Remonstrans
Worship is Never Accidental
08/12/05
Worship is Never Accidental
Worship is never accidental, inadvertent, indifferent, involuntary, or unintentional. Ever.
King David never said, “Whoops! Look, I accidentally wrote a psalm!” Chances are good that he threw away 100 that were intentional but nevertheless unsuccessful.
I think some of our analogies are harmfully inapt. Children must do things badly before they can do things well. That’s a given. But when they don’t perform well, they don’t perform publicly. They don’t publish or record their badness. They don’t put it forward as a model for others. We are not children, and we are not “playing for Daddy”. Adults don’t get up in Carnegie Hall or the Gewandhous and resort to this sort of defense for incompetence.
The very least that can be said is that the incompetent should not be telling others what constitutes proper worship. The smallest measure of integrity demands that much. I am not the whole blog, just the most insufferable member, but when I criticize modern worship it is not that it is imperfect, it is that it is not worship at all.
If a man chokes on water, what will you give him to wash it down with? If a soul chokes on pop entertainment, what will you give him to restore it?
I am perfectly willing to concede that this paragraph may not be appreciated by all: I recognize that there are some culturally naïve saints in the church, and the church has a place for them. I offer this to those with ears to hear: can we not agree that there is something seriously wrong when anyone, member or visitor of a church, will get more from a Piazzolla tango than a Christian hymn? Not that they get more in the way of worship, just more in the sense of the intentional, deft, thoughtful, graceful sharing of an idea.
I must stress this point. We have spoken at length about what I mean by serious. We must distinguish between the theologically acceptable and unacceptable. But one thing I hope Remonstrans readers come away with is a sense that there is another difference to maintain. A.W. Tozer said helpful things about worship; he began his definition of worship with the phrase “to feel in the heart…”. Spot on.
What difference does it make that a song is theologically correct if it does not help us to feel in the heart something true or admirable about God? Any difference that you can think of? Does anyone believe that a true doctrinal proposition will inevitably evoke assent or gratitude in our heart without a mediating, artful expression?
Or perhaps Tozer was wrong? Maybe David was wrong too. Maybe everyone was wrong but the 21st Century Church. Maybe it was the one that finally got a handle on proper worship. And maybe our doctrinal infidelities are totally unrelated to our decades of incompetence in worship.
And while we’re here, can someone give me an example from Scripture of the sort of inferior worship we could defend?
Trackback address for this post:
Comments, Trackbacks, Pingbacks:
1 Comment from: Pilgrim [Visitor]
"Children must do things badly before they can do things well. That’s a given. But when they don’t perform well, they don’t perform publicly. They don’t publish or record their badness."
So you have never been to a children's piano recital or met any parents who own video cameras?
Are we not children? Perhaps I speak as a fool, but who exactly are we playing "for" if not Abba, Father? Or perhaps I should ask who OUGHT we to be playing for? I will gladly concede that "special music" (if that is at all what you're referring to) is most often performance, not worship.
Which came first? Doctrinal infidelities or incompetence in worship?
So you have never been to a children's piano recital or met any parents who own video cameras?
Are we not children? Perhaps I speak as a fool, but who exactly are we playing "for" if not Abba, Father? Or perhaps I should ask who OUGHT we to be playing for? I will gladly concede that "special music" (if that is at all what you're referring to) is most often performance, not worship.
Which came first? Doctrinal infidelities or incompetence in worship?
Permalink
08/12/05 @ 15:43 2 Trackback from: Kara Ministries Weblog [Visitor]
Web Watch
8.12 Worship is Never Accidental by Dissidens 8.12 Radical Monotheism, Part 3: What is Worship?" by Kevin Bauder (pdf) Crucial posts of my philosophy of culture, music, and worship. A defense of my apparent "one-stringed fiddle." Can average-sized chur...
8.12 Worship is Never Accidental by Dissidens 8.12 Radical Monotheism, Part 3: What is Worship?" by Kevin Bauder (pdf) Crucial posts of my philosophy of culture, music, and worship. A defense of my apparent "one-stringed fiddle." Can average-sized chur...
Permalink
08/12/05 @ 16:25 3 Comment from: dissidens [Member] 
I’ve been to many recitals, and I know one couple that even taped the kid’s first solo flight to the bathroom. Recitals and film footage do not necessarily demonstrate competence. I know this from experience: some people do very disturbing things with cameras.
I also think it is dangerous to take an analogy too far: the fact that God has a relationship with us like that of a father, one should not treat the first person of the trinity as he would treat his dad.
God is also our friend, I don’t see him being treated as a “pal” by his contemporaries.
(Incidentally, I am only speaking here about what the incompetent should not do. I was required to play in churches and rescue missions and family gatherings at a very young age. I recommend it. Wholeheartedly.)
Actually, I don’t object to the term “special music”. Vanity and egotism will always be a temptation for anyone on any stage for any reason, I don’t think calling it special music adds to that danger appreciably. It is special music as opposed to the normal or ordinary or usual music in a worship service. How else should we distinguish it? Extraordinary music? Exceptional? Special music is special in that it requires more than announcing a number; it involves special rehearsal, often weeks out, perhaps some special furniture placement, seating arrangements, sometimes an explanation to the worshipers. I would far rather that special music performers wouldn’t act special than that they call it something else.
The distinction strikes me as well-meaning, but only modestly helpful.
The last question is an interesting one. I wouldn’t dogmatically say that no error ever took us by complete surprise, but it seems to me than many of our most destructive errors did fall on fertile soil. We cannot control the events of history, but we can guard our affections.
I also think it is dangerous to take an analogy too far: the fact that God has a relationship with us like that of a father, one should not treat the first person of the trinity as he would treat his dad.
God is also our friend, I don’t see him being treated as a “pal” by his contemporaries.
(Incidentally, I am only speaking here about what the incompetent should not do. I was required to play in churches and rescue missions and family gatherings at a very young age. I recommend it. Wholeheartedly.)
Actually, I don’t object to the term “special music”. Vanity and egotism will always be a temptation for anyone on any stage for any reason, I don’t think calling it special music adds to that danger appreciably. It is special music as opposed to the normal or ordinary or usual music in a worship service. How else should we distinguish it? Extraordinary music? Exceptional? Special music is special in that it requires more than announcing a number; it involves special rehearsal, often weeks out, perhaps some special furniture placement, seating arrangements, sometimes an explanation to the worshipers. I would far rather that special music performers wouldn’t act special than that they call it something else.
The distinction strikes me as well-meaning, but only modestly helpful.
The last question is an interesting one. I wouldn’t dogmatically say that no error ever took us by complete surprise, but it seems to me than many of our most destructive errors did fall on fertile soil. We cannot control the events of history, but we can guard our affections.
Permalink
08/12/05 @ 17:14 4 Comment from: DGus [Visitor]
I appreciate this thread. I'd like to ponder it and see if I have something worthwhile to say. In the meantime,
Dissidens sez: "Worship is never accidental, inadvertent, indifferent, involuntary, or unintentional. Ever.... [C]an someone give me an example from Scripture of the sort of inferior worship we could defend?"
I'm not sure it really advances the subject here, but strictly speaking a possible response to may be implicated in Acts 17:23: Paul seems to say that Athenian devotees of the "unknown god ... ignorantly worship" the true God.
Dissidens sez: "Worship is never accidental, inadvertent, indifferent, involuntary, or unintentional. Ever.... [C]an someone give me an example from Scripture of the sort of inferior worship we could defend?"
I'm not sure it really advances the subject here, but strictly speaking a possible response to may be implicated in Acts 17:23: Paul seems to say that Athenian devotees of the "unknown god ... ignorantly worship" the true God.
Permalink
08/13/05 @ 01:16 5 Comment from: Pilgrim [Visitor]
My point is not that we should treat God like an earthly father, but to ponder whether His acceptance of our offerings might not be conditional on our competence.
And what if someone else's definition of "artful expression" diverges from yours? What if a duet of "Rock of Ages" with a little southern twang causes Mary Sue and Jim Bob to feel in the heart something true and admirable about God more than the complete works of Johann Sebastian?
And what if someone else's definition of "artful expression" diverges from yours? What if a duet of "Rock of Ages" with a little southern twang causes Mary Sue and Jim Bob to feel in the heart something true and admirable about God more than the complete works of Johann Sebastian?
Permalink
08/13/05 @ 10:46 6 Comment from: dissidens [Member]
Someone once said that God is easy to please but hard to satisfy. It’s a good saying.
But the point you are insisting on is different. I never said that worship could not be simple or humble, I said it cannot be trite, it cannot be frivolous and it cannot be incompetent. A father may well accept this from his kids, as DGus hopes. I do not argue that. The father might accept a prank from his kids. Dad might get a kick out of his kids’ giving him photostats of their butts as a birthday card. This is not an analogy we can lean on just because we use father as a metaphor for God.
Anything we want to do : Dad :: worship : God? I don’t think so.
Simple worship might be all some can produce; I never breathed a word against simplicity. But Mary Sue and Jim Bob had better never get the idea that because they worship in Skunk Holler that God is pleased with their hoedowns.
And of course worship is more than feeling: I just quoted Tozer’s first phrase because that was the point I was addressing in my reply. He goes on to say “to express in some appropriate manner”.
What kids do for their dad can be both acceptable to him and unacceptable as worship. The church now is divided into two camps: those that refuse to accept there is an appropriate manner and the others who insist that their own amusement forms are an appropriate manner. I’m not buying either.
But the point you are insisting on is different. I never said that worship could not be simple or humble, I said it cannot be trite, it cannot be frivolous and it cannot be incompetent. A father may well accept this from his kids, as DGus hopes. I do not argue that. The father might accept a prank from his kids. Dad might get a kick out of his kids’ giving him photostats of their butts as a birthday card. This is not an analogy we can lean on just because we use father as a metaphor for God.
Anything we want to do : Dad :: worship : God? I don’t think so.
Simple worship might be all some can produce; I never breathed a word against simplicity. But Mary Sue and Jim Bob had better never get the idea that because they worship in Skunk Holler that God is pleased with their hoedowns.
And of course worship is more than feeling: I just quoted Tozer’s first phrase because that was the point I was addressing in my reply. He goes on to say “to express in some appropriate manner”.
What kids do for their dad can be both acceptable to him and unacceptable as worship. The church now is divided into two camps: those that refuse to accept there is an appropriate manner and the others who insist that their own amusement forms are an appropriate manner. I’m not buying either.
Permalink
08/13/05 @ 11:27 7 Comment from: lilrabbi [Visitor]
Very well said, Dissidens.
My bumbling in another thread was trying to get at this very point. I'm curious to see if saying it better will really make a difference, though I'm inclined to think its the idea that is most repulsive.
My bumbling in another thread was trying to get at this very point. I'm curious to see if saying it better will really make a difference, though I'm inclined to think its the idea that is most repulsive.
Permalink
08/13/05 @ 15:42 8 Comment from: dissidens [Member]
Nope, it will never make a difference.
Permalink
08/13/05 @ 16:36 9 Comment from: lilrabbi [Visitor]
Ever the optimist!
Permalink
08/13/05 @ 21:24 10 Comment from: dissidens [Member]
Yah, but I hide it pretty well, I think.
Permalink
08/13/05 @ 21:42 11 Comment from: capdoctor [Visitor]
Let's suppose that some excellent (one of the best ever thought or sung), God-honoring, "from-the-approved-canon" Christian, hymn evokes in dissidens a righteously, biblical, emotive, existential, affective (Edwardsian) responce to the Trinune God of Scripture. In the other words, God is pleased and dissidens is as satisfied as he ever will be prior to his being in the eternal state while engaging in worship [in/with/by] such a song (I am sure I'd get it wrong if I picked just one preposition to use here).
Now, let's suppose that another non-excellent, non-"God honoring," not "from-the-approved-canon" sound (i.e. according to dissidens or K. Bauder, so they would prolly not call it art or music) evokes in a teenager, the exact same response (an if P then Q type). Of course, this assumes that both dissidens and the teen have equal ability by God's grace to fear, reverence, "worship" God.
Where does that leave us?
Now, let's suppose that another non-excellent, non-"God honoring," not "from-the-approved-canon" sound (i.e. according to dissidens or K. Bauder, so they would prolly not call it art or music) evokes in a teenager, the exact same response (an if P then Q type). Of course, this assumes that both dissidens and the teen have equal ability by God's grace to fear, reverence, "worship" God.
Where does that leave us?
Permalink
08/14/05 @ 04:45 12 Comment from: dissidens [Member]
I hate to say it, but you have problems with more than prepositions.
Permalink
08/14/05 @ 11:26 13 Comment from: capdoctor [Visitor]
Sadly dissidens, you are right. Besides my form of your "bleak," it is called the human condition. If you'd rather....Ich bin ein sündhafter Mann! Even more, go ahead and indicate my problems; how else shall I pray for God's grace?
Suppose I'll just ignore the ad hominem nature of andy comments. You have my permission, though you obviously don't need it.
Suppose I'll just ignore the ad hominem nature of andy comments. You have my permission, though you obviously don't need it.
Permalink
08/14/05 @ 16:58 14 Comment from: dissidens [Member]
Well, I really don’t know how to make this any plainer, capdoc. Don’t classify me with Bauder or BJ or Makujina or Garlock or Pensacola or the schools I attended or the schools I know about. They are all wrong.
Bear with me here: I’m struggling to be less vague than I apparently have been. Tell me how to explain this to you in a less ambiguous way.
Not only are they wrong as to the facts, they are wrong in their solutions. They like to talk about truth and beauty in worship; they do not want to submit to the truth, they want others to submit to them and their chosen forms of entertainment. All you have to do is look at what they do. Plug your ears to their words and consider their works.
Point out to me a single thing any of them has produced that compares to the examples I have repeatedly cited on this blog. I would rather listen to Willie Nelson and Eric Clapton than their music. (And anyone who knows my taste in music will have some idea of the depth of my feeling.)
Again, am I being too wishy-washy here? Introduce into your thinking a third category: you already have a) evangelical indifference, b) fundamentalist pretensions, now add c) dissidens. It is the least appealing of all the categories, but you should still have it in your files.
My position has been the same since the beginning: Our dads are not the standard of worship. Luther is not the standard of worship. The Moravians are not the standard of worship. Haydn is not the standard of worship. Mendelssohn is not the standard of worship. Bach is not the standard of worship. King David comes the closest, but that is because he has the imprimatur of inspiration. Luther, the Moravians, etc. are examples of superior music. I myself am not the standard. And I’ve never said I was.
God’s holiness and his perfections are the standards of our worship. This is what fundamentalists do not take seriously. And that’s why they have to remind us they are being serious when they speak.
(You sound like the modern man who cannot deal with any transcendent claim and who tries to suggest that any call for truth is a claim of infallibility.)
Second, I would like to know where you found this “teen”. Did you drag him in from somewhere outside God’s creation? Does he come from a place where truth, beauty and goodness do not exist, or, if they do exist, is it not morally binding on him to worship God in a way that is consistent with his nature? Or is the god where he comes from different from mine in this respect?
Could I talk to this teen? Does his planet have a link to our internet?
Bear with me here: I’m struggling to be less vague than I apparently have been. Tell me how to explain this to you in a less ambiguous way.
Not only are they wrong as to the facts, they are wrong in their solutions. They like to talk about truth and beauty in worship; they do not want to submit to the truth, they want others to submit to them and their chosen forms of entertainment. All you have to do is look at what they do. Plug your ears to their words and consider their works.
Point out to me a single thing any of them has produced that compares to the examples I have repeatedly cited on this blog. I would rather listen to Willie Nelson and Eric Clapton than their music. (And anyone who knows my taste in music will have some idea of the depth of my feeling.)
Again, am I being too wishy-washy here? Introduce into your thinking a third category: you already have a) evangelical indifference, b) fundamentalist pretensions, now add c) dissidens. It is the least appealing of all the categories, but you should still have it in your files.
My position has been the same since the beginning: Our dads are not the standard of worship. Luther is not the standard of worship. The Moravians are not the standard of worship. Haydn is not the standard of worship. Mendelssohn is not the standard of worship. Bach is not the standard of worship. King David comes the closest, but that is because he has the imprimatur of inspiration. Luther, the Moravians, etc. are examples of superior music. I myself am not the standard. And I’ve never said I was.
God’s holiness and his perfections are the standards of our worship. This is what fundamentalists do not take seriously. And that’s why they have to remind us they are being serious when they speak.
(You sound like the modern man who cannot deal with any transcendent claim and who tries to suggest that any call for truth is a claim of infallibility.)
Second, I would like to know where you found this “teen”. Did you drag him in from somewhere outside God’s creation? Does he come from a place where truth, beauty and goodness do not exist, or, if they do exist, is it not morally binding on him to worship God in a way that is consistent with his nature? Or is the god where he comes from different from mine in this respect?
Could I talk to this teen? Does his planet have a link to our internet?
Permalink
08/14/05 @ 20:43 15 Comment from: capdoctor [Visitor]
Diss...sorry about the typo, "andy.' It proves one of my points, "sinful man." Also, I am glad you at least know about Willie and old "slow hand" himself, EC. Actually, he is one of my favorite blues guitarist. Frankly, Nelson is an interesting character and a fairly successful, bumpkin, pragmatist: for whatever that is worth.
The teen, well that is another story. One I know happens to be my son, and he too suffers from Adam's condition, like his father. But, I don't take offense at anything you said about "this teen." I see you simply making a point:) Yes, he is well connected to the internet. He prolly would not understand your prose though. AFter all he is my son and attends a public school. He also participates on our church's worship (you'd not call it that) team. Nonetheless, Sunday he did make noise that involved the Gospel, heard the Gospel preached, and participated in communion. To us, that means he saw the Gospel and even tasted it. At least some of us prayed to God that by all these means he would impart grace to "this teen" and his father.
I don't deny truth exists and that for the xrn, the transcendent origin and standard of truth is the Trinune God of Scripture. However, a couple things are difficult for me:
1. The music discussions I've heard use presupps, predications, and categories somewhat informed more by Western tradition than Sola Scriptura. 2. Then, the inferences which hardly ever follow from the foundations, premises, etc. are loaded with smuggled in "God talk" from the Bible. Finally, they claim God said it; it takes the shape of "this is THE way so walk in it."
I am simply trying to figure out what worship that glorifies God looks, sounds, feels like. You can either tell what it "ought" be or give me directions to where it "is." I'll try and go see if for myself.
Surely, there is somebody somewhere this side of Isa. 6 who gets it right some of the time. I have yet to see a biblical theological study of music published by those who care so much about it. Perhaps that would be a start. I have suggested it as a project to many fundy people who think they are thinkers but no takers.
Is this really about style? I feel for those born prior to 500 B.C. and the millions of believers who've never heard of the selections in your canon, let alone do it that way. Poor duffers: one less crown for them. Aren't you glad we are not justified by our worship preferences. We'd all be in a mell of a hess.
The teen, well that is another story. One I know happens to be my son, and he too suffers from Adam's condition, like his father. But, I don't take offense at anything you said about "this teen." I see you simply making a point:) Yes, he is well connected to the internet. He prolly would not understand your prose though. AFter all he is my son and attends a public school. He also participates on our church's worship (you'd not call it that) team. Nonetheless, Sunday he did make noise that involved the Gospel, heard the Gospel preached, and participated in communion. To us, that means he saw the Gospel and even tasted it. At least some of us prayed to God that by all these means he would impart grace to "this teen" and his father.
I don't deny truth exists and that for the xrn, the transcendent origin and standard of truth is the Trinune God of Scripture. However, a couple things are difficult for me:
1. The music discussions I've heard use presupps, predications, and categories somewhat informed more by Western tradition than Sola Scriptura. 2. Then, the inferences which hardly ever follow from the foundations, premises, etc. are loaded with smuggled in "God talk" from the Bible. Finally, they claim God said it; it takes the shape of "this is THE way so walk in it."
I am simply trying to figure out what worship that glorifies God looks, sounds, feels like. You can either tell what it "ought" be or give me directions to where it "is." I'll try and go see if for myself.
Surely, there is somebody somewhere this side of Isa. 6 who gets it right some of the time. I have yet to see a biblical theological study of music published by those who care so much about it. Perhaps that would be a start. I have suggested it as a project to many fundy people who think they are thinkers but no takers.
Is this really about style? I feel for those born prior to 500 B.C. and the millions of believers who've never heard of the selections in your canon, let alone do it that way. Poor duffers: one less crown for them. Aren't you glad we are not justified by our worship preferences. We'd all be in a mell of a hess.
Permalink
08/15/05 @ 05:36 16 Comment from: dissidens [Member]
Yah, I can see what you mean! To refer to the considered opinions and practices of theologians and musicians over the course of centuries as “God talk” really helps to put it into perspective. Now I can see just how worthless all that is.
Listen, tell me something. I’m considering taking a position as kapellmeister of Inexpressibly Dreadful Baptist Church. You say you agree that there is a transcendent and moral dimension to worship, and this is important to me.
How do you think I should go about earning my daily crust?
Listen, tell me something. I’m considering taking a position as kapellmeister of Inexpressibly Dreadful Baptist Church. You say you agree that there is a transcendent and moral dimension to worship, and this is important to me.
How do you think I should go about earning my daily crust?
Permalink
08/15/05 @ 10:13 17 Trackback from: Kara Ministries Weblog [Visitor]
Web Watch Archives
8.12 Worship is Never Accidental by Dissidens 8.12 Radical Monotheism, Part 3: What is Worship?" by Kevin Bauder (pdf)...
8.12 Worship is Never Accidental by Dissidens 8.12 Radical Monotheism, Part 3: What is Worship?" by Kevin Bauder (pdf)...
Permalink
08/15/05 @ 13:18 18 Comment from: Scott Aniol [Visitor] · http://www.scottaniol.com
Dissidens, I often agree with your critiques of fundamentalist culture and music, but I find it unfortunate that you rarely offer any solutions. How do you expect those of us who want to improve to learn anything? Please don't just tell us what you don't like. Tell us how to fix it.
Permalink
08/15/05 @ 14:10 19 Comment from: Unk [Visitor]
You ought to keep a counter, dissidens, at the top of your blog to keep track of how many times people ask you for a solution. And one for how many times you tell them there isn't any.
Permalink
08/15/05 @ 14:18 20 Comment from: capdoctor [Visitor]
I did not say that theologians and musicians over the centuries were the "God talkers." I said those in fundy world that use the Bible to support their self-contrived music standards do so as "God talk" and do not talk from sound exegesis nor theology.
It simply is the putting of KJV English into the mouths of ancient Mediterranean religious thinkers; that's all I meant. Call it "right book wrong doctrine."
As for your "daily crust," well now, my friend, you'd be in some pretty dire circumstances taking any advice from me. I'd say if you feel/know/think/believe God is calling you to serve people who are part of His doings on earth (I'd call it the Kingdom), then I'd prolly go and help them worship God. Go and show them how to love God and their neighbor. Me thinks that would be good to round off some or your crusty ole edges, dissidens. Try helping those poor, culturally impoverished Baptists learn to "weep for their souls." Doubtless, it would be worth a grown man's time.
It simply is the putting of KJV English into the mouths of ancient Mediterranean religious thinkers; that's all I meant. Call it "right book wrong doctrine."
As for your "daily crust," well now, my friend, you'd be in some pretty dire circumstances taking any advice from me. I'd say if you feel/know/think/believe God is calling you to serve people who are part of His doings on earth (I'd call it the Kingdom), then I'd prolly go and help them worship God. Go and show them how to love God and their neighbor. Me thinks that would be good to round off some or your crusty ole edges, dissidens. Try helping those poor, culturally impoverished Baptists learn to "weep for their souls." Doubtless, it would be worth a grown man's time.
Permalink
08/15/05 @ 14:33 21 Comment from: dissidens [Member]
Well, Scott, I understand your frustration.
I am frustrated, and have been frustrated for longer than you. I think you need to consider that a desire for change is not adequate to bring about change. This problem is not going away by successfully blowing out all the candles on the cake or pulling the long leg of the wishbone.
Are there things we can do? Of course. I’m not rich, but I myself commission liturgical works. I try my hand at writing religious texts worth handing to a composer. And I would encourage you to continue to improve what you yourself are attempting to do. But that is not a solution.
That is activity; that is not remedy. There is a difference. If you and I are both successful beyond our wildest imaginations, all that that will produce is a stack of mss.
One of the starting points for this discussion is to establish that difference in our minds. Without that, we will continue to produce mediocre stuff that will never see the deep appreciation of our own children, let alone future generations. In addition, it makes us smug that “we are on the problem”.
In the 21st Century we are not even willing to stop singing the stuff we admit is inferior!
I have imagined that it might be helpful for a seminary class to choose a text, something meaningful from their studies. Even if no one in the class can write well, select an existing and suitable text, and out of their class dues to commission someone qualified, not a well-meaning classmate, someone who can do a respectable job. Every year that seminary could produce a useful anthem, hymn or chorale.
What if there were a seminary like that? A few sharp students in every class to superintend the effort, the cost is minimal, and every year another thoughtful piece of worship. And every year a class would go out into the ministry with a better appreciation of what worship is about. Why does that not happen?
Why is there not a single seminary class that will take mature students with literary sensibilities and study the hymnists of the past? (Partly because there is no one qualified to teach it!) This most important function of the clergy has been left to the incompetent Christian “musicians” who couldn’t get into Juilliard with a tank and good map.
Why?
That is the point I continue to stress here. It is not done because we do not intend to do it. It is not important to us. That is not what we value. It’s just not how we think. We think we solve the problem by some cornpone hymn arrangement of a trite, rhymed platitude set to uninspiring music. It takes no great skill to stop singing bad songs!
That is the problem. And for that there is no solution that I know of.
I am frustrated, and have been frustrated for longer than you. I think you need to consider that a desire for change is not adequate to bring about change. This problem is not going away by successfully blowing out all the candles on the cake or pulling the long leg of the wishbone.
Are there things we can do? Of course. I’m not rich, but I myself commission liturgical works. I try my hand at writing religious texts worth handing to a composer. And I would encourage you to continue to improve what you yourself are attempting to do. But that is not a solution.
That is activity; that is not remedy. There is a difference. If you and I are both successful beyond our wildest imaginations, all that that will produce is a stack of mss.
One of the starting points for this discussion is to establish that difference in our minds. Without that, we will continue to produce mediocre stuff that will never see the deep appreciation of our own children, let alone future generations. In addition, it makes us smug that “we are on the problem”.
In the 21st Century we are not even willing to stop singing the stuff we admit is inferior!
I have imagined that it might be helpful for a seminary class to choose a text, something meaningful from their studies. Even if no one in the class can write well, select an existing and suitable text, and out of their class dues to commission someone qualified, not a well-meaning classmate, someone who can do a respectable job. Every year that seminary could produce a useful anthem, hymn or chorale.
What if there were a seminary like that? A few sharp students in every class to superintend the effort, the cost is minimal, and every year another thoughtful piece of worship. And every year a class would go out into the ministry with a better appreciation of what worship is about. Why does that not happen?
Why is there not a single seminary class that will take mature students with literary sensibilities and study the hymnists of the past? (Partly because there is no one qualified to teach it!) This most important function of the clergy has been left to the incompetent Christian “musicians” who couldn’t get into Juilliard with a tank and good map.
Why?
That is the point I continue to stress here. It is not done because we do not intend to do it. It is not important to us. That is not what we value. It’s just not how we think. We think we solve the problem by some cornpone hymn arrangement of a trite, rhymed platitude set to uninspiring music. It takes no great skill to stop singing bad songs!
That is the problem. And for that there is no solution that I know of.
Permalink
08/15/05 @ 15:31 22 Comment from: dissidens [Member]
I think you missed my point, capdoc.
If you will deny me recourse to the best that my culture has produced, what would you have me do?
If you will deny me recourse to the best that my culture has produced, what would you have me do?
Permalink
08/15/05 @ 15:37 23 Comment from: lilrabbi [Visitor]
"informed more by Western tradition than Sola Scriptura."
It would seem that you agree with the Roman Catholic view of Sola Scriptura?
It would seem that you agree with the Roman Catholic view of Sola Scriptura?
Permalink
08/15/05 @ 15:39 24 Comment from: dissidens [Member]
In the 21st Century we are not even willing to stop singing the stuff we admit is inferior!
Why should God give us more Luthers and Bachs?
Why should God give us more Luthers and Bachs?
Permalink
08/15/05 @ 15:40 25 Comment from: Pilgrim [Visitor]
Scott,
Ecclesiastical separation seems to be the solution to just about everything, as best I can tell.
Ecclesiastical separation seems to be the solution to just about everything, as best I can tell.
Permalink
08/15/05 @ 15:43 26 Comment from: dissidens [Member]
Pilgrim makes a good point.
Just look at how and where Fundamentalism has exerted itself. Did it ever try to rival the Lutherans and Moravians?
Nope.
Just look at how and where Fundamentalism has exerted itself. Did it ever try to rival the Lutherans and Moravians?
Nope.
Permalink
08/15/05 @ 15:57 27 Comment from: Scott Aniol [Visitor] · http://weblog.karaministries.com
Dissidens,
That's exactly the kind of reply I was hoping for. An admission that we probably will never solve much, but some realistic suggestions for what we can try to do.
I like a lot of what you said, and I'm convinced that a solution to this mess will occur only on a local church level. That's why I liked your discussion of seminary training. It will only be as pastors are educated in what is and is not good hymnody that they will take this knowledge and implement it in their churches, hopefully educating their people as well. That's what I'm trying to do, at least. I fail a lot, but I'm at least eliminating the inferior stuff (to the dismay of some older church members!) and trying to re-introduce good things that have fallen by the wayside. I also use part of my music budget to commission works.
Related question: Whom do you solicite for commissioned works?
That's exactly the kind of reply I was hoping for. An admission that we probably will never solve much, but some realistic suggestions for what we can try to do.
I like a lot of what you said, and I'm convinced that a solution to this mess will occur only on a local church level. That's why I liked your discussion of seminary training. It will only be as pastors are educated in what is and is not good hymnody that they will take this knowledge and implement it in their churches, hopefully educating their people as well. That's what I'm trying to do, at least. I fail a lot, but I'm at least eliminating the inferior stuff (to the dismay of some older church members!) and trying to re-introduce good things that have fallen by the wayside. I also use part of my music budget to commission works.
Related question: Whom do you solicite for commissioned works?
Permalink
08/15/05 @ 17:18 28 Comment from: dissidens [Member]
You may have liked the reply, you will not like the follow-up. It is at the local church level that I have witnessed the most spectacular and divisive failures.
And I hasten to warn all you activists out there: you will split churches over this. Think through this carefully. “Wise as serpents…”
There may be short-lived accomplishments, but again, the answer is not local, parochial, backwater holdouts. The strength of the church is one Lord, one faith, one baptism; a unity of the faith. This was to have been guarded by our liturgy and our preaching, not by individual zealots. Fundamentalists and activists abandoned this unity both at the altar and in the pulpit. It is a question of culture. It is not a place for tiny turf-wars. It is the health of the whole that we are talking about.
I don’t say that to discourage anyone; I say that to warn you about where we are. I say it to explain what you don’t want to hear: you don’t get a second crack at a birthright you abandoned.
Sorry to tell you that.
As for whom I use, forgive me for being miserly, but I have a long list of projects of my own.
; )
And I hasten to warn all you activists out there: you will split churches over this. Think through this carefully. “Wise as serpents…”
There may be short-lived accomplishments, but again, the answer is not local, parochial, backwater holdouts. The strength of the church is one Lord, one faith, one baptism; a unity of the faith. This was to have been guarded by our liturgy and our preaching, not by individual zealots. Fundamentalists and activists abandoned this unity both at the altar and in the pulpit. It is a question of culture. It is not a place for tiny turf-wars. It is the health of the whole that we are talking about.
I don’t say that to discourage anyone; I say that to warn you about where we are. I say it to explain what you don’t want to hear: you don’t get a second crack at a birthright you abandoned.
Sorry to tell you that.
As for whom I use, forgive me for being miserly, but I have a long list of projects of my own.
; )
Permalink
08/15/05 @ 18:05 29 Comment from: Scott Aniol [Visitor] · http://weblog.karaministries.com
I realize the fact that this approach may split church, or at least keep them small. That is the benefit of beginning in a rather small church. I won't spit it, but I also realize it won't grow to be a mega-church either.
Although, we've had 3 families begin coming to our church recently expressly because the music we use is different than anything they've ever experienced, within or without fundamentalism (if they had visited a some Lutheran or Presbyterian churches, they might have heard what we use!).
I'm not for building a big church. I've for building a pure church.
Although, we've had 3 families begin coming to our church recently expressly because the music we use is different than anything they've ever experienced, within or without fundamentalism (if they had visited a some Lutheran or Presbyterian churches, they might have heard what we use!).
I'm not for building a big church. I've for building a pure church.
Permalink
08/15/05 @ 20:23 30 Comment from: dissidens [Member]
I hope God is pleased to bless.
Permalink
08/15/05 @ 20:30 31 Comment from: capdoctor [Visitor]
I would have you admit that you have a two standards. One is for transcendent truth (Scripture) and one for art and culture (the Western Intellectual tradition). I am not saying that the latter is necessarily dishonorable, because that may be the simplest explanation: i.e., simply the way things are!
The point is that many fundies will not admit it. That is what is bogus, the non-admission of two ideals. One originates from the Triune God and the other from Platonism. Now God did create Plato, but let's not use his words and attribute them to Jesus' revelation in Scripture.
I am also trying to avoid the genetic fallacy too. Locating a thought's orgin is not equal to falsification. It does seem to me, however, that admission to truth is a matter of integrity and consistent both with Western aesthetics and Jesus.
The point is that many fundies will not admit it. That is what is bogus, the non-admission of two ideals. One originates from the Triune God and the other from Platonism. Now God did create Plato, but let's not use his words and attribute them to Jesus' revelation in Scripture.
I am also trying to avoid the genetic fallacy too. Locating a thought's orgin is not equal to falsification. It does seem to me, however, that admission to truth is a matter of integrity and consistent both with Western aesthetics and Jesus.
Permalink
08/15/05 @ 22:25 32 Comment from: dissidens [Member]
I’m not sure how much of that I follow. But I would make a distinction.
I don’t think we have two standards, I think God’s perfections are our only standard and the best products of our culture are the means by which, or the conditions under which, we work.
It’s not that we seek to mimic selected geniuses, we learn from them. That’s one.
The second is much more important: they are the ones who’ve given us the vocabulary for serious expression. It’s not that we choose Bach because we think he’s kool.
Imagine a village that wants to make a grand statue out of a marble mountain. Clearly it is the work of more than one man, but the First Sculptor determines the work of the rest by virtue of how he begins, each succeeding sculptor is compelled to work with what was left to him in order to advance the project. So long as that is the nature of the task, we would be foolish to hand over the job to the smallest-minded men, the most parochial, the men with the least vision. The failure to continue the concept of the First Sculptor would be obliteration.
Does the village want to make a grand statue or just destroy a mountain?
I don’t think we have two standards, I think God’s perfections are our only standard and the best products of our culture are the means by which, or the conditions under which, we work.
It’s not that we seek to mimic selected geniuses, we learn from them. That’s one.
The second is much more important: they are the ones who’ve given us the vocabulary for serious expression. It’s not that we choose Bach because we think he’s kool.
Imagine a village that wants to make a grand statue out of a marble mountain. Clearly it is the work of more than one man, but the First Sculptor determines the work of the rest by virtue of how he begins, each succeeding sculptor is compelled to work with what was left to him in order to advance the project. So long as that is the nature of the task, we would be foolish to hand over the job to the smallest-minded men, the most parochial, the men with the least vision. The failure to continue the concept of the First Sculptor would be obliteration.
Does the village want to make a grand statue or just destroy a mountain?
Permalink
08/16/05 @ 09:02 33 Comment from: DGus [Visitor]
Scott: I have every confidence I would admire your ideals for the church, and that I'd appreciate your church and your own efforts in building it. But I want to say that your way of expressing it--"building a pure church"--is not one I'd use. I'm quite clear that I'm cooperating in building a most impure church, hoping for imnprovement, but ready to see it stumble two steps backward for every step it takes forward.
I like what I read once--a Catholic's statement of the Mission of the Church: to get as many souls into Purgatory as possible. I like the concreteness of that goal. It has its eye on the bottom line.
And speaking of things Catholic, I'd heartily recommend a book by Ronald Knox entitled "Enthusiasm: A Chapter in the History of Religion", in which he shows that the separatist quest for a pure church leads to idiosyncrasy, pathology, heresy, and schism--but not at First Baptist, of course. --David (P.S. Say hi to your folks.)
I like what I read once--a Catholic's statement of the Mission of the Church: to get as many souls into Purgatory as possible. I like the concreteness of that goal. It has its eye on the bottom line.
And speaking of things Catholic, I'd heartily recommend a book by Ronald Knox entitled "Enthusiasm: A Chapter in the History of Religion", in which he shows that the separatist quest for a pure church leads to idiosyncrasy, pathology, heresy, and schism--but not at First Baptist, of course. --David (P.S. Say hi to your folks.)
Permalink
08/16/05 @ 10:35 34 Comment from: DGus [Visitor]
Dissidens: You said, "I try my hand at writing religious texts worth handing to a composer."
Please post an example.
Please post an example.
Permalink
08/16/05 @ 12:06 35 Comment from: capdoctor [Visitor]
diss, try this one.
You said, "I think God’s perfections are our only standard." Alas, the Cartesian admission: "cogito ergo sum" [right]. Yah, why not just say "scio"? Would to God all our minds had the ability to replicate reality, especially as it pertains to transcedent ones:). Beware lest you entertain heavenly messengers unawares, cultural pedagoges, doubtless.
You said, "I think God’s perfections are our only standard." Alas, the Cartesian admission: "cogito ergo sum" [right]. Yah, why not just say "scio"? Would to God all our minds had the ability to replicate reality, especially as it pertains to transcedent ones:). Beware lest you entertain heavenly messengers unawares, cultural pedagoges, doubtless.
Permalink
08/16/05 @ 21:20 36 Comment from: dissidens [Member]
I'll keep my eyes peeled, cap.
Permalink
08/16/05 @ 21:49 37 Comment from: todd mitchell [Member] · http://withtearsoppressed.blogspot.com/
· http://withtearsoppressed.blogspot.com/
Dissidens, would you indulge me in elaborating on this comment? I really do want to understand your position, and I fear I am missing your point.
If your comment was limited to Garlock, I might think that I have grasped your point. But he is a composer, while Bauder and Makujina are not (though Bauder the Younger is a composer with great promise). What "facts" and "solutions" have Bauder and Makujina offered that miss the mark? To what "chosen forms of entertainment" do you refer?
I'm not arguing. I just feel a bit lost.
Don’t classify me with Bauder or BJ or Makujina or Garlock or Pensacola or the schools I attended or the schools I know about. They are all wrong.
Bear with me here: I’m struggling to be less vague than I apparently have been. Tell me how to explain this to you in a less ambiguous way.
Not only are they wrong as to the facts, they are wrong in their solutions. They like to talk about truth and beauty in worship; they do not want to submit to the truth, they want others to submit to them and their chosen forms of entertainment. All you have to do is look at what they do. Plug your ears to their words and consider their works.
Point out to me a single thing any of them has produced that compares to the examples I have repeatedly cited on this blog. I would rather listen to Willie Nelson and Eric Clapton than their music. (And anyone who knows my taste in music will have some idea of the depth of my feeling.)
If your comment was limited to Garlock, I might think that I have grasped your point. But he is a composer, while Bauder and Makujina are not (though Bauder the Younger is a composer with great promise). What "facts" and "solutions" have Bauder and Makujina offered that miss the mark? To what "chosen forms of entertainment" do you refer?
I'm not arguing. I just feel a bit lost.
Permalink
08/16/05 @ 23:39 38 Comment from: capdoctor [Visitor]
Dissidens,
Check this link out. I'd be interested in knowing your thoughts about what you read there.
http://www.tcclife.org/worship.html.
Check this link out. I'd be interested in knowing your thoughts about what you read there.
http://www.tcclife.org/worship.html.
Permalink
08/17/05 @ 04:31 39 Comment from: inkwell [Member]
capdoc, I would like to know what you and some others who have posted comments here think about the list posted in your link:
http://www.tcclife.org/worship.html
They state:
We believe corporate worship should:
1.Be directed toward and centered upon all 3 persons of the Trinity.
2.Be patterned after Heaven.
3.Include the Word, Prayer, the Arts and the Ordinances/Sacraments.
4.Include the Transcendent and Immanent.
5.Reflect a blended style: traditionally (liturgically) contemporary.
6.Achieve substance with relevance.
7.Include the whole man: heart, mind and will.
8.Have Active involvement from the congregation.
9.Be Beneficial for the Body of Christ.
I have numbered them for convenience.
If a question mark were added behind each of their "purposes"; how would they be answered, and who judges if the answer is correct?
http://www.tcclife.org/worship.html
They state:
We believe corporate worship should:
1.Be directed toward and centered upon all 3 persons of the Trinity.
2.Be patterned after Heaven.
3.Include the Word, Prayer, the Arts and the Ordinances/Sacraments.
4.Include the Transcendent and Immanent.
5.Reflect a blended style: traditionally (liturgically) contemporary.
6.Achieve substance with relevance.
7.Include the whole man: heart, mind and will.
8.Have Active involvement from the congregation.
9.Be Beneficial for the Body of Christ.
I have numbered them for convenience.
If a question mark were added behind each of their "purposes"; how would they be answered, and who judges if the answer is correct?
Permalink
08/17/05 @ 05:15 40 Comment from: lilrabbi [Visitor]
I'm with todd...
Permalink
08/17/05 @ 05:20 41 Comment from: Unk [Visitor]
If you walk down the halls of Central Seminary, Todd, and look at the mission statement posted on Bauder's and Makujina's doors, it is not hard to see what dissidens means when you notice where the statement begins and where it ends.
Permalink
08/17/05 @ 07:21 42 Comment from: inkwell [Member]
Unk, is this the Mission Statement you are referring to:
http://www.centralseminary.edu/index.asp?m=25
or something else?
http://www.centralseminary.edu/index.asp?m=25
or something else?
Permalink
08/17/05 @ 07:34 43 Comment from: Neoclassical [Visitor]
Yes, Inkwell, it is.
Permalink
08/17/05 @ 07:58 44 Comment from: inkwell [Member]
Thank-you Neo,
ink
ink
Permalink
08/17/05 @ 08:00 45 Comment from: Unk [Visitor]
Only the first paragraph was posted. I don't mean the whole thing. That is important for understanding what I mean by beginning and ending.
Permalink
08/17/05 @ 09:46 46 Comment from: dissidens [Member]
The mission of Central Baptist Theological Seminary is to glorify God. This is accomplished first by equipping men and women on the graduate level as a separatist Baptist witness for real world Christian ministry which is both Biblical and missional, preparing them to share the gospel in a complex world of great need. It is accomplished secondly by outreach to the larger community by means of Christian radio.Ok.
Mission is to glorify God…accomplished two ways…graduate level [education]…second by Christian radio.
So I look at their efforts at education—their stuff is out there—I read what they write, and I listen to their radio: their chapel messages, the ministry of Fourth Baptist (both pulpit and altar), the religious drama and the music of WCTS.
This is not my religion. There is a certain schematic resemblance—it looks more like Christianity than Hinduism—but I am not looking at that. I am looking at “mission…education…ministry…community outreach”. If this is any kind of incarnation of their words, then we have as much in common as I have with Willow Creek or Saddleback.
Listen to a CCM radio station. You ask: “What does Nashville have to do with Jerusalem?” I listen to WCTS and ask: “So, what does Branson have to do with Jerusalem?”
I could do this with any of the other examples I’ve mentioned—and others. These expressions of Christianity are a departure from what I believe; they are an apostasy from Christendom’s birthright.
Permalink
08/17/05 @ 10:04 47 Comment from: todd mitchell [Member] · http://withtearsoppressed.blogspot.com/
· http://withtearsoppressed.blogspot.com/
Perhaps I understand. You are saying that the things broadcast on WCTS are the "chosen forms of entertainment" of Makujina and Bauder?
Permalink
08/17/05 @ 10:08 48 Comment from: dissidens [Member]
It may not be fair to say these entertainment forms are the choice of these two men. Perhaps they are.
I'm saying that these entertainment forms were, and are, the choice of a large slice of American Xy. and are employed as remedies to the sort of liturgy they decry.
I do know that they are responsible for its perpetuation. I do know it can only deform the religious impulse.
I'm saying that these entertainment forms were, and are, the choice of a large slice of American Xy. and are employed as remedies to the sort of liturgy they decry.
I do know that they are responsible for its perpetuation. I do know it can only deform the religious impulse.
Permalink
08/17/05 @ 10:47 49 Comment from: Neoclassical [Visitor]
...but how can you escape from these associations? [I genuinely ask.]
Even you, Dissidens, though you may say, "this is not my Christianity," still have to respond to a Muslim about all evangelicalism.
Even so, those of us who attend X Baptist Church have to respond for its errors, even though we do not agree with them.
Are you mostly concerned with our proximity to the error? Because it seems to me that the association of me and the error and you and the error is a matter of degree.
Please correct the flaws in my reasoning.
Even you, Dissidens, though you may say, "this is not my Christianity," still have to respond to a Muslim about all evangelicalism.
Even so, those of us who attend X Baptist Church have to respond for its errors, even though we do not agree with them.
Are you mostly concerned with our proximity to the error? Because it seems to me that the association of me and the error and you and the error is a matter of degree.
Please correct the flaws in my reasoning.
Permalink
08/17/05 @ 12:09 50 Comment from: capdoctor [Visitor]
diss.,
I think it is mighty good stuff. I doubt, however, I could give sufficient warrant that would satisfy you. Let's say I have a personal interest in all nine:)
I think it is mighty good stuff. I doubt, however, I could give sufficient warrant that would satisfy you. Let's say I have a personal interest in all nine:)
Permalink
08/17/05 @ 12:38 51 Comment from: dissidens [Member]
Neoclassical:
If I understand you correctly, there are no flaws in your thinking.
We are all implicated; we are all affected. Absolutely. No question about it. That is why “cultural matters” are so important.
And we can escape these associations to varying (and in my opinion, unsatisfying) degrees. Even if we went to church with headphones and listened to Bernard of Clairvaux while everyone else sings Crosby, that doesn’t really change anything. If we write ourselves a new hymnal, that changes very little. If you had the St. Paul Chamber Orchestra on the Fourth Baptist platform, the change would be superficial.
We are shaped by what we hear. The dastardly deed is done, and it has been done for decades and at many levels. If there were no consequences for our apostasy, if we could fix it by herculean effort we could try. But that’s not how culture works.
That is why I am pessimistic, that is why people are indisposed to consider the point for very long.
One thing I do hope for is a generation that sees this, begins to get some sense of the gravity of the consequences of our ideas, and resolves to stop the process. The next time some yahoo zealot comes along promising us the moon fenced in, let us hope he is ushered to the parking lot and given a few dollars for gas.
Some change is necessary, even the Amish change. But you can be wise. You can know why your parents did what they did and retain the “wisdom in the old ways” and not just toss them over in a fit of enthusiasm as evangelicals did.
I’m not “mostly concerned for our proximity”, I’m mostly concerned for our insensibility. If we are unmindful of what happened, we will be unprepared for what will happen. Soon people will tire of what they are being given (and they will tire quickly because it is so bad, so unsatisfying). What remedies will be offered? What is the next step down? What will the next gimmick deprive us of?
If I understand you correctly, there are no flaws in your thinking.
We are all implicated; we are all affected. Absolutely. No question about it. That is why “cultural matters” are so important.
And we can escape these associations to varying (and in my opinion, unsatisfying) degrees. Even if we went to church with headphones and listened to Bernard of Clairvaux while everyone else sings Crosby, that doesn’t really change anything. If we write ourselves a new hymnal, that changes very little. If you had the St. Paul Chamber Orchestra on the Fourth Baptist platform, the change would be superficial.
We are shaped by what we hear. The dastardly deed is done, and it has been done for decades and at many levels. If there were no consequences for our apostasy, if we could fix it by herculean effort we could try. But that’s not how culture works.
That is why I am pessimistic, that is why people are indisposed to consider the point for very long.
One thing I do hope for is a generation that sees this, begins to get some sense of the gravity of the consequences of our ideas, and resolves to stop the process. The next time some yahoo zealot comes along promising us the moon fenced in, let us hope he is ushered to the parking lot and given a few dollars for gas.
Some change is necessary, even the Amish change. But you can be wise. You can know why your parents did what they did and retain the “wisdom in the old ways” and not just toss them over in a fit of enthusiasm as evangelicals did.
I’m not “mostly concerned for our proximity”, I’m mostly concerned for our insensibility. If we are unmindful of what happened, we will be unprepared for what will happen. Soon people will tire of what they are being given (and they will tire quickly because it is so bad, so unsatisfying). What remedies will be offered? What is the next step down? What will the next gimmick deprive us of?
Permalink
08/17/05 @ 13:03 52 Comment from: dissidens [Member]
Yah, that's pretty scary alright, cap.
Permalink
08/17/05 @ 13:17 53 Comment from: Pilgrim [Visitor]
dissidens,
Just trying to see if I understand where you're going here. What exactly do you believe to be the "yahoo zealot" promising the moon to which your interactive readership is most susceptible?
If this seems to be a dumb question, just chalk it up to the fact that I have benefited neither from a CBTS education nor 4BC membership.
Just trying to see if I understand where you're going here. What exactly do you believe to be the "yahoo zealot" promising the moon to which your interactive readership is most susceptible?
If this seems to be a dumb question, just chalk it up to the fact that I have benefited neither from a CBTS education nor 4BC membership.
Permalink
08/17/05 @ 15:12 54 Comment from: Neoclassical [Visitor]
Dissidens,
I understand what you are saying about the crisis of our situation, perhaps too well.
Now I want to make sure I understand your main point about fundamentalist leadership, such as Bauder or Makujina. You don't seem to care very much whether they personally ascribe to WCTS music. Are you condemning their positive outlook on Christianity in that they are offering solutions, and thereby showing that they do not take the depraved state of Christianity seriously?
[Incidentally, the thought about sneaking headphones into church recently occurred to me, particularly on Lord's Supper days.]
I understand what you are saying about the crisis of our situation, perhaps too well.
Now I want to make sure I understand your main point about fundamentalist leadership, such as Bauder or Makujina. You don't seem to care very much whether they personally ascribe to WCTS music. Are you condemning their positive outlook on Christianity in that they are offering solutions, and thereby showing that they do not take the depraved state of Christianity seriously?
[Incidentally, the thought about sneaking headphones into church recently occurred to me, particularly on Lord's Supper days.]
Permalink
08/17/05 @ 16:11 55 Comment from: DGus [Visitor]
Neo: The thought that "Lord's Supper days" are exceptional is too bad, and the thought that on those days the church is at its worst is very sad. Not all orthodox Christians have this experience. Find a conservative Episcopal parish (or a "continuing Anglican" parish) and worship there. They need you, and it sounds like you need them.
I can't really tell what context or universe this discussion is taking place in. The presumption seems to be that one either attends a Baptist or Bible Church--all of which are said to be irredeemably horrible--or attends nowhere else. Does everyone here subscribe to a notion of "separation" that consigns all liturgical churches to outer darkness?
I can't really tell what context or universe this discussion is taking place in. The presumption seems to be that one either attends a Baptist or Bible Church--all of which are said to be irredeemably horrible--or attends nowhere else. Does everyone here subscribe to a notion of "separation" that consigns all liturgical churches to outer darkness?
Permalink
08/17/05 @ 16:52 56 Comment from: Neoclassical [Visitor]
You're right...it is very sad.
Permalink
08/17/05 @ 18:11 57 Comment from: todd mitchell [Member] · http://withtearsoppressed.blogspot.com/
· http://withtearsoppressed.blogspot.com/
I think I understand your position now.
I ask this because someday I'll probably be in the same boat. I imagine just about any church out there that might call me to pastor will be in dire need of leadership in this area. If I accept the call I'll have to meet them wherever they are and lead them with meekness. This process takes time, therefore, there will be a period of time during which I could be accused of perpetuating the error. Often have I imagined the agony of enduring bad worship on my watch, and when I do, I begin to empathize with another fellow we both know.
Should we even accept such calls? If we do, do we demand immediate change? Again, my tone is not argumentative. Plaintive, perhaps.
It may not be fair to say these entertainment forms are the choice of these two men. Perhaps they are.If they are trying to change the content of WCTS (whether this be a futile effort or not) with gentle but firm leadership, are they still "responsible for its perpetuation?"
I'm saying that these entertainment forms were, and are, the choice of a large slice of American Xy. and are employed as remedies to the sort of liturgy they decry.
I do know that they are responsible for its perpetuation. I do know it can only deform the religious impulse.
I ask this because someday I'll probably be in the same boat. I imagine just about any church out there that might call me to pastor will be in dire need of leadership in this area. If I accept the call I'll have to meet them wherever they are and lead them with meekness. This process takes time, therefore, there will be a period of time during which I could be accused of perpetuating the error. Often have I imagined the agony of enduring bad worship on my watch, and when I do, I begin to empathize with another fellow we both know.
Should we even accept such calls? If we do, do we demand immediate change? Again, my tone is not argumentative. Plaintive, perhaps.
Permalink
08/17/05 @ 18:14 58 Comment from: dissidens [Member]
Pilgrim:
It’s not a silly question, it’s just an unanswerable one.
I have no idea who our next zealot will be or what will make him attractive to the professing church. We have an Enemy who will use any occasion he finds. I think a solid doctrine is our first defense. Mere statements of faith don’t cut it: we should have learned this by now.
It’s not a silly question, it’s just an unanswerable one.
I have no idea who our next zealot will be or what will make him attractive to the professing church. We have an Enemy who will use any occasion he finds. I think a solid doctrine is our first defense. Mere statements of faith don’t cut it: we should have learned this by now.
Permalink
08/17/05 @ 20:07 59 Comment from: dissidens [Member]
Neoclassical:
I’m not too concerned about what the individuals do. Those individuals are usually moved only by the press of the mob. They will do what what the crowd allows.
This situation we are in is like taking a plastic fork away from a baby and giving it a chef’s knife. If people like Kaplan are at all right; if pop worship does in fact “provide us with an illusion of achievement while in fact we remain passive”; if pop worship is in fact sentimental; if pop worship in any way contributes to narcissism and increases our “concern with self”; if pop worship is in any sense “a tissue of falsehoods”, then it is not worship.
What have we gained if we smugly rejected CCM and now luxuriate in passivity, sentimentality, narcissism, and falsehood?
So yes, I am concerned that wrong answers are more dangerous if for no other reason than they make us confident that we are not the bad ones, we rooted out the CCM, we’re the good guys. I do not care for the notion of designer idolatries.
I’m not too concerned about what the individuals do. Those individuals are usually moved only by the press of the mob. They will do what what the crowd allows.
This situation we are in is like taking a plastic fork away from a baby and giving it a chef’s knife. If people like Kaplan are at all right; if pop worship does in fact “provide us with an illusion of achievement while in fact we remain passive”; if pop worship is in fact sentimental; if pop worship in any way contributes to narcissism and increases our “concern with self”; if pop worship is in any sense “a tissue of falsehoods”, then it is not worship.
What have we gained if we smugly rejected CCM and now luxuriate in passivity, sentimentality, narcissism, and falsehood?
So yes, I am concerned that wrong answers are more dangerous if for no other reason than they make us confident that we are not the bad ones, we rooted out the CCM, we’re the good guys. I do not care for the notion of designer idolatries.
Permalink
08/17/05 @ 20:22 60 Comment from: dissidens [Member]
Todd:
Well, I am not concerned about them, they will answer for themselves. All I know is that if there were a Golden Calf on our Communion Table and I was told that there was gentle but firm leadership “trying to change” things, I would not be going quietly.
Of course, whether or not the drivel in our religious services is equivalent to a Golden Calf is the question. That is what each of you must decide for yourself and your ministries. I would only ask myself some questions for conscience’s sake:
What group of people started WCTS? (and of course I speak of the whole leviathan, not just one radio station) what group of people is perpetuating it? how long have these institutions been taking money for their “ministries”? are these people putting themselves forward as authorities? guides? leaders?
Is the product they sell consistent with the advertising? Check out their mission statement. How much time do they need to stop? Do they need more money? Do they need someone to show them where the plug goes into the wall?
Well, I am not concerned about them, they will answer for themselves. All I know is that if there were a Golden Calf on our Communion Table and I was told that there was gentle but firm leadership “trying to change” things, I would not be going quietly.
Of course, whether or not the drivel in our religious services is equivalent to a Golden Calf is the question. That is what each of you must decide for yourself and your ministries. I would only ask myself some questions for conscience’s sake:
What group of people started WCTS? (and of course I speak of the whole leviathan, not just one radio station) what group of people is perpetuating it? how long have these institutions been taking money for their “ministries”? are these people putting themselves forward as authorities? guides? leaders?
Is the product they sell consistent with the advertising? Check out their mission statement. How much time do they need to stop? Do they need more money? Do they need someone to show them where the plug goes into the wall?
Permalink
08/17/05 @ 20:38 61 Comment from: todd mitchell [Member] · http://withtearsoppressed.blogspot.com/
· http://withtearsoppressed.blogspot.com/
I think we've all shared the same opinion about WCTS for years. I actively protect my family from the content on the station, with the exception of Bible reading. The second the Bible reading ends, I hit the switch for the local classical station. More importantly, I try to shape the sensibilities of my family so that they'll hit the switch as fast or faster than I do.
Permalink
08/18/05 @ 07:08 62 Comment from: dissidens [Member]
It’s a disgrace.
They are the people who, as I recall, do not permit neo-evangelicals a slow and firm hand in dealing with CCM.
This is exactly what I mean. There is delusion in the camp.
THIS IS FUNDAMENTALIST CULTURE!
People like us, neoclassical, etc. are sup
They are the people who, as I recall, do not permit neo-evangelicals a slow and firm hand in dealing with CCM.
This is exactly what I mean. There is delusion in the camp.
THIS IS FUNDAMENTALIST CULTURE!
People like us, neoclassical, etc. are sup