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

(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.

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.

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.

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

Jason

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.

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.