麻豆约拍

As if god would really give a monkey's. Ah well, at least these sour old flatuses are wafting ever more of their ex-congregants towards the rising ranks of the New Tuneful Atheists...

Perhaps not for the reasons he's giving, but I approve of the Reverend's decision on the grounds of Good Taste. The "music" produced by most congregations I've heard could only be so-called out of politeness.

Praise him with the sound of the trumpet: praise him with the psaltery and harp. Praise him with the timbrel and dance: praise him with stringed instruments and organs. Praise him upon the loud cymbals: praise him upon the high sounding cymbals.

And where do these pernicious and heretical lines come from?

Errmm. Psalm 150 actually. And I even quoted the King James Version, just to make sure!

(I must admit that I feel rather aggrieved that the phrase 'loud cymbals' isn't taken a bit more seriously in church life. Perhaps this instrument would be particularly appropriate in the COJCA - you know, the sect our resident 'Egyptian' friend keeps promoting - as they might knock some much needed sense into those dear confused souls!)

Well, this is a curious one. Personally I鈥檓 happy enough for people to whoop it up with a 鈥榟ands raised falling down rock鈥檔鈥檙oll worship band鈥� or, at the other end of the spectrum, adopt the position of unaccompanied exclusive psalmody. The psalms, at least, aren鈥檛 repetitive, and, interestingly, allow us to moan and complain at God and call it worship - not that it鈥檚 all that difficult to top lyrics like, "Jesus, I love you." Infact to be honest, after you've repeated something like that 40 times you could end up singing, 'Jesus, who are you.'

However, what I don鈥檛 get, is this idea (from the 麻豆约拍 link above) that, 鈥淢inisters who supported the change believe it could attract new worshippers to congregations suffering from declining membership.鈥�

Emmm, no, it won鈥檛 - any more than it'll make me tune up my atheist vuvuzela. ;-)

LSV, you are quite correct (and the CJCA is suffering from falling membership too - I need summat to fill the e-Pews!), and I also agree with PaulR, although I would point out that *some* Christian music is just plain excellent. We have a number of sublime examples from the great classical composers, but one of my favourite country albums is Terry Talbot's "Cradle of Love", which has some utterly insane lyrical nonsense about messiahs and potter's wheels and mighty winds blowing seeds of apocalyptic revival and such like, but it is simply raw quality, and I would strongly recommend it.

But then it's hard to whack some good old AC/DC when you're in the mood for a ride down the Highway to Hell... Graham Kendrick's insipid dreck just doesn't cut the mustard.

LSV

Fair enough, quoting a Psalm! but it's a standard response which doesn't wash with those who take the unaccompanied Psalm view. Not that I'm arguing for that position, I'm not, but a wee look at what some call the 'regulative principle' will give you some idea where they are coming from.

Helio, I've nothing against Christian music. Heck, doing that would kill the entire choral catalogue of the West, pretty much.

It's just the kind of music you get every Sunday at 11am that makes me wish I was tone deaf.

Actually, LSV, you will know that there is a really dreadful chorus, beloved of happy clappy churches and fellowship groups, based on exactly that passage. I used to loathe it almost as much as "Majesty", and that's saying something. You will understand, I'm sure.

The origins of this sect are interesting, but it seems that it does contain a good number of extremists. I have read about people from this sect campaigning to stop ferry sailings and public bus services on Sundays.
It is little wonder that its membership is declining - it's full of fanatics who would wish to take us back to the Dark Ages!

Especially for Helio:

'Praise him (rest) with stringed instruments too-ooooooooo oo oo, oo.'

Glad he's got things in perspective (sigh). Long live cultural Christianity!!

Yet another example of someone appointing themselves as having more insight and authority than everyone else.

I would say that the church is probably glad to get shot of him, despite their words otherwise.

Newlach.

"Its full of fanatics who would wish to take us back to the dark ages."
Sounds a bit Catholic to me.

Heliopolitan, I can assure you that Kenny Stewart is not a sour old fart, as you suggest - nice personal attack though, jolly funny.

鈥楶raise鈥� as such, in general terms (out in the street, at church camps, in peoples houses etc), has never been forced to be done without musical instruments. But when the Free Church left the Church of Scotland, they decided that 'Sunday Worship', which is separate form other praise should be done with psalms and voices only.

In my experience, the voice-only sound and the tunes that the psalms use, are without doubt much more beautiful to listen to (by Christians and atheists alike - and do indeed reach the stunningness of some of the west鈥檚 choral catalogue), than, as PaulR suggests, the tuneless noise that comes from most congregations - I think that鈥檚 why they use loud organs - to hide the fact that no one can follow most hymn tunes. I鈥檝e been to churches that have guitars and drums also, and came away with nothing more than a headache.

Unfortunately, a few ministers think allowing the above racket, will encourage more people to attend church, completely missing the fact that Rev Stewart has greatly increased his numbers by nothing more or less than wonderful and intelligent preaching week after week.

Ministers joining the Free Church took vows to the effect that hymns and musical instruments are not used. It is Rev Stewart鈥檚 belief that a promise between him and God has been forcibly broken by the move to allow these things.

I can assure Natman that Rev Stewart does not claim to have any more insight or authority than anyone else - he is humble and meek (you may need to look these words up in the dictionary). As a side-effect of his move, he is not only giving up paid work, he is also having to leave his home of 10 years (the church manse) and find somewhere else to live. This sort of thing is not don鈥檛 lightly or on a whim - and certainly not in some vain attempt to seem more righteous.

Further, Natman, you are almost wholly incorrect to suggest people want shot of him. I have never seen such devastation in a congregation as when Rev Stewart intimated his intentions to leave (and suspect many will follow him if able). He is/was widely regarded as the best preacher in the Free Church, but is as personally approachable as any man.

I might point out to Newlach, that having a different point of view, does not make someone a fanatic. I don鈥檛 know of any church member who has campaigned to stop service buses on a Sunday, indeed many church-goers use them to get to church. Some members personally feel that a ferry crossing is not as much a 鈥榥ecessity鈥� as service buses, so should not go ahead; others belief otherwise. We are allowed a mind of our own.

Finally, if you think it鈥檚 the 鈥榙ark ages鈥� were heading to, think again. Kenny (and we鈥檙e allowed to call him that) was the first minister to perform a virtual service, see here:
www.theglaswegian.co.uk/glasgow-news/news/2010/09/30/church-spreads-word-by-video-102692-22597569/. We also use cars, phones and computers, and even fly on planes (even though God did not give us wings)!

BC

2. At 9:41pm on 16 Feb 2011, PaulR wrote:
Perhaps not for the reasons he's giving, but I approve of the Reverend's decision on the grounds of Good Taste. The "music" produced by most congregations I've heard could only be so-called out of politeness.

*
I'd agree with the above & also appreciate Betsy Cola's points.
In the Deep South here in America, the Primitive Baptist church has kept alive the Sacred Harp hymnal which is a shape note, unaccompanied vocal tradition that has come down from the old psalm singing in Britain.As Betsy Cola stated, it is truly beautiful to listen to, & to my ear at least, it sounds something like Russian Orothodox chant.
The old timey Primitive Baptist churches also do not allow musical instruments & thereby have preserved this wonderful music.I saw recently that Sacred Harp singing has made its way back to Britain which was its origin.
Rather than accuse Rev. Stewart of fanaticism or dourness, I'd really want to thank him for preserving a lovely tradition.

Betsy Cola,

What are you, his PR guru?

I quote; "Kenneth Stewart believes unaccompanied psalm singing is the only music sanctioned by the Bible for use in public worship."

That seems to be saying to me that from his interpretation of the bible, he doesn't like music on Sundays. This is not the mainstream view of music within church, therefore he's elevating his own personal opinion above that which has been established, ergo, appointing himself as having more insight and authority than everyone else.

Now, if he can provide scriptural references to backup his claim that music is not for sunday worship, I'm sure people will listen to him. However, to arbitrarily decide it's wrong is to open himself up to critism that his motives are purely on personal aesthetics and not based on scripture. If that's the case then he's in the wrong job, you can't pick and choose which bits of the bible you like and which bits you want to make up.

He'll just have to buy a house and pay his taxes like the rest of us.

P.S. Maybe Rev. Stewart would prefer a warmer climate?There's any number of churches in Georgia & Florida he would feel right at home in.Great BBQ, too. :)

Natman,

You're quoting William Crawley, not Rev Kenneth Stewart, and 'music on Sunday' is not the same as 'public worship'.

This is not about interpretations of the bible, there are many, within all denominations. It is also not about 'mainstream views' within 'the church', although those terms are loose enough to be meaningless anyway.

This is about a vow, taken when joining an organisation that has a set of 'rules' which you believe in. That organisation has then changed those rules. That's it put simply.

Less so simple is that some ministers do indeed believe that the banning of hymns and instruments are not an explicit part of the vows, or that allowing hymns and instruments is explicitly forbidden. There is a subtle difference in the two ways I have put that.

Even less straightforward, is the probability that many ministers voted for other ministers, almost by default or by indifference, i.e. they didn't want instruments themselves (very few actually do), but didn't really mind if other ministers did want them.

No, I am not his PR Guru. Indeed I can see another side to this whole issue that has not been mentioned. Rev Kenneth Stewart took part in the hymn/instrument vote. If he was against the concept of the change, he should have abstained. By voting, to my mind, he was implying he would go with whatever the outcome was. Sadly, he, and so many others assumed the vote would never go the way it did.

So, yes I can see more than one side of the argument. Why don't you take a break from easy-target Christian-bashing and try it.

Also, please note that Ministers are not well paid, partly in the knowledge that they will be given a manse (that will be of no benefit to them as your or my house-price increase might have been over the last 10 years); and I'm sure he always paid his taxes.

BC

mscracker

Thank you for those kind words. You obviously know so much more about this than I do.

I have heard our singing referred to as sounding like chanting before, especially in the olden days, when the congregation could not afford psalm books, and the presenter (lead singer - usually an elder) would sign a line, and then the congregation would sing the same line.

Kind regards
BC

Dear Betsy,
Signing lines out is still a tradition here in some churches, too.
And rather than being perceived as "dark ages" music, Sacred Harp/Shape Note singing has become rather trendy in America since the film "Cold Mountain" which featured shape note singing in the film score.
If you check out: fasola.org you can see how widely this beautiful & unique music is appreciated in America.
God bless!

Betsy Cola

Thankyou for your comments, they are very helpful. I could probably have a bash at explaining the exclusive Psalmody position, but as I don鈥檛 hold to it myself it seems better that it comes from someone else.


Natman

I鈥檓 afraid, and I don鈥檛 like saying this, your comments amount to little more than jibes.

鈥漵omeone appointing themselves as having more insight and authority than everyone else.鈥�

In what way?

or

鈥滺e'll just have to buy a house and pay his taxes like the rest of us.鈥�

I鈥檝e no idea what you mean by this, if you intend to mean anything at all.

Or asking BC, 鈥漌hat are you, his PR guru?鈥�

What鈥檚 your point? Someone makes a comment explaining some of the broader context of the story and agreeing with some of the sentiments expressed and they are a 'PR Guru'? No, Natman, they have a point of view. Presbyterians still allow that! In fact it's one of the reasons for being a Presbyterian.

But your two main paragraphs in #16 only highlight your lack or knowledge on the subject in question. 鈥漀ow, if he can provide scriptural references to backup his claim...鈥� Well, I鈥檓 quite sure he can; indeed I suspect that Kenneth Stewart is a member of a tradition for whom having 鈥榮criptural references鈥� is one of the main points.

It鈥檚 unbecoming, Natman.

I do wish churches would sing more Psalms!

Carl Trueman wrote a great article on singing Psalms which can be read

Peter

Out of interest, do you not hold to EP but still hold to the reguative principle or do you not hold to EP because you don't hold to RPW?

Andrew

Good question.

On the specific issue of EP, the truth of the matter in relation to me is a bit less principled than the way you ask it. Whenever I think about it I find it difficult to argue against EP - the simple fact of the matter, if one presupposes the centrality of scripture in public worship, is that it makes sense. However, as a member of PCI, which has very few EP congregations left, the day to day facts of the matter are that we learn to sing hymns out of (unthinking?) tradition as much as anything else. The practise seems to be that we sing hymns because we do, or because they are more appealing than Psalms, or because we like the new ones, or because the music is lively or something like that - all bad reasons for singing hymns - but that's the way it seems to be. Few congregations seems to be going out of their way to ask why we do what we do.

I was being a bit light hearted earlier on this thread, but the great benefit of the Psalms is that even when I don't want to sing, there are words for me; and when I find it difficult to have faith, there are words for me; and when my mind is on other things, there are words for me - in short, even when I cannot and do not participate I know that they are words which Jesus sang for me.

The regulative principle is, I think, a good one, and one broader than 'public worship' in that we're basically saying that the bible regulates our life - a life of worship.

Hopefully that's not too general an answer.


On the particular issue of this thread and Kenneth Stewart, given the comments of Betsy Cola, I was interested enough to do a bit of surfing and it seems that this story, and his concern, isn't simply limited to Psalm singing, but concerns the government of the church and a perceived/actual lack of consultation, which, if true, would be a concern for any Presbyterian. (and would be the exact opposite of Natman's accusation in #12)


And Betsy Cola, I listened to one of his sermons; he took me apart. (that's a good thing!)

OK Betsy, so you're saying that this is a matter of Kenny's personal taste. That's fine. But it does make you wonder why he's making such a preening prima donna of himself over the head of it. Freedom of conscience is a good thing, but respect for unearned authority has no place in that. And I have been to quite a few RP services, and really the singing is no better than in any other church. In my father's house there are many mansions, but not all of them are sound-proofed.

Betsy Cola 14

The Western Isles is renowned as a hotbed of religious fanaticism. There is the Lord's Day Observation Society which was or is headed by someone who lay down on a slipway in 1965 to stop the first ferry from docking on Skye. They also campaign against golf being played on Sundays and I think they would like to make Church attendance compulsory!

There is the Free Church, The Free Church Continuing, the Free Presbyterians and the Associated Free Presbyterians. Are the swings still chained up on Sundays and what will we have next - The People's Front of Lewis!

I understand the Moderator of the Free Church who steered the vote through has a brother who is an ultra Anglo-Catholic priest in the Scottish Episcopal Church - a bad case of organ-envy do you think?

William Crawley鈥檚 original post really doesn鈥檛 address what the real issue is here, and like most tabloid/blog articles (in this case the use of the phrase 鈥� 鈥渆ven鈥� a guitar鈥�) we can immediately see which way things are being 鈥榩ushed鈥�.

鈥楾hey鈥檙e having ago at guitars now. What have they got against guitars?鈥� And suddenly we鈥檙e guitar-burning loonies.

This 鈥榚vent鈥�, of this ministers resignation, is not, at its heart, do with hymns or instruments - it may well have been about ladies wearing hats, gay ministers, jeans in church, the list goes on. What this is about is whether some implicit or explicit rule or mutual understanding of how things should be done has been broken - and indeed whether it ever existed in the first place.

Newlach, I would have expected peterm2鈥檚 excellent put-down of Natman鈥檚 vacuous drivel to be a deterrent to trolls like yourself, who seem to have no knowledge related to the subject, and are obviously only hear to bang the atheist drum at the first sight of the word 鈥榗hurch鈥�.

The Western Isles is largely only renowned for supposedly being the way it is, because people like Newlach state a few random facts - intended to trash all things by association - with plenty of weasel words thrown in, and pass it on to like-minded others; and so it becomes self-perpetuating. Really, a bit like the sort of playground gossip that a bullying, but rather dull 9 year-old might come up with.

As mentioned above, the real issue here is about a man who has examined his conscience over something the he feels is having a major impact on his vows. BUT, it might be any man or woman, you or me, who has to face questions about doing the right or wrong thing as they see it.

Heliopolitan, I鈥檓 not sure what 鈥榓uthority鈥� you think Rev Stewart has, other than that that the Free Church has given him within that organisation, and suspect it in no way affects you. He also earns [did earn] increasing respect every week by those who came to listen to him. I might also add that respect should be aimed at people, not their views, and since you obviously know little of this man, you are not qualified to comment on him in that regard.

You also seem to align yourself with Natman in the idea that he is in some way getting above his station by rebelling against the Free Church.

Crudely as you have both put it, it actually brings up a very important point that really is at the heart of things. I don鈥檛 know what Richard Dawkins鈥� marriage vows were, but suspect 鈥業 will become an atheist鈥� or 鈥業 will not believe in God鈥� were not part of them - not explicitly at least. Dawkins has said, 鈥渋f he saw enough evidence to convince him that a God did/does exist, that his wife would probably leave鈥�.

So here鈥檚 the rub; If she did leave him, would she be a 鈥榮elf-appointing鈥�, 鈥榩reening prima donna鈥�, or would you agree with her?

BC

peterm2 21

Thanks for you support peterm. I had it in my mind to say everything just as you did there, but my posts are long enough already!

I'm not actually a member of the church, just an adherent, and I really don't know that much - certainly some of your conversation with Andrew is pretty much above my head.

I really am emotionally overwhelmed that you listened to one of Kenny's sermons, and glad it took you apart.

Imagine having that every Sunday morning for ten years, and then it gets taken away. It's what's driven me to post replies to some of the nonsensical comments and personal insults on this thread.

Betsy Cola

Here is what someone from the Lord's Day Observance Society said about Sunday sailings:

"If a Sunday ferry service starts, it'll never be stopped. It'll change the island quickly, it will change it irreversibly and the worst consequences will fall on shopworkers, folk in the service sector and the less well off."



I think the point of the ferry service is to help change the island: from a subsidy junkie to a place that can pay its way.

But it's not just ferries they are against. Have a laugh at their view on flights too!

Newlach

If I ever wish to visit the Dome of the Rock, I shall adhere to the restrictions placed on tourists.

If I am invited by atheist parents to a baby naming ceremony, I shall respect their wishes for a non-religious ceremony and leave my bible at home.

If I am invited to the home of a vegetarian for a meal, I shall not ask for meat.

If I am visiting with a Sabbath observing Jewish family, I shall not ask to use their telephone after dusk on a Friday.

If I ever plan a visit to the Western Isles and it so happens that the local shop is closed on a Sunday, I shall buy my milk on a Saturday night, and I shall plan my return journey for a Monday. (I am not a 'Sabbatarian')

And, Newlach, if you ever visit me, and you feel uncomfortable on seeing the little wooden cross blu-tacked to the wall in an unobtrusive corner of my living room, I shall remove it until after you have gone home.

I trust that the new secular society in which I live also understands the meaning of the word 鈥榝ree鈥�.

peterm2

If you lived on the Western Isles and could not visit a sick relative in hospital because there was no Sunday ferry service would you just send them some grapes instead?

Newlach


"would you just send them some grapes instead?"

Not if I was depending on the ferry to get them there.


Don't be so literal.

Parrhasios

"I understand the Moderator of the Free Church who steered the vote through..."

I suspect the possibility that the Moderator 'steered the vote through' is part of the problem.

Newlach - 29, thank you for your off-topic post, it allows me to write more endless paragraphs that you are obviously not going to read or understand 鈥� I don鈥檛 blame you really, just wish you鈥檇 get what鈥檚 being spoken about 鈥� it鈥檚 not actually a question of faith - so please relax, and I鈥檓 sorry if you feel I鈥檓 saying unkind things 鈥� and I know that I shouldn鈥檛 鈥� but my blood鈥檚 up.

Some people who adhere to certain religious principles believe that 鈥榳ork鈥�, except in cases of mercy or necessity, should not be carried out on the Sabbath. That鈥檚 a given that all of us here know already. You don鈥檛 need to remind us of that.

The degree to which different people regard various things as 鈥榳ork鈥�, 鈥榤ercy鈥� or 鈥榥ecessity鈥� varies, and has undoubtedly changed, albeit slowly in some locations over the years 鈥� whether the changes have been for the good or not is of course objective. Walking is not restful (although may be relaxing 鈥� like yoga, fishing, listening to music (not cymbals, please)), so, is walking to church on a Sunday ok? You鈥檇 be hard pushed to find anyone on the planet that thinks so.

So what about driving? What about buses? What about taxis? What about the taxi-driver who does not attend church? What about a ferry or a plane 鈥� is it ok if it鈥檚 just the captian/pilot and necessary health & safety staff, or are the cooks allowed to be there 鈥� people need food. The questions go on - and always will.

The bible is not a set of rules to judge other people by. It is to be read by you, for you. Thereafter, it is for you to justify your actions in terms of the things you have read. (Don鈥檛 worry, I just mean 鈥榶ou鈥� as if you were a Christian, not you personally). Yes, ministers, and their elders and followers do regard that the minister鈥檚 position (and that of elders) has been given a special position by God, and in that respect they have a special 鈥榲oice鈥� that is allowed to 鈥榩reach to us鈥� in a way more than we might gather from reading the bible ourselves 鈥� both through what he has been taught at bible college and his own interpretation.

Some people find loud rock music at 3am in the flat upstairs disagreeable. Others probably can鈥檛 stand the sound the Sally Army outside their shop door 鈥� trumpeting for hours on end. Others still, might find the sound of noisy kids creating an almighty din in the park at the end of the street somewhat annoying when they鈥檙e trying to have their single 鈥榞od-given鈥� day of Sunday chillout 鈥� it can happen, the swings aren鈥檛 really chained up 鈥� it鈥檚 a 鈥榤yth鈥�.

So yes, some people do think things that you seem to regard as 鈥榟ave a laugh鈥� ideas. Do you have a laugh or have a cry when you hear of raped women being stoned to death for their 鈥榗rime鈥� in Saudi or Pakistan. I have a cry. But if we are, by association, 鈥榓ll religeous nutters together鈥�, then I guess you can just have a laugh and add it to your list of proof that there can鈥檛 be a God.

The asssociation you make by grouping all remotely religeous things (no matter how extreme or how placid) together is ironically similar to the nazi-aetheist-communist link that you invariably accuse non-aetheists of doing.

If your belief in the non-existence of God is based on the big bang and macro-evolution, you don鈥檛 need to be here arguing how silly all our daft ideas are. As said earlier, 鈥榯hey鈥檙e a given鈥�. Yes, vote against them, lobby against them, stand at the ferry peir with your placard; but please don鈥檛 fool yourself into believing the link that some supposed nut-job/martyr on a jetty in Skye umpteen years ago has anything to do with what is and isn鈥檛 true as regards a deity.

Do the views of David Icke mean snooker does not exist?

Peter, I wish I had your brevity of post - I find it difficult to not go off on a rant - although your 鈥榳hen in Rome鈥� comments are having a much needed calming affect on me.

One thought however 鈥� leave the cross up there in the corner of your room when dear old Newlach visits 鈥� if you have the nerve. I have a friend who, 2 minutes before her 30th birthday party guests arrived, peeled the 鈥榮eek god鈥� sticker off her telephone (it鈥檚 unlikely I would ever have one of them, by the way), and I could see the pain and anger in her eyes 鈥� not at party guests, but at herself. It鈥檚 not easy being a Christian sometimes.

Most of the time, really.

Good night, and sweet dreams to everyone.

BC

Newlach 31,

This is, albeit by accident, the most sensible comment you have made on this thread.

I come from the Scottish Borders (we live in central Scotland), and so, as a family, we can visit my folks regularly - and we always drive home on Sunday. Before the Sunday sailings from Ullapool to Stornoway, it was impossible for us to make a similarly lenghthend visit to the other side of our family. This to my mind was wrong - in that regular visits from family, especially if you an old lady on you own up there, are indeed a 'necessity'.

However, it's all to do with practicle things; like late Fridays and early Mondays - you continue to show your ignorance by hinting that someone might nip over on a 3ish hour ferry trip to drop off some grapes and then make their way back - the grapes, hand delivered or not would still need to make the journey. !!!Maybe your point is that grapes can't possibly have a God, so don't care. Sorry, I can only combat your drivel with more drivel. It's late and I'm tired - is my excuse, what's yours?

Peter, thanks for your thoughts.

I'm not entirely sure how well known the regulative principle is known in Reformed and Presbyterian churches but I am aware of many Christians, pastors, denominations who self-consciously subscribe to it but yet do not hold to a cappella exclusive psalmody. I'm of the same opinion, for what it's worth.

More recently I have become aware of the variety of ways the regulative principle has been understood and applied even in the 16th and 17th centuries, which seems to cast doubt on the monolithic view of the principle that is presented by those who, we might say, have a more 'traditional' understanding of how it should be applied. Although, the exclusive psalmody position was most definitely the majority opinion in history of the R&P churches until recent times.

I think recovering the regulative principle in our current circumstances would be helpful because it would change the paradigm in how most of us understand worship, which seems to be along the lines of traditional (old) v modern (new). This paradigm probably arose as worship issues became pegged to liberalism and the fundamentalist/modernist controversy i.e. If the liberals are doing it we must oppose it.

Of course the regulative principle is concerned with biblically sanctioned worship, and it just so happens that amongst many conservative/fundamentalist churches 'traditional' forms of worship are the ones sanctioned. But this seems to based on a hagiography, where old equals scriptural and new equal heretical. The odd thing is, when many Protestants, even presbyterians in Northern Ireland, are introduced to the notion of a capella excusive psalmody, a vintage position, the grid they have for understanding biblical worship can't process it. One more than one occasion I've heard the EP position linked to hyper-Calvinism, which seems to me to be entirely of the reservation.

The challenge, at least in the circles I run, is not in the first instance to proscribe this way of worshipping or that way but communicating the grounds upon which our worship should be based, shifting away from 'the old time religion' towards a view of worship that is regulated by scripture. Perhaps then, I may have heard the last of the accordion :)

Betsy Cola

You make a lot of points, but one which I would like to address is about working on a Sunday: it is unfair that only ministers and other religionists should be allowed to work on Sundays.

Sports and leisure facilities in the Western Isles do not open on Sundays, but many people want them to open. Parents are prevented by religious fanatics from taking their kids to the swimming pool, for example. Taxpayers have pumped millions of pounds into sports and leisure facilities that should be available for folk to use on Sundays.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission has recently warned the council that its policy of keeping public service facilities closed on Sundays could breach a new public sector duty, so things might change for the better in the near future.

Peter - interesting you say that - I have a well-developed memory and I am pretty certain "steered the vote through" was the precise phrase used to me in a conversation around Christmas by someone (approving of the decision) who is in a position to know.

Parrhasios

I sort of want to respond and I sort of don鈥檛 want to respond any further in to the problems facing the Free Church. In many ways it is none of my business, and yet, this issue of 鈥榩raise and worship鈥� (although I dislike the phrase, for it usually seems to mean 鈥榳hat we sing, play, blow, beat or strum鈥�, and is therefore a limited understanding) is one which has distracted reformed and evangelical churches for too long.

I鈥檓 a pretty eclectic evangelical (can we make that a valid theological term?!), and have said a number of things already on this thread which point to my views on public worship. However, based on what I have read, I feel a certain sympathy with Kenneth Stewart.

In addition to this, as I suggested earlier, and this may also interest Andrew, I have tried hard to understand the idea that cosmetic changes to our churches such as the style of music, will help attract new members. I鈥檝e had quite a few conversations with non christians about church/God/religion and I鈥檝e yet to hear anyone say, 鈥淵ou know, it鈥檚 the lack of lively music that鈥檚 keeping me away.鈥�

Something else also occurs to me in relation to this business of change. I was, for quite some time, away from PCI on a wander through 鈥楥hristendom and nowhere鈥�, and when I returned was interested to find that even some of the more conservative congregations had adopted a more contemporary style of worship. However I remain unconvinced that the average Presbyterian congregation is really comfortable with the 鈥榟ands raised falling down charismatic rock鈥� some have so coveted - there鈥檚 nothing quite as wooden (and I include in my thinking pitch pine pews) as a Presbyterian singing a syncopated sacrifice of praise. It鈥檚 kind of as if we like it, but we鈥檙e not sure that God does!

And so, at a purely practical level, it makes me wonder if, when the first note is struck in a Free Church by an instrument other than the human voice, even the most ardent supporter of this change will not have second thoughts.

And there's another problem some will have to face, it's the same one I face most Sunday mornings, my theology permits me to disagree with the content of the hymns, but whenever we get round to singing the Psalms, I don't have that choice.

Peter, I am interested that you note the content or meaning of the things you sing in church. I, too, always do so but it has often struck me that this is a pretty rare practice.

I have been attending mostly an evangelical and very reformed Anglican church for some time now (due to my commitment to the parish system) and, once I got over the Ugggh factor, I have to confess I rather enjoy it despite disagreeing with just about everything I encounter including the text of most of the choruses we sing at family-type services.

I think many Christians take very literally the injunction of the One Hundredth Psalm "O all ye lands, unto the Lord Make ye a joyful noise". While some work on the joyful may be needed, all the participants are doing is making a noise with felt rather than considered significance, just like many of the worshippers in Latin masses down the centuries.

Theology appears not to matter when it is set to music - I positively love the gusto with which my fellow parishioners sing Bright's great Eucharistic hymn "And now, O Father, mindful of the love" when, were its theology comprehensibly and contextually expounded from the pulpit, the preacher would be lucky to escape lynching.

I do not know if music is generally a drawing factor, it certainly brings a certain sector of the educated middle-class to the great cathedrals, but I am pretty certain that music is a retention factor. The only valid point in the extended thinking behind the repulsive Pascal's Wager is that continuance in a practice, for whatever reason, develops attachment and leads to the growth of congruent behaviours.

If, on a purely practical level, churches want to keep young (and not so young) people long enough in the pews to become involved in the work of the Gospel and the vision of Christ then services have to be meaningful, relevant, and engaging for that constituency.

What I am saying is "more tambourines please" - but that is probably showing my age!

In addition to this, as I suggested earlier, and this may also interest Andrew, I have tried hard to understand the idea that cosmetic changes to our churches such as the style of music, will help attract new members. I鈥檝e had quite a few conversations with non christians about church/God/religion and I鈥檝e yet to hear anyone say, 鈥淵ou know, it鈥檚 the lack of lively music that鈥檚 keeping me away.鈥�

Peter,

I think this works both ways. Something I think would be worth exploring is the extent to which churches deliberately placing themselves against contemporary music styles in worship contributes to disillusion in those outside of the church or even those who do seek out 'modern' music styles.

In many congregations/denominations which could be labelled 'fundamentalist' there seems to be a desire to be quaint and old worldly in mediating their opposition to the 'the spirit of the age'. But why one musical style should be judged biblically faithful over another because it is older is beyond me.

Churches like these are in the minority now, even in Northern Ireland (although I suspect the proportion here is greater than in most other places) but it was churches like this which were the foil for conservative churches switching from 'traditional' worship forms to forms which would be considered 'contemporary'.

The reasoning being, and here I'm indulging in a large amount of guess work, that at least part of the reason why more and more people were thinking of the church as irrelevant was because of this desire to be old wordly and quaint in churches affirming traditional conservative doctrines.

To some extent you see a parallel in fundamentalism on the one hand and new-evangelicalism on the other. The one was insular, non-academic, the other, arising out of and in response, wanted to 'engage the culture' and reclaim the academy in the name of Christianity.

Going back, then, to worship styles the regulative principle says these are the wrong terms for carrying on the debate. Whether our worship can be considered old or contemporary, these are not the primary categories in which we should think. The real division is between biblically sanctioned and unbiblical, and these do not necessarily mirror old and contemporary.

This is a rather long of way saying I don't disagree with the paragraph quoted above but I think why a church uses contemporary music styles is as important.

Having said all this, I am a presbyterian and there's something about being a presbyterian which makes lifting your arms during worship feel like the strangest thing in the world.

Andrew

If you have not yet discovered the sermons of Kenneth Stewart you could do worse than have a wee look.

Peter

Where can I find them? Any recommendations?

Andrew



I recommend listening from October 2010 and older. The music/instrument vote happened around November, and it really took the wind out of his sails to some degree.

BC

Betsy Cola

Thanks for adding the link; I really should have added it on post 42, but what was on my mind was how I didn't want to drawn any further into this 'music' debate. This is a direct result of listening to Kenneth - he leaves me wanting to say less - that is also a good thing. It's been quite some time since a sermon has stopped me in my tracks.

Andrew

Click the link and listen.

:-)

Betsy

Thanks for the link. I'll be sure to listen to a few.

Peter

Now, you have to tell me which sermon stopped you in your tracks.

Peter

I'm guessing that you listened to a post-November sermon - first anyway. At this stage Kenny was indeed 'wanting to say less', but to my mind, not so much as to take away from the 'music debate', but more to remove himself and his congregation away from things a bit - probably knowing that some people, as has been shown on this thread earlier, will play the 'above his station - who does he think he is' card.

It's a shame the whole service is not on these downloads - you'd get to hear all the singing as well, and his messages to the children. It's also a shame that they only go back a few years. His ten commandments sermons, which I don't think are there, were astounding.

There are CDs made every week, but I don't know if they have the whole service or just the sermon also - I've never listened to one - but will find out.

I'm tempted to sign off with 'happy listening' - it's much more than that - but you know what I mean.

BC

Andrew

'Now, you have to tell me which sermon stopped you in your tracks.'

They all do.

Oh no! I'm sounding like his PR Guru again.

But really, they do.

BC

BC

You are right to say that the first sermon I listened to was post November, simply because I chose one from the first list; I have, however, listened to a couple more since. Your comments go part of the way to explaining why I might have used the words I did, but, for me, they also run deeper than that.

I鈥檓 not completely comfortable saying this on the www-dot, but these comments may also go some way to answering Andrew鈥檚 question:

Andrew, it wasn鈥檛 one particular talk, as BC says, it鈥檚 much more than that, and you will know what that means too.

I know the theology. And sometimes when I hear it that's a problem! Sometimes that manifests as an arrogant thought and attitude in me, sometimes as a kind of 鈥榟o hum, whatever鈥� kind of thought - but I haven鈥檛 been able to avoid Kenneth鈥檚 words and I can鈥檛 quite pin down why.

The best I can come up with is a thought running round Ecclesiastes 5:2, 鈥淔or God is in heaven, and you on earth; Therefore let your words be few." I suppose that's the content of my comment in #45

I guess that in the Reformed tradition we call it 鈥榯he power of the gospel鈥�.

This is a very different kind of post for me on this blog.

BC, thanks for coming on. I really appreciate it.