help dealing with contemporary worship music

[Reformed Baptist]

No way I can read through every post. haha. But I wanted to say I have worshipped in a good Reformed Baptist Church, ARBCA, and now we are members at a non-denom, but semi-reformed church (for no bad reasons at all did we change, but mere geography) and the worship is contemporary. I don't like it. It's rather sissified, girlish music in my opinion. I see the ladies enjoying it alot. But I don't have to be singing to worship God. So, when they sing the "Jesus is my boyfriend" style music I just sit down and read my Bible.

If they don't want me to try to force the psaltry and hymns only on them, then they shouldn't try to force their sissy music on me.

 

[Pergamum]

What does "sissified" mean? Why is some worship reformed to as "feminine"?

When I read the Psalms, David seems perty emotional. Was he a sissy, too?

 

[Zenas]

Them's fitin' words.

 

[Reformed Baptist]

What does "sissified" mean? Why is some worship reformed to as "feminine"?

When I read the Psalms, David seems perty emotional. Was he a sissy, too?

Seems femine to me. I am not making doctrinal statements. Just my "feelings" on the matter.

 

[Willem van Oranje]

What does "sissified" mean? Why is some worship reformed to as "feminine"?

When I read the Psalms, David seems perty emotional. Was he a sissy, too?

There is a difference between manly emotions and sissified emotions.

 

[MW]

But, are all psalms Christ's words, are all imprecatory psalms Messianic?

The New Testament quotes the Psalms as the words of Christ. On one occasion the New Testament specifically declares that a condition described by the Psalms did not apply to David at all. The New Testament never quotes the Psalms as if they are merely the words of David.

 

[steadfast7]

But, are all psalms Christ's words, are all imprecatory psalms Messianic?

The New Testament quotes the Psalms as the words of Christ. On one occasion the New Testament specifically declares that a condition described by the Psalms did not apply to David at all. The New Testament never quotes the Psalms as if they are merely the words of David.

OK, but, my concern is not how certain psalms are used in the NT, but how all the psalms might (or might not) be used in our worship and daily prayer. As prayers of cursing of one's enemies, as originally intended, I think Jesus' sermon on the mount speaks against this.

 

[steadfast7]

But, are all psalms Christ's words, are all imprecatory psalms Messianic?

The New Testament quotes the Psalms as the words of Christ. On one occasion the New Testament specifically declares that a condition described by the Psalms did not apply to David at all. The New Testament never quotes the Psalms as if they are merely the words of David.

OK, but, my concern is not how certain psalms are used in the NT, but how all the psalms might (or might not) be used in our worship and daily prayer. As prayers of cursing of one's enemies, as originally intended, I think Jesus' sermon on the mount speaks against this.

So are you implying that the Lord "corrected" the theology of the Psalms? Did He bring a "new" or "higher" Law?

"You have heard that it was said ... but I tell you"

 

[MW]

OK, but, my concern is not how certain psalms are used in the NT, but how all the psalms might (or might not) be used in our worship and daily prayer. As prayers of cursing of one's enemies, as originally intended, I think Jesus' sermon on the mount speaks against this.

We receive the Psalms because they belong to the canon of Christian Scripture. If there is something nonChristian about the Psalms then they should not be accepted into our canon. Let's be clear: there is a Jewish and a Christian Old Testament, as 2 Corinthians 3 teaches. Jews read a veiled Old Testament because they live in the age of the flesh and do not perceive Jesus Christ as the fulfilment of it. Christians read an unveiled Old Testament because we are liberated by the age of the Spirit and behold as in a glass the glory of the Lord.

The Sermon on the Mount teaches how private men are to deal with people who act against them on account of their Christian life and testimony. This teaching is exemplified in the Psalmist, who blessed those who cursed him and prayed for those who despitefully used him, Psalm 35:12-16, 141:5, and committed himself to God who judges righteously. The Sermon on the Mount also denounces the wicked and the hypocrite in terms that are just as severe as the imprecations of the Psalms, binding them over to the punishment of hell-fire and calling them dogs, swine, false prophets, and foolish men. There is nothing in the Sermon on the Mount which contradicts the teaching of the Psalms.

 

[steadfast7]

"you shall not murder" (Matt 5:21) was not written? "You shall not commit adultery" (v. 21) was not written? "Eye for an eye, and tooth for a tooth" was not written? (v. 38). Am I really the only person on this board that does not think that we ought to curse our enemies, even IF this seems warranted in the psalms? Am I too naive for taking seriously Jesus' words,
[BIBLE]Matt 5:43-48[/BIBLE]
If you are able to curse another person in prayer while still obey the sermon of the mount, I commend you to that task. I personally do not think it possible.

---------- Post added at 09:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:13 PM ----------

This teaching is exemplified in the Psalmist, who blessed those who cursed him and prayed for those who despitefully used him, Psalm 35:12-16, 141:5, and committed himself to God who judges righteously. The Sermon on the Mount also denounces the wicked and the hypocrite in terms that are just as severe as the imprecations of the Psalms, binding them over to the punishment of hell-fire and calling them dogs, swine, false prophets, and foolish men. There is nothing in the Sermon on the Mount which contradicts the teaching of the Psalms.

Although i've only now heard of this use of the psalms, I do not disagree with it per se. My only point from the beginning was that there is a difference between the psalmist's original attitude toward his enemies (justified though it was at the time) and our Lord's expectation of us today.

But may I ask, how did the psalmist bless those who cursed him?
and, did I at any time imply that the psalms are not scripture, are not a part of the canon, are not God's infallible word?

 

[ChariotsofFire]

What does "sissified" mean? Why is some worship reformed to as "feminine"?

When I read the Psalms, David seems perty emotional. Was he a sissy, too?

Our Christianity affects our whole being, not just our minds, and that's why emotion in singing is fantastic. Psalms and hymns ares full of emotion and should be sung with emotion.

The problem with many praise and worship songs is the desire to create this emotion based on the music and shallow lyrics rather than true emotion. So it becomes emotion for the sake of emotion. This is probably what is meant by sissified type of emotion. Almost a romantic type of emotion that is not genuine and not Biblical.

I think there are some good praise & worship songs, and I wouldn't mind singing them if we sing them as a congregation (rather than the man-centered entertainment fashion of praise teams). I also think there are even more good hymns and 150 fantastic psalms. All to be sung with emotion.

 

[MW]

But may I ask, how did the psalmist bless those who cursed him?
and, did I at any time imply that the psalms are not scripture, are not a part of the canon, are not God's infallible word?

Please read the afore-quoted Psalms.

I don't think you implied it. It is a common misconception that the Old Testament is Jewish and the New Testament is Christian Scripture. Some of your remarks seemed to reflect that misconception, therefore I clarified that the Psalms belong to the canon of Christian Scripture as distinct from their place in the Jewish canon.

 

[Austin]

J.R., do you attend Lakeside EPC?

 

[louis]

My advice is not to go to that church if you are unable to change your heart and worship there. You are not going to be an encouragement to anyone there and certainly God cannot want you to be there without a right spirit.

Years ago while I was singing in the choir at our church, a member of the congregation complained about how bad we were—we were a relatively small choir and limited, but did the best we could. The person stated that he "could not worship while the choir sang." That was sad.

I often wonder when folks are unhappy about contemp. worship and roll out the same old talking points — shallow lyrics, repetition — is it really just not a style issue. Contemporary songs can be doctrinally robust, but they don't always have to be. There is beauty in simplicity as well. I can enjoy looking up at the cloud formations, but I can also enjoy seeing a cloudless blue sky and marvel at it. A simple song if doctrinally sound can be powerful by emphasizing an aspect of God's greatness—not every song has to tell the whole story. Many songs can come together to tell the story, just as each part of scripture has it's place in telling the story.

 

[littlepeople]

Are you coming to the Luau tonight?

 

[Austin]

You know, I had a thought about this as I was going to bed last night. A lot of these songs were what used to be called "Sunday school songs" and were to help children learn verses and give people simple devotional tunes to think of when they were down. I still remmeber a lot fo these from my Campus Crusade days & they come to mind when I'm down. As such, i think that they're fine, I just don;t think they should be a church's 'bread and butter' when it comes to music. I think that a blend that meets various people in various places is good. Just a thought...

 

[Willem van Oranje]

You know, I had a thought about this as I was going to bed last night. A lot of these songs were what used to be called "Sunday school songs" and were to help children learn verses and give people simple devotional tunes to think of when they were down. I still remmeber a lot fo these from my Campus Crusade days & they come to mind when I'm down. As such, i think that they're fine, I just don;t think they should be a church's 'bread and butter' when it comes to music. I think that a blend that meets various people in various places is good. Just a thought...

Now that you mention it, isn't that how this stuff made it into our worship music? People developed a taste for it as children and after they grew up they wanted it in the worship service.

For this reason I just decided not to send our kids to VBS next year. I know a pastor who is using this phenomenon the other way, by singing plenty of metrical Psalms in Sunday School.

 

[Austin]

I don't think that this is a reason not to have children's music for children's Sunday Schools. Instead, I would make it a priority to include children in the called worship service where they would learn hymns, etc in addition to songs which are easier for them to sing as children. For instance, I would never wish that my son had not learned "Jesus Loves Me" as a 2 year old. Nor would I begrudge him tunes like "Lazarus Was a Wee Little Man" b/c these songs have taught him Bible verses, have underscored Scripture lessons we've taught, etc. That said, a few of the other tunes he learned early were the Doxology, the Gloria Patri, and the Kyrie Eleison, in addition to an ever growing familiarity with general hymnody. (One of his favorites is "Be Thou My Vision," for instance.)

As for skipping VBS... my pastoral advice would be to rethink that. VBS is a great way to get kids excited about church, as well as (if done properly) a way to help them learn evangelism. For instance, at every church I've served we have really emphasized to kids that their playmates who don't go to church could be invited to VBS to learn about Jesus, make new friends, and have fun. It has led to a greater exposure of the Gospel to unchurched families, and has even led some families to attend church & come to faith, not to mention that it has helped kids learn to do evangelism from avery young age.

As for Psalms, don't forget that a lot of the Sunday School tunes (and even some of the happy-clappy tunes) are from portions of the Psalter. (e.g., "This Is The Day," "I Will Enter His Gates With Thanksgiving In My Heart," etc.) Also, others are portions of the NT or OT set to music ("He Has Shown Thee, O Man," "Sing Hosanna," "Rejoice In the Lord Always," "Isn't He Wonderful," etc.)

Don't forget that the Gregorian chants, which were based on OT Temple music, were often short passages of Scripture set to acapella music. Just b/c the tunes are geared toward children does not mean that we can't teach it to our children, or even enjoy it ourselves. After all, it was the Lord Who said, "Let the little children come unto Me... for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven."

Shalom,

 

[Pergamum]

My advice is not to go to that church if you are unable to change your heart and worship there. You are not going to be an encouragement to anyone there and certainly God cannot want you to be there without a right spirit.

Years ago while I was singing in the choir at our church, a member of the congregation complained about how bad we were—we were a relatively small choir and limited, but did the best we could. The person stated that he "could not worship while the choir sang." That was sad.

I often wonder when folks are unhappy about contemp. worship and roll out the same old talking points — shallow lyrics, repetition — is it really just not a style issue. Contemporary songs can be doctrinally robust, but they don't always have to be. There is beauty in simplicity as well. I can enjoy looking up at the cloud formations, but I can also enjoy seeing a cloudless blue sky and marvel at it. A simple song if doctrinally sound can be powerful by emphasizing an aspect of God's greatness—not every song has to tell the whole story. Many songs can come together to tell the story, just as each part of scripture has it's place in telling the story.

Wow, was that person's name Barnabas ("son of encouragement")?

 

[Jack K]

As for Psalms, don't forget that a lot of the Sunday School tunes (and even some of the happy-clappy tunes) are from portions of the Psalter. (e.g., "This Is The Day," "I Will Enter His Gates With Thanksgiving In My Heart," etc.) Also, others are portions of the NT or OT set to music ("He Has Shown Thee, O Man," "Sing Hosanna," "Rejoice In the Lord Always," "Isn't He Wonderful," etc.)

Yup. On any given Sunday, I'm probably more likely to end up singing a few lines from a Psalm during our kids' Sunday school worship than I am in the main service. There's plenty of bad stuff out there for kids, but also lots of good stuff. It is possible to do kids' worship and teaching time well and in a Reformed way, and have it be fun and active too, if you determine to do so.

 

[louis]

My advice is not to go to that church if you are unable to change your heart and worship there. You are not going to be an encouragement to anyone there and certainly God cannot want you to be there without a right spirit.

Years ago while I was singing in the choir at our church, a member of the congregation complained about how bad we were—we were a relatively small choir and limited, but did the best we could. The person stated that he "could not worship while the choir sang." That was sad.

I often wonder when folks are unhappy about contemp. worship and roll out the same old talking points — shallow lyrics, repetition — is it really just not a style issue. Contemporary songs can be doctrinally robust, but they don't always have to be. There is beauty in simplicity as well. I can enjoy looking up at the cloud formations, but I can also enjoy seeing a cloudless blue sky and marvel at it. A simple song if doctrinally sound can be powerful by emphasizing an aspect of God's greatness—not every song has to tell the whole story. Many songs can come together to tell the story, just as each part of scripture has it's place in telling the story.

Wow, was that person's name Barnabas ("son of encouragement")?

Yeah, right? It was very hurtful and the choir director wound up leaving because of the way things were so poorly handled.

When I read folks comparing contemporary praise songs to the little Sunday School ditties, it really shows a lack of knowledge of what the genre is currently offering. That is analogous to describing today's computers as a Commodore 64. Things have changed quite a bit folks. If one has made one's mind up about the style, it will be easy to seek out the worst of that genre and hold it up for ridicule.

Here's a simple question: why should we not as God's people continue writing new music—the best possible music we can,lyrically, musically, across many genres? Should we not as part of the mighty cloud of witnesses testify? I say rather than discount the new as bad, we should support Christian artists, writers, musicians, etc. to create the best and elevate the arts for the glory of God and the advancement of His kingdom.

 

[Austin]

Amen, Louis.

 

[Scottish Lass]

Here's a simple question: why should we not as God's people continue writing new music—the best possible music we can,lyrically, musically, across many genres? Should we not as part of the mighty cloud of witnesses testify? I say rather than discount the new as bad, we should support Christian artists, writers, musicians, etc. to create the best and elevate the arts for the glory of God and the advancement of His kingdom.

Few people would argue with the premise of your question. Some would argue that the goal is fine, just not in/for worship.

 

[louis]

Here's a simple question: why should we not as God's people continue writing new music—the best possible music we can,lyrically, musically, across many genres? Should we not as part of the mighty cloud of witnesses testify? I say rather than discount the new as bad, we should support Christian artists, writers, musicians, etc. to create the best and elevate the arts for the glory of God and the advancement of His kingdom.

Few people would argue with the premise of your question. Some would argue that the goal is fine, just not in/for worship.

Yes, I suppose that is what the argument would be. I would counter though that the arts belong in worship. A sermon is a work of art. Music is a work of art. The design of the church facility and sanctuary utilizes art and design. For us to rely solely on music from ages past is to affirm the artistry of that age while denying what God's people are capable of doing today. We might as well only preach sermons from days gone by then.

I encourage new hymns and songs to be written for worship and for extra-church use.

 

[Austin]

Why not have modern hymnody in called worship? Didn't Paul say that we should worship with "psalms & hymns & spiritual songs"? (And I don;t buy exegetically that these are three forms of psalms. Otherwise the 1st point is tautological.)

 

[au5t1n]

Why not have modern hymnody in called worship? Didn't Paul say that we should worship with "psalms & hymns & spiritual songs"? (And I don;t buy exegetically that these are three forms of psalms. Otherwise the 1st point is tautological.)

Because it makes far more sense for Paul to say, "psalms and hymns and hymns"?

 

[Scottish Lass]

Here's a simple question: why should we not as God's people continue writing new music—the best possible music we can,lyrically, musically, across many genres? Should we not as part of the mighty cloud of witnesses testify? I say rather than discount the new as bad, we should support Christian artists, writers, musicians, etc. to create the best and elevate the arts for the glory of God and the advancement of His kingdom.

Few people would argue with the premise of your question. Some would argue that the goal is fine, just not in/for worship.

Yes, I suppose that is what the argument would be. I would counter though that the arts belong in worship. A sermon is a work of art. Music is a work of art. The design of the church facility and sanctuary utilizes art and design. For us to rely solely on music from ages past is to affirm the artistry of that age while denying what God's people are capable of doing today. We might as well only preach sermons from days gone by then.

I encourage new hymns and songs to be written for worship and for extra-church use.

I don't have a personal problem with new musical composition for theologically sound lyrics, be they old or new. I take issue with musical composition that trivializes lyrics or lyrics that are already trivial. To say much more dances close to EP/non-EP, so I'll leave it at that.

Edit: Just for clarification, what appears to be attributed to Pergamum in this quote is actually mine.

 

[Austin]

Plus, it doesn't say "Psalms, even hymns and spiritual songs. The Greek is "psalmois kai umnois kai hoidais pneumatikais." Note that "kai" is used in both places. And, while the lexical range of "kai" includes "even," "and," or "also," when they are in parallel like this the general grammatical interpretation is that they are intended to be in a threefold parallelism.

 

[au5t1n]

Plus, it doesn't say "Psalms, even hymns and spiritual songs. The Greek is "psalmois kai umnois kai hoidais pneumatikais." Note that "kai" is used in both places. And, while the lexical range of "kai" includes "even," "and," or "also," when they are in parallel like this the general grammatical interpretation is that they are intended to be in a threefold parallelism.

I don't think anyone thinks it means "even" here. The belief is that "psalms" is not a generic name for the whole book, but a specific category of songs within the book. At least that's my understanding.

 

[Austin]

Two more thoughts: why doesn't the PB system recognize Greek & Hebrew type? And, it is my view that while psalmody is great, and should be a component of called worship music, to ascribe to exclusive psalmody is far more narrow than Paul's intent. Of course, this is an issue of our interpretation of the RPW. But I align with Frame, so there you go.


(BTW: "EP" is "Evangelical Presbyterian, so stop stealing our initials! )

---------- Post added at 12:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:44 PM ----------

Austin: I know, but I believe, based upon an exegetical study, that this is unsupported. It's a red herring, in my educated opinion.

---------- Post added at 12:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:45 PM ----------

One more thought: why can't I "thank" my own opinions? After all, I'm a legend in my own mind!

---------- Post added at 12:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:47 PM ----------

Plus, isn't this discriminatory against the schizophrenics among us?