This is a comparison of four churches we have attended. I want to stress that all four are specific churches (which I am not going to name) and are not intended to be archetypes. All four are truly seeking God’s path, but have very different ways of going about it.

• Startup
• MiniMegachurch
• Organic
• Liturgical

The Startup church was wonderful; its distinctives and culture resonated with us. It stressed dynamic and semi-autonomous small groups. It stressed discipleship. It stressed growth by church planting. It put a lot of importance on child ministry. We enjoyed true fellowship and found people which whom we could do life together.

The MiniMegachurch has succumbed to the “businessification” of the American church. Its early distinctives and culture have been mostly swallowed up by a cult of personality. The senior pastor is now the CEO, and his vision and priorities are what set the culture and tone. He is the Authority. The sermon is now the pinnacle of every service. The services are very tech-heavy and performance-oriented. Worship is no longer an end in itself; it must now support the sermon, so it has turned into mere manipulation. Small groups, while encouraged, are important only in serving the overall agenda. The church has grown quickly, and there are many new or immature believers. Therefore, the sermon is generally about what the individual must to do improve. Guilt seems to be the prime motivator. Growing at any cost has replaced discipleship.

The Organic church is very small and seems to be made up mostly of people who have been injured elsewhere.  They do things in a fairly non-traditional way; but they have not yet decided who they are. They don’t seem to have clear principles,  distinctives or culture.

The Liturgical church is surprisingly warm and inviting. The service is fairly formal, yet has a balance of reverence and playfulness. At the end of the service, all of the children join in the final songs. Their dancing and simply joy brings a wonderful reminder that we all must approach God as children.  The messages are clearly to the community as a whole. The priests are there to serve the community as we all do the liturgy together. At the end, one of the priests holds the Scriptures in the air, walking down the aisle — again, the image being that are all focused on God, our Savior, and the Scriptures; and not the priest himself.

As you can probably tell, I am finding myself consistently drawn to the Liturgical church. There are a few reasons: They have clear principles, distinctives and culture. They clearly delineate what are core Christian beliefs and what are their own traditions. The priests see themselves as servants of the community, and not as Authority. Therefore they are not threatened by differences. They do not feel the need to micromanage individuals or groups within the church. They know where they have been, and they know where they are going. The people there seem to be going somewhere deliberately rather than running from something else.

New research shows that the lecture — long a staple of church and academia — is a poor way to teach.

It’s time for the church to rethink its love affair with the sermon and embrace better ways of learning, experiencing and living in community.

My family has recently begun visiting an Anglican gathering — a very new and different experience for us. I’m still wrestling through liturgy and ritual, and the appropriate place for it in the Church. On the one hand, ritual is everywhere — our morning routines, business meetings, social gatherings. Ritual gives us structure — a baseline that we can then use to branch out of. It’s much like Jazz — it cannot be random, otherwise it would be chaos and cacophony. Instead it has a basic structure that allows the musicians to try variations. Individuality comes out — yet in harmony with the group.

On the other extreme is lip-syncing — you are just playing a part and are making no contribution to the music in any way.

So which is liturgy? Some people certainly see it as dead ritual. But I am also seeing how a “contemporary” church service can become dead ritual. Worse, it becomes manipulative and false. The choice of songs just before the sermon about tithing? Scripted. That emotional music that plays over the final heartfelt plea of the preacher? Scripted.

With a true liturgy, we are all — leaders and congregation — focused on the words and meaning. We are having a shared experience, not passively consuming. Any emotions I feel are my own, they are genuine.

And we need a church that is genuine.

I read this post with a growing feeling of “This is me!” My current church — like many others — has become scripted and manipulative.

It isn’t deliberate. It’s the result of a thousand small choices combined with a few basic philosophies. For example: The “everything is in support of the sermon” philosophy. Everything from the choice of music to the emotional plea at the end is to hammer home how important it is to take this sermon seriously and to repent and change our ways this week. And then next week it’s a different thing we are doing wrong. I’m sure it’s well-intentioned, but it’s exhausting.

It also contributes to a very passive “The senior pastor preaches, we listen” mentality. Our pastor occasionally says, “This is a dialogue!” — but all it means is he wants an “Amen!” at the right time. Would he welcome the clarification of a point or someone questioning his conclusion? Unthinkable.

I don’t mean to bash the senior pastor. He is under a lot of pressure. He’s basically the CEO of a business. And businesses tend to be concerned about the bottom line. Not necessarily profits, but vision statements and alignment and staff meetings.

The church should be a family, not a business. And that’s why we’re leaving.