Whaley's book is a daunting endeavor and he should be commended for undertaking it. Worship, such as it is in the life of the church, is fundamental to our relationship with God. Whaley goes through the Bible section by section and pulls out what he feels points us to deeper understandings of worship. It is written in a very easy-to-read style and is clearly laid out for worship leaders, lay leaders and personal reading alike.
Strengths of the book:
I give Whaley credit for attempting this kind of work, but I feel that its weaknesses outweigh its strengths.
1) It is always valuable to review the Bible for its foundations in any of our practices as faithful followers. One could imagine similar books on prayer, fellowship and interpretation - and I am sure they are out there. Whaley pursues this project with apparent enthusiasm.
2) The chapters on Psalms and Job are very well executed and clear. Of the entire book, these two chapters stood out for me. I felt Whaley keyed into insights of worship that are often not brought to the forefront in both these books of the Bible. Recasting Job's 'discussion' with God at the end of the book as a reflection on worship was a brilliant move.
3) Whaley's selections from the Bible seemed logical.His choice of stories that reflect worship, for the most part, were valid choices to make.
4) His focus on relationship and focusing our lives on God is a powerful and excellent reminder, especially to those who are pastors and leaders. Many of Whaley's chapters continually refer to this focus in Scripture.
Weaknesses:
1) Writing style -- Whaley's style does not break out of about a 5-6th grade reading level. I am not sure what his intention here was. If it is to write for young worship leaders, well, most of them are at least in college or older, so young would mean between 19-29. I had a hard time with this. Ideas were often simplified without needing to be. Doctrinal statements are deliberately stated as all-encompassing truths without recognition of potential differences. Interjections like "Wow!" or "Did you notice that?!" seemed like some of the youth preachers on GODTV and as a worship leader myself, I found it off-putting.
2) Interpretation -- In many places, Whaley seems to force the issue massively, to the point of warping various texts to fit his claim. Forcing the examples from Genesis and Exodus into the strong claims that Whaley makes for our worship of God seemed highly contrived to me. This highlights the great difficulty of an undertaking like this. Texts that are not referencing worship are made to conform to the demand and desire for worship that the author wishes to make.
3) Assumptions - Throughout the book, Whaley said numerous times, "We all know what happened next...". Well, maybe 30 years ago we could say such a thing. But in 2009, where biblical illiteracy is rampant, where the foundations of Christianity have eroded massively in the culture and where off-the-cuff references from the Bible are no longer recognized as from the Bible, very few actually know what happens next in any Bible story.
Assumptions about authorship (Paul as the author of Hebrews, for instance) and interpretation (literalist to the core, which is no surprise given that Whaley teaches at Liberty University) were a little abrupt and were stated without question. Now, I don't have any illusions that Whaley would adopt these positions, given his background and where he teaches, and nor is the focus of this book having anything to do with authorship or direct interpretation beyond worship. However, if the desire is for a broad audience, some 'softening' of position and doctrine seems appropriate. This aspect is incredibly minor, given the scope of the book, but it stood out for me.
4) Worship = Works -- This was the biggest issue I had with the book. I don't deny that God demands worship and praise. Nor do I deny that it is part of our life as Christians to worship God. But Whaley often made it sound as if our relationship with God was utterly dependent on not only THAT we worship, but also HOW we worship. This comes very close, it seems to me, to saying that our salvation is dependent upon how and that we worship, not on grace and faith. Now, I know that Whaley does not believe what I just said. But particularly in his review of the OT, our relationship with God was completely dependent on how we worship. This modifies a bit in the NT, but the melody resumed on several occasions. Luther says worship is meaningless without the Word of God, and likewise our faith is informed by our worship, but worship does not come first. Faith is first. Worship is what we do in response to our faith.
5) Individualism -- Over and over again, Whaley personalizes worship - "Wouldn't YOU want that relationship with God?" "Don't YOU want to love God in the proper way?" This profound individualism in terms of our relationship with God fundamentally undermines the desire and demand for worship in the book. I am not saying we can't worship by ourselves. Certainly that is true, but in the OT worship is always in the context of the community of faith. And it is even more so in the NT. Whaley well knows that most of the "you" statements in the NT are plural "you's" - the y'all tense of "you". Whaley's personalization of worship to the individual seemed in contradiction, as opposed to being in tension, with any communal claim he made in the book.
6) References - I consider myself to be a perpetual student. I appreciate well-researched books and articles. Universally, in academic circles and publishing circles alike, constant references to the Internet and, worse, Wikipedia, vastly undermine credibility. The internet is easy. Research on the Internet is a crap-shoot. Maybe the information is valid, maybe not. More often than not, it is the latter rather than the former when the Internet is used as the sole source of reference. That is why Wikipedia has the links and references on the bottom of the page to help researchers go to more valid sources. I found myself, as I paged back to the endnotes for the chapters, deeply troubled by constant references to Wikipedia or clearly biased Christian websites as valid source material for such an undertaking as this. It throws the whole project into question and makes it look more like an extended op-ed piece than a research work. I am surprised his editors didn't require more in-depth references.
Overall, I felt that Whaley deserved to be read because the endeavor he undertook was large and filled a surprising hole in the vast library of modern books being written in the Christian market today. For more literalist churches, there is much in here that is useful. I might even use this book as part of a broader examination of worship in the church, during say a Bible study or a book study. But the focus is so limited and the language is so stilted that it made it a hard read for me. Likewise, the warping of the text to the perspective made it difficult for the more academically inclined to appreciate. And please, let this book be an object lesson for the misuse of Wikipedia and the Internet as reasonable references in a large research project.
Peace to all,
Pastor Seth
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)