(The thoughts are in utero, not the worship.)
Worship Leader surprised me this month! Their July/August issue, Return of the Folk, is actually really helpful, and talks about things I care about, namely participation in worship. The very first article mentioned the exact same things I was in conversation with about this past weekend, which could have significant implications in my ministry and the church as a whole. More about that later.
As I had mentioned a few months back, I lost my voice. That compounded an already-existing thought, that participation in worship needs to be wholistic, not just for singers, but for everyone. The congregation participates in Sunday worship by singing, and sometimes by taking communion. Then there are those litanies we do, and those are okay. I like them, most of the time.
But the truth is, worship is a spectator sport in most Sunday services. Why? Probably because leadership generally doesn't know how to do it another way. Certainly this isn't the way it has to be, it just takes energy and creativity to do things differently. It also takes courage and vulnerability. I'm better at the former than the latter. But even making time for the former is hard.
A man comes to a point, though, where discontent isn't an option. There needs to be a change. I've crossed that threshold. Now I'm wondering, what can be changed? How can we make our worship our worship, instead of the leaders imposing it on the congregation? (I could easily dive into a theoretical diatribe about whether we are actually imposing anything, the roles of pastors and leaders, expectations of the congregations, etc., but I'd rather not.)
Let me actually say something in this post. A lot of these were suggested by the magazine:
Texting during worship
What if people could text questions during the sermon, and either have them answered at the end of the service, or later on in the week on the blog? (This was the conversation from this past weekend.)
Also, texting prayer requests would totally work, and people could text them in all week, not just on Sunday. Save the number in your phone.
Responsive Dialogue
I'm a fan of dialogue as opposed to lecture, which makes me always reconsider whether or not the sermon is the best means of communication. At best, I find it incomplete. So, can people raise hands and ask questions?
Or, after the sermon, can there be a response time after the sermon somehow? Either with the whole congregation, or maybe circled up in groups?
As my professor said this past week, "The church is going through a wormhole, and we have absolutely no idea where it'll be in ten years. We used to have a guess, but now we've got nothing." If I've grown up in the church, and I'm tired of the music/sermon status quo, it makes me think there are tons of others. So, I'm praying, dreaming, scheming, imagining.
Thoughts?
11 comments:
As one who is currently in ministry with a "congregation" of my own I have this to say...
Texting questions during the sermon -- BRILLIANT! Actually that was something that I wish we would do, and should I ever be blessed with a full congregation then I will totally look into doing just that.
Responsive dialogue -- This is exactly how we run our youth group. In a small group setting (10-15 students) it works really well. I would be interested to see how it would work in the context of a larger congregation. I think that the texting would be a form of responsive dialogue. This accomplishes two things, one it prevents a person from derailing the main point of the speaker, and two (after working in a congregation with conflict over theological and moral issues) it would help aid the discussion and not boil down into an argument.
I do however agree with the professor that says we are in a wormhole.
Have you looked at YouVersion Live? I think that's probably one of the best apps out there that can facilitate participation in a worship service. There are other services that allow you to text questions/responses, but I think the fact that you can tailor it to your service would help so much.
(1) Move the band off stage. Let the people face an empty stage, or just lyrics on a screen. They know the songs. They don't need people smiling at them. I've experienced this a few times, and loved it. (A second option is to back light the band, so you can't see their faces, just their silhouettes. This similarly removes the focus from the worship band on stage.
(2) Turn down the speakers. It's not so much about hearing myself. I like to hear the rest of the congregation (I almost wrote "audience"). I feel a part of something bigger then--of a group of people. Not just part of a sound.
(from Andy, though it wouldn't let him post)
Dan -
After the sermon each week at LOV, we respond with the prayers of the people. These are usually guided prayers spoken by people in the congregation. They usually involve some sort of confession and invitation.
For example: this Sunday the message was about living into single-mindedness, and laying aside the many other attractions of the world. Therefore, the prayer went something like, "Lord, lead me into single-mindedness in my __________ (thoughts, actions, marriage, friendships, etc.) for the glory of your kingdom. Lord in your mercy, Amen." (this wasn't the prayer, but it usually follows something like this).
The preacher for the morning, before beginning the prayers, said, "Pray this prayer if you mean it. And if you don't, still pray it, and maybe something will happen."
This resonated with me. I fear that, if we are to do this type of "communal discussion" during a worship service, it will quickly turn into a few extraverts debating one another, while erasing any possibility that the Spirit can work in the quietness of the gathering.
Obviously you already know my pet-peeves about people talking to much and too quickly, but I wonder if what you are suggesting is just one more "way to let people be heard," rather than actually submitting themselves to the Spirits work in community.
I know your heart in posting this, but I think more important than changing the service to include questions during or after the message is a time of corporate response to the Spirit's movement.
That make any sense?
Dan,
I think the most important question to ask is "why"? Why are you going to have people text or not text? Why would you let people ask questions during a message? Why wouldn't you? Whatever you decide, your answers to the "why" is what is of most concern. In other words, your ecclesiology should dictate what you do during Sunday gatherings.
This video is about 40 minutes long, and doesn't directly talk about worship, but I think it relates to the conversation on what a church is, which impacts this conversation. Curious to hear your thoughts on it: http://theresurgence.com/Scott-Thomas-Interview-Jeff-Vanderstelt-video
John - I think the texting would work well with youth. Of course, then you'd never know if they're texting you or each other the whole time, haha. And I agree that the responsive nature could be acheived without disrupting the flow of the event, though my idealistic side says it would totally work just fine.
Bill - I recently saw that in WL magazine. I looked at it, but couldn't take it all in during the 15 seconds of spare time I had. Have you used it at all?
Adam - I agree and disagree simultaneously with moving/silhouetting the band. I found out a surprising amount of people don't know the songs, and a lot of people really enjoy the smiling faces because they need to see people actually believe these words. But I have seen both of those things in action, and it was effective. I think it's another one of those both/and situations. Sometimes you do it one way, sometimes another.
And I think the music is often too loud. People generally sing more when they can hear themselves. Agreed.
Andy - A few extraverts sharing their own opinions is most likely what we would get. And that is your pet peeve as well as mine. (I being one of those controlling extraverts, ha. My bad.)
The prayer things sounds cool. You'll have to explain it to me in person so I know I understand what you're saying.
And I also agree that we need to submit more than being heard.
My fear is that as a pastor I have some "secret knowledge" I'm trying to pass on to the congregation that God has revealed just to me, but I really might be missing the heart of where the congregation is at entirely. It really becomes a question of my view on authority, who has it, who gets to speak, and how is it mediated.
I don't think there are any answers in all that, but I hear you, and I think you make great points. (as always.)
Kevin - Thanks for the video! I'll have to check it out.
Ecclesiology definitely shapes "why". Also, the role of the congregation as a priesthood of all believers, the reality of gifts within a church, the admonition for everyone to come prepared with a psalm, hymn or spiritual song, all of these things make me think there is more to share than what is being offered on a normal Sunday morning.
I want to provide opportunities for engagement, "on-ramps" to the message for the morning. Sometimes you're driving down the road and you see a stop that could be interesting. Sunday morning doesn't offer that as an option. You sit as a passenger until you arrive where the driver intended. I want to provide the opportunity to explore the stops on the way, in hopes that the journey will provide more than an intended destination, but a meaningful encounter for everyone, because God can be found along the entire journey, not just at the end.
And thanks everyone. You've given me lots to consider. Always appreciated!
Dan - thanks for the responses.
I completely agree with the fears about looking on a regular pastor/preacher as the one with specialized knowledge. And I agree that this dialogical approach might counter some of those tendencies.
As I currently understand it, it seems that a better way to counter the possibility of a "specialized-knowledge-pastor" is to rotate preachers every week. This seems (to me) to resist some of the temptations that I mentioned in my previous response to you.
Again, thanks for the discussion. We are working through some of these questions here in Westmont, and I think we will end up having more of the dialogical approach that you are proposing. It is helpful to discuss these things here as well.
Blessings
(Editor's Note: I wanted to post this b/c I think it's a helpful part of the discussion! - Dan)
Andy -
I think rotating preachers is a great idea, so long as there are those gifted to preach.
I was challenged by Hammer on that point, that some are appointed to preach, which makes me think there's something to it.
My most recent issue with preaching isn't that it's bad (which is a change from my old thought), but that it is incomplete. There is the falling of the Word like rain, and the hope that it lands on fertile soil and returns to God having fulfilled its purpose, but I think there is more work to be done between the falling and going back than most churches consider.
To add to everything, I went to a megachurch recently that had the sermon piped via big screen. I was amazed that in the campus (franchise, branch... whatever you want to call it) that I was at there were none gifted to preach. At least that's what was communicated by the way they do ministry. I think that's exactly as far as you can get from one extreme to the other: (a) Everyone has a word to share, or (b) One person has the only word to share.
Dan,
Responding to your section written to me:
Are you only thinking of Sunday services?
As a worship leader, what else can you do throughout the rest of the week? What can you do to help people see worship as a normal part of life, as something they do in response to God's daily goodness?
Let me try posting one more time. I agree with you (and Hammer) that preaching is not an act of a person merely speaking, but is the result of gifting from the Holy Spirit.
Many times I think we squelch gifted preachers because we think we know what it looks like to "be a gifted preacher." Might it be that it looks different from one person to another? I would highly doubt that, in a church of 10 or more people, that there is no one gifted with preaching: and how much more in a church of 100! or a 1000!
To your comments about preaching as an incomplete act, I would add that there is NO main event of a Sunday morning gathering. In between the falling and going back is confession, is response prayerful response, is corporate song, is the Eucharist, are the litanies and the icons.
KPark - You picked up on it. Right now this is all about the Sunday gathering. We're working on more outside of it; it's all in stages. But it's always good to be reminded that worship is all week. I feel like I was more aware of that a few years ago. I guess the more we learn the more we need to be reminded of.
Andy - Hmmm... I think you're right. People are gifted to preach in different ways. Maybe that's a part of why there are many different churches. My preaching style wouldn't fly at one place, yours at another, etc. Good thing there are so many preachers!
No main event. Nice addition. I've never heard it in precisely those words, but it does hit home.
Post a Comment