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.

Lessons from Congregations Struggling with Liturgical Change

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.  

The trouble at Good Shepherd Lutheran began when the newly hired minister of worship and music introduced a new worship service during the most well-attended late morning service time one fall Sunday. The “Blessing of Life Service” did not follow the structure of the Lutheran liturgy, nor did its content reflect the theological language or commitments of Lutheranism. Instead, it was imbued with the language of Buddhism or, in the minds of some members, New Age spirituality. During the service I saw confusion and then anger on the faces of those around me in the pews and they voiced their displeasure quite loudly during the next week. In response, the clergy relegated the Blessing service to an experimental third service time slot, but they continued to experiment with worship over the course of the next year. They rewrote elements of the liturgy and dropped others, and they organized a series of dinners, small-group meetings, and weekly columns in the congregational newsletter to explain and win support for their efforts to remake worship. The clergy wanted worship to become accessible to a general population (few of whom were Lutheran), to become more authentically true to the message of Jesus, and to cultivate a deeper, more authentic faith. These efforts did little to appease a small, vocal, but congregationally powerful group who would eventually organize protests at church council meetings, circulate a petition that demanded a return to traditional Lutheran worship, and request the bishop assess the theological fitness of the senior minister. The latter turned into a months-long heresy trial, and I can still hear the anger, sorrow, and confusion in a parishioner’s voice when she said at one of the meetings: “The first Sunday with the new service there was no Lord’s Prayer or creed. I began to wonder where I was …. Without the creed, who are we?” She continued by describing what worship should entail––preaching based on the Bible, Holy Communion, and prayer––and sneeringly labeled the new style of worship “entertainment.” She concluded by declaring: “It [the new service] didn’t give you a feeling of being in the sanctuary of God, being able to worship God, and get something out of the service. I got absolutely nothing out of the service. Nothing.”
 Eventually the bishop declared the minister to be theologically sound, which prompted nearly 200 members to leave the church. . . .

Ellingson concluded his research with four insights into this difficult shift in our churches’ worship. Here they are simply named.

First, worship plays a central role in helping individuals cultivate their religious identities. Second, worship is anchored in tradition but that anchoring may be partial or contested, which may create problems for congregations as they attempt to alter worship. Third, clergy and laity may bring different expectations and understandings about worship when they enter the sanctuary. These conflicting expectations and understandings are often at the root of worship wars. Finally, changing worship is a delicate, even perilous task that must be managed with great care.

Look for the next installment of this essay to learn more of the details uncovered by his research.

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