Last week, I started a conversation on Twitter about changing worship forms and then continued it here on Pastor40. My basic point was that church leadership should be boldly blazing a new trail of creative worship expression and not be bound by "the way we've always done things." There was general agreement about the overall need for change, but my friends/colleagues also offered a healthy dose of caution. Here is a summary of their caveats:
1) The labels of "traditional" and "contemporary" are problematic in and of themselves. What is considered traditional in one place might be quite radical in another. Also, "contemporary" is a constantly moving target. Any new form of worship expression, if accepted, quickly becomes tradition and "the way we do things here."
2) Worship is not a marketable product that we should adapt to fit the demands of our target demographic. Instead, it is the embodiment of Christ as expressed by the congregation of believers. In other words, worship is the corporate expression of the church's faith carried out for God's benefit. It is not a tool for attracting new members.
3) Worship style is not the change that is needed. Too many churches fall into the trap of thinking that a contemporary service is the answer to their membership decline. But any form of worship can be rote, boring, and uninspiring. And any form can be an authentic, compelling, and attractive to newcomers. What truly makes for great worship is that it comes from the heart of a faith community that truly loves and serves God. Often, the changes that need to be made go a lot deeper than the worship service.
4) Change should happen gradually. By nature, churches are organizations that value stability and continuity - especially in this era of rapid social, political, and technological change. For many churchgoers, worship is the only aspect of their lives that is still familiar and makes sense. Small, almost imperceptible changes carried out methodically over time are much more likely to be accepted and embraced.
5) Change must come from the people, not from the pastor. In churches that have successfully re-formed their worship, the impetus has been from the ground up. Clergy have a role in facilitating and resourcing new visions, but it is impossible to force something new on a congregation that does not want it. This requires that lay people take ownership, that pastors maintain a delicate balance of leading and following, and that everyone trusts that the Holy Spirit is the one in charge.
6) Change requires long-term pastoral leadership. In many churches, the members have seen a number of pastors come and go in their time. As a result, they have difficulty investing in change with a leader they expect to be leaving after five or six years. Research is beginning to show that for lasting congregational change, pastorates of much longer duration - at least 15 to 20 years - are required. This requires a heavy dose of patience on the part of clergy (admittedly not my strong suit), and time for the membership to develop a deep and abiding sense of trust.
Every one of these caveats from my friends/colleagues is valid. Pastors who feel called to transform worship and any other aspect of a congregation will run into brick wall after brick wall if they do not heed their wisdom. Nonetheless, these same caveats can also become stumbling blocks. It's a double-edged sword, because they can also become excuses not to seek changes at all.
In the churches I've served, I've noticed that people will rarely oppose new ideas in an outright fashion. They will, however, throw speed bump after speed bump into the process, often in the form of one of these caveats, until the idea becomes unworkable. Often, there seems to be one or two lay leaders who are informally appointed to this role of reigning in the pastor's vision. It's a systems issue, and church systems are norioiusly resistant to change. Change-minded leaders can unwittingly become part of the system's resistance to change if they overuse these caveats.
Which is why, despite my agreement with all of the above cautions, the comment I liked most from this conversation was just the opposite. It was from Greg Smith, who has own blog So What Faith.
"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."
As long as we keep that attitude, these caveats will serve us well, not be a stumbling block.
1) The labels of "traditional" and "contemporary" are problematic in and of themselves. What is considered traditional in one place might be quite radical in another. Also, "contemporary" is a constantly moving target. Any new form of worship expression, if accepted, quickly becomes tradition and "the way we do things here."
2) Worship is not a marketable product that we should adapt to fit the demands of our target demographic. Instead, it is the embodiment of Christ as expressed by the congregation of believers. In other words, worship is the corporate expression of the church's faith carried out for God's benefit. It is not a tool for attracting new members.
3) Worship style is not the change that is needed. Too many churches fall into the trap of thinking that a contemporary service is the answer to their membership decline. But any form of worship can be rote, boring, and uninspiring. And any form can be an authentic, compelling, and attractive to newcomers. What truly makes for great worship is that it comes from the heart of a faith community that truly loves and serves God. Often, the changes that need to be made go a lot deeper than the worship service.
4) Change should happen gradually. By nature, churches are organizations that value stability and continuity - especially in this era of rapid social, political, and technological change. For many churchgoers, worship is the only aspect of their lives that is still familiar and makes sense. Small, almost imperceptible changes carried out methodically over time are much more likely to be accepted and embraced.
5) Change must come from the people, not from the pastor. In churches that have successfully re-formed their worship, the impetus has been from the ground up. Clergy have a role in facilitating and resourcing new visions, but it is impossible to force something new on a congregation that does not want it. This requires that lay people take ownership, that pastors maintain a delicate balance of leading and following, and that everyone trusts that the Holy Spirit is the one in charge.
6) Change requires long-term pastoral leadership. In many churches, the members have seen a number of pastors come and go in their time. As a result, they have difficulty investing in change with a leader they expect to be leaving after five or six years. Research is beginning to show that for lasting congregational change, pastorates of much longer duration - at least 15 to 20 years - are required. This requires a heavy dose of patience on the part of clergy (admittedly not my strong suit), and time for the membership to develop a deep and abiding sense of trust.
Every one of these caveats from my friends/colleagues is valid. Pastors who feel called to transform worship and any other aspect of a congregation will run into brick wall after brick wall if they do not heed their wisdom. Nonetheless, these same caveats can also become stumbling blocks. It's a double-edged sword, because they can also become excuses not to seek changes at all.
In the churches I've served, I've noticed that people will rarely oppose new ideas in an outright fashion. They will, however, throw speed bump after speed bump into the process, often in the form of one of these caveats, until the idea becomes unworkable. Often, there seems to be one or two lay leaders who are informally appointed to this role of reigning in the pastor's vision. It's a systems issue, and church systems are norioiusly resistant to change. Change-minded leaders can unwittingly become part of the system's resistance to change if they overuse these caveats.
Which is why, despite my agreement with all of the above cautions, the comment I liked most from this conversation was just the opposite. It was from Greg Smith, who has own blog So What Faith.
"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."
As long as we keep that attitude, these caveats will serve us well, not be a stumbling block.
2 comments:
Good synopsis of the conversations.
an overarching caution: there are exceptions to every rule. But beware (be aware) when the exceptions become the rule.
Peace
coming fromScots Confession 3.21 (end of the section)
'Not that we think any policy or order of ceremonies can be appointed for all ages, times, and places; for as ceremonies which men <sic. have devised are but temporal, so they may, and ought to be, changed, when
they foster superstition rather than edify the Kirk.' A good question to be asking is, 'in what way has our forms of worship become idolatrous superstition?' But we don't want to talk aout anything that might make someone uncomfortable.
Post a Comment