Worship Evaluation

Worship renewal will only occur when congregations prayerfully consider the biblical foundations, theological tenets, and historical precedents of worship.  If worship leaders agree that these foundational elements are necessary why do they continue to depend on song selection and stylistic change to negotiate the worship impasse?  The need for worship renewal must be determined first by considering worship principles before trying new worship practices.

Intentional, consistent evaluation can provide “a constructive way to articulate what a congregation has learned about itself and its worship practices, as well as to help prioritize which goals are most important to address in the future.”[1]  Unless an organized plan of evaluation of the deeper issues of worship is implemented, the tendency to focus on style and mechanics consumes the energy of worship planners and leaders.  Worship leaders could feel threatened by the prospect of an evaluation of service mechanics and personalities.  Reassurance can be found when reminded that “the purpose of evaluation is not to give a grade to the musician or preacher or worship leader, or to provide a ready-made forum for resident critics to explain what is wrong with worship.”[2]  Instead, it is a process of determining if our liturgy is truly incarnational.  The liturgy, instead of the individual becomes the evaluand.  This removes the focus from personalities or preferences and returns it to its biblical foundation.

Internal Evaluation

Internal worship evaluation is a valuable instrument once a framework for a deeper understanding of worship renewal has been established and practiced.  The danger of internal evaluation without a deeper understanding is the perpetuation of ideological evaluation based on likes and dislikes, mechanics and styles.  Some advantages to internal evaluation to assist in worship renewal are:

• There is a greater likelihood that the evaluation will be tailored to the information needs of organization members.
• There will be greater access to data.
• Organization members can develop evaluation expertise.
• There is a greater chance of evaluation becoming a sustained, institutionalized practice that is integrated with other work tasks and strategic planning.
• The evaluation results have a greater probability of being used for decision making and action.
• Knowledge of the organization and its members may provide greater insights into the evaluation’s design, implementation, and results.[3]

Disadvantages lie in the realization that since the evaluators have a more personal interest, there is a danger of organizational politics entering into the evaluation process thereby impeding the validity of the evaluation.  Internal evaluation should be an ongoing method of determining if a congregation is remaining faithful to worship renewal once the initial parameters have been established.   

External Evaluation

External evaluation offers a process of evaluation from an outside source providing a greater degree of objectivity.  The hope through this process would be an unbiased or unprejudiced evaluation of the worship depth of a congregation.  Again, the focus of this evaluation would not be on mechanics or style.  External evaluation should precede internal evaluation and be executed much more infrequently.  External evaluation provides the ‘big-picture” worship renewal areas of concentration, where internal evaluation determines how consistently a congregation is implementing those areas.  Advantages to enlisting an external evaluator may include:

• Increased evaluation expertise.
• Greater independence.
• Ability to see the whole picture and provide a different perspective.
• Less susceptibility to cooptation.
• Evaluation may be completed in a more timely way.
• Organization members may be more honest with an outsider.[4]

 Embedded Theology

A successful external evaluation could be hindered by a limited understanding of the theological culture of a particular congregation.  Discerning the generally accepted beliefs of a congregation will allow an evaluator to assess them in light of these convictions.  This accepted understanding of faith “disseminated by the church and assimilated by its members in their daily lives”[5] is called embedded theology.  This rooted understanding of faith and practice permeates the entire life of the congregation, including its worship.  The challenge for an external evaluator is the balance between understanding a congregation’s embedded theology and still remaining objective during the evaluation.  External evaluation within the same faith culture or denomination will allow some implicit insight of a congregation’s faith and practice.  Since the practices of a congregation so often reflect its understanding of theology, a challenge to those practices are where we find ourselves in conflict as we strive for worship renewal.  The realization that this embedded understanding began for some at birth gives additional credence to the significance of external evaluation.

Don S. Browning gives insight to this understanding of embedded theology when he explains, “We come to the theological task with questions shaped by the secular and religious practices in which we are implicated – sometimes uncomfortably.”[6]  When a congregation comes to the place of a crisis in practice it begins to question the theory of that practice.  Browning points out that theory and practice are related.  All our practices are in response to theory, even though we might not recognize the theory.  Our practices are such an embedded part of who we are as a congregation that we often fail to extract and understand the theory behind those practices.  When congregants come to a crisis such as the worship wars, they begin asking questions about their practice.  If worship renewal is to occur they must look at the deeper understanding of the theory.[7]  External evaluation can give a perspective outside of a congregations embedded understanding to help facilitate the process of evaluating these theories.  Browning additionally proposes that this view “goes from practice to theory and back to practice.”[8]  Not all embedded theology is flawed.  The hope is that through evaluation a congregation would take a second look at its embedded practices to determine if they are theologically sound.  

Deliberative Theology

The theological discernment that emerges through careful reflection on embedded understanding is referred to as Deliberative Theology.  This second thought reflection is sometimes called second-order theology.  Previously taken for granted understandings are set aside or evaluated along with additional relevant information in an effort to discover a deeper theological awareness that a restricted personal understanding might not allow.[9]  The danger with this deliberative theological reflection is that it could become too academic or insensitive in its approach.  As a congregation begins reflection for the purpose of worship renewal, it must take into consideration the deep-seated emotional connection congregants have with their embedded understandings.  A sensitive and judicious approach in the reflection of these divergent views will help ensure a more palatable transition and ultimate transformation.

Collaborative-Participatory

Involving congregation members in the evaluation process helps to eliminate the potential for an insensitive and mechanistic approach to change.  A collaborative-participatory approach assumes that those involved can engage in healthy dialog to reach understandings about their deliberative theology.  Caution must be implemented so that this approach does not allow for ideological or political influence.  Undue influences or influencers could potentially manipulate the reasons for the evaluation, persons selected as evaluators, and the way in which the evaluation is executed.  Darlene Russ-Eft and Hallie Preskill offer the counsel that the collaborative and participatory approach is particularly useful when there is a desire to increase the likelihood for using the evaluation’s findings and to obtain buy-in and involvement from key leaders.[10] 

An organized plan which involves worship leadership through external evaluation and congregation members through internal evaluation will ensure the inevitable dialog will not turn to secondary concerns.  The Worship Sourcebook offers insight that “Discussions on these matters takes practice and intentionality.  Over time, congregations and leaders can learn how to engage at this level.  One important result of this is that gradually the attention of both leaders and worshipers is drawn to deeper matters.”[11]

 

---

[1] The Worship Sourcebook, (The Calvin Institute of Christian Worship, Faith Alive Christian Resources, and Baker, 2004), 763.

[2] Ibid.

[3]Darlene Russ-Eft and Hallie Preskill, Evaluation in Organizations: A Systematic Approach to Enhancing Learning, Performance, and Change (New York: Basic, 2001), 35. This volume was written to develop more efficient evaluations in secular organizations but has profound implications for congregations.

[4] Ibid., 36.

[5] Howard W. Stone and James O. Duke, How to Think Theologically (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006), 13.

[6] Don S. Browning, A Fundamental Practical Theology: Descriptive and Strategic Proposals (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991), 5-6.

[7] Ibid., 6.

[8] Ibid., 7.

[9] Stone and Duke, How to Think Theologically, 16.

[10]Russ-Eft and Preskill, Evaluation in Organizations, 92.

[11] The Worship Sourcebook, 763.