“Emergent: not contemporary 2.0″ so says Troy B.
Have been conversing with Troy Bronsink about emergent church. He has convinced me not to look at emergent as contemporarier. I continue to be intrigued, however, by the relevance of emergent questions to contemporary services. So here goes it.
I am a associate pastor at a Presbyterian church that has a “contemporary” service. It was created using a Willow Creek recipe: 1 part praise band, 1 part drama, 2 parts charismatic leadership (song leader and preacher), mix with video clips = manage the crowds with pepper spray.
The service is four years young, and the novelty has waned, the dramas have grown tired, the attendance has dwindled. We worship in a fellowship hall with forward facing seats (we have worshiped at tables and in the round). Worship attendance ranges from 80 to 120.
Have created an ad hoc task force to do some communal introspection regarding the contemporary worship service. Rather than a conversion about rearranging the chairs, I hope we will delve into some deep ecclesial questions. “What is church for?” (a la W.Berry) “Why do we gather?”
Certainly, our hope is to become more incarnational, non-hierarchical, and missional. So wanted to do a little corporate musing about contemporary services entering the emergent conversation.
Why it may work? This service formed because their was a deep need for something more than what was being offered. Sound familiar?
Why it may be a ridiculous idea? The contemporary service represents a third of the congregation. Can deep shifts and radical commitments be made by a segment of the congregation?
Peace,
Clay
Comment by David Williams on 28 July 2008:
My wee kirk has gradually transitioned from an entirely traditional to a mostly contemporary service over the past three years, as a way of being welcoming to a cadre of young adults who have that as their worship expectation. It’s the appropriate worship approach for my folks, but I do often wonder just how…contemporary…it is. I mean, sure, it’d be contemporary if it was 1977…but now? Where’s the Taizelectronica/Postrock/Shaker Dance fusion worship?
I think those deep shifts can be made within a church, particularly if the rest of the church views them as welcome and vibrant. If it’s viewed as a threat to identity, it’ll come apart or face resistance.
Comment by Steve Lindsley on 28 July 2008:
I am of the thinking that a contemporary service is not for every church….that much like ministers are “called” to a church and churches are “called” to particular ministries, churches are also “called” to a contemporary service. This, of course, would mean that some are not. I have seen congregations who have force-fed its members with a contemporary service and it hasn’t worked out – in some instances it has divided the church in two rather than enhancing its worship experience.
So I agree with Troy B. that this “emerging church” thing we are all working toward is not just a second movement of contemporary services. It should go much deeper than that – it needs to. Rather than approaching congregations like a rec center trying to find the next big thing (with “programs” being our response), we need to think beyond the surface to the heart of who we are as the body of Christ (with “ministries” being what we are called to do).
Comment by Tony Sundermeier on 28 July 2008:
In our community, we want to affirm that worship is more than the music. Music is in service to the proclamation of the word which forms people for missional living. This has helped us move beyond the categories that have been in play for the past 25-30 years or so. We have a guy who I call the prototype 21st century worship leader. He is classically trained (guitar), studied in Taize, was in two punk-metal bands, led “contemporary” worship for various churches, and can put a choir together to get its praise on. When we meet to plan for worship, we are constantly asking: how does this text form us for God’s mission in the world? Once we cover all the meaning-options and discuss their contextual relevance for our community only then do we decide what music, drama, art, dance, prayer, silence, mambo, synchronize swimming, etc we will use in service to that particular word.
In addition, we tend not to discuss worship in terms of emergent/emerging. We rather talk about it in a missional perspective. Worship in the missional perspective seeks to facilitate gatherings which exist for the sake of world. Or, as one of my mentors put it in a pre-missional language day-gone-by: spiritual renewal for the sake of mission. We focus on those directions and the “style” falls in line. Granted, we are privileged to have such a versatile worship leader, but nonetheless, we would all do better I think if our music and everything else we facilitate for our worship gatherings was subservient to the Word rather than the other way around.
Comment by Clay Thomas on 31 July 2008:
Still remain a little perplexed.
i think there is agreement (wahoo) that the emerging church movement seeks to go much deeper than contemporary 2.0. i do wonder if the contemporary movement which emphasized lay participation and arts was not a necessary precussor for emergent (our past includes 1970s in addition to the monastics).
when people are asked at the church where i serve why they joined, they typically respond by saying they loved either “the music, the leadership (preaching), or the people.” My interest today is in why do we continue to gather as a faith community? Why do we worship? Or more poignantly, why do we not gather? Why is church a low priority? Why is worship optional? Honestly, I don’t see worship attendance numbers as the end all. Probably one of the best gems in the Worship Directory states, “the life of the church is one, and that its worship, witness,and service are in separable.”
Changing style is easy. We do it often. Well some of us. Changing the ethos/DNA/raison d’ etre/missio ecclesia is another thing.
Certainly that sort of deep shift must be Spirit led and organic or it is bound to fail.