Why I don't Like Protestant Worship Music

I'm trying to catch up on some reading for classes so I can't write a long post, but I wanted to jot down this thought before I got distracted.

For my independent study I've been reading the second volume of Jaroslav Pelikan's wonderful church history set entitled The Rise of Eastern Christendom. Since Pelikan's work chronicles the history of theology and thoughts I am finding that it's a moderately heavy read, especially given that even at seminary many of these historical concepts have not been taught to me.

Today I was reading about the Nestorian, Jacobite, and Monophysite heresies and on the hypostatis of Christ. Since Pelikan quotes from so many primary sources (something that is often missing in many church histories) I found myself getting a little confused concerning the hypostasis of Christ and what orthodox doctrine taught. Instead of turning to wikipedia or another source that would of taken a lot more time to find some resolution I remembered that there is an ancient hymn of pascha that briefly discusses the hypostasis of Christ. Since I had my ipod on me I decided to turn to the music of the church to teach me the orthodox way and bring about clarity of thought.

Granted the hymn isn't a treatise, but I wasn't looking for a treatise, I was merely looking for a quick answer as to how many hypostates Christ has. This is when I realized that I was able to articulate one of the many reasons I don't like Protestant worship music - namely, that I don't like to guess and check when it comes to the doctrine conveyed within my church music.

Due to the plethora of music in protestantism and the constant desire to update the music I find that one cannot trust the theology that is conveyed in much of it. In strict juxtaposition to this is the music that is sung at the Orthodox church I currently attend. When I hear the hymns of the Orthodox church I am sure that what is being taught is theologically in-line with the 7 ecumenical creeds of the church. I don't have to guess if I'm being taught something heretical because the songs have been tried by church and found fitting to be used in the worship of the Holy Trinity.

Sure, there may be some great assets to protestant music, but as a whole it is theologically vapid and emotive to a fault. While it is always good to asses and think about what is being sung in worship, I think that having to constantly analyze and wonder if the music is teaching correct doctrine is counterproductive to the church service. The music of the church should be filled with dogmatically correct theology and should be able to be used as a basis for the lay person to refute or accept notions of the divine. One can very easily argue that our theology in protestantism is weak because we do not sing it and we do not sing it because it is weak. This cycle is a disastrous one that is hurting the church and leading people into ignorance of the divine. How can we, expect to truly become partakers of the Divine essence (2Pet 1.4) if we do not even know God as he has revealed himself to us?

I fear I'm approaching a tangent so I will conclude now. If the reason I set out to articulate wasn't clear above let me sum up. Part of my aversion to Protestant worship music is that it has no substance and that which it tries to pass as substance is often near heretical if not blatantly so. The songs of the church should be those which have been tried by years of reflection and should be able to be used as concise creedal statements of belief that will plant the deep truths of the faith into the hearts of clergy and lay persons alike.


May the faith grow deep within you all

- Ben

Quick Update

If you were wondering how the reader situation described the post below ended up I got an email today that said they were opting to strike the Nestorian Liturgy quote but keep the Origen quote.

I'm not thrilled with this option, but it's a little better and I have to live with it. Personally I think that both should have been taken out of the reader, but I'm not in charge and I can't make those decisions.

So if you're at Asbury and you are using the 2008 Lent reader for your devotions please know that I had nothing to do with that. Also know that I can only place my wholehearted endorsement on the Lent/Easter Day section of the reader. The other half may be great, but I still feel uncomfortable with Origen in the mix. I can appreciate the major contributions that Origen made to biblical studies and I can agree that it sucks that he was condemned a heretic posthumously, but I cannot agree with including him in a devotional reader knowing that he was condemned a heretic by people much wiser and knowledgeable than we are.

I'm sure these last two posts have bored almost all of the 5 people that read this blog so I'll try to post something light and/or funny next time around. Though I'm not making promises.


- Ben

Does anyone care about Christian orthodoxy anymore?!

I should be reading for class right now so I'll try to make this quick. As a few of you probably know, I have spent my last few semesters here working on a couple devotional readers for the seminary for use during the seasons of Lent and KingdomTide (a season created in the 60s or 70s during the season commonly called Pentecost or proper time). I recently finished the Lent/EasterTide reader for 2008, of which I was responsible for all of Lent and Easter Sunday. The EasterTide section was taken by a student down at the Florida campus. In case you're wondering a typical day in the reader would consists of the following:

Opening Prayer - from the Book of Common Prayer, a Psalm or a Saint.
Gospel Reading - We segmented out the Gospel of John for each day on this one.
Historical Reading - A reading form a major figure in Church history. I use mostly cannonized saints (east and west) and John and Charles Wesley.
Prayer of Response - from the Book of Common Prayer, a Psalm, a Saint, or often I will write this to bring more cohesion to the above elements.

Some days will also include an OT reading, or be missing either an historical reading or prayer of response, but you get the idea. The woman with whom I am working at the Florida campus also uses roughly the same format, though I've noticed she likes to bring cohesion by writing more of her own material other than prayers.

Now to the issue that leads to my thoughts:

At the end of the reader we usually write short biographies to help the readership know more about the figures we use. As I was compiling the biographies I noticed that she used two sources that seemed suspect to me: "The Nestorian Liturgy" and Origen.

I took contention to these to figures because both Nestorius and Origen were condemned by the Church (back when it was unified) as heretics. I debated on whether or not to say anything because there is some debate whether Origen actually was a heretic (he was condmned posthumously) and it is popular to quote him. I was going to let Origen slide but I could not remain silent about including part of a heretical liturgy for our campus community to read devotionally. Nestorius (and thus the Nestorians) held that Jesus existed in two persons: Jesus the Son of God and Jesus the man. This means that it was not Jesus the Son of God who died on the cross, but that it was just the man that suffered.

Nestorianism is problematic because, as I believe it was St. Athanasias (though I could be wrong) said, "that which has not been assumed cannot be redeemed." In other words only God could free us from our Sin and thus Jesus Christ who was indeed fully man must be fully God in order for their to be any merit in his death and resurrection. I am aware that this is a truncated argument, but it will have to suffice.

After an exchange of emails she said that she was aware that these men were heretics but that they were condemned under "shady" circumstances and that we can still learn from them because they got "sidetracked." I'd be willing to allow her argument that his condemnation was "shady" to hold a little weight as Origen was dead when this happened, but not Nestorius. And she is dead wrong that Nestorius "got sidetracked" he was confronted by the Church and he refused to deviate his teaching. Nestorius' view strikes at the heart of the incarnation and devalues the entire Christ event. This is not a little slip up, this is huge!

To be fair the readings she included were not in and of themselves heretical. In fact, the small phrases she used were very orthodox, but that is not the point. While it may be important to read these things and talk about them in the classroom to help firm up our foundation on orthodox Christian teaching I do not agree that even the seemingly orthodox statements of heretics should become devotional material. I know that I am dangerously close to separating that which feeds the spirit from that which feeds the soul (something I don't like to do), but we cannot just openly endorse heretics.

I am also confused as to how one can be "open to exploration [of heretics] (as long as it is not teaching heretical stances)." We cannot think that one's heretical beliefs can be fully separate from the rest of one's beliefs. I argue that it is impossible to dichotomize a major belief unit from the rest of one's beliefs. How can one speak praise to God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit (which is what her Nestorian quote consisted of) while holding that the Son - Jesus Christ is two persons. To whom are you giving praise? The Son that is born of Mary and thus fully human or the Son that is only fully God and thus did not really die and rise for our transgressions?

I'm not intending to get on her case, but I do see this as problematic and didn't know how else to discuss it. She means very well, but in my opinion this is a major issue. I think the part that bothers me the most though is the reaction to many of those whom I've shared this with. People just don't care. I know that I'm a church history nerd and I know that I am very excitable when it comes to the doctrines of the faith, but am I really barking up the wrong tree here?

Why are these heresies that strike right at the heart of our faith suddenly open for discussion? Why is it ok to exalt these heretics to such high levels? Do we not care about the Faith?

We fight long and hard about moral issues, but yet we are not willing to fight for the substance of the Faith? The early church fathers saw little to no distinction between right belief and right practice. It is right belief in who Christ is that as Paul teaches is the basis for our right belief. Maybe, just maybe if we worried a little bit about what our faith is saying we would begin to put together correct Christian morality.

Maybe for us (though I think it's a long shot) we need to worry about other things more than doctrine. But even if that is so what kind of faith will we have to pass on to the next generation? If we continue to ignore the substance of faith and allow heretics to pass as Saints we will have no substance to pass on to our children and to their children. I don't believe it's an accident that the earliest Christian hymns and creeds embedded in the New Testament are very doctrinal and Christ focused - the doctrines of right faith are the soil out of which right morality grows.

Please don't misunderstand me, I'm not arguing for immoral behavior. I am just wondering why no one cares about the substance of the faith.

Frankly it just makes me sad.

The issue with the reader is just symptom of what is going on in the Church. We must read heretics as heretics and saints as saints. Heretics have no place in our devotional life and must be read cautiously. We can examine them to help inform as to how we got where we are, but we cannot just flippantly include them in communal devotional reading. Especially reading that as my friend Anna pointed out is inherently not conversational with the work or others. In my opinion the inclusion of a figure in the reader implies their endorsement for those who don't have the time or desire to read a lot of these figures. These quotes may get used in sermons, bible studies, and youth group lessons. These quotes may get googled and used within the context of the whole. My biggest fear with the quote form the Nestorian liturgy is that some student hoping to do a nice 'emergent' liturgical service will Google the liturgy and unknowingly have his or her parishioners partake in a heretical liturgy. For what we practice will slowly become embedded in us and become part of our belief system. This is one of the reasons why we must continue to celebrate the creeds in our services. But that's another post for another time.

As always I'd appreciate your thoughts on this matter even if you disagree with me, as I'm sure many of you will given the reaction I've gotten so far from some friends.