July 9, 2007

worship expectations

A number of the comments from my last post focused, basically, on the struggle between church and culture. Even more central than that (at least, in my original thoughts) is the attitude of a worship leader. Is it wrong to expect excellence out of worship, potentially at the cost of "the worship experience"? To elaborate, when worship music is half-heartedly executed, I get TERRIBLY distracted, especially when I'm up there leading. Like Steve, it's all I can do to play, sing and actually worship while I'm up there. One distraction and I'm derailed from one of the three, and worship is always the one on which my grasp is most tenuous, the easiest from which I can slip.

I have been told that I should just relax, that the participation of the congregation should be my focus, not the music. I'm glad the congregation enjoys the music, but I have a hard time being satisfied when things go wrong. It's almost as if we're not called to excellence but to a weird, holy game of "the end justifies the means". Who cares if the music was really off this week -- the people loved it!

This issue is the one that has caused me to question whether I'm really cut out for being a worship leader. I find myself caring very deeply what the music sounds like. I want to stretch and try more difficult songs. I want to stretch the congregation and not just allow them to sit in the pews week after week, putting in their time. It doesn't seem like those desires must be contradictory to the desires of a "true" worship leader, but time and again I'm unsatisfied with things with which others say I, as a worship leader, shouldn't be unsatisfied.

Some salient quotes, and my own points of struggle:

  • When I lead worship, I have a responsibility to "serve up" an experience that helps the congregation find their own expression of worship that touches the heart of God... After all, it's about helping THEM enter God's presence, not scratching my creative itch. [Steve Merkel, Sr. Director of A&R at Integrity Music] What happens if the congregation's "expression of worship" is singing the same songs, week after week, since 1978? What happens when, as a result of a worship leader serving that up every week for years, the church is so atrophied and irrelevant that hardly anyone is around to serve, everyone under 45 having fled to a place that isn't firmly entrenched in the 1970s and 80s? I agree with some of the original quote—worship leaders are there to, duh, LEAD WORSHIP—but I'm struggling with what that looks like when a congregation is just uninterested.
  • It is not essential that the church is cool or current musically (not to mention how very hard that would be to define). What is essential is that the church is doing what God has called it to do: Evangelism, Discipleship, Ministry, Missions and Worship! [Rick Muchow, Worship Leader at Saddleback] Again, I agree with what Rick says is essential. I'm struggling with the idea that the church need not be culturally relevant musically. Why not? Why not given congregation members an avenue through which they can reach the community around them (i.e., excellent, current music)? When serving as a missionary to a foreign country, one does not go into the country and expect that everyone else will change their language and culture. One changes his own language and culture to better meet the needs of the people he intends to serve! Shouldn't the church change its own language (really, does anyone use "thou" anymore? ;-) and culture to more effectively reach the people in today's society?

I see I've slipped back toward the "church versus culture" argument and away from the "attitude of a worship leader" one. :-) I guess the two questions are pretty thoroughly intertwined for me: what should the church and its worship look like, and why am I so unsatisfied (NOT angry, grumpy, disgusted—just unsatisfied) about what it currently looks like?

The good news, I guess, is that I'm about to have plenty of time to reflect and think about it... which is probably something I should have done a bit more before opening my big mouth and blurting out that I'd love to be the worship leader. :-P

Posted by pcg at July 9, 2007 8:06 AM
Comments

The church does not need to be relevant to the culture. The Gospel is the power of God and does not need help to reach people. *However*, the worship music in a church should reflect the culture of the people, not because more people can be reached via the music, but because God is honored and pleased by diversity in cultural expressions of worship. A missionary in a foreign country should adopt the musical expression of the culture for worship music because God is pleased by the diversity and not because the Gospel "needs help." It should not be a church versus culture issue. The church cannot exist apart from culture. The [local] church should embrace its culture (while rejecting the bad things present in every culture) out of a desire to honor and please God. The scene in Revelation is one of people from every tribe and language and people and nation (Rev. 5:9). It is absurd to think these worshipers belonged to the same cultural expression. One of the foundational ideas of the New Covenant (that Jesus initiated) is that God's covenant people are no longer a single ethnic group with a fairly homogeneous cultural expression, but that in Christ there is neither Jew nor Gentile. The church should celebrate racial and cultural diversity because God is pleased to make such diversity a major component of his dealings with man.

Thanks for the thought-provoking...uh, thoughts.

Posted by: jtr on September 6, 2007 8:44 AM
Post a comment