We’re not sure you have described our definition of worship quite accurately. Notice the sentence in the article above:

“The goal of worship, whether traditional or contemporary, is to tell the story of the risen Lord, and through it to glorify God through proclamation, prayer and presence, and because of it to edify each other as the community of Christ. ”

Notice the emphasis on proclamation, adoration and community.

To get a fuller view of our approach to this topic we’d encourage you to look at two additional articles here – Temporary Contemporary Worship, and Being Cultural and Counter-Cultural at the Same Time. Particularly, pay attention to the discussion at the end of the latter article, and the point about cultural context.

1) It should be noted that I tend to agree in essence with what the “30-something-year-old friend” says about the drawbacks of contemporary worship as opposed to traditional worship. However, I emphasize the words “in essence.” The summary of her arguments appear superficial and emotinally/idiosyncratically based. There is actually more objective substance to our arguments than is indicated. When arguing/debating, it is highly important to present your opponents argument so that he can say, “yes, that’s what I think.” It doesn’t appear you’ve accurately summed up why people argue for traditional above contemporary.

2) That being said, you are kind in your analysis. You don’t take cheap shots nor do you take our arguments to silly extremes. This is appreciated.

3) I would challenge you to re-explore the purpose of worship. You write that the purpose of worship is to create a situation in which people catch a glimpse of God’s transendence or encounter the presence of God. This basically takes the definition of Sacrament according to Lutherans (God giving grace to a faithful person through a physical object combined with God’s word (applied to baptism and communion)) to worship. To restate, you elevate worship to the status of Sacrament and seem to argue that to worship effectively (to reap the benefits), the various elements of worship must be structured in a particular way.

It’s a provocative argument that has some elements of truth in it. One definition of worship I’ve heard is “the right Words of God, presented in the right order.” However, while it looks like we agree that worship should be purposefully structured, I think we disagree on the focus of worship.

Yes, of course, Jesus–his blood-stained cross and empty tomb–is the focus. But of the two persons worship (me and Jesus), which direction does the blessings flow? It appears you view worship as something that we design correctly to get a benefit from it. And we know we did it right when we feel a crecendo (sp?) of sorts. Thus the worship experience begins and ends with me. I view worship as a one-way street where I’m simply the recipient of Christ’s blessings–forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation. He heaps these blessings on me over and over again in the worship experience as I sing Christ-centered hymn lyrics, as I listen to a Christ-centered cross-focused sermon, as I listen to his Word read from Scripture, as the pastor says, “…by His [Christ's] authority, I forgive you all your sins…” and as I recieve Christ as he comes to me in the Body and Blood of Holy Communion. It doesn’t matter if the music is catchy, it doesn’t matter if if the preacher is a wonderful orator, it doesn’t matter if the technology is outdated. The substance trumps the style every time. And the traditional liturgy is excessively thick with substance.

Thanks for reading hastily-typed musings. Feel free to reply if you so desire.