There’s still much conversation over here about the way Americans “do” church and why we’re losing twenty-somethings.
These conversations are generally being had by music ministers and as such seem to focus on “should we have rock-ish music in our church” as the crux of the debate. Many churches have worked around this surprisingly devisive issue in recent years by having multiple services. There’s the “traditional” service with the hymns and hymnals–my chosen brand, thanks!–and the “praise”/”contemporary”/”modern”/”youth-driven” service. [Let me explicitly state in no uncertain terms that although I'm 37 now, I've always preferred the traditional service, even when I WAS a contemporary, modern, youth-driven praiser of Jesus.]
What seems to happen more and more often, though, is that churches will have different musics in each service but the sermon changes hardly at all.
That’s a problem. In these conversations about music I’m seeing many people stress that the point is “who [they] are trying to reach.” And that’s a big point with a lot of big churches. One man suggested going with the Saddleback Model. I would not. I’m not a fan of the Saddleback “model”. It may work for Saddleback–I don’t know, I’m not a congregant there. But I do know that most churches who ape Saddelback’s way of doing things turn into a church geared more toward first, second and third timers with little meat there for the long-term members who’ve been seeking ministry there for decades.
I know this is perhaps a novel idea, but I do not believe churches should be evangelical. I think the role of reaching the unchurched–as I’ve said before–is an individual responsibility. I believe firmly that we are supposed to let our lives and actions be witnesses to the transforming Grace of Jesus. We are to do so humbly. In order to be THAT, our spiritual homes need to be places where WE feel the power of that Grace and can commune with our family.
If you’ve ever had a guest at your family dinner table, you’ll know exactly what I mean when I say that people don’t behave the same with company. Sure, you’re on your best “don’t you want to like us?” behaviour, but you’re also not dealing with important family business. With company over, things always stay formal.
Church bodies need family time. The people the Church is “trying to reach” should be the people who have gone there for years. Who need that family dinner to talk about family business.
I know that Seeker-Friendly services are a necessary part of many church lives. But what’s the harm in having two completely separate services? If the church is large enough, I’d even suggest separate ministers. Because the music is only part of the story. It’s the fanciest and flashiest and often the most expensive part–but it’s not the whole.
. . . I do not believe churches should be evangelical. I think the role of reaching the unchurched–as I’ve said before–is an individual responsibility.
This is a very interesting point, Kat, and one I had not considered before–though it does resonate. And it dovetails with my concern about pursuing growth by (a) putting the cookies on the bottom shelf and (b) serving cookies at all. Even as I type this, Jesus’ parable about leaving the 99 sheep to rescue the one comes to mind.
I’ve got to run, but I’m going to be mulling this over.
I should have been more clear with my writing, but ever since WP put the word count on all posts, I’ve been trying to stay under 500. It pains, I tell you.
What I mean when I say “churches should not be evangelical” is that churches should
Educate
Equip
and
Exist
(Look! A traditional sermon outline! With 3 alliterative points!)
I think churches should Educate their flock in the Bible and the ways of The Christ. They should Equip the members of their flock to go out into all the world and preach the gospel.
(Last time I looked, the Great Commission didn’t say “put on a show and have all the world come to you.”)
The church body should then EXIST as a place for its members to come and refuel, and for the newcomers to witness the family of God in earthly assembly.
Of course, this means that the Church should teach the gospel and some degree of gospel teaching will always include the news of the Saviour.
But many churches are tabling their message of growth in favour of All Salvation All The Time.
They are assuming that
a) they’ll draw many newcomers with their carnivals and rock concerts and pie eating contests and skating rinks
and that
b) those newcomers will have never before heard any bit of the gospel
and that
c) the Old Guard doesn’t need any spiritual maintenance or growth; they’ll do fine in growing by ladling out chili at a chili supper.
From looking at the latest out of Barna, we know that none of these assumptions are true. Most “newcomers” to a new church are actually just “shufflers”–people who switch churches every few years. Even the hot-off-the-griddle newcomers who enter a church for the first time are mostly familiar with the gospel message in some way or fashion.
Even as I type this, Jesus’ parable about leaving the 99 sheep to rescue the one comes to mind.
That was Jesus. Jesus was telling a story about the worth of each person; He wasn’t at all (in my opinion) laying the groundwork for future Church administration. A better parable for that would be the Waiting For the Bridegroom.
In that parable we are cautioned to have our lamps filled with oil and to be on constant watch for the Return of the groom. Those who “go ye rather to them that sell, and buy for [them]selves” are left in the dark and not taken in for the wedding banquet.
Of course, I’m stretching the point here, as happens often with parables. I don’t happen to think the 10 Virgins and the Bridegroom are necessarily about church administration either. Because I don’t honestly think Jesus cared that much about these contrivances of mankind. Enough to have an opinion, that is, on the whole Elders Vs. Deacons / Centralised or Individuated Oversight quibbles, etc.
I do think, though, that if the Church is the Bride of Christ then perhaps we ought to at least have one day a week to spend with our husband instead of using that day to date other people.
My problem with considering music specifically for “seeker friendly” or “youth driven” services is that it seems to assume that the music in the service is for the entertainment of the “seeker” or the “youth” as opposed to the preeminent audience of the music being God himself. (Not that I would presume to know what kind of music He prefers, just that those selecting the music should consider Him first…)
Excellent points, Kat, and your application of the 99 sheep parable seems correct, though as I review it now, it seems to be emphasizing the need for not overlooking (or allocating resources with indifference toward) even the single lost sheep. But I don’t think that’s what you’re saying.
I agree, too, with your point that observing the church “in earthly assembly” or experiencing community will have as much (probably more) impact on a newcomer than a watered-down message or jazzed-up music (though our church’s music is very contemporary).
To sbk’s point,
I agree that the audience for music (and any of the worship aspects of a service) is God, but it is understandably intended to facilitate the worshiper’s desire to worship God, because, as you said, God probably doesn’t have a musical preference–He’s concerned with the heart of the person doing the worshiping-through-music.
But in an interesting way, and with certain parameters, everything we do throughout a day can be a worshipful act depending on the attitude of the person doing the act. So even playing music solely for the entertainment of a bunch of disinterested people could be worshipful. Of course, that’s a different issue.
I think the comment I left a few posts back is probably just as applicable here.
[...] post at her place, it seems to dovetail with something going on at my church. For instance, this post is quite related to something that’s on my mind right [...]
[...] Katherine asks if we should be analyzing our preaching style instead. [...]
hey kat, i am going to shamelessly link to some of my postings on this to give further reading. one needs to ask why we need to have different services altogether as part of a self-reflection. traditional services worked for hundreds of years (i am lumping a catholic mass with protestant traditional worship, sure). in cultural settings such as Africa (where we are having a large methodist boom) or South America (a large Catholic boom) the traditional service services fine.. partly because people have come to see traditional service as some stuffy form. Now i can’t speak for all denominations, but our methodist traditional service is so wide open that a contemporary style (which is as structured as they come) is more confining.
only in recent history have you found this cultural leading away from the traditional service. you didn’t get this so much in the 19th & 20th century (excluding Pentecostal worship in this). what changed? how bout our viewpoint of ourselves as consumers?
why is the music so important? i’d affirm that music helps to usher one into the spirit, but what is music? artistic impression? poetry? imagry? those that think the music is the end all be all, ie. when i was at a ’seeker’ church the other week was told “now lets worship” as we went into a 40 minute singing of “Lord I Lift Your Name on High”, then “Did you hear the Mountains Tremble” and that was it, misses the point that music is not all to worship. It can be an act of worship, but is not everything. everything is the artistic expression of the community of God coming together in celebration & sacraments. this takes on many forms, liturgies, litanies, prayers, singing, dance, visual art, stories, and spoken word (a good sermon is a piece of art, many angles, challenging, beautiful, inspiring).
i am going to quite for now.. i hate super long comments. i’ll stop back in as the conversation grows. feel free to bash any of my other thoughts on worship. especially that contemporary worship is all about play.