tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17617194.post5372913862084604799..comments2024-03-07T06:52:34.516+00:00Comments on Exiled Preacher: Young, Restless, Reformed by Colin HansenGuy Davieshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09184743462264437085noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17617194.post-51558495229855791582009-06-26T19:04:42.250+01:002009-06-26T19:04:42.250+01:00Yabba dabba do!Yabba dabba do!Guy Davieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09184743462264437085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17617194.post-46291850874475874492009-06-26T18:41:34.195+01:002009-06-26T18:41:34.195+01:00David - thanks, I'm a pedant, too. But actual...David - thanks, I'm a pedant, too. But actually, I'm pretty sure (though Wile E Coyote certainly qualifies) it's just about every cartoon character in history. Fred Flintstone certainly did it, Yogi Bear did it, probably even Huckleberry Hound.<br />Spoiler alert - you did know these were cartoon characters, didn't you?Gary Benfoldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11371307545924645897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17617194.post-60002199234183581312009-06-26T17:46:52.696+01:002009-06-26T17:46:52.696+01:00Gary wrote: "do you remember Road Runner runn...Gary wrote: "<i>do you remember Road Runner running over the edge of a cliff and it being a while before he realises there's nothing supporting him - and falls?</i>"<br /><br />No, I don't. I'm pretty sure that would have been <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wile_E._Coyote" rel="nofollow">Wile E. Coyote</a>, not the indestructible Road Runner.<br /><br />:)<br /><br />And yes, I am a pedant. Not very miserable though. Most days.David Reimerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17886492671751634816noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17617194.post-22135355277351039772009-06-26T17:37:54.448+01:002009-06-26T17:37:54.448+01:00Yes, but I wouldn't want to put you through al...Yes, but I wouldn't want to put you through all that again.Guy Davieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09184743462264437085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17617194.post-6274529101393785892009-06-26T17:03:23.523+01:002009-06-26T17:03:23.523+01:00That's fine, Guy - it's your blog. do you ...That's fine, Guy - it's your blog. do you remember Road Runner running over the edge of a cliff and it being a while before he realises there's nothing supporting him - and falls?Gary Benfoldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11371307545924645897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17617194.post-68016710607591607932009-06-26T14:07:08.631+01:002009-06-26T14:07:08.631+01:00That was a very helpful intervention "mrbcnew...That was a very helpful intervention "mrbcnews". As you said, the sacred/secular distinction is artificial because all life is subject to the lordship of Christ. The issue is what is appropriate for public worship according to the NT. Just because I listen to U2 for pleasure, doesn't mean that I should introduce "U2charists" in church. God forbid! The same goes for classical music, though, doesn't it? I love Bruckner's 7th, but wouldn't want it played in church on a Sunday. <br /><br />I don't really want to get into a big debate over worship groups, Gary. We've been there, done that, and got nowhere once before.Guy Davieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09184743462264437085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17617194.post-51791735392827583852009-06-26T13:32:46.859+01:002009-06-26T13:32:46.859+01:00Guy - thanks for a balanced response to my comment...Guy - thanks for a balanced response to my comment. the problem is 'inappropriate, unhelpful or unnecessary' are personal judgements. 'Inappropriate' comes close to 'wrong', which is what you're denying - unless you mean musically, in which case we need the verdict of musicians. But the professional musicians involved in said conferences don't seem to have made that judgement. 'Unhelpful' can mean 'Difficult to sing to' - which again is a musical judgement - or 'distracting' - in which case it's purely personal rather than principled. I don't find it distracting - I do find old-fashioned organs wheezing along very distracting - what are we to do? 'Unnecessary' - well, that I admit. All that's necessary is a tuning fork - or not even that!<br />The Old Testament is rich in instruments used to accompany praise. For the life of my I cannot see how Christ's offices make those redundant! Sacrifices, yes. Temple, yes. Robes, yes. Cymbals? Er... er...Gary Benfoldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11371307545924645897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17617194.post-73657307186617801202009-06-26T13:22:09.431+01:002009-06-26T13:22:09.431+01:00The Puritans were over-reacting to a Catholic tend...The Puritans were over-reacting to a Catholic tendency towards beauty and pomp that had excluded truth. They - just as much as we - were children of their day. People tend to be quite selective in their appeal to the Puritans - I don't see anyone (outside the Amish and the like) who adopt plain dress, as they were accustomed to.<br />The regulative principle- which tends to be the 'I'll use it to dismiss what I don't like' principle - may, perhaps, be used to eliminate all musical instruments. It can't be used to eliminate some.Gary Benfoldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11371307545924645897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17617194.post-65895710319007524142009-06-26T13:17:21.392+01:002009-06-26T13:17:21.392+01:00I think that's a reasonable and fair analysis ...I think that's a reasonable and fair analysis Guy.<br /><br />For what it's worth, without getting into the details re: secular v. sacred , if you listen to Piper's Gravity and Gladness series on worship I think you will see that the prevailing departure point from what I believe is biblically ordered worship is to be found in a blurring of the edges in the distinction between corporate worship in the body of Christ and the worship that is all of life (1 Cor 10:31). <br /><br />Those including Piper who promote (maybe too strong a word) a more modern worship style do so on the basis that that distinction is largely artificial or exaggerated. I think the failure to see the distinction is dangerous.<br /><br />The equation tends to becomes this: if I can do this to the glory of God here (somewhere else) then surely I can do it to the glory of God in Church. That has the potential to be deadly. That in essence is a denial of the Regulative Principle and a re-embracing of the Anglican principle of "if it's not prohibited, it is permitted".<br /><br />Thus Piper concludes:<br /><br />"In the New Testament there is a stunning indifference to the outward forms and places of worship. And there is at the same time a radical intensification of worship as an inward, spiritual experience that has no bounds and pervades all of life. These emphases were recaptured in the Reformation and came to clear expression in the Puritan wing of the Reformed tradition"<br /><br />While there is truth here, surely it is a somewhat confused picture and somewhat overstated...is the NT really stunningly indifferent to outward forms of worship or is it only so if you do not believe in the regulative principle of worship and don't have a clear distinction between life and corporate worship? Those who believe the RP also believe the NT is stunningly clear in what is commanded and therefore permitted in public worship while understanding that there is a greater freedom in life outside of Church.<br /><br />Does the fact that worship pervades all of life mean that God has no special view or regulation of corporate worship carried out by what he calls, in the public place, the body of Christ - (1 Cor 11)?<br /><br />And how come the Puritans, who clearly expressed this came up with a radically different form of worship than Piper has? True the Puritans practised a radical sanctified lifestyle in keeping with the inward principle of worship, but that radical worship mentality also strongly pervaded their corporate worship as well resulting in a radical reformation and simplification of worship and a radical separation from what was acceptable outside of the gathered body of Christ. Shall we just ignore them? The Puritans did not reject culture and art, but they kept them in their place - outside corporate worship...which was to be radically God-centred and God-ward.<br /><br />I say this not to start an argument but rather to re-orientate the discussion of these matters which can get bogged down in debatable details while missing the fundamental principles. I see this in both contemporary camps and in conservative camps.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17617194.post-84139593966779089032009-06-26T12:24:45.451+01:002009-06-26T12:24:45.451+01:00Yes, Gary. It is wrong to say that using drums, el...Yes, Gary. It is wrong to say that using drums, electric guitars etc in church is <i>sinful</i>. Without wanting to engage in a long discussion about this matter, I might want to argue that they are inappropriate, unhelpful, or uneccesary for worship. But the terms "sinful" and "worldly" don't really apply.Guy Davieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09184743462264437085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17617194.post-19523772145481743762009-06-26T12:13:43.286+01:002009-06-26T12:13:43.286+01:00I'm far from convinced that there's a dist...I'm far from convinced that there's a distinction between sacred and secular. There's one between holy and sinful, but that's not the same thing. The idea that some instruments are somehow inappropriate, and others fine (as opposed to helpful/not helpful in practical terms) is ridiculous.Gary Benfoldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11371307545924645897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17617194.post-62457027049746824432009-06-26T11:52:59.603+01:002009-06-26T11:52:59.603+01:00I agree with you on worship groups in church. I th...I agree with you on worship groups in church. I think I made that clear in the review. But I don't think that the whole movement should be rejected because of that one thing. There are bigger issues at stake than the RP. <br /><br />I'm not in a position to judge the hearts of those who deploy worship groups etc, which is why I'm recluctant to label them worldly, which is to love what God hates and hate what God loves.Guy Davieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09184743462264437085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17617194.post-31496543528703897242009-06-26T11:44:41.857+01:002009-06-26T11:44:41.857+01:00"We should not reject this movement as "..."We should not reject this movement as "worldly" simply because of concerns over musical styles. Reformed catholicity of spirit demands that love for the truth should be recognised and encouraged wherever we find it. Worldliness cannot be defined by a list of evangelical taboos. That approach is more Fundamentalist than Reformed."<br /><br />Can't resist this, but to highlight that it's not just the Fundies, but the *Puritans* too. Of course, confessional Protestants have the same gripe. And they're the loudest when it comes all things catholic and catholicity. Not to forget the WCF-Regulative Worship Presbyterians. <br /><br />Law should not be confused with the Gospel; the left-hand with the right-hand kingdom; the Old and New Testaments. <br /><br />Romans 12 - living sacrifices, be not transformed by the world, etc. ... this is our reasonable worship ...<br /><br />Conclusion: Drums, electric guitars, etc. are not meant to be in the church. These destroy or blur the distinction between sacred and secular in the church. This distinction must be upheld at all times. For the church is made visible only in the proclamation of Word and Sacrament. Nothing must DETRACT from the GOD's Service to His people ...Augustinian Successorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04701412663559781833noreply@blogger.com