Worship Wars Revisited

[Erik Ullestad]

Is there anyone out there that is trying to (for lack of a better word) renew worship in an established (50+ years old) congregational setting. Our church offers two identical worship styles at 8:30 & 10:45 a.m. on Sunday. These services include traditional settings of the liturgy from the ELW book, organ music, processional hymn, pulpit & lectern proclamation, robed worship leaders, and brass / bells / adult choir ensembles that provide special music. All of this is done very, VERY well, and has served (and continues to serve) many in the congregation rather well.

There is a segment of the congregation who feels that offering two similar worship expressions on Sunday morning is not helping us to fully realize our mission. Some would like to supplant the "traditional" 10:45 worship service with a more "contemporary" service at that time. I cringe at the use of the c-word in describing worship.

I think the kinds of things I've seen / heard about at some of the emerging-ish churches would be a really helpful way to think of worship. Has anyone tried going this route in a church with a history of 3+ generations?

[Dennis Meyette]

I recently accepted a call to a traditional minstry with one worship experience that is traditional LBW with a smattering of ELW. They wanted to move towards a more contemporary experience and we are doing a 1st & 3rd traditional and 2nd & 4th contemporary. There have been some bumps, but mostly with the music. The model is mostly boomerish, but I use some emergent elements with images (we project on a wall) and some interactive moments. Most are liking what were doing. Big transition for some, but I've told them if they want to grow with younger people we have to go in this direction. This has been a quick move and I think some are rethinking what they thought they wanted. But... it is working because new younger people are showing up. We've recieved 25 new partners in the last 3 months.

[Jay Gamelin]

In my last church, we too had very traditional worship at two services. We looked into changing, adding, whatever, but then saw that we had grown by 400 members in 4 years and said, "it's not broken!" What we did do is use the time in our worship that we already had to create some "freshness" to the liturgy. We started taking a few liberties to the usual and inserted different spins, maybe an unusual hymn, had a whole service led only by drums one Sunday (matching the time our pilgrims were in Africa so we sang in swahili for a Sunday), stopped church occasionally to reframe what we are saying, looking at the liturgical elements, explaining them, highlighting where they come up in scripture, used sermons for more interactive time (someone painted during a discussion of past, present and future kingdom during the sermon then unveiled it at the end... pretty cool) and for more hands on learning, extended the passing of the peace to a more personal, blessing oriented event, and more. We found, rather than starting something new, we needed to reclaim the old and allow freedom to play within it. And we always did it at both services so it would not have the "them/us" feel of two worship services. It made old habits feel fresh again and reclaimed my own joy in liturgy.

[Samuel Wood]

In my experience, "blended" worship (elements of both traditional/liturgical and "contemporary") are hard to sell because they are compromises that disappointed both. I'd suggest that you go for wholesale change in one service (problem due to "traditional" congregants entrenched in that time slot) or you start a totally new service at the different time (Sunday evening, Saturday evening, even midweek)... Because your established members won't feel disenfranchised, they won't really care what you're doing and you will have a free hand to design a worship suited to your "target" population.

the best,

Sam

[Erik Ullestad]

I think there's great wisdom in what you suggest, Samuel. We tried doing "contemporary / praise" worship this weekend at all 3 services, which are typically traditional. I admire the congregation's willingness to attempt participation...but it's wasn't "edgy" enough for the malcontents and it was too "out there" for the traditional folk. People don't want to further segment our worshipping community by adding an additional service, but these same individuals are also unwilling to morph an existing worship time into something different. Such is the way of things...maybe this is why people just start their own church! :-)

[Anthony Cook]

I have always been an advocate for addition over replacement. If there are those who are interested in a different form of worship, I would add a service. I have tried various approaches during my time in ministry and the addition model has always worked best for me. I once read that statistically, you can loose 10%-30% of your worshiping population by supplanting one worship style for another in the same time slot.

[John Dornheim]

I do not think it is helpful to transform an existing liturgy or service. It is wiser to create a new one, at a different time, probably on a different day.

[Paul Amlin]

HI Erik,
Great topic,especially since I am preparing to begin a new call in a place that is wrestling with this very concept. Thanks for raising the topic. Here's a slightly different "take" on the idea that I found really helpful while visiting Abiding Hope in Littleton, CO. They offer what could best be termed as three different/unique worship settings but do so in a rotating fashion such that when you show up for worship, you aren't really sure which one you'll be a part of. Three unique musical styles ranging from traditional, to blended, to what is contextually a [insert "c" word here]. The people there seem to have embraced it, average worship attendance on any given weekend is 1,000 and growing! It avoids having 3 congregations and any one "style" owning a time slot. Sure, it's unconventional, but it works for them and they are a fairly long established congregation.

I hope this conversation continues for my benefit as well as yours.

[Darin Johnson]

I think that the reason that you "cringe" may contain the answer to your question. The church seems so concerned to 'rearrange the furniture' (i.e., worship forms) when what is needed is to re-examine what worship is or may be in the light of a transforming heart and community. Since our worship has not addressed transformation for many centuries, our design of worship will continue to flounder until we refocus on transformational practices (e.g., contemplative prayer, good music, real meals and hospitality, social justice, etc.) and let go of superficial piety (e.g., other worldly, minimized and over stylized ritual). In other words, the "worship wars debate" is dead--we just don't have the decency to bury it. Peace.

[Jay Gamelin]

Great response- better posed but truly the heart of what I was attempting to share. Worship isn't broken. It has been commodified and turned into the thing that suits us rather than invites us into the already present God. Of course, since worship points to God, we wig to be effective pointers, a desire to do yhi act well is needed. But I have found that style is rarely the answer. More often it is the Spirit in which we worship, a desire to be transformed yes, but also simply to be witness to the salvation history we share. I pray for good worship where I am or visit, and rarely style. Thank you for your response!

[John O'Keefe]

erik,

i have planted only "non-traditional" churches [the last one was a 9,000sf coffee shop] - but what i have found is that sll worship styles need to flow3 from the people to God, not from the leaders to the people to God.

to find a "style" that works, listen to the people. you will need to close out your voice and truly listen to the voices of those around you - "style" will come from listening. truth is found in conversation - so ask the right questions and listen to the answers.