Scandal of pagans leading worship

[jogri17]

That is why Churches ought to have a policy of not permitting members of either their local Church to do certain activities. It makes them legally safe and prevents those awkward conversations with those who want to participate but should not because they have not made a (credible) profession of faith.

 

[Jack K]

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

What I'm discussing has moved somewhat away from the original idea of paid musicians (which I'm not fond of) to the larger and related topic of unbelievers' participation in worship in general. To what extent do we invite them to participate if they want to? Does it extend to being part of a designated praise team?

Of course, if (1) you do say they may fully participate as musicians and (2) you usually pay your musicians... well, then things get sticky.

---------- Post added at 09:46 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:42 AM ----------

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

Exactly. To me, the first scenario is more troublesome than the second, although the second still requires a measure of wisdom both in terms of protecting the purity of worship and pastoral care toward the seeker.

 

[raekwon]

That is why Churches ought to have a policy of not permitting members of either their local Church to do certain activities. It makes them legally safe and prevents those awkward conversations with those who want to participate but should not because they have not made a (credible) profession of faith.

I can't think of any church that doesn't have such policies. Whether or not this particular activity falls into those policies is another matter.

 

[kvanlaan]

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

Been there. Toronto is much the same. As others have more eloquently said before me, inviting unbelievers to church is a far cry from hiring them to make music to the Lord for a paycheque.

The quality and beauty of the production pleases believers and unbelievers alike.

Not relevant. Worship is not horizontal, it is vertical. That's also why in most Dutch reformed churches (and perhaps others, I can only speak from experience in the Dutch ones) we do not clap for a choir or other "special" music in those places that have it. It is not for our entertainment, it is worship.

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

Yep, yep, yep.

 

[Bradwardine]

Reflecting on the position within my denomination until a few years ago (when praise groups with a variety of instruments became accepted) - was that the only instrument available to lead worship was a pipe organ. Organists were paid a fee for playing. Given the paucity of available people who could play the organ, the spiritual commitment of organists was variable (perhaps not so much that they were overt unbelievers but although nominally church members their spiritual state was at least open to question). The reality no doubt was (?is) that a congregation would prefer singing with an organ that was played well (whatever the spiritual state of the organist) and an organ played badly by a committed believer.

With the acceptance of a greater variety of instruments (and in our church context not paid a fee), there is more opportunity to use only believers - although I would admit that in our church we seek to encourage the musical talents of youngsters which means that people will play who have not made a public profession of faith (but are at lest not openly antagonistic to the Gospel).

 

[seajayrice]

Example might be a church that regularly hires a full orchestra to play Handel’s Messiah for an annual Christmas service. The quality and beauty of the production pleases believers and unbelievers alike. Believers and unbelievers from the community flood the sanctuary every year as a result.

Besides the fact that it's all unauthorized in the first place, if we should do things because "believers and unbelievers alike [are pleased by it,]" then it might as well be thrown away. Worship is first, foremost, and supremely to the Triune God Who alone is worthy of worship. His people might benefit from it, but that is never the goal, never the directive, and never the end in mind. Worship is not for the worshipers, it is for the Lord God of the Scriptures. This is why we should do it the way He commanded and not the way we think He'd like it. Inviting unbelievers to church is far cry different from hiring them to take part in "worship leading," whatever that is.

Allow me to clarify; the example presumes the Believers pleasure is for all the right reasons.

 

[Reformed Roman]

This smells like the seeker sensitive movement to me. At least partially. Hire the better musician because he will sound better, which will make the congregation happier (not God)

 

[bradofshaw]

Not to turn this completely into a Tim Keller thing, but his reasoning is breathtakingly faulty. From the Worship by the Book Excerpt linked in the article:

We retain the services of the best musicians we can find just as we do the best counselors, preachers, and educators we can find.

That includes believers and non-believers. Surely he is aware that there are many talented Christian musicians of all variety around the world who would gladly take a permanent paying gig leading worship in New York City. For a church of Redeemer's size and profile (not to mention wealth), there is no excuse for them to resort to paying unbelievers to take part in any part of their worship. Even if he believes it is permissible, why risk the appearance of evil? I would venture that he would not pay the best secular educators he could find to teach Sunday School at his church, no matter how gifted they may be due to God's common grace.

 

[interalia]

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

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

Considering the growth of our denomination, it would probably be the other way around!

 

[Edward]

Considering the growth of our denomination, it would probably be the other way around!

I have read that the PCA just picked up one of the founding churches in the EPC - Knox Presbyterian in Harrison Township, MI. (Their "About Us" page still shows them as EPC, however).

 

[Contra_Mundum]

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

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

Considering the growth of our denomination, it would probably be the other way around!

Not my horse-race, brother. But I'll put my money on the bob-tailed nag/ Somebody (you) bet on the bay.

Maybe it'll be more of a "marriage" for the PCA this time, the EPCA. Previously they just absorbed everything in sight: aka The Pseudopod Church of America