A new church service order?

Instead of having very distinct times for songs, then a sermon, then a closing song and prayer---could we mix it all up to help people experience God in a different, maybe more personal, way??? Do things have to be portioned so much?

For example, could a song be playing with some images (or icons) on the screen when the pastor (or whomever) reads a few Scriptures? Then, there would be time for people to meditate on those Scriptures & perhaps journal some thoughts on the back of the bulletin. At a cetain points, we could still sing corporately. A few discussion questions could come up on the sidescreens for people to either write about or talk with a few people about. Then, the pastor/facilitator could giude the discussion a little. Show a video? Another song? Take communion? More quiet time . . . I think providing space for quiet reflection should be a staple of any church service. Can we ever get too much of that in our life? Have a short role-play or drama? I do not understand the segmentation of everything every time.

I'm not advocating for disorder or to not have a certain text for the Service. I do think we can get into the text in different ways other than to hear thirty straight minutes of what someone else thinks about it. I think we can do a much better job of creating environments that allow people to hear from and experience God. We do not learn by only listening. We are changed by experiences. I honestly cannot usually remember what someone talked about last week or even--last night. I do remember the experiences I've had in church services where there was space for me to have one. We have all these gifts to wisely steward as we determine service order. Let's not settle for less than our best in helping people hear from, see, and get to know Christ. The elements of a church service should serve that end, not get in the way of it by regimenting and segmenting. Who are we to judge exactly how and when someone should experience God's presence or communicaiton?

Is this real-ly relevant?

I read this article:
(http://www.relevantmagazine.com/pc_article.php?id=7353). It’s entitled “The Commercial Church.”
There are some assertions that the author makes which really resonate with me, like: “Many times, [in a church’s service time] we create spectators rather than participators.” I think that is a real danger when the emphasis on programming is high. I believe we’d better serve and honor both God and people by focusing more energy in creating an environment where people are invited to experience the LORD—not so much a “presentation.” I long for my time spent in a service to be a time and space where I can experience God—right where I’m at: physically, emotionally, and mentally. I wish that the elements of the service time where geared more towards that end then staying on schedule or the impartation of mere information. Do not tell me what to think about, teach me how to think—how to draw closer to Jesus. I’ll never remember three points, a snappy acrostic, and I’ll probably throw away whatever cheesy little reminder thing everyone gets from the ushers. I think people are hungry for “real” more than they are “relevant.” As Peterson [I think] wrote, “Real is always relevant.” Let’s focus on creating a safe place for people to get real with God and experience His love and grace. Let’s help people figure out how to do that versus trying to modify their behavior.
Another opinion with which I agree is the author’s observation that “The non-Christians are now called the ‘un-churched’ or in other words, the ‘un-institutionalized.’ Is that our goal, to ‘church’ people? And so we wonder why people are feeling dry and disconnected from God even though they are active in their church.” I’ve been guilty of this, too. My goal for me, my friends and family should be discipleship not church membership. Unfortunately, trying to find some “disciple-facilitators” amongst all these teachers and preachers can sometimes prove tricky . . .