Exodus 32 records a marvelous story of the people of God who longed to have a closer, more relevant relationship with God. So they begged their leadership to switch from the old style of worship and incorporate the modern styles. They asked to have a more "real" God, something applicable and tangible rather than theoretical or doctrinal. And the leadership complied. "You pay for it and we'll do it." So they gathered the means, declared a feast to the LORD, dispensed with the traditional old stuff, and engaged in contemporary worship. And everyone loved it.
Well, not everyone. God's opinion was something like "I have seen this people, and behold, it is a stiff-necked people. Now therefore let Me alone, that My wrath may burn hot against them and I may consume them." Not exactly "happy talk". And Moses had the Levites kill 3,000 people. Not a congratulatory response. But, hey, the people liked it.
Much of American church scene has also appropriated this approach. "Let's make worship more relevant. Let's take up the entertainment and music styles of the day, eliminate all that traditional singing and old-fashioned preaching, and make it more user-friendly." We're quite sure that, because we're not pulling golden calves out of a hat, we're okay. I'm not so sure.
Take, for instance, the rock music that has been so quickly incorporated into worship. Rock is not associated with sex and drugs for no reason. The style of music has its roots in teenage angst and continues to feed youthful rebellion. It is designed to be angry music. And there may actually be a place for anger. Jesus certainly showed it in the Temple. But I don't see how "anger" and "worship" fit together. The music is designed to encourage desires, and I don't understand where we get the idea that this is a good thing in a worship service. I'm not saying that rock music is bad. I'm saying that it doesn't seem to be appropriate for worship.
That's just one example. Many churches have deliberately set out to compete with our current worldview of entertainment as god. We need to be as entertaining as they are if we are going to get them in on Sunday morning. Really? Jesus preached repentance because judgment was at hand. That's not ... entertaining. Paul promised that the Gospel would be a bitter pill to swallow. We're trying to sugar-coat it, but that doesn't make it more palatable. It's like hearing the pastor say, "Repent, sinners, for the day of judgment is at hand. Now, let's all join hands, sing a chorus of 'Pour Some Sugar On Me', and close in prayer." Now, my mother won't get the "Pour Some Sugar On Me" reference, never having heard Def Leppard, and she's better off for it, but you get the idea. It makes no sense (especially when you look at the lyrics of the song, which I do not recommend), but it is the same sort of thing we're trying to do when we make the world the standard for worship.
Look, we aren't called to redeem the culture. We aren't called to make worship "relevant". We aren't asked to "spice things up" in church. Frankly, it's not about us. Worship is about God. Declaring what we do as worship -- "a feast to the LORD" -- doesn't make it worship. That really ought to be a function of what God wants to hear, and the Israelites learned the hard way that a cavalier approach is not the right approach.
8 comments:
I've pondered this issue myself. One of the first things that pops up for me is that I haven't heard any worship songs in the rock genre that I liked. They seem forced.
But aside from that, there is the issue of tilting toward current culture in order to put butts in the pews that seems quite distasteful. I have a hard time with those who think worship service needs to be "relevant" or entertaining or stimulating TO THEM!! As if God needs them.
Well, certainly God wants all to come to Him, but it seems to me that we're supposed to relate to Him, not the other way around. The use of rock music or other techniques to bribe people to attend can have a place; there is no hard fast rule for worship ritual considering some denominations don't favor music at all. However the Spirit moves a person is fine with me, but the main thing is the worship itself and that the preaching be consistent with traditional and solid Biblical teaching.
Marshall Art: "God wants all to come to Him, but it seems to me that we're supposed to relate to Him, not the other way around."
Exactly! We seem to forget that we are not the point of worship. We are not the audience. Someone once explained to me that, in this particular scenario (worship), the people up front are the prompters (not the performers), the audience is God, and the performers are the congregation. It is we who are supposed to be pleasing to God, not worship that is pleasing to us.
I'm completely agree with:
"Many churches have deliberately set out to compete with our current worldview of entertainment as god. We need to be as entertaining as they are if we are going to get them in on Sunday morning. Really? Jesus preached repentance because judgment was at hand. That's not ... entertaining. Paul promised that the Gospel would be a bitter pill to swallow. We're trying to sugar-coat it, but that doesn't make it more palatable."
and
"Look, we aren't called to redeem the culture. We aren't called to make worship "relevant". We aren't asked to "spice things up" in church. Frankly, it's not about us. Worship is about God. Declaring what we do as worship -- "a feast to the LORD" -- doesn't make it worship. That really ought to be a function of what God wants to hear, and the Israelites learned the hard way that a cavalier approach is not the right approach.
and
"We seem to forget that we are not the point of worship. We are not the audience."
I disagree with you, however, in regards to your statements on contemporary music. First, the definition of contemporary has to do with the here and now, and everyone worships in the here and now, so all worship is contemporary. Whether or not we choose to use contemporary styles is a difficult subject, because at one time, everything was contemporary. What makes the piano and organ inherently better than rock? The organ was from the devil when it first came into use. Now it is suddenly the best way to accompany our singing to the Lord? How far behind the culture are we supposed to be? Should we only be using the worship styles of Adam and Eve? I know that you didn't say some of this directly, but it came across as implied in what was said.
Second, the reason that the Israelites were punished for this was because God had given them commands on how to conduct their "worship" (I don't like using that term because everything we do is to be worship, not just the music on Sunday mornings), and they disobeyed. I believe that the moral law is still in effect (don't murder, don't steal, etc), but the rest of the law doesn't need to be followed (we can now eat all things, don't have to make sacrifices, etc.) because Christ fulfilled the law and God is ultimately concerned with our heart. This is why I agree with those above statements. They reflect a wrong heart attitude.
I consider rock music a meat-offered-to-idols-issue. There is nothing inherently wrong or sinful with a note, rhythm, melody, harmony, etc., but they can be offered up to sinful things. Rock isn't necessarily 'angry,' only if it is offered in anger. Some would argue that rock music is 'powerful,' which certainly is a reflection of God's omnipotence. Now, if I cause a brother to stumble, though, because I listen to so-called Christian Rock, then I sin.
I hope that you can see the delineation I'm drawing. I agree with the quoted statements above 100%. But I don't (necessarily) agree with how the premise was applied to rock music.
I have to agree with Ryan. I was going to raise the same question, that is, that today's classics were yesterday's cutting edge. Also there is the possibility that the worship could be externally picture perfect, and the hearts in the pews be wayward. I guess this is one of the reasons that I have always been suspicious of forced forms and rituals, whether that be the forced or so it sometimes seems)enthusiasm of the charismatic, or the forced (or so it sometimes seems) stoicism of the traditionalist. My thinking is that the right hearts will manifest the correct congregational worship, where as the correct congregational music won't...
First, let me say that I recognize and agree that worship is a full-time thing that encompasses anything we do (or should). I'm talking about styles engaged in church services.
Now I'm going to address this backward ...
Ryan: "I consider rock music a meat-offered-to-idols-issue."
Remember, I specifically said, "I'm not saying that rock music is bad." I went on to say, "I'm saying that it doesn't seem to be appropriate for worship." (Emphasis in the original.)
Ryan: "This is why I agree with those above statements. They reflect a wrong heart attitude."
My "wrong heart attitude" is that worship provided to God should be aimed at God, not the listener. My heart attitude is that we should perform the worship that God prescribes, not worship aimed at making us feel good. I'm not entirely sure which part of that you consider wrong. (Don't read "hurt" or "you're wrong" or any such thing. I just didn't understand what the "wrong heart attitude" was.)
Ryan: "The reason that the Israelites were punished for this was because God had given them commands on how to conduct their 'worship'."
I'm not entirely sure I agree with the statement, but I'm interested in the idea that God doesn't care at all about how we conduct our worship.
Ryan: "I disagree with you, however, in regards to your statements on contemporary music."
First, I don't find any statements on "contemporary music". I made a comment that they "engaged in contemporary worship", and that is what they did. They incorporated Egypt's styles into their worship. Second, "contemporary" in this context is not simply "the here and now". The definition of "contemporary music" is "music that is being written in present day". And I'm pretty sure you understood that by "contemporary" in the context I used it I didn't mean "here and now", but as opposed to traditional.
What do I mean by "traditional"? That, I think, might be a valid question. No, I don't mean "pianos and organs". Referencing "Adam and Eve" wasn't helpful either. But the biblical style of worship was "psalms and hymns and spiritual songs". They were not aimed at promoting an emotional response as most of today's music is. They were aimed at "teaching and admonishing". So what makes "traditional" superior to "contemporary"? There has always been lousy songs. Given. But if you look at the content of older songs compared to the content of the majority (not all, to be sure) of newer, there was depth then where there is now very little. Remember, I'm painting with a broad brush. Obviously some people are writing good stuff today. It's just not the majority.
Nonetheless, none of that was my point. When Aaron pulled the calf out of the pot, he told the people that their god was there. It was a product of Egypt. Egyptian religion liked to portray their scarabs and cats and whatever gods they worshiped on the backs of cattle. Aaron showed a calf ... with nothing. "God," you see he was saying, "is not like other gods." He was making it ... relevant. He was making it modern. My point was not style, but intent. Is the church trying to draw people in? Is it to fill pews? (Oh, yeah ... pews are out.) Is it to cater to seekers? Then it's the wrong intent. Aaron's intent was to please the people. The people's intent was to satisfy themselves. Too many church leaders come at Sunday morning with Aaron's intent, and too many church-goers today come to church with Israel's intent. That was my point.
Dan: "I have always been suspicious of forced forms and rituals."
Would you consider the Old Testament prescription of worship "forced forms and rituals"? (It looked like God thought "forced forms and rituals" was a good start.) (I'm not defending "forced forms and rituals". I'd just be cautious about throwing them out.)
Dan: "My thinking is that the right hearts will manifest the correct congregational worship, where as the correct congregational music won't."
It's interesting to me that both Dan and Ryan took issue with the question of music, while my post said (quite specifically), "That's just one example." The church that substitutes drama for preaching would fall in the category of what I'm talking about. (I've been to churches that did.) The church that minimizes the Word because "people don't want to sit that long" would fall in the category of what I'm talking about. (I've been to churches that did.) I know of a church (in Scottsdale) where the pastor preached a sermon on the Ascension in which he finished with himself rising out of sight (with rigging, billowing clouds, pyrotechnics, the works). Seriously, what's that all about? Another church I know of advertised wrestling to get people in. Seriously? Is that what we're there for??
I'm not talking about rock music. I'm talking about the hearts of pastors that say, "I will do whatever it takes to get people in the door" and hearts of congregants that say, "We wouldn't be hear if you didn't provide us with sufficient entertainment" and the hearts of Christians who say, "Worshiping God is not enough; we want something more relevant." If y'all (there, Danny, just for you) would like to put rock music back into your church service, feel free. I'm at a complete loss to figure out how that style of music (contemporary, traditional, or whatever someone wants to label it) feeds into turning our attention to God's glory, but, as I said, it's not the style; it's the heart.
Stan,
First, I hope you realized, which it doesn't seem like you did, that I was completely agreeing with your intent and overarching idea. I was just disagreeing with your example; that it didn't quite jive with rock music.
Second, I wasn't suggesting you had a wrong heart attitude. I was suggested that the people you were referring to in the quotes (those that try to be entertaining to get butts in the pews, sugarcoat the gospel, etc.) were the ones with a heart in the wrong place. Also, I wasn't trying to be offensive in my bringing Adam and Eve into things. I hope you know me well enough to know that I don't operate like that.
Does this make any more sense? I think that maybe you just misunderstood a lot of what I was saying.
I neither perceived nor took offense. And I appear to have misunderstood some of what you said. Thanks for the clarification.
Post a Comment