Scandal of pagans leading worship

[Contra_Mundum]

Actually, I predict the PCA will (within one or two decades) absorb the EPC and what's left of the conservatives of the PCUSA. They will become the new "mainline" as the original mainline implodes by virtue of having literally no more people (to go with their clergy, bureaucracy, buildings and endowments). The stage is being set. The center is being softened up. There needs to be doctrinal and practical room to absorb churches with divergent norms. A decade ago, I though it might have happened by now (or there'd be 10-15 years to go). My original time-scale prediction (a quarter-century) could still come true; there's still time left; and (it nearly goes without saying) the moves we are seeing are exactly what needs to happen for these mergers to take place.

And there will continue to be the "lesser" outlier-denominations.

 

[TheElk]

Our church has a praise team and I used to be on it. They made sure I was a believer before they would let me play in front of the assembly. It's all about Him.

 

[he beholds]

I don't think anybody wants them not to hear the gospel and believe. But then again, in churches where the pastor has no ethical qualms about hiring unbelievers to lead believers in worshipping God, I'm doubtful they'll hear the true gospel anyway.

I agree that non-Christians shouldn't be leading our worship. However, Austen, I think that even though you don't respect Keller, he DOES preach the Gospel, despite his lack of qualms about unbelieving musicians. I imagine there are other examples like him.

 

[sastark]

Did anyone else think of Charles McIlhenny and the firing of the homosexual organist that led to his home being fire-bombed when they read this article? I wonder what Rev. McIlhenny would have to say about pagans leading worship?

 

[Micah Everett]

This is reminding me why I post so infrequently--I don't always have time to do all this writing! I hope to write this one more post and then return to my shadowy existence on the fringes of the Puritan Board.

I am not at all suggesting that we should just "let this be." George's approach is correct. It is the leadership of these churches, Keller included, that need to be "taken to task" for this practice. The pagan musicians that are being hired for these "gigs" are only behaving as we might expect pagans to behave, taking employment wherever they can get it without real thought about the propriety or impropriety of their leading in worship. If I am reading 1 Corinthians 5:12-13 correctly (and I understand that the application of this passage here might be a bit of a stretch), we are in a position to judge those that are within the church, to admonish them, to help them to see the error of their way that they might turn from their evil and adopt right worship practices. Let me be clear: this needs to happen. "But them that are without God judgeth," and I am not convinced that admonishing my unbelieving colleagues about this practice will be helpful or productive. The Gospel is already offensive to unbelievers; our calling is not to make it more offensive in our dealings with the unbelieving world. They are there, in the churches, leading in worship. They shouldn't be. May God grant that the leaders of these churches will see the error of their ways and stop this abhorrent practice. Until that happens, I pray that, while they are there, they will hear Christ preached (in spite of everything that is wrong with the situation), and that the Holy Spirit will see fit to work savingly in their hearts.

I might also say, again, that if we would just stick to congregational singing in the gathered worship of the church, with or without an instrument present solely to assist the singing, this situation wouldn't exist at all. I am an orchestral musician. I find the religious works of Bach, Handel, et al. to be especially edifying. This doesn't mean that they belong in corporate worship.

 

[Poimen]

The scriptures are clear about the manner of worship:

1) It must be done with spirit & understanding: "What is the conclusion then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the understanding. I will sing with the spirit, and I will also sing with the understanding. Otherwise, if you bless with the spirit, how will he who occupies the place of the uninformed say 'Amen' at your giving of thanks, since he does not understand what you say?" 1 Corinthians 14:15-16

2) It must be done with grace and to the Lord: Colossians 3:16-17 "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom, teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord. And whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through Him."

I think it is obvious that unbelievers cannot sing these truths from the heart and thus could not lead in worship without compromising the integrity of the church and their own person.

This leaves instrumental accompaniment which is not prescribed in scripture as to be separate from the worship of God's people. The only function that instruments play in scripture is in the Old Testament where the priests would lead the people in giving praise to God. We had to create a whole other portion of worship out of thin air that indirectly attacks the worship of the saints because it eclipses the worship of the saints. What ought instrumental accompaniment to do but to help the congregation sing? And, in light of the scripture's above, how can one be 'helped' by someone who does not believe what you are singing about?

 

[Zenas]

"But them that are without God judgeth," and I am not convinced that admonishing my unbelieving colleagues about this practice will be helpful or productive.

It wouldn't be helpful at all, nor do I think proper. The people huring them within the church are the ones that need to be punished.

 

[N. Eshelman]

Did anyone else think of Charles McIlhenny and the firing of the homosexual organist that led to his home being fire-bombed when they read this article? I wonder what Rev. McIlhenny would have to say about pagans leading worship?

Chuck and I were just talking about this yesterday. I will not get into our discussion, other than to say that he sees the parallels between what happened at First OPC and what could come about from this.

 

[kvanlaan]

The Gunn Brothers did a whole film on this: Shaky Town

http://www.shakytown.com/

Great movie - terrifying, but very well done.

 

[BJClark]

How can a 'paid professional' who is a non-believer lead worshipping God whom they do not believe in, better than someone who has a love for God, who is not a professional???

It seems to me, it could be something that is held against them when they stand before God on judgment day...but more importantly why would a pastor desire to put pearls before swine in such a case???

 

[JBaldwin]

How can a 'paid professional' who is a non-believer lead worshipping God whom they do not believe in, better than someone who has a love for God, who is not a professional???

It seems to me, it could be something that is held against them when they stand before God on judgment day...but more importantly why would a pastor desire to put pearls before swine in such a case???

While I have yet to come across a PCA church that hired a worship director who was not a believer, I have seen many PCA churches hire outside musicians (often non-believers) for special occasions, and some to fill seats in their orchestras. I am against this practices, as I have stated earlier.

What might surprise some here is the practice of hiring professional musicians as music directors, choral directors and organists, in addition to hiring non-believers for other instrumental positions is quite common in all of the mainline denominations. It is not uncommon for the director of music to be playing in a bar on Saturday night and directing the choir on Sunday morning. (I know someone who does this.)

 

[Zenas]

What's wrong with playing a gig in a bar or being in a bar for that matter?

 

[Jack K]

A blanket criticism of churches that hire unbelieving musicians may be too simplistic. I agree that worship leaders should be professing believers. I suspect some of these churches would say the same. But we first have to ask: how do you define a leader? That may be the true spot where we disagree with these churches.

If an unbeliever shows up for services and sings along with the congregation, do we silence him based on the principle (brought up in this thread) that worship is only for true worshipers? Most of us would not. What if he sings really loudly or pulls out a harmonica and joins in with that? Has he now become a leader who must be silenced? Or if that's okay, then why not let him take a turn at the piano? Is the "praise team" merely an extension of congregational worship, or at some point does being part of it make one a leader?

Many churches already celebrate "praise team" members too much. I'm inclined NOT to think of musicians as leaders, but merely as congregational participants who're putting their particular talents to use as an extention of congregational singing. And so, I might be inclined to allow an unbeliever who wants to join a praise team as a musician do so, just as I'd let him join us on a service project, cooking for a potluck, ushering or any other non-teaching/non-leadership activity, provided he does it in line with church standards. I wouldn't let him speak or lead in prayer or pick the songs, but I might let him play his instrument.

I would NOT want to pay him, just as I wouldn't want to pay anyone (especially a non-leader) to attend worship. Even in a place like Manhattan or Nashville, where the two pastors in question minister and where cultural expectations might say you do pay musicians, I'd want to avoid paying people who don't otherwise want to be there. However, I do see where this could get tricky in such churches. If you want to fairly compensate the workman who "deserves his wages," plus you want to open up participation (not leadership) in worship to all comers, plus you don't want to create a situation where musicians falsely profess faith so they're eligible to get paid... well, you can see where this goes. So I think the practice of paying unbelieving musicians is an error to avoid, but I'm not sure it's quite so simple as "that's evil."

 

[raekwon]

I'm against non-Christians leading worship as well, but it doesn't seem that my definition of "leadership" is quite the same as Dr. Clark's or most folks' in this thread. I'd be much more at ease with an unbelieving instrumentalist than an unbelieving vocalist or "chief musician", for instance.

 

[Rook]

Timely article for the church. Prayerfully, I hope many will take this seriously. We are not talking about preference, but about the worship of our great God and King!

 

[seajayrice]

I'm against non-Christians leading worship as well, but it doesn't seem that my definition of "leadership" is quite the same as Dr. Clark's or most folks' in this thread. I'd be much more at ease with an unbelieving instrumentalist than an unbelieving vocalist or "chief musician", for instance.

I'd agree, there are distinctions. Not to side track the OP, but some churches use beautifully wrought orchestral tunes to glorify God. Not to many congregations can field a symphony orchestra.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Right; sidetracking the thread will land it in the EP subforum. I will say this. If musical instruments are a circumstance of worship, then saying some churches, the few that may, glorify God with orchestral music, is akin to saying some churches glorify God by meeting and worshipping at 6am in the morning. God doesn't view it any more glorifying to him in the one case than the other. If musical instrumentation in public worship is circumstantial that is. Food for thought. Don't side track the thread.

I'm against non-Christians leading worship as well, but it doesn't seem that my definition of "leadership" is quite the same as Dr. Clark's or most folks' in this thread. I'd be much more at ease with an unbelieving instrumentalist than an unbelieving vocalist or "chief musician", for instance.

I'd agree, there are distinctions. Not to side track the OP, but some churches use beautifully wrought orchestral tunes to glorify God. Not to many congregations can field a symphony orchestra.

 

[kvanlaan]

Can we say that in addition to it being out of bounds, that we are causing them to add to their list of sins in employing them in such a way? As they sing this music (it's their job, after all), are they not taking the Lord's name in vain? I know this may be seen as straining at gnats by some, but if we love them as we rightly should, we would not put them in such a position. It need not be exclusion for the sake of removing an unbeliever, but keeping them from singing judgment unto themselves, in the same way as we would stop an unbeliever from taking the Lord's supper.

 

[seajayrice]

Can we say that in addition to it being out of bounds, that we are causing them to add to their list of sins in employing them in such a way? As they sing this music (it's their job, after all), are they not taking the Lord's name in vain? I know this may be seen as straining at gnats by some, but if we love them as we rightly should, we would not put them in such a position. It need not be exclusion for the sake of removing an unbeliever, but keeping them from singing judgment unto themselves, in the same way as we would stop an unbeliever from taking the Lord's supper.

Do you examine visitors prior to worship?

 

[kvanlaan]

No, we don't (though we do for the Lord's Supper). I see your point. But does it not matter that the one is a visitor, there for (perhaps) a baptism, etc. and the other is a committed Buddhist, denying Christ with all the vitriol a Buddhist can muster? I know, the logic doesn't bear out a difference. But compassion tells me that one is there by the Lord's grace to hear the gospel and perhaps be converted while the other is there for a paycheck, requiring him to be there and take the Lord's name in vain again and again. But I fully agree, the logic doesn't work on my part when taken much further.

 

[seajayrice]

No, we don't (though we do for the Lord's Supper). I see your point. But does it not matter that the one is a visitor, there for (perhaps) a baptism, etc. and the other is a committed Buddhist, denying Christ with all the vitriol a Buddhist can muster? I know, the logic doesn't bear out a difference. But compassion tells me that one is there by the Lord's grace to hear the gospel and perhaps be converted while the other is there for a paycheck, requiring him to be there and take the Lord's name in vain again and again. But I fully agree, the logic doesn't work on my part.

Mat 22:10 So those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was furnished with guests.

 

[Rich Koster]

If people want to "engage the culture", let them do it outside of corporate worship. I have no problem with a group of Christians forming an orchestra, playing with non-believers and playing for whoever will attend. Entertainment is not part of the RPW, to the best of my limited understanding. How can people praise a God they do not know? Let them enter His courts with praise after they become reconciled.

 

[kvanlaan]

Mat 22:10 So those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was furnished with guests.

Then I need to tell RC Sproul (among others), that they're wrong, since they believe that a worship service is for God's people. This portion of scripture is a parable, referring to the preaching of the gospel to all nations and peoples; and well we should, if we believe what we profess. But show me a worship service in the Bible that was comprised of anything but believers. In not hiring unbelievers as musicians, we are not talking about the spread of the gospel to only Jews in limiting our worship service. We are instead talking about these musicians as being wedding guests without the wedding garment of Christ, and what happened to the improperly clothed guest?

 

[jogri17]

Honestly, I am not sure. I think the discussion needs to be whether or not we ought to have pianists, organists, or praise bands at all in our worship context.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

This can be done by creating a thread in the A Capella EP Sub-forum.
Let's keep this thread on subject.

Honestly, I am not sure. I think the discussion needs to be whether or not we ought to have pianists, organists, or praise bands at all in our worship context.

 

[JBaldwin]

What's wrong with playing a gig in a bar or being in a bar for that matter?

I probably should have clarified that comment. The individual who I mentioned is not a believer and was playing in the bars before he was working for the church. He took the church job, because he needed the money.

---------- Post added at 09:14 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:47 AM ----------

Many churches already celebrate "praise team" members too much. I'm inclined NOT to think of musicians as leaders, but merely as congregational participants who're putting their particular talents to use as an extention of congregational singing. And so, I might be inclined to allow an unbeliever who wants to join a praise team as a musician do so, just as I'd let him join us on a service project, cooking for a potluck, ushering or any other non-teaching/non-leadership activity, provided he does it in line with church standards. I wouldn't let him speak or lead in prayer or pick the songs, but I might let him play his instrument.

This is where I beg to differ with you on this subject and where, in my mind, the practice of paying non-believers begins. I agree that "praise team" members and instrumentalists are often elevated to a position where they should not be. Evem so, having non-believers in the mix is a problem. "Tuned in" (pardon the pun) musicians can and do pick up on attitudes of other musicians, and it can spoil the worship for the musicians and for the congregation. No matter what your side is on the issue of EP and instruments in worship, there was a good reason why God commanded that the musicians come from the tribe of Levi.

In my experience musicans who participate in worship practice together, pray together, fellowship and take the worship very seriously. There is more to it than just playing along. I speak so strongly about it, because I've experienced it firsthand over and over again for years as a church musician. There is nothing more wonderful for musicians than worshipping God together when you all know the songs, believe the words and sing or play them with all your heart. And there is nothing more painful than to be have one or two in the group who play well, but don't believe a word they are singing or playing. When you can't put your heart into the music, then you are doing nothing more than entertaining.

 

[seajayrice]

Mat 22:10 So those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was furnished with guests.

Then I need to tell RC Sproul (among others), that they're wrong, since they believe that a worship service is for God's people. This portion of scripture is a parable, referring to the preaching of the gospel to all nations and peoples; and well we should, if we believe what we profess. But show me a worship service in the Bible that was comprised of anything but believers. In not hiring unbelievers as musicians, we are not talking about the spread of the gospel to only Jews in limiting our worship service. We are instead talking about these musicians as being wedding guests without the wedding garment of Christ, and what happened to the improperly clothed guest?

Hmmm, have you ever been to NYC? I doubt there is anywhere on earth you will find more Nations in one place! I think we are in accord so far as purity of worship and I value the RPW. This time of year is somewhat unique; worship and evangelism are sometimes intertwined. Example might be a church that regularly hires a full orchestra to play Handel’s Messiah for an annual Christmas service. The quality and beauty of the production pleases believers and unbelievers alike. Believers and unbelievers from the community flood the sanctuary every year as a result. If Handel’s Messiah does not glorify God in your opinion, that is your opinion. The gospel is proclaimed, God is glorified. Heaven forbid we use the church for evangelism. Who leaves the service appropriately dressed is of the Lord.

 

[Jack K]

[/COLOR]

Many churches already celebrate "praise team" members too much. I'm inclined NOT to think of musicians as leaders, but merely as congregational participants who're putting their particular talents to use as an extention of congregational singing. And so, I might be inclined to allow an unbeliever who wants to join a praise team as a musician do so, just as I'd let him join us on a service project, cooking for a potluck, ushering or any other non-teaching/non-leadership activity, provided he does it in line with church standards. I wouldn't let him speak or lead in prayer or pick the songs, but I might let him play his instrument.

This is where I beg to differ with you on this subject and where, in my mind, the practice of paying non-believers begins. I agree that "praise team" members and instrumentalists are often elevated to a position where they should not be. Evem so, having non-believers in the mix is a problem. "Tuned in" (pardon the pun) musicians can and do pick up on attitudes of other musicians, and it can spoil the worship for the musicians and for the congregation. No matter what your side is on the issue of EP and instruments in worship, there was a good reason why God commanded that the musicians come from the tribe of Levi.

In my experience musicans who participate in worship practice together, pray together, fellowship and take the worship very seriously. There is more to it than just playing along. I speak so strongly about it, because I've experienced it firsthand over and over again for years as a church musician. There is nothing more wonderful for musicians than worshipping God together when you all know the songs, believe the words and sing or play them with all your heart. And there is nothing more painful than to be have one or two in the group who play well, but don't believe a word they are singing or playing. When you can't put your heart into the music, then you are doing nothing more than entertaining.

Yes, that's a good argument for just saying all members of a worship team must be professing believers. And I agree it might be the best way to go. At the same time, I'm conscious of the fact that some people who're considering Christianity are helped along by being able to "try out" church life first, and I think it's good to be able to open up church life to them as fully we can without (1) allowing them in leadership or (2) profaning the name of Christ.

Mostly, I just hope to point out that these issues are not necessarily easy ones. We do want to protect the purity of worship. At the same time, the gospel compels us to be welcoming, patient with unbelievers and non-exclusivist. I prefer to limit the number of places where we say "yes, please join our worship service but you may not take part in _____" to as few as necessary. Some exclusions ARE necessary. Worship team involvement may be one of them. But we must consider these carefully. And I think it's good for us to be able to discuss the issue with an appreciation that welcoming unbelievers in the name of the gospel is a good thing, and one the people of God need not fear.

 

[au5t1n]

What does paying unbelievers to play the violin have to do with welcoming them into our churches?

 

[raekwon]

It should be noted that there are a number of different circumstances that could fall under the umbrella of "non-Christians" helping out with music. There's a difference, for instance, in paying an unbelieving professional church-musician-for-hire to play for you and having someone who's attended your church for a while, isn't quite sure about Christ's claims yet, but has musical talent and wants to serve.