Maybe the Controversy Isn't About Worship Style

For several years, churches have struggled with whether to use a more contemporary worship, something more traditional or a mix of the two.  Churches have been split wide open over this issue.  My nephew pointed out an article by Amy Hanson that addressed this issue, and it got me thinking.

I think that when you dig into it, usually the struggle isn't so much over the style of worship, ultimately that's more of a surface thing.  Ultimately, the struggle over style is really more a symptom of a deeper issue, that issue being a generation of people feeling left out, pushed to the sidelines.

I'm sure many could read this and tell me that I'm not exactly coming to an earth shattering conclusion.  Maybe it says something about me and where I've been for me to even think this conclusion is even worth writing about.  Then again, I think one reason it is such a difficult subject is that maybe too many people don't totally understand just WHY it's such an issue.  

Yes, there are strong feelings on both sides when it comes to the actual style of worship.  They see each other as too loud or as too slow.  Too irreverent or too irrelevant.  Too performance oriented or too boring.  Personally, I tend to enjoy the more contemporary services.  Having said that, I've been to a number of contemporary services that to me seemed more about performance than about worship, more about making noise than making a joyful noise before the Lord.  At the same time I've been to traditional services that, well... let's just say that it felt like the only thing being worshiped was tradition.  I've been to some incredibly worshipful traditional services and the same can be true of some contemporary services.  As I see it, neither style can claim a superiority over the other.

One of the things that had me thinking about things in Amy's post was a comment someone left that talked about services having 80 people show up for traditional services in a facility that can hold hundreds or thousands.  I did not get the sense that the person commenting was using this as a point against traditional services, but it was that comment that reminded me of arguments people have used in the past about how no one comes to the traditional services.  Okay, I have to be honest and admit the possibility is there I've never heard anyone make those arguments, maybe that was just an argument I've used myself.  Anyway, whatever it was, something Amy said in her post was pretty poignant.  That churches need to start asking themselves why they are having these traditional services -- is it something that's just there to appease the older folks in the church (and what I'm saying here in parenthesis is not from her comments but perhaps just my own cynicism -- but sometimes the reason for appeasing is because perhaps some of these older members also happen to be pretty good givers?), or is it something that's part of a broader approach of engaging seniors in the ministry of the church.

Unfortunately, too often it's the former.  (See what I was saying about my own cynicism?)

And that all led me to thinking, why are those services often so empty?  Is it because it's such a dead style of worship that no one wants to come?  Or is there something more?

That's where Amy's comments really seemed to say something because ultimately, if it's just something done to appease some older people, it plays itself out in the quality of the worship, it's done half hearted, and ultimately the people who it's designed for KNOW.  And usually, if it is a matter of appeasement, it's that way because the truth of the matter is there's not much (if any) of an effort to truly engage seniors in the ministry and mission of the church.  Seniors are seen as much of a burden or a roadblock, and you can bet those seniors know it.  And if they are not a valued part of the body, why would anyone expect that the service designed for them is going to have much of an attendance.

You can perhaps see why all this brings me then to this conclusion that the root of the issue isn't really about style, but about belonging.  I've talked to many who have come to feel that they're no longer valued or needed in the ministry of the church.  It's time for the younger people to take over.  And suddenly we have a vast army of people who have so much to offer in experience, wisdom, and faith who feel pushed aside.  Worship style just ends up being the face of the whole feeling.  It's that straw that breaks the camel's back.  This insistence on using a musical style that grates on them just seems to provide an exclamation point to the sense that their experience and opinions no longer matter.  And ultimately, that's where the issue lays.

Frankly, I see no issue with having differing types of worship because really, you're never going to find something that is loved by all.  I do have to say, it is one of those myths about aging to say that older people always prefer traditional.  I know of many seniors who really prefer contemporary worship, and a lot of young people who prefer the more traditional.  And while we'll never get everyone to agree on worship styles, I cannot help but think that if all peoples and all ages felt engaged and valued as part of the church, the issue of worship style would lose most of its controversy.

What A Difference A Millenia or Two Makes

There once was a time where it seemed totally improbable that this tiny band of followers of a dead teacher could ever make much of an impact.  Religious and government leaders were bound and determined to put a stop to it.  Yet, within 300 years Christianity became the majority religion of the Roman Empire, something that was accomplished even before it was declared the 'official' religion of the empire.  

Rodney Stark wrote a fascinating book on this period, "The Rise of Christianity."  Stark took a look from a sociological perspective at how and why the church was able to grow like it did.  A lot of Christians don't really care for Stark's work because he tended to believe that the explosive growth of Christianity was not necessarily miraculous.  Personally, I believe both sides.  Stark identified a number of reasons the Christian belief had such appeal even in a time of intense persecution.  I believe he was right on the money, but I believe the qualities that were part of Christianity that he identified were there through the power of God.

Anyway, this isn't meant to be a stodgy entry on church history, I'm actually going somewhere with it all.  One of the significant factors in the growth of Christianity was that it took to heart the mandates to care for the poor and the elderly, particularly the widowed.  To make a very simplistic summary of it all, Christians gained respect from non Christians because of the love shown by those Christians even in the most difficult circumstances.  

Fast forward to the early 21st century.  Society is staring down a demographic shift that has tremendous consequences ahead.  For the first time in history, the number of elderly in this nation outnumber the number of youth, and this is just the tip of the iceberg, so to speak.  There are tremendous concerns about the impact that will be made on our society when the baby boomer generation fully enters retirement age, and whether we have the resources to survive the burden this creates.  

This is where I'm getting to, finally:  Society today is starting to try to mobilize to prepare for the aging of the boomer generation.  Universities, government, senior centers, etc., are starting to come together to figure out how to meet this upcoming need.  There is one part of society that is conspicuously being left out of these growing coalitions:  the church.  Sure there's the temptation to go all conspiracy theory here on this, and while it's true that aspects of secular society would rather have nothing to do with the church, when it comes down to it it really isn't a matter of discrimination against Christianity.  It's happening because these coalitions are of groups that are actively involved in serving seniors.  Churches are being left out because quite honestly, churches are not getting in the game.  Churches today view senior ministry as visiting shut ins and having fellowship dinners, pretty much the same approach they've had for the last 50 to 100 years.  We educate our people on all the social and psychological aspects of adolescents and youth ministry, and we have absolutely no education for pastors in place on the social and psychological aspects of aging.

One of the reasons the church had such a tremendous impact in the early ages was because they were taking the lead on taking care of the forgotten.  The church was not only providing welfare but giving people dignity and purpose.  Today, we're sitting on our hands utterly and almost completely unprepared for how to minister to people as these changes approach, while other aspects of society are far ahead of us.

What a difference a couple thousand years makes.

Book Review: Encore: Finding Work that Matters in the Second Half of Life by Marc Freedman

Many an economist cringes at the thought of the next few decades and the effect on the economy of the Baby Boomer generation reaching retirement age.  What will happen when Social Security is bankrupt, when the cost of caring for this generation becomes such a strain on the economy?  Is there an alternative ending, one where our resources can not only meet the challenge but perhaps even grow through this period?

Marc Freedman starts his book "Encore:  Finding Work That Matters in the Second Half of Life" looking at the two possible extremes of what the next several years hold out for us.  Most of the forecasts focus on the extreme burden that will be placed on society by the aging of the boomer generation, but Freedman focuses instead on the difference that could be made by a paradigm shift in the way we look at retirement.

Freedman is founder and CEO of San Francisco based Civic Ventures, a "think tank on boomers, work, and social purpose" according to their website.  The New York Times described him as "the voice of aging baby boomers who are eschewing retirement for ... meaningful and sustaining work later in life.  "Encore" takes a look at the existing view of retirement and suggests that a new approach to the retirement years can dramatically reshape the future and the way we look at the later years of life.

Such a paradigm shift is not unheard of.  In fact, Freedman suggests that our current view is something that was largely created by marketing by developers and financial products managers.  Up until the 1950's, retirement was seen as a time when people were forced out of work and into a life of boredom and eventual poverty.  In a short period of time developments such as Sun City and Leisureworld sprang up and sold the concept of a time of relaxation and leisure activity, something that has been earned by a lifetime of hard work. Financial services caught on and began to emphasize investing for a retirement life of leisure, and the concept caught on, to the point now that for many the goal has become to be able to take an early retirement.

As this new concept of retirement took shape, it was a time when most could expect to live another seven to ten years on the average.  However, in an age with a much larger percentage of the population nearing retirement age and reasonably able to expect even more years of life (and healthier years as well), the old model of retirement will be extremely difficult to sustain both on a personal level and a societal level.

As a result, our best hope may be in a change in the way we look at the retirement years.  It is a change that is not necessarily dictated by necessity, but also by a changing mindset of the Boomer generation.  Ultimately, a life of leisure may just be too boring for many, and after years of working in corporate America many are finding a desire to make a lasting impact.  Freedman suggests a new paradigm that is taking shape now, where instead of saving up and preparing for a life of leisure and inactivity, that instead those preparations are now about being able to move into a phase of meaningful work.  He identifies a number of examples of people who have moved into what he calls Encore careers, now stepping up as teachers or non profit workers and administrators.  He shows people using their life and work experience to now make an impact in meaningful ways.  When they were raising families, people may not have been able to get by on the pay that went with working with the homeless or teaching in urban high need schools, but now their income requirements may not be as high or they are better able to supplement their income with retirement income, and this frees them up to do work that makes a difference.

Encore struck a cord deeply for me, considering my recent journey into moving towards working with older adults.  I find myself moving into a sort of encore career myself (granted without some of the resources that many he referred to may have) where I'm finding a calling in my own life.  Of course it is a sort of double whammy for me because it provides some food for thought for the very people I want to assist and a sort of direction for many to consider as they move into this stage of life.  As a result, I find this book moving right towards the top of the "must read" list.

In fact, I don't believe the audience should be limited just to those thinking of retiring and/or considering such an "Encore career."  The reality is that the challenge of supporting a massive wave of people moving into the later years of life is indeed going to be overwhelming especially under the present approach to retirement.  In the end it will be very much like Freedman points out at the start of his book, either a huge calamity or a grand opportunity.  It is a chance for a generation to define itself, will it go out selfishly expecting society to support it in a life of leisure, or will it use this time as a great opportunity to 'give back,' continuing to work to support itself as much as able to while at the same time serving society rather than taking from it?  Because of this impending dilemma, it is incredibly important for anyone who is working with people in this generation in any capacity, whether it be ministry or counselling or financially, to start looking at the viewpoint suggested by Freedman.  There is still time for us to determine how this will end up.  What will we do?