I read this article last night about the Quaker practice of open worship, which as far as I can tell is mostly sitting around without having anything planned and letting the congregation speak/lead/sing at will.
I like this idea a lot, mostly because I feel like the times I’ve had the best worship experiences (and by “best,” I mean “most worshipful”) have been times like this, when whoever was in charge opened things up and let people offer praises, prayers, thoughts, testimonies, etc.
Apart from liking it experientially, though, I like the idea of open worship because it’s primarily very egalitarian–it doesn’t assume, like a normal service does, that the guys in charge (the worship leader and the sermon-giver) are the only ones through whom God is going to speak.
I think that’s an important distinction, especially when we start thinking about the dynamics of power in the church and about the priesthood of believers (not to mention the Beatitudes) which turns the normal ‘charismatic leader in change of things’ dynamic on its head.
By practicing open worship, I think we communicate to the ourselves (both on the platform and in the pews) that God is moving in each of us, and that our ministry to each other is as vital as what one person has to say.
And in fact, I wonder if that’s why my experiences with open-style worship have been memorably good–rather than giving me something to consume (a sermon, a song, a show), open worship asks and values my participation.
I can imagine, at this point, though, my friend Ken interjecting a warning about dangerous theology being spewed when you give people the freedom to do/say what they want. But listen to what the original article says about that:
Finally, open worship trusts the spirituality of people. When we talk about open worship, a lot of people instantly think about the one “crazy” person who will say “scary” stuff. Even as rare as this occurs (I haven’t experienced this yet in the 8 months I’ve been pastoring at our current church) we need to make ourselves vulnerable to this because all people have a spirituality to be shared. This is an embracing of the priesthood of the believers in a way that recognizes the risks involved, and yet believes in it enough to open one’s self up…[F]or the most part the community recognizes the out-of-place comment, the remark that seemed off base, or the person who does not yet have a reputation in the community. We can trust the spirituality of people, and by opening ourselves up to that, I think we will see wonderful movements of God and spiritual growth not possible any other way.
My experience bears this out as well. I particularly remember a friend of mine who was interested in Christiantiy coming with me to a campus ministry event one night and saying some things that were pretty apparently untrue (I don’t remember what they were, just that they weren’t down with the Christian mainstream). The majority of the people there recognized that he didn’t really have any reputation in our community yet, and so didn’t take him too seriously–it wasn’t a big deal.
The problem, I think, is that a fear of crazy theology in open worship teaches us to not trust the Holy Spirit. Isn’t it the Spirit, after all, that moves those kinds of gatherings along, that nudges people in the direction of ministry to each other? To relinquish control of those sorts of events works against that fear and teaches us to trust not only each other, but the Holy Spirit.
And that’s the kind of lesson I think we could stand to learn.
4 Comments
Jake,
I would have to agree with you. This really moves things away from the listen to a lesson and sing a few songs. Maybe Gerry and Roy should read this
Could make for a long night.
We do experiments of this in Youth Group often when we do the “What do you think this is saying to us?” discussion, looking at a particular scripture. It takes practice, and practiced warm-reception to even odd-ball comments to produce an environment where everyone feels comfortable sharing. But often, it leads us to some very helpful/healing moments of discussion. For even most teenagers know when a comment is not actually offering them something from God.
It is also a way to find out some of the interesting beliefs held, but not often discussed, by families in our church. I’d like to hear how a church responds (when it must) when these moments become abused. But also scold myself for that being one of my first curiosities.
A few random thoughts:
At our church, we have an open worship service every sunday morning before the main service. It’s pretty cool…like you, I (and the people that make our church happen) love the idea of the priesthood of all believers, and that fact that it’s the church that makes the church work.
It’s also interesting that, when you do it regularly, often it’s really awesome, and sometimes it’s relatively “dry”.….not a lot of deep sharing, just a few songs, etc. But I’m not really sure that’s bad, just an interesting side effect of doing it all the time.
Regarding the crazy guy sharing…we’ve had a number of people with slightly “odd” beliefs in our church (who were not afraid of sharing them). But it was rarely an issue during these services. There was a big mix of:
1. That crazy guy was also a Christian with a real faith in Christ, which meant that he often had good stuff to say mixed with his crazy.
2. Like you said, people tend to know who has slightly funny thoughts, and will recognize those as off.
3. That service wasn’t as heavily advertised to the general public, so it was less likely that some crazy person who wasn’t a Christian would wander in and say stupid stuff.
Anyway, just wanted to throw that out there.
Agreed, this should be a bigger part of Christian practice. Not sure if the “main” worship service is the best place though, especially for larger congregations where technical issues and allowing equal opportunity for everyone to speak could come into play. I like the other Nathan’s explanation of how it works at his church as sort of a “pre-service.”