CCM and Sensual Worship

Enda:

Ask away - I don't mind questions at all. But please do bear with me while I try to make myself clear. I do realize that there are times I don't say things very well.

No, I do not consider myself "called" in the same manner a preacher is called. In fact, I was not even considering a minister's call to God's service when I was doing the comparison. I was speaking strictly of "talents", not "gifts". The gist of what I got from Dr. Master's article was that someone who has a particular talent should NOT use it in worship, since it could be taken or used in a manner which he considers "aesthetic" rather than the type of worship he thinks is legitimate. So my comparison was strictly based on the talent of the speaker or singer, not a calling for what they are doing.

But if this is the case, then anyone who is born with a God-given talent for public speaking should not use their talent in worship, according to what I read in the article. I find this baffling, for why did God give us talent if it was not to worship him? I do not believe that all who have the talent of speaking are called to the ministry, but anyone with that talent should be using it for the glory of God. And I believe the same thing is true of those of us who can sing.

There was a time in my life that I did refuse to sing in church - and I now regret that action. I thought that I was doing the right thing, because I was tired of dealing with people who only listened to my voice and not to what I was singing. But then He showed me how I could use this as an opportunity to share my witness and proclaim His greatness. In fact, my singing has opened opportunities that most people will never have with visitors in our church who are not saved. They will not normally talk to the preacher or the deacons - but they will come to me after I sing, and tell me how much they enjoyed it. I then have the perfect opening to discuss with them what I sang, why I sang it, and what God means to me.

We seem to have wandered rather far afield from the original proposition, don't we?

Ruth

 

OK, maybe he didn't. I was looking back through his articles at freedomministries.uk and what I was probably thinking of was (from "Brass, Strings and Percussion?"):

I saw this as flimsy justification; though he does try to clarify "by uniting its voices/played mdestly", still, the contemporary style can be played that way as well. The biggest thing was the inconsistency you admitted about him having an organ at all when Spurgeon and many others from centuries ago were so against it. This in light of how hard he is on "bringing in things from the world" (including instruments). Why is it OK then?
Plus, his credibility is called into question the most by his ridiculous allegory of Psalms 150. Yes those instruments may have symbolized heartfelt emotions, but to suggest that they were applied only that way and not actually used is going beyond scriptural bounds. When others interpret Genesis like that to allow for evolutionary epochs, the same people are up in arms.

He even begins to question people's salvation [from freedomministries]:

I have dealt with this on the Calvinism/Arminianism board. While attacking "decisionism" as salvation by works, people actually create a true legalistic system by judging people's "fruits", and concluding people are "tares" or "goats" (hence Spurgeon's article linked above). This is going on right now in the SBC. Assurance is based on performance and perseverance (see next quote, second par. 1st sentence), and since nobody has yet persevered till the end, who can have true assurance unless you presume you are doing well enough? Sure, just keep to some rigid form of music and other forms of "separation", and that will make sure you never fall away! You know you're not perfect, but you draw a line somewhere below yourself, and judge others below that line harshly, perhaps as not even saved. So such a person can be just as bad or worse than the most rankest Pelagian or even cultist, even though he tries to accuse his theological opponents of these things.
Most separationists are Arminian revivalists, and most people who take the time to offer correction to them with a more balanced position, such as Michael Horton and John Macarthur, have been Calvinists. This has provided a needed balance. But when the two theologies mix—

Of course, it is possible that anyone we see may be a false Christian, and while I don't favor "extreme" styles such as acid, thrash or moshing (but I'm sure he's including rap, which is viewed as the black counterpart to white hard rock as far as "extremity", though I see it as different because it is in fact, more "message" oriented), and I do criticize Churches for sex-based fashions, etc. still, to say they are lost just because of a style? People may be confused a bit (especially because as I say, the ridiculous extremes of the past offered no real guidance, and once they crossed the smotheringly close "line", there wan't another line after that); but "lost"? Just because they abandon "traditional Western" standards?
He appeals a lot to the OT principles, but the western Christian world has revolted far from that. Why not follow those telling us to keep sabbaths, kosher laws, or give up "pagan" holidays, then? Then have even stronger biblical arguments (at least those things were commanded there, where 1;3 accented beats over 2;4 were unheard of), but we dismiss them as cultic.
It is vastly different even from the first century church. At some point, things changed, stuff was brought in from the world and could be seen as some "departure" from "the faith once delivered" by some "false deceivers who crept in", but later became the "tradition" as its origin was forgotten. In fact, since Satan is so trying to deceive "the elect", wouldn't he all the more appeal to outward piety and familiar tradition to deceive people on whom the wild looking stuff will not work? This is certainly what he was doing with the legalists in the New Testament.
Even though he may not rant like Godwin or Watkins, for this guy to suggest this people are necessarily lost just because of music style, he is just as bad, regardless as how well put together his arguments may be.

[ March 19, 2003, 06:17 PM: Message edited by: Eric B ]

 

Enda:

Of course I wouldn't feel any pressure, just because you are comparing my views to Spurgeon!

As for your question about people who have been saved in my church by my singing, that is pretty easy to answer. None! I don't claim to save people with my music. But it does give me the opportunity to witness to some people who might never talk to anyone else, because they feel uneasy and/or don't want to be pressured - most people think that if they go talk to a preacher, they will have him living on their doorstep until they make the decision he wants. I do know that there are people in our church who have made the decision for Christ, that I was probably the first member they talked to when they came here. Three people in particular who have joined us over the last couple of years come to mind immediately because they have told me how much they appreciated me taking the time to just visit and share myself with them when they first attended. So maybe I planted the seed in those people, and the Gospel was able to grow in them because I showed that someone "ordinary" cared about them. And maybe they do like my voice too, and came back because they enjoyed the music - but I think God is there, every step of the way, using us in some small way to reach these people.

I sing because...... well, because I simply cannot stop singing the praises of God. The period of time that I did stop, I was miserable even though I was in a couple of area choirs outside of the church. I sing to praise God, and give him the glory - and people tell me that when I am singing in church, they can see the joy in my face. And that comes from no one other than Jesus. And I don't just sing for special music - I am in the choir, and three of us women have formed a trio that sings too. And I have taken "under my wing" so to speak, a little 7 year old girl in our church who has one of the most beautiful voices I have ever heard in a child. She sang a solo part in our Christmas cantata last year, and now her mother is coming to church too. I have great hopes that this family will make their decision in the near future.

I have no doubt that there are people out there who are singing only for personal glory - I have met a few of them in my life, and I don't ever want to be one of them. I want people to know Jesus, and if my singing praises in church can help someone towards that goal, then it doesn't really matter what all the textbooks or famous theologians think. I personally have been convicted by the Spirit that this is something I should do. I don't believe that means that everyone should - but for me, there is no question at all.

Thank you for your graciousness. God bless you.

Ruth

 

THanks Enda and Ruth for the most edifying christ-like debate i've seen on this forum!

 

[ March 23, 2003, 10:48 PM: Message edited by: Gib ]

 

Thanks Enda for giving me things to think about, eg singing solos and use of many instruments because at my church, we do both!

I do sing solos once in a while, call it being lead by the Spirit, (I'm not real sure how that works) but i will get drawn to a hymn and will practice and present to on Sunday to the church.

The message of the song is the most important. and i want nothing to subtract from that, not my singing, not the accompaniment, not anything.
I always make it a point to flash the transparency of the lyrics so the whole congregation can read and follow as i sing. It seems to work. I see most of the people focussed on the screen instead of on me. I just use my voice and expression to convey the meaning and interpretation of the song.

I do get praises from people. I guess they mean well. My response is thanks for the encouragement but all glory goes to God.

The music part of the worship helps to bring the whole congregation to focus on the same ideas. And the solo item, tastefully rendered, does this also.

 

As for the use of instrumentation, i have thought about that too. I think i have to disagree with Spurgeon!

The non-use of instruments does not ensure a more spiritual atmosphere or that the people will focus on the words of the hymn so that the worship will be more acceptable before God. (Correct me if i have misinterpreted this.)

Nor does the use of instruments take away from the spiritual atmosphere of the worship. If the instruments know their proper place as accompanists, that is.

in fact, i am more inclined to think that instruments enhance the worshipful atmosphere... but then, as a member of our church orchestra, i am biased.

no true worshipper can be psyched up to worship God. true God-pleasing worship on sunday is a result of walking with God all through the week, instruments or none doesn't change that.

just my thots.

 

Hi, I too would like to say that I've been watching this thread with interest and also appreciate the courtesy shown by all.
I think all would agree that whenerver the word of God is given it always has an impact on the listener.The Word of God hardens as well as softens souls.I have known little children who have won their parents to the Lord with a few Bible verses,souls won to the Lord by babes in Christ using a tract and souls softened by the singing of God's word.
Although the Preaching of the Word by God's man should be the highlight of a church service,all the above are important and glorify God.
Maybe I missed it in the above comments,if so I'm sorry,but I would say being spirit filled and a vessel fit for the Masters use plays a large part in how the message is recieved!!!!!!!!
I've been a believer for almost 32 yrs and involved in the leadership of several baptist churches during that time and I would say that Jer 17/9&10 says it all.Pride and the flesh can show it's self anywhere,anytime and in any of us.
Thanks for your time,have a great day in the Lord ER

 

I'm walking into the fire with this one.

When the old Testament talks about David dancing before the lord, the original translates to spin about with wild emotions.

And his response to his wife "what I did, I did unto the Lord and not for you."

Also this:

When the music fades and all is stripped away and I simply come. Longing just to bring something that's of worth that will bless your heart. I'll bring you more than a song, for a song in itself is not what you have required. You search much deeper with in through the way things appear you're looking into my heart.

I'm coming back to the heart of worship and its all about you, its all about you Jesus. I'm sorry Lord for the thing I've made it when it's all about you. It's all about you Jesus.

The Psalms say for us to make music skillfully unto the Lord. It is for the musician to make the music but for the person listening to have a heart prepared for worship.

 

Wild emotions, hmm. Sounds out of control. But it's ok to be out of control, especially if we "say" it doesn't matter, because I did it for the Lord. Reminds me of offerings, from two guys named Cain and Abel. Remember what David did with that first wife? and how many more did he have? The Bible will show the weaknesses and sins of even those that were after His heart. A little fire

 

Matthew Henry, whose commentaries I greatly admire and respect, is drawing practical insights from this OT example. He, unlike Multimom, is not presenting the account as prescriptural for Christian worship.

What one must keep in mind when reading the OT, is that Israel is like a child under a schoolmaster, and God was very longsuffering and condescended to their weakness and superstition. Under the NT, Israel (i.e., the Church) is fully grown and has "put away childish things."

Under the OT, great empahsis was placed on what the NT calls "bodily exercise," e.g. raising hands, fasts, circumcision, etc. But the NT states that "bodily exercise profiteth little."

There is a marked difference between the worship of Jehovah under the Law, and the worship of Christ under the Spirit. The early church did not see the admonitions in the Psalms to play on instruments as prescriptions for Christian worship; it saw them in the true, spiritual sense.

The order and manner for Christian worship is clearly laid out for us in 1 Corinthians. Let's take the topic of tongues, as an example. If I were to follow the thinking of Multimom and how I think you, enda, are reading Henry, I would have to say, "Hey, this believer worships in tongues. We must be careful not to "censure," him, because his heart may be right.

However, censure is exactly what Paul does when he commands that if there is no interpretation, keep the tongues quiet.

I'm certain Henry is not saying "anything goes" in devotions, he is simply saying "we should be afraid." And indeed we should. If censuring is done, it had better darn well be done properly and according to knowledge.

 

Isn't the "bodily exercise" Paul speaks of precisely the opposite practice the later church began doing? Just repress all bodily pleasure and sit there stiffly, rigidly thinking that is more spiritual. One again, if Israel was so "childish", I wonder how Platonic austerity winds up being Christian "maturity" or the "newness in the Spirit".

 

Eric,

I've tried to answer you a couple of times, but I'm not sure I understand your question. I mean bodily exercise in the sense of the bowing, kneeling, kissing (the hands), genuflecting etc; then on the charismatic side, dancing and raising hands and other such ecstatic expressions.

 

"exercise" (Strong #1129: "gumnasia") actually means "asceticism", which seems to be more the logic of those opposing more lively worship as "of the flesh". (So physical calisthenics are called "exercise" because of the discipline involved, not because of the bodily movement)