Amazingly, my website passed 10,000 visitors this last week. I’m sure that most of these are just me checking to see that my site is working correctly, but they can’t all be me. Quite why people are tuning in to my incoherent ramblings I’m not sure, but since you’re reading this perhaps I can make a prayer request.

I am going in to hospital tomorrow (4th Oct) for an operation. It’s not a major one – I could well be coming home the same day, but it will be my first experience of surgery and general anaesthetic. Please pray that the operation will be successful, and that my recovery is quick. I will probably have about two weeks off work, during which I plan to do some reading and praying, which I hope will be a profitable time for me.

In my second post considering what the New Testament teaches and models about church, I want to think about “worship”. Worship has got to be one of the most hot topics in Christianity today. Many people will judge a church they have visited by whether they considered the worship to be “alive” or “dead”, or perhaps “reverent” or “flippant”. Various bloggers have been touching on the issue this very week, with “This Great Argument” launching a somewhat caustic attack on charismatic worship, and “The Blue Fish Project” highlighting the importance of the words we sing. When I lived in Dunstable, the church I attended went through a period of ditching the charismatic choruses in favour of hymns, and the tensions that can be caused by different approaches to worship have caused serious divisions in church. I realise that the word “worship” has more than one level of meaning. In this post I discuss the part of the worship service during which we express our praise to God through songs and prayers.

The New Testament is surprisingly silent on how worship should be conducted. But this hasn’t stopped many people from proposing quite rigid models. I have been to countless seminars on worship, from a variety of theological perspectives, and they have all tended to be preoccupied with the pattern. One speaker insisted that the first hymn be about God the Father and you could only sing about Jesus later. Another spent a good deal of time telling us about the hand and foot signals a worship leader could use to indicate a repeat of the chorus to the rest of the band. Another shocked the gathering of conservative evangelicals by declaring organ music to be “crap”.

In other seminars, I have heard how it is really important to be as undignified as possible, and that David danced completely naked! One speaker stressed the importance of avoiding songs by Graham Kendrick, as before you knew it, people would be raising their hands. Some insist that there should be no speaking between songs as this quenches the Spirit, while others are equally adamant that there ought to be a linking prayer or devotional thought between every song, during which the congregation must be seated. Some want the musicianship to be of the highest quality possible, while others claim that anything more than simplicity will detract attention from God.

The more traditional denominations that the early Restorationists left would have a church leader (typically an elder) choosing and announcing the songs, while the musicians simply provide backing music. Most Restorationist churches have now opted for the “worship leader” and “worship band” approach, with someone who is a gifted musician taking the role of selecting and introducing songs. This has the benefits of allowing the standard of music to be much higher, but at the same time can give the impression that leading worship is about selecting the best songs from the current Christian “Top of the Pops” worship song charts.

In this regard, the Restorationists demonstrate that they are not really trying to recreate early church worship. No one really believes that there were electric guitars, microphones, worship CDs and computerised words projections in the first century. Most would also admit that the role of “worship leader” was not as tightly defined as it is today. In other words, although we believe in a “New Testament Pattern”, we believe in recontextualising it to our own situation, rather than rigidly copying the style of a bygone age.

In 1 Corinthians 14:26, we see more than a hint that there was not one person responsible for choosing songs. Anyone could bring one in much the same manner that anyone could prophesy. There was a phase in charismatic churches where this was commonplace, but it has been many years since I have encountered it.

So if the New Testament gives us so much freedom, does anything go? Is there one model that is better than the rest. Perhaps I will offer what I think are some principles of the “worship” part of our meetings. More could be added I’m sure.

1. Worship songs are for all to participate in. Therefore the style of music should be such that most people like the tunes and can sing along. This rules out some genres due to the difficulty of singing them (heavy metal, rap, opera etc), but the older hymns and modern choruses both fit this criteria. A variety of musical styles will be needed to properly express the variety of emotions that the words of the songs convey – (e.g. joy, awe, peace, triumph).

2. The words of our songs should be of course theologically correct, but more than that, they can serve to teach us, inspire us, remind us of great Biblical truths, and give expression to our joy at God’s blessings as well as our trust in his grace during times of trial. Those who choose songs have a responsibility to select the best in terms of words, not just tunes. The words we sing do matter, and the subjects we sing about matter to. Lots more could be said on this one (perhaps a challenge some other bloggers might like to take up).

3. New songs are to be encouraged as they bring fresh ways of expressing old truths. Old songs too should not be overlooked as they enable everyone to join in right from the start, and often cover a broader range of subject matter than the very latest few songs do. I must commend the songwriters in the Sovereign Grace movement as coming out with some of the most excellent lyrics in their new songs, as well as being appreciative of the best of the older ones.

4. Those who are “worship leaders” should remember that songs are not the only part of worship. Prayers and Scripture readings at the very least should be incorporated, as well as space made for the diverse gifts of the Spirit to be used to edify the body.

5. It would help if we got over the tendency to evaluate times of worship purely on external measures – how many danced, or raised their hands, how many brought prophecies, and whether the band sounded really good. If worship is to be “in spirit and truth” then it matters most that everyone meant what they sang and entered in wholeheartedly. This is not to say that “what we felt” doesn’t matter.

A edify those time of worship that is truly faithful to the New Testament will glorify God, and present. There will be a sense of both the transendance and the immanence of God – both an appropriate reverence for him and intimacy with him. People will be drawn to worship as part of a community, and also find a context in which they can sincerely and genuinely express their devotion to God.

Its time to grasp the nettle on some of the issues that Richard Collins has raised. Is Restorationism a misguided endeavour, or is it truer to the New Testament than its critics are willing to admit? I hope to discuss the areas of New Testament church life that Richard mentioned in a few posts, and add a few more of my own. In each area, we ask is there a New Testament pattern, and if so, what is it? All of the areas are far too large for me to offer definitive answers, but

First up is liturgy (see his two comments here). It’s not a subject I’m an expert in at all, having encountered very little of it in the churches I have been part of. It is a very broad concept, but I want to focus on the practise of having set words or actions that the meeting leader or congregation are expected to use at different places throughout the meeting. One dictionary defines liturgy as “a prescribed form or set of forms for public religious worship”.

Now of course, in one sense every church has a liturgy. At the very least, most songs are sung with fixed words that everyone joins in. What’s more, most churches without a set liturgy will still have phrases they invariably use to welcome people, introduce the Lord’s supper, or close the meeting for example. Prayers too will follow similar patterns of words on a regular basis.

Obviously many charismatic churches will continue to make use of the liturgy they already had (e.g. charismatic Anglicans), possibly modified or relaxed somewhat. But Restorationist churches are typically very wary of liturgy (one notable exception being the Make Way marches devised by Graham Kendrick). For example, I have never heard a corporate prayer read out, or creed recited in a New Frontiers church.

The early church and liturgy

Richard highlights Phil 2 as an example of liturgy / creed in the early church. I would add 1 John 2 and 1 Cor 15 another probable examples. Maybe these passages were words of songs that the New Testament writers are quoting and adapting, or maybe they were spoken liturgy. The New Testament does not tell us, but early church history might point in the direction of there being more liturgy than Restorationists would care to admit.

However, I would want to balance this observation with a strong emphasis on the extemporaneous nature of much early church worship, particularly under the inspiration of the Spirit. We see in Acts and 1 Corinthians prayers and prophecies that came on the spur of the moment. There was no need for them to be either prepared before the meeting. The format of the meeting was such that there was room for contributions of all sorts from anyone (male and female). Paul’s long sermon in Acts 20 gives us an indication that he was quite happy to preach without a prepared script or a predefined end time.

Too much liturgy

We see then that there was a healthy balance between the prescribed and the free forms of worship. But where exactly should the balance lie?

There are problems with over-use of liturgy. It can become mechanical, said or sung without any thought to the meaning. It can leave people with the impression that they have worshiped simply because they opened their mouths, rather than engaged their heads and hearts. “These people honour me with their lips but their hearts are far from me”

Similarly, the words of liturgy can become magical incantations that must be said at the right time and in the right way for something to be proper. Baptisms, marriages, and the Lord’s supper are examples of times when people are particularly eager to use the right form of words.

Too little liturgy

If we never give people forms of words (such as songs or prayers) that they can make their own, then there will be a tendency towards shallowness of expression in worship. Not many of us are good with words. Perhaps this is why the stereotypical charismatic prayer goes “Yeah Lord, we just really wanna say like really”. Good worship songs help us to express our praise in fresh and meaningful ways. This is one positive thing about charismatic willingness to embrace new songs – a new way of saying the same thing can bring out the meaning to a deeper level.

But Restorationists will likely never hear a set prayer in church, particularly not one of confession or contrition. I once heard Terry Virgo say that he did not feel these appropriate for public worship as we have had our sins forgiven. But Jesus’ disciples wanted to be taught to pray, and he gave them a model with remarkably broad scope given its short length. Restorationists may be reluctant to use extra-biblical set prayers, but making more use of those from the Bible would I think be a good thing.

In summary, I must admit that I am happier with less liturgy rather than more, which may well be nothing more than a personal preference. It seems clear to me that a balance must be found but lets be careful that the balance is found in the best of both worlds (see Sven’s hilarious charismatic liturgy for an example of how the worst elements of both approaches could be combined).

Most of all I want my worship to be real. What I say must come from my heart, not simply from my order of service sheet. I think this is at least part of what Jesus was getting at when he spoke of worshiping in “spirit and in truth”.

My posts on Restorationism continue to stir some interest, with Richard Collins weighing in with his assessment of what can be known of the very early church with a number of interesting comments. You can read three comments starting here and two more starting here.

I wanted to address his comments in a post, but I am now beginning to think that it will require a series of posts, as a huge number of difficult issues have been raised. But first I want to think about the factors that cause people like Richard to move beyond Restorationism, as indeed many of the early Restorationist leaders have done themselves (read Andrew Walker’s book for the details).

Richard was once part of a New Frontiers church, but now finds himself in the more historical denominations, apparently as a result of extensive reflection and reading on what the early church was like. He asks whether the zeal of those leaders who came out of established denominations to form house churches was somewhat misguided. It would appear that Sven is making a similar journey to Richard, as he retreats out of the narrow straits of New Frontiers to swim in the broader sea of Christianity.

While Restorationist churches often receive new members from the traditional denominations, delighted to have found something more “New Testament” than their previous church, what are we to make of those headed in the other direction, and for exactly the same reason?

Is it simply that “the grass is greener on the other side”, where the weaknesses of your home church are magnified in your mind, while the faults of others are not seen? This is a common enough reason for switching churches. Is it a “declaration of independence” – a sort of belated teenage rebellion, where those who have spent their life in one denomination start to become disillusioned with its exclusive claims to be the “real deal”? Could it be intellectual pride, as those who know far less dismiss the dissenter’s arguments without ever understanding them? Leaving to find a church that will recognise you for the true genius that you are might seem a promising option.

But these factors, though they may explain some “sheep transfers”, may still be too unkind to people like Richard and Sven. They are thinking people, who have eventually concluded that the Restorationist model is indefensible. They are always questioning their assumptions, exploring new avenues of thought, trying out different pronunciations of Shibboleth. This is found quite threatening by many evangelicals, and by questioning the assumptions, these people can find themselves marked out as problem people who are plotting a coup. They realise they have no future in ministry where they are, and make a (hopefully) courteous but prompt exit.

I found it interesting that Terry Virgo invited Philip Greenslade and Ian Stackhouse to speak at the New Frontiers leadership conference this year. While remaining committed charismatic evangelicals, these men are both deep thinkers who are not afraid to critique the movement they are part of. John Hosier also seems to be exploring how exactly New Frontiers contributes to the bigger picture of the church. So perhaps there is hope that future Richards and Svens will be able to stay in New Frontiers to help make sure that our zeal is properly tempered by knowledge.

None of this should be misinterpreted as me saying that we should celebrate those who publicly voice their criticisms of the essential truths of the gospel. It must be guarded (2 Tim 1:14). Neither am I suggesting that in a gloriously post-modern way we allow anyone to get into the pulpit and advocate whatever model of church life seems like a good idea to them. But even the fairly dogmatic John Piper has recently expressed the importance of receiving those who differ on the non-essentials. We need to revisit the lessons of Rom 14 and 1 Cor 8, and learn to be more accepting of one another despite our differences.

My friend Chris asked me last night whether I was a 7 point Calvinist. I had never heard the term before, but apparently John Piper is one. Read the article for a brief summary of his two extra points – “double predestination” and “the best of all worlds”.

Double predestination is probably an unhelpful name for what is a logical outworking of predestination. If God has chosen some, then it follows that he has not chosen others – he would hardly be unaware of the consequences of his own choices. However, as the default action for a just God is to punish sin, is it really necessary to speak of God as specifically choosing people for damnation?

An analogy may help. If I walk through a subway in London and I see five homeless people, and I give £10 to one of them, I have chosen to show kindness to that one person. But have I chosen to reject the other four? In one sense yes, but I would not describe the incident by in those terms – e.g. “I saw five homeless people today and decided not to give anything to four of them”. The choice was to deviate from the default action of simply walking on by. Similarly I would not say “I saw five homeless people today and decided not to offer a room to any of them”. The best description of the incident is the choice I made, not the countless choices I could have made but didn’t.

Point 7 – “the best of all worlds” (sounds like what these people who claim to believe in both Calvinism and Arminianism are trying to achieve) seems a reasonable thesis to hold, but how exactly we could be sure of this I don’t know. It fits well with Piper’s assertion that maximising his own glory is God’s priority (see Wink’s post at Parableman for some critical reflection on this idea). It makes the “best” world the one that best achieves this end, rather than judging what is “best” by standards that would more naturally come to mind – (e.g. least suffering, most beauty).

I suppose in one sense I agree with Piper on both points. But I don’t feel the need to elevate them to join the 5 points of Calvinism. In fact, I would argue that not all the five points of Calvinism are as fundamental as each other. Once you have accepted unconditional election as a given, perseverance of the saints, irresistible calling and limited atonement are simply logical deductions (limited atonement also presupposes a particular theory of the atonement). Total depravity just explains to us why the election had to be unconditional for any to be saved.

But as I discussed with Harun last night, perhaps some are predestined to be Arminians, while others choose to be Calvinists.