Finished reading Yancey; Now on to Horton

Figured I would throw up a couple of quotes from the introduction to Michael Horton's book A Better Way for you to reflect upon:

We cannot simply defend positions with either the this-is-the-way-we've-always-done-it assumption or the new-is-better assumption. Even if the practice of the past is correct, each subsequent generation needs to rediscover that for itself. On the other hand, dismissing the past by slavishly embracing the culture of modernity can lead in the end only to something other than Christianity. Neither assumption is faithful; neither assumption can restore our unity as the people of God from all nations and generations in the presence of God.

(p. 13)

Are our market-determined, therapeutic, and entertainment-shaped views of worship parallel in some ways to the clamor of Israel in its moments of apostacy for the gods of the nations? Even if they are nothing more than the attempt to make worship relevant for those who no longer understand the Bible "straight-up," will they end up reaching the lost or losing the reached?

(p. 16)

Comments

Those are some good quotes. Situations where both sides are right is tough to deal with, and I've seen them cause people to switch congregations. The second quote made me think of your recurring LCD projector argument. Both quotes together remind me of something somebody said at Bible study a few weeks ago (I leave it up to the person who said it whether or not he wants to identify himself): he put forth the idea that we should randomize the order of worship to keep people on their toes. Personally I don't like the idea (I like things structured), and I suspect that a fair number of people would not like it either (people generally like routine).

The second quote made me think of your recurring LCD projector argument.

So, what's your personal stance on this issue? I thought I recalled you thinking that it might be a good idea, but here it sounds like you'd prefer to keep them out.

Both quotes together remind me of something somebody said at Bible study a few weeks ago (I leave it up to the person who said it whether or not he wants to identify himself): he put forth the idea that we should randomize the order of worship to keep people on their toes. Personally I don't like the idea (I like things structured), and I suspect that a fair number of people would not like it either (people generally like routine).

You can still maintain structure, but allow for some variance in order. Want a song in the middle of the sermon? - well, throw it in the liturgy sheet (or at least insert the organist, if you have one) and then go. In addition, you could also change the order, perhaps not dramatically, and perhaps only slightly and/or infrequently.

So, what's your personal stance on this issue? I thought I recalled you thinking that it might be a good idea, but here it sounds like you'd prefer to keep them out.

I'm currently open to the idea, but not strongly for or against. I think there needs to be some sort of brainstorming first and documentation of some sort drafted up.

You can still maintain structure, but allow for some variance in order. Want a song in the middle of the sermon? - well, throw it in the liturgy sheet (or at least insert the organist, if you have one) and then go. In addition, you could also change the order, perhaps not dramatically, and perhaps only slightly and/or infrequently.

Basically I don't see the need, and I question the motivation behind the argument. There is variation in the liturgy from church to church, though I suspect people would get upset if you put a song in the middle of the sermon because it would break the train of thought.

Apparently it used to be very common - almost part of the liturgy. I remember both the late Rev. Vanderboom and Rev. Huijgen both did it in Cloverdale. Personally, I don't mind it at all. I find it gives you a chance to re-focus and gives you a (good) small distraction.

Many moons ago, it was common for Reformed ministers to preach on a text for some time and then stop and sing a song. Then they would continue again. However, this was all predicated on the idea that the first part of the sermon was the exposition and the second part was the application. Unfortunately, this unintentionally produced the idea that it was only during the second part that you really had to listen. Thankfully, we have moved beyond such ideas of sermon preparation and delivery and typically application and exposition are regularly living together in Reformed preaching (at least they should be!).

Very interesting; never heard that before.