I think a reminder of what worship is supposed to be is in order. The focus should always be on Christ. There is a reason why the altar, pulpit, lectern, and font have such a prominent position. They are there to remind of what Christ has done for us. Quite frankly, with all the equipment set up smack in the middle of church, I don't know how you have anything resembling a worship service. The pastor cannot get to the altar. There would be difficulty getting to the lectern. You certainly could not celebrate Holy Communion. And why this sacrifice? All in the name of seeing and hearing the band. Suddenly it's less about Christ and more about me.
Humility cuts both ways. Just because we can do something doesn't inherently mean we should. If we do introduce something new, the best course of action would be to talk about it ahead of time with the congregation. Study what the Bible says about worship. Show what the purpose of worship is supposed to be. THAT would be being a Shepherd. Otherwise something new and unusual is introduced with little discussion and then people are shocked that there's push back. What did you expect?
I will freely admit that for being a metalhead, I am thoroughly a traditionalist when it comes to worship. My complaint with "contemporary" worship is not the guitars or drums or whatever. It's the lyrical content. So much of it says so very little. It is the theological equivalent of bubblegum pop. When it does say something, it is theologically questionable. I have heard some modern pieces that have excellent content, so I know it is not impossible. But you have to pan through an awful lot of silt to get to a few bits of gold.
And.... here's your answer:
For reference, I believe this setup was for a special Saturday evening music service, not the usual Sunday-morning service.
Frankly, I have a major problem with this statement:
"All in the name of seeing and hearing the band. Suddenly it's less about Christ and more about me."
This is a false dichotomy.
If we are seeing and hearing the band, then it's not about Christ. Or at a minimum, less about Christ.
Sorry, but I call bs.
Barring the Second Coming occurring during a service, Christ's presence is only going to be felt by and through those leading worship
and those
participating in it. I find the above re-quoted statement somewhat ironic given that it follows your statement about the necessary
prominence of the lecturn and pulpit, where a
pastor or other speaker stands, and is seen by all.
The necessary extension of the logic behind the statement I re-quoted above in red, in order to challenge it, yields the following conclusion regarding the prominence of the lecturn and pulpit:
""All in the name of seeing and hearing the
pastor. Suddenly it's less about Christ and more about
the pastor."
Corrected for truth?
Of course not.
It's a
ridiculous conclusion. It assumes that the only or primary reason that a pastor would be placed in a prominent spot is to make the service "about" him or her. We give our pastors more credit than that, don't we? Or at least we should.
Why is not the
same credit given to musicians leading a music-oriented service?
Even if the reason given for the prominence of the lecturn/pulpit is traditionalism, and that it works, I posit that such response is at best adequate by halves. The traditionalism half of that response devolves to "we've always done it this way," which in itself is no reason at all, and which, when the way we've always done it isn't working, is in fact worse than no reason, it's actively counterproductive.
But even assuming
arguendo that traditionalism ("we've always done it this way")
were a good reason for a course of action, a point I'm not at all willing to concede, I'd still challenge it as a reason. Because as a matter of historical fact,
have we always done it this way?
I would posit that in the early Church we very clearly did
not have lecturns and pulpits, nor arguably for that matter what we would recognize today as clergy.
But I'm not arguing to get rid of lecturns or pulpits or clergy.
What I am arguing for is to be open to other modes of worship. The Hebrews worshipped with music and DANCING, for heaven's sake. Pun intended. And presumably God was well pleased. But today I'm hearing that if we do so much as place the musicians where they can actively interact with the rest of the congregation, we're not doing worship how it's "supposed" (your lead sentence) to be. Such a setup could not possibly yield "anything resembling a worship service." That's simply not true.
Study what the Bible says about worship. Show what the purpose of worship is supposed to be.
Christ said "For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them." Nothing about lecturns or pulpits. Or musicians or drums. Or pastors.
Another canard I often hear, is that musicians, playing music in a style that actually has some relevance to church-goers, are instead focusing on "entertaining" instead of worship. Again, this is a false dichotomy, and for that matter it fails to follow Luther's directive to put the best construction on everything. It presumes that getting a congregation viscerally,
emotionally involved and invested in
participating in worship is somehow antithetical to what "worship is supposed to be."
I would argue that that's
exactly what worship is supposed to be.
or 4 if you're a drummer and can count that high (rim shot)
