Over Christmas time, Willowcreek put on Christmas Eve service(s) that they described as their most ambitious yet. Most noteworthy, according to the newspaper, they used Cirque de Soleil-style acrobats in the presentation of the Christmas story. While some of us were (admittedly) smirking over this – a friend said to me, “they are just trying to be creative in presenting the story of Christ’s birth. What could be wrong with that?” At which point I pondered – at what point is the story no longer the story? Answer – when it becomes a spectacle. According to Paul Ricouer, we know it’s a good story when we “get into it,” when we see ourselves “emploted” into the story. This is the idea behind remembering the story, rehearsing it in worship (and the Eucharist), true anamnesis (1 Cor 11:24). The spectacle however turns us passive no longer able to participate in the story. The question is: did Willowcreek turn the story of the Christ child into a spectacle with the use of acrobats? Did the acrobats becomes so mesmerizing that those who came to see were caught up in the spectral gaze, detached and mesmerized, made totally inert as onlookers no longer able to participate in the story? Because when the story becomes a spectacle, the story is no longer a story. And we have gone from an act of worship to an act of spectatorship, from an act of participation to a spectral gaze.
According to John Milbank (Being Reconciled, p. 31), Augustine described the way Romans would go to the theatre and enjoy suffering and violence acted out on the stage as those caught in the spectral gaze. Augustine said the thrill of the spectral gaze depended upon “an absolute bar against reciprocal participation sealed by a double passivity.” (p.31). This spectral gaze made the onlooker doubly passive (according to Milbank) because a.) the scene from the outset was exhibited ONLY to be watched, and b.) the people watching were confined from going there for any other purpose that mere reception, mere spectatorship. They were safe from the violence, were prohibited from participating, and there was not any other purpose to witness this violence in this way that getting a “cheap thrill.” (milbank might argue that Mel Gibson’s Passion of the Christ was such a spectacle). This is markedly different than a worship gathering and a rehearsal of the Christ story where we called to participation. Milbank says this enables a perverse enjoyment of suffering. And so at this point the scene becomes a spectacle.
Now Milbank is using the “spectral gaze” in this part of Being Reconciled to argue for something totally different than I am here. He is trying to show the perverse complicity in violence inherent in pacificist positions by their “passivity.” Something I don’t agree with Milbank on. Nonetheless, I believe his analysis does help us understand what could be wrong with Christmas Eve services that use Acrobats.
For it is when we attempt to make the Christmas Eve service into a spectacle, when we try to hyper intensify the reality of the Son being born a babe to attract onlookers, THAT WE ACTUALLY REMOVE OURSELVES AND THE ONLOOKERS FROM THAT REALITY. We make the birth of the Son a spectacle to get fascinated by, enjoy as a show, foreclosing the possibility of participating in it. In other words, you cannot evangelize with a spectacle. Isn’t that ironic?
We love to intensify reality. But the spectral gaze intensifies the reality turning it into hyper reality one step removed from reality. Participation is pre-empted. According to Baudrillard, this is the last stage of a culture’s semiotics when we go to signs bearing no relation to reality whatsoever. It is “pure simulation.” Ironically, when we reach this point in our services, they bear no relation to reality any longer. They are simulating Christ performing a simulacrum of the birth of Christ. Ironically, in so doing, we in effect separate people from the reality of Christ instead of drawing them closer. And we cut off all participation.
Some will say, but they have someone speak a message at the end (notice the newspaper article)! And they ask people to make a decision. To which I ask, how can anyone respond authentically once they’re caught up in the passivity of the spectral gaze? But ok, I’ll take an altar call here to get some form of participation out of the spectral gaze. It ain’t the Eucharist but it is something.
Some will say, Dave you’re up tight. Let us be creative. To which I reply that I believe art is absolutely essential to worship and the embodiment of the gospel. In a world moved past modernity, we must embody the gospel and the reality of Father, Son Holy Ghost so as to reshape imaginations under the work of the Spirit in worship. But we will have to discern the difference between art as worship from spectacle. Our graphics motion icons in our service are beautiful, but we have to watch carefully. For they must not dwarf the Story. They must invite into the Story.
Perhaps Willowcreek did the acrobats with this kind of discernment. In which case I take back everything I said that might have implicated them. Nonetheless the exercise has been good for me to think all over again why we must avoid the spectacle when it comes to the worship of our God Incarnate.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
Amen. Funny…sort of…the story of the last Ampitheater gladiator show was that of a Christian monk crossing the line between actor and audience. He jumped into the ring, got between the fighters, and yelled, “Stop, for the love of God, stop!” (ironic that that was his “participation”). Then one of them killed him with the sword. Then everyone left the ampitheater. Then there weren’t any more gladiator shows at the ampitheater. Or that’s the story I’ve heard.
Jason
2 questions, dude:
1) Is the Nativity, the movie a spectacle?
2) So let’s grant that the Willow thing is a spectacle, and that it is, in fact, a hyper-reality, and it is not a worship service (though there was carol singing and a talk, albeit a lame one). And grant also that the birth of Christ story is overshadowed by the spectacle. Doesn’t the spectacle become the story, just as the medium becomes the message? And aren’t we still “emploted” into that new spectacle story, at the least?
So now this becomes the story we participate in: car-pooling with our uncle who we don’t really know, fighting traffic, hearing him say “holy crap! this place is huge”, watching the dancers, kite flyers, acrobats and floating ribbons, not laughing at the dumb drama, sleeping thru the talk and here’s my favorite part actually: Hybels invites you to turn to those you came with and speak words of love and gratefulness b/c life is tender and you don’t know what next christmas holds. Then you go out to dinner and listen to your uncle talk about the muscles of the acrobats.
all this paves the way for communal moments that the “spectators” can cultivate.
oh – and Jason, your story created such a spectacle in my mind that i lost the message of what you were saying.
Dave…I’m a theology student out at Fuller in Pasadena. I was just directed towards your book and love what I read! I’m a bit jealous that I did not write it first:)!
You’re spot on in your critique of what Peter Rollins calls “hyper-reality” which keeps us from experiencing the true hyper-presence of God in ordinary day-to-day life. Spectacles and performances actually further purport that the Gospel is a safe, even mythological story and these mass gatherings don’t send a message that it’s a call to follow Jesus in radical community, to be an alternative vision, the reign of God.
I only hope your voice gets louder!
I think there’s a real easy answer to David’s question: what did this cause people to do? The logic employed by Millbank is that if the event is sealing the observer from doing anything at all, it’s spectacle.
And I’m not just talking about praying a prayer here: I’m talking about discipleship. Did this event cause people to become part of the story, part of the truth of Jesus Christ? Or did it cause people to look for another event next week?
However, there is something more insidious going on here — judging the means by the ends. Should we take action and then judge it by how things turned out? Thats osunds creepy to me.
Sorry…I was saying that the show stopped. Because someone crossed the line between spectator and spectacle. On top of that the crosser was sacraficed. “For the love of God.” This is how the lines get crossed.
I tend to agree with David’s buddy whom he went to WillowCreek with. I also tend to agree with “the fatted calf.” But I also tend to agree with David to a large extent as well.
I’m often struck at our criticisms of popular religious culture as being very similar how we speak of statistics on how to live a long and healthy life–people who do THIS, will live long, but people who do THAT will live long too. And if you don’t do THIS over here your chances of living long and prospering are better. If you don’t do THAT over there your chances are very good as well. So what happens if I don’t do ONE of those things I’m suppose to do and do one of the things I’m NOT suppose to do (stats apply to populations and not individuals by the way)? Does that mean my life is somehow shortened by a few years if I don’t do any particular one of those things? I’m not saying that some of what is recommended is not important, but it has to be taken as a whole and not individually as well as taken with “pastoral sensitivity” which is the point of this–that there seems to be an idealism at play in much of your criticism of popular Christianity. I guess the question I have is that with any criticism of the popular Christian culture at which point do you leave room for human error? At which point do you do you allow for people, churches, denominations and communities to “make mistakes?” See, it seems to me that the idealism has to be tempered with the sensitivity that people aren’t always going to “get it right.” I mean look at the disciples! Will not God use broken vessels for his glory (even modernist ones)? I mean, I have tendencies toward universalism and it seems to me that if God COULD save everyone (by any means) he would (and that means the trifle and the trivel and the drivel). I mean some people are not self-righteous Pharisees you know? Some people are well-meaning disciples who do so happen to screw up once in awhile. Even on our best days we’re frigg’n losers. Even when we’ve done all our home work–crossing our “t’s” and dotting our “i’s” we still may come up short. I’m not saying to not point to the ideal? But given the sort of world we live in, it seems that needs to be tempered somewhat and a tolerance shown for these sorts of things.
Uuuhhh…b- this will almost certainly come out wrong. But I think Idealism is reading something into what DF is saying…and it in itself leads to the conditions that lend us to the spectacle. Uumm…sorry if that gets misinterpreted. Don’t mean it “meanly” or anything. And sorry if its hard to connect my idealism comment to the rest of what you said.
Jason
Jason,
Care to explain? Maybe “idealism” is the wrong word?
Jason,
Care to explain? Maybe “idealism” is the wrong word?
To which I say…
Perhaps God creating a miracle through a star is pretty spectacular;
Perhaps sending wise men from Babylon (or Persia) is pretty spectacular;
Perhaps giving gifts for a king to a baby is pretty spectacular;
Perhaps having angels appear and sing choir-ly songs in the heavens is pretty spectacular;
Perhaps the original event was spectacular … and perhaps Willow was mirroring that spectacularity!
I was there. I thought the intergenerational emphasis was spectacular; the imagery and music was spectacular. It re-told the old story in a spectacular way.
David, I tell you the truth: the liturgical traditions we both love and enjoy are the church’s attempt to aestheticize the gospel. The church’s great traditions are full of drama and spectacular color, wording, and thoughtful acting out of the story of the gospel.
See you next week for coffee brother.
To which I say…
Perhaps God creating a miracle through a star is pretty spectacular;
Perhaps sending wise men from Babylon (or Persia) is pretty spectacular;
Perhaps giving gifts for a king to a baby is pretty spectacular;
Perhaps having angels appear and sing choir-ly songs in the heavens is pretty spectacular;
Perhaps the original event was spectacular … and perhaps Willow was mirroring that spectacularity!
I was there. I thought the intergenerational emphasis was spectacular; the imagery and music was spectacular. It re-told the old story in a spectacular way.
David, I tell you the truth: the liturgical traditions we both love and enjoy are the church’s attempt to aestheticize the gospel. The church’s great traditions are full of drama and spectacular color, wording, and thoughtful acting out of the story of the gospel.
See you next week for coffee brother.
I was there and I thought it was a heartfelt celebration of Christ’s birth.
I am not a member of Willow Creek, but attend their grief support program (my wife passed away last year). Some of the members of my small group decided to go to the service on Thursday. I was awed by the joy that went into the production. It drew me into the story. Thinking about the service on my way home, I realized it started out with a high amount of energy, but gradually brought that energy level down. At the end, everything and everyone was focused on the message.
God, born in a manger, to a couple of dirt poor parents, here to show us His perfect love for us and ask us to follow Him on a mission to bring His love to this broken world.
I cried at the end.
On the way home I called my 20 year old son and asked him to go with me on Friday to see it again. He said yes. My son is a great kid, but, like most his age, going to church isn’t very high on his list of things to do.
I wanted him to hear the message, and I knew the program would hold his attention. Is that bad? Is it bad to develop a worship style that hold peoples attention? Is it possible that we can accept a wide range of styles of worship, recognizing that people express themselves in many different, loving ways?
My son loved the service. We hugged at the end with tears in our eyes. I know my wife was with us in spirit and loved the service too.
On the way home, my son said he was going to check out Willow’s new church in downtown Chicago (he is a student at Columbia College). I was glad to hear that he will make attending church a part of his week. That was the best Christmas present I could ever receive from him, and I told him so.
While the Willow Creek church model is not for me (too big), I have been to a few of their services and I found the teaching to be inspiring. Their grief support ministry is excellent.
We went to Christmas Eve service at our church, and we both were deeply moved by it too. I love our church and the wonderful people there. Attending the service at Willow was just another opportunity to celebrate Christ’s birth.
This year, the birth of Jesus has taken on a special meaning for me. I have felt His love personally through the Body of Christ, his Church, in all it’s forms, as it has reached out to me and my son in our sorrow to heal our hearts.
Anyway, I just wanted to add my observations to this discussion.
God bless you all
Steve
I was there and I thought it was a heartfelt celebration of Christ’s birth.
I am not a member of Willow Creek, but attend their grief support program (my wife passed away last year). Some of the members of my small group decided to go to the service on Thursday. I was awed by the joy that went into the production. It drew me into the story. Thinking about the service on my way home, I realized it started out with a high amount of energy, but gradually brought that energy level down. At the end, everything and everyone was focused on the message.
God, born in a manger, to a couple of dirt poor parents, here to show us His perfect love for us and ask us to follow Him on a mission to bring His love to this broken world.
I cried at the end.
On the way home I called my 20 year old son and asked him to go with me on Friday to see it again. He said yes. My son is a great kid, but, like most his age, going to church isn’t very high on his list of things to do.
I wanted him to hear the message, and I knew the program would hold his attention. Is that bad? Is it bad to develop a worship style that hold peoples attention? Is it possible that we can accept a wide range of styles of worship, recognizing that people express themselves in many different, loving ways?
My son loved the service. We hugged at the end with tears in our eyes. I know my wife was with us in spirit and loved the service too.
On the way home, my son said he was going to check out Willow’s new church in downtown Chicago (he is a student at Columbia College). I was glad to hear that he will make attending church a part of his week. That was the best Christmas present I could ever receive from him, and I told him so.
While the Willow Creek church model is not for me (too big), I have been to a few of their services and I found the teaching to be inspiring. Their grief support ministry is excellent.
We went to Christmas Eve service at our church, and we both were deeply moved by it too. I love our church and the wonderful people there. Attending the service at Willow was just another opportunity to celebrate Christ’s birth.
This year, the birth of Jesus has taken on a special meaning for me. I have felt His love personally through the Body of Christ, his Church, in all it’s forms, as it has reached out to me and my son in our sorrow to heal our hearts.
Anyway, I just wanted to add my observations to this discussion.
God bless you all
Steve
It seems this is further discussion on art in the church. Art comes in all forms and at it’s best, is spectacular. Weather it is spectacle or not, in a consumerist way, sometimes depends on the person seeing it.
It seems this is further discussion on art in the church. Art comes in all forms and at it’s best, is spectacular. Weather it is spectacle or not, in a consumerist way, sometimes depends on the person seeing it.
Amen, Scot and Mike Lipuma.
I was there, too. I’d never attended a Willow Creek Christmas service before, and started out with my arms crossed over my heart, a little prepared not to like it, for perhaps some of the reasons you cite in today’s blog. But I was wrong – at a very deep level.
And I have to ask you – a few weeks ago, you said, “Rather, in the way we worship and in the way we live, art is birthed on the canvas, with the camera, in the children’s class, on the graphics arts screen that points us to the reality of God revealed in all his beauty around us and in everyday life. In this way, music, dance, and the arts are part of what it means to be present as a witness to the beauty of the Lord. Hopefully this art will adorn our homes, our places of conversation, and in our worship gatherings.”
Small Art (intentional everyday beauty) is OK? A tasteful graphic (a Dore engraving, perhaps) during worship is Small Art and is therefore acceptable. But Big Art, a la Willow Creek, that may cross the line into spectacle FOR SOME PEOPLE is wrong?
Who gets to decide when art gets too big for its own britches and crosses your line, becoming crass, populist, consumerist expression of religion?
Amen, Scot and Mike Lipuma.
I was there, too. I’d never attended a Willow Creek Christmas service before, and started out with my arms crossed over my heart, a little prepared not to like it, for perhaps some of the reasons you cite in today’s blog. But I was wrong – at a very deep level.
And I have to ask you – a few weeks ago, you said, “Rather, in the way we worship and in the way we live, art is birthed on the canvas, with the camera, in the children’s class, on the graphics arts screen that points us to the reality of God revealed in all his beauty around us and in everyday life. In this way, music, dance, and the arts are part of what it means to be present as a witness to the beauty of the Lord. Hopefully this art will adorn our homes, our places of conversation, and in our worship gatherings.”
Small Art (intentional everyday beauty) is OK? A tasteful graphic (a Dore engraving, perhaps) during worship is Small Art and is therefore acceptable. But Big Art, a la Willow Creek, that may cross the line into spectacle FOR SOME PEOPLE is wrong?
Who gets to decide when art gets too big for its own britches and crosses your line, becoming crass, populist, consumerist expression of religion?
Ok!!! thaanks for all the voices … I’m going to make a stab at a quick reply to a few of these comments …
To Scot,
Here’s back at ya … I sought to deliberately define what how I was using “spectral gaze.” In light of the way Milbank et.al. defined it,
… is a baby born in poverty in an obscure barn in Bethlehem a spectacle?
… in that there were no “crowds” but visitations by the Shepherds, Magi who came, bowed, and worshiped, can this scene in any way qualify as a spectacle?
to Steve …
I am in no position (no one is) to qualify the quality of your religious experience (I’d never want to)… And in some ways, it’s a conversation stopper … it’s a risk as a pastor to ever say anything to negate or judge someone else’s emotions or personal experience, especially in the land of modernity.
So with those apologies, let me say,… keeping attention is good, emotions and tears are good (I am one to go there often) but these things in and of themselves are not sufficient for me to judge whether the Christmas Eve service was a spectacle or an offering of worship – my primary argument in this post. In fact, I (and probably you and your son as well) have often been mesmerized … drawn to attention and tears and emotions at a good Disney movie (I confess I cry every “stinkin” time during the Beauty and the Beast). The question for me is what did we leave with? Drawn into a relationship with God thru Christ in His Spirit, or mesmerized by a simulcra experience which we then get addicted to like a video game. Augustine, in my post above, defined a spectacle as “the people watching were confined from going there for any other purpose that mere reception, mere spectatorship.” In other words, the end was to get excoited, thrilled, titilated … that was the end in itself … The spectacle, by definition, leads to no where but the applause of the show itself. It always leaves us willing to go back for more of the same if it thrilled us. But we might have to keep steppinmg up the thrill (i.e. get more “ambitious” in our presentations) to draw the same crowd. We want those emotions again. Indeed we are no longer seeking God, we seek the emotional experience. AM I SAYING THIS IS WHAT WILLOLWCREEK DID? Maybe? Maybe not? But I am saying that bthese things are woirth discerning. For if these things are true, we are not drawing people to God, we are drawing them away to the spectacle.
To Michele … I don’t believe the question is how big we let art get. Again, it is the discerning as to the defining characteristics of a spectacle. I don ‘t believe that when the Pope has Mass in St Peter’s square that that is a spectacle despite the fact it has as big a crowd as Willowcreek. Rather, the entirety of the service is done with the purpose of participation in the story. To the degree the art enbales, makes possible and displays the story for invitation, it has not crossed the line to spectacle.
lastly … Mike … I agree only to a limited degree that art is subjective in the way you have put it. Rather, I see art as communal property, dispalying a reality already lived. I don’t know what you mean by “spectacular,” so I’d need more from you on that. But if David Bentley Hart is right (and I find him compelling) … beauty is only know as the beauty of God in participation … if he’s right – well then .. art can never be spectacular if we go by the definition lof “spectral gaze” in this post.
I hope I haven’t confused this all the more. If so blame Scot McKnight (just kidding bro – looking forward to the coffee)..
Blessings on furthering Christ’s Kingdom together.
Ok!!! thaanks for all the voices … I’m going to make a stab at a quick reply to a few of these comments …
To Scot,
Here’s back at ya … I sought to deliberately define what how I was using “spectral gaze.” In light of the way Milbank et.al. defined it,
… is a baby born in poverty in an obscure barn in Bethlehem a spectacle?
… in that there were no “crowds” but visitations by the Shepherds, Magi who came, bowed, and worshiped, can this scene in any way qualify as a spectacle?
to Steve …
I am in no position (no one is) to qualify the quality of your religious experience (I’d never want to)… And in some ways, it’s a conversation stopper … it’s a risk as a pastor to ever say anything to negate or judge someone else’s emotions or personal experience, especially in the land of modernity.
So with those apologies, let me say,… keeping attention is good, emotions and tears are good (I am one to go there often) but these things in and of themselves are not sufficient for me to judge whether the Christmas Eve service was a spectacle or an offering of worship – my primary argument in this post. In fact, I (and probably you and your son as well) have often been mesmerized … drawn to attention and tears and emotions at a good Disney movie (I confess I cry every “stinkin” time during the Beauty and the Beast). The question for me is what did we leave with? Drawn into a relationship with God thru Christ in His Spirit, or mesmerized by a simulcra experience which we then get addicted to like a video game. Augustine, in my post above, defined a spectacle as “the people watching were confined from going there for any other purpose that mere reception, mere spectatorship.” In other words, the end was to get excoited, thrilled, titilated … that was the end in itself … The spectacle, by definition, leads to no where but the applause of the show itself. It always leaves us willing to go back for more of the same if it thrilled us. But we might have to keep steppinmg up the thrill (i.e. get more “ambitious” in our presentations) to draw the same crowd. We want those emotions again. Indeed we are no longer seeking God, we seek the emotional experience. AM I SAYING THIS IS WHAT WILLOLWCREEK DID? Maybe? Maybe not? But I am saying that bthese things are woirth discerning. For if these things are true, we are not drawing people to God, we are drawing them away to the spectacle.
To Michele … I don’t believe the question is how big we let art get. Again, it is the discerning as to the defining characteristics of a spectacle. I don ‘t believe that when the Pope has Mass in St Peter’s square that that is a spectacle despite the fact it has as big a crowd as Willowcreek. Rather, the entirety of the service is done with the purpose of participation in the story. To the degree the art enbales, makes possible and displays the story for invitation, it has not crossed the line to spectacle.
lastly … Mike … I agree only to a limited degree that art is subjective in the way you have put it. Rather, I see art as communal property, dispalying a reality already lived. I don’t know what you mean by “spectacular,” so I’d need more from you on that. But if David Bentley Hart is right (and I find him compelling) … beauty is only know as the beauty of God in participation … if he’s right – well then .. art can never be spectacular if we go by the definition lof “spectral gaze” in this post.
I hope I haven’t confused this all the more. If so blame Scot McKnight (just kidding bro – looking forward to the coffee)..
Blessings on furthering Christ’s Kingdom together.
I’ll jump one more time. Referencing mass in St. Peter’s Square, you said,”Rather, the entirety of the service is done with the purpose of participation in the story. To the degree the art enbales, makes possible and displays the story for invitation, it has not crossed the line to spectacle.”
If, as a non-Catholic, I attended that mass, I’d be a spectator at the spectacle. I don’t know the rhythms of Catholic worship, and I would be there as a highway gaper and not a fully-active participant, especially if the mass is celebrated in another language.
But I could fully enter and particpate in the Story (Big S) in the way it was celebrated at Willow Creek during that service.
Your cautions about spectacle are wise. As a playwright who has sometimes written for the church, I’ve fought the battle of creating something for entertainment’s sake (ugh). Lots of churches want material like that. It becomes a commercial for the gospel.
But sometimes spectacle happens – and so does engagement with the gospel. On the day of his crucifixion, Scripture records how an audience member with a ring-side seat at the show suddenly found himself confronted with the reality of who Jesus was: “Surely this man was the Son of God!” (Mk. 15:39).
I pray that the same thing happened with the many who attended Willow’s Christmas service.
I’ll jump one more time. Referencing mass in St. Peter’s Square, you said,”Rather, the entirety of the service is done with the purpose of participation in the story. To the degree the art enbales, makes possible and displays the story for invitation, it has not crossed the line to spectacle.”
If, as a non-Catholic, I attended that mass, I’d be a spectator at the spectacle. I don’t know the rhythms of Catholic worship, and I would be there as a highway gaper and not a fully-active participant, especially if the mass is celebrated in another language.
But I could fully enter and particpate in the Story (Big S) in the way it was celebrated at Willow Creek during that service.
Your cautions about spectacle are wise. As a playwright who has sometimes written for the church, I’ve fought the battle of creating something for entertainment’s sake (ugh). Lots of churches want material like that. It becomes a commercial for the gospel.
But sometimes spectacle happens – and so does engagement with the gospel. On the day of his crucifixion, Scripture records how an audience member with a ring-side seat at the show suddenly found himself confronted with the reality of who Jesus was: “Surely this man was the Son of God!” (Mk. 15:39).
I pray that the same thing happened with the many who attended Willow’s Christmas service.
I do think that David makes a point that if art is not “done right” it can distract from “ENTERING INTO” the story. When Jesus spoke of the Good Samaritan, for example, he draws us into an experience in that we are shown who, in concrete forms our neighbour is. You want to try to stay away from something that takes away from that–that distracts from the participation. And of course we have seen this sort of thing with televangelists from everything in which people seem to equate sheer broadcast of sounds and images (the spectacle) with the ACTUAL COMMUNICATION of messages (they seem to confuse information with knowledge and understanding such that they think there is far more communication taking place than there really is) and personality cults (personality is far more memorable than message, doctrine or finances). So there does seem to be a real danger in what David is saying.
I do think that David makes a point that if art is not “done right” it can distract from “ENTERING INTO” the story. When Jesus spoke of the Good Samaritan, for example, he draws us into an experience in that we are shown who, in concrete forms our neighbour is. You want to try to stay away from something that takes away from that–that distracts from the participation. And of course we have seen this sort of thing with televangelists from everything in which people seem to equate sheer broadcast of sounds and images (the spectacle) with the ACTUAL COMMUNICATION of messages (they seem to confuse information with knowledge and understanding such that they think there is far more communication taking place than there really is) and personality cults (personality is far more memorable than message, doctrine or finances). So there does seem to be a real danger in what David is saying.
b-
“Idealism”, strictly speaking…presents to us an object outside of ourselves that we see and know. This object is given high value of some sort, originally “eternal” mainly, but now more just “valuable”. “The best”, to be distinguished from “the will of God”, presents itself as easily aligned with and historically rooted in the same place/s from which emerged Idealism. The sciences that present various statistics to us come from that same place as well, which happens not to be Jeruselem or Zion.
When processing the information provided by statistics, are we communing with the Holy Spirit as when “performing” the Eucharist? The way God set it up, we commune with him through the actuality of the bread and cup (or actual relationships with actual human beings and/or actual communities with which we actually interact). This fact presents to us the consequences of “idealism” and “universalism”. As you said, statistics apply to populations. But populations can be nothing but nebulous and abstracted entities outside of ourselves. A pervese kind of spectacle, different from going to and experiencing a gladiatorial contest, that hides itself from us so we can’t find it. That last sentence probably came out too harsh. I didn’t mean it as harshly as it sounded; uumm, that’s the only way I know to say what I’m saying, though.
And more to a genral audience – I think what DF seems to be hoping for us unity and reconciliation with God. It seems the kind of spectacle of which he’s leery unifies us with something other than God, brings out those things in us that aren’t from God. And this is “on top of” the very “separation” that happens in spectacle. But, as some have pointed out, this 2-fold structure of separation/distinguishedness is pretty common to all art, and, well, pretty much any experience at all. That’s why I just wanted to point out that idea of reconciliation with GOD, rather than union with something else and further rending of the tear between us and God. It seems that’s why DF is advocating discernment. He talks about this in his book…
Again – hope that didn’t come out wrong. Certainly didn’t mean it “meanly”. Just trying to explain, if I can. Thanks and God bless,
Jason
Hey, in a discussion, someone just said to me, in response to my comment above, that I ignored how “the angels appearing as a heavenly host” are indeed a spectacle. My response is again, “spectacular” for me is defined by what Milbank, Augustine and others have said about the “spectral gaze.” That which turns us passive, mesmerized so as to be distanced and thereby unable to partipcate. When I see the angels appear in the sky, I am reminded of the scene we are invited into to worship God and participate with the angels … say in Heb 12.22-23, or thru out Revelation … I take these texts to invite us to enjoin with the angels in a worship always already going on. Likewise.. when the Eucharistic prayer, before the receieving of the elements, ends with asking the congregatiion to join in with “all the angels and archeangels” and sing “Holy Holy Holy” (the Sanctus) .. I take that as also participation with the angels singing … In this way, I see the angels appearance as yes spectacular, but not a “spectacle.” …
BTW … just so everybody knows, I’m not a Roman catholic … but I think liturigical theology has much to teach us evangelicals..
Peace … this conversation is blowing my mind .. and feeding my A.D.D.
Dave, I agree with you whatever it is that produces the “spectral gaze” it is not art. I think art is one of the purest forms of comuication we humans have. It is meant to move not make passive and is produced by the grace of God or not at all.
I was not at Willow, so I don’t know if I’d judge what they did art.
As for the gladitorial games, one might have seen the spectecale you describe. Another row down another might see the same Christian going to death for his faith as quite something else.
Art is in the eye of the beholder, as they say. In most cases anyways. Yes, we have a lot of freedom in Christ to do church in all kinds of ways, and what might be okay in one context might not be okay for my context. That’s one thing that makes it hard for some Christian people to discern, the people who want clear black/white rules for everything pertaining to matters of faith and practice. I’d think Willow would be very intentional and spirituall-discerning about everything it decides to do, even acrobatics.
djchuang …
no offence … but how does what you said address the case I am putting forth concerning the “spectral gaze”? I’d be interested … do you think a Willow style Christmas Eve project is valid as Christian evangelism even if it was spectral (as I have defined it)? And do you think Willow discerns this? I consider this important because I believe the spectral gaze actually desentitizes and passifies the spectator to the gospel…We might even say it does the opposite of evangelism.
Does any one on the Willow side have anything to say to this? I would really benefit from a Willow-er speaking directly to this issue ..
Peace …
DF
David,
I tried to post another comment, but it’s not showing up.
As I said, God’s acts at Christmas were spectacular and designed to emplot those who witnessed them.
And I can speak for the seven of us who attended Willow: later that evening we each commented not only on the spectacle of it all, but how that performance brought home to us our own emplotment.
“Spectacle” is often in the site of the one observing, and it renders judgment in a universal way of an aesthetic event impossible.
What leads to “spectral gaze” for many — say St. Paul’s or San Francesca’s basilica in Assisi — might be emplotment to others.
The “spectral gaze” makes the viewer passive, not active. The idea of a mass event like that is that its a result of the commodification taking place in the West. I live out in California where my family always goes to the “Crystal Cathedral’s” Christmas “spectacle”. Believe me, it’s a spectacle, and even worse is there is a cheesy sales pitch at the end that made me feel dirty. I walked out with my family and we saw a great “performance” but it did not seem to drive any of us to “perform” or practice the gospel in new ways. All I saw was a bunch of wealthy people who went out for a night at the play house. In many ways it felt like it crated an escape from reality as I think much of psuedo-Christian sprituality is doing in America. It seems to me that Jesus coming was spectacular because it happened in the least spectacular place. Jesus was not born in the Temple or in the suburbs of Jerusalem. Could a “shepherd” or today’s equivalent a garbage man (in his smelly attire) show up to the Willow Creek event or the Crystal Cathedral one I went to? The places I have experienced the most vibrant Christian community were in various villages and slums across Africa, not in my materially absorbed culture of southern California. To make matters worse, the event at CC cost several million dollars and they charged, I think, $16 dollars a ticket! I wonder what Jesus would do if he were to walk in there? Perhaps turn over some tables?
Scott,
With all very due respect (seriously), being an architect, I would like to comment on: “What leads to ‘spectral gaze’ for many — say St. Paul’s or San Francesca’s basilica in Assisi — might be emplotment to others.” The difference between St. Francis at Assissi (or St. Paul’s) and a Cirque du’ Soleil-style acrobat show is that one rises up from the Ground, whereas the other drops down from the heavens “deux-ex-machina” style. “On top of” that, Assissi rises up upon a grave, the sacraficial death of a Saint. If you’re in spectacle mode at Assissi, you are taking it with you and projecting it onto the place. St. Paul’s is on more iffy ground, because it’s actually modern…to see that it’s more like a circque du’ soleil show than Assissi, in terms of the question of grave (empty tomb) vs. deux-ex-machina (pagan theater), look DOWN to the floor (am image of the Ground upon which things rise and stand – hopefully – firm). At St. Paul’s its a shiny black and white chess board, at a relatively large scale. At Assissi it’s earth-toned fractal geometry at the intimate scale of the hand.
I think you are right, to a degree, that what might be spectacle to one might be “emplotment” to another. Not sure exactly or entirely what you mean there by emplotment…sounds like there’s a lot behind it…I think you mean that it might bring one “in” to within the bounds of a plot of land, so to speak, as opposed to spectacularly shouting at one from across the bounds of a plot of land, so to speak. But anyway, my point there about St. Paul’s, St. Francis’ Basillica, and Circque’ du Soleil (considering that I wasn’t at the Willow Creek service), is that it is still true that one thing lends itself more to spectacle than another…for reasons that can be fleshed out when you go inside of what brings a thing into being, what makes that thing that thing.
With that in mind, as a mirror to the idea that if you are in “spectral gaze” mode at Assissi, you are taking it there with you…probably, if you are in “emplotment” mode at a Cirque du Soleil Gospel show, you are taking WITH you the story of intimate reconciliation with God, and bringing it to the show as a cinematic frame through which to view the coming montage that will flicker before you on the screeen that drops down from the ceiling.
You could probably put what I just said into more precise philosophical lingo…of which I am not even aware?
Blessings
Jason
B.T.W. – to whomever – spekaing of deux-ex-machina, and reflections between what’s happening in the heavens and on the Ground – I haven’t been there, but I would almost guarantee that if you look up at the ceiling at Willow Creek, it’s like a big machine. Lots of mechanically calculated structural truss-beam members that hold in place a whole system of movable mechanical production instruements. Probably the machine is not hidden also, which is interpreted to be a matter of ethical integrity. Pastors having the “open door policy”. Of course I could be wrong, though…?
B.T.W. – to whomever – spekaing of deux-ex-machina, and reflections between what’s happening in the heavens and on the Ground – I haven’t been there, but I would almost guarantee that if you look up at the ceiling at Willow Creek, it’s like a big machine. Lots of mechanically calculated structural truss-beam members that hold in place a whole system of movable mechanical production instruements. Probably the machine is not hidden also, which is interpreted to be a matter of ethical integrity. Pastors having the “open door policy”. Of course I could be wrong, though…?
Don’t know if Willow’s service was a spectacle, wasn’t there (though it sounds alot like last year’s Catlayst Conference which left me pondering the difference between story and show and arriving at some of the same conclusions), but I think this might well qualify. No, we didn’t do this in church.
http://daddyroblog.blogs.com/daddyroblog/2006/12/a_real_angel.html
After further consideration, I am convinced some, Mister McKnight and others, do bring a certain frame of reference, posibly one of already having joined the plot of the story of Christ, and so are not seduced by the “spectrale gaze”, not that I’m clamiming anything about Willow. I was not there.
I am further convinced whatever it is they bring guarding against this seduction is present by the grace of God and is not anything one should take for granted especially any Christian orginazation putting on show.
Not that I know a lot of what N T Wright says, me and my wife have been listening to some audio of the internet, but he says something like art consisting of three things, the truth of the hope we have in in said story, a vision of where we’re going, and the brokeness out of which we come. If Willow Creek was able to do that with acrobats, praise be to God.
So, I guess the long and the short is. I totally agree with you Dave. Weather Willow was guilty or not, is another question. The person who can answer that is probly not inclined to read this blog.
As to the event mezmerizing its audience into a spectral gaze, I’ll defer to the gentleman from Chicago named McKnight for the first-hand report. I think upon my experience from the smallest worship gathering (in a house church of about 20 people) to the largest worship experience in which I’ve particpated (Promise Keepers’ almost 1 million men on the Washington DC Mall in 1997), and everything in between. I confess that even in the smallest of gathering, I have on occasion disengaged from participating in the worship liturgy for various distractions, be it the excellent quality of the worship music or preaching, or lack there of, or someone sitting in my proximity that grabs my attention, ahem. So, for me, I don’t fault the production of the worship event in and of itself as the sole determinant for how I engage with the worship liturgy or the presentation of the Gospel message.
“The spectacle however turns us passive no longer able to participate in the story.” Great words & full of truth, David. Thanks.
There is another issue this post raises – the role of the arts in communicating a message. If the acrobatic dancers of WCCC’s program were a passivity-inducing spectacle, then what about drama? …or interpretive dance? …or PowerPoint images behind worship lyrics? …or paintings & murals used as iconic worship-helpers? …or even the jokes, metaphors, & other stylistic elements of a sermon?
Isn’t passive & active held in tension through a participation of dialog (be it verbal or nonverbal)? And if participation includes the ephemeral stuff of heart, feeling, attitude, prayer, etc. …then is it possible that Cirque dancers or other art forms might actually help us participate in unique & powerful ways? What’s our guiding principle here? Thanks for your wisdom.
David, great, great, great. Shame on Willow! Shame on anyone who do bigger and better to attract more and more. This is what happens when you must attract more and more to fill the bigger buildings to get more money and people to pay for the stuff. Of course people make commitments to Jesus but I fear they do so with shallowness and without understanding of the real cost of following Jesus. Making group Christ followers without discipling people to Jesus and with Jesus without the context of walking personally with them -never realy worked or did it?
I do believe Willow and others have good intentions but they are or may not know they are eroding Christianity to a low level of Churchianity with with spectators longing for another spectacle week after week. They are so consumer driven that the consumers may not even be impressed when Jesus breaks through the eastern sky as He said he would some day! Sarcasm? Perhaps a tiny bit!
If you have Jesus you don’t really need all this distraction from Him. The world longs for Jesus and often dispise our human attempts to reveal Him in our own amazing ways. Jesus is amazing without our craziness.
No one has mentioned the price of the spectacle – when hundreds of thousands of dollars are spent this way I think it is harder to justify. An inexpensive spectacle would be easier…
I saw it on TV – it was the silliest thing I’ve ever seen or heard. Where was the gospel?
I don’t question the motives, the method was just plain stupid.
I just have to say that I attended the Willow Creek service,
and it was an incredible worshipful experience for me.
For me it was a creative expression of the Christmas story & a picture of what the heavenly angelic encounter looked like down on earth and above.
It augmented my own personal Advent prepartion for Christmas in my heart.
We had an 19 year old non-Christian with us, and he was totally blown away. (Quick history: grew up in the church, as turned his back on it & recently kicked out of his house for getting in trouble with the law) He was in tears. He bought the DVD for a present for his family, and also watched it on TV.
My parents are Willow nay-sayers. In fact, everytime my dad attends, he says, “It’s like they never make a mistake, it’s a show.” They had the opposite reaction this time. It so touched their hearts.
It brought me to tears, seeing the God’s incredible love for us through dance.
I confess I haven’t read all the comments, sorry if this is a repeat. I want to interact with Scot’s contribution: “What leads to “spectral gaze” for many might be emplotment to others.”
Pushing this further, why is it that for some .. perhaps the majority.. it becomes spectral gaze? I think we are back to a critique of culture. Most of us are socialized by culture.. and by the enculturated church.. to passivity. And most of us are immersed in a market worldview. We are formed by this soil in which we live more than by any alternative soil, because of the nature of the churches in which we “participate.”
So, given this context, I think the Willowcreek choice is unwise and doesn’t contribute to a solution or to any challenge to the hegemony of a market worldview, in spite of the fact that some are capable of redeeming it.
I’m with Len although for the others I am thankful God reaches beyond our human efforts.
However there is a deeper issue. Everytime they (Willow and others) do what they did they have to do more of what they do to beat what they did. It continues to encourage consumerism and it does downplay our personal role of living incarnationally in the world. People should be drawn to the Jesus in us but often and sadly we invite people to church instead of living Jesus before them so that Jesus can work through us to redeem them.
Willow does not do anything to hurt the mission of the church on purpose. But whether they know it or not they do hurt the mission of the church and they are not alone. Since we are the church the only attraction should be Jesus in us and as people find Christ they enfold into the family. It seems we often get that backwards.
I still say Willow must up it next time with something greater than ever. And every year therafter they must keep outdoing the previous year.
To those present for the deal, how many people found Jesus and how many are being followed up on and being discipled? Does anyone have this answer? Do you know for sure that the cost of following Jesus was made clear and do those new commitments reflect a personal cost in following Jesus? Just wondering. Maybe Bill will answer so we can put this to bed.
D.F…I just wanna’ say…kina randomly, I suppose…I really like your blog. Its neat. You must be neat, too. You and your blog have blessed me. Thanks.
Jason
Do tears or great joy, does having an “incrediblly worshipful experience,” does going out “and buying the DVD,” does getting someone to say “I want to come back” (and have another WOW experience) count as Christian worship or evangelism? For this is perhaps the hardest of all the above comments to speak to. For in many ways, our culture produces experiences, and who is to say or make judgements about the validity of any individual’s experience?
Yet we need to ask these questions. Not because we small churche pastorsd are jealous of the large mega churches (which people have accused me of … yet I have been offered more than once amega church (1500+) senior teaching pastor job and turned it down because it simply doesn’t make sense to me eccleisologically). Not because we want to get into a debate. But we need to ask these questions for the all the pastors who think (or are tempted to think this is what we too must do to have a successful church. For if this is even slightly true, we must go about the business of spendingmillions to produce these shows to attract people into church to give them such experiences.
But I am with len, sam andress, and others here who think, despite the wonderfdul experience you’ve had, this in and of itself is not what we’re after. We are after people being discipled into a walk with God thru jesus Christ thru which we extend the presense of Christ to a lost and violent world.
To me the test of emplotment then, of true Christmas eve worship, of worship in general is … what kinds of people does it produce? how do we then live and walk in the world?
I don’t want to drive out of a show spectacular, feel an addictive twitch that says I’ve got to come back as soon as possible to get another spectacle experience “buzz”.. for that is what I have now come to associate as experioencing God. I want to see my life as an extension of teh story I have just celebrated and participated in.
So, maybe Willow did it well, did it poorly, but the fact that many walk out and point to this incredible experience as the touchstone of authentic Christian worship/evangelism … is in itself worrisome …
But this whole conversation has just been awesome …
and Jason … thanks for the “bloglove”…
Blessings
While we use the Willow story/example/event, does anyone want to tell me how many millions of dollars are spent at Christmas time by attraction churches across America? While we are all happy for the blessed and others who were spiritually touched and while we summize the longterm negative impact in the American church because of this, there is another side of the story.
What could we have done to invest in the lives of the widows, orphans and poor with all the millions spent predominantly to bless the already reached, however deep or shallow there commitment to Jesus? I’m not the judge.
What if every church in America had a Christmas Eve service with nothing of spectral gaze or whatever and instead took the money budgeted for the spectacular (whatever that is) and took an offering from the people and laid in in the manger scene to give to those “people” likened to the ones Jesus spent most of His time with?
Can you imagine the impact this would have in the world? Oh, I forgot the already reached would never allow this to happen (sarcasm again). What would happen at Willow or whoever, even the small dogs had a quiet service of silence and communion and offering to God instead?
I wonder what those of you who attended any of those Christmas events think about gathering this way next Christmas instead of the other?
Before I forget, I boycotted all the Christmas shows this past Christmas because of all the reason stated. Jesus was all I needed to worship and celebrate His birth. Now I am not condemning anyone here, It’ was just my personal conviction.
Dave, you opened a can of worms and I applaud your courage to do so. This is a good discussion for all of us.
I think we have to be careful in our writing. This, I maintain is also about evangelism and the gospel. One of the folks above shamed Willow. I am not sure of the wisdom of that kind of speech. The world watches whether it be at Willow, on TV or on blogs but the world watches.
Shaming and inviting shame on brothers is a testimony more of our pettiness than our love. I am not necessarily in agreement w/ all that Willow did. I was there and my heart was touched. I can only pray that God through the power of the Holy Spirit brings new life to many and perhaps a renewed faith.
Having been on the frustrating side of discussions on aesthetics several times both in the blogosphere and in person, all I can say is: my hat is off to you, Mr. Fitch. Outstanding reflections and applause for your persistent charity in the conversation. I will not wade into this one, as it would retread much of what I’ve written elsewhere (and I don’t think I can really add to the excellent analysis done here), so I will constrain myself to a few observations.
(1) I continue to be amazed at how extraordinarily Kantian our aesthetic sense is. Doubling my amazement is that this Kantian aesthetic judgment frequently appears most strongly in those who consciously attempt to dissociate themselves from modernity and the spirit of the Enlightenment. We have a vague sense that we ought not be embroiled in “modernity,” but, like Augustine said of chastity, “Lord make me chaste, but not just yet.”
(2) Few subjects elicit one’s deepest commitments so easily. Those deep loves we harbor in the folds of our heart come quickly to the surface when our judgments about what is a Christian aesthetic sense are threatened (either really or apparently), and by extension, those communities with which have chosen to embody a particular form of aesthetic life. Human, all too human. Yet, it is an object lesson in how very difficult it is to subject one’s commitments and convictions to questions which shake one’s identity, to consider the possibility that one is aesthetically (or morally, for that matter) misfiring, and being content with malformation. Who would dare to suggest “decadence” when one is “ministered to” and gladness is increased? Indeed, several comments here should remind us to wade gently where there might be tender shoots beginning their first gropings toward the light, even as a larger situation and condition compels us to speak truthfully.
(3) I have yet to determine how my philosophical approach to these matters can also be diaconal. Communicating why it is significant that one might be wholly Kantian in one’s aesthetic sense isn’t obviously relevant to most people (unlike, on the other hand, having pointed out that one is Kantian in one’s moral sense or one’s reasoning might elicit “May it never be!”). I think the plain truth is that there just isn’t much insightful Christian thought on aesthetics to draw on (Hart and Zuidervaart being notable exceptions). This is in stark contrast to “secular” thought; for example, I dislike Heidegger’s conservatism, but his analysis of the West’s deep compromise with technics extends into our practices and products in ways that would be highly beneficial for Christian uptake, in my opinion. What is the essence of an evangelical (in the non-Lutheran sense)? As Frank suggested, it is to frame all that we are and do in terms of means and ends. To be evangelical means to be technological. Now, how do we answer the question: “So what?”
(4) The critic often has little positive to offer. Perhaps the first thing that must be said is that we need lots of time and prayer for a critique which needs to find its way deeply into us human beings is given adequate emotional and intellectual “space” to take root and grow. We must see this as a multi-generational, multi-ethnic, movement, and with God’s help, a movement of and in the Spirit. And it doesn’t end with unravelling our Kantian aesthetic nerves. Because then we need to confront our Platonism, too. Well, that’s one philosopher’s view, anyway.
As I get ready to do some other posts and leave this one behind … I think after Joel Hunter, little is left to be said. Thank you Joel. And for those who don ‘t quiet get what he is talking about … a Kantyian aesthetic .. the briliant David Bentley Hart (whom Joel recommended) has excellent coverage of this topic in the first sections of his The Beauty of the Infinite. To me, Joel’s post reveals how we must engage in serious critique of the pragmatics of our day in evangelical church … for we are mesmerized …. and somehow … those who read philosophy so well, must learn how to write and teach so as to open the eyes of those who are too enamored to see things any differently.
I’ve thoroughly enjoyed the conversation here … on all sides… the different voices made this dialogue great .. and thanks to all the Willow people who went to the Christmas eve service …
Peace …
DF
Nice one! If I could write like this I would be well happpy. The more I read articles of such quality as this (which is rare), the more I think there could be a future for the Web. Keep it up, as it were.