In a recent post, JD asked a series of questions about the corporate worship experience through comparing two recent movie releases: UP and Terminator Salvation. JD notes that these two movies display very different approaches to what is central to what one might call a good movie experience: the directors of UP seem to focus primarily on storytelling while the directors of TS seems to use special effects to "duct-tape" its story elements together (JD's take, not mine; I've not seen either movie at this point). This comparison is then applied to some of the approaches to designing corporate experiences of worship in the modern church:
As a worship leader who was groomed within the "seamless" approach to worship design for a long time, I think JD makes a very keen observation here: the seamless experience idea can lead to a worship experience that is focused more on effect than affect. The effect-driven experience brings people effectively into the presence of God, and then is designed to send them out from His presence. While I agree wholeheartedly that one of the functions of the corporate worship experience (though not the primary one) is to connect people to the presence of God, and I believe this experience should send the people of God out into the world, the danger of this approach is that God becomes what (or who) is evoked and therefore, is as easily left behind when the worship experience concludes. Like any movie experience, one effect leads to the next, and when the effects end, the movie ends. If church is approached in this way, the worship of God is signaled to end when the experience concludes. I can't say this is the goal of biblical worship.
Storytelling in/as/within worship, then, argues for a very different approach to design: affect. Storytelling has a number of functions as it is used in various contexts; in the church, one of the primary functions of storytelling is orientation. The story of God awakens us to the reality of the world: that Yhwh is a free God that is for His people, that He created us with communion in our design, that since the fall He has chosen to move in ways that offer man and all creation a way back to the life we were created for with Him, that through Christ all the nations are welcomed to know Him and to make Him known, that forgiveness, healing, and reconciliation to God and others are ours in Christ and will be fully ours when He returns, triumphing over sin and death to reign forever over and with His people. Worship calls us to situate ourselves within this reality; not only acknowledging it as the truth over all the other stories of the world, but to align our hearts and lives with His purposes and truth as revealed in Christ. This is the affect, brought about through the Holy Spirit in the people of God. True, affective worship yields transformed people. And what is most crucial is that this storytelling re-contextualize our actions outside of the church walls; when we see ourselves within God's great story, all aspects of our lives fall within its narrative arch, extending worship into every aspect of our lives.
The big problem with seamless worship experiences is that the rest of life is full of seams. If the biblical story orients us to the reality of God, our experiences in church must be as real or even more "real" than the everyday reality of life. It must lead to our everyday experiences being swallowed by the grand story, moving away from the idea that worship is an escape from the world and towards the idea that worship is the clearest picture of our world we can gain, both of what is and what will be. We must highlight the seams of life, the places where the story of God and what we see and experience collide, allowing the story of the Kingdom to read our world, our actions, our hearts. Seamless worship experiences do not require me to be changed; they only require reaction.
JD's argument, then, gains some solid ground in suggesting that it is effective (or maybe affective) storytelling that must be the primary aim of worship design if transformation is our goal. To be more like Christ will require the full gospel story and all of the bumps that come with bringing it in contact with fallen people and a fallen world.
Part of JD's argument seems to underline that effects cannot replace the story in our gatherings. I agree, though we will be hard-pressed to divorce the story from the telling. What we must safe-guard ourselves against is a focus on telling that neglects, dilutes or ignores the story of God, through which we know Him, His promises and His presence. JD's post ends with a series of questions all centered towards reframing the role of the worship leaders in the church (his definition would not simply include the lead singer, but the pastors, laypeople, etc... who give voice and direction to what happens when your church gathers).
I think it would look messier. Worship would look like a collision of sorts. The Kingdom of God colliding with people, with situations and attitudes. With headlines and family dynamics and world-views that distort or deny the reality of a reigning God and His actions towards creation. It would spill out into the community because the worship that occurs in the church tells the story of the community in a lot of ways: of God's purposes in the neighborhood and its people. It would never tie a bow on the worship experience because to do so would evoke a stopping point, and it's not up to us to end the story--only to tell of the coming end (or rather the re-beginning) of it.
What do you think?
