Stupid Scholar

For quite some time, I have been intrigued with the “Worship Wars” going on within Evangelical churches, especially as concerns style. The debates, while usually civil, can become heated and hurtful. Indeed, churches have suffered divisions and parishioners have been hurt over the debate about which style, contemporary or traditional, is more appropriate for the worship of God.

However, I want to point out that the underlying motivation behind both sides of this argument are to be highly commended. Both sides of the issue have very godly motives as the foundation for what they do. To varying degrees, both camps desire to both love God and love neighbor. Too often this is missed, but it should not be.

Therefore, given how very easy it is to write off one’s opposition as apostate and unchristlike, I think it is very important to start with the positives of each side. Both sides have a very strong desire to please Christ; they simply approach it in very different ways. This must not be forgotten.

Those espousing the more contemporary worship style often do so for very evangelistic reasons. Yes, there are other reasons, but this seems, to me anyway, to take priority. They see our Lord’s command in Matthew 28 to preach the Gospel to all men as tantamount to the Christian mission. Their goal is to attract vast numbers of non-Christians to church on Sunday mornings, or whenever the service actually occurs, with the hopes that by coming, enjoying, and even participating, the truths of the Gospel will sink in. The goal is to see non-Christians come to know and love Jesus. Hence, they pick music that appeals to unbelievers, new believers, and even those diametrically opposed to all that is Christian. It is usually upbeat, short, easy to understand, and in everyday language.

Contrary to frequent opinion, contemporary worshipists in no way suggest that the Gospel be compromised or sacrificed at any cost. In fact, to do so would stymie the contemporary movement, for their whole purpose is to proclaim the One Gospel to unbelievers. If the Gospel is compromised, then their mission is a failure. You cannot share the Gospel and distort it at the same time. In a common illustration, they keep a closed fist around the essentials and an open hand upon the unessentials. Style, order, time, length, dress, etc. can be changed, but the truth of the Gospel cannot. The contemporary side understands this, and normally they comply.

It also needs to be noted that the contemporary worship movement is not all about music. Their philosophy and theology penetrates much deeper than that. Oftentimes, the whole service is organized under a rubric of evangelization. For instance, the offering is either removed or made more subtle because unbelievers may feel uncomfortable or that the church is trying to milk money out of them. Also, like the music, sermons are normally easy to understand. They often incorporate illustrations from modern culture and are short (Mark Driscoll a noted exception). The Sacrament is rare, removed, or transported to a different day/time because it would appear quite bizarre to the average non-Christian.

Furthermore, much of the service is ordered under the banner of “Relevance.” If the goal is to bring people to a saving knowledge of Christ, then why would be talk about perichoresis, supralapsarianism, aseity, or even justification, sanctification, and glorification? These words have no meaning to anyone outside the Church; they are simply never used in everyday speech. Thus, the assumption is that using this terminology will encourage people not to return. Again, music should be up beat and “poppy” because this is what the average non-Christian is used to. We can’t expect them to come, stay, and be involved in a place that has no interaction with their culture. St. Paul calls this difference milk and meat. Feeding unbelievers meat will drive them away.

Finally, “felt needs” become a major issue in contemporary worship services. Helping the poor, feeding the hungry, encouraging the hurting, and teaching people to organize their lives, deal with difficult situations, and developing meaningful relationships are major topics in these churches. This is because these are major concerns of today’s society. Far from being a mere “social gospel,” the point here is to scratch people where they are itching with the intent of sharing salvation that only comes through Christ at the end. Felt needs are an important concern because once someone has had their felt needs met, they will probably be more open to discussing spiritual needs. They are a way to get the Church’s “foot in the door.”

Thus, we can see that a good bit of the underlying motivation behind much of the contemporary worship movement is to reach the world for Christ, or at least the immediate community. Souls are on the line, and they need to hear the Gospel. The life, death, resurrection, and return of Christ must be proclaimed to those that do not believe. Those that promote contemporary worship are convinced that the old methods and styles don’t work in the modern world. The archaic husk must be shucked away and replaced, without harming the succulent core of the true Gospel. Rather than being all about rock music, happy-clappy emotions, and shallow theology, this movement is bent on sharing the Gospel with those on the road towards Hell. Indeed, it is quite difficult to argue against that sentiment, and anytime one wants to share the Gospel, his or her motivation is to be highly commended.

Sure, there are lot more motivations lying behind contemporary worship, but this seems to be the major common denominator. I start here because it is so important to recognize our allies, and all Christians desire the salvation of others. Whether or not you agree with this style, we can all agree with and commend the desire to share the Gospel.