How a Worship Format is Destroying the Evangelical Church

134 replies [Last post]
Ed Vasicek
Ed Vasicek's picture
Online
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 876

During my lifetime, many evangelical churches in American have moved from Bible-oriented gatherings to music-dominated meetings. Interestingly, both sets of religious gatherings typically bore the title, “Worship Service.”

When the evangelical church was Bible-oriented, this “worship” paradigm was in place:

(1) Not all elements of the service were considered equally important; the exposition of Scripture was clearly the first and foremost priority. All other competitors vied for a distant second place.

(2) When the term “worship” was used, it was the equivalent of our modern casual expression, “doing church.” It is important to note that the preaching of the Word was considered part of worship, as were announcements, testimonies, communion, prayer, singing, the offering, and special music. This was the typical structure of a “worship service” before 1980.

(3) Many evangelicals viewed music as a “warm up for the sermon.” In this regard, many leaders did not seem to often respect music ministry as actual ministry but many others did.

The change

But the paradigm has changed in many churches. The most important change was what the word “worship” communicates. The word “worship” is now used by clergy and laity alike to refer to the religious feelings aroused by music.

(1) The change in paradigms began with the addition on an article: “the” worship. As trivial as this seems, this was the beginning of emphasizing music and separating preaching and announcements from worship. We now have “the worship” and “the sermon.”

Here is just one possible scenario resulting from this change in definition. John Member has schedule a meeting with Pastor Jones. Let’s eavesdrop.

“Pastor, I think we need to cut down the time you preach. Fifteen minutes is plenty, I think.”

“I don’t agree,” replies Pastor Jones, “studying the Bible is crucial for every Christian.”

“Oh, I agree that the Bible is important, Pastor,” responds John Member, “but our morning service is billed as the morning worship service, so it should be mainly about worship, not preaching.”

In the above hypothetical conversation, you can see how the two meanings of the word “worship” are colliding with one another. In the pastor’s mind, Bible study is an important part of worship, but not in the mind of John Member. He views only music as “worship.”

(2) Other terminology changed. Schools that offered a major in church music (or “sacred music” for the hoi polloi) changed the major to “Worship Arts” (about the same time shades and curtains became “window treatments”). The song leader became known as the “worship leader.”

(3) Music became more emotionally intense, and a confusion between the emotional and the spiritual helped set music on an untouchable pedestal. Worship had become something one felt, not something one did. Worship was judged as good or bad based upon how it made worshippers feel. The Scriptures no longer defined good worship; the individual had become the discerner of truth based upon how he felt.

(4) In mega-churches, elitism and an attitude oriented toward musicians performing to the standards of other musicians (rather than aiming to bless the congregation) seems to be the norm. In some cases, musicians have become a special religious caste (like a priest, they lead the sacrifice of praise into the holy place).

(5) Even though Colossians 3:16 implies we should aim our hymns and songs both vertically and horizontally (we sing to one another and in our hearts to the Lord), the entire concept of worshiping God in the third person is gone, despite the fact that many Psalms speak of God as “He” rather than “You.”

(6) The goal of worship is creating a religious atmosphere and its attendant feelings. Often times worship leaders are weak in biblical and theological matters, but because more Christians value “worship” above theology, some of these leaders are carving out a pattern for church with little regard for biblical teaching about what the church is supposed to do when gathered.

(7) Here is the pattern: eventually worship (music and that religious feeling) is considered almost on a par with Scripture, then equal to Scripture, and eventually superior to it.* The Scriptures become subservient to the music and are used more as transitions between songs than holy word to be expounded. Biblical sermons have given way to self-help lectures or emotionally charged sermons with lots of illustrations—replacing the previous Psalm 1 mentality. The idea of worshiping God through deep Bible study and meditation in the Word is unknown; worship now means music and feelings.

The consequences & dangers of the new “worship format”

  1. Religion is back in vogue. We used to hear “I’m not religious, I just love the Lord,” or “Christianity is not a religion; it is a relationship.” Because of the new emphasis on religious feeling, it is fair to say that we have moved back into the domain of religion.
  2. Worship has become a religious experience dependent upon something else than the gathering of Christians to study the Word, pray, celebrate communion, and sing a few hymns. Based upon modern viewpoints, the early church must have done a poor job of worshipping God.
  3. If the church is about worship, and if worship is a religious feeling induced from a church gathering, then, if I get a stronger version of that feeling somewhere else, that is where I need to be. Rather than the Bible, a passionate feeling of worship becomes the canon by which I measure truth.

As a result, Christians not only move from evangelical church to evangelical church, but they also desert evangelicalism. Our heritage is based upon the centrality of Scripture; we are really novices at the religion game. But even if we competed well on a religious level, are we right to trash the primacy of Scripture? What about the convictions of the Reformation?

The problem is not contemporary music, seeking to have meaningful worship through songs of praise, etc. The problem is displacement. When we displace the knowledge of the Word and solid doctrine with music (whether we call music worship or not), we are no longer under the lordship of Christ. The Christian life includes public worship, but the highest form of worship is hearing and doing the Word of God. That is why the ultimate “worship book” in the Bible, the book of Psalms, begins with emphasizing constant meditation on the Word. The longest Psalm (119) makes the point even more emphatically. God seeks those who worship Him in Spirit and in truth. It is hard to worship God in truth if you don’t know the truth and if you do not make the truth a priority.


Ed Vasicek was raised as a Roman Catholic in Cicero, Illinois. During his senior year in high school (1974), Cicero Bible Church reached out to him, and he received Jesus Christ as his Savior by faith alone. Ed earned his BA at Moody Bible Institute then served as pastor of Victory Bible Church of Chicago. He has served as pastor of Highland Park Church since 1983. Ed and his wife, Marylu, have two adult children, Hannah and Luke. Ed has written over 500 weekly columns for the opinion page of the Kokomo Tribune, published articles in Pulpit Helps magazine, and posted many papers at his church website. You can access them at www.highlandpc.com. He has also recently published the Jewish Roots book, The Midrash Key.

Aaron Blumer
Aaron Blumer's picture
Offline
UserEditorAdmin
Joined: Mon, Jun 1 2009
Posts: 5399
Thanks Ed

I think you make some very interesting points. So much of the debate has focused on contemp vs. trad, and I never considered that there is an underlying change in definition--well, didn't connect the dots anyway. I think there's alot of truth to what you're saying.

I'm not crazy about the old model where you have preaching + "the preliminaries" though. I think it should all be viewed as worship or it should not be in the service. But I do think it's extremely damaging to subordinate the preaching of the word to the experience of feelings of devotion (generated by music/drama, etc.)

Your use of the word religion... I'm not sure I have the same definition you do. I think most of us could stand to be much more religious. What I mean by that, though, is serious, disciplined. There are forms that the centuries have proven to be helpful to believers in turning hearts toward God. So... I have no aversion to ritual, per se.
So I'm not entirely clear on what you mean by "religion."
I'll be out a while so will have to catch up later.

KevinM
KevinM's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 79
Ed Vasicek wrote: Other
Ed Vasicek wrote:

Other terminology changed. Schools that offered a major in church music (or "sacred music" for the hoi polloi) changed the major to "Worship Arts" (about the same time shades and curtains became "window treatments").

Made me laugh. Nice.

KevinM
KevinM's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 79
Gathering

I wish we would move past the Sunday Morning "Worship Service" jargon--at least the way we currently use that buzz word. I agree with Ed that the church gathers around the Word. And the "Music + Preaching" model (or lately, the "Music + Preaching + Sacramental Observance of Communion" model) hasn't been a rigorous application of New Testament teaching, which is fairly clear in its descriptions of the gathered church.

But it seems like some of those "standard activities" of the gathered church are gathering dust. Confession of sin? Prayer? Testimony? Fellowship?

Charlie
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 864
Centrality of the Word

Ed, I'm thrilled about your position on the centrality of the Word in worship. I entirely agree; that's why in Protestant churches, pulpits displaced the eucharistic table as the central furniture. With that in mind, though, we do have the danger Aaron mentioned: some churches take the primacy of the Word to mean "the other stuff" is tangential to or merely preparatory for the sermon.

How can we move beyond this impasse? Well, at my church, the congregation follows a modified Genevan church legacy, in which every element of worship is used to be a carrier of the Word. A liturgy from several weeks ago looked like this:

Call to Worship (responsive Scripture reading) - Psalm 97:1-4

Invocation

Hymn of Adoration - Praise to the Lord, the Almighty

Silent Confession and General (corporate) Prayer of Confession

Assurance of Pardoning Grace - Ezekiel 36:25-27

Hymn of Pardoning Grace - O the Deep, Deep Love of Jesus

Sacrament of Baptism

Intercessory Prayer and the Lord's Prayer

Old Testament Lesson - Exodus 20:1-3

Sermon - The First Commandment

Sacrament of the Lord's Supper

Hymn of Response

Benediction

Dismissal (responsive)

Now, the whole liturgy is designed to focus on how law and gospel are resolved in the work of Christ. The call to worship starts with God, in the person of the minister, calling his people to worship. Then they joyfully respond. Baptism follows confession and assurance of pardon, since it depicts cleansing and the new birth. It's also why the Lord's Supper comes after the sermon, since it is God's "invitation" to us to partake of his Son by faith. Our pastor takes a minute before each element to explain the element in light of the gospel, or sometimes more specifically in light of the week's sermon. The net effect is that each element contributes to teaching. Since a theme in every Reformed sermon is Christ's fulfillment of the law and offer of the gospel, the ground is plowed before the sermon, and its message is reinforced until the end.

Of course, there may be many ways to uphold the centrality of the word throughout a service, but I offer this modified Genevan liturgy as an example to anyone who may be looking for something.

__________________

My Blog: www.sacredpage.wordpress.com

Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin

Alex Guggenheim
Alex Guggenheim's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 1095
This is no casual essay, it

This is no casual essay, it is IMO, quite book worthy. Thank you Ed for the time invested in carefully considering the topic and articulating with precision the issues you raised. Some magnificent points:

Ed Vasicek wrote:

...a confusion between the emotional and the spiritual helped set music on an untouchable pedestal. Worship had become something one felt, not something one did. Worship was judged as good or bad based upon how it made worshippers feel. The Scriptures no longer defined good worship; the individual had become the discerner of truth based upon how he felt.

Ed Vasicek wrote:

...but because more Christians value “worship” above theology, some of these leaders are carving out a pattern for church with little regard for biblical teaching about what the church is supposed to do when gathered.

When I read in Acts that the Elders devoted themselves to teaching and praying and imagine the primacy in the meetings within the varying congregational subsets being that of how people "felt" and an emphasis on moods and music, it is incredibly incongruous.

The directives and examples that we have in Scripture, while allowing for varying forms, must ultimately lead to just what you stated:

Ed Vasicek wrote:

...the highest form of worship is hearing and doing the Word of God.

So whether a formal liturgy is present or not, whether some traditional form of music is present or not, as you said these are not the problems, rather it is "displacement".

I suggest, as I believe you will agree, that when the Word of God is considered primary, those attendant issues such as feelings or worship structure and elements will find their appropriate place based on a proper orientation to the Word of God.

__________________

My blog:

http://thepedestrianchristian.blogspot.com/

Ed Vasicek
Ed Vasicek's picture
Online
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 876
Thanks, folks

Good comments. I would like to add the following:

(1) The old idea about the "preliminaries" is bad, as though the Word were everything. The Word is not everything, but it is to be central, I believe.

(2) Liturgy, etc., as Charlie mentioned is something neutral to me. That is one method to seek to implement a set of priorities. I neither condemn it nor advocate it, but I will acknowledge it as one of many format possibilities.

(3) If you look at the real rubric for what is to be done in a church meeting, that rubric is given by Paul (I Cor. 14:26c), I believe:

Quote:

Let all things be done for edification.

__________________

"The Midrash Detective"

Susan R
Susan R's picture
Offline
ModeratorUserUser accounts adminAdmin
Joined: Wed, May 6 2009
Posts: 3437
Can I confess

that even when the music portion of the service is great, I'm still glad it's over when we sit down and open our Bibles?

Great post, Bro. Vasicek- and I think the primacy of Scripture also dictates that the songs themselves reflect solid doctrine and don't veer into the trite, cute, or an overabundance of distracting metaphors... goes along with your point #7, I think. If the focus of the entire service is worship (and edification and equipping and admonition...) then all things will continue to follow that path.

Are we going to talk about other 'preliminaries' such as offerings and announcements?

__________________

Susan R

Blogging at At Home and School and Shelf Discoveries
"Like" my Facebook page

Paul J. Scharf
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jul 21 2009
Posts: 588
A few thoughts...

From the paradigm of my theological understanding (which is necessarily rooted in my Lutheran upbringing), I have trouble relating to this article.

Since we're all into lists today Smile, a few thoughts:

1) I have always believed that the preaching of the Word formed the crescendo of the worship service.

2) I have never believed (at least for a very long time) that things like announcements have any proper place in a worship service. (Would we interrupt a wedding or a funeral to make announcements? Tongue)

3) I have never believed (at least for a very long time) that "song leader" was a concept compatible with Biblical worship. It appears to be a relic of old-time revival meetings, where the "song service" became an element of entertainment meant to draw the crowd. (Originally, there was no Hi-Def TV back then -- the fact that there was a service going on with a "song leader" was big news in many communities. Wink)

4) Like Charlie, I agree with Ed that the strength of the old evangelical/fundamentalist paradigm was its emphasis on the primacy of the Word and preaching. I just don't believe it is an either/or thing. I wish we could have the best of both worlds -- Biblical worship tied to worshipful preaching/teaching.

5) I probably don't agree with Ed on these matters, but I am also sure I do not agree with those he is really writing against. It also troubles me that many fundamental Baptist pastors can conduct a service in good conscience without any public reading of Scripture, any Scriptural call to worship or any Bible-infused pastoral prayer.

The answer is not to place less emphasis on worship; it is to place a more Biblically-literate emphasis on worship.

__________________

The views I express are purely my own. However, I am happy to promote the great ministries with which I work:
I minister for www.SermonAudio.com/Whitcomb.
I do freelance writing for www.RegularBaptistPress.org.
I speak through www.IMISOS.org.

Susan R
Susan R's picture
Offline
ModeratorUserUser accounts adminAdmin
Joined: Wed, May 6 2009
Posts: 3437
Gettin' out the can opener...
Paul J. Scharf wrote:

3) I have never believed (at least for a very long time) that "song leader" was a concept compatible with Biblical worship. It appears to be a relic of old-time revival meetings, where the "song service" became an element of entertainment meant to draw the crowd.

I tend to agree, especially if we are talking about 'song leader' as a paid vocation. I am... shall we say... less than enthusiastic about paid 'music' staff. But how many Christian colleges have music majors to fill just such positions?

To clarify- I think the quality of music is important, so talented and trained musicians are valuable, but I think you'd have to go spelunking in the OT to find Biblical precedent for full-time musicians for the church.

__________________

Susan R

Blogging at At Home and School and Shelf Discoveries
"Like" my Facebook page

Alex Guggenheim
Alex Guggenheim's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 1095
One might respond that though

One might respond that though the office of a Minister with an emphasis in music is not present in the Scriptures, neither is a Pastoral/church secretary that would be supported by the church. Would it be better qualified by saying there is no example, prescription or license for a church supported ordained Minister to devote his efforts to something other than primarily the teaching of God's Word (which would include Evangelists whose gifting would be gospel doctrine).

On the other hand, under the category of ancillary, non-ordained positions such as secretary, would it be valid to have a person who is not called a Music Minister, respecting the above, but Music Director (btw none of my response is intended to reveal any personal position, simply playing devil's advocate)? Not to get too far off Ed's main focus.

__________________

My blog:

http://thepedestrianchristian.blogspot.com/

Susan R
Susan R's picture
Offline
ModeratorUserUser accounts adminAdmin
Joined: Wed, May 6 2009
Posts: 3437
I'd like to see that

Sure, Alex- if the church wants to compensate someone for their labor, whether it is mowing the yard, balancing the books, or leading the choir, that's certainly permissible. But making music an ordained calling and church office is taking that function too far IMO.

But tell that to your local Bible college. Then duck and run for cover as the hymnbooks come flying at your head.

The main reason, IMO, that there is a major glut of music majors is this new definition of worship.

__________________

Susan R

Blogging at At Home and School and Shelf Discoveries
"Like" my Facebook page

dcbii
dcbii's picture
Offline
ModeratorUserEditor
Joined: Wed, May 6 2009
Posts: 574
Breaking up a service
Paul J. Scharf wrote:

2) I have never believed (at least for a very long time) that things like announcements have any proper place in a worship service. (Would we interrupt a wedding or a funeral to make announcements? Tongue)

I don't like these as part of the service either, along with "artificial fellowship time," where a couple minutes (at most) are spent on "fellowshipping" (which really means shaking hands and asking people for names which will be forgotten in seconds).

On the other side, though, announcements are fairly common at the end of funerals (basically after the service part is over) telling people where to go for the graveside service, reception, etc., as well as telling people what to do with money in lieu of flowers, etc. The same at the end of some weddings I've attended as well.

If announcements are taken care of before the service starts (sometimes this is done with PowerPoint slides on the walls before the service starts), or done afterward, they are quite useful as a practicality in church families. I agree wholeheartedly with you, however, that the emphasis of a service on God should not be interrupted by announcements.

__________________

Dave Barnhart

Alex Guggenheim
Alex Guggenheim's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 1095
Susan R wrote: Sure, Alex- if
Susan R wrote:

Sure, Alex- if the church wants to compensate someone for their labor, whether it is mowing the yard, balancing the books, or leading the choir, that's certainly permissible. But making music an ordained calling and church office is taking that function too far IMO.

But tell that to your local Bible college. Then duck and run for cover as the hymnbooks come flying at your head.

The main reason, IMO, that there is a major glut of music majors is this new definition of worship.

I agree with you, BTW.

__________________

My blog:

http://thepedestrianchristian.blogspot.com/

driddick
driddick's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Wed, Dec 2 2009
Posts: 10
The problem is displacement

Good thoughts and an interesting take on the current situation.

While I understand what your getting at and I agree with your point, I think your title and a some of your explanation is using broad strokes and is putting the blame on something other than the real issue.

I believe you "hit the nail on the head" with this sentence:

Quote:

The problem is displacement.

Any time we put something in place of the authentic worship of God and the proclamation of his word, we have a major issue.

I'm not sure I agree with your presentation of "music" and "the Word" as an "either/or" idea.

Quote:

When we displace the knowledge of the Word and solid doctrine with music (whether we call music worship or not), we are no longer under the lordship of Christ.

Our music could/should be scripture filled and doctrinally accurate, keeping Christ as lord and His word central.

I have visited several evangelical churches, a few of them would be some of the most recognized in the country, and I have never been in a service where the music portion of the service exceeded the sermon in either importance or length of time.

Again, I agree with your principle, I'm not sure I would draw the same practical conclusions.

Chip Van Emmerik
Chip Van Emmerik's picture
Online
User
Joined: Thu, Jun 4 2009
Posts: 642
driddick wrote: Our music
driddick wrote:

Our music could/should be scripture filled and doctrinally accurate, keeping Christ as lord and His word central.

I have visited several evangelical churches, a few of them would be some of the most recognized in the country, and I have never been in a service where the music portion of the service exceeded the sermon in either importance or length of time.

Again, I agree with your principle, I'm not sure I would draw the same practical conclusions.

You know, a broad study of the the primary Hebrew and Greek words used for worship in Scripture and their contexts is very revealing. While music can be a useful tool and a means to an end in worship, there is no support in Scripture for the notion that music is an integral or necessary part of worship. In fact, there are far more examples in Scripture of worship sans music than worship including music. I am not advocating the removal of music from our worship, only suggesting that the displacement Ed warns us about in the article is FAR more pervasive than we readily recognize.

__________________

About the Master's business.

Susan R
Susan R's picture
Offline
ModeratorUserUser accounts adminAdmin
Joined: Wed, May 6 2009
Posts: 3437
Church tradition

Agree with Bro. Chip- and a pervasive problem is, IMO, the fact that if church leadership felt that changes needed to be made toward more Biblical edification and worship, but dared to depart from tradition in any area, they'd have a rebellion on their hands. "How dare you not have a choir/special music/altar call/pass the plate etc? What do you mean that's not in the Bible? So what? That's the way we've always done it!" Who is going to 'risk' their position as pastor over something like the music program?

I don't care what Meg Ryan says- sometimes it ain't personal, it's just the way it is.

__________________

Susan R

Blogging at At Home and School and Shelf Discoveries
"Like" my Facebook page

rogercarlson
rogercarlson's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 379
Great Thoughts Ed. Still

Great Thoughts Ed. Still chewing through it. Several years ago, the anouncements thing occured to me. We now do anouncements before the service. We still have a "welcome" time where everyone is greeted. I have been neutral about doing it, but the people love it. Yet we have never called it "fellowship."

I also want to get away from the "songlead" (especially since i am doing it) but I havent found a way that I am comfortable with yet. Any ideas anyone?

__________________

Roger Carlson, Pastor
Berean Baptist Church

Charlie
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 864
Some thoughts

Regarding music pastors and song leaders, we have no one to blame but ourselves. Most American churches descend from the Reformed tradition. The original Reformed position (minus the Anglicans) was to sing only congregationally, only scripture songs, without musical accompaniment. From mainly Anglican and a little Lutheran influence, over time many of the churches added an organ, sometimes a choir, and introduced extra-biblical hymns. Revivalism brought song leaders, "special" music, and orchestras. So, now we need to pay people to keep this machine we built running.

I'm not saying that the answer is necessarily to go back to the minimalist approach. However, it does seem that innovations were embraced without regard to the consequences. Now, we find it difficult to undo what we've done. Personally, I think exclusive congregational singing and a steady diet of scripture songs would be quite healthy for the church.

rogercarlson wrote:

I also want to get away from the "songlead" (especially since i am doing it) but I havent found a way that I am comfortable with yet. Any ideas anyone?

If you want people to sing, and you don't want it to be terrible, someone or something has to lead. At my church, it's not any particular person, but the music team as a whole. You don't need to wave your arm in the air to keep time, though. People naturally keep time with the instruments.

__________________

My Blog: www.sacredpage.wordpress.com

Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin

Paul J. Scharf
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jul 21 2009
Posts: 588
Music team
Charlie wrote:

If you want people to sing, and you don't want it to be terrible, someone or something has to lead. At my church, it's not any particular person, but the music team as a whole. You don't need to wave your arm in the air to keep time, though. People naturally keep time with the instruments.

Charlie,

I agree with you here.

While there is certainly nothing inherently wrong with someone directing music -- we have all seen the two extremes: on the one hand, a song leader who was intentionally trying to display showmanship for the entertainment value; on the other hand, the guy with no musical ability who is waving his hand trying desperately to figure out how to keep time withe song, not leading anything Big smile.

I will say that I have known or seen several men who were very gifted "worship leaders" who definitely had gifts from God to lead His people, and did it very well. Everyone I have seen like this was (a) a trained musician, (b) not a showman and (c) a man of the Word. They are few and far in between. Sad

I think that the music team idea is a good one, if done properly. Done improperly, of course, it can also be a means of fostering an entertainment church/seeker service mentality.

But if done correctly (especially if your church does not have the kind of worship leader available like I describe above in my 3rd paragraph) I think it's great. The team can be viewed as being representative of the congregation, set apart to lead the rest in worship and singing.

That way, the focus is not on just one individual--"On that last verse,now..." Tongue

__________________

The views I express are purely my own. However, I am happy to promote the great ministries with which I work:
I minister for www.SermonAudio.com/Whitcomb.
I do freelance writing for www.RegularBaptistPress.org.
I speak through www.IMISOS.org.

Ed Vasicek
Ed Vasicek's picture
Online
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 876
Lots Written, Much Assumed

There are a zillion books on worship and opinions of how things should be done. I don't really want to go there. But I will say this:

It has never been proven that church meetings are said to gather for worship in Scripture, at least in my understanding. Edification (which is emphasized) includes many things, and worshiping God is certainly an important thing for Christians to do and is perhaps not commanded for a New Testament congregation to do because it is assumed (or understood by the many admonitions in the Psalms).

But in the New Testament, worship happened when the church did what it was supposed to do. I have no recollection of a church meeting being called a worship service in my Bible study. Thus the dichotomy between announcements (which is part of Body Life) and the rest of the service seems man made, to me. Since Body Life is part of edification, and all things are to be done for edification, announcement time can meet the rubric that Paul mentions. Then again, it doesn't have to be part of a service, either.

The heart of my article is truly that the Word has been DISPLACED. I think music ministry is important. I think prayer is important. The problem is not so much that modern people tend to crave more music or drama, etc., but the real problem is that these same people no longer crave the Word. We are not adding, we are displacing.

One of the early terms for a Christian was a disciple. To be a disciple means primarily to be a learner, one who studies, memorizes, and follows the Master. Much of modern evangelicalism and even some fundamentalists have lost the determination to grow in grace and KNOWLEDGE. We come to church to celebrate, and that's fine. We come to church to praise God, and that is commendable. But do we come to learn, to be trained, and to be challenged? It comes down to displacement.

In my understanding, we have compartmentalized church (Sunday School = education, Prayer meeting = prayer, AWANA = Bible memory, morning service = praise), but the problem is that most folks only have one contact point, the morning service (at least that's what it is like in this region). We may offer more, but what percentage participate. We need to integrate more of what a church is supposed to do when we are most likely to be together. Thus depleting the Word in the morning service would still be a crime even if 75% of adults came to Sunday School, prayer meeting , and the evening service, but it is more of a crime because they don't. For many Christians, all they get is the morning service.

__________________

"The Midrash Detective"

KevinM
KevinM's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 79
Okay, Ed's not a Presbyterian...
Ed Vasicek wrote:

It has never been proven that church meetings are said to gather for worship in Scripture, at least in my understanding......I have no recollection of a church meeting being called a worship service in my Bible study.

I'm with you here, though I might add one word: "It has never been proven that church meetings are said to gather exclusively for worship in Scripture." If worship is an all-of-life activity, then Sunday morning is a logical extension of that. But all of this talk about "corporate worship" constructs a special category as if it has a well-defined New Testament definition. I'm with Ed, but it's hard question to brink up in public, sort of like formal opposition to apple pie and motherhood.

Aaron Blumer
Aaron Blumer's picture
Offline
UserEditorAdmin
Joined: Mon, Jun 1 2009
Posts: 5399
OT NT continuity

I think the fact that the people of God gathered to worship together under Moses (and music was part of that) means that the people of God are still to gather to worship... and through music. And this seems to me to be confirmed in Acts 2, 4 and Eph. 5 and Col 3. Pslams, hymns, spiritual songs... etc.
If this element of NT gatherings is not emphasized in the NT I'm inclined to think it's because it was too obvious to need mentioning very often. So other problems are the focus in the epistles.

My own conviction is that the gathered church does nothing at all more important than worship together.
That said, Rom.12.1 clues us in on a broader sense of "worship" in which, as some have said, "life is worship." So in that sense, even those much criticized announcements can be worship along with the rest. But it is obviously awkward in a very formal service (something resembling a wedding). Not so much in less formal service. Must corporate worship always be formal?

gdwightlarson
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 26
again, just a set of cultural statements

This stuff drives me crazy. The Old Testament had so MUCH music that was spontaneous and enthusiastic, including "dancing" (Exodus 15). David's musicianship was skillfully used even with Saul (nothing said about whether is was "contemporary" music written by David???). He organized a wonderful "worship" team of musicians. Much is said in Nehemiah and Ezra about those post-exilic musicians. There have been many styles that were almost considered sacred at the time and "based upon the paradigm of OT "worship"(?), yet changes have come through the centuries.
Okay, announcement aren't part of worship and we do them first, then read scripture, sing, worhip in the offering, worship in the message, and worship in our responses. But the ushers are out there worshipping in giving out the bulletin, the ladies in the nursery are worshipping as they care for the babies, etc.! We constantly emphasize this. Yes, the preaching of the Word is central, but we must never be dependent even on the pastor for "worship". We also emphasize the "One Anothers" as essential--so that we're worshipping as we "greet one another", "pray for one another", "teach and admonish one another in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, etc. I hope you understand. I delight in the cream of the new hymns and choruses and we even changed the term "special music" to "ministry in music" just to make that point too. Some get it, some don't. Some just want to continue using the hymnal and refuse to sing(!?) if you don't.
I worship in my office during the week as I prepare a sermon as much as when I deliver it. Why suggest that paying a music man is "wrong"? Read about the history of church music and musicians. You'll find a lot we do and a lot we no longer do and a lot we'd never do....!
Ed seems to pick out and criticize the worst of some churches, especially those that have incorporated newer styles. Doesn't work for me. Sounds too much like sour grapes.

__________________

gdwightlarson

"You can be my brother without being my twin."

Ed Vasicek
Ed Vasicek's picture
Online
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 876
A Lot to Think About
Aaron Blumer wrote:

I think the fact that the people of God gathered to worship together under Moses (and music was part of that) means that the people of God are still to gather to worship... and through music. And this seems to me to be confirmed in Acts 2, 4 and Eph. 5 and Col 3. Pslams, hymns, spiritual songs... etc.
If this element of NT gatherings is not emphasized in the NT I'm inclined to think it's because it was too obvious to need mentioning very often. So other problems are the focus in the epistles.

My own conviction is that the gathered church does nothing at all more important than worship together.
That said, Rom.12.1 clues us in on a broader sense of "worship" in which, as some have said, "life is worship." So in that sense, even those much criticized announcements can be worship along with the rest. But it is obviously awkward in a very formal service (something resembling a wedding). Not so much in less formal service. Must corporate worship always be formal?

I think that almost all of this is a matter of judgment. For example, for the 900 years of the OT after the Law was given, Jewish men were required to go to the Temple 3 times a year. I do not argue that they worshipped then. But what did they do (presumably at home) on the Sabbath? They rested, and had some sort of "holy day" (they kept it holy). It wasn't until 900 years later, during the captivity, that the synagogue was developed. So when we read the Psalms, much of them are not about a weekly formal worship, but a rare trip to the Temple. In actuality, many Jewish men were fortunate to make it to the Temple once a year, and some once in a lifetime. So we have to be careful taking models from special events and making them the weekly norm, even if we do emphasize the continuity of the Testaments. It is MUCH more complicated than people think. Synagogue meetings, on the other hand, were endorsed in that Jesus participated in them, but they were never commanded (that I can see). They were much more INSTRUCTIONAL (the Jews often call a synagogue a "shul," from which we get our word "school").

__________________

"The Midrash Detective"

KevinM
KevinM's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 79
Technical rant
Aaron Blumer wrote:

I think the fact that the people of God gathered to worship together under Moses (and music was part of that) means that the people of God are still to gather to worship... and through music. And this seems to me to be confirmed in Acts 2, 4 and Eph. 5 and Col 3.

Aaron, I hear what you are saying. I'm worried that your appeal to Moses interjects an interpretive rule that we aren't willing to consistently apply to the NT church. Would we apply every ritual of Israel to our NT local churches? [Of course you aren't saying that. I'm just looking at the interpretive principle.] And while I agree that Acts 2, 4, Eph. 5 and Col 3 have much to say about our church meetings...none of them speak of "corporate worship." That's a baggage-laden phrase that isn't helping us get to the basic question of what the church does when it gathers. [Oh, there might be a reason for my technical rant, but in the meantime, I'll disclose that I'll be leading worship at my own church tomorrow morning!]

G. N. Barkman
Offline
User
Joined: Fri, Jan 8 2010
Posts: 212
Worship Elements

Ed and all,

Thanks for an excellent discussion. It's good to see this issue being examined in the light of Scripture. We may draw different conclusions as to the exact details but at least we are starting at the right place--the Bible, and endeavoring to learn and apply what it teaches. Much different than the "this is what people are looking for today" approach that I often hear. "People don't like doing church the way we used to to it, so let's find out what people want and give it to them."

Too often, the debate seems to be between, "This is the way we have always done it," and "this is the way we've got to do it today if we're going to grow, or if we're going to keep our young people." The "way we've always done it" may not have been solidly Biblical in every aspect, and whatever we've got to do to meet the needs of a changing society (supposedly) is not usually very Biblical either.

Since the Bible doesn't give us an "Order of Service," we are left to work out details from the precepts and examples of Scripture. Surely if God had wanted a uniform Order of Service He would have given us one. But the absence of a Divinely given liturgy does not mean that we are thereby free to do whatever we "like" either. Let's expunge "What I like" and "What I feel" from our thinking, and start with, "What does God want?"

Cordially,
Greg Barkman

__________________

G. N. Barkman

Steve Davis
Steve Davis's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Sat, Jul 25 2009
Posts: 179
hand wringing

I appreciate Ed's concerns. However in my experience, and of which I am guilty, much of the worship in churches has not been Word-centered. It seems to me that there are many churches today trying to go back to Scripture and history for worship directives (see Belcher's book "Deep Church" and Chapell's book "Christ-Centered Worship") and are weary of sterile, stilted, church services. I admit that there was a time in my life that I gave little thought to the structure of the worship - 3 songs on the fly maybe with the theme of the message, a couple of general prayers and interminable invitation, and yes with announcements and offering somewhere in the mix.

For one of the few times in my life I am in a church where I express and experience worship in a way that seems to be biblical, simple, refreshing, and vital. We have no song leader (which is okay but often is showmanship) and do have a music/worship team. However with words projected away from the team there is little focus on those up front. We have no choir (choirs are okay) but as a new church we don't have the resources and frankly don't know if we ever will have a choir. My own preference is no regular choir. Choirs easily lead to spectatorship rather than participation. We don't or rarely have special music. Again it easily becomes entertainment or spectatorship. We don't do announcements until after the final benediction. There are few things more stifling then announcements before the offering. Offerings are part of worship which we do after the Lord's Supper, which we observe each week.

Again I can't recommend Chapell's book highly enough which gets us back to scriptural, Christ-centered worship with gospel elements of praise, confession, thanksgiving, intercession, proclamation, communion, benediction, etc. Our typical 1 1/2 hour service begins with a call to prayer then praise in congregation singing, Scripture reading, Apostle's Creed or corporate prayer, more singing, prayer of intercession, proclamation, Lord's Supper, offering (without a big fuss), closing praise and benediction. Finally we do some announcements before our weekly fellowship meal. There's no one way to do it but there is an audience of ONE.

Ed Vasicek
Ed Vasicek's picture
Online
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 876
Kevin said: Quote: ...[an]

Kevin said:

Quote:

...[an] appeal to Moses [on the subject of worship] interjects an interpretive rule that we aren't willing to consistently apply to the NT church

I agree with you, Kevin. We must distinguish between prescription and description, and we must do so in the area of worship. For some reason, it seems even the best scholars abandon hermeneutical restraints when discussing worship. This tells me that the subject matter is interwoven with emotion and strong feelings. The prescription is clear: the NT assemblies gathered for edification, as quoted above.

The idea of worship (intentionally honoring and focusing upon God) is assumed in the New Testament, but NOT PLANNED, IMO. The early church was out to honor God, and worship happened when it happened. Music can be meaningful and beautiful and used to worship God, but the only essential is really the attitude of the people. We spend so much time on the mechanics but fail to grasp that it is the hearts of the people that matter most. Are they wanting to honor God? Honoring God with poor music, prayer, and listening to the Word is better than merely stirring the emotions with amazing music. This stirring of emotions is often the counterfeit that is called worship.

To say they worshipped because they sang is exactly the point I am trying to refute. Music does not equal worship, but it can be a vehicle for worship, one of several. The difference between church music (of any kind) and worship is the attitude of the people. If they are intentionally honoring God by singing, they are worshipping. If they are singing because it is expected, they are merely singing. Most of us do some of both! Smile I would argue that prayers of praise are probably one of the purest forms of worship (if we are focused). But music has no monopoly on worship, except as the term "worship" has come to mean so many things and thus sometimes nothing.

G.N. Barkman said:

Quote:

Thanks for an excellent discussion. It's good to see this issue being examined in the light of Scripture. We may draw different conclusions as to the exact details but at least we are starting at the right place--the Bible, and endeavoring to learn and apply what it teaches. Much different than the "this is what people are looking for today" approach that I often hear. "People don't like doing church the way we used to to it, so let's find out what people want and give it to them."

Too often, the debate seems to be between, "This is the way we have always done it," and "this is the way we've got to do it today if we're going to grow, or if we're going to keep our young people."

I think you are spot on. Modern church service formats really descend from Catholicism, sometimes, as Charlie point out, through the Reformed or Lutheran model (which was adapted from the Catholic). Few of us start with a blank slate and our Bibles, particularly the New Testament descriptions about what the early church did (but, then again, we have there a blending of prescription and description; we must obey the commands but not necessarily imitate their style).

Great discussion, all.
Steve Davis said:

Quote:

For one of the few times in my life I am in a church where I express and experience worship in a way that seems to be biblical, simple, refreshing, and vital. We have no song leader (which is okay but often is showmanship) and do have a music/worship team. However with words projected away from the team there is little focus on those up front. We have no choir (choirs are okay) but as a new church we don't have the resources and frankly don't know if we ever will have a choir.

Have you been attending our church? We began using projected songs on the overhead in the late 80's. We do sort of have song leaders, but they are really usually part of the music team and do not beat out patterns, but they do help transition between songs. We do occasionally have a small choir around Easter (last year, it was a woman's choir).

__________________

"The Midrash Detective"

KevinM
KevinM's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 79
Audience of ONE

I appreciated Steve's comments on choirs--I'm still in favor of them, and I would especially recommend them in an urban setting where many will be familiar with African-American worship traditions. But I wouldn't mandate them for every church, and I appreciate the fact that Steve isn't dogmatic on this point.

Personally, I'm not fully comfortable with Steve's assertion that the Sunday service has an "audience of ONE." If Steve is just being wary of the "performance" aspects of a service, and is trying to avoid the me-centered problems of the modern church, I think he has a point. But our Sunday services will always have components of mutual edification, testimony, and didactic teaching. We can't throw out the "one another" aspects of a church gathering, a point that I think Dwight was trying to make.

Steve Davis
Steve Davis's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Sat, Jul 25 2009
Posts: 179
Comfortable
KevinM wrote:

I appreciated Steve's comments on choirs--I'm still in favor of them, and I would especially recommend them in an urban setting where many will be familiar with African-American worship traditions. But I wouldn't mandate them for every church, and I appreciate the fact that Steve isn't dogmatic on this point.

Personally, I'm not fully comfortable with Steve's assertion that the Sunday service has an "audience of ONE." If Steve is just being wary of the "performance" aspects of a service, and is trying to avoid the me-centered problems of the modern church, I think he has a point. But our Sunday services will always have components of mutual edification, testimony, and didactic teaching. We can't throw out the "one another" aspects of a church gathering, a point that I think Dwight was trying to make.

I'm not trying to make you comfortable. Seriously, choirs are fine but they do take on a life of their own. I won't say never-never but not now.

You're right about the audience of One. Certainly there are other things that take place among God's people in worship with Him as the One we are seeking to please. That helps keep us from the entertainment/spectator/create an atmosphere mode. There is great benefit for God's people as they actively participate (and some as they observe and listen to choirs and special music). I'd rather sing than listen to others sing in the public gathering.

However, I'm not sure how much "one another" gets done in church services or needs to get done at that time although people will be encouraged by testimonies, etc. I think the "one another" takes place more elsewhere and in smaller group settings after the "ONE OTHER" has been worshiped.

Ed Vasicek
Ed Vasicek's picture
Online
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 876
Steve Wrote: Quote: However,

Steve Wrote:

Quote:

However, I'm not sure how much "one another" gets done in church services or needs to get done at that time although people will be encouraged by testimonies, etc. I think the "one another" takes place more elsewhere and in smaller group settings after the "ONE OTHER" has been worshiped.

When we sing, we sing in our hearts to the Lord but also to one another (Colossians 3:16-17). It is never to just the Lord in church. Otherwise, why gather together? And note the priority of teaching even in singing.

As far as "other times," perhaps you are unconvinced that for many Christians -- I would say the majority -- there are no "other times." So do we construct our one church opportunity based upon the way Christians used to be or the way they are?

__________________

"The Midrash Detective"

Paul J. Scharf
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jul 21 2009
Posts: 588
Questions for KevinM
KevinM wrote:

And while I agree that Acts 2, 4, Eph. 5 and Col 3 have much to say about our church meetings...none of them speak of "corporate worship." That's a baggage-laden phrase that isn't helping us get to the basic question of what the church does when it gathers.

Kevin,

Are you arguing against the concept of corporate worship, or just the terminology?

I have never considered the term to be baggage, but would be interested in knowing why it might be.

I would think we could support the term on the basis of passages such as 1 Cor. 11:17 and 1 Cor. 14:40, if nothing else. The detailed instructions of 1 Cor. 11-14 as a whole would also seem to apply directly to corporate worship.

Further, I have always believed that since the largest book in the Bible -- Psalms -- is almost entirely devoted to worship (much of it corporate), and since we might call much of that book "trans-dispensational," as Aaron said, most of what needed to be said about worship can simply be inferred from the records in Acts of the earlist Christians -- who began by meeting in the Temple.

I am not convinced that their earliest gatherings would have borne much resemblance to an ol'-fashioned tent revival. Cool Probably much more like a formal synagogue service.

Am I wrong? Smile

Blessings, brother!

__________________

The views I express are purely my own. However, I am happy to promote the great ministries with which I work:
I minister for www.SermonAudio.com/Whitcomb.
I do freelance writing for www.RegularBaptistPress.org.
I speak through www.IMISOS.org.

Ed Vasicek
Ed Vasicek's picture
Online
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 876
A Synagogue? Yes and No.
Paul J. Scharf wrote:
KevinM wrote:

And while I agree that Acts 2, 4, Eph. 5 and Col 3 have much to say about our church meetings...none of them speak of "corporate worship." That's a baggage-laden phrase that isn't helping us get to the basic question of what the church does when it gathers.

Kevin,

Are you arguing against the concept of corporate worship, or just the terminology?

I have never considered the term to be baggage, but would be interested in knowing why it might be.

I would think we could support the term on the basis of passages such as 1 Cor. 11:17 and 1 Cor. 14:40, if nothing else. The detailed instructions of 1 Cor. 11-14 as a whole would also seem to apply directly to corporate worship.

Further, I have always believed that since the largest book in the Bible -- Psalms -- is almost entirely devoted to worship (much of it corporate), and since we might call much of that book "trans-dispensational," as Aaron said, most of what needed to be said about worship can simply be inferred from the records in Acts of the earlist Christians -- who began by meeting in the Temple.

I am not convinced that their earliest gatherings would have borne much resemblance to an ol'-fashioned tent revival. Cool Probably much more like a formal synagogue service.

Am I wrong? Smile

Blessings, brother!

The earliest believers were Messianic Jews and tended to meet in homes or alongside waterfronts. They usually ate meals together and spent lots of time together. They probably did recite Jewish prayers (not the article before "prayers" in Acts 2:42), but the I Cor. 12-14 section suggests a lot of spontaneous sharing with most people contributing something. They probably had communion each time they met, and, since people had to travel by foot, when they met they met for a LONG TIME. I Corinthians 14:26 makes the point:

Quote:

26 What then shall we say, brothers and sisters? When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. Everything must be done so that the church may be built up.

__________________

"The Midrash Detective"

Ed Vasicek
Ed Vasicek's picture
Online
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 876
Odes of Solomon

The Odes of Solomon were originally NOT ascribed to him, but were actual hymns sung by early Christians. To read them, follow this link:

http://users.misericordia.edu//davies/thomas/odes.htm

Early on, it seems that the Jewish believers started some Messianic Synagogues. Raymond Fischer (who is quite speculative and not one whose judgment I always agree with) addresses some of these things in his book, "The Ways of the Way."

__________________

"The Midrash Detective"

Julie C.
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 3
Response from a church musician Part A

As a musician who voluntarily (I am unpaid) ministers in my local church, I have to say that I am shocked at some of the comments here. To those who believe that there is no scriptural precedent for full time musicians, I can only assume that you are ignorant of I Chronicles 9:33, which is a portion of a list of offices and duties of the Levites:

Quote:

And these are the singers, chief of the fathers of the Levites, who remaining in the chambers were free: for they were employed in that work day and night.

In other words, they did not share in any of the other duties of the priests (such as caring for the vessels, or stores, or making the shewbread, which are other duties and offices included in the list) because they were occupied full time with the ministry of music. By the way, these were priests who led the sacrifice of praise near the holy place--not necessarily into it.

It is my greatest joy to assist in any way I can with the music in our church. I do it because I love it, but also because I was called to it when I was a teenager. There was a specific time and place that God placed a calling on my heart that involved a change of direction for my plans of study in college. When I arrived at college, I was told that God does not call people to minister in music as He does to be pastors, and that only those who could make the grade would be allowed to continue in the program. Due to a lack of training during my childhood, I was likely to be unable to make the grade. I went before the God who had called me, and asked Him to bless me with the ability to keep up so that I could fulfill His calling for me, and He miraculously gave me abilities I never practiced for. Do not be so hasty in determining who God has called to what. I believe that He can call any Christian to do any work for Him--an auto mechanic who is an honest man that serves his fellow Christians and becomes a testimony to his unsaved customers can be called to that work, and his calling is no less important, no less valid than that of a minister, pastor, teacher, evangelist, nursery worker, etc. in the church.

To those who are relieved when the music portion of their church service is over and you can settle down to the sermon, I have this to say: I attend church because I want to hear the sermon. It nourishes my spirit in a way that no other portion of the service does, and I feel a void when I (rarely) have to be out of the service during the sermon. However, my spirit is also nourished by the time that I spend in fellowship with other Christians after the service. It is the only consistent time each week that I get to spend time with other Christians aside from my husband. Likewise, my spirit is nourished--sometimes more, sometimes less--by the music during the service. I can tell when the music comes across as a performance and when it comes across as an offering to God. The later seems to wash over the congregation like a wave and they sing out because they cannot help themselves. I am not the only musician in our church. I am the main pianist, but we have several praise teams, which I do not accompany. I have seen both performances and offerings of worship to God come from both myself and from the other musicians. It takes a lot of work in my own walk with God to ensure that each time I sit at the piano I am in fact offering worship to God.

Something we do at our church that is a bit unusual is that we encourage the young pianists (we also have a flutist) to occasionally play one of the congregational hymns. My pastor feels very strongly that the local church is the place for young people to grow in their ability to use their gifts for God. To that end, we want to give the young people an opportunity to overcome the nervousness that can accompany getting up in front of people to do anything (speak, play an intrument, take an offering). We also want to train them to be able to use whatever ability they have on their instrument to use it if it should be needed. That is where I have responsibility to work with the young musicians and help them understand how to play for a congregation (find a comfortable speed for everyone, keep a steady tempo, keep going no matter what mistakes you make, know your music well enough to glance at whoever is leading the hymns.)

Incidentally, I would like to mention that it takes a tremendous amount of time to prepare for a Sunday service, to mentor the young musicians, to work with those who need an accompanist, to prepare for special services. I do not begrudge the time, but those who can't wait for the music to be over need to give some thought to how appreciative they are of the effort that others put into the service.

Julie C.
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 3
Response from a church musician Part B

Music frequently becomes an emotionally over-heated topic because music itself has a strong influence over our emotions, and as such, must be handled with great care. I will say that as I have ministered in music I have occasionally seen music reach hearts in a way that nothing else could. I have seen a man who for three years requested prayer for his own salvation come to Christ as the result of a song. I have seen hearts of stone be broken and become tender as a result of music. I have seen hurting hearts be healed as a result of music. I have seen apathetic hearts set on fire as a result of music. I do not believe that the music stands alone to bring these changes. God uses the music, and the preaching of His Word, and the words of a friend spoken in private conversation, and life circumstances, and anything else He chooses (including the glory of creation--Ps. 19:1-6; Rom. 1:19-20) to reach a heart that He seeks to draw to Himself.

As for the "worship format" destroying the church, this is really a matter of heart attitudes. For some, even many, perhaps the "new" terminology for the non-sermon part of the service has only revealed what is already in their hearts--that their relationship with God is based on their feelings, so they want to capitalize on the portion of the service that caters to those feelings. It is a shame that the sermon portion of their service does not address the right relationship with God, that it is dependent on His character, not my feelings, that everything we do is worship that is either pleasing or displeasing to God. What are you that are pastors teaching your people about worship? Are you leading them to spiritual maturity in this area? Or leaving them to flounder in their immaturity?

I will close this rather lengthy post with this point. Twice during the dedication of Solomon's Temple the glory of the Lord filled the temple so that the priests could not carry out their duties. The first time was in response to the music, the second was in response to Solomon's prayer. Neither was a sermon. Here is the passage concerning the music:

Quote:

And it came to pass, when the priests were come out of the holy place: (for all the priests that were present were sanctified, and did not then wait by course: Also the Levites which were the singers, all of them of Asaph, of Heman, of Jeduthun, with their sons and their brethren, being arrayed in white linen, having cymbals and psalteries and harps, stood at the east end of the altar, and with them an hundred and twenty priests sounding with trumpets:) It came even to pass, as the trumpeters and singers were as one, to make one sound to be heard in praising and thanking the LORD; and when they lifted up their voice with the trumpets and cymbals and instruments of musick, and praised the LORD, saying, For he is good; for his mercy endureth for ever: that then the house was filled with a cloud, even the house of the LORD; So that the priests could not stand to minister by reason of the cloud: for the glory of the LORD had filled the house of God.
- 2 Chronicles 5:11-14

Notice the emphasis on the unity of their worship in verse 13. That unity is, IMHO, a vital part of what the music portion of a worship service can contribute to the service. Each time I sit at the piano, I hope to be used of God to move the hearts of the congregation to unity in worship, to a praise of our transcendent God, to deeper devotion to Him, and to a greater motivation to serve and please Him in every aspect of their lives.

driddick
driddick's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Wed, Dec 2 2009
Posts: 10
Interesting Discussion

The comments and discussion have been interesting, and honestly this is not a topic I have recently considered much and it has really got me thinking.

I think one other observation from the comments is that this appears to be a real issue/concern across churches of all stripes, fundamentalist churches included. I believe it is worthy of more discussion.

Although I guess putting the spotlight on the "evil evangelicals" makes for a catchier title Smile

KevinM
KevinM's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 79
Technical rant
Paul J. Scharf wrote:

Kevin, Are you arguing against the concept of corporate worship, or just the terminology?...I would think we could support the term on the basis of passages such as 1 Cor. 11:17 and 1 Cor. 14:40, if nothing else. The detailed instructions of 1 Cor. 11-14 as a whole would also seem to apply directly to corporate worship.

I'm still in favor of the concept--you know that I help plan and lead the "worship service" at my own church. I'm happy to refer to it this way on the popular level, when necessary. But I think the term "corporate worship" hasn't been especially helpful in describing what the NT teaches (and has been misused by various denominational systems). Yes, the passages you cite are among the most important to study on this subject. But your passages don't use the term "corporate worship," and I wouldn't either. The passages are about...the gathered church (a broader concept than "worship" or "church music.")

And the idea of a "gathered church" rather than "corporate worship" is a more Baptist idea.

Here's why I'm making this distinction. I want to embrace the idea that worship is an all-of-life activity, not limited to a particular time or place, not requiring a priest or any other mediator other than Christ Himself. And I want to reject the idea that "corporate worship" is governed by a special set of rules (a Regulative Principle) that are, frankly, rooted in OT exegesis and a Presbyterian understanding of the relationship between Israel and the church.

Yes, it it possible to reject the RP and its terminology and still have orderly church meetings, which are still "regulated" by the NT passages you cited, along with many other NT passages that teach grace principles for godly living. Too many Baptists got sidetracked by the Presbyterian "Regulative Principle" discussion, thinking that we should adopt it as a way of enforcing conservative and orderly church services. I'm less convinced that adopting their idea will foster any sort of Baptist clarity on worship issues. After all, the Presbyterians spent the last 25 years arguing over just what the Regulative Principle means.

I'm still searching for ways to articulate this on a popular level. An earlier poster suggested that a lot of our terminology is laden with a thick layer of Catholic ideas, and I agree. Still thinking about this...

gdwightlarson
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 26
now we're sharpening iron

Thanks for the obvious reflective spirit that's being shown here. I have been a choir director/song leader/Praise Team leader (as I said above, in many different circles). I've seen musical showmanship taken to ridiculous lengths, I've seen preaching showmanship taken to ridiculous lengths. Been pretty indepth in the church history side of music too and have seen various modern writers quote Church Fathers and Reformation leaders when they support their view and ignore others who don't support their views, even while claiming to be writing a non-biased article or book. So if we're willing to accept the bad from the best and the good from the not-so-good we'll survive. We'll just never completely agree here. I do completelely share the concern that a Jeremiah-like (15:16) hunger for the Word has suffered a deplorable decline.
I cite the "One Anothers" knowing full well many of them are practiced outside the usual Sunday morning service--at least once the service begins--but that's another one of my problems. We don't practice the "worship" of the "One Anothers" very well at ANY time(!), even if we have biblical and balanced "worship services". In order to be Word-oriented AND , our church also has a scripture memory program for the adults, stress daily "devotions" (I hate that word), and have evening gatherings on Sunday that AREN'T preaching services. The "One Anothers" are so broad and deep that they bear constant repeating to our congregations who are so accustomed to "church-and-AWANA" is surely all "that the Lord doth require of me"!
So, yes, we need to think beyond the church services. We need to examine our sermons to ensure that there's "milk" and "meat", there's comfort for the afflicted and affliction for the comforted--ha. We MAY even change how we do the communion service, offering, or the closing ("Invitation") at the end of the service--so that we may see "the LORD high and lifted up" and respond by saying "Here am I, send me" or simply leave with a greater love for the Lord and for the lost in our (Location, Education, Relation, Vocation, and Recreation) "worlds".

__________________

gdwightlarson

"You can be my brother without being my twin."

Susan R
Susan R's picture
Offline
ModeratorUserUser accounts adminAdmin
Joined: Wed, May 6 2009
Posts: 3437
Levitical priesthood/NT church

@ Julie- I don't think that the operations/positions of the Levitical priesthood and the NT church are apples to apples. The gifts/callings listed in 1 Cor 12 does not include musicians... . Are those people gifted? Can they do what they do to the honor and glory of God and to benefit the brethren? Are they as valuable as others who serve in different capacities? Sure- but if we are talking about spiritual gifts for ministry, I don't consider music to be one of them under NT guidelines.

As for enjoying preaching more than singing, that's a personal preference, and has nothing to do with not appreciating the efforts of those who sing... especially since I have often been part of the special music portion of the service (choir, quartet, solos...).

__________________

Susan R

Blogging at At Home and School and Shelf Discoveries
"Like" my Facebook page

Joseph Leavell
Joseph Leavell's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 43
Side question from article

I don't mean to move in and steel the conversation, so feel free to keep going around this question, but I have a question from the article:

Ed said,

Ed wrote:

But the paradigm has changed in many churches.

I was wondering to which evangelical churches Ed is referring? I personally have never been to this generalized church that has displaced the Word for singing. I've been a part of churches that have one, maybe two of the said negative characteristics, but not all. If it is a "shot" at new-evangelicals, the article doesn't say so. If this is happening to Fundamentalist evangelicals or Conservative Evangelicals, the article doesn't say that either. Is it across the spectrum of evangelical churches? Are there specific churches in particular? I'm just confused as to the identity of these "many churches."

At the same time, we were given no sources to verify whether Ed's statements about these "many churches" are true or not. I'm not saying he's wrong per-se. I'm just saying that it's a "take my word for it that I'm right" type article and it's hard to convince people to your point of view when this is the case.

Because of these generalizations, to me, I respectfully think that the article came across as Ed taking pot shots against his pet peeve yet hitting no one in particular. For that reason (and many others), I do not believe it to be effective in changing the minds of those who may possess some of these stated negative characteristics but will only help those who agree with Ed to pat themselves on the back and feel good about the fact that they get their format of "worship" right.

Hate to be so tough, but I left the article with more questions than answers...

jimfrank
jimfrank's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Sat, Jun 26 2010
Posts: 68
The War Department

When I asked an "old school" pastor friend in the 1980's about contemporary worship (in those days, whatever Amy Grant was doing), he replied, "Music has always been 'The War Department' of the church."

Julie C.
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 3
Apples to apples

The positions themselves are not necessarily applicable for the NT church. We don't have anyone at our church who oversees the shewbread, but we do have someone who is responsible for preparing the elements for communion and doing so in a responsible manner out of service to the Lord. However, lack of an NT precedent for full time musicians does not mean that there is no scriptural precedent for full time musicians. I also cannot believe that the OT descriptions of the leaders in worship are completely inapplicable to the NT church. There is a lot more information in the OT about music used to worship God that there is in the NT. I also cannot believe that the converted Jews of the early church abandoned the music they had used in worship of God in the synagogues. Aaron commented on this in Post #22. The tradition of music that was begun under Moses was carried down through Israel's history, and new music was added--especially during the lives of David and Solomon. One other thing--the titles/superscripts of the Psalms frequently include the dedication "To the Chief Musician." This indicates that someone was responsible for managing the music in whatever way it was used in the services in the OT.

The list of gifts/callings in 1 Corinthians 12:28 includes the gift of teaching and the gift of administration. I see music ministry as falling into both of those categories. For example, one could argue that creating the nursery schedule is part of the gift of administration that is given by God for the benefit of the local church. There is a lot of administration involved in directing a music program for an entire church, and the amount of administration increases with the size of the church. As for the gift of teaching, Paul commands the Colossians to teach and admonish one another in music:

Colossian 3:16 wrote:

Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord. -

It is significant that Paul does not say to teach and admonish and sing. He says to teach and admonish in the music.

As for a personal preference for one portion of the service over another, I take no issue with that, but the reference to being "glad it's over" to me showed a lack of appreciation for the efforts put into the music and possibly also for its usefulness. Perhaps I took the phrasing too seriously/literally.

Bob T.
Offline
Former memberUser
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 418
Away with the church service.

Away with the church service. In with the Assembly of the saints. Away with the Clergy leader. In with the God glorifying congregation.

The NT concept of worship appears to have originated from the gatherings of the believers subsequent to Pentecost where the greater NT assembly were all empowered with gifting and enabled for witnessing. OT worship has no transferable truth.

Our heritage of the past is of little help. The Catholics found OT transferrable truth and so have the Mass and Priesthood. The Anglicans kept this but rejected the Pope. The Lutherans modified it. The Reformed rejected much but kept the Clergy and OT concept of special presence in the ordinances along with the service of worship. Baptists kept an order of worship but rejected the special presence in the ordinances and made the service more informal. They also kept the Clergy but dumbed down the qualifications. The Plymouth Brethren made some necessary adjustments.
We need to take a fresh look at scripture.

Most Evangelical and Fundamental churches today are still in the grip of the "Clergy" concept and the "worship service" concept. They are also driven by cultural osmosis that influences practice and diminishes the Glory of God among His people.

NT worship is a full life concept according to Rom.12: 1-2. It is that which should characterize everyday life and then be expressed by the Christians in assembly. The Christian assembly worship is the believers in joint praise and submission. Worship centers on God glorified in the assembly of the saints. The focus is to be the word. God speaks in his word. We speak to God in song and spoken testimony and prayer. A God gifted teacher may bring focus on the word with explanation and life application. Instruments are perhaps optional and should only be used so long as they convey proper mood and arouse only proper emotions. Assembly singing without instruments should be considered and perhaps prominent. The interference of assembly worship by performances by individuals or groups (special music), and the noisy metal and wooden brethren of instruments, can be very distracting from the assembly concept and word focused worship experience. The singing of too many songs using the first person plural of I instead of we misses the assembly worship concept. Clergy sermons with attempted shouting, pounding, or calling attention to the Clergy deliverer may also take away from the focus on God's word. Sermonic outlines and rhetorical concepts can also diminish the effect of God's word. Many Fundamentalist and Evangelical churches (assemblies) have traditions and beliefs that drive practices that make their assemblies into services and their services into ineffectual gatherings for the true assembly God's people for worship.

We must move away from being "churches" gathering for "services" to assemblies of the saints together for worship in the word of God. He has spoken in scripture. We must listen and learn and speak back with expressions of praise, prayer, and song. Away with the noise, performances, and rhetorical ruffles and flourishes. He must increase and we must decrease.

Ed Vasicek
Ed Vasicek's picture
Online
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 876
Surprised at this question

Joseph Said:

Quote:

I was wondering to which evangelical churches Ed is referring?

I am a little amazed, with all the Barna stats and Willow Creek admitting they are not teaching the word that this questions came up. I could be referring to many churches in the evangelical world, but the Seeker Sensitive types are the most obvious, esp. those that became Seeker Sensitive. I do not consider topical self-help sermons week after week that just refer to a verse here or there as teaching the word.

Many churches that do not advertise themselves as seeker-sensitive have embraced this paradigm.

Then there are the emerging churches that practice the stations of the cross and other Romish traditions, and they may read Scriptures, but there is little actual digging into the text.

In my town, only a few evangelical churches have pastors who preach exposition and who challenge their people to grow in Bible knowledge and doctrine. I know of many large evangelical churches that are so dumbed down. I was talking to a pastor last year who has been ministering for 10 years and was reading the Book of Job for the first time. I cannot count how many Christians began attending churches that teach you have to be baptized to be saved or other serious errors, and when I confront them, they say, "well, we go there for the worship."

Maybe things are different in your neck of the woods, but from what I read, the problem is widespread. Christian leaders have not read through their Bibles even once, only a small percentage can list the 10 commandments, etc. It is real bad. Even Christian bookstores which used to be filled with books are now mostly filled with music and gifts. That's how I see it, anyway.

__________________

"The Midrash Detective"

CLeavell
CLeavell's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Wed, Jun 10 2009
Posts: 26
Great Article

We had a saying in our church in Idaho: “A church service is not where worship happens but where worshipers gather.”

Our focus was on developing worshipers rather than doing worship. We found that when worshipers of God get together, it does not matter when you have the announcements, how you take the offering, church heater not working, air not working, or someone having a seizure during the opening prayer, you cannot stop genuine meaningful worship from taking place.

Ed Vasicek
Ed Vasicek's picture
Online
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 876
Let me clarify
CLeavell wrote:

We had a saying in our church in Idaho: “A church service is not where worship happens but where worshipers gather.”

Our focus was on developing worshipers rather than doing worship. We found that when worshipers of God get together, it does not matter when you have the announcements, how you take the offering, church heater not working, air not working, or someone having a seizure during the opening prayer, you cannot stop genuine meaningful worship from taking place.

Wow. I like that.

Let me clarify myself: I am not saying that the Word and music are mutually exclusive. It does not have to be one or the other (as Aaron pointed out). But I am saying that the Word does matter more, and that the trend is away from the Word and toward more music. There are many churches that are both/and, but I would argue they are in the minority in the evangelical world, particularly in the mega-churches.

There is plenty of Scriptural warrant for the legitimacy of music ministry.

__________________

"The Midrash Detective"

Rob Fall
Rob Fall's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 380
The Evangelical Christian-Baptist Order of Service

I wrote this about 13 years ago. It is used by our brethren from the former Soviet Union.
1. Traditionally, Evangelical Christian Baptists follow what we in the States would think of as a Plymouth Brethren style of service.
2. A typical Sunday (morning or evening) service goes something like this:
a. the Pastor or his designee calls the service to order and gives the Invocation.
b. a choir number
c. congregational hymn
d. the first preacher (the Pastor or the man in charge of the service has previously designated which of the preachers in the church will be speaking at a given service and in what order ) speaks usually for 10-15 minutes.
This message is usually a Call to Worship or Prayer
e. congregational prayer (three maybe four men or women lead in prayer from their places in the meeting hall, with the preacher closing). This is a time of Thanksgiving for the God's provision in the last week. The preacher closes with a prayer for God s blessing on the coming service.
f. a congregational hymn
g. a senior choir number or
h. a children's choir or
i. a recitation of Christian poetry by an individual or group
j. the second preacher speaks (see d. above). This preacher brings a strong Bible Message for 20-25 minutes.
k. repeat f-i.
l. the third preacher speaks (usually at Nezavisimaya this is Pastor Minnikov). This man may tie the two previous speakers together. (Or he may launch off on his own message.)
m. see e. above
n. congregational hymn and offering
o. greetings from various churches
p. prayer requests are taken and final prayer two+ hours later.

__________________

Hoping to shed more light than heat..

Ed Vasicek
Ed Vasicek's picture
Online
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 876
COMPLEX YET A CLEAR FOUNDATION
Rob Fall wrote:

I wrote this about 13 years ago. It is used by our brethren from the former Soviet Union.
1. Traditionally, Evangelical Christian Baptists follow what we in the States would think of as a Plymouth Brethren style of service.
2. A typical Sunday (morning or evening) service goes something like this:
a. the Pastor or his designee calls the service to order and gives the Invocation.
b. a choir number
c. congregational hymn
d. the first preacher (the Pastor or the man in charge of the service has previously designated which of the preachers in the church will be speaking at a given service and in what order ) speaks usually for 10-15 minutes.
This message is usually a Call to Worship or Prayer
e. congregational prayer (three maybe four men or women lead in prayer from their places in the meeting hall, with the preacher closing). This is a time of Thanksgiving for the God's provision in the last week. The preacher closes with a prayer for God s blessing on the coming service.
f. a congregational hymn
g. a senior choir number or
h. a children's choir or
i. a recitation of Christian poetry by an individual or group
j. the second preacher speaks (see d. above). This preacher brings a strong Bible Message for 20-25 minutes.
k. repeat f-i.
l. the third preacher speaks (usually at Nezavisimaya this is Pastor Minnikov). This man may tie the two previous speakers together. (Or he may launch off on his own message.)
m. see e. above
n. congregational hymn and offering
o. greetings from various churches
p. prayer requests are taken and final prayer two+ hours later.

It would be hard to say that these folks did not emphasize the Word! But part of what I have been getting at in these posts is that we are often most dogmatic about what we can prove least from the Scripture. We are nowhere told to imitate the early church's way of doing things (descriptions), IMO. But we are given prescriptions to fill. We must seek to be discerning because how we do church is going to vary with the culture. For example, the former Soviet Union approach would probably not be as effective in our culture. We can hold our views about quantity, quality and type of music and formal vs. informal, but we need to recognize that these are matters of preference, judgment, and perhaps effectiveness. They may be the result of us seeking to be led by the Spirit, but they are not "thus saith the Lord." Yet we fight over some of these things as though they were.

What is a "thus saith the Lord" is that our leaders "preach the Word" and that we recognize the centrality of the Word. God rules through His Word, and when we make it subservient to anything -- including what some of us might call "worship," we have de-throned God. God has exalted two things: His Name AND His Word. Yet we learn about His Name from His Word.

__________________

"The Midrash Detective"

Dan Salter
Dan Salter's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Thu, Dec 2 2010
Posts: 13
appreciation

Ed, I must admit that when I first read your article, I winced at what I thought was a typical rant against contemporary styles. Obviously I did not read carefully enough, and I did not even try to unload my own baggage before approaching your article. After reading the ensuing comments--especially yours--I cannot express how much I appreciate what you've had to say. I went back to reread your article without my hefty chattel, and suddenly I was amazed at how much it had improved! Thanks for the article, and especially thanks for your follow-up comments.

Ron Bean
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 309
A Refreshing Experience

We visited a church this morning that was an invigorating breath of fresh spiritual air. There was no choir or "specials", even though the church could have easily entertained Wink us if they had chosen. There were six Christ-honoring hymns sung with joy by the congregation interspersed with Scripture reading and prayer. The 50-55 minute expositional sermon was rich in content and application and devoid of extraneous material. I think we're going back.

__________________

"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan

Jeff Brown
Jeff Brown's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Fri, Jun 5 2009
Posts: 214
Latecomer

I am a latecomer to this discussion, but still want to commend a fine article. Ed, you focused rather well on a significant problem and gave an excellent answer.

__________________

Jeff Brown

DavidO
DavidO's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Mon, May 3 2010
Posts: 313
lists

@ Susan R,

Are the lists of spiritual gifts exhaustive or representative?

Susan R
Susan R's picture
Offline
ModeratorUserUser accounts adminAdmin
Joined: Wed, May 6 2009
Posts: 3437
Quick answer

The list of spiritual gifts is not exhaustive, but in combination with Scripture that gives prerequisites for specific ministry positions in the church, I don't believe in music 'ministers' as being an ordained church office on par with pastors and deacons.

__________________

Susan R

Blogging at At Home and School and Shelf Discoveries
"Like" my Facebook page

Ed Vasicek
Ed Vasicek's picture
Online
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 876
Music ministry and spiritual gifts
Susan R wrote:

The list of spiritual gifts is not exhaustive, but in combination with Scripture that gives prerequisites for specific ministry positions in the church, I don't believe in music 'ministers' as being an ordained church office on par with pastors and deacons.

I agree, Susan. There might be some correlation between the music ministry (esp. composition) and prophecy (a term with several definitions and categories) in that Miriam was also a prophetess, and the Sons of Korah, the Sons of Asaph, etc. were considered prophets, as was David. Please do not confuse my comment by restricting it to the revelatory nature of the OT prophets; some modern Christian songwriters, like the Gettys, might have a touch of the prophetic gift (non-revelatory) or we might say instead that they have "an anointing."
Musical talent is a gift from God (as are the arts in general), but not necessarily a spiritual grace gift. But the ability to minister through music might be connected to a spiritual gift, possibly of exhortation, mercy, teaching or even faith. And whether gifted this way or not, when we minister to honor God, we are worshiping Him. So there is plenty of overlap between the listed gifts and how they could be used in a musical context, in addition to the idea that not all spiritual gifts are listed.

Jeff, Ron, and Dan -- thank you for the encouragement!

__________________

"The Midrash Detective"

CPHurst
CPHurst's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Thu, Dec 17 2009
Posts: 119
Word centered

Ed, I am a younger guy on here (29) but I do find much of what you say instructive and right on. I do find that we dont think enough about how to best construct our services or that how we do construct them communicates something whether we intend to or not.

I am not in favor of the term "worship leader" for the person who leads singing as it communicates the wrong thing even if unintended. I do think that we should make much of the music as I think Scripture does as well. We should pay attention to the songs we sing and seek to perform them well (by perform I am not referring to entertaining but how we do them).

I wholeheartedly agree with the concept of the service being Word centered, that is on Scripture. I do have one thought though. If all the elements of the service are rooted in Scripture - the Word - then can they at some level be considered Word centered as well? Thus, the whole service is Word centered because all of the elements are derived from or focus on the Word (songs, prayers, Lord's Supper, scripture reading, etc.). I could grant that the preaching of the Word might be considered the climax of the whole worship service but if the other elements are Word founded and focused then this would make the whole service Word centered.

Aaron Blumer
Aaron Blumer's picture
Offline
UserEditorAdmin
Joined: Mon, Jun 1 2009
Posts: 5399
KevinM wrote: Aaron Blumer
KevinM wrote:
Aaron Blumer wrote:

I think the fact that the people of God gathered to worship together under Moses (and music was part of that) means that the people of God are still to gather to worship... and through music. And this seems to me to be confirmed in Acts 2, 4 and Eph. 5 and Col 3.

Aaron, I hear what you are saying. I'm worried that your appeal to Moses interjects an interpretive rule that we aren't willing to consistently apply to the NT church. Would we apply every ritual of Israel to our NT local churches? [Of course you aren't saying that. I'm just looking at the interpretive principle.] And while I agree that Acts 2, 4, Eph. 5 and Col 3 have much to say about our church meetings...none of them speak of "corporate worship." That's a baggage-laden phrase that isn't helping us get to the basic question of what the church does when it gathers. [Oh, there might be a reason for my technical rant, but in the meantime, I'll disclose that I'll be leading worship at my own church tomorrow morning!]

Solid point. I was reflecting on this last night as our Q & A time at church intersected with questions of what to do with Deut.22 today (though I ran out of time before responding to that question). I usually prefer to take the whole of the Mosaic covenant system and declare it "profitable" (per 2Tim3.16) but not "as law" binding on us today.
Making my case will have to wait for another day, but I feel deeply and strongly that gathered worship has always been an expectation God has had for His people and so central to why we exist that I can't really entertain the idea of it taking a back seat to anything else.

But I have to admit this is, for me, pretty much an unexamined conviction.

I have to say, though, that "corporate worship" is just another way of saying "singing with melody in your hearts to the Lord," along with the other activities that have been central to gathered worship over the millennia.

(I think I'm closer to the Presbyterians in attitude about gathered worship, though seeing "Sacrament of baptism" in the liturgy makes me--as my kids say--freak. My wife and I spent the better of a year in a "Reformed Baptist" church in Austin, TX back in the late 90's. We loved the way they worshiped... though communion seemed a little spooky to us at first.)

Aaron Blumer
Aaron Blumer's picture
Offline
UserEditorAdmin
Joined: Mon, Jun 1 2009
Posts: 5399
Royal priesthood

This might sound dispensationally incorrect, but this verse has to mean something...

1 Pe 2:9 NKJV 9 But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light;

If the church is a royal priesthood in any sense, it must include the sense of gathered worshipers. I'm agreed with most dispensationalists that it does not mean the church has completely taken over Israel's role. But what are priests if not worshipers and what is a priesthood if not a group of priests who worship together?

KevinM
KevinM's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 79
Gathered worshipers
Aaron Blumer wrote:

This might sound dispensationally incorrect, but this verse has to mean something...[1 Pe 2:9 NKJV] If the church is a royal priesthood in any sense, it must include the sense of gathered worshipers. I'm agreed with most dispensationalists that it does not mean the church has completely taken over Israel's role. But what are priests if not worshipers and what is a priesthood if not a group of priests who worship together?

Sure--all of this is great. I especially love the phrase "gathered worshipers," which seems to be a unifying idea and a better alternative.

For those who continue to prefer the "corporate worship" term, I would be happy to do special music in your church (!), I'm just not convinced the term has a lot of teaching value. I'd like to avoid a "corporate worship" that insists on a prescribed list of Presbyterian worship "elements," a school of thought that does not fully consider the dramatic transformation from old covenant to church age. And I'm trying to avoid a cut-and-paste approach to systematic theology, where we grab attractive ideas even if they don't fit well into our own theological framework. [Aaron, I'm not saying you are doing a cut-and-paste, I'm just mentioning our current eclectic tendencies when it comes to worship theory. And I realize that many of our Presbyterian brothers and sisters read SI...I'm just saying our Baptist theology may expess these issues differently.] My goal is pretty close to Ed's intention, presenting the activities of the gathered church in a way that gives proper consideration to [at least] "worship" and "mutual edification."

Oh, and not to blow up the thread, but earlier we discussed the lack of NT warrant for the phrase "corporate worship," seeking specific passages where the word "worship" is used to describe an activity of the gathered church. It is tempting to cite the use of proskyneo in 1 Cor. 14:25...an apparent reference to an unsaved person (seeker??) who visits the church service, gets saved (evangelism?) and then begins worshiping. Oh, the irony!

Ed Vasicek
Ed Vasicek's picture
Online
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 876
you are right!
CPHurst wrote:

Ed, I am a younger guy on here (29) but I do find much of what you say instructive and right on. I do find that we dont think enough about how to best construct our services or that how we do construct them communicates something whether we intend to or not.

I am not in favor of the term "worship leader" for the person who leads singing as it communicates the wrong thing even if unintended. I do think that we should make much of the music as I think Scripture does as well. We should pay attention to the songs we sing and seek to perform them well (by perform I am not referring to entertaining but how we do them).

I wholeheartedly agree with the concept of the service being Word centered, that is on Scripture. I do have one thought though. If all the elements of the service are rooted in Scripture - the Word - then can they at some level be considered Word centered as well? Thus, the whole service is Word centered because all of the elements are derived from or focus on the Word (songs, prayers, Lord's Supper, scripture reading, etc.). I could grant that the preaching of the Word might be considered the climax of the whole worship service but if the other elements are Word founded and focused then this would make the whole service Word centered.

It is hard to argue with such a reasonable post. I might add this caveat, however (not that you are saying otherwise): we must distinguish between USING the Word and digging into the Word.

Let me digress a bit and take the conversation in a slightly different direction. I should come to church to honor God (worship), but, as a disciple, I am also on a constant quest to learn the Word and understand it more deeply (the best synonym for disciple is learner), so I should come to be challenged and developed in both the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. What is happening in many churches is that they are downplaying the importance of learning Scripture. We want to be doers of the Word without being hearers, a problem James did not address but the writer to the Hebrews did in Hebrews 5:12

Quote:

For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you have need again for someone to teach you the elementary principles of the oracles of God, and you have come to need milk and not solid food.

We should sense a burden to deliver the Word at both a milk and solid food level. I believe in your case I am preaching to the choir!

__________________

"The Midrash Detective"

CPHurst
CPHurst's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Thu, Dec 17 2009
Posts: 119
Deaf to the Word

Ed, agreed! It is the Word that guides our doing so one wonders how a Christian could practice doing and yet turn a deaf ear the hearing the Word give them guidance. Heb. 5:12 is one of may favorite verses!

Greg Long
Greg Long's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 518
I've never been one to

I've never been one to dogmatically declare that musical ability is NOT a spiritual gift, based on my understanding of the nature of spiritual gifts, based on the fact that (as others have pointed out) Paul's lists seem representative and not exhaustive (why different lists to different churches and even within the same letter to the same church?), and based on 1 Cor. 14:26:

Quote:

What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up.

"Hymn" there is psalmos, "a sacred song sung to musical accompaniment." Note that the context is that of spiritual gifts, and we would easily link each of the other words in this verse with a specific spiritual gift: "lesson" --> teaching; "revelation" --> prophecy; "tongue" --> speaking in tongues; "interpretation" --> interpretation of tongues. So is there a specific spiritual gift linked to the giving of psalmoi to the gathered church? I'm inclined to think there is, and at the very least am unwilling to state categorically there is not.

__________________

Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

Ed Vasicek
Ed Vasicek's picture
Online
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 876
Greg Long wrote: I've never
Greg Long wrote:

I've never been one to dogmatically declare that musical ability is NOT a spiritual gift, based on my understanding of the nature of spiritual gifts, based on the fact that (as others have pointed out) Paul's lists seem representative and not exhaustive (why different lists to different churches and even within the same letter to the same church?), and based on 1 Cor. 14:26:

Quote:

What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up.

"Hymn" there is psalmos, "a sacred song sung to musical accompaniment." Note that the context is that of spiritual gifts, and we would easily link each of the other words in this verse with a specific spiritual gift: "lesson" --> teaching; "revelation" --> prophecy; "tongue" --> speaking in tongues; "interpretation" --> interpretation of tongues. So is there a specific spiritual gift linked to the giving of psalmoi to the gathered church? I'm inclined to think there is, and at the very least am unwilling to state categorically there is not.

Could be. But another way of thinking is this: speaking and singing are vehicles. If I have the gift of teaching, I teach via speaking. If I had the NT gift of prophecy, I would prophesy via speaking. The same could be true of singing. But I think you are right in saying that we cannot rule it out as a spiritual gift.

__________________

"The Midrash Detective"

Susan R
Susan R's picture
Offline
ModeratorUserUser accounts adminAdmin
Joined: Wed, May 6 2009
Posts: 3437
Gift+Office

The problem is when music is not seen as just a gift/talent to be used to the glory of God, but as an office of the church, similar to that of pastor and deacon- often without the same spiritual criteria. So you can have someone on the podium that the congregation sees as 'leadership' or 'spiritually influential' or with the church's 'stamp of approval', and they may be about as spiritually mature as a Christmas ham.

The primary method by which we see the apostles disseminating the Word is preaching. Singing, to my knowledge, is not the chosen vehicle for equipping the saints to the work of the ministry. Music has a function, an important function, but it is a complimentary function.

Perhaps some don't understand the issue because they've not seen this displacement, and that's great. Hurray. But I've been in many services where people were enjoying the music so much and people were coming forward to the altar to pray that the entire service was music. And not just every once in awhile, but on a regular basis. To the point that a service as I've described was viewed as more 'spiritually successful', for lack of a better term, because so many people came forward.

My question is "Why are they moved by music and NOT by the preaching of the Word?"

I've also attended a church or two where the primacy of music was a distraction. Congregationals, specials, more congregationals, more specials... and 20 minutes of preaching, followed by moving invitation special (complete with PowerPoint slideshow of one Kodak moment after another). I couldn't help but feel that someone was trying to sell me something.

Ed Vasicek wrote:

The problem is not contemporary music, seeking to have meaningful worship through songs of praise, etc. The problem is displacement. When we displace the knowledge of the Word and solid doctrine with music (whether we call music worship or not), we are no longer under the lordship of Christ. The Christian life includes public worship, but the highest form of worship is hearing and doing the Word of God.

That's what I'm talkin' 'bout.

__________________

Susan R

Blogging at At Home and School and Shelf Discoveries
"Like" my Facebook page

Rob Fall
Rob Fall's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 380
More on the EC-B

First, please remember we Baptists do not have sacraments; we have ordinances we observe and commemorate. When, where and how often are matters left to the local church. But, Baptist preachers don't carry the ordinances around in their hip pocket.

As for the observance of the Lord's Supper, it happens in lieu of the third preacher. Red wine and home made bread is used as the elements.

EC-B houses of prayer do not have baptisteries. Baptismal services (usually annual) are held at naturla bodies of water (IBC uses a spot on the American River).

Weddings in the house of prayer occur after the morning service. The place is decorated appropriately and after the service is concluded the bride, groom and wedding party enter.

__________________

Hoping to shed more light than heat..

KevinM
KevinM's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 79
What, no Bridezilla?
Rob Fall wrote:

Weddings in the house of prayer occur after the morning service. The place is decorated appropriately and after the service is concluded the bride, groom and wedding party enter.

No kidding? Speaking of over-wrought production values in church services...could someone please bring this up with Miss Bridezilla? Maybe I'll move to Russia.

Alex Guggenheim
Alex Guggenheim's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 1095
Greg Long wrote: I've never
Greg Long wrote:

I've never been one to dogmatically declare that musical ability is NOT a spiritual gift, based on my understanding of the nature of spiritual gifts, based on the fact that (as others have pointed out) Paul's lists seem representative and not exhaustive (why different lists to different churches and even within the same letter to the same church?), and based on 1 Cor. 14:26:

Quote:

What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up.

"Hymn" there is psalmos, "a sacred song sung to musical accompaniment." Note that the context is that of spiritual gifts, and we would easily link each of the other words in this verse with a specific spiritual gift: "lesson" --> teaching; "revelation" --> prophecy; "tongue" --> speaking in tongues; "interpretation" --> interpretation of tongues. So is there a specific spiritual gift linked to the giving of psalmoi to the gathered church? I'm inclined to think there is, and at the very least am unwilling to state categorically there is not.

Issues with respect to music and its connection to spiritual gifts:

1. The most challenging. Paul's list is by means of revelation. That is, God oversaw and insured that communicated to us would be the spiritual gifts he wanted identified by means of revelation and recorded by means of inspiration. If one seeks to maintain that the list is open then their obligation will be to meet the standard that was met by the Scriptures. If one believes he or she can meet this criteria then they certainly have the same footing as the Scriptures, otherwise they really are eliminated from such assertions.

2. Secondly, the use of psalms here was not with emphasis on the music but with emphasis on the doctrinal content as indicated by the context of the passage which was rightly identified as one of communication of doctrine. Hence, the reference to psalm or song is not with emphasis on the melody which accompanies the lyrics but the lyrical content itself which communicates sound doctrine. This is not to place as insignificant the use of melodies which is the mode of communicating doctrinal concepts through song, but that this melodic means is just that, a means and not the substance of what is in view.

3. No existing reference is made to such a gift though Paul repeated and distinguished gifts and offices more than once. This lack of even a single clear reference is very difficult to overcome.

4. The overriding basis for interpreting the gifts as being "open" is because the listing in the NT does not conform to standard listing methods or that conclusive language of their exclusivity is not present therefore the liberty is taken to assume such a silence is an indication otherwise.

On this, arguing from silence is no valid argument. The second point, that the listing isn't comprehensive and categorical each time therefore there must be other unlisted gifts is untenable since it introduces a hermeneutic that cannot meet any prescriptive test. This would be akin to comparing texts about any subject in the Bible and because each text does not contain identical material and reference we must now introduce new divine alternatives that are on par with Scripture.

P.S. Not to get too far off the substance of Ed's thread which is fantastic and again, quite clear that he has given quite a bit of thought to this.

__________________

My blog:

http://thepedestrianchristian.blogspot.com/

Ed Vasicek
Ed Vasicek's picture
Online
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 876
Just a little nuance

Alex wrote:

Quote:

The overriding basis for interpreting the gifts as being "open" is because the listing in the NT does not conform to standard listing methods or that conclusive language of their exclusivity is not present therefore the liberty is taken to assume such a silence is an indication otherwise.

On this, arguing from silence is no valid argument.

I would argue that the Scriptures no where claim to present a clear list of gifts, and the casual ways they are listed suggest examples or the most common gifts. Still, Alex, I have to agree that we can only be CERTAIN about the gifts mentioned in Scripture. Any additions are at best speculations. So I kind of agree with you, but not quite. But I like the way you think!

__________________

"The Midrash Detective"

Rob Fall
Rob Fall's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 380
KevinM wrote: Rob Fall
KevinM wrote:
Rob Fall wrote:

Weddings in the house of prayer occur after the morning service. The place is decorated appropriately and after the service is concluded the bride, groom and wedding party enter.

No kidding? Speaking of over-wrought production values in church services...could someone please bring this up with Miss Bridezilla? Maybe I'll move to Russia.

Excuse me. Please explain your remark. So, the platform area gets a few flowers, a flower decorated bower is put in place, and the center aisle is ribboned off with a white runner is put down. Hardly over wrought.

__________________

Hoping to shed more light than heat..

Chip Van Emmerik
Chip Van Emmerik's picture
Online
User
Joined: Thu, Jun 4 2009
Posts: 642
Rob, Kevin can speak for

Rob,

Kevin can speak for himself when he gets a chance, but I think the overwrought reference is toward Bridezilla. I think he was praising the simple decorum you described by comparison.

__________________

About the Master's business.

KevinM
KevinM's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 79
Bridezilla

Rob, Chip's right. I love it. It's the American weddings I'm worried about. Why can't we all follow your more simple outline for a wedding?

Ed Vasicek
Ed Vasicek's picture
Online
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 876
Good Case Study
KevinM wrote:

Rob, Chip's right. I love it. It's the American weddings I'm worried about. Why can't we all follow your more simple outline for a wedding?

When we talk about worship, we can sometimes find ourselves in debate with people who simply like music and would be into music (possibly of a different kind) even if they were not saved. In contrast, we can have discussions with people who are into music but are really into honoring God.

The whole idea of churches/ministers officiating weddings grows out of catholicism, not the NT. As a result, we have a lot of people wanting church weddings because that's the protocol. People (usually brides) who rarely if ever attend church want a church wedding. Often they pretend that they have some spiritual interest, just as some people who claim to be into worship really are into music and the feelings it brings. Then there are Christians who know they are just as married in court as if they were married by a pastor in a church's building, but they really do want to honor God and let others know that Jesus Christ is Lord of their lives.

So, in both realms (worship and weddings), we find ourselves having to address human insincerity vs. sincerity, and it gets messy sometimes. And, I suppose, the saddest part is that even those of us who are sincere are only sincere part of the time (hopefully most). That's why we have "worship wars." It can easily end up being about us and our tastes rather than God and the good of His Kingdom.

__________________

"The Midrash Detective"

Greg Long
Greg Long's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 518
Ed Vasicek wrote: Alex
Ed Vasicek wrote:

Alex wrote:

Quote:

The overriding basis for interpreting the gifts as being "open" is because the listing in the NT does not conform to standard listing methods or that conclusive language of their exclusivity is not present therefore the liberty is taken to assume such a silence is an indication otherwise.

On this, arguing from silence is no valid argument.

I would argue that the Scriptures no where claim to present a clear list of gifts, and the casual ways they are listed suggest examples or the most common gifts. Still, Alex, I have to agree that we can only be CERTAIN about the gifts mentioned in Scripture. Any additions are at best speculations.

I completely agree.

The question remains, why would Paul so specifically mention bringing a "psalm" in the context of using spiritual gifts? As I said, I'm not willing to be dogmatic that music MUST be a spiritual gift, but neither can I be dogmatic that it is not.

__________________

Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

G. N. Barkman
Offline
User
Joined: Fri, Jan 8 2010
Posts: 212
Weddings

Ed,

This has been a really good article and discussion. Regarding your last post referencing weddings, I have addressed the problem of insincereity by only agreeing to marry couples when one of them is a member of our congregation, and the other gives solid evidence of conversion. I usually require that the partner be a professing believer, baptized, and in good standing and present fellowship with a sound church. These are not ironclad, and I am willing to make exceptions when I'm convinced they are warrented. Still, it gives some helpful guidelines, and a good place to begin.

Any thoughts?

Warm regards,
Greg Barkman

__________________

G. N. Barkman

Larry
Offline
ModeratorUser
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 1150
Quote: The whole idea of
Quote:

The whole idea of churches/ministers officiating weddings grows out of catholicism, not the NT. As a result, we have a lot of people wanting church weddings because that's the protocol. People (usually brides) who rarely if ever attend church want a church wedding. Often they pretend that they have some spiritual interest, just as some people who claim to be into worship really are into music and the feelings it brings. Then there are Christians who know they are just as married in court as if they were married by a pastor in a church's building, but they really do want to honor God and let others know that Jesus Christ is Lord of their lives.

This is one reason why I tend to reject the idea that a wedding is a worship service. It isn't. It is not a meeting of the church. It is rather two people using the church building for a particular function in their lives.

I think if a couple wants to let others know that Jesus Christ is Lord of their lives, it won't happen through a wedding service, but through a marriage lived in the gospel.

I am not opposed to weddings, though I tend to think we should drift toward minimal rather than maximal. And I think if you invite guests you should make sure the gospel is preached. But I don't think I would make it a church function, and I am very uncomfortable (as of now) making it a part of a worship service. I might consider tacking it on the end of a service, and taking ten minutes or so to marry a couple.

But I think this is an area where there is no NT basis for what we do in most of our weddings.

Rob Fall
Rob Fall's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 380
More on EC-B Weddings
KevinM wrote:

Rob, Chip's right. I love it. It's the American weddings I'm worried about. Why can't we all follow your more simple outline for a wedding?

Don't worry guys; Russians can get just as fancy (in their own way) as the Americans.
Further, our view of where weddings should take place is a fairly late one. For years, weddings took place in the bride's home. And no I'm not going in this on this thread.
In the Former (love to write that) Soviet Union, the actual wedding took place at the government office. What happened in church was more of a blessing kind of service.

__________________

Hoping to shed more light than heat..

Alex Guggenheim
Alex Guggenheim's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 1095
Greg Long wrote: The question
Greg Long wrote:

The question remains, why would Paul so specifically mention bringing a "psalm" in the context of using spiritual gifts? As I said, I'm not willing to be dogmatic that music MUST be a spiritual gift, but neither can I be dogmatic that it is not.

You have an incredibly steep hill to climb, if not infinite, to meet the standards of Scripture in adding to the identified gifts.

I do believe your question about the presence of a psalm in the passage was addressed. The context is one of communicating doctrine and with respect to the psalm it is communicating doctrine through song. This would be the same as writing a book. The use of the spiritual gift of teaching in writing enables one to communicate doctrine through that medium. The gift in view is not "writing" (though this is a human talent present in both saved and unsaved people but it is NOT a spiritual gift), that is the mechanism being used to exercise the gift which is "teaching". The same is true with respect to a psalm, which again is present in the passage's context of discussing communication gifts. The gift is not "music", this is the mechanism through which the teaching (or in this case where revelatory gifts still operated we may include prophecy or some other revelatory communication put in the form of lyrics) is exercised which is the composition of doctrinal lyrics. This is reflected in Colossian 3:16:

Quote:

Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.

Notice the emphasis has nothing, in reality, to do with music itself rather the doctrine or teaching of the lyrics. Music is a means but not the ministry itself, that is the Word of God or the doctrinal content of the lyrics. Just as writing is a means but not the ministry itself, rather it is the Word of God being communicated.

As to dogma, again the hill is steep. Personally I reject the notion that what is contained in Scripture regarding spiritual gifts is not intended to be exclusive. However, even if one allows for this open gate, you are left with only speculation, as qualified by Ed earlier.

Quote:

I may say dogmatically what spiritual gifts and offices with accompanied gifts, are identified through the revelation of Scripture.

I may not add to that list without meeting this criterion.

Hence, any attempt to add to Scripture while not meeting this criterion is to add to the Word of God without authorization.

Ultimately what occurs is that regardless of an exclusive or inclusive view, you are still left with only one source, the listing in the Scriptures to which you are not permitted adding whether through rationalistic speculation or claims of additional revelation.

Finally, the hermeneutic/theological demand that a doctrinal conclusion on the matter be ascertained only by an explicit statement in Scripture such as "and these are all the spiritual gifts without exception" and without it no dogmatic assertion may be made, certainly is not a theological postulate adhered to by much of any school.

The reason biblical dogma is formed is not purely out of explicit statements. Explicitness is not the sum total or cause for dogma and surely you recognize this. Dogma and doctrinal conclusions which stem from systematic theology are due to much more than direct statements and in fact often are quite dependent upon nuanced exegesis and textual comparison. And with spiritual gifts this is the case.

__________________

My blog:

http://thepedestrianchristian.blogspot.com/

gdwightlarson
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 26
when did weddings get into the discussion?

Church services, weddings, funerals--music can be a powerful ministry or a distraction/show.
Can't we teach our folk not to worship the music or the emotion or anything else but the
Lord, His people, and His Word? That falls on the shoulders of the leaders of our churches.
American Christianity and even fundamentalism has long been in a rut, following traditions nearly as blindly as the Pharisees of Christ's day.
Try doing anything different with the offering/offertory or communion and see! Many "new" things,
including music, are automatically met with suspicion at best and caustic criticism at worst.
And those who are looking for things to criticize can surely find them in contemporary churches, etc. BUT THEY ARE BLIND TO THE ISSUES IN
THEIR OWN LIVES/CHURCHES!
Now that we're into Post #74 I can say that there's been a lot of good things said and I appreciate the conversation.
Ed's original title was a bit off-putting because it seemed at first to just say that anything other than what we've done in the past is destroying worship. I think we all have come to understand that SOME of it is having that affect but we also agree that just doing what we've always done may be just as harmful to real worship.

__________________

gdwightlarson

"You can be my brother without being my twin."

Greg Long
Greg Long's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 518
Alex, I have an extremely

Alex, I have an extremely hard time following you.

Let me try again. Each of the things mentioned in 1 Cor. 14:26 after the word "psalm" is a practical expression (or visible manifestation, if you will) of a grace gift mentioned elsewhere by Paul. A "lesson" is a practical expression of the gift of teaching. A "revelation" is a practical expression of the gift of prophecy. A "tongue" is a practical expression of the gift of speaking in tongues. An "interpretation" is a practical expression of the gift of interpretation of tongues.

So we are left with the natural question: a "psalm" is the practical expression of what spiritual gift? Could it be teaching? Possibly, and I completely agree that songs are to teach and admonish. But why would he also mention "lesson" then? Might the grace gift related to "psalm" be similar to the gifts given to OT saints who were gifted, or skilled, in music and used those gifts to regularly minister in the Temple worshiping God?

I don't know, and as I've said several times, I'm not dogmatic about it. But we're still have to deal with Paul's clear use of the word "psalm" in the context of spiritual gifts.

The emphasis on spiritual gifts in the NT is on unity through diversity. Paul emphasizes the diversity of spiritual gifts by comparing them to the parts of the body. Yes, we can group body parts into broad categories such as nervous system, digestive system, etc. Or if we counted individual body parts we could have thousands of different parts. Every time Paul starts listing spiritual gifts he has a different list. It seems that he is "randomly" throwing out examples of spiritual gifts. Peter only mentions two broad categories: speaking and serving. And yet he speaks of spiritual gifts as a stewardship of "God's varied grace." "Varied" there means many-faceted, like the many facets on a diamond.

Because of the inspiration of the Bible I share your hesitation to go beyond Scripture and start proclaiming every aspect of service, like baking blueberry pies or playing the sousaphone or teaching 2nd grade girls or being an Awana commander as a specific spiritual gift. They are more likely manifestations of serving or teaching or administrating/leading.

So we are probably closer in belief on this issue than you may think. But it has always bothered me when people dogmatically declare that musical ability CANNOT be a spiritual gift, even though it was in the OT and is hinted at in 1 Cor. 14:26.

__________________

Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

Rob Fall
Rob Fall's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 380
gdwightlarson wrote: when did
gdwightlarson wrote:

when did weddings get into the discussion?

Weddings got into the discussion because I laid out how Evangelical Christian-Baptists do church. Least any one say, "They aren't germane because that's what happens overseas." The largest Fundamental church in Metro Sacramento, CA is an EC-B one. and it is one of a half dozen Fundamental EC-B churches in the area. There are also a dozen or so EC-B churches affiliated with the SBC. At this time they are Russian speaking churches. This however is changing fast as the American born generations are maturing.

__________________

Hoping to shed more light than heat..

Alex Guggenheim
Alex Guggenheim's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 1095
Greg Long wrote: Alex, I have
Greg Long wrote:

Alex, I have an extremely hard time following you.

Without pointing to any specific instance where you are unsure or are having a hard time following me I cannot provide clarification. Let me know specifically what and I will endeavor to clarify.

Greg Long wrote:

Let me try again. Each of the things mentioned in 1 Cor. 14:26 after the word "psalm" is a practical expression (or visible manifestation, if you will) of a grace gift mentioned elsewhere by Paul. A "lesson" is a practical expression of the gift of teaching. A "revelation" is a practical expression of the gift of prophecy. A "tongue" is a practical expression of the gift of speaking in tongues. An "interpretation" is a practical expression of the gift of interpretation of tongues.

So we are left with the natural question: a "psalm" is the practical expression of what spiritual gift? Could it be teaching? Possibly, and I completely agree that songs are to teach and admonish. But why would he also mention "lesson" then?

It is true that the use of psalms is in the context of spiritual gifts but your identification is the general context and not the immediate context which is that of communication gifts, in fact the entire chapter for the most part but particularly that which precedes, is devoted to the context of communication. Therefore it is insufficient to just say it is the context of spiritual gifts rather a category of spiritual gifts, namely communication gifts.

The context reveals the use of psalms and as we see, Paul begins the chapter presenting an argument regarding the valid use of tongues and prophecy and the use (vs 8) of intelligible words. When he finishes this specific issue he broadens it to all forms of doctrinal communication in vs 26.

Additionally, to say you agree with the amplifying passage in Colossians 3:16 which teaches that the communication of doctrine is the emphasis of psalms or other singing and then suggest that the gift in view is not really a communication gift but rather:

Greg Long wrote:

Might the grace gift related to "psalm" be similar to the gifts given to OT saints who were gifted, or skilled, in music and used those gifts to regularly minister in the Temple worshiping God?

Is to, frankly, contradict what you just said you agreed with. But to address this specific suggestion that theological answer is no. Why? Because those OT gifts to which you referred where categorically their own with a specific purpose, limit and context. And that context is not the NT church.

Secondly, you simply are not free to offer such suggestions, at least not in the sense of abiding by any sound hermeneutic or disciplining your arguments by way of such boundaries. There is no cause of such an import, even if it appears rational. And in this case if you attempt to use such an unorthodox hermeneutic, are you aware of all of the supernatural gifting in the OT that then others might be free to claim? This is why our theological discovery must abide by orthodox hermeneutics.

Greg Long wrote:

The emphasis on spiritual gifts in the NT is on unity through diversity. Paul emphasizes the diversity of spiritual gifts by comparing them to the parts of the body. Yes, we can group body parts into broad categories such as nervous system, digestive system, etc. Or if we counted individual body parts we could have thousands of different parts. Every time Paul starts listing spiritual gifts he has a different list. It seems that he is "randomly" throwing out examples of spiritual gifts. Peter only mentions two broad categories: speaking and serving. And yet he speaks of spiritual gifts as a stewardship of "God's varied grace." "Varied" there means many-faceted, like the many facets on a diamond.

To you it may seem he is "randomly" throwing out examples but to many he is dealing in context with certain ones in every case they are listed, either in part or whole.

This is the nature of normal communication. Again, an unrealistic expectation is being forced upon Scripture that either through direct statements only or numerically formed listing we be given an inventory of the spiritual gifts or else we must assume, since they are not provided in the manner we demand, there are more of them which Scriptures fail to reveal. If we concocted such a postulate for bible interpretation we would be in trouble every where.

Greg Long wrote:

Because of the inspiration of the Bible I share your hesitation to go beyond Scripture and start proclaiming every aspect of service, like baking blueberry pies or playing the sousaphone or teaching 2nd grade girls or being an Awana commander as a specific spiritual gift. They are more likely manifestations of serving or teaching or administrating/leading.

So we are probably closer in belief on this issue than you may think. But it has always bothered me when people dogmatically declare that musical ability CANNOT be a spiritual gift, even though it was in the OT and is hinted at in 1 Cor. 14:26.

Whether you believe one cannot dogmatically claim musical ability to be a spiritual gift or not is irrelevant in the end since YOU MAY NOT claim it is. You have no precedence for this and no assertion in Scripture. Thanks for the interaction.

__________________

My blog:

http://thepedestrianchristian.blogspot.com/

G. N. Barkman
Offline
User
Joined: Fri, Jan 8 2010
Posts: 212
Spiritual Gifts

Could musical gifts be included within the gift of prophecy? When King Saul prophecied, he did so with a group of prophets who "prophecied" with musical instruments. (I Samuel 10:3-11) There is a similar situation with Miriam, the prophetess, sister of Aaron, who led the women in song. (Exodus 15:20,21) There may be other examples, but I'm not prepared to try to locate them at this time, so I'll stop with these two that came immediately to mind.

And once again, this is a great discussion!

__________________

G. N. Barkman

Alex Guggenheim
Alex Guggenheim's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 1095
Ignoring the gross problems

Ignoring the gross problems associated with the hermeneutic of such an approach and the reality that the gift of prophecy and its accompanying office of NT Prophet no longer is in operation, remember, the musical instruments were not the source of the prophecy in the OT cases you cited, the words were.

When spiritual communication events or spiritual communication contexts are present in Scripture, issues such as music, just like pages for script, are means or mechanisms for communicating the truth but are not the gift itself . This is like saying a voice box (larynx) is a spiritual gift because from it or with it we speak doctrinal truth.

Spiritual communication gifts are manifest in and with words. Whether we are being communicating to or through script, Morse code, talking or singing and so on, is not the issue, those attendant mechanisms are not the gift itself, rather they transmit the product of the gift, namely the words and thoughts being communicated.

__________________

My blog:

http://thepedestrianchristian.blogspot.com/

Greg Long
Greg Long's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 518
Alex Guggenheim
Alex Guggenheim wrote:

Ignoring the gross problems associated with the hermeneutic of such an approach and the reality that the gift of prophecy and its accompanying office of NT Prophet no longer is in operation, remember, the musical instruments were not the source of the prophecy in the OT cases you cited, the words were.

When spiritual communication events or spiritual communication contexts are present in Scripture, issues such as music, just like pages for script, are means or mechanisms for communicating the truth but are not the gift itself . This is like saying a voice box (larynx) is a spiritual gift because from it or with it we speak doctrinal truth.

Spiritual communication gifts are manifest in and with words. Whether we are being communicating to or through script, Morse code, talking or singing and so on, is not the issue, those attendant mechanisms are not the gift itself, rather they transmit the product of the gift, namely the words and thoughts being communicated.

Using your logic, teaching is not a spiritual gift because teaching is just a means or mechanism for communicating the truth.

It appears we will agree to disagree concerning 1 Cor. 14:26. Thank you for your opinion and interaction.

__________________

Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

Alex Guggenheim
Alex Guggenheim's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 1095
Greg Long wrote: [ Using your
Greg Long wrote:

Using your logic, teaching is not a spiritual gift because teaching is just a means or mechanism for communicating the truth.

Using my logic, which I did on my own arguments earlier, it is the use of the means or method of transmission and the attendant aids such as pencils, pens, a keyboard, the larynx and so on that would be in view when we determine which part of the event is not the spiritual gifting.

In the event of teaching, it is the teaching itself, the communication of the words, thoughts and concepts that is a manifestation of the gift. When one uses their larynx (and some people do have exceptional capacities to use their larynx and sustain audience interest through such) clearly the use of the larynx, whether exceptional or not, is not the spiritual gift though it does transmit the words used in the exercise of the spiritual gift of teaching. These distinctions are quite critical.

If one writes doctrine in a book the capacity to operate mechanisms such as a keyboard, pencil, paper, printing press or any other attending printing mechanism are not spiritual gifts. The spiritual gift of teaching in this case is, again, manifested in the organization and scripted utterance of the words, not the means by which it is done.

And so it is true with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. It is clear from Colossians that the purpose of such events is to communicate doctrine. And in order to sing a song one must have a melody to accompany the doctrinal composition. So just as one must have paper and pencil to write one must have a melody to sing. The ability to manipulate a pencil and paper so that one may write nor the production of a melody are manifestations of a spiritual gift, it is the doctrinal composition which contains the Word of God and functions to instruct and admonish one another that is a manifestation of the spiritual gift of teaching.

Music carries doctrine in melody. The melody, its composition and any attending instruments/aids are simply mechanisms to carry the true source of edification, namely the words composed by the one with the spiritual communication gift.

__________________

My blog:

http://thepedestrianchristian.blogspot.com/

G. N. Barkman
Offline
User
Joined: Fri, Jan 8 2010
Posts: 212
Spiritua Gifts

Alex,

You are quite convincing. Thanks for your input.

Cordially,
Greg Barkman

__________________

G. N. Barkman

Alex Guggenheim
Alex Guggenheim's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 1095
P.S. There is another

P.S. There is another minority translation of Colossians 3:16 (Clarke):

Quote:

Let the doctrine of Christ dwell richly among you; teaching and admonishing each other in all wisdom; singing with grace in your hearts unto the Lord, in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs.

Which actually might be superior but would still not negate the doctrinal context of the instruction.

__________________

My blog:

http://thepedestrianchristian.blogspot.com/

Ed Vasicek
Ed Vasicek's picture
Online
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 876
G. N. Barkman wrote: Could
G. N. Barkman wrote:

Could musical gifts be included within the gift of prophecy? When King Saul prophecied, he did so with a group of prophets who "prophecied" with musical instruments. (I Samuel 10:3-11) There is a similar situation with Miriam, the prophetess, sister of Aaron, who led the women in song. (Exodus 15:20,21) There may be other examples, but I'm not prepared to try to locate them at this time, so I'll stop with these two that came immediately to mind.

And once again, this is a great discussion!

I think so!

__________________

"The Midrash Detective"

Ted Bigelow
Ted Bigelow's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 506
Anuther thought on "psalm" as gift - as part of "tongues" gift

Hi brothers,

Kindly entertain for a moment the "psalm" referred to in 1 Cor. 14:26 an expression of the tongues gift.

It was an incredibly powerful gift. The gift of tongues could even be sung in worship (1 Cor. 14:15).

This helps us see how amazing the gift of tongues was as an instrument of worship between the Christian and our glorious God. If teaching, he could speak in tongues so long as a translator was present. If sad, the Christian could pray privately, or publicly, in tongues.

And if joyful, he could sing privately or publicly in tongues. I would imagine that even the song sung by the tongues-singer was from the Lord, since the mind of the tongues-speaker couldn’t know the content of the tongues-message. His mind was “unfruitful” because he couldn’t know the revelation with a translator (1 Cor. 14:14), but that didn’t hinder Paul from offering himself as an example of practicing such tongues-singing.

From here, I would only add that all the actions of 1 Cor. 14:26 were connected to the gift of tongues. I've got a 3 part article in to Aaron from last year on this topic should he ever want to risk us diving back into the troublous doctrine of tongues again!

Here's the activities of 1 Cor. 14:26 and their prior connection in the context:

1) Psalm - connected to 1 Cor. 14:15, an act of "singing praise with my spirit;"

2) teaching - to 1 Cor. 14:6, an act of instruction;

3) revelation - to 1 Cor. 14:6, an act of supernatural revelation;

4) tongue - to 1 Cor. 14:2 and others - the supernatural act of speaking in an unknown human language to God, and any others who may know that language;

5) interpretation - 1 Cor. 14:5, 13 - the supernatural ability to interpret the tongue of another, which is prayed for by the tongues-speaker, and so is connected to the original tongues-utterance.

Alex Guggenheim
Alex Guggenheim's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 1095
Good observation, it could

Good observation, it could have been the expression of any communication gift at that time since tongues and other revelatory communication gifts were operative when Paul wrote this.

__________________

My blog:

http://thepedestrianchristian.blogspot.com/