Worship Wars Re-Thunk

In the missional and emerging church movements throughout the Christian church in the US today, one particular item seems to be a sticking point for a lot of people.  For that matter, going back to the "seeker-sensitive" movement from Willow Creek and other churches, this topic has been a matter of scrutiny.  What topic is that?  Music and worship style on Sunday morning.

"Worship Wars" is one of the terms that is frequently given to this particular tension in the church.  For the most part, this is divided into three main camps.   On one side, you have the traditional minded people who find great inspiration in the rituals of Sunday morning worship, whether it is high liturgical style or a more casual liturgy.  Stages of the Sunday morning service are well delineated and song selection is from the old hymns of the church.  On the other side you have the contemporary people.  Liturgy, if there is any, consists of some very simple stages.  There are announcements, a prayer time, an offering, a LOT of up-beat Vineyard/Hillsong/Chris Tomlin music selections (with, perhaps, a hymn or two done with some really cool rhythms), and a nice long "relevant" sermon.  And from week to week, the service really doesn't seem to have a predictable order.  It's how things "flow" and "move" for the morning.  Somewhere in the middle, especially when it comes to music, is the "blended" style which mixes the traditional liturgy with hymns and contemporary songs, seeking to, instead of catering to one side or the other, bring the best of all worlds together.

For many who have been through the worship wars, this last option, blended worship, seems to be the best option.  First, it acknowledges the good in both ends of the spectrum, affirming people from both sides that their preferred style of worship is good.  Secondly, it removes some of the "consumer" part of the church that comes along with adopting a contemporary service style (gotta be "marketable" to a new generation).  You could also say it does the same for the traditionalists.  Everyone has something they can appreciate and no-one is left out.  Finally, it maintains a relevance to the culture around us while celebrating the history that has gone on before, introducing both traditionalists and contemporary folks to the good in both sides, teaching an appreciation for the "other".

But really, is it any better?  I was challenged on this recently, hence this blog post.  All three stances are just simply points on a spectrum.  On one end is totally traditional.  On the other is totally contemporary.  And, depending upon degree, blended can call anywhere in between.  They are all just different ways of Sunday morning worship expression.  But what if we decide to go off the continuum?  The assumption in all three of these things is that one of the most important things about church life together is the Sunday morning service. What if that's not the case?

Think about church life in general in most organized churches.  Of all the time, money, and personnel invested in the church, how much of it is spent on a few hours on Sunday morning (or, if you're a mega-church, in coordinating all the various services over the weekend).  Even if your church has other activities during the week (small groups, youth groups, etc), I'd be willing to bet that when it comes down to it, the lion's share of your resources are invested in those Sunday corporate worship experiences.

Before y'all start posting comments about "well, my church does this" or "my church does that", I acknowledge right up front that I'm doing a lot of generalizing here.  There are exceptional churches out there that don't fall into this trap.  And I think it is folks in those churches who can just click the "exit" button on this blog post and not read any further.  But generally speaking, for quite a long time in the US, church has been all about what happens on Sunday morning.  And, for a long time, this has actually been a good thing.  When the culture around you supports communal efforts of caring for your neighbors, looking out for your friends, etc., the culture already supports church lived out and, in those times, all the church needs to do is provide the space for worship and some "support" systems for training.

But the American culture has moved beyond that.  Again, generally speaking, our culture has moved to an odd blend of big corporate systems and individualistic needs.  An individual has a need in our culture, they are encouraged to seek out a big corporate system (whether it is government, a non-profit aid agency, or, yes, even the church) and have their needs met.  Relationships and communities are only there for social activities and even those are highly individualized any more (how many games and social activities are supported now by the internet where you don't even have to know the names of the people that you're interacting with?).

Into this culture, then, Sunday morning worship has become that "big corporate system" to meet an "individualistic need".  Even the blended worship caters to this individualism in a way.  But beyond that, with the focus still being on the morning worship and communities being fragmented, the morning worship has become more than just an expression of worship.  It is that plus the community relationships plus the support time plus the discipleship ministries, all rolled up into one.  Sunday morning worship has become the "big corporation" that provides needs for individuals and, as much as even the blended worship tries to combat consumerism in the church, it has played right into the same trap.

Do we abandon corporate worship then in this formalized fashion?  Or do we try something else, some other point on the spectrum?  What's the right answer here?

I think the answer is actually radically different.  What if all those things we want to get out of our Sunday morning worship are refocused somewhere else?  What if, instead of trying to get our community, our sharing together, our enjoyment of the "other", and all that other stuff from our Sunday morning experience, we make church about all the rest of the time?  Worship time is then just another ministry of the church.

You say you want people to get teaching and training on how to live like Christ.  Well, a good sermon can help, but what about those particular problems people face?  How do people interact in order to understand and learn how to apply Christ's teachings in their context?

You say you want people to gather together in a community experience and share life together?  Well, I don't think sitting in a pew staring at the back of other people's heads will do any good for that.

You say you want people to learn from the older generation and the younger generation together, to share experiences and to broaden our understanding of God by mutual edification.  How does one preacher, a worship leader, and a few hymns do that?

Worship is only a small part of the church.  It's important, but it is only a small part.  I do believe that there needs to be a corporate worship expression of some sort in a Christian's life, but is it so vital that we must all be doing things in the same way at the same time?  If these other needs of congregational life are met in other ministries of the church, does it matter if you have multiple services with different formats or a single blended service or whatever?

Your style of worship, how many services you have, even if you have a worship service, are things that are part of the particular contextual expression of your congregation.  Some churches, because of their history and context, will find they need a traditional style if they are ministering to a lot of people who come from liturgical churches and find it difficult to worship in some other fashion.  Some churches may need a contemporary style where there are people who don't have a lot of church experience and culturally connect to more contemporary services.  Some churches may need a blended style because of their own history and struggles.  Some may need multiple services in multiple styles because they need to meet many different people where they are.  And that's the key.  If the worship service is just one of many ministries of the church, then, as a ministry the needs of the people being ministered to must take precedence. Along with that, those other ministries of the church can then be given more attention.  If the church is no longer focused solely on maintaining and operating an elaborate Sunday morning experience that meets all the needs of the various church members, then those other ministries that are specifically focused on those things can get the attention they deserve.

The worship service is just that, a means of serving others.  It is a way that the church provides a space and a place for people to come together and worship God.  Each congregation has different people in different contexts that they need to serve.  To point out one way over another as the "right" way is missing the point.  Serving means kneeling down and taking on a role of meeting people where they are in order to give them an means to experience god-centered worship.  Different gatherings of Christ-followers are going to look different because, well, we're different.  When turned around to an incarnational, missional view of the worship service being how the congregation "goes" to the people, then all these worship wars, all these arguments about "authentic" worship, all these ideas of being "relevant" and "seeker friendly" just go away.