You know we are living in strange times when an article is shared on Facebook 2,800 times yet I only see it because an old friend posted it. I was intrigued because I keep my eyes open for new perspectives on books or ideas that have already crossed my mind. In this case, it’s my thoughts about Rebuilt, a book by a priest and his lay associate who increased attendance at a dwindling parish by making some radical changes. They were largely inspired by evangelical megachurches, which are a common home for Catholics who leave the Church. If the people are finding something that seems better in evangelical churches, the men reasoned, we can give them those things in a Catholic parish. The result of their study and action was a revived parish, a popular book, and a second book focusing on strategies rather than story.
Rebuilt is not without its critics, though, and it is one of those critics that my friend directed me toward. I read the article she recommended and found it to be distinctly polarized against the Rebuilt strategy. (That’s probably part of why it was so popular; if you want page views, write something opinionated and controversial!) I agree that Rebuilt lacked details about the parish’s sacramental life, but I like that the authors were humble enough to admit that their strategies probably wouldn’t work for everyone (and some of their ideas had already failed). And we can’t ignore the large ex-Catholic population, so any idea is better than none. In the critique to which I am intentionally not linking, the author takes the approach that older is better and everything after Vatican II messed up what was already fine or misinterpreted recommendations for reform. His tone is biting, but he makes a reasonable argument that liturgy done well is outside the lived experience of many Catholics today. If all you’ve experienced are lackluster Masses, of course the Eucharist won’t draw you in like a good praise and worship band and a preacher in street clothes.
The high point of the article for me was a video featuring the restoration of a parish in downtown Omaha that decided to solve its hemorrhaging by looking back at the Catholic past rather than across the street to the evangelical present. Watch it here:
Now that’s an argument I can get behind! It focuses on what is good, and you can see the results. This ordinary parish (not even a cathedral) holds a Eucharistic procession. People are going to confession. The pews split by a long aisle are full. There are even laypeople gathered in the church to pray the Liturgy of the Hours. None of those things are new or found in evangelical megachurches, but they have brought life back into this parish.
I would be irresponsible if I didn’t point out that Nebraska has one of the most old-school dioceses in the country (Lincoln, the only other one in the state). I’m not at all surprised to see this coming from that particular locale. I would also be kidding myself, though, if I didn’t recognize my own faith experience and the experience of the students I worked with in ministry in the concept of making the old new again. As the pastor in the video notes, the old actions and attitudes gave us saints and vocations. There was a need for reform, but perhaps we threw out the baby with the bathwater, and if we bring that baby back, we will find new life.
What do you think? Where have you experienced new life in your parish and faith communities: in modern evangelical-style methods or in the revival of older traditions? Is there room for both? There is definitely room for charitable discussion here.
Fr Thomas Reese had an article last month http://ncronline.org/blogs/faith-and-justice/suggested-agenda-new-prefect-congregation-divine-worship calling for more systematic experiments with the liturgy. Make no mistake – liturgical reform happens all the time. What they did in Omaha is a type of reform, and the nationwide changes to Mass language in 2011 count as liturgical reform, too.
But Reese wants more activity in this area. He wants to adopt business techniques like R&D Centers and market testing for new liturgical elements. The Church does some of this now, but not as formally or as systematically as a company like Proctor and Gamble.
I think this is a good idea and we need to understand that not all innovations will be worth keeping. Even Proctor and Gamble strikes out with many of their new products.
Change is good. Trying different things is good. The Church needs to adopt this mindset.
I agree. Some changes are necessary. This debate emerges when the exact content of the changes, the motivation for them, and their results to date come into play. Much to think about.
I’ve been thinking about this post the past few days. I am deeply passionate about the traditions of the Church. My parish is booming, and we happily embrace to the very traditional style masses and old traditions of the Church. At the same time, as a community, the more effective part of our growth is that we prioritize the personal relationship of each person with Jesus. This may usually sounds Protestant Evangelical style, but it’s deeply Catholic too.
My opinion is that part of why many of the experimental attempts fail is because the focus often is shifted to other things and not Jesus. Vatican II’s most important teachings were pastoral, not doctrinal, and I think this is where we can find good balance. We need to promote the Truth and traditions of the Church while focusing on how we can engage more people in the liturgy through good scripture focused homilies, sacred art, sacred music, and worship spaces that lift the soul. Doing these things well will compel parishioners to make Jesus Lord of their entire lives, but it also requires a lot of work outside of the mass to foster communities that openly speak of Jesus and His saving power. Pastoral work outside the mass is where we really need creativity in experimentation.
Your parish is a great example of a method of reform that has worked! The tricky part is figuring out where to grow, like you said, and what methods of growth will work in each parish.