In thinking, and getting very depressed, about, the future of our particular little group, I have been much exercised by the realisation that I wouldn't want to invite anyone I know to our Sunday mornings, and that if I came afresh to Union Chapel I would probably not be inspired to remain very long. In particular I have a couple of colleagues who seem to be the sort of people who would fit in well with the sort of people I believe we can be. One attends a large, very lively, evangelical church, but finds the theology "too much" ­ from that background Union Chapel on a Sunday morning looks too much like the remnants clinging on to the past (it isn't ­ is it?) - we look like the archetypal "Dead Church".. One is vaguely spiritual in a New Agey kind of way, with very similar outlook socially, but would never be seen dead in a traditional church ­ and we look like a traditional church unless you know churches well enough to spot the difference.

Looking back over a dozen years or so of experimentation with worship forms, I have come to the conclusion that we have about four forms which "work" and which have a chance of meeting the needs of the our congregation and, more importantly, of that wider group who might just be interested in joining a christian group if they could find a group who were sufficiently open to where they were, and accessible to their cultural experience.

1. Some of our "Group services" or "Worship for All" all age services, where we have a lot of participation, drama and action. When it works, the wider participation seems to draw on a wider and more relevant range of cultural expression. The result is very variable ­ as is the nature of experimentation. These tend to be "high maintenance" services and one per cycle is about all we could manage.

2. Our hymn/reading type celebration services seem to work well ­ Christmas and Easter. These are the two times of year when our historical culture manages to impinge, if just a little, on popular culture, and a well-chosen blend of well-known traditional material and modern.

3. The quiet meditative services based around readings and silence ­ the best example being our traditional Maundy Thursday communion services.

4. The more "Quaker-style" services a number of us have tried over the years, and which was a large part of the sadly abandoned attempt at developing a better form of communion. None of us have yet quite found the right way to combine the thought and preparation of our tradition with the simple style of the Quaker tradition, but the possibilities are plainly there.

Of these it seems as if the fourth is the one that offers a way of worship that can be sustained on a week-by-week basis. The simple possibility of using silence (maybe filled with music) as a punctuation rather than formal singing offers a liberation from our traditional hymn-prayer sandwich, and a form which is accessible to those with no religious background (for many of whom meditation is something they are open to and which, if the filling of the sandwich is right, does not look like a pale imitation of the great days of non-conformity.

I would like to retain our tradition, rare in Christendom, of service with a theme, with serious reflection on the bible, our daily lives and the world around us. Use of the lectionary seems to be a good way of achieving this, but it could be well supplemented with our own agenda of themes based around the lives and concerns of the congregation.

The filling is generally something we have done fairly well in our present tradition. We have the bible readings and various forms of contemporary prayers, meditations and litany. I would want to retain a sermon slot ­ the carefully considered reflection/exhortation ­ but a single 15 minute slot is not appropriate to all situations, subjects or speakers - if it can be said in 5 minutes then say it in 5 minutes! Intercessory prayers are a concept I have difficulty with, but in providing a connection between the church and the outside world they fulfil an essential role. Maybe this is something that needs more thought and consideration than the usual "We pray for x, y and z" with a quick trip around the news headlines. What would be more meaningful would to be to take one topic and hear about and consider it in more depth and use that information to direct our thoughts and prayers.

The punctuation could be simple silence, but, particularly in the early part of the service with the young people present, silence is difficult for some, particularly when there are distracting noises around. Well chosen recorded music would be my preference, providing we didn't descent into a rut of Mozart, Taize and other overtly "religious" music ­the music we use should be a selection of that which we listen to at home or in the concert hall. Of course we do have people who can play and we should use them! With more silence and space we would have the opportunity to explore more visual forms of worship ­ art, symbols, movement, drama.

We do need to find ways of linking worship, reflection and action. This is difficult when we - quite rightly ­ do little together. An informal style with more short contributions by different members of the congregation allows us more easily to include short pieces around what people are actually doing in their lives ("My Life" in brief?!)

What I do think is important in all this is that we do not lose all sense of structure and planning ­ people feel comfortable to relax and participate if they know what is happening and what is expected. Informality is not an excuse for laziness! So we would still need our piece of paper with the order of service

Seating and comfort do matter - we now have a building and seating that allows us to sit around in a circle and make these sorts of forms comfortable, and we have microphones so all can be heard. We do need better ways of playing recorded music. No doubt there are lots of little practical details that would need working through, but from my experience of such attempts the effort required and practical difficulties are no greater than the conventional hymn-prayer sandwich ­ but neither is it significantly easier!

Somewhere in there I can see a form, or forms of worship that might be relevant to a group of "liberal" non-conformist christians, relevant to an open, exploring congregation. Whether it is a pattern for Union Chapel is less certain to me. Firstly, I am losing faith that Union Chapel really still is that kind of congregation (was it ever?) . Secondly I doubt whether we really do want to build something new, and fear we really want to hang onto the past. I suspect that new forms of worship require new communities. Anybody want to prove my pessimism wrong?

Steve Roberts.