Thinking About Worship, Both Globally And Locally

My summer experiences ended with a third trip to India. I have to admit I am intrigued by what God is up to in India, a continent approaching one billion people, that will pass China in population size in a few short years, and may even pass the US economically (if a recent Time magazine article is correct).

The church will have to be ready.  And I see a lot of efforts to advance the kingdom.  My task this summer was to train future leaders in a seminary setting.  What I saw both encouraged and discouraged me.  For the most part, students are beset with lots of traditional fears—afraid to speak up in class, due to an educational growing up that constricted discussion, dialogue, and debate.  This will have to change if they are going to be able to speak up to a world that needs to hear the courageous voice of God.

They will also have to come to grips with leading worship into the future.  Too many churches have a missionary hangover.  They look and sound like something from the West—only 5-10 years behind.  My challenge was to guide them toward a theology of worship, as well as encourage far more creativity—writing their own music, speaking more deeply into their culture with a style that reflects who they are.  People, especially the unchurched, are not attracted to those ministries that simply replicate others.

Closer to home, we are back to similar discussions regarding what worship should look like in our church.  In recent years, Village has found itself at home with both a traditional and a contemporary service (we do three contemps and two traditionals on a given weekend).  I have found this much more to my liking after 17 years of blended services (where on a given week someone was angry that we sang too many hymns or too many choruses). It is nice to not worry about meeting quotas.

In recent years, I have been persuaded that a contemporary service, that is truly contemporary, that continues to evolve with culture, grow as we more and more understand what worship involves, would suffice as the alternative to the traditional.  But I am rethinking all of this.  It is becoming as apparent as the graying of my hair (what’s left of it) that there is a younger generation we are missing, no matter how much our contemporary shifts and changes.  It may be necessary we add a third kind of service.  What it looks like and what it is called are still unknowns to me. 

At first I resisted this.  But I know this—I don’t want to make the mistake of many churches, and lose the next generation.  And we may if we don’t move into a worship that—while having the same values as other services—community, truth, response to revelation—allows for different outworkings of those values. 

What I do know is that all of us are a mix of styles and expressions, and we have this in common—like tends to attract like.  So where this all leads, I am not sure yet.  My passion is to see the existing church keep emerging—not in a way that accommodates to a narcissistic consumerism—but wisely adjusts to the shifts of style and age while maintaining biblical integrity.