the sneaky things we don't say until we think no one is listening

i'm curiously fascinated these days with a consuming and almost incestuous network of blogs by what i would call "alternative" christians. when i say alternative, i don't mean that their christianity itself is anything different than anyone else's -- they hold to the basic tenets of christian faith: human sin, God's grace given through Jesus' life, death, resurrection. but they are alternative in terms of their views about the manifestation of christianity in the world.

on one hand, i certainly applaud their persistent focus on authenticity. oh the word "authentic"...i lament over it. i love the word. i love all that it used to imply: being true to oneself, being true to the character of belief, being true to the witness of God in the Bible, trying to give life its authenticity by being wholly real in faith. but that word "authentic" has now assumed a new set of connotations, many of which i find abrasive.

i worry about all the musing (complaining?) i read about the plight of the mainstream, traditional church. i feel like some of these writers want mainline traditions to "see the light" about our postmodern world and the needs of our youths, and then comform to what they believe to be the "model" church of this new era. i am fascinated by postmodernity, perhaps more than most people that i know. i take great interest in the idea that individual stories are becoming our new reality; that language is symbolic; that truth-claims are suspect; that we might be left with no rational ground to elevate one set of truths over another...i think that the challenges of postmodernity certainly do affect how we must think about the church, about worship, and about christianity itself.

what i wonder, however, is whether or not some of these writers really are thinking about postmodernity when they spout out praises for alternative churches, alternative methods of ministry, alternative spirituality, etc. i think that they are confused.

to these people, postmodern worship is really a misnomer for what used to be called "contemporary worship." as they see a postemodern fragmentation of Truth, they believe that simply changing worship styles will address the needs of people who may or may not believe that Truth exists, but rather that truths exist.

everyone is quick to criticize the media today. we talk about the fragmented images that we see; the evils of advertising that univocally demoralizes us into believeing that our true worth lies in what we consume, what we buy; the disjointedness of a world where we effortlessly hear about the horrors in the world (wars, disasters, poverty, hunger), and yet end up feeling only despair because we don't know what we can do; the media reinforces in our youth dangerous standards of beauty and morality....all in all, i feel like it is trendy to reject the media as a force that eats away at us from the inside, leaving us empty and jaded. but then these advocates of postmodern christianity turn right around and push forward worship that is as gimmicky and technology-centered as the media that they choose to criticize.

i have great concern that they are confusing postmodern with nontraditional. and not only confusing the two, but using the word "postmodern" as a sideways attempt to caricature mainline denomonations and to turn them into the enemy. they do not seek to transform the church from within, no matter what they say. today, i read a blogger account of someone's previous experience in my home church. he posited himself as a hero who distributed a packet about "new" and "postemodern" and "nontraditional" ideas about the Church to the church staff in hopes of starting discussion. and when discussion didn't happen (that is, when the church didn't jump to agree with him), he accused the church of ignorning him, and called the senior pastor a "ceo" who ran the church as a business, taking all authority and not listening to anyone else.

i was infuriated. i hate the way in which we spin our stories to make ourselves the victimized heros, how we only tell the details that will support our case. his account took for granted the notion that every church should want to launch itself into contemporary ideas about worship. he didn't bother to think about the responsibility a pastor has to his congregation -- CHANGE FOR THE SAKE OF CHANGE IS WORTHLESS! a church is a hard think to keep in balance. don't you dare go calling a pastor a "ceo" to insult him until you have gone and tried to keep a church organized and running. seminary and my field ed. has taught me that there is more to being a pastor than simply coming up with new spiritualities and worship styles to match what is happening in the culture. being a pastor means shepherding a congregation, which means that you have to be as sensitive to the needs of your congregation as you are to the needs of the world. it sounds horrible, but part of being a pastor IS being an effective administrator. as much as we would like the job to be 100% about God 100% of the time, unfortunately bills need to be paid, people need to be organized, programs need to be supervised...there are so many details that need to be taken care of. i fear that people are short-sighted about what a pastor has to do in order keep balance in a church and in his or her own life.

don't you dare insult a church staff simply because they didn't see a need for change, and don't you dare insult a church whose members feel fed spiritually, who feel comfortable with tradition, who see authentic christianity displayed from both pew and pulpit. it isn't fair to insult a church who didn't immediately do handsprings for your own agenda. isn't it possible that some people might actually feel connected to God through traditions that "postmoderns" might consider out-of-date? any of us in the church must take care to discern what is important to the church versus what is important to us.

these postmodern-authentic-contemporary people expect that their new and faddish views of the church should immediately be accepted by everyone. i feel like they find no worth in traditional practices. they work so hard at trying to figure out how to bring in people from a postmodern society that they ignore the spiritual needs of those people aready in the church. i feel like they assume that mainline worship is not authentic nor spiritually fulfilling. they say they want to transform the church. but really, they look like the just want to change the church. there is a difference. if they truly cared about transforming the church, they wouldn't try a one-size-fits-all approach.

you must transform a church when a church needs transforming and in an appropriate way given the traditions and needs of that individual church. and that means working with a church to transform from the inside out.

perhaps transformation is less about changing worship and more about changing people's attitudes towards worship. or perhaps transformation means taking a critical (not criticizing) look at the tradition of the church, and fixing what is lacking in its understanding of the gospel and the honest communication thereof.

maybe a high liturgical church isn't your style, but when viewed critically, the liturgy of the church authenticallypresents the gospel to those who come to the church. maybe the lives of the members are overflowing with faith, grace, and dynamic witness. but i feel like so many of these "postmoderns" would have no problem telling this church that their christian witness was inauthentic and ineffective.

i hate that church has to be effective. to these alternative christians, i want to say that one size does NOT fit all. and if they are going to be so hasty as to say that postmodern concerns necessitate churches that fit people's diverse needs, then they need to be able to accept mainline tradition as one of those needs. instead of trying to sound radical and postmodernly wise, maybe you should take a better look at what it means to be authentic, and what it means to show grace to your fellow brothers and sisters in christ. stop using words like "postmodern" and "alternative" and even "authentic" as backhanded slams to an institutional church that has persisted and lasted over time. stop trying to tell mainline denominations that they aren't working. stop assuming that everyone who doesn't go for your alternative expressions of worship is the enemy.

now i have to hold myself up to the same scrutiny. i, too, am writing with an agenda. i, too, run the danger of thinking that everyone should agree with me. and i know that in my frustration, i have said some brash and insulting things.

i just wonder if there isn't some way that all opinions about the face of christianity, especially the face of the church, could be held as valid. i would say that alternative-minded christians have a distinct role as the fathers of new churches. i think that their ideas and concerns are valuable as forms of christian witness, and that their efforts will be crucial in the formation of new worship spaces and communities. i also think that they may offer some distinct wisdom to struggling churches, or churches that recognize a need for updating. but i also think that there are and can be successful churches that don't work on an alternative model. and it's no good if those churches aren't respected.

moving forward is crucial. i just don't need a group of alternative christianity theorists telling me that theirs is the only way to do so.