Apostolic Antiquity

The topic of contemporary worship in Evangelical, Pentecostal, Charismatic, and non-denominational churches has been a great source of contention as of late. I have come across many videos of online Catholic, Orthodox, and even traditional Protestant apologists firing shots at the contemporary worship styles found in many churches today. What is the main source or justification for this hostility? There are several reasons, but probably the most prevalent one is that it lacks a historical grounding in sacramental and liturgical practice. This, of course, raises the question: does worship need to be liturgical in order for it to be considered valid? This, in turn, raises yet another question: what does the term “valid” even convey within the context of ecclesiastical worship? This is probably a good place to start. The question needs to be reframed from “Is contemporary music good?” to “What defines worship that is pleasing to God according to Scripture, and does contemporary worship/praise fit into that category?” 

There is no better place to start than John 4:20-24, where Jesus and the Samaritan woman at the well discuss the topic of worship:

^“20 Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship. ²¹ Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. ²² Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. ²³ But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. ²⁴ God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.”

One of the most interesting things about this conversation is that the woman was interested in the specific practical dynamics of worship, namely where the proper place to worship was, while Jesus is redirecting her line of thought by saying that where you worship is not as important as how you worship. Notice, Jesus did not say, “they that worship Him must worship Him in the liturgy,” nor did He say, “they that worship Him must worship Him in dancing and song,” but rather the Lord’s primary concern regarding worship was that “they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth.” I also find it fascinating that Jesus links the ontology of God to the way we should worship Him: “God is a Spirit, and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth.” What are the implications of this “God is Spirit” statement? It’s quite simple, actually: because God is spiritual, we must spiritually relate to Him. Mere outward practices do not appease God unless they are done in the spirit.

God has always been displeased with outward vanity that, while carrying the appearance of pious vindication, lacks heartfelt love toward God. This is not just a New Testament dynamic, but one that reaches back into the Old Testament as well.

Isaiah 1:11-18:

 “¹¹ To what purpose are the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the Lord: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats. ¹² When ye come to appear before me, who hath required this at your hand, to tread my courts? ¹³ Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting. ¹⁴ Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth: they are a trouble unto me; I am weary to bear them. ¹⁵ And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood. ¹⁶ Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil; ¹⁷ Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow. ¹⁸ Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.”

This passage may seem confusing at first. Didn’t God institute these commandments? Why then does He seem to condemn their practice? He is not condemning the practices themselves, but rather their materialistic understanding of them. God condemns that which seems righteous because they have elevated it above the spiritual element of worship. 

It says elsewhere in Isaiah: 

“Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw   near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men:” – Isaiah 29:13

Again, highlighting the need for inward intimacy with God and not just outward practice. This is explicitly stated concerning David as a young boy:

^“7 But the Lord said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the Lord seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart.” – 1 Samuel 16:7

Another story that illustrates this point perfectly is found in 1 Samuel 4:1-11:

“And the word of Samuel came to all Israel. Now Israel went out against the Philistines to battle, and pitched beside Ebenezer: and the Philistines pitched in Aphek. ² And the Philistines put themselves in array against Israel: and when they joined battle, Israel was smitten before the Philistines: And when the people came into the camp, the elders of Israel said, Wherefore hath the Lord smitten us today before the Philistines? Let us fetch the ark of the covenant of the Lord out of Shiloh unto us, that, when it cometh among us, it may save us out of the hand of our enemies. ⁴ … Hophni and Phinehas, were there with the ark of the covenant of God. ⁵ And when the ark of the covenant of the Lord came into the camp, all Israel shouted with a great shout, so that the earth rang again. ⁶ …⁹ Be strong and quit yourselves like men, O ye Philistines, that ye be not servants unto the Hebrews, as they have been to you: quit yourselves like men, and fight. ¹⁰ And the Philistines fought, and Israel was smitten, and they fled every man into his tent: and there was a very great slaughter; for there fell of Israel thirty thousand footmen. ¹¹ And the ark of God was taken; and the two sons of Eli, Hophni and Phinehas, were slain.”

Why did God allow this to happen? Did not Israel trust in God to give them victory? It might appear that way at first, but the answer is actually no. If we look more closely at the text, we find that Israel was not trusting in God but something else. “And when the people came into the camp, the elders of Israel said, Wherefore hath the Lord smitten us today before the Philistines? Let us fetch the ark of the covenant of the Lord out of Shiloh unto us, that, when it cometh among us, it may save us out of the hand of our enemies” (1 Samuel 4:3). They were not trusting in a He, but an it. They trusted in the symbol and not the archetype. This is a trap that Christians in both liturgical and contemporary church services will fall into if they are not careful. Many times when we attend a church service, we are trusting in our outward expressions more than our inward praise to please God. We can get so caught up in the practical aspects of worship that we completely disregard the spiritual aspects. In evangelical circles, we often think, “If they would play this certain song, then I can feel the presence of God,” or “If they would dim the lights just a little more and turn on the fog machine, then I can feel the presence of God,” or “If I were at this particular conference, I could finally feel the presence of God.” However, this is also true for more traditional and sacramental churches as well, relying on incense, sacraments, and hymns before they are ever convinced that God could be present and readily available. This is not to single out or critique liturgical practices as invalid forms of worship. I definitely believe that if done in the heart of genuine worship towards God, that worship will be acceptable and pleasing to God. My objection is primarily against the claim that the heart of worship must be through the way of the liturgy in ecclesial settings.

I find it intriguing that Catholic online apologists are so quick to criticize modern cultural expressions of worship found in evangelical churches. I encourage every reader to search up videos of a Catholic liturgy being done in Kenya; you will often find Kenyan music incorporated into the liturgy and even dancing. The average American Catholic would be outraged to find this kind of practice within their local parish, even though these expressions are generally accepted as legitimate within those cultural contexts and are still considered fully in communion with Rome. This raises an important question: if cultural expression is permissible in one context, on what basis is it rejected in another? If worship can take on different forms across cultures while remaining valid, then the presence of modern musical styles in evangelical churches cannot, by itself, be grounds for dismissal.

Modern worship music is broadly influential across different cultures, unlike, for example, highly traditional Latin or Greek liturgies (considering most people these days do not know these languages). Because contemporary worship can more easily adapt to local languages and musical styles, it could be argued that evangelical worship is more ecumenical in a practical and cultural sense. I do recognize, however, that in more recent times both Catholic and Orthodox churches have been more tolerant of doing liturgies in locally known languages; historically, however, this has not been the case, which also raises questions about their claim that evangelical worship is “unhistorical.” If an ancient or medieval Catholic priest were to see the changes that have been made in their church regarding languages, they would not consider this a minor or insignificant change.

The Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 14:16 talks about worshiping in a language that everybody can understand so that through your worship others might be edified (read also Matthew 5:16):

“Otherwise, if you praise with the spirit, how will the riding outsider say ‘Amen’ at your giving of thanks, since he does not know what you are saying?”

This verse also gives us another very important insight into the nature of ecclesial worship. Worship should be conducted in such a way that everyone is edified and in agreement. I would argue that contemporary music in this modern context is a much better way to ensure that all congregants understand and can essentially say “Amen,” not just with their mouths but with their understanding. Paul states the importance of this in 1 Corinthians 14:19:

“Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.”

I have heard many Catholic apologists say that evangelical worship is bad because it puts far too much focus on the self rather than God, and that worship has nothing to do with oneself. I can definitely see where they are coming from. I admit that many times the self is prioritized in the lyrics of particular worship songs. This does not thereby invalidate all contemporary worship music; it simply means that pastoral leaders should be careful to discern what kind of songs they allow in their church services. However, the claim that ecclesial worship has absolutely nothing to do with the benefit of believers is false.

With contemporary ecclesial worship, pretty much anybody could enter into a church service and have a pretty good idea about what’s going on and how to participate in it, which, according to the Bible, is an essential component of ecclesial gathering. Now compare this to more liturgical forms of worship that often carry a rich depth of symbolism, typology, and allegory that would take years to fully understand. I am not saying this to invalidate liturgy as a proper form of worship. I am saying, however, that it can be more difficult for newcomers to immediately grasp, and it can take time before one might attain understanding and fully participate in it in the way that Jesus commanded us: in “spirit and in truth.”

Nowhere in Scripture is liturgical practice explicitly outlined; in fact, the Bible never really gives us a strict, structured tutorial on how to worship in the church. If this truly were as important to God as some claim, then we would expect to find it in Scripture. Why doesn’t the Bible explicitly tell us how to worship in church settings? I believe that Scripture is allowing for flexibility in cultural dynamics so that the Spirit may move freely as He pleases. The New Testament does, however, tell us that we can and should sing songs:

Ephesians 5:19: – “Speak to one another with psalms, hymns, and songs from the Spirit. Sing and make music from your heart to the Lord.” 

Colossians 3:16 – “Let the message of Christ dwell among you richly, as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom through psalms, hymns, and songs from the Spirit, singing to God with l in your hearts.” 

James 5:13 – “Is anyone among you in trouble? Let them pray. Is anyone happy? Let them sing songs of praise.” 

Nearly all Christian sects practice singing in congregational worship, mainly because it is explicitly outlined in the New Testament. More controversial dynamics of worship and praise are those regarding the practice or prohibition of musical instruments and dancing. It is true that the first-century church likely did not worship using instruments, and church history is scarce; however, we do find remnants of it.

Clement of Alexandria seems to allude to the practice of dancing in the Church:

“So also we raise the head and lift the hands to heaven, and set the feet in motion at the closing utterance of the prayer.”

Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 7:7

 Methodius of Olympus explicitly encourages the church to worship God with dancing:

“Therefore, O lover of this festival, when you have considered well the glorious mysteries of Bethlehem — which were brought to pass for your sake — gladly join yourself to the heavenly host, which is celebrating your salvation magnificently. As once David did before the ark, so do you, before this virginal throne, joyfully lead the dance. Hymn with gladsome song the Lord, who is always and everywhere present.”

                    Methodius of Olympus, Oration on Simeon and Anna, 3

Basil the Great wrote that worship in heaven consists of dancing:

We remember those who now, together with the Angels,   dance the dance of the Angels around God, just as in the flesh they performed a spiritual dance of life and, here on earth, a heavenly dance. 

Basil the Great of Caesarea

Basil would likely have been familiar with Matthew 6:10, which says:

“Thy Kingdom come. Thy will be done on earth, as it is in Heaven.”

This would imply that just as there is worshipful dancing in heaven, there should be dancing on the earth as well. The Old Testament is, of course, filled with references to dancing as a practice of worship (Psalm 149:3, Psalm 150:4, 2 Samuel 6:14, Jeremiah 31:13, Exodus 15:20). Dancing was an ancient Jewish practice and is still prevalent in Judaism to this day. Usually, if a practice or tradition stays around for thousands of years, it means it was never a passive or unimportant aspect of the culture, but a pivotal one. This suggests that the apostles would have been well acquainted with dancing as part of their Jewish roots, and this likely made its way into their communal worship to at least some degree.

People often forget that the early Church was very different from what we have today in terms of practicality and culture, for many reasons: (1) its deep roots connected to Judaism, (2) its formation within the context of Greek and pagan societies, and (3) it was persecuted and disfavored by the general populace. These three reasons, among others, deeply and uniquely affected the Church. For this reason, changes were made in practice concerning both individual lives and congregational settings in order to both minister to (1 Corinthians 9:22) and remain separate from (2 Corinthians 6:17) that unique culture and generation.

Reason (2) is the main one for why many churches during this period decided not to include instruments in their musical worship, despite the clear example of them in the Old Testament (Psalm 150:3, Psalm 98:4–6, Psalm 81:2, Psalm 33:2, Exodus 15:20–21, 1 Samuel 18:6–7). Musical instruments were almost inseparably linked to pagan worship, with the exception of the context of Judaism, and since the early Church did not want to take on the identity of paganism or a solely Jewish religion, they chose to refrain from the use of instruments. Dancing was also a pagan practice, but it was usually explicitly sensual and linked to ritual rather than being spontaneous; therefore, Christian and pagan dancing was easily distinguishable. The use of musical instruments, however, would likely have been less easily distinguishable from pagan practice.

All of this is to say that the early Church itself was formed by its culture, not in the sense of compromise, but in the sense of edification and cultural awareness. God is not going to be angry with the Church for adopting new, edifying, and spiritual practices into ecclesial worship simply on the basis that “the apostles didn’t do it, so neither should we,” because the cultural context that shaped the practical worship of the first-century Church is no longer directly relevant to us. This does not mean the early Church was primitive, nor that we have received greater revelation concerning worship, but only that worship practices have differed according to cultural context.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, we find that the early Church’s worship was not invariable, but rather a product of its cultural traditions and concerns. We also find no historical evidence that the apostles instituted a strict, formal structure of worship reflecting that of a liturgy. We also see that there are no biblical grounds for the claim that formal and liturgical worship is the only appropriate way to worship God; rather, the Bible presents the idea that while practical aspects of worship are important, they are not above the spiritual heart of worship, nor are they immutable and unchanging through different cultural dynamics.

This means that any critique of a particular form or style of worship needs to be reassessed and reconsidered. Our main intellectual focuses concerning worship are often well-meaning but misguided. We need to reframe the question from: Is this form of worship the right form of worship? to: Is this form of worship edifying to those around me? Does it appropriately assess our modern context in what it promotes, who it appeals to, and what it is separate from? And most importantly, does it glorify God and stay within the biblical frame?

I believe that when we reframe the question in this way, it will be much more helpful to our search for truth, and we will find that both contemporary and liturgical expressions of worship—within their proper context and heart posture—can be a holy and acceptable way of praise to the holy and almighty God.