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
[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?Don’t worry guys; Russians can get just as fancy (in their own way) as the Americans.
Further, our view of where weddings should take place is a fairly late one. For years, weddings took place in the bride’s home. And no I’m not going in this on this thread.
In the Former (love to write that) Soviet Union, the actual wedding took place at the government office. What happened in church was more of a blessing kind of service.
Hoping to shed more light than heat..
[Greg Long]You have an incredibly steep hill to climb, if not infinite, to meet the standards of Scripture in adding to the identified gifts.
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.
I do believe your question about the presence of a psalm in the passage was addressed. The context is one of communicating doctrine and with respect to the psalm it is communicating doctrine through song. This would be the same as writing a book. The use of the spiritual gift of teaching in writing enables one to communicate doctrine through that medium. The gift in view is not “writing” (though this is a human talent present in both saved and unsaved people but it is NOT a spiritual gift), that is the mechanism being used to exercise the gift which is “teaching”. The same is true with respect to a psalm, which again is present in the passage’s context of discussing communication gifts. The gift is not “music”, this is the mechanism through which the teaching (or in this case where revelatory gifts still operated we may include prophecy or some other revelatory communication put in the form of lyrics) is exercised which is the composition of doctrinal lyrics. This is reflected in Colossian 3:16:
Notice the emphasis has nothing, in reality, to do with music itself rather the doctrine or teaching of the lyrics. Music is a means but not the ministry itself, that is the Word of God or the doctrinal content of the lyrics. Just as writing is a means but not the ministry itself, rather it is the Word of God being communicated.
Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.
As to dogma, again the hill is steep. Personally I reject the notion that what is contained in Scripture regarding spiritual gifts is not intended to be exclusive. However, even if one allows for this open gate, you are left with only speculation, as qualified by Ed earlier.
I may say dogmatically what spiritual gifts and offices with accompanied gifts, are identified through the revelation of Scripture.Ultimately what occurs is that regardless of an exclusive or inclusive view, you are still left with only one source, the listing in the Scriptures to which you are not permitted adding whether through rationalistic speculation or claims of additional revelation.
I may not add to that list without meeting this criterion.
Hence, any attempt to add to Scripture while not meeting this criterion is to add to the Word of God without authorization.
Finally, the hermeneutic/theological demand that a doctrinal conclusion on the matter be ascertained only by an explicit statement in Scripture such as “and these are all the spiritual gifts without exception” and without it no dogmatic assertion may be made, certainly is not a theological postulate adhered to by much of any school.
The reason biblical dogma is formed is not purely out of explicit statements. Explicitness is not the sum total or cause for dogma and surely you recognize this. Dogma and doctrinal conclusions which stem from systematic theology are due to much more than direct statements and in fact often are quite dependent upon nuanced exegesis and textual comparison. And with spiritual gifts this is the case.
Can’t we teach our folk not to worship the music or the emotion or anything else but the
Lord, His people, and His Word? That falls on the shoulders of the leaders of our churches.
American Christianity and even fundamentalism has long been in a rut, following traditions nearly as blindly as the Pharisees of Christ’s day.
Try doing anything different with the offering/offertory or communion and see! Many “new” things,
including music, are automatically met with suspicion at best and caustic criticism at worst.
And those who are looking for things to criticize can surely find them in contemporary churches, etc. BUT THEY ARE BLIND TO THE ISSUES IN
THEIR OWN LIVES/CHURCHES!
Now that we’re into Post #74 I can say that there’s been a lot of good things said and I appreciate the conversation.
Ed’s original title was a bit off-putting because it seemed at first to just say that anything other than what we’ve done in the past is destroying worship. I think we all have come to understand that SOME of it is having that affect but we also agree that just doing what we’ve always done may be just as harmful to real worship.
gdwightlarson"You can be my brother without being my twin."
Let me try again. Each of the things mentioned in 1 Cor. 14:26 after the word “psalm” is a practical expression (or visible manifestation, if you will) of a grace gift mentioned elsewhere by Paul. A “lesson” is a practical expression of the gift of teaching. A “revelation” is a practical expression of the gift of prophecy. A “tongue” is a practical expression of the gift of speaking in tongues. An “interpretation” is a practical expression of the gift of interpretation of tongues.
So we are left with the natural question: a “psalm” is the practical expression of what spiritual gift? Could it be teaching? Possibly, and I completely agree that songs are to teach and admonish. But why would he also mention “lesson” then? Might the grace gift related to “psalm” be similar to the gifts given to OT saints who were gifted, or skilled, in music and used those gifts to regularly minister in the Temple worshiping God?
I don’t know, and as I’ve said several times, I’m not dogmatic about it. But we’re still have to deal with Paul’s clear use of the word “psalm” in the context of spiritual gifts.
The emphasis on spiritual gifts in the NT is on unity through diversity. Paul emphasizes the diversity of spiritual gifts by comparing them to the parts of the body. Yes, we can group body parts into broad categories such as nervous system, digestive system, etc. Or if we counted individual body parts we could have thousands of different parts. Every time Paul starts listing spiritual gifts he has a different list. It seems that he is “randomly” throwing out examples of spiritual gifts. Peter only mentions two broad categories: speaking and serving. And yet he speaks of spiritual gifts as a stewardship of “God’s varied grace.” “Varied” there means many-faceted, like the many facets on a diamond.
Because of the inspiration of the Bible I share your hesitation to go beyond Scripture and start proclaiming every aspect of service, like baking blueberry pies or playing the sousaphone or teaching 2nd grade girls or being an Awana commander as a specific spiritual gift. They are more likely manifestations of serving or teaching or administrating/leading.
So we are probably closer in belief on this issue than you may think. But it has always bothered me when people dogmatically declare that musical ability CANNOT be a spiritual gift, even though it was in the OT and is hinted at in 1 Cor. 14:26.
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
[gdwightlarson] when did weddings get into the discussion?Weddings got into the discussion because I laid out how Evangelical Christian-Baptists do church. Least any one say, “They aren’t germane because that’s what happens overseas.” The largest Fundamental church in Metro Sacramento, CA is an EC-B one. and it is one of a half dozen Fundamental EC-B churches in the area. There are also a dozen or so EC-B churches affiliated with the SBC. At this time they are Russian speaking churches. This however is changing fast as the American born generations are maturing.
Hoping to shed more light than heat..
[Greg Long] Alex, I have an extremely hard time following you.Without pointing to any specific instance where you are unsure or are having a hard time following me I cannot provide clarification. Let me know specifically what and I will endeavor to clarify.
[Greg Long] Let me try again. Each of the things mentioned in 1 Cor. 14:26 after the word “psalm” is a practical expression (or visible manifestation, if you will) of a grace gift mentioned elsewhere by Paul. A “lesson” is a practical expression of the gift of teaching. A “revelation” is a practical expression of the gift of prophecy. A “tongue” is a practical expression of the gift of speaking in tongues. An “interpretation” is a practical expression of the gift of interpretation of tongues.It is true that the use of psalms is in the context of spiritual gifts but your identification is the general context and not the immediate context which is that of communication gifts, in fact the entire chapter for the most part but particularly that which precedes, is devoted to the context of communication. Therefore it is insufficient to just say it is the context of spiritual gifts rather a category of spiritual gifts, namely communication gifts.
So we are left with the natural question: a “psalm” is the practical expression of what spiritual gift? Could it be teaching? Possibly, and I completely agree that songs are to teach and admonish. But why would he also mention “lesson” then?
The context reveals the use of psalms and as we see, Paul begins the chapter presenting an argument regarding the valid use of tongues and prophecy and the use (vs 8) of intelligible words. When he finishes this specific issue he broadens it to all forms of doctrinal communication in vs 26.
Additionally, to say you agree with the amplifying passage in Colossians 3:16 which teaches that the communication of doctrine is the emphasis of psalms or other singing and then suggest that the gift in view is not really a communication gift but rather:
[Greg Long] Might the grace gift related to “psalm” be similar to the gifts given to OT saints who were gifted, or skilled, in music and used those gifts to regularly minister in the Temple worshiping God?Is to, frankly, contradict what you just said you agreed with. But to address this specific suggestion that theological answer is no. Why? Because those OT gifts to which you referred where categorically their own with a specific purpose, limit and context. And that context is not the NT church.
Secondly, you simply are not free to offer such suggestions, at least not in the sense of abiding by any sound hermeneutic or disciplining your arguments by way of such boundaries. There is no cause of such an import, even if it appears rational. And in this case if you attempt to use such an unorthodox hermeneutic, are you aware of all of the supernatural gifting in the OT that then others might be free to claim? This is why our theological discovery must abide by orthodox hermeneutics.
[Greg Long] The emphasis on spiritual gifts in the NT is on unity through diversity. Paul emphasizes the diversity of spiritual gifts by comparing them to the parts of the body. Yes, we can group body parts into broad categories such as nervous system, digestive system, etc. Or if we counted individual body parts we could have thousands of different parts. Every time Paul starts listing spiritual gifts he has a different list. It seems that he is “randomly” throwing out examples of spiritual gifts. Peter only mentions two broad categories: speaking and serving. And yet he speaks of spiritual gifts as a stewardship of “God’s varied grace.” “Varied” there means many-faceted, like the many facets on a diamond.To you it may seem he is “randomly” throwing out examples but to many he is dealing in context with certain ones in every case they are listed, either in part or whole.
This is the nature of normal communication. Again, an unrealistic expectation is being forced upon Scripture that either through direct statements only or numerically formed listing we be given an inventory of the spiritual gifts or else we must assume, since they are not provided in the manner we demand, there are more of them which Scriptures fail to reveal. If we concocted such a postulate for bible interpretation we would be in trouble every where.
[Greg Long] Because of the inspiration of the Bible I share your hesitation to go beyond Scripture and start proclaiming every aspect of service, like baking blueberry pies or playing the sousaphone or teaching 2nd grade girls or being an Awana commander as a specific spiritual gift. They are more likely manifestations of serving or teaching or administrating/leading.Whether you believe one cannot dogmatically claim musical ability to be a spiritual gift or not is irrelevant in the end since YOU MAY NOT claim it is. You have no precedence for this and no assertion in Scripture. Thanks for the interaction.
So we are probably closer in belief on this issue than you may think. But it has always bothered me when people dogmatically declare that musical ability CANNOT be a spiritual gift, even though it was in the OT and is hinted at in 1 Cor. 14:26.
And once again, this is a great discussion!
G. N. Barkman
When spiritual communication events or spiritual communication contexts are present in Scripture, issues such as music, just like pages for script, are means or mechanisms for communicating the truth but are not the gift itself . This is like saying a voice box (larynx) is a spiritual gift because from it or with it we speak doctrinal truth.
Spiritual communication gifts are manifest in and with words. Whether we are being communicating to or through script, Morse code, talking or singing and so on, is not the issue, those attendant mechanisms are not the gift itself, rather they transmit the product of the gift, namely the words and thoughts being communicated.
[Alex Guggenheim] Ignoring the gross problems associated with the hermeneutic of such an approach and the reality that the gift of prophecy and its accompanying office of NT Prophet no longer is in operation, remember, the musical instruments were not the source of the prophecy in the OT cases you cited, the words were.Using your logic, teaching is not a spiritual gift because teaching is just a means or mechanism for communicating the truth.
When spiritual communication events or spiritual communication contexts are present in Scripture, issues such as music, just like pages for script, are means or mechanisms for communicating the truth but are not the gift itself . This is like saying a voice box (larynx) is a spiritual gift because from it or with it we speak doctrinal truth.
Spiritual communication gifts are manifest in and with words. Whether we are being communicating to or through script, Morse code, talking or singing and so on, is not the issue, those attendant mechanisms are not the gift itself, rather they transmit the product of the gift, namely the words and thoughts being communicated.
It appears we will agree to disagree concerning 1 Cor. 14:26. Thank you for your opinion and interaction.
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
[Greg Long]Using my logic, which I did on my own arguments earlier, it is the use of the means or method of transmission and the attendant aids such as pencils, pens, a keyboard, the larynx and so on that would be in view when we determine which part of the event is not the spiritual gifting.
Using your logic, teaching is not a spiritual gift because teaching is just a means or mechanism for communicating the truth.
In the event of teaching, it is the teaching itself, the communication of the words, thoughts and concepts that is a manifestation of the gift. When one uses their larynx (and some people do have exceptional capacities to use their larynx and sustain audience interest through such) clearly the use of the larynx, whether exceptional or not, is not the spiritual gift though it does transmit the words used in the exercise of the spiritual gift of teaching. These distinctions are quite critical.
If one writes doctrine in a book the capacity to operate mechanisms such as a keyboard, pencil, paper, printing press or any other attending printing mechanism are not spiritual gifts. The spiritual gift of teaching in this case is, again, manifested in the organization and scripted utterance of the words, not the means by which it is done.
And so it is true with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. It is clear from Colossians that the purpose of such events is to communicate doctrine. And in order to sing a song one must have a melody to accompany the doctrinal composition. So just as one must have paper and pencil to write one must have a melody to sing. The ability to manipulate a pencil and paper so that one may write nor the production of a melody are manifestations of a spiritual gift, it is the doctrinal composition which contains the Word of God and functions to instruct and admonish one another that is a manifestation of the spiritual gift of teaching.
Music carries doctrine in melody. The melody, its composition and any attending instruments/aids are simply mechanisms to carry the true source of edification, namely the words composed by the one with the spiritual communication gift.
You are quite convincing. Thanks for your input.
Cordially,
Greg Barkman
G. N. Barkman
Let the doctrine of Christ dwell richly among you; teaching and admonishing each other in all wisdom; singing with grace in your hearts unto the Lord, in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs.Which actually might be superior but would still not negate the doctrinal context of the instruction.
[G. N. Barkman] Could musical gifts be included within the gift of prophecy? When King Saul prophecied, he did so with a group of prophets who “prophecied” with musical instruments. (I Samuel 10:3-11) There is a similar situation with Miriam, the prophetess, sister of Aaron, who led the women in song. (Exodus 15:20,21) There may be other examples, but I’m not prepared to try to locate them at this time, so I’ll stop with these two that came immediately to mind.I think so!
And once again, this is a great discussion!
"The Midrash Detective"
Kindly entertain for a moment the “psalm” referred to in 1 Cor. 14:26 an expression of the tongues gift.
It was an incredibly powerful gift. The gift of tongues could even be sung in worship (1 Cor. 14:15).
This helps us see how amazing the gift of tongues was as an instrument of worship between the Christian and our glorious God. If teaching, he could speak in tongues so long as a translator was present. If sad, the Christian could pray privately, or publicly, in tongues.
And if joyful, he could sing privately or publicly in tongues. I would imagine that even the song sung by the tongues-singer was from the Lord, since the mind of the tongues-speaker couldn’t know the content of the tongues-message. His mind was “unfruitful” because he couldn’t know the revelation with a translator (1 Cor. 14:14), but that didn’t hinder Paul from offering himself as an example of practicing such tongues-singing.
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.
Discussion