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
What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up.“Hymn” there is psalmos, “a sacred song sung to musical accompaniment.” Note that the context is that of spiritual gifts, and we would easily link each of the other words in this verse with a specific spiritual gift: “lesson” —> teaching; “revelation” —> prophecy; “tongue” —> speaking in tongues; “interpretation” —> interpretation of tongues. So is there a specific spiritual gift linked to the giving of psalmoi to the gathered church? I’m inclined to think there is, and at the very least am unwilling to state categorically there is not.
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
[Greg Long] I’ve never been one to dogmatically declare that musical ability is NOT a spiritual gift, based on my understanding of the nature of spiritual gifts, based on the fact that (as others have pointed out) Paul’s lists seem representative and not exhaustive (why different lists to different churches and even within the same letter to the same church?), and based on 1 Cor. 14:26:Could be. But another way of thinking is this: speaking and singing are vehicles. If I have the gift of teaching, I teach via speaking. If I had the NT gift of prophecy, I would prophesy via speaking. The same could be true of singing. But I think you are right in saying that we cannot rule it out as a spiritual gift.What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up.“Hymn” there is psalmos, “a sacred song sung to musical accompaniment.” Note that the context is that of spiritual gifts, and we would easily link each of the other words in this verse with a specific spiritual gift: “lesson” —> teaching; “revelation” —> prophecy; “tongue” —> speaking in tongues; “interpretation” —> interpretation of tongues. So is there a specific spiritual gift linked to the giving of psalmoi to the gathered church? I’m inclined to think there is, and at the very least am unwilling to state categorically there is not.
"The Midrash Detective"
The primary method by which we see the apostles disseminating the Word is preaching. Singing, to my knowledge, is not the chosen vehicle for equipping the saints to the work of the ministry. Music has a function, an important function, but it is a complimentary function.
Perhaps some don’t understand the issue because they’ve not seen this displacement, and that’s great. Hurray. But I’ve been in many services where people were enjoying the music so much and people were coming forward to the altar to pray that the entire service was music. And not just every once in awhile, but on a regular basis. To the point that a service as I’ve described was viewed as more ‘spiritually successful’, for lack of a better term, because so many people came forward.
My question is “Why are they moved by music and NOT by the preaching of the Word?”
I’ve also attended a church or two where the primacy of music was a distraction. Congregationals, specials, more congregationals, more specials… and 20 minutes of preaching, followed by moving invitation special (complete with PowerPoint slideshow of one Kodak moment after another). I couldn’t help but feel that someone was trying to sell me something.
[Ed Vasicek] 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’s what I’m talkin’ ‘bout.
As for the observance of the Lord’s Supper, it happens in lieu of the third preacher. Red wine and home made bread is used as the elements.
EC-B houses of prayer do not have baptisteries. Baptismal services (usually annual) are held at naturla bodies of water (IBC uses a spot on the American River).
Weddings in the house of prayer occur after the morning service. The place is decorated appropriately and after the service is concluded the bride, groom and wedding party enter.
Hoping to shed more light than heat..
[Rob Fall] Weddings in the house of prayer occur after the morning service. The place is decorated appropriately and after the service is concluded the bride, groom and wedding party enter.No kidding? Speaking of over-wrought production values in church services…could someone please bring this up with Miss Bridezilla? Maybe I’ll move to Russia.
[Greg Long] I’ve never been one to dogmatically declare that musical ability is NOT a spiritual gift, based on my understanding of the nature of spiritual gifts, based on the fact that (as others have pointed out) Paul’s lists seem representative and not exhaustive (why different lists to different churches and even within the same letter to the same church?), and based on 1 Cor. 14:26:Issues with respect to music and its connection to spiritual gifts:What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up.“Hymn” there is psalmos, “a sacred song sung to musical accompaniment.” Note that the context is that of spiritual gifts, and we would easily link each of the other words in this verse with a specific spiritual gift: “lesson” —> teaching; “revelation” —> prophecy; “tongue” —> speaking in tongues; “interpretation” —> interpretation of tongues. So is there a specific spiritual gift linked to the giving of psalmoi to the gathered church? I’m inclined to think there is, and at the very least am unwilling to state categorically there is not.
1. The most challenging. Paul’s list is by means of revelation. That is, God oversaw and insured that communicated to us would be the spiritual gifts he wanted identified by means of revelation and recorded by means of inspiration. If one seeks to maintain that the list is open then their obligation will be to meet the standard that was met by the Scriptures. If one believes he or she can meet this criteria then they certainly have the same footing as the Scriptures, otherwise they really are eliminated from such assertions.
2. Secondly, the use of psalms here was not with emphasis on the music but with emphasis on the doctrinal content as indicated by the context of the passage which was rightly identified as one of communication of doctrine. Hence, the reference to psalm or song is not with emphasis on the melody which accompanies the lyrics but the lyrical content itself which communicates sound doctrine. This is not to place as insignificant the use of melodies which is the mode of communicating doctrinal concepts through song, but that this melodic means is just that, a means and not the substance of what is in view.
3. No existing reference is made to such a gift though Paul repeated and distinguished gifts and offices more than once. This lack of even a single clear reference is very difficult to overcome.
4. The overriding basis for interpreting the gifts as being “open” is because the listing in the NT does not conform to standard listing methods or that conclusive language of their exclusivity is not present therefore the liberty is taken to assume such a silence is an indication otherwise.
On this, arguing from silence is no valid argument. The second point, that the listing isn’t comprehensive and categorical each time therefore there must be other unlisted gifts is untenable since it introduces a hermeneutic that cannot meet any prescriptive test. This would be akin to comparing texts about any subject in the Bible and because each text does not contain identical material and reference we must now introduce new divine alternatives that are on par with Scripture.
P.S. Not to get too far off the substance of Ed’s thread which is fantastic and again, quite clear that he has given quite a bit of thought to this.
The overriding basis for interpreting the gifts as being “open” is because the listing in the NT does not conform to standard listing methods or that conclusive language of their exclusivity is not present therefore the liberty is taken to assume such a silence is an indication otherwise.I would argue that the Scriptures no where claim to present a clear list of gifts, and the casual ways they are listed suggest examples or the most common gifts. Still, Alex, I have to agree that we can only be CERTAIN about the gifts mentioned in Scripture. Any additions are at best speculations. So I kind of agree with you, but not quite. But I like the way you think!
On this, arguing from silence is no valid argument.
"The Midrash Detective"
[KevinM]Excuse me. Please explain your remark. So, the platform area gets a few flowers, a flower decorated bower is put in place, and the center aisle is ribboned off with a white runner is put down. Hardly over wrought.[Rob Fall] Weddings in the house of prayer occur after the morning service. The place is decorated appropriately and after the service is concluded the bride, groom and wedding party enter.No kidding? Speaking of over-wrought production values in church services…could someone please bring this up with Miss Bridezilla? Maybe I’ll move to Russia.
Hoping to shed more light than heat..
Kevin can speak for himself when he gets a chance, but I think the overwrought reference is toward Bridezilla. I think he was praising the simple decorum you described by comparison.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
[KevinM] Rob, Chip’s right. I love it. It’s the American weddings I’m worried about. Why can’t we all follow your more simple outline for a wedding?When we talk about worship, we can sometimes find ourselves in debate with people who simply like music and would be into music (possibly of a different kind) even if they were not saved. In contrast, we can have discussions with people who are into music but are really into honoring God.
The whole idea of churches/ministers officiating weddings grows out of catholicism, not the NT. As a result, we have a lot of people wanting church weddings because that’s the protocol. People (usually brides) who rarely if ever attend church want a church wedding. Often they pretend that they have some spiritual interest, just as some people who claim to be into worship really are into music and the feelings it brings. Then there are Christians who know they are just as married in court as if they were married by a pastor in a church’s building, but they really do want to honor God and let others know that Jesus Christ is Lord of their lives.
So, in both realms (worship and weddings), we find ourselves having to address human insincerity vs. sincerity, and it gets messy sometimes. And, I suppose, the saddest part is that even those of us who are sincere are only sincere part of the time (hopefully most). That’s why we have “worship wars.” It can easily end up being about us and our tastes rather than God and the good of His Kingdom.
"The Midrash Detective"
[Ed Vasicek] Alex wrote:I completely agree.The overriding basis for interpreting the gifts as being “open” is because the listing in the NT does not conform to standard listing methods or that conclusive language of their exclusivity is not present therefore the liberty is taken to assume such a silence is an indication otherwise.I would argue that the Scriptures no where claim to present a clear list of gifts, and the casual ways they are listed suggest examples or the most common gifts. Still, Alex, I have to agree that we can only be CERTAIN about the gifts mentioned in Scripture. Any additions are at best speculations.
On this, arguing from silence is no valid argument.
The question remains, why would Paul so specifically mention bringing a “psalm” in the context of using spiritual gifts? As I said, I’m not willing to be dogmatic that music MUST be a spiritual gift, but neither can I be dogmatic that it is not.
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
This has been a really good article and discussion. Regarding your last post referencing weddings, I have addressed the problem of insincereity by only agreeing to marry couples when one of them is a member of our congregation, and the other gives solid evidence of conversion. I usually require that the partner be a professing believer, baptized, and in good standing and present fellowship with a sound church. These are not ironclad, and I am willing to make exceptions when I’m convinced they are warrented. Still, it gives some helpful guidelines, and a good place to begin.
Any thoughts?
Warm regards,
Greg Barkman
G. N. Barkman
The whole idea of churches/ministers officiating weddings grows out of catholicism, not the NT. As a result, we have a lot of people wanting church weddings because that’s the protocol. People (usually brides) who rarely if ever attend church want a church wedding. Often they pretend that they have some spiritual interest, just as some people who claim to be into worship really are into music and the feelings it brings. Then there are Christians who know they are just as married in court as if they were married by a pastor in a church’s building, but they really do want to honor God and let others know that Jesus Christ is Lord of their lives.This is one reason why I tend to reject the idea that a wedding is a worship service. It isn’t. It is not a meeting of the church. It is rather two people using the church building for a particular function in their lives.
I think if a couple wants to let others know that Jesus Christ is Lord of their lives, it won’t happen through a wedding service, but through a marriage lived in the gospel.
I am not opposed to weddings, though I tend to think we should drift toward minimal rather than maximal. And I think if you invite guests you should make sure the gospel is preached. But I don’t think I would make it a church function, and I am very uncomfortable (as of now) making it a part of a worship service. I might consider tacking it on the end of a service, and taking ten minutes or so to marry a couple.
But I think this is an area where there is no NT basis for what we do in most of our weddings.
Discussion