Many contemporary services that I have visited in the last couple of years are very inaccessible. The singing is done (almost) solely by the pros on stage. Scriptures are rarely read and elements of most traditional services are completely absent. Creeds? Never saw one. Confession of sins? Ditto. Responsive readings? Also absent.

The role of the congregation in worship is being reduced.

Some pastors and elders in PCA churches seem to be adopting a style of worship that is called “contemporary”. The instinct behind this is, I think, good. They are attempting to reach the communities God has called them to serve, in a way that is understandable to those that they are called to reach.

Some other pastors and elders are opposed to this trend, seeing it as a slippage in standards of worship. The instinct behind this criticism is also good. They are trying to maintain a respect for our confessional tradition, in a day when respect for any tradition seems lacking.

I would like to propose that we try to get beyond the discussion of contemporary/traditional worship.Instead, get to what I consider the more fundamental issue. Both sides of this debate are struggling, honestly in most cases, to grapple with what it means to be a leader in a Reformed, confessional church in the modern world.

I want to make a proposal, first let us change the vocabulary of the debate.

I like to avoid the term contemporary when referring to reformed worship. It is a perfectly good term I just leave it to the baptists & the charismatics.

I prefer the term “accessible”. I admit that it is somewhat arbitrary, but I believe it helps us to understand the root issue better. The real issue under discussion is how accessible is a confessional reformed church to modern North Americans?

Ask yourself these questions to diagnose the accessibility of your congregations worship practices; “Does the typical visitor know what we are doing?” And “does the typical parishioner know why we are doing what we do?”

An extreme example is the historic inaccessibility of the Medieval Catholic worship that the Reformers protested. Forget for a moment the theological issues of the mass, and just think what “going to church” was like at the time. Worship participation by the congregation was nearly nil. For the most part, the people neither knew the “what” or the “why” of their worship service.

No congregational singing, service was in a foreign language, scripture was not read in an understandable language, etc. Along with reforming theology, praxis was also reformed. The congregation sang again. The service was in a locally understood language, as was the Scripture. In other words the worship service was “accessible” to the local people.

Read More