Lifting hands, expressing emotion ?

[Poimen]

Poimen:

So you would be okey if the whole church raised their hands..not because they felt like it..but because it was a matter of duty?

Am I missing something or does being "Reformed" mean that we only engage the brain and not the emotions?

Worship should be emotional. Not driven by emotion mind you, but expressive of emotion. By all means, if raising of hands is biblical...do it because you feel like it!

That would be a good start. If the scriptures command for us to raise our hands in worship is normative for all times and places then yes it would be a matter of duty. Would I prefer that the members were doing it out of love for God in the keeping of His commandments? No; I would want them to do both! But I most emphatically would not want them to do something because they felt like it. (cf. 1 Samuel 13:12)

I never said that being Reformed means that we only engage our brain and not our emotions and I don't think anyone else is arguing for that either. In fact I do believe that our emotions should be involved in worship since the whole man (heart, soul, mind and strength) as the law and our Lord teach us is to love God, but that has next to nothing to do with feeling something and thus acting upon it in worship. Any feeling we have must be guided by the Word of God which demands (among other things) that worship be covenantal as I pointed out in my original post.

But perhaps you and I are just misunderstanding each other in the semantics of the debate?

 

[MrMerlin777]

If it's only mentioned for prayer, what about those songs that lyrically are prayers? I personally consider alot of the singing I do in worship prayer as well as singing a song. In the senario that raising hands is only done in prayer would this qualify?

Just thrown in for consideration.

 

[raekwon]

If it's only mentioned for prayer, what about those songs that lyrically are prayers? I personally consider alot of the singing I do in worship prayer as well as singing a song. In the senario that raising hands is only done in prayer would this qualify?

Just thrown in for consideration.

Glad I wasn't the only one thinking that.

 

[MrMerlin777]

Glad I wasn't the only one thinking that.

cheers

 

[Puritan Sailor]

I question the identification of "austere and orderly" with Western.

Without going in to overabundant detail (and I guess I'm not an expert, more of a layman's interest in Northern European pre-Christian religions), these "Western" peoples (at least the ones being referred to) were primarily made up of Teutons and Celts. The same Germanic tribes that worshipped Woden, that frothed themselves up into berserkergang, practiced seidhr (shamanism), ecstatically danced for the Byzantine king (we suppose), and had long mead fests of boasting and drinking.

Greece and Rome had flourishing mystery cults and what not at the time of Christianity, and gods who were certainly anything but staid and complacent.

So when you look at Reformation Europe, or patristic worship, maybe you should think, "Christianity transformed these barbarous peoples, gave them a respect for the true and living God, because such order in worship was certainly not natural to them" more than "white people are so unemotional, they really don't know how to worship like we do." And by that I am not defending Caucasians, just order in worship.

I guess its a chicken and the egg thing. I just don't see much respectful posturing and order in worship when I read about indigenous European faith and praxis.

That is an excellent observation. Much to reflect on...

 

[BJClark]

calgal;

The focus should be on worshipping God, not on "look at them!" As long as there is effective preaching of the Word and a proper mindset in the church, raising hands is a non issue for us.

This is the way our church looks at it too, it is a non-issue, even our pastors lift their hands on occassion while singing!!

There are also times when people begin to clap along with the music.

What I would REALLY love to hear though, and I'll have to see if they recorded it, was at our recent Father/Son breakfast where they had over 100 father/sons present singing in worship together--the Music minister stopped playing the piano to fix his microphone and the men continued to sing...he said He didn't want to start playing again because it sounded SO Beautiful hearing ONLY the voices of the men singing!!

 

[BlackCalvinist]

Trevor,

I think you are missing the point... It says only man and the scripture tells us together or not at all or the elder does it during prayer... plus it is not during singing but prayer...

As for a dress code... I am all for it... I believe we should all dress in the best clothing we have, NOT street clothing or casual wear.... Think of it this way... What are YOU going to wear if you have been invited in front of a King or President... Your very best suit and tie, or Dress for the ladies....

Now let me ask you, How much more so to dress in your best to go in front of the King of the Universe.....

It is not about show to other people, it is respect for the King of Kings....l

I've heard that same argument before on the Reformed Baptist Discussion List. The person who answered it (and I'm paraphrasing) simply pointed out that there were no 'special robes' that the common folk wore on Saturdays. Dressing up is a western tradition. Not a Biblical precedent or command.

Another example of culture vs scriptural mandate.

A while ago, my pastor did a missions trip to Africa. Much of the music in some of the churches, some of you would have problems with, as it incorporates drumming along with the singing and dancing. But folk are very solemn when they do it, very serious and things they do, they do together as a congregation.

So there's order. The right attitude is there. There is reverence.

 

[BlackCalvinist]

the Music minister stopped playing the piano to fix his microphone and the men continued to sing...he said He didn't want to start playing again because it sounded SO Beautiful hearing ONLY the voices of the men singing!!

THAT is one of the coolest things to hear.

Mark Dever at CHBC usually has his musicians drop out on the 3rd verse of most hymns so you can hear the whole church sing sans instruments. It is one of the most beautiful things.

Last year at Together for the Gospel, I recorded the men singing one of the songs and posted it on my blog.

I will glory in my Redeemer

(don't worry, I have permission. - I Will Glory in My Redeemer, written by Steve and Vikki Cook, Copyright 2001 PDI Worship (ASCAP). All Rights Reserved. International Copyright Secured. Used By Permission. http://www.sovgracemin.org. )

That's around 3000 or so men.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Patrick: The Patristics were Western too, and many advocated a desert sort of ascetism.

Not in the worship of the church Trevor. The issue in the early church was faithfulness to apostolic tradition. Read Cyprian on the unity of the Church. They were not to worship in any other way than that which was instituted by God and passed on through the apostles.

The Patristics and the Puritans were children of their day too (Hence the funny wigs and hats).

Their beliefs on worship were colored by their culture.

The pastristic fathers (and the Reformers for that matter) were a strange mix from many cultures. The early church spanned from Britian to India. Yet somehow, their worship for the most part remained remarkably similar. Even if you classify the Roman Empire as western, you still have to account for the churches outside the Empire and the fact that for the first 2 centuries (at least), the church was deliberately counter-culture. The Roman empire was not a monolithic culture. Neither were the cultures of northern Europe in the Reformation. Lets not fall into that modern myth of whitewashing "western" cultures. They were not all alike.

Again, a Scotsman and an African and an Indonesian might choose to worship in slightly different ways.

But if they are all committed to the one true God and worshipping as he commands, then there will not be great differences. The elements of worship do not vary. Certainly there may be difference in the order of worship, music, or perhaps different hymns, culturally appropriate expression in prayers, yet the theology, elements, and orderliness would be the same in all cultures. Ideally, all the worship of teh churches should be readily identifiable as "Christian" as opposed to the other world religions.

The NT speaks of raising holy hands, of bowing the knee. The Bible even speaks of prostrating one's self before the Lord. Weeping and grieving and very visible expressions of joy are common in the Bible, but Reformation era Europe did not see much of this as fit. England particularly values austerity and a stiff upper lip.

Instead of lifting our hands and our eyes to heaven, instead, we stand stock still or close the eyes and look at our feet.

Instead of greeting one another with a holy kiss, we give a quick handshake and a few social niceties.

That is not how it has always been. Lewis Bayly for instance argued for uplifted hands and eyes in prayer. He is credited with the popularizing of the Puritan movement in the early 17th century. Puritan congregations were often moved to tears by effectual sermons and prayers. These expressions may be relevant at the appropriate time and permissable, but hardly could be imposed upon the consciences of everyone. That is the key for Reformed worship. Nothing can be imposed upon all unless it is clearly commanded of all. If you want to make an argument that lifting of hands is a required element of worship then by all means go ahead.

I think another element involved here are some practical matters in the Reformation. I'll have to research this some more, but I think one of the reasons that silence or solemnity in worship became so prominent was because that was not the case in the Roman Catholic Church during the Reformation. It was a loud affair. While the preist was doing his Latin thing, the people would be praying their rosaries or "our fathers" on their own (in their own tongue) until they bells rang and the host was served. This practice continued for some in the Reformation. Calvin even had to discipline people for practicing these things during the church service in Geneva because they were distruptive. Old superstitions die hard. I think this also fits with the contrast JD mentioned between the change in worship from frenzied paganism to the right-minded worship of the one true God in the Germanic and Celtic peoples. This would have been the same contrast in the early church as people abandoned the mystery and barbarian cults of their day for the solid and orderly worship handed down from the apostles. I don't think this rules out expressing emotion in some form. But I do think it leads to self-control compared to the other world religions.

 

[Poimen]

Lets not fall into that modern myth of whitewashing "western" cultures. They were not all alike.

Patrick:

I appreciated your post but the quote above makes me chuckle. I suppose, however, that this 'pun' was unintentional?

 

[JohnV]

England particularly values austerity and a stiff upper lip.

Are we talking about the raising of hands or the raising of the upper lip?
For singing, I prefer a more free use of the upper lip, although that is not as important as lowering the jaw.

 

[BlackCalvinist]

A few additional thoughts....

One man bows his head and stands quietly, not even able to lift his eyes up to heaven because he realizes the depth of his own sinfulness before a Holy God. He thansk God silently for forgiveness as the music plays.

One man raises his hands to God in thanks for the salvation and graciousness that he has received from God. He sings softly along with the rest of the congregation.

One man sings loudly with tears streaming from his face as words reflecting the glory and majesty of God are sang. He smiles.

All you austerity folk - are you also pushing that every member of the congregation must sing when everyone else sings ? Someone already suggested the dress code

, though such things are of western import and not scriptural commands....

There's a citation of Augustine that Anthony Carter uses to convey a point on this very topic. I'll track it down shortly....

 

[BJClark]

BlackCalvinist;

Last year at Together for the Gospel, I recorded the men singing one of the songs and posted it on my blog.

I will glory in my Redeemer

(don't worry, I have permission. - I Will Glory in My Redeemer, written by Steve and Vikki Cook, Copyright 2001 PDI Worship (ASCAP). All Rights Reserved. International Copyright Secured. Used By Permission. http://www.sovgracemin.org. )

That's around 3000 or so men.

This sounds so AWESOME!!! Thanks for sharing the link

 

[Greg]

Are we talking about the raising of hands or the raising of the upper lip?
For singing, I prefer a more free use of the upper lip, although that is not as important as lowering the jaw.

 

[LifeInReturn]

Public worship is not about our individual devotion and piety. In the modern church everything has become about "me and Jesus" and "how I express myself to him." Among other things, this is why the RPW has been all but destroyed. In public worship we gather to hear from God and respond to him as an organized unit. Letting individuals in the congregation express their devotion however they want in the pews leads to a fragmented body worshipping "on their own" instead of with everyone around them, which can be distracting and take away from the unification of the worshipping body of saints. I agree with earlier comments about certain expressions being perfectly fine for private worship. I also agree that one can have an emotional response to God's word without having to lift his or her hands or kneel when everyone else around them is not doing so.

Should people be told how to worship ?

Trevor,

I think you are missing the point... It says only man and the scripture tells us together or not at all or the elder does it during prayer... plus it is not during singing but prayer...

As for a dress code... I am all for it... I believe we should all dress in the best clothing we have, NOT street clothing or casual wear.... Think of it this way... What are YOU going to wear if you have been invited in front of a King or President... Your very best suit and tie, or Dress for the ladies....

Now let me ask you, How much more so to dress in your best to go in front of the King of the Universe.....

It is not about show to other people, it is respect for the King of Kings....

I will fight the preference and taste belief to my dying breath.. I have seen it, and at it's worst.... Preference and taste has no room in the worship of God, except maybe circumstances i.e microphones, lights, Heating and Ac, carpet..... but even then we should make the church feel like a church... i.e. Pews vs. chairs, chancel vs. stage.. What is the best in the light of Nature, according to our confessions... I think the light of nature shows us church should be different even in the circumstances.. Pews, chancel... After all are we not ascending to the throne of heaven in the presence of the Lord of Lords.. Lets make church feel lofty then the world around us as long as we do not start adding things against the RPW, i.e. images, statues, etc...

Michael

Dresscode would cause someone to something out of duty vs doing it out of love, wouldn't it ?

I question the identification of "austere and orderly" with Western.

Without going in to overabundant detail (and I guess I'm not an expert, more of a layman's interest in Northern European pre-Christian religions), these "Western" peoples (at least the ones being referred to) were primarily made up of Teutons and Celts. The same Germanic tribes that worshipped Woden, that frothed themselves up into berserkergang, practiced seidhr (shamanism), ecstatically danced for the Byzantine king (we suppose), and had long mead fests of boasting and drinking.

Greece and Rome had flourishing mystery cults and what not at the time of Christianity, and gods who were certainly anything but staid and complacent.

So when you look at Reformation Europe, or patristic worship, maybe you should think, "Christianity transformed these barbarous peoples, gave them a respect for the true and living God, because such order in worship was certainly not natural to them" more than "white people are so unemotional, they really don't know how to worship like we do." And by that I am not defending Caucasians, just order in worship.

I guess its a chicken and the egg thing. I just don't see much respectful posturing and order in worship when I read about indigenous European faith and praxis.

I am not so sure that race is an issue. There are Black and White Presbyterians and Black and White Penties

 

[KMK]

I think we might be taking the RPW a little too far here. (After all, the RPW was made for man, not man for the RPW )

What if PB figures this whole thing out and issues a position statement describing exactly what is allowed with regards to body parts and dress code. What have we accomplished? Have we moved anyone closer to the heart of worship? (Pun only slightly intended)

Ecc 5:1,2 Keep thy foot when thou goest to the house of God, and be more ready to hear, than to give the sacrifice of fools: for they consider not that they do evil. Be not rash with thy mouth, and let not thine heart be hasty to utter [any] thing before God: for God [is] in heaven, and thou upon earth: therefore let thy words be few.

I think that if people are educated about the object of their worship, their posture and dress will work themselves out. But I don't think it works the other way around. You can't get people to focus more on the object of their worship by making them focus more on what they are or are not doing with their bodies or what clothes they are wearing.

 

[bradofshaw]

Should people be told how to worship ?

Hey, Jenn. I think that the first question to ask is, "how are we told to worship in scripture?" and go from there. In other words, God tells us how he is to be worshiped. Without taking a position in this discussion, for the most part when people around here say we should do x or y in worship, they believe that is because there is a scriptural mandate. So yes, people should be told how to worship, but only the Scriptures can bind the conscious. So if people are told to do or not to do something without a scriptural basis, it is non-binding.

For the record though, the church I am a member of has a very "blended" worship, for lack of a better term. We sing many songs from the African American hymnal, some praise choruses, psalms, and a lot of hymns. We have drums, and fairly often there is clapping in the service. While few people raise their hands during the singing, it would not look out of place. All the while, the teaching is definitely Reformed, and there is a conscious effort to have a very joyful and heartfelt worship that is not driven solely by emotions or sentiment. However we do not deny emotion or sentiment as part of our worship (Which I personally think would be an unfair criticism of so called "traditional" worship).

So, to answer your original question, a balance is possible. (without going into an argument for or against a scriptural basis for such a worship style)

 

[KMK]

BTW, I have been guilty of tapping my toe occasionally during worship. I just wanted to get that out in the open. I feel much better.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Just a couple of notes.

Worship of God transcends culture.

Africans, Indonesians, Americnas, Scotsmen are all commanded to obey God's word, and the regulative manner in which He allows sinners to approach him. Worship is never dictated by culture. Culture is arrested byt he Word of God and must conform to it.

On the raising of hands, one might descend into the "Why" factor to aid a little in the discussion.

Why did the Pslamist raise his hands?
Why did Solomon raise his hands?
Why did the Levitical priest raise his hands?
What is a "holy hand" against a "non-holy hand?"
Etc.

The "Why" factor is a great help in understanding the raising of the hands, and its meaning.

 

[Herald]

Funny you should say that . . . a couple of years ago, when we first started visiting the church we're now members of, I would occasionally toss an "Amen" in there when there was a particularly good or glorious point made during the sermon, as had been my practice for years before in C&MA and SBC churches. I don't do it so much anymore (ie: never). I guess the eerie silence afterward stifled me.

I've now resorted to the Presbyterian equivalent: a pensive look, coupled with a nod and a scratching of my chin. Perhaps I can bring the "Amen" back . . .

Rae - I am given to a hearty "amen" when something is said that is a profound truth of God's word. Worship is not to be one way. While interrupting the preacher may not be practical, I see no problem with expressing an "under control" emotional response....just so long as it is not to be noticed.

 

[Herald]

BTW, I have been guilty of tapping my toe occasionally during worship. I just wanted to get that out in the open. I feel much better.

You should be ashamed!

 

[BlackCalvinist]

Rae - I am given to a hearty "amen" when something is said that is a profound truth of God's word. Worship is not to be one way. While interrupting the preacher may not be practical, I see no problem with expressing an "under control" emotional response....just so long as it is not to be noticed.

Perhaps it would also be wise to consider the speaker and the congregation we are visiting.

I visited my ex-girlfriend's church once (OPC). The 'term' (and it was said in jest) for someone who amened during a sermon was that someone was a 'talker'. So, for example, when they had one lady join the church from a pentecostal church, for a while they were like 'yep...just be aware pastor. she's a talker'.

My church has a nice balance to it, in my opinion.

No one will look at you funny if you raise your hands or stand completely still and not sing at all. Of course, the 'bookends' on the service for us are 'the declaration' (based off of a combination of the five solas and the Belgic Confession) and communion (weekly) with the Nicene Creed and then the benediction (praise God from whom all blessings flow).

How exactly is one supposed to react, emotionally, to the God who took them from a life of immorality, destined to hell, without hope, without God, children of wrath headed for destruction, God-hating, gospel-rejecting and sin-indulging ?

Exactly what part do our emotions play in thinking about the God who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in Christ, given us life that never fades and an inheritance that will never perish, comes alongside us, guides our steps, orders our life with our best good in mind.... hmmm ?

Ponder that for a moment.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I am not so sure that race is an issue. There are Black and White Presbyterians and Black and White Penties

Jenn,

You're right but it is about race in many ways because integrated congregations are the exception and not the norm. Please don't misunderstand my point about black v. white and old v. young. My goal is to have everybody in worship together.

All:

I wish it was possible for this discussion to not get too sidetracked because it took a radical turn into a battle against the RPW that it didn't need to. That's not your fault. The question is legitimate.

My initial response to Trevor was sort of about the RPW but also about Christian Liberty in Worship. Why? Because they are actually complimentary.

Some people are getting very petty and vitriolic in their statements against those who are trying to urge thoughtfulness on this subject as if thinking this through ahead of time is somehow "not worship."

Here's the irony: those that plan songs in Charismatic Churches do planning themselves. I used to be a Worship Leader. I know how to do this thing. I know how to set emotion, time songs, where to put solos, where to go a capella, etc. I used to plan the flow of the music. This is not about un-planned, free expression as opposed to planned, stifled expression so we should dispense of that thought to begin with.

I honestly think a lot of the emotion on this issue comes out because people get angry that they might not be able to sing the kinds of songs that they enjoy singing on a Sunday morning. Who's freedom of form are we talking about anyway? Find me 50 people that are moved by a certain musical arrangment and I'll find you another 50 that yawn.

I remember having an ephinany about the RPW a number of years back reading Modern Reformation and seeing an article about how simple tunes that belong to no culture in particular (mixture of European, African, etc) that have been sung for centuries have a character that allows for FULL liberty in worship.

Some of you are already doubting this because you think this is all about me forcing you into something. How can this be liberating?

Well because everybody is using the same sheet of music then no worship leader can force others to sing music that does something for them but might make others uncomfortable.

Do you know one of my greatest struggles every Sunday is? Figuring out whether I should be singing a certain praise chorus because I keep having to check the theology. I enjoy the beat at times but then my conscience is wracked by some of the goings on that I don't think are God honouring. "Big deal!" you might say, "you just need to be more loving Rich and if 90% of the congregation digs it then you need to just go along to get along."

Is that how worship preference is supposed to work? Is that the liberating nature of a form of worship that is being defended? That Rich has to put aside problems in what might be inappropriate behavior in worship. I'm not talking about lifting hands either. I really don't have a problem with that.

OK, maybe Rich is a big boy. What about the Japanese man that comes to Church if we ever happen to get a man to come to Church with his family. He has to sing praise choruses and is told when to stand up, when to clap, when men are just supposed to sing, when woemen are, etc....

See, my problem is that I want to be part of the Body and not stand aside and be out of unity with those I'm members with so I force myself to do things that I wonder if I should be repenting of. Should I or anyone else be put in that position because this type of music works for 90% of the people there?

But, you see, it's not that the other 10% will usually stick around. They'll go to another Church where they're not uncomfortable with a certain style and find others who do. What are the worship wars about usually? Preference in music. We're fighting over our individual right to find a place where we get to sing the style of music that we like. Is that what liberty is about? Finding a Church where everyone else has our music and worship style preferences?

If you're uncomfortable with this then I suggest you change your own mocking tone of what others are trying to say and quit making it sound like people are advocating a police state here. Far from it! I desire to worship with men of every tribe, tongue, and nation. I just don't think that we can possibly serve all the musical and worship style preferences which is why I believe there is utility in finding a simple style that nobody can claim is theirs. This is part of the reason I believe why the RPW is a sound principle because if we are only allowed to do what God commands then nobody can argue that it's personal preference at stake here.

I'm not sure, again, that our posture during singing is dictated to us by Scripture. What I do want to point out, however, is that I believe that profound worship should flow from the mind to the heart and not necessarily from the tune to the heart. If you read the Epistles, notice how Paul will teach on the things of God and then will break into doxology over God's mighty acts to save us. I believe that doxology flows out of doctrine.

You might think I'm arguing for EP here. I'm not and don't want to get into that. The Psalms are instructive here though. It is very difficult to understand and sing the Psalms fully with appreciation until you understand the backstories and the doctrines that the Psalms are singing about. Luther called the Psalms the Bible in a single book because they contain the whole of the OT story in them. When your mind has been filled with God's Word then doxology overflows from your heart and you start to sing praises to God and the Psalms give great expression to it. A somber tune can certainly enhance the expression of Psalm 51 but if the tune is the only thing creating the emotion and not a knowledge of sin and redemption then it is hollow. This is why, for me, instruction is more key to "setting the right mood for worship" than the music chosen.

I honestly believe the idea of diverse cultural expression is more of an assumption than a Biblical principle. Perhaps somebody can point me to the Scriptures that highlight how we want to give full expression of our cultural expressions in Worship. The only thing I see it doing is creating a segregated Church on Sunday mornings.

 

[Coram Deo]

Semperfideles,

All I have to Say to this is

Great Post


Michael

All:

I wish it was possible for this discussion to not get too sidetracked because it took a radical turn into a battle against the RPW that it didn't need to. That's not your fault. The question is legitimate.

My initial response to Trevor was sort of about the RPW but also about Christian Liberty in Worship. Why? Because they are actually complimentary.

Some people are getting very petty and vitriolic in their statements against those who are trying to urge thoughtfulness on this subject as if thinking this through ahead of time is somehow "not worship."

Here's the irony: those that plan songs in Charismatic Churches do planning themselves. I used to be a Worship Leader. I know how to do this thing. I know how to set emotion, time songs, where to put solos, where to go a capella, etc. I used to plan the flow of the music. This is not about un-planned, free expression as opposed to planned, stifled expression so we should dispense of that thought to begin with.

I honestly think a lot of the emotion on this issue comes out because people get angry that they might not be able to sing the kinds of songs that they enjoy singing on a Sunday morning. Who's freedom of form are we talking about anyway? Find me 50 people that are moved by a certain musical arrangment and I'll find you another 50 that yawn.

I remember having an ephinany about the RPW a number of years back reading Modern Reformation and seeing an article about how simple tunes that belong to no culture in particular (mixture of European, African, etc) that have been sung for centuries have a character that allows for FULL liberty in worship.

Some of you are already doubting this because you think this is all about me forcing you into something. How can this be liberating?

Well because everybody is using the same sheet of music then no worship leader can force others to sing music that does something for them but might make others uncomfortable.

Do you know one of my greatest struggles every Sunday is? Figuring out whether I should be singing a certain praise chorus because I keep having to check the theology. I enjoy the beat at times but then my conscience is wracked by some of the goings on that I don't think are God honouring. "Big deal!" you might say, "you just need to be more loving Rich and if 90% of the congregation digs it then you need to just go along to get along."

Is that how worship preference is supposed to work? Is that the liberating nature of a form of worship that is being defended? That Rich has to put aside problems in what might be inappropriate behavior in worship. I'm not talking about lifting hands either. I really don't have a problem with that.

OK, maybe Rich is a big boy. What about the Japanese man that comes to Church if we ever happen to get a man to come to Church with his family. He has to sing praise choruses and is told when to stand up, when to clap, when men are just supposed to sing, when woemen are, etc....

See, my problem is that I want to be part of the Body and not stand aside and be out of unity with those I'm members with so I force myself to do things that I wonder if I should be repenting of. Should I or anyone else be put in that position because this type of music works for 90% of the people there?

But, you see, it's not that the other 10% will usually stick around. They'll go to another Church where they're not uncomfortable with a certain style and find others who do. What are the worship wars about usually? Preference in music. We're fighting over our individual right to find a place where we get to sing the style of music that we like. Is that what liberty is about? Finding a Church where everyone else has our music and worship style preferences?

If you're uncomfortable with this then I suggest you change your own mocking tone of what others are trying to say and quit making it sound like people are advocating a police state here. Far from it! I desire to worship with men of every tribe, tongue, and nation. I just don't think that we can possibly serve all the musical and worship style preferences which is why I believe there is utility in finding a simple style that nobody can claim is theirs. This is part of the reason I believe why the RPW is a sound principle because if we are only allowed to do what God commands then nobody can argue that it's personal preference at stake here.

I'm not sure, again, that our posture during singing is dictated to us by Scripture. What I do want to point out, however, is that I believe that profound worship should flow from the mind to the heart and not necessarily from the tune to the heart. If you read the Epistles, notice how Paul will teach on the things of God and then will break into doxology over God's mighty acts to save us. I believe that doxology flows out of doctrine.

You might think I'm arguing for EP here. I'm not and don't want to get into that. The Psalms are instructive here though. It is very difficult to understand and sing the Psalms fully with appreciation until you understand the backstories and the doctrines that the Psalms are singing about. Luther called the Psalms the Bible in a single book because they contain the whole of the OT story in them. When your mind has been filled with God's Word then doxology overflows from your heart and you start to sing praises to God and the Psalms give great expression to it. A somber tune can certainly enhance the expression of Psalm 51 but if the tune is the only thing creating the emotion and not a knowledge of sin and redemption then it is hollow. This is why, for me, instruction is more key to "setting the right mood for worship" than the music chosen.

I honestly believe the idea of diverse cultural expression is more of an assumption than a Biblical principle. Perhaps somebody can point me to the Scriptures that highlight how we want to give full expression of our cultural expressions in Worship. The only thing I see it doing is creating a segregated Church on Sunday mornings.

 

[Davidius]

Should people be told how to worship ?

Yes, people should be told how to worship because they're wretched sinners who don't know how to worship God on their own. We should, with joy, do what God has told us to do in worship. As Rich has mentioned, there need not be a disconnect between forms and emotion. That there can be shows how sinful we are when we despise God's instructions for worship.

 

[LifeInReturn]

Let me clarify. By asking should we be told how to worship, I mean by PEOPLE, not God. Should people tell other people how to worship God ? <--- That is the question. Just had to clarify.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Let me clarify. By asking should we be told how to worship, I mean by PEOPLE, not God. Should people tell other people how to worship God ? <--- That is the question. Just had to clarify.

I understood what you meant Sister. Since Elders are people then the answer to your question is "Yes." I would prefer to say that Elders should instruct their people on the proper worship of God.

I think the bad kind of "telling people" is the kind that Trevor experienced in Bible College: "Christians don't wear beards...."

We don't want to be going around looking for ways to restrict liberty. Remember, my argument is to enhance liberty. Elders who simply change everything and say "We're going simple because the other forms are bad..." would be missing the point. Rather, it could be: "We want to try to enhance the liberty of the whole..." through the RPW is more along the way of wisdom.

Christianity certainly has "rules" but we ought not to be approaching the rules from a heart of "do this and live" but from a desire for wisdom. Cheap and easy regulations get the job done on the externals but people have to be instructed on how the formal complements the material.

 

[KMK]

I think the bad kind of "telling people" is the kind that Trevor experienced in Bible College: "Christians don't wear beards...."

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Every Christian is a Christian born into a particular culture. Even Christ was born into a culture. And though the principles are transcendant, there is a great deal that is non-essential, such as what the building or place of worship looks like, what "respectful clothing" looks like (we take off our shoes here), what "worshipful music" sounds like. You simply cannot say that nothing is a matter of culture.

Again, this is a gross reduction of what has been argued. The point of a music style is to enhance liberty and not force the introduction of a cultural form. Many missionaries export charismatic and pentecostal praise choruses without even thinking about how culturally conditioned the tunes are (and how unScriptural some of the messages are). My goal would be to aim for simplicity in worship so it wouldn't tack on anything that the Word did not require.

For the record, I completely agree that we should not be requiring anything more than the Scriptures. It is sin to bind a man's conscience to it. If I have to say it this way to be understood then I will. I don't want a man's conscience to be bound to the fact that a normal way of praising is to sing 7 words over and over to "...get into a worshipful mood..." any more than I want to bind his conscience over dress, how he sits, how he folds his hands, etc. I actually do not think the Word prohibits a person lifting their hands. Sitting, standing, kneeling are not elements of worship any more than the lifting of hands.

It does not honor the Gospel at all to tack on extra stuff to it. And one thing tacked on often among the Reformed is culture.

I don't think this is a fair characterization of the Reformed. Much of Reformed worship is far more simple in historic practice. It's not right to claim that those who confuse their preferences with a Scriptural mandate is Reformed because that goes completely contrary to the heart of the Reformation. Our Sacramentology is even simpler than Baptists - we don't require people to find much water in order to be baptized and we don't wait until everybody is grown up either.

I hope you understand my desire here that all men be brought near the Cross of Christ and that all of men's preferences be removed as obstacles. Certainly I don't believe an arrogant outsider should come in and start turning over tables and demanding that everybody get simple in worship. I want it to be done with wisdom. But even in a small Japanese Church where everybody is generally happy, my concern would be for we who worship together would be willing to forego some preferences for forms to allow someone who is new among us to feel comfortable and not create a barrier to his attendance. That's all I'm saying.

The small Church in the field may have found a form that they're comfortable with but would you insist on them continuing even if it meant that they might be turning away other Indonesians who might otherwise hear the Gospel?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

OK Brother.

As long as you understand what my conviction is regarding removal of obstacles to the Gospel. I think the RPW complements that end even if sinful men corrupt its meaning at times.

Blessings!

Rich