Customer Reviews

Exploring the Worship Spectrum: Six Views (Counterpoints)

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(6)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

"Exploring the Worship Spectrum" lives up to its carefully chosen title. Notice that the verb used is "exploring" - rather than "debating." The editors apparently chose the contributors carefully, and instructed them carefully, to insure the essays would not be a platform for "worship wars." The writers are usually upbeat and affirming of one another.

The other carefully chosen word is "spectrum." There are not two, not three, but SIX different worship styles discussed. Each style is presented by its proponent, followed by responses from each of the five other writers. The styles are: formal-liturgical, traditional hymn-based, contemporary music-driven, charismatic, blended, and emerging.

I think the book will prove helpful to most readers. If you tend to think only in terms of traditional, contemporary, and blended worship, you will certainly have your worship categories expanded. Each essay is thought-provoking in its own way. If you are aware of your own bias before you read this book, you will hopefully find the critiques, though gentle, to be helpful. And you will hopefully be made to better appreciate why others worship differently.

One of the book's weaknesses is the lack of rich biblical discussion. It appears it was entrusted to an editor to include a biblical discussion of worship in his brief introduction. However, it would have been more helpful if each contributor offered a his/her biblical understanding of worship prior to discussing their preferred worship style. There are some exceptions to this, and there are plenty of examples of broad theological principles being employed; but I had hoped for more.

Also, the writers often try TOO hard to compliment each other. It becomes unclear sometimes exactly how their approaches differ. Maybe this is good, but I would have welcomed further (friendly) debate. I guess this relates to my previous point.

On the other hand, I was surprised at the tone of Sally Morgenthaler's essay on "emerging worship." Near the end of her chapter, she began to exhibit the very attitude the book was apparently trying to avoid: a smug, "us-vs-them" mentality. Morgenthaler seemed a bit too pleased to be on the supposed cutting edge, and displayed disdain for those in less trendy worship neighborhoods... On the bright side, her chapter is a reminder that we do NOT need another round of "worship wars," this time between the cutting edge "emerging" folks and the old school (!) "contemporary" folks.

Weaknesses aside, I had a pleasant time reading through this book and expanding my thoughts on worship styles. If you are looking for biblical reflection, the book falls short. But if you are simply looking for an introduction to worship styles, fresh insight into their strengths and weaknesses, I think you'll enjoy the book.

My guess is that if you're thinking of buying a book by this title, you have probably been bothered greatly by the worship wars of the past couple of decades. Further you're probably wondering who, if anyone, is right. Most of all, you're probably wanting to figure out what, if anything, you can do about it, if not in a church-wide sense, at least in the sense of how you personally should worship, what kind of church you should be attending, and so forth. You won't find these questions answered here.

Pretty much all the contributors here follow the same pattern and have the same problems. The pattern: They wax eloquent about the nature and importance of worship. (I don't mean that totally sarcastically. Some of these guys really are eloquent.) Then they move into what they and the participants in their preferred worship styles are particularly concerned with -- the things they want to accomplish, the problems they want to correct. Then they spend some time describing what their preferred worship "looks like." The problems: The actual connection between the goal of the worship stlye and the methods used in the worship is rarely made clear. What's worse, pretty much every "worshiper" here claims much the same goals, such as "bringing the congregation into an awareness of the presence of God." But never do any of the writers actually say clearly how their own particular style accomplishes these goals in a particularly effective way.

Nevertheless, the book is not entirely unhelpful. Though the writer's are not particularly good apologists for their own styles, they are pretty representative of the mindsets behind the communities that support each style. So, even though you probably won't find here any compelling reason to abandon (or retain) your own preferred style of worship, you may come away form "Exploring the Worship Spectrum" with a better understanding of why your spiritual brethren might want to worship differently form you.

The tone of the book is usually warm and genial. The fur flies occasionally, but most of the authors are pretty respectful most of the time. The one unforutnate exception to this rule is Sally Morganthaler and her defense of worship in the "emerging church." I was actually most interested in reading her contribution because, after hearing of "the emerging church" quite a bit, I still don't know what it's really about. And after reading this book, I still haven't the foggiest. But I could not stomach Morganthaler's unremitting arrogance. As far as I can tell from her writing here, she thinks the emerging church is the first and only church to get worship "right" since the Reformation or before. I also object to her apparently uncritical embrace of postmodern culture. (I also object to anyone uncritically believing that there actually is such a thing as postmodernism in the first place, but that's a much longer story.) Also, she seems quite erudite regarding modern media, but entirely ignorant of the work on its potentially debilitating effects done by Marshall McLuhan, Neil Postman, and, from a Christian perspective, Os Guiness. (Though she does at least know the title of McLuhann's book.) So she wants us all to get with electronic music and digital images, and she reflexively (as far as I can tell) attributes any and every preference shown by the other writers for more traditional church music to nothing but bias, pure and simple. She is completely unfair in this regard.

So, what you will get here is a sampling of pretty good representatives (Morganthaler excluded) of most of the important worship movements in evangelical Christianity today. Which, I guess, is an OK thing. I give it three stars.

Zondervan has been publishing the Counterpoints Series edited by Paul E. Engle in which conflicting views of different topics are laid out in one volume. Each view has a prominent author compiling arguments supporting it, and then each alternate view's author writes an evaluation of the arguments. Exploring the Worship Spectrum: 6 Views was edited by Paul A. Basden, and it presents six views of worship: formal-liturgical, traditional hymn-based, contemporary, charismatic, blended, and emergent.

The strength of this book lies in having in one place the concise reasoning for each view as presented by its supporters. One can reference quickly the primary arguments for certain worship styles as argued by those who promote and use them. Furthermore, with a critique of each argument available, one can easily assimilate a vast amount of information and views on the topic. In this area, the book excels, although one must read the entire book to access all of the arguments and views pertaining to each style of worship. Embedded in many of the critiques are further supporting arguments for each view, so one will not have the entire picture through reading only the chapter pertaining to his or her area of interest.

The weakness of the book is an extension of its strength, and can be summed up best by Best: "The current worship scene, to my way of thinking, is more an apples/oranges affair than a right/wrong one." (p. 237). One almost gets the idea that the writers are all part of a gentleman's club and are afraid to really stand against the shortcomings of the other views, although some genuine differences do surface. They spend so much time patting each other on the back that it gets rather tedious by the end of the book.

A second weakness of the book is that it fails to really deal with the fact that the theology of worship cannot be compartmentalized from other theological and practical views. Every contributing author presents solid arguments for theocentric worship; so why does this all look different? Charismatic worship is founded upon the Spirit emphasis theology of charismaticism and the view that I Corinthians 14 is the model for NT worship. Emergent worship denies the superiority of the written and spoken word as it plunges into the realm of the arts. Blended worship presented a view that was, quite frankly, not rooted in the reality of what is actually blended worship--the mixing of traditional and contemporary to make everyone happy (practical pragmatism). Hymn-based worship rests upon church tradition and the greatness of hymn texts with the practical use of the hymnal, while liturgical worship focuses on the transcendence of God and the Eucharist. Contemporary worship is most concerned with relevance and evangelism. The theological bent of each group contributes to their ultimate view of worship, but this is glossed over.

A further theme that surfaces time and again: the church lost connection with the generations coming of age in the second half of the 20th century. From each author who espoused this view, it smacks of pride: what is so different about the last couple generations that make them special? Somehow Protestant believers kept the old and incorporated the new for 500 years, but now the old was out; the church was the problem. I would submit that the real problem was twofold: [1] mainline churches had no saving gospel, so their progeny rejected a false church (in other words, their gospel, or lack thereof, was the problem, not their worship), and [2] the progeny were immersed in the world and would not leave it behind, therefore a new church and worship paradigm--one that would allow them to live in their previous entertainment and lifestyle with "Jesus" attached. Neither one of these areas (the theological problems with mainline churches and the rebellious worldliness of those claiming to be saved) are addressed, and both of them have a tremendous impact on the current worship landscape.

At the end of the day, everyone is OK, and we all feel good about each other; that is the message of the book. It does, however, give what it sets out to do: six views of worship. May God give us the wisdom and knowledge to understand what He desires from us as worshippers, and the grace and humility to be open to the weaknesses of our own view.

I came across this in a summer course on multicultural worship, a week in which I was the only representative of a liturgical tradition; my other classmates were about half Baptist, and half from the wider free church tradition. Basden's concept of conversation and response was a really fruitful way to begin, but I had one very serious reservation.

The representative speaking on behalf of the liturgical (specifically Anglican) tradition is Paul Zahl, an American priest from what would be widely understood as the "low church" tradition. In short, his spirituality is based in Sunday worship using Morning Prayer (a service of word, music, and preaching), a tradition most familiar to contemporary American Anglicans through the service of Evensong, even as the standard Sunday liturgy has moved strongly toward celebration of the Eucharist, as envisioned in the 1979 Book of Common Prayer.

As a result, Dr. Zahl's contribution mentions the Eucharist (also known as Holy Communion, or the Lord's Supper) quite minimally, as he presents his own spirituality as a broader norm. To be sure, this tradition is a venerable one, dating back to the earliest reforms of the 16th century, when the infrequent reception of Communion of the pre-reformation Catholic tradition remained strongly ingrained in the culture, with Morning Prayer (or Matins) as the normal Sunday worship form, with the Eucharist celebrated only on major feast days.

However, as the sole representative from any liturgical church (as no Lutheran or Roman Catholic voices are part of this conversation), it means that this "worship spectrum" is quite severely truncated. While this may make the liturgical traditions more accessible to those which are even less Eucharistically-centered, it also does a serious disservice by leaving out the vast (95% or more, I'd say) majority of the Sunday worship of that tradition in contemporary America.

I can't speak to the comprehensiveness (or lack thereof) of the other contributions; they certainly presented engaging, if necessarily-broad, visions of a wide range of sensibilities with regard to worship. And I do want to emphasize that the format of allowing each contributor not just to speak, but to respond to each of the other contributors, was a very productive concept--rather like an extended roundtable discussion. I simply regret that the liturgical element of this discussion is, frankly, impoverished, shortchanging the book as a whole.

Eggheads each presenting their method of worship as the best. This book was purchased for a FLAME ministry class otherwise I would not have bought it. I found it difficult to read and difficult to retain.
There must be better books on this subject out there.
Amazon.com surprised me how by quickly it arrived. I had gotten used to it taking six weeks or more to receive an order. I pray this is a happy portent of what is to come.

I wholeheartedly agree with the reviewer who expressed dismay with Rev. Paul Zahl's totally unsympathetic "defense" of the liturgical tradition in Christian worship. I was not, however, at all surprised. Rev. Zahl is Dean of Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry, the most ultra-evangelical seminary in the US Episcopal Church. Trinity, its faculty and its dean have no use for their own church's catholic, sacramental and liturgical heritage.

A much better, fairer account of the liturgical tradition would have been given if a Catholic liturgist like Aidan Kavenaugh had been selected, or an Orthodox scholar like Thomas Hopko. But if only Protestants were welcome, then a high church Episcopalian like Arnold Klukas, Marion Hatchett or J. Robert Wright would have been infinitely preferable to the crypto-Baptist, Rev. Zahl.

Like many volumes in the "Counterpoints" series, this book suffers somewhat from subjectivity. All the contributors seem to agree that the style of corporate worship is merely a matter of personal preference.

Paul Zahl: I like liturgy.
Harold Best: I like hymns.
Joe Horness: I like being contemporary.
Don Williams: I like being charismatic.
Robert Webber: I like all sorts of things.
Sally Morgenthaler: I like being different.

Exsploring the worship spectrum is a very advanced look at how worship has changed in today's world. You may be a pastor that has only been exsposed to one style of music all your life. In this book, you may realize that there is no right or wrong way to worship God. Each church makes a descision on how they want to apporach the throne of grace. This book gives a layout for each style of worship as well as the points and counter points that go with each view. This book is a must have to truly understand what it means to worship God.

I take issue with this volume for one sole, but to my mind very important, reason: Paul Zahl. His defense of liturgical worship was absolutely abysmal. Not once did he mention the actual meaning of the word liturgy ("people's work," originally used in ancient Greece to describe public works projects), describing it rather as being about "one of the two(!) sacraments or Morning prayer," which he calls a service of "Pure Word," again rather than what it really is: pure prayer.
Secondly, his advocating of "Bible worship," by which I can only assume he means "biblically-based worship" was wooden and ineffective. He has, either wittingly or not, fallen into the old trap of unbalancing the place of Word and Sacrament. In the Eucharistic liturgy, they take up roughly the same amount of space in time, demonstrating their equality as worship towards G-d. It seems he would prefer to view the Word as the main attraction, and the sacrament as a "warm-down" act that follows the real worship, rather than Word being what helps us receive the sacrament. That he even calls supposedly proper liturgy "Bible worship" is, from a semantic point of view, very chilling and reason enough for any orthodox Christian to avoid his perspective.
Third, he fails to mention that liturgical worship goes back to the earliest days Church, and that one of the earliest extra-canonical church documents we possess is a liturgy.
Fourth, he uses his article to take unnecessary slaps at the Roman Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church, and even his own Episcopal Church. His points about the liturgy of the first two churches only underscore his lack of appreciation for both word and sacrament as equal parts of the worship of G-d. One assumes that, because they do not fit his ideal of preaching centeredness, that they do not worship G-d effectively.
On the whole, I don't think the book could have found a weaker apologist for liturgy. Indeed, it seems as if Harold Best was more prepared to understand, appreciate, and defend liturgy for what it is and what it can be than Zahl ever was. Rather than doing as he should have, Zahl sets out with an ideological ax to grind, and spends so much on that project as to never really appreciate liturgy in its fullness. Where I not already a liturgist, I would hardly have been inspired to even find out what real liturgy was based on this article. Furthermore, prefacing liturgy with "formal" makes it seem as if liturgy is characterized by formality and all others "types" are by definition "informal," which would be a tragic error to make.
The other articles in this book where quite well written, and I feel each of the authors adequately elucidated, even though I am skeptical that some of the designations in the book (such as "Traditional hymn based") can actually exist independently. Yet, despite its good points, Zahl's article and subsequent responses are absolutely inexcusable, and none of his work should even have seen print.

First let me mention that the product arrived very timely and as described.

The book is a bit too lengthy if you asked me. I would have preferred more of a concise interview style narrative. However the information was incredible, and the multiple perspectives were great.