Worship in the Melting Pot

Thanks for posting these links. I like to read Masters' articles, and am usually in general agreement with them. I'm curious as to your thoughts on his I Corinthians 14:26 interpretation, in which he limits "every one of you" to the leaders of the church. Here are some of mine.

In verse 23 he is speaking to "the whole church" and the word "all" in verses 23 & 24 would seem to have the whole church as its antecedent. Why suddenly does "every one of you" become a different group of people?

Masters here mentions the vast size of the church of Corinth, but gives no scriptural reference that indicates its size. It was of such a size that they could all come together in one place (12:18,20; 14:23), though we don't know how large that one place was. I would agree that it probably isn't possible for all of the people in a large assembly to contribute to a worship service, but a look at a charismatic church will certainly prove that doesn't keep them from trying!

If "every one of you" refers only to the church leaders, Paul's reference to the women would seem to put them among the leaders as well.

It is only a few men because Paul limits it to just a few. Before it must have been many more.

One of the best verses in this chapter that argues against a church service in total disarray is verse 32, "And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets." People are often heard to say or imply, "The Spirit was moving and I couldn't help myself." Maybe we think we have something to say or contribute, but two or three have already spoken - hold your peace, you are not out of control.

My position would be more open than that of Masters, but I have no sympathy for the modern worship techniques. We need a framework to provide for decency and order, but shouldn't be so scripted that we place ourselves in a straitjacket. I would be interested in your thoughts on "every one of you."

 

I would agree, if you are speaking in reference to the "contemporary" worship movement taking many Baptists and evangelicals - the praise & worship so-called, the seeker mentality, etc.. But many Baptists have been historically more "open" than some of the reactions against this contemporary worship. The Separate Baptists are an excellent example. As well as not seeing the "pentecostal" and "contemporary" movements in the Bible, neither do I see the "liturgical" and "scripted" services that prevail among some Baptists and others.

I cannot see that Paul limiting the number sheds any light on who "all" and "every one" was previous to that. The context favors it meaning the whole church. But the limitations do solve certain questions we might have about it - like how should we do it now. I think you would probably agree that Paul did not limit the number of people who contribute to the worship service, but rather the number of people who would contribute in an individual and authoritative type of way. Maybe that's not the best way to put it, but we recognize that everyone could still sing, pray, and praise congregationally - though they all might not be able to "sing a special" or pray individually.

 

Well, I have to say this: I prefer Contemperary Worship more than traditional. I call traditional "Moaning and groaning worship music." Contemperary is the best! We need to come to the year 2002. Traditional music is out of order.

 

Why do you keep repeating the same arguments that are proven wrong over and over? Here, I can do the same:

Beside there not being any Scriptural basis for asserting that music in and of itself can be inherently sinful or elicit a sinful reaction in someone there is another pragmatic approach against this silly argument.It's called experience.I assert that I have never once in my entire life been enticed to sin by listening to music of any kind (without words of course).

This argument is not only flawed, but it is demonstrably wrong on every level.

 

Moaning and groaning music ?

I disagree. Those old hymns are full of life, thrilled by salvation, and looking forward to rapture. You can like what you want, and I will not tell you what to listen to, but your comment is mean and ignorant.

 

While BrotherJesse's comments may be out of line, I can understand where the frustration comes from.

Bro. Adam

[ July 30, 2002, 07:58 PM: Message edited by: Aaron ]

 

I agree wholeheartedly with this comment. Too many times, however, the folks singing them seem to reflect the exact opposite. People seem to have forgotten what these hymns are all about, and much too often seem bored when they sing in church. And that's people of all ages.

Maybe that's the frustration BrotherJesse was trying to convey.

Peace,
James (who likes all music that comes from the heart in praise of my God and Savior)

 

As for me and my house, we had rather "moan and groan" than sound like the Beatles!

 

This is fairly typical of the kinds of ignorant blanket judgements issued by this pharisaical argument.In every church I have attended where contemporary music has been incorporated into the worship service, the entire congregation and leadership of the church have been unified in adopting it into their repertoire because they like it, not because they feel obligated.Welcome to the 21st century.

Point made demonstrably wrong.

more:

Again, complete ignorance.My church happens to sing both choruses and hymns because we happen to enjoy both choruses and hymns.Point made demonstrably wrong.

more:

If by "emotionally manipulative motives" you mean a desire to worship God in spirit and truth why then I suppose you have us nailed.Otherwise this is just another pathetic and ignorant blanket judgement which is as far removed from Scripture as the Salem witch trials.

more of this trash in the name of "not appearing hostile":

Please feel free at any point to back up these pathetic claims with actual evidence.What is meant by "somewhat mystical notions of communion with God"?I worship God in the same spirit when singing a hymn as when singing a chorus, or anything designed to orient my heart on God.Point made demonstrably wrong.

more refuse:

Could this guy have his self righteous, holier than thou nose any higher?Absoluteley putrid and disgusting.I enjoy meaning, I prefer content.Meaning is in words, not musical styles.Both the choruses and hymns we sing in sunday worship are chosen because they express truths about the nature of God and orient our hearts on him in a spirit of fellowship, communion and humility and Godly worship.

Point made demonstrably wrong.

more unscriptural pharisaical jusdgement:

It's nice pointing fingers at ambiguous crowds of people isn't it?Not very mature though.Who says these things?Who?You?Someone you know?Is this based on some sort of anecdotal story passed down from one person to the next?Does it come from watching charasmatic maniacs jumping all about and slaying people in the spirit that you see on t.v. and then assume that it applies to the entire body of Christ?Have you ever honestly stepped foot inside of a church which sings contemporary worship music or are you all armchair judges?Give me a break, this does not represent my philosophy or that of anyone I know.

Point made demonstrably wrong.

more subjective filth:

Says who?You?I don't feel this way.i don't know of anyone else who does either.

Point made demonstrably wrong.

The only valuable point made in the whole article:

That is exactly why I enjoy the music that I sing in worship.Thanks for confirming it.

Back to the lies which do not intend to "appear hostile":

Wrong.I don't believe this way, nor does anyone I know.These blanket judgements are inexcusable.You should be ashamed of yourself.

I am a Calvinist.It would be impossible for me to think this way.This argument is so ridiculous.

I can't bear to go on, ever approach of this article is based in false assumption and a spirit of strife and hatred.There is no excuse for it.Wake up Aaron.

 

I accept this as acknowledgement that your argument is weak at best and not at all authoritative.

 

Hope you'll clarify, Odemus. I couldn't tell whether or not you liked Masters' article!

 

It's a ludicrous assertion on every level.I don't like having my faith attacked and my heart judged by people who won't even use Scripture to do it.

If you're going to judge me, use Scripture and don't hide behind wry smile and a wink in your eye as though you aren't really being hostile.

No, I didn't care for that article

 

Wow, you don't have much of a sense of humor, do you? I thought it was humorous (the wink guy) and sad (the blue guy) for you to use such strong language and then charge Masters with having a spirit of strife and hatred. Maybe you don't pay much attention, either. If you had noticed my posts you would have seen that I find disagreement with Masters' interpretations on a number of things, as well as his sometimes loose use of Scripture (perhaps loose isn't the best word, but he seems to see what he wants to see). But I don't see the great spirit of strife and hatred that you find. Perhaps that is because I'm in basic agreement with his position.

I didn't intend to be hostile - I thought it was funny. Obviously, you didn't. For that I am sorry. I can't judge what is in your heart, but the hostility in your words speak for themselves. BTW, I did use scripture in my disagreement with Masters' I Cor. 14:26 interpretation. Perhaps you should look back over your own post and see how much scripture you used! Zilch, Zero, Nada. You only charge Masters' position with being wrong, but gave no scriptural basis for yours being right. Perhaps you have done so in other topics. I don't post in this forum all that much so I don't know.

 

I wasn't referring to you rlvaughn as judging me, I was referring to the article and especially Aaron.

As far as Scripture is concerned we are exhorted to to sing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs with thankfulness in our hearts to God (Colossians 3:16).

Nowhere in the Bible is it stated that certain musical styles or instruments can be considered inherently sinful or innapropriate for worship, period.

Since Aaron asserts that there is such a thing as inherently sinful music and instruments the burden of proof by using Scriptural standards rests entirely on him, not me.

You must take note that his argument rests on universal sweeping accusations against everyone who listens to CCM.

We must believe that all CCM appeals to the base carnal pleasures and elicits sensual worship (whatever that means).

As Aaron has stated about the lives of those who listen to CCM-"But I must look closer at this so-called fruit, and I find souls entrenched in sensuality, though they claim to be Christian, not walking in love, but wantonness."

You better believe I get angry when Aaron consistently refuses to stick to Scripture but issues blanket moral judgements against thousands or perhaps millions of people he doesn't even know.

If the argument is going to rest upon the assertion that certain musical styles or instruments can be considered inherently sinful then stick to Scripture and prove it.Don't go pointing accusatory fingers and making generalized statements about me and others that you don't even know.

That's my position.You make a moral claim, then it is up to you to apply Scriptural principles and show me that it is right.These articles that are based on ignorance and put words in my mouth and accuse me of believing things I don't even believe while at the same time avoiding the Bible are pathetic.

I meant no offense to you rlvaughn, my apologies for not clarifying who I was referring to.

 

I know that I tend to get aggressive but I think I might need to make it clear that I in no way intend to personally attack others.I feel very strongly about this issue and I find it incredibly frustrating to have to constantly refute the same arguments over and over and over.

As an example, I told Aaron from day one that his moral assertion about the inherent nature of music put the burden of proof on him.I said then, and I still say that all moral claims must be based on the word of God and nothing else.He in essence says it is impossible for him to prove that 'rock' music is intrinsically sinful from Scripture because 'rock' music isn't mentioned anywhere in the Bible.He then went on to assert that I couldn't prove gambling was sinful based solely on Scripture because gambling isn't mentioned anywhere in the Bible.So what did I do?I spent a good hour studying the Bible to show that the root sin of gambling is based on greed and covetousness and relying not on God, but on yourself.I presented verse after verse to show that Scriptural principles can be applied to any moral issue regardless of whether or not the specific sin (smoking crack, abortion etc. etc.) is mentioned in the Bible.

Aaron flat out ignored this and still continues to this day to judge the hearts, minds and motives of those he doesn't know without using Scripture.

If I was to assert that abortion is wrong and you were to challenge me to prove the point from Scripture, would I ignore the challenge and tell you to prove that it is acceptable from Scripture, or would I go directly to the various places in Scripture that point to the sanctity of human life to make my case?How is this discussion any different?

If contemporary Christian music is sinful regardless of the lyrical content based on the fact that it is evolved from rock 'n' roll, then one must assume that certain styles of music can be considered inherently sinful.All I ask is that instead of falsely judging me, you point to Scripture first to make your case.I don't think that's too much to ask from a brother, do you?

I wasted a sizable portion of my life looking for truth and meaning outside of the Bible, and now that God has secured me and drawn me to the truth of His word, I refuse to look anywhere else to establish moral and spiritual truth.I think it's sad that some would expect me to.

[ August 01, 2002, 03:34 PM: Message edited by: Odemus ]