help dealing with contemporary worship music

[au5t1n]

I "thank"ed you for your third post.

 

[Austin]

Well do it some more. I'm so erudite and sophisticated in my brilliance. Besides, we have the same name, so we have to stick together.

 

[Marrow Man]

Moderator Warning: Please do not let this thread wander into the Exclusive Psalmody realm. There is a moderated forum for Exclusive Psalmody; you may make posts there if you wish to continue the discussion in that direction.

 

[MW]

I would counter though that the arts belong in worship. A sermon is a work of art. Music is a work of art. The design of the church facility and sanctuary utilizes art and design. For us to rely solely on music from ages past is to affirm the artistry of that age while denying what God's people are capable of doing today. We might as well only preach sermons from days gone by then.

As you have noted, there is a kind of artistry in sermons, music, and church design, but it begs the question as to the kind of art which is utilised and to what purpose. One might take a look at the buildings which were built for Puritan worship in contrast to the ornate designs of the higher church party. The same applies to the structure of sermons and the way a simple preacher focuses on the Word and its application to human life while another might include numerous artificial devices which serve to do nothing more than please one's sense of intelligence. Now, applying this contrast to music, we have very clear examples both in medieval and modern churches as to what will happen when "art" is made an end in itself and pleasing the senses parades itself over the biblical mandate of "teaching and admonishing one another in psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs."

 

[Willem van Oranje]

Here's a simple question: why should we not as God's people continue writing new music—the best possible music we can,lyrically, musically, across many genres? Should we not as part of the mighty cloud of witnesses testify? I say rather than discount the new as bad, we should support Christian artists, writers, musicians, etc. to create the best and elevate the arts for the glory of God and the advancement of His kingdom.

Few people would argue with the premise of your question. Some would argue that the goal is fine, just not in/for worship.

Yes, I suppose that is what the argument would be. I would counter though that the arts belong in worship. A sermon is a work of art. Music is a work of art. The design of the church facility and sanctuary utilizes art and design. For us to rely solely on music from ages past is to affirm the artistry of that age while denying what God's people are capable of doing today. We might as well only preach sermons from days gone by then.

I encourage new hymns and songs to be written for worship and for extra-church use.

I have yet to meet anyone, whether EP, traditionalist, or otherwise,who is not in favor of Christians composing new music for worship. The matter debated is not the date of origin of the music, but the criteria for appropriateness. One side thinks that anything goes while the other seeks to stay within the bounds of definable criteria of style.

 

[Austin]

True, but in the end, isn't all a bit relativistic? I mean, as the Supreme Court said of p0rnography, "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it." Isn't this much the same? After all, I'm sure that people thought that the church music of the Reformation era was 'worldly.' And tonight at church, the tunes chosen were all from the 1920s-1950s. And if you're familiar with the music of those years you can't miss that everything from Fanny Crosby tunes to thinks like "Saved, Saved, Saved" were quite similar to popular music of the day.

---------- Post added at 10:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:55 PM ----------

As an aside, Derek Thomas once said in class at RTS that at his church in Belfast, N. Ireland his organist thought anything could be sanctified by being played slowly. (This guy also failed to practice, saying that to practice is pride, b/c the music when practiced and 'slick' is showy and brings attention to the musician. Of course, as Derek or one of the seminarians noted, poor playing draws more att'n to the musician...)

Anyhow, just a thought.

 

[louis]

I would counter though that the arts belong in worship. A sermon is a work of art. Music is a work of art. The design of the church facility and sanctuary utilizes art and design. For us to rely solely on music from ages past is to affirm the artistry of that age while denying what God's people are capable of doing today. We might as well only preach sermons from days gone by then.

As you have noted, there is a kind of artistry in sermons, music, and church design, but it begs the question as to the kind of art which is utilised and to what purpose. One might take a look at the buildings which were built for Puritan worship in contrast to the ornate designs of the higher church party. The same applies to the structure of sermons and the way a simple preacher focuses on the Word and its application to human life while another might include numerous artificial devices which serve to do nothing more than please one's sense of intelligence. Now, applying this contrast to music, we have very clear examples both in medieval and modern churches as to what will happen when "art" is made an end in itself and pleasing the senses parades itself over the biblical mandate of "teaching and admonishing one another in psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs."

I agree...within the structure of corporate worship, art should be employed as a tool, a mean to an end, not an end unto itself. But as Austin stated, when art is involved, there is always going to be interpretation. What some will categorize as "pleasing the senses and parading over the biblical mandate of teaching and admonishing one another in psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs", others may view as teaching, admonishing, etc. in a new and different way. That is why there is dissent and disagreement because we all view the requirements from differing viewpoints.

---------- Post added at 12:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:50 PM ----------

Here's a simple question: why should we not as God's people continue writing new music—the best possible music we can,lyrically, musically, across many genres? Should we not as part of the mighty cloud of witnesses testify? I say rather than discount the new as bad, we should support Christian artists, writers, musicians, etc. to create the best and elevate the arts for the glory of God and the advancement of His kingdom.

Few people would argue with the premise of your question. Some would argue that the goal is fine, just not in/for worship.

Yes, I suppose that is what the argument would be. I would counter though that the arts belong in worship. A sermon is a work of art. Music is a work of art. The design of the church facility and sanctuary utilizes art and design. For us to rely solely on music from ages past is to affirm the artistry of that age while denying what God's people are capable of doing today. We might as well only preach sermons from days gone by then.

I encourage new hymns and songs to be written for worship and for extra-church use.

I have yet to meet anyone, whether EP, traditionalist, or otherwise,who is not in favor of Christians composing new music for worship. The matter debated is not the date of origin of the music, but the criteria for appropriateness. One side thinks that anything goes while the other seeks to stay within the bounds of definable criteria of style.

Praise God that I don't know anyone who thinks that "anything goes." Is this hyperbole?

 

[jayce475]

Here's a simple question: why should we not as God's people continue writing new music—the best possible music we can,lyrically, musically, across many genres? Should we not as part of the mighty cloud of witnesses testify? I say rather than discount the new as bad, we should support Christian artists, writers, musicians, etc. to create the best and elevate the arts for the glory of God and the advancement of His kingdom.

Few people would argue with the premise of your question. Some would argue that the goal is fine, just not in/for worship.

Yes, I suppose that is what the argument would be. I would counter though that the arts belong in worship. A sermon is a work of art. Music is a work of art. The design of the church facility and sanctuary utilizes art and design. For us to rely solely on music from ages past is to affirm the artistry of that age while denying what God's people are capable of doing today. We might as well only preach sermons from days gone by then.

I encourage new hymns and songs to be written for worship and for extra-church use.

I have yet to meet anyone, whether EP, traditionalist, or otherwise,who is not in favor of Christians composing new music for worship. The matter debated is not the date of origin of the music, but the criteria for appropriateness. One side thinks that anything goes while the other seeks to stay within the bounds of definable criteria of style.

Praise God that I don't know anyone who thinks that "anything goes." Is this hyperbole?

Looking at the Dove awards, it's difficult not to get the impression that on the whole CCM does cover everything. Perhaps there are some types of CCM that "don't go" with you, but they are out there and someone somewhere is paying money and consuming it. Barring horrible lyrics, may I ask what kind or type of music is not acceptable to you? If you claim that all kinds and types of music ought to be acceptable, then yes, Riley's statement that it's "everything goes" does have much truth in the context of this discussion.

 

[Scottish Lass]

Um, what's emboldened in the previous two posts is not mine--can there be some editing to clear that up? I've already had to claim a quote of mine above that was attributed to Pergamum and now it's the reverse. Careful with the delete and highlight, y'all!

 

[Marrow Man]

True, but in the end, isn't all a bit relativistic? I mean, as the Supreme Court said of p0rnography, "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it." Isn't this much the same? After all, I'm sure that people thought that the church music of the Reformation era was 'worldly.' And tonight at church, the tunes chosen were all from the 1920s-1950s. And if you're familiar with the music of those years you can't miss that everything from Fanny Crosby tunes to thinks like "Saved, Saved, Saved" were quite similar to popular music of the day.

Actually, that's not quite true. The notion that Luther employed bar songs has been shown to be false (he and the Wesleys used "bar music," but that is different thing altogether). Earlier generations did not employ the popular music of their day as hymns. T. David Gordon demolishes that argument in Why Johnny Can't Sing Hymns. He points out that his father listened to big band and Benny Goodman -- but that did not become the music of hymns of the day. His own generation listened to The Who, but that did not make it into hymnbooks either.

Pick up a copy of the book. It's a good read.

 

[Willem van Oranje]

I have yet to meet anyone, whether EP, traditionalist, or otherwise,who is not in favor of Christians composing new music for worship. The matter debated is not the date of origin of the music, but the criteria for appropriateness. One side thinks that anything goes while the other seeks to stay within the bounds of definable criteria of style.

Praise God that I don't know anyone who thinks that "anything goes." Is this hyperbole?

So tell me then, which musical styles would not be appropriate? There are indeed many people who seem to think that any style goes, if it is liked by the people singing it and they feel that it is personally meaningful to them. That's what I hear advocates of contemporary worship arguing.

 

[Austin]

I think, as Louis said, that it depends on the audience. I would like someone to state what they think is out of counds, or in bounds, and then we could discuss. After all, to some people heavy metal might be appropriate, assuming good theology and singability. I am a big believer that singability is quite often a prerequisite to being appropriate. If the congregation can't sing it, then there's no point in using it. But, if it is singable, the genre of the music is more or less depentant upon the tastes of those in attendance. For instance, Fanny Crosby style music is inappropriate to people if the style gets in the way of the content.

That said, there's quite a corpus of solid music that is, in my opinion, always appropriate, regardless of the audience. "Be Thou My Vision" or "How Great Thou Art" should be accessible to all generations.

 

[JBaldwin]

I think, as Louis said, that it depends on the audience. I would like someone to state what they think is out of counds, or in bounds, and then we could discuss. After all, to some people heavy metal might be appropriate, assuming good theology and singability. I am a big believer that singability is quite often a prerequisite to being appropriate. If the congregation can't sing it, then there's no point in using it. But, if it is singable, the genre of the music is more or less depentant upon the tastes of those in attendance. For instance, Fanny Crosby style music is inappropriate to people if the style gets in the way of the content.

That said, there's quite a corpus of solid music that is, in my opinion, always appropriate, regardless of the audience. "Be Thou My Vision" or "How Great Thou Art" should be accessible to all generations.

Good points. What is popular, in any generation, is not necessarily the best, and a lot of hymnals are full of songs that are difficult to sing. The Trinity Hymnal is a prime example of this. The words to the hymns are often very good, but they have become "unsingable" to a large portion of the church going population.

In my church, we often end up singing some of the hymns with a slight blue-grass feel. This is because blue grass is what the locals are comfortable singing. This would never go in the churches closer to town and as a music leader, I would never suggest it in some circles.

 

[Philip]

The words to the hymns are often very good, but they have become "unsingable" to a large portion of the church going population.

Some are just unsingable period. There are good tunes and then there are bad tunes. The better tunes tend to be the ones written before 1800, written in the 20th century, or adapted from folk tunes and classical compositions.

 

[jayce475]

I think, as Louis said, that it depends on the audience. I would like someone to state what they think is out of counds, or in bounds, and then we could discuss. After all, to some people heavy metal might be appropriate, assuming good theology and singability. I am a big believer that singability is quite often a prerequisite to being appropriate. If the congregation can't sing it, then there's no point in using it. But, if it is singable, the genre of the music is more or less depentant upon the tastes of those in attendance. For instance, Fanny Crosby style music is inappropriate to people if the style gets in the way of the content.

That said, there's quite a corpus of solid music that is, in my opinion, always appropriate, regardless of the audience. "Be Thou My Vision" or "How Great Thou Art" should be accessible to all generations.

Could we please have a distinction between music that is appropriate in worship that music that can be used in Christian songs may not necessarily be used in worship? I'm pretty sure hardly anyone would recommend Shai Linne's rap for worship service. Of course it has to be singable, otherwise there is no point to the singing. I would have thought that what we are debating is the spirit behind the songs and the appropriateness of the music. Singability has got nothing to do with that spirit, and all agree that appropriateness necessarily entails singability, so there is no contention about that at all.

---------- Post added at 09:41 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:37 AM ----------

I think, as Louis said, that it depends on the audience. I would like someone to state what they think is out of counds, or in bounds, and then we could discuss. After all, to some people heavy metal might be appropriate, assuming good theology and singability. I am a big believer that singability is quite often a prerequisite to being appropriate. If the congregation can't sing it, then there's no point in using it. But, if it is singable, the genre of the music is more or less depentant upon the tastes of those in attendance. For instance, Fanny Crosby style music is inappropriate to people if the style gets in the way of the content.

That said, there's quite a corpus of solid music that is, in my opinion, always appropriate, regardless of the audience. "Be Thou My Vision" or "How Great Thou Art" should be accessible to all generations.

Good points. What is popular, in any generation, is not necessarily the best, and a lot of hymnals are full of songs that are difficult to sing. The Trinity Hymnal is a prime example of this. The words to the hymns are often very good, but they have become "unsingable" to a large portion of the church going population.

In my church, we often end up singing some of the hymns with a slight blue-grass feel. This is because blue grass is what the locals are comfortable singing. This would never go in the churches closer to town and as a music leader, I would never suggest it in some circles.

I agree that hymns that are too difficult to sing ought to be put aside. That doesn't mean that they ought to be put aside in favour of music that has a different spirit behind them. Anyway, what hymns have you found to be unsingable? We use our own compiled hymnals among the bible presbyterians in Singapore, and I haven't actually come across any that is unsingable. Not being particularly exciting, yes. Unsingable, really?

 

[JBaldwin]

I think, as Louis said, that it depends on the audience. I would like someone to state what they think is out of counds, or in bounds, and then we could discuss. After all, to some people heavy metal might be appropriate, assuming good theology and singability. I am a big believer that singability is quite often a prerequisite to being appropriate. If the congregation can't sing it, then there's no point in using it. But, if it is singable, the genre of the music is more or less depentant upon the tastes of those in attendance. For instance, Fanny Crosby style music is inappropriate to people if the style gets in the way of the content.

That said, there's quite a corpus of solid music that is, in my opinion, always appropriate, regardless of the audience. "Be Thou My Vision" or "How Great Thou Art" should be accessible to all generations.

Could we please have a distinction between music that is appropriate in worship that music that can be used in Christian songs may not necessarily be used in worship? I'm pretty sure hardly anyone would recommend Shai Linne's rap for worship service. Of course it has to be singable, otherwise there is no point to the singing. I would have thought that what we are debating is the spirit behind the songs and the appropriateness of the music. Singability has got nothing to do with that spirit, and all agree that appropriateness necessarily entails singability, so there is no contention about that at all.

---------- Post added at 09:41 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:37 AM ----------

I think, as Louis said, that it depends on the audience. I would like someone to state what they think is out of counds, or in bounds, and then we could discuss. After all, to some people heavy metal might be appropriate, assuming good theology and singability. I am a big believer that singability is quite often a prerequisite to being appropriate. If the congregation can't sing it, then there's no point in using it. But, if it is singable, the genre of the music is more or less depentant upon the tastes of those in attendance. For instance, Fanny Crosby style music is inappropriate to people if the style gets in the way of the content.

That said, there's quite a corpus of solid music that is, in my opinion, always appropriate, regardless of the audience. "Be Thou My Vision" or "How Great Thou Art" should be accessible to all generations.

Good points. What is popular, in any generation, is not necessarily the best, and a lot of hymnals are full of songs that are difficult to sing. The Trinity Hymnal is a prime example of this. The words to the hymns are often very good, but they have become "unsingable" to a large portion of the church going population.

In my church, we often end up singing some of the hymns with a slight blue-grass feel. This is because blue grass is what the locals are comfortable singing. This would never go in the churches closer to town and as a music leader, I would never suggest it in some circles.

I agree that hymns that are too difficult to sing ought to be put aside. That doesn't mean that they ought to be put aside in favour of music that has a different spirit behind them. Anyway, what hymns have you found to be unsingable? We use our own compiled hymnals among the bible presbyterians in Singapore, and I haven't actually come across any that is unsingable. Not being particularly exciting, yes. Unsingable, really?

I don't advocate music that has a different spirit behind it. As has been said many times on this thread and elsewhere, there are a lot of more singable tunes now available to the older hymns. We sing many of them in our church.

When it comes to the spirit of the music, I can agree that there should be some consideration to the style of music. What I don't like to see is an insistance "old" music just because it is old. We sang two beautiful hymns in church just this past week which were written in the last few years. While the style is contemporary, the tunes are fresh, the words are practically a sermon in themselves, and easy to sing. Give me that any day over a hymn which is written in old English, with a tune that jumps all over the place or repeats the same three chords 10 tens in one verse.

---------- Post added at 08:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:31 PM ----------

And yes, lots of old hymns have one or two chords repeated over and over again.

 

[Austin]

At my last pastoral position many of the members had an incredibly difficult time singing music with syncopation. Unfortunately, some of my favorite RUF-type hymns have syncopation, so that was too bad. As another example, who hasn't noticed how many of the early 20th Century tunes are all keyed for women? Whenever I see hymns that have the notation at the top of the score, I groan inwardly. Of course, the musicians could lower the register, but how many do?

As for other styles of music, I'm not sure that any are inimical to being used for Christian musical styles. So much of it is subjective to the individuals involved. To take a couple of examples, when I was at RTS, we had a lot of African students. Whenever they participated in selecting & leading the singing, the tunes were always more upbeat than any you'd see in any PCA church in central Mississippi. (And they clapped and danced... a definite no-no in most Mississippian PCA churches in general!) But though their music was viewed in some cases as 'violating the RPW' by some American PCA guys, the music was what was common in African Anglican churches.

On the other hand, I'm sure that one could find examples of hymns set to tunes derived from Arabic, African, or South American sources that most Americans would see no problem with. BUT, for Christians coming out of Islam or African or S. American paganism, those tunes would be wholly inappropriate.

Could it not be that for many of us Christians in the West that we find certain styles offensive, in bad taste, or 'inappropriate for worship' b/c of our own cultural baggage? After all, when I was a new Christian I sold all of my old music (Doors, Led Zeppelin, Aerosmith, etc) and glomed on to hymns b/c of the connotations that my old musical tastes had for me. Today, however, I can listen to a lot of popular music, rock, etc w/o the baggage.

In my mind, much of the problem is in the category of meat offered to idols. If it causes one brother to have his conscience violated, I won't do it around him. But if, however, it doesn't cause violation, but just offense, to his conscience, then the weaker brother needs to grow up and learn to value what his stronger brothers enjoy.

Just a few thoughts...

 

[JBaldwin]

Austin, thank you for those thoughts. This is what I was trying to say. The syncopated RUF songs work in our church, because the majority of our memership has been exposed to thise type of music for a long time, and as I mentioned above, we have a bit of a blue grass flavor a lot of the time. They would not work in some communities. And I am with you on the high woman's keys. That goes back to the days when congregations sang in parts. Most folks can't sing parts anymore.