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].
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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...
Post a Comment
Read more

Portraits of Christ: John’s Gospel, part 2

In John’s Gospel we have an emphasis on Jesus that is unique compared to the other gospels. John not only emphasizes his deity, but his mysteriousness. The reader is left with an impression of Jesus as a mystical teacher, in the sense that his words and actions are not only those of a profound religious teacher, but of one who is other-worldly. So often in this gospel we read of Jesus making statements that the crowds, the religious teachers, and even his own disciples sometimes could not fathom. For starters, there are the “I am” statements (e.g., I am the bread of life; I am the living water; I am the good shepherd; I am the way, the truth, and the life), which were clearly claims to divinity, for these statements in the Jewish context referred to God’s title “I am,” given when Moses inquired of his name at the burning bush. Jesus makes much use of mystical metaphors like these and others, like all the ‘day’ and ‘night’ references in this book, which portrays him as mystical or my...
Post a Comment
Read more

Portraits of Christ: Luke’s Gospel

Particularly in Luke, we see a Jesus born and raised in the backwaters of insignificant Jewish towns - born in Bethlehem, and growing up in the small farm village of Nazareth. You would think that if God mainly cared for or wanted to influence the powerful and mighty of the world, then Jesus should have been born in Rome, or Athens, or Alexandria, or at least Jerusalem. Instead he is born to a peasant girl named Mary in the middle of nowhere, at a time when the province of Judea suffered under poverty and oppression. Incredibly, her peasant son changed the world. But he never did it by allying himself with the rich and powerful or even seeking them out in order to implement his program. Usually if you want to start an influential movement, even as a grassroots movement, you would still recruit some wealthy donors and celebrities or leaders to promote your movement. Jesus did it totally opposite. He did not even focus on winning over the religious establishment; in fact, he often chall...
Post a Comment
Read more