Post Author: Scott Hill
Over the last several months I have noticed a lot of blogging about the argument over hymns verses contemporary songs in worship services. Many of the post were refreshingly witty, others were dripping with sarcasms, and some were oozing with such arrogance I continually had to clean my monitor to read them.
I am especially appreciative of the amount of Bible that has been applied to these arguments. I have copied/pasted these scriptures for future reference, placed them on my Radio Shack Commodore 64, and still had room for “Fighter Pilot” on the 2k hard drive(sarcasm intended). Don’t get me wrong, I believe in sharing of opinions. I was particularly appreciative of Joe Carters Blog on “Humble Certitude”. I thought he did a great job of making the case for certainty among the uncertain. Trust me I have never been one to shy away from giving my opinion. Educated or not!
In the case of the Hymns/Contemporary songs I think all we have to go on is opinion and preference, but if you are going to make absolute arguments, you had better have some absolute authority to back it up. Otherwise you are no better than the eisogetes who peddle there “biblical” opinion from stools every Sunday. While I consider this to be a legitimate point for discussion my issue comes with continual school girl back handed harassment of certain denominations. At some point those in this discussion are going to have to come to grips with how much of our belief on this topic is inherited theology and how much is scriptural . Until then we are left with the argument that drums are bad because they originated in Africa, Southern Baptist are bad because they only sing verses 1, 2, and 4, new songs are bad because they repeat a phrase, and Presbyterians are bad because they are so boring.
The ladies at the Boars Head have taken it to a new level with an argument so absurd I dare discuss it on this blog for fear of swift judgement. Look for “Liturgy was written by man like the bible was written by man” Yes, some are arguing that some church liturgy is inspired. They continually use the book of Hezekiah as their reference and also swear that Jesus Christ Super Star was very biblically accurate.(sarcasm still intended)
At some point in its history all songs were new. While I give no credence to a lot of the non-poetic, self-centered, drivel that passes for church music today, there are some great songs of the faith being written today. Most song writers even in the Reformation wrote thousands of hymns yet only a handful still remain. This will also happen to today’s music. I personally feel it is an injustice to congregations to not expose them to good new songs. The same crowd who holds to the “if they’re not dead, then they’re not read” creed when picking their theologians generally do the same with music, and it gives very little room for any talent that doesn’t fall under their particular pet preference. Don’t worry boys, 70 years from now we’ll all be dead, and what was worth preserving will still be here if the Lord has not returned. New does not equal bad.
Of course like Joe Carter this is just my opinion.
Tweet
36 year old husband, father, pastor, singer, musician, reader, eater, rider, watcher, 
Great stuff!!
Scott, were you REALLY up at 6:00 a.m. to blog? Or are you messing with the timestamp? Anyway, great post. I’d like to hear you also address how modern songs could best be composed so as to enhance congregational singing and not merely be a platform for muscians.
Time is short, but I will say this: God searches the heart, not outward actions.
Contemporary music in some churches has been used as a tool for emotional responses. I’ve seen this time and again in mega-churches, and to put it blatantly, I believe some have crossed a line.
Beginning at the first great awakening, churchgoers started slipping away from the traditional Orthodox Church, their creeds and so forth (Not to take away from the great awakenings, mind you). Creeds and doctrines were frowned upon as the ‘emotion driven’ church built momentum.
Along with the Bible, C.S. Lewis urged believers to read “old books.” What was the reason? – So that the church wouldn’t fall into shallow interpretation of the Bible — which has already happened in many churches.
To get to the point, I believe contemporary music is another branch of the emotion-driven, shallow doctrine church.
(NOT ALWAYS THE CASE. I’M SPEAKING FROM PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS OF A HANDFUL OF CHURCHES)
Mot contemporary music I’ve heard is quite repetitive, and speaks mostly of God’s love, holiness, or greatness. But if people really want God’s greatness, then they should dive deep into scriptures and study it, as a whole, from cover to cover – seeing everything that makes God great: His love, His glory, His justice, His sovereignty, and even His wrath.
Enter old hymns. Hymns are what I grew up singing, so take that as a bias if you will. But have you ever sat down and read through an old hymnal? There is so much rich, doctrinal truth in them. Sometimes, in fact, I just read the words to myself during singing and praise and pray to God.
I haven’t talked about sermons, but from what I’ve observed, contemporary music seems to be a reflection of a church’s music. Feeding ‘milk,’ instead of the ‘meat’ of God’s word.
Churches become a seeker sensitive church that cares more about numbers (counting how many people ‘accept Christ’) than they do about people who follow after God with all of their heart, mind, and soul.
On a side note, but a serious note, I believe that contemporary music has contributed to a secular/sacred split in the church. An emotional feeling inside of one’s self has become more important than a God-driven, Biblically sound strive for God. People are led in an emotional worship service on Sunday, but then they fall into a secular lifestyle Monday through Saturday. People will be known by their fruits – Sunday through Sunday.
This is a whole other subject, so I’ll put that to bed…
Anyway, I apologize if this is coming off as offensive. The bottom line of my thoughts here are in Mathew seven, where Jesus declares, “A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them. Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’”
Only by His grace and Love,
Caleb
Ah, nothing like some good, inaccurate summation of events.
One fellow at the BHT (who is leaning towards the Eastern Orthodox Church) put forth an argument for the semi-inspiration of the liturgy. Nobody else was buying. The BHT is a discussion area, not a united front.
Glad you’re reading the Tavern, but it’d be cool if you’d read things through before reporting in a misleading sense.
For what it’s worth, I do think that some of those who are suggesting a more ‘formal’ liturgy are doing it primarily out of a motivation to return their worship to a point in Church history where the church was much healthier than it is now. If the Church since the enlightenment has been characterized by growing weakness and poor theology, then perhaps we ought to try and begin again from a point where it’s music and liturgy were healthier.
Yah, don’t you guys know Rule #1 about the Boar’s Head Tavern? You’re never, never, never allowed to critique or disagree with anything posted there, because it’s just a conversation like you would hear in a bar, not an academic forum. In other words, they aren’t really serious about anything, and they refuse to be held accountable for anything they say, because basically, they’re all pretty much drunk and don’t have any idea what they are talking about anyway. They want you to ignore them, even though they are loud and rowdy.
Unless you happen to agree with them. Then it’s okay to post about them.
Scott! You da MAN! – Messing with the Boar’s Head – whew! I say that Scott is our designated dude to mess with drunks in the blogosphere.
For all of you at the Boars Head who take offense to my comment, I ask that you please refrain from anymore scratching, biting, and hairpulling. I only posted what was on your site. I also didn’t imply who was on what side of the arguement. I just simply stated
what was on there. Just be thankful for the publicity. About 50 more people now know your site exist.
“Kurt N.”: Seriously, man, get some sleep.
Sarcasm is a staple at the BHT. But whenever someone else employs it in remarks about the BHT, you guys whine and cry and pout like 7th-grade public-school girls.
Did y’all realize that the rule about putting “(JN)” next to sarcastic comments isn’t universal in the blogosphere?
Here’s another thing that might not have occurred to you: Turning off your comments doesn’t change the fact that there are readers of the BHT who disagree with a lot of what is posted there. And a whole lot of stupid stuff gets posted there. Yeah, yeah, we know it’s a bar. We get it that you guys like to booze it up and talk foolishly about issues most of us think should be handled with more care and sobriety.
If you were really in the corner of some pub talking like that, you could probably get away with it. But as long as you blog those discussions and send them out on the Internet, you’re going to take some shots. Get used to it.
Nice blawg, dawgs.
One more time “Sicco”, and then I’m through repeating myself. Scott this is not intended to be biting, hairpulling, groin-kicking, eye-poking or snot-flinging. I don’t think I’m asking for more than common courtesy.
Here is all that I’m saying:
1. Disagree all you like. Hell, I don’t even agree with myself 100% of the time I go back and read my posts. And some of my fellow patrons I disagree with 95% of of the time.
2. Do not lie about what we have or have not said. Y’all are big boys and know how to fairly quote people. Do it right.
I don’t care if you think I’m an apostate heretic and that everything I say is of the devil. I do care if you misrepresent my words.
Sarcasm is one thing. Libel is another. Sheesh.
Give up the IQ test, Kurt. One guy at the BHT always speaks for everyone when you basic orientation is that about five Papal Calvinists speak for everyone, and the rest is just applause and congratulations.
Guys, we enjoy debate, rebuke, and serious discussion. But if anyone’s comments are un-Christlike like using profane language will be deleted. If you feel you are misrepresented in a post, then correct the record and defend your position. And then take it like a man.
Fascinated that you use the word “ladies” as an insult.
And it is a bit disingenuous to make a statement like, “The ladies at the Boars Head have taken it to a new level with an argument so absurd I dare discuss it on this blog for fear of swift judgement”, and then the moment someone calls you on it and points out that that gives a misleading impression of the discussion that actually occurred, you say, “[I] didn’t imply who was on what side of the arguement. I just simply stated what was on there”.
Sounds suspiciously like the Michael Moore defence: “I’ll accept your Oscar and Palme D’Or for my factual documentary, but the moment you criticise my facts I’ll just say it was all a joke”.
Anyway, to turn to the point at issue, of course the liturgy isn’t divinely inspired as such (though a number of NT texts show evidence of containing content taken from early liturgies, or even having their structure shaped by the church’s liturgy – eg this has been suggested in relation to Revelation).
And quite a lot of the liturgy’s content is divinely inspired, being taken verbatim from Scripture. Having recently become a member of a liturgical (Lutheran) church after being in a non-liturgical (but very Bible-based) Baptist church, I can confirm that there is much, much more Scripture in a liturgical service than in the non-liturgical. Three Scripture readings rather than just one, and then lots of Scripture in the responses, canticles, other aspects of the liturgy (eg the Communion Service) etc.
At a typical non-liturgical evangelical church, almost the only biblical content will be the one reading, maybe quite short, on which the preacher bases his sermon. Even if the Lord’s Supper is celebrated, you may not even get the Words of Institution. Certainly nothing like the rich and varied Scriptural content of liturgical worship, even in some churches where the preaching then undermines that through liberal (or Roman Catholic) theology etc.
If the BHT isn’t a conversation, then what is it?
John H: “Fascinated that you use the word “ladies” as an insult.”
Oh, grow up. Maybe he should have said “girls.”
I dare you to allow comments at the BHT so your critics can dissect some of YOUR insulting and gratuitously sarcastic remarks about people you disagree with.
When you let some clown make a post claiming liturgy is inspired just like the Bible and YOU don’t point out how ludicrous that position is, that’s not a “conversation.” It’s a hodge-podge of confusion.
Besides, you all are doing to the guys at Fide-O EXACTLY what you complained about when James White and the people at his blog responded to M. Spencer’s insulting attack on James.
“Sicco”, you have a very annoying habit of responding to raised issues by completely ignoring the lion’s share of the meat and then posting your own attacks.
It’s annoying. Cut it out.
There was response to “liturgy is inspired” post. It was more nuanced than you make it out to be. Nonetheless, it was true conversation.
And, since none of us are dissecting the author’s personal posts or life, you can’t say we’re even in the same ballpark as Jimmy White. Well, you can, but you’d be lying.
Well, since no-one round here seems inclined to respond to the substance of what I was saying, I guess I’ll have to do so myself.
So I’m going to go further than in my previous post and say this: the content of the liturgy is not inspired, but the concept of liturgical worship is.
What I mean by that is this: the worship of the first Christians was liturgical (“They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers“). Echoes of early liturgy can be heard throughout the New Testament (eg Philippians 2, just to pick one example). And the use of at least three fixed forms was mandated by the Lord Jesus Christ Himself (the Lord’s Prayer, the baptismal formula, and the words of institution).
The post-16th century novelty of wholly de-liturgised worship is impossible to reconcile with the New Testament evidence. It simply arises from the historical accident by which the cause of English-speaking Reformed Christianity got combined with resistance to the imposition of the Elizabethan Book of Common Prayer.
Kurt, you have an annoying habit of becoming belligerent just when you ought to display a little humility. Cut it out.
I read James White’s critique of the Internet Monkey, and it was not any more “personal” than the i-Monkey’s previous, uncalled-for attack on White, or the subsequent string of childish snipes at White that still show up from time to time at the BHT. But when the controversy spilled over into your comments threads, you guys disabled all comments at the BHT permanently, in less than 36 hours’ time…
Now your guy is bringing his “liturgy-is-inpired” drivel to argue the case for it in the comments section on THIS blog. Face it, you guys are capable some pretty audacious hypocrisy. You ought to be ashamed. But then too much beer destroys your inhibitions, doesn’t it?
Now your guy is bringing his “liturgy-is-inpired” drivel to argue the case for it in the comments section on THIS blog.
Good night, did you even read John’s posting? He’s not arguing for Holy Liturgy, he’s arguing that there’s a Biblical basis for liturgical worship.
Try refuting some actual points of an argument instead of throwing blanket generalizations.
Face it, you guys are capable some pretty audacious hypocrisy. You ought to be ashamed. But then too much beer destroys your inhibitions, doesn’t it?
Yeah, we’re drinkin’ as we post. That’s the ticket. I think you read too much into the metaphorical idea of a tavern.
And yeah, I’m really ashamed that we allow diverse Christian viewpoints on the BHT. That’s really shameful man, yeah. How dare we engage in conversation with Arminians and Lutherans and Anglicans?
I’m gonna go put a nickel in the Ronald McDonald box as penitance right now.
>M. Spencer’s insulting attack on James.
What was my insulting attack on “James?”
And I still want to know what the BHT is if its not a conversation?
“Joey” – your “insulting attack on James” happened on the same day as my post arguing for the plenary inspiration of the Lutheran Hymnal (1941). Don’t you remember? :-/
All this knockabout is kinda fun, but really this is turning into dialogue of the deaf, so I think I’ll sign off now.
Unless anyone has anything constructive to say about my assertion (as ably summarised by Kurt) “there’s a Biblical basis for liturgical worship” (and, indeed, a rather stronger basis than there is for the hymn-sandwich-followed-by-sermon model of non-liturgical worship)? Anyone?