KEV COGLUG UA KEVCAI RAUSDLEJ HAB TOGTXAIS KOOMXEEB TSHAB (Hmong United Methodist Baptismal Covenant)

LUG PIB RUA KEVCAI RAUSDLEJ

Vaaj Ntsujplig hab tug Nkauj Nyaab has tas, “Ca le lug ntawm nuav! Tug kws nqhes dlej ca le lug ntawm nuav, tug kws xaav haus ca le lug txais cov dlej cawm txujsa moog haus.  Cov dlej nuav yog pub dlawb dlawb tsi yuav nqe” (Tshwmsim 22:17).

Ib tsoom kwvtij neejtsaa nkaujmuam nraugnug hab phoojywg txhua tug, nubnua peb tuaj txoos uake ntawm nuav yog vim peb tau nov Vaaj Ntsujplig hab Tswv Yexus lub suab hu.  Peb uake ncu txug peb txuj kevcai rausdlej hab lug ua timkhawv rua cov kws yuav lug ua kevcai rausdlej lossis cov kws yuav lug ua kevcai ncutxug kevcai rausdlej hab cov kws yuav lug ua koomxeeb tshab nubnua.

HU COV KWS YUAV UA KEVCAI LUG SAWV

(Namtxiv lossis tug namqhuav txivqhuav lossis lwm tug  cob tug/cov kws yuav ua kevcai rua xwbfwb)

Kuv (namtxiv, tug namqhuav txivqhua lossis lwm tug) thov cob________________(npe) rua xwbfwb muab nwg ua kevcai rausdlej.

Kuv (namtxiv, tug namqhuav txivqhua lossis lwm tug) thov cob________________ (npe) rua xwbfwb muab nwg ua kevcai ncutxug kevcai rausdlej.

Kuv (namtxiv, tug namqhuav txivqhua lossis lwm tug) thov cob________________ (npe) rua xwbfwb muab nwg ua kevcai koomxeeb.

Kuv (namtxiv, tug namqhuav txivqhua lossis lwm tug) thov cob________________ (npe) rua xwbfwb muab nwg ua kevcai rov ncutxug kevcai rausdlej.


UA TSAUG RUA COV DLEJ (Tune: Regent Square)

(Caw suavdlawg hu zaaj nkauj huv qaab nuav uake).

Vaajtswv, ua tsaug rua cov dlej nuav 
Koj kev hlub, cim yug dlua tshab, 
Cawm tau Nues, tso dlim Ixayees 
Hauvpaug txujsa thoob nplajteb!
Hasleluyas, Hasleluyas 
Hauvpaug txujsa thoob nplajteb!

Yexus lug paab peb nyob huv dlej 
Luj hlub huv Nwg nam lub plaab 
Lug ntawm Nwg txuj kevcai rausdlej 
Moog dlhau taj suabpuam rausnti! 
Hasleluyas, Hasleluyas 
Yexus kev yeej tso peb dlim!

Yexus nyob hab hu cov thwjtim 
Lug rausdlej huv Nwg lub npe 
Kuas nplajteb paub Nwg kev cawmdlim 
Qha tas, kev plujtuag swb lawm! 
Hasleluyas, Hasleluyas 
Qha tas, kev plujtuag swb lawm!

Thov Ntsujplig nyob ntawm cov dlej nuav 
Puv nkaus nrug koj lub fwjchim 
Ntxuav txhua tug kws tau lug txais yuav 
Qha peb paub koj sijhawm nuav 
Hasleluyas, Hasleluyas 
Qha peb paub koj sijhawm nuav

COV LUG COGTSEG UA KEVCAI RAUSDLEJ

Sawvcev ntawm cov ntseeg thoob qaabntuj, kuv nug koj has tas:
Koj puas tsotseg kev ua dlaabqhuas,
tso tej kev phem kev qas huv nplajteb nuav
hab tso koj tej kev txhum tseg?

Kuv tso.

Koj puas txais yuav kev ywjpheej hab lub fwjchim kws Yexus Khetos muab rua koj
lug tawmtsaam kev phem, kev tsi ncaajnceeg, hab kev caijtsuj
txawm yog tas tej ntawd yuav tshwmsim lug le caag?

Kuv txais.

Koj puas leeg has tas Yexus Khetos yog koj tug Cawmseej,
tso sab plhuav rua Nwg txuj kev hlub,
hab coglug ua dlejnum rua Nwg le kws Nwg yog koj tug Tswv,
lug ntawm kev koom nrug cov ntseeg kws Yexus Khetos tau qheb
rua txhua tug tuabneeg laug hluas, txhua lub tebchaw, hab txhua haiv tuabneeg?

Kuv leeg.

Lawv le txuj kev hlub kws Yexus Khetos tau muab rua koj lawm,
koj puas yuav ua koomxeeb ncaajnceeg rua ntawm Yexus Khetos lub tuamtsev dlawbhuv
hab ua tug sawvcev ua Yexus Khetos teg dlejnum nyob rua huv nplajteb nuav?

Kuv ua.

KEV LEEG LUG NTAWM COV NAMTXIV

(Xwbfwb nug cov namtxiv kws yuav muab mivnyuas ua kevcai rausdlej)

Meb (mej) puas yuav cobqha cov/tug mivnyuas/tuabneeg nuav kuas nwg/puab luj hlub rua kev txawjntse ntawm Vaajtswv Txujlug, txawj hlub lwmtug hab paub fwm Vaajtswv?  Meb (mej) puas ua?

Wb ua (Peb ua).

Meb (mej) puas yuav nrhav kev cobqha cov/tug mivnyuas/tuabneeg nuav kuas nwg/puab ua tau Yexus Khetos ib tug (cov) thwjtim?  Meb (mej) puas ua?

Wb ua (Peb ua).

KEV LEEG LUG NTAWM NAMQHUAV TXIVQHUAV HAB COV NTSEEG

Mej puas yuav cobqha cov tuabneeg nuav lug ntawm txuj kev hlub kuas puab luj hlub ntawm txuj kev dlawbhuv nyob huv puab lub sab hab lub neej? Mej puas ua?

Peb ua.

Mej puas yuav qha puab ntxiv moog kuas txug thaum puab ua tau tuabneeg zoo kawg nkaus puvnpo rua txuj kev hlub nyob lub neej nuav?  Mej puas ua?

Peb ua.

Mej puas yuav koom nrug cov tuabneeg nuav ncutxug puab txuj kev coglug tseg ntawm puab txuj kevcai rausdlej?  Mej puas ua?

Peb ua.


LEEG KEV NTSEEG RUA VAAJTSWV

Koj puas tso sab plhuav rua Vaajtswv?
Kuv tso sab plhuav rua Vaajtswv, Vaaj Leejtxiv tug kws muaj Fwjchim,
Tugtsim lub ntuj hab lub nplajteb.

Koj puas tso sab plhuav rua Yexus Khetos?
Kuv tso sab plhuav rua Yexus Khetos, Nwg tuableeg Tub, peb tug Tswv.

Koj puas tso sab plhuav rua Vaaj Ntsujplig tug Dlawbhuv?
Kuv tso sab plhuav rua Vaaj Ntsujplig tug Dlawbhuv.

KEVCAI RAUSDLEJ

(Npe), Kuv muab koj ua kevcai rausdlej lug ntawm Vaaj Leejtxiv,
hab lug ntawm Vaaj Leejtub,
hab lug ntawm Vaaj Ntsujplig tug Dlawbhuv lub npe.  Amees.

KEV TSAA TEG (TUAV) THOV VAAJTSWV FOOM KOOBMOOV

Vaaj Ntsujplig tug Dlawbhuv tsomkwm koj hab paab kuas koj ua tau ib tug tuabneeg dlawbhuv hab ua hum le Vaajtswv lub sab nyam hab tau txais kev kaaj sab lug.  Amees.

KEVCAI NCUTXUG KEVCAI RAUSDLEJ

Xwbfwb caw cov tuabneeg kws ua kevcai ncutxug kevcai rausdlej nub ntawd lug muab dlej ntub taubhau hab has tas

Ncuntsoov tas koj tau ua kevcai rausdlej lawm hab ua Vaajtswv tsaug.  Amees.

Cov kws lug ua kevcai ncutxug kevcai rausdlej lossis cov kws lug ua kevcai leeg koom ua koobxeeb, siv  cov lug nug nraag qaab nuav.

Qhov kws koj ua koomxeeb rua huv Yexus Khetos lub tuamtsev toob qaabntuj,
koj puas yuav ua ncaajnceeg rua Yexus Khetos lug huv cov ntseeg United Methodist,
hab siv taagnrho koj tug zug lug txhawbnqaa Vaajtswv teg dlejnum?

Kuv ua.

Qhov kws koj ua koomxeeb rua huv pawg ntseeg nuav,
koj puas yuav rau sab nro koomteg rua nwg teg dlejnum,
lug ntawm koj kev thov Vaajtswv, koj kev tuaj koom uake,
koj lub peevxwm hab nyajtxag, koj tegnum
hab koj kev ua timkhawv?

Kuv ua.

KEV ZOO SAB HAB TOG TXAIS

Ib tsoom kwvtij neejtsaa nkaujmuam nraugnug hab phoojywg txhua tug, kuv qha rua mej nubnua has tas cov tuabneeg nuav tau ua kevcai rausdlej lossis lug ua koomxeeb tshab lawm. Kuv caw peb txhua tug paab txhawb kuas puab txuj kev ntseeg luj hlub nyob huv Yexus Khetos.  (Lossis lwm lu lug kws tsimnyog zoo has).

(Sijhawm nuav tug xwbfwb caw cov ntseeg lug tuav teg zoo sab togtxais cov koomxeeb tshab hab ib leeg has rua ib leeg tas, “Kev kaajsab ntawm Yexus Khetos nyob nrugnraim koj”).

(Kev pehawm muaj moog ntxiv rua kevcai noj Tswv Yexus rooj mov).

LICENSING AND PERMISSIONS

"Hmong United Methodist Baptismal Covenant" (cc) 2012 The Hmong Writing Group of the Open Source Liturgy Project of The General Board of Discipleship of The United Methodist Church. This work is protected under a Creative Commons License that permits it to be copied and shared, but not sold or modified without obtaining written permission. To obtain permission for other uses, contact worship@gbod.org.

Creative Commons License

"Hmong United Methodist Baptismal Covenant", Hmong Writing Group of the Open Source Liturgy Project of The General Board of Discipleship of The United Methodist Church is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License

Photo: Hmong Writing Group-- Daniel Yang, Shine Vang, Tsuker Yang, Luke Thao, and Tsuchue Vang

Attentional Worship

Have I captured your attention?


Chances are this writing hasn't, but the image of the candle at the right and its reflection may have.

You may find your eyes drawn to it, and as they are, you may find yourself focusing, breathing more slowly, maybe even achieving a state of calm for a brief time. Go ahead. Let that happen.

 

Okay now, we're going to stand and sing Hymn # 277, Hymn # 277, "Tell Me the Stories of Jesus." Let's all stand and sing it out, like we mean it!

Wo! What just happened here?



Maybe, depending on your screen settings, you weren't able to concentrate all that well on the candle, because that big red text in a different font was distracting you from the candle. Or maybe you started with the "regular" text, moved to the candle (or vice versa) and then noticed the big red text and it broke your concentration.

Okay, so now you're standing and singing the hymn with everyone else. It's a hymn that talks about joining a whole throng in singing and praise, and by the last verse, that's where you are, with that throng in praise.

You may be seated.And welcome to worship at First United Methodist Church. We're so glad you're here worshiping with us today. We have just a few announcements to make. But first is there anyone here for the first time? We'd like to recognize you. Anyone? Just stand, and tell us your name. Anyone?

Well, here are the announcements... (goes on for 5 minutes, and invites one or two others to share additional announcements, and then asks if anyone has any more announcements, but nobody can hear them because there aren't microphones in the congregation)Now it's time for our first reading....
Now it's time for our children's lesson... (on a topic that has nothing to do with the reading before, and you soon discover, nothing to do with the reading after)


So we go from meditation, to loud singing together, to calling out individuals on the spot, to rambling announcements, to random readings and a children's lesson not related to either reading...


Does this sound familiar?


What if it were more like this?


There is a relative hush in the worship space. Quite talking here and there. Perhaps a prelude of some kind, but not distracting. You notice the candle, and it calms you, brings you to a place of silence, a sense of yourself.

A bell sounds.

The choir enters, singing quietly, in unison, the first verse of "Of the Father's Love Begotten" (UMH 184). As the choir nears the completion of the first verse, the choir director turns to the congregation and gestures for all to stand and join the singing of the second verse. As you complete the second verse, acolytes begin to process with more candles,  a cross, and the gifts of bread and wine to place on the Lord's table while you all sing, "Christ, to thee with God the Father, and, O Holy Ghost, to thee, hymn and chant and high thanksgiving and unwearied praises be. Honor glory and dominion, and eternal victory, evermore and evermore."




A lay leader prays, beginning as the last chords of the accompaniment die away:

Eternal is your victory, O Christ,
in this world and in our lives.
We are yours, 
awaiting your voice,

attending to your Word. Amen.

A reader appears, gestures all to sit, and then begins the first reading for the day.


In these two scenarios, the basic actions are similar. There is an entrance, and the beginning of the ministry of the word.

But how different the effect of these basic actions! In the first, they are obscured by the lack of any clear connection between one thing and the next in tone, leadership, or content. Personal silence is broken, not transitioned, by a garish command to look at a book, stand up and "sing like you mean it." You did mean it, and would have lingered longer there, but immediately you are told to sit down, but actually also to stand up if you are a visitor. And then you are told to listen to announcements. You no sooner get focused on one thing than something completely different happens. It is liturgical whiplash, or perhaps just plain liturgical chaos-- one distraction after the next.

In the second, the quiet of the meditation with the candle is matched by the non-obtrusive prelude, met and raised by the quiet singing of the choir, supported by the silence of the gesture to help you start singing. Your volume builds through verse 2, and in verse 3 the words of the text are matched by the action of symbols of Christ's presence among us in cross, bread and wine, moving us to deeper reverence and praise. From there the brief prayer of the lay leader (as we are still standing) is all that is needed to move us all effortlessly from high praise to readiness to listen for the word of the One we have praised. Attention is captured, held, moved, directed, sustained-- in each movement and from one movement to the next.

Which of these two approaches to the ordering of worship-- "distractional worship," or "attentional worship"-- seems more worshipful to you?


Another example.
 
You are in the worship space filled with round tables, a candle on each. The room is generally dark, except for the light of the candles and artwork projected on the walls. A single voice, a child, begins to sing "Let's walk together for a while, and see where we begin." Djembes begin. An older adult voice joins the child singing, "To build a world where love can grow, and hope can enter in." Guitars join, and the voices of several others of many ages, all holding their hands out in front of them, "To be the hands of healing, and to plant the seed of peace." Lights begin to come up, and a leader gestures all to stand and join singing, "Welcome, welcome to this place. You're invited to come and know God's grace. All are welcome, the love of God to share, cause all of us are welcome here. All are welcome in this place." Lights come up fully, and all sing the second verse (Worship & Song, 3152). On the third verse, the older adult sings, "Let's dream together of the day, when earth and heaven are one." The child joins the older adult, "A city built of love and light, the new Jerusalem." The rest of the original singers join, dancing, "Where our mourning turns to dancing, every creature lifts its voice," and all join in the final chorus.

A leader says as the music begins to die down, "All of us ARE welcome here. ALL are welcome in this place. We rejoice in it. We delight in it. Now share it with one another."

And we do. There's a rhythm, a flowing and then an ebbing of sound.  As the sound of our welcomes begins to ebb, djembes begin to match the rhythm of our heartbeats, and grow in strength. A guitar begins to strum, quickening the pace just a bit, and still standing we hear a few voices starting to sing, "Your Grace Is Enough" (Worship & Song, 3106), and join the singing in the refrain the second verse. During the refrain after the second verse, someone brings out a large Bible, one big enough many of us to see, and a camera projects its image onto the walls around us. After we sing the refrain a second time, still standing, the reader says, "Your grace IS enough, O God. Your grace is enough. Now open our ears to hear of your grace from your holy word. In Jesus' name."  All together say (and some may shout), Amen and are seated. Djembes continue quietly as the scripture for the day is read, and as the reading nears it's conclusion, guitars join in with quiet chords. And at the end of the reading, all sing, quietly, "Your grace is enough for me... for me." And the sermon begins.

One last example. (No candle this time!).

People are coming into the clapboard-clad sanctuary from several directions. Some have just left their Sunday School classes. A few of them are still discussing something from the class. Others just move to their seats. Meanwhile, still others are entering from the main door in the back. People who hadn't seen each other yet today call out to each other across the two banks of 12 rows of pews, and move toward each other, smiling and friendly. A couple of the children and youth high five each other, laughing. The hubbub grows for a while, but begins to fade when the organist starts playing, quietly, "Rock of Ages," with tremolo.

People begin to quiet their voices start moving to their seats, and while the organist plays the third verse, two children light the candles flanking a large Bible on a table in the front. The organist plays the last verse a bit louder, then segues to "Amazing Grace," joined by a fairly rollicking piano, guitar and and banjo accompaniment. A quartet sings the first verse, then the lead singer invites the congregation to stand and sing the last verse. "When we've been there ten thousand years, bright shining as the sun, we've no less days to sing God's praise than when we'd first begun."

The pastor says, "A little bit of heaven right here this morning. It's so good to be in the house of the Lord today. Can I get an Amen?" Congregation: Amen. The Lord has been so good to us. And we're here to thank Him and praise Him for it, and hear His word and seek His face together. As we sing our opening hymn, let's greet everyone we see with the right hand of fellowship. What a fellowship, what a joy divine, leaning on the everlasting arms!"

No one needs the words for the first couple of verses at least. Everyone smiles and shakes hands with everyone else as they sing, each person interrupting the singing briefly as they do to say "Good morning" or "Glad to see you today" before resuming the singing and moving to the next person. Viewed from above, it almost resembles a square dance. By the refrain on the third verse, all 38 in attendance are back in their seats, singing at full voice. They sing the chorus twice, complete with the men singing the "little repeats" under the main words, a fermata on the second to last "leaning", and then a slow and emphatic singing of the last "leaning on the everlasting arms."

The pastor prays with a raised voice while everyone is still standing: "We're leaning on your arms today, Jesus, leaning on your arms, leaning on those everlasting arms, those everlasting arms that blessed the little children, those everlasting arms that healed the sick and crippled, those everlasting arms that were nailed to that old rugged cross on Calvary's mountain to save a wretch like me, those everlasting arms that were taken down from that cross when they put you in that stone cold tomb, and they all thought you were dead and gone. But glory, hallelujah, those arms rolled away the stone and came bursting out of that grave early on Sunday morning, still scarred to prove even to old doubting Thomas that they were everlasting and you are everlasting. So we're leaning on those everlasting arms today, Lord Jesus, asking that you be with us and bless us in this sweet hour of prayer. And if there be anyone here today who doesn't know the saving love and power of those arms, Lord Jesus, may you use something we say or do in this service to bring them close to you. And we'll be sure to give you all the glory and all the honor and all the praise. And all God's people said, "Amen" and Amen.

As the pastor comes to the end of the prayer, the organ starts playing quietly, and at the conclusion, the congregation sings, "Hear our prayer, O Lord. Hear our prayer, O Lord. Incline your ear to us, and grant us thy peace. Amen."

After a brief silence, the pastor quietly says, while gesturing, "You may be seated," and then moves to the left to help an older woman up the two steps and across the platform to the pulpit (in the center). As he does so, he says, "We are so glad that Sister Martha could read the scripture for us this morning. As many of you know, she has been sick and homebound for much of the winter, but she heard from one of you that visited her this past week that the sermon today was going to be about Jesus calming the storm, and she said she wanted to read that for us in worship today." While he is saying his, one of the youth has taken the Bible from the table, and placed it on the pulpit, then returned to his seat. Sister Martha gets to the pulpit, finds her place, and slowly, a bit haltingly, but confidently, she reads the scripture. And then she offers a prayer for the message.

The pastor helps Sister Martha off the stage. Her daughter-in-law helps her back to her seat. And the sermon begins.

Ancient-Future and Blended Worship: What Are They and What’s the Difference?

Photo Credit: Ad Meskens.
Copyrighted, but may be reproduced 
with credit to the photographer.

Note: The genesis of this blog post was as a response to a comment on GBOD’s Facebook Group, UMC Worship. The original question was:

 

I am intensely passionate about "Ancient-Future" worship a la the late Robert Webber. To my way of thinking, that is a different thing altogether than blended worship. Is that accurate? … I'm wondering if you could comment on the difference between ancient future and blended worship.

-- Taylor Burton-Edwards

Ancient-future and "blended" are very different kinds of animals, at least as those two terms are usually used.
 
Ancient-future reflects the work of really two separate 19th and early 20th century ecumenical movements that were mostly parallel, and then came to interact-- the liturgical renewal movement growing out of the "re-un-earthings" of a lot of early Christian liturgical materials beginning in the late 19th century (some of which were a matter of having discovered how to translate some of these early languages again) PLUS the significant turn in the larger global mission movements toward what folks like Lesslie Newbigin would popularize as "indigenous mission."
 
The result of the liturgical scholarship-liturgical renewal movements was we now had a much firmer handle on the basic patterns and practices of earlier Christian worship, West and East— pre-Middle Ages, pre Reformation, and in some cases pre-Constantine/ Theodosius. The discovery and subsequent publication of reams of scholarship on these texts made it clear that Christians could be worshiping now far more in line with what early Christians knew and experienced. This scholarship also made available to many, for the first time in English, the rich treasury these texts were and could provide.
 
Parallel with all of this was the growing awareness in mission circles that simply trying to import the ecclesiological and liturgical practices of the "mother country/church" and particularly, simply translating such texts into the language(s) of the "receiving country" was actually doing violence to the incarnational nature of the gospel itself. Not to mention, it didn't really work-- unless, perhaps, you thought having identical worship worldwide was essential to keeping your empire together (as Britain certainly thought for a time!). What was needed instead-- and so what came to be developed-- was to find ways for the local culture to DO what Christian liturgy was DOING from within their own idioms and sensibilities-- i.e., do liturgy that is deeply connected to the patterns of Christians in all times and places-- but that just as deeply reflects and expresses the lives of the people and cultures who actually offer it now in real time.
 
So we have beginning by the middle of the 20th century multiple instances of such "ancient-indigenous" liturgical development going on "in the mission field" (primarily among Protestants) worldwide. And we have, in the work of people like Lesslie Newbigin and organizations like the World Council of Churches, what was at the time sort of a gradual "leaking back to America" of how this was proceeding in various places around the world.

While to be fair, there were all sorts of "ancient future" experiments with liturgy happening pre-Vatican II in the Roman Catholic world, including in the United States, it was primarily Vatican II that mainstreamed the process of moving Roman Catholic worship to earlier patterns and more vernacular expression. Nearly all of the “mainline Protestants” followed suit, creating new resources for worship now with language and technologies that speak of now on the same ancient "Basic Pattern of Worship"-- Entrance, Word/Response, Table, Sending-- that early Christianity seemed to have followed nearly everywhere, despite great diversity in local expression in terms of just how they followed it.
 
“Ancient-Future” is the term Robert Webber used (and possibly coined) to describe this confluence of ancient texts and practices with current indigenous missiology when he sought to explain these things among primarily Evangelical audiences, particularly folks whose roots were more in the Reformed and the 19th century holiness and early 20th century Pentecostal and "free-church" traditions. These persons and traditions, out of which Webber himself had come, generally had had little if any introduction to or involvement with the scholarship on early Christian liturgies OR the more widely ecumenical (and "mainline") movement toward indigenous mission (and therefore also indigenous liturgy). 
 
While appeals to “tradition” or “liturgical scholarship” or “ecumenical mission movements” might have little currency among his primarily evangelical audiences, the term “Ancient- Future” could ring true. Evangelicals could appreciate the value of what was ancient-- very close or at least closer to the time of the Bible-- even if they may have difficulty with the idea that liturgy might have some fixed written texts and ritual that mattered. They could also appreciate a drive toward future-- and not just present-- given the importance eschatology continued to play as a centerpiece in much of their theology and preaching, even as it was downplayed very often in "mainline" Protestant circles.
 
This is why one usually finds examples of what gets called "ancient-future" worship more openly called that among Evangelicals than among mainline Protestants in the US. I would also suggest that the more or less “free church” nature of many of these Evangelical traditions may have helped those who have found Webber's way of talking about these things appealing to develop worship practices that were at once far more ancient and far more innovative than examples we may more typically see in mainline Protestant contexts.
 
The principle here, whether called “ancient-future” or something else, is basically the same. It's about going deep and wide at once-- about profound rootedness in the ancient (connectedness) and equally profound commitments to expression here and now (indigenous). It’s about submitting to old, old patterns (including at times old, old technologies, such as candles and incense) and at being ready to incorporate bleeding edge expression at the same time.

As such, “Ancient Future” worship is more of a “discipline” than a “style.” It isn't about trying to please preferences or tastes of worshipers. It about a commitment to offering worship that is both deeply faithful and deeply relevant at onces. Put another way, ancient-future is not and done right cannot be a "consumerist" act done to "attract" others because it suits their tastes. Rather, it's a very participatory act in which the assembly and its leaders seek to go deep, following ancient practices of our ancestors in the faith, and at the same time offer the best we have of ourselves today.

There are a few instances of this in the United Methodist Church-- but they are the exception. I  would observe they are also the exception in the ELCA, the Episcopal Church, and AMiA (Anglican Mission in America) as well, although the liturgies and liturgical sensibilities of these denominations are typically formed on the “ancient” side of “ancient-future” at least. 
 
Blended worship, by contrast, as that term is most typically used, has generally been marketed (I mean that term!) as a "strategy" for worship used to try to "please" folks who "prefer" either "contemporary" or "traditional" worship, but who find themselves in congregations that may not be able to pull off either of those separately for whatever reasons. In nearly all the literature I've seen on this strategy over the years-- mostly generated from within the "church growth consulting industry”-- “blended worship” has been promoted explicitly as a consumerist strategy, a way to try to “satisfy every customer" at least a little. It has also been presented as a compromise strategy in the “worship wars” that marketers of the “brands” "traditional" and "contemporary" created and still, to some degree, sustain.
 
But it represents neither a cease-fire nor a real solution, long term. Nor can it, when its premises are still, all too often, about making sure different "market niches" can get some of what they're looking for OUT of worship. The Bible has a name for worship focused on something other than offering ourselves to God, as the intense focus on "preference driven worship style" has become: idolatry.
Biblical worship by contrast to idolatry focuses on helping all people (not consumers!) offer (not get and consume!) the best of all their gifts to God in worship. We are, as Paul reminds, the body of Christ, gifted very diversely, not so we can get what we want, but so that in the offering of all of our gifts, including in worship, the body functions as Christ's body to bless and transform the world.
 
That's why I, like my predecessors in Worship office at GBOD, Dan Benedict and Hoyt Hickman, am fairly adamant about pastors doing what they can to move congregations away from any approach to worship design and planning that is about consumerist assumptions and toward an approach to worship that helps the whole assembly offer its best gifts to God. Call it "liturgical renewal," or call it "ancient-future" or call it "connected and indigenous worship"-- this basic approach embodies far better who we are and whose we are as the body of Christ, connected in a communion of saints and offering our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving to God, than any labels such as “traditional,” “contemporary” or “blended,” can ever hope to do.

The Differences Congregational Worship Makes... and Doesn't

Photo by David Ball. Used by permission CC-SA 3.0.

Congregational Worship May not Be "All That" for Many

The Barna Group has recently published the findings of a research project seeking to understand and name the differences attending Christian congregational worship makes in the lives of worshipers. You can read their analysis in their article,"What People Experience in Churches."

When Huffington Post reviewed these findings, their attention grabbing headline was "Churchgoing Has No Effect On 50% Of Americans, According To Survey."

HuffPo was taking liberties with the data, to be sure, but there were indicators in Barna's own article that pointed in that direction. Consider these quotes:


Nearly half said their life had not changed at all as a result of churchgoing (46%).

Even among those who attended church in the last week, half admitted they could not recall a significant insight they had gained. 

Millions of active participants find their church experiences to be lacking. 

In other words, if we're expecting folks attending worship in our congregations to have their lives recognizably altered by that activity alone, or even to find that worship itself gives them regularly memorable direction for their lives, we may be expecting of worship things worship is not likely to deliver for nearly half of those who attend regularly.

What Can Congregational Worship Be for Most?


"Feel part of a group that cares for each other" and "Felt a real and personal connection with God" received relatively high marks (usually well over 50%) across the board, regardless of the size, denominational family (Roman Catholic, Mainline Protestant, Non-Mainline Protestant), or generation of worshiper surveyed.

In short, the primary difference congregational worship makes for most people is a felt sense of connection with God and neighbor.

This should not be a surprising finding if we take a long view of things. The primary function of religion, captured in the etymology of the word religion itself, is "relinking" God, community, and earth. Shared ritual practices, such as congregational worship, have been in nearly every culture the primary means by which religion accomplishes its "relinking" work.

Congregational worship or its equivalent, then, across many times and cultures,  hasn't been primarily about hearing new messages, or serving the poor, or even having one's own life transformed in any way. It's been much more about bringing God and community together in a living encounter here and now where we live.

So perhaps it is that felt sense of connection, more than anything else, that has the most profound impact, perhaps more unconsciously than consciously, on the lives of worshipers in congregations, even those who say congregational worship makes little or no real difference in their lives.

Where Do We Go from Here?

Where does this study suggest room for improvement? The places to look are where there are statistically significant differences on the same item being measured, especially, as I have suggested above, on the categories about feeling a meaningful connection with God and neighbors.

Since the study has an error margin of 3.2% in either direction, there is statistically significant difference between any two columns in the same row on Barna's charts only when the mathematical difference between them exceeds 6.4%. So, for example, in the chart comparing religious traditions, the only item where there is statistically significant difference between mainline and non-mainline Protestants on is whether worshipers gained some new insight in worship that week. This is likely a sign of different cultural expectations of these two traditions. Non-mainline Protestants tend to be far more "message-centered" in worship than either mainline Protestants or Roman Catholics.

On the two most important metrics for worship-- connection with God and each other-- there are two significant statistical differences to heed. 

First, "Mosaics" (those aged 18-27) are dramatically less likely to experience feeling part of a group that cares for them. "Dramatically" is not too strong a word. Only 47% responded positively, compared with figures closer to 70% for every other age group tested. It's not that they are not connecting to God-- there not a statistical difference between them and Busters (28-46) in that category, though there is a difference between them and two older groups (around 70%). It really is that they are not connecting with other worshipers present or perhaps with each other.

What do we do about this? We can certainly work at forging better connections with younger adults, including in worship.

And just as important, we probably could use more research. This was a point-in-time study. It reflects a set of data collected over a short time frame. It would be wise to do a longitudinal study-- one that looks at similar data for this age group over time-- to see whether this outcome is unique for people this age right now, or whether it is not all that atypical for this age group over time. It is quite plausible, for example, that this is a more or less persistent pattern for this age group, though perhaps more pronounced now than in the past. This age group is by far the most mobile and socially unstable age group in American culture. These are persons who may be attending college, graduate or professional schools, (probably nowhere near the congregations they had some previous connections with), just starting out in a career or seeking and perhaps frequently changing jobs, moving frequently, and just beginning to create new social ties or possibly new family ties, whether they choose to get married or are "still looking." In other words, all of their community ties in this stage of life may feel a bit fractured or at least fragile, and that includes relationships with people in congregations. While congregations can and should be sensitive to these realities, there may be relatively little they can do in worship per se to mitigate them, other than finding multiple ways to keep in touch and invite participation.

Second, persons in mid-size congregations (100-299 in average weekly attendance) have a significantly lower experience of connecting with God than in either small or large congregations. On the plus side, 68% do report feeling connected to God in worship. But that's 10% less than in small churches (< 100) and 9% less than large churches (> 300). Persons in midsize congregations are also much less likely to report gaining new insights or being significantly affected by their participation than persons in either small or large congregations.

One thing this tells us is size matters! In a way it's unfortunate the attendance was broken down this way, though, because it masks where the deeper pinch may be felt, somewhere between 150-225. 150 is known as Dunbar's number, the maximum for what anthropologist Robin Dunbar refers to as "unit cohesion." Up to about 150, people in an organization can know everyone else fairly personally, and personal bonds are very emotionally strong. After 150, we really can't. This means after 150, it's no longer personal connections that hold people together-- it's more about common vision and purpose than personal ties. These can become strong ties as well, but when you're in that awkward size from 150-225, the pull back to 150 (and personal ties) can feel much stronger than the push toward 300 and beyond (and ties of vision and purpose).

I suggest we're seeing the tension of this size dynamic reflected in Barna's findings about connection with God and the effect of the congregation on people's lives.

And I also suggest there are things we can do about it. First, be aware that this tension is real and very powerful. Second, be aware that the power of this tension can diminish people's experience of God in worshiping communities of this size. It's not that God is not just as present or that there is something spiritually wrong with the congregation, necessarily. It's that the some of the ways people used to experience God with one another when the group size was smaller don't work when the group size is larger, while at the same time some of the ways people have come to experience God in worship in larger congregations don't quite work well, either-- at least not yet.

Take two practices common in smaller congregations, for example-- the passing of the peace and "joys and concerns." In smaller congregations, everyone may share the peace or shake hands with nearly everyone present. This can take quite some time. And nobody minds. Likewise, the sharing of "joys and concerns," where individuals may stand and share prayer requests and often some extended stories to surround them, is cherished in many smaller congregations. But in both cases, when the attendance starts moving above 150, neither becomes viable anymore. You don't and won't know the people you're shaking hands with. Sharing "joys and concerns" in a group this large, with people you do not know, is more threatening than supportive. And in places where the congregation may have gotten larger than 150, and then tries either to hang on to these practices or re-introduces them, attendance is likely to head back down toward 150 or less in due course.

So what to do? There is no clear blueprint for this-- and anyone who tells you there is is trying to sell you something! But there is at least a direction. Think about it as a trapeze. You will have to let go one trapeze and clasp the one coming if you want to move from one size to the next-- from small toward large. Simply hang on to what you have done in worship as a personal-size congregation, and you will stay stuck in the middle, or perhaps fall back toward the smaller size. You needn't let go all worship practices that presume face to face relationships at once, but you will have to let go some, and more as your size increases. It's a matter of wise pastoral leadership and negotiation with the congregation as the pastor and other leaders help the "post-personal congregation" embrace a vision of a different kind of connection in ministry and mission with one another and with God over time.

So if you find yourself in or leading worship in a congregation this size, acknowledge these realities. Help people understand why their experience of God in worship may seem awkward for a time. And lead well-- by noticing and helping your congregation notice the next trapeze coming, and then leading them and supporting them as they take the leap when the right time comes.