Good Grief
While away from my home-church (Oceanside United Reformed Church) this summer, I have had the opportunity to visit a variety of churches here in Boston. I have been disturbed to witness the spectator element in many worship services. By this I mean portions of the service where the congregation is entirely passive. This most often takes place during special music (soloists and choirs), but some churches include drama, interpretive dance, handbells, finger painting, puppet shows, hop-scotch, etc.
While surrounded by an entertainment-driven culture, why would we want to introduce entertainment into the corporate worship of God? If you do not think that spectator portions of the service are entertainment, what do you 
call it? The congregation has no role except to admire the talent of the performer. You may reply that the spectator is encouraged to worship God through the activity of the performer. The problem is, the only individuals in Scripture through whom worship of God is directed are the priests as they offer sacrifices. The priests, of course have been replaced by the Great High Priest Jesus Christ. So basically, if I am told to worship through the activity of another, that person becomes my mediator. This is a problem. I would rather have Jesus as a Mediator than any church performer.
This is Worship
If these performances are not entertainment, then why does the congregation often applaud? We are not applauding the performer, we are applauding God, some may say. Does God need your applause? If they are applauding God, why does applause only take place after special music and not the sermon, offering, or benediction. The reality is God does not need your applause and the performer does not need to become an object of idolatry, which is exactly what he or she is when applauded in a worship service. The attention is taken away from the Triune God and given to a mere human.
Some may say that the preaching of the gospel is just as passive as spectator elements. I strongly disagree. The preaching of the gospel is not something to passively observe; rather, it is a means of grace given by God and received by us. The preaching of the gospel is what the Holy Spirit uses to generate faith in the individual. Romans 10:14ff, “How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching?… So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.” The preaching of the gospel is certainly not passive; it is a divinely appointed means of grace.
The second commandment makes it clear that God desires to be worshipped in a specific manner. The standard of what is acceptable in worship is not what makes us feel good or gives us that tingly sensation. The deaths of Nadab and Abihu (Lev 10) make it clear that God takes worship very seriously. The Reformed tradition has always understood that in worship we must only do what Scriptures commands, the Regulative Principle of Worship. This is contrary to Lutheran and Anglican traditions which worship in any way that is not forbidden in Scripture. So theoretically, Lutherans and Anglicans can worship with drama or interpretive dance because they are not expressly forbidden in the Bible.
So I pose the question, are we commanded by God in His Word to include spectator elements in corporate worship? I think that the answer is clear. Remember this next time you are called upon to be a spectator in worship.
Hell's Bells
6 responses so far ↓
R. Scott Clark // Monday, August, 11, 2008 at 3:18
Great stuff Dan!
Danny Hyde // Monday, August, 11, 2008 at 3:18
So what you’re saying is that the “clap offering” isn’t an element of worship?
Anyways, now you now why we have no “offertory” music, choirs, or solos at OURC.
Jared // Monday, August, 11, 2008 at 3:18
“More Cowbell,”
The more we make worship look like the world the less otherworldly it becomes, great post!!
Rich // Wednesday, August, 13, 2008 at 3:18
Dan,
I enjoyed you post very much. I grew up in (and still attend) a church where there was a soloist, duet, etc. every Sunday and I have heard my share of “clap offerings.” As a child I didn’t think twice about it, but as I matured in the faith I could tell something was wrong with the way it was being handled.
I think that there are two sides to this coin. First of all, I totally agree with you that it is wrong for a soloist/whateverist being transformed into a performer for the congregation to watch like American Idol. BUT there is also the case in which a song benefits/encourages/convicts it’s hearers as would a good sermon. Now granted, it can be a fine line but I believe that there are people who are gifted in this area to do this and that worship leaders (or whoever selects the soloists) MUST be held accountable for why there is a solo, who sings the solo, and what the content of the song is.
As a musician and former worship leader I am often asked to do a solo. I fully agree with Martin Luther that music is the handmaiden to theology, and whenever I am asked to sing I use it as an opportunity, not to show off my talents, but to use them in order to convey the gospel. I choose songs for a purpose and on more than one occasion, not only did the (clappy) congregation not clap, but not even a whispered ‘Amen’ could be heard. I take that and am comforted that the message was put forth and not just a good tune.
That being said, if I were asked to sing every week I would immediately reject it. The preaching of the Word is central and the singing of the whole congregation is vital.
danborvan // Thursday, August, 14, 2008 at 3:18
Hi Rich,
You bring up some interesting points. First, I must commend you for not using opportunities to sing in church as performance venues. I am also pleased that you thoughtfully choose songs in order to proclaim the gospel.
I must disagree however, with the statement that a song can benefit/encourage/convict its hearers as would a good sermon. Let me say that I am definitely in favor of singing. We are commanded in Ephesians 5:19 to address “one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with your heart.” Singing though is not confessed to be a means of grace, unlike the preaching of the gospel and the administration of the sacraments. Faith proceeds, “From the Holy Ghost, who works faith in our hearts by the preaching of the gospel, and confirms it by the use of the sacraments” (Heidelberg A65).
Also, the issue for me is not about singing in general, but who is doing the singing? Like I mentioned in the post, the Regulative Principle of Worship states that we can only worship in the manner that God has prescribed in His Word. This is divided into three categories: Word, Sacraments, and Prayer. Singing is definitely to be included in the service under the category of prayer. But the singing is to be done by the congregation, not by soloists or choirs.
I am not an expert in this area, but it is my understanding that “special music” is a product of Revivalism of the 18th and 19th centuries. Before that, congregational singing was the only kind of singing in Protestant churches. They saw choirs as popish elements to be banished from the church. In the Medieval Roman Church, the majority of people did not sing, especially women. The singing was done for the most part by monks in Latin. The congregation was reduced to spectators. The Reformers rejected this and re-introduced congregational singing into the churches. So why have we gone back to Rome and turned the congregation into an audience?
Rich // Thursday, August, 14, 2008 at 3:18
I absolutely agree with you. When I made that statement I, in no way, meant that that type of song could ever or should ever replace the preaching of the Word of God. I will say, however, that the gospel can (and should) be proclaimed through song! Whether it is the congregation singing or an individual singer. As far as the Regulative Principle goes I find that this does not go against it in the least. We find throughout Scripture an individual singing before the congregation of people. Moses, David. There were even assigned Temple singers.
I think that the Revivalist period can be looked at as a giant wrecking ball that burst into congregational worship. You are dead on in your assessment. Not only is there “special music” but just take a look through a hymnal around the middle 1800’s through middle 1900’s and you can see the amazing shift from God centered songs to songs of self-expression. “I walk through the garden alone…” not to mention an overwhelming amount of horrid Arminian theology thrown into the mix! “The Savior is waiting to enter your heart, why don’t you let him come in?”
I think we’re looking at different sides of the same coin!
Sorry for my long responses. It’s actually a breath of fresh air to talk to someone about real issues dealing with worship, rather than whether or not Fannie May likes the drums or not!