What is a "worshipful experience"?

[rcourtney]

In terms of the worship arts tech, I sometimes find it hard to categorize.
Many churches have "traditional" and "contemporary" services, each with
specific needs from tech teams.

What makes each worshipful? Tech-wise what has priority? What can be
eliminated in a budget?

[Esoteric]

This might not be popular and might seem odd coming from someone who does what I do for a living, but worshipful has to do with the attitude of the worshipper and not at all with anything technical.

That being said, I prioritize the clear hearing of the word as priority number 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. Then the visibility of the words both sung and spoken and the visibility of the speakers. Then everything else.

[buswheel]

Based upon your post and your church website you are struggling with the common problem of having to serve both "traditional" and "contemporary" services and the sometimes contrasting requirements, and meanings to what is worshipful.

As someone who has had "worshipful experiences" in all sorts of churches (From High Anglican/Catholic masses through to current contempory worship) my experience is God can be worshipped in all sorts of different ways, and it always comes down to the heart. Therefore I agree with Mike that this isn't really a Tech issue.

I also agree with Mike that the main tech priority should always be the word and the understanding it.

On elimination my guess is there is a story (budget related) here (Service A people don't think you need new thing(s) proposed by someone from Service B?). My only advice is everyone needs to stop, work out what your church mission is, and be prepared to justify and compromise on these types of things based upon mission priority.

[cmchamp]

Word, Word, Word.
To expound a bit on what the other two have said...
Sometimes when we're dealing with poor intelligibility (understanding spoken word) we're dealing with the non technical issues of the acoustics of the room. Correcting the room acoustics is almost always less expensive and has greater impact on the atmosphere of the listening experience than technology.
C.

[tdangelo]

The term “worship” is used 108 times in the Bible translated from various Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek terms.

In Genesis 22 we see the very first example of the terms’ use where we find Abraham, Isaac, a donkey and some servants travelling to the mountain to “worship” God. Abraham leaves his servants at the base of the mountain and says to them, “Isaac and I are going to go up the mountain to worship, and then we will return,” he didn’t mean, “I have the donkey loaded up with the PA gear, I’m carrying the fire for the smoke machine and the moving lights; Isaac has his Mac Book Pro with ProPresenter and we’re going to go up the mountain to have a contemporary worship service.”

He also did not mean the donkey is loaded up with a pipe organ, Abraham is carrying the incense and Isaac is passing out hymnals and we’re going to go up the mountain to have a traditional worship service.

The Hebrew term used here in that scripture translated “worship” in English is the Hebrew word “sha-ha.” Sha-ha literally means “to bow down. To prostrate oneself.” By that definition I would say that you do not need any A/V/L technology in either type of worship service to bow down & prostrate oneself.

I think the problem for the majority of churches is that we have re-defined worship. It’s not a rock-concert. It’s also not a sing-a-long of our favorite childhood songs. Worship is a full surrender and submission of our life to God (no matter what type of music is playing).

[Paris MkVI]

Everyone has said it well. Worship is a personal communication, a connection between created and Creator. The one role we play in that is to cooperate with our leadership in creating an environment that doesn't get in the way of people making that connection to God.

From a tech standpoint, it is as much what we don't do to contribute as much as what we do. The rest is up to each individual in chairs or pews to reach out and reach up to God.

[[Admin] osborn4]

And then there is the Romans 12:1 definition of worship.

[dmot]

Just noting that the original post and thread title didn't ask what "worship" is. The question was about a worshipful experience. I think some of the posts that followed addressed it this way but it seems like the thread then moved to "what is worship." I know it is splitting hairs but there is a difference I think.

[[Admin] osborn4]

I think the primary point of a worshipful experience would be one without distraction to pull you out of the moment. That would include being able to hear clearly, no feedback, no missed cues for screens or backup audios or microphones and probably hundreds of other techincal things that should be invisible to the congregation as they worship. They shouldn't even know we are there doing our jobs.

Our SaLT (Sound and Light Team) has a motto: Just enough to enhance. Not so much that we distract or cause high blood pressure.

[Esoteric]

Yeah, I think I was saying that God makes something a worshipful experience. Not anything we did or didn't do.

[rcourtney]

Thanks for responding. Like many churches we are trying to figure out how
each service fits in with what people are looking for in a worshipful experience.

Younger families seem to prefer "contemporary" styles. Newer music, lyrics
displayed with motion graphics. Color washes. Perhaps louder sound levels.

Traditional - older hymns, choirs as opposed to bands. Plain text lyrics with
static or simpler backgrounds. Normal lighting. "Normal" sound.

As I hinted this has different demands on the tech team. A major mission has been
to create an enjoyable service for those in care facilities or shut-ins. We have upgraded
our video gear and are working on software to make creating and operating less
challenging to our dear volunteers.

Planning committees want more "tech" so I must decide priorities and plan the path to
fulfil the goals. What can be delayed until tech can catch up?

[cmchamp]

Those in care facilities or shut-ins will most likely appreciate the more traditional service. That said, capturing that experience is what is key to the "worshipful" experience for the watcher.
Multiple camera shots of the pastor, musicians, congregation etc. would be key as well as capturing the audio properly.
In the traditional service, you don't mic the organ for reinforcement, but you will need to mic the organ for post production as well use some audience mics to capture the congregational singing etc.
If you don't have a mic/line signal splitter to split off a separate recording signal to a recording/broadcast mixer, you may wish to do that.
"Planning committees want more," where does the pastoral staff fit with those committees and their direction?