Perceptions from a Pewboy

OK, boys and girls, I’m off for a while.

Tomorrow after worship, I will travel to Mississippi with a group of 22 saints from Central Highlands Church. We will be there for a week-long mission trip.

Pray for us.

Miss me while I’m gone.

Eat all your veggies.

And, in the immortal words of Art Vandelay…

…”Keep it real.”

OK, be warned.

This is one long blog post. Feel free to back out now with no questions asked!

My feeling, however, is that the issue at hand is important enough to justify the space.

Months ago, I received this e-mail on the “forum” page of our church’s website:

A question to think about… I was sitting at the lunch table with the guys having our usual discussions of who knows what and an unusual topic came up. While we were talking about our college plans, my decision came up because they know that I’m Christian and that I want to attend the West Point Military Acadamy in New York after highschool. They wanted to know how it is that I can be a Christian and still join the military. They said that if the entire point in joining was to use plain violence to kill your enemies over often mere political issues, how could I get away with breaking one of the most important commandments numerous times and still go to heaven? Are the actions justified if drafted? If so, how can they be justified if you sign up by choice? Or is the term Christian-soldier just an oxymoron? I didn’t really have a response to this and was wondering what all of your views on this subject were, especially Eric’s because I know that he was in the ROTC (right?). Just wondering if this ever crossed your mind and what you thought about it.

How would you respond to such an inquiry? My response was as heartfelt as it was lengthy. In fact, my response to the inquiry was this:

A RESPONSE TO A VERY GOOD QUESTION ABOUT CHRISTIANS AND MILITARY SERVICE:

‘A question to think about’ indeed! In fact, I’m not certain that there is a more difficult issue for Christ-followers to ponder than the issue of violence, especially since we experience its manifestation each and every day.

By the way, thanks for remembering that I was in the ROTC! That was back in the 1980’s, when I had delusions of being a Rambo-like warrior who could “kill a man in a hundred different ways” and who was “taught to eat things that would make a billy goat puke!” (Just a little bit of dialogue from RAMBO there, to entertain the masses!).

Actually, as a freshman in college, I was one hour away from signing my ROTC scholarship contract, which would have paid for my education (including law school, which was my vocational goal at the time). Then, according to my plan, I would have entered the military as a 2nd Lt. and served my country as an attorney for the military (like Tom Cruise in A FEW GOOD MEN—”You can’t handle the truth!!!”)

Anyway, something prevented me from signing the scholarship contract—a gut feeling perhaps. And so, here I sit, a humble preacher with no military experience.

I have had many conversations with Christ-following soldiers (and police officers, for that matter) who find themselves in settings that require the use of violence and, on occasion, the taking of another life. I have also had many conversations with military chaplains who are often called upon to assist Christ-following soldiers who are burdened by enormous guilt over what they have seen and perpetrated. These conversations have led me to the conclusion that there are no easy, tidy, or convenient resolutions to the whole issue of a Christ-follower’s relationship with violence. It is an issue that demands relentless prayer and thought, lest we become comfortable with things that should always unsettle us.

I am greatly appreciative of the information that Becky Summers’ provided for you concerning the JUST WAR THEORY. Part of what I appreciate most about the JUST WAR THEORY (which has been around for a long time) is the way in which the theory makes clear that violence is always the EXCEPTION to normative behavior for the Christ-follower. It is violence that has to be justified, in other words, not peace. Peace is the pre-supposed condition that the Christ-follower is to pursue. Violence and warfare, according to the JUST WAR THEORY, is always to be looked upon as a last resort–and, more specifically, a last resort that must meet some very clearly outlined moral criteria.

So, in my view, any Christ-following soldier MUST familiarize him/herself with the content and the spirit of the JUST WAR THEORY, because it is a theory that will help him/her to contemplate warfare and violence within some type of moral framework. For the Christ-follower, the attitude can never be, “LET’S GO KILL US SOME COMMIES…OR KRAUTS…OR JAPS…OR MUSLIMS!” Such an attitude would bring about a hatred that would leave no room for Christ. Instead, our approach to violence and warfare must always be with a spirit of humility, regret, and even sadness, counterbalanced by the conviction that the violence will lead to a more just condition. Does that make sense?


However, I would encourage you to resist the temptation to put all of your eggs in the JUST WAR THEORY basket. Because, too often, the church jumps so quickly to the JUST WAR vocabulary that we lose sight of the fact that, when we train young people to be killers, something is lost within them. Even if we are training them for a JUST WAR, that doesn’t change the fact that violence is not what God created us to hold in our heart.

I read an article recently, written by a couple of soldiers, who described the way in which they are trained to be soldiers. Part of their training is to practice the “art” of dehumanizing the enemy—seeing the enemy, in other words, not as a human being, but as a target. After all, we might hesitate with our trigger finger if we think about shooting at another human being. But if we think about shooting at a target, we are more likely to abandon any hesitation.

I hope that the sound of that scares you as much as it scares me. Even if you go on to become a soldier, I believe that your Christianity will demand of you that you never lose sight of the sheer humanity of warfare. Ultimately, it is not about political agendas, military strategy, and doing battle with “targets.” It is about human beings killing other human beings in our often broken and sinful pursuit of human justice. Never allow yourself to be hardened to this reality.


I guess what I am saying is this: It is impossible to be a soldier without involving oneself in the sin of human violence and warfare. That said, it might be even more sinful not to do anything when confronted with injustice. Therefore, it may be the case that, in the brokenness of the human condition, that we cannot get out of some situations without choosing a sinful option: either the sin of doing nothing, or the sin of violence. JUST WAR THEORY maintains that the option of violence is the lesser of two evils. Pacifists, on the other hand, maintain that resisting violence at all costs is the more noble pursuit. Both options can be defended, I think, morally and theologically—which is why we have both Christian soldiers and Christian pacifists. I tend to listen to both, because I think that they both have something truthful to say. 


Have I clouded the issue sufficiently? Good! That was my goal!



I do not believe that the phrase CHRISTIAN SOLDIER is oxymoronic. I have known many soldiers who were Christ-followers. Had I gone into the military, I would like to believe that I would have been a Christian soldier. Furthermore, it is a misuse of Scripture to use the Ten Commandments as an argument against a just war. The commandment is best translated, “THOU SHALL NOT MURDER.” In the Old Testament, this commandment certainly didn’t prevent people of faith from killing in the context of warfare. Just check out the life of Joshua or King David if you need proof of this! So, it could be argued that there is a moral difference between murdering someone out of hatred, anger, or jealousy and killing someone in a context of military conflict. The motive is different. As a result, the commandment doesn’t apply.


Of course, that doesn’t let us off the hook concerning Jesus’ pesky and troubling teaching to “love our enemies” and to “turn the other cheek.” That, in my interpretation, is the more relevant teaching concerning warfare and violence. I don’t think that Jesus’ teaching can simply be explained away (as has been attempted by many Christians). I think that Jesus’ teaching about loving enemies must remain in our heart, if for no other reason than to remind us that violence is not what God ultimately intends for the human journey.


Here’s the deal: If you do go into the military, do not allow yourself to be desensitized to the issues that we have been discussing in this forum. As a pastor, all too often, I see people rationalizing their behavior. I see rich people, for example, talking themselves out of being generous with their money, even though Scripture demands it. I see people being cavalier with their sexual behavior, even though Scripture calls for something different. And, all too often, I see people rationalizing violence, becoming comfortable with it, turning a blind eye to it, even though Scripture describes Christ as the Prince of Peace.



If you go into the military, never let yourself rationalize the violence of it all. See it for what it is. Understand that you are participating in what might be considered a necessary evil in the pursuit of a redemptive conclusion. Be a soldier who is penitent, humble, prayerful, and relentless in your Christian conviction. And remember this: Even if you become a 4 star General, your foundational allegiance will be, not to a country or its flag, but to the crucified and resurrected Christ.


Thanks for allowing me to weigh in on this important issue. Even as I type these words, I am praying for you as you continue in your contemplation.


Eric Park

By the way, moviegoers, Tara and I checked out 1408 the other night.

I thought it was a very good and entertaining film. Having read the Stephen King short story on which the film is based, I found it to be an effective cinematic treatment of an exceptionally well-written “haunted hotel room” tale.

Let me put it this way: By the time I walked out of the theater, I was as frightened as a poodle at Michael Vick’s house. As a guy who likes to be scared out of his wits by movies, this is a good thing.

Beyond the jolts, however, the film also features fine performances by John Cusack and Samuel L. Jackson. More than simply the story of a haunted hotel room, both the film and the short story focus on issues of belief, faith, and loss.

Unlike most ghost stories, 1408 doesn’t attempt to explain too much, and it stubbornly resists the temptation to fit everything into the kind of neat and tidy package that insults the audience’s intelligence.

Check it out…if you dare.

So, I’ve been doing a bit of thinking about Pope Benedict’s recent clarification of the teachings put forth by the Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican (better known as Vatican II), held from 1962 through 1965.

I am using my language here carefully. Notice that I describe what Benedict did as a “clarification” rather than a “correction.” Having recently reread a portion of the Vatican II documents, I find that clarification is the more appropriate term. What Benedict did, in other words, was to illuminate what was already there.

I have been surprised to encounter a number of people (Protestant and Roman Catholic) who are very upset at what they perceive to be Benedict’s complete reversal of the direction of Vatican II. My fear, however, is that their anger has been fueled both by the media’s sensationalistic distortions of Benedict’s comments and by a lack of understanding of what Vatican II really said. It is certainly true, after all, that many Protestants and Catholics have treated Vatican II as an ecumenical panacea and a dismissal of all obstacles in the relationship between Christian traditions. Vatican II was important, to be sure. But it did not make as many concessions as some wishful thinkers would have us believe. Benedict, I think, was simply clarifying the matter.

For example, this is what the Vatican II document says in its DECREE ON ECUMENISM:

Nevertheless, our separated brethren, whether considered as individuals or as Communities and Churches, are not blessed with that unity which Jesus Christ wished to bestow on all those who through Him were born again into one body, and with Him quickened to newness of life-that unity which the Holy Scriptures and the ancient Tradition of the Church proclaim. For it is only through Christ’s Catholic Church, which is “the all-embracing means of salvation,” that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation. We believe that Our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, in order to establish the one Body of Christ on earth to which all should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the people of God.

Therefore, when Benedict maintains that Protestant communities of faith, “according to Catholic doctrine, cannot be called ‘Churches’ in the proper sense,” he is merely clarifying what Vatican II already maintains. According to Roman Catholic doctrine, we, as Protestants, bear witness to the Church, but we are not the Church.

All of which is to say that, although I disagree with it, I am not greatly troubled by the language of Benedict’s recent clarification. The language, in fact, was already in place. I am troubled, however, by the tone and the timing of the clarification. Vatican II’s greatest strength was its tone of graciousness toward Protestant communities, affirming that, although Protestants are not yet part of the truest expression of the Church, Christ is nevertheless “present and operative in our ecclesial Communities.” This was an enormous acknowledgement in the ecumenical relationship. My fear is that the tone of Benedict’s recent clarification implies a papal eagerness both to shore up the boundaries and to highlight the separation.

Also, I will be curious to see the impact of Benedict’s MOTU PROPRIO (”of his own accord”) concerning the revival of the Latin mass. I wonder how this will play out in the current Roman Catholic liturgical milieu. Who knows? It could lead to what one might call a “Missal crisis!”

Sorry about that. You’ve been great. I’ll be here all week. Try the veal.

If I may be perfectly confessional for a moment, there are times when I find a strange, unspecific, and undirected anger occupying the depths of my soul. It is not an anger that prevents me from loving Jesus or devoting myself to the ethics of his kingdom. But it does occasionally impact both the way in which I approach the various tasks of ministry and the way in which I treat the people with whom I am ministering. When I am not as patient with people as I want to be; when I am slow with affirmation and quick with biting criticism; when I am more cynical than I am compassionate; when frustrations in ministry become my primary focus, I know that I have allowed this mysterious anger to organize a coup d’etat against my emotional network.

I have had a hard time identifying and naming this anger over the years. The other day, however, while rereading Henri Nouwen’s THE WAY OF THE HEART, I came across a passage that left me completely undone. Not only does this passage illuminate the anger that I have described, but it does so in a way that makes me to appreciate even more deeply the way in which such anger, if left undisciplined, can sabotage or even corrupt a human soul.

Here is the passage from Nouwen’s THE WAY OF THE HEART to which I am making reference:

Anger in particular seems close to a professional vice in the contemporary ministry. Pastors are angry at their leaders for not leading and at their followers for not following. They are angry at those who do not come to church for not coming, and angry at those who do come for coming without enthusiasm. They are angry at their families who make them feel guilty, and angry at themselves for not being who they want to be. This is not an open, blatant, roaring anger but an anger hidden behind the smooth word, the smiling face, the polite handshake. It is a frozen anger, an anger which settles into a biting resentment and slowly paralyzes a generous heart. If there is anything that makes the ministry look grim and dull it is this dark, insidious anger in the servants of Christ.

That’s what I’m talkin’ about.

Does it ring any bells with any of you?

Have any of you experienced the music of Ben Folds? His name and music have surfaced in our blog-related conversations in the past.

I consider Ben Folds to be one of the most compelling popular songwriters of our time. Please don’t analyze this comparison too closely, but Folds is, in many ways, this generation’s Billy Joel. He is a gifted and classically trained pianist whose melodies are richly musical and whose lyrics are as compelling as they are quirky.

That said, please be warned: Most of Ben’s CDs have the “parental warning” sticker on them, largely because of his liberal employment of expletives. Having spent a good portion of life in a locker room, I confess to you that I have become rather desensitized to such language. It pretty much goes in one ear and out the other. I didn’t want to recommend his music, however, without including a word of caution.

A couple of years ago, Ben Folds wrote a song entitled Jesusland. I heard the song for the first time this week and have been thinking about the song all week long. The term “Jesusland”, as I see it, is a reference to much of America, a country in which the name of Jesus is known and revered, even worshiped, by a substantial portion of the population. In America, Jesus and his narrative are woven into the very fabric of our history and our cultural DNA. We are a land in which Jesus is named, debated, quoted, and artistically referenced on everything from t-shirts to bumper stickers, everything from billboards to television commercials. We are, in short, a “Jesusland.”

However, as Ben Folds makes clear in his song, there is all too often a substantive disconnect in Jesusland between the behavior of its citizens and the example of the One they call Lord:

Take a walk
out the gate you go and never stop
past all the stores and wig shops
quarter in a cup for every block
and watch the buildings grow
smaller as you go

Down the tracks
beautiful McMansions on a hill
that overlook a highway
with riverboat casinos and you still
have yet to see a soul

Jesusland
Jesusland

Town to town
broadcast to each house, they drop your name
but no one knows your face
Billboards quoting things you’d never say
you hang your head and pray

for Jesusland
Jesusland

It is a convicting imagery, isn’t it?

“Beautiful McMansions on a hill” (a reference, no doubt, to the kind of undisciplined wealth that leads to the quick and fast food-like manufacturing of huge, ostentatious, and artistically bland dwelling places)

“…that overlook a highway with riverboat casinos and you still have yet to see a soul” (Lots of people, in other words, and lots of activity, but very little that would qualify as a soul by Ben Folds’ standards)

“They drop your name but no one knows your face” (What a clever articulation of an all-too-common condition—specifically the condition of having the name of Jesus on our lips while stubbornly refusing to see his face in the people whose lives intersect with ours)

I know very little about Ben Folds’ spiritual convictions. This song, however (and others like it) bear witness to an artist who is spiritually attentive enough to recognize a dangerous incongruity between the ministry of Jesus and the politics of Jesusland. In fact, Folds’ song makes me think of a t-shirt that I saw a few years back. It read this way: “Lord Jesus, save me from your followers!”

I love it when I’m inspired to think theologically by what some would consider to be a “secular” song (whatever “secular” means). God’s Word after all finds expression wherever God seeks to manifest it. This week, I heard God’s Word through the music of Ben Folds. His lyrics brought me to my knees in humble confession as I pondered all the different ways in which I have become content with dropping the name of Jesus while at the same time ignoring his face.

The folks at Rolling Stone magazine recently interviewed Tom Wolfe, the eccentric author of compelling novels such as THE RIGHT STUFF and THE BONFIRE OF THE VANITIES (not to mention THE ELECTRIC KOOL-AID ACID TEST). The interview appeared in one of the magazine’s recent issues.

As I read the interview, I was struck by Wolfe’s religious views. He describes himself as a non-believer and yet maintains (with some degree of passion) that religion is a necessary portion of any healthy society.

Check out the following excerpt from the interview:

ROLLING STONE: You are lamenting the loss of God in our lives, but I don’t see in your writing any professions of belief. Are you a religious person?

TOM WOLFE: No, I’m not a believer. I was raised as a Presbyterian, and when I was about thirteen or fourteen, I just kind of wandered off…I never had this moment when I said there was no God.

ROLLING STONE: But as a non-believer, you still seem to be defending belief.

TOM WOLFE: Anyone who thinks that religion is bad for society is out of his mind. We are now beginning to see what happens when you don’t have it. People get depressed when they don’t have something to believe…This is my problem with the atheists, people like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris. They’re saying that there is no ghost in the machine, that it’s all physical. And if it’s all physical, it’s going to obey certain laws. And the endpoint of the argument is that there is no free will, that you and I are machines that have had a certain genetic foundation, and as soon as we know enough about that, we’ll be able to predict what’ll happen when you meet me. We just need the information. That’s a very depressing thought.

It is a very strange thing indeed to be saying “amen” to a non-believer. And yet, an “amen” is precisely what I am compelled to articulate in the aftermath of Wolfe’s comments. In the often-cynical literary world, where faith is regularly demythologized and demystified by articulate wordsmiths and storytellers and where religion is often reduced to little more than the superstitious rambling of unappealing characters, Tom Wolfe dares to acknowledge the possibility that faith—even a faith that he himself is not yet able to embrace—might have a social significance on top of its spiritual import.

Like Wolfe, I too believe that the materialists like Dawkins and Harris paint an ultimately depressing philosophical portrait of the meaning and purpose of life. Like Wolfe, I believe that a world that is nothing more than the sum of its physical processes and its accumulation of information is “a very depressing thought.” Like Wolfe, I believe that a holistic faith has the potential to be very good for the society in which that faith is lived out.

Even as I type these words, I find myself praying for Tom Wolfe. He has entertained and engaged me many times with his writing. I figure that the least I can do is pray for his soul. More specifically, I am praying that he comes to embrace the faith that he seems so eager to defend.

When it comes to singing the hymns and choruses of faith, how do you feel about your congregation’s level of investment?

I have pastored four churches thus far. Quite frankly, the most passionate singers that I have encountered in those four pastorates were the folks in the 75-member church that I pastored as a seminarian during my years in North Carolina. They sang with conviction, as though they believed the message in their music were nothing less than urgent in its content. They sang with joy, as though they believed that they were actually supposed to be happy about what they were singing. They sang loudly, as though they believed that mumbling their way through a hymn were simply not an option.

It is not at all my intention to disparage the other congregations that I have been privileged to serve. They are dear to my heart as well. But, when it comes to singing the faith, those saints in rural North Carolina taught me some things. They taught me that our hymns and choruses are not simply liturgical connectors linking one part of worship to another. Nor are the hymns and choruses merely preparation for the proclamation of God’s Word. Rather, our music IS the proclamation of God’s Word. Beyond that, our music is our only appropriate response to a God who deserves more than the mundane tones of a spoken voice. God, in other words, deserves the multi-tonality of a singing congregation.

One of my great frustrations in ministry is the singing of some of our congregations. Some congregants simply stand there and look bored until the singing stops, stubbornly refusing even to mouth the words. Some bury their faces into a hymnal (which, by the way, is not much better than staring blankly at a video screen). Some read the bulletin to fill the time until the final chord is struck. Such an environment makes me all the more grateful for those who sing with a spirit of vibrancy and joy.

I am not insensitive to the fact that many worshipers are tone deaf and otherwise musically challenged. I am not suggesting that every worshiper has to be a gifted musician. My sense, however, is that the blandness of much of our congregational singing has less to do with musicianship and more to do with a lack of spiritual investment in the discipline of singing our faith.

I am currently reading a book by Paul Minear entitled THE BIBLE AND THE HISTORIAN (Breaking the Silence About God in Biblical Studies). In the book, Minear devotes a chapter to this great hymn of faith incorporated by the Apostle Paul in his letter to the Philippian church:

Though he [Christ] was in the form of God, he did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness…
(Philippians 2:6-7)

Minear offers these insights concerning the importance of this hymn to the first century church:

The hymn functioned in such a way as to shape the mind of the congregation and to clarify its sense of vocation. Emerging from deep levels of communal experience, the song articulated in both verbal and musical terms a rich cargo of nonverbal affections and emotions. It elicited memories that were relevant to meeting current dilemmas and dangers. The hymn assumes that the story of Jesus is prototypical of the story of the Messiah’s family. By singing it the congregation affirmed a hidden conjunction between God’s exaltation of Jesus and God’s design for all things. (THE BIBLE AND THE HISTORIAN, page 249)

I find myself wondering how many of our people look upon the hymns and choruses as a clarification of our vocation and “a rich cargo of nonverbal affections.” How might the tone and spirit of our congregational singing change if people understood worship music to be an expression of the “conjunction between God’s exaltation of Jesus and God’s design for all things?” What can I do as a pastor to help the congregation (including yours truly) to grow in its theological appreciation for the purpose and function of music in the church’s liturgy?

These are some of the questions that this humble old pewboy is asking as he prepares to lead his congregation in worship once again.

Many believers probably sang GOD BLESS AMERICA last weekend during worship. It certainly would have been an appropriate congregational prayer to be offered in song. Our country, after all, is rich with the kind of freedom and opportunity for which many in the world are desperately hungry. The very least that we can do is to pray for our great nation and to call upon God’s blessing on our nation’s behalf

And yet, as much as I have come to appreciate prayerful hymns like GOD BLESS AMERICA and MY COUNTRY, ‘TIS OF THEE, I am even more appreciative of the hymn THIS IS MY SONG—a hymn that calls upon God to bring a blessing, not only upon America, but upon all the nations of the world. Here is a portion of the poetry of that great hymn of faith:

This is my song, O God of all the nations,
A song of peace for lands afar and mine.
This is my home, the country where my heart is;
Here are my hopes, my dreams, my holy shrine.
But other hearts in other lands are beating
With hopes and dreams as true and high as mine.

(Note: The words to the hymn THIS IS MY SONG were written by Lloyd Stone and Georgia Harkness)

What I love about those words is the way in which they communicate both a celebration of American hopes and dreams and a stubborn refusal to slip into a condition of nationalistic idolatry and irresponsible jingoism. The words remind us, in other words, that the hopes and dreams that we celebrate as American believers need not blind us to the preciousness of the hopes and dreams of others around the world with whom we share a common humanity.

By the third verse of the hymn, the tone has become even more prayerful and global:

This is my prayer, O Lord of all earth’s kingdoms:
Thy kingdom come, on earth thy will be done.
Let Christ be lifted up till all shall serve him,
And hearts united learn to live as one.
O hear my prayer, thou God of all the nations.
Myself I give thee, let thy will be done.

Every time I sing those words, I am reminded of the fact that, when believers gather for worship, we bear witness to the existence of a different kingdom. It is a kingdom that transcends national boundaries and ethnic backgrounds (without ignoring them). It is a kingdom in which brotherhood and sisterhood in Christ is more cohesive than political affiliation or national creed. It is a kingdom in which citizenship can be shared by Americans and Iraqis, by British and French, by Asian and African.

The kingdom to which I am making reference, of course, is the kingdom where water is thicker than blood, baptismally speaking. Jesus inaugurated this kingdom with his life, death, and resurrection, and the world will never again be the same.

On this Independence Day, I celebrate our nation, its freedom, and its ideals. May God bless America in a way that leads to an ever-deepening commitment to justice and peace.

In the process, may God bring a similar blessing upon all the nations, so that the kingdoms of this world will become the kingdom of Christ, where he shall reign for ever and ever.

This is my song.

It is certainly not my intention to belabor a point, but my last post (related to a workshop on worship that I recently facilitated) inspired some good and thoughtful chat here in the confines of blog-land.

So, here is another list of personal convictions that I shared with the workshop participants.

The list of convictions in my last post focused on music ministry. This list is a bit broader in its scope and touches upon different components of the journey toward a new worship experience.

Of course, each one of these convictions deserves an entire post and then some. I list them briefly here simply for the purpose of inspiring further thought and exploration.

Some Personal Convictions
Concerning the Development and Implementation
of a New Worship Experience
Eric Park (June 2007)

1. A creative and committed Vision Team is essential in the process of dreaming and planning a new worship experience.

(Many congregations fail in their development of new worship experiences because they do not allow sufficient time in the dreaming and planning phase. The dreaming and planning phase, if managed well, will generate the vision and passion necessary to sustain the new worship experience even after it loses its sense of newness. It is critical that those chosen for this vision team are creative in their thinking, committed in their worship life, and gracious in their demeanor. Allow more time for this dreaming and planning phase than you think that it will require. It is best for the Vision Team to be facilitated or convened by a leader who understands the liturgical components and some portion of the history of Christian worship.)

2. The work of the Vision Team must include both liturgical dialogue and liturgical experience (i.e., both conversation ABOUT worship and participation in the innovative worship offered by other congregations).

(Experiencing the worship offered by other congregations can be an enormous help in the development of vision concerning what new or different worship might look like. It must remain clear to all members of the vision team, however, that, when they visit other churches, it is not for the purpose of finding a liturgical blueprint to steal. Rather, it is for the purpose of gaining new insight and fresh inspiration that might undergird the team’s ongoing work.)

3. When dealing with the church’s administrative process, it is far better to ask for permission than forgiveness.

(Accountability to the Church Council—or whatever your church’s governing body might be—is not to be underestimated. Regular and articulate presentations to the Church Council can go a long way toward helping the church’s administrative officers to feel invested in the new worship experience.)

4. When choosing the day and time for the new worship service, it is sometimes more helpful to run than to fight.

(Congregations can be enormously protective of their Sunday morning patterns and routines. Sometimes—not always, but sometimes—holding a new worship service on a Saturday or Sunday night is a good way of avoiding unnecessary warfare and congregational turmoil.)

5. If the pastor and church staff are not fully invested in the new worship experience, then your church is probably not ready for a new worship experience.

(The pastor and staff are the leaders from whom the congregation will take its cues in responding to the new worship experience. Their full and enthusiastic support, therefore, is nothing less than crucial.)

6. The congregation will not support what it does not understand.

(It is essential, then, that at least two months are devoted to the task of interpreting the new worship experience to the existing congregation. This can and must be done through every medium: newsletter; website; postcards and letters; and, perhaps especially, preaching and teaching.)

7. Worship is not fundamentally about technology, but a sanctuary that is not technologically equipped can hinder worship’s impact.

(The months of planning and preparation leading up to a new worship experience must also include the technological upgrades that the new worship will require.)

8. The placement of the right leaders in the right positions on a worship team is every bit as important as finding the right preacher, if not more so.

(In addition to having the right man or woman to preach the Word, a new worship experience will require a variety of gifted and growing leaders, each of whom must organize a team that will function under his or her leadership. The following list is meant to provide insight concerning the types of leaders who may very well be necessary in the implementation phase of a worship initiative.)

-A MUSICAL LEADER is crucial, a musician whose musicianship is matched by his or her love for God and his or her ever-expanding repertoire. In most circumstances, this musical leader will be responsible for the recruitment, training, and organization of a growing team of musicians that will provide the ministry of music at the new worship experience.

-A WORSHIP LEADER is also crucial. This will be someone who provides a winsome “platform presence” and who can offer spoken prayer and liturgical leadership in a way that is both articulate and evocative. In many churches, the worship leader and the musical leader are often one in the same. But this might not make sense in certain church settings.

-A TECHNOLOGICAL LEADER is a must, especially if your worship experience is audio-visually complex. It helps if the technological leader is highly competent in the areas of lighting, sound, video, and computer technology. It will be the technological leader’s responsibility to build a team of techno-wizards to support the new worship experience.

-The need for a CHILDCARE COORDINATOR or OVERSEER requires no elaboration. Creative care for the young sheep of the fold is never to be minimized.

-A HOSPITALITY COORDINATOR is a key component in any new worship experience. He or she will recruit the ushers and greeters and will work to create an hospitable environment in the lobby or narthex.

-If a new worship experience is going to become everything that God wants it to become, a PRAYER TEAM, overseen by a PRAYER TEAM LEADER, must be in place. This team will be responsible for praying before, during, and after worship. It is helpful if some members of the team are available to pray and talk with those who are in need of such ministry following the worship experience.

9. If the aforementioned leaders do not find a way to work in sync, worship will have a schizophrenic character.

(Part of the overseeing pastor’s responsibility is to find a way to make certain that the different leaders are operating with a similar vision and liturgical understanding. This may require weekly or monthly meetings. It will also surely involve the nurturing of an environment in which all of the leaders feel challenged and appreciated.)

10. A new worship experience will only be as deep as the prayer that undergirds it.

(The prayer of righteous people, according to Scripture, is powerful and effective. Any new worship experience, therefore, must be saturated in the earnest prayers of God’s people. Prayer, quite simply, is the primary conduit through which the Holy Spirit can make his way into a new ministry of worship.)