CofC going instrumental...

[DCR]

Tonight, I went to a Christmas Eve service at the \"non-instrumental\" CofC where I grew up, where my dad grew up, where my grandparents and many relatives attended for years (some relatives still do attend here), where my dad was once an elder, and where I was baptized at the age of 11.

This particular congregation is known for being more bold and progressive than others and has tended to \"push the envelope\" on what is the norm in CofCs.  They have remained acappella, but...

Instrumental music was used during the service tonight, even during communion.

The service consisted of a mixture of acappella congregational singing and a choir that would stand up for some of the songs and sing with an instrumental track.  At the stroke of midnight, the Lord's Supper was conducted, during which time a man with a guitar and a woman proceeded to go up front and sing and play while the congregation was partaking of the Lord's Supper.

It illustrates the change that is taking place in many CofCs.  As you might imagine, this one hit pretty close to home.  As you might know from reading my comments on IM, I do not personally have a scriptural objection to it.  However, some of my family members were quite disturbed by it.  After all, they haven't had the chance to \"restudy\" the issue like I have...

I figure that the door has been opened for this CofC to start using IM on a more regular basis now.  I have mixed feelings about it.  This isn't an easy issue.

[tidbit]

Tonight I attended a Christmas Eve (Nativity) service in which the worship format hasn't changed since some guy name Basil designed it over 1600 years ago...

...still no instrumental music, though...

...and most women wore 'signs of authority' on their heads...



Don't worry--this style of worship couldn't last...


...could it??

[Skip]

Tonight I attended a Christmas Eve (Nativity) service in which the worship format hasn't changed since some guy name Basil designed it over 1600 years ago...

...still no instrumental music, though...

...and most women wore 'signs of authority' on their heads...



Don't worry--this style of worship couldn't last...


...could it??

[marc]

A lot would depend on the basic philosophy of the church in question, that is whether its theology came from set interpretations and traditions or whether its theology was malleable, and could be adjusted if it was found to be out of tune with scripture.

[Skip]

A lot would depend on the basic philosophy of the church in question, that is whether its theology came from set interpretations and traditions or whether its theology was malleable, and could be adjusted if it was found to be out of tune with scripture.

Is 1,600 years a long enough time in which to establish ‘scripturalness’?
And speaking of scriptural, is a ‘malleable theology’ scriptural?

[janine]

I was stomping my foot during the singing this Christmas Day morning \"in church\".  Does that count as using an instrument?

[hmb]

Janine, it's only a problem if the sound of your feet can be said to be \"imitating\" a musical instrument.

[marc]

A lot would depend on the basic philosophy of the church in question, that is whether its theology came from set interpretations and traditions or whether its theology was malleable, and could be adjusted if it was found to be out of tune with scripture.

Is 1,600 years a long enough time in which to establish ‘scripturalness’?
And speaking of scriptural, is a ‘malleable theology’ scriptural?

That's about like asking if scripture is scriptural. \"Malleable\" is an adjective, not a new brand of theology. The alternative would be considering that we have access to a faultless interpretation.

And no, a longer period of time does not equal a better chance of being right.  They just equal a better chance of tradition becoming so ingrained that what you do seems right.[/color]

[marc]

I was stomping my foot during the singing this Christmas Day morning \"in church\".  Does that count as using an instrument?

Were you wearing shoes?  If not, were your feet tapping only against each other, or were they tapping against an unauthorized, man-made floor?  If either floor or shoes were involved, we have the makings of an instrument.

Unless, of course, it's okay to play an instrument as long as we wear it.



(the guitar's out, but everything else is okay.  I know some will say he's actually wearing the guitar, but it should be clear from scripture that he is wearing the guitar strap but holding the guitar.)

Yeah, I do understand the difference, but I'm in a grumpy mood.  Good Christmas; bad cold.[/color]

[zoonance]

Is it the music, the making of melody, the sound of nonvocal chord noise, the object or purpose of the use, or the words sung in worship to God in accompaniment (sp?) that is the unscriptural part?

[DCR]

A lot would depend on the basic philosophy of the church in question, that is whether its theology came from set interpretations and traditions or whether its theology was malleable, and could be adjusted if it was found to be out of tune with scripture.

From my impression, I don't think most at this particular CofC think about theology that deeply or the ramifications of what they do.  I believe it's billed as a fun, exciting place to go and be part of a family.  

It may be the opposite extreme from a typical legalistic environment where correct doctrine and practice are the points of emphasis and the reason for being.

I suspect that the ideal may be a happy median between the two extremes, IMHO.  Doctrine and serious introspection of a church are essential but not to the extent that the letter kills the spirit of a church.[/color]

[Lee Freeman]

A lot would depend on the basic philosophy of the church in question, that is whether its theology came from set interpretations and traditions or whether its theology was malleable, and could be adjusted if it was found to be out of tune with scripture.

Is 1,600 years a long enough time in which to establish ‘scripturalness’?
And speaking of scriptural, is a ‘malleable theology’ scriptural?

That's about like asking if scripture is scriptural. \"Malleable\" is an adjective, not a new brand of theology. The alternative would be considering that we have access to a faultless interpretation.

And no, a longer period of time does not equal a better chance of being right.  They just equal a better chance of tradition becoming so ingrained that what you do seems right.

Infant baptism dates back nearly 1700 years and I doubt many here would consider it scriptural.

Pax.[/color]

[extranos]

Infant baptism dates back nearly 1700 years and I doubt many here would consider it scriptural.

Lee,
The Church Fathers understood Polycarp to have claimed that he was baptised as an infant by the Apostle John.[/color]

[marc]

A lot would depend on the basic philosophy of the church in question, that is whether its theology came from set interpretations and traditions or whether its theology was malleable, and could be adjusted if it was found to be out of tune with scripture.

From my impression, I don't think most at this particular CofC think about theology that deeply or the ramifications of what they do.  I believe it's billed as a fun, exciting place to go and be part of a family.  

It may be the opposite extreme from a typical legalistic environment where correct doctrine and practice are the points of emphasis and the reason for being.

I suspect that the ideal may be a happy median between the two extremes, IMHO.  Doctrine and serious introspection of a church are essential but not to the extent that the letter kills the spirit of a church.[/color]

This brings up something I don't have time to get into now:  is Biblical theology really about rules and procedures?

[James.]

You mean like \"Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!\"?