# We miss the "fountains of water" at our Charismatic Church....



## shelly (Jun 23, 2008)

Richard,
My response to the first paragraph was WOW, he has us pegged! He described people as in a desert who found a fountain of water and threw themselves into it with rejoicing. (my thought paraphrase) 



> If you’ve been in a desert for a long time and are now very hot and thirsty, and then a fountain of water suddenly springs up in front of you, you’re not going to stand calmly by and pour yourself a small glassfull and sip it as though you were at a vicarage tea-party. You’re going to shout for joy and wallow in it and let it splash all over you while you laugh and play and drink until you can drink no more



My husband and I have described ourselves as starving without really knowing what we were starving for. We spent a short time in a Sovereign Grace church and found what we had been looking for. We moved to an area where we aren't part of a Sovereign Grace church. And just this last week have realized that we feel like we have been drained like a car battery with the lights left on. I think we have our own understanding of the "frozen chosen". We spent @ a year in a conservative presbyterian denomination before the Sovereign Grace church and have spent 9 months in the same conservative presbyterian denomination but a diff. church after we moved away. 

We miss terribly the "fountain of water" that we found in the Sovereign Grace church. Joy, intense grace, and acknowledgement of everyones desparate need for God and unworthiness due to our sin was the fountain that we reveled in. That fountain(continuing to use the illustration from Dr Wright) had music and people who knew or were learning how to be real and live life without a mask. Ahh, the music...joyous, convicting, cry of my heart, rejoicing, exhuberant, Christ-centered, and it caused me to long to love God with all my heart. There I learned to cry again and to allow people into my life...in a loving way they pushed themselves in. I haven't experienced that in the almost 2 years in the 2 Presbyterian churches we have attended. We have stayed at the Presbyterian church we are at because of the good doctrine and teaching, but in spite of the music that is chained with weights and has turned songs of joy into solemn dirges; and in spite of......"the people" just sounds ugly and isn't exactly true, it's more to do with how the people relate to one another yet it's more than just style of relating, it's the depth. I don't think I'm being very clear. It's hard to explain to ones who have not experienced the intensity of relationships at a Sovereign Grace church what that is like. Imagine how hard it would be to explain the color blue to someone who has been blind from birth and that is my difficulty.

Part of that "fountain" is deep relationships with other Christians. It's not just me and God, all those "one anothers" in the Bible actually refer to real people who will come alongside to help without looking down their nose at you, stabbing you in the back, ignoring you, or telling you they will pray and walking on(Just go ahead and SAY IT! "Be ye warmed and filled"). It's ok to pray for somebody on the spot.

I hope this post didn't come off sounding smug and critical and maybe it doesn't really belong here. At what point does newly reformed not apply to me? My reformedness is spotty because my study has been spotty. I'm still working through a whole lot. My (almost) pastor (we're not members yet) is very patient and a whole lot smarter than me but he doesn't rub it in. I'm still in a major learning curve and haven't been doing much outside study this past year, just surviving.

Thank you so much for the sermon link. I'll have to spend a lot more time on it. Our pastor will have some more questions from us, poor guy. He says that's what he signed up for, but I still feel bad for the questions he has to field from us.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jun 23, 2008)

shelly said:


> We miss terribly the "fountain of water" that we found in the Sovereign Grace church. Joy, intense grace, and acknowledgement of everyones desparate need for God and unworthiness due to our sin was the fountain that we reveled in. That fountain(continuing to use the illustration from Dr Wright) had music and people who knew or were learning how to be real and live life without a mask. Ahh, the music...joyous, convicting, cry of my heart, rejoicing, exhuberant, Christ-centered, and it caused me to long to love God with all my heart. There I learned to cry again and to allow people into my life...in a loving way they pushed themselves in. I haven't experienced that in the almost 2 years in the 2 Presbyterian churches we have attended. We have stayed at the Presbyterian church we are at because of the good doctrine and teaching, but in spite of the music that is chained with weights and has turned songs of joy into solemn dirges



Shelly,

This is a dangerous line of thought. The things you mentioned, namely "joy," "intense grace," being convicted in the heart, spiritual exuberance, Christ-centeredness and love are all key to biblical Christian piety. But we are missing out on the real source and full value of those things if we let their presence in our lives at any time be dependent on things like the audible style of music to which the worship is played, or the loudness or apparent "expressiveness" that is externally exhibited by people in worship.

I was raised in a Pentecostal church. A couple years ago, a relative of mine (still a member there) visited the confessional Presbyterian church I was attending at the time, and on the drive home, he remarked that the worship service (with the sermon, the songs, the Scripture readings, the confessions of sin and faith, the Supper, and the prayers) had good _content_, but that it simply didn't produce the emotional response of joy that he always gets from the Pentecostal service.

What I tried to articulate to him then, and what I want to emphasize to you now, is that *if we are able to have just heard and sung about things like the Cross, God's amazing might and sovereignty, His deep love and mercy despite our filth and unfaithfulness, the blessings we have in Christ, the fruit of the Spirit, and our promise of eternal life...if we are able to have just heard and sung about things like that, and yet still be emotionally unfulfilled, still feeling in the moment like we lack deep joy, conviction, exuberance of heart and intense grace, then we are not getting those internal responses from the right source when we do have them, and likewise we are not seeing the maximum fullness and wonder contained in things like the Cross, God's attributes, His mercy and our gift of life*. If something like the tune to which a song is sung, or the level of external expressiveness that worshipers show (facially, gestures, etc.) in a service, can control whether _those_ things in and about Christ bring us joy, fulfillment and relief, we need to more fully focus on the substance of those things in and of themselves.

I use the word "we" since I myself am all too often guilty of looking for my own fulfillment in the wrong places, rather than truly resting in God Himself and the means of grace He has given us for such assurance...we all are at times. Let us all pray Psalm 51:8-12: "Let me hear joy and gladness; let the bones that you have broken rejoice. Hide your face from my sins, and blot out all my iniquities. Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me. Cast me not away from your presence, and take not your Holy Spirit from me. Restore to me the joy of your salvation, and uphold me with a willing spirit." And let us truly find those things fully in the amazing depth of mercy at the foot of the Cross, unshakable by our external circumstances, on Sunday morning or any other time.

As Rev. Winzer had originally expressed earlier, this is ultimately a thread about the historic Reformed position on continuationism. The above citations and explanations offered by him and others have already made it abundantly clear what the Reformed position is on _the factuality of continuationism_, and its relation to the sufficiency of Scripture. In light of the issues you've dealt (and are dealing) with that you expressed above, I humbly offer the above thoughts in hopes of also giving you a taste of what the Reformed position is on _the spirituality of continuationism_, and why it ultimately fails to bring us to the fullest realization and experience of the biblical joy and fulfillment (both objective _and_ subjective) we possess in Christ, and with the mutual, even intimate fellowship of each other.

If you want, I can recommend some reading that further unpacks the nature of the historic Reformed understanding of biblical subjective spirituality; material that helped me when I was still coming out of my Pentecostal days, and was in fact strongly leaning towards joining a Sovereign Grace church. For now, I'll end with a relevant excerpt along similar lines from a post Dr. Clark made in a past thread (bold emphasis mine):



> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark on 1/2/06_
> We live in the time between the advents. The signs that Jesus left are Word, water, bread, and wine. That´s it. Not enough? Too bad. I´m sorry. Jesus is risen. The tomb is empty. That´s all we get until he comes back. *Barren? Really? "Lo I will be with you always" is not barren! Boring? That´s just the problem, the cross has become boring.* I fear that the real reason is because the theology of the cross won´t sell.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 23, 2008)

Moved out of the wading pool. I'll allow some discussion on this within the boundaries of the board to seek understanding on the Confessional position.

I'm pressed for time right now but I will weigh in later.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 23, 2008)

Shelly,

I want to be very careful not to be patronizing or seem like I'm completely insensitive to your concerns but your post was of great concern to me. In fact, it would be a post that would illustrate the reason why the type of Charismatic focus you speak of is to be _avoided_ rather than _encouraged_.

There was an excellent critique of liberation theology about 35 years ago by a Prof at WTS. I'm sorry I don't know his name. The precise contents of his critique aren't relevant here but what is relevant was that he made sure to affirm that when we criticize liberation theology we have to acknowledge that there is such a thing as real oppression in the world. We need to be able to show, for instance, that Christians own the Book of Amos and not just liberation theologians.

With any critique of the practice of certain congregations there is a kernel of Truth. Yes there are men and women who are not expressing the love of Christ. Yes there are Churches where the doctrines are presented clinically and are not penetrating the heart and life of the Church.

Yet, while I am in agreement that some Churches seem dry, your understanding of what it is that will "water" that Church is what I completely disagree with.

There is a certain irony in the timing of your post. By way of background, I have more than a little experience with Charismatic Churches. I won't go into great detail but I'm not at all ignorant of what you're describing.

The irony, though, is that I've been teaching people at my current Church about the Scriptures for a few years and the Church's worship when I got here was largely equivalent to your own experience. We have many Filipinos in our congregation and the majority expression in that country is Charismatic.

But a couple of families have especially been receiving their own time of refreshment and awakening and it has nothing to do with the songs we sing on Sunday or how we sing them but has everything to do with encountering God's grace for the first time in the Scriptures. They come hungry and thirsty for His Word and they leave satisfied. They repeatedly tell me things like: "I never understood that the Gospel was that God saves me based on nothing I do" or "I never understood what Christ's priesthood meant."

Shelly, seriously, these are the kinds of things that should be leaving our mouths agape like these men and women that I see transformed. These are the kinds of things that ought to be refreshing our soul. Now, it is to the shame of the nature of some teaching that the Word is not rightly divided so that it can be understood and penetrate in such a profound way but, frankly, music is a cheap substitute to mimick true religious experience and joy that flows out of understanding the nature of God and the nature of our redemption.

I'm a man full of passions. A woman at our Church jokes that she's seen me cry more than her husband. I don't do it for effect but because the Word is so incredible when you understand it. Paul repeatedly breaks out into wonder as he's talking about the amazing riches of God's grace. Praise follows understanding of who we are, who God is, and what He has done for us in the Gospel. Joy and understanding doesn't follow our singing of praises but precedes the singing of praises and our praises are enriched by our understanding.

I'm simply concerned that, in all of the above, you didn't really mention the Word of God or the preaching of the Word or the study of the things of God but primarily dealt with experience. I'm not questioning whether or not you hunger or thirst but my prayer for you is that you be filled by the Word as Christ is revealed in it. When that does not occur then there is nothing that can be manufactured by specific tunes or postures in worship or any other excitements that follow.

In fact, I'm convinced that congregations that focus on Charismatic expression do so primarily because they are not satisfied and filled by the Word of God. In all my years of Charismatic singing and even being the worship leader of a really good praise band, I never experienced anything near the awe and wonder of what I experience when I meditate on Romans 8 or Hebrews 10. I'll start _reading_ the Psalms sometimes and tears will start welling up in my eyes as I meditate on what God has done. I'm not immune to the toe-tapping instinct or emotion that certain tunes evoke but I've just never found the emotion to be a substitute for what the Word will evoke both in praises and in the lives of those transformed by it. I've never had closer relationships or felt more knit in Christ to another believer than when we are sharing our common understanding of the grace of God found in His Word.

If you are hungry and thirsty, please pray throughout the week asking God that He would make you hungry and thirsty for His Word and, when you receive the bread of life and living water in the Word, that you would be richly filled by it.


----------



## Mushroom (Jun 24, 2008)

Thanks, Rich, that was very well-stated. I agree completely, but you say it so much better than I could. The depth of emotion I experience in a Reformed worship service with the prayer, singing, expositon of the Word, and proper administration of the sacraments is far more meaningful than that which I knew in my chaotic charismatic days. Not as flashy, maybe, but vastly more real.


----------



## Quickened (Jun 24, 2008)

shelly said:


> I hope this post didn't come off sounding smug and critical and maybe it doesn't really belong here. At what point does newly reformed not apply to me? My reformedness is spotty because my study has been spotty. I'm still working through a whole lot. My (almost) pastor (we're not members yet) is very patient and a whole lot smarter than me but he doesn't rub it in. I'm still in a major learning curve and haven't been doing much outside study this past year, just surviving.



You got some great responses in this thread and there really isnt much that i want to add with the exception of one thing.

You said that your study has been spotty and then later that you havent been doing much in the way of studying. I think especially in this case you might want to rethink the importance of study on these topics.

I hope that doesnt come across as condensending! Its just that i see so often that Christians in general can tend to stifle their growth by neglecting study of Gods Word and outside sources. We should constantly be seeking knowledge and information concerning His Word.

It came to a point where i gave up some leasure activities because i saw that i was being complacent and slowing down my own walk. Not only that but i was also ignorant of a lot of things. 

I lost my train of thought but that part of your post really stood out when i reread it.


----------



## Scott1 (Jun 24, 2008)

Shelly,

As you mature in Christ, more and more, God will enable you to see it is about Him, not about how we feel about Him. The remnant of our fallen nature that remains in us after God saves us is totally self-focused- affecting our mind, will and emotions. In this fallen nature, it is easy to assume God is there to make us feel certain things, that God is there to fulfill us, to do what we tell Him to do in prayer. We can go to worship expecting God to meet our needs... after all, the thinking goes, it is all about me and how I feel.

The opposite is true... we are to worship and serve our Creator in holiness and fear (an awesome reverance) as he commands, not as we imagine it.

Worship is carefully regulated by God's Word- He has told us how He wants to be worshipped and it is much through the reading and preaching of His Word, praying and taking the sacraments. These are "means of grace" He has provided to strengthen our faith.

What's amazing, and counter-intuitive to our natural reasoning is that as we obey God in worshipping Him, all the things you mention tend to come, incident to our seeking Him.
The tricky part is, if we seek those things (peace, exuberance, joy, a sense of elation) we are not really seeking the God.

Many unregenerate people (I'm not referring to you here) do sincerely desire peace, contentment, fellowship. It is in their best interests. They may want to go to Heaven for its benefits. However, they do not really want God- to worship and serve Him only. 

John 6 speaks of this situation- people were attracted to the miracles Jesus performed, the bread He provided, but not to Him. He confronted them with the reality of who He is and what He requires, and they left, proving out that they never were really His.

In 2000 years, the truth of God's Word has not changed, even could not change. Praise God that He has not changed!


----------



## a mere housewife (Jun 24, 2008)

Dear Shelly,

It's very good to see you around again. I understand the sense of dislocation leaving a body of Christians that seemed almost like they belonged in some sense to you and you to them, there was such an attachment. And I understand the level of that missing even in very good churches elsewhere. I recognize that there are things that go into this that have little to do with the spirituality of people who don't call out my intense attachment in the same way. Because of personalities, experiences, and current situations (even economically), etc different people will be more closely knit to each other -- even in one circumstance than they are in another. It could be that you relate more easily with people who are very open emotionally, and that people in charismatic churches generally tend to be more that way. It could be that they've shared more of your specific struggles as well. Churches do generally seem to have one kind of people they more especially appeal to, and part of our being one in Christ is learning to overlook the discomfort sometimes caused by that; knowing that fitting in, being easily attached, isn't the only or even the most worthwhile manifestation of charity in the church. Indeed the forbearance we exercise is just as precious in God's sight as the more rewarding feelings of relating to another person. But we might think the other is more valuable, more 'spiritual', because it makes us feel better. I think Christians do care beyond these awkwardnesses more than they know how to express.

This has been a major struggle for me this year. With being more severely sick than I had been, my feelings have simply gone -- AWOL? And I am left with a very empty realization that I have depended on natural emotions for much of my assurance, obedience, joy, selflessness, and estimation of my own and other's Christianity. This doesn't help me to be more assured by the way. People are good Hindus for the same reason. Last year I began to see through this a little when a dear friend went Eastern Orthodox because of some of the same struggles -- not being able to _feel _what she wanted to in worship, and therefore discounting the worship, even willing at last to fudge the doctrines she had confessed, that people had given their lives for in order to 'have the substance' of religion-- the_ emotions, _evidently. She had a lofty, aesthetic idea of what she ought to be feeling as opposed to a pop culture idea, so she went with smoke and icons, but I'm not really sure what difference it makes when one is changing the truth of God into a lie. I realized that the impulse to have a visible representation to bow down and pray to stems from the same fault of mine, of being unable to accept that God has forgiven me until I 'feel' forgiven; the same fault that I witnessed recently watching some charismatic people who seemed like true believers so tragically mistaken, that the Holy Spirit is not present unless they are sobbing and shouting hysterically. It is not that I believe that Christianity is not to affect my emotions: we are whole people and we come to Christ, and to church, whole. But as whole people we are corrupt, and our emotions cannot be the gage of the presence of God, or even of our response to that presence. I read the most precious Psalm this week while struggling with my assurance that speaks to what I have been learning this year about religion -- that reality is defined by the Word of God, and not by what I feel about it. 'In God whose word I praise, in the LORD, whose worse I praise, In God I trust.' This word is the content of joy: without that content feelings of happiness are mere vague sentiment; and it is contrasted with changeable 'flesh'. Our emotions are subject to change because of indigestion. God's word is eternally there to be praised. This Psalm is made more precious because I realize that Christ is God's Word to me, and that the Psalm speaks to His experience of trusting God and of being vindicated in that trust for all of us. It is understanding the Word that gives me joy. This is beyond what I feel about it. I may feel like I don't even care much about any of these things in a few minutes (I''m sure you understand this, even if the men here don't . My feelings don't change the Word's reality, and by God's grace (which is dependent on His Word, not my flesh) I will praise Him anyway. I agree with the other responses you've had that there is a great danger in mistaking for spirituality what is simply 'easy' emotionally to us. I pray for both of us that we can get beyond that to the real fount of joy, to Christ, the Word, the revelation of God to us. Sorry for such a lengthy response but I've struggled with so many of the same things recently.


----------



## Gloria (Jun 24, 2008)

Brad said:


> Thanks, Rich, that was very well-stated. I agree completely, but you say it so much better than I could. The depth of emotion I experience in a Reformed worship service with the prayer, singing, expositon of the Word, and proper administration of the sacraments is far more meaningful than that which I knew in my chaotic charismatic days. *Not as flashy, maybe, but vastly more real*.



Amen brother.


----------



## JonathanHunt (Jun 24, 2008)

Shelly,

I am agreeing with what has been said here in response to you, and pray that the spirit of love and affection in what is said does come across to you.

I just wanted to sound a general note of caution. Whilst we agree that much of what is called 'coldness' in our reformed churches is merely a matter of perception of others who are used to something 'different', it does not diminish our responsibility to ensure that in all that we do in the public worship of God, cold formalism does not creep in.

JH


----------



## shelly (Jun 24, 2008)

I thought my post had been zapped.

It's hard to address every area of concern, mine and others, without leaving things out. I tend to focus on one or two areas at a time, esp when I'm writing. In talking I tend to bring up too many things that don't seem to be related, but they are to me.

I see the concerns and agree with some aspects. I'm being general here and I'm not thinking specifically about what I agree or disagree with. I may get a little more specific later. Right now I have a lot of other things going on and I don't want to think too hard about this at this moment. I'm having trouble coming up with original thoughts, but would like to read about it and then discuss it at length.

I'm not just comparing the reformed charasmatic sovereign grace church to a Presbyterian denomination. I'm comparing 2 different Presbyterian churches in the same denomination and also the SG church. 

*Presbyterian 1:* great doctrine, great music, non-existant fellowship outside of church, told to go elsewhere to get our questions answered...we went to Sovereign Grace(pastor didn't tell us to go there)

*Sovereign Grace*: we questioned what doctrines we would be sacrificing to continue there, great music, great fellowship and deep relationships, application of the sermons for daily life is really clear

*Presbyterian 2:* great doctrine, mostly dead music, really good fellowship efforts(I think deep relationships are possible at some future point), pastor is very patient with our questions even the ones that are way off base, application of the sermons for daily life is not as explicit as SG-but it is there


This is a simplistic summary of my experience based church experiences for the past 2 1/2 years. I did leave some things out; consider it the cliff notes version.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jun 24, 2008)

joshua said:


> shelly said:
> 
> 
> > *Presbyterian 2:* great doctrine, mostly dead music, really good fellowship efforts(I think deep relationships are possible at some future point), pastor is very patient with our questions even the ones that are way off base, application of the sermons for daily life is not as explicit as SG-but it is there
> ...



What is most often referred to as "dead music" is what most people would term "traditional." My guess is that is what Shelly means here but I really have no idea. However, I've been in both "traditional" and "contemporary" services where the music really was just about dead. What I mean is that those leading the music didn't seem to know the songs very well and the congregation didn't give much of an effort to join in.


----------



## a mere housewife (Jun 24, 2008)

> I just wanted to sound a general note of caution. Whilst we agree that much of what is called 'coldness' in our reformed churches is merely a matter of perception of others who are used to something 'different', it does not diminish our responsibility to ensure that in all that we do in the public worship of God, cold formalism does not creep in.



I agree. I wanted to add that it's possible that some of the churches Shelley mentioned may be in something of a 'learning curve' in this regard as well.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Jun 24, 2008)

I'm confused - is this thread still on the confessional aspect of worship content or more toward the worship experience?

Seeking to understand.


----------



## Zenas (Jun 24, 2008)

My congregation's music is horrible. None of us can sing.


----------



## Quickened (Jun 24, 2008)

Zenas said:


> My congregation's music is horrible. None of us can sing.



 You should hear me try brother! My voice is far too deep for certain hymns. So i am not as bold to be as loud as others

(not to derail the thread)


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 24, 2008)

panta dokimazete said:


> I'm confused - is this thread still on the confessional aspect of worship content or more toward the worship experience?
> 
> Seeking to understand.



J.D.,

This was moved from that thread to interact with Shelly's concern.


----------



## Jared (Jun 24, 2008)

joshua said:


> shelly said:
> 
> 
> > *Presbyterian 2:* great doctrine, mostly dead music, really good fellowship efforts(I think deep relationships are possible at some future point), pastor is very patient with our questions even the ones that are way off base, application of the sermons for daily life is not as explicit as SG-but it is there
> ...



But isn't acapella singing a cultural expression itself in that there are various styles of acapella singing? You can sing acapella in all kinds of different styles and it's difficult to not have some style when you sing. Even if you don't hear the style coming through, I'm sure that someone from say, China, would hear it because their culture is much different than ours. 

I think that we should worship God with the cultural expressions that we have been given by His providence. Of course some cultural expression are ungodly and should be rejected. But their are many cultural expressions that are neutral. For instance, bluegrass vs. classical. I don't believe that either of these styles of music are inherently sinful. They can be used for the glory of God or whatever people find themselves using them for. 

To me, telling someone who mostly likes hip-hop and R&B that they have to worship to classical music is the same thing as telling someone who likes to sing Psalms that they have to worship to R&B music.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 24, 2008)

Jared,

Joshua's post wasn't intended to sidetrack into a discussion of _a capella_ singing but simply to note that "deadness" is too often conditioned by our preferences. Some people, for instance, prefer the preacher to be shouting all the time and consider a minister to be "dry" if he doesn't do this.

We need to have a more penetrating gaze and ears that listen harder than that. I think what the main point in all of this is that our consciences need to be trained to desire the proper things. What immediately seems refreshing is not necessarily God honouring and we would do well to read the Scriptures to see that demonstrated repeatedly.

I think worship is like any other activity that requires our sanctification to appreciate. It is in the pursuit of wisdom that we will begin to see things as refreshing that we once considered dull. If we still lack a heart that does not redound when David exclaims "O How I love your Law!" then we need to sit under the Word, study the Word, and pray until we begin to see that the Lord indeed is _good_.


----------



## jwithnell (Jun 24, 2008)

Another take on "dead" music." So many churches are using "praise songs" that are totally cut off from the history of God's people. It is almost as if nothing in some modern churches existed prior to 25 years ago. A good hymnal will have selections that go back centuries as well as ones written in recent years. When we raise our voices in the Psalms or the Gloria Patri or "All Hail the Power of Jesus Name" we join our voices with so many believers who have gone before us. Whatever we sing should be steeped in the word of God and sound doctrine. A few emotionally-evocative phrases can be song over and over to produce tremendous feelings, but I'm not sure how this glorifies God or edifies the worshiper. 

That said, I can understand how we can sometimes "click" with a certain congregation and wish to be amongst those people. I often long for the days when I was part of a marvelous church plant -- not only was the worship and doctrine sound, but we were so much a part of each others' lives. But God has his purposes for us in our current congregations. It is up to each of us to see what we can contribute where we are.


----------



## shelly (Jun 25, 2008)

My meaning of dead music has nothing to do with how many hundreds of years old it is or if it was written 2 years ago. Traditional does not mean dead.

Presbyterian 2 has managed to kill songs that I absolutely love, the old ones and the newer ones. 

Presbyterian 1 put life into the Psalter. I thought that was how it was supposed to be sung. That was my first experience singing out of a psalter and the first time I ever saw one. I do realize that the southern, hick twang isn't going to be in every church, but that wasn't what made it good music. The people meant what they were singing and didn't try to hold it in, and believe me, as a congregation they couldn't carry a tune in a bucket. I can't either.

I like a capella singing, because the pianist can't hijack the speed and it sounds good, if people aren't scattered around and then no one hardly sings.

I don't like "praise songs" its nothing but fluff and is usually off base doctrinally and irritates me to no end.

The songs at Presbyterian 2 are little different than the ones at Presbyterian 1, but the singing/music is vastly different.

I can say "Good morning!" in a bright and cheerful way that will affect you in a positive manner. Or I can be like Eyore and affect you in a negative way. I'm still saying "Good morning", but only one of those ways of saying it actually communicates that it is a _*Good*_ morning.
Do you really think God wants us to sound so miserable as we sing to Him? Does it make our worship more holy because we can slow down the music, get miserable solemn and avoid any facial or voice expression of joy? I'm not even talking about raising hands, kneeling in prayer during singing, or bouncing up and down. I'm just talking about letting the joy of the Lord shine through in our singing and voices and in our interactions with one another.

The kindness and love shown online drew me to reformed theology and to God. Is it too much to want good doctrine, deep relationships, and to enjoy worship? Aren't we to "glorify God and to enjoy him forever"? Is enjoying him in worship off limits? I worship God at other places and times than the corporate worship time. Don't you ever drive through the mountains and just say, "Wow, God this is so beautiful." and become overwhelmed with how good God is to make the world interesting to us and so full of variety. Sunrise and moonset at the same time is just so cool. Do you ever just sing your heart out in the car as you're driving somewhere and become overcome by God's holiness and your own unworthiness when you realize that you are singing something you aren't living and repent on the spot?

You said that your study has been spotty and then later that you havent been doing much in the way of studying. I think especially in this case you might want to rethink the importance of study on these topics.



> I hope that doesnt come across as condensending! Its just that i see so often that Christians in general can tend to stifle their growth by neglecting study of Gods Word and outside sources. We should constantly be seeking knowledge and information concerning His Word.


My time in the last year has been mostly spent in Psalms and Streams in the Desert. I'm not neglecting study, I'm just surviving life right now.

My responses probably sound back and forth. I want to do what is right, but I won't follow blindly. I need to understand before I follow. I tend to follow blindly and ignore red flags. I'm trying to study this stuff out for myself. (I'm not talking about following my husband.)


----------



## a mere housewife (Jun 25, 2008)

Shelly, I was wondering if maybe this could be an area where God has brought you to minister to the church you're in, as well as being ministered to? 

Also I have had the same experiences driving etc. I don't believe in the least that it is wrong to enjoy or want to enjoy worship (though it can be wrong when that becomes the driving force of why and how we worship). I was thinking about this earlier and believe that Rich said the answer -- that we have to train our feelings in this area. Since no church is perfect, part of training our feelings is to overlook (where we can't change) the particular weaknesses of the church, and to profit beyond them, from its strengths. That can be hard because there certainly are some errors that make it very difficult to profit; but I tend to believe they have more to do with the content than the style of what is presented. And I think that even over and above those things there is a very rewarding learned response with feelings, that does not come so 'naturally' as what you describe in driving through the mountains: church _is _different than being in nature; and it is more complex. To take a parallel that has nothing to do with church but might illustrate what I mean about learning a more complicated and more rewarding way to respond: when we were kids my mom would put on Vivaldi and we leapt around bashing each other with pillows. This was high glee and came quite easily. But there are much more intricate ways of moving in harmony with music, that require much more patience and practice and focus etc. And I don't think anybody seeing the end result would compare the two for beauty and grace and expression of something inherent in the music itself. In other words I don't think what you want is _wrong_. But the appreciation of the content or the doctrine has to train the feelings of joy and form more meaningful --more disciplined according to meaning-- habitual responses; and the training of our feelings is often counter-intuitive (otherwise they wouldn't need to be trained?). Without training we're stuck at the bashing each other with pillows to Vivaldi level. I know you already have some appreciation for what I'm saying because of what you said about hymns, and how you find it difficult to sing hymns with bad doctrine.


----------



## Davidius (Jun 25, 2008)

Just out of curiosity, I remember in a recent thread on "friendliness in evangelism" that a lot of people said the right attitude was important when we are sharing the Gospel with unbelievers. If there is a correct attitude which should be cultivated in evangelism, could we not say that there is a correct attitude of joy to cultivate in worship?

I've tried to tell myself for a while now that it "just doesn't matter," as many here are saying, but I have to say that it gets discouraging when even elders seem to have trouble cracking a smile during certain songs.


----------



## jwithnell (Jun 25, 2008)

Thanks for clarification on "dead music." Just out of curiosity, have you read many of the puritans? One of the big differences I see between believers in the American colonial era and what we see today is a deep longing to commune with God on a very personal and deep level. It also seemed that the puritans on both sides of the Atlantic examined every angle of their lives in an effort to live in a way that is pleasing to God. These folks are so inspirational to me! They are also "available" through their books and letters anywhere you go ....


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 25, 2008)

Davidius said:


> Just out of curiosity, I remember in a recent thread on "friendliness in evangelism" that a lot of people said the right attitude was important when we are sharing the Gospel with unbelievers. If there is a correct attitude which should be cultivated in evangelism, could we not say that there is a correct attitude of joy to cultivate in worship?
> 
> I've tried to tell myself for a while now that it "just doesn't matter," as many here are saying, but I have to say that it gets discouraging when even elders seem to have trouble cracking a smile during certain songs.





jwithnell said:


> Thanks for clarification on "dead music." Just out of curiosity, have you read many of the puritans? One of the big differences I see between believers in the American colonial era and what we see today is a deep longing to commune with God on a very personal and deep level. It also seemed that the puritans on both sides of the Atlantic examined every angle of their lives in an effort to live in a way that is pleasing to God. These folks are so inspirational to me! They are also "available" through their books and letters anywhere you go ....



I think the second quote sort of answers the first.

David,

Download the free lecture on the _History of the Puritans_ at RTS on iTunes U

Packer does a wonderful job of describing what I pointed out before of how we ought to be training our consciences and preparing ourselves to come "hungry" at worship and ready to be filled. I think the reason why "bells and smells" or "waving and clapping" might seem like a substitute is because they will be a substitute for the slothful in worship that don't want to go through the trouble of pursuing God. In contemporary worship, you can show up to worship at the last minute and the spontaneity of a manufactured experience will provide the appearance of a "meal" for those that take little time to understand what worship is about.

If we've taken some time pursuing God with our hearts and minds throughout the week and come to worship praying and expecting to drink deeply and be fed richly from the Word, then God will reward that desire and it will reflect in how we sing songs of praise to Him but it will especially reflect in the satisfaction from the Preaching.


----------



## a mere housewife (Jun 25, 2008)

> If there is a correct attitude which should be cultivated in evangelism, could we not say that there is a correct attitude of joy to cultivate in worship?
> 
> I've tried to tell myself for a while now that it "just doesn't matter," as many here are saying, but I have to say that it gets discouraging when even elders seem to have trouble cracking a smile during certain songs.


I think so. & I think what tends to happen if we don't cultivate our joy is that we have to ignore emotions entirely, which seems like what Shelly might be describing; or let our emotional life cultivate our appreciation of meaning, which is getting the cart before the horse. I was thinking of all the times I've been in the car singing and haven't repented on the spot (of all the times I've been in the car and haven't been singing) -- of all the times the scenery hasn't inspired me. We notice the times when it does, because they are more noticeable. But not only is an exercise of faith in the invisible presence of the Christ revealed in Scripture much less visceral than being smacked on the senses by mountains etc., even that kind of visceral experience doesn't always make us feel what we should. I agree with you and Shelley about not simply lopping our feelings off. But if they wind up leading where they should follow then they throw everything out of sorts; and I think that is the reaction against the charismatics being held up as the ideal. We wind up defining Christ's presence and our joy not by His word but by whether the many physical and circumstantial factors that contribute to emotions being easily responsive are all in order, whether as Rich says, the church put on a good visceral show (whether that's incense and choir music or a big screen tv etc). I agree about coming prepared in conscience. Lately I find that if I miss days of communion with God throughout the week my responses to God are less sensitive on Sunday.

By the way I typed what I said before very late; I'm not sure how much sense it can make, and if it doesn't please kindly disregard it. I once in a state of grogginess thought that the wisest thing to say to a friend who was going through a very hard time in her church was 'an old West Virginian proverb: "If you see a bar [bear], turn the other way"'. Later I realized that there is no such proverb, and even if there were, it had nothing to do with her situation .

{edited to add: I had a question -- I wonder if some people don't tend to like the 'feeling' of being completely 'rational' and unemotional in worship -- in other words whether this approach can be ultimately just as feeling driven; it's just that the feeling that gratifies in this case is (ironically) that of being intellectual? Indeed I think a lot of people 'feel' more comfortable with less emotion displayed --this too is a feeling, but it dominates in many churches as emotional displays dominate in others?}


----------



## shelly (Jun 26, 2008)

> Just out of curiosity, have you read many of the puritans?


I've read The Almost Christian Discovered by Matthew Mead and A Treatise on Regeneration by Peter Van Mastricht; and a couple of others I don't remember now. Most of my reading is by people who aren't dead yet, except for Charles Spurgeon.

This is not the time for me to have a general study and I don't think my brain can handle reading anything extremely complex right now. I'm just working on figuring out things as they come along, and that is plenty to keep me busy.


----------



## shelly (Jun 26, 2008)

Here is something that is irritating. It seems like that for the most part y'all think that because I don't find the "music" at church to be joyful, or encourageing or something that is wonderful aspect of worship that I must not get anything out of the preaching and that it is of secondary importance to the music. Until we moved and got stuck with dial up I used to download sermons and listen to them all the time. I love listening to Alexandar Scourby read the Bible-I can even listen to him read the KJV and be ok with it.

I'm saying that the music *is* part of worship. It should be in line with what is preached (I'm not saying it has to line up topically). God's grace to us is good news, shouldn't we act like it? Ok, that's subjective too, but life is. Y'all are right in that we don't know what's going on inside people during worship; so don't act like you know what's going on with me during worship. I am so desparate for God; it's really awesome when God gives me a hug through someone I can see and touch. He even manages to give me "hugs" online. The Psalms are full of them too.

I'm kinda venting, but keeping it real.


----------



## a mere housewife (Jun 26, 2008)

Shelly, just wanted to say for my part that the only things I have assumed about you are that you might be struggling with the same things I do, as we seem to have very similar responses to things, and desires, and as for a few months I had very few 'feelings' of happiness or peace (though I am doing better now) and am having to learn a joy and peace that runs over my feelings. I think everyone would agree that singing should not be joyless. I think what is being disagreed with is how we measure joy, and how we cultivate it. -we want to cultivate it differently than the charismatics, for reasons mentioned above. If my assumptions were off base, then please do forgive me, sister.


----------



## Ex Nihilo (Jun 26, 2008)

joshua said:


> Thanks for the clarification on "dead." As for the "Good Morning" thing, I still maintain that it's _subjective_. Just because someone doesn't sound the way _we_ think they _ought_ to sound, doesn't mean that we're at liberty to impute something to them that isn't necessarily the case. Things like "Eyore" or "sound miserable," etc. All of those things are _subjective_ in nature, and not universally defined the same. Some folks are more reserved than others, we haven't a clue as to what's churnin' inside those hearts, no matter what we "see."
> 
> I hope I'm makin' sense, and not coming across arrogantly.



I totally agree that we can't judge what's inside the heart based on a reserved exterior -- though I know sometimes _my_ reserved exterior has been quite an accurate reflection of a cold heart. But still, since God _has_ prescribed music for worship, it makes sense to think about what music provides that simple congregational reading doesn't. That is, the Word and the worship in the heart are most important, but art and beauty surely have some role. Response to music is subjective, but that doesn't mean that certain styles and tempos of music don't tend to convey certain emotions. Generally, though perhaps not universally, we can tell a joyful song from a dirge even without lyrics, and it seems that God has tuned us to respond to styles of music differently so that we have a means to communicate these moods in our worship. 

I agree with what most people are saying, but I just can't agree that quality of music is totally neutral. If our hearts are really worshipping, shouldn't we express that the best we can with the musical abilities and musical judgment that we've been given? (Including the ability to match the mood of music with the mood of the lyrics?) Some of us, including me, don't have particularly strong musical abilities, but don't we have an obligation to use all of what we have? It seems to me that this is what Shelly is saying. I would agree that a congregation's weakness in this area is not a reason to leave, but it does seem like a legitimate criticism.


----------



## Ex Nihilo (Jun 26, 2008)

joshua said:


> Thus it follows, insofar as I'm able to ascertain, that we examine our own hearts _personally_ and not make judgments concerning other people's quality of worship based on subjective observations of loudness, expression, etc. Now, mind you, I'm not saying that we can't make a judgment concerning someone who is supposed to be _leading_ the congregation. *For example, if a minister is to lead the congregation in the singing of a Psalm, but his voice is low, muffled, or his speech incoherent, then I think it would be appropriate to say he's not leading, but it doesn't necessarily mean his heart is not worshipping. *
> 
> I think maybe I'm poorly expressing what I'm trying to get across. If so, please forgive me and just ignore!



Yes, I think we agree here. As an individual member of the congregation, I think it's best that I refrain from judging others' motivations or the quality of their singing. But in the abstract, I think we agree that we should partake in the musical part of worship with the best skills we have. And I think you agree that a congregation as a whole should do the same -- including choosing a musical leader who makes it possible for congregation to use their talents.

There is a difference between recognizing the congregation's duty to use its musical talents and simply having strong personal preferences about the music. But it may be hard to tell the difference in practice. Perhaps it's an issue best left to the judgment of the church leadership. At the very least, an individual's personal preferences should be under control.


----------



## a mere housewife (Jun 27, 2008)

ha ha. ;-.> (a biker dude with nose ring and goatee smiley). I just saw your post Joshua. How nice that you live in fear. Someday, when you least expect it, etc.

I think that what Evie said about music not being an adequate expression of joy as a legitimate objective criticism, but probably not (by itself) a reason to leave a church is helpful.

From personal experience I know there is a subjective side that simply cannot be divorced from how _we _perceive and experience other people's expressions of joy, or how we participate in experiences of joy that aren't so easily emotionally accessible as (for me) it is to see a breathtaking view. But I also know that this subjective side is very affected by other people's lack of joy. It's hard to draw a clear line in this area. It seems the best approach to fixing things is to cultivate our own joy in the Word of God (which can't hurt, even if it is not the main problem we are sensing), and to try to change the 'objective' areas that we can legitimately criticize.

I think Evie is right that we have to consider what music is supposed to add to our doctrinal expressions: and music is primarily an element of emotional and aesthetic expression. Style does matter in music. BUT, Scripture has to dictate what we are doing when we sing in church, and therefore what style is appropriate: we are not performing: it's not a concert: we are not simply working ourselves up to a pitch of sensation so that we can feel like we've met God: we are not, as Evie says, simply trying to force our preferences on other people. We _are _expressing joy, but we are expressing it about the truths that we as a congregation admonish one another with. The truths should control the musical expression. Because of this the music should never obscure the words: the emotional/aesthetic musical pull and the more visceral reaction to it should not obscure the words as the factor we are most sensible of in our response. I wouldn't sing a song to the Corelli I am listening to right now: I couldn't think about words to this music. If I were happy singing words to it, my happiness would be at least nine tenths and probably more, the sheer whirl of violins. I don't think this is what church is about for the same reasons that I don't go stand in the rain on Sunday morning, much as the rain makes me worship God, but go to hear the Word of God preached. I can worship God when I hear Corelli, and I do, but it is not the worship He has commanded in the assemblies.

Another point is that since we are to be admonishing as a congregation, the music should be congregationally singable (and congregationally singable with joy).

I would just qualify that joy is not dependent on these areas, even when they can be legitimately criticized. I thank God that some people in church do have good voices and that they can lead/train the rest of us in singing. It was really disheartening in Mexico trying to teach the people Psalms to tunes they had never sung before, because neither Ruben nor I can sing (and I was playing the piano: I initially bonded with the congregation by looking up and seeing them smiling happily at me whenever I made mistakes). For all this though, and their mutual lack of musical talent (besides the general flat nasality of the voices, I often had to remind them by pounding harder that tunes they'd sung for years went this way, not that etc) I have to say that I don't think anyone could have sat through one of our song services without a sense that those people were really happy about what they were singing. My understanding of Shelley's frustration is that even beyond the words, the musical style, etc., she does not sense this 'we're happy about these truths' in their current churches' worship. I think lack of joy in the truths we are singing/hearing is probably a criticism that could be made of many of us (it could be legitimately made of me: & to reiterate what I said before: it's hard to draw a clear line here: I know that my sense that others have little joy in the truths we're singing is mixed up with having no sensation of joy myself, but I also know that joylessness is not helped by being unable to perceive joy in others.)


----------



## shelly (Jun 27, 2008)

Joshua,

I was generalizing the overall majority message that I've received on this thread. If I had a personal issue with any statement you made I would have pm'd you or made it clear in my post. I'm sorry it looked like a dig back at you. I come at people straight on not sneaky.


----------

