What are some opinions United Methodists have regarding contemporary worship?

[Baby Cottontail]

I thought the place of Christian worshipers was to prefer each other over our own opinions?

I think that's how it should be. Unfortunately, that isn't how it seems to be playing out at my church. There's always been strong feelings and hostility towards the contemporary service from its very beginning. (The contemporary service at my church started in about the year 2000 -- so it's been in existence for about 17 years).

I just wish we could all get along and support one another.

 

[Dave-W]

I think that's how it should be. Unfortunately, that isn't how it seems to be playing out at my church. There's always been strong feelings and hostility towards the contemporary service from its very beginning. (The contemporary service at my church started in about the year 2000 -- so it's been in existence for about 17 years).

I just wish we could all get along and support one another.

I would chalk that up to a lack of proper discipleship.

 

[seeking.IAM]

Wow. That's a very surprising. It's like that congregation was trying to hide that it was a UMC from everyone interested in joining. You would have at least thought they would have told him in the membership class that it was a United Methodist Church. I thought that when people joined the church they had to make a promise to support the United Methodist Church? I recall this sort of language anyone joins the church in either the traditional or contemporary service at my church.

Maybe that church is actually no longer a United Methodist Church? Or maybe they are pulling away from the denomination? Or maybe they don't use any of the United Methodist language when people join?

It would be nice if any of those things were true, but they are not. The church was and is a UMC flying well under the radar. It is located in an affluent part of town that is dominated by a large non-denom mega-church with a charismatic pastor. I believe - but cannot be sure - they feel a need to masquerade as a non-denom in order to compete with their neighbor.

I find it regrettable that a congregation can't be proud enough of its denominational identity to publically claim it.

 

[seeking.IAM]

That sounds great. Do people generally view those who attend the other services in a positive way? Do they generally support the other two services? Have you ever dealt with any hostility?

I have a friend attending yet another UMC in a nearby town where there are bitter feelings between those attending the traditional service and the contemporary service. It has played out in an interesting way around the concept of sacred space. The traditionalists view the church's sanctuary as sacred space requiring a certain standard of reverence not embraced by the contemporaries, who dare to bring coffee cups into worship and drink throughout their service. Unfortunately, the contemporary service is the early service so when the traditionalists enter there are dirty coffee cups left in the sanctuary which infuriates the traditionalists.

I have been told there is also a significant disparity between the groups in level of financial support of the church, which irritates my traditionalist friend. I suspect that is a matter of age demographic in that older people who are better off in life economically may also lean toward the traditional service. Just speculation on my part though.

Lesson: If you are going to have both types of services, perhaps its better to have the traditional service first to avoid the coffee spat?

 

[Baby Cottontail]

It would be nice if any of those things were true, but they are not. The church was and is a UMC flying well under the radar. It is located in an affluent part of town that is dominated by a large non-denom mega-church with a charismatic pastor. I believe - but cannot be sure - they feel a need to masquerade as a non-denom in order to compete with their neighbor.

I find it regrettable that a congregation can't be proud enough of its denominational identity to publically claim it.

Wow. How does that even work? Yeah, they should be proud enough of the denomination to proudly state that that is what they are. It sounds like they just want to compete with that non-denominational church. I find this all deceptive of that particular congregation.

What do they do about apportionments and annual conference and things like that? And UMCOR? Is all of that hidden from the people attending the church, too? Or do they not support any of that?

It's just hard for me to imagine that they can get away with completely hiding that they are a UMC, and they don't want to let people know. I just find the whole thing weird.

 

[Baby Cottontail]

I have a friend attending yet another UMC in a nearby town where there are bitter feelings between those attending the traditional service and the contemporary service. It has played out in an interesting way around the concept of sacred space. The traditionalists view the church's sanctuary as sacred space requiring a certain standard of reverence not embraced by the contemporaries, who dare to bring coffee cups into worship and drink throughout their service. Unfortunately, the contemporary service is the early service so when the traditionalists enter there are dirty coffee cups left in the sanctuary which infuriates the traditionalists.

I have been told there is also a significant disparity between the groups in level of financial support of the church, which irritates my traditionalist friend. I suspect that is a matter of age demographic in that older people who are better off in life economically may also lean toward the traditional service. Just speculation on my part though.

Lesson: If you are going to have both types of services, perhaps its better to have the traditional service first to avoid the coffee spat?

It seems like an easy thing to do would be to ask everyone who goes to the contemporary service to be sure to throw out all their trash instead of leaving it. I can see how that would be irritating to have to pick up someone else's trash. To me, that's almost a respect issue. If there are crumbs and things, I would think some people would use a vacuum cleaner and try to clean things up a little bit, knowing how the people attending the traditional service felt about the mess. That just seems like it would make things better for both services.

At our church, the contemporary service doesn't meet in the sanctuary, so the food/trash issue isn't a factor.

You may be right about the demographics.

 

[seeking.IAM]

...What do they do about apportionments and annual conference and things like that? And UMCOR? Is all of that hidden from the people attending the church, too? Or do they not support any of that?...

I cannot say for sure since I don't attend there. But since they are a UMC in good standing, I suspect on the board or committee level there is openness about things like apportionments, UMCOR, pastoral appointments, etc., but the masquerading is for the seekers coming through the door or those minimally involved in church business. I will say that my friend and co-worker is an intelligent and discerning man so I believe him when he tells me he joined a UMC without knowing its affiliation, and I can see for myself how the church badges itself in the community.

 

[Baby Cottontail]

I cannot say for sure since I don't attend there. But since they are a UMC in good standing, I suspect on the board or committee level there is openness about things like apportionments, UMCOR, pastoral appointments, etc., but the masquerading is for the seekers coming through the door or those minimally involved in church business. I will say that my friend and co-worker is an intelligent and discerning man so I believe him when he tells me he joined a UMC without knowing its affiliation, and I can see for myself how the church badges itself in the community.

I don't doubt what you or your friend are saying. I'm truly baffled by how that church is doing this. I can understand maybe if they want to hide their denominational affiliation from people who just come in (although that is still a little weird), but to hide it from people who are joining so that they don't even know they are joining a UMC makes it very deceptive on their end.

People who are joining should be told that it is a UMC so that they fully know what they are joining. They should know that they are becoming United Methodists. That makes it appear as if it is a secret in the church that only the committees/boards know.

I would want to know if a church I was joining was in a larger denomination. I would want to learn about the denomination, and I would want to know what the denomination stood for.

 

[tampasteve]

I would want to know if a church I was joining was in a larger denomination. I would want to learn about the denomination, and I would want to know what the denomination stood for.

I think that is the root of the issue. Many/most weekly church goers are not as interested as the average person that posts to these forums. They just want to go every week or so and hear a nice message about how to apply the scripture to their life. They just want to hear some "moving" song. They want an experience...but they do not really care about the underlying beliefs of the denomination. Churches with specific theology and beliefs like the UMC, Lutheran, and Episcopal church are at odds with this casual church goer and have to balance being "modern" and being more denomination specific in their service, liturgy....and branding.

 

[circuitrider]

I thought the place of Christian worshipers was to prefer each other over our own opinions?

There are other reasons for multiple services other than styles. We don’t have the parking for our almost 400 attendees if we all gathered at the same time. We could do the service the same way three times in a row. But that seems less than creative.

 

[circuitrider]

That sounds great. Do people generally view those who attend the other services in a positive way? Do they generally support the other two services? Have you ever dealt with any hostility?

I’m new to my appointment. I just started here July 1. But what I’ve seen so far is that there isn’t any negativity about having different services. The best attended service goes back and forth between the 1st and 2nd serivice. The 3rd service (liturgical) has the poorest attendance and is largely older members.

 

[seeking.IAM]

There are other reasons for multiple services other than styles. We don’t have the parking for our almost 400 attendees if we all gathered at the same time. We could do the service the same way three times in a row. But that seems less than creative.

Why is being creative important?

 

[Baby Cottontail]

I think that is the root of the issue. Many/most weekly church goers are not as interested as the average person that posts to these forums. They just want to go every week or so and hear a nice message about how to apply the scripture to their life. They just want to hear some "moving" song. They want an experience...but they do not really care about the underlying beliefs of the denomination. Churches with specific theology and beliefs like the UMC, Lutheran, and Episcopal church are at odds with this casual church goer and have to balance being "modern" and being more denomination specific in their service, liturgy....and branding.

Hmmmm.....I guess that would be true for a lot of people. Some wouldn't even care about the Scripture part, either. They would just want to hear a nice message that makes them feel good or positive. It might not bother some of these individuals if the Bible were used at all.

To others, Scripture is important, so they do want to have a sermon based on Scripture.

I'm not sure that churches should let wanting to be "modern" control them.

 

[Baby Cottontail]

I’m new to my appointment. I just started here July 1. But what I’ve seen so far is that there isn’t any negativity about having different services. The best attended service goes back and forth between the 1st and 2nd serivice. The 3rd service (liturgical) has the poorest attendance and is largely older members.

Thanks. I think that is great that people at your church are supportive of all the other services.

 

[Dave-W]

There are other reasons for multiple services other than styles. We don’t have the parking for our almost 400 attendees if we all gathered at the same time. We could do the service the same way three times in a row. But that seems less than creative.

Yeah - I get that and understand.

But I was talking about people being put out because the mode of the service is not their cup of tea.

 

[Dave-W]

I'm not sure that churches should let wanting to be "modern" control them.

The Church of the Nazarene I first came to faith in back in the 1960s now has a congregation composed entirely of retired seniors. They have steadfastly held to "traditional service" to the degree that no one under 60 attends for more than a service or 2. Which means in another decade there may be so few attendees that they will financially be forced to close.

 

[TheGoodLight]

The denomination 'hiding' in those churches sounds like a hyper approach to the UMC's inclusiveness. In my own case, the inclusiveness much appealed to me (including along theological lines... I love the idea of theology not being a divider, if possible), but I was also quite happy to learn about Methodism and the UMC, which I did on my own prior to joining.

 

[Baby Cottontail]

The Church of the Nazarene I first came to faith in back in the 1960s now has a congregation composed entirely of retired seniors. They have steadfastly held to "traditional service" to the degree that no one under 60 attends for more than a service or 2. Which means in another decade there may be so few attendees that they will financially be forced to close.

That's not what I meant. I am fully supportive of churches having more than one style of worship. I'm all for contemporary services, and I am all for traditional services. I personally prefer a contemporary service (so long as the congregation gets to worship). I would not like the all "performance" type where the congregation isn't encouraged to sing along. (Not having the lyrics to the song, and just watching performers perform).

What I was referring to with "modern" is the extreme of removing "United Methodist" from the name, and hiding the fact that you are a United Methodist Church, making it appear as a non-denominational church, not letting people know about the theology of the church, etc. Basically, losing all identity from the outside that you belong to a denomination called the United Methodist Church.

 

[seeking.IAM]

The Church of the Nazarene I first came to faith in back in the 1960s now has a congregation composed entirely of retired seniors. They have steadfastly held to "traditional service" to the degree that no one under 60 attends for more than a service or 2. Which means in another decade there may be so few attendees that they will financially be forced to close.

I suspect there are other factors in play beyond traditional worship. Otherwise, how does one explain the Orthodox who have changed little since 1054 AD? Still the second largest body of Christians on the planet. My local EO is packed on Sunday AM with lots of young families and little kids worshipping in a hundreds of year old traditional way.

 

[circuitrider]

Why is being creative important?

Because sometimes that helps people hear the gospel more clearly. If you say the same thing the same way every time people have a tendency to tune out.