When Worship is not really and what worship leaders' responsibilities are

I've been aware for a while that there's something similar between the way that the emotional impact of a football match or a music concert (rock or similar) has huge similarities to some forms of liturgy in some churches. And I remember George Verwer saying how it is possible to organise the crowd dynamics of a service or meeting to produce certain emotional effects.

A University of Washington study has found that megachurch worship experiences actually trigger an “oxytocin cocktail” in the brain that can become chemically addictive. The same has been found at large sporting events and concerts, but attenders to these gatherings don’t usually attribute the “high” to God.

Thing is how we assess this. I'm not against the idea that we might use good and culturally-relevant music in worship -it seems to have gone on for most of Christian history. But I am concerned when it is found to be chemically addictive. The point of worship together is to enable us to encourage each other to draw near to God and to be transformed by God. Some of that encouragement can be through the cultural media we employ. But it is really concerning when hiddenly the medium becomes the actual focus rather than God.

And my worry is that for the oxytocin junkies, faith struggles to survive the discovery that the worship 'high' is not necessarily the Holy Spirit. Yes, the Spirit can affect us that way, but that doesn't mean that there cannot be other things that can do that nor does it mean that the effect must always imply the presence of the Spirit.

Worship leaders who are involved in the 'high-producing' forms of liturgy, I would say, have a responsibility to be aware, in broad terms, of the bio-chemical ramifications of corporate worship. And, having taken cognisance of that, to plan worship to enable/encourage people to connect with God aside from the music-driven emotional roller-coastal. I wonder too, whether, we don't also have a responsibility to inform people of this and, in a sense, to gain informed consent.

The implication of George Verwer's perspective is that, if we know these effects, we are culpable if we don't take seriously our responsibility to our fellow worshippers not to mislead them or, in fact, to use them. This research ups the ante for church leadership; to ignore would be to abuse our congregants.

Out of Ur: When Worship is Wrong: