My favorite part of the Ascending Voice conference (other than being with friends) was the MorningSong sessions with Ken Nafziger from Eastern Mennonite University.
Each morning he shared this saying with us:
The people I speak with are my fellow human beings;
The people I sing with are my family.
Tuesday morning he led us in simple, powerful songs — mostly unfamiliar to me — from around the world.
One song picked up on the “mothering language” of scripture to speak of God’s nurturing presence. He explained that since it’s been shown that the earliest note an infant can imitate is E, every chord of the song has one part singing an E.
Mothering God, you gave me birth
in the bright morning of this world.
Creator, Source of every breath,
you are my rain, my wind, my sun;
you are my rain, my wind, my sun.
Mothering Christ, you took my form,
offering me your food of light,
grain of life, and grape of love,
your very body for my peace;
your very body for my peace.
Mothering Spirit, nurturing one,
in arms of patience hold me close,
so that in faith I root and grow
until I flower, until I know;
until I flower, until I know.
Yesterday, we sang without words or music before us. He took simple, more familiar songs (”Jesus in the Morning”) and invited us to find harmonies to express our faith. I don’t have words to explain the power of this experience.
Jack Reese and I are hoping to bring him to ACU and to Highland sometime this next year.
Again, I don’t have the words to explain why I found this simple song so powerful:
Somebody prayed for me
had me on their mind.
Took the time to pray for me.
I’m so glad they prayed;
I’m so glad they prayed;
I’m so glad they prayed for me.
(Other verses: “My mother prayed for me . . .”; “My father prayed for me . . .”; “My brother prayed for me . . .”; My sister prayed for me . . .”; “King Jesus prayed for me . . . .“)
Mike, thanks for sharing more with us. I know that I would have been feeling the Spirit at this gathering…I am sure that you did. Both of those songs that you posted are wonderful and I am sure even more wonderful with melodies. Music moves me like nothing else.
Sounds like a truly blessed experience. I know you are headed to Central Florida for Zoe Conference. I’m in camp this week with 100 kids so won’t be able to make it. May God’s traveling mercies be with you and his gift of teaching overflow wyou. Bret T. is a great guy and I’m glad we have a worship conference in Florida.
Peace.
Interesting conference.
You know we don’t really spend a lot of time talking and teaching about the “mothering” side of God. OR maybe we do and I just don’t know it.
I have noticed the Ken Myers has advertised this conference for a few months on his website at Mars Hill Audio. Did he participate? He is an insightful, spiritual man and I have come to greatly appreciate his ministry, but he does not come from an a cappella tradition, that I am aware. He usually speaks deeply to my book-nerd nature.
Thanks for sharing this, Mike–your description makes me long to have been there.
The song sounds very “New Age”.
Mike,
I had plans to be in Malibu for this conference…From the moment I saw the schedule, I knew it was for me. Unfortunately, something came up last minute that prevented me from going. I hope they do it again and you’d better let us know if Ken is ever at ACU or Highland. Another rich Quaker & Mennonite worship influence is Craig Morton, who actually is working with us through Partnership for Missional Church stuff…There is so much rich stuff out there that we haven’t begun to tap into!
I still wish I could have gone to the conference. But the “mothering God” language would have, and does, bug me. Yes, I know about the passages here and there where mothering metaphors are used. So, no, such language is not necessarily wrong. However–and this is the crux of my comment–given the political setting where any number of Christians speak of the offense of biblical language and insist on inclusive pronouns in reference to deity, do such songs help the claim that God in Scripture and in Jesus Christ has spoken?
George Lindbeck wrote, “To become a Christian involves learning the story of Israel and of Jesus well enough to experience oneself and one’s world in its terms.” Yes, there’s the exceptional metaphor. But the Bible and Jesus don’t say, “Mothering God.”
As you know, the Mennonites aren’t really known for worrying about being politically correct. They just accept the claims of scripture (including the fact that God is neither male nor female, but can be described with the language of both genders) at bold face.
But, Mike, the Mennonites aren’t the only ones singing lyrics like that. And in other places where those words do turn up, they’re part of a program to “fix” the language of revelation.
In response to the part about God being neither male nor female: Of course. But the point is that “the Bible functions in such a way that such terms as ‘father’ and ‘king’ gain their theological content from the character of God, who continues to be worshipped in the conventions of a language which believers have always understood as inadequate for rendering the full divine reality. When such biblical terms to designate God become stumbling blocks, the hermeneutical question must be raised whether the problem lies with the imagery, or with a generation which no longer possesses the needed ‘reader competence’ to render the Bible as Scripture of the church.” –Brevard Childs
In spite of all the flat-footed accusations made against the ancient Israelites, our forebears did not think that God had a male body. We must not develop traditions of speaking about God in ways that are inconsistent with revelation.
What about Christ? The fact that Christ is referred to as “mothering” drives home the “new age” slant to the song. Or, are we not in agreement that Chist was male?
Mike- Are you saying that this song is, or is not, politically correct?
Sorry for leaving out the “r” in Christ.
The fingerprints of “New Age” is all over this song, with God being referred to mothering, Christ mothering, and even the Holy Spirit mothering. Not only that but God being in everything.
Let us make man in “our” (which would include the Trinity: Father, Son, Holy Spirit) imagine. Genessis.
As Christians the basis of our faith is believing in Jesus Christ the “Son” of the living God.
Jesus prays to God, “Abba Father”.
And on the cross, “Father” forgiven them, for they know not what they do.”
In our image…I am a woman..so I can’t be in God’s image.
I am a woman and until I was an adult I had never heard God referred to in feminine terms. I had a problem with this but was too timid to admit that to anyone. What if it had been flipped and we always referred to God in feminine terms?
God is referred to in scripture in ways that make me think of my mother…a hen gathering her chicks, a breastfeeding mother…why does that bother you if you do say that God is neither male nor female? Or do you really believe that God is male?
There are some that say that Holy Spirit is the feminine aspect of God. Or that the Shekinah glory of God is also a feminine side of God.
I also want to know if preacherman thinks that God is not in everything….quoting Elizabeth Barrett Browning…Earth’s crammed with heaven and every common bush afire with God…
I am just not sure why this is disturbing you so. Why is it hard to picture God as feminine?
I understand concerns about giving in to an agenda of political correctness about biblical language, but I would not want it thought that such language was necessarily “new age,” “politically correct,” or even particularly trendy. Here is a snippet from the second-century Ode of Solomon 19, the earliest known Christian hymnal (apart from the Psalms):
“A cup of milk was offered to me,
And I drank it in the sweetness of the Lord’s kindness.
The Son is the cup,
And the Father is He who was milked;
And the Holy Spirit is She who milked Him…”
The imagery goes on like that, describing the suckling Father and emphasizing the nurturing and nourishing capacity of God the Father/Mother with respect to His/Her children. Or, one could fast forward to the late Middle Ages to read Julian of Norwich:
“As truly as God is our Father, so truly is God our Mother… I understand three ways of contemplating motherhood in God. The first is the foundation of our nature’s creation; the second is His taking of our nature, where the motherhood of grace begins; the third is th emotherhood at work. And in that, by the same grace, everything is penetrated, in length and in breadth, in height and in depth without end… The mother can give her child to suck of her milk, but out precious Mother Jesus can feed us with Himself, and does, most courtesously and most tenderly, with the blessed sacrament…”
For Julian, God the Father and God the Son do certain things that can only best be understood by us humans with reference to our experiences with motherhood.
Also, it is interesting to notice that in very early Aramaic speaking Christianity, the word for “Holy Spirit” was grammatically feminine, so that all references to that aspect of the Deity were necessarily “she” and “her” references. The grammatical gender of that term was forcibly masculinized in the 5th century.
I can’t believe I’m reading what I’m reading here. Jesus refers to God as “Father” over 100 times in the gospel of John. He taught his disciples to pray “Our Father.” He was born of woman (Gal. 4). On the cross He gave due to his mother and delivered his spirit to his Father. What next, a transgendered Trinity?
Thank you, Jeff. You said what I would’ve liked to have said…but you know so much more than I do about this. Thank you.
Example of the the mothering aspect of Jesus: “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often have I desired to gather your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!”
Luke 13:34 (NRSV)
Feminine aspects of the Divine are anything but “New Age.” Julian of Norwich (1342-1416) was a mystic who saw many mothering aspects of Christ. The concept of Shekhinah in the Old Testament and Talmudic writings…
God is the Creator. Only females can give birth. Hmmmmm just thinking out loud here…maybe the incredible mystery and holiness of childbearing is one of the clues to who and what God does for us.
Nancy- Jesus is no more mother than he is chicken. The attempt to redefine “new age” is wasted on anyone with any shread of common sense. Your references speak for themselves.
There is an ongoing effort to feminize and equalize everyone. This is no more apparant than the emphasis on “social justice” in some churches of Christ. This term has also been twisted and distorted to make it appear less threatening. The truth is that equalization and justice are the last things we want. The only equalization is in Christ!
Well said, Troy.
One supposes that this topic could be fruitfully and profitably discussed without recourse to phrases like “any shread [sic] of common sense,” but perhaps not.
References to Julian of Norwich notwithstanding, and similarly for noncanonical hymnals, one is at pains to infer that the canon-writers thought of God primarily in feminine terms. Even men have hen-like, chick-gathering qualities, but they do not predominate.
What is the value of thinking of God *primarily* in those terms? Does it add to our conception of God or take away from it?
qb
I don’t think that anyone is saying that we should primarily think of God in feminine terms…just both feminine and masculine.
qb- I take this very seriously. If my language offends, than that just evens us up.
I like the song. It would make it into my canon of hymns. Best I can tell it doesn’t call God or the incarnate Jesus a female. It refers to the aspects of the Trinity that we identify with feminine qualities. When I sang it, I felt nothing new agey (I may fall into Troy’s category of someone without any shred of common sense) and nothing PC. The thought of producing a “transgendered Trinity” never occurred to me. I felt the power, however, of knowing that there is a way in which I have been given new birth, nurtured, and empowered by God.
By the way, does anyone sing the song I mentioned in the first comment (”Somebody Prayed for Me”) at their church?
By the way (again), if I’d been guessing today, I would have guessed that this was the line that would draw comments:
The people I speak with are my fellow human beings;
The people I sing with are my family.
How does that strike you? It hit me in deep, emotional places.
Mike, provided that the tune works well with the lyrics, I might like to sing it too. But if I did, I wouldn’t want those mainline Protestant clergy folks from Connecticut to overhear me. They would think they’d won me over. Mine was a different context from singing with fellow conservatives at Pepperdine. I know that there are settings where the words of that song would give off, for reasons I explained earlier, the wrong message.
Good news Mike. You don’t fall into the “someone without any shred of common sense” category. However, you may fall into the unwitting accomplice category.
I have a question as it relates to this whole conference. Exactly what is your belief regarding “singing” as a part of worship?
Your words:”I’m returning to Abilene from Malibu today, where I’ve been attending “The Ascending Voice†conference. It’s so interesting to be in touch with devoted Christians from several other a cappella traditions. The singing, as you can imagine, has been amazing.”
Needless to say I am troubled by several things from this passage but in context of a discussion about the conference, is that all a cappella singing is in worship, a tradition? It seems to me, when I look at the New Testament and it mentions singing in the context of praising God. It doesn’t mention singing with instruments. So, if a cappella music is simply tradition, how do you explain Col. 3:16? “Let the word of Christ richly dwell within you, with all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, singing with thankfulness in your hearts to God.” I don’t know of a much clearer description of congregational activity than the church at Colosse teaching and admonishing one another in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, singing with thankfulness in their hearts to God. Does that sound like singing is relagated to a tradition? It sounds pretty much like a command to me.
What I always find shocking about these conversations is that the question about if God actually exists is still a very open question. Don’t get me wrong. I’m a believer. But to push so quickly past that question and to proceed on to if God, should he/she/it exist, actually cares about gender-attributions in songs or church rhetoric, seems the utmost in foolishness. God might not even exist and some of you are debating what gender-attribution he/she/it prefers. How ridiculous is that? So, here’s what I’m doing tonight. I’m going to say my bedtime prayer and ask God directly for his/her/its opinion: “Dear God, do you prefer to be referred to as a male? Or, do you prefer to be referred to as female? Or, do you really not give a damn?”
I’m betting on option #3.
Brian - The use of the word “tradition” in this context doesn’t make a statement about whether or not singing itself is a tradition or a command. It’s about the religious heritages where a cappella music is practiced.
It was interesting to find that not everyone defines a cappella singing the same. Some African a cappella churches actually use percussion. For them, a drum is like the rhythm provided by many other people through clapping, tapping their foot, or beating their hands in time. (I have fond memories here of my song leading class at summer camp!)
I love this a cappella heritage. But is a cappella music the one and only way that God can be honored? I’d encourage you to listen to the four messages by Rick Atchley. Last I checked they were available at http://www.rhchurch.org.
“The people I speak with are my fellow human beings;
The people I sing with are my family.”
For what it’s worth, that is the line that did jump out at me from your post. I love that thought, and I guess even the healthiest families can be a bit disfunctional!
All y’all with divinity degrees correct me if I’m wrong, but is not the use of a gender specific pronoun when speaking of God simply show the inadequacy of human language? God is not of any specific gender as is a man or woman. He has created us in His image, male and female, we are in His image. And as such, for instance, in the Jewish tradition, I claim my adoption by Him as a Son of God, not by human gender, but by right of inheritance that comes to the sons of the Almighty God.
God created out of His image, masculine traits in men that He also has in His being. He created out of His image, feminine traits in women that He also has in His being. So I also suggest that if we are prideful because of our identity with God due to our human gender it would be well to reconsider that prideful attachment. It is only as HIS children that we have any identity or pride, at least that’s my prayerful opinion.
Mike,
Rest assured, I have listened to Rick Atchley’s messages. I have listened to his defense of having an instrumental worship service. I found his defense long on style and short on substance. When it comes down to it, there is no New Testament authorization for instrumental music in the worship service. Rick didn’t find it there no matter how hard he tried. He found it in the Old Testament and temple worship. He tried to argue that Jesus approved it by going to the temple. He argued from the prodigal son returning home to music and dancing. He argued from the book of Revelation describing heaven. He finally concluded that because the scripture was silent, then it was ok. I am sorry. If I tell my daughter to go to the store and get milk, I don’t have to tell her not to get eggs as well. Silence is important and is substantive. We are commanded to sing. It is not necessary for God to tell us not to sing with an instrument. What is necessary is for us to do what he has told us and that is to sing.
Believe me, Brian, I understand well your position. You’ve made it kindly and directly.
“Silence is important and is substantive.” That’s correct — if the silence is intentional.
If my teenage son and his friends are wanting to know whether to play baseball or soccer and I say, “You guys play baseball,” that would be intentional. I specified one — and in the context prohibited the other.
But if I’m leaving the house and say, “I’m leaving for a while. You guys play baseball while I’m gone,” that doesn’t mean I’d be upset if they also played soccer, went inside and got Gatorade, etc. It wasn’t meant to be prohibitive.
Depends on the intention. I see no such intention in a passage like Colossians 3.
I am an ardent fan of a cappella music, but not because it is the one, authoritative way for God’s people to worship.
Who is bold enough to declare they know the intentions of God? God did not create us to be mystics or mind readers. He has simply told us what to do.
I too have listened to the sales pitch of Rick Atchley regarding the use of instrumental music. The most telling thing I noticed was the number of times he said, “I’m going to be as honest as I possibly can.” Having been in sales for 20 years, I’ve often heard this leading statement used to establish believability. It is an instant “red flag”, because typically the opposite is true.
It appears that in a minority of our brotherhood, discernment has been drowned out by the breathless panting over ideas that agree with their itching ears.
qb can’t speak for anyone else, but 2 decades ago qb’s ears were doing anything BUT itching to hear a credible case for admitting instruments into the assembly. qb was secure in his doctrinal purity and breezily content in his certitude that “sans instruments” was the only authorized way of doing things. Unfortunately (or so you might think, Troy), the case was made, and it was thunderously persuasive, overcoming all of qb’s carefully documented defenses.
Whatever you might think of Atchley’s presentation - his is not the final word by any means - your sweeping charge of “breathless panting over ideas that agree with [your erring brethren's] itching ears” is as empty as the null set. qb - and I fancy this is true of many others - never went looking for justification; we were solidly on your side. But when the “silence is prohibitive” and CENI paradigms turned broadside to reasoned argument, took the arrows and fell, integrity demanded that we rethink those comfortable positions that we had held for so long with such vigor and smugness - smugness and vigor that were, perhaps, way out of proportion to these issues’ true centrality to the Way of Jesus.
One supposes, therefore, that we have now invited the next, vacuous charge: we were “blown here and there by every wind of doctrine,” weak and simple-minded. *sigh* *yawn*
Proleptically,
qb
Mike,
I am glad to be able to have this discourse with you. I appreciate that you have taken the time to answer. What concerns me is that you are risking your worship and the worship of others who are influenced by you on the basis of a conclusion for which there simply is no authority. I can read my Bible and see that Col. 3:16 says to sing. I have authority if I simply do what it says and sing. I have the right to do so. But, if I sing with an instrument, I have added to what the scripture says. I am now on the ground of hoping that my worship is acceptable. John says that “these things were written so that you might know…” 1 John 5:13 That is crucial into creating strong Christians, the ability to have confidence in their faith. If I follow what is there in scripture, I can have confidence. If I practice what is not there, I cannot possibly have confidence in what I am doing. I am risking my soul’s eternal destination on a practice that is without scriptural authority.
What I find disturbing about this thread are the clear hints of a “if New-Agers do it, it must be wrong” mind-set. New-Agers probably inhale oxygen and use toilet paper, but (hopefully) it doesn’t make those things bad.
I guess I am blessed, I can sing with thankfulness in my heart to God and listen to instruments at the same time. But I have a hard time walking and chewing gum at the same time.
Sorry to split my response. In regards to intentions, my analogy is much truer to the mark. God was specific with what He said. He commanded us to sing. Col. 3:16–sing. Eph. 5:19—sing and make melody in your heart. James 5:13–sing. 1 Cor 14:15—sing. At any juncture, God could have said I want you to sing and play an instrument. In Eph. 5:19, He described the instrument, the heart. The intention of the Lord is clear, sing. Regardless of the fact that there is no mention of instrumental praise in the early church. Regardless of the fact that the early church fathers like Clement, Eusebius,Chrysostom, etc spoke against it. Regardless of the fact that men throughout the ages have arrived at that very conclusion including men like Luther, Clarke, Spurgeon to name a few. There simply is no sound scriptural basis for it. No argument that rings true, in support of instrumental praise in the worship service. I think that we both can agree that the whole purpose of worship is to please God. Paul beautifully said in Gal. 2:20: “I have been crucified with Christ, and it is no longer I who lives but Christ lives in me.” I have been removed from the equation. It is not my wants or desires that should be supreme. And that applies to all areas. Which brings us back to the beginning. God has given us the command to sing. If He desired instrumental praise, He had the words to say so. But He didn’t. He didn’t need to do so. God’s silence is significant.
Brian,
Nice try, brother, but your “silence is prohibitive” argument holds no water logically nor biblically. It is all conjecture. It’s conjecture because it is not found in Scripture. I am just guessing that you probably don’t have a problem with church buildings, song books, pitch pipes, yada, yada, yada and about 100 other things that occur during your worship and mine. Why don’t we need authority for any of those things? Because you say so? Any argument you give, for or against any of those things, comes straight out of your head because the Bible doesn’t talk about any of it. And yet you want everyone to follow your conclusions? You want us to follow it because of the logic of your child going to the store to buy bread?
If you are going to hold to the faulty “command, example and necessary inference” hermeneutic, you need to go back and read what Thomas Campbell said about the specific area of “silence” or “inference” and how it is to be used in the church. For you to make this a “sin” issue is to go beyond what Thomas Campbell, the originator of the CENI model, intended. Here’s a quote from Dwaine Dunning, writing on the history of Thomas Campbell.
“Thomas Campbell, who developed the (CENI) system, wisely limited it and showed that the third area of ‘authority’, that of inference, was of such a nature that questions affecting fellowship should never be determined by using inference, or argument by logical process.”
The whole idea of you making law out of silence goes against God’s use of it and is against what is probably your creed of “speak where the Bible speaks and be silent where the Bible is silent.” God was silent on instruments in the NT. You would do well to follow suit and not make a law that God never made. The Bible speaks clearly on that.
If my study of biblical history is correct, instruments were used at the temple while animals were being sacrificed (and many scholars think this was to cover up the sounds that would have gone along with animal slaughter.) If you use the argument of instruments at the temple to allow instruments in our worship today, why not bring in animal sacrifice, too?
Our worship is patterned after synagogue worship…which was always a cappella. For some of us this is NOT “tradition”…it’s conviction.
Brad,
Your assumption is based upon the belief that I came to my conclusions based upon Thomas Campbell. I haven’t read anything by him. I don’t use much of any man’s work to read and understand the Bible. I have studied Greek, and I do use those tools (although I don’t use things like Robertson’s Word Pictures, I do go to the Greek texts such as Philo, etc. to help determine word meaning and usage). I really don’t even do much of that any longer. I don’t use commentaries, nor study books. I simply use the Bible. The Bible contains all things that pertain to life and godliness Peter tells us in 2Pet 1:3. I do not want to risk my eternal destination upon someone else’s belief. And most importantly, I believe that God gave us all brains to understand what he is saying. Marshall Keeble baptized some 20,000 people in his life time using simply the King James Version. When you read the letters of Pliny to Trajen and gain a glimpse of what New Testament Christianity was like through the eyes of an outsider. You realize how simple it was. I am committed to simple New Testament Christianity. And from a historical standpoint alone, there wasn’t a use of an instrument in the worship of the New Testament church or for hundreds of years afterwards. But the simple fact remains, there is New Testament authority to sing. There is only authority to sing. And if the New Testament church understood it to mean sing with instruments, how come there is no historical evidence to support it.
As far as the argument is concerned about buildings, pitch pipes etc, that argument was advanced in the 50’s by men such as Burton Barber and Julian Hunt. Instrumental music is not even in the same category. Preaching in a building is still preaching. Using a song book and singing is still singing, etc. They are only aids. Instrumental music is an addition to the command to sing. It adds an element separate and apart from singing.
“Preaching in a building is still preaching. Using a song book and singing is still singing, etc. They are only aids. Instrumental music is an addition to the command to sing. It adds an element separate and apart from singing.†Why?
I pray that you can see what you have said.
I agree with Clint. I have sung songs of praise to God with and without the use of instruments. I have never been impeded from singing because there were musical instruments, in fact they aided in my singing when they were present. Instruments in the background do not strangle ones voice or heart.
Unlike Clint, I am also able to walk and chew gum at the same time but my wife will tell you that I cannot at the same time converse with her and watch TV. I guess we all have our limits!
Mike, sounds like a wonderful conference! I wish I could have been there. I can only imagine what it sounded like when everyone sang their own harmonies to “Jesus in the Morning”. Thanks for sharing your experience with us all.
I cannot believe that my friends in the Church of Christ are still so hung up on instrumental vs non-instrumental. Do you think God really cares? What good could we all be doing in the time that we are wasting in debate on such trivia. God Bless Us All.
Just a Friend,
I would agree with you except someone took the time to show me instruments were ok and I now am blessed even more.
Brian,
This is probably to late to be seen by you, but if I were an anti-instrument proponent, I would have been appalled at the argument you just put forth, “Preaching in a building is still preaching. Using a song book and singing is still singing . . .”
Brother, if I have the New York Philharmonic playing while I’m singing, guess what? I’m still singing. You made a point very effectively that I’m thinking you didn’t want to make.
Cordially.
Mike, I am glad you attended the conference. I was very interested in it and wanted to be there.
I think some of the comments above point out (perhaps unintentionally) why such a conference is needed. In the CofC we have tended to spend way too much time on the question of whether we should use a cappella music or allow instruments, and very little time seriously studying a cappella music to develop a deeper appreciation of it.
If we think a cappella music is important, then we need to participate in events such as this that will strengthen the use of a cappella singing in our worship.
I am thrilled that Pepperdine put on this conference, and I hope it will be repeated in the future so I can attend.
“The Bible contains all things that pertain to life and godliness Peter tells us in 2Pet 1:3.”
Brian,
I’ve read 2 Peter 1 several times since reading your post, and I can’t find a single reference to the Bible. What it says is “His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness.” How exactly God’s divine power gives us those things is something I’d rather not limit to the scriptures without very good reason.
If those like QB and Clint are honestly persuaded that the use of instuments is the right choice for them, then, that’s between them and God. What I have a major problem with, is when a preacher or small group, commandeer a chuch, and lead a mutiny for the sake of their own taste in music. If you think that my luanguage is harsh, I’d like to see the Apostle Paul’s response. You don’t realize what you doing to the Lord’s church. Open your eyes and look around and watch who’s singing. If you don’t, you may be the only one before long.
I visited my former chuch on Sunday. It is one of two churches in a town of 150K people near Dallas. The auditorium was 3/4 empty, where more than 600 people reguarly praised God less than 10 yrs ago. Now, they have a dozen people down front on mic to fill the silence. Silence is exactly what they would have without them. This is what happens when a style of music is forced on a congregation. It made me want to cry.
Sorry, I left out another “r” in church.
this post thread is the poster child for “the dysfunctional church”.
preacher mike:
i respect your right to post what you want on your blog, but do you really believe in the sentiment of “mothering God”?
perhaps you and the cohorts will think me legalistic if i gently remind that our Lord Jesus taught us to pray like this: “our Father…” and that it is by the indwelling Holy Spirit that the sons and daughters of Father God cry our “Abba, Father.”
i am all for poetic expression, but should it not be checked and balanced by the prophetic revelation?
respectfully, a fellow preacher.