Historically, Calvinists have not been known for being the life of the party.
Most know that John Calvin ran a fairly tight ship in Geneva. Meanwhile,
Reformed worship strikes many people as austere. Examples such as these have
earned Calvinists the reputation for being "God’s frozen chosen."
Times change. Today, Calvinists are as likely to advocate spontaneity and
self-expression as they used to be known for decency and order. On a recent blog,
a conservative Presbyterian argued that because of the goodness of God's
creation and the scope of redemption, Christians should be the best at "getting
their party on." "If Christ's mission was truly accomplished and if the Kingdom
of God is alive," this particular blogger added, "then Christians ought to be
the most celebrative people on the planet throwing the best parties and social
events."
The popularity of this perspective is fairly
easy to see not only in the way Calvinists now behave at parties but also in the
way we worship. Most Presbyterians and Reformed Christians have yet to rename
their church buildings “celebration centers,” but the emphasis increasingly in
Protestant worship is on loosening those restraints that prevent worshipers from
entering fully into or feeling absorbed by the service. The older idea that
worship was a time when lighter or less formal expressions, whether in words or
music, were considered inappropriate. Today many Protestants, Calvinists
included, believe that formality and restraint is unbecoming, if not a tad
inhuman. Like our blogger, many ask, if we have so much to celebrate why should
we be squeamish in our celebrations?
This shift in Protestant attitudes has led some
to look either to Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy for a way to recover
the seriousness that used to prevail in most sectors of Christian worship. A
recent issue of The New Republic featured a story on a Baptist pastor in
Wheaton, Illinois, who converted to Eastern Orthodoxy - even becoming an
Orthodox priest - in part because he could not abide what he considered to be
the frivolity of contemporary forms of devotion. Two aspects of Eastern Orthodox
worship stood out to him especially. One was its otherworldliness, the other was
its changelessness. This former Baptist told the reporter, "Worship has now been
reduced basically to entertainment. That carries people for two years, and then
they start looking for something with more depth."
Examples like
this might tempt us to think that we need to plant
different types of churches. Some people need a lighter
approach to Christianity that is in step with the idiom
of contemporary culture while others need worship that
is transcendent and that offers solace from the rough
and tumble of our time. For this reason it is not
uncommon to find denominations planting churches that
span the spectrum of cultural sensitivity, with the
aesthetically-minded (often urban) believers being
directed toward the liturgically formal congregations
and the average suburbanites loading up their minivans
to attend worship that is readily accessible.
Unfortunately, the church-planting resolution to the
debate over formal-vs.-informal expressions of
Christianity seems to pay little heed to what the Bible
says about the relationship between content and form.
Instead of assuming that the Reformed faith can take
shape in almost any kind of cultural idiom, from
celebration to reverence, the apostle Paul told Titus
that some human manners or qualities were more
appropriate for Christians than other kinds. In the
second chapter of Titus, Paul exhorted Titus to teach
what was appropriate for sound doctrine. As such, Titus
should compel men to be "temperate, serious, sensible,
sound in the faith, in love, and in steadfastness."
Likewise, women were to be "reverent in behavior,"
"sensible, chaste, kind." Paul's point was that certain
manners were more fitting for the truths of
Christianity. Aside from avoiding evil, the lives of
Christians were to be characterized by sobriety,
dignity, self-control and moderation.
Passages like this one might tempt Calvinists to boast
in their avoidance of enthusiasm, emotion, and even
personal warmth. This is not the point. Though for
those who think that Calvinists need to lighten up, some
interaction with Paul's instruction to Titus might
balance the opposite call to "party hearty." Instead, my
concern is that form and content may not be as easy to
separate as our culture assumes. If Calvinists truly
have sound doctrine - and we do - then that teaching
should be manifest in ways that, as Paul insists, are
restrained and sober, whether in the individual
Christian's life, the activities of believing families,
or congregations gathered for worship. Such moderation
and self-control need not express itself in the kind of
formality that characterizes state dinners at the White
House or operatic performances in the concert hall. But
neither should Paul's call for restraint and sobriety be
neglected for the sake of a relaxed informality that is
indifferent to forms.
Ultimately, the issue is not one of what pleases us,
whether we feel more or less comfortable with a certain
manner of Christian expression. It is instead one of
whether, as Paul puts it, our ways and manners "adorn
the doctrine of God our savior" (Titus 2: 10).
Certainly, we cannot understand all the reasons for
Paul's instruction about restraint and self-control. But
if we paid it more heed, we might not be faced with an
apparent stalemate between reverence and celebration.