I agree strongly with your comment about upper-room stuff. It seems to me many American evangelicals don’t know how to do (or feel guilty about) anything without evangelism in mind. Evangelicalism is great at the very basics and lousy at everything else; it’s all milk all the time. This is why evangelicals who want serious devotional stuff end up reading John of the Cross and why so many low-church evangelicals end up switching to Anglican or high Reformed or sometimes even Orthodox or Catholic. A little more meat here.

It seems to me this is connected to a certain utilitarianism in the evangelical culture. What have you been saved to do? One standard answer is to get as many other people saved as possible. In contrast, Irenaeus says the glory of God is man fully alive, a very different vision of the Christian life.

I came here following a link on Touchstone’s blog site, and find your discussion very interesting. I found Hutchens article pretty thought-provoking, although also (as was already said by someone) rather polemical.

One thing I noticed in your discussion is the assumption I perceive that “worship” and “evangelism” must happen concurrently, i.e. that our worship music must appeal to and be meaningful to the people of the world who may be visiting our services. That is of course also the thrust of the current “seeker-sensitive” movement.

I am afraid that in many churches which follow this model there is never a time when believers can worship in ways which express their unique relationship with God beyond a level comprehensible to unbelievers, and that this eventually will lead to spiritual impoverishment (unless all of the believers in such a church are so disciplined as to feed themselves from the Word and prayer in their personal devotional times, which in my experience is pretty unlikely).

I believe very strongly that in our churches we need to have “upper room gatherings”, where “all who believe” get together to encounter Christ in worship — and while I would not physically exclude visitors, I feel strongly that the “program” of such a gathering should not be tailored to their limited understanding.

It is not for nothing that in the early church the catechumens or seekers left after the preaching of the Word, and the celebration of the Eucharist was limited to the faithful. In a similar fashion, when I first encountered the Church of England almost thirty years ago in many parishes on Sunday morning they had the service of “Morning Prayer”, and following that the Communion service, for which only those who were “communicant members” stayed. It was kept short, so non-communicant family members simply waited around, and that is not an ideal situation, but it makes clear that while the preaching of the Word of God is for everyone, the Worship of God is only for those who are in a relationship with him.

On the subject of sexually suggestive words and performance:

I do believe that the main problem with this is the performance and not primarily the “lover” imagery of the words; if we point back to Donne and Teresa of Avila we also need to acknowledge that until a few years ago such words were not presented in church by scantily-clad pretty girls. Like Hutchens, I am very willing to admit that my thoughts are affected by what I see, and that sexually attractive females can affect me strongly, and not in a spiritually beneficial way. Of course you guys can say that this is not so with you, and you gals can say that this is my problem (and Hutchens’), and that we shouldn’t blame you for it; but the rate of divorce and remarriage, and unwed motherhood, in the evangelical community in the US as well as in my part of the world (Western Europe) suggests that you guys are either the exception or are deceiving yourselves, and that you gals are ignoring the Christian responsibility you have to not be a stumbling block to your brothers (if indeed you argue the way I indicated above).

And we further should not forget that Donne and Avila wrote specifically for Christians, and not for a situation where their material would be read or performed for non-believers in a seeker-sensitive setting; let us be realistic: non-believers who usually feed on contemporary pop music and television cannot but interpret much of this sort of imagery in a blatantly sexual way — they have no other frame of reference for it.

So while Hutchens’ article does not make me throw out all contemporary worship practice it does make me re-evaluate some of the things we do in church, and that is a useful thing.

I welcome your reactions, including by e-mail.

Wolf Paul
Vienna, Austria

My ultimate concern regarding affective worship is not with style or depth of meaning in worship music (There are great hymns and crappy hymns, there are good praise songs and there are crappy praise songs, there are good sermons and crappy sermons), nor with the level of “expression” in worship (although the level of expression CAN distract from a fitting and proper order and defeat the ultimate purpose of worship - see Paul’s warning in 1 Cor 14). I’m most concerned about the apparent divorce from corporate confession and creed in affective worship - Luke, how often do you recite the Nicene or Apostle’s creed at the Sanctuary? Corporate worship ought to provide perfectly clear reminders about what WE believe as a BODY. When even the most basic credo is lost, waywardness among individuals in the body is not far behind.

The problem you hint at, about the excessive emotionalism of some contemporary worship, is a real one. The more “pentecostally” the worship style, the more this is a danger. (Everything bleeds together in evangelicalism, so groups that are not actually charismatic may worship in this style.) The temptation for people here would be to see intensity of worship as a kind of work that somehow impresses God…the way starchier evangelicals may be tempted to see Bible study or, indeed, the way Protestant scholastics of all stripes may be tempted to see correct theology.

Some people are just more expressive than others and that’s how they worship. In this case, it’s ok. Sensible charismatics have always told me one should just worship as it feels natural and not regard what others are doing.

I don’t think it’s at all the case, as you repeatedly suggest, that contemporary worship songs are devoid of theological content. Many center on the atonement through the death of Christ on the cross for our sins. A few make reference to the resurrection or look forward to Christ’s coming again in glory. I can think of two or three that clearly teach the pre-existence of Christ and His willingness to become incarnate and suffer on our behalf. A large number simply express thanks to God for His holiness, mercy, and provision, which I find unobjectionable.