This is a call for theological discussion.
A hand full of people at our church here in South Korea have requested some radical changes in the way we do church. These are mostly postmoderns who are discontent with ordinary church, especially with the Sunday morning worship service.
Complaints from this group often come along similar themes:
- monotony (the same thing every Sunday: some singing, some Bible reading, a speech, some announcements, and we go home)
- lack of participation (When do we get to participate? Maybe the lecture style just isn't working any more. How can we actually respond to what we hear or sing? We talk about the gospel, but when do we actually do the gospel together?)
- lack of community (most of these people just come on Sunday morning and go home; we don't really know each other.)
- feels like a waste of time (I don't really get this one, but some people feel strongly about this. And to be honest, no matter how hard I try, no matter how much I want to be open and accepting, I feel defensive when I hear this.)
- feels like just a habit or a tradition without significance or living meaning (We just go to church on Sunday morning because that's what Christians do, and we would feel weird not doing it. Do we have to 'put in our time' like this every Sunday for the rest of our lives?)
- not open to a diversity of opinions (You are expected to accept whatever is said w/o disagreement or discussion. But what if you consistently feel dissonance with the messages or with the underlying assumptions? Where do you take that feeling? Where can you have that discussion?).
So, some of our people have proposed an alternative solution: once a month, cancel "church" - the Sunday morning worship service. Instead of a corporate worship service, for that Sunday, they suggest that we have alternative events: service projects, discussion groups, meals in each other's homes, activities (like bowling or hiking), or house churches.
The rationale for this change goes like this.
1) It would bring some variety to the Sunday morning service, possibly helping us to appreciate the regular Sunday morning worship services.
2) It would break us out of our routine, helping us to think of church in new ways.
3) It would be a dramatic statement that "church" is not the Sunday morning worship service but the people who are the church.
4) We need to really get to know each other, to develop community, and this would help a great deal toward that end. Here in Korea, where many men (and some women) work 70-80 hours a week, participating in a small group is very difficult, and maybe even not a good idea for some. This could help them form community without burdening their schedules even more.
5) It would make church more participative and interactive.
6) The service project idea could help us put our ideas into action more easily. It could really help us to become "doers of the Word."
I confess to you that I find these ideas exciting and terrifying all at the same time. On one hand it seems like a really creative way to do church in an increasingly post-modern world. On the other hand, it feels threatening to me (You mean you don't like what I do every Sunday?). I also have a lot of questions about how it would work. It also seems to me like participation in a small group might solve most of these complaints. I am not very comfortable with canceling the corporate worship service in favor of social activities like hiking or bowling or general discussions. I am much more comfortable with service projects or house churches in lieu of corporate worship.
So here's the call for dialog.
Please help me think about this. What do you think of this idea?
Help me think through this theologically. How does this fit with the Bible and with a good theology of the church?
Help me think through this methodologically. How could we make this work? (For example: Do we pick the groups, to mix up social groups? Do we let the people for their own groups? Should we start by just having groups meet at the regular place of worship for the first few months?)
Why do I (and why might most long-time Christians) feel so uncomfortable with the idea of not having a corporate worship service every week? (I don't really care if it's Sunday morning. Saturday night or Sunday night, or whenever, are fine with me, but something within me just says we need one every week.)
Please leave lots of comments.
10 comments:
hey j,
don't be offended or put off.
i think you're doing a great job of running the service.
i also have doubts about christianity (especially after stories like these):
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071120/ap_on_re_us/preacher_paternity;_ylt=AqWcJ0UrPimA6Nnef_xR51is0NUE
in that sense i agree that true morality cannot be gained in church but through service. so once a week getting people together for charity or volunteer work is a nice idea.
on the other hand, always having church there available is a reassuring thing in my life. i like the ritual and the tradition even if it bores me sometimes. i was bored as a kid in church. maybe i'm nostalgic for that.
hope this helps.
bruce
Hi Ptr. Josh,
I always check this website from the time you have given this to me. It is so nice for Paul and I(being away) to know and celebrate the accomplishments you all have.
These are my comments regarding the discussions:
1. Every worship is always SPECIAL and FRESH when people look forward to it with prayer. The songs, readings and preaching (whether they are same or not)only ushers us to worship. What matters most is how people prepare themselves before going to church.
2. Going to church is NOT a waste of time rather this is a time to relax in His presence (after the busy week we had) Ex. 23:10-12. This is also an opportunity for some to READ the Word for themselves (for those who cannot read the Bible during the week because of work) and to LISTEN (not just hear) the word of God. Lastly, the time we spent every Sunday would be really worthy when we ‘chew’ the Word rather than just ‘taste’ it. God’s Word is living and active (Heb. 4:12).
3. “Canceling” Sunday morning service ONCE a Month would still be the same as going to church every Sunday (because you only have 3 weeks before you’ve get to meet again. Because of the shortness of time, you may run out of topics to share or discuss, or activities to do, etc.).
I would suggest once in every 2 months. The fellowship that we go (since we arrived here) of course meets every Sunday except that once in every 2 months we meet in groups. This is how we do it: We divide the congregation by areas, so whoever live close to that area would go to join the others. We have rotations to whoever hosts the meeting. The house meeting still has regular Sunday worship (but a less shorter than a corporate service) means someone has to lead the singing, prayer, and preaching or even a simple sharing of the Word (this gives opportunity for others to participate). Afterwards the host usually prepares snacks so while eating we chat and talk. There are times that the whole group decides to go somewhere to socialize and just have fun. This meeting builds good relationship as well as provides emotional and spiritual support that they could not get from a bigger group. But again the bottom line is, every group still got to worship before they do other activities. All 6 rationales that you sighted can be achieved by having small group meetings without compromising the Sunday worship.
This is a very long comment but hope it helps. God bless!
Hoom
First off Josh, Great Questions! Thanks for the openness, which is a great sign of your leadership ability!
I have a passing experience in house-churches in that one of my good friends up in the twin-cities area is part of what could be considered a house-church. However I think some of your questions move beyond the house-church/simple-church stories that are happening. With that being said, I fully support your congregants desires to create a space for a more interactive and relational setting in which to do church. I, like them, would argue that to place the paradigm of church within a methodical repetition of music/word/sending is maybe a more human construct than theological necessity. You are right in that the church is not an event but the incarnation-based covenant of God at work within His people. It could reasonably be argued that the idea of liturgical worship is one largely grown out of the human need for a physical manifestation of a spiritual reality and happening. That doesn’t make traditional church bad, it’ just simply one metaphor for the coalescing of the body of Christ.
To get at the source perhaps of the frustrations, and speaking as a person that as I have come to realize is deeply influenced by post-modern thought and practice is this: We need more participation within our faith. Much of evangelical orthodoxy and orthopraxis has leaned to heavily on a dispensational/propositional methodology. We are told how to believe, what to wear, what to watch, when to speak, when to sing, when to love, how to love, who to love, etc. The weekly service is not a source of encouragement too many, instead it can be viewed as a form of fundamentalist oppression when individuals perceive that their individual concerns are not allowed a voice, and little processing of faith takes place. People are for the most part hungry to dialog and that unfortunately has little place within a traditional church context.
There is a strong need in a lot of people to perhaps take a smaller look at scripture, and then simply think and discuss as a community what that looks like within the original context, and then within our own. This is a totally different paradigm than is allowed for within our modernistic modes of worship. You need to resist the urge to micro-manage this, maybe this isn’t even something that you even have a lot of control over. Part of your defensiveness may be due to you desire to see what you do as ‘your’ ministry perhaps and you should let that go.
There will always be a need for the teaching of the word, and Jesus himself was a preacher to the very core. Post-moderns need to realize this as well. That the bible does indeed say that there are some to be preachers and the context for hearing a sermon is as a gathered body of Christ. There is a time and place for preaching, as well as dialog. I think what your congregants are wanting is perhaps a more interactive/tangible/relational/missional way in which to respond to the Word that has been provided. Maybe as a pastor you forgo the sermon this New Year and the first Sunday, simply ask one question to your congregation, “What would the Kingdom of God look like here, today, in Cheonon.” (Question Courtesy of Brian McLaren). Listen to the answers, and lead within that context.
I think it's great that you post these questions on your blog, and honestly state your feelings about them. I'll do my best to respond in kind.
1. Monotony
It's sort of difficult to explain how I feel here, because while I do indeed think our church (not just ours, of course) tends toward the monotonous, I've also been involved with churches whose Sunday morning style was far more rigidly programmed than ours, and I enjoyed it immensely. So I'm not sure "monotony" and "doing the same thing every Sunday" are the same. In other words, it matters WHAT we do every Sunday. I think my problem is less that every Sunday is the same, and more that what we do every Sunday doesn't engage me very much. A high-church liturgy is always the same, but it engages me in a way that praise choruses (for example) don't. I'm trying to pin down the difference, and I think maybe it's that the liturgy invites my imagination to participate - it's full of poetry, the music is good, the forms and recitations for whatever reason help to heighten instead of deaden my sense of mystery. It's a bit difficult to explain, as it's primarily concerned with intangibles like "art" and "feeling." The subjectivity makes it difficult to discuss in terms of how "we" "should" do church, because everyone is different (and my motives for preferring high-church to low-church are no doubt mixed). I hope, though, that there is some room for discussion with people like me who feel strongly that, for example, praise choruses are simply not good music, even if people like them.
2. Lack of participation
Let me focus back on what I said about monotony being not simply a repetition of forms, which is not necessarily bad, but a failure of those forms to engage the imagination. That's how I would define the lack of "participation" you mentioned. It's not a question of whether the congregation gets involved in the sermon's object lesson, or whether the people feel moved to sing and clap and dance with their whole hearts, or whatever. I've been in churches where they think "participation" means people getting actually, physically involved in the service, jumping up and down to the music, serving in some ministry (everyone MUST!), etc. Again - it's not a question of whether we participate, but WHAT we're participating in - whether we're able to participate with our whole selves, or whether it's just a form created by the church so people can publicly check the "I Participated in Church" box on their daily to-do list. A more dialogical style is key here. I'm not necessarily opposed to the existence of sermons, but I am opposed to the absence of conversation. If it's all top-down sermonizing (which our church fortunately is not, as your open call for feedback here wonderfully demonstrates), then it really is a complete waste of time and an insult to the people in the pews.
3. Waste of Time
The "waste of time" charge is completely wrapped up in the first two points. It IS a waste of time if doesn't engage people and isn't centered on dialogue.
4. Tradition
To me, something being a tradition is not necessarily a mark against it. I like tradition. The problem is when tradition is perpetuated thoughtlessly, recycled over and over without being improved on by the real live people going through motions invented by people long since dead. If tradition is to have living meaning, it has to be owned by living people, and that means change and innovation alongside respect and stability. Only if we're helping with the ongoing creation and recreation of the tradition can it have any "significance" for our lives.
5. Not Open to Different Opinions
This is a fundamental problem with the Church, but in terms of our own church I think we're making great progress (this post being a good example).
As for the rationales for introducing a change to the morning service, I think number three is the most important.
I understand the discomfort with canceling corporate worship in favor of social activities. I have a more radical view, of course, because I'm not sure "church" is anything more than relationships built on the neighbor-love of Jesus, and I'm not sure "worship" has anything specifically to do with singing a certain set of songs, using a certain set of words, and coming to a certain place to talk about certain things. But I understand that most others won't share that view.
I'll try to comment later on the more constructive questions about HOW to do this. As to whether we should, I obviously say "yes."
Thanks everyone for your great feedback so far. I was surprised to get comments from Hoom and Bruce. I didn't know you checked in here. Welcome!
I'll post more later, when more responses roll in. (I asked quite a broad spectrum of people to reply.) I'm excited to learn that Hoom's international church in Turkey is already doing what we're talking about.
Also, here is a comment from my mom, sent by email. I don't think she really gets the whole blog/posting thing.
"Hi, Josh, Yes, this is a new concept. My question would be what if someone came to church who hadn't been there in months and church was not meeting where it normally meets. Also, I think while some may not like the sameness of church others may find the rituals satisfying. Maybe there could be a compromise. Mix it up some. Have the sermon after the first song. Then have singing and offering later. We have been to some churches that did this. Could be effective. Mom"
FYI, Sarah suggested a solution to the problem of new or irregular attenders. Just have one group meet at the normal place of worship.
Here are some comments from an email from Robb. --
I'm writing this after reading your blog, and I think it's important
that this "how to do church" discussion not be framed as a debate on the way our local church does things, even though that is where it will play out. I think that, as far as the traditional protestant way of church goes, our church is one of the best I've ever attended - people feel loved and welcomed, the community grows spiritually on a weekly basis.
I think what Adam and I and others see here that makes us wonder about
trying some different things is a community that is open and flexible
and able to think in advanced ways about how to fully engage members
and non-members alike, to go to that next level to make church fully part of people's lives - on all levels.
It'd be great if the conversation could take place not as "something
is wrong with the church, how do we fix it?" - because, nothing is wrong really, but rather - here is a church that is uniquely fit to
maybe progress in ways that are unthinkable to a majority of churches - is that possible? Is that even necessary? Is that doable? And, if so, how? (I have no clue on the answers to any of these questions, clearly).
These questions would have no hope of being explored at most churches,
but might be here.
-- Thanks Robb
As I teacher, I have a great responsibility to motivate and encourage all my students. Not just the ones that want to learn. Not all students come to class ready to learn or are interested in learning. Hopefully all Christians come to church with a ready mindset.
But not everyone is the same. We have different learning styles. So wouldn't we have different worship styles/preferences as well? Some prefer to praise God through music, or prayer, or dialogue with others or self study.
From a teacher's point of view I think that the format of church has to engage all the church goers on many different levels and also have some routines (or at least clearly explained directions). Routines bring comfort.
When I go to church I want to know exactly what I have to do. When things are different I feel strange. (Last Sunday for example.. I wondered - When do I sing? Am I supposed to just listen or can I sing too?) I was left unsatisfied.
I don't mind having church outside of church. It might get us out of a rut and open our minds to other forms of worship. I just need some parameters.
The place is not as important as the quality of interaction. Is what I'm saying/teaching relevant, true and meaningful?
Are people participating out of duty..because they can't find someone else to take their job..or because they forced to participate?
Hey, check out this Church. Some Regent-type people started it and
they're doing what all of us are perhaps wondering if it's possible.
http://www.unionchurchseattle.org/
Jackie
Hello Josh. It has been interesting to read your thoughts and those who have responded.
Thoughts “theological”: I think it is important for the child of God to find contentment in the midst of many diverse happenings – as Paul would say, in whatever situation I find myself. This is not easy; our (definitely including me) tendency is to want to fix things. Fixing things (change) is vital and necessary. But we must not lose sight of the desire to just experience God and His outlandish love for us, no matter what the setting. I believe that this can be experienced in many ways, even in the old, well established church that God called me to 6 years ago now. We are all in desperate need of God’s mercy every hour – we are all “ragamuffins”, to use Brennan Manning’s word, and are grateful to receive any scraps from His table.
Thoughts “methodological”: I have had the extreme privilege to observe groups of people, from time to time, having very significant spiritual and communal growth experiences. I have been blessed to have a leadership role in some of these, but for many they have simply happened (because there was a heart-felt need, because it was “organic” – I don’t know exactly how to describe it, except it is definitely a God orchestrated thing). The most we can do is pray a lot, provide a little framework, and let God bless and continue to guide. There is no formula for “guaranteed small group success”. I have seen all of the “rules” broken and seen incredible spiritual breakthrough, and seen all of the rules followed and…nothing. (I have also found the inverse of those to be true at times, as you would expect. After all, these so called experts do know a thing or two! )
A corporate worship service is still important, not specifically because of anything good about us, but because in any church, at any time, God still might show up.
Grace and peace to you and your family.
This comment came to me by email from a former member of our community - late 20s, pretty progressive - surprising response.
---
I've been thinking a lot about your post. I really like the idea of a service orientated church, one service a month where you do a project in your community is a really awesome idea. It's a chance to make a difference, and to be real about your words. I think it puts power into your ideas.
That being said, for me, I really feel like community worship (I'm especially referring to the music part here) is a crucially important part of our spirituality, and for many people a real source of encouragement, chance to worship freely (where they don't usually during the week), and an opportunity for God to speak into our lives or convict our hearts about where they should be. For most western cultures, worship and singing is not available in a small group setting. It's part of the way our culture has evolved, but certainly not the way it has always been.
I really admire your openness to change, and think this is a great quality. If I were still an attending member of KNU, I would still want to gather as a community and worship together before going out to do a project in the community.
The reality is, the church has always gathered together weekly (even before Jesus) to worship and sing together. This is a really important part of the Christian tradition and community, and I think this has been a part of worship because God really uses it. I think there's a danger in putting it aside. Something I've been learning about is that quote (I think it was Augustine) who said, he who sings prays twice. Something about moving the words from your head to your heart. If you're going to make changes, I would be wary of losing this part of the worship experience, even if it is only one Sunday a month.
I am also sensitive to the persons in your community who don't have a small group or a chance to develop deep relationships with other persons in the church. This is also a crucial element to growing in our spirituality. If they are already there on Sunday, maybe they need to go to lunch after church, with the same group of people for an hour of focused conversation every week. They already have the time, they are already there. I am convicted that communal worship should not come at the expense of the handful (or sizable chunk, as it probably is in KNU's case) of people who are excessively busy.
Post a Comment