The third book I'm reviewing is Emerging Worship: Creating Worship Gatherings for New Generations, by Dan Kimball. This book is a sequel of sorts to the previous book I reviewed, Kimball's Emerging Church. As I mentioned in that review, his previous book wasn't "too heavy on practicality."

This second book, while not recommending any specific approach, is much more practical. The first half of Emerging Worship is about laying the foundation -- asking why changes are necessary, and thinking through critical issues before making any changes. To me, this is where the best stuff in the book is. The second half of the book takes a look at several churches (including two groups of house churches) that have implemented "alternative" worship gatherings.

Kimball lays out a very convincing narrative in the introduction:

I've had numerous conversations with younger people who told me they left their church to be a disciple of Jesus in a way that makes sense to them. They aren't abandoning their faith. Many choose to form small faith communities and meet in homes among friends. They are waiting for the larger, more organized church to change. This is no cop-out, either.

Virutally every young adult I have talked to sincerely tried to change their church and brought suggestions to the church leadership before leaving their church. Most volunteered to start something new. But the suggestions fell on deaf ears with a predetermined view of what emerging generations should be like in relation to "church."

The closed minds in their church leadership eventually made them choose to leave.

The story told in this narrative is something I'm seeing more and more in my peers. Some have turned to house churches, but I do believe that long-term, the house church trend will grow into something larger and more organized. Why can't existing organized churches start doing something now? Do we have to start from scratch? This is a question I'm struggling with right now.

Church leadership must recognize that there are distinct types of people that we are hoping to connect with. Kimball describes them in this way:

Pre-Christian: Someone who was raised with a basic understanding of "God" and a Judeo-Christian worldview. They may have had some church experience growing up that was primarily boring or dead ritual. So when a church provides a contemporary and relevant church worship service, they return to the church and trust Jesus Christ (or recommit to him). Most megachurches and growing churches today are reaching this group of people.

Post-Christian: Someone who was born and raised outside of any church influence and is now heavily influenced by our pluralistic culture and values. Generally few of their values, morals, or convictions are based on a Judeo-Christian worldview. "Church" either means nothing to them or they dislike it. Spirituality is subjective and individualistic, often an eclectic potporrui of the world's religious beliefs. They usually oppose the idea of joining any organized established religion. They often have strong anti-evangelical sentiments and a lot of stereotypes against Christians in general. Yet they are usually very spiritually-minded people.

Disillusioned Christian: Someone who grew up in a modern evangelical church, who left the church dissatisfied with the current way most churches function (with their emphasis on the big weekend worship service being the "church"). A rising percentage of younger people are not drawn to the megachuch philosophy or to the church structures and values that they grew up in (even in smaller churches). They desire to experience a different kind of church and different kind of Christianity than they grew up with.

I agree with Dan's analysis that most churches are reaching "pre-christians". In terminology consistent with the modern/post-modern discussion, these would be the people who would be classified as "modern." I also think that we will encounter more and more people who would be classified as "post-christian", or "post-modern."

But I am more and more convinced that the next generation of church leaders are primarily in the "disillusioned" category. They are not disillusioned with Christianity -- they are disillusioned with traditional church methodology. They do not believe that all it takes is a good kids' program to grow the church. They do not even believe that "growing the church" is a priority. They see that what we are lacking is growing disciples of Christ. We are lacking the growth of community among believers.

If any specific church does not attract a new generation of leaders, within the next generation that church will die.

We tend to ask the wrong questions when analyzing our worship services and programs. We tend to ask about how well an event was attended. Whether the transitions were smooth. Whether people sang loudly and clapped. Whether people responded to the sermon. Kimball explains that in the emerging church, we need to ask the following questions:

1. Did we lift up the name of Jesus as the centerpiece of why we gathered?

2. Did we have a time in the Scriptures learning the story of God and man? Did we invite everyone to be part of his story today through kingdom living?

3. Did we pray together and have enough time to slow down and quiet our hearts to hear God's voice and yield to his Spirit?

4. Did we experience the love, joy, and encouragement of being together as a church?

5. Did we take the Lord's supper together as a church regularly?

6. Did we somehow remind everyone of the mission of the church and why we exist?

7. Did we enable people to individually contribute something as part of the body of Christ?

Overall, the highlights of what existing churches are doing was interesting. But the one scenario that I would be interested in wasn't convered. In all of the existing churches that were highlighted, they added a new "alternative" gathering in addition to the one(s) they already had. I see two big problems with this:

1) Most small churches do not have the resources to start a new "alternative" gathering and keep the existing gatherings going, while doing both at high quality. Personally, I simply could not do both a morning "modern" gathering and an evening "emerging" gathering. If I was a paid worship pastor, it'd be doable. But as a volunteer worship leader, I'm simply not going to split my available time up that way. Small churches are working with a handful of leaders, and similarly need to focus their time and energy.

2) I feel that the changes that need to be made to connect with the post-modern culture need to be made to save the church from extinction. We've spent too long ignoring missions. Too long accepting passive participation as legitimate worship. Too long not challenging people into deeper intimacy with God. By starting an alternative worship gathering where you focus and what we're supposed to focus on, and leaving the existing gatherings unaffected, you leave the people who wouldn't attend an alternative gathering in relative mediocrity. Is this what the church is supposed to be about?

So in my particular situation -- how do you transition an entire church into a completely different model of ministry? More importantly, can it be accomplished? Has anyone tried it and had any success?

I'm also a little confused by the degree to which the "alternative" worship gatherings that are described are full of what, to me, appear to be "trendy" elements. I agree with the theory behind "multisensory" worship. But a lot of the descriptions I read about it sound awfully trendy, and when talking about alternative worship gatherings, I think people are distracted by discussions of prayer tents, art stations, journal stations, etc., and end up missing some of the critical points.

To Dan Kimball's credit, he ends the book with a chapter that questions whether we're just going to create a new brand of consumer Christians, ones who are as devoted to "multisensory" worship as some people are dedicated to the popular hymns of the 1950's. I know people are hungry for new things, and the multisensory stuff will feel fresh and engaging for a while. But we need to be focusing on who the church is, and what we do in a missional context, not the trendy things we incorporate into the gatherings.

I'll end this post with a table from Kimball's book, one that I think does a good job of talking about how we should view the church. But even as I review this now, I feel a sense that this isn't just for reaching post-modern generations -- it is for reaching all generations.

What the church isn't	What the church is
A "place" or building you go to	Disciples of Jesus wherever they go
The weekend meeting where the sermon is delivered and songs are sung	Groups of disciples meeting in homes and other smaller settings throughout the week who may also gather in a larger meeting to worship together on Sunday
Christians who go to a weekend meeting to get their religious goods and services	The worshipers of a local body on a mission together
Christians who go to "church" on weekends to get their inspiration and feeding for the week	The people of God who are passionately dependent upon God in worship and prayer all week long
Christians who ask, "What does this church have to offer me?"	Disciples of Jesus who ask, "How can I contribute and serve this local body on a mission?"
A place where Christins go to have the pastors do "spiritual" things for them	A community where the pastors and leaders equip the people for the mission and to serve one another
A place to bring your Children and teenagers for their spiritual lessons while you receive your sermon and sing a few songs	A community where leaders help train you to teach your children the ways of God and incorporate children and youth into the community so they aren't isolated

Labels: books, church, emerging