Top 10 Tuesday: Phrases That Should Be Eliminated
May 1st, 2007 | by Scott |(Subtitled: Where I Get Myself in a Good Amount of Trouble)
One good thing about job security is that I don’t have to go through the rigmarole of interviewing for a ministry job. I’ve done way too many of those and would prefer to never have to do it again.
For those of you who haven’t been through the laborious, excruciating and mind-numbing torture of interviewing at a church, let me tell you now: don’t ever try it. It’s horrifying and rarely, if ever, deals with matters of importance. I’ll have more to say about that later.
But in that vein there is a culture, or protocols, around the Church of Christ ministry search that is antiquated and formulaic. In our broader culture there are a series of phrases that I would prefer to never hear again. They are:
10. Any phrase that incorporates the word “Brotherhood.” Aside from it’s immediate exclusion of half of those who affiliate themselves with the COC, it eliminates 99% of the broader world of Christianity. You can toss in with that the use of the phrase “the Church” in sole reference to our tine on the fork of the American Restoration Movement.
9. Guide, Guard and Direct Besides the redundancy, it is the older equivalent of the prominent use of the word “just” in many prayers.
8. Ready Recollection. I appreciate the gesture, but it’s really not necessary. For one, maybe I need to forget something I prepared. Just cause I write it down on Tuesday, doesn’t mean I need to say it out loud on Sunday (This blog post is quickly becoming a good example of that.) Secondly, I haven’t memorized my sermon. It’s all written down in front of me. 14 point, Times New Roman font. Oh, and the important points are on overhead and I control the clicker.
And we probably need to move away from such a dependency on what I say and more of a focus on what God needs to tell us. But the consumerist mentality of modernist worship services is another post altogether.
7. Decent and in Order. In all my years of interacting within the “brotherhood” I have never heard anybody advocate for the inclusion of anything that is indecent. And I even lived in Tennessee. And what order? We all know that if you do communion after the sermon then your entire service is invalidated. I mean, who does that?
6. Rightly Divide the Word of Truth. Yeah, I know it’s from 2 Timothy. But I still don’t know what it means other than I have a hyper-literal interpretation of the passages that agree with the power-brokers.
5. Doctrinally Sound A large number of churches looking for ministers are interested in only “grounded” preachers who are “sound in the Word.” Again, do you think an “unsound” minister is going to see that qualification and think “oh, I guess that leaves me out.” However, it’s typically a sign to stay away.
4. Mechanical Instruments. What is that? How long will we continue to mire ourselves in this pointless debate? And do “mechanical” instruments include all instruments of a mechanical nature including rolling mills and specimen peeling tools? What about barrel organs?
3. Change Agent. Seriously, I’m so fed up with this (Important note: my wife took our middle daughter to a birthday party last week where she was handed the latest Spiritual Dagger blasting Richland Hills, after she was confirmed as a member of a “sound brotherhood” church).
It’s not change agents that bring division in the church. It is the unwillingness to lovingly walk alongside one another as we “work out our salvation.” It is the refusal to bear with one another, giving love and understanding to those who might reach a different conclusion than we do. It is the propensity we have in the church to draw rigid lines in the sand that demands uniformity of belief.
In a setting where I could lose my job by having the “wrong” position on instruments or the role of women in worship but remain relatively secure in my position at the same time I subjugate, dominate, abuse and mistreat my wife it is obvious that something is wrong. And it’s not the “change agents.” It’s the atmosphere where the belief that God elevated something other than love of Him and love of neighbor as the two greatest commandments.
2. “Evangelist.” Another sign that we have things seriously wrong is the idea that the role of evangelist becomes a singular paid position and not the role of a broad cross-section of the Church.
1. “Add to or take away.” First off, I have never added anything to the book of Revelation. That’s Lahaye’s and Jenkin’s job. Secondly, we all add our interpretations and conclusions. Interpreting scripture is not adding to. Imposing a rigid test of inclusion and fellowship is.
Uhh, didn’t mean to say all that. Oh well. Any thoughts or additions?
66 Responses to “Top 10 Tuesday: Phrases That Should Be Eliminated”
By Jeff B. on May 1, 2007 | Reply
“… as we stand and sing.” One day I’m gonna just end my lesson where it ends, walk down from the podium, and let people stew in a (hopefully)soul-piercing lesson until the song leader decides he better do something about the ungodly silence and lead the “invitation song.”
“Seperate and apart from the Lord’s Supper …” Is contributing to God’s ongoing work really totally seperate from recognizing God’s completed work? And, if it is really seperate, why not actually SEPARATE IT!
“undenominational Christianity.” Is there really such a thing? Unsectarian, yes. But undenominational? And does anyone REALLY believe that the COC isn’t a denomination?
“Come forward and repent …”
By Scott on May 1, 2007 | Reply
I had “separate and apart” on my working list.
I’m not much of a fan of invitation songs. It seems to impersonal to me. But what can you do?
By len on May 1, 2007 | Reply
And here I thought Free Will Baptists had issues. I must admit you have peaked my curiosity as to the stories behind some of these phrases.
By Scott on May 1, 2007 | Reply
We have issues in spades, my friend. Ask away. We will fill you in.
By greg on May 1, 2007 | Reply
Who’s handing out SS at a birthday party?? Was that included in the “party favors”? Man, that had to be one bad party…
By Scott on May 1, 2007 | Reply
Apparently, it was. I was luckily spared this party. But on my way to the office I dropped off my oldest daughter so Tracy could take her home. On the way out I heard one of the party moms lean over to Tracy and say “I wouldn’t have known he was a preacher if you hadn’t told me.”
I take that as a compliment but I’m not sure it was intended as such.
By Amy on May 1, 2007 | Reply
That is pretty funny (the mom’s comment).
I can second your interviewing sentiment. And the thing about it is, I am not even the one being hired, so why am I included in the torturous process? But…hopefully we are done with all that!
By matt elliott on May 1, 2007 | Reply
I just get a kick out of churchspeak in general, or “Christianese” as a friend of mine calls it. Here are some of my favorite examples:
**The Awkward Use of The Article “The”
For instance, “the denominations.” Or the tract entitled, “The Christian and The Dance.” Or the articles I’ve read blasting “the clapping of the hands.” Who talks like this?!?
**The Dishonest Question: Is This Any Way to Title a Sermon or Lecture?
For instance, all those lectureship titles such as, “Can A Woman Preach In the Assembly?” or “Are Mechanical Instruments of Music Acceptable In Worship?” Never once have I wondered which side they’d land on!
(”Mechanical Instruments” is a classic, by the way. As a child I always visualized these gigantic gears and cogs and such. Kudos, Scott, for mentioning it earlier.)
**The UnRevival, aka “Gospel Meeting,” or more correctly, “A Series of Gospel Meetings,” as in “You are Cordially Invited to Attend a Series of Gospel Meetings.”
I could go all day. I’ve been steeped in this stuff since birth! It’s irritating and charming to me all at the same time.
By Scott on May 1, 2007 | Reply
Keep going, Matt! I love the awkward use of “the” in any setting. It always cracks me up.
“look at her. I think she’s got the pregnancy.”
By Tracy on May 1, 2007 | Reply
Thank God I’m so clueless in regard to most of the listed phrases.
And I thought you saved your rants for “Ranting Wednesday” or something like that. This one is definitely a rant.
And am I the only one who laughs everytime somebody says ‘guide guard and direct’? It always sounds to me like something to be said in relation to having a bowel movement.
By justin on May 1, 2007 | Reply
Would you please come as we stand and sing either almost persuaded or prepare to meet thy god. It really doesn’t matter, as long as it makes you think about eternal damnation. jeez.
change agent bugs the crap out of me. however, I think there are some people out there that aren’t moving foward in peace. I used to hate on the people that started the concerned members site about madison c of c, but from what I hear (from a “progressive” former member of MCOC) apparently there were some issues with ministers and elders that refused to listen to people. I’m all about changing to try and be all things to all people, but at least listen to those that have a differing opinion.
By Scott on May 1, 2007 | Reply
Justin, I agree we have to be patient with people no matter what side of the issue we are on. It’s not easy sometimes, but that is the true essence of Christian love.
By Doug Freeman on May 1, 2007 | Reply
Sounds like a lot of nit picking to me, or trying to be picayunish. My boss always told me that being picayunish was picking yesterdays farts out of your shirttail with boxing gloves on. Nuff said.
By Jen on May 1, 2007 | Reply
With the abundance of projectors why do song leaders continually say turn to page so and so. I love the singing at the church I attend where we go straight from one song to another. We stand the entire time. I appreciate this kind of passion in the singing.
By matt elliott on May 1, 2007 | Reply
Pic`a`yun´ish
a. 1. Petty; paltry; mean; as, a picayunish business.
[Had to look that up.]
First of all, I see it more like chuckling at the idiosyncracies of my own family. They drive me nuts on one hand; they’re familiar and charming on the other and bring out the sentimental in me. Nothing at all mean about it.
For that matter, it’s not petty, either. Can you imagine what lunacy this insider language sounds like to outsiders? This churchspeak code is as far as it gets from authenticity, and that, in my opinion, IS a big deal — a big barrier — when it comes to interacting with non-adherents to our faith.
By matt elliott on May 1, 2007 | Reply
My apologies, by the way, if that sounds more heavy-handed that I mean for it to. (I suspect that it does.) I enjoy the banter.
By scott on May 1, 2007 | Reply
I think a look at our language is an important exercise. #1 on my list is a classic proof-text and that can cause a lot of trouble. It’s not biblically sound
By anj on May 1, 2007 | Reply
hey scott. matt elliott’s sis here. he thought i’d get a kick out of your blog and his comments (ditto on both.)
i have one to add, that matt and i have talked about. i know of at least a couple of older men who threw these lines in their (very long) prayers, but who knows - they could have been in the collective conscious of the c of c:
“we thank thee that we are *numbered among the living*”
“we thank thee that we can gather together *without fear of molestation.*”
discuss?
thanks,
anj elliott
By Scott on May 1, 2007 | Reply
Anj, welcome to my blog. Any sis of Matt Elliott’s is a sis of mine. Or something to that effect.
Anyway, is it “fear of molestation?” I had always heard “fear OR molestation.” Yours makes more sense. It’s not as if fear doesn’t accompany molestation.
By jp on May 1, 2007 | Reply
Hey Scott… long time reader first time to comment. one of my “favs” is “neked in our iniquities”. that one always makes me laugh. Overall, i could not agree more.
By matt elliott on May 1, 2007 | Reply
Definitely fear OF molestation. Sort of takes on a whole new meaning in light of the Catholic pedophilia scandal, no?
That “numbered among the living” thing was always a hoot — even at the time!
By Jonathan on May 1, 2007 | Reply
“We ask that as we partake we do so in a manner that is well-pleasing in your sight.”
Back when we were at Antioch in Nashville, there was a gentleman would commonly ask for “a hedge of thorns surrounding [insert name] to protect from the fiery darts of the devil” (references to Eph 6:16 and Hosea 2:6 ?). It wasn’t language we easily related to but we got a kick out of it.
By Doug Freeman on May 1, 2007 | Reply
I am so thankful that God looks at the heart and accepts us for who we are. I am thankful that the Spirit is involved in my prayers and taking my words even though they may seem foolish to those sitting in the audience. I recall a gentleman stopping me once and ask. Do you know how many times Bro. so and so said Our Father in his prayer today? I replied, no, how many? 14 times he said, to which i answered, so what! I think we need to be more concerned with our own individual worship, rather than others inabilities to say things exactly as we think they should.
By matt elliott on May 1, 2007 | Reply
When Jesus nailed the hypocrites about their insincere prayers in Matthew 6, it was their words He zeroed in on. They were “babbling” and thought they would be heard “because of their many words.” The heart matters supremely, yes — and the words are the window to the heart. The words matter.
By matt elliott on May 1, 2007 | Reply
Hey, Scott — what was the subtitle for this post again?
By Scott on May 1, 2007 | Reply
Matt, no kidding. Luckily, I get my humor from my dad so I can always blame him.
I do agree that some of these are not big deals and are nit-picking. But any of our phrases that perpetuates an us vs. them mentality or isolates people or continues division is a problem.
When my wife is vetted at a birthday party for a 4-year old on whether or not she is a “New Testament Christian” I have a problem.
Words do matter.
But, ultimately, all this is in good humor.
By justin on May 1, 2007 | Reply
The other day my grandfather used “partake” in a sentence and not talking about the Lord’s Supper.
I didn’t realize people used that word for anything else.
By matt elliott on May 2, 2007 | Reply
My dad, a 72 year old preacher and a sweetheart, gets excited when there’s a nice-sized crowd at church. He likes to say that “we have a goodly number this morning.” But he never uses “goodly” in any other sentences as best I can recall.
I made an audible, over the top noise — some mutant form of laughter — over that “partake” thing, Justin. It just came flying out.
By len on May 2, 2007 | Reply
Could someone define “mechanical instrument” for this Free Will Baptist and then give a brief explanation as to why they are inappropriate for worship? I’m also curious about the history surrounding the word “brotherhood”.
On a larger scale, I am sick of hearing the word “emerging”. “Postmodern” isn’t one of my favorites either.
By Scott on May 2, 2007 | Reply
I want to do a list of more recent terminology that needs to die a quick death as well.
Len, I’m not sure of the etymology of the use of “mechanical instruments” in the COC. My guess is because in our a capella heritage that the only instrument that is allowed is one that is not mechanical: the human voice.
As to why they are inappropriate, the traditional line of reasoning has been that there is no explicit instruction in the NT for us to use them in our worship services. Traditionally, the notion that there isn’t much explicit instruction for our worship services at all has not dampened the argument.
Lord, keep us safe until our next appointed blog comment
By joe on May 2, 2007 | Reply
As an evangelist here in Brooklyn I’m desperately hoping to be a change agent for this god-forsaken city. The brotherhood sure could use a boost here in Kings County. Just ask Mac Lynn. And as I go forward, I pray that God guides, guards and directs my ways as I attempt to be docrinally sound. In order for that to happen, I’ll need a ready recollection of God’s Inspired and Inerrant Word!
[Please excuse the statements above. There must be a glitch in my system as I thought I had done enough to get rid of them once. Looks like I have to go back and reprogram...again.]
By len on May 2, 2007 | Reply
Scott, are you serious that the reasoning is that there is no explicit instruction to use them? Just as there is no prohibition against using them? Don’t respond if that will get you in trouble. I can at least understand how someone can get baptismal regeneration, but this music thing doesn’t make much sense to me.
Joe, if I were drinking coffee when I read your post I would have sprayed the computer screen!
By Scott on May 2, 2007 | Reply
Joe, that is hilarious. It’s good to laugh every now and then. God bless this family.
Len, one of the phrases that is bandied about in our movement is “silence of the scriptures.” Since there is no mention of instruments in the NT we have traditionally eschewed it. Silence, it is argued, is prohibitive. The fact that it doesn’t mention instruments is indication that we cannot use it. That would be “adding to.”
By Jonathan on May 2, 2007 | Reply
len,
from the classic “Who are the churches of Christ
and what do they believe in?” link
Mr. Google can probably provide with more info than you can stand about this teaching.
As a kid, it was presented to me this way: If I tell you to mow the grass with the riding lawn mower, I don’t have to tell you not to use the push mower.
In my opinion, this view is off base for a variety of reasons, not the least of which (as Scott mentioned) is that the NT is obviously not an “OT law” worship manual.
This is not to say that there aren’t good reasons that a church might choose not to use musical instruments. For me, on the few occasions that I’ve worshiped with musical accompaniment, I found my distaste for the style of music to be a distraction. Not that a cappella is a style that I intrinsically have a strong affinity to, but I’m used to it.
By len on May 2, 2007 | Reply
To avoid stirring the pot even more I won’t post some of my initial thoughts. (Except to mention that the Scripture is silent about how often the church should observe Communion) Are there any CoCs that use “mechanical instruments”? Is this considered worthy of separation of fellowship?
Just to satisfy my curiosity, what percentage of CoC leaders would believe that I am (for lack of better terms) going to hell? How many think Scott is heading there?!
By Scott on May 2, 2007 | Reply
Go ahead and say whatever you think, Len. We are big enough to take it. I don’t agree with our scriptural proof-texting for arguing a capella only. The argument that I best by into is that we do fill a need for those who prefer that particular style of worship. The readers of my blog, if I can speak for them, are ones who have moved past the view that a position on “mechanical instruments” are a salvation matter.
Sadly, there are still many of those out there who would pronounce a sinister fate for you, but I am hopeful that number is dwindling.
There are a number of CoC’s that have adopted the use of instruments. The largest in our “brotherhood” has recently initiated a Saturday night service that incorporates music. That move was the basis for the issue of Spiritual Sword, one of our “brotherhood publications” that I referred to in the initial post.
As to your final two questions. The percentage of CoC leaders who think you are toast is probably 30%. I think I’m pushing 40% after this post
By matt elliott on May 2, 2007 | Reply
Honestly, Len — you’re among friends here.
By Jeff B. on May 2, 2007 | Reply
Len,
As I view it, instrumental music being viewed as a salvation issue is a steadily dwindling view in our fellowship. I see three basic positions in “the brotherhood”
First, there are those who believe that the use or endorsement of instrumental music in worship is a sin because of a failure to recognize Biblical authority. I think it was Roy Deaver that wrote a booklet called “Ascertaining Bible Authority” where he said something like, “The Bible authorizes by what it says, not by what it does NOT say.” The conclusion, since the Bible SAYS sing, but is SILENT about other types of music, then the music is unauthorized. The flaws in this hermeneutic are being realized more and more with younger generations, thus making this position increasingly rare (although still very much present).
There are many who will never be comfortable worshiping with instruments, but who won’t declare someone lost over the issue. They don’t buy the legalistic hermeneutic described above, but they just can’t get themselves to worship any other way than a capella (which is absolutely fine, by the way).
There many who think it is the “BETTER way,” (not the ONLY way) or the “MORE biblical position” (not the ONLY biblical position). These people have a great internal battle being waged between their heritage and their progressing faith. Their understanding of God cannot allow them to fathom people burning in hell over the use of instruments. However, the rhetoric and sophistry that they have been exposed to for so many years sounds convincing to them as well. So this is their position that allows for some sense of inner peace. This category will be virtually non-existant in the next generation because few of our churches even teach anything about musical worship anymore (even the good things they should teach).
Finally, there are those who view the issue as entirely a matter of preference and prefer either instrumental worship or an integration of instrumental and a capella music. They stay in the COC because they are either in a very progressive church that has instrumental praise, they view themselves as change agents :-), or they feel tied to the COC because of heritage or other doctrines. I think most on this blog would fall into this category. I think this is the category that is growing the quickest.
By Jeff B. on May 2, 2007 | Reply
I guess that was four basic positions, not three! Math is so hard!
By len on May 2, 2007 | Reply
I’ve never doubted that I was among friends here. And this is the best kind of friendship, where we can have plenty of different opinions and still be friends. When it comes to CoC issues I am on the outside looking in and don’t want to say anything, intentional or otherwise, to offend.
I have no problems with a particular local church choosing to not use instruments. In fact, it is good that this option is out there. Sounds like there are some positive changes taking place. Although I did google Spiritual Sword and quickly found that there are places I wouldn’t be welcomed. Don’t think they would like Scott too much either.
What about communion every Sunday? Is this a standard CoC practice? Is it as highly held as the a capella worship?
By Scott on May 2, 2007 | Reply
Yes, communion every Sunday is standard. Whereas we traditionally argue the silence of the Scripture for the omission of instruments we claim scriptural example (command, example, necessary inference. Another phrase to go) for communion on the first day of the week from Acts 20:7.
And yes, there are places where I wouldn’t be welcome. There are places where even the more conservative of my readership wouldn’t be embraced. We have deep divisions that are indicative of all denominations.
By Robin on May 2, 2007 | Reply
Wow - after reading this blog I am thankful I attend a Lutheran church. I’ll be in hell one day because I sing in a rock band every Sunday when I worship at church. That must be really bad. Thanks for the instrument explanation - I have wondered for years exactly what the basis was. Question - doesn’t leaving out OT teachings undermine the understanding of the NT?
By matt elliott on May 2, 2007 | Reply
To answer your question, Robin, I’d have to respond this way:
Pretty much.
By Jeff B. on May 2, 2007 | Reply
I think it is important for non-COC readers to understand that, while there are many in the COC who disagree with our historic position on instruments, we are nonetheless proud of our affiliation and believe that there is much blessing to be found from our traditions.
While I am in disagreement with our exclusivist position on instrumental music, I am proud of the fact that it comes from a place of very high respect for the scriptures. I would rather be wrong with the right intentions than right with the wrong ones anyday.
Rachel, leaving out OT teachings does, indeed undermind our understanding of the NT. Our fellowship has recognized an important biblical distinction between the Mosaic Covenant/Dispensation and the Christaian Covenant/Dispensation. That valid biblical understanding has, unfortunately, been misapplied in such a way as to virtually render the OT invaluable. Once again, this mistake came from a valid biblical position and, as time goes by, each generation of our movement has adopted corrective understandings of these shortcomings. Thus, as individuals, and as a community, we are being molded into a more adequate representation of Christ.
As far as our weekly communion, we need to understand that the foundation for this practice is far less tenuous than that of instrumental music. The music position comes directly from a faulty hermeneutical approach that says that SILENCE SPEAKS. The Lord’s Supper position actually has stated examples in support of it in Scripture, as well as a theology that embraces it as a CONSTANT way to remember the cause of our redemption. Finally, those within the COC can testify that, experientially, weekly observance can be a truly sustaining spiritual experience rivaled by few things in church life.
Does this mean that it is the ONLY way? Certainly not. Does it mean that all who have understood the biblical teaching on the Lord’s Supper differently are hell-bound? Absolutely not. It simply means that, correct or not, there is a firmer foundation underlying weekly communion than there is instrumental music. Therefore, don’t look for it to be done away with any time soon.
By Scott on May 2, 2007 | Reply
Who’s Rachel?
Robin, I echo what Matt said above. We have largely ignored the historical context of the OT, much to our disadvantage.
By JTB on May 2, 2007 | Reply
One of the astonishing discoveries I’ve made in the last couple years is that phrases like “guide guard and direct” actually have a source–in the Book of Common Prayer. (Actually it’s not quite GGD but really close.) Some of these others probably stem from this same source as well.
What’s most interesting about this discovery is the fact that the same language which is obscure and annoyingly repetitous in a CofC context is actually quite meaningful and beautiful when set in its original and proper context of a full liturgical tradition. This suggests to me that the problem is not the phrases themselves but the lack of an adequate CofC liturgy (theology of worship and resources for worship both). It also seems to suggest that when such things are lacking, the human need for such is so great that we will unconsciously do our best to fill it–however badly.
By Scott on May 3, 2007 | Reply
JTB, this is something I’ve never really considered. Since I have no experience with a liturgy (unless it’s accompanied by a legacy and a ragamuffin band) it’s hard for me to realize whether or not I miss not having it.
But I do agree that there is something lacking. Your comment intrigues me.
By Robin on May 3, 2007 | Reply
Don’t you think it’s a bit self-righteous of your denomination to condemn people to hell because COC has made a rule regarding “mechanical” instruments in worship or in what part of the service you take communion or how many times? I believe the pathway to heaven is belief in Christ - not following specific manmade worship rules.
By Scott on May 3, 2007 | Reply
Robin, I agree. That is a sad part of our past, and our present for too many. Hopefully, we are moving past that.
We have been guilty of imposing a legalistic set of works-righteousness that many of us have chafed at and thrown off in recent years. Hopefully you will experience a greater ecumenism from the CoC as we move into the future.
By JTB on May 4, 2007 | Reply
Ah, well. The benefits of being married to a liturgical scholar who knows the history of the BCP are numerous and bedazzling!
By Phil Wilson on May 4, 2007 | Reply
JTB,
I think your comment (46) has an interesting point, although I’m not sure that a full blown liturgy is the answer. Some people would say that there is a liturgy (3 songs, prayer, 1 song, Lord’s supper, 1 song, sermon, invitation song, closing song, closing prayer). In fact, I think there’s danger in liturgy as well as non liturgy. What I think really matters is the condition of the heart of the worshiper. If you’re saying words just to say them, whether it’s “Guide, Guard, and Direct” or “And also with you,” the danger is it becoming rote and not meaningful. The responsibility for finding meaning in the phrase lies with the worshipper, in my opinion.
By JTB on May 4, 2007 | Reply
Of course you’re right to point out that there is a CofC liturgy in that sense; I think liturgy in that sense is inevitable, and part of the reason why the phrases identified above have persisted in the way that they have. Human beings need ritual. We opted out of the formal liturgy and in the process of so doing, inadvertently cobbled together something that has become an informal and yet consistent (and in some instances rigid) pattern of worship. The problem I see with this is not that we have a pattern, but that we have an ad hoc pattern, rather than a pattern resulting from deliberate consideration of what worship is, what worship is for, who worship is about, how best to express worship, etc.
I understand the necessity of the individual’s participation in worship, whether liturgical or non, in order to produce meaning; but I also believe that forms of worship matter in that some things encourage and some things prevent such participation of the individual. I also think that the communal aspect of worship should be the dominant over the individual aspect–so that I am suspicious of individual meaning-giving worship activity (such as individual raising of hands, for example). It seems to me that, theologically and practically, communal responses and antiphonal readings in which all people voice together the same words produces a communal experience of worship better than an individual reading scripture from a podium while everyone else reads the words silently, as individuals. In this respect formal liturgies seem to be better vehicles for communal worship than informal patterns which tend on the whole to privilege atomistic individualized worship experiences.
This, BTW, is the reason why I consider acapella singing to be theologically irreplaceable in CofC worship. It is the only instance in which the community as a whole vocally worships together in communal expression. The importance of this cannot be overstated, in my opinion, especially considering the fact that in most CofC churches today this is still the only opportunity women have to vocally express worship to God in the assembly.
By Scott on May 4, 2007 | Reply
JTB, once again great thoughts. I’ve never considered the ramifications of removing acapella singing and it’s impact on women and their ability to worship in CoC. Intriguing.
I’m interested in this liturgy thing.
By JTB on May 7, 2007 | Reply
P.S. A final thought from Brent: one of the reasons he finds formal liturgy, which incorporates deliberate weekly repetition of specific phrases, prayers and creed, so useful is the formative/affirmative aspect of that deliberate repetition. As an example: Some days I find it harder than others to believe God is good. On those days it is helpful to have the community as a whole remind me and affirm for me (even if I cannot as an individual believer at that moment) that this is so.
By Jonathan on May 7, 2007 | Reply
Another phrase my wife suggested: “The confession should be as public or as private as the sin.”
By Belinda on May 7, 2007 | Reply
I once heard a preacher say “ready recollection” sounded like a terrible disease.
By Scott on May 7, 2007 | Reply
Just finishing Barbara Brown Taylor’s book “Leaving Church” I am able to see much more the importance of the communal aspect of worship. Beautiful book.
By Chris on May 8, 2007 | Reply
I believe the most important consideration against instrumental music is the fact that it was not used for several hundred years after the church was established. In fact it is a relatively new addition in worship. It is not used in Orthodox churches today or in High Mass in Catholic churches.
By Scott on May 11, 2007 | Reply
Chris, welcome to the blog. Although I agree that instrumental music was not used until much later I do not hold to the notion that the failure to include it was due to a rigid orthodoxy.
By len on May 13, 2007 | Reply
As a non-CoC person, I think it is wonderful that your “denomination” is marked by acapella singing. I have no desire to influence any CoC believer to change their practice. There is definitely a place for this style of worship in the fellowship of believers. My only beef would be those who told me that my church isn’t worshiping in a manner pleasing to Christ because we use “mechanical instruments”. Do CoC just rip Psalm 150 from the Bible?
By Jonathan on May 13, 2007 | Reply
It is argued that there is an old covenant and a new covenant and that today we live under the new covenant. Therefore, instructions or examples regarding worship that we given under the old covenant (such as animal sacrifice, special religious holidays, worship with instruments in Psalms, etc) are deemed irrelevant in establishing “authority” for modes of worship under the new.
By scott on May 13, 2007 | Reply
What is even more interesting is that there is a sub-set who believes that all of the sayings and teachings of Jesus fall under that old covenant and are, thus, not applicable.
Obviously, there is a wide range of views in the Churches of Christ. You can probably tell what end of the spectrum I fall on
By Robin on May 14, 2007 | Reply
If the OT is deemed irrelevant what about the 10 commandments - or do you pick and choose what is relevant and what is not. I have no problem with acapella worship or any worship style - it is the condemning to hell those who worship differently. This reminds me of catholics worshipping Mary and the rules they made about eating fish on Fridays.
By Scott on May 14, 2007 | Reply
I think it is important to point out that those who see issues like instrumental music as salvation issues is becoming a smaller and smaller subset of mainstream Churches of Christ.
The growing majority, although they may not choose instrumental worship for themselves, do not condemn others to hell for feeling otherwise. As in all denominations there is a broad cross-section of folks.
By Jonathan on May 14, 2007 | Reply
I think they would say that the “OT is deemed irrelevant” only in the sense that the law of Moses (including, for example, its rules and requirements regarding worship) have been superseded by the NT (which they dissect and parse to produce a new set of rules). They still consider the OT to be a good source of history and knowledge about God and man. About the ten commandments, they would say that they are still binding (at least, most of them) because they are reiterated in the NT. Remembering the Sabbath to keep it holy is not considered binding because it is not reiterated in the NT.
By Scott on May 18, 2007 | Reply
One of the things I find interesting is how we can be so adamant about the placing of the 10 commandments in public forums but there is no one arguing for the placing of the Beatitudes in courthouses.
It goes back to the fact that Jesus is the most revered and least followed teacher in human history.