Customer Reviews

Perspectives on Christian Worship: Five Views

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

 

 

How do we remain biblically rooted in our corporate worship of God without becoming culturally irrelevant? That's the question Perspectives on Christian Worship: 5 Views seeks to answer.

Editor Matthew Pinson introduces the book with a brief and insightful historical overview of Christian worship. Then we're offered five different views (and responses) of public worship today: liturgical (Timothy Quill), traditional evangelical (Ligon Duncan), contemporary (Dan Wilt), blended (Michael Lawrence and Mark Dever), and emerging (Dan Kimball).

POINTS ON THE SPECTRUM

The book admittedly fails to cover the full spectrum of worship practices and traditions today, and Duncan, Dever, and Lawrence seemed to agree with each other a lot, as did Kimball and Wilt (maybe it should have been three views?). Still, there's enough variation here to provide food for substantive conversations about how the corporate worship in your church could be more biblical and culturally impacting.

Liturgical

Timothy Quill, a former Lutheran pastor, tries to persuade us that the Liturgy of Word and Sacrament has "sustained the church and reached the lost for the past two thousand years" (21). While that may be overstated, I agree with Ligon Duncan who, in his response, says that Quill is "thoroughly Trinitarian, Christocentric, theological, and biblical in his understanding of worship" (82). Quill highlights worship as God's gift of grace to us, rather than our gift to God, a point he reiterates in most of his responses.

Quill admits early on that the Liturgy belongs to the adiaphora, matters neither commanded nor forbidden by Scripture (19), but you get the impression he feels more strongly than that. Thus, his justification for liturgical worship is ultimately more pragmatic and historical than biblical. In response, Duncan points out that, "Liturgy can...create complacency and simply going through the motions in worship" (83). As edifying and educational as his chapter is, I don't think Quill sufficiently addresses this point.

Traditional Evangelical

Duncan' s chapter on traditional evangelical worship focuses less on forms and more on the meaning, elements, goals, and qualities of biblical corporate worship. His values are similar to Quill, with forms being more negotiable, but not irrelevant. He alerts us to the "law of unintended consequences" (112) with respect to the mediums we use. "The minute a service is called 'contemporary,' we have just conveyed, whether we like it or not, that the most important thing about it is the featured musical style" (111). He also warns that using music to attract people encourages participants "to view themselves as consumers rather than as worshipers" (113). Like all the contributors, Duncan says "worship is all about God" (149) and that conviction comes through in his chapter. He roots his views of worship in scriptural principles and commands, and says the Bible is to be read, preached, prayed, sung, and seen in public worship (105).

Wilt and Kimball affirm Duncan's chapter, but wonder if his practices are at times more influenced by his own tradition and experiences than he realizes. I think they make a good point. Wilt stresses that cultural accommodation is very different from cultural connection (133).

Contemporary

Dan Wilt's chapter on "contemporary worship" focuses more on contemporary worship music, which raises obvious conflicts with Duncan's chapter (although he graciously avoids them in his response). Wilt takes engaging with the culture seriously and emphasizes the importance of the heart and authenticity in worship. While he is an appreciative student of historic traditions, Wilt says the contemporary worship movement "is a significant force that is shaping the discipleship life of average believers around the globe" (197). Wilt's case seems stronger for the values of biblical worship than contemporary music itself, but his passion to see people truly encounter God when they sing is admirable.

Lawrence and Dever express concerns about Wilt's over-emphasis on cultural relevance and personal authenticity. They write, "Certainly we must worship our Savior from within our culture. Yet just as certainly worship must take its cues not from its context, but from its subject, not from our changing culture, but from the unchanging character of God" (215).

Blended

Regulative Principle adherents might be surprised to find out that Lawrence and Dever wrote the chapter on "blended worship." But after making clear what blended worship is not, they define it simply as "using various forms for invariable elements." They offer some helpful guidelines and some great quotes. They say our worship is to be intelligible, orderly, edifying, unifying, and reverent. "To the saved heart, the richness of the gospel will always exceed even the most impoverished music that celebrates it" (252). "No one church, much less one public service, can incorporate and blend every biblically informed tradition" (256). They astutely observe that, in contrast with our own, the worship wars of previous generations were always an attempt to answer the question, "What is most faithful to the Bible?"

In his response, Kimball takes issue with Lawrence and Dever's understanding of the Word in worship. "As much as there is a desire to protect the church using only 'Word-focused' worship, we must remember that the subtle stylistic things we do in addition to words also communicate" (284). Wilt questions viewing the "Word" simply as preaching, and says "the thought that to preach is to transform is magical and lacks substance" (278). In seeking to heighten our awareness of how words are received, both Dans run the risk of minimizing the preached word, despite their claims to the contrary.

Emerging

In the final chapter, Dan Kimball makes a case for "emerging worship," which he defines as "expressions of worship that are relating to how people in today's culture communicate, learn, and express their love to God" (297). It's evident that Kimball loves the church, the lost, and the Lord. And he's concerned about the criticism emerging churches have received for not taking the Bible seriously. His eight guidelines for "emerging worship" on pages 297-298 would be helpful for any church.

That said, his references to a Chinese proverb, nine spiritual temperaments, and worship as a "multisensory experience" muddy the waters. Dan Wilt humbly comments, "The random and sometimes cavalier use of Scripture must continue to be eradicated from both contemporary and emerging worship patterns" (346). Lawrence and Dever sound a similar alarm: "We are on safer ground biblically if we assume that culture's default effect will be to misshape our worship, and that what is needed is to allow the Scriptures to constantly reform and reshape our worship according to the pattern of the Spirit rather than the pattern of the world" (351).

HELPFUL, EVEN WITHOUT A CHARISMATIC VIEW

I would have appreciated a chapter that reflected a more charismatic or continuationist perspective, but I still found the interaction between the authors to be helpful and stimulating for my own thinking about worship. The authors agree in more areas than they disagree, and if you focus on those areas, you'll be well on your way to worship that is more in line with what God desires and has made possible through the gospel.

--Bob Kauflin's review for 9marks.org

TIMOTHY QUILL'S ESSAY ON LITURGICAL WORSHIP

Timothy Quill is associate professor of Pastoral Ministry and Missions at Concordia Theological Seminary in Fort Wayne, Indiana. Quill's essay on liturgical worship was informative and in many ways compelling. I appreciated his emphasis on God and that the liturgy is "first of all what God is doing." (p. 23) Quill also shows how important the relationship is between doctrine and worship and how the two influence each other. One cannot disregard either without tragic results. Nowhere is this more clearly illustrated than in the importance of doctrinally accurate hymns and their role in reinforcing the teaching of the church. Quill points to Bishop Ambrose of Milan and the role he played in countering Arianism via his hymnody. I wish he had done more to show how ancient the liturgy really is. Though I've had some experiences with liturgical churches in my early years as a Christian I was under the impression that the liturgy was a late development. The antiquity of the liturgy is something I was grossly unaware. Quill also ably demonstrates much of the rationale of the liturgy. Indeed, the majority of his essay is an exposition of why this or that is part of the liturgy. A dominant theme throughout the essay is the law/gospel dynamic which is fundamental to Lutheran theology. Law is what we do for God and gospel is what God does for us. Quill sees much of contemporary worship as law based rather than gospel based. When we come to worship with an attitude of what we can do or bring to God rather than what we can receive from him our priorities are backwards and unhealthy. As for the response essays I found the ones from Dan Wilt (contemporary worship) and Richard Lawrence and Mark Dever (blended worship) to be the most helpful. A common critique was the fact that liturgical churches can often breed a type of worship that becomes ritualistic and thoughtless. Wilt was the most cutting by associating liturgical worship with aspects of Gnosticism, Svengalism, and the worship of a God "who far more resembles the gods of the Greeks than He resembles the emotionally charged God of the Hebrews." (p. 89) Lawrence and Dever seem right when they say Quill's argument "seems to be limited to the historical and pragmatic." (p. 93) Dan Kimball (emerging worship) essentially says his only critique is that Quill appears to say "unless people use liturgical worship, they are not worshiping in the best way possible." (p. 95) I agree as I think would Quill. That's the point of the book. For someone like Kimball who is very eclectic in his approach this would be a problem. Kimball points to the countless non-liturgical churches that are producing vibrant healthy disciples and notes many of the liberal churches are dominated by liturgy. Overall I was impressed with Quill much more so than I thought I would be. The next post will be on Ligon Duncan and traditional evangelical worship.

LIGON DUNCAN'S ESSAY ON TRADITIONAL EVANGELICAL WORSHIP

Duncan is senior minister of First Presbyterian Church in Jackson, Mississippi. If one of the problems with Quill's essay was that it was "limited to the historical and pragmatic" Ligon Duncan heavily bases his approach on Scripture as he argues for traditional evangelical worship. This is to be expected from a Reformed Evangelical and Duncan does not disappoint. Duncan carefully articulates what worship is and is not as understood by both the Old and New Testament. He describes his approach with the motto "Read the Bible, Preach the Bible, Pray the Bible, Sing the Bible, See the Bible." (p. 105) From this he describes what worship should look like. He notes that "The preached word is the central feature of Reformed worship." (p. 106). He also describes the approach as employing the "regulative principle," that is, "to have a public worship service that is according to Scripture." (p. 107) Duncan helpfully distinguishes between the elements of worship (reading, preaching, singing, praying, and seeing the Word) and the circumstances of worship (the specific order of worship, the texts and tunes of the hymnody, the musical instruments used and the musical style). (p. 110) He cautions two errors to avoid. We shouldn't make the circumstances more important than the elements and we shouldn't think that circumstances are neutral. The latter is especially important since to assume that all musical styles are neutral and carry no baggage and are equally serviceable for public praise is "naïve and harmful." (p. 111) He describes Biblical worship as Scriptural, simple, spiritual, God-centered, historic, reverent and joyful, mediated, corporate, evangelistic, delightful, active and passive and to be celebrated on the Lord's Day (which he understands to be both morning and evening worship on Sunday). Quill's response is predictable if you're reading the book in order. Duncan should not have as a starting point "man's acknowledgement of the sovereignty and glory of God but with the grace of God in Christ." (p. 125) This is not minor issue for Quill since he sees Duncan's view of worship as "primarily and foremost what man does. The last thing on the list is receiving God's favor." (p. 126) Quill contends that "at the heart and center of [God's] nature . . . is . . . grace--underserved, immeasurable love and grace." (p. 126) Wilt (contemporary worship) complains that he doesn't think "God wants us to each just plain, cooked potatoes" but thinks God "loves to `spice things up.' (p. 133) He further thinks Duncan does not appreciate the difference between cultural accommodation and cultural connection. Kimball's (emerging worship) response has the most bite even if he does say in places he's "joking" or using "hyperbole." Kimball focuses on Duncan's critique of Celtic music as "contrived" and notes the sword cuts both ways since much in Reformed worship could equally be seen as contrived. For example the hymns from the 1600s could be seen as contrived by people today. Pews are a medieval European form of seating and to many could be seen as contrived.

DAN WILT'S ESSAY ON CONTEMPORARY WORSHIP

Dan Wilt is director of the Institute of Contemporary Worship Studies at St. Stephen's University in St. Stephen, New Brunswick. Dan Wilt's essay was not very persuasive. Early on he admits he's not a "liturgiologist, theologian, or historian." (p. 149) His approach is as a "studied practitioner of contemporary worship expressions and as a writer of contemporary worship music." (p. 149). For that reason his essay is almost exclusively on the role and benefit of contemporary music in worship. He does spend time on the interaction of church and culture. This leads him to show that "contemporary worship is one of the means through which the church leads the way in culture." (p. 166) He gives the three major practical skills for a contemporary worship leader: 1) the skill of song selection, 2) band development and 3) worship leadership. In response to those who charge that contemporary worship is too emotional Wilt says the traditional view of God is "anemic" and "more Neoplatonic than biblical." (p. 183). He says the church has been strong in "celebrating great minds and communicators" but "less adept at celebrating great hearts and artists. It is fine for great thinkers to be our heroes. Yet it is vital that great feelers be our heroes as well." (emphasis his, p. 185) The criticisms in the response essays, while accurate in many places, could have been avoided had Wilt not so confined himself to simply music. Quill acknowledges Wilt when he says the contemporary songs are sung to God rather than about God. But he points out liturgical language not only speaks to God and about God but also God speaks to us. Quill says those at home with revivalist or Arminian theology will find the appeal of Wilt's essay where you have a "highly emotional worship designed to move people to `give their hearts to Jesus' and to `choose God now.'" (p. 205) Quill finally observes that the "constant demand to give God all our praise, heart, and love is a burden than condemns us. Freedom comes not from sermon and song that demand us to do more, but from the living proclamation of Christ's unconditional love, acceptance, and pardon." (p. 208) Lawrence and Dever start off strong with "It was our understanding that the church gathered around Christ, not His anthems; that it was the Holy Spirit that fanned into flame redemptive activity, not music; and that the immanence of God was an attribute of the Godhead rather than a function of melody and verse." (p. 211) The also target Wilt's admission that "'some contemporary worship songs could as easily be sung to one's spouse as to God.' In our circles, this is known as the `Jesus is my boyfriend' song, and it is not exactly a compliment." (p. 214) Kimball rounds off the criticism with wishing he had heard more than just about music. "I would have liked to hear how preaching, prayer, other artistic expressions play into a worship gathering." (p. 216) On this point I couldn't agree more. Wilt's essay was more an argument for contemporary music than contemporary worship unless we reduce worship to singing which Wilt clearly does not believe.

MICHAEL LAWRENCE AND MARK DEVER'S ESSAY ON BLENDED WORSHIP

They are the associate and senior pastors respectively at Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington, D.C. Michael Lawrence and Mark Dever (hereafter L/D) offer a rigorous defense of blended worship. Like Duncan, L/D start with a Biblical understanding of worship. Worship cannot be limited to just a Sunday morning gathering. It is rather "our service to God." (p. 218) So as not to be confused with Robert Webber's notions of blended worship they begin by telling us what blended worship is not. It is not a blending of truths or truth-perspectives, nor a blending of diverse theological and liturgical traditions, nor a blending of elements of worship, nor a blending or media or means of communication. Governed by the regulative principle blended worship is strictly guided by what Scripture says may or may not be part of worship. The Bible is at the forefront of their thinking because "Christianity is fundamentally a religion of the ear, not the eye." (p. 222) They stress the importance of understanding that the "worship of God must be a reflection of God's character, not ours. That character is not found by looking to ourselves--our preferences, tastes, and desires." (p. 233) To aide this understanding they distinguish between elements, forms, and circumstances of public worship. Elements are "those activities God has instituted for His worship in Scripture, either by precept, normative example, or good and necessary implication." (p. 236) Forms are the ways those elements are carried out and circumstances are the "incidental matters common to any public gathering." (p. 236) The elements (prayer, song, preaching, reading Scripture, tithes, offerings, and the ordinances) are the non-negotiables of worship. Only in the forms and circumstances does "blended" worship begin to take significance. Here there is room for not only hymns but new songs; not only prayers but lamentations and praise; not only singing with instruments but also a capella. They also give broad parameters to govern the forms of worship. They should be intelligible, orderly, edifying, unifying and should promote reverence for God. They end with some examples of blended worship. Quill observes that L/D are typical for a Baptist mold. Duncan affirms much of the essay and simply says his disagreement would be with "how to apply the Regulative Principle of worship." (p. 275) Dan Wilt seems to come out of the box fighting in his response. "I challenge the rampant use of the term biblical." (p. 277) "Things will have to look a lot more Jewish (and smell a lot more Middle-eastern) before we can say that our worship expression is more authentically `biblical' (or `right') than another." (277) "I grow tired of the idea that being `preached to or preached at' should always be at the center of the worship service." (p. 279) Kimball believes L/D are took quick to assume that anything "'emerging' does not have a high view of the authority of Scriptures or that they dabble in syncretism." (p. 281) He concludes with asking if it is a truly "blended" worship then "where are hip-hop songs?" (p. 286) Kimball complains that for a blended worship the examples given seem rather bland.

DAN KIMBALL'S ESSAY ON EMERGING WORSHIP

Dan Kimball is the last essay we will be looking at and on the next post I will offer some general comments on the book as a whole. Kimball begins with a brief look at worship in Scripture. He shows from Acts 2:42-47 the following practices were part of early Christian worship: teaching, fellowship, prayer, miracles and healing, sharing of life and eating meals together in homes. (p. 291 He later identifies these as the "essentials of worship." p. 294) Kimball believes that the Scriptures themselves "have limited information about what a worship gathering originally looked like and what was supposed to happen." (p. 293) He does say that our architecture and design of worship spaces "reflect our values and even our theology." (p. 293) Kimball goes so far as to say "one really cannot make a case from the Scriptures for what a worship gathering should specifically look like." (p. 294) Scripture tells us what must be part of our gatherings but it does not direct us how to do them. This leads Kimball to say we "should be more concerned with how people's lives are being changed by the Spirit as they encounter God in worship than the ways we actually practice worship." (p. 295) Emerging worship is "simply expressions of worship that are culturally sensitive to our emerging culture." (p. 298) Along with Wilt's comment Kimball says none of us are worshipping the way the early church worshiped. Kimball explains that since people have different learning styles therefore our worship should be cognizant of that and adjust accordingly. He uses a painter's palette as an illustration of how the various elements of worship can be "painted" with different colors. Communion and baptism are not part of the palette because they are not simply colors rather they are a holy sacrament. The responses each had a different concern. I'll focus on just one or two from each. Quill says "one cannot simply appropriate desirable bits and pieces in an eclectic manner as if going through the line in a cafeteria." (p. 339) Furthermore, he questions if the church is still emerging "what will finally emerge? It is a dangerous thing to experiment with the church of God as if she is one's personal plaything to shape according to one's own desires." (p. 339) Duncan, I think, doesn't believe Kimball takes seriously enough the sinfulness of people's hearts. But Duncan leaves this comment hanging in the air without further comment. Since Kimball is not satisfied with enough direction from Scripture he turns to an old Chinese proverb. Duncan is firm, "I cannot fully express my concern over turning to pagan literature to better worship the Living God." (p. 341) Wilt's greatest concern is "being converted by the culture." (p. 345) Wilt is careful to note that while he "is a strong proponent of rampant creativity in the church and in the culture, I still sense a high degree of novelty, experimentation, and `let's try this . . . now, let's forget this . . . " occurring in emerging worship streams." (p. 346) Lawrence and Dever take issue with Kimball's comments about different learning styles. They assert that "pedagogy and doxology are not the same thing. So even if Kimball's observation is correct (and we think it is), it does not automatically follow that our public worship must give expression to the various learning styles." (p. 350)

CONCLUSION

Anyone familiar with worship styles will clearly recognize that there are more than five views. The Zondervan counterpoint series book has six views (Even though both books have a chapter on "blended worship" they are not the same but have significant differences.). This book narrows the discussion to five. It further narrows it to five protestant views. Kimball says the book should have been called "Perspectives of Conservative-Evangelical-Primarily-White-Suburban-Middle-to-Upper-Middle-Class Worship." (p. 216-17) Two essays mention the "regulative principle" of worship. Essentially this principle means "whatever is not commanded in Scripture is forbidden." It may be too quick to conclude that those who don't hold to the regulative principle are not Biblical. Rather, some hold that "whatever is not forbidden in Scripture is permitted." Still others (both Wilt and Kimball expressed some concern here) think the notion of what is "Biblical" is a fluid one and easily abused. Quill says worship is an adiaphora (Greek for "indifferent things."). Both essays that mention the regulative principle treat it as if it were a fairly simple principle without any complications. Nothing could be further from the truth. John Frame has written an excellent essay which should be required reading for understanding the regulative principle (Frame says "there is no human act that is morally neutral. Every human act is either right or wrong, either pleasing or displeasing God." So for Frame nothing is adiaphora.) I understand that the constraints of a book like this make detailed explanations difficult but I would have liked a little more definition and justification of the principle. Wilt is the boldest critic of the principle saying, "The kind of theologically founded praxis that I hear in the Regulative Principle, in my humble estimation, could be hindering the evangelical church from being the viral influence that we are optimally designed to be in the world." (p. 280) Each author seems to be aware that there is an underlying theology at work. To really grapple with many of the issues means going deeper and questioning the theology that supports them. Another question is the relationship of the Old Testament to the New. God was very particular as to how the tabernacle and the sacrificial system were to work. How does that relate, if at all, to New Testament worship? Are there principles that carry over even if the particulars do not? What about reaching and accommodating to the culture of the day? What sort of freedom is allowed in attempting to reach the unsaved? At the end of the day for someone like Kimball what matters most is changed lives. Rather than getting hung up over worship styles let's look at how the Spirit is changing people (although he does say we should not go against Scripture p. 295).

Overall I really enjoyed this book. The essays were cogent and well written. Quill gave me the most to think about. But that is because it is the tradition I'm least familiar with. I come away less convinced of my own inclinations but grateful to have had the hardened sod of my mind freshly tilled on an important subject.

--Louis McBride, Review on Baker Book House Church Connection blog

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. Their biblical basis acknowledges the strict methodology of Old Testament worship, balanced by the importance of the condition of one's heart, as seen in the judgment of the prophets. The New Testament enforces this dual emphasis in the command of Jesus to worship the Father in spirit and truth.[30] The theological basis for blended worship centers on the question of "how should God be worshiped?" The answer is found not in culture or in our own tastes or predilections, but in the Bible, which identifies the elements, forms and circumstances of public worship.[31]

The elements of worship are prayer, song, reading and preaching scripture, tithes and offerings, and the ordinances of baptism and the Lord's Supper.[32] For Lawrence and Dever, the forms and circumstances of worship (drawn largely from the variety evident in the Psalms) should be intelligible, orderly, edifying, unifying and reverent.[33] The chapter concludes with a number of sample worship service outlines with specific song titles included, which help to paint a picture of what blended worship looks like in their mind.

The responses to Lawrence and Dever were interestingly split. Quill and Duncan were, by and large, in agreement. Wilt and Kimball both raised significant challenges, primarily with their treatment of the influence of culture in the church and the level of emotional experientialism in worship.

The final installment of the book, emerging worship by Dan Kimball, is perhaps the most honest and humbly-written chapter. The author admits that he is not a scholar like the other contributors. More importantly, he is the only author who was raised outside of the church.[34] Though not heavily emphasized in his essay, nor acknowledged in the reviews, I believe these two details are huge factors in Kimball's approach to and understanding of worship in the modern church.

Kimball's idea of emerging worship is a logical continuation of Wilt's essay on contemporary worship in that he sees a great need for the church to be engaged with and influenced by its culture. He writes, "The truth is that none of us is really worshipping the way the early church originally worshiped. Thus, if we argue that we should not be influenced by culture, then we must recognize that most of us already have been (although the culture that influenced us might stem back to the 1500s)."[35] The extent to which emerging worship patterns follow this philosophy is one of the major criticisms from the responders. Wilt himself suggests that "the greatest risk that the emerging church faces, and emerging worship forms face, is that of being converted by the culture."[36] Lawrence and Dever take their criticism a step further saying, "we are on safer ground biblically if we assume that culture's default effect will be to misshape our worship, and that what is needed is to allow the Scriptures to constantly reform and reshape our worship according to the pattern of the Spirit rather than the pattern of the world."[37]

The body of Kimball's chapter focuses on the various learning styles as understood in the education world and purports that the church should acknowledge and serve these styles. He promotes a multisensory worship experience that proves useful to all congregants whether their learning style be tactile/kinesthetic, auditory, or visual. He contends that the church historically and in general has forced its congregants to receive the gospel message in a predominantly auditory fashion, though only a fraction of people learn best in that way, and that that number can be expected to shrink further in the future as each successive generation becomes more saturated with visual media.[38] Kimball applies this philosophy by comparing worship expression to an artist's palette in which the brushes are prayer and scripture, and the paint colors are video (film), prayer stations, musical worship, sacred space, teaching and spoken word, and the fine arts.[39] Like Lawrence and Dever, Kimball closes his chapter with a sample service plan with all the components listed and explained.

Perspectives on Christian Worship presents a huge array of ideas and beliefs on Western, predominantly white, Christian worship. As some of its contributors acknowledge, the book fails to address Christian worship patterns elsewhere on the globe, or even multi-ethnic Christian practices in the Western hemisphere. That said, this book is a great tool and reference for understanding the worship practices around us, and may even help others form their own beliefs and convictions regarding worship.

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 naïve. 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.

I found the blended worship position to be the most convincing position in the book. Since both the blended worship position and the traditional worship position are very similar, many of the arguments are common to both. Both affirm that Scripture alone is to be our guide in worship, but they differ in how much freedom there is in the performance of the required elements of worship.

Fundamental to the blended perspective on worship is the radical nature of human sin. When God created the world, it was good and was at peace with its Creator. After the fall humanity became corrupted by sin, and this corruption reached every aspect of human nature. Humanity and the world were set in hostility to divine reality, set in antithesis to God as rebel and enemy. We see in the chapters of Genesis after the fall that all human life was affected by sin. Genesis 6:5 states that every purpose or imagining of humanity was evil, despite humanity's building of cities and cultural achievements. All human life was in rebellion against God. And God judged humanity and all humanity's achievements in the flood, for humanity was in a state of rebellion against His kingly rule. If worship is a call, as Dever and Lawrence say, to worship God and serve Him alone, then the radical nature of sin and its power to pervert the worship of God must be adequately understood (219).

The divine subversion of humanity's attempt to make a name for itself at Babel also reveals the enmity between God and his creation. Humanity at Babel attempted to build a great name, but God destroyed this endeavor, and in Genesis 12 God promised to freely bestow a great name on Abraham. True worship is a divine bestowal. It is not a human project. True worship is grounded in the reality of divine condescension, not human willing or exertion.

Furthermore, God requires that we serve him in an upright way, and we learn what it means to worship rightly throughout the Old Testament. Dever and Lawrence make an important reference to Nadab and Abihu in Numbers 3:4. Nadab and Abihu approached God sincerely, but they approached Him in a way that he had not revealed. In the New Testament Jesus gives us a clear command for worship. We are to worship in "spirit and truth" (John 4:24). Worshiping in spirit means not merely worshiping from the heart, but worshiping from a heart transformed by the Holy Spirit sent forth by Jesus (229). We are not commanded to worship in "spirit" alone; we are commanded to worship in truth. Worshiping in truth means that we worship God as He has revealed himself in Jesus Christ. Whereas worshiping in truth in the Old Testament involved worshiping at a specific place, engaging in very specific rites and rituals, and presenting a sacrifice to a priest, worship in the New Testament is transformed by the revelation of God in His own Son. This transformation does not mean that God is not concerned with how we worship. We are still required to worship in truth, but now truth is worship according to God's revelation consummated and fulfilled in Jesus, whose person and work is authoritatively revealed by the Holy Spirit in the apostolic witness. Worship is regulated by Scripture as it is interpreted in the light of Jesus Christ's new covenant work, and the work of Christ is revealed to the church only in the bosom of divinely inspired Scripture.

Because of the radical nature of human sin and the radical holiness of God, "we cannot assume we know how to approach God....If we assume that we know how to approach God, then our own preferences, predilections, and cultural biases will be major sources from which we draw when we ask the question, `How should God be worshiped?'" (232) Because of the deceitfulness of sin, we cannot let our cultural values, expressions, and preferences be our guide. There are specific elements of worship that God has revealed in Scripture: prayer, song, preaching and reading Scripture, offerings, and the ordinances of baptism and the Lord's Supper (236-40). Unlike the Old Testament, the forms, or how these elements are performed, are not revealed in a detailed manner, so we are left generally free to perform these elements as we consider best (241-43). There are only some general principles that we must follow in our forms and circumstances of worship. 1 Corinthians 14 instructs us that worship should be intelligible to outsiders, yet we must also beware of truncating the message to the point that we excise essential Scriptural teaching (244). Here Paul also requires that worship be in an orderly manner; that is, it must be thought through carefully (246-48). Paul also requires that all worship be for the edification of the body, not just for the individual worshiper. This places the emphasis off of the individual's preference and on the body of believers (248-49). Dever and Lawrence also point out that worship should be unifying, not divisive. Preference and style, however, when considered an essential of worship, is divisive, not unifying (249-53). Lastly, Hebrews 12:28-29 teaches us that worship should be both reverent in recognition of the sheer holiness and grandeur of God and expressed corporately in a manner that shows how great God is (253-55).

The strongest criticism that I found against the blended worship perspective was offered by Dan Kimball. Kimball argues that style is always a part of how we communicate. To not recognize this fact leads to a naïve assumption that we worship just as the New Testament church did, not recognizing that the ways we communicate are different from the New Testament church (284-85). This point is important, and it should be thought through carefully. Nevertheless, while Dever and Lawrence do not focus much on culture and the culture specific ways of communicating truth, they do make some relevant points vis-à-vis Kimball's criticism. Culture is part of this fallen world, and thus culture itself is not neutral with regard to the proper worship of God. This distortion of humanity and culture requires that we submit all things to Christ as he reveals himself in Scripture. As Dever and Lawrence state, "We will always bring our own sense of taste and style, our preferences and aversions, to the table. But no matter how much we like or dislike a particular form, we want to submit it to [the elements commanded in Scripture]" (255). This submission of cultural expression to Scripture, as they rightly note, frees corporate worship from wars over preference and the marketing of worship to individual taste or a particular cultural niche (255).

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.

This is not just a great book, it is a book that is definitive in starting a long overdue theological conversation about worship in the church. The writers treat the subject as more than a trend or preference. I found Dr. Pinson's introduction particularly informative. This is a must buy for every serious believer.