An Open letter to Fans of the Contemporary Worship Model (first written as a personal e-mail to a friend of the church):
by Reverend David A. Bass

Greetings! Thank you for your letter concerning church planters in the Intermountain West. It was much appreciated. We, too, are also privy to some of the same church growth information your PCA friend had. Some of these are stock, formulaic grids placed over almost every area contemporary church planters enter. I know, because I used them myself in the Chicago suburbs. We've "inadvertently" helped to plant 2 churches in our 12 years there (I say "inadvertently" because we hadn't originally intended to serve in this way, but it definitely is what God put us to doing). I attended all of the seminars (up to '92) at The-Mother-of-All-Church-Growth churches, Willow Creek. I became uneasy with it after I began to see the fruit it bore (or should I say the lack of fruit, precisely the problem in so many lives) in the people.

While the problems are legion and much too much for this e-mail, I guess an area pertinent to what we've touched on here is worship. I know the market driven mentality is well-intentioned, but I've come to see the whole premise to be wrong. From beginning to end - from the smooth, Master of Ceremony welcome to the invitation to the latte bar after "worship," the focus is upon the worshiper and not the One "worshiped." Unchurched Harry and Mary (the personification of the seeker sensitive church growth target audience) are researched and profiled, ostensibly to remove the barriers to getting them to cross the threshold and at least give the gospel a hearing. All of this sounds oh so plausible and well meaning and workable at first. It is a principle, for instance, at Willow Creek not to use any hymn or song pre-'80, since their market research has uncovered the tendency for unchurched Harry and Mary to be "turned-off" by old church music. They tend not to want to come into a church that uses it. Most churches following this model stumble over each other to jettison their hymnals and overheads (far too passe; old technology) and adopt the digital technology that neatly dissolves one chorus into another on the overhead monitors. Setting aside the technology issue for a moment, what does this say of the "Arrogance of the Modern" (a title of a book by David W. Hall dealing with theology and evangelicals, but just as apt to worship and evangelicals) concerning the continuity with the historic church? The deliberate "historical amnesia" is a badge of honor for most church goers.

"We still sing chorus' right from the scripture" I was assured. Sure enough, there were a few thin verses skimmed from the Psalms which could be turned into hypnotic, entertaining songs, but - as you well know - nothing like singing the Psalter! Will you ever see psalm 137 on an overhead in a contemporary service, singing v 9 with eyes closed and hands raised, "Yes, happy count that one who adds to your destruction's shock, who takes and breaks your little ones against the mighty rock"?

Long, dense sermons filled with technical words were also a turn-off. Now, combined with dispensational features which tame the OT to a few practical nostrums (e.g., David becomes a model of a man after God's own heart; ergo, we can follow his example, and be good, godly people, too), sermons have become 20 minute (even that is up for debate in some circles) "practical" applications to the seeker's life, where he can be a better father, better investor, better husband, better employee/employer, better citizen, better church member, and really feel good about himself when he leaves. "I enjoyed the message this morning, pastor" are the words most professionals live for.

My boyhood pastor in the RCA church often had the opposite effect in devastating us and bringing us to conviction and unease. One notorious man in our congregation would sometimes leave by a side or back door, just so he wouldn't have to look Rev. Stoepker in the eyes. It is not so much that Rev. Stoepker enjoyed this and did it intentionally, but it was the net effect of preaching the whole counsel of God. He didn't do market surveys to see what put butts in the pews (substitute stackable chairs today) and tailor messages accordingly. He didn't feel as if he was being brave in "presenting the gospel" in a sermon and feel additionally, that he had discharged his duty in challenging his people by sharing the 4 spiritual laws. He didn't stay away from sensitive issues like hell and predestination and abortion and limited atonement. "Why can't you be more positive in your preaching, Rev. Stoepker?" was never a question that bothered him. In fact, no one at that time would have thought to ask him such a question, since they had a better idea of what his duty was.

What is the net effect upon the auditor in today's average worship center? I am afraid it is yet to be fully calculated. In fact, such a one can be a fine, upstanding, hail-fellow-well-met who hasn't a clue he's hell bound. He may even have an "experience" of responding to an alter call (though not at a seeker sensitive "service," since that definitely makes seekers uncomfortable) and definitely feel he's saved, though his life hasn't changed much. But he definitely felt something that night and his counselor told him that if he was really sincere about his faith that night, then he could be assured that he was saved, and "once saved, always saved."

What feature of the contemporary service is not designed to entertain and please the worshiper? Even if he's not told that is the church's agenda, he learns it intuitively as he "worships" over time. Unchurched Harry and Mary are intimidated by stained glass, crosses, vaulted ceilings, and hymnals, according to the Willow Creek playbook. He is more comfortable in surroundings he finds himself in during his 6 day week. Therefore, we give him multi purpose buildings. Instead of casting his glance upward to a window depicting a scene from the gospels, he gazes upward to meditate upon a basketball hoop, retracted into the ceiling.

How many times have you been invited to "worship," and find it consisting of the music portion of the "service"? When it's finished, we are done with "worship" and move on to prayer and the sermon. I'm sure I'm not telling you anything new when I say that corporate worship - conscious, directed, focused, attentive worship, fully aware that one is one amidst an assembly of the faithful - begins at the minister's salutation and only ends at the benediction. It includes every component of the service and is directed at the true audience: God himself. He is the One we seek to please, If it is not a sweet savor in his nostrils, then it has been a vain exercise. Most moderns, I'm afraid, are accustomed to acting as "Siskel and Ebert" style critics of the "service" in which they are auditors rather than critically reviewing their own performance before God as their heart went through a variety of changes during the "service", commenting in their interior dialogue on the lighting or the unrehearsed number the worship team performed or the off-putting use of the word "Propitiation" the pastor smuggled into the sermon. Perhaps they walk out feeling their time has been well spent or wasted, feeling self affirmed (at best) or bored (at worst), with perhaps a bit of this or that added to their storehouse of Bible knowledge or maybe all was entirely predictable. In any case, it has been a self referential exercise from start to finish. They have been the judge of the success/failure of the service and the criteria has been autonomously theirs. Whether God was pleased with them never enters their conscious radar.

While the above scenario has had its run in the hearts of men throughout the history of the church, and happens in even the best churches, rarely has it been willingly, enthusiastically, intentionally facilitated by the Church! This is why it will not do to say that shallow hearts and distractions and hypocrisy occurs in reformed worship, too. Rarely has there been a philosophical and practical commitment to nurturing entertaining, self gratifying "worship" as there is in the modern church growth, contemporary worship model. When it has occurred (eg, during the Anglican indulgence of Laudian pomp and the "Men of a wide swallow"), it has been the exception, not the rule. The entire church growth, contemporary worship model has its priorities inverted: please the worshiper first, God second. This is not the ostensible order, of course. Any advocate of this model would protest strenuously that they are only trying to remove nonessential obstacles from the worshiper's path to God. trouble is, what is obstacle to these are often path in scripture, which sees things like substantial, gospel oriented sermons as essential to worship. Functionally, in contemporary churches, the music must please the worshiper first; the sermon must please the worshiper first; the prayers must be unprepared and "spontaneous" and please the worshiper first; the surroundings must facilitate the comfort of the worshiper first. All is shaped and put together to attract the seeker, to pass his critical, unregenerate muster.

What I appreciate about the regulative principle - despite its flaws and limitations - is that it takes seriously worship as "instituted by God himself and so limited by his own revealed will" rejecting ways "not prescribed in the Holy Scripture." While Presbyterians who take it seriously do not always practice it alike across the spectrum and constantly dispute its nature, nevertheless, for them, the regulative principle has served to keep worship God focused, not man focused. For example, the old dichotomy "contemporary vs. traditional" music is a red herring. There is much contemporary music being written today that will pass the test of time (several Michael Card things come to mind). It is a mistake to assert that we do not use contemporary music or somehow despise it. However, there is a hollowness and disingenuous ring about the contemporary church when they say, "Standard, traditional music was once contemporary music to their generation! We're really only doing what they have always done. You are the sticks in the mud, the reactionaries who are inhibiting the progress of the gospel." The problem I have with this is that those who understand the history of these things know that our forefathers did not arrogantly reject out of hand the rich heritage and corpus of work which preceded them. They wrote to add to it, often with a conscious indebtedness to their heritage. they wrote standing full in the stream of the past. They cherished their traditions and saw it as a heritage to be passed on, not as an obstacle to be set aside. The contemporary model treats it dismissively with the "arrogance of the modern." They have made a conscious decision to step out of the stream of the past. Perhaps they retain a hymn or two here and there: In the Garden, The Old Rugged Cross, or Amazing Grace. But it is generally a sentimental concession, not a commitment to tapping the rich roots of a continuous heritage. This is why I have grown to reject the old saw, "Todays traditional music was yesterday's contemporary music." They don't really mean it the way Augustus Toplady or Martin Luther would have.

All in all, I guess I approach the analysis and labels of the exponents of the church growth model with a great deal of caution and a grain or two of salt. I certainly have nothing against "church growth" per se. I'd love to see us grow! But not for the sake of growth. Once again, no exponent of this model would say they do it for the sake of growth; but I have seen the eyes of ministers from places like Arco, ID and Peoria, IL and Inkster, MI and Cheboygan, WI walk through Willow Creek with all of its monumental glass, brick, and steel, where geese leisurely fly across ponds surrounded by willow trees and green meadows,all clearly visible from every seat in the house; and where they see 15,000 "worshipers" come through their doors every Sunday and the curtains come up on "worship" and lights fade from violet to green to yellow as the contemporary praise band launches into an upbeat version of "Majesty," sung repetitively and skillfully until everyone is in a trancelike state...and on and on it goes! Once you are committed to core principles of growth, it becomes the engine that drives you and, no matter how much you say God is first and how many have "come to the Lord," functionally it is all secondary to the numbers, which must be served, since that is the plan.

Well, Peter, what has happened to the time? You pressed a button there with worship, one of the important things to us at NGOPC. In reference to your questions concerning our Lord's Supper, we do use wine in the supper. Did you know the church used it without question (still used in an unbroken tradition in European churches) until the advent of the Temperance Movement in the late 19th C.? The advocates of Prohibition pressured the churches to substitute grape juice for wine. Historically, it is the contemporary church which is odd and out of step. But who in the pew (or stackable chair) next to you even has a notion of this?

We do celebrate it weekly. And no, it does not get repetitive and commonplace. In fact, it has become profound and cherished in a way we would not know it had we not made this step of faith, to practice it weekly. Once you do, those preconceived notions evaporate. One of our strongest early objectors admitted the other day that since we practice it with such reverence, it hasn't gotten commonplace and ordinary for her. In fact, she rejoices in communing weekly in these means of grace. Do these things sound strange to an evangelical's ears, Peter? I'll bet they must. We have done some homework on this, though, and sense as a session that it's biblical and has some (though not universal) precedent in the churches.

BACK TO TOP