Above the Battle
John M. Frame
Several
recent books on the “worship wars” have sought to transcend the partisan
arguments to find the basic theological principles that should constrain all
Christian worshipers, “common criteria” that should help Christians come to
greater agreement.
Marva Dawn claims to have
done that in her Reaching Out Without Dumbing Down,
[1]
but in
my judgment she ended up writing a rather partisan tract for a traditional
approach to worship.
[2]
In her
more recent A Royal “Waste” of Time,
[3]
she responds to some critics.
[4]
She
mentions five reasons why in Reaching Out she may “seem to be advocating
traditionalism.”
[5]
She says she is concerned with (1) understanding the history of the church’s
worship, (2) not substituting style for substance, (3) distinguishing
evangelism from worship, (4) making good choices among hymns, and (5) avoiding
“dumbing down.” In formulating these concerns, she found more negative examples
in contemporary services, more positive examples in traditional ones. But she
does recognize that there are also positives in the contemporary approach and
negatives in the traditional. My review, perhaps, failed to understand the
breadth of her overall perspective, or perhaps she was not clear in expressing
it. I still think that Reaching Out was, whatever Dawn’s intention, an
argument for traditional worship, and her more recent book is not terribly
different in that regard, despite her disclaimers.
Her example shows how hard it is to
really get above the battle. There are two dangers: (1) When one gets above the
battle, one may find oneself in an air war, and (2) However much we can
accomplish above the battle, eventually we must descend to the ground
What I mean by (1) is that
sometimes when we try to ascend from petty details to broad theological
principles, we may still find ourselves in a conflict over what those
principles are. Although I can accept Dawn’s five concerns in general terms, I
have questions about all of them. These principles as she states them, therefore,
do not resolve problems for me: (1) I agree that someone in the church should
understand the history of worship, but I don’t think every worshiper needs to
understand it, at least to the extent that Dawn recommends. (2) I find it more
difficult than she to distinguish substance from style. A morose style conveys
a morose substance; a friendly style can be a means of communicating
grace. (3) I agree that evangelism and worship should be distinguished, and I
agree that worship is primarily for believers. But I also think evangelism is
part of worship (1 Cor. 14:24-25) and that worship is an effective way of
reaching unbelievers. (4) I agree with Dawn that we should make good choices
among hymns, but I do not agree entirely with her aesthetic standards, and I
put a higher priority on communication and intelligibility than she does. (5) I
too have attended some services that I could criticize as “dumbed down.” But we
must be careful here. Worship should be intelligible; it is communication (1
Cor. 14): communication with children and teens as well as adults;
communication with various ethnic, socio-economic, and educational groups.
So if Dawn and I don’t quite agree
on the principles, how are we to agree one the application of the principles?
When we come down to the ground, we will still be at war, insofar as the
military metaphor applies to loving disputes between brothers and sisters in
Christ.
Michael Horton’s A Better
Way
[6]
also tries to reach above the stereotyped arguments:
In all of this, however, there does
not seem to be enough discussion of the deeper issues—the biblical and
theological issues—underlying a distinctively Christian view of worship. With
notable exceptions, such as Marva Dawn’s Reaching Out Without Dumbing Down
and A Royal Waste of Time, there has been a dearth of approaches that
move beyond the traditional-contemporary impasse… It seems to me that we need
to take a step back and say, “Wait a minute. What is worship anyway? Why do we
do it? How do we know when we’re doing the right thing?”
[7]
This introduction leads the reader to expect a fresh
approach. But the approach here is very familiar to those who have read other
Horton books. Popular culture is bad, marketing is bad, and especially
advertising is bad.
[8]
And anything in worship that even looks a bit like pop culture, marketing, or
advertising is a betrayal of the biblical doctrine of worship. Horton thinks
that the broadly evangelical churches (as distinct from the Reformed and
Lutheran confessional traditions he respects) are badly compromised on this
score.
With these
convictions, Horton tends to read the words of broad evangelicals in a far
worse sense than they should be read. When Lee Strobel says about preaching,
I begin in the real world,
connecting with (the seekers’) needs, and show them that I do understand where
they’ve been and where they are. Based on that, I show the relevance of
Scripture. I build a bridge from the real world into the world of Scripture.
[9]
Horton replies,
But that is just the question,
isn’t it: Do we even know what the “real world” is apart from its divine
description?… Furthermore, hasn’t God built that bridge from the Word to his
hearers by sending us preachers who announce his judgment and pardon?
[10]
But it is not plain from Strobel’s words that he would deny
the points Horton wants to make. Strobel is making a simple point about
communication: we start where people are, and we move to what they need to
hear. Horton takes him to be denying the primacy of Scripture and of its
message of judgment and grace. One who would fly above the battle,
metaphorically, should be expected to deal with the real concerns of those on
both sides, not caricature them.
[11]
Horton does
make some concessions along the way. He perhaps surprises some of his readers
by saying that “Churches definitely must be seeker-sensitive, warmly welcoming
unbelievers and inviting them into the circle”
[12]
while
disparaging seeker-driven churches that “have gone too far in that
direction.”
[13]
Here he acknowledges the legitimacy of a concern with seekers, and also that
the difference between seeker-sensitivity and seeker-drivenness is a matter of
degree. He also recognizes that there is such a thing as “dead traditionalism”
[14]
and
concedes that “no past age can be regarded as normative.”
[15]
I was also
pleased to see that in this book he recognizes the importance of communication.
He emphasizes that preaching is God’s work, the powerful Word of God that comes
to the congregation through the preacher. But he recognizes that
However, this may be understood to
give license to laziness on the part of preachers: “Let go and let God.” It may
also be understood to justify poorly planned and executed services in general.
However, the opposite is intended.
[16]
He
advocates that preachers study the Scriptures closely and also come to know
their congregations, presumably so that they can preach with relevance. He
rather disparages, however, preaching to “felt needs.” What he says here is
that worshipers should not bring “demands” that sermons address their felt
needs. I agree. But the issue of felt needs arises, not so much in response to
the demands of worshipers as in the realm of worship planning, where preachers
and worship leaders seek to find the best ways of communicating the Word to
their hearers. Since Horton agrees that preaching should be relevant to the
congregation, it is not clear why he does not also endorse preaching to felt
needs. How are “relevant preaching” and “preaching to felt needs” actually
different from one another? But Horton seems to have bought into the idea that
the phrase “felt needs” always connotes something bad.
The main
thrust of the book is that worship is by Word and Sacrament, and therefore not
by gimmicks, appeals to felt needs, or anything like pop culture, marketing,
and advertising. But those who argue the contrary (to be sure, with a different
view of the value of popular culture and so on) hold that these emphases help
us to communicate, clearly and relevantly, the Word itself. If we take
communication seriously, inevitably we will see analogies (not
identities) between preaching, marketing, and advertising. And we will have to think
about how far this analogy goes, not blindly reject it.
So the antithesis Horton draws is
not at all self-evident. If Horton really wanted to fly above the battle, he
would look at the nature of communication itself and ask what, if any, are the
biblical principles governing such communication. And he would also ask how
much freedom Scripture gives us to use cultural forms in our communication.
These are important background issues that divide people in the worship wars.
They need to be explored far more than Horton is willing to explore them.
Although he acknowledges these questions, he continues to write as though his
theological perspective exempts him from any serious consideration of them. So
Horton’s book is pretty much traditional ground warfare, rather than an aerial
view of things.
The book With Reverence and Awe
by Darryl Hart and John Muether
[17]
also seeks a standpoint above the
battle. The authors introduce the book by saying that discussions of worship
have been derailed by questions about organs and guitars, hymnals and
overheads, pulpits and stages, informality and formality, the place of
evangelism. Rather than beginning with such questions, they think it important
to “return to the basics on worship.”
[18]
Horton
sought to get the basics by focusing on Word and Sacrament. Hart and Muether,
however, appeal more broadly to the general theology of the Reformed
confessions and tradition. They believe that adherence to the Reformed faith
will necessitate a certain type of worship. “This connection between theology
and worship,” they say, “is so vital that it is impossible to change the form
(worship practice) without altering the content (theological conviction).”
[19]
Similarly, in a 1998 email debate between Hart and myself, Hart said several
times that I was seeking to “change Reformed worship,” which was incompatible
with a Reformed profession. One cannot, he said, claim that the Reformed are
“wrong about worship” while sincerely subscribing to Reformed theology.
I would agree that Reformed
theology implies certain convictions about worship. Our emphasis on the
sovereignty of God implies that God is the one who ordains worship, governs it,
sets the standards for it, and assembles us to do it. The sovereign God is the
only proper object of worship. Reformed theology also dictates, in general, the
content of sermons, prayers, and hymns, and the administration of the
sacraments. One cannot reasonably claim to be Reformed if he advocates the
worship of images, preaches Arminian theology, or cultivates irreverence.
But Hart and Muether go beyond
these obvious points. To them, to be Reformed means that worship must have a “dialogue” structure, that there is to be no believer-to-believer communication
in the service, only God-to-man and man-to-God.
[20]
Only
ordained elders may preside, for only they can speak in the name of God.
[21]
Choirs
are excluded, for they don’t have a precisely defined role in the dialogue.
[22]
“’User
friendly’ or ‘seeker-sensitive’ worship is not an option for the people of
God.”
[23]
To seek “meaningful” or “dynamic” or “exhilarating” worship is to “obscure the biblical
standard of worship.”
[24]
They quote my statement in Worship
in Spirit and Truth
[25]
that worship should be carried on in “a friendly, welcoming atmosphere,” and
they comment that “following this logic, worship style becomes a matter of
taste.”
[26]
They
then equate my recommendation with “irreverent worship.” Nevertheless, they say
later, as I do, that worship should involve joy.
[27]
And of
course they, like Horton, want no truck with anything from popular culture.
Does Reformed theology really
require all this? Does one really forsake the Reformed faith if one seeks to take
visiting unbelievers into consideration (as 1 Cor. 14:24-25), or if one allows
for believer-to-believer communication in worship (as in Heb. 10:24-25), or if
one seeks to be friendly to visitors?
[28]
Does
the use of praise and worship songs really conflict with a Reformed commitment?
Doing such things may be unusual in the context of Reformed tradition, but do
they really conflict with Reformed theology?
[29]
And
weren’t the Reformers themselves quite willing to oppose tradition that was not
biblically warranted? Didn’t they advocate clear communication in worship, both
verbally (through the use of vernacular languages) and musically (through the
emphasis on congregational singing)?
I have responded to these questions
in my worship books, but I don’t find anything here (or in the Horton or Dawn
books) that addresses my arguments. Certainly one who would fly above the
battle should take account of the arguments of all sides. Probably even more
than the others, the Hart-Muether book fails to carry out its promise of
“stepping back” to look at broader principles. It does look at broad
principles, but it draws rather simplistic connections between those principles
and specific worship practices. Basically, they fly their plane into the sky in
order to descend to the ground and use their plane as a tank.
[30]
So I am not persuaded by these
attempts to fly above the worship wars. Both their broader principles and their
application of those principles to specifics are debatable at best. I wish I
could say that they had at least advanced the debate to a higher level, but I
cannot even say that. For the most part, they merely go over well-trodden
ground.
I do take some comfort in the fact
that the worship wars themselves are becoming somewhat irrelevant today. Many
churches have adopted “blended” worship, liturgies that draw upon both the
traditional and the contemporary. They seek to communicate the eternal truth of
God’s Word to contemporary people, and they have found that in some cases, at
least, the best way to do this is by drawing on our most ancient resources. We
are told that the latest generations--the post-post-post moderns, the Ys, Zs,
the millennials and—I guess—the post-millennials—actually desire worship with
deeper roots, so that using ancient forms, ironically, speaks to their felt
needs. So God seems to be answering prayers for unity.
Churches with PowerPoint and video
systems are using them to reinstate litanies, responsive Scripture readings,
dialogue between leader and congregation, men and women, other segments of the
congregation. Many of these responsive exchanges are adapted from the Book
of Common Prayer and other traditional books of worship. So, ironically,
the newest technology enables us to appropriate ancient resources. Back to the
future!
So the worship wars are nearing their end, or so I hope; theologians will have to find something else to fight about. Now is not the time for renewed battles over “broad theological principles” which turn out, on inspection, to be battles over taste.