Featured Contemporary Worship

Daimond Lady, There are lots of good things in what you say, but I'd like to address a few things (keep in mind, I"m only addressing the parts I disagree with, so the parts I deleted, I pretty much agree with):
Going to try to do this conversationally....look for my responses in blue

Quote:
Originally Posted by DiamondLady
Worship is not the singing portion of the church service...Worship is not the song service.

-Well, it can be...It's just also other things also. I disagree...it can not be the song service. Worship is not a "service" of the church, it is an individual thing. You do not worship corporately, you CAN worship DURING the song service, but not all people participating are worshipping.


Quote:
We call them worship teams, worship leaders, worship bands....they're not.

-The phrase "worship leader" is not inappropriat in itself, as long as we recognize that the primary leader of worship in a church is its Senior Pastor, he will be the one pointing people toward God and his word more than anyone else. That said, a song-lead can do that as well, and so "lead worship." A group of people could do that as well, and so be called a "worship team." I don't know who invented the phrase worship leader but, while I wouldn't term it inappropriate I would say it does not adequately convey what that person's responsibility is. Personally I see nothing wrong with song leader and leave it at that...but your mileage may vary.


Quote:
Worship is not a team sport, it's an individual thing.

-Col. 3:16 says to "sing songs...to 'one another', even as we are giving thanks to God. While we may not call it a sport, CORPORATE WORSHIP (differentiated from private worship) is very much a social, church-body-edifying time. I think it is a mistake to tell people to "just imagine it's just God and you with no one else around" ...If that was best, why come to church in the first place? I still say true worship is not a corporate activity. I can be worshipping God while singing How Great Thou Art and the person next to me is too busy thinking about how great the organ sounds. We're not both worshipping, yet we're both singing the same song. Worship is individual. I suppose the possibility that everyone in a church service is worshipping at the same time is possible, it's unlikely and grows in proportion to the number of people in the congregation.


Quote:
You can't walk in the door of the sanctuary, out of breath after running from SS to the sanctuary, making sure all the kids are in their respective groups, having run through the morning anthem with the choir, making sure the instruments in the worship band are all in tune, the microphones in proper place and turned on, sit down at the piano and expect to worship. Hearts and minds must be prepared to worship. I don't think enough people do that.

-The Bolded section I agree with. However, I don't think we can accurately say that it's impossible for the following people to truly worship:
1. People who's Sunday-school discussion was really good, and so it ran long and made them nearly late for the worship service.
2. Mothers with young children who are either dropped off at the nursury crying, or whose children may even be in the service with them, distracting her.
3. Choir members who practice a song meant to be a blessing to the people and to God.
4. A Music leader who needs to check the sound board before the service.

All of these people CAN worship, and while we should make an effort to set aside time to focus soley on God...Life continues to happen even on sunday mornings...and the more kids you have, the more "life" happens. It does't mean we can't worship God. I agree, these people CAN worship, but they're going to have to stop, take a breath, pray, and prepare their hearts. Our hearts and minds must be prepared to worship or it's...what does Corinthians call it..."sounding brass and tinkling cymbals.

 

I concur.:thumbs:

 

I think we are arguing over semantics on this one. I'm meaning that singing songs CAN be worship, Prayer can be worship. Giving attention to God's word can be worship. All of these could also NOT be worship if I am doing them in a spirit of selfishness or defiance or apathy.

I think you are saying that just having a song service does not necessarily mean we have worshiped, which I would agree with.

I would have no trouble being called a song-leader, in fact I use that term often when people ask me what I do. I say something like "I lead the music" rather than "I lead the Worship".

However, I do think part of a Pastor, and a Music leader's job is to point people "lead" them to worship God. This can happen on sunday morning, or it can happen over coffee, If you say to someone else, "You know, we should be really thankful to God for this day" ...if you do that, you too are a "worship leader".

If I am worshiping, and you are worshiping God, and we are together, are we not worshiping together? ...if we add a few more people, enough to make it a "corporate" setting, are we not worshiping "corporately." I think we are, and I think there are several commands and examples in scriptures that lead us to think this is a valid and important activity. The Jewish people did not just bring individual sacrifices, they had periodic corporate gatherings as well, for the purpose of praising God for his faithfulness. This is all that is mean by corporate worship.

Worship is giving God the attention, thanks, praise, and value he deserves. We can certainly do that corporately, while realizing that some in the corporate setting are not truly doing this.

-Agreed.

 

For those interested in wading through some puritan stuff, here is an interesting article entitled: "PUBLIC WORSHIP TO BE PREFERRED BEFORE PRIVATE."

http://www.covenanter.org/DClarkson/clarkson_pubwor.html

 

aliveinchrist--of course not. And I believe many people are saved during emotional invitations that follow "trap sermons."

But I believe God is moving in spite of the manipulative efforts of humans.

We have gotten to the point we think we have to maneuver and manipulate and guide and lead and.....well, you get the idea.

We trust our methods of working up emotion over the work of the Holy Spirit it sometimes seems.

And just because someone has an emotional moment responding to a manipulative plea doesn't mean they got saved.

We can design all kinds of ways to get them to come forward and sign a decision card.

But only God can save them.

12strings--of course we are to come together to edify each other, including through the use of music.

But that is a far cry from what often passes as "worship" in some Baptist churches today. We've gone from proclaiming and edifying to believing the purpose of "corporate worship" is to either have ourselves a big emotional experience or to give something to God that He needs and will be real unhappy without.

I'm old school. I don't see Sunday services for Baptists as being about coming and putting on a performance for God's benefit (Soren Kierkegard), or about us coming and working to get in some sort of "groove" or as heaven forbid I heard one pastor put it, "find the zen moment."

I do believe we get together to proclaim the gospel to the lost and edify the believer.

Do I ever simply adore Christ, worship Him? Absolutely! Just don't see the purpose of the church service being that.

 

So you would say we should not use the term "worship service"?

I may be mistaken, but historically, didn't the idea of a service primarily to preach to the lost come about the same time as some of the manipulative techniques you are so against? ( 2nd great awakening)

I thought before that, I thought everyone primarily went to church to worship, not to preac to the lost. it was assumed that the lost were not there.

Someone may need to correct my history here.

 

Umm--well, historically speaking, a lot of folks went to church for the re-presenting of the sacrifice of Christ (the Mass.)

A lot of folks went because if you didn't go, you could wind up in the stocks.

The church where I grew up had a sign out front telling of the services: SS at 10, Preaching at 11.

No, I don't think historically the second great awakening was the root cause of this pentecostal worship. Maybe Azusa street.

During the second great awakening folks were running the aisles, falling out shaking or barking or laughing, etc, but the preachers were trying to quell that sort of thing.

I believe the concept that God dwells in the church building and we need to go there to worship--or adore, or contact--Him comes straight from the Roman Catholics.

I don't get why we are so afraid to just give folks the truth and trust the Holy Spirit to move them. Why do we have to try to "work up" whatever emotional moment some leader decided on last Tuesday?

Why would you assume the lost are not in church on Sundays? Are you sacramental, assuming all the children of church members have been baptized and are therefore saved? Would you know the state of all the souls in your church? Methodist history has John Wesley unsaved and a preacher, then saved, then a better preacher. I once knew a Baptist preacher who told of seeing his own preacher converted during a revival.

Also, remember, preaching is also for the edification of the believer.

As I said, just my opinion, but getting into a trance or "zen mode" is not edifying for me. That seems like what we do sometimes. And the science is out there that getting folks to stand for a long period, maybe holding their arms high or bouncing up and down, is a mind control technique aimed at lowering blood flow to the brain. Makes us pretty susceptible to false teachers.

I try to look at the fruit: just my biased opinion, but I do not see scads of contemporary churches full of people leading anywhere near holy lives. Rather, we changed the church to be more worldly and not just in the building. Now divorce, drugs, alcohol, chasing around, cussing, being rude, walking out on just debts, whatever you can name is just as likely among church members as the general population.

I honestly don't believe that signals true, deep, abiding conversions. More like spur of the moment emotional responses.

 

-I'm simply saying that in a healthy church, the majority of those attending a normal Baptist church service would be christians. There will always be non-Christians, but Given that it is primarily a gathering, or assembly (Eklesia) "Church", of believers, It does not make sense that the primary function of such a gathering is to speak to lost people, but for Believers to offer praise to God, to hear his Word, to be discipled and edified.

-If you see "scad" of "traditional" churches full of people leading holy lives, you have seen something I have not seen in my time in both traditional and contemporary churches. Small, traditional country churches in my area are just as full of unfaithful spouses and broken lives as the larger contemporary churches...The style of music has absolutely NOTHING to do with it.

 

Historically speaking, folks were expected not to sign a decision card, but to experience conversion.

I will agree style of music isn't the main issue--rather, the issue is we've gone to a type of service where our focus is to generate an emotional response or to entertain.

I don't believe those produce conversions.

But we can agree to disagree.

 

Nodak, you say here:

Although I decidedly agree with the conclusion: But only God can save them I wonder if you are not a bit overly critical of some of the classic 45 verses of "just as I am" "emotional pleading" kind of alter calls/sermons and services. I think it takes many types to reach different folks.. an example although not a perfect one would be Jude 22-23:
22And of some have compassion, making a difference:

23And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.

I think it takes all types, this is not a PERFECT passage but it suggests that different people are reached through different means.

A legitimate concern...but consider...... what if we do indeed maneuver and manipulate and guide without actually...

Jesus seemed to plead and truly weep and truly beg the emotions even of the jews at times, but he did not think he HAD too. He did everything in his power as did Paul with Agrippa no?

Again, legit. I just use caution about throwing out the baby with the bath water, no doubt if we trust it, we are in error, but use it, knowing that God will give the increase. Yes!!!

True, but "manipulative"? is perhaps slightly above-board sometimes. Something which provokes an emotional response is not necessarilly "manipulative"

Dirty little secret: The decision card is often a way to get the name adress and phone no# of a visitor who didn't put it in the offering plate like we asked them to earlier, so we can visit them again and ensure they have heard and understood the gospel appropriately. :smilewinkgrin:

 

I agree with all this.:smilewinkgrin:

 

Now you should post a parody of the traditional worship service.

 

How about this (In the spirit of fun only):

-Service begins with beautiful organ prelude. Visitors look around for the organ, but can't find it because its in the balcony behind them.
-Pastor welcomes the people by saying "He is Risen." Regular members reply by saying "He is risen indeed." Visitors are amazed and wonder how they knew they were supposed to say that.
-Several hymns are sung (all stanzas) sandwiched between announcements, scripture readings, and the "passing of the peace" which the visitors finally catch onto after 5-6 people say "peace be to you."
-Between the penultimate stanza and the last stanza of EVERY hymn, the organ plays and extended interlude/modulation while everyone looks around and waits uncomfortably for their turn to start singing again.
-The Pastor stands up to give his sermon. Young children ask their parents why the Pastor is wearing a dress.
-The sermon ends. A final hymn is sung (all stanzas). Special collection is taken as people leave to fund an expensive rehabilitation of the pipe organ, which most people think sounds fine, but which the musicians say is old and sorely in need of repair.

 

This would be more high-church traditional...I wasn't necessarily thinking of baptists when I wrote this...actually I was recalling a Lutheran church I visited.

 

Over the past few years the articles I read point out that about 70-80 percent of the churches are plagued with one or more antagonists. So where does that place the music. What the church today needs is men who will be men, who will stand for righteousness, and not be so relational as women.

Romans 12:1 tells what one aspect of worship is, "Therefore I urge you, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship."

 

So let me see if I'm following you correctly...

1. We need men who are LESS relational than they already are?

2. The fact that women are relational is a bad thing?

3. Less relational men would solve the church music debate?

4. Only 70-80 percent of churches have antogonists? I though it was 100%.

 

Relational is not the critical issue. Men are called on to stand for righteousness and not focus on how it affects relationships. Wong is wrong and there is nothing right about wrong. Too often women are focused on the relationship rather than the wrongness of something they know is wrong.

Women are that way, but men are called to stand for what is right not what is convenient. God calls the men to stand for righteousness and call wrong what it is.

When men do what I call the dance to avoid any kind of conflict or confrontation that is when they fail to lead. Too many men act like women in church instead of men. Look at churches and see if they are not feminine in nature. So much of music today has taken on a feminine nature. When was the last time you sang a masculine song in church such as "Onward Christian Soldiers" or any other of that nature.

4. Only 70-80 percent of churches have antagonists? I though it was 100%.[/QUOTE] 70-80% are plagued by antagonists. Most all churches have antagonists and most anyone can fill that role at any given time in their life. To be plagued by one or more antagonists is to allow the antagonist have some kind of control.