In which our regular writers toss around subjects a little more volatile than usual.
Nate at PracticalWorship
has decided to “terminate the Worship Team”. I believe he used the words “blowing
up”, in fact.
I got all excited. This is radical Christianity, folks!
But to my personal disappointment, Nate doesn’t actually
mean it. By “blow up the Worship Team”, he actually means “change its name to ‘the
MilePost13 Band’ ”. He lists two reasons for the change: first, that an actual
name gives the band a sense of identity, pride and ownership and makes them
feel like professionals.
“The name change also helped us to reinforce the idea that we were the band that led in musical worship, not the ministry team that led all worship. It helps us not to become egotistical with what we do, and it helps our other ministry teams to keep in mind that they are worshipping as well in their unique ministries.”
The Worship Team
Concept
Tom: So, Immanuel
Can, the whole ‘worship team’ concept ... there have to be 10,000 Internet
resources for worship teams available. Where did the notion come from, how did
I miss it, and when did these teams become ubiquitous?
Immanuel Can: Well
… now this is, for me, a hot topic, and from two perspectives. One is that ‘worship
teams’ is an incorrect, and worse, a wholly misleading name. But secondly, and
far more importantly, we in the Christian community have a completely distorted
view of what worship is these days, and are in desperate need of fixing it.
This, I believe, is the first duty and primary task God expects of his church
today — and I say that without exaggeration.
But to answer your question, in conservative evangelical
circles, the idea of the ‘worship team’ really seems to have come into vogue
starting in the 1980s, along with the professionalizing of the pulpit and the
rise of the seeker-sensitive community churches. These were attended with a
certain loss of focus on what the Bible calls worship through an expansion of
that term to cover so much that essentially today it specifies nothing at all.
Tom: To be fair,
I’m seeing them referred to as ‘praise teams’ on the ’net as well, though the ‘worship
team’ terminology is by far the more common. Does changing ‘worship’ to ‘praise’
sit any better with you, or is it just as misleading?
Worship vs. Praise
IC: Not as bad,
perhaps, but not really much better. Worship is the highest calling we have:
praise is a part of that — not the totality, perhaps, but an integral feature
of it. Corrupting our understanding of either one is likely to produce the
corruption of the other.
But having someone lead corporate praise is quite possible,
and is a reasonable thing to practice — assuming we understand what we are
doing — whereas worship, while it can be led, is somewhat more susceptible to
damage in the attempt.
Led … But In Which Way?
Tom: The fact
that ‘worship teams’ inevitably wind up leading (rather than following or
accompanying) congregational singing is undeniable, if we are the least bit
honest about it. I was reading a piece by T. David Gordon that
makes that case very, very well. He says, among other good points, that a congregation cannot follow musical
improvisation, and he’s right. Throw in that guitar solo that feels so good …
and you’ve lost the plot.
So what you seem to be saying is that worship ought not to
be led. Would that be a fair statement? To clarify, it’s not the ‘team’ aspect
that’s problematic, so much as the idea that they are ‘leading’ worship, or
rather what passes for worship?
IC: Well, I
wouldn’t be so hard on the idea of musical bands leading music. I’ve seen some
cases in which things like drums, guitars, violins, etc. can help a great deal
with singing: and bad singing is rarely conducive to worship. But yes, musical
improvisation, strange bridges between choruses or freestyle noodling can
easily destroy congregational singing. All you have to do is look at the
self-promoting strutting of a musician on stage, usually coupled with the
people in the congregation glancing sideways and mouthing the wrong words in
the wrong rhythm, to know when the music has gone badly wrong.
But let’s leave that for a moment. I would not go so far as
to say worship *cannot* be led, if by that we understand that leading means
only presenting words or thoughts which rightly and honourably represent God in
the minds of the congregation and produce in them right esteem for the Lord.
That would be legitimate “leading”. But the “worship” part cannot be guaranteed
by that action, only encouraged or cultivated by it. A person may lead well,
and yet have few or no followers. So whether or not people actually worship is,
as you imply, up to their own wills and inner dispositions at the time, and
cannot be directed to happen by others.
Is Singing Hymns
Always Worship?
Tom: If I’m right
here, you’re saying that not all singing is worship. Part of my own distaste
for the term ‘worship team’ is very much related to that watering-down of the scriptural concept of worship. When you used the word “esteem” there, I think
you got closer to the idea of worship that we find in the word of God, as
opposed to the way in which it is casually batted around in modern churches.
In the Bible, the idea of worship is often associated with
falling down and prostrating oneself in reverence. That physical act of being on your knees or face does not occur in every single
instance, and it’s not commanded of us, but the mindset that accompanies that
willingness to drop on a dime is what seems absent to me in most congregational
singing, which can be frivolous at times.
So the leading is okay, it’s the assumption that
singing = worship that is off base?
IC: Oh yes, of
course. Singing is just one possibility of how worship may be expressed. But
singing is not worship, nor is it any guarantee of worship. That, as I say, is
about personal will and inner disposition.
Worship as a
Lifestyle?
This is where the teaching that worship is a general way of
life is so utterly toxic. It may be true that there are worshipful ways to
conduct all sorts of things in life, but those things themselves are no
guarantee of worship at all. You could live a very impressive life in all ways,
but never worship once.
Worship should spill
over into or motivate all aspects
of life, sure: but worship IS NOT those things. Worship is not a Sunday service, not
a set of songs, not a lifestyle
(except metaphorically) … and anyone who speaks of it like that is misleading us.
Tom: Well, you’ve
nicely led right into my next question. Nate, the guy who was going to blow up
his worship team, asks this of his readers:
“Have you ever thought that you may be sending mixed signals by teaching that worship is a lifestyle but having a ‘Worship Team’ that leads the worship at your church?”
IC: Hey, now he’s
got me on his side. I absolutely believe that. And that is precisely why we
should never use the term “worship” in that loose, deceptive way. Call your
band “The Strolling Drones”, “Gnu Religion” or even “Moron 5” … whatever you like.
Just don’t call them a “worship team”.
Extra-Scriptural and
Anti-Scriptural
Tom: We’ve
discussed these sorts of issues before with respect to the local church, because
people are always coming up with new ideas and new ways to practice the core
principles of church fellowship that we read about in the book of Acts.
We often hear the word “unscriptural” in this connection. T. David Gordon dislikes the term. He says it’s too vague and may include both
things which are permissible but not explicitly taught and also things which
are simply flat-out wrong. I personally prefer to use the terms “extra-scriptural”
and “anti-scriptural” to distinguish the two types of things we don’t find specifically
spelled out in the word of God.
So, worship teams or things that function as worship teams,
whether we use the term publicly or not: are they extra-scriptural or anti-scriptural?
IC: If we call
them “worship teams”, then I think we’re actively anti-scriptural at that
point: we’re destroying people’s understanding of what it is they’re doing, and
of what the scriptures call “worship”.
Anyway, that’s my position on that. You, Tom?
Tom: Agreed. We need to use terms the way the word
of God uses them or we have no basis on which to communicate truth.
But if we call the bands that local churches use to liven up
singing by their own cool monikers instead of by The Name That Shall No Longer
Be Named, are they okay then? Do you think they serve any useful purpose? Are
there any dangers inherent in the concept, once we have dealt with the issue of
co-opting the name of a spiritual activity we consider precious and near to the
heart of God?
The Bottom Line
IC: I’m not
opposed to modern instruments or (theologically intelligent) new songs. The
alternative is to imagine that the Church stopped writing hymns a hundred years
ago, and will never write another, or that piano is a ‘godly’ instrument but
somehow drums are not. I can’t see that at all. And somebody’s got to lead
corporate activities for sure.
But in that process, we’d best not mangle anything precious by substituting that leadership for substance on the part of the congregation.
No comments :
Post a Comment