(posted by John Birkimer)
Our church (Crescent Hill Baptist Church) is in the process of discussing the possibility of making some changes in how we do church. On Wednesday nights we have talked about our “icebergs” melting and what things those icebergs might be, leadership, and where we find God in change. There appears to be good momentum for making some changes, but also some reluctance. Here are some brief thoughts on where some of that reluctance may be coming from and what could be done about it.
Church can be described as having a variety of functions. Included are at least welcoming visitors, providing education, support, fellowship, worship, music, and opportunities for reconciliation, as well as for stewardship and service. Folks currently in our church value these differently; some are committed to the music program, others to worship, still others (and many of the same folks) to service, support, and fellowship.
Part of what I think I hear during our Wednesday night chats is a fear of losing a valued function or way of doing that function. One thing I think we must do to preserve harmony and move forward is to assure folks they will not lose that which they value. Induce them to see value in varieties of ways of doing each function, but arrange that among that variety will be the ways they value (as well as, perhaps, different ways that others value).
Cleanest example so far is worship. I think there is a very good chance that nearly all would agree to a rotation of worship styles across Sundays, with a very traditional service one Sunday followed by two or three other styles on succeeding Sundays. I believe folks can be talked into attending on Sundays their preferred style is not scheduled by appealing to the desire for community that we all express and also by pointing out that all of us supporting the various styles makes it more likely the style they prefer will continue to be offered.
I believe other opportunities for similar arrangements will emerge. I also believe that successfully implementing this arrangement with worship would make it easier to implement similar arrangements with regard to other functions.
The process, then, would involve (1) identifying which church functions change is desired for, (2) identifying what about those function is valued by various folks, (3) identifying both the current valued ways and newer ways of performing each function, (4) arranging to preserve older valued ways while at the same time trying out new ways, and (5) appealing to folks’ desire for community to induce support for the newer ways.
This process appears to me to have application more widely than in our own church, so I’m posting it to this blog site for potential use by others. Comments, as always, would be appreciated.
June 24, 2010 at 9:11 pm |
I think your idea is a good one, John. I would absolutely agree to some sort of rotation between styles or preferences. I would take it a step further to have those who most appreciate a certain style to be the ones to lead or plan the effort.
I’ve been baffled by some of the requests for more traditional worship. From my point of view, much of our worship is very very traditional, much more traditional than typically engages me. So I really have no idea what is meant by the calls for a more traditional worship service. I’ve been on the worship team a long time….probably too long, trying to do my part to make worship more meaningful, so that I don’t just sit back and complain, but I roll up my sleeves and do something to make it better. However, if worship still seems too traditional for me, and not traditional enough for others, it seems clear that we need some of those who favor more tradition to take a greater role in planning.
The Worship Team is admittedly a very different place than it once was…we seldom plan the details of any particular service…that happens between the pastor and minister of music each week. Instead, we’ve worked more on brainstorming ways to make the worship service come to life.
I think it impossible for me to plan a service that scratches your itch for a more traditional service — if it is your passion, then you should find a way to become involved and create the change you want to see. By the same token, I’m not sure that others can make me happy either. I can’t sit back and wait for others to finally do something the way I like to have it done…if I care that deeply, then I have to get involved and create the change I want to see.
Within that context, we should each be able to get involved and make CHBC the place that we each want it to be. There is room for all of us in the big tent, if each of us can make space for the other, not demand that the everything be done our way, and take responsibility for our own experience.
June 25, 2010 at 11:48 am |
This is a worthy endeavor. Selfishly, I will add that I have been energized by worship when members and guests offer their musical talents. The hymns are but one example, but often they are quite traditional. One might say even archaic. Again it’s a selfish perspective, but I find it difficult to establish an emotional connection to “songs” written for the Church in the 19th & 18th Century.
The testimony from people who have experienced Grace, redemption, suffering and rebirth…. These moments fill me with hope and I’d encourage the incorporation of these testaments when appropriate.
Thanks
Donovan
June 25, 2010 at 12:35 pm |
Here is my vote in favor of “archaic” music. I find it really really difficult to tolerate “praise music” or most modern hymns. If you can imagine trying to connect to the divine presence while someone blows a vuvuzela in your ear, that’s what it is like for me with trendy hymns.
In fact, this was one of the things that most appealed to us about Crescent Hill. We wanted a church with both progressive theology and traditional worship style. When it comes to progressive theology with modern worship style, Louisville already has several other such churches. Rather than filling a unique niche, we would be joining the crowd.
I agree that some of the traditional hymns are somewhat grim and funereal, but I haven’t heard a hymn from the last 50 years that can rival “Be Thou My Vision” or “Softly and Tenderly.” The Crescent Hill Hymn is an exception, because it borrows a traditional tune and it in an older style.
I am willing to compromise and suffer (and I mean suffer) through some modern church music for the sake of the larger group, but I am afraid of a rotation because with my luck, it would usually fall on my National Guard weekend.
I second Donovan’s recommendation of more personal testimonies. I agree that they are inspirational, and they serve a secondary purpose of helping us to better know all the members of the congregation.
June 25, 2010 at 1:40 pm |
I would tend toward the contemporary, but mostly because I’m looking for something with contemporary meaning.
I can understand hymns as a way that we pray to God together in song. The words of that prayer matter, especially if I’m being asked to pray them with the congregation. I can also understand hymns as our praise/description of God…which makes it clear how God is God, and we are not.
As I listen to myself singing some of the hymns (archaic and modern), I sometimes find myself wondering what on earth I’m talking about. The words make no sense to me…or they feel more like we are talking to each other, rather than worshipping (or praying to) God through the songs.
In the ones you mentioned, Andy, I too find “Be Thou My Vision” to be a good one. While I grew up with “Softly and Tenderly” and have a place of nostalgia in my heart for its rolling tune…it doesn’t seem to be God-directed worship or prayer, but rather an exhortation to each other — where I tell you how much Jesus is waiting for you to turn around and come home. I guess that is okay, and it certainly is traditional…I just don’t have a place for that in my understanding of worship. Others probably understand that more than me….it seems to me like the person who gets up to pray and instead uses the prayer time to preach a sermon…”O Lord, we know in your word that it tells us to love our neighbor. And we know that some of us have a problem with that…especially those of us who don’t come on Sunday night…” When that happens, I find great difficulty in praying along with them, because it isn’t a meaningful prayer to me. So what I most look for in worship is something that has meaning for today.
July 8, 2010 at 6:46 pm |
I’m not sure that worship is the real problem, it is something we can “hang our hat on.” I think this goes much deeper than this, which is hard to “name.” There is a general angst that permeates the whole structure of the church and until we can identity and name that, we will continue to do what we have already done. Yes worship is important, but most of us get out exactly what we put into it. I personally like the traditional, but can also worship in contemporary services. I don’t mind the changes there, but I am more concerned with the deeper feelings and problems that underly this whole thing.
July 14, 2010 at 4:39 pm |
“general angst that permeates the whole structure of the church” This phrase caught my attention. Although Phyllis meant more than the physical building by the term “structure” I think she may have unwittingly put her finger on one of the sources of angst. Many worry that with more attention to refugees and the declining membership of “establishment” persons, the church may be unable to pay for the upkeep of the physical plant not to mention the salaries of the staff. In the lectionary this week we hear Jesus admonishing Martha not to be so distracted by the physical needs of the moment (the meal in her case) but to do as Mary was doing and spend the time listening to Him. In the case of many churches, people get edifice complexes and worry about the physical structures too much. The church is a group of people who listen to Jesus, not the physical plant or the staff. This is a hard concept to appreciate, but it is a source of angst. I hope I’m not airing dirty linen. And I love to support the staff and the physical structure that provides a place for people to congregate and fellowship. But were a bomb to destroy the property, the church would still exist, even if it had to meet in Nar K Paw’s living room.
July 14, 2010 at 8:16 pm |
The spirit that I have encountered at our church has been quite positive for a while now. There certainly is no feeling of angst among the youth, or the Karen. The MCC seems to have a renewed sense of purpose. I think that it is a fairly small group that feels angst, and I hope that they are able to overcome it, or at least identify the source of it.
Meanwhile, I agree with John that the church is much more than a building. I worshiped at a church in Grand Rapids Michigan when I lived there for several months. They didn’t have a building. They rented the facilities of a private school to hold services on Sundays (the polar opposite of our arrangement with Highland Latin). I thought their lack of a building was one of their greatest virtues.
Our church is in much better financial shape than most, so we should count our blessings. I am thankful for our dedicated and talented building & grounds team. However, if we ever can’t pay the bills, then the devil can take the building (or more likely, the Highland Latin School) and our best days would still be ahead. Rev. Cindy Webber of Jeff. St. Baptist @ Liberty (the other Alliance church in town) says losing their building was the best thing that ever happened to them.
July 14, 2010 at 9:41 pm |
I once read a saying in a fortune cookie: “We are here to create not just survive.” Certainly, the “church” can survive as a simple group of people who gather in a home or rented space and read the Bible and pray, but I’ve always been impressed with the creative energy at Crescent Hill (and other churches as well). The Expressions Art Exhibit is but one example. I think the spiritual forces behind much of what we do in the world find good expressions in the work of the grounds and building crew, the music program, the youth program, the various classes, and even the Highland Latin School. So I’m not in favor or ditching the church programs, staff, or buildings. I just hope we don’t let the angst of the physical structure determine our response to the present opportunity to help refugees and other struggling people.
July 17, 2010 at 8:34 am |
How come discussions about change are always on Wednesday night? Seems all of us who cannot come on a week night should be included. What about Sundays? Everything I hear is that Wednesday night attendance is in decline. Shouldn’t this discussion include as many members as possible?
July 17, 2010 at 9:40 am |
John Birkimer replying. Not sure if Pastor Greg Pope reads this blog, so I forwarded Doug’s comment to him via regular email. We have had 60-80 folks showing up on Wed. nights for these discussions, better than usual Wed. attendance.