships. The church of 1959 contained many nominal Christians. Amongst us, the Graham Crusade was most effective. But the day of the local church as the community at prayer was on the point of extinction. Some decades later, we can trace the great change which libertarianism has created in the world. Who could possibly have predicted the revolution which has overtaken an institution as solid as marriage, for example? We can now see the absolute need for churches to become communities in themselves, sets of relationships in which people can care for one another, meet each other marry each other, befriend each other. Today about 61% of Sydney Anglicans attend small groups ”“ groups which hardly existed in churches in the early 1960s. We have retained community where the world has been against it.
When the congregation meets, therefore, we must encourage, support and nurture relationships ”“ first with God and then with each other. To this end, formality or informality is not the issue. Either may foster relationships; either may hinder them. But it is certain that the mere repetition of what we used to do will no longer be meaningful. Furthermore, it is not biblical. Whatever we may think of modern church life, it far better fits the picture of the church we have in the New Testament than church life in the 1950s. This is one of the reasons why so much that succoured the spiritual life was found amongst the parachurch organisations and fellowships instead of the local churches. Look at the teaching about how to behave in Ephesians and Colossians. You will find that in order to obey it you are required to have close relationships with those you go to church with. We are the Body of Christ, not a collection of people who happen to live in the same suburb.
In thinking of relationships we also need to think of what we offer others. Human relationships are one of the most attractive products of the gospel. The older churches were accessible because people had prior knowledge. Thus Mr Bean knew more or less what to expect and even could sing the hymns. Now, however, entry to a church building is as foreign an experience to most people as it would be for us to enter a Hindu temple. This is compounded when the insider’s behaviour is inexplicable and inaccessible. Our churches are part of what this nation needs. Let us make them more open to the outsider.
Second, reality. It is hard now to imagine the gap that exists between the piety of the older church and that of the newer one. But our social life has taken a turn away from formality, away from ritual, away from ceremonial. This may be illustrated in a hundred ways. It all represents a hunger for reality judged in personal terms; we may not like it; we may regard it as a sign of bad manners; we may think that informality is no more a sure bearer of spiritual reality than the formal. We may indeed think what we like. But the change has occurred, and if we wish to be missionaries within this culture, it must be reflected in what we do in church, at some levels. We must recognise that for many, many people, old church ways sound like the very epitome of the inauthentic, as well as being incomprehensible and deadening. I think that what we have done is to say that the Christian faith is serious and it is personal, authentic and spiritual.
I don’t think I would find a church service in +Jensen’s diocese very appealing. Nor would my children. At our church, most members are not cradle Episcopalians. They came to the Episcopal Church, in many cases, BECAUSE, not in spite of, the beauty, dignity, and sense of piety of its traditional liturgy and music. True, some may also embrace “contemporary” versions of corporate worship, but even for these folks, the older forms were not sufficiently off-putting to keep them from becoming Episcopalians. Sorry, but I don’t buy +Jensen’s argument for “informality” and against “1950s” ways of “doing church.”