Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
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.
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."
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
The words to the hymns are often very good, but they have become "unsingable" to a large portion of the church going population.
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.
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 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?