# help dealing with contemporary worship music



## jjraby (Aug 21, 2010)

Fellow PBers. I am having a hard time dealing with contemporary worship music. My wife and I have had several arguments over it. I just find myself unable to worship to contemporary music. I pray about, i try my hardest to look past the paltry attempts to be relevant and worship but i cannot. My Church is having a "night of worship" tomorrow night with the youth praise band and the Sunday morning contemporary praise band. I have absolutely no desire to go.

So, How do i deal with this? I just feel that, that type of music is shallow, meaningless, "Jesus is my boyfriend" type stuff. 

thoughts?


----------



## Zenas (Aug 21, 2010)

I propose you make a scene, accuse church leaders of heresy, and smash their instruments. 

In the alternative, you could take earplugs.


----------



## greenbaggins (Aug 21, 2010)

I suggest you read T. David Gordon's book "Why Johnny Can't Sing Hymns," and then give copies of it to all the leadership of the church you attend. Then, if they do not decide to change their worship style, you go to another church. This would also be a helpful book to give to your wife.


----------



## Zenas (Aug 21, 2010)

If you want to use a more measured response.


----------



## jjraby (Aug 21, 2010)

Well, one of the problems is that my wife works at the Church and its our main source of Income while i'm in seminary.


----------



## raekwon (Aug 21, 2010)

So is there a problem with the lyrical content of the songs, or is it the style of music?


----------



## jjraby (Aug 21, 2010)

raekwon said:


> So is there a problem with the lyrical content of the songs, or is it the style of music?



simple answer: both

The words arn't heretical or anything. They are just shallow and repetitive. 

the contemporary service sings song by Christian pop musicians. Its Gerber food for Christians. and since they are by Pop Christian Musicians, the horridness of the style of music is obvious.

---------- Post added at 02:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:31 PM ----------




greenbaggins said:


> I suggest you read T. David Gordon's book "Why Johnny Can't Sing Hymns," and then give copies of it to all the leadership of the church you attend. Then, if they do not decide to change their worship style, you go to another church. This would also be a helpful book to give to your wife.


 

I just ordered the book, thanks


----------



## Afterthought (Aug 21, 2010)

I suppose it depends precisely on what kinds of songs they are, but I try to reinterpret the songs in the best possible light so that they actually are truthful or meaningful when I finally sing them. Perhaps the same could work for you to some extent? It's not the best solution but could help you stick it out for a while. You could also recommend that they sing better contemporary songs (though obviously don't use those words =)). Perhaps you could look around at the contemporary music that is around and suggest a few to whoever chooses the songs that you could sing in good conscience. Having been a part of praise teams before, I know that we like to get suggestions for songs, especially new ones we haven't done before. 

When you must remain silent because the lyrics are poor or the song is being repeated too much (define "repeated too much" as repeated so much that you feel like you're babbling or that you're starting to get an emotional high from the repititions), you can quietly meditate on Scripture. Also, to help compensate for your lack in formal worship, you could increase the time you spend in private or family worship so that you can sing praise to God in good conscience.

Note that all these suggestions assume that you do not try to do anything to change stuff.


----------



## Pergamum (Aug 21, 2010)

The psalms are often emotional and repetitive too.


----------



## jjraby (Aug 21, 2010)

Afterthought said:


> I suppose it depends precisely on what kinds of songs they are, but I try to reinterpret the songs in the best possible light so that they actually are truthful or meaningful when I finally sing them. Perhaps the same could work for you to some extent? It's not the best solution but could help you stick it out for a while. You could also recommend that they sing better contemporary songs (though obviously don't use those words =)). Perhaps you could look around at the contemporary music that is around and suggest a few to whoever chooses the songs that you could sing in good conscience. Having been a part of praise teams before, I know that we like to get suggestions for songs, especially new ones we haven't done before.
> 
> When you must remain silent because the lyrics are poor or the song is being repeated too much (define "repeated too much" as repeated so much that you feel like you're babbling or that you're starting to get an emotional high from the repititions), you can quietly meditate on Scripture. Also, to help compensate for your lack in formal worship, you could increase the time you spend in private or family worship so that you can sing praise to God in good conscience.
> 
> Note that all these suggestions assume that you do not try to do anything to change stuff.


 


Great suggestions.

When i say repeated, i mean that no only are some songs sung almost every other week. but the chorus repeats like 5 times throughout the song. i will try
your suggestions, thanks so much!


----------



## Jack K (Aug 21, 2010)

A few thoughts. Maybe they help:

When it come to style of music, I try to remember that all styles were contemporary in their day. That's not to say style is completely neutral, or that the church should be trying to copy the world style-wise. But it helps me to remember that _some_ of my frustration is a matter of my generation, my church background and my particular tastes. Worship of God should not be about our personal preferences. And even if it were, I ought to get as much joy from seeing others easily engaged with the music as I do when the music engages me. Remembering these things seems to help me, at least a bit.

As for the words, when there's a song I really like because the words are good I try to make a point of telling the worship leader how much I liked it and exactly why. I tell him what about the words were so good. That gives him feedback in a positive context. I like to think it encourages him to find more stuff that's similar, and to think about the words. A lot of these guys have the job because they're musical, and they need to be reminded to think about the words. Since your wife is on staff, maybe you have some inroads to the music guy.

Finally, if they sing contemporary and you like, let's say, 17th and 18th century hymns, you might consider finding others with similar tastes and organizing a weekly hymn sing. It isn't quite the same as having those hymns in worship, but it might still encourage your soul. At my current church, one particular Sunday school class found themselves agreed that they preferred a certain style of music. Rather than try to push more of that style on the whole church, they decided to add singing to the Sunday school class. It was a selfless way to get more of what they wanted. worshipping together as the entire, gathered church is important, but we don't have to do everything together.


----------



## jwithnell (Aug 21, 2010)

> The psalms are often emotional and repetitive too.



I've been thinking about this after we sang a rather odious hymn from the red Trinity Hymnal (yes, there are a few). Repetition per se, isn't so bad, but it depends on what it is. For example, you have a response in several Psalms proclaiming "His love (or lovingkindness) endures forever". While I'm not a language scholar, I've done some research on the "love" there and it is amazing! What a glorious response to our creator (EP aside). Contrast that to some of the contemporary repetitions which so often focus on a personal experience (I'm so glad!). It is the latter emphasis on personal experience -- rather than upon the God who is working all things after the counsel of his will -- that I find anti-worshipful. There are some notable exceptions on the contemporary scene, but were often written specifically with the idea of being a modern, God honoring hymn.


----------



## jogri17 (Aug 21, 2010)

A lot of it is bad, but much contemporary stuff is not as bad as many make it out to be... it is just different. A little bit of Hillsong every now and then does us good in my opinion as well as singing out of the psalter. be submissive to the leadership and don't go if it really bothers you. John Murray just stood there and did not sing.


----------



## BenjaminBurton (Aug 21, 2010)

All of these are great suggestions. I'm a little younger and have a different upbringing so in some ways the contemporary style appeals to me. But I ran into the same problem with a church I had been attending for a while when I moved to Louisville a few years ago. I tried to expose those involved with the music of the church to something other than say, Hillsong. Maybe this could work for you? Sovereign Grace Music has put out a lot of great music over the years. The lyrics are often straight from the Scriptures and have blessed me tremendously. 

The church I attend now does have contemporary worship but all the songs we sing are hymns or psalms. Often times we will have members from the congregation write music to a certain passage or text or psalm. If the style is something you intrinsically disagree with, make attempts to redeem it as much as possible. Just a thought from a youngster..


----------



## Montanablue (Aug 22, 2010)

> As for the words, when there's a song I really like because the words are good I try to make a point of telling the worship leader how much I liked it and exactly why. I tell him what about the words were so good. That gives him feedback in a positive context. I like to think it encourages him to find more stuff that's similar, and to think about the words. A lot of these guys have the job because they're musical, and they need to be reminded to think about the words. Since your wife is on staff, maybe you have some inroads to the music guy.



This is such good advice. Its really easy to be negative towards the leadership, but this is both encouraging and constructive.


----------



## Willem van Oranje (Aug 22, 2010)

jjraby said:


> Well, one of the problems is that my wife works at the Church and its our main source of Income while i'm in seminary.


 
As Luther said, "Let goods and kindred go..."

---------- Post added at 02:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:29 PM ----------




BenjaminBurton said:


> All of these are great suggestions. I'm a little younger and have a different upbringing so in some ways the contemporary style appeals to me. But I ran into the same problem with a church I had been attending for a while when I moved to Louisville a few years ago. I tried to expose those involved with the music of the church to something other than say, Hillsong. Maybe this could work for you? Sovereign Grace Music has put out a lot of great music over the years. The lyrics are often straight from the Scriptures and have blessed me tremendously.
> 
> The church I attend now does have contemporary worship but all the songs we sing are hymns or psalms. Often times we will have members from the congregation write music to a certain passage or text or psalm. If the style is something you intrinsically disagree with, make attempts to redeem it as much as possible. Just a thought from a youngster..


 
I think there's something to Aristotle's thought that music belongs in an ethical rather than an artistic category. In other words it's not just a matter of "style." There is good music and bad music, ethically speaking.

(I am indebted for this insight to Pastor Mario Veilleux of Montreal.)


----------



## Poimen (Aug 22, 2010)

The problem with contemporary Christian music is the ideology that exists at its center, one that conflicts with the Protestant view of worship. Music has become such an important part of the worship that it has, in many cases, eclipsed the word centered focus of the preaching and administration of the sacraments. 

Furthermore this 'music ministry' is not built on biblical terms and yet it has not only spawned a whole megachurch industry but has become a foreign element within worship itself. One scans the scriptures in vain to find music existing in such prominence in the lives of God's people in worship. The New Testament contains no instruction for our worship beyond singing together - there is no ministry or gift of music there beyond what we do together as the saints of the Lord (Ephesians 5:18,19; Colossians 3:16). The idea of music being a gift to individuals or groups of people within the church is entirely absent. 

Thus, contrary to the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers, we have once again become spectators as the medieval church did with their performance fueled rights.


----------



## Philip (Aug 22, 2010)

JR, I too have trouble with much of the contemporary worship music being pumped out right now. You are quite correct that much of it is shallow, repetitively redundant, and bland pablum sung to tunes that ought to be taken out and shot. It's the kind of thing that makes me wish for Gregorian chant sometimes.

Thank goodness most of it won't last.

That said, we do need to remember that Psalm 96:1 commands us to "sing a new song to the Lord." This means that we need to be writing songs, even in contemporary styles. Believe it or not, there is good theologically sound stuff being produced, like Sovereign Grace's _Valley of Vision_ project (Puritan poetry set to music), or modern hymns like Townend/Getty's "In Christ Alone" or even Keith Green's now-classic "There is a Redeemer." In addition, there are several quite decent hymns with updated tunes that are actually better than the originals (think James Ward's tune for "Rock of Ages"). I agree that most of what's being produced is terrible, but the prospect ain't completely hopeless. 

The other thing I try to do when one of these songs comes up, is to remember that if bland songs is my greatest worry, I'm doing all right. Christians are forbidden to praise God in many countries and have to hold services in secret---I've got nothing to complain about, in the end. I don't pretend that's easy to praise God with some of this stuff, but it's good to keep it in perspective.


----------



## jjraby (Aug 22, 2010)

Poimen said:


> The problem with contemporary Christian music is the ideology that exists at its center, one that conflicts with the Protestant view of worship. Music has become such an important part of the worship that it has, in many cases, eclipsed the word centered focus of the preaching and administration of the sacraments.
> 
> Furthermore this 'music ministry' is not built on biblical terms and yet it has not only spawned a whole megachurch industry but has become a foreign element within worship itself. One scans the scriptures in vain to find music existing in such prominence in the lives of God's people in worship. The New Testament contains no instruction for our worship beyond singing together - there is no ministry or gift of music there beyond what we do together as the saints of the Lord (Ephesians 5:18,19; Colossians 3:16). The idea of music being a gift to individuals or groups of people within the church is entirely absent.
> 
> Thus, contrary to the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers, we have once again become spectators as the medieval church did with their performance fueled rights.


 
very well said


----------



## JBaldwin (Aug 22, 2010)

Being the delegated music person in my church, I can appreciate Jack's comments about going to leadership and sharing what you do like and why. That helps. After having been part of the music in worship for most of my adult life, I've seen a lot of useless music, not just in churches who sing nothing but contemporary christian music. Singability, song theological in the lyrics, and non-overbearing accompaniment are so important. I've also seen some wonderful music. 

If you suggest, perhaps to the music people that you would like to see more content in the music, you might be surprised at the response. Some other good sources of contemporary hymns RUF online hymnal and reformedpraise.org. 

I will add that I had the same struggle you are having, and frankly, while I enjoy contemporary music, I would have a difficult time trying to worship in a church that had nothing but fluff.


----------



## Rangerus (Aug 22, 2010)

I think CH Spurgeon liked contemporary music. At least it was contemporary to his time.



> Besides sermons, Spurgeon also wrote several hymns and published a new collection of worship songs in 1866 called "Our Own Hymn Book". It was mostly a compilation of Isaac Watts' Psalms and Hymns that had been originally selected by John Rippon, a Baptist predecessor to Spurgeon. Singing in the congregation was exclusively a cappella under his pastorate. Thousands heard the preaching and were led in the singing without any amplification of sound that exists today. Hymns were a subject that he took seriously. Wikipedia



With sincere apologies to the OP, our church currently has split services over the type of music we sing. It seems to have broken the unity of the congregation. The traditional service has lost it's vitality and youthful energy and the contemporary just doesn't seem to have the reverence and honor.

Hopefully, prayfully our congregation will once agin have a unified service where earthly preferences are cast aside and His name is exalted and worshiped through singing and praise. 



> Psalms 66:4 (ESV) 4 All the earth worships you and sings praises to you; they sing praises to your name.” Selah





> The holy church throughout all the world lifts up her voice, to laud that Name which is above every name, to make the praise of Jesus glorious, both by word and deed; that others may be led to glorify him also. But nothing can bring men to do this aright, unless his effectual grace create their hearts anew unto holiness; and in the redemption by the death of Christ, and the glorious deliverances it effects, are more wondrous works than Israel's deliverance from Egyptian bondage.Matthew Henry Concise Bible Commentary.


----------



## he beholds (Aug 22, 2010)

I am having the opposite problem. I need help dealing with outdated worship music.

The words arn't heretical or anything. The tunes are just old. 

Should I leave my church?


----------



## JBaldwin (Aug 22, 2010)

he beholds said:


> I am having the opposite problem. I need help dealing with outdated worship music.
> 
> The words arn't heretical or anything. The tunes are just old.
> 
> Should I leave my church?



I would suggest looking at some of the websites I mentioned above and pass them along to your leadership. In the last month, I've had two wonderful suggestions from my praise band. One is a new setting to an old hymn, the other is a brand new hymn with a lovely tune. We are singing both of them next week. I know for a fact that I get into ruts, and I value the input of savvy church members and musicians.


----------



## Christusregnat (Aug 22, 2010)

Pergamum said:


> The psalms are often emotional and repetitive too.


 
Emotional, yes. Sentimental, no.

Repetitive: in a liturgical sense, not in a 3rd-grade-reading-level sense.


----------



## kvanlaan (Aug 22, 2010)

> Praise Songs explained...
> 
> Not long ago a farmer went to the city one weekend and attended the big city church. He came home and his wife asked him how it was. "Well," said the farmer, "It was good. They did something different, however. They sang praise choruses instead of hymns."
> 
> ...


I think I've posted it before somewhere, it just seemed relevant somehow and still makes me chuckle...


----------



## JBaldwin (Aug 22, 2010)

> The young man said, "Well it's like this - If I were to say to you, `Martha, the cows are in the corn,' well that would be a regular song. If, on the other hand, I were to say to you:
> 
> Oh Martha, dear Martha, hear thou my cry
> Inclinest thine ear to the words of my mouth.
> ...



Correction--that would be a _Baptist_ hymn.


----------



## steadfast7 (Aug 23, 2010)

Willem van Oranje said:


> I think there's something to Aristotle's thought that music belongs in an ethical rather than an artistic category. In other words it's not just a matter of "style." There is good music and bad music, ethically speaking.


I'd be interested to explore any scriptures that back up this claim..

[BIBLE]Pslam 150[/BIBLE]
I wonder if the prescriptions of worship in this psalm were obeyed in our churches how many of us would be offended and leave...


----------



## steadfast7 (Aug 23, 2010)

Joshua said:


> Nova said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder if the prescriptions of worship in this psalm [Ps. 150] were obeyed in our churches how many of us would be offended and leave...
> ...


 
Josh, I know almost nothing about the EP/a cappella movement, so help me... We know that Old Testament shadows are obsolete because they have been fulfilled in Christ, the once-for-all sacrifice. But can we really say that this is in the _same _category as singing praises to God with instruments? What is it about praising God with instruments that has been rendered obsolete by the coming of Christ?


----------



## ThomasCartwright (Aug 23, 2010)

Nova said:


> Willem van Oranje said:
> 
> 
> > I think there's something to Aristotle's thought that music belongs in an ethical rather than an artistic category. In other words it's not just a matter of "style." There is good music and bad music, ethically speaking.
> ...


 
I was writing a piece for a group of young people here explaining why music is not morally neutral from the Scriptures from 1 Samuel 16.

IS MUSIC MORALLY NEUTRAL?

1 Samuel 16:15 and 23 discredits the idea that music is neutral and records its power to influence the emotion so that, “when the evil spirit from God was upon Saul, that David took a harp, and played with his hand: so Saul was refreshed, and was well, and the evil spirit departed from him.” Elisha required good music in order to prepare his heart to prophesy (2 Kings 3:15). Heaven is described as having wonderful singing and music. The Apostle Paul clearly, taught in 1 Corinthians 14:7-8 that certain sounds, by themselves, had meaning and are not neutral. By contrast, Moses and Joshua discerned that a particular music style carried a definite and disturbing message (Exod. 32:15-19). This was a certain style of music that was appropriate for the setting – immorality, paganism and rebellion. Isaiah 5:11-12 shows an example of a musical genre independent of God’s glory that is associated with drunkenness and immorality. Clearly, the existence of something does not necessarily mean it is from God.

Why some music refreshes and some stirs the passions cannot be easily explained, but neither can it be denied. Even the youngest of children intuitively react without instruction when they hear certain kinds of music. Music reaches the inner man and can evoke joy, sobriety, pity, admiration, patriotism, sorrow, and awe. Composers deliberately aim to evoke a response from those that read, watch or listen. The spirit of music has an extremely powerful influence on the hearer as the writers of music soundtracks will immediately agree. Each of us consciously and often subconsciously react to the genre of music when we watch TV programmes and advertisements, as music here is professionally driven with an agenda to move people in a specific way. The secular world uses music to improve the environment, attitudes, and performance within the workplace. They have built a whole industry of music therapists, behavioural scientists on the power of music to alter the mood. Even some surgeons and dentists use music as an anaesthetic. Indeed, many secular musicologists accept the intrinsic communicative qualities of musical forms that express feelings and thoughts such as melancholy or foreboding.

As such only artistic ignorance, willful intellectual dishonesty, or theological indifference could lead to the suggestion that music is morally neutral or amoral. Paul McCartney of the Beatles once told the Washington Post, “the message is not in the lyrics, but in the music.” Dr. Howard Hanson, of the Eastman School of Music, argues, “Music can be soothing or invigorating, ennobling or vulgarizing, philosophical or orgiastic. It has powers for evil as well as for good.” Dr. Max Schoen in The Psychology of Music also makes clear, “Music is the most powerful stimulus known among the perceptive senses. The medical, psychiatric and other evidence for the non-neutrality of music is so overwhelming that it frankly amazes me that anyone should seriously say otherwise.” If the world is implicitly cognisant that music is not neutral, then why do some Christians persist promoting this fallacy?

Another point that should be noted is that at least one of Saul's servants recognized that the character of the musician is important in producing the right type of music as the criteria for choosing was that he was “cunning” or skilful but also that “the Lord is with him.”


----------



## JennyG (Aug 23, 2010)

Nova said:


> Willem van Oranje said:
> 
> 
> > I think there's something to Aristotle's thought that music belongs in an ethical rather than an artistic category. In other words it's not just a matter of "style." There is good music and bad music, ethically speaking.
> ...


as close as I can think is Psalm 137 
_If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, may my right hand forget her cunning_

I often think of it as I prepare my service music. It seems to me to express something like a fear of ever using music for an unsanctified purpose, along with the thought that it would be better to make no music at all


----------



## Willem van Oranje (Aug 23, 2010)

Nova said:


> Willem van Oranje said:
> 
> 
> > I think there's something to Aristotle's thought that music belongs in an ethical rather than an artistic category. In other words it's not just a matter of "style." There is good music and bad music, ethically speaking.
> ...


 
Note that we are discussing the music itself, not whether instrumental accompaniment may be used, or if so, what type. That is a separate discussion from the music itself. 
There is a useful treatment on the website of the Reformed Church of Beauce, Quebec:

Église Chrétienne Réformée de Beauce » Blog Archive » La musique de David

(Unhappily for most of you, it is in French. Maybe you could try using your translator? Not a good option, but you might get something that way.)


----------



## RandPhoenix (Aug 23, 2010)

jogri17 said:


> A lot of it is bad, but much contemporary stuff is not as bad as many make it out to be... it is just different. A little bit of Hillsong every now and then does us good in my opinion as well as singing out of the psalter. be submissive to the leadership and don't go if it really bothers you. John Murray just stood there and did not sing.


 
That touches on a question I've had for a while. If you know the song writer has terrible theology, is it really still ok to sing one of their songs, even if the song in itself may not have the worst theology?


----------



## raekwon (Aug 23, 2010)

RandPhoenix said:


> jogri17 said:
> 
> 
> > A lot of it is bad, but much contemporary stuff is not as bad as many make it out to be... it is just different. A little bit of Hillsong every now and then does us good in my opinion as well as singing out of the psalter. be submissive to the leadership and don't go if it really bothers you. John Murray just stood there and did not sing.
> ...



Yes.


----------



## Steve Curtis (Aug 23, 2010)

It would be an unimaginable burden to examine the theological convictions of every lyricist to determine their orthodoxy. Far more sensible to judge each work on its merits (or lack thereof). I think of Keith Green, for example. "There Is a Redeemer" is a great song, though Green was all over the map in his theology (I know some will say that he was trending toward a more conservative and orthodox stance as he matured).
Even a broken clock is right twice a day, and someone with bad theology may well produce a sound song (or sermon or book) once in a while.


----------



## RandPhoenix (Aug 23, 2010)

Hmm. Good points. Thanks!


----------



## raekwon (Aug 23, 2010)

Heck, we sing songs -- theologically solid and rich -- that were penned (at least in part) by a man who is now an avowed atheist. We sing the words, not the writer.


----------



## steadfast7 (Aug 23, 2010)

Can't it be argued that even some portion of the psalms are theologically "inappropriate", this side of calvary? eg, "take not thy Holy Spirit from me", imprecatory psalms?


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Aug 23, 2010)

Joshua said:


> Nova said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder if the prescriptions of worship in this psalm [Ps. 150] were obeyed in our churches how many of us would be offended and leave...
> ...



Couldn't one also state that because something was prescribed in the OT does not necessarily require rejection in the NT?


----------



## steadfast7 (Aug 23, 2010)

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you did NOT just imply that I'm a blasphemer, or an unbeliever in God's perfect word. But let's leave that aside and get exegetical...


> If a professing Christian has lived for a time in unbroken patterns of sin, and the Lord has seen fit to take away the comfortable presence of the Holy Spirit, why not may he pray for the Lord not to take it away?


This is one way to look at the verse, but it _can_ be argued that something else is in view in the Psalms, or the entire OT. Prior to Pentecost, the Holy Spirit resided with _and left _individuals, such as King Saul. It was a picture of reprobation. I don't think this is possible for the regenerate person post-pentecost.


> Further, why would it be wrong to pray that God's enemies be scattered and destroyed?


 This is a spiritualizing of the text. The psalmist may not be talking to God's enemies in some cosmic sense, but often refers to _his own enemies_, individuals, people he hates, eg. Babylonians, whose children he wishes to be dashed against the rocks. Should we as Christians living under Jesus' commands in the sermon on the mount have this attitude against our enemies? 

Psalms are theology, as much as they are songs of worship, and theology along with its revelation unfolds throughout the course of redemptive history. Sure, one can spiritualize the song so that it fits the current theological era, but just know that you are doing this - indeed, with poetry, there is wiggle room for flexible interpretation. But if this is true, then some of the "theologically" bereft songs of contemporary worship can also be interpreted with flexibility.

For example, the lyrics in the Hillsong
"I called, you answered
And came to my rescue and I
Wanna be where you are"

On the surface, this is theologically incorrect because it is God who first initiates and calls, and CAUSES US to answer. But since it's possible to interpret flexibly, there is a sense in which the sinner calls out to God and God answers with rescue.


----------



## Marrow Man (Aug 23, 2010)

I suppose one could argue that we shouldn't teach on the covenant of circumcision in Genesis 17 since that ritual is also "inappropriate" this side of Calvary.

Nova, you will find many folks questioning the imprecatory psalms in our day (which, In my humble opinion, is symptomatic of many of the problems of evangelical sentimentality and pseudo-piety). I would highly recommend reading James Adam's War Psalms of the Prince of Peace for a proper perspective, however. As an example of imprecatory psalms being utilized this side of Calvary, read the latter portion of Acts 1, where Psalms 69 and 109 are referenced.


----------



## steadfast7 (Aug 23, 2010)

Marrow Man said:


> I suppose one could argue that we shouldn't teach on the covenant of circumcision in Genesis 17 since that ritual is also "inappropriate" this side of Calvary.
> 
> Nova, you will find many folks questioning the imprecatory psalms in our day (which, In my humble opinion, is symptomatic of many of the problems of evangelical sentimentality and pseudo-piety). I would highly recommend reading James Adam's War Psalms of the Prince of Peace for a proper perspective, however. As an example of imprecatory psalms being utilized this side of Calvary, read the latter portion of Acts 1, where Psalm 109 is referenced.


 
Thanks Tim. In terms of Acts 1, Luke is using this psalm to refer to Judas as a specific agent in redemptive history. He is spiritualizing, but as an inspired writer, he has the privilege of making use of the text in this way. We, however, do not have this privilege. I don't think we are at liberty to use imprecatory psalms to curse people we hate, which was the original intention of the psalmist in an overwhelmingly majority of cases.

As for circumcision ... don't get me started! 

---------- Post added at 08:46 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:32 AM ----------




Joshua said:


> Anything *can* be argued, the question is *should* it? There is some influence of the Holy Spirit on those who apostatize, otherwise Hebrews 6:4 is thrown out of our purview. Do you think Judas, when he began with Christ, thought he would ultimately apostatize? I'm not arguing a loss of salvation _or_ the Holy Ghost for God's elect, but there are plenty of folks who have assured themselves of their own salvation who will split hell wide open on that last day.


 No disagreement with you here. I was taking the angle of the Holy Spirit leaving a person as reprobation which I believe is a theme in the OT. In the new economy, the Spirit of Christ indwells the elect permanently and does not leave in the same sense as David may have observed in his time.



Nova said:


> > Further, why would it be wrong to pray that God's enemies be scattered and destroyed?
> 
> 
> I don't understand your "spiritualizing" accusation. The Psalmist said, "Do I not hate those who hate thee, O God?" You should hate God's enemies, as God's enemies, but you _shouldn't_ hate your enemies as your enemies. There are all sorts of qualifications to be made, but make no mistake, imprecatory Psalms are not somehow _wrong_ or _theologically inappropriate_ for the NT Believer. What _is_ wrong is to pray specifically against a specific person, thinking you *know* whether they are reprobate or not. Notice how the Psalmist generalizes God's enemies, and doesn't call out a person by name when he prays for their demise. It ought to be the desire of every Christian for God's enemies to be stopped, and yet we also have a duty to pray for their salvation. The Psalmist prayed for both, as should we under the NT economy of the Covenant of Grace.


 Agreed. I don't think they are wrong or inappropriate in themselves but reflect the theology of a by-gone era. Forgive my unclarity - that's probably where we started misunderstanding each other. I'm only saying that it should not be our _attitude_ to hate our enemies in the _same way_ as the psalmist hated his enemies. In that time in Biblical history, the enemies of Israel were synonymous with the enemies of God, so it was appropriate for them to view them as one and the same. I think it's different for us now. We do not know who are the true reprobates, the true enemies of God so cannot hate them as God hates them, but we are commanded to love them. I'm ok with singing imprecatory psalms as long if we're not thinking about individuals which we think fit the bill. But in our sinfulness, this temptation is not far away.


----------



## Marrow Man (Aug 23, 2010)

To be technical, Luke is only reporting this -- it is Peter who makes the direct application, and he is not "spiritualizing" the text. Verse 16 says, "the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit foretold by the mouth of David concerning Judas." The fact of the matter is that there are many other examples of these psalms similarly being applied in the NT, and not just toward a unique individual such as Judas (for example, Romans 11:9-10).

Once again, I would strongly recommend that you read Adams' book. He makes the important observation that because all the psalms are ultimately Christological in nature, the imprecatory psalms find their fulfillment and their significance in Christ -- and that would include, of course, this side of Calvary.

Yesterday, our church sang Psalm 3, both in the morning and evening services. It is a psalm of David written concerning a specific incident that no NT believer can directly claim applies to him: a king of Israel whose own son stirs up a rebellion against him. And yet that is directly applicable to Christ, who is the true King and whose "son" (Israel) rebelled against. Verse 2 says, "Many are saying of my soul, "There is no deliverance for him in God," which corresponds to the reproach our Lord endured on the cross. And NT believers will hear those sames lies spoken, even by members of their own families (Jesus' words in Matthew 10 warn about this as well). Verse 7 of the psalm reads, "For You have smitten all my enemies on the cheek; You have shattered the teeth of the wicked." Those same mouths that spoke ill against the Lord will be silenced. Is it wrong for NT believers to pray for that to happen? The silencing of the wicked is equated with the salvation of the Lord and the blessing of His people in vv. 7 and 8. Certainly these are directly applicable to God's people this side of the cross, and it is good for God's people to sing these words.



> All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.


----------



## steadfast7 (Aug 23, 2010)

Marrow Man said:


> To be technical, Luke is only reporting this -- it is Peter who makes the direct application, and he is not "spiritualizing" the text. Verse 16 says, "the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit foretold by the mouth of David concerning Judas." The fact of the matter is that there are many other examples of these psalms similarly being applied in the NT, and not just toward a unique individual such as Judas (for example, Romans 11:9-10).
> 
> Once again, I would strongly recommend that you read Adams' book. He makes the important observation that because all the psalms are ultimately Christological in nature, the imprecatory psalms find their fulfillment and their significance in Christ -- and that would include, of course, this side of Calvary.


 
Very valid points here. All I'm saying is that the original intention and use of the psalm by the author must be 'reworked' in order to be used both in the NT and in our daily rule of faith and practice. By 'reworked' I mean it must be seen in the light of the full revelation. The use of the OT in the NT is a raging debate, and I'm of the opinion that the NT writers do take some liberties in their interpretation and application of the OT - but they do so under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, which makes it OK for them to do what they want with it. 

but, I can admit that I've found myself enraged with particular individulas and proceeded to use an imprecatory psalm to project my feelings for them. I personally think this was a sin against commands taught by Jesus.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Aug 23, 2010)

Joshua said:


> Chaplainintraining said:
> 
> 
> > Joshua said:
> ...


 
Although the Priesthood may have been ceremonial and shadowy in nature, their duty of speaking the Words of God has been passed on to ministers this side of Calvary. So although instruments may have been ceremonial in nature (although I admit that I don't know how), then their duty of accompanying the people of God in worship could also be passed along to others this side of Calvary.


----------



## Marrow Man (Aug 23, 2010)

Nova said:


> Marrow Man said:
> 
> 
> > To be technical, Luke is only reporting this -- it is Peter who makes the direct application, and he is not "spiritualizing" the text. Verse 16 says, "the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit foretold by the mouth of David concerning Judas." The fact of the matter is that there are many other examples of these psalms similarly being applied in the NT, and not just toward a unique individual such as Judas (for example, Romans 11:9-10).
> ...


 
I am afraid that would lead to a place where you do not wish to go -- Jesus Himself could be accused of such liberties and even inconsistencies. Psalm 69 is frequently quoted and applied in the NT, including Jesus Himself (e.g., Luke 13:35). I know from your previous responses that you do not wish to do that. Much of modern Christian thinking has been too heavily influenced by well-meaning but ill-informed pietistic thinking of the past. I would recommend further study on the subject.


----------



## coramdeo (Aug 23, 2010)

I struggle with this every Sunday. I was coping as best I could until they brought in the greenish yellow "nite club" spot lights to shine in my eyes and the smoke that comes from under the stage. I can't even see the words on the Screen!


----------



## Rangerus (Aug 23, 2010)

rock me like a hurricane


----------



## Jack K (Aug 23, 2010)

coramdeo said:


> I struggle with this every Sunday. I was coping as best I could until they brought in the greenish yellow "nite club" spot lights to shine in my eyes and the smoke that comes from under the stage. I can't even see the words on the Screen!



Ouch! No matter where we may stand on what elements are allowed in worship, what you describe seems clearly to be an attempt to follow the world's ways and styles. When will churches learn that people need a shelter from the world—something _better_ than the world can offer, and refreshingly different—rather than more of the same?


----------



## steadfast7 (Aug 23, 2010)

Marrow Man said:


> Nova said:
> 
> 
> > Marrow Man said:
> ...


 
I'm certainly not denying the use of the psalms in the NT, or its usefulness to us today. Again, my only point was that we may not be able to use them in _exactly the same way_ the original author intended. He had some pretty nasty feelings about his own enemies.


----------



## he beholds (Aug 23, 2010)

Jack K said:


> coramdeo said:
> 
> 
> > I struggle with this every Sunday. I was coping as best I could until they brought in the greenish yellow "nite club" spot lights to shine in my eyes and the smoke that comes from under the stage. I can't even see the words on the Screen!
> ...


 Very good way to put it: something _better_. Thanks.


----------



## Augusta (Aug 23, 2010)

kainos01 said:


> It would be an unimaginable burden to examine the theological convictions of every lyricist to determine their orthodoxy. Far more sensible to judge each work on its merits (or lack thereof). I think of Keith Green, for example. "There Is a Redeemer" is a great song, though Green was all over the map in his theology (I know some will say that he was trending toward a more conservative and orthodox stance as he matured).
> Even a broken clock is right twice a day, and someone with bad theology may well produce a sound song (or sermon or book) once in a while.


 
You are correct! which is why our LORD has bequeathed to us, in the scriptures, a rather large volume of songs of praise. All of which are perfect and the pure Word of God, for our use in praising him.

---------- Post added at 02:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:52 PM ----------




Jack K said:


> coramdeo said:
> 
> 
> > I struggle with this every Sunday. I was coping as best I could until they brought in the greenish yellow "nite club" spot lights to shine in my eyes and the smoke that comes from under the stage. I can't even see the words on the Screen!
> ...



Anything done in worship outside of a strict RPW, are only varying degrees of arbitrary, man-made rules based on preference not scripture. With no regulation to back you up I don't know how you can say with any authority that smoke and lights are out, but pop Christian music with a band is in.

*Arbitrary: *based on whim: based solely on personal wishes, feelings, or perceptions, rather than on objective facts, reasons, or principles.


----------



## MW (Aug 23, 2010)

Nova said:


> I'm certainly not denying the use of the psalms in the NT, or its usefulness to us today. Again, my only point was that we may not be able to use them in _exactly the same way_ the original author intended. He had some pretty nasty feelings about his own enemies.


 
Psalms 2:9, "Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron." Revelation 19:15, "And he shall rule them with a rod of iron." We would not charge Jesus Christ with being nasty. Why charge the Psalmist with being nasty when He is only expressing the authority of the Lord's Anointed. Besides, the words of the Psalmist are regarded by the New Testament as being the words of Christ; Hebrews 2:11, 12.


----------



## raekwon (Aug 23, 2010)

Jack K said:


> coramdeo said:
> 
> 
> > I struggle with this every Sunday. I was coping as best I could until they brought in the greenish yellow "nite club" spot lights to shine in my eyes and the smoke that comes from under the stage. I can't even see the words on the Screen!
> ...


 
Hmm. Is corporate worship to be our shelter, or is Christ?

Don't get me wrong; I'm not big on the "smoke-n-lights show" aesthetic, either, but at the same time I think that the idea that corporate worship is to serve as a "shelter from the world" is something churches actually need to get away from.

But that's another topic for another thread.


----------



## Willem van Oranje (Aug 23, 2010)

Nova said:


> Can't it be argued that even some portion of the psalms are theologically "inappropriate", this side of calvary? eg, "take not thy Holy Spirit from me", imprecatory psalms?


 
Um, no.

---------- Post added at 09:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:47 PM ----------




Nova said:


> I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you did NOT just imply that I'm a blasphemer, or an unbeliever in God's perfect word. But let's leave that aside and get exegetical...
> 
> 
> > If a professing Christian has lived for a time in unbroken patterns of sin, and the Lord has seen fit to take away the comfortable presence of the Holy Spirit, why not may he pray for the Lord not to take it away?
> ...


 
Ask the suffering church in North Korea whether or not they have enemies.


----------



## steadfast7 (Aug 23, 2010)

We all have enemies, and Jesus was very clear what our attitude toward them should be. My great grandfather was a pastor in North Korea, so I know all too well. Today there are many Korean Christians who pray for the quick death of Kim Jong Il. They may even find warrant for this in the psalms. I don't think it's right.

---------- Post added at 08:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:40 PM ----------




armourbearer said:


> Nova said:
> 
> 
> > I'm certainly not denying the use of the psalms in the NT, or its usefulness to us today. Again, my only point was that we may not be able to use them in _exactly the same way_ the original author intended. He had some pretty nasty feelings about his own enemies.
> ...


 
But, are all psalms Christ's words, are all imprecatory psalms Messianic? Are there none that quite simply refer to David's personal enemies? Perhaps they could be seen as Messianic, but that is an interpretative choice we've made, and that's my point.


----------



## Jack K (Aug 23, 2010)

raekwon said:


> Jack K said:
> 
> 
> > coramdeo said:
> ...



My point is just that if churches offer Christ—who is _so_ different and better than what the world offers—it makes sense that such churches might look and act different from the world. I'm probably not what you'd call a "hardliner" on what Scripture prescribes, but wouldn't the church _want_ to show itself to be a clear alternative to what the world is selling?

"Shelter" was a weak choice of words on my part. It can mean a lot of things to various people. I think I used the word because the topic made me recall the end of Machen's _Christianity & Liberalism_: "Weary with the conflicts of the world, one goes into the church to seek refreshment for the soul. And what does one find? Alas, too often one finds only the turmoil of the world.... Is there no refuge from strife?"


----------



## ThomasCartwright (Aug 25, 2010)

armourbearer said:


> Nova said:
> 
> 
> > I'm certainly not denying the use of the psalms in the NT, or its usefulness to us today. Again, my only point was that we may not be able to use them in _exactly the same way_ the original author intended. He had some pretty nasty feelings about his own enemies.
> ...



I came across an excellent statement on this type of moulding the Bible to fit any kind of agenda:



> We've been watching this week as women took indecent liberties with the Bible. We saw how the Bible can say almost anything we want it to say. If God told us he was hot, we would find people telling us God was cold, tepid, sweet, heavy, sticky, slippery, rough, smooth, serrated, burnished, waxy, polished, soapy, dented, shellacked, non-stick, non-glare, non-ferrous, translucent, glazed, opaque, gold-plated, nickel-plated, silver-lined, flammable, combustible, galvanized, glossy, soggy, garrulous, parched, reticent, chalky, oily...anything but hot.
> 
> The one thing the Bible will never say is what we don't want to hear.
> 
> ...



I think another good article was written by no friend of ours:

Touchstone Archives: Please Me, O Lord


----------



## torstar (Aug 25, 2010)

jjraby said:


> Fellow PBers. I am having a hard time dealing with contemporary worship music. My wife and I have had several arguments over it. I just find myself unable to worship to contemporary music. I pray about, i try my hardest to look past the paltry attempts to be relevant and worship but i cannot. My Church is having a "night of worship" tomorrow night with the youth praise band and the Sunday morning contemporary praise band. I have absolutely no desire to go.
> 
> So, How do i deal with this? I just feel that, that type of music is shallow, meaningless, "Jesus is my boyfriend" type stuff.
> 
> thoughts?


 

The best move for me was developing an interest in 16th century (and a bit later) choral music.

It's sounds out of this world, reflects the pace my middle years are forcing on me, and I don't have a clue what they are singing about in Latin.

Church services sing a few psalms and hymns, organ or piano only, which is most appreciated. 

You cannot offend the conscience of those commanded to be present at the service.


----------



## Willem van Oranje (Aug 25, 2010)

Nova said:


> We all have enemies, and Jesus was very clear what our attitude toward them should be. My great grandfather was a pastor in North Korea, so I know all too well. Today there are many Korean Christians who pray for the quick death of Kim Jong Il. They may even find warrant for this in the psalms. I don't think it's right.


 
It is right. I have prayed the same thing.

Check out this link from my website.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Aug 25, 2010)

Poimen said:


> The problem with contemporary Christian music is the ideology that exists at its center, one that conflicts with the Protestant view of worship. Music has become such an important part of the worship that it has, in many cases, eclipsed the word centered focus of the preaching and administration of the sacraments.
> 
> Furthermore this 'music ministry' is not built on biblical terms and yet it has not only spawned a whole megachurch industry but has become a foreign element within worship itself. One scans the scriptures in vain to find music existing in such prominence in the lives of God's people in worship. The New Testament contains no instruction for our worship beyond singing together - there is no ministry or gift of music there beyond what we do together as the saints of the Lord (Ephesians 5:18,19; Colossians 3:16). The idea of music being a gift to individuals or groups of people within the church is entirely absent.
> 
> Thus, contrary to the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers, we have once again become spectators as the medieval church did with their performance fueled rights.


 
Amen, Amen, and Amen.

Especially this:



> One scans the scriptures in vain to find music existing in such prominence in the lives of God's people in worship. The New Testament contains no instruction for our worship beyond singing together - there is no ministry or gift of music there beyond what we do together as the saints of the Lord (Ephesians 5:18,19; Colossians 3:16). The idea of music being a gift to individuals or groups of people within the church is entirely absent.


----------



## Reformed Baptist (Aug 25, 2010)

No way I can read through every post. haha. But I wanted to say I have worshipped in a good Reformed Baptist Church, ARBCA, and now we are members at a non-denom, but semi-reformed church (for no bad reasons at all did we change, but mere geography) and the worship is contemporary. I don't like it. It's rather sissified, girlish music in my opinion. I see the ladies enjoying it alot. But I don't have to be singing to worship God. So, when they sing the "Jesus is my boyfriend" style music I just sit down and read my Bible. 

If they don't want me to try to force the psaltry and hymns only on them, then they shouldn't try to force their sissy music on me.


----------



## Pergamum (Aug 25, 2010)

What does "sissified" mean? Why is some worship reformed to as "feminine"?

When I read the Psalms, David seems perty emotional. Was he a sissy, too?


----------



## Zenas (Aug 25, 2010)

Them's fitin' words.


----------



## Reformed Baptist (Aug 25, 2010)

Pergamum said:


> What does "sissified" mean? Why is some worship reformed to as "feminine"?
> 
> When I read the Psalms, David seems perty emotional. Was he a sissy, too?



Seems femine to me. I am not making doctrinal statements. Just my "feelings" on the matter.


----------



## Willem van Oranje (Aug 25, 2010)

Pergamum said:


> What does "sissified" mean? Why is some worship reformed to as "feminine"?
> 
> When I read the Psalms, David seems perty emotional. Was he a sissy, too?


 
There is a difference between manly emotions and sissified emotions.


----------



## MW (Aug 25, 2010)

Nova said:


> But, are all psalms Christ's words, are all imprecatory psalms Messianic?


 
The New Testament quotes the Psalms as the words of Christ. On one occasion the New Testament specifically declares that a condition described by the Psalms did not apply to David at all. The New Testament never quotes the Psalms as if they are merely the words of David.


----------



## steadfast7 (Aug 25, 2010)

armourbearer said:


> Nova said:
> 
> 
> > But, are all psalms Christ's words, are all imprecatory psalms Messianic?
> ...


 
OK, but, my concern is not how certain psalms are used in the NT, but how all the psalms might (or might not) be used in our worship and daily prayer. As prayers of cursing of one's enemies, as originally intended, I think Jesus' sermon on the mount speaks against this.


----------



## steadfast7 (Aug 25, 2010)

Joshua said:


> Nova said:
> 
> 
> > armourbearer said:
> ...


 
"You have heard that it was said ... *but I tell you*"


----------



## MW (Aug 26, 2010)

Nova said:


> OK, but, my concern is not how certain psalms are used in the NT, but how all the psalms might (or might not) be used in our worship and daily prayer. As prayers of cursing of one's enemies, as originally intended, I think Jesus' sermon on the mount speaks against this.


 
We receive the Psalms because they belong to the canon of Christian Scripture. If there is something nonChristian about the Psalms then they should not be accepted into our canon. Let's be clear: there is a Jewish and a Christian Old Testament, as 2 Corinthians 3 teaches. Jews read a veiled Old Testament because they live in the age of the flesh and do not perceive Jesus Christ as the fulfilment of it. Christians read an unveiled Old Testament because we are liberated by the age of the Spirit and behold as in a glass the glory of the Lord.

The Sermon on the Mount teaches how private men are to deal with people who act against them on account of their Christian life and testimony. This teaching is exemplified in the Psalmist, who blessed those who cursed him and prayed for those who despitefully used him, Psalm 35:12-16, 141:5, and committed himself to God who judges righteously. The Sermon on the Mount also denounces the wicked and the hypocrite in terms that are just as severe as the imprecations of the Psalms, binding them over to the punishment of hell-fire and calling them dogs, swine, false prophets, and foolish men. There is nothing in the Sermon on the Mount which contradicts the teaching of the Psalms.


----------



## steadfast7 (Aug 26, 2010)

"you shall not murder" (Matt 5:21) was not written? "You shall not commit adultery" (v. 21) was not written? "Eye for an eye, and tooth for a tooth" was not written? (v. 38). Am I really the only person on this board that does not think that we ought to curse our enemies, even IF this seems warranted in the psalms? Am I too naive for taking seriously Jesus' words, 
[BIBLE]Matt 5:43-48[/BIBLE]
If you are able to curse another person in prayer while still obey the sermon of the mount, I commend you to that task. I personally do not think it possible.

---------- Post added at 09:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:13 PM ----------




armourbearer said:


> This teaching is exemplified in the Psalmist, who blessed those who cursed him and prayed for those who despitefully used him, Psalm 35:12-16, 141:5, and committed himself to God who judges righteously. The Sermon on the Mount also denounces the wicked and the hypocrite in terms that are just as severe as the imprecations of the Psalms, binding them over to the punishment of hell-fire and calling them dogs, swine, false prophets, and foolish men. There is nothing in the Sermon on the Mount which contradicts the teaching of the Psalms.


 
Although i've only now heard of this use of the psalms, I do not disagree with it per se. My only point from the beginning was that there is a difference between the psalmist's original attitude toward his enemies (justified though it was at the time) and our Lord's expectation of us today.

But may I ask, how did the psalmist bless those who cursed him?
and, did I at any time imply that the psalms are not scripture, are not a part of the canon, are not God's infallible word?


----------



## ChariotsofFire (Aug 26, 2010)

Pergamum said:


> What does "sissified" mean? Why is some worship reformed to as "feminine"?
> 
> When I read the Psalms, David seems perty emotional. Was he a sissy, too?


 
Our Christianity affects our whole being, not just our minds, and that's why emotion in singing is fantastic. Psalms and hymns ares full of emotion and should be sung with emotion. 

The problem with many praise and worship songs is the desire to create this emotion based on the music and shallow lyrics rather than true emotion. So it becomes emotion for the sake of emotion. This is probably what is meant by sissified type of emotion. Almost a romantic type of emotion that is not genuine and not Biblical. 

I think there are some good praise & worship songs, and I wouldn't mind singing them if we sing them as a congregation (rather than the man-centered entertainment fashion of praise teams). I also think there are even more good hymns and 150 fantastic psalms. All to be sung with emotion.


----------



## MW (Aug 26, 2010)

Nova said:


> But may I ask, how did the psalmist bless those who cursed him?
> and, did I at any time imply that the psalms are not scripture, are not a part of the canon, are not God's infallible word?


 
Please read the afore-quoted Psalms.

I don't think you implied it. It is a common misconception that the Old Testament is Jewish and the New Testament is Christian Scripture. Some of your remarks seemed to reflect that misconception, therefore I clarified that the Psalms belong to the canon of Christian Scripture as distinct from their place in the Jewish canon.


----------



## Austin (Aug 26, 2010)

J.R., do you attend Lakeside EPC?


----------



## louis (Aug 27, 2010)

My advice is not to go to that church if you are unable to change your heart and worship there. You are not going to be an encouragement to anyone there and certainly God cannot want you to be there without a right spirit.

Years ago while I was singing in the choir at our church, a member of the congregation complained about how bad we were—we were a relatively small choir and limited, but did the best we could. The person stated that he "could not worship while the choir sang." That was sad.

I often wonder when folks are unhappy about contemp. worship and roll out the same old talking points — shallow lyrics, repetition — is it really just not a style issue. Contemporary songs can be doctrinally robust, but they don't always have to be. There is beauty in simplicity as well. I can enjoy looking up at the cloud formations, but I can also enjoy seeing a cloudless blue sky and marvel at it. A simple song if doctrinally sound can be powerful by emphasizing an aspect of God's greatness—not every song has to tell the whole story. Many songs can come together to tell the story, just as each part of scripture has it's place in telling the story.


----------



## littlepeople (Aug 27, 2010)

Are you coming to the Luau tonight?


----------



## Austin (Aug 27, 2010)

You know, I had a thought about this as I was going to bed last night. A lot of these songs were what used to be called "Sunday school songs" and were to help children learn verses and give people simple devotional tunes to think of when they were down. I still remmeber a lot fo these from my Campus Crusade days & they come to mind when I'm down. As such, i think that they're fine, I just don;t think they should be a church's 'bread and butter' when it comes to music. I think that a blend that meets various people in various places is good. Just a thought...


----------



## Willem van Oranje (Aug 27, 2010)

Austin said:


> You know, I had a thought about this as I was going to bed last night. A lot of these songs were what used to be called "Sunday school songs" and were to help children learn verses and give people simple devotional tunes to think of when they were down. I still remmeber a lot fo these from my Campus Crusade days & they come to mind when I'm down. As such, i think that they're fine, I just don;t think they should be a church's 'bread and butter' when it comes to music. I think that a blend that meets various people in various places is good. Just a thought...



Now that you mention it, isn't that how this stuff made it into our worship music? People developed a taste for it as children and after they grew up they wanted it in the worship service. 

For this reason I just decided not to send our kids to VBS next year. I know a pastor who is using this phenomenon the other way, by singing plenty of metrical Psalms in Sunday School.


----------



## Austin (Aug 27, 2010)

I don't think that this is a reason not to have children's music for children's Sunday Schools. Instead, I would make it a priority to include children in the called worship service where they would learn hymns, etc _in addition to_ songs which are easier for them to sing as children. For instance, I would _*never*_ wish that my son had not learned "Jesus Loves Me" as a 2 year old. Nor would I begrudge him tunes like "Lazarus Was a Wee Little Man" b/c these songs have taught him Bible verses, have underscored Scripture lessons we've taught, etc. That said, a few of the other tunes he learned early were the Doxology, the Gloria Patri, and the Kyrie Eleison, in addition to an ever growing familiarity with general hymnody. (One of his favorites is "Be Thou My Vision," for instance.) 

As for skipping VBS... my pastoral advice would be to rethink that. VBS is a great way to get kids excited about church, as well as (if done properly) a way to help them learn evangelism. For instance, at every church I've served we have really emphasized to kids that their playmates who don't go to church could be invited to VBS to learn about Jesus, make new friends, and have fun. It has led to a greater exposure of the Gospel to unchurched families, and has even led some families to attend church & come to faith, not to mention that it has helped kids learn to do evangelism from avery young age. 

As for Psalms, don't forget that a lot of the Sunday School tunes (and even some of the happy-clappy tunes) are from portions of the Psalter. (e.g., "This Is The Day," "I Will Enter His Gates With Thanksgiving In My Heart," etc.) Also, others are portions of the NT or OT set to music ("He Has Shown Thee, O Man," "Sing Hosanna," "Rejoice In the Lord Always," "Isn't He Wonderful," etc.) 

Don't forget that the Gregorian chants, which were based on OT Temple music, were often short passages of Scripture set to acapella music. Just b/c the tunes are geared toward children does not mean that we can't teach it to our children, or even enjoy it ourselves. After all, it was the Lord Who said, "Let the little children come unto Me... for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven." 

Shalom,


----------



## Pergamum (Aug 28, 2010)

louis said:


> My advice is not to go to that church if you are unable to change your heart and worship there. You are not going to be an encouragement to anyone there and certainly God cannot want you to be there without a right spirit.
> 
> Years ago while I was singing in the choir at our church, a member of the congregation complained about how bad we were—we were a relatively small choir and limited, but did the best we could. The person stated that he "could not worship while the choir sang." That was sad.
> 
> I often wonder when folks are unhappy about contemp. worship and roll out the same old talking points — shallow lyrics, repetition — is it really just not a style issue. Contemporary songs can be doctrinally robust, but they don't always have to be. There is beauty in simplicity as well. I can enjoy looking up at the cloud formations, but I can also enjoy seeing a cloudless blue sky and marvel at it. A simple song if doctrinally sound can be powerful by emphasizing an aspect of God's greatness—not every song has to tell the whole story. Many songs can come together to tell the story, just as each part of scripture has it's place in telling the story.


 
Wow, was that person's name Barnabas ("son of encouragement")?


----------



## Jack K (Aug 28, 2010)

Austin said:


> As for Psalms, don't forget that a lot of the Sunday School tunes (and even some of the happy-clappy tunes) are from portions of the Psalter. (e.g., "This Is The Day," "I Will Enter His Gates With Thanksgiving In My Heart," etc.) Also, others are portions of the NT or OT set to music ("He Has Shown Thee, O Man," "Sing Hosanna," "Rejoice In the Lord Always," "Isn't He Wonderful," etc.)



Yup. On any given Sunday, I'm probably more likely to end up singing a few lines from a Psalm during our kids' Sunday school worship than I am in the main service. There's plenty of bad stuff out there for kids, but also lots of good stuff. It _is_ possible to do kids' worship and teaching time well and in a Reformed way, and have it be fun and active too, if you determine to do so.


----------



## louis (Aug 28, 2010)

Pergamum said:


> louis said:
> 
> 
> > My advice is not to go to that church if you are unable to change your heart and worship there. You are not going to be an encouragement to anyone there and certainly God cannot want you to be there without a right spirit.
> ...


 
Yeah, right? It was very hurtful and the choir director wound up leaving because of the way things were so poorly handled. 

When I read folks comparing contemporary praise songs to the little Sunday School ditties, it really shows a lack of knowledge of what the genre is currently offering. That is analogous to describing today's computers as a Commodore 64. Things have changed quite a bit folks. If one has made one's mind up about the style, it will be easy to seek out the worst of that genre and hold it up for ridicule. 

Here's a simple question: why should we not as God's people continue writing new music—the best possible music we can,lyrically, musically, across many genres? Should we not as part of the mighty cloud of witnesses testify? I say rather than discount the new as bad, we should support Christian artists, writers, musicians, etc. to create the best and elevate the arts for the glory of God and the advancement of His kingdom.


----------



## Austin (Aug 28, 2010)

Amen, Louis.


----------



## Scottish Lass (Aug 28, 2010)

louis said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > louis said:
> ...


----------



## louis (Aug 28, 2010)

Scottish Lass said:


> louis said:
> 
> 
> > Pergamum said:
> ...


----------



## Austin (Aug 28, 2010)

Why not have modern hymnody in called worship? Didn't Paul say that we should worship with "psalms & hymns & spiritual songs"? (And I don;t buy exegetically that these are three forms of psalms. Otherwise the 1st point is tautological.)


----------



## au5t1n (Aug 28, 2010)

Austin said:


> Why not have modern hymnody in called worship? Didn't Paul say that we should worship with "psalms & hymns & spiritual songs"? (And I don;t buy exegetically that these are three forms of psalms. Otherwise the 1st point is tautological.)


 
Because it makes far more sense for Paul to say, "psalms and hymns and hymns"?


----------



## Scottish Lass (Aug 28, 2010)

louis said:


> Scottish Lass said:
> 
> 
> > louis said:
> ...


----------



## Austin (Aug 28, 2010)

Plus, it doesn't say "Psalms, even hymns and spiritual songs. The Greek is "psalmois kai umnois kai hoidais pneumatikais." Note that "kai" is used in both places. And, while the lexical range of "kai" includes "even," "and," or "also," when they are in parallel like this the general grammatical interpretation is that they are intended to be in a threefold parallelism.


----------



## au5t1n (Aug 28, 2010)

Austin said:


> Plus, it doesn't say "Psalms, even hymns and spiritual songs. The Greek is "psalmois kai umnois kai hoidais pneumatikais." Note that "kai" is used in both places. And, while the lexical range of "kai" includes "even," "and," or "also," when they are in parallel like this the general grammatical interpretation is that they are intended to be in a threefold parallelism.


 
I don't think anyone thinks it means "even" here. The belief is that "psalms" is not a generic name for the whole book, but a specific category of songs within the book. At least that's my understanding.


----------



## Austin (Aug 28, 2010)

Two more thoughts: why doesn't the PB system recognize Greek & Hebrew type? And, it is my view that while psalmody is great, and should be a component of called worship music, to ascribe to exclusive psalmody is far more narrow than Paul's intent. Of course, this is an issue of our interpretation of the RPW. But I align with Frame, so there you go. 


(BTW: "EP" is "Evangelical Presbyterian, so stop stealing our initials! )

---------- Post added at 12:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:44 PM ----------

Austin: I know, but I believe, based upon an exegetical study, that this is unsupported. It's a red herring, in my educated opinion.

---------- Post added at 12:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:45 PM ----------

One more thought: why can't I "thank" my own opinions? After all, I'm a legend in my own mind! 

---------- Post added at 12:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:47 PM ----------

Plus, isn't this discriminatory against the schizophrenics among us?


----------



## au5t1n (Aug 28, 2010)

I "thank"ed you for your third post.


----------



## Austin (Aug 28, 2010)

Well do it some more. I'm so erudite and sophisticated in my brilliance.  Besides, we have the same name, so we have to stick together.


----------



## Marrow Man (Aug 28, 2010)

*Moderator Warning:* Please do not let this thread wander into the Exclusive Psalmody realm. There is a moderated forum for Exclusive Psalmody; you may make posts there if you wish to continue the discussion in that direction.


----------



## MW (Aug 29, 2010)

louis said:


> I would counter though that the arts belong in worship. A sermon is a work of art. Music is a work of art. The design of the church facility and sanctuary utilizes art and design. For us to rely solely on music from ages past is to affirm the artistry of that age while denying what God's people are capable of doing today. We might as well only preach sermons from days gone by then.


 
As you have noted, there is a kind of artistry in sermons, music, and church design, but it begs the question as to the kind of art which is utilised and to what purpose. One might take a look at the buildings which were built for Puritan worship in contrast to the ornate designs of the higher church party. The same applies to the structure of sermons and the way a simple preacher focuses on the Word and its application to human life while another might include numerous artificial devices which serve to do nothing more than please one's sense of intelligence. Now, applying this contrast to music, we have very clear examples both in medieval and modern churches as to what will happen when "art" is made an end in itself and pleasing the senses parades itself over the biblical mandate of "teaching and admonishing one another in psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs."


----------



## Willem van Oranje (Aug 29, 2010)

louis said:


> Scottish Lass said:
> 
> 
> > louis said:
> ...


----------



## Austin (Aug 30, 2010)

True, but in the end, isn't all a bit relativistic? I mean, as the Supreme Court said of p0rnography, "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it." Isn't this much the same? After all, I'm sure that people thought that the church music of the Reformation era was 'worldly.' And tonight at church, the tunes chosen were all from the 1920s-1950s. And if you're familiar with the music of those years you can't miss that everything from Fanny Crosby tunes to thinks like "Saved, Saved, Saved" were quite similar to popular music of the day.

---------- Post added at 10:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:55 PM ----------

As an aside, Derek Thomas once said in class at RTS that at his church in Belfast, N. Ireland his organist thought anything could be sanctified by being played slowly. (This guy also failed to practice, saying that to practice is pride, b/c the music when practiced and 'slick' is showy and brings attention to the musician. Of course, as Derek or one of the seminarians noted, poor playing draws more att'n to the musician...) 

Anyhow, just a thought.


----------



## louis (Aug 30, 2010)

armourbearer said:


> louis said:
> 
> 
> > I would counter though that the arts belong in worship. A sermon is a work of art. Music is a work of art. The design of the church facility and sanctuary utilizes art and design. For us to rely solely on music from ages past is to affirm the artistry of that age while denying what God's people are capable of doing today. We might as well only preach sermons from days gone by then.
> ...


 
I agree...within the structure of corporate worship, art should be employed as a tool, a mean to an end, not an end unto itself. But as Austin stated, when art is involved, there is always going to be interpretation. What some will categorize as "pleasing the senses and parading over the biblical mandate of teaching and admonishing one another in psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs", others may view as teaching, admonishing, etc. in a new and different way. That is why there is dissent and disagreement because we all view the requirements from differing viewpoints.

---------- Post added at 12:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:50 PM ----------




Willem van Oranje said:


> louis said:
> 
> 
> > Scottish Lass said:
> ...


----------



## jayce475 (Aug 30, 2010)

Willem van Oranje said:


> louis said:
> 
> 
> > Scottish Lass said:
> ...


----------



## Scottish Lass (Aug 30, 2010)

Um, what's emboldened in the previous two posts is not mine--can there be some editing to clear that up? I've already had to claim a quote of mine above that was attributed to Pergamum and now it's the reverse. Careful with the delete and highlight, y'all!


----------



## Marrow Man (Aug 30, 2010)

Austin said:


> True, but in the end, isn't all a bit relativistic? I mean, as the Supreme Court said of p0rnography, "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it." Isn't this much the same? After all, I'm sure that people thought that the church music of the Reformation era was 'worldly.' And tonight at church, the tunes chosen were all from the 1920s-1950s. And if you're familiar with the music of those years you can't miss that everything from Fanny Crosby tunes to thinks like "Saved, Saved, Saved" were quite similar to popular music of the day.


 
Actually, that's not quite true. The notion that Luther employed bar songs has been shown to be false (he and the Wesleys used "bar music," but that is different thing altogether). Earlier generations did not employ the popular music of their day as hymns. T. David Gordon demolishes that argument in _Why Johnny Can't Sing Hymns_. He points out that his father listened to big band and Benny Goodman -- but that did not become the music of hymns of the day. His own generation listened to The Who, but that did not make it into hymnbooks either.

Pick up a copy of the book. It's a good read.


----------



## Willem van Oranje (Aug 30, 2010)

> > I have yet to meet anyone, whether EP, traditionalist, or otherwise,who is not in favor of Christians composing new music for worship. The matter debated is not the date of origin of the music, but the criteria for appropriateness. *One side thinks that anything goes* while the other seeks to stay within the bounds of definable criteria of style.
> 
> 
> 
> Praise God that I don't know anyone who thinks that "anything goes." Is this hyperbole?


 
So tell me then, which musical styles would not be appropriate? There are indeed many people who seem to think that any style goes, if it is liked by the people singing it and they feel that it is personally meaningful to them. That's what I hear advocates of contemporary worship arguing.


----------



## Austin (Aug 30, 2010)

I think, as Louis said, that it depends on the audience. I would like someone to state what they think is out of counds, or in bounds, and then we could discuss. After all, to some people heavy metal might be appropriate, assuming good theology and singability. I am a big believer that singability is quite often a prerequisite to being appropriate. If the congregation can't sing it, then there's no point in using it. But, if it is singable, the genre of the music is more or less depentant upon the tastes of those in attendance. For instance, Fanny Crosby style music is inappropriate to people if the style gets in the way of the content. 

That said, there's quite a corpus of solid music that is, in my opinion, always appropriate, regardless of the audience. "Be Thou My Vision" or "How Great Thou Art" should be accessible to all generations.


----------



## JBaldwin (Aug 30, 2010)

Austin said:


> I think, as Louis said, that it depends on the audience. I would like someone to state what they think is out of counds, or in bounds, and then we could discuss. After all, to some people heavy metal might be appropriate, assuming good theology and singability. I am a big believer that singability is quite often a prerequisite to being appropriate. If the congregation can't sing it, then there's no point in using it. But, if it is singable, the genre of the music is more or less depentant upon the tastes of those in attendance. For instance, Fanny Crosby style music is inappropriate to people if the style gets in the way of the content.
> 
> That said, there's quite a corpus of solid music that is, in my opinion, always appropriate, regardless of the audience. "Be Thou My Vision" or "How Great Thou Art" should be accessible to all generations.



Good points. What is popular, in any generation, is not necessarily the best, and a lot of hymnals are full of songs that are difficult to sing. The Trinity Hymnal is a prime example of this. The words to the hymns are often very good, but they have become "unsingable" to a large portion of the church going population. 

In my church, we often end up singing some of the hymns with a slight blue-grass feel. This is because blue grass is what the locals are comfortable singing. This would never go in the churches closer to town and as a music leader, I would never suggest it in some circles.


----------



## Philip (Aug 30, 2010)

> The words to the hymns are often very good, but they have become "unsingable" to a large portion of the church going population.



Some are just unsingable period. There are good tunes and then there are bad tunes. The better tunes tend to be the ones written before 1800, written in the 20th century, or adapted from folk tunes and classical compositions.


----------



## jayce475 (Aug 30, 2010)

Austin said:


> I think, as Louis said, that it depends on the audience. I would like someone to state what they think is out of counds, or in bounds, and then we could discuss. After all, to some people heavy metal might be appropriate, assuming good theology and singability. I am a big believer that singability is quite often a prerequisite to being appropriate. If the congregation can't sing it, then there's no point in using it. But, if it is singable, the genre of the music is more or less depentant upon the tastes of those in attendance. For instance, Fanny Crosby style music is inappropriate to people if the style gets in the way of the content.
> 
> That said, there's quite a corpus of solid music that is, in my opinion, always appropriate, regardless of the audience. "Be Thou My Vision" or "How Great Thou Art" should be accessible to all generations.


 
Could we please have a distinction between music that is appropriate in worship that music that can be used in Christian songs may not necessarily be used in worship? I'm pretty sure hardly anyone would recommend Shai Linne's rap for worship service. Of course it has to be singable, otherwise there is no point to the singing. I would have thought that what we are debating is the spirit behind the songs and the appropriateness of the music. Singability has got nothing to do with that spirit, and all agree that appropriateness necessarily entails singability, so there is no contention about that at all.

---------- Post added at 09:41 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:37 AM ----------




JBaldwin said:


> Austin said:
> 
> 
> > I think, as Louis said, that it depends on the audience. I would like someone to state what they think is out of counds, or in bounds, and then we could discuss. After all, to some people heavy metal might be appropriate, assuming good theology and singability. I am a big believer that singability is quite often a prerequisite to being appropriate. If the congregation can't sing it, then there's no point in using it. But, if it is singable, the genre of the music is more or less depentant upon the tastes of those in attendance. For instance, Fanny Crosby style music is inappropriate to people if the style gets in the way of the content.
> ...


 
I agree that hymns that are too difficult to sing ought to be put aside. That doesn't mean that they ought to be put aside in favour of music that has a different spirit behind them. Anyway, what hymns have you found to be unsingable? We use our own compiled hymnals among the bible presbyterians in Singapore, and I haven't actually come across any that is unsingable. Not being particularly exciting, yes. Unsingable, really?


----------



## JBaldwin (Aug 30, 2010)

jayce475 said:


> Austin said:
> 
> 
> > I think, as Louis said, that it depends on the audience. I would like someone to state what they think is out of counds, or in bounds, and then we could discuss. After all, to some people heavy metal might be appropriate, assuming good theology and singability. I am a big believer that singability is quite often a prerequisite to being appropriate. If the congregation can't sing it, then there's no point in using it. But, if it is singable, the genre of the music is more or less depentant upon the tastes of those in attendance. For instance, Fanny Crosby style music is inappropriate to people if the style gets in the way of the content.
> ...



I don't advocate music that has a different spirit behind it. As has been said many times on this thread and elsewhere, there are a lot of more singable tunes now available to the older hymns. We sing many of them in our church. 

When it comes to the spirit of the music, I can agree that there should be some consideration to the style of music. What I don't like to see is an insistance "old" music just because it is old. We sang two beautiful hymns in church just this past week which were written in the last few years. While the style is contemporary, the tunes are fresh, the words are practically a sermon in themselves, and easy to sing. Give me that any day over a hymn which is written in old English, with a tune that jumps all over the place or repeats the same three chords 10 tens in one verse.

---------- Post added at 08:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:31 PM ----------

And yes, lots of old hymns have one or two chords repeated over and over again.


----------



## Austin (Aug 30, 2010)

At my last pastoral position many of the members had an incredibly difficult time singing music with syncopation. Unfortunately, some of my favorite RUF-type hymns have syncopation, so that was too bad. As another example, who hasn't noticed how many of the early 20th Century tunes are all keyed for women? Whenever I see hymns that have the notation at the top of the score, I groan inwardly. Of course, the musicians _could_ lower the register, but how many do? 

As for other styles of music, I'm not sure that any are inimical to being used for Christian musical styles. So much of it is subjective to the individuals involved. To take a couple of examples, when I was at RTS, we had a lot of African students. Whenever they participated in selecting & leading the singing, the tunes were always more upbeat than any you'd see in any PCA church in central Mississippi. (And they clapped and danced... a definite no-no in most Mississippian PCA churches in general!) But though their music was viewed in some cases as 'violating the RPW' by some American PCA guys, the music was what was common in African Anglican churches. 

On the other hand, I'm sure that one could find examples of hymns set to tunes derived from Arabic, African, or South American sources that most Americans would see no problem with. BUT, for Christians coming out of Islam or African or S. American paganism, those tunes would be _*wholly*_ inappropriate. 

Could it not be that for many of us Christians in the West that we find certain styles offensive, in bad taste, or 'inappropriate for worship' b/c of our own cultural baggage? After all, when I was a new Christian I sold all of my old music (Doors, Led Zeppelin, Aerosmith, etc) and glomed on to hymns b/c of the connotations that my old musical tastes had for me. Today, however, I can listen to a lot of popular music, rock, etc w/o the baggage. 

In my mind, much of the problem is in the category of meat offered to idols. If it causes one brother to have his conscience violated, I won't do it around him. But if, however, it doesn't cause violation, but just offense, to his conscience, then the weaker brother needs to grow up and learn to value what his stronger brothers enjoy. 

Just a few thoughts...


----------



## JBaldwin (Aug 30, 2010)

Austin, thank you for those thoughts. This is what I was trying to say. The syncopated RUF songs work in our church, because the majority of our memership has been exposed to thise type of music for a long time, and as I mentioned above, we have a bit of a blue grass flavor a lot of the time. They would not work in some communities. And I am with you on the high woman's keys. That goes back to the days when congregations sang in parts. Most folks can't sing parts anymore.


----------

