# Scandal of pagans leading worship



## NaphtaliPress (Dec 2, 2010)

Scandalous for sure.
The Scandal of Pagans Leading Worship « Heidelblog


----------



## N. Eshelman (Dec 2, 2010)

Loved it!


----------



## LawrenceU (Dec 2, 2010)

The practice of hiring or using unbelieving musicians, both instrumentalists and vocalists, is much wider than many would think. 

I find it a deplorable practice.


----------



## Scottish Lass (Dec 2, 2010)

Make sure you click through to the TGC site to read the answers from the four men also interviewed (two nays, two yeas).


----------



## au5t1n (Dec 2, 2010)

Worship by the Book - Google Books

Well, all that respect for Keller I didn't have is gone. :/


----------



## TimV (Dec 2, 2010)

Revolting is what it is. Next Keller will have a Hindu babe in a bikini doing sign language next to him in the pulpit.


----------



## au5t1n (Dec 2, 2010)

TimV said:


> Revolting is what it is. Next Keller will have a Hindu babe in a bikini doing sign language next to him in the pulpit.


 
Well, you see, we have to _engage_ the culture, not run away from it. Duh.


----------



## Theoretical (Dec 2, 2010)

LawrenceU said:


> The practice of hiring or using unbelieving musicians, both instrumentalists and vocalists, is much wider than many would think.
> 
> I find it a deplorable practice.


----------



## Micah Everett (Dec 2, 2010)

We are now entering into one of the two times of year when a great influx of unbelieving musicians will be brought in to augment the instrumental and vocal music offered in many churches. I work with these people on a daily basis as a university music professor and performing musician. Most of my colleagues are unbelievers; very few will set foot in a church unless they are being paid to do so. Laying aside for a moment the question of whether the large "productions" for Christmas and Easter should be part of what churches do, and whether or not the practice of hiring these musicians is "deplorable," I do find myself praying that these individuals will hear the Word of God rightly preached while they are in these churches, and that the Spirit will give them a "heart of flesh" that they might repent and believe.


----------



## au5t1n (Dec 2, 2010)

I don't think anybody wants them _not_ to hear the gospel and believe. But then again, in churches where the pastor has no ethical qualms about hiring unbelievers to lead believers in worshipping God, I'm doubtful they'll hear the true gospel anyway.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Dec 2, 2010)

I am opposed to the practice.


----------



## Curt (Dec 2, 2010)

I think the practice is evil.


----------



## kvanlaan (Dec 2, 2010)

> The practice of hiring or using unbelieving musicians, both instrumentalists and vocalists, is much wider than many would think.
> 
> I find it a deplorable practice.



Amen. It's like hiring mourners for your funeral, people to wail and cry like a person who actually cared might do.


----------



## Curt (Dec 2, 2010)

kvanlaan said:


> It's like hiring mourners for your funeral, people to wail and cry like a person who actually cared might do.



It's worse. Worship is for worshippers.


----------



## JeanCauvin86 (Dec 2, 2010)

It's easy to bash Tim Keller because he doesn't do things the way you might prefer. But, his cultural situadedness is _not_ yours. Without agreeing with him on the practice, you'd probably do best to walk a mile in his shoes before you criticize him so easily.


----------



## Berean (Dec 2, 2010)

JeanCauvin86 said:


> It's easy to bash Tim Keller because he doesn't do things the way you might prefer. But, his cultural situadedness is _not_ yours. Without agreeing with him on the practice, you'd probably do best to walk a mile in his shoes before you criticize him so easily.


 
You need a signature http://www.puritanboard.com/faq.php?faq=vb_faq#faq_signaturereqtsfaq


----------



## au5t1n (Dec 2, 2010)

JeanCauvin86 said:


> It's easy to bash Tim Keller because he doesn't do things the way you might prefer. But, his cultural situadedness is _not_ yours. Without agreeing with him on the practice, you'd probably do best to walk a mile in his shoes before you criticize him so easily.


 
Personally, it doesn't bother me when pastors do things that go against my preference, as long as my preference is just a preference and not mandated by the Word. I can name examples of things like that if you like. However, it is a grievous sin against God to pay unbelievers to help lead corporate worship, "cultural situadedness" notwithstanding. It requires those unbelievers to take the Lord's name in vain with their actions--nay, _pays_ them to take the Lord's name in vain. I would hope someone in Rev. Keller's presbytery would approach him about this and similar things with a gentle rebuke.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Dec 2, 2010)

It is God's prerogative to show grace and bring the gospel wherever he wishes. We must not do evil that good may come of it. 



austinww said:


> I don't think anybody wants them _not_ to hear the gospel and believe. But then again, in churches where the pastor has no ethical qualms about hiring unbelievers to lead believers in worshipping God, I'm doubtful they'll hear the true gospel anyway.


 


Micah Everett said:


> We are now entering into one of the two times of year when a great influx of unbelieving musicians will be brought in to augment the instrumental and vocal music offered in many churches. I work with these people on a daily basis as a university music professor and performing musician. Most of my colleagues are unbelievers; very few will set foot in a church unless they are being paid to do so. Laying aside for a moment the question of whether the large "productions" for Christmas and Easter should be part of what churches do, and whether or not the practice of hiring these musicians is "deplorable," I do find myself praying that these individuals will hear the Word of God rightly preached while they are in these churches, and that the Spirit will give them a "heart of flesh" that they might repent and believe.


----------



## Micah Everett (Dec 2, 2010)

NaphtaliPress said:


> It is God's prerogative to show grace and bring the gospel wherever he wishes. We must not do evil that good may come of it.



No, we should not, and if churches would simply follow the RPW and see that we have no mandate for large choirs, orchestras, praise teams, bands, etc. in New Testament worship, this situation would not exist at all. However, the situation does exist, and I merely meant to suggest that, given the lost condition of my colleagues and thus their profound need for the Gospel, rather than "raise a stink" about this every time these folks are hired for such work, since they are going to be in the churches anyway I pray that our Lord would use the seriously flawed efforts of these churches' worship to draw the lost musicians participating to Himself.

I am sorry that my earlier post inadvertently suggested that I approve of this practice. I do not. I do pray that our Lord would move in musicians' hearts in spite of the error which brings them into the churches.


----------



## Marrow Man (Dec 2, 2010)

austinww said:


> Well, you see, we have to engage the culture, not run away from it. Duh.



Yep, and if you engage the culture, the next thing you know is that you'll be married to it.


----------



## Zenas (Dec 2, 2010)

JeanCauvin86 said:


> It's easy to bash Tim Keller because he doesn't do things the way you might prefer. But, his cultural situadedness is _not_ yours. Without agreeing with him on the practice, you'd probably do best to walk a mile in his shoes before you criticize him so easily.


 
Cultural situadedness doesn't dictate what is right and required by Scripture. Tim Keller is off the reserve in some areas and I wish someone would do something about it.


----------



## Gforce9 (Dec 2, 2010)

SolaScriptura said:


> I am opposed to the practice.


 
Based on your avatar, I believe you...........


----------



## Reformed Roman (Dec 3, 2010)

The church is meant for the church. God can use the church as a means to reach unbelievers, but that doesn't mean they should be in your worship. Have the church be the church, then go out and reach the lost. (And having unbelievers, who don't want to worship, involved in worship, just doesn't mix)


----------



## EverReforming (Dec 3, 2010)

Though I'm uncomfortable with the idea of brining in unbelievers to assist in leading the church in worship, as has been mentioned, I do still pray that when it happens God would use it to begin a work in their hearts..._in spite_ of the sinful motives that brought them to the church in the first place. Fortunately for us, our shortcomings are not capable of hindering God from bringing about His will.


----------



## kvanlaan (Dec 3, 2010)

Boy, I'd best teach my kids about condoms and sex ed when they're really young. They're going to do it anyway, so I might as well resign myself to that fact and just make the best of it.

OR, I could take them to task when they trespass God's law on this issue and correct them. I think that's better.


----------



## EverReforming (Dec 3, 2010)

kvanlaan said:


> Boy, I'd best teach my kids about condoms and sex ed when they're really young. They're going to do it anyway, so I might as well resign myself to that fact and just make the best of it.
> 
> OR, I could take them to task when they trespass God's law on this issue and correct them. I think that's better.



I don't fully see the comparison. If it were my church, I'd have some say in the matter, be able to bring the matter up with the elders/leadership of the church, and if they either were to disagree with me or otherwise decide to continue in the horrible practice, I would then have the option of making the decision to remove myself from that church body due to its sin.

I highly disagree with churches that are hiring non-believers to lead worship, but if I'm not a part of their local body, I can't do anything about it other than condemn it as an outsider of their church body and pray that God will work in the hearts of the unbelievers in those services in spite of the faulty reasons that brought them there. I also pray that God would bring about correction in the hearts of the church leaders that allow this to happen in their churches.

However, even though I think this is a horrible practice, I understand that every church has sin in its midst. Because sin infects the very core of our being, we're all faulty, and those faults and sins make their way even into our churches. As has been said, a church is kind of like a hospital being run by the patients. I'm thankful that God has blessed us with the opportunity to be able to share the Gospel in spite of our faults, and thankful that he doesn't allow our faults, whatever they may be to hinder the growth of His kingdom.


----------



## JBaldwin (Dec 3, 2010)

While I am not against instruments, musicians or praise/worship teams in worship, I am totally opposed to bringing in non-believers to lead worship. We ask them not to partake of the Lord's Table, we don't ask them to preach, why on earth would we invite them to lead our worship? 

This practice of bringing in non-believers to lead worship has bothered me for some time as I have been involved in music in worship most of my adult life. The problem lies in the fact that worship leaders and pastors treat music as an afterthought or a way to evangelize rather than a vital exercise of the corporate body. 

From my experience, the worship leaders and pastors who allow non-believers in worship either promote fluffy, shallow music (the rock band mentality) or , more often, they promote high church music which requires a level of expertise in music. The fact is, you can't play Bach and Handel if you don't have a certain level of training. Because they want to promote "excellence" (which is the case with Keller--he is very short-sighted on this one In my humble opinion), they feel they must pull from the outside community rather than from the congregation itself. 

It has been my personal conviction as a church musician that God wants us to draw our musicians from those gifted and called in our own congregations as the Lord provides. Give me one "called" musician who leads with his heart, soul, mind and strength in praise to God over a whole orchestra of professionals. It does make a difference.


----------



## Peairtach (Dec 3, 2010)

It was commonly received among the early church fathers, and is still commonly received among us that pagans make some of the funkiest musicians that God has given to this sad world, and that the Apostles John and Paul (and Ringo) were into disco-style worship

I'm sure the RPW is flexible enough to accommodate this. If not we should get the RPW to grow its hair, chill out, turn on and tune in, maaaan


----------



## Jack K (Dec 3, 2010)

JBaldwin said:


> While I am not against instruments, musicians or praise/worship teams in worship, I am totally opposed to bringing in non-believers to lead worship. We ask them not to partake of the Lord's Table, we don't ask them to preach, why on earth would we invite them to lead our worship?
> 
> This practice of bringing in non-believers to lead worship has bothered me for some time as I have been involved in music in worship most of my adult life. The problem lies in the fact that worship leaders and pastors treat music as an afterthought or a way to evangelize rather than a vital exercise of the corporate body.
> 
> ...


 
Well put. Your comments are both thoughtful and challenging where needed, yet written with a kind and respectful tone. Thank you.


----------



## kvanlaan (Dec 3, 2010)

EverReforming said:


> I don't fully see the comparison. If it were my church, I'd have some say in the matter, be able to bring the matter up with the elders/leadership of the church, and if they either were to disagree with me or otherwise decide to continue in the horrible practice, I would then have the option of making the decision to remove myself from that church body due to its sin.



The attitude of some seems to be to make the best of the situtation since they are doing it anyway, and perhaps they'll hear the gospel and be converted and wouldn't that be great. But since the worship service is to be for God's people, they don't belong there. While your plan is valid, I am more concerned that if this takes hold as a common practise, liberal voices in the PCA will take this cue to follow suit (since there is no rap on Keller's knuckles from anyone at this point) and drag a faithful denomination down the path of PC(USA) Part II.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Dec 3, 2010)

Actually, I predict the PCA will (within one or two decades) absorb the EPC and what's left of the conservatives of the PCUSA. They will become the new "mainline" as the original mainline implodes by virtue of having literally no more people (to go with their clergy, bureaucracy, buildings and endowments). The stage is being set. The center is being softened up. There needs to be doctrinal and practical room to absorb churches with divergent norms. A decade ago, I though it might have happened by now (or there'd be 10-15 years to go). My original time-scale prediction (a quarter-century) could still come true; there's still time left; and (it nearly goes without saying) the moves we are seeing are exactly what needs to happen for these mergers to take place.

And there will continue to be the "lesser" outlier-denominations.


----------



## TheElk (Dec 3, 2010)

Our church has a praise team and I used to be on it. They made sure I was a believer before they would let me play in front of the assembly. It's all about Him.


----------



## he beholds (Dec 3, 2010)

austinww said:


> I don't think anybody wants them _not_ to hear the gospel and believe. But then again, in churches where the pastor has no ethical qualms about hiring unbelievers to lead believers in worshipping God, I'm doubtful they'll hear the true gospel anyway.



I agree that non-Christians shouldn't be leading our worship. However, Austen, I think that even though you don't respect Keller, he DOES preach the Gospel, despite his lack of qualms about unbelieving musicians. I imagine there are other examples like him.


----------



## sastark (Dec 3, 2010)

Did anyone else think of Charles McIlhenny and the firing of the homosexual organist that led to his home being fire-bombed when they read this article? I wonder what Rev. McIlhenny would have to say about pagans leading worship?


----------



## Micah Everett (Dec 3, 2010)

This is reminding me why I post so infrequently--I don't always have time to do all this writing! I hope to write this one more post and then return to my shadowy existence on the fringes of the Puritan Board.

I am not at all suggesting that we should just "let this be." George's approach is correct. It is the leadership of these churches, Keller included, that need to be "taken to task" for this practice. The pagan musicians that are being hired for these "gigs" are only behaving as we might expect pagans to behave, taking employment wherever they can get it without real thought about the propriety or impropriety of their leading in worship. If I am reading 1 Corinthians 5:12-13 correctly (and I understand that the application of this passage here might be a bit of a stretch), we are in a position to judge those that are within the church, to admonish them, to help them to see the error of their way that they might turn from their evil and adopt right worship practices. Let me be clear: this needs to happen. "But them that are without God judgeth," and I am not convinced that admonishing my unbelieving colleagues about this practice will be helpful or productive. The Gospel is already offensive to unbelievers; our calling is not to make it more offensive in our dealings with the unbelieving world. They are there, in the churches, leading in worship. They shouldn't be. May God grant that the leaders of these churches will see the error of their ways and stop this abhorrent practice. Until that happens, I pray that, while they are there, they will hear Christ preached (in spite of everything that is wrong with the situation), and that the Holy Spirit will see fit to work savingly in their hearts.

I might also say, again, that if we would just stick to congregational singing in the gathered worship of the church, with or without an instrument present solely to assist the singing, this situation wouldn't exist at all. I am an orchestral musician. I find the religious works of Bach, Handel, et al. to be especially edifying. This doesn't mean that they belong in corporate worship.


----------



## Poimen (Dec 3, 2010)

The scriptures are clear about the manner of worship: 

1) It must be done with spirit & understanding: *"What is the conclusion then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the understanding. I will sing with the spirit, and I will also sing with the understanding. Otherwise, if you bless with the spirit, how will he who occupies the place of the uninformed say 'Amen' at your giving of thanks, since he does not understand what you say?" 1 Corinthians 14:15-16*

2) It must be done with grace and to the Lord: *Colossians 3:16-17 "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom, teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord. And whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through Him."
*
I think it is obvious that unbelievers cannot sing these truths from the heart and thus could not lead in worship without compromising the integrity of the church and their own person. 

This leaves instrumental accompaniment which is not prescribed in scripture as to be separate from the worship of God's people. The only function that instruments play in scripture is in the Old Testament where the priests would lead the people in giving praise to God. We had to create a whole other portion of worship out of thin air that indirectly attacks the worship of the saints because it _eclipses _the worship of the saints. What ought instrumental accompaniment to do but to help the congregation sing? And, in light of the scripture's above, how can one be 'helped' by someone who does not believe what you are singing about?


----------



## Zenas (Dec 3, 2010)

Micah Everett said:


> "But them that are without God judgeth," and I am not convinced that admonishing my unbelieving colleagues about this practice will be helpful or productive.



It wouldn't be helpful at all, nor do I think proper. The people huring them within the church are the ones that need to be punished.


----------



## N. Eshelman (Dec 3, 2010)

sastark said:


> Did anyone else think of Charles McIlhenny and the firing of the homosexual organist that led to his home being fire-bombed when they read this article? I wonder what Rev. McIlhenny would have to say about pagans leading worship?


 
Chuck and I were just talking about this yesterday. I will not get into our discussion, other than to say that he sees the parallels between what happened at First OPC and what could come about from this.


----------



## kvanlaan (Dec 3, 2010)

The Gunn Brothers did a whole film on this: Shaky Town

http://www.shakytown.com/

Great movie - terrifying, but very well done.


----------



## BJClark (Dec 3, 2010)

How can a 'paid professional' who is a non-believer lead worshipping God whom they do not believe in, better than someone who has a love for God, who is not a professional???

It seems to me, it could be something that is held against them when they stand before God on judgment day...but more importantly why would a pastor desire to put pearls before swine in such a case???


----------



## JBaldwin (Dec 3, 2010)

BJClark said:


> How can a 'paid professional' who is a non-believer lead worshipping God whom they do not believe in, better than someone who has a love for God, who is not a professional???
> 
> It seems to me, it could be something that is held against them when they stand before God on judgment day...but more importantly why would a pastor desire to put pearls before swine in such a case???



While I have yet to come across a PCA church that hired a worship director who was not a believer, I have seen many PCA churches hire outside musicians (often non-believers) for special occasions, and some to fill seats in their orchestras. I am against this practices, as I have stated earlier. 

What might surprise some here is the practice of hiring professional musicians as music directors, choral directors and organists, in addition to hiring non-believers for other instrumental positions is quite common in all of the mainline denominations. It is not uncommon for the director of music to be playing in a bar on Saturday night and directing the choir on Sunday morning. (I know someone who does this.)


----------



## Zenas (Dec 3, 2010)

What's wrong with playing a gig in a bar or being in a bar for that matter?


----------



## Jack K (Dec 3, 2010)

A blanket criticism of churches that hire unbelieving musicians may be too simplistic. I agree that worship leaders should be professing believers. I suspect some of these churches would say the same. But we first have to ask: how do you define a leader? That may be the true spot where we disagree with these churches.

If an unbeliever shows up for services and sings along with the congregation, do we silence him based on the principle (brought up in this thread) that worship is only for true worshipers? Most of us would not. What if he sings really loudly or pulls out a harmonica and joins in with that? Has he now become a leader who must be silenced? Or if that's okay, then why not let him take a turn at the piano? Is the "praise team" merely an extension of congregational worship, or at some point does being part of it make one a leader?

Many churches already celebrate "praise team" members too much. I'm inclined NOT to think of musicians as leaders, but merely as congregational participants who're putting their particular talents to use as an extention of congregational singing. And so, I might be inclined to allow an unbeliever who wants to join a praise team as a musician do so, just as I'd let him join us on a service project, cooking for a potluck, ushering or any other non-teaching/non-leadership activity, provided he does it in line with church standards. I wouldn't let him speak or lead in prayer or pick the songs, but I might let him play his instrument.

I would NOT want to pay him, just as I wouldn't want to pay anyone (especially a non-leader) to attend worship. Even in a place like Manhattan or Nashville, where the two pastors in question minister and where cultural expectations might say you do pay musicians, I'd want to avoid paying people who don't otherwise want to be there. However, I do see where this could get tricky in such churches. If you want to fairly compensate the workman who "deserves his wages," plus you want to open up participation (not leadership) in worship to all comers, plus you don't want to create a situation where musicians falsely profess faith so they're eligible to get paid... well, you can see where this goes. So I think the practice of paying unbelieving musicians is an error to avoid, but I'm not sure it's quite so simple as "that's evil."


----------



## raekwon (Dec 3, 2010)

I'm against non-Christians leading worship as well, but it doesn't seem that my definition of "leadership" is quite the same as Dr. Clark's or most folks' in this thread. I'd be much more at ease with an unbelieving instrumentalist than an unbelieving vocalist or "chief musician", for instance.


----------



## Rook (Dec 3, 2010)

Timely article for the church. Prayerfully, I hope many will take this seriously. We are not talking about preference, but about the worship of our great God and King!


----------



## seajayrice (Dec 3, 2010)

raekwon said:


> I'm against non-Christians leading worship as well, but it doesn't seem that my definition of "leadership" is quite the same as Dr. Clark's or most folks' in this thread. I'd be much more at ease with an unbelieving instrumentalist than an unbelieving vocalist or "chief musician", for instance.


 
I'd agree, there are distinctions. Not to side track the OP, but some churches use beautifully wrought orchestral tunes to glorify God. Not to many congregations can field a symphony orchestra.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Dec 3, 2010)

Right; sidetracking the thread will land it in the EP subforum. I will say this. *If *musical instruments are a circumstance of worship, then saying some churches, the few that may, glorify God with orchestral music, is akin to saying some churches glorify God by meeting and worshipping at 6am in the morning. God doesn't view it any more glorifying to him in the one case than the other. If musical instrumentation in public worship is circumstantial that is. Food for thought. Don't side track the thread.



seajayrice said:


> raekwon said:
> 
> 
> > I'm against non-Christians leading worship as well, but it doesn't seem that my definition of "leadership" is quite the same as Dr. Clark's or most folks' in this thread. I'd be much more at ease with an unbelieving instrumentalist than an unbelieving vocalist or "chief musician", for instance.
> ...


----------



## kvanlaan (Dec 3, 2010)

Can we say that in addition to it being out of bounds, that we are causing them to add to their list of sins in employing them in such a way? As they sing this music (it's their job, after all), are they not taking the Lord's name in vain? I know this may be seen as straining at gnats by some, but if we love them as we rightly should, we would not put them in such a position. It need not be exclusion for the sake of removing an unbeliever, but keeping them from singing judgment unto themselves, in the same way as we would stop an unbeliever from taking the Lord's supper.


----------



## seajayrice (Dec 3, 2010)

kvanlaan said:


> Can we say that in addition to it being out of bounds, that we are causing them to add to their list of sins in employing them in such a way? As they sing this music (it's their job, after all), are they not taking the Lord's name in vain? I know this may be seen as straining at gnats by some, but if we love them as we rightly should, we would not put them in such a position. It need not be exclusion for the sake of removing an unbeliever, but keeping them from singing judgment unto themselves, in the same way as we would stop an unbeliever from taking the Lord's supper.


 
Do you examine visitors prior to worship?


----------



## kvanlaan (Dec 3, 2010)

No, we don't (though we do for the Lord's Supper). I see your point. But does it not matter that the one is a visitor, there for (perhaps) a baptism, etc. and the other is a committed Buddhist, denying Christ with all the vitriol a Buddhist can muster? I know, the logic doesn't bear out a difference. But compassion tells me that one is there by the Lord's grace to hear the gospel and perhaps be converted while the other is there for a paycheck, requiring him to be there and take the Lord's name in vain again and again. But I fully agree, the logic doesn't work on my part when taken much further.


----------



## seajayrice (Dec 3, 2010)

kvanlaan said:


> No, we don't (though we do for the Lord's Supper). I see your point. But does it not matter that the one is a visitor, there for (perhaps) a baptism, etc. and the other is a committed Buddhist, denying Christ with all the vitriol a Buddhist can muster? I know, the logic doesn't bear out a difference. But compassion tells me that one is there by the Lord's grace to hear the gospel and perhaps be converted while the other is there for a paycheck, requiring him to be there and take the Lord's name in vain again and again. But I fully agree, the logic doesn't work on my part.


 
Mat 22:10 So those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was furnished with guests.


----------



## Rich Koster (Dec 4, 2010)

If people want to "engage the culture", let them do it outside of corporate worship. I have no problem with a group of Christians forming an orchestra, playing with non-believers and playing for whoever will attend. Entertainment is not part of the RPW, to the best of my limited understanding. How can people praise a God they do not know? Let them enter His courts with praise after they become reconciled.


----------



## kvanlaan (Dec 4, 2010)

> Mat 22:10 So those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was furnished with guests.



Then I need to tell RC Sproul (among others), that they're wrong, since they believe that a worship service is for God's people. This portion of scripture is a parable, referring to the preaching of the gospel to all nations and peoples; and well we should, if we believe what we profess. But show me a worship service in the Bible that was comprised of anything but believers. In not hiring unbelievers as musicians, we are not talking about the spread of the gospel to only Jews in limiting our worship service. We are instead talking about these musicians as being wedding guests without the wedding garment of Christ, and what happened to the improperly clothed guest?


----------



## jogri17 (Dec 4, 2010)

Honestly, I am not sure. I think the discussion needs to be whether or not we ought to have pianists, organists, or praise bands at all in our worship context.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Dec 4, 2010)

This can be done by creating a thread in the *A Capella EP* Sub-forum. 
Let's keep this thread on subject. 


jogri17 said:


> Honestly, I am not sure. I think the discussion needs to be whether or not we ought to have pianists, organists, or praise bands at all in our worship context.


----------



## JBaldwin (Dec 4, 2010)

Zenas said:


> What's wrong with playing a gig in a bar or being in a bar for that matter?



I probably should have clarified that comment. The individual who I mentioned is not a believer and was playing in the bars before he was working for the church. He took the church job, because he needed the money.

---------- Post added at 09:14 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:47 AM ----------




Jack K said:


> Many churches already celebrate "praise team" members too much. I'm inclined NOT to think of musicians as leaders, but merely as congregational participants who're putting their particular talents to use as an extention of congregational singing. And so, I might be inclined to allow an unbeliever who wants to join a praise team as a musician do so, just as I'd let him join us on a service project, cooking for a potluck, ushering or any other non-teaching/non-leadership activity, provided he does it in line with church standards. I wouldn't let him speak or lead in prayer or pick the songs, but I might let him play his instrument.



This is where I beg to differ with you on this subject and where, in my mind, the practice of paying non-believers begins. I agree that "praise team" members and instrumentalists are often elevated to a position where they should not be. Evem so, having non-believers in the mix is a problem. "Tuned in" (pardon the pun) musicians can and do pick up on attitudes of other musicians, and it can spoil the worship for the musicians and for the congregation. No matter what your side is on the issue of EP and instruments in worship, there was a good reason why God commanded that the musicians come from the tribe of Levi. 

In my experience musicans who participate in worship practice together, pray together, fellowship and take the worship very seriously. There is more to it than just playing along. I speak so strongly about it, because I've experienced it firsthand over and over again for years as a church musician. There is nothing more wonderful for musicians than worshipping God together when you all know the songs, believe the words and sing or play them with all your heart. And there is nothing more painful than to be have one or two in the group who play well, but don't believe a word they are singing or playing. When you can't put your heart into the music, then you are doing nothing more than entertaining.


----------



## seajayrice (Dec 4, 2010)

kvanlaan said:


> > Mat 22:10 So those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was furnished with guests.
> 
> 
> 
> Then I need to tell RC Sproul (among others), that they're wrong, since they believe that a worship service is for God's people. This portion of scripture is a parable, referring to the preaching of the gospel to all nations and peoples; and well we should, if we believe what we profess. But show me a worship service in the Bible that was comprised of anything but believers. In not hiring unbelievers as musicians, we are not talking about the spread of the gospel to only Jews in limiting our worship service. We are instead talking about these musicians as being wedding guests without the wedding garment of Christ, and what happened to the improperly clothed guest?


 
Hmmm, have you ever been to NYC? I doubt there is anywhere on earth you will find more Nations in one place! I think we are in accord so far as purity of worship and I value the RPW. This time of year is somewhat unique; worship and evangelism are sometimes intertwined. Example might be a church that regularly hires a full orchestra to play Handel’s Messiah for an annual Christmas service. The quality and beauty of the production pleases believers and unbelievers alike. Believers and unbelievers from the community flood the sanctuary every year as a result. If Handel’s Messiah does not glorify God in your opinion, that is your opinion. The gospel is proclaimed, God is glorified. Heaven forbid we use the church for evangelism. Who leaves the service appropriately dressed is of the Lord.


----------



## Jack K (Dec 4, 2010)

JBaldwin said:


> [/COLOR]
> 
> 
> Jack K said:
> ...



Yes, that's a good argument for just saying all members of a worship team must be professing believers. And I agree it might be the best way to go. At the same time, I'm conscious of the fact that some people who're considering Christianity are helped along by being able to "try out" church life first, and I think it's good to be able to open up church life to them as fully we can without (1) allowing them in leadership or (2) profaning the name of Christ.

Mostly, I just hope to point out that these issues are not necessarily easy ones. We do want to protect the purity of worship. At the same time, the gospel compels us to be welcoming, patient with unbelievers and non-exclusivist. I prefer to limit the number of places where we say "yes, please join our worship service but you may not take part in _____" to as few as necessary. Some exclusions ARE necessary. Worship team involvement may be one of them. But we must consider these carefully. And I think it's good for us to be able to discuss the issue with an appreciation that welcoming unbelievers in the name of the gospel is a good thing, and one the people of God need not fear.


----------



## au5t1n (Dec 4, 2010)

What does paying unbelievers to play the violin have to do with welcoming them into our churches?


----------



## raekwon (Dec 4, 2010)

It should be noted that there are a number of different circumstances that could fall under the umbrella of "non-Christians" helping out with music. There's a difference, for instance, in paying an unbelieving professional church-musician-for-hire to play for you and having someone who's attended your church for a while, isn't quite sure about Christ's claims yet, but has musical talent and wants to serve.


----------



## jogri17 (Dec 4, 2010)

That is why Churches ought to have a policy of not permitting members of either their local Church to do certain activities. It makes them legally safe and prevents those awkward conversations with those who want to participate but *should not* because they have not made a (credible) profession of faith.


----------



## Jack K (Dec 4, 2010)

austinww said:


> What does paying unbelievers to play the violin have to do with welcoming them into our churches?



What I'm discussing has moved somewhat away from the original idea of paid musicians (which I'm not fond of) to the larger and related topic of unbelievers' participation in worship in general. To what extent do we invite them to participate if they want to? Does it extend to being part of a designated praise team?

Of course, if (1) you do say they may fully participate as musicians and (2) you usually pay your musicians... well, then things get sticky.

---------- Post added at 09:46 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:42 AM ----------




raekwon said:


> It should be noted that there are a number of different circumstances that could fall under the umbrella of "non-Christians" helping out with music. There's a difference, for instance, in paying an unbelieving professional church-musician-for-hire to play for you and having someone who's attended your church for a while, isn't quite sure about Christ's claims yet, but has musical talent and wants to serve.



Exactly. To me, the first scenario is more troublesome than the second, although the second still requires a measure of wisdom both in terms of protecting the purity of worship and pastoral care toward the seeker.


----------



## raekwon (Dec 4, 2010)

jogri17 said:


> That is why Churches ought to have a policy of not permitting members of either their local Church to do certain activities. It makes them legally safe and prevents those awkward conversations with those who want to participate but *should not* because they have not made a (credible) profession of faith.


 
I can't think of any church that doesn't have such policies. Whether or not this particular activity falls into those policies is another matter.


----------



## kvanlaan (Dec 4, 2010)

> Hmmm, have you ever been to NYC? I doubt there is anywhere on earth you will find more Nations in one place! I think we are in accord so far as purity of worship and I value the RPW. This time of year is somewhat unique; worship and evangelism are sometimes intertwined. Example might be a church that regularly hires a full orchestra to play Handel’s Messiah for an annual Christmas service. The quality and beauty of the production pleases believers and unbelievers alike. Believers and unbelievers from the community flood the sanctuary every year as a result. If Handel’s Messiah does not glorify God in your opinion, that is your opinion. The gospel is proclaimed, God is glorified. Heaven forbid we use the church for evangelism. Who leaves the service appropriately dressed is of the Lord.



Been there. Toronto is much the same. As others have more eloquently said before me, inviting unbelievers to church is a far cry from hiring them to make music to the Lord for a paycheque.



> The quality and beauty of the production pleases believers and unbelievers alike.



Not relevant. Worship is not horizontal, it is vertical. That's also why in most Dutch reformed churches (and perhaps others, I can only speak from experience in the Dutch ones) we do not clap for a choir or other "special" music in those places that have it. It is not for our entertainment, it is worship.



> It should be noted that there are a number of different circumstances that could fall under the umbrella of "non-Christians" helping out with music. There's a difference, for instance, in paying an unbelieving professional church-musician-for-hire to play for you and having someone who's attended your church for a while, isn't quite sure about Christ's claims yet, but has musical talent and wants to serve.



Yep, yep, yep.


----------



## Bradwardine (Dec 4, 2010)

Reflecting on the position within my denomination until a few years ago (when praise groups with a variety of instruments became accepted) - was that the only instrument available to lead worship was a pipe organ. Organists were paid a fee for playing. Given the paucity of available people who could play the organ, the spiritual commitment of organists was variable (perhaps not so much that they were overt unbelievers but although nominally church members their spiritual state was at least open to question). The reality no doubt was (?is) that a congregation would prefer singing with an organ that was played well (whatever the spiritual state of the organist) and an organ played badly by a committed believer.

With the acceptance of a greater variety of instruments (and in our church context not paid a fee), there is more opportunity to use only believers - although I would admit that in our church we seek to encourage the musical talents of youngsters which means that people will play who have not made a public profession of faith (but are at lest not openly antagonistic to the Gospel).


----------



## seajayrice (Dec 4, 2010)

Joshua said:


> seajayrice said:
> 
> 
> > Example might be a church that regularly hires a full orchestra to play Handel’s Messiah for an annual Christmas service. The quality and beauty of the production pleases believers and unbelievers alike. Believers and unbelievers from the community flood the sanctuary every year as a result.
> ...


 
Allow me to clarify; the example presumes the Believers pleasure is for all the right reasons.


----------



## Reformed Roman (Dec 5, 2010)

This smells like the seeker sensitive movement to me. At least partially. Hire the better musician because he will sound better, which will make the congregation happier (not God)


----------



## bradofshaw (Dec 6, 2010)

Not to turn this completely into a Tim Keller thing, but his reasoning is breathtakingly faulty. From the Worship by the Book Excerpt linked in the article:



> We retain the services of the best musicians we can find just as we do the best counselors, preachers, and educators we can find.



That includes believers and non-believers. Surely he is aware that there are many talented Christian musicians of all variety around the world who would gladly take a permanent paying gig leading worship in New York City. For a church of Redeemer's size and profile (not to mention wealth), there is no excuse for them to resort to paying unbelievers to take part in any part of their worship. Even if he believes it is permissible, why risk the appearance of evil? I would venture that he would not pay the best secular educators he could find to teach Sunday School at his church, no matter how gifted they may be due to God's common grace.


----------



## interalia (Dec 6, 2010)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Actually, I predict the PCA will (within one or two decades) absorb the EPC and what's left of the conservatives of the PCUSA. They will become the new "mainline" as the original mainline implodes by virtue of having literally no more people (to go with their clergy, bureaucracy, buildings and endowments). The stage is being set. The center is being softened up. There needs to be doctrinal and practical room to absorb churches with divergent norms. A decade ago, I though it might have happened by now (or there'd be 10-15 years to go). My original time-scale prediction (a quarter-century) could still come true; there's still time left; and (it nearly goes without saying) the moves we are seeing are exactly what needs to happen for these mergers to take place.
> 
> And there will continue to be the "lesser" outlier-denominations.



Considering the growth of our denomination, it would probably be the other way around!


----------



## Edward (Dec 6, 2010)

interalia said:


> Considering the growth of our denomination, it would probably be the other way around!



I have read that the PCA just picked up one of the founding churches in the EPC - Knox Presbyterian in Harrison Township, MI. (Their "About Us" page still shows them as EPC, however).


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Dec 6, 2010)

interalia said:


> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, I predict the PCA will (within one or two decades) absorb the EPC and what's left of the conservatives of the PCUSA. They will become the new "mainline" as the original mainline implodes by virtue of having literally no more people (to go with their clergy, bureaucracy, buildings and endowments). The stage is being set. The center is being softened up. There needs to be doctrinal and practical room to absorb churches with divergent norms. A decade ago, I though it might have happened by now (or there'd be 10-15 years to go). My original time-scale prediction (a quarter-century) could still come true; there's still time left; and (it nearly goes without saying) the moves we are seeing are exactly what needs to happen for these mergers to take place.
> ...


Not my horse-race, brother. But I'll put my money on the bob-tailed nag/ Somebody (you) bet on the bay.

Maybe it'll be more of a "marriage" for the PCA this time, the *EPCA*. Previously they just absorbed everything in sight: aka *The Pseudopod Church of America*


----------

