What are some opinions United Methodists have regarding contemporary worship?

[circuitrider]

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.

People have said that for hundreds of years. In the 1800s one church I previously pastored had people walk out when the first pipe organ played in the Church with a choir. They called choral singing of anything other than psalms in church “promiscuous singing.” The NT was written originally in the Koine Greek because it was the language of the people. Sometimes you have to change the language of what you are doing for people to hear you. It isn’t about being modern. It is about making sure the gospel is heard.

 

[circuitrider]

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.

When you have three services in three styles people self select. If they don’t like one service they move to another. If they don’t like any of them, there are limits to how many services we can reasonably plan. Then they have to make a choice.

But so far, no, since we have both contemporary and liturgical options, people aren’t generally put out by there being other choices that they may or may not attend.

 

[circuitrider]

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.

Ah, we don’t do that. My church name is clearly First United Methodist Church in big letters on the building with the cross and flame logo. We are the only United Methodist Church in town, so most people in town just refer to us as “the Methodist Church.” No hiding here.

No matter what worship style, the church always gets the liturgy for baptism and communion that are found in the UMC hymnal or Book of Worship.

United Methodists have always had a bit more flexibility in worship than our Anglican and Episcopal sisters and brothers.

 

[seeking.IAM]

...United Methodists have always had a bit more flexibility in worship than our Anglican and Episcopal sisters and brothers.

That is sort of my point about the perception that one needs to do something creative and new to attract and retain members. The EO's, RC's, and Anglicans have sameness from service to service and seem to fare pretty well, or at least as well as others. So, I don't understand why other churches think they constantly need to change it up to keep people interested.

 

[Baby Cottontail]

People have said that for hundreds of years. In the 1800s one church I previously pastored had people walk out when the first pipe organ played in the Church with a choir. They called choral singing of anything other than psalms in church “promiscuous singing.” The NT was written originally in the Koine Greek because it was the language of the people. Sometimes you have to change the language of what you are doing for people to hear you. It isn’t about being modern. It is about making sure the gospel is heard.

I agree with that. I'm not against all kinds of change, or all forms of making things modern.

 

[Baby Cottontail]

Ah, we don’t do that. My church name is clearly First United Methodist Church in big letters on the building with the cross and flame logo. We are the only United Methodist Church in town, so most people in town just refer to us as “the Methodist Church.” No hiding here.

No matter what worship style, the church always gets the liturgy for baptism and communion that are found in the UMC hymnal or Book of Worship.

United Methodists have always had a bit more flexibility in worship than our Anglican and Episcopal sisters and brothers.

Yeah, our pastor uses the same liturgy for baptism, and mostly for communion (although the communion one is shortened a bit in the contemporary service) for both services.

 

[circuitrider]

That is sort of my point about the perception that one needs to do something creative and new to attract and retain members. The EO's, RC's, and Anglicans have sameness from service to service and seem to fare pretty well, or at least as well as others. So, I don't understand why other churches think they constantly need to change it up to keep people interested.

It is a difference in tradition. I expect Anglicans and Episcopalians to say, “Why would you change the service order?” You all are connected together via the Book of Common Prayer. We don’t quite have a worship ritual that binds us together like that.

My take is that some people need the same ritual for continuity, others need creativity for focus.