Bill Evans, one of the new bloggers on the block at Baptists and Presbyterians Together (also known as the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals), seems to have an issue with a point I made some time ago when I contrasted the arguments of John Frame and Hughes Oliphant Old on worship. Here is how Evans describes my point:
Hart in essence asked the question of why some Reformed theological “conservatives” can be so “liberal” on worship while those further to the left theologically are often so “conservative” on matters liturgical. His test case is a comparison of PCA teaching elder John Frame’s Worship in Spirit and Truth (P&R, 1996) and PCUSA worship scholar Hughes Oliphant Old’s Worship That Is Reformed according to Scripture (John Knox, 1984). As Hart puts it, “In the ‘liberal’ PCUSA, if Old’s book is any indication, the traditional elements and rites of historic Reformed liturgy are firmly in place. But in the ‘conservative’ PCA, using Frame as a guide, the conventional pieces of Reformed worship are in flux.” A bit later, Hart contends, “If sideline Presbyterian denominations such as the PCA and the OPC were as conservative about the Reformed tradition as they regard themselves, then we would expect Old’s book to have come from a PCA or an OPC minister and to have been published by a conservative Presbyterian press. Moreover, if the mainline Presbyterian denomination was as liberal as its conservative detractors insist, then it would make more sense for Frame’s book to have come from a PCUSA officer and publishing house. Yet the opposite is the case. The conservatives have turned modernist, if by modernism we mean the self-conscious adaptation of the faith to modern times. Just as unlikely, the modernists have become the chief defenders of the historic Reformed faith, at least in its liturgical aspects, against efforts to preserve the kernel while refashioning a modern husk.”
Evans explanation for the difference between the “conservative” Frame and the “liberal” Old differs from mine. I had written that evangelical Presbyterians like Frame, motivated by evangelism and biblicism, could turn a blind eye to formal considerations in worship, such as the fitting modes of expressing praise, gratitude, Christian truth, etc. Evans counters that a better account may be aesthetics – in mainline churches where upper-class Protestants worship, choirs and organs are more acceptable than in evangelical churches. But because evangelicals hold on to the importance of evangelism and the authority of Scripture, Evans is willing to put up with the tackiness that sometimes comes with evangelical worship.
In short, is the real problem for some conservative Reformed champions of “traditional worship” that a lot of evangelical worship is, by upper-middle-class standards, a bit tacky? Given an unhappy choice between holding on to the gospel and the authority of Scripture on the one hand and aesthetically pleasing traditional Reformed worship on the other, the issue for me is clear. Why strain a liturgical gnat and swallow a theological camel? Fortunately, that is a false dichotomy, a choice that need not be made.
I don’t know if Evans thinks I favor traditional worship because it is not tacky. Since he uses me to make his point he may think so. So let me be clear. Organs are no more acceptable in worship than guitars. Worship should not follow the ethos of the concert hall any more than it should conform to the feel of a rock concert or television show. In fact, Reformed worship of the Genevan and Scottish kind, when the only music was unaccompanied psalm-singing, avoided the elite idiom of chamber music and would have no trouble rejecting the I-love-Jesus ballads of P&W. Reformed worship actually attempted a cultural idiom that was unique to the task of worshiping God. It was a form of expression set apart for the people of God. This worship could still be beautiful even if austerely simple. According to Evelyn Underhill, for Calvin the abiding reality of worship was “God’s unspeakable Majesty and Otherness, and the nothingness and simplicity of man.” For this reason, “No ceremonial acts or gestures were permitted. No hymns were sung but those derived from a Biblical source. The bleak stripped interior of the real Calvinist church is itself sacramental; a witness to the inadequacy of the human over against the divine.”
The theological rationale for this simplicity came at least with the reasoning of the Westminster Divines when they wrote:
Under the gospel, when Christ, the substance, was exhibited, the ordinances in which this covenant is dispensed are the preaching of the Word, and the administration of the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper: which, though fewer in number, and administered with more simplicity, and less outward glory, yet, in them, it is held forth in more fullness, evidence and spiritual efficacy, to all nations, both Jews and Gentiles; and is called the new testament. There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations. (7.6)
In which case, pipe organs are no more beautiful than guitars, and upper-, middle-, and lower-class aesthetics have no standing in “traditional” Reformed worship. The reason has everything to do with the theology of the Lord’s Day, when Christians assemble with all the angels and heavenly hosts at Mount Zion in the presence of Christ and offer up their petitions and praise and hear their Lord speak in the word read and preached. Worship is not about earthly but heavenly aesthetics.
And that has a lot to do with why Oliphant is a better guide to Reformed worship than Frame. If worship is a meeting between the king of the universe and his subjects, then would that encounter be reverent and serious or would it be casual and folksy – even humorous? That seems like a perfectly obvious question. But because the Bible does not apparently address questions of style, but is only concerned about the content of worship, for evangelicals as long as a service has correct doctrine its tone can assume a variety of cultural idioms, hip-hop, exclusive psalmody, 1950s, or P&W – they are all the same. (Which is a pretty remarkable argument coming from some who think the Bible teaches how we are going to transform the secular culture. We can be certain of cultural standards for pagans and Christians in New York City but be cultural relativists for Presbyterians and Baptists in worship? Oy vey!)
Forms matter. Forms should, as Paul taught in Titus 2, fit sound doctrine. How informality, breeziness, or vulgarity befit sound doctrine, I’ll never know. But if someone has a clue about civility and manners, and why talking on a cell phone loudly in a public place is inappropriate (but maybe not a sin), he or she may have a pretty good sense why worship that does not reinforce the holiness and transcendence and authority of the God they serve is not becoming to Reformed Protestantism.
Old Life 
In his intro Evans wrote: “My tastes in worship are decidedly traditional.” What Reformed doctrine is it that teaches us to look within ourselves to determine worship? In contrast, your quote from Evelyn Underhill points us outward instead of inward. Instead of preference, reverence.
Good post.
LikeLike
Darryl, this post was like a refreshing drink of water. In the West of Scotland, and I can only speak anecdotally, most evangelical churches seem to be dominated by the middle classes. I believe that there are a variety of reasons for this and I realise that it’s not bad to belong to the middle class. Nevertheless, in my experience, working class folk feel really uncomfortable in attendance at these evangelical churches. Could it be that the form of worship in these churches is a barrier? Could middle class tastes be the soup du jour? For instance, there’s no liturgy just spontaneity. No recital of creeds, just spontaneous prayers filled with phrases like “umm Lord, umm, we just want to umm worship you.”
The music tends to be of a kind of pop/soft-rock flavour, i.e. a bland version of what we hear on the radio and the words, as you mentioned, tend to be of the “My Jesus, my boyfriend” variety. The chairman tends to be a cheese-meister extrodinaire, dressed in an open necked shirt and cracking twee gags while congratulating the congregation for bothering to turn up. It’s all very non-threatening, “nice”, happy-go-lucky and dare I say effeminate.
It seems a far cry from acapella singing, from pastoral prayers, from public confession of sin, from church discipline and close communion.
LikeLike
Greg, plus, he admits that he was a guitar player in a CRC church plant worship band. How traditional is that?
LikeLike
DGH said “Reformed worship actually attempted a cultural idiom that was unique to the task of worshiping God. It was a form of expression set apart for the people of God. This worship could still be beautiful even if austerely simple.”
A beautiful statement of beautiful (and Biblical, godly) worship. Thank you.
LikeLike
Traditional worship does not equal Reformed worship unless the tradition in question is that of Geneva, Scotland, and the old school Presbyterians. Most are just ignorant of the fact that almost no Presbyterian churches had organs or choirs until the second half of the 19th century. Read Kilde’s “When Church Became Theatre” for an enlightening look at the tangible and visual manifestations of this shift.
LikeLike
DGH: Greg, plus, he admits that he was a guitar player in a CRC church plant worship band. How traditional is that?
Some people get involved in worship bands so as to make the best of a bad situation.
LikeLike
Smashing said guitar Hendrix-style might be the only way to improve most praise bands…
LikeLike
I often hear people (like Horton,who I admire) say somewhat piously “it’s not about guitars vs. organs.” Of course, it’s really not, since true Reformed worship advocates would usually love to get rid of both. The human voice – maybe with minimal, appropriate accompaniment – should be the only organ of praise we really want to employ. In a less than ideal situation you want to minimize the effect of whatever objectionable accretions are present. Get the choir and instruments out of the front of the building if you can’t eliminate them and work to make them true aids/accompanists – not the show. Turn down the organ. Unplug the guitar (or smash it). Then teach and hope the people come along.
LikeLike
Brad,
Re: “Get the choir and instruments out of the front of the building if you can’t eliminate them and work to make them true aids/accompanists – not the show.”
I’ve often wondered how long the praise band style of worship would last if it was relegated to the back of the church (behind the congregation). It makes such a difference when the choir and piano/organ are placed where they belong and the congregation is facing the altar and not distracted by the them.
LikeLike
Lily, “altar” should probably read “pulpit” which should be in the center. I’m sure you just meant “front of the worship hall.” Speaking of which, we’re trying to get the term “worship hall” to replace “sanctuary” in our new building.
LikeLike
Smashing said guitar Hendrix-style might be the only way to improve most praise bands…
Beer might work too. The main difference between a lot of modern worship services and a sub-par rock concert is that you can drink at the latter. This doesn’t necessarily improve the quality of the band, but it does help you not mind quite as much.
This is why I don’t go to many all-ages shows anymore.
LikeLike
Jeff, so would getting involved in worship bands so as to make the best of a bad situation be transforming the transformers? Oy, where does all the sanctimonious besting end?
Brad, “Worship Hall” sounds like “Fellowship Hall” which sounds sort of Jehovah’s Witness-y which is pretty evangelical-ish. But if you have one of those unfortunate things called “Fellowship Hall” where the chit-chatty evangelical virtue of sociability-equals-spirituality is embodied, I would tend to think working to get it called “The All Purpose Room” and leaving the “Sanctuary” alone would be a better use of energy.
LikeLike
Zrim, trying to avoid the modern term “space” at all costs.
LikeLike
Zrim: I guess, or pushing back. Surely you could imagine an old-lifer finding himself in a non-ideal church situation? 🙂
LikeLike
100% Amen Dr. Hart
LikeLike
“Smashing said guitar Hendrix-style might be the only way to improve most praise bands…” Nice, Brad.
Nick, you have trashed my hopeful dreams that only the USA was infected with happy clappy worship. I really wanted to believe that something more rooted was happening in our Presbyterian Homeland. What’s a “twee” gag?
Zrim, perhaps instead of “sanctuary” or “worship hall” or “All Purpose Room,” we could name it “Happy Place,” as in “Now, lets all go to our Happy Place.”
This post nicely takes this discussion out of the realm of taste and culture, and makes it a matter of principle(s).
LikeLike
Oops, Brad, I apologize.
I should have remained silent. I’m Lutheran so I’m coming at this in the wrong way for Reformed sensibilities. Traditional Lutheran churches normally have a sanctuary, with a crucifix, altar, and baptismal font in the front of the sanctuary (chancel), and the pulpit placed to one side of the chancel. The choir and piano/organ are placed out of view of the congregation. It works for our sensibilities, but not for ya’ll. We do share the common problem of praise bands and other such nonsense. I think confessional Reformed and Lutheran sensibilities agree on this point: praise bands and other such nonsense do not belong in the Divine Service. May they be banished to where they belong! Any amens to that? 😉
LikeLike
Jeff, inhabiting the CRC for last fourteen years I don’t really have to imagine that. But it’s never occurred to me to join the dude up front in his clogs, Havana shirt and breezy gee-tar as a form of pushback. How do you figure?
LikeLike
This is an exceedingly minor point, but I do discern a difference between organ and guitar: the former is a means of encouraging the congregation to sing; the latter is not, or at least is vastly less effective in doing so.
Unlike the guitar, the organ’s vast range can simultaneously aid each parishoner, from bass to soprano.
While the organ has is theatrical properties, those are chiefly on display during the prelude/postlude, and, in my view, is fitting in those instances.
On the down side, an adequate pipe organ can cost in the millions of dollars.
LikeLike
Notice that when we say “worship” we often think “music.” My own dear pastor has made the point that this shows how off base and out of balance 21st century Christian worship is. If music takes up 50% of the service, that’s too much. Count the musical selections in this Genevan order from DGH (http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=08-04-017-f):
Invocation
Confession of Sins
Prayer for Pardon
Singing of a Psalm
Prayer for Illumination
Lessons from Scripture
Sermon
Collection of Offerings
Prayers of Intercession
Apostles’ Creed (sung while elements of Lord’s Supper are prepared)
Words of Institution
Instruction and Exhortation
Communion (while a psalm is sung or Scripture read)
Prayer of Thanksgiving
Benediction
Even tacky music would be more bearable if there were less of it in a given service.
LikeLike
Michael, the Presbyterian fatherland is in a sorry state. Tis no longer the land of Chalmers and Knox.
As for twee it means overly refined or sickeningly affected. It’s a British idiom.
LikeLike
Kane, I have to disagree with you to the detriment of my personal taste. I love the sound of the organ, and would speak highly of it if worship was merely about aesthetics. However, it quite dominates congregational singing when, IMO, instrumentation should be minimal and certainly not more prominent than vocalization. This is not to say that I like the guitar in worship, but a minimal guitar, as annoying as that would be to my taste, is superior in principle to the overwhelming pipe organ.
LikeLike
Michael,
I don’t find that it dominates congregational singing at all. In fact, I find that I sing with a good deal more gusto with the organ than without. In that sense, “vocalization” becomes more prominent with the organ. A minimal guitar, without amplification, in any moderately sized congregation would seemingly be superfluous. At least, I think Bach wrote more for the organ than the lute.
LikeLike
“Given an unhappy choice between holding on to the gospel and the authority of Scripture on the one hand and aesthetically pleasing traditional Reformed worship on the other”
This seems to me to be an argument that owes more to pragmatism than anything else, and perhaps shows the extent to which church growth methods have taken over that corner of the church. On a similiar topic from a Lutheran context:
http://jackkilcrease.blogspot.com/2011/03/revealing-thing-about-michelle-bachman.html
LikeLike
Brad, there was more music in New Testament worship than you think. Check out Psalm 72:18. If prayers continued to be sung in New Covenant worship, as they had been under the Old Covenant -and barring any NT indication to the contrary we must assume that they were- music constituted a major part of worship in the New Testament.
And Darryl: Right on about the need for transcendence in worship. Which is one of the major reasons for employing the majestic, sustained tones of a pipe organ. This is a sound not generally heard on Monday through Saturday. It proclaims, “This is the Lord’s Day.” It makes a distinctive statement -one that’s analogous to the distinctive architecture of a church building.
LikeLike
Brad -sorry,make that Psalm 72:20 (“The prayers of David the son of Jesse are ended.”)
LikeLike
“Worship is not about earthly but heavenly aesthetics.”
But Darryl, where in the book of Revelation is there any indication that heavenly aesthetics are plain and simple, rather than rich and elaborate? (The First Epistle to the Puritans notwithstanding…)
LikeLike
Chris E,
When I looked at the link you provided, I wondered if the problem reflects people who are being poorly catechized rather than pragmatism. Could it be that the fruit of CGM and/or celebrity pastors may be that the congregants have no anchors in their tradition’s doctrines (what they believe and why) through careful catechesis? FWIW, I’m thinking their catechism has been substituted with CGM methods and/or Mr. Super Preacher’s latest “powerful” sermon on his latest hobby horse and the congregation is never truly rooted and grounded in what it should be [not to mention that the week-to-week meetings are designed (whether intentionally or not) to appeal to the flesh]. Anywho, it seems to me that a lot of people end up in evangelical La-La land because don’t know any better and it is most likely because of a lack of proper teaching. Ideally, it seems to me that a Lutheran would change to a different tradition because of convictions that the other tradition’s doctrines were better not through ignorance.
LikeLike
John, if you like your worship over-realized, then you may want to check not only with Owen but also with Calvin and Zwingli.
LikeLike
So, Kane, a loud instrument emphasizes singing more than than a minimal instrument? You’re really going to make that argument? Isn’t it more likely that you simply like the organ and are thereby emotionally energized by it? But if that’s the case you have no better argument than the headbanger is is emotionally energized by a wall of sound. How about a capella as a common goal for both of you, with a fall-back position of minimal musical accompaniment?
LikeLike
Zrim, I don’t know what Evans was on about. But I can imagine someone saying, “If I’m on the praise team, I’ll get some measure of influence on what songs are played, and how, and I’ll even lead the way in not wearing Hawaiian print. But if I’m not, then someone else will be in that spot … and then who knows what we’ll get.”
Just saying. Who knows? Maybe Evans was just his own thing.
—
FWIW: I find it amusing that OldLifers affirm the singing of Psalms in worship, but not the *obeying* of Psalms in worship … “Praise Him with the harp and lyre…”
I understand the pedigree of the argument; it’s just one place where I think Calvin overreacted to Romanism.
LikeLike
DGH,
I couldn’t resist teasing you on this one: “worship over-realized”
So… what’cha got ‘ginst Bach and organs?
LikeLike
John, I don’t know if there’s any evidence that instruments were used in synagogue worship, which I’ve always understood to have been quite simple and “Word”-oriented. At any rate, that which we find in the epistles should probably be normative for worship in this age. Paul says nothing of instruments or choirs. Indeed, his instructions to address one another in psalms, etc. would seem to necessitate that our human voices not have to compete with the sounds of loud instruments or ensembles.
LikeLike
I have a quick question, and I don’t mean to be adversarial, I honestly would like to know. For those of you that believe in eschewing all instrumentation (sans the human voice of course) from worship, what do you make of the obvious usage of instruments in old covenant worship? For example, in Psalms 33, the psalmist seems to be exhorting followers of God to praise Him with instruments.
LikeLike
Sorry, DGH – This is one of the areas that hits my funny bone really hard and it’s difficult to not joke about the differences between our traditions! My poor warped humor works overtime with: it’s a wonder you don’t blow away on that Jack Spratt diet. But, I suppose that’s why we tend towards being so earthy – we eat all of the fat at the table for you!
Almost respectfully,
Lily ;P
LikeLike
Sigh… I hate it when I goober up trying to joke around and trying to make it plain that it’s good natured teasing. It should have read “respectfully” instead of the “almost respectfully.” But… since I’m making corrections, can I make it “respectfully laughing” ?
LikeLike
Cancel my comment — it was unnecessarily snarky.
LikeLike
And, John, I’m sorry. You were referring to quantity of music and I went on about instruments. Should have read more closely. I’ll leave it to the scholars to answer about synagogue liturgy.
LikeLike
Jeff, I can imagine someone saying that as well. But I still don’t get it. It sounds like “if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em,” which sounds more like an Erasmian way to reform worship than a Lutheran way.
LikeLike
Chris, simply put, the use of musical instruments is tied to Temple worship and has been fulfilled in Christ. So, we sing those Psalms in the same way that we sing Psalms about Temple animal sacrifices, but do not perform animal sacrifices. The same holds true for the use of incense.
LikeLike
Joel, thanks for the response. I could see that.
I’m personally undecided on the whole issue, but it seems to me that the temple/type argument isn’t the one Dr. Hart is making. He posed the question “If worship is a meeting between the king of the universe and his subjects, then would that encounter be reverent and serious or would it be casual and folksy – even humorous?” If worship with instruments or P/W choruses (which I loathe) is wrong because it’s irreverent, surely it would be the same in the old covenant as the new would it not? God was not any less to be reverenced in the old, in fact if anything the temple apparatus seemingly kept man yet more reverentially distanced from an awesome and fearful God than now with Christ Jesus as the temple, allowing us entrance into the Most Holy Place. As far as I can tell, the Bible doesn’t suggest David was wrong for singing and dancing in the street with instruments of various kinds while praising the Lord, something that was never, as far as I know, ordinanced by Scripture as part of temple worship.
Revelations 5:8 also tells of elders in heaven praising the Lamb with harps. It most likely is figurative language of course, but it seems unlikely that the Holy Spirit would use an irreverent symbol to illustrate the perfect praise of the saints and angels in Heaven.
Again, I’m still kind of thinking through these things and appreciate the input I receive. From a standpoint of what’s pleasing to my own sensibilities, I love a capella hymnody and psalmody, but I have a hard time making a hard scriptural or theological case for it.
LikeLike
DGH,
Sorry if this illustration is a little cheesy but, if we walked from back modernity onto the “reformation” bridge would the other end of the bridge be the early church? My question is, why are we going first to the reformation for direction on the style and form of worship and instead of the early church?
( I’m well aware the new perspective, and federal vision theology arguments are framed in this same way)
Surely a reformation style of worship is more traditional and reverent to us living in the modern day because it is contrasted with our own experience of casual and contemporary worship of modernity. But wasn’t the reformation style of worship contemporary to the reformers?
Now I am well aware that we need to be careful not to let the medium change the message, and a lot of contemporary songs lack the same theological soundness etc… and I also attend a CREC church which is very reformational/biblical in it’s worship. I’m really asking these questions because I haven’t done a lot of reading on reformed worship and all.
LikeLike
Let me chip in.
I sometimes come across people who do view the temple as a model for Christian worship. This cannot be correct, as several others have stated. The Bible makes it clear that the curtain is torn and we all can approach God through Jesus our great high priest. But the details aren’t clear. Can we really say that musical instruments were part and parcel of the sacrificial system? I’m not sure. I accept there’s a lack of New Testament evidence, but the same could be said about church buildings, and the latter doesn’t seem to bother us.
The problem is that working out what the Bible does say about the specifics of Christian worship isn’t easy. However if we are to consider what God wants, then we have to use the Bible, and the New Testament in particular, as our point of reference, not the reformation. I know that the reformers would want us to do this, rather than accept what they did. They always felt that the reformation was not the end and the church must continually test itself against scripture.
The other thing we have to careful of is stereotyping contemporary worship. Yes, there’s much that I find profoundly disturbing. We all know of churches that have turned worship into something between a rock concert and a TV show, and we’ve all had to reach for the sick bags. But it’s not all like that.
Sorry this is a bit disjointed – hope it makes sense.
LikeLike
Michael,
Yes, I am really making that argument. Do you sing more heartily with two other people singing with you or with 200 people? Your answer aside, I would wager that most would go with the latter. The same principle is evident with the organ in the background. Most importantly, I focus much less on the singer (me) and much more on the text/addressee. Then again, I’m not much of a vocalist.
I have no difficulty distinguishing between the organ and a “wall of sound.” Neither have the bulk of church musicians over the past 600 or so years. And, no, I am probably more emotionally energized by a slide guitar than an organ, but I don’t really care to hear a bluesy rendition of The Church’s One Foundation in the nave.
I have no problem if a congregation wants to go a cappella – I am sure it is lovely. The point is that an instrument is not just an instrument.
LikeLike
Joel,
That’s one slippery slope. Better disconnect the parish from the electrical grid since Christ lightens our paths.
LikeLike
So, Kane, if you want to have an important conversation with someone, do you turn on some loud background music to make sure you talk nice and loud? Should we have a lot of background noise during the sermon to make sure the preaching is nice and loud? Of course not, and neither does a loud organ emphasize singing.
There is a certain tradition in which, aurally, visibly, and emotionally, the organ is given too much prominence. There’s the pulpit, there’s the baptismal font, and there’s the pipe organ, the architectural trinity. That’s too much prominence for a mere cultural preference. More and more it has been the preference of a certain class of people while alienating other classes, and being above the means of most congregations.
We are commanded to sing. Why not do it in simplicity?
LikeLike
Chris, if someone else wants to have the full debate, that’s fine, but I was just wanting to give the summary of the position. It’s too broad a conversation for the comments section, and there’s too many ways to easily get the information you’re wanting in defense of a position of no-instrumental accompaniment.
Kane, (perhaps David as well) your objection sounds more like a misunderstanding or disagreement with the RPW and its elemental/circumstantial distinction. DGH and Muether have an excellent discussion of that in their book, With Reverence and Awe. I commend it to you.
“The point is that an instrument is not just an instrument.” That puts it well, by the way. It’s a very important point.
LikeLike
Zrim: It sounds like “if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em,” which sounds more like an Erasmian way to reform worship than a Lutheran way.
Well, you’re right — it’s not a strategy for global worship reform. But I’m not sure that one is necessarily called to do global worship reform. Sometimes, one’s role is to hold the finger in the dike.
LikeLike
Michael,
The distinction between this and an important conversation or a sermon is that with corporate worship we are singing to God (vertical), not primarily to each other. A sermon or important conversation is primarily horizontal. If the organ aids our singing to God, which I believe it does, then very well. If your congregation does not think so, then very well. This is not a conscience-binding matter, in my opinion.
As you imply, an organ is lavish. But that is the point.
Joel,
Thanks for the heads up.
LikeLike
Kane, I’ve always taken this passage from Ephesians (one of the few in the NT on corporate singing) to mean that the horizontal dimension of corporate praise is, in fact, very important.
“be filled with the Spirit, addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with your heart, giving thanks always and for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ”
LikeLike
Jeff, I’m not talking global either. I’m talking mode, not scale. So I think expressing one’s thoughts to one’s (local) elders about P&W sure beats joining the (local) praise band.
LikeLike
Kane: “The distinction between this and an important conversation or a sermon is that with corporate worship we are singing to God (vertical), not primarily to each other. A sermon or important conversation is primarily horizontal.”
You rightly point out that we worship God and not each other. Many evangelical churches don’t seem to understand that simple point. But from your comment above I see why we differ on the use of the organ: you seem to have a very indidualistic conception of worship, ie., what counts is each individual singing more loudly (and, the thought process continues, the organ encourages louder individual singing hence is superior). But worship has a corporate character. We gather in one place. We take communion together. We worship together. We also sing together; we lose something of the character of worship if our corporate voice gets lost in loud instrumentation.
LikeLike
“When I looked at the link you provided, I wondered if the problem reflects people who are being poorly catechized rather than pragmatism”
I’m sure that on an individual level it’s down to poor teaching and catechesis, but whole churches and denominations tend to move in this direction based on pragmatic arguments. The original quote indicates this – as it appears from the quote that this form of worship is the price to be paid for biblical teaching.
LikeLike
Michael,
Right – Lutherans and Anglicans, and many oldline Presbyterians, are real bastions of individualism when it comes to worship. Nevermind their books of concord and *common* prayer.
Brad,
I didn’t say the horizontal aspect wasn’t important, just that it wasn’t the primary thing, unlike the sermon.
LikeLike
Jeff, at least oldlifers believe in the regulative principle. I don’t know how many times I’ve heard a newlifer quote the psalms on instruments and never do they use a harp or lyre.
LikeLike
Lily, I love Bach, organs, and Glenn Gould’s playing Bach. I do find such beauty to be distracting during worship.
LikeLike
Peter W., I don’t know how reformed worship was contemporary if contemporary worship at the time included the mass and choirs. And if the reformers resurrected psalm singing, that seems pretty early church (which is what Old claims it to patterned after).
LikeLike
I don’t know how many times I’ve heard a newlifer quote the psalms on instruments and never do they use a harp or lyre.
Hah! But they use cymbals. 🙂
LikeLike
I enjoy listening to organs and choirs — my iPod is full of them — and 15th and 16th century polyphony, mostly in Latin, makes up much of my entertainment listening. But I don’t want those things in corporate worship. Some of this high church stuff might aid private worship and meditation. Hearing the 51st Psalm sung/chanted in English to Allegri’s Miserere Mei is moving. But I don’t believe it’s appropriate for corporate worship; it’s performance, skillfully calculated to produce an emotional response, sort of like a Finney sermon. This reminds me of the story Bob Godfrey tells of a young Scot who drifted into Anglicanism upon moving to London. After taking his stern Free Church mother to a service he heard these words: “Well, it was beautiful…but a what a thing to do on the Lord’s Day.”
LikeLike
Dr. Hart, I apologize for teasing and do respect the differences in theology that regulate your worship. Sometimes, I find our differences amusing and flunk the the temptation to joke about our differences. The same can be said about my amusement at being Lutheran at times, too.
LikeLike
Chris E,
I see your point and it is very valid. Coming from my neck of the woods, I tend to place the emphasis on a need for well catechized congregants. It was the laity who demanded changes in an LCMS seminary (liberals teaching higher criticism) that was turning out poor pastors – it came to a head in 1974 and ended when many of the liberals (but not enough) left our Synod to form their own. Similarly, it was the laity who rallied when liberals canceled a confessional Lutheran radio program 2 years ago and worked together to remove the CGM/CEO President of our Synod. We are now blessed with an incredible confessional Synod President. I’m not saying we did it without pastors, but it was the laity who rose up and found pastors to help them in these situations. Hopefully, we, the laity are learning our lessons and taking more care to make sure more of our youth are well catechized and more vigilant about what is going on around us.
LikeLike
The problem with P & W are the tunes. They are Kenny Loggins’ bland and boring. If I am going to have to listen to some posh guy play the guitar can we maybe get some Psalms written to this tune?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQlM59sDJVo&
LikeLike
To each his own…This post and most of the comments exude a spirit of personal preference. It shocks me that we you can’t see this. The word “fitting” itself is culturally and personally relative.
I am also shocked to hear that the sermon is a horizontal component of worship. Doesn’t the Second Helvetic Confession say that the Word of God preached is the Word of God? How can God speaking be horizontal?
Finally, the latest research, as I understand it, show that the connections between synagogue and early Christian worship are tenuous at best. This has been the position of historic Presbyterianism and is advocated by Old’s study (both his book on Reformed worship and his earlier Ph.D. thesis. This also has an impact on arguments for exclusive psalmist.
As for those who think that Kenny Loggins is bland and boring–well, more evidence of personal preference rising to the top. And, for those who think that all contemporary worship lyric is trite and shallow…clearly, you’re just repeating arguments that you’ve heard from someone somewhere or you just made it up. I dare you to actually study the corpus and continue the claim. As a whole it fares about as well as hymnody of any era.
LikeLike
Lily, no need for apologies here. Keep the jokes coming. It’s what Lutherans do.
LikeLike
Terry, and yours is a remarkably po-mo argument. The superiority of Shakespeare to Stephen King is merely preference. Yes, praise and worship has made the world safe for multi-culturalism.
LikeLike
Dr, Hart, I’m not sure we can blame the Lutherans for my warped sense of humor. 😉
LikeLike
Terry,
If I may, I would like to respond and explain why I think your observation is unfair. For example: when I look at the differences between confessional Lutheran and Reformed worship, it helps me to understand the body of work behind each tradition’s practices in their Divine Services and what their practices mean. Our traditions disagree, but they are united in the fact that nothing is done or not done lightly. Each is rich in their confessions and practices in worship. I am Lutheran because I am convinced that they are the best expression of Christianity in their doctrines and practices. I think the same could be said for those who are Reformed. Each tradition forms and shapes their adherents into disciples of Christ with great care and attention. Modern evangelical worship is poverty-stricken and tasteless gruel in comparison either tradition. This may be harsh, but I cannot tell much difference between modern evangelical adherents and popular culture. Mostly, they seem to be a confused mess because they have given little theological thought to their worship practices and how the gospel is to be proclaimed in song and how song is to bear witness to Christ.
I don’t think it’s fair to reduce the comments to merely “personal preference.” Sure, personal preference plays a role in our choices and comments, but some of the comments are also tongue-in-cheek (eg: Kenny Logins). I would offer that each tradition’s attention to detail in worship practices will begin to form and shape our tastes for the better while at the same time preach a clear gospel through psalms, hymns, and sermon. I cannot say the same for modern worship services. How each tradition views how the horizontal and vertical are at work when we gather together to worship, I’ll leave to others.
Perhaps it would be more charitable to observe that we are all growing into our head (Christ) and our understanding and/or learning to articulate our faith in our comments is imperfect? I see the conversations here as an opportunity to learn and hone what/why we believe what we do (eg: iron sharpens iron)? Pax.
LikeLike
Dr. Hart,
So let me get this straight – it is fine for a pastor to use the Heidelberg Catechism to select lectionary/sermon texts, but not ok to employ an organ in worship? Who gets to decide what is elemental versus circumstantial? Does the principle allow for harmony, or is it plainchant only?
LikeLike
I grew up in a mainline church, and did not become more versed in Reformed orthodoxy until I was in my late 20s.
To this day, I feel much more comfortable socially in a mainline church. In part, I can find more folks in a mainline church who are likely to share my interests. In a sense, mainline churches are basically an extension of upper-middle class culture. Orthodoxy is probably not as central to mainline church life because an emphasis on orthodoxy may cause a divide among the church’s bridge clubs, golfing foursomes, and the like. So, orthodoxy takes a back seat to the maintenance of relative unity among the upper-middle class churchgoers.
There can be no doubt that Machen split from the mainline church because of his fidelity to Christian orthodoxy. But when I look across the broad expanse of our Reformed evangelical churches, I’m not convinced that Machen’s passions are shared by all of those who left the mainline denominations. In the past ten years, I’d suggest that most PCA churches are no more functionally orthodox than most PCUSA churches. Sure, they’re more orthodox on paper. But attendance at various Bible studies over the years has taught me that theological ignorance runs very high in the PCA. Most PCA folks wouldn’t know orthodoxy if it hit them in the face (which is equally true of most PCUSA folks). For PCA folk, “orthodoxy” has come to mean that one: (1) favors the criminalization of abortion; (2) is opposed to same-sex civil marriage; (3) wants to convert non-evangelicals to evangelicalism; and (4) and believes that the Bible is inerrant (while rarely reading it and having little clue what it says). In everything else, PCA folks generally just adopt the practices of middle-class, suburban, white culture. In other words, Reformed evangelicalism has simply become an extension of middle-class social life.
So, I’d suggest that the contrasting musical preferences between mainliners and evangelicals has little to do with theology. Rather, these differences have to do with our social-class preferences. Mainline Christians like organs for the same reasons that some bars charge $12 for a cocktail: It keeps the rabble out. In the same way, evangelicals like praise bands for the same reasons that some bars don’t stock top-shelf liquor: It keeps the wine-and-cheese crowd out.
Where the rubber meets the road (or where the arse meets the pew), I’m just not sure that PCA churchgoers are any more or less orthodox than PCUSA churchgoers. Sure, the leadership in the PCA is more orthodox. But that doesn’t mean much. The PCA isn’t growing because people are attracted to churches with orthodox pastors. No. It’s growing (or at least was growing) because its churches successfully positioned themselves to coalesce well with the values of white, college-educated, middle-class folk with a family income of 60-150k (or 100-250k in NY).
LikeLike
Kane, preaching the word is elemental, an organ is not. How a pastor chooses his text isn’t even a part of worship. I don’t see the point of comparing catechetical preaching and organs.
LikeLike
Bob, your comments do well describe a significant portion of the PCA (you left out the hipster/transformer/let’s-get-the-U2-fans bunch). There is, however, a militant TR (“truly reformed”/Machenite) faction which is attracted to Genevan/Scottish worship not just because it’s old, but because it is free of many (I didn’t say all) of the cultural accretions of both the high downtown churches, or the low broad evangelical churches. If I were a pragmatist (he said piously) I would advocate simple, acappella Psalm-singing worship just because it in some ways fits the spirit of the age which prefers simplicity, authenticity, and things ancient. I won’t do that though.
LikeLike
Bob, all of this is sensible but the point of my original piece (about which Evans blogs) was that the mainline Presbyterian publishers brought out Old and conservative Presbyterian editors published Frame. Yes, comparing an average PCAer with a PCUSAer is one thing and sociology matters. But Old is not arguing for traditional worship on aesthetic grounds. He’s using good theology and his mainline editors approved. Frame, however, was using non-Reformed ideas to justify multi-cultural worship and “conservative” Presbyterian editors approved.
What in the world?
LikeLike
Terry, why are you doing exactly what baby boomer lit crit’s do — reduce the literary canon to personal preference? I prefer Bach to Bonar. But I have reasons for singing Bonar instead of Bach, not to mention that singing psalms is God’s preference.
LikeLike
I sometimes think that the enemy is having a hay day with worship. He and his host must enjoy the wasted time we put into cutting down contemporary worship or traditional worship. I have been all over the world visiting christian missions and ministries for 25 years. The vast majority of christian’s around the world (2/3rds) worship God in spirit and truth with percussion only. They do not have organ’s, robes and all the bells and smells. I think we need to slow down our focus on how and focus on whom we worship. Stop looking at how others worship and start looking at who we worship. I say this from and life long reformed and evangelical heart. I also like to think of heaven and when I do I think it will be amazing and varied.
LikeLike
Dr. Hart,
So how one chooses the lectionary text or sermon isn’t part of worship? That’s a rather dim view since it, albeit indirectly, informs the very substance of two chunks of the order of worship. On that basis I don’t see why a liturgical calendar is violative of the RPW.
What about reciting the Apostles’ Creed? I don’t see that commended anywhere in the NT. Nor for that matter baptizing infants, which is where the Church of Christ crowd takes the logic.
LikeLike
Kane, the actual selection of a text occurs outside the service. The committee that drafts a liturgy or lectionary, is not meeting during a worship service. Playing the organ occurs during the service.
LikeLike
I think you assume a great deal with the statement,
“If worship is a meeting between the king of the universe and his subjects, then would that encounter be reverent and serious or would it be casual and folksy – even humorous?”
This is a philosophical argument, and while they have their place, I’m not certain that it can be defended biblically. It would actually seem to cause people who would not hold your view of what is involved in honorable worship to dismiss you outright, since it seems to ignore the fact that Jesus calls his followers not just subjects, creation, or slaves, but *friends.*
Does the Church in America lack holy reverence for the things of God? Certainly. But it also seems to lack (in other quarters) the ability to relate as friends to the King who has bought them.
LikeLike
Kane, the real question you are asking is; can the RPW regulate the words of the minister as he is preaching in the service?
As far as I know it can’t. For all the stylistic regulations of the RPW, the words the minister chooses to preach are not regulated as long as they directly pertain to scripture. Now if he deviates from scripture and starts talking about dumb things like “how to listen to a sermon” for example, then the congregation would have full rights to kick him out. A catechism is not in anyway scripture replacement, it is merely a way by which some christians choose to interpret what is written in scripture. It’s like using a lens to look at something, which is why the minister would ultimately still be preaching from scripture.
LikeLike
DGH,
I agree. And sorry for the tangent. I’m living (temporarily) in the South for the past few years, and have become increasingly frustrated that I can’t distinguish most of the PCA churches in my area from the SBC churches.
BTW…the comment on 4/1 at 11:52 is not me, but is apparently someone posing as me. (I, after all, know that pluralizing a noun does not require an apostrophe.)
LikeLike
Spot on with this write-up, I actually believe this amazing site needs much more attention. I’ll probably be back again to see more, thanks for the info!
LikeLike
Casinospel, I see your point.
LikeLike