Worship: "Meeting People Where They Are"

The following is a response to a conversation we had in a class in response to an article in the Baylor Lariate regarding the nature of the chapel service at Baylor. The chapel organizers are making an effort to have chapel "meet students where they are," making it more "customer-friendly." The the general consensus of the class was that "meeting people where they are" violates the true nature of worship. This is my response to that charge.

I regret that the conversation today regarding chapel was so one-sided. It is my own fault as much as anyone. I agree with very much of that “one sided” conversation, yet I think that a couple things should be said that were not said, and I will attempt to do that now, and perhaps play a bit of a “devil’s advocate.” Now I must preface this by admitting that I have not gone to the Baylor chapel yet (being a Truett student, we have our own chapel to attend), however, I can vividly remember the chapel services during my undergraduate studies at Ouachita Baptist University, and I hope this can relate.

First, I must respectfully disagree with Dr. Wood when he seems to equate “chapel” with “church.” Perhaps I am “picking nits” alongside Mr. Roberts, but there are several rather large differences between the two. In fact the only two similarities I can think of is that there is (1) a sermon and (2) songs that are sung as a corporate body. The primary and most obvious difference between the two that stares us blankly in the face is the fact that people are required to go to Chapel in order to receive their diploma, in contrast to going to church which is (as Dr. Wood has pointed out all virtues to be) a free choice. As a result, you have several people attending this Chapel service who would by no means attend a worship service in a church under any other circumstance. And this has a natural effect on homiletics (which can be defined as “The branch of rhetoric that treats of the composition and delivery of sermons”), which brings me to my next point.

Second, one of the most fundamental aspects of homiletics is to consider your audience. This is advocated in several books on homiletics (see Fred Craddock’s Preaching¸ Haddon Robinson’s Biblical Preaching, and Frederick Buechner’s Telling the Truth: the Gospel as Tragedy, Comedy, and Fairy Tale, as well as many others). Walter C. Kaiser even advocates that the audience should be taken into consideration even during the process of exegesis – (which can be defined as “the study of the text of Scripture in order to bring out the meaning of it.” See chapter 7 “Homiletical Analysis” of Toward an Exegetical Theology). The most commonly explained objective of a sermon is to bring the truth of the “then” (the Biblical text) through the process of exegesis and homiletics into the “now” of the audience. However, many preachers (and those in the congregation) seem to have the notion that this cannot be done, and this notion results in two “sins” at the pulpit: (1) speaking only of the “then,” thus leaving the past in the past instead of bringing it into the present and (2) speaking only of the “now,” thus failing to connect the “now” to the truth contained in the textual “then.” Of course there are also many shades of mistakes between these two extremes as well.

I am convinced that it is a mistaken notion that you cannot effectively bring the “then” into the “now.” I think those in our class (including myself!) lean more toward favoring the “then” approach to homiletics. We tend to want more Biblical knowledge, we want our understanding to be increased, and this is not a bad thing at all. We are to love the Lord with our minds. The purpose of bringing the text into the now is to make it (and yes, I am also beginning to hate this word too, but it is true) “relevant” (i.e., “What does this knowledge mean for me?”).

I have seen several examples of preachers bringing the “then” into the “now” quite effectively in Chapel. It may be difficult, but it is not an impossible task. I remember watching in awe as the late, great theologian Dr. Stanley Grenz took the basic thrust of his systematic theology (Theology for the Community of God) and connected even with the most remote and usually disinterested people in our chapel. I was astounded and moved! A preacher can (and should!) take a biblical text and bring it to a communicative level that can reach most of the listeners wherever they are. On that note, I think it is ridiculous to say “By meeting someone where they are, you cannot take them anywhere.” How preposterous is that! What, I cannot take my friend to the airport by meeting him at his house? Nonsense! You meet them where they are, and then you take them (or at least point them) to where they should be.

Frederick Buechner and others would agree emphatically that the preacher is, in a sense, “on the same level” as the listener, and must speak to the listeners “where they are.” The beginning of the article in the Lariate states the fact that the students who come are required to, and they typically come to chapel with the presupposition that it is “not worth their time.” It also points out the fact that many of the students who come are not Christians. This is “where they are,” and it would be a grave mistake of a preacher to not take that into consideration when developing their sermon. This is the difference between Chapel and Church – at church the people who come (save the children) do so as a free choice. And here lies the great weakness and challenge of chapel sermon – this yawning chasm between the disinterested unbeliever and the eager and hungry believer. How does a preacher meet both of these listeners “where they are”? I do not envy this ominous obstacle to the chapel speaker. I think it is possible to navigate this obstacle, but it must be tremendously and overwhelmingly difficult. And so the preacher (and the Chapel planner) is usually left playing to either one or the other listener: the non-Christian (one might use the word “seeker,” however this is a misnomer since they are required to come) and the Christian.

During my years in the church, I have noticed that different people respond dramatically to different approaches to worship, each approach resulting in staggering spiritual formation. I have heard critics of the “seeker sensitive church” (I’ve even been one!) say that this type of church has no place in Christianity. But I have seen literally thousands of people who have been dramatically changed and grown surprisingly strong in their Christian walk who came to know Christ simply because someone thought that it was important to speak these transcendent Gospel Truths in a way that they could understand and connect with, a way that many a “Traditionalist” would consider “un-Christian.” Likewise, I have heard the critics of the “Traditional” or “high church” worship service, and have to disagree with them as well. I have also seen people who grow dramatically as a result of a more Traditional or “high church” approach to worship. I hate to play the part of the post-modern relativist in this way, but if it is true that “You will know a tree by its fruit,” I have seen fruit as a result of both forms of worship, and must conclude that both approaches are valid and pleasing to the Lord.

Although ideal, I’m sure it would be rare to find someone that can effectively preach to the full spectrum of listeners present at chapel. So I would think it would be good for Chapel planners to compromise at this point and have variation in the Chapel services. On this point, I would say that it is even a holy act for believers on both ends of the spectrum take the example of Christ in Philippians 2 and “consider others interests instead of only their own” when it comes to attending these chapel services. A wise person once told me, “It is an act of holy submission and unity with other believers to say cheerfully ‘Have it your way,’ during the worship service.” However, take heed to Screwtape Letters and beware of the spiritual pride that comes with this act of humility. I fear that temptation even as I write this, but I think it would be a sin for me to omit what I feel is the truth out of fear. But there is another perhaps even more important point I think worth considering. My pastor once pointed out to me that we often mistake “learning something new” with “being spiritually fed.” I may not learn something new in a “seeker friendly” sermon, but I am always reminded of something that I have not mastered in my walk.

One final thing I think we should remember: the unbeliever in the Chapel service does not go to church on Sunday whereas the believer does. If by compromising my desire for a theological lecture, the Truth of the Gospel is then successfully communicated and received by even one unbeliever, it is well worth it.

I don't intend this post to be an apology for the Chapel planner's decisions or comments in the Lariate, but I think that we must recognize that even if it is to an extreme, there is a goodness behind their objective to "meet people where they are." We must not fall into either of the extremes. The answer to the question “What should a Christian worship service look like,” still remains a great mystery to me. I do not pretend to have all the answers, and I am eager to hear your perspectives on this issue because I yearn to grow in my understanding. Please, if you had the patience and fortitude to read this whole thing, share with me your thoughts, and help point me in the right direction where I have (I’m sure!) missed the boat!