Worship, 26 June 2011

Worship     26 June 2011        Pentecost 3

This service made me think of vessels - what they are and how we fill them.  I expected little about this particular worship service prior to arriving.  We were attending the baptism of the newborn son of my cousin and her husband.  This church was not on my agenda for places to visit - places I want to visit with the intention of receiving insight and instruction from leaders in the field.  Serendipity is a revelation that comes in unexpected moments.

Prior to visiting, I looked at the congregational website, mostly to find directions, but also to get a sense of what worship might be like.  My initial sense was that this service would leave me unfulfilled.  The website promised a contemporary service.  I expected a haphazard, unpolished praise band in a provincial setting.  Elsewhere, the site noted that the traditional service uses LBW and WOV liturgies.  I dismissed the church for not embracing the ELW and expected the contemporary service to follow its own form and to rely upon prevailing commercial musical selections. 

However, I learned that the traditional form of the liturgy can contain new musical elements quite well.  The vessel - the liturgy - shaped by many generations of worship, was filled with new wine, so that tradition and style combined to allow an authentic and participatory service of worship. 

Clearly, form matters.  I was able to worship and participate with a sense of familiarity, expectation, and intention, even though the musical expression was “not my style.”   The pattern of “gathering, word, meal and sending” unfolded as expected, allowing me to navigate the unfamiliar stylistic territory of the music without too much aggravation, self-awareness, or hopelessness. 

Form and style cohabit a mutual existence.  With regard to worship, does style matter?  Is there an inherent suitability for worship that some styles of music contain while others do not?  Or, is style simply an element of the local, communal, authentic expression of praise and worship?   Is style a variable that is modified to the local situation, much like the architecture and design of a space reflect the character of the congregation? 

In this service, the style of the music contributed positively to the authentic participation of the congregation in the liturgy, or the work at hand.  Too often, I have disparaged contemporary music for the way it inhibits participation by the assembly.  In contrast, at this church, the assembly was fully engaged and singing with confidence.  I could hear others singing and I could hear myself singing.  Often, the congregation improvised harmonies, particularly when the music moved to a refrain, or repetitive section.  While I could quibble about text (or lack thereof) within a repetitive refrain, clearly there was joy in the singing.  From a practical point of view, the leadership of the musical ensemble was integral to the success of the singing.  The ensemble was well rehearsed.  The volume of the music was set at a level to invite singing, not obliterate singing. 

Curiously, the physical location of the musical ensemble played an important role towards the success of the congregational participation.  One common critique about praise bands addresses the cultural expectation for entertainment.  Bands placed front and center become something to watch and hear and invite a passive response.  At this worship, the space was arranged so that font, altar, cross, and ministers were the visual focal point.  The musical ensemble was placed behind the altar, with tasteful greenery partially hiding the group.  From my vantage point, I could see who was singing and leading, but I wasn’t drawn to them as primary focus. 

Even in this encouraging setting, I still found the syncopated character of the pop influenced music to remain a liability to the success of communal singing.  I could not read the rhythms well, nor could I predict very well the variation or rhythmic inflection the lead singer might take.  Still, the congregation seemed to know what to sing, most of the time.  The one exception was the Kyrie, which was a muddle for all.  I question, then, if this style of music should always be taught by rote, without the confusing element of notation.  Or, can music of excessive syncopation every be fully participatory?

Several other elements about this worship warrant expression.  First, this congregation clearly understands its responsibility “to welcome everyone into Jesus’ family” (a part of its mission statement.)  We were welcomed at the outer doors to the church with bulletins and invited in.  We were given nametags.  I was not impressed by this until the pastor to give me the communion wafer by name.  When I inquired (to Beth) about the location of the restrooms, a congregational member immediately pointed them out to me.  The sharing of the peace was not a perfunctory moment, but a lively interchange among all members.  Coincidentally, the appointed Gospel text for the day addressed hospitality. 

Second, the worship service fulfilled the mission intention to “nurture so all grow in faith.”  The sermon directed us outward, to reflect upon ways we can serve our neighbor.    Likewise, the children’s sermon simply but directly invited children to consider the Gospel reading.  At several points, the pastor or musical leader paused to informally draw us into what was happening in the service.  Projection screens presented the liturgy in a helpful, non-obtrusive manner. 

Last, there was a pentecostal element to the community.  The congregation seeks to invoke the Holy Spirit as an enlivening, rejuvenating, and missional part of its life.  Actions and images showed this.  Worship was authentic (from the community), lively, participatory, and liturgical.  The liturgy turned worship away from ourselves, toward God.  Red paraments showed the Holy Spirit (even though the liturgical color for the time is green).  The template for the projected screens was unified around this one theme and color.  I could argue that this was not “correct,” but on the other hand, the local context (the congregation’s mission and the continuation of the spirit of “Pentecost”) allows the variation.