Freedom

"There is nothing inherently liberating in showing skin; there is nothing inherently restrictive in covering up; the liberation lies in the choice."
I read this quote regarding body acceptance on Pinterest and it brought together a number of thoughts I have had in the past, which have surfaced again lately, about forms of worship. Yes, I know it sounds random; but that is how my mind works! Have patience and I hope you will eventually see how it fits together.

As background, I've been involved in some form or other of Christian musical worship (the whole span: from classic church choir to Christian traveling drama/music troupe, to pop-rock Christian singing group, to writing and arranging my own worship songs, to participating in, forming and leading contemporary worship bands, to training worship leaders) ever since I was about 12 years old. To me, in my culture and my generation, musical worship is an integral part of what it means for me to express my faith as a Christian.
I first entered a relationship with God in the Jesus People era, which was dominated by the beginnings of the CCM music scene, and through the years I've had many personal encounters with God through worship of varying sorts (music, drama, dance). I've participated in "worship services" of many Christian stripes, from Roman Catholic and High Anglican to closed Brethren and kinky Pentecostal. I've traveled to many different nations and cultures and experienced their forms of worship. In other words, as regards this subject, I've been around the block a few times.

Recently A finished a major module in his theological studies: worship. One of the books he had to read for it amused me by its title: "Worship By The Book". We discussed the various views on what constituted a "proper worship service" by writers from across the Evangelical perspective, some of which I found very insular, indeed. And it got us to re-examine our own cultural biases and our own current context.
We've both been involved in the musical worship sector of our local church for awhile now, and I am seeing some of the same scenarios playing out as I had done over and over in my years as a leader. I suppose these issues are universal. There are various worship agendas in operation depending on which leader has the floor. There are people with a good heart but little talent, or perhaps lacking in the ability to team-play, who are willing but not very able. There are doubtless some able but not willing, for various reasons. There are a few who are far more than able: genuinely talented artists who, however, need some heart alterations before one would feel safe inflicting them upon a congregation. And there are a lot of fairly competent people muddling along as best they can as volunteers with little time for rehearsal.
One of the fellows with whom I recently sang when he led congregational worship was really excited to be asked to lead again, since he "hadn't been allowed" (his words) for some time. When he went over the song list with us before the service, he said things like "We have to keep the religious people happy" and "This isn't where I want to go in worship, but it's an Easter song, so I suppose we'll have to sing it", et cetera. When I asked how much time we had been given, he looked rather bleakly at me and said "__ (the leader of the service) is just going to interrupt me."
All of these statements gave me pause. There may be very good reasons why he hadn't been asked, though he is easily the most accomplished musician among us. A "worship service" is made of of many elements, all of which are a form of corporate worship. It is not an interruption of worship for the service to stop the music stage and continue on to the next stage. Nor is it an imposition --indeed, in my mind it is a requirement of the job-- for me as a worship leader to deliberately defer to the needs of the congregation (for example, to have a song or two related to Easter on Easter Sunday) above my own (when, for example, I am personally much more comfortable with a free-flowing, unplanned, spontaneous, "Holy-Spirit-led" session).

And this leads on to the above-mentioned quote. Here is my re-casting of it:
"There is nothing inherently liberating in dancing before the Lord; there is nothing inherently restrictive in kneeling quietly in reverence; the liberation lies in the choice."
I have noticed that those who emphasize "freedom in worship" usually have a very clear idea in their minds what they mean by that. To them, "bondage" means bowing heads in quiet prayer, sitting quietly in a seat or pew and singing hymns. They seem to equate silence, contemplation, or older forms of Christian worship with "dead religion". To these folks, "freedom" can only mean dancing! shouting! upbeat songs! the waving of flags! the blowing of shofars! laughter! holy abandon! So when they get up before the congregation (or if they are leading worship) and say things like: "I proclaim freedom in this house! Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom!" they will usually follow it up with some instruction like "So let's all shout to God with a voice of triumph!" or "Dance with all your might before the Lord!"
Well, I'm sorry, but to me this is just as religious as telling us we may NOT do these things in church. It places those members who actually would prefer to sit and revere quietly, to kneel or to lie down as their form of abandoned worship, in an awkward position. They are being given a subcultural definition of "freedom" which disallows their actual freedom to worship God as their nature would genuinely incline them to do. If by proclaiming "freedom" I really subtly mean "you must now dance or be judged as un-free", I am actually restricting the very value I espouse: that people should be able to worship God freely.
For some, freedom will mean never having dared to get up and dance when they felt like it, and now being able to do so. But for some, it will mean having the freedom to resist a subcultural norm with which they are uncomfortable, and to feel free to not participate in the "required" manner. Ideally, a genuinely "free" worship service would have people responding individually to the presence of God in whatever way is genuine for them in that moment; but doing it together, and comfortable with each others' expressions. This might mean some kneeling, some lying down in worship, some dancing, some singing… And this very form would make many people, comfortable with more structure than that, highly uncomfortable, so it's certainly not for everybody.
But if we are to insist upon such a high level of freedom, let's cover all bases, not just our personal preferences.

That said, personally my own preference is to have a plan --which I am perfectly willing to jettison should God indicate he has something else on the agenda. I speak from experience here. I have worked hours on talks I never gave, because at the last minute Dad said "Let's talk about something else." When I chose songs for a worship set, though, I prayed ahead of time about which ones to select. I rarely had to abandon them because for some odd reason they almost always fit beautifully with the rest of the service (though the preacher, service leader and I had not conferred beforehand). There are ways of being led by the Spirit that do not necessarily involve bedlam, and they are not necessarily bondage.
So, go ahead and wear your midriff-exposing T-shirt, or don't. Sing in tongues into the microphone, or don't. But don't call the one "freedom" or "liberating" and the other "uptight" or "bondage" without a little respect for where someone else may be coming from. And if your idea of freedom is to wave your flag in my face, dance upon my toes, or blow a shofar in my ear, remember:
It is to freedom that you have been called, my brothers. Only be careful that freedom does not become mere opportunity for your lower nature (including selfishness! my note). You should be free to serve each other in love. For after all, the whole Law toward others is summed up by this one command, ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself’.
Galatians 5:13-14, J.B. Phillips