Just fitting in...

The Rev. Andy Stanley believes if you're going to build a church in Buckhead, it ought to look like an office building.

(Son of Charles Stanley, incidentally)

From the reader who sent it in:

They have a huge church outside Atlanta and have a satellite church in the Buckhead area that shows him on a huge video screen - I have heard of people who have gone to entire services there and didn't realize that there's no actual guy there, just his image on the screen.  We know a Catholic family that goes there now, and apparently there are several more.  The woman I know is a writer and she wrote a column for a local paper that this church makes her feel good, not guilty like her 'old church'. 

From the article:

"We've tried to remove any obstacle, whether it be tradition or whatever, from the experience," he said. "We present Jesus Christ and the New and Old Testament as written but with no other obstacles in the way."

The music is "like what you'd hear on the radio," McDaniel said. "You don't have pipe organ music in your CDs. Why would you subject people to that on Sunday?"

A fascinating stance: That the unfamiliar, that which is outside of everyday experience, is an obstacle. I would imagine that the deeper explanation would be that Jesus met people where they were, that he was a man of his time, and so on. So what's the Catholic/Orthodox response to that?

Comments

[Maureen]

I thought we were supposed to be in the world but not of the world.

Ironically, I suppose a lot of these folks would like a patterned liturgical experience that didn't vary much from Sunday to Sunday or throw big surprises at them. And there is something to be said for a steady rhythm of life. But I admit that I never thought variety was the stumblingblock of life.

[Anon]

I don't think that having met people 'where they were' (e.g. at dinners, at public stonings, in the market place,) He said "Hey, let's behave just like this at temple."

But I could be wrong.

[Dan]

I was surpised at my own feeling when our Methodist church went Audio/Visual, with a techie in the back handling powerpoint and a projector on the ceiling pushing out the words to the songs and the order of the service. I had thought I would like it, but I found instead that it made me feel passive in the pew: not having to deal with the hymnal, not having to look up the readings, having the big-screen tell me when to stand and when to sit, seeing nature screen shots with inspirational spam flash by in the minutes leading up to service... I didn't like it at all & am pleased with my current low-tech Catholic Parish where mics are about it.

[kathleen reilly]

This is one of Christ's most vivid points. Jesus wanted the moneychangers out of the temple precisely because they were familiar. He would have willingly entered and preached to a den of thieves, but it was sacrelige to have the den of thieves in the temple. The church is supposed to be a place separate and other from the mundane world. in church, the familiar IS the obstacle.

[John J> Simmins]

First of all: I have pipe organ music on my CD.
Hey, I have no problem as long as he doesn't violate the priciples in the GIRM and Catechism and people knew what they were in for when they went to that church.

[Suibhne]

...Jesus met people where they were, that he was a man of his time, and so on.

Jesus met people where they were but invited them to follow him to where he was.

[JTII]

So, not knowing when to sit, stand, kneel or sing is an obstacle to worship. How about attending services more often with your faith community so you feel more comfortable with the "rules"?

I think the whole point of this kind of spiritual experience is the "plug in/plug out" factor. You needn't worry about having worship interfere with the rest of your life. If its great weather the next few Sundays you can skip the service and never feel out of place when you decide to return!

I know that sounds harsh, but this strikes a real nerve with me. I have a cousin who attends the Willow Creek church outside of Chicago. Her mother, my aunt, had a particular devotion to the Blessed Mother, especially the Miraculous Medal. Now, my cousin thinks that "Mary worship" is idolatry. I'm praying as hard as I can for my cousin and I'm sure her mother is too.

By the by, Willow Creek got its name because it started in the Willow Creek THEATER in Palatine, Illinois. I was reminded of that when my cousin recently mentioned that a Grammy-winning country music star had just performed at their Sunday service.

I wanted to say, "Gee whiz, all we get is Jesus."

[marym]

Subject people to pipe organ music? Heaven forbid people should be subjected to art while contemplating God and His glorious creation! Nope instead we'll all get together and worship the glory of technology (because we don't get enough of that at home and at the office.) You know, when I see a beautiful stain glass window or listen to Gregorian Chant I think of God. When I see a large video screen or listen to a synthesizer I think of man.

[Joe]

So much for the Otherness of God. I guess a God who is unlike us is to offputting to bother with. If He isn't going to be all about me and my needs, well, I don't have time for him. And if the surrounding culture is not an extension of my own self-created, me-catering daily world, then why would I be expected to bother having any interest?

The more I ponder the approach, the more sacriligious it seems.

[Septimus]

This is what I call "entrepeneurial Christianity."

This is our "competition"? No offense to these folks, but if so, it reminds me with a political saying: never interfere with your opponent when he's in the act of destroying himself. (Not that I wish these folks ill; only that I think the Tradition will endure.)

[Gerard E.]

Better quit romping and stomping when second-generation ministers like Andy Stanley and Joel Osteen expand their facilities. Like it or not, they're moving on with what they view as their Gospel missions. So maybe their theology is a little too much on the Borders Self-Help Dept. side. Or they use technology more blatantly than a teevee weatherman. They're getting On With It. Perhaps we should do the same- with our message.

[TSO]

The nature of a democracy is to flatten hierarchies and to present equality as the highest good. So I guess it's not surprising that the trend is now towards building churches which are no different or better than any other building. For a church to proclaim it has something higher to offer is seen as uppity.

[Rich Leonardi]

Someone quipped a while back that he thanks God for Tradition lest he come to worship himself. I experience a similar gratitude, hopefully matched with humility, when I read stories like this or drive by the PowerPoint-and-latte community up the street, currently in the middle of a $26 million expansion.

[Jason]

"Here too, however, as in regard to Latin, he speaks of a 'cultural upheaval', even of an almost 'anthropological change' particularly in the case of young people, 'whose musical sense has been stunted since the beginning of the sixties by rock music and related forms.' This has gone so far (and here he refers to his pastoral experience in Germany) that nowadays 'it is hard to persuade young people to listen to the old German hymns, let alone sing them.' ...He tells me of a famous theologian, one of the leading figures of post-conciliar thought, who admitted without a qualm that he felt himself to be a 'barbarian'. He comments: 'A theologian who does not love art, poetry, music and nature can be dangerous. Blindness and deafness toward the beautiful are not incidental: they necessarily are reflected in his theology.'"

--"The Ratzinger Report", pgs. 129-130

[Jason]

Italics off

[John]

Cardinal George at the Spring meeting of the bishops, I believe in 2000, recounted the pervasive influence of TV on religion. He remarked that because of TV's power over people's lives it will be very difficult to be Catholic in our culture, say in 40 years. He was wrong about the time, it is difficult now.

While standing in line at the confessional, some one I know was asked: Which Mass do you usually attend? Answer: the vigil Mass (usually with Gregorian Chant). Follow up comment: I go to 10:30 Sunday because the music is more cheerful than at the vigil Mass. The music then is usually selected from the worst available in Gather.

The culture rules! Faith now for many is a derivative of popular culture. Used to be the other way around but not anymore.

[Jason]

Ahh!

[hieronymus]

So they remove tradition and replace it with novelty - if they think that pop music is less an obstacle than traditional sacred music, they don't know anything about either. And pop music certainly has nothing to do with "Jesus as written" in either Testament - and it's bad music.

Tradition - and not just Sacred Tradition - is the natural reflection of a supernatural truth, in the Communion of Saints. Nothing expresses our belief that ancestral Christians are glorified in Christ than treating their accomplishments as worthwhile - religious tradition is the collective wisdom, piety, and creativity of the triumphant part of that Communion, offered to us as a gift. To treat such a gift as dirt is to treat our predecessors as dirt - to refuse to consider them of any more worth than their dry bones buried in the cemetery.

-----

One of my best friends is evangelical - I once told her that she simply couldn't understand my taste for high liturgy because she never has experienced it. Being admirably open-minded about such things, she asked me to recommend a church she could attend for the experience, and since she was living in Boston at the time, I suggested Holy Trinity for a Solemn Tridentine High Mass, and she went - on Corpus Christi!

She though it was weird, which was about the reaction I expected. But when I shared this story to a priest, he told me that was good - we consider things weird when we don't understand them. God is a mystery beyond comprehension, and so authentic religious experience should always seem weird. Her reaction shows that she understood something mysterious was happening, something she couldn't understand - something bigger than her.

The office-block, pop-music, megachurch is an effort to remove the weirdness from worship - to present a God whom we can fit inside our little human minds and little contemporay tastes. It's reflected in the arrogance of the pastor, who really seems to think he understands Jesus perfectly. Well, no. Implicit in the statement "Jesus is Lord" is the fact that we cannot understand Him perfectly.

Megachurchism isn't even religion. Without the weirdness, we will never understand God's transcendence and mystery. Traditional Catholicism has the weirdness. Orthodoxy has the weirdness. Buddhism and Islam and Hinduism and Paganism have the weirdness - which is why I agree with Amy that there is a greater temptation to become a Buddhist than an Evangelical Christian. The former act as if they believe in an awesome God, but don't, whereas the latter believe in an awesome God, but act as if they don't.

[amy]

awesome post, Hieronymus. Thanks...

[Tim F.]

Rev. Andy is going where the money is. You would think there is enough to be had in Alpharetta. Another Atlanta preacher, Jame Merritt former Southern Baptist Convention President, skipped out on Snellville First Baptist and moved into an office building across from the exclusive Sugarloaf Country club in Duluth. The Bellsouth Classic is held at Sugarloaf. Bigger place, more money nearby including neighbor Ralph Reed. And Snellville is undergoing a somewhat, how shall we say, demographic shift?

[Mark T-K]

There's an aspect of this that I haven't seen mentioned in this thread. Most of the big MegaChurches with PowerPoint and stadium seating have a full week of events and worship services going on. Many congregations (but clearly not all, because every one is different) draw "Seekers" (nonChristians or extremely lapsed folks) to their Sunday worship and hope it appeals because it's not so different from daily life as to be off-putting to someone adrift. But the members/believers are expected to take part in Wednesday night or Sunday night worship, which usually has a big more theologically deep scriptural reading & exposition, as well as other kinds of church-community events on Tuesday, Monday or whenever (things like various Bible studies, Tuesday morning Men's ministry, or Wednesday afternoon Mothers Of Pre Schoolers (MOPS)). Most are also in "Small Groups" which contain 8-20 people who meet together every week or every couple of weeks for service projects, Bible study, fellowship, meals, etc. (The small groups are a huge part of what happens in places like Willow Creek, Saddleback and other of the enormous MegaChurches.)

I personally belong to a theologically conservative Lutheran congregation where we haven't *gotten* to the fully realized Seeker friendly model, but we've shifted worship to be more screen-driven and contemporary. I'm not sold on it, and am less positive about it then I was, say, 4 years ago. It *does* put too much weight on the quality of the pastor and the music minister, a clear drawback. But in fairness, a lot of people I know there were not worshipping anywhere a few years ago, not part of *any* congregation, maybe even not Christian, and now are worshipping weekly or nearly so. We are in a community with many immigrants who attend one of the 5 area colleges, and come from nonChristian backgrounds but somehow end up worshipping with us.

Some people do eventually leave the Contemporary-style church for ones nearby that are more liturgical (some even Catholic) -- if this is the process God is using to reach them, then I wouldn't stand in the way.

Basically, all I'm trying to say is that comparing a typical liturgical setting to the kind of full-tilt community a MegaChurch tries to provide is a bit of apples to pine-apples.

[amy]

Another aspect, Mark, relates to something I read about an Arizona mega-church a couple of months ago: In that church, only a very small percentage - maybe 10% of the congregation were actually "members" of the church - an identity which required one to take courses, make a particular committment. I thought that was interesting.

[Jon]

Those folks are not going to church. They are doing the equivalent of going to the movies or attending a concert.

A church that is easy to join and places no demands on one, is just as easy to leave when one gets bored or is asked to do something. And it is also pretty useless when real problems arise in life, like the death of a son.

[Fred K]

A fascinating stance: That the unfamiliar, that which is outside of everyday experience, is an obstacle. I would imagine that the deeper explanation would be that Jesus met people where they were, that he was a man of his time, and so on.

A traditional Christian response: Christ comes to us also through historical continuity. To reject all historical forms is to deny profoundly human dimensions of revelation.

That said, Christians should carry Christ everywhere they go: Christ belongs in the office not merely in a church that looks like an office.

[Anson Groves]

A priest in my diocese told me once that he thinks in 100 years there won’t be anymore Protestants left. The very conservative ones will become Catholic (or maybe Eastern Orthodox), and the others will become quasi-Christian or non-Christian (like the mainline Protestants). I think with these Evangelical mega-churches you have a couple of characteristics:

1) A question as to whether they are really Christians. Do they believe in the Holy Trinity? From conversations with mega-church (and mainline) Protestants that I know here, I’m not certain. Do they believe in Baptism, aside from a ceremonial coming-out party?
2) These mega-churches are not really Churches, but rather spiritual businesses. You pay (tithe) to feel spiritually complete. What yoga was in the 80’s, these mega-churches are today. Let’s see if they last.

It’s interesting how completely foreign an apostolic Christian would feel amongst his fellow Christians today, especially in a mega-church; not liturgically, and not theologically.

Pax Christi,
Anson

[Wanda]

'Welcome to Buckhead - The Church That's Ashamed To Look Like a Church!' Sorry, but that thing is an abomination. It's not that it's bad architecture - it's perfectly fine for a modern building. But a church has its own purpose and its own integrity. This takes its cue from the business world - why? Are churches trying to imitate Coca-Cola bottling plants? All the identical little bottles trundle through on a conveyor belt, being filled up with identical "religion" and then pushed out the door. Everything smooth, featureless, antiseptic, inhuman. It gives me the creeps. I prefer my scruffy little Catholic church down the street, built in the 70s, with no style, no decent ornament, nothing particularly attractive about it. It can't uplift me the way a great European cathedral can, but at least it reminds me of how humans straggle along, trying to get to something better. This big automated monster-church gives me the creeps.

[Der Tommissar]

I'm still waiting for some enterprising preacher to "reach out" to youth by making the following observation.

"We see that when Jesus (or Juueeeessus) went to the temple, he whipped the money-changers and drove them out."

Then he starts holding UFC-style matches during services. "And as Wanderlei Silva made Kimo Leopoldo tap out with a series of mounted strikes, dear brothers and sisters, so too will JESUS drive Satan from our lives!"

It could happen. It could happen.

[hieronymus]

Nah, Der, it could never happen

[Der Tommissar]

My head just exploded.

[john c]

Speaking of heads exploding, I have an overwhelming desire to split my head open, take a spoon and shovel out all memory of the the phrase: we've shifted worship to be more screen-driven. The problem is me, I know.

[Jack Whitehead]

God is both transcendant and immanent and religion should emphasize both. One is mysterious and otherness. The other is down-to-earth and much like us. There is room for both in church, whether in buildings or worship. Interestingly, the poorer, working class folk tend to emphasize the immanence of God, while the richer, higher class types enjoy His transendence -- one relates to a God who is down to earth and can help the poor, while the other enjoys the mysterious, awe-inspiring otherness of God. Our buildings may say more about our view of God -- and maybe there is a place for both sides.

[hieronymus]

Interestingly, the poorer, working class folk tend to emphasize the immanence of God, while the richer, higher class types enjoy His transendence.

I'd question that. The majestic churches in most American cities were built by immigrant laborers, and the modern glassy abstract churches by upper-middle class suburbanites. I suppose you could attribute that to the era in which the churches were built and other factors, but generally I've seen the opposite of what you've seen.

Many of thhe poor like to be reminded of a better world to come, and many of the rich like to be affirmed and made comfortable with themselves here on earth. I doubt there's a strong correspondence between class and liturgical 'height' among Catholics - although there probably is among protestants.

[Septimus]

Der -- parody is risky business in this area; it's so hard to stay ahead of reality!

Has anyone here ever read Robert Heinlein's science fiction? I bring him up because he imagined, say 100 years in the future, and beyond, religion (he was agin' it) going through some weird changes, splintering off in different, contradictory directions, some of which merged with entertainment... it's been awhile, but I remember thinking, Heinlein isn't far ahead of reality...

[Der Tommissar]

Interestingly, the poorer, working class folk tend to emphasize the immanence of God, while the richer, higher class types enjoy His transendence -- one relates to a God who is down to earth and can help the poor, while the other enjoys the mysterious, awe-inspiring otherness of God. Our buildings may say more about our view of God -- and maybe there is a place for both sides.

If this is a high brow way of saying, "The working poor would save their pennies to pay for awe-inspiring churches, while doctors and lawyers in the suburbs add a tennis court to the house and a new BMW for Tiffany while worshipping in barns." I'm with you. If now, I disagree (circle gets the square).

[anonymouse]

--A fascinating stance: That the unfamiliar, that which is outside of everyday experience, is an obstacle. I would imagine that the deeper explanation would be that Jesus met people where they were, that he was a man of his time, and so on.

I don't think this is really the argument. The argument is "novelty will attract"-- like you need a teaser to get people to church.

But the need for teasers and bribes and gimmicks doesn't keep people coming to church. The familiar in this case, comes with associated baggage. If the place being built were a place of familiarity that somehow encouraged truth, reflection, compassion, humility, and reverence, then maybe it would work. But instead, it is a place of familiarity that encourages putting on a particular persona, one that comes between us and honesty/humility anyway, not to mention between us and God. Gossip is familiar; rudeness is familiar. If our society were one where familiarity existed only in places where we were better people, then maybe.

But I still think that this is highlighting the difference between moral virtue and religious virtue--faith, hope, and charity come to us in ways we don't control, but God does, and can come even if we fail in moral virtue.

A church is supposed to be a place that, while we practice moral virtue in it, we are present there to come into contact with religious virtue. This kind of church seems to obscure the difference between the two, trying to use worldly experiences to reach a religious experience. The "spiritual" experience that many people want to feel is really a false religious experience. It is not grace; but it's what they hope that grace would feel like.

[Richard]

1. More importantly, "having the building look like the office a typical [person] would enter five days a week is right in line with what we're trying to do," he said, adding that's making people feel more at ease about church.

I worked 9-5 M-F in a corporate cube for several years.

The last thing I wanted was to be reminded of it on my days off.

2. The woman I know is a writer and she wrote a column for a local paper that this church makes her feel good, not guilty like her 'old church'.

Ah.

The old "church as therapy" routine again.

Enter by the narrow gate. Apparently it's the one marked "Feel good about yourself."

[kysa beringer]

I'm a faithful orthodox Catholic, but really enjoy listening to Charles Stanley (Andy Stanley's father who runs In Touch Ministries). Do I like mega-church office buidlings? No. Agree with all of Baptist theology? Of course not. But on the areas that we can theologically agree... and on a refreshingingly genuine but passionate love for Jesus... I applaud Stanley. Just in terms of preaching technique and love for Jesus, our priests (and Catholics in general) could learn something from these guys. So, be careful that false piety doesn't cause you to stumble.

[John Riley]

I go to his church. Here are two websites you need to visit. 1- http://buckheadchurch.com/
2- http://northpoint.org/before-you-attend

[Ryan Day]

I've been to both of Andy Stanley's campuses & was literally in awe at what was being done. The are helping people connect to God in a way that most churches aren't. I live in Ohio, but if I was in Atlanta I would attend.

He has found a way to connect with culture in a that no one has in a long time. I'm pretty sure Jesus spent most of his time in marketplace not the temple.