Joy Engelsman

Thanks, Rod, for the eloquent words of compassion and mercy.  I'll be borrowing your prayer on behalf of others.  

Thanks for your thoughtful comments on this topic.  As I’ve been reading your responses, an illlustration has been growing in my mind so I’ll share it with you, knowing that all images break down at some level.

Planning worship is like creating a good meal.  (We could go many directions with that opening sentences and I invite you to try your own hand at it, but for now, I’ll apply it to our topic of “glue” in worship.)

Suppose we have a bumper crop of tomatoes.  What a great start to many dinners.  But what we do next with the tomatoes begins to limit options and direct us in a more focused meal preparation.  Add oregano and basil and we are on our way to an Italian Sausage with Penne pasta and a Chianti.  Add onions, cilantro and chipotles or poblanos and we’ll need some Mexican rice and beans.  Add garlic and kalamata olives with chunks of goat cheese and we are now headed for the Greek Isles.  Add palm oil, nuna bean and some smoked fish and we will need pounded yams from West Africa.  

Of course someone might try a fusion dish and mix up a few of the ingredients and find a fabulous new flavor, but throwing it all in the pot and hoping for the best is probably not the wisest choice.  (Trust me, you want to be careful where you throw those nuna beans!)

And once we pick the Mexican meal, we’re wise to stick to flan instead of Tiramisu or baklava for dessert.

Anyone hungry yet?  

As several of you have suggested, over-planning can wreck a worship service.  It can feel stilted or manufactured.  Worse, over-planning sometimes comes from a desire to manage or control the worship--to manipulate the people and hog-tie the Spirit.  Woe to us when our planning excludes the intention and desire to follow the Spirit’s lead.  

Still, it seems kind and right of us to help God’s people find the intended lesson/challenge/blessing/hope of the day’s text by emphasizing that message in other forms of worship in addition to the sermon. 

Great post, Al.  As the person responsible for finding and placing many volunteers in the life of our church, I wholeheartedly agree that we must look for the right fit of gifts and interests to match the needs.  Not everyone is a Sunday School teacher, some prefer Stephen Ministry work.  Some members love to sing into the microphone, others prefer to "play" with the sound equipment.  Some are gifted with leadership skills, some are blessed with the ability to listen and follow well.  

When we find the right match for our volunteers (and for ourselves), life blossoms.  When these things don't match, people get tired, frustrated, and the job doesn't get done as well as we'd hoped.  Then we hear complaints and people feel misused and conflict ensues. 

I've appreciated this quote from Einstein:  “Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”

Back to the bigger question--not just whether "untameable" is appropriate--but WHO gets to decide that for our churches?  What are the lines of communication, trust, learning and decision-making?  I asked some of these questions a year ago in a similar blog--if you have time you can find it here http://network.crcna.org/content/worship/role-elders-worship .

Have Elders in our current churches abdicated their leadership roles in making these choices?  Have worship leaders/musicians been left to select their own music without guidance?  Have professional worship leaders wrested control of worship services from the Elders?  What connection do musicians have with preachers?  with Elders? on topics of planning and praying together?  Whether Elders or non-Elder worship leaders are making the choices, do they all have criteria or guidelines that help them make those choices?  

Pre-deterimined criteria can help both Elders and musicians select worship songs while avoiding personal biases.  These guidelines are especially helpful if the Elders are expected to be involved in worship decisions.  Typically one-third of the Consistory is new every year.  If there are no existing criteria for worship planning and song selection, then the worship style/structure/content will shift every year based on personal preference of the Elders.   If there are no established guidelines for song selection, the default principle becomes 'personal preference' and then--look out!--we start to defend our personal preference as more biblical/theological/missional/appropriate/reformed/pure/righteous... (whatever word will help us get our way without 'fessing up that we just personally like our song better). 

As both a preacher and a worship leader and musician, I appreciate prayerful interest and the investment of ideas and support from other Worship Planners and Elders in the difficult process of worship planning, rather than critique after-the-fact.  There are always things that can be improved on, and we who do this kind of work regularly are often reminded that something could have been better--better song choice, better sound technology, better musical style, etc.  It is more helpful when we work together, mutually respecting gifts and responsibilities, using agreed-upon criteria to plan and lead worship with our congregations.

Here are some very practical helps from the Calvin Institutes of Christian Worship's site: 

http://worship.calvin.edu/resources/resource-library/the-nuts-and-bolts-of-worship-planning/

Thanks for the lively engagement in this discussion.  May it enliven our worship!

Bev is looking for some insight into this question:

I am  interested if anyone has any further insights on:  Ps. 149:6 and high praise and what that might look like in worship;  the different  translations of Ps. 22:3 (NIV and NKJV);   what does the "anointing" of the Spirit look like today, is this the same as the Spirit being "upon" someone =), and what about revivals. 

I wonder about the intent of the original language, but don't trust my Hebrew enough to comment.  Any takers? 

Thanks for these responses and for the notes on Facebook.  Today, as I worship in Botswana, I would use the word "global."  One God, many voices.  One faith, many expressions.

The poem Darkness comes from a book titled Prayers & Litanies for the Christian Seasons.  It would be good to include the book title in the credits. The "c" above represents copyright--I'm sorry, I couldn't find the correct symbol on my Mac.  

I recommend this collection to all worship leaders and pastors who appreciate thoughtful, carefully crafted words for their own worship.  The poems also help me as starters for public prayers and sometimes--as this past week, I just use the whole thing, broken up with a sung response from the people:  Restore us, Lord and show your face and then we shall be saved. 

We enjoy being an intentionally intergenerational church.  It does present its own challenges as we try to help all the groups of people demonstrate hospitality and love for each other, but the rewards are wonderful.  It seems that our children and young people feel that the church (not just their groups--but the whole church) is their home.

We have also looked at WE and like it a lot.  For the coming year, we are creating an intergenerational program for our discipleship hour each Sunday.  For one year we are settig aside our age-divided Sunday School program. Instead, in worship, we will be preaching through the Old Testament--one book each week.  Following the sermons, we will meet in 8 intergenerational groups to reflect, discuss, create art, tell testimonies related to God's presence in that book. 

While it has created more work for staff and for Elders and Deacons who will help to lead, we believe that the outcomes of a more united  congregation and more caring relationships across the generations will be worth it.  We also believe that we will all learn and absorb this "race through the Old Testament" better when we do it together.

I forgot to include the planning center site that some of you have mentioned on the Forum.  Looks like a more comprehensive tool than simple document exchange, but helpful for coordinating worship planning.

Here is the web site for the planning site:  www.planningcenteronline.com

I love the word "missional" and the many good cocepts related to it.  But when "missional" is used in contrast to "attractional" or "established," we create artificial barriers and limits.  We don't have to be one or the other.  We must be "missional,"  but if we are the aroma of Christ, we are also "attractional" to those who seek.  And if God blesses and the ministry is sustained over time, then it will become "established."  Is that not also of God?  

These and other terms are helpful when they are used in concert together as a collection of descriptors of a church.  But when they become labels, they serve to divide and cause hurt and pride.   I have grown weary of the sometimes-not-so-subtle references to my congregation as an example of an "established" church.  We have been around for over 100 years so, yes! -- God has established us--and God has caused our ministry to stick and grow.  But that doesn't mean we aren't missional too.  By Joel Hogan's definition above, we are very missional and by the Spirit's power and direction, we hope to continue to become more and more missional. 

New church plants are assumed to be "missional."  But there is no guarantee that newness or novelty will result in effective mission.  And. . . don't these churches also want to become "established" in their neighborhoods as places of true community and transformation?  Let's encourage new churches (and all of our churches) to be both, not either.