There's a joke my friend Aric and I have had for years. We like to turn songs into circus polkas, usually during rehearsal. Another joke I shared with several friends is playing worship music in a minor key.
Once I combined the two under the fake band name Minor Prophets, using my friend Ross King's "You Alone Can Satisfy." Enjoy.
So, why is this funny? It's because we all understand how absurd these elements would be in the context of a worship service. The irreverence of the thing is self-evident. That musical style isn't for that.
Okay…
So this weekend, Big Worship Conference™ is happening, and the current trend in worship music is electronic dance music (EDM). Lotsa young people will be jumping around to worshippy "untz" grooves, and as a result, I'll be playing them in Churches over the next year.
I'll be watching either the jumping or sheep-in-the-headlights not singing, if this year's experience mirrors the last.
Why?
Isn't it obvious? We're trying to get people to stand and sing to music not made for that. We're using it for a purpose--the reverent worship of Almighty God--for which it's not suited. It's dance music. It's not made to convey reverence, and reverence is what God says makes worship acceptable to him.
Showing posts with label Confusion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Confusion. Show all posts
Why I Won't Shut Up About Worship Already
I know I'm a blowhard. I know that, if you read through this blog or follow me on t3h social medias that it just reads like I'm complaining about something popular in Evangelical circles all the time. Most of y'all probably just read it as "Johnny disapproves because he doesn't like it."
That's not why.
Every July 4th, or on the nearest Sunday, most Evangelicals in America will trot out this verse from 2 Chronicles: "...if my people who are called by my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and heal their land."
Now we have to ask, "Is this a promise made to Christians today?" There are several possible answers. It could be a promise only to ancient Israel. I don't believe so, because we are still His people, called by His name. It could be that the promise was temporary TO the ancient Kingdom. I don't find that in the text. It could be either there is no God or He doesn't keep his word, but if you believe either of those the promise is moot. Or it could be, as I believe, God has made, and keeps, this promise to all His people for all time, not just during the Temple administration.
The next question, then, is, "How's the land?" As far as I can tell, it doesn't seem very healed. So the conclusion I reach is that, whatever we think we're doing, it isn't what the Lord is speaking about in this promise.
This is a concern for me in terms of the worship of the Bible-believing Church (don't care what the Bible-doubting Church does; they are irrelevant) because I believe worship drives the societal car, and whatever judgement the Lord is visiting on a nation starts in His house and moves outward. I don't blame the unbelievers; they don't have the promise.
So it's that--coming before the Lord lacking humility, not turning from iniquity, not seeking His face that concerns me when I see it, and I'm afraid I see it often. Maybe I'm overly sensitive and am seeing something else, but I refer you to the questions above.
That's not why.
Every July 4th, or on the nearest Sunday, most Evangelicals in America will trot out this verse from 2 Chronicles: "...if my people who are called by my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and heal their land."
Now we have to ask, "Is this a promise made to Christians today?" There are several possible answers. It could be a promise only to ancient Israel. I don't believe so, because we are still His people, called by His name. It could be that the promise was temporary TO the ancient Kingdom. I don't find that in the text. It could be either there is no God or He doesn't keep his word, but if you believe either of those the promise is moot. Or it could be, as I believe, God has made, and keeps, this promise to all His people for all time, not just during the Temple administration.
The next question, then, is, "How's the land?" As far as I can tell, it doesn't seem very healed. So the conclusion I reach is that, whatever we think we're doing, it isn't what the Lord is speaking about in this promise.
This is a concern for me in terms of the worship of the Bible-believing Church (don't care what the Bible-doubting Church does; they are irrelevant) because I believe worship drives the societal car, and whatever judgement the Lord is visiting on a nation starts in His house and moves outward. I don't blame the unbelievers; they don't have the promise.
So it's that--coming before the Lord lacking humility, not turning from iniquity, not seeking His face that concerns me when I see it, and I'm afraid I see it often. Maybe I'm overly sensitive and am seeing something else, but I refer you to the questions above.
A Don Miller Excursis
Don Miller has raised a ruckus and many thoughtful responses have been written. I am not linking to his posts, because I consider his position poisonous. But I've had some good discussions on account of them (and it's enough to bring me out of blog retirement), so I'm thankful for his thoughts. Maybe I'll even finish some things I said I'd write as a result.
I read a few chapters of Blue Like Jazz before deciding I had better things to read. That's the extent of my interest in Mr. Miller's writing. I have many friends who read his books and blog, and from time to time hear him mentioned. That's how I came to read his "Why I Don't Go to Church" posts. I tweeted a bit about it, but saw an opportunity to address something tangential that came to mind here.
Y'all know, or should know, that reforming the worship of the Evangelical Church is a major concern of mine. I believe many if not most of our culture's problems flow from the practice of our cultus. In Mr. Miller's thinking I see precisely that which guys like John Nevin were predicting 170 years ago when revivalism was in full swing.
Several false assumptions lie behind Miller's self-excommunication. The biggest is that the worship service exists to meet his needs. Failing to do so, it may be abandoned for that which does--a solitary walk in the country, personal devotion, or (tellingly, in my opinion) being in charge of his company and by teaching.
A couple of other assumptions follow from this: that worship exists to provide personal intimacy with God, and that the worshipers are there to learn.
I've already sent out some thoughts on those so suffice to say worship exists for God's sake, and any personal feelings and learning we get from it are secondary. But my interest here has more to do with practice.
When Miller writes of "traditional" Church, he means something quite different from what someone like me, who attends a traditional Church, means by that word, for the service he describes (music and a sermon, probably with an invitation afterward) is a new invention. It is, to use Nevin's language, the "system of the Anxious Bench," or the practice of the revivalists, as opposed to the traditional practice of the historic Church.
It's precisely the revivalistic form and content that is leaving Miller, a "kinesthetic learner," dry. There's nothing for him to do. It's telling he opines that most men probably struggle as he does, as there's likely quite a bit of feminizing emotionalism involved. He's not connected to the lyrics of the music. The sermon's not getting through. There's something to be examined here: Are the songs romantic jingles? Are the sermons simply build-ups to the invitation's fervor? These over time can and do leave people burnt out. Perhaps not, and he is simply being disobedient. But either way, he's bought the paradigm: corporate worship is to serve an individual's felt needs and desires, and so when it doesn't, find another angle or gimmick, or abandon it altogether.
This is the mindset that revivalism's practices have brought about. It's this that I seek to oppose, and I pray in some small way to hold up an alternative.
I have been praying for Don Miller, because abandoning Church ALWAYS--hear me here--ALWAYS leads to kooky town. He, like most of us, needs to have his thinking reformed about worshipping the Triune God His way, and he needs to be doing so, regularly. He needs the only true intimacy with God which is available: Holy Communion with Him in the Body of Christ, and a life lived in its context.
I read a few chapters of Blue Like Jazz before deciding I had better things to read. That's the extent of my interest in Mr. Miller's writing. I have many friends who read his books and blog, and from time to time hear him mentioned. That's how I came to read his "Why I Don't Go to Church" posts. I tweeted a bit about it, but saw an opportunity to address something tangential that came to mind here.
Y'all know, or should know, that reforming the worship of the Evangelical Church is a major concern of mine. I believe many if not most of our culture's problems flow from the practice of our cultus. In Mr. Miller's thinking I see precisely that which guys like John Nevin were predicting 170 years ago when revivalism was in full swing.
Several false assumptions lie behind Miller's self-excommunication. The biggest is that the worship service exists to meet his needs. Failing to do so, it may be abandoned for that which does--a solitary walk in the country, personal devotion, or (tellingly, in my opinion) being in charge of his company and by teaching.
A couple of other assumptions follow from this: that worship exists to provide personal intimacy with God, and that the worshipers are there to learn.
I've already sent out some thoughts on those so suffice to say worship exists for God's sake, and any personal feelings and learning we get from it are secondary. But my interest here has more to do with practice.
When Miller writes of "traditional" Church, he means something quite different from what someone like me, who attends a traditional Church, means by that word, for the service he describes (music and a sermon, probably with an invitation afterward) is a new invention. It is, to use Nevin's language, the "system of the Anxious Bench," or the practice of the revivalists, as opposed to the traditional practice of the historic Church.
It's precisely the revivalistic form and content that is leaving Miller, a "kinesthetic learner," dry. There's nothing for him to do. It's telling he opines that most men probably struggle as he does, as there's likely quite a bit of feminizing emotionalism involved. He's not connected to the lyrics of the music. The sermon's not getting through. There's something to be examined here: Are the songs romantic jingles? Are the sermons simply build-ups to the invitation's fervor? These over time can and do leave people burnt out. Perhaps not, and he is simply being disobedient. But either way, he's bought the paradigm: corporate worship is to serve an individual's felt needs and desires, and so when it doesn't, find another angle or gimmick, or abandon it altogether.
This is the mindset that revivalism's practices have brought about. It's this that I seek to oppose, and I pray in some small way to hold up an alternative.
I have been praying for Don Miller, because abandoning Church ALWAYS--hear me here--ALWAYS leads to kooky town. He, like most of us, needs to have his thinking reformed about worshipping the Triune God His way, and he needs to be doing so, regularly. He needs the only true intimacy with God which is available: Holy Communion with Him in the Body of Christ, and a life lived in its context.
Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, pt.2
Read this. This is a perfect set-up for this series of blog posts, and a reminder to me to get on it. Stay tuned.
More on (!) That Last Post
What would be some legitimate reasons for someone to buy and watch a video of a worship service from five years ago? I can think of a few.
1. Mere anthropology.
2. Liturgical interest.
3. Instruction in playing the music. A video hymnal, if you will.
...
Can't think of any others. Are any of these represented by a significant percentage of the consumers of these products?
Excursus: Some might answer "So I can worship along at home." This is not a "legitimate reason," in my opinion, because as a son of the Reformation I reject the idea of the private Mass. Also, the use of the video as a devotional tool would seem to be equally questionable in that the videography itself would be a distraction, at least as edited in common usage.
1. Mere anthropology.
2. Liturgical interest.
3. Instruction in playing the music. A video hymnal, if you will.
...
Can't think of any others. Are any of these represented by a significant percentage of the consumers of these products?
Excursus: Some might answer "So I can worship along at home." This is not a "legitimate reason," in my opinion, because as a son of the Reformation I reject the idea of the private Mass. Also, the use of the video as a devotional tool would seem to be equally questionable in that the videography itself would be a distraction, at least as edited in common usage.
Worshiping Entertainment
I might be speaking to a group of worship-leading drummers soon, and on a long drive last night I was considering what I might say.
One of the things that I thought to bring up seemed blog-worthy, and it is this:
I can purchase DVDs of so-called "worship events" (let's just call them worship services, okay?) from a number of large Churches or para-church organizations recorded over the past several years. I can sit on my sofa and watch a worship service from 2006.
Stop here and take a moment to ponder how ridiculous that is.
Think about that a little more.
A little more.
That little twinge you should be feeling right now is the creeping feeling that something ain't right.
Please do keep coming back to my blog...
One of the things that I thought to bring up seemed blog-worthy, and it is this:
I can purchase DVDs of so-called "worship events" (let's just call them worship services, okay?) from a number of large Churches or para-church organizations recorded over the past several years. I can sit on my sofa and watch a worship service from 2006.
Stop here and take a moment to ponder how ridiculous that is.
Think about that a little more.
A little more.
That little twinge you should be feeling right now is the creeping feeling that something ain't right.
Please do keep coming back to my blog...
Koran Burning
I have some friends who were involved in the occult. Not the buying tarot cards from a hippie in a head shop kind, but the real and scary stuff, the kind that God says you should execute people for. Those brothers repented and got right with the Lord, and as an act of contrition burned their books of magic. They had to pray over them to get them to burn, but that's not important here. Burning as a valid method of idol disposal is.
A lot of folks are upset over a fundamentalist Church hosting a "burn a koran" day this September 11th. I think they could find better use of their time, but there is some overreaction to the extent of "Christians shouldn't burn korans." I can't agree with that; I can think of several situations in which it would be a wonderful thing to do.
Imagine a family or large group of former Moslems who have just been liberated by the Gospel. They gather around the fire and throw that wicked, twisted book into the flames, rejoicing with wine, kissing their newly unveiled wives, praising God.
Picture a modern day Boniface in a village somewhere picking up a koran and throwing it into the fire saying, "Let's see allah do something about that."
Who could argue with that?
Closer to the point, even burning a koran as an act of contempt is not sin, and is always a better thing than building a mosque anywhere.
Now. Burning a koran as either an act of provocation or rah-rah patriotism is more often than not not a desirable act, because it is giving the finger to people to whom one ought to be more concerned with preaching the Gospel. We are to be bold, challenging and confrontational, but our goal is never to seek to insult. And that's where this Church is getting it wrong.
A lot of folks are upset over a fundamentalist Church hosting a "burn a koran" day this September 11th. I think they could find better use of their time, but there is some overreaction to the extent of "Christians shouldn't burn korans." I can't agree with that; I can think of several situations in which it would be a wonderful thing to do.
Imagine a family or large group of former Moslems who have just been liberated by the Gospel. They gather around the fire and throw that wicked, twisted book into the flames, rejoicing with wine, kissing their newly unveiled wives, praising God.
Picture a modern day Boniface in a village somewhere picking up a koran and throwing it into the fire saying, "Let's see allah do something about that."
Who could argue with that?
Closer to the point, even burning a koran as an act of contempt is not sin, and is always a better thing than building a mosque anywhere.
Now. Burning a koran as either an act of provocation or rah-rah patriotism is more often than not not a desirable act, because it is giving the finger to people to whom one ought to be more concerned with preaching the Gospel. We are to be bold, challenging and confrontational, but our goal is never to seek to insult. And that's where this Church is getting it wrong.
The Mosque Thing
I'm back! I'll be posting more this week.
Let's talk about Cordoba House, shall we?
Of course, as a Christian man I am opposed to any house of idolatry being built anywhere in the nation. Why? Because the Lord hates it. It isn't that Cordoba is some kind of "bad" mosque; any mosque, temple, synagogue, or ashram is abominable to Christ. One must consistently believe what one believes.
Of course it is a finger in the eye to the nation and the victims of 9/11's families. This is not accidental. In fact, it is a dark funhouse-mirror version of what Christians have always done: build our Churches on top of former pagan temples, announcing that Jesus is Lord of that place now. The difference is that we evangelize and persuade the former worshipers themselves to tear down the pagan temples and their idols and build a Church.
Now, we have a problem here and it goes way back. Under our present polity, especially since the War Between the States, State and local governments do not enjoy the freedom they once did under the Constitution, strictly interpreted. "Congress shall make no law..." but New York City surely can.
They will not assert their rights because of the real problem, which is this: We are a polytheistic society. "Tolerance" and "pluralism" are simply wussy ways of saying what it really is. And we Christians have embraced that. Not content with the Biblical ideal of tolerance, we have embraced the twisted egalitarian interpretation. Contented to have Jesus as our "personal Lord and Savior," we have not proclaimed Him as Lord of Manhattan and Everywhere Else.
And if that's who we're going to be, then let the Moslems build their mosque. It's not their fault they are taking the advantage we have handed them. To many it will stand as an insult to the victims of the 9/11 attacks, but what it really stands as is a testimony to the spinelessness of the American Christian man.
Let's talk about Cordoba House, shall we?
Of course, as a Christian man I am opposed to any house of idolatry being built anywhere in the nation. Why? Because the Lord hates it. It isn't that Cordoba is some kind of "bad" mosque; any mosque, temple, synagogue, or ashram is abominable to Christ. One must consistently believe what one believes.
Of course it is a finger in the eye to the nation and the victims of 9/11's families. This is not accidental. In fact, it is a dark funhouse-mirror version of what Christians have always done: build our Churches on top of former pagan temples, announcing that Jesus is Lord of that place now. The difference is that we evangelize and persuade the former worshipers themselves to tear down the pagan temples and their idols and build a Church.
Now, we have a problem here and it goes way back. Under our present polity, especially since the War Between the States, State and local governments do not enjoy the freedom they once did under the Constitution, strictly interpreted. "Congress shall make no law..." but New York City surely can.
They will not assert their rights because of the real problem, which is this: We are a polytheistic society. "Tolerance" and "pluralism" are simply wussy ways of saying what it really is. And we Christians have embraced that. Not content with the Biblical ideal of tolerance, we have embraced the twisted egalitarian interpretation. Contented to have Jesus as our "personal Lord and Savior," we have not proclaimed Him as Lord of Manhattan and Everywhere Else.
And if that's who we're going to be, then let the Moslems build their mosque. It's not their fault they are taking the advantage we have handed them. To many it will stand as an insult to the victims of the 9/11 attacks, but what it really stands as is a testimony to the spinelessness of the American Christian man.
A Jennifer Knapp Excursus
The public announcement by Jennifer Knapp that she is a homosexual has resulted in the usual freak-outs, most of which I am not terribly interested in. One detail of the commotion though provides an opportunity to examine something a lot of Christians in the conversation are sure to miss.
Miss Knapp points out that those who are using the Scriptures' commandments against homosexuality to call her to repentance are not keeping the Biblical laws against eating shellfish, mixing fibers, and other "holiness" laws.
This is a really common tactic, which I addressed to an extent in the last Theonomy Primer post. In this usage, however, it's being done to make the lady's critics out to be hypocritical.
There's an obvious response which I doubt many will make, because of of the tacit antinomianism in the Evangelical circles.
The response is this: God has by subsequent revelation told us we are not to keep the holiness laws in that fashion, Christ having come. The issue of diet specifically is addressed with a divine commandment: "Kill and eat." Further instruction in how to handle the ceremonies is given in the Epistles. Yet no where is the issue of proper sexual relations modified in the slightest from that originally given in God's Law. Rather, it is specifically reinforced.
This highlights what our proper understanding is to be: God's commandments stand as they are given unless and until He alters them by subsequent revelation. Any other understanding leads to confusion, as in the case of this poor woman.
Miss Knapp points out that those who are using the Scriptures' commandments against homosexuality to call her to repentance are not keeping the Biblical laws against eating shellfish, mixing fibers, and other "holiness" laws.
This is a really common tactic, which I addressed to an extent in the last Theonomy Primer post. In this usage, however, it's being done to make the lady's critics out to be hypocritical.
There's an obvious response which I doubt many will make, because of of the tacit antinomianism in the Evangelical circles.
The response is this: God has by subsequent revelation told us we are not to keep the holiness laws in that fashion, Christ having come. The issue of diet specifically is addressed with a divine commandment: "Kill and eat." Further instruction in how to handle the ceremonies is given in the Epistles. Yet no where is the issue of proper sexual relations modified in the slightest from that originally given in God's Law. Rather, it is specifically reinforced.
This highlights what our proper understanding is to be: God's commandments stand as they are given unless and until He alters them by subsequent revelation. Any other understanding leads to confusion, as in the case of this poor woman.
I've Got My Fist, I've Got My Plan, I've Got Revivalism
I'm going to start posting a series about revivalism. This will be looser than my apologetics and theonomy posts, because I don't have a real destination to arrive at--I just want to toss around some ideas. Maybe I'll post them as theses for discussion in the comments.
Revivalism is, IMO, a cancer on the worship and mission of the Church in our day and time. It has infected almost everything I see Evangelicals do, and it's high time we tried to cure it.
Revivalism is, IMO, a cancer on the worship and mission of the Church in our day and time. It has infected almost everything I see Evangelicals do, and it's high time we tried to cure it.
An Interesting Juxtaposition
Crazy-ass House Speaker Pelosi wants federal bailout money to go toward "contraceptive services," while the Japanese begin to wise up and try to have more babies.
WOW.
Chris Ortiz of Chalcedon quotes a little Dabney:
"The best argument for any creed is the godly living of its professors. Protestantism used to have a grand and victorious advantage on that point. She is ceasing to wield it. The wealth begotten by her very virtues of industry, thrift, and probity has debauched many of her children. 'Jeshurun has waxen fat, and kicked.' And unbounded flood of luxury sweeps Protestant families away. A relaxed and deceitful doctrine produces its sure fruits of relaxed and degraded morals. Church discipline is nearly extinct. Meantime spurious revivalism, relying upon all species of vulgar clap-trap and sensational artifice, upon slang rhetoric and the stimulating of mere animal sympathies, instead of the pure word and spirit of God, is hurrying tens of thousands of dead souls into the Protestant churches. These evils have gone so far that a profession of faith in these churches has come to mean nearly as little as a professed conformity to Rome means."
As usual...
Doug Wilson completely nails it. No more reason for me to blog on the subject; I'll just post this link all the time.
Well, that cinches it.
Scientists believe they have observed evidences of water on a planet outside of our solar system. The planet is some trillions of light-years away. The readings which may indicate the water vapor are said to be signs that water, and therefore possibly life, might be pretty common in the Universe.
There's all kinds of evolutionary assumptions being made there. They're obvious enough to not need pointing out. What always gets me in the reporting of these things is that the media never points out that, for all we know, that planet no longer exists. Many, or even most, of what astronomers observe could simply be gone given the fact that the distances are so huge and light travels the speed that it does. And given their materialist assumptions, they can never know. But they'll geek out over a discovery like this and it almost always "proves" that what Scripture teaches is not explicitly true.
My opinion concerning the Universe is that there is not and will never be life on other worlds (until we go there). The lights were put into the firmament for light, to mark time, and for signs.
There's all kinds of evolutionary assumptions being made there. They're obvious enough to not need pointing out. What always gets me in the reporting of these things is that the media never points out that, for all we know, that planet no longer exists. Many, or even most, of what astronomers observe could simply be gone given the fact that the distances are so huge and light travels the speed that it does. And given their materialist assumptions, they can never know. But they'll geek out over a discovery like this and it almost always "proves" that what Scripture teaches is not explicitly true.
My opinion concerning the Universe is that there is not and will never be life on other worlds (until we go there). The lights were put into the firmament for light, to mark time, and for signs.
Sweet, Green Irony
So, Al Gore's little nature-worship fest is tomorrow, right? We've got several huge, all-day megawatt rock concerts going on, their gear having been hauled in by truck, the artists having been flown in by jet, and we're all supposed to watch it on television all day. Then, we're supposed to fire up our computers and send out some emails.
The whole event will no doubt be recorded, reproduced on millions of pieces of plastic, which will then be shipped via truck to stores where you can buy it and watch it all again on your electronic home theater system.
K.
The whole event will no doubt be recorded, reproduced on millions of pieces of plastic, which will then be shipped via truck to stores where you can buy it and watch it all again on your electronic home theater system.
K.
Shame on You.
The picture to which I linked has apparently been removed. Did I piss someone off? Original post as follows:
The latest ridiculous and gay programming gimmick, brought to you by the American Evangelical Church.
CCLI is a music licensing organization that claims to collect and distribute usage royalties for the worship songs sung in your Church. My own Church sends them a hundred bucks a year so we can legally "publish" the music of contemporary songwriters whose songs we would like to sing.
Why are they producing or advertising something that has nothing whatsoever to do with music? Was money collected for artists used to develop or sell this retarded idea?
Is it any wonder that pagans without a single intellectual leg to stand on nonetheless come across as sophisticated academics when compared to this kind of buffoonery?
And it'll always get painted as being a fool for Christ, or the Gospel is foolishness to those outside, etc. It can't be that we're actually morons.
What the hell are we doing?
The latest ridiculous and gay programming gimmick, brought to you by the American Evangelical Church.
CCLI is a music licensing organization that claims to collect and distribute usage royalties for the worship songs sung in your Church. My own Church sends them a hundred bucks a year so we can legally "publish" the music of contemporary songwriters whose songs we would like to sing.
Why are they producing or advertising something that has nothing whatsoever to do with music? Was money collected for artists used to develop or sell this retarded idea?
Is it any wonder that pagans without a single intellectual leg to stand on nonetheless come across as sophisticated academics when compared to this kind of buffoonery?
And it'll always get painted as being a fool for Christ, or the Gospel is foolishness to those outside, etc. It can't be that we're actually morons.
What the hell are we doing?
Squandering Their Inheritance
The news that the history of the Crusades will no longer be taught in British schools in order to avoid offending Moslems is the latest in a long line of European capitulations to Islamic immigrants, who are growing increasingly militant in the nature and scope of their demands.
Ironically, that against which the Crusaders claimed to be fighting is coming to pass in spades as their descendants lay down and surrender their nations.
Deus Vult? Probably. Europe sold its Christian birthright for humanist pottage a long time ago.
Ironically, that against which the Crusaders claimed to be fighting is coming to pass in spades as their descendants lay down and surrender their nations.
Deus Vult? Probably. Europe sold its Christian birthright for humanist pottage a long time ago.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)