Contemporary Worship?

[buggy]

Just wish to find out the perspectives' of you all on contemporary worship - is it biblical/scriptural?

As a person who has attended a RB church only for a few months, personally I find that many confessing Protestant churches (both RB/Presbyterian) tend to be cautious towards that, if not oppose it outright.

I am concerned about this because many youths today leave for those megachurches since they are tired of "old-fashioned services", and also feel that somewhat culturally they don't belong to traditional churches (and even more if it's "fundamentalist").

Now I'm not advocating for churches to adopt the "purpose-driven" garbage, but here's one question - does contemporary worship - i.e. music, style, etc. conform to the Regulative Principle? Or partially, or not at all?

 

[Jimmy the Greek]

At one level there is a fundamental difference of approach between the Regulative Principle of Worship and what has been termed the "Normative principle." However, for me, the rub comes in differences you find among those who claim to hold to a RPW.

 

[carlgobelman]

Just wish to find out the perspectives' of you all on contemporary worship - is it biblical/scriptural?

As a person who has attended a RB church only for a few months, personally I find that many confessing Protestant churches (both RB/Presbyterian) tend to be cautious towards that, if not oppose it outright.

I am concerned about this because many youths today leave for those megachurches since they are tired of "old-fashioned services", and also feel that somewhat culturally they don't belong to traditional churches (and even more if it's "fundamentalist").

Now I'm not advocating for churches to adopt the "purpose-driven" garbage, but here's one question - does contemporary worship - i.e. music, style, etc. conform to the Regulative Principle? Or partially, or not at all?

I think you will find that the majority of people here on PB adhere to the RPW, which basically asserts that only those forms of worship which are explicitly advocated (or can be drawn from "due use of the ordinary means") in Scripture are allowable in the corporate worship of the church. The other view (Normative?) asserts the converse -- namely, anything that isn't explicitly forbidden in Scripture is allowable in worship.

As a reforming evangelical, I am in transition from normative to regulative. I think the biggest argument you will get against contemporary worship is its real or perceived conformity to the culture. This runs the risk of the church becoming syncretistic with the culture.

In my own experience with contemporary worship, there is at times a lack of discernment regarding song choice. As Warren Cole Smith (author of A Lover's Quarrel with the Evangelical Church) said, the amount of time between a song being played on Christian radio and being sung in a corporate church setting is shrinking. It used to be that before a church hymnal was altered to add new songs these new songs went through a vetting process to analyze the lyrics and the theological content. That has pretty much gone by the wayside in most evangelical churches.

Songs in church are used more for their ability to evoke the so-called "worship experience," as opposed to their ability to instruct us in our faith (cf. Colossians 3:16).

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

Just wish to find out the perspectives' of you all on contemporary worship - is it biblical/scriptural?

As a person who has attended a RB church only for a few months, personally I find that many confessing Protestant churches (both RB/Presbyterian) tend to be cautious towards that, if not oppose it outright.

I am concerned about this because many youths today leave for those megachurches since they are tired of "old-fashioned services", and also feel that somewhat culturally they don't belong to traditional churches (and even more if it's "fundamentalist").

Now I'm not advocating for churches to adopt the "purpose-driven" garbage, but here's one question - does contemporary worship - i.e. music, style, etc. conform to the Regulative Principle? Or partially, or not at all?

What exactly do you mean by "contemporary worship?"

 

[Skyler]

Contemporary music sounds like rock music, which is obviously of the devil. So contemporary music is evil.

There, that was easy, wasn't it?

 

[A.J.]

Contemporary worship, as I have known and experienced, is that kind of worship associated with groups like Integrity Music, Maranatha and Hillsong Australia.

 

[ewenlin]

Tian Long, where are you worshipping at?

 

[Osage Bluestem]

I believe that anything that is not explicitly forbidden and is explicitly or implicitly allowed in scripture is permissive for worship.

I prefer traditional worship, the more liturgical and reverent the better in my view. However, the contemporary style is not forbidden in scripture.

It makes me feel weird though. I get the feeling it is focused too much on entertainment on the horizontal level and too little on glorifying God on the vertical level.

God is the primary audience in worship.

 

[BobVigneault]

Contemporary worship just isn't what it used to be.

 

[Joseph Scibbe]

Dont forget that all music was at one point ''contemporary''. I see no problem with it as we are singing ''psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs'' as commanded by Scripture.We are not given a genre to choose from. Hymns with poorly theological lyrics are no better (actually they are worse) than contemporary ones with solid lyrics.

 

[Honor]

I think that if you look back (like someone already mentioned) alot of songs were at one point contemporary and some of our most beloved hymns were written so they could be song in a bar. shocking but true. also the Bible says to "make a joyful noise" so I take that to mean all kinds of different music.

 

[NRB]

The more liturgical with lot's of Psalms the better for me.

In fact I read an article recently that it's a myth concerning the popularity of contemporary worship with the youth of today, and it seems, in especially the other youth that the liturgy is making a comeback I can't find it but I believe it was featured in the christianpost!?

Anywho, thankyou for listening.

 

[Jimmy the Greek]

Are the issues of RPW versus Normative style primarily limited to music/songs/instruments?? That seems to be where all the heat is generated in discussions here on the PB.

But, some of the contemporary styles that bother me include dance, drama, theatrical-type presentations, movies, slideshows, "cheerleading" and cheering?? I wonder how much of my disdain is strong preference on my part and how much is contra the RPW and biblical prescription.

 

[Jon Peters]

Are the issues of RPW versus Normative style primarily limited to music/songs/instruments?? That seems to be where all the heat is generated in discussions here on the PB.

But, some of the contemporary styles that bother me include dance, drama, theatrical-type presentations, movies, slideshows, "cheerleading" and cheering?? I wonder how much of my disdain is strong preference on my part and how much is contra the RPW and biblical prescription.

The most heated disagreement comes with music and song in worship. The other elements are simply not as controversial.

I think Mason asks a good question. If by contemporary worship the OP is confining that to the content and style music then there is nothing implicit in the RPW that would prevent one from singing contemporary tunes with drums and a guitar. If one believes that the RPW is Psalms only and no musical instruments, one would still be free to use a contemporary translation set to a contemporary melody (just without instruments).

 

[Prufrock]

First, it needs to be understood that this board is Confessional, and that advocacy of not abiding by the RPW is not allowed -- that is, we are only allowed to do what we are commanded to do; it is not Reformed to argue that it is permissible if it is not disallowed.

Secondly, at the moment it will be necessary and helpful for those who *do* hold to the RPW to come together on our common ground: there are those of us who believe the RPW only allows Psalms and no instruments; some of us believe it allows hymns and an accompanying instrument. What is important, however, is that those in the latter crows consider the accompanying instrument to be but a circumstance: that is, strictly as an aid to singing. This is at odds with the multi-instrument "worship bands." If some "style of music" requires a lot of extra instrumentation to make it singable, it's time to start finding another style of music in order to keep the circumstances simple and un-intrusive upon the elements of worship.

 

[Augusta]

You add a band and you have entertainment, not accompaniment with the aim to aid singing.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

First, it needs to be understood that this board is Confessional, and that advocacy of not abiding by the RPW is not allowed -- that is, we are only allowed to do what we are commanded to do; it is not Reformed to argue that it is permissible if it is not disallowed.

Secondly, at the moment it will be necessary and helpful for those who *do* hold to the RPW to come together on our common ground: there are those of us who believe the RPW only allows Psalms and no instruments; some of us believe it allows hymns and an accompanying instrument. What is important, however, is that those in the latter crows consider the accompanying instrument to be but a circumstance: that is, strictly as an aid to singing. This is at odds with the multi-instrument "worship bands." If some "style of music" requires a lot of extra instrumentation to make it singable, it's time to start finding another style of music in order to keep the circumstances simple and un-intrusive upon the elements of worship.

I realize we are not allowed to talk about this but how do pro-instrumental people, using the RPW, confine musical instrumentation to mere accompaniment? How, using the RPW, are instruments called to be "un-intrusive" upon the elements of worship? Are instruments really circumstances?

 

[Prufrock]

Ben, unless I have missed something somewhere along the line, the use of instruments as a circumstance is the one argument which RPW-adhering instrumentalists bring forth. Someone please correct me here if I am mistaken. Since the people may have a hard time singing together without aid, they provide an accompaniment to allow the element to be performed more smoothly. If an instrumentalist reading this take exception to my description of your position, please correct.

 

[Jon Peters]

You add a band and you have entertainment, not accompaniment with the aim to aid singing.

Sorry Traci, not true. Where is your Scriptural support for such a position?

 

[Glenn Ferrell]

Contemporary and traditional are not helpful terms in speaking of worship. I just received the score of a newer Scottish Psalm tune, Bethesda, written within the last decade. It is “contemporary,” though written in a traditional Celtic style. I hope to incorporate it into our local public worship. Will that make us “contemporary”?

More important are the questions:

What elements of worship are commanded in scripture?

Are the words used in prayer, preaching and sung praise true biblically?

Does the music, sung or instrumental, assist the congregation in their joint praise of God, or is it performance?

Are there unwarranted elements included in the time of public worship?

More important than style is the accurate and effective representation of God’s revealed word concerning the good news of salvation in Jesus Christ. Style will not save. The gospel will.

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

First, it needs to be understood that this board is Confessional, and that advocacy of not abiding by the RPW is not allowed -- that is, we are only allowed to do what we are commanded to do; it is not Reformed to argue that it is permissible if it is not disallowed.

Secondly, at the moment it will be necessary and helpful for those who *do* hold to the RPW to come together on our common ground: there are those of us who believe the RPW only allows Psalms and no instruments; some of us believe it allows hymns and an accompanying instrument. What is important, however, is that those in the latter crows consider the accompanying instrument to be but a circumstance: that is, strictly as an aid to singing. This is at odds with the multi-instrument "worship bands." If some "style of music" requires a lot of extra instrumentation to make it singable, it's time to start finding another style of music in order to keep the circumstances simple and un-intrusive upon the elements of worship.

I'm not sure I follow this thinking at all. What type of music requires "a lot of extra instrumentation" to make it "singable?" I'm not being argumentative, I just can't think of a single style of music that requires multiple instruments in order to sing a song. And can't more than one instrument aid a song? Since when are multi-instrument bands anti-RPW?

 

[Jon Peters]

First, it needs to be understood that this board is Confessional, and that advocacy of not abiding by the RPW is not allowed -- that is, we are only allowed to do what we are commanded to do; it is not Reformed to argue that it is permissible if it is not disallowed.

Secondly, at the moment it will be necessary and helpful for those who *do* hold to the RPW to come together on our common ground: there are those of us who believe the RPW only allows Psalms and no instruments; some of us believe it allows hymns and an accompanying instrument. What is important, however, is that those in the latter crows consider the accompanying instrument to be but a circumstance: that is, strictly as an aid to singing. This is at odds with the multi-instrument "worship bands." If some "style of music" requires a lot of extra instrumentation to make it singable, it's time to start finding another style of music in order to keep the circumstances simple and un-intrusive upon the elements of worship.

I realize we are not allowed to talk about this but how do pro-instrumental people, using the RPW, confine musical instrumentation to mere accompaniment? How, using the RPW, are instruments called to be "un-intrusive" upon the elements of worship? Are instruments really circumstances?

I think you ask a good question. I'm not sure I can answer your question satisfactorily at this point, but, if you don't mind, let me ask you a couple of questions. What about the use of instruments as accomponyment strikes you as not circumstantial? I'm not looking for the "no musical instruments" arguments; my question is more practical. For instance, though you would disagree with the use of it at all, would the use of a piano to play the first refrain or two to get people on tempo and in key be easier to contstrue as circumstantial in your opinion? Is a pitchpipe circumstantial?

Thanks.

 

[Augusta]

You add a band and you have entertainment, not accompaniment with the aim to aid singing.

Sorry Traci, not true. Where is your Scriptural support for such a position?

I was giving an opinion there, not a doctrinal statement.

The doctrinal view that I hold to is that there should not be ANY instruments in Christian worship. I would point you to the WLC questions 108-109 and the scripture proofs there. Presbyterians historically believe the Temple worship with all it's ceremonies to be fulfilled in Christ who is the substance.(Col. 2:16-17) Excepting of course those things commanded in the NT to be continued.

 

[buggy]

Tian Long, where are you worshipping at?

I worship at a RB church that has traditional worship only - hymns etc.

Look, I realised I've opened quite a big can of worms - yikes! Yes I am talking about song and music in worship only. I do not espouse the "movies", the dramas and likewise seen in many modern churches today. Apologies for poorly defining what I meant.

What I am saying is that is it possible to so-call adopt newer styles of music, maybe even newer instruments without violating the Regulative principle. (If you don't believe in instruments then only the 1st part applies to you)

Lots of people have provided many useful posts, thanks a lot.

 

[Curt]

The more liturgical with lot's of Psalms the better for me.

In fact I read an article recently that it's a myth concerning the popularity of contemporary worship with the youth of today, and it seems, in especially the other youth that the liturgy is making a comeback I can't find it but I believe it was featured in the christianpost!?

Anywho, thankyou for listening.

If this is the case, then why are all the contemp worship/emerging/emergent "congregations" full and building while many (most?) RPW congregations remain small?

 

[NRB]

The more liturgical with lot's of Psalms the better for me.

In fact I read an article recently that it's a myth concerning the popularity of contemporary worship with the youth of today, and it seems, in especially the other youth that the liturgy is making a comeback I can't find it but I believe it was featured in the christianpost!?

Anywho, thankyou for listening.

If this is the case, then why are all the contemp worship/emerging/emergent "congregations" full and building while many (most?) RPW congregations remain small?

No clue, I'm just the average joe reader.

The times, they are apostate eh?

 

[Brian Withnell]

Now I'm not advocating for churches to adopt the "purpose-driven" garbage, but here's one question - does contemporary worship - i.e. music, style, etc. conform to the Regulative Principle? Or partially, or not at all?

You will get a different answer from those that hold to exclusive Psalmody/acapella only music, but for those that do not hold to that, the answer is a firm "it depends".

Given that the worship is God centered, congregation performing, the genre is not what matters, but rather the fact that the worship service would not work (it would be totally broken) if the congregation were not there. If the "service" would essentially be the same even if there was no "live" congregation, then no.

God is the audience, the congregation is the performers.

 

[AThornquist]

"psalms, hymns, spiritual songs . . ."

That just so happens to include psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. Can contemporary Christian music fit within those? Absolutely! Old hymns are no more spiritual than new ones. Biblical songs that have modern instruments fit within that.

A potential pitfall is that modern songs can be used as entertainment. That should have no place within our churches. Yet at the same time older songs can be idolized and kept because of people's preferred traditions. So, they can be an older form of entertainment!

The answer is not to condemn the old or the new; the sin of our hearts can pollute any good thing. Seek out music with biblical lyrics and an atmosphere that is clearly not about entertainment. I say atmosphere because there can easily be a bass, some drums, electric guitar, etc. and still be fully reverent. My church typically has a couple of acoustic guitars, and sometimes bass and drums. The worship to the Lord is never different on a heart level although the music sounds more pleasing, which is what we seek to offer to the Lord in spirit and in truth.

 

[Edward]

I personally would not choose to go to a church with contemporary music if there was a viable alternative, but I consider that to be a stylistic preference on my part, and not a theologically based choice.

 

[Mushroom]

I am concerned about this because many youths today leave for those megachurches since they are tired of "old-fashioned services", and also feel that somewhat culturally they don't belong to traditional churches (and even more if it's "fundamentalist").

A myth the emergent lurch would have you believe.

If this is the case, then why are all the contemp worship/emerging/emergent "congregations" full and building while many (most?) RPW congregations remain small?

A plethora of itching ears?