Contemporary Church Services

[HappyJackWagon]

I've recently attended services at a Methodist church. One time I attended a traditional service held in their sanctuary/chapel and another time I attended their "contemporary" service held in the multipurpose room. The traditional service was very similar to ours. Organ music and hymns. Pews/rostrum. The contemporary service had a band that played worship music and the congregation sang along. The lyrics were projected onto large screens along with the scripture reading and some other multimedia materials. Both services featured a sermon by the same pastor and both offered communion to all.

It was interesting to see that the contemporary service had a much larger attendance. I had expected to find the traditional service to be attended mostly by the older generation and the contemporary by the younger, but that wasn't my experience. In both cases there was a good mix of demographics in the service. Members simply attended whichever style of service they preferred.

I've been thinking about this because I really enjoyed the contemporary service. I enjoyed the music. I enjoyed the rock style music and countdown clock that led to the beginning of the service. It was new to me because culturally the lds church doesn't do contemporary style music, let alone a countdown on a big screen. But it was cool. People got enthused and they were ready and paying attention when the countdown ended. The service was fun and inspiring.

I think much of the lds style of worship service is simply cultural and tradition but I don't see that it would need to be. People were able to praise God in the contemporary service just as they were the traditional. Would there be room in the LDS church for a split in styles of worship to accommodate different preferences? Obviously leaders would have to approve, but I can't see any legitimate reason why there couldn't be a variety of worship practices that touch different people in different ways. I'd love to have a contemporary lds service.

Has anyone else thought about this?

[ksfisher]

26 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I've recently attended services at a Methodist church. One time I attended a traditional service held in their sanctuary/chapel and another time I attended their "contemporary" service held in the multipurpose room. The traditional service was very similar to ours. Organ music and hymns. Pews/rostrum. The contemporary service had a band that played worship music and the congregation sang along. The lyrics were projected onto large screens along with the scripture reading and some other multimedia materials. Both services featured a sermon by the same pastor and both offered communion to all.

It was interesting to see that the contemporary service had a much larger attendance. I had expected to find the traditional service to be attended mostly by the older generation and the contemporary by the younger, but that wasn't my experience. In both cases there was a good mix of demographics in the service. Members simply attended whichever style of service they preferred.

I've been thinking about this because I really enjoyed the contemporary service. I enjoyed the music. I enjoyed the rock style music and countdown clock that led to the beginning of the service. It was new to me because culturally the lds church doesn't do contemporary style music, let alone a countdown on a big screen. But it was cool. People got enthused and they were ready and paying attention when the countdown ended. The service was fun and inspiring.

I think much of the lds style of worship service is simply cultural and tradition but I don't see that it would need to be. People were able to praise God in the contemporary service just as they were the traditional. Would there be room in the LDS church for a split in styles of worship to accommodate different preferences? Obviously leaders would have to approve, but I can't see any legitimate reason why there couldn't be a variety of worship practices that touch different people in different ways. I'd love to have a contemporary lds service.

Has anyone else thought about this?

I've always seen sacrament meeting as a time when the ward comes together.  No matter who you are, what you do in or out of the church, the entire ward partakes of the sacrament together.  To me this fits is part of the Saviors admonition to "be one."  We come together as "one" during the sacrament.

[Tacenda]

I prefer the current style we have in the church, but that's because of my conditioning, and maybe having a hard time with change.

[Mystery Meat]

I don't see a more ruccous or loud atmosphere conducive to the renewing of covenants via the Sacrament (at least not when the Sacrament is understood). In fact, I think, generally, our pre-sacrament behaviors are already too rowdy.

[JLHPROF]

I have no problem with more upbeat church meetings.

But doing them because that is what is popular in our culture seems the wrong motivation.
Eventually we will either adapt to the culture needed to establish Zion or we won't be a part of it.

[hope_for_things]

I've thought about this before when thinking of how our correlation efforts have stifled creativity and imposed a particular cultural style of services and music on a world wide church with quite different cultural traditions in many countries.  One important step in this direction would be for the centralized church to allow different cultures more autonomy with respect to music and specific governance of the meetings.  

Unfortunately I don't see this happening any time soon with the current leaders we have.  Maybe the first step is getting diverse leaders that can voice their opinions on the matter.  Some more talk about the differences between culture and doctrine might help, since many members frequently conflate them.  

[HappyJackWagon]

40 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

I don't see a more ruccous or loud atmosphere conducive to the renewing of covenants via the Sacrament (at least not when the Sacrament is understood). In fact, I think, generally, our pre-sacrament behaviors are already too rowdy.

I think we often make the mistake of thinking "quiet" = reverence or worshipfulness or holy. I don't see it that way. Having a band isn't just rowdy noise, but rather a way to praise God in a way that is more meaningful for some people. Even with the "countdown" I described, the pre-meeting was probably more reverent than our church meetings.

In each meeting the communion portion was very sweet and meaningful. The style of worship didn't take away from that.

[HappyJackWagon]

41 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I have no problem with more upbeat church meetings.

But doing them because that is what is popular in our culture seems the wrong motivation.
Eventually we will either adapt to the culture needed to establish Zion or we won't be a part of it.

But where did we originally get our worship practices that are a part of our services now? Was it God mandated on stone tablets via revelation, or was it a culturally acceptable practice of the time and we simply haven't updated? IOW- is the practice based on the culture of yesterday better than a practice based on the culture of today?

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I prefer the current style we have in the church, but that's because of my conditioning, and maybe having a hard time with change.

I think many people would and it would be important to maintain an option for people who connect with worship in that way. But what about for the people who don't prefer the traditional, stuffy, conservative worship practices? Are they just out of luck, or could God's church accommodate different styles to reach different people?

[bluebell]

I don't see how it would be possible.  Many chapels have multiple wards meeting at once, so use of the cultural hall would not be automatic. And even if the hall was available, i don't think it's possible to have a rock band playing anywhere in the building while other meetings were happening and not disrupt them.  There's not enough sound proofing. Plus, the bishopric would have to be present at both, including the priesthood to pass the sacrament, and speakers as well.  Some people would be going to sacrament twice and then missing other meetings.

I don't think our services and chapels are set up for two different meeting styles on Sunday.

[HappyJackWagon]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't see how it would be possible.  Many chapels have multiple wards meeting at once, so use of the cultural hall would not be automatic. And even if the hall was available, i don't think it's possible to have a rock band playing anywhere in the building while other meetings were happening and not disrupt them.  There's not enough sound proofing. Plus, the bishopric would have to be present at both, including the priesthood to pass the sacrament, and speakers as well.  Some people would be going to sacrament twice and then missing other meetings.

I don't think our services and chapels are set up for two different meeting styles on Sunday.

We would have to get creative. You mention legitimate obstacles but they are obstacles created by church so they could be solved by the church.

For example- In our building we have 2 wards. There really isn't overlap between them. What if there were one contemporary service between ward meetings. Members are still a part of their own ward but the service could be presided over by a member of the bishopric of each ward. It would definitely take some finessing but it could be done.

I don't think you'd need full bishopric to attend. That's simply a policy. It could be adjusted. Or for people who really prefer the contemporary service they may be more motivated to either go really early for that hour or really late.

I think that if it was beneficial for people it would be worth working through some logistical issues.

 

[JLHPROF]

10 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

But where did we originally get our worship practices that are a part of our services now? Was it God mandated on stone tablets via revelation, or was it a culturally acceptable practice of the time and we simply haven't updated? IOW- is the practice based on the culture of yesterday better than a practice based on the culture of today?

Most of our worship practices are outlined in the D&C.
Sacrament meeting - D&C 20:75-79
Baby blessings - D&C 20:70
Singing of sacred hymns - D&C 25:11
Ward Clerk - D&C 85:1

Of course the order of meetings has adjusted based on growth etc. but the contents of the meetings are pretty well established in scripture.
 

[HappyJackWagon]

Just now, JLHPROF said:

Most of our worship practices are outlined in the D&C.
Sacrament meeting - D&C 20:75-79
Baby blessings - D&C 20:70
Singing of sacred hymns - D&C 25:11
Ward Clerk - D&C 85:1

Of course the order of meetings has adjusted based on growth etc. but the contents of the meetings are pretty well established in scripture.
 

Yeah...but really. Were 19th century Mormons just lucky that their cultural mode of worship just happened to be God's preferred mode of worship? Or were the revelations influenced by the milieu of 19th century America?

Has our current mode of worship always been God's way? Or was it different in Paul's day? Or Adam's day? Noah's day? Inconceivable!

[Tacenda]

 

4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Most of our worship practices are outlined in the D&C.
Sacrament meeting - D&C 20:75-79
Baby blessings - D&C 20:70
Singing of sacred hymns - D&C 25:11
Ward Clerk - D&C 85:1

Of course the order of meetings has adjusted based on growth etc. but the contents of the meetings are pretty well established in scripture.
 

But, did they have anything about say...practicing church hymns right after Sac. Mtg. before Sunday School, remember that? Probably not, so maybe there is some leeway to be creative. That was short lived, but can see how some of what Happy is saying, might be implemented possibly.

[stemelbow]

I don't know that playing louder music is going to save our meetings, but it may be a start. 

[RevTestament]

I personally would like to see change in the church hymnal. A lot of the hymns are very simple and just not beautiful to me.

Personally, I believe the modern change in other churches is about being entertained rather than being edified. I attended a church whose whole service was like this, and quickly grew tired of it.

[Tacenda]

4 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I personally would like to see change in the church hymnal. A lot of the hymns are very simple and just not beautiful to me.

Personally, I believe the modern change in other churches is about being entertained rather than being edified. I attended a church whose whole service was like this, and quickly grew tired of it.

That's where I am too, I believe there might be a happy medium. I grew tired of the whole service being like that also, that's why I prefer our church's Sacrament Meetings to that. But maybe there are some changes that could help. 

I remember a chorister in my ward that really felt depleted when trying to get our ward to sing or sing joyfully. You could see the disappointment in his face, and later after he was released, you'd hear him singing over the others and I knew he was just so disappointed that we weren't singing our best or in any way of worshiping the Lord or God. 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, ksfisher said:

I've always seen sacrament meeting as a time when the ward comes together.  No matter who you are, what you do in or out of the church, the entire ward partakes of the sacrament together.  To me this fits is part of the Saviors admonition to "be one."  We come together as "one" during the sacrament.

Great point, I attended a Ward in Utah where they had two different Gospel Doctrine classes each Sunday. I asked my son, how do you choose which to attend? I also said it must be nice to have a choice of which teacher you like, his reply was, "no, it is splitting the Ward apart, with a lot of hurt feelings". He want on to say that, "even families are in different rooms and after Sacramet, you even see husbands and wives tugging at each other to go to one or the other". 

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, Pa Pa said:

Great point, I attended a Ward in Utah where they had two different Gospel Doctrine classes each Sunday. I asked my son, how do you choose which to attend? I also said it must be nice to have a choice of which teacher you like, his reply was, "no, it is splitting the Ward apart, with a lot of hurt feelings". He want on to say that, "even families are in different rooms and after Sacramet, you even see husbands and wives tugging at each other to go to one or the other". 

Well when you consider the alternative of a couple hundred people stuffed in a RS room because you want to only have one GD class, then you'll be like, "well at least the added drama gives us something." 

Man, I've been dreaming of splitting up GD into about 10 classes, so the groups are small enough o have actual discussions.  Our ward's GD is about as lifeless as there is. 

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Well when you consider the alternative of a couple hundred people stuffed in a RS room because you want to only have one GD class, then you'll be like, "well at least the added drama gives us something." 

Man, I've been dreaming of splitting up GD into about 10 classes, so the groups are small enough o have actual discussions.  Our ward's GD is about as lifeless as there is. 

10 classes? You would have to rent out another building, or put the entire Primary in one room for two hours, then families would be town apart when all out wives hunted us down and killed us.  No jury in the would would convict them either. 

Edit to add...we have a teacher in Priesthood when no one answers questions. But the teacher never  wants the answers given, and cuts of whoever does answer to answer his own questions. They rotate who teaches, but no one ever prepares to teach. They just read over it in opening excersizes and muddle through. 

Edited June 27, 2016 by Pa Pa

[RevTestament]

13 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

That's where I am too, I believe there might be a happy medium. I grew tired of the whole service being like that also, that's why I prefer our church's Sacrament Meetings to that. But maybe there are some changes that could help. 

I remember a chorister in my ward that really felt depleted when trying to get our ward to sing or sing joyfully. You could see the disappointment in his face, and later after he was released, you'd hear him singing over the others and I knew he was just so disappointed that we weren't singing our best or in any way of worshiping the Lord or God. 

 I guess ward choirs are kind of an individual ward thing - which I think could really help our services - especially with introducing new beautiful music. The idea that the only music our hymnal should contain should be only what Emma Smith picked out is just archane to me.

My impression with ward choirs is that Choiristers are very hesitant to single out individual members for guidance for fear they will get offended, and most wards simply are not big enough to have excellent  choirs. From time to time my ward has had duets or quartets - a rare treat.

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, Pa Pa said:

10 classes? You would have to rent out another building, or put the entire Primary in one room for two hours, then families would be town apart when all out wives hunted us down and killed us.  No jury in the would would convict them either. 

Even that sounds better than stuffing 200 adults into GD class...sometimes.

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think we often make the mistake of thinking "quiet" = reverence or worshipfulness or holy. I don't see it that way. Having a band isn't just rowdy noise, but rather a way to praise God in a way that is more meaningful for some people. Even with the "countdown" I described, the pre-meeting was probably more reverent than our church meetings.

In each meeting the communion portion was very sweet and meaningful. The style of worship didn't take away from that.

I can't remember where I read it, but I seem to recall reading where Brigham Young was holding spirited dances in the Nauvoo temple.  I've also read about early LDS gifts of the spirit, speaking in tongues, call and response sermons, etc.  I think the 19th century church was much different than today when it comes to the concept of reverence.  

Has anyone done a study about reverence and quiet as a form of worship within the LDS church?  I think that would be an interesting study, I wonder which leaders emphasized this, and what the history around the development of our worship services has been like.  

[Tacenda]

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

Even that sounds better than stuffing 200 adults into GD class...sometimes.

Our ward is in the chapel for Gospel Doctrine class. And Gospel Essentials is in the Relief Society room. 

[hope_for_things]

31 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

That's where I am too, I believe there might be a happy medium. I grew tired of the whole service being like that also, that's why I prefer our church's Sacrament Meetings to that. But maybe there are some changes that could help. 

I remember a chorister in my ward that really felt depleted when trying to get our ward to sing or sing joyfully. You could see the disappointment in his face, and later after he was released, you'd hear him singing over the others and I knew he was just so disappointed that we weren't singing our best or in any way of worshiping the Lord or God. 

I too am conditioned to like our sacrament meetings, but I think is the merely social conditioning.  As I've opened myself up to other forms of worship, I've been learning to enjoy what some might think is more energetic or boisterous than contemporary LDS services, but again, I think this is all cultural and social conditioning.  It's what's familiar.  

If reverence is entirely subjective and based on social conditioning, why shouldn't we embrace other cultures and traditions forms of worship more openly?  If its lovely or of good report, shouldn't we seek after it?  It doesn't take much exposure to these other forms of worship to start appreciating them, it just takes an open mind and a desire to plant the seed in our hearts and see if it grows.  To me, that is a very Mormon ideal, and I think it would serve us well to practice it more frequently.