# Art in worship



## Galahad (Mar 5, 2004)

I hope I am not beating a dead horse, so please bear with me on this (and, if it has already been covered in another thread, please direct me to that).

For starters, this is NOT about the Passion, so perhaps we can eliminate that part of the discussion from this thread. Secondly, my question/issue/problem has to do with art in the worship service.

Exodus 20

4 &quot;You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand {generations} of those who love me and keep my commandments.

I'm including this for clarity and so that we can start off on the same page.

Also, as Pastor Way pointed out, here is Deuteronomy 4:

10 Remember the day you stood before the LORD your God at Horeb, when he said to me, &quot;Assemble the people before me to hear my words so that they may learn to revere me as long as they live in the land and may teach them to their children.&quot; 11 You came near and stood at the foot of the mountain while it blazed with fire to the very heavens, with black clouds and deep darkness. 12 Then the LORD spoke to you out of the fire. You heard the sound of words but saw no form; there was only a voice. 13 He declared to you his covenant, the Ten Commandments, which he commanded you to follow and then wrote them on two stone tablets. 14 And the LORD directed me at that time to teach you the decrees and laws you are to follow in the land that you are crossing the Jordan to possess. 


Idolatry Forbidden 
15 You saw no form of any kind the day the LORD spoke to you at Horeb out of the fire. Therefore watch yourselves very carefully, 16 so that you do not become corrupt and make for yourselves an idol, an image of any shape, whether formed like a man or a woman, 17 or like any animal on earth or any bird that flies in the air, 18 or like any creature that moves along the ground or any fish in the waters below. 19 And when you look up to the sky and see the sun, the moon and the stars-all the heavenly array-do not be enticed into bowing down to them and worshipping things the LORD your God has apportioned to all the nations under heaven. 20 But as for you, the LORD took you and brought you out of the iron-smelting furnace, out of Egypt, to be the people of his inheritance, as you now are.
(NIV)
------------
Jeffrey Brannen


----------



## Galahad (Mar 5, 2004)

I am trying to work through this issue, so any assistance and additional thoughts would be appreciated.

-----------------
As I understand the Exodus text to be saying, we are expressly forbidden to make idols. The following statements are really for clarification as to what sort of idols are in mind (anything in heaven or on earth, etc.). Not only are we not to make idols, we are not to bow down to them or worship them.

What is not clear to me, from the text, is whether all images are forbidden (as I have heard several say) or that images for the use of worship are forbidden. 

Also, unclear from the text, is whether the Trinity is explicit or implicit and what impact that would have on the discussion.

God is described, in the Deut. text, as formless and because of this formlessness, the Children of Israel are forbidden to make any image of God.

Because Christ took on a form, how does that affect the discussion? As long as God was formless, then it seems abundantly clear that to make a representation of Him as human would be a violation of the command in Deut. But, he took on a form. 

When the Apostles prayed to God, through Jesus, they had a form in their minds, correct? Or is that a red-herring?

Again, from the Deut. text, it doesn't seem that all images are forbidden, just idols. So, the question that raises is this - what, exactly, constitutes an idol? Is an idol an image or an image with a purpose? (in other words, is it an idol because of intentionality?)

Some questions I am trying to work through in the understanding of this issue.
-------------
Jeffrey Brannen


----------



## JonathonHunt (Mar 5, 2004)

It strikes me that much of what you are talking about is Aesthetic Worship. You might find the following article useful. It is a part of an article on Contemporary Christian Worship by my former Pastor, Dr Peter Masters.

I apologise if pasting articles into forums is not the done thing! The full article is at:

http://www.metropolitantabernacle.org/Pages/ISSUES.html

**********************

AESTHETIC WORSHIP

THE FIRST MAJOR deviation today is the espousing of aesthetic worship, in preference to the Lord's command that worship must exclusively be 'in spirit and in truth' (see John 4.23-4 ).
Aesthetic worship is the idea that worship may include things that are beautiful, artistic or skilfully executed, offered up as an expression of worship to God. It is based on the notion that we worship not just with spiritual thoughts from our minds and hearts, but also with the creative skill of our minds and hands.
It believes that genuine praise needs a 'physical' dimension greater than mere unison singing. It assumes that God is an 'aesthete' - sitting in the heavens and looking down with appreciation at the skill and beauty that we bring before Him.
We may bring Him thrilling music, clever arrangements, brilliant instrumentalism and fine singing, and these will please Him. We may worship (it is thought) not only by meaningful words, but by wordless offerings.
This is of immense importance, because the aesthetic idea of worship is the essence of Catholicism, and diametrically opposed to the biblical concept. The Church of Rome, with all her masses, images, processions, soaring naves, stained glass windows, costly and colourful robes, rich music, Gregorian chants, and complex proceedings, makes an offering of worship by these things. All her theatricalism is an act of worship believed to be pleasing to God.
The Reformation went back to the Bible, and embraced the principle that true worship is intelligent (and scriptural) words, whether said, thought or sung, winged by faith to the ear of the Lord. It is true that little bits of Roman 'theatre' remained in the episcopal churches, but by and large the rites, ceremonies, images and everything else that represented a virtuous offering were swept away.
However, aesthetic worship has now flooded into evangelical and Protestant churches, and people have come to think that they can express much of their worship via music and instrumentation (and in charismatic circles via dance, bands, movements and drama).
Certainly, the Lord trusts us with music, and also with instruments to accompany the singing of praise, but these cannot actually convey worship. They are secondary. They are not in the image of God, nor do they have souls, nor are they redeemed.
Modern hymnwriter Erik Routley was way off the mark when he penned the lines (which he meant to be taken literally) -
Joyfully, heartily, resounding!
Let every instrument and voice . . .
Trumpets and organs, set in motion
Such sounds as make the heavens ring.
The recently coined, popular statement that worship is 'a celebration in words and music' (seen so often on church handbills and notice-boards) is a denial of the Lord's statement - 'in spirit and in truth'. Words and thoughts are everything in worship. Music may only assist at a practical level; it cannot be used to express worship. To believe that it can, is to embrace the error of aesthetic worship.
The singing of God's people may be grand and glorious viewed from a human standpoint, but only the words and the hearts of the worshippers matter to God. Does this sound strange? It may do so today, but fifty years ago - and all the way back to the Reformation - practically every evangelical Christian would have said this most emphatically.
A notable advocate of the new ways has defined worship as 'a discovery of God's will through encounter and impact'. Not only is instrumental and song performance offered as a meritorious expression of worship, but from the very performance one is said to glean some form of revelation from God. This is seriously believed by the main architects and promoters of new worship. Do evangelicals who adopt their materials fully realise the deep errors of the philosophy behind them?
Aesthetic worship is a huge stride back to Rome, and has no place in the church of Jesus Christ. It challenges and spoils spiritual worship, and is contrary to every praise instruction in the New Testament. When we evaluate new worship, we must do so in terms of these historic, biblical principles. Worship is exclusively spiritual.
At the Reformation, simplicity, intelligibility and fidelity to the Bible replaced the impressive mystery and pageantry of Rome, and the aesthetically splendid mass surrendered to the understanding soul.
Why did all this take place? The advocates of new worship do not seem to know. They are aware that the Reformation changed doctrinal teaching, but they do not appear to know why it so changed the manner of worship too. Do the new-worship men think it was just a 'generation thing'? Do they picture Luther, Calvin, the Protestant martyrs and others as the youngsters who just wanted a new culture? Do they believe it was all a matter of taste?
The truth is, of course, that the Reformers saw through the sensual worship of Rome (the aesthetic and ecstatic elements) and rejected artistic skill and beauty as a valid expression of worship, and also rejected the 'working up' of supposed spiritual experience by things which dazzled the eyes and the ears.
How is it that well-meaning evangelical Christians have adopted the idea that we can worship through beauty and skill? In the USA many theological seminaries and Christian colleges have greatly enlarged their music departments and courses for 'worship leaders'. Inevitably the role of music and the use of complex worship programmes has greatly increased. Churches have acquired ministers of music as well as professional worship leaders, and how could these highly trained brethren function if they did not feel that all their expertise and creativity constituted an efficacious offering of worship?
In biblical worship, only one offering counts, and that is the offering made once for all by the eternal Son of God on Calvary's Cross. Nothing should be thought of as an acceptable offering, or as having any worship merit apart from Calvary. Our thoughts and words are not an offering, but expressions of praise, repentance, request, dedication and obedience, all made acceptable by Calvary.
Writers promoting new worship actually use language which depicts God as a satisfied viewer of a 'performance' (this is their term). They explicitly say that God is the audience. Some provide illustrations of a stadium in which the church and its performers are placed on the pitch, and the word 'God' is inscribed around the seating in the stands. They seem very pleased with this scenario.
C H Spurgeon would never have an organ at the Metropolitan Tabernacle in his day, because he saw how so many of the larger churches had become carried away by the sound of their magnificent instruments, and the expert capabilities of their organists. They were tickling the ears of the people (as Spurgeon put it) with beautiful musical items other than hymns. He was concerned that people would go to church to be entertained rather than to worship, but even more seriously, he saw how the skill and beauty of the music was itself likely to be regarded as an act of worship, and an offering to God.
Today the Tabernacle uses an organ, but we endeavour to keep its deployment within bounds, so that it provides an accompaniment only, and does not become a medium of worship. We would never say, for example, that the organ 'enriches' worship. It disciplines the singing, and teaches and maintains the tune, but we know very well that in spiritual terms it can contribute nothing.
Contemporary worship, however, is usually fully aesthetic in purpose and practice. God is the audience and the worshippers are performers. Skilful instrumentalism is part of the offering of worship. Many evangelical churches have, in principle, gone back to Rome - and even surpassed Rome both in intricacy and decibels.
At the dawn of world history Abel's offering was accepted by the Lord because it was the very act God had commanded - a humble offering representing the need for atonement. Cain's offering, however, was rejected, because it presented his own skill, labour and artistry. It was a 'works' offering. To parade before God our skills as an act of worship is surely nearer to the offering of Cain than that of Abel.
Today, people often say, 'But what shall we do with our gifts if we cannot express them in worship?' Here is the heart of the matter. Worship is not the exercise of our gifts, but the exercise of our hearts and minds. For many people this is the 'lost ark' of worship, the principle which has disappeared from sight - that worship is not the presentation to God of skill or beauty, or of personal gifts, but the communication of the soul with God, through the merit of the Lord Jesus Christ alone, and by the enabling power of the Holy Spirit. Worship is not aesthetic.
We ask again, how is it that evangelicals have tumbled into this dramatic change of viewpoint in our generation? We have not been helped by a number of practices which have served as the thin end of the aesthetic wedge. We have already noted that a few pre-Reformation habits survived even in the reformed churches - remnants of Catholic theatricalism and show. These have been kept up in Anglican churches (except in the 'low' churches), and they have always had an undermining effect, causing good people to lose sight of a clear-cut definition of spiritual worship.
Over the years, pleasant inconsistencies have also been adopted by nonconformist churches. Beautiful anthems rendered by choirs came to offer an increasingly aesthetic contribution to worship. Solo items in services seemed harmless enough, and edifying if worshippers followed the words. But then the solo often became an instrument-only item, so that congregations were given 'songs without words', and taught to regard these as an act of worship. Little practices such as these have helped nibble away at the biblical concept of worship, and the Lord's people have slowly lost sight of basic principles.
But now the pass has been entirely sold, and the judgment of the Lord's people completely clouded. Simplicity has been discarded and we have been overwhelmed by a full-scale attack on long-standing principles of worship.
In many churches worship is now offered and 'enriched' by instrumental and vocal expertise. Performing gifts are exercised, and a human, artistic offering presented to God. This is only one of three quite different major aberrations from biblical and reformational principles of worship. We must return to 'spirit and truth' only.
It may be protested that worship in Old Testament times was rich in actions and artistry ordained by God, and such worship can hardly be disqualified today. How can we deny the worship-virtue of skilfully executed music and song?
It is simply not true that Old Testament services included works of beauty and skill as a direct expression of worship. The symbolism in the design of the Tabernacle and Temple, as well as the ceremonial performed by the priests, represented the work of Christ for them. They amounted to lessons, not vehicles of worship. They were intended as visual sermons, not meritorious acts. They were pictures, given and taught by God, of the way of grace. The people observed and trusted, but their personal response of praise was meant to be spiritual and from the heart.
True worship always was a matter of the heart, and not an offering of human works, skill or creativity. This lesson had to be learned by Cain of old, and many need to re-learn it today. Worship is spiritual thoughts directed to God from the heart, by faith. It is not an aesthetic activity. We again urge readers to consider this principle of worship, because how we worship is not just a matter of culture or taste or generation, but a matter of God-given rules. Principles count. The great statement common to the Westminster and Baptist Confessions stands against all that is going on today:
'The acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by Himself; and so limited by His own revealed will, that He may not be worshipped according to the imagination and devices of men . . .'
Why would any church want to increase the number of instruments used in worship? If the answer is - 'To enrich our worship and to express our gifts,' then the principle has been lost, and the old aesthetic error has taken over.


----------



## Don A (Mar 5, 2004)

Galahad,

I applaud your efforts in trying to nail down specific scriptural allowances and prohibitions for all things we as believers partake in. I think it is most wise to weigh all of our words, deeds, and actions according to the Word. This would, of course, include the things we love, such as art and music. But, if you look back over my posts in the thread about the movie we no longer speak of, you'll find that I never invoked the 2nd Commandment as a defense. Not that I don't think there is some relevance, but I don't think it is necessary to defend my position. Sometimes, as reformed believers, we feel the need to sift things down to the last jot and tittle. And this is good. But, as much as the Word addresses the testimony of the Spirit with our spirit, and such things as conscience, don't you think that sometimes, plain old common sense must prevail? The question I tried to pose in my earlier comments, in a nut shell, is this: How much error can you introduce into an object (movie, song, book, doctrine, creed, etc.) before it becomes wrong? When our conscience speaks against it, do we re-tool it to try and make it fit, or do we repent of it?

I speak as one who has had to cull a lot of things I have held dear because there has been no way to justify them before God. I imagine that if live long enough, there will be a lot of other things I will leave behind. As for a scriptural appeal, perhaps this is what I am trying to say: 

[b:06b7476ec6]Philippians 4[/b:06b7476ec6]
8 Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things. 

If I am forced to white-wash a particular thing to make it appear holy, maybe I am better off without it. I apologize if I came off as being mean-spirited in my earlier post. This was not my intent. I am trying to learn to hold my tongue (or keyboard, as the case might be) when I don't agree with others. It's just that when I see something promoted as being good in a public forum, and I am convicted otherwise, it's hard to just sit and watch. Personally, I have read hundreds of these threads, and what we say here could impact those who are just watching from the sidelines.


----------



## Galahad (Mar 5, 2004)

JonathanHunt,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems you are making a distinction between aesthetic worship and ascetic worship. worshipping in spirit and in truth is opposed worshipping in the flesh and falsehood. Would this be a fair summation of the article you posted?

If so, then it is potentially expression a form of Platonic thought - a dualism between the spirit and the flesh. It seems the author, who does not site his refrences but refers to his opponents as &quot;them&quot; or &quot;they&quot;, draws a distinction between worship that is simple (good) vs. complex (evil). Also, we are to worship in spirit but not with &quot;human work, skill or creativity&quot;. Since you attended this church, and it did have an organ (which Spurgeon would have condemned), was the organist skilled?

I appreciate what you are saying, but does the idea that spirit and matter are polar opposites convey the whole gospel? 

Finally, before I run off to class, if we are to avoid anything that is of &quot;human work, skill, or creativity&quot;, what measures should we take to avoid it? What level of skill and creativity are allowed in our musicians? How about our architects who build the buildings we worship in? What about the interior designers who put in carpet and paint the walls? But, most importantly, what about the pastor who prepars his sermon with &quot;human work, skill, and creativity&quot;? To what measure are we to be ascetic in order that we avoid the excesses of Rome?
---------
Jeffrey Brannen
UCA
Covenant Pres. (PCA)
Little Rock, AR


----------



## turmeric (Mar 5, 2004)

While I'm sure our music and art cannot thrill the Infinite God, who must humble Himself to behold the stars, yet he commands us to love Him with all our hearts, minds, and souls. Surely we should do everything for His glory and give Him our best. The attitude that art is not important in worship has led to the insipid worship I grew up with which was content with offering God Almighty a &quot;joyful noise&quot; or cacaphony of bad a-rhythmic singing on badly tuned instruments, with heretical lyrics at times. It is akin to anti-intellectualism, the notion that doctrine is unimportant.


----------



## rembrandt (Mar 5, 2004)

The role of music in 95% of evangelical churches is wrong. But how do we explain Psalm 150 and other verses that say that we can praise God on musical instruments?

It seems like the idea in Ps. 150 though is that all things are praising God regardless of what they are. But I guess that is the difference between &quot;praise&quot; and [i:34571ad4ab]worship[/i:34571ad4ab]

I think that all the forms of art bring great glory to God, even skillful music. But they produce no means of authentic worship.

just thinking out loud...
Rembrandt


----------



## Guest (Mar 5, 2004)

Creatures made in the image of a creative God should well use the talents and artistic abilities He has granted them.

By putting worship and liturgy in to a vacuum of sensory depravation we are reducing substance of Christianity to Budhism. Empty your mind of all images. Sanitize the sancuary of all tapestries and statuary, and symbol. At that point we must also deny the Bible and the sacraments because at face value, language, and wine, and bread, are all images and symbols by which the Creator communicates to us His will, and His love, in a &quot;creaturely&quot; manner.

That which is not forbidden is permissable.

The use of images to lift our hearts and minds from earth to heaven is not forbidden. It is even commanded. Look at the intricate details and sculptures of the Tabernacle and Temple, and Ark.

It is only when we mistake those signs for the objects they represent to us, and begin to venerate them and beseech them as if they had any life within them that we fall into idolatry. The ancient world was much more easily seduced by animism than we are today. If anything, we have the opposite problem. Science has made us numb to the supernatural.

[Edited on 3-5-2004 by Visigoth]


----------



## PastorJoe (Mar 5, 2004)

Mark,

You said, &quot;That which is not forbidden is permissable.&quot; Doesn't this perspective open a wide door? Dance? Skits? 

I believe we should only include as primary components of our worship what is prescribed by Scripture. (Pews, overhead, hymnals, kinds of instrument are in my mind &quot;accidental,&quot; and therefore not a violation.)

But - worshipping images, wrong. Worship via images seems to transgress the command as well.

[Edited on 3-5-2004 by PastorJoe]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Mar 5, 2004)

[quote:7ef1bbbfe9]
That which is not forbidden is permissable.
[/quote:7ef1bbbfe9]

Puppet Shows
Mime
Drama Skits
Soloists
Barbershop Quartets
Interpretive Dance
Ballet
Rolling on the Floor
Barking like a dog
Roaring like a lion
Shaking in the Spirit
Laughing in the Spirit
Etc.

None of these are &quot;forbidden&quot; though, Mark, as you say. How do you draw a line? That is why there is a great gulf fixed between the Reformed camp which say &quot;God has the right in and of himself to dictate the manner in whcih the sinner may approach him,&quot; and what you have said which is the &quot;early Luther.&quot;

Why would it be wrong to include any of those things above if a congregation &quot;felt&quot; they were appropriate?


[quote:7ef1bbbfe9]
While I'm sure our music and art cannot thrill the Infinite God
[/quote:7ef1bbbfe9]

If that is true (and it is) what, ,then is the real role of such things in worship? Obviously we would be catering in some way tot he human conidtion. How that occurs is the essence of the Regulative Principle.

[Edited on 3-5-2004 by webmaster]


----------



## PastorJoe (Mar 5, 2004)

Matthew,

Why would you see a solo as a violation in light of the command to exhort one another in song. Couldn't that fit that standard?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Mar 5, 2004)

I would not see solos, teams, choirs, etc. as congregational worship. 

In the NT worship is corporate and not by proxy in this manner. If worship by proxy in this regard is finished (i.e. the OT priests are now NT congregational priests so to speak and do not need the priests to sing for them for the veil is torn) then worship by proxy is ended in this respect and the congregation should be worshipping together as a body, not as spectators.

[Edited on 3-5-2004 by webmaster]

[Edited on 3-5-2004 by webmaster]


----------



## PastorJoe (Mar 5, 2004)

Matthew,

I am following your thought here. But this wouldn't be worship by &quot;proxy&quot; in my mind. The singer is not acting in my place so to speak, but is exhorting me with Scriptural song. Why do you see it as a substitute?


----------



## Guest (Mar 5, 2004)

[quote:c08f0c801b]
Why would it be wrong to include any of those things above if a congregation &quot;felt&quot; they were appropriate?
[/quote:c08f0c801b]

Paul sets a standard for reverence and propriety that I think we all can understand. Ergo, some of the above WOULD be forbidden.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Mar 5, 2004)

Because I am not singing with them.

Think about the structure of most of the old European churches (if you are familiar with them or ever vivisted). Take for example Kings College Chapel. HUGE building. The foyer is larger than most churches. 

The congregation is seated in seats that sit opposite to one another. Half the congregation sits on one side, and the other half on the other facing the first. Both see, at the botton (since they are like stadium seating) the pulpit which resides in the middle of the sanctuary. When they sing, the congregation sees one another singing. They are singing with and to one another. 

In another church I visited, the Old Round Church, it was over 1000 years old. Its setup was much like this, but rounded where the pulpit sat dead center of the room and the pews were &quot;round&quot; thorugh the whole sanctuary. Again, this allowed the congregation to sing together and with one another.

In New England, the old colonial churches were setup like boxes where the pulpit stood center front, but had a section in the front, and then off to the left and right, again, a semi circle affect for the same purpose.

Today we build churches to accommodate the camels that need to walk up out of the middle of the stage area for the skit in downtown Jerusalem.

We do not find in the NT anything but the corporate nature of the church. We also knwo the early church did not have solos or choirs. The church at Corinth was not hard pressed to have their 300 piece choir and band on center stage. Rather, the church was a &quot;Christian synagogue.&quot; We have lost this today in modern Christendom. What was it like for a mixed group of early Jews and Gentiles to worship Christ in the synagogue. (James says, &quot;when you &quot;synagogue&quot; (gather) together...&quot;


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Mar 5, 2004)

Here is where churches want to go via John Frame et. al.

&quot;Presbyterian worship-based on the biblical "regulative principle," which I describe in these pages-was in its early days very restrictive, austere, and "minimalist." It excluded organs, choirs, hymn texts other than the Psalms, symbolism in the worship area, and religious holidays except for the Sabbath. Presbyterians in the "Covenanter" tradition, such as those in the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America and a few other denominations, still worship in this way, but they are in that respect a small minority of conservative Presbyterians today.

Nevertheless, the Puritan theology of worship that produced this minimalism is still taught in theologically conservative Presbyterian churches and seminaries as the authentic Presbyterian and Reformed view of worship. This is partly because that theology is reflected in the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms, to which these churches subscribe. But the Westminster standards actually contain very little of the Puritan theology of worship. The Puritan and Scottish divines who wrote the Westminster standards were wise not to include in them all their ideas of worship. The principles responsible for liturgical minimalism come from Puritan and other Reformed texts that go above and beyond the confessional documents. Yet these extraconfessional texts themselves have considerable informal authority in conservative Presbyterian churches.

The result has been that although few conservative Presbyterian churches actually worship in the Puritan way, the Puritan theology of worship remains the standard orthodoxy among them. This discrepancy sometimes leads to guilty consciences. I have talked to pastors, for instance, who are unwilling to go back to exclusive use of the Psalms in congregational singing, yet feel awkward about singing hymns. They almost seem to think that they ought to worship as the Puritans did, even though they have no intention of doing so. They worry that this wavering amounts to an inconsistency in their commitment to the Reformed faith and to Presbyterian orthodoxy.

I believe that Presbyterians need to do some rethinking in this area. In my view, the Westminster Confession is entirely right in its regulative principle-that true worship is limited to what God commands. But the methods used by the Puritans to discover and apply those commands need a theological overhaul. Much of what they said cannot be justified by Scripture. The result of our rethinking, I hope, will be a somewhat revised paradigm for Presbyterian worship; one thoroughly Reformed in its assumptions, affirming the regulative principle and the statements of the Westminster Confession and Catechisms, but allowing much greater flexibility than the Puritans did in applying God's commands for worship. [u:e70316503b][i:e70316503b]Such a revised paradigm will relieve the guilty feelings mentioned earlier, not because it allows us to ignore God's commandments, but because it helps us to understand more accurately what our Lord expects of us.&quot;[/i:e70316503b][/u:e70316503b]

&quot;Worship in Spirit and in Truth, xvi.&quot;

This is theologically horrible stuff. What Frame is saying, and what people want today, is Charismatic-Arminian Worship under &quot;rules&quot;. This is the same as saying &quot;neo-presbyterianism.&quot;

What has happened to the Reformation that has caused the church to forget their roots and the biblical standards that have been lost?? Revivalism! Individualistic, non-communal, self-sufficient revivalism is the culprit of the Enlgishment trend that still affects us today.

For those, in general, who have little knowledge of the Reformed Heritage, please take some time to read the following:

The Directory of Public Worship
http://www.apuritansmind.com/PuritanWorship/DirectoryOfPublickWorship.htm

[Edited on 3-5-2004 by webmaster]


----------



## Guest (Mar 5, 2004)

[quote:c0dba5809c]
We do not find in the NT anything but the corporate nature of the church. We also knwo the early church did not have solos or choirs.
[/quote:c0dba5809c]

A soloist cannot play an edifying piece of music during offertory then ? ? ?

This is absurd.

We do &quot;sing&quot; with the soloist, or meditate upon the beauty of His holiness when a Bach Partita is played.

Jeremiah sang the Lamentations for all Jerusalem ALONE !!!!


----------



## PastorJoe (Mar 5, 2004)

Matthew,

Thanks for the response. That makes a lot of sense, and I too see the need for worship to be a congregational event, not a show to watch. 

I guess I am still seeing the solo as accidental. It is a form of exhorting one another with song. The congregation still responds to it with more song. 

And what of the preaching? It is repsonded to in faith and repentance. Isn't this how one should respond to the song by which we are exhorted?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Mar 5, 2004)

Mark, the Reformed history and liturgy of the church is not absurd. The departure from it is. 

You are right, Mark, Jeremiah did sing alone, [b:429b0e69b8]but he did not sing in corporate worship alone.[/b:429b0e69b8] He was really alone.


----------



## PastorJoe (Mar 5, 2004)

Yeah, I have read Frame and tend to agree with him here.


----------



## Guest (Mar 5, 2004)

Matt, please suggest a book for me to read so that I may better understand what you are referring to.

Everything I have read seems to indicate it is only in this modern era, (post Reformation) that we even argue about the regulative principle.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Mar 5, 2004)

Joe, two great questions.


[quote:a4a87e5838]
I guess I am still seeing the solo as accidental. It is a form of exhorting one another with song. The congregation still responds to it with more song. 
[/quote:a4a87e5838]

The congregation is to respond to God, not men. The owrship service is a dialogue between men and God. Men respond to God, not to men during that worship. 

Then you asked about preaching. Logically so. If the preacher was preaching on behalf of himself - which they sometimes do - the congregation shoudl nto listen to him. Rather, he shoudl be speaking on behalf of God as an appointed messenger (the &quot;karuxz&quot heralding the Word of God. 

Do you like it when you are talking with someone and someone else just BUTTS IN and BREAKS UP your conversation. I hate that. Its irritating because it demonstrates a lack of respect for the covnersation taking place, and the people involved in it.

Think of the worship service as a dialgue between men and God.

God calls them to worship.
They respond in prayer and in song.
God calls them to repent.
They read a passage together as a confession of sin, or maybe the commandments.
God calls them to heed His Word (maybe a Scripture is read, or a passage as in a NT reading)
They repsond in song.
They affirm what they believe by saying the creed, then pray.
God calls them to give a tithe and respect His sovereignty over them and their possessions.
They give. (Some Puritan churches had a box in the back where they give instead of passing the plate.)
God exhorts them through the Word of God and the preaching.
They repsond in prayer, and in song.
The benediction is given.
They depart for service.

The dialgue is interrupted when other things that do not fit the schema of the conversation replace God speaking and suddenly men are talking [i:a4a87e5838][u:a4a87e5838]to one another.[/i:a4a87e5838][/u:a4a87e5838]


----------



## PastorJoe (Mar 5, 2004)

Matthew,

I am still missing something. I agree, we respond to God, not men. But we respond to God as we exhorts us via the human instrument. Such as a preacher. God speak to the body through him, and the body responds to God. 

Why is it different when it comes to the solo?

(I apologize for going over and over this)


BTW, great illustration of worship...

[Edited on 3-5-2004 by PastorJoe]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Mar 5, 2004)

Mark, 

One of the most helpful books on the subject is [b:b01b2f6715]Gospel Worship[/b:b01b2f6715] by Jeremiah Burroughs. It really is wonderful. Also is a contemporary book called &quot;Leading in Worship&quot; by Terry Johnson. That will give you both the Regulative Principle by Burroughs and the modern application of it in Johnson's work. Johnson's work is for &quot;pastors&quot; officially but it is a great help and has some very good stuff in it including Calvin's, Knox's, Zwingli's and Puritan wroship services as examples, as well as modern helps.

Any Reformed Bookseller can get you either of them. Try Reformation Heritage Books here:
Gospel Worship
http://www.heritagebooks.org/item.asp?bookId=284
Leading in Worship
http://www.heritagebooks.org/item.asp?bookId=2321

You are right though - if we lived 200 years ago or earlier, we would not be having this conversation at all.


----------



## Guest (Mar 5, 2004)

God calls them to worship. 
They respond in prayer and in song. 
God calls them to repent. 
They read a passage together as a confession of sin, or maybe the commandments. 
God calls them to heed His Word (maybe a Scripture is read, or a passage as in a NT reading) 
They repsond in song. 
They affirm what they believe by saying the creed, then pray. 
God calls them to give a tithe and respect His sovereignty over them and their possessions. 
They give. (Some Puritan churches had a box in the back where they give instead of passing the plate.) 
God exhorts them through the Word of God and the preaching. 
[b:087e85875c]They respond in prayer, and in song.[/b:087e85875c] 
The benediction is given. 
They depart for service. 

The section I put in bold is where I believe a solo could be payed or sung. As well as during Eucharist, offertory, or communion.

Do you take communion in total silence ? ? ?

We call the section [i:087e85875c]sursum corda[/i:087e85875c].
We lift up our hearts to the Lord. Why can we not do this while someone else is singing a beautiful song ? ? ?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Mar 5, 2004)

Joe, don't worry about rehashing the same idea. We want things clear.


[quote:280b809729]
Why is it different when it comes to the solo? 
[/quote:280b809729]

Let's do this, do we have a place anywhere in the Bible, at all, that directs us by God to sing to one another as a form of God's communication of Himself to us in that regard? If not, OK. If so, where would we find it?

(I have to go right now, but will check back in later...)

[Edited on 3-5-2004 by webmaster]


----------



## Guest (Mar 5, 2004)

[quote:dda7639e08]
Let's do this, do we have a place anywhere in the Bible, at all, that directs us by God to sing to one another as a form of God's communication of Himself to us in that regard? If not, OK. If so, where would we find it? 
[/quote:dda7639e08]

The soloist is singing to God, not the congregation.

And what about :

&quot;Admonish [b:dda7639e08]one another[/b:dda7639e08] with Psalms, hymns, spiritual songs, etc . . . &quot;


----------



## Craig (Mar 5, 2004)

I can only find [i:a9b87f5958]potential[/i:a9b87f5958] problems with solos.

When we enter our worship on Sundays, we hear our organist or pianist playing hymns solo. We are instructed via bulletin to use this time to prepare ourselves for the worship of God.

I find this necessary to worship. You are now in the arena of the sacred. You now are more able than before to prepare for worship.

Potential for problems would be those performers in our congregations who use their talents not to glorify God, but to entertain us, or themselves. Typically I don't see it in instrumental numbers, I do, however, see them when people sing solo (not at my church, but growing up). These songs are often not even screened by the pastor. They're sentimental nonsense, usually.

Now, myself not being a good singer. One who has trouble singing anything difficult...I found in my previous church uplifting moments of glorifying God when I heard sacred songs sung by those truly gifted by God, and truly singing to God. I was prodded in my heart to love God, and when it was the congregations turn to sing, there was a definite gusto that hadn't been there before.

In regards to &quot;visual arts&quot; in worship...I am against their use. There is a difference between language and concrete images. When I hear a metaphor, I am drawn (for lack of a better word) through my imagination...as the sermon continues, the &quot;image&quot; in my mind takes different shape as I come to understand more fully what's being set forth. The problem with a visual, is that the thing itself is concrete (I don't mean molten rock) and stands there as truth stands. I find a danger in those images as people become fixated on them...they are unchanging, they draw you in and you are left to interpret on your own. 

I understand that the tabernacle was filled with artsy things and was ornate...but that was directed by God. Outside of worship, I think images, to an extent, are useful and good. But I do find religous icons questionable even outside of a worship context. Remember also that God's instruction had to be followed EXACTLY. God didn't want human innovation. I love art, I find it incredible...I don't think it's wise to use innovation in worship, however.

On another thread (a closed one) someone referred to me as a revisionist...I think they and others may begin to see I am not so much of a revisionist as I am someone trying to be Biblical.

I hold to the regulative principle also in regards to worship...I do see liberty outside of worship where the Bible is silent (within reason), however.


----------



## Guest (Mar 5, 2004)

I agree with you Craig, I am wondering how Matt will answer us now. I do want to read the books he mentioned as well.


----------



## pastorway (Mar 5, 2004)

One question that comes to my mind regarding solos or [i:a384ead3aa]special music[/i:a384ead3aa] is to ask, &quot;Where is the focus?&quot;.

Today, with so much around us being presented as entertainment, and with the focus on performance, we tend to easliy settle into the attitude of a spectator.

If we like the singing and the song we are pleased. If we do not, if talent is less than we appreciate, or if the song itself bothers us, then the focus is on what we LIKE or DISLIKE rather than on the worship of God. We then worship by preference instead of mandate!!

I am not saying this always happens, but the potential is there every time someone gets up in front of the congregation to sing.

When you think about it, often we &quot;judge&quot; preaching the same way. How good a speaker is he? You know, Jonathan Edwards would not last a week in most churches. But when he preached God was there and the Spirit moved in power.

Now I am sure none of us would deny the place of the preacher in our worship. That is clearly given in Scripture. But in the pages of the Bible when God is praised, the congregation is doing the praising. It is always a corporate event when the church is gathered.

Worship, be it singing, preaching, giving, praying, the ordinances, or fellowship should always be focused on God. As soon as we draw attention to ourselves we have ceased to worship Him.

That is why we [i:a384ead3aa]prepare[/i:a384ead3aa] for worship. That is why we should never take worship lightly or enter into it hastily. 

Yes we can come before the Throne with boldness. But boldness is not haste, nor is it presumptuous.

Phillip

PS - in discussing the artifacts used in OT worship we do have to keep a proper perspective and understand the fulfillment of these as they were only types! What does the ark, the candlestick, the altar, the laver, etc represent for us in worship? The answer to that will determine if you are able to attempt to justify using things of that nature today in worship. 



[Edited on 3-6-04 by pastorway]


----------



## Guest (Mar 5, 2004)

[quote:2a250dac51]
You know, Jonathan Edwards would not last a week in most churches.
[/quote:2a250dac51]

Very true, but this type of anachronism can be said of almost any dead saint.

We probaly could not last one service in their churches either.


[quote:2a250dac51]
PS - in discussing the artifacts used in OT worship we do have to keep a proper perspective and understand the fulfillment of these as they were only types! What does the ark, the candlestick, the altar, the laver, etc represent for us in worship? The answer to that will determine if you are able to attempt to justify using things of that nature today in worship[/quote:2a250dac51]

Have you ever seen the movie Cromwell ? ?
He goes through the church in a &quot;cleansing the temple&quot; type manner and gets rid of all the gold ornaments and crosses.

I found it to be a great portrayal of the over-reaction of the Reformation to all &quot;holy furniture&quot; so to speak.

Why would God give us millenia of OT revelation as a pattern of worship, and then fulfill the sacrifice portion of it as Himself, and then tell us the rest was simply symbol also and we do not need to worry ourselves about it anymore but rather make our worship as stark and achromatic and imageless as possible from now on ? ? ?


----------



## pastorway (Mar 5, 2004)

Why don't we build a Temple then to meet in and decorate it according to the OT?

Because the veil was ripped in two....the church is the Temple. And Jesus said that it is not about where we worship (Temple, hillside, etc) but [i:a4d8904831]how[/i:a4d8904831] we worship. In spirit and truth.

The OT symbolism has been fulfilled and is no longer a part of worship. The Old Covenant has passed away. Let go of the relics of the past....they served their purpose. No need, or Biblical mandate, to hang on tot hem any longer.

Phillip


----------



## Guest (Mar 5, 2004)

[quote:eebf8c4112]
And Jesus said that it is not about where we worship (Temple, hillside, etc) but how we worship. In spirit and truth. 
[/quote:eebf8c4112]

This also works for my side of the debate.

The rent veil was a symbol of fulfillment.
When the curtain was torn what did they see in the holy of holies ? ? ?

Not the Ark . . . . but rather the missing ark.

The mercy seat is in heaven.

I agree with you Phillip. I just do not think that the fulfillment does away with the use of symbolic ornamentation. 

I will look into those works mentioned by Matt before I make up my mind totally.
And certainly, the Roman Church is steeped in heinous idolatry regarding the ornamentation and symbolism therein.

It is a tough thing to discern.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Mar 5, 2004)

[quote:39d2e7e346][i:39d2e7e346]Originally posted by PastorJoe[/i:39d2e7e346]
I am still missing something. I agree, we respond to God, not men. But we respond to God as we exhorts us via the human instrument. Such as a preacher. God speak to the body through him, and the body responds to God. 

Why is it different when it comes to the solo?
[/quote:39d2e7e346]
The difference is calling. The minister is ordained to exhort the congregation with the Word. A soloist is not.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Mar 5, 2004)

[quote:95c816c1df][i:95c816c1df]Originally posted by Visigoth[/i:95c816c1df]
By putting worship and liturgy in to a vacuum of sensory depravation we are reducing substance of Christianity to Budhism. Empty your mind of all images. Sanitize the sancuary of all tapestries and statuary, and symbol. At that point we must also deny the Bible and the sacraments because at face value, language, and wine, and bread, are all images and symbols by which the Creator communicates to us His will, and His love, in a &quot;creaturely&quot; manner.
[/quote:95c816c1df]
Actually you have pointed out the only sanctioned decor in the NT, the sacraments. 
I think the early New England Puritans were right on in this respect. Their churches were simple. Only the necessities were there; chairs, simple pulpit, and a table for the elements. Nothing else. There were no distractions from the purpose if the assembly. 

We are but strangers and pilgrims in this world. Our churches and services should reflect that. The majesty of God should be expressed not in outward decor but in the right use of the required elements of worship (preaching of the Word, prayer,sacraments, congregational singing etc.) and in our godly lives. All else is but temporary tools to house this worship.


----------



## Galahad (Mar 6, 2004)

Greetings, y'all,

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to remember someone telling me that there are definite differences between what Scripture &quot;describes&quot; and what it &quot;prescribes&quot;. In other words, some things are explicitly ordained and other things are simply &quot;this is what happened...&quot; 

My understanding of this debate is not about prescription, but rather about description. Arguments go something like this: &quot;The early church did this...&quot; or &quot;The early church didn't do that...&quot; 

Very little of what we are discussing is actually explicit prescription, right? Most of what we're discussing is interpretations of description. How does that affect our understanding of what we should be doing and what we should be avoiding?

There seems to be two groups here - one that advocates a minimalist approach. Everything must be sparce and bare because the Early Church was sparce and bare.

The other group seems to be trying to understand the Regulative Principle as more of a &quot;guideline&quot; than a hard and fast rule.

Potiential problems: Group one - the minimalists - logically should not own buildings and probably would need to meet in catacombs to be fully consistant. Group two - it is hard to know where to draw the line - abuse is perhaps the most common problem within the history of the church, so to even open the door is to potentially slide down that slippery slope.

What say you?
--------------
Jeffrey Brannen


----------



## Guest (Mar 6, 2004)

[quote:903e3d25a3]
Actually you have pointed out the only sanctioned decor in the NT, the sacraments. 
I think the early New England Puritans were right on in this respect. Their churches were simple. Only the necessities were there; chairs, simple pulpit, and a table for the elements. Nothing else. There were no distractions from the purpose if the assembly. 
[/quote:903e3d25a3]

Ah yes, I believe the puritans and some modern Presbyterians fall into an error I like to call &quot;The Idolatry Of The Austere&quot;.

The make an idol of the &quot;plain&quot; (Similar to the Amish) and think themselves more pious because of it.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Mar 6, 2004)

[quote:be7f9ca66f][i:be7f9ca66f]Originally posted by Visigoth[/i:be7f9ca66f]
[quote:be7f9ca66f]
Actually you have pointed out the only sanctioned decor in the NT, the sacraments. 
I think the early New England Puritans were right on in this respect. Their churches were simple. Only the necessities were there; chairs, simple pulpit, and a table for the elements. Nothing else. There were no distractions from the purpose if the assembly. 
[/quote:be7f9ca66f]

Ah yes, I believe the puritans and some modern Presbyterians fall into an error I like to call &quot;The Idolatry Of The Austere&quot;.

The make an idol of the &quot;plain&quot; (Similar to the Amish) and think themselves more pious because of it. [/quote:be7f9ca66f]
For some it may have been idolatry. But for most I think it was a removal of distractions from the preaching of the Word.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Mar 6, 2004)

[quote:26bc286a7c][i:26bc286a7c]Originally posted by Galahad[/i:26bc286a7c]
There seems to be two groups here - one that advocates a minimalist approach. Everything must be sparce and bare because the Early Church was sparce and bare. 

The other group seems to be trying to understand the Regulative Principle as more of a &quot;guideline&quot; than a hard and fast rule. 

[/quote:26bc286a7c]
It's not because the early church did it but more based on the nature of our worship. We do not require ornate buildings or paintings or other images to aid in our worship. God has told us what is required. That's all we need. They second group doesn't have a &quot;regulative principle&quot; beyond their own preferences. It should no problem then for a church to meet in a &quot;catacomb&quot; because if the worshipful heart is there and the ordained worship of God is there, that is all that is required for God to be magnified in worship. We worship in spirit and truth. All outward decor is not essential in any way nor should be. Does that mean we don't own buildings? No, but we also understand that those buildings are but temporary dwellings to house the worship of God and can be stripped away at any moment. And when they are stripped away it should not detract from the worship of God one bit. What kind of church building will we have in heaven?

[Edited on 3-6-2004 by puritansailor]


----------



## Galahad (Mar 6, 2004)

Puritan Sailor,

I've got a pastor friend who is growing in his conviction that it is wrong for the church to own buildings. He points to the Apostles who did not use the missionary money (as best we can gather) to build church buildings. He also points to the early church who worshiped in a sparce and &quot;essential&quot; manner - they, too, did not own church buildings. Finally, he returns to Jesus and points out that absolutely nothing in his earthly ministry would lead us to believe that we should go through &quot;building projects&quot;.

Since I do believe the regulative principle, I'm having a bit of a hard time arguing with him. Absolutely nothing descriptively or prescriptively would point us towards owning property, buildings, or beyond (I'm thinking of the mega-compound that is in Greenville, SC [John Brown? maybe?]).

Applying the regulative principle to our worship by eliminating everything but the essentials - by eliminating every accidental such as a solo, organ, or hymns - is, I think, consistantly applying the RP in a very strict sense. But, my friend wants to apply the RP to the building itself!

Simply put, as best as I can understand this debate, everybody (with perhaps only the barest of exceptions) wants to apply the RP with some exceptions - e.g. hymnals are prefered over hand-written copies or overheads.

Maybe I'm just not communicating it very clearly, so I'm sorry if I'm not being clear. As best as I can understand the strictest application of the RP, everything that is in our churches is subject to criticism (or possibly condemnation) -- including owning the church building itself!

Am I overstating the problem? I don't think so - &lt;chuckles&gt; it seems that there is always somebody who's &quot;more&quot; reformed that I am, who's willing to worship even more &quot;in spirit and in truth&quot; that I'm willing to.
------------
Jeffrey Brannen


----------



## PastorJoe (Mar 6, 2004)

Matthew, 

Two texts are Eph. 5:19 and Col. 3:16.

&quot;Let the word of Christ richly dwell within you, with all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with thankfulness in your hearts to God.&quot; (Col. 3:16)

We are singing &quot;to God&quot; but exhorting one another. What would be communicated but God Himself?

Patrick, 
We are &quot;called&quot; to exhort one another with spiritual songs, and this is obviosuly in the context of worship. So dont find that argument about calling convincing.

Jeffrey, 
Most of the Reformed agree that what is described to be characterisitic of the early church's activity [i:33108382b3]is[/i:33108382b3] prescriptive for the church today.

[Edited on 3-6-2004 by PastorJoe]


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Mar 6, 2004)

[quote:d53747ccb7][i:d53747ccb7]Originally posted by Galahad[/i:d53747ccb7]
I've got a pastor friend who is growing in his conviction that it is wrong for the church to own buildings. He points to the Apostles who did not use the missionary money (as best we can gather) to build church buildings. He also points to the early church who worshiped in a sparce and &quot;essential&quot; manner - they, too, did not own church buildings. Finally, he returns to Jesus and points out that absolutely nothing in his earthly ministry would lead us to believe that we should go through &quot;building projects&quot;.

Since I do believe the regulative principle, I'm having a bit of a hard time arguing with him. Absolutely nothing descriptively or prescriptively would point us towards owning property, buildings, or beyond (I'm thinking of the mega-compound that is in Greenville, SC [John Brown? maybe?]).
[/quote:d53747ccb7]
Your friend I think misunderstands the RP. And I'm not arguing for not owning property. The Christians did have buildings in the early church. They were called synagogs (spelling?). The point I'm trying to make is that we are not tied to a building. Own one we may, but it must be with the understanding that it only temporarily houses our meeting location and in no way contributes to the worship of God other than keeping the rain off our heads or providing us light and warmth in winter etc. 
The RP of worship is about the worship itself, not about where it takes place. We have the required elements, and we have the command to do all things decently and in order as a guide to carry out those required elements. For example, a church building obviously would be much more condusive to the worship service rather than meeting outside in a snow storm. Hopefully I'm making the point clear.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Mar 6, 2004)

[quote:9c72beb851][i:9c72beb851]Originally posted by PastorJoe[/i:9c72beb851]
Two texts are Eph. 5:19 and Col. 3:16.

&quot;Let the word of Christ richly dwell within you, with all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with thankfulness in your hearts to God.&quot; (Col. 3:16)

We are singing &quot;to God&quot; but exhorting one another. What would be communicated but God Himself?

Patrick, 
We are &quot;called&quot; to exhort one another with spiritual songs, and this is obviosuly in the context of worship. So dont find that argument about calling convincing.
[/quote:9c72beb851]
We are called to exhort one another, but the public proclaimation of the Word is the job of the Minister not the soloist. When a soloist is up there proclaiming the Word in song, he is in effect acting the part of the minister.


----------



## PastorJoe (Mar 6, 2004)

I think that is a stretch. Just not convincing to me at all. But I have read some good things in this thread and it has me thinking (which is always good).


----------



## Galahad (Mar 6, 2004)

Pastor Joe,

But that's exactly my point - we have lots of things throughout Scripture that are descriptive but are not prescriptive. To suddenly assume that everything descriptive is prescriptive is to put the cart before the horse. At best, if we are applying something descriptive (as prescriptive), then we need to be willing to concede a measure of doubt that allows for disagreement and some measure of flexability.

Central to the early church was the idea (false, but nonetheless there) that Christ would return while the Apostles were still alive. The met in the synagogs, but those were not their buildings, but the Jewish houses of meeting. It was about the time of the death of John that the idea of the immanent and immediate return of Christ had to be re-evaluated.

It is my understanding that the Christian church did not own property and/or build buildings until after Constantine legalized the church. 

The essence of my point - if what is descriptive (in the early church) is prescriptive (for the modern church), then we need to give up our church buildings and our property. Is it logical that we should own buildings and property so that we can worship? Most definitely. Anybody can see that and would probably argue that we should. But, can you see the discrepancy?

It is descriptive that the early church met in homes and in the Jewish synagogs (somebody else's building). Therefore, it is prescriptive for us to do the same, right? I don't think so, but how can I use the RP to prove my position?

I must take the prescriptive, analyze the descriptive, then logically infer conclusions through the paradigm of what is not commanded is not allowed. I cannot take a description and infer prescription and then infer modern solutions. Is this not the case?
---------
Jeffrey Brannen


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Mar 6, 2004)

[quote:27284d03e4][i:27284d03e4]Originally posted by Galahad[/i:27284d03e4]
It is my understanding that the Christian church did not own property and/or build buildings until after Constantine legalized the church. [/quote:27284d03e4]
You are forgetting some important facts. It would have been extrememly difficult for churches to own buildings. Christianity was not recoginized by the Empire. Plus, they lived under persecution. Now, it doesn't mean they couldn't have owned a building, but if they did, they wouldn't have owned it for long because it would have been confiscated or destroyed. 
[quote:27284d03e4]The essence of my point - if what is descriptive (in the early church) is prescriptive (for the modern church), then we need to give up our church buildings and our property. Is it logical that we should own buildings and property so that we can worship? Most definitely. Anybody can see that and would probably argue that we should. But, can you see the discrepancy? [/quote:27284d03e4]
What discrepancy? I think you are taking a rather simplistic view of history in your understanding of the early church. As I noted above, it was difficult to hold property. Doesn't mean they couldn't. 
[quote:27284d03e4]
I don't think so, but how can I use the RP to prove my position? [/quote:27284d03e4]
The Regulative Principle of Worship does not address this situation. The RP governs the [i:27284d03e4]content[/i:27284d03e4] of worship (i.e. preaching, praying, singing, sacramenting. etc.) It was never intended to address the location of worship. We worship in spirit and truth. This takes place in any location. We have then the liberty to build an environment which fosters this ordained worship so long as it's done in good order (i.e. chairs, a roof, etc.) You cannot apply the RP to something which it is not intended to address. That ends up in legalism, compromising of the worship of God.


----------



## Galahad (Mar 6, 2004)

I am aware that the early church faced prosecution, along with an expected immediate return of Christ, which kept them from owning church property. I am also aware that the RP is used for more than simply the content of the worship service - The RP is used to advocate and determine church government as well as the plain and unadorned nature of the building in which worship takes place.

The original intent of this thread was to examine the nature and role of art in worship - that is what I'm trying to get back to. It has been argued that we are to be ascetic, or at least minimalist, in our approach to the adornment of our sanctuaries. 

The argument for the unadorned building goes something like this - the early church, the Reformers, and the Puritans all had plain, unadorned sanctuaries. In the case of the Reformers, they were specifically reacting to the abuses of the RCC and their iconoclast positions can be seen as their staunch opposition to those abuses. The Puritans had much the same principle at work. Both the P's and the R's looked back for justification of their iconoclast position to the early church which was also unadorned and plain.

Hopefully, I have stated a true broad generality. Which, unfortunately, will miss the specifics, but hopefully will apply to our discussion.

Yes, the Regulative Principle applies to content of the service. And, so it would seem that the building and ownership of it would be excluded - but allow me to rabbit trail for just a bit and hopefully my thought process will become clear.

No one would deny that the shape and structure of the architecture reflects the purpose and intent of the worship service. Someone pointed out that when the congregation is divided so that they can look at each other or if the congregation surrounds the pulpit, it means a greater community worship. Historians can show you vaulted ceilings and flying buttresses that point to heaven - these reflected the idea of the awesomeness of God in architecture. The layout of the Catholic Church is an excellent example of well-planned and executed architecture - the altar is at the front and center and the pulpit is to the side (Rome's focus on the centrality of the sacrifice is present and clear simply through the layout of the building.).

All that is to say that the nature, shape, design, layout, color schemes, pews, benches, kneelers, comfy chairs, hard wood floors, or marble columns affect the content of the worship service.

Does the RP deal with having an organ and/or a choir? Most definitely - attend a Church of Christ service and Catholic to witness the extreme ends. The music and mode of singing is well within the function of the RP.

How about architecture? Is that within the function of the RP? As I pointed out above, it is part and parcel to the entire package - it is part of the &quot;worship experience&quot; (to borrow a &quot;seeker sensitive&quot; term). 

Again, what is the nature and role of art in the church? To answer this question, we must appeal to the RP, as many folks have. 

My friend, who wants to do away with the ownership of buildings, what exactly is he trying to say with that argument? The building ties up millions of dollars (usually) in land and structure that could be used elsewhere. The building can encourage a form of idolatry - the church can, and is, viewed as a location not people. I would argue that the architecture of the building comes under the function of the RP, so why not the church building itself?

If descriptive = prescriptive (early church = modern church) as I have stated above, then I don't think we can justify building buildings. 

Ok, I'm willing to give you that the RP does not necessarily include ownership of property or buildings. But, if the formula of D=P is to be our paradigm, (which incidentally, nobody has said differently) then in patterning our government and church life precludes owning buildings.

&quot;But wait, they were persecuted...&quot; Sho'nuff. Then, we must turn to something other than description = prescription as our justification for our behavior, right?
--------------
Jeffrey Brannen


----------



## JonathonHunt (Mar 8, 2004)

Jeffrey,

[quote:13d1c25948][i:13d1c25948]Originally posted by Galahad[/i:13d1c25948]
JonathanHunt,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems you are making a distinction between aesthetic worship and ascetic worship. worshipping in spirit and in truth is opposed worshipping in the flesh and falsehood. Would this be a fair summation of the article you posted?

If so, then it is potentially expression a form of Platonic thought - a dualism between the spirit and the flesh. It seems the author, who does not site his refrences but refers to his opponents as &quot;them&quot; or &quot;they&quot;, draws a distinction between worship that is simple (good) vs. complex (evil). Also, we are to worship in spirit but not with &quot;human work, skill or creativity&quot;. Since you attended this church, and it did have an organ (which Spurgeon would have condemned), was the organist skilled?

I appreciate what you are saying, but does the idea that spirit and matter are polar opposites convey the whole gospel? 

Finally, before I run off to class, if we are to avoid anything that is of &quot;human work, skill, or creativity&quot;, what measures should we take to avoid it? What level of skill and creativity are allowed in our musicians? How about our architects who build the buildings we worship in? What about the interior designers who put in carpet and paint the walls? But, most importantly, what about the pastor who prepars his sermon with &quot;human work, skill, and creativity&quot;? To what measure are we to be ascetic in order that we avoid the excesses of Rome?
---------
Jeffrey Brannen
UCA
Covenant Pres. (PCA)
Little Rock, AR [/quote:13d1c25948]

Only just got back to this post. I cannot understand how you have drawn what you have from the article I posted.

Its not about self-denial, its about simplicity - and yes, I agree as others have said this can be taken to an extreme degree. Of course the organist is skilled - he has to be, but he does not 'perform' using the instrument - he makes a sound which leads the congregation in singing - that is the only role of the instrument - a support to the worship, and definitively NOT a part of the worship.

Aesthetic worship is wrong. It is the worship of Rome. How do we avoid the excesses? To me it is simple. We have a totally different view of worship (in spirit and in truth) than that of Rome and this colours everything that follows. When we lose sight of the principle, we wander off. A church (I know of some) may have some pretty stained glass windows or some impressive internal structure. Do we consider this part of our worship, that we meet in such an 'impressive' building? No, because we know the principle. If we were building a building from scratch, would we make it beautiful? Maybe, but not distracting. Like using the organ, which has its function, so the place we meet has its function.

The author is not talking about what is simple (good) and complex (bad). That's not the issue. He is talking about what is worldy - performances in church, worship bands on the platform etc, and what is distinctive, different i.e. simple, yes skilled, but simple music, used by the whole congregation together in the singing of praise to Almighty God.

Plato? C'mon, don't make me laugh! I think the article, when viewed in context (which is available at the website!) does make sense!

[Edited on 3-9-2004 by JonathanHunt]


----------

