Talk:Contemporary worship

message: 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)
thread_title:  May 2008

message: Article has been merged as per discussion on Talk:Christian worship. However, several things need to be fixed now:
# Merging of related articles on other language Wikipedias:
## Worship leader:
### :pl:Lider uwielbienia
### :sv:Lovsångsledare
### :vi:Worship leader
## Worship music:
### :de:Lobpreis und Anbetung
### :fr:Louange
### :ko:워십
### :nl:Aanbiddingsmuziek
### :pl:Praise & worship
### :sv:Lovsång
# Cleanup of the resultant article, re-writing it so that the entire article is cohesive
# Alignment of images
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)
thread_title:  Post-merger help required 

message: 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)
replies: text: Actually, I agree with you, FH, but I do not think the article is intentionally biased. It looks like several other article were taken and merged together, but no one spent the time to refine them to match the new subject and add coherence. The topic certainly needs to be expanded on and more views need to be given. Something also needs to be said about how singing in church is often mistakenly called worship, when it is only a part of worship. This probably sprouted from calling the music "worship music." I think I'm going to create a user sub-page to start working on this project. :) If anyone wants to help out feel free to contribute here: User:Merond e/Worship Project. --Merond e 06:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies.  My phrase "In fact, is it not thus quite misleading and biased?" was too strong. I did not mean to suggest anything deliberate or intentional; I'm sure all was "in good faith".  Rather (and simply) that we happen to have ended up with an article which sets out to cover a vast and varied field, and the contributions to it (for which we should, of course, be grateful) happen to have been mostly concentrated in just one part of it.  My use of 'misleading' was poor; it was to convey that an outside user, finding an article that said it was covering the whole field could end up thinking that the CCM corner of field was representative of the whole field.  Rather like if an article about "colours of the rainbow" talked only about red and perhaps a hint towards orange. (Or something like that!) Feline Hymnic (talk) 15:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I understand. :) I was sure you meant no harm. So are you going to help work on it? Don't forget I have a copy for us to play around with over here: User:Merond e/Worship Project. --Merond e 08:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion: What is this article? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Generally, I disagree, although it depends on exactly how "contemporary worship" is defined. Alternative worship is completely different to the common understanding of contemporary worship, in fact I think it began as a response to perceived shortcomings of contemporary worship. I'd prefer it stays separate, but I have no objection to a brief section here with a link to the main article. Sidefall (talk) 22:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Sidefall (so against merger).  "Contemporary worship" can mean many different things to many different people.  But the current Wikipedia Contemporary worship article is strongly slanted towards a definition allied with Contemporary Christian Music and Praise song music with strong evangelical and charismatic links (thus rather narrow, although I don't intend that remark as a criticism here).  By contrast Alternative worship‎ is (I understand) about breadth and exploration. Feline Hymnic (talk) 22:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree with Sidefall too - there was a lot of "Contemporary worship" around when we first set up the services which became the contemporary 'Alternative Worship' scene back in the early 1990s. If the article is merged, then it will be a very short time before another article appears. Clearly alternative worship has a context, and that is partly as a postmodern reaction to the things that were passing as 'contemporary worship' in the 1980s. Many of those things are still there today: over-focus on contemporary (soft-rock) music, over-professionalization of roles of worship leadership, weak focus upon community relationships, too much focus on feelings at the expense of other factors, restriction of creative roles to the few and the prominent, little scope for multiplicity of ways of participating, etc. etc. Most 'alternative worship' eschews strongly the cult of the worship song and the worship leader; some contexts have even abandoned singing altogether, so strong is the reaction in places. Please just keep it as it is and let it evolve as a distinct article. For further  information see alternativeworship.org and Steve Collins' excellent Smallfire.org. The phrase 'alternative worship' was being used as a synonym for 'contemporary worship' in North American contexts as late as the end of the 1990s, but since the rise in prominence of the Emerging Church phenomenon in the USA, there has been a recognition that Alternative Worship is a distinct phenomenon, pioneered in British, Australian and New Zealand contexts as a liturgical response (and reflection of) postmodernity. For more details see Dan Kimball, Emerging Worship: creating worship gatherings for new generations (Emergent YS/Zondervan, 2004) Digitaltheologian (talk) 06:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

text:  No merge please.  Digitaltheologian summarizes the reasons quite well.  Gandalf2000 (talk) 05:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge? 

message: 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)
thread_title: non-churchgoing visitors

message: 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)
thread_title:  Conservatives oppose charismatics? 

message: 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)
replies: text: That is an excellent suggestion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  June 2013 - Redirect from "Worship leader?"