Worship Styles

[theseed]

eh, it's not even the old fogies, its the ppl who have been going to church out of routine their whole lives and never actually got saved!!!!

I just said fogies, I didn't say "old" fogies

 

[Knight]

True. There are young fogies.... (Ok, so I'm sometimes one of them......)

 

[LynneClomina]

eh, i guess i meant not old in age, but old in the church - been there forever, like an institution... .... and still never gotten a relationship with Jesus....

 

[Knee V]

The issue for me is not style, but CONTENT. You can take the words "Yay God!" and sing them any way you want, whether really up-beat, or in some really majestic music. But either way, the song will suck. It lacks any kind of content, and it's more of a mockery of God than worship.

On the other hand, I've sung some traditional hymns put to new music, and they were still awesome songs, even though the style was different. And that is because they have the same content. The hymnal at my church has the song "Rock of Ages", but it has it in two different versions. One is the more traditonal version (which is the more up-beat one), and a newer version which is more hymny. Both are beautiful and I love singing either one of them.

I have found that many of the "praise and worship" songs are more of a call to worship than actual worship. Many of them have the idea of "Let's all praise God". When I get done singing them I feel like saying, "Ok then. Let's praise God then. Why stand around singing about it?"

And recently I have been leaning toward doing only Psalms. Some will hear that and say "how legalistic" or something like that. But give it some thought for a moment. It is God who calls US to worship HIM. And if it is God who calls us to worship Him, then it should be done on God's terms. Scripture tells us that God desires us to sing praises to Him in worship. There are 150 God-inspired songs in scripture too. Why not worship God with the songs that He Himself has given us?

I won't be dogmatic on that. I'm still praying about that and giving it a lot of thought.

But even if we were to only sing psalms, God did not give us the music to go along with it. I have no problem having a contemporary arrangement for Psalms at all.

 

[M. Wayne Bradley]

Here's a disputible topic.

I thought it would be interesting to see where those in the Reformed camp stand on this particluar view.

Do you prefer traditional hymns or contemporary music in worship services? Provide reasons for your view.

This seems like a good thread on which to make my first post, because it’s one I’m intensely interested in. And yes, it is disputable, to say the least. I too must choose ‘none of the above’ and state my support for exclusive psalmody, because I firmly believe in regulated worship and that psalmody is the only ‘option’ that has actual biblical support, given careful exegesis of the texts.

Most people don’t seem to realize that the ‘traditional hymns’ which are so often mentioned really aren’t as traditional as we think. Prior to the last couple hundred years, give or take, most Reformed (meaning primarily Puritan and Presbyterian, as opposed to Lutheran or Anglican) churches practiced a capella psalmody, with no instruments or uninspired hymns used at all. Hymns crept in gradually, along with other unbiblical, wordly things that church officers capitulated on --not for theological reasons-- but in order to keep their congregations --who clamored for them-- happy. It's an important issue, and I'd highly recommend The Songs of Zion by Michael Bushell to anyone who'd like to start informing themselves on it.

 

[Donny_B]

I found some sample Psalms that you can listen to on your computer:

http://www.psalms4u.com/listen.html

My churches have always used traditional hymns. I wish more churches would get back into singing the Psalms.

 

[CCWoody]

[/color]

This seems like a good thread on which to make my first post, because it’s one I’m intensely interested in. And yes, it is disputable, to say the least. I too must choose ‘none of the above’ and state my support for exclusive psalmody, because I firmly believe in regulated worship and that psalmody is the only ‘option’ that has actual biblical support, given careful exegesis of the texts.

Most people don’t seem to realize that the ‘traditional hymns’ which are so often mentioned really aren’t as traditional as we think. Prior to the last couple hundred years, give or take, most Reformed (meaning primarily Puritan and Presbyterian, as opposed to Lutheran or Anglican) churches practiced a capella psalmody, with no instruments or uninspired hymns used at all. Hymns crept in gradually, along with other unbiblical, wordly things that church officers capitulated on --not for theological reasons-- but in order to keep their congregations --who clamored for them-- happy. It's an important issue, and I'd highly recommend The Songs of Zion by Michael Bushell to anyone who'd like to start informing themselves on it.

I was wondering when an exclusive Psalmody defender was going to stop by.

I have a question for you. If you sing the Psalms for your exclusive praise because you are jealous of not letting anything about your devotion to the Lord be unBiblical, can I also assume that your prayers are equally regulated?

 

[rnmomof7]

I found some sample Psalms that you can listen to on your computer:

http://www.psalms4u.com/listen.html

My churches have always used traditional hymns. I wish more churches would get back into singing the Psalms.

Our church has a Choir and 4 worship teams. Two of the reams does almost exclusive hymnal . The other two do a mix , one does mostly contemporary.

The choir sings traditional Hymns , the congregation always responds with a tractional hymn .


I am very happy with the continued emphasis on the Hymns , my grandchildren and all the children of the church are learning classical hymns. What a shame it would be if they died in a generation.


I like the idea of singing the Psalms , but not as a legalist practice

 

[Bulldog]

My church does contemporary music for the opening worship. Then we sing a single hymn after some prayer and tithing.

I honestly like the hymn better. I just can't really get into Contemporary Christian Music.

 

[M. Wayne Bradley]

I was wondering when an exclusive Psalmody defender was going to stop by.

That sounds almost…disapproving, lol. Hiya. Read the thread from the beginning and you’ll see there were at least a couple before me.

I have a question for you. If you sing the Psalms for your exclusive praise because you are jealous of not letting anything about your devotion to the Lord be unBiblical, can I also assume that your prayers are equally regulated?

Sure, I’m happy to answer the question. I think there is a misconception here about what is meant by the term ‘unbiblical.’ It isn’t intended to convey the idea that any and all communication between God and man in prayer has to be limited to specific, dictated words only found in Scripture, because that isn’t what the Bible teaches. Besides, different people have different needs (spiritual and material) at different times, and these are always changing. Nowhere are we told, nor is it implied, that we can’t come to God in prayer using our own words, however eloquent, clumsy or mundane they might be.

But when it comes to worship, the Bible is very clear that God does not permit an ‘anything goes if it’s not intrinsically sinful and as long as we’re sincere’ way of approaching Him. There are different elements, as the Westminster Confession delineates, and prayer is one of them. Preaching is another. Singing praise is another. The Book of Psalms is the Bible’s own hymnbook. They are inspired, perfect, free of theological error, and superior in quality, beauty and majesty to any man-made songs. I doubt anyone would care to argue otherwise. That being the case, why on earth would anyone wish to replace them, either with hymns or mindless assembly-line contemporary...stuff?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Let me try to explain the significance of the following link.

1-it concerns the regulative principle of worship. that is God commands us to worship Him in ONLY the manner proscribed. the short hand way to remember this is "only what is commanded is allowed" (the opposite is "it is allowed unless explicitly condemned")

2-it concerns exclusive psalmody
(here is a nice defense of EP: http://trueworship.netfirms.com/Singpsalms.dir/schwertley/psalms.htm)

3-more important than these issues however are the issues of schism or denominationalism. that is splitting the body of Christ-the church over things that are not as important as the unity of the church.
(here is an excellent report from GA: http://www.visi.com/~contra_m/cm/discuss/cm08_pca93ga.html)
where the author writes:

Presbyterians With Attitudes
The PCA is theologically divided between two camps, the more conservative TRs (the 'truly Reformed') and the broadly-evangelical BRs (the 'barely Reformed').[1] Over the years, there has been an increasing level of sharp rhetoric, mistrust and polarization. Some even question the denomination's survival.

This is not a conflict between conservatives and liberals. The PCA is a conservative denomination; it has no problem with liberalism. Everyone (with only one exception that I am aware of) quickly endorses biblical inerrancy. All ministers accept the fundamentals of the faith: virgin birth, vicarious atonement, literal resurrection, etc. Virtually all are soteriologically Calvinistic. The dispute is really about the PCA's commitment to Reformed standards, confessional integrity, and the direction of the denomination. The debate is serious. One side stresses purity of doctrine and discipline; the other side wants openness and flexibility.

4-how i got into the issues of subscriptionism

Full or strict subscriptionists (the TRs) say that to adopt means to claim as your own, and that in taking the vow elders affirm all the doctrines of the Confession. Elders are duty-bound to reveal any disagreement with the constitutional standards. Ignoring or denigrating the confessional standards creates a theological slippery slope. Those now queasy about the Confession's statements on the Sabbath and the regulative principle, TRs continue, might before long abandon other elements of the standards. A hundred years ago, the northern Presbyterian church drew the line at defending a few fundamentals. Before long they lost even that. For TRs, the Confession is not as authoritative as the Bible (a silly charge circulated by loose subscriptionists), but is authoritative because it expresses the doctrines of scripture. In short, full subscriptionists insist that people take the confessional standards seriously and, indeed, that they are morally bound to do so by their ordination vows.

Broad or loose subscriptionists (the squishy confessionalists) insist that this standard is too rigid and inflexible. Elders only accept a general system of theology in their vows, BRs claim, not necessarily the whole kit and kaboodle of the Confession. They are like my college students who, frantically preparing for history exams, tell me "not to sweat the details". The details, though, reveal a great deal about what a student knows - or what a minister believes.

from same essay from GA above.

5-a few points, i am a member(not an elder) of the PCA, i've been EvP and OPC in my adult life. for more on that see: http://www.livejournal.com/users/rmwilliamsjr/126486.html
i think if you read this you will see that i am not trying to run down the church.
but trying to capture something essential about 'teachability'.

6-i think that people have the experience of reformed people being a little too intellectual(frozen chosen), a little to rigid theologically, a little to prideful at times when talking to not-reformed. i reluctantly can see their point and sometimes agree, but it is not a result of the theology, but of the class structure of most Presbyterian church in the U.S. but that is another issue.

7-i am interested in the issues of how to rightfully persuade and how to treat people properly in online discussions. some things, some ways seem far more brotherly and Christianly than others.

8-that brings me to this link:
http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/PCAbad.htm

9-the marks of the true church are: proper adminstration of the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's supper, preaching the Word of God rightly, and correct church discipline.

10-outside the church there is no (ordinary means of) salvation.

This essay is a collection of pieces that a person wrote defending his leaving the PCA over the issue of EP. what is fascinating to me, and why i think the essay worth reading is that it casts a very different light on his efforts than is his intention.

What does it mean to submit in the Lord to the brethren of the Church?
What does it mean to be teachable?
What does it mean to control your tongue and the tone of our speech?

I think that this essay is a good example of what not to do. Partly because the issue of EP is certainly less important than the matter of church unity. But mostly because this author shows the worse side of reformed 'arrogance', of the lack of humility that sometimes wrongly accompanies our knowledge of theology. Puffed up with self importance, sure of my intellectual position, certain of my righteous indignation at being asked to listen to someone else's opinion....hey i've been there. unfortunately i can identify with the author. maybe that is why i appreciate the irony that his tone overrules his position. that his unteachableness crowds out his theology......




personal note:
i offended someone by posted this link without adequate explanation. it was not a deliberate slight to the PCA, i hope the intro above clears things up....

how i found this link several nights ago
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&q=pca+opc+church+trial+psalmody&btnG=Search

i was looking for the reasons the PCA and OPC didnt unite.

ps.
my original reason for posting this in this thread is that the choices given do not include EP, which is certainly the dominate worship style for the reformed for several hundred years. i was really interested that the author of the poll didnt include it.....

 

[CCWoody]

[/color][/font]


That sounds almost…disapproving, lol. Hiya. Read the thread from the beginning and you’ll see there were at least a couple before me.



Sure, I’m happy to answer the question. I think there is a misconception here about what is meant by the term ‘unbiblical.’ It isn’t intended to convey the idea that any and all communication between God and man in prayer has to be limited to specific, dictated words only found in Scripture, because that isn’t what the Bible teaches. Besides, different people have different needs (spiritual and material) at different times, and these are always changing. Nowhere are we told, nor is it implied, that we can’t come to God in prayer using our own words, however eloquent, clumsy or mundane they might be.

But when it comes to worship, the Bible is very clear that God does not permit an ‘anything goes if it’s not intrinsically sinful and as long as we’re sincere’ way of approaching Him. There are different elements, as the Westminster Confession delineates, and prayer is one of them. Preaching is another. Singing praise is another. The Book of Psalms is the Bible’s own hymnbook. They are inspired, perfect, free of theological error, and superior in quality, beauty and majesty to any man-made songs. I doubt anyone would care to argue otherwise. That being the case, why on earth would anyone wish to replace them, either with hymns or mindless assembly-line contemporary...stuff?

Well, neither does the Bible teach that our songs must be limited to specific, dedicated words found only in scripture. Perhaps I am wrong. Where are we told that we must come to God in our songs using only His words? BTW, your implication that singing songs outside of expressed words found in the scriptures are an ‘anything goes if it’s not intrinsically sinful and as long as we’re sincere’ is nothing but an argument of smoke and mirrors. It is to essentially accuse we Reformed of having a complete disregard for the type of music we sing.

Furthermore, the Psalms are inspired and perfect in the original Hebrew, but not in our English translation. Your position only has any consistency if you are a KJOnlist. Therefore, I'd expect that either you sing in Hebrew or believe that the KJ is "perfect."

But, turning your argument back at you, we have many examples of perfect prayers. Why on earth would anyone wish to replace them with uninspired sin ridden personal stuff. Especially, given that the Inspired Psalms teach is that if we regard iniquity in our hearts the Lord will not hear our prayers.

Here is an excellent prayer from the morning reading list for the Bible study I host online:

Psalms 17:1 GB

(1) The prayer of Dauid. Heare the right, O Lord, consider my crye: hearken vnto my prayer of lips vnfained.
​

So, why is it that Hebrew poetry must be used for singing, but not for prayer? Prayer is even more intimate than corporate worship. Why are you more concerned about being perfect around others than when you are only with the Lord?

I suppose that I'm still not grasping the necessity of perfection in one area of praise and worship, but not another.

 

[Donny_B]

From the preface of the Hymnbook (1955 Edition), which my church uses:

"In 1949, comittees of the Reformed Church in America and the United Presbyterian Church of North America entered into correspondence with a view to exploring the possibility of jointly preparing a Psalter hymnal which should include metrical versions of the Biblical psalms and a selection of the great hymns of the Church with the needs of both communions in mind. The way was opened for such co-operation and the two committees labored for two years. In 1950 the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States appointed a committee "to make apporoaches to other Presbyterian and Reformed bodies with an invitation to co-operate in the production of a hymnal for all Presbyterian and Reformed Churches." The Reformed Church in America and the United Presbyterian Church gladly accepted the invitation and shared ther results of their two years of previous labors. The Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church and the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America joined promptly in the new undertaking, and appointed appropriate committees to co-operate with those already engaged in the task. Thus, The Hymnbook is the product of the co-operative endeavor of five American Churches of the Presbyterian-Reformed tradition, representing a membership of three and a half million people."

"The interweaving of the strands of worship from five denominations, each with its own peculiar and precious heritage, has added immeasurable richness to the book. It has been responsible for the inclusion of many of the psalms in meter, a happy recovery of one of the great sources of strength of both the Geneva and the Scottish tradition. With the exception of a few metrical psalms taken directly from the Scottish Psalter of 1650, the version used in this hymnbook is the revision prepared in 1909 by a joint committee representing nine Churches of the Presbyterian-Reformed family in the United States and Canada. The concerted effort of five Churches has also secured the admission of a representative body of so-called "gospel songs", which properly have a place in the devotional life of the Church. It has provided the working committee with a vast store of hymns and tunes from which to choose, out of the incredibly ample and ever-growing treasury of Christian hymnody. It has introduced helpful and stimulating viewpoints which might well have been missed by a committee representing a narrower tradition. Though the task was made more complicated, and the pace of the work reduced, by the necessary blending of these various elements, The Hymnbook is greatly the richer for this careful co-operative process."

 

[M. Wayne Bradley]

Well, neither does the Bible teach that our songs must be limited to specific, dedicated words found only in scripture.

Are you sure? Granted it doesn’t in so many words, as with most doctrines, but it’s hardly debatable that most of the greatest Reformation theologians, including those who framed the Westminser Confession, believed that the Bible limited worship songs to the Psalms. It’s true that the vast majority of Christians today, including those who identify themselves as ‘Reformed’, believe there’s no problem with non-canonical, non-inspired songs, but those Old Timers saw things differently, and were almost unanimous on the point.



It would behoove us all to pay extra careful attention to the WCF. When listing the elements or indispensable aspects of public worship, Chapt XXI says, “The reading of the Scriptures with godly fear, the sound preaching and conscionable hearing of the Word, in obedience unto God, with understanding, faith and reverence, singing of psalms with grace in the heart;as also, the due administration and worthy receiving of the sacraments instituted by Christ, are all parts of the ordinary religious worship of God.” Note the omission of hymns, choirs, instruments etc., all of which were eschewed by these same people as sensual holdovers of popery, whereever they [such practices] still existed.



In other words, worship must be in line with and according to God’s prescriptions and prohibitions. It is divinely regulated. We aren’t free to just do it our way or however we wish. So it’s incumbent upon us to find out whether God allows music and in particular, hymns and other humanly composed works, or are they excluded? It’s an either or situation. There’s no middle ground.

Perhaps I am wrong. Where are we told that we must come to God in our songs using only His words?

Where are we told we may not? The basic thing here is that, again in the words of the WCF, “…the acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by Himself, and so limited by His own revealed will, that He may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the holy Scripture.”



Search the OT. Time after time we encounter God giving Israel strict instructions about how He demanded they approach Him in worship. Whenever people deviated from that there were severe consequences, often death. OT Jews who were not inspired prophets did not compose praise songs for use in public worship, be it Temple or Synagogue. Neither did the Apostolic church or first century Christians. The history of hymns in the early Church is that they were primarily written and enlisted by known heretics, such as Arius, to sneak their damnable ideas in ‘under the radar,’ so to speak.

BTW, your implication that singing songs outside of expressed words found in the scriptures are an ‘anything goes if it’s not intrinsically sinful and as long as we’re sincere’ is nothing but an argument of smoke and mirrors. It is to essentially accuse we Reformed of having a complete disregard for the type of music we sing.

Well, I beg to differ! I didn’t mean anything I’ve said so far to suggest that most Reformed people have complete disregard for the type of music they sing, and if I’ve come across as being preachy, a know-it-all or on some high horse, that’s unfortunate as well. My apologies. My sole intent is to be informative and get people to think. A lot of people seem to be totally ignorant on this subject, as I was myself. For several years after I came to believe the doctrines of grace and other things typically associated with being Reformed, like infant baptism, that’s what I considered myself to be. I’d never heard of the Regulative Principle and was utterly clueless about the historic Reformed position on worship. I believe Providence alone steered me onto a course to discover these things, and I freely admit there’s still much I don’t know. But I just want to share and exhort, especially with others who call themselves Reformed, because I passionately believe in the importance of this issue.

Furthermore, the Psalms are inspired and perfect in the original Hebrew, but not in our English translation. Your position only has any consistency if you are a KJOnlist. Therefore, I'd expect that either you sing in Hebrew or believe that the KJ is "perfect."

I’m not a KJV onlyist. Don’t you think that line of argument proves too much i.e. it’s actually an attack on inerrancy. Most of us understand that only the autographs were directly inspired, that translations aren’t 100% perfect, but almost no one would says, “Well, Jeremiah (or Matthew or Hebrews) is inspired and perfect in the originals, but not our translations, so they’re not entirely trustworthy and should be supplemented.”



The common understanding is that most variation in the English translations is limited to the exact meaning of certain words here and there, and shades of meaning, but not to the extent that such minor blemishes would ever alter any doctrine when corrected. That is my belief, and I think most people can see that this argument against psalmody really doesn’t stand up under closer examination.

But, turning your argument back at you, we have many examples of perfect prayers. Why on earth would anyone wish to replace them with uninspired sin ridden personal stuff. Especially, given that the Inspired Psalms teach is that if we regard iniquity in our hearts the Lord will not hear our prayers.

That’s not the issue. Prayer is an element of public worship, but it’s also a mode of communication between the believer and God, which may occur anytime. Singing praise is another element of worship. They are different, and the Bible teaches us about both of them.

Here is an excellent prayer from the morning reading list for the Bible study I host online:

Psalms 17:1 GB

(1) The prayer of Dauid. Heare the right, O Lord, consider my crye: hearken vnto my prayer of lips vnfained.

So, why is it that Hebrew poetry must be used for singing, but not for prayer?



Prayer is even more intimate than corporate worship. Why are you more concerned about being perfect around others than when you are only with the Lord? I suppose that I'm still not grasping the necessity of perfection in one area of praise and worship, but not another.

It may be kind of ironic that the example you quote is a Psalm, lol. But anyway, the simple answer is because that’s what, I believe, God commands and this all boils down to obedience in the end. It’s a good question though, and merits further discussion Again, I don’t have all the answers. I maybe could venture something on that specifically if I reflected on it a while, but I’ve been sick the last couple days and am getting a bit frazzled. A guy named Brian Schwertley has done some stellar work in this area and he may address that issue. I can’t post links yet, but I’d be more than happy to via PM. Or you can type his name in Google along with psalmody or regulative principle and find plenty. But, I’d just like to say, I’m not more concerned about being perfect around others than when I’m alone with the Lord. Thanks for the thoughtful interaction and have a good weekend

 

[Bob Moore]

I don't have much use for much of what is called 'Christian' contemporary music. As often as not the lyrics are rooted not in the Scripture (though it might appear so), but in the subjective feelings of the writer. 1 Peter 1:15-16 reminds us, "But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation; Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy".
Songs are a "manner of conversation". Therefore, if they do not glorify God they are worse than useless.


Ezekiel 20:39, "As for you, O house of Israel, thus saith the Lord GOD; Go ye, serve ye every one his idols, and hereafter also, if ye will not hearken unto me: but pollute ye my holy name no more with your gifts, and with your idols." Sadly, God's holy name is frequently polluted by music written not for His glory, but for the glory of the writer/singer.

Before anyone objects that this is addressed to Israel, I will point out that God does not change, and we are "grafted in" (Romans 11:17, et al) to His people by the sacrifice of Christ.

Leviticus 10:1-3, "And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the LORD, which he commanded them not. And there went out fire from the LORD, and devoured them, and they died before the LORD. Then Moses said unto Aaron, This is it that the LORD spake, saying, I will be sanctified in them that come nigh me, and before all the people I will be glorified. And Aaron held his peace." Aaron's sons took it upon themselves to worship God in an unacceptable way, and they paid the price. Do not for a minute think that God has changed His mind about what is, and what is not, acceptable worship.

 

[Knight]

Mr. Bradley,

Question for you:
Would you condemn someone who disagreed with your position? (By "condemn" I mean question their devotion to God.)

 

[M. Wayne Bradley]

Sir Knight,

Why would you ask me that? It's ok, I don't mind, just curious. Anyway, the answer is that it depends on the person, particularly what their level of knowledge and understanding is. In most cases, no I don't think I'd question their devotion if they didn't even know it was an issue, or if they did but were sincerely seeking to know the truth and praying for God's guidance. Some people will do that and agree with "my" position (I think it's God's position, really) and some probably will also be unable to see it's correctness, because they read something that was misleading or clouded the issue. Or they might just be kind of a simple person who doesn't have the ability to correctly analyze arguments, spot fallacies, etc. I don't really question those peoples' devotion. But there are some who either wilfully ignorant, meaning they won't even listen to an opposing viewpoint that may be right, and some who know the truth and reject it, for whatever reason. I tend to wonder about those peoples' devotion, but you know, I often question my own as well, so it's not a personal, holier-than-thou thing.

 

[Knight]

I meant no offense by the question.

Sometimes, those who take positions like yours tend toward being judgemental.

Based on your response, I am not overly optimistic regarding any further discussion on this issue. Are you suggesting that someone who does not agree with you is either 1) Ignorant, or 2) Willfully ignorant?

This seems to be what you are saying. Am I wrong in my assesment?

 

[M. Wayne Bradley]

I meant no offense by the question.

I took no offense. I’m pretty hard to offend actually. I only wanted to know why you asked, and now I do, so thanks.

Sometimes, those who take positions like yours tend toward being judgemental.

But I’m not quite sure what to make of this. Positions like mine? I guess by that you mean when someone thinks another Christian(s) is in error regarding some doctrine/practice, they tend to be ‘judgemental,’ i.e. self-righteous and condemnatory as opposed to a pure concern for truth and guiding others onto the correct path. But I think we’re called to be discerning, separating good doctrine from bad. There seems to be a hint in your statement that it’s ok to silently disapprove of something, but to actually voice it, to remonstrate, flirts with judgementalism. I can’t agree with that.

Based on your response, I am not overly optimistic regarding any further discussion on this issue. Are you suggesting that someone who does not agree with you is either 1) Ignorant, or 2) Willfully ignorant?

This seems to be what you are saying. Am I wrong in my assesment?

I’m not optimistic either, because there seems to be little interest in the thread, but I don’t think I’ve said anything to indicate I’m incapable of discussing it. I’ve tried to give reasons for my position and honestly answer the questions posed to me, without resorting to antagonism or name-calling. If someone disagrees with my position, let them refute it with solid reasoning based on Scripture. I’ll listen. As to whether I’m suggesting that anyone is ignorant etc. I don’t really know how to be more clear than I was above. You know, it’s not an insult to say someone is ignorant about something. We’re all ignorant about many things, myself included. I only said that it was one possibility. Regardless, it doesn't look like people are interested, which I think is too bad.

 

[Knight]

[/color]



I took no offense. I’m pretty hard to offend actually. I only wanted to know why you asked, and now I do, so thanks.

You're welcome.

But I’m not quite sure what to make of this. Positions like mine? I guess by that you mean when someone thinks another Christian(s) is in error regarding some doctrine/practice, they tend to be ‘judgemental,’ i.e. self-righteous and condemnatory as opposed to a pure concern for truth and guiding others onto the correct path. But I think we’re called to be discerning, separating good doctrine from bad. There seems to be a hint in your statement that it’s ok to silently disapprove of something, but to actually voice it, to remonstrate, flirts with judgementalism. I can’t agree with that.

I never meant to imply this. I simply meant that a position like yours (determining exactly the kind of songs that are to be sung in worship) is fairly disputible as has already been demonstrated in this thread. Debating these issues can be very petty as I'm sure you've seen.

I’m not optimistic either, because there seems to be little interest in the thread, but I don’t think I’ve said anything to indicate I’m incapable of discussing it. I’ve tried to give reasons for my position and honestly answer the questions posed to me, without resorting to antagonism or name-calling. If someone disagrees with my position, let them refute it with solid reasoning based on Scripture. I’ll listen. As to whether I’m suggesting that anyone is ignorant etc. I don’t really know how to be more clear than I was above. You know, it’s not an insult to say someone is ignorant about something. We’re all ignorant about many things, myself included. I only said that it was one possibility. Regardless, it doesn't look like people are interested, which I think is too bad.

I think it's safe to say that your position is in the minority. However, others can disagree with you without being ignorant. Ignorance implies a lack of knowledge. There are many knowledgable, Godly men and women who would disagree with the assertion that we may only (musically) praise God through the Psalms.