History of "Service Leader"
Melbourne
Shipmate Posts: 10
Coming from a Presbyterian/Baptist background, the concept of "Service Leader" is foreign to me. Rarely our minister may introduce a speaker: in ordinary use, the minister leads the service and delivers the message. And my faint memories of small Anglican services years ago didn't run to the luxury of a "service leader"
But I saw a Service Leader last week, and I see that in Mystery Worshipper a "service leader" is a normal thing, and that the contrasting Baptist practice is worthy of note. So:
Has "service leader" always been a thing in the Roman Catholic and Elizabethan Anglican tradition? If so, what was it called? If so, is there a theological reason the Baptists don't have service leaders? If not, how did it evolve? In either case, what was 18th or 19th century Anglican practice?
But I saw a Service Leader last week, and I see that in Mystery Worshipper a "service leader" is a normal thing, and that the contrasting Baptist practice is worthy of note. So:
Has "service leader" always been a thing in the Roman Catholic and Elizabethan Anglican tradition? If so, what was it called? If so, is there a theological reason the Baptists don't have service leaders? If not, how did it evolve? In either case, what was 18th or 19th century Anglican practice?
Comments
What do you understand the service leader to do ?
There are certainly times where in the Catholic tradition a 'lay' person might lead devotions such as communal praying of the Rosary or indeed communal recitation of the Psalms or even,with the permission of the bishop,in the distribution of Holy Communion from the reserved sacrament,but I don't know of any formal 'service leader' term.
If 'worship leader' means anything at all, it means the person presiding, the person who takes the service, AND NOBODY ELSE. The whole service is worship, and should be regarded as one cumulative whole. Music is part of the service. It should contribute to it. It should be regarded as something free-standing. The service should be regarded as a single whole.
Having said that, I'd deprecate the notion that a service should be a one man/woman show, with the same person doing the lot, presiding/leading, preaching, reading the scriptures, doing the intercessions etc.
*Service Leader* does at least imply that the person so named is responsible for the whole service, even though parts may be delegated to others.
I haven't come across the term in the parts of the C of E to which I've been accustomed, where the ordained person in charge of a Eucharist is referred to as the *President* or the *Celebrant*.
At an Office, such as Morning or Evening Prayer, or something like a non-Eucharistic Family Service, the person leading (who may well be a Lay Minister, or a Churchwarden) is the *Officiant* or *Minister*, the latter term not necessarily indicating that s/he is ordained.
Some Lutheran churches in Europe use the term *Liturgist* for the person - usually, but not inevitably, an ordained priest - leading the service.
Or indeed someone with no status who is prepared to do it, like wot when I lead a hymn sandwich Morning Prayer once a month because there’s no one else
I've never, ever heard it used in 'real life.'
I've heard of 'worship leaders' of course and would rail against them in the same way as @Enoch does.
They tend to be a callow yoof who imagines themselves to be in a vast auditorium at a big rally or shindig and try to replicate the experience in their own church with a small band and a congregation a minute fraction of the size they have in their heads.
Ok, that's unfair ...
I have no idea where this 'Service Leader' thing comes from. We'll have 'curators' next. They seem to have them everywhere else.
'Now we'll hand over to Melanie who is going to curate the service for us ...'
I haven’t encountered “service leader” or “worship leader” among my people yet. I hope that remains the case.
Indeed, and good on you for doing it!
Presumably you have the blessing (so to speak) of priest and Churchwardens, even if they're unavailable? Not that I'm casting nasturtiums on you, or on your ability to lead such a service...
No tractor, farm tools. hay or cattle though.
Oh st Peters on the wall, must revisit soon....
Sure, and in an independent charismatic evangelical context that all makes practical sense. I was a member of a similar church (but in a different 'stream') for 18 years. We attended an NFI church for about 4 weeks or so when we left that to see if it offered a potential 'home'. I even made a few 'contributions' in the meetings. I'm not knocking it but both my late wife and myself felt it was too similar to the church we'd left to prove a viable setting longer term.
We settled into a Baptist church-plant where we stayed for the next 6 years until moving out of the area for work and family reasons.
My quip about worship bands imagining they are playing to vast auditoria is based on how the church we left ended up. I visited it before it eventually folded and found the worship team going at it hammer and tongs as if playing to a huge auditorium. There were only about 30 people left at that point from a church that reached around the 300+ mark in its hey-day.
I'm used to warehouses and hired halls as venues.
The more general point is that in my experience worship groups often act as if they are at an enormous rally such as Soul Survivor or Spring Harvest or the old 1980s 'Bible Weeks' even when they only have a congregation of around 60 people.
I'm old enough to have seen the development of what has become the trade-mark charismatic evangelical format and understand how it works. I don't mean that in a cynical way. But I understand the dynamics in a similar way to how I know how to run open-mic poetry evenings.
Ok, so I've moved 'up the candle' and ended up somewhere with a very 'set' Liturgy and little scope for spontaneity. Saying that, I was spontaneously drafted into the choir with no prior notice on Good Friday and have been called on to give the Bible readings without prior planning.
I suppose I had enough apparent spontaneity to last a lifetime. I often think of the Adrian Plass quip, 'Let's have a spontaneous round of applause after the next chorus ...'
I'm not knocking NFI. It can be quite slick and 'corporate' but there's some good folk there and the standard of preaching can certainly be high. There's a 'reformed' background to it so there can be some decent expository preaching from that tradition. They are a lot less 'shouty' than some of the 'new churches' with more Pentecostal backgrounds. I certainly understand the appeal.
It's not where I'm at in theology or style though but it is a context where a kind of 'master of ceremonies' or worship leader/co-ordinator role does make contextual sense.
As a corollary I'd add that context is everything.
It always struck me back in the '80s that the 'restorationist' worship songs and choruses only made sense in the context in which they emerged. They made sense in the context of the theology (and over-realised eschatology) of the big Bible Weeks and the 'new church streams' (for which read emerging denomination if they lasted long enough).
They made less sense in the context of charismatic Anglican or even charismatic Baptist worship, although many of the songs filtered out across UK evangelicalism as a whole. They were heady days.
So the kind of worship co-ordinator role we appear to be discussing, makes perfect sense in an NFI or charismatic style Baptist church.
It makes less sense - to me at least - in an Anglican or Presbyterian setting.
The 'New Wine' end of the evangelical charismatic Anglican spectrum looks less and less Anglican. That doesn't just apply to charismatic evangelical Anglicans either. Lots of Anglican churches look less 'Anglican' these days.
But that's by the by ...
New Frontiers International I think
I'd consider them to be more 'balanced' than most but individual congregations certainly became quite 'heavy' at times.
When I was part of a similar and almost parallel group I often thought I'd end up in New Frontiers as I liked the more 'reformed' emphasis. I liked the warmth of the more Wesleyan aspects of 'neo-charismatic' stuff but felt the more Calvinistic strand provided much needed ballast.
I heard Terry Virgo preach a number of times and was generally impressed.
I had relatives by marriage who were part of a New Frontiers church for a while. I was less than impressed by what I saw there and things went badly, badly wrong.
But that can happen anywhere.
It all seems a long, long time ago now and miles and miles away. I certainly wouldn't dismiss or denigrate the strong points of fellowships like this though.
I know people who are in NF churches who seem to be thriving there.
Thank you. It turns out that the ex-Anglican church building near me is one. They spent a lot of money renovating the place.
I dont know if this is typical, but they take no part in ecumenical activities.
(I am aware that, yet again, mentioning my church has changed the focus of a thread to discuss my church. I originally mentioned my church in response to the thread discussion and will now back out of this thread)
If we can leave aside any discussion of the ins and outs and desirability of this approach on a subjective level, the general point I would make is that in the absence of a 'set' liturgy or one devised in advance by a minister or pastor, the 'worship leader' format makes sense.
Somebody needs to coordinate things otherwise they can drift off in all directions.
And I agree with you, the reason it works for us and is necessary is because our services facilitate more unstructured worship and interventions. We need someone to co-ordinate contributions, especially because we are a very inclusive and diverse church.
For instance, I have a friend with a psychosis who has been asked to leave previous churches because she is thought to be disruptive when she shouts out praises and sings to God independently - but we allow space for people like her and welcome her presence and contributions as a faithful sister. Who would manage such interventions in your churches and how? I am genuinely interested because I have a psychosis myself.
I'm tempted to start a new thread about the pros and cons of 'more' structured and 'less' structured worship but don't want it to end up as a 'formal liturgical worship = good / informally liturgical churches = bad' debate. Or vice versa.
I've had experience of both, of course and can see positives and negatives on both sides, although I'm definitely on the more 'structured' side these days of course.
I don't know a great deal about psychosis so am reluctant to comment on it as a condition.
But if it came to someone - with psychosis or otherwise - shouting something out or acting in a way that's deemed 'inappropriate', I'd expect that to be dealt with - sensitively one hopes - by whoever is 'presiding' in the meeting - and in most instances there might be several. A priest and a deacon or sub-deacon, for instance. Or a minister and body of 'elders' in a different context.
In my own setting I have known clergy to intervene if people are chatting loudly among themselves at key points in the Liturgy or, as often happens in Orthodox circles at Easter, people who don't regularly attend barge in at the last minute to get themselves some of the lit candles without showing any interest whatsoever in communion or other parts of the service.
We have to contend with a degree of 'cultural' observance (or non-observance) and indeed superstition at times.
I've known priests reprimand people who are disruptive or insensitive at such times.
As for people making impromptu 'contributions' or saying things out loud, as it were, that tends not to happen in Orthodox services. It's not part of our tradition. The choir 'carries' most of the weight as it were and the expectation is that you follow what's being said, sung or chanted.
In evangelical Anglican circles when the trend took hold for there to be short discussion times during the service - with people 'breaking into small groups' to reflect on something or address a particular question, I've known all sorts of nonsense to be offered unchecked.
I once had strong words with a vicar after one such instance where something completely heretical from a Christological perspective was allowed to pass unchallenged.
The vicar could easily have corrected the error without embarrassing the contributor. I've seen that done effectively in 'new church' settings, but have also seen clumsy instances too.
FWIW, I used to be a regular 'contributor' back in my full-on charismatic evangelical days - extemporary prayers, impromptu readings of passages of scripture, the various 'spiritual gifts' as we understood them in those circles.
Again, context is everything and looking back, some of it may have been helpful. But I'm sure a lot of it was my own fleshly enthusiasm or attention-seeking or a desire to show off. The Lord knows what was or wasn't appropriate.
I may have to answer for some of it one day.
I'm not sure that answers your question, but in summary:
In a more sacramental setting it would be clergy, deacons and 'sidesmen' (if they have them) who would deal with this sort of thing.
In a Presbyterian or congregational setting it would be the elders, deacons and anyone else playing a particular role in the service/meeting who'd deal with it.
Now, I'm not saying it all comes down to personal preference. All sorts of factors come into play. Time to start a new thread I think.
FWIW, this sounds very much like the description of the responsibilities of the priest at a Eucharist!
There are differences, of course, but the generic term *Service Leader* fits the bill IMHO, even if it's not the term customarily used...
Ok. I take your point.
To my shame, I don't know much about neurodivergence, despite having a daughter diagnosed with ADHD. It strikes me though, that when it comes to neurodivergence there isn't any 'particular' worship format that 'suits' people with neurological divergences (for want of a better term) than any other - it probably depends on the nature of the 'condition' and individual circumstances.
I've come across some people with some forms of neurological 'divergence' (help me here if I'm expressing things clumsily), who say they find formal, preprogrammed worship more helpful.
Others say the opposite. Again, I don't know enough about neurodivergence to say which format might be most helpful for people with whichever form of neurodivergence we are talking about.
The church we're moving on from is newfrontiers (sorry @Heavenlyannie you probably are the last nf shippy standing) and as per the descriptions above very much not a one man show. The phrase "body ministry" used to be slung around.
In our visiting of late its been a bit odd and jarring to experience the one man band type of service on occasion. Tbf even the bcp communion I went to early in the morning last week had someone other than the vicar doing the readings.
As an aside, though, not all churches which have an apparently 'looser' format are necessarily 'loud'. My experience of New Frontiers, for instance, is that they tend to be less ranty and shouty than some charismatic churches or old-time Pentecostals.
We used to joke about the local Pentecostal church back home in my native South Wales that it had rejected a 'God is Dead' theology in favour of a 'God is Deaf' theology.
The Easter Vigil in Orthodox parishes can be quiet loud. Lots of shouts of 'Christ is Risen!' 'He is Risen indeed!' in lots of different languages and people ringing handbells and so on. But we're all expecting it so it doesn't come as a shock or surprise.
But yes, I can certainly understand how apparently unplanned and spontaneous forms of worship - and I'd suggest that few are actually as spontaneous as they might initially appear - could have the kind of effect you describe.
I've known of people having panic attacks in charismatic worship. In one instance I know of a poor chap who had recently lost his mother having a breakdown during a very lively happy-clappy worship group practice. It was when the so-called 'Toronto Blessing' thing had done the rounds and people were laughing and falling about as a matter of course.
This poor chap seemed to think - or was encouraged to think by the worship leader - that this was an appropriate way to mourn his mother's loss. So he started laughing at his misfortune only for it to quickly turn into sobs and overwhelming grief. Fortunately, someone had the presence of mind to call an ambulance - this was when they arrived quickly - and he received professional help.
Ok, so that's an extreme example and it happened 30 years ago but this sort of thing can happen unless checks and balances are in place.
These days, I'd say checks and balances tend to be in place, but there's always a need for vigilance.
@Twangist - I've tended to see the Baptists as something of an alternative for people who, for whatever reason, move on from independent charismatic evangelical churches of one form or other. Have you tried them? They tend not to be one-man-bands, although some independent Baptist churches can head that way.
Anglican churches tend to vary in terms of the level of 'lay' participation. Some very High Church Anglican parishes are run with military precision and have a generalissimo in charge.
By the same token, some evangelical Anglican churches are run more like congregational or presbyterian churches.
I wish you well, wherever you find a spiritual home.
We'd call those people the 'lector' and 'intercessor'.
We would call them readers. Some are commissioned by the bishop, but most aren't.
In RCC circles a Liturgist is an expert in liturgy. They might be an academic teaching and researching liturgical studies. They might be in charge of planning liturgies at a diocesan or parish level. They might be responsible for preparing/translating liturgical texts.
They might also have an allied practical role as a pastor/deacon or a musician or a reader or server. But that is something separate.
Since Vat 2 there have been quite fierce "culture wars" between those who would stop the clock in the 16th Century and those who would wish for continued development of the liturgy. In some places these differences are allied to secular politics.
I've heard that one as "what's the difference between an organist and a terrorist?"