The Time is Coming, and Now Is

Perspectives on Christian Worship is a compilation of  five essays, each written by a different author, presenting five divergent approaches to Christian, evangelical worship. Each essay forms one chapter of the book, and is immediately followed by a chapter in which all other contributing authors present a formal response to it. This structure has the benefit of presenting each view along with its criticisms, affording the reader a well-balanced and thoroughly researched spectrum of ideas from which to draw his or her own conclusions. The five perspectives and their authors are as follows: Liturgical Worship written by Timothy C. J. Quill; Traditional Evangelical Worship written by Ligon Duncan; Contemporary Worship written by Dan Wilt; Blended Worship written by Michael Lawrence and Mark Dever; and Emerging Worship written by Dan Kimball.

After a brief introduction by editor, J. Matthew Pinson, which presents a broad timeline of the development of Christian worship, the first view is presented: Liturgical Worship. Considering the fact that the other four perspectives have developed from and within one another (blended worship is a measured response to the values of both contemporary and traditional worship, while emerging worship is in essence an extension of the contemporary worship movement), liturgical worship may be the most foreign to many readers, unless, of course, they have spent time in a liturgical church. Fittingly, this chapter is quite length and very thorough.

The greatest distinction that Quill makes between liturgical worship and any other non-liturgical approach is the question of who is primarily taking action in worship: man or God? He argues, “If worship is primarily something we do, then we can never be certain we did enough. The law always accuses and condemns. It leads to a ‘mathematical,’ measure-oriented way of evaluating how worship is done…This is law worship. Gospel worship works the other way. The liturgy is first of all what God is doing. In law worship, we bring our obedience and praise to God. In gospel worship, we bring our sin and sinfulness, and God brings His gifts to us.”[1] According to Quill, this distinction removes a lot of the burden from ministers and congregants alike of have moving, emotional worship services that cause us to feel “close to Jesus.” In  the liturgy, the Christian meets God through His Word and the sacraments, and does not need “to get closer than this.” He writes, “The important thing is that our Lord’s gifts are always certain, true, and given out to us. When we have wonderful, moving, emotional experiences, it is something for which to give God thanks. We can enjoy them and give thanks for them, but we do not put our faith in them. We put our faith in Christ and His Word, His promises, and His gifts.”[2]

In defending liturgical worship, Quill does not mask his personal disdain for contemporary worship when he characterizes the movement in general and across history as “disorder, irreverence and frivolity.”[3] Liturgical worship on the other hand, “retains ceremony not only for the sake of reverence but also in order to teach the faith.”[4] He takes aim squarely at the heart of contemporary worship’s passion for reaching and engaging the culture around us when he states, “The word culture comes from cultus, the Latin word for worship. Divine Worship is a culture unlike any other, and is in fact a counterculture.”[5] In his further defense of liturgical worship, Quill points to various characteristics of the liturgy such as repetition, longevity, the use of the church year and lectionary, order and form as its great strengths.[6]

The latter half of Quill’s essay emphasizes the importance of Christology in worship, and suggests that this is best accomplished in the liturgical tradition. To prove his point, he expounds on the various components of the liturgy to demonstrate its Christ-centric character.[7] At one point, he even includes a graphic suggesting that the liturgy is the sole point of intersection between heaven and earth.[8]

The responses to Quill’s essay target a range of issues, but by far their over-arching theme, not surprisingly, centers on the element of human emotion in worship. Wilt calls for a balance in worship of God’s transcendence and immanence, and “contends that life above liturgy is the place where heaven and earth meet,”[9] while Lawrence and Dever cry out for inclusion in worship of the “legitimately subjective aspects of the gospel.”[10]

The next chapter presents traditional evangelical worship. Whereas Quill emphasized the Christology of liturgical worship, Duncan presents a “Bible-centric” view of worship. He begins by defining worship as “declaring—with our lips and lives—that God is more important than anything else to us, that He is our deepest desire, that His inherent worth is beyond everything else we hold dear.”[11] In describing what our worship ought to look like, Duncan asserts that the traditional evangelical approach seeks to read, preach, pray, sing and see the Bible.[12] Duncan closes his essay by expounding on a long list of qualities he believes will be evident in Biblical worship, namely that it will be scriptural, simple, spiritual, God-centered, historic, reverent and joyful, Christ-based, corporate, evangelistic, delightful, and both active and passive.[13] Finally, he mentions that Biblical worship should emphasize the Sabbath or Lord’s Day, and that this is done by “regular and faithful congregational Sunday morning and evening worship.”[14]

In the responses to Duncan’s chapter, Quill quickly points out the theological distinction that I mentioned earlier: that of worship as being first what God does, not what man does.[15] Wilt takes issue primarily with the way in which Duncan treats the impact of one’s culture on one’s worship.[16] Similarly, Kimball challenges the idea that Christian worship should not have a “style” by pointing out that, intentional or not, even the worship of the early church invariably had some type of stylistic character.[17] Lawrence and Dever largely agree with Duncan taking issue only with his treatment of the “Lord’s Day” topic.[18]

Dan Wilt’s chapter on “Contemporary Worship” follows next, and makes no apology for its lopsided emphasis on contemporary worship music to the exclusion of all other aspects of corporate Christian worship. He writes, “When most of us think about ‘contemporary worship,’ we think about the music that defines it.”[19] This exclusion of other artistic expressions was indeed one point of criticism from Wilt’s responders.[20] Wilt provides a number of key scripture references in his definition of worship, all of which address worship from the standpoint of whole-life (holistic) worship to the exclusion of corporate, gathered worship,[21] a point criticized by Ligon Duncan in his response.[22] Wilt follows his definition of worship with a scriptural and historical defense of the “new song.”

It is after these preliminaries, that, in my opinion, Wilt gets to the real meat of his essay:  the question, “what forces shape contemporary music?” For Wilt, the answer is, quite simply, culture. Wilt references the writing of Bishop N.T. Wright which points to the Enlightenment, the Romantic movement and the Existentialist and self-actualization movements as key factors in the shaping of contemporary culture, and suggests that “large portions of contemporary culture are built on a pursuit of self-discovery that has been swallowed hook, line and sinker by both conservative and liberal churches.”[23] Wilt does not believe, however, that the church’s response should be to eschew culture, but rather to engage it. He purports that the church is part of culture, but is also beyond culture.[24] This point was picked up by Lawrence and Dever in their response. Though they disagree with Wilt’s ultimate arrival, they acknowledge that his essay correctly identifies the debate: “From the contemporary worship perspective, the debate is not over the interpretation and application of scripture. Rather, it is a philosophical and sociological discussion about the relationship between the church and the culture it is trying to reach with the gospel of Jesus Christ.”[25]

Wilt continues by identifying the guiding values of contemporary worship expression. Not surprisingly, for him, cultural relevance is at the top of the list, followed by integrity, holism, immanence, incarnational worship, simplicity, diversity, and unity.[26] He concludes by offering a brief look into what the future may hold for the contemporary worship movement, noting that “if contemporary worship music and contemporary service can continue to ‘further the plot’ of the kingdom story in tandem with the historic patterns of living worship, then we have found our place.”[27]

The heart of Lawrence and Dever’s essay on blended worship is found in the opening statement of their essay: “The style of music you use on Sunday morning is incredibly unimportant.” The authors’ intent is made clear, when they  say, “our aim…is to put both worship and style back into their proper places and proper relationship with one another.”[28] To that end, the writers suggest four things that blended worship is not: a blending of truths or truth-perspectives, a blending of diverse theological and liturgical traditions, a blending of elements of worship, or a blending of media or means of communication. Rather, for Lawrence and Dever, blended worship is “corporate worship that consists of its biblical elements (prayer, singing, reading and preaching God’s Word, the ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s Supper) but in a variety of styles or forms.[29]

The writers provide both a biblical and a theological basis for blended worship. Their biblical basis acknowledges the strict methodology of Old Testament worship, balanced by the importance of the condition of one’s heart, as seen in the judgment of the prophets. The New Testament enforces this dual emphasis in the command of Jesus to worship the Father in spirit and truth.[30] The theological basis for blended worship centers on the question of “how should God be worshiped?” The answer is found not in culture or in our own tastes or predilections, but in the Bible, which identifies the elements, forms and circumstances of public worship.[31]

The elements of worship are prayer, song, reading and preaching scripture, tithes and offerings, and the ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s Supper.[32] For Lawrence and Dever, the forms and circumstances of worship (drawn largely from the variety evident in the Psalms) should be intelligible, orderly, edifying, unifying and reverent.[33] The chapter concludes with a number of sample worship service outlines with specific song titles included, which help to paint a picture of what blended worship looks like in their mind.

The responses to Lawrence and Dever were interestingly split. Quill and Duncan were, by and large, in agreement. Wilt and Kimball both raised significant challenges, primarily with their treatment of the influence of culture in the church and the level of emotional experientialism in worship.

The final installment of the book, emerging worship by Dan Kimball, is perhaps the most honest and humbly-written chapter. The author admits that he is not a scholar like the other contributors. More importantly, he is the only author who was raised outside of the church.[34] Though not heavily emphasized in his essay, nor acknowledged in the reviews, I believe these two details are huge factors in Kimball’s approach to and understanding of worship in the modern church.

Kimball’s idea of emerging worship is a logical continuation of Wilt’s essay on contemporary worship in that he sees a great need for the church to be engaged with and influenced by its culture. He writes, “The truth is that none of us is really worshipping the way the early church originally worshiped. Thus, if we argue that we should not be influenced by culture, then we must recognize that most of us already have been (although the culture that influenced us might stem back to the 1500s).”[35] The extent to which emerging worship patterns follow this philosophy is one of the major criticisms from the responders. Wilt himself suggests that “the greatest risk that the emerging church faces, and emerging worship forms face, is that of being converted by the culture.”[36] Lawrence and Dever take their criticism a step further saying, “we are on safer ground biblically if we assume that culture’s default effect will be to misshape our worship, and that what is needed is to allow the Scriptures to constantly reform and reshape our worship according to the pattern of the Spirit rather than the pattern of the world.”[37]

The body of Kimball’s chapter focuses on the various learning styles as understood in the education world and purports that the church should acknowledge and serve these styles. He promotes a multisensory worship experience that proves useful to all congregants whether their learning style be tactile/kinesthetic, auditory, or visual. He contends that the church historically and in general has forced its congregants to receive the gospel message in a predominantly auditory fashion, though only a fraction of people learn best in that way, and that that number can be expected to shrink further in the future as each successive generation becomes more saturated with visual media.[38] Kimball applies this philosophy by comparing worship expression to an artist’s palette in which the brushes are prayer and scripture, and the paint colors are video (film), prayer stations, musical worship, sacred space, teaching and spoken word, and the fine arts.[39] Like Lawrence and Dever, Kimball closes his chapter with a sample service plan with all the components listed and explained.

Perspectives on Christian Worship presents a huge array of ideas and beliefs on Western, predominantly white, Christian worship. As some of its contributors acknowledge, the book fails to address Christian worship patterns elsewhere on the globe, or even multi-ethnic Christian practices in the Western hemisphere. That said, this book is a great tool and reference for understanding the worship practices around us, and may even help others form their own beliefs and convictions regarding worship.

---

[1] Timonthy C. J. Quill, ”Liturgical Worship,” in Perspectives on Christian Worship, ed. J. Matthew Pinson (Nashville: Broadman and Holman Publishers, 2009), 22-23.

[2] Ibid, 24.

[3] Ibid, 28.

[4] Ibid, 29.

[5] Ibid, 30.

[6] Ibid, 37-43.

[7] Ibid, 43-80.

[8] Ibid, 64.

[9] Dan Wilt et al., ”Responses to Timothy C. J. Quill ‘Liturgical Position,’” in Perspectives on Christian Worship, ed. J. Matthew Pinson (Nashville: Broadman and Holman Publishers, 2009), 90.

[10] Michael Lawrence and Mark Dever et. al., ”Responses to Timothy C. J. Quill ‘Liturgical Position,’” in Perspectives on Christian Worship, ed. J. Matthew Pinson (Nashville: Broadman and Holman Publishers, 2009), 92.

[11] Ligon Duncan, ”Traditional Evangelical Worship,” in Perspectives on Christian Worship, ed. J. Matthew Pinson (Nashville: Broadman and Holman Publishers, 2009), 101.

[12] Ibid, 105-109.

[13] Ibid, 114-122.

[14] Ibid, 122-123.

[15] Timothy C. J. Quill et al., ”Responses to Ligon Duncan ‘Traditional Evangelical Position,’” in Perspectives on Christian Worship, ed. J. Matthew Pinson (Nashville: Broadman and Holman Publishers, 2009), 125-126.

[16] Dan Wilt et al., ”Responses to Ligon Duncan ‘Traditional Evangelical Position,’” in Perspectives on Christian Worship, ed. J. Matthew Pinson (Nashville: Broadman and Holman Publishers, 2009), 128-133.

[17] Dan Kimball et al., ”Responses to Ligon Duncan ‘Traditional Evangelical Position,’” in Perspectives on Christian Worship, ed. J. Matthew Pinson (Nashville: Broadman and Holman Publishers, 2009), 137-138.

[18] Michael Lawrence and Mark Dever et al., ”Responses to Ligon Duncan ‘Traditional Evangelical Position,’” in Perspectives on Christian Worship, ed. J. Matthew Pinson (Nashville: Broadman and Holman Publishers, 2009), 133-136.

[19] Dan Wilt, ”Contemporary Worship,” in Perspectives on Christian Worship, ed. J. Matthew Pinson (Nashville: Broadman and Holman Publishers, 2009), 146.

[20] Dan Kimball et. al., “Responses to Dan Wilt ‘Contemporary Worship,’” in Perspectives on Christian Worship, ed. J. Matthew Pinson (Nashville: Broadman and Holman Publishers, 2009), 216.

[21] Dan Wilt, ”Contemporary Worship,” in Perspectives on Christian Worship, ed. J. Matthew Pinson (Nashville: Broadman and Holman Publishers, 2009), 148-149.

[22] Ligon Duncan et. al., “Responses to Dan Wilt ‘Contemporary Worship,’” in Perspectives on Christian Worship, ed. J. Matthew Pinson (Nashville: Broadman and Holman Publishers, 2009), 210.

[23] Dan Wilt, ”Contemporary Worship,” in Perspectives on Christian Worship, ed. J. Matthew Pinson (Nashville: Broadman and Holman Publishers, 2009), 157.

[24] Ibid, 164-165.

[25] Michael Lawrence and Mark Dever et. al., “Responses to Dan Wilt ‘Contemporary Worship,’” in Perspectives on Christian Worship, ed. J. Matthew Pinson (Nashville: Broadman and Holman Publishers, 2009), 211-212.

[26] Dan Wilt, ”Contemporary Worship,” in Perspectives on Christian Worship, ed. J. Matthew Pinson (Nashville: Broadman and Holman Publishers, 2009), 175-197.

[27] Ibid, 200.

[28] Michael Lawrence and Mark Dever, ”Blended Worship,” in Perspectives on Christian Worship, ed. J. Matthew Pinson (Nashville: Broadman and Holman Publishers, 2009), 218-219.

[29] Ibid, 219-222.

[30] Ibid, 226-231.

[31] Ibid, 232-236.

[32] Ibid, 236-240.

[33] Ibid, 241-255.

[34] Dan Kimball, ”Emerging Worship,” in Perspectives on Christian Worship, ed. J. Matthew Pinson (Nashville: Broadman and Holman Publishers, 2009), 288.

[35] Ibid, 299.

[36] Dan Wilt et. al., “Responses to Dan Kimball ‘Emerging Worship,’” in Perspectives on Christian Worship, ed. J. Matthew Pinson (Nashville: Broadman and Holman Publishers, 2009), 345.

[37] Michael Lawrence and Mark Dever et. al., “Responses to Dan Kimball ‘Emerging Worship,’” in Perspectives on Christian Worship, ed. J. Matthew Pinson (Nashville: Broadman and Holman Publishers, 2009), 351.

[38] Dan Kimball, ”Emerging Worship,” in Perspectives on Christian Worship, ed. J. Matthew Pinson (Nashville: Broadman and Holman Publishers, 2009), 301-305.

[39] Ibid, 305-328.

As I read the section, “The Language of Music” from the “Essentials in Worship History” ebook, I was stunned upon learning that Messiah‘s premier performance was a charitable event, raising 400 pounds and releasing 142 men from debtors prison. I did a little research after reading that, and learned that Handel personally conducted over thirty performances of the work during his lifetime, most of them as charitable benefits. Although I have taken numerous music history courses in college, and heard Messiah performed publicly more than once, I never knew that little bit of history. But, that changes everything! It puts this amazing artistic masterpiece into perspective as a worship expression. It was birthed as an act of justice! Perhaps that is the reason it has survived and been revered as such a masterpiece. It speaks to the heart of man because it bears the heart of God – a heart of compassion and forgiveness! Would that our worship expressions today be accompanied by such acts of social justice.

Until recently (the past few years), I never really considered baptism as an act of worship. My perspective has changed after having witnessed some powerful baptismal services, and also through the reading in the Worship History course. As I have thought about why baptism never seemed to be a particularly worshipful event for me or the churches in which I have been, I have identified a couple of possible reasons. I think both of these have been factors in my spiritual development, and perhaps in others’ as well. I realize that the observations I am making below are generalities drawn upon my own experience. I do not wish to offend anyone, or make any suppositions about another’s convictions. These are simply my thoughts.

1. Baptism in American, evangelical Christianity seems to have become much more about identifying with man-made, denominational affiliations then it is identifying with the person and work of Jesus Christ. I have seen this in numerous places throughout my life, but nowhere more blatantly than when my wife, having been baptized by immersion in a non-denominational church, was strong-armed into being baptized again when she joined the Southern Baptist church at which I was serving on staff. She did this in order to support my ministry, but both she and I were very offended by the inference that her baptism was inadequate. We believe that, from a spiritual standpoint, her “real” baptism took place the first time, when she was following Christ’s example and bearing witness to her own salvation by identifying with Christ’s death and resurrection. The second baptism was just a submissive act to acquiesce to man’s requirements, an act that greatly cheapened the ordinance of baptism. In fact, in my tradition, we have three basic ways in which we incorporate new members into the local body: by letter (from another local body of like mind), by statement (if a letter is not available), and by baptism (for those moving their membership from a church of a different denomination). How backward and totally un-Biblical this is! Certainly, there is importance in preserving the integrity of our particular doctrinal beliefs, but shouldn’t this be done in another way? By what authority have we re-invented the meaning and purpose of baptism?
2. Baptisms in many (certainly, not all) churches are often relegated to the least important service times. In my tradition, it is rare to hold a baptism in the primary, Sunday morning worship service. It is much more common to see baptisms in a Sunday evening service, sometimes tacked on at the very end as though it were an afterthought. Not that one corporate meeting time is more important than another, but it is the way in which the human mind works. We rank things in importance by the way in which we treat them. Of course, there may be logistical concerns in many places that prohibit a baptism from taking place in the main corporate gathering place (not all houses of worship have a baptistery); I realize that. However, if a church has that ability, I believe every effort should be made to raise the level of importance of baptism by giving it equal weight with all the other acts of worship in our service. The sermon, the offering, even our praise and worship are not church ordinances; baptism, on the other hand, is!

As I have been leading worship over the last 10+ years, one thing that I have started trying to incorporate more is the reading of scripture. In some venues, I have little time or freedom to speak; in other venues, I have great freedom and flexibility to do so. In either case, though, I have found that the scripture will say what needs to be said far better than I can on my own. Whether I am reading a passage verbatim, or paraphrasing passages that I have committed to memory, I have much more confidence in those transitional, spoken-word moments if I am speaking scripture than if I am offering my own thoughts and reflections. There’s certainly a place for both; I am just speaking of my own personal experience of course.

I hold a strong conviction that we need more scripture and less commentary in the corporate gathering today. I am often struck in small groups and Bible studies by how much time is devoted to the voicing of individual opinions about the Word (whether those of the members of the small group, or of the author of the material itself). Certainly group discussion has its merits, but we seem much less interested in finding out what God Himself has said clearly in His word than with what we perceive His Word to be, even if we’ve spent very little time searching it out ourselves! I think this tendency carries over into our private quiet times as well; we are often more willing to read the commentary notes in our study Bibles, or a good devotional book by a Christian author than we are willing to spend dedicated time in the Word itself. I can say this because I find this tendency in my own life at times. We have become dependent upon having the Word of God parsed for us rather than learning to listen to the Holy Spirit as He speaks to us directly through His Word. Small wonder that most of our congregation has not cracked their Bibles until the corporate gathering. Amidst this dynamic, the last thing we need in the corporate gathering is more commentary; we desperately need to read the living Word itself with the Holy Spirit its only interpretation!

A Living Activity

We must bear in mind, through all of these movements of history, that we worship a living God who is not a mute idol. He is alive, and He does move in the midst of your history and mine. He does new things in fresh ways, and thus we cannot remain still in our worship of Him. Though His nature is unchanging, He does unique things in every generation. Therefore, we must worship God in response to His immanent presence, His present nearness to us, in our day and according to our common languages of expression. Whether we worship God in a Latin vesper or we worship Him in a modern day rap song, God is always to be worshiped in a living and non-static way.

This excerpt from “Worship: Yesterday, Today and Forever” by Jeremy Cook and Dan Wilt is an excellent summary of how our worship must be a living, adapting organism. The focus of our worship must never change, but the face of our worship must change; and I think this can be pictured in watching nature itself.

Any given species, any given organism exists with a unique DNA imprint. Through the course of its life, that DNA does not change. The organism remains the same entity, yet it’s appearance and behavior may change dramatically. Consider the butterfly which, though a single living entity, metamorphosizes into different forms with vastly different appearances and physical abilities during the course of its life. Think of the hibernating mammal who responds to the climactic and seasonal changes of its environment by sleeping for months on end, emerging in spring ready to resume its active life. Consider mankind himself. We mature from babes to seniors, adjusting throughout life to our environment, the seasons, our physical abilities or limitations, our health, our interests, etc. We are not static people. We are the same throughout life, but yet we are different at any given moment!

This is true of God as well. He is the same for all time, yet He works and moves differently in different cultures, times and places. Never does His purpose, His Word or His character change; but He does not reveal Himself in the same way to all people in all times. There was only one burning bush. There was only one disciple who walked on water. There was only one woman at the well. God chooses to act uniquely in the lives of His people, though He Himself is eternal and unchanging.

Why, then, do we sometimes try to worship God in a static, unchanging manner? We do not exhibit a static behavior like that in the rest of our existence; nor does the God we worship demonstrate a static character. Likewise, our worship, if it is to be alive, must be changing. In a word, life itself is defined by change! May God help me to be dynamic in my worship, open to receiving from Him and responding to Him in fresh, vibrant and new expressions!