At It Again

One has seen it happen in the world of American Protestantism many times: a person, black or white, moves up the social ladder, and changes churches--typically becoming a Presbyterian or Episcopalian.  I have often heard this observation made (from below) with a cynical air, indicating that he is very likely no more than a snob or hypocrite, and (from above) with the same--he is a social climber.  No doubt this is in some cases true, but in most I am now inclined to think that change in class signifies better education, or appreciation for it, and along with this an increasing affection for dignity of the service and the beauty of orderly classical forms, for which I absolutely refuse to blame him.  One of the things I met in the Episcopal Church was poor people with high taste in these regards, who were most emphatically not members of the underclass.  They were just wealthy people who had very little money.

Comments

[Clyde Meckel]

DG Hart discusses this in some detail in his book "Recovering Mother Kirk: The Case for Liturgy in the Reformed Tradition". He refers (tongue in cheek) to the old adage that Baptists are Methodists with shoes, Presbyterians are Baptists who can read. He adds that Lutherans might qualify as Presbyterians who drink to excess, and Episcopalians are Lutherans who know when to say when.

[GL]

I have often heard this observation made (from below) with a cynical air, indicating that he is very likely no more than a snob or hypocrite, and (from above) with the same--he is a social climber.

That might be well and good elsewhere in the U.S. and everywhere in the U.S. at one time, but in the 21st century South, I am not so sure. My family just moved from a Baptist church to a Presbyterian one and, indeed, in our case it was because, in part, of my "increasing affection for dignity of the service and the beauty of orderly classical forms."

Yet, in doing so, I left a *very* wealthy and powerful church filled with the elite in business and the professions meeting in a lavish facility on more than 60 acres in the heart of the most valuable properties in the area to a church plant meeting in a warehouse and struggling to raise funds to build the first phase of its permanent home, which, when completed, will not seat 1/7 the number who can be seated in the church I left. Compared to the Baptist church we left, our new Presbyterian church (EPC) is indeed made up of "wealthy people who ha[ve (relatively speaking)] very little money."

[GL]

Closing italics

[Bill R]

"...I am now inclined to think that change in class signifies better education, or appreciation for it, and along with this an increasing affection for dignity of the service and the beauty of orderly classical forms, for which I absolutely refuse to blame him."

Nor do I, where this affection is built on a true Christian faith. I think this is true of most classical or continuing Anglicans. But for many mainstream (TEC) Episcopalians today, there seems to be nothing that really supports this affection (or affectation) for dignity of the service and the beauty of orderly clasical forms. They are all form and no substance. I think the Biblical term is "whitewashed sepulchers."

[DGP]

>>I left a *very* wealthy and powerful church filled with the elite in business and the professions meeting in a lavish facility on more than 60 acres in the heart of the most valuable properties in the area<<

If you follow this line of reasoning, they weren't wealthy: They were merely poor people with a lot of money.

[James A. Altena]

The reaction to Dr. Hutchens here clearly depends in part on whether one understands "wealthy" and "poor" to refer only to monetary resources, or also to moral, spiritual, and aesthetic character. Contingent on that, all of the posts who have posted here have made quite valid points.

[Mairnéalac.h]

Brother Hutchens, as always, I love your pith. You have a way of expressing these things which always brings an upcrinkle to the corner of my mouth. Unless, of course, you criticize my own beloved communion, in which case it's the long knives out, dukes put up, etc. etc. (standard defensive disclaimer)

[Mairnéalach]

I should add my own similar observation here: My seaman's work frequently takes me out of my home domain to other ports of call. When in these foreign places I like to find Christian houses of worship where I can attend a service or two. This is often on odd days other than the Sabbath; in this case, it was an Orthodox chapel which happened to be very convenient to my travel housing. Upon my last visit to join in their Thursday evening vespers, a very scruffy looking fellow entered the church right behind me. A confess a quick glace behind me yielded a brief scare that I might be panhandled. However, we both entered and worshipped. After the liturgy, as I lingered in the basement a moment, I met the fellow. It turned out he was not a street person (not that it would have mattered!) but merely a plain dressed fellow with what turned out to be a rather Eastern type of untrimmed beard, probably in keeping with that particular type of piety. He was a kind and friendly man who welcomed me to his home base of worship. (For all I know he may have been an adjunct pastor or a visiting monk!) I left the church chuckling at my all-too-human prejudice, and warmed by these brothers' reception.

[Joe Long]

Everyone's probably seen this before...

One day there was a poor old bum in the gutter. However, the churches took an interest in his condition...

...the Pentecostals pulled him from the gutter.
...the Baptists fed him.
...the Methodists clothed him.
...the Presbyterians educated him.
...the Episcopals put on the finishing touches and introduced him to high society.
...then, the Pentecostals fished him out of the gutter...

[Postman]

I heard this homogeneous sociological quasi-ecclesiology twenty some years ago at some Fuller workshops. The experts there (Wagner, George, Warren, et al.) promised that "uplift" into fancier, more liturgical (and thus less utilitarian) churches eventually diminished the evangelistic effectiveness of a convert. I am Orthodox now, so it should make no sense that my parish is multi-cultural, profoundly sensitive to the urban poor, and comprised of more than a few survivors of addiction and abusive environments. It makes no sense that these people, especially, tell me they are desperate for liturgy, icons, and, most of all, the Eucharist.

[Michael Martin]

I don't think we can discount aesthetic in this discussion. While we may call more "traditional" forms of worship "classical," they are also quite beautiful. I think the acquisition of an education leads one to appreciate this dimension of worship as well. God is, after all, the source of truth, goodness, and beauty.

[dilys]

In Postman's terms, I too am ongoingly "desperate for liturgy, icons, and, most of all, the Eucharist." In fact, my inner experience is that decades of flailing around for meaningful form, order, and ritual, was a shadow of that search. And yes, education and prosperity, familiarity with the internet, and wise friends, freed me in significant ways to move toward finding them, as increasingly counter-culture (though bits and pieces pilfered from the altars end up broadcast as detached bric-a-brac in unlikely places).

I hope here or on his blog Postman will offer more about the expression of sensitivity to the urban poor. We are an urban parish, and need to develop (not only programs, but ourselves) in that context.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>" A man who has lived in many places is not likely to be deceived by the local errors of his native village: the scholar has lived in many times and is therefore in some degree immune from the great cataract of nonsense that pours from the press and the microphone of his own age."
C.S. Lewis "learning in War-Time" The Weight of Glory pp.50, 51.<<<

The problem today is many people with advanced degrees, very few scholars. Ph.D.s can be some of the most narrow and provincial people on earth. The modern academy having forced people to write more and more about less and less, they grow accustomed to looking at the world through the narrow peephole of their own specialty.

[Bobby Winters]

>>>The problem today is many people with advanced degrees, very few scholars. Ph.D.s can be some of the most narrow and provincial people on earth. The modern academy having forced people to write more and more about less and less, they grow accustomed to looking at the world through the narrow peephole of their own specialty.<<<

Amen. Having spent years in my attempt to do original mathematical research, I finally decided to put that same effort toward more down to earth pursuits. Life has not been the same since.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Amen. Having spent years in my attempt to do original mathematical research, I finally decided to put that same effort toward more down to earth pursuits. Life has not been the same since.<<<

C'mon, Bobby--once you hit thirty, you knew it was all over, right?

[ruidh]

One has seen it happen in the world of American Protestantism many times: a person, black or white, moves up the social ladder, and changes churches--typically becoming a Presbyterian or Episcopalian.

It was once true, but it hasn't been true for a very long time.
Sometime in the 60s, it became socially acceptable to not attend a
church at all (as long as you belonged to the right country club). The
drop in membership i the mainline churches since this date can be
attributed to this social sea change. Since then, TEC has had to
reinvent itself and it has as a thinking person's church. Our
membership tends (with a significant minority) to be more educated and
socially liberal.

TEC was once called "the Republican party at prayer". Today, the
Souther Baptists are more likely to be considered "the Republican
party at prayer".

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>It was once true, but it hasn't been true for a very long time.
Sometime in the 60s, it became socially acceptable to not attend a
church at all (as long as you belonged to the right country club). <<<

Let's take a somewhat longer view of things, shall we? Church attendance has waxed and waned periodically throughout American history. In some of the early colonies, it was quite high, in others quite low. In the ones with high church attendance (e.g., Massachussets Bay, we find that participation was mandatory, and absentees (out of laziness or just dissent) were fined. Church attendance in the 18th and early 19th century increased throughout the "Great Awakenings", but slacked off thereafter. It was quite low in the 1930s, 40s, and 50s, and picked up significantly during the Civil War, especially in the South (nothing like losing to bring one closer to God), where there were several major waves of revivalism (and every wonder why it is called "revivalism") in the Confederate States Army (not paralleled in the Union Army, by the way).

But in the 1870s-1890s, church attendance again dropped off, as a large number of people becamed disillusioned with religion as a result of the War. It was rising again in the early 20th century, but fell off again after World War I, rose during World War II, and continued to rise during the 1950s, albeit that probably had more to do with the Baby Boom than deep religious commitment. It's no coincidence that church attendance began to fall about the time that the Boomers began reaching late adolesence and early adulthood, and could not longer be dragged off to church by their parents--who also stopped going at the same time (As Ike said, "I want the American people to have religion--and I don't care which one it is"). Church attendance among younger adults seems to be increasing, which may mean that they have found their parents' indifference to religion unfulfilling (or they could be doing it to jerk mom and dad's chain).

Either way, don't pretend that skipping church is something new--it's an old American tradition.