Is worshipping with music authentic?

[yod1948]

Originally Posted by simon

Is style of worship linked to theology or is it something different?

yes, it absolutely is in far too many cases and that is what I meant about "depth of worship" in the last post.

For example, there was a theology in 1930s Germany which allowed for a christian to work as a guard/tormentor at a concentration camp during the week and still be considered a "good christian" at church on the weekend.

There was a theology in the 1850s which allowed the formation of the Southern Baptist to separate themselves from other baptists in approval of slavery.

There was a theology in european christendom that had no problem with slaughtering jews during the Crusades or the Inquisition.

These people actually thought they were doing the will of God because of a particular theological perspective which most of them sincerely believed was biblical because theology informed them instead of the pure scriptures

I don't think God honors that kind of "worship" attitude.



In like manner, if our "worship" is based solely on making excellent music then we have substituted hedonistic pleasure for the reality of humbling ourselves before the Creator.

Whenever I feel this is creeping up, I go small. In other words, I'll break it down to one voice with one instrument which seems to encourage participation from the congregation because it takes the focus off the musicians/band and puts it on the song/lyrics. The songs themselves also have to be focused on the Father, Son, or Holy Spirit instead of "me"


.

[simon]

yod1948 wrote:

These people actually thought they were doing the will of God because of a particular theological perspective which most of them sincerely believed was biblical because theology informed them instead of the pure scriptures

Which worries me slightly. Surely any interpretation of scripture represents a theology? I can't quite see how "pure scripture" can be interpreted without applying context and interpretation?

Staying on this theme of theology, and going back to my earlier musings, there does seem to be a link between perhaps the more emotional aspects of some worship styles and the willingness of a congregation to engage in a more intellectual encounter with scripture. I'm not sure whether this is the traditional split between "arty" and "sciency" people, however I have noticed that the sort of people who attended my old church are quite different from those who attend the more traditional church I am at now. For instance I was one of a handful of people at my old church with post-grad science qualifications whereas my new church is brimming with doctors, academics, senior business men etc. Likewise the emphasis on one church was "flowing with the spririt" whilst the emphasis at the other is "engaging with the issues". I just wonder if people who are used to tackling things in an intellectual way prefer a more intellectual worship, whilst the more tactile people prefer a more emotion based worship?

[yod1948]

Originally Posted by simon

Which worries me slightly. Surely any interpretation of scripture represents a theology? I can't quite see how "pure scripture" can be interpreted without applying context and interpretation?

In it's broadest definition, "theology" is the study and application of the scriptures, yes.

Scripture is God-inspired writings. The doctrine that denominations get from scripture are not. If they just quote scripture alone and give no other definition to what it means, then it is scripture they stand on. Otherwise, they not only stand on scripture, but their added understanding.

So what I'm talking about is the kind "theology" that separates the saints where people are more informed by a theological interpretation than by the simplicity and purity of the scriptures themselves.


while no one body of believers can claim to hold all truth, most (if not all) denominations think their particular theology is the most correct. That's OK as long as they are humble about it. So yea, a room full of scientists would have a different theology than a room full of guitar players.

I'd go with the most humble of the two if I had to make a choice, avoiding theology altogether. Humble people are going to be more teachable.

Am I clear as mud yet? LOL

[Keep Singing]

Staying on this theme of theology, and going back to my earlier musings, there does seem to be a link between perhaps the more emotional aspects of some worship styles and the willingness of a congregation to engage in a more intellectual encounter with scripture. I'm not sure whether this is the traditional split between "arty" and "sciency" people, however I have noticed that the sort of people who attended my old church are quite different from those who attend the more traditional church I am at now. For instance I was one of a handful of people at my old church with post-grad science qualifications whereas my new church is brimming with doctors, academics, senior business men etc. Likewise the emphasis on one church was "flowing with the spririt" whilst the emphasis at the other is "engaging with the issues". I just wonder if people who are used to tackling things in an intellectual way prefer a more intellectual worship, whilst the more tactile people prefer a more emotion based worship?

I think this is pretty true, Simon. It seems to me that many of the debates about worship styles are really debates about personality types and personal preferences...

[MattB]

...wow, this is a great thread/discussion.

I have only been leading "worship" for just over a year now, and there are many issues, questions, concerns, ideas, etc that have developed in my mind and heart since I've begun.

For me, I would start by examining two issues that I often consider when it comes to "worship": terminology, and manipulation.

Terminology:

This issue is one of my biggest "pet-peeves" when it comes to any discussion relating to "worship" meaning music and singing songs. At worse it is simply bad theology.
The word, "worship" is a verb/action which literally means to bow down (Gen 24:26,48 for example), and it can also mean to kiss the ring of royalty. It is associated with awe, reverence, and humility. No where in Scripture does worship relate to or is used in conjunction with music or singing. Worship is an act of humilty - it is a state of the soul (Romans 12:1). Worship is pretty much what our entire "state of being" should be before the Lord.

Now, the word, "praise" - that's right on the money when it comes to singing and making music before and to the Lord. The word "praise" as a verb can mean to shoot (as in an arrow), to throw, to give thanks, to confess; as a noun, "praise" is just that - a song or hymn of praise, adoration, thanksgiving paid to God. Most instances of song and music in Scripture relate to praise.

So, how have we come to replace "praise" (which is entirely accurate) with "worship" (which is vague and usually needs clarification)? Praise is exactly what we are doing when it comes to music and song, but when we begin to define it as worship, something gets misconstrued, complicated, and confusing.

As a result of my studies into this matter of terminology/bad theology, I have begun to do my best to not refer to our music and song as worship, but to bring it back to what it is: praise. It's not worship teams, it's not worship music, it's not worship anything. It's all praise!

I'll tackle my other issue, manipulation later...

[simon]

I suppose one of the hardest things in getting on with other people is realising that we are not all alike, and different people do things in different ways. It's very easy to judge from ones own perspective but rather more difficult to try and stand in someone elses shoes.

I suppose my "way" of worshipping/relating with God is rather more cranial than "touchy feely" and it probably shouldn't be a surprise to me that I prefer songs with great lyrics that make me dwell on God with my mind. At the same time I probably need to also appreciate that other people may prefer a 45 minute emotional roller coaster style of worship. I do worry a bit that the latter "emotional" type of worship is perhaps more open to abuse, especially (as someone else has mentioned) at youth events, however something being open to abuse doesn't necessarily make the whole thing a bad idea. I suppose if anything people who lead more emotional type of worship have a far greater responsibility than those of us who lead from within a more rigid framework - I need to repent for being a bit too judgemental about this over the last couple of years!

----------->8------------

Regarding the theology aspects, I still think yod1948 has a slightly naive view when he wrote:

Scripture is God-inspired writings. The doctrine that denominations get from scripture are not. If they just quote scripture alone and give no other definition to what it means, then it is scripture they stand on. Otherwise, they not only stand on scripture, but their added understanding.

I think it is impossible to read ANY scripture without applying/adding ones own understanding. In technical terms I disagree profoundly with the "sola scriptura" doctrine which I think yod1948 seems to be arguing for. "Just quoting scripture" is entirely meaningless because scipture is nothing without application. Furthermore, as there is such a temporal/ cultural/ philosophical/ spiritual gap between us and the writers of the bible, we cannot ever understand scripture "as the author intended". Indeed this is one of the amazing things about scripture - it is relevant in ALL times and cultures even if how it is relevant necessarily differs between places/times! It is a mistake to try and separate "reading scripture" from doctrine and theology.

-------->8--------

I think MattB also makes a good point about the distinction between praise and worship however would want to say that the meaning of words change over time and that now-a-days "worship" tends to mean "what you do on a Sunday" (rightly or, as I think Matt would say, wrongly). For me songs include aspects of both Matt's definition of worship (associated with awe, reverence, and humility) and aspects of praise (to give thanks, to confess) so I think using worship as a short hand, or perhaps "musical worship" is OK as a phrase.

Thanks for all the useful thoughts, I'm finding this thread really helpful!

[travisvwright]

Speaking of interpreting the scripture, Simon's recent point's are what I think Jesus was addressing with the woman at the well. (All of the top of my head, as I don't have a bible here. My memory could be off, so feel free to correct me.) He said you worship God who you do not know, The Jews worship a God who they do know. Both to a fault. The jews reached the point where they were "going through the motions" and the samaritans didn't really know Who/why they wosrhipped. - But a time will come when you worship in sprirt(could be seen as emotional) and in truth (head-knowledge/liturgical).

I do NOT think Balance was what was being advocated. I don't see some spirit and some truth. Don't get to truthful because then spirit will be overshadowed. Don't get to spiritual because then you lose some truth.

Instead I see Jesus saying a time will come (and we should strive for it now) when you will know all truths about Who you worship. And understanding the vast glory of God, you will worship with your entire spirit. With all that you are. To your emotional limit and beyond.

If the question is should we be emotional or should we be rational. I read the answer to be YES. And not blanced but both to the extreme. To the point where someone might say, "You know too much about God." Or "You put too much of your emotions into worshiping God."

[yod1948]

Originally Posted by simon

----------->8------------

Regarding the theology aspects, I still think yod1948 has a slightly naive view when he wrote:

Scripture is God-inspired writings. The doctrine that denominations get from scripture are not. If they just quote scripture alone and give no other definition to what it means, then it is scripture they stand on. Otherwise, they not only stand on scripture, but their added understanding.

I think it is impossible to read ANY scripture without applying/adding ones own understanding. In technical terms I disagree profoundly with the "sola scriptura" doctrine which I think yod1948 seems to be arguing for. "Just quoting scripture" is entirely meaningless because scipture is nothing without application. Furthermore, as there is such a temporal/ cultural/ philosophical/ spiritual gap between us and the writers of the bible, we cannot ever understand scripture "as the author intended".

-------->8--------

I bolded the part where our disagreement lies. I don't even know what "sola scriptura" means since it is latin and some kind of theological definition apparently?

If you were to say, "the church (historically speaking) has separated us from the temporal/cultural/philosophical/spiritual" understanding of the scriptures, I would absolutely agree.

But I don't agree that we "cannot ever understand scripture as the author intended". That would defeat the purpose of God giving us His Word.

So conversely I also believe that, historically speaking, doctrine and theology has been the biggest hindrance to a correct understanding of the scriptures (though quite helpful in many cases). One would be better served to study the history and perspective of Israel/Jews than consulting european theologians who wrote theological commentary (and called it "doctrine") post-biblically.



This is a good example:

Instead I see Jesus saying a time will come (and we should strive for it now) when you will know all truths about Who you worship.

Yeshua wasn't saying anything about knowledge with the statement of "in spirit and in truth". It would be impossible for us to know all things about Him from this side of eternity.

He was simply saying that we would worship from the heart and in true sincerity, as opposed to our acceptance of Temple sacrifices/rituals as "worship"

Not a lot has changed, btw. There are still people who think that the act of church attendance with the ability to explain church theology is worshipping in "Spirit and truth"

That is a pale substitute for righteousness and humility, which is a broken spirit of honest sincerity.

[Zeke101]

Originally Posted by travisvwright

If the question is should we be emotional or should we be rational. I read the answer to be YES. And not blanced but both to the extreme. To the point where someone might say, "You know too much about God." Or "You put too much of your emotions into worshiping God."

agree 100%

If your doing the above with everything you have, then you don't have too much to worry about.

if your opening one eye and your disappointed by what you see in the pews, and so resort to manipulation, then you've got an issue

[travisvwright]

Originally Posted by yod1948

Yeshua wasn't saying anything about knowledge with the statement of "in spirit and in truth". It would be impossible for us to know all things about Him from this side of eternity.

I wasn't trying to imply that we would know all things on this side of eternity and given that I wouldn't imply that we could acheive perfect worship on this side of eternity for that very reason. I do believe that a time is coming when we will. To say He wasn't talking about knowledge seems incorrect from the context. I'll copy the previous verse as well:

22You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth,

Now the "has now come" does correct me on which side of eternity was being refered to. I was wrong <- not so hard to say afterall. But I don't think you can read "know" and "do not know" coupled with a "Yet" and say Jesus was not talking about knowledge. I still maintain that we will know fully and worship fully one day and that more full knowledge will lead to more full worship today.

Also for the record I wasn't spouting inaccurate/useless doctine. I was mis-remembering a section of scripture. I do believe we can understand the scriptures, exactly as they were intended. Taking the case of non-biblical writings as an example. Do you say we can't understand what anyone was trying to write if the text is over 10 years old? 100 years? 1,000 years? Or how different of a culture would it need to be can Europeans and North Americans understand each others writing? South Amereicans? Asians? Middle Easterners? I do think that a study of the "authors" context would be very useful perhaps even essential but I wouldn't agree that it is impossible.

To the original topic. I don't think music is essential. But I do think God created us to respond to music in a profound way. I also recognize that because of this it is a tool that can be misused, like a chainsaw. But as a chainsaw is what I find easiest for cutting down trees, music is the tool I find easiest for fostering worship. I've met people who misuse the bible but I'm not going to stop using the bible because of it. So you've seen some people misuse music, I'd caution you against an extreme reaction.