More on Worship

I’ve been preaching recently in a number of congregations encouraging them to consider starting new congregations of various kinds.  The text I’ve used is Exodus 3, Moses at the burning bush.  One of the noteworthy aspects of this verse is the “sign” given to Moses that it is God who has called him and sent him (the missional identity of the text).  That sign is that Moses and the children of Israel will worship God on the mountain where the bush is not consumed.  The sign of Moses sending is worship.  I know this isn’t prescriptive or “the” sign of every endeavor, but it is a curious sign.  No lightening bolts, no miraculous moments….unless you consider a worshiping community a miracle.  In this day and age I think it is.

In the conversation about contemporary or emergent worship etc, we need to move far beyond techniques as has been noted.  Worship is shaped not by what we can buy (people and equipment) but by the gifts God has bestowed on us (people and ?).  The word I choose to use when talking about worship is “AFFECTIVE”.  Often the conversation about worship is “effective”.  “What works?” is our major concern.  “How do we get the most bang for our buck?” is a constant measurement.  This efficiency conversation is completely a modern construct.  It is far from what is emerging in the communities where God is at work.

AFFECTIVE worship seeks to move people without manipulating them.  In this sense it can be three traditional hymns, jazz, gospel, liturgy of the highest order, a combination of anything, or silence with the Word read.  What moves people in our communities to honor God with their lips and hearts and hands?  Worship is AFFECTIVE not effective in my way of thinking.  What will produce worshipers?

I could go on, but then I’d have my first chapter written for my book.  Any takers?

“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