Perspectives on Christian Worship: Five Views

Perspectives

by J. Matthew Pinson (Editor), Mark Dever (Contribution by), Timothy Quill (Contribution by)

Perspectives on Christian Worship presents in counterpoint form five basic common beliefs on Christian worship that have developed over the course of church history with a view toward determining which is most faithful to Scripture. Each chapter is written by a prominent person within each tradition, and each writer has the opportunity to respond to each differing view.

Genres: Theology, Christian, Church, Nonfiction

368 pages, Paperback

First published March 1, 2009

About the author

J. Matthew Pinson is president of Welch College in Nashville, Tennessee. He holds a master's degree from Yale and a doctorate from Vanderbilt and has authored or edited several books, including Four Views on Eternal Security and A Free Will Baptist Handbook. He lives in the Nashville area with his wife, Melinda, and their children, Anna and Matthew.

Reviews

[John · Rating 3 out of 5]

I've read a number of these "Perspectives" books over the years, and have generally found them helpful. There are always aspects of the books that are disappointing however--usually because one of the contributors doesn't quite fit the mold that the perspective requires, or because I was hoping they would better represent the position. This book is no different, though I think this is probably the best of the genre that I've encountered because of the thought-provoking nature of the contributions. Each of these contributors, even the ones with which I have strong disagreements, had very valuable insights.

The five perspectives represented in the book are Liturgical Worship, Traditional Evangelical Worship, Contemporary Worship, Blended Worship, and Emerging Worship. As most of the contributors noted, the categories themselves are very restrictive and actually bring more division to the topic than benefit. I absolutely agree with them. These hardened and combative categories are actually a hindrance to constructive dialogue.

Timothy Quill, the "Liturgical Worship" contributor is a Lutheran, which made for interesting reading, since I have almost no familiarity whatsoever with Lutheran worship. So while it was interesting, I had some very strong reservations about the position--the Law/Gospel distinction being the most obvious. But the position is also unnecessarily rigid. Quill is an insightful writer and thinker, and I found his critiques of the various positions the most incisive. But, his "liturgical" position was far too bound to tradition and "the way things are always done."

I firmly believe that the church must grow into full Christian maturity, and part of that is better understanding what biblical worship should be. I believe much of the so-called liturgical position actually best expresses Christian worship, but it should never be closed off to contemporary expressions of worship, because just as the church matures theologically, it ought to mature in the way it worships God. Quill's position seems closed to that idea, while the other contributors at least recognize this idea, though I disagree with their understanding of worship.

So while the liturgical position best understands what biblical worship is, and that the Bible actually teaches this clearly, its proponents often fail to understand how worship ought to grow into maturity. All of the other positions fail to fully understand what worship is, but they at least recognize that it ought to mature, even though they don't do a very good job of actually putting this into place, because they reject the actual foundations of Christian worship which are expressed through a formal liturgy.

This is really the crux of the so-called "Worship Wars" in my estimation. All of the other positions have rejected the formal liturgy, though they differ in the extent of that rejection. So the arguments between the other positions are fraught with peril because they have such weak foundations--in fact, many of their assumptions are shared, yet they fail to understand this.

The four low-liturgy positions have a lower view of worship, rejecting the fullness of corporate worship such as a congregational confession of sin at the beginning of the service and the necessity of weekly communion. The other positions either ignore these elements, individualize them, or do them on their own terms--monthly, rarely, or never. The result is diluted worship--worship without the power.

Music is really only a part of the problem. When the church is able to understand worship as the Bible teaches, the music will fall into place--even in the more formal liturgical churches. What seems to be missing from all of the positions, even the "Liturgical" position is that Corporate Worship transforms its adherents and builds a new people and new culture that is distinct from all other peoples and cultures.

There are several good discussions on the importance of culture on worship, but none of them emphasize the way the church should be learn from, but be distinct from the diversity of cultures. This is one of the ways the church can, and should mature--to learn lessons from redeemed cultures around the globe and grow as a distinct and unified Christian culture. The church is in the business of transforming and redeeming people of all tribes and tongues, and each successive culture that is redeemed has something to add to the worship of the one God. Part of being re-made, is being made into one body, and one of the goals of the church should be worshiping God in a unified voice.

The unified voice of the church should not be the way any one current culture worships God, but should be sharpened by all cultures. This means that the American church should take on some of the voice of the African church, vice-versa, and so on around the globe. This is almost certainly worrisome to people in America and Africa, but this is part of dying to self and becoming who God wants us to be.

This idea doesn't even seem to be in the minds of any of the five writers in this book. Dan Wilt and Dan Kimball are probably the closest to this idea, but they are too concerned defending their own views against the others, that their positions are actually very subjective, essentially saying that what works for you is fine, as long as it is "biblical," and we'll do what we do because we prefer it that way, and we believe it is "biblical" too. But there is no real desire to see unity, just tolerance of varying positions.

It is really helpful to hear both Wilt and Kimball in this conversation because those on the more traditional side of the discussion need to be pushed toward newness and growth in worship. While both Wilt and Kimball have some serious flaws in their positions, they at least understand the importance of singing a new song unto the Lord and the significance of the voice of the global church in worship.

So while the book leaves a great deal to be desired, it is a very helpful discussion and is very thought provoking. I recommend it, as it is sure to get others thinking biblically about how we ought to worship the Triune God.

[Jeremy Mueller · Rating 3 out of 5]

(3.5 stars) I think this book is overall useful, but I found it unnecessarily long. I’ll admit that it is quite a task to communicate five different views on Christian worship in a succinct yet robust way, but I found this book to be unnecessarily detailed. I think the authors each could have given a general
sketch of their view, referenced resources for further reading, and then responded with specific
and abbreviated critique. However, I think this critique is lobbed more at the style of the book
than the authors who were asked to contribute. Presenting and responding to views is best done
in an audible and physically embodied way, and unfortunately this resource can’t do that.
Positively, this book gives insight into all of the major views on worship experienced in church
today. In this regard, I think it is a resource that can be used to understand why other churches do
what they do. On the whole, I might recommend this book to others for specific arguments, but I
don’t think I’d encourage some to read it in its entirety.

[Marc Sims · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5 stars. Lawrence and Dever’s chapter is by far the best. They argue for robust understanding of the regulative principle, but with an openness to contemporary music. The strength of their chapter is how much they include in their purview of “worship” for the Sunday morning—much, much more than just music, but prayer, benedictions, corporate reading of scripture, confession, pastoral prayers, etc. The other chapters range from fine to bizarre.

[Richard Cobb · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is an important conversation to have, but books like this are hard because, while they are having a discussion, it is not a full discussion. Each writer gets one shot to present their view and then to respond to the prepared statement of the other. While we get to see where people agree and disagree, this would look very different if these 6 men were able to sit in a room with each other and had an actual discussion about worship in their contexts. Transcribing that conversation would be a much better book than what they have attempted to do here. I understand that is not how this Perspectives series works, but I think it would end up being more beneficial for the audience (readers) then this presentation.

[Ben Robin · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is well worth the purchase price for (1) Ligon Duncan’s chapter and (2) Mark Dever’s and Michael Lawrence’s chapter.

[Taylor Rollo · Rating 3 out of 5]

Review of Perspectives on Christian Worship: 5 Views, ed. J. Matthew Pinson

In the tradition of many recent works on various controversial topics, this book is a “debate in a book.” How do we worship God properly? That is a big question for which there is much disagreement today. This book seeks to contribute to the debate by allowing five traditions to be heard in their own words and responded to in an orderly way.

Pinson sets the stage for the book in the introduction, where he presents a brief sketch of the history of worship. He makes note of the “tension between the need to remain faithful to the gospel and the Christian tradition while at the same time faithfully communicating that Evangel in a changing and complex cultural milieu that presents mammoth challenges to the continued witness of the Christian church.” It is, in general, this tension that each contributor addresses in their essay. Five views on worship are presented by leading pastors/theologians in their various traditions: liturgical (Timothy Quill), traditional evangelical (Ligon Duncan), contemporary (Dan Wilt), blended (Michael Lawrence and Mark Dever), and emerging (Dan Kimball). After the presentation of each view, the other contributors are given a chance to respond to the said view.

The first view presented and rebutted is liturgical worship, represented by Timothy Quill. Quill was a Lutheran pastor and is presently the dean of International Studies at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis. True to his Lutheran tradition, Quill uses the large distinction between law and gospel to govern worship. He differentiates between worship as something we do (law) from something God is doing (grace). From this, he states that liturgy is first of all what God is doing: “In law worship, we bring our obedience and praise to God. In gospel worship, we bring our sin and sinfulness, and God brings His gifts to us.” Much of the body of his essay is spent talking about why liturgy contains its various parts. Since he believes that liturgy belongs to the adiaphora—matters neither commanded nor forbidden by Scripture—his justification for liturgical worship is ultimately more pragmatic and historical than biblical.

The responses to Quill’s essay begin with praise and focus on areas of agreement but soon the differences must be noted. Duncan addresses several issues, most notably he is worried that liturgy will not foster reverence but “create complacency and simply going through the motions in worship.” Furthermore, he does not like Quill’s emphasis lectionary preaching since it does not represent the whole of Scripture. Wilt is chiefly worried about the division between clergy and laity, and he does not like the charge of over-emotionalism among contemporary churches, responding that strict worship implies an unapproachable God. Dever and Lawrence (hereafter DL) do not like Quill’s use of pragmatic (instead of biblical) justification for liturgy. They also differ with his theological dichotomy between law and gospel, which causes Quill to toss out all the subjective aspects of worship. Kimball, like Duncan, is worried about liturgy creating worshipers that just go through the motions without transformation, and he points out that liturgy does not protect the gospel because many liberal churches with liturgical worship have abandoned it. He states, “The result, it seems, is that for all the emphasis on the gospel and faith, both are largely assumed. Unfortunately, sooner or later what is assumed is presumed, and then finally forgotten.”

The next view present is the traditional evangelical view given by Ligon Duncan, senior pastor of First Presbyterian Church in Jackson, MS and adjunct professor of Reformed Theological Seminary. Duncan defines worship as “declaring… that God is more important than anything else to us, that He is our deepest desire, that His inherent worth is beyond everything else we hold dear” and its goal “is to glorify and enjoy God… to give to the Lord the glory due His name and to enjoy the blessing of His promised special presence with His own people, in obedience to His instructions set forth in the Bible.” True to his Presbyterian tradition, Duncan holds that true worship is governed by the regulative principle, which he defines as the “axiom that we ought to worship God in accordance with the Bible's teaching about the public worship of God” and holds that it creates “radically biblical worship.” He distinguishes between elements (singing, praying, reading Scripture, preaching, administering the sacraments, making solemn vows, confessing the faith, and giving offerings), forms (how one goes about doing the elements), and circumstances (incidentals like time of meeting, where, etc.). He shows that circumstances (and probably forms ) should never get in the way of the elements or become a more important feature than the elements.

The responses, again, start with praise but then quickly move onto the points of distinction. Quill, as one might guess, takes issue with Duncan’s belief that worship is primarily about something man gives to God. He states, “It puts an endless burden on the worshiper that can never be fully achieved” but the “greatest goal in worship is to receive what God desires to give us,” i.e. grace. Wilt is most critical that traditional evangelical worship creates a subculture in the name of the Bible that is far less inclusive of diversity than the Bible. He believes that Duncan minimizes God’s love of variety and the human aspect of His relationship with man. DL pretty much agree with almost everything Duncan says. There are a few points where one gets the feeling they do not agree but do not think a rebuttal is worth mentioning, and they give qualified agreement with Duncan on his view of the Lord’s Day, stating that Duncan seems to be support Sabbatarianism and they believe the Sabbath is fulfilled in Christ. Kimball is concerned that traditional evangelical practices are more influenced by tradition than Duncan would admit, and he believes it gets us stuck in the traditions of certain time periods.

The next style represented is contemporary worship, presented by Dan Wilt, director of the Institute of Contemporary and Emerging Worship Studies. Wilt begins with presenting three challenges in discussing contemporary worship: reflecting the values of a diverse group, discussing a movement in flux, and the discussing its role in the whole of the church tapestry. He defines contemporary worship as, “that expression of worship within the Christian church today marked by the primary usage of contemporarily written worship lyrics and music, [which is] sonically concurrent… with the music of popular culture, and is used widely and increasingly across the Protestant… spectrum of today's globally worshiping congregations.” In his chapter, however, Wilt does not really discuss worship as a whole, but focuses more on contemporary worship music and its benefit. His desire is to take engagement of the culture seriously. This leads him to say, “Contemporary worship is one means through which the church leads the way in culture.” Wilt wants to keep a high place for emotions in worship and responds to the charge of being too emotional by saying traditional worship is anemic.

The responses to Wilt also start out with praise for him but quickly move to points of contention. Quill, predictably, disagrees with Wilt’s emphasis on the human role in worship. He believes this is too much law and not enough grace and will not end well. He states, “The constant demand to give God all our praise, heart, and love is a burden that condemns us.” Duncan believes that Wilt misses the distinction between worship in all of life and public, gathered worship of God, and he believes that if Wilt’s discussion had been more holistic, the relationship between the two might have been more evident. DL point out that Wilt’s focus on the culture “seems to be saying that it is postmodern culture that ultimately, or at least mostly, defines who we are, and so to worship authentically, we must (not may) worship in the idiom of that culture.” They respond, “Certainly we must worship our Savior from within our culture. Yet just as certainly worship must take its cues not from its context, but from its object, not from our changing culture, but from the unchanging character of God.” Kimball says that Wilt is a “kindred soul,” but would have liked the artistic aspects to move beyond only music. He also laments that contemporary music is really just Western contemporary music.

The next view of worship is presented by Mark Dever and Michael Lawrence (DL), senior and associate pastors (respectively) of Capitol Hill Baptist Church. They give the blended worship view. Like Duncan, DL put a lot of weight on the regulative principle, which they define as the governing of our approach to God in worship by Scripture’s statements of what can and cannot be done. They first say what it is not. It is not a blending of truths or truth-perspectives, not a blending of diverse theological and liturgical traditions, not a blending of elements of worship, and not a blending or media or means of communication. It is “corporate worship that consists of its biblical elements (prayer, singing, reading and preaching God's Word, the ordinances of baptism and the Lord's Supper) but in a variety of styles or forms.” So, like Duncan, they draw distinctions between elements, forms, and circumstances. The elements are non-negotiables. It is in the forms and circumstances where “blended” worship has significance. This provides the room for hymns and new songs, traditional and contemporary, etc. They do, however, draw some lines and give broad parameters to govern the forms of worship. They should be intelligible, orderly, edifying, unifying and should promote reverence for God.

Again, like the previous rebuttals, the men begin with praise and the move into differences. Quill does not like DL’s idea that the style of music is largely unimportant to worship. He also, like with his other rebuttals, takes issue with the idea that worship is primarily a service to God. Duncan agrees so much with them that he asks the question of why he even wrote a separate chapter. He says, “The answer has to do with the very challenging question of how to apply the Regulative Principle of worship.” He believes that the natures of the biblical elements and corporate worship put a greater constraint on the acceptability of forms than DL admit. Wilt takes great issue with DL’s “rampant” use of “biblical” and their centrality of preaching. Kimball spends time countering DL’s view of lighting in worship and their feeling that “it is always detrimental to have ‘experiences,’ or to have the senses involved in worship in almost any form.” He also does not like Word-focused worship because people’s learning styles differ.

The final view presented is the view of the emerging church view, presented by Dan Kimball, director at Vintage Faith Church. He defines their view of worship, “expressions of worship that are relating to how people in today's culture communicate, learn, and express their love to God.” Kimball does not believe that the Scriptures have much to say about what we should do in worship: “one really cannot make a case from the Scriptures for what a worship gathering should specifically look like.” So Kimball believes that we “should be more concerned with how people's lives are being changed by the Spirit as they encounter God in worship than the ways we actually practice worship (provided we are not violating Scripture).” So, emerging worship attempts to express worship in culturally sensitive ways that will help people with many different learning styles encounter God. He takes cues from different parts of culture, including a Chinese proverb.

After some brief praise, the rebuttals begin. Quill accuses Kimball of treating worship like a cafeteria, of treating God’s church like a personal toy, and wonders when the emergent church will finally emerge. Duncan does not believe that Kimball takes the sinfulness of people’s hearts seriously enough and is deeply concerned by Kimball’s use of a Chinese proverb to better inform worship. Wilt is concerned about Kimball’s idea of “being converted by the culture,” as Wilt puts it. He says, “While I am a strong proponent of rampant creativity in the church and in the culture, I still sense a high degree of novelty, experimentation… occurring in emerging worship streams. The random and sometimes cavalier use of Scripture must continue to be eradicated from… emerging worship patterns.” DL’s greatest issue is with Kimball’s emphasis on different learning styles. They say, “[P]edagogy and doxology are not the same thing. So even if Kimball's observation is correct (and we think it is), it does not automatically follow that our public worship must give expression to the various learning styles. At best, you could apply the insight to preaching….”

In conclusion, this book is an excellent introduction and addition to the worship debate. There are a few things we would have liked have seen in it. First, while it is admitted that this book is not a complete coverage of the spectrum of worship traditions, a charismatic view would have been an excellent addition, particularly if the chapter included some information about their view of gifts in worship. Second, we would have liked it if each contributor had been given a chance to do one final response to the rebuttals. Of course, both of the previous desires would have added considerable length to the book and probably more time to its construction, so it may not have been feasible. Third, we would have like some kind of wrap up from the editor—something that would pull major strands together and emphasize points of agreement. A final chapter of this sort could have potentially added to the overall contribution of this book to the worship debate.

Those who would like to read this book might find it helpful first to read H. Richard Niebuhr’s Christ and Culture. Some of the underlying issues of the debate in this book stem from a theology (conscious or not) of how Christians should engage culture. Niebuhr’s five views would be helpful in thinking about the philosophy that drives a representative’s theology of worship. Of course, that adds a lot of extra reading.

We would recommend this book for pastors, seminary students, or any other believer who wants to thoughtfully consider their worship of God. The views set forth, while not representing the complete spectrum of Protestant worship theologies, give a great introduction to five of the major theologies of worship extant in the Protestant Church. In addition, the endnotes of each chapter provide an excellent resource for further study on a particular topic, if the reader is so inclined.

[Jon Pentecost · Rating 3 out of 5]

These perspectives books are useful at two levels:
1 They provide a range of views on a given topic (in this case, Christian worship).
2 They provide positive and negative examples of engaging with other people's arguments. Some look for the key points of difference, while others just focus on their hobby horses, regardless of whether or not that particular topic is crucial to the other contributor's arguments.

The books can be split between authors who see the discussion on worship as primarily about what Scripture requires or commands in worship (Duncan, Dever, and Lawrence) and those who see the discussion as primarily about what aesthetic best serves worship (Kimball, Wilt, and Quill). That difference reduces the usefulness of some of the chapters and responses.

Duncan's along with Dever and Lawrence's chapter is the highlight of the book. The focus on worship being both built on and centered around God's Word is key. I also learned much from Quill, though his quick dismissal of the idea that Scripture should determine the elements of Christian worship push much of his chapter into the realm of aesthetic. Wilt and Kimball seem most concerned about experience of worship, and take for granted that Christian desire to worship is all we need to inform our worship. Kimball, though more concerning in much of the non-Christian symbolism he is happy to use and his dismissal of preaching, is encouraging where he views worship as more than just music, something lacking in Wilt.

Overall a helpful book, both in thinking about Christian worship, and in thinking through how to evaluate arguments.

[Bryan Evans · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a VERY in-depth look into 5 perspectives on worship.

Good things:

-A scriptural case is presented for each of the selected views on worship, by prominent leaders of churches that propagate those views.

-The case presented for each view is fairly exhaustive, covering nearly any definition of “worship” you can think of.

-There is a fun dialogue in the in-between chapters where the authors critique each other.

Bad things:

-The chapters are almost unbearably long. It truly feels like the authors could use half the words to get the same point across.

-While it can seem like a generous spread across the spectrum was presented, there is a noticeably lacking perspective that is one that is becoming more and more prominent these days: theologically conservative contemporary (or “dynamic”) worship.

-The contemporary views that are presented in this book are fairly extreme, as opposed to the other three, which are fairly conservative. The “Blended Worship” chapter is presented as sort of a middle ground, but is still HIGHLY conservative, especially in today’s landscape.

[Matt O'Kelly · Rating 3 out of 5]

Generally helpful in thinking through the question of Christian worship. Naturally I found myself agreeing with some more than others, but all round the contributions and responses were helpful to think through, both comparing them with each other and with my own views.

The use of Scripture could have been tighter. Generally (although not always) I didn't find myself compelled to agree with the authors’ arguments because of how they supported their argument from the Bible.

Also the font is awful.

[Steven · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great read for looking at the strengths and weaknesses of varying perspectives on worship in the church. Dever and Duncan are very similar while the liturgical, contemporary, and emerging worship writers are clearly separate viewpoints. All are helpful and instructive whether positively or negatively.

[Alec Brunson · Rating 4 out of 5]

It's good for what it is! The authors talk past each other (as one would probably expect with these authors) and are rooted in their traditions.

[arlen · Rating 4 out of 5]

Worthwhile read

Fascinating look at worship practices across a wide spectrum of Christianity. From liturgical, to traditional,to contemporary,to blended and to emergent.

[1nemind · Rating 4 out of 5]

B&H has a nice series titled "Perspectives" where they get scholars to write out their reasons for why they believe/practice what they do. Varying from your child's education, to Church government, to this particular book on Worship.

Covered in this volume are 5 views of on worship:

Timothy C.J. Quill - Liturgical worship
Ligon Duncan - Traditional evangelical worship
Dan Wilt - Contemporary worship
Michael Lawrence and Mark Dever - Blended worship
Dan Kimball - Emerging worship

J. Matthew Pinson is the editor for this volume. With a noticeable contribution via his solid, informative introduction.

Timothy C.J. Quill (liturgical) will give you good insight into Lutheran style of worship. He articulates his points well but I found in light of Scripture his arguments to be lacking.

Ligon Duncan wrote one of the better chapters in the book. Tackling the importance of corporate worship and what it should look like.

Dan Wilt arguing for contemporary worship has seemingly (at least somewhat) bought into the whole "engage the culture" mentality. Lawrence and Dever write an excellent response to his section.

Lawrence and Dever writing on blended worship do a good job of explaining exactly what they mean by "blended worship". They affirm that worship is a heart matter, that there needs to be unity and edification of the Body, and reverence.

Dan Kimball's position of emerging worship is summed up well by Duncan, "I appreciate Kimball's desire to reach out to the unchurched and meet them where they are, but I am afraid that this desire leads to an anthropocentricity that could dangerously do as much harm as good. The last thing we need is the church encouraging people to focus even more on themselves in worship."

Worship needs to be in "spirit and truth", not with "strange fire" so we need to look to His Word, not the culture or what other churches are doing. As with any book in this series, or better yet, any book period, I would encourage everyone to base their views on Scripture and test everything with Scripture. Men can formulate all sorts of arguments and sway the opinions of other men, but men can be, and often are in error. Scripture stands free from any error. Therefore study what God's Word has to say first and foremost.

[Ryan · Rating 3 out of 5]

A conversational, "prove my point" type book between many authors. Discusses 5 views of worship: Liturgical, contemporary, traditional, blended, and emerging. Out of this I got a lot of understanding about different forms, especially Liturgical. I learned that Liturgical worship is valuable because it puts all of the weight on Christ when it comes to saving us, which is what God wants. In short, when we come to worship God, we use the Word of God to be our prayer and our worship, because it takes the 'lawness' out of trying to make ourselves acceptable to God. In other words, liturgical practices, as long as they put emphasis on the character of God, the work of Christ, and other true biblical perspectives, than it is highly valuable. We do not need "to express ourselves in creative ways to God", although there is value to that, it isn't NECESSARY to provide good worship. I got a lot out of that. However, the other views offered much insight, and I especially became more tolerable to contemporary worship, learned more about it and am less resistant and critical of it.

[Chuck Bonadies · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book compares five views of Christian worship. Authors include pastors such as Mark Dever and Ligon Duncan. As in the case of most "Perspectives" books, the responses are as good as the articles themselves. While I'm not sure every Christian would enjoy this book, it is a worthy read for a pastor.

CB

[Seth Miller · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book is very interesting and useful in seeing differences between several cultures of church gathering. However, in the words of Dan Kimball, "this book should probably have been called 'Perspectives of Conservative-Evangelical-Primarily-White-Suburban-Middle-to-Upper-Middle-Class Worship.'" (P 216-217)

[Adam Scheidegger · Rating 4 out of 5]

For the most part a helpful resource to peek into the praxis of different views of the Scripture's approach of the subject. Two of the views were very similar so it might be on the fence closer to "Four" views.

[Mark A Powell · Rating 3 out of 5]

The perspectives defined here are too narrow and limited to really fulfill the promise of the title. All five views here are argued well, but the responses to each author are the high points of the book.