How a Worship Format is Destroying the Evangelical Church
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”
- 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.
- 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.
- 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 Bio
Ed Vasicek was raised as a Roman Catholic but, during high school, Cicero (IL) 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 and served as pastor for many years at Highland Park Church, where he is now pastor emeritus. Ed and his wife, Marylu, have two adult children. Ed has published over 1,000 columns for the opinion page of the Kokomo Tribune, published articles in Pulpit Helps magazine, and posted many papers which are available at edvasicek.com. Ed has also published the The Midrash Key and The Amazing Doctrines of Paul As Midrash: The Jewish Roots and Old Testament Sources for Paul's Teachings.
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 ;) 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
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
@ Susan R,
Are the lists of spiritual gifts exhaustive or representative?
Are the lists of spiritual gifts exhaustive or representative?
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] 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"
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.
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.
[KevinM]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.[Aaron Blumer] 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!]
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.)
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
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?
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?
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Aaron Blumer] 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!
[CPHurst] 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.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.
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.
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
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"
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!
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:
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.
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
[Greg Long] 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: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.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.
"The Midrash Detective"
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.
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] 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.
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.
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..
[Rob Fall] 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.
[Greg Long] 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:Issues with respect to music and its connection to spiritual gifts: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.
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.
Alex wrote:
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.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!
On this, arguing from silence is no valid argument.
"The Midrash Detective"
[KevinM]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.[Rob Fall] 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.
Hoping to shed more light than heat..
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.
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.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
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?
[KevinM] 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"
[Ed Vasicek] Alex wrote:I completely agree.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.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.
On this, arguing from silence is no valid argument.
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.
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
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
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
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.
[KevinM] 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..
[Greg Long]You have an incredibly steep hill to climb, if not infinite, to meet the standards of Scripture in adding to the identified gifts.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
I may say dogmatically what spiritual gifts and offices with accompanied gifts, are identified through the revelation of Scripture.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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
[gdwightlarson] 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..
[Greg Long] 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] 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.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.
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?
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] 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] 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] 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.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.
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.
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!
And once again, this is a great discussion!
G. N. Barkman
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.
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.
[Alex Guggenheim] 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.Using your logic, teaching is not a spiritual gift because teaching is just a means or mechanism for communicating the truth.
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.
It appears we will agree to disagree concerning 1 Cor. 14:26. Thank you for your opinion and interaction.
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
[Greg Long]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.
Using your logic, teaching is not a spiritual gift because teaching is just a means or mechanism for communicating the truth.
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.
Alex,
You are quite convincing. Thanks for your input.
Cordially,
Greg Barkman
You are quite convincing. Thanks for your input.
Cordially,
Greg Barkman
G. N. Barkman
P.S. There is another minority translation of Colossians 3:16 (Clarke):
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.
[G. N. Barkman] 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.I think so!
And once again, this is a great discussion!
"The Midrash Detective"
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.
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.
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.
SOMETIMES the worship format (either traditional or new) is problematic. The inclusion of old standards like “The Welcome Song” (everyone shake hands with your neighbor!) and “The Birthday Song” come to mind. We read the sometimes extensive list of announcements aloud when they are already printed in the bulletin. And SOMETIMES the music gets in the way of worship. Consider that SOMETIMES the music chosen has little or no relationship to the message. SOMETIMES special music is more performance than worship oriented. And SOMETIMES instrumental presentations are merely wonderful music without words (worshiping in the holiness of beauty?).
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
[Ted Bigelow]Well done and these verses demonstrate that singing could be a vehicle for all these things (and probably more). Any thoughts about INSTRUMENTAL music? We know that the Temple was filled with instrumental groups, but what is it that instrumental music does? I think it is particularly in the realm of the tune that some might argue that music is a spiritual gift (the ability to perform it) because it is the dedication and perhaps heightening of a natural talent, much like teaching could be.
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.
"The Midrash Detective"
Ed,
Since this is “your” topic I won’t feel uncomfortable continuing this line of consideration as it relates to the OP so let me respond to your last post with this suggestion.
In the absence of any biblical offering that playing a musical instrument or being involved in the composition or performance of music is a NT spiritual gift, I would emphatically leave off any suggestion that through speculation we might ascertain this as an employable possibility.
But as it relates to spiritual gifts that are identified one might consider those who are involved in the use of musical instruments and such are so by way of the exercise of the service gifts.
As to the nature of spiritual gifts being heightened human talents, while their exercise does involve the medium of human elements, the gifts themselves I do not believe can justly be considered heightened human talents. The are not human but spiritual in essence.
I do believe human talents, though, may be employed and clearly are in our ministries but they should categorically be distinguished from spiritual gifts IMO.
Since this is “your” topic I won’t feel uncomfortable continuing this line of consideration as it relates to the OP so let me respond to your last post with this suggestion.
In the absence of any biblical offering that playing a musical instrument or being involved in the composition or performance of music is a NT spiritual gift, I would emphatically leave off any suggestion that through speculation we might ascertain this as an employable possibility.
But as it relates to spiritual gifts that are identified one might consider those who are involved in the use of musical instruments and such are so by way of the exercise of the service gifts.
As to the nature of spiritual gifts being heightened human talents, while their exercise does involve the medium of human elements, the gifts themselves I do not believe can justly be considered heightened human talents. The are not human but spiritual in essence.
I do believe human talents, though, may be employed and clearly are in our ministries but they should categorically be distinguished from spiritual gifts IMO.
[Ed] 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.I don’t disagree with you about these problems Ed - I was just saying that the identity of the ones with the problem wasn’t documented in your article. It was so broad in scope by saying “evangelical churches” that you could have just said “American Churches.” Who you were talking about was “assumed” so I wanted to ask for specifics as to what sub-groub you were referring.
Beyond that, my confusion was this: if this is an article against the Willow Creek type, etc…I just don’t see how posting this article on SI on the problems within these seeker churches will really accomplish anything but helping all of us who agree with you pat ourselves on the back for doing “worship” right. We can all look at this article and shake our heads at these awful churches that are so horrible while we relish our own ability to format services in a way that puts God’s Word on the pedestal it deserves. As far as I’m aware, displacement of God’s Word (at least in sermon length) hasn’t ever really been something that Fundamentalist churches have been accused of doing. But if the problem is these sermonettes with mainstream evangelicalism, then how is “preaching to the choir” (so to speak) really…well, helpful in solving the problem? I guess I don’t get what you were trying to accomplish in this article, that’s all.
Beyond that, I’m not sure I’m sold (not that you have to feel obligated to convince me) on the root problem that is destroying these churches is really as simplistic as their worship format. I don’t think that in these churches you are describing that if they took two songs out and put ten more minutes of sermon time in then the root problem would go away. Perhaps the root is a bit deeper than this?
Bro. Leavell,
While Willowcreek may be an obvious example, I don’t think this phenomena is limited to seeker churches. I’ve seen the displacement of Scripture happen in what most would consider solid Fundy churches. Sometimes the Word is displaced by the personality of the speaker instead of music. And the music doesn’t have to be CCM to qualify for Bro. Vasicek’s critique. Any time we see ‘results’ from something other than the declaration of sound doctrine, and it is milked for all it’s worth, we’ve displaced the Word.
It’s easy to point out problems with Willowcreek et al, but by keeping this critique vague and NOT naming names, I think it helps us consider ourselves instead of dismissing the idea by saying “He’s talking about those guys over there”.
Sure there’s a root problem- there’s always a root problem. But you still go to the doc with your symptoms in order to get at what ails you.
While Willowcreek may be an obvious example, I don’t think this phenomena is limited to seeker churches. I’ve seen the displacement of Scripture happen in what most would consider solid Fundy churches. Sometimes the Word is displaced by the personality of the speaker instead of music. And the music doesn’t have to be CCM to qualify for Bro. Vasicek’s critique. Any time we see ‘results’ from something other than the declaration of sound doctrine, and it is milked for all it’s worth, we’ve displaced the Word.
It’s easy to point out problems with Willowcreek et al, but by keeping this critique vague and NOT naming names, I think it helps us consider ourselves instead of dismissing the idea by saying “He’s talking about those guys over there”.
Sure there’s a root problem- there’s always a root problem. But you still go to the doc with your symptoms in order to get at what ails you.
Sometimes the problem is “us”.
There are fundamental churches
-where the personality of the preacher dominates
-where pointless, passionless, powerless preaching is endured as long as everything else is working
-where the congregation listens to more music than they sing themselves
-where people would rather be sung to than sing
-where “special” music is the property of the trained professional
-where music, by intention or purpose, becomes performance.
-
There are fundamental churches
-where the personality of the preacher dominates
-where pointless, passionless, powerless preaching is endured as long as everything else is working
-where the congregation listens to more music than they sing themselves
-where people would rather be sung to than sing
-where “special” music is the property of the trained professional
-where music, by intention or purpose, becomes performance.
-
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
Joseph wrote:
My main concern is for churches (and institutions) that used to emphasize the Word and have transitioned to emphasizing music (the type of music is irrelevant to me) and justify their change by prioritizing what they call worship over God’s Word. Perhaps that is not a problem in your area? Have you not seen it?
Joseph wrote:
As far as writing this article, it was not originally intended for SI. I wrote it for a website years ago. But that does not mean that some SI participants do not need to be concerned…. this mentality of making worship [music] the sovereign over a church service can sneak into the best churches.
Joseph Said:
Joseph, you and I apparently are coming from different directions, yet I wonder if you are making assumptions that are not valid (although, in essence, you seem to feel that way about my comments :) ). God bless you, Ed
Beyond that, my confusion was this: if this is an article against the Willow Creek type, etc…I just don’t see how posting this article on SI on the problems within these seeker churches will really accomplish anything but helping all of us who agree with you pat ourselves on the back for doing “worship” right. We can all look at this article and shake our heads at these awful churches that are so horrible while we relish our own ability to format services in a way that puts God’s Word on the pedestal it deserves.This article is not against Willow Creek type churches alone. You asked for an example, I tried to give you some that you would know. I could name several churches in my town that used to be more Bible-oriented but have gone this way, as well as other churches in other locals. I could mention articles in sources like Worship magazine or church worship seminars, radio interviews, etc., etc., etc. The problem is so common that you can probably name examples in your own area. A lot of “worship war” splits are not only about the style of music, but also the priority of music. There are TOO many examples.
My main concern is for churches (and institutions) that used to emphasize the Word and have transitioned to emphasizing music (the type of music is irrelevant to me) and justify their change by prioritizing what they call worship over God’s Word. Perhaps that is not a problem in your area? Have you not seen it?
Joseph wrote:
I just don’t see how posting this article on SI on the problems within these seeker churches will really accomplish anythingNo, this is not primarily about Seeker Sensitives, as I mentioned above. This is about churches I could (but will not name) in my town and in other areas where I have good Christian friends. This is about friends I have known for decades whose churches have changed not just in style of music, but the sermons have moved from exposition to short, topical, self-help ones using Bible verses but not really digging into texts. I myself enjoy contemporary music and choruses if they have solid lyrics (our church uses them and I pushed for them over 25 years ago). It is the displacement I am talking about.
As far as writing this article, it was not originally intended for SI. I wrote it for a website years ago. But that does not mean that some SI participants do not need to be concerned…. this mentality of making worship [music] the sovereign over a church service can sneak into the best churches.
Joseph Said:
We can all look at this article and shake our heads at these awful churches that are so horrible while we relish our own ability to format services in a way that puts God’s Word on the pedestal it deserves.The way you have worded this for some reason makes me think the above is somehow different from what I have been saying. I cannot defend what I essentially wrote! I think you have me pegged wrong, brother. This is not a tirade against contemporary music or change (I love variety), but against displacing the Word, perhaps with good things.
But if the problem is these sermonettes with mainstream evangelicalism, then how is “preaching to the choir”We live in different worlds. Mainstream churches have been away from the Word since my grandparents were young. I have no interest there. The problem is in evangelical Bible colleges, etc., but more so in evangelical (as opposed to fundamental) ones. I know students at Moody, for example, who are being taught what I am trying to refute. I would hate to think what Wheaton teaches.
Joseph, you and I apparently are coming from different directions, yet I wonder if you are making assumptions that are not valid (although, in essence, you seem to feel that way about my comments :) ). God bless you, Ed
"The Midrash Detective"
Oops, Joseph, I read “mainline” where you had written “mainstream.” Sorry about that.
My corrected comment would be that this applies to many conservative evangelicals (or Joel’s “Type C” fundamentalist, which is what I am). All I know is that there are some people on SI slightly to my left, and this problems applies to people where I am at. Perhaps you are more to the right and thus not involved with churches that have the type of problem I am writing about?
I would add more to your comment:
Both used the Word a little, but illustrations, pleas, and stories are the main in both groups, although the Word was a little more predominant in the Sword of the Lord approach.
Let me add more to an already lengthy discussion:
Some of us used to advocate, “the church gathers for edification and scatters for evangelism.” Of course, that was the theory. Sadly, the word “edification” has pretty much dropped out of approaches toward doing church, but it is the word edification that is clearly used in the epistles to describe church meetings, whereas the Word worship is rarely, if ever, used in conjunction with church meetings (for example, an unbeliever falls down in worship when all prophesy. Other worship verses seem to apply mainly to the individual “those who worship is spirit and truth,” although we can suggest a corporate worship by way of application.
Challenge: If you have a KJV or NASB concordance, look up the word worship and see how many times it is applied when describing a church MEETING (or in the epistles in general). Contrast that with the word “edify” or “edification.” Do our modern discussions put the emphasis in the same place?
My corrected comment would be that this applies to many conservative evangelicals (or Joel’s “Type C” fundamentalist, which is what I am). All I know is that there are some people on SI slightly to my left, and this problems applies to people where I am at. Perhaps you are more to the right and thus not involved with churches that have the type of problem I am writing about?
I would add more to your comment:
We can all look at this article and shake our heads at these awful churches that are so horrible while we relish our own ability to format services in a way that puts God’s Word on the pedestal it deserves.I always have been equally opposed to the old Sword of the Lord mentality that every sermon should be evangelisitic. To me, the Seeker Sensitive approach and the [every single week] harvest approach to Sunday morning were really the same thing done in two different ways. The topics may have differed, but the depth level of digging into the Word was superficial in both methods.
Both used the Word a little, but illustrations, pleas, and stories are the main in both groups, although the Word was a little more predominant in the Sword of the Lord approach.
Let me add more to an already lengthy discussion:
Some of us used to advocate, “the church gathers for edification and scatters for evangelism.” Of course, that was the theory. Sadly, the word “edification” has pretty much dropped out of approaches toward doing church, but it is the word edification that is clearly used in the epistles to describe church meetings, whereas the Word worship is rarely, if ever, used in conjunction with church meetings (for example, an unbeliever falls down in worship when all prophesy. Other worship verses seem to apply mainly to the individual “those who worship is spirit and truth,” although we can suggest a corporate worship by way of application.
Challenge: If you have a KJV or NASB concordance, look up the word worship and see how many times it is applied when describing a church MEETING (or in the epistles in general). Contrast that with the word “edify” or “edification.” Do our modern discussions put the emphasis in the same place?
"The Midrash Detective"
Ed, FWIW, I don’t think there’s any need to be very particular about what churches you mean because the article is not about the churches so much as about the shift in thinking to “worship = something I feel generated by music.” (You’ve probably already made that point in there somewhere so… just saying I agree). This shift is evident all over the place… I’ve seen signs of it in blogs, books, concerts, services I’ve attended, conversations of believers, on and on it goes. Signs of it are almost everywhere, including a few fairly “traditional” fundamentalist churches I’ve been in.
I’m not sure I get what the problem is with “corporate worship.” To me, it clearly means the same thing as “gathered worship.” I only prefer “gathered” because the other sounds like IBM, GM, BP and Proctor and Gamble getting together to sing psalms. :D (Or maybe a bunch of stock brokers bowing down before Piper Jaffray)
[KevinM] 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.I don’t think the text needs the word “worship” when it is describing all of the activities of worship. Definition stands in for the term in many places in the NT. Several have already been mentioned.
I’m not sure I get what the problem is with “corporate worship.” To me, it clearly means the same thing as “gathered worship.” I only prefer “gathered” because the other sounds like IBM, GM, BP and Proctor and Gamble getting together to sing psalms. :D (Or maybe a bunch of stock brokers bowing down before Piper Jaffray)
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
My apologies if I’ve come across too strong. My intent was not to be critical but to obtain answers to the questions, “who is this directed towards?” and, “how is this article helpful?”
Kind of akin to me writing an article on a conservative website called “Liberalism isn’t Cool!” Well ya’, but how would stating that on a Republican web-site help those who are liberal see that as a problem? Yeah, all us conservatives can say how terrible it is and pat ourselves on the back for not being liberal, but it does nothing to help overcome the problem or convince those who are liberal that they need to change. That’s kind of how I took it. If I took it wrong, I apologize.
By the way, I agree with what you’ve said about worship. Interestingly, some of the churches that I’ve been to who would be classified as “music orientated” have roughly 45 minutes of music…but then have an hour long sermon. One example that I listen to podcasts by is Louie Giglio. His church really “rocks out” so to speak - with Tomlin, Redman, etc. for quite some time, but then he preaches for a solid hour! Interestingly, he’s the one who said about worship that we “go worshipping to church, not going to church to worship.” You’re right that when we think about worship the mind gravitates towards music, but that is only a blip on the radar in what worship really is. We’re always worshipping something - whatever is on the throne of our hearts. I’ve also seen some churches change the name of their “service” from a “worship service” to a “church gathering.” I thought that was kinda cool.
Ed, you and I probably agree on a lot of things! I probably just got a really bad impression from our small exchanges here - as you probably have a bad impression of me. I’ve seen us (fundamentalists) define ourselves by the negative - I saw this article as one more negative “shot” against those who do it wrong instead of an edifying article on how to place the priority of worship back on Christ and His Word. If I’m wrong about that, I apologize.
[Ed] This article is not against Willow Creek type churches alone. You asked for an example, I tried to give you some that you would know.I originally asked if the article was directed towards conservative evangelicals, fundamentalists, new evangelicals, across the whole spectrum of evangelicals, etc. The answer that you gave me were “the most obvious” from Willow types, seeker, emerging, etc. The answer that I was given was not that this is a problem that can creep into any church if one is not guarded, so I hope you can see why my reply was centered in wondering how a “shot” against Willow types was helpful in this format. It’s very easy to point out problems in others…I remember someone once saying “it’s a cheap gift to be able to point out problems in others.” If your assertion is that this is a widespread problem, then ya’, I totally agree. I’m not “sheltered” in that I’ve never seen what you’re talking about. I already stated that I agree that there is a widespread problem of churches displacing God’s Word for something else (music is only one example - though the most culturally popular right now).
[Ed] The way you have worded this for some reason makes me think the above is somehow different from what I have been saying. I cannot defend what I essentially wrote! I think you have me pegged wrong, brother. This is not a tirade against contemporary music or change (I love variety), but against displacing the Word, perhaps with good things.Personally, I didn’t take your article as any type of attack on CCM, or any particular “style” of worship (for which I’m thankful). My concern (apparently wrong?) was that this was an “us vs. them” type article - one that is faithful in pointing out the problems of those “other” churches. You may be right - but what would be the point in taking shots at other churches? When you directed the problem to the Willow types, etc. (an obvious example) instead of stating that the problem is found in our types as well, it appeared to me as a shot against an easy target and I was left wondering how that’s helpful.
Kind of akin to me writing an article on a conservative website called “Liberalism isn’t Cool!” Well ya’, but how would stating that on a Republican web-site help those who are liberal see that as a problem? Yeah, all us conservatives can say how terrible it is and pat ourselves on the back for not being liberal, but it does nothing to help overcome the problem or convince those who are liberal that they need to change. That’s kind of how I took it. If I took it wrong, I apologize.
[Ed] Perhaps you are more to the right and thus not involved with churches that have the type of problem I am writing about?No, I think you could classify me as a type “D” fundamentalist. LOL :-)
By the way, I agree with what you’ve said about worship. Interestingly, some of the churches that I’ve been to who would be classified as “music orientated” have roughly 45 minutes of music…but then have an hour long sermon. One example that I listen to podcasts by is Louie Giglio. His church really “rocks out” so to speak - with Tomlin, Redman, etc. for quite some time, but then he preaches for a solid hour! Interestingly, he’s the one who said about worship that we “go worshipping to church, not going to church to worship.” You’re right that when we think about worship the mind gravitates towards music, but that is only a blip on the radar in what worship really is. We’re always worshipping something - whatever is on the throne of our hearts. I’ve also seen some churches change the name of their “service” from a “worship service” to a “church gathering.” I thought that was kinda cool.
Ed, you and I probably agree on a lot of things! I probably just got a really bad impression from our small exchanges here - as you probably have a bad impression of me. I’ve seen us (fundamentalists) define ourselves by the negative - I saw this article as one more negative “shot” against those who do it wrong instead of an edifying article on how to place the priority of worship back on Christ and His Word. If I’m wrong about that, I apologize.
Discussion