Lessons on Liturgical Change, Part 2

Stephen Ellingson, author of The Megachurch and the Mainline (Univ of Chicago, 2007), studied for three years the effects of worship changes made in nine churches in California’s Bay Area. Here are some of his conclusions:

One of the simplest but most useful insights I gained about the process of change in the study congregations is that leaders must strike a balance between innovation in worship and continuity with past practices. My analysis of change in worship supports the key insight from other sociologists of religion who argue that core theological tenets and ritual practices must be preserved and that members must be able to see how that new form or elements of worship is related to the old 

 If change is seen as a radical or a complete break with the past, members are likely to reject it as (1) not authentic to or faithful to the tradition, (2) unintelligible, and (3) too difficult to master. If the new worship practices differ too radically from the old, members are likely to leave or give “voice” (e.g., complain, mobilize to prevent change, or push the congregation into open conflict) 

 Concerns about the loss of members or the possibility of conflict (which could exacerbate membership loss) were very important to the study congregations as they struggled to cope with the ongoing decline of mainline Protestantism in northern California. Most of the congregations also voiced a commitment to retaining the theological core of Lutheranism, which they understood to be one way to distinguish their church from nondenominational congregations that were flourishing in their communities.  

. . . . In short, the services. . . considered continuous with the Lutheran tradition. . . conformed to the format of the older order of service, emphasized key theological tenets of grace and sola fide (Martin Luther’s phrase “faith alone”), and were organized around the preaching of the Gospel and the rite of community. But the changed worship was also seen as novel in that its musical idioms reflected contemporary pop music, it included a greater emphasis theologically on conversion and sanctification, and it appealed as much to emotion as to intellect. . .   

At some congregations, the process of change was smooth because so many members simply did not know much about (or care to preserve) the core. At other congregations, concerns about continuity led to a both–and strategy in which the non-Lutheran contemporary service existed alongside the traditional liturgical service. . . . 

Worship matters because it is the primary way in which congregants learn the basic tenets of the Christian faith, experience the blessings (e.g., forgiveness) and challenges (e.g., sin) of the Christian life, and meet the God they worship. When churches change the content of worship it may challenge congregants’ understanding of their religious identity and commitments, and thus provoke conflict. Similarly, changes in the form of worship or how it is organized may be met with resistance because it may affect the theological content of worship, as well as what congregants are able to hear and their ability to participate. 

. . . Congregational leaders would be best served by identifying how members experience services (what they believe is most important about worship) and by gauging congregants’ level of commitment to specific liturgical forms, styles, or practices.

Stephen Ellingson, “Why Worship Matters: Lessons from Lutheran Congregations Struggling in a World of Liturgical Change,” Liturgy 32, no. 1 (2017): 32-41.

Emerging Themes from Recent Worship Wars

Lester Ruth’s essay in Liturgy 32, no. 1, begins with these words: “Around 1993, American Protestants declared war on each other. And they did so over worship.” He then explains the parameters of this war and, finally, as laid out below, draws some conclusions about what we have learned.

The challenges churches have faced in recent years brought about a vigorous engagement with liturgical questions that engendered experimentation with new and even old forms of worship.

Where are we now?

Have the wars ended or has the fighting, at least, subsided? Twenty years after the emergence of contemporary worship by that name in mainline congregations, there is some indication that things have changed. If nothing else, contemporary worship is no longer novel, and a myriad of congregations have appropriated and adapted worship practices from the arsenal of contemporary. Indeed, no less than the editor of Christianity Today has suggested that there is a “tense truce,” if not an outright cessation of hostilities. After this truce, as the dust continues to settle, can we tell what will be the new status quo in American Protestant worship? Some things are clear in this time of liturgical reconstruction; others, less so. Here are some of the themes that are more certain as we worship today:

·      Past histories about the rise of contemporary worship were too simplistic: they focused primarily on the perceived threat to mainline denominations from a few megachurches, overlooking influences from within mainline traditions as well as important developments within Pentecostalism.

·      It was never just about the music: while music was a critical element in the rise of contemporary worship, the proliferation of worship styles has brought a ripple effect of other changes.

·      The rise of an important new lay liturgical office (the worship leader) is one such change.

·      The growing importance of technology to plan and conduct worship is another.

·      Recent liturgical developments reinforced a trend toward informality and colloquialism in worship, trajectories also found more generally in American culture.

·      Notwithstanding other changes, the presumed sound of worship music, brought about by changes in instruments and songs, indeed has expanded and all denominations must deal with this new breadth.

·      Historically based liturgical traditions are still attractive, including to some who grew up in a contemporary worship world; the liturgical iconoclasm that drove some of the original implementers of contemporary worship was not passed down to their children.

·      The worship wars were more earth-shattering for some than for others: the emergence of contemporary worship has brought complete overhauls to congregational and liturgical life for some, especially Pentecostals and nondenominational Evangelicals, whereas for others, including many mainline congregations, its emergence usually has meant the multiplying of services to offer worshipers a range of choices.

In retrospect one other critical point has become clear: contemporary worship itself was never a monolithic, static liturgical phenomenon. It arose in different places; it had multiple strands of development and various modes of expression. That variety was true in the past and remains true today. And so the wars fought over its emergence were of various sorts, too. That variety also means that the contemporary state of liturgical reconstruction is likewise fluid and ongoing. If the church is always being reformed, then its current worship is always being reconstructed.

Lester Ruth, “The Eruption of Worship Wars: The Coming of Conflict,” Liturgy 32, no. 1 (2017): 3-6.