Worship as Evangelism (is not working)

Worship as Evangelism (is not working) by Sally Morgenthaler

Here is a recent article by Sally Morgenthaler published on “Next Wave”

You may have seen it already - if not, it is worth reading. It is highly significant because of who is writing it - Sally is the author of “Worship Evangelism” and other related books, and was instrumental (pun intended) in the US and beyond in stimulating the huge wave of “worship music” and the “contemporary Sunday worship experience”, which support the myth 'if we build it, they will come'.

Now, almost 10 years since she wrote 'Worship Evangelism' in 1998, Sally concludes that worship-driven churches, despite their best efforts, are not attracting the unchurched. This is a complete turn-around from when she wrote her book. You will see that her article is filled with wonderful honesty as she acknowledges that the worship culture is often self-absorbed and the unreached are not attending these Christian “parties.”

This article on the problems with Worship Evangelism is an honest reflection which makes some astute and insightful comments, especially considering the author's background & the influence she has had historically.

Interestingly Sally's latest collaborative effort is a chapter in An Emergent Manifesto of Hope, released in April 2007 by Baker Books. Her chapter, “Leadership in a Flattened World: Grassroots Culture and the Demise of the CEO Model,” has been hailed as a prophetic work—a clear alternative to the ego-driven ministry leadership paradigms of the 1980s and 1990s.

A few quotes from the article -

Worship Evangelism had helped to create a "worship-driven subculture." As he explained it, this subculture was a sizeable part of the contemporary church that had just been waiting for an excuse not to do the hard work of real outreach. An excuse not to get their hands dirty.

In 2001 a worship-driven congregation in my area finally did a survey as to who they were really reaching, and they were shocked. They'd thought their congregation was at least 50 percent unchurched. The real number was 3 percent.

By 2002 a few pastors of praise and worship churches began admitting to me that they weren't making much of a dent in the surrounding non-Christian population, even though their services were packed and they were known for the best worship production in town.

Preaching Act 3

Here is the 3rd ‘Act’ in the discussion (debate) about preaching which has been appearing in the NZ Baptist magazine.
Act 1 was a shortened version of my article ‘The Problem With Preaching’ which was published in the July magazine.
Act 2 was 3 responses from Baptist lecturers, plus a few critical letters in the August magazine.
Act 3 is my response to their responses, published in the September magazine hot off the press…. here is the full response – the last 2 paragraphs don’t appear in the NZ Baptist version.

RESPONSE

I’m impressed by the way NZ Baptists welcome healthy discussion and debate, in order to become more effective in today’s world. My article ‘The Problem with Preaching’ prompted strong response and much discussion. Raising challenging questions about preaching is rather like waving a red rag to a sacred cow. The responses in last month’s Baptist from Ian Kemp, David Richmond & Paul Windsor were gracious and thoughtful, yet somewhat unconvincing.

In response, I need to clarify some aspects of my original article. In critiquing preaching, I focussed on the specific form of preaching commonly used in modern western churches - monologue preaching to a church congregation. Some people seem to raise this form of preaching onto a ‘pedestal’ above other forms of communication, seeing it as Biblical, essential and prescriptive for us today and presumably for all churches of all times. This perspective effectively raises this form of preaching to a level near baptism and prayer. It is regarded as a spiritual mystery beyond question.

This view seems evident in last month’s responses through phrases like “the sermon … is the voice of God to be obeyed”, “the high calling of the preacher”, “the divine encounter in the preaching” and “preaching is a spiritual gift and a God-given vocation”.

I find no convincing evidence of this form of monologue preaching to a church congregation visible in the NT – hence my statement that this form of preaching is extra-biblical (I didn’t say or imply that it is un-biblical or necessarily wrong). Even if examples of this form of preaching are perceived in the NT (eg 2 Tim 4), these examples don’t make preaching prescriptive or essential for all churches at all times.

In my original article, I attempted to differentiate the form of preaching we practice in churches today from what is seen in the NT. The key point is that there is no essential identifiable difference between the wide variety of communication forms seen in the NT, including preaching and teaching. As Paul Windsor points out with his reference to 34 different words and overlapping circles, the concepts overlap.

Unfortunately many people see the ‘preach’ words, which appear about 140 times in an English NT, and assume that this ‘preaching’ they read of is the same form as the preaching they hear in church today, and hence that the form of preaching that occurs in their church has a strong (essential) biblical basis and we have to keep doing it. They see preaching as a specific God-given form of communication, and its effectiveness shouldn’t be questioned.

As Christians, including those exercising leadership, we need to communicate the messages of Jesus and His kingdom to all people, including those outside or on the edge of the kingdom, and those within. A wide variety of forms of communication are available. Some of these forms are clearly visible in the NT, others might be implied, and others are definitely not seen in the Bible (eg emails, Denominational newspapers). These communication forms are not distinct, but rather they overlap. They include teaching (to large groups, small groups and individuals), dialogue, discussion, debate, evangelistic preaching, preaching to church congregations, and questions and answers. None of these forms is inherently on a pedestal above the others. None of these forms is ‘biblical & normative & inherently spiritual’ - ie ‘it is in the Bible and we have to do it and it is a communication form that is inherently more spiritual than other forms’. All of these communication forms can be either effective or ineffective, depending partly on how they are implemented and whether the form & content are relevant for the recipients. Sometimes these forms of communication impart some sort of spiritual life, renewal, revelation, insight, inspiration or encounter – but this is not automatically inherent in any of the forms. This spiritual impartation is more likely to occur when other factors are involved, including prayer, study, good presentation, accurate Biblical interpretation, and people having expectations. On occasions, the form chosen is inappropriate or the communication is poor, yet God chooses to ‘move’ anyway.

Communication is essential. I am not calling for preaching to be abandoned. Nor am I saying that any other form of communication is always better than a sermon. A monologue sermon to the congregation on Sundays is one form of communication. It should be more accurately described as ‘teaching’, ‘inspiration’, ‘thought-for-the-day’, ‘reflection’, or ‘motivational talk’, depending on its intention and characteristics. Monologue preaching might even be the best communication form in a particular situation – preaching has historically been very effective in many situations. However, we have a wide range of equally valid forms of communication available. If we understand their strengths and weaknesses, become proficient in their use, and evaluate their effectiveness, we will become better communicators.

Throughout much of church history, monologue sermons have been a predominant form of communication. There are many historical and sociological reasons for this reliance on sermons. There are also many spiritual, pragmatic and educational reasons for questioning the effectiveness of monologue preaching in our society. These include that it is often ineffective, expensive, can limit learning, discussion and debate, foster biblical illiteracy, and disempower people. Monologues silence the voice of the people. Educational studies repeatedly demonstrate that people learn more through interactive teaching and self-learning. Rather than just trying to pass on information, we should be creating life-long spiritual learners.

David Richmond suggests that if people can’t feed themselves, we need to keep feeding them. In contrast, I’m convinced that for normal healthy people, we should stop spoon feeding them, let them get hungry and then they will become motivated to learn to feed themselves. They might even learn to how to cook, plan their own menu, and begin teaching others to feed themselves.

Its no surprise to hear ministers defending preaching. Professional ministers usually love preaching and are paid to do it. Preaching is typically part of the ‘package’ of this form of church leadership. A minister questioning preaching and other aspects of professional ministry is like the proverbial person who saws off the branch they are sitting on. It is as rare as beef farmers promoting vegetarianism.

I told my children that I’ve invented a new school – it has only one class with hundreds of students aged from 5 to 18. They meet for one half-hour class each week, where a quality teacher gives an amazing non-interactive lecture to the class. Students never graduate from the class. The 18 year-olds, who have been hearing these lectures for 13 years, stay in this class with more new entrants for the rest of their lives. The only way to graduate is to become the lecturer or die. My children say this school is stupid and will never work. I agree … but it’s what we do in churches … let’s look for good alternatives.

What are the essential biblical ingredients of a church?

I’ve been involved in the NZ Baptist “Sharpening the Edge” Conference the last couple of days (Being part of a panel reflecting on the stories being told).
One of the questions I raised (which was nicely sidestepped) related to what the Biblical essentials for a church are. This conference is a group of jesus-followers who are leaders (mostly pastors), who are interested in alternative forms of church for the sake of mission here in NZ. As they explore alternative models such as weeding gardens on a Sunday morning, or a 7-day-a-week childrens program with no formal church service … the question arises “what is church?” As part of figuring that out, I think we should be able to clarify what the biblical essentials are ….. consider 3 levels
1. Biblical essentials (you must have these to have a ‘church’, & they all have sound biblical basis)
2. Very important things (but not essential)
3. Other helpful things
It is interesting & challenging to try to put the various aspects of normal church into these 3 categories (ie ordained ministers, weekly meetings, Sunday meetings, corporate sung worship, sermons, leadership structure, buildings, communion etc etc) Why don’t you try to do it??? Or if you know a ‘minister’ .. ask them. & let me know via a comment here.

My challenge to the Baptists was “we’re all ministers / theologically trained’ & trying to create churches … we should be able to do this quickly … 30 seconds & we should have the items in level #1 – but I bet we can’t, & there would be no common agreement on it (scary)
They side-stepped the question graciously & said something like it was something they needed to be working on over the next year (their ecclesiology)

My experience of asking a group of 8 ministers the same question was that there was no common agreement on the biblical essentials for a church ….. what does that tell us about our ecclesiology (theology of the church)???
Maybe you can set me straight on this ….