Strange Lyre: A Radical Departure from Historic Worship - by DAVID DE BRUYN

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author of today's article is continuing his series on what's wrong with "Pentecostal worship." Or "charismatic worship." We commented on another of those articles here. In fact, the author has been on this train of thought for over a year.

He clearly has an ax to grind, but he never really articulates what the problem is, other than the fact that "Pentecostal worship" (or "charismatic worship") is evil because it's not like the worship of the traditional church. From there he goes from inference to assertion to accusation, without documenting a single statement.  He doesn't explain anything, he just asserts and moves on.

And, in keeping with past practice, the author quotes no Scripture. Not a syllable. He writes nearly 900 words. How can one teach about worship or any other part of our faith without quoting the Bible? He simply appeals to his preference. 

This is truly bad teaching. The author ought to be ashamed.

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

Christian worship has often had a remarkably similar shape across traditions. (The author's presentation is based solely on appeals to traditional practice.)

Bryan Chapell showed in his work Christ-Centered Worship that corporate worship (sans communion) in Roman, Lutheran, Reformed and Evangelical traditions had a very similar form: a Call to worship, a Kyrie or Confession, followed by Thanksgiving, an Old Testament reading, a New Testament reading, a prayer for Illumination, a Sermon, followed by a Benediction or dismissal, with hymns or psalms interspersed. Communion services also followed a similar pattern: An Invitation, Preparatory hymn, a Consecration of elements, an Exhortation of preparation, the Words of Institution, Breaking of bread, Communion, a psalm or hymn, thanksgiving prayer and Benediction. (This is nothing more than "the way we do it is the only right way of doing it.")

Friends and proponents of Pentecostal worship often do not realize how radically different charismatic worship (In one sentence the author switches from Pentecostal to charismatic, without explaining either term or noting the differences between them.)

is from this historic pattern. (Actually, we are pretty sure Pentecostals/charismatics do realize this. It's purposeful, a departure from the "historic pattern" of cold, dead ritual in sterile, highly regulated Sunday gatherings. "Pentecostal worship" is different because it needs to be.

Further, very little of what happens in a traditional Sunday service has anything to do with actual worship or the Biblical model of how a service is to be conducted. There are no biblical examples of a credentialed CEO pastor standing in front of a group of people pontificating in a university-patterned lecture. There is nothing in the Bible about a procedure containing a Call to worship, a Kyrie or Confession, followed by Thanksgiving, an Old Testament reading, a New Testament reading, a prayer for Illumination, a Sermon, followed by a Benediction or dismissal, with hymns or psalms interspersed.

No Sunday school, offering, special music, or choir, no podium on a stage, no organ - - none of these are found in the Bible.

Yet the author's ire is towards people who reject his clearly unbiblical forms in favor of other practices. This hostility seems to be without reason, since he will never cite any incident or reference any statement or quote any Bible verse that demonstrates the error of "Pentecostal worship" or the propriety of his version of worship.)

Pentecostal authors (Later it will be "charismatic theologians.")

have written that praise is a kind of “path” into the presence of God. (Previously it was "worship," now it's "praise.")

That is, worship (Back to worship...)

is not a series of gracious revelations from God’s Word with faith-responses from His people. (C'mon, sir. Where is this sort of thing found in the Bible?

The author seems unable to distinguish between the various things that happen on Sunday, and worship the activity itself. Worship is proskuneó, which means, to kiss the ground when prostrating before a superior; to worship, ready "to fall down/prostrate oneself to adore on one's knees..." 

Worship isn't the processes of the liturgy. It's not about preaching or the way a church service is conducted. Worship is not a series of gracious revelations from God’s Word with faith-responses from His people. 

Worship is the bowing low before a holy God.

Keep this definition firmly in mind as you read the rest of the author's presentation.)

Worship becomes a series of steps or stages, growing in intimacy and intensity. (Remember the author previously writing that worship is a series of gracious revelations from God’s Word with faith-responses from His people? This means the author himself advocates for a series of steps designed to elicit a response. Hmmm.

Escalating intensity is a familiar biblical condition. For example, 1 Kings chapter 7 goes into a lot of detail describing the construction of Solomon's temple [a parallel account is in 2Ch. 5]. From general construction to the details of the implements of the temple, to the placement of David his father's dedicated things, leading up to Solomon summoning the Elders, the tribal leaders, and the heads of families, all in preparation to bring the Ark of the Covenant. 

But the story escalates even more. All the men of Israel arrived [8:2], the priests took the Ark, the tent, and all the sacred items up before the people, and sacrificed thousands of sheep and cattle. Only then is the ark brought into the Holy of Holies [8:6].

Then the cloud of the glory of the Lord filled the temple, and the priests could not perform their service because of it. Then Solomon worshiped, delivering an intense prophetic worship statement [8:15-53]. 

This was quite a worship service, with an escalating procession of occurrences leading to the manifest glory of God. 

Other incidents: David danced [2Sa. 6:16], the Tabernacle worship [1Ch. 6:32], Moses and Israel [Ex. 40:38], and Ezekiel [Ez. chapter 42].

In the NT, we find walls shaken where they worshipped [Ac. 4:31], they had church services where people got healed, delivered, and saved [Ac. 514-16, Ac. 8:5-8], and demons cast out [Ac. 16]. Their worship services included fasting and prophetic commissioning [Ac. 13:2].

The NT church gatherings were quite different from the author's preferences:

1Co. 14:26 What then shall we say, brothers? When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church.

In fact, the author sounds a lot like the crowd of Jews who attacked Paul:

Ac. 18:13 “This man,” they charged, “is persuading the people to worship God in ways contrary to the law.” 

We prefer the biblical model over the author's.)

Charismatic worship (Back to "charismatic...)

writers speak of the importance of “flow”: a technique of uninterrupted, continual music, designed to emotionally transport the worshippers into the climactic experience of “worship,” which they deem to be more intense and focused than “praise.” (Now the author makes a distinction between worship and praise, when previously he used them interchangeably. But he will never explain either term, or reference anything he writes, or cite any source that demonstrates this claim, or that "Pentecostal worship" is what he says it is.)

Charismatic theologians do not base this on any Old or New Testament narratives of worship, such as Exodus 19–24 or Isaiah 6. (Hooray, our first [and last] Bible reference, left unquoted. 

Exodus 19 is about Moses ascending Mt. Sinai to receive the Ten Commandments and other laws. This lasts until chapter 31. Did the author forget that in chapter 32 Aaron made the golden calf for the people to worship? THIS is the model of worship he recommends?

Isaiah 6 is the very familiar incident where Isaiah sees the glory of the Lord, and his lips are cleansed with a coal from the altar. 

We are astonished that these two passages are cited by the author as worship service models, since no protestant church does these things. Neither example has to do with congregational worship. Neither example is prescriptive. 

He doesn't even bother to cite which parts of these citations are relevant. He simply tosses them out as examples unconnected from any explanation or context. 

It's a truly mystifying recommendation.)

Instead, an entirely new model of worship, known as the “Tabernacle Model” or “Five Phase Model” is used, using fragments of phrases from the Psalms. First, there is Invitation, “songs of personal testimony in the camp.” This is followed by Engagement, “through the gates with thanksgiving.” Third comes Exaltation, “into His courts with praise.” Fourth is Adoration, “solemn worship inside the Holy Place.” Finally, there is Intimacy, “in the Holy of Holies.” (What is the source of this information?)

Of course, this is a technique in search of a text, not any serious attempt to mimic biblical forms. (WHAT ARE THE BIBLICAL FORMS? Please, explain something!!! Where in the Bible are the forms of worship we should embrace?)

Nothing that Israel did in corporate worship even vaguely corresponds to the pursuit of a heightening climactic worship. (Where are biblical examples of Israel's corporate worship? Why are the practices of the Jews relevant? Again, explain!

And by the way, we previously cited several OT examples of worship that clearly violate the author's assertions.)

Indeed, charismatic theologians have changed the meaning of the worship service. Biblically and historically, a worship service is where God’s people respond corporately to what God has revealed about Himself. (A Bible that remains closed on the author's desk. Since he's so intent on criticizing charismatics, why can't he show us in the Bible what he's talking about?)

Yes, this response ought to be heartfelt, sincere, meaningful, and unfeigned. In charismatic worship theology, one is not so much in pursuit of a response, as one is in pursuit of an experience: an experience of the presence of God that is intense, sensorily tangible, and emotionally or physically ecstatic. (Waaait. An experience is a response. We would then ask the author to explain the correct responses verse the incorrect ones, and the biblical basis upon which he makes his determination.)

Very importantly, this experience will be almost passively felt, once the moment arrives, as opposed to a rational response to God’s Word. (Where in the Bible is this idea of worship being a rational response to God's Word?)

In making this the highpoint of worship, Pentecostal worship (Now he's back to "Pentecostal.")

is dabbling with two very dangerous, and unbiblical ideas. (Ah, he's finally going to explain the Bible to us...)

First, the Pentecostal approach has parallels to the sensual and ecstatic worship of paganism. (Hmm. This is not a biblical argument. Pentecostal worship is like paganism? What? Please, sir, explain!)

The idea that worship must be a steady and growing stimulation ("Stimulation?" This is the author's pejorative characterization, which only means his preferred stimulations are somehow more biblical.)

has all too familiar and uncomfortable parallels with the approaches of everything from the Israelites around the golden calf to the prophets of Baal, to shamanism and trance-inducing rituals of false religion. The methods among these may be diverse, but the approach is similar: steadily stimulate the body into a heightened state through sensual music, dance or movement, while steadily sedating the mind through chant-like repetition, narrowed focus, or hallucinogenic drugs, until the goal is reached: climactic encounter or possession with the spirit/god, the whole ritual consciously or unconsciously mimicking sexual stimulation and climax. (Sigh. At this point, we simply don't believe the author. He has yet to document a single assertion he's made.)

By contrast, Hebrew and Christian worship has always required the frequent conscious response of the mind and will, (Will the author ever document anything?)

the restraining of what could become sensual, modesty in bodily expression, and a rational, active response to God, not a sensual, passive one. (Sigh.)

Second, the Pentecostal approach treats music with the same sacramentality that perverted the Lord’s Table into the Roman Mass. Sacramentalism is the error of believing that the communion cup and bread turn into the actual body and blood of the Lord by an act of grace apart from faith. The sacraments are “ex opere operato“: they work and confer grace independently of the priests or recipients. That kind of sacramentalism is precisely how charismatic theology (Back to "charismatic.")

treats music in the worship service: a belief that apart from the Word rightly divided and rightly received, the music may bring about the felt presence of God for those hearing it. The music “ushers” people into God’s manifest presence, and God may manifest Himself, they way He did when the little bell was rung at Mass. The music has an independent power, and as one Charismatic theologian put it, “the flow should move naturally (using connections from the songs’ content, keys, and tempos); and the flow should move toward a goal of a climatic experience of true worship of God.” (The previous paragraph is nothing more than nonsense. The author just makes things up. This is simply bad teaching. We cannot even call it Bible teaching, since the author has yet to explain any Bible verse, biblical principle, or cite any biblical precept that describes what the author asserts.)

This is not music as a form of congregational prayer, a conscious corporate response of faith-filled prayer to what God has revealed in His Word. (WHY should worship be this? Will the author explain anything?)

When Christian worship is Pentecostalized, (Back to "Pentecostal.")

it is not merely a “style” or “preference” that has changed. The point and goal of Christian worship has been altered; and the very shape of active call-and-response has been substituted with a passive stimulatory-ecstatic model. This is no small change.