Doctrine or emotionalism.

[agedman]

Lest someone misunderstand, I am not opposed to the emotional.

What I question is the use of emotional manipulation when presenting the truth of the Scriptures.

I have been searching through the ministry of Christ (He showed emotion), and have not found a time when He taught that He made an emotional appeal without first presenting what was doctrine. For example, at the death of Lazarus. Did not the Lord Jesus first confront, first deliver the truth before appealing for Lazarus to come out of the tomb?

The emotions were the result of and not the catalyst to the truth and presentation.

The Lord Jesus of course taught truth. And if that truth resulted in an emotional reaction by others (which it always did), that did not hinder the delivery of the truth.

In the modern worship setting, how often does emotion supersede doctrine? Why must the assembly undergo a huge emotional time prior to hearing the Scripture presented?

For example, a new film highlighting the life story is based primarily upon the song, "If I can only imagine."

That the song presents a simple message of supposing what it might be like, there is not anything doctrinal at all that is expressed in the lyrics. (why I linked the song with what also showed the lyrics)

So, when this is used as a "worship song," to reason? To drive emotions or drive doctrine?

Is the repetition and the drive of the music really driving the truth or driving the emotions?

God does not make appeal to or through the emotions.

Truth has no emotion.

The appeal of God and the truth of God may certainly result in the human being emotional, but ultimately what right does the church have to make emotion the point of the appeal and leave the doctrine off or place it as secondary in order of priority?

I don't do movies at the Hollywood theater, but it is my understanding that the author of the song had a rough life, and his testimony is of a change that took place in both his and his father as a result of conversion.

That is good. Nothing to be a matter of discussion, but that of joy that God moved to redeem.

However, the point of this thread (by using that as an example) is actually not to discuss that merits of that film (for it is but an example) but the point is to give some guidance to what is appropriate in worship.

Does the church push emotions first and then doctrine?

Or should the church push doctrine and as the truth is impressed upon the heart by the Holy Spirit the humankind cannot but break out in praise and glory of Him who first loved us?

The great hymns of the past had doctrine as the primary focus, not repetition.

And as far as popular music, the one song far exceeds all others as recorded and performed by more professional musicians, publicly performed in more events, and honored by even the ungodly,
.
.
.
.
.
.

Amazing Grace - a song full of doctrine which stirs the heart of emotion.

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

When I lived in London, I used to attend Metropolitan Tabernacle (started by C H Spurgeon), where Dr Peter Masters is the pastor. The hymn singling can be very powerful and uplifting. At one service a lady raised her hand "in praise", and had a smile on her face. After the service she was spoken to be a deacon, who basically told her that she must never do that again! I asked my friend who is a deacon there, and he said that they Church had nothing against "emotions" in worship, but as long as they are not "seen", even if this means smiling!!! I wonder if God, or these leaders were offended by emotions in worship of our Wonderful God, and for all that He has done? God created us emotional beings, not walking DEAD!

Psalm 150

Praise the Lord.

Praise God in his sanctuary;

praise him in his mighty heavens.

2Praise him for his acts of power;

praise him for his surpassing greatness.

3Praise him with the sounding of the trumpet,

praise him with the harp and lyre,

4praise him with timbrel and dancing,

praise him with the strings and pipe,

5praise him with the clash of cymbals,

praise him with resounding cymbals.

6Let everything that has breath praise the Lord.

Praise the Lord.

This is in the Word of God, and very much still acceptable and pleasing to God!

 

[agedman]

When I lived in London, I used to attend Metropolitan Tabernacle (started by C H Spurgeon), where Dr Peter Masters is the pastor. The hymn singling can be very powerful and uplifting. At one service a lady raised her hand "in praise", and had a smile on her face. After the service she was spoken to be a deacon, who basically told her that she must never do that again! I asked my friend who is a deacon there, and he said that they Church had nothing against "emotions" in worship, but as long as they are not "seen", even if this means smiling!!! I wonder if God, or these leaders were offended by emotions in worship of our Wonderful God, and for all that He has done? God created us emotional beings, not walking DEAD!

Psalm 150

Praise the Lord.

Praise God in his sanctuary;

praise him in his mighty heavens.

2Praise him for his acts of power;

praise him for his surpassing greatness.

3Praise him with the sounding of the trumpet,

praise him with the harp and lyre,

4praise him with timbrel and dancing,

praise him with the strings and pipe,

5praise him with the clash of cymbals,

praise him with resounding cymbals.

6Let everything that has breath praise the Lord.

Praise the Lord.

This is in the Word of God, and very much still acceptable and pleasing to God!

Two things.

Spurgeon didn’t have musical instruments in the worship.

Spurgeon might allow a verse or two from one or two hymns but not more, and if he sensed the singing had become emotional, he would cut it off.

He was certainly not opposed to music, nor emotions, he was opposed to manipulation in contrast to the work of the Holy Spirit.

Almost forgot, this psalm will be fulfilled in the millenium, but until then the Father is putting down the enemies while the Christ sits beside Him.

 

[Yeshua1]

Two things.

Spurgeon didn’t have musical instruments in the worship.

Spurgeon might allow a verse or two from one or two hymns but not more, and if he sensed the singing had become emotional, he would cut it off.

He was certainly not opposed to music, nor emotions, he was opposed to manipulation in contrast to the work of the Holy Spirit.

Almost forgot, this psalm will be fulfilled in the millenium, but until then the Father is putting down the enemies while the Christ sits beside Him.

Sound preaching of the Gospel can produce emotional responses, BUT the Holy Spirit Himself will make sure that the one being saved by God has a real and not just full of tears experience!

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

Two things.

Spurgeon didn’t have musical instruments in the worship.

Spurgeon might allow a verse or two from one or two hymns but not more, and if he sensed the singing had become emotional, he would cut it off.

He was certainly not opposed to music, nor emotions, he was opposed to manipulation in contrast to the work of the Holy Spirit.

Almost forgot, this psalm will be fulfilled in the millenium, but until then the Father is putting down the enemies while the Christ sits beside Him.

"Almost forgot, this psalm will be fulfilled in the millenium", and you know this how? Where in the NT does it say that the using of musical instruments is not allowed? Where in the Bible does it say we can use and organ or piano, and nothing else? Did you know that the word "psalm" in the Greek is ψαλμός,, which means, " a striking, twanging, specifically, a striking the chords of a musical instrument"; "a sacred song sung to musical accompaniment"; "“psalm” or “song,” sung to a harp accompaniment", etc, etc.

 

[agedman]

"Almost forgot, this psalm will be fulfilled in the millenium", and you know this how? Where in the NT does it say that the using of musical instruments is not allowed? Where in the Bible does it say we can use and organ or piano, and nothing else? Did you know that the word "psalm" in the Greek is ψαλμός,, which means, " a striking, twanging, specifically, a striking the chords of a musical instrument"; "a sacred song sung to musical accompaniment"; "“psalm” or “song,” sung to a harp accompaniment", etc, etc.

Missed the point.

You brought up spurgeon’s church.

I responded about his very limited use of music and why.

I then reflected upon the psalm

But as usual you run to excess.

 

[Aaron]

David instituted the use of instruments in the tabernacle. Moses didn't command them and they were not used in the synagogues, since they were intended to accompany sacrifice and offering. It was Roman Catholicism that brought them into use in Christian worship along with other superstitions and shadows of the law.

"Commandments" in the Psalms to use musical instruments are more properly interpreted in the same way that the commandments to kill bulls and sheep and to sprinkle their blood are interpreted.

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

David instituted the use of instruments in the tabernacle. Moses didn't command them and they were not used in the synagogues, since they were intended to accompany sacrifice and offering. It was Roman Catholicism that brought them into use in Christian worship along with other superstitions and shadows of the law.

"Commandments" in the Psalms to use musical instruments are more properly interpreted in the same way that the commandments to kill bulls and sheep and to sprinkle their blood are interpreted.

" It was Roman Catholicism that brought them into use in Christian worship", and your evidence is?

 

[Aaron]

" It was Roman Catholicism that brought them into use in Christian worship", and your evidence is?

Funny you didn't ask for evidence they weren't used in the synagogues.

 

[Steven Yeadon]

God does not make appeal to or through the emotions.

Truth has no emotion.

Ah, but agedman, my elder, can we say the same about the parable of the prodigal son? The parables of Jesus remain some of the most densely doctrinal; yet powerfully emotional appeals and lessons I have ever heard.

Remember, that while having the Law of the LORD read out loud, Nehemiah said the following:

Nehemiah 8:9-10

9 Then Nehemiah the governor, Ezra the priest and teacher of the Law, and the Levites who were instructing the people said to them all, “This day is holy to the Lord your God. Do not mourn or weep.” For all the people had been weeping as they listened to the words of the Law.
10 Nehemiah said, “Go and enjoy choice food and sweet drinks, and send some to those who have nothing prepared. This day is holy to our Lord. Do not grieve, for the joy of the Lord is your strength.”

It seems as if a holy time for God's people is supposed to be celebratory. This goes against even my first instincts when thinking of what holiness is in the American Church, but the Word of the LORD instructs us to the truth instead of cultural wisdom.

Now, another thread that may get us very far in discussion, would instead be whether the lyrics of modern Christian songs represent sound doctrine. I could speak a mile on that one.

 

[Yeshua1]

Ah, but agedman, my elder, can we say the same about the parable of the prodigal son? The parables of Jesus remain some of the most densely doctrinal; yet powerfully emotional appeals and lessons I have ever heard.

Remember, that while having the Law of the LORD read out loud, Nehemiah said the following:

Nehemiah 8:9-10

9 Then Nehemiah the governor, Ezra the priest and teacher of the Law, and the Levites who were instructing the people said to them all, “This day is holy to the Lord your God. Do not mourn or weep.” For all the people had been weeping as they listened to the words of the Law.
10 Nehemiah said, “Go and enjoy choice food and sweet drinks, and send some to those who have nothing prepared. This day is holy to our Lord. Do not grieve, for the joy of the Lord is your strength.”

It seems as if a holy time for God's people is supposed to be celebratory. This goes against even my first instincts when thinking of what holiness is in the American Church, but the Word of the LORD instructs us to the truth instead of cultural wisdom.

Now, another thread that may get us very far in discussion, would instead be whether the lyrics of modern Christian songs represent sound doctrine. I could speak a mile on that one.

There is emotionalism such as David had when the Ark was brought back, but there is also emotionalism such as esau getting upset when he sold his birthright.
One if godly given emotions, other is worldly ones.

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

Funny you didn't ask for evidence they weren't used in the synagogues.

Because the quote I used speaks of Christian worship and RCC

 

[agedman]

There is emotionalism such as David had when the Ark was brought back, but there is also emotionalism such as esau getting upset when he sold his birthright.
One if godly given emotions, other is worldly ones.

Ah, but agedman, my elder, can we say the same about the parable of the prodigal son? The parables of Jesus remain some of the most densely doctrinal; yet powerfully emotional appeals and lessons I have ever heard.

Remember, that while having the Law of the LORD read out loud, Nehemiah said the following:

Nehemiah 8:9-10

9 Then Nehemiah the governor, Ezra the priest and teacher of the Law, and the Levites who were instructing the people said to them all, “This day is holy to the Lord your God. Do not mourn or weep.” For all the people had been weeping as they listened to the words of the Law.
10 Nehemiah said, “Go and enjoy choice food and sweet drinks, and send some to those who have nothing prepared. This day is holy to our Lord. Do not grieve, for the joy of the Lord is your strength.”

It seems as if a holy time for God's people is supposed to be celebratory. This goes against even my first instincts when thinking of what holiness is in the American Church, but the Word of the LORD instructs us to the truth instead of cultural wisdom.

Now, another thread that may get us very far in discussion, would instead be whether the lyrics of modern Christian songs represent sound doctrine. I could speak a mile on that one.

Again, I am not opposed to emotion.

What came first in both these account?

The truth of the Scriptures, the doctrines, the recognition of the authority of God and His word came first.

 

[Steven Yeadon]

Again, I am not opposed to emotion.

What came first in both these account?

The truth of the Scriptures, the doctrines, the recognition of the authority of God and His word came first.

So, you are not disagreeing with me that God uses powerful emotional appeals, and that He can call for powerful emotional responses at times. You are observing that emotional appeals must always be grounded in the truths of the bible, have sound doctrine being taught, and must recognize the authority of God's Word. Am I correct?

 

[John of Japan]

David instituted the use of instruments in the tabernacle. Moses didn't command them and they were not used in the synagogues, since they were intended to accompany sacrifice and offering. It was Roman Catholicism that brought them into use in Christian worship along with other superstitions and shadows of the law.

The technical theological term for this is "baloney."

"Commandments" in the Psalms to use musical instruments are more properly interpreted in the same way that the commandments to kill bulls and sheep and to sprinkle their blood are interpreted.

Very poor theology here.

 

[agedman]

So, you are not disagreeing with me that God uses powerful emotional appeals, and that He can call for powerful emotional responses at times. You are observing that emotional appeals must always be grounded in the truths of the bible, have sound doctrine being taught, and must recognize the authority of God's Word. Am I correct?

No, I am not agreeing with you.

The RESULTS of teaching doctrine (the Scriptures) may RESULT in emotional expressions.

But, I do NOT agree that emotions are to come before the teaching of the Scriptures.

Such that appeals to the emotional in order to then interject the doctrinal is not (imo) Scriptural.

Yet, the modern church is doing exactly that.

It is under the guise of "preparing the hearts of the assembly to worship."

It is and has been wrong.

What prepares the heart?

Certainly, not emotionalism.

 

[Scarlett O.]

I can only speak for myself. The song you reference isn't a song we sing congregationally in church, but everyone knows it. It was popular years ago and it has been sung as a solo once.

The reason the song has made a resurgence and the movie is so popular IS because of the truth of what God did in the life of the father of the writer. After a head injury, he became an abusive and drunken monster. He died of pancreatic cancer but a few years before he died, he was saved and supernaturally changed. The young man was so thrilled that his dad came to Jesus and was concretely changed that his thoughts turned alot to his father experiencing the joys of heaven and thus the song.

No, it isn't a doctrinal song. It is a song of absolute awe of being in the presence of Christ. It is for the believer who wishes to express that awe - hence a worship song.

Some songs are heavy on doctrine - others heavy on expressing awe. Some both.

 

[Aaron]

The technical theological term for this is "baloney."

LOL. It's not a theological statement. It's an historical one, and one that you cannot refute.

Very poor theology here.

Here you judge C. H. Spurgeon and many other of your theological betters.

 

[Aaron]

As to the song: it's incredibly emotional, but theological rubbish.

1Co 2:9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.​

This straightforward, explicit, milk-of-the-Word maxim nullifies every sentimental notion of the song.

 

[rlvaughn]

When I lived in London, I used to attend Metropolitan Tabernacle (started by C H Spurgeon)

Actually, the Tabernacle's history extends much farther back than Spurgeon and includes other notables such as Benjamin Keach, John Gill, and John Rippon.