Should we go to one worship service?
In my sermon on Sunday, April 13, entitled The Truth About Change, I asked us all to consider going to one single service with a primarily contemporary worship style. The reason for this has to do with adapting to the changes going on in our culture—and that have been going on really for the last forty years. As a church, we need to continue to adapt to what is going on in our world and to what God is doing in our world.
The question we need to talk about now is, “Will we continue to adapt?” I think that part of this adaptation would be to go back to a single service with a primarily contemporary worship style.
I think it’s also important to bring our whole church together so that we can focus on the future of our church. And just as we care for our biological descendants, we need to pour ourselves into our spiritual descendants, so to speak—those who will be here fifty years from now. It’s important to do what is necessary to be a vibrant and alive church, not just today or ten years from now, but fifty years from now!
But I want us to talk about this. I want us to talk about it with each other, and I’d love for you to talk about it with me. I would also love for you to talk about it here on this website. Please leave your comments after this article to share what you think.
–Markus Watson
18 comments
I am all for one service. I would hope it would start about 10:00 in the morning. I look forward to hearing what the other members thoughts are. Thank you for playing the American Idol performance. I had seen it before, but was moved yet again. As I looked around the church I saw many people dabbing their eyes. It was a very moving experience and I think it showed contemporary can be very good. Thank you.
The short answer is “Yes” I think we should go to one service. Now, for a longer more rambling answer.
I thought it was a bad idea when the service was split because we tried it once before and lost members going to two services and going back to one (as I remember).
The second service is far from a heritage or traditional service anyway. The appearance of the sanctuary has been severely compromised by the removal of pews and the screen in front. The sermon is not preached from the pulpit. The audio/visual presentation while it reinforces some points some, greatly detracts from my ability to maintain focus on what is being spoken and gives me the feeling of being in a business presentation rather than a worship service. I see no point in continuing pretending that we have a “heritage” service.
With two services of approximately fifty people, the church looks empty and like it is failing. I would not join a church that was almost empty during service. I believe that “crowd effect” is very real and a full sanctuary has a very different effect on me as opposed to a near empty sanctuary. Even with one service, the sanctuary will be far from full but it will be a lot better in “crowd effect” for lack of a better term.
I have been at a few first services and it is far too loud for me even with my hearing aids turned off. I strongly request that if we go to one service that the volume level be cranked down significantly. I suggest that you quiz second service folk on this point because I fear that if the volume level continues high we will lose more folk.
The second service starting time of 10:45 AM is much later than I like and I assume that if we go to one service the starting time will be that of the first service.
I expect that staffing the Sunday School and nursery will be easier with only one service.
Hard decisions will need to be made regarding how much music staff we can afford. If we are running out of money, staffing one service will be more affordable than staffing one service.
Hugh McCutchen (and Isabelle????)
I think one service would be great. I think it brings everyone together. I think a good recommendation would be to ask if the parents of the preschoolers could come at least 1 Sunday a month, the congregation would grow. The kids would have fun in Sunday school away from regular school. It would be a great experience for the family especially listening to Markus’ sermons.
I think that it would be great to go to one service- It would be nice to see the church with more people in it. Michele
I think going to one service would be great. I like seeing the whole Northminster family all together. 10am would be better than 9am for bringing Young Life/Wyldlife kids, and they enjoy the contemporary style.
The first action I would like to see is that we define what we are about when we say “worship.” I personally have found it challenging rather than easy to enjoy a valid ‘worship’ time occurring at Northminster on any recent Sunday–in either service. Before we go to one ’service’ or make any changes, let’s decide what we believe–as reformed, Presbyterian, dedicated Christians–we need– to allow the best atmosphere for true community WORSHIP of the gracious, powerful, forgiving God. What was our most memorable worship experience like? Did it require a lot of people? Certain music? Quiet? Instead of planning a program or thinking practically about economics, why not PRAY (what an idea!) about the call of God to us as a tiny group of disciples? Of course, as Presbyterians, we look to the Session and the appropriate committee (worship????) through which real discussion and decisions are made. Are we really one of Christ’s churches here on Clairemont Mesa??
A single Sunday morning worship service, preferably no later than 10:00, probably would help encourage inquiring newcomers to return and also benefit those of us who like to attend adult bible study. To get my own bias out of the way, despite my preference for musically blended worship I detest most 19th century hymnody, which is what usually happens at the traditional end of most blended worship, so unless we’re having a dollop of North German baroque along with some harmonically discordant, rhythmically asymmetrical 20th-21st century music that sounds very unlike many people’s idea of conventional church music, I’m cool with mostly praise music.
However, my primary concern is that we at NPC and in all churches offer public worship that reflects and embodies God’s incarnation and Self-giving in Jesus Christ, which clearly happens when there’s a baptism and whenever we celebrate the Lord’s Supper, but it also becomes possible with a carefully constructed order of worship sourced from scripture and history–including our own history here on this mesa.
As Christians, God’s people in Jesus Christ, each Sunday is a day of resurrection, a time especially to remember who we are, Whose we are and Who has called us by retelling and re-enacting the meta-narratives of redemption, of deliverance from death to life in the Exodus and Passion/Easter stories within the context of public Lord’s day worship; in these stories we find healing memory and discover hope for a free future. As we invite our neighbors and other people who don’t have much church experience, we’re hoping to meet and to reach them where they are and speak in a language they’ll understand, which can be a precarious endeavor. But did God ever call the people of God to live in ways congruent with their local cultures? Or in a radically culturally incongruent, actually counter-cultural manner? Are we presenting inquiring newcomers with a choice, a real alternative to costly and deathly consumerism and related excesses? Are we telling and showing the world something very different from anything they’ve previously experienced? Do we dare imagine we can domesticate the wildness of Jesus? For sure it is about the ways our lives demonstrate faithfulness and obedience to the God Who covenants with us in Jesus, but it is equally about how together we worship the Crucified and Risen One, and it may require some explanation and interpretation, not only for so-called outsiders but also reminders for the insiders among us. It is strange; in many ways it is wholly “other than”, this reality of a people (us!) who already have experienced their first death and their second birth, this reality of seemingly regular, ordinary, everyday people who follow a crucified outcast, trusting the God Whose ultimate word is resurrection from the dead.
I’m asking question rather than offering answers, and I’ll conclude by asking if our presence in our neighbors’ lives and in the world beyond this corner of San Diego can be partly in our own world, partly in our neighbors’, and wholly in the sovereignty of heaven? Can our Sunday worship reflect such an way of life? There are no easy, instant answers, and we’ll need to anticipate a lot more changes as the months unfold. Thanks for listening!
I just want you all to know that I’m reading and reflecting on all your comments. Please keep the comments coming!!
Posted by office on behalf of Verna:
I would like to return to one service. I attend both services–sometimes one, and sometimes the other, because of transportation and other times because I like to keep in touch with folks from both services. I agree with the McCutchrn’s that the Heritage service is not “traditional” as we know the word but a sort of combination of the old type service with some innovations.
My only complaint about the Contemporary service is the volume. It is extremely uncomfortable for me and when they add brass and percussion instruments it is even louder. I feel strongly that the negative feelings about giving up the Heritage service may cause us to lose a few folks who will find solace in another church where there is more of a heritage/traditional focus. Having seen the impact the Young Life is having on the
badly maligned teenagers of today I know that therein lies the path to the future. It is imperative that we need THEIR needs for worship. I can still enjoy my memories of the traditional services over the years but
adapt to the contemporary. Bless you for including us before the Session has to make serious decisions. Verna Bain
I agree as well that one service would be best. We miss seeing a lot of the people who are our church family by being split. I am not a fan of the “traditional” type service. I have a hard time showing up in church to be told about how I’m a sinner, etc. etc. I agree that prayer is a valuable part of my life and I really appreciated the “private” prayer available during the April communion service. That is private and personal and very effective. I would hate to see up lose the upbeat, positive presentation I enjoy in the 1st service. I am torn because I miss some of the traditional practices as well, such as some of the hymns, etc. A weaving of the best parts of both services would be fantastic. Whatever we do, we must keep the youth involved and especially continue to reach out to the High Schools, etc. Young Life was an important factor in my son’s life and a valuable tool he continues to fall back on. We may not see the results but they are happening every day all around us. I commend Chelsea for all the work she does with the youth! God Bless Her and I hope we can involve them more and more in the overall church family. They are the future of our church! As most of you know, my church family was a tremendous comfort to me during the recent loss of my mother. Thank you all!
Posted by church office on behalf of Marsha Woodruff
I would love to see one service as I miss the feeling of having a larger church family together to experience the Word of God. However I am scared that when going to a Contemporary Service that some of us who prefer a more Traditional Service will lose the time for Spiritual Meditation that I so desperately need and feel in the music & format of the Heritage service.
Although I do love to sing the Contemporary Service songs -I do not feel spiritual peace.
Saying this–I do also understand that to attract more people to our church, it is important to make changes–but I would be very thoughtful as to not estrange those of us who love the more Traditional service as you could be losing some of the existing Congregation in hopes of attracting new members.
God Bless–Marsha woodruff
Posted by the church office on behalf for Jerrilee Kubow
43! There are 43 people attending the second service, I’m told 43 were counted on April 6th, 43 people that choose not to come to the 1st service. 43 people that go along with whatever the leaders of our church tell them to do just so they can come to the 2nd service. They like the 2nd service, but now their leaders tell them, again, that what they want means nothing. We are to have a contemporary service and that is all we will have. Second service means 2nd class and 43 people of the Northminster Church are not of any worth.
To tell Steve that he is losing his job while he is playing in the 2nd service was not kind. To tell Lea Ann then we don’t need her any more by e-mail is not an admirable act. We were so fortunate to find these people and they have added a depth to the 2nd service.
Jerrilee Kubow
Posted by the church office on behalf of Bernie Kuchta.
We should go to one service, but it should be heavily contemporary.
We must attract young people, and I believe they will be attracted
to a contemporary service, but not the old traditional service.
I also think the single service should start no later than 9:30am. Young people like to do thing on Sunday, i.e. Attend football games, baseball games, surf, lay on the beach, etc.
Bernard Kuchta
Thanks, again, to everyone for your comments! This kind of dialogue is exactly what I was hoping for–and that I hope will continue in our face-to-face conversations as well!
Just to be accurate, I want to reiterate that no decisions have been made yet. At this point, we’re in conversation mode. As such, neither Steve nor LeaAnn have been told that they are losing their jobs.
Being a new member of Northminister, I don’t know it any way other than the two services. I think a one service bringing all together sounds great. However it sounds good because the choice of direction is to the Contempory Service. I joined and attend the first service, because that is what drew me to this church. However, I think of the people that attend the 2nd service and they too are attending that service for their reasons.
My wishes along with others attending the first service aren’t any greater than those of the second service. We need to compromise where both services are making concessions to a greater unity. Being happy and looking forward to it.
I heard in the April 13th Heritage service that discussion was open to a possible change in service(s). What was stated was that maybe a “blended” service, but nothing was decided yet. Then the email went out to the congregation and the writing on the web site was that Northminster was to have a “primarily contemporary style” of worship. How did it go from “blended” and nothing is decided to “primarily contemporary”? I truly think the plan was always for a contemporary worship style. But what really makes it contemporary? If you eliminate all the music in both services, where are the real differences? The pastor in a robe or not? A lot of pastors don’t wear robes anymore, they wear a jacket (especially in San Diego). The sermon is the same, the videos are the same and the location is the same. What is really different? No doxology after the offering? No Lord’s Prayer? The start time of the service? I believe the entire issue is MUSIC.
Do a test……..have a couple Sunday services without any music and truly see if the ’style’ of worship is different. If the issue is actually about music, I suggest visitation to other churches that have successful Celebration services and gain insight into what makes that type of service work.
If the real objective is to bring younger families to Christ, then have the worship outside of the sanctuary. If people do not even get to the church property, you can’t expect them to care about the style. Take a contemporary styled worship out to the parks. Send or deliver flyers to the community. The church doesn’t grow if it’s contained inside the walls of the building.
I have been hoping that Northminster would return to one service ever since I came to work here. This congregation really wants and needs to be one body, at least until enough people join us that two services are needed for space purposes. But if the one service would be primarily a contemporary service, I would be concerned about several things; especially the lack of structure of such a service even more than the possible reduced use or elimination of the choir and the hymns and the organ, if that were to happen.
As I said to the Missional Transition Team on Monday night, I have been taught and I believe that worship should be a rehearsal for the pastor and the congregation: a time when we collectively welcome God back into our lives, confess that we haven’t always cared that God was there or that we have a mission, remind ourselves of God’s acceptance of us despite our failures, tell ourselves once again our story and what our mission is, and send ourselves back out into the world, better prepared for the task we’ve been given. Many of these elements seem to be missing from the first service, from what I’ve seen (but I admit I don’t get to be there very frequently). Someone responded when I said that by saying, “They’re there, but you just don’t recognize them,” but if you can’t recognize them, what’s the point? How are people to hear what God has to say to them if we don’t say it clearly, and in many ways?
It’s not easy to coordinate all the different elements of a blended service, but aren’t we called to welcome all kinds of people to our congregation? To me, that means people who like all kinds of music, not just one kind — and all kinds of worship, not just one kind. I believe it’s our job to say our message in as many ways as we need to say it so that everyone can hear it, not just new Christians. The movement of the Spirit should be accessible to everyone, shouldn’t it? And there’s no way to predict when or how it will blow upon us. Should we not then be open to (and plan for) every possibility for that to happen?
I love the music the Worship Band is using. It’s good music well performed, it’s well grounded theologically and important, and it’s relevant to what people are hearing on Christian radio stations today and what people are getting in the large community churches. But it seems to me that it could be coordinated with the theme of the sermon/service more often. I believe it is the purpose of the music to be a part of the spoken word portion of the service and it should be coordinated with the sermon as closely as possible, amplifying or supporting the message with another type of presentation of the word the pastor has chosen to share with us. We’re lucky, we have a pastor who plans ahead and is very intentional about his messages, selecting themes that he determines we need to hear. Not all churches have that kind of leader. I believe all elements of the worship should support what he has to say to us whenever possible.
I’ve heard that the idea we’re considering for returning to one service includes retaining the choir for at least one piece each Sunday, but also includes the use just the Worship Band for the rest of the music. Personally, I wouldn’t mind not using the organ in the service, or not doing choir responses, etc., but a loss of the hymns in the service would concern me. These hymns, and granted, some are hard to understand with archaic language and difficult melodies, preserve our history as Christians and document our journey through centuries of growth and change. Agreed, many new attendees will not know this music, but they won’t all know the Band’s music either. Surely we can include the best of our traditional songs to remind us of our beginnings and the roots of our faith. When did learning things become something the church can’t ask new people to do? I have to tell you, I bring unfamiliar songs to the Heritage Service congregation on a regular basis, and ask them to sing them. They, as a whole, are open to this opportunity to see (and sing) things in a new way, and often grow to like and appreciate the new ideas and music.
I’m aware that one of the reasons we’re considering one service may be because of financial constraints. If we end up with a reduced choir and eliminated traditional format, ergo reduced or eliminated staff positions, we will certainly lose our wonderful new organist/pianist, Steve Lewis. As a struggling doctoral student, he needs at least as much as we’re paying him now to stay with us. If the choir is to continue (and I wouldn’t mind less pay for less work, personally), who would accompany us? It’s a difficult dilemma, requiring not just our attention, but our money to address. Perhaps there is grant money available somewhere that could help us with this problem. It’s something we might take into consideration in our decisional process.
I believe we have an incredible opportunity here to grow together and reach out at the same time, without leaving behind anyone who has worked so hard to make Northminster a valuable ministry in Clairemont for so many years. It won’t be easy to do, but then is anything easy really worth doing? Our Christian message isn’t meant to simplify our lives, but rather to enable us to come together in love and bring all our resources to solve our difficult problems. Sometimes that means reading the Bible and praying. Sometimes that means having a discussion or planning meeting last way longer than we planned. Sometimes that means dying to our “druthers (”I’d rather do___!”). If we can do that, I believe God will be with us and lead us to the path God has been providing for us.
The buzz word in the United Methodist church a while ago was “discernment.” The big question is, how do we discern the will of God in any given situation? I learned a process for doing that more than 35 years ago in the Ecumenical Institute, which has been a valuable tool for me. It’s a formula developed by Dietrich Bonhoeffer in a paper about the Holy Spirit. Bonhoeffer was a German Lutheran pastor and theologian and was a participant in the German resistance movement against Nazism, involved in plots to assassinate Adolph Hitler. He was arrested in March 1943, imprisoned in various concentration camps (wrote several books there), and eventually was hanged just before the end of WW II in Europe. This was a man who really knew about hard decisions and wrestled daily with God’s will for his life.
His process has these five steps: Observe, Judge, Weigh-Up, Decide, and Act. Easy to remember — not so easy to do, especially the “Decide” part. The “Judge” part is where we go to all the sources the church has offered us through the ages, starting with the Bible, then on to other wisdom we’ve received, including those from other people and cultures, to research how others have dealt with situations such as ours. Then we “Weigh-Up,” or lay out the pros and cons. Only then can we decide, and in faith (and fear and trepidation), act. Then we give it up to God, and that faithful action becomes God’s will. What a concept! NOT easy.
Forgive me for sermonizing, and for going on so long. In the year and a half I’ve been with you, Pat and I have grown to care what happens to this church and all of you. Perhaps too much…this is really your business and yours to decide. But I misspoke: it’s not your “business,” it’s your mission that we’re discussing in this conversation over the Ethernet. And I do share in that mission with you. I pray that God will bless our conversations about this decision on Sunday, and I believe that God will guide our way if we will dare to have faith, and to act in love and respect for one another.
Since I’m playing once again at Linda Vista Pres, which once again is without an organist, I won’t be at Sunday’s potluck and discussion, so I’d like to say a little more today. Thanks for all the thoughts and ideas, everyone; Markus, thanks for this opportunity!
Like previous posters, I enjoy the lively energy of the music at the 1st service, and I love singing those songs. I also love playing arrangements of them on the piano, too–during the year plus I played keyboards for the heritage service, I always and inevitably played a setting of a contemporary praise song for the offering.
I particularly resonate with the comments by Peggy and LeaAnn, but in the interest of posting this and possibly even getting it read, I won’t specifically say anything about their remarks, but will offer a few more of my own.
Before I continue talking about this subject I’m so very passionate about, I’ll admit I don’t know how many folks at NPC besides LeaAnn, Peggy Brown and the Sunday adult Bible study group know much about my background. I won’t go into the long Pauline-style list of credentials, etc. or even the extensive list of shipwrecks and related disasters, but I’ll mention here that in fall 2000 I returned to SD after a long absence. Previously I’d served four years as lay associate at Poway Community Church before venturing back to the east coast to serve a term call there for an inner-city congregation, coupled with my finally entering the candidacy process for ordination to ministry of word and sacrament and concurrently to begin an MDiv program. In September 2000 it looked as if I might be in SD for only a year; there was about a 50/50 chance I had a PT position to return to in Boston starting the following September. Although the entire situation fell through, that possibility excited me because in addition to serving an inner-city church as worship specialist I’d have been developing new liturgical forms that still would focus on Word and Sacrament in a fully participatory manner, and in a highly multi-cultural, multi-ethnic, multi-everything setting…
Although I didn’t grow up even on the periphery of the Church, the texts, colors, music and symbols of the liturgical year gradually came to shape my entire understanding of God’s gracious encounter with all creation and God’s redeeming work in Jesus Christ, so by the time I started preaching and teaching on a seriously regular basis, I naturally drew upon those understandings. Of course, as a life-long artist I’m very visual about everything!
And again, the church’s historical liturgy is deeply rooted, not only in the practice of the early church (when to be ecclesia still was far more political and cultural than it was religious or theological), but also in the worship of God’s people we first knew as Israelites and later as Jews. One of the many strengths of retaining some aspects of historical forms is the way those words and actions connect us vertically with the people of God in every place and time and also horizontally connect us here at NPC to the contemporary Church and churches around the world. Of course, the way of Jesus is comprehensive, but retaining historical liturgical practices helps move us out from our own concerns as individuals to the demands of the gospel for political and social justice and advocacy, something I don’t see or feel happening nearly enough (anywhere, actually).
A few words about the assurance of pardon: needless to say we all sin far too frequently, but the rite of confession, pardon, absolution isn’t nearly as much about announcing the fact our lives again have fallen far short of God’s demands along with our need for grace and forgiveness as it is an opportunity to reflect upon God’s claims on our lives in this community and in the world. Possibly it better could be expressed as a proclamation or assurance of our reconciliation to God, one another and all creation in Jesus Christ.
By the way, our liturgy classes in seminary were team-taught, not only because I attended an ecumenical seminary but also because we can learn so much from other styles and traditions. Yes, I do understand all this is developing and evolving at NPC and everywhere else, but I’d be very happy to work together with Markus and anyone else to write some orders of worship, prayers and responses reflecting our scriptural and confessional grounding and NPC’s history and experience as a people of God in Jesus Christ here on this mesa. Lea Ann also has a great deal of knowledge and interest in worship and liturgy; given her involvements in church and elsewhere, I don’t know to what extent she’d be interested in being part of this possible endeavor. I’m making this offer because of my concern for NPC as my church community and because of my own need to use my gifts, education, experience and skills to a far greater degree than I’ve been able to for the past dozen or more years. Although I have no regrets about not continuing to serve in authorized, public ministry, believing that choice was consonant with God’s call to me and would lead to better stewardship of my life, very few of the opportunities I’d anticipated have happened. And it could be résumé fodder for me, and might even form part of a book of worship resources I’ve imagined writing!
Prayers continue arising to heaven from here; be blessed!