Southminster Presbyterian Church

When you think of the nature of the church, of what do you think?  I don't necessarily mean the nature of Southminster, but more the nature of the church in general.  Often, we think of a particular kind of church, one in which we probably grew up.  For most of us, that form is a traditional church - wooden pews, long aisles, raised chancel, organ, choir, etc.  Our mind's eye conjures images, sounds and smells from that experience. 

 

The problem, though, is that we tend to get stuck in that form.  While that form is highly contextually based, we tend to think that it is the only form that "church" should take.  What we often forget is that form is one that was probably created in the early-to-mid 20th century (if not before), and came out of and in response to a particular cultural reality.

 

Take, for example, the stark contrast between a Catholic church and (almost any) Protestant church.  Catholic sanctuaries tend to be much more ornate, highly decorated with artwork, statues and stained glass.  Protestant sanctuaries, on the other hand, tend to appear almost drab and boring in comparison.  While there is some amount of ornamentation, it is minimal.  Almost always a cross, occasionally some stained glass, maybe a few banners.  Why the difference?

 

Much of the architectural philosophy of Catholic sanctuaries was born out of the Middle Ages, when the majority of people could not read and the services performed in Latin, which they did not speak.  So, art was used to ignite the imaginations of the worshipers.  But then a significant cultural shift happened.  The simultaneous occurrence of the Enlightenment and the Reformation resulted in large numbers of people beginning to read for themselves and Protestant worship was led in the common language of the people (along with Bibles being printed in their common languages).  Out of a concern that the ornamentation of Catholic churches bordered on idolatry, Protestant architectural philosophy went in the opposite direction - preferring to let the imagination of the worshiper be ignited by the spoken and read Word of God.

 

What's the point of this (admittedly longer than I originally intended) history lesson?  Simply to illustrate the point Guder makes in the quote at the beginning of this blog.  The church is always incarnational, in much the same way that Christ was incarnational.  And an essential part of being incarnational is being formed in a manner consistent with the culture around you.  Christ was not incarnated as a 21st century postmodern man with a laptop and a cell phone when he came 2,000 years ago.  That form would have meant nothing to the people of his day.  No, he wore sandals and a robe, he spoke Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek.

 

As a church, we are called to do the same thing.  And that often means we need to shift and adjust as the culture does around us.  Churches often exist through several cultural transitions.  Looking specifically at Southminster, she has ministered through three, maybe even four, distinct cultural realities: The postwar 1950s and 1960s, the cultural upheaval of the late 1960s and 1970s, the boom years of the 1980s and 1990s, and now the early years of a new millennium.  The world of 2009 is vastly different than that of 1957.

 

In what ways is God calling us to be incarnational today?  Or, in other words, how is God inviting us to be "shaped according to the cultural and historical context in which [we live]"?  That is the exciting opportunity that lies before us in the coming years.  Feel free to email your thoughts!