Skip to main content

Worship styles

I find myself in the odd position of being quite fond of two very different styles of worship, and being in need of both for a balanced spiritual life - and I gladly defend both from their detractors.

For years I have been fond of contemporary worship, and find it very conducive for spiritual growth and real worship. Some criticize it for its subjective and emotional nature, but in fact that is its advantage, and why I defend it, as it offers something lacking in many forms of worship in traditional churches. Traditional church worship can be lifeless, and most of all, a hollow ritual, an expression of mere religious rationalism or ritualistic religion (but not necessarily; see below). It is objective to an unhealthy degree. You see, Christianity is about a personal, daily-life relationship with God that we are to experience in a real way. It's about a personal relationship with God, not just an intellectual relationship or intellectual religious experience. Modern worship brings that out. It allows one to develop that crucial aspect of Christian spirituality, to experience God in worship, to worship in a meaningful way. Engaging in contemporary worship was revolutionary for my spiritual life, making my walk with God more real, and helping me get away from cold, intellectual spirituality.

That subjective element is important. It's an essential part of Christian living. God commanded us to love him with all our heart, soul, and strength (Deut. 6). That means intellectually, mentally, and emotionally, with all our being. In particular, that's in the word 'strength', which in Hebrew ['odeka] means also 'passion, intensity, all, utterly'. Modern worship brings out that crucial, practical, relational, passionate aspect of worship and experiencing God that the Bible commands.

My problem, though, is with superficial worship, which can be done just as easily with modern or traditional worship, like going thru the motions, excessive emotionalism without substance, pretending, doing it as mere ritual. Another significant problem I see is in how some churches today are taking contemporary worship too far. For example, amps cranked up loud, three electric guitars, and harsh, loud music, rather than more conducive, pleasant contemporary music. That leads to excessive emotionalism, and an irreverent worship atmosphere, more like a hard rock rally than worship. I see this in some churches regularly or special services, even holiday services. And I think, what could be next? The worship team wearing studded leather and spandex? Give me a break. That's human emotionalism, it's not reverent or God-focused, and it's not worship.

Proper contemporary worship has benefited me greatly, and even helped me to better appreciate some traditional forms of worship. In fact, I now feel more of an appreciation and need for "high-church" liturgical, formal, traditional worship (e.g., Lutheran, Catholic, even Methodist). It is reverent and emphasizes the greatness, holiness, and other-worldliness of God, and puts us in our proper place. It teaches spiritual discipline, contemplation of God, reverence and fear of God. It emphasizes the eucharist / communion in a way that is more biblical. It provides things like memorized prayers and liturgies that teach us how to pray and respond to God. All in all, it is very Christ-centered, spiritually beneficial, and reverent. And I can certainly experience God and be emotional but also fearful and reverent in this kind of context, not unlike in contemporary worship.

All in all, I think both styles are important, and should be accorded importance and balance.

BTW, I've found some good sermons online in German from a new church in Hamburg: http://www.icf-network.de [Prädigten auf Deutsch von der ICF-Gemeinde, Hamburg; ein bißschen schwer zu verstehen, weil der Prädiger einen schweizerischen Akzent hat].

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Mystical & charismatic Christianity

As a person with charismatic leanings, I have come to prefer Catholic / Anglican / Episcopal forms of charismatic Christianity. As mentioned in my last post, charismatic Catholicism goes way back to the early church, under the rubric of Christian mysticism. The reason I prefer these forms is because they are more balanced. Protestant charismatics and Pentecostals greatly overemphasize things like speaking in tongues, which are really a minor gift. Tongues have been practiced throughout church history, and there is no historical or scriptural basis for the claim that tongues and other charismatic gifts ever ceased*. But they have never been considered "a big deal" or in any way a sign that a person is more spiritual than another who doesn't do tongues or such gifts. Only with the advent of modern charismatic movements did such an extreme emphasis get put on tongues and charismatic gifts. St. Paul commanded us to desire the better gifts - in that context, he was referring t...

Evangelicalism's gradual demise

The term "evangelical" was popularized by Martin Luther ("evangelisch" in German), which meant a follower of the gospel. The term was originally a very good and useful term, as it referred to someone who believed in a religion based on faith and following the teachings of Christ, rather than man-made religious rules. It was meaningful enough but also broad enough to encompass a general theological orientation and religious lifestyle. It could include and accommodate somewhat different views or interpretations of Christian belief, including those who focused more on the grace, spirituality and lifestyle of Christ. As such, it was not the exclusive property of one religious group or theological orientation. The meaning has been generally positive in modern church history. However, in recent decades the term has been hijacked by fundamentalists who insist on a narrow interpretation of the term, insisting on a set of specific theological beliefs, while ignoring the C...

Apologetics site

A good scriptural apologetics site I found recently is www.christian-thinktank.com , which provides explanations for difficult biblical passages and issues. I can't vouch for everything yet, but one article I liked gives a good explanation for the ordered attacks and killings of Canaanites and Amalekites in the Old Testament, and similar OT controversies.