A congregation speaks.

A few years ago, I read Simple Church and was challenged to carefully consider why we do certain things in church.  If we are simply filling our weeks with tradition and socializing with each other, are we neglecting any effective work with non-Christians.  The past few weeks, I have read Pagan Christianity, and one of the challenges in that book was to have more corporate interaction in the service.  The church I have been attending in Columbia does that by having people in the congregation give short prayers occasionnally.  Perhaps after a series of praise and thanksgiving songs, the leader will ask for prayers of praise.  Or, before or after communion, people will pray for the unity of the church.  It doesn’t feel forced or embarrasing, instead it seems to flow naturally.  Ashton speaks to this participation as well on page 81.  Open prayer, impromptu testimony, a “flow” of singing (please define that for me), and other forms of unscheduled congregational participate pay be appropriate according to the culture of the congregation.”  How kindly he wrote this to consider the culture of the congregation.  We don’t need to do something because it works well at another church, but because it causes us to grow in fellowship and love for God and one another.

How have you seen congregational participation work?  How have you seen it fail?

The History of our Church

I was very pleased with the way that Ashton (with Davis) wrote his section of ‘Worship by the Book’.  The worship service itself was the main priority throughout this half of the chapter and I appreciated him making the planning of the service not something only done by one person (the pastor) but by other people as well.  I also liked that the first thing he did was talk about the history of ‘The Book of Common Prayer’.  Everything we do in our church’s today was at one point started by someone else in the past.  And the fact that Ashton (with Davis) started his chapter with explaining the historical insight of why the Anglican church do the things that they do; caused me to realize how important it is to look back at the history of what we do.  Nevertheless, he also makes it clear that we shouldn’t let what we do be set in stone we are suppose to change: “Cranmer’s aim to write in language clearly understood by the people suggests that he would have been horrified to think of people still using his sixteenth-century language for church services four centuries later.’ (p. 73) 

Last week we talked about how the history of what we do is important not only to sort out the things that we should still be doing and should not be doing, but also so that we can appreciate what we do even more.  If we are going to truly grow in our church’s today shouldn’t we be taking time to go through the history of why our church’s do the things they do?  I think it will be interesting to see how many church’s do things a certain way just because they saw another church do it and it seemed to work for that church It’s like the hermeneutics aspect of the HICUP (Historical, Cultural, Physical).  When you take this HICUP concept and apply it to a bible passage we can appreciate the passage even more because of the background information that we have gained through our research.  However, unlike the Bible our churches HICUP changes.  Therefore, I think that we need to have a reoccurring time where we can go through the services and see if we should do something different to reach the culture we might be in at that moment.  This also applies to the ’physical’ aspect of the church.  Where the church is located is a big part of who the church will be reaching which also changes the ’cultural’ aspect as well.  I don’t think we live in one culture.  We are surrounded by many cultures in one place.  

There were multiple questions that could be answered through this post but I wanted to throw another one at you: Do you think it should be a requirement to have the memebers learn the history of the church they are a part of?  Or do you think it should only be required for the leaders and optional to the members?

Ashton

From p.68: “To concentrate on getting so absorbed with God that we cease to notice those around us during a church service is not perhaps as spiritual as it might seem . . . The more truly they focused on God, the more aware they would actually become of one another.”

I heartily concur.  It really does seem like the ideal of personal communion with God is upheld these days, where the worshipper zeroes his/her focus on God and mentally shuts out all other participants as distractions.  I am not angry with people who think like this, because it seems to make sense, but I would just put out there that it is good to be aware and even interacting with those around us when we are worshiping corporately, instead of getting “in the zone.”  A good example of this is when a little excited cheer ripples through the congregation at the words “all the powers of darkness tremble at what they’ve just heard, ’cause all the powers of darkness can’t drown out a single word!”  What do you all think?  Am I confused about what it means for us to worship together?

The Power of Music

Before I get to my “main thought” I want to say how impressed I was with Mark Ashton’s chapter this far.  Much of what he had to say concerning his principles (Biblical? Accessible? Balanced?) really challenged me to think more clearly about what it means to lead and structure a worship service.  [I especially liked that he acknowledged his desire for a better word than balance - he probably just hasn't had enough time with Dr. McQuilkin. ]  There were about four sections as I read that I thought I could single out for my post, but here is the one that I think challenged me the most.

“The person who controls the music at the church service plays a very powerful role in its life, often on a par with the power wielded by the person who controls the church’s finances and beyond that of any churchwarden. (p. 93, par. 2)”  I know enough of my own depravity and the human potential to abuse power to take that statement with moderate fear and trembling.  As one who is primarily responsible for the selection and implementation of music in my church’s worship service, my awareness was heightened as to the seriousness of my responsibilities.  Careful consideration of what a text is saying, how it is presented, and how it might be received is critical in preparation of music, consideration that I don’t always give.  Thankfully I do have accountability built in through frequent meetings with my pastor.  What other kinds of safeguards would be appropriate for one who decides on church music, safeguards that would preserve doctrine and unity but still allow for flexibility and innovation?