The Culture and Church Dance
Culture and church appear to have a delicate dance, they move together and help define the characteristics and qualities of each. Their symbiotic relationship requires both to evolve so as to accommodate the development of the other. In reading about the evolution of the British evangelical church and the relationship it has with culture, the question is not, “who’s leading who?” but rather, “how do they work together so both may thrive?” The mixture of church and state complicated this dance further, as the monarch was the supreme head of both.
As culture and church move together, they make room for the other and develop a rhythm that both find themselves dancing to whether they want to or not. When one tries to find complete independence of the other, both suffer. As British society and Evangelism shifted through the various eras, each had an influence on each other, pressuring one another to shift in it’s beliefs, values, and behavior. For instance, the Romantic era had a significant influence on the church. Irving, who was described as a romantic, gained celebrity status for his ability in “blending Evangelical religion with the latest intellectual fashions”(Kindle, 2258). Romanticism was attributed to the “chief explanation” of transforming Evangelicalism in the 19th century (Kindle, 2566). Similarly, when recreational activities increased in the 1870’s, churches recognized the “need to provide recreational facilities” (Kindle, 2781). Upon doing so, the religious community had a significant partnership with the recreational community. Not diminishing the powerful work and draw of the Holy Spirit, this speaks to the churches ability to thrive within society when they can become culturally relevant.
The historical evangelism evolution is fascinating and important to learn from. Becoming culturally relevant and engaging is critical to the survival of the church’s existence, just as society depends on the moral and religious beliefs offered by the church. As a child, I was reminded of a big church split we went through due to whether or not to keep the pews. Many saw the pews to be culturally irrelevant and wanted a more contemporary space, while others saw this as a sacrilegious act and disrespectful. Even as a youngster, I found this fight to be ridiculous and could not understand how this would warrant such conflict. After reading about how people purchased pews, and the nicest ones were afforded by the wealthy, I realized this went back generations. The status was determined by the pew you purchased, and people were treated with greater respect with the type of pew they had. In a dynamic, shifting culture, I admire Evangelical Christians who make culturally relevant changes without sacrificing the integrity of the church. A sad irony, my childhood church was leveled and replaced with something very culturally relevant…condominiums.
A fundamental premise in forming America was a separation of church and state. With the intertwined relationship of church and state playing off one another, I am grateful this separation doesn’t complicate the delicate balance any further. I am also inspired to continue to develop a culturally relevant dance between church and society, making it easier and more inviting for people to meet the One who it is really all about.
About the Author
Jennifer Dean-Hill
5 responses to “The Culture and Church Dance”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Jen, I love your imagery of the dance. (Bebbington’s also) It describes so perfectly the conclusion of his book – evangelicalism has had an impact on the culture and the culture has influenced evangelicalism. And the reciprocity was not in “chunks” but fluid.
You brought up something no else has yet, the separation of church and state. That does make things a little different for us yanks. I believe that in Britain the Queen is still the head of the church. Has this made the British more moderate in the way they handle issues I wonder? Over here we just castigate each other. Over there, it’s more complex. Of course, they have centuries more Christianity than we do!
I always love reading your beautifully written posts!
Miss Jennifer, You don’t mess with the furniture in the church. The pews could hold more people when the church had too many people. The pews were hard but praise God we move to the culture of seat cushions. Then they began to manufacture pews with cushions attached already.
Now in the country, and black church one could buy a family pew and get you family name on it. It was called fundraiser. When you dead and gone, your family pew still remains.
Pews…to keep or not to keep? That is the question. This childhood story about the church pews is so telling of how we as believers can become distracted and divided by trivial and even meaningless things. I am sure many folks look back on that now and shake their heads as to why that even mattered so much at the time. I wonder what would have happened if the church instead focused on activism within the community? if it would still be thriving beacon of light? I wonder, if it would be closed, demolished and new condominiums?
There are church communities all over America today dealing with issues just like that. Sometimes the futile nature of our objects of discourse keep us from living our the mission of God on this Earth. My prayer is that we will channel our focus on what matters most to God and unite together to be relentless and seeing it manifested here on Earth.
Thank you for bringing that beautiful metaphor of the dance into this discussion, Jen. What a wonderful way to look at the relationship between church and culture. We so often think of it more as a boxing match than a dance. The problem is, we tend to cling to traditions without examining how they fit into the dance. I have nothing against pews, but I can see why churches switch to chairs. The dance is more about the gospel and reconciliation. The battles over tradition are about our comfort and desires. So our challenge is to remain culturally relevant, but not throw out traditions that are important touchstones, or values that stem from gospel truth. Tough work indeed.
Wonderful examples of the way culture and church are inextricably intertwined. I think one of the challenges churches continually have in seeking to be culturally relevant is a lack of critical thinking(!) theologically or historically. While getting rid of pews might be a good thing for a congregation (especially ones that were “special” for “special” people), pews can also remind us that we are connected/one, while individual chairs foster our tendency towards individualism. Again, I don’t think it inappropriate for a congregation to make a decision to replace pews with chairs, (or calling a worship space an “auditorium” or “sanctuary” in the case of my congregation) but often churches make those decisions based on efficiency, cultural relevance, or cost; and often, not on theological or ecclesiological implications.