Unformed Expression Share -by DAVID DE BRUYN (about structure in our church practices)

Found here. Our comments in bold.

-----------------

The author builds an elaborate edifice based on preconceptions, appeals to historical practices, and culture-based factors. 

We don't accept the author's premise that spontaneous expressions (i.e., a preacher speaking extemporaneously, a worship leader singing a spontaneous song, or a person going off script when giving a testimony) are without form and therefore undesirable. It seems to us that a spontaneous expression can and often does have its own form, perhaps undiscernible to the casual listener. 

Further, even if there's a lack of form, we are at loss to produce a Scripture that tells us this is bad.

And in fact, the author is unable to produce a Scripture that says this. In fact, he is unable to quote or even reference a single Scripture. Not a syllable. We have noted many times this defect in the presentations of supposed "Bible" teachers.

---------------------

Richard Weaver’s book Ideas Have Consequences is one of the more demanding reads you’ll encounter. I’ll confess it took me more than one reading to grasp his arguments. Throughout the book, Weaver keeps dropping these gems of insight, which one often picks up on a re-read. One of them is this:

“Unformed expression is ever tending toward ignorance.”

To put it another way, when people express themselves, whether through speech, writing, poetry, music, or other art forms, their expression needs the guidance of form. Speeches need introductions, propositional statements, main points, supporting arguments, conclusions and the like. Poetry needs a particular metre, rhyme scheme, line length, metaphor, and other devices. Music needs melody, harmony, rhythm, timbre, and so forth. Whatever the device used for human expression, it has a form that such expression must be poured into, like metal into a mould. The mould can be changed, but apart from the mould, molten metal will simply pour chaotically into a shapeless mess.

Weaver is suggesting that human expression is just like that. Remove the constraints of form, and human expression tends towards ignorance. If thoughts and affections are not channelled and disciplined by the structure of speech or poetry or music or the like, they become disorganised, disparate, disjointed and, in a word, chaotic. Chaos does not enlighten or educate anyone; it increases ignorance.

Consider some cringeworthy examples from within the walls of the church: A preacher whose desire to be extemporaneous exceeds his supply of helpful things to say; “testimony time,” where the one testifying cannot make his or her point without saying it twenty different ways over fifteen minutes; prayer meetings where the prayers are meandering rambles of stock clichés and trivial requests; songs written by the song leader earlier that week (or day); “prophetic singing,” where the song leader plays chords and makes up words as he goes along. (None of these examples are about lacking form, since they all take place within the form. The fact that they are inadequately or loosely expressed is not a problem for the expression, but rather due to the inexperience, lack of skill, good judgment, or intimidation level of the participant.)

In these situations, we grow exasperated. (If so, then "we" are too immature, demanding, or judgmental...)

We wish the preacher would simply stick to his notes. We wish the one praying would shorten his prayer to the things needful to ask for. We wish the one giving a testimony would focus succinctly on what will give God glory. We wish the spontaneous poets … well, we wish they would just memorize and repeat someone else’s poems. (If church is a risky place to make a mistake, then no one will take a risk. That is not church.

We have heard it said that the church is the one place that shoots its own wounded. We think that these kinds of mistakes, failures, and missteps ought to be dealt with with the same kind of grace that God uses to deal with our sin.)

After enduring such experiences, we of the free church tradition understand why other traditions had set liturgies with written prayers and responses: because unformed expression tends towards ignorance. (The author repeats the premise as if he demonstrated its truth after only a couple of paragraphs.)

Why do we all at once sigh under the burden of unformed expression in the church, and yet regard it as a duty to promote unformed expression? (Who is this "we?" 

And we have not accepted the premise as of yet. We don't even accept the idea that expression can even be unformed, because once an expression has been articulated it gains form. The author's problem is not that the expression is unformed, but rather, that he doesn't like the form it takes.)

Perhaps it is an odd view of the Spirit’s work. (Now he's speculating.)

Somewhere, we have ingested the idea that what is pre-meditated and carefully written is somewhat unspiritual, whereas the Spirit’s work is spontaneous, eruptive, and a kind of seizure of the mind from above. (Again, who is this "we?" We don't accept the binary choice the author wants to impose, as if there's some virtue in premeditation and some problem with spontaneity.)

The truth is, I really don’t find anything in Scripture to that contrasts the Spirit’s work with a careful respect for form. (Nor do we find the converse. 

This is the author's only allusion to Scripture, still left unquoted and unreferenced. Since the author denies that there is Scriptural documentation for the opposing perspective, it falls to him to document his position. With the Bible.)

The man who hammers out his sermon in respect for how the human mind grasps knowledge is not working antithetically to the Spirit. (Who has suggested otherwise?)

He is working with what the Spirit made. The one who slowly crafts a hymn text over months is not ‘in the flesh’; he is honoring the form of poetry which God gave, and pouring his love for God into it, carefully and painstakingly. The one who comes to the prayer meeting with part of a written prayer, or a Scripture text and some particular requests is not ‘quenching the Spirit’; he is honoring the means of grace that the Spirit uses. The church that wants to use well-formed expressions in the forms of well-written hymns, some carefully thought-out prayers, some carefully crafted sermons and other well-prepared aspects of corporate worship is not necessarily guilty of formalism. It may be that they simply have a high respect for form. (Again the author speculates.

He seems intent on creating a false dichotomy, as if planning and form are intrinsically virtuous, while any spontaneous expression is not only devoid of form, but reckless and undesirable.)

In fact, formed expression is what our hearts cry out for. We want our preachers to articulate the truth with a kind of clarity that enables us to grasp and retain it. We want our psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs to capture and express affections we have had but have not known how to express. We want corporate prayers to be elevated, careful, thoughtful and Scriptural. We want the music to have structural integrity, a tonal center, and a normal and recognizable sense of progression. (Maybe people "want" this, but why is it good to cater to tastes and predilections? How is that more spiritual?

And in fact, this preference is based on cultural expectations and conditioning. The western way of thinking is logical, binary, and reasonable. Just because we tend to think this way in our society and culture does not mean it is always or even mostly good, beneficial, or even biblical.)

When people who are trained in the forms of rhetoric, poetry, or music give us a structure, it actually sets us free to express ourselves properly. ("Properly?" an undefined presumed virtue.

Notice that the author does not appeal to Bible training, but rather, to humanistic training.)

The molten gold of our affections flows into the moulds of beautiful jewelry, instead of splattering chaotically. (False choice.)

Where form is respected and steadily explained, it not only channels our expression, it further shapes it. Long-term exposure to well-formed expression has a maturing effect on our own. Our minds start to think in those forms. We find ourselves praying better prayers. Our spontaneous testimonies are more succinct, and more edifying. Our extemporaneous teaching has substance. (??? The author walks back his entire argument as he concedes spontaneous expression borne out of maturity.)

Beware the people who insist you choose between form and freedom. (This is essentially what the author did, up until the previous sentence.)

Good form is freedom. Good form enables freedom. Good form frees us to express ordinate affection. (These are simplistic conclusions based on a false premise and cultural norms. And in fact, our definition of "good form" differs from the author's. 

Since the author made no reference to the Bible at all, it's therefore up to the reader to decide which is best, apparently based on their tastes and preferences.)