If you need filling in as to what the fuss is about, well....
Of all the comments in the media, probably this (Vicky Beeching in the Independent) is among the best:
why aren't these twenty one thousand spiritual seekers beating down the doors of their local parish church instead of driving to Stonehenge for their spiritual kicks?Of course the problem is that she probably doesn't realise that there's far more of this interactivity going on than the image of church allows for. Things like Messy Church, Alternative Worship, Cafe Church ... and even more 'ordinary' services where there are more interactive elements at various points.
My hunch is that it has a lot to do with the style of church gatherings. In this digital age, participation has become our natural way of life; the internet has moved from "1.0" to "2.0" and the formerly passive experiences of reading a static webpage of text has exploded into a multi-directional, fluid exchange of views and user-generated content. We don't just consume or passively receive information any more; we comment back, we contribute, we change things. We aren't just receivers; we are shapers of the digital environments we inhabit.
But the problem beyond that is that such things tend to get shot at from two directions. One is the press condemning 'trendy' religion. It is refreshing to see Ms Beeching's article actually being positive about it. The other side that it gets negative press from is those who think it's not proper church, or it's unbecoming.
Personally, I've done things that would go at the more 'interactive' end of the spectrum (and even involving dance -I helped create a short-run series of dance services in a nightclub in the 90's) But it should be said that people have to be up for it and I note that Kate and the couple actually planted quite a few people in the congregation to join in. Had they not done that, I suspect that it would have fizzled damp-squid-wise as the clash of expectations between 'church wedding' and 'celebratory moment' would have kept most people in their seats for fear of embarrassment and a sense of cultural dissonance.
Part of the problem for the churches is that we can't uninvent a thousand years of history and culture. Whereas neo-Pagans and others have the chance to make it up afresh. That said, I would suspect that a closer examination of the usages of Stonehenge would show much of it to be just as constrained as a CofE traditional service and that many of those accessing it being far less 'free' to interact than it may look like. Let's be honest, for many people on the web, their interactivity and user-generated-ness is mostly at the level of comments and cat-photos. I'm an advocate of web 2.0 etc but I'm conscious that the practice of usage doesn't live up to the hype in many cases because the social and cultural factors don't (yet?) favour it. And people are still sensitive to the possible perceptions of their digital footprint.
One of my occasional projects is 'unholy praying' or 'praying in plain sight' where the idea is to pray conversationally together in such a way as not to alert people around us in a cafe (say) that we are praying. It quickly reveals how culturally constrained are our prayer habits and expectations.
So, I agree that the churches should return to their interactive roots (yes, read the epistles; they imply communities of interaction, gift-sharing, discussion, taking action together etc etc), but let's not kid ourselves that this will bring spiritual seekers flooding through the doors. We still have to become trusted to be wise and compassionate guardians of the stories entrusted to us. We still have to be people of emotional maturity and evident spiritual nous. An interactive environment will help.
Occasionally dancing will help ...
The 'viral vicar' who led wedding dance flash-mob is a great example of how to make religion interactive - Comment - Voices - The Independent:
No comments:
Post a Comment