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
[Ted Bigelow]And I completely agree with you, Ted, that there are some gifts that are more “miraculous” in nature—apostles, healing, tongues—that don’t seem to have an equivalent natural ability. But that just goes to my main point—spiritual gifts in the NT are very difficult to define. I always hear people put them in this neat little box that they are completely unrelated to natural abilities and that just doesn’t jive, IMHO, with the NT data. The emphasis on the NT is on DIVERSITY—the many ways the Spirit is manifested through the gifts (that’s why the analogy of the body parts is so central).[Greg Long] Do you really think that if someone has the spiritual gift of teaching, they had no teaching ability before they were saved but at the moment of salvation now all of a sudden have this new ability to teach? I suppose that’s possible, but I think experience and my understanding of the biblical passages would lead me to believe that at the moment of salvation, now that they have the Holy Spirit, they have a new CAPABILITY to use that ability (how many times can I say it?) with the Spirit’s empowerment, for the edification of the body of Christ, to the glory of God.Hi Greg,
I do agree with you in the general. I doubt that upon the new birth, someone with a stammering lisp and an inability to string two thoughts together is all of a sudden a teacher. Point well made, brother.
There does seem to be at least several instances of such a sharp distinction you might consider. For example, the gift of apostleship (1Cor. 12:28). How could anyone be naturally prepared for that? And its wonderful for all of us to remember that Jesus chose 12 men to be His apostles, but all had vastly different personality package as well. Jesus does seem to delight in taking the nobodies of this world and using them to humiliate the somebodies (Acts 4:13)! Sweet thought.
We also see this in 1st Century revelatory gifts. How might someone be naturally prepared for some of those? Say tongues? Or healings? Applying that to our present day, the Lord might save some great athlete, or CEO personality, but give them a serving gift that best edifies the body in a behind the scenes function. The same could be said for the gift of giving. I imagine a lot of believers with this gift were stingy and hoarders before the grace of salvation set them free from their sin.
But let me reiterate, in general, I do agree with you - especially regarding teaching type gifts.
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
[Chip Van Emmerik]Chip, I couldn’t agree more, and I don’t believe I’ve said anything to the contrary. In fact, that is my point. A natural ability is not equivalent to a spiritual gift not because a spiritual gift can’t be a natural ability but because a spiritual gift must be used with the Spirit’s empowerment for the building up of the body to the glory of God.[Greg Long] Do you really think that if someone has the spiritual gift of teaching, they had no teaching ability before they were saved but at the moment of salvation now all of a sudden have this new ability to teach? I suppose that’s possible, but I think experience and my understanding of the biblical passages would lead me to believe that at the moment of salvation, now that they have the Holy Spirit, they have a new CAPABILITY to use that ability (how many times can I say it?) with the Spirit’s empowerment, for the edification of the body of Christ, to the glory of God.Let me clarify. I have always considered it important to train and exercise our gifts. I am a better teacher today than I was 15 years ago. It is not because I am more gifted, but because, among other things, my gifts are better exercised and trained; they are more useful. I think two things are important here. First, we are talking about certain abilities that are unique to the believer, because they are derived from God and exercised by His power alone. Therefore, I do not think we can equate them to similar abilities in the unsaved. The second is that the purpose of these gifts is specifically for the building of the church. An unsaved master teacher teaching history in a secular school or providing training for employees in a large company is not going to be adequately prepared to step into an adult Sunday school class and teach the Word. The most recognizable part of teaching is the presentation of some truth in an understandable fashion. However, an oft overlooked prerequisite is the ability to understand the material being taught. This would be part of the application of the gift of teaching - the Divine enablement not just to explain biblical truth but to understand it in the first place. I don’t think our consideration of spiritual gifts can be removed from the realm of the church.
You are correct that an unsaved master teacher cannot step into an adult Sunday school class and teach the Word—not because he doesn’t have the ABILITY, but because he doesn’t have the CAPABILITY to use that ability under the Spirit’s empowerment for the building up…well, you know the rest. :-)
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
[Greg Long] In fact, that is my point. A natural ability is not equivalent to a spiritual gift not because a spiritual gift can’t be a natural ability but because a spiritual gift must be used with the Spirit’s empowerment for the building up of the body to the glory of God.The greatest deficiency in this definition is its generality which is not the treatment in Scripture. Simply being “empowered by the Spirit” and doing something to contribute to the body of Christ is not what the Scriptures view as the exercise of a spiritual gift. In this case one can classify anything, just as John MacArthur pointed out in the examples of cooking or playing instruments, as the exercise of spiritual gifts. Yes we must be empowered and we are by virtue of our spiritual gift(s) that operates when we exercise it but the empowerment of the spirit and our efforts does not define a spiritual gift. Our efforts must be in the context of the exercise of a spiritual gift and the list of gifts is limited to what is revealed in Scripture. The classification is based in what the Spirit of God has named and distributed.
The Scriptures identify special abilities, spiritual abilities, not human abilities, given by God’s Spirit which do not stem from natural capacities. This seems, again, the most obvious point you are by-passing. Again, to assert this principle it must be prescriptive to all gifts, it is not by your own admission per the sign gifts. There is no rational human correlation. You don’t get to prescribe a principle part way and conveniently leave it off for the rest of the context just to make it fit and maintain the integrity of your argument. If human abilities are the basis for spiritual gifts then all spiritual gifts must have a human correlation, they don’t (none of them do but I speak in relationship to your own argument), again by your own admission. Your inconsistency here denies you your standing principle.
Most of Christendom (including most fundamentalists) conceive of worship as equivalent to glorifying God. I have a real problem with that. Let me demonstrate. I Cor. 10:31 read:
So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God.This means we can have a church dinner to the glory of God. But I do not know any of us would call this a “worship service.” Glorifying God, therefore, is a broad term that can encompass all of life, not just what we consider edifying or spiritual. Worship, on the other hand, involves an intentional focus or determination to honor God (not just by blessing Him for the food and then talking about sports), but by intentionally doing things to honor Him. We can glorify God by living out Philippians 4:8, but we dishonor Him when we are doing something intentionally spiritual and worshipful without the proper focus, as exemplified in I Corinthians 11:27-28
So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup.Thus when we eat a meal, we are not called upon to examine our hearts at that time , but we can eat to God’s glory with unexamined hearts. This is not worship. When we partake of the Lord’s Supper, we are called upon to first examine our hearts so that we can be spiritually prepared and properly appreciate what we are doing.
If we make everything “worship,” we can no longer have a meaningful conversation about the sentence or two above without lengthy definitions. But this is what it has come to.
"The Midrash Detective"
[Ed Vasicek] 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?I love this place!! You all make me think. This is like a informative conference without the long drive. I am late to this party but may I comment?: Ed, I agree with you and others on the primacy of Scripture certainly. Yet the same Bible that proclaims essential truth also mandates rich, robust, spontaneous praise ( Psa 150 plus the wonderful, moderate, edifying hymns). Excuse me. Am I forced to choose between them? I want both. I hope that the current fad of frothy, praise-lite music will pass. It bores me and I think that I have on occasion observed a similar, blank, deer-in-the -headlights reaction in many other worshippers. But I wonder if our “moderate hymns only” approach has not created a praise vacuum allowing this meager substitute to gain traction? I hope for a new genre of music - rich moderate hymns PLUS classic, Davidic, Biblical praise, Scripture choruses. Primacy of the Word #1 - Yes. Bbut not Psalm 119 only but 119 plus 145-150. We want the Primacy of the entire Word, the whole counsel of God. Amen?Peace and joy, :)[gray] Edited to fix formatting in the quote[/color]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.
[FredK]Well, Fred, better late to the party than never at all.
I love this place!! You all make me think. This is like a informative conference without the long drive. I am late to this party but may I comment?: Ed, I agree with you and others on the primacy of Scripture certainly. Yet the same Bible that proclaims essential truth also mandates rich, robust, spontaneous praise ( Psa 150 plus the wonderful, moderate, edifying hymns). Excuse me. Am I forced to choose between them? I want both.
I hope that the current fad of frothy, praise-lite music will pass. It bores me and I think that I have on occasion observed a similar, blank, deer-in-the -headlights reaction in many other worshippers.
But I wonder if our “moderate hymns only” approach has not created a praise vacuum allowing this meager substitute to gain traction? I hope for a new genre of music - rich moderate hymns PLUS classic, Davidic, Biblical praise, Scripture choruses.
Primacy of the Word #1 - Yes. Bbut not Psalm 119 only but 119 plus 145-150. We want the Primacy of the entire Word, the whole counsel of God. Amen?
Peace and joy, :)
Who says a church that prioritizes the Word cannot have a Psalm 145-150 thing going on? Me, myself, if I had what I liked [unfortunately, church is not just about me; many people think it is] , I would have lots and lots of Messianic style music with some Davidic dancing as well as some traditional hymns. I am writing about DISPLACEMENT. It is not about what is added, but what is displaced — and the value placed on the various things we are to do in church meetings. You want Psalm 145-150— bring it on. Just don’t trash 119!
In our church, we have had moderate contemporary blended since the mid 1980’s. To me, styles of music change with the time and culture; the style we preach with also varies, but the priority of the Word and the importance of sincere praise — those stay the same.
To trivialize the Word by referring to it without expounding it and releasing music lovers to define worship so that they end up exalting worship above the Word, that’s not sincere in my book.
Psalm 138:2b (ESV)
for you have exalted above all things your name and your word.
"The Midrash Detective"
[FredK] [? I hope for a new genre of music - rich moderate hymnsWhat is a rich moderate hymn? What is a moderate hymn? As opposed to “immoderate”? By “rich”, I suppose you mean, “meaty”…full of something to think about, but what is moderate?
Becky, you raise a point that has complicated discussion about music for some time. For language to work, people have to have similar understandings of the meanings of words. With music, we find it hard to do that. So “contemporary” means very different things to different people… as do “moderate” and “rich,” no doubt.
Compounding the problem is the fact that a great many ministry leaders find themselves in decision making roles with respect to music but are not “musical people” and/or have no education in music (and even “having education” is such a widely varying thing since so many programs don’t really look seriously at anything that existed before the 20th century). So pastors, etc., often kind of scratch their heads, shrug and say “Christian liberty,” or “it’s cultural.”
I sympathize. Nobody can be fluent in every language. But given how important the intersection of cultural and theological is, maybe theological education needs more attention to musical concepts and vocabulary.
To tie back to the OP, though, I wonder what’s happening in ministry training with respect to worship? Is the topic being ignored in schools or is it being handled poorly/un-persuasively so that rising leaders are ignoring it, or are schools teaching that worship is something you feel and music generates the feeling? (Probably a combination of these factors?)
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.
I love your article and agree with your idea of displacement. To add, I understand music to be one of many responses to revelation, not a preparation or substitute for revelation. In my study of worship, I have come to see the revelation and then response mode used over and over again throughout Scripture. This can become a solution to displacement of the Word (revelation) by music (response). If the response is placed before revelation, then the revelation is minimalized in regard to the response. I see it is important that we instruct our people to have the understanding of what importance the Word has and how they can respond to it.
[Clarence Martin] I just joined the discussion late by getting referred to this by a good friend.I see your point, and I do not oppose that and know of some churches that do that. But I do not know that music must be a response to the revelation of the moment. If that is the case, it puts a lot of pressure on the preacher to produce an atmosphere for that response. I think NT meetings were not as planned out as we do these days, so with our more formal approach, we can be guilty of over-systematizing and over-complicating. I think we all probably agree that it is bad to displace the Word, and I think all of us see value in singing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. The rest is pretty much in the realm of either opinion or observation or personality. And this is what creates so many of the issues we face. It is precisely because the Scriptures do not give us an order of service with times and percentages that we have these debates over style and prominence. The Scriptures are obviously written to accommodate a variety of cultures, eras, and people-groups.
I love your article and agree with your idea of displacement. To add, I understand music to be one of many responses to revelation, not a preparation or substitute for revelation. In my study of worship, I have come to see the revelation and then response mode used over and over again throughout Scripture. This can become a solution to displacement of the Word (revelation) by music (response). If the response is placed before revelation, then the revelation is minimalized in regard to the response. I see it is important that we instruct our people to have the understanding of what importance the Word has and how they can respond to it.
All that to say that you have as much a right as anybody to suggest that singing is better after the sermon!
"The Midrash Detective"
[Becky Petersen] I guess we get around all that by inviting people to come to church and study the Bible with us. So, we are inviting people to a Bible study and not really a “worship service”. :) Cop out, huh?The idea definitely has some appeal!
It’s one of those things where you ask yourself, do I fight for the proper use of words or just talk to people in words they understand? Of course, “worship” is ultimately a word we can’t just let go the way of poor-usage decay. But when reaching out to people who have not been discipled much… might as well use terms they will “get.”
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.
James 2:2
Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in filthy old clothes also comes in.Acts 20:8
There were many lamps in the upstairs room where we were meeting.I think that term that is even more practical is to invite them to “church.” That’s what most Christians have done during my lifetime. It seems to me that inviting people to “worship” is relatively new usage, at least in the Conservative Evangelical or Fundamental world. Even Billy Graham used to say, “Go to church this Sunday,” not “Go to worship.”
A lot of this is fad usage, I believe. Again, calling church “worship” started to escalate when curtains were out and window treatments came in. Then, of course, with America’s new emphasis on religious diversity, I remember hearing the term “house of worship” for the first time from the lips of George H.W. Bush. Never heard that before the late 80’s. In communist countries, they called churches “houses of prayer.” So some of the rise of the term “worship” is from political correctness. “Church” leaves our synagogues, mosques, and pagan temples.
Terms are like that. Then the term “passion” took over the Christian world by storm and is finally wearing out and about gone. Now, at the end of the day, it’s “at the end of the day.” Drives me nuts. That’s how I got to be the way I am! :) :) :bigsmile: ;) :O :p :| :( :~ :cry: 8-)
"The Midrash Detective"
Discussion