|
|
|
|
Of Diversity and the Use of Statistics in Worship-By David Berger
The following article by David Berger examines recent worship trends in the LCMS.
Of diversity and the use of statistics in worship:
a response to a plan of the Commission on Worship
By David O. Berger
Synod’s Commission on Worship is to be commended for planning another National LCMS Worship Conference this July with a selection of helpful and potentially inspiring seminars and workshops. The side-bar (p. 4) of the commission’s insert in the February 2008 Reporter, however, raises a cautionary flag: “Commission on Worship Looks at Diversity in Worship.” “Diversity,” a word of varied connotations, is often popularly (mis)understood as an unalloyed good. The synod has recently approved and been presented with the Lutheran Service Book, containing a wealth of new material by contemporary Christian composers, authors, and translators. What a treasure –– hymns and liturgy that both elevate the spirit and teach! Should we rather not be encouraging –– indeed, urging –– our congregations to make use of the wealth of worship resources in the Lutheran Service Book and its ancillary publications? The timing was strange for a synodical resolution (2-02A, 2007 Proceedings) to encourage looking beyond this panoply of new worship resources, especially in view of the commendation of the new LSB in the following resolution (2-03A, 2007 Proceedings).
Not only was the timing strange, but congregations that seek guidance in selecting (or de-selecting) worship songs already have available a fine tool: Text, Music, Context (LCMS, 2004), $5 on Synod’s web site, complete with a free downloadable study guide. To be sure, Article VI. 4. of Synod’s Constitution regarding worship materials is also highly relevant.
A thin but distinct line separates practicing and educating about diversity in worship within historic Christian liturgical parameters from encouraging ever greater diversity by approving a growing bank of resources, many of which have emerged and are still emerging from the late 20th-century neo-evangelical “praise song” tradition. Two years ago (Reporter, May 2006) a CoW member stated "We want to help the church define what worship is in general, to help people discover what is Lutheran about worship ... And, to that end, we want to identify material that will lead us to that, rather than leading us astray doctrinally." He noted that the committee is "leaning toward providing some kind of annotated, doctrinally sound resource list –– Web-based, rather than hard-copy. We're exploring elements including hymns and songs, visual and sound enhancements like projectors and electronic devices, drama, dance –– you name it." It’s not clear that we need to define worship again, but we surely do, in some quarters, need to (re)discover what is Lutheran about worship. To that end, I recommend two recent works by Dr. James Brauer available from CPH: Meaningful Worship and Worship, Gottesdienst, Cultus Dei. The CoW member’s concern for sound doctrine is also admirable. The sample list of “enhancements,” however, augurs a tardy trailing after the dated, fading non-denominational and neo-evangelical world of worship-tainment, as if means and substance can be divorced with little consequence. Until the notice cited above in the February 2008 CoW Reporter supplement, there had been little additional information about this process and plan.
A new twist in the drive to diversify
New to the plan to identify and examine diverse resources for worship is the use of surveys, i.e., statistical data. The new component involves surveying the “top 5 percent of LCMS ‘soul winning’ congregations, defined as those with the greatest number of adult baptisms, confirmations, and professions of faith,” to “determine what happens during the most visible hour of a congregation’s week that helps them be the soul winners that they are” [emphases added]. One searches in vain for any mention of surveys in guiding diversity in worship resources in the synodical resolution noted above (2-02A, 2007 Proceedings).
Embedded assumptions
The plan harbors at least three imbedded assumptions:
- The content of the “most visible hour” (a strange circumlocution for the Divine Service) is a prime factor in the increase in membership in “soul winning” congregations. How is “soul winning” defined? Is it identified with an increase in membership? Are such factors as following up on contacts, the pastor’s visiting and instructing new members and teaching Bible classes, and other faith-oriented activities that help to build the Body of Christ not to be considered?
- Worship is employed as an intentional tool to bring in new members. Are services directed primarily to visitors so that spiritually more mature members receive much milk but little meat? Is the liturgy manipulated, even omitted altogether, in an effort to attract seekers / shoppers? (See also below.) What remains of a Lutheran service for members who need both Word and Sacrament as well as the nourishing meat of Christian liturgy?
- Adult baptisms are more important than baptisms of children. Possibly this value judgment is not to be inferred from the definition, but it’s all too easy to overlook the implication when numbers are involved. If growth from within is devalued, then baptizing infants is less important than baptizing adults.
Statistical bases and interpretation (cf. Mark Twain’s cogent observation on the subject)
Even if one assumes that increase in numbers is evidence of “soul winning,” the bases from which the numbers are derived must be considered carefully. How does one account for the variety of factors that might be involved in “soul winning”? (See also 1. above.) What do the raw numbers mean? Planning on the basis of statistics is much more complicated than examining one characteristic, i.e., worship practice, of a congregation and drawing conclusions about its effect on growth in membership.
Possible models
For example, are mission starts likely to appear in the “top 5 percent”? Ten new members in a congregation of 50 represent 20 percent growth –– an impressive rate, but the number is small. Would it qualify for the “top 5 percent” in soul winning? On the other hand, mission starts are more likely than not to be located in areas of growing population, in which case local demographics may be a significant factor in the increase in membership. Why single out the worship service as a reason for growth / “soul winning”?
Are the “top 5 percent” likely to include Lutheran copies of suburban mega-churches on neo-evangelical or non-denominational models? If so, one might observe of the “most visible hour of a congregation’s week” that, at least in this writer’s experience, entertainment works. Standard fare includes two or more of the following: a combo in front, clergy in shirt and tie or turtle-neck, informal atmosphere, background music to manipulate mood, minimal liturgy, technological gimmicks, professional productions. The balance is often heavily over-weighted toward the horizontal aspect of worship. (See Addendum I.) In general, “diversity” for such congregations means adopting neo-evangelical and non-denominational worship practices.
One ironic, significant statistic regarding suburban mega-churches is that, despite often individually impressive numbers, they have led to little or no discernible net increase in U. S. church membership, i.e., number of professed Christians. (It should be noted here that suburban church “growth” is also often related to general population growth in the suburbs and may be at least partially at the expense of de-population of churches in urban centers.) The high quality Sunday morning productions and weekday activity offerings at mega-churches tend to attract seekers / shoppers who are often loosely attached to other churches, seeking something new or personally beneficial. When the newness wears off, or the benefits are no longer perceived, either church administrators come up with something new or the seeker moves on. A recent report by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life labels this common phenomenon, “churning.”
(See http://thecorner.typepad.com/bc/2008/02/pew-forum-on-re.html)
It also notes that rare is the seeker rooted in his faith. The latter requires intentional focus on teaching and learning the content of faith, i.e., doctrine, as Paul frequently reminded the recipients of his Epistles. If any ecclesiastical shoring up is needed in the LCMS, surely it is in the realm of substantive, continuing catechesis – teaching the faith. Willow Creek has discovered this lack in its own programs, yet its worship model and resources continue to be used by a number of LCMS congregations. (See Reveal, Willow Creek Resources, 2007 – also synopses and discussion of same on the web.)
Fundamental issue: the proper criterion
Finally, the suggestion that the worship practices of faster growing congregations can furnish a model for what should be done during that “most visible hour of a congregation’s week” is deeply flawed at its core. The character and content of the service is based on no other criterion than its purpose: to convey God’s gifts to sinners (Absolution, Word, and Sacrament) and provide opportunity for their faithful response, which is precisely what the historic liturgies do. Designing a worship service to attract those who know little or nothing about its purpose serves neither members nor seekers. At worst, it feeds the tendency (temptation) to innovate, to create from whole cloth, to make it up as we go along. Our culture is based on marketing. Newness (or the perception of newness) sells, from the latest computer software to styles in jeans. The irony is that much of what has been considered “new” (contemporary) in neo-evangelical seeker-sensitive worship is both musically and textually time-bound. There are at least hopeful signs that a younger generation is losing interest in the music and entertainment styles of the 1960s - 80s that have too long substituted for substance and reverent, meaningful ritual that focuses on the Author of faith and His gifts. (See, e.g., “Ministry among the generations: challenges and opportunities,” by Terry Dittmer. Issues in Christian Education, Fall 2007, pp. 9-15)
The historic liturgies of the Christian Church are based on the fundamental spiritual needs of sinful mankind. They are and remain, in the best sense, counter-cultural. They are part of our identity as Christians – as Lutherans. Their content is the very content of our faith. The content may change slowly over time, absorbing contributions of the highest order of each age, but always passing these contributions through the fine-meshed sieve of the chronological communion of saints. The Lutheran hymn / chorale is a prime example of such absorption. The person-centered song tradition of Revivalism, including CCM, pales in comparison to the miraculous marriage of teaching Word and elevated music in Lutheran hymnody. O. C. Rupprecht’s, “The Lutheran Chorale in the Life of the Child” (Valparaiso Church Music Series, no. 3, 1946) should be read by every church music director and pastor.* If the Divine Service is constantly re-fashioned and adapted to attract seekers / shoppers or fulfill some other “felt need,” it is being used for the wrong purpose. Creating faith is the work of the Holy Spirit, using the biblical means of baptizing –– yes, infants too –– and sound teaching. In our worship, God provides us with His gifts of Word and Sacrament. Thorough catechesis (the historic liturgy also teaches) and reverent Word and Sacrament worship centered on the gifts of God to His people are the visible manifestations of a living church and the means by which He builds it.
* The essay by Professor Rupprecht is also now available online at
http://www.goodshepherdinstitute.org/musical-heritage/volume/3/chorale.php
_____________________________________________________________________________
Addendum I: on diversity and worship productions
The samples below are intended not to question the sincerity or personal faith of the participants, but rather to demonstrate how far we have come, mostly in the past 2-3 decades, in diversifying the form, and thus also the content, of our worship.
- At one of the largest of the Lutheran “mega-churches” in the upper Midwest, a clerically garbed pastoral duo warm up the audience with light, personal pre-service banter. Later, to edify the children, the song, “Life is like a baseball game,” blares from the PA system. Emerging from behind tiered, skirted tables on the chancel, hand puppets dance rhythmically to the tune –– all very upbeat and diverting (from the real purpose of worship), and roundly applauded. The experience may be unique in its details but not in its general application to the model.
- At another congregation, a shofar sextet opens the service with a rousing fanfare. It turns out that the fanfare is but the first scene of the first act in what is more accurately described as a musical / theatrical production, complete with a processional of international flags, dancing girls carrying communion elements (props?) to the altar, a celebrity introduction, and multi-media special effects. How many of the Lutherans present understand the reason for the renewed popularity in some protestant circles of the shofar, a traditional Jewish instrument now advertised in Christian supply catalogs? If they are at all aware of the history of the instrument, they may see it as little more than a nod to the Old Testament roots of Christian worship. To others, however, the shofar is rich with the symbolism of millennialist theology, including support for Zionism and all that is connected with the place of Jerusalem and Israel in that theology. Search the web using a combination of such words as millennialist/m, shofar, jerusalem, zionism. Note the “hits.” Theology and worship practice are intertwined; even the innocently oblivious use of the shofar can communicate a message far different from what is intended.
- The Easter sunrise service of one of the largest and oldest congregations in Synod opens to a bevy of girls in flowing gowns dancing down the aisle and on the chancel, hands and arms raised, motions meticulously choreographed to canned music with repetitive lyrics:
One thing we ask of you,
One thing that we desire,
That as we worship you,
Lord, come and fill our lives.
Arise, Arise, Arise, Arise.
Arise, take your place.
Be enthroned on our praise.
Arise, king of kings,
Holy God as we sing.
Arise! Arise!
(lyrics by Paul Beloche; music by Don Moen)
Are any Lutherans present offended by the unique “theology” of the Resurrection (or is it of the Ascension?). Has it been reviewed by the appropriate “worship leaders”? One can only hope that the congregants’ spiritual palates are cleansed by the opening hymn, which, musically and textually, puts the song and dance routine quickly into the shade. It should be noted that the congregation is one that still sings hymns with gusto, making the opening act all the more regrettable. Later, interrupting (!) the Easter sermon is a planned announcement by another staff pastor concerning a certain church activity. He carefully reminds people to set their e-mail filters so that bulk messages from the church office can get through. After this important announcement, the pastor in the pulpit resumes the Easter sermon. What is one to say? Aside from the introductory musical production and the rudely disrupted sermon, the remainder of the service, including truly fine choral music and congregational singing, reflects a high level of Lutheran worship practice. The “diverse” innovations are as thorny thistles among the lilies.
Innovations and changes in worship content and form are often introduced gradually. The “frog in the kettle” phenomenon is operative. The water comes to a boil, and before he/she realizes it, the frog is no longer a frog, but rather frog legs, i.e., dinner. In a culture accustomed to rapid change, the transformation to a new identity may occur more quickly than we expect. At some point in the process, questioning of the change(s) is likely to be labeled divisive, narrow-minded, or worse. Suffice it to say that the increased focus on diversity in form and content in worship has already led to a new and different spirit in our midst – with important theological implications. With that concern in mind, the following short list of questions is offered to assist in judging “felt needs” to diversify worship practice:
Are we changing the way we worship because
- the church with the stadium size parking lot out on the highway is doing it that way?
- Variant: Bill Hybels or Rick Warren does it that way?
- we can, i.e., the technology / the new “worship center” makes it possible?
- we want to impress / attract visitors?
- we want to involve more people in leading worship
- Variant: we have a lot of talented members and they need to be able to use their talents in a worship service?
- we want to make the worship service more user friendly?
- we want to elevate our spirits / feel closer to God?
- a lot of people have been asking us to?
- our most visible hour of the week needs to be more upbeat and make us feel better about ourselves (and/or our visitors feel good about us)?
- it will give our children and young people greater motivation and desire to go to church?
A response of “yes” to any of the above should raise at least a yellow flag of caution, even a red flag. It does not require sophisticated spiritual antennae to detect the real focus of these reasons. Please refer once again to the final two paragraphs in the main text.
Addendum II - A brief concluding excursus on technology, the bringer of baggage
The “most visible hour of the week” in many larger congregations is now also shared widely on the world wide web or on local cable television. That the Divine Service, as a participatory and God-centered event, does not lend itself well to passive viewing is a likely factor in the lengths to which some have gone to create a compelling viewing experience. Video, no matter how distributed and viewed, is, first and foremost, an entertainment medium requiring high production values; thus, its use is certain to exacerbate the trend toward ever more elaborate and extravagant productions. Even modest uses of electronic and digital technology in the context of worship require careful study and reflection, paying special attention to a little-understood phenomenon: the tendency of technology to control content, even become an end in itself.
Effects can be subtle. For example, large video monitors, already long present in many worship centers, are beginning to be retro-fitted into the naves of churches. When used to magnify the image of the preacher, e.g., a larger-than-life full-face view, the effect is to draw attention to the person rather than to the message. When words to hymns are projected on a screen, the implied message is that they are as ephemeral as their brief time on the screen. There is no opportunity to reflect on the texts or refer to them later, as one can do with hymns on a printed page in a book or service folder. (It may be that praise song lyrics are best suited to a video monitor.)
Ecclesiastical ironies abound. Those who would tag along on the hi-tech trail blazed long ago in non-denominational worship centers should be aware that the next trend is already well under way: the “Emergent Church,”with its emphasis on human relationships, small groups, works, kingdom of God here and now, and post-modern worship forms that are experiential and eclectic (including incense and high ritual). Will it become the next “wannabe” for LCMS seekers?
_____________________________________________________________________________
Someday, sooner rather than later let us pray, we will come full circle –
(a) accepting our legacy of liturgy and hymns as a valuable inheritance that has endured because it contains the content of our faith and properly focuses on God and His gifts and our faithful responses, while also
(b) recognizing that its elements maintain a proper emotional, intellectual, and spiritual balance, open to gradual change and resistant to passing cultural trends and man-centered fads.
David O. Berger, Concordia Seminary, Saint Louis, MO Easter 2008
Written By: host
Date Posted: 4/29/2008
Number of Views: 2648
Return
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|