To yield like air in matters of musical styles (specifically "praise music")

The topic of "praise music" vs. hymns came up in our Bible study this week. In fact, I was the one that brought it up. We're studying the book of James and were specifically talking about James 3:17 where it mentions not showing partiality and not being hypocritical. Our Bible study book had a great quote on this: 

He "will yield like air in matters of personal feeling or interest," but "will stand like rock in respect of moral principle." -- C. G. Moule

One of the gals in the study piped up, "But now-a-days everyone is expected to be tolerant" as if it were automatically a bad thing. So I replied, "Yes, there are definitely times when tolerance is important." Everyone seemed to look at me like I'd sprouted a third eye and one person asked, "What do you mean? Can you give an example?" I gave a few, but the one I finally landed on was the preference some people have for praise music and the alternate preference that others have for hymns sung with their traditional tunes. 

I was rather taken aback when this led to an immediate response about how bad praise music is (We do sing a fair bit of praise music in our congregation, by the way.) and how it often involves singing the same line over and over again, such as "God is awesome, God is awesome." I said (oh yes, I did), "you mean like when the angels sing 'Holy, Holy, Holy?"

I won't get into the rest of our conversation here. That's just hashing over a rather discordant and painful time. But I would like to take on the topic itself. I did a quick search of R.C. Sproul's thoughts on praise music (since he was referred to by the person who was so against it) and I found an article that wasn't actually written by R.C. but by a guy named Gene Edward Veith. I found a couple of debatable points in his essay, which you can read on the Ligonier website, but I'd like to zero in on one specific paragraph, just in the interests of trying to focus on the topic and not nitpick on the tangential particulars. He said;

The question is not whether or not we should make use of contemporary music in church, but whether we should make use of pop music. By its nature, pop music is catchy, entertaining, and thus “likeable.” It cannot have much content, much less complexity or depth. If it did, it would cease to be pop art. The art of the folk culture, with its traditions and communal experience, has such things, as does the consciously-crafted art of the high culture, with its challenging content.

I'm not sure how all praise music got condensed down into being pop music, or along the lines of pop music, but I'm going to roll with that. I also don't agree that all pop music is catchy and therefore "likeable" but again, I'll slide past that to get to the next two sentences. "It cannot have much content, much less complexity or depth. If it did, it would cease to be pop art." ... Really? Is that true? 

So I ask you, is pop art a veritable wasteland in the realm of art/music? Can you think of any pop music (or perhaps just a contemporary "praise song") that has any depth at all? And how would you evaluate depth anyway? Thoughts?

... because for some people, this is what it's all about.

North Point's iBand

Worship in a Pentecostal Church

This is an "instructional film" for those that don't know how to worship appropriately in a Pentecostal Church. lol! Pretty funny. 

Praise vs. Despair

This is from Isaiah 61. The part I want to ramble on about is in bold, but I'm putting a few verses here in case you're looking for context. 

 ¹ The Spirit of the Sovereign LORD is on me, 
       because the LORD has anointed me 
       to preach good news to the poor. 
       He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, 
       to proclaim freedom for the captives 
       and release from darkness for the prisoners, 

 ² to proclaim the year of the LORD's favor 
       and the day of vengeance of our God, 
       to comfort all who mourn,

 ³ and provide for those who grieve in Zion— 
       to bestow on them a crown of beauty 
       instead of ashes, 
       the oil of gladness 
       instead of mourning, 
       and a garment of praise 
       instead of a spirit of despair. 
       They will be called oaks of righteousness, 
       a planting of the LORD 
       for the display of his splendor.

I am often amazed at the number of Christians who dwell in the land of despair and doom and gloom (especially when it comes to politics, but definitely in other areas as well). You know what, the president or prime minister is not going to be the president or prime minister forever. The war in Afghanistan will not last forever. Gay marriage and abortion, believe it or not, will not be the critical points of concern forever. Presidents come and go. Wars come and go. Issues come and go. 

But we are an eternal people, who should have an eternal perspective, and should stop whining and moaning and griping about things in this world that we already know is "groaning as in the pains of childbirth" because of us and our sin! Duh! The world is a screwed up place. We should know that already. Griping about it is pointless. In fact, it's worse than pointless. It's a "spirit of despair" that shows we really don't get it. We are the people who should see that there is life that encompasses far more than our little sanctimonious selves. We are the ones who should be able to step outside of ourselves and see people as they are. We should be able to love and encourage them where they're at, not because we're good at that sort of thing, but because the one who is good at that sort of thing works through us. We should be the ones who find that which is praiseworthy and praise it!

Can you imagine how the world would be different if Christians were people who were known for being so full of praise for that which is praiseworthy that it was as if that were the very clothes we wore?! 

What do you think of when you hear the word ___ ?

I've been thinking about that word "church" again and I was going to ask you all what you think of when you hear that word, but I hadn't gotten around to writing the post.  Then I read this article by Kathy Escobar called, the difference between “cultivating communities” and “building churches”, in which she asks what people think of when they hear the words "Christian," "Jesus" and "Church". So I thought, what the heck, lets ask about them all.

So if you're interested in the article, don't read it yet.  First, list whatever comes to mind whenever you hear the following words. (I even threw in a few extras for fun.) There's no right or wrong answers. This is a free association type of exercise.
 
1) Christian
2) Evangelical
3) Jesus
4) Church
5) Worship
6) Spiritual
7) Grace

(I threw "grace" in because I watched Jim Wallis on the Daily Show and he used that word. It made me wonder what people thought it meant.)

Majesty

"On Maui, one November, Hugh and I went swimming, and turned to find a gigantic sea turtle coming up between us. As gentle as a cow she was, and with a cow's dopey, almost lovesick expression on her face.  That, to me, was worth the entire trip, worth my entire life, practically.  For to witness majesty, to find yourself literally touched by it--isn't that what we've all been waiting for?" -- David Sedaris, in his article Loggerheads: Sea turtles and me which was included in the January 7th, 2009 edition of The New Yorker.

Liturgy

An old college friend posted this on Facebook and I think it's right on.  Although I think N's (or is it T's?) can feel constricted or constrained by liturgy, when we understand it the way that Jonathan describes it, then it feels much more natural and comforting and important. 

We have little songs for our kids, too.  Nathan has a song and the girls share a song, and though we don't sing them much any more, I make a point of singing them on the kids' birthdays after telling their birthing story (a tradition as I put them to bed on their birthday night). 

Jonathan on Liturgy from Journey Training on Vimeo.

Soul Types: Matching Your Personality and Spiritual Path

http://barefootmeg.multiply.com/reviews/item/31
In the book Soul Types, the authors, Hirsh and Kise, link personality types and preferred methods of pursuing spirituality. Click through on the link above to read Meg's review.

The Sacraments -- From the Shorter Catechism of Craig

The Larger Catechism of Craig was first printed in Edinburgh in 1581.  The General Assembly (that's the ruling Presbyterian body) endorsed it and asked John Craig, the author, to shorten it a bit.  This catechism was then used until the Westminster Catechism became the standard in 1649.  (The Westminster Catechism is still used by most Presbyterian (and Anglican/Episcopalian ?) churches today.)

I thought the bit on the sacraments in Craig's catechism was interesting.  I'm not a huge fan of sacraments, mostly because they seem utterly meaningless to me in the form they're often administered in now-a-days. But I found John Craig's take on them worth a double take.  I wonder if most Presbyterians would agree with him today.  The following is taken from Philip Schaff's book, The Creeds of Christendom. The bolded parts are the bits that intrigued me most. 

Q: What is a Sacrament?

A: A sensible sign and seal of God's favor offered and given to us. 

Q: To what end are the Sacraments given?

A: To nourish our faith in the promise of God.

Q: How can sensible signs do this?

A: They have this office of God, not of themselves.   

Q: How do the Sacraments differ from the Word?

A: They speak to the eye, and the Word to the ear.

Q: Speak they other things than the Word?

A: No, but the same diversely. 

Q: But the word doth teach us sufficiently?

A: Yet the Sacraments with the Word do it more effectually.

Q: What, then, are the Sacraments to the Word?

A: They are sure and authentic seals given by God.

Q: May the Sacraments be without the Word?

A: No, for the Word is their life.

Q: May the Word be fruitful without the Sacraments?

A: Yes, no doubt, but it worketh more plenteously with them. 

Q: What is the cause of that?

A: Because more senses are moved to the comfort of our faith. 

If a Sacrament is a "sensible sign" I wonder what an insensible sign was? 

In the 3rd question, he refers to the Sacraments almost as if they have a life of their own. They're not the ones that have authority, God is.  They're just followers of God's orders.  And later he says the Word is their life.  What an organic and dynamic way of referring to what many make obscenely dull and lifeless!  

I love how in the 6th question his answer begins with "yet."  Today we'd say, "Yeah, but...." It's like a little teeny slap in the face to anyone that wants to diss the Sacraments.  

And in the end, why are Sacraments so important?  Because they take the truth of the Scriptures and make them physical to the rest of our senses.  God made us sensual beings, craving taste, touch, sound, sight and smell.  Our faith should be appealed to throughout all of our senses, not through our intellect alone.  How many Presbyterian churches today would believe as much?  Not many that I know of. (OK, so they're big on music and preaching, but sight, touch, taste or smell?) 

Reformed Worship | Imitating God: Doing Justice as a Condition of Authentic Worship

http://www.reformedworship.org/magazine/article.cfm?article_id=1221&id=68
"Authentic worship" is one of the buzz phrases of the emerging church movement. Tired of churches that seem dead, like the congregants are just going through the motions, people of the emerging culture are looking for something true, for something real, for something authentic. (They often achieve authenticity with props and staging, but I'll go into that in greater detail in my upcoming review of Dan Kimball's book on the Emerging Church.)

So my interest was piqued when, in my study on justice, I came across this article, in a Reformed magazine no less. The author addresses what Biblically authentic worship is. It doesn't have anything to do with incense and stained glass as the Catholics and Emergents might propose, nor does it focus on the congregational reading of creeds or worship taking place in a specific order as many Reformed churches hold. Rather, the only Biblically mandated marker for authentic worship is justice. Yuppers, that's what I said. The J word. And you know what, I think Nicholas might be right on the money on this one.

What follows are the thesis paragraphs from the article:

"Everybody believes that some worship lacks authenticity. Some people believe that the use of set prayers deprives worship of authenticity; the prayers must be prayers that the Spirit leads us to pray spontaneously. Some believe that having an ordained woman lead the service deprives the worship of authenticity. Some believe that the minister’s failure to hold certain theological views deprives it of authenticity. Some believe that worship without “enthusiasm” is deprived of authenticity. And so forth. Perhaps some of these views about the conditions of authenticity are implied by Scripture; none is explicitly taught there.

Scripture does explicitly teach that if worshipers fail to practice justice in their everyday lives, then their worship lacks authenticity. What I mean by worship lacking authenticity is that God finds it offensive."

Woa, Nelly! The man doesn't pull any punches, does he?