Perspectives on Christian Worship presents in counterpoint form five basic common beliefs on Christian worship that have developed over the course of church history with a view toward determining which is most faithful to Scripture. Each chapter is written by a prominent person within each tradition, and each writer has the opportunity to respond to each differing view.
Perspectives on Christian Worship
and over one million other books are available for Amazon Kindle. Learn more
| ||||||||||||||||||
Browse our Bookshelf Favorites store for big savings on popular fiction, nonfiction, children's books, and more. |
Book Description
Frequently Bought Together
Editorial Reviews
About the Author
J. Matthew Pinson is president of Welch College in Nashville, Tennessee. Prior to that he served as a pastor of churches in Alabama, Connecticut, and Georgia. He has received bachelor's and master's degrees from the University of West Florida, a master's degree from Yale, and a doctorate from Vanderbilt. He lives with his wife, Melinda, and their children, Anna and Matthew, in Nashville.
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images? |
More About the Authors
Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.
Customer Reviews
Share your thoughts with other customers
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
3 of 3 people found the following review helpful
By Chase Vaughn
Format:Paperback
Pinson, J. Matthew, ed. Perspectives on Christian Worship: Five Views. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2009. 360 pp. $24.99.
J. Matthew Pinson is the president of Free Will Baptist Bible College in Nashville, Tennessee. He has degrees from Yale University and Vanderbilt, and he has been the pastor of several Baptist churches. In Perspectives on Christian Worship Pinson has collected a sample of views on worship in the Christian church today. Determining the general categories of worship philosophy, two historic approaches and three that arose out of American evangelicalism, he presents views on liturgical, traditional, contemporary, blended, and emerging worship. Each approach is attempting in unique ways to remain faithful to the gospel and to communicate that gospel faithfully to the present generation.
Timothy C. J. Quill presents the liturgical view from an American Lutheran perspective. He teaches Pastoral Ministry and Missions at Concordia Theological Seminary in Fort Wayne, Indiana, so he is very capable of presenting the reasons why Lutherans advocate a liturgical approach to worship. What is fundamental for Quill in the liturgical approach is that worship is grounded in theology, specifically Lutheran theology. For Lutheran theology, what is vital is how God has chosen to deliver his gospel to his people, and Lutheran theology has a clear answer: God delivers his forgiveness in Word and Sacrament (19). Quill presents the theological underpinning of liturgy contra evangelicalism's emphasis on an immediate experience of grace, which he argues is the theological reason for why other groups have rejected liturgical worship (20). Lutheranism, in contrast to evangelicalism, believes that grace is always mediated by preaching the Word and administering the Sacraments. Lutheranism's rigid distinction between law and gospel also provides the reason for understanding worship as divine service, God serving us with his sacramental presence and grace (22-23). This Lutheran way of distinguishing command and promise in Scripture creates an emphasis on the objective work of God and a radical de-emphasis on the subjective work of grace in the heart of the believer; the focus in worship is almost completely on what God does outside of us, not what God does in us (23-24). The whole liturgy is systematically ordered according to this theology of God's sacramental presence. The liturgical order is evangelical, Christological, sacramental, apostolic, and eschatological (55). It is evaluated according to the doctrinal criterion of justification by faith alone as a sacramental event. As Quill states, "[Justification] is the basic event in the church. Justification takes place in the sermon, in the means of grace through God's two-fold acting in law and gospel (55)." On the basis of this sacramental theology, the liturgy is understood to be catechetical, a place of divine action, and the fulfillment of the mission given to the church (67, 71-76).
Ligon Duncan is pastor of First Presbyterian Church in Jackson, Mississippi, and he argues for traditional protestant worship. This approach is characterized by simplicity and radical adherence to the worship elements of the New Testament. Duncan argues that there is a distinction in the New Testament between worship in all of life and worship in the gathered assembly of believers (100). Worship also is not the music to the exclusion of the sermon. Worship is not reducible to an experience, though experience should be part of true worship (102). Worship in the assembly is the corporate activity of giving glory to God (103). It involves the heart, but it also involves what we do (104). The authority for what we do is Scripture alone. "...[B]oth the form and substance of our corporate worship is to be suffused with Scripture and scriptural theology (105)." Duncan affirms the "regulative principle," arguing that all that is done in worship must have support from Scripture. The "elements," what is done in worship, are to have Scriptural validation, and the way in which these elements are practiced, the "forms," is to be in accord with the elements of worship, aiding the congregation in their understanding of the purpose of the elements. The incidental things of worship, the "circumstances," should be thought through wisely, considering what best focuses attention on the glory of God in the performance of the elements (110). According to Duncan, worship style is a circumstance, so it should never be treated as a fundamental determiner of worship; it is not an element found in Scripture. To treat style as a fundamental determiner or element of worship runs the risk of marketing worship to a particular niche, making the focus the worshiper's preference, not obedience to Scripture's norms (113). Nevertheless, the circumstances are not neutral vis-à-vis the elements instituted by Scripture (111). Everything is done "to aid the soul's communion with God in the gathered company of the saints by serving to convey the Word of God to and from God, from and to His people" (112). Lastly, Duncan emphasizes that public worship is communal and dialogical. "It is the covenant community engaging with God, gathering with His people to seek the face of God, to glorify and enjoy Him, to hear His Word, to revel in the glory of union and communion with Him, to respond to His Word, to render praise back to Him, to give Him the glory due His name (119)."
Dan Wilt, director of the Institute of Contemporary and Emerging Worship Studies, presents a case for contemporary worship. He does not argue that contemporary worship is more biblical than the other forms, because he believes that no approach in the book can claim to be more biblically correct. Worship is always influenced by culture, and every generation responds to God's grace in their unique way (147). Wilt's central concern is the power of new music and the importance of new songs in the life of the church. He gives biblical support for the singing of new songs, and he then explains the importance of singing new songs (151-54). Acknowledging that every culture's influence may have negative, unbiblical results on fresh expressions of worship, this possibility should not lead us to restrict our worship expression to songs of the past, every one of which was contemporary at some point (156-57). Rather, the church should transform the present culture by taking up contemporary forms of music, sanctifying them to the glory of God, not retreating from the present to the safety of the past (159-60). The church, according to Wilt, is part of culture, but since its origin does not lie within culture, it is called to engage and transform culture, redeeming every aspect of culture to the glory of Christ (164-66). This calling requires that the church remain relevant to present culture, remain faithful to its gospel heritage, and speak both to the whole person, to humanity in its cultural diversity and to all Christian believers in this postmodern age (175-97).
Mark Dever and Michael Lawrence, pastors at Capitol Hill Baptist Church, present the blended worship approach. This approach is substantially in agreement with the traditional approach of Ligon Duncan, holding firmly to the "regulative principle." What distinguishes this view from the traditional view is the greater freedom in expressing the elements in worship. According to Dever and Lawrence, style is unimportant (218-19). In other words, they argue that there is significant freedom in how we perform the elements of worship. There is not freedom to add or take away elements of worship, but how these elements are performed is variegated (223-26). Clearly, worship is a matter of the heart, but the Bible is also concerned with what we do in worship. As we move, however, from the Old Testament to the New Testament, the rigid instructions concerning the way we perform the elements is considerably loosened (227-30, 42). The forms and circumstances should serve the elements, edify the body, be orderly, unify the church, and promote reverence (244-55).
Dan Kimball, pastor of Vintage Faith Church, presents the emerging worship view. The purpose of gathered worship, according to Kimball, is to bring praise and glory to Jesus Christ, and we see this worship in the New Testament in basic practices of prayer, teaching, fellowship, sharing meals, healings, etc. We do not see, however, according to Kimball, very specific details on what worship looked like (290-93). To assume that how we practice the elements of worship today is how the New Testament church worshiped is culturally naďve. How the early Christians worshiped was unique to their own time and place, and it cannot be replicated (293-95, 299). Every culture is different, and worship is continually emerging as culture develops and shifts (297). As long as Scripture is not violated, the church is free to worship in its emerging cultural forms (298). As culture changes, the ways that people worship change as well, and as the culture shifts, the ways that people learn shift also. Such cultural differences must guide how we obey Scripture (301-04).
The purpose of Perspectives on Christian Worship is to present the general contours of the worship perspectives in contemporary Protestantism. Pinson has very successfully presented the most obvious landmarks on the worship terrain, and he has selected adroit defenders of each perspective. Any book of this sort suffers invariably from being a general discussion, but considering the restricted purpose of providing an introduction to worship, such a general approach is helpful, giving the theological novice a trusty map for future exploration of the issue. Believers needing such a guide will be well served by this collection of essays. Read more ›
J. Matthew Pinson is the president of Free Will Baptist Bible College in Nashville, Tennessee. He has degrees from Yale University and Vanderbilt, and he has been the pastor of several Baptist churches. In Perspectives on Christian Worship Pinson has collected a sample of views on worship in the Christian church today. Determining the general categories of worship philosophy, two historic approaches and three that arose out of American evangelicalism, he presents views on liturgical, traditional, contemporary, blended, and emerging worship. Each approach is attempting in unique ways to remain faithful to the gospel and to communicate that gospel faithfully to the present generation.
Timothy C. J. Quill presents the liturgical view from an American Lutheran perspective. He teaches Pastoral Ministry and Missions at Concordia Theological Seminary in Fort Wayne, Indiana, so he is very capable of presenting the reasons why Lutherans advocate a liturgical approach to worship. What is fundamental for Quill in the liturgical approach is that worship is grounded in theology, specifically Lutheran theology. For Lutheran theology, what is vital is how God has chosen to deliver his gospel to his people, and Lutheran theology has a clear answer: God delivers his forgiveness in Word and Sacrament (19). Quill presents the theological underpinning of liturgy contra evangelicalism's emphasis on an immediate experience of grace, which he argues is the theological reason for why other groups have rejected liturgical worship (20). Lutheranism, in contrast to evangelicalism, believes that grace is always mediated by preaching the Word and administering the Sacraments. Lutheranism's rigid distinction between law and gospel also provides the reason for understanding worship as divine service, God serving us with his sacramental presence and grace (22-23). This Lutheran way of distinguishing command and promise in Scripture creates an emphasis on the objective work of God and a radical de-emphasis on the subjective work of grace in the heart of the believer; the focus in worship is almost completely on what God does outside of us, not what God does in us (23-24). The whole liturgy is systematically ordered according to this theology of God's sacramental presence. The liturgical order is evangelical, Christological, sacramental, apostolic, and eschatological (55). It is evaluated according to the doctrinal criterion of justification by faith alone as a sacramental event. As Quill states, "[Justification] is the basic event in the church. Justification takes place in the sermon, in the means of grace through God's two-fold acting in law and gospel (55)." On the basis of this sacramental theology, the liturgy is understood to be catechetical, a place of divine action, and the fulfillment of the mission given to the church (67, 71-76).
Ligon Duncan is pastor of First Presbyterian Church in Jackson, Mississippi, and he argues for traditional protestant worship. This approach is characterized by simplicity and radical adherence to the worship elements of the New Testament. Duncan argues that there is a distinction in the New Testament between worship in all of life and worship in the gathered assembly of believers (100). Worship also is not the music to the exclusion of the sermon. Worship is not reducible to an experience, though experience should be part of true worship (102). Worship in the assembly is the corporate activity of giving glory to God (103). It involves the heart, but it also involves what we do (104). The authority for what we do is Scripture alone. "...[B]oth the form and substance of our corporate worship is to be suffused with Scripture and scriptural theology (105)." Duncan affirms the "regulative principle," arguing that all that is done in worship must have support from Scripture. The "elements," what is done in worship, are to have Scriptural validation, and the way in which these elements are practiced, the "forms," is to be in accord with the elements of worship, aiding the congregation in their understanding of the purpose of the elements. The incidental things of worship, the "circumstances," should be thought through wisely, considering what best focuses attention on the glory of God in the performance of the elements (110). According to Duncan, worship style is a circumstance, so it should never be treated as a fundamental determiner of worship; it is not an element found in Scripture. To treat style as a fundamental determiner or element of worship runs the risk of marketing worship to a particular niche, making the focus the worshiper's preference, not obedience to Scripture's norms (113). Nevertheless, the circumstances are not neutral vis-à-vis the elements instituted by Scripture (111). Everything is done "to aid the soul's communion with God in the gathered company of the saints by serving to convey the Word of God to and from God, from and to His people" (112). Lastly, Duncan emphasizes that public worship is communal and dialogical. "It is the covenant community engaging with God, gathering with His people to seek the face of God, to glorify and enjoy Him, to hear His Word, to revel in the glory of union and communion with Him, to respond to His Word, to render praise back to Him, to give Him the glory due His name (119)."
Dan Wilt, director of the Institute of Contemporary and Emerging Worship Studies, presents a case for contemporary worship. He does not argue that contemporary worship is more biblical than the other forms, because he believes that no approach in the book can claim to be more biblically correct. Worship is always influenced by culture, and every generation responds to God's grace in their unique way (147). Wilt's central concern is the power of new music and the importance of new songs in the life of the church. He gives biblical support for the singing of new songs, and he then explains the importance of singing new songs (151-54). Acknowledging that every culture's influence may have negative, unbiblical results on fresh expressions of worship, this possibility should not lead us to restrict our worship expression to songs of the past, every one of which was contemporary at some point (156-57). Rather, the church should transform the present culture by taking up contemporary forms of music, sanctifying them to the glory of God, not retreating from the present to the safety of the past (159-60). The church, according to Wilt, is part of culture, but since its origin does not lie within culture, it is called to engage and transform culture, redeeming every aspect of culture to the glory of Christ (164-66). This calling requires that the church remain relevant to present culture, remain faithful to its gospel heritage, and speak both to the whole person, to humanity in its cultural diversity and to all Christian believers in this postmodern age (175-97).
Mark Dever and Michael Lawrence, pastors at Capitol Hill Baptist Church, present the blended worship approach. This approach is substantially in agreement with the traditional approach of Ligon Duncan, holding firmly to the "regulative principle." What distinguishes this view from the traditional view is the greater freedom in expressing the elements in worship. According to Dever and Lawrence, style is unimportant (218-19). In other words, they argue that there is significant freedom in how we perform the elements of worship. There is not freedom to add or take away elements of worship, but how these elements are performed is variegated (223-26). Clearly, worship is a matter of the heart, but the Bible is also concerned with what we do in worship. As we move, however, from the Old Testament to the New Testament, the rigid instructions concerning the way we perform the elements is considerably loosened (227-30, 42). The forms and circumstances should serve the elements, edify the body, be orderly, unify the church, and promote reverence (244-55).
Dan Kimball, pastor of Vintage Faith Church, presents the emerging worship view. The purpose of gathered worship, according to Kimball, is to bring praise and glory to Jesus Christ, and we see this worship in the New Testament in basic practices of prayer, teaching, fellowship, sharing meals, healings, etc. We do not see, however, according to Kimball, very specific details on what worship looked like (290-93). To assume that how we practice the elements of worship today is how the New Testament church worshiped is culturally naďve. How the early Christians worshiped was unique to their own time and place, and it cannot be replicated (293-95, 299). Every culture is different, and worship is continually emerging as culture develops and shifts (297). As long as Scripture is not violated, the church is free to worship in its emerging cultural forms (298). As culture changes, the ways that people worship change as well, and as the culture shifts, the ways that people learn shift also. Such cultural differences must guide how we obey Scripture (301-04).
The purpose of Perspectives on Christian Worship is to present the general contours of the worship perspectives in contemporary Protestantism. Pinson has very successfully presented the most obvious landmarks on the worship terrain, and he has selected adroit defenders of each perspective. Any book of this sort suffers invariably from being a general discussion, but considering the restricted purpose of providing an introduction to worship, such a general approach is helpful, giving the theological novice a trusty map for future exploration of the issue. Believers needing such a guide will be well served by this collection of essays. Read more ›
4 of 6 people found the following review helpful
Format:Paperback
As with the related book, Exploring the Worship Spectrum (Zondervan, 2004), this book possesses serious conceptual and methodological which are difficult to overcome in this reviewer's opinion. Pinson's introduction inclines me to believe he has misunderstood Bradshaw's Origins of Christian Worship (Oxford, 1992) and its judgment of the so-called Constantinian revolution. Pinson, citing Bradshaw, argues that the fourth century represents a "thorough transition" from the simplistic worship of the ante-Nicene; such a conclusion is not itself immediately warranted from reading Bradshaw. Bradshaw argues that, while the fourth century is a time of dramatic change in Christian worship, this change is an advancement in trends already underway in the third century, not the change from one thing into something else. Furthermore, while Pinson does not state directly that early Christians were aliturgical, those who are inclined towards the Free Church tradition might infer this from his comments, although a reading of Bradshaw would not support such a conclusion.
There is also Pinson's claim that pagan worship exercised greater influence on Christian worship during and after the fourth century also represented an increase in pagan influence on the Western liturgy. This has some truth it, but it is also possible to see Christian worship in this era entering a period of organic development rather than development influenced primarily by external sources. While it cannot be argued that Christianity is not affected by paganism since Christianity comes to displace paganism in the fourth century as the official religion of the Empire, the extent and nature of those changes certainly can be disputed. It is insufficient to state, as Pinson does, "most of the liturgical changes in the fourth century resulted from pagan influenceon the church..." Such claims have been used by polemicists historically to discredit the developments of post-Nicene Christianity (giving rise to the traditions that created modern Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism) in favor of the supposed apostolic purity of the Free Church tradition. But the balance of information leads one to conclude, including Bradshaw, that there is a dynamic tension between the prevailing pagan culture and the Church's desire to supplant it formally; the effects this has on worship are not always clear, and it would have been better, and less of an aid to polemicists, for Pinson to have pointed that out.
But, the problems with Pinson's essay re not simply related to the immediate Nicene and post-Nicene context. In equating Calvin with Luther and juxtaposing their liturgical practices, he has wholly misunderstood Luther; nowhere is this more apparent than in the statement that Luther, like Calvin, wanted the "word of God...to be the center of every aspect of worship." Luther, of course, held Word and Sacrament to be complimentary proclamations of the Gospel, which is not what is suggested by Pinson.
For methodological problems, Pinson recognizes that "several liturgical chapters could have been written" but were not to preserve brevity. Yet, the work lavishes its attention on multiple reformed and evangelical church worship traditions: traditional, contemporary, blended, and emerging. While the full extent of liturgical and other worship traditions are left aside to avoid undue simplification, it seems odd that this would be omitted while attention is lavished on creating what is essentially a deep description of the varieties of reformed evangelical worship traditions, with emphasis on worship traditions arising from a revivalist tradition. Given the authorship of the book is drawn mostly from the evangelical Free Church traditions, this can hardly be a surprise, but it is indeed disheartening to have the variety of potential worship experience acknowledged and then subsequently ignored in the name of avoiding over-simplification. A broad overview, even at the price of simplicity, would have been superior.
The remainder of the work is typically unimaginative, though each author gives a more or less spirited exposition of his own aspect of the evangelical worship tradition and Quill provides an able defense of the liturgical tradition. What is perhaps ironic is that everyone, except Quill, spends his space arguing for a specific style of music rather than for a specific structure; Quill's argument is essentially structural, and represents a fundamental challenge to the essentially similar perspective of the other authors, hence their similar arguments against his position. Arguments that liturgical worship breeds ritualism are, in themselves, red herrings since we can easily become enslaved to "rock bands" (contemporary worship) or "diversity" (blended) or even constant change (emergent); Wilt's equation of liturgy with Gnosticism, Svengalism, and pagan Greek ceremonies is absurd on its face and should not have be seriously entertained.
Overall, the work fails to deliver any new ground, and rather than helping the individual evangelical worship varieties to make peace with one another or do any real comparison across genuinely different worship traditions, the present work simply trots out the same arguments for show, assuming the priority of the free church worship tradition in its variations, and throws in liturgical worship (the majority worship tradition in Christianity) for show, for abuse, and because it simply cannot be ignored. The extended treatment given to the liturgical tradition has some merits. Quill's explanation of the liturgical tradition in far superior to Paul Zahl's rendition in the above referenced work from Zondervan, though even here I think he may be talking over most evangelical's heads, including perhaps his coauthors, since the liturgical traditions approach both worship and theology from a position seemingly incompatible to the Free Church tradition. On those two points, I feel the book warrants two stars, though one should be cautious about reading too much into that.
There is also Pinson's claim that pagan worship exercised greater influence on Christian worship during and after the fourth century also represented an increase in pagan influence on the Western liturgy. This has some truth it, but it is also possible to see Christian worship in this era entering a period of organic development rather than development influenced primarily by external sources. While it cannot be argued that Christianity is not affected by paganism since Christianity comes to displace paganism in the fourth century as the official religion of the Empire, the extent and nature of those changes certainly can be disputed. It is insufficient to state, as Pinson does, "most of the liturgical changes in the fourth century resulted from pagan influenceon the church..." Such claims have been used by polemicists historically to discredit the developments of post-Nicene Christianity (giving rise to the traditions that created modern Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism) in favor of the supposed apostolic purity of the Free Church tradition. But the balance of information leads one to conclude, including Bradshaw, that there is a dynamic tension between the prevailing pagan culture and the Church's desire to supplant it formally; the effects this has on worship are not always clear, and it would have been better, and less of an aid to polemicists, for Pinson to have pointed that out.
But, the problems with Pinson's essay re not simply related to the immediate Nicene and post-Nicene context. In equating Calvin with Luther and juxtaposing their liturgical practices, he has wholly misunderstood Luther; nowhere is this more apparent than in the statement that Luther, like Calvin, wanted the "word of God...to be the center of every aspect of worship." Luther, of course, held Word and Sacrament to be complimentary proclamations of the Gospel, which is not what is suggested by Pinson.
For methodological problems, Pinson recognizes that "several liturgical chapters could have been written" but were not to preserve brevity. Yet, the work lavishes its attention on multiple reformed and evangelical church worship traditions: traditional, contemporary, blended, and emerging. While the full extent of liturgical and other worship traditions are left aside to avoid undue simplification, it seems odd that this would be omitted while attention is lavished on creating what is essentially a deep description of the varieties of reformed evangelical worship traditions, with emphasis on worship traditions arising from a revivalist tradition. Given the authorship of the book is drawn mostly from the evangelical Free Church traditions, this can hardly be a surprise, but it is indeed disheartening to have the variety of potential worship experience acknowledged and then subsequently ignored in the name of avoiding over-simplification. A broad overview, even at the price of simplicity, would have been superior.
The remainder of the work is typically unimaginative, though each author gives a more or less spirited exposition of his own aspect of the evangelical worship tradition and Quill provides an able defense of the liturgical tradition. What is perhaps ironic is that everyone, except Quill, spends his space arguing for a specific style of music rather than for a specific structure; Quill's argument is essentially structural, and represents a fundamental challenge to the essentially similar perspective of the other authors, hence their similar arguments against his position. Arguments that liturgical worship breeds ritualism are, in themselves, red herrings since we can easily become enslaved to "rock bands" (contemporary worship) or "diversity" (blended) or even constant change (emergent); Wilt's equation of liturgy with Gnosticism, Svengalism, and pagan Greek ceremonies is absurd on its face and should not have be seriously entertained.
Overall, the work fails to deliver any new ground, and rather than helping the individual evangelical worship varieties to make peace with one another or do any real comparison across genuinely different worship traditions, the present work simply trots out the same arguments for show, assuming the priority of the free church worship tradition in its variations, and throws in liturgical worship (the majority worship tradition in Christianity) for show, for abuse, and because it simply cannot be ignored. The extended treatment given to the liturgical tradition has some merits. Quill's explanation of the liturgical tradition in far superior to Paul Zahl's rendition in the above referenced work from Zondervan, though even here I think he may be talking over most evangelical's heads, including perhaps his coauthors, since the liturgical traditions approach both worship and theology from a position seemingly incompatible to the Free Church tradition. On those two points, I feel the book warrants two stars, though one should be cautious about reading too much into that.
Format:Paperback|Amazon Verified Purchase
Perspectives on Christian Worship is a compilation of five essays, each written by a different author, presenting five divergent approaches to Christian, evangelical worship. Each essay forms one chapter of the book, and is immediately followed by a chapter in which all other contributing authors present a formal response to it. This structure has the benefit of presenting each view along with its criticisms, affording the reader a well-balanced and thoroughly researched spectrum of ideas from which to draw his or her own conclusions. The five perspectives and their authors are as follows: Liturgical Worship written by Timothy C. J. Quill; Traditional Evangelical Worship written by Ligon Duncan; Contemporary Worship written by Dan Wilt; Blended Worship written by Michael Lawrence and Mark Dever; and Emerging Worship written by Dan Kimball.
After a brief introduction by editor, J. Matthew Pinson, which presents a broad timeline of the development of Christian worship, the first view is presented: Liturgical Worship. Considering the fact that the other four perspectives have developed from and within one another (blended worship is a measured response to the values of both contemporary and traditional worship, while emerging worship is in essence an extension of the contemporary worship movement), liturgical worship may be the most foreign to many readers, unless, of course, they have spent time in a liturgical church. Fittingly, this chapter is quite length and very thorough.
The greatest distinction that Quill makes between liturgical worship and any other non-liturgical approach is the question of who is primarily taking action in worship: man or God? He argues, "If worship is primarily something we do, then we can never be certain we did enough. The law always accuses and condemns. It leads to a `mathematical,' measure-oriented way of evaluating how worship is done...This is law worship. Gospel worship works the other way. The liturgy is first of all what God is doing. In law worship, we bring our obedience and praise to God. In gospel worship, we bring our sin and sinfulness, and God brings His gifts to us."[1] According to Quill, this distinction removes a lot of the burden from ministers and congregants alike of have moving, emotional worship services that cause us to feel "close to Jesus." In the liturgy, the Christian meets God through His Word and the sacraments, and does not need "to get closer than this." He writes, "The important thing is that our Lord's gifts are always certain, true, and given out to us. When we have wonderful, moving, emotional experiences, it is something for which to give God thanks. We can enjoy them and give thanks for them, but we do not put our faith in them. We put our faith in Christ and His Word, His promises, and His gifts."[2]
In defending liturgical worship, Quill does not mask his personal disdain for contemporary worship when he characterizes the movement in general and across history as "disorder, irreverence and frivolity."[3] Liturgical worship on the other hand, "retains ceremony not only for the sake of reverence but also in order to teach the faith."[4] He takes aim squarely at the heart of contemporary worship's passion for reaching and engaging the culture around us when he states, "The word culture comes from cultus, the Latin word for worship. Divine Worship is a culture unlike any other, and is in fact a counterculture."[5] In his further defense of liturgical worship, Quill points to various characteristics of the liturgy such as repetition, longevity, the use of the church year and lectionary, order and form as its great strengths.[6]
The latter half of Quill's essay emphasizes the importance of Christology in worship, and suggests that this is best accomplished in the liturgical tradition. To prove his point, he expounds on the various components of the liturgy to demonstrate its Christ-centric character.[7] At one point, he even includes a graphic suggesting that the liturgy is the sole point of intersection between heaven and earth.[8]
The responses to Quill's essay target a range of issues, but by far their over-arching theme, not surprisingly, centers on the element of human emotion in worship. Wilt calls for a balance in worship of God's transcendence and immanence, and "contends that life above liturgy is the place where heaven and earth meet,"[9] while Lawrence and Dever cry out for inclusion in worship of the "legitimately subjective aspects of the gospel."[10]
The next chapter presents traditional evangelical worship. Whereas Quill emphasized the Christology of liturgical worship, Duncan presents a "Bible-centric" view of worship. He begins by defining worship as "declaring--with our lips and lives--that God is more important than anything else to us, that He is our deepest desire, that His inherent worth is beyond everything else we hold dear."[11] In describing what our worship ought to look like, Duncan asserts that the traditional evangelical approach seeks to read, preach, pray, sing and see the Bible.[12] Duncan closes his essay by expounding on a long list of qualities he believes will be evident in Biblical worship, namely that it will be scriptural, simple, spiritual, God-centered, historic, reverent and joyful, Christ-based, corporate, evangelistic, delightful, and both active and passive.[13] Finally, he mentions that Biblical worship should emphasize the Sabbath or Lord's Day, and that this is done by "regular and faithful congregational Sunday morning and evening worship."[14]
In the responses to Duncan's chapter, Quill quickly points out the theological distinction that I mentioned earlier: that of worship as being first what God does, not what man does.[15] Wilt takes issue primarily with the way in which Duncan treats the impact of one's culture on one's worship.[16] Similarly, Kimball challenges the idea that Christian worship should not have a "style" by pointing out that, intentional or not, even the worship of the early church invariably had some type of stylistic character.[17] Lawrence and Dever largely agree with Duncan taking issue only with his treatment of the "Lord's Day" topic.[18]
Dan Wilt's chapter on "Contemporary Worship" follows next, and makes no apology for its lopsided emphasis on contemporary worship music to the exclusion of all other aspects of corporate Christian worship. He writes, "When most of us think about `contemporary worship,' we think about the music that defines it."[19] This exclusion of other artistic expressions was indeed one point of criticism from Wilt's responders.[20] Wilt provides a number of key scripture references in his definition of worship, all of which address worship from the standpoint of whole-life (holistic) worship to the exclusion of corporate, gathered worship,[21] a point criticized by Ligon Duncan in his response.[22] Wilt follows his definition of worship with a scriptural and historical defense of the "new song."
It is after these preliminaries, that, in my opinion, Wilt gets to the real meat of his essay: the question, "what forces shape contemporary music?" For Wilt, the answer is, quite simply, culture. Wilt references the writing of Bishop N.T. Wright which points to the Enlightenment, the Romantic movement and the Existentialist and self-actualization movements as key factors in the shaping of contemporary culture, and suggests that "large portions of contemporary culture are built on a pursuit of self-discovery that has been swallowed hook, line and sinker by both conservative and liberal churches."[23] Wilt does not believe, however, that the church's response should be to eschew culture, but rather to engage it. He purports that the church is part of culture, but is also beyond culture.[24] This point was picked up by Lawrence and Dever in their response. Though they disagree with Wilt's ultimate arrival, they acknowledge that his essay correctly identifies the debate: "From the contemporary worship perspective, the debate is not over the interpretation and application of scripture. Rather, it is a philosophical and sociological discussion about the relationship between the church and the culture it is trying to reach with the gospel of Jesus Christ."[25]
Wilt continues by identifying the guiding values of contemporary worship expression. Not surprisingly, for him, cultural relevance is at the top of the list, followed by integrity, holism, immanence, incarnational worship, simplicity, diversity, and unity.[26] He concludes by offering a brief look into what the future may hold for the contemporary worship movement, noting that "if contemporary worship music and contemporary service can continue to `further the plot' of the kingdom story in tandem with the historic patterns of living worship, then we have found our place."[27]
The heart of Lawrence and Dever's essay on blended worship is found in the opening statement of their essay: "The style of music you use on Sunday morning is incredibly unimportant." The authors' intent is made clear, when they say, "our aim...is to put both worship and style back into their proper places and proper relationship with one another."[28] To that end, the writers suggest four things that blended worship is not: a blending of truths or truth-perspectives, a blending of diverse theological and liturgical traditions, a blending of elements of worship, or a blending of media or means of communication. Rather, for Lawrence and Dever, blended worship is "corporate worship that consists of its biblical elements (prayer, singing, reading and preaching God's Word, the ordinances of baptism and the Lord's Supper) but in a variety of styles or forms.[29]
The writers provide both a biblical and a theological basis for blended worship. Read more ›
After a brief introduction by editor, J. Matthew Pinson, which presents a broad timeline of the development of Christian worship, the first view is presented: Liturgical Worship. Considering the fact that the other four perspectives have developed from and within one another (blended worship is a measured response to the values of both contemporary and traditional worship, while emerging worship is in essence an extension of the contemporary worship movement), liturgical worship may be the most foreign to many readers, unless, of course, they have spent time in a liturgical church. Fittingly, this chapter is quite length and very thorough.
The greatest distinction that Quill makes between liturgical worship and any other non-liturgical approach is the question of who is primarily taking action in worship: man or God? He argues, "If worship is primarily something we do, then we can never be certain we did enough. The law always accuses and condemns. It leads to a `mathematical,' measure-oriented way of evaluating how worship is done...This is law worship. Gospel worship works the other way. The liturgy is first of all what God is doing. In law worship, we bring our obedience and praise to God. In gospel worship, we bring our sin and sinfulness, and God brings His gifts to us."[1] According to Quill, this distinction removes a lot of the burden from ministers and congregants alike of have moving, emotional worship services that cause us to feel "close to Jesus." In the liturgy, the Christian meets God through His Word and the sacraments, and does not need "to get closer than this." He writes, "The important thing is that our Lord's gifts are always certain, true, and given out to us. When we have wonderful, moving, emotional experiences, it is something for which to give God thanks. We can enjoy them and give thanks for them, but we do not put our faith in them. We put our faith in Christ and His Word, His promises, and His gifts."[2]
In defending liturgical worship, Quill does not mask his personal disdain for contemporary worship when he characterizes the movement in general and across history as "disorder, irreverence and frivolity."[3] Liturgical worship on the other hand, "retains ceremony not only for the sake of reverence but also in order to teach the faith."[4] He takes aim squarely at the heart of contemporary worship's passion for reaching and engaging the culture around us when he states, "The word culture comes from cultus, the Latin word for worship. Divine Worship is a culture unlike any other, and is in fact a counterculture."[5] In his further defense of liturgical worship, Quill points to various characteristics of the liturgy such as repetition, longevity, the use of the church year and lectionary, order and form as its great strengths.[6]
The latter half of Quill's essay emphasizes the importance of Christology in worship, and suggests that this is best accomplished in the liturgical tradition. To prove his point, he expounds on the various components of the liturgy to demonstrate its Christ-centric character.[7] At one point, he even includes a graphic suggesting that the liturgy is the sole point of intersection between heaven and earth.[8]
The responses to Quill's essay target a range of issues, but by far their over-arching theme, not surprisingly, centers on the element of human emotion in worship. Wilt calls for a balance in worship of God's transcendence and immanence, and "contends that life above liturgy is the place where heaven and earth meet,"[9] while Lawrence and Dever cry out for inclusion in worship of the "legitimately subjective aspects of the gospel."[10]
The next chapter presents traditional evangelical worship. Whereas Quill emphasized the Christology of liturgical worship, Duncan presents a "Bible-centric" view of worship. He begins by defining worship as "declaring--with our lips and lives--that God is more important than anything else to us, that He is our deepest desire, that His inherent worth is beyond everything else we hold dear."[11] In describing what our worship ought to look like, Duncan asserts that the traditional evangelical approach seeks to read, preach, pray, sing and see the Bible.[12] Duncan closes his essay by expounding on a long list of qualities he believes will be evident in Biblical worship, namely that it will be scriptural, simple, spiritual, God-centered, historic, reverent and joyful, Christ-based, corporate, evangelistic, delightful, and both active and passive.[13] Finally, he mentions that Biblical worship should emphasize the Sabbath or Lord's Day, and that this is done by "regular and faithful congregational Sunday morning and evening worship."[14]
In the responses to Duncan's chapter, Quill quickly points out the theological distinction that I mentioned earlier: that of worship as being first what God does, not what man does.[15] Wilt takes issue primarily with the way in which Duncan treats the impact of one's culture on one's worship.[16] Similarly, Kimball challenges the idea that Christian worship should not have a "style" by pointing out that, intentional or not, even the worship of the early church invariably had some type of stylistic character.[17] Lawrence and Dever largely agree with Duncan taking issue only with his treatment of the "Lord's Day" topic.[18]
Dan Wilt's chapter on "Contemporary Worship" follows next, and makes no apology for its lopsided emphasis on contemporary worship music to the exclusion of all other aspects of corporate Christian worship. He writes, "When most of us think about `contemporary worship,' we think about the music that defines it."[19] This exclusion of other artistic expressions was indeed one point of criticism from Wilt's responders.[20] Wilt provides a number of key scripture references in his definition of worship, all of which address worship from the standpoint of whole-life (holistic) worship to the exclusion of corporate, gathered worship,[21] a point criticized by Ligon Duncan in his response.[22] Wilt follows his definition of worship with a scriptural and historical defense of the "new song."
It is after these preliminaries, that, in my opinion, Wilt gets to the real meat of his essay: the question, "what forces shape contemporary music?" For Wilt, the answer is, quite simply, culture. Wilt references the writing of Bishop N.T. Wright which points to the Enlightenment, the Romantic movement and the Existentialist and self-actualization movements as key factors in the shaping of contemporary culture, and suggests that "large portions of contemporary culture are built on a pursuit of self-discovery that has been swallowed hook, line and sinker by both conservative and liberal churches."[23] Wilt does not believe, however, that the church's response should be to eschew culture, but rather to engage it. He purports that the church is part of culture, but is also beyond culture.[24] This point was picked up by Lawrence and Dever in their response. Though they disagree with Wilt's ultimate arrival, they acknowledge that his essay correctly identifies the debate: "From the contemporary worship perspective, the debate is not over the interpretation and application of scripture. Rather, it is a philosophical and sociological discussion about the relationship between the church and the culture it is trying to reach with the gospel of Jesus Christ."[25]
Wilt continues by identifying the guiding values of contemporary worship expression. Not surprisingly, for him, cultural relevance is at the top of the list, followed by integrity, holism, immanence, incarnational worship, simplicity, diversity, and unity.[26] He concludes by offering a brief look into what the future may hold for the contemporary worship movement, noting that "if contemporary worship music and contemporary service can continue to `further the plot' of the kingdom story in tandem with the historic patterns of living worship, then we have found our place."[27]
The heart of Lawrence and Dever's essay on blended worship is found in the opening statement of their essay: "The style of music you use on Sunday morning is incredibly unimportant." The authors' intent is made clear, when they say, "our aim...is to put both worship and style back into their proper places and proper relationship with one another."[28] To that end, the writers suggest four things that blended worship is not: a blending of truths or truth-perspectives, a blending of diverse theological and liturgical traditions, a blending of elements of worship, or a blending of media or means of communication. Rather, for Lawrence and Dever, blended worship is "corporate worship that consists of its biblical elements (prayer, singing, reading and preaching God's Word, the ordinances of baptism and the Lord's Supper) but in a variety of styles or forms.[29]
The writers provide both a biblical and a theological basis for blended worship. Read more ›
