As friend Connie Stella wrote in her book Video Ministry, “[In Emergent] media is more about creating a feeling in worship, an environment. Meaning in this context is boiled down, stripped of all extra layers…So in many churches experimenting with this style, the meaning in media is that it really has no meaning at all.”

Is the abandonment of meaning really a good thing in worship?

What is mystery? Confusing symbols and images? Worship in Latin? The “magic” of worship is not in its inaccessibility, but in using what is known and common to connect people to Christ so that they may encounter an unknown, mysterious God.

We view art as having meaning ?Äì the artist is saying something. Maybe not just one thing, but some things. Art has always had meaning, from renaissance art to American Gothic to Warhol’s Campbell Soup can. Even minimalist art is in its own way saying something; it is commenting on the stripped down nature of the post-romantic, modern life, with its gray buildings and its gray, ordered thinking. So when it comes to visual imagery in worship, meaning is good. Not just random eye candy or what we call Holy Blobs of Color, but opportunities for people to experience God through the risen Christ.

Q: So imagery with meaning is good. What about other aspects of visual style in TGWNN?

A common visual style associated with TGWNN is the use of swirls, flourishes and other calligraphic-like shapes. These styles recall previous designs used on US currency. An example is shown above. Flourishes are currently a trendy design element in many national ad campaigns, as well, including Target’s.

While they are artistically interesting, when used over and over, flourishes, as we’ll call this visual style, have potential to become tired and meaningless. Flourishes, as well as ancient and European masterworks and icons, are not bad in and of themselves, but they may easily be overused. The problem is that a limited palette makes the visual aspects of worship seem just as stuck in time as worship styles from which innovators are trying to move away.

This does not mean that there is no place in the church for masterworks, icons and the aforementioned artistic styles. Those have their place, but they should be used when appropriate, not as the default standard. No one wants to eat the same meal for dinner every night. The same is true for the visual meal that we present for worshipers. The best solution for the screen is to serve up something different each week with visual style that communicates the big idea for that worship experience, not the designer’s taste or the general worship philosophy.

Q: But what’s the big deal with questions about worship style. Can’t we just worship and not worry about style?

The cycle of the corporate life of believers has always been this way: A cycle of innovation and institutionalization. The work of the early church, the reformers, and the great awakenings, to name a few, are all the same: stripping away what is codified out of a desire to find a more authentic expression of faith.

One of the most common means to re-invigorate the church has been an examination of the style of worship. For example, the reformers stripped away the ornate form of the church and worshipped in bare rooms with white walls.

So, the question of style is important.

Q: And you’re saying I shouldn’t randomly use my favorite blue blob of color anymore?

Uh, no. Try to find imagery and stylistic elements that reflect the main idea for each individual worship experience.

We look to the power of parable as a guide. Jesus didn’t speak in lofty, incomprehensible “Temple Talk.” He spoke in street language, using symbols and terms that were common and easily understood. The mystery comes not in the symbol itself, but in the questions the symbol raises. Let the medium do its job so that the ideas it houses can be heard. Let those who have ears to hear, hear.

Consider the disciples in Mark 4 who heard the parable of the sower and came back to ask Jesus questions. They understood sowing seed; what more common task was there? What they didn’t understand was all the connections Jesus was making between sowing seed and the Word of God. So they got the symbol; it wasn’t mysterious, but easily understood. The mystery was in what the symbol evoked.

Good art, for us, has meaning(s). It raises questions by using what is known to reveal what is unknown. Random eye candy and mysterious blobs of color do neither.

Q: Where is Midnight Oil in all of this business?

As “media people” we have sometimes been called “emergent.” Recently a prominent United Methodist pastor told us we were “spokespersons for emergent.” This was kind of surprising to us. Maybe this pastor saw in us the desire to help churches and church leaders think of worship and communication differently, and he associates Emergent with the same thing, so he naturally put that label on us. Or maybe this pastor only knows of “emergent” as a buzzword for what is trendy.

We don’t think of ourselves as emergent any more than we think of ourselves as any other limiting category. We do think of ourselves as communicators. Our viewpoints toward worship arise from this core value. So, some parting thoughts:

1) The question of style and imagery in worship is important.
2) Over time, styles change in worship. The desire to create authentic expressions indigenous to specific audiences remains.
3) The screen is not a style. It is a medium, a form of communication like the spoken or printed word, and therefore much more than a passing trend and fad. It is a mistake to dismiss the screen as the form of a particular style of worship.
4) The screen is for images more than text.
5) The images of the screen, as a form of art in worship, have meaning. It is impossible to create art that does not have meaning and commentary. Any attempts to do so result in something that ceases to be art.

These are rules and principles we believe are true for worship, whether it’s “emergent”, contemporary, traditional, snake handling, or whatever.

 Email This |  Print This |