|
Post by mongoose on Jun 7, 2008 22:47:28 GMT -5
I do not propose that indigenous versions of Christianity have anything INHERANTLY superior to anything of Roman Catholic or European Protestant versions of Christianity. If I did, I would have joined some such version, such as the movement of Celtic Catholicism/Orthodoxy which is gaining popularity and converts from Evangelicalism. I do, however, think that if we're going to speak of churches that have been influenced by indigenous culture and the old religion, we need to differentiate between those that became essentially Roman or European, and those that remained culturally indigenous.
I'll use the celtic church in Ireland as an example just because I did a little recreational research on it. Whatever particulars are or are not true of St. Patric's evangelization of Ireland, what people are pretty sure of is that the society and the church on the island remained essentially Irish. I've read excerpts of letters from Patrick to people in the Roman church, arguing against the rules they were trying to impose on them, stating, "We are Irish." In Ireland, among other things, they point out that the Irish priests wore their hair differently than the priests in England and the rest of the Roman church, and this proved a sticky point of conflict between them. There were arguments about the benefits of having whomever's bones buried in the two places. No doubt the liturgy in Ireland was sung/spoken in their native language, whether that was Gaelic, or had changed to whatever the Norman occupiers were using. I just don't think they used Latin as much.
No doubt I could dig up other instances of ways in which the people of Ireland insisted on being both Christian and Irish, whereas most of the Roman church throughout Europe had to give up their indigenous culture and become "civilized" when they became "Christian." It was even said by the civilized, romanized, Christian church in England, as I understand, that the Irish could not become Christian because they were too barbaric. That barbarism didn't refer necessarily to killing a lot of people, or being warlike, or anything, but more to the language spoken, the fact that their society was based on sheep herding rather than a combination of farming and whatever was done in the big European cities, etc. So you had the Celtic Catholic church being significantly different than the Roman Catholic church.
We have the same kinds of distinctions today among denominations, although it's less along geographic lines due to the increasing globalization of the planet. You have your churches that originated out of Great Briton and Europe, and spread to whatever other nations, and you have the churches that sprung up in those places with less influence from Europe. From the former you have many of the main line denominations. Granted, many of the people who are members of the latter group may have been raised, or saved in the main line denominations, but they didn't stay there. There are many denominations that arose, originally in the Americas out of one of the revivals that took place here. There are significant differences between these later churches, and the former. And then you look around the world at the churches that are exploding: The African Indipendant churches, begun by missionaries out of the Azusa Street Outpouring. Likewise the Church in South Korea and in South America. These churches don't use the United Methodist, Prespeterian, Lutheran, or Episcopalian hymnal. They write their own music, in their own styles, using their own languages and expressions of worship. Some of those expressions look a great deal like the expressions used to worship the gods and goddesses of the old religion.
Are they right? Are they wrong? Can any of us look at them and know apart from a word from God? I do know that it's easy to go wrong when we operate outside of a solid tradition founded on the Word of God. But I also know that the Roman Catholic church was extremely corrupt and diluted with paganism. It doesn't surprise me that many of its practices did not glorify God, did glorify other spiritual beings, or were contrary to God. But that says little or nothing of the various indigenous churches that sprung up without as much influence from the Roman church. So to say that this or that practice by the Roman church was wrong, is not to say that anything resembling the old religion, practiced by the indigenous churches, was wrong. They had a faith that was newer, more basic, more real, less corrupt. Much like the churches that began in America have a faith that is newer, more basic, more real and less corrupt than those that came over from Europe.
None of that is to rag on main line denominations. I was confirmed in the United Methodist church, learned much from them, and agree with the basics of their theology. But it's hard to deny the lack of revival in that denomination at the present time. The revivals are happening in independent, non-denominational churches that rose out of the Pentecostal or Charismatic movements. Whatever the propriety of their specific doctrines or practices, God is moving and doing awesome things in them, and I believe that's worth almost as much, if not more than being doctrinally or practically correct.
So the question remains. Historically speaking, among the early indigenous Christian churches, did some of the priests of the old religion become priests of the new religion, truly following Christ, and still using their old expressions? I realize this was long ago, and in isolated pockets that may be difficult to find information about. But it's something that has interested me ever since I was introduced to the concept, and I'd like to learn more. My quick web searches have given only the most basic historical information, and nothing on specific practices, beliefs, or individuals.
|
|
|
Post by torainfor on Jun 8, 2008 0:06:25 GMT -5
I have a feeling that one day we're going to learn just how wrong we were in our worship practices. I don't mean to be accusatory or holier than thou. I was raised CBA, and we had stints with Southern Baptist as well as military chapel before currently settling on E-Free. Even E-Free is an off-shoot of Baptist. Then again, Jesus was never angrier than with those who should have known better. Those who had the liturgy and tradition down pat, but not the heart. Those who led others to fear and not freedom. I think there's still a lot of fear in American Christian Culture. Fear of messing up or not getting it quite right. Sometimes it feels like a rat in a maze. I think maybe it should feel more like ice skating on a huge rink; gliding and jumping and soaring where your God-given heart leads, not where the rules restrict you. Yeah, I know: "What about obedience? What about God-given guidelines for how we are supposed to act?" I know, I know! I'm just talking about how I wish it could be. I've long noticed that people tend to emphasize that which is in contrast to something else--something that may legitimately need opposition. "Women deserved equal treatment in the workplace." That's a truism in response to a societal norm that needed to be changed. But it was quickly translated into "women are expected to be in the workplace." Somehow we lose the balance when we hear the countering argument for the first time. Eventually, hopefully, it will swing back to a healthy place, but, until then, a lot of people will get hurt. I wish we could have a relationship with Christ and a worship experience free from preconceived notions, cultural influences, even religious traditions--everything but His movement in us. I bet even the traditions that touch us and bring us closer to God leave smudgy fingerprints along the way. That sounds emergent, doesn't it? I promise, I'm not emergent! I am from the NW where we seem to put a lot less stock (and value) in history and tradition and more in what it is we should be doing right now. The Southerners reading this will think it heretical! So, no, I don't necessarily trust liturgy for liturgy's sake. I don't find myself drawn to God during advent ceremonies (but then, I didn't grow up with them), and I rarely have a meaningful communion experience. Then again, raw, native Christianity will have it's own baggage, it's own subtle ways that it held on to un-Christlike tradition. But it's all metaphor--European, American, Swahili, Martian...it's all metaphor. "The Kingdom of God is like..." How many times did Christ say that? Why couldn't He just say it once? One perfect metaphor--or even a definition!--that made everything clear to everybody forever? If He'd done that, the world wouldn't need our stories.
|
|
|
Post by Divides the Waters on Jun 8, 2008 13:04:37 GMT -5
I'm not a student of history, I'm sorry to say (that is to say, I came late to an interest in it, and have much catching-up to do), but from everything I've gathered, St. Patrick converted the Irish not by discarding their old culture, but by giving their symbols new meaning in Christ. Fascinating concept (see "The End of the Spear" for a similar approach). The Bible does make reference to God establishing different cultures so that they might seek Him in their own ways. Now, does that mean that all roads lead to God? Clearly not. But I think that quite a few people, as ToRainFor suggests, are going to be surprised on the other side of the veil.
The entire history of the human race, let alone the Church, could be called "How Mankind Got It Wrong." I suppose that's one of the reasons that I believe that much more effort should be expended in trying our hardest to "Get It Right." I do believe in Author Intent (that is, while there may be multiple ways to interpret a book, in this case the Bible, there is usually a message the author intended, and that is the one that I am most interested in). I also believe in cultural context (which is where knowing more about the culture to which passages were revealed is invaluable). In addition, I think that much doctrine has fallen well short of the mark, and should never be substituted for an in-depth study of the Scripture itself.
One of my big gripes when dealing with some who speak dogmatically about the Scriptures is that they have never actually read them for themselves. Books about them, yes. Go to church regularly, yes. Memory verses? You bet. But have they ever sat down and read an entire book in its natural context? Not so much.
One of the things that I discovered very quickly when reading the Bible on its own merit, all dogma aside, is that God instituted very few traditions. When He did, it was with the intent of reminding His people what He had done. How many traditions do we follow blindly in our secular or spiritual cultures? Do we really have any idea of where they come from? We humans are creatures of habit, which is why, I suspect, God established those traditions in the first place; when the Law was fulfilled in Christ, it had much more meaning than something created whole cloth. But how quickly we forget, and how tenaciously we guard our traditions, when we seldom have any idea what they represent.
|
|
|
Post by mongoose on Jun 8, 2008 20:27:52 GMT -5
One VERY brief thing, as I have to go to church. We CAN worship as though ice skating freely across a large rink, spinning and leaping wherever the Spirit leads us. This is in league with, not in opposition to, doing everything decently and in order. God is a God of order, apparently, so He would lead us to skate, jump, spin, or worship in whatever way fits His order. If that includes running circles around the sanctuary, like one of our people did in the morning service today, glory to God! And if He wasn't led by the Spirit to run circles around the sanctuary, at least He had a good time with it. It didn't hurt anyone. It didn't take glory away from God. It didn't glorify himself (he looked rather dorky doing it, actually.) And God wants us, and leads us, to become like little Children. He also leads us to remember, thus the traditional ceremonies such as Eucharist. "Do this every time you do it, in remembrance of me. . ." I just don't want us to look at some guideline or other, and think it limits us in our expressions of worship, when the Holy Spirit is encouraging us to shake off those bindings and walk, dance, kneel, lie prostrate, or whatever freely with Him. So I'm off to sit at a table of dinner and discussion with some brothers and sisters in Christ! Yet another expression. Wonderful--the variety God makes available to us!
|
|
|
Post by rwley on Jun 9, 2008 8:54:10 GMT -5
First of all, torainfor, this southern girl doesn't think you're being heretical at all. One of the things I noticed during my two weeks in India dealt with this. I was there for a Christmas season in 2006 and saw Christmas in a foreign culture; very foreign to me. Nothing looked the same, or smelled the same or sounded the same. I remember thinking as I sat there on the Christmas morning that I hoped and prayed in our zeal to "Christianize" we did not feel that we had to "Westernize" or "Americanize" as well. They do NOT mean the same thing. To bring a person is to Christ is to accentuate their uniqueness within themselves. And Indian Christian will not look like, act like, dress like, an American Christian expect in matters of the Spirit, which truly are the only matters that matter. To go Christmas caroling in India is a vastly different and far more exciting prospect that here in the US. Christmas dinner is a different concept. But it is still Christian. It just isn't American. I have been reading quite a bit lately of Stephen Lawhead. If you've read his stuff you know he writes quite a bit about the Cele De; the Irish/Celtic church. They did not want to follow Rome, but Christ. They were ridiculed for this. And they were essentially excommunicated. But since they didn't feel they were part of the Roman church, they didn't care. They still had the liturgical chants, the daily prayers at set times, and many of the same things the Catholic church had with one major difference; they looked to Christ as their leader and not the Pope. Now that was considered heretical! Worship is an individial as well as a corporate experience. However, I believe that if you don't practice some sort of private individual worship, your corporate experience will lack somewhat. Worship takes many forms and should reflect the individual's relationship with the One whom is being worshipped. I write as a form of worship, because I find that if I write my prayers, I can stay focused longer and can actually express those prayers more clearly. What I have to be wary of is exchanging the worship for the method. Don't get so into the writing that it becomes just another way to improve my craft instead of the communication with my Father. We here in America, I believe for the most part are afraid of "letting ourselves go" to truly worship. And I don't mean we should all start jumping pews and picking up snakes and shouting Hallelujah. But the very fact of our being American makes us a bit, how shall I say, prideful and independent. We don't want anyone to see that we depend on someone or something else. It's not American, it's not patriotic or some such nonsense. So we hold back a bit, even in private worship. We don't allow ourselves to be so vulnerable that we truly just let go of everything and allow God to move us. We don't trust ourselves to trust God. So our worship is either constrained or contrived. Please recognize I am talking in broad generalities here, which I know is probably not a good thing, but I'm pointing out a general weakness, not anything that may pertain to you as an individual. Being Christian has nothing and everything to do with being American, or Irish, or Indian, or Russian, or Martian or whatever. God can take that culture that you have been born into, mix it with your individual personality that He designed and made something so unique and so perfect that people will notice that there is something different about you and yet you won't alienate them because your "worship" is so alien that it scares them. There is nothing wrong with tradition. God can redeem anything because He created all things to begin with. But tradition will not save us. We will not be saved just because we dress up our idols to look like Sunday School teachers. God will redeem us through the blood of Christ. How we express that back to Him is between us and Him. I think I wandered off topic a bit Robi
|
|
|
Post by mongoose on Jun 9, 2008 21:20:34 GMT -5
*grins* I'm just glad you said much of what you did. I often get close to expressing thoughts in ways that approach inappropriateness, when I get riled, and this is one thing that riles me. So thanks.
Another related topic came up, and I don't think it merrits a new thread, so here it is:
What is appropriately included in attempts to modify our worship or ministry style to make it more culturally relevant? We (the Church) know how to sing songs to God. We've done it since the beginning, in one form or another. At some point secular music diverged from sacred. At some point after that, people in secular music started manging various styles and generas to form new ones. Blues became jaz, R & B, Rock & Roll, etc. when combined with other styles. The church had its own music, and more or less condemned secular music until the Charismatic movement (if I read/heard the history correctly) at which time Rock and Roll musicians came into the church, but continued playing Rock and Roll, now in worship. Ever since then, church music, and the Christian Music Industry has been playing catch up with secular music. We tend to be several years behind the secular trends. Ska came in at some point, in secular circles, and several years later it caught on briefly in CCM.
That's the situation as I have been told it exists to this day. It raises several questions: -Do we need to be current in our musical, worship, and ministry styles, in order to relate to our audience, or for any other reason? -If so, why are we behind? What do we need to do to catch up? -Or, should we forget what styles are all the rage this year in secular music, and do something of our own, something more creative? -Can the Holy Spirit work powerfully through whatever expressions appeal to us, such that we just write/sing/lead/minister in whatever way feels most natural to us, and expect it to relate to our audience even if it's not the "in" thing this year?
I went to a worship conference a few months ago. These are becoming common enough, and I've been to enough of them, that I really didn't see anything new there. They did teach some workshops on using technology and art in worship, but again, I didn't see anything that met with secular standards. I wasn't that impressed. But one of the leaders, an Alaska Native drummer who ministers on the drums to indigenous peoples around the world encouraged us to use our own cultural expressions, not those of his or another culture. I was left wondering what my cultural expressions would be, seeing as how I'm basically pure WASP (White Anglo Saxon Protestant). My conclusion: head banger rock and metal. *grins* I actually do appreciate worship tunes using crunchy guitars, fast riffs, heavy base and drums.
Then I was in a conversation I referred to earlier, with some of my friends from church. We were talking about a speaker, African American who testified that his family had been quite poor for some time. Throughout his sermon he used more street slang than I was used to hearing from preachers, and I commented to the group on how I noticed this. The black preacher's being stereotypically black, on purpose. A young man sitting beside me, also black, argued that you have to use the slang if you're going to relate to the people who speak it all the time. They won't listen to you otherwise, because they won't believe you're real.
It's a familiar argument, one that has a certain logic to it, but I disagreed based on my own experience. As I said, I'm WASP, and though we've been lower middle class, I've never been poor. Never lived in the inner city. And I never tried to look, act, or talk like people from those situations, though I minister to them every day at work now. How do I relate to them? Why do they listen to me? For one thing, they need help and I offer it. For another, I'm real and genuine, and though they might initially think, "Oh look. Another rich white educated kid." They soon learn that I'm real, I'm middle class, I've got no problem nor any particular pride in my ethnicity, my education was good but not all that, and I'm no longer a kid. People who give me a chance usually come to respect me, and they give me a chance because they need help, and I show them respect off the top. Then there are a number of techniques I use as a speaker to be more effective and to reach an audience that has few experiences in common with me. We are all human, though, and we've all had common experiences I can use as spring boards into a productive relationship with them. Then I just put the message out there, and leave the rest to the Holy Spirit.
What's best? I might assume a balance somewhere between being culturally relevant, and being true to ourselves and our own cultures. But what is that balance when middle class white adults are ministering to inner city black kids, or some other such disparity exists? Just because I'm a charismatic speaker, does that mean I can use Petra's 80s rock to minister to youth ten years from now? I'd be true to myself if I did. But do I have to use hip hop to minister, ten years from now, if that's all the rage? Do I have to look, act, and talk like, say, Emminem? KJ 52? etc. I don't enjoy their music, their style, and the vocabulary is not mine. Is it true, however, that if I keep using rock, it'll be as though people were trying to minister to me by playing hymns on an organ? Is there a way we can minister that works both for us, and for our audience?
I appreciate any thoughts on these issues, even if they don't directly respond to things I've typed. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by torainfor on Jun 10, 2008 2:05:02 GMT -5
I once went to a big church (3000 on any given Sunday) with an awesome worship leader who was heavily connected with Willow Creek. Willow Creek strongly encourages cultural relevancy and technology and excellence in artistry. The worship leader is still there, but the church is dying. They have the music, they just don't have the heart. They have programs, but no real, one-on-one interest in the people who come through the doors.
I don't know what the answer is, either. Our church is in an upperish-middle class neighborhood. Probably 90% of the adults are white (although, with all the adoptions, maybe only 60% of the kids are). We also have a smattering of college-aged boys who would rock our socks off with their playing--if we played the kind of music they like to play. And, what do we do with the family with the three wonderful, well-mannered punk boys (one of whom is watching our dog while we're on vacation)? How can the worship leader, an experienced 50-something guitar player who grew up on Zepplin, minister to them?
I guess you decide where you're trying to reach. George Barna says music style is the #1 determinant in where people choose to worship. Who you want to reach will probably determine what music you play and how. For some pragmatists, that will mean those who tithe. But it has to be in Spirit and in truth.
I don't think that would mean Eminem would be appropriate. But I have used a Jewel song in a service.
|
|
|
Post by mongoose on Jun 10, 2008 18:45:54 GMT -5
Warning: This is a three line post.
1. Jewel is an Alaskan ;-D As far as I know, I've never listened to her music. *shrugs*
2. I've heard Evanescense and Lifehouse used in worship services to positive effect.
|
|
|
Post by torainfor on Jun 10, 2008 22:09:13 GMT -5
Jewel is from Alaska. And her cousin is Q'orianka Kilcher who played Pocahontas in "The New World."
I thought Lifehouse was a Christian group. Eh, what do I know.
|
|
|
Post by mongoose on Jun 10, 2008 23:15:09 GMT -5
Lifehouse probably is a Christian group. I was speaking more of the musical style than the lyrical content. Most love songs would work as worship choruses, and vice versus. The greater question, in my mind, is whether we should be using hard rock, or heavy metal, or rap, or any other style; whatever is "current" in our worship services? Lifehouse is a bit heavier than I've heard used in worship, as is Evanescense, regardless of whether either group is really Christian or not. Incidentally, I watched one of the Super Bowls, and during Half Time U 2, I think, performed. The leader began, if I'm not mistaken, by quoting a scripture. Something about, "Open my mouth and my lips will speak forth your praise." He went on a while. Is he a Christian? Did his music, or his lyrics glorify God? If he's popular enough to be featured in the Super Bowl, should we be using music like his in our worship services?
If we can't use music like Eminem's in worship, obviously writing our own lyrics, how about T-Bone's? Toby Mac? KJ 52? John Ruben? The only one of the above that I enjoy, once in a while, is Toby Mac. But if we have to be relevant to reach people, then we'll have to use their music, won't we, since that's what's "In" this decade among the people many of us are trying to reach? Or can we reach them as we are, just by being real, authentic and filled with the power of the Holy Ghost?
I apologize if I'm kicking a dead horse here, but I'm just not satisfied. I want to see people from every tongue and every tribe and every nation, in one place of worship at one time, drawn into the presence of God by the music and speaking and prayer and scripture reading. In our building (our congregation is very multi-cultural) I've joined Samoan, Ukranian, Native Alaskan and African American congregations in their events and worship services. But the people of other ethnicities found in those services and events are few and far between. I want to be in a service where there's at least 50 of each, all worshiping together, to whatever kind of music the worship band of the night chose to play.
|
|
|
Post by rwley on Jun 11, 2008 8:24:01 GMT -5
You're gonna love heaven, aren't you?
|
|
|
Post by Spokane Flyboy on Jun 11, 2008 10:38:42 GMT -5
Warning: This is a three line post. 1. Jewel is an Alaskan ;-D As far as I know, I've never listened to her music. *shrugs* 2. I've heard Evanescense and Lifehouse used in worship services to positive effect. Jewel grew up in Homer, but claims California as her home and has never really spoken much publicly about Alaska. So as a fellow Alaskan, I sort of disowned her. Evanescense's members used to be part of a Christian band if I recall correctly, but decided to go a more secular route. Lifehouse is sort of like Creed. I hear a few Lifehouse songs on Christian radio, but they aren't very overt about their faith. Of course, we all know how Creed sort of went in that route, their career dying when their lead singer got on stage while too drunk to sing.
|
|
|
Post by torainfor on Jun 14, 2008 0:39:07 GMT -5
I had heard Scott Stapp (of Creed) claimed to kinda, maybe, sorta be a Christian, but was also looking around and would probably change his mind, maybe (this was quite a while ago), and the rest of the band didn't even go that far.
I don't know about Evanesence. Sounds like Six Pence None the Richer--"Yeah, we're Christians but don't get too excited about it." Strangely enough, Six Pence got their big break at a Lilith Fair.
U2, however, is composed of all Christians. Bono (lead singer, of course), Edge (guitar and keyboard), and Larry (drums) went to an evangelical "church" in their late teens or early twenties. They became quite devout but, when the leaders told them they couldn't be Christians and the biggest rock stars in the universe, they politely disagreed and left. From what I've read, Bono seems to be the strongest and will pepper every serious (he jokes a lot) conversation with scripture.
Adam (bassist) preferred the traditional rock-n-roll lifestyle until it very nearly destroyed him. Thanks to the support and witness of the other three, he eventually came around.
Now Bono's trying to prove he can be a Christian, the leader of the biggest rock band in the cosmos, and save Africa.
|
|
|
Post by scintor on Jul 17, 2008 1:12:56 GMT -5
Wow, and the music controversy goes on. The Pope, Luther, Calvin and the rest of the reformation leaders argued about it. The restoration leaders here in America in the 1800's argued about it so much that there were several denominational splits over it that may have lead to it petering out. I grew up in a strict vocal music only tradition (we don't rock the house, but I guarentee you that we are some of the best singers out there Paul said that he would be all things to all people so that he might bring some to Christ. Music is a great hook as are many forms of excitement, but it doesn't save people without teaching them God's ways. Paul also said that there are also some things that are many things that are a matter of tradition and convience that are useful, but not matters of salvation. I guess I will leave it at "By their fruits you will know them." If it works and people who are brought in are learning and growing in Christ, then keep it up, if not look for something else. Scincerely, Scintor@aol.com
|
|
|
Post by seraphim on Dec 9, 2008 15:09:31 GMT -5
If I may speak from the other end of the continuum, in my faith (Orthodox) the Tradition is extremely important. We understand it as the life of the Spirit in the Church, what He does and has done in continuity from the Apostles to the present time. There are few things we decry more than innovation...in anything. The Paradosis is the living...but not changing faith as it is passed generation to generation.
We regard worship and the forms of worship as something given to us by God. The worship of the Church has it roots in the worship systems of the synagogue and of the Temple, and that worship was given to Moses and Aaron as revealed by God on Mt. Sinai...not as an arbitrary didactic form, but as a type of the heavenly worship that we get glimpes of in the Prophets and in the Apocalypse. We worship liturgically because that is the worship in heaven, and our worship to be worship must participate in and give expression to that heavenly worship. Indeed we regard the Divine Liturgy as a Divine ascent so that the Church on earth and in heaven meet as one around the common heavenly altar which is made manifest and present to us in our church altars.
This means for us that we regard our worship is something that we have received, not something that we have made up. It is the Tradition as is the mindset in which the Church has received and exercises her spiritual life from that day to this. So important is this to understanding how we approach and understand all things in the Christian life, St. John Chrysostom said, "Is it the Tradition? Ask no further." This means for us that settled things are settled things...we don't keep asking if the Trinity is real or a man made doctrine. We don't wonder if Christ was truly raised or was fully God and fully man...like the worship we have received, they are settled things.
That said, liturgy experienced in a listless, ignorant, or distracted way may seem dull or pointless. I know that was my first impression years ago visiting Catholic and Lutheran services...people in funny robes playing with dinnerware in front of everyone mumbling at the congregation from time to time who mumbles back in turn...made no sense to me back then. But now I can imagine no other way to worship.
There is a story about the coversion of the Rus. Prince Vladimir wanting to shop around for a modern civilized religion for his people so they could join the "first world" nations as equals of that era sent emissaries far and wide they visited western Christian churches, mosques, and the eastern Church in Constantinople. The Germans bored them having no beauty, they thought the moslems stared about like crazy men plus they ate no pork and eschewed drink (which the Rus did not), but when they were exposed to the worship given at the Hagia Sophia cathedral they sent their reply to their prince. "We knew not whether we were in heaven or earth... We only know that God dwells there among men, and their service is fairer than the ceremonies of other nations." On that report Prince Vladimir set Russia on the course to be baptized as a nation.
With respect to various native cultural elements, the Orthodox Church had no problem baptising the baptizable. For example the call to worship in the middle east has traditionally been made on a symandrone or talanton/tooca but as that tradition moved north wood gave way to metal and metal in turn became bells. Moving south the same tradition merged with the subsaharan drumming tradition thus in Russia or other places in Northern europe you will find lots of bells in the Church but in Ethiopia they will use big drums instead.
One thing though that is generally consistent with the exception of the accents of bells/drums no musical instrument was ever a part of Christian worship. Only the human voice was used in the temple. Outside the temple all kinds of instruments were found...but in the church itself at worship just the human voice.
The other principle is that worship should be beautiful (not entertaining), thus all the senses are engaged in the place of worship and directed towards prayer and God (icons, incense, hymns, lights, bodily worship...crossing, bows, prostrations, etc, and the Eucharist).
So...just by way of information you can see that the Eastern Church maintains a very different understanding and mindset with regard to these things.
|
|