# Using your hands in worship



## Scott Bushey (Jun 5, 2005)

Psa 63:4 Thus will I bless thee while I live: I will lift up my hands in thy name. 

1Ti 2:8 I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting. 

Do you lift up your hands during worship?
Do you cry out hearty amens?
Do you clap for the sermon? 
Do you clap for things other than the sermon?


[Edited on 6-5-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jun 5, 2005)

I use my hands to hold the Psalter.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> I use my hands to hold the Psalter.



Gabriel,
Are you involved in clapping prior to the sermon for various reasons?


----------



## Laura (Jun 5, 2005)

We all lift a hand to symbolically receive the blessing at the benediction, but that's about the extent of it.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Laura_
> We all lift a hand to symbolically receive the blessing at the benediction, but that's about the extent of it.



Laura,
The whole congregation does this?


----------



## Laura (Jun 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Laura_
> ...


Yessir.


----------



## alwaysreforming (Jun 5, 2005)

There's no clapping at my church. I wish there was. Sometimes it takes every ounce of self-control to resist clapping (and practically shouting) after some of the awesome hymns that our choir does.

I don't know how people can sit there in church and hear some of the glorious rich hymns that practically sound like a chorus of angels from Heaven, that exalt so beautifully our Savior, and then just sit there like a stone when its over with. I can, but its painful to do.

(I think the church doesn't want to take the focus off of our relationship with God during these times, and would STRONGLY prefer that no one give the hint that we were being "entertained" as opposed to "worshipping". I agree with this, and submit to it.)


----------



## matthew11v25 (Jun 5, 2005)

I go to a CMA church, and there is clapping during the music (I choose not to clap at this time), during the sermon when the pastor asks for an "Amen". People also raise their hands during the times of singing.

Do you lift up your hands during worship?

-Sometimes

Do you cry out hearty amens?

-Yes

Do you clap for the sermon?

-not that I can recall

Do you clap for things other than the sermon?

-sometimes, depends on the stituation (such as if there is rejoicing in the church)

[Edited on 6-5-2005 by matthew11v25]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jun 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Gabriel,
> Are you involved in clapping prior to the sermon for various reasons?



No sir. But, the Pastor raises his hands towards us for the blessing and benediction at the close of the service.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



So, you guys are like us. Armless believers!  Part of me believes we are blowing it a tad. We should be lifting our hands in praise and if we clap at all, it should be at the end of the sermon!


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jun 5, 2005)

I guess it is hard for me to discern how clapping or raising of hands should/could be involved in a worship service.

Some things to consider are the context of raising hands and clapping in the Old Covenant, and whether or not they were ceremonial, which stems from my RPW/EP/Non-instrmental convictions.

Also, I'd have to think long and hard about being able to worship "decently and in order" (1 Cor 14) while some may be clapping or raising their hands during worship, as I and many others might find that distracting.

Finally, if all things in worship are to be done for edification/building up (literally, growing in knowledge and wisdom, which can only come from the Lord Himself), I don't see how clapping or raising hands can accomplish this.

But, it is definitely something to think through and figure out, but finding NC prescriptions for worship in the Psalms can definitely be difficult since it contains expressions and ideas that are neither exclusively OC institutions nor NC institutions (at least not exhaustively).


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> I guess it is hard for me to discern how clapping or raising of hands should/could be involved in a worship service.
> 
> Some things to consider are the context of raising hands and clapping in the Old Covenant, and whether or not they were ceremonial, which stems from my RPW/EP/Non-instrmental convictions.
> ...



Gabriel,
Let me clearify: 
During the singing of Hymms; Lifting one's hands in submission, mercy and joy.
At the end of the sermon; clapping for the word of God and it's power.
During the sermon; hearty amens throughout as the unction directs.

~Not to be confused with a charismatic revival with waving yellow hats and people falling all over the place!


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jun 5, 2005)

Interesting thoughts. Let me ruminate on them for a while. Is that the right word? Ruminate? Who cares, it sounds awesome. :bigsmile:


----------



## Abd_Yesua_alMasih (Jun 5, 2005)

I do not see exactly where clapping is mentioned but I see the part about lifting up hands.

When I was really little and all us children had to do a production one of the old ladies told us something I would never forget. She said she did not like clapping after songs or performances etc... because it was too much like glory was being given to the singer/actor/preacher.

Now I am in a Reformed Church I still think of this. Why would you clap? Clapping means 'congratulations' or 'well done' not 'praise be to God'. I fail to see the point or need of it. There are other things we could do that direct the glory to God rather than to men. Whether we take the clapping as such I wonder if outsiders or people who have not had it explained to them will see it that way. My old mega church would always be clapping and praising the worship band and clapping in honour of the speaker who often only mentioned the Bible once or twice.

Rationaly also... you can't clap during hymns. I know that was not what you mean though.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Abd_Yesua_alMasih_
> I do not see exactly where clapping is mentioned but I see the part about lifting up hands.
> 
> When I was really little and all us children had to do a production one of the old ladies told us something I would never forget. She said she did not like clapping after songs or performances etc... because it was too much like glory was being given to the singer/actor/preacher.
> ...



The only clapping I approve of is after sermons!


----------



## default (Jun 5, 2005)

When I worship I do as I do in my private. In private I lift my hands, I clap, or sometimes even snap! So if I feel to do so in my closet then why wouldn't I do so in the congregation. However, the church I go to sing the old traditional hymns, so mostly it is lifting of the hands. And no, not every song.


----------



## rmb (Jun 5, 2005)

In our service many of our folks raise their hands. Though only during the singing. Most of our people have come out of penecostal backgrounds. They are comfortable using the raised hands to express a multitude of attitudes as they sing. These range from thanksgiving, confession, sorrow, or maybe joy. They never feel restrained in the sevice,nor is the order or decency of the service compromised. It is just the use of a wider range of physical expression than usual, perhapes.


----------



## Craig (Jun 5, 2005)

I don't like the idea of clapping in church...unless singing songs accapela...I could see where that would be okay. Otherwise, it would make the congregation more into an audience, spectaters if you will. I am not afraid of people using hearty "amens". But for the most part, anything that distracts from congregational worship seems dangerous to me. It's part of the reason I despise soloists...they're always performing, rarely worshipping. It makes for hypocrites and empty worship. It may also cause some to question "why don't I do these things? Am I not as spiritual?" Some things may be appropriate for the prayer closet, as Loriann has pointed out...but not necessarily fits the context of public worship.

However, planned liturgy is alright as it incorporates believers into worshipful acts. For example, my brother's church has the practice of kneeling during the confession of sin. Everyone who is able to kneels. It's corporate and quite moving.


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Jun 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Psa 63:4 Thus will I bless thee while I live: I will lift up my hands in thy name.
> 
> 1Ti 2:8 I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.
> ...



worship - yes, depending on the song and how well I know it.
amens - yep. A few hallelujahs and praise God's are also included at times. 
sermon - sometimes. Mostly if we have a guest.
other things - yes. 

Craig made the statement and asked the question:


> But for the most part, anything that distracts from congregational worship seems dangerous to me. It's part of the reason I despise soloists...they're always performing, rarely worshipping. It makes for hypocrites and empty worship. It may also cause some to question "why don't I do these things? Am I not as spiritual?"



Clapping doesn't distract from congregational worship.... there are plenty of churches that do it every single Sunday and have been doing it since before the OPC was formed....

The soloist thing, I agree with, for the most part. i said the 'most' part. Some ARE 'performing', but you and I can't see into the hearts of the people singing, so you don't have a right to make that judgment.

As for folks questioning.... a right view of worship will let folks know that not everyone will react outwardly the same during worship. Worship also involves the emotions (like it or not.... I know I just said a 'bad word' in reformed circles.... sue me) - so during the singing of 'In Christ Alone', for example, one may be overcome thinking of the death of our Savior and His preservation of His elect and simply stand or sit or kneel quietly, focused on the Savior and praising Him in their heart for their salvation..... others may have their hands upraised and sing the song to the Lord at the top of their lungs with tears streaming down their face as they contemplate that the God of the Universe - the Holy Judge - stepped down off His bench and took the place of the prisoners who deserved to die... and that I AM one of those prisoners. Both responses are appropriate. When you try to 'overstructure'....you dip into legalism, no matter how much 'order and decency' you try to use to justify it. 

Just as a question (related).... how many of you _literally_ tremble every Sunday or whenever you take communion ? How many of you think, as Isaiah did, "I am a man of unclean lips who lives among an unclean people ?" Do you quake as you take the cup and the bread, knowing that you are now in the very presence of the Almighty and that those who partake of this in an unworthy fashion, just like in the OT, are committing a sin worthy of death ?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jun 6, 2005)

Worship doesn't involve emotions, it involves the work of God's Spirit in His people's hearts and how they respond to it with reverance.


----------



## turmeric (Jun 6, 2005)

I get pretty emotional when I think of what Jesus has done for us, which happens pretty often at church. I doubt if I could experience it if everyone was carrying on around me, I'd be too disturbed.


----------



## Myshkin (Jun 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Worship doesn't involve emotions, it involves the work of God's Spirit in His people's hearts and how they respond to it with reverance.




How do you define emotions? Is a response of reverence inherently emotionless? Are the psalms empty of emotion? Is emotion inherently sinful in worship? What do you mean by "worship doesn't involve emotions"? Are we called to be Stoics?


----------



## ABondSlaveofChristJesus (Jun 6, 2005)

Does clapping and lifting hands mean the same thing in our present culture as it did then? Context Context Context Historical Context....


----------



## D Battjes (Jun 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by RAS_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> ...



I was going to say the exact same thing RAS. THis is why the characature of reformed circles gets continued. THere is a definate puritanical, stoic vein that still blocks and resists the spirit in my opinion. 

David danced naked for the Lord. Now I am not being dogmatic that this takes place in worship now, but I believe this is where man has added to the word of God in regards to showing any type of emotion.

Gabe says emotions are not part of the service. That is very incorrect. We have emotions, and they do not get turned off.

Where is it prescribed that we must sit, stand, shake on command, and spend the whole service like dead weight staring at the back of the heads of the people in front of us?

WHen the Holy Spirit brings the joy of the Gospel to them, without worrying about what other people think, they will be wild with excitement. And should not be stymied!!!!!



WHen Christ healed the blind man, he was bursting with excitement.

ANd so should we.

IF the Holy Spirit determines to save a person under a service, and that person is moved, I would love to hear them yell it out and praise God.

Gabe do you believe when Christ welcomed the children to Him, that they did nto say a word?

And I will tell you exactly wqhat Christ told the "Non emotional" Apostles. DOnt suffer the people from showing their emotions giving the Glory to God.

Decently and in order has been perverted to mean, armless and robotic!!!!

[Edited on 6-6-2005 by D Battjes]


----------



## D Battjes (Jun 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by ABondSlaveofChristJesus_
> Does clapping and lifting hands mean the same thing in our present culture as it did then? Context Context Context Historical Context....



I do not know what this means.

Was there a different way to clap or raise hands then compared to now?

ANd we must always use the "context" word wqith caution.

IT is true, and I have used it, when we have our presuppositions and have molded the Gospel like a nose of wax into something we can relate to, when we bring God down to our level, when we create a Christ for us, we always say, context context context. WHen somethign disagrees with our Christ.

How many times have you said or heard it said, "Well he did not mean that, or that scripture does not mean that, read it in context!!!!!


----------



## Arch2k (Jun 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Worship doesn't involve emotions, it involves the work of God's Spirit in His people's hearts and how they respond to it with reverance.



I'll step in for Gabe. I don't think that he meant (and correct me if I'm wrong) that the worship SERVICE doesn't involve human emotion, but TRUE worship (the kind God accepts) is not emotion, it is spiritual worship. It is having true thoughts about God, and praising him for everything He is, and has done. Emotions may be a result of worship, but not a part of it. Nowhere in scripture are we commanded to worship with our emotions. When people look for these in worship, they are looking for self-satisfaction vs. God satisfaction.

[Edited on 6-6-2005 by Jeff_Bartel]


----------



## ABondSlaveofChristJesus (Jun 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by D Battjes_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by ABondSlaveofChristJesus_
> ...



Yes this is a huge problem with a lot of people. Usually pride causes people to only see what they want to see, but in that pride they punish themselves and ironically manifest themselves as unadmirable fools because it blinds them from truth. Christ is the truth and in the truth we find Christ. Therefore it is verrry important to watch out for self-deception and to be criticle thinkers for the sake of finding the truth and Christ in it. I don't know if it is possible to be objective but we should try to interpret what is the best we can without filtering it (which contaminates it many times ironically) with our biases. 

This mindset has revealed to me many things and set me free from the bondage of our culture.


----------



## strangerpilgrim (Jun 6, 2005)

Some thoughts:

1. A very good book to read is Jonathan Edwards' "The Religious Affections." He wrote this because he was concerned that during the Great Awakening there had been some trouble with the church accepting any and all kind of emotions and their expressions and forms as from God. Later, after the Awakening, he believed that the church was reacting in the other direction--rejecting all outward expression of emotion as mere show and fleshly sensationalism. His book lays out his very clear and balanced opinion.

2. While agreeing that people can certainly clap, wave their hands etc during worship and do so in a pure heart of worship, we live in a culture that almost universally associates clapping with a sense of appreciation by an audience for a job well done. Even the most sincere clapper surely must acknowledge that his behavior could easily be mistaken as praise for the speaker/singer/musician or as showing that he was emotionally touched by the experience (which may or may not be from the Spirit. All one has to do is go to a classical music concert and watch the audience rise to their feet, some with tears in their eyes, over the majesty of the soaring music to know this). Knowing this, I believe that we should be careful.

3. In that same vein, we do not have many direct commands regarding the exact manner, timing or order of our worship. We are not required to sing 2.5 hymns before the sermon, which must not be more than 40 minutes, and end with another hymn, but not more than one. But, one thing that is clear is that our worship must be decently and orderly. I have been in several churches where some of the congregation--sometimes only one or two, other times the majority--engaged in clapping, swaying, "amen" calling and "Praise God's". In every case without exception, their behavior was distracting to at least some of the congregation. I have rarely witnessed a person distracting from the worship of the Lord in churches where such things are not done. Here again, I just believe there should be caution and a careful contemplation. Certainly the elders should be ready and willing to immediately approach those whose behavior is regularly distracting and discuss the matter with them, at the least to let them know what they are doing (which they may not realize), and at the worst to determine if there might be a fleshly, sinful motive behind it. 

4. And, all that being said, let every man be thoroughly convinced in his own mind, have charity for the brethren and do everything that is righteously possible to avoid division.


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Jun 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Worship doesn't involve emotions, it involves the work of God's Spirit in His people's hearts and how they respond to it with reverance.



Are you a robot ?


----------



## Arch2k (Jun 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by OS_X_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> ...



Is God a robot?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 7, 2005)

Why can't worship be emotional???


----------



## fredtgreco (Jun 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Why can't worship be emotional???



Good question Scott.

Worship should be emotional. It should also involve the intellect. It should also involve the will. Emotions are NOT bad. It is the improper expression of emotions, just as the improper expressions of the intellect and will that are to be avoided.


----------



## Arch2k (Jun 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



I don't know that anyone is saying emotions are bad although I think all would admit they CAN be.

The point I am making is, is that we are never commanded to worship WITH our emotions. They may be a RESULT of our worship, but not a PART. Our worship must be in spirit and in truth, the same way God is Spirit. 



> John 4:
> 23But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him. 24God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth."



God clearly does not have emotions (see WCF Chapter II, Section1), yet God seeks those to worship him according to his nature (spirtual).

Again, I see emotions as a result of worship, not a part. God's truth should be highly valued and precious to each one of us. This will cause a reaction.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jun 7, 2005)

I raise my hands in worship of God when I worship Him privately.

I really wish the church I am at would do it corporately . . . unfortunately, I am not quite bold enough to be the only one doing it.

Two people on this thread have said that we do not worship God with our emotions, and that emotion is not part of the worship service. --- This is probably an accurate reflection of the sad state of quite a few Reformed congregations, but I completely disagree that this should be normative.

On the contrary, I believe it is a sin NOT to worship God with your emotions. Emotion is a part of worship. God is worshipped and glorified BY proper emotions at the proper times. If I partake of the Lord's body and blood, and mentally think about what He has done, and yet have no emotional response, then I dishonor God. On the other hand, if I am deeply moved emotionally when I think about my Savior who was crucified, then my emotions glorify God.

Pentecostals have a lot of "heat" (emotions), but no "light" (doctrinal focus and accuracy).

Many Reformed churches have a lot of "light" (doctrinal focus and accuracy), but no "heat" (emotions).

Both approaches are wrong. And yet both groups are afraid to change, because they (for good reason!) don't want to turn into the other group. Instead of seeking balance, it seems like each side is just reactionary, and thus each side ends up going way too far to one side or the other.

(Please note: I realize that some Pentecostals go WAY too far with emotionalism. So I am only making a fallible analogy. I am NOT saying that we should be copying their extreme emotionalism.)

When Jesus commanded us to love God with all of our hearts, minds, souls, and strength, He wasn't asking us to mentally categorize all of our worship into 4 various categories. Jesus was simply saying that we are to love God will ALL of our being . . . 100% of it. 

Is your mind part of your being? Then study Scripture and doctrine and worship God with your mind.

Is your physical body part of your being? Then partake of the Lord's Supper and worship God with your physical body.

Are your emotions part of your being? Then worship God with your emotions. Love what He loves. Hate what He hates. Rejoice in that which pleases Him. Exult in that which He exults. Have sorrow for sin. Have joy for salvation. 

God *commands* emotional responses throughout all Scripture. And those commands don't check themselves at the door when you step into a church service on Sunday morning.

[Edited on 6-7-2005 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## D Battjes (Jun 7, 2005)

Amen Joseph.

Jeff, perhaps you need more time to explain. But your initial thought appears to be a stretch.

Our emotions are part of our being. So we must be emotional when we worship. period.

Where are we commanded to sit like stones looking at the back of the heads in front of us doing litugical calestenics at the command of 1 person?

The analogy you use of spirit and truth is not clear to me.

Spirit and truth does not negate our emotions, so i do not know what you mean here


----------



## Arch2k (Jun 7, 2005)

First of all, to give you some background to my thinking, let me quote Thomas Watson from his Body of Divnity (commentary on WSC #4):



> What do you mean when you say, God is a Spirit?
> 
> By a spirit I mean, God is an immaterial substance, of a pure, subtile, unmixed essence, not compounded of body and soul, without all extension of parts. The body is a dreggish thing. The more spiritual God's essence, the more noble and excellent it is. The spirits are the more refined part of the wine.
> 
> ...


----------



## Arch2k (Jun 7, 2005)

Here is an interesting article I found.


----------



## Arch2k (Jun 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Why can't worship be emotional???



Again, if you mean by that "emotions stem from true worship" I am ok with that. If you mean that your emotions ARE true worship, I DO have a problem with that.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jun 7, 2005)

I'll ignore the _ad hominem_ and simply explain. Jeff pretty much had it correct.

Worship comes from a regenerated heart. It is done in Spirit and Truth. True worship is Spiritual in *origin* and *nature* ... HOWEVER, True Worship, which comes from our Spiritual heart CAN and often DOES lead to an emotional response in some way.

All I'm saying is that worship does not ORIGINATE from emotions. If it does, it is nothing more than psychological manipulation. I get emotional listening to any music the same way I could get listening to a song about Jesus. The difference between true worship and just being manipulated emotionally/psychologically is how your worship originates; that is, does it come from a spiritual heart and desire or does it come from emotional manipulation through music, words, and environment/circumstances.

If we can't worship without certain circumstances and everything being "just right" in order to spur our emotions first, then we are not worshipping from the heart and we are not worshipping in Spirit and Truth; we're just being psychologically manipulated cry babies.

Of course singing from God's Word makes me emotional at times, but I don't feel like I'm worshipping *only when* I get emotional; rather, it is the result of a heart already expressing joy and loving obedience to the Lord in True Worship.

Right Heart -> Spirit and Truth -> Worship -> Sometimes an emotional response

*NOT*

Things that make you emotional -> Worship


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jun 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...


----------



## Arch2k (Jun 7, 2005)

1 Corinthians 1:17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect.

1 Corinthians 2:1 And I, brethren, when I came to you, did not come with excellence of speech or of wisdom declaring to you the testimony of God.

If emotions are a commanded part of worship, why didn't Paul do everything he could to stir them up? It seems to me that we should play music real soft, dim the lights, and let the good times roll if this is the case.

Jonathan Edwards understood the above verses and chose to use a more of a monotone (one could say emotionless  ) voice out of a fear that his inflection might produce bad fruit and false profession. He understood that it is the word of God understood was what was important. In fact when people began to get emotional and cry out, he rebuked them as the story goes.

It may be good to come up with a definition of emtions to make sure we're not talking past each other.


----------



## kceaster (Jun 7, 2005)

Back to the topic, I think the early church could help us out with this. I'm pretty sure we don't see them having solos, special music, hand clapping, etc. But rather, when they said AMEN, one wrote that it sounded like a clap of thunder.

Why do we need to applaud? Isn't it merely a modern day reaction to something pleasing? I see no reason to drag this practice into the church. To me, it's a tiny bit of will worship. Are we commanded to clap for God? As far as I know, God wants us to worship Him with words, not clapping.

When the psalmist says clap your hands in the 47th, I believe it was for syncopation, not for praise. It is clear that praise is to be sung in the rest of the chapter, and that with understanding.

And many have said that David's raising his hands in the Psalms is not public worship but private, as he recalled the evening sacrifices and the priests with hands uplifted.

If one calls me stoic, I am well. Joy does not always seem happy. Exuberance can fill the heart with gladness, yet the expression of the face or the body, remain still.

God made us expressive creatures, but that doesn't mean that if we are not expressive, we are somehow not truly worshipping God.

I would stick with the early church. Let's make worship as simple, profound, and reverent as possible. And let's keep the world out of it.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## fredtgreco (Jun 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> ...



This is incorrect. The Biblical view is that we worship God with our whole selves, mind, emotion and will. You are simply not presenting what the Bible presents, but rather (I suppose) an (understandable) reaction to the vast majority of modern "worship". Rather the Bible speaks of worshipping in fear, in joy, rejoicing, etc. These are all emotions.




> God clearly does not have emotions (see WCF Chapter II, Section1), yet God seeks those to worship him according to his nature (spirtual).



God clearly does have emotions. He loves. He hates. He rejoices. The passage in WCF 2.1 "without passions" does not refer to emotions. It is a reference to changability.



> Again, I see emotions as a result of worship, not a part. God's truth should be highly valued and precious to each one of us. This will cause a reaction.



Emotions are a part of our being. It does not good to deny them, or to say that they are a "product" of what we do. The mind is primary - that I will grant. Because the emotions can go very astray when not reined in by the mind. But emotions are not bad.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jun 7, 2005)

Do you believe one is not worshipping unless they are emotional? Do you believe worship is a result of an emotional experience?


----------



## fredtgreco (Jun 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 1 Corinthians 1:17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect.
> 
> 1 Corinthians 2:1 And I, brethren, when I came to you, did not come with excellence of speech or of wisdom declaring to you the testimony of God.
> ...



Jeff,

You're talking about _emotionalism_ or a certain type of emotional reaction. Paul did do everything he could to stir up emotions in his readers - he urged them to love, to have compassion to one another, to hate sin, etc.


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Jun 7, 2005)

Scott and Fred have pretty much said all I could've said on this.

Gabe - emotions are excited by things.

If ALL OF YOU (Deut. 6:5) is loving and worshipping God, then it's IMPOSSIBLE for your emotions to not be a part of worship. 

Yes, worship does need to be based on true things about God in order for it to be valid. Personally, I can't even see the 'sometimes an emotional response' thing you said earlier in explaining yourself. How in the world can you not feel ANYTHING when singing praises to the God who saved you from your sins ? What kind of heart doesn't feel ANYTHING when singing, speaking, teaching or daily living for the God of the Universe Who, for no other reason than His own good pleasure, decided to NOT let you continue on your way to hell ?


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jun 7, 2005)

Like Fred said earlier, there is a clear difference between _emotion_ and _emotionalism_.

It is _emotionalism_ to try to elicit an emotional response merely through soft lighting, pretty music, etc.

But it is a _sin_ not to have appropriate emotions regarding God's awesome Sovereignty, what Christ has done for us on the cross, etc.

The *object* of our emotions is where the entire issue turns. If our "joy" is nothing more than a product of proper temperature, lighting, and music, then it is not focused on God, and therefore doesn't honor God. But if our joy is because our names are written in the Lamb's book of life, then our joy is *commanded*, and that joy is worshipful to God.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jun 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> I'll ignore the _ad hominem_ and simply explain. Jeff pretty much had it correct.
> 
> Worship comes from a regenerated heart. It is done in Spirit and Truth. True worship is Spiritual in *origin* and *nature* ... HOWEVER, True Worship, which comes from our Spiritual heart CAN and often DOES lead to an emotional response in some way.
> ...



Worship comes from a regenerate person. A person is made up of mind, emotion and will. The "heart" encompasses all these things.

Renewed Mind/Emotions/Will --> Worship in Spirit and truth


----------



## D Battjes (Jun 7, 2005)

> You're talking about _emotionalism_ or a certain type of emotional reaction. Paul did do everything he could to stir up emotions in his readers - he urged them to love, to have compassion to one another, to hate sin, etc.



Excellent point Fred. 

If anyone believe Paul preached or taught as some describe Edwards as doing, I have to doubt that. 

For starters, Edwards is not the barometer for style from what I gather.

Paul possesed the emotional zeal for the crucified Christ. His words sprang from his lips as lightning. 

If one believes he stood stoic at a podium reading from a script, they are mistaken.


----------



## Arch2k (Jun 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> This is incorrect. The Biblical view is that we worship God with our whole selves, mind, emotion and will. You are simply not presenting what the Bible presents, but rather (I suppose) an (understandable) reaction to the vast majority of modern "worship". Rather the Bible speaks of worshipping in fear, in joy, rejoicing, etc. These are all emotions.





> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> God clearly does have emotions. He loves. He hates. He rejoices. The passage in WCF 2.1 "without passions" does not refer to emotions. It is a reference to changability.





> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Emotions are a part of our being. It does not good to deny them, or to say that they are a "product" of what we do. The mind is primary - that I will grant. Because the emotions can go very astray when not reined in by the mind. But emotions are not bad.



1. I believe that joy, fear etc. etc. are commanded by God.
2. Emotions (and worship for that matter) have not been defined.
3. Are emotions different from feelings? Does God have feelings?
4. Nobody has EVER stated that all emotions are bad. I don't know why this keeps coming up. Everyone admits that emotions can be good, and can be bad.
5. Please differentiate between "emotions" and "emotionalism." I see "emotionalism" as "one who is emotional." According to many here, it seems like this should be considered a good thing.


----------



## D Battjes (Jun 7, 2005)

I just say Worship in Spirit and truth as led by the Spirit.

Many reformers and puritans restricted any type of outward emotions as being bad. All I am stating is there is a balance between the "toronto Blessing heresy" vs the stone cold stoicism of certain reformers and puritans.



I cannot imagine for one second that on the day of pentacost people were stone cold.

People thought they were drunk. SO I believe we can concur that they were kinda wild.

And again, David dancing naked in front of the Lord is obvious.

Some here seem to be like Davids wife. Squelching a pure heart overjoyed with emotion for our Lord.

Satan has a way of ruining our joy. Just like Davids wife tried to. And what was her fate for raining on the parade?

Barren till death!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jun 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 5. Please differentiate between "emotions" and "emotionalism." I see "emotionalism" as "one who is emotional." According to many here, it seems like this should be considered a good thing.



Yes, being "one who is emotional" is a very good thing, if those emotions are in proper response to God and what He has done. It is a sin not to be emotionally affected by His Sovereignty and Love.

I already pointed out the difference between God-honoring emotions and mere _emotionalism_. I think the difference has to do with the *object* of the emotions. 

I repeat:


It is emotionalism to try to elicit an emotional response merely through soft lighting, pretty music, etc.

But it is a sin not to have appropriate emotions regarding God's awesome Sovereignty, what Christ has done for us on the cross, etc.

The object of our emotions is where the entire issue turns. If our "joy" is nothing more than a product of proper temperature, lighting, and music, then it is not focused on God, and therefore doesn't honor God. But if our joy is because our names are written in the Lamb's book of life, then our joy is *commanded*, and that joy is worshipful to God.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jun 7, 2005)

Or, to put it another way:

 is not at odds with 



[Edited on 6-7-2005 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jun 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> Or, to put it another way:
> 
> is not at odds with
> ...


----------



## fredtgreco (Jun 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> ...



Emotionalism is the manipulation of the emotions. The emotions can be manipulated, just as the mind can be (deceit), and the will can be (coercion).

Emotions are neither good nor bad. It is the end to which they are put, just like the mind. Love is not a "good" emotion, and hate a "bad" emotion. Hate can be a proper thing. Love can be improper at times.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jun 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> God clearly does have emotions. He loves. He hates. He rejoices. The passage in WCF 2.1 "without passions" does not refer to emotions. It is a reference to changability.



I understand the word passions to mean emotions. (What does the word from Acts 14.15 mean in the Greek?)

Robert Shaw: 



> In the same manner must we explain the several passions that are ascribed to God,"“such as anger, fury, jealousy, revenge, bowels of mercy, &c. "Passion produces a vehemence of action; so when there is, in the providences of God, such a vehemence as, according to the manner of men, would import a passion, then that passion is ascribed to God. When he punishes men for sin, he is said to be angry; when he does that by severe and redoubled strokes, he is said to be full of fury and revenge; when he punishes for idolatry, or any dishonour done to himself, he is said to be jealous; when he changes the course of his proceedings, he is said to repent; when his dispensations of providence are very gentle, and his judgments come slowly from him, he is said to have bowels. And thus all the varieties of providence come to be expressed by all that variety of passions which, among men, might give occasion to such a variety of proceeding."



A.A. Hodge: 



> When the Scriptures, in condescension to our weakness, express the fact that God hears by saying that he has an ear, or that he exerts power by attributing to him a hand, they evidently speak metaphorically, because in the case of men spiritual faculties are exercised through bodily organs. And when they speak of his repenting, of his being grieved, or jealous, they use metaphorical language also, teaching us that he acts toward us as a man would when agitated by such passions. Such metaphors are characteristic rather of the Old than of the New Testament, and occur for the most part in highly rhetorical passages of the poetical and prophetical books.



But I also understand the Incarnate Christ to have had human emotions expressed perfectly in his zeal/anger towards the moneychangers in the Temple or the tears that he shed for Lazarus. 

This is an area where I would like to study more, however. Please let me know if anyone has any recommended reading on this issue. Also, please feel free to enlighten me if my understanding is incorrect.

[Edited on 6-8-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## Arch2k (Jun 7, 2005)

*God has emotions ONLY in the divided sense!*



> When love is predicated of God, we do not mean that he is possessed of it as if a passion or affection. In us it is such; but if considered in that sense, it should be ascribed to that Deity, it would be utterly subversive of the simplicity, perfection, and independency of His being. Love, therefore, when attributed to Him, signifies His eternal benevolence, i.e. his everlasting will, purpose, and determination to deliver, bless, and save his people.
> Jerome Zanchius, The Doctrine of Absolute Predestination (quoted in The Two Wills of God, p. 35.)





> "Anthropopathisms" deal with the psychological aspect of God which convey the various ideas which men may have concerning the "pathos" of God, or emotions seen in the Bible.
> The Two Wills of God, p. 36





> The expression [do not grieve the Holy spirit]is not to be taken properly and literally, as if the Holy Spirit of God was capable of vexation or sorrow. The divine nature is not subject to human passions. God's condescension is not to rob him of his glory.
> William Jay, Morning Exercises, For Every Day in the Year (on Ephesians 4:30...quoted in the Two Wills of God, p. 36)





> Jealousy is an affection or passion of the mind, by which we are stirred up and provoked against whatsoever hinders the enjoyment of that, which we love and desire. The cause and origin of it is love; and the effect of it is revenge. Now God, to deter the Israelites from idolatry, sets forth himself as a Strong and Jealous God, that they might be assured not to excape punishment: for he is strong, and therefore can inflict it; and he is jealous, and therefore will inflict it, if they shall dare to abuse and injure that love which he hath placed on them. *This jealousy is not to be ascribed unto God, as if there were properly any such weak and disturbing passion in him; but only by way of accommodation and similitude, speaking after the manner of men: so then there is not idem affectus, but idem effectus; not 'the same inward affection,' but 'the same outward effect.' Adnd so likewise it is to be understood, when God is said to be angry, to be grieved, to repent, &c., that is, his actions towards us are like the actions of one that is angry, or grieved, or repents: although the infinite serenity of the Divine Essence is not liable to be discomposed or ruffled, by the tempests of any such like passions, as are incident to us as mutable creatures.*
> Ezekiel Hopkins (quoted in the Two Wills of God, p. 37)





> Do you really believe the Creator to be God? By all means, is your reply. How then do you suppose that in God there is anything human, and not that all is divine? It is palpably absurd of you to be placing human characteristics in God...and clothing God in the likeness of man. Discriminate between the natures, and assign to them their respective senses...
> Tertullian (quoted in the Two Wills of God, p. 37)


----------



## Arch2k (Jun 7, 2005)

*Noah Webster 1828*

Emotion
EMO'TION, n. [L. emotio; emoveo, to move from.]

1. Literally, a moving of the mind or soul; hence,any agitation of mind or excitement of sensibility.

2. In a philosophical sense, an internal motion or agitation of the mind which passes away without desire; when desire follows, the motion or agitation is called a passion.

3. Passion is the sensible effect, the feeling to which the mind is subjected,when an object of importance suddenly and imperiously demands its attention. The state of absolute passiveness, in consequence of any sudden percussion of mind, is of short duration. The strong impression, or vivid sensation, immediately produces a reaction correspondent to its nature, either to appropriate and enjoy, or avoid and repel the exciting cause. This reaction is very properly distinguished by the term emotion.

Emotions therefore, according to the genuine signification of the word, are principally and primarily applicable to the sensible changes and visible effects, which particular passions produce on the frame, in consequence of this reaction, or particular agitation of mind.


----------



## Arch2k (Jun 7, 2005)

*An Article by Phillip R. Johnson*

This is an interesting article on the subject:

Here's a small excerpt:



> It is a serious mistake to impute any kind of thoughts to God that are cast in the same mold as human passions"”as if God possessed a temper subject to involuntary oscillation.


----------



## Arch2k (Jun 7, 2005)

> Our Confession says, that God hath neither parts nor passions. That He has something analagous to what are called in man active principles, is manifest, for He wills and acts; therefore He must feel. But these active principles must not be conceived of as emotions, in the sense of ebbing and flowing accesses of feeling. In other words, they lack that agitation and rush, that change from cold to hot, and hot to cold, which constitute the characteristics of passion in us. They are, in God, an ineffable, fixed, peaceful, unchangeable calm, although the springs of volition. That such principles may be, although incomprehensible to us, we may learn from this fact: That in the wisest and most sanctified creatures, the active principles have least of passion and agitation, and yet they by no means become inefficacious as springs of action"”e.g., moral indignation in the holy and wise parent or ruler. That the above conception of the calm immutability of God´s active principles is necessary, appears from the following: The agitations of literal passions are incompatible with His blessedness. The objects of those feelings are as fully present to the Divine Mind at one time as another; so that there is nothing to cause ebb or flow. And that ebb would constitute a change in Him. When, therefore, the Scriptures speak of God as becoming wroth, as repenting, as indulging His fury against His adversaries, in connection with some particular event occurring in time, we must understand them anthropopathically. What is meant is, that the outward manifestations of His active principles were as though these feelings then arose.
> *Robert Lewis Dabney, Systematic Theology, Chapter 12, Immutability.*





> We may be reminded that the Confession declares God to be "without passions." So the theologians tell us that we must ascribe to him no "passive powers;" for then he would not be immutable. He acts on everything; but is acted on by none. He is the source, but not the recipient of effects. This is indisputable. But we should not so overstrain the truth as to reject two other truths. One is, that while God has no passions, while he has no mere susceptibilities such that his creature can cause an effect upon it irrespective to God's own will and freedom, yet he has active principles. These are not passions, in the sense of fluctuations or agitations, but none the less are they affections of his will, actively distinguished from the cognitions in his intelligence. They are true optative functions of the divine Spirit. However anthropopathic may be the statements made concerning God's repentings, wrath, pity, pleasure, love, jealousy, hatred, in the Scriptures, we should do violence to them if we denied that he here meant to ascribe to himself active affections in some mode suitable to his nature. And it is impossible for us to suppose an agent without active principles, as well as cognitive, as we could not believe that the compass could move the ship without any motive power. The other truth is, that objective beings and events are the real occasions, though not efficient causes, of the action both of the divine affections and will. Are not many divines so much afraid of ascribing to God any "passive powers," or any phase of dependence on the creature, that they hesitate even to admit that scriptural fact? But why should they recoil from the simple statements of his Word on this point, unless they were confused or misled by the old sensualistic view, which regarded the objective impression as somehow the efficient, instead of the mere occasion, of the following activities of the percipient soul: "God is angry with the wicked every day" (Ps. 7:11); "But the thing that David had done displeased the Lord" [(2 Sam. 11:27);] "My delight is in her" (Is. 62:4); "In these things I delight, saith the Lord" (Jer. 9:24). Is all this so anthropopathic as not even to mean that God's active principles here have an objective? Why not let the Scriptures mean what they so plainly strive to declare? But some seem so afraid of recognizing in God any susceptibility of a passive nature, that they virtually set Scripture aside, and paint a God whose whole activities of intelligence and will are so exclusively from himself that even the relation of objective occasion to him is made unreal, and no other is allowed than a species of coincidence or pre-established harmony. They are chary of conceding (what the Bible seems so plainly to say) that God is angry because men sin; and would go no farther than to admit that somehow he is angry when men sin, yet, because absolutely independent, angry only of himself.
> *Robert Lewis Dabney, God's Indiscriminate Proposals of Mercy, As Related to His Power, Wisdom, and Sincerity*



[Edited on 6-8-2005 by Jeff_Bartel]


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Jun 8, 2005)

So what are emotions a product of, Jeff ?


----------



## Arch2k (Jun 8, 2005)

*We should have probably made a new thread...*

They can be a product of the environment or externals (dramatical music, soft lights, a sad story) but they can also stem from truth that is highly valued. Some of these are better than others (as Fred said earlier, emotions are not necessarily good or bad).

All of this does not mean that emotions are a PART of worship, but I see them as a result.

Jeremiah Burroughs defined worship as "thoughts about God."

Worship In my humble opinion is focusing the communicable attributes of God on him.



> Question 7: What is God?
> Answer: God is a Spirit, in and of himself infinite in being, glory, blessedness, and perfection; all-sufficient, eternal, unchangeable, incomprehensible, everywhere present, almighty, knowing all things, *most wise, most holy, most just, most merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth.*



The ones in bold are communicable. Some think that this defines the image of God in man. It seems to me that when God seeks those who worship him in Spirit and truth, this is what he means. See Watson above.

Since God doesn't have emotions (in and of himself), this is not a communicable attribute. It is not part of the image of God. Thoughts are. God thinks. He reasons. Emotions result from these. WCF Chapter 4:



> 4:2 After God had made all other creatures, He created man, male and female, *with reasonable and immortal souls, endued with knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness, after His own image...*



Some may seem my definition of "emotion" as emotionalism. If we want to dispute terms, that is ok...I don't want to be crossing paths with people. Definitions are tricky, especially with very hard words like "emotion" and "love."

I am open to thoughts.


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Jun 9, 2005)

Ok.

What are the attributes of the soul/spirit ? How does it function in humans ?


----------



## larryjf (Jun 9, 2005)

Our church received a complaint because occasionally there would be clapping. The Worship Committee looked into the biblical principles and decided not to forbid clapping. However, it is not the norm for our congregation to clap; it is more likely that they will say, "Amen" or "Praise the Lord".

Some lift their hands during worship, but the number is few. The pastor himself lifts his hands at times.

In a way it's one thing if the whole congregation is lifting hands, and another thing if only 1 or 2 people are lifting them - then it could be a distraction to others.

I have heard some argue that we must look to the NT only for our order of worship, since the shadow of things in the OT has passed and we are now in the fullness of worship, doing it in Spirit and truth.

The main thing for me is to balance 2 things - You must be very careful not to quench the Spirit, and you must be very careful to keep order.


----------



## D Battjes (Jun 9, 2005)

> The main thing for me is to balance 2 things - You must be very careful not to quench the Spirit, and you must be very careful to keep order.




This is an excellent clear concise point.

According to what I have read in this thread, I am led to believe that if people yelled out during a sermon"WHat must I do to be saved?" THe congregation or leadership would look in astonishment because it is not decent and in order!!!!!!!!!!!! This is a terrible state to be in and never recover from.


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Jun 10, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> They can be a product of the environment or externals (dramatical music, soft lights, a sad story) but they can also stem from truth that is highly valued. Some of these are better than others (as Fred said earlier, emotions are not necessarily good or bad).
> 
> 
> ...


----------

