"Not that": An Observation of 'Contemporary Worship'

The more and more people that I speak with that are at least remotely involved with church life, the more questions come up about my opinion and experience with 'contemporary worship.'   They like to pick my brain, ask my preference, and get a sense for how I feel like worship in the church ought to be.  Yes, they often have their own preconceived responses and notions regarding the style of music used within the Church. The questions range. "What do you think young people are into?" "Don't you think 'traditional' worship is a turn off for young people?" "Don't you think contemporary worship is too hoaky these days?" "Is it possible to plant a church that only uses traditional worship?" "Does Chris Tomlin every write any good songs?" "Don't you think hymns are just boring?" "What's the purpose of the flashy lights? To try to be something we aren't?" "Aren't choirs outdated?"

Contemporary worship, though, is the newcomer in this game.  In many ways, it has to prove itself.  Somewhere around 50 years ago or so, the Beatles invaded America, forever changing pop music and rock and roll. This, along with the decline of mainline church membership in the United States sparked new ideas.  People left the mainline denominations to be 'non-denominational' in an effort to do church differently.  That was the goal: do church differently.  Maybe then, perhaps, people might think about coming back.  If we just aren't 'that,' maybe they'll be more likely to come back.

In a sense, then, Contemporary Worship (with a common low-key liturgy and more culturally-relevant music) became "Not That" worship.  See that stuff the Methodists are doing?  We aren't that.  We're cool.  We're hip.  We're reaching out to young people.  We are meeting you where you are.  You can wear jeans to our church.  That's the way we are.

This type of church is the church that I was born into.  We still were a part of the big Baptist church downtown, but we were open to those who had never been to church before.  We didn't have cryptic creeds.  We didn't have strange liturgy.  We watched movie clips and played slide shows.  We had drama. Our pastor preached from behind a music stand rather than a pulpit.  I was born into a church that was trying to make church relevant to a society that it wasn't relevant to.  What we did, in the early 90's, was to be "not that."  For peope too intimidated or scared to attend traditional worship, we were "not that."  We called ourselves the "Seeker Service" so that those who were 'seeking' could find a place to feel at home.  Too intimidated by the choir robes and organ?  We aren't that.

So, if this is true, and it was truly meeting a need, why aren't all churches like that now?  Why are there young adults begging to go back to the traditional services? Why are large portions of people leaving NOT ONLY the mainline denominations, but also the nondenominational churches?  If being 'not that' was supposed to save the church, why are we drowning more than ever before?

I'll tell you why.  We stopped.

It isn't 1995 anymore. What was hip and cool then is not hip and cool now. What drew people in because it wasn't 'that' then, pushes people away now.  'Contemporary' has become a way of saying 'not that' and it has done so in a permanent sense.  This is why so many 'contemporary' services feel hoaky.  This is why many young people want to return to traditional worship.  This is why when you hear about contemporary worship, you ask yourself if it is emergent or 'contemporary.'   Oddly, those leading the traditional services never went out of their way to reach the young people and different generations; it's very much a "take it or leave it" situation.  Some choose, for many reasons, to take it. Many, sadly, are choosing to leave it.

'Contemporary' was great when it needed to be. But it is stuck now.  Sure, churches like Hillsong and movements like Passion are successful, but by and large 'contemporary' music in many (especially mainline) churches is simply stuck.

'Contemporary' has to move forward. 'Contemporary' has to continue to be what it's high and lofty goal was (an environment that allows those on the outside access to the inside) instead of what its not-so-just goal was ('not that').  It has to be as innovative as it once saw itself being.  It has to live into its title.

In order for us to justify our worship style, no matter how it exists, we need to be able to articulate it in a way that explands the Kingdom.  Otherwise, it has little reason for being. This is true for traditional worship.  This is true for 'contemporary' worship.  Our worship should be creative.  Our worship should be innovative.  Our worship should remind of of who we are.  Our worship should define who we are.  Our worship should convey to those within it that the Church is thriving, moving, changing, and growing disciples. Our worship should be, of course, worship...reflecting the God who breathes life to the people.

We cant have 'not that' from either side.  We need quality, strong, theologically sound worship in both environments (and perhaps more to come).  That's when it finally becomes quality worship and we can **finally** get out of the way.

-B

Reflections on Duke Divinity Fall 2010

Well, The first semester is over.  EVERYONE has been asking what my thoughts are/experiences were and so I thought I'd aggregate everything here to help out with the explanation.

Here is a list with some annotations as well:

  • Everyone here is smarter than me.
    • I remember well the first few weeks when I just wrote down terms that others were using in class that I had NO IDEA what they were saying. It's that type of situation where someone uses a word and you feel like you ought to know it, so you don't readily admit that you have no idea what it means.
  • Not everyone here is a Methodist.
    • For some reason, I had this preconceived notion that all the students (or at least, almost all) would be United Methodists in the process for ordination. I now know that that presumption is just silly. There are quite a bit of Calvinists as well. Didn't expect that. ;-)
  • Not everyone here wants to be a Pastor
    • As someone who has been quite confused at times about his "call" (I hate that word), I totally expected to be the odd one out who wasn't willing to just jump on the "I want to be a pastor because they give me a job and a house" train. There are tons of students here that want to be musicians and deacons and other things. If you are a potential student reading this and desire to be a pastor, NO FEAR- Duke has LOTS of students who are pursuing pastoral ministry. And Duke puts out a ton of phenomenal Pastors.  But...it's not the end all be all.
  • The Undergrads here are ridiculous.
    • Duke is one the best schools in the nation. End of story.  The students here are smart and dumb people simply don't get in.  Your test scores and grades have to be high, there is no question about that. But my God, they are ridiculous. Seems like maybe even more so than other schools. I think it is all set up as a test for Divinity students so that we may remember that they are all children of God too (thanks to Emily Sterling for that reminder).
  • Duke Basketball rules all.
    • Go to a game in Cameron.  You'll understand why.
  • Classes are hard.
    • I came in as a music major in Undergrad with little attention having been given to graduate work (in any field) and had pretty much figured that I would get a job in a church somewhere preparing worship, leading worship, etc. I didn't read Augustine.  I didn't study Anselm.  I took Greek for fun in Undergrad and NEVER envisioned that I would take it again. Wrong. I was good in music classes. It all made sense.  I could see why things were the way they were.  Not so here.  I often got Church fathers confused with other ones. I often couldn't remember how to articulate an argument. It's a struggle that I've had to deal with, and I think that I am progressing nicely.
  • United Methodist Floridians are lucky.
    • There is no doubt about it.  At Duke Divinity this year, Florida represents. Not only do we have a lot of students, we have a lot of good students. Students that are passionate about the Church.  Students that are influential in conversations.  Students that are sponsored by scholarships. Florida has done really well. If this hold true for all the other seminaries, the future of the UMC in Florida is looking up.
  • Worship is important.
    • Three days a week, every single week, a worship service is held in the middle of the day in Goodson Chapel. They are all well attended.  They have different styles of music.  They have different styles of preaching.  They have different contents.  You never know what you are going to get, but you always get what you need.  There are no classes during this time.  It is as if the school stops to worship as a community.  Professors, students, staff, everyone. Pretty cool.
  • Above all else, it is a community.
    • Middlers (second years) know what Juniors (first years) go through. Same is true of the seniors to Middlers.  They help out, they offer advice, they offer study guides, they cheer you on (quite literally). You don't feel as if the PhD students don't like you. They chat with you in the hallway.  They stop and grab cake before the OT11 exam. They friend you on Facebook.

 

I've thoroughly enjoyed the first semester.

Were there days I thought about dropping out and going to get a job in a church? Yes.

Were there days that I was frustrated? Yes.

Was I exhausted? Yes.

Were there times that I was unprepared? Yes.

Were there times when I thought I had nailed a concept and had gotten it all wrong? Yes.

Were there times when I was embarrassed? Yes.

But, it is still worth it.

Fight the good fight.

If our God is for us, who could ever stop us? If our God is with us, what could stand against?

 

-B

Practicality of Methodism and Scott Kisker

Ok, so we read another Methodism book in Wesleyan class. I sure hope this counts as credit toward being a Methodist. And that I don't get in trouble for that last sentence. Scott Kisker's Mainline or Methodist? can be summed up, not entirely, but mostly by saying that the United Methodist church has fallen away from it's Methodist roots and may be past the point of hope for change inside of what we know of as today's Mainline denominations. Methodism got comfortable, reacted to certain events in American history and forgot the commitment that Wesley required to be a Methodist to begin with.

In example, the United Methodist church has reacted so much to other denominations not being open that they have become too open. Open hearts, open minds, open doors, open table. Anyone can eat the bread and drink the juice. Anyone is welcome, but not all are encouraged to seek ordination, etc.

All the Wesleyan books have pointed out many of the same concepts. In the development of the Methodist movement, Wesley set up societies to serve as accountability groups for faith followers. The groups served as a means of fellowship, accountability to living a holy life. If you desired to progress from society to society(it was a bit hierarchical), there were requirements.

Here is where it gets interesting to me.

Wesley had his experience at Aldersgate where his heart was strangely warmed and he finally realized that he could not do anything to earn his own salvation. Only the grace of God that is offered through Jesus can provide true salvation. This is often(whether incorrectly or correctly) thought about in terms of legalism.

And this is where we all get confused about Wesley's theology.

We can't earn our own salvation. That's understood in today's Christian culture. But Wesley called on those who desired to live holy lives(as holiness is heart and life was key to salvific living) to demonstrate this by following certain rules. These were strict, and those who did not want to follow them did not have to, but it meant giving up your place is the class, band, or society.

Kisker claims that perhaps Methodism needs to make a reappearance inside of United Methodism. In a sense, one could gather that Kisker desires that we reinstate some of these requirements of being a Methodist in order to begin to build the discipleship of the church again. The argument can be made that this discipleship can then be used as resource for evangelism and actually act in the way that Wesley intended.

My confusion comes when we compare these ideas to Wesley's experience at Aldersgate. I thought that this legalistic idea of salvation was the opposite of Wesley's experience. He finally realized that God alone provided salvation.

I know what you're thinking. Bryant, this is the idea of atonement. Our works and actions can't earn us the atonement. God alone provides that. And the classes, bands, and societies help us to continue and be held accountable in our pursuit of righteous living. They dont equate. I get that. I'm not saying that Wesley was wrong.

But the question I present is regarding the practicality for bringing this to today's culture.

We often equate legalistic ideas (whether they are for atonement, salvation, or just to live a holy life) with those who stand on the street corners and preach damnation and eternal fire. They preach things about not practicing homosexuality, worshipping false idols, and being friends with Muslims.

Rightly, the United Methodist Church saw this and ran. We opened things up so that we didn't get seen as legalistic by any means. And this is what Kisker(and others) says needs to change. We need to require something of our parishioners again. There is a cost and responsibility to discipleship. While this may be true, it is easy to see why Methodists became they way they appear today.

So can Methodism, in the way it appeared in Wesleys day, actually survive in today's world? If we were to enact rules, would people just see us as legalists and write us off as they do many other denominations? I would agree that in theory a righteous lifestyle is the best form of evangelism, but are the accountability rules a practical in today's culture? Would it work?

I'm not so sure.

-B

For more thought, think about what Wesley's open-air preaching might look like today. How would it be perceived?