« He said, Spirit said | Main | Reform of the Reform »
December 08, 2005
Legs
The megachurch closings of Sunday, December 25 continues to have legs. The NYtimes notices, and Laurie Goodstein does a decent job in covering it, mentioning the emphasis on Christmas Eve and struggle to fill churches on Christmas Day that we've discussed here. She also gets a good quote from a pastor of a church that is, indeed, holding a Sunday service, but only one, that will be livestreamed over the internet. He hopes families will gather round the computer to watch. Then it's on to Willow Creek.
Staff members at Willow Creek said they had had few complaints from members about the church closing on Christmas. Said the Rev. Mark Ashton, whose title is pastor of spiritual discovery: "We've always been a church that's been on the edge of innovation. We've been willing to try and experiment, so this is another one of those innovations."
The real question is not why churches are skipping Christmas, but why individual Christians are skipping church on the second holiest day on the Christian calendar next to Easter, said Mr. Thumma.
"I think these critics who decry the megachurches should really be aiming their barbs at individual Christians who are willing to stay at home around the Christmas tree instead of coming and giving at least part of that day to the meaning of the holiday," he said. "They should be facing up to the reality of that."
Two points.
1) Don't you wonder sometimes about sourcing for these pieces? I mean, the Catholic source for quotes in this piece is the Director of Research and Planning for the Archdiocese of Philadelphia. Huh? Wouldn't you think a Director of the Office of Worship or even a real live pastor or bishop would be the first person you'd call?
2) I so want to be a Pastor of Spiritual Discovery. Now.
P.S. I do think these pastors might want to regroup and have a spin session. Initially, the decision doesn't look horrible, given the stance of much of this branch of Christianity towards church worship anyway, as well as the undisputed existence of Christmas Eve services. But honestly, every time one of them opens their mouth to defend it, their rationales just sound sillier and sillier.
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451be0d69e200d834256a9453ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Legs:
» No church worship on Christmas? from The Anchoress
I dunno, I am not one to criticize the way others worship, but this seems strange to me - I dont understand this whole idea of not having Christmas Day services simply because the day falls on a Sunday.
Some of the nations most prominen... [Read More]
Tracked on Dec 9, 2005 3:06:55 PM
Comments
Heh, I like this: "A pastor of a church that is, indeed, holding a Sunday service, but only one, that will be livestreamed over the internet. He hopes families will gather round the computer to watch." Maybe the viewers can tune in while setting up the new software?
I don't know how Protestants handle their tithing duties, but perhaps these pastors are concerned that they'd be operating in the red if they bothered to have any services on Christmas day. After all, folks might not be able to give to the church if they've blown all their cash on gifts and food for their families.
Posted by: Angela at Dec 9, 2005 12:13:34 AM
Understanding that you may be used to getting 10,000 for your Sunday service, would it be so awful if only 1,000 showed up at the megachurch on Christmas Day, or even 100? Doesn't a church have some obligation to open its doors on Christmas Day, even if only a handful show up?
I guess I don't understand the modern evangelical churches.
Posted by: Whitcomb at Dec 9, 2005 12:28:37 AM
Let me see if I have this right...we should be upset with the people who are so wrapped up in their presents and homemade cinnamon rolls (well, at my house anyway...) that they don't want to come to church? As opposed to being upset with pastors who have so clearly failed to impart to these parishioners the significance and importance of attending church on such a day as Christmas?
And even in the face of their failure to stem within their own congregation the tide of secularization overwhelming Christmas (by no means an easy task), should they not continue to preach, teach and exhort the virtues of Christmas worship and then go on to serve on Christmas morning those who do wish to attend, rather than simply throwing up their hands in a fit of apathy and locking the door? What kind of pastor who believes himself to be preaching the truth says simply, "This is too hard, I give up."???
Posted by: iowakatie1981 at Dec 9, 2005 1:07:49 AM
"The real question is not why churches are skipping Christmas, but why individual Christians are skipping church on the second holiest day on the Christian calendar next to Easter, said Mr. Thumma."
Isn't Good Friday arguably the second holiest day of the year for Christians.
And before someone points out that it is not a Holy Day of Obligation where others are, note that A.) it can't be a Holy Day of Obligation, since the Obligation of the Holy Day of Obligation is hearing mass, which can't be done that day and B.) if all the Holy Days of obligation are holier days than you'd have to argue that Good Friday ranks 7th (is that right?) which seems untenable.
Posted by: Samuel J. Howard at Dec 9, 2005 2:01:20 AM
"I so want to be a Pastor of Spiritual Discovery. Now."
On some of my tough days "I so want to be a Pastor of Relaxation Discovery."
It would include a ministry of hammock laying, modeling the proper form of napping, and perhaps encouraging the devotion to Our Lady of the Dormition . . ..
Posted by: frsteven at Dec 9, 2005 3:02:34 AM
"known for their rich liturgical tradtions" the NYT slipped it something positive about the Catholic Church, there's hope yet.
Posted by: Mary Kay at Dec 9, 2005 5:36:21 AM
I've already fired the whole copy desk.
Pinch
Posted by: Pinch Sulzberger at Dec 9, 2005 7:19:39 AM
I say the cool thing is that the Evangelicals are having this discussion at all.
Look what's happened: they made a typical Evangelical decision, the high church called them on it, and now they feel forced to defend themselves. They're listening to us, at least. This is huge, and I'm glad for it.
Posted by: Jon W at Dec 9, 2005 8:19:17 AM
Samuel
For Catholics, Good Friday is not distinguishable from Easter in terms of its ranking in the Ordo, because the Ordo lists the Paschal Triduum as the preeminant solemnity of the liturgical year. It's a unity; and the canonical obligation to attend Mass is fulfilled by attendance at the Easter Vigil or on Easter Sunday.
In the pre-conciliar Ordo, btw, both Pentecost and Epiphany arguably ranked ahead of Christmas, as their octaves were of the second class, while that of Christmas was of the third class (the octave of Easter being of the first class, with each day being a solemnity -- which is why we still don't do penance on Easter Friday....).
Posted by: Liam at Dec 9, 2005 8:33:24 AM
What a contrast with the tradition of the three Masses of Christmas. One year I was altar boy at the 12 noon Christmas Mass when the priest announced, after the old vernacular prayers that followed low Mass, that he'd said only two Masses and was about to say his third. (Little did I and my fellow servers know that we were about to SERVE our second Mass of the day!)
Posted by: RP Burke at Dec 9, 2005 8:58:24 AM
"should they not continue to preach, teach and exhort the virtues of Christmas worship and then go on to serve on Christmas morning those who do wish to attend, rather than simply throwing up their hands in a fit of apathy and locking the door? What kind of pastor who believes himself to be preaching the truth says simply, 'This is too hard, I give up.'???"
I feel like this when a Holy Day of Obligation loses it's obligation status when it falls on a Monday. And I feel this way when we celebrate the Ascension on a Sunday.
Posted by: Meggan at Dec 9, 2005 9:06:52 AM
``Wouldn't you think a Director of the Office of Worship or even a real live pastor or bishop would be the first person you'd call?''
Maybe they did. And maybe the pastor (or bishop) hearing that someone from the Times was on the phone, said ``Oh God, not them again. YOU take it, okay?'' and passed it to the nearest available live body with a telephone line. And given the Times' attitude toward all things Catholic, I can see why they'd do it.
Posted by: Annalucia at Dec 9, 2005 9:18:04 AM
Since we're drifting off to Holy Days as a subject, I've long thought we should restore Epiphany to Jan. 6, make it a Holy Day of Obligation, skip this New Year's Day non-sense re Holy Days, and thereby work to re-establish the idea of the 12 days of Christmas as the Christmas season. Christmas should begin, not end, on Dec. 25. Their is a certain sense of anti-climax now after Advent. Also, this might reduce, just a little, some of the secular rush-rush in our heads throughtout December.
Posted by: bruce cole at Dec 9, 2005 9:22:18 AM
Meggan,
I'm with you - I wonder if we could start a petition to bring back Holy Days of Obligation - move Epiphany back to the 12th day of Christmas, Ascension back to the 40th day of Easter, Corpus Christi to the Thursday after Trinity Sunday and make the whole lot of them obligational, even if they fall on a Monday or a Saturday - I just don't buy the "it's too hard for people to make extra time for Mass in the middle of the week 10 times a year" excuse.
Posted by: Tim Ferguson at Dec 9, 2005 9:28:49 AM
great minds think alike Bruce - though I'd like to keep New Year's a holiday, but return it to a celebration of the Circumcision, eight days after his birth (in the Jewish manner of counting) - an annual reminder of the Jewish roots of our faith.
Posted by: Tim Ferguson at Dec 9, 2005 9:34:14 AM
The DVD giveaway of "a heartwarming contemporary Christmas tale" in lieu of services was what cracked me up.
If, say, EWTN made a DVD to give away to people who were staying home on Christmas Eve and Christmas, the first thing they'd show would be Mother Angelica saying, "Why aren't you at Mass? Put some clothes on and go to church! It's Jesus' birthday -- you can at least go see him!"
Oh, wait, that's my mom.... :)
Seriously, though, when you think of all the trouble people will go through to get an Xbox, I think it's worth a little effort to go to church on Sunday the 25th.
Posted by: Maureen at Dec 9, 2005 9:45:01 AM
But I still have to agree that, from the Protestant point of view (at least for Evangelicals), their logic is sound. Lacking the Eucharist, their services are a variation of "where two or three are gathered" (except it may be two or three thousand). There seems to be no theological reason, from that perspective, why they would have to be gathered in a megabuilding rather than around the crackling fireplace at home.
Posted by: c matt at Dec 9, 2005 10:00:47 AM
Well, they have wonderful social programs and places for singles to meet. Willow Creek packs them in when it is up and running. And they have money, money, money!!
But-- so begins the drift along the inevitable current to a variation of Unitarianism and then into that great dark secular void that lies just beyond.
Posted by: John Hetman at Dec 9, 2005 10:07:36 AM
We've been discussing this on a conservative protestant message board that I'm a part of, and most of them said that they've never had Christmas Day services, unless it falls on a Sunday. They've always only had Christmas Eve services.
They feel that our only biblical obligation is for Sunday services. Celebrating Christmas is on the same level as Thanksgiving, and most of them would never dream of skipping Christmas Eve, or Thanksgiving Eve, services.
Sounds very weird to me, but that's what they're telling me. It seems only the liturgically inclined denominations hold Christmas Day services.
Posted by: Kelly at Dec 9, 2005 10:24:25 AM
Tim:
Part of the rationale for the holy days being non-obligatory on Mondays and Saturdays is to be mindful that a priest may have three or four Masses for Sunday.
That said, I regret to report that attendance for Holy Days of obligation isn't strong, at least, not here at my new parish. Here in Piqua, Ohio, the two Catholic parishes (1/2 mile apart!) have eight Masses between them on holy days, two on the vigil, and two on the evening of the day.
We anticipate one priest, not many years hence, where we have four now (including two retired priests approaching 90); and not only will such a schedule be impossible for one priest, I wonder that we'd even need as many as four for a holy day -- a vigil, and early morning, and a school Mass should accommodate all.
By the way, its not just taxing on the priest; parish musicians are in even shorter supply.
Posted by: (Fr) Septimus at Dec 9, 2005 10:25:19 AM
Fr. Septimus,
I know that's the case as well - but perhaps the burden could be lifted from the priests by absolving them from preaching a homily on those holy days that fall on Saturday or Monday. The readings for holy days are generally rich enough and self-explanatory that giving folks a five-minute meditation break might be even more effective than a homily.
Of course, no one is bound to the impossible - I know that pastoral necessity often causes a "bending" of this law, but a priest should only say a maximum of three Masses per day (and that with special permission). If a parish is unable to have a Holy Day Mass because the priest assigned has a multitude of Masses scheduled elsewhere, and the people can't make it to one of the other parishes, then they're under no obligation to go to Mass.
Similarly, if the only parish around is only able to offer a holy day Mass at noon, and I can't get out of work for it, I'm not obliged to go to Mass that day.
Posted by: Tim Ferguson at Dec 9, 2005 10:34:01 AM
I'm nowheres close to trying to defend the closed megachurches' decision. Really. I find it reprehensible that they'd close on Christmas. I'm a journalist, and I have to work on holidays; if you're a Christian minister you should expect to work on holy days as part of the job description. That said, I wonder how much the demographic of megachurch attendees plays into this: In our highly mobile society people move away from their hometowns to places like Chicago (Willow Creek) but then drive *back* to their hometowns to be with family; the baby-boomers and young family folks who go to Willow Creek would trend toward these kinds of traveling people. A difference from liturgical churches is that when you attend a nondenom megachurch, you essentially have one church location that's "yours" and that's it -- if you're not in town to attend that church, you won't find another one like it in the town you're visiting. That's very unlike the Catholic or Lutheran or Episcopal faiths, members of which will find a local parish in any town they might be visiting.
Again, none of this would excuse a megachurch from holding services on Christmas, b/c they'd still draw hundreds or thousands of people, but it might explain the behavior of many of their members. Or I might be talking about something I really don't know about...
Posted by: mtk at Dec 9, 2005 10:38:42 AM
Re Catholic Holydays
Ditch the current Jan 1 observance and replace it with the Feast of the Holy Name (not a HDOO).
Return Epiphany to 1/6.
Make the following Sunday the Solemnity of the Theophany, and regain its traditional emphasis on the first manifestation of the Most Holy Trinity to the world (hence, "Theo"-phany).
I would keep Ascension on the 40th day after Easter as a HDOO.
I would only require countries to observe one Marian HDOO: Assumption or, if preferred, the patronal Marian feast of the national (if applicable). The fact that the USA observes all three available ones currently tends to dilute them, I believe.
Posted by: Liam at Dec 9, 2005 10:43:11 AM
I've also thought of giving people one "freebie" - floating holyday, like floating holidays at work. Once, during the year, you have to go to Mass on a day you normally wouldn't have to. It could be your birthday, your saint's feast day, your parish's feast day - just one "bonus" day.
Posted by: Tim Ferguson at Dec 9, 2005 10:51:16 AM
Tim:
You make good points; however, from my perspective, not preaching would not be much help. After all, I can pretty much do that now: I could, if I felt overtaxed, offer a very brief homily, and that would satisfy the requirement to preach on the holy day.
In my experience (and that's all it is), offering the Mass as I believe it should be offered, takes a great deal of energy, especially on holy days.
Why? Well, for one, I tend to chant most of the Mass on holy days. No, I don't *have* to do that, and I know most priests don't; perhaps in 20 years, I won't, either.
Second, there's usually more for the servers to do, and I am not blessed to have a ready corps of experienced and eager servers; I have a fair number of eager ones, but not so experienced. So it takes a fair amount of energy to "manage" the servers, before and during Mass, with incense and all, and to do it without distracting from Mass.
Third, it takes energy getting ready for Mass. Again, I'd love it if I had a sacristan who knew just what to do, and get everything set up, working with readers and ushers, etc. There may be parishes where the priest can just "show up" and all is ready -- but I've never been in that parish.
I'm usually running around, too -- and while I'm getting things together, a steady stream of visitors to the sacristy doing business. Someday, I'm going to end this practice of doing business in the sacristy before Mass; but I haven't figured out the right way to do it.
Fourth, the time spent with God's People, before and after Mass, is important, and it takes energy, too.
I'm not complaining; I enjoy offering Mass, I enjoy this time with the folks in the parish. But it all does take a lot of energy.
(I have a theory, and I could be totally wrong: but when you see a parish, where father seems to not to care about a lot of the details -- it maybe because he's tired of spending a lot of energy on all those things. Maybe I ought to do the same...)
Posted by: (Fr) Septimus at Dec 9, 2005 10:59:37 AM
