Style and Substance

I've been thinking about worship style and substance. It seems to me that there are a variety of worship styles--liturgical, contemporary, emerging, acoustic, electric, and urban. What I'm wandering is if we mistake the style for the substance. If we don't like the style, do we say that there's no substance there.

For a long time, I've been a proponent of identical services. Tomorrow, we'll have 9 AM and 11 AM. They'll be identical in style and substance. What I'm wandering is this--could they be different styles and have the same substance.

By substance, I mean more than just depth. Here's a definition of substance: that of which a thing consists; physical matter or material. By mistaking style for substance, I mean that we think a service has to have the same style or it cannot possess the same substance.

Here's the question: Could a church offer three services with different styles (say, acoustic, liturgical, and electric-guitar driven), but have the same substance in each--passion for worship, captured hearts, and the presence of God?

If the answer is no then critics are right to suggest that the DNA of the church is split into by the various styles because they have different substance.

If the answer is yes then the critics are wrong. The services could be very different styles and have the same substance--flowing from the DNA of a church bent on worship.

Just some thoughts.