FAMILY ORIENTED SERVICES

So on page 106 Ashton talked about how during a family oriented service, all parts of it should be child friendly. He says thats its not fair to keep the children in and then to ignore him. I strongly agree with him on this one. Growing up i hated with a passion going into the services with all the adults because it was so BORING!!! everything the pastor said i felt was blah blah blah blah! I felt the pastor could have made the service a little more intresting on the fourth Sundays if all the children had to sit in there unwillingly. I feel that when children go into a church service, which in my case was once a month, they should seriously try to make it as child friendly as possible. I believe that if kids are intrested in the service, but at the same time get the message given then they won’t have the mindset that “BIG CHURCH IS BORING!” Also just because a service is child friendly doesn’t mean that it down plays the Adults or does lack of edification. Dr. Olshine told us in our communicating to youth class that if you can engage a child than you can engage an adult and your lesson will probaly have a strong impact on them.  children need simplicity and a creative approach through the sermon that will keep them locked into the service. if you ask me adults are the same way.

So i guess my question is what ways can we keep our family oriented services child friendly and adult friendly?

Variety of services

Its hard to write a blog this week, because i pretty much agreed with everything that Ashton said.  I do want to just get to the chase and talk about the part about the variety of services from pg 88-89. The discussion was on how some churches offer a variety of services throughout Sunday. This is good because it can operate in a culture that a specific group is most familar with. However if the number of services were cutted this will allow more preparation to be focused on one service and a higher quality can be achieved. I agree in a way. Growing up I was used to 3 services on a Sunday. One at 8.00 a.m one at 11:00 a.m. and then an evening service at 6:00 a.m. As i can recall the pastor was the one who taught at all three of these. Which could effect the higher quality of what one service can achieve.  Also sometime the first service would spill into the second service which could leave people comming into the second service a little behind what is trying to be communicated by the pastor. Then the third service comes around later in the evening, and if you ask me this leaves the pastor spiritual and physically drained right? I say this to ask. Although there might be a variety of services on a Sunday do you think the higher quality can still be achieved if a diffrent person spoke at each of the services?

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?

Principles for Music

Keller lists three principles that his church considers in its selection of music.

1) Musical form and style are not neutral

2) Musical style boundaries, however, are very elastic

3) Music styles have integrity (pp. 237-238)

Earlier I criticized Hughes for his overgeneralized (It’s bad) specific criteria (3/4 time).  Here I find a much more thoughtful approach to selecting music, one that seems to allow more room to treat each piece on its own merits.

Keller’s first principle basically says that there is some music that is altogether inappropriate to be used in worship.  In the second principle Keller bolsters his ‘midway’ position by claiming that the “anti-contemporary-music party” cannot establish “definitive and unambiguous boundaries” (p. 238, par. 1).  I agree with this, and this is really the point I was trying to get at by asking some specific, definitive-type questions earlier.  Keller’s third principle shows respect for different kinds of music.  Perhaps by adopting this approach, we could be more careful before putting another “Indescribable” kind of song to a choral arrangement with piano accompaniment (Does anyone actually think that works?).

I was actually challenged by Keller’s inclusion of jazz in worship (derived from his second principle).  Before reading his chapter, I probably wouldn’t have seriously thought of jazz as an option for worship music, and I would still hesitate to use it in my church.  Did these principles challenge any ideas you have?

Excellence in musical worship

On page 236 Keller pleads for musical excellence in corporate worship.  All of you by now well know that I agree whole-heartedly with him.  He gave three reasons for striving for this excellene:

1. It will help the worshipper sense the transcendence of God and appreciate His grandeur.
2. It will remove any possible hindrance that poor quality might cause.
3. Modern society has less toleration of mediocrity due to the availability of excellent music through electronic mediums.

I would like to add two reasons to this list.

1. In anything we set our hands to do, including music, we should do it with all our might for our God.
2. We were created with the ability to create, and when we create music with excellence, we are experiencing part of what God intended for us to do and be.  I believe this is inherently good.

With which of these five reasons do you disagree, and why?  If you agree with all of them, please think of another good reason for musical excellence in corporate worship and share that.

Supplication in terminology to facilitate comprehensible understanding for the uneducated in the method of the ecclesiastic assembly

What does Keller mean on page 221 “There is also much more “simplicity” of voice, avoiding the typical sentamentality of contemporary “worship leading”? Just a question, not “the question”?

It is very interesting to me how much time Keller puts into be careful about language (pages 224 and 225).  Be authentic, but not to the point of speaking as though you were speaking to a friend.  Don’t be archaic, but be stately.  We’ve talked about speaking His name as a comma, and we’ve talked about leading corporate prayer as being somewhat less personal than in our prayer closets, but I found myself being put off by what I read as a snobbish attitude.  I really appreciate it when someone talks openly and normally about and to God.  I don’t think God is impressed by flowery words and put-upon stateliness.  I think He wants to hear our hearts.  The whole demeanor and emotion argument strikes my hot button because those from the extreme camps (be decent and in order, don’t raise hands, or forget yourself vs. I am free to be whatever I want because I am worshiping) make me feel as though how I am worshiping is somehow lacking because it isn’t what they would do.  But then, just as I am getting good and worked up, Keller talks about “spiritual talk” (page 225, last paragraph) and I think we would do well to think about the ways we use language that excludes people from understanding or that makes us sound more spiritual.  I wouldn’t freak out as much as Keller is, but as we are preparing our place in worship, perhaps we could think a little more about the words we use and how they are being understood by a visitor or new Christian. 

Now, all that being said, and I apologize for length and ranting, I was pondering Appendix B, Prayers for those not taking the Lord’s Supper on page 249.  I really like the idea of having something laid out and in the bulletin to help people navigate Communion, that’s always such an uncomfortable moment when I am a visitor and there isn’t clear direction.  But, if I read it applying Keller’s admonition to avoid jargon, it fails miserably.   How could the first paragraph, at least, be rewritten to be clearer to a non-believer?  Or does it stand as is?

Boundaries in how a leader worships

Keller this week actually got me upset.  The thing that he said that made me upset was in his second point, ‘Leading in Corporate Worship’. (p. 223)  In the last class we had touched a little bit on emotions and how a leader in music might have to watch how they are worshiping and how it might be influencing (or manipulating) the congregation.  Keller approached this by saying ‘one sign of genuineness is that there is a full range of emotions’ (p. 223).  How can one tell whether someone is being genuine or not by how many emotions they use in a service?  That made no sense at all! I might be leading a congregation in an upbeat major-scaled praise song and be feeling crummy inside the whole time.  That’s not genuineness it’s forcing myself to sing praises when I’m not feeling like it.  I’m manipulating myself!!! The other thing that Keller said on this topic that got me upset was: ‘…we should not let our feelings have full scope, leaving the congregation behind’. (p. 224) No offense to Keller but I love it when I’m no longer realizing that I’m in front of a bunch of people.  That’s why I close my eyes, than at least mentally it’s just me and God.  Do you think it is right for us to be putting boundaries on how a leader should worship?  I would think that one of the points of a leader being on stage is to set an example for others.  Didn’t we say that about prayer?  When someone leads a prayer for a congregation, whether one realizes it or not, we are learning how to pray by what the leader says.

As a side note:Keller does address the topic of a non-believer playing in the praise band. (p 239)