Tomorrow I post part 4 of the “Learning from the History of Worship” discussion, and that’ll be my last post planned on the instrumental music and Regulative Principle questions for now.
That doesn’t mean the topics won’t come up now and again. They will. But it’ll be a while before we delve so deeply into the topic again. But, of course, theology is a seamless web. Everything connects. Make an adjustment here and it changes things over there.
Therefore, nearly everything we talk about will affect our views of instrumental music and worship and salvation — if we’ll let it.
It’s no coincidence that I’ve been posting the “Cruciform God” series concurrently with the instrumental music series, because I don’t think we can fully appreciate how to worship until we appreciate what it means to be Christ-like. But that’s tomorrow’s post.
Now, here’s some practical advice appropriate for Easter, built on a comment I made yesterday and just a bit expanded. I call this “How to Win the Worship Wars.”
My take on the scriptures is that we win these fights, not through compromise or finding the least offensive style or taking turns, but by surrender.
(Phil 2:1 ESV) So if there is any encouragement in Christ, any comfort from love, any participation in the Spirit, any affection and sympathy, 2 complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind. 3 Do nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. 4 Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others.
This way we achieve the unity Paul urges us to have is not through negotiation or compromise or taking turns or even modern conflict resolution methods. We find unity through humility and service — counting the other more significant than ourselves. And in the local church, to me, that means we older, more mature members see ourselves as less significant than the lost and the younger members — not because we have low self-esteem, but because they are less mature and so we must set an example of Christlikeness for them. That’s our role in the Christian colony.
I can’t imagine Paul visiting a church he planted and brokering a deal between young and old regarding how many old and new chants would be sung at each service. I think he’d instead remind both sides that Jesus gave up heaven and life for them, and they should be standing in line asking to be the first to surrender their preferences for the others.
We have to surrender our taste and our preferences and our comfort on the cross. We nail it up there and so “consider others better than []ourselves.” Indeed, like Jesus, we become servants.
The word translated “servant” is better translated “slave,” and in that society, a slave washed feet. And that’s what Jesus did – to show us that we must do the same.
Now, in the past I’ve suggested that the solution is found in mutual love and that mutual love leads to compromise – perhaps by having a blended song service. I was wrong.
Jesus and Paul don’t urge us to be half-slaves if the other person will be a half-slave, too. He didn’t ask the apostles to wash his feet on condition that he wash theirs. There was no bargaining. He just stooped down, found a towel and a bowl, and washed.
Now, some will be tempted to turn this teaching on its head by demanding that the other side of the dispute do the same thing. “Why don’t you be like Jesus and submit to me?” But that would be like Jesus saying, “Why don’t you hang on the cross instead of me?” It’s a ridiculous, selfish, self-important way to think.
There is, of course, more to it. It goes like this –
(Phil 2:14-16) Do everything without complaining or arguing, 15 so that you may become blameless and pure, children of God without fault in a crooked and depraved generation, in which you shine like stars in the universe 16 as you hold out the word of life–in order that I may boast on the day of Christ that I did not run or labor for nothing.
“Like stars in the universe” is a reference to Daniel 12:3, describing the resurrection of the wise. You see, the promise for those who submit to crucifixion is resurrection. And in life, resurrection can come in many forms. There is, of course, the resurrection at the end of time, which is true and the most important meaning here. But the scriptures also say –
(James 4:10) Humble yourselves before the Lord, and he will lift you up.
How might God lift up a person who surrenders in the worship wars? Well, one possibility is that the person submitted to will return the favor and offer a compromise. But you can’t count on that or even expect that.
Another and better possibility is that the person you submit to will follow your example and submit to others – the next generation of Christians who will also have different tastes in music and to the lost who will also have different tastes. I mean, unless someone goes first, our older members will only teach the younger members to demand their way when they get old enough to have the power to do so.
And perhaps one day, when the younger Christians get old and well-established in the congregation, they’ll pull a younger Christian aside and say, “I’m surrendering for your sake because I learned a powerful lesson 30 years ago from a Christ-like older member who surrendered for me.”
You see, in his eyes, you’ll shine like a star in the universe. Indeed, your sacrifice will live forever in that congregation and all the people it influences, just as one day you’ll literally live forever with Jesus.
I appreciate that message, Jay. I'm really trying to re-focus my mind on only doing/saying what is edifying so as to always be strengthening unity.
(Not sure how you are about links, delete if u need)
I missed church this morning and ended up watching several Easter services on TV. It was a huge blessing to this lifetime COC'er to watch/listen to these other brethren and see how they also have a heart for Christ.
Anyways, watched a lesson by Kerry Shook of the Woodlands Church in The Woodlands, TX. Below, is a link to the sermon. It takes a minute to download, but once it does, start watching at the 16:00 mark. Was just really moving to me to watch someone use their unique talents to enhance a lesson and to create such a great atmosphere of worship.
http://www.kerryshook.org/thisweek_select.asp
(If the link doesn't get you there, you can go to the site and simply watch this week's sermon, then go to the 16:00)
JMF
If you can, listen to Kenneth Wells of the Woodsedge Church in The Woodlands. You may have look up his webb page.
He is a great man and loves us all.
Bob
We have not quite tip the scales yet but it is an eventuality instrumental music is just around the corner. This doesn't mean we are out of the worship wars yet the Christian church and other denominations have their own struggles on the issue. But rather the fight of this kind of worship is coming to an end. People are getting tired of it and newer more progressive elders are seeing a need to bring the arts and IM and media together.
Jay,
i don't think you're necessarily wrong, but i'd like to put on the devil's advocate cap for just a moment:
(1) Will allowing my selfish child always to get her way be the most effective way to eradicate her selfishness?
(2) If modelling the best way to do things is the most effective way to inspire that behavior in others, wouldn't the best way to inspire peaceful reponses in others be to refuse to go to war?
–Guy
Mark:
As I listen to your post about the eventuality of instrumental music, interested to know if you have looked at an accompanying note chain. Also interested to know if along with what you see as a growing interest in IM you see a growing desire among all to sing as well?
Please know that I did not approach the subject of music/song lightly. Not even what I intended to do as I waded into a look at apostolic teaching and the Asian cults. However, I will suggest that we do need to give all of Ephesians 4:17-5:21 a hearing/rehearing — even if it seems painful short-term.
The subject of spiritual song is crucial; I, for one, am not convinced we have fully heard all that Paul is saying in the text. And glad to share that I am not alone. I am aware of further attention to Ephesians 4:17-5:21 in the Independent Christian churches as well.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Yes, if your spirit of self-sacrificial love dwells in her heart and is moving and reshaping her heart so that what she wants to do changes.
This is deep at the heart of the Divine Reversal – the counter-intuitive but perfect way of the Cross. Does it make sense for God to allow the world to kill his Son? Does that look like the best way to eradicate evil from the world? Is it better to let evil do its worst and exhaust itself, leaving grace triumphant and ready to embrace the exhausted evildoer who has seen the futility of their evil ways? Or is it better to legislate against the evildoer, and inspire that greatest of fleshly temptations – the desire to do what which is forbidden. "For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, 'You shall not covet.' But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness." (Romans 7:7b-8a)
I'm deeply dedicated to personal nonviolence. As Jay has shown, it is deeply unChristlike to demand my own way, even in matters of life and death. However, I also recognize that, regrettably, there are times when nations must be "disfellowshipped" – and when promises of protection must be upheld. Also (perhaps most importantly to the concept of a pacifist nation) nations do not partake of the Spirit of God – they must rely on their own resources for security.
A nation cannot ally itself with the kingdom of God. It can seek to act justly and faithfully (as Rome and the US developed a reputation for — read 1 Maccabees to learn how the pre-imperial cult Roman Republic was viewed by outsiders) and fulfill its responsibilities to its people and its allies. Nations are responsible for providing these things (take a glance at the Preamble to the US Constitution for a good summary of the responsibilities of a nation towards its citizenry), either through their own resources or an alliance structure (or both, in the case of Rome and the US).
Christians are not responsible for providing security for themselves. We are free to sacrifice, because our security is assured by the One True God.
Notice how, under the protective shadow of the American empire of trust, the European nations who sought twice to shatter the world in pursuit of their own security and prosperity, have been free to demilitarize – because NATO promised two things. 1) Responsible use of force by the US against outside threats, and 2) Responsible use of force by the US to keep the peace between members of the alliance. The US promised to protect those nations from threats from outside the alliance, and forbade them from attacking each other – which history shows they were all too pleased to do before 1945. Likewise Japan and the Pacific Theater.
So, in conclusion, in the vast majority of cases you are correct – the best way to encourage peace is to be a peacemaker. Christians trust God to provide for their security; therefore they are free to respond with complete self-sacrificial love. The New Covenant is not open to nations; nations must fulfill their responsibilities as best they can, which sometimes (as with God, let us not forget the picture of Jesus in Revelation 19) requires a measured, considered, limited military response to preserve or reestablish peace and security.
Respect your elder, the elder submits to the younger, who submits to the elder. Sounds right, but doesn't?
Indeed we are in need of humility.
Guy,
Should parents ever be selfish as to their children? No. Do we sometimes insist that our children serve us? Yes — but not because we are owed it or have earned it, but we because we want our children to grow up to be servant-hearted people, and one way to learn that is through service. But if we demand service out of selfishness, then we've taught the wrong lesson altogether.
It's one thing to say, "Serve, because I've paid my dues and deserve your service." It's quite another to say, "Serve, because I want you to grow up to be just like me."
Guy,
I think the analogy between parents and children is a very good one.
When we are children we obey our parents because we fear punishment. But as adults our parents no longer are capable of punishing us, and yet when they ask something of us don't we still do it out of our love for them?
Obeying God because we fear his punishment IS a parent child relationship, but obeying God because we love him is a MATURE parent child relationship. Which relationship should we strive for?
Regarding war. IOM, the ONLY way to inspire others to be peacable is to be peacable ourselves.
War never inspires peace. That isn't even the purpose of war. One purpose of war is render our enemies incapable of making war on us. An ignoble purpose would be to steal from another people. But I don't believe the purpose is ever to inspire peace.
If we live peaceablly, we will inspire some others to live peacablly with us, but there will still be those who will make war on us. In that case, we have no choice but to make war on them, but we do not make war in an effort to inspire peace. The defeated do not become peace loving because they are defeated. They simply become either incapable (possibly because they are dead) or afraid of continuing making war.
How to win the war … surrender … we start using extreme analogies.
I have one strong conviction: It is the older generation that sould set an example forthe younger ones, and the younger ones should lern to follow that example. That would slow down any process of change triggered by immature ideas of young people. Sounds a bit harsh? Actually, I don't have the vocabulary at hand to put this in mellower words. But speaking of war and surrender …
We live in a youth-driven culture. Advertizing, entertainment, music … all of this points to the taste of the younger generations, makingthem the standard. After all, they imply, they are the next generation. The old ones are soon dead, then the young ones take over. We must look forward, not backward! … I don't like these paradigms. I think they are dead wrong.
Because how will the young ones master their life of they are not equipped with all skills, wisdoms and good examples by the older generation? Both my wife's parents and mine have been married for around 45 years – they grew up in an different generation, where divorce was either unlawful or very uncommon. Austria has a divorce rate of 50%, Vienna of 60-65% … that's our generation. And teen pregnancies, abortion, and fornication abounds. Who is there in in this world that keeps his virginity until marriage anymore? So, this is a glimpse of our hedonistic age and generation.
The music they listen to reflects their attitudes – music is not a-moral, it is a message in itself. That's why we must be very careful about which style of music we allow in worship and which we have to abhorr! If we talk about worship-wars, we have to study the whole battlefield, and the leaders of the church have to call to order their troops.
One of the basic rules of disciplines in both testaments is: The older ones lead, the younger ones follow. That's the opposite of what we hear in the world. I see people in their 40s and 50s (even in our church) who act like teens with their funny hairstyle, they way they dress and speak … they are totally influenced and one by a youth-driven society, by the ads and fads of our world. And the whole world is in the grip of the evil one (we must never forget that).
Someone alluded to 1st Peter
Please not, that we we all need to be humble in the way we interact between the generation, the younger ones are to submit the older ones (not vice-versa). And the head of the church is Christ, to whom we all must submit.
So how do we win the worship wars? Who must surrender? The enemy must surrender. Who is the enemy? Not flesh and blood, not our brithers and sisters in Christ, but Satan and his angels. All enemeis will be crushed under our feet in the end, and they must not get a foothold in our churches.
The church must be called to order, the younger ones submit to the elders, there must be no division among us, we have to know where the enemy hides and from whence bhis burning arrwos come. Yes, it is a war. And we should cast out from among us every foolishness of the youth-driven society around us, and grow to the full maturity in Christ.
Alexander
Jay,
i really don't think i understand your response to my question. i didn't ask if parents should be selfish or if they should insist on service from their children. i asked (and now will embellish slightly) if allowing and catering to a child's selfishness is an effective method for teaching that child *not* to be selfish.
Many of us have witnessed some child who demands to have everything their way, *and the parent gives in at every turn.* If the child demands candy for dinner, the parent gives in. If the child demands a new toy every day, the parent buys her everything she points to. If the child is unhappy with something–dinner or the choice of recreation or destination–the child pouts or throws a tantrum, and then the parent gives in and lets the child call the shots. The typical term i think of here is "princess" or "brat." My point is, i find this to be near to if not the worst possible parenting strategy with respect to teaching *non*-selfishness. Rather it seems far more likely that the child will grow up believing that the rest of the world ought to pander to her in much the same way.
i can't see then how giving in to the demands-regarding-worship-style-preferences of either the younger or older generation will instill or inspire self*less*ness. i grant you that we're dealing with christians rather than princesses and brats and thus it may be fair to suppose there is some degree of character difference among the people we're talking about. And if we're speaking about ideal situations, then that would definitely be the case.
But i'm sure that you as an elder have probably witnessed even more than me in my brief time in full-time ministry that Christians young and old can still exhibit bratty tendencies *and* not believe there's anything wrong in them doing so. In fact, my experience was that a great number of people (both young and old) honestly believed that the worship style *ought* to be the way they preferred it to be and that there was something wrong with the other parties' preferences. Giving in to one party or another by letting the style be all they want, i think, will serve to reinforce that sentiment. And if the older ones are 'self-sacrificing' to the younger ones in terms of worship-style, is it not possible then that the younger generation will grow old simply believing that worship should *always* be the way *they* want it?
It seems like you've presented a false dichotomy. Either worship has to be styled according to the older generations preferences or the younger generations preferences. Why? i don't see why anyone's *tastes* has to be the basis for styling worship. (That assumption seems to harbor some latent seeker-sensitive/marketing-approach for the church which is certainly popular at the moment but i don't see the NT church ever employing any such ideology.) In everyday life people often *need* things that are contrary to their *tastes.* (Exhibit A: eating vegetables) Why then should we assume that worship must be styled the way one generation or the other *likes* it? Why not rather concern ourselves with getting what we *need* whether it fits our tastes or not?
–Guy
Guy,
Because what we need is to learn to sacrifice, not to hear the songs we've always sung and the order of worship we've always experienced.
Along with the sacrificial choices goes teaching about the reason behind the decisions. You don't "just do it" and hope they'll figure it out in 50 years.
The mature practice their faith and teach their faith, and the young will learn from their model of non-insistence.
The reason you don't see "the NT church employing any such ideology" is because you don't see any public worship ideology in the NT beyond "decently and in order" and "look after the interests of others, to build them up." You see the church operating in homes and in the marketplace, not in an attract-them-to-a-central-location model.
Also, it would not build up young people to *only* and *always* worship in styles with which they were comfortable. They should experience the style of worship of their older brothers and sisters, to learn what encourages and strengthens them, so that they too can choose to sacrifice their desires for their brethren.
Finally, Paul states a principle of coherence to outsiders in 1 Cor that should be taken into account. What we do should be coherent to outsiders – they should be able to see and hear and understand what we're doing as God-glorifying. I haven't done a great deal of thought on this idea yet, but if *miraculous gifts* were to be used in such a way as to inspire God-glorification from outsiders, I think our style of worship should at least try to do the same thing.
Where does that word come from: "non-insistence"? Isn't that just a different way to describe an anti-autoritarian approach to church leadership?
To be sure, we have to lead through being examples. But we also have to admonish, to teach, to encourage, to rebuke and to command. And the church has to submit the elders, the younger ones the older ones.
Submission and non-instistence – that does not fit. If there is no rule to submit to, because there is nothing people insist in, then submission to a none-rule actually means: Do as you please.
In Worship it is necessary for unity that a congregation agrees on one pattern they all follow together. When the song leader chooses Hymn 27, then all submit and sing Hymn 27 – even those who are not particularly fond of Hymn 27.
A-Cappella worship is something all do together or all don't do together. You can't have both in one worship service. As soon as you provide two different services, you split the church. Period. You divide the congegation into IM-ers and AC-ers. They don't worship together any more, even if they do respect the other party's "freedom". The church has been divided according to individual preferences, the worship is not offered to God in unison, but to our individual preferences. I won't take that back. It is a schismatic approach to this issue.
A church may decide to worship either or, but not both and. And the leaders havo to insist, that all submit to the leadership's decision about the matter. Period. I see no other way, and the more I followed the discussions in this Blog the clearer it became to me, that great harm is done to the body of Christ because of being "non-insistent", because of allowing selfish attitudes, because of not rebuking insubmissive behavior. Because of worshipping preferences instead of God.
I have decided that this is going to be my last post here, because I am beginning to repeat myself anyway. And it is too time consuming. I have learned a lot, and I am greatly encouraged to resist change that is driven by personal preferences and to encourage change that is necessary in order to become more scriptural as a church.
I feel with the conservatives, although I don't agree with every argument or every attitude they show. But I have got the impression that the progressive wing in the end causes divisions (even unintentionally, but never the less); I see a bad fruit; I see a Blog titles "One in Jesus", but there is departure from oneness.
Sorry, brothers, but that's just the way I see it.
The Lord be with you and lead you on
Alexander
Alexander asks:
I'm sorry that the word is unclear, or that you hear anti-authoritative motives behind it. Actually, it comes from a very obscure passage of Scripture. Perhaps you've heard it before somewhere:
Alexander also writes:
Really? Is that what Paul is teaching in Eph 5:18-21?
Alexander, it seems you and Paul differ greatly on the implications of both non-insistence and submission to one another. You see them as impossible to practice – Paul sees them as essential to the life of the church. You assume that without an IM rule, everyone gets to do what they please – that simply ignores the centrality of love in the Christian life.
1) for the mature, sacrificing their preferences will be a joy – they'll be doing what pleases them because they'll be following the Master's example – that's what "mature in Christ" means.
2) for the immature, sacrificing their preferences will be a goal. But the mature won't be sacrificing to allow the immature to do "whatever they want." The mature will be sacrificing their preferences in order to create the atmosphere that the immature need – an atmosphere where their worship language is spoken and their gifts are welcomed in the assembly.
In practice, this clearly doesn't necessarily mean that IM must be introduced. It means that the leadership is free to do what's best for the mission of God in their locale.
And if the songleader only chooses songs that edify his family? does that promote unity or division? If the songleader only chooses a style of song that edifies one age group in the congregation? If the songleader shows no concern for how the song service shapes the worshipping lives of the congregation, but only picks songs that he likes, because it doesn't matter what songs we sing as long as we fulfill the command to sing and the inference to sing without accompaniment?
That is the inverse of the Christian way, because it demands that the newer Christians always submit their preferences to the preferences of the older Christians. To whom do the older Christians sacrifice their preferences?
Yes, because the traditional way that has been followed for the greater part of 200 years hasn't caused divisions. Is it progressive doctrine that teaches one-cup brethren not to fellowship multi-cup brethren? Non-institutional brethren not to fellowship institutional brethren? Non Sunday School brethren to not fellowship Sunday School brethren? KJV-only brethren to not fellowship NIV-reading brethren?
Is it progressive doctrine that teaches that a cappella brethren must not fellowship IM brethren?
It is not. It is so-called conservative (in truth, traditional) doctrine that requires severing of fellowship over these issues. It is only inconsistency in applying the traditional doctrine of fellowship that allows so-called "mainstream" brethren to fellowship those with more scruples than they – and with those whose doctrine of fellowship is stricter than theirs, but reject fellowship with those who are more willing to exercise their freedom in Christ – those whose doctrine of fellowship is more lenient than theirs.
There is not a "departure from oneness." There is a clear recognition that the oneness that Christ created has been shattered and disgraced, shamed before the watching world, by the traditional doctrine of fellowship. How can you look at the Restoration Movement in 2010 and see a oneness from which progressives are departing?
This can get complicated.
Teens can also have wide, conflicted taste. It was a bit of a shock to go off to Oklahoma Christian College in 1968 and find the student band was country.
I get really upset with some subgroups of rock. Bad job is associated with a style of rock music.
Worshipping in hip hop, metal, blue grass, or rap would be a real challenge.
A 78 year old brother at Quail Springs moved from the vocal service to the instrumental because it opened up an opportunity for service. Bill did report that he couldn't hear the words during the rock style music. He was willing to do it.