Scott Aniol attempts a defense of biblical worship in “Worship in Song.” Scott claims that “confusion about the music issue is primarily theological, rising out of a misunderstanding of several important doctrines” such as the meaning of Sola Scriptura, sanctification, essence of worship, and the relationship between the glory and beauty of God. Aniol divides his book into three sections: the foundation and essence of biblical worship, personal or lifestyle worship, and corporate worship.
Aniol begins by picking apart misunderstandings of biblical applications. He denies the “encyclopedic” approach to applying scripture by stating that it is a misunderstanding of Sola Scriptura. Aniol then describes what he calls a proper response to God in worship as “affections”. He suggests that our current culture has blended the lines between “passions” and “affections” and he attempts to distinguish them again. Aniol ends the first section by giving examples of men from the past like Edwards and Luther who had become weary (even in their day) of emotionalism in worship.
In the section on personal worship, Aniol focuses on the meaning of music and different responses that all music yields. He suggests that music has textual meaning, associative meaning, and intrinsic meaning. Aniol reasons that there is a strict relationship between beauty in music and the glory of God. Yet, he quickly warns us that beauty in music can become dangerous when the music becomes the idol we are worshipping. He concludes his second section by exhorting Christians to “sanctify” their emotions with godly music.
The area of worship which Aniol is probably most concerned about is his last section on corporate worship. He confirms from scripture that true worship is a response to God, therefore, should be primarily directed to God. He does explain that worship has horizontal affects but only as a secondary purpose. He claims much of the “worship music” used in the evangelical church is shallow and appealing more to our emotions than to God’s glory. Aniol makes a plea to pastors and churches not to focus on performance in worship but on congregational participation. He makes a final plea to worship leaders to seriously consider their worship service and take time to think through the importance of leading a congregation in response to the glory of God.
Critique
I thoroughly enjoyed reading “Worship in Song”. Aniol’s words and Scripture helped me once again carefully evaluate my motives concerning worship. His book was highly academic, well thought-out, and carefully constructed. Aniol’s discussion on the “essence of worship” was superb. He rightly explained God’s thoughts on worship using the story of the Samaritan woman in John 4. Aniol writes, “[Jesus] emphasized the two essential elements of worship, namely spiritual response (spirit) and understanding of truth.”
I want to expound on three important disagreements I have with Aniol. First, in chapter 4 he states, “I love my wife, I love pizza, I love soccer, and I love God. But I do not love each of these in the same way”. I mostly agree with that statement. He continues, “Likewise, if I express love to God in the same way I express love to my wife, He would be very displeased.” Of course our love for pizza or sports should be completely different than our love for God. But God set up the illustration of a bride and bridegroom relationship to mimic the relationship of Christ and His church. So we would vehemently reject any form of erotic or sensual desire for Christ, but we would agree that the affection you have for your wife should mimic the affection Christ has for you and vice versa. In a sense, the affection I have for my wife should replicate my affection for Jesus Christ in an infinitely deeper way.
Second, in chapter 6, Aniol claims music carries intrinsic meaning as its deepest level of meaning. I have no problem with that assumption. He argues that music can aurally represent certain good and bad emotions. Aniol attempts to show this relationship by saying music that is “loud, fast, and intense usually mimics anger.” As Aniol continues, he admits that these characteristics do not present absolutes in music. Not all music that is loud, fast, and intense mimic anger. Also, Aniol seems to think that different styles of music cannot legitimately produce similar characteristics or emotions. I assume this because his list of music in the appendix, which can “sanctify” our emotions, is all from one particular style of music. I would contend that music can produce meaning and many different styles of music can produce similar meaning. A song can sound somber or majestic with a string orchestra or with a guitar and drums. So to give a list of classical music as the only style of music which can properly display the characteristics of God drastically falls short of the plethora of God honoring music available today.
Interestingly enough, I strongly agree with Aniol’s thoughts in chapter 14 which is my final critique. Many evangelical churches today have a steady diet of sentimental or surface level songs in their corporate worship. This is one of the reasons why many evangelicals would rather not think deeply about God and his attributes. If worship is a response to the truth about God, our worship songs should be saturated with truth about God! My concern is not that Aniol would rather use doctrinally rich songs in worship but that he opposes the use of sentimental songs at any time in worship. He says, “In addition to shallowness, sentimentalism in modern texts does not foster deep affections for God, but rather surface emotionalism.” I am not convinced that a sentimental song only produces surface emotionalism in mature believers. I believe that a simple text can produce dependence and adoration for God (Psalm 42:1-2). If Aniol is referring to songs which appear to be speaking about our girlfriend or simply not speaking of the same characteristics that God possesses, than I whole heartily agree that music of that kind has no place in worship. I am in complete agreement that a steady diet of sentimental music can produce surface emotionalism. We should strive to sing songs about God that are filled with God and the person and work of Jesus Christ. This will aid the church in their sanctification.
In conclusion, I found myself agreeing with the vast majority of Aniol’s thoughts. I find that ironic because I have been educated on worship primarily by Bob Kauflin’s sermons and articles. Kauflin and Aniol agree on most aspects of Worship yet they come to very different applications. I think this dichotomy can be explained because much is said on worship in the Bible but never does the Bible mention style. We can correctly apply all principles in scripture concerning worship and still appear far from each other stylistically.
Luke
