Thoughts on Worship

[Marsha Lynn]

This originated as a blog entry. I'm copying it here for discussion if anyone is interested.

With increasing involvement in local worship services, I’ve been giving some thought to what I see as prime values for a worship program. One factor going into my thinking is the ‘perfect’ worship service I visited last fall. I’m sure it wasn’t truly perfect, but from my point of view as a visitor, it appeared that everything was done with excellence. The musicians were top-notch; the service had good flow; everything was planned and the execution of that plan was impressively smooth. Even when a soloist forgot her words, she demonstrated impressive poise and professionalism.

Excellence. That has been a buzzword pulled from the business world into the church. I find it to be a word of pure discouragement. If ‘excellence’ is the standard for all church work, then I need to step aside in my bumbling and let someone with greater skill take over. I work very hard at what I do but I realize that I have many areas of weakness (as those who know me best will readily confirm) and would not easily find a place of service in an ‘excellent’ church which was closing in on ‘perfect’. As I left that ‘perfect’ worship service, I realized that if I lived near that church, I would not be a member there. Not only because I myself am not perfect, but because I care deeply about other people who aren’t perfect. I would want to be part of a church where imperfect people would feel comfortable and have opportunities for involvement in the worship program.

All that to say that ‘perfect’ or even ‘excellent’ is not my primary concern when thinking about corporate worship.

So, if not excellence, what are my top values for worship? That has been the question on my mind. I’ve come up with four aspects to my answer.

1. Worship needs to be about worship. It seems like this would be intuitively obvious, but I am from a generation where worship became so overshadowed by personal testimony in what was called "worship services" that it took me years to define worship in my own mind. Worship needs to conduct those present into the presence of God Almighty and remind us of who He is – our God – and of who we are - His worshippers. If we have not humbled our hearts in the presence of God during the time we are together, we have not worshipped.

2. Worship needs to be orchestrated. We come together to worship. The task of the worship leaders is to conduct worship in a way that brings those present into the presence of God. This takes planning and practice.

3. Worship needs to be participatory. Leaving everything in the hands of professionals is too exclusionary for my tastes. Sure, there are those who prefer to sit in their pews and worship with high-quality music. However, there are others who prefer to participate in the worship service, even though they may not have the skills to be part of a program of ‘excellence’. Those who crave high-quality programming can join the audience at the ‘major league’ program down the street. I want to be invest my time on the 'farm teams' where professionals get their start. I see a continuing need for training camps for those who haven't made the big-time yet. It seems that God often looks past the acknowledged frontrunners when choosing servants to do His work. I want to be where God is working and raising up new leadership.

4. Worship needs to be responsive. I’ve written previously on my blog (http://marshalyn.blogspot.com/2006/04/its-not-about-you.html) (and here (http://www.naznet.com/community/showthread.php?t=4524)) about my aversion to the phrase, “It’s not about you.” The truth is, worship requires worshippers. We need to listen to those who are interested in being part of our worship services in order to discover the path to the throne of God for them. Is it music? Is it silence? Is it scripture reading? Is it corporate prayer? If music, what style of music? We need to hear what they say regardless of age, gender, culture, and personal baggage and incorporate what we hear into our programming, not to allow any one voice to control the whole program but to let every voice count.

Responsive, participatory, orchestrated worship. If we approach excellence now and then, that would be wonderful. But let’s not make excellence our primary aim. There are many more 2nd-string than top-notch worship participants. Perhaps a better aim would be to develop the full potential of those who choose to be involved in the worship program, both those who take up instruments or voice to lead music and those who respond with humbled hearts to the felt presence of God.

That’s what I’ve been thinking. Any thoughts on the subject?

[Billy Cox]

Excellence. That has been a buzzword pulled from the business world into the church. I find it to be a word of pure discouragement. If ‘excellence’ is the standard for all church work, then I need to step aside in my bumbling and let someone with greater skill take over. I work very hard at what I do but I realize that I have many areas of weakness (as those who know me best will readily confirm) and would not easily find a place of service in an ‘excellent’ church which was closing in on ‘perfect’. As I left that ‘perfect’ worship service, I realized that if I lived near that church, I would not be a member there. Not only because I myself am not perfect, but because I care deeply about other people who aren’t perfect. I would want to be part of a church where imperfect people would feel comfortable and have opportunities for involvement in the worship program.


1. Worship needs to be about worship. It seems like this would be intuitively obvious, but I am from a generation where worship became so overshadowed by personal testimony in what was called "worship services" that it took me years to define worship in my own mind. Worship needs to conduct those present into the presence of God Almighty and remind us of who He is – our God – and of who we are - His worshippers. If we have not humbled our hearts in the presence of God during the time we are together, we have not worshipped.

2. Worship needs to be orchestrated. We come together to worship. The task of the worship leaders is to conduct worship in a way that brings those present into the presence of God. This takes planning and practice.

3. Worship needs to be participatory. Leaving everything in the hands of professionals is too exclusionary for my tastes. Sure, there are those who prefer to sit in their pews and worship with high-quality music. However, there are others who prefer to participate in the worship service, even though they may not have the skills to be part of a program of ‘excellence’. Those who crave high-quality programming can join the audience at the ‘major league’ program down the street. I want to be invest my time on the 'farm teams' where professionals get their start. I see a continuing need for training camps for those who haven't made the big-time yet. It seems that God often looks past the acknowledged frontrunners when choosing servants to do His work. I want to be where God is working and raising up new leadership.

4. Worship needs to be responsive. I’ve written previously on my blog (http://marshalyn.blogspot.com/2006/04/its-not-about-you.html) (and here (http://www.naznet.com/community/showthread.php?t=4524)) about my aversion to the phrase, “It’s not about you.” The truth is, worship requires worshippers. We need to listen to those who are interested in being part of our worship services in order to discover the path to the throne of God for them. Is it music? Is it silence? Is it scripture reading? Is it corporate prayer? If music, what style of music? We need to hear what they say regardless of age, gender, culture, and personal baggage and incorporate what we hear into our programming, not to allow any one voice to control the whole program but to let every voice count.

Responsive, participatory, orchestrated worship. If we approach excellence now and then, that would be wonderful. But let’s not make excellence our primary aim. There are many more 2nd-string than top-notch worship participants. Perhaps a better aim would be to develop the full potential of those who choose to be involved in the worship program, both those who take up instruments or voice to lead music and those who respond with humbled hearts to the felt presence of God.

That’s what I’ve been thinking. Any thoughts on the subject?


I define excellence as the drive to fully utilize the resources that God has given us. The opposite of excellence is not poor quality, it's mediocrity...just getting by with the bare minimum. In my experience with the Bible, I have yet to find a passage where God prefers less than our best in worship.

Commitment to excellence can stray into perfectionism, which I define as the drive to do better than we can possibly do. There is nothing healthy about perfectionism.

The local church does not owe every would-be musician an opportunity to perform. If a person finds themselves in the shallow end of the musical talent pool, they should either find something else to be excellent in, or move to a smaller pool where they can be the big fish.

[Wilson L. Deaton]

I'll limit my remarks at this time to that which struck me the most:

Generally speaking, I liked what you said but I didn't agree entirely...

2. Worship needs to be orchestrated. We come together to worship. The task of the worship leaders is to conduct worship in a way that brings those present into the presence of God. This takes planning and practice.

I'm always told that an argument from silence is not valid. At times, however, I think there is more validity to it than we admit.... I'm always struck by the importance we place on "planning" and "practice" while the idea seems to be foreign to the entire New Testament. There is never mention of Jesus, or Peter, or Paul preparing a specific sermon or service. Furthermore, while Paul says worship should be orderly he never instructs anyone to prepare an "order of worship" much less how to prepare such an order.

I think worship has bought to deeply into the performance model (a "modern" element) and the "planning and practice" is part of that.

I'm not sure that worshipping in "spirit and in truth" needs to be rehearsed. I'm not sure how to proceed, but I would prefer less planning and no practice!

(The OT examples of well-planned services seemed to be very few and far between, things like dedication of temple, etc., as opposed to a weekly event.)

Wilson

[Marsha Lynn]

The local church does not owe every would-be musician an opportunity to perform. If a person finds themselves in the shallow end of the musical talent pool, they should either find something else to be excellent in, or move to a smaller pool where they can be the big fish.

Ah... but even in small pools, small fish with potential for development are easily overlooked by the small-pool big fish.

I don't want to argue with you, Billy, but I don't see synonyms for excellence in biblical calls to praise and worship. We're called to serve the Lord with gladness and to make a joyful noise to him, to praise him. It's what's in our hearts that counts more than the quality of our praise offering. Yes, sacrificial lambs were to be without blemish, but I'm pretty sure that God can use blemished music performed by less-than-perfect musicians to lead people to worship. And I've watched many a timid, tone-challenged young musician blossom under the instruction of our local high school music teacher. What a wonderful work she does by giving kids chances to perform. I'm thrilled to be in a church that can afford to take chances on people.

David appointed musicians to lead the tabernacle worship. I wonder if he disqualified anyone for being rhythm- or tone-challenged.

Marsha

[Marsha Lynn]

I think worship has bought to deeply into the performance model (a "modern" element) and the "planning and practice" is part of that.

Thanks for the comments, Wilson. I feel like I'm caught somewhere between your spontaneity and Billy's excellence that excludes 'shallow' talents.

The reason we need to be 'orchestrated' locally is in order to be inclusive ('participatory'). One of the concepts I've been preaching is that just because someone can't play any and every song in the hymnal (or chorus book or in the mind of the music selector) on their chosen instrument at a moment's notice doesn't mean they can't participate. Sure, they may be at "the shallow end of the talent pool". But maybe, they simply need more prep time.

When my husband started playing the organ for church as a teen, the music selection was a partnership between him, his pastor, and his organ teacher (the pastor's daughter-in-law). The pastor would pick out the songs a week ahead of time and that week's organ lesson would include those songs. Every week he would add another song or two to his repertoire. Over time his skills developed until he could pretty much play any song in the hymnal, but it took time and patience and a willingness to temporarily give up spontaneity in order to bring along new talent. They happened to be desperate enough to do that. Why not do it simply because it's a good idea?

You, as a pastor, zeroed in on the order of service. As a musician, I don't worry much about the order. My concern is that developing musicians be given opportunity to practice unfamiliar music as long as it takes them to learn it rather than being eliminated from the program because they don't already have the skills of an experienced musician. The goal is not so much a great performance as comfort with the music, the gift of allowing them to do their best by allowing them to prepare. And as a developing 'orchestrator', I need to find music for everyone and figure out how we're going to take whatever instruments are available and whatever talent we have on those instruments and blend them together in a way that will enhance rather than detract from worship. That will take planning (and some skill development on my part). Otherwise, we're going to have the same old people doing the same old (familiar) songs forever.

Does that make sense?

Marsha

[Wilson L. Deaton]

.... I need to find music for everyone and figure out how we're going to take whatever instruments are available and whatever talent we have on those instruments and blend them together in a way that will enhance rather than detract from worship. That will take planning (and some skill development on my part). Otherwise, we're going to have the same old people doing the same old (familiar) songs forever.

Does that make sense?

I learned working with children the principle that process is more important than product. That is the value of them preparing a program is more important than the performance of the program. The process of them doing art projects is valuable even if the finished product isn't very good.

If I understand you correctly, then I think what you are doing fits into this mindset. Planning for the sake of developing people is more important than planning for "excellence."

Wilson

[Doug Kitchen]

I learned working with children the principle that process is more important than product. That is the value of them preparing a program is more important than the performance of the program. The process of them doing art projects is valuable even if the finished product isn't very good.

If I understand you correctly, then I think what you are doing fits into this mindset. Planning for the sake of developing people is more important than planning for "excellence."

Wilson


Back in the days when we had choirs, our church had a bass that had been proudly training us rookies for more than 30 years ( I think every year I knew him he said that he had been in the choir for 38 years). After singing in his ear for about 10 years, I finally got it. Choir practices were always fun - choir performances were fun sometimes (Like the living christmas tree where the 12 year old tenor at the top almost fainted from heat exhaustion - the fainting wasn't fun but the tree was an engineering marvel).

I have long since moved from that church and choirs seem to be a thing of the past so I haven't had the privilege to pass his skill on to the next generation. Part of his skill was understanding his imperfection - knowing his limits and adapting. Two part harmonies were a killer for both of us - his solution was to sing the melody an octave lower. This drove some of our more professional directors nuts - but the only other options were to squeak or keep silent.

Charlie Rothrock never missed church, sang in the choir, was intergenerational before the word existed. His worship was never choreographed and always genuine.


I thought I had a point when I started - but maybe not anymore. thanks for the discussion - I'll check in later when I'm back from memory lane.

Doug Kitchen

[Anita F. Henck]

I hope it's OK to jump into the middle of your conversation. But, Wilson's comment, "There is never mention of Jesus, or Peter, or Paul preparing a specific sermon or service" leaves me thinking.

I guess I never thought of Jesus leading a worship service. I think of him teaching. But, I've never thought that the Sermon on the Mount or the parables he taught being plugged in amidst a choir number, two hymns, a praise chorus, and an offertory.

When he spoke in the temple, I didn't see him planning a worship service, but rather, as an adult male, being one who had an opportunity to stand a speak (more spontaneous than in the midst of an "order of worship").

Have I missed something on this? Did Jesus and his disciples plan weekly "worship services"?

[Wilson L. Deaton]

Have I missed something on this? Did Jesus and his disciples plan weekly "worship services"?

It is my contention that they did not.

The reason I brought it up is because it makes me wonder, what does the lack of importance/priority Jesus and his disciple placed on "worship services" say about the level of importance/priority that we have placed on it?

Can we really spend all that money, time, and energy on "worship services" and think we doing what Jesus wants us to be doing?

He neither commanded it nor modeled it

Wilson

[Marsha Lynn]

I hope it's OK to jump into the middle of your conversation.

It's a group discussion. Anyone and everyone is welcome to jump in as far as I am concerned.

When he spoke in the temple, I didn't see him planning a worship service, but rather, as an adult male, being one who had an opportunity to stand a speak (more spontaneous than in the midst of an "order of worship").

Have I missed something on this? Did Jesus and his disciples plan weekly "worship services"?

I think it's safe to assume that they did not. What does the mean for us?

Jesus was an itinerant evangelist. When He taught in the synagogues, He was stepping into the middle of an organized worship event. Someone had to open the doors at the appropriate time on the Sabbath and know what part of the Torah would be read that week and make sure it was ready. A reader needed to be present and prepared to read. I assume that the temple in Jerusalem also had routine worship events that followed a prescribed pattern (such as the 3 pm "time of prayer" mentioned in Acts 3) and that Jesus taught within that framework.

Was the hymn following the last supper a spontaneous idea or was it part of a tradition? Either way, the hymn had to be learned at some time by those singing it.

Psalm 33:3 reads: Sing to him a new song;
play skillfully, and shout for joy.

There are eight other references to "a new song" in the Bible (in Psalms, Isaiah, and Revelation). Other than miraculous intervention (or in the magical world of cinematography), I don't know how a group of worshippers can sing a new song and "play [it] skillfully" without pre-planning and practice.

Unless we discover from experience that God is more inclined to use people who show up on Sunday morning and wait for the Spirit to move in building the kingdom than those who spend time in prayer, preparation, and practice for the service, I'm not sure what application we can draw from biblical spontaneity. However, I'm open to ideas, particularly for involving developing musicians and sound/video technicians in worship without planning and practice. It would save a lot of time and effort if we could attain "skillful" without the drudgery of "practice".

(Seems like a certain "Professor Hill" might have developed such an approach once upon a time, but, even in cinematography, I don't remember the results among the young people as being spectacular other than in the minds of his students' parents, although he was amazing with that school board/barbershop quartet. The band performance from "The Music Man" is etched firmly enough in my mind to keep me smiling through years of 6th-grade band concerts - particularly when I became one of the tone-deaf but glowing parents. :fav16 )

Marsha

[Marsha Lynn]

Can we really spend all that money, time, and energy on "worship services" and think we doing what Jesus wants us to be doing?

I guess that's why my "orchestrated" emphasis has to be based on the "participatory" and "responsive" aspects of worship. I consider the effort I put into Sunday morning to be an investment in people rather than in the service itself - facilitating worship for those in the pews and facilitating the facilitators of worship on the platform. That's also why I shy away from the word "excellence," which in my mind (but apparently not so much in the mind of others) denotes some high standard of perfection along the lines of that produced by professionals. I mean, do you ever see "excellent" ballhandling by a 5th-grade basketball team? And even if you do, should that be the standard against which the entire team is measured? Or should attitude and teachability count? Michael Jordan may have been excellent in 5th grade, but I'm not sure the same can be said for every player who found opportunity for growth and learning life lessons on a basketball court. Nor do all solid contributors to a team as seniors look like winners as beginners.

Maybe I'm not tracking your thought process here. If not, I invite you to explain further. This is a new area of exploration for me and I have much to learn.

Marsha

[Barb Bouldrey]

Concerning Jesus and his disciples having worship services, doesn't the scripture say that Jesus was at the temple to worship, "as was his custom?"

Did Jesus ignore worshiping in the Temple once he started his ministry? I don't think so.

I think that Jesus and His disciples worshiped on the Sabbath to honor God.

If understand Jewish biblical history, temple worship was not a service. It was individuals bringing their offerings and allowing the temple priests to make sacrifices. Worship was individual...probably limited to a time of prayer while your offering was being sacrificed. And probably some priest reading the Books of Law or the Prophets.

I guess that as they traveled around, Jesus "led" the worship on the Sabbath...but I do not know that for sure.

According to history, did the Jews go to the temple EVERY Sabbath or was Sabbath worship limited to the homes except for celebration days such as Passover?

I do not think it is possible to compare Biblical worship with our worship services. The New Testament church met, learned from the disciple who was leading, sang Psalms and prayed. They probably gave offerings. WAIT..that IS similar to our services.

Barb

[Billy Cox]

Ah... but even in small pools, small fish with potential for development are easily overlooked by the small-pool big fish.

I don't want to argue with you, Billy, but I don't see synonyms for excellence in biblical calls to praise and worship. We're called to serve the Lord with gladness and to make a joyful noise to him, to praise him. It's what's in our hearts that counts more than the quality of our praise offering. Yes, sacrificial lambs were to be without blemish, but I'm pretty sure that God can use blemished music performed by less-than-perfect musicians to lead people to worship. And I've watched many a timid, tone-challenged young musician blossom under the instruction of our local high school music teacher. What a wonderful work she does by giving kids chances to perform. I'm thrilled to be in a church that can afford to take chances on people.

David appointed musicians to lead the tabernacle worship. I wonder if he disqualified anyone for being rhythm- or tone-challenged.

Marsha

To be concise, I believe that excellence is doing the best we can with what we have. Therefore, excellence will look different depending on where you are.

[Marsha Lynn]

To be concise, I believe that excellence is doing the best we can with what we have. Therefore, excellence will look different depending on where you are.

So how do you define "best"?

Suppose you have a pianist known far and wide for her ability to play in an excellent fashion any gospel song written before 1950 in any key. This pianist has far more musical talent than anyone else in the church.

You also have an organist who can read music but has a rather stilted style. The pianist wishes the organist would quit and leave the music accompaniment entirely in her capable hands. Fortunately for her, other potential musicians are more easily kept out of the picture. There's no need to develop lesser talent as long as there's still life in her talented fingers.

You have a songleader who wants to select something other than gospel music. The pianist sees no reason to change the music program and has plenty of support in the church. After all, no one else can compete with her talent. Why give up the great old songs that God has used so mightily over the past 100 years for music no one knows or likes played by second-rate musicians?

Does a goal of "excellence" mean building the music program around the world-class gospel pianist? Is that "doing the best with what you have"? If not, what does it mean? What if "the best you have" doesn't translate well into worship? And who decides when and if that is the case?

What if instead of gospel, your "best" musician is into the classics or bluegrass or heavy metal or repeating praise choruses at least 10 times each to wring every speck of potential emotional response out of them? And which is 'best', the soloist who sings from her heart but tends to scrape bottom on the high notes or the one with a beautifully pure tone who makes it clear that singing in church is a waste of her professional-level talent, that she's simply tossing out largess to the masses while waiting to be discovered?

What if your 'best' drummer is being prosecuted because he's behind on his child support? What if he spends a good part of every practice session griping about how persecuted he is by his ex-wife and her lawyer? Is he still a valuable part of your worship team or do you sideline him and bring in the 'second-string' drummer who knows only one rhythm (rap-rap-rap), tempo (fast), and volume (loud!)? Which one will best contribute to "doing the best you can with what you have"?

Just what defines 'best' when worshipping a God who seems so set on zeroing in on 'the least of these'? Who decides who gets to participate in facilitating "excellent" worship in a small church setting and who doesn't?

Marsha

[Billy Cox]

So how do you define "best"?
Just what defines 'best' when worshipping a God who seems so set on zeroing in on 'the least of these'? Who decides who gets to participate in facilitating "excellent" worship in a small church setting and who doesn't?

Marsha

Those are all good questions. 'Best' would obviously have to be broader than a mere description of musical skill.

I'm not sure what 'the least of these' has to do with who gets to perform music and who doesn't. Churches would do well to crucify any sense of entitlement when it comes to musical leadership.

[Marsha Lynn]

Concerning Jesus and his disciples having worship services, doesn't the scripture say that Jesus was at the temple to worship, "as was his custom?"

Actually, Luke 4:16 says that it was his custom to go into the synagogue on the Sabbath. It is my understanding that there was only one temple - in Jerusalem - but there were many synagogues. People from Galilee made the trip to Jerusalem for the special feasts and met in the synagogues in their villages for their weekly times of worship. Jesus participated in those times, reading scripture according to custom and also straightening bent old women and restoring withered hands - definitely not part of the prescribed order of service.

It appears that there was seamlessness between Jesus' every day ministry and his ministry in the synagogues. He taught both inside and outside the synagogue and likewise healed the sick and crippled both in and out. I'd like to live that kind of life, meeting needs and furthering the kingdom as I am able regardless of where I am.

Marsha

[Barb Bouldrey]

My brain just could not pull out the word synagogue earlier today. Thanks for bringing it back to my brain.

I also thought of the early settlers in our West who had no preacher and no church. Worship was as a family or as neighbors and left up to the individual to make sure Sunday was God's day.

It is so easy to go through all the responsibilities of Sunday and not worship.

We talked about that in S. S. class last week when we talked about Martha and Mary. Martha was serving, but not worshiping.

Barb