TIMOTHY J. KELLER
One of the basic features of church life in the United States today is the proliferation of corporate worship and music forms. This, in turn, has caused many severe conflicts within both individual congregations and whole denominations. Most books and articles about recent trends tend to fall into one of two broad categories.1 “Contemporary Worship” (hereafter CW) advocates often make rather sweeping statements like “Pipe organs and choirs will never reach people today.” “Historic Worship” (hereafter HW) advocates often speak similarly about how incorrigibly corrupt popular music and culture is, and how their use makes contemporary worship completely unacceptable.2
One CW advocate writes vividly that we must “plug in” our worship to three power sources: “the sound system, the Holy Spirit, and contemporary culture.”3 But several problems attend the promotion of strictly contemporary worship.
First, some popular music does have severe limitations for corporate worship. Critics of popular culture argue that much of it is the product of mass-produced commercial interests. As such, it is often marked by sentimentality, a lack of artistry, sameness, and individualism in a way that traditional folk art was not.
Second, when we ignore historic tradition, we break our solidarity with Christians of the past. Part of the richness of our identity as Christians is that we are saved into a historic people. An unwillingness to consult tradition is not in keeping with either Christian humility or Christian community. Nor is it a thoughtful response to the postmodern rootlessness that now leads so many to seek connection to ancient ways and peoples.
Finally, any corporate worship that is strictly contemporary will become dated very quickly. Also, it will necessarily be gauged to a very narrow market niche. When Peter Wagner says we should “plug in” to contemporary culture, which contemporary culture does he mean? White, black, Latino, urban, suburban, “Boomer,” or “Gen X” contemporary culture? Just ten years ago, Willow Creek’s contemporary services were considered to be “cutting edge.” Already, most younger adults find them dated and “hokey,”4 and Willow Creek has had to begin a very different kind of “Buster” service in order to incorporate teenagers and people in their twenties.
Hidden (but not well!) in the arguments of CW enthusiasts is the assumption that culture is basically neutral and that thus there is no reason why we cannot wholly adopt any particular cultural form for our gathered worship. But worship that is not rooted in any particular historic tradition will often lack the critical distance necessary to critique and avoid the excesses and distorted sinful elements of the particular surrounding culture. For example, how can we harness contemporary Western culture’s accessibility and frankness but not its individualism and psychologizing of moral problems?
HW advocates, on the other hand, are strictly “high culture” promoters, who defend themselves from charges of elitism by arguing that modern pop music is inferior to traditional folk art.5 But problems also attend the promotion of strictly traditional, historic worship.
First, HW advocates cannot really dodge the charge of cultural elitism. A realistic look at the Christian music arising from the grassroots folk cultures of Latin America, Africa, and Asia (rather than from commercially produced pop music centers) reveals many of the characteristics of contemporary praise and worship music—simple and accessible tunes, driving beat, repetitive words, and emphasis on experience.6 Much of high culture music takes a great deal of instruction to appreciate, so that, especially in the United States, a strong emphasis on such music and art will probably only appeal to college-educated elites.
Second, any proponent of “historic” corporate worship will have to answer the question, “Whose history?” Much of what is called “traditional” worship is very rooted in northern European culture. While strict CW advocates may bind worship too heavily to one present culture, strict HW advocates may bind it too heavily to a past culture. Do we really want to assume that the sixteenth-century northern European approach to emotional expression and music (incarnate in the Reformation tradition) was completely biblically informed and must be preserved?
Hidden (but not well!) in the arguments of HW advocates is the assumption that certain historic forms are more pure, biblical, and untainted by human cultural accretions. Those who argue against cultural relativism must also remember that sin and fallenness taints every tradition and society. Just as it is a lack of humility to disdain tradition, it is also a lack of humility (and a blindness to the “noetic” effects of sin) to elevate any particular tradition or culture’s way of doing worship. A refusal to adapt a tradition to new realities may come under Jesus’ condemnation of making our favorite human culture into an idol, equal to the Scripture in normativity (Mark 7:8–9).7 While CW advocates do not seem to recognize the sin in all cultures, the HW advocates do not seem to recognize the amount of (common) grace in all cultures.
At this point, the reader will anticipate that I am about to unveil some grand “Third Way” between two extremes. Indeed, many posit a third approach called “blended worship.”8 But it is not as simple as that. My major complaint is that both sides are equally simplistic.
CW advocates consult the Bible and contemporary culture, while HW advocates consult the Bible and historic tradition. But in this essay I propose that we forge our corporate worship best when we consult all three—the Bible, the cultural context of our community,9 and the historic tradition of our church.10 The result of this more complex process will not be simply a single, third “middle way”; there are at least nine worship traditions in Protestantism alone.11 That is why the book you are reading provides examples of culturally relevant corporate worship that nonetheless deeply appreciates and reflects its historic tradition.
This more complex approach is extremely important to follow. The Bible simply does not give us enough details to shape an entire service when we gather for worship. When the Bible calls us to sing God’s praises, we are not given the tunes or the rhythm. We are not told how repetitive the lyrics are to be or how emotionally intense the singing should be. When we are commanded to pray corporate prayers, we are not told whether those prayers should be written, unison prayers or extemporary.12 So to give any concrete form to our gathered worship, we must “fill in the blanks” that the Bible leaves open. When we do so, we will have to draw on tradition; on the needs, capacities, and cultural sensibilities of our people; and on our own personal preferences. Though we cannot avoid drawing on our own preferences, this should never be the driving force (cf. Rom 15:1–3). Thus, if we fail to do the hard work of consulting both tradition and culture, we will—wittingly or unwittingly—just tailor music to please ourselves.
In summary, I believe the solution to the problem of the “worship wars” is neither to reject nor to enshrine historic tradition but to forge new forms of corporate worship that take seriously both our histories and contemporary realities, all within a framework of biblical theology. I will show how to do this within my own Reformed tradition, first looking at the basic principles of the Reformed theology of worship and then applying them in the contemporary situation.
The historic tradition of Reformed worship, especially the Continental liturgical branch, can, I believe, inform and shape gathered worship in a very contemporary setting.
One writer says, “For the first time in over 400 years, a consensus as to what constitutes Presbyterian worship is nowhere to be found”13—but that is an oversimplification. In the sixteenth century, two Swiss Reformers sought to renew gathered worship along biblical lines. Ulrich Zwingli created a service that was centered almost completely on the preachers teaching and praying. It had little or no liturgy, music, or congregational participation. John Calvin, however, designed a service with more fixed liturgical forms, more music, and more congregational participation. As is well known, Calvin also desired that every service would combine the Lord’s Supper with the Word preached.
These approaches were sufficiently distinct to lead the liturgical historian James F. White to describe them as two different worship “traditions” within the Reformed community.14 Zwingli’s approach was the seedbed for the worship of the Puritans, expressed in the Westminster Confession and Standards, as well as that of later “Free Church” worship.15 Continental Reformed worship, following Calvin, was admittedly more rooted in early Christian tradition.16
It is critical to remember that “from the beginning, there were two different liturgical conceptions within the Reformed wing of the Reformation.”17 This may partly explain why Reformed evangelical churches have been as divided by the “worship wars” as the rest of the U.S. church.18 There has never been complete consensus. Reformed HW advocates sometimes speak as if a use of the “Regulative Principle”—a strictly biblical standard for gathered worship forms—will solve the “wars” and bring us back to a single, simple kind of service. But Zwingli and Calvin,19 both working with the same biblical commitments, came to such different conclusions that they birthed two distinct corporate worship traditions.20 On the other hand, Reformed CW advocates often do not take sufficient notice of how the Reformed tradition could and should influence gathered worship today.
Having identified two worship traditions within the Reformed tradition, I now want to concentrate on what we can learn from Calvin rather than Zwingli. Why? First, I believe we can learn from the process that Calvin used to shape his worship for the gathered community. As I said above, our current “worship wars” are due in great part to our unwillingness to consult the Bible, culture, and tradition together. I think Calvin did this much more effectively than did any of the other Reformers. His process for forging corporate worship is therefore highly instructive for us. Second, I believe Calvin’s product—the actual worship tradition he gave us—has traits that are very relevant to contemporary “postmodern” people.21
Calvin’s corporate worship tradition resonates with many of the concerns of postmodern people. They have a hunger for ancient roots and a common history; Calvin emphasizes this through liturgy in a way that neither traditional Free Church worship nor contemporary praise worship does. They have a hunger for transcendence and experience; Calvin provides an awe and wonder better than the cognition-heavy Free Church services in the Zwinglian-Puritan tradition and better than the informal and breezy “seeker services.” Postmodern people are much more ignorant of basic Christian truth than their forebears and need a place to come to learn it, yet they are also more distrustful of “hype” and sentimentality than older generations. Calvin’s worship tradition avoids the emotional manipulation that so frightens secular people about charismatic services, even though they desire the transcendence that contemporary-praise worship appears to offer.
Though we must not adapt too much to postmodernism, much of what it seeks is based on a valid, postmodern critique of modernity’s idols (e.g., individualism, sentimental views of human nature, rationalism) and therefore can justifiably be taken into account as we plan our worship as a gathered community. Calvin will give us many resources for doing so.
We said above that CW and HW advocates have overly simplistic processes for arriving at their corporate worship forms. How did Calvin arrive at his?
No one questions that Calvin considered the Bible to be the supreme authority and source for God-honoring worship. But Calvin also understood that the Bible had not given us a New Testament “Directory of Worship” like Leviticus had provided for pre-Christian worship.22 The Bible may give us basic elements of corporate worship, but it leaves us free with regard to modes, forms, and the order of those elements (traditionally called the concrete “circumstances” of worship). Therefore, the reformer did not claim the ability to create a pure biblical corporate worship “from scratch.” Rather, he first consulted ancient tradition and produced a simplified liturgy of Word and Eucharist based on patristic worship. Calvin’s reliance on church tradition has been well documented by Hughes Old, so there is no need to make that case any further.23
Not only did Calvin engage with ancient Christian tradition, but he also consciously consulted the capacities of the congregants. The Latin of the medieval Mass was only accessible to “the learned” classes schooled in “high culture,” but Calvin would not choose high culture over intelligibility to the common person.24 The preaching and the singing were to be done so that they were accessible even to the unlearned.25 Calvin went so far as to write that the liturgy he presented to the church was “entirely directed toward edification.”26 This refusal of Calvin to choose between transcendence and accessibility is striking.27 When Calvin faced the question of how to arrange the concrete “circumstances” of worship (such as whether we should pray standing or kneeling, in unison or individually, etc.) he wrote that we must be wholly directed by the concern for edification, for the love of those present. “If we let love be our guide we are safe.”28
The present relevance of Calvin’s process for shaping gathered worship is obvious. Critics of the “seeker services” insist that gathered worship services are strictly “for God” and not for the people present, that in gathered worship “God alone matters.”29 But Calvin refused to pit “the glory of God” against the “edification” of the participants. The basic elements of gathered worship are laid out by God in his Word, but our arrangement and utilization of them is strongly controlled by what helps and touches those who come.30
What is worship? Is worship primarily what happens on Sundays when we do specific activities of singing, praying, offering, confessing, and so on? Or is worship primarily the way we live all of life for the honor of the Lord in such a way that Sunday gatherings are no more “worship” than any other time in the week? Within Protestantism, this is an old debate. “Low church” advocates have traditionally leaned toward the second view and insisted that Sunday services are not distinctive from “all of life” worship, while “high church” advocates have held to a view that it is supremely in the gathered corporate service that “real” worship actually happens.
In today’s church, this debate has taken on new forms. The CW and charismatic churches have a new form of the old view—that worship really happens in the service of corporate praise rather than out in the world during the week. The alternative to this view has recently been put forth very articulately by low-church evangelical Anglicans in Australia and Britain.31 This view argues that Christ completely fulfills all the “cultic” elements of worship—the temple, the priesthood, the sacrifices, the Sabbath, the Passover—so that now the language of worship is applied to how all Christians live all of life (1 Pet 2:5; Rom 12:1; Heb 13:16, 17). This view contends, then, that our gathered meetings are not in any distinctive way “worship.” The main reason that Christians gather now is for edification.
It is not my place here to make any detailed arguments about these two views. Don Carson does that in his chapter in this book and comes to a “middle” position that I essentially agree with.32
On the one hand, to say that we meet on Sunday only for edification is a mistake. Worship, as Carson writes,” is ascribing all honor and worth to…God precisely because he is worthy, delightfully so.”33 We are therefore only truly worshiping when we are serving God with our entire beings, including our hearts, which must be “affected” by God’s glory. The fullest definition of worship, then, is something like “obedient action motivated by the beauty of who God is in himself.” If this is worship, it is more than being moved “affectively,” but it is not less. For example, when we gather to listen, pray, and praise as a community, we are seeking to “remember” the gospel (cf. 1 Cor 11:25). “Remember” cannot simply be a cognitive action. It is talking about getting a “sense of the heart” of the truth so that our lives can be more conformed to what we believe. Corporate praying, corporate singing, corporate offering, and hearing God’s Word all do have a distinctive worship function.34
On the other hand, it is also a great mistake to load into the Sunday service all that the Bible has to say about worship. While I fear that the “edification only” view will lead to an academic, classroom approach to worship without an expectation of transcendence, so this opposite view is in danger of leading us toward emotional hype or toward a performance mentality in corporate worship services. If worship only “happens” in the “big event,” then we will be overly concerned to give people a huge emotional or aesthetic experience.
There is another danger to differentiating corporate worship too much from “all of life” worship. You can become far too inflexible about what occurs within the worship service. For example, among many traditionalists in my denomination, it is allowable for a woman to teach a Sunday school class or small group, but not to speak from the pulpit during corporate worship. This is because, in their view, the Sunday “worship” is something very different and set off from the lives that we live during the rest of the week. Since the formal worship service is seen as real worship, it must be regulated much more strictly than all the rest of life. However, the “middle” balanced view we are putting forth here means that there is no scriptural distinction between “formal” and “official” worship services and other gathered meetings of the church.35
As far as I can tell, Calvin himself rode out a “middle” way in this issue.36 For example, Calvin believed that Christ so fulfilled the Sabbath that the Old Testament regulations regarding Sabbath observance are not really binding on worshipers today at all. (The Puritans and the Westminster Confession, of course, disagreed sharply with him.) On the other hand, Zwingli seemed to view the Sunday gathering as mainly a time of teaching and edification, indistinguishable from a class. Calvin, however, knew that one purpose of the service was transcendence, a corporate experience of God. Therefore, he introduced more liturgical elements and gave more emphasis to music.
In short, Calvin believed that there was corporate worship and that it was distinct from, and supportive of, the worship of Christians in all of life. If this balance is not maintained, you will get either an overly cognitive or overly emotional shape to your worship. (Note: This is why I often use the somewhat inelegant term “corporate worship” in many headings in order to maintain this balance.)
Nicholas Wolterstorff’s excellent article identifies a core commitment that is central to all the distinguishing traits of Calvin’s corporate worship.37 If we could return to the sixteenth century and attend both a Catholic service and a service led by Calvin, we would immediately be struck by obvious differences. First, we would notice how much simpler Calvin’s service was. The medieval liturgy was extremely elaborate. Second, we would notice how much the Bible was read and preached in Calvin’s liturgy. In the Mass the “homily” had virtually disappeared. Third, we would notice the increased participation of Calvin’s congregation in singing, praying together, reading, and listening. In the medieval Mass, lay people passively watched the actions of priests and musicians. There was very little common prayer. The congregants prayed silently, individually, as priests behind a screen prayed inaudibly in Latin.38 They were not even offered the eucharistic cup.39
What caused this difference? A superficial answer might be that the Reformed “style” was more democratic and intellectual, but that is to give a sociological address to a theological principle. Wolterstorff identifies the conception of grace as the central difference between medieval gathered worship and that of the Swiss Reformers. Aquinas, for example, insisted that the sacraments are literally the cause of grace, regardless of the state of piety of the priest or recipient.40 The whole goal of the senice was to use the instruments of grace to reach God.
This view of grace had the practical effect of losing the action of God himself in the service. Nowhere in the service was God heard to speak or seen to act or initiate. Even the physical movement (of the priest with his back to the people, approaching God with the sacrifice of Christ) was all from us toward God. There was never movement from God toward the people. The priests used the instruments on behalf of the people to satisfy God.
The “core commitment” of Calvin’s corporate worship was his rediscovery of the biblical gospel of unmerited and free grace. God’s grace comes to us as a word to believe, rather than as a deed to be performed. This new emphasis on the “graciousness of grace” made Calvin’s corporate worship distinct from the medieval Mass. Calvin believed that medieval corporate worship was “performing the sacrament” in order to get God to bless the people. That was why the emotional, ritual, mystical, and sacramental aspects were completely dominant. But on the other hand, Calvin avoided the completely non-sacramental, rational, nonmystical meetings of the Zwinglians (and to a great degree the Anabaptists). It could be that he realized that there was a “worship-as-performance” error on the Protestant side. Could not congregants fall into “performing the Word” in order to get God to bless them?41
Calvin’s balance of “corporate worship elements” (singing, sacrament, common prayer) with the preaching of the Word all flowed out of his emphasis on the sovereign free grace of God in the gospel. What follows is a sketch of some of the salient traits of this gathered worship.
(a) Its Voice—Simplicity. Calvin believed that simplicity of form and language should be valued over spectacle on the one hand and sentimentality on the other.
Medieval worship worked directly on people’s emotions through pomp, ceremony, and spectacular architecture and performances. But Calvin wrote that corporate worship must “omit…all theatrical pomp, which dazzles the eyes…but deadens their minds.” So concerning ceremonies, “it is necessary to keep fewness in number, ease in observance, dignity in representation.”42 The Reformers saw how the medieval spectacle tended to make worshippers passive observers and to stir the emotions without changing the understanding and life. Most of all, the “spectacle” represented a lack of confidence in God’s gracious action. Does God need a great performance before he will give us his favor? Therefore, Calvin asked not for mediocrity but for a lack of ostentation—in ceremony, music, and architecture.
Calvin also spoke of “dignity in representation,” however. This was a warning against the modern opposite to ceremony—what today we might call “folksiness” or sentimentality. Often it is a reverse form of pride: “We are not like the snobs who need all that artistic finery.” In an effort to be nonpretentious, many churches produce a service with a deliberate lack of concern for quality of music, reading, singing, and speaking. “Worship leaders” speak completely “off the cuff,” sharing spontaneous thoughts. As a result of the mediocrity and informality, there is no sense of awe, no sense of being in the presence of the Holy. Calvin knew the difference between simplicity and sentimentality.
Sentimentality is subtle. C. S. Lewis once told a young writer: “Instead of telling us a thing is ‘terrible,’ describe it so that we’ll be terrified. Don’t say it was a ‘delight,’ make us say ‘delightful’ when we’ve read the description. You see, all those words (‘horrifying,’ ‘wonderful,’ ‘hideous,’ ‘exquisite’) are only saying to your readers, ‘Please, will you do my job for me.’”43 Lewis complains that authors of gushy and sentimental words are tyrannical because they tell the readers how they must feel rather than letting the subject work on them in the same way it did the author. Sentimental worship leading works in exactly the same way that Lewis describes. With typical comments—“Isn’t he just wonderful?” “Isn’t it such a blessing?”—the leader tells people how they ought to feel about God instead of telling them about God.
Both spectacle and sentimentality work directly on people’s emotions rather than trusting God’s Spirit to bring truth “home.”44 The “moderately liturgical” form of Calvin’s corporate worship was a practical upshot of his concern to be simple, avoiding spectacle on the one hand and sentimentality on the other.45 Reformed gathered worship does not have as many prescribed forms, fixed parts, and historical references (e.g., creeds) as “higher” churches (Anglican and Lutheran), but it has more than the Free Church or the charismatic churches. The mild liturgy means that it is not as dependent on casual and spontaneous remarks by the pastor and other leaders.
(b) Its Goal—Transcendence. Calvin believed that the goal of gathered worship was to bring people face to face with God. His aim was not that people would simply learn information about God, but that they would truly hear God speak and know his presence in the service.
Calvin’s gathered worship was famously soli Deo gloria.46 Worship was God-centered, and its purpose was to honor God. But nothing honors him more than the “fear of God.” This “fear” is not servile scaredness, but rather awe and wonder.47 Calvin’s theology shows a remarkable balance between objective and subjective knowledge. He taught that head and heart are coherently bound up in the act of worship:
A good affection toward God is not a thing dead and brutish but a lively movement, proceeding from the Holy Spirit when the heart is rightly touched and the understanding is enlightened.48
Years later, Jonathan Edwards surely was speaking in Calvin’s tradition when he said that worship has not occurred when the “external duties” are performed of “reading, praying, singing, hearing sermons, and the like” even when “zealously engaged in,” but only when our “hearts [are] affected, and [our] love captivated by the free grace of God,” and when “the great, spiritual, mysterious, and invisible things of the gospel…have the weight and power of real things in their hearts.”49
Thus, for Calvin the goal of gathered worship is to make God “spiritually real” to our hearts. That is where truths (that we may have known intellectually) now by the Spirit’s influence become fiery, powerful, and profoundly affecting (e.g., Rom 8:15–16). They now thrill, comfort, empower (or even) disturb you in a way they did not before (Eph 1:18–22; 3:14–21). It was not enough, for Calvin, to be told about grace. You had to be amazed by grace.
How, then, do we fit the first trait (simplicity) together with this second trait? How can we bring people into transcendent awe and wonder in God’s presence when Calvin forbade the most obvious ways to “create” that sense of awe—the use of the spectacular or the maudlin? This is accomplished in the following ways.
First, the sense of transcendence is dependent on the quality of speaking, reading, praying, and singing. Sloppiness drains the “vertical” dimension out of gathered worship immediately.50 There was nothing “sloppy” about Calvin’s approach! His use of music is a case in point.
Mark Noll points out that in the Reformation Lutherans and Catholics used “complex music and professional performance,” while Anabaptists eschewed all “worldly” forms of music in favor of unaccompanied congregational song. The Anabaptists’ reason for doing this was what Noll calls their “populist” sentiments.51 They felt that less professionalism made music less “worldly” and more spiritually “pure.” The other great Swiss Reformer, Zwingli, made his service almost completely oriented toward cognition and the mind, and eliminated most music because of its emotional power.52
Calvin, however, took a middle way. Because professional musicians could turn the congregants into an audience instead of a community, he chose not to use choirs or soloists. But he by no means shared the view that artistic excellence was elitist.53 Instead, he took care to hire excellent poets to put the Psalms in metric form and excellent composers to put them to music. Far from shunning excellence, the early Reformed practice was to turn the congregation into a welltrained choir under trained “singing masters.”54 Mediocre music and language can only provide a “horizontal” reference. Our hearts may be warmed by the sincerity of the singer or speaker, but excellence has a “vertical” reference, lifting the heart toward the transcendent.
The second way we get transcendence with simplicity is the demeanor or heart attitude of those leading in the gathered worship. If their tone is merely joyful and warm, the service will have an exclusively “horizontal” reference. It may be very sweet and cozy, but it will not inspire transcendent awe. However, if their tone is only dignified and sober, this will simply create somberness or awkwardness.55 There will be no wonder, which is a constituent part of transcendent awe. Transcendence is served best when both delight and awe are evident in the leaders’ demeanor and heart. Then the congregation will sense that it is being ushered into God’s presence.
Why would this be the case? Again, this flows from the gospel of grace. The gospel means (as Luther said) that we are simul justus et peccator, that is, in Christ we are simultaneously righteous yet sinful. If we have a more antinomian view of salvation, believing that we are all accepted because God is vaguely loving, then we may be existentially aware of God’s love but not of his holiness. There will be no awe. That can lead to the exclusively warm, “folksy” demeanor. If, on the other hand, we have a more legalistic view of salvation, believing that we are accepted because we live and believe everything “exactly right,” then we may be existentially aware of God’s holiness but not of his bounteous mercy. There will be no wonder. That can lead to an overly stiff and dignified manner.56
In neither case are the leaders really amazed at grace. Only when there is a profound awareness of the holiness of God and of the costliness of the sacrifice he provided will there be a joyful awe that is at once warm and forceful. Only a joyful yet awe-filled heart—an exuberant decorum—can keep pomp and sentimentality from mimicking the two true poles of biblical worship: awe and intimacy.57
(c) Its Order—Gospel reenactment. By the “order” of Reformed gathered worship, we are not speaking so much about the exact sequence of Calvin’s service, but of the foundational rhythm and flow of his liturgy.
To the “right” of Calvin’s service was the medieval liturgy, which had almost completely lost the sense of God’s speaking to us.58 All the action was taken up with the priest on the congregation’s behalf. To the “left” of Calvin was Zwingli, whose service was nearly completely taken up with the preacher, on God’s behalf, speaking to the congregation. Ironically, both kinds of services made the people passive. Why? Because there was no “rhythm” of reception and response. In the medieval service there was much responding, but no place where people heard a word of grace. In the Zwinglian service there was a great deal of listening, but no place for response. The sermon ended the service. So in both services there was no rhythm of reception and response in faith, of receiving grace and thankful action.
Wolterstorff contrasts Calvin’s attitude toward the Lord’s Supper with Zwingli’s. Zwingli’s opening prayer for the Eucharist asks that we might rightly perform our praise to God, while Calvin’s opening prayer asks that we might rightly receive that which God has to give us. “How ironic that in his understanding…Zwingli is allied with the medievals against Calvin!”59 He argues that Zwingli had more of the medieval concept of grace-as-performance than the Calvinist concept of grace-as-received-gift. That view of grace accounts for Zwingli’s imbalance of Word without the response of sacrament as well as the Catholics’ imbalance of the sacrament over the Word.60 All such imbalances come from a lack of orientation to free grace and an orientation toward performance. If we fail to grasp grace, we will seek to perform either through Word-obedience or Eucharist-usage. Instead, Calvin saw the entire service, not as a performance for God by the celebrants, but as a rhythm of receiving God’s word of grace and then responding in grateful praise. That is how the gospel operates. We do not perform duties, anxiously and wearily hoping that some day we will deserve to enter his kingdom and family. Rather, we hear the word of our acceptance now; and transformed by that understanding, we respond with a life of thankful joy (Rom 5:1–5).
For Calvin, then, each service reenacted the reception of the gospel. How did that work? There were two basic features to Calvin’s order of service. The first, and most obvious, was that unlike the medieval and the Zwinglian services, Calvin provided a balance between hearing the gospel in the first half of the service, the “Service of the Word,” and responding in grateful joy in the second half of the service, the “Service of the Table,” the Eucharist. If we separate the Eucharist from strong preaching, the Lord’s Table becomes something to perform, and the gospel-response of thanks is muted in the liturgy’s structure. If we separate the preaching from the Eucharist, the Word becomes something to perform, and the gospel-response of thanks is also muted. We know that the leaders of Geneva did not let Calvin celebrate the Lord’s Supper every week as he wished. We today could respond to Calvin’s concern by having the Eucharist very frequently.61
But Calvin’s theme of “hear-and-respond” was not confined to the sacrament. The second basic feature of his service was the repeated cycle within the service of hearing-repentance-renewal in grace. The following chart throws Calvin’s liturgy into relief.62
| Zwinglian | Calvinian | Medieval |
| Invocation | Scripture Sentence | Choral Introit |
| Scripture | Confession/Pardon | Kyrie |
| Sermon | Singing of Psalms | Collects |
| Prayer | Illumination Prayer | OT reading |
| Creed/Decalogue | Scripture Readings | Antiphonal chant |
| Benediction | Sermon | Epistle reading |
| Psalm sung | ||
| Offerings | Alleluia | |
| Intercession Prayer | Gospel reading | |
| Creed (sung) | Sermon | |
| Words of Institution | Gloria | |
| Exhortation | Dismissal | |
| Communion (with singing or Scripture reading) | Psalm 43 | |
| Nicene Creed | ||
| Prayer | Offertory Prayer | |
| Benediction | Agnus Dei | |
| Consecration | ||
| Communion | ||
| Collect | ||
| Dismissal |
Unlike the typical evangelical service of singing followed by preaching, Calvin’s liturgy shows the “rhythm” of corporate worship based on the gospel.63
First, there is an “Isaianic” cycle. God’s Word is read (a Scripture sentence), and the congregation responds with a confession of sin. God’s words of pardon are then a gracious response of God to repentance. After this, the singing of a psalm is in turn a response of thanks and praise to God for his mercy. We have here a very close approximation of the experience of Isaiah 6.
Next, there is a “Mosaic” cycle. Prayer for illumination asks for God to appear through his Word read and preached as he did to Moses in the burning bush. The aim is not simply instruction and information, but the knowledge of his glory. To respond to God’s Word, there is the offering and prayers of intercession.
Finally, there is an “Emmaus” cycle, in which Jesus becomes known to us in the breaking of the bread. The exhortation over the table was included so that the Lord’s Supper was not seen as only a response. The supper itself is a gospel-word, an embodied sign of Christ’s work for us. So within this third cycle, we have both God’s address to us (the sung creed, the Words of Institution, the exhortation) and our response of grateful joy to him (in the Communion, the prayers, and the singing). These cycles of deeper repentance leading to deeper grace and joy is the “gospel rhythm” that shapes Calvin’s liturgy.
Summary: In conclusion, we have said that the voice of Calvin’s gathered worship is simplicity of form because of our confidence in God’s grace (cf. 1 Cor 2:2–5). The goal is entering the presence of God, in our amazement at God’s grace (cf. Exod 33:18). The order consists of cycles of gospel reenactment for the reception of God’s grace afresh. “Let us then approach…with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need” (Heb 4:16).
If we are truly receiving grace in the presence of the living God, three results should occur. If they do not, we must radically reexamine what we are doing.64
(a) Doxological evangelism. Calvin’s refusal to choose between the glory of God and edification (see “Sources of Calvin’s Corporate Worship” above) lays the groundwork for what Edmund Clowney calls “doxological evangelism.”65
Clowney points out that Israel was called to make God known to the unbelieving nations (Ps 105:1) by singing his praises (Ps 105:2). The temple was to be the center of a “world-winning worship.” The people of God not only worship before the Lord but also before the nations (cf. Isa 2:1–4; 56:6–8; Ps 47:1; 100:1–5; 102:18; 117). God is to be praised before all the nations, and as he is praised by his people, the nations are summoned and called to join in song.
This pattern does not essentially change in the New Testament, where Peter tells a Gentile church to “declare the praises” of him who called us out of darkness. The term cannot merely refer to preaching but must also refer to gathered worship. Two case studies of this are in Acts 2 and 1 Corinthians 14. In Acts 2, the nonbelievers initially hear the disciples praising God (v. 5), which leads them to ask what the worship is all about (v. 12) and how they can find God (v. 37). In 1 Corinthians 14:24–25, a nonbeliever in the midst of gathered worship falls down in conviction that God is real. These two case studies show that nonbelievers are expected in gathered worship, that nonbelievers should find the worship comprehensible (that is the point of Acts 2:11 and 1 Cor 14:23–24), and that nonbelievers may be convicted and converted through corporate worship.
Despite these biblical exhortations, preachers and other leaders typically lead in congregational worship as if no non-Christians are present. This only ensures that Christians will not feel safe in bringing nonbelieving associates. But if we do not follow Calvin at other points, our corporate worship will also not be challenging or comprehensible to nonbelievers even if they are brought. A lack of simplicity (especially sentimentality) or a lack of transcendence (especially mediocrity) will bore, confuse, or offend nonbelievers. On the other hand, if a service aims very strictly at being only evangelistic, the Christians will not have their hearts engaged in worship, and the main power of “doxological evangelism” is lost. Non-Christians will not see a people formed and sustained by glorious praise.
In summary, if the Sunday service aims primarily at evangelism, it will bore the saints. If it aims primarily at education, it will confuse unbelievers. But if it aims at praising the God who saves by grace, it will both instruct insiders and challenge outsiders. Good corporate worship will naturally be evangelistic.
(b) Community building. The passage in 1 Peter 2 not only tells us that we are to worship before the nations, but it tells us to declare his praises as “a chosen people…a holy nation” (v.9).66 Christian worship is both a cause and an effect of our being a very distinct community.
It has been typical of sociologists to divide religious groups into two forms—“church” and “sect.”67 A “sect,” we are told, has a very strong, distinct group identity because it is negative toward the world, stressing purity and the holiness of God. A “church,” however, has begun to lose its distinctive identity. It is much more positive toward the world, stressing the acceptance and love of God.
Miroslav Volf, in a study of 1 Peter, shows that the biblical church transcends these categories.68 On the one hand, it did not “demonize” the surrounding world, but rather gave respect to worldly authority (2:13–21) and showed patience when persecuted (3:8–17). On the other hand, it never lost sight of being “aliens and strangers” (2:11).
How could the church keep a strong, distinct identity without either “affirming” or “denying” the world? It was because “she did not forge her identity through rejection [demonization] of her social environment, but through the acceptance of God’s gift and its values.”69 As we have seen, it is preeminently in corporate worship where the truth of the gospel becomes “spiritually real” to us and renews us according to its power.
True worship, then, is the key to forging strong identity without the separatism and legalism that marks so many “sects.” But then “community building” also becomes a second test of real worship. If the great preaching and music simply draw a crowd of people who have nothing to do with each other the rest of the week, we have created spectacle, not a worshipping community.
(c) Character for service. Edwards, in his Religious Affections, said that the acid test of a heart with its affections truly raised toward God (his definition of worship) is love toward one’s neighbor, working for the common good in society. A real experience of the triune God, said Edwards, that divine “society or family of three,” will necessarily lead to love of neighbor.70 Corporate worship is only true and effective when it leads us to the “all of life” worship of doing justice and living generously (Heb 13:16). Wolterstorff makes the point that God’s action in the service perfectly mirrors his action in the world, so that if our hearts are truly forged anew by gospel reenactment, we will, like him, move out into the world in welcome of the poor, the stranger, the marginalized.71 This is one of the reasons that Calvin wanted alms for the poor incorporated into regular corporate worship. Our actions in gathered, corporate worship will strongly influence our actions in scattered, “out in the world” worship.72 Paul’s complaint to Peter about his cultural biases was not that he was simply breaking God’s law, but that his prejudice was not “in line with the truth of the gospel” (Gal 2:14).
Amy Plantinga-Pauw writes: “While contemporary Reformed culturalists are quick to insist that faith in God must result in a thirst for love and justice on earth, they have been slower to acknowledge that a full-orbed earthly ethic can only originate from thirst for God.”73 It is not just faith in general, but worship in particular that will be the fountain of strength and desire to work for peace and justice in the world.
How does the historic Reformed tradition interact with contemporary Western culture when it comes to corporate worship? Speaking very broadly, there are four possible ways. The first two are characterized by minimal or no real interaction. First, there is “Reformed worship,” in which an unchanged sixteenth-to-seventeenth-century Reformed tradition is maintained without any real interaction with contemporary realities. This is characterized by traditional hymns and instruments, much talking up front, and substantial preaching. Second, there is “Contemporary worship,” in which the typical “praise music service” does not interact with the Reformed tradition. This is characterized by a “worship band-team,” a long stand of singing with interludes of devotional commentary, followed by the sermon.
The next two models are characterized by good interaction of tradition and culture. On the one hand, there is what I will call “Reformed Contemporary Worship.” This is a more contemporary mode with significant HW elements integrated in. This form relies musically largely on CW songs and on instruments (a “band”) that best render such music. However, this form also uses many historic hymns and other theologically substantial lyrics put to contemporary tunes and arrangements. There is also much more “simplicity” of voice, avoiding the typical sentimentality of contemporary “worship leading.” Finally, the service follows a basic shape of “gospel reenactment.” Though there are fewer fixed liturgical forms, there are acts of entrance and praise, confession of sin and assurance of pardon, more readings of Scripture and use of Creeds, and greater emphasis on the sacrament.74
Lastly, there is what I will call “Contemporary Reformed Worship.” This is a more historic mode with CW elements integrated. It relies musically mainly on “high culture” forms and historic hymns, and it uses the instruments (orchestral “ensembles” and organ) that best render such music. However, this form makes careful use of contemporary and folk selections that lighten and sweeten the tone. Drawing on Calvin’s tradition, it is characterized by more frequent Communion, moderate liturgy, and an orientation toward silence, joyous awe, and wonder.
As I have said before, there is no one “middle way” or “third way.” Neither of these approaches is a simple fifty-fifty compromise; but rather they both work to integrate Bible, culture, and tradition in such a way that the result is a coherent whole. Our own congregation, Redeemer Presbyterian Church, has a morning service (called “Contemporary Reformed”) that is Reformed worship with contemporary influences, while our evening service (called “Reformed Contemporary”) is customary worship with Reformed influences. One of Redeemer’s first two daughter churches, the Village Church in downtown Manhattan, uses a more “Reformed Contemporary” format (though it is more liturgical than our evening service), while another daughter church, Trinity Presbyterian of Westchester County, uses a “Contemporary Reformed” format.
What follows is a more specific case study of how corporate worship is led, planned, and designed at Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City.75
“Leaders” in corporate worship include all those who will be “up front”—praying, reading the Scripture, singing, preaching, praising, and even giving “notices” or “announcements.” In a thoroughly non-liturgical service or in a highly liturgical service there is less need for the leaders to prepare. (They either make some off-the-cuff remarks, or they simply read elaborate prayers and formulas.) In our approach to corporate worship, the leaders not only have much material to prepare, but they also have a great deal of spiritual preparation to do. Their attitude of heart and demeanor is as important as what they say. The remarks and spirit of the leader are therefore extremely important. The following are guidelines and instructions that we use with our leaders.
(a) Demeanor. First, if we have a sense of awe before God’s glory, we shouldn’t be too charming, cute, or folksy, drawing attention to ourselves. Instead of folksiness, there should be dignity and a sense of wonder. Second, if we have a sense of freedom in God’s love, we won’t be nervous, intimidated, or self-conscious. Instead of tautness, there should be a sweetness and peace. Third, if we have a sense of humility before God’s grace, we won’t be pompous, authoritarian, severe, or “ministerial.” Instead of pomposity, there should be authenticity and humility.
(b) Emotion. First, we should neither hide nor over-control our feelings behind a reserved, formal, and deadpan exterior. One sign of genuineness is that there is a full range of emotions. We should not always be happy or sad or intense or tender. Unless our feelings are deeply engaged, how can we lead others to worship? But second, we should not let our feelings have full scope, leaving the congregation behind.76 If we indulge our individual feelings, how can we lead others to worship? Third, we should not talk overly about how we feel or about our experiences and convictions (“I believe that…”). And we should not tell others how they are supposed to feel at the moment (“Don’t you just really want to…?” or “Isn’t the Lord just so good?”). Both are manipulative and “bathetic,” working directly on the feelings instead of pointing to the Lord. Instead of hiding, discussing, or forcing feelings, we should reveal a full range of emotions as we lead. It should be clear to others that we have strong emotions that we are keeping in check, rather than hiding an empty heart under sentimental language or hearty gestures.
(c) Language. First, language should not be too archaic. It is dangerous to seek transcendence and dignity by using antiquated language, which can be stuffy, preachy, grandiloquent, pedantic, and over-stated rather than simple, immediate, clear, vivid, and direct.77 It is especially easy to lapse into such language because the King James Version of many texts of Scripture will come to mind as we pray and speak. Instead of saying, “we have been unchaste in our hearts,” say “our thoughts have been impure.” Don’t pray
Almighty God, we come before you now. Because of our transgressions, we are not worthy of you, but forgive us for Christ’s sake. Give us fervent hearts to worship you in a faithful and worthy manner. Let your Word be mighty in us to the pulling down of strongholds, and to the casting down of imaginations and everything that exalts itself against the knowledge of God.
But rather,
Almighty God, gracious Father, we are not fit for your presence, but we look to Jesus Christ, who takes away our sin. Through him we would now come to you, listening to your voice, trusting in your love, delighting in your Word, and leaning on your arm. We joyfully beg to see your face! Now cleanse our minds of all error and our hearts of all idols, that we may shine in the world with your radiant light.
Second, on the other hand, language should not be too colloquial. Just as archaic language loses the accessibility and intimacy of worship, so colloquial language loses the transcendence. Colloquial language is casual, familiar, highly idiomatic, and sentimental instead of stately, elegant, and “unembroidered.” Colloquial language has little resource for expressing emotion except to use “bathetic” words. “Lord, you are so incredible.” “The Lord is so exciting.”
An overly informal style of address would be this:
Lord God, it is just so good to be here today with you, Father. Here with the family of brothers and sisters who love you. And we just ask that you would be really near to us, and help us to really lift up your Name. Lord, you are just incredible.
Third, language should be free from technical jargon, and especially evangelical subculture terminology. There are innumerable phrases that we fall back on because they sound “spiritual,” but they are sentimental and undecipherable to non-initiates. For example: “Let us come unto the Lord.” “Let’s just lift up the name of Jesus.” “We pray for a hedge of protection around him, Lord.” Overuse of the word blessing is another example of jargon. Key theological terms like justification can be introduced and explained. Subcultural talk, however, is at best highly exclusionary and at worst very phony, a ruse to hide a lack of actual heart engagement.
Weekly Preparation. Our bulletins contain our entire liturgy—all prayers, music, and responses are fully written out. We use no over-heads, no hymnals. This is partially a physical necessity (we do not own any buildings), but we find it is also simpler for people unfamiliar with Christian worship. In order to enhance the quality of our singing and corporate worship, we have developed a limited number of confessional prayers, calls to worship, confessional responses, and hymns or songs to sing. Without repetition our people can’t learn the music or come to deeply understand the concepts. Therefore, we put our prayers and liturgies and opening hymns into about twenty-five “templates” that are repeated twice a year. These templates keep us from having to “start from scratch” each week in developing liturgies.
Each Monday the music director brings the week’s templates for the next two or three weeks to the corporate worship planning meeting, which consists of pastors, music directors, and other staff. The staff has already put the preacher’s sermon title, Scripture text, reflection quotes, and final hymn selection into the working draft of the next week’s liturgy. After the staff evaluates yesterday’s services in some detail, they turn to the upcoming liturgy draft and begin to make revisions. Many of the revisions are made in order to keep each part of the service “in line” with every other part and with the sermon. Many other revisions have to do with variables such as the number of people to be baptized, a special offering, and so on.
Basic Liturgies. We have two basic liturgies at Redeemer, one that has the sermon earlier in a more strictly “Calvinian” manner, and one that has the sermon later in the service. In turn, each of these liturgies has two basic “music modes” in which it can be produced. One music mode is mainly characterized by classical music/hymns, but with carefully selected and occasional folk/contemporary music added. The other music mode is mainly characterized by jazz music/praise songs, but with carefully selected and arranged traditional hymns added. (See the next section on “Worship Music.”) What follows is Liturgy #1—the less Calvinian manner—in a classical music mode.
Praise Cycle
Preparation (Scripture)
Hymn of Praise
Responsive Call to Worship (Scripture)
Invocation
Lord’s Prayer
Doxology (Old Hundredth)
Silent Adoration
Renewal Cycle
Scripture (Call to Renewal)
Prayer of Confession
Silent Confession
Confessional Response
Words of Encouragement (Scripture)
[Baptisms, Membership Vows, Testimonies]
Prayer (Pastoral or Prayers of the People)
Hymn
Commitment Cycle
Words of Welcome
Scripture (before the Sermon)
Sermon
Call to Offering
Offering and Offertory
Hymn
Exhortation
Benediction and Dismissal
Commentary on Liturgy #1: Each of the three cycles consists of hearing God’s Word of grace through Scripture and responding through the offering up of our lives. But each cycle facilitates a hearing-and-offering of a different kind. The first cycle is to recognize the presence and greatness of God. The second cycle is to pull our hearts’ affections off things we worship besides God. The third cycle is to set our hearts’ affections on God and live out of that new awareness.
The Praise Cycle is designed to shake participants free from distractions and remind them that God alone is worthy of worship, and of the possibility of meeting God in his presence. It begins with the Preparation. A leader gives a 60-to-90-second exhortation on the nature and practice of gathered worship. It is based on a verse of Scripture or on a Scriptural idea already in the service—in the hymn about to be sung or in some other item in the liturgy. The “worship prep” must go from friendly (“Hello, welcome to Redeemer. Let me help us get ready for worship”) to rousing and intense in just a few seconds. For example: “Worship is not less than learning, but it is far more than that. It is not less than inspiration, but it is far more than that. You are here to meet God. That means anything could happen. You might remember what happened today twenty years from now as the day your eyes were opened to something you’d always been blind to. Are you ready for that? Are you looking for that?”
The opening Hymn of Praise is of course majestic and “big” and focused on praise and adoration. We may use orchestral ensembles along with organ. The hymn is a response to the preparation. The Responsive Call to Worship is the second (and the main) place in the praise cycle that the people hear the Word from God regarding his greatness and worth. The call is Scripture broken into four or six responsive segments. The leader must lift up the voice and heart and be obviously in full-hearted praise. The call is shouted, and the Scripture is chosen to be shout-able.
Invocation.78 The leader responds to the scriptural call on behalf of the people, usually using the call’s themes and phrases. The invocation builds energy quickly. It is not quiet and pedantic, but it gathers momentum and is usually done in only two breaths. It must be filled with longing and delight at the riches before us. It moves into a unison Lord’s Prayer. Immediately thereafter comes the climax of the first cycle and the response to the whole—the Doxology. This is done each week to the tune of the “Old Hundredth,” two verses, with the second verse modulated up a key from the first. Whenever possible we have trumpets and other instruments supplementing the organ. It is often the “biggest” sound and voice that the congregation musters all day.
The final part of the cycle usually consists of Silent Adoration. Silences are (at least twice) very real parts of corporate worship. They are not “transitions.” We take our times of silence very seriously. The people are urged to take a full minute to praise God in silence. We find that the pure silence is sometimes more startling and attention-grabbing than anything else has been. It actually forces people to ask, “Am I actually worshiping?” in a way the other parts of the service do not. The leader briefly introduces the minute by urging people to either praise God directly, or to revisit part of the service so far (hymn, call to worship, doxology, or the preparation) and ask God to open their hearts to make these themes living realities.
In some settings (the time of day and the physical space make a difference), we find that a sweet and quiet song of praise can be sung before the silent adoration. At the end of this cycle, the people have crossed the first mountain range in the journey. The leader may simply say “Amen” and seat people (who have been standing since the beginning of the hymn), or close with a brief summarizing prayer that ties together the themes of the whole first cycle. It all usually takes about 10 to 15 minutes.
The Renewal Cycle is designed to provide opportunity for analysis of what our hearts are now worshiping instead of God. Then we repent and hear God’s word of grace in the gospel. While the first cycle moves from inertia to dynamic shout, this second cycle moves from a quiet sorrow to the sweetness and relief of grace and pardon. It begins with Scripture of Renewal. A lay person reads a Scripture passage that is selected to be the basis for the cycle of renewal. The leader then explains the text and how it can be a guide for us during repentance. The tone of this brief, one-minute exhortation is sober yet warm and hopeful. The renewal Scripture can sometimes look ahead to the rest of the service with its sermon theme, but that is not necessary.
The Prayer of Confession is always a written prayer, prayed in unison by the congregation. This is immediately followed by Silent Confession. The leader invites the participants either to return to the written prayer of confession to make it one’s own in silent reflection, or to go and confess “free form” about personal wrongs and sins. After silent confession, the congregation responds musically to God through a Confessional Response or Hymn. Musicians at the church have composed several short (two or three line) phrases that are usually sung twice. The music tends to be bright, soft, and lyrical, with a “folk” feel. Instrumentation would be lighter, such as strings or solo instrument and piano rather than organ and trumpets. Immediately after the confessional response, the leader reads the Words of Encouragement. We always print a Scripture passage that talks of forgiveness and pardon.
If we have no vows that Sunday (see the next item), we may simply choose the second hymn to look back to the confession and thus be itself a confessional response. The “middle hymn” then can have more of a “folk” feeling to it. It can be more accessible, contemporary, and melodic than the first and last hymns. If the hymn comes after vows and testimonies, it may in its theme look back to the work of the church (if testimonies are about life in the Body) or back to the joy of salvation (if there have been adult baptisms) or ahead to the sermon.
Vows and Testimonies. Other appropriate responses to God’s word of pardon are vows and covenant-making. One week a month we have new members take their vows, at that time doing both infant and adult baptisms. In addition (or in substitution), we have testimonies of changed lives. Very often, some ministry in connection to the church wishes to make itself better known to the congregants. Rather than have “commercials” or even “announcements,” we regularly have people from various ministries speak of how God’s grace is operating in their lives. At certain times of the year we hear from people whose lives have been influenced by fellowship groups, or ministries to the poor, or diaconal work, or international missions, or other volunteer ministries, or we hear from those who have been converted. Testimonies are written out and reviewed by staff before they are given.
The final part of the renewal cycle is Prayer.79 This is always a prayer of intercession for the needs of the church and the needs of the world, but it may take different forms, depending on the elements of this cycle. If there are no testimonies or vows, and there is no observance of the Lord’s Supper, the prayer might immediately follow the sung Confessional Response. In that case, the prayer is a direct response to God’s word of pardon. Then we go to God with our needs and the needs of the world because we have confidence in his grace. If, on the other hand, the prayer comes after baptisms, vows, or testimonies, it will focus more on those new commitments. The prayer is sometimes simply prayed by a pastor, but we prefer to have it provided by one or two lay persons. The second cycle ordinarily takes 15 to 20 minutes and concludes with a hymn.
The Commitment Cycle centers on hearing God’s Word through the sermon. After the sermon there are opportunities for investing our substance, our hearts, and our lives in him. It begins with Words of Welcome. These are “announcements” but are kept as part of the worship service. They serve as one of the very few places in the service where there is some relief from the emotional intensity of the rest of the liturgy. It is almost literally a place to “catch your breath,” a place to cough. The announcements are only there to truly be “Words of Welcome.” They put a human face on the congregation to newcomers. They must be done with the humble humor that admits our congregation’s flaws (“We are trying to work on the sound system-we know the problems some of you are having in the back!”) and values (“Please realize that if you are not in a small group, we may not discover your needs or concerns as fast. So join a group!”). Also, our church’s “worldview” is very much on exhibit at this time—its view of the city, for example.
The Scripture and Sermon. The Scripture is read by the preacher, and with a Scripture sentence, declaration, or prayer for illumination between the end of the Scripture reading and the sermon.80 The preacher might simply say, “This is the Word of God,” or give a very brief prayer.
Offering and Offertory. After the sermon is the Call to Offering. It is necessary to forcefully take the congregation “in hand” here if the offering and offertory are going to be truly a part of corporate worship. We exhort people to make use of the offering as a time to ask, “What has God been saying to me in this service, and what should I do about it?” We have a musical offering to go with the people’s offering. This should be carefully chosen to fit the sermon theme.
The Closing Hymn is chosen for themes that have to do with the sermon. The moment the hymn is over, the preacher gives a brief (30-second) but ardent Exhortation, urging seekers to stay for classes dealing with the basics of Christianity, urging Christians to stay for discipleship classes, and inviting people to come forward for prayer with officers who are in the front of the auditorium. For example: “You noticed that I assumed the authority of the Bible and that may raise many questions in your mind. Well, I urge you to stay for a class on that very subject, which begins in twenty minutes: Why Trust the Bible? There are very good reasons to do so. Please stay. Your questions won’t be dismissed; you won’t be browbeaten!” The Benediction and Dismissal sends people out with a shout: “Thanks be to God!”
Praise Cycle
Preparation (Scripture)
Hymn of Praise
Responsive Call to Worship (Scripture)
Invocation
Lord’s Prayer
Doxology (Old Hundredth)
Silent Adoration
Renewal Cycle
Call to Renewal
Prayer of Confession
Silent Confession
Words of Encouragement (Scripture)
Scripture (before Sermon)
Sermon
Commitment Cycle
Offering and Offertory
[Offertory Music]
Community Life
Prayers of the People
Hymn
Invitation to the Table
Creed
Eucharistic Prayer
Giving of the Bread and Cup (Scripture)
[Hymns and Songs]
Prayer of Dedication
Hymn
Benediction and Dismissal
Commentary on Liturgy #2: This liturgy more literally follows Calvin’s order of having the sermon earlier in the service, in the Renewal Cycle, giving the people more chance to digest and respond to the message. Once a month the Lord’s Supper is the heart of the Commitment Cycle. One other Sunday of the month, baptisms and member vows become the heart of the commitment cycle. In the other weeks the Prayers of the People are longer and more elaborate than in Liturgy #1. Also there are two songs or hymns that follow the hymn, not just one.
Here are the differences from Liturgy #1: In this liturgy the Prayers of the People are more elaborate and participatory. Several lay people may pray prayers they have written, or they may lead the congregation in a responsive, written, unison prayer. These prayers are for the needs of the church and the world, but they also are tied in to the sermon theme. They give people a chance to ask God to help them apply the message to their lives. Also in this liturgy the “Words of Welcome” are called Community Life. This consists of several carefully worded notices, but they are tied in to the prayers about to come. The leader says: “This is how we live out this truth in our community life.”
The Lord’s Supper must be led in a special way in an evangelistic, urban church. Since we live in a post-Christian society, we expect the presence of many people in the service who should not be partaking. But our goal is nonetheless to include them so that the Supper becomes either a converting or a renewing ordinance for them. We say something like this: “If you are not in a position to take the bread and cup, then take Christ! It is the best possible time to do business with him, no matter what your spiritual condition or position. He is present.” We have found that it is very normal for people to become converted in the monthly Communion service, even though they are not communing. If they have been listening to the Word for some time, the Lord’s Supper service forces them to ask: “Where do I stand with God?” in a way that other services do not. We print in the liturgy the prayers that are used in the service. (See appendix.)
To take us from our discussion of planning corporate worship to a more thorough discussion of music styles, let me offer (without commentary) another example of Liturgy #1, this one in a contemporary rather than a classical music mode. Again, both examples of Liturgy #1 are distinguished from Liturgy #2 in that their sermons come later in the service and therefore have a less Calvinian manner.
Praise Cycle
Preparation
Songs of Praise (3)
Approaching God (Invocation)
Renewal Cycle
Call to Repentance
Song of Renewal (1)
Prayer of Confession
Silent Confession
Words of Encouragement
Songs of Renewal (2)
Commitment Cycle
[Testimony]
[Vows/Baptisms]
Prayers of the People
Song of Response
Words of Welcome
Scripture
Sermon
Call to Offering
Offering and Offertory
Song of Praise (1)
Benediction and Dismissal
It is interesting to note that, at least in Manhattan, our “contemporary music” service has not been more effective than our classical music service in including nonbelievers. If anything, the reverse has been the case.
In earlier parts of this essay I have laid the groundwork for a more moderate approach to contemporary music than either CW or HW advocates commonly take. Nevertheless, at Redeemer we believe that a wooden “fifty-fifty” division between praise songs and traditional hymns is usually not helpful. In this final section, I lay out our church’s specific guidelines for choosing music for the worship services.
(a) Reasons for “Excellence” in Music. First, we have made it a basic principle that music in corporate worship must be of high technical and artistic quality as well as theologically sound and fitting for some of the traits and tests of corporate worship. Many churches believe only the latter concern is nonnegotiable. Why have we decided that they are both absolutely necessary?
Transcendence. As we said above, excellent music is more important for Reformed than for other kinds of corporate worship because the goal is transcendence without spectacle and ritual. Without great music it is hard to capture transcendence and yet have simplicity. Nothing contributes to a hushed sense of awe better than music that is startlingly good.
Evangelistic inclusion. The better the aesthetics, the more it includes both insiders and outsiders, both newcomers and old-timers. Mediocre music may be edifying to long-time Christians for two reasons. First, they may know the performers and think “Ah, how great to have that faithful member using her gifts in this way!” Second, they are much more likely to know and understand the Christian lyrics. But nonbelievers or seekers who enter and listen to a mediocre or poor musical performance will not be helped to sense God’s presence or be struck by the beauty of the words. They will at best be unmoved, and at worst distracted or made to feel awkward by the performance.
Contextualization. Technology is making people everywhere more and more used to excellence in music. It is obvious that Manhattan’s general resident population is remarkably musically literate. That is why we can occasionally offer a provocative, more atonal piece of highculture music that should probably not be tried in most places. However, in general all parts of the United States and much of the rest of the world are more and more “wired,” and therefore it will become less and less possible for churches to present mediocre art in their services.
(b) Reasons for Selection of Music. There are several reasons why we are not strictly “contemporary” or strictly “historic” or compromising with a “fifty-fifty” blend of contemporary and historic music.
First, musical form and style are not neutral. Contemporary worship advocates usually insist that music style is neutral and a matter of taste and that there is no reason why we cannot use any form of music.82 However, contemporary advocates actually do “draw lines,” recognizing that some music is inappropriate for gathered worship.83 Some of the tunes and arrangements of popular music are too saccharine, syrupy, or bombastic. (On the other hand, we have found this to be true of a number of “traditional” hymns as well.) Nobody is really a musical relativist.
Second, musical style boundaries, however, are very elastic. Traditional worship advocates insist that music style is not neutral and that it carries connotations that may not be appropriate for gathered worship. They then eliminate pop music with arguments about its superficiality and sentimentality. But others have noted that jazz and folk music require a great deal of skill, can be marked by excellence, and can express a fuller range of human feeling. They have not grown out of commercialism and modernity, and thus they are deemed appropriate for gathered worship.84 But the boundaries between pop music and (the more substantial) folk, jazz, or black gospel are really very fuzzy. There are many individual pieces that are hard to classify. How can the anti-contemporary-music party set definitive and unambiguous boundaries? They can’t. Our position, then, is a midway one. Each piece of music has to be judged on its own merits. Music that people may consider “pop” is acceptable if it can be performed excellently, if the words of its text are rich and doctrinally illuminating, and if it conveys the gospel. We have no broad-based definition of “pop music” that eliminates a piece automatically before we apply these tests.
Third, music styles have integrity. As I said before, we do not think it is easy to mix classical and contemporary music equally in the same service. The first obstacle is the instrumentation. We are committed to quality and excellence, but can an organ, brass, and tympani accompany “Lord, I Lift Your Name on High” as well as can a guitar and snare drum? On the other hand, can guitar, saxophone, and drum accompany “A Mighty Fortress” as well as organ and brass? The answer in both cases is no. And it would be extremely jarring to go from organ-and-brass to saxophone-and-drum in the same service.
The second obstacle is that, since musical style is not neutral, we should recognize that folk/contemporary music has a frame of reference that is different from Bach. They set different tones. Each one conveys certain theological themes better than the other. One kind of music is better for certain occasions, for certain architecture and settings, and even for certain styles of preaching than is the other. Therefore, we have generally found it best to let one kind of music dominate any particular service. Nevertheless, as I said above, judicious mixing of classical and folk in a service is both possible and desirable. In a HW service, a folk or popular chorus can sweeten and lighten the tone at the end of a time of praise, after a confession of sin, or during the Lord’s Supper. On the other hand, the CW service almost has to borrow some historic hymns, since modern choruses tend to harp on the same themes over and over. (It is nearly impossible to find certain themes, like the holiness of God or social justice, in them.) However, to honor the integrity of musical forms, it is best for traditional hymn lyrics either to be put to contemporary tunes or at least to contemporary arrangements.
(c) Reasons for Selection of Musicians. First, we use only professional and/or trained musicians for our corporate worship services, and we pay them all. The reason for this has to do with our commitment to excellence. We are one of many congregations today that hire only professional clergy for their staff. Ministers (and other staff, such as counselors) are expected to be schooled and trained specifically for their work and then paid for it by the church. However, many of these same congregations single out and treat musicians differently. At Redeemer, we do not. We retain the services of the best musicians we can find just as we do the best counselors, preachers, and educators we can find.
Second, we often include non-Christian musicians in our services who have wonderful gifts and talent. We do not use them as soloists, but we incorporate them into our ensembles. We believe this fits a Reformed “world-and-life view.” The dualistic view in many evangelical churches is that a godly, sincere Christian who is an average musician is more pleasing to God than a non-Christian professional musician. But Reformed theology teaches that God’s natural gifts in creation are as much a work of grace as God’s gifts in salvation. In the film Amadeus, Antonio Salieri can see that Mozart, though “unworthy” in many ways, has been chosen by God’s grace to receive an artistic gift. Musical talent is the gift of God, and to ask a musician to offer up that gift in a service of worship is a good thing both for him or her and for us. (See Exodus 31, which considers artistic talent to be a gift of the Spirit, and James 1:17.)
I believe Calvin’s own approach to music provides guidance for an approach somewhere in the middle, between, on the one hand, the evangelical church that pays its ministers but not its musicians, and, on the other hand, the mainline church that has non-Christians singing or playing as “just another gig.” When we incorporate non-Christians into our services, we pray that the gathered worship itself will have an impact on them. We model for them the difference between just performing and seeking to “catch the conscience” with our music. When we invite non-Christians to use their talents in corporate worship, we are simply calling them, along with every creature, to bring their “peculiar honors” and gifts to praise their Creator.