I do apologize for the long delay in posting-there's been a lot going on in my life! Getting engaged to moving into a different state...it's been a bit hectic. However, I'm back on it this week!
We've been talking about music and worship and I've mentioned what I call the "generational disconnect." I thought we could explore that a little further this week.
First, let's define it: It is the difference in virtually all aspects of church-related activities between older and younger generations. This includes music styles, meeting facility, age of the speaker, seating arrangement, meeting time, etc.
I'm not entirely sure why such a huge gap exists, other than we have people on both sides that do not want to change anything about how they worship. The younger generations don't like the stiffness and formality of the traditional worship service, and the older generations don't like the disrespectful and loud music and style of the contemporary service.
A lot of churches have attempted to blend these two styles into one; some with reasonable success, and others with dismal failure. The ultimate deciding factors are what the congregation will support and how well the elements are blended. Most churches, however, will have two distinct services that are meant to draw as large an audience as possible. One traditional to appeal to the older generation, one contemporary to draw the younger audience.
Here is my question-if a church is trying to reach as many people as possible (which should be in the mission statement of every church as far as I'm concerned), then why WOULDN'T they offer both services? My experience at a traditional church is that the older generation will NOT allow a contemporary service for two reasons: 1) they feel they got burned when the church DID have a praise service back in the mid-90's, and 2) they do not respect and accept that the contemporary service is a viable worship style.
This attitude has GOT to stop-I know far more people in the contemporary world that accept and readily admit that the traditional worship style is valid and useful-just not for them-than the other way around. The unfortunate truth is the generational disconnect seems to have the detrimental effect of souring people's opinion of anything different than what they know. And too often this attitude leads to impressions of stodginess, coldness, and a lack of acceptance of other worship styles and people who like those styles.
This disconnect is bridgeable, but it requires both sides to work together for a common goal-unfortunately, I don't see the older generations in any hurry to assist in bridging that gap and it saddens me as so much more could be done if we just worked together.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I’m of two minds on this issue. On the one hand I agree with you. Our purpose should be to attract as many people as possible, thereby expanding God’s kingdom as effectively as can be. This would argue for giving them what they want and creating various worship services for all sorts of people: contemporary, alternative, traditional, ethnic, etc.
On the other hand, the Scriptures paint a picture of worship experienced by an entire family together. The culture of God’s people, the Jews, was built on shared worship experiences and teaching moments. The danger in giving everyone what they want is that we create sub-groups throughout the community of believers that prevent us from even associating, let alone connecting, with other generations. Ultimately, this will weaken God’s global church tremendously. As a worship leader, I ask a question every week: do I give them what they want? Or do I give them what I know they need? If I give them what they want, I will probably be a very popular pastor, but I will fail in fulfilling God’s call on my life to provide the spiritual leadership that He wants for His people.
Do I have answers? No. I love contemporary worship. I can respect traditional worship. We certainly have a generational disconnect among God’s people. But it seems to me that we need to explore how to build healthy bridges instead of sending each sub-group into their own building or time slot to be with the people that are just like them. My fear is that dividing out will only exacerbate the problem.
Jonathan,
You make a good point, as always; however, my experience is that people are divided and always will be until such time as Jesus unites them in heaven. Division has been a way of life for humanity since the fall and while your intentions are indeed honorable and noble, I just don't see how it can happen when people on both sides are closed to the idea...
I would think that groups operating to reach those that are most like themselves would be a far more effective use of energy and resources than trying to bridge a gap that will always exist this side of heaven...
Post a Comment