Worship in the Melting Pot

It's not verse-lifting at all.

"God is a spirit," John 4:24. That is a straightforward maxim that stands alone. It's meaning is self-contained and depends upon nothing that is in the rest of the chapter to understand it. It's use in that chapter brings light to the subject at hand, not the other way around.

"God is a spirit."

I could say in a box,
I could say it to a fox.
I could say it here or there.
I could say it anywhere,

And it's meaning wouldn't change.

"God is a Spirit: and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth."

Again, a straightforward maxim quite independent of the verses above and below it. It's use in John 4 teaches us that neither the worship of the Samaritans nor the Jews was spiritual.

It doesn't matter whether a particular aspect of worship was specifically mentioned or not. Jesus stated a universal non-optional principle about true worship. He illuminated its object (the Father) and its manner (in truth and in spirit), and brought this principle to bear on her specific question concerning the location of true worship. This principle can be, and should be, brought to bear on any aspect of anything that someone calls worship.

Masters did not take it out of its context, and his article to which you linked us is an eminently proper exposition of its meaning. You, on the other hand, are attempting to limit its scope to prevent it from being used to judge things you want to say are true worship. Whether you're doing this surreptitiously or ignorantly, I don't know, but the end result is the same.

I know what people, especially the new worship adherents, usually mean when they say that, and from the phrasing of your consolations to ann and your criticisms of Masters (and myself), you don't give me a reason to think that you mean anything different.

Yes, but it was too weak to bring you to the proper conclusion.

He revealed to her that he was the Christ, yes. I won't quibble with you here over whether or not He used the name I AM.

That's true, He did say He was the Truth in another place, but that by itself doesn't help us understand the manner of worship described by the phrase "in truth."

Perhaps in the same way the Athenians were worshipping Jesus with the altar to the Unknown God. She worshipped God, yet in ignorance and superstition. "Ye worship what Ye know not."

That knowledge is certainly prerequisite to true worship.

This one you got just right. More accurately, it opposes her idea that God can be approached by physical means, as if His presence were actually more on that mountain than in Jerusalem. The tragic thing is that you see this as opening the door to a sort of freedom of physical expression, as if there were no prescription for an outward decorum of Christian worship.

"In truth" means simply this, that the worship of God is rational. God is worshipped through the preaching and teaching of the word of God. True worship is not an ecstatic feeling or experience, a phenomenon usually described by phrases like "in the presence of the father," or "the spirit fell," or "I could really feel the spirit today." Again, Christ is called "the Word," not "the Muse."

"In spirit" means that worship is not a physical activity such as the burning of incense, lighting of lamps, dancing, etc., it is an execise of the heart and mind, not the body. Physical activities are powerless to create true worship, so any feelings that were elevated or created through artificial means are really carnal, not spiritual, and are out of place in the worship of God. But folks today, and more and more in Baptist churches, believe that God is pleased with the offering of physical gifts like playing instruments and other performance arts. Remember "The Little (pagan) Drummer Boy?"

And this takes us to Psalm 150. When viewing this in the light of what Christ said about the difference between Old and New Testament worship, it's impossible to interpret this Psalm to mean that God is pleased with the sounds of trumpets, psalteries and harps any more than He is pleased with the blood of bulls and goats, or that playing these instruments are acts of true worship any more than the offering of burnt offerings.

 

Here we go again with the tedium of having to answer trivialities, but, I'll go as far as you want to go with it. For all of your talk about context, you well hide your skill in using it.

She meant that modern worship is true worship, and meant to say that Masters hadn't experienced true worship. This is evident by the numerous subsequent times she's asked me if I've ever experienced true worship without the word "modern." To paraphrase it as it stands in that post, it could be written true AND modern worship.

It's also evident through her treatment of hymns in her first post. [Paraphrased] "The hymns are beautiful and tell the Gospel story, but...so FEW of them are like the songs we'll sing in Heaven." In other words, the new worship is more like what we'll sing in heaven, and are more spiritual than the old worship. Few hymns have any meaning for her, as she said, "Some cranky guy will never stop my standing in awe of the Creator and instead stop to stand with my hands folded singing a hymn with words that don't mean anything to my heart!"

Joshua picked up on her meaning when he advised her NOT to throw out the old hymns. She then backpeddled by saying, "Oh, I LOVE many of the old hymns ..."

Before, there were few, now there are many.

Ann didn't do this on purpose. She just didn't think before she spoke. She is not turned on by traditional worship, she equates hymns with traditional worship, and because she was somewhat provoked by her impression of what Masters might have been saying, she spoke rashly, but it was because she wanted to marginalize Masters' education and devotion that she said Masters hadn't experienced true worship.

Now you know. It's practically impossible to come to some other conclusion.

 

I gotta say your avatar makes it difficult to take you seriously. However, it is funny and I smile almost every time I see it.

Posture only matters because it is a form of non-verbal communication. We can see from your posture what things you revere and what things you think are common and casual.

A hedonistic, false accusation.

 

These are all dealt with in the book, and if you go to the collection of articles you cited earlier, you'll find most of that info. I pretty much think along the same lines.

 

Generally speaking, Christian worship from the outward appearance will look stuffy to a worldly mind. The outward appearance of the Tabernacle did not dazzle the eye, and there was no beauty that one would desire it. All that could be seen from the outside was a large coffin-shaped structure covered with rams' skins dyed red. And around that was a long white curtain surrounding the court. All the curious embroidery of the curtains and the curious workmanship of the furniture was inside and seen only by the priests.

The central aspect of the service in Christian worship is the reading and the exposition of the Word of God. It is well-ordered and decent, and only those who are given ears to hear can discern and appreciate its beauty.

This is too broad a question.

Of course, but the emotion should always be a response to the doctrines of Christ, whether preached or sung, and to the work of Redemption being carried on today, not to anything else. A good friend of mine visited last Sunday. He is a contemporary worship leader at a large, affluent Methodist church. A group of us had been working on Before the Throne of God Above, by Charitie Lees Bancroft (1863). The piano accompaniment is simple, and so are the melody and harmony. Not contemporary by any stretch of the imagination. When we were done, my friend was in tears—not because of the music, but because of the words. He took a copy of the music to use at his church.

Before the throne of God above
I have a strong and perfect plea.
A great high Priest whose Name is Love
Who ever lives and pleads for me.

My name is graven on His hands,
My name is written on His heart.
I know that while in Heav'n He stands
No tongue can bid me thence depart.

When Satan tempts me to despair
And tells me of the guilt within,
Upward I look and see Him there
Who made an end to all my sin.

Because the sinless Savior died,
My sinful soul is counted free,
And God the just is satisfied
To look on Him and pardon me.

Before Him there the risen Lamb,
My perfect, spotless Righteousness,
The great, unchangable I AM,
The King of glory and of grace.

One with Himself I cannot die.
My soul is purchased with His blood.
My life is hid with Christ on high,
With Christ my Savior and my God.

God's standards of decency and order, truth and spirit.

In the Scriptures, of course, but they may have to be rediscovered as they were in the Reformation.

 

Thanks for the quote and citation. I wasn't saying that you made up the statement yourself. Many people assert those things, but upon investigation of their primary sources, their conclusions do not bear up under the facts. It was seldom the source of the melody that folks would respond to, it was the character. But the idea that the church throughout history simply helped herself to the popular music of the day as the CCM folks assert, and that they say she should today, is simply not true.
But don't assume that I would defend the use of Bach or Handel in Christian worship. The original criticisms were true. They are too showy and ornamental.

However, I did find something of note in the page to which you linked us:

At last, one of the new worship's own authorities acknowledges that the move toward CCM is a theological shift! A change in thought. Something I've asserted from the beginning. Music is not a thing. It is not an object that one might find washed up on a beach somewhere, or something that can be plucked from a tree. Music is thought.

Michael W. Harris said the same thing in his book, The Rise of Gospel Blues.

Samuel A. Floyd, Jr. in The Power of Black Music,

The heart of this debate is not style itself, but the thought or system of beliefs that influences that style. We are really debating which doctrine of God is more true, and which "attitudes, gestures and outlooks" conform to that view.

 

I wasn't offended in anyway. The only thing I thought was, "Oh, brother, am I going to have to debate Gnoticism again?" Then the thought hit me, I could simply respond with the same economy of words that were the direct opposite. But you didn't call me a Gnostic. You said my arguments sounded gnostic to you, and if that was an honest response, then don't apologize for it.

I will say here in response to tiny's response to you, I didn't say that physical gifts were evil, I said they were powerless. There's a difference. The power in Christianity is the power of the Spirit. No flesh (physical) will glory in His sight.

That's true. So, the next question is, how does one determine God's standard of decency?

 

I downloaded the piano vocal sheet music of Vikki Cook's melody from G3 Worship Music. Again, simple piano accompaniment, and easy harmony. The words are at the forefront in this arrangement.