I agree with most of what you say. My primary objection is with your last sentence. While David is certainly an example of piety, he is also a stark example of deceit, adultery, self-righteousness, and premeditated murder. In other words, he is human just like the rest of us. He did many things right and he did many things wrong.

Personally, I don’t think that we find too many equivalences with ancient Semitic worship. I would actually say that the differences are quite substantial. We would truly be “culture-shocked” were we to experience the worship that included animal sacrifice and OT ritual.

But, all that aside, my point in all of this is that while David was/is a very masculine (if you will) example, he did not shy away from emotions. The Psalms are full of emotion, David danced before the Lord, etc., etc. Was he sentimental? I doubt it. And again, I am with you in opposition to sentimentality in the church. But certainly David was not against expressing his emotions in a very public way. While I am not comfortable with these types of displays in corporate worship, many are. And I would maintain that those who refer to the “feminization” of the church are perhaps overreacting. The phrase “psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs” surely leaves us some diversity when it comes to the music of the church. As I’ve said, I’m with you and many others on “In the Garden”. But we can go overboard on this stuff as well.

I enjoy the interaction as well. Thank you.

Thanks for the interaction.

I think ‘In the Garden’ comes up as often as it does because it is such a blatant example of sentimentalism. It’s on the tip of anyone’s tongue who is describing sentimentalism in hymnody. Less obvious, but perhaps more pernicious, are many of the mid- to late 19th century gospel songs and hymns (and their later 20th century Singspiration children), which trade in a kind of vacuous religious metaphor with little real substance. They train us to become almost disinterested in the real meaning of the words of the hymns, and content to experience the dreamy feeling they bring. The words become placebos for the feelings we want to have, rather than analogies for the truth that really is, which in turn should stir up affections for God. That’s the danger of cliched texts, whether it be old rugged crosses, or telling Jesus to shine, shine.

I can’t really concede that David would be considered inordinate by conservatives. I’ll concede that ancient Semitic worship might strike a Western ear as different, perhaps more boisterous than stoic Westerners would care for. However, I’d suggest that we’d recognise the worship as being equivalent to our expressions, even if they aren’t identical. We’d spot far more similarities than differences. To suggest that one of the greatest examples of piety in history would be found immodest, intemperate or inappropriate to other lovers of God means either modern conservatives are guilty of a kind of Pharisaism, a sulky-elder-brother mentality, or else such suggestions leads to a kind of aesthetic relativism, where artistic expression is morally neutral.

I guess I must be suffering from under exposure to this type of trend in the church. I would say again, I see many people reference “In the Garden” (I think it was referenced in two of the three links you provided) but that horse has been beaten to death.

I don’t know that I’ve missed the point, but I certainly admit that I don’t see the point as being the big issue that Wilson and others do. Again, this is likely due to the fact that I have most always been part of churches that avoid the “In the Garden’s” of the world. I think “feminization” and “masculinization” are likely equal in their danger to the church.

FWIW, I have never been comfortable with overt emotional corporate worship. I find it very awkward. But some of what we are seeing in that arena is likely a response to a very dead, liturgical style worship. There are plenty of errors on both sides of this fence.

Regarding David, he was a complex individual. Perhaps the liturgical dance started with him . You must admit that some of what David did would likely not be classified as “ordinate” by the more conservative (of which I am a part) crowd.

Thanks for your thoughts.

Well, it’s not my point, it’s Wilson’s point, but I do concur with it. And it’s been made over and over again by several people. For example:

http://merecomments.typepad.com/merecomments/2007/06/nothing-more-th.html

http://www.centralseminary.edu/publications/Nick/Nick234.html

http://www.gty.org/Resources/Articles/A261

I think you’ve missed the point. The point is not that emotion is bad; it is that emotions can be appropriate or inappropriate depending on the object to which they are attached, like imagining Jesus as a lover walking in the garden, or as someone who causes joybells to ring, or someone who causes angels to attend and help and comfort give you to your journey’s end.
David is an example of ordinate affections towards God, not sentimentalised affections. David might have shed too much blood, but his poems are not brutal, nor are they sentimental.

I guess I just fail to see your point. It seems very broad brushed. Perhaps more examples (other than “In the Garden”) would be helpful.

Feminization of men began with the novel. People could argue that Don Quixote is feminized because we can see some of his feelings. You also have Tom Jones, the male characters in Vanity Fair, Dangerous Liaisons, etc.

What I meant by Sense and Sensibility is that Marianne is the sentimental character (negative sentimentalism) and Elinor is the non-sentimental character (positive ordinate affections). All of Austen’s heroines are non-sentimental, but Sense and Sensibility shows most clearly Austen’s ideal.

” Austen gives you a good perspective on ordinate affections in all her books, but this one shows more clearly what she is proposing.”
Can you explain what you mean by that ?

It occurred to me yesterday that a good contrast between the epic and the novel is C.S. Lewis’ After Ten Years. It’s the story of the Trojan men who were inside the wooden horse, and Lewis focuses on the feelings of Menelaus. The hero (Menelaus) is feminized because we can see his feelings that make him “warmer.”

I don’t think this focus in feeling is all bad; it just needs to be ordinate affections. A good example of both good and bad focus on feelings is Sense and Sensibility. Austen gives you a good perspective on ordinate affections in all her books, but this one shows more clearly what she is proposing.