Roots of Evangelical Worship
Many factors, cultural and theological, converged to form what we might call today “Evangelical
Worship,” including Enlightenment philosophy, German Pietism, John and Charles Wesley,
American revival and democracy, and rural camp meetings. None, however, had as significant
impact as one individual—nineteenth-century Revivalist Charles G. Finney (1792–1875).
Influenced by theologian Nathaniel Taylor’s “New Haven Theology,” Finney denied the
imputation of Adam’s sin to all humankind, and thus, “We deny that the human condition is
morally depraved”;1 sin comes only from choice, not from nature. Therefore, “the sinner has all
the faculties and natural abilities requisite to render perfect obedience to God”;2 most people are
simply morally weak and lack the will to do so. “All [the sinner] needs,” Finney argued, “is to be
induced to use these powers and attributes as he ought.”3
As for Christian sanctification, Finney was influenced by Wesleyan Perfectionism, insisting that
given the right conditions, Christians could experience “entire sanctification.”4 Because Finney
believed that conversion and sanctification could be produced by human means, he sought to
create experiences in his services that would “induce” sinners to accept the claims of Christianity
or be motivated to complete sanctification. In his Revival Lectures, Finney insisted that “there is
nothing in religion beyond the ordinary powers of nature,” and revival is therefore “a result of
the use of the appropriate means.” In order to create revival, then, “God has found it necessary to
take advantage of the excitability there is in mankind, to produce powerful excitements among
them, before he can lead them to obey.”5 He argued, “there must be excitement sufficient to
wake up the dormant moral powers.”6
Finney argued that in order to create the necessary excitement, churches must employ “new
measures” since “The Tradition of the Elders” (the title of one of his sermons) that were familiar
to the congregation would never produce the desired results. Many of the measures he advocated
had first appeared in early nineteenth-century rural camp meetings, such as altar calls and the use
of choruses, but Finney brought them into the urban mainstream.
Finney found the newly emerging pop culture as the perfect tool for creating exciting
experiences because it was immediate and it stimulated excitement. Finney urged those writing
and leading music in his meetings to look to the advertisers of the day for inspiration. This new
way of thinking affected not only the content and style of worship and music, but it transformed
the view of the church and its worship. Music for church services was chosen based on whatever
would create an exciting atmosphere for unbelievers or believers. Liturgy within corporate
worship eventually began to mimic that of an evangelistic meeting, with an altar call replacing
the Lord’s Table as the climax of the service. Finney’s revivalist measures marked a decided
break with the Judeo-Christian worship tradition.
Finney’s philosophy began a trend to create emotional experiences in the church that was kept
alive in the revivalist tradition in the years to come. D. L. Moody (1837–1899) and his famous
song leader, Ira Sankey (1840–1908), were widely known for their emotional, experience-
oriented preaching and music, helping to further ingrain these kinds of methods into the church’s
worship so that every service became an evangelistic revival meeting. Sankey popularized
“evangelistic song leading” and soloists in services, composing songs reminiscent of older camp
meeting choruses. Sankey published a collection of his songs in 1873 and then teamed with
Sunday School song author Philip Bliss (1838–1876) to compile Gospel Hymns and Sacred
Songs in 1875, which included songs by the most prolific author of gospel songs, Fanny Crosby
(1820–1915). Gospel Hymns was printed in six total editions through 1894, when a final edition
included 739 gospel songs.
Later, Homer Rodeheaver (1880–1955), song leader to revivalist Billy Sunday (1862–1935),
taught that “Creating the proper atmosphere for the character of the meeting to be held is an
important office of the director.” He taught song leaders how using certain songs and directing
methods could create the right “emotional conditioning.”7 Liturgically, a new service structure
developed that consisted of a “song service,” the sermon, and a climactic altar call.
A New Worship Tradition
All of these influences converged to create what liturgical historian James White argues was a
new worship tradition, which he suggests was adopted by “most of the traditions of Protestant
worship” and “provided a ‘black hole’ that tended to swallow up many of the distinctive
characteristics of previous traditions.”8 This new tradition minimized the Lord’s supper and
baptism, a “concert-stage arrangement with the choir elevated and facing the congregation”
developed, services celebrating distinctly American holidays replaced the Christian year, and
extemporaneous prayer became the established norm. Church music, in particular, took on an
entirely different function within services. Its purpose now became preliminary preparation for
the sermon, used to unite the congregation and create a “sense of expectancy.” The music had no
identifiable liturgical function; rather, “it was used to embellish, and the actual sequence during
the first minutes did not seem of great importance.”9
Two Worship Philosophies
In the wake of eighteenth-century Enlightenment and nineteenth-century revivalism, evangelical
Christianity evidenced two distinct philosophies of worship. The first was the conservative
philosophy that generally characterized each of the post-Reformation groups despite their
idiosyncratic differences.
This conservative philosophy desired to preserve the theology and practices of biblical worship,
mediated through the tradition of the church to various degrees. Both those who followed a more
normative principle of worship and those who affirmed a regulative principle nevertheless
desired that their worship take the shape of whatever preserves biblical tradition.
Following revivalist movements, this philosophy continued to characterize what are sometimes
called “Reformed” traditions, referring to these groups’ continued adherence to post-
Reformation confessions, liturgies, and hymnody.
The second philosophy, newly formed by revivalist theology and becoming the more significant
to characterize evangelical churches, was a more progressive philosophy. Instead of employing a
regulative principle, restricting its worship to explicit biblical prescription, or even a normative
principle, where church traditions not necessarily prescribed in Scripture carry more weight, this
progressive philosophy employs an “effective principle of worship,” where worship takes the
shape of whatever accomplishes the church’s objectives.
The driving impulse of such a philosophy is the means of accomplishing the objective of
evangelism or the spiritual grown of Christians, and often both in combination. While churches
following such a philosophy certain desire to be biblical in their doctrine and practice, they
consider contextualization of methods into newer, more relevant forms to be the necessary means
by which both unbelievers are brought to faith and Christians are spiritual stimulated.
This legacy of evangelical revivalism has come to characterize what are sometimes called “Free
church” traditions.
Pentecostalism, emotion, and worship
W. Robert Godfrey provides1 a helpful look at how the Pentecostal movement impacted
evangelicalism’s understanding of the nature of emotion (particularly physical expressiveness) in
worship. He ties it directly to the revivalism of Charles G. Finney (out of which, along with the
Holiness movement, Pentecostalism emerged), and this reveals an essential relationship between
these movements that I believe is critical in understanding the nature of worship today:
When emotions are misused, there is a constant danger of manipulation. It is easy for effective
leaders to move people, especially trusting and expectant people, to feel what they want them to
feel. Easily the church becomes a theater where feeling and catharsis take the place of true faith.
Nineteenth-century revivalist Charles Finney recognized the importance of the emotions in the
work he did, and he gave a clear theological explanation for the purely natural ways in which he
controlled emotions. In his Lectures on Revivals he writes: “Almost all the religion in the world
has been produced by revivals. God has found it necessary to take advantage of the excitability
there is in mankind, to produce powerful excitements among them, before he can lead them to
obey.” Emotional excitement is essential to revival: “There must be excitement sufficient to
wake up the dormant moral powers, and roll back the tide of degradation and sin.” Finney
frankly recognizes that this emotion was not at all supernatural. It was entirely natural, at the
disposal of the preacher and listener: “There is nothing in religion beyond the ordinary powers of
nature. It consists entirely in the right exercise of the powers of nature.” Indeed for Finney, “a
revival is as naturally a result of the use of the appropriate means as a crop is of the use of its
appropriate means.”In Finney, emotion or excitement became the essential focus of revival or
worship and was linked to a Pelagian or Semipelagian understanding of the human will. Finney
saw clearly that to excite and move the free will something new would always be needed. He
dealt with the problem by saying that since the millennium was coming soon, the need for ever-
new excitement would not be a long-term problem. But as Finney was wrong about the nearness
of the millennium, so has the burden of finding new excitements remained a constant challenge
for his heirs. The restlessness in some charismatic circles to find where the Spirit is moving anew
reflects that outlook.
An accomplished leader in the tradition of Finney can easily manipulate emotions in worship,
particularly through preaching and music. An effective preacher can create emotions ranging
from reverence to sorrow, from joy to tangible sense of power. An effective musician can move
the emotions through the words, melody, and instrumentation of music. Especially in the
Pentecostal tradition, music has been very self-consciously used to move worshipers. Grant
Wacker, a sympathetic historian of Pentecostalism, comments on this phenomenon in early
Pentecostalism:
“And then there was congregational singing, one of the most notable and remarked on features of
Pentecostal worship. . . . Music offered leaders a ready means for managing the intensity of the
service. They could ratchet up the tempo until worshipers broke into ecstatic praise, or tone it
down when things seemed to be getting out of hand. Either way, music gave leaders a tool for
regularizing the expression of emotion.”
What Wacker sees as true of early Pentecostalism is even truer with the Contemporary Christian
Music phenomenon. Praise songs, which originated in charismatic circles and spread widely in
other Protestant churches, seem often to express rather spontaneous waves of emotion. But their
use is carefully planned with an eye to the emotional effect on the worshiper. In such a session of
singing one can predict exactly when the hands will be raised and when other emotional
responses will be exhibited.
Many argue for these praise songs as a key way to connect with contemporary culture and to
revitalize emotional involvement in Christian worship. Charles H. Kraft, professor of
anthropology and intercultural communication at Fuller Theological Seminary, offers a
theological rationale for these songs: “True worship . . . usually takes a lot of singing to create an
atmosphere of praise and worship.” This experience of worship is created significantly by the
music of praise songs: “And it is the new music, sung with eyes closed for 10, 15, or 20 minutes
at a time that makes that experience possible.” Kraft praises these songs for breaking the
excessively intellectual character of much worship: “Our worship services revolve around an
informational sermon preceded by a token number of informational hymns.” These hymns
reinforce the unemotional character of traditional worship: “We sing hymns so chuck-full of
rational content and information that they are unmemorizable.” Kraft calls on Christians: “Let’s
stop beingIenslaved to the present rationalistic, intellect-centered approach to church that
characterizes much of evangelicalism.”
What is important to remember, especially in light of Krafts words above, is that these
evangelicals, influenced as they are by charismatic theology and practice, are defining what they
call “rationalistic, intellect-centered” worship through lenses that recognize no clear distinction
between the spiritual affections and physical appetites.
Notes
1. Charles Grandison Finney, Lectures on Systematic Theology (London: William Tegg and
Co., 1851), 391. [ ]
2. Ibid., 408. [ ]
3. Ibid. [ ]
4. Ibid., 405–7. [ ]
5. Charles G. Finney, Revivals of Religion (Boston: John P. Jewett & Company, 1858), 9. [
]
6. Ibid., 11. [ ]
7. Homer Rodeheaver, Song Leadership: A Practical Manual for All Who Want to Help
Folks Sing Together (Winona Lake, IN: Rodheaver, 1941), 8, 30. [ ]
8. James F. White, Protestant Worship: Traditions in Transition (Louisville, KY:
Westminster John Knox Press, 1989), 178–79. [ ]
9. Ibid., 185. [ ]
