# Lifting hands, expressing emotion ?



## LifeInReturn

I was talking to my friend Brandon about the disconnect between sound doctrine and worship. In most PCA churches, the teaching is on point, but the worship is ‘dry’. By ‘dry’, I mean there is no lifting of hands, no moving, just standing there holding your hymn book and singing along with everyone. At the charismatic churches, the teaching is not always on point, but the worship is. Hands are raised, knees are bent. Personally, I am a ‘lift hands’ type of girl when singing, praying, and worshipping. I kneel and sometimes tears are shed, but if I were to do that at my current church (a PCA), I’d be looked at as if I just grew an arm out of my forehead. Where is the ‘happy medium’ ? One of the many things I admire about *Epiphany Fellowship* (in Philly) is that there is a beautiful merge of the two - doctrinally sound teaching and heartfelt worship. I’d love to be able to be in church with my hands raised while singing hymns without being looked at in an odd fashion. In this area, I think the church lacks… no proper marriage of the two. Emotionalism has been so pimped and abused that anytime emotion is expressed in a worship setting in a conservative church, it’s looked down upon. That’s a very sad thing. I’ve been in pentecostal / charismatic churches where people have been running around the church, screaming at the top of their lungs… I’ve been hit in the back of my head before by a woman sitting behind me who ‘caught the spirit’. I believe that God is a God of order and not confusion, so I think those acts have cast a bad light on true heartfelt appreciation of the Lord.

Thoughts ?


----------



## Theoretical

The austerity of true Reformed worship is different than just a simply restrained "traditional" service at another branch of Christianity. I've been reading Darryl Hart's _Recovering Mother Kirk _(which I got from PCPC's bookstore) and its really helped point out a lot of things about the uniquely rich Reformed heritage of worship. Many others on the board far more experienced will be able to give you a better idea of the distinctives. 

One thing in particular that comes to mind is just how alien and trans-cultural Reformed worship is, precisely because of its fixed basis.


----------



## Theoretical

Oh and I'm coming from exactly the opposite perspective as you - I've long been a big fan of stodgy traditionalist, high-church worship, but as I've been reforming I've found inadequacies in that too, as the differences between "traditional" and "reformed" are often profound.

The liturgical Reformed Calvinist approach to worship stands against both traditionalism and more emotive forms of worship, as near I can tell.


----------



## No Longer A Libertine

I and many others open our arms for the benediction and blessing, not an essential to the faith and completely at the discretion of the believer.


----------



## panta dokimazete

> The Reformed are often guilty of taking a short splice of church history and trying to make it normative for Christians of all ages as far as external mannerism.



, Trevor.

Make that ages *and* cultures...


----------



## BlackCalvinist

Finally.  A constructive convo on this topic. 

I'll post here 2morrow when I have a little more time.


----------



## ReformedWretch

Good points Trevor, I concur!


----------



## jolivetti

As part of the conversation, I would like to challenge the hidden assumption that "quiet" or "reserved" (or more derogatorily, "dry") necessarily means "unemotional." Until that is proven, this conversation is still mostly dealing with preferences based on personality rather than Biblical commands. 

For example, though I often teach and remind the flock that the Lord's Supper is a time of great celebration, it remains a very quiet time. Am I lying? Are we doing something wrong? I really don't believe so, because joy can just as easily be quiet as loud, still as active.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

trevorjohnson said:


> Most of this comes down to taste, custom and cultural tradition. A Scotsman is not going to worship like an Indonesian or African. Any appeal to an exclusively "Reformed" posture of worship is mere culture being mistaken for Gospel.
> 
> The Reformed are often guilty of taking a short splice of church history and trying to make it normative for Christians of all ages as far as external mannerism. The Puritans were childen of their culture and day also. Much of what they did externally was not Christian merely but very European and British, to include the tight lipped un-emotionalism of many.
> 
> 
> I see lots of emotion in Scripture.
> 
> My Indonesian friends often raise their hands for worship (lifting up holy hands). Those from Muslim backgrounds pray with extended hands palm up as in their formerly Muslim ways. They also look up at the heavens instead of down at the dirt when they pray...which, really, makes more sense. Why do we look down or fold our hands palms together. WHy not lay prostrate on the floor or bow our knee to the Father (I think we do not kneel for prayer because the early Reformers were anti-Catholic and did not even want to appear as a kneeling Catholic).



I'm not willing to call simplicity in worship a Western thing Trevor. If anything, the imperial Western style that is exported as normative these days is praise choruses and not simple hymns. I'll be honest with you, if we could find a form that could unite the cultures in its simplicity rather than make Sunday mornings a place segregated by music preferences then that would be my ideal. This ain't even an American-Indonesian or American-Japanese thing but it's also predominantly a Black-White thing and Old-Young thing.

Now I'm not against a practice merely because the Reformers removed it early on due to the fact that it reminded people of idolatry. I just would love to have a simple worship music that nobody could say "...this is my culture...."

I used to be uncomfortable with plain hymn singing for instance and missed some of the "experience" (i.e. lifting hands). I now go to a Church that sings 7-11 songs (7 words repeated 11 times with increasing intensity). I miss songs that have doctrine and express real truth in them. As I was teaching on the Psalms yesterday, Worship begins when we understand what God has done and then our hearts overflow in doxology. I don't think the cultural form is the principal thing.


----------



## ReformedWretch

I normally stay out of these things because, well, bcause I seldom find them encouraging. They always start out well and start going too far towards arguments in the end but I'll break my normal stance and comment again.

Many here praise the Psalms, and well they should! I dare say however that some of you who do so may have seen King David as breaking some "principal" in his worship style, and mannerisms.


----------



## BJClark

LifeInReturn,


I felt compelled to raise my hands in worship, and I didn't know how 'other people' would look at me either, but something that really weighed down on my heart concerning that was...I was making other peoples opinions and what THEY would think, more important than what the Holy Spirit laid on my heart to do.

So I started raising my hands in worship when singing as I felt led to do so, a few of the elderly in our church (70's and 80's) have made comments to me, nothing negative, just they had felt led to do the same, but were concerned about how 'others' would percieve them. I just hugged them and let them know, if they feel compelled to raise thier hands in praise for all God has done for them, then raise their hands in praise to God, that IS why we are there anyway, right? to Worship God! Not other people. 

But something to consider, if they are looking at you, their focus is on you, and not God. Which is something the Holy Spirit has convicted me of, am I there looking for the approval of men or to worship God?

you never know, others in your congregation may have the same fear you do, "what will 'other people' think if I raise my hands in praise to God when I sing?" Which is ultimately the fear of man, and not God. And you never know, if you lift your hands, if others have the same fear, it may encourage them to overcome the same fear of mans opinion.


----------



## calgal

BJClark said:


> LifeInReturn,
> 
> 
> I felt compelled to raise my hands in worship, and I didn't know how 'other people' would look at me either, but something that really weighed down on my heart concerning that was...I was making other peoples opinions and what THEY would think, more important than what the Holy Spirit laid on my heart to do.
> 
> So I started raising my hands in worship when singing as I felt led to do so, a few of the elderly in our church (70's and 80's) have made comments to me, nothing negative, just they had felt led to do the same, but were concerned about how 'others' would percieve them. I just hugged them and let them know, if they feel compelled to raise thier hands in praise for all God has done for them, then raise their hands in praise to God, that IS why we are there anyway, right? to Worship God! Not other people.
> 
> *But something to consider, if they are looking at you, their focus is on you, and not God. Which is something the Holy Spirit has convicted me of, am I there looking for the approval of men or to worship God?
> *
> you never know, others in your congregation may have the same fear you do, "what will 'other people' think if I raise my hands in praise to God when I sing?" Which is ultimately the fear of man, and not God. And you never know, if you lift your hands, if others have the same fear, it may encourage them to overcome the same fear of mans opinion.



 The focus should be on worshipping God, not on "look at them!"  As long as there is effective preaching of the Word and a proper mindset in the church, raising hands is a non issue for us.


----------



## Greg

jolivetti said:


> As part of the conversation, I would like to challenge the hidden assumption that "quiet" or "reserved" (or more derogatorily, "dry") necessarily means "unemotional." Until that is proven, this conversation is still mostly dealing with preferences based on personality rather than Biblical commands.



Good point Jerod. By nature, I'm one of those that is more of a reserved and laid-back person. So...much of the way my worship will reflect that to an onlooker. A person will look at someone who is quiet by way of the external "appearance" of their worship and not see the sweet worship and communion that they are having with their heavenly Father.

Thank God He sees the hearts of men!


----------



## Puritan Sailor

trevorjohnson said:


> Most of this comes down to taste, custom and cultural tradition. A Scotsman is not going to worship like an Indonesian or African. Any appeal to an exclusively "Reformed" posture of worship is mere culture being mistaken for Gospel.
> 
> The Reformed are often guilty of taking a short splice of church history and trying to make it normative for Christians of all ages as far as external mannerism. The Puritans were childen of their culture and day also. Much of what they did externally was not Christian merely but very European and British, to include the tight lipped un-emotionalism of many.
> 
> 
> I see lots of emotion in Scripture.
> 
> My Indonesian friends often raise their hands for worship (lifting up holy hands). Those from Muslim backgrounds pray with extended hands palm up as in their formerly Muslim ways. They also look up at the heavens instead of down at the dirt when they pray...which, really, makes more sense. Why do we look down or fold our hands palms together. WHy not lay prostrate on the floor or bow our knee to the Father (I think we do not kneel for prayer because the early Reformers were anti-Catholic and did not even want to appear as a kneeling Catholic).



Trevor, I normally agree with you on these cultural issues, but your assessment here of the Reformed tradition is overly simplistic. When you study the Reformation, the one thing you cannot label Reformed worship is "western." They rejected the cultural expressions of worship in their own day. The Reformers were top notch patristic scholars. Calvin could quote them extensively from memory. The number one goal of the Reformation (next to justification) was the restoration of true worship. Their goal was not to make a new worship form but to return the church back to it's original worship in the early church, an ancient diverse non-Western culture. They desired to purge the man-made traditions of Rome (i.e. a product of western culture). We may argue how successful their attempt was at this. But they were not trying something new. They were trying to get back to the old and true. Hughes Oliphant Old's book on The Patristic Roots of Reformed Worship is a handy resource for this.


----------



## CDM

*What do you suppose is meant here*

1 Timothy 2:8

KJV


> I will therefore that *men* pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.



NASB


> Therefore I want the *men* in every place to pray, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and dissension.



NIV


> I want *men* everywhere to lift up holy hands in prayer, without anger or disputing.



ESV


> I desire then that in every place the *men* should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling;



YLT


> I wish, therefore, that *men* pray in every place, lifting up kind hands, apart from anger and reasoning;



Curious: Is this everywhere (outside of public worship)? Why are *men* exorted to do this? Does this exclude women?


----------



## Coram Deo

Good point that I was going to bring out.. The Greek word there really means "Man" gender exclusive...

I also did a study on this recently, I will have to find my notes... But here is a summary...

1. Is does not say "Lift up holy hands during Singing", It says Praying... Different element of worship.
2. It says Men, Not Woman..
3. Old testament scriptures shows only Man lifting up holy hands, or the Elders lifting them up for the people... 8 out 10 ratio shows it to be the elders who lift up the hands...
4. It is a gesture for prayer, not emotionalism..

5. There is a big difference between heart felt worship, and carnal emotionalism in Pentacostal circles... Worship is in Spirit and Truth....
Spirit is a spiritual worship that does not need physical adornment in worship like the temple. It could also mean worship in the heart with a spirit filled heart.. and Truth, by the truth and by only the truth of scripture.. Do not add nor take away what God has commanded for Worship...

There is a emotionalism that comes with Spirit filled heart in worship.. I feel it all the time when I sing the Psalms, or Pray, and even during the sermon. It does not mean it has to have a showy feely external sign with it....

Coram Deo
Michael

P.S. I am sorry if I sound alittle hard on this topic, I have had to deal with this topic in more recent times with some of our Reformed Baptist circles going Charismania along with Post Modernism.....





mangum said:


> 1 Timothy 2:8
> Curious: Is this everywhere (outside of public worship)? Why are *men* exorted to do this? Does this exclude women?


----------



## Coram Deo

I believe the worship of the bible to be transcultural... I do not believe culture should ever fit in worship..... David Wells said it best... Those who are most relevant to the culture are those who are most irrelevant to the culture, and those who are irrelevant to the culture are those who has most to say to the culture...

As for bowing of the knees.. I see nothing wrong with that.. It is biblical and I am for one am all for kneelers in church... So was the Reformers and some of the Puritans....

Puritans practiced lifting up holy hands when their elders prayed the elders lifted up holy hands for the church...

As for prostrating, it is never mentioned for public worship in the bible only private worship.. When one is so grieved for what they have done... never in public worship...

Hey, I am all for austerity, Lets bring it on.....  


Coram Deo,
Michael

P.S. As for Holy Kiss, I should study that one alittle more, but I have a severe weak immune system... So does that mean I should kiss every brethren and get everything they have and maybe just maybe die...  





trevorjohnson said:


> The NT speaks of raising holy hands, of bowing the knee. The Bible even speaks of prostrating one's self before the Lord. Weeping and grieving and very visible expressions of joy are common in the Bible, but Reformation era Europe did not see much of this as fit. England particularly values austerity and a stiff upper lip.
> 
> Instead of lifting our hands and our eyes to heaven, instead, we stand stock still or close the eyes and look at our feet.
> 
> Instead of greeting one another with a holy kiss, we give a quick handshake and a few social niceties.


----------



## Ravens

I question the identification of "austere and orderly" with Western.

Without going in to overabundant detail (and I guess I'm not an expert, more of a layman's interest in Northern European pre-Christian religions), these "Western" peoples (at least the ones being referred to) were primarily made up of Teutons and Celts. The same Germanic tribes that worshipped Woden, that frothed themselves up into berserkergang, practiced seidhr (shamanism), ecstatically danced for the Byzantine king (we suppose), and had long mead fests of boasting and drinking. 

Greece and Rome had flourishing mystery cults and what not at the time of Christianity, and gods who were certainly anything but staid and complacent.

So when you look at Reformation Europe, or patristic worship, maybe you should think, "Christianity transformed these barbarous peoples, gave them a respect for the true and living God, because such order in worship was certainly not natural to them" more than "white people are so unemotional, they really don't know how to worship like we do." And by that I am not defending Caucasians, just order in worship.

I guess its a chicken and the egg thing. I just don't see much respectful posturing and order in worship when I read about indigenous European faith and praxis.


----------



## Ravens

> So does that mean I should kiss every brethren and get everything they have and maybe just maybe die...



If you were a bit more Purpose Driven you would consider the above to be all joy, and nothing more. I guess you're just one of those "carnal Christians."


----------



## ReformedWretch

Where would kissing each other fit in with our manliness?


----------



## Coram Deo

JDWiseman said:


> If you were a bit more Purpose Driven you would consider the above to be all joy, and nothing more. I guess you're just one of those "carnal Christians."




   

Nay, I just prefer bringing back the old fashion austere Old World Europrean bowing and curtseying.. Saves from all the germs...


----------



## satz

> 1 Corinthians 14:16 Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?



Here is a verse I found interesting. It seems even in a chapter where he is enforcing orderliness in the worship, Paul seems to imply that spontaeneous 'Amens!' during the service would not be inappropriate.

I guess I agree with those who have said that reverence and fear for God need not equal to stiff formality.


----------



## Davidius

Public worship is not about our individual devotion and piety. In the modern church everything has become about "me and Jesus" and "how I express myself to him." Among other things, this is why the RPW has been all but destroyed. In public worship we gather to hear from God and respond to him as an organized unit. Letting individuals in the congregation express their devotion however they want in the pews leads to a fragmented body worshipping "on their own" instead of with everyone around them, which can be distracting and take away from the unification of the worshipping body of saints. I agree with earlier comments about certain expressions being perfectly fine for private worship. I also agree that one can have an emotional response to God's word without having to lift his or her hands or kneel when everyone else around them is not doing so.


----------



## Davidius

trevorjohnson said:


> As for prostrating one's self, how do you prove that it is only appropriate in private worship? I agree that it seems more fitting, but what if it fit in with cultural patterns somewhere in the world. I know some former Muslims that put their face to the ground as in the Muslim way still when they pray. This is a form of prostration.



Perhaps prostration need to be restricted to private worship, but if we're going to do it in the public assembly couldn't we have a time when the entire congregation prostrates (or kneels) and prays (see my above comment)? When a few people here and there are doing their own thing it detracts from the purpose of unified public worship. Also, the fact that something may fit in with cultural patterns in the world is obviously not a reason to incorporate that act into Christian worship. I'm sure you know this, but I just wanted to state it again. The issue of prostration, as you've already acknowledged, just happens to be one thing we share.


----------



## Coram Deo

1. But every example in scripture either shows All "Man" in the old testament lifting up their hands while praying (Never woman) and they do it in one accord never as a single man or the elders in the old testament do it for the people... Scripture Interpret Scripture... 1 Timothy can not be pulled out of context of other Scripture....

2. It was never presumably during songs.. Only Prayer.. Old and New Testaments testify...

3. About kneeling... Sad but true... We need to practice more biblical gestures while praying...

4. As for prostrating, scripture only shows examples of it during private worship, never public.


Finally, as for austerity, I like what Pastor Al Martin from Trinity Baptist Church of Montville said during his Sermon on Worship.. Solemn JOY, and EXBURANT Solemnity.. (Psalm 2, and Hebrews 12:28). Rejoice with Tembling, and Reverance with Awe...

Michael

P.S. I also totally agree with what he said in his Conclusion... "Brethren, Resist unto blood any effort to profane God's Worship even at the other edges of it's purity and it's Sanctity" RESIST UNTO BLOOD...  





trevorjohnson said:


> Thunaer:
> 
> The Puritan elders lifted their hands and even now many pastors raise their hands during the benediction, but this is not what is primarily being addressed. What is being mentioned seems to be the laymen raising their hands. Presumably usually during songs or prayer.
> 
> Also, it appears that for the most part kneeling did get left by the wayside among the Presbyterians, though I am sure some still did it.
> 
> As for prostrating one's self, how do you prove that it is only appropriate in private worship? I agree that it seems more fitting, but what if it fit in with cultural patterns somewhere in the world. I know some former Muslims that put their face to the ground as in the Muslim way still when they pray. This is a form of prostration.
> 
> 
> WHen you say that you are for austerity are you merely stating your tastes, or are you in some way stating that an austere form of worship is more biblical than an exuberant form of worship?


----------



## raekwon

satz said:


> Here is a verse I found interesting. It seems even in a chapter where he is enforcing orderliness in the worship, Paul seems to imply that spontaeneous 'Amens!' during the service would not be inappropriate.
> 
> I guess I agree with those who have said that reverence and fear for God need not equal to stiff formality.



Funny you should say that . . . a couple of years ago, when we first started visiting the church we're now members of, I would occasionally toss an "Amen" in there when there was a particularly good or glorious point made during the sermon, as had been my practice for years before in C&MA and SBC churches. I don't do it so much anymore (ie: never). I guess the eerie silence afterward stifled me.  

I've now resorted to the Presbyterian equivalent: a pensive look, coupled with a nod and a scratching of my chin.  Perhaps I can bring the "Amen" back . . .


----------



## Davidius

raekwon said:


> I've now resorted to the Presbyterian equivalent: a pensive look, coupled with a nod and a scratching of my chin.  .



Now that deserves an


----------



## Ravens

I haven't throught the "hands" matter fully through, but personally I don't see a terrible problem with someone raising their hands in a service. However, it does tend to draw attention to them, and more often than not (JMO), such things are "carryovers" from an evangelical and or charismatic upbringing, that the person probably wouldn't have instituted on their own, had they not been raised in that manner.

But there's a vast difference between everyone assuming order in worship, and wondering whether that order should include hand-raising or not, and, conversely, labelling order as "Western" or "European", while "exuberance" and what not is somehow "non-Western" or "non-European". I fail to see how that case could be made based on history, and what we know about the gods and praxis of native European faiths. "Order" is primarily _Christian_, and non-order is, in my opinion, pagan. 

As long as that red herring is done away with, then the "hand" issue is probably a very small one. But there's a vast difference between raising one's hand and whirling, twirling, banner waving, dancing, passing out, etc. And some of the arguments (cultural relativity, "that's your opinion of order") that are used in favor of hand raising, could also be used in favor of the latter.


----------



## Poimen

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> Public worship is not about our individual devotion and piety. In the modern church everything has become about "me and Jesus" and "how I express myself to him." Among other things, this is why the RPW has been all but destroyed. In public worship we gather to hear from God and respond to him as an organized unit. Letting individuals in the congregation express their devotion however they want in the pews leads to a fragmented body worshipping "on their own" instead of with everyone around them, which can be distracting and take away from the unification of the worshipping body of saints. I agree with earlier comments about certain expressions being perfectly fine for private worship. I also agree that one can have an emotional response to God's word without having to lift his or her hands or kneel when everyone else around them is not doing so.



Thank you. The issue comes down to corporate worship vs. private worship. The scriptures are covenantal; they address the body and the body worships together not seperately. 

If people want to raise their hands I have no problem with that, provided they do so as a group and not because they feel like it.


----------



## Coram Deo

Trevor,

I think you are missing the point... It says only man and the scripture tells us together or not at all or the elder does it during prayer... plus it is not during singing but prayer...

As for a dress code... I am all for it...  I believe we should all dress in the best clothing we have, NOT street clothing or casual wear.... Think of it this way... What are YOU going to wear if you have been invited in front of a King or President... Your very best suit and tie, or Dress for the ladies....

Now let me ask you, How much more so to dress in your best to go in front of the King of the Universe.....

It is not about show to other people, it is respect for the King of Kings....

I will fight the preference and taste belief to my dying breath.. I have seen it, and at it's worst.... Preference and taste has no room in the worship of God, except maybe circumstances i.e microphones, lights, Heating and Ac, carpet..... but even then we should make the church feel like a church... i.e. Pews vs. chairs, chancel vs. stage.. What is the best in the light of Nature, according to our confessions... I think the light of nature shows us church should be different even in the circumstances.. Pews, chancel... After all are we not ascending to the throne of heaven in the presence of the Lord of Lords.. Lets make church feel lofty then the world around us as long as we do not start adding things against the RPW, i.e. images, statues, etc...

Michael



trevorjohnson said:


> If you all want conformity in worship, why not issue a dress code too?
> 
> 
> There are some matters up to the individual conscience. The problem of our modern church is not people preferring different expressions of worship, it is poor teaching.
> 
> There has always been a variety of ways in which worship is expressed. The church body IS a unified whole, one body in Spirit and in doctrine. We do listen and respond to God in worship. This isn't always going to look the same. One stiff Calvinist will scratch his beard, another will nod his head, another will grunt if not say an amen. Unless there is a set of rules regulating total silence, people will respond in different ways. In the end it almost always comes down to preference and taste and is extra-biblical matters of taste almost always comes into play.
> 
> *If you all want to get all Regulative Principle on me and want the whole church body to do the same thing, then let's make an argument that we MUST lift our hands during worship* - if you want conformity.
> 
> If you want to obey Scripture and not do your own thing then you MUST lift your hands. In the absence of Scriptures that say do not lift holy hands and the presence of many Scriptures that say, liftup holy hands, then we are thus obligated to lift holy hands:
> 
> Solomon stood before the altar of the Lord in the presence of all the assembly of Israel and spread out his hands toward heaven…”(1 Kings 8:22; c.f. vs. 54; 2 Chr. 6:12-13).
> 
> “I stretch out my hands to you; my soul thirsts for you like a parched land” (Psalm 143:6).
> 
> “Lift your hands to him for the lives of your children” (Lam. 2:19; c.f. Ps. 44:20; Lam. 1:17).
> 
> “When you spread out your hands, I will hide my eyes from you; even though you make many prayers, I will not listen; your hands are full of blood” (Isa. 1:15).
> 
> “Let us test and examine our ways, and return to the Lord! Let us lift up our hearts and hands to God in heaven” (Lam. 3:40-41).
> 
> Leviticus 9:22 Aaron lifted his hands over the Israelites to bless them.
> 
> Jesus lifted his hands over his disciples to bless them just before he ascended (Luke 24:50).
> 
> Psalm 63:4 “So I will bless you as long as I live; in your name I will lift up my hands.”
> 
> “lift up your hands in the sanctuary and bless the Lord” (Psalm 134:2, NKJV)!
> 
> “Let my prayer be counted as incense before you, and the lifting up of my hands as the evening sacrifice” (Psalm 141:2).
> 
> 
> 
> And add to that numerous NT verses. It seems that the appropriate posture for prayerful public worship and blessing was the lifting of hands in the air. Nowhere is this rescinded or contradcited in the NT - therefore, better start warming up those shoulder muscles!


----------



## Poimen

trevorjohnson said:


> Poimen:
> 
> So you would be okey if the whole church raised their hands..not because they felt like it..but because it was a matter of duty?
> 
> Am I missing something or does being "Reformed" mean that we only engage the brain and not the emotions?
> 
> Worship should be emotional. Not driven by emotion mind you, but expressive of emotion. By all means, if raising of hands is biblical...do it because you feel like it!



That would be a good start. If the scriptures command for us to raise our hands in worship is normative for all times and places then yes it would be a matter of duty. Would I prefer that the members were doing it out of love for God in the keeping of His commandments? No; I would want them to do both! But I most emphatically would not want them to do something because they felt like it. (cf. 1 Samuel 13:12)

I never said that being Reformed means that we only engage our brain and not our emotions and I don't think anyone else is arguing for that either. In fact I do believe that our emotions should be involved in worship since the whole man (heart, soul, mind and strength) as the law and our Lord teach us is to love God, but that has next to nothing to do with feeling something and thus acting upon it in worship. Any feeling we have must be guided by the Word of God which demands (among other things) that worship be covenantal as I pointed out in my original post. 

But perhaps you and I are just misunderstanding each other in the semantics of the debate?


----------



## MrMerlin777

If it's only mentioned for prayer, what about those songs that lyrically are prayers? I personally consider alot of the singing I do in worship prayer as well as singing a song. In the senario that raising hands is only done in prayer would this qualify?

Just thrown in for consideration.


----------



## raekwon

MrMerlin777 said:


> If it's only mentioned for prayer, what about those songs that lyrically are prayers? I personally consider alot of the singing I do in worship prayer as well as singing a song. In the senario that raising hands is only done in prayer would this qualify?
> 
> Just thrown in for consideration.



Glad I wasn't the only one thinking that.


----------



## MrMerlin777

raekwon said:


> Glad I wasn't the only one thinking that.




 cheers


----------



## Puritan Sailor

JDWiseman said:


> I question the identification of "austere and orderly" with Western.
> 
> Without going in to overabundant detail (and I guess I'm not an expert, more of a layman's interest in Northern European pre-Christian religions), these "Western" peoples (at least the ones being referred to) were primarily made up of Teutons and Celts. The same Germanic tribes that worshipped Woden, that frothed themselves up into berserkergang, practiced seidhr (shamanism), ecstatically danced for the Byzantine king (we suppose), and had long mead fests of boasting and drinking.
> 
> Greece and Rome had flourishing mystery cults and what not at the time of Christianity, and gods who were certainly anything but staid and complacent.
> 
> So when you look at Reformation Europe, or patristic worship, maybe you should think, "Christianity transformed these barbarous peoples, gave them a respect for the true and living God, because such order in worship was certainly not natural to them" more than "white people are so unemotional, they really don't know how to worship like we do." And by that I am not defending Caucasians, just order in worship.
> 
> I guess its a chicken and the egg thing. I just don't see much respectful posturing and order in worship when I read about indigenous European faith and praxis.



That is an excellent observation. Much to reflect on...


----------



## BJClark

calgal;



> The focus should be on worshipping God, not on "look at them!"  As long as there is effective preaching of the Word and a proper mindset in the church, raising hands is a non issue for us.



This is the way our church looks at it too, it is a non-issue, even our pastors lift their hands on occassion while singing!!

There are also times when people begin to clap along with the music.

What I would REALLY love to hear though, and I'll have to see if they recorded it, was at our recent Father/Son breakfast where they had over 100 father/sons present singing in worship together--the Music minister stopped playing the piano to fix his microphone and the men continued to sing...he said He didn't want to start playing again because it sounded SO Beautiful hearing ONLY the voices of the men singing!!


----------



## BlackCalvinist

thunaer said:


> Trevor,
> 
> I think you are missing the point... It says only man and the scripture tells us together or not at all or the elder does it during prayer... plus it is not during singing but prayer...
> 
> As for a dress code... I am all for it...  I believe we should all dress in the best clothing we have, NOT street clothing or casual wear.... Think of it this way... What are YOU going to wear if you have been invited in front of a King or President... Your very best suit and tie, or Dress for the ladies....
> 
> Now let me ask you, How much more so to dress in your best to go in front of the King of the Universe.....
> 
> It is not about show to other people, it is respect for the King of Kings....l



I've heard that same argument before on the Reformed Baptist Discussion List. The person who answered it (and I'm paraphrasing) simply pointed out that there were no 'special robes' that the common folk wore on Saturdays. Dressing up is a _western_ tradition. Not a Biblical precedent or command.

Another example of culture vs scriptural mandate. 

A while ago, my pastor did a missions trip to Africa. Much of the music in some of the churches, some of you would have problems with, as it incorporates drumming along with the singing and dancing. But folk are very solemn when they do it, very serious and things they do, they do together as a congregation.

So there's order.  The right attitude is there.  There is reverence.


----------



## BlackCalvinist

BJClark said:


> the Music minister stopped playing the piano to fix his microphone and the men continued to sing...he said He didn't want to start playing again because it sounded SO Beautiful hearing ONLY the voices of the men singing!!



THAT is one of the coolest things to hear.

Mark Dever at CHBC usually has his musicians drop out on the 3rd verse of most hymns so you can hear the whole church sing sans instruments. It is one of the most beautiful things. 

Last year at Together for the Gospel, I recorded  the men singing one of the songs and posted it on my blog.

I will glory in my Redeemer

(don't worry, I have permission. - I Will Glory in My Redeemer, written by Steve and Vikki Cook, Copyright 2001 PDI Worship (ASCAP). All Rights Reserved. International Copyright Secured. Used By Permission. http://www.sovgracemin.org. )

That's around 3000 or so men.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

trevorjohnson said:


> Patrick: The Patristics were Western too, and many advocated a desert sort of ascetism.


Not in the worship of the church Trevor. The issue in the early church was faithfulness to apostolic tradition. Read Cyprian on the unity of the Church. They were not to worship in any other way than that which was instituted by God and passed on through the apostles. 



> The Patristics and the Puritans were children of their day too (Hence the funny wigs and hats).
> 
> Their beliefs on worship were colored by their culture.


The pastristic fathers (and the Reformers for that matter) were a strange mix from many cultures. The early church spanned from Britian to India. Yet somehow, their worship for the most part remained remarkably similar. Even if you classify the Roman Empire as western, you still have to account for the churches outside the Empire and the fact that for the first 2 centuries (at least), the church was deliberately counter-culture. The Roman empire was not a monolithic culture. Neither were the cultures of northern Europe in the Reformation. Lets not fall into that modern myth of whitewashing "western" cultures. They were not all alike. 



> Again, a Scotsman and an African and an Indonesian might choose to worship in slightly different ways.


But if they are all committed to the one true God and worshipping as he commands, then there will not be great differences. The elements of worship do not vary. Certainly there may be difference in the order of worship, music, or perhaps different hymns, culturally appropriate expression in prayers, yet the theology, elements, and orderliness would be the same in all cultures. Ideally, all the worship of teh churches should be readily identifiable as "Christian" as opposed to the other world religions. 



> The NT speaks of raising holy hands, of bowing the knee. The Bible even speaks of prostrating one's self before the Lord. Weeping and grieving and very visible expressions of joy are common in the Bible, but Reformation era Europe did not see much of this as fit. England particularly values austerity and a stiff upper lip.
> 
> Instead of lifting our hands and our eyes to heaven, instead, we stand stock still or close the eyes and look at our feet.
> 
> Instead of greeting one another with a holy kiss, we give a quick handshake and a few social niceties.


That is not how it has always been. Lewis Bayly for instance argued for uplifted hands and eyes in prayer. He is credited with the popularizing of the Puritan movement in the early 17th century. Puritan congregations were often moved to tears by effectual sermons and prayers. These expressions may be relevant at the appropriate time and permissable, but hardly could be imposed upon the consciences of everyone. That is the key for Reformed worship. Nothing can be imposed upon all unless it is clearly commanded of all. If you want to make an argument that lifting of hands is a required element of worship then by all means go ahead. 

I think another element involved here are some practical matters in the Reformation. I'll have to research this some more, but I think one of the reasons that silence or solemnity in worship became so prominent was because that was not the case in the Roman Catholic Church during the Reformation. It was a loud affair. While the preist was doing his Latin thing, the people would be praying their rosaries or "our fathers" on their own (in their own tongue) until they bells rang and the host was served. This practice continued for some in the Reformation. Calvin even had to discipline people for practicing these things during the church service in Geneva because they were distruptive. Old superstitions die hard. I think this also fits with the contrast JD mentioned between the change in worship from frenzied paganism to the right-minded worship of the one true God in the Germanic and Celtic peoples. This would have been the same contrast in the early church as people abandoned the mystery and barbarian cults of their day for the solid and orderly worship handed down from the apostles. I don't think this rules out expressing emotion in some form. But I do think it leads to self-control compared to the other world religions.


----------



## Poimen

> Lets not fall into that modern myth of whitewashing "western" cultures. They were not all alike.



Patrick:

I appreciated your post but the quote above makes me chuckle. I suppose, however, that this 'pun' was unintentional?


----------



## JohnV

> England particularly values austerity and a stiff upper lip.


Are we talking about the raising of hands or the raising of the upper lip? 
For singing, I prefer a more free use of the upper lip, although that is not as important as lowering the jaw.


----------



## BlackCalvinist

A few additional thoughts....

One man bows his head and stands quietly, not even able to lift his eyes up to heaven because he realizes the depth of his own sinfulness before a Holy God. He thansk God silently for forgiveness as the music plays.

One man raises his hands to God in thanks for the salvation and graciousness that he has received from God. He sings softly along with the rest of the congregation.

One man sings loudly with tears streaming from his face as words reflecting the glory and majesty of God are sang. He smiles. 

All you austerity folk - are you also pushing that every member of the congregation *must* sing when everyone else sings ? Someone already suggested the dress code




, though such things are of western import and not scriptural commands....

There's a citation of Augustine that Anthony Carter uses to convey a point on this very topic. I'll track it down shortly....


----------



## BJClark

BlackCalvinist;




> Last year at Together for the Gospel, I recorded  the men singing one of the songs and posted it on my blog.
> 
> I will glory in my Redeemer
> 
> (don't worry, I have permission. - I Will Glory in My Redeemer, written by Steve and Vikki Cook, Copyright 2001 PDI Worship (ASCAP). All Rights Reserved. International Copyright Secured. Used By Permission. http://www.sovgracemin.org. )
> 
> That's around 3000 or so men.



This sounds so AWESOME!!! Thanks for sharing the link


----------



## Greg

JohnV said:


> Are we talking about the raising of hands or the raising of the upper lip?
> For singing, I prefer a more free use of the upper lip, although that is not as important as lowering the jaw.


----------



## LifeInReturn

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> Public worship is not about our individual devotion and piety. In the modern church everything has become about "me and Jesus" and "how I express myself to him." Among other things, this is why the RPW has been all but destroyed. In public worship we gather to hear from God and respond to him as an organized unit. Letting individuals in the congregation express their devotion however they want in the pews leads to a fragmented body worshipping "on their own" instead of with everyone around them, which can be distracting and take away from the unification of the worshipping body of saints. I agree with earlier comments about certain expressions being perfectly fine for private worship. I also agree that one can have an emotional response to God's word without having to lift his or her hands or kneel when everyone else around them is not doing so.



Should people be told how to worship ?



thunaer said:


> Trevor,
> 
> I think you are missing the point... It says only man and the scripture tells us together or not at all or the elder does it during prayer... plus it is not during singing but prayer...
> 
> As for a dress code... I am all for it...  I believe we should all dress in the best clothing we have, NOT street clothing or casual wear.... Think of it this way... What are YOU going to wear if you have been invited in front of a King or President... Your very best suit and tie, or Dress for the ladies....
> 
> Now let me ask you, How much more so to dress in your best to go in front of the King of the Universe.....
> 
> It is not about show to other people, it is respect for the King of Kings....
> 
> I will fight the preference and taste belief to my dying breath.. I have seen it, and at it's worst.... Preference and taste has no room in the worship of God, except maybe circumstances i.e microphones, lights, Heating and Ac, carpet..... but even then we should make the church feel like a church... i.e. Pews vs. chairs, chancel vs. stage.. What is the best in the light of Nature, according to our confessions... I think the light of nature shows us church should be different even in the circumstances.. Pews, chancel... After all are we not ascending to the throne of heaven in the presence of the Lord of Lords.. Lets make church feel lofty then the world around us as long as we do not start adding things against the RPW, i.e. images, statues, etc...
> 
> Michael



Dresscode would cause someone to something out of duty vs doing it out of love, wouldn't it ?




JDWiseman said:


> I question the identification of "austere and orderly" with Western.
> 
> Without going in to overabundant detail (and I guess I'm not an expert, more of a layman's interest in Northern European pre-Christian religions), these "Western" peoples (at least the ones being referred to) were primarily made up of Teutons and Celts. The same Germanic tribes that worshipped Woden, that frothed themselves up into berserkergang, practiced seidhr (shamanism), ecstatically danced for the Byzantine king (we suppose), and had long mead fests of boasting and drinking.
> 
> Greece and Rome had flourishing mystery cults and what not at the time of Christianity, and gods who were certainly anything but staid and complacent.
> 
> So when you look at Reformation Europe, or patristic worship, maybe you should think, "Christianity transformed these barbarous peoples, gave them a respect for the true and living God, because such order in worship was certainly not natural to them" more than "white people are so unemotional, they really don't know how to worship like we do." And by that I am not defending Caucasians, just order in worship.
> 
> I guess its a chicken and the egg thing. I just don't see much respectful posturing and order in worship when I read about indigenous European faith and praxis.




I am not so sure that race is an issue. There are Black and White Presbyterians and Black and White Penties


----------



## KMK

I think we might be taking the RPW a little too far here. (After all, the RPW was made for man, not man for the RPW  )

What if PB figures this whole thing out and issues a position statement describing exactly what is allowed with regards to body parts and dress code. What have we accomplished? Have we moved anyone closer to the heart of worship? (Pun only slightly intended)



> Ecc 5:1,2 Keep thy foot when thou goest to the house of God, and be more ready to hear, than to give the sacrifice of fools: for they consider not that they do evil. Be not rash with thy mouth, and let not thine heart be hasty to utter [any] thing before God: for God [is] in heaven, and thou upon earth: therefore let thy words be few.



I think that if people are educated about the *object* of their worship, their posture and dress will work themselves out. But I don't think it works the other way around. You can't get people to focus more on the object of their worship by making them focus more on what they are or are not doing with their bodies or what clothes they are wearing.


----------



## bradofshaw

LifeInReturn said:


> Should people be told how to worship ?



Hey, Jenn. I think that the first question to ask is, "how are we told to worship in scripture?" and go from there. In other words, God tells us how he is to be worshiped. Without taking a position in this discussion, for the most part when people around here say we should do x or y in worship, they believe that is because there is a scriptural mandate. So yes, people should be told how to worship, but only the Scriptures can bind the conscious. So if people are told to do or not to do something without a scriptural basis, it is non-binding. 

For the record though, the church I am a member of has a very "blended" worship, for lack of a better term. We sing many songs from the African American hymnal, some praise choruses, psalms, and a lot of hymns. We have drums, and fairly often there is clapping in the service. While few people raise their hands during the singing, it would not look out of place. All the while, the teaching is definitely Reformed, and there is a conscious effort to have a very joyful and heartfelt worship that is not driven solely by emotions or sentiment. However we do not deny emotion or sentiment as part of our worship (Which I personally think would be an unfair criticism of so called "traditional" worship).

So, to answer your original question, a balance is possible. (without going into an argument for or against a scriptural basis for such a worship style)


----------



## KMK

BTW, I have been guilty of tapping my toe occasionally during worship. I just wanted to get that out in the open. I feel much better.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Just a couple of notes.

Worship of God transcends culture.

Africans, Indonesians, Americnas, Scotsmen are all commanded to obey God's word, and the regulative manner in which He allows sinners to approach him. Worship is never dictated by culture. Culture is arrested byt he Word of God and must conform to it.

On the raising of hands, one might descend into the "Why" factor to aid a little in the discussion.

Why did the Pslamist raise his hands?
Why did Solomon raise his hands?
Why did the Levitical priest raise his hands?
What is a "holy hand" against a "non-holy hand?"
Etc.

The "Why" factor is a great help in understanding the raising of the hands, and its meaning.


----------



## Herald

raekwon said:


> Funny you should say that . . . a couple of years ago, when we first started visiting the church we're now members of, I would occasionally toss an "Amen" in there when there was a particularly good or glorious point made during the sermon, as had been my practice for years before in C&MA and SBC churches. I don't do it so much anymore (ie: never). I guess the eerie silence afterward stifled me.
> 
> I've now resorted to the Presbyterian equivalent: a pensive look, coupled with a nod and a scratching of my chin.  Perhaps I can bring the "Amen" back . . .



Rae - I am given to a hearty "amen" when something is said that is a profound truth of God's word. Worship is not to be one way. While interrupting the preacher may not be practical, I see no problem with expressing an "under control" emotional response....just so long as it is not to be noticed.


----------



## Herald

KMK said:


> BTW, I have been guilty of tapping my toe occasionally during worship. I just wanted to get that out in the open. I feel much better.



You should be ashamed!


----------



## BlackCalvinist

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Rae - I am given to a hearty "amen" when something is said that is a profound truth of God's word. Worship is not to be one way. While interrupting the preacher may not be practical, I see no problem with expressing an "under control" emotional response....just so long as it is not to be noticed.



Perhaps it would also be wise to consider the speaker and the congregation we are visiting.

I visited my ex-girlfriend's church once (OPC). The 'term' (and it was said in jest) for someone who amened during a sermon was that someone was a 'talker'. So, for example, when they had one lady join the church from a pentecostal church, for a while they were like 'yep...just be aware pastor. she's a talker'. 

My church has a nice balance to it, in my opinion.

No one will look at you funny if you raise your hands or stand completely still and not sing at all. Of course, the 'bookends' on the service for us are 'the declaration' (based off of a combination of the five solas and the Belgic Confession) and communion (weekly) with the Nicene Creed and then the benediction (praise God from whom all blessings flow). 

How exactly is one supposed to react, emotionally, to the God who took them from a life of immorality, destined to hell, without hope, without God, children of wrath headed for destruction, God-hating, gospel-rejecting and sin-indulging ?

Exactly what part do our emotions play in thinking about the God who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in Christ, given us life that never fades and an inheritance that will never perish, comes alongside us, guides our steps, orders our life with our best good in mind.... hmmm ?

Ponder that for a moment.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

LifeInReturn said:


> I am not so sure that race is an issue. There are Black and White Presbyterians and Black and White Penties



Jenn,

You're right but it is about race in many ways because integrated congregations are the exception and not the norm. Please don't misunderstand my point about black v. white and old v. young. My goal is to have everybody in worship together.

All:

I wish it was possible for this discussion to not get too sidetracked because it took a radical turn into a battle against the RPW that it didn't need to. That's not your fault. The question is legitimate.

My initial response to Trevor was sort of about the RPW but also about Christian Liberty in Worship. Why? Because they are actually complimentary.

Some people are getting very petty and vitriolic in their statements against those who are trying to urge thoughtfulness on this subject as if thinking this through ahead of time is somehow "not worship."

Here's the irony: those that plan songs in Charismatic Churches do planning themselves. I used to be a Worship Leader. I know how to do this thing. I know how to set emotion, time songs, where to put solos, where to go a capella, etc. I used to plan the flow of the music. This is not about un-planned, free expression as opposed to planned, stifled expression so we should dispense of that thought to begin with.

I honestly think a lot of the emotion on this issue comes out because people get angry that they might not be able to sing the kinds of songs that they enjoy singing on a Sunday morning. Who's freedom of form are we talking about anyway? Find me 50 people that are moved by a certain musical arrangment and I'll find you another 50 that yawn. 

I remember having an ephinany about the RPW a number of years back reading Modern Reformation and seeing an article about how simple tunes that belong to no culture in particular (mixture of European, African, etc) that have been sung for centuries have a character that allows for FULL liberty in worship.

Some of you are already doubting this because you think this is all about me forcing you into something. How can this be liberating?

Well because everybody is using the same sheet of music then no worship leader can force others to sing music that does something for them but might make others uncomfortable.

Do you know one of my greatest struggles every Sunday is? Figuring out whether I should be singing a certain praise chorus because I keep having to check the theology. I enjoy the beat at times but then my conscience is wracked by some of the goings on that I don't think are God honouring. "Big deal!" you might say, "you just need to be more loving Rich and if 90% of the congregation digs it then you need to just go along to get along."

Is that how worship preference is supposed to work? Is that the liberating nature of a form of worship that is being defended? That Rich has to put aside problems in what might be inappropriate behavior in worship. I'm not talking about lifting hands either. I really don't have a problem with that.

OK, maybe Rich is a big boy. What about the Japanese man that comes to Church if we ever happen to get a man to come to Church with his family. He has to sing praise choruses and is told when to stand up, when to clap, when men are just supposed to sing, when woemen are, etc....

See, my problem is that I want to be part of the Body and not stand aside and be out of unity with those I'm members with so I force myself to do things that I wonder if I should be repenting of. Should I or anyone else be put in that position because this type of music works for 90% of the people there?

But, you see, it's not that the other 10% will usually stick around. They'll go to another Church where they're not uncomfortable with a certain style and find others who do. What are the worship wars about usually? Preference in music. We're fighting over our individual right to find a place where we get to sing the style of music that we like. Is that what liberty is about? Finding a Church where everyone else has our music and worship style preferences?

If you're uncomfortable with this then I suggest you change your own mocking tone of what others are trying to say and quit making it sound like people are advocating a police state here. Far from it! I desire to worship with men of every tribe, tongue, and nation. I just don't think that we can possibly serve all the musical and worship style preferences which is why I believe there is utility in finding a simple style that nobody can claim is theirs. This is part of the reason I believe why the RPW is a sound principle because if we are only allowed to do what God commands then nobody can argue that it's personal preference at stake here.

I'm not sure, again, that our posture during singing is dictated to us by Scripture. What I do want to point out, however, is that I believe that profound worship should flow from the mind to the heart and not necessarily from the tune to the heart. If you read the Epistles, notice how Paul will teach on the things of God and then will break into doxology over God's mighty acts to save us. I believe that doxology flows out of doctrine.

You might think I'm arguing for EP here. I'm not and don't want to get into that. The Psalms are instructive here though. It is very difficult to understand and sing the Psalms fully with appreciation until you understand the backstories and the doctrines that the Psalms are singing about. Luther called the Psalms the Bible in a single book because they contain the whole of the OT story in them. When your mind has been filled with God's Word then doxology overflows from your heart and you start to sing praises to God and the Psalms give great expression to it. A somber tune can certainly enhance the expression of Psalm 51 but if the tune is the only thing creating the emotion and not a knowledge of sin and redemption then it is hollow. This is why, for me, instruction is more key to "setting the right mood for worship" than the music chosen.

I honestly believe the idea of diverse cultural expression is more of an assumption than a Biblical principle. Perhaps somebody can point me to the Scriptures that highlight how we want to give full expression of our cultural expressions in Worship. The only thing I see it doing is creating a segregated Church on Sunday mornings.


----------



## Coram Deo

Semperfideles,

All I have to Say to this is  

Great Post


Michael



SemperFideles said:


> All:
> 
> I wish it was possible for this discussion to not get too sidetracked because it took a radical turn into a battle against the RPW that it didn't need to. That's not your fault. The question is legitimate.
> 
> My initial response to Trevor was sort of about the RPW but also about Christian Liberty in Worship. Why? Because they are actually complimentary.
> 
> Some people are getting very petty and vitriolic in their statements against those who are trying to urge thoughtfulness on this subject as if thinking this through ahead of time is somehow "not worship."
> 
> Here's the irony: those that plan songs in Charismatic Churches do planning themselves. I used to be a Worship Leader. I know how to do this thing. I know how to set emotion, time songs, where to put solos, where to go a capella, etc. I used to plan the flow of the music. This is not about un-planned, free expression as opposed to planned, stifled expression so we should dispense of that thought to begin with.
> 
> I honestly think a lot of the emotion on this issue comes out because people get angry that they might not be able to sing the kinds of songs that they enjoy singing on a Sunday morning. Who's freedom of form are we talking about anyway? Find me 50 people that are moved by a certain musical arrangment and I'll find you another 50 that yawn.
> 
> I remember having an ephinany about the RPW a number of years back reading Modern Reformation and seeing an article about how simple tunes that belong to no culture in particular (mixture of European, African, etc) that have been sung for centuries have a character that allows for FULL liberty in worship.
> 
> Some of you are already doubting this because you think this is all about me forcing you into something. How can this be liberating?
> 
> Well because everybody is using the same sheet of music then no worship leader can force others to sing music that does something for them but might make others uncomfortable.
> 
> Do you know one of my greatest struggles every Sunday is? Figuring out whether I should be singing a certain praise chorus because I keep having to check the theology. I enjoy the beat at times but then my conscience is wracked by some of the goings on that I don't think are God honouring. "Big deal!" you might say, "you just need to be more loving Rich and if 90% of the congregation digs it then you need to just go along to get along."
> 
> Is that how worship preference is supposed to work? Is that the liberating nature of a form of worship that is being defended? That Rich has to put aside problems in what might be inappropriate behavior in worship. I'm not talking about lifting hands either. I really don't have a problem with that.
> 
> OK, maybe Rich is a big boy. What about the Japanese man that comes to Church if we ever happen to get a man to come to Church with his family. He has to sing praise choruses and is told when to stand up, when to clap, when men are just supposed to sing, when woemen are, etc....
> 
> See, my problem is that I want to be part of the Body and not stand aside and be out of unity with those I'm members with so I force myself to do things that I wonder if I should be repenting of. Should I or anyone else be put in that position because this type of music works for 90% of the people there?
> 
> But, you see, it's not that the other 10% will usually stick around. They'll go to another Church where they're not uncomfortable with a certain style and find others who do. What are the worship wars about usually? Preference in music. We're fighting over our individual right to find a place where we get to sing the style of music that we like. Is that what liberty is about? Finding a Church where everyone else has our music and worship style preferences?
> 
> If you're uncomfortable with this then I suggest you change your own mocking tone of what others are trying to say and quit making it sound like people are advocating a police state here. Far from it! I desire to worship with men of every tribe, tongue, and nation. I just don't think that we can possibly serve all the musical and worship style preferences which is why I believe there is utility in finding a simple style that nobody can claim is theirs. This is part of the reason I believe why the RPW is a sound principle because if we are only allowed to do what God commands then nobody can argue that it's personal preference at stake here.
> 
> I'm not sure, again, that our posture during singing is dictated to us by Scripture. What I do want to point out, however, is that I believe that profound worship should flow from the mind to the heart and not necessarily from the tune to the heart. If you read the Epistles, notice how Paul will teach on the things of God and then will break into doxology over God's mighty acts to save us. I believe that doxology flows out of doctrine.
> 
> You might think I'm arguing for EP here. I'm not and don't want to get into that. The Psalms are instructive here though. It is very difficult to understand and sing the Psalms fully with appreciation until you understand the backstories and the doctrines that the Psalms are singing about. Luther called the Psalms the Bible in a single book because they contain the whole of the OT story in them. When your mind has been filled with God's Word then doxology overflows from your heart and you start to sing praises to God and the Psalms give great expression to it. A somber tune can certainly enhance the expression of Psalm 51 but if the tune is the only thing creating the emotion and not a knowledge of sin and redemption then it is hollow. This is why, for me, instruction is more key to "setting the right mood for worship" than the music chosen.
> 
> I honestly believe the idea of diverse cultural expression is more of an assumption than a Biblical principle. Perhaps somebody can point me to the Scriptures that highlight how we want to give full expression of our cultural expressions in Worship. The only thing I see it doing is creating a segregated Church on Sunday mornings.


----------



## Davidius

LifeInReturn said:


> Should people be told how to worship ?



Yes, people should be told how to worship because they're wretched sinners who don't know how to worship God on their own. We should, with _joy_, do what God has told us to do in worship. As Rich has mentioned, there need not be a disconnect between forms and emotion. That there can be shows how sinful we are when we despise God's instructions for worship.


----------



## LifeInReturn

Let me clarify. By asking should we be told how to worship, I mean by PEOPLE, not God. Should people tell other people how to worship God ? <--- That is the question. Just had to clarify.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

LifeInReturn said:


> Let me clarify. By asking should we be told how to worship, I mean by PEOPLE, not God. Should people tell other people how to worship God ? <--- That is the question. Just had to clarify.



I understood what you meant Sister. Since Elders are people then the answer to your question is "Yes." I would prefer to say that Elders should _instruct_ their people on the proper worship of God.

I think the bad kind of "telling people" is the kind that Trevor experienced in Bible College: "Christians don't wear beards...."

We don't want to be going around looking for ways to restrict liberty. Remember, my argument is to _enhance_ liberty. Elders who simply change everything and say "We're going simple because the other forms are bad..." would be missing the point. Rather, it could be: "We want to try to enhance the liberty of the whole..." through the RPW is more along the way of wisdom.

Christianity certainly has "rules" but we ought not to be approaching the rules from a heart of "do this and live" but from a desire for wisdom. Cheap and easy regulations get the job done on the externals but people have to be instructed on how the formal complements the material.


----------



## KMK

SemperFideles said:


> I think the bad kind of "telling people" is the kind that Trevor experienced in Bible College: "Christians don't wear beards...."


----------



## Semper Fidelis

trevorjohnson said:


> Every Christian is a Christian born into a particular culture. Even Christ was born into a culture. And though the principles are transcendant, there is a great deal that is non-essential, such as what the building or place of worship looks like, what "respectful clothing" looks like (we take off our shoes here), what "worshipful music" sounds like. You simply cannot say that nothing is a matter of culture.


Again, this is a gross reduction of what has been argued. The point of a music style is to enhance liberty and not force the introduction of a cultural form. Many missionaries export charismatic and pentecostal praise choruses without even thinking about how culturally conditioned the tunes are (and how unScriptural some of the messages are). My goal would be to aim for simplicity in worship so it wouldn't tack on anything that the Word did not require. 

For the record, I completely agree that we should not be requiring anything more than the Scriptures. It is sin to bind a man's conscience to it. If I have to say it this way to be understood then I will. I don't want a man's conscience to be bound to the fact that a normal way of praising is to sing 7 words over and over to "...get into a worshipful mood..." any more than I want to bind his conscience over dress, how he sits, how he folds his hands, etc. I actually do not think the Word prohibits a person lifting their hands. Sitting, standing, kneeling are not elements of worship any more than the lifting of hands.



> It does not honor the Gospel at all to tack on extra stuff to it. And one thing tacked on often among the Reformed is culture.



I don't think this is a fair characterization of the Reformed. Much of Reformed worship is far more simple in historic practice. It's not right to claim that those who confuse their preferences with a Scriptural mandate is Reformed because that goes completely contrary to the heart of the Reformation. Our Sacramentology is even simpler than Baptists - we don't require people to find much water in order to be baptized and we don't wait until everybody is grown up either.

I hope you understand my desire here that all men be brought near the Cross of Christ and that all of men's preferences be removed as obstacles. Certainly I don't believe an arrogant outsider should come in and start turning over tables and demanding that everybody get simple in worship. I want it to be done with wisdom. But even in a small Japanese Church where everybody is generally happy, my concern would be for we who worship together would be willing to forego some preferences for forms to allow someone who is new among us to feel comfortable and not create a barrier to his attendance. That's all I'm saying. 

The small Church in the field may have found a form that they're comfortable with but would you insist on them continuing even if it meant that they might be turning away other Indonesians who might otherwise hear the Gospel?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

OK Brother.  

As long as you understand what my conviction is regarding removal of obstacles to the Gospel. I think the RPW complements that end even if sinful men corrupt its meaning at times.

Blessings!

Rich


----------



## Coram Deo

Trevor,

I to do not want this thread to be hi-jacked into a exclusive psalmody issue either even though I hold to such a view. But I disagree with you on that music (Melody, and Sound) is cultural in the church... It is my earnest belief that culture in no way speaks to us in the church, and I also earnestly belief it should only play the smallest part in Christian lives outside the church i.e Music outside of the Church and RPW.. I also do not believe music to be amoral. I have personally seen the destructiviness of so called CCM music in the lives of people, even among my own family. We should transform culture by the power of the gospel not the culture transforms us every few generations. Also scripture speaks of not conforming the World, and who ever loves the world the love of the father is not in him... Also, Be ye Seperate.

As for music (Melody and sound) in the church, I believe it should transcend culture... Be Majestic and Lofty in the words of John Calvin. Music that has no cultural connection and will not fade in a generation. It should be simple and fit the contend and mood of the lyrics (in my case the Psalms), If the words are somber then the music should sound somber... Culture is in the grasp of Satan.... I will fight for no culture in the church. And in the Words of Martin Luther with "No Compromise."

I will avoid the Psalms, Hymns and Songs since that would snowball into EP. But you are quoted saying "The OT worship had elaborate singers didn't they."

Old testament worship with it's elaborate singers and the instruments that was used for all commanded by God to David in explict detail.... To use such passages for New testament worship to add choirs, or any number of instruments is pulling the Old testament passage out of context... The number of Instruments and the exact instruments and how they were made was completely commanded by God.

I might also add that all of that choirs and instruments were Temple worship and has been done away with with the New Covenant.

If God ordained the alittliest issue in the Old testament right down to clothing, carpets, tapestry, altars, etc he commands them under the RPW... Maybe he still does besides elements by the light of nature and common sense... sort of...  

As for the Regulative Principle of Worship... I have come to the understanding that the name is miss leading at best and have caused too many problems... I call for the dropping of the word Principle and will no longer use it.. I prefer the Term "Regulative Worship"......


Michael




trevorjohnson said:


> Rich:
> 
> I think we fundamentally agree then on the main issue. We are just stressing those points of disagreement it seems.
> 
> And yes, I agree we should not export our cultural forms and mistake them for Gospel whether we export Reformed baggage or Pentescostal baage...it is all still baggage. I am sure your baptist church - if Southern Baptist - might be a good example of exporting the latest program and calling it missions work or evangelism.
> 
> I don't see any "gross reductions." This issue is about a whole string of worship related issues, from postures in prayer, music, and other external forms of worship. I gave my summary statement and I stick by it against those who would desire to make normative statements for all churches in the world and for all communities that "worship should look like this or that". We should give guidelines and principles and allow for permittable leeways within practice.
> 
> You keep mentioning the adjective "simple" And others keep mentioning the adjective "austere". These adjectives are very culturally defined are they not? Give me a Scriptural command for simplicity or austerity? I do see commands for "orderliness" and for worship "in Spirit and in truth"...
> 
> And is more simple or austere neccessarily more Biblical? Or is this too a preference? The OT worship had elaborate singers didn't they. And the NT speaks of songs, hymns and spiritual songs (please EPers..this is not an EP thread, don't hijack it). If we assume that songs are permitted, then what is simple is defined by the host culture.
> 
> 
> 
> About the church in the field: I am not sure that they are "comfortable" with it, but it is a way of gathering without raising undue attention or opposition from those who would oppose the work. It is the best beginning situation for a new work I guess and the doors opened in such a way as to allow this, so the local guys are running with it... Go to www.indonesiamatters.com and you can track the latest chrch closings/burnings and can see the practical benefits of new believers meeting in such a way at first.
> 
> 
> Rich, I will quote you and give you a hearty amen:
> 
> _I hope you understand my desire here that *all men be brought near the Cross of Christ and that all of men's preferences be removed as obstacles. *Certainly I don't believe an arrogant outsider should come in and start turning over tables and demanding that everybody get simple in worship. I want it to be done with wisdom. But even in a small Japanese Church where everybody is generally happy, my concern would be for *we who worship together would be willing to forego some preferences for forms to allow someone who is new among us to feel comfortable and not create a barrier to his attendance. *That's all I'm saying. _
> 
> I cannot improve on anything that you have said in that quote above! Now that quote above is music to my ears (and not the Marantha variety either!).


----------



## Davidius

*bites tongue to keep from hijacking the thread by commenting on how things would be much easier if everyone would just sing the psalms*

But really, the EP discussion is a logical result of this kind of discussion. I really don't want to hijack the thread, though.


----------



## Coram Deo

Webster's Dictionary Defines *Austere* as "1. SOMBER, GRAVE, 2. morally strict, 3. markedly simple or unadorned."

I have no problems with any of these definations to define church.. It should be Somber, "Rejoice with Trembling, Psalm 2" and "Reverance with Godly Fear, Hebrew 12:28" it Should be Totally Grave since we are going in front of the Lord of Lords and Kings of Kings, Creator of the Universe who can in one word reduce us to ashes or even nothing..... I walk trembling going into church knowing how sinful of a man I am..... Also Isaiah 66:2, "those who have humble and contrite hearts, who tremble at my word." Tremble at my Word.... We should even be grave when opening our bibles and read the word of God....

Worship should be morally strict since the Regulative Worship Doctrine is Morally binding in the Second Commandment..... Same for the markedly simple and unadorned..... Second Commandment and other Regulative Worship passages......


I stick with Austere...

Michael




trevorjohnson said:


> And others keep mentioning the adjective "austere". These adjectives are very culturally defined are they not? Give me a Scriptural command for simplicity or austerity?


----------



## Coram Deo

A heartly  to your entiire post.....




CarolinaCalvinist said:


> *bites tongue to keep from hijacking the thread by commenting on how things would be much easier if everyone would just sing the psalms*
> 
> But really, the EP discussion is a logical result of this kind of discussion. I really don't want to hijack the thread, though.


----------



## bradofshaw

thunaer said:


> Trevor,
> 
> I to do not want this thread to be hi-jacked into a exclusive psalmody issue either even though I hold to such a view. But I disagree with you on that music (Melody, and Sound) is cultural in the church... It is my earnest belief that culture in no way speaks to us in the church, and I also earnestly belief it should only play the smallest part in Christian lives outside the church i.e Music outside of the Church and RPW.. I also do not believe music to be amoral. I have personally seen the destructiviness of so called CCM music in the lives of people, even among my own family. We should transform culture by the power of the gospel not the culture transforms us every few generations. Also scripture speaks of not conforming the World, and who ever loves the world the love of the father is not in him... Also, Be ye Seperate.
> 
> As for music (Melody and sound) in the church, I believe it should transcend culture... Be Majestic and Lofty in the words of John Calvin. Music that has no cultural connection and will not fade in a generation. It should be simple and fit the contend and mood of the lyrics (in my case the Psalms), If the words are somber then the music should sound somber... Culture is in the grasp of Satan.... I will fight for no culture in the church. And in the Words of Martin Luther with "No Compromise."
> 
> Michael



Agreed that the Gospel should transform culture. Disagreed that culture is evil in itself, that it never holds legitimate influence in the church (find me one church ever that wasn't influenced in some way by culture), or that it is possible to create a culture-less vacuum in which to worship. Find me the musician who is able to create music without some reference to cultural norms in music. I think this is fighting the wrong battle, and an unproductive one at that. 

Out of curiosity, what is your definition of culture?


----------



## Davidius

bradofshaw said:


> Agreed that the Gospel should transform culture. Disagreed that culture is evil in itself, that it never holds legitimate influence in the church (find me one church ever that wasn't influenced in some way by culture), or that it is possible to create a culture-less vacuum in which to worship. Find me the musician who is able to create music without some reference to cultural norms in music. I think this is fighting the wrong battle, and an unproductive one at that.
> 
> Out of curiosity, what is your definition of culture?



Brad,

I agree that culture is not evil _per se_, but we all know that it's very tainted. We should all be able to agree that there are some aspects of the Church that culture should definitely not influence. Can one say that the Church as an institution does not exist in a cultural vacuum while at the same time acknowleding that _worship_ is to transcend all cultural affinities?


----------



## BJClark

thunaer;



> I have no problems with any of these definations to define church.. It should be Somber, "Rejoice with Trembling, Psalm 2" and "Reverance with Godly Fear, Hebrew 12:28" it Should be Totally Grave since we are going in front of the Lord of Lords and Kings of Kings, Creator of the Universe who can in one word reduce us to ashes or even nothing..... I walk trembling going into church knowing how sinful of a man I am..... Also Isaiah 66:2, "those who have humble and contrite hearts, who tremble at my word." Tremble at my Word.... We should even be grave when opening our bibles and read the word of God....
> 
> Worship should be morally strict since the Regulative Worship Doctrine is Morally binding in the Second Commandment..... Same for the markedly simple and unadorned..... Second Commandment and other Regulative Worship passages......
> 
> 
> I stick with Austere...
> 
> Michael



And Praise God, He also considers Himself Our Husband and Our Father whom we can go before without fear of His condemnation, because He, Himself has paid the price of our sins, and has forgiven us.


----------



## bradofshaw

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> Brad,
> I agree that culture is not evil _per se_, but we all know that it's very tainted. We should all be able to agree that there are some aspects of the Church that culture should definitely not influence. Can one say that the Church as an institution does not exist in a cultural vacuum while at the same time acknowleding that _worship_ is to transcend all cultural affinities?



I think the key word here is "tainted." We know that sin corrupts culture. I think the question is, "which cultural practices are sinful and should be transformed by the scripture or barred from the church?" It seems a huge difference from "all of culture should be put out of the church." I'm mostly questioning that statement's plausibility. 

There does seem to be a limit to what the Bible speaks to about corporate worship. There are gaps that we fill in. I'm not suggesting those gaps should just get turned over lock, stock, and barrel to whatever cultural trend is present. But I would simply say that certain cultural trends are going to express themselves in the church, and they need to judged against and regulated by the commands of scripture, but I would not prohibit them on the basis that they come from "culture." I know we're mostly discussing music here, but there are so many things, from dress, to architecture, to the way we fellowship, and even to the way the word is preached that are going to be affected by our culture. 

I will agree with you, we have clear commands for worship that should transcend culture. I also agree that the simplest solution for the culture debate as it pertains to music (until now I've not necessarily been limiting my discussion to music) is exclusive psalmody. However, even that will never be freed from cultural influence, and battles could still rage over which tunes are appropriate, etc. I do think that if you start out with the assumption that all culture is evil though, you will more readily move to a position of EP (not a characterization of anyone's thought here, just thinking through some of the statements that have been made). 

Another distinction that might be made in this discussion. Culture is not just something outside of the church. Most of this debate centers around established church culture (black gospel music vs. hymns vs. praise choruses, etc.). So I don't know if there's an absolute dichotomy between church and culture in this discussion. Although I would be willing to grant the possibility that one church culture better reflects the influences of scripture over and against the influences of worldly culture than another church culture does.


----------



## KMK

trevorjohnson said:


> Thunaer:
> 
> I disagree with you, but am not sure my disagreement will bear any useful fruit because you sound pretty unwilling to bend.
> 
> The assertion that culture plays no part in our attempts to worship God is profoundly naive.
> 
> Think on this issue as you drive to your church building wearing your tie, sit in your pew, probably sing from a songbook held in a little pocket in front of you. Also, when you shake someone's hand instead of giving them a holy kiss, when you stand stock still during any singing or recitation of the psalms and also prayers, your holy hands never being lifted. Remember this when you sit and listen to about an hour's sermon instead of the open-ended sorts of engagements that happen in other places like Africa (that finish when the thing is done, not when the clock strikes), and when you read your professionally printed bulletin.
> 
> 
> 
> Bradofshaw:
> 
> There is that which is beautiful in culture even in its fallen nature and that which serves as chains of bandage. Culture is very tainted, and yet God through common grace gives a certain level of order in many cultures and even instills and maintains many noble traits among some cultures, which value hospitality, bravery, family dedication, integrity, sharing, etc.
> 
> Paul used culture as a bridge and a jumping off point in his preaching several times and even quoted Greek poets. And yet he condemned many evil cultural practices.
> 
> 
> And AMEN to your post that said "Find me one church not affected by culture.."
> 
> 
> 
> If we all forget this, look back at the old Puritan divines in their silly wigs and old-timey fashions. They were certainly living in their day.



My church is hosting an event in May that will feature a VOM Iranian Christian Preacher and his Iranian Christian Worship Team. I am looking forward to seeing and hearing how the same God of the universe is worshipped by people of a different culture. (Will they mind if I tap my toe?)


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Trevor,

The differecnes, though, that you are giving - ties, books, bulletins, and length of speaking, are not issues surrounding corproate worship.

Those are just personal preferecnes concerning good or bad order, of neither - just preferecne.

English Puritans sat for 4 hours for a sermon.
Americans sit for 30 minutes.

That's not cultural.

A good way to define how culture plays a part in actual worship, is to determine the worship of heaven. Its made up of all kinds of people, but they are all doing the same thing.

They are all in the same stacne, all singing the same songs, all worshipping the same way.

So to say that culture "plays a part" in the "worship of God" is naive in that sense.

If someone wants to wear a blue shirt, and another a blue robe, fine. But that does not impact the regulative principle unless they are doing something against the worship of God that transcends culture.


----------



## Coram Deo

1. Tie - is something that is consider best dressed, but I do not always wear a tie, Sometimes I wear a collarless dress shirt that you see sometimes among the mennonites...  

2. songbook - We use the Psalter, book of the bible.. non cultural..

3. Hand shake - Due to health (Immune) I am unable to shake hands, or perform the holy kiss... But I never liked hand shaking anyway... 

4. Standing still while singing - What are we suppose to do, the body wave... hehe (I have seen that at my cousins church, the bums bouncing and waving) Serious though, Singing is with the voice, not with the body....

5. Prayer - Our pastor lifts up holy hands during prayer.. exampled in scripture... if I was to do it every man should do it too together.. another example in scripture... I will not cause disorder by raising my hands while prayer and drawing attention to me also since there is no examples in scripture of raising holy hands alone in public worship..

6. Sermon Length - All circles I have been in is not time restrained... I have heard sermons go over 30 to 40 minutes after the hour dongs..... The longer the better I believe.... Oh yeah, and no one ever complains about it unless the sermon was to short, under an hour..

7. professionally printed bulletin - I hate these with a passion and will NOT take one.... I know the order of the worship and I can wait for the psalm to be announced, but I would not mind if a sign up front gave psalm numbers in order.... I think announcments before the call of worship or anytime in worship and printed bulletins that people read before or during the service are unneed and wrong.... I will not take one...

8 - Pews transcends worldly culture... No other place is the pew used except in church... I vote for Pews...


Just for clarifications...  

Michael




trevorjohnson said:


> Thunaer:
> 
> I disagree with you, but am not sure my disagreement will bear any useful fruit because you sound pretty unwilling to bend.
> 
> The assertion that culture plays no part in our attempts to worship God is profoundly naive.
> 
> Think on this issue as you drive to your church building wearing your tie, sit in your pew, probably sing from a songbook held in a little pocket in front of you. Also, when you shake someone's hand instead of giving them a holy kiss, when you stand stock still during any singing or recitation of the psalms and also prayers, your holy hands never being lifted. Remember this when you sit and listen to about an hour's sermon instead of the open-ended sorts of engagements that happen in other places like Africa (that finish when the thing is done, not when the clock strikes), and when you read your professionally printed bulletin.


----------



## Ravens

Many of the things that have been introduced into this thread as evidence of culturally-conditioned worship (printed bulletins, suit and tye, chairs/pews, etc.) would be viewed even by the "austere/orderliness/whatever" crowd as circumstances of worship and adiaphora. So that's a bit of a red herring.

There are about five or six different things being debated on this thread, but for my part, I guess I'm aiming at the idea that lifting hands is somehow "more spiritual", or that people standing reverently and singing is somehow less spiritual (not "on point"). Because that is an assumption in this thread and the church at large, and a whole package of issues has been dismissed under the cultural argument.

I guess my point is, that all indigenous cultures, red, yellow, black, white, whatever, for the most part, had animistic, shamanistic, ecstatic religion. And even when a city-state developed an official "cultus", the shamanism still continued in the masses, who put up with the state-worship.

So to point to an exuberant, ecstatic worship service in South America and say "that's just their culture" is misleading, because a: Europeans once had religion like that, and b: looking at how third world churches worship probably *isn't* the best idea, since it is well known that the "Christianity" that is flaming across the world is by and large Pentecostal, Charismatic, and/or Arminian.

So these churches that are dancing and not just lifting hands, but doing kind of the two hand uplift where everyone has to stand five feet apart for fear of getting swiped, would also probably have false ideas of the atonement, false ideas of God's love, corrupt ideas of election, a denigration of Scripture, etc. 
Is that really the best litmus test?

I haven't thought the issue through, but I could personally care less if someone was raising their hands. However there's a vast difference between orderly worship with someone raising their hands, and everyone standing apart, crying, kneeling, standing, turned this way, turned that way, waving arms, bouncing, etc. And the same arguments to support the one will support the other.

"Culture", however you define it, may or may not be practically kept out of a worship service. But the fact remains, if you had churches in Arabia, Africa, South America, and Scandinavia that followed the RPW, that met, sang psalms without instruments (OR sang happy songs with instruments, for the other side, but that were still theologically correct... but more to the point if EP is true), read from the same word, and gave a place of prominence to the preached word, then yes, you would feel fairly "at home" in worship wherever you went, at least in the structure thereof, if not the language.

If cultures "preach differently" as has been suggested, its probably because they are preaching poorly. I would imagine that most sound doctrine I've ever heard in my life wasn't constantly interrupted by "thank you L*rd* and throat-clearings. That usually only happens with Pentecostal preachers.


----------



## MrMerlin777

trevorjohnson said:


> Matt:
> 
> That is EXACTLY what I am saying. The RPW only covers so much, the rest IS personal preference. And personal preference is VERY cultural.
> 
> But many folks seem to want these personal preferences to be included into the essentials of worship, like pews being better, or maybe even (I know this has been discussed before) robes for the minister. We can justify the inclusion or exclusion of these things in many ways (austerity, simplicity), but many things DO come down to personal preferences. *And this is my main assertion on this thread *that we ought not to try to tether people down and try to make our own personal preferences normative for all, only abide by the principles and recognize that even these principles may be applied in slightly diffeent ways across the world.
> 
> And, if we are non-EP and think that hymns can be used in worship, then this opens the door to quite a bit of cultural variation as the truths of Scripture are put to local forms.
> 
> If you are EP then this would effectively negate that last assertion..but even then, dress, buildings, etc are all culturally conditioned...and because they are preferences and not mentioned under the RPW then we are free to follow the principles of what is modest dress and work that out in a particular cultural setting, and what is an adequate building and then work that out in our particular cultural context.
> 
> The RPW covers a lot, but in comparison to everything involved in worship, there is still a huge amount of ground not covered by the RPW and as the faith spreads throughout the globe it is possible for many different cultures to truly worship God using the RPW even while looking quite diffferent and accounting for local preference.
> 
> This is what I mean when I say that EVERY Christian and EVERY church IS affected by cultural, none of us is acultural because we live in bodies that are brown, white, etc, and speak different tongues and use different buildings, and sit in different styles...and even think in different ways, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> AND,
> 
> It is VERY naive to think that personal preferences are not dictated by culture. To say "That's not cultural" that's personal preference is naive.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

trevorjohnson said:


> Matt:
> 
> That is EXACTLY what I am saying. The RPW only covers so much, the rest IS personal preference. And personal preference is VERY cultural.
> 
> But many folks seem to want these personal preferences to be included into the essentials of worship, like pews being better, or maybe even (I know this has been discussed before) robes for the minister. We can justify the inclusion or exclusion of these things in many ways (austerity, simplicity), but many things DO come down to personal preferences. *And this is my main assertion on this thread *that we ought not to try to tether people down and try to make our own personal preferences normative for all, only abide by the principles and recognize that even these principles may be applied in slightly diffeent ways across the world.
> 
> And, if we are non-EP and think that hymns can be used in worship, then this opens the door to quite a bit of cultural variation as the truths of Scripture are put to local forms.
> 
> If you are EP then this would effectively negate that last assertion..but even then, dress, buildings, etc are all culturally conditioned...and because they are preferences and not mentioned under the RPW then we are free to follow the principles of what is modest dress and work that out in a particular cultural setting, and what is an adequate building and then work that out in our particular cultural context.
> 
> The RPW covers a lot, but in comparison to everything involved in worship, there is still a huge amount of ground not covered by the RPW and as the faith spreads throughout the globe it is possible for many different cultures to truly worship God using the RPW even while looking quite diffferent and accounting for local preference.



I agree with you to here. I only chimed in because too often "Reformed" theology is somehow charicatured as "Western" when in fact it is the teaching of Scripture. The same with the RPW (which is really rooted in Patristic worship). To often I fear that people in rejecting the sins of the "West" (and rightly so) are really throwing out the baby with the bathwater when it comes to Reformed/Patristic worship. The "West" no matter how you define it is more diverse than modern critics give it credit. The church had serious problems and cultural issues as it moved from Jerusalem to the "ends of the earth." Yet their worship transcended culture because their theology and tradition did as well. Despite the different languages and cultures the worship always looked similar.

I completely agree with you about the cultural relativity about circumstances, pews vs. rugs, bulletins, hut vs basilica, etc. etc. But these were never the main concerns of Reformed worship either. The same reformers who worshipped in renovated cathedrals also worshipped in cellars and forests to avoid Catholic persecutors. The Puritans and Covenanters could worship in fields or churches. Yet the worship didn't change in substance. Same with the early church. They could worship in catecombs, houses, synagogues, etc. yet their liturgy remained similar. I would argue those who do make cultural circumstances into elements have departed from the RPW, along the lines of Rich's posts above on liberty. That is after all the central concern in the RPW, not to bind men under traditions of men (or culture).


----------



## KMK

Do we all agree that the RPW is a tool that God has blessed us with to conform our worship to his desire and our best interest?

The RPW is, of course, not the *object* of worship. It is possible that someone could be doing everything right according to the RPW and still totally missing the boat just as someone who does not even know the RPW might be missing the boat.

I still maintain that as the sheep are fed the whole counsel of God and learn exactly who God is and who they are they will naturally conform themselves to the RPW. The RPW is the pattern for mature Christian worship.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

KMK said:


> Do we all agree that the RPW is a tool that God has blessed us with to conform our worship to his desire and our best interest?


I think I'd agree with that and only modify it a bit to make sure people don't think that God commanded us how to worship Him primarily with the creature's interest in mind though that's certainly part of it. I don't think you meant to over-emphasize its benefit to us but I think there are some that are primarily concerned with how a command benefits the user as the reason for it rather than the glory of God. If personal benefit is the primary guage then people can put God on the back-burner. 

Pastor King recently related a story where he was teaching on the RPW to a Christian High School in GA. One of the teenagers interrupted him and said: "Nobody's going to tell me how to worship!" to which Pastor King wisely replied: "No, I imagine you wouldn't allow even God to tell you how to worship...." {forgive me Pastor King if I got the words wrong}

I understand that some of the ire is directed against people who use the RPW as a shackle for another kind of human tradition but I think the primary ire directed against the principle is that our hearts hate being told how to worship - even by God. In this age where preference and therapy is King, telling a woman that her "special song" has no part in worship is inconceivable.

Whether we admit it or not, we also think that "we'll never grow" if music isn't just a bit more hip and we don't provide a landing spot for people to ease into being Reformed. Regardless of how far you move toward the culture, there's going to be some "prophetess" that's going to claim you haven't moved far enough to accommodate her and that you're stifling the spirit.

I think the true benefit today for many believers (getting back to how it's good for us after all) would be to regularly explain _why_ you're doing something and do so in an instructive and loving way. If it's an us v. them attitude then it becomes over-bearing. If you make people understand your desire to honor God as well as remove obstacles to the Gospel then that's something people can more easily get on board with. There's a certain sense in man where "fairness" comes into play: "Well, I don't get to have the songs I like but at least nobody else gets that either...."



> The RPW is, of course, not the *object* of worship. It is possible that someone could be doing everything right according to the RPW and still totally missing the boat just as someone who does not even know the RPW might be missing the boat.


Sure. It's not the fact that your uber-strict in the externals that will cause your worship to be acceptable. God said He hated the sacrifices of the Israelites because their hearts were far from Him. I think we express a heart for God not only in that we try to honor Him in how we worship but _how_ we do so. I think some people almost seem to go out of their way to be obnoxious about it.



> I still maintain that as the sheep are fed the whole counsel of God and learn exactly who God is and who they are they will naturally conform themselves to the RPW. The RPW is the pattern for mature Christian worship.


Perhaps. The problem is that if you wait until everybody is mature then when will a Church ever try practicing it? Again, explanation as simple as why you do something helps even the immature understand things. I'd prefer that to a Church that just "matter of factly" chooses old hymns and people think they're automatically the only type of approved worship. We simply don't educate people enough on this and this is why worship wars over music are so common.


----------



## KMK

SemperFideles said:


> I think I'd agree with that and only modify it a bit to make sure people don't think that God commanded us how to worship Him primarily with the creature's interest in mind though that's certainly part of it. I don't think you meant to over-emphasize its benefit to us but I think there are some that are primarily concerned with how a command benefits the user as the reason for it rather than the glory of God. If personal benefit is the primary guage then people can put God on the back-burner.



 And that was not my intention, but even glorifying God is in our best interest. It is hard to seperate the two.




SemperFideles said:


> I understand that some of the ire is directed against people who use the RPW as a shackle for another kind of human tradition but I think the primary ire directed against the principle is that our hearts hate being told how to worship - even by God. In this age where preference and therapy is King, telling a woman that her "special song" has no part in worship is inconceivable.



 And I just got done posting a quote on a different thread that expressed Calvin's same frustration.



SemperFideles said:


> Regardless of how far you move toward the culture, there's going to be some "prophetess" that's going to claim you haven't moved far enough to accommodate her and that you're stifling the spirit.



  



SemperFideles said:


> We simply don't educate people enough on this and this is why worship wars over music are so common.



 And all we can do is say, "Let it begin with me, Lord."


----------



## KMK

What I hear you saying, Trevor, is that the worship of the God of the universe may look and sound and smell differently in various parts of the world but that does not mean that it is not *proper* worship.

Also, are you saying that we have a tendancy to think that the look and sound and smell of the worship that we are most comfortable with must also be the best?


----------



## Chris

KMK said:


> we have a tendancy to think that the look and sound and smell of the worship that we are most comfortable with must also be the best?



Ding ding ding, we have a winner.


----------



## MrMerlin777

It doesn't matter who we are. One always has the decided tendency to think they are right, even if they're not.

Their are many issues I'm convinced I'm right about, but I'm perfectly willing to be proven wrong. It's when one won't admit that they're wrong that we have a problem.

When it comes to worship it's the same way. Our hearts need to be open to what God is telling us in the Scriptures and be willing to change to suit that. No one this side of heaven is going to have everything right.


----------



## Coram Deo

Ok, I think I need to clarify somethings today... I have already said some of this but some maybe speed read through some of it...... I will try to simplify....

The Regulative Worship consist of Elements and Circumstances.. Elements are acts of worship that God Prescribes (I tend to have a few more then some), and Circumstances that are Non acts of worship to human ordering.. But I believe Cirsumstances are Non Cultural and should be judged in the best way possible.. In the Light of Nature.. Good Prudance, or Common Sense... If one gets a Circumstance wrong he is not sinning, but may be illogical, or not good prudance.

Elements Consist of: (Note I hold to a Few more then some)

1. Preaching of the Word of God
2. Reading and hearing the Word of God
3. Singing Psalms
4. Prayer
5. Baptism
6. Lord's Supper
7. Oaths and Vows
8. Decorum (Headcovering for Ladies)
9. Gestures in Worship (Praying kneeling or standing, etc)

Occasional

10. Fasting with Solemn Humilation
11. Days of Thanksgiving

All of the above are acts of Worship in other words Elements and must be govern by the RPW


Circumstances may consist of the following:

Pews vs. Chairs
Lights
Heating
Microphone
Speakers
Carpet
Style of Building
Clerical Robes
etc..


I do believe that Circumstances need to be in Good prudance and judged fairly not based on Culture... What would be Common Sense.. Surely not a Theatre style or a CEO headquarters......

Finally... One other clarification... It is my belief that only one thing should cultural affect worship and that is language... but I qualify this by saying that language should never be dumbed down and we should always hold the bar high in the language area...


----------



## calgal

Donald and Ken: Amen! The question modern semi Arminians trip over is "does your action/praise band/drama/over the top Sunday show glorify God or Man? The same logic can apply to adherence to the RPW: who is glorified?


----------



## bradofshaw

thunaer said:


> Finally... One other clarification... It is my belief that only one thing should cultural affect worship and that is language... but I qualify this by saying that language should never be dumbed down and we should always hold the bar high in the language area...



I think I'm only pointing out minutia for the sake of the argument here. For the most part, I agree with your assessment. I don't even think this relates to the OP very much, but here it goes. I hope I don't come off as argumentative, because that's not my intention. I'm appreciating the discussion here, but this will likely be my final statement as I don't have a conclusive position of my own on all of this. 

I still think you are overlooking the fact that even the elements themselves will be presented in a culture wrapped package. How are you going to prevent head coverings from being culturally conditioned? Is there a Biblical description of these somewhere? Granting head coverings as an element for the sake of argument, how do you distinguish between a woman wearing a straw hat and a woman wearing a habit? Which is more appropriate? Is it wrong to let the common fashion of the day decide which covering a woman wears? Again, I agree with your statements on good prudence and common sense. 

You've allowed for language, however, you'd be hard pressed to determine what constitutes "setting the bar high" in the realm of language. Some English speakers might say King James English (which was once common usage). Is this practical? Should my black pastor from small town Virginia be expected to speak with the same style and delivery as Dr. Derick Thomas, who grew up in Wales? I'm not trying to deny the value of words having real meanings, but we have to understand that human language is limited and culturally colored. Even our prayers will be culturally colored. Thankfully, it is the Spirit who intercedes on behalf of us in prayer (and I don't mean that as license). We have been given models by which to pray in scripture, but the exact wording is variable, and some of that is going to come from culture.

Again, EP makes things a little bit easier to determine from a music standpoint than a viewpoint of hymns being acceptable in public worship. However, the interpretation of the Psalms into meter (again, the language issue will come into play) and the tune structure itself will not just come out of a vacuum. 

In short, I really think all I'm getting at is that there is a difference between things being wrong because they are a product of a certain culture, and things being wrong because they do not follow from good prudence or are in themselves sinful. I guess one other thing I am thinking is that we tend to judge things as right or wrong simply based on if they are tied to a culture, rather than on their intrinsic merits. 

All this to say, I agree with what others have said about the necessity for submission to the explicit commands of Scripture first, while allowing leeway in places where we do not have Biblical authority to bind the conscience.


----------



## Coram Deo

Brad,

I to am appreciating this thread.. Allow me to answer your lingering questions in your post to the best of my human possible mind..  

Head coverings. Not that I want this to turn into a thread on headcoverings but I will answer your question briefy and move on... Your right there is no mention in scripture what the covering looks like or what it should be like aleast at first glance... But I believe the Greek word itself gives us aleast some understanding of the covering.. It should cover the hair.. The crown of the head where the hair is. Those who wear a little dolley the size of my palm of my hand is not wearing a headcovering.. It is a veil the covers the hair, not a hat.. I also believe it should be a religious symbol that does not conform to the world or used as a circumstanal headgear.. i.e. Using a hat to keep the head warm on a cold day.. An Example of this would be the Amish.. Their woman have prayer coverings on all the time but the Bonnet is used for outside cold days headgear... Though they would require uniformity on both and going to far... I believe they should be simple and unadorning as is required for modesty and not drawing oneself to much attention...

As for pattern and color, other then the forementioned simple and unadorning I believe there is leeway but should not be cultural derived... after all we are called not to conform to the World..

You mentioned Tunes... Well I believe Music (Melody, Rythmn, and Harmony) are moral or immoral depending on all they are composed and should never be culturally derived.... Christians should compose God honoring music to their best ability.. As for Tunes, for me aleast since I am EP if the above requirement is met for moralness then the tune should also fit the mood and flow of the Psalm and should be majestic and lofty in the words of Calvin...

As for Language.. I am no language expert... Bible versions I use the Geneva Version of 1599, or The New King James... I happen to like the Old King James language ALOT but I am not a KJV only though I would define myself as a Received Text man... It is my understanding that the Old King James is the Highest quality for Language.... Anyway for the setting of the bar high I will leave that for the language experts, accept with this last to say... Let us not dumb down words like Santification, Justification, Propitation, Obliation, Mortification, Glorification, etc.. Lets teach these words to the masses regardless of the Christianity light that is going on today... We need generations that know what these words mean and use them...

Coram Deo,
Michael




bradofshaw said:


> I think I'm only pointing out minutia for the sake of the argument here. For the most part, I agree with your assessment. I don't even think this relates to the OP very much, but here it goes. I hope I don't come off as argumentative, because that's not my intention. I'm appreciating the discussion here, but this will likely be my final statement as I don't have a conclusive position of my own on all of this.
> 
> I still think you are overlooking the fact that even the elements themselves will be presented in a culture wrapped package. How are you going to prevent head coverings from being culturally conditioned? Is there a Biblical description of these somewhere? Granting head coverings as an element for the sake of argument, how do you distinguish between a woman wearing a straw hat and a woman wearing a habit? Which is more appropriate? Is it wrong to let the common fashion of the day decide which covering a woman wears? Again, I agree with your statements on good prudence and common sense.
> 
> You've allowed for language, however, you'd be hard pressed to determine what constitutes "setting the bar high" in the realm of language. Some English speakers might say King James English (which was once common usage). Is this practical? Should my black pastor from small town Virginia be expected to speak with the same style and delivery as Dr. Derick Thomas, who grew up in Wales? I'm not trying to deny the value of words having real meanings, but we have to understand that human language is limited and culturally colored. Even our prayers will be culturally colored. Thankfully, it is the Spirit who intercedes on behalf of us in prayer (and I don't mean that as license). We have been given models by which to pray in scripture, but the exact wording is variable, and some of that is going to come from culture.
> 
> Again, EP makes things a little bit easier to determine from a music standpoint than a viewpoint of hymns being acceptable in public worship. However, the interpretation of the Psalms into meter (again, the language issue will come into play) and the tune structure itself will not just come out of a vacuum.
> 
> In short, I really think all I'm getting at is that there is a difference between things being wrong because they are a product of a certain culture, and things being wrong because they do not follow from good prudence or are in themselves sinful. I guess one other thing I am thinking is that we tend to judge things as right or wrong simply based on if they are tied to a culture, rather than on their intrinsic merits.
> 
> All this to say, I agree with what others have said about the necessity for submission to the explicit commands of Scripture first, while allowing leeway in places where we do not have Biblical authority to bind the conscience.


----------



## Augusta

In the realm of circumstances like dress and headcovering no one (I think) is saying that Africans and Asians have to dress in puritan garb or wear a certain kind of hat. The principle is respectful and God honoring dress. So whatever is considered respectable dress for the solemn occasion in that country would most likely be appropriate. For half naked type cultures it would be a gradual learning process I would imagine. 

For hats, short of it being and animal head or some other hideous thing, whatever is a cover is fine. The scriptures actually say "power on her head." This is one of those occasions where the sign is less important that the thing signified. So something tasteful on the head would be honoring the principle of the sign on her head that she is in submission to God's creative order. 

The circumstances be they chairs/pews, cathedral/hut, etc etc are changeable as long as they are respectable and God honoring and serve the purpose to make the elements possible. What is not negotiable are the elements being present and in good order.


----------



## KMK

thunaer said:


> Elements Consist of: (Note I hold to a Few more then some)
> 
> 1. Preaching of the Word of God
> 2. Reading and hearing the Word of God
> 3. Singing Psalms
> 4. Prayer
> 5. Baptism
> 6. Lord's Supper
> 7. Oaths and Vows
> 8. Decorum (Headcovering for Ladies)
> 9. *Gestures in Worship (Praying kneeling or standing, etc)*



Are you saying that you believe the RPW demands certain gestures?


----------



## Coram Deo

I would say yes....

Examples of prayers in the scripture is Mostly Kneeling or standing, and Prostration for Private Worship....

You will find no sitting in prayer...

Gestures are a form of worship, If I kneel and pray that is worshipping or if I prostrate myself in front of the Lord that is worship.. So yes it is worship and since I believe in Sola Scriptura and the RPW I will only do the gestures that are in scripture......

Also to get back to the heart of this thread the lifting up of holy hands is a gesture that should be done only during prayer by either every man in the church together or by the elder of the church by exampled in scripture.....

Michael




KMK said:


> Are you saying that you believe the RPW demands certain gestures?


----------



## calgal

KMK said:


> Are you saying that you believe the RPW demands certain gestures?



Ken? How does headcovering = decorum?


----------



## BlackCalvinist

thunaer said:


> 1. Tie - is something that is consider best dressed, but I do not always wear a tie, Sometimes I wear a collarless dress shirt that you see sometimes among the mennonites...



According to whose culture ? What about people that don't wear ties and only have one set of clothes ?



> 2. songbook - We use the Psalter, book of the bible.. non cultural..



What system of music are the melodies you sing based off of ? Western or Eastern (and there is a huge difference). 



> 4. Standing still while singing - What are we suppose to do, the body wave... hehe (I have seen that at my cousins church, the bums bouncing and waving) Serious though, Singing is with the voice, not with the body....



According to who ? Again, I'm a music teacher, so I'd markedly disagree with your statement, having taught gospel choirs in both churches I've been a member of for multiple years, as well as singing with classically trained folks and teaching concert chorus for 4 years. 



> 5. Prayer - Our pastor lifts up holy hands during prayer.. exampled in scripture... if I was to do it every man should do it too together.. another example in scripture... I will not cause disorder by raising my hands while prayer and drawing attention to me also since there is no examples in scripture of raising holy hands alone in public worship..



Motive, motive, motive. And for the record, I don't have a problem with group 'lifting of hands'. If you are raising your hands to draw attention to yourself - well, several problems arise. If the people praying are truly focused on God, no one will care if your hands are lifted or not because their heads will be bowed in prayer. Second, if you lifting your hands *is* to draw attention to yourself, the problem would be you. 



> 7. professionally printed bulletin - I hate these with a passion and will NOT take one....



Why ? Just curious.



> I know the order of the worship and I can wait for the psalm to be announced, but I would not mind if a sign up front gave psalm numbers in order....



Depending on the church, a bulletin would serve that purpose. AND it gives you something to take notes on (assuming you've used up all the blank pages in the back of your bible and didn't bring a notepad) and refer back to later in the week.



> I think announcments before the call of worship or anytime in worship and printed bulletins that people read before or during the service are unneed and wrong.... I will not take one...



Since they have to do with the corporate body gathered together (acts 2) and refer (most of the time, depending on the church) to 'family business', why would they be wrong ?



> 8 - Pews transcends worldly culture... No other place is the pew used except in church... I vote for Pews...



Show me a pew in scripture.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

We have pews outside of church. We just don't call them pews. The're called park benches....


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Puritan Sailor said:


> We have pews outside of church. We just don't call them pews. The're called park benches....


----------



## alwaysreforming

*Lifting Hands*

I have a personal anecdote from last Sunday's worship service at my church.

At the end of the service, the "band" was singing a song and everyone was seated.
One person was apparantly so "caught up in the spirit" that she had her hand up in the air. She was the only one! Everyone else was just sitting there listening to the song, except for this lady who was making a spectacle of herself waving her hand and arm around everywhere (I think she might have even stood up, even though everyone else is seated)... she looked ridiculous. Before I rushed to judgment against her and that it was not really the Spirit moving her, I tried one last time to assess the situation: sure enough I was right. It wasn't the Spirit, for the song that was being sung was "Bridge Over Troubled Water" by Garfunkle or whoever... how is raising your hands to that glorifying Christ??? She just liked the "tune" and that's why she was waving around!


----------



## Davidius

alwaysreforming said:


> I have a personal anecdote from last Sunday's worship service at my church.
> 
> At the end of the service, the "band" was singing a song and everyone was seated.
> One person was apparantly so "caught up in the spirit" that she had her hand up in the air. She was the only one! Everyone else was just sitting there listening to the song, except for this lady who was making a spectacle of herself waving her hand and arm around everywhere (I think she might have even stood up, even though everyone else is seated)... she looked ridiculous. Before I rushed to judgment against her and that it was not really the Spirit moving her, I tried one last time to assess the situation: sure enough I was right. It wasn't the Spirit, for the song that was being sung was "Bridge Over Troubled Water" by Garfunkle or whoever... how is raising your hands to that glorifying Christ??? She just liked the "tune" and that's why she was waving around!



This sounds very much like the experience I had in the very first congregation of which I was a part after being converted. We had a choir and a small band and every Sunday there would be a time when the band would play and the choir would sing while the congregation remained seated and did not participate. Eventually, _every single time_ one person would get "so moved" by the performance that they would raise one or both hands in the air. Then, the "Spirit would just be so strong" that the one person would have to stand up by themselves in front of the entire congregation. Eventually this would catch on and several other people would be so moved that they would catch up and a shortly thereafter the entire congregation would be standing on its feet. This would happen every single Sunday, like it was in the bulletin or something.

Like I said earlier, I don't have a problem with various postures in worship. But it should be done congregationally because public worship is about worshipping God as one united body. This is destroyed when individuals get to just do their own thing because they're "moved." It's usually just sentimentalism induced by the emotional affects of things in music (dynamics, etc). But even if it's not, the first point is still legitimate.


----------



## Chris

> the song that was being sung was "Bridge Over Troubled Water" by Garfunkle or whoever



Please forgive me - when I read that I thought your church must be 'reformed seeker sensitive', playing Simon&Garfunkel instead of U2........

Uh, seriously....what's the reasoning behind playing that song in a worship service?


----------



## raekwon

Puritan Sailor said:


> We have pews outside of church. We just don't call them pews. The're called park benches....



Yep. I stopped calling 'em "pews" long ago . . . they're benches.


----------



## KMK

Chris said:


> Please forgive me - when I read that I thought your church must be 'reformed seeker sensitive', playing Simon&Garfunkel instead of U2........
> 
> Uh, seriously....what's the reasoning behind playing that song in a worship service?



Don't you get it? Jesus is like a bridge that takes you over the troubled waters of poverty to the promised land of prosperity!


----------



## Gloria

BJClark said:


> LifeInReturn,
> 
> 
> I felt compelled to raise my hands in worship, and I didn't know how 'other people' would look at me either, but something that really weighed down on my heart concerning that was...I was making other peoples opinions and what THEY would think, more important than what the Holy Spirit laid on my heart to do.
> 
> So I started raising my hands in worship when singing as I felt led to do so, a few of the elderly in our church (70's and 80's) have made comments to me, nothing negative, just they had felt led to do the same, but were concerned about how 'others' would percieve them. I just hugged them and let them know, if they feel compelled to raise thier hands in praise for all God has done for them, then raise their hands in praise to God, that IS why we are there anyway, right? to Worship God! Not other people.
> 
> But something to consider, if they are looking at you, their focus is on you, and not God. Which is something the Holy Spirit has convicted me of, am I there looking for the approval of men or to worship God?
> 
> you never know, others in your congregation may have the same fear you do, "what will 'other people' think if I raise my hands in praise to God when I sing?" Which is ultimately the fear of man, and not God. And you never know, if you lift your hands, if others have the same fear, it may encourage them to overcome the same fear of mans opinion.




 Great discussion, Jenn!


----------



## shelly

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> Letting individuals in the congregation express their devotion however they want in the pews leads to a fragmented body worshipping "on their own" instead of with everyone around them, which can be distracting and take away from the unification of the worshipping body of saints. .



In a church that is "silent" during worship, one lone amen is distracting. In a church where you hear "amen!, Yes" and hands are lifted up in worship etc. then it's not distracting. It becomes a participation in an audible and visible way of the worship that's going on with everyone around you. It's joining in. It's not fragmented. We don't have to be cookie cutters to be unified in worship.

shelly


----------



## Andrew P.C.

LifeInReturn said:


> I was talking to my friend Brandon about the disconnect between sound doctrine and worship. In most PCA churches, the teaching is on point, but the worship is ‘dry’. By ‘dry’, I mean there is no lifting of hands, no moving, just standing there holding your hymn book and singing along with everyone. At the charismatic churches, the teaching is not always on point, but the worship is. Hands are raised, knees are bent. Personally, I am a ‘lift hands’ type of girl when singing, praying, and worshipping. I kneel and sometimes tears are shed, but if I were to do that at my current church (a PCA), I’d be looked at as if I just grew an arm out of my forehead. Where is the ‘happy medium’ ? One of the many things I admire about *Epiphany Fellowship* (in Philly) is that there is a beautiful merge of the two - doctrinally sound teaching and heartfelt worship. I’d love to be able to be in church with my hands raised while singing hymns without being looked at in an odd fashion. In this area, I think the church lacks… no proper marriage of the two. Emotionalism has been so pimped and abused that anytime emotion is expressed in a worship setting in a conservative church, it’s looked down upon. That’s a very sad thing. I’ve been in pentecostal / charismatic churches where people have been running around the church, screaming at the top of their lungs… I’ve been hit in the back of my head before by a woman sitting behind me who ‘caught the spirit’. I believe that God is a God of order and not confusion, so I think those acts have cast a bad light on true heartfelt appreciation of the Lord.
> 
> Thoughts ?



This is brief but....

There isn't anything wrong with lifting your hands to praise the Lord. The only thing you have to remember(which you have pointed out) is that it's not how you worship but rather your heart toward God. 

Do you set apart God's name as Holy? Do you fear God? Do you see God as a graceful God always pour His mercies upon you, a sinner? Do you see God as your daily substance? Do you worship the Triune Godhead as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?

The church today has lost sight of a Holy God. There is no fear but rather "silly talk" and "lip service". Your heart, mind and soul, that is changed by the scriptures, will come forth in your worship toward God. The depth you have with God, the depth you will have with your worship. You can't seperate the two. Your relationship is worship to God.


----------



## IanWatson

LifeInReturn said:


> I was talking to my friend Brandon about the disconnect between sound doctrine and worship. In most PCA churches, the teaching is on point, but the worship is ‘dry’. By ‘dry’, I mean there is no lifting of hands, no moving, just standing there holding your hymn book and singing along with everyone. At the charismatic churches, the teaching is not always on point, but the worship is. Hands are raised, knees are bent. Personally, I am a ‘lift hands’ type of girl when singing, praying, and worshipping. I kneel and sometimes tears are shed, but if I were to do that at my current church (a PCA), I’d be looked at as if I just grew an arm out of my forehead. Where is the ‘happy medium’ ? One of the many things I admire about *Epiphany Fellowship* (in Philly) is that there is a beautiful merge of the two - doctrinally sound teaching and heartfelt worship. I’d love to be able to be in church with my hands raised while singing hymns without being looked at in an odd fashion. In this area, I think the church lacks… no proper marriage of the two. Emotionalism has been so pimped and abused that anytime emotion is expressed in a worship setting in a conservative church, it’s looked down upon. That’s a very sad thing. I’ve been in pentecostal / charismatic churches where people have been running around the church, screaming at the top of their lungs… I’ve been hit in the back of my head before by a woman sitting behind me who ‘caught the spirit’. I believe that God is a God of order and not confusion, so I think those acts have cast a bad light on true heartfelt appreciation of the Lord.
> 
> Thoughts ?




I would have to say that in many churches today people just raise their hands for show and to impress others. I personally have a very biased opinion toward this topic. I have grown up around southern Baptists churches that were backward in many of their beliefs. I would see many people that i knew were not christians raising their hands, crying, and carrying on, and i knew they didnt mean it. The next weekend they would go out and party. So i think one needs to be very careful about this. 

In my church services, usually, not a hand will be put in the air, and Im really thankful for that. I have seen the most heart-fealt worship and praise in my church than any other "hand-raising" services i have been to. It has been very rare, in my case, to see a service of people who raise their hands and are "filled with the spirit" that are really true and are not just to impress.


----------



## G.Wetmore

trevorjohnson said:


> hand raising has biblical precedent...baton twirling does not..
> 
> 
> This is not a debate of order versus disorder.
> 
> We all agree there should be order in the church.
> 
> It is the degree of order that we are talking about.
> 
> An enforced extra-biblical level of austerity may not be the biblical norm for everone even if we prefer this ourselves.



so what are you saying, I can't twirl a baton? Why are you taking your cultural norms and pawning them off on me? What if baton twirling really expresses my emotion? Are you trying to stifle me with your euro-indonesian reservedness? 

If you are going to say that we have the right to outwardly express our emotion in worship, why not in baton twirling. I know it seems absurd, but I'm sure there is some crazy charismatic out there (probably reading this thread http://www.puritanboard.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif) that really has a hankering for baton twirling. And what if he doesn't think it's disorderly? And don't just say that there is biblical warrant for handraising, because there is not in the way being discussed here.

The idea of Biblical handraising had nothing to do with an emotional outlet. I am sure that the people praying had emotions, but that isn't why they were told to raise their hands. They were told to lift HOLY hands in prayer. This meant they were supposed to lift up and present their hands to God, hands that had been set apart for him. We work with our hands (at least most did in the ancient world, today not as much, but that is the imagery). Men are called by God to excercise Godly dominion in the world. They are then called to present their hands to God, which have been set aside for this task. It is a theological statement, not an emotional outlet.


----------



## Pilgrim

trevorjohnson said:


> Most of this comes down to taste, custom and cultural tradition. A Scotsman is not going to worship like an Indonesian or African. Any appeal to an exclusively "Reformed" posture of worship is mere culture being mistaken for Gospel.
> 
> The Reformed are often guilty of taking a short splice of church history and trying to make it normative for Christians of all ages as far as external mannerism. The Puritans were childen of their culture and day also. Much of what they did externally was not Christian merely but very European and British, to include the tight lipped un-emotionalism of many.
> 
> 
> I see lots of emotion in Scripture.
> 
> My Indonesian friends often raise their hands for worship (lifting up holy hands). Those from Muslim backgrounds pray with extended hands palm up as in their formerly Muslim ways. They also look up at the heavens instead of down at the dirt when they pray...which, really, makes more sense. Why do we look down or fold our hands palms together. WHy not lay prostrate on the floor or bow our knee to the Father (I think we do not kneel for prayer because the early Reformers were anti-Catholic and did not even want to appear as a kneeling Catholic).



I have seen a 19th century Covenanter article that asserted that the practice of praying while seated was one of C.G. Finney's "new measures" that at the time of writing were supplanting standing or kneeling in prayer.


----------



## Pilgrim

Puritan Sailor said:


> We have pews outside of church. We just don't call them pews. The're called park benches....



They are called benches in the courtroom too....


----------



## KMK

IanWatson said:


> I would have to say that in many churches today people just raise their hands for show and to impress others. I personally have a very biased opinion toward this topic. I have grown up around southern Baptists churches that were backward in many of their beliefs. I would see many people that i knew were not christians raising their hands, crying, and carrying on, and i knew they didnt mean it. The next weekend they would go out and party. So i think one needs to be very careful about this.
> 
> In my church services, usually, not a hand will be put in the air, and Im really thankful for that. I have seen the most heart-fealt worship and praise in my church than any other "hand-raising" services i have been to. It has been very rare, in my case, to see a service of people who raise their hands and are "filled with the spirit" that are really true and are not just to impress.



OK. What's up with all the Texarkana folks? Is Josh trying to stage a coup or something?


----------



## G.Wetmore

trevorjohnson said:


> Gabriel:
> 
> Funny, ....... twirl your baton for the Lord brother! JUst maybe not in the gathered assembly.
> 
> Incidentally many beleivers here pray with hands extended. It is not due to emotional rapturous feelings, but often local custom. The Bible does say LIFT holy hands in prayer.
> 
> No mention of baton swirling in Scripture occurs, however.



You are not dealing with the whole question of the meaning of lifting up holy hands. How does the Biblical concept of lifting up holy hands in prayer support individualistic and outward emotional expression in corporate worship/singing. 


By the way, . . . . . what is baton twirling


----------



## Pilgrim

Calvin and the Worship of God by Robert Godfrey might be helpful to provide some background on Reformed worship and its patristic roots.


----------

