A small selection of resources from previous versions of this Web site.
1. An experiment in alternative worship (2002)
2. Mystery Visitors (2005)
3. Forming support groups in a congregational setting (2006)
The articles below are reproduced from web pages on earlier iterations of my website. All material on this webpage is protected under copyright; dates of copyright appear at the end of each article.
The photo above shows a collaborative intergenerational Thanksgiving service that I organized and co-led in 2019 at the Unitarian Universalist Church of Palo Alto. (Recognizable faces have been blurred to preserve privacy.) In this service, I used many of the principles outlined in the article “An experiment in alternative worship,” including seating arrangement, use of drama/theatre, etc. Worship leaders are sitting on the far side of the circle, just to the left of the colorful quilt; choir members and musicians are to the eft of the quilt at the rear.
I wrote this description of alternative worship services at First Parish in Lexington (Mass.) back in 2002, revised it in 2006, and made some small revisions in 2021.
Although we worship leaders, and the regular attendees, had great fun with our alternative worship service, the time taken up in staff hours and volunteer hours ultimately wasn't justified by the small attendance. This is unfortunate, because our approach to circle worship turned out to be good at engaging both head and heart, good at incorporating persons with developmental disabilities, and it was welcoming to all ages. While our approach to circle worship wasn't practical in the long run, perhaps someone else can achieve the same results with less effort.
In March, 2001, the three program staff then working at First Parish in Lexington (Massachusetts) began offering alternative worship services Sunday evenings. These three people were Rev. Helen Cohen, senior minister; Rev. Ellen Spero, assistant minister; and myself, at that time Director of Religious Education (DRE) and ministerial intern. In autumn, 2000, when Ellen first began working at First Parish as assistant minister, she began talking about possibilities for alternative worship services. Ellen, Helen, and I felt there was expressed need and support for some sort of alternative worship service at First Parish. But what form would it take?
Ellen made an initial formal proposal for this alternative worship service to lay leadership and committees, who offered valuable feedback which helped shape our plans. A few priorities emerged in the discussions following initial proposal:
Based on these priorities, we began to plan our new worship services.
We first had to answer two questions: How would we shape the space of the worship setting? And: How would we shape time through liturgy? We read about alternative Unitarian Universalist models for worship, although we were also open to the influence of non-Unitarian Universalist worship services.
When we started thinking about how to shape the space, we were drawn to the liturgical experimentation of Kenneth Patton and his congregation at the Charles Street Meeting House in Boston. As Patton had done, we decided to seat the congregation in a circle. This meant we would have to move the worship service from the main sanctuary, which had fixed pews, to the smaller Parish Hall, where we could set up moveable chairs. We arranged the chairs in concentric circles, with an open center and four wedge-shaped open areas.
Like Patton, we also decided to begin the worship services by lighting a flame, although we went far beyond what Patton had done with his flame. Patton's lit a flame in a lamp of Graeco-Roman shape, which simply represented the wisdom of the ancient world. In our worship services, a flame was lit before the beginning of the worship services (I thought of it this way: this first candle represented the "light of the ages," the truth that is available to humankind in all ages -- Helen and Ellen had differing understandings of this however). This candle stood outside the circle of chairs. From this flame, we lit a Unitarian Universalist chalice, representing how we as a religious tradition are one manifestation of the light of the ages. This chalice was part of the inner circle of chairs. Finally, towards the end of our worship services, persons in the congregation were invited to light candles of joy and concern, using a flame kindled from the chalice. These candles stood in the center of the circle, thus representing our primary emphasis on the gathered religious community.
Thus we moved from a flame representing the "light of the ages," to a flame representing Unitarian Universalism, to many flames representing our own individual lives. Both time and space were shaped by the lighting of candles.
(First candle, outside the circle of chairs, was lit before worship service started)
Opening music (recorded music)
Lighting the Chalice (candle in chalice, part of the inner circle of chairs, was lit by worship leader)
Unison Affirmation (the same affirmation used on Sunday morning)
Song (songs were sung a capella, and we gradually built up a repertoire of simple songs that the regular attenders had memorized)
Offertory (with recorded music)
Centerpiece (e.g., sermon, play, meditation, other activities)
Joys and concerns (candles in center of circle were lit by members of the congregation)
Unison benediction (the same benediction was said by the entire congregation each week, usually as we stood and held hands)
Social hour (the candles were left burning during social hour, which was held in the same room as the worship service)
While we never discussed it, certainly Helen, Ellen and I were aware that coffee hour amongst Unitarian Universalists has largely replaced the table fellowship of eucharist, or communion, in more traditional Christian churches; thus, leaving the candles lit during social hour made our table fellowship of shared coffee and snacks into part of the liturgy. (As primary worship leader for these alternative services, and as someone with a feminist Christian theology, Ellen may have explicitly planned this — I'll have to ask her sometime.)
A simple definition of circle worship is any worship service where the congregation and the worship leaders wit in a circle together. But while the simple shape of the service helps define circle worship, a theological understanding turns out to be more complicated. Not only that, but several different theologies of circle worship are possible. What follows is the beginnings of a conversation for a theology for circle worship.
For Ellen and me, the impetus for circle worship probably began in second-wave feminist theology. My understandings of circle worship came, at that time, primarily from my participation in feminist neo-pagan rituals and worship services. In addition to these experiences, I found myself drawing loosely on the understanding of circle worship outlined by Starhawk in Dreaming the Dark: Magic, Sex, and Politics. In my loose interpretation of Starhawk, while there is a worship leader, circle worship requires the full and in some sense equal participation of all the worshippers, as reality is reshaped in and by worship to the end that good may prevail in the world. The image of the circle, therefore, grows out of the image of reality as a web: there are web-connections between persons in the circle, and there are web-connections between this circle of worship and all other circles of worship. Clearly, these non-hierarchical images of circle and web represent a feminist alternative to "rectangular worship" (to use Peter Richardson's felicitous term), with one or a few worship leaders in a hierarchical role over and above the mass of the congregation.
Ellen drew inspiration from the Christian feminist theology of Letty Russell, among others. In her book Church in the Round: Feminist Interpretations of the Church, Russell lays out feminist possibilities for many aspects of Christian church life. In regard to feminist explorations of new leadership styles, Russell writes: "This search for new styles of partnership in the church has become a worldwide movement dedicated to changing Jacob's-ladder leadership to leadership in the form of Sarah's circle." (p. 63) Russell draws upon the early Christian history of house churches as a model for alternative leadership styles. In terms of worship, Russell uses the image of the "welcome table," where all are welcomed equally; she quotes a poem by Chuck Lathrop:
no preferred seating
no first and last,
no better, and no corners
for the "least of these."
These understandings of leadership, welcome, and justice all shaped our evening worship services.
In addition, Ellen and I looked at a vespers liturgy by the Congregation of Abraxas and liturgies of Kenneth Patton. But we drew most heavily on the existing liturgy of First Parish, shortening and reshaping the standard morning liturgy for the purposes of our intergenerational, circle-based, evening worship. We continued to play with the liturgy for the year and a half that we continued these alternative worship services; indeed, that became an essential part of what we do. The liturgy had not been handed down from on high, never to be changed, but it was continuously reshaped by worship leaders and congregation, shaped by the connections we shared with all persons who worship with us.
Including children was a key element of our feminist theology of worship; children for us are not things to shut out of "adult worship"; rather, we felt, and feel, that children are sacred beings (as are adults) worthy of full inclusion in worship.
For this understanding, we drew in part from Engaging in Transcendence: The Church's Ministry and Covenant with Young Children, by Barbara and William Myers, who point out that religious communities are "called" into a "relational way of understanding and being" that we call a "covenant." Extending our worship covenant to children raised some practical and logistical issues, and Myers and Myers helped our understanding of how children may participate in worship. They suggest a carpet for children with quiet toys that is placed so that children can feel a full part of the worship community. We incorporated such a carpet as a part of the worship circle, in one of the wedge-shaped areas with no chairs.
Ellen and I went beyond that, however. Both of us had been trained as educators — Ellen as a special education teacher, and I as a religious educator — and we decided to apply our knowledge of learning styles to worship. We felt that traditional Unitarian Universalist liturgies emphasize spoken word too heavily for many children, so from the beginning the liturgy and the worship space were designed to accommodate not only the spoken word but also drama, dance and other kinds of movement, visual arts, etc. The worship circle included open areas to accommodate music and the lively arts; and the layout of chairs was easily rearranged to meet the requirements of a given service. The liturgy had only a few fixed elements at the beginning and the end, so the middle of the liturgy was extremely flexible.
The list below gives some idea of the range of worship elements we were able to successfully include in these alternative worship services. The primary learning style for each worship service (auditory, kinesthetic, visual) is identified. In parentheses, one or two primary multiple intelligences, taken from the work of educational theorist Howard Gardner, are identified for each worship service.
A few other child-friendly elements should be mentioned:
Snacks and drinks were a key part of every worship service. Children and adults were invited to have snacks and drinks during the worship service, and were invited to get up at any time during the service for more. Thus, we extended our "table fellowship" throughout the worship service. (Ellen in particular talked about food as a key part of our worship ministry.)
For practical reasons, we were limited to using primarily recorded music, but we used that to advantage as we were able to use some popular music more familiar to teenaged youth, to help them feel more welcome.
Finally, overall the evening services were deliberately less formal than the usual Unitarian Universalist services. We wanted the worship space to feel more home-like, not unlike the notion of church-as-domestic held by some of the Prophetic Sisterhood.
I still feel that we had just begun to explore the potential of the evening worship services, when Helen, Ellen, and I all left First Parish in the same month, June, 2002. It would have been interesting to continue the experiment, perhaps especially if we had rescheduled the worship service to a better time slot (see below).
In terms of attendance, the results of this alternative worship service were disappointing. In the first three months of offering these worship services, attendance peaked at 45 people, out of an active membership of perhaps 200 people. However, attendance dropped to an average of about 12 by fall, 2001, rising only slightly in the spring of 2002. Three factors having nothing to do with alternative worship may have affected attendance. First, the events of September 11, 2002, may have lessened the taste for unfamiliar worship forms. Second, the senior minister of First Parish announced her retirement after 22 years of ministry in early fall of 2002; the assistant minister and I announced our own departures not long thereafter. Third, Sunday evening turned out to be a difficult time for many households to attend a second worship service.
At the same time, I now believe that, in spite of what they say, most people currently in Unitarian Universalist congregations are not interested in circle worship. Probably the only way to build attendance is to continue this sort of service long enough to attract newcomers who would prefer circle worship to traditional worship. Therefore, if you're not willing to make a five-year commitment to an alternative worship service, I now feel you shouldn't even bother.
Although it remained an unfinished experiment when it ended, over the intervening years I have drawn some conclusions from this alternative worship service:
Copyright © 2006 Daniel Harper. All rights reserved.
A Mystery Visitor program is designed to give you a picture of what your congregation looks like as viewed by completel newcomers. This mystery visitor report from the Unitarian Universalist Society of Geneva, Illinois (UUSG), from 2004-2005, will give you a pretty good idea of how to implement your own mystery visitor program. The report below was published on my website with permission of the congregation. Just to state the obvious: since 2005, congregational membership, staff, and times of services have all inevitably changed, so this report does not apply to the current congregation.
In early October, 2004, I scheduled three visits by “Mystery Visitors,” people who visited a worship service at UUSG and reported to me what their visit was like. Mystery Visitors were paid one hundred dollars per family unit. I scheduled Mystery Visitors for each of the three worship services, Saturday at 5:00 p.m., Sunday at 9:00 a.m., and Sunday at 11:00 a.m.
The couple who were Mystery Visitors to the worship service at 5:00 on Saturday reported that it was “fantastic, a really good experience!!” They loved the time — “As busy as we are, I appreciate having an alternative to Sunday morning worship. Sunday morning is one of the few times we have to leisurely hang out together.”
They found it was not easy to get directions to UUSG from the church Web site, and they found the driving directions to be confusing. Overall, “getting to the church was a little difficult.” [N.B.: This was in the days before online mapping services were ubiquitous.]
Once they arrived, however, parking was easy, and they easily recognized the building from the picture on the Web site. One member of the couple had high praise for the building itself: “As an artist and a lover of architecture, I found the building itself to be astonishly beautiful both inside and out. I was truly moved by the loving care the building has obviously received. I was impressed with it as a visual and physical symbol of our Unitarian Universalist heritage.”
They were pleased to be greeted by the ministers: “I was astounded to meet not one, but three members of the clergy at the front door. All three were particularly welcoming. I wondered if the laity would be as inviting — they were!” They found the actual worship service very welcoming. They liked the sense of history that is a part of the worship service. They were welcomed during the “meet and greet” time after the welcome. They liked what they call the “unpretentiousness” of the service, specifically mentioning the “For All Ages” by the Minister of Religious Education. They loved the music.
One of them prefers small churches, and the other prefers to see a crowd, but UUSG managed to please them both.
They never made it to social hour because “we had our own social hour” right in the sanctuary. “Several people spoke to us right in our pew after the service. Others actually lined up to speak to us. It was very enjoyable.”
Finally, they both liked reusable orders of service — they were impressed that the church cared this much about the environment.
The Mystery Visitor who came to the service unfortunately did not complete a report (and didn’t get paid).
As this family pulled up to UUSG on the early October Sunday of their visit, they felt excited. They found parking easily. The church looked wonderful — “beautiful” — and they saw a welcoming greeter standing outside the door. “It was a very inviting scene. Our hopes were very high.”
Once inside the church, they found the greeter there to be very friendly. However, no one showed “any recognition of our very friendly 10 year old son.” This did not sit well with them.
After leaving the greeter, they felt a little lost. They weren’t quite sure where to sit or what to do, and felt “we were on our own.” They found a place to sit, but although people were talking all around them, no one said anything to them.
They did feel welcomed by the minister at the beginning of the worship service, and during the “meet-and-greet” time just after the welcome. But aside from that, they felt there was “no recognition of our presence,” and they felt “somewhat excluded.” They did like the sermon, saying it was a “great sermon,” and adding, “If not for a great sermon, we would probably not return — could’ve been more welcoming. No one other than one other person sitting next to us made an effort to even say hello.” They also found the order of service “confusing, and [it was] hard to follow the two sheets of information.”
At the end of the worship service, they discovered there was no social hour (this was before the Membership Committee added another social hour on Sunday morning), and commented that they “had no chance for socialization.” To make matters worse, they said, “When we were leaving at the end of the service we weren’t sure how to exit the sanctuary — and no one bothered to assist us or say goodbye.”
The great sermon (senior minister was preaching that day) raised their overall impression above mediocre — but overall, they felt the worship service was just “OK.”
The Mystery Visitors found the Saturday evening service far more welcoming than the service on Sunday at 11:00 a.m. A social hour has been added after the 11:00 Sunday service, which addresses some of what the Mystery Visitors found. But generally speaking, the Mystery Visitors did not find UUSG to be particularly welcoming at 11:00 a.m. on Sunday.
Congregational weakness: It is not clear why the Mystery Visitors felt so unwelcome on Sunday at 11:00. It could be because their child was not welcomed. It could be because Sunday at 11:00 is less welcoming. In any case, not everyone find UUSG to be a welcoming place.
Congregational strengths: Both sets of Mystery Visitors commented on UUSG’s beautiful building. Both sets of Mystery Visitors appreciated being welcomed outside the church building. Both sets of Mystery Visitors commented on how much they liked the worship service, naming sense of tradition, sermons, “For All Ages,” and music. One set of Mystery Visitors found that UUSG could please both the lover of small churches, and the lover of full, active churches.
Overall, the strengths of UUSG outweigh any weaknesses.
The weaknesses can easily be addressed by paying more attention to welcoming newcomers (especially children) on Sunday mornings. Remember that these visits took place back in October — in the mean time, many members of the congregation have been working (formally and informally) to improve our reception of newcomers.
The strengths have some surprises. We already knew we had a strong worship service, and that it’s nice to have people outside the church to greet people coming in. But we did not know the extent to which the building is a major attraction for newcomers. Even more interesting, UUSG can attract both lovers of small churches and those who want a large-church experience — an unusual strength worth paying attention to!
Rev. Dan Harper, January, 2005
Copyright © 2005 Daniel Harper. All rights reserved.
This is quick-and-dirty checklist for forming support groups in congregational settings. Originally written in 2006, it has been revised a couple of times since then.
A support group is typically a small group of people who are facing similar problems or issues, or who share a common idneity, or who are in a common life stage. People in a support group come together on a regular basis to share their stories, give each other moral and spiritual support, and listen deeply to one another. Examples of support groups: women’s groups, youth groups, chalice circles, small group ministries, etc.
Organizational and logistical matters to consider:
A short behavioral agreement (a “covenant,” in current UU jargon language) is needed:
The basic support group in a Unitarian Universalist context will follow this format more or less:
At least two roles need to be filled, formally or informally:
Other roles may be appropriate for some support groups. Many support groups ask members to rotate in the role of facilitator, sometimes in the role of convener.
Child care, sharing or providing transportation, other logistical details.
This includes at least the following:
Support groups may be open or closed, depending on whether new members are admitted or not.
Printed version: Copyright © 2003 Daniel Harper. Web version: Copyright © 2006 Daniel Harper. All rights reserved.