Contemporary Worship vs. Biblical Worship: a Fundamental Baptist View

Yes, I disagree with certain Baptist beliefs and practices. No, I’m not “joining” the Baptist Church. But I find the following article closest to what the New Testament teaches in regard to biblical worship. Without question, the message presented in this article would put some of my own brethren in the church to shame, brethren who now adhere to the new-and-improved belief and practice of choreographed worship that they obviously “enjoy.”

Donnie Cruz



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Distributed by Way of Life Literature’s Fundamental Baptist Information Service. Copyright 2001. http://www.wayoflife.org/.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


CONTEMPORARY WORSHIP VS. BIBLICAL WORSHIP


Updated April 4, 2002 (first published December 11, 2001) (David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org; for instructions about subscribing and unsubscribing or changing addresses, see the information paragraph at the end of the article)

There is a great emphasis among churches today on "worship services." Commonly this involves the use of a "praise band" and a "worship leader." The traditional hymns are discarded in favor of powerful contemporary rock type songs that literally take control of the people. An invitation is given to the church members to move with the flow of the music and to abandon themselves in adoration to God. There is commonly an emphasis on inviting the Holy Spirit to minister to the people during these occasions. In such circles, it is typical to find a concept that the Holy Spirit should not be "put in a box," and that it is not wrong if strange manifestations such as shakings and fallings occur during the worship. It is not uncommon to find disorder, confusion, women leaders, and other blatantly unscriptural things in contemporary worship services.

The New Testament, though, does not give any pattern for conducting a specific corporate worship service in the churches. None whatsoever. Those who try to find biblical justification for the "worship service," cannot find it in the writings of the Apostles. They must go to the Old Testament temple worship or to the book of Revelation, but the pattern for the churches is the Apostolic writings. There are three key words for worship in the New Testament: worship, praise, and glorify, and none of these are used in the context of a corporate church worship service. The only time the word "worship" is used in the Acts or Epistles in connection with the church services is in 1 Cor. 14:25, and it is speaking of individual worship, not corporate worship. Likewise, the words "praise" or "glorify" are never used in the New Testament of corporate worship in church meetings. They are used, rather, of individual praise to God through private thanksgiving and godly living (Acts 2:47; Rom. 15:5-6; 1 Cor. 6:20; Phil. 1:11; Heb. 13:15; 1 Pet. 4:16).

This does not mean that it is wrong for churches to worship the Lord together. Just the opposite. Certainly, that is what we are to do at all times, including during the church services. In fact, there is a gross lack of conscious worship in the average church service in strong Bible-believing congregations today. Everything is treated with such a lack of solemnity and with such a lack of heart-felt praise directed toward God. Even the singing is approached in a "ho hum" manner, more as a ritual that we go through than an occasion of directing one's heart to God.

What, then, is the difference between the typical contemporary worship service and the biblical pattern for worship in the church?

(1) Biblical worship has no emphasis on the use of music. The two mentions of music in the New Testament epistles focus as much on edifying the saints as on singing unto the Lord (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16). In fact, biblical worship emphasizes that God is worshipped through everything done in the church rather than merely through one particular type of worship offered to Him via a praise time (1 Pet. 4:11). In direct contradiction to this, contemporary worship focuses almost exclusively on one type of worship to God, that being the worship that is associated with contemporary music.

(2) Biblical church worship is submitted to the apostolic commandments, which require that everything be done decently and in order, that there be no confusion, that women cannot lead, etc. (1 Cor. 11:2; 14:37). This means that all of the unscriptural things commonly associated with contemporary worship, particularly in charismatic circles, are rejected.

(3) Biblical church worship emphasizes the understanding rather than the emotions (1 Cor. 14:15). The emphasis is not on "feeling God" but on understanding and knowing God through the truth of His Word. We see this reflected in the traditional hymns. The old hymn writers aimed to edify the understanding rather than to create an emotional high. In contemporary worship, though, "songs are chosen in order to induce feelings in the worshippers. . . . [to induce] an altered state of consciousness by flagrant manipulation" (Alan Morrison, The New Style of Worship and the Great Apostasy).

(4) Biblical church worship emphasizes the unity of the faith rather than the ecumenical concept of unity in diversity that is so common in contemporary Christian worship (Rom. 15:6; Matt. 15:9; John 4:24). There can be no true worship unless there is complete commitment to sound Bible doctrine. The hodgepodge of doctrine present in the typical ecumenical setting does not glorify God and is not acceptable to Him, regardless of the zeal and enthusiasm exhibited during the worship sessions.

(5) Biblical church worship requires moral purity and separation from the world (Rom. 12:1-2; Phil. 1:11), in contrast to the contemporary worship which typically ignores separation and which builds bridges to the world through the use of the world's music, dress, etc. Typical contemporary worship also ignores the necessity of moral purity and is very careless about how Christians live. It is enough that they enter into the "worship times" with great enthusiasm. If they divorce their spouses and commit adultery and are crooked in their business practices and dress like harlots and watch filthy television programs and Hollywood movies, that is overlooked. Among churches that incorporate contemporary worship styles, there is little or no preaching against the world in any plain and practical sense and little or no church discipline exercised. There are exceptions, but this is the rule.

(6) Biblical church worship is constantly vigilant of spiritual dangers (1 Pet. 5:8; 2 Cor. 11:1-4). At least 11 times the Apostles warn Christians to be "sober." Pastors are to be sober (Titus 1:8); aged men are to be sober (Titus 2:2); the women are to be sober (Titus 2:4); young men are to be sober (Titus 2:6); the wives of pastors and deacons are to be sober (1 Tim. 3:11). 1 Thessalonians 5:6 and 1 Pet. 5:8 explain what it means to be sober; it means to be spiritually alert and watchful and vigilant. To the contrary, though, contemporary worship teaches people to open up unreservedly to spiritual influences without any sense of danger or fear of deception. They instruct the people to "let go and let God," to "be open and vulnerable," to "open yourself to the Spirit," to "invite the Holy Spirit to come and do his thing," to "be ready for the unusual." There is absolutely nothing like this taught in the New Testament scriptures. The Apostles and early churches did not practice anything like this. When the Corinthians began to dabble in similar things and were allowing confusion and disorder to reign in their midst, the Apostle rebuked them and corrected their error.

This is one of the best articles I've seen comparing contemporary worship to biblical worship, even if it was written by a Baptist preacher. Truth is truth. It reminds me of some statements that a contemporary Southern Baptist preacher once made regarding worship:

First, he stressed that the music must not be "funereal"; that is, not slow or solemn. To him, worship had to be lively, fun, entertaining, action-packed, and energized with emotion. He parroted Rick Warren's philosophy of having no moments of silence in his worship services. Thus, the worship services often sported unsettling, raucous rock music from praise bands.

Second, he proclaimed that anyone who MEDITATED during worship was MEDICATED and in need of RUST REMOVER. This preacher equated a solemn service with quiet meditation as being DEAD. REVERENCE as such was equated with DEAD. Physical responses with the body and emotional demonstrations with "adrenaline highs" were synonymous with having faith. Humble worship that did not emphasize the self was equivalent to being DEAD.

Third, this preacher was adamant that any new, young, contemporary "talent" be showcased in worship services, because, in his opinion, if they were not utilized, they would go elsewhere, and then his church "would be like all the other dead churches in our area."

Fourth, this preacher regarded worship as the time for a spiritual "fill-up." He said that by the end of the week, he was so spiritually "drained" that he couldn't wait to come to worship services, so that he could get "filled up" for another week. He only came to worship to get something FROM God, not to surrender himself in total worship TO God. And the principal way that he got his "high" was through the praise music.

Fifth, and not surprisingly, the preacher jokingly described himself as a "Bapticostal"; that is, he was a Baptist, yet he was sympathetic to the charismatic, Pentecostal belief of worship. Thus, it was common for people to raise their hands during worship and sway their bodies to the worldly rock beat.

Ceremonial legalists drive themselves mad trying to find the LOST DOCUMENTS which inform us about "music" as worship in the early churches. They will look in vain because it was NOT LOST. We know that the early churches could still grasp the command which was to SPEAK, TEACH AND ADMONISH using "one mind" and "one voice" to SPEAK "that which is written." To "sing" at that time meant to "say." In the pagan churches the form of odeing was to deliberately create SPIRITUAL EXCITEMENT by which the "worship teams" could make you BE LIFTED UP so they could "cut your throat." This is the meaning of HERESY: seducing you away for THEIR OWN USES. Here is some of the LOST PROOF.

Ephraem Syrus, B. C. 306, d. 373

To Ephraim pertains the high and unique distinction of having originated-or at least given its living impulse to-a new departure in sacred literature; and that, not for his own country merely, but for Christendom.

From him came, if not the first idea, at all events the first successful example,

of making song an essential constituent of public worship,

and an exponent of theological teaching;

and from him it spread and prevailed through the Eastern Churches, and affected even those of the West.

To the Hymns, on which chiefly his fame rests, the Syriac ritual in all its forms owes much of its strength and richness;

and to them is largely due the place which Hymnody holds throughout the Church everywhere.

And hence it has come to pass that, in the Church everywhere, he stands as the representative Syrian Father, as the fixed epithet appended to his name attests-" Ephraim the Syrian,"-the one Syrian known and reverenced in all Christendom.

Of the two, it has been usual of late to reckon Aphrahat as the elder. Further on, it will be shown in this Dissertation that the reasons for so reckoning him are inadequate. For the present it suffices to note that they were contemporaries-both living and writing about the middle of the fourth century, and that priority of treatment cannot with confidence be claimed for either. On grounds of convenience, therefore, we may properly proceed to deal first with Ephraim, as being indisputably far the first in order of importance, of copiousness, and of celebrity.

It may be briefly affirmed that the external independent evidence covers all the facts included in the summary given above (pp. 120,121), at the opening of this Section. It extends farther to many incidents related in the Life,-such as the attempt of Sapor to take Nisibis by turning the river against its walls,

Ephraim's encounter with the woman who met him as he entered Edessa and her retort to his rebuke,

his borrowing the music of the heretic in order to popularize the orthodox teaching of his own hymns,

the call to the Episcopate and his evasion of it, the constancy of the faith of the Edessenes when threatened by the persecutor Valens, the famine and the work of relief organized by Ephraim in the last year of his life; also to a few of the details which belong to or verge on the supernatural,-the dream of the vine-shoot which foreshadowed his literary fertility, the vision of the Angel with the book who appeared to his brother-anchorite, and that of the dove, which he himself seemed to see, inspiring the discourses of Basil. In these facts, greater and smaller taken together, we have sufficient data for the derivation of the main outlines of his life and the leading features of his character.

You can read some of his HYMNS to grasp that they were still very powerful teachings of the Bible and you couldn't do them with four-part Fanny.

http://www.piney.com/EphraimHymns.html

There you have it: when you tippy toe into MUSICAL SINGING of secular (non-inspired) songs, and the Jubilee promotes--and EVERYONE GOBBLES-- the idea that the ONLY purpose of the church is to WORSHIP, then don't be surprised that the TEAMS invade and TAKE YOU CAPTIVE with LUCIFER'S (ZOE'S) music, dance and dance and THEATRICAL SERMONIZING.

You gets what you PAYS for and you had better quit SINNING beyond redemption by giving them money as their ENABLERS and co-conspirators. I think that David has moved from worrying only about the WRONG kind of music to questioning all music.

Ken