RITUAL REVIVAL FOR PLAYFUL PROTESTANT PREACHING

Churches that take Stout's work seriously must entertain the varied Christian and secular traditions in which they participate and the diversity of moral and theological languages these produce. Stout argues,

We need many different moral concepts because there are many different linguistic threads woven into any fabric of practices and institutions as rich as ours. It is a motley: not a building in need of new foundations but a coat of many colors, one constantly in need of mending and patching, sometimes even recutting and restyling.25

If Stout is correct, then moral and theological languages do not rest on the solid foundation of a singular tradition but are built up through the practices of people's lives. This point is evident in the diverse ways that people who have participated in mainline congregations their entire lives justify their actions and understand God's presence. The young female preacher mentioned earlier exemplifies this point well. In the space of the pulpit, she felt compelled to base her experience on what she perceived to be the solid foundation of a singular Christian language. Speaking with her directly, however, this foundation was incapable of describing the colorful details of her life that formed her theological understanding. Though the words of traditions are part of Christian history and can affect individuals deeply (thus, I make no intention to discard them), no singular language can adequately express the dynamics of faith.

Consider another example. In a recent Disciples of Christ worship service, an elderly preacher spoke of the importance of giving to the church. He spoke of the "responsibility" that all members have to ensure that the church has the funding it needs to provide the proper programs. As a young minister, I sat in the congregation and wondered how effective his language of "duty" and "responsibility" was among my peers. I noticed men and women of the pastor's generation nodding their heads, but younger couples were gazing around the sanctuary. While the language of responsibility to an institution appeared to connect with many in the congregation, others who may have connected more with languages of spiritual growth, human need, or faithful service were unaffected.

The situation in the church should not be one of forcing all believers into a single discourse, nor of appealing to the easy discourses with which people are familiar. Part of the work of the church is to provide a forum where individuals can playfully craft understandings of the gospel using the rich fragments of their diverse faith languages. In the aforementioned case, the minister could have placed the languages of responsibility and spiritual practice into dialogue during his stewardship plea. This might have lured at least these two groups of people into a conversation that might have produced a new and transforming language for stewardship. The Word can erupt in these situations when people are drawn in by languages with which they are comfortable, then confronted with languages that are new and/or different, and finally equipped to reemerge with a transformed language, understanding, and perhaps even experience of faith.