The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum Worship and Change...

Ok, this is what seems to be the main issue here. This is why Pilgrim and Jonathan Edwards object to more contemporary styles of worship.

Again, I would be prefer a more regulative style of worship.

But the issue involves "everyone" in the church.

So my question to both Pilgrim and Edwards is this and I'm not trying to debate here, I'm just trying to learn.

When we read all the versus in Psalms that lead us to believe that worship can be about making a "joyful" noise, about pleasing God in a more "joyful" and "loving" manner rather then a reverent and somber manner, what do we make of them? How do we firmly stand on our convictions of worship being strictly reverent and somber 100% of the time. But, that's not even what I mean. We can be reverent but joyful at the same time. We can revere God with a joyful heart.

We seem to be sort of hair splitting here. Because it seems that Hymns are acceptable, but modern praise worship songs are not. But I'm confused, because why is this? I believe that they are both the product of humans not God, I could understand if we were to say we should only sing Psalms, but to say that Hymns are acceptable and modern praise songs aren't, well I don't get that.

I agree that our worship should be reverent, not so sure I'm convicted by scripture on the somber part.

Y.B.I.C,

Dave.

Joe,

I have mixed thoughts on this subject. It may have to do with not really understanding of what is meant by contemporary worship. My idea of what it is may not be what you are thinking (or someone else). Let's get down to some common ground. It is nothing extreme. I've attended two services each in churches that you may be familiar with since you are a RTS-O student. They are Covenant Pres meeting in the RTS chapel, and Willow Creek in Winter Springs. In a way I can see both services as being contemporary, but I'm not sure if they fit that description. How do you see them? Would they be classified as contemporary? All the services were honoring to Christ Jesus, imo.

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/nope.gif" alt="" /> The issue involves GOD and what HE requires of everyone in regard to how He is to be worshipped..... and not the matter of everyone's preferences. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Well, I would ask you to show from the Psalms that those which you are referring to are actually dealing with corporate worship. May I strongly suggest that they do not but rather they are records of festivals, celebratory treks, etc. However, I am NOT suggesting that there should be no joy or praise in the worship of God. But my objection is to the "type" of expression, the source of it, and the methods employed to evoke it.

We are not splitting hairs, unfortunately. The fact is that is that there is a huge chasm between the "type" of music used in the majority of contemporary worship and that used in the old "traditional" form or worship. The issue of the lyrics is another matter again. Contemporary music uses, for the most part, a syncopated beat. Now there has been much written and scientific studies done to show the affects of syncopated beat on humans. Simply writing these studies off isn't an option. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/giggle.gif" alt="" /> But the fact remains that the syncopated beat has adverse affects on the emotive element of humans; e.g., it has a observable effect in breaking down inhibitions and stirring sinful desires. Again, simply responding with, "It doesn't have that affect on ME, isn't a valid rebuttal. For it does have these effects on the overwhelming majority of people. Why do you suppose Rock & Roll became so popular? because it evoked a sense of the true worship of God among the populace? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rolleyes2.gif" alt="" /> Speak out against contemporary musical forms and one might get the impression that one is arguing for pro-life. Taking away the average person's dose of pop music is like taking heroin away from an addict. The response is most always one of anger . . . it is undeniably addictive to one's psyche.

For more on this subject see here: Rock & Roll, the Bible and the Mind

Then perhaps you would like to interpret and apply a couple of passages such as:

In His grace,

I can relate to what Pilgrim says here.

Where I work there is an email distribution list for professing Christians, that is similar to a discussion board, for prayer requests, devotions, announcements, etc. I remember a discussion/debate that arose about worship and I was arguing against the extravagant worship that is so popular in the mega churches. Boy did I get it for that! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/takethat.gif" alt="" /> Some did react in anger.

p.s. Since posts can sometimes be interpreted wrong let me say that I'm not implying that doulos, Dave, guidedbygrace, et al are angry nor arguing for extravagant worship. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Yes I agree, I wasn’t referring that a church should be governed by peoples preferences. What I meant was that people in the church that are involved in the organization of the worship service will use the before mentioned Psalm references just like I did. They will at the church meetings exhibit the same type of argument that I did. So this is a matter of trying to discern God’s will in the matter of worship more then a mere matter of just preferences. In the PCA church I attend, people, especially the churches leaders takes worship, doctrine and their faith very seriously, so what I was referring too was more of a matter of how we interpret the versus that I had mentioned earlier in this thread.


Ok, now this reply is a lot more helpful to me. Now I’m starting to see a reasonable defense against these versus in the Psalms. Now I have a direction to go in with my future study of worship.


BINGO! Thank you Jeff, this is what I was looking for. I did not know this and now I understand why Joe and yourself are opposed to a more contemporary style of worship. I am in full agreement here with the both of you, but I just needed to know where to start when I, in the future, argue for a regulative worship style in my own church.

But I would just like to point out something here. As I have said earlier, my church does sing contemporary praise songs at the beginning of each service. But they are done in a more “classical” and “somber” way and I truly believe the songs that they select are very lyrically edifying and bring glory to God. What I mean to say is that they are carefully selected and I honestly believe that they are every bit as edifying as the hymns that we also sing. Yes there are a few of those in the pews and maybe a couple that are leading the singing that clap, but it is a very mild form of clapping. It’s hard to explain, the closest I can come is to say that, I left the PCUSA church because their worship service was completely dishonoring to God. But I don’t feel that way in my new church. I feel that even though they have added contemporary praise songs to the worship, that the focus is still on God and not in any way trying to evoke any “feelings” to stir up sinful desires.

Again, I believe our church has a very good “blended” service. There is still hymns and psalms being sung and there are still quiet times for reflection to prepare our hearts to hear Gods Word. There is a reverence and somber attitude during the whole service.

So even though, I still think that “some” modern praise songs can be reverent and acceptable as long as they are done rightly, I do have a better understanding of the regulative principle now. Jeff I read your link “Rock ‘n’ Roll, the Bible in Mind, and I concur that there are appropriate styles of music that are edifying for a Christian to listen too.

When I say “contemporary” I mean any modern song that is not from the classic hymnal or psalter. Or I mean the addition of a guitar or violin or a “worship team.” But I guess we would really have to be very careful of how we define “contemporary” in this type of discussion.

My argument during this whole thread was that I believe that the inclusion of a “contemporary” worship style along and keeping with the traditional style (a blend) if done right, seems to me, to be acceptable. As long as the contemporary style doesn’t over shadow the older traditional style and that it is done in a manner that is pleasing and reverent and somber in God’s eyes.

Again, I’m not talking about a full blown, loud charismatic praise production. I’m talking about a soft, slower melodious, God centered, reverent and somber contemporary style.

This is what our church does and so I what I would like to know is, should this be an acceptable form of worship or should I start to advocate a more regulative approach to our worship?

Thanks again Jeff for your help, this has been a great thread that has really answered some questions that I’ve had about worship. Thanks for your patience and understanding.

My only other question would be, are there any online resources and or books that you would recommend for essential reading on the topic of contemporary worship?

Y.B.I.C,

Dave.

I definitely know very little about music. Do we know for certain that the traditional worship songs that we sing today did not have the same effect (or possible effect) on its listeners at the time the songs were written? I have always heard one of the great hymns was written to the music of a beer hall ditty.

First, I am no longer at RTS--I graduated. Second, I have visited both of those churches some time ago. The first PCA Church in Orlando I visited was Willow Creek. The music was so loud that both my wife and I had to leave the services. I understand they have a new worship director since then... Covenant Presbyterian was somewhat different and both my wife and I enjoyed all but two of the songs--they too were too rocky and loud. The rest of the order of service was great. I understand they have a new worship director as well. My preference in the Orlando area at present rests at four Churches: Independent Presbyterian--St Andrews Chapel; PCA-- St Paul's; OPC--Reformation Orthodox Presbyterian Church and Lake Sherwood OPC.

St Paul's Statement of Purpose is interesting:

Seriously, practically, do you mean to say that the only way the church can worship God correctly is with 500 year old hymns or by singing Psalms? Are you saying that all the worship that's currently taking place in the church at large is merely entertainment? This is all well and good but, as with heroin, once they've had a taste they never want anything else. In fact, they may lose the capacity to appreciate "true worship" as its been defined here.

Oh, and why shouldn't there be some sort of emotional respone in worship?

One more thing, what is this "regulative principle" thing? I must've missed that one when I was reading the bible.

Ah, there's the rub. If there are humans involved they're bound to screw it up.


Exactly.

As I stated earlier worship will not be "perfect" here upon this earth. However, that does not mean that we aim below God's perfection--His Word. We are to worship according to the Word of God, which the modern courses and such I have heard (and I have not heard them all and thus refrain from making an overgeneralized statement of condemnation of "all" of them) do not attain to.

Look at St Paul's Statement of Purpose.

It's an urban legend that Luther and the Wesley brothers wrote hymns to drinking tunes. The confusion arises from the fact that both Luther and Wesley wrote "bar tunes," which describes the structure of the music, not its place of origin.

Why not read through the several articles on music found here: Ecclesiology - The Doctrine of the Church under the sub-headings, "Music" and "Worship". Many of your questions, including this one about "bar tunes" will be answered. And, I will benefit from you doing so too since I won't have to type out long and boring replies. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rofl.gif" alt="" />

In His grace,

John,

Let me say that I do appreciate greatly your "level-headedness" (is that a word? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/giggle.gif" alt="" /> ) in this discussion. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

First, it might be helpful if you would define "contemporary worship" as far as you understand and use the term.

Second, let me make it very clear that I am not contending for a worship service that 1) uses only "old" hymns to the exclusion of anything written after the 19th century. 2) all of the so-called hymns or spiritual songs are summarily acceptable. 3) true biblical worship is devoid of any emotion.

Third, you can find quite a selection of articles and books on the subjects of music and worship right here on The Highway!! (surprise, surprise <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wow1.gif" alt="" /> ) I provided the link already in another reply in this thread but I'll provide it again here: Ecclesiology - The Doctrine of the Church. Simply scroll down the page and see the sub-headings of "Music" and "Worship".

In His grace,

They removed the song after they found out what it really stood for very quickly.

Doulos asked:

It's in Deuteronomy 12:32. It's called "regulative" because, simply stated, it means that we are not to imagine what we think might be pleasing to God and then apply those inventions to the corporate worship of God. What pleases God is obedience, not superstitious attempts to please Him which He has not commanded.

The regulative principle has been taken by some to mean that only unaccompanied psalms are to be sung in public worship. That may be too narrow, but this former charismatic "worship addict" finds unaccompanied psalm singing far purer and richer and sweeter than the most emotionally charged charismatic "praise music" ever was. Who can possibly take offense at singing Scripture - especially Scripture that written to be sung!

I don't believe the regulative principle has to mean necissarily that only psalms should be sung in church. I think it's more of a regulation upon those in ecclesiastical authority which forbids them from imposing religious holy days, rites and rituals, etc upon the people which God did not command. The people are not to be bound to anything but the Scriptures when it comes to the worship of God.

Yet in John 10:22 we find Jesus in the temple during the "feast of dedication." There is no such feat commanded in Scripture at all. It was begun during the intertestament period to commemorate the rededication of the temple after the Maccabees. It's Hannukah! Did Jesus violate the regulative principle by showing up at the temple during an uncommanded "holy day?" No. The text doesn't say whether or not Jesus participated personally, but it says only that He was walking in the portico of Solomon during the feast when this conversation took place that riled the Jews to try to stone Him (verse 31). The point being that He was there and did not condemn those who participated. I think it compares with Christmas and Easter - festival days not expressly commanded in Scripture, yet commonly observed with great joy by many who love Him.

-Robin