I enjoyed watching ‘The Monastery’ on BBC2 in recent weeks. It challenged a few of my prejudices, principally that TV can only be a purveyor of nonsense. I tend to see TV as entertaining (and therefore useful at the end of a long day), but it remains nonsense, by and large.
I’m influenced by Neil Postman’s book ‘Amusing ourselves to death’, in which he says that the medium (television, print, oral traditions etc) can determine the message (the content of what is said). For example, it is impossible to use smoke signals to discuss philosophy. The medium inhibits or prevents the transmission of certain forms of understanding.
Postman argues that the form of television is essentially passive, and that the logic of it as a medium tends to the novel and the visually stimulating, in other words that TV is good as a source of amusement, but very bad as a vehicle for serious ideas. And so, as TV has replaced the printed word as the primary vehicle for society’s conversation about itself, so the society has become characterised by a loss of seriousness, a shallowness, a cultural impoverishment. Hence we are ‘amusing ourselves to death’ – for a shallow culture does not develop the resources with which to sustain itself. Postman thinks that Huxley was the more accurate prophet, rather than Orwell, and that TV is the ‘soma’ which pacifies the populace, whilst those in power indulge their schemes, whilst any potential for democratic oversight has been removed, simply because a people reared on a diet of TV no longer have the capacity to seriously attend to difficult issues.
In passing, Postman remarks that Christianity is a serious and demanding religion, and he points out how the values of TV will necessarily corrupt a community and culture which has historically been built around oral and written traditions. This is what leads to the demand for interesting ‘spectacle’ in church services, and the complaint that church is ‘boring’. What that means is that a person whose taste has been formed by television finds a traditional church service profoundly alien. What the church is called to do is to educate itself as to what it is doing. For Scripture and the liturgy cannot be replaced by forms that have been constructed by a televisual culture. The message itself is lost, and the church, rather than standing over against the wider society, simply becomes another niche market competing against all the other lifestyle options. Living as a Christian reduces to a matter of purchasing the right CD or car sticker.
The real role of liturgy, our common worship, is the formation of character. Christ replaced one form of service with another, the temple was cast down and rebuilt in three days in his body. So the character that we are called to form is eucharistic – the practice of sharing a meal together, in his memory, in thanksgiving, this is what makes us who we are. The Eucharist makes the church. And this is difficult. It will be experienced as alien, and possibly as oppressive. But we cannot make it any easier without undoing ourselves, without abandoning our faith, without becoming ashamed of the gospel.
“The Monastery” worked, I feel, because it told the human story of people caught up in the world, who are then immersed in precisely that traditional, liturgical culture. And it changed all of them. But what most struck me was a comment made by the Abbot at the end; that it had restored some of the self-confidence of the community. Even in the strongholds of liturgical worship, the technologically amplified voice of the culture shouts so loudly that the faithful quiver, and begin to doubt.
But the tide has turned, and the world knows that it has lost something precious. What we must do is hold fast to what we have received. Mt 10.22
I really enjoyed “The Monastery” too; it was very refreshing to see a positive portrayal of Christianity on television for a change. I did wonder, however, about the extent to which the behaviour of the participants was influenced by the presence of the cameras, particularly in some of the more confrontational episodes. An observation on your discusion of Neil Postman: I think that the pre-reformation Catholic mass would have been a ‘spectacle’ much more than the modern mass or church service. Imagine the impact of all that colour and music on the average member of the congregation, given most of them would not have understood Latin. The modern mass thankfully allows much more participation, which is why it is such a shame to see people in the congregation not bothering to sing the hymns or share the sign of peace. Another example of how even practising Christians have been ‘pacified’?
Doesn’t the medium ‘prefer’ or ‘value’ certain messages rather than ‘determining’ them? A repetitive medium (like a liturgical service) associates best with a repetitive, static message…
I prefer a church that feels called to worship the divine in spirit and in truth rather than in a specific form.
Liturgical services do not determine that a church cannot learn, but they may severely hamper a Learning Church. Learning implies changing, doesn’t it? You didn’t accidentally mean a Teaching Church, did you? (-;
Hi Katharine, Wim, two points. 1. the ‘spectacle’ of a medieval mass would certainly have been impressive, but the difference is that the ‘audience’ for a church service is God, not each other. The point about using the forms of ‘amusement’ as Postman articulates them, is that God gets left out of the picture. 2. God doesn’t change, we are the ones who change. So rituals etc are very diverse, and change over time, but there is a consistent thread within them. In Christian terms the most important thread is Eucharistic IMHO. There is always a danger that we will end up pursuing novelty and the gratification of our fleeting desires, and not engage with the difficult but necessary tasks of ascending the mountain, ie developing the habits and virtues of christian character which is what we are called to do. I can’t relate developing virtues with something that follows the dictates and desires of my own self or ego. It’s precisely that self or ego which needs to be undermined.
I don’t believe (= trust) this image of God seperate from humanity that enables you to put God in the position of audience of worship instead of those participating and to say that humans change and God doesn’t.
An unchanging God is a metaphor, something that can give our life Meaning, not a fact. The divine is that which connects everyone and everything, according to another metaphor that give my life Meaning. It is changing and unchanging at the same time.
As soon as a particular way of worship (e.g. Eucharist) stands between humans (e.g. by allowing some to participate and others not or by being the subject of disagreement about ‘the Right Way to Worship’) it is not what your Audience would wish to witness, I’d say. “Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth.” That time was some 2000 years ago according to John.
According to Christianity the day has come (with Pentecost) that God “will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your old men will dream dreams, your young men will see visions.” God is on/in humanity, not separate from it.
Following divine guidance, e.g. by leaving behind old forms of worship as soon as we are Called to do so, implies pursuing Dynamic Quality rather than novelty and the gratification of our fleeting desires. A Learning Church should be open to Callings that may seem to destroy even those characteristics it most identifies with. If not, it only follows the dictates and desires of its colelctive ego.
Abraham felt Called to leave his home and family to follow a most unlikely Calling, that of a ‘God’ who pretended to be the only one. How sacrilegious in those times! (Most probably we was kicked out of his home and family for stating that there was such a God and decided to turn the story in his favour.) Like him your Church may have to Learn that Eucharist is not what God wants.
Abraham failed a test when he felt ‘called’ to sacrifice his son. He should have knows, that this ‘calling’ could not be from the same God. In his case God corrected him just in time. Nowadays we all too often are not open enough any more ot divine Callings to stop us in time from slaughtering each other. Like him your Church will have to think for itself, Learn to discriminate and to not blindly follow any leading, not even mine. (-: