Worship in the Melting Pot

The words "all" and "every one of you," following "the whole church" as an antecedent, would certainly lend itself/themselves to that application unless something else limits them.

Yes, if you were only giving directions to the elders! But this is not parallel unless you assume the letter to the church at Corinth was actually only a letter to the elders of the church at Corinth. The only two ways that I think we can take what Paul said (in verses. 23,24,26) is: (1) every one means the whole church, or (2) we presuppose that every one could not contribute and the Corinthians (and we) would automatically understand it is therefore limited to the elders. This second position seems to be that taken by Masters, but in my opinion is assumed more than proven. Also, it should be fairly easy to prove that tongues and prophecy, the subject of verses 23 & 24, were not limited to the ordained leadership of the churches in New Testament times.

 

What you must note, though, Aaron, is that these instructions (vs. 27,29,34) came after the verses under discussion about "all" and "every one" (vs. 23,24,26). To interpret "all" and "every one" in such a manner is to project back what they had not been told yet. Second, to read that "the appointed leaders were again limited" is to read into this more than Paul says. He limits certain things in a service - tongues and prophecy - and a group of people - women. But "leaders" are not limited as such, only as they relate to the things Paul limited. Don't everyone speak in tongues, and the few who do so should do so one at a time (and only with interpetation). Ordained leaders weren't the only ones with the gift of tongues. Don't every prophet prophesy, and those who do should do so in an orderly manner. Ordained leaders weren't the only ones who prophesied. What I'm saying is that Masters is reasoning backwards. Paul certainly did place limitations, but had the "all" and "every one" in verses 23, 24 & 25 been limited to the eldership, as Masters' suggests, then there would have been little reason for Paul's corrective writing.

Yes, and that's even AFTER the corrections made by the Apostle Paul. Better bring your lunch!

 

Aaron, I don't mind hashing it to death as long as I'm winning ! But I think maybe I've failed to explain what I mean. I really don't see why there would be any contradiction if every one had a psalm, tongue, prophecy, etc. and Paul limits how much of that is worthy unto edification and good order in a single church service. One thing I want to be clear on as far as what I believe - Paul limited the practice to the number, not to the ordained leaders. If Paul were limiting this to ordained leaders, it would not have been necessary for him to specifically limit the women, because they would have already been excluded from this group (I understand some don't agree with this, but I think you do, Aaron). The main thing I am concerned with in Masters' article is that he is allowing his presupposition to govern his interpretation of verses 23, 24 & 26 rather than allowing the scriptures to form his presuppostions. If Paul is placing the limitations on an already exclusive group, it would seem to make his argument stronger.

 

With Masters, I would disagree with Charismatic, Pentecostal, & "CCM" worship styles. But He and I evidently get to the same general opinion via different processes. I am glad, though, that you called attention back to his article, because that is the original basis of our discussion and perhaps we have gotten too far away from it. I am copying a few things from Is it orderly, balanced and appropriate?. Here are the main things with which I disagree:

We have already gone over this. I see nothing in context that limits this to be addressed to leaders only.

While Paul's instructions may condemn a free-for-all service (depending on how we define a free-for-all service), Paul's own instructions right in these very verses disprove that Paul "condemns service-leaders who arrange things as they go along." Notice verse 30 (right after Paul has said the prophets speaking should be limited to two or three), "If any thing is revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace." Now that is doing exactly what Masters says we can't do - change or (re)arrange as we go along!

It just seems that Masters is overzealous in a couple of areas, trying to reinforce what he believes. But there is more I agree with Masters in the article than I disagree. But if I just pointed out what Masters, you, and I agree upon, what fun would that be!?

 

On one hand, yes it is. On the other hand, isn't it first and foremost about our link to God? If that is the case, shouldn't there be room for contemporary "voices" to be heard?

Brett

 

The issue of music in the worship service is no doubt probably the hottest topic among Baptist circles today.

Let's establish some principles...
1) Music's purpose is to prepare the heart to
worship God around His truth - the preaching
of the Word.
2) Music should not stimulate the flesh, but
instead the spirit.
3) Music is cultural, and culture does change.
4) Music is definately one of the key factors in
whether we are considered worldly, or
separated from the world. (to be a friend of
the world is to be an enemy of God. Jas 4:4)

If we would all be honest we would have to say that the dilemma is where the middle ground is... We cannot simply say that only one form of music is godly and all else is not, nor can we drop all reservations and let any form of music into the church.

We must realize that this is an issue that every church faces, and I don't believe that anyone can say that only they know what music best honors God and edifies our savior in holiness and worship.

Personally I like a praise chorus here and there, but I despise the rock and roll contemporary junk that is invading our sactuaries.

But I'm just one voice....

[ August 25, 2002, 04:01 PM: Message edited by: A voice crying in the wilderness ]

 

America is quite a melting pot. At no other time has there been such an ability to access other cultures and all they have to offer.
I believe some art can be beautiful and glorify the Creator and some art that comes from godless philosophies is not beautiful nor edifying. Same with music. Some music has roots that prevent it from glorifying God and we need to be careful not to get caught up in it. But we also need to be wary of man made boxes that would stifle the work of the Holy Spirit.

From a personal note, I've spent a number of years teaching music classes and directing choirs for youth. It is interesting to see the change in attitude, posture and modesty when rap or rock and roll music is played in comparison to music without a heavy, constant beat.

Can we all say BALANCE?

suzanne

 

If I didn't know any better, I'd say we go ahead and ordain her!!

 

As do I, but not because of the beat, or style. I hate it because it's limp, void of substance. It represents everything I hate about popular music. Over-produced, horrible musicianship, the entire money-go-round mentality that has ruined music. MTV has had a huge influence on not just secular music, but CCM as well. Artists are judged on how they look, not how they sound, or their subject matter. I know there are exceptions, there are folks who are properly motivated, have solid doctrine, and actually care about music. But I don't hear any of them. I get Carman, Stephen Curtis Chapman, and Mary Mary crammed down my throat. If I heard any good CCM, I would probably listen to it.

That's why I stick with the old-timers. Tested and tried, still around.

 

If I didn't know any better, I'd say we go ahead and ordain her!! </font>[/QUOTE] (Blush) I'm flattered!
Ordination would be out of the question though

suzanne

 

bump

 

Many thanks for bumping this thread Smoke_Eater. I'm now half here and half reading links in first post

I prefer chocolate to vegetables, does not mean my preference is good for me

VERY interesting definition there mate, especially when a lot of modern "worship" CDs feature a lot of moaning and groaning in their "songs"

No, I think we need to get back to the mid 1700-1900s. Todays Christian songs are too "Sesame Street" I think. &lt;Parody&gt; "We are singing this song, because we like You a lot, our guitars are loud and strong, sad our theology is not..." &lt;/Parody&gt; Sorry...honest...

Pete

[ October 17, 2002, 09:17 AM: Message edited by: Titus2_1 ]