Ecclesiology

[separateunion]

I think we all go through periods of disillusionment with the visible church, I know I did. However it's good to remind ourselves that the church is made up of a bunch of rotten sinners-people just like me. People who've received the same grace I have, who make mistakes like I do...Our hope is not in the perfections of the Church any more than such in ourselves, but the perfections of Christ who will reign in his church and will conform her to his likeness.

I have been in this places as well. I turned my back on the church for about 4 years while I was in college. I was sick of the fakeness, legalism, and insincerity. On top of that, I can be a very cynical and negative person. I grew up in a home where the Sunday ritual after getting home was to start getting lunch and then listen to my parents nitpick and gossip about how people acted in church, so it's very easy for me to fall into that.

It took my parents constant badgering, military basic training, and the failure of my engagement (plus a HUGE dose of God's grace and sovereignty) to make me realize I was wrong and find a systematic theology that made sense and a church that was full of real people. No more infighting and gossiping. Or at least so much less, that it's hardly noticeable. And the services! I have never felt like I was being fed so much Scripture in my entire life, and I'm lucky if I can make it to church once a month because of my work schedule.

Not to say that I have arrived or anything. I'm still just as much of a sinner as I was then. I fail everyday, and some days I really get down on myself for it. But my focus is in the right place and God has providentially led me to a church where I can finally be proud to say I go to church.

Communion is a case in point, do these Christians view this as the body and the blood or something we are supposed to do because that's what we've been told?

Growing up, I was never made to understand the importance of Communion. It was just a part of the service. Most of the Pentecostal, Evangelical, and Nondenominational churches I went to treated it like an after thought and we just kinda went through the motions when participating in it. I think the fact that we have gotten away from the Creeds and doctrines of the early church is the biggest factor in this problem.

Emergent Christianity I think highlights one of the major problems in the church in the fact that many in that stream claim to love community yet despise authority. I don't think there can be one without the other. As it has been said, no one despises human authority unless he first despises God's authority and I think that such an attitude of individualism plagues the Western church as a whole. This is why there is this despising, a lack of accountability, no church discipline, etc.

I agree. Emergents are not wrong in identifying a problem, but their solution puts the cart before the horse. The centrality of Jesus message is NOT social awareness and social justice and righting the wrongs of the world, it is that we are sinners who need a covering in order to be able to commune with God, and Christ shed his blood to provide that covering. Everything else we do flows from that point.

Emergents want to skip the part about us being sinners and God being angry and wrathful because that doesn't sound like the nice God they want to believe in. So they make Jesus sound like nothing more than a Ghandi-like wise man who wanted world peace and happiness and wasn't really worried about the fact that mankind is fallen (other than the part where that fact causes injustice in the world). Sorry, but that is ignoring Scripture and making God in your own image. You don't need to have a Jesus stamp on your hand to do volunteer work and care about the environment. If those are your concerns, fine, but don't twist Scripture to fit that agenda.

Numbers evangelism is rather scary, no matter how well intentioned it may be. I can see why people do it given their theology-so what I guess the only option there is is to teach them better theology. I disagree that the remedy is to simply tell them what to do, they need to be told what has been done for them.

It's probably not a big surprise that I view the gospel as the cure for both legalism and laziness. I am lazy. Nothing makes me feel worse about being lazy than the gospel.

Wow. I feel exactly the same way. (Should I really be surprised?) I can be superbly apathetic when I am not constantly studying Scripture and spending time with God. It's amazing how much more motivated I am and how much I want to improve myself when I do those two simple things.

Can I just add that I find baby dedications ridiculous? Anyone else? You're Baptists!! BE Baptists!

Haha. Stop placating, you silly Baptists! After all, you know Presbyterians have got it right when it comes to baptism

[separateunion]

Oh yeah, almost forgot...

Praise and Worship music is WAY better than hymns. It rocks. If a church doesn't have a Praise and Worship band, they are not a real church.

Is that what you wanted Charl? Will that spark enough controversy?

[gman]

Oh yeah, almost forgot...

Praise and Worship music is WAY better than hymns. It rocks. If a church doesn't have a Praise and Worship band, they are not a real church.

Wow. We couldget warmed up on this. I'll just stick to what I've always said on this. Any church that has used hymns since their inception that decides they want to have a band, and then immediately throws the hymns away is wrong. Likewise, any church that tries to run two types of services is also wrong; perhaps moreso. It can be seen no other way.
In my opinion, contemporary worship, or a contemporary service, should refer only to the use modern musical instruments and modern music styles. You can take any song and perform it in a modern style, or a style that is more traditional and plodding.

GMan

[calicowriter]

If the mode of transmission -- the music -- is effective, why don't we use it to communicate good theology?

It's not necessary to throw it out I suppose. I would ask though what is it that it's effectively doing? Emotional manipulation is essentially falsehood, this would make me wary of it. You don't really feel what they want you to feel without the heartstring tugging. How do you know what you do really feel? Sentimentality and doctrine have rarely existed happily beside one another, and it is usually doctrine that is jettisoned.

Also it encourages the quest for transcendent experience. This is a roller coaster that I do not believe God approves of, for several reasons.

I will complain more later.

Well you know, the Psalms were written to be sung, and they are the basis for most of the older hymns sung in the Catholic Church (I can't speak for others).

What is that old saying, when you sing you worship God twice? Personally, I think that there is some music that I don't care to hear in church, but I think the main consideration is whether the music and the singers actually lead the congregation to participate or if they become mere performers and the congregation listeners. I also hate applause in church.

[winterlens]

If the mode of transmission -- the music -- is effective, why don't we use it to communicate good theology?

It's not necessary to throw it out I suppose. I would ask though what is it that it's effectively doing? Emotional manipulation is essentially falsehood, this would make me wary of it.

What is emotional manipulation? Must emotion be spontaneous to be genuine? Isn't at least part of the point of the music--and, in fact, all liturgy--to induce change conducive to worship? If we are to say that something Real happens in communion, does it seem right that we would deny such a reality elsewhere?

In other words, how is the emotion of taking communion any less "manipulative" than singing a P&W chorus?

You don't really feel what they want you to feel without the heartstring tugging. How do you know what you do really feel? Sentimentality and doctrine have rarely existed happily beside one another, and it is usually doctrine that is jettisoned.

Who are THEY? Some multinational corporation backed by the clinjae?

We walk by faith, not by experience--and it is so important that our perspective be governed by what God says is true, not by what we feel to be true. (Which is one reason you should stop calling yourself the worst Christian ever, since God says it was Paul. When you start actually shooting priests, then maybe we can talk about your rank in history.)

But there is absolutely a danger that we'll throw emotion out with the bad doctrine--truth absolutely should inspire in us all sorts of emotions: revulsion at our own depravity, thankfulness at God's grace, and so on.

I will complain more later.

Tell us something we don't know?

[winterlens]

Well you know, the Psalms were written to be sung, and they are the basis for most of the older hymns sung in the Catholic Church (I can't speak for others).

The OPC still uses Psalms without instrumentation exclusively in their worship. I'm not entirely sure how they justify this, but when in Rome. I went to an OPC church that I enjoyed quite a bit.

[charl]

Praise and Worship writers probably do report directly to the overlords of the Totalitarian Hedgemony of Etiquette Yahoos.

Emotional manipulation is when you look back and realize you wouldn't have done or felt certain things if it hadn't been for careful engineering to make you go that way on someone else's part.

Mainly Communion isn't manipulative because it's purpose is something other than evoking emotions. It is what it is and if you feel all special about it, well good for you. It is also definite and concrete. Much music generally has emotionalism as a focus, being made to feel this way or that is the point. Emotional response should be incidental not central. It should also rise organically from a service focused on Christ and his work.

Something definite like Communion where emotion is incidental also does not encourage the emotional lows that inevitably hit when orchestrated highs are over. Wondering what you're doing wrong because you're not "feeling" that way you have been manipulated into thinking is necessary for communion with God. The affections should be subordinate to the will and yet too frequently are emphasized-I think this is to our hurt. What you "know" is true becomes irrelevant-our judgement is too easily clouded by emotionalism and it should not be used recklessly.

The easiest way to con someone is not to influence their will but their affections. It irritates me that amongst those that try to con me by making me feel this way or that so I'll buy their product, the church should be foremost. I also think we are so steeped in emotionalism these days that we would have to go a long way before we actually went too far the other way.

I admit that I can't agree or disagree with you as to the purpose of music since as you know I can't actually see music doing anything particularly useful. The only emotion it stirs in me is boredom-so maybe I am less than qualified to argue it (that never stopped me before either). I am no longer emotive unless there is a reason for me to be emotional and I would much rather have something with definite meaning as the focus than the act of emoting itself being such.


The OPC adheres strictly to the regulative principle of course.

[charl]

Separateunion; I really liked you until you got to that crack about the Presbyterians. Listen the reason we had to write the London 1689 was to correct their glaring frickin errors. And throw some of Owen's stuff in there.

For me disillusionment came in the form of a couple who were the picture of divisive, having split the church no less than four times and driven out several ministers. Now I just advocate church discipline.

I actually think the low view of Communion is a logical implication of the doctrine of such in those churches. Okay so once in awhile Baptists get things wrong. Rarely.

I also find applause in church irritating. Very irritating.

[winterlens]

Emotional manipulation is when you look back and realize you wouldn't have done or felt certain things if it hadn't been for careful engineering to make you go that way on someone else's part.

By this logic, art is emotionally manipulative and you should be equally upset about going to museums.

Emotion is circumstantial and contextual; that's kind of the point. The oft-overlooked virtue of ritual is that it sets the context for our worship. There is, if you will, an agreement that this is the setting in which worship is to be performed, with these symbols (again, I don't intend for symbol to connote meaningless allegory) and other accoutrement.

Mainly Communion isn't manipulative because it's purpose is something other than evoking emotions.

So your criticism is that the intent of P&W is emotional. But this is natural, because praise is a response. We do not have communion as a response to hearing the gospel; rather the Eucharist is a manifestation of the gospel.

P&W is decidedly different; communion causes us to worship. I don't understand how a response can be void of emotion.

It is what it is and if you feel all special about it,

Obviously communion has objective meaning; but when we say that it is meaningful--that a man ought to examine himself lest he eat or drink unworthily, for example--doesn't this mean rather explicitly that we ought to feel something?

Much music generally has emotionalism as a focus, being made to feel this way or that is the point. Emotional response should be incidental not central. It should also rise organically from a service focused on Christ and his work.

Agreed.

Oh, sorry, am I allowed to do that at this point?

The affections should be subordinate to the will and yet too frequently are emphasized-I think this is to our hurt. What you "know" is true becomes irrelevant-our judgement is too easily clouded by emotionalism and it should not be used recklessly.

I agree wholeheartedly with this.

I don't under any circumstances think that our response should ever be the focus of church. This is what gets us into so much trouble with the gospel (how's that for full circle, suckers).

At the end of the day, contextualizing our worship is hardly a bad thing, though--it is one of the ways that church can actually become something of an oasis and unify ourselves with fellow believers.

It irritates me that amongst those that try to con me by making me feel this way or that so I'll buy their product, the church should be foremost.

For those who are listening: we fish with nets, not with bait. If your gospel is a bait-oriented gospel, I find your methods highly suspect.

The only emotion it stirs in me is boredom-so maybe I am less than qualified to argue it (that never stopped me before either).

Ha. Then I have to say that in reality, Hank Williams was terrible and blues is the worst musical genre ever.

[separateunion]

Separateunion; I really liked you until you got to that crack about the Presbyterians. Listen the reason we had to write the London 1689 was to correct their glaring frickin errors. And throw some of Owen's stuff in there.

I guess we were never meant to be. How sad. I think I'm gonna go cry in the corner now.

[charl]

Yes art is about evoking emotion. (that's why I work in craft, heh). However most art does not pretend to be doing something special to bring you to God at the same time. If I were picky I'd say it also usually resonates because you already feel a certain way that it connects with, and praise music often really doesn't do that. If you leave feeling not enriched but empty because there was nothing behind the feelings and when you're thinking about it later you wonder why you felt them in the first place that's manipulation.

Anyway I don't advocate religious practice devoid of emotion, but religious practice with something other than emotion as it's end. Like I don't know Christ and him crucified. It is an issue of emphasis.

If indeed we are trying to frame a proper attitude for worship I know that in my own case it then often fails. That's the problem with emphasizing emotional response. When I don't feel all the things I am supposed to there must be something wrong, what is happening must not be real, or real to me. But we simply don't always feel the right way about it. We won't always have the proper response to God. However our not feeling the right way doesn't change the reality-therefore the reality should be what is emphasized, not our response. We agree that emotion should not be the focus or ultimate barometer of the veracity of our faith (and I'd add value of our worship), yet too often in churches where it takes a large role, that is exactly what it becomes.

Yeah, so Communion should be the centrepiece and response incidental. In P&W churches, P&W music is usually the centrepiece of worship. The act of worship is itself the end. This is what makes it empty. And since it that act centers on emotionalism and on our response, P&W seems to be completely devoid of any actual meaning. Why do we feel this way? Again with the emptiness. Response implies there should be something we're responding to. I find that usually this stuff is little more than an attempt to ascend to see the deus nudus. You know how awesome I think that is.

Contextualization is necessary but tricky and should always be done with the utmost caution. One of the problems I have with the way it is done these days is that it more frequently looks like niche marketing. When you go to a church and everyone there belongs to the same marketing demographic I don't think that church is contextualizing well. And again that is the result of focusing on ourselves and not Christ.

You know it doesn't matter what you think of the blues because it is just music and it's not going to change your life if you like it or not. That's why things that are of such importance should be the focus in the church instead. Of course blues was inherently emotional and at the same time full of striking realism.

I haven't decided if you are allowed to agree with me yet or not.

Separateunion: you are full of it. Sprinkles are for cupcakes.

[separateunion]

In all honesty, I can't keep up with you two on an intellectual level or a historical level. I am woefully under educated when it comes to most of the stuff you guys discuss, so the best I can do is try to lighten up the conversation with nonsensical interjections and (sometimes) hilarious one liners.

[winterlens]

In all honesty, I can't keep up with you two on an intellectual level or a historical level. I am woefully under educated when it comes to most of the stuff you guys discuss, so the best I can do is try to lighten up the conversation with nonsensical interjections and (sometimes) hilarious one liners.

Ha, that's a good one. Hahahahaha. Thanks for lightening the day.

(I'm not that educated, and you keep up fine. To keep up with Char, you would have to sniff a lot of chemicals that may or may not cause severe brain damage.)

[charl]

SU and everyone else on earth; you should read Puritans. Then you won't think we're so smart. Read John Owen because he crushed everyone who disagreed with him with many words that may be English or may be Latin or may be Latin with English words. Okay read something else and something else and work your way to John Owen. Oh Bunyan. He was a proto-Baptist. He also disagrees with Paul. Ha.

Ah you could probably hold your own. It's not that I know much, I just like to force my opinion on other people. Winterlens simply has verbal diarrhea. And probably plain old diarrhea.

(BTW you should have said dunking is for doughnuts. Haven't you ever done the standard go around before?)


New schtuff to chew on. Winterlens inadvertently got me to read some Vos, and he said this:

The foremost of these principles [guiding the church] is that the end of existence for all things lies in God, and that, therefore, to religion must be assigned the highest place in every ideal condition contemplated as a goal.

It is the special function of the Church to speak unceasingly and unfalteringly for this one supreme aspect of the future world, to insist in season and out of season that in it God and the service of God are to the highest good and satisfaction of mankind, that without which all other desirable things will lose their value and abiding significance.

...Nor is this merely one or the foremost of the tasks of the Church, it is in such a unique sense her "business," that every other activity in order to legitimatize itself as a church-function should be able to prove its vital connection, direct or indirect, with the service of God and of religion as her one unique mission in the world.

This is more your church universal, still I thought it was good.

He also briefly contrasts reconstructionism of his day;

it is after all a faith in man rather than in God, and since faith in the last analysis can be glorified only through its object, it lacks the supreme glory of the faith of Christianity.

That hits one of the drums I'm beating. The object of worship must be made clear because faith can only be glorified through it's object.

[winterlens]

Yes art is about evoking emotion. (that's why I work in craft, heh). However most art does not pretend to be doing something special to bring you to God at the same time.

Historically this wasn't the case, was it? Granted, this is more your field than mine, but I can't imagine that Michelangelo painted the Sistine Chapel on a lark and later said, "Meh, that's not really intended to do anything special."

If I were picky I'd say it also usually resonates because you already feel a certain way that it connects with, and praise music often really doesn't do that.

This is true--and that is perhaps the real issue you should be poking at.

At the same time, some of us need more help than others. I suspect you are not much a creature of routine--but getting into a habit of worship helps those of us that aren't so gifted to set aside those things that so easily encumber.

It is a fault of P/W that it simultaneously resists routine (through excessive noise, inconsistent presentation) and embracing the mind-numbing (through simplistic music and milksop doctrine).

At the same time, it's perfectly conceivable that a relatively standardized worship routine could be concocted from it.

Anyway I don't advocate religious practice devoid of emotion, but religious practice with something other than emotion as it's end. Like I don't know Christ and him crucified. It is an issue of emphasis.

Of course. And I don't think under any circumstances we should practice Christianity with the end being a response--I think I've said that a couple times before. I know you would ignore that on purpose to be contrary, so I feel like I have to repeat myself.

If indeed we are trying to frame a proper attitude for worship I know that in my own case it then often fails.

I also understand this. And you are right to insist that Christ and him crucified be central. But this is not the case for everyone.

I won't ask for conformance to my worship practice, but I will most certainly ask for conformance to good doctrine. This is why I generally tolerate going to a Calvary Chapel, even though their positions on a number of doctrines are troubling.

We won't always have the proper response to God. However our not feeling the right way doesn't change the reality-therefore the reality should be what is emphasized, not our response.

I agree. Response shouldn't be emphasized; that doesn't mean that we shouldn't do it, or that we should consider it unimportant.

I know that you hate (haha, "love less") the Psalms, but it is true that in them we see Jesus Christ as the worship leader. It is Christ who says, "O magnify the LORD with me, and let us exalt his name together. I sought the LORD, and he heard me, and delivered me from all my fears" (Ps 34.3,4; cf 34.20 for some evidence that this is, indeed, a Messianic Psalm, and He 5.7 for context).

Our worship is rooted in the person and the work of Christ, and it is in fact Christ who leads us in proper worship. When we praise God, we praise him because he heard Christ (cf He 5.7).

We agree

Does this mean you've decided whether or not I'm allowed to agree with you?

Yeah, so Communion should be the centrepiece and response incidental.

The response, as you said, should be organic, which I take to mean that it should "grow" from the proper presentation of the gospel.

Response-oriented theology -- that is, most of the decision theology espoused by mainstream Christianity today (including CC) -- is properly scorned. It's wrong, doctrinally weak, and logically inconsistent (at the very least Protestants were supposed to be logically consistent).

And it is also true that P&W has come of age in a church inundated with such theology and therefore takes on some of its characteristics.

But I would be wary of calling our response incidental (unless by that you mean that it is a side-effect). Worship is not self-generated--we worship because Christ leads us to worship.

That's why things that are of such importance should be the focus in the church instead. Of course blues was inherently emotional and at the same time full of striking realism.

Precisely. On both counts. I simply think that too often we assume emotions oppose reality when this isn't necessarily the case. A healthy dose of skepticism is important--but we are feeling beings, and while we should restrain our passions as God gives us to do so, we shouldn't turn them off in church.

(Especially if they are the sort of emotions that would make you shoot a priest. I'm kind of interested to see that in the news. "Crazy Canadian Caps Catholics" has a certain ring to it.)

I haven't decided if you are allowed to agree with me yet or not.

I have decided for you. I will reveal my will at the time of my choosing.