Chapter 5 CONNECTING PEOPLE TO GOD

Two generations ago, almost no one was asking, “How shall we worship?” Every church was solidly encased in a particular theological tradition or denomination, and worship was done in conformity with the tradition. Today, however, there is a dizzying variety of worship approaches and styles being used, not only in churches across the country (as has always been the case) but even in churches within the same denomination. Sadly, this new diversity has been the cause of much strife and confusion.

Probably the single most common fault line in the “worship wars” has been the conflict between contemporary and traditional worship, which I trace in my chapter in Worship by the Book.¹ In countless churches during the 1960s, ’70s, and ’80s, there was a battle between the WWII generation (who favored traditional hymns, choirs, and instrumentation) and baby boomers (who favored praise songs set to contemporary pop music). By the mid-1990s, this struggle was generally won by the boomers. Today, however, things are much more complicated. Not only are there more than two approaches to worship; there are many dedicated efforts to blend some of them.²

Because even the most innovative churches cannot completely reinvent their worship service every week, worship traditions are inevitable. See the chart on the next page for a list of the main ones I observe in the American church today.

Some readers may immediately recoil from the question, “How do we choose a worship form?” because they think it reflects an American consumer mentality that designs or chooses ministry strictly to meet the felt needs of the customer. But while consumerism can indeed be the force behind such a question, the assumptions behind resistance to the question can be just as suspect. Many shy away from considering different worship forms because they simplistically believe there is only one biblically warranted way to do worship. They wrongly assume their own version of Christianity is ahistorical rather than culturally and socially situated. Or they may avoid the question because of the strength of their own tastes. Some people resonate so strongly with certain forms they insist they simply “cannot worship” any other way. But all human expressions are to some extent culturally embedded, and this applies to worship as well. While the truths we confess and profess transcend culture, no articulation or embodiment of them can be culture transcending.

HISTORIC EMPHASIS	CONTEMPORARY EMPHASIS	CONVERGENCE EMPHASIS
LITURGICAL	PRAISE AND WORSHIP	FUSIONS OF BOTH FORM AND MUSIC
Emphasis on the physical and the senses; Eucharist is central High: Anglican Moderate: Lutheran, Episcopal Lower: Continental Reformed, Methodist	Emphasis on the emotional; praise music is central African American: AME, National Baptist Classic Pentecostal: Assemblies of God, Church of God in Christ, Foursquare Contemporary praise/worship: Calvary Chapels, Vineyards Traditional-praise “blend”: 50/50 worship songs and hymns
		Emphasis on the mystical; story is central Liturgical contemporary: Original form was the “folk Mass” of charismatic Catholics and Anglicans. Now we have a variety of specific liturgical traditions (Anglican, Reformed, etc.) or an amalgamated “Great Tradition” using traditional folk, pop/soft rock, indie rock, jazz, rhythm and blues/gospel, hip-hop, eclectic, and others
TRADITIONAL	SEEKER-ORIENTED WORSHIP
Emphasis on the mental; sermon is central Free church: Puritan/Reformed, many independent churches Body life: Anabaptist, Quaker, smaller churches, Jesus movement Revivalist: Baptist, Methodist	Emphasis on the practical; theme is central Seeker-driven service: Willow Creek Seeker-sensitive worship: Saddleback

Earlier we looked at 1 Corinthians 9:19 – 23, where Paul speaks about adapting for various cultures, becoming “all things to all . . . that by all possible means I might save some.” As we observed, this is not a recipe for relativism. Rather, Paul is reminding us that in every culture there are many things that do not directly contradict Scripture and therefore are neither forbidden nor commanded. In charity and humility, such cultural features should generally be adopted to avoid making the gospel unnecessarily foreign. This is true not only for preaching but also for gathered worship.

Each of us has forms of worship that we believe have solid biblical warrant and that we have seen bear much fruit. Yet we should always admit the degree to which any form of worship reflects cultural and temperamental factors, not merely biblical principles. In this I should speak for myself. I find Reformed and Presbyterian worship to be in accord with God’s Word and to be richly satisfying. However, this tradition leaves essentially no room for unpredictability or for public displays of emotion. Why? Presbyterians like to cite the Pauline text about doing all things “in a fitting and orderly way” (1 Cor 14:40), even though this text is embedded in a passage that describes a very un-Presbyterian-sounding service. We should admit that, while much of our love for predictability and order comes from a right concern for reverence and decorum in the presence of the King, our particular expression of that reverence is typically strongly northern European and middle-class and often reflects a temperamental bias (maybe even idolatry) regarding control. In short, our preference for a particular way of worship is typically based on a mixture of principle, temperament, and culture.

This gives flexibility, even to those who believe in the “regulative principle” of worship — of whom I am one.³ That historical view says Christians should not do anything in gathered worship unless there is some warrant for it in the Bible. Yet it makes a distinction between biblical “elements” of worship (e.g., preaching, reading the Word, singing, prayer, and baptism vows) and the “circumstances” — the particular ways in which we do the elements. The Bible does not prescribe or even address innumerable practical considerations. It does not indicate the level of formality and predictability of the service; the length of the service or amount of time devoted to each part; the kinds of harmony, rhythm, or instrumentation of the music; the level of emotional expressiveness; or even the order of worship. There is no equivalent to the book of Leviticus in the New Testament. The Scots Confession of 1560 states, “Not that we think that any policy of order of ceremonies which men have devised can be appointed for all ages, times, and places.”⁴

Guiding Principles for Connecting People to God

The Bible, then, leaves us a level of freedom when it comes to many of the practical issues of worship. How do we use this freedom wisely? How can we determine which approach to use? It will be helpful to keep several perspectives in mind as we encourage people to connect to God in worship.

The Normative Perspective: Looking to the Bible and the Past

First, our biblical theology of worship shapes the service. Theoretically, our theology of worship should be a fixed, unchanging thing. In reality, however, our sinful hearts and the richness of Scripture mean that our theology of worship is constantly evolving (toward greater fullness and accuracy, we hope!). It is easy to assume we have the balanced understanding of worship, but at any given time, we probably don’t. Nevertheless, this is where we begin. We must let our best understanding of what the Word says about worship shape the service we design and use every week.

In addition, a historical tradition of worship informs the service. Over the years, Christians have developed a number of historical worship traditions. Tradition is valuable because it connects us to the saints and the church of the past, relying on the tested wisdom of the generations. Protestants alone have produced (among others) the Lutheran, Anglican, Continental Reformed, Puritan/Free Church, Anabaptist, Revivalist, Pentecostal, and African-American traditions of worship.

A generation or two ago, most evangelicals conducted nonliturgical traditional worship. Then from the early 1970s on, there was a major move toward nonliturgical contemporary worship. But by the 1990s, many were turning again. Concerned with what was perceived as the overly cognitive nature of traditional evangelical worship and the overly sentimental nature of contemporary evangelical worship, many have turned back to even more liturgical forms than the sermon-oriented traditional worship they had abandoned.⁵ Many in this movement do not adopt a service from any particular worship tradition but create a pastiche from diverse historical approaches.

Please exercise great care here. As we have said, each worship tradition is rooted in time, place, and culture, and none of them should be seen as an unchangeable absolute. And it is also true that many now-historical traditions were once innovative revisions of an older approach. Recognize, however, that the different worship and spirituality traditions of the church are also grounded in theological differences. So while we cannot say any one of them is the one and only true way, there are some genuine tensions and even contradictions among them. For example, the difference between more sacrament-centered liturgical worship and more Word- or sermon-centered worship is based in large part on different understandings of how God communicates grace, of how spiritual growth occurs, and of the relationship of doctrine and experience. And, as Michael Allen points out, the difference between more emotionally immediate charismatic worship and classic “Word and sacrament” worship is rooted in different views of the relationship of grace and nature. In the former, grace is seen to work more through immediate experience and interruptions of natural laws, while in the latter, “grace perfects nature, rather than . . . doing an end-run around it.”⁶

I believe it is best, therefore, to examine the Word, draw our theological conclusions, inhabit or be informed by the historical tradition we think most fits our conclusions, and then (however) be open to cultural adaptations and learning from other traditions.⁷

The Situational Perspective: Cultural and Ecclesial Settings

John Calvin recognized that a worship service is not to be shaped only by theological and historical considerations. He often said that “whatever edifies” should be done: “If we let love be our guide, all will be safe.”⁸ In other words, it is critical to consider what appeals to the people of our community and our church. Again, let’s break this down into two aspects.

First, our cultural context shapes the service. Though this idea may be a major source of controversy among some, it is unavoidable nonetheless. We see a strong correlation between approaches to worship and demographic factors such as age, socioeconomic status, and ethnicity. Here are some examples from our own observation in New York City:

• Generally, classical music and liturgy appeal to the educated. “High” cultural forms are those that, by definition, require training to appreciate.

• Generally, contemporary praise/worship approaches are far more likely to bring together a diversity of racial groups.

• Generally, young professional Anglos, especially of the more artistic bent, are highly attracted to the convergence of liturgical/historical with eclectic musical forms.

• Generally, baby boomer families are highly attracted to seeker-sensitive worship and the more ahistorical, sentimental Christian contemporary songs.

As you design your worship, you cannot naively assume you are “just being biblical” about many things that are actually cultural and personal preferences. Think of who is in your community and skew your worship service toward them in all the places where your biblical theology and historical tradition leave you freedom.

Second, keep in mind that our church’s model and core values shape the service. Every church should do worship, evangelism, teaching, community building, and service — but every model relates these elements to one another in different ways. For example, some church models expect to do much of their evangelism in the service; other models do not. Many have pointed out that all worship traditions have slightly different purposes. They are all worship— they all aim to honor God by lifting him up, showing everyone his worth, and calling the congregation to give him his due; nevertheless, the different traditions pursue this basic goal in different ways. The traditional/free church approach places more emphasis on instructing the worshiper, while the praise/worship approach aims to exalt and uplift the worshiper, and the seeker-sensitive approach aims to uplift the worshiper while it evangelizes the non-Christians present. Our own church model will lead us to either use one of these approaches or mix together various aspects.

The Existential Perspective: Temperament and Affinity

Finally, it is necessary to be aware of our own personal affinities — what we as a pastor or worship leader like or dislike in our own experience of worship. The goal should be to play to our own strengths without privileging ourselves over our congregation. On the one hand, far too many ministers create worship services that delight their own hearts but do not connect at all to people who are less theologically and culturally trained. In reply, the ministers maintain that this is “biblical” or “rich” worship, that in our culture people just want to be entertained, that we have to raise people up to a worthy level, not lower ourselves to their level, and so on. But quite often the problem is simply that the minister has created a service that inspires him and few others. The apostle Paul warned us not to please ourselves (Rom 15:1 – 3), a temptation we all face when planning worship.

It is easy to use theological arguments to rationalize our personal preferences and tastes. An example is the objection that popular culture is simply not a worthy medium for worship. Those who raise this objection insist that only high culture music should be used, since it takes much more skill to produce and appreciate. But these same critics don’t like the idea of jazz services, even though jazz qualifies as high culture and is far more difficult to master and appreciate than rock, gospel, or pop music. More often than not, this reveals that these critics simply like classical music and are looking for some theological justification to universalize their own tastes.

At the same time, we can’t lead a worship service well in a style that leaves our own hearts cold. Once we are willing to admit that our preferences and tastes are just that, we are still faced with the fact that we can’t lead worship unless we are actually engaged in it ourselves. The music and songs must necessarily touch and stir our own hearts. If we have the personality of the contemplative — one who loves quiet and thoughtful reflection — we may have a lot of trouble concentrating on God in a highly charismatic worship service. Ultimately, our own heart’s capacities and experiential temperament must be a factor in the worship service we choose, design, and use. One of the reasons I put this existential factor third is so ministers exercise the discipline of consulting the Bible and the people before they necessarily consult their own sensibilities.

Seeker-Sensitive versus Evangelistic Worship

In the 1980s, the Willow Creek approach became enormously influential. One of its fundamental premises was the assumption that we cannot reach both Christians and non-Christians in the same gathering. So Willow Creek designed weekend “seeker services.” These were not intended to be Christian worship gatherings but were considered outreach events; Christians were encouraged to worship at the midweek services. Ironically, those most hostile to the Willow Creek style of worship usually share the same assumption about worship. They frame the debate like this: “Who is the Sunday service for— nonbelievers or God?” Their answer, of course, is that the Sunday worship service is purely for God. They also assume that worship cannot be highly evangelistic. I want to argue that these are false premises.

My thesis is that the weekly worship service can be very effective in evangelism of non-Christians and in edification of Christians if it does not aim at either alone but is gospel-centered and in the vernacular. Of course, there will be a need for other, more intense experiences of learning, prayer, and community to help Christians to grow into maturity, just as there will be a need for more specifically evangelistic venues and experiences where non-Christians can have their questions and concerns fully addressed. With an awareness of the need for these additional experiences, I believe it is possible for the weekly worship service to be the core of both evangelism and edification.

The biblical basis for evangelistic worship can be developed by a close examination of two key texts: 1 Corinthians 14:24 – 25 and Acts 2. In the 1 Corinthians passage, Paul is addressing the misuse of the gift of tongues. He complains that if nonbelievers enter a worship service and hear people speaking in tongues, they will think the Christians are out of their minds (v. 23). He insists that the Christians should change their behavior so that the worship service will be comprehensible to nonbelievers. If, however, an unlearned one (an uninitiated “inquirer”) comes in and worship is being done unto edification, then the nonbeliever will be “convicted of sin and . . . brought under judgment by all” (v. 24). How? “The secrets of their hearts are laid bare” (v. 25). This may mean this person realizes the worshipers around him are finding in God what his heart had been secretly searching for, though in all the wrong ways. It may mean the worship reveals to him how his heart really works. Either way, the result is clear: He “will fall down and worship God, exclaiming, ‘God is really among you!’ ” (v. 25).

This is a rather remarkable passage. Earlier, in verses 15 – 17, Paul insists that God be worshiped in such a way that it leads to edification. Now he tells us worship must also be done in such a way that it leads to evangelism. Many of us get distracted from this fact because we are studying this passage to figure out what tongues and prophecy consisted of and whether they continue today. While all of this is debatable, there is at least one unmistakably clear implication of this passage. Virtually every major commentary tells us that in verses 20 – 25, Paul is urging the Corinthian believers to stress prophecy over tongues for two reasons: (1) prophecy edifies believers, and (2) it convicts and converts nonbelievers.⁹ In other words, Paul instructs them to stress prophecy over tongues at least in part because it converts people.¹⁰ Why else would he give a detailed description of how a non-Christian comes to conviction in worship?

In Acts 2, we find further compelling evidence for evangelistic worship. When the Spirit falls on those in the upper room, we read that a crowd gathers because they “hear [the disciples] declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!” (v. 11). As a result, they are curious and interested: “Amazed and perplexed, they asked one another, ‘What does this mean?’ ” (v. 12). Later, they are deeply convicted: “They were cut to the heart and said . . . , ‘Brothers, what shall we do?’ ” (v. 37). Again we find the church’s worship attracting the interest of outsiders. This initial curiosity and interest eventually lead to conviction and conversion; in other words, it is evangelistic.

We must acknowledge some obvious differences between the two situations in Acts 2 and 1 Corinthians 14. First Corinthians 14 pictures conversion happening on the spot (which is certainly possible). But in Acts 2, nonbelievers are first shaken out of their indifference (v. 12), with the actual conversions (vv. 37 – 41) occurring after a later encounter in which Peter explained the gospel (vv. 14 – 36) and showed them how to individually receive Christ (vv. 38 – 39). Others have pointed out that the “tongues” referred to in these two situations are different. But again, irrespective of what these passages teach about tongues and prophecy, we should not fail to note what they teach us about the purpose of worship and evangelism more broadly. From our survey, we can conclude at least three things:

1. Nonbelievers are expected to be present in Christian worship. In Acts 2, this happens by word-of-mouth excitement. In 1 Corinthians 14, it is more likely the result of a personal invitation from Christian friends. No matter how they arrive at the service, Paul clearly expects that both “inquirers” (literally, “seekers” or “those who do not understand”) and “unbelievers” will be present in worship (1 Cor 14:23).

2. Nonbelievers should find the praise of Christians to be comprehensible. In Acts 2, this understanding happens by miraculous, divine intervention. In 1 Corinthians 14, it happens by human design and effort. But again, regardless of how this understanding occurs, we must not miss the fact that Paul directly tells a local congregation to adapt its worship because nonbelievers will be present. It is a false dichotomy to insist we must choose between seeking to please God and being concerned with how unchurched people feel or what they might be thinking about during our worship services.

3. Nonbelievers can fall under conviction and be converted through comprehensible worship. As I pointed out earlier, in 1 Corinthians 14, this happens during the service, but in Acts 2, it is supplemented by after-meetings and follow-up evangelism. God wants the world to overhear us worshiping him. God directs his people not simply to worship but to sing his praises “before the nations.” We are called not simply to communicate the gospel to nonbelievers; we must also intentionally celebrate the gospel before them.

Three Practical Tasks for Evangelistic Worship

If, as we have seen, it is important to have evangelistic aims in our worship, we are led to a practical question: How do we do it? Let me suggest three practical things churches can do to cultivate evangelistic worship.

2. Get Nonbelievers into Worship

The numbering here is not a mistake. This task actually comes second, but nearly everyone assumes it comes first! It is quite natural to believe we must get non-Christians into worship before we can begin evangelistic worship. But the reverse is actually true. Non-Christians will not be invited into worship unless the worship is already evangelistic. Typically, coming into worship will only happen through personal invitations from Christians. As we read in the Psalms, the “nations” must be directly asked to come (e.g., Ps 96). The main stimuli for these invitations are the comprehensibility and quality of the worship experience.

Almost every Christian, if they pay attention, will be able to sense whether a worship experience will be attractive to their non-Christian friends. They may find a particular service wonderfully edifying for them and yet know their nonbelieving neighbors would react negatively, and so they wouldn’t even consider bringing them along. They do not think they will be impressed or interested. Because this is their expectation, they do nothing about it, and a vicious cycle begins. Pastors see only Christians present, so they lack incentive to make their worship comprehensible to outsiders. But since they fail to make the necessary changes to adapt and contextualize, outsiders never come. The pastors continue to respond to the exclusively Christian audience that gathers, and the cycle continues. Therefore, the best way to get Christians to bring non-Christians to a worship service is to worship as if there are dozens of skeptical onlookers. If we worship as if they are there, eventually they will be.

1. Make Worship Comprehensible to Nonbelievers

Contrary to popular belief, our purpose is not to make the nonbeliever “comfortable.” After all, in 1 Corinthians 14:24 – 25 and Acts 2:12, 37, nonbelievers are “convicted of sin”; “the secrets of their hearts are laid bare”; they are “amazed and perplexed”; and they are “cut to the heart”! Our aim is to be intelligible to them. We must address their heart secrets (1 Cor 14:25), and so we must remember what it is like to not believe. How do we do that?

a. Seek to worship and preach in the vernacular. It is impossible to overstate how insular and subcultural our preaching can become. We often make statements that are persuasive and compelling to us, but they are based on all sorts of premises that a secular person does not hold. Preachers often use references, terms, and phrases that mean nothing outside of our Christian tribe. So we must intentionally seek to avoid unnecessary theological or evangelical jargon, carefully explaining the basic theological concepts behind confession of sin, praise, thanksgiving, and so on. In your preaching, always be willing to address the questions that the nonbelieving heart will ask. Speak respectfully and sympathetically to people who have difficulty with Christianity. As you prepare the sermon, imagine a particularly skeptical non-Christian sitting in the chair listening to you. Be sure to add the asides, the qualifiers, and the extra explanations that are necessary to communicate in a way that is comprehensible to them. Listen to everything that is said in the worship service with the ears of someone who has doubts or struggles with belief.

b. Explain the service as you go along. Though there is some danger of pastoral verbosity here that distracts from the worship experience, learn to give one-to-two-sentence, nonjargon explanations of each part of the service as it comes. For example, prior to leading a prayer of confession, you might say, “When we confess our sins, we are not groveling in guilt, but we’re dealing with our guilt. If we deny our sins, we will never get free from them.” It may also be helpful to begin a worship service (as is customary in African-American churches) with a “devotional” — a brief talk that explains the meaning of worship. By doing this, we will continually instruct newcomers in worship.

c. Directly address and welcome nonbelievers. Talk regularly to “those of you who aren’t sure you believe this or who aren’t sure just what you believe.” Give several asides, even trying to express the language of their hearts. Articulate their objections to Christian doctrine and life better than they can do it themselves. Express sincere sympathy for their difficulties, even as you challenge them directly for their selfishness and unbelief. Admonish with tears (literally or figuratively). It is extremely important that the nonbeliever feels we understand them. Always grant whatever degree of merit their objections have.

• “I’ve tried it before, and it did not work.”

• “I don’t see how my life could be the result of the plan of a loving God.”

• “Christianity is a straitjacket.”

• “It can’t be wrong if it feels so right.”

• “I could never keep it up.”

• “I don’t feel worthy; I am too bad.”

• “I just can’t believe.”

d. Consider using highly skilled arts in worship. The power of good art draws people to behold it. It enters the soul through the imagination and begins to appeal to the reason. Art makes ideas plausible. The quality of our music, your speech, and even the visual aesthetics in worship will have a marked impact on its evangelistic power, particularly in cultural centers. In many churches, the quality of the music is mediocre or poor, but it does not disturb the faithful. Why? Their faith makes the words of the hymn or the song meaningful, despite its lack of artistic expression; what’s more, they usually have a personal relationship with the music presenter. But any outsider who comes in as someone unconvinced of the truth and having no relationship to the presenter will likely be bored or irritated by the expression. In other words, excellent aesthetics includes outsiders, while mediocre aesthetics excludes. The low level of artistic quality in many churches guarantees that only insiders will continue to come. For the non-Christian, the attraction of good art will play a major role in drawing them in.

e. Celebrate deeds of mercy and justice. We live in a time when public esteem of the church is plummeting. For many outsiders and inquirers, the deeds of the church will be far more important than our words in gaining plausibility (Acts 4:32 – 33). Leaders in most places see “word-only” churches as net costs to their community, organizations of relatively little value. But effective churches will be so involved in deeds of mercy and justice that outsiders will say, “We cannot do without churches like this. This church is channeling so much value into our community that if it were to leave the neighborhood, we would have to raise taxes.” Evangelistic worship services should highlight offerings for deed ministry and celebrate by the giving of reports, testimonies, and prayers. It is best that offerings for mercy ministries are received separately from the regular offering; they can be attached (as is traditional) to the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. This connection brings before the non-Christian the impact of the gospel on people’s hearts (i.e., the gospel makes us generous) and the impact of lives poured out for the world.

f. Present the sacraments so as to make the gospel clear. Baptism, and especially adult baptism, should be given great significance in evangelistic worship. Consider providing an opportunity for the baptized to offer their personal testimony as well as to respond to certain questions. Make the meaning of baptism clear through a moving, joyous, personal charge to the baptized (and to all baptized Christians present). In addition, the Lord’s Supper can also become a converting ordinance. If it is explained properly, the nonbeliever will have a specific and visible way to see the difference between walking with Christ and living for oneself. The Lord’s Supper confronts every individual with the question, “Are you right with God today? Right now?” There is perhaps no more effective way to help a person take a spiritual inventory. Many seekers in churches in the United States will only realize they are not truly Christians during the “fencing of the table.”¹¹

g. Preach grace. The one message that both believers and nonbelievers need to hear is that salvation and adoption are by grace alone. If our response to this emphasis on grace-oriented preaching is, “Christians will be bored by all of this,” I believe we are revealing a misunderstanding of the gospel. The gospel of free, gracious justification and adoption is not just the way we enter the kingdom; it is also the way we grow into the likeness of Christ. The apostle Paul tells us it is the original, saving message of “grace alone” that leads to sanctified living: “The grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to all people. It teaches us to say ‘No’ to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age, while we wait for the blessed hope — the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ” (Titus 2:11 – 13).

Many Christians are defeated and stagnant in their growth because they try to be holy for wrong motives. They say no to temptation by telling themselves:

• “God will get me.”

• “People will find out.”

• “I’ll hate myself in the morning.”

• “It will hurt my self-esteem.”

• “It will hurt other people.”

• “It’s against the law, and I’ll be caught.”

• “It’s against my principles.”

• “I will look bad.”

Some or all of these statements may be true, but the Titus passage tells us they are inadequate. Only the grace of God expressed through the logic of the gospel will work.

Therefore, there is one basic message that both Christians and nonbelievers need to hear, again and again: the gospel of grace. It can be applied to both groups directly and forcefully. Moralistic sermons will only be applicable to one of the two groups — Christians or non-Christians. But Christocentric preaching of the gospel grows believers and challenges nonbelievers. Yes, if our Sunday service and the sermon aim primarily at evangelism, eventually we will bore the saints. And if in our preaching we consistently aim primarily at education, we will eventually bore and confuse nonbelievers. But when our worship and preaching aim at praising the God who saves by grace, we will challenge and instruct both believers and nonbelievers.

3. Lead People to Commitment

We have seen that nonbelievers in worship actually “close with Christ” in two basic ways: some may come to Christ during the service itself (1 Cor 14:24 – 25), while others must be “followed up with” by means of after-service meetings. Let’s take a closer look at both ways of leading people to commitment.

It is possible to lead people to a commitment to Christ during the service. One way of inviting people to receive Christ is to make a verbal invitation as the Lord’s Supper is being distributed. At our church, we say it this way: “If you are not in a saving relationship with God through Christ today, do not take the bread and the cup, but as they come around, take Christ. Receive him in your heart as those around you receive the food. Then immediately afterward, come up and tell an officer or a pastor about what you’ve done so we can get you ready to receive the Supper the next time as a child of God.” Another way to invite commitment during the service is to give people a time of silence or a period of musical interlude after the sermon. This affords people time to think and process what they have heard and to offer themselves to God in prayer.

In many situations, it is best to invite people to commitment through after-meetings. Acts 2 gives an example. In verses 12 and 13, we are told that some folks mocked the apostles after hearing them praise and preach, but others were disturbed and asked, “What does this mean?” Then we see that Peter very specifically explained the gospel, and in response to the follow-up question “What shall we do?” (v. 37), he explained how to become a Christian. Historically, many preachers have found it effective to offer such meetings to nonbelievers and seekers immediately after evangelistic worship. Convicted seekers have just come from being in the presence of God and are often the most teachable and open at this time. To seek to “get them into a small group” or even to merely return next Sunday is asking a lot. They may also be “amazed and perplexed” (Acts 2:12), and it is best to strike while the iron is hot. This should not be understood as doubting that God is infallibly drawing people to himself (Acts 13:48; 16:14). Knowing the sovereignty of God helps us to relax as we do evangelism, knowing that conversions are not dependent on our eloquence. But it should not lead us to ignore or minimize the truth that God works through secondary causes. The Westminster Confession (5.2 – 3), for example, tells us that God routinely works through normal social and psychological processes. Therefore, inviting people into a follow-up meeting immediately after the worship service can often be more conducive to conserving the fruit of the Word.

After-meetings may take the shape of one or more persons waiting at the front of the auditorium to pray with and talk with seekers who wish to make inquiries right on the spot. Another way is to host a simple Q&A session with the preacher in or near the main auditorium following the postlude. Or offer one or two classes or small group experiences targeted to specific questions non-Christians ask about the content, relevance, and credibility of the Christian faith. Skilled lay evangelists should be present to come alongside newcomers, answer spiritual questions, and provide guidance for their next steps.

“What about Deeper, Meatier Teaching?”

A recurring concern I hear is that evangelistic worship will keep Christians from deeper, meatier types of teaching. Some mean by this that they want theological distinctives spelled out — teaching on how the church’s view of certain doctrinal issues differs from that of other churches and denominations. But why should we spend a lot of time preaching about these distinctives when many people present in the service do not believe in (or live as if they do not believe in) the authority of the Bible or the deity of Christ? Don’t we want the principal distinctive of the preaching to be the offense and consolation of the gospel to believers and nonbelievers alike? I believe that if we make sure this happens, we will create quite a sharp enough distinction from other churches in our worship.

For example, should a Presbyterian pastor do an extended series of sermons on the case for infant baptism? Apart from the fact that my Baptist friends don’t believe that such a case exists (!), this is what I call a Z doctrine, and it is based on X and Y doctrines — such as the authority of the Bible, the truths of the gospel, and the cost of discipleship. We must preach the whole counsel of God, and when preaching expositionally, we cover and teach what the text teaches. But in general we must stress the X and Y doctrines in our services, continually revisiting them and building on them to explain other truths that may be addressed less often.

It is natural to ask whether this approach is being too timid and is just looking to avoid controversy. But consider this list of the doctrines we hit hard and often in our preaching:

• Jesus is the only way to God (a defense of Christian exclusivism)

• the authority and inerrancy of Scripture

• the Trinity

• propitiation and penal substitution

• imputation

• justification by faith alone

• sanctification by faith alone

• last-day judgment and the reality of hell

• the reality of transcendent moral absolutes

• total depravity and inability to meet moral absolutes

• the orientation of the heart to idolatry

• the sinfulness of any sex outside of marriage

• the sovereignty of God over every circumstance, including trouble and suffering

I address each of these topics in sermons regularly. As you can well see, they are not only theologically substantial; they are also controversial. But we are choosing to contend and argue for the basic truths of the faith, of the gospel. I have come to believe that when people clamor for “meaty” teachings, they are not always asking for in-depth treatments of the doctrines that are central to Christian conviction and life; they want to know more about what separates churches and denominations from each other. As the focus of a worship service (not a lecture) and in a setting designed to include nonbelievers, these types of discussions aren’t terribly helpful. So our counsel to people asking the questions is, “Go deeper and learn the details and distinctions in classes, small groups, and in individual relationships with pastors and other Christians” (the lay ministry dynamic at work). Again, this is not avoiding the bold proclamation of the truth; rather, it is leading with the offense of the gospel instead of with the truths that are predicated on the gospel. And then, of course, it is our responsibility to teach the issues in those other settings — without perpetuating the error that we can leave the gospel behind as we do.

We must acknowledge that no approach to preaching, by itself, can be fully adequate for all the training necessary for mature discipleship. Every Christian will need to delve into biblical and theological details that are simply less appropriate for a sermon than for another venue — a class, a lecture, small groups, one-on-one relationships. In this respect, almost every preacher will have someone in their congregation who draws the line between “sermon” and “lecture” further toward the lecture than the preacher does. Some of these will eventually leave to find a church where the preacher draws the line further over so sermons are more like lectures. I almost always find that these churches have worship services that feel much more like classrooms. They are highly cognitive and contextualized to a northern European cultural style. In many such cases, education is actually squeezing out worship.

So how do we choose a worship form? How do we connect our people to God? We must find a balance between the consumer mentality that seeks only to meet felt needs and our self-centered tendency to assume our own preferences are the only biblically right way to meet God. Instead, we can humbly learn from what the Bible teaches about worship while recognizing that God gives us great freedom in the particulars. As we fill in the blanks for our own worship, we must take into account what the Bible teaches, our own cultural and ecclesial setting, and our own personal temperament and preferences.

In addition, we should intentionally create services in which both evangelism and edification can occur. The weekly worship service can be very effective in evangelism of non-Christians and in edification of Christians if it is gospel-centered and in the vernacular of the community. In the next chapter, we will turn from the ministry front of connecting people to God to examine how missional churches connect people to one another in that community.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

1. Which of the five categories of worship traditions most closely matches your own personal style and recent history?

• liturgical— emphasis on the physical

• traditional— emphasis on the mental

• praise and worship— emphasis on the emotional

• seeker-oriented— emphasis on the practical

• fusions of both form and music — emphasis on the mystical

Have you experienced worship in each of the other traditions? What did you learn from those experiences?

2. Keller writes, “Many now-historic [worship] traditions were once innovative revisions of an older approach.” Have you ever researched the history of your tradition’s liturgy (or lack thereof)? Against which prior trends was it a reaction? Which beliefs and preferences informed it?

3. Consider the seven suggestions for making worship comprehensible to unbelievers. Which of these are you currently doing? What can you begin to do to make your worship more understandable to outsiders?

4. Do you hear the objection that your church should have “deeper, meatier teaching” in worship? Do you have venues outside the worship service to deal with the “details and distinctions,” and do people really hear them there? Can you make your own list of substantial and controversial topics that you “hit hard and often” in your preaching?