Honest Evaluation
The second sample service Ashton gives us is a Guest Service – intended to be specifically friendly to outsiders. Reading through the commentary, one finds Ashton dissatisfied and critical at many points. Much of the criticism is directed toward the hymns and songs included. He comments on the subjectivity of some of the lyric content, the selection of an alternate tune for a popluar hymn, and the need to sing only some of the verses of the last hymn. He is not altogether negative though, and he shows a great deal of sensitivity toward outsiders. His concluding comments included, “This service did not work particularly well” (p. 127, par. 3). In Ashton’s evaluation, a contributing factor to the service’s ineffectiveness was hasty preparation without due consideration of relevant principles for Guest Services. This honesty is refreshing, and we can often learn much from viewing our failures to plan well or act consistently with good principles.
However, how do we judge rightly whether or not a service “works”?
I agree that it is nice to have someone have the guts to put into printed material, something that fell short. I think Ashton would say it didn’t work based on criteria decided before hand – which mostly applied to the music. I guess it is easer to tailor prayers and sermons than music for a guest service. That seems a fair way to evaluate services, when you have already decided your guidelines. Otherwise, you rely on facial expressions, how many fell asleep, returning visitors, comments as people leave, and angry emails to the church office.
Hey, I commented a brilliant, well-formed, deeply meaningful comment to this post this morning…
It must have been wrong.
Now I’ll have to reformulate it and try again.
here goes…
I don’t know if there is any way to accurately judge whether or not a service “works”. What does that even mean? Most likely it means that the service led people to think about/ worship God the Father. I guess we should start doing a questionnaire after church services to see if people ACTUALLY worshipped:
1. Did you raise your hands during song?
2. Did you stand without being asked?
3. Did the message make you weep?
Ha.
One of the main obstacles to right judging of the effectiveness of a service is the criteria by which one judges. If a staff sits together to judge such a thing, usually the discussion turns superficial. I’ve worked with pastors who defined “worship” as clapping, swaying, and groovin’. The absolute last thing he’d have recognized as successful would be to have led a congregation to be prayul during the music.
One of the least practiced evaluations, I believe, is whether the “intentions” of the service were valid. It is somewhat more difficult to evaluate purpose than procedures.
I guess that’s why we’re having this class.
A service doesn’t work if it doesn’t accomplish its purpose–what it was intended to do. Our services should be intended to be pleasing to Him. If outsiders were turned away by elements of the service that were not essential or that could have been done better with a little thought, that is not honoring to God, and so the service did not “work.” On the other hand, if believers and unbelievers alike leave a service no different than when they got there, it is very doubtful that the service worked.