Art in worship

Status
Not open for further replies.
[quote:2a250dac51]
You know, Jonathan Edwards would not last a week in most churches.
[/quote:2a250dac51]

Very true, but this type of anachronism can be said of almost any dead saint.

We probaly could not last one service in their churches either.


[quote:2a250dac51]
PS - in discussing the artifacts used in OT worship we do have to keep a proper perspective and understand the fulfillment of these as they were only types! What does the ark, the candlestick, the altar, the laver, etc represent for us in worship? The answer to that will determine if you are able to attempt to justify using things of that nature today in worship[/quote:2a250dac51]

Have you ever seen the movie Cromwell ? ?
He goes through the church in a "cleansing the temple" type manner and gets rid of all the gold ornaments and crosses.

I found it to be a great portrayal of the over-reaction of the Reformation to all "holy furniture" so to speak.

Why would God give us millenia of OT revelation as a pattern of worship, and then fulfill the sacrifice portion of it as Himself, and then tell us the rest was simply symbol also and we do not need to worry ourselves about it anymore but rather make our worship as stark and achromatic and imageless as possible from now on ? ? ?
 
Why don't we build a Temple then to meet in and decorate it according to the OT?

Because the veil was ripped in two....the church is the Temple. And Jesus said that it is not about where we worship (Temple, hillside, etc) but [i:a4d8904831]how[/i:a4d8904831] we worship. In spirit and truth.

The OT symbolism has been fulfilled and is no longer a part of worship. The Old Covenant has passed away. Let go of the relics of the past....they served their purpose. No need, or Biblical mandate, to hang on tot hem any longer.

Phillip
 
[quote:eebf8c4112]
And Jesus said that it is not about where we worship (Temple, hillside, etc) but how we worship. In spirit and truth.
[/quote:eebf8c4112]

This also works for my side of the debate.

The rent veil was a symbol of fulfillment.
When the curtain was torn what did they see in the holy of holies ? ? ?

Not the Ark . . . . but rather the missing ark.

The mercy seat is in heaven.

I agree with you Phillip. I just do not think that the fulfillment does away with the use of symbolic ornamentation.

I will look into those works mentioned by Matt before I make up my mind totally.
And certainly, the Roman Church is steeped in heinous idolatry regarding the ornamentation and symbolism therein.

It is a tough thing to discern.
 
[quote:39d2e7e346][i:39d2e7e346]Originally posted by PastorJoe[/i:39d2e7e346]
I am still missing something. I agree, we respond to God, not men. But we respond to God as we exhorts us via the human instrument. Such as a preacher. God speak to the body through him, and the body responds to God.

Why is it different when it comes to the solo?
[/quote:39d2e7e346]
The difference is calling. The minister is ordained to exhort the congregation with the Word. A soloist is not.
 
[quote:95c816c1df][i:95c816c1df]Originally posted by Visigoth[/i:95c816c1df]
By putting worship and liturgy in to a vacuum of sensory depravation we are reducing substance of Christianity to Budhism. Empty your mind of all images. Sanitize the sancuary of all tapestries and statuary, and symbol. At that point we must also deny the Bible and the sacraments because at face value, language, and wine, and bread, are all images and symbols by which the Creator communicates to us His will, and His love, in a "creaturely" manner.
[/quote:95c816c1df]
Actually you have pointed out the only sanctioned decor in the NT, the sacraments.
I think the early New England Puritans were right on in this respect. Their churches were simple. Only the necessities were there; chairs, simple pulpit, and a table for the elements. Nothing else. There were no distractions from the purpose if the assembly.

We are but strangers and pilgrims in this world. Our churches and services should reflect that. The majesty of God should be expressed not in outward decor but in the right use of the required elements of worship (preaching of the Word, prayer,sacraments, congregational singing etc.) and in our godly lives. All else is but temporary tools to house this worship.
 
Greetings, y'all,

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to remember someone telling me that there are definite differences between what Scripture "describes" and what it "prescribes". In other words, some things are explicitly ordained and other things are simply "this is what happened..."

My understanding of this debate is not about prescription, but rather about description. Arguments go something like this: "The early church did this..." or "The early church didn't do that..."

Very little of what we are discussing is actually explicit prescription, right? Most of what we're discussing is interpretations of description. How does that affect our understanding of what we should be doing and what we should be avoiding?

There seems to be two groups here - one that advocates a minimalist approach. Everything must be sparce and bare because the Early Church was sparce and bare.

The other group seems to be trying to understand the Regulative Principle as more of a "guideline" than a hard and fast rule.

Potiential problems: Group one - the minimalists - logically should not own buildings and probably would need to meet in catacombs to be fully consistant. Group two - it is hard to know where to draw the line - abuse is perhaps the most common problem within the history of the church, so to even open the door is to potentially slide down that slippery slope.

What say you?
--------------
Jeffrey Brannen
 
[quote:903e3d25a3]
Actually you have pointed out the only sanctioned decor in the NT, the sacraments.
I think the early New England Puritans were right on in this respect. Their churches were simple. Only the necessities were there; chairs, simple pulpit, and a table for the elements. Nothing else. There were no distractions from the purpose if the assembly.
[/quote:903e3d25a3]

Ah yes, I believe the puritans and some modern Presbyterians fall into an error I like to call "The Idolatry Of The Austere".

The make an idol of the "plain" (Similar to the Amish) and think themselves more pious because of it.
 
[quote:be7f9ca66f][i:be7f9ca66f]Originally posted by Visigoth[/i:be7f9ca66f]
[quote:be7f9ca66f]
Actually you have pointed out the only sanctioned decor in the NT, the sacraments.
I think the early New England Puritans were right on in this respect. Their churches were simple. Only the necessities were there; chairs, simple pulpit, and a table for the elements. Nothing else. There were no distractions from the purpose if the assembly.
[/quote:be7f9ca66f]

Ah yes, I believe the puritans and some modern Presbyterians fall into an error I like to call "The Idolatry Of The Austere".

The make an idol of the "plain" (Similar to the Amish) and think themselves more pious because of it. [/quote:be7f9ca66f]
For some it may have been idolatry. But for most I think it was a removal of distractions from the preaching of the Word.
 
[quote:26bc286a7c][i:26bc286a7c]Originally posted by Galahad[/i:26bc286a7c]
There seems to be two groups here - one that advocates a minimalist approach. Everything must be sparce and bare because the Early Church was sparce and bare.

The other group seems to be trying to understand the Regulative Principle as more of a "guideline" than a hard and fast rule.

[/quote:26bc286a7c]
It's not because the early church did it but more based on the nature of our worship. We do not require ornate buildings or paintings or other images to aid in our worship. God has told us what is required. That's all we need. They second group doesn't have a "regulative principle" beyond their own preferences. It should no problem then for a church to meet in a "catacomb" because if the worshipful heart is there and the ordained worship of God is there, that is all that is required for God to be magnified in worship. We worship in spirit and truth. All outward decor is not essential in any way nor should be. Does that mean we don't own buildings? No, but we also understand that those buildings are but temporary dwellings to house the worship of God and can be stripped away at any moment. And when they are stripped away it should not detract from the worship of God one bit. What kind of church building will we have in heaven?

[Edited on 3-6-2004 by puritansailor]
 
Puritan Sailor,

I've got a pastor friend who is growing in his conviction that it is wrong for the church to own buildings. He points to the Apostles who did not use the missionary money (as best we can gather) to build church buildings. He also points to the early church who worshiped in a sparce and "essential" manner - they, too, did not own church buildings. Finally, he returns to Jesus and points out that absolutely nothing in his earthly ministry would lead us to believe that we should go through "building projects".

Since I do believe the regulative principle, I'm having a bit of a hard time arguing with him. Absolutely nothing descriptively or prescriptively would point us towards owning property, buildings, or beyond (I'm thinking of the mega-compound that is in Greenville, SC [John Brown? maybe?]).

Applying the regulative principle to our worship by eliminating everything but the essentials - by eliminating every accidental such as a solo, organ, or hymns - is, I think, consistantly applying the RP in a very strict sense. But, my friend wants to apply the RP to the building itself!

Simply put, as best as I can understand this debate, everybody (with perhaps only the barest of exceptions) wants to apply the RP with some exceptions - e.g. hymnals are prefered over hand-written copies or overheads.

Maybe I'm just not communicating it very clearly, so I'm sorry if I'm not being clear. As best as I can understand the strictest application of the RP, everything that is in our churches is subject to criticism (or possibly condemnation) -- including owning the church building itself!

Am I overstating the problem? I don't think so - <chuckles> it seems that there is always somebody who's "more" reformed that I am, who's willing to worship even more "in spirit and in truth" that I'm willing to.
------------
Jeffrey Brannen
 
Matthew,

Two texts are Eph. 5:19 and Col. 3:16.

"Let the word of Christ richly dwell within you, with all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with thankfulness in your hearts to God." (Col. 3:16)

We are singing "to God" but exhorting one another. What would be communicated but God Himself?

Patrick,
We are "called" to exhort one another with spiritual songs, and this is obviosuly in the context of worship. So dont find that argument about calling convincing.

Jeffrey,
Most of the Reformed agree that what is described to be characterisitic of the early church's activity [i:33108382b3]is[/i:33108382b3] prescriptive for the church today.

[Edited on 3-6-2004 by PastorJoe]
 
[quote:d53747ccb7][i:d53747ccb7]Originally posted by Galahad[/i:d53747ccb7]
I've got a pastor friend who is growing in his conviction that it is wrong for the church to own buildings. He points to the Apostles who did not use the missionary money (as best we can gather) to build church buildings. He also points to the early church who worshiped in a sparce and "essential" manner - they, too, did not own church buildings. Finally, he returns to Jesus and points out that absolutely nothing in his earthly ministry would lead us to believe that we should go through "building projects".

Since I do believe the regulative principle, I'm having a bit of a hard time arguing with him. Absolutely nothing descriptively or prescriptively would point us towards owning property, buildings, or beyond (I'm thinking of the mega-compound that is in Greenville, SC [John Brown? maybe?]).
[/quote:d53747ccb7]
Your friend I think misunderstands the RP. And I'm not arguing for not owning property. The Christians did have buildings in the early church. They were called synagogs (spelling?). The point I'm trying to make is that we are not tied to a building. Own one we may, but it must be with the understanding that it only temporarily houses our meeting location and in no way contributes to the worship of God other than keeping the rain off our heads or providing us light and warmth in winter etc.
The RP of worship is about the worship itself, not about where it takes place. We have the required elements, and we have the command to do all things decently and in order as a guide to carry out those required elements. For example, a church building obviously would be much more condusive to the worship service rather than meeting outside in a snow storm. Hopefully I'm making the point clear.
 
[quote:9c72beb851][i:9c72beb851]Originally posted by PastorJoe[/i:9c72beb851]
Two texts are Eph. 5:19 and Col. 3:16.

"Let the word of Christ richly dwell within you, with all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with thankfulness in your hearts to God." (Col. 3:16)

We are singing "to God" but exhorting one another. What would be communicated but God Himself?

Patrick,
We are "called" to exhort one another with spiritual songs, and this is obviosuly in the context of worship. So dont find that argument about calling convincing.
[/quote:9c72beb851]
We are called to exhort one another, but the public proclaimation of the Word is the job of the Minister not the soloist. When a soloist is up there proclaiming the Word in song, he is in effect acting the part of the minister.
 
I think that is a stretch. Just not convincing to me at all. But I have read some good things in this thread and it has me thinking (which is always good).
 
Pastor Joe,

But that's exactly my point - we have lots of things throughout Scripture that are descriptive but are not prescriptive. To suddenly assume that everything descriptive is prescriptive is to put the cart before the horse. At best, if we are applying something descriptive (as prescriptive), then we need to be willing to concede a measure of doubt that allows for disagreement and some measure of flexability.

Central to the early church was the idea (false, but nonetheless there) that Christ would return while the Apostles were still alive. The met in the synagogs, but those were not their buildings, but the Jewish houses of meeting. It was about the time of the death of John that the idea of the immanent and immediate return of Christ had to be re-evaluated.

It is my understanding that the Christian church did not own property and/or build buildings until after Constantine legalized the church.

The essence of my point - if what is descriptive (in the early church) is prescriptive (for the modern church), then we need to give up our church buildings and our property. Is it logical that we should own buildings and property so that we can worship? Most definitely. Anybody can see that and would probably argue that we should. But, can you see the discrepancy?

It is descriptive that the early church met in homes and in the Jewish synagogs (somebody else's building). Therefore, it is prescriptive for us to do the same, right? I don't think so, but how can I use the RP to prove my position?

I must take the prescriptive, analyze the descriptive, then logically infer conclusions through the paradigm of what is not commanded is not allowed. I cannot take a description and infer prescription and then infer modern solutions. Is this not the case?
---------
Jeffrey Brannen
 
[quote:27284d03e4][i:27284d03e4]Originally posted by Galahad[/i:27284d03e4]
It is my understanding that the Christian church did not own property and/or build buildings until after Constantine legalized the church. [/quote:27284d03e4]
You are forgetting some important facts. It would have been extrememly difficult for churches to own buildings. Christianity was not recoginized by the Empire. Plus, they lived under persecution. Now, it doesn't mean they couldn't have owned a building, but if they did, they wouldn't have owned it for long because it would have been confiscated or destroyed.
[quote:27284d03e4]The essence of my point - if what is descriptive (in the early church) is prescriptive (for the modern church), then we need to give up our church buildings and our property. Is it logical that we should own buildings and property so that we can worship? Most definitely. Anybody can see that and would probably argue that we should. But, can you see the discrepancy? [/quote:27284d03e4]
What discrepancy? I think you are taking a rather simplistic view of history in your understanding of the early church. As I noted above, it was difficult to hold property. Doesn't mean they couldn't.
[quote:27284d03e4]
I don't think so, but how can I use the RP to prove my position? [/quote:27284d03e4]
The Regulative Principle of Worship does not address this situation. The RP governs the [i:27284d03e4]content[/i:27284d03e4] of worship (i.e. preaching, praying, singing, sacramenting. etc.) It was never intended to address the location of worship. We worship in spirit and truth. This takes place in any location. We have then the liberty to build an environment which fosters this ordained worship so long as it's done in good order (i.e. chairs, a roof, etc.) You cannot apply the RP to something which it is not intended to address. That ends up in legalism, compromising of the worship of God.
 
I am aware that the early church faced prosecution, along with an expected immediate return of Christ, which kept them from owning church property. I am also aware that the RP is used for more than simply the content of the worship service - The RP is used to advocate and determine church government as well as the plain and unadorned nature of the building in which worship takes place.

The original intent of this thread was to examine the nature and role of art in worship - that is what I'm trying to get back to. It has been argued that we are to be ascetic, or at least minimalist, in our approach to the adornment of our sanctuaries.

The argument for the unadorned building goes something like this - the early church, the Reformers, and the Puritans all had plain, unadorned sanctuaries. In the case of the Reformers, they were specifically reacting to the abuses of the RCC and their iconoclast positions can be seen as their staunch opposition to those abuses. The Puritans had much the same principle at work. Both the P's and the R's looked back for justification of their iconoclast position to the early church which was also unadorned and plain.

Hopefully, I have stated a true broad generality. Which, unfortunately, will miss the specifics, but hopefully will apply to our discussion.

Yes, the Regulative Principle applies to content of the service. And, so it would seem that the building and ownership of it would be excluded - but allow me to rabbit trail for just a bit and hopefully my thought process will become clear.

No one would deny that the shape and structure of the architecture reflects the purpose and intent of the worship service. Someone pointed out that when the congregation is divided so that they can look at each other or if the congregation surrounds the pulpit, it means a greater community worship. Historians can show you vaulted ceilings and flying buttresses that point to heaven - these reflected the idea of the awesomeness of God in architecture. The layout of the Catholic Church is an excellent example of well-planned and executed architecture - the altar is at the front and center and the pulpit is to the side (Rome's focus on the centrality of the sacrifice is present and clear simply through the layout of the building.).

All that is to say that the nature, shape, design, layout, color schemes, pews, benches, kneelers, comfy chairs, hard wood floors, or marble columns affect the content of the worship service.

Does the RP deal with having an organ and/or a choir? Most definitely - attend a Church of Christ service and Catholic to witness the extreme ends. The music and mode of singing is well within the function of the RP.

How about architecture? Is that within the function of the RP? As I pointed out above, it is part and parcel to the entire package - it is part of the "worship experience" (to borrow a "seeker sensitive" term).

Again, what is the nature and role of art in the church? To answer this question, we must appeal to the RP, as many folks have.

My friend, who wants to do away with the ownership of buildings, what exactly is he trying to say with that argument? The building ties up millions of dollars (usually) in land and structure that could be used elsewhere. The building can encourage a form of idolatry - the church can, and is, viewed as a location not people. I would argue that the architecture of the building comes under the function of the RP, so why not the church building itself?

If descriptive = prescriptive (early church = modern church) as I have stated above, then I don't think we can justify building buildings.

Ok, I'm willing to give you that the RP does not necessarily include ownership of property or buildings. But, if the formula of D=P is to be our paradigm, (which incidentally, nobody has said differently) then in patterning our government and church life precludes owning buildings.

"But wait, they were persecuted..." Sho'nuff. Then, we must turn to something other than description = prescription as our justification for our behavior, right?
--------------
Jeffrey Brannen
 
Jeffrey,

[quote:13d1c25948][i:13d1c25948]Originally posted by Galahad[/i:13d1c25948]
JonathanHunt,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems you are making a distinction between aesthetic worship and ascetic worship. worshipping in spirit and in truth is opposed worshipping in the flesh and falsehood. Would this be a fair summation of the article you posted?

If so, then it is potentially expression a form of Platonic thought - a dualism between the spirit and the flesh. It seems the author, who does not site his refrences but refers to his opponents as "them" or "they", draws a distinction between worship that is simple (good) vs. complex (evil). Also, we are to worship in spirit but not with "human work, skill or creativity". Since you attended this church, and it did have an organ (which Spurgeon would have condemned), was the organist skilled?

I appreciate what you are saying, but does the idea that spirit and matter are polar opposites convey the whole gospel?

Finally, before I run off to class, if we are to avoid anything that is of "human work, skill, or creativity", what measures should we take to avoid it? What level of skill and creativity are allowed in our musicians? How about our architects who build the buildings we worship in? What about the interior designers who put in carpet and paint the walls? But, most importantly, what about the pastor who prepars his sermon with "human work, skill, and creativity"? To what measure are we to be ascetic in order that we avoid the excesses of Rome?
---------
Jeffrey Brannen
UCA
Covenant Pres. (PCA)
Little Rock, AR [/quote:13d1c25948]

Only just got back to this post. I cannot understand how you have drawn what you have from the article I posted.

Its not about self-denial, its about simplicity - and yes, I agree as others have said this can be taken to an extreme degree. Of course the organist is skilled - he has to be, but he does not 'perform' using the instrument - he makes a sound which leads the congregation in singing - that is the only role of the instrument - a support to the worship, and definitively NOT a part of the worship.

Aesthetic worship is wrong. It is the worship of Rome. How do we avoid the excesses? To me it is simple. We have a totally different view of worship (in spirit and in truth) than that of Rome and this colours everything that follows. When we lose sight of the principle, we wander off. A church (I know of some) may have some pretty stained glass windows or some impressive internal structure. Do we consider this part of our worship, that we meet in such an 'impressive' building? No, because we know the principle. If we were building a building from scratch, would we make it beautiful? Maybe, but not distracting. Like using the organ, which has its function, so the place we meet has its function.

The author is not talking about what is simple (good) and complex (bad). That's not the issue. He is talking about what is worldy - performances in church, worship bands on the platform etc, and what is distinctive, different i.e. simple, yes skilled, but simple music, used by the whole congregation together in the singing of praise to Almighty God.

Plato? C'mon, don't make me laugh! I think the article, when viewed in context (which is available at the website!) does make sense!

[Edited on 3-9-2004 by JonathanHunt]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

"William The Baptist"
  • Locked
Songs in Worship
Replies
8
Views
3K
TexanRose
TexanRose
ValiantforTruth
  • Locked
Nationalism in worship
2
Replies
34
Views
7K
William Price
William Price
kevin.carroll
  • Locked
Crosses in Worship?
2
Replies
39
Views
11K
Romans922
Romans922
jwithnell
  • Locked
Hands in Worship
2 3
Replies
86
Views
16K
LeeJUk
LeeJUk
PuritanCovenanter
  • Locked
Dance in Worship....
2
Replies
37
Views
14K
Puritan Sailor
Puritan Sailor
Back
Top