Lying in Church

I have known people who have left the worship of the church because they believed they were losing their faith and could no longer in good conscience say the Creed, or in some other way participate in its common prayer.  They could not lie to themselves and others about their beliefs.  There are others, however, who have left churches not because they have lost their faith, but because the church demands that to participate in the worship service they must lie to God. 

As I write I have stumbled away from yet another Evangelical service where half the hymnody has made a liar of me. To join the songs I must tell the Lord what I think or how I feel about him in words that neither reflect my opinions, nor my experience of him, nor are they part of the universal language of Christian worship. In their place they are unobjectionable, since they presumably reflect the honest sentiments and opinions of the writers of the verses, and we may add to these the emotive language of what is unquestionably the common prayer of the church, in which, for example, the soul of the worshipper desires God as the hart pants for the flowing waters.

But does this justify having people congratulate the Lord for being “the best,” or make a personal prayer out of St. Paul’s confession that all he once held dear and built his life upon he counts as worthless next to knowing Jesus—the song of a convert from religious error and not of a person who has been raised in the Christian faith, its professions, confessions, and its longings? These are examples from the modern praise chorus, but they are no worse than many of the old gospel songs of the revivalist tradition from which they descend. These are not my words; they are not my songs, nor does the universal confession of the Church demand these confessions of me.

When the pastor, who is aware of the problem, suggests that if they do not apply directly to us (many of them assume the doctrines of perfectionism—which certainly don’t apply to me) we should make them our prayer, it doesn’t work simply because they are not. Because I believe the Lord who knows me attends all services of worship, and listens, I cannot sing them to his face. Paradoxically, the songs’ encouragement to draw close to God is the very thing that makes me avoid singing them, since the more aware I am of his presence, the worse many of them look. To sing them is not to enter into the common worship of the Church, the fundamental confession and experience of all Christians (whether or not they are personally aware of it) but to hold that common experience and worship hostage to the personal experience of the song writer. 

The worst is perhaps making me tell Jesus I love him or confess that “he’s my all,” for I am quite sure that I do NOT love him in the way this sounds in most of the music where I find this expression. He excites in me no sentimental interest whatever, and these songs are for the most part sentimental. And dare I stand before the Lord who knows my sins and inform him in a pleasant little tune that he’s everything to me? He’s not that, either, although he has every right to be. Nor can I sing the songs which nullify the self in magnification of God, for he did not send his Son into the world to make nothing of us, but to glorify us into his divine image—to make us by the redemption of his blood the gods we were meant to be—of which I will gladly and truthfully sing. The horrible “He’s everything and I’m nothing” song is an insult to our Redeemer. We were wholly unworthy of his redemption, but we weren’t nothing, either before or after. If we were, we couldn’t have been the object of his love.

As I grow older I am far more cautious about the use of words, great words like “love” in particular—so far more sensitive to their abuses. Where love for God sounds like little more than appreciation for someone who has done us favors, and the melody has no gravity, it seems wrong to sing it. On my very best days, I believe that I can just begin to glimpse the quality and magnitude of the love of God in Christ, and so begin faintly to love him as he deserves—and this never happens to me when I am in any sort of state such as the Evangelical “worship experience” desires to encourage, but quite the opposite—when I am thinking hard, or concentrating on doing things that I know I should do.

On days like today I leave church swearing that I have had it with the Evangelicals, and longing for the conservative Reformed churches, the old-fashioned Lutherans, and the nearly extinct (in this part of the world) Anglicans that paid very close attention to the words of worship music, subjected all of it to close pastoral scrutiny, put it in approved hymnals, and allowed nothing into it that was contrary to their theology. (There were reasons for this. They didn’t do it because they were fuddy-duddies or didn’t like anything new. It was done for truth’s sake.)  They did not allow it to pass unexamined from the realm of popular music, even if it was popular Christian music, into the worship service, no matter how attractive its tune or beguiling the minstrels who sang it. Then I remind myself that these other churches have their own problems; one picks one’s poison. (And yes, for those who will write me on it, that includes the Catholic and Orthodox poisons, too.)

Lex orandi lex credendi. I will say it once again: Evangelicalism cannot endure as long as it remains at the high level of theological irresponsibility and doxological infantilism reflected in its services of worship. The error and simplicity tolerable in the infant is intolerable in those who have come of age. However numerous the adherents it attracts may be, it will slip into the heterodoxies we now see it engaging in ever-larger numbers, and will in a generation or two be no church at all.

Comments

[Barry]

May I suggest that you don't stumble into those services anymore.

It will save you the agony and save us having to listen to this babble constantly.

Maybe one day all folks will worship like you or to your liking.

[Scott Walker]

As a former Evangelical, now Eastern Orthodox, I can only agree with the evaluation of much of what passes for worship in too many Evangelical churches. Worship isn't about what makes us feel good, or it shouldn't be; it's about what is eternally true, and consequently bound to be out of step with current culture. And Barry, for the first 1000 years of Christianity, everybody worshipped pretty much the same. Didn't seem to do any harm. Post-schism, Roman Catholics and Orthodox diverged, but within each communion everybody worshipped pretty much the same. One could make the argument that agreement in worship is a natural consequence of the unity among believers for which our Lord prayed. Meanwhile, please try not to be so snotty. Thank you.

[Paddy O.]

Seems kind of rude to come to a page and just insult the writer about his "babble". I'm not sure you have to read this, and you surely don't have to be condemning. I can't imagine that such is a constructive Christ filled response.

Maybe this is the result of too many theologically poor worship songs.

I'm quite in the Evangelical tradition and we really do have to consider the theology of our worship songs. However, I would like to point out that there is a strong movement within the Evangelical worship community doing just that. www.worshipartist.net is one voice on the subject, seeking change within.

However, being insulting and sarcastic to one really trying to find depth, and giving voice to a common critique of contemporary Evangelicalism, fairly well is the opposite of worship, ancient or modern.

[D. Cline]

I couldn't agree more with Mr. Hutchens' post. In my experience and opion, he is right on. I'm a former life long Evangelical who was received into the Catholic Church a little over a year ago. Unfortunately, the same problem exists in some Catholic parishes (or a particular Mass...beware Sunday evenings!). Keep telling it like it is, brother!

[Robert]

Barry may be "snotty" and "rude," but he may also have a point. Why DOES Hutchens keep stumbling into and out of evangelical services? There is simply no resource in the Evangelical or larger Protestant tradition that can correct the problems he sees. Meanwhile, www.worshipartist.net is, as the comment says, "one voice" among all the evangelical voices that lack any coherent authority whatsoever.

All the churches have their poison? Hmmm, interesting. I'm still waiting for the Touchstone editors to come up with some definition of the church that has any practical consequences for what they actually do come Sunday morning. Touchstone seems to be, by it's very nature, exactly like the evangelicals Hutchens laments. The Christian Church is just one big smorgasbord of worship experiences--take your pick, any church will do. It all depends on personal preference, and nothing more.

[Steve Nicoloso]

If I'm not mistaken, Mr. Hutchens is a member of an Evangelical Church. If so, it is no wonder he stumbles into and out of such services each Sunday, only if merely as an act of faithfulness. (If not, then I'd agree, perhaps he should avoid such scandalous venues.) He may very well be an Evangelical dissident (a status I long "enjoyed" but recently gave up on in starting a journey towards Rome), but appears to possess a very (surprisingly) persistent hope of reform for the Evangelical "Church". His admonitions toward Evangelicalism are usually spot on, conforming quite closely to my own experiences as a (dissident) Evangelical, and while such musings may sometimes have the all the sensitivity of bucket of ice water over the head, they have not (IMO) had so little as an aluminum bat to the head--the former being verily a duty of Christian charity, and the latter not.

Keep up the good work, Mr. Hutchens!

Cheers!

[Paddy O.]

Robert writes, "There is simply no resource in the Evangelical or larger Protestant tradition that can correct the problems he sees."

Well, we may be ignorant rubes in the Evangelical Church, but we do in fact believe in the Trinity. I'd say the Holy Spirit is good at correcting problems in all the various traditions. The Spirit is good at the work, much better than we usually expect. And really, since the New Testament doesn't exactly lay out an Order of Service, it seems that the Spirit has given us flexibility in worship, with the core bit being the hearts we offer not the liturgy or songs.

One thing the Spirit doesn't do is uniformity. Having different voices, and different emphases, and different gifts, and different patterns is sort of like, what? A body maybe?

[Richard]

I am one of those who keep on stumbling into an evangelical church--BECAUSE I HAVE NO CHOICE! I attend an Army chapel in Europe--the General Protestant service is awash in this silliness, from a vapid P&W time, with insipid words set to grating melodies. The chaplain, an evangelical Baptist, is "preaching" through "The Purpose Driven Life." Michael Horton has a marvelous phrase: "unchurching the churched." Lex orandi, lex credendi indeed. We have left evangelicalism for the BCP and the Episcopal Church--we had no choice.

[Luke]

This is a theory I've not yet heard. Songs like "Knowing You, Jesus" are going to plunge evangelicalism into heterodoxy and then extinction? What could you possibly have against a song that echoes the words of Scripture? Hutchens makes the mistake of assuming that you must existentially experience in full measure the words of the songs that you sing, or else you are lying. If this were true, none of could ever express any affection for the Lord, because our hearts are always divided in some measure. Nevertheless, we can sing, “You are my all in all,” not because we have achieved perfectionism, but because Christ is head over the church “which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all” (Eph. 1:23). We can confess that our former life was worthless compared to knowing Christ, not because our pre-conversion experience was identical to Paul’s, but because we believe we had a pre-conversion experience. Evangelicals believe in the new birth, even for those who grew up in the community of the church. This is a song every Christian should be able to sing in good conscience.

One of the geniuses of evangelicalism, from the days of Edwards to today, is that it has brought together the light of the mind and the fire of the heart in a way that honors Jesus command to worship God “in spirit and in truth.” Even if some evangelical churches need to rethink the theological content of the songs they sing (a fact I do not contest), this doesn’t mean that we should throw the baby out with the bathwater. If doctrinal faithfulness only were required of us in worship, then Jesus could have omitted the words “in spirit” from his discourse with the woman at the well and the Holy Spirit could have spared us most of the Psalms.

[Matt]

As something of a distgruntled evangelical with a certain appreciation for Hutchens' remarks, I think Luke pretty well nailed it.

Cheers, sir.

[MarcV]

As far as being "snotty", how about this:
-Evangelicalism cannot endure as long as it remains at the high level of theological irresponsibility and doxological infantilism reflected in its services of worship.-
That tends to raise my hackles and sounds "snotty" to me. Evangelicals get emotional during a worship service and they sometimes express that emotion. Can Hutchens simply say "I love you Lord" (whether in song or prayer) without having to worry about the fraction of his heart that he may be holding back?

God accepts us for who we are, knowing that we are not perfect yet He still loves us. How do we show our love back to Him? And is it in an "acceptable" manner? I wonder if some people profess their love for the Lord only in a P&W song, which would be a sad state of affairs.

I hope Hutchens can find the church that will sing theologically correct songs, and for the present he will be able to endure his struggles surrounded by hypocrites and sinners who sing their love for the Lord imperfectly.

[Joe Long]

I appreciate Mr. Hutchen's worship commentary very much - he is addressing serious problems and is stating, forthrightly and eloquently, things I have (sometimes guiltily) thought to myself since I was twelve.

Should he walk away from a church that worships this way? Well, I did, but it followed me: when I grew up I left my family's denomination for a Reformed church which - now spends half its worship services singing the exact songs that horrified me at twelve! So - keep it up, sir, please!

[Steve Nicoloso]

Paddy 0. muses:

"Having different voices, and different emphases, and different gifts, and different patterns is sort of like, what? A body maybe?"

Yes, ONE body, ONE faith, ONE baptism... Schism is to the church as amputation is to the body.

Luke wonders:

"Songs like 'Knowing You, Jesus' are going to plunge evangelicalism into heterodoxy and then extinction?"

I doubt that anyone thinks it is any particular song, or any combination thereof, that threatens the survival of orthodoxy. Instead it may very well be a symptom of much more insidious pathology. Certainly we ought not throw babies out with bath water. But when a sufficient amount of bath water is discarded, it may reveal that there is no longer any baby at all to be discarded.

Cheers!

[macleod]

take a walk thru james. you're overthinking here and james will tell you why.

[burttd]

Overthinking? Ok, I may grant that there are some parts of evangelicalism where "overthinking" is a problem (the battles over N. T. Wright for example). Worship, however, is one where the problem is a distinct *lack* of thinking of the deeper issues, and uncritical acceptance of cultural norms.

And, "no resources in the Protestant tradition"? I suppose the BCP got abolished and no one bothered to tell me? ;-} (Given the trajectory of the ECUSA, this is not altogether unlikely...)

[dilys]

Oh, dear. I have been reading Mr. Hutchens' posts over time as his faith journey, full of bravery, candor, and pain.

And I have come to realize how deeply entwined is familiarity, custom, family-and-friend associations, and temperament, with where the said journey begins, or ends. Those satisfied with where they are are perhaps not the object of these discussions, and understandably bridle.

For decades, the familiar hymnody is all that kept me in Protestantism of any kind. It is only after entering Orthodox worship that I heaved a sigh of relief, realizing that I could sing and listen without an inner checklist of where ad-hoc opting-out was theologically essential.

Life was simpler when one could bloom where planted. Some, with integrity, can. But there is a swelling current in 21st-C Christendom, it seems. Some times, some -- even well-meaning -- shepherds do not permit us to remain. The air clears, and it is not home. As Tennyson's ageing Ulysses concluded, it is not too late to seek. Even if seeking is returning to an ancient harbor. With memories of the love of where we came from.

[Ken Peirce]

It appears that those who leave one Church and search for another find none are perfect.

Songs tend to be written by people with Melancholy and Sanguine temperaments, not by Cholerics and Phlegmatics. Hence, they usually arise from the heart/emotional part of the brain and not from the rational, calculating, cautious, legal lobes. In fact, music with its words attached arises mostly from the right temporal lobe with some of the evidence being that stutterers can sing words without stuttering.

Music itself is firmly connected to the emotions. You are much more likely to see someone crying or dancing or raising their arms during song than prayer or Scripture reading. Sermons that are doctrinally correct and logical and well-spoken do not lead to "amens" and "right-ons."

On the other hand, Cholerics love to hear such sermons and curtly tell the preacher "good one" as they leave feeling proud they have such a learned Minister. They also want the service to be orderly and everyone to speak in unison and not mix-up "trespassors" and "debtors."

Phlegmatics sit there patiently following quietly whatever anyone else is doing, never singing at the top of their lungs or being the first to stand or say "Hallelujah."

And the people of the same temperaments that write music enjoy it much more---seem to connect to it and embarrass the cholerics with their spontaneity and emotional expression and transparency.

I may be approaching this over-simplistically, but I suggest that the various bloggers on this subject are of different temperaments and respond differently to the various types of public worship. I suspect that Jesus, the Man, was balanced in these temperaments. I believe that the public worship service should be more balanced in the same way. I think that the academics should loosen up a bit and accept those who get more emotional and I think those who are only expressing emotions that well up inside them need some disciplined thinking to avoid theological errors.

And private worship needs to be cultivated--to not depend on "The Worship Leader" at church but to do in private whatever the Holy Spirit calls us to do, whether it be breaking out in song in private or spend endless hours pouring over His Word.

[Peter Kim]

I agree with your comment that many modern worship songs lack theological depth or even theological validity. However, I would urge you to consider removing the medium or style from your evaluation of the content.

There is nothing inherent in worship songs that utilize contemporary instrumentation and style that makes them theologically deficient.

The reason why hymnals of more conservatively worshipping churches have more theogically "proper" songs is because they have a song collection of 400+ years to tap into. Their "bad" songs have been weeded out for the past hundreds of years by local churches. The church today is in the process of doing the same thing with modern worship songs.

Old hymns are not perfect either. As a 26 year old musician who is into bands like Radiohead, Snow Patrol and Jimmy Eat World, old hymns just don't express what I want to say to God. Is it more wrong for songs to be theologically perfect or culturally irrelevant?

There needs to be a complementary passion for having a worship music and liturgy which is equally theologically correct and culturally relevant. Conservative churches err on the side of being culturally irrelevant while many contemporary evangelical churches err on the side of lacking theological depth. Why can't we have some sort of convergence of those two equally important values?

[Peter Kim]

Correction: meant to say:
"Is it more wrong for songs to be theologically imperfect or culturally irrelevant?"

[Roz]

"The worst is perhaps making me tell Jesus I love him or confess that 'he's my all' for I am quite sure that I do NOT love him in the way this sounds in most of the music where I find this expression. He excites in me no sentimental interest whatever, and these songs are for the most part sentimental. And dare I stand before the Lord who knows my sins and inform him in a pleasant little tune that he’s everything to me? He’s not that, either, although he has every right to be."

I think, Mr. Hutchins, that there's a difference between personal discomfort associated with this sort of expressiveness and actual theological weakness. In the same way that we are truly forgiven by God when we confess and repent of sin but may not feel particularly cleansed, it's appropriate and may be helpful for the Christian to worship God by expressing the inner truth that the love of God and His grace brings us into a familial relationship with Him regardless of our inner resonance at the time.

The Scripture's many references to emotion and tactile experience -- "rejoicing with great joy," "the wedding feast of the Lamb," the welcome-home gala for the Prodigal Son -- give us a clear indication that the relationship God wants with us includes the whole person that He has created: the will, the intellect, the emotions, the body. If we do not feel that emotional love or enthusiasm, it doesn't mean that involvement of our emotions in our faith is impossible or improper. It is our emotions that are slow on the uptake in the face of God's wonderful gift of true grace-filled Fatherhood. Any involvement of feelings seems "emotional" (a word given unfairly pejorative implications in our culture). And any involvement of emotions evokes fear that our faith's foundation will then be emotional rather than upon truth. There are pastoral situations where this concern may carry weight. However, good pastoral guidance can help each believer ensure his or her own balance. If singing expressive worship songs helps the congregation come more fully into a sense of the love relationship that is possible between God and his Bride the Church, isn't that something worth being open to?

Our lack of inner resonance with expressions of love of God may not be as much tied to worship proprieties as it is to cultural discomfort. It is possible, even likely, that Christians in any culture may encounter a blind spot when we run into different approaches than our own. But many of the great Christians who have gone before us were extremely expressive of their personal devotion to God and were willing to open those prayers to our view. The culture we should seek to adopt is that of the kingdom of God, not of our own society, family or denomination. (Please understand that I am referring to the aspects that are more peripheral, not the tenets of faith or doctrine.)

C.S. Lewis speaks vividly about the temptations to uncharity that arise when worshipping with people whose approach differs from ours. When we encounter others' worship practices that appear distasteful or strange, let's not immediately seek to reinforce our belief in the righteousness of our preference; rather ask God to show us whether there is any aspect of Himself that he can show us more clearly through these prayers of our brothers and sisters in Christ.

[John]

I question whether cultural relevance and theological depth are coequal.

[Peter Kim]

It's equally important because if the church's message is not meaningful to the people we're reaching out to, it's as if we never reached out at all. Or even worse, we turn people away from it.

One of the major themes of the modern missions movement is preaching a gospel that is culturally relevant instead of preaching our American/Euro-centric view of God. This is no different than our mission here in our local communities. There are different "cultures" in existence, even in the United States. Why do urban postmoderns not seem to be getting this "God" thing? Maybe it's not their problem but ours.

The church can adopt a worship that is both theologically deep and culturally relevant. As the church, let's try to do that instead of embracing an extreme.

[Henry Dieterich]

I would second what Roz says, and add this:

I don't have sentimental feelings about Jesus either, so I can understand Mr. Hutchens's discomfort in asserting them. Love, in the Scriptural sense, however, is not a sentimental feeling. If it were, we might all be made spiritual by the administration of the right drug. If it depended on my dispositions or emotions, then it would be unjust of God to command it, as when he commands us to love Him with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength, and our neighbor as ourselves. It is rather a complete loyalty and adherence regardless of our feelings--and if you don't have that toward God, you had better repent now. Similarly, to state that Jesus is my all in all is not a boast or a description of my feelings, but a statement of fact: because I am a Christian, all that I have that is good comes from my participation in Christ, even the natural gifts I have that are only valuable if turned over to Him to be used for His glory. Unlike Mr. Hutchens, I am not blessed to be "a person who has been raised in the Christian faith, its professions, confessions, and its longings," but I am sure that even for such a one (and for me since my conversion) that anything I might do for Christ is nothing compared to the abundant riches of knowing Him alone. (I would expect that an Evangelical like Mr. Hutchens would put less stock in a Christian upbringing than a Catholic like me would do.)

This said, Mr. Hutchens, I do feel your pain. A lot of contemporary worship music is shallow and sentimental, especially compared to the traditions of Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, or Anglican liturgy. How much more theologically profound are Wesley's hymns than those found in popular Evangelicalism today! Many contemporary hymns strike me as phrases strung together without any attention to the sense, or even the constraints of English grammar. The melodies are often trite or downright unsingable, the rhythms distracting. I would gladly see the return of the great hymns that are the Church's heritage, and better yet, that God would raise up writers who could put profound truth in accessible form.

[Peter Kim]

Mr. Dieterich, I wholeheartedly agree with the latter part of your concluding statement:

"I would gladly see the return of the great hymns that are the Church's heritage, and better yet, that God would raise up writers who could put profound truth in accessible form."

...but shudder at the idea of the former. The traditional church's insistence on singing only hymns keeps the younger generation away from church and ultimately away from God. Also, your statement "The melodies are often trite or downright unsingable, the rhythms distracting" makes you sound utterly out of touch with youth culture. Don't you remember the time when you were younger and your parents couldn't believe you listened to that ridiculous racket called rock music?

Let's pray that God raises up songwriters and musicians with a passion for theological depth AND musical/cultural relevance. I would consider Matt Redman and Brian Doerksen to be two of the more recent lead worshippers who embrace both. Theological depth and culturally relevant music do not have to be mutually exclusive.

[Henry Dieterich]

I never was a big rock fan, but I understand the point. Note that I didn't say all contemporary worship music was like that, only that some was. It might be a worthy subject for debate, moreover, to what extent the musical idiom of rock is suitable for worship. I might say the same about the musical idiom of grand opera or tango. Or to cite an older example, in some earlier century when polyphony was all the rage, a choir was performing a new polyphonic setting of the Mass in a chapel at the Vatican. As with many polyphonic settings, this played with the words as well as the notes, reordering them according to the artifice of the composer. But when in the setting of the Creed, the choir had managed to contort "genitum non factum" ("begotten, not made") into the clearly heretical "factum non genitum," one of the cardinals arose and stopped the music short. The need for pastoral oversight of church music goes back a long way.

[Bill Reichert]

Dr. Hutchen's comments are, I suspect, only partially about music in our worship services. May I refer readers to the "Popular Threads" at the top right of Mere Comments? There you will find an earlier thread ("Amazing Worship") started by Dr. Hutchens, to which I contributed several comments.

Since that time I have left the evangelical church in which I spent nearly a quarter century. My new church home is in the Lutheran Church (Missouri Synod). Lutherans would be the last to claim perfection, but I have been so happy after the very traditional Divine Service (culminating each week with the celebration of the Eucharist) that I have to restrain myself from crying: the Invocation, the Absolution, the Creed, the Lord's Prayer, and--my goodness!--the finest in hymnody from Lutheran, Catholic, and Evangelical sources.

Dr. Hutchens, you know the Lutherans, and you know their flaws. But the virtues of those who have retained the ancient liturgy and preserved the weekly Eucharist are significant.

[John Luke]

Much ink spilled (bits and bytes scattered?) on the order of worship and the hymns we sing. All part of the larger, and quite complex topic of, "how do I find a church?"

Seems to me that the very first thing we must do is agree with the basic theology of that church. I presume that any evangelical church will adhere to some basic variant of the "Five Solas." If one doesn't fully agree with this, then there's not much point in worrying about the music. You don't belong there for other reasons.

I may be confused, but wouldn't the Roman and the Eastern Orthodox churches be just about as far as one could go theologically from a Reformed or evangelical church?

On the other hand, if one does agree with the theology, then there are two basic choices: live with the music; or, if the Spirit moves you, work to change it.

Just don't lost sight of the basics.

[John]

Some questions for discussion:

Might there be a "style" of music which is wholly inappropriate for the worship of God?

Might there be a style of music which is more appropriate than others for the worship of God?

Is there a point where the culture so strongly diverges from God that accomdation to it accomplishes more harm than good?

Might a person be so inured to the popular culture, even as a Christian, that he can't properly assess the damage it causes?

[Wolf N. Paul]

John Luke said,
> I may be confused, but wouldn't the Roman and the Eastern Orthodox
> churches be just about as far as one could go theologically from a
> Reformed or evangelical church?

Nope, unfortunately not. Liberal, revisionist protestant churches fill that bill.

Next comes perhaps RC and EO -- as Evangelicals understand them. But I have discovered that many Catholics (I don't have much experience with Eastern Orthodox believers) do not really believe everything most Evangelicals think they do, and that includes such notable Catholics as a certain Josef Ratzinger, lately known as Pope Benedict, and the archbishop of Vienna, Austria, Christoph Cardinal Schoenborn. And where they DO believe what Evangelicals think they do, it means something different to them than it does to the Evangelicals who judge them for it.

I have a close friend who in all honesty finds that he can declare his assent to the statement of faith of the Evangelical Alliance as well as be a faithful Catholic, and his bishop agrees.

I myself cannot fully follow this, but I still find that as an Evangelical I have more in common with faithful, believing Catholics than with the average liberal Protestant. For a long time I didn't dare to say that out loud in my Evangelical environment, until a few years ago I heard Dr Paige Patterson say this very thing on the radio.

Touchstone is the embodiment of this realization.

[Wolf N. Paul]

And I'll add my own pet peeve with contemporary worship songs:

"... and thought of ME above all!" (emphasis mine)

Excuse me? I think rhyme trumped reason here -- or the writer was seriously deluded.

And everyone who sings this Sunday after Sunday without realizing what's wrong with it either sings "without understanding" or is equally deluded.

[Peter Kim]

John, those are some EXCELLENT questions that you raise.

> Might there be a "style" of music which is wholly inappropriate for the worship of God?

As challenging as this may be, I would argue no. Can there be such a thing as "death metal worship"? If it's done for the glory of God, I would say yes. Some would argue that some characteristics of the style include anger, hate, darkness, etc... which are not Godly characteristics. However, are there not Psalms which come out of darker periods of David's life?

> Might there be a style of music which is more appropriate than others for the worship of God?

This is sort of the flip-side of the last question... the answer to this question is more clear to me, and that is an emphatic no. There are many forms of music which can clearly embody Godly characteristics/traits such as joy, happiness, love, faith, hope, compassion.

> Is there a point where the culture so strongly diverges from God that accomdation to it accomplishes more harm than good?

This is a broader question that goes beyond the scope of just music or even artistic expression. I would say that since all human beings are made in the image of God, there is always some element in every culture which reflects who God is. Therefore, I believe that even a culture or subculture that seems to have gone helplessly astray from God has some characteristic that the church can tap into to connect them back to our Creator.

> Might a person be so inured to the popular culture, even as a Christian, that he can't properly assess the damage it causes?

Yes, and this happens all the time. Our Americanism colors our view of God in a strong way that we don't realize until we step out of our culture into a completely foreign culture. This is why exposing ourselves to different cultures is always good for us.

[Bec]

I've gotta address the comments by Peter Kim regarding the ancient hymns keeping the young away from the faith. That is, quite frankly, ridiculous. American Evangelical churches have been turned into, as a commenter on an earlier thread so aptly put it, giant youth groups. If it's not working, well, that's another topic. It is not the job of the CHURCH to evangelize the lost. It is the job of CHRISTIANS to live their lives in such a way that even the pagans desire to glorify our God who is in Heaven. For far too long, much of American Evangelicalism has been preaching/singing to the lowest common denominator (the unchurched in the back of the room) insteading of allowing the Church to live up to its true calling -- the place where those who claim Christ worship Him as He deserves to be and is worshipped by the angels and the saints, and where we gather to commune with Him and each other. And, for those who say these fluffy songs sung in today's Evangelical churches involve the "whole person", I'm tempted to again say hogwash. They involve only, and possibly, the emotions, unless you count the gyrating, drumming, grinding bands on stage. Then, of course, that's the body. I would encourage anyone to try a liturgical church--to SMELL the incense, to SEE the icons that draw our minds to things of faith, to TASTE the precious Body and Blood of Christ, and to MOVE through kneeling, standing, and bowing in prayer.

For the sake of the argument, I'm an Eastern Orthodox convert who wandered through many of those Evangelical worship services and found it like trying to get through my spiritual day with a donut, rather than a good dose of protein. It seems sweet going down, but burns up really fast in the heat of a harried life. I have happily wandered out.

Cheers!

[Luke]

I wrote that we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater with regard to worship music. Steve responded:

"Certainly we ought not throw babies out with bath water. But when a sufficient amount of bath water is discarded, it may reveal that there is no longer any baby at all to be discarded."

The baby I had in mind was the importance of expressing affection for the Lord. Consider again what Mr. Hutchins said, "The worst is perhaps making me tell Jesus I love him." What other purpose do our songs serve in the worship service? Yes, we should declare God's immortality, his invisibility, and his wisdom. But demons believe and tremble! The point of the music and the hymns and the praise choruses is to confess corporately that WE LOVE the immortal, invisible, God only wise.

Mr. Hutchins claims that the "universal confession of the Church [does not] demand these confessions of me." Maybe not. But all of us should fearfully reconsider the words of Paul on importance of loving the Lord: "If anyone has no love for the Lord, let him be anathema." Of course our love will never perfect in this life, but it had better be present.

[Peter Kim]

BEC, I wasn't just referring to non-believers when stating that hymns keep younger people away from church. Even Christians, including myself, want to sing worship music that expresses who we are. I'm sorry, but I don't listen to hymn-style music for fun, and I'm pretty sure there aren't too many others that do.

I don't like all these generalizations that people are making of the American evangelical church and of modern worship music. I'm part of a church that desires to embrace both the old AND the new. I am the worship leader at my church; I make an effort to include at least one hymn in my worship set every week, because I value the richness of hymns. We value traditional liturgical elements such as responsive reading and corporate confession AND "Spirit-led" praying by the laying of hands and speaking in tongues. I would love to see more churches that embrace a multitude of the traditions of Christendom, rather than those that arrogantly insist on worshipping God the "right" way.

BEC, even though I would personally tend to agree with your distaste of churches that throw out all the "meat" in order to create "seeker-sensitive" services, you can't deny the impact that Willow Creek, Saddleback and other similar mega-churches have made. Just those two churches alone have brought tens of thousands of people into a relationship with Christ.

[Bill Reichert]

Do the classical hymns keep the young away from our churches? In some cases, this is surely the case. But the converse is also true: CCM drives away the adults in a lot of congregations.

When my wife and I moved from modern American Evangelicalism to confessional Lutheranism. we thought our children might be put off by the ancient liturgy. That hasn't happened. As my 21-year old son said following his first Divine Service: "Dad, this is so cool!" Not my words, perhaps, but certainly my sentiments.

A true worship of God embraces all generations, from children to our revered elders. Anything else is, in the end, not worship, but simply self-indulgence.

[Peter Kim]

My statement that hymns are keeping the young away from church was mostly said in reaction to those who think hymns are the "best" form of worship to God.

As I've commented previously, I think it is possible for churches to sing hymns alongside modern worship.

My main beef is that it seems as though people have rejected contemporary worship as a genre for a number of poor reasons: 1) because of a few songs they've heard in some church without trying to discover contemporary songs that actually have theological depth [they're out there--it's my job to scour through the hundreds of worship songs out there and find the gems] 2) they haven't actively thought about making church culturally relevant 3) they think certain styles of music are more "appropriate" for worship, which is completely bunk since if we want to be truly orthodox, we need to go back to using ancient Hebrew instruments.

[Bec]

You're right, Peter, I can't deny the impact of Willow Creek and Saddleback, but I think the jury is still out as to what that impact is. Is it really the best thing to have a relationship with Christ on our terms, rather than God's? And how would you define "a relationship with Christ?" Is that ACTUALLY what we're called to? I don't know. As an Orthodox Christian, I think it's more than that. Being a Christian is about becoming the person God created me to be, and that is not something I determine for myself. I need to submit myself to what He has given me for that end.

It's absolutely fine to listen to whatever music you want in your CD player, blow out the speakers, man. But in Church, in the presence of the Almighty God, it's not about us, it's not about you, it's not about me. It's about Him, at whose feet the angels fall, and our worship should be as close to that as possible.

I'm not rejecting contemporary worship as a genre. I did reject contemporary Christianity because it bears too often too little resemblence to the faith practiced by those who gave us the Canon of Scripture, the doctrines of the Trinity, all those important things...

[Dave C.]

Peter,
You ask, "Is it more wrong for songs to be theologically perfect or culturally irrelevant?"
The fact that the answer to this question isn't perfectly obvious to you shows everything that is wrong with modern praise music and the audience that it caters to. Songs MUST be theologically accurate while their cultural relevance is, well, irrelevant.

"Why do urban postmoderns not seem to be getting this "God" thing? Maybe it's not their problem but ours."

This kind of thinking led well-meaning evangelicals to eviscerate the gospel. Postmoderns don't like hearing about sin or hell either so those subjects are rarely, if ever, mentioned in churches that cater to them. But if sin and hell aren't being taught, then it is really Christianity?

"I don't listen to hymn-style music for fun, and I'm pretty sure there aren't too many others that do."

Is "fun" the most important consideration? Is it possible that church music should be holy instead of fun? Maybe there should be music you listen to at church and music you listen to at home.

"your statement ... makes you sound utterly out of touch with youth culture. Don't you remember the time when you were younger and your parents couldn't believe you listened to that ridiculous racket called rock music?"

Is youth culture to be the measure by which all elements of worship are evaluated? Is being out of touch with youth culture now a sin?

"Their "bad" songs have been weeded out for the past hundreds of years by local churches. The church today is in the process of doing the same thing with modern worship songs."

This simply won't happen. Why? Youth culture will just continually incorporate new songs. "Youth culture" really means secular culture. The medium of secular culture relevant to the discussion is pop radio, which continuously promotes the latest shallow music. Since that is the new model, how will modern praise music be any different?

Peter, I'm sure your intentions are good but you seem to so quickly want to adopt anything from secular culture that you see as advantageous. There's a reason that today's older generation (yesterday's youth, just like you) are suspicious of that: it's all to easy for Satan to slip into the church.

[Scott Walker]

Peter, I'm thinking of a young man at my work who has accompanied my wife and me to Orthodox worship...one of the reasons he is interested in Orthodoxy is that the shallowness of the omnipresent praise chorus has driven him out of more than one Evangelical services. With respect, the worship of the Church is not intended to be evangelistic; it is, rather, the gathering of Christ's Body for the Eucharist and for the proclamation of the Word. Luther and Calvin would agree with this; why are so many of their Protestant descendants so eager to be seeker-friendly? It is our task to be faithful to Christ, not to embrace every random variation in musical styles spat out by the zeitgeist in a futile effort to gather a bigger crowd than Black Eyed Peas can. And "death metal worship"? Please. I hope you're just trying out an absurdity to see if you can agitate a geezer or two, but if not, look up "oxymoron" in your Funk and Wagnells.

[Todd Mitchell]

The better the words, the more heinous it is to set them to trite, sentimental, or silly songs. (Most of the songs since the Civil War fit into this category.)

I know a girl who accidentally stabbed herself with a fork while eating pork chops. Now she doesn't like pork chops because of this association. How happy she is, she says, that she didn't stab herself while eating steak!

Bad songs with good words are like stabbing yourself with a fork while eating steak. The WORST words are those from Scripture. If you are compelled to use a crummy song, at least have the decency to use crummy words. Don't wreck, mock, or twist good words.

It seems most of American "Christianity" is so steeped in pop culture that they cannot imagine a God without associating him with the latest low. People can't imagine eating steak without stabbing themselves.

Just read the posts that argue with this. "What do you mean?" they say confusedly with their mouths full of steak, as they jab away spasmodically with their forks into their scarred, bleeding hands.

[Wolf N. Paul]

Luke writes:

> Mr. Hutchins claims that the "universal confession of the Church
> [does not] demand these confessions of me." Maybe not. But all of
> us should fearfully reconsider the words of Paul on importance of
> loving the Lord: "If anyone has no love for the Lord, let him be
> anathema." Of course our love will never perfect in this life, but
> it had better be present.

Perhaps you should re-read Mr Hutchens' words: he quite clearly says that the songs he is complaining about communicate a very sentimental (what I would call "warm fuzzies") type of love and that this is why he cannot sing them with a good conscience.

This is a type of love which I see nowhere commanded in Scripture (mind you, I don't think it is condemnded either, but it certainly is not commanded).

Three chapters prior to the verse you quoted Paul spells out the kind of love he is talking about, and it is all but warm and fuzzy. John encourages us to have the same kind of love Christ has for us, and that is not the warm fuzzy kind either.

So I am all with Mr Hutchens when he complains about not being able to sing some/many of today's songs because they are too soppy.

[Joe Long]

> Might there be a "style" of music which is wholly inappropriate for the worship of God?

Perhaps not - we could postulate any style being appropriate, perhaps, in some conceivable sense, for some theoretical individual in unlikely circumstances. For corporate worship, though, certainly there are inappropriate styles. And isn't a "style" of music defined, partially, by its philosophical content? I mean, would "gansta rap" BE that if it aped the cadences and accompaniment of that form but expressed non- or anti-"gansta" values?

William Booth of the Salvation Army is purported to have said, after appropriating "pop" music of his day to spiritual ends: "Why should the devil have all the best tunes?" I thought that was a great line - but in the intervening century the devil's musical taste seems to have declined badly, sparing us the dilemna.

> Might there be a style of music which is more appropriate than others for the worship of God?

Perhaps this, at least, is culture-specific. As Chesterton said of theology, it's like a key; we admire it, not for pure aesthetic qualities, but for how well it "fits the lock" of reality. To extend his metaphor, though (perhaps past endurance)...a key will certainly not be, say, spongey or squishy - certain characteristics make a "key" unsuitable for any "lock".

> Is there a point where the culture so strongly diverges from God that accomdation to it accomplishes more harm than good?

Ask the city elders of Gomorrah.

That said, though, St. Paul went a long way accomodating heathen cultures...I think we're supposed to look for cultural references which make it easier to communicate truth (like Paul's use of the statue "to an unknown god")

> Might a person be so inured to the popular culture, even as a Christian, that he can't properly assess the damage it causes?

Yes.

[Larry]

Some praise and worship music is actually very good and very uplifting. I particularly like the efforts of the Hillsong Church in Sydney, and their music minister, Darlene Zschech.

http://www.hillsong.com/music/bin/view.pl?sitename=music&page=index

It's wonderful, sometimes exhilarating, stuff. But, for me, it is most effective as a change of pace. I wouldn't want it to be my main staple Sunday after Sunday. It wouldn't work for me. I need the majesty and dignity of traditional worship to touch the deepest part of my soul. I desire a depth experience, and I find that is what nourishes me for the long haul.

[john meche]

I'll let it be known now that I am a younger person. I am 21. I just wanted to comment on the comment about Christian themes moving into pop music. As a Christian and a musician, I want God to saturate ever aspect of my life. When I write songs and when I sing, I sing about things that are in my life. Some of the songs are about experiences with God and some of them maybe be about other things (brushming my teeth..I dunno). I think that is fine. I think that the problems that we see now have developed because of the Christian subculture that was created during the postmodern movement. It has just become a parody of secular culture rather than Christians expressing songs about things in their lives and one of those thing being experience with God. Christian music has become a closed off walled up entity. I think that's why many "Christian bands" now are moving into mainstream music, because they realize the problems with walling yourself off from the very people that Jesus has called them to minister to with their lives as musicians.
Also, to BEC, are we not in the presence of God and his holy angels 24 hours a day? Does God himself not make your body a temple? I think there's a problem when we walk into a building and say, "now i am in the presence of God." If the the Holy Spirit really is God, as we claim He is, then we are in His presence at all times (not even mentioning the fact that God is all-seeing anyway).

[Bec]

We certainly are in the presence of the angels 24 hours a day, and yes, everything we do is to be saturated with and lived in the presence of the Triune God. But there's a difference between the individual life and the corporate life of the community.

I think that's a key difference in the modern Evangelical Protestant church and the liturgical churches. And yes, there is community in the Evangelical church, but there is a difference between a praise band and corporate prayer.

The word liturgy means work of the people. The very act of a liturgical service is a corporate event. So when we "go into a building" to worship TOGETHER we know that we are doing this together, and we believe that we are entering into the worship alongside the angels (at least in the Orthodox church.)

We've been discussing two different things throughout this thread. One--the individual need to express his or her love for God and His redemptive work. Two--the nature and language of a communal worship service. Western churches, and primarily Evangelical churches, tend to value the INDIVIDUAL experience over the corporate one. The "personal relationship" with God is paramount, rather than the communion of the saints. That's a key difference.

If we know that secular culture offers us nothing more than moral relativism, nihilism, and hyper-sexuality, why do we want to mirror that in our corporate practice. How is that possibly causing me to connect in a proper way with God? How is it giving me a correct understanding of who God is and who He created me to be? It cannot, for it is often not the language He uses.

Individually, do what you need to do--write songs, poetry, paint pictures, etc. Do whatever you need to do in your own personal walk to connect with your Savior. But what is done within the corporate body of believers needs to be a correct theological expression of that community, for it is the whole community gathered together, not a concert or a mere sing-along.

[Bill Reichert]

BEC has expressed this very well: the issue here is the nature of the church and its worship rather than the type of music used in the course of worship. The focus has to be on the church and how it addresses God, not on any particular individual's taste in music.

[Shok]

The Lying in Church article by Hutchens makes some good points but his beliefs and expectations are more outlandish than the worship service he criticizes. Where in the Bible does it say we are to be gods by the redemption of His blood?

The hymnody he complains about might make him a liar but the song he wants to sing is blasphemy.

Shok

[Bill Reichert]

SHOK,try John 10:34-35.

[carm_centuri0n]

Mr. Hutchens:

There is no doubt that there is scandal in some of what passes as "worship" in the church today -- ranging from discord and disorder to expression of ungodly sentiment, to (in some cases) rank disregard for what is taught to us in Scripture. That's not to say that we should only have organ music and gregorian chant by any means, but it is to say that we do not know how to pray as we ought to. There are many times -- MANY times -- that I find myself worshipping God in the midst of and/or in spite of what is going on around me in Sunday services.

But I think we should consider what you say here seriously:
{{
But does this justify having people congratulate the Lord for being “the best,” or make a personal prayer out of St. Paul’s confession that all he once held dear and built his life upon he counts as worthless next to knowing Jesus—the song of a convert from religious error and not of a person who has been raised in the Christian faith, its professions, confessions, and its longings? These are examples from the modern praise chorus, but they are no worse than many of the old gospel songs of the revivalist tradition from which they descend. These are not my words; they are not my songs, nor does the universal confession of the Church demand these confessions of me.
}}
If the song you are refering to is making use of Paul's confession in Phil 3, it is in fact not just the confession of a person who has turned away from error. Because as Paul concludes this confession, he does so to encourage others to follow him to do exactly the same things. Consider it:

Phil 3:13Brothers, I do not consider that I have made it my own. But one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, 14I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. 15Let those of us who are mature think this way, and if in anything you think otherwise, God will reveal that also to you. 16Only let us hold true to what we have attained.

The confession that we have cast off and are casting off and will cast off all things that stand between us and the goal of knowing him and the power of his resurrection, and sharing his sufferings, becoming like him in his death is the purest confession not of our faith but of the outworking of our faith -- the true fruit of faith in Christ.

Let us be careful that we do not see ourselves as circumcised on the eighth day, of God's people, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Saint among Saints. I know you did not write your essay here to puff yourself up, but there is a fine line between wanting better from our corporate worship and forgetting that this worship is because what God has done in the same way for all of us. Yes: many modern praise songs are sentimental instead of filled with the proper awe of God. That does not mean they are worthless but that they are written by those who are immature. Please, God, save us all from those things we do in our own immaturity.

God bless you and keep you as you seek Him.

[Bec]

Cam: I don't think Mr. Hutchins is puffing himself up, or whatnot, but I think you proved some of his points with your last line.

"Yes: many modern praise songs are sentimental instead of filled with the proper awe of God. That does not mean they are worthless but they are written by those who are immature."

While we are all certainly growing in every congregation, the Evangelical church tends to elevate the highly-emotional individual expression of piety/spirituality over the corporate expression. Those who are immature should not be writing worship songs.

In the Orthodox Church, we celebrate a centuries old liturgy, written by St. John Chrysostom, a bishop and great expositor. It shows...

[Neal]

The diversity in Evangelicalism is not simply about worship styles. The greater problem and the one from which the worship "problem" arises seems to me to be its unbridled indiviualism. Individualism in interpretation of the Scriptures, individualism in dogma, individualism in what constitutes the nature of the Church, individualism in worship. How does one actually die to oneself amidst all the individualism? And how many times do we have to endure the warmed over heresies the Councils long ago answered from great Bible expositors. I personally have heard Arianism, Modalism, and Monophysitism from respected Evangelical pulpits more than once with no one to hold them accountable. The problem is not just worship styles. As St. Maximus the Confessor wrote "The source of all sin is self-love." Where is the line between individualism and this kind of self-centeredness especially when there is little or no accountability except to oneself or one's own local group?

When my brother became Eastern Orthodox years ago as an Oral Roberts University seminary student he was confronted by a professor who said, "Orthodoxy is just for those who can't do it for themselves." He thought to himself, "Yes, that's right." Years later I too decided that all my marvelous creativity in interpreting the Scriptures and determining relevancy in worship required a "cross" as well; submission to something much greater than myself. Now I'm free as an Orthodox Christian not to have to satisfy my every interpretive and liturgical desire, to find or create a "new" relevant thing, to "form" the Church around me. Instead I am free to be "formed" by the Church and Her truly great saints. Diversity of the Evangelical type nearly cost me my faith 15 years ago and does not seem to be such a wonderful thing. It seems like a scandal. And actually some of my Asbury Theological Seminary professors in 1980, Evangelical stalwarts, were quietly concerned about that too.

[Robert]

Bec and Neal have said good things. Evangelicals have lost the Church. Once Luther and Calvin and the rest, for honorable reasons and in response to great abuses, began to tweak the worship service according to their understanding of Scripture, the seed was planted for what makes Mr. Hutchens so uncomfortable. Luther pointed to selected Scriptures and came up with his liturigcal version of worship. Calvin and his crew took their approach to Scripture and came up with their version of worship. Evangelicals today are doing the same thing. Everybody has biblical justification for what they're doing in worship. And everyone is reinventing the church according to their understanding of Scripture, and Jesus, and the contemporary world. In the absence of any authoritative Church, a Protestant ultimately has nothing to fall back on except his or her own personal understandings, tastes, personality quirks, and desires. Everything in the Christian tradition gets reduced to its effect upon the individual. The choice of songs, old or new, the choice of building, or "worship space," of decoration, banners, candles, liturgical dance, praise teams, organs, bands, or accordions, all comes back to whether or not it somehow resonates with the contemporary sensibilities of the individual of this generation.

There's Jesus, and me, and whatever helps that is good and whatever hinders that can be discarded. There is, for the Evangelical, no submission to the Body of Christ, the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church which started with Christ and Apostles and has continued down to the present day. Despite all the pious talk we hear in these comments, there is no justification for the continuing fragmentation and schism that marks the Protestant tradition. In the absence of Holy Tradition, the Protestant is free to go on doing his own thing, defining himself and the church according to his own wisdom, and declaring that his personal love for Jesus trumps all other spiritual realities.

[Susan]

Good grief! I can hardly believe what I'm reading. ..whining about how we "have to sing" what we don't "feel like" singing in church. "Have to sing" (passionately!) that we love and adore Jesus, "have to sing" that God is mighty, holy, merciful, gracious when it doesn't "match our experience"...

This is self-centered, entirely.

Take a dose of Luke chapter 7:36-50.

[Scott Walker]

Remembering my mercifully brief exposure to Marshall MacLuhan in my undergraduate days, one thing actually stuck: "The medium is the message". He was right. If our medium for expressing worship and praise is shallow, of mediocre quality and driven by an urgent need to appeal to everybody, for many hearers that is the message, too. Emotional manipulation is not worship. This Orthodox observer sees an Evangelicalism that is a mile wide and an inch deep, and sliding more and more into heterodoxy and faddishness. Of course there are millions of individual Evangelicals who are resisting that slide, like our brother S. M. Hutchens and my brother Mark, the Baptist pastor, but the overall trend is apparent. Joel Osteen may be able to fill up a former professional basketball venue with sixteen thousand people, and a splendid time may be had by all, but pop psychology ain't the Gospel...one horrid example among many. Somebody, after all, keeps sending Paul Crouch and Benny Hinn money! And Susan, with respect, I just took the suggested dose of Luke, and cannot for the life of me get the relevance to the current discussion. Could you expand a bit? Thanks!

[Scott Walker]

Hit "post" instead of "preview", so please accept my apologies for being unedited and blunt. And speaking of blunt, preach it, Robert! The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church is the last place we expected to end up when we began asking ourselves "Is this all there is?" What a relief to find that that wasn't all there is! Expect to meet more and more disillusioned Evangelicals at Liturgy; more than eighty percent of our parish, and all of our clergy (three priests; no waiting) fit that demographic.

[Susan]

Scott,

What would a story of ardent, emotional, lavish, expressions of worship sans "the liturgy" have to do with this discussion?

The original post (which was the focus of my comment - not the various comments afterward, which are all over the map in response and have taken this conversation in a bit of a different direction. and not a bad one by the way. There indeed should be serious attention given to the lyrical content of songs meant for congregational participation) was expressing a problem with singing songs with words he "cannot sing" To quote him, he writes,

"To join the songs I must tell the Lord what I think or how I feel about him in words that neither reflect my opinions, nor my experience of him, nor are they part of the universal language of Christian worship"

He says "my opinions" "my experience" and then makes an interesting statement that "neither are they part of the universal language of Christian worship" and this I can only assume he means some kind of liturgical tradition. Unfortunately this begs the question, "whose tradition?" Well I guess he means "his" tradition (or the one that most pleases him somehow)

The story in Luke is about worship that is fully centered, passionately, on Christ alone. Unless you're the onlooking Simon, this is a highly instructive passage on worship from many different angles.

As for lyrical content of songs - - I "cannot sing"

"thought of me, above all" either. And we should NOT sing it - not because we dont "feel like it" or it doesn't "match our experience" but because it is not TRUE!

[lisa]

I see Worship hymns as a corporate response. I don't want to be manipulated emotionally. The danger I see in much of modern hymnody (if one can even call it that) is one of "buddy-izing" God. God is not my buddy. Jesus is not my pal. It seems to me that there should be a certain reverence when confronting the risen Christ. Any hymn used for worship purposes should focus on God and what he has done in Christ. Not on what *I* am feeling after the 8th crescendoed refrain.

There are a few hymns I could do without in my own beloved Presbyterian Church as well.

[Larry]

A couple of posts above make the point that the rot started when Protestantism began to focus on the individual rather than the collective.

But what explains the wretched state of music in the Catholic Church today?

[Bec]

Well, I'm not Catholic, but let me take a stab in the dark--they're trying too hard to mimic the rest of Western Christian culture, to avoid losing parishioners to the Osteens of the world who are using slap-happy, Jesusbuddy songs...
Just a thought.

Susan, I'm not sure I understood your response. "Whose tradition"? The TRADITION. This actually wasn't up for debate until Luther et al started monkeying around. Check out the words to some of the liturgical words used in Eastern Orthodoxy or older Catholic hymns. You'll find good solid Trinitarian doctrine conveyed alongside a health dose of awe at the workings and majesty of the Almighty God.

That is worship.

[Giff]

Need this discussion degenerate into polemics against other churches in the Great Tradition?

[kamelda]

Thank you for this. It says it exactly.

I would point out that "the conservative Reformed churches, the old-fashioned Lutherans, and the nearly extinct (in this part of the world) Anglicans" (at least some of them) are also evangelical (maybe someone has already said this, but I don't have time to read through all the comments). But yes, we (conservative Reformed churches) have our problems too, and one of them is a creeping infiltration of the theological irresponsibility you referenced, specifically in the area of music and general sentimentalism.

my husband and I turn to another song or Psalm when there are songs we can't sing, and read words that we can pray to God. I know that leaves us out of the commanded corporate singing for certain songs, but we don't know what else to do at this point.

Thanks for putting it so honestly and soberly, and for not avoiding a problem that demonstrates a much deeper lack of Theocentricity in our whole approach to worship-- which is very serious, even more serious because most of us don't take it very seriously.

[kamelda]

I ought to clarify that I do think Paul could speak in absolute terms in Romans 14 because none of us live to ourselves, and that if we do not love Christ we are of course not His. But the expressions of our love, our feelings, etc. in hymns are often so sentimental and self-focussed that it is very difficult to pray them or to be very edified by them, and often though they are an expression of true personal experience they are not (as you point out) an expression of universal personal experience.

[Bang On The Big Drum]

I always enjoy Mr. Hutchens' posts regarding his ongoing struggle with the local, ahem, "worship leader", leading a "worship team" in a time of "worship" that sounds, to the untrained ear, indistinguishable from Top-40 "pop music" (an assertion I make after careful analysis of the Backstreet Boys timeless classic "The One", see here: http://www.seeklyrics.com/lyrics/Backstreet-Boys/The-One.html).

The "worship leader" (cue dimmed lights, three-chord progression, eyes clenched together in agonized prayer, thanking Jesus for all his gooey goodness as the ushers bring in the offering) appears to be slightly more important to the modern evangelical "worship" experience than the "Senior Pastor" and slightly less important than, oh, the "Holy Ghost" (whose presence he can consistently conjure with only an acoustic guitar, a large white screen with image projected, and - maybe - a few breathy "thank you Holy Spirits").

I mean, really, the evangelical "worship experience" can no longer be properly parodied. It can certainly no longer be parodied by christians on christian websites, as the one single greatest characteristic of the modern "worship" advocate is their humorlessness (cue: Scripture quotations), closely followed by the deficit of self-awareness. I've noticed five defenses:

1. Scripture doesn't say nuthin 'bout no devils music, and didn't King David play the tambourine (just like Linda McCartney!). And, if you look closely, scripture doesn't say anything about Christian Death Metal either. Coming soon to a church/"worship center" near you! And since scripture is strangely silent on whether it is in fact possible to worship God in the midst of a rock concert, anything that's happened since the Reformation is From The Spirit.

2. The only music those youngsters like to listen to is pop music. As overpowering as the sheer breadth of this sociological analysis is, I suggest that this begs about, oh, 65 million questions, starting with "what is worship" (correct answer: whatever the "worship leader" says it is!) and ending with "what does conflating worship and evangelism do to worship (or evangelism)"?

3. Hymns suck. Well yes, I'll admit to hating "Fairest Lord Jesus" almost as much as "Shine Jesus Shine" (but only by a hair). But the real questions is: how do you speed up "Fairest Lord Jesus" and add the appropriate electronic accompaniment to make it appeal to hormonal 14 year olds? I mean, the lyrics will only take you half there...

4. Those who don't like modern worship music suffer from some grave psychological defect, possibly involving a phlegmatic virus and very possibly fatal, which can be cured only be prolonged exposure to Hillsongs Australia. Their criticisms can thus be dismissed as the last squeals of whining of a hyper-critical, never-satisfied minority as they slowly die a horrible, crabby death.

5. The trump card: modern worship music works for me! It's how God gave Stella her groove back!

But really, why do I bother? Subjecting modern "worship" music to anything resembling intelligent critique (and I make no claims in this regard) - especially theological critique - is a waste of time: it is ostentatiously immune to it. Or, more accurately, it is beside the point, as numerous posters above have made clear (cf: the advocate for heartfelt Christian Death Metal).

What matters - disemboided spirits that we are - is our "hearts." That and giving Jesus a great big hand. Here's a new lyric to sing on Sunday morning (drum solo optional in the middle): "Hi ho, hi ho, it's off to Rome (or Constantinople) I go."

[Robert]

Bang on the Big Drum,

I'd have written you privately if you had left your e-mail. Since you didn't, let me say here, thank you for your comments, and please, off to Constantinople with you.

[Scott Walker]

I hate to have to leave this thread and go earn a living! Great stuff posted while I was dodging traffic in my bus. Susan, the account in Luke's gospel is a moving example of what we all should hope and pray for, "repentance with tears" is what the Orthodox call it, and we pray for it daily if we're following a traditional rule of prayer. However, such repentance is a gift, not to be conjured up by a talented worship team. It may occur during worship; it may not, but I think many of the posters on this thread object to the attempt to somehow nudge the Spirit by sentimental or emotional music...especially sentimental or emotional music that feeds our lamentable obsession with precious me and my precious feelings. And Bang On The Big Drum, we love drums in Constantinople, just not during worship. Check out "Thirsting For God In A Land Of Shallow Wells", by Matthew Gallatin. Good stuff. And please, all who may smell the whiff of triumphalism, such is not my intent, nor, I'm sure, the intent of the other Orthodox posters on this thread.

[Susan]

I'm glad I checked back and read this, Scott; I was quite bewildered with so many of these comments! Your last one here is so helpful (and glad you understood what I was getting at with the passage in Luke).

Recommended to all: "People in the Presence of God" by Dr. Barry Liesch

[Peter Kim]

Dave C., those are exactly the responses I hear all the time to ideas of post-modern ministry from people who don't understand it, and that's fine. I'm not going to defend the whole postmodern church ministry movement because, as you suggest, I agree that a lot of them are weak on theology. However, I still affirm the idea that relevance to culture is not optional, and that it is possible to be extremely theological and be a postmodern missionary at the same time.

This is exactly the reason why the Church has many different denominations; we all see and experience God differently, but I think most of us will be surprised with who we end up seeing when we are in heaven.

The Lord will use your more conservative, traditional church to draw a certain demographic of people to Him and He will also use my postmodern church to draw another demographic of people to Him. That is the beauty in the diversity of the Church and may God be glorified through it.

[grubedoo]

LIFE IS WORSHIP!

The problem is that worship should not be compartmentalized into the religious singing experience. This eats me to no end. If Christianity would do so little as to change it's lexicon it might open the doors to a greater, potentially life altering understanding and experience of worship.

I also don't think most Christians -- or people in general for that matter -- don't think enough. If they did, they would ask more questions and have more problems with everything currently catagorized as Christian.

[grubedoo]

For the record, I mostly agree with the author. And, I was born and raised in Wisconsin.

[Bec]

Peter: Did Jesus concern himself with a demographic? St. Paul? The early Church? People should be drawn to God because of who HE is, not because of who THEY are. Anything else is cultural relativism, and has no place in the church. How can a church that is weak on theology be preaching the TRUE gospel of Christ?

It is impossible.

[Neal]

Peter,

While I can certainly agree with the idea of being surprised at who we will meet in heaven I cannot applaud the idea of many different denominations geared to different ways of experiencing God. I cannot find anywhere in the Apostles writings or the writings of the early church including extrabiblical writings in the first century to support this idea. They warned against such things. If you can justify this phenomenon Scripturally and in context instead of simply with an appeal to personal experience then perhaps all who disagree may have cause to reconsider. If not, then a return to the Apostolic Tradition may be in order.

[Scott Walker]

Oh dear. This is one of the points that must make editorial board meetings at Touchstone interesting. Peter, as far as Roman Catholics and Orthodox are concerned, there are no denominations within the Church. There is the Church, and there are those Christians who, for understandable and lamentable historical reasons, are outside of the Church. The disagreement among RC's and Orthodox is about which communion left the Church in the Great Schism, but there is no disagreement that there is, in fact, One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Is God at work saving Christians outside of the Church? Certainly. But there really is no biblical warrant for denominations as such, and the Body of Christ cannot be divided. Please believe that I know how offensive that sounds. I do not doubt that you are my brother in Christ. I have no idea how God works this all out, because I know and love many devout Christians who are outside the visible bounds of the Church...but there it is. It is a sin and scandal that Christians are divided, but God is permitting it; my prayer is that the sort of ecumenism found among the posters on this thread will eventually, in God's time, heal the schisms among us. Please, Protestants, don't shoot! As far as I know, what I've expressed is nothing more or less than the common understanding of the Church for Her entire pre-Reformation history, and if any of my own stupid ideas found their way in, I ask your forgiveness, and, always, your prayers.

[Boltono]

Did Jesus have a "public worship service"?
NO!
Forget the traditions and get out to where you can find your Lord, if He is.
http://boltono.typepad.com
Did he wear a silly hat, swing incense, take a colection, etc etc etc etc etc??!!!

[Scott Walker]

Well, Boltono, I visited your site. Sorry, man, but radical me-and-Jesus-and-to-hell-with-the-church doesn't get it. It's cool that you're being guided by your dreams, and all is apparently well in your "personal heavenlies", (whatever that means) and I note that you don't believe in Hell, (Jesus sure does, though...maybe all isn't so good in His personal heavenlies?) and that you can hear God better "out of the loop" of the Church. Gnostics are still a dime a dozen.

[Betty]

The very easy response to the writer of this forum's post and those who agree with it are:

"Be it done to you according to your faith." and

"You have not because you ask not."

The natural man just eat's your kind of theology up! And looks on his brother with distrust. Keep up the good work naysayers! The devil loves it!

Betty

[Neal]

Betty,

It would be better if you would answer some of the questions raised above rather than simply dismiss them with several scripture verses without reference to their contexts. It could just as easily be said that inconsistently and inadequately reasoned theologies about worship are things our adversary loves too.

If you read the context of the verse you quoted from James it would seem to make a case against all of us doing whatever our desires want us to.

"What causes wars, and what causes fightings among you? Is it not your passions that are at war in your members? You desire and do not have; so you kill. And you covet and cannot obtain; so you fight and wage war. You do not have, because you do not ask. You ask and do not receive, because you ask wrongly, to spend it on your passions."

Might this not also apply to our desires in worship? Don't our passions also infect us as we worship?

And why the extremely negative diatribe?

[timmer]

Mr. Hutchens questions are very valid. I think any (musical) worship leader is foolish not to grapple with these issues. However, one question I continue to raise as I have worked through the same questions is this: Doesn't some of issues addressed here assume a God who is very petty?

Approached differently--is God really angry that a percentage of our heart (whatever that percentage may be) cannot sing "I love you" and mean it? That's not the God I see in scripture.

I liken Him more to a father who is holding a toddlers hands as she learns to walk. What loving father, if the child stumbles would shove them to the ground in anger that she cannot yet perfectly walk? There will be no perfect moment when any of us can approach God and declare any facet of his character with whole-hearted truthfulness. We deny his character daily by our actions. We must, as the toddler, learn to walk--sometimes by falling.

[Tyler]

I have a question for all:

I've seen the term "emotional manipulation" used in this discussion a few times. At first I was startled, because that's exactly the phrase I use (like others, somewhat guiltily) in my own thoughts. But I guess there are more of us than I thought.

I am curious to hear someone offer a definition of this phrase (in relation to popular evangelical worship styles). To me, sometimes, it feels like the worship band is functioning as a script, as if to say "okay, in this scene, you are going to act sad (or happy) because the music we're playing is sad/happy". And since usually in reality my emotions do not correspond to what the band is seemingly trying to evoke, I end up feeling fake and dishonest before God, thus ruining any chance of engaging in actual worship during the music.

I would really like to hear others' thoughts on this as well; similar experiences, anybody?