interior top image

Participation in Praise and Worship – A Retrospective

Center for Congregational Song, Adam Perez, Centered in Song, Blog

Author – Adam Perez is a doctoral student in liturgical studies at Duke Divinity School.





Worship War

There have been many varied but regular attacks posed by opponents of contemporary praise and worship since its inception in the middle of the 20th century. These attacks have been intense enough to call it a ‘worship war’–and many people have been wearing their battle fatigues to worship every Sunday for the last 25 years. ‘The lyrics are trite or too shallow, ‘the music too repetitive or boring’–or alternatively, ‘too upbeat’ or driven by rhythm (i.e., too similar to the evils of Rock music)—the list goes on. Is contemporary praise and worship a threat to the right worship of the Christian church and its hymnic/theological orthodoxy? Most recently, the critique has revolved not around musical style per se but around congregational participation. Do the speaker stacks and ‘wall of sound’ stun the congregation into silence? Do the performance practices of contemporary praise and worship hinder congregational participation rather than enliven it? Has this always been the case for contemporary praise and worship?


Now, I don’t consider myself an outright advocate of praise and worship, but I do consider my task to be that of dispelling myths and misunderstandings. In this post I want to suggest that, historically, contemporary praise and worship has had the opposite take on its relationship to the issue of congregational participation.


Dispelling Myths and Misunderstandings

The old guard of praise and worship leaders suggest that praise and worship music allows for, creates the space for, even the most unmusical of persons to be involved in musical worship, both singing and playing instruments. Whereas the text-heavy and musically-challenging hymns of old were seen as not-all-that-singable to many untrained musicians, the new, simpler song forms of praise and worship were easily taught and learned. No longer would congregational song be reserved for the specialists (whether a formal choir or the trained singer) as had developed in some circles, but it would be given back to the congregation.

No longer would congregational song be reserved for the specialists

To say that this was simply a change in musical style or in worship practice would be to understate the shift. It wasn’t a shift just in worship practice, but in the relationship between music, persons, and worship. Out of the praise and worship movement came a very important theological anthropology which holds that the core identity of Christians, writ large, is as ‘worshippers’—a trope still very common in many evangelical, charismatic, and pentecostal circles today. This theology was developed in part through a reading of scripture that linked Old Testament worship closely with music-making and was often combined with a strong eschatological vision of worship derived from the book of Revelation. To participate in the heavenly worship, one must sing and make music to the Lord. Singing wasn’t simply the act sine qua non of worship, but singing was part of becoming a right worshipper (cf. John 4:24 “God is seeking worshippers…”), and becoming a right worshipper was an essential to Christian faith and practice as a person. You can see why participation is such a critical issue for praise and worshippers–if singing and music-making were being withheld from the congregation by way of increasing musical difficulty and professionalism, a core component of Christian identity was also being withheld.


This two-fold shift toward making music more accessible and the musicalizing right Christian worship has had an indelible mark on Protestant worship across North America.



Often without understanding the basic impulse of praise and worship, one of the primary responses to it has been, “What congregations need [to preserve certain kinds of hymnody] is better music education, not simpler music!” This response, you might recognize, is one that has spurred on educational reforms time and again in the history of church music. Inevitably, reforms of church music and practice have their upsides and their downsides regarding the question of participation. In many instances, especially in the American cultural context, various traditions have generated a subgroup of (semi-celebrity) leaders and performers to whom Americans have allowed to make music on their behalf: the choir’s cantata, the praise band’s set list, the vocalist’s sung testimony, the organist’s Fantasy on [fill in the blank]–not to mention pseudo-liturgical moments like “Special Music,” “Choral Offering,” or “Organ Preludes,” but I digress…


Maybe it’s a cultural thing, maybe it’s a musical thing, or maybe it’s a deeply human thing, but we love to hear expert leaders and performers regardless of our musical or liturgical traditions. And there’s probably nothing wrong with that.


Praise and Worship

But to return to the issue of praise and worship, it seems that the question of participation has begun to rear its head again in the 21st century as the production value of highly visible churches and events has come into question. Though praise and worship initially provided a strong response to this issue, the dissemination and development of it as a tradition has caused transformation in some arenas. We can only speculate the reasons for this, and they are surely many. Some long-time insiders suggest the song composition style is too complex, the influence of recording stars too great, the broader influence of the popular music industry, a disconnect between leaders and congregation, broadening of the teaching on the theology of praise and worship—the list goes on. So to say, yes, this tradition of music and worship may need to re-affirm its commitment to congregational participation—and it is not alone in that need.

Praise and worship is, in its heart of hearts, about and for congregational participation.

Praise and worship is, in its heart of hearts, about and for congregational participation. Though in some very visible manifestations the congregation’s participation seems to have become somewhat tempered or muted, this is not the case for all times and all places. Unfortunately, contemporary praise and worship suffers no more from the cult of celebrity in music and leadership than do many other Protestant churches, mainline or evangelical, conservative or liberal. Likewise, there is no clear correlation between a church’s musical style and the degree of participation in congregational singing, so let’s not pin the issue of participation solely on musical style alone.



7 thoughts on “Participation in Praise and Worship – A Retrospective”

  1. Todd Wilson says:

    If musical style does not hinder participation, what does?

  2. Brian Hehn says:

    Todd Wilson, I think that musical style (as the author suggests) often gets the brunt of the blame for participation. But that doesn’t seem to hold up to actual experiences when studying congregations that use a variety of styles/genres/instrumentation. I think that other things like: how the instruments are being used/played, overall sound levels, quality of leadership, implicit or explicit invitations to sing by the leadership, congregational culture (do they identify themselves as a “singing congregation” or not?), architecture, acoustics, familiarity with the repertoire, and so much more contribute to overall participation. All of that can be done well or not done well regardless of genre/style.

  3. Duane Toole says:

    I think praise and worship music often gets a bad rap because too often we try to force people to sing music that is not meant for group singing. Just because a song is popular on Christian radio does not mean it is singable by congregations. Through-composed songs are particularly difficult for groups to sing, and some collections contains such songs.

    I think the single most important aspect of congregational song is familiarity with the repertory. If we teach it to them, they will sing it, and the style matters very little. They will even do foreign languages: after all, “Alleluia” is Latin! We sing “praise and worship” music, traditional hymns, and even jazz. They only need to be taught.

  4. Fay Magee says:

    Duane makes an important point about ‘singability’ and accessibility. “Praise and worship” as a genre can appear to be moving us away from really thinking about our theology of worship and what the function of our singing is when we gather as community.

  5. Bart Tie says:

    Really missing the white elephant here..
    People don’t sing in the congregation (especially when attending alone) because the music is relative cringe-inducing and embarrassing to sing aloud.

  6. Dan Weckerly says:

    Let’s see… A 4/4 or 3/4 traditional hymn in ABAB style, with text reflecting depth and breadth, supported by a competent organist/choir? Or a 4/12 tune that changes three key three times, has 16 bars of “Jesus Woah We Love You” repeated over and over and is led by a recorder, acoustic guitar, marimba and finger-cymbals. Hmmmm…

    1. admtcfcs says:

      Hey Dan Weckerly. We approved this comment because it doesn’t contain profanity and isn’t spam. However, we at The Center for Congregational Song are trying to build healthy and thoughtful conversation with what we post and how we encourage others to interact. Your comment seems to be more reactive and spiteful than thoughtful and charitable. We hope you’ll look for ways of digging deeper into why this post prompted your particular response and find out how you can move forward in a more positive and/or constructive way. We hope we can be a part of that process. Thanks! – The Center for Congregational Song Staff

Comments are closed.