# It’s ok to pay non-Christians to play music in church services



## Josh Williamson (Nov 2, 2013)

This article is from a 'Reformed' church planting movement in Australia. What are your thoughts? 

It’s ok to pay non-Christians to play music in church services | Christian Reflections | Blogs | Geneva Push


----------



## Hamalas (Nov 2, 2013)

I think we're getting a bit off topic here. I'm not sure if this discussion (worthwhile as it is) is really addressing the question raised.


----------



## GloriousBoaz (Nov 2, 2013)

I remember Paul Washer once talking about how he could never lead worship (praise music) because of the awesome responsibility of leading God's people into His presence in worship was such a high standard for the leader and today all we are is little boys trying to play in the folds of God's robe. He explains there is a time for that but there is a time not only for the "wedding feast experience" but also the "throne room experience" prostrate in fear and trembling in reverence to Yahweh, but its not either or it is both/and and if one is missing something is wrong. He also explains a good worship lead should be like a person in New York City walking on the street in a crowd and stops and looks up and pretty soon others stop and look up wondering what he is looking at, all the attention on God and not the worship leader. As far as bringing in tares to lead worship, when the men in Acts who waited tables were required to be filled with the Holy Spirit, I'd say those people missed the boat on that one.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Nov 2, 2013)

Let's stick to the opening post's question. Sure; it is a given if the church had maintained the normal practice of almost 1850 years prior to the change over, the question would not need to be asked. To be accurate the Westminster standards don't explicitly address the question of musical instruments. We do know what the Puritan view was however. There were only two illicit pipe organs in England at the time of the assembly, and those were pulled out of Westminster and St. Paul's by the order of the Parliament. Had it been an issue of any greater moment than just addressing those two instances, I'm sure the assembly would have noted it formally somehow.


----------



## Hamalas (Nov 2, 2013)

Personally I think his core point (both from reading the article and the comments section) is a good one. e.g. What is central in worship is not the accompaniment but rather the congregation. This is a simple re-articulation of the historic Reformed belief that the "congregation is the choir". However, he goes too far when he equates having a non-Christian AC repairman work at the church and having non-Christian musicians aid in corporate worship. In the Scriptures those who lead in singing were "filled with the Spirit" and while we don't want to elevate music too highly we should also be careful not to diminish it either.


----------



## Peairtach (Nov 2, 2013)

Without patent Regeneration-Spex (TM) we can't be totally sure that the organist or precentor is truly converted.

I believe that Craigie Reformed Baptist Church, Josh, sometimes uses some kind of robotic organist, a non-living instrument without either a converted or unconverted operator 

The argument for instruments today seems to be that although they were elements of worship in the Temple, they are now circumstances of worship today. If they are circumstances does it matter who operates them?

In that case the argument might be for converted precentors "in good standing", but indifference as regards organists (?)

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Josh Williamson (Nov 2, 2013)

Peairtach said:


> I believe that Craigie Reformed Baptist Church, Josh, sometimes uses some kind of robotic organist, a non-living instrument without either a converted or unconverted operator



We use "George" the automatic organist from the Metropolitan Tabernacle. But he is controlled / programmed by a Deacon of the church.


----------



## Jack K (Nov 2, 2013)

From the article:



> It is in part that we have over-spiritualised and over-centralised the role of band in our church services that we find it strange to have non-Christians in the band and to pay them to do it.



This is a good point. I'd still prefer to have members of the congregation provide the music, but the contemporary idea that "leading in worship" is about being in a praise band and exercising musical talents misses the real qualifications for worship leadership. If we don't see the piano/guitar/organ/whatever players as leaders, but rather just participants who add to the whole congregational choir, we will be better off.

BTW... the one time I visited the church mentioned in the article, the musicians (paid or not, believers or not, I don't know) were unobtrusive and not made much of at all. There was little doubt that the worship leader was the elder at the podium, not the musicians.


----------



## Miss Marple (Nov 2, 2013)

Wow.

Our church (I was not a member at the time) won a precedent setting lawsuit over this in the early 1980s, I believe it was.

A local ordinance forbad the firing of anyone for being homosexual. It was discovered that our organist, who had professed to being a Christian when hired, was in fact a practicing homosexual. He was fired; we were sued. We lost at the local level but won on appeal -after much harassment, persecution, and we even had our church and manse set ablaze -

the basis of our argument being, the music player is a participant in the worship and our right to freedom of worship relieves us of having to obey that local ordinance.

So may I say I do hope that all churches everywhere maintain a requirement of Christianity for their music players, or, you may have a very very unpleasant surprise some day.


----------



## VictorBravo (Nov 2, 2013)

Miss Marple said:


> It was discovered that our organist, who had professed to being a Christian when hired, was in fact a practicing homosexual.



I was a non-Christian church organist in the 70s. About half the male organists I knew then were practicing homosexuals. The only thing different from what you describe is that the churches' leadership generally knew about it and just kept their mouths shut.


----------



## Tirian (Nov 3, 2013)

In some of the comments relating to the article the author uses the "but God uses means" argument.

In effect, why should *you* who oppose knowingly engaging secular musicians prevent other believers worshipping God by giving their money to be used to pay for such ministers.

It's bizarre. The "God uses means" rationale is poisonous - with it we could run the whole service via remote control (outsourced to heathens) as long as we use the monetary gifts offered in worship to enable it.


----------



## Peairtach (Nov 3, 2013)

In a situation where a converted organist is unavailable, and it is felt strongly that the organist/musician(s) should be converted, the congregation should go a cappella. 

This will have the added beneficial effect of reminding the congregation that the singing is the element of praise, whereas the musical instrument is at best a circumstance, for the sake of man, and teach them something more about the Divine priorities in worship, according to the RPW revealed in Scripture.

At the very least he Lord indicates nowhere that He is displeased if musical instruments are left out, or that He insists on their use for proper NT worship, so why should anyone be concerned if they have to do without them for a time; or if they believe for some reason that this circumstance of worship should not be provided by an unbeliever, why should they compromise their conscience for the sake of some musical accompaniment that the Lord does not demand or require, and that is not necessary for the congregation's sake. The instrument(s) being absent, may even encourage them to work and improve on the element of praise, the singing, because the blemishes and inadequacies in the singing aren't masked by a lifeless instrument, that the Lord, to put it no more highly, has no interest in.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## ZackF (Nov 3, 2013)

Regular Lord's day worship is where I would say no is different than say a wedding or funeral where I would be more likely to approve of it. I could see an unbelieving friend playing for free as a gift or the couple choosing to give a totally appropriate honorarium for the occasion. 

Per the remarks made above we know that many men in the performing arts are well.....you know. So it is not to be unexpected to run across that if you are just looking for a musician first, Christian second.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 3, 2013)

> Most Australians I know really balk at this. It feels unspiritual. Mercenary. Selling out on the community of God’s people for the sake of quality. No only to have non-Christians… but to PAY them!?



How about the part of being paid for doing this on the Lord's day? Shouldn't the being paid part be another point of contention?


----------



## sevenzedek (Nov 3, 2013)

If we need a refined argument from Scripture in order to make a case against heathens leading worship, there is something wrong. The flaw with such practice is readily discernible. That would be like having the murderer of a loved one sing at an event in my honor with no reconciliation beforehand.


----------



## Hemustincrease (Nov 3, 2013)

Peairtach said:


> In a situation where a converted organist is unavailable, and it is felt strongly that the organist/musician(s) should be converted, the congregation should go a cappella.
> 
> This will have the added beneficial effect of reminding the congregation that the singing is the element of praise, whereas the musical instrument is at best a circumstance, for the sake of man, and teach them something more about the Divine priorities in worship, according to the RPW revealed in Scripture.
> 
> At the very least he Lord indicates nowhere that He is displeased if musical instruments are left out, or that He insists on their use for proper NT worship, so why should anyone be concerned if they have to do without them for a time; or if they believe for some reason that this circumstance of worship should not be provided by an unbeliever, why should they compromise their conscience for the sake of some musical accompaniment that the Lord does not demand or require, and that is not necessary for the congregation's sake. The instrument(s) being absent, may even encourage them to work and improve on the element of praise, the singing, because the blemishes and inadequacies in the singing aren't masked by a lifeless instrument, that the Lord, to put it no more highly, has no interest in.





If a thing has been expressly commanded by the Lord as an essential element of worship then we can be confident that He will also provide the means within His own body and if for a time a local body is without, they will look to Him to supply their need. (That we will have unbelievers in our midst who go undetected by His true sheep and so fulfill certain duties/tasks etc within a local church, doesn’t mean we should go looking for unbelievers and employ them to perform a duty we ourselves are not equipped to do at that time.) 

If a thing is not expressly commanded by the Lord as an essential element of worship (and musical accompaniment clearly is not, such that some even contend that it is forbidden) then would it not be better to do without rather than look outside of His body for unbelievers to bring in their gifts (great as they may be) that are unspiritual and pay them for that which the He has seen fit to withhold from His own body (for however long a time or a season)?


----------



## THE W (Nov 3, 2013)

error overload..


----------



## arapahoepark (Nov 3, 2013)

If they are blatantly unbelieving, the mere notion is a stupid one.


----------

