Whoa whoaaaaa, listen to the mu-sic...

by Dan Phillips


I'm looking forward to a periodic local pastors' lunch today, and thought I'd share with you the topic we'll be solving resolving discussing: music in worship.

Here's the starting-point of the discussion—

1.         Scripture contains not a syllable dictating what style of music, meter, or instruments NT churches must or mustn’t use, focusing instead on content and intent (cf. Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16). Anyone truly affirming the sufficiency of Scripture (hel-lo?) should see this as significant.

2.         Music-style in NT churches was neither that of 19^th-century England, nor of American 1950s, nor of American 2000s.

3.         That being the case:

a.         Some people insist that no yoots will come if we don’t change our music/worship style from X to Z. Hence: church's sell-by date is coming due.

b.         Others insist they will leave instantly if we don’t keep our music/worship style at X, and shun Z. Hence: church's sell-by date comes due even faster.

c.         Often, the latter category has loved the church and carried the burden of its work for decades, does most of the work and pays most of the bills.

d.        Sometimes, the former category might like to do more, but they feel sidelined – and music-worship style is one way they take as a subtle (?) message that they’re not seen as central to the church’s mission.

e.         So what do we do?

i.          Tell “a” to grow up, and make the main things the main things? (But why should their culture be ignored?)

ii.        Tell “b” to mellow out, and give a thought to the church maybe not dying when they die? (But what if it’s a convictional matter to them?)

iii.      Have two services – so that nobody has to practice grace, forbearance, longsuffering, and humility (Ephesians 4:1-3, etc.), let alone honor the vision of Titus 2?

Just to supplement and affirm that first point, I've long noted that the OT psalms are pretty much in the exact same style as pagan Canaanite poetry. For instance, consider Psalm 92:9 —

        For, behold, Your enemies, O LORD,
               For, behold, Your enemies will perish;
               All who do iniquity will be scattered.

Now consider this line from a much-earlier Ugaritic poem to Baal:

         Behold, thine enemies, O Baal,
               Behold, thine enemies shalt thou crush,
               Behold, thou shalt crush thy foes!

Similar? In form, yes, very. In content? A world of difference between Baal and Yahweh.

Weigh in as you see fit.

---

Some here, some there — December 9, 2014

by Dan Phillips

Christmas has come early!

Actually, I was looking forward to reading Frank's post... then I realized that it was "my" day. And so, since I was thinking all yesterday that I already had enough for an SHST, here is one early. Not sure whether I'll do another Friday, or something else. Suspense!

Have fun, it's quite the mini-assortment.

• I've long said that secularists have no problem with Christians being Christians, just so long as we don't do it out-loud or in public. Rick Plasterer (seriously) argues that that principle will fall heavily and possibly terminally on Christian institutions, given the current tidal wave of totalitarian, institutionalized immorality (including compulsory approval) that is sweeping what once would have been called Christendom.
• The very people who now sneer at the fact that "Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist party?" was ever asked, are having no problem with the same question posed of public persons, with the substitution of "Christian religion" for the last two words.
• Reminding one of the immortal words of Cdr. Buck Murdock.
• One last reflection on that article. Plasterer says this almost in passing: "God’s standard given in Scripture is obedience to Him regardless of pain." How many professed Christians don't even think it important to obey God regardless of inconvenience or effort, let alone pain?

Mary: "Anything else?" Reporter: "Did you know that your baby boy..." Mary's Agent: "This is in the press packet, no more questions. Thanks"
— Church Lifer (@MrChurchGuy) December 8, 2014

• Okay, this next item is not at all like the usual. I can only offer three reasons for including it... and they're stretches. First: it has footage from the Charlie Brown Christmas, including the reading from Luke, so: Christmas! Second: it features one of the very best guitar solos ever recorded by one of the very best guitarists ever to play, so: common grace. Third: it's awesome and I love it. So: my blog (in part)! Thanks to reader Keith Lamborn for alerting me to it. Enjoy, or move along to the next item.

• I loved that the creator timed the clips so well to the song, but what really won me over was the dances during the guitar solo. Awesome.
• And BTW, the song is about writing a song. In case someone's going to go all Johnny Todd on me.
• In case you didn't see it — well, (A) shame on you; and (B) go to my blog and see this lovely version of The Wexford Carol, with Yo-Yo Ma and Alison Krauss.

Q1: If we say a tail is a leg, how many legs do dogs have? Q2: If Rick Warren says the Reformation is over, is it? #SeeWhatIDidThere
— Dan Phillips (@BibChr) December 8, 2014

• You know what's even weirder (to me) than having Rick Warren in effect say "pish-posh" to the Reformation? Having Reformation 21 publish an article lavishing praise on that wonderfully "generous" evangelical Richard Mouw! In case you don't remember, Mouw was President pf Fuller Theological Seminary for 20 years, which all by itself would be enough to raise my eyebrow. But what's more, Mouw is the man who threw Christian missionaries to Mormons under the bus, and who the Mormons love because he has proclaimed Mormonism not to be a cult.
• Do you think Harold Lindsell is looking smug in heaven? Are other saints having to tell him to stop saying "QED!"?
• So is Reformation 21 prepping an article praising the generosity of Rick Warren? Unknown.
• But the president of Covenant College agrees. So there's that.
• Well, now to something more directly seasonal, and as a reward for Frank — if he's read further than the post title — this:

Fun, eh? Now, what will I do Friday...?

---

Music/worship style: a small-to-mid-sized church conundrum

by Dan Phillips

I realize that the premise is legitimately debatable, but for the sake of this discussion, we'll assume that the various styles I'll mention are all legitimate, and usable by Biblically-faithful churches. We're not comparing (A) singing doctrinally rich, Christ-exalting hymns with (B) throwing such over for "Jesus Is My Girlfriend" type drivel, or sheer entertainment, or music so loud no one can hear saints sing, or twerking "worship teams," or Bieber. We're talking about doctrinally rich, Christ-exalting hymns in musical style/musical period/culture A versus doctrinally rich, Christ-exalting hymns in musical style/musical period/cultures A-C.

That said:

1. A church has Worship Style A, particularly in terms of music. Has had for years.
2. Many say that this church it does not adopt Worship Style B, worshipers in their 20s and 30s — not currently in attendance — will conclude that they are deliberately excluded ("You're not welcome here, our ministry doesn't have you in mind"), and are unlikely to attend and remain.
3. Others say that if this church does adopt Worship Style B, worshipers in their 40s and up will leave.
4. If all a church has is worshipers in their 40s and beyond, particularly if it is sheerly due to an issue of style, the effectiveness of its ministry is hampered, and its future is worrisome at best.
5. But is it wise to shift from a style comfortable, edifying, and not distracting to those who for
   
   decades actually have been serving and sacrificing and building the ministry, in the interests of people not present, not committed, not serving, not sacrificing, and not building?
6. And if the faithful preaching of the Word plus vital, loving fellowship is not enough reason to come and stay, is it worth it to risk alienating the faithful to reach for the wobbly?
7. Equally, is it wise to allow an issue of mere style to become a barrier to the spread of the ministry of the Word, when Christian graces such as God calls for in a great many passages would prepare people to accommodate practices which are not their personal preference?
8. Such being the case, is not refusal to accommodate a style with which others are more comfortable tantamount to insistence on having it my way, all the way, all the time?
9. Or is insistence on adopting a different style less comfortable to "pillars" tantamount to slapping them in the face, for the sake of those who have sacrificed and given nothing to build this church's ministry?

Simple? I don't think so.

---

Worship-service style: "Ch-ch-ch-changes," or "I shall not be moved"?

by Dan Phillips

I am particularly interested in hearing from pastors, though any church-member's welcome to chime in. Have you (A) presided over, (B) spearheaded, or (C) adamantly resisted any significant change in the Sunday morning service of the church you serve?

This could touch on number or style of songs, composition of musical accompaniment, length of service, items in the service — anything.

Please tell the how, the what, the why, and the outcome. Full is good.

---

Rampant Calvinism in Wesleyan Hymnology

posted by Phil Johnson



purgeon said:

Mr. Wesley's hymn-book, which may be looked upon as being the standard of his divinity, has in it (upon some topics) higher Calvinism than many books used by ourselves. I have been exceedingly struck with the very forcible expressions there used, some of which I might have hesitated to employ myself.

I shall ask your attention while I quote verses from the hymns of Mr. Wesley, which we can all endorse as fully and plainly in harmony with the doctrines of grace, far more so than the preaching of some modern Calvinists. I do this because our low-doctrine Baptists and Morisonians ought to be aware of the vast difference between themselves and the Evangelical Arminians.

HYMN 131, verses 1, 2, 3.

"Lord, I despair myself to heal:
I see my sin, but cannot feel;
I cannot, till thy Spirit blow,
And bid the obedient waters flow.

'Tis thine a heart of flesh to give;
Thy gifts I only can receive:
Here, then, to thee I all resign;
To draw, redeem, and seal,—is thine.

With simple faith on thee I call,
My Light, my Life, my Lord, my all:
I wait the moving of the pool;
I wait the word that speaks me whole."

HYMN 133, verse 4.

"Thy golden sceptre from above
Reach forth; lo! my whole heart I bow;
Say to my soul, Thou art my love;
My chosen midst ten thousand, thou."

This is very like election.

HYMN 136, verses 8, 9, 10.

"I cannot rest, till in thy blood
I full redemption have:
But thou, through whom I come to God,
Canst to the utmost save.

From sin, the guilt, the power, the pain,
Thou wilt redeem my soul:
Lord, I believe, and not in vain;
My faith shall make me whole.

I too, with thee, shall walk in white;
With all thy saints shall prove,
What is the length, and breadth, and height,
And depth of perfect love."

Brethren, is not this somewhat like final perseverance? and what
is meant by the next quotation, if people of God can perish at
all?

HYMN 138, verses 6, 7.

"Who, who shall in thy presence stand,
And match Omnipotence?
Ungrasp the hold of thy right hand,
Or pluck the sinner thence?

Sworn to destroy, let earth assail;
Nearer to save thou art:
Stronger than all the powers of hell,
And greater than my heart."

The following is remarkably strong, especially in the expression
"force." I give it in full:—

HYMN 158

"O my God, what must I do?
Thou alone the way canst show;
Thou canst save me in this hour;
I have neither will nor power:
God, if over all thou art,
Greater than my sinful heart,
All thy power on me be shown,
Take away the heart of stone.

Take away my darling sin,
Make me willing to be clean;
Make me willing to receive
All thy goodness waits to give.
Force me, Lord, with all to part;
Tear these idols from my heart;
Now thy love almighty show,
Make even me a creature new.

Jesus, mighty to renew,
Work in me to will and do;
Turn my nature's rapid tide,
Stem the torrent of my pride;
Stop the whirlwind of my will;
Speak, and bid the sun stand still;
Now thy love almighty show,
Make even me a creature new.

Arm of God, thy strength put on;
Bow the heavens, and come down;
All my unbelief o'erthrow;
Lay th' aspiring mountain low:
Conquer thy worst foe in me,
Get thyself the victory;
Save the vilest of the race;
Force me to be saved by grace."

HYMN 206, verses 1, 2.

"What am I, O thou glorious God!
And what my father's house to thee,
That thou such mercies hast bestow'd
On me, the vilest reptile, me!
I take the blessing from above,
And wonder at the boundless love.

Me in my blood the love pass'd by,
And stopp'd, my ruin to retrieve;
Wept o'er my soul thy pitying eye;
Thy bowels yearn'd, and sounded, "Live!"
Dying, I heard the welcome sound,
And pardon in thy mercy found."

Nor are these all, for such good things as these abound, and they
constrain me to say, that in attacking Arminianism we have no
hostility towards the men who bear the name rather than the nature
of that error, and we are opposed not to any body of men, but to
the notions which they have espoused.

---

A Taste of Vicious Anti-Calvinism, Too It must be added that Mr. Wesley also penned some rabidly anti-Calvinistic hymns. Some of them, in fact, were a tad mean-spirited. Here are some sample verses from a Charles Wesley hymn titled "The Horrible Decree": Ah! Gentle, gracious Dove, And art thou griev'd in me, That sinners should restrain thy love, And say, "It is not free: It is not free for all: The most, thou passest by, And mockest with a fruitless call Whom thou hast doom'd to die." They think thee not sincere In giving each his day, "Thou only draw'st the sinner near To cast him quite away, To aggravate his sin, His sure damnation seal: Thou shew'st him heaven, and say'st, go in And thrusts him into hell." O HORRIBLE DECREE Worthy of whence it came! Forgive their hellish blasphemy Who charge it on the Lamb: Whose pity him inclin'd To leave his throne above, The friend, and Saviour of mankind, The God of grace, and love. O gracious, loving Lord, I feel thy bowels yearn; For those who slight the gospel word I share in thy concern: How art thou grieved to be By ransom'd worms withstood! How dost thou bleed afresh to see Them trample on thy blood! To limit thee they dare, Blaspheme thee to thy face, Deny their fellow-worms a share In thy redeeming grace: All for their own they take, Thy righteousness engross, Of none effect to most they make The merits of thy cross. Sinners, abhor the fiend: His other gospel hear— "The God of truth did not intend The thing his words declare, He offers grace to all, Which most cannot embrace, Mock'd with an ineffectual call And insufficient grace. "The righteous God consign'd Them over to their doom, And sent the Saviour of mankind To damn them from the womb; To damn for falling short, "Of what they could not do, For not believing the report Of that which was not true. "The God of love pass'd by The most of those that fell, Ordain'd poor reprobates to die, And forced them into hell." "He did not do the deed" (Some have more mildly rav'd) "He did not damn them—but decreed They never should be saved. "He did not them bereave Of life, or stop their breath, His grace he only would not give, And starv'ed their souls to death." Satanic sophistry! But still, all-gracious God, They charge the sinner's death on thee, Who bought'st him with thy blood. They think with shrieks and cries To please the Lord of hosts, And offer thee, in sacrifice Millions of slaughter'd ghosts: With new-born babes they fill The dire infernal shade, "For such," they say, "was thy great will, Before the world was made."

I know how to start an instant 200-comment brawl, and here's the proof

by Dan Phillips

Of a (say) 90-minute service, how much should be devoted to songs, announcements, other things?

How long should the sermon be?

How many choruses?

How many hymns?

What is excessive?

And, in every case, on what principle?

This is a more-or-less free-for-all, but within the posted blog rules, and my apparently random (but judicious) exertion of sheer sphere sovereignty. And I further stipulate that this is a discussion over those things, not over whether we should discuss those things.

Keep it friendly.

---