Conservative, Boring, etc.?

rapturefish said:

If people were to describe the character of reformed churches, adjectives such as conservative and traditional come to mind from within, and to outsiders, even boring and irrelevant.

Do the reformed churches want this tag and if not, what is it doing to shake such perceptions? What adjectives do they want to be used to describe them?

Click to expand...

The primary function of a church service is worship. As such, Reformed churches are generally more concerned about what worship is pleasing to God than what worship is "exciting and relevant" to people. Reformed churches seek to worship in spirit and in truth. While there are some very large Reformed congregations, you are likely not going to find any with a Starbucks inside.

Do Reformed churches want to be labelled "boring and irrelevant?" No. But they want to be seen as exciting and relevant because the culture has become aware of the proper type of worship, not because the Reformed church has changed to accomodate the culture.

FWIW, I find most Reformed churches extremely relevant and far from boring, but that's largely because my standard does not include "contemporary praise songs" or popular self-help psychology.

amusement: to muse is to think. when you put "a" before it, that means not to think.

We have no need for amusement in our worship of a God who demands that we worship Him with all of our heart, soul, mind and strength. I would rather be in a church that adheres to the will of God as its standard, even though some other church down the street is trying to seek the will of God in ways devised by Man.

The church is founded on a rock, not on shifting sands. If that makes it boring to society, I'll take it!

I echo frumanchu's comments.

The closest reasonably conservative church, a PCA, is 18 miles away and they are into the youth praise band kick, which I don't like at all. (the Reformed Presbyterians are 49 and 52 miles) As a Reformed Presbyterian it goes against my understanding of God's requirements of how we are to worship Him.

It is better to be thought of as old-fashioned, boring, and not up-to-date, than be considered ignorant by God.

It is not necessary to have all the modern trappings of hip, seeker-sensitive embellishments to draw people, God is quite capable of that.

The objective is to please God, not ourselves.

I don't wish to stand before God one day and tell Him that His message seemed outdated so we did our own thing!

Well I am a Bible Presbyterian and we have a bit of a looser standard in the order of worship and praise than some of the other Presbyterian Churches.

We have several worship teams each with a different "style"
We have trios of all women or men or men and women. Some use guitars and incorporate some of the new praise music along with the traditional Hymns.

Some of the groups sing to CDs or with the piano. Some are exclusively hymns.

The one constant is every song must be a praise and worship to God ( and not the oft seen hymns that focus on men) and they must be doctrinally correct .

We also have a choir in one service and we encourage the teens to form worship teams and to bring their instruments.. but those tend to be violins, bass, or horns. No bands, but one or two praising God with their instruments as pleased God in the OT.

I think the center of the reformed church is the preaching of the word. It was the lack of the word that brought about the Reformation, so we lean on it heavily .

The purpose of the church is to build up and equip the saints. So the combination of God directed worship and community prayer and sound scripture taught prepares the saints to go out into the world.. at the end our Pastor prays a benediction over the church ...

I love our Sunday Services.

Well, I'm an old, boring Lutheran, but I agree with everything you've said.....church is a place to be reverant and pensive.....I don't like praise and worship type music.....

But at home it's a different story....I am a secular music fanatic and have tons of CDs and like to go to concerts and rock out.....

Edited to add:......of course, different strokes for different folks.....you do your thing, and I'll do my thing.....

frumanchu said:

The primary function of a church service is worship. As such, Reformed churches are generally more concerned about what worship is pleasing to God than what worship is "exciting and relevant" to people. Reformed churches seek to worship in spirit and in truth. While there are some very large Reformed congregations, you are likely not going to find any with a Starbucks inside.

Do Reformed churches want to be labelled "boring and irrelevant?" No. But they want to be seen as exciting and relevant because the culture has become aware of the proper type of worship, not because the Reformed church has changed to accomodate the culture.

FWIW, I find most Reformed churches extremely relevant and far from boring, but that's largely because my standard does not include "contemporary praise songs" or popular self-help psychology.

Click to expand...

Consider the book Worship by the Book which is edited by D.A. Carson. Just thirty pages in is a great quote. Carson is talking about (obviously) worship and expanding on a rather lengthy definition he provides of the term. I should point out that he is not condemning contemporary worship any more than he is questioning what is right and wrong in traditional worship. What follows is from Carson:

“In an age increasingly suspicious of (linear) thought, there is much more respect for the “feelings” of things – whether a film or a church service. It is disturbingly easy to plot surveys of people, especially young people, drifting from a church of excellent preaching and teaching to one with excellent music because, it is alleged, there is “better worship” there. But we need to think carefully about this matter. Let us restrict ourselves for the moment to corporate worship. Although there are things that can be done to enhance corporate worship, there is a profound sense in which excellent worship cannot be attained merely by pursuing excellent worship. In the same way that, according to Jesus, you cannot find yourself until you lose yourself, so also you cannot find excellent corporate worship until you stop trying to find excellent corporate worship and pursue God himself. Despite the protestations, one sometimes wonders if we are beginning to worship worship rather than worship God. As a brother put it to me, it’s a bit like those who begin by admiring the sunset and soon begin to admire themselves admiring the sunset.

This point is acknowledged in a praise chorus like “Let’s forget about ourselves, and magnify the Lord, and worship him.” The trouble is that after you have sung this repetitious chorus three of four times, you are no farther ahead. The way you forget about yourself is by focusing on God – not by singing about doing it, but by doing it. There are far too choruses and services and sermons that expand our vision of God – his attributes, his works, his character, his words. Some think that corporate worship is good because it is lively where it had been dull. But it may also be shallow where it is lively, leaving people dissatisfied and restless in a few months’ time. Sheep lie down when they are well fed (cf. Psalm 23:2); they are more likely to be restless when they are hungry. “Feed my sheep,” Jesus commanded Peter (John 21); and many sheep are unfed. If you wish to deepen the worship of the people of God, above all deepen their grasp of his ineffable majesty in his person and in all his works.

We do not expect the garage mechanic to expatiate on the wonders of his tools we expect him to fix the car. He must know how to use his tools, but he must not lose sight of the goal. So we dare not focus on the mechanics of corporate worship and lose sight of the goal. We focus on God himself, and thus we become more godly and learn to worship – and collaterally we learn to edify one another, forbear with one another, challenge one another.”

Let us not be found guilty of worshiping worship!

I see where you're coming from better also. I can't seem to find anywhere in the Bible the proclamation to sing with nothing more than the organ. The tune can vary, but the message must remain consistent. The forgiveness of sins is every bit as relevant today as it ever has been.

In being relevent to modern religious tastes, would not a Reformed Church lose relevence with her own faith?

The theologies behind what goes on today in Protestant churches is far removed from historic Protestantism. The modern Protestant practices are either based on liberalism, fundamentalism, or a return to Roman ideas. Little has to do with how a Calvinist aught to veiw worship.

However, I believe many Reformed churches are following after others for the sake of "relevence". It saddens me to see that the service at "Christ Church Reformed" is begining to look alot like "6th Ave. Baptist" or "Freedom Assembly".

The Reformed faith is a historic faith, not only with a lineage back to the Reformation, but back to the Apostles. Remember, the point of the Reformation was not to start a new tradition, but to re-establish the old one. Our undestanding is not just from Luther, Calvin, and the Puritans, but also from the Early Fathers, and all orthodox historic theologians.

It is no strange thing that such an understanding would result in such practices as were, atleast once, the standards of Reformed worship.

But now, choir galleries in the back have given way to stages at the front. The pastor is no longer leading the congregation in worship from the pulpit, but there is a layman with a guitar singing into a microphone.

It is my opinion that these things are not consistant with Reformed theology, but is a compromise to be "relevent" to modern people.

Remember, worship IS NOT evangelism. We do not fix our weekly liturgies to entice people to come.
_______________________________________

On a second point, you said that Reformed worship was not lively.

I was raised in a charismatic church until i was 10, then a Southern Baptist church. Three years ago, I became a convinced of Reformed theology as the most in line with true Apostolic tradition.

Upon visiting a Charismatic church, and any Baptist church, which is not Reformed, I am greived by what I see as chaos, or a bland social get-together. It is not what I would call "alive".

On the other hand, any historic Calvinst liturgy of which I have read, or experienced seems filled with life. The flow of the service, the order of the service, the way everything has a purpose make the whole thing lively to me.

As to music selection, I am truely not against modern music, so long that it is written in a style that is appropriate for divine service. We should worship our Lord in fear of His Righteousness, love of His beauty, acknowledgment of His holiness (seperation from all things other than Himself) and in hope of His mercy.

Suart Townsend's (?Townend?) hymns seem to do very well in lyrics and music. There's also the RUF.

Still, putting away the old psalms and hymns can have no good argument. To put them away, we put away much of our tradition, and blind ourselves only to see the Christianity of today. It is this same blindness to history which is the cause the the rampant heresy and apostasy today. Besides, singing with the "thee"s and "thou"s help us who are reformed be more used to the language of some of our greatest theologians, and in a way prepare us to readily understand their works.
___________________________

Well, i think thats about it. I hope that made sense. It is late at night/early in the morning here, and I haven't gotten much sleep lately, so please excuse anything that may not read so plainly.

FInally, I trust you know I meant no offense to anyone of a non-Reformed church. I mainly meant to point to the problem that Reformed churches are becoming less and less Reformed when they adopt the practices of modern traditions.

rapturefish said:

If people were to describe the character of reformed churches, adjectives such as conservative and traditional come to mind from within, and to outsiders, even boring and irrelevant.

Do the reformed churches want this tag and if not, what is it doing to shake such perceptions? What adjectives do they want to be used to describe them?

Click to expand...

How about the Frozen Chosen?

(This is from someone whose hometown church is a very . . . 'frozen' bunch.)

Hi,

I pretty much began my life as a christian in a pentecostal church where there was a very big emphasis on lots of noise, lots of loud singing, lots of noise etc. etc. The preaching, looking back, was quite okay. However, having come to a point of exhaustion (which i believe was the result of too much noise, effort, work, etc..) and what i believe were a few adverse mental developments as a result of this, i am now in a westminster presbyterian church. Before i came here, i attended a few churches in my area. Most of these were big/huge on singing worship and a 'milk' type of teaching from the bible. What really turned me off was a style of service where i could clearly see the pastors adopting a self-conscious style of being hip, animated etc. which made me cringe. I suppose at the time that they were trying to make the church 'relevant' to the large amount of young people (This is a massive subject in itself). Yes, these churches were becoming like more of a rock concert. Okay, perhaps the younger crowd like this kind of thing, and i'm sure most did/do, but at this stage in my life i longed for a pastor that would teach us from the bible without all the visuals/atmosphere etc. So, i suppose if you were new and walked into my church you would probably call it pretty boring because most of the songs are hymns (there's lot's of old people here). However, i long to know the scriptures, and i wish to attend a simple service. One thing i did find was that if you came to church by yourself (which i did), i had the feeling that it was going to take a while for people to come up to me and show some hospitality. I don't know if this was because i came by myself. However, i am praying that this will change, because i don't want others to have the same experience. I know that God can change this in us and it seems that in the short time that i have been here, that he is beginning this work. There are also young people here/teenagers, and different cultures/ethnic groups. By the way, i am turning against pentecostal doctrines.

Ceris said:

How about the Frozen Chosen?

(This is from someone whose hometown church is a very . . . 'frozen' bunch.)

Click to expand...

i've been looking for the right word to describe this coldness people describe in some reformed worship.

The issue is REVIVAL, in particular the First Great Awakening with which we associate the names of: Jonathan Edwards, George Whitfield and perhaps Gilbert Tennent, who was actually the primary figure in it(#1). The concern on the Old Side was the problem of emotionalism, pietism, quietism, what i am going to try to constantly refer to as "experientialism". For their part the New Side was afraid of frozen orthodoxy, over intellectualism of the faith, an unconverted ministry, a passionless palid counterfeit faith that clung to doctrine rather than experiencing the Risen Savior. I'd like to call this criticism the "frozen chosen" but i am afraid that would offend people, so i'm going to use the term from Evangelism Explosion- "mere head knowledge". This captures the idea that faith is really a three part process: knowledge, assent, and trust(#2). It is a concentration on the two endpoints: knowledge and trust that effectively give us the difference between the Old Side and New Side. (As a helpful aside, in New England Congregationalism the same divide is called New Light and Old Light, this is the terminology you will see associated with Jonathan Edwards, same controversy, with different but very similiar groups, in fact, we will see next week how they first joined then parted in the 19thC) (motif/illustration: sliding scale of acceptable head/heart mixture)

Click to expand...

from my Sunday School class on the schism-New Side vs Old Side.

at this point, i think i'm going to use mere head knowledge as the descriptive term and formalism as the label. but i'd dearly appreciate a better set of descriptors.

Who said Reformed Denominations were boring? I guess they are the same people who may say that a Pentacostal church service resembles a circus.

I have been to both. I loved the Penticostal services as far as worship and praise went...but when it came down to the preaching, there was rarely a bible reading - but mainly shared 'life experiences'. I found many came to 'experience' something, rather to worship the God that granted such experiences. I am not saying all Pentacostal churches are that way - I know they are not. But at the same time, one can not assume all 'conservative' churches are dry. In fact, if preaching is done properly and with biblical and Holy Spirit Guidance; one may say the teaching is very much alive!

My congregation is lively as far as worship goes, hymns included with a contemp. beat. We do believe in the gifts of the Spirit (as some Reformed to not)...however, where we differ from some pentacostal churches is this: we use the Bible and Bible alone to teach from. There is ALWAYS a reading and the sermon ALWAYS surrounds the word of God.

Boring to some...maybe....full of God's Soveriegnty and 'Soul Food'? YOU BET!

frumanchu said:

The primary function of a church service is worship. As such, Reformed churches are generally more concerned about what worship is pleasing to God than what worship is "exciting and relevant" to people.

Click to expand...

"true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth" (John 4:23)

Writing back in 1945 A. W. Pink said in his Gospel of John, "The more spiritual our worship is the less attractive to the flesh it will be. Modern 'worship' is chiefly designed to render it pleasing to the flesh, a 'bright and attractive service' and entertaining talks. What a mockery."

Even earlier C. H. Mackintosh warned that "There may be a great deal of what looks like worship yet which is after all, only the mere excitement and outgoing of natural feeling. It not infrequently happens that the very same tastes and tendencies which are called forth and gratified by the splendid appliances of such so-called religious worship, would find most suited supprot at the opera."

Worship without truth nor worship mixed with error is false worshipping and those seeking to worship God must avoid it. As A. W. Tozer stated: "We must learn that we cannot have our own way and worship God just as we please...there are certain types of worship that God will not accept, though they may be directed toward Him and are meant to be given to Him."

rapturefish said:

What I don't get is that the mindset appears to be that to worship God rightly means it has to be hymns or devoid of modern worship instruments, worship leaders, dance, spontaneity or 'noise'. This is the mistake of style over substance. If we are to take "in spirit and in truth" as the principle, then it means it can encompass the whole gamut of worship styles as long as the spirit is behind it, and the truth is in it.

Click to expand...

I do not think that it is b/c traditional reformed christians are afraid of what they consider "modern", but what they consider out-of-keeping with the Reformed theology of worship.

Historically, Reformed churches have been wary of the use of instruments. And, although now most make use of them, amongst traditionalist there still lingers the conviction not to make much of them. One organist, or one pianist out of sight seems to fit more nicely into our theology than a couple of guitarists, a bass, and a drumset.

According to the traditional view, Congregational singing is the New Testament way. Instruments and/or choirs , when used, should only be used to aid the congregation. They are in no way "leading the congregation" in worship, and are not to be considered seperate from the congregation. But they are there to help the singing be orderly and to limit confusion. The Calvinist should be just as opposed to a symphony playing along with the hymns, as he would be with a praise band. They both seem not to completely agree with the congregational emphasis.

As far as worship leaders go, according to our theology, there should really only be one: the pastor. He has been ordained, and set apart, to oversee the church, but also to lead them in our public devotions.

By dance, i do not know if you mean a set form like "liturgical dance" or just casual and improvised moving about. That which is called "liturgical dance" is definately out of line with the regulative principle. The improvised moving around in praise to God, I only know of two objections: Firstly, that it would bring disorder to a public service. Secondly, that it would bring attention to the dancer.

However, that said, I have never heard objection of dancing (as a form of worship) outside of the public gathering. In fact, I have only heard the encouragement of it from both modern Calvinists, and our forefathers in the faith.

All these things probably point to one difference in the veiws of traditional protestants and modern Charismatics & Evangelicals. That is, that Calvinists see the world-old never ending tendency for men to drift from truth, and to mix truth with error. This is likely why we put so much emphasis on order in the church. Modernists seem to be more concerned with doing what is percieved as good. So many times, things are done without the counsel of Scripture or tradition.

So Reformed people are ever cautious of doing things which they consider untrue, like the modern "worldly-fashioned" Charismatics. And Charismatics are fearful of becoming what they precieve as stagnate, like the hard-core "old-fashioned" Calvinists.

Once again, let me just ask that no one take any offense, since I mean none.