# Confessional and Contemporary...



## Jared (Nov 12, 2011)

How contemporary can you be and still be confessional? I realize there is a similar thread on RPW and modern worship but I wanted this to be a little more broad. Maybe some of it comes down to individual interpretations of the confessions. But, I think that if people are at least confessing to the same statement of faith, there is unity there. The more I grow in my faith, the moreattractive confessional expressions of Christianity become to me. But I often wonder what this would look like in my context with someone with a background like mine.


----------



## Scott1 (Nov 12, 2011)

Jared,
A good question but one for which there is no simple answer.

A good starting place is that God regulates how He will be worshiped ("the regulative principle"), by His revealed will in His Word. He is specific about how and exhibits great displeasure at worship that comes from the imagination of men.

For example, its very hard to square interpretive dance as corporate worship. It may be entertaining or appropriate in other contexts, but it is not corporate worship for especially Lord's Day worship.

Particularly, it heavily centers on the Word of God and taking the sacraments, prayer, oaths and vows, thanksgiving, and fasting.



> Westminster Confession of Faith
> Chapter XXI
> Of Religious Worship, and the Sabbath Day
> 
> ...


----------



## Derick Dickens (Nov 12, 2011)

How confessional can you be and still be American? How confessional can you be and still be African? How confessional can you be and still be Hispanic? Each of these questions could be asked with the same introspection as the question you posed. 

I think you offer a great question which gets to the heart of the regulative principles. Are the RPW based upon styles or culture? I believe the RPW can forbid certain aspects of a culture, but I do not believe they can be used carte blanche on a certain style. The African can worship God in an African style, but it must be within the proper Biblical Elements and principles. Take, for instance, the style Jesus worshiped. It is radically different than our own style. Yet, his style did emphasize the voices, was singable, doctrinally excellent and was Christ centered. 

The Westminster Confession of Faith States:

“But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by Himself, and so limited by His own revealed will, that He may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the holy Scripture. (WCF XXI.I)” 

God does not seem to prescribe a style of music in Scripture. He merely advanced the elements of worship and advanced certain principles to follow. Thus, I think some stylistic elements are outside the scope of the WCF since the Bible does not specifically address it by “His own revealed will.” (Granted, non-instrumentalists will disagree, but that is another discussion for another day). Having noted all this, let me state that I am assuming we are not adding an element of worship to the service like worship dance, skits, etc. I am assuming you are only talking about a style of worship music.

My conclusion is that styles are not specifically addressed through Scripture or the confession. While every culture must adhere to certain principles of RPW to ensure the proper focus and prevent abuses, the style in and of itself is not a violation of a confession.


----------



## Kevin (Nov 13, 2011)

I avoide the term contemporary when referring to reformed worship. It is perfectly good term, I just leave it to the baptists & the the charismatics.

I prefer the term "accessible". I admit that it is somewhat arbitrary, but I believe it helps us to understand the root issue better. The real issue under discussion is how accessible is a confessional reformed church to modern North Americans?

An extreme example is the historic inaccessibility of the Medieval Catholic worship that the Reformers protested. Forget for a moment the theological issues of the mass, and just think what "going to church" was like at the time. Worship participation by the congregation was nearly nil.

No congregational singing, service was in a foreign language, scripture was not read in a understandable language, etc. Along with reforming theology, praxology was also reformed. The congregation sang again. The service was in a locally understood language, as was the scripture. In other words the worship service was "accessible" to the local people.

Many contemporary services that I have visited in the last couple of years are very inaccesible. The singing is done (almost) solely by the pros on stage. Scriptures are rarely read etc.

In reformed churches we do not often fall into those errors. But our services often assume a very high level of knowledge of our "culture" to be able to participate. We do not worship in Latin, but we do use a language that is mostly foreign to modern english speakers. We do things that seem odd to many people, and we simply assume that people with "catch on" eventually. 

We do a very traditional worship service (call to worship, confession of sins, confession of faith, psalms & hymns, longish prayers & readings of scripture, etc) But I *try* to be as "accessible" as possible. I always assume that someone is in a reformed church for the first time. So I explain (briefly) what we are doing. 

An example is that instead of saying "Let us stand for the call to worship", (or worse, just standing and doing it) I say (something like) "For thousands of years whenever the people of God gathered to worship him they began the service by listening to a brief sentence or two from the scriptures. These are the very words of our God, and He is inviting us into his presence, so hear the voice of God inviting you in these words..."

It takes a second or two longer & may add 5 (?) minutes to the overall service. But visitors often comment that they were glad that the could "follow" the service.

For what it's worth


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Nov 13, 2011)

That is an excellent response Kevin. Perfect way of describing it.


----------



## CharlieJ (Nov 13, 2011)

Kevin said:


> In reformed churches we do not often fall into those errors. But our services often assume a very high level of knowledge of our "culture" to be able to participate. We do not worship in Latin, but we do use a language that is mostly foreign to modern english speakers. We do things that seem odd to many people, and we simply assume that people with "catch on" eventually.
> 
> We do a very traditional worship service (call to worship, confession of sins, confession of faith, psalms & hymns, longish prayers & readings of scripture, etc) But I *try* to be as "accessible" as possible. I always assume that someone is in a reformed church for the first time. So I explain (briefly) what we are doing.
> 
> ...



Kevin, I think what you are doing is fantastic. In SC, I was in a church that did this. The benefits are manifold. First, as you say, it really makes an impression on visitors and unchurched people. It tells them that church is for them, not some other group of people, however they might imagine "church-goers". 

Second, it's good for the Christians! I'm sure that many Reformed Christians either don't know or don't really reflect on the contours of our worship and what it means. We've recently been attending a Presbyterian church here in Philly where the order of worship is very similar to our SC church, but where there is very little explanation or focus on the elements of worship. The loss is palpable. I can go on auto-pilot through the service without being challenged by the import of what we're doing. (I also notice there seem to be fewer visitors, whereas our SC church was always packed with new faces.)

Third, I think it makes for long-term doctrinal and liturgical orthodoxy. If people know that our worship is an expression of our doctrines, then the worship actually helps people understand Reformed distinctives, and vice versa. Since people know that the service is not an arbitrary ensemble of spiritual "stuff," there will be less desire to fiddle with it.


----------



## Kevin (Nov 13, 2011)

Charlie, you are correct about the benefits to Christians. We have had several visitors "from away" that were members of other presbyterian churches that had the same elements in their own worship service. After the service they have told me "I never understood why we did...before today".

Sad. But true.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Nov 13, 2011)

Kevin,

Did that today during worship and received some compliments for it. Told them to thank-you.


----------



## Zach (Nov 13, 2011)

Kevin said:


> I avoide the term contemporary when referring to reformed worship. It is perfectly good term, I just leave it to the baptists & the the charismatics.
> 
> I prefer the term "accessible". I admit that it is somewhat arbitrary, but I believe it helps us to understand the root issue better. The real issue under discussion is how accessible is a confessional reformed church to modern North Americans?
> 
> ...



I really like what you are doing Kevin. I know I often did not understand why things were necessarily done the way they were the first time I was in a Reformed Church. I think its really quite true that sometimes we assume everyone had read "Welcome to a Reformed Church" and forget a lot of people, ourselves included sometimes, don't know why we do the things we do.


----------



## Scott1 (Nov 13, 2011)

It depends on how one defines the terms.

In popular understanding, "contemporary" may mean entertaining, relevant in a person's particular understanding.

But there are several important biblical truths that reformed theology brings out:

1) Worship is not focused on the worshiper, it is focused on the One who is worshiped.

2) Corporate worship ("church") is not primarily about "attracting" unbelievers. It's about the peculiar place for God's people to worship their God according to the way He has commanded He be worshiped.

3) Scripture regulates how God is to be worshiped; it reveals how God demands He be worshiped.

4) It is offensive to our Holy God for men to imagine how they would worship God rather than obey His revealed will about how He will be worshiped. This goes for many modern and not-so-modern inventions, whether they be called by terms "contemporary," or otherwise.

Every covenant community is unique in the sense of its incidents of worship. There are differences based upon needs and level of spiritual maturity, as well as size of the congregation and other factors.

I would not want to "dumb down" Christianity to primarily focus on the milk, rather than the meat of the Word. The former is often characteristic of what is called "contemporary."

But it is not new, not at all.



> 1 Corinthians 3
> 
> 1And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.
> 
> 2I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.




---------- Post added at 06:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:47 PM ----------

Let me add also, after reading Kevin's fine post,

One aspect of worship is how we are indeed connected with the past, that is all the saints, Old and New Testament, that have gone before us.

It's not all about us, right now.

It is about the witness of church history, not on a level with Scripture of course, but as one evidence of the way God has been worshiped by His people through the ages.


----------

