“Worship Leader”: “The idols are different but the results are the same”
April 1 2006 at 1:03 PM
(Login Donnie.Cruz) ConcernedMembersMadison from IP address 68.154.165.11
“And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ…” Notice the semi-colon in the above passage:
Apostles; [semi-colon]
Prophets; [semi-colon]
Evangelists; [semi-colon]
Pastors-Teachers; [semi-colon]
Here’s a brief explanation of “pastors and teachers.” This phrase is not in reference to the modern-day “pastor” of some religious faiths who is the “leader” of that particular faith. Rather, as clearly defined in a different role [as the semi-colon indicates], the provision for having “pastors-teachers” [hyphenated for illustration] is associated with the role of [a plurality of] elders in a congregation. Notice certain qualifications of elders:
“[1] This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. [2] A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; [3] Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; [4] One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; [5] (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) [6] Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. [7] Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.” (I Timothy 3, KJV]
(I think the explanation above is necessary in order not to get side-tracked into the “pastors” issue.) Now, let’s look at the entire passage dealing with the one church and the provision that Christ has made “… for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ”:
[1] I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, [2] With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; [3] Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. [4] There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; [5] One Lord, one faith, one baptism, [6] One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. [7] But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ. [8] Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. [9] (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? [10] He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)
[11] And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers [12] For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: [13] Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: [14] That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; [15] But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: [16] From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.” (Ephesians 4, KJV)
The point is to show that Christ has made ample provision for the furtherance and edification of his church. For man to add to what Christ has provided, which is sufficient for the needs of the church, is abhorrent to God and insulting to His wisdom and authority.
The office of “worship leader,” which man has devised for a man or a woman to lead the congregation into God’s HOLY presence with all the rah-rah-rah, rhythmic clapping, concert-like hand-waving and body movements, irreverent and AWE-less behavior—is UNAUTHORIZED.
Worship is never a ministry! Musical worship does not exist—read the Holy Scripture and it’s nowhere to be found. Musical worship is a form of idolatry. Within it can exist an IDOLATRY of MUSICAL TALENT—just think about what that means … I know you can figure it out.
Please, please do not confuse man-ordained “musical worship” with the divinely ordained assembly of the saints as a Bible school in which God’s truth is taught and learned—i.e., by teaching and admonishing one another—and fellow believers partake of the bread to commemorate Christ’s suffering and death on the cross.
Yes, and members are not to be faulted for being misled, there exists a different form of idolatry. Nonetheless, it is idolatrous and the result is the same.
"The idols are different but the results are the same." (Lowell Davey)
April 1 2006, 6:10 PM
______________________________
Here it is: an article written by Lowell Davey, president of the Bible Broadcasting Network. It is not only in churches of Christ, but also in many other religious faiths that the “worship wars” are going on. It is admittedly more difficult to deal with this issue in the brotherhood than anywhere else because the use of instrumental music in the assembly compounds further the already complex issue of worship. The article below, hopefully, will help explain to those among us who claim that the church is dying [more like wishful thinking on their part in order to promote their agenda of change, change, change] and that it is outdated and unreasonably adamant to culture-based needs—as if the gospel and doctrine of Christ ought to change relatively. It is unfortunate that those critics and change agents among us who clamor for “go with the flow” thingy continue to bash the church and compromise the truth.
Donnie
______________________________
Perspective
"The idols are different but the results are the same."
The "worship wars" are beating the drums throughout the church today. This isn't new. Repeatedly in the Old Testament God judged His people for false worship. Exodus 32 says they were punished for both worshipping a false god and worshipping God falsely. In John 4, Jesus shared with the woman at the well the true principles of worship. It was not the physical location, but rather the spiritual condition of the person.
Worship throughout the Old Testament was always in a building called a temple or tabernacle. Today, that has all changed. "Know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit...?" I Corinthians 6:19. God does not meet with us in buildings, but indwells us individually. Today we are temples of God who go to a place for fellowship, prayer, breaking of bread, and learning of His Word. The place is the Church. (Acts 2:42) In fact, from the beginning of the book of Acts (the beginning of the Church) to the book of Jude, there is not one reference to collective worship. Nearly all references to worship in the book of Acts are a rebuke of false worship.
In all the "worship wars," music is the battleground. Many church services begin with a long period of "praise and worship," as if this is worship, and the rest of the service is something else. This is not new. In Exodus 32:4-6, Israel had come to the place where God was going to personally give them His Word. They missed it. Their self-appointed "worship leader" made a golden calf, called it god, rocked out the music, added dancing and eventually immorality, and called it worship. This led the people into God's judgment. It was an abomination to God. Does this have any of the contemporary flavor? Can it be found in this "worship war" of music and dance today? Aaron (the first worship leader) led the people in dance and music to worship in Egypt's style and turned their hearts from the eternal God to Egypt's golden idol. The idols are different, but the results are the same. The absence of the leader opened the door to perverted worship. Perhaps this should be a warning to the leadership in the church today. Maybe there is cause for alarm.
Ron Owens in his book, Return To Worship, talks of "the rise of the chorus and the death of the hymn." We are stealing from this generation our greatest heritage and our greatest teaching tool. Martin Luther used the power of hymns as he sent out singing groups to teach the people doctrine (Colossians 3:16) which played a great part in the Reformation. We still sing his great hymns 500 years later.
Isaac Watts wrote 875 hymns 250 years ago. Many, like "When I Survey The Wondrous Cross," are in our hymnals. Charles Wesley gave us hundreds of hymns, like "O For A Thousand Tongues To Sing." John Newton, the converted slave trader, gave us "Amazing Grace." The longevity of these hymns in the Church has been the bedrock of much of the indelible learning of doctrine. Yes, there have been many hymns written in the past hundred years that are wonderful as well. The great concern is that a pastor or worship leader may close the hymn book and steal our greatest tool for teaching the Truth to the next generation. Can we sing some choruses? Of course, we can. But it is like serving the appetizer and forgetting the main course if we neglect the hymns. In time, we will find a famine in the land for the Word of God.
This is one reason BBN shares the great hymns daily. It will nourish you because it is God's will as seen in Ephesians 5:17-20. It is the will of the Lord to sing hymns.
Commas or “as” or “to be” or “the” will do as well.
April 1 2006, 8:57 PM
Brian,
Have you checked other translations? Just to mention a couple, even the following translations [ ]:
“[11] It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, [12]to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up” [N.I.V.]
“[11] He is the one who gave these gifts to the church: the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, and the pastors and teachers. [12]Their responsibility is to equip God's people to do his work and build up the church, the body of Christ” [New Living Translation]
“[11] and He gave some [as] apostles, and some [as] prophets, and some [as] proclaimers of good news, and some [as] shepherds and teachers, [12] unto the perfecting of the saints, for a work of ministration, for a building up of the body of the Christ,” [Young’s Literal Translation]
Of course not, everyone knew that the musicators were WOMEN. Not before the time of David--who may have had problems--did males become singers and instrument players.
We are told that the women were almost always prostitutes: one resource says that when MALES fell into it they were "drunk or perverts." There is no other meaning in the istory of the world.
The term Pastor-Teachers is written so that it is probably a hyphenated term: the pastors or shepherds fed by teaching the WORD as it had been taught. If you watch those singy clappy types I am surprised how so many wear scraggly beards when they REALLY cannot grow one. That and long hair was the mark of the musicians.
For anyone Biblically literate it is perfectly clear that God associates music with trying to silence God's Word. That is why Lucifer (Zoe) is called the "beast and female instructing principle." In the Greek world of religious festivals the women could not PERFORM so emasculated males dressed and acted like females. When you see the singing, clapping and body motion you know that the guy is leading you into--as pagans and Carol Wimber confesses--a sexual like CLIMATIC experience with God.
It is amazingly amazing that grown (?) men can read clear text and see blank verse: that is the mark of STRONG DELUSIONS. When you see males beginning to musicate then you know that a Mother Goddess Agent has landed right on time: they were called LOCUSTS with scorpion stingers in their tails.
Jesus didn't have to die to found a system of pagan religionism which is ABSOLUTELY marked by any kind of performance music which every literate person at the time of Paul knew to be a sign of madness and perversion. God is making them dance on a string and they may never be able to stop. Let's pray.
Re: Commas or “as” or “to be” or “the” will do as well.
April 2 2006, 5:30 PM
Regardless of what punctuation the translators of the various translations have inserted into the text... the fact is that there is no punctuation in the original text. So it's really pointless to base an argument on what punctuation you find.
Reading the context of Ephesians 4 and noting the phrase Christ's "GIFT" in verse 7; then reading down to the verse you mentioned, verse 11; ...
now if we carefully compare scripture with scripture and these verses in Ephesians 4 with what we read in 1 Corinthians 12:4-11,28; it is quite apparent that these things mentioned in Ephesians 4:11 were GIFTS of the Holy Spirit that were MIRACULOUS appointments and we also know such things ceased when the written word was completed and the apostles who could only bestow these gifts by the laying on of their hands (Acts 8) passed away.
I tire easily and am quite sure you have a Bible handy so I will just post references and allow you to look up the passages.
Ken-
"We are told that the women were almost always prostitutes: one resource says that when MALES fell into it they were "drunk or perverts." There is no other meaning in the istory of the world."
We "are told"??? Told by whom?
"one resource says..." What resource?
"There is no other meaning..." I'm sure that's right, I mean, why do we even have a Bible?
One day, you people are going to see what he's doing. One day....
By the way, I'm sure your friend and supporter PPB appreciates being called what you called her.
I agree that the best way to understand scripture is
with other scripture. On the issues of miraculous gifts
let us read I Corinthians 1:5-9 where the Apostle Paul
says that the gifts bestowed on the Corinthian Church are
operational until the return of our Lord Jesus Christ. In
verse 7 he states that the church has every spiritual gift
that is needed. Paul is referring to the spiritual gifts
outlined in chapters 12 and 14.
On the issue of laying on of hands, there is nothing magical
or special about such activity. Peter states in Acts 3:12 that
it is not the power that is inside of man that miracles occur
but it is by the name of Jesus Christ (verse 16). Laying on of
hands have three functions:
1) to impart blessings on an individual like Christ has done to
the children brought to him.
2) As an act of commissioning service for the church like Paul
and Barnabas (Acts 13:2 and 3).
3) As a symbolic of the use of a human vessel to demonstrate
the work of the Holy Spirit.
The laying on of hands doesn't work like electricity where a
bolt of energy transfers to another person, but rather God
does the work Himself through the agent of a believing servant.
As far as I know this is still true for today because mankind
will always be in need of help through divine intervention.
Argument #1—“The semicolons are not in the original text. No punctuation is. ”
Response #1—Commas or “as” or “to be” or “the” will do as well. (I cited three more translations which prove that even without the semi-colons, the original text support the fact that there were only 4 [NOT 5] groups listed.)
Argument #2—“Regardless of what punctuation the translators of the various translations have inserted into the text... the fact is that there is no punctuation in the original text. So it's really pointless to base an argument on what punctuation you find.”
Response #2—There’s really no choice but to be very technical about it. Parallelism in grammar is extremely important in dividing into sub-units or into sub-sections—good examples of which would be words or expressions as follows:
(1) some … (2) some … (3) some … (4) some
(1) some to be … (2) some to be … (3) some to be … (4) some to be
(1) the … (2) the … (3) the … (4) the
(1) some as … (2) some as … (3) some as … (4) some as
Did you notice in the expressions above? In all cases, (5) is not included because the original text does not list #5.
Even without the punctuation, the 4 cited [of numerous] translations consistently indicate, based on the ORIGINAL TEXT, 4 groups responsible: “for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ.”
King James Version: “And he gave—:
some [,] apostles
some [,] prophets
some [,] evangelists
some [,] pastors and teachers
------- NOT -------
some[,] apostles
some[,] prophets
some[,] evangelists
some[,] pastors
some[,] teachers
New International Version [NIV]: “It was he who gave—
some to be apostles
some to be prophets
some to be evangelists
some to be pastors and teachers
------- NOT -------
some to be apostles
some to be prophets
some to be evangelists
some to be pastors
some to be teachers
New Living Translation: “He is the one who gave these gifts to the church—
the apostles
the prophets
the evangelists
the pastors and teachers
------- NOT -------
the apostles
the prophets
the evangelists
the pastors
the teachers
Young’s Literal Translation: “and He gave—
some [as] apostles
some [as] prophets
some [as] proclaimers of good news
some [as] shepherds and teachers
------- NOT -------
some [as] apostles
some [as] prophets
some [as] proclaimers of good news
some [as] shepherds
some [as] teachers
In all cases, “pastors-teachers” is one entity—NOT two separate entities. This entity is a group of elders (or shepherds or bishops) who are qualified to teach—remember that “apt to teach” is one of the qualifications of the elders?
Besides, the main point in the article is that the man-appointed “WORSHIP LEADER” is certainly NOT one of these provisions for the edification of the church.
Response #2—There’s really no choice but to be very technical about it. Parallelism in grammar is extremely important in dividing into sub-units or into sub-sections—good examples of which would be words or expressions as follows:
(1) some … (2) some … (3) some … (4) some
(1) some to be … (2) some to be … (3) some to be … (4) some to be
(1) the … (2) the … (3) the … (4) the
(1) some as … (2) some as … (3) some as … (4) some as
This is a better argument. Now, where is the proof for the following:
This entity [the pastor-teacher] is a group of elders (or shepherds or bishops)
I'm not sure how the message got Donnie's name on it. I wrote it.
Response #2—There’s really no choice but to be very technical about it. Parallelism in grammar is extremely important in dividing into sub-units or into sub-sections—good examples of which would be words or expressions as follows:
(1) some … (2) some … (3) some … (4) some
(1) some to be … (2) some to be … (3) some to be … (4) some to be
(1) the … (2) the … (3) the … (4) the
(1) some as … (2) some as … (3) some as … (4) some as
This is a better argument. Now, where is the proof for the following:
This entity [the pastor-teacher] is a group of elders (or shepherds or bishops)
Donnie’s Previous Statement:“In all cases, ‘pastors-teachers’ is one entity—NOT two separate entities. This entity is a group of elders (or shepherds or bishops) who are qualified to teach—remember that “apt to teach” is one of the qualifications of the elders?”
Brian's Question: “Now, where is the proof for the following: ‘This entity [the pastor-teacher] is a group of elders (or shepherds or bishops)’”
Answer:
In the New Testament, the following words are used interchangeably to refer to the same group of MEN who lead a local congregation: (1) pastors, (2) shepherds, (3) elders, (4) bishops, or (5) presbyters.
[I’ll explain further later on….]
In the gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John), there are numerous references to the sheep, the shepherd or shepherds, the flock, shepherding over the flock, shepherd of the sheep, etc.
“Elders of the church” is mentioned in Acts 20:17. Paul admonished the elders to: “Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood (v. 28). [Actually, “overseers” is another description of one of the responsibilities of the elders.] Of course, how can we forget that our Lord Jesus is “the great shepherd of the sheep” (Heb. 13:20)? I Peter 2:25—“For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.”
I Peter 5 clearly explains the role of the elders (shepherds or pastors or bishops or overseers) of the local church and how it is related to that of the Chief Shepherd and Bishop: “[1] The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: [2] Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; [3] Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock. [4] And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.”
Ordaining “elders in every city” is mentioned in Titus 1:5. The qualifications of a bishop or elder are mentioned as follows:
[1] Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God's elect, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness; [2] In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began; . . . [5] For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: [6] If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. [7] For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre; [8] But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate; [9] Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.
I Timothy 3:
[1] This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. [2] A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; [3] Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; [4] One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; [5] (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) [6] Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. [7] Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
Let’s not forget that the office of “WORSHIP LEADER” [keyword is “worship”] is man-made and man-authorized. After all, worship is a personal and an individual matter. In fact, “worship service” is not outlined in the New Testament other than we are to worship God in spirit and in truth (John 4:24). Yes, there is a gathering of the disciples to “break bread” and to study God’s Word—teaching and admonishing each other.
This message has been edited by Donnie.Cruz from IP address 67.32.215.214 on Apr 7, 2006 9:03 AM
Besides, the main point in the article is that the man-appointed “WORSHIP LEADER” is certainly NOT one of these provisions for the edification of the church.
I will agree that the Bible does not mention a worship leader, but it also does not mention a "Song leader" being used in Worship. Does that make the use of a "Song leader" unscriptural?
That analogy just doesn't work and needs to stop being used. A song leader is NOT a worship leader. Let's look at your analogy...
Song leader -
A requirement when any two or more sing together. A person who begins the first note of a song so that others may follow. Provides the song and verse for others. A person who's role is to keep order in the praising of God - to prevent chaos. Someone who helps pace the song so that everyone knows when to sing the next word. Literally it means to be a temporary guide during a song, a helper, a servant. It is not a "leadership" roll, but is shared by any male Christian brave enough sing in front of others. A necessity.
Fact: Song leaders existed in Jesus' time. How do we know? Well, unless all the early Christian's had the ability to read each other's minds, someone had to start the song off. It was usually done by a elder or older deacon (according to 1st/2nd century writings) and done in an orderly fashion without the use of instruments. We also know that the assemblies were extremely orderly, quiet, simple, and reflective. Any dancing, high spirits, instruments, and clapping were considered satanic and paganistic. (Why doesn't that still apply today when we still have pagan religions?)
Worship Leader - (per job descriptions and the many worship leader websites)
A position of authority over the singing and entertainment portion of the services. Used when services incorporate more than mere praising through song. The worship leader's main job is to enthuse the crowd with emotion and spirit via theatrics and enterainment. To evoke passion beyond that which was originally intended by Christ. To add to the orderly and simple assembly described in the NT. To bring about "feelings" that are not normally felt with the regular psalms or songs.
Facts about the job - to attract members that are not comfortable with the type of assembly described in the NT - like the ones held by Jesus and the Apostles.
Reason - the original Word of God is not inspiring enough or entertaining enough to hold the attention of the masses. A gimick is needed to get their attention centered back on Christ.
So let's compare:
A simple job that any Christian accepts when beginning the first note of a song for others to follow.
VS
a position intended to create, design and provide entertainment and merriment by adding theatrics/instruments in order to make the basic assembly more exciting and less scriptural based.
With all due respect to your analogy,in my 45 years of attending church I have seen a lot of "song leaders" do much more than just lead songs. I have seen them ask a congregation to stand in order to enhance the singing. I have seen them be very animated even to the point of seeming to want all of the attention to be on them (could this be entertainment-at least in their minds). I have seen them so self centered that they get upset if they are asked to give up their "stage" to a visiting song leader. Most of this, I have seen in our most conservative churches.
So I ask again, where is the Biblical authority for a man to stand in front of a congregation and call himself a "song leader." It just simply is not in the Bible. Many of the things that we consider to be acceptable would cause the first century Church to fall out of their chairs. For example singing in parts instead of chanting. The only reason we accept so many of the things we do is because they make sense or have been around so long that all of the people who complained about them when the "change agents" introduced them 50 or 100 years ago are now dead.
I predict that in 50 years (if God allows us to survive that long) most of the things that we argue about now will be generally accepted and a new set of things to fight over will be around.
Lest we forget, our very existence is because Jesus set about changing the way things were done. He took the religious status quo and stood it on its ear. And he did not care what the religious elite had to say about then and neither should we now. As long as the Word of God is our guide and is in our hearts we can not go wrong.
One final thought. Our movement came about because some "change agents" (primarily the Alexander Campbell, Thomas Campbell, and Barton W. Stone) did not like what they saw in the church of their day and set about to change the way things were done and the way things were looked at.
There is always someone out there that takes advantage of their position - that does not make a song leader the same as a worship leader. That's someone's personal issue and the congregation needs to deal with them as an individual. You still can't use it to make your analogy - they are not comparable. There has to be someone who starts off the song - unless you and your congregation are mind readers. I've been to many, many churches and all of them had several song leaders. In fact, most congregations have a large list of song leaders for that very reason. It is not a "position", it is just a guidance. Anything more turns it into a possible scriptural issue.
As for how the church operates now vs. 50 years from now. I can promise you that it will be very much the same with new break offs occurring over the same issues. Just as it did in 1810, 1850, 1900, 1950, etc. This is a pattern and the church always comes back to the basics. Always will. Will there be some congregations that fell into Satan's trap - sure. Just like the division between the C of C and the other congregations.
As for Campbell, Stone, etc...Please study that issue. You will find many manuscripts and letters discussing these same issues that go back over a thousand years in England, France and Scotland. This is NOT new, the ideas are NOT new, the splits are NOT new. In fact, if you read letters from the 2nd and 3rd centuries, you will find that the early church (pre-Catholic) were turning their backs on the new congregations for the same reasons, these churches were considered heretical.
There is plenty of historical info on this issue if you wish to research it. It will open your eyes/mind to the realization that the "change agents" are the same false teachers as they have always been, pushing the same type of issues for nearly 2000 years. They have never been overly successful for any length of time in respect to the church. It continues to survive and grow as it once was and still is. People get tired of the theatrics and entertainment and want to go back to loving God and his Word without all the hoopla needed by those that are weak and easily bored.
As for Lee Gullism -- have you contacted a counselor in your area for your obsessiveness and anger management? I mean this sincerely and with a kind spirit. Your postings worry me - they are not quite conherent at times.
It was usually done by a elder or older deacon (according to 1st/2nd century writings)
Can you please give us exact references? I find this to be laughable. However, if you could supply exact references, i would be very much appreciative.
Laughable? Really? And why would that be? Do you come from a church where the elders/deacons are put on pedestals and do not particpate in the service?
Early church writings and writings from Roman citizens clearly state that the early church members did NOTHING without the okay of their elders/presbyters. Deacons could not baptize or accept tithing without the authorization of the elders. The size of the congregations were not extremely large at first and met in homes. There is much dispute that they ever met in the catacombs except when they were celebrating the dead. As the church grew, they began meeting in several homes - having to meet monthly as a larger group when possible. As the church grew in the first several centuries, they began to add more Elders and Deacons beyond the initial chosen ones. Because of their relatively small size, they did not have hundreds to chose from that were well versed in the scriptures. In the early church, the Elders determined who was to lead the teachings/readings/songs/etc. Most of which was given to the Deacons to do as the church groups expanded.
**************************************
For further information on the history of the early church, please feel free to read any of the early writings which you can find on-line and at large local libraries. There are also plenty of books available for purchase. D. Bercot has a great dictionary of early writings.
You might want to check out the term "anitphonal", "liturgy" and "responsorial". Of course, the early Christian changed the process up a little but it was still closely related. Though there were some changes as the gentiles were added.
***************************************
Part of me doesn't really think I should provide you with the references, as it is important that you discover the TRUTH on your own. What's that old saying..."Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime"
So, I decided to give you just a small taste of the tons of info out there on early christian music. Also, remember that hymns/songs/praises were considered "teaching tools" and not for entertainment. This is a long and complicated subject that can't really be addressed in this one posting. Suffice it to say, that it did change once the Gentiles were added and the Apostles continued to oversee the church.
Just a few references on music in the early church:
"Chanting and Music":
"We have said that the chanting of 'songs and hymns and spiritual songs' was an essential part of Christian worship and was inherited from the Hebrew tradition. In spite of this demonstrated inheritance by the Church of Hebrew chant forms and traditions, however, there can be no doubt that here again after the fourth century a profound change gradually occurred. This was not a change or development in musical theory or technique, but a change in the function of the Church's chanting, its new place in the general structure or worship, its acquisition of new liturgical significance.
"This change is best demonstrated by the peculiar duality in the place and function of chanting in our modern worship. On the one hand, a 'singing quality' has been assigned to almost every word pronounced in Church; Western rubrics still speak of the 'chanting' of the Gospel by the DEACON, and the manner of reading the psalms or parimia is close to being a form of chant. In using the term 'chant' ancient Ordos had reference to the entire service, which was thought of in all its parts as a singing of praise to God.
"We find the same definition of worship as chanting in the New Testament. In Revelation the ELDERS sing a new song before the Lamb, and the Apostle Paul summons the faithful to 'teach and admonish one another ... by grace singing in your hearts to the Lord' (Rev. 4:9; 14:3, 15:3 and Col. 3:16). While not dealing here with the heart of the question, whether there was here a 'Semitic' concept of liturgical chanting, we may note simply that the first meaning of chanting in our Ordo and worship correspond precisely to this Semitic concept. This does not mean that early Christian worship recognized no difference between the various types of chanting and made no special provision for 'hymns' — i.e. for material written expressly to be sung (for example, the biblical 'song'). But their function was the same as that of prayers and psalms and litanies — all were to the same degree the prayer of the Church, all were subordinated equally to the general scheme of worship."
"Music has evolved into an indispensable element of worship. It underscores the fundamental concept of community which was so vital and so real in the early Church, for it was the task of all present to sing, to participate in song, and to respond with one heart and one voice to the celebrant. It must be noted here however, that music was never understood as a private, or personal devotional service, rather its function was communal; it identified the popular element of liturgical celebration. It is for this reason that any music sung in the church which "focuses attention onto a particular person or group, which forces another group into becoming passive listeners and observers, is alien to the age-old tradition of the Church and to the literal meaning of liturgy: an act of the people." This is not to say that there were no soloists in the Church, because there were, however, their primary task was to lead and cue the responses from the assembled body of the faithful, and not to alienate them from the communal aspect of worship. Musical tradition suggests that simple melodies, ideal for congregations with little or no formal musical knowledge were used and many of the early written melodies that still exist today support this fact."
Rev. Father Peter J. Orfanakos
Drillock: The most widespread method for the chanting of psalms, however, is the second example noted by St. Basil, commonly called responsorial psalmody. One person (a leading chanter) begins the chanting of the psalm verse, while all the others respond, either with a verse selected from the psalm itself, or with "Alleluia." Such a practice was not only common at the time of St. Basil, but was a well-established traditional way of psalm singing, having its roots in the original poetic form and structure of many of the psalms themselves. An example of such a form is found in Psalm 135, where the second half of each verse of the psalm is exactly the same: "for his mercy endures forever."
ERASMUS "We have brought into our churches certain operatic and theatrical music; such a confused, disorderly chattering of some words as I hardly think was ever in any of the Grecian or Roman theatres. The church rings with the noise of trumpets, pipes, and dulcimers; and human voices strive to bear their part with them. Men run to church as to a theatre, to have their ears tickled. And for this end organ makers are hired with great salaries, and a company of boys, who waste all their time learning these whining tones." (Erasmus, Commentary on I Cor. 14:19)
EUSEBIUS "Of old at the time those of the circumcision were worshipping with symbols and types it was not inappropriate to send up hymns to God with the psalterion and cithara and to do this on Sabbath days... We render our hymn with a living psalterion and a living cithara with spiritual songs. The unison voices of Christians would be more acceptable to God than any musical instrument. Accordingly in all the churches of God, united in soul and attitude, with one mind and in agreement of faith and piety we send up a unison melody in the words of the Psalms."
Christianity Today: "Much of the music of today’s church would have little meaning to those hardy saints of the early church. For them, music was the means for Spirit-led prayer and praise - NOT a pathway to an emotional experience.
St. Ignatius, writing about 110 AD, said: "You must, every man of you, join in a choir, that being harmonious and in concord and taking the keynote of God in unison…sing with one voice through Jesus Christ to the Father…"
Singing was central in the early church because the powerful pattern for the worship of the church was the heavenly worship found in Revelation 4 and 5. (See Isaiah 6:1-4 and Ezekiel 3:12). Many early church fathers (leaders) speak of this connection in relation to worship. Because of this, the early church took a very consistent and conservative approach to music. For if a chant took them to "heaven", the treatment of the music of worship needed to be as "otherworldly" as possible."
Leonard: "The New Testament does not specify who is to officiate in worship, or to administer the Lord's Supper, although prophets (deacons/elders)clearly had a role in corporate worship (1 Cor. 14:23-33)."
1. Somebody write down the date. Donnie quoted the NIV in SUPPORT of his argument. I had to pick myself up off the floor. By the way, I looked at the Greek, and it seems like 4 groups to me as well. The conjunction also changes from "de" to "kai" between the last 2 words in Greek. That being said, I don't think that's any kind of proof against worship leaders or preachers.
2. Worship leader is a title. It is no more or less scriptural than "songleader". What Madison's worship leader does can be entirely different than what a worship leader in a church in Ohio or Oklahoma or even across town does. Assuming Keith is still the worship leader there, I can guarantee you that he is vastly different from other worship leaders I know.
3. These knee-jerk generalizations weaken your scriptural arguments. It seems to me that the root problem here is not whether the title "worship leader" is O.K. The concern is more about what that "worship leader" or "songleader" actually does during the service.
4. If the worship leader sang from a list of songs you chose and didn't strike you as performing, would it be as much of a problem?
You are right William, the "song director" is not mentioned in the NT. This is one of those areas where the WORD of God is silent. However we know that the example of singing is found in the NT. In this instance we must reason and come to the conclusion that a song director is needed. We must be careful as this pertains to the "worship in song" part of the service. We feel that his only duty is to lead the song. He must not draw attention to himself. Again this is a touchy subject and opinions vary.
We look to the Bible for guidance but sometimes must make decisions based on opinion. We must be careful and always look for guidance in the WORD of God first. Church history (secular) is another reference but only the work of man. GOD is perfect, however church members and church leaders are only human and cannot be relied upon as an example in ever situation. Remember the very early Church and how quickly some became corrupt.
I doubt if we have it all right, but consult the Bible first and pray for guidance. God Bless!
Actually, if you go back and read YOUR comment, it was rude and condescending. I chose to ignore your tone and provide facts. However, I do not believe that my job is to spoon feed fellow christians with basic church history to refute the trash the change agents are teaching. Why have they been allowed to get by with such obvious lies? Why do Lee Gullism and others not see the HUGE holes in their thinking and theories? Its so obvious if you look - really look. It saddens me.
If I provide ALL the research, then I am doing YOUR job as a Christian, am I not? Why would I provide you all the info instead of asking you look it up and finally realize how much the change agents have lied to people? That way, you can't point a finger at me and say "You are trying to manipulate me". You see, that's what the change agents do. They take away your power to learn and study on your own. I just give you the power back so that YOU can find the TRUE facts. Its my gift to you. I'm hoping one day you will realize that.
And believe me, I'm used to the "new" christians getting angry when a response clearly disputes their derogatory comment. I've learned that giving the info doesn't help - they just ignore it.
By the way, please don't transfer your feelings/emotions onto me. I'm NOT angry with you, just sad. Very, very sad.
I think you missed my point. Besides, i said nothing hateful, you seem a bit sensitive. Please grow a tougher skin.
We can not use ANY early writings to guide our worship. The 27 books of the new testament are all we need, and nay, authorized. We can't look to these "early writings" for guidence. The ONLY pattern we have is the NT. I wpould go as far as to say the corporate woship we have today is not authorized and we are all in error. Ken Sublett is correct, most if not all of the Churches practices can be traced to pagenism.
You seem to be the one missing the point. And I believe you are doing so on purpose. I can't imagine how anyone would NOT find your comment rude. As for sensitivity - that would be your issue, just look back to your remark about my being "hateful" because I responded with info you didn't like. Please stop putting your feelings onto me.
No one uses the early church writings as a "guide". However, they are still important as they show how quickly man began changing the Truth to fit their own needs and how the early elders fought to keep to the Truth from being lost. It also shows us how the early church (pre 250 AD) worshipped and thought. These people were being led by Elders that had been trained by the Apostles. If you can't see the importance of knowing the Church's past, we'll...your comment about our services today is a good example of speaking without knowing the facts.
You like to play games and I grow tired of such behavior. Good luck with your anger and refusal to see the reality of your own actions. What is that scripture about a log in the eye?
Jesus said in Matthew 7:20 "By their fruits you shall know them"
I have to explain my background. I was raised in the churches of Christ
during my teenage years but, I married a woman who is charismatic and I
thought I would try her church. It is very much different than the churches
of Christ. At first I was nervous but over time I found the believers to be
very enthused about spiritual matters and that they have as much respect of
the Bible as any other christian group. The charismatics have praise and
worship teams and the whole congregation participates with great enthusiasm.
The real test is the fruit. Are they glorifying and honoring God through
worship? I believe an emphatic yes to a majority of charismatics. Their style
of worship is different but their actions are filled with love and generosity
towards others. Their fruit is definately from the tree of Jesus Christ.
I guess my point is that many people on this web site appreciate the old hymns
like "The Old Rugged Cross" and "Have thine Own Way" etc. I also appreciate
the old hymns too but I also appreciate the new songs like "Shout to The Lord"
"Step by Step" and "All in All". Has anyone on this web site taken the time
to listen to the lyrics to the new songs ? You might be surprised at how
much of it comes straight from scripture. "Shout to the Lord" is verbatim
from one of the Psalms.And if you listen closely to the words, what is the
message ? The message hasn't changed. These songs come straight from the
Bible. One of my favorite choruses is:
" I love you Lord, I lift my voice to worship you, Oh my soul.
Rejoice, my King in what you hear. May it be a sweet, sweet sound
to your ears."
The problem I have is that the new songs and worship leaders may not
be for you, but other people develop a closer relationship with God
through praise and worship then, isn't it what it is all about.
From my own personal experience I have invited at least five non-
christians to my wife's charismatic church and they love it. they have
told me that they have gone to other churches and didn't like it. These
five people are now christians. Please don't tell me there is something
wrong with that. It is one thing to say I don't like that style of
worship, but it is another thing to say it is wrong for somebody else.
Please let God decide and live in peace without judgement. What may not
be for you may mean the difference between spiritual life and death for
someone else.
Thanks for taking your time to explain your thoughts. Here's some questions that might help you understand the delima we are facing and that it is not just about worship leaders:
How would YOU like it if some members of your charismatic church decided they didn't like how your group was assembling and wanted to change everything AND they would keep your building and your name? And if YOU didn't like it, you could leave. What if the changes went against your basic beliefs? Would you let them walk into your church and take over without a fight?
Though you may find nothing wrong with the issues being debated, remember that you chose to accept different doctrinal beliefs in a forum that is NOT related to the c of C. Hense, you are not changing the teachings of the c of C nor causing division in the c of C. You chose to leave and attend elsewhere. That is fair. And though I strongly disagree with your scriptural conclusions, I am not here (at this website) to argue with you about your beliefs as they are not affecting the c of C as a whole.
All most of us ask is that if they don't like how the c of C is doing things, THEN THEY NEED TO GO START THEIR OWN RELIGION AND NAME IT SOMETHING OTHER THAN "CHURCH OF CHRIST" SO THAT THEY DO NOT CAUSE CONFUSION AND DIVISION AMONGST BRETHEREN AND FUTURE BRETHEREN.
In a nutshell, we are asking them to grow up and take their rebellion elsewhere instead of thumbing their noses at those of us who have stood firm in our beliefs. But no, instead they throw tantrums and accuse us of being the "bad guys" for not playing along and letting them do whatever they want to. That is immature and manipulative. I don't know about you, but they sound like playground bullies.
I don't know all of the circumstances behind the changes to
Madison Avenue Church but it seems that there should be some
sort of compromise among members. In the community where I live
there are several churches that have multiple styles of services
in the same church. At 8:00 A.M. Sunday morning it is the
traditional type of services with the hymnals. At 9:30 there
is the contemporary style of worship with praise and worship
teams. And at 11:00 there is even a different type of service
than the other two that is focused on the unchurched and is
in the style of a coffee shop type setting where people who
are unfamiliar to the other styles of services can come
together and just discuss all types of subjects but mostly
revolving around spiritual matters.People feel relaxed and
drawn in to this type of environment where their faith is
expressed openly and honestly.
Several years ago I was watching the History Channel where
an archaeologist discovered a seventh century structure
in South Lebanon where on Fridays an Islamic service was
conducted, Saturadays a Jewish service occurred, and on
Sundays a Christian service was held all in the same stucture.
Certainly, if three divergent religions can all get along
agreeing on how a stucture can be used in the seventh century
we can somehow agree on how Madison Avenue church can be used.
I'm sorry that there is such dissension among so many people
especially in a christian setting, but remeber what Christ said
that the world will know that we are Christians by our love for
one another. Maybe the senario I mentioned above of different
types of services at different times should be investigated.
Obviously, you did not grasp or did not try to grasp what PPB was explaining to you. You have so much missing in your knowledge of the various movements going on in the religious world—they include, in fact, the Charismatic Movement [which should be of no surprise to you], the Community Church Movement, the Contemporary Christian [Rock] Music Movement, the Church Growth Movement, etc., etc. You have a very limited knowledge of what this website is all about. But we all understand that about you and some of the others who are new posters and begin participating in the discussions.
Because it’s time consuming to repeat all the information related to the various movements, unless you really and honestly take YOUR time to read the various threads on this site, I would like to simply put it this way—that the problems and issues SEEM to center on worship. That’s not entirely true. Our biggest concern is in the realm of the doctrines and teachings of the church that are being altered, modified, improved upon in order to accommodate the demands and dictates of the secular world and society.
The “worship” thing, unfortunately, is one of the [undoubtedly, the main] avenue through which these changes are being accomplished. Just an example of this would be in the contemporary CHRISTIAN ROCK music that has infiltrated the “worship service” in churches. Just because the words “God” or “Jesus” or “divine” or “praise” or whatever else is mentioned in the musical piece written by the money- and power- and popularity-hungry POP artist does not make it scripturally correct and sound. Just because a “religious” music is emotionally-driven and nerve-endings-stimulating does not make it the type of hymn that “teaches and admonishes one another” as what the song is intended to accomplish.
Diversity in “worship” styles and accommodations is another subject matter which can be discussed at another time.
Just as PPB has pointed out—it’s about changes in a particular church (and this is happening in many other religious faiths also)—the church being intruded upon, infiltrated, divided, perverted … is the main issue.
I am sorry that your wife has influenced you to change you. Of course, that is your prerogative, and, too, it simply happens, just because the individual has not thoroughly checked out to see if the newly found religion matches that which the New Testament describes. “Love” in a particular church is not the main or only basis in determining if the church is the NT church. All churches teach about love. Love aside, it boils down to what a particular church believes and teaches—since most Christian religions claim to be based on the Scriptures. But are they all correct? Of course, not! Only by studying the Holy Scriptures can one find and determine if a church’s set of doctrines and beliefs agrees with the Scriptures.
Donnie
P.S.: BTW, it is “Madison Church of Christ” [not Madison Avenue…] Thanks!
Thank you for your response Bro. Donnie, I sense
that you are a sincere believer who takes matters
of faith as vitally important in life. You are right
that I do not have a great understanding of various
denominations but I do know that supposedly the churches
of Christ do not have a central set of doctrines of which
all congregations must adhere or else face expulsion from
some headquarters. I though that each church of Christ is
independent and autonomous from other congregations. If this
is true, then why are there any arguments over doctrines. Why
can anyone say they have false doctrines if there is no one
standard set of doctrines that all must follow. Be careful
in how you answer. If you say Madison Church of Christ is
not following a set of defined doctrines guess what ? By
that admission the churches of Christ has made themselves
into a denomination by their actions. I know from my own
experience I have asked people who are members of churches
of Christ if they all believe the same and I have not found
even one person who agrees totally with all doctrines. If this
is the case maybe there is enough room under the umbrella of
the Madison Church of Christ and all of the others who attend
there. Maybe we should aree to disagree but still love one
another despite the doctrinal differences.
One question that is at the heart of the whole web site:
What is it that you want to happen ? What would have to take
place for things to be made right from your perspective ??
WordKeeper all of this has been gone over time and time again. The question "what would it take for you..."
It is not what it would take for Donnie or anyone else to be satisfied. It is far more important than trying to please Donnie or ourselves.
The quest is to encourage leadership to follow examples and commands from the Word of God and not the innovations or inventions of man.
One thing needed is to put unity back at Madison. There are 2 worship services held on Sunday morning that share no resemblance to each other! How can Madison claim "unity" while some poeple worship one way and the other people worship another?
Get the cash register out of the building! Get the church out of the "merchant" business. Remove the books and musical CD,s, remove the cafe and all the other things that make Madison a LAUGHING STOCK to the world. Make the gospel without charge! Get the counsellors off the church pay roll! Get the musicans off the payroll.
TAKE BACK THE PULPIT FOR CHRIST!
I have to stop before I get carried away.
Just follow God's book - throw away the changes that men have made. Just a simple Church doing great things.
Oh, yes, I must mention the rental property controlled by that church. Get rid of it. No one knows for sure how much money is made or lost or stolen from this operation. Get rid of it! Just being the church is enough.
