Worship in the Melting Pot

[annsni]

The hostility I was referring to was directed toward Masters, not myself. Ann began by suggesting that Masters hadn't experienced "true" worship, that old hymns had no meaning, an accusation she quickly backpeddled on.

Hmm - I don't remember backpeddaling on anything!! I never said that all old hymns had no meaning. Ever. And I ASKED if you had experienced "true" worship - I never suggested that you hadn't - you never answered the question, though. Can you show me proof of these accusations?? I stand by what I said - each and every word.

 

[Aaron]

By saying that verse stands alone you are verse lifting to prove your point.

It's not verse-lifting at all.

"God is a spirit," John 4:24. That is a straightforward maxim that stands alone. It's meaning is self-contained and depends upon nothing that is in the rest of the chapter to understand it. It's use in that chapter brings light to the subject at hand, not the other way around.

"God is a spirit."

I could say in a box,
I could say it to a fox.
I could say it here or there.
I could say it anywhere,

And it's meaning wouldn't change.

"God is a Spirit: and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth."

Again, a straightforward maxim quite independent of the verses above and below it. It's use in John 4 teaches us that neither the worship of the Samaritans nor the Jews was spiritual.

Jesus was not talking about the use of modern music to worship God when he was talking to this woman. That is a misuse of scripture.

It doesn't matter whether a particular aspect of worship was specifically mentioned or not. Jesus stated a universal non-optional principle about true worship. He illuminated its object (the Father) and its manner (in truth and in spirit), and brought this principle to bear on her specific question concerning the location of true worship. This principle can be, and should be, brought to bear on any aspect of anything that someone calls worship.

Masters did not take it out of its context, and his article to which you linked us is an eminently proper exposition of its meaning. You, on the other hand, are attempting to limit its scope to prevent it from being used to judge things you want to say are true worship. Whether you're doing this surreptitiously or ignorantly, I don't know, but the end result is the same.

I did not mention feelings... Do you know what being led by the Spirit is about?

I know what people, especially the new worship adherents, usually mean when they say that, and from the phrasing of your consolations to ann and your criticisms of Masters (and myself), you don't give me a reason to think that you mean anything different.

Did you even read my explanation?

Yes, but it was too weak to bring you to the proper conclusion.

Jesus reveals to her that He is the "I am"

He revealed to her that he was the Christ, yes. I won't quibble with you here over whether or not He used the name I AM.

He also says in another place He is "the truth"

That's true, He did say He was the Truth in another place, but that by itself doesn't help us understand the manner of worship described by the phrase "in truth."

She was worshipping a shadow of Jesus...

Perhaps in the same way the Athenians were worshipping Jesus with the altar to the Unknown God. She worshipped God, yet in ignorance and superstition. "Ye worship what Ye know not."

Now she can worship IN truth knowing that Jesus is God.

That knowledge is certainly prerequisite to true worship.

IN spirit opposes her idea that there is a right way to worship using the physical (like on a mountain)

This one you got just right. More accurately, it opposes her idea that God can be approached by physical means, as if His presence were actually more on that mountain than in Jerusalem. The tragic thing is that you see this as opening the door to a sort of freedom of physical expression, as if there were no prescription for an outward decorum of Christian worship.

"In truth" means simply this, that the worship of God is rational. God is worshipped through the preaching and teaching of the word of God. True worship is not an ecstatic feeling or experience, a phenomenon usually described by phrases like "in the presence of the father," or "the spirit fell," or "I could really feel the spirit today." Again, Christ is called "the Word," not "the Muse."

"In spirit" means that worship is not a physical activity such as the burning of incense, lighting of lamps, dancing, etc., it is an execise of the heart and mind, not the body. Physical activities are powerless to create true worship, so any feelings that were elevated or created through artificial means are really carnal, not spiritual, and are out of place in the worship of God. But folks today, and more and more in Baptist churches, believe that God is pleased with the offering of physical gifts like playing instruments and other performance arts. Remember "The Little (pagan) Drummer Boy?"

And this takes us to Psalm 150. When viewing this in the light of what Christ said about the difference between Old and New Testament worship, it's impossible to interpret this Psalm to mean that God is pleased with the sounds of trumpets, psalteries and harps any more than He is pleased with the blood of bulls and goats, or that playing these instruments are acts of true worship any more than the offering of burnt offerings.

 

[tinytim]

Right Annsni, here is what you wrote... see how subtle Aaron is... he twisted what you said to prove his point...
You never said Masters has never experienced "true" worship, you said, "true, modern worship"

Ya know - it's too bad he hasn't experienced true, modern worship - and not just contemporary Christian music.

As for you backpeddling, you must be very talented...for you backpeddled before you ever frontpeddled.:laugh: ... This is what you said in your first post:

Old hymns are wonderful - and so many of them tell the gospel in their words.

I seriously don't know how Aaron interpreted that to say you said that hymns have no meaning...

But this is how some people work.
Nothing new really.

 

[Aaron]

Right Annsni, here is what you wrote... see how subtle Aaron is... he twisted what you said to prove his point...
You never said Masters has never experienced "true" worship, you said, "true, modern worship"

Here we go again with the tedium of having to answer trivialities, but, I'll go as far as you want to go with it. For all of your talk about context, you well hide your skill in using it.

She meant that modern worship is true worship, and meant to say that Masters hadn't experienced true worship. This is evident by the numerous subsequent times she's asked me if I've ever experienced true worship without the word "modern." To paraphrase it as it stands in that post, it could be written true AND modern worship.

It's also evident through her treatment of hymns in her first post. [Paraphrased] "The hymns are beautiful and tell the Gospel story, but...so FEW of them are like the songs we'll sing in Heaven." In other words, the new worship is more like what we'll sing in heaven, and are more spiritual than the old worship. Few hymns have any meaning for her, as she said, "Some cranky guy will never stop my standing in awe of the Creator and instead stop to stand with my hands folded singing a hymn with words that don't mean anything to my heart!"

Joshua picked up on her meaning when he advised her NOT to throw out the old hymns. She then backpeddled by saying, "Oh, I LOVE many of the old hymns ..."

Before, there were few, now there are many.

Ann didn't do this on purpose. She just didn't think before she spoke. She is not turned on by traditional worship, she equates hymns with traditional worship, and because she was somewhat provoked by her impression of what Masters might have been saying, she spoke rashly, but it was because she wanted to marginalize Masters' education and devotion that she said Masters hadn't experienced true worship.

I seriously don't know how Aaron interpreted that to say you said that hymns have no meaning...

Now you know. It's practically impossible to come to some other conclusion.

 

[rbell]

"In spirit"...is an execise of the heart and mind, not the body. Physical activities are powerless to create true worship, so any feelings that were elevated or created through artificial means are really carnal, not spiritual, and are out of place in the worship of God.

So why do we bow? Why would any posture matter? Yet it does matter.

This is getting more gnostic by the post.

 

[tinytim]

I just don't understand your way of thinking Aaron...

I don't see what you see in Annsni's statements.
To me she is saying there is no difference between worship styles... they both glorify God. I agree with that... obviously you don't.

Let's do this..
I will research some of Mr. Master's beliefs on modern worship... I'm not going to rush out and blow my money on his book, but there should be enough on the net to find....

And you tell me what Worship should look like.
What is allowed? what is not allowed?

Should emotions be involved?
What standards must be kept?
Where do we find these standards?

We obviously will agree to disagree, but we may come to understand each other better.

 

[tinytim]

So why do we bow? Why would any posture matter? Yet it does matter.

This is getting more gnostic by the post.

Don't you know that the flesh is eeeeeviiiillll...
And that Jesus only had the illusion of human flesh....because if he had real flesh he would have been sinful....

This is called docetism....besides gnosticism.

 

[Aaron]

So why do we bow? Why would any posture matter? Yet it does matter.

I gotta say your avatar makes it difficult to take you seriously. However, it is funny and I smile almost every time I see it.

Posture only matters because it is a form of non-verbal communication. We can see from your posture what things you revere and what things you think are common and casual.

This is getting more gnostic by the post.

A hedonistic, false accusation.

 

[Aaron]

Let's do this..
I will research some of Mr. Master's beliefs on modern worship... I'm not going to rush out and blow my money on his book, but there should be enough on the net to find....

And you tell me what Worship should look like.
What is allowed? what is not allowed?

Should emotions be involved?
What standards must be kept?
Where do we find these standards?

We obviously will agree to disagree, but we may come to understand each other better.

These are all dealt with in the book, and if you go to the collection of articles you cited earlier, you'll find most of that info. I pretty much think along the same lines.

 

[Aaron]

And you tell me what Worship should look like.

Generally speaking, Christian worship from the outward appearance will look stuffy to a worldly mind. The outward appearance of the Tabernacle did not dazzle the eye, and there was no beauty that one would desire it. All that could be seen from the outside was a large coffin-shaped structure covered with rams' skins dyed red. And around that was a long white curtain surrounding the court. All the curious embroidery of the curtains and the curious workmanship of the furniture was inside and seen only by the priests.

The central aspect of the service in Christian worship is the reading and the exposition of the Word of God. It is well-ordered and decent, and only those who are given ears to hear can discern and appreciate its beauty.

What is allowed? what is not allowed?

This is too broad a question.

Should emotions be involved?

Of course, but the emotion should always be a response to the doctrines of Christ, whether preached or sung, and to the work of Redemption being carried on today, not to anything else. A good friend of mine visited last Sunday. He is a contemporary worship leader at a large, affluent Methodist church. A group of us had been working on Before the Throne of God Above, by Charitie Lees Bancroft (1863). The piano accompaniment is simple, and so are the melody and harmony. Not contemporary by any stretch of the imagination. When we were done, my friend was in tears—not because of the music, but because of the words. He took a copy of the music to use at his church.

Before the throne of God above
I have a strong and perfect plea.
A great high Priest whose Name is Love
Who ever lives and pleads for me.

My name is graven on His hands,
My name is written on His heart.
I know that while in Heav'n He stands
No tongue can bid me thence depart.

When Satan tempts me to despair
And tells me of the guilt within,
Upward I look and see Him there
Who made an end to all my sin.

Because the sinless Savior died,
My sinful soul is counted free,
And God the just is satisfied
To look on Him and pardon me.

Before Him there the risen Lamb,
My perfect, spotless Righteousness,
The great, unchangable I AM,
The King of glory and of grace.

One with Himself I cannot die.
My soul is purchased with His blood.
My life is hid with Christ on high,
With Christ my Savior and my God.

What standards must be kept?

God's standards of decency and order, truth and spirit.

Where do we find these standards?

In the Scriptures, of course, but they may have to be rediscovered as they were in the Reformation.

 

[annsni]

Generally speaking, Christian worship from the outward appearance will look stuffy to a worldly mind. The outward appearance of the Tabernacle did not dazzle the eye, and there was no beauty that one would desire it. All that could be seen from the outside was a large coffin-shaped structure covered with rams' skins dyed red. And around that was a long white curtain surrounding the court. All the curious embroidery of the curtains and the curious workmanship of the furniture was inside and seen only by the priests.

The central aspect of the service in Christian worship is the reading and the exposition of the Word of God. It is well-ordered and decent, and only those who are given ears to hear can discern and appreciate its beauty.

This is too broad a question.

Of course, but the emotion should always be a response to the doctrines of Christ, whether preached or sung, and to the work of Redemption being carried on today, not to anything else. A good friend of mine visited last Sunday. He is a contemporary worship leader at a large, affluent Methodist church. A group of us had been working on Before the Throne of God Above, by Charitie Lees Bancroft (1863). The piano accompaniment is simple, and so are the melody and harmony. Not contemporary by any stretch of the imagination. When we were done, my friend was in tears—not because of the music, but because of the words. He took a copy of the music to use at his church.

Before the throne of God above
I have a strong and perfect plea.
A great high Priest whose Name is Love
Who ever lives and pleads for me.

My name is graven on His hands,
My name is written on His heart.
I know that while in Heav'n He stands
No tongue can bid me thence depart.

When Satan tempts me to despair
And tells me of the guilt within,
Upward I look and see Him there
Who made an end to all my sin.

Because the sinless Savior died,
My sinful soul is counted free,
And God the just is satisfied
To look on Him and pardon me.

Before Him there the risen Lamb,
My perfect, spotless Righteousness,
The great, unchangable I AM,
The King of glory and of grace.

One with Himself I cannot die.
My soul is purchased with His blood.
My life is hid with Christ on high,
With Christ my Savior and my God.

God's standards of decency and order, truth and spirit.
In the Scriptures, of course, but they may have to be rediscovered as they were in the Reformation.

Aaron - That is one of my absolute FAVORITE hymns - how wonderful to read/sing/hear those words, huh? My husband will do that often for worship and it never ceases to absolutely humble my heart before our Lord - and bring tears of joy to my eyes! That hymn is SUCH a keeper!!

See - I don't hate hymns. I hate shallow songs - shallow words - shallow worship. If a hymn is powerful like Before the Throne of God Above, WONDERFUL!! If a contemporary worship song is powerful, then WONDERFUL!! In the same way, there are hymns AND contemporary worship songs that so lack anything spiritual that it turns my stomach.

 

[Joshua Rhodes]

There are two tunes most associate with the lyrics "Before the Throne of God Above."

One is by William Bradbury, written in 1861.
Sound file here: http://http://images.sa-media.com/hymnal/festus.mp3

The other is by Vikki Cook, written in 1997.
Sound file here: http://www.sovereigngraceministries.org/media/wmx/upward/before.wvx

Both are great. A good example of a great song sung by two different melodies.

 

[trainbrainmommy]

Something that didn't happen can't be forgotten. Your statement is simply not true.

Really. That's not what I heard in Intro to Music my freshman year in Bible college. Maybe you should do some research.

Yet we all know that the barrier between secular and sacred is permeable. Many a hymn tune is taken from a popular ballad, a love song, or even a drinking song. Charles Wesley’s best-known hymn, “Love Divine, All Loves Excelling,” alludes to the words of an English patriotic song by John Dryden entitled “Fairest Isle, All Isles Excelling.” Wesley recommends using the very tune to which Henry Purcell had set Dryden’s poem in the opera King Arthur. Among Wesley’s contemporaries it was a familiar tune, and a secular tune, but Wesley evidently thought it touching and fitting.

While the surprise caused by hearing secular-sounding music in church may be disturbing at first, it can result, in time, in an expansion of sacred style itself. J. S. Bach and other Protestant Baroque composers were frequently accused of composing cantata music that sounded too secular—too operatic and showy. Eventually, however, that music came to be regarded by many as the very peak of Protestant church music in a classical mode. Closer to our own time, gospel music of various kinds has not always been accepted as legitimate church music; nor have spirituals. Yet each has added something uniquely valuable to the repertoire of religious expression.

http://reformedtheology.org/SiteFiles/PublicLectures/FBBRownPL.html

 

[whatever]

The hostility I was referring to was directed toward Masters, not myself. Ann began by suggesting that Masters hadn't experienced "true" worship, that old hymns had no meaning, an accusation she quickly backpeddled on.

Tiny followed by marginalizing Masters intelligence and basic character, "ilk," an obsolete term that is used only in a derogatory sense in general conversation these days. And he did that without even reading him.

Ann wrote "Old hymns are wonderful - and so many of them tell the gospel in their words. But there are not that many that are like the songs that we'll sing in heaven - songs of honor and praise to the Glorious Lamb of God - the Uncreated One - the Master of the Universe. When I worship, I want to focus on God - on His glory, power and majesty and not on me. It's not about me, it's about Him." She didn't say that hymns have no meaning.

She also did not say that he had not experienced true worship. To turn "it's too bad he hasn't experienced true, modern worship" into "he meant that modern worship is true worship, and meant to say that Masters hadn't experienced true worship", and then try to apply that non-sequitur to later comments about yourself, is simply poor thinking. I think deep down you know that.

Fess up - she didn't say the things you accuse her of. If you want to believe Masters, and if you want to worship using only the hymns that Scripture says we can use or whatever it is that you want to believe, then go for it and don't let anyone change your mind. But whatever else you do, please tell the truth about what others say to you, and when they tell you that they didn't mean what you think they meant please don't continue to act as if they did mean what you thought they meant and that they are just changing their story. It just isn't becoming.

 

[whatever]

There are two tunes most associate with the lyrics "Before the Throne of God Above."

One is by William Bradbury, written in 1861.
Sound file here: http://http://images.sa-media.com/hymnal/festus.mp3

The other is by Vikki Cook, written in 1997.
Sound file here: http://www.sovereigngraceministries.org/media/wmx/upward/before.wvx

Both are great. A good example of a great song sung by two different melodies.

The first time I heard that song was an a capella arrangement based on Vikki Cook's tune (I think) and performed by Glad. It was simply incredible - it blew me away, and it is still a favorite.

 

[rbell]

The first time I heard that song was an a capella arrangement based on Vikki Cook's tune (I think) and performed by Glad. It was simply incredible - it blew me away, and it is still a favorite.

I have the Glad vocal arrangement for this song. It's written for 10 parts, I believe.

Gorgeous piece. Nasty hard as well. We've got the crew to give it a try (along with their song, "The Highest Glory"); we just gotta find time to work on it (and it will take MUCH work).

in response to the question, "What standards must be kept?"

God's standards of decency and order.

We should be careful that we don't use the above answer to simply promote our preferences as scriptural mandate. And that can be done from "either side of the aisle," so to speak.

 

[rbell]

Apology to Aaron: poor choice of example/analogy

You know what Aaron? You're right. I shouldn't have thrown the "gnostic" label out there. I'm sorry.

The point I was making was that our enjoyment of worship (such as "toe-tapping") doesn't mean that something's wrong with it...some folks are wont to imply that if you find it enjoyable, that's "fleshly." That's the point I was trying to make...it can be enjoyable, even on a physical level, and still be worshipful (I would agree that the physical should not be the determining factor, but is rather an "extra.")

However, to liken it to the heresy of gnostisicm was going too far, and I owe you an apology. Sorry for being careless with my words.

 

[Aaron]

Really. That's not what I heard in Intro to Music my freshman year in Bible college. Maybe you should do some research.

Yet we all know that the barrier between secular and sacred is permeable. Many a hymn tune is taken from a popular ballad, a love song, or even a drinking song. Charles Wesley’s best-known hymn, “Love Divine, All Loves Excelling,” alludes to the words of an English patriotic song by John Dryden entitled “Fairest Isle, All Isles Excelling.” Wesley recommends using the very tune to which Henry Purcell had set Dryden’s poem in the opera King Arthur. Among Wesley’s contemporaries it was a familiar tune, and a secular tune, but Wesley evidently thought it touching and fitting.

While the surprise caused by hearing secular-sounding music in church may be disturbing at first, it can result, in time, in an expansion of sacred style itself. J. S. Bach and other Protestant Baroque composers were frequently accused of composing cantata music that sounded too secular—too operatic and showy. Eventually, however, that music came to be regarded by many as the very peak of Protestant church music in a classical mode. Closer to our own time, gospel music of various kinds has not always been accepted as legitimate church music; nor have spirituals. Yet each has added something uniquely valuable to the repertoire of religious expression.

http://reformedtheology.org/SiteFiles/PublicLectures/FBBRownPL.html

Thanks for the quote and citation. I wasn't saying that you made up the statement yourself. Many people assert those things, but upon investigation of their primary sources, their conclusions do not bear up under the facts. It was seldom the source of the melody that folks would respond to, it was the character. But the idea that the church throughout history simply helped herself to the popular music of the day as the CCM folks assert, and that they say she should today, is simply not true.
But don't assume that I would defend the use of Bach or Handel in Christian worship. The original criticisms were true. They are too showy and ornamental.

However, I did find something of note in the page to which you linked us:

Finally, a move toward styles previously identified as secular may occur as a response to a change in theology and liturgy affecting our perceptions of which attitudes and gestures and outlooks are pertinent to worship and prayer. If one has acquired a theology that is less suspicious of the body than much Christian theology has been over the centuries, then one stands a better chance of hearing religious meaning in music that is dance-like and overtly rhythmic. Similarly, what if one no longer accepts the judgment of John Keble and many other Victorians that true religion is always, at its core, “marked by a pure reserve, a kind of modesty or reverence”? Then one may invite music into the church that has a much wider expressive range, from outright lamentation to uninhibited jubilation.

At last, one of the new worship's own authorities acknowledges that the move toward CCM is a theological shift! A change in thought. Something I've asserted from the beginning. Music is not a thing. It is not an object that one might find washed up on a beach somewhere, or something that can be plucked from a tree. Music is thought.

Michael W. Harris said the same thing in his book, The Rise of Gospel Blues.

At the heart of this study of gospel blues is the premise that ideas—as opposed to events or other more concrete data of history—are the generative structures of culture. By extension, blues is thought as opposed to mere music. The rise of gospel blues will thus be treated here not as the appearance of a form or style of music but as the emergence of a concept—a "feelin'" as [Thomas Andrew] Dorsey would say.

Samuel A. Floyd, Jr. in The Power of Black Music,

My position in this book . . .is that African survivals exist not merely in the sense that African-American music has the same characteristics as its African counterparts, but also that the musical tendencies, the mythological beliefs and assumptions, and the interpretive strategies of African Americans are the same as those that underlie the music of the African homeland, that these tendencies and beliefs continue to exist as African cultural memory, and that they continue to inform the continuity and elaboration of African-American music.

The heart of this debate is not style itself, but the thought or system of beliefs that influences that style. We are really debating which doctrine of God is more true, and which "attitudes, gestures and outlooks" conform to that view.

 

[Aaron]

You know what Aaron? You're right. I shouldn't have thrown the "gnostic" label out there. I'm sorry.

The point I was making was that our enjoyment of worship (such as "toe-tapping") doesn't mean that something's wrong with it...some folks are wont to imply that if you find it enjoyable, that's "fleshly." That's the point I was trying to make...it can be enjoyable, even on a physical level, and still be worshipful (I would agree that the physical should not be the determining factor, but is rather an "extra.")

However, to liken it to the heresy of gnostisicm was going too far, and I owe you an apology. Sorry for being careless with my words.

I wasn't offended in anyway. The only thing I thought was, "Oh, brother, am I going to have to debate Gnoticism again?" Then the thought hit me, I could simply respond with the same economy of words that were the direct opposite. But you didn't call me a Gnostic. You said my arguments sounded gnostic to you, and if that was an honest response, then don't apologize for it.

I will say here in response to tiny's response to you, I didn't say that physical gifts were evil, I said they were powerless. There's a difference. The power in Christianity is the power of the Spirit. No flesh (physical) will glory in His sight.

We should be careful that we don't use the above answer to simply promote our preferences as scriptural mandate. And that can be done from "either side of the aisle," so to speak.

That's true. So, the next question is, how does one determine God's standard of decency?

 

[Aaron]

There are two tunes most associate with the lyrics "Before the Throne of God Above."

One is by William Bradbury, written in 1861.
Sound file here: http://http://images.sa-media.com/hymnal/festus.mp3

The other is by Vikki Cook, written in 1997.
Sound file here: http://www.sovereigngraceministries.org/media/wmx/upward/before.wvx

Both are great. A good example of a great song sung by two different melodies.

I downloaded the piano vocal sheet music of Vikki Cook's melody from G3 Worship Music. Again, simple piano accompaniment, and easy harmony. The words are at the forefront in this arrangement.