Lifting hands, expressing emotion ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Trevor,

I to do not want this thread to be hi-jacked into a exclusive psalmody issue either even though I hold to such a view. But I disagree with you on that music (Melody, and Sound) is cultural in the church... It is my earnest belief that culture in no way speaks to us in the church, and I also earnestly belief it should only play the smallest part in Christian lives outside the church i.e Music outside of the Church and RPW.. I also do not believe music to be amoral. I have personally seen the destructiviness of so called CCM music in the lives of people, even among my own family. We should transform culture by the power of the gospel not the culture transforms us every few generations. Also scripture speaks of not conforming the World, and who ever loves the world the love of the father is not in him... Also, Be ye Seperate.

As for music (Melody and sound) in the church, I believe it should transcend culture... Be Majestic and Lofty in the words of John Calvin. Music that has no cultural connection and will not fade in a generation. It should be simple and fit the contend and mood of the lyrics (in my case the Psalms), If the words are somber then the music should sound somber... Culture is in the grasp of Satan.... I will fight for no culture in the church. And in the Words of Martin Luther with "No Compromise."

I will avoid the Psalms, Hymns and Songs since that would snowball into EP. But you are quoted saying "The OT worship had elaborate singers didn't they."

Old testament worship with it's elaborate singers and the instruments that was used for all commanded by God to David in explict detail.... To use such passages for New testament worship to add choirs, or any number of instruments is pulling the Old testament passage out of context... The number of Instruments and the exact instruments and how they were made was completely commanded by God.

I might also add that all of that choirs and instruments were Temple worship and has been done away with with the New Covenant.

If God ordained the alittliest issue in the Old testament right down to clothing, carpets, tapestry, altars, etc he commands them under the RPW... Maybe he still does besides elements by the light of nature and common sense... sort of... ;)

As for the Regulative Principle of Worship... I have come to the understanding that the name is miss leading at best and have caused too many problems... I call for the dropping of the word Principle and will no longer use it.. I prefer the Term "Regulative Worship"......


Michael


Rich:

I think we fundamentally agree then on the main issue. We are just stressing those points of disagreement it seems.

And yes, I agree we should not export our cultural forms and mistake them for Gospel whether we export Reformed baggage or Pentescostal baage...it is all still baggage. I am sure your baptist church - if Southern Baptist - might be a good example of exporting the latest program and calling it missions work or evangelism.

I don't see any "gross reductions." This issue is about a whole string of worship related issues, from postures in prayer, music, and other external forms of worship. I gave my summary statement and I stick by it against those who would desire to make normative statements for all churches in the world and for all communities that "worship should look like this or that". We should give guidelines and principles and allow for permittable leeways within practice.

You keep mentioning the adjective "simple" And others keep mentioning the adjective "austere". These adjectives are very culturally defined are they not? Give me a Scriptural command for simplicity or austerity? I do see commands for "orderliness" and for worship "in Spirit and in truth"...

And is more simple or austere neccessarily more Biblical? Or is this too a preference? The OT worship had elaborate singers didn't they. And the NT speaks of songs, hymns and spiritual songs (please EPers..this is not an EP thread, don't hijack it). If we assume that songs are permitted, then what is simple is defined by the host culture.



About the church in the field: I am not sure that they are "comfortable" with it, but it is a way of gathering without raising undue attention or opposition from those who would oppose the work. It is the best beginning situation for a new work I guess and the doors opened in such a way as to allow this, so the local guys are running with it... Go to www.indonesiamatters.com and you can track the latest chrch closings/burnings and can see the practical benefits of new believers meeting in such a way at first.


Rich, I will quote you and give you a hearty amen:

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.

I cannot improve on anything that you have said in that quote above! Now that quote above is music to my ears (and not the Marantha variety either!).
 
*bites tongue to keep from hijacking the thread by commenting on how things would be much easier if everyone would just sing the psalms*

But really, the EP discussion is a logical result of this kind of discussion. I really don't want to hijack the thread, though.
 
Webster's Dictionary Defines Austere as "1. SOMBER, GRAVE, 2. morally strict, 3. markedly simple or unadorned."

I have no problems with any of these definations to define church.. It should be Somber, "Rejoice with Trembling, Psalm 2" and "Reverance with Godly Fear, Hebrew 12:28" it Should be Totally Grave since we are going in front of the Lord of Lords and Kings of Kings, Creator of the Universe who can in one word reduce us to ashes or even nothing..... I walk trembling going into church knowing how sinful of a man I am..... Also Isaiah 66:2, "those who have humble and contrite hearts, who tremble at my word." Tremble at my Word.... We should even be grave when opening our bibles and read the word of God....

Worship should be morally strict since the Regulative Worship Doctrine is Morally binding in the Second Commandment..... Same for the markedly simple and unadorned..... Second Commandment and other Regulative Worship passages......


I stick with Austere...

Michael


And others keep mentioning the adjective "austere". These adjectives are very culturally defined are they not? Give me a Scriptural command for simplicity or austerity?
 
A heartly :amen: to your entiire post.....


*bites tongue to keep from hijacking the thread by commenting on how things would be much easier if everyone would just sing the psalms*

But really, the EP discussion is a logical result of this kind of discussion. I really don't want to hijack the thread, though.
 
Trevor,

I to do not want this thread to be hi-jacked into a exclusive psalmody issue either even though I hold to such a view. But I disagree with you on that music (Melody, and Sound) is cultural in the church... It is my earnest belief that culture in no way speaks to us in the church, and I also earnestly belief it should only play the smallest part in Christian lives outside the church i.e Music outside of the Church and RPW.. I also do not believe music to be amoral. I have personally seen the destructiviness of so called CCM music in the lives of people, even among my own family. We should transform culture by the power of the gospel not the culture transforms us every few generations. Also scripture speaks of not conforming the World, and who ever loves the world the love of the father is not in him... Also, Be ye Seperate.

As for music (Melody and sound) in the church, I believe it should transcend culture... Be Majestic and Lofty in the words of John Calvin. Music that has no cultural connection and will not fade in a generation. It should be simple and fit the contend and mood of the lyrics (in my case the Psalms), If the words are somber then the music should sound somber... Culture is in the grasp of Satan.... I will fight for no culture in the church. And in the Words of Martin Luther with "No Compromise."

Michael

Agreed that the Gospel should transform culture. Disagreed that culture is evil in itself, that it never holds legitimate influence in the church (find me one church ever that wasn't influenced in some way by culture), or that it is possible to create a culture-less vacuum in which to worship. Find me the musician who is able to create music without some reference to cultural norms in music. I think this is fighting the wrong battle, and an unproductive one at that.

Out of curiosity, what is your definition of culture?
 
Last edited:
Agreed that the Gospel should transform culture. Disagreed that culture is evil in itself, that it never holds legitimate influence in the church (find me one church ever that wasn't influenced in some way by culture), or that it is possible to create a culture-less vacuum in which to worship. Find me the musician who is able to create music without some reference to cultural norms in music. I think this is fighting the wrong battle, and an unproductive one at that.

Out of curiosity, what is your definition of culture?

Brad,

I agree that culture is not evil per se, but we all know that it's very tainted. We should all be able to agree that there are some aspects of the Church that culture should definitely not influence. Can one say that the Church as an institution does not exist in a cultural vacuum while at the same time acknowleding that worship is to transcend all cultural affinities?
 
thunaer;

I have no problems with any of these definations to define church.. It should be Somber, "Rejoice with Trembling, Psalm 2" and "Reverance with Godly Fear, Hebrew 12:28" it Should be Totally Grave since we are going in front of the Lord of Lords and Kings of Kings, Creator of the Universe who can in one word reduce us to ashes or even nothing..... I walk trembling going into church knowing how sinful of a man I am..... Also Isaiah 66:2, "those who have humble and contrite hearts, who tremble at my word." Tremble at my Word.... We should even be grave when opening our bibles and read the word of God....

Worship should be morally strict since the Regulative Worship Doctrine is Morally binding in the Second Commandment..... Same for the markedly simple and unadorned..... Second Commandment and other Regulative Worship passages......


I stick with Austere...

Michael

And Praise God, He also considers Himself Our Husband and Our Father whom we can go before without fear of His condemnation, because He, Himself has paid the price of our sins, and has forgiven us.
 
Brad,
I agree that culture is not evil per se, but we all know that it's very tainted. We should all be able to agree that there are some aspects of the Church that culture should definitely not influence. Can one say that the Church as an institution does not exist in a cultural vacuum while at the same time acknowleding that worship is to transcend all cultural affinities?

I think the key word here is "tainted." We know that sin corrupts culture. I think the question is, "which cultural practices are sinful and should be transformed by the scripture or barred from the church?" It seems a huge difference from "all of culture should be put out of the church." I'm mostly questioning that statement's plausibility.

There does seem to be a limit to what the Bible speaks to about corporate worship. There are gaps that we fill in. I'm not suggesting those gaps should just get turned over lock, stock, and barrel to whatever cultural trend is present. But I would simply say that certain cultural trends are going to express themselves in the church, and they need to judged against and regulated by the commands of scripture, but I would not prohibit them on the basis that they come from "culture." I know we're mostly discussing music here, but there are so many things, from dress, to architecture, to the way we fellowship, and even to the way the word is preached that are going to be affected by our culture.

I will agree with you, we have clear commands for worship that should transcend culture. I also agree that the simplest solution for the culture debate as it pertains to music (until now I've not necessarily been limiting my discussion to music) is exclusive psalmody. However, even that will never be freed from cultural influence, and battles could still rage over which tunes are appropriate, etc. I do think that if you start out with the assumption that all culture is evil though, you will more readily move to a position of EP (not a characterization of anyone's thought here, just thinking through some of the statements that have been made).

Another distinction that might be made in this discussion. Culture is not just something outside of the church. Most of this debate centers around established church culture (black gospel music vs. hymns vs. praise choruses, etc.). So I don't know if there's an absolute dichotomy between church and culture in this discussion. Although I would be willing to grant the possibility that one church culture better reflects the influences of scripture over and against the influences of worldly culture than another church culture does.
 
Last edited:
Thunaer:

I disagree with you, but am not sure my disagreement will bear any useful fruit because you sound pretty unwilling to bend.

The assertion that culture plays no part in our attempts to worship God is profoundly naive.

Think on this issue as you drive to your church building wearing your tie, sit in your pew, probably sing from a songbook held in a little pocket in front of you. Also, when you shake someone's hand instead of giving them a holy kiss, when you stand stock still during any singing or recitation of the psalms and also prayers, your holy hands never being lifted. Remember this when you sit and listen to about an hour's sermon instead of the open-ended sorts of engagements that happen in other places like Africa (that finish when the thing is done, not when the clock strikes), and when you read your professionally printed bulletin.



Bradofshaw:

There is that which is beautiful in culture even in its fallen nature and that which serves as chains of bandage. Culture is very tainted, and yet God through common grace gives a certain level of order in many cultures and even instills and maintains many noble traits among some cultures, which value hospitality, bravery, family dedication, integrity, sharing, etc.

Paul used culture as a bridge and a jumping off point in his preaching several times and even quoted Greek poets. And yet he condemned many evil cultural practices.


And AMEN to your post that said "Find me one church not affected by culture.."



If we all forget this, look back at the old Puritan divines in their silly wigs and old-timey fashions. They were certainly living in their day.

My church is hosting an event in May that will feature a VOM Iranian Christian Preacher and his Iranian Christian Worship Team. I am looking forward to seeing and hearing how the same God of the universe is worshipped by people of a different culture. (Will they mind if I tap my toe?) :think:
 
Trevor,

The differecnes, though, that you are giving - ties, books, bulletins, and length of speaking, are not issues surrounding corproate worship.

Those are just personal preferecnes concerning good or bad order, of neither - just preferecne.

English Puritans sat for 4 hours for a sermon.
Americans sit for 30 minutes.

That's not cultural.

A good way to define how culture plays a part in actual worship, is to determine the worship of heaven. Its made up of all kinds of people, but they are all doing the same thing.

They are all in the same stacne, all singing the same songs, all worshipping the same way.

So to say that culture "plays a part" in the "worship of God" is naive in that sense.

If someone wants to wear a blue shirt, and another a blue robe, fine. But that does not impact the regulative principle unless they are doing something against the worship of God that transcends culture.
 
1. Tie - is something that is consider best dressed, but I do not always wear a tie, Sometimes I wear a collarless dress shirt that you see sometimes among the mennonites... :wave:

2. songbook - We use the Psalter, book of the bible.. non cultural..

3. Hand shake - Due to health (Immune) I am unable to shake hands, or perform the holy kiss... But I never liked hand shaking anyway... :)

4. Standing still while singing - What are we suppose to do, the body wave... hehe (I have seen that at my cousins church, the bums bouncing and waving) Serious though, Singing is with the voice, not with the body....

5. Prayer - Our pastor lifts up holy hands during prayer.. exampled in scripture... if I was to do it every man should do it too together.. another example in scripture... I will not cause disorder by raising my hands while prayer and drawing attention to me also since there is no examples in scripture of raising holy hands alone in public worship..

6. Sermon Length - All circles I have been in is not time restrained... I have heard sermons go over 30 to 40 minutes after the hour dongs..... The longer the better I believe.... Oh yeah, and no one ever complains about it unless the sermon was to short, under an hour..

7. professionally printed bulletin - I hate these with a passion and will NOT take one.... I know the order of the worship and I can wait for the psalm to be announced, but I would not mind if a sign up front gave psalm numbers in order.... I think announcments before the call of worship or anytime in worship and printed bulletins that people read before or during the service are unneed and wrong.... I will not take one...

8 - Pews transcends worldly culture... No other place is the pew used except in church... I vote for Pews...


Just for clarifications... :pilgrim:

Michael


Thunaer:

I disagree with you, but am not sure my disagreement will bear any useful fruit because you sound pretty unwilling to bend.

The assertion that culture plays no part in our attempts to worship God is profoundly naive.

Think on this issue as you drive to your church building wearing your tie, sit in your pew, probably sing from a songbook held in a little pocket in front of you. Also, when you shake someone's hand instead of giving them a holy kiss, when you stand stock still during any singing or recitation of the psalms and also prayers, your holy hands never being lifted. Remember this when you sit and listen to about an hour's sermon instead of the open-ended sorts of engagements that happen in other places like Africa (that finish when the thing is done, not when the clock strikes), and when you read your professionally printed bulletin.
 
Many of the things that have been introduced into this thread as evidence of culturally-conditioned worship (printed bulletins, suit and tye, chairs/pews, etc.) would be viewed even by the "austere/orderliness/whatever" crowd as circumstances of worship and adiaphora. So that's a bit of a red herring.

There are about five or six different things being debated on this thread, but for my part, I guess I'm aiming at the idea that lifting hands is somehow "more spiritual", or that people standing reverently and singing is somehow less spiritual (not "on point"). Because that is an assumption in this thread and the church at large, and a whole package of issues has been dismissed under the cultural argument.

I guess my point is, that all indigenous cultures, red, yellow, black, white, whatever, for the most part, had animistic, shamanistic, ecstatic religion. And even when a city-state developed an official "cultus", the shamanism still continued in the masses, who put up with the state-worship.

So to point to an exuberant, ecstatic worship service in South America and say "that's just their culture" is misleading, because a: Europeans once had religion like that, and b: looking at how third world churches worship probably isn't the best idea, since it is well known that the "Christianity" that is flaming across the world is by and large Pentecostal, Charismatic, and/or Arminian.

So these churches that are dancing and not just lifting hands, but doing kind of the two hand uplift where everyone has to stand five feet apart for fear of getting swiped, would also probably have false ideas of the atonement, false ideas of God's love, corrupt ideas of election, a denigration of Scripture, etc.
Is that really the best litmus test?

I haven't thought the issue through, but I could personally care less if someone was raising their hands. However there's a vast difference between orderly worship with someone raising their hands, and everyone standing apart, crying, kneeling, standing, turned this way, turned that way, waving arms, bouncing, etc. And the same arguments to support the one will support the other.

"Culture", however you define it, may or may not be practically kept out of a worship service. But the fact remains, if you had churches in Arabia, Africa, South America, and Scandinavia that followed the RPW, that met, sang psalms without instruments (OR sang happy songs with instruments, for the other side, but that were still theologically correct... but more to the point if EP is true), read from the same word, and gave a place of prominence to the preached word, then yes, you would feel fairly "at home" in worship wherever you went, at least in the structure thereof, if not the language.

If cultures "preach differently" as has been suggested, its probably because they are preaching poorly. I would imagine that most sound doctrine I've ever heard in my life wasn't constantly interrupted by "thank you L*rd* and throat-clearings. That usually only happens with Pentecostal preachers.
 
Matt:

That is EXACTLY what I am saying. The RPW only covers so much, the rest IS personal preference. And personal preference is VERY cultural.

But many folks seem to want these personal preferences to be included into the essentials of worship, like pews being better, or maybe even (I know this has been discussed before) robes for the minister. We can justify the inclusion or exclusion of these things in many ways (austerity, simplicity), but many things DO come down to personal preferences. And this is my main assertion on this thread that we ought not to try to tether people down and try to make our own personal preferences normative for all, only abide by the principles and recognize that even these principles may be applied in slightly diffeent ways across the world.

And, if we are non-EP and think that hymns can be used in worship, then this opens the door to quite a bit of cultural variation as the truths of Scripture are put to local forms.

If you are EP then this would effectively negate that last assertion..but even then, dress, buildings, etc are all culturally conditioned...and because they are preferences and not mentioned under the RPW then we are free to follow the principles of what is modest dress and work that out in a particular cultural setting, and what is an adequate building and then work that out in our particular cultural context.

The RPW covers a lot, but in comparison to everything involved in worship, there is still a huge amount of ground not covered by the RPW and as the faith spreads throughout the globe it is possible for many different cultures to truly worship God using the RPW even while looking quite diffferent and accounting for local preference.

This is what I mean when I say that EVERY Christian and EVERY church IS affected by cultural, none of us is acultural because we live in bodies that are brown, white, etc, and speak different tongues and use different buildings, and sit in different styles...and even think in different ways, etc.



AND,

It is VERY naive to think that personal preferences are not dictated by culture. To say "That's not cultural" that's personal preference is naive.

:agree:
 
Matt:

That is EXACTLY what I am saying. The RPW only covers so much, the rest IS personal preference. And personal preference is VERY cultural.

But many folks seem to want these personal preferences to be included into the essentials of worship, like pews being better, or maybe even (I know this has been discussed before) robes for the minister. We can justify the inclusion or exclusion of these things in many ways (austerity, simplicity), but many things DO come down to personal preferences. And this is my main assertion on this thread that we ought not to try to tether people down and try to make our own personal preferences normative for all, only abide by the principles and recognize that even these principles may be applied in slightly diffeent ways across the world.

And, if we are non-EP and think that hymns can be used in worship, then this opens the door to quite a bit of cultural variation as the truths of Scripture are put to local forms.

If you are EP then this would effectively negate that last assertion..but even then, dress, buildings, etc are all culturally conditioned...and because they are preferences and not mentioned under the RPW then we are free to follow the principles of what is modest dress and work that out in a particular cultural setting, and what is an adequate building and then work that out in our particular cultural context.

The RPW covers a lot, but in comparison to everything involved in worship, there is still a huge amount of ground not covered by the RPW and as the faith spreads throughout the globe it is possible for many different cultures to truly worship God using the RPW even while looking quite diffferent and accounting for local preference.

I agree with you to here. I only chimed in because too often "Reformed" theology is somehow charicatured as "Western" when in fact it is the teaching of Scripture. The same with the RPW (which is really rooted in Patristic worship). To often I fear that people in rejecting the sins of the "West" (and rightly so) are really throwing out the baby with the bathwater when it comes to Reformed/Patristic worship. The "West" no matter how you define it is more diverse than modern critics give it credit. The church had serious problems and cultural issues as it moved from Jerusalem to the "ends of the earth." Yet their worship transcended culture because their theology and tradition did as well. Despite the different languages and cultures the worship always looked similar.

I completely agree with you about the cultural relativity about circumstances, pews vs. rugs, bulletins, hut vs basilica, etc. etc. But these were never the main concerns of Reformed worship either. The same reformers who worshipped in renovated cathedrals also worshipped in cellars and forests to avoid Catholic persecutors. The Puritans and Covenanters could worship in fields or churches. Yet the worship didn't change in substance. Same with the early church. They could worship in catecombs, houses, synagogues, etc. yet their liturgy remained similar. I would argue those who do make cultural circumstances into elements have departed from the RPW, along the lines of Rich's posts above on liberty. That is after all the central concern in the RPW, not to bind men under traditions of men (or culture).
:2cents:
 
Do we all agree that the RPW is a tool that God has blessed us with to conform our worship to his desire and our best interest?

The RPW is, of course, not the object of worship. It is possible that someone could be doing everything right according to the RPW and still totally missing the boat just as someone who does not even know the RPW might be missing the boat.

I still maintain that as the sheep are fed the whole counsel of God and learn exactly who God is and who they are they will naturally conform themselves to the RPW. The RPW is the pattern for mature Christian worship.
 
Do we all agree that the RPW is a tool that God has blessed us with to conform our worship to his desire and our best interest?
I think I'd agree with that and only modify it a bit to make sure people don't think that God commanded us how to worship Him primarily with the creature's interest in mind though that's certainly part of it. I don't think you meant to over-emphasize its benefit to us but I think there are some that are primarily concerned with how a command benefits the user as the reason for it rather than the glory of God. If personal benefit is the primary guage then people can put God on the back-burner.

Pastor King recently related a story where he was teaching on the RPW to a Christian High School in GA. One of the teenagers interrupted him and said: "Nobody's going to tell me how to worship!" to which Pastor King wisely replied: "No, I imagine you wouldn't allow even God to tell you how to worship...." {forgive me Pastor King if I got the words wrong}

I understand that some of the ire is directed against people who use the RPW as a shackle for another kind of human tradition but I think the primary ire directed against the principle is that our hearts hate being told how to worship - even by God. In this age where preference and therapy is King, telling a woman that her "special song" has no part in worship is inconceivable.

Whether we admit it or not, we also think that "we'll never grow" if music isn't just a bit more hip and we don't provide a landing spot for people to ease into being Reformed. Regardless of how far you move toward the culture, there's going to be some "prophetess" that's going to claim you haven't moved far enough to accommodate her and that you're stifling the spirit.

I think the true benefit today for many believers (getting back to how it's good for us after all) would be to regularly explain why you're doing something and do so in an instructive and loving way. If it's an us v. them attitude then it becomes over-bearing. If you make people understand your desire to honor God as well as remove obstacles to the Gospel then that's something people can more easily get on board with. There's a certain sense in man where "fairness" comes into play: "Well, I don't get to have the songs I like but at least nobody else gets that either...."

The RPW is, of course, not the object of worship. It is possible that someone could be doing everything right according to the RPW and still totally missing the boat just as someone who does not even know the RPW might be missing the boat.
Sure. It's not the fact that your uber-strict in the externals that will cause your worship to be acceptable. God said He hated the sacrifices of the Israelites because their hearts were far from Him. I think we express a heart for God not only in that we try to honor Him in how we worship but how we do so. I think some people almost seem to go out of their way to be obnoxious about it.

I still maintain that as the sheep are fed the whole counsel of God and learn exactly who God is and who they are they will naturally conform themselves to the RPW. The RPW is the pattern for mature Christian worship.
Perhaps. The problem is that if you wait until everybody is mature then when will a Church ever try practicing it? Again, explanation as simple as why you do something helps even the immature understand things. I'd prefer that to a Church that just "matter of factly" chooses old hymns and people think they're automatically the only type of approved worship. We simply don't educate people enough on this and this is why worship wars over music are so common.
 
I think I'd agree with that and only modify it a bit to make sure people don't think that God commanded us how to worship Him primarily with the creature's interest in mind though that's certainly part of it. I don't think you meant to over-emphasize its benefit to us but I think there are some that are primarily concerned with how a command benefits the user as the reason for it rather than the glory of God. If personal benefit is the primary guage then people can put God on the back-burner.

:ditto: And that was not my intention, but even glorifying God is in our best interest. It is hard to seperate the two.


I understand that some of the ire is directed against people who use the RPW as a shackle for another kind of human tradition but I think the primary ire directed against the principle is that our hearts hate being told how to worship - even by God. In this age where preference and therapy is King, telling a woman that her "special song" has no part in worship is inconceivable.

:amen: And I just got done posting a quote on a different thread that expressed Calvin's same frustration.

Regardless of how far you move toward the culture, there's going to be some "prophetess" that's going to claim you haven't moved far enough to accommodate her and that you're stifling the spirit.

:lol: :banghead:

We simply don't educate people enough on this and this is why worship wars over music are so common.

:amen: And all we can do is say, "Let it begin with me, Lord."
 
What I hear you saying, Trevor, is that the worship of the God of the universe may look and sound and smell differently in various parts of the world but that does not mean that it is not proper worship.

Also, are you saying that we have a tendancy to think that the look and sound and smell of the worship that we are most comfortable with must also be the best?
 
It doesn't matter who we are. One always has the decided tendency to think they are right, even if they're not.

Their are many issues I'm convinced I'm right about, but I'm perfectly willing to be proven wrong. It's when one won't admit that they're wrong that we have a problem.

When it comes to worship it's the same way. Our hearts need to be open to what God is telling us in the Scriptures and be willing to change to suit that. No one this side of heaven is going to have everything right.
 
Last edited:
Ok, I think I need to clarify somethings today... I have already said some of this but some maybe speed read through some of it...... I will try to simplify....

The Regulative Worship consist of Elements and Circumstances.. Elements are acts of worship that God Prescribes (I tend to have a few more then some), and Circumstances that are Non acts of worship to human ordering.. But I believe Cirsumstances are Non Cultural and should be judged in the best way possible.. In the Light of Nature.. Good Prudance, or Common Sense... If one gets a Circumstance wrong he is not sinning, but may be illogical, or not good prudance.

Elements Consist of: (Note I hold to a Few more then some)

1. Preaching of the Word of God
2. Reading and hearing the Word of God
3. Singing Psalms
4. Prayer
5. Baptism
6. Lord's Supper
7. Oaths and Vows
8. Decorum (Headcovering for Ladies)
9. Gestures in Worship (Praying kneeling or standing, etc)

Occasional

10. Fasting with Solemn Humilation
11. Days of Thanksgiving

All of the above are acts of Worship in other words Elements and must be govern by the RPW


Circumstances may consist of the following:

Pews vs. Chairs
Lights
Heating
Microphone
Speakers
Carpet
Style of Building
Clerical Robes
etc..


I do believe that Circumstances need to be in Good prudance and judged fairly not based on Culture... What would be Common Sense.. Surely not a Theatre style or a CEO headquarters......

Finally... One other clarification... It is my belief that only one thing should cultural affect worship and that is language... but I qualify this by saying that language should never be dumbed down and we should always hold the bar high in the language area...
 
Donald and Ken: Amen! The question modern semi Arminians trip over is "does your action/praise band/drama/over the top Sunday show glorify God or Man? The same logic can apply to adherence to the RPW: who is glorified?
 
Finally... One other clarification... It is my belief that only one thing should cultural affect worship and that is language... but I qualify this by saying that language should never be dumbed down and we should always hold the bar high in the language area...

I think I'm only pointing out minutia for the sake of the argument here. For the most part, I agree with your assessment. I don't even think this relates to the OP very much, but here it goes. I hope I don't come off as argumentative, because that's not my intention. I'm appreciating the discussion here, but this will likely be my final statement as I don't have a conclusive position of my own on all of this.

I still think you are overlooking the fact that even the elements themselves will be presented in a culture wrapped package. How are you going to prevent head coverings from being culturally conditioned? Is there a Biblical description of these somewhere? Granting head coverings as an element for the sake of argument, how do you distinguish between a woman wearing a straw hat and a woman wearing a habit? Which is more appropriate? Is it wrong to let the common fashion of the day decide which covering a woman wears? Again, I agree with your statements on good prudence and common sense.

You've allowed for language, however, you'd be hard pressed to determine what constitutes "setting the bar high" in the realm of language. Some English speakers might say King James English (which was once common usage). Is this practical? Should my black pastor from small town Virginia be expected to speak with the same style and delivery as Dr. Derick Thomas, who grew up in Wales? I'm not trying to deny the value of words having real meanings, but we have to understand that human language is limited and culturally colored. Even our prayers will be culturally colored. Thankfully, it is the Spirit who intercedes on behalf of us in prayer (and I don't mean that as license). We have been given models by which to pray in scripture, but the exact wording is variable, and some of that is going to come from culture.

Again, EP makes things a little bit easier to determine from a music standpoint than a viewpoint of hymns being acceptable in public worship. However, the interpretation of the Psalms into meter (again, the language issue will come into play) and the tune structure itself will not just come out of a vacuum.

In short, I really think all I'm getting at is that there is a difference between things being wrong because they are a product of a certain culture, and things being wrong because they do not follow from good prudence or are in themselves sinful. I guess one other thing I am thinking is that we tend to judge things as right or wrong simply based on if they are tied to a culture, rather than on their intrinsic merits.

All this to say, I agree with what others have said about the necessity for submission to the explicit commands of Scripture first, while allowing leeway in places where we do not have Biblical authority to bind the conscience.
 
Last edited:
Brad,

I to am appreciating this thread.. Allow me to answer your lingering questions in your post to the best of my human possible mind.. ;)

Head coverings. Not that I want this to turn into a thread on headcoverings but I will answer your question briefy and move on... Your right there is no mention in scripture what the covering looks like or what it should be like aleast at first glance... But I believe the Greek word itself gives us aleast some understanding of the covering.. It should cover the hair.. The crown of the head where the hair is. Those who wear a little dolley the size of my palm of my hand is not wearing a headcovering.. It is a veil the covers the hair, not a hat.. I also believe it should be a religious symbol that does not conform to the world or used as a circumstanal headgear.. i.e. Using a hat to keep the head warm on a cold day.. An Example of this would be the Amish.. Their woman have prayer coverings on all the time but the Bonnet is used for outside cold days headgear... Though they would require uniformity on both and going to far... I believe they should be simple and unadorning as is required for modesty and not drawing oneself to much attention...

As for pattern and color, other then the forementioned simple and unadorning I believe there is leeway but should not be cultural derived... after all we are called not to conform to the World..

You mentioned Tunes... Well I believe Music (Melody, Rythmn, and Harmony) are moral or immoral depending on all they are composed and should never be culturally derived.... Christians should compose God honoring music to their best ability.. As for Tunes, for me aleast since I am EP if the above requirement is met for moralness then the tune should also fit the mood and flow of the Psalm and should be majestic and lofty in the words of Calvin...

As for Language.. I am no language expert... Bible versions I use the Geneva Version of 1599, or The New King James... I happen to like the Old King James language ALOT but I am not a KJV only though I would define myself as a Received Text man... It is my understanding that the Old King James is the Highest quality for Language.... Anyway for the setting of the bar high I will leave that for the language experts, accept with this last to say... Let us not dumb down words like Santification, Justification, Propitation, Obliation, Mortification, Glorification, etc.. Lets teach these words to the masses regardless of the Christianity light that is going on today... We need generations that know what these words mean and use them...

Coram Deo,
Michael


I think I'm only pointing out minutia for the sake of the argument here. For the most part, I agree with your assessment. I don't even think this relates to the OP very much, but here it goes. I hope I don't come off as argumentative, because that's not my intention. I'm appreciating the discussion here, but this will likely be my final statement as I don't have a conclusive position of my own on all of this.

I still think you are overlooking the fact that even the elements themselves will be presented in a culture wrapped package. How are you going to prevent head coverings from being culturally conditioned? Is there a Biblical description of these somewhere? Granting head coverings as an element for the sake of argument, how do you distinguish between a woman wearing a straw hat and a woman wearing a habit? Which is more appropriate? Is it wrong to let the common fashion of the day decide which covering a woman wears? Again, I agree with your statements on good prudence and common sense.

You've allowed for language, however, you'd be hard pressed to determine what constitutes "setting the bar high" in the realm of language. Some English speakers might say King James English (which was once common usage). Is this practical? Should my black pastor from small town Virginia be expected to speak with the same style and delivery as Dr. Derick Thomas, who grew up in Wales? I'm not trying to deny the value of words having real meanings, but we have to understand that human language is limited and culturally colored. Even our prayers will be culturally colored. Thankfully, it is the Spirit who intercedes on behalf of us in prayer (and I don't mean that as license). We have been given models by which to pray in scripture, but the exact wording is variable, and some of that is going to come from culture.

Again, EP makes things a little bit easier to determine from a music standpoint than a viewpoint of hymns being acceptable in public worship. However, the interpretation of the Psalms into meter (again, the language issue will come into play) and the tune structure itself will not just come out of a vacuum.

In short, I really think all I'm getting at is that there is a difference between things being wrong because they are a product of a certain culture, and things being wrong because they do not follow from good prudence or are in themselves sinful. I guess one other thing I am thinking is that we tend to judge things as right or wrong simply based on if they are tied to a culture, rather than on their intrinsic merits.

All this to say, I agree with what others have said about the necessity for submission to the explicit commands of Scripture first, while allowing leeway in places where we do not have Biblical authority to bind the conscience.
 
In the realm of circumstances like dress and headcovering no one (I think) is saying that Africans and Asians have to dress in puritan garb or wear a certain kind of hat. The principle is respectful and God honoring dress. So whatever is considered respectable dress for the solemn occasion in that country would most likely be appropriate. For half naked type cultures it would be a gradual learning process I would imagine.

For hats, short of it being and animal head or some other hideous thing, whatever is a cover is fine. The scriptures actually say "power on her head." This is one of those occasions where the sign is less important that the thing signified. So something tasteful on the head would be honoring the principle of the sign on her head that she is in submission to God's creative order.

The circumstances be they chairs/pews, cathedral/hut, etc etc are changeable as long as they are respectable and God honoring and serve the purpose to make the elements possible. What is not negotiable are the elements being present and in good order.
 
Elements Consist of: (Note I hold to a Few more then some)

1. Preaching of the Word of God
2. Reading and hearing the Word of God
3. Singing Psalms
4. Prayer
5. Baptism
6. Lord's Supper
7. Oaths and Vows
8. Decorum (Headcovering for Ladies)
9. Gestures in Worship (Praying kneeling or standing, etc)

Are you saying that you believe the RPW demands certain gestures? :um:
 
I would say yes....

Examples of prayers in the scripture is Mostly Kneeling or standing, and Prostration for Private Worship....

You will find no sitting in prayer...

Gestures are a form of worship, If I kneel and pray that is worshipping or if I prostrate myself in front of the Lord that is worship.. So yes it is worship and since I believe in Sola Scriptura and the RPW I will only do the gestures that are in scripture......

Also to get back to the heart of this thread the lifting up of holy hands is a gesture that should be done only during prayer by either every man in the church together or by the elder of the church by exampled in scripture.....

Michael


Are you saying that you believe the RPW demands certain gestures? :um:
 
1. Tie - is something that is consider best dressed, but I do not always wear a tie, Sometimes I wear a collarless dress shirt that you see sometimes among the mennonites... :wave:

According to whose culture ? What about people that don't wear ties and only have one set of clothes ?

2. songbook - We use the Psalter, book of the bible.. non cultural..

What system of music are the melodies you sing based off of ? Western or Eastern (and there is a huge difference).

4. Standing still while singing - What are we suppose to do, the body wave... hehe (I have seen that at my cousins church, the bums bouncing and waving) Serious though, Singing is with the voice, not with the body....

According to who ? Again, I'm a music teacher, so I'd markedly disagree with your statement, having taught gospel choirs in both churches I've been a member of for multiple years, as well as singing with classically trained folks and teaching concert chorus for 4 years.

5. Prayer - Our pastor lifts up holy hands during prayer.. exampled in scripture... if I was to do it every man should do it too together.. another example in scripture... I will not cause disorder by raising my hands while prayer and drawing attention to me also since there is no examples in scripture of raising holy hands alone in public worship..

Motive, motive, motive. And for the record, I don't have a problem with group 'lifting of hands'. If you are raising your hands to draw attention to yourself - well, several problems arise. If the people praying are truly focused on God, no one will care if your hands are lifted or not because their heads will be bowed in prayer. Second, if you lifting your hands is to draw attention to yourself, the problem would be you.

7. professionally printed bulletin - I hate these with a passion and will NOT take one....

Why ? Just curious.

I know the order of the worship and I can wait for the psalm to be announced, but I would not mind if a sign up front gave psalm numbers in order....

Depending on the church, a bulletin would serve that purpose. AND it gives you something to take notes on (assuming you've used up all the blank pages in the back of your bible and didn't bring a notepad) and refer back to later in the week.

I think announcments before the call of worship or anytime in worship and printed bulletins that people read before or during the service are unneed and wrong.... I will not take one...

Since they have to do with the corporate body gathered together (acts 2) and refer (most of the time, depending on the church) to 'family business', why would they be wrong ?

8 - Pews transcends worldly culture... No other place is the pew used except in church... I vote for Pews...

Show me a pew in scripture. :lol:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top