Where has the Trinity gone?

[JD Sherrow]

Quoting Gay Leonard, wife of Central Florida District Superintendent Larry Leonard, in "Articles of Faith: What Nazarenes Believe and Why."

"The doctrine of the Trinity may be the one Christian teaching that moves from 0 to 60 in six seconds, from relative clarity to befuddlement in no time flat. All Christians know the word and most can give a rudimentary explanation of the Three-in-One and the One-in-Three. After that, however, most people--even many pastors--are lost.

Practically speaking, Christians overwhelmingly are mere monotheists rather than fully realized Trinitarians."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opinion: A major contributor to this monotheism (the belief that there is only one God)? Church Copyright License Inc./ C.C.L.I. is where 170,000 churches get permission to use praise choruses on church screens. A check of the August 2006 report on the Top 25 songs requested reveals:

1. Number of times God is in the title: 2
2. Number of times Jesus is in the title: 0
3. Number of times Holy Spirit is in the title: 0
4. How is the Trinity referred to in the title? Your...Lord...You...King...You're...One

The facts of the matter. Use of God, Jesus, Holy Spirit in the lyrics of the Top 25 songs?

1. "Here I Am To Worship" manages to talk about about God coming to earth, being altogether lovely, the cost of sin on the cross, and never once mentions the name of Jesus.
2. "How Great Is Our God" has one line, the Godhead, Three in one, Father, Spirit, Son.
3. "Blessed Be Your Name" 0
4. "Open The Eyes Of My Heart" 0
5. "Come Now Is The Time To Worship" God
6. "Shout To The Lord" Jesus
7. "Forever" God
8. "You Are My King" 0
9. "Lord I Lift Your Name On High" 0
10. "Holy Is The Lord" God
11. "God Of Wonders" God
12. "Breathe" 0
13. "You're Worthy Of My Praise" 0
14. "Trading My Sorrows" 0
15. "We Fall Down" Jesus
16. "The Heart of Worship" Jesus
17. "You Are My All In All" Jesus
18. "I Give You My Heart" 0
19. "Draw Me Close" 0
20. "Above All" Jesus is the theme without using his name once.
21. "Better Is One Day" God
22. "Lord Reign In Me" 0
23. "Beautiful One" 0
24. "Days Of Elijah" 0
25. "Give Thanks" Jesus


=== This is an automatically generated message ===

This is the first post from this user. Please go to the Welcome Forum: http://www.naznet.com/community/forumdisplay.php?f=29 to post a message making them welcome here on NazNet.

=== This is an automatically generated message ===

[Jerry Frank]

A very interesting and astute observation, JD. Welcome to NazNet.

As a young lad in the Lutheran church, we would sit for the singing of the opening hymn but often (though not always) would rise during the singing of the last stanza. I finally figured out that the last verse was usually about the Trinity and, when it was, we would stand to acknowledge that.

From the last part of the last verse in, O Day of Rest and Gladness:
To Holy Ghost be praises,
To Father, and to Son;
The Church her voice upraises
To The, blest Three in One.

Many of the old hymns contained theology, not just praise, and they helped the average person to remember it.

Jerry

[JD Sherrow]

Thanks for your interest, Jerry. Evidently, 170,000 churches NOT teaching the Trinity in their music isn't that important. Because, you are the only response and I note that there were 33 replies about motorcycle riding and 52replies about Ted Haggard in the NazNet Community discussion. :-}

[Hans Deventer]

Thanks for your interest, Jerry. Evidently, 170,000 churches NOT teaching the Trinity in their music isn't that important.

That's probably because the theology of the choruses is so bad, this one hardly surprises anyone.

[JD Sherrow]

Your observation could be "spot on", Hans. But, sad and tragic as it is, Ted Haggard's story isn't new. There have been frauds and charlatans like him since Biblical days.

The lamentable theology of today's worship music is affecting my kids and grandkids. Here's where it came from. I wrote this in August 2005.

Ever wonder how we got to where we are on Sunday mornings?

"One of the most controversial revolutions in the church has been the recent changes in worship. Between 1900 and 1970 most churches had settled into the model of traditional worship handed down in their denomination or fellowship. There was little pressure to change until the music revolution of the 50s, the rise of the hippie movement in the 60s, and the emergence of the Jesus Movement in the 70s.

The Jesus Movement, influenced by the music revolution and the hippie revolution, introduced music-driven casual worship, and the church has been in an uproar ever since."
-Robert E. Webber, Professor of Ministry, Northern Seminary, Wheaton College

All of this came out of California.

The irony? The Jesus People soon sank out of sight. The hippies and their revolution are long gone, but we still have their music-driven casual worship.
And have NO clue why.

[Jerry Frank]

I was raised Lutheran but spent over 20 years of my adult life as a Free Methodist, another so called holiness denomination. The particular church I attended was a great place and I have no regrets about my time there. I never spent a lot of time comparing doctrine or practice but I did observe one thing that I thought Lutherans did better than the Free Methodists and the Nazarenes. and by extension, most other similar churches. They spent a lot of time teaching and preaching theology.

As a Lutheran, I went through two years of once a week (sometimes twice) classes before I was allowed to be a member. Sure, some of that time was spent on Lutheran doctrine and practice but a great deal of it had to do with fundamental Christian theology and where it is to be found in scripture. When joining the Free Methodist Church, I received one visit from the pastor, affirmed some statements in a morning worship service, and I was "in".

Most of our modern churches have members who have remained babes in their faith. They are what I refer to as, "Sunday School story Christians". They have not bothered to mature in their faith. If they are not bound to a denomination by tradition, they blow in the wind to whatever church "feels" good or where there is a strong, charismatic preacher. Many churches have adopted a 101, 201, 301, 401 system of membership classes. After 101 you can choose to become a member. There is usually good attendance and you might run the course several times in a year. I have noted that attendance in further sessions drops off so much that 401 might only be run once every 2 years. Maybe membership should be denied until 401 is completed.

I do not mean to suggest that everyone must become a master theologian. But if there is no background in fundamentals, the church is weakened. I guess I have gone a bit of track from the actual thread but my ultimate point is that a weakened church will allow music with weak theology behind it.

Of course I do not believe that the Lutheran practice is all that it takes to make a strong church. One can become so engrossed in theology that the practical living out of Christian faith with its inherent problems is forgotten. But there needs to be a stronger balance between theology and practice to make a strong (not necessarily large) church.

Jerry

[Jeremy D. Scott]

Welcome to Naznet!

I did read your post. I just didn't think the conclusion was completely true.

It's ironic that I'm writing this post, because I've been one to emphasize and highlight the persons of the Trinity and their importance quite a bit, both in my own life, my ministry, and here on Naznet (I've had the image I do by my name for several months because I love the image of the Trinity).

But, I'm not overly concerned by your observations.

First, "Trinity", "Father", "Son", and "Spirit" are all images. We use them to talk about this great being we call God. God is not a father and Jesus is not really the Father's Son (in human terms) and the Holy Spirit is not really a ghost. They are words we use to describe how God works within himself (<--there - I just did it again - I said "himself, but only as a way of talking about God...God is not a "he")

Second, though these are foundational and primary terms (the ones you listed), we use lots of other terms and images to talk about the same God. Stuff like "Lord" or "Beautiful One" or "All in All" or "King" or "Air I Breathe" are all words/phrases (that you didn't count in your tally) that people are apparently using to worship the same God.

Third, this lack in that one list does not mean the Church isn't teaching the doctrine. While music is certainly a great vessel of didache (teaching), it's certainly not the only way that the Church teaches. Although, I would definitely agree with you that the evangelical Church needs to do a lot more teaching of the trinitarian doctrine. I'm just saying that using the most popular worship choruses, which are really just representative of the "contemporary" mostly evangelical churches who actually use CCLI, is not representative of the Church at large.

Lastly, we've had lots of discussion surrounding the Trinity around here. I can guarantee you that the Trinity has been talked about more than motorcycles and Ted Haggard. Here are a couple of the thread:
http://www.naznet.com/community/showthread.php?t=5227
http://www.naznet.com/community/showthread.php?t=7903

I agree with you and Hans, some of the songs you listed are either weak in theology or foster just plain bad theology. But, there is some great theology within them as well. "Lord, I Lift Your Name on High" is one of the best simple and short demonstrations of christology in a song I've ever seen. "Blessed Be Your Name" is an incredible song of confession and lament. "Come, Now is the Time to Worship" isn't even meant to radiate with theology. It's a great call to worship. But the fact is that a lot of popular worship songs are bad theology, including many of the popular hymns.

One of my favorite newer songs is Made to Worship by Chris Tomlin. It will quickly rise up that list. Some great theology within.

Most striking from your post was the implication that we are not monotheists...Christians are monotheistic. God is one. Belief in the Trinity is not belief in three gods.

[JD Sherrow]

From one JDS to another JDS, thanks for your reply, Jeremy. I read your profile. Pretty impressive background. A friend of mine pastored the North Windham, NH church back in 1985.

Let's start from the end of your reply. Quoting you, "Most striking from your post was the implication that we are not monotheists...Christians are monotheistic. God is one. Belief in the Trinity is not belief in three gods."

These are Gay Leonard's words, "Practically speaking, Christians overwhelmingly are mere monotheists rather than fully realized Trinitarians."

You say, "Third, this lack in that one list does not mean the Church isn't teaching the doctrine."

This might be true. If so, where IS the doctrine being taught? Certainly not in Sunday school, Sunday evening worship, Wednesday prayer meeting. They have disappeared. Small groups? Hardly. That leaves the pastor's message. I agree with Keith Drury, Indiana Wesleyan University professor, the pastor should select the songs. If I was a pastor, I would not want to have to spend half my sermons "undoing" the theology of the music that preceded my message.

You agree that some songs are weak in theology or just plain bad theology. Since Sunday morning is the only time that the congregation can be influenced as a group, I am not willing to give up any portion of those valuable minutes to undeserved songs.

[Bruce Carriker]

JD,

You said that as the pastor, you would pick the songs because "I would not want to spend half my sermons undoing the theology of the music..."

When I was a worship pastor, our senior pastor would sit down and give me his preaching plan, usually several weeks ahead. I was responsible for designing the service, selecting the call to worship, congregational hymns/choruses, choir anthem, offeratory, responsive readings, etc. All were tied to his text for that Sunday's worship. And he reviewed them all before anything was finalized.

Somehow, somewhere, we allowed ourselves to separate WORSHIP into distinct, separate acts...music, Scripture reading, responsive reading, special music, choir music, offering, sermon...that may or may not have been connected, and oft times only by coincidence. THIS is the problem.

As we have moved back towards the concept of WORSHIP being one act with several moving, always interconnected parts, I think the problem you point out is becoming less frequent.

As for Sunday morning services and "undeserved songs", ought we not be careful how judgmental we get, if there is some good in the music? I know of NO song of the top of my head that is an all-encompassing statement of Christian theology in 3 verses and a chorus. I know of few songs that are fully Trinitarian...are you ready to throw out Amazing Grace? And if one was to look at our written theology and what is in our hymnals, how many of them have a conflicting theology of the atonement?

[Jeremy D. Scott]

From one JDS to another JDS, thanks for your reply, Jeremy. I read your profile. Pretty impressive background. A friend of mine pastored the North Windham, NH church back in 1985.

I don't know of a North Windham, NH. Perhaps you mean Maine (or even Connecticut)? There are a lot of Windhams out there.

Let's start from the end of your reply. Quoting you, "Most striking from your post was the implication that we are not monotheists...Christians are monotheistic. God is one. Belief in the Trinity is not belief in three gods."

These are Gay Leonard's words, "Practically speaking, Christians overwhelmingly are mere monotheists rather than fully realized Trinitarians."
I'm sorry, I see that now. I misquoted you. Regardless, while I understand what Dr. (actually, "the Honorable" I think...isn't she a judge???) Leonard is saying (and I agree with her on the point of lack of trinitarian knowledge/belief), we are but monotheists. Again, the trinity is a description of how our (one) God works, not the description of three separate entities.

You say, "Third, this lack in that one list does not mean the Church isn't teaching the doctrine."

This might be true. If so, where IS the doctrine being taught? Certainly not in Sunday school, Sunday evening worship, Wednesday prayer meeting. They have disappeared. Small groups? Hardly. That leaves the pastor's message. I agree with Keith Drury, Indiana Wesleyan University professor, the pastor should select the songs. If I was a pastor, I would not want to have to spend half my sermons "undoing" the theology of the music that preceded my message.

You agree that some songs are weak in theology or just plain bad theology. Since Sunday morning is the only time that the congregation can be influenced as a group, I am not willing to give up any portion of those valuable minutes to undeserved songs.

You're right. In most cases, the teaching moments in the church have disappeared and we've made the focal point of "church" an hour and a half on Sunday mornings (what some are now calling "The Big Show"). And music has been a teaching vessel in the past (Wesley brothers, anyone?). And you're also right - I, as pastor, take great care in overseeing how the music is selected every week. Actually, I made a lyrical change last week to a hymn. It wasn't necessarily bad theology, but more so bad practice. :basic05

But I will stick up for my Sunday School teacher ("teacher" being singular...we're a small church), who I know doesn't ignore the Trinity. And we observed Trinity Sunday at our church - I used a few minutes both at the beginning of our worship gathering and during the musical worship portion to give teaching on the Trinity (you can see some of that by clicking here (http://www.naznet.com/community/showthread.php?p=39059#poststop)).

But I feel this way about all of our theology. We have a lot to learn about salvation, sanctification, and so much more. We use these words a lot (just like "Father," "Son," and "Holy Spirit"), but we don't truly understand them very well much of the time.

Thanks for the dialogue.

[Roland Hearn]

Thanks for your interest, Jerry. Evidently, 170,000 churches NOT teaching the Trinity in their music isn't that important. Because, you are the only response and I note that there were 33 replies about motorcycle riding and 52replies about Ted Haggard in the NazNet Community discussion. :-}


G'day JD, welcome to Naznet, I hope you stick around awhile this can be a fun place to be.
Generally I don't think you would want to draw too many conclusions about responses to a post in one day compared to those that have been on the board for a week or more. It often takes awhile for a thread to build momentum. It does seem like this one is getting some. The others are on the general discussion board as well and that gets more hits than the theology board anyway.
On top of that I found your original post a little hard to be certain of what point you were trying to make. I think it is clearer now.
I think I agree there are some bad choruses out there that don't teach much theology. There are some incredibly bad old gospel songs and hymns out there as well. I think if you are expecting to get complete theology from one song you are going to be disappointed. If in a series of songs you are singing about the Holy Spirit, the love of the Father and the presence of Christ you are probably saying something about the Trinity that is worth saying.
I did get a similar impression as Jeremy that somehow you were suggesting that Christians aren't intended to be monotheists. I'm fairly confident that isn't what you were saying but it sure sounded like you were suggesting that there is something that is not monotheistic about a Trinitarian perspective.
I'm fairly confident that in each church I have pastored the people weren't confused about the holding of a Trinitarian position. They got that in our music, in our prayers, in our bible studies and in the preaching.

[JD Sherrow]

Thanks for the feedback, Bruce. You said, "As for Sunday morning services and "undeserved songs", ought we not be careful how judgmental we get, if there is some good in the music?"

I was "tacking on" to Pastor Scott's statement, "I agree with you and Hans, some of the songs you listed are either weak in theology or foster just plain bad theology."

Yes, I am being VERY judgmental. Any song that is thelogically weak or bad theology that takes the place of:

-A mighty fortress is our God, a bulwark never failing = Father
-Jesus is all the world to me, my life, my joy, my all = Son
-The Comforter has come, the Holy Ghost from Heaven; the Father's promise given = Holy Spirit

does not deserve one moment's notice or use in morning worship.

[Jerry Frank]

Not sure that I can go quite as far as that, JD. I agree with your fundamental premis, that we need to pay more attention to what we are singing and who we are singing to. But I'm am not convinced that every song (or ditty as my brother-in-law prefers to call them) requires theology. Simple songs of praise, as demonstrated in the Psalms, are also acceptable. In fact, many praise songs are based on the Psalms. As with everything else, however, let there be balance between theology and praise AND lets make sure they are all scripturally sound.

Jerry

[David Cash]

I think the old creeds speak of one God existent in three persons. To me, this means that as a spiritual being God can have qualities that we as physical (and spiritual) beings can't. I have to believe that there are individual personalities within this one God. Yet, God can speak singularly and say "I am." How it works is beyond us, yet for most of its history the Christian church has insisted that it is a core belief.

I'm not totally comfortable with their view on this one, Jeremy, but Calvinists insist that Jesus is eternally the Son of God, meaning that while being coequal and coeternal with the Father, He is also somehow generated by the Father. Calvin even had a man burned at the stake for denying that doctrine.

An interesting aside, I listened to a CD by an expert in non-Christian religions yesterday afternoon. He gave a very informative if long discourse on Islam. If this guy is right, when the Muslims accuse Christians of having three Gods, they see our Trinity as including the Father, Mary, and Jesus. (Hope I remembered that one right.) An interesting insight into a non-Christian perspective on our theology.

And welcome to NazNet, JD.

David Cash

[Meghan Schoonover]

If this guy is right, when the Muslims accuse Christians of having three Gods, they see our Trinity as including the Father, Mary, and Jesus. (Hope I remembered that one right.)

Yep. Muhammed only knew a warped version of Christianity, so while their scriptures condemn the Trinity they are completely mistaken in what we view as our Trinity.

I think of this fairly often as so many times we hear "urban legends" about what other faiths believe and base our arguments off of that, effectively creating a straw man argument.

[Meghan Schoonover]

Any song that is thelogically weak or bad theology that takes the place of: <snip> does not deserve one moment's notice or use in morning worship.

Are you implying all praise music is inherently theologically weak or contains bad theology? Most? Some?

[Billy Cox]

When one hears the heart and raw emotion of the Psalmist, it is somewhat jarring to then switch into a cerebral-rationalist mode akin to Martin Luther. Music is an art form and while it is certainly necessary to filter the theology, music loses its soul if we try to get too didactic with it.

[JD Sherrow]

Meghan: Thanks for your input. Your question, "Are you implying all praise music...?"

My quote, "Any song that is thelogically weak or bad theology..." Note I said, "any song." I don't limit it to praise choruses.

It is interesting that weak or bad theology in worship music is being defended, but I doubt that weak or bad theology would be tolerated in the pastor's Sunday morning sermon.

Brother Jerry Frank has summed it up succinctly. "As with everything else, however, let there be balance between theology and praise AND lets make sure they are all scripturally sound."

The key word from Jerry is "balance."

I have been involved in church music for 50+ years. For the last 15 years I have observed and studied the path church music has taken. In recent years I have visited small and large churches in 7 denominations and independents. The Sunday morning worship was universally the same. It was as Robert E. Webber, Professor of Ministry, Northern Seminary, Wheaton, described in his book, Younger Evangelicals,

"What is 'contemporary worship?' A pattern of worship developed since the late 1960s that can be loosely characterized by the statement, “Let’s put a band together, sing choruses for thirty minutes, and hear a sermon.”

The "balance" Jerry suggests was rarely experienced.

Billy, you ask if music should teach? The fact is, whether it should or shouldn't...it does. If you want something that will stop you dead in your tracks, read David Murrow's, Why Men Hate Going To Church. He cites the U.S. Congregational Life Survey which found that while the population is split fairly evenly between men and women, there are more women(61%) than men(39%) in the pews.

Murrow found that one of the major factors in men's resistance is the feminine spirit of most contemporary praise music. For years I've stood in the back row of the choir and watched men in the congregation stand with arms folded without participating as these types of songs are sung.

Murrow affirms that the feminine spirit is a wonderful thing. A healthy church has to have it. But most churches today are out of balance, brimming with the feminine spirit while short on the masculine spirit. Men sense this and withdraw.

Like it or not, praise music with a feminine spirit is teaching men that they are out of place.

Jerry's key word, "balance" is missing.

[Barbara Moulton]

Any song that is thelogically weak or bad theology that takes the place of:

-A mighty fortress is our God, a bulwark never failing = Father
-Jesus is all the world to me, my life, my joy, my all = Son
-The Comforter has come, the Holy Ghost from Heaven; the Father's promise given = Holy Spirit

does not deserve one moment's notice or use in morning worship.

I would agree that songs with bad theology have no place in our worship.

However, I don't demand that every song/chorus I use enunciate the complete theology of the Christian faith or even the Trinity. Rather, I try to achieve a balance in any given service.

I conduct a monthly hymn sing at chronic care site of the Health Centre of which I am chaplain. I choose songs but let them choose as well. The NUMBER #1 requested hymn is, "I come to the garden alone."

That hymn has very weak theology. In fact, it's a little confusing. (Did birds really stop singing when Jesus spoke?)

But it ministers to the hearts of those gathered in a very real way.

If you took a list of of top 25 "old hymns" you would probably find a similiar balance of "incomplete" theology of the trinity as you did in the top 25 worship songs.

I look at each hymn/worship song (we sing both in our church) as contributing TO our worship. Very few, from either category, could stand on their own, complete in their theology.

[JD Sherrow]

Hi Barb. Thanks for your feedback. You said, "However, I don't demand that every song/chorus I use enunciate the complete theology of the Christian faith or even the Trinity."

I agree with you 100%. My issue is with the absence of God, or Jesus, or the Holy Spirit...at all!

Interesting that you refer to "In The Garden." For 5+ years I have written a weekly, SUNDAY SONG: Behind the words and music. Last Sunday I wrote:

C. Austin Miles was born in 1868. He grew up in New Jersey and attended the Philadelphia College of Pharmacy and the University of Pennsylvania. In 1892, at age 24, he abandoned his career as a pharmacist and wrote his first gospel song, which was published by the Hall-Mack Publishing Company. He was soon hired by Dr. Adam Geibel, owner of Hall-Mack, and served as editor and manager for 37 years.

Well-known hymns that he wrote are, "Dwelling In Beulah Land(I'm living on the mountain, underneath a cloudless sky)." "If Jesus Goes With Me(I'll go anywhere)," "A New Name Written In Glory(I was once a sinner, but I came)," "Win Them One By One(So you bring the one next to you)," "Still Sweeter Every Day(I find my heart is closer drawn)." One day in 1912, Geibel asked Miles to write a hymn that would be "sympathetic in tone, breathing tenderness in every line; one that would bring hope to the hopeless, rest for the weary, and downy pillows to dying beds."

Miles was an amateur photographer and had built his own darkroom. He discovered that he could read his Bible by the special light of the darkroom and would pass the time waiting on the film to develop by reading with the express purpose of getting an idea for a song. With his owner's request in mind, he read John 20, his favorite chapter. As he read the familiar story of Jesus and Mary's encounter, in the dim light of the darkroom, it was as if he was there with them. In a short time, he awakened and under the inspiration of this vision wrote today's hymn. That evening he wrote the music. Since that March in 1912, more than one million recordings and copies have been produced of

I come to the garden alone, while the dew is still on the roses;
And the voice I hear, falling on my ear, the Son of God discloses.

He speaks, and the sound of His voice is so sweet the birds hush their singing;
And the melody that He gave to me within my heart is ringing.

I'd stay in the garden with Him tho the night around me be falling;
But He bids me go thru the voice of woe, His voice to me is calling.

REFRAIN
And He walks with me, and He talks with me,
And He tells me I am His own,
And the joy we share as we tarry there,
None other has ever known.

I can't speak for those dear folks at the Health Centre, but I would guess it's not about the birds, but that in their situation it's the 3rd verse and chorus that ministers to their heart in a very real way.

You said, "If you took a list of of top 25 "old hymns" you would probably find a similiar balance of "incomplete" theology of the trinity as you did in the top 25 worship songs."

Again I say, go back to my original post. My issue is with the lack of references to God or Jesus or Holy Spirit. Take the list of Top 25 worship songs and any list of top 25 hymns. Put them side by side and see which list has the most references to any Person of the Trinity.

I leave you with this from one of my favorite authors. David McKenna, retired president of Asbury Theological Seminary, in his book, What A Time To Be Wesleyan! writes,

"Of Ditties and Dogma. What we sing is not always what we preach. In the current contest between contemporary and traditional styles of worship, the paradox between grace and truth is revealed. There is the temptation to come down hard on one side or other. Great hymns are canceled by the platitudes of cheap grace, or powerful preaching is made ludicrous by ditties of easy faith. Only the awesome presence of the Holy Spirit can bring grace and truth together. There is nothing wrong with exalting God or His grace through singing, but neither the complexity of His holiness nor the cost of Christ's cross can be ignored."

McKenna's last sentence sums up my original post.

[Bruce Carriker]

The absence of God, Jesus, or the Holy Spirit...

Looking at your initial list, there are several songs there that DO address, God, Jesus, or the Holy Spirit, but since they don't use THOSE EXACT WORDS, you dismiss them as theologically lacking.
Several of those songs include Lord, King, or other words that in our Christian vernacular apply specifically to one of the parts of the Trinity.

When you get that nit-picky it only weakens your argument, because it appears that your primary purpose is to make point, rather than address an legitimate issue.

If you want to exclude from use EVERY song that doesn't address the Father, Son or Holy Spirit by EXACTLY one of those three names, it will sure reduce printing costs the next time they publish a hymnal.

[Meghan Schoonover]

It is interesting that weak or bad theology in worship music is being defended,

I'm not sure why you think this, as I was only asking for clarification and everyone else has agreed with your underlying principle. :fav03

[Meghan Schoonover]

Looking at your initial list, there are several songs there that DO address, God, Jesus, or the Holy Spirit, but since they don't use THOSE EXACT WORDS, you dismiss them as theologically lacking.
Several of those songs include Lord, King, or other words that in our Christian vernacular apply specifically to one of the parts of the Trinity.

Yes, there are many terms in the Bible that are descriptive, too, Prince of Peace, Counselor, Creator, etc. that don't explicitly say "God" or one of the members of the Trinity.

[Billy Cox]

Billy, you ask if music should teach? The fact is, whether it should or shouldn't...it does. If you want something that will stop you dead in your tracks, read David Murrow's, Why Men Hate Going To Church. He cites the U.S. Congregational Life Survey which found that while the population is split fairly evenly between men and women, there are more women(61%) than men(39%) in the pews.

Murrow found that one of the major factors in men's resistance is the feminine spirit of most contemporary praise music. For years I've stood in the back row of the choir and watched men in the congregation stand with arms folded without participating as these types of songs are sung.

Murrow affirms that the feminine spirit is a wonderful thing. A healthy church has to have it. But most churches today are out of balance, brimming with the feminine spirit while short on the masculine spirit. Men sense this and withdraw.

Like it or not, praise music with a feminine spirit is teaching men that they are out of place.


In asking 'does music have to teach', I am questioning whether it is fair to judge the value of music by the cognitive depth of the lyrics.

I have not read David Murrow's book, but I am familiar with his thesis. I think that there is some truth in Murrow's observations. On Mother's Day we give mother's a carnation or a rose. On Father's Day we give men a swift kick in the backside.

What makes a song feminine versus masculine? I am also curious whether Murrow analyzes gender balance in churches that allow only men to be leadership positions.

I suspect that the reasons for gender imbalance transcend the things that happen within the walls of the church, but that is just my hunch. Regardless, I'm sure there are things that the church could do to be more friendly to men.

[Roland Hearn]

Murrow found that one of the major factors in men's resistance is the feminine spirit of most contemporary praise music. For years I've stood in the back row of the choir and watched men in the congregation stand with arms folded without participating as these types of songs are sung.


JD, I don't know what is going on in the church you attend, I would suggest the choir is one of the big parts of the problem, if there is anything that is emasculating it is a choir (I hear scabbards being emptied even as I write that:basic05 ). Why the church continues to think that choirs are an effective means of communicating the gospel I will never know. If men are standing at the back refusing to be involved in the music I think there are probably lots of things going on in that church that need to change. As for Murrow’s book that doesn’t sound like so much like research as an agenda.
Every church I have ever pastored has seen as much if not more growth among men as women. That has increased as we have moved increasingly toward well chosen contemporary music. I will grant you that women usually are the first to attend a church they then may drag their husbands kicking and screaming and when their husbands get there what they expect is usually what the find. A message that is dominated by intricately developed plots of useless, lifeless information. Of course they don’t sing, nothing is happening in their lives to sing about. In the last church I pastored, one we started with four adults and seven children, the situation was the exact and complete opposite of what you described. Men standing and worshipping, often with tears in the eyes as a result of having their lives changed, their families put back together and their children inspired. On Saturday morning a solid group of men would gather for Bible study every week of the year, a bible study that lasted usually for two and half hours. We had men that had given up cocaine habits, men that had abandoned alcohol, men cheating on their wives that watched their marriages restored, one huge hulking man that declared that he wished he had followed his wife to church years before he did because the year since coming had been the best of his life and boy did he sing. One man we had complained about the music we sang until he saw his life changed in the morning men’s bible study and then became one of the principle members of the music team. When a woman would come to church and after a couple of weeks say she wished her husband would come but he never would the people standing around listening to that comment would burst out in laughter. Time and time again we had heard that story. When a husband would come under those circumstances we would hear him say some time later, “when I said I wouldn’t come to church this is not what I meant.”
Men not singing is a reflection of lives not being changed, when their lives are changed they will sing. If men not singing is a reflection of the quality of the music then every hymn ever sung needs to be dumped because I have seen a lot of men not singing those songs across my 40 + years in the church.
JD I sure would love for you to see what the power of the gospel can really do in a man’s life and see a church that reflects that.

[Jon Twitchell]

Shall we take a list of those top 25 worship songs as defined by CCLI in their August 2006, USA report?

I would like to suggest that instead of speaking in general terms, we take a look at these specific 25 songs and identify their theological or scriptural basis.

1 Here I Am To Worship Hughes, Tim 3266032
2 How Great Is Our God Tomlin, Chris \ Reeves, Jesse \ Cash, Ed 4348399
3 Blessed Be Your Name Redman, Beth \ Redman, Matt 3798438
4 Open The Eyes Of My Heart Baloche, Paul 2298355
5 Come Now Is The Time To Worship Doerksen, Brian 2430948
6 Shout To The Lord Zschech, Darlene 1406918
7 Forever Tomlin, Chris 3148428
8 You Are My King Foote, Billy 2456623
9 Lord I Lift Your Name On High Founds, Rick 117947
10 Holy Is The Lord Tomlin, Chris \ Giglio, Louie 4158039
11 God Of Wonders Byrd, Marc \ Hindalong, Steve 3118757
12 Breathe Barnett, Marie 1874117
13 You're Worthy Of My Praise Ruis, David 487976
14 Trading My Sorrows Evans, Darrell 2574653
15 We Fall Down Tomlin, Chris 2437367
16 The Heart Of Worship Redman, Matt 2296522
17 You Are My All In All Jernigan, Dennis 825356
18 I Give You My Heart Morgan, Reuben 1866132
19 Draw Me Close Carpenter, Kelly 1459484
20 Above All LeBlanc, Lenny \ Baloche, Paul 2672885
21 Better Is One Day Redman, Matt 1097451
22 Lord Reign In Me Brown, Brenton 2490706
23 Beautiful One Hughes, Tim 3915912
24 Days Of Elijah Mark, Robin 1537904
25 Give Thanks Smith, Henry 20285

I'll start with the first song--a worship song that I typically use during the Advent & Christmas seasons to teach about the incarnation-- specifically, Jesus' journey from heaven to earth and back again--so that we too might have hope of worshipping Him face to face with our own eyes.

Who'll go next?

[Jon Twitchell]

Ah...I'll take the second one too...

Specifically, this song is based upon Psalm 104, reminds us of the theological truth that the Son was eternally co-existing with the Father before the beginning of time, and explicitly teaches about the Trinity.

[Jon Twitchell]

3. Oh...why not...I'll take number 3 as well.

This song is based upon Job's life, specifically Job 1:21. The song reminds us that God is our creator, and that He is to be worshipped during both the good times and the bad times.

[Barbara Moulton]

4. Open the eyes of my heart Lord

The cry of every sincere Christian in worship that we might see the Lord, lifted high. Just as meaningful as singing, "He walks with me and talks with me." (IMHO)

Holy, Holy, holy...echoing those who sing God's praise in His throne room.

[Barbara Moulton]

Hi J.D.

Just a little thing first of all...I go by Barbara, not Barb. :-)

To continue the discussion, you kind of supported what I was saying. "In the Garden" ministers to people's hearts not because it speaks of deep theology but because it speaks of the joy of being in relationship with Christ. You obviously appreciate the value in that.

In the past, men and women wrote hymns and choruses about God. Some were exquisite in their theology. Some were not. Many focused far more on what God does then who God is. Many were very subjective, filled with “me” and “I”.

The good ones have lasted. The poor ones have faded away. Thank goodness I don’t have to sing some of the choruses that were popular in my youth. I would rather sing almost any of the worship choruses out today then sing something like “Gone, gone, gone, gone, all my sins are gone.”

Today men and women are still writing. And again, some worship songs are exquisite. Some are not. The good ones will stand the test of time and the poor ones will fade away.

Not all new worship songs are ditties. Not all hymns of the past are great theological works.

You quoted David McKenna

"There is nothing wrong with exalting God or His grace through singing, but neither the complexity of His holiness nor the cost of Christ's cross can be ignored."

I agree 100%. Some hyms of the past did neither. Some worship songs of the present do neither.

But many, many hymns and worship songs do.

Finally, when I said that I don't demand that every song/chorus I use enunciate the complete theology of the Christian faith or the Trintiy, I wasn't responding to your original post. I was responding to your statement that:

Any song that is thelogically weak or bad theology that takes the place of:

-A mighty fortress is our God, a bulwark never failing = Father
-Jesus is all the world to me, my life, my joy, my all = Son
-The Comforter has come, the Holy Ghost from Heaven; the Father's promise given = Holy Spirit

does not deserve one moment's notice or use in morning worship.

Blessings,
Barbara

[Terri Knoll]

I was blessed with the opportunity to go to Rock the Universe for both nites this year ( www.rocktheuniverse.com ) and I can tell you, these men love Jesus! There was one chick band (super chick) but for me to see a man totally in love with our Lord is one of the greatest blessings I can find! In the crowd around me were several men aged any where from 5-80 all singing and praising from the bottom of their hearts. When the bands gave their testimony/praise report, there were tears flowing everywhere! (including mine) I have totally immersed (my kids say addicted lol) myself in christian rock and roll in the last year and my spiritual walk is ssssssssooooooo much closer to God (the father, son and spirit) I could care less about "good theology" but care more about the connection that I get with my Father when I am in constant praise and awe and LOVE with and to Him!
I have also been sharing constantly with others and others have asked me about that Love and several people have come to know Jesus thru the music that someone in my old church called "devils music"
You are definately right when a person is head over heels in love with Jesus, it's hard NOT to be "sweetly singing ev'ry day"!

[John Kennedy]

JD, I don't know what is going on in the church you attend, I would suggest the choir is one of the big parts of the problem, if there is anything that is emasculating it is a choir (I hear scabbards being emptied even as I write that:basic05 ). Why the church continues to think that choirs are an effective means of communicating the gospel I will never know. If men are standing at the back refusing to be involved in the music I think there are probably lots of things going on in that church that need to change. As for Murrow’s book that doesn’t sound like so much like research as an agenda.
Every church I have ever pastored has seen as much if not more growth among men as women. That has increased as we have moved increasingly toward well chosen contemporary music. I will grant you that women usually are the first to attend a church they then may drag their husbands kicking and screaming and when their husbands get there what they expect is usually what the find. A message that is dominated by intricately developed plots of useless, lifeless information. Of course they don’t sing, nothing is happening in their lives to sing about. In the last church I pastored, one we started with four adults and seven children, the situation was the exact and complete opposite of what you described. Men standing and worshipping, often with tears in the eyes as a result of having their lives changed, their families put back together and their children inspired. On Saturday morning a solid group of men would gather for Bible study every week of the year, a bible study that lasted usually for two and half hours. We had men that had given up cocaine habits, men that had abandoned alcohol, men cheating on their wives that watched their marriages restored, one huge hulking man that declared that he wished he had followed his wife to church years before he did because the year since coming had been the best of his life and boy did he sing. One man we had complained about the music we sang until he saw his life changed in the morning men’s bible study and then became one of the principle members of the music team. When a woman would come to church and after a couple of weeks say she wished her husband would come but he never would the people standing around listening to that comment would burst out in laughter. Time and time again we had heard that story. When a husband would come under those circumstances we would hear him say some time later, “when I said I wouldn’t come to church this is not what I meant.”
Men not singing is a reflection of lives not being changed, when their lives are changed they will sing. If men not singing is a reflection of the quality of the music then every hymn ever sung needs to be dumped because I have seen a lot of men not singing those songs across my 40 + years in the church.
JD I sure would love for you to see what the power of the gospel can really do in a man’s life and see a church that reflects that.


Roland -

Don't really know why you chose to insert the chop at choirs in your remarks. The choir had nothing to do with the problem noted. The writer made that observation from his vantage point in the choir - it could have as easily been noted by a member of worship team since both are up-front and generally, at a higher level in the congregation.

I, as a choir member, have had opportunity to make some rather disconcerting observations from my vantage point there. I was part of a church at one time that used a 'blended' musical format - some hymns, some praise music. I watched the older people embrace the praise songs with the same enthusiasm they did the hymns while the youth (our open and affirming 'hope for the future') stand and make no effort to sing. As soon as they got the chance they ditched the hymns and went the praise song route. (So much for mutual respect for others tastes.)

I attend a church now that has a choir that plays a strong role in our worship through music and, from the standpoint of this worshipper (and the hundreds who join him each Sunday morning) the idea that a choir has an emasculating effect is not only erroneous, it's flatly uncalled for.

You actually made some very good observations about participation in worship - why you chose to dilute them with the gratiutous swipe at choirs is mystifying. I expected better of you.

[Roland Hearn]

You actually made some very good observations about participation in worship - why you chose to dilute them with the gratiutous swipe at choirs is mystifying. I expected better of you.

Well John that was why I made the "scabbards being emptied comment". The comments I made were responding to the statement that was suggesting that contemporary music represented a “feminine spirit” in worship and that in turn drove men away. As soon as I saw that comment, reinforced with an anecdote centred in a choir perspective, I couldn’t resist the remark. I probably should have but I’ve seen choirs where men are required to wear ridiculously feminine garb and it was that image that I was responding to.
I appreciate you calling me on the statement though John and recognize that it came across as a “gratuitous swipe” that damaged the rest of my point. My apologies. Your rebuke was gracious and challenging and I accept your position.
I do think that choirs are one of the forms of worship that the church holds on to that has next to no application in modern culture and help marginalise the church by making it appear to the unchurch as irrelevant. I recognize that it is an enormous part of the church culture and I guarantee I am vastly in the minority in my opinion on the subject.
My big problem is that the church continues to do things that are neutral in their impact at the very best, complain about the limited impact of the church and almost blame the unchurched or newly churched individual for the problem. The church filled with the power and grace of God will see lives transformed, it is an absolute that love will change lives. When lives are changed the person changed will want to sing, usually. Why do we continue to moan about forms that aren’t working, that are disappearing, and yet refuse to allow God’s grace to transform us into genuinely loving individuals to the point that no matter what service form we use we will see changed lives?

[JD Sherrow]

John Kennedy's observation was accurate when he said,

"The choir had nothing to do with the problem noted. The writer made that observation from his vantage point in the choir - it could have as easily been noted by a member of worship team since both are up-front and generally, at a higher level in the congregation."

I sang in a Praise Team Ensemble for years and observed it from that vantage point also.

His current experience also mirrors mine,

"I attend a church now that has a choir that plays a strong role in our worship through music and, from the standpoint of this worshipper (and the hundreds who join him each Sunday morning) the idea that a choir has an emasculating effect is not only erroneous, it's flatly uncalled for."

[Jerry Frank]

Roland,

I see you have already mellowed your statement so I won't rag on you as I had planned. :)

I do however want to make the point that at least part of your argument is demographics oriented. I know a group of men, aged about 30-50. About half are hunters and the rest are wannabe hunters. They are not good ole back country boys but rather financial consultants, lawyers, teachers and others from the city. One owns a cabin and these men go out regularly and sit around the stove, singing the old hymns out of discarded hymnals that they have collected. Many times there are tears flowing.

My tears flow much more quickly at a choral rendition of How Great Thou Art or The Messiah to name just a couple, than during the singing of many of the modern songs.

A church indeed has an obligation to evangelize and to do it as effectively as possible within the society in which it functions (though I admit I draw the line at some secular devices that are being used). At the same time there is an obligation to minister to those who are already in the church. What is the point in bringing folks in the front door if others are leaving out the back?

I admit that I don't have an easy answer to that conumdrum but I do know that neither choir nor praise chorus put-downs are the answer. That doesn't mean we can't discuss the relative merits of either and this thread seems to be doing that.

One thing I like about the Nazarene Church is the broad range of worship practices that are available from ultra-modern to traditional. In one Nazarene church here in Calgary, the pastor even goes as far as wearing traditional robes and the worship is liturgical - see http://www.trinitycalgary.org/ This diversity at least in some locations allows for options in worship style without compromising ministry.

Jerry

[JD Sherrow]

Jerry, thanks for your thoughts on the subject of men. I am going to address it in a separate post.

I am VERY concerned about what I see and what the statistics say about men and church. It doesn't affect me personally. Well, maybe a little. However, I have a son, two sons-in-law and five grandsons who ARE affected in a real and dramatic way.

I'm only one person. I can't do much, but I can do what I can do.

[Roland Hearn]

Jerry and JD,
Having already apologised I'm not sure there is much else I can say. I do believe that when the church is plummeting in its impact upon the world and not only are we having people go out the back door but not coming in the front door that we have to start looking at all the real issues.
The problem is the truth is blurred in the rhetoric. I believe contemporary services and a contemporary message is vital to impacting today’s culture with an ancient message. I have lots of rhetoric at that point. Most of it so blatantly obvious I can jump up and down and shout about it within seconds of getting started. As soon as I do though, which is what I did here, people starting missing the real point. I have only one point and I would love for you guys to actually respond to this one point:

Jesus Christ has the power to save to the uttermost, such salvation includes a relationship with Him that our forebears described as being "filled with the Holy Spirit, or entire sanctification." Such an encounter transforms individuals. The primary evidence of that transformed life is a pure heart of love. Such love will, without exception, touch the lives of others. The result of such "touching" is transformation. No church, nor individual, anywhere that is not seeing love and Christ reproduced in the lives of people influenced by its presence has the right to deny that it might need to change something.

[Roland Hearn]

I do however want to make the point that at least part of your argument is demographics oriented. I know a group of men, aged about 30-50. About half are hunters and the rest are wannabe hunters. They are not good ole back country boys but rather financial consultants, lawyers, teachers and others from the city. One owns a cabin and these men go out regularly and sit around the stove, singing the old hymns out of discarded hymnals that they have collected. Many times there are tears flowing.


I have no idea what you are saying here Jerry, getting around in a group with tears in your eyes doesn't say anything at all about the lasting transformational impact of Christ and His love in terms of broader impact. I know groups of people like that too; wonderful people, wonderful times but it doesn't change the fact that to the extent that the church refuses to change we have a problem. The church's basic stance is, sometime between 1700 and 1950 God came up with the perfect model for church the rest of you people can go to hell because we are happy. In actual application that is the basic stance of the modern evangelical church.

[JD Sherrow]

Brother Roland, I appreciate your sentiments, but you didn't owe me an apology.

You asked for a response to your point. Mine is that I agree with you 100%. That was the point of my original post, though I did a woeful job of making it clear. Along with what you wrote, here is how one of my favorite authors says the same thing as you,

David McKenna, retired president of Asbury Theological Seminary, in his book, What A Time To Be Wesleyan! writes,

"Of Ditties and Dogma. What we sing is not always what we preach. In the current contest between contemporary and traditional styles of worship, the paradox between grace and truth is revealed. There is the temptation to come down hard on one side or other. Great hymns are canceled by the platitudes of cheap grace, or powerful preaching is made ludicrous by ditties of easy faith. Only the awesome presence of the Holy Spirit can bring grace and truth together. There is nothing wrong with exalting God or His grace through singing, but neither the complexity of His holiness nor the cost of Christ's cross can be ignored."

[Jerry Frank]

I wasn't expecting an apology, Roland. There was a smiley associated with the comment in my previous posting.

I fully agree with your one point above. The question for me is not whether to change something. It is how and when to change it.

I have seen churches so in touch with the modern world that they have lost touch with the Word and truth. Obviously I have also seen the opposite - churches so focused on the Word and truth that they have forgotten what their mission is to be. Somewhere I think there must be a middle ground between your "no choirs" position and Jd's "no choruses" position.

Perhaps the answer is churches with different styles for different people. I don't know. All I know is that the church must find ways to evangelize and serve the person on the street as well as the person in the million dollar home; the baby-boomer, the yuppie, the post-modern; the guys in the cabin singing hymns and the guys being dragged to church by their wives.

In the past, there were three categories of churches - inner city, suburban, and rural. These were able to meet the needs of the vast majority of the population. Today there are so many different categories with needs to be met that I'm not sure one church can handle it. Maybe the answer IS to have different churches to serve different segments of the population AND that we each prayerfully support each other in the chosen ministry, regardless of the emphasis and worship style.

Jerry

[Roland Hearn]

Brother Roland, I appreciate your sentiments, but you didn't owe me an apology.

You asked for a response to your point. Mine is that I agree with you 100%. That was the point of my original post, though I did a woeful job of making it clear. Along with what you wrote, here is how one of my favorite authors says the same thing as you,

David McKenna, retired president of Asbury Theological Seminary, in his book, What A Time To Be Wesleyan! writes,

"Of Ditties and Dogma. What we sing is not always what we preach. In the current contest between contemporary and traditional styles of worship, the paradox between grace and truth is revealed. There is the temptation to come down hard on one side or other. Great hymns are canceled by the platitudes of cheap grace, or powerful preaching is made ludicrous by ditties of easy faith. Only the awesome presence of the Holy Spirit can bring grace and truth together. There is nothing wrong with exalting God or His grace through singing, but neither the complexity of His holiness nor the cost of Christ's cross can be ignored."

JD, I'll bet we are on the same page in our hearts. I just don't know that you know what I know.
I am going to have to recognize the legitimacy of your argument about some weak theology and an over emphasis on praise because it feels good, or some similar reason, in much contemporary music. I will also give you that there is a majesty and glory in many of the old hymns that transcends time. But it is also true that neither of those things is the case for all modern hymns or old hymns respectively. I would love to see a church that is committed to the old style music that really has a grasp on transformational grace. I don’t see it often although I concede it is possible. I would love to see a modern contemporary church that is not merely accepting of sinners but is actually applying the deep truths of Christ’s love to the heart of the hurting. I think that too is in no way happening enough. Our problem is that music style too often becomes the focus of our discussions. Those that champion the modern style often do so because they are bored of the past ways, those that long for the old style do so because they remember days of great victory and want those they love to experience those same things. The truth is the power isn’t in the music, it is but a vehicle.
When we left Australia to plant a church in Texas we were committed to creating a church that could communicate to a modern disillusioned society. But more than that we were committed to finding a way to communicate holy grace. My plan as the planting pastor was to get out of the way and let God do what He would if I simply acted like I believed in the power of the Holy Spirit to do what He promised. That had to begin in me. God had to transform me and people had to be able to see that. That is still the case. As He did so I witnessed over and over again more times than I had ever seen in my life before people’s lives actually dramatically transformed. They didn’t just become Christian and start attending church, they became people filled with love. My experience was exactly reflective of my earliest memories of the church, it was like witnessing first hand the stories of the 19th century. I became convinced the power is not in form it is in the presence of God. What ever we have to do to see the presence of God that is what we should be willing to do.

[Roland Hearn]

I wasn't expecting an apology, Roland. There was a smiley associated with the comment in my previous posting.

I saw that smiley face - thanks.

I fully agree with your one point above. The question for me is not whether to change something. It is how and when to change it.

I have seen churches so in touch with the modern world that they have lost touch with the Word and truth. Obviously I have also seen the opposite - churches so focussed on the Word and truth that they have forgotten what their mission is to be. Somewhere I think there must be a middle ground between your "no choirs" position and Jd's "no choruses" position.

Once again I need to say my rhetoric got in the way of my real point. I actually care way less about which position an individual takes and that we actually allow Christ to work in us as individuals enough to see His love work through us.


Perhaps the answer is churches with different styles for different people. I don't know. All I know is that the church must find ways to evangelize and serve the person on the street as well as the person in the million dollar home; the baby-boomer, the yuppie, the post-modern; the guys in the cabin singing hymns and the guys being dragged to church by their wives.
Sure but what I really care about is actual real deep encounters. I hate hearing people talk about going after this group or that group but you walk into their services and they may have those people there but there isn't much transformation going on. We Wesleyans believe in God transforming us, we really do, more and more to be like Him. From the day we accept Him until the day we walk into eternity grace should be at work in our lives.

There needs to be a deep cry in our hearts "God work in me. Take away that which does not reflect you and give me the occasion to love someone until they love you."

[Gina Stevenson]

1. "Here I Am To Worship" manages to talk about about God coming to earth, being altogether lovely, the cost of sin on the cross, and never once mentions the name of Jesus.

Hmmm ... since I read the other thread already that spoke mainly of hymns, etc, I've not read this entire thread, so forgive me if I'm repeating someone else's thought here. But just had to reply to this first point with the thought that immediately came to mind.

Hmmm ... it might not mention the name, spelled J-e-s-u-s, but it does a rather good job of giving the gospel, does it not? You admit it speaks of His (1) coming to earth, (2) describes his character [altogether lovely], (3) the cost of sin on the cross ........... pretty much covers it, doesn't it?

If that's a reason to throw out that lovely song, then we perhaps had better rip a few pages right out of our Bible. After all, the book of Esther speaks all about God's people the Jews ... about those who were out to destroy them en masse ... even about how they were saved because of the courage of a young girl, with some great mentoring by a relative. But, hey! It never, ever ... not even once ! ... mentions the name of G-o-d! Not Yahweh, not God, not El Shaddai, nor Jehovah-Jireh ... nothing, absolutely nothing ... never once is He named in the entire book of Esther!

Think I've said more than enough to make the point that we're trying to make about the song called into question because of not containing the spelled-out name, J-e-s-u-s. Yes, I do love several songs about Jesus that include His name in them (such as, "there's just something about that name") ... but there's no question when it comes to the song, "Here I am to Worship," about whom it is being sung.

BTW, seems I read somewhere in some post by you [not sure where/when] that you're something like 65, right? If so, you're not all that far removed from the Boomers, if they began in 1946; that was 60 years ago. You're almost a "boomer" yourself, JD! ;)

Blessings, ;)

[Meghan Schoonover]

I was thinking of this thread when listening to the radio tonight. This song makes no mention of G-o-d but I wonder who it's about? (tongue planted firmly in cheek..and I did just just notice it says "Father of my hope and freedom").

Anyways, this song was written a few years ago now but I love how evokes the images of the psalms and has words associated with God such as Adonai, Maker, Father of my hope and freedom (my hope and freedom being Jesus, of course), first verse is all about creation/Creator, Rock of Ages, closeness of the creator's love/my response to that, etc.

Adonai

Adonai
I lift up my heart and I cry
My Adonai
You are Maker of each moment
Father of my hope and freedom
Oh my Adonai


One single drop of rain
Your salty tear
Became blue ocean
One tiny grain of sand
Turning in Your hand
A world in motion
You're out beyond
The furthest morning star
Close enough to hold me
In Your arms


One timid faithful knock
Resounds upon the Rock of Ages
One trembling heart and soul
Becomes a servant bold
And courageous
You call across the mountains
And the seas
I answer from
The deepest part of me


From age to age
You reign in majesty
And today
You're making miracles in me

[Barbara Moulton]

Hmmm ... it might not mention the name, spelled J-e-s-u-s, but it does a rather good job of giving the gospel, does it not? You admit it speaks of His (1) coming to earth, (2) describes his character [altogether lovely], (3) the cost of sin on the cross ........... pretty much covers it, doesn't it?



You betcha Gina. In fact it uses a title that Jesus Himself gave us. (Light the world) If it was good enough for Jesus it's good enough for me.

And the song evokes a personal response to the sacrifice of Christ.

Reminiscent, in a way, of "Amazing Grace" which speaks of our response to Christ's sacrifice. And it never mentions Jesus either.

This whole thread is based on a premise which I don't accept. But you all might have gathered that.

Blessings,
Barbara

[JD Sherrow]

Shall we take a list of those top 25 worship songs as defined by CCLI in their August 2006, USA report?

I would like to suggest that instead of speaking in general terms, we take a look at these specific 25 songs and identify their theological or scriptural basis.

Nice aim, Rev. but you're shooting at the wrong target. My original post did not speak in general terms. It was very specific. I said, quoting Gay Leonard,

"Practically speaking, Christians overwhelmingly are mere monotheists rather than fully realized Trinitarians."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opinion: A major contributor to this monotheism (the belief that there is only one God)?"

Back to the present. I never said or hinted that the Top 25 weren't based on scripture. That was your reading.

The very first Reply posts were also specific. Hans said, "That's probably because the theology of the choruses is bad..." Jeremy Scott said, "I agree with you and Hans. Some of the songs you listed are either weak in theology or foster just plain bad theology."

The fact that a sermon or song is based on scripture doesn't guarantee that it is preaching/teaching sound theology. Or in this case, in the premise of my original post...the Doctrine of the Trinity.

[JD Sherrow]

BTW, seems I read somewhere in some post by you [not sure where/when] that you're something like 65, right? If so, you're not all that far removed from the Boomers, if they began in 1946; that was 60 years ago. You're almost a "boomer" yourself, JD! Blessings, ;)

Yep, Gina, it was I who admitted to being 65. However, you're holding the wrong end of the measuring stick.

I was born in 1941...five years BEFORE the Boomer era. My formative years were influenced by the traditions of the 1930s-1960s. "ALMOST" a Boomer!? Ain't goin' to happen if I live to be as old as my dad, who is 88 and still a-kickin.

The Boomers born in 1946 and their influence on the church didn't begin until the late 60s-early 70s. By then, my worship sociology was well-ingrained.

I love the Boomers. They're all God's children. However, I DO NOT like the Boomer philosophy. I would ask you to see my Reply post to Barb at the end of the "Hymns are not just nostalgia" thread. It speaks for the hundreds of Traditionalists I know.

Notice I didn't say "my generation." My 43 year old daughter is a Traditionalist. I know a LOT of her generation who are. Though the commonly perceived impression is of grumpy old people, that is not 100% the case.

BTW, I appreciate your bravery in "poking" a little fun at an old broken-down retiree on Medicare. :-}

[Gina Stevenson]

BTW, JD ... when I defended some recent hymnology, wasn't at all debunking the old ones, tho' there are a couple that I'd love to compose new music to, whose lyrics I love. Just the other day I heard, first time in a long time on the radio, "And Can it Be." One of the oldies I just love-love-LOVE! ;) In fact, was church pianist when young enough to memorize things without trying, and I could still tell you a lot of the page numbers of songs in the particular edition of the Naz hymnal today ... it just "happened." Not that those numbers do me any good, since there've been a couple of editions since, but i's just some "funny trivia" that causes me to mention it, I guess. ;)

BTW, I'm one of the "early boomers" ... not all that far behind you ... half a decade or so ... but I'm still "29 & holding" in my mind! ;)

[Mark Metcalfe]

If you will permit me a glib response:

"The three men I admired most,
The Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost
They caught the last train for the coast
The day the music died."

Hmmm... If it ruins the discussion, I can delete this.

Mark

[Roland Hearn]

If you will permit me a glib response:

"The three men I admired most,
The Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost
They caught the last train for the coast
The day the music died."

Hmmm... If it ruins the discussion, I can delete this.

Mark
Well I would sure take another slice.

[John Kennedy]

Around the church I attend, if someone asked a question like, "Where has the Trinity gone?" they would probably get some funny looks. You see, every Sunday morning we get reminded about the Trinity in at least three different parts of the service besides the sermon.

At the beginning of the service, along with the processional hymn and the invocation, the congregation joins in affirming its faith in these words:

"We believe in God the Father, infinite in wisdom, goodness, and love;
And in His Son, our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, who, for us and our sal-
vation, lived and died and rose again, and lives evermore; and in the
Holy Spirit, who takes the things of Christ and reveals them to us, re-
newing, comoforting, and inspiring our souls.
We are united in striving to know the will of God as taught in the holy
scriptures and in our purpose to walk in the ways of the Lord, made known
or to be made known to us. Amen."

Interestingly enough, that creedal statement sort of wraps up my understand ing of what the Chrsitian faith is all about - a wise and loving Father, a living Savior, an indwelling Spirit; a walk of faith guided by God's word.

Some Sundays we confess our faith in the words of the Apostles Creed, once again, very explicitly Trinitarian. A bit later in the service, as the ushers bring the offering for the prayer of consecration, we join in singing the Doxology. And then, after the reading of the Scripture lesson, we join in singing,

"Glory be to the Father, and to the Son,
and to the Holy Ghost;
as it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be,
world without end, Amen. "

I'm talking corporate worship that reflects a high degree of purposeful intentionality.

I guess the point I'm trying to make here is that corporate worship is much more than a marketing strategy for church growth, that there is, or should be, a lot more to it that just what is sung, that it should help remind us of truths that are, sometimes, too easily forgotten, and that the time we spend as a body in the worship of God is much too limited to be frittered away by just putting a buch of stuff together and hoping it'll work.
The content of the rest of the service should receive at least as much careful thought and attention as the content of the sermon.

[JD Sherrow]

John, sounds like you belong to one of those way-out, wacko, Trinity cult churches. :basic05

[Roland Hearn]

You know what really amazes me is that within a matter of a few days we had a thread begin accusing the church of being far too trinity focused because of a faulty commitment to the creeds and then one that accused the church of being dominated by a non trinitarian perspective. Those positions can't both be right. Maybe they reflect more on the fears of those holding those positions then they do on reality. Maybe the church is not doing too bad and those that live in fear that need to rediscover how great our God really is.

[John Kennedy]

We don't really have a commitment to creeds - we DO have a commitment to the One in whom our faith is affirmed by means of a creedal statement. As I said, one of the purposes of worship is to remind us of truths too easily forgotten.

For me, at least, that affirmation of faith ("we believe in God the FAther, .......) along with the Gloria Patri, serves to provide a structure (along with the Lord's Prayer) upon which I build my daily time of prayer.

You'll have to pardon me for still wrestling with the concept of how on earth a Christian can become too focused on the Trinity - the great creeds of the church help to clarify and put that into focus.

I feel very fortunate in being able to worship where and how I do. It may very well not appeal to all - given the breadth of human diversity I would be more than slightly suspicious of any church claiming such universal appeal.
To paraphrase Paul, I believe God 1appointed some "Presbyterians and some Pentecostals", 2) is partial to neither, and 3) is only displeased when we try to be other than ourselves.

[JD Sherrow]

John, sounds like you belong to one of those way-out, wacko, Trinity cult churches. :basic05

John and Roland, you do know that when I posted this along with this:basic05 that my tongue was planted firmly in my cheek, right?

My belief in the Trinity is the foundation of my faith. According to John 16:12-15, a Christian cannot fully function without the Trinity.

Belief in the Trinity is the basis of the first three Articles of Faith in the Church of the Nazarene manual. If one desires to be a member of the COTN, belief or unbelief in the Trinity is not an option.

[David Cash]

Just looked over the opening post in this thread. I consider myself to be both a monotheist and a Trinitarian. The two doctrines are not exclusive, and those creeds, for whatever they're worth affirm this.

David Cash

[JD Sherrow]

I agree with you 100%, David.

What has been overlooked by 99.9% of the Reply Posts is the quote I included from Gay Leonard:

"Practically speaking, Christians overwhelmingly are mere monotheists rather than fully realized Trinitarians."

Evidently I should have pointed out what I considered the three keys in her statement:

1. Practically speaking
2. mere
3. rather than FULLY REALIZED

[John Kennedy]

Just looked over the opening post in this thread. I consider myself to be both a monotheist and a Trinitarian. The two doctrines are not exclusive, and those creeds, for whatever they're worth affirm this.

David Cash


It would seem that trinitarianism is a subset of monotheism. Jews are monotheists, but not trinitarian. Unitarians (at least some) are monotheists but not trinitarian. United Pentecostals (Jesus Only) are monotheists but not trinitarian.

"Those creeds, for whatever they're worth...." I can't see any reason for having any doubt about the worth of the creeds. What some may or may not do with them is another matter - the worth of the creed is totally irrelevant to that.

[John Kennedy]

John and Roland, you do know that when I posted this along with this:basic05 that my tongue was planted firmly in my cheek, right?

My belief in the Trinity is the foundation of my faith. According to John 16:12-15, a Christian cannot fully function without the Trinity.

Belief in the Trinity is the basis of the first three Articles of Faith in the Church of the Nazarene manual. If one desires to be a member of the COTN, belief or unbelief in the Trinity is not an option.



My church is not a Nazarene Church. The Nazarene Articles of Faith affirming Trinitarian is simply a reflection of the fact that the Nazarene Church considers itself, rightly, to be squarely within the fold of orthodox, historic Christianity.

[John Kennedy]

John, sounds like you belong to one of those way-out, wacko, Trinity cult churches. :basic05


The issue of Trinitarianism is a very relevant one to Congregational churches that are evangelical in belief. My minister stated recently that we were an evangelical church with a mainline label. About 200 years ago a fair number of New England Congregationalists left to become Unitarians. The ones remaining tended to sharpen their trinitarian focus.

[JD Sherrow]

In the last 5-6 years I've read extensively about the protestant churches movement from Europe/British Isles to America and how various denominations became established here. Your statement,

"About 200 years ago a fair number of New England Congregationalists left to become Unitarians. The ones remaining tended to sharpen their trinitarian focus."

rang a bell. I remember it from my reading.

I have appreciated your insights and perspectives.

On the subject of Doctrine...I am going to start a thread on what I have observed in the last 10 years on this subject. Check it out.

[Roland Hearn]

John and Roland, you do know that when I posted this along with this:basic05 that my tongue was planted firmly in my cheek, right?

My belief in the Trinity is the foundation of my faith. According to John 16:12-15, a Christian cannot fully function without the Trinity.

Belief in the Trinity is the basis of the first three Articles of Faith in the Church of the Nazarene manual. If one desires to be a member of the COTN, belief or unbelief in the Trinity is not an option.
JD, I get it, there is no doubt about your position. I too am totally committed to a belief in the Trinity. What I was saying was that we had a thread in which it was suggested that the church had a faulty commitment to the Trinity. Now we have this one saying there isn't enough commitment to it. I think those are both human perspectives built on fear not on the redemptive grace of God who is bigger than our misplaced beliefs.

[David Cash]

The issue of Trinitarianism is a very relevant one to Congregational churches that are evangelical in belief. My minister stated recently that we were an evangelical church with a mainline label. About 200 years ago a fair number of New England Congregationalists left to become Unitarians. The ones remaining tended to sharpen their trinitarian focus.

Out of curiosity, John, is you Congregational church part of the United Church of Christ or the Conservative Congregational group. (I can't remember the exact name, but it seems like it was Conservative Congregational Connection.)

David Cash

[Archie Hoffpauir]

"And the three men I admire most The Father Son and Holy Ghost
They caught the last train for the coast
The day the music died."

Okay, it's obvious I'm not up to any deep theological thinking this morning. And I realize the genera is different. But...I can easily transpose Don McLean's sentiments to my feelings all too often when I try to participate in the singing at the church I attend (it's Wesleyan...but I seldom hear a Wesley hymn); I attend the "early" service, which is supposedly more considerate of the traditional leanings of codgers like me (but isn't really...they just sing the praise choruses slower). Then...I walked into a Christian bookstore yesterday (looking for a theology book, incidentally). Contemporay Christian music was playing over the PA system...after the 14th consecutive "Hallelulah" (each becoming more strained than the last) I couldn't take it anymore, and left. Getting crotchety in my old age. Archie

[John Kennedy]

Out of curiosity, John, is you Congregational church part of the United Church of Christ or the Conservative Congregational group. (I can't remember the exact name, but it seems like it was Conservative Congregational Connection.)

David Cash


I attend the First Congregational Church in Redlands, CA. The minister is a Fuller Seminary graduate and the church holds membership in the National Association of Congregational Christian Churches.

The National Association is a more moderate-to-conservative group. The thing to remember aboutr Congregational churches is just that word, 'congregational'. ALL authority is vested in the local congregation.
We cooperate with other churches (congregational and otherwise) and support groups ranging form Campus Crusade to Mission Aviation Fellowship, but the ultimate authority lies with the congregaion.

When our minister came to this church he was ordained by the church (even though he had already been ordained in previous pastorates). When he retires and a new one is called, he will be ordained by the congregation.


The church's articles of faith/statemen of belief are set forth in the congregational covenant and are reflected in the affirmation of faith I quoted in another post. The minister recently described us as being 'evangelical with a Mainline label'.

The church is about 125 years old. About 30+- years ago a part of the congregation withdrew to affiliate with the United Church of Christ.

[Gina Stevenson]

Well I would sure take another slice.

Yes, I found myself, too, singing about that "American Pie," while reading Mark's post. ;)

[JD Sherrow]

I attend the First Congregational Church in Redlands, CA.

Hey John. Earlier you demonstrated that you knew quite a lot about the SING TO THE LORD hymnal. Where/how did you become acquainted with it?

JD

[John Kennedy]

Hey John. Earlier you demonstrated that you knew quite a lot about the SING TO THE LORD hymnal. Where/how did you become acquainted with it?

JD

Have collected hymnals for years. Collection ranges from an 1886 Hymnal of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, to several relatively modern works, reflecting traditions ranging from Roman Catholicto Baptist.

As a Naz PK I grew up on PRAISE & WORSHIP and later, when WORSHIP IN SONG came along, I helped introduce it to the Nazarene Church where I was directing music. By the time SING TO THE LORD was issued, I was involved with worship and music leadership in a Free Methodist Church, I bought it, both for my collection, and also for the insight it furnished into developments in Nazarene worship and music.

I haven't been a Nazarene for more than 30 years. Through my parents, who were both Nazarene ministers, and friends in the church, and Naznet, I have kept an eye on developments in the church, especially in worship and music. My departure from the church was certainly an amicable one - I think both I and the church benefited from the move.

This interest in hymns and hymnology is an outgrowth of years spent as a choir direcor, worship and song leader, and as a worship planner. I became interested in worship and worship customs and practices as a result of attempting to improve the quality of music being sung and presented. Soon came to realize that music shouldn't exist in a vacuum - that it is, and should be, part of a larger context of corporate worship.

[JD Sherrow]

Thanks for the info, John. Except for not being a PK, my resume' is similar to yours. However, I did grow up with and hang around with PKs. Those guys ALWAYS got me into mischief!

My dad was a full-time song evangelist, later choir director and song leader. I have his library of music that money can't buy.

My earliest hymnal is also from 1886...The Great Awakening Revival Songs used by southern evangelist Sam P. Jones. I just bought GLORIOUS FREEDOM: Gospel Songs and Hymns for Congregational Singing (c)1951 by Lilleneas.

Your conclusion made me chuckle, "My departure from the church was certainly an amicable one - I think both I and the church benefited from the move."

[JD Sherrow]

I became interested in worship and worship customs and practices as a result of attempting to improve the quality of music being sung and presented. Soon came to realize that music shouldn't exist in a vacuum - that it is, and should be, part of a larger context of corporate worship.

I am interested and intrigued by your summary. Without trying to read your mind, read between the lines, or otherwise put words in your mouth you don't mean, here is MY interpretation of "music should be part of a larger context of corporate worship."

worship and worship customs and practices

My experience was laymen and women participating in:

Sunday morning and evening

-solos
-duets
-trios
-quartets
-men's ensembles
-women's ensembles
-mixed ensembles
-teen ensembles
-kids specials or choir
-offertory instrumentals
-church orchestra
-5th Sunday night given over to nothing but music specials of all kinds
-5th Sunday night given over to nothing but Teens music specials
-Easter and Christmas cantatas, with and without drama
-Revival choirs
-Sunday evening congregation calling out hymn requests

Wednesday Prayer Meeting

-Request night...the congregation calling out their favorite hymn number
-offertory instrumental
-a song special

Do I need to point out the lamentable loss of opportunities to use God-given talents and that the church body is poorer because of it? The reality is that they have been excluded from, as you stated, "music...is, and should be, part of a larger context of corporate worship."

Oh, by the way, in addition to all this activity the congregation participated in vigorous "song services" singing hymns AND choruses.

[U]Soon came to realize that music shouldn't exist in a vacuum/U]

This is what you said that intrigued me. Here is my illustration of a worship vacuum. FAIR WARNING! to any readers besides John...this is going to sound slightly sarcastic.

Last Sunday morning. I'm in the last row of the choir. We're singing a praise chorus no one knew. The Worship Leader was pacing the pulpit; the Praise Team were leaning into the mikes; the sound guy had the track volume at 10; I'm standing six feet from the kid playing the drums who is so "into it" that I hope he doesn't lose control and turn a drumstick into a missle. Even though the words were on the back wall, I stopped singing because I didn't know the melody. I scanned the congregation and, pick a number, 80%, young and old, were not singing. The same thing happened on the last chorus we sang. On the way home my wife told me she noticed the young people in her row weren't singing.

During those two songs, because they knew them and had practiced them, the Worship Leader/Praise Team/drummer were in a vacuum. The rest of us were simply on the outside, observing.

That's it. Have I swerved anywhere near what you meant? :basic05

[Jeremy D. Scott]

The rest of us were simply on the outside, observing.

Some of my best moments during musical worship are when I'm not singing.

And the vast majority of the things that you listed that men and women "participate in" aren't really participation-oriented at all. They're mostly limited to a select few (solos, ensembles, choirs, etc.).

I'm missing your point on this one...

[Joanne Vergin]

WHy can't we accept Lord as a substitute for either God or Jesus in a song? Is it because Lord could be either? i.e. Lord I lift Your Name on High

[John Kennedy]

OK, either I'm goin' crazy or the aliens have been playing around on the board again. I could've sworn that Yvonne had posted something about songs that 'come out of the wood-work' and about how to teach congregations new songs. Did anyone else see this post? Does anyone know what happened to it?

[Belinda Y. Edwards]

OK, either I'm goin' crazy or the aliens have been playing around on the board again. I could've sworn that Yvonne had posted something about songs that 'come out of the wood-work' and about how to teach congregations new songs. Did anyone else see this post? Does anyone know what happened to it?

*cracks UP*

Aliens are having tons of fun these days, John. :basic03

Nah - i deleted it. Felt it was hot air taking up space.

Blessings

[John Kennedy]

Well, obviously Yvonne didn't post it. That was done by Belinda! So, I'm either only half crazy or the aliens are even more active than was first supposed. ('Be afraid, Mulder, be very afraid!')
You know, if we go around deleting everything that is 'hot air taking up space' we're gonna wind up with an incredibly compressed universe.

[Belinda Y. Edwards]

Well, obviously Yvonne didn't post it. That was done by Belinda! So, I'm either only half crazy or the aliens are even more active than was first supposed. ('Be afraid, Mulder, be very afraid!')
You know, if we go around deleting everything that is 'hot air taking up space' we're gonna wind up with an incredibly compressed universe.

*laughs*

*tosses you a chocolate chip cookie*

Not completely sure how to respond to your compressed universe comment yet- -still thinking on it. hehe

[John Kennedy]

Admittedly, the science is not quite as robust as some would wish, but it makes about as sense as anything else coming down the pike. For instance, have you run into anything else that has the potential for taking on the mysterious disappearance of socks from washing machines/dryers?

[Mike Schutz]

Greetings!

I've been lurking around this thread for awhile and have enjoyed the view. If you don't mind, a couple of observations:

1. The descriptive statement that many congregations have a less than robust understanding and appreciation for the doctrine of the Trinity is likely true. However, I doubt that there has ever been, at any time in history, more than a few folks in any congregation who had more than a passing understanding of the nuances of the doctrine and its importance, excepting those times and those denominations when it was this doctrine that defined them against exterior assault and interior schism (as has been mentioned with the Congregational/Unitarian events). To suggest that this is a recent phenomenon, and moreover to suggest that the reason is the poor theology of contemporary worship music, is in my opinion hyperbole.

2. Of course, there is poor theology in some of the things we do in worship, especially those things we do that have not stood the test of time and been subject to the scrutiny of several generations. Even then, not all of the favorite songs from generations past are all that strong when it comes to presenting the totality of the faith. That is what makes those that do so special.
When I arrived at my present assignment I was told that the folks liked to sing the "great old hymns of the faith." However, I misunderstood what that meant. I thought they wanted the great Wesley hymns, or maybe Isaac Watts. I thought they wanted the great anthems, with the organ blasting to the rafters. I was wrong. To the folks who didn't like the contemporary songs in our congregation, the "great old songs of the faith" were the Gaither songs; the theology of some of them makes me squirm even more than the more recent praise songs.

3. I do have to chuckle when we blame the lack of knowledge of theology in our congregations on poor lyrics in the songs. Some of the worst theology I have seen in church has taken place during weddings. Having spent over 20 years on a college campus, I did a lot of premarital counseling, officiated at a lot of weddings, and attended even more. Would someone please explain to me what my dear pastoral colleagues are thinking when they allow only the wedding party to take communion while the entire congregation watches, not invited to join in? And you should see the blank stares and even anger when I explain to couples that the "ritual" of the unity candle - and what do you do with the two single candles after you light the unity candle? - doesn't work as appropriate symbolism for a Christian marriage. Unless of course you melt the two candles into the unity candle in the middle of the service. That would be fun to watch.
Grace and peace.

[John Kennedy]

One of the most fantastic things about the unity candle is the endless amusement and amazement it furnishes to the congregation as the happy couple tries to get it lit (and keep it lit). It sometimes becomes a harbinger - I recall one couple that had the devil of a time lighting it - sure enough, a few months later the union was kaput.

I think the funniest time was when a couple was laboring mightily at the lighting while a soloist was belting out some contemporary ditty about sticking together through all the ups and downs and ins and outs of life. The minister, who tended to have a pretty well developed sense of irony, was visibly having trouble restraining his laughter - the solo ended and some honest soul in teh congregation started laughing out loud and the whole church joined in, even the perplexed soloist. The minister uttered some sort of blessing , the organ began the recessional. What a hoot!

[Kevin Smith]

I am fairly new to this site but I thot I'd respond to this posting...."Where as the Trinity gone?" ........ Well it's gone pretty much were everything else has gone, by the wayside. Why you ask ? Well it's gone to the wayside, in my opinion, just like a lot of other parts in our traditional churches and church services because "it isn't relevant in this day." It's gone to the wayside just like the hymns, reverency, and the idea of going to church with out ( curses the thot) of being "entertained." It seems like over the last 10 years or so we have become so intense on reaching the world ( Which we MUST as Jesus tells us in the Bible) that we have lost part or in some cases all of our senses. We have become so intense that we have thrown out those things that have been part of a church/church service which have led billions to the Lord.....but now because of a new way of thinking they no longer are important & needed. Preaching and teaching about the trinity is the same thing, it isn't done because it "isn't appealing to the listener" & of "we want them to come back" so we don't say anything in church that might "offend" them - just give them something to make them feel good(warm fuzzies) and send them on their way.
Just to let you know I am a 46 yr.old SANE and educated, professional person. I have worked in church work ever since I was a child. I have worked in church plants as well as a 400+ member congregation. I have done about everything in church that you can think of from janitoring to teaching to working extensively in the music department.
I hope this gives some food for thot !:)

[Gary Swartzlander]

I am fairly new to this site but I thot I'd respond to this posting...."Where as the Trinity gone?" ........ Well it's gone pretty much were everything else has gone, by the wayside. Why you ask ? Well it's gone to the wayside, in my opinion, just like a lot of other parts in our traditional churches and church services because "it isn't relevant in this day." It's gone to the wayside just like the hymns, reverency, and the idea of going to church with out ( curses the thot) of being "entertained." It seems like over the last 10 years or so we have become so intense on reaching the world ( Which we MUST as Jesus tells us in the Bible) that we have lost part or in some cases all of our senses. We have become so intense that we have thrown out those things that have been part of a church/church service which have led billions to the Lord.....but now because of a new way of thinking they no longer are important & needed. Preaching and teaching about the trinity is the same thing, it isn't done because it "isn't appealing to the listener" & of "we want them to come back" so we don't say anything in church that might "offend" them - just give them something to make them feel good(warm fuzzies) and send them on their way.
Just to let you know I am a 46 yr.old SANE and educated, professional person. I have worked in church work ever since I was a child. I have worked in church plants as well as a 400+ member congregation. I have done about everything in church that you can think of from janitoring to teaching to working extensively in the music department.
I hope this gives some food for thot !:)

Just to let you know, I am a 50 yr. old SANE and educated, self employed person, I have been in the church since I was a child. I have been president of our youth group, I have helped found a coffee house, I have been involved in my local church now for nearly 25 years, and have been on the board (I co-chair the board with the pastor) while it has grown from 100 to nearly 1300.

Where has the Trinity gone? The trinity is very much an important part of our church!! The leadership has made sure that it is present. We have made a lot of changes to facilitate leading new people to Christ and helping the grow a meaningful relationship with Him, but when it comes to the things of doctrine, we have been consistant and true.

I very much wish that such opinions are not made as blanket indictments of ALL churches. For it simply isn't true.

[Kevin Smith]

I had no intentions of offending anyone. I am so glad to hear you are keeping the truth of the Bible in your church. We need more of that today.
I was just speaking of the experiences I have had here in southern Indiana and the beliefs that seem to be sweeping the traditional church world.

[Gary Swartzlander]

Kevin, I certainly wasn't offended, you'll have to do much better than that to offend me. I was more frustrated that as I said, there seems to be a blanket thrown over all growing and progressive churches that says you can't do that and remain true to the gospel and the doctrine of the Church of the Nazarene.

It can be done, it takes much prayer, much hard work and a lot of focus on the things that are most important.

[Brad Mercer]

I had no intentions of offending anyone. I am so glad to hear you are keeping the truth of the Bible in your church. We need more of that today.
I was just speaking of the experiences I have had here in southern Indiana and the beliefs that seem to be sweeping the traditional church world.

I'm not aware of the traditional church world being swept by a denial or ignoring or even downplaying of cardinal beliefs like the trinity. How has it come to your attention that such a thing is sweeping the traditional church world? Where was your information in this regard acquired?

Brad

[Marsha Lynn]

[B]I was just speaking of the experiences I have had here in southern Indiana and the beliefs that seem to be sweeping the traditional church world.

Hey, another NazNetter from southern Indiana! There aren't many of us. Welcome to NazNet, Kevin. I can't say that I agree with your assessment of the church but I do appreciate your contribution to the dialog.

:fav09

Marsha
(Odon, Indiana - halfway along a line between Bloomington and Vincennes)