banner

Honey, Have You Seen My Bathymetric Device?

01/11/09

Permalink 08:33:12 pm, by dissidens Email , 778 words, 1500 views   English (US)
Categories: Old Main

Honey, Have You Seen My Bathymetric Device?

How might we know a low view of worship when we see one?

I am tempted to reply by saying that if we were to cram ourselves together in a deep-sea submersible—such as the ALVIN, thoughtfully depicted below—and descend until the glass in the portholes cracks, we will be roughly at our present level of worship. It wouldn't be a scientific measurement, but we would be ballparking it.

Worship Measuring Equipment

Others will disagree, of course. Some, like the president of Soundfroth perhaps, will argue that his gang is shipping some very high quality merchandise this year.

Days later, when I stopped laughing, I might pull out some compositions by JSB, Mendelssohn, Dvorák, Rachmaninoff, or Pärt and ask if his editorial standards committee could detect any discrepancies between their work and that of  JSB, Mendelssohn, Dvorák, Rachmaninoff, or Pärt. I'm quite sure I will get the answer I have always gotten and we would get into a long-and-heated about the fact that these men were not high-ranking separatists, or that none of these men wore an eye-patch or travelled with Steve Pettit long enough for them to assure us that these gentlemen "checked". They would probably put red dots on all the sheetmusic of JSB, Mendelssohn, Dvorák, Rachmaninoff, or Pärt.

So rather than rummage through all those flea-market opinions again, I will suggest a different answer. Let's not compare the bad to the good (as this presents all sorts of difficulties for uncritical minds), let's instead observe the effects of their work.

Go to church. Take with you a printout of the paragraph below. Try to finagle a seat on the platform. If that's not possible, try the balcony. Then watch the people. Watch them when they sing. Watch them when the offering is taken. Watch them when they read Scripture to themselves. Watch them when they pray. Now compare what you see with Tozer's description of worship:

"A humbling but delightful sense of admiring awe and astonished wonder." It is delightful to worship God, but it is also a humbling thing; and the man who has not been humbled in the presence of God will never be a worshiper of God at all. He may be a church member who keeps the rules and obeys the discipline, and who tithes and goes to conference, but he'll never be a worshiper unless he is deeply humbled. "A humbling but delightful sense of admiring awe." There is an awesomeness about God which is missing in our day altogether; there's little sense of admiring awe in the Church of Christ these days.

As I said before, the hearts of the people are turned to all manner of wretchedness and profanity so that what is offered as worship is in fact self-indulgence. Self-indulgence is the exact opposite of worship: we have it precisely backwards. We do not care about God or the perfection he demands of us, we care about us and what we prefer, what we can "relate to," and "what it means to us".

I shouldn't have to belabor this point: we have had numerous people, some of them evangelicals, some of them fundamentalists (who, by the way, think the sun rises and sets on their separation and their "Christ-honoring music"), say explicitly this. And there is no arguing with these people. They will quibble with any standard of goodness or beauty you can find in the Bodleian and the Library of Congress both.

They have written book after book about what is wrong with the music they keenly dislike, so we know the concept of "inadequate" or "defective" worship exists in their minds. But they have no objective way of telling us what that is. And when they try, they tell us about plants growing slower or cows giving less milk when they listen to rock music.

Or flashbacks. Rock can give you flashbacks.

So I will suggest that until we are prepared to speak intelligently about the good and the beautiful, we should ask ourselves why those people in our churches give no evidence of awe and admiration.

I think that could be a practical place to start.

I must offer a caveat, though: this is not the right thing to do. In fact I think it is a stupid thing to do; it's like telling someone to re-invent the wheel. But until one is prepared to take the advice of wheelwrights, I suppose this is the only alternative.

Maybe we will have to start with large round rocks and jam tree trunks in the middle.

Trackback address for this post:

This is a captcha-picture. It is used to prevent mass-access by robots.

Please enter the characters from the image above. (case insensitive)

Comments, Trackbacks, Pingbacks:

1 Comment from: de profundis [Visitor] Email
So rather than rummage through all those flea-market opinions again, I will suggest a different answer. Let's not compare the bad to the good (as this presents all sorts of difficulties for uncritical minds), let's instead observe the effects of their work.


"For, since we are all naturally prone to hypocrisy, any empty semblance of righteousness is quite enough to satisfy us instead of righteousness itself. And since nothing appears within us or around us that is not tainted with very great impurity, so long as we keep our mind within the confines of human pollution, anything which is in some small degree less defiled delights us as if it were most pure just as an eye, to which nothing but black had been previously presented, deems an object of a whitish, or even of a brownish hue, to be perfectly white. Nay, the bodily sense may furnish a still stronger illustration of the extent to which we are deluded in estimating the powers of the mind. If, at mid-day, we either look down to the ground, or on the surrounding objects which lie open to our view, we think ourselves endued with a very strong and piercing eyesight; but when we look up to the sun, and gaze at it unveiled, the sight which did excellently well for the earth is instantly so dazzled and confounded by the refulgence, as to oblige us to confess that our acuteness in discerning terrestrial objects is mere dimness when applied to the sun. Thus too, it happens in estimating our spiritual qualities. So long as we do not look beyond the earth, we are quite pleased with our own righteousness, wisdom, and virtue; we address ourselves in the most flattering terms, and seem only less than demigods. But should we once begin to raise our thoughts to God, and reflect what kind of Being he is, and how absolute the perfection of that righteousness, and wisdom, and virtue, to which, as a standard, we are bound to be conformed, what formerly delighted us by its false show of righteousness will become polluted with the greatest iniquity; what strangely imposed upon us under the name of wisdom will disgust by its extreme folly; and what presented the appearance of virtuous energy will be condemned as the most miserable impotence. So far are those qualities in us, which seem most perfect, from corresponding to the divine purity."
John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, I.1.2
PermalinkPermalink 01/12/09 @ 06:56

Reply to comment 5851 by de profundis

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 Comment from: dissidens [Member] Email

Calvin sure did have a way of leaving the house with one bullet and coming back with one rabbit.

PermalinkPermalink 01/12/09 @ 07:24

Reply to comment 5852 by dissidens

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 Comment from: regulative [Visitor] Email
I don't see anything here with which I disagree. I didn't begin to recognize what you are saying until ten or so years ago with a confluence of influences, including an in depth exegesis of the psalms, interaction with Bach, a study on holiness, a firmer understanding that our worship should be regulated by Scripture, and reading men like Mortimer Adler. I've had to get past piles of background also. When I started reading you, I was boggled to see something mirroring what God was doing in my own heart.

I understand your anger, but I think you need to let go of some of it and write with more objectivity and with less venom. Your enemies may be ruining worship but I don't think they have some grand plan to do so. Maybe you have evidence that they're doing it out of more than ignorance. Maybe they are blinded by ego.

Even though I agree with you and I do think that I'm doing something about it where I'm at, you have helped me with my thinking. I want to be able to challenge what you are writing, if I think it deserves it. I hope you do not think that you are above that.

Even though I agree with what you have written above, I don't think it answers the question. I wanted to hear the traits, the qualities of low worship. It might be motivated by self-indulgence, but how do you hear that in the music? I believe Bach is superior to Sankey, but why? Is this something that we can quantify with language? Obviously you think that Soundforth is froth, but how and why? Has BJU ever been on track? The evangelicals seem to be worse than the fundamentalists and yet you seem to let them off easy.

"Great is the LORD and greatly to be praised."
PermalinkPermalink 01/13/09 @ 13:23

Reply to comment 5865 by regulative

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4 Comment from: dissidens [Member] Email

regulative:

Do you consider yourself a fundamentalist?

PermalinkPermalink 01/13/09 @ 14:44

Reply to comment 5866 by dissidens

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 Comment from: regulative [Visitor] Email
No, but I have sympathies with them as the group that David Wells describes in No Place for Truth (pp. 128-130). When this comes across as being more personal than principle, it loses credibility, like you have an axe to grind.
PermalinkPermalink 01/13/09 @ 18:12

Reply to comment 5867 by regulative

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6 Comment from: MAS [Member] Email
I've given this a lot of thought since I began reading this blog. It seems that the hardest obstacle to get over has been the fact that having bad taste in art and music is not a sin per se. Attacking a movement or a whole nation of Christians for failing to appreciate beauty in music and art looks like a case of picking the speck out of a brother's eye with the plank of snobbery sticking out of our own.

Considering, however, that most have not even made attempt to solve the problem, have not even conceived of the idea that their worship is plainly a sham and a mirror of their own self-centered and God-demeaning souls - to wit, that they haven't an ounce of repentance toward God for the farce that our best worship represents without Christ as our intercessor - I have seen that this deficiency is sin indeed, or at the least sin's footprint. I won't take issue with a recovering coke addict who professes Christ and is now defeating his dependence and learning to fulfill Scriptural commands concerning his family: but I will take great issue with a man that professes Christ whilst dealing the stuff on the corner next to his church. The one is likely a healthy Christian, the other a case for church discipline.

All of which, in a round-about way, leads us to the real problem in fundagelicalism and professing Christianity at large, of which the blindness to the good and the beautiful is but a symptom: namely, that they suppose being "born again" to be a deeply spiritual experience with no repercussions in the rest of their lives and culture. The reason we see so little of other graces such as the love of goodness and beauty is not really a matter of taste, but of heart. The ignorance of God (and of the goodness and beauty which in Him are founded) at the worship service is a symptom of the almost entire ignorance of God in every other aspect of life. Practical atheists, I have heard one man call them.

Whose great need is not exactly for better art, but for regeneration. Appreciation of goodness and beauty being more or less a matter of common grace, it is subordinate to the need for saving grace - not that we cannot sin in the matter, but my main message to any unregenerate person (or regenerate, for that matter) is of repentance and faith, not behavior change. "Seek first His kingdom, and all these things shall be added."

Now that you've trudged through that, I have a question: if the intentional estrangement from proper art in our churches is a sin indeed, then does it follow that pointing out this deficiency is a form of preaching Law? For if it is, then the very first solution will be to repent and confess to Him who is faithful and just to forgive our sins.
PermalinkPermalink 01/13/09 @ 18:15

Reply to comment 5868 by MAS

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7 Comment from: dissidens [Member] Email

Thanks for the tip, regulative.


PermalinkPermalink 01/13/09 @ 20:32

Reply to comment 5869 by dissidens

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8 Comment from: dissidens [Member] Email
MAS:

It seems to me that this was never a question of “estrangement from proper art”; it was a rejection of the good, true and beautiful in the belief that this was more “spiritual”. Even at the shallow end of the pool it was a flagrant abandonment of scripture and church practice. Not art.

I don’t see how speaking against this rejection is “preaching the Law”. Perhaps I’m not following you. (It’s late.)

And I should repeat what I said several times earlier. [Not necessarily pertinent to what you said, but as long as we are talking about repentance...] Repentance will fix nothing. Repentance, though obligatory, will not be a remedy. We are beyond remedy. Now it is a matter of thinking about how we are to minister amongst philistines.

PermalinkPermalink 01/13/09 @ 21:13

Reply to comment 5870 by dissidens

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9 Comment from: MAS [Member] Email
You're right, it is more than estrangement from proper art; first, it's not just ignorance
of art in general that's the problem but rather of the art and history of the church, and
second, it is as I said an intentional estrangement and ignorance of the good, true,
and beautiful, and, as you said, this rejection is considered more spiritual.

What I mean by "preaching Law" is generally preaching what God requires of us: covenant of
works, as it were. So that if this rejection is a sin, then speaking against it is an
occasion of declaring where the sinner has erred and failed to meet God's requirement, which
is the work of the Law. Something like, "You shall make no graven image" and, "You shall not
take the name of the LORD your God in vain". Better yet, how about "You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength? So I wanted to know if making a display of the banality of fundagelicalism's worship is really one kind of preaching Law (a mirror, a curb, and a guide, if I remember right), primarily as a mirror in this case to get at the root issue in those churches.

And, finally, what I mean by bringing up repentance is that this is indeed a much deeper
problem, a spiritual problem. The fundamentalists and their stepchildren have more issues
than the rejection of goodness and church practice in their worship of God; this is a large
branch, but it is not the root. I'm of the opinion that most of them are not even
Christians, that the whole tree is bad and needs cutting down. Teaching Philistines to keep
the Sabbath and eat kosher will not make them righteous, and neither will teaching them to appreciate the Psalms. We need to go further: the low view of worship is connected with a low view of God, an ignorance of all areas of church history save when they find some useful tidbit, and a silly and impious belief that "saved by grace" means, "free to be licentious". They need to repent of lots of things and I am afraid they aren't repenting of anything.

It is proper that even Bach should have repented of the evil in his heart and the failure to worship God as he ought; and the fact that most are neither repenting of their filthy-rag worship nor aiming at anything better is what really gets me. Repentance is not the end-all solution to a low view of worship any more than the end-all solution to atheism. Repentance is only the necessary first step, with catechesis to follow afterwards. Only when we have realised our wrongness can we set about turning it right.
PermalinkPermalink 01/14/09 @ 07:07

Reply to comment 5871 by MAS

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10 Comment from: MAS [Member] Email
yuck, I dunno what happened to the formatting there.
PermalinkPermalink 01/14/09 @ 07:08

Reply to comment 5872 by MAS

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11 Comment from: dissidens [Member] Email
I took out a few hard carriage returns. Lemme know if I damaged anything.
PermalinkPermalink 01/14/09 @ 07:19

Reply to comment 5873 by dissidens

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12 Comment from: dissidens [Member] Email

MAS:

Ok, that’s fair. I just don’t know you personally or how to weight your theological terms; I wasn’t sure I was reading you right.

As for your first paragraph, Yes, it certainly was intentional. They would never say this, of course, because to hear them tell it, they have a great understanding of and love for art. They have a high opinion of themselves, their art galleries, their opera, their frou-frou ladies luncheons, their gospelsong concerti, their Shakespearian Actors, and their great love for Oscar Wilde in particular. Among their number are some notable renaissance men.

I heered ‘em say so oncet.

So to call them rubes among men provokes some disbelief. But after the confetti goes down your collar and the sound of blow-ticklers dies out, we really have a bunch of people clutching Majesty Hymns and worshiping to the sound of banjo and bass washtub.

In this respect they are identical to neo-evangelicals who quote a lot of C.S. Lewis and they even have The Wardrobe, but they themselves have produced nothing like a Tolkien, Sayers, Barfield…. In other words, where it matters very little they gots thatthurr culcher stuff; where it is essential they have nothing. Rubbish in clay pots.

I say all that to return to your idea of repentance. I agree with you that repentance is essential, but repentance of what?

What rubes?! Where? We don't see any rubes.

My main point is this, even if we were to have genuine repentance we will not get back what they threw in the dumpster. That stuff went straight to the landfill and is now under a housing development and a strip mall.

See, I do have personal experience here (contrary to what regulative supposes). Their stuff is so bad, even they can see that they lose by comparison to traditional, historic Christianity. So what they do is latch on to some piece of jargon, co-opt it, make another incomprehensible chart, and recycle their triumphal saintliness.

(I would be interested to know—just out of curiosity and unrelated to what you’ve said—if a single church has ever shelved the Majesty Hymns and replaced it with a traditional, non-vanity hymnal.)

PermalinkPermalink 01/14/09 @ 08:49

Reply to comment 5874 by dissidens

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13 Comment from: lilrabbi [Visitor] Email
"Vanity Hymns"

Has a nice ring to it!
PermalinkPermalink 01/14/09 @ 09:21

Reply to comment 5875 by lilrabbi

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14 Comment from: Curious George [Member] Email
(I would be interested to know—just out of curiosity and unrelated to what you’ve said—if a single church has ever shelved the Majesty Hymns and replaced it with a traditional, non-vanity hymnal.)


I know a church that replaced the Majesty hymnal with the most recent Baptist Hymnal. Does that count?
PermalinkPermalink 01/14/09 @ 10:30

Reply to comment 5876 by Curious George

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15 Comment from: dissidens [Member] Email

Sure.

Do you happen to know the reasons for the change?
PermalinkPermalink 01/14/09 @ 10:42

Reply to comment 5877 by dissidens

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16 Comment from: Curious George [Member] Email
The main purpose was to get a hymnal that had more of the traditional hymns along with some of the newer ones by people like Townend and Getty.

There were also a few people who had been encouraging a move away from the Majesty hymnal.
PermalinkPermalink 01/14/09 @ 11:39

Reply to comment 5878 by Curious George

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17 Comment from: regulative [Visitor] Email
Dissidens,

You have writing talent and have worked to develop it. We should turn toward God in awe and thanksgiving from your labor. What do you think?
PermalinkPermalink 01/14/09 @ 13:42

Reply to comment 5879 by regulative

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
18 Comment from: dissidens [Member] Email

I think you should turn toward God and give thanks for everything he gives you, even when you don’t like it.

As for me, nothing I’ve written here is all that profound. It’s really very basic.

What I’ve said is important because it is about worship and worship is what we are about—implausible as that may sound to those who observe it. Clearly it motivates me way beyond the point you think is proper, but strangely enough I have been able to remain calm.

Go figure, hunh?
PermalinkPermalink 01/14/09 @ 14:16

Reply to comment 5880 by dissidens

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
19 Comment from: regulative [Visitor] Email
"What I’ve said is important because it is about worship and worship is what we are about—implausible as that may sound to those who observe it. Clearly it motivates me way beyond the point you think is proper, but strangely enough I have been able to remain calm."

I can barely understand what you've written here---ironic in light of my statement about your talent for writing.

First, just because you have written about worship doesn't make what you have written to be important. I can't imagine you think that.

Second, to understand the second half of the first sentence of the quote, I'd have to know what "it" is. Is "it" what you've said or is "it" the point you are making about men being created for worship?

Third, in the second sentence I can't tell what is supposed to be clear. Is it clear that you are motivated by worship? Or is it clear that I think you are motivated beyond what is proper? I don't think it is clear that you are motivated by worship, so it is "no" to the second question too. Worship that reflects the nature of God, that centers on God, would be written about in a way that reflects the nature of God. Some times your writing does. Many times it doesn't. Many times we're getting straight dissidens flesh. This is clear. Your carnal weaponry is clear.

Fourth, strangely you've been able to remain calm despite what? Despite your motivation for worship? Despite your thinking that I believe your motivation for worship is improper? Should we applaud your calmness? I can see how that for you calmness might be something we should all applaud, because it is actually strange. Temperance. Fruit of the Spirit. Strange for you. Of course, we should applaud God for your calmness, even though you seem to want the credit for it. It seems strange to applaud someone for calmness who professes how important he thinks worship is. It's also sort of like cheering the pyromaniac for not striking the match.
PermalinkPermalink 01/14/09 @ 15:12

Reply to comment 5881 by regulative

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20 Comment from: WLJ [Visitor] Email · http://www.cogitavi.wordpress.com
I wish we could shelve our Majesty Hymnal, but at least my husband now selects the hymns and we have gone through it together and listed the titles of the ones that are proper for a worship service (we also use our ccli license and introduce some that are not in the hymnal). We highlighted over fifty, but think about it - there are over four hundred in that hymnal! One of these days we will be able to afford new hymnals. What would the readers on Remonstrans recommend when we do?
PermalinkPermalink 01/14/09 @ 15:17

Reply to comment 5882 by WLJ

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
21 Comment from: dissidens [Member] Email

regulative:

I'm always afraid the pyromaniac will lose his nerve.
PermalinkPermalink 01/14/09 @ 15:46

Reply to comment 5883 by dissidens

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
22 Comment from: dissidens [Member] Email
WLJ:

What kind of help does ccli.com give you?
PermalinkPermalink 01/14/09 @ 16:18

Reply to comment 5884 by dissidens

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
23 Comment from: de profundis [Visitor] Email
WLJ,

The Trinity Hymnal. Supplemented with The Trinity Psalter.
PermalinkPermalink 01/14/09 @ 18:31

Reply to comment 5885 by de profundis

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
24 Comment from: WLJ [Visitor] Email · http://www.cogitavi.wordpress.com
dissidens,
With a ccli license, you can make as many copies of a song as you need too, to insert in a bulletin or whatnot. That is for songs that are not in the public domain. Many good songs are, fortunately, already in the public domain, and therefore can be printed right off the internet, with no need to worry about copyrighting.

de profundis,
That's a good recommendation. I have sung from it a few times at other services.
PermalinkPermalink 01/15/09 @ 05:23

Reply to comment 5886 by WLJ

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
25 Comment from: dissidens [Member] Email

Well, I understood that much. I mean the dot-com part.

Can you download ppt-ready hymns of every type. Sheetmusic as opposed to just words. Might it be possible to have a ppt hymnal?
PermalinkPermalink 01/15/09 @ 06:10

Reply to comment 5887 by dissidens

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
26 Comment from: WLJ [Visitor] Email · http://www.cogitavi.wordpress.com
Yes, you can print off sheet music for pretty much every hymn and you can even transpose it into any key, right there on the site and then print it off.

Not a bad idea about making our own hymnal.
PermalinkPermalink 01/15/09 @ 11:30

Reply to comment 5888 by WLJ

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
27 Comment from: MAS [Member] Email
I agree with de profundis, Trinity Hymnal is excellent. I took my Grandmother to an OPC church, and if it hadn't been improper in the worship service, I would have giggled with glee when I saw the compilers actually fixed lines that were badly written/theologically inaccurate. And I can't imagine their Psalter is any different.
PermalinkPermalink 01/16/09 @ 02:21

Reply to comment 5889 by MAS

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Leave a comment:

Your email address will not be displayed on this site.
Your URL will be displayed.

Allowed XHTML tags: <p, ul, ol, li, dl, dt, dd, address, blockquote, ins, del, span, bdo, br, em, strong, dfn, code, samp, kdb, var, cite, abbr, acronym, q, sub, sup, tt, i, b, big, small, a>
(Line breaks become <br />)
(Set cookies for name, email and url)
(Allow users to contact you through a message form (your email will NOT be displayed.))
This is a captcha-picture. It is used to prevent mass-access by robots.

Please enter the characters from the image above. (case insensitive)

Remonstrans

July 2010
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
 << <   > >>
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31

Archives

Search

Categories

XML Feeds

What is RSS?

Who's Online?

  • Guest Users: 46

powered by
b2evolution