Pastor Tony’s Background in Liturgical Studies
My first doctorate, which I completed at Western Theological Seminary in Holland, Michigan, explored how different Christian approaches to worship shaped and informed the mission priorities and spiritual formation practices of local churches. For those who have completed doctorates in religious and/or theological studies, you know the standard practice at the end is to defend a written thesis/ dissertation/final project. That defense involves having two experts in the area of your research read your thesis and call you into an oral defense of the thesis that lasts several hours. You cannot have any notes available other than your written thesis. One of those thesis examiners is from the university where you completed your research; this person is called your “internal reader,” and the other is from an outside university; this person is called your “external reader.”
My internal reader was Dr. Sue A. Rozeboom, Professor of Liturgical Theology at Western.
Dr. Rozeboom has a PhD from the University of Notre Dame and completed her doctorate under the late, great Nathan D. Mitchell, arguably one of, if not the most, formative liturgical theologians in America in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. My external reader was Dr. Paul Weston, lecturer at Ridley Hall and the University of Cambridge. I am deeply grateful to have such skilled and influential readers; it was not an easy defense of my thesis. The title of my thesis was “Worship As Public Truth: Toward a Liturgical-Missional Ecclesiology.” I would go on to present research from that doctoral thesis at Durham University, a school regularly ranked as the world's top theological university. At Durham, I presented a paper at their annual international conference dedicated to Ecclesiology & Ethnography. The research from that degree would also, in time, be published in peer-reviewed academic journals.
As a pastor, I have also spent a great deal of time reflecting on the different ways local faith communities practice worship over my 27 years of ministry across the U.S.A. Those faith communities included churches with three distinct approaches to worship in two venues, with weekly attendance of more than 1,100, with multiple full-time directors of worship and rotating teams of paid musicians. One of the congregations where I served as a youth pastor intern had more than 2,000 in weekly worship, with 300-500 in weekly middle school and high school worship gatherings.
One thing I have discovered that is consistent across worship approaches is that the story of Christian worship is ever-changing. It is a misconception to suggest that traditional worship approaches are fixed and never undergo major innovations, just as it is incorrect to suggest that contemporary worship approaches have no history that shapes and affects their practices.
The Ever-Changing World of Traditional Worship
For those who come from a traditional worship background, you may not realize that you would be considered “innovators and disruptors” within the history of traditional worship in America. What do I mean by that?
Traditional worship approaches began as an “exclusive psalmody” musical tradition. The only songs in worship services were songs taken directly from the biblical book of Psalms. There are still traditional churches today, including Presbyterian denominations in Scotland, that practice exclusive psalmody. In America, early Presbyterians left the form of the songs in service up to individual congregations to decide. Some congregations chose to sing only biblical Psalms, while others included contemporary hymns written during the period.
Not only was the choice of songs an issue of controversy for the early traditional worship movement, but the choice to include musical instruments was considered an innovation. In early American history, Presbyterians typically sang songs in a “metered rhythm” without instruments. Instruments were a luxury that most colonists could not presume to have. A good example of this was a popular worship song in use in the period called The Psalms of David.
As hymns became more common and the presence of instruments increased, the modern practice of hymnals picked up speed. The first Presbyterian hymnal used in America was “Psalms and Hymns,” adopted in 1831. Its creation was sanctioned in 1819 and took 12 years to be approved. The PC(USA), our denomination, has had three main hymnals over the years: The Worshipbook: Services and Hymns (1972), The Presbyterian Hymnal (1990), and the present one in use, Glory to God: The Presbyterian Hymnal (2013).
One of the most widely used instruments in traditional worship, the organ, was a deeply controversial innovation when it first came into use. Many called the pipe organ a “pagan instrument” because of its use in secular events. In America, the discussion of the pipe organ in worship played out along national political divides. Many liberals in the North embraced the organ as a helpful and spirited innovation; just as many conservatives in the South opposed it, arguing that there was “no biblical reference to an organ used for worship.” This was a common biblical literalist critique of many Southern churches regarding the inclusion of the pipe organ in worship services. So intense were the worship wars over the pipe organ that, in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, entire denominations were, in part, formed by their responses to its use in public worship. The Disciples of Christ (pro-organ) and the Churches of Christ (anti-organ) are examples of how those strongly felt worship differences divided churches (particularly in 1906).
The next time those of you from the traditional worship approach stop and say to yourself, “Why can’t it be like it used to be?” please keep this history in mind. You, my traditional worship friends, are innovators within your own musical tradition. You use non-biblical hymns, instruments, and, gasp, even a pipe organ. Wow, how contemporary of you!
The Ever-Changing World of Contemporary Worship
What about those who come from a contemporary worship approach? Are people who embrace contemporary worship just innovators, non-traditionalists, people with no attachments to earlier forms of worship, who only value “music that is radio-station current?” Let’s talk about that.
Contemporary worship, as an approach or distinct style of worship, began in the 1960s as part of the Jesus Movement, a cultural revolution. At that time, the innovation involved taking choruses from hymns and resetting them to more modern instrumentations.
By the 1980s and 1990s a distinct Christian music industry with expansive musical genres was created. Christian music was no longer split into two genres, church hymns and gospel music; now it included all the music genres available on the radio. Contemporary worship music drew on several musical genres, mostly rock and alternative, and its songs circulated widely across the country as a Top 100 playlist of sorts. During the 1980s, the ‘Worship Leader’ model emerged and became an anchored practice in most churches by the 1990s. Essentially, one to two key vocalists led the songs with support vocalists without full choirs. This became widely used for contemporary worship approaches.
By the early 2000s, most of the music labels that drove contemporary worship music were no longer Christian-owned companies. Mainstream music labels enveloped the Christian music industry. As online ‘streaming music’ emerged, the entire music industry, including Christian music, got upended, and larger conglomerates acquired independent labels. The National Top 100 Contemporary Christian Worship Songs approach expanded to include regional contributions by local worship artists. Those who had become accustomed to the same contemporary worship songs in churches across the country discovered that, as they traveled, the songs in worship services in other places were by artists they were unfamiliar with. During this period, advances in media technology for lighting and sound arrays, guided by new worship media software, also brought about changes. Lastly, shifts in contemporary approaches were beginning to be driven by innovations in large youth ministries that outpaced those in adult worship services.
This shift toward regional artists who have grown through online followership has exploded since the mid-2010s. For coffee fans, I call this the micro-roasting of Contemporary Christian worship. We no longer live in the age of national music companies – the ‘Starbucks’ approach to contemporary worship songs. Now, it’s regional artists driving songs in local church worship services. No longer are major music companies able to drive what contemporary worship songs are used across the country; now it is more viral, more regionally blended, and more distinct and artisan in character.
On the West Coast, we have movements like the Bethel and Jesus Culture movements, which are artist collectives (involving several gifted singer-songwriters who collaborate). In the Midwest and Northeast, we have collectives like The Porters Gate. You even have larger musical institutes at seminaries and universities that are encouraging this kind of creative experimentation, such as the Calvin Institute of Christian Worship and the Institute for Biblical Worship. Having a unifying contemporary worship songbook widely embraced by those who perform contemporary worship has become more difficult, as a variety of factors inform song and arrangement choices. 5
What does this mean for those who would call their approach contemporary worship? Well, if you find yourself wanting to listen to songs from Hillsong, Chris Tomlin, Matt Redman, and songs from companies like Maranatha! Music or older top 100 CCM (Contemporary Christian Music) choices, like Vertical Music, your contemporary song selection may be 20-30 years old. Suppose Jesus Culture, The Porters Gate, Ghost Ship, The Modern Post, Ascend the Hill, John Mark McMillan, Citizens, Kim Walker-Smith, Future of Forestry, The City Harmonic, The Digital Age, Silver Pages, Bethel Music all sound foreign to you. In that case, that may mean you have missed the last 15 years of contemporary worship music.
Which is not even to name genres that defy the simple categories of traditional vs. contemporary. For example, gospel music, spirituals, world music, and more.
Takeaways for PCN’s Approach to Wholistic/Blended Worship
Those who love traditional worship approaches at PCN may value a form of traditional worship that is quite innovative within that approach's history. Those who love contemporary worship approaches at PCN may value songs and approaches from the 1990s and early 2000s, but that is not reflective of current approaches.
What that means, my friends, is let’s hold our values about approaches to worship with more humility. Let’s also be curious about what the Spirit of God is doing anew in our times.
There is a new worship approach in America right now that is akin, in some ways, to what happened in the 1960s with the first emergence of contemporary worship, and in the late 18th- and early 19th-century with shifts in traditional worship toward instruments contemporary at the time. This new worship approach is called “The New Hymn Movement.”
Traditional hymns are being set to contemporary instrumentation and vocal arrangements, often by worship collectives in which several gifted singer-songwriters collaborate, sharing gifts and dreaming about how to draw together all the disparate approaches to worship. Some current examples of this movement include The Porters Gate, Page CXVI, The Brilliance, Common Hymnal, All Sons & Daughters, Holy City Hymns, Thief to King, and The Modern Post.
On Sunday mornings, this ever-changing world of worship approaches is being sampled, engaged with, and explored. If you have Christian worship artists or hymnals that you want PCN to explore, please don’t assume we can intuit your specific values and interests. Instead, reach out to Art or Pastor Tony and share those thoughts with them.
PCN is part of the great, ever-changing story of Christian worship! You, my friends, are a vital part of that beautiful and creative journey!