Perspectives on Christian Worship: Five Views

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.

I enjoyed reading/learning about the different worship styles. I did not like that the authors of the odd chapters were not given a chance to comment after their peers responded to their initial writing.

In the tradition of many recent works on various controversial topics, Perspectives on Christian Worship: 5 Views is a "debate in a book." How do we worship God properly? That is a big question for which there is much disagreement today. This book seeks to contribute to the debate by allowing five traditions to be heard in their own words and responded to in an orderly way.Pinson sets the stage for the book in the introduction, where he presents a brief sketch of the history of worship. He makes note of the "tension between the need to remain faithful to the gospel and the Christian tradition while at the same time faithfully communicating that Evangel in a changing and complex cultural milieu that presents mammoth challenges to the continued witness of the Christian church." It is, in general, this tension that each contributor addresses in their essay. Five views on worship are presented by leading pastors/theologians in their various traditions: liturgical (Timothy Quill), traditional evangelical (Ligon Duncan), contemporary (Dan Wilt), blended (Michael Lawrence and Mark Dever), and emerging (Dan Kimball). After the presentation of each view, the other contributors are given a chance to respond to the said view. Below is the conclusion of my review followed by a link to the review:"In conclusion, this book is an excellent introduction and addition to the worship debate. There are a few things we would have liked have seen in it. First, while it is admitted that this book is not a complete coverage of the spectrum of worship traditions, a charismatic view would have been an excellent addition, particularly if the chapter included some information about their view of gifts in worship. Second, we would have liked it if each contributor had been given a chance to do one final response to the rebuttals. Of course, both of the previous desires would have added considerable length to the book and probably more time to its construction, so it may not have been feasible. Third, we would have like some kind of wrap up from the editor—something that would pull major strands together and emphasize points of agreement. A final chapter of this sort could have potentially added to the overall contribution of this book to the worship debate."Those who would like to read this book might find it helpful first to read H. Richard Niebuhr’s Christ and Culture. Some of the underlying issues of the debate in this book stem from a theology (conscious or not) of how Christians should engage culture. Niebuhr’s five views would be helpful in thinking about the philosophy that drives a representative’s theology of worship. Of course, that adds a lot of extra reading."We would recommend this book for pastors, seminary students, or any other believer who wants to thoughtfully consider their worship of God. The views set forth, while not representing the complete spectrum of Protestant worship theologies, give a great introduction to five of the major theologies of worship extant in the Protestant Church. In addition, the endnotes of each chapter provide an excellent resource for further study on a particular topic, if the reader is so inclined."You can read the whole review <a href="https://docs.google.com/open?id=0ByhsP0_ubSVpSFBZNkVrTldTWlU">here</a>.

First, let my say that each contributor is an elite in their field, and one should read their writings if possible. Also, Pinson's introduction is probably one of the best overviews and history of worship I have ever read. The introduction itself should be a required read for any scholar and practitioner of worship.The challenge comes from the nature of the book. While it was not the intent, I seems as though each writer is put in the position to be the champion for their defined perspective. Instead of writing about their view of worship, many take an offensive or defensive approach showing how their view is more biblical than the other. Other times, writers like Duncan or Kimball approach the heart of the matter, knowing that the specifics may be different depending on setting and attempt to be as inclusive and scriptural as possible. Then in the responses, the other contributors tear a part elements based on preconceived ideas many of which not even mentioned in the specific writings. Depending on the perspective of the reader going in, these responses can completely distract from what was gleaned while reading the initial writing.While debating is healthy, the nature the book does not allow for all sides to respond to each other as would be allowed in a true debate or conversation.These perspectives and writers are necessary in understanding worship as a whole, but I would recommend going to the sources directly and diving deeper into their writings instead of a single compilation of a snapshot of their perspectives.

Fascinating look at worship practices across a wide spectrum of Christianity. From liturgical, to traditional,to contemporary,to blended and to emergent.