This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Well, I've been bold and given this article a major edit (accidentally flagged as minor) to reflect what is generally referred to by the term "contemporary worship". It's by no means perfect and there's lots more that can be done, but I hope this will be a good basis for futher work.
I changed the name of the article as this is the most common term used and has been mentioned in many books, including some of the references I've given. Currently "contemporary christian worship" redirects here. Maybe there is some room for a separate article here with wider scope. I have recreated the "worship presentation program" article as I felt it didn't really fit in the main article. I've also done some work on related stuff - moved "praise song" to "contemporary worship music" etc.
I hope people will feel that what I've done is an improvement.
Sidefall ( talk) 14:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Update - I've changed Contemporary Christian worship to a disambig that links to both this page and Contemporary worship music. I think that's clearer and distinguishes between the musical genre and the style of church service. The two are sufficiently different IMO to warrant separate articles. Sidefall ( talk) 15:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Article has been merged as per discussion on Talk:Christian worship. However, several things need to be fixed now:
I will be working on the cleanup and alignment of images, as much as time allows. But as always, any help is welcome. Thanks! aJCfreak yAk 11:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I think there is a major difference between Alternative worship and contemporary worship. ALternative worship is very much a missional movement drawing on a very postmodern pespective. They are not the same thing - and this attempted merge - is making the wrong assumptions. If alt worship needs to be re-written then I am happy to contribute to make this clearer. There is a stronger link between Emerging Church and alternative worship rather than with contemporary worship. PLease see this from a global perspective - and not from a US colonialist perspective!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by KerryDawkins ( talk • contribs) 11:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
This article "Contemporary Christian worship" seems at best confused and at worst biased.
The title could mean a wide variety of different things, such as: Catholic worship since Vatican 2, "Contemporary Christian Music" (CCM) as a recorded home-listening aid to private worship, corporate church worship with a "worship song" slant, Taize reflective prayers, Iona Community Christian social activism, and so on and so on...
The opening paragraph seems to be setting the scene across a worldwide range of Christian worship practice; indeed the first sentence takes us across "Eastern Orthodox", "Catholic" and "Western Church". But then a quick glance through the contents and skim-read across the text shows a very strong bias towards the CCM and "worship song" aspects, to the exclusion of almost everything else (both worship and non-Western-church).
This article starts off saying one thing ("We're going to cover everything contemporary") but then covers only one single, small aspect (CCM/worship-song music strand).
In fact, is it not thus quite misleading and biased?
A more subtle, but equally serious, flaw is that the title is "...worship" but the content is almost exclusively "music". Many of us with a foot (or more) in "worship-song"-related traditions tend to think "music" and "worship" are almost the same. (As soon as we read such a sentence we immediately protest!)
I would suggest the need to address the following points:
The present situation has (as St. Paul might say) fallen short. But with some work, this set of articles could be a really useful, coherent, cross-referenced resource here in wikipedia.
Hope that helps.
Feline Hymnic 22:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Now that a month has elapsed since the comments above, I have added a 'POV-check' to the main article.
Feline Hymnic ( talk) 23:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I have placed a mergeto tag on Alternative worship, suggesting that it be merged here. The two concepts seem to overlap quite a bit. Any thoughs? Pastordavid ( talk) 19:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Since the merge proposal has still not been closed, I vote Merge. While the two are dissimilar to each other, they are sufficiently similar to each other when compared to a traditional worship that a casual observer would not notice the difference. A protracted section could be included in this article to differentiate between Contemporary worship and Alternative worship. -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 23:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Is contemporary worship "utilized in order for non-churchgoing visitors to feel more comfortable" or "utilized with the rationale that non-churchgoing visitors will feel more comfortable"? I don't think that there have been studies to state that it actually makes non-churchgoing visitors feel more comfortable, but that's the hope. Michael Frost has argued that non-churchgoing people don't actually ever attend based on style of worship, and they certainly don't decide to visit a church because of it. So without proof that it actually makes non-churchgoers feel anything, we shouldn't suggest it. -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 23:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
There have long been objections to the terms "contemporary worship" and "contemporary service," on the grounds that all worship, by definition, is "contemporary." For a long time, no other reasonable alternate name saw much use. Within the past year or so, however, "emergent" has become increasingly common as an adjective for such services, particularly among mainstream churches that continue to hold "traditional" services as well. -- Hbquikcomjamesl ( talk) 16:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
This is funny because most charismatic churches are conservative and evangelical. "Opposition to contemporary worship has been most vocal from the conservative evangelical wing of the church, which also opposes the charismatic movement." Need some fact chickn'. 66.87.0.176 ( talk) 23:14, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm perplexed as to why "Worship leader" redirects to this article. I understand that contemporary worship services call their lead musicians "worship leaders," but the term is much broader than contemporary worship. Many traditional worshiping congregations use the term for the person who reads the prayers and performs other non-musical elements of the service. I suggest creating a separate article or a disambiguation page that links to this article as well as others that may apply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tpoling ( talk • contribs) 03:33, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Well, I've been bold and given this article a major edit (accidentally flagged as minor) to reflect what is generally referred to by the term "contemporary worship". It's by no means perfect and there's lots more that can be done, but I hope this will be a good basis for futher work.
I changed the name of the article as this is the most common term used and has been mentioned in many books, including some of the references I've given. Currently "contemporary christian worship" redirects here. Maybe there is some room for a separate article here with wider scope. I have recreated the "worship presentation program" article as I felt it didn't really fit in the main article. I've also done some work on related stuff - moved "praise song" to "contemporary worship music" etc.
I hope people will feel that what I've done is an improvement.
Sidefall ( talk) 14:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Update - I've changed Contemporary Christian worship to a disambig that links to both this page and Contemporary worship music. I think that's clearer and distinguishes between the musical genre and the style of church service. The two are sufficiently different IMO to warrant separate articles. Sidefall ( talk) 15:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Article has been merged as per discussion on Talk:Christian worship. However, several things need to be fixed now:
I will be working on the cleanup and alignment of images, as much as time allows. But as always, any help is welcome. Thanks! aJCfreak yAk 11:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I think there is a major difference between Alternative worship and contemporary worship. ALternative worship is very much a missional movement drawing on a very postmodern pespective. They are not the same thing - and this attempted merge - is making the wrong assumptions. If alt worship needs to be re-written then I am happy to contribute to make this clearer. There is a stronger link between Emerging Church and alternative worship rather than with contemporary worship. PLease see this from a global perspective - and not from a US colonialist perspective!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by KerryDawkins ( talk • contribs) 11:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
This article "Contemporary Christian worship" seems at best confused and at worst biased.
The title could mean a wide variety of different things, such as: Catholic worship since Vatican 2, "Contemporary Christian Music" (CCM) as a recorded home-listening aid to private worship, corporate church worship with a "worship song" slant, Taize reflective prayers, Iona Community Christian social activism, and so on and so on...
The opening paragraph seems to be setting the scene across a worldwide range of Christian worship practice; indeed the first sentence takes us across "Eastern Orthodox", "Catholic" and "Western Church". But then a quick glance through the contents and skim-read across the text shows a very strong bias towards the CCM and "worship song" aspects, to the exclusion of almost everything else (both worship and non-Western-church).
This article starts off saying one thing ("We're going to cover everything contemporary") but then covers only one single, small aspect (CCM/worship-song music strand).
In fact, is it not thus quite misleading and biased?
A more subtle, but equally serious, flaw is that the title is "...worship" but the content is almost exclusively "music". Many of us with a foot (or more) in "worship-song"-related traditions tend to think "music" and "worship" are almost the same. (As soon as we read such a sentence we immediately protest!)
I would suggest the need to address the following points:
The present situation has (as St. Paul might say) fallen short. But with some work, this set of articles could be a really useful, coherent, cross-referenced resource here in wikipedia.
Hope that helps.
Feline Hymnic 22:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Now that a month has elapsed since the comments above, I have added a 'POV-check' to the main article.
Feline Hymnic ( talk) 23:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I have placed a mergeto tag on Alternative worship, suggesting that it be merged here. The two concepts seem to overlap quite a bit. Any thoughs? Pastordavid ( talk) 19:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Since the merge proposal has still not been closed, I vote Merge. While the two are dissimilar to each other, they are sufficiently similar to each other when compared to a traditional worship that a casual observer would not notice the difference. A protracted section could be included in this article to differentiate between Contemporary worship and Alternative worship. -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 23:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Is contemporary worship "utilized in order for non-churchgoing visitors to feel more comfortable" or "utilized with the rationale that non-churchgoing visitors will feel more comfortable"? I don't think that there have been studies to state that it actually makes non-churchgoing visitors feel more comfortable, but that's the hope. Michael Frost has argued that non-churchgoing people don't actually ever attend based on style of worship, and they certainly don't decide to visit a church because of it. So without proof that it actually makes non-churchgoers feel anything, we shouldn't suggest it. -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 23:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
There have long been objections to the terms "contemporary worship" and "contemporary service," on the grounds that all worship, by definition, is "contemporary." For a long time, no other reasonable alternate name saw much use. Within the past year or so, however, "emergent" has become increasingly common as an adjective for such services, particularly among mainstream churches that continue to hold "traditional" services as well. -- Hbquikcomjamesl ( talk) 16:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
This is funny because most charismatic churches are conservative and evangelical. "Opposition to contemporary worship has been most vocal from the conservative evangelical wing of the church, which also opposes the charismatic movement." Need some fact chickn'. 66.87.0.176 ( talk) 23:14, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm perplexed as to why "Worship leader" redirects to this article. I understand that contemporary worship services call their lead musicians "worship leaders," but the term is much broader than contemporary worship. Many traditional worshiping congregations use the term for the person who reads the prayers and performs other non-musical elements of the service. I suggest creating a separate article or a disambiguation page that links to this article as well as others that may apply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tpoling ( talk • contribs) 03:33, 27 June 2013 (UTC)