Viewpoint Brief Bible Study #61 |
||
|---|---|---|
 |
 |
JESUS calls US to be |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
The Christian religion is the worship and service of Jesus Christ. It’s not Mary we worship, but her Son. We worship neither saints, angels, a law code, nor even God’s Spirit. It’s JESUS who is to be honored. The Bible is our guide. |
||
Too Bad They Lost The Patient
How Shall We Tell Writers When
What They Said Touched Us?
One of the fine Christian magazines available today is Standard Publishing's THE LOOKOUT. This is a weekly publication often distributed to "Sunday School" attenders, but also available otherwise. The periodical shouts to its readers about how grand it is to be a Christian and to share your faith with your friends. It's good reading, every issue.In 1994, editor of THE LOOKOUT was Simon J. Dahlman. He's an outstanding Christian writer. His editorial in the 10/23/94 issue has been sitting on my desk ever since -- begging to be re-published to my friends who may have missed reading it then.
How long would it have waited?
He wrote about doctors or something, "Too Bad They Lost the Patient." The reason I say "or something" is that it's NOT really about doctors, as you'll soon see if you keep reading --
"There's an old joke that has two doctors discussing a case on which they had worked. The diagnosis was brilliant. The final surgery was flawless. A technical success, the doctors agree. 'Too bad,' one of them adds, 'that the patient died.'
"Not quite so bizarre, but an article in the August 24, 1994 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION (JAMA) reported something close: Researchers who try to measure 'quality of life' often fail to ask the patients themselves what THEY think about the quality of THEIR lives.
"'Most measurements of quality of life in the medical literature seem to aim at the wrong target,' wrote the authors of the article, Thomas M. Gill and Alvan R. Feinstein of Yale University School of Medicine. In 75 medical studies of quality of life they reviewed, only 13 had invited patients to give their own rating for quality of life -- and none distinguished between "overall" quality of life and health-related quality of life.
"One unenviable part of the physician's job is not only to inform a patient or family about the reality of the patient's situation but also to offer recommendations. It's no wonder that doctors seek some objective measurement to help make hard decisions.
"But somehow -- perhaps with the triumph of technology and the worries about costs -- many medical professionals have lost sight of the individual lives in their hands. An editorial in JAMA noted that particular patients 'may not share the values of the study population.' Why was that comment necessary? Is the idea that a real person is not the same as a 'typical' person so radical among medical researchers?
"Decisions should not be made on the basis of some formula that pretends to define a life's value. Life-and-death matters are literally case-by-case situations that involve more than mere flesh and blood.
"The effort it will take to make individualized decisions will cost more time and money than is popular these days. But there is no way to successfully pigeonhole 'cases' WITHOUT losing the patient."
I think each reader is apt to see that the PRINCIPLE of which Dahlman speaks applies in full measure to our work for Jesus.
Each individual matters to God. "Typical" just isn't enough when matters for decision come before us in our churches. Obviously, we can't be sure why any individual thinks exactly as he or she does. God can. We can't. But we CAN be sure that love must respect the individual whose problem has come to our attention, or with whom we're having a discussion.
How easy it is to feel hurt when someone we can't quite agree with seems to slight our opinion or our friend whose opinion we lean toward. One brother WAS hurt by my slighting reference to a practice I do not see as edifying in congregational meetings. In expressing his hurt, he chose to make a slighting reference about the slighting reference I had made, which he followed up with a slam against my poor logic and lack of pertinence. He felt my pain, but he felt his own more sharply for some reason, and thought it right to try to pass along the pain.
Dahlman is urging us to apply the Lord's golden rule to our church relationships. I agree that we should!
On the same page with the good editorial is an interesting LETTER TO THE EDITOR (of the Lookout). It was written by Harold N. Orndorff, Jr., of Highland Heights, Kentucky. He said, "Not All Music Is Equal." He refers to a previous issue of THE LOOKOUT where he had read an article by Raymond W. Polachic on "Hymnic Illiteracy" (June 26, 1994 issue). Polachic had offered several reasons to lament the decline of classic hymns in our churches. A particularly intriguing one of these, says Orndorff, was summed up in a single sentence: "The flock cannot be fed a constant, sustained, repetitive diet of 'junk food' music without then suffering from musical malnutrition."
Please think about that statement until you understand it. It's not necessary that each of us fully agree with it. Obviously lots of people don't, as can be seen by the "music" being used in our contemporary churches. But what did Polachic mean?
Does music matter? Does excellent music feed our souls? Does poor music take our time but NOT really provide spiritual nourishment? Do you agree with what was said? Does it matter? Should we discuss it?
Since I think we must do so, we can now return to the letter and what ITS author thinks -- From the context in which that statement was made, one of Polachic's assumptions is very clear. He thinks that some music is somehow BETTER than other music is -- NOT all music is equal. Some is good. Some is bad. Regardless of taste, where individuals LIKE or do not like particular pieces, some music is within itself better at feeding the soul than some other music is. The letter writer says, "Polachic obviously believes that in both poetic lyrics and the quality of the music, some Christian songs are more beautiful than others."
It's still true that not everyone will agree with what the letter says. Not everyone will think any good purpose is served by discussing church music. To some, any discussion of good or bad music is wasted, for they think it's entirely up to the individual. Some WILL like some songs and not others. Others WILL NOT like some songs and will like others. Since you can't please EVERYONE, then pick out the ones you'll please and go to it. Another approach is to try to please everyone at the same time and please nobody.
Orndorff's letter was not the first written and published in response to the article, for he refers to "critics" whose responses have already appeared in THE LOOKOUT -- "Form is not the real issue. The real issue is the content of the worship"; "The issue is not who wrote the song or what the music sounds like, but does it lead us to celebrate and worship God"; "Worship songs ... are vehicles ... and if they work, I use them." Some interesting assumptions are seen here, says Orndorff.
One seems to be that the beauty of musical melodies and lyrics is subjective, and therefore unimportant. It is intriguing to find that those who would probably defend the objectivity of truth and goodness are content to assume the subjectivity of beauty. It is also revealing to see what 'measure' of music is substituted for an objective view: results (as seen by the leader). Any idea of 'beauty' seems to have been reduced to some kind of religious pragmatism.
"I," says Orndorff, "am not here to argue that only songs from a particular era can be beautiful. What is more significant is this assumption of the nonobjectivity of beauty. If there is no objective beauty, then why should we think there is objective truth? If there is no objective truth, what has become of Christianity?"
I believe the content of the editorial page of THE LOOKOUT of 10/23/94 is significantly important and pertinent. I applaud Simon J. Dahlman for the outstanding job he did while editor of THE LOOKOUT.
And, back to beauty and beastliness, I'm sure that God does not share the limitations of any of our particular tastes in music. No doubt He is able to appreciate the good in every style, some of which would not appeal to you or me. The debate which should engage us concerning music appropriate for Christian assemblies is not over style. It's over substance, purpose, and practicality.
And that brings us back to the doctors who performed their craft flawlessly, but lost the patient. We don't want to produce less than holy saints by the ways in which we conduct our gatherings. Our aim is to please God. Our hope is to also please all who are involved in our assemblies. Our choice of music DOES matter. Our choice of accompaniment DOES matter. We separated into instrumental and non-instrumental camps some years back, with each side feeling THEIR choice was also God's choice.
Both instrumentalists and non-instrumentalists find their congregations now feeling tensions brought on by changing styles of music in our assemblies. We don't want to lose the patient!
Do you see why I say that Simon J. Dahlman did very well indeed when he wrote and published the editorial remarks printed above? WE don't want to lose the patient adult who is asked to put up with immature "music" because some prefer to aim their public services at grade-school mentalities.
We may do much better by re-examining the scriptures to see what the primary purpose of our gatherings is to be. Those who now say our primary purpose is to WORSHIP may have not read 1 Corinthians, or may have overlooked the fact that Paul says in regard to our gatherings that our primary purpose there is to edify one another.
I ask you to reconsider the message of Viewpoint study #51 in which Cecil Hook addresses this matter of "WHY do we meet?" If we seek in the O.T. psalms to learn how to conduct Christian assemblies, we'll find how to conduct pre-Christian gatherings instead. And we'll NOT have accomplished the desired objective. The N.T. church is NOT the O.T. church. The Jews did NOT know about the unique Son of God. They did NOT worship Him. They couldn't do so, except in promise.
The songs most appropriate then are not necessarily the songs that are appropriate for Christians today. The worship in which they engaged is NOT the model for Christian assemblies. We used to know this simple truth. Today many seem to have forgotten it, so they call on us to join the Pentecostals in a vastly different style of assembly than is appropriate for mature and maturing saints of God who look to Jesus for salvation.
If the goal of our "worship leader" is to help everyone present "feel good," and have a "spiritual high" they're apt to select stanzas of hymns and brief choruses they think will accomplish this objective. Obviously some today do exactly this. And they encourage clapping and arm-waving. And some DO then feel "good." So the goal was reached. Jesus said something about those whose goals were "to be seen of men." I think this applies to a discussion of music styles in contemporary churches. I hope you'll think about it more with me. Thanks.
Brief Bible Study #61 from Ray Downen. To go back to Viewpoint's first page, click < here. Or here to go on to Viewpoint Study 62. For Ray's concluding remarks, click HERE.
