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.