Low budget eye candy and debates over worship

Posted on March 17, 2010 by admin

What hath the dreadful Star Wars prequel “The Phantom Menace” to do with current debates over worship style?

A few months ago my friend Joshua Villines directed my attention to a critical review of “The Phantom Menace” that is biting, insightful, and very funny. Among other points made is that story and character are among the most important elements of a good film. And all the hundred of millions of dollars worth of computer generated special effects are not a substitute.

The review led to the website of the reviewer Red Letter Media. Which led to an article on movie reviews. Which led to this video called “Low Budget Eye Candy #1″.

LOW BUDGET EYE CANDY #1 from Steven Boone on Vimeo.

Oddly enough Boone makes his points using a clip from “THX 1138″ by George Lucas which for years I have regarded as a classic science-fiction movie of the dystopian genre. Once upon a time George Lucas knew how to use film craft to tell a good story with compelling characters and with a relatively low budget.

What does this have to do with worship?

The congregation which I serve University Baptist Church is going through a difficult time. The senior pastor resigned in October. He used a tremendous amount of pastoral capital aka “chips” to (a) begin a second worship gathering in the (b) “emerging” style in order to (c) attract and communicate the current generation. For the record I supported this move. Many people believe that disagreements over the second gathering were the most important issue leading to the pastor’s resignation.

(I disagree. It was an issue. But maybe 4th or 5th on the list. Anyways.)

A common argument one hears is that churches absolutely have to have a “contemporary” worship service in order to attract younger people including young families with children. Because they do not care for “traditional” worship. The idea that we need to understand the culture of the people among whom we wish to minister is not a bad one. Nor that we need to adjust how we do worship in order to speak to them. Church of the Nations does that too. We use simple English. We follow a very consistent order of worship every Sunday. We sometimes sing in other languages. We adjust our style of worship for people who come here from other countries and have little to no religious background.

But here is the thing. Churches do not need to have “contemporary” worship gatherings in order to attract younger families with children as reasonable as that sounds. There is abundant proof of this.

One of the most thriving churches in Baton Rouge is First United Methodist downtown. A downtown church. With very traditional worship. (Although it is not boring. They have a strong choir and excellent music. Quite a few congregants are professional musicians.) They are busting at the seams. In fact churches which are losing members (for whatever reason) see many of them move to First United Methodist. This includes University Baptist Church and First Baptist Church downtown.

I had the joy of meeting with one of their associate pastors who is a longtime family friend and graduated from Drew Seminary not long ago. “What’s your secret?” She did not really have a clear answer except for the dynamic leadership of their longtime pastor Chris Andrews.

Bob B_ for a long time was part of the ministry of Church of the Nations until last year (when his wife fell asleep in the Lord after battling leukemia for almost a year). He has recently joined South Main Baptist Church in Houston. Which is busting at the seams. And has very traditional worship. I asked him about that specifically.

Do not misunderstand me. I am not against “contemporary” or even “emerging” worship styles. I believe in the need to understand and adjust to the culture of the people among whom you wish to minister in the name of Christ our God. But the idea that we have to have “contemporary” or “emerging” worship because younger people including families with children will not be part of a church with “traditional” worship. That idea just does not hold up.

Tradition is surprisingly attractive.

Ask Anglicans. Ask Roman Catholics. Ask the Orthodox.

This entry was posted in Ministry, Movies and film, Worship and Liturgy. Bookmark the permalink.
  • h.kay

    There is little doubt that traditional worship reaches a certain group of people of all ages. It seems to me however, that by and large those that it attracts are “church” folk already. Perhaps some of the bursting at the seams, is a result of the expansion of “other” worship styles reducing the pool of traditional alternatives.

    I won’t speak for others, but in my mind “alternative” worship styles are a means of reaching out to the “unchurched” and “formerly churched”. In my mind a church that adopts an “alternative” style simply to appease the tastes of a portion of its existing congregation, is no better than a traditional church that survives on its transfer of disgruntled traditionalists from other churches. In either case, it says to me, “This church has lost sight of its mission and is focused on itself.” Arguably, those traditonal churches you suggest we “ask” have committed themselves to preserving a particular practice through whatever means necessary. Your article on the church refusing to sell property to those who paid for is but on demonstration of the lengths churches will go to in order to preserve particular practice. UBC’ s attacks on its pastor are yet another indication (though I would agree that worship style was only one factor) of the lengths to which a body will go to remain in its comfort zone.

    The larger question is whether “alternative” worship styles do in fact attract “unchurched” and “formerly churched” folk. I can only say, that in my experience, I saw fok at UBC’s emerging worship that I never saw in our previous blended worship. The fact that some in our body could not even find the grace to “share” space with an “alternative” worship style is really appalling and suggest far more grievous spiritual sickness.

    Thanks for the post. Interesting as always.

  • Rick

    That’s a very fine point you make. It also reflects what is the strong ongoing concerns you have about the true mission of the church. As opposed to what often is the motivation of the church (“preserving”).