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.

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.