Christian music and other sins
Recently I told my wife we ought to call a lot of them “me’s,” not “hymns.” I suppose I’m getting more curmudgeonly, such that I cringe upon hearing a congregation warble what sounds dandy when crooned by an individual over the airwaves, but seems corny and too “me-and-Jesus” for corporate worship. My Savior does indeed love, and live, and He is always there for me, but now that I am here with all my brothers and sisters, couldn’t we see our way clear to sing a song that has a little more reverence or community or—God forbid—theology? Perhaps what I’m really seeking is less individuality in an American Church that has been overrun with it.
By way of hip Christian bona fides, one of my favorite albums is Strong Tower, by Kutless, in part because they take “Word of God Speak” and run an electric backbone through it. Likewise for Redemption Songs, by Jars of Clay, whose rendition of “I Need Thee Every Hour” can, trust me, bring a grown man to tears. And, of course, I dig Sufjan Stevens, rendering me a better Christian in a few circles and suspect in most of the rest. So I’m not old-fashioned about music by any means.
But I am getting pickier. I say this with reticence, because I despise Christian Gotcha, which involves jumping all over someone who refers to the Book of Revelations when good Christians know it’s Revelation, or looking down on someone’s New International Version of the Bible because committed Christians use the King James or the New American Standard, or seizing on his comment about happenstance in order to lecture him about how all things have been foreordained by God. Yet what is one to do with lyrics like this, from a song that is at the time of this writing, No. 3 on the Christian charts?
The singer is talking to God, I suppose, though she equally well could be addressing her grandfather. I admit I’m intolerant of clumsy wording; to this day I can’t hear Casting Crowns’ “Voice of Truth” without muttering to myself, “‘Step out of my comfort zone’? You couldn’t spend another five minutes to find a lyric that isn’t one of the worst clichés of the 1990s?”
I know I put too high a bar on words, but still, this up-on-God’s shoulders business reminds me of physicist Wolfgang Pauli’s famous comment about a colleague’s inept paper: “This isn’t right. This isn’t even wrong.” There are a lot of things that the Christian walk entails, but I don’t think freedom to be me is one of them. I don’t even think a halfway decent grandfather lets you get away with that.
Then again, maybe I’m being uncharitable. Maybe what the singer means is that God frees us from the sin that destroys what we were intended to be before the Fall. And maybe the up-on-God’s shoulders part isn’t intended to supplant the down-on-our-knees part that is how some Christians still think about approaching Almighty God. A teenager well versed in Christian dogma, then, shouldn’t find this song a stumbling block. But what of the narrow handful who—through no faults of our own, of course—haven’t quite internalized what they need to know about the faith they claim as their own?
This is why, as you can see, I am unable to listen to the radio without getting into an argument with it. Perhaps the solution is for me to stick to instrumental music and indie songs with imponderable lyrics. I don’t quite understand what Sam Beam means when he sings, “The creek drank the cradle you sang to,” but I’m pretty sure it isn’t heresy, no matter how you slice it. However, I can’t say the same for some of the songs played on Christian radio stations, which is ironic.

















Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top208 Comments to “Christian music and other sins”
I cringe, too, if I listen too closely to some songs. I have cynically concluded–and I’m confessing the cynicism–that it has to do with a paucity of rhyming words in the English language . . .
Over where I work, I can’t tell you how many picture book submissions we get where people assume if they can rhyme a word, they can write a poem or a children’s book. And all those proud people who announce they didn’t study English but can write anyway, don’t realize what they’re saying to me. True, they can write words and stories; but many have no concept of meter or syntax or scansion.
But hey, that’s one of the reasons I listen to classical music! I can’t tell if Bach’s or Handel’s words rhyme or not. (Though why would they if they were originally written in German?!)
Report comment to moderator
Dude, awesome post! And I’m not just saying that because I never thought I’d see Sam Beam or Sufjan Stevens get mentioned on worldmagblog.
I really like the RUF movement trying to set old hymns to new music (out of which Redemption Songs was birthed) and I try my hardest to get a lot of those songs out to my friends and the groups that I play with.
I shudder, too, to sing songs that talk more about me and myself and my feelings and what I’m gonna do for Jesus. I suspect that every day and age has had its share of clunky, terrible, me-centered songs, but ours celebrates them more than others. The need for greater depth and less individuality is clear.
Yet I have faith in the power of God’s community to discern over time what is good and what isn’t and reject the music that is bad eventually. We’ve weeded out the terrible songs before and we’ll do it again, but we certainly have to care. I think a good rule of thumb is to sing one or two songs written in the last 10 years, one or two from 10-50 years ago, one or two from 50-150 years ago, and one from 150+ years ago. That should balance out your church service pretty well.
And my recent experience with church has reminded me that there is the rich African-American tradition of hymns and songs that are very God-centered (but not very complicated), and I love going to a church that draws from this tradition.
Finally, I think I know pretty well what Beam means when he says that “the creek drank the cradle you sang to,” but I won’t spoil it on here if you don’t want me to.
Report comment to moderator
OK, the last paragraph made me laugh out loud. But Tony, you are being a curmudgeon. “My Savior love, My Savior lives . . . ” is added onto that great hymn, “I am not skilled.” Is there an I there? “Great is Thy faithfullnes, Lord unto ME.” “And can it be that I should gain . . .?” “Oh Lord MY God, when I in awesome wonder . . .” or here’s a good one “I stand amazed at the love Jesus offers ME, confused at the grace that so fully He proffers ME.”
Calling something a hymn does not make it more sacred or less indivdualistic that what’s out there now. It’s just that we collect in hymnals the best of an era. The 1800s had a lot of insipid little songs. Sheesh, have you read any of the lesser hymns of Wesley or Watts? We pull out their greatest hits and then make that the standard. Not fair, that!
We could, like the Plymoth Brethren, change all the first person pronouns to third person to make it more congregational. Or better yet, we word people can put up or shut up. If we don’t like what’s out there, write better!
Report comment to moderator
Thank you Tony,
And I appreciate the first couple of posts. As a pastor and a worship leader for over 25 years, it has pained me to see the level of self-centerness and laziness building in the worship community. Sloppy music and lyrics passed off as “spirit-led” spontaneous worship. It is often difficult to deal with a person coming up to you asking to sing the latest release from their favorite artist, and having to sit down with them and show them the theological mush or compromise contained in what may be a beatiful chorus.
Report comment to moderator
Good point Adios,
I hadn’t seen your post when I made mine. I especially like the closing challenge.
Report comment to moderator
This post reminded me of this song:
Easy Listening by Steve Taylor
Gather-me-grandchildren if you love a good mystery
Gather-me-grandchildren for a little church history
It’s 2044
You’re avoiding our turn-of-the-century ways
How did we strike it rich?
Kissing up to the powerful
How did we make our pitch?
Satellites by the towerful
Why do you young people have to go and get caught up in a radical phase?
My conscience was clear and my wallet was full
I didn’t hear none of this “sacrifice” bull
Tough times call for a backtrack
Gimme that old-time easy listening
Cuddle up, yeah, yeah
12 hours, twice a day
Cuddle up, yeah, yeah
Simmer down
Attaway
Color me old-fashioned, but I still remember when
The sermons were affirming, ’cause the Lord liked us better then
It’s 2044
And I don’t want to be my brother’s keeper no more
Color me chicken yellow if I liked it in the ozone
Call me lemon jello if I lacked a little backbone
We’re King’s Kids, dang it
And we used to know what a housekeeper was for
Tickle my ear and I’ll pay for your show
Sing about stuff that I already know
Whisper sweet nothings
Pour a nightcap
Gimme that old-time easy listening
Cuddle up, yeah, yeah
12 hours, twice a day
Cuddle up, yeah, yeah
Simmer down
Attaway
Cuddle up, yeah, yeah
Order now, don’t delay
Cuddle up, yeah, yeah
Sleep it off
Drool away
Gather-me-round children, ’cause your faith is a mystery
Gather me grandchildren for a little church history
It’s 2044
And I miss our turn-of-the-century ways
How did we strike it rich?
Kissing up to the powerful
How did we make our pitch?
Satellites by the towerful
Why do you young hotheads have to go and get caught up in a radical phase?
I’m ok, you’re ok, we’re ok, so
I think I’m gonna buy my own radio show
Spread the good news and the Barry Manilow
Happy talk, no rock, non-stop easy listening
Report comment to moderator
Adios is exactly right. There are some really terrible worship songs. There always have been. Some awful ones have, inexplicably, stood the test of time. “In My Heart There Rings a Melody,” anyone? But, the bad ones tend to get weeded out eventually.
I don’t mean to get uppity here, but complaining about the vapidity of contemporary lyrics is just as cliche as the lyrics themselves.
Report comment to moderator
I haven’t listened to “Christian” music (really, Christian is a noun, not an adjective) since Rich Mullins and Mark Heard. I am sure there are great artists now, but I don’t have time to wade through the Kinkade…
I do like the RUF hymns, and use them often when I lead, especially “Let us Love and Sing and Wonder”, with this awesome line:
“When through grace in Christ our trust is/Justice smiles and asks no more”
As for the challenge to write some, I’d like to try…
SteveG – Is Steve Taylor still around?
Report comment to moderator
As for the “me”-centeredness of contemporary songs and hymns, here’s a fun exercise: Go to Biblegateway.com and do a keyword search in the Psalms for the word “me.” God, in His original hymnal, doesn’t seem to mind the composer referencing himself now and then.
Report comment to moderator
Mountineer: The last thing I knew of Steve to be doing was producing and directing the movie “The Second Chance.” It was pretty good, in a movie-of-the-week kind of way.
Ive heard he contemplates a return to music, but I’m not aware of any firm plans or specific project. I think his time owning his own label may have soured him on the business, but it’s a shame if so, because he is really good.
I like the late Rich Mullins and Mark Heard too.
Report comment to moderator
Here’s among the worst of the worst:
Holiness, holiness, is what I long for
Holiness, holiness, is what I need
Holiness, holiness, is what you want from me
I thought that it was holiness that I lack, and that all I have to give to God is my sin. Holiness is what I need, but it is what God gives to me in Christ, not what I need to give back to him.
Me me me me me
Report comment to moderator
I know what you mean about the “Me” songs:
He walks with ME
And he talks with ME
And he tells ME I am his own
And the joy we share
As we tarry there,
None other has ever known.
Oh, never mind. That was a hymn…
…Written in 1912.
Guess the issue’s been around a lot longer than “contemporary” worship.
Report comment to moderator
Interesting you mention that song, Tom G. When I was a girl, long ago, my mother explained that she didn’t care for it because it focused on “me” rather than on God – a “me and Jesus” song, not a worship song, as hymns are generally considered to be.
As the Psalms do show, Stubob, we often very naturally pray and cry and sing and worship and just generally relate to God in the first person. But we also come and worship as part of a Body, a community, and our more public music should also reflect that, I think. By the way, just like Tony, Redemption Songs is a favorite of mine. Jars of Clay presents old hymns in contemporary settings, and the result is powerful.
If anyone’s interested (Tony?), the February issue of Christianity Today has an essay by John G. Stackhouse Jr. titled “Memo to Worship Bands”. It contains his own “curmudgeonly” thoughts on worship music!
Report comment to moderator
Okay, enough of the “me” attacks.
I think the point Tony, and others concerned about the current state of contemporary worship,(including myself), is not the use of the word Me; whether in hymns, choruses, or Psalms. It is the innate focus on my wants, my interests, my hopes/plans rather than on serving the will of God. Come on, I would have hoped that Tony’s point was obvious. The word “Me” is not the point; a seeking after mine rather than God’s is.
Report comment to moderator
I have bigger problems with “In the Garden” than the me-centeredness.
The hymns that mention us as humans often do it best when we are the objects of the sentence, not the subject. Many of the lines Adios mentions fit this. “Great is thy faithfulness, Lord, unto me” focuses on His faithfulness. Our benefit from that is secondary, imho.
Report comment to moderator
I wonder if the PK and other weepy men’s groups are still singing “Let Him kiss me with the kisses of His Mouth.”
Report comment to moderator
Well, I do too, Cameron, but I didn’t want to go too far off track…. And I hesitate to be critical because there have been times when, after I thoroughly and convincingly point out the weaknesses and flaws in something or other, it turns out to have been a huge, great, life-changing blessing to someone else.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t think you can “put too high a bar on words.”
Report comment to moderator
Wasn’t it the Apostle Paul who said, “…who loved me and gave Himself for ME”?
If we have any kind of real relationship with Jesus that aspect should, and will, come out in your songs. I think what many Christians are getting tired of is music that seems to be so much about us, and so little about Him.
My belief is that our music is simply mirroring the condition of the church today.
Report comment to moderator
When it comes to music, Christians will rarely agree.
Col 3:16 says, “sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs with gratitude in your hearts to God”
Well, psalms went out over a century ago, then hymns went out and now all that is left are spiritual songs. Why can’t we have all three? Traditionalists grumble. Modernists grumble. There’s lots of grumbling.
New music has always had a slow adoption by the church. The term ‘acapella’ literally means ‘chapel style’, since churches at one point banned instruments it came to take on the meaning ‘without instruments’.
The recurring theme in churches for years was that only old songs would do. For the modern church new ones are given priority. Which is right? Both! Neither!
Music in church should be about congregational worship. So then congregational singing makes the most sense. Sitting there listening to a professional band is not really much different than listening to the radio.
I would like to see a return to congregational acapella singing. I would like to see more scriptural content.
Most of the worship music I listen to on my own is from the Middle East. There is usually plenty of scripture and the Middle Eastern flavor makes me think of Yeshua (Jesus). While I disagree with the legalism of Messianic congregations, I tend to love their music!
Report comment to moderator
Hmmmm… bad music might be inevitable. The Bible says “sing to the Lord a new song”, and I think a lot of people consider that, in an effort to produce new songs, they have carte blanche to become songwriters, regardless of talent.
Report comment to moderator
John, maybe it says to sing a new song because so many of the old ones are so bad
Report comment to moderator
I thought that a “me” song was considered “gospel” and a song directly focused on God alone was called a “hymn”
I have no problem with the Amazing Grace’s of the christian music variety. They can still be theological and corporate, even while using “me”.
However, I do agree with what Tony is getting at. The majority of mainstream music, whether christian or secular, is rehashed crap with over used cliche’s and phrases.
I wish we had more songwriters like those from Jars of Clay, Relient K, Switchfoot, etc.
Jars of Clay, their first album is still the number 1 christian album of last century if you ask me. Phenomenal lyrics with beautifully composed music and honesty. You can even tell how the industry can affect the best of bands though…look at their 3rd album, I left The Zoo….? They are also a prime example of how when a band is brutally honest, not only does the best music come out, but its often not played on a christian station…The Valley Song is such.
Or its like Steven Curtis Chapman having to entitle an album “Dancing with the Dinosaurs”…WHAT THE?
Bands like Relient K and Switchfoot, seem to make it a point to say something in a new way everytime they write. Deathbed by Relient K is probably one of the best songs from 2008.
Anyway, christian music needs to raise the bar higher all around.
I also thought I’d never see someone like SteveG mention Steve Taylor
Nicely done.
Report comment to moderator
I will say this–I used to be a hymn-preference gal. OVer the years, I’ve switched. I still love to sit and flip through the hymnal to read the rich words, yes. And I love to sing my favorites. But what songs are ringing through my head as I’m cleaning my house, playing with my children, fixing dinner, etc. are the very “terrible” worship songs being crushed here. Their simple, yet profound (to me) words and melody are easy to remember. And there is no greater joy than hearing my four year old repeat those songs.
So many people jump on the “No CCM” bandwagon. My own dear husband was one of them. I challenged him to listen to the words of the songs being played for a few days in a row (not all day, of course) and tell me what was wrong with them. He was an EXTREME hymns-only kind of guy. After a couple of days, he had to admit I had a point. In a more “modern” way, perhaps, the words were every bit as rich as our cherished hymns.
I challenge you to look up the words to just about any song by Down Here. My personal favorite is Chris Tomlin. To my knowledge, every single song of his is straight from scripture. What is the problem there?
Report comment to moderator
Momoffour,
I’m the opposite. One day a few years ago I asked myself why I never sang around the house anymore, and I finally realized it’s because the songs we were signing (and repeating ad nauseum) on Sunday were hardly worth singing once, and anytime one of them came into my mind during the week, my inclination was to crush them (like a bad advertising jingle) rather than sing them. I had to get out my hymnal and find a few of my favorites before I could start singing again. My current church is not yet as bad as my last church, but they’ve made huge jumps in that direction in the last fifteen months or so (and cancelled the beloved monthly hymn sings for “low attendace”–huh? 80% of the congregation on a Sunday night is low attendance”? Not being able to schedule a youht event on hymn-sing night because all the teenagers go to the hymn sing instead is low interest?).
Sometimes I simply have to go through the hymnal and sing, though I end up grieving that the next generation is missing this theology for the chorus-of-the-week, and that we’re even missing blessings like being able to go to another country and sing “Amazing Grace” in two different languages because our words aren’t the same, but our songs are.
Report comment to moderator
Then Cheryl, this is part of the problem as I see it. The simple point for me is, when I sing the songs I mentioned, I know I am worshiping the Lord with my whole heart. You feel the same when you are singing the beautiful hymns. Why is there an argument? I’m tired of people “hinting” to me that I am not spiritual enough b/c I prefer this Godly music over that Godly music. It reeks of arrogance (not you, just the hymn-only movement).
Report comment to moderator
Tony, there should be no surprise that Christian music is not all well worded.
1. Many singers/songwriters/producers are either undiscerning or may not even be believers – just religious do gooders.
2. There is lots of money to be made. Easy to rationalize lyrics unbelievers will like and not be “offended” by so as to sell more.
3. Satan is great with twisting words and meanings. He has lots of apostate believer/musicians following his bidding.
Just wait till you hear the Christian pro-homosexual, pro-choice, sex-anytime is ok – songs out there. May be they are already. Satan is often subtle and gradual. Believers need to help each other not be suckers for it.
Tony, maybe you should investigate a church where the songs you sing are not selected by a hired “leader” or a committee. There is a kind of church where you contribute the songs you sing and you explain to the saints what it is that builds your life from the song. 1 Cor 14 talks about “each one” has a song…, a teaching…” Church gatherings of the pew style usually render this important instruction meaningless. The bad side effects on the household of faith are many and severe.
Report comment to moderator
Tima, how much time have you spent investigating the lives/beliefs/convictions of these “unbelieving” Christian singers? Do you think you’re being just a bit judgmental?
Hey, there certainly are groups out there who are just scrubbed up non-believers. Don’t throw out every CCM singer with the few.
Seriously, if I feel led to pray out loud amongst a group of my fellow sisters in the Lord, and my words are not as grandiouse as perhaps the pastor’s wife’s words would be, is the Lord any less pleased? So, are simpler lyrics really any less worshipful. Give me a break, please.
Report comment to moderator
Tima’s words in post 27 are largely accurate. A lot of these CD’s are put out by Word of Faith folks and the United Pentecostal Church (not to be confused with other Pentecostal churches which are not cultic) a Unitarian cult which teaches the heresy of modalism, speaking in tongues and being baptised in water in the Name of Jesus Only as requirements for salvation. That’s just scratching the surface.
Report comment to moderator
I’m glad in reading the discussion so far to see that most folks’ concern has been more about content than form. I suppose I’m kind of a hymn-oriented guy (and more so as I age) but the mere existence of a drum set and electric guitars on the platform doesn’t trouble me in the least. OTOH, amorphous or poorly-worded lyrics really do trouble me, to the point that I can’t sing along on some verses when our church offers them.
But I also realize that music impacts us not only rationally but emotionally, and that poetic, evocative lyrics can hit two believers in quite different ways.
An example: some folks in my church are truly blessed by the praise standard, “Come, Now Is the Time to Worship,” judging by the gusto with which they sing. Yet I get stuck on this line from the refrain:
Someday every tongue will confess You are God / Someday every knee will bow / Still the greatest treasure remains for those / Who gladly choose You now.
I know it’s taken almost directly from Phil. 2 and other scriptural references. Someday every knee will indeed bow, gladly or otherwise. Yet the final line about gladly choosing relationship with the Lord now makes it sound like all those bowing their knees later will also be doing so gladly – even at the Last Judgment – evoking some sort of universalism. Yuck.
I’m probably the only one for whom this song is thusly ruined. I’m almost sorry to bring it up, not wanting to ruin it for you. However, I think it’s an example of a carelessly-worded lyric that leaves itself open to contrasting interpretations.
Report comment to moderator
RR, whoever wrote that is a mere human after all. Only the Lord could write perfect lyrics to a song. So, should we not attempt to express our love and worship through writing or singing, just b/c it may not be theologically perfect? You might as wellquit praying, quit reading your Bible b/c you might interpret it wrong, quit having theological discussion amongst your brothers and sisters in the Lord, quit witnessing b/c you might be just a bit off in your theology….
Report comment to moderator
Just to give folks an idea of how important lyrics to songs are, many of the Korean Presbyterian Churches (the conservative ones) have been using Methodist hymnals, and over time it has changed their theology from Calvinist to Arminian. This is serious stuff. Is it any wonder evangelicalism (even reformed evangelicalism) is becoming more and more liberal and postmodern? If a Methodist hymnal can change people’s theology, what can many of these sappy, subjective “praise” songs do? Something to seriously consider.
Report comment to moderator
MO4, easy now. While I appreciate the warning about making the perfect the enemy of the good, I think made enough qualification as to how I was describing a personal reaction to a lyric only.
Nobody, certainly not me, is saying don’t even try for fear of falling short. Songwriters should, however, do something like subjecting their new creations to the critiques of mature and discerning fellow believers before trying to get them published. A healthy local church is probably the best place for good new songs to be birthed. Write it, show it, rewrite it, have your music team give it a whirl during a practice, get some more counsel, and so forth.
Report comment to moderator
Bianca, I guess I’m simple minded then. I have no idea what a bunch of the words you just used even mean. That’s an embarassing confession on my part, and maybe I’m excused from this discussion b/c of my stupidity. The lyrics are, without a doubt, the only important part of music. When instruments overshadow the words, that song is definitely out in my opinion. Simply put, however, most songs that I listen to from CCM artists bring ME to the throne of worship. Nuff said, take it for what it’s worth.
I will say one more time, however, that the hymn-only crowd at least PRESENTS itself as arrogant. I can say this first hand b/c 95% of my own church is this way.
Blessings!
Report comment to moderator
Sorry, RR…I said in an earlier post I’ve been a grump all week. I’m dealing with excruciating pain from a bone spur in my foot that I can’t do anything about b/c I don’t have insurance. Didn’t mean to put words in your mouth. Please forgive!
Heading out to a Valentine’s dinner at a local church. As I listen to my Chris Tomlin CD, please pray that I don’t get struck down, or be led into sin!!! 8*)
Report comment to moderator
Report comment to moderator
RR,
When I hear that line (and we sing it fairly often at our church), I hear “gladly choose” first, not just in sequence but in importance, before “now.” So to me it’s saying that those who choose gladly are doing it now. Later they won’t have a choice. It would never have occurred to me to think that the line suggested that there would be gladness for those who do not choose to kneel to Him in this life.
I think there are just some lines that strike some of us a certain way and then it’s hard to hear it any other way. I’m probably the only one who has trouble saying the Apostles Creed without getting a visual image of Jesus sitting on his Father’s hand when we get to the line “and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father almight.”
Report comment to moderator
Bianca,
Are those Korean Presbyterians in Korea or the U.S.? If in the U.S., I would consider the possibility that the Methodist hymnal is only a part of the explanation, and other cultural influences are changing their views. From what I understand of church history, most church traditions in the U.S. have, over time, moved from being Calvinist to being Arminian.
Report comment to moderator
Pauline,
YOU WRITE: “From what I understand of church history, most church traditions in the U.S. have, over time, moved from being Calvinist to being Arminian.”
You are right in part; many people have studied more and have changed their minds when it comes to Eternal Security – understanding that Ephesians and Galatians 5 point to a choice to sin, which doesn’t make those who have labeled themselves Calvinst happy. There are other issues as well.
I believe its best not to wear a label as a Born Again Believer other than “I am a Born Again Believer, I am a Christian” any other label is labeling oneself under mere men rather than the LORD Jesus Christ -
Report comment to moderator
34 – Momoffour, you are NOT simpleminded at all, nor are you stupid!!!
When you say you didn’t understand, are you talking about my posts in 29, 32 or both?
Modalism is a heresy about the Trinity – modalism teaches that sometimes God plays the part of the Father, other times, the Son, and other times the Holy Spirit – like a play. The Bible teaches that there is One God, eternally existent in Three Persons. They believe Jesus is the Father and the Holy Spirit in addition to the Son.
38 – Pauline, I think it is South Korea.
Report comment to moderator
I think that complaining about the use of the word “I” in Christain hymns is a bit of an odd gripe. The way I always veiwed my relationship with God was a “Me and Jesus” perspective. Why should we change the words in hymns so they’re congregational when we don’t have a congregational relationship with Jesus, we have a personal one? Are we saying that songs like “Amaing grace how sweet the sound that saved a wretch like me” and “Take me into teh holy of holies” are too self centered becuase we use the first pronoun when referring to how good God is, how he takes care of us and how he loves us? That just doesn’t make any sense to me. Also those who are saying that Christian music has cliche lyrics and people are just in it for the money, I would challenge you to look at “Newsboys” “Kutless” “Stellar Kart” and “Third Day” these bands have deep lyrics that coem from the bible,or if not straight from it from biblical perspectives and attitudes.
Report comment to moderator
#41 “Why should we change the words in hymns so they’re congregational when we don’t have a congregational relationship with Jesus, we have a personal one?”
I wouldn’t use the word “congregational,” but as I understand the NT, our relationship with Jesus is as a body of many members to our Head. Saying we have a personal relationship with Jesus is to emphasize “personal” as opposed to “impersonal” or “ritualistic” rather than individual vs as part of the communion of saints. That doesn’t mean there’s not an individual personal aspect to it, but as Americans we tend to emphasize that aspect more than we should.
Report comment to moderator
RR: Yet the final line about gladly choosing relationship with the Lord now makes it sound like all those bowing their knees later will also be doing so gladly – even at the Last Judgment – evoking some sort of universalism. Yuck.
Oh yeah, having God’s mercy big enough to eventually save everyone just won’t do.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn: I also thought I’d never see someone like SteveG mention Steve Taylor
Nicely done.
I love Steve Taylor. Also, Randy Stonehill, Rich Mullins, Mark Heard, Lost Dogs and a few others. Regardless of theological agreement or not, they’re real artists and great songwriters.
Report comment to moderator
Only the Lord could write perfect lyrics to a song.
Which is why some churches sing only the Psalms. Works for me. We sing some, but I wish we sang more. No parsing for doctrinal error necessary.
Report comment to moderator
Teenage Tinkerbell, you’ve kind of backed up the point being made–that Christians end up having an individualistic view of salvation, rather than viewing themselves as integrally connected with the church. The older I get, the more I see that the church is essential, not just nice. And since we’re losing most of our teens (your generation) when they get to college, it seems that this failure to bring teens in to be an integral part of the church is more than “mere” semantics–you are an individual believer, but equally (or in some ways even more) important, you are part of the body, and your light will go out if not kept in contact with other parts of the body.
Cameron, no parsing for doctrine necessary in the Psalms? How about the lyric, “Take not Your Holy Spirit from me”?
That was an “Old-Testament Holy Spirit,” who did not indwell the believer at all times, and I don’t sing that line, even though it’s straight from Scripture, because I know that He won’t.
Momoffour (from further up), sorry if the hymns-only crowd seems arrogant. I can tolerate choruses, but if the only choices are “yes or no” to “are you hymns only,” I’d have to answer yes, as being a mostly true representation of my choices. So, from the other side (not being argumentative, just pointing out that there are “two sides” on this one), throw-out-the-hymns people come across as not accepting that there’s a legitimate debate, as though hymns-only people are just being argumentative for saying that the issue is worth discussion. So these days we are sometimes defensive, and we want to discuss how much doctrine matters, how much the hymns teach doctrine to our children (and the choruses rarely do), and even how much more beautiful it is to sing a lovely song the congregation already knows and can sing heartily than to be fumbling through one or more new (mostly mediocre) songs every single service (with most of the rest of the songs being ones we’ve only learned in the last year or two). And how the very transient nature of the new music makes the tunes shallow and unmusical so that they’re easy to learn. And perhaps these aren’t all super important points, but we never get a chance to say them at all, because the “chorus” people who find out one likes hymns shut off all discussion before it starts by the term “music wars.” I truly think some of the arrogance may be defensiveness (and some of the rest of it may be a sense that our position can be “defended,” and obviously the other side cannot be or they wouldn’t refuse to discuss it!).
Report comment to moderator
Less tongue-in-cheek, Cameron, singing only the Psalms means never singing (explicitly) about Jesus, and I personally don’t think that’s a good option for a church on this side of the crucifixion and resurrection. I don’t think I’d want to be part of such a church any more than I’d want to be part of one that sings only choruses…though avoiding the latter seems quite difficult these days! (My church sang mostly hymns when I joined more than five years ago, and the only comments I ever heard on the music, from old and young alike, was the desire to sing more hymns. And then 15 months or so ago, we inexplicably dropped the popular monthly evening hymn sing and started singing mostly choruses. If the change had been made when I was just “trying out” the church and hadn’t yet joined, I might have decided at that point to keep looking, but now I’m committed and can only puzzle and grieve at the change.)
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl D.,
All of Scripture points to Christ. I don’t belong to an exclusive-Psalms denomination, but know many that do. I like a nice balance of theology-based hymns (regardless of the year written) and the Psalms, but that’s one reason we have umpteen denominations. I know at least one denom we’d like to merge with, but this issue prevents it (E-P versus hymnody).
If the line is straight from Scripture, is it wrong?
Report comment to moderator
Cameron,
I’m not saying it’s “wrong” to sing a line that’s straight from Scripture, but context does matter. Can we sing a (theoretical) line from the Old Testament about wondering who the Messiah is, and when and if he’ll ever come–and sing it as though it’s still true today? Or can we sing about bringing our lamb for sacrifice and hoping God accepts it? Scripture actually reports words of Satan. Someone once worded it like this: “Scripture is without error in all that it affirms.” In other words, one cannot actually say there is no error in Scripture, because it reports things accurately, even the errors of man and demon. But that doesn’t mean we can sing the words of the serpent in Genesis, for instance, or put into our creeds that man can become like God by disobeying.
I think if I were writing a song about repentance taking words from the Psalms, I’d be inclined not to include lyrics that Christians this side of Pentecost can’t sing. And I rather like what Isaac Watts did in his rendering of the Psalms, making them more explicitly Christological. I was being tongue-in-cheek, mostly, but also making the point that writers should consider theology even if the words are straight from Scripture, because Scripture might not be “affirming” those words, or they might have been superceded by the Cross.
(And since we’re specifically told to sing Psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, the “burden of proof” is on the side of the Psalms singers. In other words, they cannot fairly exclude someone who sings a more “balanced” repertoire, whatever their personal preferences.)
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl D.,
I agree with you.
The Psalm-singers say that “psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs” are terms used for the different psalms when read in the original Hebrew. Since I don’t read Hebrew, I can’t do much with that!
Report comment to moderator
As for “Christ in the Psalms”, the RP church in Indianapolis has a great program they put together for Christmas time so that the congregation can sing the Psalms referring to Christ. If it isn’t Christ that we working all through the Psalms, then pray tell, WHO is it?
Report comment to moderator
Pauline – I don’t disagree that people can be too focused on me me me , however I think that this is a universal problem and that hymns with first person pronouns don’t contribute to it. I also think that since God desires a personal relationship with each and every one of us, and we deal with him accordingly that it is perfectly acceptable to sing hymns about “me and Jesus”
Cheryl D. – My individualistic veiw on Christianity is not why the Christain church is losing teenagers when they get to college. I believe that it’s becuase teenagers are never encouraged to develop a personal relationship with God that the church loses so many. Also I think it has to deal with doctorine, behavior etc. But when there’s too much focus on the congregation and not enough about your relationship with Jesus, its easy to let your light go out.
Report comment to moderator
#34 Mom of Four
“The lyrics are, without a doubt, the only important part of music.”
I have never listened to lyrics. I have never been able to understand them. I listen to the music, especially the harmony. Praise songs rarely have any harmony, they seem to be sung as choruses.
I try to stay out of the sanctuary as long as possible so I don’t have to listen to them. At least I am over being mad about them. Now I am just bored. I hardly like any of them; besides that I never see any written music with them. I don’t listen to them on the radio so how am I supposed to know the melody?
My wife likes them. Other people like them. Just don’t ever expect me to like them.
Report comment to moderator
#39
I won’t go into Calvinism again, but I don’t know a single Calvinist who says we don’t choose. Of course we choose to sin when we sin. We listen to the old man (old nature) that still lives within us. Seems like Paul was struggling with this in Romans as I recall.
Mike
Report comment to moderator
Reg, I’m not sure I’ve read every comment on this thread, but I didn’t see any that said the Psalms don’t point ahead to Jesus…but they point ahead to Jesus, often in a rather indirect way. This side of the incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection, we know more about Him, and it seems proper for our hymnody to reflect that.
Teen Tink, I’m not sure I’ve ever been to a church that places too much emphasis on the church, though I’ve certainly been to a few that placed a lot of emphasis on one’s personal relationship with Jesus and basically ignored one’s corporate relationship with Him and with one another.
My point on my theory for one reason the church loses a lot of its teens is that they’ve never really become part of the church–never really connected with her, never felt the family bond, never felt like they’re a wanted and necessary part of the family. And if all they are is members of the youth group (not the larger body), they really can’t miss the church body when they go to college and they’ve graduated from the youth group anyway.
Unless teens become more connected to the whole family than to one another, in a youth-group bond that is by nature temporary and fleeting (because you’ll grow up, graduate from high school, and leave the youth group–and even if you don’t leave town to go to college, most of your friends will)…then once the teens have graduated from high school, they might as well have also graduated from church. And it’s very easy in college not to bother going to a new church in the college town, especially if the young person was never in the habit of being part of “big church” in her own hometown. (Trust me, I went to Bible college, which more or less required church attendance, where the peer pressure was toward attendance, and where everyone at least claimed to be a Christian…and a large percentage of my classmates rarely or never went. I can’t even imagine what it’s like in a university where everyone else in the dorm is sleeping in Sunday morning!) So I think churches that are serious about teen discipleship will involve their youth, teaching them, getting to know them, and involving them in ministry, NOT just entertaining them and letting them hang out mostly with one another. We need you, and you need us.
Report comment to moderator
it is too bad that Jesus didn’t have hymns to teach his disciples so that they could learn about him!
Poor Jesus, was stuck with only Psalms, which reveal him and his work!
Report comment to moderator
REG – 56
YOU WRITE:
“it is too bad that Jesus didn’t have hymns to teach his disciples so that they could learn about him! Poor Jesus, was stuck with only Psalms, which reveal him and his work!”
REG, do you know what “Poor Jesus, was stuck with” ? - When did Jesus become “Poor Jesus” ? –
We are not regulated to sing just the Psalms, there isn’t a passage of Scripture which says we should sing from the passags of Psalms, ONLY –
Are we not to pray and sing our praises unto the living GOD, from our hearts, our thanksgiving for all HE has done for us? Or should we ONLY sing those verses which are written in Psalm and Psalms?
Report comment to moderator
I agree with Reg (I think). God forbids worship of himself by any means not appointed in scripture, e.g., uninspired hymns and songs.
Report comment to moderator
I have never posted to anything before so this is neat to me. My question is this: while we debate the words, and several of us have said it is all about the words, these words are carried by the music. What about the marriage of text and music? It is a well supported argument that the music must support the text. It is here that I run straight into II Corinthians 6:14-7:1. If our text focuses upon God but our music focuses upon our flesh (and music cannot be amoral) we have a disconnect that we must correct through God’s Word. It is here that I John 2:15-17 comes to mind.
I am scared for so many of us Christians because when we get to the judgment seat (and we will all get there) we will be petrified and wishing we had been so much more dedicated to our Lord.
Report comment to moderator
I find it interesting that the bulk of the songs termed “praise and worship” are songs ABOUT God or our supposed relationship with Him rather than addressed TO Him directly from the relationship that we do have. I think it may be less about the use of the first person (check out David’s many examples in which He implores God for mercy) and more about the person to whom the songs are addressed.
Cheryl- You may consider David’s perspective when he says “take not Thy Holy Spirit from me.” If God is everywhere present and fillest all things, then these words had no theological “reality” even when David, the man after God’s own heart, uttered them. Nonetheless, they convey how David felt– and how we feel sometimes. Perhaps they have legitimacy not so much from God’s perspective as from man’s? BTW- Couldn’t agree more with you on your comments regarding the communal aspects of our salvation– being more than just “Jesus and me.”
Haven’t given it any thought in depth but just had these couple of reactions.
– Jonny
Report comment to moderator
#46 Cheryl
You don’t think the Holy Spirit indwelt believers at all times in the OT? Could you expand on this? I am a little surprised at your statement.
I tend to go more with Jonny’s interpretation in #60 although I wouldn’t couch it in terms of omnipresence, but would more likely say that Psalm 50 is personal in the sense that David realizes who he is (after what he did) before God.
Mike
Report comment to moderator
The Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) is working on a new Psalter Hymnal. It is supposed to have all 150 Psalms (though not necessarily every verse) set to singable music. It also supposed to have some of the old hymns and some newer ones. I was thinking they were shooting for 2010 or 2012 for completion.
Mike
Report comment to moderator
NOPM, are you sure that’s the OP church? The RP church is doing that very thing with their “Book of Psalms for Singing” (the red book–I’d post a link but can’t right now). That would be an interesting coincidence.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl D- we basically agree, we both think that becuase teenagers don’t have a personal realtionship with God the church loses so many. However, I think that its becuase there are too many people only focused on the body and not enough on making sure teenagers have a relationship with God , not becuase they are too individual thinking. You yourself said that teenagers just feel like part of a group instead of a person who has a real relationship with God.
Report comment to moderator
Jesus became “poor” when He can only do things our way!
Report comment to moderator
I appreciated Tony’s post. My own experience was somewhat different. As a teen and in college, I grew to have an appreciation for classical music, and tended to despise the modern “noise” that passed for music (except that I also loved to dance, which is difficult to do for much of the classics). Even for church music, the “modern” (20th century) hymns often didn’t light my fire.
But now that I’m older, I’ve chanced to stumble upon contemporary worship songs, and they do light my spiritual fire — primarily for the words of faith, trust, hope and love for the Savior that I’ve found in them. Yes, I also find many CCM tunes that fall far short of that, and so I just don’t listen to them.
So now I’m very eclectic about my music. I equally cherish classic hymns, traditional gospel, AA spirituals, modern CCM — the criteria being not the style the music, but the content of the message in each song.
I agree that the commercialization of CCM is a huge detriment. When fame and fortune are the motivation, the product will be devoid of real worship. Theological soundness in music is also important to me, because I too have wandered in the wilderness of “religion”, before coming to appreciate the salvation that is only in Jesus Christ.
I agree that all praise and music that men may devise will always fall far short of God’s worthiness — but this should not discourage us from praising Him to the best of our ability.
Report comment to moderator
Reg – 65
YOU WRITE: “Jesus became “poor” when He can only do things our way!”
Jesus isn’t capable of being “poor” he is God the Son.
Report comment to moderator
Yeah #63
Yes, I am sure the OPC is putting one together. I found the General Assembly statement:
“That the 73rd General Assembly of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church authorize its Committee on Christian Education to seek to develop a Psalter-Hymnal by 2011 (our 75th anniversary)—which includes musical settings of all 150 Psalms, in their entirety, with as much accuracy and as little archaic language and confusing syntax as possible—for use in our congregations; that it authorize the Committee on Christian Education to appoint a special Psalter-Hymnal committee; and that it grant this special committee a budget of up to $5,000 [per year for committee expenses].”
Mike
Report comment to moderator
Yep, the OPC, the RC, and the ARP (to a lesser extent) are all putting the Psalms to music again. May they lift our hearts and draw us closer to God!
Report comment to moderator
The OPC is getting a psalter? That’s great news. Does that mean no more trinity hymnal or will that be used simultaneously? I like the blue one better than the red one.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks for the info, NOPM. That’s a great thing to hear.
Report comment to moderator
If all you different types of Presbyterians want to avoid the cost and work of assembling your own individual Psalters, you can always get a copy of the Psalter and tones to which the Orthodox Church has been singing them for at least the past 1700 years.
Report comment to moderator
Frankly, I wish the ARP would just adopt the Trinity psalter or one of the other ones, but logical and actual often don’t meet…
Report comment to moderator
Yeah, we’re forbidden to worship God with music other than the psalms? Huh? Where do you get that? (From Scripture, please.) Many passages indicate otherwise–the reference to “new music,” the “psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs,” and more. There was even a day before the Psalms were written–was it wrong to sing to the Lord then? David probably wrote other Psalms that aren’t recorded in Scripture–were they wrong for him to sing? He didn’t know his own songs would someday be recorded in Scripture, yet he felt free to write music and sing it to God–can a believer today not do the same thing? One might just as well say that a person is forbidden to pray to God in one’s own words (not quoting Scripture). Honestly, I’ve heard a preference for Psalms stated before, but I’ve never heard this line, and I find it shocking (and more than a little scary). Is it actually a sin for me to sing “Great Is Thy Faithfulness”?
Mike, it has been years since I have heard anyone discuss the idea that the Holy Spirit “came and went” in Old Testament times, but I have heard it said, and it seems to line up with Scripture. King Saul, for example, seemed sometimes to have the Holy Spirit and sometimes not. And Jesus told His disciples (who were believers) to wait in Jerusalem until the Holy Spirit came to empower them. I wouldn’t base my salvation on this interpretation, and would be open to proof otherwise, but it “fits” to me.
Reg, 56, besides your completely unnecessary sarcasm, Jesus did teach His disciples new truth about Himself that wasn’t revealed in the Old Testament. It seems to me that forbidding the church to sing about the resurrection is overreaching. (And your sarcasm in making your point doesn’t help you make it; it turns people off.)
Report comment to moderator
Y’all might appreciate St. Ambrose of Milan (mid-4th cent.) as follows, FWIW:
“A hymn is a song containing praise of God. If you praise God, but without song, you do not have a hymn. If you praise anything, which does not pertain to the glory of God, even if you sing it, you do not have a hymn. Hense, a hymn contains the three elements: song and praise of God.”
Report comment to moderator
Teen Tink,
I’d ultimately agree that teens and young adults who walk away from the church probably were not saved in the first place. So yes, it comes down to their not having a personal relationship with Jesus. But I think the body of Christ has failed greatly in not welcoming teens into our midst and encouraging them (you) to be young adults seeking God. We find it easier to let you be hedonists seeking pleasure, and staying in your comfort zone with one another, than to make the effort to engage you, welcome you, know you, and love you. And thus, when you walk away, we hardly notice, and we hardly care. That’s wrong. That’s especially wrong because it violates our commands to teach those who are younger in the faith (and learn from those older in the faith), NOT to huddle in our own little groups and avoid those in other little groups.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl D.,
While I don’t fall into their camp, I can think of at least one denomination that considers it sin to sing anything other than the Psalms in corporate worship. They are also non-instrumental, and they can sing to knock your socks off!
We don’t have to agree, but they are convicted. As long as they are not imposing their convictions on others, we are to have charity and unity with our brothers in Christ.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl,
There are common operations of the Holy Spirit upon men that do not lead to salvation (think common grace). I would put King Saul in that camp. You could also think of the hardening of Pharaoh as the removal of God’s grace. When it comes to the elect in the OT or NT I wouldn’t go with the Arminian flower which is of course the daisy: “He loves me, He loves me not…”
Mike
Report comment to moderator
Bianca,
Maybe this will be the 3rd Trinity Hymnal. I assume the other two (the blue and the red) would still be printed on occasion.
Mike
Report comment to moderator
Since the hymnal is separate from the psalter, I’d be shocked if they stopped the red hymnal. I don’t see the blue one much, but that could be regional. They’ve had a Trinity psalter for years, both with printed music (unwieldy, though) and one with just lyrics.
Report comment to moderator
Re: #59
I’ve long given up trying to argue the other points of this whole pointless, infantile debate. But I guess I’m going to talk out of both sides of my mouth for a minute and discuss the subject of music being amoral.
Explain to me, Stephen, how music – defined as a collection of notes and rhythms – can be anything but amoral?
I’m a musician, and I have been since I was five. I play a lot of instruments and I’ve written a lot of music (not saying any of it is any good.
) in my time. Now. Let’s say I play the traditional hymn “I Surrender All” on the piano, in the key of G. The chord progession of that song is simple. It is mostly revolving around four chords and their derivatives: G, C, D, and E minor.
But let’s say I spice it up and start playing blues or jazz chords in the same key, and I throw in off-beat stabs. Lets say I put emphasis on the second and fourth beats instead of the first and the third. Then it turns into a gospel-like feel with just a little bit of a funk to it. Does that make it evil? I’ve changed the rhythmic structure of the song and altered the notes played. Now, instead of a feeling of gentle reassurance, it becomes an anthemic declaration. Explain to me how that’s evil.
Or what if I pick up an acoustic and play it in G and in the 2nd position, so I play G2 C2 D2 Em2 instead? And let’s say I fingerpick it. Now it becomes a minimalist, flowing piece again – just with a different instrument.
But – horror of horrors! – let’s say I pick up my electric guitar and jack it into my amplifier, dial up a smooth, bluesy tones, and make the song groove with some 7th position chords? Now it’s a funky, rhythmic song of praise in the Psalmic sense.
Or what if I take the song “When I Survey the Wondrous Cross” and again hook up that electric… but this time line up some high gain rock tone and palm mute my way through a straight-ahead Kutless-esque version of the song?
Now where, exactly, does that become serving to the flesh? Music was created for us to enjoy. We come out of the womb inextricably linked to rhythm. How much better to serve and worship God than to praise him with music that we enjoy!
I have no problem with anyone liking any kind of music. You like hymns? So do I. Sometimes, you just can’t beat a full, darkly beautiful hymn like “Be Thou My Vision” for the sheer power of the Almighty God. But there are times when David Crowder can best express the ‘joy of the Lord.’ It is theologically impossible to say that music – again, a collection of notes and rhythms – is in and of itself immoral.
Report comment to moderator
Hi CherylD,
Wow! That’s quite a machine gun 1st paragraph in 74!
Maybe I should clarify, as the context was probably not clear, but I was only referring to the worship of God during public worship services (as opposed to singing in the shower or in the car on the way to work). I hope that may assuage your fear a little.
Report comment to moderator
Yeah: You got pwned.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG: How so?
Report comment to moderator
Oh please develop a sense of humor. I’m just tweaking you a bit based on #74.
Report comment to moderator
My bad, SteveG. I’m doing my posthaste pass through these forums and let that one go right over my head. My sense of humor is in tact. If I had any friends, you could ask them.
Report comment to moderator
RE: #81
IG; Like you I have argued this, really gave up on it years ago because music is such a personal idiom and people are really going to listen to whatever they choose. I heard a preacher say in a sermon this past week that you can tell more about a person by what is on his iPod that anything else.
That said I’m probably not going to change anyone’s mind with anything that could be written; but the bottom line is this. We put notes and rhythms together to create an effect. In addition, we select certain instruments or voices with certain timbres and abilities to assist in “selling” that effect. We could go into the “proofs” for each side but I’m assuming you know your arguments as I know mine. We then take the effect we have created and put the text to it. My belief is that a musical composition, like a person, cannot serve two masters. Case in point: not long ago I heard a song on the radio from years ago; I believe the title was “Oh What a Night” the song talked about a boy who spent a summer night engaging in immorality. Except I was pretty sure I was listening to a local CCM station and sure enough; the tune was exactly the same, the artist was doing his best to sound like the original artist but the words had been changed as little as seemingly possible to make the song “Christian.”
The point I’m trying to make is that music is such a wonderful gift from God that Satan has been trying to use it to neutralize and if possible side track completely God’s intent. Remember, it was Bach who said, (and he was possibly a theologian as much as he was a musician) “Music is for the glorification of God and for the entertainment of the mind.” The obvious direction of most music is towards the flesh and promoting fleshly relationships. Please remember Romans 7; if Paul had that much trouble with his flesh we’d be incredibly foolish to struggle any less.
My last brief statement is this. I have talked to many people about this. The response I most often hear is “this is what I like” or “this is the kind of music we have to use to reach out to people.” Have we as God’s children ever thought of what God might want to hear?
Report comment to moderator
Re: #87
First, thanks for being chill about this. Definitely set my hackles at ease; sorry I started off on a pretty aggressive foot. Just my martial tendencies coming out.
I guess I’m not tracking with you. Are you saying that certain feels and timbres to a song or an instrument can make a song good or evil? i.e., if a Satanic artist writes a song in the chord progression E A C#m B and then Chris Tomlin comes along with the same chord progression and a similar tune, then that’s evil? Just so I’m clear.
Report comment to moderator
Yeah, that helps a little. I still don’t think a person can make a biblical case for it, or judge other churches that hold a different standard (and I’m glad my church doesn’t hold to such a policy!), but that does help a little.
Report comment to moderator
Oh, and Yeah, I didn’t mean to blow you away, but I was really quite shocked.
Report comment to moderator
Cool, CherylD. I hope you’re still not shocked, though. Historically, exclusive psalmody was common in Reformed churches. You could Google Regulative Principle of Worship and find the notion does have scriptural support, and addresses a lot of what you mention in 74.
I’m not sure why this subject in particular would arouse concerns of being judgmental. And I’m glad I’m in a church that has given some thought to such a serious topic.
Report comment to moderator
RE: 88
IG, Thank you also for being civil; music is as explosive as politics and we have all just witnessed how ugly that can be. I hope I don’t really upset the apple cart with this but I really feel Scripture is clear and in our existential day driven by tolerance for individuality we have lost at worst and darkly clouded at best God’s absolutes in music.
Bluntly, I believe the answer to your question is yes. (I pulled up Chris Tomlin and Kutless on my iPod to better understand your argument) Those men have taken sounds regularly used by worldly artists. I think you would have to concede and agree that the chords, instruments, effects, and musical message is the same as mainstream artists with no intention to communicate a sacred text. The result is a communication that we can be like the world and our God supports that.
This is where the confusion enters. I read Mr. Tomlin’s work on his home page. I read the words to some of his songs. I did the same thing with Kutless. There are good things and some good words to songs and these folks definitely are professionals and quite accomplished. Here is where we are bound to ask what God thinks.
God’s people in the Old Testament were required to be separated unto God. Their lives were to be completely different from everyone else’s. Sojourners could join them but Israel always got in trouble when they mixed with the world. A reading of Joshua, Judges, Kings, and Chronicles will cement that in anyone’s mind.
No less is expected of us today. I Peter 1 tells us that we must be holy. Ephesians 4 that our walk with Christ must be completely different from the walk of the unsaved. I John 2 commands us not to love the world, nor the things that are in it. II Corinthians 6 tells us that Christians cannot be joined to the world in any way or God will not bless them (our current musical discussion could not be more relevant and critical here). In fact, in that passage we see that blessing comes the same for God’s children of any time. Philippians 2 tells us to “work out our own salvation in fear and trembling” by following Christ’s example. He was so different the world crucified him.
Our music is a direct correlation of our walk with God. We have to ask ourselves are we listening/performing/worshipping his way or ours. I’ll close with a paragraph from one of my favorite authors: Carl Schalk. “Seeking musical refuge in “what I like” or “what appeals to me” is to withdraw into an individualism which seeks personal gratification before the building up of the community of faith. It avoids the simple fact that, in Ralph Vaughan Williams’ words, this issue is, first of all, a theological and moral issue rather than a musical one.
Report comment to moderator
Tony’s point came up on the adjacent Lincoln thread, where I argued that the “me, me” dimension of convert Christianity was foreign to the impersonal language Lincoln used when speaking about God.
Observe converts at worship, and their preferred style of addressing God is “me and you,” not the corporate form, “we and you.” The body of Christ is an assembly of windowless monads who lack both theology and an ear for the grammatical place of the first person plural.
And when I touch you I feel happy inside
It’s such a feeling that my love
I can’t hide, I can’t hide, I can’t hide
Yeah, you got that something
I think you’ll understand
When I feel that something
I want to hold your hand
I want to hold your hand
I want to hold your hand
I want to hold your hand
Amen.
(Repeat 10 times)
Report comment to moderator
Cameron,
I don’t have a problem with a group singing only Psalms (though I don’t think I’d want to join them–I don’t see it as a biblical requirement, and I can’t imagine choosing never to sing explicitly of Jesus or the resurrection in church). But when people word something as strongly as “God forbids…” it’s unlikely that they’re willing NOT to impose their convictions on others. In fact, if we believe that God forbids something, it isn’t a matter of personal preference anymore, and we really should be “imposing” our convictions on others. (I believe that God forbids abortion, for instance, and I won’t let a sister in Christ tell me that God says it’s OK for her. No, it’s forbidden, evil, wrong–and not just for me, but also for her.)
I tend to react strongly when I see extrabibical imjunctions (or at least injunctions that are said to have biblical backing and the person doesn’t say what that backing is) because my family is so full of such things, but the different members of my family have different absolutes. Some of them include King James only, no alcohol as a beverage, women wearing only dresses or culottes (yes, culottes in 2009), no attending movies in a theater, abortion always murder even in cases of tubal pregnancy, no putting children in a public school (that one is “wicked” to more than one member of my family), a church nursery as a black-and-white issue (it’s better to stay home from church than to put an infant in a nursery even one time), women never working outside the home no matter what, women with short hair are always in rebellion even if they aren’t conscious of that rebellion (this relative had her five-year-old son shock her by calling a woman a sinner for having short hair; she didn’t even know he knew her opinion on the matter), it’s wrong for a woman or even a five-year-old girl to wear a top that shows her shoulders. . . .
I’ve been told that if I ever get married, I shouldn’t continue to write, or if I do continue to write, with my husband’s blessing, I need to be willing to use my husband’s name instead of my own (which to me would be deceitful and even gender confusion–would I then write about my relationship with my wife?!).
So in my mind we speak clearly where God has spoken clearly; where He has not, even if I’m convicted in my own mind about something, I don’t speak so strongly as to make sinners of those not similarly convicted. An example: I don’t like the idea of children in children’s church, or even church nurseries. I believe that our children should be part of the family of faith, not shuttled off for play or entertainment. But I recognize that mine is a minority position, a difficult one (babies are squirmy and loud at some ages, as just one difficulty), and one that’s hard to “prove” as a biblical absolute. And thus I’m content to give my perspective and maybe make people think about it, but I would never dare say that a parent who uses a church nursery is sinning. That parent probably doesn’t have the same conviction I do, and what’s more, her church offers a nursery and she is in submission to church authorities (and not in rebellion) when she uses it. If she says that she believes it’s wrong for her to use a nursery, but she chooses to do so anyway, I can deal with that issue at that point–but I can’t bind someone else with conscience issues of my own.
Report comment to moderator
CherylD:
I’m disappointed in your approach here (you could have challenged me directly rather than accused me via a post to Cameron). You beg the question by assuming exclusive psalmody does not have scriptural support (despite its history, and despite your ignorance even of its phenomenon, let alone any arguments for it), then frame a “don’t impose your beliefs on me” criticism around that ignorance. Do you suppose there are any true Christians who don’t subscribe to each of the “God forbids” formulations you subscribe to? And does it automatically follow, then, that you are unreasonably judgmental?
There’s a substantial history in the church regarding exclusive psalmody and the regulative principle. You could have Googled, or asked me about it, before judging me for being judgmental. You could have even asked whether I refuse to worship with others who don’t hold to exclusive psalmody, before making a gaggle of assumptions.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl D.,
I know no one in the RPCNA who attempts to force his convictions on others. An anecdotal example: a young man from the RPCNA has lived with us for two separate semesters while completing co-ops at GE while studying at Purdue. He regularly attended church with us where we use instruments and sing both psalms and hymns. He respectfully stood, but did not sing. He led our a capella worship here at home one Lord’s Day when the snow prevented corporate worship. He sang traditional Christmas hymns when we gathered as a congregation outside of worship. Never once did he say we were in sin, nor did he shy away from worshiping with us.
I believe their position can be supported from Scripture, just as you believe the majority position can be supported from Scripture. While both cannot be right, it is not a matter of salvation, and therefore requires charity from both sides.
Some of the issues you mention above are ones that God is silent on–movies, for example. Some, like alcohol, are clearly permitted in both OT and NT, but many are convicted otherwise. Some, like exclusive psalmody and headcovering are mentioned, but are often debated. You will find solid Christians on both sides of these two issues, all seeking to do God’s will.
I pray your previous negative interactions with legalism do not blind you to charity with your brothers and sisters.
Report comment to moderator
Yeah – Maybe you didn’t see it, but Cheryl & Cameron were also discussing this issue, so I really don’t think she was trying to make a jab at you through a comment to Cameron. Cheryl is a gracious & respectful lady.
Cameron – “Knowing” Cheryl through her comments over the past several years, my guess would be that she is indeed charitable to those with whom she disagrees.
Report comment to moderator
Hi Karen. I agree Cheryl is gracious and respectful; hence my surprise at her perceived attack. She said that the (hypothetical?) person she was criticizing was the one who says “God forbids” certain elements of worship. So far as I can see in this thread, I was the only one who did that. If she wants to clarify, I’ll be happy to stand corrected.
Report comment to moderator
Cameron: That’s a darn nice post in 96.
Report comment to moderator
Yeah,
Thank you.
Report comment to moderator
imagine not being able to, in good conscience, sing the words of God, just because some people might believe that those are the only words that may be sung! I am thrilled to be able to sing them at all. It doesn’t matter to me what rules other people make. I have been in all kinds of religious singing environemnts, and I have to say that the most worshipful experiences, the most satisfying atmosphere, the one I prefer is psalms with only vocal instruments of enthusiastic singers.
Report comment to moderator
This passage of Scripture to points to many musical instruments in Praising the LORD –
1 Praise ye the LORD. Praise God in his sanctuary: praise him in the firmament of his power.
2 Praise him for his mighty acts: praise him according to his excellent greatness.
3 Praise him with the sound of the trumpet: praise him with the psaltery and harp.
4 Praise him with the timbrel and dance: praise him with stringed instruments and organs.
5 Praise him upon the loud cymbals: praise him upon the high sounding cymbals.
6 Let every thing that hath breath praise the LORD.</b. Praise ye the LORD. Psalms 150
Report comment to moderator
Yeah,
No, I didn’t mean to jab at you through Cameron. Since my more direct issue was with you, I addressed you first, and then went back to Cameron to explain why I had a hard time with the wording (and wasn’t trying to say that no one should hold such a position, just that it didn’t seem like a position one could hold others to). It seemed to me that you and I had rather “agreed to disagree”–or at least that we’d each made our point and didn’t need to discuss it further.
For the record, in my interaction with family on the debatable issues I mentioned to Cameron, I usually don’t even tell them my own position, and I accept theirs. For instance, I’d never admit to one of my teetotalling siblings that I’ve had a couple of drinks (not many; I’m a virtual teetotaller myself). There would be no point in it. I would absolutely never try to convince him it’s OK for him to drink–he’d violate his conscience by doing so. However, when a different relative starts going on and on about how women who work outside the home are always in sin (particularly wives who work outside the home, but she wouldn’t let single women do so either, in an ideal world–she thinks one of my brothers should offer me a room so that I don’t have to work), then, because her position is no longer her personal conviction but judging others who believe differently, I point her to Scripture (Proverbs 31). In other words, if she had only determined that she should not work outside the home, based on Scripture, I’d honor that conviction; but when she judges others who clearly don’t hold to the same (extrabiblical) conviction, I cannot honor that. (For the record, I mostly agree with her–I don’t think the mother of young children should work outside the home, and I think it’s better if a wife doesn’t, or doesn’t work full-time. But in my mind that’s an “ideal,” and not an absolute.)
Brother, have I offended you? That was not my intention, but if I have, do let me know, because I don’t want to leave it there.
Report comment to moderator
Re #92:
OK, glad we’re clear. Now we can have an intelligent discussion about this.
Now please don’t take this wrong, but your line of reasoning has so many holes in it that it’s simply untenable – not to mention unbiblical. Musical keys and combinations are distinctly limited. With 88 keys in the A440 tuning, and with only 16 scales (not counting modal variatinos) to play with, each consisting of approximately six chords with which to make a song, we have practically already run out of combinations that are possible. God designed music, of course, and he designed it in this limited manner.
So that said, this means that we’re out of luck, because to be able to write any kind of Christian music that sounds nothing like something non-secular, you’re going to have to invent a new instrument (because secular music uses organs, pianos, guitars, all stringed instruments, etc.) with a completely different sound and play in a key that no one’s ever used before, not to mention the dilemma of coming up with a new scale (physically impossible) or finding a new mode within which to play (also physically impossible.)
Hymns are mostly ripped off of bar tunes, and they all tend to hail from the musical era in which they were written. 1800’s-era hymns tend to sound like the popular tunes of the time. 1400’s-era hymns sound, again, like the popular folk songs and pagan tunes that were used then. And so on. David’s music in the Psalms was played in the style of the day, and I think it would be folly to claim that no one has ever written a secular song in the Jewish modes. I can think of at least four artists off of the top of my head who have used Jewish modes to write secular music.
And that presents another problem. Let’s say we somehow amazingly manage to invent a whole new style of music, but then someone from the secular culture comes along and acquires that style to write secularly. By your logic, we now have to abandon that style as well, in order to avoid sounding anything like a secular musician.
And ask yourself this. God invented music. How do you know what He likes and what He doesn’t, eh? Is He a rock fan? Does He dig Schubert? Perhaps Jehovah will only listen to jazz. Or maybe Yahweh is repulsed by all but Gregorian chants (which, by the way, have been appropriated by death metal, so that’s not safe either…)
And let’s take it one step further. Why are we driving secular cars? We need to design something so that no one could possibly mistake us for being a non-Christian. We should design cars in the shape of the icthus, so it’s distinctive. Or how about clothing? We need to wear only Christian clothing lines so that no one will get us mixed up with those secular people who buy clothes at Wal-Mart.
You see my point? We are admonished to be “in the world” but not “of it.” By saddling Christian musicians with the impossible burden of sounding absolutely nothing like secular artists, you make it impossible to have music that glorifies God. And did not Paul say that he would become all things to all men – wise, poor, slave, Greek, and so on – to reach them? I’m not saying that we need to act like the culture, but we are supposed to follow Paul’s example.
To be blunt, making the statement that says that, I, myself, in my personal private worship, should not be playing the piano to glorify God because it sounds like the secular work of Jim Brickman is, frankly, empty religion.
If you’re trying to make the correlation that Chris Tomlin writes his praise music with no intent for the music itself to glorify God, then, with all due respect, you’re wrong. Just because Tomlin may sound vaguely similar to, say, Coldplay, doesn’t mean that the music is not glorifying. Two clouds may look exactly alike, but one may cause rain and another might not. Are they different? Very. Do they look different? Maybe not much. But one rains and the other just floats through the sky.
Report comment to moderator
IG (104), I think I’ll mostly stay out of this one, except to correct a couple of your (numerous) errors. First (this is a common misconception) the idea that hymns came from bar tunes, meaning music written to be played in bars, is simply a misconception, an error made by one person and repeated by many more. I’ve edited it out of books written by well-educated authors, so I don’t hold it against you, but I did want you to know it’s an error.
Second, there’s a huge difference between merely “secular” (neutral) music and music of rebellion. When I see Christians using the musical style of gangsta rap, for instance, I have a really hard time with the possibility they might be making music to glorify God. (It’s conceivable that they might be immature Christians who don’t know any better, but if so, others should be limiting their access to the public rather than promoting their music as worthwhile. Music as big business and music that honors God seem almost incompatible, at least today.) I’ve personally seen some such musicians interviewed and saying things like, “The words aren’t all that important; the music is.” In other words, “We’ll give Christians the words that will salve their conscience, if it will let us sell music to them.”
When music is discordant and/or out of sync with the words, it’s bad music, even if the lyrics are “Christian.” And there are musical styles of rebellion that aren’t really suited for music with words that praise God. That’s a completely different issue from “secular” music. A lot of classical music is “secular,” but it isn’t evil. Some secular music is downright evil, and it shouldn’t be imitated and sold to Christians. God really did not set such “limits” on musical variety that that is necessary.
But I think others can deal with most of your argument better than I can, so I’ll bow out now.
Report comment to moderator
Jesus went to where the people were.
And you all are arguing that the music that honors him should deliberately shun the styles that are where the people are — Cheryl, people who would never give ten seconds of time to a hymn or step into a church might listen to a gangsta rap song.
But I guess saving the lost is less important than making sure to keep the right form. Although, your Lord didn’t worry too much about keeping up appearances when there was real work to be done, was he?
Ah well. I’ll let y’all sort it. It’s not a debate that affects me one way or the other, but it sure is amusing.
Report comment to moderator
Hi CherylD (and hopefully SteveG will find some amusement here, too):
I appreciate your explanation and your gracious words. I certainly did not take any personal offense. I’m posting with the pseudonym “Yeah” for Pete’s sake!
I admit, though, that I was discouraged to see such a disdainful dismissal of a Biblical doctrine (as I and many other Christians have seen it), and for that dismissal to be based only on the fact that you’d never encountered that position. I might have thought we’d agreed to disagree, too, if I hadn’t seen your later remarks to Cameron about this.
For what it’s worth, I copped a few words from the Westminster Shorter Catechism regarding the 2nd Commandment. The Q and A reads: “What is forbidden in the 2nd Commandment? The 2nd Commandment forbids the worshipping of God by images or any other means not appointed in his Word.” I believe the singing of uninspired songs in the worship service is not “appointed in his Word,” and is a violation of the 2nd Commandment. If this is true, then it’s a position that God (and not I) “holds” others to—holds all of us to.
I don’t believe those interactions you refer to with your family are comparable to the issue of psalmody. Those instances have to do with admittedly nuanced subjects—how not to cause another to stumble, extrabiblical convictions—whereas the argument for exclusive psalmody is a universal claim. It it’s true, it’s absolute.
This being largely a forum for Christian discussion and interchange of ideas (although maybe SteveG expects otherwise) I made a stark assertion in 58, throwing it out there for discussion in case anyone was interested. In “real life,” when visiting non-EP churches, I behave as the young man does whom Cameron describes in post 96.
I invite you again to Google the subject. I think you would find more to it than you’d expect.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG: If Jesus had wanted to win popularity contests (and save his life in the process), I’m very sure he could have.
Report comment to moderator
Yeah et al.,
What do you do with Ephesians 5:19, where Paul urges the recitation of psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs? The Jewish repertoire of psalms at that juncture in time included significantly more than just David’s psalms– kind of a tricky thing to project back onto the early Church the modern conception of “psalms” as limited to those in the Bible. Furthermore, Paul is urging the use of two categories of poetic works that are outside even that particular word– hymns and spiritual songs. Paul’s immediate concern appears to be with the content– the lyrics or poetics– which were often simply read. Not sure that he is writing in stone with respect to the appropriate musical scores, here (or anywhere). Anyone who wants to argue this had better be ready to ante up the original Jewish scores which they believe are “Biblically sanctioned.” As an aside, anyone seriously interested (as opposed to just interested enough to make seemingly Scriptural hit-and-runs on the web)in the development of hymnody from its Jewish roots in the early Church might want to pick up a copy of Werner’s “The Sacred Bridge”– out of print, but probably available via an interlibrary loan.
I thought this was a pretty darn good quote from a contemporary Orthodox bishop:
“Singing in the church should be oriented towards prayer and should not be turned into a concert, as often happens.” This “concert” concern coming from a guy who worships in a setting in which musical forms have been more or less fixed for seventeen centuries or so. On the question of musical forms used in collective worship, perhaps we ought to be examining our forms as to whether they are truly oriented toward prayer– communion with God– or whether they are really just self-centered forms of “self-expression” or emotional release. And the questions this quote unwittingly raises about “Christian concerts” are pretty interesting, as well.
Report comment to moderator
Hi Jonny,
What do you do with Ephesians 5:19, where Paul urges the recitation of psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs?
I think Ephesians 5:19, as well as Colossians 3:16, provide some of the strongest support for the belief in exclusive psalmody. Here are those verses:
The language in these verses indicates “psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs” are references to inspired words (Scripture), and specifically, the inspired words of the Psalter. The Colossians verse refers to those terms as “the word of Christ,” reflective of “all wisdom.” Scripture alone, and not the words of uninspired men, contains “all wisdom.” Only scripture is authoritative for “teaching and admonishing one another.” The Greek word for “spiritual” (modifying ‘songs’) is pneumatikos, indicating the songs are “Spirit-inspired,” not humanly derived. For that reason (and for the reason listed below), various commentators believe pneumatikos to be modifying each of the terms psalms, hymns and spiritual songs.
Each of those terms—psalms, hymns, spiritual songs—at various times refers to Psalter selections. I don’t think there’s any controversy in that regard about psalms, but if you dispute that, let me know. In the Septuagint, “hymns” is used in numerous Psalms as being indicative of Psalms: 65:1, 119:171, 137:3, and various others. Also in the LXX, various Psalm titles use the word “hymn” to refer to the selection that follows. Likewise, “song” is often similarly used in Psalm titles, such as Psalm 45 and 46, 65-68, 83, 87, 88, 92, various others—you can easily scroll through the book of Psalms in your Bible and find those references; they’re all over the place.
Consider also the literary practice in scripture of grouping words together to refer to a single concept. A small sampling includes Ex. 34:7: “Iniquity and transgression and sin”, and 2Cor 12:12: “Signs and wonders and mighty deeds.” Different terms describing a single idea.
Report comment to moderator
Good heavens.
I suppose it is human nature to place legality everywhere. We are the spiritual inheritors of the Pharisees.
Sigh.
Report comment to moderator
Yeah,
I thought I expressed that my shock was with something other than the idea that only Psalms could be sung in church–I was indeed familiar with that idea (though I disagree), but I wasn’t familiar with what I thought you were saying, that it’s a sin to sing any song not in Scripture. I do plan to look up your links, but this last week has had a lot of mini-crises in my life (all but one ironed out), and I haven’t been online at all except coming onto this blog sometimes.
I do think that at least the KJV only position is very comparable to this one. One of my brothers attended a very conservative, tiny Bible college, and one day I checked out its website. One of its positions was that the KJV was the only English-language Bible allowed on campus. In other words, there is a place–in America–where the NASB is contraband, and it’s a place that actually calls itself a Bible college. My shock in seeing that (that a Bible college would dare think it’s a sin for a student to have the NASB in his room) was equal to the shock of thinking it might be a sin to sing “Amazing Grace.”
What about the texts that tell us to sing a “new” song unto the Lord? That would suggest something more recent than the Psalms.
I did not mean to “disdainfully dismiss” but to say “Scripture please?” When you say, “God forbids…” I expect there to be a passage that says, “Thou shalt not.” I think there’s a lot in Scripture about worship, and one of the passages that tends to argue against today’s inspid little choruses (and most of Fanny Crosby’s, too) is that we are to worship God in reverence and awe. But sermons aren’t limited to reading Scripture, nor are prayers, nor are testimonies. Why are songs? And where do we draw the line between revising Psalms (to make them more explicitly Christological, for example–would you find such a thing acceptable?) and writing songs that are fully scriptural (”Great Is Thy Faithfulness”) but not based on one specific passage?
As I’ve said elsewhere in other discussions, and this isn’t at all meant to be a copout, from a practical standpoint I’m in a church that doesn’t sing only psalms, and leaving on a point like this would be worse than staying. I’m under my elders’ authority and this ultimately isn’t my decision anyway, nor my calling to come to a position on this. (Well, I already have a position–but it’s not my calling to research it further, since my church has a position on this anyway.) I’d be happy just to have my church drop the “weaker” music it has picked up in the last year and a half, and I don’t seem to have any say even in that. (I have brought it up a few times.) When any gathering sings words that aren’t biblical, I choose not to sing those words, but I’m not likely to move much beyond that point.
Report comment to moderator
Once we start down the legalism road it does lead to trouble. We can sing unto to the LORD, praising HIM from our hearts, as the Holy Spirit leads us.
How do we pray, do we always say the “Lords prayer” or do we pray from our hearts, those things which are hurting, or sorrow, and thanksgiving -
Report comment to moderator
Hi TRS and Victoria:
Not trying to be smarty here, but a couple things:
1. Do you fully understand what begging the question is?
2. Can you, without begging the question, demonstrate how I’m being legalistic?
===
CherylD, thanks for your response:
I would never encourage anyone to leave his or her church over this issue–not remotely, no way.
I don’t think the KJV-only issue is at all comparible to this one. The KJV-only position, by chronological necessity, can’t even be made based solely on Scripture. Further, as it sounds like you would concede, a certain sectarian cultishness typifies many (most?) KJV-only advocates/groups. On the other hand, as I’ve mentioned, exclusive psalmody has enjoyed the favor of many orthodox Christians and churches over history. It’s not a mere obscurity.
If I have time tonight, I’d like to address some other questions and concerns you raise in your latest post. If you’re not interested and you see this post before then, you can preempt me and I’ll drop the subject…unless anyone else is interested in taking it up.
Report comment to moderator
Per Yeah:
1. The language in these verses indicates “psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs” are references to inspired words (Scripture), and specifically, the inspired words of the Psalter.
2. The Colossians verse refers to those terms as “the word of Christ,” reflective of “all wisdom.” Scripture alone, and not the words of uninspired men, contains “all wisdom.”
3. Only scripture is authoritative for “teaching and admonishing one another.”
Not trying to be a smarty, here, either, but each of these sentences is loaded with the “it’s true because I want it to be true” and “I can prove a general proposition from my interpretation of a couple of isolated phrases.” When we start with our conclusions, it’s amazing how we end up seeing only that which supports those conclusions.
– Jonny
Report comment to moderator
OK, Jonny. Thanks.
Report comment to moderator
Hello all,
It is not my place to judge any person, so what I have to say is this… each individual will have their own preferences and way that they prefer to worship God. Even a way that is right to you may be wrong to another person. Maybe the other person IS, in truth, wrong, but you must love them anyway because love is more important than being right. I like this discussion because everyone seems to be posting things that they want clarified because they truly want to know the answer, but I hope that nobody here is posting because they think they are “righter” than anyone else.
~~Amia
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl (105)
Thanks for correcting that hymn bit. I’ll make sure not to repeat it. But that said, my point remains the same. Hymns are still reflective of the music that was popular in their respective eras. That’s the whole thing about music. It will reflect the period in which it is written.
But to clarify, I’m not trying to make the argument that it’s cool for Christians to use gangsta rap. Never said that. Ironically, you’re making a sweeping generalization.
My problem comes when you make that statement that someone like Chris Tomlin is an evil man? And how do you determine if music isn’t appropriate for the lyrics? Isn’t that up to the writer of the song?
And no one has yet to explain to me how a particular instrument or timbre of music is evil.
Report comment to moderator
IG: I don’t have alot of time here so I’ll state some things hopefully very succinctly.
1. In all of life there is a standard; the Bible is that standard, we can accept it, we can deny it. Accepting it means life; we deny it to our own peril. Anything that is contrary to Scripture is against that standard and therefore wrong.
2. God is very clear in his attitudes toward the world, the flesh and the devil. He states that the “fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge.” “Love not the world, nor the things in the world.”
3. God expects his children to live lives that are separated unto him. “What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever? “Be ye holy for I am holy.”
4. Our music as much as the rest of our lives must be separated unto the Lord. If it is patterned after or reminiscent of the chord progressions, sounds, timbres and styles of the world it fails in this area and is therefore wrong. Study your Bible, if you are indeed Christ’s then you will learn what he likes, what he doesn’t like and that will be all that matters for you. You should be able to say like John the Baptist, “he must increase, I must decrease.”
5. Music is much different than cars, clothes, and the like. You get into a car, you wear clothes. A car can’t come out of you. It is what comes out of a person that corrupts him/her. Music is a privilege that goes into us, feeds us in one way or another. For God’s glory, our edification, or our carnal mind and descending into sin. It is also what comes out of us when we worship, perform, communicate.
6. Neither Christ nor Paul ever compromised their morals in seeking the lost. They did what they did for the sake of the Gospel. I Corinthians 9 makes this very clear. They did not sacrifice their testimony nor their moral purity in their witness and spread of the Gospel. When we take God’s Word into the same realm of music styles used to communicate the world, the flesh, and the devil we compromise the Gospel and try to do God’s work man’s way; a sure recipe for eternal failure.
7. Finally, due to time. It is imperitive that we glorify God his way. Please refer in the Bible to Matthew 22 and the man who wanted to get into the wedding by his own way. He didn’t have a garment. God would not let him in and cast into outer darkness. The real danger here, and our music can be an indicator of where our heart lies is that we try to gain Christ’s acceptance by our rules. It is a very dangerous game many are playing. Matthew 7:21-23 tells us that many are convinced that they are doing God’s work when in fact they are not.
8. Music is extremely important. We as humans don’t really go anywhere without it. What better privilege can we have than to use it for God’s glory and our edification? What greater avenue could Satan use to destroy many for whom Christ died?
Report comment to moderator
Yeah at #107: For what it’s worth, I copped a few words from the Westminster Shorter Catechism regarding the 2nd Commandment. The Q and A reads: “What is forbidden in the 2nd Commandment? The 2nd Commandment forbids the worshipping of God by images or any other means not appointed in his Word.” I believe the singing of uninspired songs in the worship service is not “appointed in his Word,” and is a violation of the 2nd Commandment. If this is true, then it’s a position that God (and not I) “holds” others to—holds all of us to.
The Second Commandment doesn’t say that. It says not to make idols or “graven images.” It says nothing to suggest that worship by any means not specified in the Book is forbidden.
How does Westminster take “don’t do these two specific things” and turn it into “don’t do anything not specified in the Book?”
Report comment to moderator
The Second Commandment, which appears identically in Exodus and Deuteronomy:
You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me,
Nowhere in there does it say or even suggest “don’t worship me by any means you don’t find specifically approved in these pages.”
Report comment to moderator
Nice posts, SteveG. Although we part ways at dogmatic universalism, I think that we’ve both been scratching our heads over that issue for a long time. Think we’ll ever get a response that doesn’t assume the conclusion?
Stephenfoxx- You say “Our music as much as the rest of our lives must be separated unto the Lord. If it is patterned after or reminiscent of the chord progressions, sounds, timbres and styles of the world it fails in this area and is therefore wrong.” I’m thinkin’ that David wasn’t exactly dancing naked in the streets to psalmody accompanied solely by the temple shofars . . .
Report comment to moderator
SteveG– “That issue” being how you get to a “don’t do anything not specified in the Book” and, frankly, how people who spout that off when it suits their purposes really live that consistently.
Report comment to moderator
Jonny,
You can be assured of two things though in David’s dancing.
1. David’s dance was before the Lord and performed with all his might in the way God prescribes. Don’t forget God had 90 days prior killed Uzzah for reaching out to steady the ark in his own way; he simply reached out with his hand to steady it and God killed him for it. That effectively stopped the whole procession and David indeed had struggled with it.
2. David’s dance would not have been carnal in any way. There were several rhythm instruments present; all of them being used to the glory of God without worldly interference. It must truly have been a wonderful scene as the ark of the covenant truly came “home.” Instruments and voices are not in and of themselves evil. They are tools. They can be used for honor and for dishonor by the user.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG,
A Googling of “Regulative Principle of Worship” may help you with how the divines got from the 2nd Commandment to that view of worship. Plus the fact that God struck down those who offered “strange fire”.
Report comment to moderator
Stephenfoxx,
I have no problem with the statements in your last post.
However, they are very likely inconsistent with your statement that “If [music] is patterned after or reminiscent of the chord progressions, sounds, timbres and styles of the world it fails in this area and is therefore wrong . . . .” unless, of course, you wish to make the case that the music in David’s case was patterned on some divine music and thus completely avoided being patterned on the “world’s music.” I might actually go for that argument, when you consider that all music has its source in God the Creator of all. However, if you go there, then, we’d have to agree that all music is patterned on music that has its source in God, and that leaves your statement in a pretty pickle.
Just seems that your statement is a bit strong, that’s all.
– Jonny
Report comment to moderator
Jonny,
Musically my argument has been this. That God gave us the gift of music. A very powerful and heartfelt “tool” to use for his glory and our edification.
Satan has imitated this gift by using sinful man to create music that serves his own selfish desires, confuse men and rob God of praise due his name.
There are musicians who try to take the sounds and effects of the world, cover them over with sacred words (the strength/weakness of the words is really irrelevent here)and to praise God with them. It is here that God’s Word is clear. We keep trying to use Cain’s offering to praise God and he just isn’t going to accept it.
If we could just get it into our heads that “Aslan is not a tame Lion” oh how much better we would be. Serving the God we create in our minds amounts to idolatry. Serving the God who is amounts to holiness and is pleasing to our Creator.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl D. – So is my attiyuide a bad thing or not. Becuase I was taught you are a Christain first and a member of your congregatio second. A dyou’re right everyone seems to judge teenagers by teh stereotype and heerd them in and out like cattle. I think its easier that way.
Report comment to moderator
Stephen, you’re not being clear. You’ve not defined what is ‘wordly,’ you’ve failed to address my point about the limited nature of music, and you’ve taken to proof-texting the Bible to prove your points.
I’m going to copy in an argument I made in my first post – a very crucial one, which you passed over. It is as follows:
Musical keys and combinations are distinctly limited. With 88 keys in the A440 tuning, and with only 16 scales (not counting modal variations) to play with, each consisting of approximately eight chords with which to make a song, we have practically already run out of combinations that are possible. God designed music, of course, and he designed it in this limited manner.
So that said, this means that we’re out of luck, because to be able to write any kind of Christian music that sounds nothing like something non-secular, you’re going to have to invent a new instrument (because secular music uses organs, pianos, guitars, all stringed instruments, etc.) with a completely different sound and play in a key that no one’s ever used before, not to mention the dilemma of coming up with a new scale (physically impossible) or finding a new mode within which to play (also physically impossible.)
….
And that presents another problem. Let’s say we somehow amazingly manage to invent a whole new style of music, but then someone from the secular culture comes along and acquires that style to write secularly. By your logic, we now have to abandon that style as well, in order to avoid sounding anything like a secular musician.
Riddle me this, if you would.
Report comment to moderator
TeenTink – I hope you don’t mind if I give you my opinion on your question.
When we become believers, we become one with the Body of Christ. Your congregation is a microcosm of the Body. So being a Christian AND a member of the Body of Christ cannot be separated – they both come first. We live out our membership to the Body within the congregation in which God sets us.
We each have a dual responsibility – to “work out our salvation with fear & trembling” on an individual basis (such as getting alone with God in prayer) & also doing so on a corporate basis. We cannot truly grow & mature in Christ without the input, the “iron sharpening iron”, & such of our brothers & sisters in a church family. You need them & they need you.
Remember, Jesus wanted us to be in unity. I think there’s a depth to that concept that is hard to fathom for many.
As for feeling that you are judged by the stereotype of teens, I’m sure there are some, maybe even many, who do that. Unfortunately, there are stereotypes for other age groups as well, such as middle-aged moms or the elderly, & for all sorts of groups of people. I guess it’s human nature to try to classify people & put them in a little easy-to-understand-but-mostly-wrong box.
Report comment to moderator
I’m having technical difficulties, and had to copy these new posts to World even to read them, but I did read them.
I’m not sure who even raised the question above (since I can’t scroll back and check), but I think someone asked why can’t we use music that people actually like, and my answer would be twofold: (1) In the church, what God likes matters more and (2) in the church, if people’s preferences matter at all, unbelievers’ preferences sure don’t. I mean, if you think about it, we could get more congregants if we have strip shows, too, but that wouldn’t be anything like a church anymore. We simply must care about what is proper and what is holy, far more than we care about what is attractive to human beings (and certainly more than we care about what is attractive to human beings in rebellion against God). Besides, honestly, when we lower our sights to attract the worldly crowd (and immature believers), we are in effect keeping everyone in our churches on that immature level—and in fact, as far as music is concerned, when we use Christian knockoffs of hard-edged secular music to appeal to those who like such music, not only are we starting with the wrong place (what carnal people like, rather than what God likes), but we’re just as likely to take Christian young people into the hard original music as we are to bring “seekers” in to the Christian knockoff—probably more likely, since the “real” stuff is probably actual “better.”
Intellectual Gorgon, I’m glad you’re not arguing for Christian gangsta rap. I’ve seen some pretty shocking “Christian” imitations—without hearing one note of the music, just looking at the faces of rebellion on the artists’ faces on the covers, along with whom they’re choosing to imitate, saddens me.
Report comment to moderator
TT,
I don’t think it’s even a matter of which is primary. (For example, which is more important–your individuality or the fact that you’re a daughter and a family member? Can you separate them?) For me, the older I have gotten (I’m now 41), the more that I have seen the importance of the church family. They enter into my decision making more than ever, for instance, even though I’m older and technically more “qualified” to make my own decisions. And my church is simply a greater part of my life. I don’t know if that happens for all Christians; it has been my experience. (But then, my church seems better than most at being a family.)
Report comment to moderator
Yeah – 114
I suggest you ask YOURSELF that question LOL
Report comment to moderator
CherylD: It was me who posed that question. Here’s how your response seems to me.
The use of any sort of music for worship (or entertainment) with lyrics written to express Christian ideas or worship is like Jesus speaking in plain langauge to people, telling stories they could understand and being out among them.
Your argument would be Jesus retiring to the temple and refusing to talk to anyone who didn’t find their way to him, and then only in the language he preferred regardless of their ability to understand it.
in the church, if people’s preferences matter at all, unbelievers’ preferences sure don’t.
I seriously doubt Jesus would agree with you here.
I know I’m not a Christian and so my opinion probably doesn’t matter a bit to you. But I can read the gospels as well as you can, and I don’t see any examples of Jesus refusing to communicate with people in ways they could understand.
Report comment to moderator
But Steve, music in the church isn’t “Jesus communicating to people,” it’s people communicating to God. There simply is nothing in Scripture that I know of about changing worship to fit the preferences of unbelievers. That would be like a steak restaurant catering to McDonald’s clients (or the other way around, since my example isn’t meant to be condescending, but simply to say that unbelievers, who by definition don’t go to church to worship God, shouldn’t have a part in writing the definition of “proper worship”–you’re outsiders to the experience).
BTW (this isn’t to Steve), one reason I don’t care very much about what George Barna might be saying now about the institutional church in Pagan Christianity is that he has never seemed to have a very good grip on what church is supposed to be, and has previously published books encouraging churches to poll unbelievers, and do church how they say we should. The man may be a good pollster, but his ability to interpret the data is highly suspect.
Report comment to moderator
PS Steve, Jesus actually did tell parables in spite of unbelievers’ inability to understand them–or even because of their inability to understand. He said as much one time to the disciples.
Report comment to moderator
Praise ye the LORD. Sing unto the LORD a new song, and his praise in the congregation of saints. Psalms 149:1
New mercies continually demand new songs of praise, upon earth and in heaven. And the children of Zion have not only to bless the God who made them, but to rejoice in him, as having created them in Christ Jesus unto good works, and formed them saints as well as men. The Lord takes pleasure in his people; they should rejoice in Him. When the Lord has made sinners feel their wants and unworthiness, he will adorn them with the graces of his Spirit, and cause them to bear his image, and rejoice in his happiness for ever. Let his saints employ their waking hours upon their beds in songs of praise. Let them rejoice, even upon the bed of death, assured that they are going to eternal rest and glory. Matthew Henry
And he hath put a new song in my mouth, even praise unto our God: many shall see it, and fear, and shall trust in the LORD. Psalms 40:3
Report comment to moderator
IG: I will concede that: I can clear up a bit the definition of “worldly”
Worldly means anything that pertains to I John 2:15-17. The lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life. II Timothy 2:15 tells us to flee youthful lusts and Paul told us in Romans 7 that he fought with his flesh constantly. Perhaps I should be more clear and I can use the opinion of one of my heroes here best. Bach said that music was for the glorification of God and the entertainment of the mind. This concept is supported in Scripture. An example would be wonderful here. Listen at some point to Bach’s “B Minor Mass” or “Christmas Oratorio.” You will have an idea of music written for both of Bach’s purposes. Listen to Handel, Mendlessohn, or maybe even Brahm’s or Vaughan Williams. Then listen to Metallica’s “Sleep with One Eye Open” and then to a cut from Kutless’ album “Strong Tower” and you get music designed to appeal to the flesh. Metallica makes no issue of this. Kutless is trying to sell a sound like the world’s with sacred words over the top of the music. The difference truly is amazing and very easily distinguished.
About your musical keys and combinations being limited comment. Well, honestly, I just can’t buy that. That’s why I have left it alone. The combinations are limitless and from one musician to another, our minds are our only limitation here. I just disagree with you. I don’t mean to be harsh or belittling; I just don’t agree.
Finally, I try to Biblically proof text everything I am writing with Scripture. Everybody writing on these pages is human and we all have opinions. We think differently, believe differently, and express ourselves differently. I wrote earlier that in all of life there is a standard; the Bible is that standard, we can accept it, we can deny it. Accepting it means life; we deny it to our own peril. My personal opinion doesn’t count any more or less than your’s, SteveG’s, Cheryl D’s or Jonny’s but the Bible and what it says towers over all because it is God’s Word. We will all answer to the Author of the Bible one day who will hold our eternity in his hands. I don’t know about you but I really want to hear that “well done good and faithful servant, enter into the joy of thy Lord.”
Report comment to moderator
CherylD- Nice post in #131. Maybe the issue at stake here is fundamentally one of “reverence?” I suspect that this is a concept that continually loses ground to the “Jesus is my buddy” crowd. I always love entering our cathedral and, just above the doors, seeing the brass placard “Enter with Reverence!” Kinda’ sets the tone for proper worship before you even go in.
Stephenfoxx- FYI, the term “proof-texting” typically refers to the use of Scripture passages in isolation to prove a conclusion that has been begged– an unfortunately all-too common occurrence on WMB. As Hank Hanegraaff is fond of repeating regularly, “a text without a context is a pretext.”
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
Is it possible that the new song(s) the psalmist references are what we know as the Psalms today? They surely would have been new to him–it isn’t necessarily a commandment to us to write more new songs.
Report comment to moderator
Hi Cameron
YOU WRITE: “Is it possible that the new song(s) the psalmist references are what we know as the Psalms today? They surely would have been new to him–it isn’t necessarily a commandment to us to write more new songs.”
Both passages I posted earlier and below would lead me to believe its “a new song” – then in Psalms 40 “many shall see it, and fear, and shall trust in the LORD.” –
Because there is no clear reference to singing a new song which one is led to sing, or write words or music, we are free to do so. There are many hymns which are obviously inspired by the Holy Spirit. I’m saddened by the lack of reverence by lots of Christian music, there is no reason to make music which sounds like it comes from a night club instead of a church.
Praise ye the LORD. Sing unto the LORD a new song, and his praise in the congregation of saints. Psalms 149:1
And he hath put a new song in my mouth, even praise unto our God: many shall see it, and fear, and shall trust in the LORD. Psalms 40:3
Report comment to moderator
I guess one thing in the “what’s legitimate to sing” camp that I haven’t seen anyone reference is why just the psalms? Why not, for instance, 1 Timothy 3:16 (a creed that could be poetry) or Hebrews 1:8 and following, or the “Holy, holy, holies” from Revelation? Even limiting our singing just to Scripture, we have a lot of poetry in Scripture that doesn’t appear in the Psalms. And why not a paraphrase of scriptural truths set to music? Setting Scripture to music aids in memory, and so does setting theology to music.
Without a biblical absolutefor only Psalms, it seems like better standards would be that the music be biblically true and fitting (”Great Is Thy Faithfulness” to use an example I keep coming back to). We have a potential “slippery slope,” here, and I recognize that, and personally suffer from it. (As mentioned earlier, using the term “worship wars” is enough to get people to stop even discussing whether some music rises to an appropriate standard for public worship. “Just the psalms” is definitely a line in the sand, and a more objective standard.) It seems to me that music should be under the authority of the elders and not pawned off on some “worship leader.” It’s somply too important,
BTW, I also don’t think that limiting one’s music to the Psalms necessarily means all one’s music is appropriate–one could, say, use a bad translation or set the Psalms to very inappropriate music. In other words, no matter what you do with your music, oversight of biblically discerning leaders is necessary.
But again, why is music limited only to Psalms (and not even to all of Scripture) when other elements of the service (prayer, testimonies, and sermons) are not limited only to quoting and reading Scripture?
Report comment to moderator
Hi CherylD:
Sorry I haven’t been back to post. There are a number of things in a post you made yesterday I’d still like to respond to if I have time, but a quick comment for now regarding your post at 142. You ask:
But again, why is music limited only to Psalms (and not even to all of Scripture) when other elements of the service (prayer, testimonies, and sermons) are not limited only to quoting and reading Scripture?
Briefly, God didn’t provide a “Book of Prayers,” but he did send his Spirit to help us pray. He didn’t give us a “Book of Sermons,” but he gives us pastors to provide that ministry. He did, however, provide a perfect, inspired “Book of Psalms,” filled with glorious descriptions of every aspect of Christ’s ministry. He gives us pastors and other church officers, but no office of hymnwriting. He has commanded songs to be sung, yes, even “new songs” (which I hope to address eventually), but he didn’t command songs (uninspired, no less) to be composed for corporate worship.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG: If you’re still checking in…
Responding to your question about the Westminster divines reading too much into the 2nd Commandment. I see Cameron suggested looking in to the Regulative Principle to get an understanding of the Westminster view (though I’m not convinced they all held the view). Also, I was citing a portion of the Shorter Catechism (almost a redundancy–a brief overview of a brief overview). The Larger Catechism has more to say on the subject, and the Confession even more.
I’d be curious why you care? An honest question. My understanding is that, to you, this Christianity thing is a big joke, ultimately similar to, if more influential than, an Elvis cult. Would you go to an Elvis site and pick sides in a dispute over who to worship, fit Elvis or fat?
Report comment to moderator
Yeah: I’d be curious why you care? An honest question. My understanding is that, to you, this Christianity thing is a big joke, ultimately similar to, if more influential than, an Elvis cult. Would you go to an Elvis site and pick sides in a dispute over who to worship, fit Elvis or fat?
You are quite mistaken about that, although I am not sure I have the words available to explain why in short order. I may need to get back to you on it.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl D. – Are you asking which one I think is more important, my relationship with God or my relationship with my church? Becuase my relationshi[p with God is definately most important. You can seperate them. Becuase in the end I answer to God not the church.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl D–in an earlier post you mentioned the importance of not what people like, but what God likes. Just how do you know God desires “Great is thy Faithfulness” more than “How Great is our God?” Is it not the heart of the one who is singing that song offering their praise? The widow who offered her two pieces of money was more honored than those who gave much. I’d rather hear my 7 year old sing “How Great is Our God” (which he does with eyes closed in deep reverence) than the hypocrite behind me in the pew sing “Great is thy Faithfulness.”
Report comment to moderator
You know SteveG, I still have the Lost Dogs first album somewhere hiding in a box in the closet…Steve Taylor is actually on my Creative Zen: Vision M
My favorite growing up was Petra though. Nowadays I listen to everything from Anberlin and Mae to Flyleaf, POD, Disturbed to Led Zeppelin and Better Than Ezra. And sometimes I even watch American Idol…although I dont put it on the same musical level
_____________________________
Steven and IG are raising some interesting questions at least.
If lyrics can of course be bad, can music as well, or is music truly amoral? I think there is some disctinction there. As in, some music would be played perfectly behind a scene in a movie where they are summoning a demon, but would not go well as a revision to a church hymn.
But I think there are also cases where a man can write beautiful non “me” lyrics for a hymn
But can we take the same song and put it to heavy distorted guitars?
The overall defining factor for a church service really musically becomes whats practical for a group of people to sing and is yet edifying and beautiful at the same time. An electric guitar can be great, if the tone blends with the rest of the instraments. It can also be horrible like an organ out of key if misused. And frankly, I think an acoustic always fits much better. So why bother using an electric?
“There are musicians who try to take the sounds and effects of the world, cover them over with sacred words (the strength/weakness of the words is really irrelevent here)and to praise God with them. It is here that God’s Word is clear. We keep trying to use Cain’s offering to praise God and he just isn’t going to accept it.”
For instance, the song Hurt originally done by Nine Inch Nails and rewritten by replacing a couple of words by Johnny Cash, changed the whole song/meaning. Or take “In Da Club” originally sung by 50 Cent and redone by some goofballs and put on radio and called it “In da church”.
The first was done well, the 2nd was cheesy, but neither will be played on sunday morning and sung as a hymn. Where as I agree that Satan can take a good song or piece of music and ruin it, God has also taken what was meant for evil and used it for good.
The question here though is, pre-fall, would Adam and Eve have sung? Is songwriting, poetry and the like, a product of the fall or a product of God’s creation in the first place. I’d say its the latter, and where as it can be misused and abused, music was intended as a gift, and one that is exemplied but not limited by The Psalms.
Abel wasnt favored because God likes lamb over vegetables.
————————
Teenage Tinkerbell,
The Church does a poor job of ministering to what should be its number 1 mission, discipleship, evangelical area and thats kids and the youth of the church. They are the next generation, and going forth to make disciples of all men should begin right there. It doesnt mean you have to cater to their music whims, or cultural whims, but it does mean that just like the rest of the church, Jesus Christ must be preached and focused on.
Report comment to moderator
Momoffour,
I don’t know “How Great Is Our God.” I do think there’s something more than “one’s heart” that’s important, however. Tacky example, but I was teaching a class once, and overseeing students during a section in which they were under someone else’s care for some woodworking. One little boy at a table, while he was working on his project, kept chanting, “Go, Jesus, Go!” I don’t know where he picked up that chant, but it disturbed me that some adult hadn’t shown proper respect for God in teaching that. Jesus is not on our level, period, and should be approached with reverence. If he was going to “memorize” a “saying,” wouldn’t Scripture be better? Or something that doesn’t make God something akin to a basketball star who is one’s personal buddy?
One’s heart attitude is of course important–but one can have the right attitude and the wrong theology. (Mormons, Catholics, and even Muslims can have nice heart attitudes.) I once attended a service (not at my current church) where the praise team, for some inexplicable reason, sang a “song” that consisted of nothing more than the words, “The Spirit and the bride, the Spirit and the bride, the Spirit and the bride say ‘Come Lord Jesus.’” Repeated and repeated and repeated, for literally minutes on end. No more additional words, and not even any teaching to make sure that spiritually illiterate people in the church would understand that “the bride” was us. Once I got tired of it, after about the tenth repetition when it became clear they were going for some kind of record, I read the bulletin. Once I’d read the bulletin, I picked up my hymnal and quietly leafed through it, and managed to read a couple of hymns before they finished. Yes, those words were straight from Scripture, but they qualified as “Vain repetition” nontheless.
Other questions come to mind too. One, in any church there’s probably going to be some disagreement about what people “like,” and it seems better to go with what is clearly “good” in such a case. (Not everything that’s a “hymn” is good; not every chorus is “bad.”) We really should praise God with our best, and that limits our repertoire considerably. Leave the mediocre for people to sing at home if they want to. Two, there may be a difference between what people like and what they should like. Kids may like “Father Abraham,” for instance, but is it good for them, or is it better to teach them songs that have some spiritual benefit? I’d say let the pastors and elders choose what is good and forget about what people like. With that group of “good” songs they may use some more often because people like them, but starting with what people like is wrong, because it’s idolatry.
If the apostle Paul couldn’t sing a song because (1) the theology is bad or (2) it trivializes the Maker of the universe, then frankly, I don’t care about people’s “hearts” in singing it–it doesn’t belong in the worship service. In addition, the hypocrite singing “Great Is Thy Faithfulness” is confessing Jesus with his mouth, and God may use that, in the near or distant future. I’d rather have the words of that song going through his mind on some distant day than, say, “Spring up oh well, within my soul; spring up oh well, and make me who-oh-ole. Spring up oh well, and give to me-ee, that li-ife abundantly.” He may be able to get his heart attitude going for “Spring up,” because it’s more “fun” to sing–but it neither edifies man nor worships God, and thus it’s a waste of time in the worship of the living God. The fact that some may sing hypocritically is irrelevant–between them and God, and no reason at all to change what we sing.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn: I saw Petra live twice, once with Greg X. Volz on the “Never Say Die” tour, and once with John Schlitt on the “Beyond Belief” tour. I have the DVD of their Farewel tour and having Schlitt and Volz singing together is really a thrill.
“Beyond Belief” is one of the best rock albums ever.
Interesting bit of trivia: Kiss had a song called “Heaven’s On Fire” on an album they released a couple of years after “Beyond Belief.” The melody and chord riff in the chorus of that song is identical to the guitar riff in “Seen and Not Heard” from “Beyond Belief.”
Report comment to moderator
Thorn,
It seems to me that “focusing on” the children and youth is actually part of the problem. Children are their parents’ responsibility, primarily, and should be treated as part of their families, and part of the larger church. The more they are put in separate classes, the worse our problems become. Children’s church hasn’t solved anything at all; it has merely put the care of our kids under someone other than their pastor, being taught material that their parents never see, and usually being taught by untrained workers who try too hard to be liked and to be entertaining. Subdividing the church by ages is no better than subdividing it for any other reason (race, class, etc.). The only legitimate division I can see in Scripture–and this one only a temporary one–is dividing by gender. That is, a class for women can have its place (though obviously a separate church service for women does not). A couple of generations of children’s church has reaped a culture in which young adults now have their own churches if they go at all. More often, they don’t go at all. And children in the church are, mostly, shockingly biblically illiterate, at least partly because their own parents have never been trained to be their teachers.
Report comment to moderator
Something to think about for the “what does God care” faction: God obviously cared deeply about how He was worshipped in the Old Testament, prescribing very strict standards therefor. By no means am I suggesting that Christians become Levitical, but just supporting Cheryl’s notion, here, that it’s more than what’s in one’s heart that matters. Check out Uzzah, for example. With seemingly good intentions, he reached out to prevent the Ark from dumping on the ground, and God took his life because the outward form was inconsistent with what God required. Contact with the holy is something we should always take seriously.
Report comment to moderator
BTW, nice post, Thorn.
Report comment to moderator
Well, I’ll address this to CherylD, but I know the conversation has tracked a new course. That’s cool. Sorry for the delay. I’d explain, but who cares?
CherylD wrote,
What about the texts that tell us to sing a “new” song unto the Lord? That would suggest something more recent than the Psalms.
It could suggest that, certainly; but it’s not necessary to read it that way. Normally, we wouldn’t have reason to think of such verses as referring to anything other than “something that hasn’t been done before,” but if other scriptures limit or preclude that usage, we have to consider alternatives. I’m sure you’re aware this happens with other seemingly straightforward terms in scripture, e.g., Calvinists and Arminians, alike, parse the simple term “all” depending on their exegetical commitments.
Psalms-only advocates, relying on the broader ‘regulative principle of worship,’ believe that only God may determine how he is to be worshipped. We aren’t permitted to add to his commands, and we must exclude what he has not commanded. So, for example, we’re required to observe the two sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s supper, and no more sacraments than those two. Do you reject the other Roman sacraments? If so, why?
In 2 Chronicles 29, God is shown restoring, or setting in order, the means of his true worship:
David and Asaph being the primary writers of the Psalms, the reference here is to the entire Psalter. By Hezekiah’s issuing the appointments listed in this chapter, “the service of the house of the LORD was restored” (v. 35). We know that the sacrificial elements described therein were abrogated upon Christ’s fulfillment of them (as explained, e.g., in the book of Hebrews). On the other hand, there never was a command to cease Psalm singing due to ceremonial fulfillment; instead, we have New Testament instruction to continue singing Psalms! The Ephesians 5 and Colossians 3 verses we discussed earlier are testimony of this abiding command.
So, regarding the issue of “new songs.” Due to the prohibition to sing anything but Psalms in corporate worship, we must consider whether those ‘new’ verses may signify something other than ‘never done before.’ And we do have some Biblical warrant for that consideration.
John 13:34 reads, “A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another.” But in what sense is this command to love one another “new”? Jesus said the law could be summed up in the commands to love God and to love our neighbor. Leviticus 19:18 speaks of loving our neighbor as ourselves. The command is not new as in “newly given”; but, Christ is reaffirming and extolling it. He is ridding the old commandment of the corruption it had endured over the ages. This is not unlike his Sermon on the Mount, where he makes various “you have heard it said…but I say” statements, shining new light on the meaning of the old commands.
Commenting on Psalm 33, Charles Spurgeon, who did not hold to exclusive psalmody, wrote:
He and many other commentators believed, at least in part, that the “newness” of the “new song” was indicative of the freshness of perceiving God’s goodness (and not necessarily a ‘newly’ written song).
Exclusive psalmody removes any question as to whether God is pleased with the content of what is being sung. It provides, in inspired language, perfect articulation of all aspects of Christ’s ministry and praise of God’s attributes. And it makes it possible for everyone at all times to obey the commandment to sing “new songs” to God without having to worry whether a newly written song has been composed on any given day, or within whatever timeframe we regard something as “new.”
Report comment to moderator
A friend of mine brought this to my attention the other day:
“Guard your steps as you go to the house of God, and draw near to listen rather than to offer the sacrifice of fools…do not be hasty in word or impulsive in thought to bring up a matter in the presence of God…let your words be few.”
Ecclesiastes 5:1-2
Nice regulative principle of worship enunciated there.
Report comment to moderator
Jonny: Check out Uzzah, for example. With seemingly good intentions, he reached out to prevent the Ark from dumping on the ground, and God took his life because the outward form was inconsistent with what God required.
I guess if you believe in a god who would strike a man dead for trying to do a good thing with no bad intent, and if you believe such a god is worthy of love and worship, this who debate makes some sense.
Yeah: In response to #144, where you said: I’d be curious why you care? An honest question. My understanding is that, to you, this Christianity thing is a big joke, ultimately similar to, if more influential than, an Elvis cult. Would you go to an Elvis site and pick sides in a dispute over who to worship, fit Elvis or fat?
What few people here seem to understand, and I suppose I understand why they don’t, is that I actually have a deep and great respect for spiritual things. I am not a traditional Christian … I am not easily categorized and subject to change, but I think I can say I’m a universalist with pagan affinities. Or maybe a pagan universalist. But not being a Christian does not mean I regard Christianity as nonesense.
I spent a good number of years as a Christian (which is when I developed my lingering fondness for a good number of Christian musicians that I still have). Christian faith can be remarkably deep and enriching and people who hold it can do a great deal of good in the world.
But I do react against what I consider petty dogmatism and unjustified literalism. Most of my participation here is to argue against those things, which I believe undercut the beauty of the faith. (See my response to Jonny here). I realize that many here would say those things are necessary parts of the faith, and it is that kind of dialog that I find interesting and, hopefully, constructive.
That may still not explain things to you well enough, but it may be the best I can do.
Report comment to moderator
Yeah,
I think you’ve sort of begged the question here: “Due to the prohibition to sing anything but Psalms in corporate worship . . .” You haven’t shown any such prohibitions. You have shown principles that could be read as saying that nothing else should be used, but I don’t think that is the same as a “prohibition.” Before the Psalms were written, for instance, we have songs such as Miriam’s song, some of which ended up in the Psalms. David wrote Psalms, Asaph wrote Psalms; the NIV (not my usual version, but the one I grabbed off my reference shelf) even puts headings in over the Magnificat and the praise of Zachariah, calling them songs. (I was looking to see if Mary said or sang the Magnificat; apparently she said it–but what makes words like that acceptable when stated, but not when sung?)
Anyway, my point is that obviously people sang to the Lord before the Psalms were written down–some of those songs made their way into the Psalter, some made it into other portions of Scripture, and some were never written down at all. At what point in church history (accepting the Old Testament as part of “church history”) did God make a prohibition and state, “From now on, you can only sing Psalms from the Psalter”? I will grant you that Psalms are a great starting place for our singing; I’ll even grant you (for the sake of argument–since I don’t know one way or the other) Psalms as the exclusive hymnal of the early church . . . but where and when was the prohibition issued against other music? Again, I’m more than willing to grant a preference . . . but I’m also more than willing to grant a preference to pastors reading large portions of Scripture as the better part of their sermons, prayers being written ahead of time and largely coming directly from Scripture, and personal testimonies harkening back to Scripture. But none of these forms are limited totally to Scripture, and certainly none are limited only to the Psalms. The fact that the Psalms were written as a hymnbook isn’t really an answer, because we don’t limit studies of theology to the Bible books that are more or less theology texts; we use the whole Bible in our preaching and our study–why are we restricted from doing so in our hymnody? A prohibition, not a preference?
I’m not trying to be argumentative here . . . but I simply think that to argue for exclusive Psalms, one must show when that regulation was put into place, because it clearly wasn’t there before the Psalms were written, and I can’t imagine a theological point that says we aren’t allowed to sing (minimally) other Scripture. (Singing of the angels at the tomb, for instance: “He is not here, for He is risen, as He said.”) We are allowed to call on the name of Jesus–why are we not allowed to sing it, or sing of the mightiest event in the history of the world, His resurrection?
Report comment to moderator
Thanks for your response, SteveG. It still seems to me, though, that, at bottom, you consider Christianity a joke. It looks like your criticism in 156 isn’t of Jonny’s dogmatism, but of the God depicted in the Bible, which is the Christian God. The same one who condemns to hell, who ordered the killing of women and children, who commanded homosexuals be executed, and who struck down Uzzah. You’ve covered this ground before. You don’t think that’s all ‘nonsense’?
Report comment to moderator
SteveG,
Here’s a different perspective on Uzzah and the whole worship thing if you care to read it:
http://www.antiochian.org/node/17959
For the record, I do not believe “in a god [rightfully lowercase, SteveG] who would” punish a man “for trying to do a good thing with no bad intent” nor do I believe that “such a god is worthy of love and worship.” I think that we’ve been over this plenty in the past, but your comments in #156 reflect a Western view that death is a punishment, in the common sense of that term, imposed by God on man for sin; I warrant that this stems from the common Western understanding of God as (a) threatening to kill Adam in the Garden if he dared to break the rule, rather than (b) simply warning him of the natural consequences of his action. In other words, an understanding of (a) god who, as a father, would tell a child that if the child touched the hot stove he would thrash the tar out of him, rather than (b) God as a Father who would warn the child that if the child touched the hot stove he would burn his hand, out of concern for the child becoming injured.
But again, it’s all in the interpretation . . . As I’ve said, I think the Western god is schizophrenic: (a) a father who blasts people for their misdeeds and whose honor gets offended (a la Anselm) when someone disobeys in such a way that he can’t forgive without satisfaction; and (b) and a son who is all lovey-dovey on the disobedient– so much so that he voluntarily dies a horrific death in place of those oh-so-punishable malcontents just to satisfy the nasty father’s offended honor. Reconciling that kind of father and son into a Trinitarian shared essence just ain’t possible, and thinking them worthy of love and worship and actually want to spend time in heaven with them out of any reason other than fear– well, let’s just say that I’ve got a hard time understanding that.
But, then again, that’s sort of hijacking this thread . . . so, let it just be said that I think the whole Uzzah affair can easily be explained consistently with a God who IS love– but you first have to disconnect from your Western notion of a punisher-god.
– Jonny
Report comment to moderator
Well see, not being a literalist or one who insists the Bible is “the word of God,” I can say that perhaps Yahweh had nothing to do with Uzziah’s death. Maybe he got struck by lightning or had a heart attack, and people put two and two together and concluded — understandably but mistakenly — that God had struck him down. Or maybe the incident didn’t actually happen the way people remembered it when writing about it later.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG: Not sure if you’re responding to me in 160 there, but if so, you’re not describing Christianity, hence your lack of distaste in accounting it. You can mold Christianity to bear the shape of various avant-garde modern -isms, but it won’t do to keep calling it “Christianity.” Wanna remove the resurrection?
But, if you weren’t responding to me, my apologies for butting in.
Report comment to moderator
Yeah- #161
Can o’ worms? Got it.
CCRRRRAAACCCKKKK!
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl,
I agree with you. I think many churches have put their kids off in a corner and given the job to someone else, realizing it or not. That doesnt mean that all youth groups for instance are bad. I thorougly enjoyed one, and it was never done in place of service. I was also blessed though with Christ centered youth leaders. I think you can have both, but its just one of those areas that Satan can easily help us ignore and forget about.
Another point to this is that kids dont bring in money. Kids dont regularly tithe large amounts of money. I wonder how many churches do not prioratize kids and reaching out to kids in the community because of this?
________________________
Steve,
I saw them once, on the Beyond Belief tour. IT was amazing. I left before the encore though, cause at that age i didnt have a clue what an encore was. But yeah, thats my favorite album of theirs and across christian rock, but my favorite song had to be Graverobber while Volz was still singing.
_______________________
“Check out Uzzah, for example. With seemingly good intentions, he reached out to prevent the Ark from dumping on the ground, and God took his life because the outward form was inconsistent with what God required. Contact with the holy is something we should always take seriously.”
But if he doesnt reach out his hand, does it crash, pop open, and everyone around dies? Maybe there’s another passage or verse that speaks to Uzzah’s heart that I’m unaware of, but it seems to me that Uzzah was willing to sacrifice himself knowing the conseqences. He valued God’s holiness over his mortal life.
“I guess if you believe in a god who would strike a man dead for trying to do a good thing with no bad intent, and if you believe such a god is worthy of love and worship, this who debate makes some sense.”
Doing something good, doesnt remove the previous sinful stains. Doing something good in man’s eyes doesnt spare you from physical death. Pushing someone out of the way of an oncoming train, doesnt make the train disappear. It also doesnt lean one way or the other to whether or not God is loving. In the least God has prepared a man to die, to save others…
But what is this mortal life, when eternity is what truly matters?
Report comment to moderator
Thorn: it seems to me that Uzzah was willing to sacrifice himself knowing the conseqences. He valued God’s holiness over his mortal life.
That’s well and good, but the story clearly says that God struck him dead, and specifies it was out of anger.
Then the anger of the Lord was aroused against Uzzah, and God struck him there for his error; and he died there by the Ark of God (2 Samuel 6:6-7).
Now, if this action of God’s is voluntary, and in particular the emotional response, then this does not paint a very commendatory picture. And the story certainly suggests that God did not have to do it. God was angry and struck him; rather than, God was grateful that he had not let the Ark fall, and rewarded him.
Yeah: You can mold Christianity to bear the shape of various avant-garde modern -isms, but it won’t do to keep calling it “Christianity.” Wanna remove the resurrection?
I doubt that most Christians would put the story of Uzzah on the same plane of either importance or credibility as the resurrection.
Report comment to moderator
Yeah: the God depicted in the Bible, which is the Christian God. The same one who condemns to hell, who ordered the killing of women and children, who commanded homosexuals be executed, and who struck down Uzzah. You’ve covered this ground before. You don’t think that’s all ‘nonsense’?
I think it is all the signs of a growing and deepening understanding of things. The idea of God that Jesus had was different in many ways from that of Moses, which was itself a bit different from Abraham’s. Yahweh did not change, but human understanding did.
The school of thought that insists that everything we need to know about spiritual matters is contained in the pages of one holy book and that all true revelation/prophecy/insight ended before AD 100 is a rigid view that many people don’t share.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG: I understand it’s a view many people don’t share, but there’s no need to dispute that all those things–inerrancy, miracles, demonstrations of God’s wrath, hell, the account of Uzzah–are entailed by the term “Christianity” as historically understood for centuries. Putting modern spirituallized twists on it and saying you don’t object to that version is really just equivocation.
So is the resurrection nonsense or not?
Report comment to moderator
Yeah,
Whoa! You just made a statement that is, at best, misleading with respect to the HISTORICAL understanding of God’s wrath. “Demonstrations of God’s wrath” has at least two different understandings in Christendom. From the earliest days of the Church, most of the Fathers have understood God to be non-emotive and unchanging and understood Scripture’s descriptions of God “being angry” as anthropomorphizations of God by man in order to portray God understandable to humanity. This idea that the Father can even be angry is an offshoot of the Tertullian/Augustine/Anselm/Aquinas line of thought that was picked up and amplified by the Reformers and is strictly a phenomenon of Western Christendom. So, when you say “understood for centuries,” you probably ought to add a qualifier of some sort, because the Western view of a God capable of anger is unique and definitely not consistent with that of the consensus of early Christianity and what we know today as Eastern Christianity. In other words, “anger” is not always “anger” is not always “anger.”
Report comment to moderator
OK Jonny. Thanks!
Report comment to moderator
SteveG,
Don’t forget the original disobedience with the ark. Uzzah wouldn’t have needed to reach out to steady it had they carried it the way God commanded–on poles through rings, not on a cart. Disobedience = sin = penalty of death. God may be merciful and spare some to His glory, but we all deserve death, for we all have sinned.
Report comment to moderator
I think with the Uzzah story, people also forget that this was physical death but not necessarily spiritual death. No one could see God and live, and nobody could touch the physical representation of God and live. (If he hadn’t been killed, it would have lowered reverence for God and resulted in Uzzah being “the guy who touched the ark and lived.”) The ark should not have been on a cart, and God demonstrated that obedience is better than disobedience. But earthly death is not the worst thing one can face, and Uzzah may well have been ultimately right before God and not damned–he touched the untouchable, but he didn’t do it for personal glory.
God showed His own glory and removed any possibility of glory to Uzzah for unlawfully touching the ark–but that doesn’t say Uzzah was damned for the touch. Interestingly, Christians always assume Adam will be in heaven, though he is the one person in history who sinned with his eyes wide open and is never used as an example of godliness. I think he may well have been damned for his touch, but that Uzzah may have been killed physically but not spiritually for his. But God is righteous and His judgments are true, and I don’t think we’re told what happened to Uzzah on the other side.
Report comment to moderator
Yeah: I understand it’s a view many people don’t share, but there’s no need to dispute that all those things–inerrancy, miracles, demonstrations of God’s wrath, hell, the account of Uzzah–are entailed by the term “Christianity” as historically understood for centuries.
Not really. And at any rate, I didn’t intend to submit my view of Christianity to you for approval. I told you that I don’t agree with much of Christianity, but at the same time, I respect it and I respect those who believe it. I just find some points worthy of discussion and debate.
Report comment to moderator
CherylD:
I don’t mean to be argumentative either. I appreciate your concern. While I think this issue is very important for various reasons—worshipping God on his terms, enjoying the privilege and blessings of singing perfect songs to God—it’s not worth breaking fellowship over.
I think you’ve sort of begged the question here: “Due to the prohibition to sing anything but Psalms in corporate worship . . .” You haven’t shown any such prohibitions.
I think we beg the question when we assume it’s OK to add appointments to God’s order of worship. (Remember, we’re talking about corporate gatherings where a call to worship has been made.) After all, he’s given us many details about how he is to be worshipped, including authorizing the singing of Psalms (and never authorizing uninspired songs—notice that all songs sung in Biblical accounts are of inspired songs). He never rescinds the command to sing Psalms, and in fact repeats the command in the NT, no less. Where do we find the license to add to God’s prescription?
How would you have demonstrated to Nadab and Abihu that the fire they intended to offer to God was profane and they were, therefore, prohibited from offering it? You won’t find a “God forbids profane fire” scripture anywhere, so how would you make the case? I’m assuming (hoping!) you reject RC sacraments. If so, why?
I’m sorry I’m not able to give more time and detail to these posts. Many of your objections and concerns are addressed in this article. I know you said earlier you were familiar with the subject, but you may find a refresher to be of value.
Report comment to moderator
Yeah – 171
YOU WRITE: “Where do we find the license to add to God’s prescription?”
Where does it say that we can ONLY sing the Psalms? Where does it say that we cannot sing a “new song” ? – can the Scripture which I posted “new song” be contrived in some way to mean a song other than a “new song” (from the Psalms) that a Believer wants to share as praise to God.
When did “legalism” enter into singing praises to our LORD with thanksgiving to what he has done, WITHOUT using the Psalms, but using our own words to express our OWN praise and thanks? Our thanks and praise to GOD are individual.
Let’s talk about the melody associated with these songs – does anyone have the notes which were song with the Psalms in the OT and NT? – if not, then this must be new notes, new music – how does that line up with the Psalms?
Does the Scripture lie when it says a “new song”? – does that mean new melody, new notes? – or does that mean words from the Believers heart, the song which a person might sing in thanksgiving of prayers answered, or a heart comforted after losing a loved one – or might that mean the gift of a new child or a loved one coming to Christ or THANKSGIVING for Salvation and Christ’s death on the Cross for our sins which are dreadful?
Before anyone brings their legalistic stick into the fray, they need to ask why GOD wouldn’t want someone to offer a song of praise to HIS many blessings, one that comes from the Believers heart and soul, a “NEW SONG” –
Holy, Holy, Holy! Lord God Almighty
Text: Reginald Heber
Music: John B. Dykes
1. Holy, holy, holy! Lord God Almighty!
Early in the morning our song shall rise to thee.
Holy, holy, holy! Merciful and mighty,
God in three persons, blessed Trinity!
2. Holy, holy, holy! All the saints adore thee,
casting down their golden crowns around the glassy sea;
cherubim and seraphim falling down before thee,
which wert, and art, and evermore shalt be.
3. Holy, holy, holy! Though the darkness hide thee,
though the eye of sinful man thy glory may not see,
only thou art holy; there is none beside thee,
perfect in power, in love and purity.
4. Holy, holy, holy! Lord God Almighty!
All thy works shall praise thy name, in earth and sky and sea.
Holy, holy, holy! Merciful and mighty,
God in three persons, blessed Trinity.
Report comment to moderator
Hmmmm….. I’d rather step on a carpet tack.
Report comment to moderator
Yeah,
I read it. I thought you had another link earlier and I’d planned to get to it, and tried just now to find it, but I don’t see anything.
I just now noticed that you did answer my earlier question of why we aren’t limited to Scripture for sermons and prayers, but we are for singing. In your response that pastors are given to us for sermons, I’ve always heard that in fact we’d have better hymnody if we left that to qualified pastors, as earlier ages did.
I’ll be back on a couple of other points later, after I look something up.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t think there’s anything in the Bible that says God wants sermons as part of worship either, Yeah.
Report comment to moderator
OK, I’m back. I was thinking it was one of the Reformers who said, “Next to the Bible is your hymnbook” (it’s quoted in a lot of hymnals, but not the Trinity hymnal)…which wouldn’t prove that hymns were from God, but would show that it’s a false idea that use of hymns aren’t part of the Reformed tradition. But I can’t find the quote, so I can’t go there. I think it’s Martin Luther, and this author would probably answer me by not including him in the Reformed tradition.
Anyway, I read the article. Not being an expert in original languages, I don’t know how accurate he is on the “psalms, hymns, spiritual songs” and “new song” and other Scripture quotes. I also don’t have enough of an overview of Reformed churches to know what percentage use only psalms…my guess is it’s tiny, but I don’t really know. At any rate, I dispute his assertion that a church that uses hymns cannot really be Reformed–that’s simply silly. He can say that they’re in error, but not that “they aren’t really Reformed.” The Trinity hymnal, interestingly enough (published, of course, under Presbyterian oversight) refers to its selection as “psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs”–suggesting that much of today’s Presbyterian leadership doesn’t agree with this interpretation. Again, that doesn’t in any way “prove” the point, but my spiritual leaders do find sufficient grounds for this interpretation. Also, many godly men through the ages wrote many of the hymns we use today–look, I’d trust James Boice’s scholarship more than my own, and he wrote (and published) hymns. I do think that the worship service should use only “the best of the best” and definitely under pastoral oversight–and obviously, if my church were to decide on a psalms-only policy, we’d probably gain from the change. But that isn’t my decision, and personally I don’t even know of a single church with that policy. (I’ve only been Reformed for six years, Baptist before that, but I don’t know of any PCA churches with such a policy. And I’m PCA for deliberate theological reasons, more important in my mind than hymnody.)
Honestly, I’d gladly go to a Presbyterian church that used only the Trinity Hymnal–I think even that is difficult to find today (unfortunately)–finding a Presbyterian church that used only Psalms, and was as close to me or closer than my current church, would probably be impossible. I drive 18 miles to church, which is too far. It’s the only “legitimate” reason I know of for me to change churches–if there was a sound church two miles from me, I’d change churches. I could be more involved in the daily life of church members, and could more readily invite neighbors to church. I don’t think a long drive to church is a good idea, but it’s my situation because I bought a house after I found my church. Obviously I’m not going to leave my church to drive farther.
And equally important to the singing of worthy music–a test on which my church currently gets low grades–is that a church not have a children’s church. My current church does not, and that’s a plus. So, I could look for a church that is reasonably close to my house, has sound preaching, is known for its love and repentance and outreach (this is where my church is), doesn’t have children’s church and ideally doesn’t have a nursery, and limits its singing to psalms and/or psalms and hymns. But my parents spent my entire childhood looking for a “perfect” church–we were never in any church more than two or three years, rarely that long–and thus, I’ve chosen instead to accept that I’ll never find a perfect church, but that as long as I’m part of a body that honors God, attempts to live according to Scripture, and ministers well to its body and its community, then that’s “enough” for me. Choosing a church and staying committed to it unless I have very good reason to change is a choice I have made. Heresy in the pulpit or my moving out of town are good reasons to change; use of choruses in worship is not (in my mind) heresy, though it is less than ideal. Use of hymns is not (in what I’ve seen so far) even less than ideal, as long as we use only the theologically best, under pastoral oversight–tests that, unfortunately, are probably failed by 98% of American churches today.
Report comment to moderator
P.S. I’m not saying he’s wrong–he may well be right. I’m out of my element since I only know English. The English language Bible is not readily interpreted with that interpretation, and those with spiritual oversight over me (my denomination in general, and my church in particular) have not come to that interpretation. I’m not going to either (1) go to the service late so that I miss most of the singing (I briefly debated that in Chicago, where the music situation in my Baptist church was far worse, and decided that had an air of rebellion against my church leadership); (2) attend and not sing; or (3) leave my church.
So, I’m basically at the point of saying, I see no prohibition of hymns in Scripture and my church uses hymns (and choruses), so I will join in with the worship of God in the way my church worships Him, seeing that it is true worship and not sin. I do believe strongly that we are to worship God in reverence and awe, and personally I discreetly refrain from singing when a song seems contrary to Scripture. If hymns are not “the best” form of worship, then I’m in a tough place spiritually, because I have no real choice…so my best spiritual option is to come under authority. (If I was convinced of a biblical prohibition, then the biblical principle of obeying God rather than man would come into play.)
Report comment to moderator
I read a quote today from Sam Storms concerning the Psalms. He asked his wife what she would say is a short, clear summary of the book. She said, “Woe is me. Wow is Thee!” Not the best grammatically, but it gets to the point.
As to whether to sing psalms only, hymns only, choruses only or a mixture, that is something the Scripture is silent on. Hey folks, let’s remember we worship God! Let’s do so in a way that is pleasing to Him, not us! When Paul says “psalms, hymns and spiritual songs” he does not clarify the difference. To me, worship is from the heart, not from the mind. Sing whatever you sing as to the Lord and not to men, otherwise it is “a clanging brass or tinkling cymbal”, regardless of the melody, harmony or instrumentation (if any). I prefer hymns and choruses that have depth of meaning, but that is my personal preference. When one of those awful late 1800s repetitive hymns with tacky tunes (you know, the ones with a chorus longer than the verses) is sung in church, I just read the words and try to learn the harmony. When a 7-11 chorus comes on the radio, I listen for the first few times through, then change the station. When I visit the church where my BIL is pastor, and all they sing are 7-11s, I join in and worship as to the Lord, thinking on the words themselves, rather than the repetition. If the wording is bad, I think of better lyrics.
Report comment to moderator
Peter L., We are to love God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength–not only our “heart.”
Report comment to moderator
My heart is sinful. I don’t trust my heart to worship God as He desires. The Pharisees and the Corinthian church would both have said they were worshipping God with all their heart.
That’s a dangerous standard.
Report comment to moderator
Hi SteveG, re: your post about sermons…. Obviously, that’s a huge one for an advocate of the regulative principle to have to address, and here’s my brief response.
The example of Christ indicates teaching was part of Sabbath observance in the synagogue: “And they went into Capernaum, and immediately on the Sabbath he entered the synagogue and was teaching” (Mark 1:21; see also 6:2, Matt 13:54 and Luke 6:6 to name just a few). Paul preached in the synagogue on the Sabbath on multiple occasions (Acts 13, 14, 17, etc.). Elders are entrusted with preaching and teaching (2 Tim. 4:2; Titus 1:9, etc.). Included in the duties of OT priests was expounding God’s word as part of formal worship (Lev 10:11; Deut 33:10).
Not intending to open more cans of worms, 1 Cor 14:26 reads, “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.” Each element Paul lists here was once permitted in corporate services—Paul objects to none of them (I’ve already addressed the synonymous relation of ‘hymns’ and ‘psalms’, so I won’t rehash that item). With the close of the canon and the apostolic age, revelations, tongues and interpretations ceased (and that’s the can of worms I’m not interested in feeding on right now), but hymns and lessons (sermons) did not.
Report comment to moderator
CherylD: I’m delighted you are in a true, faithful church. I appreciate your convictions and how you are handling your circumstances regarding your selection of a church. Even if a Psalms-only church opened up next door to you, I wouldn’t encourage you to leave the church you’re currently in (unless for the matters of practical consideration you mention). I enjoy James Boice, too. I like a lot of non-EPers. I don’t think there’s any one prominent Christian pastor/teacher/author with whom I agree 100%, and I bet that’s true of you and most Christians, also. We should never say, “I am of Boice” or “I am of Calvin.” I think Boice was wrong on Psalms, and I think Calvin was wrong on the Sabbath. And I think they’re both a lot smarter than I.
Report comment to moderator
Cameron – I agree with you. But don’t you find that often people use “heart” & “spirit” synonymously? I know I do at times.
I said something similar (about the heart being deceitful) to a friend of mine when she said she wants her daughters to “follow their hearts”. What she really meant was for them to follow what they know “deep in their hearts” or “in their spirits” to be true.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl–I mean this with utmost respect for you as a sister in the Lord, but I do feel like you and a few others are coming across as VERY legalistic, on both the music thing and the children’s church. I’ve already said all I can on music, and I stand firm in my convictions for whatever it matters. Then, it doesn’t bother me what you or others think about what I sing, but my Savior (and no, not my Buddy!)
About separating children from church–I see both sides of this. But again, please don’t throw out EVERY children’s program, nursery, Sunday school, etc. because of YOUR preferences or experiences. I am having problems with my own church now in the area of legalism (my husband is dealing with these, not I), but the children’s teaching is NOT AT ALL as you described in an above post–do you see how you come across as quite legalistic when you put them all in the same boat? About 50% of our families keep all their children in with them the whole service (1/2 of those also do so for Sunday school). That’s great, really, except when little “Timmy” starts screaming and dear old mom won’t take him out. For about 3 families in our church, that happens EVERY SINGLE SUNDAY! As far as trained teachers, we have about 6 meetings a year where we go over EVERY SINGLE LESSON and coordinating craft or whatever, make sure we are in agreement,etc. If we’re not, discussion follows with the pastor, who will make any decisions if they need to be made. Each class sends home 12 weeks worth of lesson plans BEFORE they are taught to every parent.
Dear sister, it is great that you have such strong convictions. And in times past, I have almost always agreed with you. But please don’t disregard everyone but your OWN anaylsis of worship.
Report comment to moderator
Momoffour,
I honestly don’t see how I’m being “legalistic” here. On music, I’ve already stated that I don’t like the changes in my church (and strongly disliked some music choices in my former church–it tended to use the “shallowest” music possible and repeat each verse a minimum of three times)…but that as I looked at the issue and debated with myself whether I could leave the church or at least go into the service after the music was over, my answer was no–I was part of the body and needed to be there, personal preferences aside. I simply don’t see how that’s legalism–at least in my book, legalism is one of two things: (1) thinking that works will save me or at least bring me credit with God if I’m already saved or (2) judging other people who hold a different standard on non-essentials.
I think we can throw out definition 1 as irrelevant here, right? So that leaves definition 2 as a possibility. First, I don’t think that how we worship God IS a non-essential. There’s room for debate on the finer points of, say, what qualifies as good church music, but there’s no legitimate “room for debate” on the fact that we are called to worship in reverence and awe, that our music should be theologically defensible, and that we should offer God our “firstfruits”–our best, not our leftovers. (Would you agree with all of that? BTW, I believe that “offering our best” leaves room for the best offering to be less than perfect–a five-year-old’s best bathtub praise will naturally be less than that of a trained musician.) I have never said that a church should never sing a chorus or that I don’t like any choruses, or that a preference for choruses is a sign of spiritual immaturity, or any such thing. I have said that (as a rule) older, tested hymns (I don’t mean late 1800s–that was a weak time in church music–I mean older than that) are better than new choruses that are hot this week. I think that from a musical and theological tandard, that is “objectively” true and not just my personal belief. I also think it’s legitimate to sing the best new music in the church along with the best old music–but it’s not legitimate to sing the mediocre new music in corporate worship. I disagree that major music labels are (generally) the best way to find the “best” new music.
Some of this is personal preference, and I’ll willingly grant that. I cannot stand the wailing of electric guitars–it’s like fingernails on a chalkboard for me. Does that mean electric guitars are evil? No, but it does mean that I won’t attend another “special service” at the church I attended once that had several electric guitars at its New Year’s service. That’s personal preference. Believing that God deserves the best, and that pastors are accountable before God to be sure their music is the best, isn’t a personal preference–it’s a matter of proper worship.
As to children’s church? I don’t have children, and thus it’s “harder” for me to be in a church that doesn’t have a children’s church–but I believe it’s better for the body. (Remember that I also had foster kids who didn’t always behave well in church–I took them out if they misbehaved noisily, but their presence made worship harder for me–so I have experienced, if for only a couple of months, the “difficulty” on the other side of the equation. My sister has five kids, all in church, and my mother had seven–I do know it can be done and isn’t just theory, nor is it a theory that I’d find impossible if I had my own kids, since obviously my relatives have handled it.) That’s part personal preference, part conviction. The conviction comes from what I believe Scripture teaches on the subject, of children being part of corporate worship; the personal preference comes in because I know some people honestly believe their kids are better off in children’s church, and they aren’t simply making excuses. I disagree, but I respect the view. (As I’ve stated before, I have a brother who has written books about teaching in children’s church–how-to books, not books attacking the concept. Trust me that I’ve heard both sides.) I recognize that most churches have children’s church; there isn’t much I can do about it. But it isn’t a historical tradition, and I personally think it isn’t a good one, and if my church was considering it, I’d present a strong biblical case against it–but I’d submit if they chose to do it, as I submitted when we opened a daycare, after I’d made my case, though it grieved me (and still grieves me).
Parents who don’t take their kids out when they should are a totally separate issue–that’s like saying spanking is wrong because some parents abuse. Nearly irrelevant, really.
For the record, I’ve written a book about teaching in Sunday school. Since I don’t use my last name on this blog, I won’t give the title–but I wrote the book partly because I’d seen so very many churches with bad teaching, and I was making a small attempt to counteract that. The book has been used in teacher training in quite a few churches, so I think God has used it some. (You’re free to e-mail me for the title.) But that should show you I don’t throw out every Sunday school, right?
I do think most churches do it badly, and I’m more and more convinced that as a rule Sunday school does more harm than good, because it is usually done so badly. But again, I do believe it CAN be done well, and care enough that I wrote my first book on the subject.
So, if I haven’t answered whatever the issues that made you think I’m being legalistic, can you tell me what they are? I am passionate about these issues, but I don’t think that necessarily means one is legalistic–I’m also passionate about abortion and about Jesus being the only way to God. I think it’s legitimate to be passionate about truth or even passionate about one’s personal opinions–it’s not legitimate to confuse the two, but there’s a fine line in some of this.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks, Yeah. I haven’t really “followed” Boice much (I heard him at a few conferences, and was grieved at his death), and no, there isn’t anyone I follow 100% except for Christ! (Ravi Zacharias is high on my list of favorite speakers, and he isn’t a “Calvinist.”) I actually haven’t yet read Calvin at all, though his Institutes is on my reading list for this year–so I can’t discuss his personal theology much. I’ve read the Westminster standards, and have read quite a few other books relevant to the issue (and Luther’s Bondage of the Will,), but I can only tackle so many of the old writings at a time. All that to say that I respect those who’ve come before me, but definitely agree none of them but Christ is infallible.
Report comment to moderator
P.S. Momoffour, I think you’ll grant that with two blog postings of intense interaction on these subjects in the last month, I’m not “disregarding” any view other than my own. I’m not sure if you saw the other thread, but this is the second. And on both of these discussions, I’ve been “in the middle” and more or less assaulted (in a kind way) from both sides. On the other thread, we had Orthodoxy on one hand, house churches on the other, with me and my Presbyterianism in the middle.
Now obviously, one can be consistent in one’s beliefs and still discuss things with “one side” differently than one would with the other. So, for instance, when I say I would prefer a church that stuck with the Trinity Hymnal, that is not saying that there’s no good music outside it. It is, first, making a concession to those who say we need an objective body of music (and who are arguing that only the Psalms qualify) that I do think that is “safer” for worship, and in a church where the pastor doesn’t have direct oversight over the music chosen, I’d prefer it. I personally think either alternative is fine: using only the “pre-screened” hymnal or using it plus additional songs pre-screened by one’s pastor. I don’t think a church should use new songs that haven’t been run by the pastor, and I think a pastor who isn’t able or willing to take that kind of oversight can rightfully limit songs to the Trinity Hymnal (or another of equal quality). Fair?
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl says, “…but that as I looked at the issue and debated with myself whether I could leave the church or at least go into the service after the music was over, my answer was no–I was part of the body and needed to be there, personal preferences aside.”
Good for you, Cheryl! I am bothered by those who say they stay out of the service until after the singing is over. Even if they don’t like the songs, they are still missing an important part of corporate worship.
For those who don’t like the direction their church’s worship music is taking, I’d advise talking to whoever is in charge of it, & also the pastor. If the church decides to continue with the music or style you don’t like, then it is time to submit yourself to God & to those with whom you worship, continuing to be a part of that body of believers.
Report comment to moderator
“That’s well and good, but the story clearly says that God struck him dead, and specifies it was out of anger.”
You still have a sinner, touching what is holy. If a high priest, did anything in the holy of holies that was not by the book, they would have died too, instantly. Its why they tied a rope to their foot in case they had to drag one out.
Anger being poured out is no different than it was on the cross. God’s wrath was poured out on his son, as Christ took on sin and the punishment/consequence of sin.
A good act even by Christ sacrificing himself, doesnt negate God’s anger. It must come, it must be poured out. Sin and holiness do not mix. The combination of the two will always bring forth God’s wrath and anger in response because he is holy. Directly touching what is holy, will bring instant death. It doesnt negate God’s love either.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn,
I’ve heard that the rope on the foot thing is a myth. (It certainly isn’t specified in Scripture, and Scripture was quite precise about proper worship in the holy of holies–I think it would have mentioned it if God had wanted that done, and no priest would have dared if He didn’t.)
Report comment to moderator
Sure is one thin-skinned god you have there, with a hair-trigger on the smiting. You’d think, knowing just how fallible humans are (seeing as he made them), he’d have a bit more patience.
Yet another of the many items that just don’t add up.
Report comment to moderator
And somebody really wants to spend an eternity with the following god?
“Anger being poured out is no different than it was on the cross. God’s wrath was poured out on his son, as Christ took on sin and the punishment/consequence of sin.
A good act even by Christ sacrificing himself, doesnt negate God’s anger. It must come, it must be poured out. Sin and holiness do not mix. The combination of the two will always bring forth God’s wrath and anger in response because he is holy. Directly touching what is holy, will bring instant death. It doesn’t negate God’s love either.”
God’s love is not separate from Himself– it IS Himself. Thus, I prefer the following God that St. Isaac the Syrian describes– as St. Isaac knew Him from both Scripture and praxis:
“Mercy is opposed to justice. Justice is equality of the even scale, for it gives to each as he deserves… Mercy, on the other hand, is a sorrow and pity stirred up by goodness, and it compassionately inclines a man in the direction of all; it does not requite a man who is deserving of evil, and to him who is deserving of good it gives a double portion. If, therefore, it is evident that mercy belongs to the portion of righteousness, then justice belongs to the portion of wickedness. As grass and fire cannot coexist in one place, so justice and mercy cannot abide in one soul. As a grain of sand cannot counterbalance a great quantity of gold, so in comparison God’s use of justice cannot counterbalance His mercy. As a handful of sand thrown into the great sea, so are the sins of the flesh in comparison with the mind of God. And just as a strongly flowing spring is not obscured by a handful of dust, so the mercy of the Creator is not stemmed by the vices of His creatures.”
Report comment to moderator
Or, perhaps, as Dr. Alexandre Kalomiros phrased it in his River of Fire, based on his extensive survey of Scripture and the Church Fathers:
” However, there are punishments imposed upon us by God, or rather evils done to us by the devil and permitted by God. But these punishments are what we call pedagogical punishments. They have as their aim our correction in this life, or at least the correction of others who would take a lesson from our example and correct themselves by fear. There are also punishments which do not have the purpose of correcting anybody but simply put an end to evil by putting an end to those who are propagating it, so that the earth may be saved from perpetual corruption and total destruction; such was the case in the flood during Noe’s time, and in Sodom’s destruction.
All these punishments operate and have their purpose in this corrupted state of things; they do not extend beyond this corrupted life. Their purpose is to correct what can be corrected, and to change things toward a better condition, while things can still change in this changing world. After the Common Resurrection no change whatever can take place. Eternity and incorruptibility are the state of unchangeable things; no alterations whatever happen then, only developments in the state chosen by free personalities; eternal and infinite developments but no changing, no alteration of direction, no going back. The changing world we see around us is changing because it is corruptible. The eternal New Heavens and New Earth which God will bring about in His Second Coming are incorruptible, that means, not changing. So in this New World there can be no correction whatever; therefore, pedagogical punishments are no longer necessary. Any punishment from God in this New World of Resurrection would be clearly and without a doubt a revengeful act, inappropriate and motivated by hate, without any good intention or purpose.
If we consider hell as a punishment from God, we must admit that it is a senseless punishment, unless we admit that God is an infinitely wicked being.
As Saint Isaac the Syrian says: “He who applies pedagogical punishments in order to give health, is punishing with love, but he who is looking for vengeance, is devoid of love. God punishes with love, not defending Himself — far be it — but He wants to heal His image, and He does not keep His wrath for long. This way of love is the way of uprightness, and it does not change with passion to a defense. A man who is just and wise is like God because he never chastises a man in revenge for wickedness, but only in order to correct him or that others be afraid” (Homily 73).
So we see that God punishes as long as there is hope for correction. After the Common Resurrection there is no question of any punishment from God. Hell is not a punishment from God but a self condemnation. As Saint Basil the Great says, “The evils in hell do not have God as their cause, but ourselves.””
Report comment to moderator
I’m sorry, I just can’t get over the awfulness of Thorn’s #190:
“God’s wrath was poured out on his son, as Christ took on sin and the punishment/consequence of sin. A good act even by Christ sacrificing himself, doesnt negate God’s anger. It must come, it must be poured out.”
How much of a god is this, really, if he is filled with passions and his actions are overruled by them (ie. his anger MUST come, it MUST be poured out). I recall being similarly nauseated by a similar argument made some years ago by a Presbyterian in an article blasphemously entitled something along the lines of “Forgive: The One Thing God Cannot Do.” No longer an omnipotent God, but a mere deity ruled by something external to himself– something greater.
#190 again- “Sin and holiness do not mix. The combination of the two will always bring forth God’s wrath and anger in response because he is holy. Directly touching what is holy, will bring instant death.”
Yet I am a serious sinner and the Holy Spirit still takes up His abode in me, as I grant Him space. I thank God constantly that He does not visit my soul with instant death as I fight against my sins on a daily basis and, by His grace alone, struggle to conform myself to His image. Rather, in His love for me, He grants me understanding of my weaknesses (for He has been made human), time to repent, and ceaseless mercy in my failings if I run to His arms as did the prodigal.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl D (if you are still around 8*) I think I actually agree with you more than I thought. (For the record, I did not see the earlier post you referred to, sorry!) I do think that in our worship (as in every part of our life) we should offer God our firsfruits. Agreed there.
And I, too, can’t stand the so-called “7-11″ choruses. Agreed there. Not much meat to chew on in those songs.
A couple of years ago, when our pastor started arguing against ALL CCM music (which I regularly listened to), I decided to *really* study the words to every song I heard on the local Christian radio station. Of course I knew the words before, but I decided to be a little more critical. Naturally, I did find many songs that were just a little too “me, me, me” or “Jesus is my buddy.” I, too, don’t like those songs! But I found that the majority (about 85%) of the words to the songs that I listened to were every bit as deep in meaning as some traditional hymns we sings. Maybe not as “grandiose”, but deep. So I have no problem in listening to CCM music. (For what it’s worth, I equally love hymns and that is all we sing at worship!)
In an earlier post I mentioned “the heart.” I didn’t mean it in a mushy way, or as to “what my heart is getting out of worship.” I meant it in what my heart is giving. I play piano at our church, and I can tell when my heart is worshiping through what I’m playing, and when it’s not (sometimes its through hymns, sometimes through praises, sometimes through CCM songs.)
“Children’s church”–I think, in an ideal world, I totally agree with you on not separating the children out. I do think its biblical. But since it is not “working” I’m not sure what to do about it. For example–in an ideal world, I believe women should NOT vote, but let their husbands make their family vote for them. But obviously, that’s not gonna work here, so I vote (with my husbands permission). So I am kind of torn with what to do about children’s church. (I probably just opened a huge can of worms with the voting thing).
Thanks, Cheryl, for getting me to think through some of these things! I hope I didn’t come across as mean-spirited. If so, I apologize b/c it wasn’t my intention!
Report comment to moderator
Momoffour,
I don’t think you came across as mean-spirited.
I will say about the separating children out, if it is indeed biblical, then it doesn’t ultimately matter whether it “works.” That’s really God’s problem. Perhaps it doesn’t work because we’re so far from the biblical patterns, in which case each step we take closer is a good step.
What’s the difference between this and saying that “abstinence doesn’t work, so we need to teach about birth control also” or other pragmatic arguments? Giving doesn’t always seem to “work” either–but when you do it, you find out that God can take care of the finances. It seems to me that if something is biblical, you start with that, and then work on the obstacles as they come–rather than letting the obstacles be a reason not to obey.
I do agree that on some level we have to be “practical”–for example, a church without a nursery needs to deal with what to do about visitors who came assuming there would be a nursery and really aren’t prepared to keep their kids in the service. For some churches that has meant a nursery for visitors, with the understanding that if you decide to attend here long-term, you agree with the church philosophy and you don’t put your kids in the nursery. I have no problem with such “dealing with reality.” That isn’t all that different, practically speaking, from having sick kids stay home with an adult caregiver. I’m not saying “that’s the best way to handle it,” simply saying that I think it’s fine for churches to wrestle with such issues and come up with a biblically viable solution. Some kids may literally be unable to be in the service–say a handicapped child who vocalizes so loudly that others cannot hear and who cannot understand the service anyway. Having adult caregivers who are willing to care for such a child during the service to allow the parents to worship together would be a true act of service. But we don’t decide policies based on exceptions; we deal with exceptions as they prove necessary.
Anyway it is late and I’ve had only one meal today (lunch), so I’d probably better get something to eat!
Blessings.
Report comment to moderator
“heart”: I meant it above as Karen O suggested, as in spirit. Words have a funny way of meaning more than one thing, don’t they?
“They that worship Him must worship in Spirit and in truth,” said Jesus in John 4. Perhaps I should have quoted the authority rather than using my meager mind.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl–you are right. If something is biblical, it doesn’t matter whether it works. You’ve given me something to think and pray about regarding children’s church. Thank you!
Report comment to moderator
“How much of a god is this, really, if he is filled with passions and his actions are overruled by them (ie. his anger MUST come, it MUST be poured out).”
“Yet I am a serious sinner and the Holy Spirit still takes up His abode in me, as I grant Him space. I thank God constantly that He does not visit my soul with instant death as I fight against my sins on a daily basis and, by His grace alone, struggle to conform myself to His image.”
“God’s love is not separate from Himself– it IS Himself”
God’s love is HOLY. Would you agree? He is Holy, He is Love? God can do everything He desires, except SIN. Not being able to sin, doesnt negate his omniscience or omnipotentence.
The wages of sin is death. Thats not just physical. Its an eternal separation from what is Holy. That in the least is hell in the end, whether your burning for eternity or not. Your fellowship with God is severed.
I fail to see how God is overruling his passions here. God still delivers justice either on you, or his Son, who took your place. Whether you physically die tomorrow or 30 years from now, justice comes. It must come, because God’s Love and Holiness can not be compromised by sin.
God’s mercy is that he has provided us a Savior…to take on God’s justice. It is merciful to us, if we accept such a Savior. So God is both merciful and yet just, as the punishment for sin is never ignored.
Your quote from St. Issace has a problem. Even when a judge delivers mercy, someone else still pays the justice. Even if we bailout banks, and have mercy on them for screwing up, someone still foots the bill for doing so. Mercy and Justice can abide in God and that does not compromise his character or his passions. He doesnt overrule one or the other.
Kalomiros discusses a hell, POST new earth and new heaven… Or God exacting a 2nd judgement. It would be like destroying Adam and Eve before they ever ate the fruit. I fail to see how you can extrapolate that to negate a hell, POST old earth though. He’s right, God isnt going to punish us a 2nd time around when the penalty has been paid for by Christ. The new heaven and earth is completely different, because our holiness and fellowship with God has been restored. The penalty paid once and for all.
Meanwhile, those who do not have Christ as their savior are paying for their debt once and for all themselves. Also known as hell.
So whether Uzziah has Christ’s righteousness like you or I do, only God knows. Either of us, had we touched the ark, would have died via God’s anger as well though. So I’m not sure why you find my comment’s nauseating or awful.
Report comment to moderator
“Sure is one thin-skinned god you have there, with a hair-trigger on the smiting. You’d think, knowing just how fallible humans are (seeing as he made them), he’d have a bit more patience.”
Well considering he gave Adam and Eve and delay on death, He sounds pretty patient to me.
Considering the average age is in the 70s I’d say He has plenty of patience.
Remember, humans were not created fallible…Adam and Eve were created holy and in the image of God. Sin has made us fallible, and brings death and a separation from what is holy.
We either pay for it, or someone else must.
So if God is thin-skinned for offering HIS OWN SON in that place…I’ll take a thin-skinned God anyday.
Report comment to moderator
As in any denomination or church affiliation, one can find a Church which does not interview and questions the abilities of their Sunday school teachers, or those who lead a children’s church. My experience has been very good regarding both Sunday school and children’s church. Both have had excellent teachers which are dedicated to teaching children about the LORD.
The best way to check out these programs is to sit-in a number of times to insure just what is being taught and how it’s being applied so the children will understand. It’s always a good idea to observe the time children socialize in these settings, what sort of activities do they participate in (age appropriate)
I don’t believe in most instances children need to be in the main Sanctuary for the service. Yes there are children who listen and understand, but there are far more children who constantly distract anyone around them by playing, whispering, irritating their siblings, crawling under their seats, etc. It doesn’t take too many children to disrupt a service. When parents of disruptive children are finally confronted, even with a kind smile and a ‘please, this is so distracting’ comment, they often times become more than annoyed. For this reason children under 10 need to have their own childrens church and Sunday school. I don’t find even one reason to have children in an adult Sunday school class.
I also want to add; children make close friends with children they meet in Sunday school and Church – not having parents hovering over them -
Report comment to moderator
Thorn: According to your theology, God made humans capable of rebelling. He put a tree nearby them of which they were not to eat (rather than putting it somewhere far away, where it would never tempt them.) God is omniscient, so he knew that they would disobey. And then when they did what he knew they would do and what he made possible, he cursed the entire race for it.
In any other context, you would call that a set-up.
And ironically, the serpent, whom I’m sure you equate with Satan even though the text says nothing to support that, was the truth-teller here. God warned them they would die; they did not die. The serpent told them they would become like the gods, knowing good from evil. And that is in fact what happened; Yahweh himself said so. (Gen. 3:22).
Report comment to moderator
Steveg
1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, “Indeed, has God said, ‘You shall not eat from any tree of the garden’?”
2 The woman said to the serpent, “From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; 3 but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.’”
4 The serpent said to the woman, “You surely will not die
13 Then the LORD God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?” And the woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.”
14 The LORD God said to the serpent,
“Because you have done this,
Cursed are you more than all cattle,
And more than every beast of the field;
On your belly you will go,
And dust you will eat
All the days of your life;
This can be found in Genesis 3
Report comment to moderator
“And ironically, the serpent, whom I’m sure you equate with Satan even though the text says nothing to support that, was the truth-teller here. God warned them they would die; they did not die.”
So 900 years later did Adam not die? So they surely did die, as a result from eating the fruit of the tree?
No where does God say immediate death will follow for eating of this tree. Thats no different than Eve adding “touch it” to the qualifications.
“In any other context, you would call that a set-up.”
Make all the excuses you want, God still knew it would require His OWN SON. This world wasnt made for us, it was made by Christ, for Christ. All glory is to Him, if thats not what you wish to partake in despite the man’s own death for you to do so, then your without an excuse.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG,
Adam experienced both spiritual and physical death as a direct result of his disobedience. Neither would have occurred without sin.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn: No where does God say immediate death will follow for eating of this tree. Thats no different than Eve adding “touch it” to the qualifications.
No?
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. (Gen. 2:17)
I guess a day=900 years?
Tell me this, then, Thorn … if man was meant to be immortal, then why did God hasten to toss them out of the Garden before they ate of the Tree of Life and became immortal? (Gen. 3:22?)
If man was meant to be immortal prior to the sin, the Tree of Life would have no effect on him. And if God could take away his immortality and then be defeated by the fruit of a tree he himself had made and put there … that is, if Adam and Eve could restore their immortality by eating the fruit and God would be powerless to stop it … that’s not much of an omnipotence.
Report comment to moderator
“I guess a day=900 years?
Tell me this, then, Thorn … if man was meant to be immortal, then why did God hasten to toss them out of the Garden before they ate of the Tree of Life and became immortal? (Gen. 3:22?)”
Excuse me for not substaniating physical vs spiritual this morning as Cameron did. They still died spiritually that day.
“If man was meant to be immortal prior to the sin, the Tree of Life would have no effect on him. And if God could take away his immortality and then be defeated by the fruit of a tree he himself had made and put there … that is, if Adam and Eve could restore their immortality by eating the fruit and God would be powerless to stop it … that’s not much of an omnipotence.”
If if if if if if if if if if if if if if…doesnt matter. You cant challenge God’s omnipotence or omniscience on what if’s.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!