(This post is Part 2 of a series on the struggle to maintain idealism. Part 1 can be found here.)
Earlier today, I became involved in a discouraging conversation on Twitter. It focused on the matter of worship in the mainline church and whether new styles are practical and/or necessary. I was trying to make the point that for many people, traditional worship is rote and uninspiring. They attend more out of duty than for a genuine and exciting experience of God’s presence. Because that sense of obligation is fading as the church gradually recedes from the cultural mainstream, changes will be necessary if the church is to remain vital and strong in coming decades.
Much to my surprise, I received a good bit of resistance from the group of mostly progressive church leaders. Where I thought I would find abundant resonance to the idea of boldly blazing a new trail of creative faith expression, I instead received a litany of reasons why change efforts are risky/impractical/unnecessary/irresponsible/arrogant. On the whole, my desire for a new vision was not affirmed, and even the concept of moving forward was brought into question.
I ended the conversation with a frank expression of my frustration, accusing the participants of splitting hairs and lacking vision. Upon further reflection, I admit that my reaction was a bit rash, but it is born out of a deep and genuine angst over the prevalent “we fear change” mentality in the mainline church. It’s an angst that I imagine everyone in that Twitter conversation shares on some level, and it can lead even those who are favorable to change to respond negatively when others call for it. I’ve caught myself doing it sometimes.
The reason this happens is related to my previous blog on idealism and its tendency to fade over time. I observed that a lot of people (especially ministers) harbor high ideals for changing the world when they are young and in school, but gradually let go of these dreams as they become established in the real world.
One reason for this was revealed by today’s Twitter conversation. In an environment such as seminary, students are encouraged to think about the future. Discussions of what the church should look like in 10, 50, or even 100 years are common.
Once we hit the ground, however, and must deal with the day-to-day realities of a congregation, the focus changes dramatically. There might be precious little time to consider what worship should look like in 20 years, because we are consumed with what we’re going to do this coming Sunday. And in every church I’ve been in, staff and committees have rarely talked about what will happen more than six months into the future.
In such “present-centered” work environments, idealism naturally takes a back seat to practicality and realism. It’s no surprise, therefore, that concerns about how current church members will respond to change take precedence over what will happen in a generation if we don’t change.
Which is where most of the folks I got so frustrated with on Twitter seem to be. In theory, they might agree with the need for an evolving long-term vision of worship. In a seminary class, we probably would have had the kind of affirming, uplifting conversation about this that I was hoping for. We would have been free to focus on the larger sweep of church history and where we are heading beyond the horizon of the current church season.
But on a random Wednesday morning, when we’re all neck-deep in our preparations for another Sunday and another busy fall, it turned out differently. Instead of the forest of idealism, it was all about the trees of reality, about “what we are doing right now.” And right now, as much as it might be needed, it is quite difficult to be an agent of change in an institution that is so steeped in tradition.
Anyone leading a traditional mainline church faces this tension between long-term vision and short-term practicality. For the next five to ten years, I know that my church will continue to thrive with the same service it’s been doing. But if we want to remain vital beyond that, we have to start today in forming a new concept of worship (and a lot of other practices, too).
So the question I pose is this: How do we honor both? How do we be sensitive to the concerns of the present day without sacrificing our long-term future? Or do we have to choose?
11 comments:
My resistance was to the logic of your original premise. Your argument, as you restate above, is that "for many people traditional worship is rote and uninspiring" therefore it must be changed, and this is one way for churches to remain vital and strong.
The premise:
1) assumes that everyone knows what is meant by "traditional" worship. I assure you "traditional worship" at Zion Olivet Presbyterian or First Afrikan is not at all like traditional worship at Central Presbyterian or First here in Atlanta.
2) assumes that any new form of worship (which in many of these discussions is really just a reworking of an older, evangelical form of worship and not new at all) will not almost already become traditional once it is repeated for a month or so.
3) assumes that it is worship that is causing people to come to a particular church and worship that is causing them to stay.
4) assumes that the problem is with the form of the worship and not with its execution. I have worshiped regularly (for more than a year) in Pentecostal, Baptist, Methodist, Episcopalian, MCC, and Presbyterian Churches. Any service of any form can be rote, boring or uninspired, regardless of the form of music or the "radicality" of the form.
I have no particular anger toward various forms of worship, although I do have my preferences. Nor do I have a particular grudge against change and/or innovation that has integrity in the faith and life of any particular community. I am not, however, convinced that the form of worship itself will change the way people relate to church.
What I think will, and does change that is when church moves from obligation to the opportunity to gather as a community of faith: to listen and to learn, to sing and speak our faith, to preach and testify, to confess and be reminded of grace, to take bread and wine and water and remember the promises of God, to be sent into the world as disciples only to return once again to the community for sustenance and nourishing.
I assure you, there are churches of a variety of worship styles that do this well...and poorly. There are churches of a variety of ethnicities and races, classes and denominations that do this well and poorly. I am not convinced that worship style has anything to do with it.
Rather, I would push you to be even more radical in your thinking, even more of a change agent. How can you get a church, any church, to move from rote attendance to becoming a community of faith and a people of God. That is, how can you move any church from just coming to church, nodding to each other politely, sitting still for 50 minutes (or raising their hands for 50 minutes, or chanting Taize chants for 50 minutes, or kneeling and rising for 50 minutes) and going out unchanged. Changing the music and getting a band won't do it.
What will do it is growing a people who are genuinely community with one another. What will do it is growing a people who remind one another to look for the holy, who elicit testimony from one another, who encourage one another in the leitourgos --the work of the people, the cross-bearing work of discipleship. That can happen in any kind of worshiping community with thought, prayer, and intention. And that kind of community draws people in because they feel at home, a part of something bigger, connected with other seekers on the Way.
Band or no band.
Can you picture that?
hey Jim
the church i attend is possibly different from yours. it's urban, pretty progressive theologically & socially, & though the congregation size itself is not big, the scale of both the poverty and art focused ministries being run and its place as a historic landmark in Nashville mean we're pretty visible and visited.
when it comes to worship, neither the pastor nor the organist/choir director are totally running things. i'm on the arts and worship committee. we're charged with finding interesting stuff to do in both, planning, & making recommendations for session to sign off on. it means that there's a group of people who are interested in those things taking responsibility for them.
the pastor's spent a lot of time trying to push responsibility out as wide as possible into the congregation.
being sensitive to the present i think largely depends on decision making being truly representative to the diversity of the community. if that diversity is reflected then it will evolve by itself.
in terms of worship we have a very artistic community. many of the congregation have left independent evangelical/charismatic or church of christ backgrounds.
the typical service is what for some people is 'traditional' with big organ and a robed choir, but regularly we add other musicians performing in the services (one example: there's a "lenten blues" series - each week a different local blues musician performs. people come to church 15 mins early to hear it and its really popular.)
through the year other artists supplement the choir pieces and sometimes replace them altogether. sometimes the children lead us, often using material from overseas. we also have benefit of musicians in the congregation who write new works to be performed at particular services. but we don't use any 'contemporary' praise & worship or a band.
you can never please people all of the time but you _can_ build an understanding that art in all its forms is a really vital part of everyone's life. & that shapes how we view worship more than the specific form. but we definitely offer some kind of alternative to the dominant worship styles of many of the churches in this area.
i think we manage pretty well to be respectful and sensitive to the particular history of the church & also add in a very authentic flavor of what inspires us today. we are never likely going to be a congregation that jumps up and down at worship. what we have going on reflects the community.
i know 15 yrs ago a church member had that vision that the church would embrace the arts. not everyone was convinced. but now it's taken as read.
if *creativity* is part of church life at its core, new things are always happening & it naturally attracts people to itself. and i think linking art & worship together has had a big impact on what can be done in a service. artists of all kinds play a key role in the life of the church. it's opened the church up not only to the wider community but also to itself.
we may sing from the presby hymnal most sundays but there's space for a lot of variety.
that committee i'm on is facilitated by 2 elders, the organist/choir dir. attends and the rest are members and people like me that aren't even full members. and as with all our committees, anyone can come - completely open. anyone can offer up ideas of stuff we could try.
i think there's stuff there that in principle can be applied to any church but allows for local context. it's a vision that seeks change over a number of years. but the impact i think is even longer term than that. it keeps things interesting now & hopefully means the church evolves as the congregation evolves through encouraging participation in that creative process.
hope there's a kernel of use in that.
cary.
Hi Jim,
I was one of those yesterday that was encouraging you to take a step for change.
I am not a minister...I am a UU and very active in my church, both on the worship committee and in choir. I've had opportunities to lead worship at least 3 times a year. And, in our worship committee, we encourage our ministers to provide a meaningful worship experience.
We embrace change. But, like anyone else, we embrace that slowly.
At the same time, many of our members enjoy providing services on the minister's Sunday off. We've had jazz services, a bread service (with actual baking bread), Revels, a brunch communion, a chocolate communion. I'll be leading a service on the Heart & Soul of Knitting in October: I picture one big knitting circle.
The comments above are also encouraging change.
What steps should you take? You mentioned you have many older folks in the church. How about you try one new thing you'd like to do...get them to think outside the box. Cary mentions that the worship responsibility could be pushed out as wide as possible: Enlist a couple of folks you think might embrace some change and to help you with it. We all have a few people in every congregation that are a little bolder than most. Simply explain to them what you would like to do. And, always let them know you are trying to make their worship experience more meaningful.
A survey? You might be surprised to find out what is important to your congregation. And, even more surprised to find out what is not.
The joy in your celebrations every Sunday you exude will bring joy to your congregation, and perhaps build a better community...and, a little playfulness is good for folks.
And, hey, you're 40...love it!
Margaret,
Very well said! I agree with most of what you said, but have one point to throw back at you: The challenge in my context (and in many others, too) is to attract younger folks to the church. I feel that personally as a part of my call, and my church desires it, too. In fact, I would say that the majority of mainlne pastors feel this pressure.
The trick is that right now in my church the vast majority of members are 55+ and lifelong mainliners. How can I help facilitate worship that flows naturally from where they are, and also make it attractive to the young people (many of whom have no church background) that we want to come?
I haven't done scientific research, but conversation I have had with 20 and 30-somethings who don't go to church is that the services they have been to are "rote, boring, and unispiring" - including some who have visited my church. In fact, other than homophobia, it seems to be the #1 reason they stay away.
How do I do what you're tallking about and also do intentional things to attract a younger population with different needs and expectations? Or should I go try an NCD instead?
Margarer,
One more thing I forget to mention: It is absolutely true that authentic, passionate worship is the result of a strong faith community that is connected in all sorts of ways beyond worship. But in reality, most visitors' first impression of a church is from worship, and the quality of their worship experience determines whether they return and invest their time and energy. So on some level, worship does have to be "marketed" to people who are not yet in the community. It's another example of the tension between the reality and the ideal that I've been writing about.
Jim,
In my 15 years in parish ministry, I worked with established congregations as their senior pastor. I did my doctoral work in postmodern ecclesiology. I don't say these two things to give you my resume, but to let you know that I have experienced and studied this very issue for a very long time and with some intensity.
One of the things that I experienced and research proves out, is that change is very difficult in established congregations. Change for the sake of change is not going to work. Most congregations (90 percent plus) will not change unless there is a crisis.
Sister Sally, who joined the church 40 years ago, signed up for a particular type of church. As painful as it is sometimes for the leaders of the congregation, we have to acknowledge that Sally signed up for something, and if we go willy-nilly changing it for no good, clearly articulated, thought-out, and need reason, then the leader is only going to make Sister Sally (and all her friends, who probably also give the majority of money to the congregation) angry. We have to weigh the pros and cons when we initiate change.
What one group may find, "rote and uninspiring" another may find comfortable in a good way. The world has changed in amazing ways in the last few years and decades. It is very comforting that the church has remained a place where we know what is going to happen.
This being said, the church does in fact need to change worship styles in order to reach new populations. The question is not if, but rather how. This is the conversation that was taking place on Twitter. Leadership, especially leaders who are Generation X and Millennium generation folk know that change must happen.
But again, caution is required. Simply adding a couple of praise songs to a traditional service will not make it a contemporary service.
The question is much more broad: how do we get our existing congregations to share the good news of Jesus to the next generation in a time and a place that has not seen this kind of change in 500 years? How do we get them to support new congregations, churches within churches, second worship services, and any other variety of expressions of faith?
We cannot abandon the existing. We have to embrace the future. Unfortunately, there is no blueprint. We do not know the way forward with clarity. We have to step boldly, cautiously, and together.
Kirk,
So we must change, but change won't happen without a crisis? Does this mean we must initiate crisis, or at least not care if our efforts cause a crisis? Because if that's the case, it means that in order to faithful, my generation of church leadership must willingly submit to a painful sacrifice of our careers and our sense of joy in ministry. Is there any other way for the church to get through to the other side of this 500-year shift?
The crisis is already upon us whether or not we recognize it. I would point you to Phyllis Tickle's book, "The Great Emergence."
For some churches, especially smaller, older, poorer ones, the crisis has already come and gone: Full time to part time to lay pastor to close the doors.
For other churches who are worshipping in the 70s in average attendance, the crisis is just now hitting. The physical plants need significant repair, there has been a lot of deferred maintenance, the paid youth staff has been laid off, the congregation struggles to meet budget and there is a whole lot of, "We remember when..." going on. There may be talk of reducing pastoral staff and compensation. The crisis is just now coming into focus, but they will probably be able to hang on without much significant change for the next 10-15 years.
For churches who are worshipping above 70, similar events are happening: staffing is being reduced, plant maintenance is being deferred, investments into endowments are being curtailed as the needs of the congregation are overwhelming the promise to future investments.
In other words, we don't have to force the crisis. It is upon us. Depending on the congregation, it is being experienced in various ways.
I think the healthiest response an existing congregation can give is to a) start a second worship service for the "other," whoever they are; b) become a mother church to a new congregation; c) dedicate significant resources to a new church plant; d) start a few small groups within the congregation to reach new people. These actions are all really quite bold and if approached in a loving and graceful way, will allow the clergy the opportunity to find joy, satisfaction, and fulfillment while living in two worlds.
The problem is that we do not have any great records of what was happening during the last major shift (the Protestant Reformation) and none of the current Protestant expressions have ever lived through this before. We are on totally unfamiliar territory and it promises to be a rough ride.
This is why those of us who have been involved in congregations who are struggling with the crisis in its various forms are saying to be calm, gentle, slow. For some unknown reason, people have a very strong attachment to silly parts of ritual that may make no sense anymore (e.g. Do we really have to sing, "There is a Fountain Filled with Blood?").
Jim - I accept apologies for your frustration yesterday, thank you.
After reading through this blog - it struck me as to the source of your frustration: you appear to be coming at this question of change from the position of "Do we or do we not need to change" (my emphasis) in order to continue living as the church. I get your passion and vision not only for the need of that change, but you have a passion for the direction that change must come. I hear you, I get that.
What you've missed, however, is that's not the question about which I was dialoguing. I know the necessity of change - I see the need (manifestation) of that change on a weekly basis, as I look out over a small congregation with an average age of 80 (although I'm going to have to change how I describe that, as we're bringing in some folks who will lower that average somewhat). What I took issue with in the discussion yesterday is the way in which you seem to be implementing that change, and why, and with what results.
Margaret has already spoken to the specific issues of worship and nailed many of the presumptions and tensions we all contend with.
The people I feel for are those in your congregation, right now - I can believe, I can easily imagine that when you were called, the search committee told you that the congregation wanted to change,needed to change, were excited about changing, were eager to get to that change stuff. - I think everybody (many) hears that same, or at least similar statement coming from their congregations.
but you are not their first pastor - you will not be their last pastor - you are one of many who have come and gone, the only difference being, you have yet to be gone.
That's not a slight on you and your talents, on you as a preacher or pastor; it's just the inevitability that you will leave one day - - and consciously or un-consciously the people in your pews knows it. The evidence I have for saying these things is what you've shared of your congregation: over 55, lifelong member, duty-bound, etc: it all says they've been in this for the long haul and will continue into a future beyond your ministry.
Because they've been around the block a time or two or three or thirteen - they've seen 'you' come before. They've see 'you' bring your pious prayers, your silly songs - they've sat through countless sermons and presentations about change - and they've done it. they have swayed to meet the expectations of the change bringer - - and you know what happens?? you leave. They did all that changing, all that rearranging, all that 'transforming' - - and 'you' still left them.
What does that do to a person's self worth? What does that do to a congregation's image of who they are - - ??
How you go about the change that is so necessary is as important (if not more so) than the change that is sought.
Blessings
Jim,
Thanks for your blog post- it certainly helped me understand where you were coming from better.
Margret said many of my thoughts much more coherently than I could, and I wish she'd stop stealing my ideas :)
Part of my own resistance to what you were asking was because it sounded like you were asking this question, "What do young people outside the church want from worship?" That question has felt like it is a marketing ploy and makes it feel like pastors and congregations are becoming the purveyors of religious goods and services, rather than being part of an embodiment of Christ. I'd also say that most 'younger' people of gen-x and gen-y know when what is happening is a marketing ploy, or a real expression of a church's identity.
I would say, however, that as being a part of the embodiment of Christ on earth, our churches have an obligation and joy to mirror the welcome we have experienced in Christ. Thus we should have hospitable, engaging, and open worship.
Last year, one of the things that got this conversation going here (which sounds similar to your context) is that I sent my worship committee out to other churches in the area to see how they were received as strangers in other congregations. Some had great experiences, others not so much. But that got the conversation started about how to be welcoming and open during worship. While I was able to ask guiding questions to the committee about their experience, they came up with some changes in practices that came from within and were thus more easily adopted.
BTW if you come up with any ideas, I'd love to hear them.
Peace!
Jason
Thanks for continuing the discussion. I, for one, am of the mind that we must do more not less to encourage the conversation at the parish level and to be bold in our experimentation with new possibilities, including those for worship.
Post a Comment