We did not come to our current American practice of concert-as-worship overnight. Here is a context of the last 200 years of American Innovations to Congregational Singing that have led to this moment in history. These are some changes to congregational singing that brought us from the mess we were in 200 years ago to the mess we are in today. Ready? Go!
Innovation #1: Singing Schools
1785-1825
The Problem: Congregational psalm singing in New England had become lethargic, as the churches in America were cut off from European connections and lived under Puritan ideals of ascetic aesthetics. The common repertoire of the average congregation shrank with each generation, largely due to musically-illiterate populations. Tempos and energy lagged as the entire congregation followed one other, with no musical leadership of instruments or trained singers.
The Solution: Singing schools were led by enterprising musicians who went from town to town teaching their newly-invented shaped note Fasola methods, making “regular” music accessible to the common person. Entire towns met in the town hall or the local church to learn to read music. Hymn tunes and “fuguing tunes” were used as examples to learn to sightsing. New tunes were introduced, and with them, new publications.
Of course, some church leaders expressed concern that these singing schools were more of a social gathering for young people than they were church members learning to improve their worship. But the entrepreneurial singing school teachers were happy to have more students, which meant more sales of their methods books. Lowell Mason set the tune for “When I Survey the Wondrous Cross” using scientific methods from Europe—a setting still in use today.
The End Result: Hymns had been subtly compromised by their association with social gatherings. You might say that holy things were placed in the mouths of a mixed crowd with the unredeemed, or that pearls were cast before swine. Some of the church leaders certainly did.
Innovation #2: The Sunday Altar Call
1825-1980
The Problem: Churches had become dry and listless, and what was at the time the American frontier of the Midwest (western New York to central Kentucky) was spiritually barren. Camp meetings and protracted evangelistic meetings had been common in the region, but on Sunday morning, churches were not culturally relevant, you might say. It was time for the Second Great Awakening in America.
The Solution: In response, Charles Finney and other evangelists reinvented the focus of Sunday morning. There, he took elements from camp meetings and moved them into the church gathering. In camp meetings, since there was no common hymnal and no projection of words, the new song forms developed, especially call-and-response format, such as “Down By the Riverside.” Otherwise they would line out hymns (a leader sings a line and everyone repeats what they just heard), or sometimes even invented new songs for the occasion. They sang energetically, with much enthusiasm (and some odd physical manifestations that they considered “exercises” of the Spirit). Then someone would climb onto a platform built for the meeting and would preach a Gospel message. After that message was over, a second “exhorter” would stand in front of the platform and vehemently call the crowd to repentance. While the crowd sang more songs, people would stream forward to a “mourner’s bench” to get right with the Lord.
Finney‘ s great innovation was to move the format from the camp meeting into the church building on Sunday mornings. He put the benches in straight rows, facing toward the front elevated area, and moved the choir from the balcony to behind the pulpit, as co-proclaimers of the Good News. There, they sang songs of testimony focused toward the unbelievers in attendance. And after the sermon, an exhorter spoke while the choir or congregation sang a new invention called an “invitation song,” or an altar call, modeled after the protracted camp meetings. Suddenly, the success of a Sunday gathering was measured in how many people responded at the mourner’s bench.
In 1831, Joshua Leavitt edited the first hymnal to include both music and words on the same page, called The Christian Lyre. It contained songs like “Sinners Turn, Why Will Ye Die?” This change in focus for a Sunday morning was an American innovation, and it had far-reaching implications still felt today.
End result: The congregation begins to become an audience, rather than participants, with unbelievers the primary target in the room.
Innovation #3: Racially Segregated Gospel Music
1860-
The Problem: The country was deeply divided, philosophically, politically, economically and racially. Churches were as divided as the rest of the country, and as the country moved toward civil war, every Christian denomination split between north and south. Churches of Christ and Christian Churches were among the casualties of this divide. They seemed to be splitting over use of instruments, or over whether or not it was appropriate to sing evangelistic Gospel songs on Sunday mornings. But those musical tastes and theological disagreements just happened to fall along the Mason-Dixon Line.
The Solution: While there was already a cultural divide in the country, the ethnic divide was nowhere clearer than it was on Sunday morning, particularly in the music of each group. Churches in both the north and the south worshiped next door to each other, but with distinct but parallel worship expressions. White evangelicals were focused on teaching the Word to bring souls to heaven, while Black churches sought social and civil justice on earth, and the participation and energy in congregational worship was decidedly different. Each culture was developing a form of uniquely-American music that they each call “Gospel music.” The rhythms, scales and especially the topics sung about in Negro spirituals and (Black) Gospel were more complex than White spirituals and (Southern) Gospel music. One group was singing “When I get to heaven, gonna put on my walking shoes, walk all over God’s heaven,” or “I got a robe up in that kingdom, ain’t that good news.” Even in celebrating the hope of heaven, there is a heavy sadness communicated with a more colloquial grammar and vocabulary. The more privileged group might sing, “I saw the light, no more darkness, no more night,” and “When we all get to heaven, what a day of rejoicing that will be. When we all see Jesus we’ll sing and shout the victory.”
End result: The most segregated hour of the week is still 11 o’clock on Sunday morning. And the racial divide is seen perhaps most clearly in the music of each group. One might assume that in the north, churches would be more integrated, since the Union had a more holistic moral position on slavery. But in truth, there has been more integration in the south over the years, especially among Pentecostal associations, virtually all of which began in the south.
Innovation #4: Invitation songs
1880-1975
The Problem: Spiritual stagnation in America, waves of unbelieving immigrants, coupled with libertarian individualism and lack of moral compass, all confronted by evangelical fervor sweeping over from England.
The Solution: The rise of the Evangelistic Crusade, with famous-name evangelists like Moody, Booth, and Sunday whose messages were greatly enhanced by teaming up with famous-name song evangelists who happened to also be songwriters and publishers, like Sankey, Bliss and Rodeheaver. These new Gospel hymns and sacred songs and solos did the work of softening hearts and paving the way for waves of decisions for Christ in the cities of America. The Invitation Song was born. Sankey‘s “Ninety and Nine,” delivered in tandem with Moody’s messages, or Cincinnati’s own Charles Fillmore wrote “Tell Mother I’ll Be There” and led to the conversion of thousands of men as the new century approached.
End result: What wins the hearts of one generation becomes the worship language in the next generation. And so, long after the crusades had lost their effect, the songbooks of the crusades found their way into the pew racks on Sunday mornings. And the balance of song topics in evangelical churches had shifted from mostly vertical praise to more of a mix with horizontal testimony and invitation. The Invitation Hymn was born, as congregations sang to the unredeemed in the room, “I have a Saviour . . . But Oh, that my Saviour were your Saviour, too. For you I am praying, I am praying for you.”
Innovation #5: Singing in the Spirit
1901-1970
The Problem: Liberalism in Europe was influencing American theology, and the war of words once again divided many denominations and redirected energies into saving or claiming established Christian institutions. Large city churches built gymnasiums and food kitchens, seeking to minister holistically to people. Liberals focused on more than just individual conversions; they were seeking cultural reform and social justice. Conservatives (by this point called Evangelicals) tried in their own way to change society, by mass evangelism and rallying against such evils as alcohol and sexual sin. Christian music split between theologically-neutral neo-orthodox liturgical hymns on the left, and militant-and-defensive, or conservative-but-sentimental Gospel songs on the right, which often contained refrains of how happy a godly life can be. The center of the controversy seems to have been a matter of authority—the Bible or human reason.
The Solution: A third source of authority arose from the ashes: Experience. Or, some might say, the Holy Spirit miraculously stepped onto the stage, as the Latter Rain was clear evidence of the work of God and the soon return of Christ. As people received the baptism of the Holy Ghost, lives were changed, miracles were claimed, and even believers of different races and cultures found common ground. The experience of neo-Corinthian gift of tongues, especially when done musically as a group, became a unifying force and an apologetic that seemed to defy mere arguments over doctrines and meanings of Scripture. And thus began a spontaneous singing practice that came to be known as the Angelic or Heavenly Choir, or Singing in Tongues. Some saw the practice as what is described in 1 Corinthians as “singing in the Spirit.” Others saw it as a heretical counterfeit to the early workings of the Spirit in the primitive church—they would say that it was not, in fact, miraculous, was not even spiritual, but was manipulative mind washing. Nonetheless, the Pentecostal movement opened people up to the experiential presence of the Spirit. A less-other-worldly version of “spiritual song” or prayer was the same structure and approach, but without using unknown tongues.
End result: Today, a worship practice of most any group open to the ongoing miraculous gifts of the Spirit will include some period of what is sometimes called “free worship,” which is a mix of spontaneous simultaneous speaking, praying and singing, with some simple musical underscore. It is a cacophony of voices that some believe to be a time when “everyone prophesies,” or when “they lifted their voices and prayed as one,” and/or perhaps containing heavenly praise similar to that of the book of Revelation around the throne. The practice is far more widespread in other countries, but seems to have come in America as an innovation to worship.
Innovation #6: Mass Media
1920-
The Problem: Evangelistic crusades and social reforms had failed to stem the tide of moral decay in America. Conservatives had failed to fight off the ravages of liberalism, and liberals had failed to win the battle for control of the church’s rhetoric. The unredeemed were not flocking to the flock, and crime was becoming organized. In short, the church was divided and preoccupied, while the Roaring Twenties were, well, roaring.
The Solution: Regional solutions were found by new church movements and preacher training institutions, which were being created all over the country. Yet, it was the American innovation of records and radio programming that provided the most effective national affect for Christian ministries. Now the work of evangelism and equipping was possible without having to wait for Sunday morning, or even to go outside of the house. Evangelists and teachers could have a worldwide ministry without the necessity of travel from city to city. Of course, the advent of radio also provided a new means of propagating music nationwide, in real time.
Two hundred years ago, it had been the proliferation of printed publishing that had accelerated the popularity of a Christian song. A century later, it was audio recordings and broadcasts that once again vastly changed the distribution and access to Christian music. Radio made a song immediate, and recordings made it portable. Written notation was no longer a necessity. By way of illustration, the song “I’ll Fly Away,” first published by Alfred Brumley in 1932, became familiar to the country more through radio performances than through its appearance at shaped-note conventions. Since 1941, the song has been recorded over 800 times.
End result: The individual consumer can pick and choose from the mix of competing options out there. In the spirit of true American individualism, each consumer crafts his own collective theology. In addition, the only accountability and spiritual oversight of each radio ministry or record label is, “Does it sell?” The age of the wealthy wacko ministry is born. As an added bonus, every citizen can now begin to compile his or her own customized musical soundtrack, without having to rely on interaction with real people. In short, long before the internet and iPod, church without the church was becoming possible.
Innovation #7: Youth Ministry
1946-
The Problem: For the first time in human history, a new demographic group was identified and singled out: Teenagers. Parents and children began to feel what came to be called a “generation gap,” as items, services, and especially music, aimed at teens provided them with more independence in the immediate precursor of this new generation who came to be known as Baby Boomers. Families in cities and suburbs were divided and the younger generation was being lost.
The Solution: The Youth Rally was created. Torrey Johnson founded a new ministry called Youth for Christ, who promoted evangelists like Billy Graham and young Christian musical celebrities like Pat Boone, who travelled the country singing outreach-oriented music in the new generation’s favorite musical identifying genre: Folk Rock. Youth came for the concert tour, stayed for the message, and responded to the invitation. The music would be considered sappy by today’s standards, but it was the heart language of a new generation. “Christ for Me” was the theme song, and wholesome, happy, music, like “Happy Am I” spoke the heart language of adolescents across the country.
End result: What you win them with, you win them to. Isolating a demographic and breaking up the family had long-term effects. Youth crusades caused churches to need to continue to do the same: youth groups and youth ministers and generational music divide in the church became the norm. Contemporary music was born. “Con” = with. “Tempus” = time. Music that was “with the times” was inevitably, of course, Temporary.
Innovation #8: The Praise Chorus
1960-1985
The Problem: The folk-rock outreach music of the previous generation was brought into Sunday morning, though with great controversy. In the meantime, the music that had worked effectively as outreach in the ‘40s and ‘50s did not work with the next generation of young people. It was the age of free sex, psychedelic drugs and rock ‘n’ roll, and those things are certainly not going to work on a Sunday morning! So the last generation’s outreach became this generation’s worship, and the new generation’s heart language seemed too sensual and dark to ever be used by God. In other words, musical styles in the church were slow to catch up to the sweeping cultural changes of the turbulent 1960s.
The Solution: Into this time of upheaval, a new generation of Christian musicians began to resonate with their peers by creating soft Christian rock music in concert venues. In the churches, youth ministers became “hip” and “fun” with games and “rap sessions” (guided discussions). But the music used in worship by the early Baby Boomers would be categorized more as folk than as rock. It was informal, guitar-centric music.
Meanwhile, in what has been called the Second Wave of the Spirit, musicians began to generate the truly innovative “praise chorus.” The praise chorus provided a way to sing Scripture in short, singable, predictable, informal settings. Many of the songs maintained pronouns and other elements of King James English, which was standard grammar for prayer and worship at the time. Pauline Mills wrote the song “Thou Art Worthy” in 1963, and Karen Lafferty’s ”Seek Ye First” was immensely popular in informal group meetings in 1971.
End result: Almost overnight, the guitar becomes the primary instrument of choice for worship in informal worship gatherings. A generationally-targeted Christian sub-culture emerges, using secular marketing tactics to expand its influence. Jesus Music is born.
Innovation #9: Worship Wars
1970-1990
The Problem: Baby Boomers had been the first generation to be catered/marketed to when they were children and teens. When those same kids became twenty-somethings, they found it only natural to bring their own culture with them wherever they went. So they brought guitars and upbeat music—their heart language—upstairs into the sanctuary. The Generation Gap had officially come to church, and cultures clashed. Somehow, the music conveyed, oh, I don’t know, Communism or drug use, or something unholy. (The Battle of Guitars in the Sanctuary, 1971 by Mary Chambers, is one of my favorite cartoons).
The Solution: Campus ministries began on college campuses, to minister to this new wave of believers. And when Boomers came to Christ, it was with a decidedly-different culture and spiritual zeal. They were even doing evangelism their own way. So while there were in secular culture organized demonstrations and large-scale music festivals, there were now also organized grassroots witnessing, radical Christians who dressed like hippies, but who replaced secular slogans with “One Way” and “Jesus Yes, Church No,” and with music festivals of Christian musicians that rivaled Woodstock in size, musical sound, and impact. The Jesus People movement was a wave that changed the church from the bottom up and the outside in. This cultural shift was so radical that the average church either needed to change its culture or lose the new generation altogether. Some West Coast churches made the jump, and new denominations grew from Calvary Chapel and Vineyard models of success. The solution for some Midwest churches was to split their gatherings into “traditional” or “contemporary.” Larry Norman epitomized the issue with his parody of Martin Luther’s quote, asking, “Why Should the Devil Have All the Good Music?” (“Jesus is the Rock and He rolled my Blues away. . . . I don’t like none of them funeral marches [hymns]. I ain’t dead yet!”)
End Result: What you win them with, you win them to. The Boomer generation was raised with their own “children’s church” and VBS, from which they graduated to “youth worship” and then to “young adult ministry.” Since they had never needed to submit to the culture of “Big Church” upstairs, they continued to do their own thing. And so the praise chorus became a staple. Boomers won the worship war. Which, of course, meant that they would lose the next one, because the war had really been fought over whether worship should be multi-generational (what came to be known as “blended worship”), or only cater to the latest trend. Those changes came much faster than before, and a “generation” is as short as a decade before the next group gains control. And so the Boomer generation, so idealistic and radical, had set the model for future generations to claim their own culture and go their own direction.
Innovation #10: Contemporary Christian Music
1979-1995
The Problem: The battle for guitars in the sanctuary was over. And the battle for drums had begun, as the center of Christian music had moved from folk to pop, which was now called Contemporary Christian Music (CCM). (In case you’re wondering, the final battle was over saxophones in the sanctuary. I’m actually not kidding. Rock was trusted before jazz. But I digress.) The younger Boomers were coming into leadership in the church, thanks to publishers such as Vineyard Music and bands such as Love Song. New Christian recording artists were arising to gain a following, but the topics were more horizontally-focused on evangelism and outreach than on worship.
The Solution: The Christian recording industry was rapidly growing. First called “Jesus Music,” due to the personal and testimonial nature of the message, the industry shifted to be called Contemporary Christian Music (CCM). Christian music radio stations popped up across the country, and bands went on concert tours (rather than simply as crusades or revivals). And a new category of “crossover” music groups arose—music that was marketed in secular outlets, but that contained subtle Christian messages. The sound of the music production itself was shifting in the 1980s, from what might be called rock to what today we call pop music.* Up to this point, CCM was still functioning with the evangelical worldview that saw the Great Commission as the highest purpose of every song, concert, album and worship service. Songs with worship-oriented topics were limited to gentler ballad setting of Scripture songs and worship music from publishers like Maranatha! Music (Praise Albums). But the music of CCM itself rather suddenly turned the corner from horizontal to vertical, starting with the music of Keith Green (Songs for the Shepherd) and others such as Kelly Willard and Twila Paris in the early 1980s.
End result: A Christian sub-culture emerges, using secular marketing to expand its influence. Music of all styles, as long as it had some sort of spiritual message or backdrop, found its way into the repertoire. Some large churches (attendance of 300 or more) used choir and orchestra, and had full-time music ministers on staff. And there were churches with contemporary bands and vocal teams (called “worship teams”). There were high churches and low churches. And for a season there were low churches with classically-influenced voices singing ballads (a la Sandi Patti, Steve Green and others). Some churches even developed multiple targeted services, with competing musical genres, and mostly it was the music that delineated each—traditional (hymns and Gospel songs) and contemporary (pop and praise choruses). But all churches were becoming defined by their musical style, more than by their doctrine or preaching.
*If you’d like to be able to identify the date of a recording, try listening to the keyboard line. The synthesizer came into use in the 60s, but synths were limited to melody-only, as they could only play one voice at a time (monophonic). The polyphonic synthesizer developed in 70s, so that multiple lines or even pads (sustained chords) could be played. Then came the digital synth of the 80s. Yamaha was the first to produce a digital synth with additive technology (DX7), which made layers and realistic bell-like sounds possible.
Innovation #11: Attractional Worship
1990-2010
The Problem: Unchurched (a new term) people were still not interested in attending churches, even when the primary emphasis of those churches was evangelism. Maybe that’s because church gatherings were still pseudo-liturgical (following a set order based on acts of worship. Plug in different letters and numbers in the right hand column of the church bulletin each week, but the left column is unchanged.), and people without church experience could not relate to it. Indeed, seen from the outside, almost nothing was unchurched-friendly, no matter how welcoming our greeters or our opening speech. Lengthy Scripture readings, pastoral prayer, stuffy old hymns, organ and piano, the entire package was of a different culture, no matter how relevant the preacher might make his message to be.
The order of evangelism-oriented service for more than a century (see Innovation #2) had been following the model of sing-preach-invite-respond, with the emotional climax of each assembly being the joy of seeing new people find freedom in Christ. But that old model was failing, when more weeks than not there were no responses to the invitation. It was like going fishing and coming home skunked, or like getting up the courage to finally ask Suzy to the prom, only to have her turn you down, week after week. What’s more, even when those responses did come at the end of the service, the truth is that it was not a spontaneous response to the invitation, but a pre-planned coming forward to announce what had already taken place during the week. Why end a service on a down note? How else can we proclaim the Gospel and show our allegiance to fulfill the Great Commission?
The Solution: The time had come for a new way of thinking. So the evangelical churches of America began to rebuild their gatherings from the ground up. Led by the example of Willow Creek Community Church and others, when new churches were being planted, they would survey their neighbors, ask people who did not go to church what they would look for if they did happen to go.* That became the format for the structure of the church. The new customers received what they had ordered: a lot of presentational (“special”) music and other media, a shorter, more practical and entertaining sermon, and almost no congregational singing. Whatever singing did happen, the service programmers (the position was no longer called worship planner) sought to find “common ground” lyrics and musical styles, so that nothing offensive would be put into the mouth of a pre-believer. In fact, often the congregational song would be a secular cover.
This is a far different approach from that of a generation or two before, where a popular song was “I am praying for you” (but oh that my Saviour were your Saviour too). Instead, they might sing Journey’s “Don’t Stop Believing” or the Beatles “Let it Be.” While they were at it, the rush began for trendy and neutral new names for churches. Let’s face it: “Second Baptist Church of Third Street” or “Ebeneezer Congregational Church of God in Christ” was a lot of insider talk. So a new image needed a new name, and “Journey Bible Church” or “Super-Relevant and Friendly Church” would make a better first impression. Mission statements and church slogans were rewritten to keep the mission clear: Be reached, be changed, reach others.
End result: Most of the innovations done within the American church were positive things, but contained the seeds of its own demise. “The Solution” is not the same as the “End Result.” This seemingly-radical move, however, was the natural end result of many of the innovations that preceded it. How did the church get to the place where removing the offense of the cross was a stated goal? When the redeemed no longer sing to one another psalms, hymns and spiritual songs, how could that be seen as positive? When the church follows culture, rather than to run against it, what will the end result become? And when the prophet asks the unredeemed what their itching ears want to hear, doesn’t that seem, I don’t know, like the opposite of a prophet who brings God’s messages to mankind? Every innovation has a built-in danger, but the dangers of the attractional worship model are far more profound and deep than most of the previous innovations.
*In fairness, Willow Creek did not do away with worship! They moved it to midweek. But among many of the “me too” churches influenced by their plan, the only part that was copied was the outreach plan on the weekends.
Innovation #12: Contemporary Worship Music 2000-
The Problem: Churches again split over the purpose of Sunday morning, whether it was to attract the lost or equip the saints. It led to two different architectures, sets of vocabulary, and styles of music. Either a church was enamored with contemporary culture (and imitated—but did not lead—cultural change), or a church resisted contemporary culture (which means they embraced a previous culture). Megachurches were growing, mostly based on the personality of the leadership and quality of programming, while smaller churches were losing attendance, as the magnet of the mega pulled members away. Larger churches, after all, could specialize in reaching affinity groups.
Musically-speaking, a megachurch could create a group to reach out to bluegrass fans, or metal heads, or any other targeted demographic group. They could all share facilities and preaching, but offer a smorgasbord of musical styles. Of course, the down side to that approach is that it divided families in the short run, and it multiplied problems down the road, when that favorite musical genre changed, and a microcosm of the debate over whether or not to change with culture reared its ugly head once more. Too many times, when the leadership tried to change the music of that target group, it became clear that the group had more allegiance to its style of worship than to the leadership of the church. That’s because people don’t HAVE opinions about music; they FEEL opinions about music. You touch the music, and you are touching the heart language of a person. If you have catered to a narrow genre, then if you ever change that genre (and you must), the person you reached with the old stuff just doesn’t “feel” like it is worship anymore.
So, a generation into the great experiment in outreach-as-worship, it was beginning to become clear that the attractional worship model was failing to make disciples. No matter the cultural choice, the church was rapidly losing its influence in American culture and politics.
The Solution: Into this cultural debate arose the next American innovation to congregational singing: Contemporary Worship Music. Suddenly, even touring groups were “worship musicians” rather than “Christian musicians.” Christian concerts were replaced with Nights of Worship. The songs played on Christian radio sung in churches, and worship sets were constructed by worship bands leading in a series of worship cover songs.
CWM differed from what had come before it in three significant ways: First, CWM differed in form. CWM now was structured as full songs, with verses, chorus and bridge—not just a praise chorus, and not just stanzas with a refrain. In fact, many were “epic songs,” with a wide range of emotions, taking the congregation on a journey of emotional ups and downs. Examples are “The Heart of Worship (1998),” “How Great is Our God” (2004) or “The Stand” (2008). The second way that CWM differed was in the style. The tone became darker and more layered, electric guitars began to replace acoustic, an individual worship leader seemed more authentic, while the row of 4-6 singers on the worship team seemed dated. Projection of lyrics by this point was universal, and background video loops were common. The established publishers (Maranatha! Integrity, Vineyard) were being crowded by the rise of new publishers, many of which were the megachurches that had styled their own worship (Hillsong, Bethel, Worshiptogether)
End result: Music and worship had now become synonymous. We called the person up front a “worship leader” rather than a song leader or a music minister. Seminaries and colleges hastened to change their image from “music” degrees to “worship” degrees. Worship leaders were tasked with leading the set, and not to talk in between songs. And, as has been the case in every one of these innovations, money affected congregational music. Christian radio played what made people (35-year old White suburban women) feel happy and content, so that they would not change channels during the commercials. “Radio songs” were “worship songs,” and “worship songs” became “congregational songs.” Those songs became the requested repertoire for Sundays, whether or not they were doctrinally rich or appropriate. If you complete the loop of this logic, “worship” became synonymous with “emotion.”
Innovation #13: The Megachurch
2010-
The Problem: After all of the experiments and fads of the last 200 years, all of the innovations and musical genres, by and large the American church was still losing ground. It was neither evangelizing well nor worshiping well. It was losing the cultural war by answering questions that no one was asking anymore. Impertinence was a serious problem.
Solution: Enter the Megachurch. Megachurches and new church plants (which give the promise of becoming a megachurch) were the exceptions to overall church failure. Large churches have existed before, but the megachurch was a new phenomenon, made possible by modern transportation and technology. Just as big box outlet stores swallowed up the local mom and pop shops, so the megachurch provided more bang (ministry) for the buck. By means of a climate of change and innovation, and through a commitment to excellence, the magnetic church drew talent. And talent draws more talent. And talented people provided an attractive show, ministry specialists, consistent branding and quality, and strong business administration. Megachurches led the way in the most recent spate of massive changes in congregational music.
Megachurches generated their own music, and made several improvements to the music. First, many songs are easier for (the current generation) to sing—with a much-smaller musical range, more natural syncopation, and simplified subtle implied chord progressions, consisting largely of a moving bass line underneath a drone of open fifths or an obscure quartal harmony (Holy Spirit, Good Good Father).
Another recent change is that some groups are rediscovering quirky ethnic and acoustic instruments, as the generation began looking for fresh sounds. (Gungor, Rend Collective)
Another change that swept in almost at the same time, is that songs started to be co-written for the first time in history. Worship teams write together between rehearsals, top writers collaborate in purposeful sessions, and writers everywhere take advantage of communication technology to jointly work on projects across distances that were not possible until recent history. The natural vetting process of collaboration improves the quality of the songs’ lyrics and singability, as the collective IQ of the room is higher than any of the individuals in it.
The megachurch also led the way in quality of full-scale production. House lights were darkened, which better highlights the fog and light show on stage, which changed the need for active backgrounds to lyrics projected, so that they are now often put two lines at a time on black backgrounds, for readability. The Sunday Morning Show is an impressively-well-produced live production, with the latest trends, technologies and talent.
For one brief, shining moment, it all seemed to be working. But the seeds of every movement’s demise are found within their greatest successes, and megachurch worship is no exception.
End Result: The Fatal Flaw. Most megachurches have a fatal flaw that will cause them to go the way of each of the previous innovations. It is the same problem that every denomination has had in the past: a mix of hubris and inbreeding.
The fact that some readers are infuriated by the last sentence demonstrates my point perfectly. When your team is winning, hubris abounds. The atmosphere is fulfilling and exciting and everyone gets along well and there is hope for the future. But when the leadership changes, or the culture takes an unexpected sharp turn, or the neighborhood (culture) changes, the momentum starts to dissipate. And when momentum is lost, see what happens. You can go downtown in virtually any city and find large church buildings of previous generations barely keeping their doors open. In my city, we could take a tour of the “happening” church from the 70s, and then the one from the 80s, from the 90s, and see that they are but a shadow of what they had been. What happened? The talent magnet drew their leadership elsewhere. People go where they can have power, either as a big fish in a small pond, or they will jump to the next pond. It happens to all organizations, sooner or later, and it will happen to the seemingly-invincible megachurch in your city, too.
I also claimed something about Inbreeding? Yes. A self-sufficient city unto itself, the megachurch becomes a micro-denomination, sending out satellites that have the same branding, same doctrine, and same personality. Bible colleges and seminaries are irrelevant and unnecessary for most of these micro denominations, as they soon create their own training academies to generate their own leadership, training up talent within, rather than hiring from the outside. Sooner or later, the pool of outside training dries up, when all the competition (little feeders churches) is gone and your self-sustaining network is no longer self-sustaining. Then the leadership pools their ignorance and stops changing. History is too good a teacher to deny it.
Perhaps a deeper problem with the megachurch is all of the mega-wanna-be’s. They study and imitate the ways of megachurch success and attempt it, without stopping to think where this is all heading. If the end result sought is found in numbers, then the bigger, the better. Just as Wal-Mart is better than, well, any place in the world. After all, they have the low price guarantee, right?
How can today’s second-tier worship leaders compete with the professional talent of the megachurch? They can imitate what they hear on the radio. So more than ever, churches today are enslaved by commercialism. People sing what is familiar, even if the key is unsingable or the tempo less than ideal or the form of the song unbending to the particular moment. The band learns their parts by listening to “the recording,” and the congregation is expecting to hear “the recording.” Anything else is unfamiliar, unpredictable, and therefore, supplies less dopamine to the brain and makes people less open to the spoken message that follows.
The worship leader’s job is to mimic the national personalities. So, churches are seeking talented worship leaders. What talents, in particular, are they looking for? Perhaps these talents, in this order: 1. Cultural relevance (sound, look, media, diversity), 2. Charisma (poise, personality, winsomeness), 3. Soft skills (organization, team building, management), 4. Music (quality, professional, artistry), 5. Integrity (don’t embarrass the church by messing up). Of course, they will put Christlike character and doctrinal purity at the top of their list, but a quick survey of worship leaders in your town will prove that in reality the five talents I listed are much higher on the list. You can’t really blame the churches for this flaw. It’s what it takes to stay on top. You need the best performer in the city to draw the people, because what you win them with, you win them to. The bigger the congregation, the less anyone on stage can be known. You can only make a first impression on the iMag. And no one knows or asks about the Christlike character or doctrinal purity of the singers on the radio, do they? (Mic drop.)
The divided church had both forgotten both how to evangelize and how to make disciples. And through generations of myopic topics and specialized musical genres, the church had forgotten how to worship. The attractional worship model had somehow turned into a concert-with-a-talk, one generation at a time. Yet, very little evangelism was actually taking place. The Willow Creek Confession opened the door to painful yet honest conversations about the priorities of churches: We spent most of our money and our energies on conversions, but were not making disciples. The discipleship tended to bog down when the show was so good that many in the target audience were happy to remain interested spectators and supportive audiences.
Is this a mega church? By which I mean, is it a church? If by church you mean that you exercise your gift to one another, hear one another sing, pray for one another, do body life together, no, of course it is not. It is 95 dBs and 20K ANSI lumens blown from a stage at a people who are left in the dark. It is a large-scale show, a one-way presentation controlled by a few people up front. That’s all it can be.
Innovation #14: Postmodern Worship
2018
The Problem: In a word, the problem was postmodernism. With the new generation that was arising in the 21st century, the old lines blurred. They were not “conservatives” in the sense that the evangelical faith emphasizing the desire to keep one out of hell and bringing one’s neighbors into heaven was not just irrelevant, but offensive. But they were also not “liberals” in the sense of arguing over the scientific realities of virgin birth and bodily resurrection and scholarly criticism of texts. Both of those labels, conservative and liberal, are modernist labels, and the new generation was a new mix of faith-and-doubt that colored outside the old lines of previous generations. They tended to embrace a “generous orthodoxy” (Brian McLaren’s term), which allowed for unanswered questions while still embracing an inexplicable ancient faith. Postmodernism is self-aware, holistic, open, accepting, and affirming. Perhaps a good description of postmodernistic faith in general would be “self-actualizing” (to borrow from Maslow‘s hierarchy of needs). What, then, is the Gospel to a postmodernist? We are here on earth to each find a path that helps others find their path to reach that path that helps one another. (Pause…) You know? . . . Postmodernism was the unexpected turn in the road of culture for which the most culturally-relevant styled evangelical churches had no answer.
The Solution: Musically, the solution was to rediscover worship. Places like the International House of Prayer and Bethel created institutes to help train people in worship. Conferences focused on worship, and also on worship leading, became quite popular. What’s more, there was an increased passion among the current generation for ancient worship practices, reworking old hymns, and somehow connecting with history—not with parents, but with the ancients (Missio Dei, Taize, many emergent churches).
End result: But by now, worship has been redefined to mean, “Saying to God how great He is to love someone special like me.” The worship concert, with lyrics that begin and end with “me.” I sing to an often-unspecified deity about how I still fail and question, but He loves me so much anyway. The practical definition for worship today is Worship Therapy. Combine an emphasis on emotion with an honest self-confession, and you have song after song that has a strangely-therapeutic color to it. Welcome to Postmodern Worship. “Brokenness Aside” “Oceans” “Reckless Love” “Good Good Father” “Holy Spirit” “Lord I Need You” “King of My Heart” “Our God” “One Thing Remains” “Open Up the Heavens”
CONCLUSION:
God never changes. But people always do. So culture is like a river, and you can’t step in the same river twice, to paraphrase Heraclides. If you stay where you are on the shore, put your foot into the water, take it out, and put it back in, the water has changed. It’s not the same river. So when a church worships the same way, with the same music and the same culture one week, they cannot have the same impact by doing the same thing again in a year, because the cultural context is now different. On the other hand, you can’t stay in the same river by jumping in an going with the current, either. Your relationship with the water around you might stay the same, but you are now in a completely different place than you were. So if a church completely follows the latest cultural trends, they will find one day that they are not teaching the same doctrines they once had, because they were so focused on cultural relevancy. Christ and culture is an impossible conundrum, a never-ending balancing act of following and leading. May God give you and His church the wisdom to navigate the NEXT cultural change wisely, with grace and with power of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
