I am utterly fascinated by a church congregation as a sociological body. The behavior of humans in a church setting closely resembles that of an ancient tribe and a modern-day country club at the same time.
I’m thinking of the church that is fiscally and liturgically conservative. The neo-Gothic building is beautiful and well-tended. The choir is healthy and feeds the congregation a regular diet of well-written, well-prepared music. The organ is complete and lovely, and the organist is top-notch. And everyone wears suits and dresses to church. But the thick, wall-to-wall carpet in the sanctuary is as sacred as anything God might ever have said. And since that carpet was so expensive, it’s not coming up any time soon. Likewise the pew cushions and the enormous Oriental rug in the chancel. I am way past being horrified to just being fascinated by the sociological implications of such an inconsistent way of doing things. Back in Medieval days, when architecture, acoustics and high liturgical drama took off, there was no such thing as carpet. How is it, then, that carpet became as necessary to tradition and conservatism as formal prayers, despite its acoustical destruction of congregational community?
I’m thinking of the conservative, non-liturgical church that begins its services with a contemporary “Good morning” exchange between pastor and congregation. Now what’s REALLY funny is that when the people have been quieted down to have this exchange and have been told of some important announcements, they are then invited to “stand and greet one another.” But they had already been doing that with great enthusiasm during the organ prelude!! This I find fascinating. How does a conservative congregation allow these informal dinner-party elements into the service without so much as a whimper? A friend of mine always said, “Do something two weeks in a row, and it becomes a tradition.”
I’m thinking of the church still using the hymnal published in the 1950s. One hymnal has been published since, and another is in the works. What is it that makes a congregation so resistant to change? And what will happen when those who were resistant before are no longer around? Will resistance to a new hymnal simply become another tradition that must be blindly maintained?
I’m thinking of the church where the hymnal is sitting pretty in the racks, but the bulletins are being typeset with every word of every hymn text. Fully 98% of the congregation is singing all hymns from that bulletin while the hymnal collects dust. That is a contemporary development in worship, and this conservative congregation apparently sees it not.
But anyone who raises Cain about any of the above gradually gets put out to pasture. People who make excessive waves in a society get the boot; they get voted off the board; they get invited to find somewhere else to go; they get run off the reservation, run out of the tribe, kicked out of the club, blackballed, run out of town, fired. That is a sociological issue; it occurs all the time in business, in fraternities and at the country club. In days of old, it was called Exile on pain of death. And to see it put into practice in these modern ways is at once captivating and scary.
Another conservative/contemporary conflict lies in the training of new members: “This is how we…” “We expect…” “Membership here carries responsibilities in…” Other churches have rejected that, claiming that membership in Christ’s church requires faith, not works. I also know that every church is a country club of sorts, no matter how one might protest to the contrary. Membership in anything requires certain behavior, certain dress code, an oath, and dues. And the church will even administer an oath to new members in front of the congregation.
Membership in anything requires responsibility, which is where the training becomes necessary. Did those new members grow up to understand the importance of tithing? Were they informed of ministry opportunities within the church? Were they informed that the congregation frowns on blue jeans in church? Do they know the denomination's history and current stance on major issues? How do they know if you don’t train them? I don’t think it’s too much to ask a new member of a church to accept the fact that membership carries responsibility and to train them accordingly. Although the worship service is open to all, membership carries a bit of scrutiny for the sake of preserving the body, the group, the denomination. That is sociological. And necessary.