Upload
dr-daniel-k-robinson
View
604
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Page 1 Today’s Worship Constructs © 2012 Dr Daniel K. Robinson
Today’s Worship Constructs Objectives:
1. Survey multiple models used to illustrate worship constructs
2. Understand and distinguish between the five modern worship styles
3. Clearly define the three worship forms utilised in modern worship settings
Outcomes:
This session has been purposefully designed to survey the variety of options available to the Christian
worshipper, and the worshipping community at large, during the commencement of the 21st century.
Seeking to view the options as equal, the students are encouraged to identify distinguishing features of
the different constructs while also classifying each setting’s strengths and weaknesses.
1. IllustratingtheWorshipConstructSpectrum
Having already surveyed the developmental history of the Christian Church and the evolution of her
worship practices in previous sessions it is apparent that the multiplicity of worship expression in the
21st century church is diverse. This same diversity makes it difficult to identify and categorise modern
church constructs. For example, it is no longer possible to attend a particular denomination with the
expectation that you will enter into an archetypical worship expression. Specifically, within the Baptist
denomination, one might expect to experience worship ranging from a Traditional service (utilising
predominantly hymns) through to a Charismatic expression (utilising mainly modern choruses).
“One of the best ways to determine what we mean by Christian worship is to describe the
outward and visible forms of worship by Christians.” (White, 2000, pp. 18–19)
Readings
• Cherry (2010). The Worship Architect. Chapters 13 & 14 (pp. 221–257)
• Pinson (2009). Perspectives on Christian Worship: 5 views. Read complete text.
• Robinson (2011). Contemporary Worship Singers: Construct, Culture, Environment and Voice. Chapters 2 & 6 (pp. 35–45; 196–207). This text can be accessed online ‐ bit.ly/IXArES
Christian Worship PC315/515
Page 2
Today’s Worship Constructs © 2012 Dr Daniel K. Robinson
Among the first to articulate the modern variants of worship style was Barry Liesch (1996). In his book, The New Worship: Straight Talk on Music and the Church, Liesch lays out three forms for worship: Liturgical, Thematic and Flowing Praise (below). Liesch also notes, “The three forms are not mutually exclusive; they can be blended” (p. 72). This blending of the styles is a crucial consideration in the continuing development towards codification of worship forms.
Three years later Paul Basden (1999) took up the cause of codification with his book The Worship Maze: Finding a style to fit your Church. Basden suggested that, at the time of his writing, presenting the various forms of worship are best shown as a liner “worship spectrum” (p. 36).
Liesch's Three Formats of Worship (Liesch, 1996, p. 81)
Basden's Worship Spectrum (Basden, 1999, p. 36)
Christian Worship PC315/515
Page 3
Today’s Worship Constructs © 2012 Dr Daniel K. Robinson
Five years later, Basden edited the text Exploring the Worship Spectrum: 6 Views (2004). Interestingly the text labels six worship styles: Formal‐Liturgical, Traditional Hymn‐based, Contemporary Music‐Driven, Charismatic, Blended, and Emerging. The first two labels, Formal‐Liturgical and Traditional Hymn‐Based fall neatly in line with Basden’s earlier writings, but the remaining four labels represent a definite shift in the less traditional styles.
To further exemplify the miscellany of classification in the current dialogue of codification, Dyrness’ (2009) recent representation of contemporary movements is of interest:
Dyrness seemingly builds on Basden’s (1999) worship spectrum, but in seeking to update the currency of terms, he does away with the labels ‘Charismatic’ (Basden, 2004) as well as ‘Revivalist’ and ‘Praise and Worship’ (Basden, 1999) and groups them under the label ‘Contemporary Worship.’ In qualifying his Spectrum of Worship Renewal (above) Dyrness purports,
On the left are those whose services are most distant from the medieval pattern, but who attempt to make the strongest connection with the culture around them. On the right, by contrast, are those who would hold more closely to the traditional patterns of worship and want to stand against any influence from the culture. (p. 69)
To declare that one group seeks to make a stronger connection with surrounding culture than another whilst the other group reject outside cultural influences seems to be heavily reductionist running the risk of error, especially when advocates of Emergent Church (Kimball, 2004; Morgenthaler, 2004) declare a desire to connect with their immediate cultures. Morgenthaler (2004) passionately promotes the notion that “At their core, emerging worship services are encounters with God born out of a dual passion for theological rootedness and a deeply transforming connection with a radically deconstructed culture” (p. 230).
The Spectrum of Worship Renewal, 2000‐2005 (Dyrness, 2009, p. 70)
Christian Worship PC315/515
Page 4
Today’s Worship Constructs © 2012 Dr Daniel K. Robinson
In 2010 I put forward five main Australian worship styles: Liturgical, Traditional, Contemporary, Blended and Charismatic/Pentecostal (Robinson, 2010). Certainly, as considered previously in the review of Basden and Dyrness’s work, Liturgical and Traditional were conventional uses of term, but the acknowledgement of Contemporary, Blended and Charismatic/Pentecostal remains arguable. In my chapter on Teaching the Contemporary Worship Singer I clarified the omission of Emerging Worship in my categories by stating,
Other worship styles (such as the Emerging Worship style) have enjoyed wide use in the United States but the scope of this chapter is on the five styles that have wide acceptance throughout Australian churches. Of these, it is also important to recognise that American worship liturgy incorporated Charismatic/Pentecostal under the definition of Contemporary. While this trend is developing in Australia, there are still observable distinctions between the two styles. (p. 277)
Qualifiers of both geography and time are important. While Charismatic/Pentecostal styles are still readily observable on the Australian worship landscape they are becoming less so; even with the passing
of only 24 to 36 months. Additionally, Emerging worship styles are becoming more prevalent. The Australian worship scene can now be categorised under J. Matthew Pinson’s (2009) editorial work in Perspectives on Christian Worship: 5 Views, Constance M. Cherry’s (2010) The Worship Architect: A Blueprint for Designing Culturally Relevant and Biblically Faithful Services and my doctoral dissertation Contemporary Worship Singers: Construct, Culture, Environment and Voice (Robinson, 2011). Not dissimilar to Basden’s (2004) Exploring the Worship Spectrum: 6 Views, Pinson’s, Cherry’s and Robinson’s works
independently gather the definitions under five headings: Liturgical, Traditional Evangelical, Contemporary, Blended and Emerging. Pinson’s and Cherry’s labels will be utilised from this point forward, acknowledging them as a recent work on the subject of worship setting codification. Pinson’s (2009) introductory chapter concedes that “radical oversimplification of…complex historical
Mapping Emerging Church Theology (Patton, 2008)
Christian Worship PC315/515
Page 5
Today’s Worship Constructs © 2012 Dr Daniel K. Robinson
Before continuing, take the time to attempt your own illustrative modelling of the
modern worship settings. Do you agree or disagree with the distillation of worship styles
into Liturgical, Traditional, Contemporary, Blended, and Emerging? If you disagree, how
would you label the modern worship settings?
expressions” (p. 13) would accompany the inclusion of groups such as Pentecostal and Charismatic movements thereby justifying their inclusion under the Contemporary heading.
Before defining the five modern worship styles in detail, review the following model that I developed (Robinson, 2011) as a framework over which further definition (worship forms and cultural tensions) might be laid:
The Five Worship Styles (Robinson, 2011, p. 204)
Christian Worship PC315/515
Page 6
Today’s Worship Constructs © 2012 Dr Daniel K. Robinson
2. 21stCenturyWorshipStyles
Before we qualify each of today’s five worship styles currently in practice across the Australian (and
most of the Westernised world) church landscape it is helpful to briefly survey the cultural climate in
which these settings are placed. As with previous historical periods Christian worship does not take
place in a social vacuum. John D. Hannah (2004) writes,
The impact of postmodern cultural values on the mission of the church is neither all evil nor all good. The
modern assumption of objective truth acquired solely through reason slighted the necessity of divine
revelation. Christian faith is neither rational nor irrational; it is supernatural. It confesses to truth beyond our
senses. Further, postmodernism should help us to see afresh the value of personal testimony in witnessing to
the Christian faith. (p. 132)
Hannah presents the following chart as a report on the differences between modern and postmodern
views of truth:
John Sweetman (2012c, pp. 5–6) outlines five possible implications for corporate worship which might
be brought about by postmodernism:
1. Ancient: Postmoderns are keen to explore aspects of corporate worship that were practiced and valued
by their forefathers
2. Future: Worship in the postmodern age may also be characterised by variety, creativity, multimedia
presentations, and diverse images and experiences.
3. Involvement: It is likely that Postmoderns will want to participate in corporate worship, interacting with
the liturgy.
4. Networking: Postmoderns are suspicious of institutions but are comfortable with networks.
5. Community: Postmoderns have a strong capacity for attachment and group orientation.
Modern and Postmodern View of Truth (Hannah, 2004, p. 132)
Christian Worship PC315/515
Page 7
Today’s Worship Constructs © 2012 Dr Daniel K. Robinson
Liturgical Worship
The oldest worship style, Liturgical Worship, has developed from
the Roman Catholic service design of the middle ages (500–1500
AD). The label ‘Liturgical’ should not be confused with the term
‘liturgy’. Dawn (1995) explains that “the term leitourgia [liturgy],
composed of the Greek words ergon (‘work’) and laos (‘people’),
actually means ‘the work of the people’ and thus designates
every action of the laity” (p. 242). While every worship style
employs a liturgy, Liturgical Worship is distinguished by its
predominant use of classic hymns and prescriptive rites. An
example of this style is the High Anglican Church which typically
accompanies the congregational singing with an organ while directing its progression through the
service using the Book of Common Prayer (Wainwright & Tucker, 2006, p. 527). This worship style might
also be observed in the post Vatican II Roman Catholic Mass as well as many of today’s Lutheran
services.
The structure of the Liturgical worship style is typically modular (see 21st Century Worship Forms, p.16)
and is designed around two main points: service of the Word and service of Holy Communion.
Sweetman (2012a) outlines the following structural example of the Lutheran liturgy (p. 3):
The Preparation Trinitarian Invocation – calling on God the Trinity to be present as he has promised. Confession and Absolution – there is time for confession of sin as people kneel, then the pastor
may say something like: “In the stead and by the command of my Lord Jesus Christ, I forgive you all your sins in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”
Service of the Word Introit (Entrance Psalm) – parts of a psalm are sung as the celebrant and ministers move to their
seats Kyrie – “Lord have mercy, Christ have mercy, Lord have mercy” (Mt. 9:27, Luke 17:13, Mt. 15:22) Gloria in Excelsis (“Glory in the highest”) – a song of praise and joy, like that of the angels (Lk.
2:14) Salutation and Response – Leader: “The Lord be with you” Response: “And with your spirit”
(Judg. 6:12, Ruth 2:4, Luke 1:28) Collect of the Day – a petitionary prayer Old Testament Reading – set for the day, usually read by a lay person Gradual (taken from the psalms) – usually chanted Epistle Reading – set for the day Verse and Alleluia – a verse and a song that express joy at hearing God’s Word Holy Gospel – the congregation stands to listen to the reading from the Gospels Hymn of the Day Sermon – the topic is determined by the readings in the liturgy
Liturgical Worship is often centred on the Eucharist.
Christian Worship PC315/515
Page 8
Today’s Worship Constructs © 2012 Dr Daniel K. Robinson
Creed – recitation of the Nicene creed Offertory – with appropriate actions by the pastor and response by the people Prayer of the Faithful – a set prayer for the world and the church with the regular congregational
response: “Hear our prayer” Service of Holy Communion Preface – a chanted introduction by the pastor and response by the people Sanctus (holy) – a set song commencing “Holy, holy, holy” Eucharist Prayer – prayer of consecration of the bread and wine Lord’s Prayer Words of Institution – reflecting the words of Jesus at the Last Supper Peace – Pastor: “The peace of Christ be always with you.” The people pass the peace to each
other. Agnus Dei (“the Lamb of God”) – sung or recited, starting “Lamb of God, you take away the sins
of the world, have mercy on us” Communion Final Prayer – thanking God for his gift and praying for faith to love God and others Dismissal or Blessing – Num. 6:24 Recessional hymn – the pastor leaves Ite Missa Est – the pastor returns and says: “Go in peace to love and serve the Lord”
Constance M. Cherry (2010) in her text The Worship Architect provides us with a list of general
characteristics observed in the Liturgical style (p. 231):
Vertical Direction
Focus on the transcendence of God
God‐centred
‘Classic’ prayers, hymns, anthems, etc.
Weekly (or frequent) Eucharist
Prominent use of symbols, use of paraments1, intentional placement of
furniture, symbolic architecture
Much congregation participation
The liturgy is viewed holistically as prayer
Interestingly, Scripture saturates the liturgical service more than it
does any other worship style. (Basden, 1999, p. 53)
1 Paraments: “Cloth adornments for liturgical furniture (e.g. pulpit scarf, communion table runner), the colours corresponding to the liturgical season or occasion” (Provance, 2009, p. 96).
Critique:
What are the strengths of Liturgical
Worship? What are the possible weaknesses?
Christian Worship PC315/515
Page 9
Today’s Worship Constructs © 2012 Dr Daniel K. Robinson
Traditional Worship
The Traditional Worship style developed as a reaction to the
prescriptive form of Liturgical worship. J. Ligon Duncan (2009)
states that “the preached word is the central feature of Reformed
[Traditional] worship” (p. 106), which is different to its predecessor
(Liturgical Worship) that holds the celebration of the Eucharist as
central. Evolving from the Pietist and Methodist renewal (ca. 18th
Century) Traditional Worship employs hymns which are “written to
accommodate untrained voices and thus to permit the maximum
participation of the masses in the worship service. Typically, hymns
are short, strophic, and rhythmically simple, and they usually do
not modulate to remote keys” (Russell, 1997, p. 99). Stereotypically observed in Presbyterian, Wesleyan
and Salvation Army churches, Traditional Worship’s hymns may be written for the unskilled voice but as
Evans (2006) contends, “The evangelical hymn writers greatly increased the vocabulary of their
congregations and their ability to cope with complex theological language and thought” (p. 35).
Up until the 1960s, liturgy and traditional hymn‐singing dominated the worship landscape of
churches across the Western world. (Wilt, 2009, p. 168)
It is difficult to outline the ‘typical’ traditional order of service. Sweetman (2012a) offers an example of
the traditional evangelical service as it might have been experienced in the mid‐20th century (p. 6):
Special Music – usually quiet and reverent to prepare the worshippers to meet with their holy God. People would enter the sanctuary quietly and spend some time bowed in personal prayer before the service.
Call to Worship/Introit – a fixed song sung by the congregation asking God to be present and to be honoured by the worship service. (For example, one introit began: “Jesus, stand among us in thy risen power. May this time of worship be a hallowed hour.”)
Prayer – a prayer of worship and thanksgiving prayer by the pastor. Hymn of Praise – a song of worship, full of theology, usually accompanied by an organ. Old Testament Reading – a Scripture reading chosen by the pastor, often a psalm, sometimes
read responsively with the pastor reading one verse and the congregation the next. Solo/Children’s Talk/Choir – a segment that could include a talk for the children or some special
music provided by a choir or soloist. Announcements – letting the congregation know about important events. Usually presented by
the Church Secretary. Offering and Prayer ‐ the collection of the offering is followed by a prayer by the pastor while
the offering is presented at the front of the church. Hymn
Traditional Worship employs mostly hymns
Christian Worship PC315/515
Page 10
Today’s Worship Constructs © 2012 Dr Daniel K. Robinson
New Testament Reading – a Scripture reading chosen by the pastor, often the text for the sermon.
Pastoral Prayer – a wide ranging prayer by the pastor covering the needs of the congregation, churches, community, missionaries, and the world.
Hymn Sermon – based on one of the readings. Hymn Benediction – spoken by the pastor or sung by the congregation.
Cherry (2010) outlines the following characteristics as generally found in traditional worship (p. 233):
Committed to the fourfold order (yet without the Table on many Sundays)
Hymn‐based
Choir‐based (age‐level choirs and instrumental ensembles)
Use of standard choral literature
Primary instrumentation provided by organ and/or piano
Lectionary‐based (often but not always)
Use of standard prayer types (collect, prayer of confession, the Lord’s Prayer, etc.)
Cherry further qualifies traditional worship by outlining a
range of ‘Pros’ and ‘Cons’ (p. 233):
PROS:
Uses a rich heritage of content Hymns and prayers are a treasure trove of good
theology
Generally more objective
Tends toward intergenerational
CONS:
Tends to ignore the fresh creativity of the present age
May tend toward ‘performance’ worship because of the high involvement of choirs and ‘special’
music
May emphasise worship as ‘program’ versus worship as ‘prayer’
If mere traditionalism for the sake of aesthetics is suspect, surely the same is true of mere
innovation for the sake of excitement. (Carson, 2002, p. 33)
Traditional Worship may tend toward performance where worship is done for the people
by choirs and special music
Christian Worship PC315/515
Page 11
Today’s Worship Constructs © 2012 Dr Daniel K. Robinson
Contemporary Worship
The twentieth century observed the development of three new movements of worship expression. The first, Pentecostal worship began with the Azusa Street revival (1906) in Los Angeles. The second new movement of the 20th century, the Charismatic Renewal, often referred to as ‘neo‐Pentecostalism’ (Williams, 2001) developed “within historic churches” (p. 220) during the 1950s. Most recently,
In the last decades of the twentieth century, charismatic worship has exerted a great influence on worship of all faiths. The charismatic model of free‐flowing praise, Old Testament worship pattern,
accommodation of contemporary culture, use of popular sounding music, embrace of technology, and emotional appeal has altered worship practice in many congregations around the globe. Particular to this phenomenon is the music usually referred to as “praise and worship” music. (Segler & Bradley, 2006, p. 47)
The third new movement was predominantly a musical one. Known as the ‘Praise and Worship’ movement the reformation of hymnody, saw the development of the modern chorus. Leon Neto (2010) assets that in “the same way traditional hymns were the sound image of the Great Awakening [Traditional Worship] and tent revivals, Praise and Worship songs are the face of the new millennium Christian church” (p. 196).
Collectively Pentecostalism, the Charismatic, and Praise and Worship movements are grouped under the label Contemporary Worship. The Contemporary style can be observed in Pentecostal churches like the Assemblies of God and the denomination that birthed the Praise and Worship movement: John Wimber’s Vineyard. Importantly though, the Contemporary worship style is not restricted to Pentecostal and Charismatic churches alone; with many main‐line churches embracing the Contemporary style’s capacity to “engage culture on the levels of language, music, intimacy, emotion, simplicity, and story” (Wilt, 2009, p. 159).
Dr John Sweetman (2012b), in his Christian Worship module Contemporary Worship makes the bold claim “It appears that the ‘worship wars’ have been won by contemporary worship, or at least a peaceful agreement has been reached” (p. 3). As eager as many of us are to observe the cessation of heated debate within the body of Christ around the subject of worship, it is unlikely that any worship style can claim victory over the other expressions of worship; regardless of its seemingly dominant use. Marva Dawn (1995) reminds us that,
…idolatry of power is often at the root of many congregations’ divisions over the style and format of worship services. The war between ‘traditionalist’ and those who advocate ‘cotemporary’ styles often becomes a subtle battle for power instead of a communitarian conversation that could result in a blending of the old and new treasures to be found in the Word and in music. (pp. 52–53)
Sadly, it would seem that while ever our inherent sinfulness and resulting lustful pursuit for power remains (however subtle) the fiery worship wars will continue.
Contemporary Worship is centred on music and the worship participant
Do you agree or disagree with
Sweetman's view that the worship wars have been
won by Contemporary Worship?
Christian Worship PC315/515
Page 12
Today’s Worship Constructs © 2012 Dr Daniel K. Robinson
Despite Sweetman’s victory declaration (or conceding defeat) he is rather pointed in his summation of the Contemporary worship style when he writes,
To put it bluntly, contemporary worship is in danger of becoming single‐faceted, neglectful of the rich resources for worship, and boring. A preponderance of singing has lessened the opportunity for the creativity that God is looking for in our response to his revelation. We do need to find ways to diversify the elements in our worship and to be more creative. (2012b, p. 14)
Sweetman is not alone in his criticism of Contemporary Worship. In her text A Royal Waste of Time Dawn (1999) lists six concerns regarding what she terms ‘consumer‐orientated’ worship (pp. 63–65; Sweetman, 2012b):
1. Relativism: We are offering less truth and becoming therapeutic rather than theological.
2. Entertainment: We sacrifice content for entertainment and confuse worship with evangelism and evangelism with marketing. Worship form should reflect the type of life to which Jesus calls us.
3. Pluralistic: We blur our unique identity as the people of God instead of accentuating it with loving commitment.
4. Rootless: We give up our heritage as communities with long histories and global connections. 5. Loss of moral authority: We become tolerant to the point where we cease to be a people
formed by the narratives of Scripture. 6. Consumerism: We offer a range of options to meet ‘felt needs’ and make decisions by majority
preferences instead of embracing what is truly needful.
It is important to temper Dawn’s critical overview here by acknowledging that in our 21st century postmodernist society all worship styles are at risk of succumbing to the temptations of the age and developing a consumer‐orientated experience in worship.
The typical order of service for the Contemporary worship style is heavily reduced to only a few key components:
Worship Set: using between 3 & 5 modern worship choruses the worship set commences the service is often interjected by a short welcome to worship and exhortations to participate.
Announcements & Prayer: generally a short 5 to 10 minute segment, the announcements are often delivered in an engaging and humorous manner. This also the time when children are dismissed to the Sunday school program.
1‐2 Worship Songs or Communion: more often the period preceding the sermon is given to song, but it might also observe communion.
Sermon: a 20 to 40 minute talk is delivered (typically by the Senior Pastor). The central message of the sermon is not necessarily connected thematically to the rest of the service (see Error! Not a valid bookmark self‐reference., p.16). The sermon often culminates in a prayer of commitment giving time for the worship team to walk back onto to stage.
1‐2 Worship Songs and Closing Prayer: At times these songs will reinforce the subject matter covered by the sermon; more often than not they are simply an energetic ‘book end’ to close the service.
All worship styles are at risk ofbecoming 'Consumer‐Orientated'
Christian Worship PC315/515
Page 13
Today’s Worship Constructs © 2012 Dr Daniel K. Robinson
Blended Worship
It is the widespread infiltration of contemporary styled worship into mainline churches that has led to a widely utilised hybrid: Blended Worship. Michael Lawrence and Mark Dever (2009) define Blended worship as “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” (p. 223). Essentially Blended worship style combines, or blends, the strengths of the Liturgical or Traditional style with the employment of the Contemporary style
and more importantly, contemporary music (worship choruses). Sometimes referred to as ‘Convergence Worship’, this style is often observed as a specially designed service held by churches conventionally given to Liturgical or Traditional style services. “Some Anglican churches, for example may hold a Sunday night church service which will also employ the stylistic features of a Contemporary worship style while holding to the narration of [the] Anglican liturgy” (Robinson, 2010, p. 278). The Blended worship style uses a combination of old and new hymns as well as recently written choruses.
The father of Blended (Convergence) worship is Robert Webber. While writing about convergence worship Webber (1993) outlines four guiding principles for the worship style (p. 122):
Open Discourse: Those engaging in blended worship are encouraged to ask ‘what is worship’ and ‘why do we worship’. “Convergence worshipers believe these basic questions need to be continually addressed from the biblical, historical, and social science perspectives.”
Teachable: Keen to learn from the entire worshipping community “convergence worshipers look sympathetically at both liturgical worship and the worship of evangelicals, blacks, Anabaptists, Pentecostals and charismatics.”
Respect for History: Convergence worshippers seek to understand and engage with the rich tapestry of Christian worship’s history.
Contemporary Relevance: Despite an active connection with the history of Christian worship convergence worshippers “are mindful that worship is an act of communication between God and God’s people. Consequently these worship leaders feel worship must touch the lives of people, stimulate personal and spiritual formation, and result in the healing of the inner person and of relationships.”
Blended worship employs a four‐fold pattern of worship (Sweetman, 2012c, p. 9):
Gathering: including worship, prayer, confession and lingering in the presence of God.
Word: hearing God’s story through Scripture, sermon and perhaps discussion Eucharist: songs, Table, intimacy and opportunity for anointing and prayer
ministry Dismissal
Blended Worship seeks to combine the old and the new
Critique:
What are the strengths of Blended
Worship? What are the possible weaknesses?
Christian Worship PC315/515
Page 14
Today’s Worship Constructs © 2012 Dr Daniel K. Robinson
Emerging Worship
The most recent development in worship service design has been the Emerging Worship style. Emerging worship seeks to move away from the linear employment of the worship service elements. Emerging worship advocate Dan Kimball (2004) suggests “there is no model of an emerging worship gathering because each one is unique to its local church context, community, people, and specific leaders of the church” (p. 73). In seeking to restructure the linear progression of the worship service the design of Emerging worship is reliant on enabling the worship participant to freely move between worship stations at
their own discretion.2 Emerging worship seeks to utilise music in much the same way as the Blended style, with both hymns and choruses employed. In describing his own Emerging church’s use of music, Kimball (2009) writes, “we generally start off with about ten minutes of musical worship…the band leads in pop‐worship songs that are usually upbeat and mainly celebratory. The musical worship leader selects both modern pop‐worship songs and hymns” (p. 312). Again, similar to the Blended worship style, Emerging worship is often found (though not exclusively so) as a specifically designed service, created as an adjunct to established churches of various denominational persuasions.
As in many emerging churches, much of the appeal is to young people turned off by what they
perceive as the lack of authenticity in traditional churches and the consumer mind‐set of many
contemporary churches. The longing for authenticity, relational connection, and cultural engagement
means these churches are intent on shedding themselves of cultural baggage (such as bulletins,
formal dress, and church ceremony) in order to live authentically in their culture (ministering to the
needy, deeply connecting with one another, and listening to God’s Word ‘straight,’ i.e., with direct
application and without embellishment). (Chapell, 2009, pp. 271–272)
Given that this style is still emerging (pun intended) it is difficult to fully quantify the service design. Nevertheless, Cherry (2010) supplies us with a reliable list of general characteristics (pp. 237–238):
Postmodern view (recognition of personal and societal brokenness)
Non‐idealistic about the human spirit
Sensory in nature (values the use of all five senses in worship)
Highly experiential (hands‐on involvement in worship)
Commonly led rather than hierarchy of leadership
Views contemporary worship as utterly self‐referencing (focused on human needs, feelings, desires)
Appreciation for ancient forms of worship interpreted in contemporary ways
Appreciation for all art forms (all art forms assist in experiencing God)
Has moderate interest in technology (views technology as somewhat artificial
Strives to engage people with the person of Christ
Worship as realignment (I realign to God; God does not realign to me)
2 Kimball (2004) describes the variety of worship stations as including “water basins, clay tables, or other scripturally‐based stations for people to worship God through creative expression” (p. 14)
Emerging Worship seeks to employ a non‐linear liturgy
Christian Worship PC315/515
Page 15
Today’s Worship Constructs © 2012 Dr Daniel K. Robinson
Perhaps because of its relative ‘newness’ Emerging worship seems to form a distinct polemic between those who endorse and those who disapprove of the style. Sweetman (2012c) delivers a balanced review of the style critiquing the pros and the cons (pp. 13–14):
PROS:
It returns worship to the people. They are heavily involved in the worship and not just part of the audience. This helps develop worshippers not consumers.
It provides a helpful correction to the monochrome, music‐based worship that defines contemporary worship. It reminds us that not everyone sees worship the same way.
It offers worship that is relevant to postmoderns and a variety of cultures that don’t fit into contemporary worship.
It offers something for everyone, especially the non‐singers. The children, the outsiders, the uneducated, the depressed, the doubting, etcetera, can all find expressions of worship that are meaningful for them. It involves all the senses.
It is aware of the history of worship and is not afraid to draw on traditional worship practices to enhance worship. Yet it also prizes technology and the way it can augment worship to make it more experiential.
It is creative, the way worship should be. The worship leaders/designers put effort into creating worship that is fresh and experiential.
It operates as a genuine community in worship. People are worshipping in relationship, not just standing together. There is opportunity to forge relationship in worship and through worship.
It allows participants to experience and worship many different facets of our God. He is much more than a wonderful God who died for our sins.
CONS:
It lacks a liturgy. A set form/order of worship provides a direction for worship; something that worshippers can rely on; something that worship leaders can follow; something that can be theologically critiqued and improved. The diversity and innovativeness of emerging worship is both its strength and weakness. Set liturgies are adopted in individual churches, but the contextual nature of the emerging church movement militates against any common forms. In many ways, it’s everyone (church) for themselves.
It asks too much of worship leaders. To create a new emerging service from scratch every week can be overwhelming and is very difficult to maintain. Churches that have pursued some forms of emerging worship have often pulled back because of the time and resource demands. It is very difficult to maintain.
It can be prone to consumerism. Because it values innovation, experience and personal expression so highly, worshippers can easily be drawn into a search for the most creative services and the best experiences. This is especially true if they come to emerging worship with a critical attitude towards other forms of worship. It can become a pursuit of the best worship rather than a pursuit of God. Of course, this can be true of any form of worship.
It is easier to pursue in smaller congregations than in larger ones. It is probably true that in contemporary worship, the larger churches have a distinct advantage. In particular, they have the resources to provide quality music. Emerging worship is the opposite. It’s personal, intimate yet relational nature makes it more easily adaptable to smaller worship groups.
Christian Worship PC315/515
Page 16
Today’s Worship Constructs © 2012 Dr Daniel K. Robinson
Briefly consider the main cultural influences on your church’s worship construct.
Nominate three main influences highlighting the manner in which they have shaped the
design of liturgy; and then nominate whether these are positive or negative effects.
3. 21stCenturyWorshipForms
The final contextual layer used to define worship settings is Worship Forms. The three worship forms, which are not always mutually exclusive (i.e. you can have a thematic‐modular hybrid for example), are used to order modern Christian worship: Modular, Thematic and Flow (Robinson, 2011).3
The modular4 worship form is defined as moving “through distinct modules of worship with no one module regarded more highly than another, though the Eucharist (communion) is often seen as a climatic point” (Robinson, 2010, p. 279). The worship styles most likely to employ the modular form are Liturgical and Traditional.
Thematic is based on a central theme. For instance, if the theme is ‘God’s Love’, then all the service components (including songs, sermon and bible readings) will be governed by the overarching theme of
God’s love. Often the climatic point of this worship form is found in the sermon. The Thematic form is most often observed in Traditional, Blended and Emerging worship settings.
Flow derives its name from the flowing nature of the service components. Typically found in the Contemporary and Blended worship settings, a service using the Flow form will often have two distinct points of climax; one during a set of songs (typically known as the ‘Worship Set’) and a second during the sermon. It is important to note that these two points of climax can be independent occurrences; that is there needn’t be a theme connecting the two climax events.
Because each worship form uses the same building
blocks (music, sermon, Lord’s Supper etc.) it is
important to recall Liesch’s (1996) clarification
which suggests that the three worship forms “are
not mutually exclusive; they can be blended” (p.
72). The graphic (left) presents the correlation of
worship style with worship form.
3 The labels used to define the three worship forms have been developed from Barry Liesch’s (1996) work in his text The New Worship (see Liesch’s Three Formats of Worship, p. 2). 4 Liesch labels the modular form as ‘Liturgical’, but I have chosen to rename it ‘modular’ so that confusion is avoided when correlating the five worship styles with the three worship forms.
Worship Style and Worship Form (Robinson, 2011, p. 206)
Christian Worship PC315/515
Page 17
Today’s Worship Constructs © 2012 Dr Daniel K. Robinson
References
Basden, P. (1999). The worship maze: Finding a style to fit your church. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
Basden, P. (Ed.). (2004). Exploring the worship spectrum: 6 views. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
Carson, D. A. (2002). Worship under the word. In D. A. Carson (Ed.), Worship by the book (pp. 11–63). Grand
Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
Chapell, B. (2009). Christ‐centered worship: Letting the gospel shape our practice. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker
Academic.
Cherry, C. M. (2010). The worship architect: A blueprint for designing culturally relevant and biblically faithful
services. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.
Dawn, M. J. (1995). Reaching out without dumbing down: A theology for worship for this urgent time. Grand
Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
Dawn, M. J. (1999). A royal 'waste' of time: The splendor of worshipping god and being church for the world.
Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
Duncan, J. L. (2009). Traditional evangelical worship. In J. M. Pinson (Ed.), Perspectives on christian worship: 5
views (pp. 99–123). Nashville, TN: Broadman and Holman Publishers.
Dyrness, W. A. (2009). A primer on christian worship: Where we've been; where we are; where we can go. Grand
Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
Evans, M. (2006). Open up the doors: Music in the modern church. London, UK: Equinox Publishing Ltd.
Hannah, J. D. (2004). Charts of modern and postmodern church history (Vol. 3). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
Kimball, D. (2004). Emerging worship: Creating worship gatherings for new generations. Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan.
Kimball, D. (2009). Emerging worship. In J. M. Pinson (Ed.), Perspectives on christian worship: 5 views (pp. 288–
333). Nashville, TN: Broadman and Holman Publishers.
Lawrence, M., & Dever, M. (2009). Blended worship. In J. M. Pinson (Ed.), Perspectives on christian worship: 5
views (pp. 218–268). Nashville, TN: Broadman and Holman Publishers.
Liesch, B. (1996). The new worship: Straight talk on music and the church. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.
Morgenthaler, S. (2004). Emerging worship. In P. A. Basden (Ed.), Exploring the worship spectrum: 6 views (pp.
215–230). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
Neto, L. (2010). Contemporary christian music and the praise and worship style. Journal of Singing, 67(2), 195–
200.
Patton, C. M. (2008, 4 July). Mapping the emerging church. Blog posted to
http://www.davidherrick.net/junk_drawer_spirtuality/2008/04/mapping‐the‐eme.html
Christian Worship PC315/515
Page 18
Today’s Worship Constructs © 2012 Dr Daniel K. Robinson
Pinson, J. M. (Ed.). (2009). Perspectives on christian worship: 5 views. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman
Publishers.
Provance, B. S. (Ed.) (2009) Pocket dictionary of liturgy and worship. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
Robinson, D. K. (2010). Teaching the contemporary worship singer. In S. D. Harrison (Ed.), Perspectives on
teaching singing: Australian vocal pedagogues sing their stories (pp. 276–292). Brisbane, QLD: Australian
Academic Press.
Robinson, D. K. (2011). Contemporary worship singers: Construct, culture, environment and voice. Unpublished
Dissertation, Griffith University, Brisbane, QLD.
Russell, J. (1997). A "place" for every voice: The role of culture in the development of singing expertise. Journal of
Aesthetic Education, 31(4), 95–109.
Segler, F. M., & Bradley, R. (2006). Christian worship: Its theology and practice (3rd Edition ed.). Nashville, TN:
B&H Publishing Group.
Sweetman, J. (2012a). Defining corporate worship: Module 7. Unpublished Learning Guide. Malyon College.
Sweetman, J. (2012b). Defining corporate worship: Module 8. Unpublished Learning Guide. Malyon College.
Sweetman, J. (2012c). Defining corporate worship: Module 9. Unpublished Learning Guide. Malyon College.
Wainwright, G., & Tucker, K. B. W. (Eds.). (2006). The oxford history of christian worship. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Webber, R. (1993). Convergence worship. In R. Webber (Ed.), The renewal of Sunday worship (Vol. 3). Nashville,
TN: Star Song Publishing Group.
White, J. F. (2000). Introduction to christian worship (3rd ed.). Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press.
Williams, J. R. (2001). Charismatic Movement. In W. A. Elwell (Ed.), Evangelical dictionary of theology (2nd ed., pp.
220–224). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.
Wilt, D. (2009). Contemporary worship. In J. M. Pinson (Ed.), Perspectives on christian worship: 5 views (pp. 143–
217). Nashville, TN: Broadman and Holman Publishers.