How a Worship Format is Destroying the Evangelical Church
During my lifetime, many evangelical churches in American have moved from Bible-oriented gatherings to music-dominated meetings. Interestingly, both sets of religious gatherings typically bore the title, “Worship Service.”
When the evangelical church was Bible-oriented, this “worship” paradigm was in place:
(1) Not all elements of the service were considered equally important; the exposition of Scripture was clearly the first and foremost priority. All other competitors vied for a distant second place.
(2) When the term “worship” was used, it was the equivalent of our modern casual expression, “doing church.” It is important to note that the preaching of the Word was considered part of worship, as were announcements, testimonies, communion, prayer, singing, the offering, and special music. This was the typical structure of a “worship service” before 1980.
(3) Many evangelicals viewed music as a “warm up for the sermon.” In this regard, many leaders did not seem to often respect music ministry as actual ministry but many others did.
The change
But the paradigm has changed in many churches. The most important change was what the word “worship” communicates. The word “worship” is now used by clergy and laity alike to refer to the religious feelings aroused by music.
(1) The change in paradigms began with the addition on an article: “the” worship. As trivial as this seems, this was the beginning of emphasizing music and separating preaching and announcements from worship. We now have “the worship” and “the sermon.”
Here is just one possible scenario resulting from this change in definition. John Member has schedule a meeting with Pastor Jones. Let’s eavesdrop.
“Pastor, I think we need to cut down the time you preach. Fifteen minutes is plenty, I think.”
“I don’t agree,” replies Pastor Jones, “studying the Bible is crucial for every Christian.”
“Oh, I agree that the Bible is important, Pastor,” responds John Member, “but our morning service is billed as the morning worship service, so it should be mainly about worship, not preaching.”
In the above hypothetical conversation, you can see how the two meanings of the word “worship” are colliding with one another. In the pastor’s mind, Bible study is an important part of worship, but not in the mind of John Member. He views only music as “worship.”
(2) Other terminology changed. Schools that offered a major in church music (or “sacred music” for the hoi polloi) changed the major to “Worship Arts” (about the same time shades and curtains became “window treatments”). The song leader became known as the “worship leader.”
(3) Music became more emotionally intense, and a confusion between the emotional and the spiritual helped set music on an untouchable pedestal. Worship had become something one felt, not something one did. Worship was judged as good or bad based upon how it made worshippers feel. The Scriptures no longer defined good worship; the individual had become the discerner of truth based upon how he felt.
(4) In mega-churches, elitism and an attitude oriented toward musicians performing to the standards of other musicians (rather than aiming to bless the congregation) seems to be the norm. In some cases, musicians have become a special religious caste (like a priest, they lead the sacrifice of praise into the holy place).
(5) Even though Colossians 3:16 implies we should aim our hymns and songs both vertically and horizontally (we sing to one another and in our hearts to the Lord), the entire concept of worshiping God in the third person is gone, despite the fact that many Psalms speak of God as “He” rather than “You.”
(6) The goal of worship is creating a religious atmosphere and its attendant feelings. Often times worship leaders are weak in biblical and theological matters, but because more Christians value “worship” above theology, some of these leaders are carving out a pattern for church with little regard for biblical teaching about what the church is supposed to do when gathered.
(7) Here is the pattern: eventually worship (music and that religious feeling) is considered almost on a par with Scripture, then equal to Scripture, and eventually superior to it.* The Scriptures become subservient to the music and are used more as transitions between songs than holy word to be expounded. Biblical sermons have given way to self-help lectures or emotionally charged sermons with lots of illustrations—replacing the previous Psalm 1 mentality. The idea of worshiping God through deep Bible study and meditation in the Word is unknown; worship now means music and feelings.
The consequences & dangers of the new “worship format”
- Religion is back in vogue. We used to hear “I’m not religious, I just love the Lord,” or “Christianity is not a religion; it is a relationship.” Because of the new emphasis on religious feeling, it is fair to say that we have moved back into the domain of religion.
- Worship has become a religious experience dependent upon something else than the gathering of Christians to study the Word, pray, celebrate communion, and sing a few hymns. Based upon modern viewpoints, the early church must have done a poor job of worshipping God.
- If the church is about worship, and if worship is a religious feeling induced from a church gathering, then, if I get a stronger version of that feeling somewhere else, that is where I need to be. Rather than the Bible, a passionate feeling of worship becomes the canon by which I measure truth.
As a result, Christians not only move from evangelical church to evangelical church, but they also desert evangelicalism. Our heritage is based upon the centrality of Scripture; we are really novices at the religion game. But even if we competed well on a religious level, are we right to trash the primacy of Scripture? What about the convictions of the Reformation?
The problem is not contemporary music, seeking to have meaningful worship through songs of praise, etc. The problem is displacement. When we displace the knowledge of the Word and solid doctrine with music (whether we call music worship or not), we are no longer under the lordship of Christ. The Christian life includes public worship, but the highest form of worship is hearing and doing the Word of God. That is why the ultimate “worship book” in the Bible, the book of Psalms, begins with emphasizing constant meditation on the Word. The longest Psalm (119) makes the point even more emphatically. God seeks those who worship Him in Spirit and in truth. It is hard to worship God in truth if you don’t know the truth and if you do not make the truth a priority.
Ed Vasicek Bio
Ed Vasicek was raised as a Roman Catholic but, during high school, Cicero (IL) Bible Church reached out to him, and he received Jesus Christ as his Savior by faith alone. Ed earned his BA at Moody Bible Institute and served as pastor for many years at Highland Park Church, where he is now pastor emeritus. Ed and his wife, Marylu, have two adult children. Ed has published over 1,000 columns for the opinion page of the Kokomo Tribune, published articles in Pulpit Helps magazine, and posted many papers which are available at edvasicek.com. Ed has also published the The Midrash Key and The Amazing Doctrines of Paul As Midrash: The Jewish Roots and Old Testament Sources for Paul's Teachings.
- 450 views
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
[Ted Bigelow]Well done and these verses demonstrate that singing could be a vehicle for all these things (and probably more). Any thoughts about INSTRUMENTAL music? We know that the Temple was filled with instrumental groups, but what is it that instrumental music does? I think it is particularly in the realm of the tune that some might argue that music is a spiritual gift (the ability to perform it) because it is the dedication and perhaps heightening of a natural talent, much like teaching could be.
From here, I would only add that all the actions of 1 Cor. 14:26 were connected to the gift of tongues. I’ve got a 3 part article in to Aaron from last year on this topic should he ever want to risk us diving back into the troublous doctrine of tongues again!
Here’s the activities of 1 Cor. 14:26 and their prior connection in the context:
1) Psalm - connected to 1 Cor. 14:15, an act of “singing praise with my spirit;”
2) teaching - to 1 Cor. 14:6, an act of instruction;
3) revelation - to 1 Cor. 14:6, an act of supernatural revelation;
4) tongue - to 1 Cor. 14:2 and others - the supernatural act of speaking in an unknown human language to God, and any others who may know that language;
5) interpretation - 1 Cor. 14:5, 13 - the supernatural ability to interpret the tongue of another, which is prayed for by the tongues-speaker, and so is connected to the original tongues-utterance.
"The Midrash Detective"
Since this is “your” topic I won’t feel uncomfortable continuing this line of consideration as it relates to the OP so let me respond to your last post with this suggestion.
In the absence of any biblical offering that playing a musical instrument or being involved in the composition or performance of music is a NT spiritual gift, I would emphatically leave off any suggestion that through speculation we might ascertain this as an employable possibility.
But as it relates to spiritual gifts that are identified one might consider those who are involved in the use of musical instruments and such are so by way of the exercise of the service gifts.
As to the nature of spiritual gifts being heightened human talents, while their exercise does involve the medium of human elements, the gifts themselves I do not believe can justly be considered heightened human talents. The are not human but spiritual in essence.
I do believe human talents, though, may be employed and clearly are in our ministries but they should categorically be distinguished from spiritual gifts IMO.
[Ed] I am a little amazed, with all the Barna stats and Willow Creek admitting they are not teaching the word that this questions came up. I could be referring to many churches in the evangelical world, but the Seeker Sensitive types are the most obvious, esp. those that became Seeker Sensitive. I do not consider topical self-help sermons week after week that just refer to a verse here or there as teaching the word.I don’t disagree with you about these problems Ed - I was just saying that the identity of the ones with the problem wasn’t documented in your article. It was so broad in scope by saying “evangelical churches” that you could have just said “American Churches.” Who you were talking about was “assumed” so I wanted to ask for specifics as to what sub-groub you were referring.
Beyond that, my confusion was this: if this is an article against the Willow Creek type, etc…I just don’t see how posting this article on SI on the problems within these seeker churches will really accomplish anything but helping all of us who agree with you pat ourselves on the back for doing “worship” right. We can all look at this article and shake our heads at these awful churches that are so horrible while we relish our own ability to format services in a way that puts God’s Word on the pedestal it deserves. As far as I’m aware, displacement of God’s Word (at least in sermon length) hasn’t ever really been something that Fundamentalist churches have been accused of doing. But if the problem is these sermonettes with mainstream evangelicalism, then how is “preaching to the choir” (so to speak) really…well, helpful in solving the problem? I guess I don’t get what you were trying to accomplish in this article, that’s all.
Beyond that, I’m not sure I’m sold (not that you have to feel obligated to convince me) on the root problem that is destroying these churches is really as simplistic as their worship format. I don’t think that in these churches you are describing that if they took two songs out and put ten more minutes of sermon time in then the root problem would go away. Perhaps the root is a bit deeper than this?
While Willowcreek may be an obvious example, I don’t think this phenomena is limited to seeker churches. I’ve seen the displacement of Scripture happen in what most would consider solid Fundy churches. Sometimes the Word is displaced by the personality of the speaker instead of music. And the music doesn’t have to be CCM to qualify for Bro. Vasicek’s critique. Any time we see ‘results’ from something other than the declaration of sound doctrine, and it is milked for all it’s worth, we’ve displaced the Word.
It’s easy to point out problems with Willowcreek et al, but by keeping this critique vague and NOT naming names, I think it helps us consider ourselves instead of dismissing the idea by saying “He’s talking about those guys over there”.
Sure there’s a root problem- there’s always a root problem. But you still go to the doc with your symptoms in order to get at what ails you.
There are fundamental churches
-where the personality of the preacher dominates
-where pointless, passionless, powerless preaching is endured as long as everything else is working
-where the congregation listens to more music than they sing themselves
-where people would rather be sung to than sing
-where “special” music is the property of the trained professional
-where music, by intention or purpose, becomes performance.
-
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
Beyond that, my confusion was this: if this is an article against the Willow Creek type, etc…I just don’t see how posting this article on SI on the problems within these seeker churches will really accomplish anything but helping all of us who agree with you pat ourselves on the back for doing “worship” right. We can all look at this article and shake our heads at these awful churches that are so horrible while we relish our own ability to format services in a way that puts God’s Word on the pedestal it deserves.This article is not against Willow Creek type churches alone. You asked for an example, I tried to give you some that you would know. I could name several churches in my town that used to be more Bible-oriented but have gone this way, as well as other churches in other locals. I could mention articles in sources like Worship magazine or church worship seminars, radio interviews, etc., etc., etc. The problem is so common that you can probably name examples in your own area. A lot of “worship war” splits are not only about the style of music, but also the priority of music. There are TOO many examples.
My main concern is for churches (and institutions) that used to emphasize the Word and have transitioned to emphasizing music (the type of music is irrelevant to me) and justify their change by prioritizing what they call worship over God’s Word. Perhaps that is not a problem in your area? Have you not seen it?
Joseph wrote:
I just don’t see how posting this article on SI on the problems within these seeker churches will really accomplish anythingNo, this is not primarily about Seeker Sensitives, as I mentioned above. This is about churches I could (but will not name) in my town and in other areas where I have good Christian friends. This is about friends I have known for decades whose churches have changed not just in style of music, but the sermons have moved from exposition to short, topical, self-help ones using Bible verses but not really digging into texts. I myself enjoy contemporary music and choruses if they have solid lyrics (our church uses them and I pushed for them over 25 years ago). It is the displacement I am talking about.
As far as writing this article, it was not originally intended for SI. I wrote it for a website years ago. But that does not mean that some SI participants do not need to be concerned…. this mentality of making worship [music] the sovereign over a church service can sneak into the best churches.
Joseph Said:
We can all look at this article and shake our heads at these awful churches that are so horrible while we relish our own ability to format services in a way that puts God’s Word on the pedestal it deserves.The way you have worded this for some reason makes me think the above is somehow different from what I have been saying. I cannot defend what I essentially wrote! I think you have me pegged wrong, brother. This is not a tirade against contemporary music or change (I love variety), but against displacing the Word, perhaps with good things.
But if the problem is these sermonettes with mainstream evangelicalism, then how is “preaching to the choir”We live in different worlds. Mainstream churches have been away from the Word since my grandparents were young. I have no interest there. The problem is in evangelical Bible colleges, etc., but more so in evangelical (as opposed to fundamental) ones. I know students at Moody, for example, who are being taught what I am trying to refute. I would hate to think what Wheaton teaches.
Joseph, you and I apparently are coming from different directions, yet I wonder if you are making assumptions that are not valid (although, in essence, you seem to feel that way about my comments :) ). God bless you, Ed
"The Midrash Detective"
My corrected comment would be that this applies to many conservative evangelicals (or Joel’s “Type C” fundamentalist, which is what I am). All I know is that there are some people on SI slightly to my left, and this problems applies to people where I am at. Perhaps you are more to the right and thus not involved with churches that have the type of problem I am writing about?
I would add more to your comment:
We can all look at this article and shake our heads at these awful churches that are so horrible while we relish our own ability to format services in a way that puts God’s Word on the pedestal it deserves.I always have been equally opposed to the old Sword of the Lord mentality that every sermon should be evangelisitic. To me, the Seeker Sensitive approach and the [every single week] harvest approach to Sunday morning were really the same thing done in two different ways. The topics may have differed, but the depth level of digging into the Word was superficial in both methods.
Both used the Word a little, but illustrations, pleas, and stories are the main in both groups, although the Word was a little more predominant in the Sword of the Lord approach.
Let me add more to an already lengthy discussion:
Some of us used to advocate, “the church gathers for edification and scatters for evangelism.” Of course, that was the theory. Sadly, the word “edification” has pretty much dropped out of approaches toward doing church, but it is the word edification that is clearly used in the epistles to describe church meetings, whereas the Word worship is rarely, if ever, used in conjunction with church meetings (for example, an unbeliever falls down in worship when all prophesy. Other worship verses seem to apply mainly to the individual “those who worship is spirit and truth,” although we can suggest a corporate worship by way of application.
Challenge: If you have a KJV or NASB concordance, look up the word worship and see how many times it is applied when describing a church MEETING (or in the epistles in general). Contrast that with the word “edify” or “edification.” Do our modern discussions put the emphasis in the same place?
"The Midrash Detective"
[KevinM] Oh, and not to blow up the thread, but earlier we discussed the lack of NT warrant for the phrase “corporate worship,” seeking specific passages where the word “worship” is used to describe an activity of the gathered church.I don’t think the text needs the word “worship” when it is describing all of the activities of worship. Definition stands in for the term in many places in the NT. Several have already been mentioned.
I’m not sure I get what the problem is with “corporate worship.” To me, it clearly means the same thing as “gathered worship.” I only prefer “gathered” because the other sounds like IBM, GM, BP and Proctor and Gamble getting together to sing psalms. :D (Or maybe a bunch of stock brokers bowing down before Piper Jaffray)
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Ed] This article is not against Willow Creek type churches alone. You asked for an example, I tried to give you some that you would know.I originally asked if the article was directed towards conservative evangelicals, fundamentalists, new evangelicals, across the whole spectrum of evangelicals, etc. The answer that you gave me were “the most obvious” from Willow types, seeker, emerging, etc. The answer that I was given was not that this is a problem that can creep into any church if one is not guarded, so I hope you can see why my reply was centered in wondering how a “shot” against Willow types was helpful in this format. It’s very easy to point out problems in others…I remember someone once saying “it’s a cheap gift to be able to point out problems in others.” If your assertion is that this is a widespread problem, then ya’, I totally agree. I’m not “sheltered” in that I’ve never seen what you’re talking about. I already stated that I agree that there is a widespread problem of churches displacing God’s Word for something else (music is only one example - though the most culturally popular right now).
[Ed] The way you have worded this for some reason makes me think the above is somehow different from what I have been saying. I cannot defend what I essentially wrote! I think you have me pegged wrong, brother. This is not a tirade against contemporary music or change (I love variety), but against displacing the Word, perhaps with good things.Personally, I didn’t take your article as any type of attack on CCM, or any particular “style” of worship (for which I’m thankful). My concern (apparently wrong?) was that this was an “us vs. them” type article - one that is faithful in pointing out the problems of those “other” churches. You may be right - but what would be the point in taking shots at other churches? When you directed the problem to the Willow types, etc. (an obvious example) instead of stating that the problem is found in our types as well, it appeared to me as a shot against an easy target and I was left wondering how that’s helpful.
Kind of akin to me writing an article on a conservative website called “Liberalism isn’t Cool!” Well ya’, but how would stating that on a Republican web-site help those who are liberal see that as a problem? Yeah, all us conservatives can say how terrible it is and pat ourselves on the back for not being liberal, but it does nothing to help overcome the problem or convince those who are liberal that they need to change. That’s kind of how I took it. If I took it wrong, I apologize.
[Ed] Perhaps you are more to the right and thus not involved with churches that have the type of problem I am writing about?No, I think you could classify me as a type “D” fundamentalist. LOL :-)
By the way, I agree with what you’ve said about worship. Interestingly, some of the churches that I’ve been to who would be classified as “music orientated” have roughly 45 minutes of music…but then have an hour long sermon. One example that I listen to podcasts by is Louie Giglio. His church really “rocks out” so to speak - with Tomlin, Redman, etc. for quite some time, but then he preaches for a solid hour! Interestingly, he’s the one who said about worship that we “go worshipping to church, not going to church to worship.” You’re right that when we think about worship the mind gravitates towards music, but that is only a blip on the radar in what worship really is. We’re always worshipping something - whatever is on the throne of our hearts. I’ve also seen some churches change the name of their “service” from a “worship service” to a “church gathering.” I thought that was kinda cool.
Ed, you and I probably agree on a lot of things! I probably just got a really bad impression from our small exchanges here - as you probably have a bad impression of me. I’ve seen us (fundamentalists) define ourselves by the negative - I saw this article as one more negative “shot” against those who do it wrong instead of an edifying article on how to place the priority of worship back on Christ and His Word. If I’m wrong about that, I apologize.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
Ed, you and I probably agree on a lot of things! I probably just got a really bad impression from our small exchanges hereI think you are right. Rocking for 45 minutes with an hour of preaching —that’s more preaching than I do! I can’t claim that church has the problem I have been addressing. It’s more like what Aaron was saying just above.
This statement has made me think, especially in regard to a number of conversations I’ve had recently with different folks who are looking for churches. A number of them have said that they are willing to put up with poor preaching if the music is what the like.I’ve been hearing just that in central Indiana for 28 years now. In some ways, Hoosiers are ahead of the time! This is sad. The difference I’ve noted is that 28 years ago, they said what mattered most was music, now they say what matters most is worship. But by worship, they mean music. Thus they are immune from attack for not being spiritual. It’s a game.
"The Midrash Detective"
[Ron Bean] This statement has made me think, especially in regard to a number of conversations I’ve had recently with different folks who are looking for churches. A number of them have said that they are willing to put up with poor preaching if the music is what the like.That is a good point to further meditate on- I think when the basically mature and grounded Christian is tempted, the world/flesh/devil can’t attract us with debauchery, but if we can be distracted and derailed by good things, we are going to be deceived and out of commission for a lot longer. Who is going to rebuke is for doing ‘too much’ for God, or being too passionate, or enjoying church because we sing too many songs…? But once we’ve left the meat of the Word, we are going to be weaker and eventually more susceptible to the beggarly elements.
I agree with and appreciate Bro. Vasicek’s point, and the best way to benefit from these thoughts is to seriously consider if in some way our churches have drifted away, to any degree, from the primacy of Scripture to focus on other (possibly) good but distracting things.
G. N. Barkman
[G. N. Barkman] Although the thread has largely departed from the subject of Spiritual Gifts for the last several posts, I wanted to throw out something. It seems best to me to consider Spiritual Gifts to be Holy Spirit empowered, guided, and utilized natrual gifts rather than something brand new given by the Holy Spirit at the time of the new birth. Some teachers already evidenced and practiced natural abilities in teaching before they were saved. Salvation gave them a new purpose and spiritual empowerment for their teaching. After all, since God knows those who are his before they are born, why would we expect Him to give us the “gifts” (talents, abilities) He intends for us to use in His Kingdom as part of our genetic and environmental experiences, then “activate” these as spiritual gifts when we are regenerated?The problem with the proposition is not that is does not seem to make sense but that it fails prescriptive demands. The phenomenon of ton pneumatikon or spirituals, do have a specific protocol in Scripture with regard to their definition, context and exercise. These must be adhered to beyond the temptation to employ human reasoning.
1. If they were natural gifts then they were already present when a person is saved, thereby contradicting the teaching that it is the moment of salvation these unique spiritual gifts are given by the Spirit of God.
2. Their fundamental definitions conflict with this proposition. Something cannot be the same but different. One is spiritual the other is natural.
3. There are only a few gifts that may have certain features that appear to manifest themselves to the human eye the same way human talents do. However, if what you propose is true then the miraculous gifts certainly are left without explanation. There is no natural talent for turning water into wine or receiving revelation from God to declare prophecies, to heal someone on command. In fact look at the healing gift(s). Paul certainly was no medical person, in fact Dr. Luke was but who had the gift to heal? The Apostles.
The gift of teaching is often misunderstood as something that is simply an elevated natural gift. It is not. There may be the incidental occasion where a human teacher is given the spiritual gift of teaching but his human talent is not what makes his gift valid or operate. One need never be taught teaching methods if they have a teaching gift in order to instruct others in the Word of God in a manner far superior to a person without a teaching gift. In fact, give me a person who does not have the spiritual gift of teaching but has post-graduate training and experience in teaching and has instructed in at a college level and then give me a believer with the gift of teaching who has never been formally trained as a teacher and with both men having equal understanding of a text, I guarantee you when the Word of God is taught, the man with the teaching gift will excel far beyond the other because it is God’s Spirit providing the dynamism which God designed to be present in those with the teaching gift and occurs when they teach the Word of God that no human ability can match. It is not because they naturally possess anything but due to the unseen spiritual phenomenon that occurs when he is teaching which does not reside in the least in any of his natural abilities.
These are only a few of many problems that arise with this kind of prescription. I accept that rationally, what you say seems reasonable but theologically it is very untenable.
Discussion