Christianity, Religion and Philosophy, Episode V!

[220chrisTian]

Fencer: excellent analysis and rebuttal! We have to be really careful when we hear a pastor, or anyone in a leadership position, say something that may be contrary to the Word, intentional or not. We have to keep our spiritual ears open!

I still remember a Christian university chapel pastor's sermon 10-11 years ago. And every time I think about it I get angry. He said sometimes God makes mistakes. His example? God giving King Hezekiah another 15 years to live [2 Kings 20]. Why? 1. Hezekiah showed the Babylonians his treasures [they were later carried to Babylon]. 2. His son Manasseh, born during that 15-year period, was a bad king [2 Kings 21]. My response? I had a perfect rebuttal but I didn't give it. 1. God never makes mistakes! And He never changes! 2. It was God's will for Babylon to raid Jerusalem and carry off the Israelites as captives. They needed to be humbled for their continued and blatant idolatry! 3. Manasseh repented and made a spiritual u-turn! He's probably in heaven right now! [2 Chronicles 33:12-19] 4. If Hezekiah hadn't lived an extra 15 years, who would have succeeded him on the throne? What would have happened to Jesus' genealogy?! [Matthew 1:10]

A few weeks ago, a songleader in my youth group prayed He would be "giddy for Jesus," like the way we act with a new girlfriend or boyfriend. I told him our relationship with Jesus isn't like this at all. But he didn't get it...

Btw, I'd like members' thoughts on my Song of Solomon post...

[Gandalfs Beard]

Oops. I forgot to check the notification box when I posted last, and now I’m a little behind .

Doc, your points regarding Osteen were intriguing, but I particularly liked the broader discussion of Individualism vs. Collectivism (and your using of the Garden song to make your point). I found myself viscerally agreeing with Dig’s response to you because I lean to a personal relationship with the Divine myself. But your reply to Dig really grabbed me, because you nailed my Intellectual approach to the apparent Dichotomy.

My Monist point of view leads me to see the One and the Many as existing simultaneously, each within the other. This seems to echo your view that God has both a personal and collective relationship with us, and that one can’t exist without the other.

Where we mainly differ is that I also have a Gnostic/Pagan/Hindu view that Divinity is shared between the One and the Many. Whereas, the Mainstream Christian view is that only the Holy Trinity is Divine (though that too echoes the Monist principle as I have discussed with TBG in the past).

I also find myself agreeing with your interpretation of the Song of Solomon. It’s not often that I think that a Biblical passage should be taken literally . It must be the Pagan in me :lol: . But seriously, the passage is clearly intended as an ode to Passion first; and other interpretations, while valid in their own way, seem secondary to me. There are indeed some graphic passages that make little sense ecclesiastically. Ick indeed (unless one is into…ummm…group activities. But that is a little too Pagan, even for me ).

I still seem to be glitching and losing posts so I am pasting from my Word program. If a Mod has any advice on this score please drop me a line.

GB

[Dr Elwin Ransom]

What, Beard? No "live long and prosper"? I am crestfallen. ...

Meanwhile, if you're losing posts, I'm not sure what forum glitch could be causing that, but you could post in the Growing Pains thread here in the Spare Oom. Until that may be resolved, here's another suggestion: if you're using Firefox, I would recommend getting the Lazarus plugin. It's saved me a lot of times and frustration several times by keeping a backlog of anything you've most recently typed in a form!

Good to hear we kinda-sorta-quasi agree on the concept about God balancing His personal and collective relationships with His people. One thing that also needs to be said here is that for the Christian, God does not need relationships with human beings. He was perfectly content with the fellowship of Himself before creation; the idea I recently rediscovered existed in its most potent form that "the one thing God needs is to be loved, so He created people" is wrong and un-Biblical. As not only One but Three, God always had perfect fellowship with Himself. It was for His glory, somehow -- not because He needed to be loved -- that He initiated creation.

Now, although personal salvation and a relationship with Him is vital, nay essential, to be saved, He works the building of His kingdom not just through individuals, but through His organized, visible, Church.

So there it is again: God, One and yet Three; and the Church, made up of individuals, yet a single organism.

Further exploration could come if that perspective is contrasted with the Devil's way of doing things. I've long been fascinated by C.S. Lewis's supposition in The Screwtape Letters that demons want to consume things -- lacking any regard for the individual, the Devil's ultimate aim is to "devour" sinners and in effect assimilate them into his own. Shades of "Resistance is futile," perhaps? "Or "You will be upgraded"? I think that's partly the reason why Star Trek's Borg or the Cybermen from Doctor Who are so scary: they not only want to kill their enemies, but murder their individuality and turn them into mindless slaves.

I wrote more about this in a column three years ago, in which I included what seemed the most relevant Screwtape quote about it:

To us a human is primarily good; our aim is the absorption of its will into ours, the increase of our own area of selfhood at its expense. But the obedience which the Enemy demands of men is quite a different thing. One must face the fact that all the talk about His love for men, and His service being perfect freedom, is not (as one would gladly believe) mere propaganda, but an appalling truth. He really does want to fill the universe with a lot of loathsome little replicas of Himself—creatures, whose life, on its miniature scale, will be qualitatively like His own, not because He has absorbed them but because their wills freely conform to His. We want cattle who can finally become food; He wants servants who can finally become sons. We want to suck in, He wants to give out. We are empty and would be filled; He is full and flows over. Our war aim is a world in which Our Father Below has drawn all other beings into himself: the Enemy wants a world full of beings united to Him but still distinct.

[. . .]

Merely to over-ride a human will (as His felt presence in any but the faintest and most mitigated degree would certainly do) would be for Him useless. He cannot ravish. He can only woo. For His ignoble idea is to eat the cake and have it; the creatures are to be one with Him, but yet themselves; merely to cancel them, or assimilate them, will not serve.

(By the way, Focus on the Family Radio Theatre's The Screwtape Letters audio dramatization is releasing Oct. 15 -- and you'll never guess which actor is in the lead role! )



220chrisTian, I'll have more thoughts about the Song of Solomon to offer later; I didn't mean to ignore you. Overall I agreed with what you said, but mostly to the extent that any marriage and the special love therein is a mimicking, an echo, of the greater reality of Christ's love for His Church. Before applying the parallels to His love for individual people -- and I'm not saying I wouldn't at all -- I would apply them to His love for His Church. That's because the Scriptural analogy made of Christ's "romantic" (if I dare use the word) love is not for individuals, but for the Church. (Notice I didn't say He doesn't love people, but I would hesitate to say "Christ loving you personally is a parallel to marriage.")

Also, it seems even more true that by applying the ideals of the Song of Solomon to one's relationships, whether one is single or especially married, can show better than tell the matchless love of Christ for the "Bride" He died to redeem and make pure with His blood (Ephesians 5: 22-33).



Finally, back to Pattertwigs Pal and the need to compare everything with the Word.

Again, Fencer had some awesome things to say, and along with you I have been learning more (from other teachers and books as well as the apparently incomparable Todd Friel of "Wretched Radio" fame) how to "rightly divide the Word of truth" from that which is vain speculation, un-Biblical beliefs or even heretical notions (which call salvation into question) by some Christians.

Pal, I'm not sure what kind of church you attend, but it sounds like the guy you described has clearly bought into a lot of postmodern-style nonsense about God's Word, what humility is and how we present what we're thinking about it. This kind of thing is unfortunately growing even in the evangelical world. Might I offer some point-by-point explanations?

Now, I’ll be the first to admit that I could be wrong about all of this.

This is a Brian McLaren-style (he's an "emergent church" writer) trick to try taking the wind out of your opponent's sails. Frankly, if he's that uncertain about something so essential, he ought not be a pastor. Pastors are not called to be people who get up and express this kind of uncertainty. Where Scripture is unclear, they ought not have a firm opinion (for example, on whether it's okay to represent Jesus in visual form, or whether Christians can drink alcohol in moderation). But in matters so essential to faith and practice, real pastors should preach the Word -- not offer questionable-at-best speculations and then try to "cheat" by saying demurely "of course, I could be wrong."

My brothers and sisters who read the Bible differently than me could be the ones who have it right.

They are -- because as Fencer said, the "I read the Bible this way" introduction is a dead giveaway (I'm glad he gave himself away; some others would not). That is his own interpretation, but it can be shown according to rules of hermeneutics (Biblical reading comprehension) and plain understanding of not only the original languages but plain English, that his "interpretation" is flagrantly wrong. And this isn't about things requiring more "wiggle room," such as end-times views, or even maybe what method works for baptism. Something so crucial to Christianity as the reality of sin and conviction under Law is not just a "different reading." It's the reading. And it's not arrogant to say this is the only way, because we didn't make this up; God has revealed it.

And if they are I pray God will give me the eyes to see and the ears to hear the truth I’m missing.

I would pray the same. But I also hope someone will go to this person and say -- this may sound harsh at first -- he needs to step down from leadership until he gets this figured out. And to figure it out, he needs to re-learn simple principles of Biblical hermeneutics and not wander so far from truth. Pastors should be genuine about the areas where they are uncertain, yes, but not be so weak and un-Biblical about a truth so foundational to the Bible's main message.

When it comes to the will of God, I don’t presume to have all the answers. That’s why we need each other; we always need people around us who think about things in a different way than we do.

This is a common "emergent"/postmodern trick: acting as though anyone who claims to have the answer is arrogant or also claiming to have "all the answers." It's a false dichotomy and a straw-man. Christians who say they do have some of the answers about Who God is, answers gained from the Word, aren't being arrogant or allowing God no room to be mysterious. They are being Biblical. And this is the truly humble approach. What is arrogant is to put our own opinions above God's Word and pretend this is real humility.

As for needing diversity of opinions around: that could be important in non-salvific matters (beliefs that don't affect whether a person is truly a Christian). That can include end-times beliefs, even baptism. For example, an organization like Together for the Gospel includes teachers from different denominations: Presbyterian (such as R.C. Sproul), Baptist (Al Mohler, Mark Dever), and sort-of-charismatic Reformed (C.J. Mahaney). But they all believe the same in the one area it matters: the Gospel. And no one in Scripture ever allowed those who disbelieved the Gospel to be in church membership, much less lead a church as a pastor.

We need people who can challenge our assumptions and question our logic so that we don’t make God into an image of our own limited design. God is much bigger than any of us can imagine and it is only in our diversity of thought that we can keep from putting God in a box.

Ah, the dreaded "don't put God in a box." So if I said "God sometimes makes mistakes," as 220chrisTian said she once heard someone say, and you had issues with that, would that be "putting God in a box"? What if I said, "God may be a girl," and you complained -- wouldn't you be "putting God in a box"? Perhaps if someone thinks having certain specific characteristics and not others is "limiting," such as being omnipotent, truthful, loving yet righteous, then yes, we have limited God in these ways. But actually, He has "limited" Himself by revealing parts of what He is like and what He has done -- in the Bible.

We always need to be humble enough to acknowledge the possibility that we could be wrong so that we can really hear what God wants us to hear.

(In the voice of Maxwell Smart, agent 86): "The ollld pretend-you're-humble-so-they-can't-touch-you trick!"

I have to close and get ready for church this Sunday morning, but here's a bit more I wrote about The Old False Humility Trick, specifically in response to the same ploy (however well-intended) taken by the guy who wrote the book The Shack:

Some people, especially in postmodern-influenced Western civ, seem to think that just because we don’t know everything about God, that means we can’t know anything for sure. Furthermore, this seems to them the more humble way to approach understanding God; they claim that anyone who says “this is what God is like” is therefore claiming to have God “all figured out” — a rather simplistic and straw-man attempt.

But that is another false dichotomy. God is infinite and ultimately not able to be fully understood. But He has revealed parts of Himself in the Word, in which He has said, repeatedly, that He is, in fact, a He.

Therefore, God is not a “complete mystery,” and there are parts of Him that we have figured out — though not because of anything we have done, but because we have been blessed to receive His written revelation about Himself in His Word.

How, then, could it be construed as “humility” to ignore what He has said, in favor of our own views? I might as well fail to acknowledge or even read what you have said, because then I might actually think I could understand your views and that would be “arrogant.” No, instead it would be arrogant for me to ignore your written words and decide that I, and some of my friends in a “conversation,” could figure out your views and your nature on our own — though perhaps we might say that we have high regard for your own words about, well, yourself.

No, true humility is achieved when we’re not thinking about ourselves and our own humility (which always backfires — “By Jove, I’m being humble!” as C.S. Lewis wrote). Instead, we’re focusing on God and what He has told us about Himself. We haven’t deciphered His “code” on our own; everything we have is what He has given us. It is all from Him, from His Grace, and for His glory.

This is what will keep us truly humble and dependent on Him — not closing our eyes and ears to what He has said and thus elevating our own views about Him above His own Word about Himself.

(Edited here and there for clarity.)

[FencerforJesus]

Excellent response Dr. Ranson. There is something else I want to add. For my birthday back in June, my parents gave me a DVD collection of Louie Giglio's Passion Talks. I didn't get the chance to get into them until yesterday and I wish I hadn't waited as long. In two of the four videos, Giglio goes into the astronomy and biology of creation and the sheer numbers alone point directly to the glory of God. He uses what we see everyday, takes the Bible for what it says, (in this case, "The heavens declare the glory of God") and makes awesome comparisons. What is even more awesome are at the end of the two videos. The center of Canis Major, the largest star we have yet to find has a gigantic X, which from the Hubble's POV, appears like a cross. Also, laminin, the protien that essentially acts as the glue to make every cell do what it does is also shaped as a cross. That is pure God-design and seeing that has blown me away.

The other two video have something I learned at an Intervarsity retreat back in May: the power of the Testimony. A speaker needs to be real with his/her audience. Talking about the theory is one thing. To see in action is something else. Giglio kept refering back to a young college girl who came to Christ through a roommate who had attended on of his events. The roommate used the videos I mentioned above as a witnessing tool and Giglio ended up with a ministry relationship with her. Just a few months later, the student was killed in a car wreck and God has been using Giglio to witness to the student's athiestic father.

One of the thing Giglio mentions in his third video on Hope, is that he has a blog and he posted something that was purely theology. He got one response. He posted this student's e-mail to him (with her permission) and got hundreds of responses. And at the Intervarsity retreat, the speaker frequently uses life stories to illustrate the point and I could relate. I could truly not only understand where he was coming from but also see how that could apply to me as well.

The Testimony is very powerful weapon in spiritual warfare (Revelation 12:11). What makes it so strong is that no one can refute it. It's your story. You were there. Only you can tell it as it happened. When a pastor/speaker shares a Testimony, they are being real with their audience. I personally believe that Testimonies are not being used often enough, and unfortunately a big reason behind that is that a lot of people think they don't have a good enough one to share. When we think of Testimonies, we think of time of conversion, the time we came to Christ. That's only a part of it. A Testimony can be how did God get you out of this situation, or how did God provide when you had this need. Everyone has one of these stories or more.

But that being said, Testimonies alone won't be enough. People need to the Word directly. But a Testimony can be used to illustrate how a passage has been applied. The feeding of the 5,000 is a passage in all four Gospels. People can debate if that happened or not. But I do have a Testimony in how that miracle happened right before my eyes. That is proof that the things God did back in the days of the Bible, he still does today. And what is also cool about the Testimony is that it is all about God. We can't do it ourselves and the Testimony shows how God lifted us out of our situation. When looking at a verse or passage, a Testimony that relates can show God does what he is saying. I am not trying to knock the theoretical part of theology, because without the theory, we have no basis for how to be practical. But we can't be just theoretical. Knowing the Bible is absolutely crucial to the survival of a Christian. But knowing the Bible alone isn't enough. We need to live it. Knowing that Jesus died and rose again is straight out fact. Living that, (having Jesus in your life) is so much more. I hope I was clear on that.

[Pattertwigs Pal]

Pal, I'm not sure what kind of church you attend, but it sounds like the guy you described has clearly bought into a lot of postmodern-style nonsense about God's Word, what humility is and how we present what we're thinking about it. This kind of thing is unfortunately growing even in the evangelical world. Might I offer some point-by-point explanations?

I attend a Lutheran church (ELCA). Thank you so much for your point-by-point explanations. I knew there was something that really bothered me about the second part I posted (I took the quotes from the church's website, where he had posted the whole thing), but I had a hard time verbalizing what it was. Frankly, I was too angry about the whole thing to think straight. Your explanations make a lot of sense. I'm glad my instincts were correct.

[220chrisTian]

Pattertwig's Pal: I want to discuss your pastor's continued mention of "life."

And ever since, we have been consumed with knowing what is good and evil after God had long ago given up on it in favor of bringing life to the world. . . .
God doesn’t see it as a problem because the one and only thing God cares about is life and God will use even the most despicable characters there are to make sure that death doesn’t have its way. . . .He kept telling them stories about finding life; life within and life with God and life with others. . . .He wanted them to see that God isn’t worried anymore about what is right or wrong or about what’s good or bad, God’s only concern is for life in all its fullness. . . .The Bible is not a book about naming what is good and bad or what is right or wrong; it is ultimately a book about finding life; life within, life with God, and life with others.

Yes, God wants to give us life. BUT this life is IN AND ONLY IN His Son Jesus Christ! If God has to give us life, what's the implication? That we're dead! We're not inanimate spiritually. We're dead spiritually! And what killed us? SIN! God tells us over and over in His Word that sin = death. Genesis 2:17: "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” Ezekiel 18:4: "The soul who sins shall die." Romans 6:23: "For the wages of sin is death." Romans 7:9: "I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died." What happened in Eden? Romans 5:12: "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned." God burned into Israel's mind and heart that sin = death, and that purgation requires a blood sacrifice. This is why Jesus died. He became the perfect sacrifice for sin. And through Jesus alone we have LIFE.

Share this verse with your pastor, for it's the gospel in ONE sentence: "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord" [Romans 6:23, KJV]. And share this song: "He loved me with a cross."

EDIT

Btw, I'd like members' thoughts on my Song of Solomon post...

220chrisTian, I'll have more thoughts about the Song of Solomon to offer later; I didn't mean to ignore you.

I know you [and others] weren't ignoring me. I was drawing attention to myself. There's nothing Christian about that, is there? My motives were impure. And I sincerely apologize.

Before applying the parallels to His love for individual people -- and I'm not saying I wouldn't at all -- I would apply them to His love for His Church. That's because the Scriptural analogy made of Christ's "romantic" (if I dare use the word) love is not for individuals, but for the Church. (Notice I didn't say He doesn't love people, but I would hesitate to say "Christ loving you personally is a parallel to marriage.")

Good point. But I still remember something I read the other day, in Handfuls on Purpose. The writer said "Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth" [SoS 1:2] is personal. We must have personal contact with Jesus. Conversion is individual. And he made a rather strange parallel, saying God spiritually "kissed" Adam when He breathed life into him in Eden. I'm not sure what to think about that. But I know what he means by personal contact.

As not only One but Three, God always had perfect fellowship with Himself. It was for His glory, somehow -- not because He needed to be loved -- that He initiated creation.

Good point. I think God created the family as a reflection of the Trinity. And the Church is the same. As a living organism, the redeemed church is the "family of God," is it not?

Christians who say they have the answers about Who God is, answers gained from the Word, aren't being arrogant or allowing God no room to be mysterious. They are being Biblical. And this is the truly humble approach. What is arrogant is to put our own opinions above God's word and pretend this is real humility.

Amen! But explaining this to people who insist on tolerance above all else [Why is the Bible the "Word" when the Koran and other so-called "holy books" aren't? ] is a bit hard. Do you mind if I quote you on this in the future?

The Testimony is very powerful weapon in spiritual warfare (Revelation 12:11). What makes it so strong is that no one can refute it. It's your story. You were there. Only you can tell it as it happened. . . .But that being said, Testimonies alone won't be enough. People need to [go to?] the Word directly.

I agree! I've shared my testimony with others. My problem is when they accuse me of lying or try to find a scientific explanation. Of course, God works through science and medicine. But He can override it, too! Testimony + God's Word =

[stargazer]

I've enjoyed reading the discussion about Pattertwig's Pal's pastor's comments, and have a few additional thoughts to share.

First, it seems to me that this is a false dichotomy - yes, God is about life, but He's also about right and wrong, good and evil. How do we, as humans, know what is good or evil, and upon what do we base that judgment? Christians would say we base it on what God has said. God is inherently good - in a different context, Jesus stated that "No one is good except God alone" (Mark 10:18). Surely we would say that His goodness is an important part of His character. So to say He's "given up on it" seems incorrect.

I concede the above paragraph is rather ambiguous Scripturally. But a few other, more specific thoughts follow:

If you remember there were two trees that Adam and Eve were forbidden to eat from; the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and the tree of life. It is significant that the tree they found the most tempting, the fruit that seemed to them to be the most delicious was from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Actually, before the Fall, there was only one:

..."You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die." - Genesis 2:16b-17, ESV, emphasis added.

As the only forbidden fruit, of course it was tempting! The chocolate bar sitting on my computer desk is not a temptation, because I'm allowed to eat it. Similarly, since Adam and Eve were permitted to eat from the tree of life before they fell, it would not present a temptation.

The tree of life was guarded after they were exiled from the garden - as part of the Curse and because God knew that they would live forever in their sin should they eat of it:

Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever—" therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden to work the ground from which he was taken....at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim and a flaming sword that turned every way to guard the way to the tree of life. - Genesis 3:22-24

Some comments have already been made about Jesus' encounters with the Pharisees. The pastor made this rather remarkable statement:

[Jesus]even broke the law on occasion and did things that weren’t kosher to make his point.

This might seem like a nitpick, but Christ, in His own words, said he came not to break the law but fullfill it (Matthew 5:17, 18). In the Old Testament the law was seen as a way to righteousness - a 'tutor' to show us we can't make it on our own, without faith (Galatians 3:23-26). But Christ was tempted like us, but was without sin (Hebrews 4:15). So while He did things that may have violated those additions to the law others have already mentioned, or did things in ways unexpected by the legalistic leaders of the day, He didn't break the Law.

Lastly,

The early believers, as Jews, thought everyone who followed Jesus needed to be a Jew first. In their minds it was no good to be a gentile and, at the same time, a Christian....[Peter] remembered that Jesus was all about life and nothing else.

Paul addressed a similar topic in the book of Galatians - some people were arguing that Gentile converts had to adhere to Jewish rites to be accepted into the church. Paul's response is that salvation comes by faith in Christ rather than adherence to the law. In fact, this is the context of the quotation cited above, and is so significant a theme that a lot would be quoted here (the discourse begins in chapter 2 and lasts several chapters). So in Galatians, the issue is whether salvation comes through faith in Christ or faith in Christ plus the works of the law. Paul writes because some were adding to the gospel he'd previously preached (beginning at 1:6).

Hmmm, this didn't come out nearly as clearly as it was in my mind. Hopefully it's of some assistance.

(edited for clarity and to fix links)

[Mother-Music]

Someone I know well — let’s call him Elmer — recently ran up against this phenomenon. Elmer is a part-time music director at his church and recently tried to point the church members to more-Biblical standards of worship. Making music and singing to the Lord, especially for a special music performance (or presentation), should be done with similar standards for preaching a sermon or teaching a Sunday school class, Elmer tried to say. You ought not just get up there and not know if what you’re singing is Scriptural or not (and by the way, it’s not too good to get up there after not having even tried to practice).

But Elmer’s suggestions got shot down, because they were against the church’s status quo. Though it’s hard to know people’s hearts, it’s also hard not to avoid discerning the reason: mature Christians who should know better are still drinking spiritual milk, or spiritual baby food, and refusing to move on not only to new songs but to deeper and meatier knowledge of, delight in, and love for the Savior.

Elmer, eh, Dr. R? Makes me laugh…never knew I had an alter-ego…though I’ve been accused plenty of times for having an altar-ego.

Thanks for the consideration of changing the story details for privacy’s sake, and I’m sorry I couldn’t get over here sooner to comment on this topic.
Allow me to clarify the story, since it is mine. I apologize in advance for its extreme length.

I took the job of music director 3 years ago. From day 1, the pastor and I were on the same page as far as what we believed to be biblical corporate worship in music and song. The church is a very traditional Southern Gospel church. Order of Service hasn’t changed in the 20 years they’ve been in existence. 3 hymns, the offering, and Special Music. Almost the first problem I ran into when I inherited the job was the Special Music. I told the pastor up front that I would not beg people to sing…if they felt led of the Lord to bring encouragement to the Body through special music, they could come and let me know--I believe Scripture backs me up on this. I would occasionally mention that there was plenty of room and time for anyone to bring Special Music, but seldom did I get takers. Which meant that me, myself, and I did a lot of the Special Music. Which led to people thinking that I thought I was some kind of special someone and too proud of myself by half.

Recently, however, a member decided that he could handle the arranging of the Special Music better than I. I believe everyone has gifts that the Lord has given them to serve, and that if he wanted to give this a shot, it was a great idea. Only problem was the pastor and I had never sat down and wrote out the biblical principles upon which we base the music ministry at our church, so we felt we needed to do that to help this member have a set of guidelines to go by in encouraging others to share. Dutifully, I sat down and created a brochure containing these principles, the pastor glanced at it and vetted it, and we published it and presented it to the congregation.

Please forgive the length of this post, but the following is the text of the brochure…

“Worship is the submission of all our nature to God. It is the quickening of conscience by His holiness; the nourishment of mind with His truth; the purifying of imagination by His Beauty; the opening of the heart to His love; the surrender of will to His purpose – and all of this gathered up in adoration, the most selfless emotion of which our nature is capable and therefore the chief remedy for that self-centeredness which is our original sin and the source of all actual sin”. William Temple, 1881-1944, Readings in St. John’s Gospel.

This quote in such old-fashioned language goes a long way to explaining how we at ******Church strive to focus our music ministry.

Ephesians 5:19-21 and Colossians 3:16

These scriptures help Christians understand congregational worship in music. Among other things, they list the following important things:
• Music should be scriptural, based on the Word
• It should spiritually build up both the presenter and the congregation
• It should focus on God
• It should glorify God and be offered with gratefulness
Worship Standards
The following standards are based on the scriptures listed above.

Music performances should:
• Address the body for its spiritual education and encouragement with a goal of unified worship--to stir up affection toward God and the things of God in people’s hearts by the use of musical gifts.
• Relate to real life. The performer should be willing to verbally testify to how God has used this song in their life before it is performed.
• Work with songs which are scripturally based and scripturally accurate—The performance should inspire not only raised spirits, smiles, and/or applause, but a clearer understanding of why Jesus is so great and good.
• Be performed with passion, beauty, and clarity, having been carefully prepared in advance. A performer is taking the lead in worship, and therefore should have sincerity as well as ability and a heart committed to glorify God with the best they can offer.
• Take into account the diverse preferences of our congregation and extends the opportunity to the whole body of Christ at ******.

Following these concepts will result in:

New music being presented continually—old songs are certainly permitted, but the constant repeating of songs such as “In The Garden” and “Beulah Land” should be eliminated.
Our hope is new faces and new combinations of faces will appear in the line-up, and these faces should represent the age range and musical tastes of the entire church.
Any testimony or explanation the performer gives before singing should help the congregation understand the song and point to the scripture, doctrine, or concept, which it brings out.
The performance should show that the performer(s) have practiced and are familiar with the selection.
Lyrics of the songs presented should conform to scripture, either directly or in doctrine and concept and focus on our Lord and His attributes or on human sin and His salvation from it.
Any performance will be reviewed by the Music director or Pastor and coordinated with other performances (children’s choir or Hymn of the Month or special guests). Contact Music Director to schedule any performance.

Mind you, these are only a public statement of the standards the pastor and I were maintaining in our church music for the past 3 years…

Two weeks and a lot of heart ache and ranting later, the church has lost one deacon and at least another couple (we’re a very small assembly) because they felt we were being too exclusive. Further, the pastor felt it wise to take out the “trigger words” from the brochure. “Performance” and any similar term was changed to “presentation”. “old-fashioned” was taken out even though it did not refer to any person! Since people seemed determined to read the paragraph referring to the songs “Beulah Land” and “In The Garden” as saying that those songs were completely to be eliminated, it was changed to read “New music being presented continually—old songs are certainly permitted, but the constant repeating of songs should be limited.” Any mention of talent and ability was completely eliminated from the brochure.

I was told that since we can’t judge a person’s heart when they are making an “offering” to the Lord, we should not limit what they do as a public “worship offering” by setting up a standard that says somehow that people should refrain from attempting to operate in a gift that God hasn’t given them. That is “limiting” them.

Since I wanted to make sure that that was a biblically sound view of performing before a church congregation…that is, that it is an “offering to God” and one that is really between God and that individual and not to be judged or “limited” by others, I went back to the scriptures upon which the brochure was based.
Lo, and behold, I realized that there is nothing in those scriptures about making an offering! In fact, what applies are any scriptures that exhort concerning the public teaching of the Word, because that is what is being done during congregational music…

Colossians 3:16 makes this particularly clear: “16 Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God.”

Ephesians 5:19-21 says: “19 addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with your heart,
20 giving thanks always and for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,
21 submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ.”

The Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon says the following regarding the word “addressing”…
2980 ἀπολαλέω, λαλέω [laleo /lal•eh•o/] v. A prolonged form of an otherwise obsolete verb; TDNT 4:69; TDNTA 505; GK 654 and 3281; 296 occurrences; AV translates as “speak” 244 times, “say” 15 times, “tell” 12 times, “talk” 11 times, “preach” six times, “utter” four times, translated miscellaneously three times, and “vr speak” once. 1 to utter a voice or emit a sound. 2 to speak. 2A to use the tongue or the faculty of speech. 2B to utter articulate sounds. 3 to talk. 4 to utter, tell. 5 to use words in order to declare one’s mind and disclose one’s thoughts. 5A to speak.


My point is…when a person sings a hymn, song or spiritual song in the congregation, it is not considered a public “offering” to the Lord, but considered a “teaching”. If it were a public offering, that would cause us to have to apply the principles of offerings to God to them. These are very rigorous, being from the OT! Instead, they are teachings and admonishments, to inspire thankfulness to the Lord. Therefore, Scriptural principles concerning teaching of the Word apply.
I am, in fact, somewhat reluctant to refer to the music we do as a Body as “worship” at all. A study of the word in the NT never comes near mentioning music at all.

So…to bring this back to the specifics: how does “In The Garden” as public, congregational music stand up to Scriptural principles of teaching? (Note we are not talking about private music. What you sing/do there, is between you and God).

I do not see that it does. If anyone can show me differently, I'd be glad to consider their Scriptural evidence. I'd also be open to any corrections concerning the propriety of the brochure. Obviously it caused a huge controversy in my church, and I'm still somewhat baffled as to why--except that I have to conclude that these people that I really love and thought wanted to follow God as hard as they could really don't...and that's hard to swallow.

mm

[220chrisTian]

MM ... I want to know how you define "worship." Because my understanding of the word [what counts is the Hebrew and Greek, though ] is that everything we do that glorifies God is worship -- whether we sing to God, teach others through the Word and song, preach, study our Bibles, tell others about Jesus, pray, obey, tithe, etc. I don't care for the latter part of this video [after :40] but it demonstrates that worship is a lifestyle.

I love the first part of your church's worship bulletin! But I admit I have an aversion to both "performance" and "presentation." Because to me, neither is worship. Giving one's testimony in a sermon or song shouldn't be a performance. Praising God shouldn't be a performance. And I can usually tell the difference. Regarding music, compare Allison Durham Speer and Sandi Patti. Patti has a beautiful voice but she seems rather arrogant to me. Speer is never arrogant. She's humble. Speer's anointing and authenticity show she worships in the Spirit! Patti performs.

Speer [Please watch these videos! If this isn't worship, what is?!]
Upon this rock
I'm bound for that city
I will glory in the cross

Patti [I prefer #s 3-4 'cause they have Larnelle Harris]
Upon this rock
The majesty and glory of your name
More than wonderful
I've just seen Jesus
We shall behold Him

EDIT
@Pattertwig's Pal, pastor's bad sermon on life: Why did Jesus die? To save us from sin! He died for our sins!

But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him . . . and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all . . . and though the LORD makes his life a guilt offering. . . .By his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities. . . .For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

This is my blood of the[a] covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!

He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.

The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God.

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures. . . .For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.

God made him who had no sin to be sin[a] for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

So Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people.

He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed.

It's a lot of Bible quotes strung together, I know, but I think they make my point. Sin [and all disobedience is sin] kills. But Jesus gives life. How? He perfectly obeyed the law by becoming our sacrifice for sin.

Fencer: did you say Satan and 1/3 of the angels in heaven fell during the first week of creation? I thought this happened before Genesis 1:1. There's no description in the Bible of God creating cherubim and other heavenly beings. I thought this idea was from Milton's Paradise Lost.

[Dr Elwin Ransom]

220, that's a great point that everything we do in our life is worship -- including our vocations. (Something tells me Mother Music would strongly agree.) But I wonder if something done in our life that is either against God's standards of truth (such as breaking one of His laws) or even done poorly (if we could have done better and know it) could count as worship. That's more for the discussion, and not yet returning to the slightly related topic of Song of Solomon, which I hope to address soon ...

Anyway, it occurs to me to ask a rather incendiary question: with your view in mind about "performances" or "presentation," should the entire concept of "special music" be done away with altogether?

I'm neither agreeing or disagreeing with that conclusion, but I do agree with you that true worship should not be about either. However, I would contend that label aside, it's the heart of the performer/presenter that makes whatever is done a mere humans-focused "performances" or a more God-focused presentation. If we can't use either of those words, what could be used for what is done during "special music"? "Stuff Christians Like"? Argh, it's taken.

My church doesn't do "special music," but I'm not entirely against the idea. Clearly though, in this case, it's led to all kinds of issues.

In short, I think all of us would agree that worship is not really giving anything to God -- anything but gratitude and recognized glory for that which He has already given to us, if we are His people.

Recently I was reminded that this is true for any kind of work/ worship done as a Christian. A noted Minnesota pastor and author recently mentioned a 1995 column of his called Brothers, Tell Them Not to Serve God! Now, that's a rather incendiary and controversial-sounding title, so the whole piece must be read in order to understand what it really means. I believe its message has a lot of bearing on the discussion here, about what worship should be.

[220chrisTian]

That's a great point that everything we do in our life is worship -- including our vocations. (Something tells me Mother Music would strongly agree.) But I wonder if something done in our life that is either against God's standards of truth (such as breaking one of His laws) or even done poorly (if we could have done better and know it) could count as worship.

Good point. I don't think our disobedience or poor "performance" should be considered worship. My mom has a strong opinion on the latter. She expects excellence in worship: music, preaching of the Word, etc. Here's what I said:

everything we do that glorifies God is worship -- whether we sing to God, teach others through the Word and song, preach, study our Bibles, tell others about Jesus, pray, obey, tithe, etc.

We worship God when we glorify Him. And we glorify God when we do what pleases Him--when we set our minds and hearts on things above [Colossians 3:1-2], when we pray to God in faith, when we study and obey the Word, when we teach others to worship God, when we share Christ with unbelievers, when we encourage the body of Christ. And this is just the beginning!

Performance vs. presentation: I just don't care for the connotations of these words. What do you consider "special music"? A solo piece? A choral song? My church's choir sings every Sunday morning and many Sunday nights. On those evenings when they don't, a soloist or small group sings something. Sometimes they worship God and sometimes they don't... I guess we have special music all the time. It's a regular part of the service.

However, I would contend that label aside, it's the heart of the performer/presenter that makes whatever is done a mere humans-focused "performances" or a more God-focused presentation.

I agree! It's the heart of the person/s involved. And that's what makes people like Allison Durham Speer, Charles Billingsley, Alicia Williamson Garcia, and Lynda Randle -- just to name a few! -- special to me! Their pure heart for God shines through!

EDIT
@Pattertwig's Pal: have you listened to the "He loved me with a cross" link yet? The song is beautiful and I like the soloist but the speaker in the background is horrible. You can listen to what he says, if you want. But I'm just warning you.
1. He says "it's not about making you feel like a worm" = Check out Job 25:6 and Psalm 22:6 to see what I mean. There's a line in Isaac Watts' song "At the cross" that says "For such a worm as I."
2. At the very end, he says "there's a king in the house and nobody knows it and the king is you" = Jesus is the King! I'm His daughter! [Too much self-affirmation! It's almost like he's negating the song! ]

[FencerforJesus]

Fencer: did you say Satan and 1/3 of the angels in heaven fell during the first week of creation? I thought this happened before Genesis 1:1. There's no description in the Bible of God creating cherubim and other heavenly beings. I thought this idea was from Milton's Paradise Lost.

Before Genesis 1:1, there was God and God alone. There were no angels or demons or anything in the universe. Satan and his demons are created beings along with the angels and all of creation. What are the purposes of angels? To be God's messengers to man. That is what the name 'angel' means: 'messenger'. So to have messengers before any of creation doesn't make any sense. But even if angels were created beforehand, we know Satan's fall didn't occur until after creation. I do believe the Isaiah passage describes how Satan fell to the earth. Well, for him to fall to the earth, there has to be an earth for him to fall on to.

What we do know is that at creation, God created every planet, every star, and every living being. And when he finished he said it was good. The phrase good in God's terms means complete, perfect, unblemished. So how could Satan be called good at this time? The answer is simple. He hadn't fallen yet. Now we don't know how much time between Genesis 2 and 3 transpired. It could have been a few days, a few months, a few years, or perhaps thousands of years. We don't know. We just know the next time we hear from Adam and Eve, they are being tempted. So somewhere between an absolutely perfect creation and the Fall of man had to be when Satan made his rebellion.

I have heard theories (this is not necessarily fact) that Satan rebelled because man was made in God's image and was therefore superior to him. Satan, then known as Lucifer, was the #1 archangel. He was the Angel of Light, the ultimate angelic creation. And he got jealous that God was having an intimate relationship with Adam and Eve and not him. Remember this is just speculation and I simply consider it an interesting theory. Those who know my story about spiritual warfare from the summer of 07 will remember that I dealt with a demonic entity while trying to minister to a co-worker. In that encounter, I definately got the vibe of this things enmity and jealousy towards mankind. And on top of that, I can't remember the reference, but there is a passage (might be Revelation) that says that one day man will judge the actions of the angels. I don't know what that means, but it does give an extra angle and looking at why demons hate us so much. It will get your mind thinking.

[220chrisTian]

Before Genesis 1:1, there was God and God alone. There were no angels or demons or anything in the universe. Satan and his demons are created beings along with the angels and all of creation.

I will have to respond to your post on this later, but I just want to say that I disagree with this. I think when God "created the heavens and the earth" He created the universe, i.e. galaxies, planets. Do you really think heaven before creation was empty besides the Trinity?

I do believe the Isaiah passage describes how Satan fell to the earth. Well, for him to fall to the earth, there has to be an earth for him to fall on to.

I also think Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 refer to Satan, and his being cast out of heaven. But I still think this took place before Genesis 1:1. I don't think the idea of Satan's fall transpiring between Genesis 1 and 3 was considered in some circles until after Milton's Paradise Lost.

Okay...now some thoughts on the much-maligned "In the Garden" (1912). It was written by C. Austin Miles (1868-1946). I just wanted you to know the origin of the hymn as well as give others' thoughts on it, especially regarding the relationship between the believer and Christ.

Miles’ biography:

Miles at­tende­d the Phil­a­del­phia Coll­ege of Phar­ma­cy and the Un­i­ver­si­ty of Penn­syl­van­ia. In 1892, he aban­don­ed his ca­reer as a phar­ma­cist and wrote his first Gos­pel song, “List ’Tis Je­sus’ Voice” which was pub­lished by the Hall-Mack Com­pa­ny. He served as ed­i­tor and man­a­ger at the Hall-Mack pub­lish­ers for 37 years. In his own words: It is as a writ­er of gos­pel songs I am proud to be known, for in that way I may be of the most use to my Mas­ter, whom I serve will­ing­ly al­though not as ef­fi­cient­ly as is my de­sire.

Cyber Hymnal:

I read…the sto­ry of the great­est morn in his­to­ry: “The first day of the week com­eth Ma­ry Mag­da­lene ear­ly, while it was yet ve­ry dark, unto the se­pul­cher.” In­stant­ly, com­plet­ely, there un­fold­ed in my mind the scenes of the gar­den of Jo­seph….Out of the mists of the gar­den comes a form, halt­ing, he­si­tat­ing, tear­ful, seek­ing, turn­ing from side to side in be­wil­der­ing amaze­ment. Fal­ter­ing­ly, bear­ing grief in ev­e­ry ac­cent, with tear-dimmed eyes, she whis­pers, “If thou hast borne him hence”… “He speaks, and the sound of His voice is so sweet the birds hush their sing­ing.” Je­sus said to her, “Mary!” Just one word from his lips, and for­got­ten the heart­aches, the long drea­ry hours….all the past blot­ted out in the pre­sence of the Liv­ing Pre­sent and the Eter­nal Fu­ture.

Origin of song

The art of meditating on Scripture involves using one's imagination. Instead of simply reading a passage, we must read it, close our eyes, and visualize the scene, perhaps even putting ourselves in the picture. That's what the author of this hymn did. C. Austin Miles was a pharmacist who began writing gospel songs and eventually became an editor of hymnals and songbooks, as well as a popular music at camp meetings, conventions, and churches. His hobby was photography, and he found his darkroom perfect for developing, not just his photographs, but his devotional life. In its privacy and strange blue glow, Miles could read his Bible in total privacy. One day in March, 1912, while waiting for some film to develop, he opened the Bible to his favorite chapter, John 20, the story of the first Easter. Miles later said: "As I read it that day, I seemed to be a part of the scene...My hands were resting on the Bible while I stared at the light blue wall. As the light faded, I seemed to be standing at the entrance of a garden, looking down a gently winding path, shaded by olive branches. A woman in white, with head bowed, hand clasping her throat as if to choke back her sobs, walked slowly into the shadows. It was Mary. As she came to the tomb, upon which she placed her hand, she bent over to look in and hurried away. John, in flowing robe, appeared, looking at the tomb; then came Peter, who entered the tomb, followed slowly by John. "As they departed, Mary reappeared, leaning her head upon her arm at the tomb. She wept. Turning herself, she saw Jesus standing; so did I. I knew it was He. She knelt before Him, with arms outstretched and looking into his face, cried, "Rabboni!" "I awakened in full light, gripping my Bible, with muscles tense and nerves vibrating. Under the inspiration of this vision I wrote as quickly as the words would be formed the poem exactly as it has since appeared. That same evening I wrote the music." -- Excerpt from "Then Sings My Soul" by Robert J. Morgan, Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, TN

Wikipedia:

The song was first published in 1912 and popularized during the Billy Sunday evangelistic campaigns of the early twentieth century by two members of his staff, Homer Rodeheaver and Virginia Asher.

Name that hymn.com lyrics blog Below is a portion of the blog, which I strongly suggest you read!

"In the Garden" is one of the nicest love songs ever written.

Now, when we hear the term 'love song' we tend to think of songs about physical love...the songs you hear on the radio..."baby, baby, this" and "jiggy, jiggy that"

But those songs aren't really about love. Or if they are, it's love on a very superficial level.

But hymns are the greatest love songs, because they're about a pure, spiritual love--the love that God has for us. The love that all other love is modeled after. Whatever else people call "love", it's just a mere shadow of God's love.

And with this hymn, think about it from a spiritual sense.

It's about two who love each other meeting in a peaceful, quiet garden in the early morning.

A voice calls to the other.

They walk together.

They talk together.

They express how deeply they love each other.

Their hearts are filled with such joy, they don't want to leave.

So the next time you kneel down to pray, don't just present your laundry list of requests to God. Don't ramble off platitudes and meaningless repetitions. Instead, plan a trip to the garden, where you can walk, and talk, and be together alone with the One who loves you more than anyone has ever loved you.

“In the Garden: Unexpected Joy” Below is a portion of the article, which I strongly suggest you read! He mentions Lewis’ Surprised by Joy!

The hymn has been called sentimental and meaningless--which it might be if just any "garden" were in view. But the author had a specific one in mind. And he wanted to capture something of the emotion Mary experienced. Miles comments, "Just one word from His lips, and forgotten the heartaches, the long dreary hours….All the past blotted out in the presence of the Living Present and the Eternal Future." Mary had been surprised by joy--a joy like no other. Many who have found the living Christ would say the same. And "though now [we] do not see Him, yet believing, [we] rejoice with joy inexpressible and full of glory" (I Pet. 1:8).

EDIT
I've Just Seen Jesus, written by Bill and Gloria Gaither and sung by Larnelle Harris and Sandi Patti, perfectly describes Mary Magdalene's discovery of Jesus Christ in the garden!

LYRICS:

We knew He was dead.
"It is finished," He said.
We had watched as His life ebbed away.
Then we all stood around
Till the guards took Him down -
Joseph begged for His body that day.

It was late afternoon
When we got to the tomb,
Wrapped His body and sealed up the grave.
So I know how you feel -
His death was so real,
But please listen and hear what I say.

I've just seen Jesus.
I tell you He's alive.
I've just seen Jesus,
Our precious Lord, alive.
And I knew He really saw me, too,
As if 'til now I'd never lived.
All that I've done before
Won't matter anymore...
I've just seen Jesus,
And I'll never be the same again.

It was His voice she first heard,
Those kind gentle words
Asking what was her reason for tears.
And I sobbed in despair,
"My Lord is not there."
He said, "Child, it is I, I am here!"

I've just seen Jesus.
I tell you He's alive.
I've just seen Jesus,
Our precious Lord, alive.
And I knew He really saw me, too,
As if 'til now I'd never lived.
All that I've done before
Won't matter anymore...
I've just seen Jesus!
I've just seen Jesus!
I've just seen Jesus!

And all I've ever done before
Won't matter anymore...

I've just seen Jesus,

And I'll never be the same again!!

I'VE JUST SEEN JESUS!

[Mother-Music]

MM ... I want to know how you define "worship." Because my understanding of the word [what counts is the Hebrew and Greek, though ] is that everything we do that glorifies God is worship -- whether we sing to God, teach others through the Word and song, preach, study our Bibles, tell others about Jesus, pray, obey, tithe, etc. I don't care for the latter part of this video [after :40] but it demonstrates that worship is a lifestyle.

I love the first part of your church's worship bulletin! But I admit I have an aversion to both "performance" and "presentation." Because to me, neither is worship. Giving one's testimony in a sermon or song shouldn't be a performance. Praising God shouldn't be a performance. And I can usually tell the difference. Regarding music, compare Allison Durham Speer and Sandi Patti. Patti has a beautiful voice but she seems rather arrogant to me. Speer is never arrogant. She's humble. Speer's anointing and authenticity show she worships in the Spirit! Patti performs.

220, I totally agree that everything we do is worship. But here’s my question: why does my definition matter (it should be God's definition that matters!) and why do you ask in reference to music only?

To me, that’s part at least of the essence of the problem: “worship” has become defined as being “the-music-that-is-done-when-Christians-meet-together”, and nothing else even though most who use it will grant a larger understanding of it if pressed. Some have generously allowed that it’s everything Christians do when they meet together…i.e., preaching, teaching, fellowshipping, praying. But in their minds that’s where it stops. That’s even part of the problem with singing “In The Garden” repeatedly…singing one song over and over again actually limits “worship” (though it may not limit “teaching”). And I am fearfully concerned that when we as Christians call that “worship” (and I maintain that that is NOT a Scriptural definition), then go and sing it with or for each other, we feel that we have done all the worship that is necessary and we can relax and do as we please the rest of the time. No wonder we get up in arms when someone tells us that we ought to limit our repetition of it!

So, for instance…how come your examples were of singers and not electricians? And how come is it that you feel you can tell the difference between someone who is worshiping in song in the Spirit, but no one cares to watch the electricians to see if they are worshiping in Spirit and truth when they wire our church buildings? The electricians “perform” their job, and we are glad and nobody fusses about semantics and whether we call what they do a “performance” or a “presentation”.

Here’s something I’ve wanted to point out since this whole thing blew up in my face: please read the Merriam-Webster definition of “perform”.

• Function: verb
• Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French parfurmer, alteration of perforner, parfurnir, from par-, per- thoroughly (from Latin per-) + furnir to complete — more at furnish
• Date: 14th century
transitive verb 1 : to adhere to the terms of : fulfill <perform a contract>
2 : carry out, do
3 a : to do in a formal manner or according to prescribed ritual b : to give a rendition of : presentintransitive verb 1 : to carry out an action or pattern of behavior : act, function
2 : to give a performance : play

Now there’s an idea that should raise some eyebrows: if it is a performance, (which according to this definition is something everyone does), then there’s likely a right way and a wrong way of doing it. According to this definition, to perform and to present are the same.

Apply this definition to your second paragraph above, 220, and you may notice that there is a bit of a disconnect. You are saying that “performing” or “presenting” are not worship. If you apply the definition above to your statement, then, there is nothing that is worship at all. If it is worship, then it cannot be something I do. I cannot worship by giving a testimony in sermon or song or by praising God, because all of those are things I perform or do and by definition must be something I present somewhere to someone.

I suggest to you that the slightly schizophrenic nature of your words is due to the perception that somehow using the word “performance” means “showing-you-what-I-am-capable-of-and-expecting-you-to-think-highly-of-me-for-it”. If that is the sum total of the definition of the word “performance”, then you are right, that is not worship. Worship must be something I do, an action I take. As a Christian, all that I do should be worship. It takes both action and intention for something to be worship.

Indeed, we give accolades to those who have “performed their duty”. Soldiers, policemen, firefighters, doctors. Nobody thinks twice about using the word “perform” for what they do, either. If they don’t perform their duty according to the book, though, they are hardly ever successful nor are they considered to have done it…rather, they usually suffer some consequences—often consequences that make public their mistake.

Allow me to answer my own questions from a few paragraphs ago…boiled down, those questions come to this: how is music different from everything else we do as worship?

Scripturally, the only reason music is different is because it is specifically mentioned as something to be done when we get together as Christians in the New Testament (God must have though music more important than electric wiring—a puzzling statement, but read on). Referencing those Scriptures in my post above, it is to be done as teaching and admonishment in the Word, it is to be done with thankfulness in the heart toward God.

Socially, music is something that everyone from the most emotional, charismatic emergent to the hard-boiled atheist is passionate about for one reason or another.

And therein, I fear, lies the issue. We are reluctant to divorce our feelings toward music (and all art) long enough to find out what God says about it and bring our perspective into line with His. It’s OURS, and we don’t want to give it up or have it restricted in any way. Is that starting to sound just a tad bit idolatrous?

Somehow it’s a dirty thing when a singer or instrumentalist spends years of sacrifice devoted to disciplining the body and mind God gave them to point of human perfection and then performs that duty exuding confidence that they have fully accessed what God has given them with the help of His grace…yet it’s a “beautiful” thing when your neighborhood electrician comes to church, approaches the podium with an open hymnbook, and croaks out a “Spirit-filled” rendition of “In The Garden”. Nobody ever recognizes his confidence/arrogance at being the best electrician, however.

Why aren’t they both beautiful? And why is the “heart” of one so easily recognized as being “In the Spirit” and the other dismissed as arrogance?
I submit to you that both equally can be a result of changed hearts. And both equally are subject to wrong motives. Yet we will never question the heart motives of the croaker (nor will we ever tear up at the perfection of his work as an electrician). The “performer” will be harshly judged, not only for their “heart” but down to the way their coattails hang and whether they play the “e” with the preferred fingering or an alternate in that fast passage.

220, that's a great point that everything we do in our life is worship -- including our vocations. (Something tells me Mother Music would strongly agree.) But I wonder if something done in our life that is either against God's standards of truth (such as breaking one of His laws) or even done poorly (if we could have done better and know it) could count as worship.

However, I would contend that label aside, it's the heart of the performer/presenter that makes whatever is done a mere humans-focused "performances" or a more God-focused presentation. If we can't use either of those words, what could be used for what is done during "special music"? "Stuff Christians Like"? Argh, it's taken.

I strongly agree, Dr. R, that everything we do is worship. Further, I think that if a careful study is done of how God Himself applies the term to all that we do, we would find that we as Christians aren’t worshiping nearly enough, nor in the right ways, nor with the right heart…and we would be ashamed that we had argued over this one issue surrounding music.

In reference to the heart, though, let’s go back, for instance, to the example of the electrician. Even though his rendition of “In The Garden” was “In The Spirit” and brought tears to our eyes because of his heart (and rightly so—keep following me here)…what if he had done the building wiring with the same qualifications? Let’s turn it around. Let’s say that I, as a trained musician (but no electrician), have an overwhelming desire to show my thankfulness and praise to God by re-wiring the building? May I just walk in, rip open a wall and start cutting and re-attaching wires? Especially may I do so with the right heart and “In The Spirit”? Should I survive my “worship experience”, will it be effective in the Kingdom? Will it bring tears to the eyes of those who watch?

Likely it will bring tears. But not because my heart was right and the result was that everyone was brought to thankfulness toward God.
BUT MY HEART WAS RIGHT. Can you argue that my heart was right? You saw the look on my face, the humility in my movements (just before the explosion, that is). You knew I was worshiping “In The Spirit”…it was so easy to judge my heart…

It may be that “it's the heart of the performer/presenter that makes whatever is done a mere humans-focused "performances" or a more God-focused presentation”, to use your own words. But I submit to you it’s the fruit that proves the heart. If I am selfish enough to insist on re-wiring the building when I know nothing about it simply because my heart wants to worship God that way, then I’m not worshiping God…it is unsafe, unwise and therefore unloving to do such a thing, and ergo it isn’t worship of God (it may be worship of something besides God but that would be idolatry). Oh, and just as an aside…isn’t it funny that no one ever insists on re-wiring buildings as worship? Hardly anyone wants that job. And I assure you that you want your electrician to worship God that way as well as have confidence in the job he did after his years of training and dedication to learning the skills necessary. You don’t call it arrogance, in fact, you don’t even care if he did it with thankfulness in his heart toward God…you’re just glad he knows what he’s doing. And I’ll bet you don’t even think of it as worship, regardless of your protestations otherwise. You are blessed by the result.

So what is my point? My point is that while singing and making music with or before a Christian congregation is no less worship than what the electrician does, it is also no more than that. Therefore training and ability matter as much (in the normal course of things) as does the heart. And Scripturally the training and ability should not only be in music, but also in teaching and doctrine, if the fruit is to be good fruit and the performance be effective for the Kingdom.

Are there acceptable levels of ability and training? There’s not just one level. Just as in the job of wiring a building, there are jobs that everyone can and should do, under the direction of the master electrician! Almost everyone can string a piece of wire through a hole in the wall. Doing that with the detailed instructions of the master electrician as a guide would be a blessing and a help whether your heart was right or not…and I submit that if you were doing it according to instructions and with thankfulness to God, your heart is right regardless of the look on your face or the humility in your movements and it can therefore be defined and identified as performance of an act of worship. In fact, I have seen my father doing this very act; I know his heart was right because I know my father…but the look on his face and the movements of his body indicated that what he was doing was hard work!

Just so is the “acceptable” level of ability and training needed for the performance of the duty of music in and before a Christian gathering. It’s hard work to do it right. Get the heart truly right, and the rest will follow (because a right heart willingly adds virtue and discipline to faith)…but others may not be able to tell by looking that the heart is right. To you, it may look like the person is overconfident, or it may look like they are having to work very hard. Only God knows whether the heart is right. But the fruit will tell. Just as when the electrician sang “In The Garden” in his croaking voice because God had changed his heart and the fruit was that people in the audience were encouraged in the Lord…just so when I push the wire through the right hole in humility accepting the instruction of the master electrician have I brought blessing to others.
So my conclusion is this: It is prideful and unworshipful to insist that one be allowed to “music” publically without any guidance, preparation or discernment simply because one’s heart is right just as it is prideful and unworshipful to insist that one be allowed to “electric” publically (or privately, for that matter) without any guidance, preparation or discernment simply because one’s heart is right.

Therefore it is not wrong for the music director of a Christian congregation to offer guidance and discernment and preparation helps to those who desire to perform a public act of teaching, admonishing music…and those who desire to do so should gladly and humbly submit to that guidance and discernment and preparation, as long as that guidance is Scripturally founded and lovingly expressed. For that guidance and leadership is also an act of worship…

Leaving the analogy of the electrician…here is something that was related to me in this event. In regards to singing in the choir…”Oh, we don’t want to learn anything. We just want to sing.” How is that worship? If you are going to DO ("perform") what everyone else in the congregation is doing and nothing more, then how is it worship to put yourself BEFORE the congregation, sitting in a special place? Just sitting/standing someplace different is not worship. And placing yourself so that everyone can see you…isn’t that rather arrogant and self-promoting? There’s a Scripture about that, and Jesus isn’t talking about worship in that instance but castigating the Pharisees for “desiring the best seats”.

Sheesh. Thanks very much. It felt good to get all that out. Sorry about the length. Slice away at this diatribe Scripturally if you can…I invite it. But do yourself a favor and don’t crucify me, personally. It would be redundant at any rate, since I’ve both been crucified with Christ as well as within certain circles locally already.

mm

[Pattertwigs Pal]

220christTian, thank you so much for your opinions on life and sin. Romans 6:23 is a great verse as are all of the other ones you gave. Thanks also for the warning about the guy in the background on that video. I hadn’t had a chance to listen to it so your warning came in time. I'm sure I would have questioned what he said anyway but you saved me the trouble. I can see why you would be angry that someone said God makes mistakes. That is wrong.

The more I think about what the pastor at my church said, the more I’ve been thinking about the line in the Last Battle: “By mixing a little truth with it they had made their lie far stronger.” God wants to give us life / cares about life, but that is not his only concern. He also cares about good and evil. Sure God used a lot of imperfect people to fulfill his plans. That did not mean that he didn’t care about good and bad. The pastor mentioned David. David was far from perfect. He behaved horribly in his dealings with Bathsheba and Uriah, but God punished him for it. When I read stories about the imperfect people that God uses, it reminds me just how merciful, good, and awesome, and loving God is. He is able to use even our faults and short comings to fulfill His plan. How would he show His power if he just used perfect or near perfect people? Moses only became a leader because God worked through him and despite of him (Moses did everything he could to get out of it). If Moses had been willing to be a leader, it would change the whole feel of the story. Not that God doesn’t use people who are willing right away to do what is asked of them, he does do that. Mary agreed to have baby Jesus without convincing. However, she didn’t always get things right either. At times she didn’t always understand what was happening and tried to stop Jesus because she thought he had lost his mind. The people God used for his plans in the Bible illustrate hope for all people. If God could use Saul for his purpose, than he can use any one. We all have the chance to follow God and be used by God no matter what we have done. (I hope I’m making sense).

Stargazer, Thanks for your input. I checked up on the story in Genesis too and came to the same conclusion you did. It always makes me feel better when someone agrees with me.

MM, there definitely should be some standards about what kind of music should be used in worship. I agree also that you should not beg people to do music. When my sister was first learning piano, the organist at our church kept pressuring her to play a prelude. The more she pushed the less my sister wanted to play in church. If I remember correctly, my mom was worried it would discourage her from ever playing in church and / or public. (This was over ten years ago so my memory is a little foggy.) The organist had other piano students playing and we got to hear “Mary Had a Little Lamb” before church. (Now my sister accompanies a children choir, has also been in a worship band, and helps lead the music for a contemporary worship service at our church. But it was her choice to do this and not something she felt obligated to do.)

[220chrisTian]

But do yourself a favor and don’t crucify me, personally. It would be redundant at any rate, since I’ve both been crucified with Christ as well as within certain circles locally already.

I wasn't crucifying you. I'm sorry if that's how you felt after reading my post. Your post may not have intended to "crucify" me either but that was the result.

You make a good point about everything that glorifies God being worship, including correctly wiring a church building. And I think they're worshipping God in spirit and in truth when they do their job right. But my focus was on the musical aspect of worship. And it will be so in this post. Isn't that how this discussion began? And when I say "in the Spirit" I'm not referring to "in spirit and in truth." I'm talking about something else, a phenomenon I've witnessed only in prayer, music, and preaching. I somehow cannot seem to explain this to non-Pentecostals. I can only point to specific songs on Youtube and recount church experiences.

Using the word “performance” means “showing-you-what-I-am-capable-of-and-expecting-you-to-think-highly-of-me-for-it”. If that is the sum total of the definition of the word “performance”, then you are right, that is not worship.

When someone sings "I will glory in the cross" in the Spirit they may be doing it "in a formal manner." They may be "giv[ing] a performance." But the effect is something entirely different. You forget the singer, focus on the song, and glorify God. The singer/s and song/s should point to Christ. My problem is with the connotations, not definitions, of "perform" and "present." I explained that in my response to Dr. Ransom. Yes, my church does things "in a formal manner or according to prescribed ritual." There's a certain order to each service that rarely changes. But sometimes the Holy Spirit moves and we pray longer than we intend to, or a choir song moves the congregation and we bypass the sermon and open the altar for prayer. Or maybe the altar service lasts a half hour.

Somehow it’s a dirty thing when a singer or instrumentalist spends years of sacrifice devoted to disciplining the body and mind God gave them to point of human perfection and then performs that duty exuding confidence that they have fully accessed what God has given them with the help of His grace…yet it’s a “beautiful” thing when your neighborhood electrician comes to church, approaches the podium with an open hymnbook, and croaks out a “Spirit-filled” rendition of “In The Garden”. Nobody ever recognizes his confidence/arrogance at being the best electrician, however. Why aren’t they both beautiful? And why is the “heart” of one so easily recognized as being “In the Spirit” and the other dismissed as arrogance? I submit to you that both equally can be a result of changed hearts. And both equally are subject to wrong motives. Yet we will never question the heart motives of the croaker (nor will we ever tear up at the perfection of his work as an electrician). The “performer” will be harshly judged, not only for their “heart” but down to the way their coattails hang and whether they play the “e” with the preferred fingering or an alternate in that fast passage.

It may be that “it's the heart of the performer/presenter that makes whatever is done a mere humans-focused "performances" or a more God-focused presentation”, to use your own words. But I submit to you it’s the fruit that proves the heart. If I am selfish enough to insist on re-wiring the building when I know nothing about it simply because my heart wants to worship God that way, then I’m not worshiping God…it is unsafe, unwise and therefore unloving to do such a thing, and ergo it isn’t worship of God (it may be worship of something besides God but that would be idolatry). Oh, and just as an aside…isn’t it funny that no one ever insists on re-wiring buildings as worship? Hardly anyone wants that job. And I assure you that you want your electrician to worship God that way as well as have confidence in the job he did after his years of training and dedication to learning the skills necessary. You don’t call it arrogance, in fact, you don’t even care if he did it with thankfulness in his heart toward God…you’re just glad he knows what he’s doing. And I’ll bet you don’t even think of it as worship, regardless of your protestations otherwise. You are blessed by the result.

So what is my point? My point is that while singing and making music with or before a Christian congregation is no less worship than what the electrician does, it is also no more than that. Therefore training and ability matter as much (in the normal course of things) as does the heart. And Scripturally the training and ability should not only be in music, but also in teaching and doctrine, if the fruit is to be good fruit and the performance be effective for the Kingdom.

Are there acceptable levels of ability and training? There’s not just one level. Just as in the job of wiring a building, there are jobs that everyone can and should do, under the direction of the master electrician! Almost everyone can string a piece of wire through a hole in the wall. Doing that with the detailed instructions of the master electrician as a guide would be a blessing and a help whether your heart was right or not…and I submit that if you were doing it according to instructions and with thankfulness to God, your heart is right regardless of the look on your face or the humility in your movements and it can therefore be defined and identified as performance of an act of worship. In fact, I have seen my father doing this very act; I know his heart was right because I know my father…but the look on his face and the movements of his body indicated that what he was doing was hard work!

Just so is the “acceptable” level of ability and training needed for the performance of the duty of music in and before a Christian gathering. It’s hard work to do it right. Get the heart truly right, and the rest will follow (because a right heart willingly adds virtue and discipline to faith)…but others may not be able to tell by looking that the heart is right. To you, it may look like the person is overconfident, or it may look like they are having to work very hard. Only God knows whether the heart is right. But the fruit will tell. Just as when the electrician sang “In The Garden” in his croaking voice because God had changed his heart and the fruit was that people in the audience were encouraged in the Lord…just so when I push the wire through the right hole in humility accepting the instruction of the master electrician have I brought blessing to others.
So my conclusion is this: It is prideful and unworshipful to insist that one be allowed to “music” publically without any guidance, preparation or discernment simply because one’s heart is right just as it is prideful and unworshipful to insist that one be allowed to “electric” publically (or privately, for that matter) without any guidance, preparation or discernment simply because one’s heart is right.

Therefore it is not wrong for the music director of a Christian congregation to offer guidance and discernment and preparation helps to those who desire to perform a public act of teaching, admonishing music…and those who desire to do so should gladly and humbly submit to that guidance and discernment and preparation, as long as that guidance is Scripturally founded and lovingly expressed. For that guidance and leadership is also an act of worship.

I'm confused about how the discussion turned toward training, or the lack thereof, in church worship and service. I didn't mean to imply that singing "in the Spirit" with a pure heart meant the person/s had little training. Quite the opposite! I hate hearing choirs who haven't practiced enough, or soloists who can't sing and I'm continually wondering why the worship leader chose them.

If you listen to the Allison Durham Speer songs I listed, you would know what I mean. I don't know how much training Speer has had. But I know she's had plenty. It's obvious when you hear her voice. It's just as operatic as Sandi Patti's! Others like Larnelle Harris, Annie Moses Band [musical family of Juilliard grads], Charles Billingsley, Alicia Williamson Garcia, and Shannon Wexelberg [CFNI grad] -- just to name a few -- have also had musical training! The difference is they glorify God with their talent and training. They sing to the Lord with pure hearts. They are humble people who glorify God. Although Sandi Patti is also a trained singer, I can't explain but she just performs. In so many Youtube videos, it seems like she's “showing-you-what-I-am-capable-of-and-expecting-you-to-think-highly-of-me-for-it.” And that's what makes me angry.

On Youtube
My Larnelle Harris playlist
Annie Moses Band [their channel]
Charles Billingsley
And here's my TRBC/Billingsley playlist
Alicia Williamson Garcia
Shannon Wexelberg

Here's the First Baptist choir in Woodstock, GA singing Unto the Lamb. Here's the TRBC choir in Lynchburg, VA singing Lord, You're Holy. On the latter, notice how the congregation stands up @ 4:30. They can feel the Spirit moving! I've been to TRBC dozens of times and rarely does the congregation stand up during the featured choral song! I know these people aren't Pentecostal but the spirit and warmth at this church is amazing! The point? These choirs are trained. They're not inadequate. But they also glorify God.

God wants to give us life / cares about life, but that is not his only concern. He also cares about good and evil. Sure God used a lot of imperfect people to fulfill his plans. That did not mean that he didn’t care about good and bad. The pastor mentioned David. David was far from perfect. He behaved horribly in his dealings with Bathsheba and Uriah, but God punished him for it. When I read stories about the imperfect people that God uses, it reminds me just how merciful, good, and awesome, and loving God is. He is able to use even our faults and short comings to fulfill His plan. How would he show His power if he just used perfect or near perfect people? . . . The people God used for his plans in the Bible illustrate hope for all people. If God could use Saul for his purpose, than he can use any one. We all have the chance to follow God and be used by God no matter what we have done. (I hope I’m making sense).

Amen! And yes, you made perfect sense! This is what living and walking in the Spirit is all about: our weakness becoming God's strength. What did Jesus tell Paul? "My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness" [2 Corinthians 12:9, KJV]. God can use anyone, including Saul, Pharaoh, and Nebuchadnezzar, for His purposes. There are no limits to God! What amazes me is when those who openly defy God seem like putty in His hands compared to some Christians.

Mary agreed to have baby Jesus without convincing. However, she didn’t always get things right either. At times she didn’t always understand what was happening and tried to stop Jesus because she thought he had lost his mind.

I guess I'd like to know what you have in mind...

I was reading Genesis 1-3 the other day and my eyes lighted on 3:7. [Holy Spirit, of course ] This made me read verses 8-10 and 21 in a different light!

And the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked, and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons. And they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God amongst the trees of the garden. And the Lord God called unto Adam, and said unto him, 'Where art thou?' And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked, and I hid myself. . . .Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

There's a beautiful order here! The grace of God that leads to conversion, to life in Christ:
1. Our eyes are opened to sin. We see our spiritual nakedness and shame.
2. We try to cover ourselves to hide our sin but it's always inadequate.
3. We hide from God.
4. God seeks us, like a lost lamb! [Of course, He was seeking us before #1. ]
5. God reveals the curse of sin. [vs. 16-19] -- but also before #1
6. God, in Christ, covers us in His blood and clothes us with His righteousness.