At a recent retreat with other believers, a cloud of thoughts that has been gathering around my head for most of my life finally began to materialize coherently. Two separate worship teams played back-to-back, the difference between their styles of music highlighting a philosophical divide within the modern church that I have yet to see properly articulated.
The reason why this divide has been churning in my head is the nature of Christian international schools: having believers from around the world leads to varied styles of worship. Still, even to a born-and-raised American churchgoer, even within the same church, this divide may be visible, albeit not quite as obviously.
It seems to me that, within the perplexingly wide umbrella term of modern American Evangelicalism, there are two main types of worship music, although many songs contain elements of both. For the purposes of this article, I will refer to them as traditional and contemporary. Hymns and more modern traditional music are closely related as they result from the same philosophy, but this article is not about the divide between hymns and contemporary worship. Rather, it will focus on the divide between modern-day traditional and contemporary styles of worship music. It’s important to note that, even though the adjectives used refer to time periods, there are older examples of the contemporary style and more modern examples of the traditional style.
So, what is the difference between the two types? It all comes down to a question of purpose. Traditional worship tends to have an educational/theological approach, whereas contemporary worship has a more meditative/spiritual focus. Where traditional worship informs the congregation about an aspect of God, contemporary worship draws the congregation into the presence of God. Traditional worship leaders aim to leave their audience with new ideas about God, whereas contemporary leaders desire that their audience would feel drawn to God. The language of the leader often indicates this: traditional leaders will often have themes and bible passages, whereas contemporary worship leaders will use phrases such as “relationship with God,” and “presence of God.” In the context of a church service, traditional worship music is theologically closer to the sermon, and contemporary worship music functions similarly to prayer.
Musically, traditional worship music tends to place emphasis on the lyrics, while contemporary styles feature more repetition and instrumental parts. The former often features a chorus sung three times, as well as two or three verses with the same tune, leaving little to no musical space between them for acoustic guitars or pianos to improvise. To members of the congregation more familiar with contemporary music, traditional music often seems impersonal. Critics remark a lack of energy and emotion, demonstrated by the phrase used to refer to such churchgoers: “frozen chosen.”
Contemporary worship music, on the other hand, is often structured mostly around the dynamics. A well-crafted contemporary worship song has a powerful, emotional bridge, which builds into its final chorus. Loud, electronically amplified instruments pound over the vocals, and the congregation sometimes raises their arms, or even jumps or dances along with the band. To those more familiar with traditional worship, contemporary styles can seem too emotionally focused, shallow lyrically, and “like a concert.”
Enough generalizations. The easiest way to categorize a contemporary worship song as traditional or contemporary is by examining the structure. Consider “All in All,” by Dennis Jernigan, and “Alleluia” by Jesus Culture.
“All in all” features three verses (in church settings the third is often omitted) and three repetitions of its chorus. The first verse makes an assertion about God’s character, and supports it with a reference to the parable of the treasure in Matthew 13. Verses two and three (if included) relate this lesson to the life of the individual Christian.
“Alleluia,” on the other hand, contains two short verses, 3 different choruses, two bridges, and 24 occurrences of the word “Alleluia.” The song includes a reference to Revelation 22 (Jesus described as “morning star”) and something of a reference to the general idea of Isaiah 6.
“All in all” describes God, how his grace changes the life of the believer, and the value of such grace. The worshiper is an academic, hearing statements of God and affirming them through his/her singing. “Alleluia” positions the worshiper as one of the seraphs from Isaiah’s vision, beginning with “Father we come to bow down in worship,” and later the lead vocalist cries “listen to the Seraphim.”
Now that the difference between the two styles is clear philosophically, lyrically, and structurally, which is more biblical? This I will leave an exercise to the reader. In my own research and experience, I have formed a preference, although there is strong evidence for both. Ultimately, whether the focus is intellectual (traditional), spiritual (contemporary), or some mix of the two, a gathering of believers proclaiming their faith is worship: and this apparent divide is far from salvific. Both styles have their merits and shortcomings, but, so long as both ultimately glorify God, the difference remains one of personal preference.
Comments