I agree with your sentiments here.

Do you suppose, though, that since things have gotten so off track (certainly much further back than most would admit), that a temporary fast from "special music" in the church would help to solve the problem.

That's where I'm coming from at least. As I see it, to try to shove really good choral and instrumental down the throats of people who have no ability to appreciate it is counter-productive.

Why not take a few steps back, as you propose, eliminate all but simply accompanied congregation hymns, and begin to reteach believers what it is to worship in spirit and truth?

And by "aesthetic," by the way, I think Masters means that people NEED musical sensations to feel like they're worshiping.

I could not possibly disagree more. And the more I think about it the more strenuously I disagree, so much so that I had to stop thinking about it for a little bit so as not to pop an eyeball.

Things have gotten off track not because we were worshipping badly. This scandal is evidence that we were not worshiping at all. Fundagelicals successfully substituted entertainment for worship and they don’t yet know it! They have allowed themselves to mistake religious amusements for worship. The confusion persists in spite of good intentions and attempts at reform. So they now misdirect their resentment: they think that becoming more militant, more insistent, and by laying down rigid and misguided rules they will fix something.

They won’t, and they might as well stop trying. You cannot repristinate a worship that is, in fact, amusement. And you certainly won’t fix anything by attributing the fault to aesthetics.

Worship requires skill; more skill than fundagelicals ever dreamt of. It is easy to entertain. It’s especially easy to entertain religious people; talk about an easy crowd.

Why not take a few steps back? I’ll tell you why.

First, we were commanded to do this thing. We were commanded to apprehend our God aesthetically. We were told to offer our praise with skill and intensity. That’s in the Bible. We were commanded to do it in such a way that it would be shared with and understood by brethren. We were commanded to offer this praise in view of the nations so they might know our God.

It’s why we were made and it’s why we were redeemed.

Second, no one will ever acquire the necessary skills by not doing it. And there is no better way to teach people how to do something than by showing them. I’m flabbergasted by a movement that continues to support the Pettits and Herbsters and Soundfroth and WCTS, and then withdraws “special music”!

Some people need to stop trying to micromanage this obscenity and get on with it. I’m all for stopping the abuse we now have. I cannot be for stopping either “special music” or a serious consideration of aesthetics in the act of worship.

And you’re quite mistaken about Masters. Read the entire piece I linked to. He is contrasting aesthetics and worship; he is calling aesthetics a deviation from worship. He pits aesthetic worship against “spirit and truth”.

“‘In spirit’ makes worship a product of heart and soul. Aesthetic worship, by contrast, is the idea that things that are beautiful, artistic or skilfully executed should be offered up as an expression of worship to God.”

I think it's a tell-tale sign that our worship is so debased (and, indeed, turned to entertainment) that what we do in church is good material for unsaved people or others to mock [for example, see this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7_dZTrjw9I].

I recently attended a Presbyterian church with a traditional service (and I mean with Bach and Mozart for special music and good hymns for the congregation), and I can't imagine anyone finding anything to mock there. The natural response (because of the building, the service, and the music) is just awe.

As much as I appreciate what Masters is attempting to do in getting worship away from the Finneyesque new measures, I believe that he is wrong here as well. And I don't exactly get where he goes off the track. I'd like to talk to him about it. I don't think, Dissidens, that he is some kind of fundamentalist like American fundamentalism and has been influenced by it. I think he has a whole separate influence. I don't think he is in the same branch of the woods as American fundamentalism, in other words.

As I try to figure him out, he seems to contradict himself. I don't think that makes the whole book to be devalued and dismissed. Many would like to do that, so they could go back to worse. On the one hand, he says lets model ourselves after the psalms and the other hand he says we shouldn't try to be too skillful.

I'm sure my eyeballs aren't threatened to pop out as much as yours, but that at least gives me a bit of acid reflux. God deserves great praise. He is great. To be great it must be skillful. Skillful is a start toward becoming great. Skillful is objective. And that is TRUTH. This is what scripture says, which is truth.

Dissidens, I got the sense that you disagreed with me. :)

I'm listening. I'm really wrestling through this particular issue. A couple points:

1. It's not the same people who approve of the Pettits, et al who are the ones removing special music. I think I can safely say that if someone approves of the Pettits, etc, they like special music and they'd be lost without it.

It is those of us who are tired of what fundamentalists have been doing lately (or ever) that are toying with the idea.

2. If I were to plant a church, I believe that it would be easier for me to teach my congregation to worship, at least initially, without any performed music. (a) because Bach is so foreign to unbelieving Americans, (b) because Bach is so unfamiliar to fundagelical Americans, and (c) because I'd refuse to do typical fundamentalist stuff. My goal might be Bach some day, but how can I start there? How can I give someone Milton when they haven't yet learned to read?

Having said that, I absolutely recognize your points about (1) developing the skills and (2) magnifying God through aesthetics. I made the latter point very strongly in my masters thesis and later my book.

I'm really wrestling through the practical, real life applications of this in a local church setting, however.

Real life example. In the ministry I served in for 5 years, we had special music. Choir, chamber orchestra, vocal solos and ensembles, instrumental solos and ensemble. I was very firm; we only did good stuff. Bach, Tallis, Vaughan Williams, good hymn arrangements, etc. We did not do fluff. We only sang rich hymns. And the whole time I had to fight. I think the people learned to appreciate the good, but now that I'm gone, I have no confidence that it will stay that way for long.

In the church in which I now serve, we rarely have any special music. We'll assemble a choir for Christmas and Easter, a soloist will perform every now and then. We just have hymns sung accompanied by piano and organ along with some children who play stringed instruments. It's all good. The service is reverent and thoughtful. The hymns are rich (they'd better be since I pick them!). And there are no battles.

Although I perhaps miss some of the aesthetics of my former ministry, I actually feel like I can truly worship in these services, because there are no battles. Not to mention the fact that in the old ministry we had more rehearsals than times to worship, and I never once had the opportunity to worship with my family because I was always doing something (as were the other musicians). Now I can actually bring my 2 year old son into the service and teach him to worship. I can stand next to my wife and sing for the first time since our marriage!

It's so refreshing.

So tell me, in which situation was the worship more beneficial to the worship and more glorifying to God?

Further... :)

Can a small church with no choir or great organ or instrumentalists worship as well as a large church with such benefits?

Great. As if God is not aesthetically pleasing. As if He is known only by His Ugliness.

Neo:

Exactly so.

God is not trite, God is not hokey, God is not campy, God is not drippy, God is not maudlin, God is not kitschy, God is not hip, God is not schmaltzy, God is not artificial, God is not sentimental, God is not cute, God is not kool, God is not edgy, God is not soppy….

But who would know that?! Certainly nobody who goes to church.

God is the most terrible, the most wonderful, the most beautiful being, and you would die of terror and wonder and longing if you looked at him. But if you want to get intimations of that terror, wonder or beauty, don’t go to church.

It disgusts.

----------Bach then, Bach now, and (I do believe) Bach forever.----------

People, people, people . . .

Please click on the link to Peter Masters' article provided by Dissidens, but make sure you click onto the "next" at the bottom of that page. Read the second page of his article, but the zinger will come when you click on "next" again and read what Peter Masters writes about Martin Luther and how Luther utilized music from compositions used in the Catholic Church of the day--Masters writes favorably of Luther's work with music. After three pages you will have a Peter Masters that you may not agree with, but you will understand him better than the cherry-picked caricature on Remonstrans today. For a web hangout committed to the use of intellect in Christianity, this is just embarrassing. Comparing the Reformed Peter Masters to that Sweatt guy? Whether you hate or love his view, it becomes clear that Masters is defending his view of Reformed worship and says his view agrees with the most of the "Reformed" reformers. It is not hard to figure out that Sweatt and Masters would not be buddies in anyway. Metropolitan Tabernacle is about the most "un"-fundevangelical place I can think of.

There is a Western academic tradition that has fallen on hard times--when you explain your opponents' views, you attempt to describe them in their best light not their worst light, and then you go on explain areas of disagreement and why your opponent is wrong. I know the saying, "Physician heal thyself." I am in danger of not heeding my own advice. Please click on more pages from Masters' article. I will think the best: may be Dissidens meant to include those links as well.

"----------Bach then, Bach now, and (I do believe) Bach forever.----------"

We will think the best. Perhaps hyperbole? If not, that is kind of scary (1 Cor. 4:6).

rbg:

I do indeed wish our readers to consider the whole. I did not say that Masters was wrong on every point; I will say now that I do not disagree with him at every point.

The remarks Masters does make fit in with a general theme of the last three posts. I am no more contemptuous of Masters' sensibilities than I am of Piper's.

The purpose of this whole discussion is to point out that well-meaning but rash responses to this problem will help nothing.

It is still my opinion that there is no context, here or anywhere, that excuses what Masters most clearly did say.

regulative:

Oh, dear.

Poor old Charles Grandison Finney again.

Look, regulative, go back to Westwood, N.J., find Finney’s grave and pour crankcase oil on it. Pour crankcase oil on his mother’s grave if you can find it. Get this out of your system.

A week from next Sunday Finney will have been dead for 134 years. While it is true we all live in the shadow of great men of the past, I would seriously like to know why he especially excites your contempt.

I don’t ask this as a fan of CGF. I don’t like Finney either. At all.

But the sacrilege we now live with, what we are discussing here, is not all his fault. So tell me what you understand to be Finney’s intention with his new measures.

@rbg - I did, in fact, read the whole thing before responding. Maybe Masters should have read the whole thing before posting, since then it wouldn't have said what you say he didn't mean to say.

The Sweatt reference was particularly apt, since Masters clearly argues that aesthetic appeal and skillfulness are opposes to "spirit and truth": to paraphrase the confused romantic poet "truth is ugly, ugly truth". Sweatt, likewise, has startled me more than once by arguing that any interpretation of scripture which is too thoughtful or intelligent is to be met with suspicion. The simpler the better.

Dissidens,

I purposefully wrote "Finneyesque" to distinguish it from actual Finney and to describe the kind of thing that Masters seems to oppose. It was a play on words more than anything to refer to more recent new measures. Finney's might be called old measures at this point. I'm with what you describe as his level of responsibility. I didn't want Masters washed out with the bath water. Besides that, I was agreeing with you on your evaluation.

Josh,

Again arguing against aesthetics in worship is not the same as being suspicious of utilizing the intelligent. It does not follow. Love it or hate it, the Reformed tradition has a long tradition of using polemics against the Roman Catholic Church and its worship practices, often with good reason (see Calvin and the Puritans). Not even Calvin avoided slanting the evidence when training polemics on those he opposed. The Reformed tradition also has a long tradition of being suspicious of what is not specifically commanded by the New Testament for ordering church worship. While this is not entirely a consistent position, for they still pick and choose what they want to use from the OT for the church, you see Reformed regulation of worship in the very plain meeting house replica at Plimouth Plantation. One hundred years or so later, you see churches in New England with better prepared lumber but these are still plain structures inside and out in terms of decor.

Sorry to insert a long quote from Masters, but it is not hard to imagine any old-time Reformed advocate writing or preaching the same thing, only the old-time guys would be more over-the-top in their use of polemics. Spurgeon would have certainly been harsher aided by his rich vocabulary. Masters wrote:

“This is of immense importance, because the aesthetic idea of worship is totally opposed to the Saviour’s standards, and is the very essence of medieval Catholicism. The Church of Rome, with all her masses, images, processions, soaring naves, stained glass windows, costly and colourful robes, rich music, Gregorian chants, and complex proceedings, makes an offering of worship by these things. All her theatricalism is an act of worship believed to be pleasing to God. The spiritual giants of the Reformation turned back to the Bible, unitedly embracing the principle that true worship is intelligent (and scriptural) words, whether said, thought or sung, winged by faith to the ear of the Lord. It is true that little bits of Roman ‘theatre’ remained in the episcopal churches, but generally speaking the rites, ceremonies, images and everything else that represented a virtuous offering were swept away.”

The old-time Reformed view of worship has some arguments that are compelling, and we cannot brush it aside as if they did not have some points to consider. Masters is arguing for the the "almost" old-time Reformed view of worship. An Anglican-crypto-catholic takeover of U.K. free churches is highly unlikely today, but Masters is drawing up the 21st battle lines to the generations old "low church" versus "high church" debate. It is such a different context than ours here in America, and I would say that my experience with UK evangelical believers and pastors (mostly from low churches) bears out that they embrace the intellect to much greater degree than American evangelical churches and believers. Masters to Sweatt? No comparison.

I had the pleasure of hearing Masters speak may be fifteen years ago. While I will not rate it up there with hearing John MacArthur, Masters' sermon was far superior to some of the silliness I have heard from pulpits on this side of the pond. U.K. preachers are certainly more adept at preaching the OT than their American counterparts.

Disagree with Masters if you want (the Psalms themselves expose the strict Reformed view forbidding musical instruments in church services), but comparing Masters to Sweatt seems like polemical flourish. I understand where Dissidens is coming from after his explanation in comment # 13 though I would not have highlighted Masters as an example of rash thinking especially with the likes we see over here. May we be careful in our evaluations of the weighty matters of our day.

Scott:

There are at least two nice things about “real life examples”. First, we all have them, and they furnish us with experiences which by and large confirm our prejudices. Whatever it is we experience actually helps form our thinking so that later, when we are called upon to justify our beliefs, we have a ready set of proofs.

The second nice thing is that it is hard for people who haven’t experienced those events to make any cogent or useful judgment as to the validity of the conclusions someone else draws from them.

There are some who call these real life examples “anecdotal”. These people annoy me because as a rule they want me to dismiss what I know to have actually happened and accept in its place a report of something else that statistically might have happened.

As I say, very annoying.

But it is also true of anecdotes that even if two people had had the same experiences, it doesn’t follow that they would draw the same conclusions. Even my brother and I draw different conclusions about the parenting skills of Mom and Dad.

So you’ll appreciate that I really can’t tell you which of your two experiences was the more beneficial. Even if we were there together at the same time, I would not look for the same confirmations and validations you would. All I could do is speculate wildly about why you come to the conclusions you do. While this is a lot of fun to do, I tend not to do it in broad daylight.

Just because you found the experiences of one church “refreshing”, doesn’t mean the worship there was beneficial or scriptural. The refreshing one might have been an abysmal failure you happened to enjoy because you can have your son next to you and you can sing with your wife here whereas you couldn’t there. The fact that you “feel” you can worship better because there are no battles strikes me as an amusing non sequitur, first because feelings are dubious (to me) and second, there may be no battles because there is a consensus in favor of defective worship.

I’d prefer to make the judgment on firmer grounds. And this gets us to the larger point of the recent posts.

I do realize, actually, that the individuals who enjoy Steve Pettit’s shows aren’t the individuals who are calling for fewer of them. This secret has not been successfully kept from me. Unfortunately, I was not talking about individuals; I was talking about a movement. And I still say that it is flabbergasting that the movement that produced the sentiments you profess also produced the sentiments of all those Steve Pettit and Shelly Hamilton groupies. This comes from your culture. It is fascinating that you are all pursuing “Christ-honoring music” and “conservative worship”. I know what Bauder says and I know what WCTS broadcasts. I know what Horn says and I hear what AbidingRadio plays. I know what fundamentalists say about good hymns and I also see the hymns listed in the index.

The same is true of Masters’ prejudice about how aesthetics relates to "spirit and truth". My interest is not in who is right or wrong, my interest is how any resolution of the problem is possible when no one is making any sense. The idea of acceptable worship was at one time determined by those with a knowledge of aesthetics and a high opinion of beauty and skill.

That is what I take to be our present hurdle: people who use the same words to mean different things. This is what I meant from the beginning about the futility of self-reformation; which is exactly what we have across the whole spectrum from you to Soundfroth. Fundamentalism cannot show us a terrible, wonderful, beautiful God because it doesn’t have a terrible, wonderful, beautiful God. I know it is painful for them to hear it and it is gauche for me to say it out loud, but it’s true.

Everyone knows American liturgy is in the terlette. Everyone is blaming everyone else. Some are still blaming Finney. I’d like for someone to start making sense.

I can’t really respond to your second point because, a) Bach is actually more appealing to unbelievers than he is to believers, b) I don’t see what “unfamiliarity” has to do with it: unfamiliarity might be used to good advantage in respect to freshness, c) the issue is not a refusal to use “fundamentalist stuff”, it’s an issue of refusing to use “defective stuff”.

The size of the church, the presence of an organ, the existence of a choir and ensemble has nothing to do with the competence of the worshiper. When we go to church we should see a terrible, wonderful, beautiful God. As it happens, the best repertoire for that sort of worship tends to be scored for organs, choirs and ensembles, but if we lack competent organists, singers or instrumentalists, it seems to me that advantage has already been conceded.

So to sum up: I coupled your sentiments with Masters’ because withholding the best from worshipers and demonizing aesthetic considerations are not going to get anyone to a worthwhile place. For me this is not a question of what uniforms you all are wearing. Clearly I think CCM is garbage. My point is that Piper is on to something important but will never get where he wants to be, Masters, commendable as his sentiment may be, will never get where he wants to be by disparaging aesthetics, and you will never cram a terrible, wonderful, beautiful God into your liturgies.

We will still have to go to the concert hall for that, and when that happens we will not have real liturgies at all, just better perceptions of God.

I think this issue is worth contending over.

Wow! and I missed all this fun because I was on a rather aesthetically pleasing camping trip.

Bummer, dude!

By the way, I should reiterate that I do not think for a moment that it is wrong to have well-performed worship music in a service. Far from it! Neither am I disparaging my former ministry at all (I realized that it could have come across that way!). I love that ministry and was the one behind it's worship/music philosophy.

My comments weren't really about having performed music or about particular ministries or their philosophies as they were comments about the state of our times and what might be best at this time in our culture.

Having said that, I do understand what you're saying, dissidens. As I mentioned, this is something I'm still thinking through right now.

You're right, of course, about the personal example.

I guess I'm not convinced that we cannot communicate a terrible, wonderful, beautiful God without a choir, organ, orchestra, etc.

But I'm willing to be convinced.

I think you misapprehended my point…or maybe I could have been clearer.

I’m saying there was a time when a terrible, wonderful, beautiful God was at least intimated by an organ, a choir, and an orchestra. In fact it still happens at some level, just not in a church and not as a liturgy. People tend not to worship in Carnegie Hall.

But there was a time when form met function.

It does not now happen at church either with an organ, a choir and an orchestra, nor does it happen with an electric piano, drums and a small group of bobbing and squinting worship leaders slobbering onto a mic.

The point is that worship might happen with a shawm, a sackbut, a rebec and a lyre, if we had competent worshipers.

We do not.

My point is that we are looking for the wrong explanations. We are hoping that the remedies we apply will work, and we are kidding ourselves.

Ah.

So it's hopeless.

Well, I think I understand you a bit better now, but I'm optimistic enough to have some hope.

Call it youthful ignorance.

Is that the only thing I can call it?

@rgb - No question that Sweatt and Masters are worlds apart in the sense that you describe. Both of them have last names that begin in different letters, which also makes them not comparable. But both of them argued for a simpleton litmus test -- Masters essentially saying that, "praise can be made right if only it is ugly enough"; and Sweatt saying, "theology can be true only if it is stupid enough". On *that* point, the comparison is apt.

Speaking of litmus tests and Catholics, I had a very strange experience the other day. A fundie was explaining to me about some prohibition that he believed in, and I agreed with him that it was a wise prohibition, saying "even the early Catholic nuns and monks held this prohibition, for the very reasons you describe." I mean, if the very first Christians agreed with him, that's a compliment, right?

Apparently, he didn't see it that way. He blew up, sputtering, "How DARE you call me a pharisee-like Catholic scum!" Really, it made my head spin. People need to let go of the litmus tests.

Dissidens,

I was surprised by your response to Scott's suggestion to fast from special music in worship. I thought the idea had some merit when you brought it up here:

Almost Persuaded

It still seems worth consideration to me, to remove those elements that are not in this list you provided in the linked thread:

I would argue that for anyone who makes the teaching of the NT and the practice of the early church his guide, he has a certain essential liturgy:

corporate prayer
corporate singing
public scripture reading
exposition of scripture
breaking of bread

I'm not sure how Scott's suggestion differed from yours.

You have me at a bit of a disadvantage: I don’t recall the flow of that conversation so I’m not sure if the portion you cite had some thought behind it that I’ve since forgotten. My sense is that I was responding to a particular point [DeBarr’s comment #1] rather than making a blanket statement.

I say this because higher in that same comment column I did say:

Yep; as I say, I would not want to be pressed to defend the view that special music has no place, but until we get our appetites out of the gutter and begin distinguishing worship from entertainment, it might be a show of good faith.

Comment #6 also provides some context.

I don’t think this is a good or desirable thing. I see no Biblical justification for it and I see no compelling historical precedent for it. It’s true some churches did take a rather severe attitude toward the problem, but I don’t think they succeeded. I merely go so far as to say it “might be a show of good faith”. I included in the list what I called “essential liturgy”. If 20 of us were meeting in a house or a barn where it was not practical, I would still expect the five things I listed, and forego the special music.

But that's not out of hostility toward special music.

Another factor in the 2006 discussion was a perception voiced that special music lacked the congregational participation that corporate singing retained.

But as for what has a desirable place in the Christian imagination, I would most certainly include what we call special music. I really don’t see how we can preserve the historic faith by eviscerating the historic faith, if you follow me. This “special music” was not our invention; it goes back to the OT, so I make no apology for its utility.

There is another minor distinction to be made. Dispensing with special music might be more attractive if it were being compared to a vital congregation singing. That is no longer the case. It seems to me that, today, corporate singing is so desultory that whatever reasons justified dropping special music as inadequate would require that we drop congregational singing for being equally inadequate.

[I had to search for that thread to refresh my memory. I just had this nagging feeling that we had discussed this before.]

I'm not sure whether you mean "Comment #6" in this thread or in the "Almost Persuaded" thread.

I agree with your view of special music being biblical, and that congregational singing has become as debased. And I recognise that your statement that kicked of the "Almost Persuaded" thread was that you were almost persuaded we should drop special music, yet your OP there seemed similar to Scott's suggestion here in Comment #1, though I see now your reasons were different.

The show must go on.

The Almost Persuaded thread; hungry soul’s comment.

I share the distaste for the show tunes and the glory-seeking we now get. I just think to over-react will only satisfy our preferences; it won’t actually fix anything.

As we see repeatedly in the history of the church: we rarely restore the status quo ante. We are changed by the conflict, and in this case I fear we may over-compensate.

“Special music” is not the problem if we are just bad special musicians. We should fix the problem, not deprive people of an occasion to do right.

I think I understand your view better now, so I'm glad I asked.

I've been of the opinion for some time that the purpose for replacing the hymnal with screen and projector is to make church more like watching a movie. There's no doubt in my mind that entertainment is the primary objective.

The very least those projected images do is deprive us of a hymnal. This might seem pretty inconsequential until we think about it. It would not have seemed inconsequential to those people who, if they had two books, would have had a Bible and a hymnal. I don’t think it is insignificant that our imaginative lives have changed in this way.

But it’s more important than that. Scruton, in discussing leisure, cult and culture, discusses our replacing the life of imagination with recreation. “Recreation, in this sense, means maintaining mental vacancy…”

I think this is worth reflecting on. It does not surprise me that John Frame thinks Watts and Wesley are too “sophisticated”. No literate person of their age would have considered them sophisticated.

This is where I think Piper was right on the money. These images we need to sustain mental vacancy are a distraction. We should not be surprised that a preacher would find them intrusive and disagreeable.

Forgive me for being too simplistic here, but there seems to be an elephant in the room that no one is seeing. Worship is a declaration of one's understanding of the Divine. This declaration is informed by two things: 1) my understanding of the Divine, and 2) my ability to declare. Assuming that one's understanding of the Divine is the motivation behind one's declaration, does it not follow that the declaration will be consistent with the understanding? If art allows us to "express the inexpressible" and "go beyond words," then the more mature my understanding of the Divine becomes, the more inadequate "milky" means of declaration become. Even God went beyond words when the Word became flesh. In a similar way, art allows expression that words do not. (Except in the case of metaphor - it's through metaphor that words become art.)
It seems we are treating the symptoms rather than the cause. A Biblical understanding of God, coupled with a depth of experience that comes from walking through a bit of life-experience/faith building fire are the perfect ingredients for Biblical worship. To impose Biblical worship on people who don't have that Biblical understanding and/or fellowship experience is, by default, compromised. It's somewhat like taking a NASCAR fan to a cricket game and expecting them to sincerely engage in the experience. It's just not for them.
So, until we succeed in bringing to maturity those who attend church worship services, we have the choice of changing the game to match the understanding or changing the understanding to match the game. So, what is Biblical worship, anyway?

Forgive me for saying so, but I think you are being too simplistic, and it is simplistic understandings that are not serving us well right now.

First, worship is far more than my understanding of the divine. Worship is the expression of love, admiration and wonder at the inexplicable. So I think, no, I certainly hope my declaration is not consistent with my understanding. The psalmist is declaring far more than his understanding allows.

I also think your views of language are too whimsical for me. Art allows us to express ourselves with infinite variety and nuance. To “express the inexpressible” sounds like a Hallmark sentiment that doesn’t justify the best explanations I’ve read about how real art works.

“To impose Biblical worship on people who don't have that Biblical understanding and/or fellowship experience is, by default, compromised.”

This sounds suspiciously like something else I read recently. I do not even understand these words “impose Biblical worship”. Are the Psalmists imposing something on us? I think simpletons use that phrase as a ploy, a way of suggesting that proper worship is an act of aggression which your better Christian would know better than to commit.

We don’t wait till our children learn about nutrition before we give them healthy food. This makes no sense to me. If their view of God is defective, it is in part because they’ve been poorly taught.

If we think that proper worship occurs naturally to the naïve and the profane, this would explain an awful lot of contemporary Christianity.

It is now easy to understand the doctrine of the law—viz. that God, as our Creator, is entitled to be regarded by us as a Father and Master, and should, accordingly, receive from us fear, love, reverence, and glory; nay, that we are not our own, to follow whatever course passion dictates, but are bound to obey him implicitly, and to acquiesce entirely in his good pleasure. Again, the Law teaches, that justice and rectitude are a delight, injustice an abomination to him, and, therefore, as we would not with impious ingratitude revolt from our Maker, our whole life must be spent in the cultivation of righteousness. For if we manifest becoming reverence only when we prefer his will to our own, it follows, that the only legitimate service to him is the practice of justice, purity, and holiness. Nor can we plead as an excuse, that we want the power, and, like debtors, whose means are exhausted, are unable to pay. We cannot be permitted to measure the glory of God by our ability; whatever we may be, he ever remains like himself, the friend of righteousness, the enemy of unrighteousness, and whatever his demands from us may be, as he can only require what is right, we are necessarily under a natural obligation to obey. Our inability to do so is our own fault. If lust, in which sin has its dominion, so enthralls us, that we are not free to obey our Father, there is no ground for pleading necessity as a defense, since this evil necessity is within, and must be imputed to ourselves.
John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion II.8.2

It really does come down to bad theology.

But, how can I express what I don't understand? I can recite mathematical proofs about which I have no clue regarding their meaning or application, but this has no consequence other than the recitation. Is this type of lack-of-understanding recitation worship? It seems like this would be vain uttering. How can my declaration be anything but consistent with my understanding - if it is to be sincere? Again, I can read Russian phonetically, but it doesn't accomplish anything unless I know what I'm reading. Without my understanding, the sounds are useless.
My views of language are taken from views of how art functions in the larger context (Langer, Hauseman, Black, and others). To express the inexpressible is a common phrase used in the literature to simply affirm aspects of the human condition/experience that cannot be "expressed" in words. Clearly, words are inadequate as a means to express the whole of the human experience (let alone the Divine). Phrases such as "You had to be there," "Words cannot express my gratitude," "Words fail at times like these," simply affirm the old saying that art begins where words end. If we are to use art to worship a creative God, then there must be some guidelines on what compositional techniques are most consistent with the Character we are worshipping.

My use of "impose Biblical worship" simply describes the situation here Biblical worship is used without regard to the ability of those present to relate to that type of worship experience. May we agree that the average church goer would not recognize Biblical corporate worship if they ever had a chance to be present during such? Yes, the Psalmists are imposing Biblical worship on us. The purpose of the Scripture is to instruct and impose. It's our job to figure out what it is and be able to relate to it so we can sincerely (Spirit and Truth) utilize how God has instructed us to worship.
No, we don't wait until our children learn about nutrition before we give them healthy food. But, in addition to giving them healthy food when they need it, we teach them about healthy food so when they don't have us choosing their food, they will still choose healthy food. My point is simply this, if there is a misunderstanding regarding Biblical worship, it is because people have not been taught. Where is this teaching in our current "church" culture?
My plea is to identify what Biblical worship is and teach it to those who are called to participate in it. Until then, as those charged with leading worship, we are responsible to present Biblical worship experiences regardless of whether or not anyone in attendance "gets it." The absolute is found in Scripture, not in the contemporaneous climate of the average congregation.

Tom:

I think we need to remind ourselves of the context. I certainly do not disparage understanding. Without understanding we have no worship. Understanding is essential.

But I was responding to your statement: “Worship is a declaration of one's understanding of the Divine”. Worship requires a certain amount of understanding, and it often includes assertions of our understanding, but it involves a whole lot more than understanding.

We began this series of posts by objecting to Master’s denigration of aesthetics. I believe that notion disparages understanding. Scruton’s contribution to our thinking is that when we consider beauty we do more than apprehend content, we set up a frame of reference. We infer some truth about our existence. We do more than enjoy a beautiful song, view a sublime landscape or admire a beautiful girl; we actually derive meaning. Of those two things, I think the latter is more important.

It is important in life; it is important in religious experience.

Let me put it this way. Picture a kid who does nothing more than listen to pop music and watch television. It is not just that he has missed beautiful things, it is that he lacks something important. Kitsch does not offer what art does. He watches, oh, I don’t know what show—say Petticoat Junction or its current equivalent. All he gets out of that is enjoyment.

When I listen to a Schubert Impromptu or look at a Bosch painting, I also get enjoyment. But I get more than enjoyment, I derive meaning.

So to return to your question, my problem is that in adjusting a liturgy to this kid who only seeks enjoyment we participate in the disordering of the “emotions and desires” that Scruton speaks of. It appears at a superficial level that we are accommodating his needs when in fact we are crippling his perceptions. We are “pushing him into a sentimental abyss”.

It is all well and good, as you say, to “teach people to participate in worship”. I don’t disagree with that. What I am saying is there is more to be done. There is more to worshiping than subjective preferences and transient pleasures.

In point of fact, the easiest way to help someone over mere preferences and pleasures is not to tell him anything. Don’t order someone to drink some water, lead him to the spring.

That will not be an imposition.

Dissidens:
Yes – the notion of aesthetics presents a challenge to folks who have not been taught how to approach art aesthetically – as percipients of how the elements of the work interact to achieve the whole. To suggest that our worship goes beyond our understanding walks far too close to mysticism. I have visions of smoke wafting up from a fire as compensation for what I cannot understand. Yes, God is more than I can understand. But, I am called to articulate my understanding, as finite as that may be, through the most accurate means. I do this (implicitly?) in my daily actions by exhibiting the fruit of the Spirit through the power of the Spirit. We do this corporately by explicitly declaring the worth and work of God. Because God is more complex than any combination or number of words can adequately describe, we turn to art in an effort to“go beyond words” and achieve a more complete declaration. (Again, I point to the fact that God found words inadequate and so the Word became flesh.) It is here where the crux of the problem is found. Without an understanding of how art means, people are left to personal preference in their use of art. Teaching people about art’s syntax – how it means – would go a long way to helping them make Biblical decisions about appropriateness/consistency. Recent music education classrooms at all levels have not helped us in this regard. I cannot tell you what art means. If I could, I wouldn’t need the art. What I can tell you is how art means. When you say “We infer some truth about our existence . . . we derive meaning,” you are referring to the non-verbal aspect of art’s communicative value. Leonard Meyer did the groundwork on this concept. My point is that we understand far more than what we can verbalize. Hence, the need to “get” art.
Does the milk/meat concept apply to worship? As a young Christian, my worship is immature. My prayers are immature. My understanding is immature. Perhaps my Christian experience is more emotional at the outset. But, through discipleship and fellowship, my understanding matures. Emotions are replaced with more and more truth. My understanding has more depth, more consistency, more intensity. Given this developmental reality so clearly taught in scripture, one would expect a worship maturation that parallels spiritual maturation. So, what does immature worship look like? What does mature worship look like? What are typical immature worship vehicles? What are typical mature worship vehicles? How do worship vehicles change with my maturing understanding? At what point in my spiritual maturation do sentimental choruses and hymns just not cut it anymore? At what point does my frustration reach a level where I seek a more mature ability to express my understanding? When people produce immature worship, they either have an immature understanding, or they are unable to express their mature understanding. Assuming the later is the situation, I urge more emphasis on equipping believers with the tools that are required to parallel a more mature understanding. Because music is the primary art used in worship, the local church has a huge music education responsibility. Clarifying what that responsibility is, creating resources, training teachers, etc., is a large need. But I digress . . .