|
Post by rick on Mar 4, 2006 15:42:50 GMT -5
These are the two best resources on-line for getting biblically-sound doctrine and discussion and not the usual happy-clappy, Scripture proof-texting, world-conforming, shallow-preaching, non-Christ centered worship that is so often just a big-time show where entertainment is the norm and God is the audience. We should worship both in spirit and truth. There is an object of our faith. It is important to know what we believe and why we believe what we believe. These are good starting points for a serious study of Christianity and you can't come away after listening to these broadcasts unfulfilled or unchanged. This is not a substitute for genuine worship but simply a resource for study. If you are tired of the hip and happenin' contemporary church and all of its bells and whistles and are looking for a deeper understanding of God and the Christ, start here: 1. www.oneplace.com/ministries/Bible_Answer_Man/archives.asp?bcd=2006-3-12. www.oneplace.com/ministries/the_white_horse_inn/Archives.aspI won't go into the claim of some that once one starts to study the history of Christianity seriously, one ceases to be protestant.
|
|
|
Post by rick on Mar 4, 2006 16:14:24 GMT -5
The first link is the radio broadcast of The Bible Answer Man where callers ask questions about faith and Christianity and Hank Hanegraaff responds substantively with remarkable and biblically-informed clarity on the issues brought up. Hank exposes the charlatans and cults who claim to be Christian but who in their own words are shown to veer far from historical, orthodox Christianity. He exposes the "health-and-wealth", "name-it-and-claim-it" TV evangelists who are bilking thousands of dollars from the elderly and other gullible listeners.
|
|
|
Post by rick on Mar 4, 2006 16:30:00 GMT -5
The second link is a broadcast of a very lively, humorous yet important discussion by 3 or 4 theologians and/or professors from different protestant denominations with a reformed flavor. It is both fun and informative to listen to these guys. You may not agree with everything they say, but be like the Bereans and test everything against Scripture. In most cases I think you will find that what they are talking about is backed up by Scripture and actually helps you to have a deeper understanding of God's Word. Regardless of your background, your own beliefs will be challenged which is not a bad thing. After all, we are exhorted in Scripture to always be ready to give an answer to anyone who asks the reason for the hope that lies within us. Enjoy these fellows. They are a motley bunch of crazy characters but they are also extremely knowledgeable of Scripture, systematic theology, the Reformation, and contemporary evangelicalism. I used to work with a bunch of academia nuts like these.
|
|
|
Post by rick on Mar 6, 2006 20:59:35 GMT -5
The Great God Entertainment
by A.W.Tozer
A German philosopher many years ago said something to the effect that the more a man has in his own heart, the less he will require from the outside; excessive need for support from without is proof of the bankruptcy of the inner man.
If this is true (and I believe it is) then the present inordinate attachment to every form of entertainment is evidence that the inner life of modern man is in serious decline. The average man has no central core of moral assurance, no spring within his own breast, no inner strength to place him above the need for repeated psychological shots to give him the courage to go on living. He has become a parasite on the world, drawing his life from his environment, unable to live a day apart from the stimulation which society affords him.
Schleiermacher held that the feeling of dependence lies at the root of all religious worship, and that however high the spiritual life might rise, it must always begin with a deep sense of a great need which only God could satisfy.
If this sense of need and a feeling of dependence are at the root of natural religion, it is not hard to see why the great god Entertainment is so ardently worshiped by so many. For there are millions who cannot live without amusement; life without some form of entertainment for them is simply intolerable; they look forward to the blessed relief afforded by professional entertainers and other forms of psychological narcotics as a dope addict looks to his daily shot of heroin. Without them they could not summon courage to face existence.
No one with common human feeling will object to the simple pleasures of life, nor to such harmless forms of entertainment as may help to relax the nerves and refresh the mind exhausted by toil. Such things, if used with discretion, may be a blessing along the way. That is one thing, however, the all-out devotion to entertainment as a major activity for which and by which men live is definitely something else again.
The abuse of a harmless thing is the essence of sin. The growth of the amusement phase of human life to such fantastic proportions is a portent, a threat to the souls of modern men. It has been built into a multimillion dollar racket with greater power over human minds and human character than any other educational influence on earth.
And the ominous thing is that its power is almost exclusively evil, rotting the inner life, crowding out the long eternal thoughts which would fill the souls of men, if they were but worthy to entertain them. The whole thing has grown into a veritable religion which holds its devotees with a strange fascination; and a religion, incidentally, against which it is now dangerous to speak. For centuries the Church stood solidly against every form of worldly entertainment, recognizing it for what it was—a device for wasting time, a refuge from the disturbing voice of conscience, a scheme to divert attention from moral accountability.
For this she got herself abused roundly by the sons of this world. But of late she has become tired of the abuse and has given over the struggle. She appears to have decided that if she cannot conquer the great god Entertainment she may as well join forces with him and make what use she can of his powers.
So, today we have the astonishing spectacle of millions of dollars being poured into the unholy job of providing earthly entertainment for the so-called sons of heaven. Religious entertainment is in many places rapidly crowding out the serious things of God.
Many churches these days have become little more than poor theaters where fifth-rate "producers" peddle their shoddy wares with the full approval of evangelical leaders who can even quote a holy text in defense of their delinquency. And hardly a man dares raise his voice against it.
The great god Entertainment amuses his devotees mainly by telling them stories. The love of stories, which is a characteristic of childhood, has taken fast hold of the minds of the retarded saints of our day, so much so that not a few persons manage to make a comfortable living by spinning yarns and serving them up in various disguises to church people.
What is natural and beautiful in a child may be shocking when it persists into adulthood, and more so when it appears in the sanctuary and seeks to pass for true religion. Is it not a strange thing and a wonder that, with the shadow of atomic destruction hanging over the world and with the coming of Christ drawing near, the professed followers of the Lord should be giving themselves up to religious amusements? That in an hour when mature saints are so desperately needed vast numbers of believers should revert to spiritual childhood and clamor for religious toys?
|
|
|
Post by rick on Mar 7, 2006 9:45:10 GMT -5
What's Inside the Trojan Horse? by John MacArthur
© Copyright 2003 by Grace to You. All rights reserved.
By God's grace, I have been the pastor of the same church now for almost thirty-five years. From that vantage point, I have witnessed the birth and growth of menacing trends within the church, several of which have converged under what I would call evangelical pragmatism–an approach to ministry that is endemic in contemporary Christianity.
What is pragmatism? Basically it is the philosophy that results determine meaning, truth, and value–what will work becomes a more important question than what is true. As Christians, we are called to trust what the Lord says, preach that message to others, and leave the results to Him. But many have set that aside. Seeking relevancy and success, they have welcomed the pragmatic approach and have received the proverbial Trojan horse.
Let me take a few minutes to explain a little of the history leading up to the current entrenchment of the pragmatic approach in the evangelical church and to show you why it isn't as innocent as it looks.
Recent History The 1970s, for the most part, were years of spiritual revival in America. The spread of the gospel through the campuses of many colleges and universities marked a fresh, energetic movement of the Holy Spirit to draw people to salvation in Christ. Mass baptisms were conducted in rivers, lakes, and the ocean, several new versions of the English Bible were released, and Christian publishing and broadcasting experienced remarkable growth.
Sadly, the fervent evangelical revival slowed and was overshadowed by the greed and debauchery of the eighties and nineties. The surrounding culture rejected biblical standards of morality, and the church, rather than assert its distinctiveness and call the world to repentance, softened its stance on holiness. The failure to maintain a distinctively biblical identity was profound–it led to general spiritual apathy and a marked decline in church attendance.
Church leaders reacted to the world's indifference, not by a return to strong biblical preaching that emphasized sin and repentance, but by a pragmatic approach to "doing" church–an approach driven more by marketing, methodology, and perceived results than by biblical doctrine. The new model of ministry revolved around making sinners feel comfortable and at ease in the church, then selling them on the benefits of becoming a Christian. Earlier silence has given way to cultural appeasement and conformity.
Even the church's ministry to its own has changed. Entertainment has hijacked many pulpits across the country; contemporary approaches cater to the ever-changing whims of professing believers; and many local churches have become little more than social clubs and community centers where the focus is on the individual's felt needs. Even on Christian radio, phone-in talk shows, music, and live psychotherapy are starting to replace Bible teaching as the staple. "Whatever works," the mantra of pragmatism, has become the new banner of evangelicalism.
The Down-Grade Controversy You may be surprised to learn that what we are now seeing is not new. England's most famous preacher, Charles Haddon Spurgeon, dealt with a similar situation more than 100 years ago. Among churches that were once solid, Spurgeon and other faithful pastors noticed a conciliatory attitude toward and overt cooperation with the modernist movement. And what motivated the compromise? They sought to find acceptance by adopting the "sophisticated" trends of the culture. Does that sound familiar to you?
One article, published anonymously in Spurgeon's monthly magazine The Sword and the Trowel, noted that every revival of true evangelical faith had been followed within a generation or two by a drift away from sound doctrine, ultimately leading to wholesale apostasy. The author likened this drifting from truth to a downhill slope, and thus labeled it "the down grade." The inroads of modernism into the church killed ninety percent of the mainline denominations within a generation of Spurgeon’s death. Spurgeon himself, once the celebrated and adored herald of the Baptist Union, was marginalized by the society and he eventually withdrew his membership.
The Effects of Pragmatism Many of today's church leaders have bought into the subtlety of pragmatism without recognizing the dangers it poses. Instead of attacking orthodoxy head on, evangelical pragmatism gives lip service to the truth while quietly undermining the foundations of doctrine. Instead of exalting God, it effectively denigrates the things that are precious to Him.
First, there is in vogue today a trend to make the basis of faith something other than God's Word. Experience, emotion, fashion, and popular opinion are often more authoritative than the Bible in determining what many Christians believe. From private, individual revelation to the blending of secular psychology with biblical "principles," Christians are listening to the voice of the serpent that once told Eve, "God's Word doesn't have all the answers." Christian counseling reflects that drift, frequently offering no more than experimental and unscriptural self-help therapy instead of solid answers from the Bible.
Christian missionary work is often riddled with pragmatism and compromise, because too many in missions have evidently concluded that what gets results is more important than what God says. That's true among local churches as well. It has become fashionable to forgo the proclamation and teaching of God's Word in worship services. Instead, churches serve up a paltry diet of drama, music, and other forms of entertainment.
Second, evangelical pragmatism tends to move the focus of faith away from God's Son. You've seen that repeatedly if you watch much religious television. The health-wealth-and-prosperity gospel advocated by so many televangelists is the ultimate example of this kind of fantasy faith. This false gospel appeals unabashedly to the flesh, corrupting all the promises of Scripture and encouraging greed. It makes material blessing, not Jesus Christ, the object of the Christian's desires.
Easy-believism handles the message differently, but the effect is the same. It is the promise of forgiveness minus the gospel's hard demands, the perfect message for pragmatists. It has done much to popularize "believing" but little to provoke sincere faith.
Christ is no longer the focus of the message. While His name is mentioned from time to time, the real focus is inward, not upward. People are urged to look within; to try to understand themselves; to come to grips with their problems, their hurts, their disappointments; to have their needs met, their desires granted, their wants fulfilled. Nearly all the popular versions of the message encourage and legitimize a self-centered perspective.
Third, today's Christianity is infected with a tendency to view the result of faith as something less than God's standard of holy living. By downplaying the importance of holy living–both by precept and by example–the biblical doctrine of conversion is undermined. Think about it: What more could Satan do to try to destroy the church than undermining God's Word, shifting the focus off Christ, and minimizing holy living?
All those things are happening slowly, steadily within the church right now. Tragically, most Christians seem oblivious to the problems, satisfied with a Christianity that is fashionable and highly visible. But the true church must not ignore those threats. If we fight to maintain doctrinal purity with an emphasis on biblical preaching and biblical ministry, we can conquer external attacks. But if error is allowed into the church, many more churches will slide down the grade to suffer the same fate as the denominations that listened to, yet ignored, Spurgeon's impassioned appeal.
Make it your habitual prayer request that the Lord would elevate the authority of His Word, the glory of His Son, and the purity of His people in the evangelical church. May the Lord revive us and keep us far from the slippery slope of pragmatism.
|
|
|
Post by rick on Mar 7, 2006 9:46:39 GMT -5
John MacArthur on Entertainment in the Church
You see, that’s what the strategy in so many churches has become. The pastor thinks to himself, “When I just preach what God told me to preach, I don’t get good results. People are bored, they don’t respond in large numbers, etc. But when I add a little gratuitous humor or build a cappuccino café or lighten up the message a little bit, voila – large crowds!” And so, even they begin to water down the message in a well-intentioned effort to meet people where they’re at and to stay relatable. And when those same pastors and churches do compromise, guess what happens? Success. Albeit pragmatic, shallow, hollow, external success in numbers and positive response only… but success!
Now again, don’t get me wrong. There’s nothing inherently evil with appropriate humor in a sermon or a cup of coffee afterwards. But when those things become the bait to a trap and hold the attention of otherwise disinterested crowds, then all it’s doing is propping up a ministry that has no real spiritual power to transform lives.
|
|
|
Post by rick on Mar 7, 2006 9:59:56 GMT -5
Showtime Religion
by John MacArthur
Can the church fight apathy and materialism by feeding people’s appetite for entertainment? Evidently many in the church think so, as church after church jumps on the show-business bandwagon.
It is a troubling trend that is luring many otherwise orthodox churches away from biblical priorities.
What they want
Church buildings are being constructed like theatres. Instead of a pulpit, the focus is a stage. Some feature massive platforms that revolve or rise and fall, with coloured lights and huge sound boards.
Spiritual shepherds are giving way to media specialists, programming consultants, stage directors, special effects experts, and choreographers.
The idea is to give the audience what they want. Tailor the church service to whatever will draw a crowd. As a result, pastors are more like politicians than shepherds, looking to appeal to the public rather than leading and building the flock God has entrusted to them.
The congregation is served a slick, professional show, in which drama, pop music, and maybe a soft-sell sermon constitute the worship service. But the emphasis is on entertainment, not worship.
Underlying idea
Underlying this trend is the notion that the church must ‘sell’ the gospel to unbelievers — that churches compete for the consumer on the same level as Frosted Flakes or Miller Lite.
More and more churches are relying on marketing strategy to sell the church.
That philosophy is the result of bad theology. It assumes that if you package the gospel right, people will get saved. The whole approach is rooted in Arminian theology.
It views conversion as nothing more than an act of the human will. Its goal is an instantaneous decision rather than a radical change of the heart.
Moreover, this whole Madison-Avenue corruption of Christianity presumes that church services are primarily for recruiting unbelievers. Many have abandoned worship as such.
Others have relegated conventional preaching to some small group-setting on a weeknight. But that misses the point of Hebrews 10:24-25: ‘Let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds, not forsaking our own assembling together’.
True pattern
Acts 2:42 shows us the pattern the early church followed when they met: ‘They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer’.
Note that the early church’s priorities were to worship God and to edify the brethren. The church came together for worship and edification — it scattered to evangelise the world.
Our Lord commissioned his disciples for evangelism thus: ‘Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations’ (Matthew 28:19). Christ makes it clear that the church is not to wait for (or invite) the world to come to its meetings, but to go to the world.
That is a responsibility for every believer. I fear that an approach emphasising a palatable gospel presentation within the walls of the church absolves the individual believer from his personal obligation to be a light in the world (Matthew 5:16).
Lifestyle Society is filled with people who want what they want when they want it. They are ‘into’ their own lifestyle, recreation and entertainment. When churches appeal to those selfish desires, they only fuel that fire and hinder true godliness. Some of these churches are growing exponentially, while others that do not entertain are struggling. Many church leaders want numerical growth in their churches, so they are buying into the entertainment-first philosophy.
Consider what this philosophy does to the gospel message itself. Some maintain that if biblical principles are presented, the medium doesn’t matter. That is nonsense.
Why not have a real carnival? A tattooed knife-thrower who juggles chain-saws could do his thing, while a barker shouts Bible verses. That would draw a crowd, wouldn’t it? It’s a bizarre scenario, but one that illustrates how the medium can cheapen and corrupt the message.
Trivialising
And sadly, it’s not terribly different from what is actually being done in some churches. Punk-rockers, ventriloquists’ dummies, clowns, and show-business celebrities have taken the place of the preacher — and they are degrading the gospel.
I do believe we can be innovative and creative in how we present the gospel, but we have to be careful to harmonise our methods with the profound spiritual truth we are trying to convey. It is too easy to trivialise the sacred message.
Don’t be quick to embrace the trends of the high-tech super-churches. And don’t sneer at conventional worship and preaching. We don’t need clever approaches to get people saved (1 Corinthians 1:21).
We simply need to get back to preaching the truth and planting the seed. If we’re faithful in that, the soil God has prepared will bear fruit.
|
|
|
Post by rick on Mar 7, 2006 10:31:52 GMT -5
Pope Quotes: (then Cardinal Ratzinger)
“One thing above all should be clear [from the gospel as “good news”]: the joyous character of Christian faith does not depend on the effectiveness of ecclesiastical events. The Church is not a society for the promotion of good cheer, whose value rises and falls with the success of its activities,” like various social and civic institutions. “....The Christian would be remiss toward his brethren if he did not proclaim the Christ who first and foremost brings redemption from sin; if he did not proclaim the reality of the alienation (the ‘Fall’) and, at the same time, the reality of the grace that redeems us, that liberates us; if he did not proclaim that, in order to effect a restoration of our original nature, a help from outside is necessary; if he did not proclaim that the insistence upon self-realization, upon self-salvation does not lead to redemption but to destruction; finally, if he did not proclaim that, in order to be saved, it is necessary to abandon oneself to Love”
|
|
|
Post by rick on Mar 7, 2006 10:39:31 GMT -5
Michael Horton:
".....Paul's warnings about properly exhorting the congregation and fencing the table are taken seriously here. As the early church simply adapted the synagogue worship (in which Jesus himself was reared and, when he taught his disciples to pray according to the form of the Lord's Prayer, seems to have endorsed) to Christian use. Jesus was raised with a service book, full of prayers and the Psalms, as were many of the first Christians. The basic elements of the services thus described are actually patterned on the earliest forms of Christian worship available.
Second, therefore, Reformed worship is God-centered. It focuses on the objective, what God has done in Christ for the salvation of sinners, applied by the Holy Spirit. Calvin himself insisted, against opposition on the city council, that there be an assurance of pardon and weekly Communion. Believers must constantly be reminded that they are sinners who require divine forgiveness even for the sinfulness that clings to their best works. They must never be allowed to fall back on themselves for assurance nor live again for themselves, so the service must concentrate on Guilt and Grace, with gratitude as the only appropriate creaturely response. Medieval worship had degenerated into a show, Calvin lamented in a number of places. Since people could not read or follow the Latin sermon and liturgy, their only point of contact with the service was emotional. In fact, morality plays--dramas--often overshadowed or even replaced sermons. Similarly today, images prevail and sermons and worship styles are increasingly reduced to the lowest common denominator. What results, of course, is another tyranny of images over words, "orthofeely" over orthodoxy, experience and entertainment over proclamation and announcement."
|
|
|
Post by rick on Mar 7, 2006 10:45:41 GMT -5
by Gary E. Gilley, Pastor-Teacher
Fulfillment
One of the areas in which this generation believes their need for fulfillment is met is in the form of entertainment. The seeker-sensitive church (see our papers on "The Market-Driven Church") has caught this wave all too well. They understand that this age is seeking fulfillment, and often in an entertaining format. They have designed their churches to meet this "need" which largely explains their phenomenal growth. But it also is their greatest weakness. Os Guinness recognizes this when he writes, [Take for example] "the megachurches subordination of worship and discipleship to evangelism, and all three to entertainment, a problem that is already the Achilles heel of evangelicalism" (Dining with the Devil, by Os Guinness, p. 27).
It must be understood, at this point, that entertainment within the church comes in a variety of wrappings and the more subtle the wrapping the more dangerous the content. For example, when I am being entertained in either a secular or ecclesiastical setting, and know I am being entertained, it is of little consequence. If I go to a so-called Christian event, which for the most part is lighthearted, full of laughter and fun music, I have gone to be entertained. I am not in attendance to worship God or be instructed in His Word. I am there to have a good time. I know that, and as long as the entertainment is not out of sync with Christian character and biblical truth nothing is harmed. This boat springs a leak, however, the moment I begin to believe that this activity is worship or that this is the way worship should be packaged. As long as I can distinguish amusement from worship I can appreciate both in their proper setting. It is not wrong to be entertained as a Christian; it is wrong to confuse it with, or allow it to replace, true worship and biblical instruction. "The purpose of worship is clearly to express the greatness of God and not simply to find inward release or, still less, amusement" (Losing Our Virtue, by David Wells, p. 40).
Herein enters one of the subtlest forms of entertainment as related to the Christian and the church. The cry pouring from the wilderness, by a self-fulfillment seeking generation, is the need to experience, or feel the presence of God (not to be confused with a genuine passion to know and worship a most holy God). Increasingly Christians say they attend church to experience God, to come into His presence, to have a Divine rendezvous. They want to go to a church where they can "feel God." There are a number of pitfalls imminent in this desire, the most obvious of which is that it is unbiblical. Where in Scripture are we told to seek the presence of God as a felt experience? As New Testament believers we are already in the presence of God since He resides in our bodies (I Cor. 6:19). And since Christ is our High Priest we are told to "draw near with confidence to the throne of grace" (Heb. 4:16). But no where in Scripture are we told to seek an experience in which we feel the presence of God. I often ask people who are caught up in this "experiencing God" current, "Exactly what does God’s presence feel like?" After a fumbling attempt to explain, my next question is, "How do you know that what you felt is God and not the devil, or your own imagination or last night’s pizza?" They have no legitimate answer to this question, except "they just know." But that is not enough. If God did not see fit to neither demand us to seek such a Divine experience, nor to describe what one would feel like, who are we to make this the apex of the Christian life of worship? Every Christian leader, especially in this age of quasi-mysticism, should read William James’ old classic, The Varieties of Christian Experience, which, while not a Christian book, gives great insight into the claimed experiences emanating from all forms of religion. This volume should give us pause before so quickly pronouncing so many feelings and experiences as encounters with God.
But more germane to our subject is the live reality that the "feeling the presence of God" stampede is actually a form of entertainment with a thin layer of worship draped over it. This recent hunger for Divine encounter is precipitated by an appetite for personal fulfillment. A culture that so prizes personal fulfillment has found that one of the ways they can do this is through what they believe is experiencing God. Many are seeking the presence of God simply because it makes them feel better. "Modern evangelicalism," writes Donald Bloesch, "has shamefully adapted to the therapeutic society, which makes personal fulfillment the be all and end all of human existence" (Donald G. Bloesch, Christianity Today, February 5, 2000; "Whatever Happened to God," p. 55). This is entertainment (a focusing on my gratification and pleasure) not worship (focusing on the greatness of God). And it is a shameful form of entertainment because it tries to make God the servant to my desires.
That this is rapidly becoming the status quo in evangelicalism is evident by the number of Christians who now choose a church on the basis of musical styles and other superficial features rather than on the basis of the truth being taught. Growing churches, claims Christian A. Schwarz, an expert in the church growth industry, are characterized by inspiring worship. In defining inspiring worship he writes, "People who attend inspiring worship services unanimously declare that the church service is — for some Christians this is almost a heretical word — ‘fun’" (Christian A. Schwarz, The ABC’s of Natural Church Development, p. 14). Fun, (I.e. entertainment), has become the criteria by which people are choosing a church. Many are all too happy to sacrifice doctrine for a good time. Many will endure outright heresies to enjoy a pleasant experience or to "feel the presence of God" even if that presence is generated by mood altering methods closer akin to manipulation than worship. Indeed, it is altogether likely that some are willingly being manipulated because they enjoy "Christianity Lite." Michael Horton understands where the Christian herd is headed in this explained distinction between inspiration and entertainment:
Probably the single word that most viewers believe best describes the [Christian television] broadcasts is "inspirational." But what does it mean to be "inspired"? It is a feeling of being moved religiously. What determines the genuineness of the feeling of inspiration? What separates inspiration from entertainment? Perhaps the dividing line can be described this way: Genuine inspiration is an emotional response to a genuine encounter with the living God. Inspiration, therefore, is not an end in itself or even something we should seek. It is rather a result of seeking and meeting God in His way. Inspiration is the result of something profoundly God-centered. Entertainment is profoundly man-centered. In entertainment a person looks for what pleases and excites himself or herself.
Entertainment gratifies the viewer emotionally. Whether it pleases God may be quite a secondary matter. Error can inspire. It can make people feel good, though it displeases and angers God. The electronic church too often is in the entertainment not inspiration, business. One is more likely to meet and be moved by singers and personalities than by God. And to mask the quality of their programs with the ambiguous term inspiration is quite dishonest. One of the great tragedies of our time is that so many local churches are choosing to try to copy the electronic church. Many local churches are seeking to be attractive by emulating some of the easy, individualistic, and interesting features of the electronic church. This strategy is self-defeating because usually the local church cannot match the professional production and slick graphics of television. But more important, the strategy dishonors God by failing to be what He wants the local church to be" (The Agony of Deceit, by Michael Horton, pp. 163, 164).
The biblical picture is that the believer may in fact experience many wonderful emotions as a result of his or her relationship with God. But those emotions should result from, and be based upon, scriptural truth, not man-created substitutes manufactured to elicit an emotional response.
|
|
|
Post by rick on Mar 7, 2006 13:25:48 GMT -5
By Gary E. Gilley:
Entertainment (February 2001) One is tempted, when dealing with such a subject as entertainment, to immediately face the current issues as related to the matter at hand. We are anxious to explore the place entertainment plays in our society, its encroachment upon the church, and its impact on the changing face of corporate worship. But to do so would be not only premature but superficial. It is important first to lay a foundation upon which we can build and inspect. We need to travel down the road of the past to understand how we, as a society, got to the present. Having made that journey we would then be wise to take stock, consider precautions, and contemplate some adjustments. All of this before we discuss entertainment in the context of the church. If you will bear with me, this will not be a study of Scripture, but a perusal of our society — both past and present. In our next paper I hope to tie all of this together from a scriptural frame of reference.
The Road Most Often Taken
(of late)
It would probably come as a shock to those who live in a culture in which entertainment has become the primary and most cherished value to learn that it has not always been this way. One researcher discovered that the word "fun" was of "recent origin and that no other language had an exact equivalent to the English meaning, leading him to speculate that fun was neither readily understood nor fully accepted until the twentieth century. At the highest levels of culture it was taken for granted that good things were serious things" (Life the Movie, by Neal Gabler, p. 20). It is interesting to do a word study on the words laugh and laughter, as found in Scripture. While these words are found a couple of dozen times they are almost always used in a negative sense – usually of one who is expressing scorn or mockery (e.g. Psalm 2:4). Only twice, Psalm 126:2 and Proverbs 14:13 is laughter defined as something clearly positive. Additionally, none of the great personalities of biblical times are ever said to have laughed as an expression of joy and happiness. Jesus wept, but we never hear of Him laughing. The same is true of many others. This is not to say that godly people in biblical times never laughed, but for whatever reason God did not see it as important to tell us about it.
As for the issue of fun, the Scriptures usually cast a pejorative connotation on the idea. The prodigal son no doubt had fun, as he squandered his wealth and his life, but then he came to his senses. But in fairness, when he came home his father threw him a great party where all but one person were merry and rejoiced (Luke 15:32). Of course their joy was over a marvelous thing – the repentance of a sinner. We find a similar pattern throughout Scripture. The Old Testament Jewish feasts were unquestionably times of rejoicing, at least that was their original intention. We find singing, fellowship, good food and drink. But it was all in the context of worshipping and pleasing God. The joy wrapped around the feasts (and other happy events) was supposed to be centralized on God – He, and His great provisions, were to be the focus.
Solomon, on the other hand, gives us one of the few biblical pictures of a man pursuing happiness and entertainment in which he and his interest were center stage -- and it is not pretty. In the book of Ecclesiastes Solomon chronicles his journey in pursuit of something that would satisfy the gaping hole in his heart left by his abandonment of God. In this quest for pleasures, in all its forms, he ultimately did not find joy but increasing emptiness. When the laughter had died down he was still the same hollow man that he was before. Solomon learned almost too late that while "there is nothing wrong with entertainment… we all build castles in the air. The problems come when we try to live in them" (Amusing Ourselves to Death, p. 77). Scripture, then, would not appear to condemn fun, laughter or entertainment, but would point us in the direction of examining both the focus and the motive behind such endeavors. For instance, the joy of the Lord is a common theme, especially in the Psalms. This is a joy centered on God, drawn from God’s greatness, and focusing on God’s glory. This is not exactly the typical concept of a "good time" today.
Outside the biblical picture, and throughout the ages, until recently, many who could (usually the wealthy) without question chased certain pleasures – drunkenness, orgies, immoral pursuits, mindless amusement -- but usually these activities were seen for what they were – godless substitutes for the finer things in life. Nothing like the entertainment age, as we know it today, appears on the pages of history. Even during the days of the Roman Coliseum only a few were "entertained," the masses were excluded, or worse, executed.
Many have traced the roots of the entertainment explosion among the common people back to radical changes taking place in Western society during the 1800s. No one has brought this to our attention better than Neil Postman in his excellent book, Amusing Ourselves to Death, which we will refer to often.
As these changes began to sweep across our land the intellectuals and cultural aristocrats were most often found sitting in their own corners, scoffing. For centuries the upper crust had an appreciation for the arts. But to enjoy the arts required a person to think, to meditate, to engage the mind and the soul. This new brand of entertainment, increasingly being enjoyed by the masses, was mindless. It was "about gratification rather than edification, indulgence rather than transcendence, reaction rather than contemplation, escape from moral instruction rather than submission to it" (ibid. p. 16).
In other words, the new forms of entertainment now gaining popularity with the ordinary man was nothing more than senseless fun – and it was loved for just that reason. The elite hated entertainment for the same reasons that the working class delighted in it. Siding with the elite was the church, but for somewhat different reasons. The church opposed amusement because its values and interests were in competition with those of organized religion – and because when a person was distracted by entertainment they could not focus on God.
But the church, especially in America, had virtually no restraining effect on the new amusement juggernaut for two reasons. First, Americans simply did not go to church in great numbers in the nineteenth century. Many estimates place church membership at around 7% at the dawn of the nineteenth century and only 15% by 1850, after the so-called Second Great Awakening. Secondly, a dramatic shift had taken place in American forms of worship following the Revolutionary War. In the early decades of the 1700s churches and preachers were still under the influence of the Puritans. Sermons were highly doctrinal, often read verbatim from manuscripts. Church services were geared for the mind not the emotions (although many, like Jonathan Edwards preached to the heart, he did so, however, through the conduit of the mind); sermons were judged by their content not their delivery (Edwards read every word). Music was carefully controlled. Hymns were often "lined out" (a method whereby the song leader read one line at a time, which the congregation would then sing then wait for the next line to be read), and sometimes eliminated altogether for fear that the people might be manipulated.
All that began to change in the 1740s at the time of the Great Awakening and the preaching of George Whitefield. When the embers of this time of revival died down the church went into a drought. Church attendance began to dive, theology lost its appeal, the teachings of the Enlightenment began to catch on, and Deism became popular. By 1800 the American church was in a dismal state and ripe for anything that would offer some kind of spiritual sustenance. The Second Great Awakening, which began in 1801 in Cane Ridge, Kentucky, would fill that void and forever change Christianity in America. Sermons of substance were replaced with emotional diatribes. Doctrine was replaced by stories. The preacher’s performance became more important than what was taught. Music took on a central role as emotionalism became the order of the day. Ministers began to study "what worked" in order to draw a crowd. Charles Finney would perfect all of this, changing the heart and soul of the church. In other words, the church became a form of entertainment. And so, when amusement began to grow legs in society, the church had little that it could say. Its biggest complaint would have to be that they were now in competition with secular forms of entertainment. The church could not speak with authority against these amusements because it had lost its voice.
More later......
The Bible describes Jesus as the suffering servant. Many Christian folks today trying to justify their "methods" of manipulation say that Jesus often laughed out loud and was a fun guy.
|
|
|
Post by rick on Mar 7, 2006 17:12:05 GMT -5
Gilley continues:
Fast Forward
If someone had fallen asleep in 1850 and awakened a hundred years later he would be just in time to watch society giving birth to the perfect entertainment transport – the television. Neil Postman argues persuasively that, "Television has made entertainment itself the natural format for the representation of all experience…. The problem is not that television presents us with entertaining subject matter but that all subject matter is presented as entertaining, which is another issue all together…. Television is transforming our culture into one vast arena for show business" (ibid. p. 80, 87). Television did not invent the entertainment age, it just perfected it.
The age of television ascended from the ashes of the age of exposition. In the 1700s and well into the 1800s almost everyone in this country was a reader. "America was as dominated by the printed word and an oratory based on the printed word as any society we know of" (ibid. p. 47). The outcome of such a state was a nation of people who could think, analyze, debate, formulate an argument, understand and discuss issues, including theology. All of that began to change in the nineteenth century as entertainment started sending down roots into the lives of the American people.
Entertainment soon began to wrap its long tentacles around every aspect of American society. Not only was religion affected but so were politics, the media, advertisement and life in general. Politicians today no longer debate issues so much as they project an image, and why not for, "Image is everything" according to the Canon commercials. And have you noticed how newspaper articles increasingly open like novels, setting the scene and attempting to draw interest. Education too, has caught the wave. If kids would not listen to teachers and read books maybe they would listen to puppets and watch cartoons. So the experts invented Sesame Street, and its clones, then soon thereafter began to praise its results.
Today kids also enjoy computer software that has furthered metamorphosed learning into a game. But the long-term prognosis is not so bright. Our children are entering higher education and the adult work world with a game mentality. The consequence, educators are increasingly recognizing, is that we must make education fun and entertaining if we expect to keep the interest of our young adults. All that Sesame Street ultimately proved, as Neil Postman observes, is that children would love school "only if school is like Sesame Street…. As a television show Sesame Street does not encourage children to love school or anything about school. It encourages them to love television" (ibid. p. 142). And unfortunately, "Television’s primary contribution to educational philosophy is the idea that teaching and entertainment are inseparable…. [Which in turn] has refashioned the classroom into a place where both teaching and learning are intended to be vastly amusing activities" (ibid. p. 146, 148). And when they are not, students become restless and detached.
Then consider advertising, which is as fine a mirror as you are likely to find to reflect what a society values and how it reasons. Prior to the twentieth century advertisers assumed that consumers, since they were readers, were literate, rational and analytical. Therefore they advertised their products in rational ways – explaining their benefits – in order to entice a thinking society. That did not begin to change until the latter part of the 1800s when advertisers began to adopt jingles and slogans. The evolution of advertisement from that point would be an interesting study in itself, but even the casual observer today would note the almost complete lack of content in modern commercials. Increasingly modern advertisement has almost no link whatsoever with the product. A product with redeeming value is not being sold, an image is. What this tells us about ourselves is that we have become a people who no longer thinks and analyzes, rather we respond to clever manipulation of our emotions.
"Television commercials made linguistic discourse obsolete as the basis for product decisions. By substituting images for claims, the pictorial commercial made emotional appeal, not tests of truth, the basis of consumer decision" (ibid. p. 127). The implications of this for the church should be self-evident. Postman suggests that, "The decline of a print-based epistemology and the accompanying rise of a television-based epistemology has had grave consequences for public life, that we are getting sillier by the minute" (ibid. p. 24). "Entertainment reaches out to us where we are, puts on its show and then leaves us essentially unchanged, if a bit poorer in time and money. It does not (and usually does not claim to) offer us any new perspective on our lives" (All God’s Children and Blue Suede Shoes, by Don Myers, as quoted in Family-Based Youth Ministry, p. 144).
Of course Christianity was not far behind. Neal Gabler, who has no ax to grind in this area, making no pretense to be a Christian, has noticed, "Evangelical Protestantism, which had begun as a kind of spiritual entertainment in the nineteenth century, only refined its techniques in the twentieth, especially after the advent of television. Televangelists like Oral Roberts and Jimmy Swaggart recast the old revival meeting as a television variety show, and Pat Robertson’s 700 Club was modeled after The Tonight Show, only the guests on this talk show weren’t pitching a new movie or album; they were pitching salvation" (Life the Movie, p. 120). Christianity on television, by necessity, has always been presented in the form of entertainment. Theology, rituals, sacred worship, prayer, and most other true components of the Christian faith, simply do not "play" well on television.
As might be expected the local church caught on as well. If they were to draw the masses it could best be done by wrapping the faith in the package of entertainment – for the people, having now been trained to be consumers, have also been taught that the ultimate sin is to be bored. Hence the birth of the market-driven church which caters to the insatiable appetite for amusement in society in general.
Overall there has been a great shift in what our culture values. One student of the times remarks, "The old Puritan production oriented culture demanded and honored what he called character, which was a function of one’s moral fiber. The new consumption oriented culture, on the other hand, demanded and honored what he called personality, which was a function of what one projected to others. It followed that the Puritan culture emphasized values like hard work, integrity and courage. The new culture of personality emphasized charm, fascination and likability" (Life the Movie, p. 197). Steven Covey, in his widely poplar book, The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People (many teachings of which I do not endorse) notices this same thing in his in-depth study of the "success" literature published in the United States since 1776. He writes that, "Almost all the literature in the first 150 years or so focused on what could be called the Character Ethic as the foundation of success – things like integrity, humility, fidelity, temperance, courage, justice, patience, industry, simplicity, modesty, and the Golden Rule…. But shortly after World War I the basic view of success shifted from the Character Ethic to what we might call the Personality Ethic. Success became more a function of personality, of public image, of attitudes and behaviors, skills and techniques, that lubricate the processes of human interaction…. The basic thrust was quick-fix influence techniques, power strategies, communication skills, and positive attitudes" (The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, by Steven Covey, pp. 18-19).
We live in a society that increasingly drifts towards the form rather than the substance, which embraces the superficial, which lives to play, which will pay almost any amount of money to be amused, and which prizes fun as the highest pursuit of life. Conviction has been replaced by thrill and few seem to notice. One cannot help but think of Pinocchio and his buddies on Pleasure Island. In the midst of mindless fun only Pinocchio seemed to understand that they were all being turned into donkeys until it was too late.
One would hope that things would be different among evangelical Christians, but such does not seem to be the case. It appears that the church is in lockstep with the world. The problem is this – Christians have been seduced and trained by the same forces that have enticed society as a whole. Too many Christians, just like their unsaved counterparts, are impressed by the form rather than the substance; are seeking thrills and excitement; are more apt to respond to emotional manipulation than to rational discourse. How does a church compete in this rather crowded marketplace? If entertainment has become the primary value of the American way of life (as some are suggesting) then how can the church vie unless they become bastions of entertainment? But if they give in to this powerful temptation has not the church been transformed into something other than the church? Postman, who does not pretend to be a Christian, nevertheless recognizes that, "Christianity is a demanding and serious religion. When it is delivered as easy and amusing, it is another kind of religion altogether…. There is no doubt, in other words, that religion can be made entertaining. The question is, by doing so, do we destroy it" (Postman, p. 121, 124). The problem is that the main business of entertainment is to please the crowd, but the main purpose of authentic Christianity is to please the Lord. Both Scripture and history have repeatedly shown that it is seldom possible to do both at the same time, for very long.
More later..........
|
|
|
Post by rick on Mar 7, 2006 21:33:37 GMT -5
Continued....
An Antidote?
Is there an antidote for a culture being drained by laughter? I think not. When everything from politics, to education, to religion has become defined by its entertainment value the culture as a whole would seem to have become too trivialized to redeem. But there is an outside chance that God’s people (at least some of them) can see through the smoke and come to different conclusions, and different ways of living. The key lies in the area of discernment. The author of Hebrews, addressing a whole different set of issues that had left his Christian audience immature and ineffective, called for this very thing, "Solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good from evil" (Hebrews 5:14). There was no shortcut then, as there is none now, to maturity and discernment -- solid food, in the form of in-depth study and application of the Word of God, is needed.
When Aldous Huxley wrote Brave New World he certainly did not have biblical discernment in view as the remedy for his envisioned societal ills. But he did have a point to make worth considering. "In the end, he was trying to tell us that what afflicted the people in Brave New World was not that they were laughing instead of thinking, but that they did not know what they were laughing about and why they had stopped thinking" (ibid. p. 163).
Christianity is designed by God to be a "thinking" faith. God desires His people to consider, reason, analyze and study. He has given us His Word in propositional form; a Word that must be carefully dissected if it is to be understood (II Timothy 2:15). To allow ourselves to be pressed into the world’s mold of entertainment without careful reflection based on Scripture is a terrible loss. God is not calling His people to a life of grumpiness, but surely if we, like the saints of biblical times, are looking for the city which has foundations, whose architect and builder is God (Hebrews 11:10) it will shape the way we live and enjoy our time on this earth.
More to come........
|
|
|
Post by rick on Mar 7, 2006 21:39:31 GMT -5
Continued........
A Backlash
Many see this entertainment form of worship, which we have been discussing, as a fad that will pass through our land and ultimately vanish over the horizon. If so, it will leave behind a scorched earth full of discouraged and bewildered believers who will not know where to turn next. But some are already flying the coop. Donald G. Bloesch reported recently in a Christianity Today article outlining the early signs of a backlash to the seeker-sensitive services so popular today.
Evangelical Protestantism is in trouble today as an increasing number of business and professional people are searching for a new church. The complaint I hear most often is that people can no longer sense the sacred either in the preaching or the liturgy.... Worship has become performance rather than praise. The praise choruses that have preempted the great hymns of the church do not hide the fact our worship is essentially a spectacle that appeals to the senses rather than an act of obeisance to the mighty God who is both holiness and love. Contemporary worship is far more ego-centric than theocentric. The aim is less to give glory to God than to satisfy the longings of the human heart. Even when we sing God’s praises the focus is on fulfilling and satisfying the human desire for wholeness and serenity (Feb. 5, 2001, p. 54).
The Nature of Worship
Much of the confusion in all of these matters comes because we do not understand the nature of worship. John 4:23 tells us that we are to worship God in spirit and truth. I agree with John MacArthur who writes concerning this verse, "True worship involves the intellect as much as the emotions. It underscores the truth that worship is to be focused on God, not on the worshiper" (The Coming Evangelical Crisis, edited by John H. Armstrong, "How Shall We Then Worship," by John MacArthur, p. 176). Our worship should be centered on God as we praise Him, through word, song and prayer, and as we edify the saints through the teaching of the Scriptures so that they are enabled to live lives honoring to Him. To so honor and worship God all that we do must emerge from truth. Most would agree with that, at least in theory if not in practice, when it comes to preaching and teaching the Scriptures, for this is clearly taught in the Word (I Tim. 4:13; II Tim. 2-4; Acts 2:42; Titus 1:9; Col. 1:25). Music, unfortunately, often gets an exemption. But do we have any more right to sing heresy than we do to preach heresy? Again, MacArthur is on the money when he writes:
Music by itself, apart from the truth contained in the lyrics, is not even a legitimate spring board for real worship. Similarly, a poignant story may be touching or stirring, but unless the message it conveys is set in the context of biblical truth, any emotions it may stir are of no use in prompting genuine worship. Aroused passions are not necessarily evidence that true worship is taking place. Genuine worship is a response to Divine truth. It is passionate because it arises out of our love for God (ibid., p. 182,3).
When the church gathers for worship what is its biblical mandate? Is it to amuse and entertain? Is it to cater to the cry for fulfillment? Or is it to honor God in spirit and in truth? The difference lies largely in the area of focus. Are we zeroed in on ourselves or on our God? Once it is established that God must be central in our worship we then must examine what we do in worship. Here our practice must be in line with our biblical understanding of God and the church.
More to come........
|
|
|
Post by rick on Mar 7, 2006 21:49:34 GMT -5
continued........
How Shall We Then Sing?
Although volumes could be written about the state of preaching today, I will leave that for another time. Instead we will draw our attention toward the subject of music since it is more directly related to the issue of entertainment. What is the place of music in worship? Far too often in modern worship its place seems to be that of setting a mood. With the right music and talented musicians it is possible to create almost any mood. Do we want happy people? Tearful? Reflective? Excited? Motivated? Music in capable hands is able to create all these moods and many others. But is the setting of a mood the biblical purpose of Christian music?
One of the few passages of Scripture that delivers insight on the theme of music in the setting of the church is Colossians 3:16, Let the word of Christ richly dwell within you, with all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with thankfulness in your hearts to God (see also parallel verse Ephesians 5:19). When many Christians come to church they want to be made to feel a certain way, but the central role of music in the New Testament church is to be a partner with the teaching of the Word of God. While music is a unique way to praise God in worship, the ultimate evaluation of that music in the Christian setting should be whether or not it has aided in the process of helping the Word of Christ to richly dwell within us. Just as the authority and truth of Scripture should dominate our preaching and teaching, so should it dominate our singing.
Music as Teaching
More specifically, music serves the role of teaching and admonishing. Christian music is at its best when it teaches sound doctrine. Many of the great hymns, and some contemporary songs, are steeped in theology that reinforces the truths of the Word. [Not 7-11 praise worship]Conversely music has often been used within the church to teach and promote a wide range of heresies and aberrant doctrines. It is a well-known fact that Arias (4th century) used music to spread his heretical belief that Jesus was a created being and not fully God. While the church councils, such as Nicene, condemned Arianism it continued to be popular among the masses for decades because Arias’ teachings were placed to music and sung by the congregations.
Of course much Christian music, both ancient and modern, teaches very little in the way of biblical truth. Contemporary Christian music, in particular, is long on inspiration and short on instruction. Most of the popular choruses that are making the rounds today are simple lyrics of praise that, when at their best, pinpoint a single truth which is repeated in one form or another throughout the song. [7-11] One such chorus continuously repeats the phrase; "I exalt Thee, O Lord." Well, and good, He is worthy of exaltation. But why is He exalted? What instruction is given concerning the worthiness of God? Another chorus encourages us, based on Psalm 103 to "Bless the Lord, O my soul. . . For He has done great things" (3 times). But if you read Psalm 103 the remaining 21 verses tells the reader why our souls should bless the Lord. Leonard Payton, in commenting on this particular chorus writes, "What those great things are is left to the imagination, not the plain teaching of Scripture. The problem is that true, biblical gratitude must have its basis in objective facts or doctrine. If it doesn’t, it is mere sentimentality" (The Coming Evangelical Crisis, edited by John H. Armstrong, "How Shall We Then Sing," by Leonard Payton, p. 194). With this in mind, do the modern praise choruses have a place in our worship services? I personally believe that they do, but that place could be likened to the place of dessert in our diet. Almost everyone loves dessert, but dessert must not be the main feature of our daily diet or we will suffer grave consequences. To me, a few praise choruses go a long way. To make them the principle mainstay of a church’s musical diet is to fatten the church on sweets when it needs a substantial helping of healthy food.
It might be of great value at this point to reflect upon the views of some of our respected church leaders from the past in relationship to music. Martin Luther said, "Music is the handmaiden of theology." His enemies, recognizing the truth of Luther’s words lamented, "Our people are singing their way into Luther’s theology" (Leadership, Vol. VII, #2, p. 32). Christian History Magazine reports that Charles Wesley’s hymns included verses from every book in the Bible except Nahum and Philemon. He viewed his hymns as a primer in theology and a guide for public worship and private devotion (Vol. X, #3, pp. 11,36). Isaac Watts, the father of English hymnology, wrote hymns to compliment his sermons (ibid., pp. 20,36).
By contrast, much contemporary Christian music bypasses the mind and aims directly at the emotions. When the purpose of music is to elicit an emotional response devoid of biblical truth and with disregard to aiding in the process of the word of Christ dwelling in us richly, the net result is a romanticized Christian faith. Hearts can be moved by the skillful use of melodies and rhythm no matter what message a given song is conveying. For example, who has not felt a few goose bumps when an excellent performance of The Battle Hymn of the Republic has been given? But the lyrics of The Battle Hymn of the Republic were written by Julia Ward Howe, a liberal Unitarian who believed in the fatherhood of God over all mankind. Her hymn has nothing to do with the spreading of the gospel, or the return of Christ, but rather with the eventual dominion of humanistic "truth" over all the world. It became a famous patriotic song but is hardly a hymn that teaches biblical truth (see 101 Hymn Stories, by Kenneth W. Osbeck, pp. 35,36). We may enjoy the beauty and passion of the song but its theology is not helping the word of Christ to dwell richly within us, and thus it’s not a proper hymn for the church.
Many modern choruses teach faulty theology as well. Jack Hayford’s Majesty, for example, teaches that "kingdom authority flows from the throne unto His own." This "kingdom now" theology is very prevalent among many Charismatic and Latter Rain teachings. It propagates exactly what Jack Hayford, the Vineyard Movement, and the Word of Faith pundits believe, but it is not what Scripture teaches and therefore should be eliminated from our musical offerings.
But what of the choruses and contemporary Christian songs that do teach biblical truth? While they surely may have a place in our worship, their weakness is that so often they offer praise to God but are devoid of a doctrinal base. David Wells analyzed 406 songs contained in the Worship Songs of the Vineyard Maranatha! and Music Praise Chorus Book, along with 662 hymns of a traditional hymnal, The Covenant Hymnal, for their doctrinal content. Songs that simply mentioned a truth but did not elaborate on that truth were considered lacking in doctrinal content in his study. For example, a song that repeated throughout that Jesus is Lord, but nothing else, would not be counted among those with theological content. On the other hand, the contemporary song Meekness and Majesty would be counted because of its development of His incarnation. This song does not simply say that Jesus is Lord but opens, "Meekness and majesty, manhood and Deity, in perfect harmony, the Man who is God. Lord of eternity, dwells in humanity; kneels in humility and washes our feet."
Using the above criteria Wells claimed that 58.9% of the praise songs he analyzed offer no doctrinal grounding or explanation for the praise. By contrast in classical hymns "it was hard to find hymns that were not predicated upon and did not develop some aspects of doctrine" (Losing Our Virtue, p. 44).
It would seem to me that if we are evaluating Christian music by how it aids in the process of the word of Christ dwelling in us richly, then that music should be steeped in scriptural truth. Additionally, if we analyze Christian music by comparing it with the Psalms, the biblical hymn book, we would come to the same conclusion. The Psalms are not a collection of simple themes sung in repetitive fashion. They are, instead, absolutely full of doctrinal elaboration. They developed in great detail marvelous themes. This is true of almost any Psalm but take Psalm 36 for example. In this Psalm David contrasts the evil schemes of wicked men (verses 1-4) with the lovingkindness of God (verses 5-12). Today we might write, and sing, a song that simply repeats the truth of God’s lovingkindness. Hugh Mitchell writes, "Thy lovingkindness is better than life, Thy lovingkindness is better than life, my lips shall praise Thee, thus will I bless Thee, I will lift up my hands unto Thy name." By contrast, the Psalmist wrote of the manifold extent of not only His lovingkindness but of God’s faithfulness, righteousness, and even judgments. He developed word pictures of the abundance, delights, life and light found in our Lord. Then he warns himself and his readers of the traps that are along life’s highways that just might spring upon the unsuspecting child of God. What a marvelous example the Psalms demonstrate for us with regard to proper use of music in our worship of God.
more........
|
|