# Contemporary Worship?



## buggy (Nov 16, 2009)

Just wish to find out the perspectives' of you all on contemporary worship - is it biblical/scriptural? 

As a person who has attended a RB church only for a few months, personally I find that many confessing Protestant churches (both RB/Presbyterian) tend to be cautious towards that, if not oppose it outright. 

I am concerned about this because many youths today leave for those megachurches since they are tired of "old-fashioned services", and also feel that somewhat culturally they don't belong to traditional churches (and even more if it's "fundamentalist").

Now I'm not advocating for churches to adopt the "purpose-driven" garbage, but here's one question - does contemporary worship - i.e. music, style, etc. conform to the Regulative Principle? Or partially, or not at all?


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Nov 16, 2009)

At one level there is a fundamental difference of approach between the Regulative Principle of Worship and what has been termed the "Normative principle." However, for me, the rub comes in differences you find among those who claim to hold to a RPW.


----------



## carlgobelman (Nov 16, 2009)

buggy said:


> Just wish to find out the perspectives' of you all on contemporary worship - is it biblical/scriptural?
> 
> As a person who has attended a RB church only for a few months, personally I find that many confessing Protestant churches (both RB/Presbyterian) tend to be cautious towards that, if not oppose it outright.
> 
> ...



I think you will find that the majority of people here on PB adhere to the RPW, which basically asserts that only those forms of worship which are explicitly advocated (or can be drawn from "due use of the ordinary means") in Scripture are allowable in the corporate worship of the church. The other view (Normative?) asserts the converse -- namely, anything that isn't explicitly forbidden in Scripture is allowable in worship.

As a reforming evangelical, I am in transition from normative to regulative. I think the biggest argument you will get against contemporary worship is its real or perceived conformity to the culture. This runs the risk of the church becoming syncretistic with the culture.

In my own experience with contemporary worship, there is at times a lack of discernment regarding song choice. As Warren Cole Smith (author of _A Lover's Quarrel with the Evangelical Church_) said, the amount of time between a song being played on Christian radio and being sung in a corporate church setting is shrinking. It used to be that before a church hymnal was altered to add new songs these new songs went through a vetting process to analyze the lyrics and the theological content. That has pretty much gone by the wayside in most evangelical churches.

Songs in church are used more for their ability to evoke the so-called "worship experience," as opposed to their ability to instruct us in our faith (cf. Colossians 3:16).


----------



## ColdSilverMoon (Nov 16, 2009)

buggy said:


> Just wish to find out the perspectives' of you all on contemporary worship - is it biblical/scriptural?
> 
> As a person who has attended a RB church only for a few months, personally I find that many confessing Protestant churches (both RB/Presbyterian) tend to be cautious towards that, if not oppose it outright.
> 
> ...



What exactly do you mean by "contemporary worship?"


----------



## Skyler (Nov 16, 2009)

Contemporary music sounds like rock music, which is obviously of the devil. So contemporary music is evil.

There, that was easy, wasn't it?


----------



## A.J. (Nov 16, 2009)

Contemporary worship, as I have known and experienced, is that kind of worship associated with groups like Integrity Music, Maranatha and Hillsong Australia.


----------



## ewenlin (Nov 16, 2009)

Tian Long, where are you worshipping at?


----------



## Osage Bluestem (Nov 16, 2009)

I believe that anything that is not explicitly forbidden and is explicitly or implicitly allowed in scripture is permissive for worship.

I prefer traditional worship, the more liturgical and reverent the better in my view. However, the contemporary style is not forbidden in scripture.

It makes me feel weird though. I get the feeling it is focused too much on entertainment on the horizontal level and too little on glorifying God on the vertical level.

God is the primary audience in worship.


----------



## BobVigneault (Nov 16, 2009)

Contemporary worship just isn't what it used to be.


----------



## Joseph Scibbe (Nov 16, 2009)

Dont forget that all music was at one point ''contemporary''. I see no problem with it as we are singing ''psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs'' as commanded by Scripture.We are not given a genre to choose from. Hymns with poorly theological lyrics are no better (actually they are worse) than contemporary ones with solid lyrics.


----------



## Honor (Nov 16, 2009)

I think that if you look back (like someone already mentioned) alot of songs were at one point contemporary and some of our most beloved hymns were written so they could be song in a bar. shocking but true. also the Bible says to "make a joyful noise" so I take that to mean all kinds of different music.


----------



## NRB (Nov 16, 2009)

The more liturgical with lot's of Psalms the better for me. 

In fact I read an article recently that it's a myth concerning the popularity of contemporary worship with the youth of today, and it seems, in especially the other youth that the liturgy is making a comeback I can't find it but I believe it was featured in the christianpost!?

Anywho, thankyou for listening.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Nov 16, 2009)

Are the issues of RPW versus Normative style primarily limited to music/songs/instruments?? That seems to be where all the heat is generated in discussions here on the PB. 

But, some of the contemporary styles that bother me include dance, drama, theatrical-type presentations, movies, slideshows, "cheerleading" and cheering?? I wonder how much of my disdain is strong preference on my part and how much is contra the RPW and biblical prescription.


----------



## Jon Peters (Nov 16, 2009)

Jimmy the Greek said:


> Are the issues of RPW versus Normative style primarily limited to music/songs/instruments?? That seems to be where all the heat is generated in discussions here on the PB.
> 
> But, some of the contemporary styles that bother me include dance, drama, theatrical-type presentations, movies, slideshows, "cheerleading" and cheering?? I wonder how much of my disdain is strong preference on my part and how much is contra the RPW and biblical prescription.



The most heated disagreement comes with music and song in worship. The other elements are simply not as controversial.

I think Mason asks a good question. If by contemporary worship the OP is confining that to the content and style music then there is nothing implicit in the RPW that would prevent one from singing contemporary tunes with drums and a guitar. If one believes that the RPW is Psalms only and no musical instruments, one would still be free to use a contemporary translation set to a contemporary melody (just without instruments).


----------



## Prufrock (Nov 16, 2009)

First, it needs to be understood that this board _is_ Confessional, and that advocacy of not abiding by the RPW is not allowed -- that is, we are only allowed to do what we are commanded to do; it is not Reformed to argue that it is permissible if it is not disallowed.

Secondly, at the moment it will be necessary and helpful for those who *do* hold to the RPW to come together on our common ground: there are those of us who believe the RPW only allows Psalms and no instruments; some of us believe it allows hymns and an accompanying instrument. What is important, however, is that those in the latter crows consider the accompanying instrument to be but a *circumstance*: that is, strictly as an aid to singing. This is at odds with the multi-instrument "worship bands." If some "style of music" requires a lot of extra instrumentation to make it singable, it's time to start finding another style of music in order to keep the circumstances simple and un-intrusive upon the elements of worship.


----------



## Augusta (Nov 16, 2009)

You add a band and you have entertainment, not accompaniment with the aim to aid singing.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Nov 16, 2009)

Prufrock said:


> First, it needs to be understood that this board _is_ Confessional, and that advocacy of not abiding by the RPW is not allowed -- that is, we are only allowed to do what we are commanded to do; it is not Reformed to argue that it is permissible if it is not disallowed.
> 
> Secondly, at the moment it will be necessary and helpful for those who *do* hold to the RPW to come together on our common ground: there are those of us who believe the RPW only allows Psalms and no instruments; some of us believe it allows hymns and an accompanying instrument. What is important, however, is that those in the latter crows consider the accompanying instrument to be but a *circumstance*: that is, strictly as an aid to singing. This is at odds with the multi-instrument "worship bands." If some "style of music" requires a lot of extra instrumentation to make it singable, it's time to start finding another style of music in order to keep the circumstances simple and un-intrusive upon the elements of worship.



I realize we are not allowed to talk about this but how do pro-instrumental people, using the RPW, confine musical instrumentation to mere accompaniment? How, using the RPW, are instruments called to be "un-intrusive" upon the elements of worship? Are instruments really circumstances?


----------



## Prufrock (Nov 16, 2009)

Ben, unless I have missed something somewhere along the line, the use of instruments as a circumstance is the one argument which RPW-adhering instrumentalists bring forth. Someone please correct me here if I am mistaken. Since the people may have a hard time singing together without aid, they provide an accompaniment to allow the element to be performed more smoothly. If an instrumentalist reading this take exception to my description of your position, please correct.


----------



## Jon Peters (Nov 16, 2009)

Augusta said:


> You add a band and you have entertainment, not accompaniment with the aim to aid singing.



Sorry Traci, not true. Where is your Scriptural support for such a position?


----------



## Glenn Ferrell (Nov 16, 2009)

Contemporary and traditional are not helpful terms in speaking of worship. I just received the score of a newer Scottish Psalm tune, Bethesda, written within the last decade. It is “contemporary,” though written in a traditional Celtic style. I hope to incorporate it into our local public worship. Will that make us “contemporary”?

More important are the questions:

What elements of worship are commanded in scripture?

Are the words used in prayer, preaching and sung praise true biblically?

Does the music, sung or instrumental, assist the congregation in their joint praise of God, or is it performance?

Are there unwarranted elements included in the time of public worship?

More important than style is the accurate and effective representation of God’s revealed word concerning the good news of salvation in Jesus Christ. Style will not save. The gospel will.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon (Nov 16, 2009)

Prufrock said:


> First, it needs to be understood that this board _is_ Confessional, and that advocacy of not abiding by the RPW is not allowed -- that is, we are only allowed to do what we are commanded to do; it is not Reformed to argue that it is permissible if it is not disallowed.
> 
> Secondly, at the moment it will be necessary and helpful for those who *do* hold to the RPW to come together on our common ground: there are those of us who believe the RPW only allows Psalms and no instruments; some of us believe it allows hymns and an accompanying instrument. What is important, however, is that those in the latter crows consider the accompanying instrument to be but a *circumstance*: that is, strictly as an aid to singing. *This is at odds with the multi-instrument "worship bands." If some "style of music" requires a lot of extra instrumentation to make it singable, it's time to start finding another style of music in order to keep the circumstances simple and un-intrusive upon the elements of worship.*



I'm not sure I follow this thinking at all. What type of music requires "a lot of extra instrumentation" to make it "singable?" I'm not being argumentative, I just can't think of a single style of music that _requires_ multiple instruments in order to sing a song. And can't more than one instrument aid a song? Since when are multi-instrument bands anti-RPW?


----------



## Jon Peters (Nov 16, 2009)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Prufrock said:
> 
> 
> > First, it needs to be understood that this board _is_ Confessional, and that advocacy of not abiding by the RPW is not allowed -- that is, we are only allowed to do what we are commanded to do; it is not Reformed to argue that it is permissible if it is not disallowed.
> ...



I think you ask a good question. I'm not sure I can answer your question satisfactorily at this point, but, if you don't mind, let me ask you a couple of questions. What about the use of instruments as accomponyment strikes you as not circumstantial? I'm not looking for the "no musical instruments" arguments; my question is more practical. For instance, though you would disagree with the use of it at all, would the use of a piano to play the first refrain or two to get people on tempo and in key be easier to contstrue as circumstantial in your opinion? Is a pitchpipe circumstantial? 

Thanks.


----------



## Augusta (Nov 16, 2009)

Jon Peters said:


> Augusta said:
> 
> 
> > You add a band and you have entertainment, not accompaniment with the aim to aid singing.
> ...



I was giving an opinion there, not a doctrinal statement. 

The doctrinal view that I hold to is that there should not be ANY instruments in Christian worship. I would point you to the WLC questions 108-109 and the scripture proofs there. Presbyterians historically believe the Temple worship with *all *it's ceremonies to be fulfilled in Christ who is the substance.(Col. 2:16-17) Excepting of course those things commanded in the NT to be continued.


----------



## buggy (Nov 16, 2009)

ewenlin said:


> Tian Long, where are you worshipping at?



I worship at a RB church that has traditional worship only - hymns etc. 

Look, I realised I've opened quite a big can of worms - yikes! Yes I am talking about song and music in worship only. I do not espouse the "movies", the dramas and likewise seen in many modern churches today. Apologies for poorly defining what I meant. 

What I am saying is that is it possible to so-call adopt newer styles of music, maybe even newer instruments without violating the Regulative principle. (If you don't believe in instruments then only the 1st part applies to you)

Lots of people have provided many useful posts, thanks a lot.


----------



## Curt (Nov 16, 2009)

NRB said:


> The more liturgical with lot's of Psalms the better for me.
> 
> In fact I read an article recently that it's a myth concerning the popularity of contemporary worship with the youth of today, and it seems, in especially the other youth that the liturgy is making a comeback I can't find it but I believe it was featured in the christianpost!?
> 
> Anywho, thankyou for listening.



If this is the case, then why are all the contemp worship/emerging/emergent "congregations" full and building while many (most?) RPW congregations remain small?


----------



## NRB (Nov 16, 2009)

Curt said:


> NRB said:
> 
> 
> > The more liturgical with lot's of Psalms the better for me.
> ...



No clue, I'm just the average joe reader.

The times, they are apostate eh?


----------



## Brian Withnell (Nov 16, 2009)

buggy said:


> Now I'm not advocating for churches to adopt the "purpose-driven" garbage, but here's one question - does contemporary worship - i.e. music, style, etc. conform to the Regulative Principle? Or partially, or not at all?



You will get a different answer from those that hold to exclusive Psalmody/acapella only music, but for those that do not hold to that, the answer is a firm "it depends".

Given that the worship is God centered, congregation performing, the genre is not what matters, but rather the fact that the worship service would not work (it would be totally broken) if the congregation were not there. If the "service" would essentially be the same even if there was no "live" congregation, then no.

God is the audience, the congregation is the performers.


----------



## AThornquist (Nov 16, 2009)

"psalms, hymns, spiritual songs . . ."

That just so happens to include psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. Can contemporary Christian music fit within those? Absolutely! Old hymns are no more spiritual than new ones. Biblical songs that have modern instruments fit within that. 

A potential pitfall is that modern songs can be used as entertainment. That should have no place within our churches. Yet at the same time older songs can be idolized and kept because of people's preferred traditions. So, they can be an older form of entertainment!

The answer is not to condemn the old or the new; the sin of our hearts can pollute any good thing. Seek out music with biblical lyrics and an atmosphere that is clearly not about entertainment. I say atmosphere because there can easily be a bass, some drums, electric guitar, etc. and still be fully reverent. My church typically has a couple of acoustic guitars, and sometimes bass and drums. The worship to the Lord is never different on a heart level although the music sounds more pleasing, which is what we seek to offer to the Lord in spirit and in truth.


----------



## Edward (Nov 16, 2009)

I personally would not choose to go to a church with contemporary music if there was a viable alternative, but I consider that to be a stylistic preference on my part, and not a theologically based choice.


----------



## Mushroom (Nov 16, 2009)

> I am concerned about this because many youths today leave for those megachurches since they are tired of "old-fashioned services", and also feel that somewhat culturally they don't belong to traditional churches (and even more if it's "fundamentalist").


A myth the emergent lurch would have you believe.


> If this is the case, then why are all the contemp worship/emerging/emergent "congregations" full and building while many (most?) RPW congregations remain small?


A plethora of itching ears?


----------



## kevin.carroll (Nov 16, 2009)

What distresses me in that question (not in you, necessarily) is the implicit idea that only sining is worship. The Church has bigger problems than music styles. She has lost her theology of worship.


----------



## ChariotsofFire (Nov 16, 2009)

Much of what we see in American churches today of "contemporary" worship is man-centered and emotional for the sake of being emotional. It is not a matter of preference. It is a matter of having God-glorifying worship. There are some modern songs that are very God glorifying, and there are some songs that do not honor God. There are ways to sing these God glorifying songs (as a congregation), and ways to sing songs in a way that does not honor God (praise teams that shift the focus from God to man). While I see merit in including _some _ of the more modern songs into worship, I don't see any value in singing them with praise teams or choirs. 

Another observation about this style of music is that it often lends itself to emotionalism, rather than true emotions that flow from singing about the things of God (not to say that this isn't possible with singing hymns).


----------



## kevin.carroll (Nov 16, 2009)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> I realize we are not allowed to talk about this but how do pro-instrumental people, using the RPW, confine musical instrumentation to mere accompaniment? How, using the RPW, are instruments called to be "un-intrusive" upon the elements of worship? Are instruments really circumstances?



Let me answer a question with a question. Why must we sing the Psalms, but we cannot DO the Psalms (i.e. use instruments)? Makes no sense to me.

I agree that instruments are circumstances in much the same way that the version of the Scriptures that is read and preached is. I use the ESV, frankly avoiding the KJV, because the language of the ESV is an aid to hearing and understanding.

No argument from me on praise bands.


----------



## JBaldwin (Nov 16, 2009)

As I read through this thread, I still get the impression that there is not a concensus on the meaning of the word contemporary. Does contemporary refer to the words? Does it refer to the music? To both the words and the music? Does it mean written sometime in the last 10 years? As others have already said, if you are just talking about something written recently, than there is no big deal. If you are speaking of shallow, fluffy lyrics that say nothing, that is a completely different issue. 

My own church uses quite a mix. If I gave you the words to some of the songs we sing in our worship on Sunday, you would recognize that we are singing songs that are written exactly as they appear in many Psalters. If you heard the music and the instrumental accompaniment only, you might guess that we are singing something we picked up on christian radio. If you listened to the congregation sing during worship, you would think you were listening to a choir. If that is contemporary worship, than give me more.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Nov 16, 2009)

kevin.carroll said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> > I realize we are not allowed to talk about this but how do pro-instrumental people, using the RPW, confine musical instrumentation to mere accompaniment? How, using the RPW, are instruments called to be "un-intrusive" upon the elements of worship? Are instruments really circumstances?
> ...



Should we sacrifice bulls in worship since the Psalms tell us to?


----------



## JBaldwin (Nov 16, 2009)

kevin.carroll said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> > I realize we are not allowed to talk about this but how do pro-instrumental people, using the RPW, confine musical instrumentation to mere accompaniment? How, using the RPW, are instruments called to be "un-intrusive" upon the elements of worship? Are instruments really circumstances?
> ...



Good point.


----------



## kevin.carroll (Nov 16, 2009)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Should we sacrifice bulls in worship since the Psalms tell us to?



Clearly not, but your question certainy underscores the inconsistency in how the Psalms in worship. I say this as a Psalm singer!


----------



## Grillsy (Nov 16, 2009)

Prufrock said:


> Ben, unless I have missed something somewhere along the line, the use of instruments as a circumstance is the one argument which RPW-adhering instrumentalists bring forth. Someone please correct me here if I am mistaken. Since the people may have a hard time singing together without aid, they provide an accompaniment to allow the element to be performed more smoothly. If an instrumentalist reading this take exception to my description of your position, please correct.



You're right. And thank you for helping to distinguish from the position of the modern type worship band whereby we are made to endure 10 minute long shredding guitar solos whilst the audiences cheers for the picker.


----------



## Webservant (Nov 16, 2009)

Unashamed 116 said:


> Dont forget that all music was at one point ''contemporary''. I see no problem with it as we are singing ''psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs'' as commanded by Scripture.We are not given a genre to choose from. Hymns with poorly theological lyrics are no better (actually they are worse) than contemporary ones with solid lyrics.


No, everyone knows the Israelites dragged a pipe-organ through the desert with them.


----------



## KMK (Nov 16, 2009)

BobVigneault said:


> Contemporary worship just isn't what it used to be.



I agree. Bands like 2nd Chapter of Acts, and Sweet Comfort Band, and Resurrection Band just don't stack up against "The Mighty Clouds of Joy" and the Gaithers.


----------



## alb1 (Nov 16, 2009)

Ive been in several churches that do a mixture of traditional hymns and modern spiritual songs in worship. For me personally the modern songs are what stay in my heart and mind during the week. If psalms and or hymns aid you in living a Christian life, then seek a church that sings psalms and or hymns. God receives the praise and you receive the benefit of a joy filled life.


----------



## NRB (Nov 17, 2009)

The PCA church in which my wife and I are members sing hymns out of the Trinity Hymnal (I believe that's the name), but it's like the Trinity Psalter, but with a lot more old hymns. It has a red cover and a triangular shape on the front cover.

During our corporate worship we have a "praise and worship" group of sorts...2 ladies and a guy with an acoustic guitar. They sing 3 songs every service, lyrics printed in the service bulletin.
It's done during and just after "The Greeting of One Another". I think it's cool as long as they don't go too far with contemporary songs from current radio.
But, I could live without it.  My wife absolutely loves it and it sold her on joining this particular PCA church.

I'm wishy washy that way to be honest.
It's not like they sing stuff on contemporary christian radio, but they have sung the old "contemporary standard" called "Blessed Be Your Name" if that gives you all an idea on what our church does.

Thankyou for listening.


----------



## Kevin (Nov 17, 2009)

John & Albert, thanks for sharing.


----------



## ewenlin (Nov 17, 2009)

buggy said:


> ewenlin said:
> 
> 
> > Tian Long, where are you worshipping at?
> ...


Where exactly?

I'm from Singapore too btw


----------



## wookie (Nov 17, 2009)

Hi Tian Long,

I was at your church premises yesterday and I bought a couple of books from Francis. One of the books I bought is called _Perspectives on Christian Worship_ (I think there's one copy left), which interacts with five views of worship. You might be interested in two of the views: traditional evangelical worship and blended worship. Ligon Duncan, a Presbyterian, contributes to the essay on traditional evangelical worship, while Michael Lawrence and Mark Dever contribute to the essay on blended worship (do note that the blended worship discussed in this book is different from Robert Webber's view). While both views hold to the Regulative Principle (as Duncan would admit in page 275 when responding to blended worship), the difference, as Duncan notes, comes down to how the Regulative Principle is applied.

From what I can see, traditional Presbyterians understand the Regulative Principle as being applied only to corporate worship. However, there are some of us (e.g. John Frame, David Peterson, D. A. Carson, Mark Dever etc) who understand the Regulative Principle as being applied to all-of-life worship. We believe that corporate worship is a particular expression of all-of-life worship and the Bible gives general principles of how we should approach God in worship everywhere, whether in private, in our families, or in the public assemblies. For us, the _style_ of music is not important. What concerns us in corporate worship is that the congregation is edified and moved in response to the truths of the gospel rather than through artificial stimuli like mood, music, and lighting.


----------



## SemperEruditio (Nov 17, 2009)

If after the song you have an urge to applaud then there's a problem. We have a blended service and I would say that after reading the stuff here and the CPJ I am becoming more and more uncomfortable. We had another church provide the music and such during Reformation Day service and after every quick tempo song there was this automatic response by the congregation to applaud. At that point I think there is a problem. I questioned a few and of course they claim they are "praising the Lord" but I ask why there weren't any applause during the more traditional songs...?


----------



## tlharvey7 (Nov 17, 2009)

REV 5:9 And they sang a new song, saying,

“Worthy are you to take the scroll
and to open its seals,
for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God
from every tribe and language and people and nation,


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Nov 17, 2009)

What is the point you are trying to make with that particular verse Thomas? Of course Christ died for people from every nation. That verse says nothing about singing "new songs" from each new nation. 

Besides Rev 5 describes worship and a particular event in Heaven, not Earth in the local Church in public stated worship.


----------



## reformedminister (Nov 17, 2009)

Personally, I believe that having "praise bands" is in violation of the RPW. I am not against contemporary songs (all hymns were contemporary at some point), as long as they are Scripturally correct. I think it is a shame that many churches have thrown out psalms and our beloved hymns altogether, and sing only modern choruses in an effort to fit into the modern world. One of the best "blended" services that I have ever attended was a large EPC church that had several thousand members. They sang mostly hymns but had a couple of contemporary choruses. The hymns were accompanied by the piano and the contemporary choruses were accompanied by an acoustic guitar. There was no "praise band". The focus was on worshipping God. The Christian Church has a heritage that needs to be understood not ignored or thrown out. Many young people love and cherish traditional worship, not only because of it's heritage but because of it's dignity and focus on God. I have a teenage son, as well as one in his early twenties. Neither of them have run from the church to embrace contemporary styles, probably because of their upbringing, as well as what they see in both.


----------



## KMK (Nov 17, 2009)

reformedminister said:


> Personally, I believe that having "praise bands" is in violation of the RPW. I am not against contemporary songs (all hymns were contemporary at some point), as long as they are Scripturally correct. I think it is a shame that many churches have thrown out psalms and our beloved hymns altogether, and sing only modern choruses in an effort to fit into the modern world. One of the best "blended" services that I have ever attended was a large EPC church that had several thousand members. They sang mostly hymns but had a couple of contemporary choruses. The hymns were accompanied by the piano and the contemporary choruses were accompanied by an acoustic guitar. There was no "praise band". The focus was on worshipping God. The Christian Church has a heritage that needs to be understood not ignored or thrown out. Many young people love and cherish traditional worship, not only because of it's heritage but because of it's dignity and focus on God. I have a teenage son, as well as one in his early twenties. Neither of them have run from the church to embrace contemporary styles, probably because of their upbringing, as well as what they see in both.



Can you define what a 'Praise Band' is?


----------



## ColdSilverMoon (Nov 17, 2009)

reformedminister said:


> Personally, I believe that having "praise bands" is in violation of the RPW. I am not against contemporary songs (all hymns were contemporary at some point), as long as they are Scripturally correct. I think it is a shame that many churches have thrown out psalms and our beloved hymns altogether, and sing only modern choruses in an effort to fit into the modern world. One of the best "blended" services that I have ever attended was a large EPC church that had several thousand members. They sang mostly hymns but had a couple of contemporary choruses. The hymns were accompanied by the piano and the contemporary choruses were accompanied by an acoustic guitar. *There was no "praise band". The focus was on worshipping God. *The Christian Church has a heritage that needs to be understood not ignored or thrown out. Many young people love and cherish traditional worship, not only because of it's heritage but because of it's dignity and focus on God. I have a teenage son, as well as one in his early twenties. Neither of them have run from the church to embrace contemporary styles, probably because of their upbringing, as well as what they see in both.



Are you saying people can't focus on God with a praise band? I don't think that's a fair generalization at all. 

For the record, I'm a traditional hymn/psalm guy, but I've come to realize that if I don't focus on the Lord during worship, the fault is almost always mine, not the style of music or the size of the band.


----------



## Osage Bluestem (Nov 17, 2009)

ColdSilverMoon said:


> Are you saying people can't focus on God with a praise band? I don't think that's a fair generalization at all.
> 
> For the record, I'm a traditional hymn/psalm guy, but I've come to realize that if I don't focus on the Lord during worship, the fault is almost always mine, not the style of music or the size of the band.



I feel like a praise band actually brings glory to the musicians and those "performing" for their target audience the people. Those situations simply get out of hand and the next thing you know your church is a concert hall every Sunday and people are talking about what a great guitarist, drummer, singer, so and so is. "Dude, you've got to come to church on sunday and hear this dude rip on the guitar!"...etc

God is the primary audience of worship, not the people.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Nov 17, 2009)

ColdSilverMoon said:


> reformedminister said:
> 
> 
> > Personally, I believe that having "praise bands" is in violation of the RPW. I am not against contemporary songs (all hymns were contemporary at some point), as long as they are Scripturally correct. I think it is a shame that many churches have thrown out psalms and our beloved hymns altogether, and sing only modern choruses in an effort to fit into the modern world. One of the best "blended" services that I have ever attended was a large EPC church that had several thousand members. They sang mostly hymns but had a couple of contemporary choruses. The hymns were accompanied by the piano and the contemporary choruses were accompanied by an acoustic guitar. *There was no "praise band". The focus was on worshipping God. *The Christian Church has a heritage that needs to be understood not ignored or thrown out. Many young people love and cherish traditional worship, not only because of it's heritage but because of it's dignity and focus on God. I have a teenage son, as well as one in his early twenties. Neither of them have run from the church to embrace contemporary styles, probably because of their upbringing, as well as what they see in both.
> ...



My main problem with multi-instrument "praise bands" (and Organs as well) is that they invariably drown out the congregation, which is the real point of singing in Worship. Offering up United praise to God. 

I myself have never seen a praise band at any church I have attended (this includes PCA and ARP churches) that did not by its very nature make me unable to hear the congregation singing together praise to God and it always drew attention to itself and away from the congregation.


----------



## reformedminister (Nov 17, 2009)

KMK said:


> [Can you define what a 'Praise Band' is?



I understand a praise band to be somewhat like a rock band, with electric guitars, bass, drums, keyboard. In a contemporary worship setting they put on a show and play contemporary Christian music.


----------



## Osage Bluestem (Nov 17, 2009)

reformedminister said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > [Can you define what a 'Praise Band' is?
> ...



That is the kind of situation that repulses me and drives me out the door. I do not feel comfortable in that kind of enviroment at all. I hope our church never goes that way.


----------



## reformedminister (Nov 17, 2009)

DD2009 said:


> reformedminister said:
> 
> 
> > KMK said:
> ...



I have pastored two churches like that. One was a United Methodist church and the other a General Baptist church. I did not like the music at all. At least the Methodist church had a traditional service with hymns. Believe me when I tell you that it was about "putting on a show". The Methodist church didn't even have a pulpit. I used a lecturn (which I purchased myself) on the floor. One time we were having several local churches come over for a seasonal gathering and I put the lecturn on "the stage" so I could more easily address a larger group. The leader of the praise band moved my lecturn back onto the floor before the service. I guess he didn't want me to be the center "stage" of attention.


----------



## ewenlin (Nov 17, 2009)

The best representation of contemporary worship/praise band is Hillsong Australia in my opinion.


----------



## Mushroom (Nov 17, 2009)

reformedminister said:


> DD2009 said:
> 
> 
> > reformedminister said:
> ...


I always wondered if these praise band folks would be as committed to their 'ministry' if they were forced to set up at the back of the assembly.


----------



## Augusta (Nov 17, 2009)

kevin.carroll said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> > I realize we are not allowed to talk about this but how do pro-instrumental people, using the RPW, confine musical instrumentation to mere accompaniment? How, using the RPW, are instruments called to be "un-intrusive" upon the elements of worship? Are instruments really circumstances?
> ...



In the OT Temple worship the singers and the players were ordained offices of worship not circumstances. You can't just resurrect these offices without NT warrant once they have been torn down. The offices that are now in effect are clear in the NT and players of instruments and/or singers are not one of them.

It is called a circumstance now to sneak it in. It is not necessary in my opinion. All you need are one or two people in your congregation, who have a good ear and can keep in tune, to sing loud and clear so that other can follow their lead through tough compositons. Acappella singing is so beautiful even if everyone is not a good singer. Voices raised in praise to God are beautiful.


----------



## ChariotsofFire (Nov 17, 2009)

DD2009 said:


> reformedminister said:
> 
> 
> > KMK said:
> ...



I too am uncomfortable in this setting because of the blatant man-centered worship. This type of worship focuses on the people singing on stage or the music itself. I am against people singing at me, while I am for the Biblical model of congregational singing. I'm not against different types of instruments, just so that the instruments are used for their proper purpose which is accompaniment. Some instruments are not useful for accompaniment (perhaps drums, loud organs, electrified music?,) and thus should not be used.


----------



## AThornquist (Nov 17, 2009)

I find drums, electric guitars, bass, etc. to be wonderful accompaniment and have never had a problem with being distracted unless it was because of my own preferences. To each his own.


----------



## Mushroom (Nov 17, 2009)

AThornquist said:


> I find drums, electric guitars, bass, etc. to be wonderful accompaniment and have never had a problem with being distracted unless it was because of my own preferences. To each his own.


Especially at a rock concert!


----------



## AThornquist (Nov 17, 2009)

Brad said:


> Especially at a rock concert!



Yeah, my favorite! rockin'4jesus


----------



## Mushroom (Nov 17, 2009)

And here's Andrew rockin' out:


----------



## AThornquist (Nov 17, 2009)

Yeah! You wouldn't believe that some churches actually use African drums in worship. totally evil. rawr. Even if the drummer just keeps the beat I know where his heart _really_ is . . . it's center stage!!?!11!


----------



## KMK (Nov 17, 2009)

reformedminister said:


> DD2009 said:
> 
> 
> > reformedminister said:
> ...



It sounds to me like you have a problem with a certain attitude that you have found, in your experience, among musicians who use 'Rock' instruments. Let me tell you, I have found just as offensive attitude from the little old ladies in the church choir. The desire is to be 'center stage' is a besetting sin for most musicians, regardless of their instrument. It is something they must guard against and it is something we should have patience with.


----------



## he beholds (Nov 17, 2009)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Prufrock said:
> 
> 
> > First, it needs to be understood that this board _is_ Confessional, and that advocacy of not abiding by the RPW is not allowed -- that is, we are only allowed to do what we are commanded to do; it is not Reformed to argue that it is permissible if it is not disallowed.
> ...



Do we really *need* air conditioners or heating? What about electricity? Circumstances are things that aid in worship, but are not worship in and of themselves. So a piano or guitar (or the pitch pipe) may aid the congregation , but the music emitted from the instrument is not worship. 
Just like the microphone or the speakers aid in the preacher's sermon. I guess technically these may intrude upon the elements, as they do change them, but they are not necessary and are not elements themselves. 



Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> What is the point you are trying to make with that particular verse Thomas? Of course Christ died for people from every nation. That verse says nothing about singing "new songs" from each new nation.
> 
> Besides Rev 5 describes worship and a particular event in Heaven, not Earth in the local Church in public stated worship.



Why would we sing more than Psalms in heaven?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Nov 17, 2009)

Did God command the Temple to be heated or cooled? Did He command the Levites to use sound amplifiers? Did He set aside certain members of the cultic workers to put in chairs or pews?


----------



## he beholds (Nov 17, 2009)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Did God command the Temple to be heated or cooled? Did He command the Levites to use sound amplifiers? Did He set aside certain members of the cultic workers to put in chairs or pews?



I see what you are saying, and it's a good play, but with the RPW: no he did not do that, BUT we see that it is beneficial to worshipping him that we have those things, so we didn't seek a command _nor_ do we consider these aspects allowable b/c _not_ forbidden, so we call these circumstances. I was not really making a case but answering your question as to how we can consider instruments circumstances. The how is: we don't consider them a part of worship, but an aid. 

(I personally question pews and rows, etc, as I do not envision the early church structured like that, but since I do not know church history or when churches took on this uniform look, I can't _really_ speak on it.)


----------



## Webservant (Nov 17, 2009)

There's got to be a list, somewhere, of classic hymns which were formerly drinking songs (the music, I mean). 

The bottom line is, if the music in our worship is of the hippy-dippy "I love God and he loves me and I am so happy" variety - the type which doesn't really say *which* god, it doesn't matter whether it's pipe organs or electric guitars. It's a stench. If the music can be sung in any "house of worship" because it's non-distinct, isn't that the real issue? 

I have sung, and will continue to sing, in praise bands (I am not afraid to call it that) because the words we use are straight from scripture and praise God the Father, Jesus Christ the Son, and the Holy Spirit. By name. The whole cultural "our music is better than yours" dispute is just plain silly. The church I go to now is 100% traditional, by the way, and that's just fine, too.


----------



## tlharvey7 (Nov 17, 2009)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> What is the point you are trying to make with that particular verse Thomas? Of course Christ died for people from every nation. That verse says nothing about singing "new songs" from each new nation.
> 
> Besides Rev 5 describes worship and a particular event in Heaven, not Earth in the local Church in public stated worship.



Precisely!
"from every tribe and language and people and nation" try to envision this!
whatever you imagine will pale in comparison to the real thing.
the awesome, diverse beauty of God's human creation. 
i so much enjoy listening to the diverse music styles from true believers around the world.


----------



## raekwon (Nov 17, 2009)




----------



## charliejunfan (Nov 17, 2009)

buggy said:


> Just wish to find out the perspectives' of you all on contemporary worship - is it biblical/scriptural?
> 
> As a person who has attended a RB church only for a few months, personally I find that many confessing Protestant churches (both RB/Presbyterian) tend to be cautious towards that, if not oppose it outright.
> 
> ...



*Without getting into an Exclusive Psalmody debate *

If the church does not only sing Psalms during worship then it doesn't matter what it is, it violates the Regulative Principle of Worship.


----------



## ChariotsofFire (Nov 17, 2009)

AThornquist said:


> I find drums, electric guitars, bass, etc. to be wonderful accompaniment and have never had a problem with being distracted unless it was because of my own preferences. To each his own.



I should clarify what I meant about the instruments in worship. Electric guitars, pipe organs at certain volume levels are inherently distracting and are not appropriate for worship (at least those volume levels). Drums aren't wrong in for worship in themselves, but many churches in America today use them wrongly in worship. The drum often becomes more than accompaniment. Drums are a loud instrument, and can easily distract, so you have to be very wise if you would use them for worship.


----------



## Brian Withnell (Nov 17, 2009)

Prufrock said:


> Ben, unless I have missed something somewhere along the line, the use of instruments as a circumstance is the one argument which RPW-adhering instrumentalists bring forth. Someone please correct me here if I am mistaken. Since the people may have a hard time singing together without aid, they provide an accompaniment to allow the element to be performed more smoothly. If an instrumentalist reading this take exception to my description of your position, please correct.



Ah, I see the use of instruments as commanded in worship, not as an element, but commanded none the less. 2 Chron 29:25


> He then stationed the Levites in the house of the Lord with cymbals, with harps and with lyres, according to the command of David and of Gad the king’s seer, and of Nathan the prophet; for the command was from the Lord through His prophets.


There is no doubt in my mind that "the command was from the Lord" in reference to the Levites using cymbals, harps, and lyres is more than just circumstance, though the particular kind of instrument might be circumstance, the command is that instruments be used. While this is certainly OT, there are forms which are carried forward (e.g., circumcision is carried forward as baptism -- even if one disagrees on to whom baptism is applied, it is still carried forward).

So while some might say that instruments are circumstances, I would say the type might be circumstances, but the use of instruments is commanded.


----------



## alb1 (Nov 17, 2009)

I've looked at NT scripture and the WCF in regards to corporate worship. Except for Paul and Silas singing hymns in prison while other prisoners listened, I don't see another example until Revelation where a unison of voices is mentioned. The texts in Ephesians and Colossians that mention psalms, hymns, and spritual songs in context seem to be instructional for daily individual Christian living. You speak to one another in psalms. You sing and make music in your heart. In I Corinthians 14:26 "...each of you has a psalm, has a teaching, has a tongue, has a revelation ...." Two or three prophesied one by one so that all were encouraged, could not two or three also have presented their psalm one by one to do the same. If an individual teacher, who the congregation focuses on, can encourage the body by themselves and not draw attention away from God by their individualism, cannot the God gifted soloist, choir, or praise team also encourage the body without being guilty of distracting us from God's glory?


----------



## darrellmaurina (Nov 18, 2009)

buggy said:


> Just wish to find out the perspectives' of you all on contemporary worship - is it biblical/scriptural?
> 
> As a person who has attended a RB church only for a few months, personally I find that many confessing Protestant churches (both RB/Presbyterian) tend to be cautious towards that, if not oppose it outright.
> 
> ...



I believe much depends on the definition of "contemporary worship."

If all that means is new melodies and new versifications, of course there's nothing wrong with contemporary worship. Even the strictest exclusive-psalmody non-instrumental Covenanter could sing a "contemporary" versification of a psalm with a new tune, as long as both the text and the tune of the versification faithfully reflect both the mood and the words of the psalm.

The problem is not with new words or new tunes, but rather with a type of worship that focuses on entertaining people, which focuses on "happy feelings" instead of the full range of biblical topics, and which devalues singing the words God gave us for singing in the Psalms and replaces them with man-made words that often avoid "uncomfortable" topics when the Bible does not avoid them.

In short, the term "contemporary worship" has too often become a synonym for worship which fails to take into account the tremendous seriousness of human sin and which truncates the fulness of biblical revelation, focusing instead on a few areas which may be Scriptural but are only part of what Scripture teaches.

Note carefully that it is very possible to use "contemporary worship" and not explicitly sing anything contrary to the Bible, but at the same avoid things which are not comfortable topics. That is the danger inherent in contemporary worship -- not that it's necessarily openly unbiblical (though it often is), but rather than it is sub-biblical by avoiding hard truths that need to be taught through song as well as through preaching.


----------



## Zenas (Nov 18, 2009)

buggy said:


> Just wish to find out the perspectives' of you all on contemporary worship - is it biblical/scriptural?
> 
> As a person who has attended a RB church only for a few months, personally I find that many confessing Protestant churches (both RB/Presbyterian) tend to be cautious towards that, if not oppose it outright.
> 
> ...



Those who go to church to avoid "old fashioned services" are probably just as well not going at all. They're going for their own amusement.

-----Added 11/18/2009 at 12:45:52 EST-----



Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Did God command the Temple to be heated or cooled? Did He command the Levites to use sound amplifiers? Did He set aside certain members of the cultic workers to put in chairs or pews?



I think you're beating down a straw man. The RPW doesn't apply to the building, but rather how we conduct worship. The building is divorced from how we conduct worship so far as I can see.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Nov 18, 2009)

Zenas said:


> -----Added 11/18/2009 at 12:45:52 EST-----
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I Agree that the RPW does not "apply" to the building per se. My point was that instruments in the worship of God are not analogous to heating and cooling. The establishment and ordering of the workings of the Temple cult show that instruments were intimately tied to the worship in the Temple and are were and are not circumstances.


----------



## JoeRe4mer (Nov 22, 2009)

Well If by "contemporary" you mean the current so called "Christian" songs being produced today, those with shallow lyrics that sound more like modern rock/rap songs than traditional Christian hymns and Psalms then yes I am against them. I take this position for two reasons. 

First and most importantly, virtually all of these songs are theologically shallow and are therefore breaking Paul's exhortation in Col 3:15-17, that we are to be "teaching and admonishing" one another with our musical worship. Modern worship songs simply do not do this, as they are based on simple melodic repetitions and devoid of any substantive musical or theological content. 

Secondly, these songs seem to give a nod to worldly styles of music which are generally speaking unchristian and ungodly i.e. rap/rock. Moreover, in my experience those who prefer and promote these types of music are,_ generally speaking_, very shallow and are more interested in entertainment than in Biblical worship. I know it sounds like a broad brush and perhaps it is, but few if any of the people I known that have promoted contemporary worship aggressively have properly understood Biblical worship. They seem to be of the mind that worship is about them and their enjoyment, rather than about God and his glory. Again, I hope this didn't offend anyone I am just relating my understanding of contemporary music and its promoters.


----------

