I want to be unfriendly and irrelevant

In a previous post (“Communion Rant”) we talked about the penchant of certain preachers for “explaining” communion. Some argue that it is necessary because, they reason, some people in the congregation, and especially visitors and the recently unchurched, do not understand the meaning of the ritual.

Here are two pieces that help address our penchant for cognitive “understanding” and how it is related to matters of faith, and the counterintuitive ways in which faith is acquired and needs to be inculcated.

The first piece is by Mark Galli, writing in Christianity Today, titled, “Seeker Unfriendly.” In that piece he writes:

In other words, God is anything but “meaningful,” “understandable,” or “intelligible.” And worship, if it is authentic worship of the biblical God, will, at some level, remain incomprehensible. Worship that enables us to encounter the living God should leave worshippers a bit stupefied; they should leave their pews, pump the minister’s hand, and enthusiastically blurt out, “I didn’t understand large portions of the service. Thank you!”

The second piece, appearing in the current Touchstone issue, is by David Mills, titled, “Preaching Without Reaching.” He starts his article:

As a writer, I do not believe in relevance. I especially do not believe in relevance as a criterion for preaching, when that means the attempt to translate the biblical and theological language into words the average man already uses, from fear that he will not listen if the inherited language is used instead. Few preachers are good enough with words to do this without losing truths they should not be losing.

Related to the issue of the words of institution, rites, and rituals from our previous discussion on Communion, this thought by Mills is apropos:

Because the right word is often the unusual or technical or “outdated” word, the preacher should not abandon a specifically Christian vocabulary even though the man in the pew may not understand it right away, and even though he may find it off-putting or even offensive. These words will be the language of the insider, and therefore almost by definition irrelevant to the outsider the preacher wishes to bring inside and many of those who are already inside but lack the conscious and energetic commitment of the real insider.

Mills concludes with this challenge:

Here Christians ought to learn something from the world, for in this matter the world shows great common sense. The world itself does not define “relevance” as the highest level of discourse the marginally interested will tolerate, at least in the matters it really cares about.
Every field, from thoracic surgery to architecture to real estate law to stamp collecting, has its own specialized vocabulary. Every field demands that new members learn the language if they are to work inside it. Their willingness to learn it is a test of their desire to belong. The man unwilling to learn what an architrave and a pediment are is a man who does not really want to be an architect—and those who need an architect (as the world needs Christians) will not want him to design their house.

And the world is right about this. Christian preachers cannot afford, in the hope of speaking in a way more likely to get and to keep laymen who are (supposedly) intimidated when they speak the Faith’s given and natural language, to act as if its necessary language can be translated very far, lest the laity continue to be ignorant of the truth, and many members remain unconverted or only partly converted. For one thing, ignorant people can’t answer the questions some of their curious neighbors will ask them.

The articles are worth reading. What are your thoughts?

“We love those who know the worst of us and don’t turn their faces away.” Walker Percy