# Shallow Christianity



## reformedminister (May 20, 2009)

I had an acquaintance visit our church on the Lord's Day. I was happy to see her and her family. After worship, we were in a conversation and she made a comment that she did not know if she could attend a church that did not have a "praise band". She told me what church her family usually attended and asked me what I thought about it. I knew of the church that she spoke of and all I could say is that I did not agree with all of their doctrine. Her comment was, "I don't care about doctrine." I believe this individual is characteristic of many who go to churches every Sunday. They believe they are Christian, and feel they need to go and belong to some local church. However, being Biblically illiterate, they go somewhere that is not Biblically sound but to a place that caters to their carnal appetites. Has anyone encountered similar individuals? What are your thoughts?


----------



## MrMerlin777 (May 20, 2009)

I've encountered many such folks. I put it down to immaturity in the faith for most of them (though I suppose I have probably run accross some who were not truly regenerate but that's for God to know not me). 

They remind me how far I've travelled in the faith and how far I still have to go.


----------



## WaywardNowHome (May 20, 2009)

I grew up in a church full of those types of people. In fact, I was prime example of such a person. It saddens me, now, when I see those same sorts of people mindlessly attending church services just for the food, fun and friendships it can provide and disregarding the importance of sound theology and doctrine.

Little did I know that someone had been praying for me for many years before, by the grace of God, my eyes were opened and everything was flipped upside down! The only thing you can really do, as far as I know, is to pray for those people and talk to them about these issues when the opportunity arises.


----------



## Oecolampadius (May 20, 2009)

When I first arrived here in the US I met a lady who was the wife of a PCUSA pastor. She tried to convince me to come to their church. She said that their worship in the evening features a band that plays music that many young people appreciate. I think she said that because a lot of people get the false impression that I'm a young man, like I'm still in college or something like that, and I also wear clothes that young people wear.

But I said to her that I do not think that contemporary worship is truly worshipping the Lord. Then she told me that they do have a lighter version of what they have in the evening. Their afternoon worship band mostly uses acoustic and they are more mellow than the evening worship band. Then she added that if that still doesn't suite you, we have the morning worship for the more mature folk who like to sing hymns. I told her that I'll think about it but I also think that I would be better off worshipping with the only OPC church in Utah. We've never spoken to each other since then.

-----Added 5/20/2009 at 09:27:34 EST-----



WaywardNowHome said:


> The only thing you can really do, as far as I know, is to pray for those people and preach the gospel to them when God opens a door.



I don't think we should make the assumption that these people are not true believers. I used to think that praise and worship or contemporary worship was the more appropriate way to worship God due to the context or modern setting but I was already a believer even back then. In fact, I was already a 5 point Calvinist at the time that I was urging my former church to switch to contemporary worship.

The problem was that I didn't have a consistently biblical understanding of what worship truly is. That's one of the problems I noticed when a church focuses on nothing but soteriology. My pastor's position was that we should stick to hymn singing and the use of the piano only because that was our tradition. But tradition that is not built on the foundation of what is biblical can be torn down. Many churches that were formerly conservative replaced their traditional way of worship because most of the older generation have now been replaced with a younger generation who prefer a more contemporary style. They are still employing the same principle and that principle is the principle of convention. If these churchgoers had been reminded again and again that the way we worship God is not determined by convention, by us, but by Himself then this switch to the contemporary might never have happened.


----------



## Iconoclast (May 20, 2009)

reformedminister said:


> I had an acquaintance visit our church on the Lord's Day. I was happy to see her and her family. After worship, we were in a conversation and she made a comment that she did not know if she could attend a church that did not have a "praise band". She told me what church her family usually attended and asked me what I thought about it. I knew of the church that she spoke of and all I could say is that I did not agree with all of their doctrine. Her comment was, "I don't care about doctrine." I believe this individual is characteristic of many who go to churches every Sunday. They believe they are Christian, and feel they need to go and belong to some local church. However, being Biblically illiterate, they go somewhere that is not Biblically sound but to a place that caters to their carnal appetites. Has anyone encountered similar individuals? What are your thoughts?



Sure we have, that's why we spend much time on the Puritanboard
Like the little boy in the sixth sense movie "I see dead people, they don't know they are dead and they want me to help them
We cannot be sure in every case about the state of someones soul, however
like a doctor we can sometimes get a clue to the health of a person by their interaction or lack thereof.
John Owen in the grace and duty of being spiritually minded said- we do but cross their way when we speak of spiritual things , and with many they will divert  to carnal things at the first opportunity.[ I will get the exact quote later if time permits]
At the very least we owe a duty to them to try and plant some seeds of spiritual thinking,a quote, a verse, a book ,a cd, that might spur them on.
Worse case scenerio is they have a diseased heart, not that that is given in the New Covenant


----------



## A guy (May 20, 2009)

Chippy said:


> But I said to her that I do not think that contemporary worship is truly worshipping the Lord.



What is your definition of worship, and what Biblical support do you have for thinking this way?


----------



## BJClark (May 20, 2009)

I've encountered a few folks like this..one person that comes to mind, lives around the block from me..she wants to be entertained, and wants her kids to 'have fun' so that they will be interested in going to church when they are older...

I would go absolutely NUTS at her church..the sad thing is I know others that go there as well, and they all have that same shallow thinking..they go to be entertained..and not to Worship God.


----------



## SueS (May 20, 2009)

reformedminister said:


> Her comment was, "I don't care about doctrine." I believe this individual is characteristic of many who go to churches every Sunday. They believe they are Christian, and feel they need to go and belong to some local church. However, being Biblically illiterate, they go somewhere that is not Biblically sound but to a place that caters to their carnal appetites. Has anyone encountered similar individuals? What are your thoughts?




Oh, good grief! The church I left is literally starving spiritually because the man who is now in control has stated from the pulpit that he doesn't preach "high fallutin' doctrine" but concentrates instead on "topical practical preaching" which translates to motivational speeches full of stories, jokes, and man-centred moralism. The focus is on submitting to and obeying HIM - it's disgraceful!!! What really hurts is that so many of the people there hang on his every word. When one is truly starving the hunger mechanism shuts down so that food is no longer desired. This is what has happened in my former church - it's past tragic!!


----------



## Craig (May 20, 2009)

Just thinking "out loud"...but perhaps one way to respond with those attached exclusively to worship bands is to say that worship is made most glorifying and powerful with the Word. The Word is not restricted to guitars, drums, or electricity.


----------



## christiana (May 20, 2009)

In my lifetime I have watched 'worship' go down the slippery slope in a mad gallop and people thinking they must be entertained and given what their heart desires for them to be a member.
My mission in life has become almost an obsession with getting people to commit to reading the bible daily and to learn what God has to say about things.
I dislike hearing, 'well, I believe' as though it is just up to the individual to choose cafeteria style from all types of music and 'worship'.
The 'famine of the Word' is here, now and is going from bad to worse in many churches where motivational talks are given to make people enjoy their life more!
Doctrine and expository preaching are such a dire need in all churches today so folks will come to understand what God has in mind for His own.
I'm so thankful to be a member in a church where I hear such preaching from the Word three times a week!


----------



## Oecolampadius (May 20, 2009)

A guy said:


> Chippy said:
> 
> 
> > But I said to her that I do not think that contemporary worship is truly worshipping the Lord.
> ...



Contrary to folks that are unconfessional, I do not have *my own definition* for worship because I strictly follow our denomination's standard. I will quote Chapter II of the OPC's Directory for Public Worship below. You can confirm this from the OPC website.



> 1. Since the Holy Scriptures are the only infallible rule of faith and practice, the principles of public worship must be derived from the Bible, and from no other source.
> 
> 2. A service of public worship is not merely a gathering of God's children with each other but before all else a meeting of the triune God with his chosen people. God is present in public worship not only by virtue of the divine omnipresence but, much more intimately, as the faithful covenant Saviour. The Lord Jesus Christ said: "Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them."
> 
> ...



Furthermore, I must say that I am quite surprised that you are asking me for the biblical basis for saying that contemporary worship is wrong. I checked your profile on PB and it says there that you subscribe to the London Baptist Confession. Now, based on your question, am I supposed to think that you are not aware of what Chapter 22: Of Religious Worship and the Sabbath Day says about the public worship of God? Here is what the LBC 22.1 says,



> The light of nature shews that there is a God, who hath lordship and sovereignty over all; is just, good and doth good unto all; and is therefore to be feared, loved, praised, called upon, trusted in, and served, with all the heart and all the soul, and with all the might. But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God, is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshipped according to the imagination and devices of men, nor the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representations, or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scriptures.
> ( Jeremiah 10:7; Mark 12:33; Deuteronomy 12:32; Exodus 20:4-6 )



My biblical support are the biblical proof texts provided for in that quote.


----------



## A guy (May 20, 2009)

Chippy said:


> A guy said:
> 
> 
> > Chippy said:
> ...


----------



## Oecolampadius (May 20, 2009)

To Guy:
It seems to me that your focus is merely on the first sentence of this particular point when that sentence is qualified by those that follow it.



> 7. The Lord Jesus Christ has prescribed no fixed forms for public worship but, in the interest of life and power in worship, has given his church a large measure of liberty in this matter. *It may not be forgotten, however, that there is true liberty only where the rules of God's Word are observed and the Spirit of the Lord is, that all things must be done decently and in order, and that God's people should serve him with reverence and in the beauty of holiness. From its beginning to its end a service of public worship should be characterized by that simplicity which is an evidence of sincerity and by that beauty and dignity which are a manifestation of holiness.* [emphasis mine]



And, let's not forget the most important point:



> 1. Since the Holy Scriptures are the only infallible rule of faith and practice, *the principles of public worship must be derived from the Bible, and from no other source.*



Tell me, where does contemporary worship derive its principles from? Is the difference merely in style or is the underlying principle radically different from that of Reformed traditional worship? If someone can provide for me a biblical basis for this accommodation of the contemporary style then I will rest my case, but I already know there is none.

I used to be a youth pastor who wanted to change his church's traditional way of worship into contemporary worship. I tried to justify it but found no justification for it at all. And, the Lord rebuked me and opened my eyes to the reality that my view of worship then was man-centered which is why I preferred contemporary worship.

Just as we don't water down the Gospel to make it "relevant," we also should not distort worship in order to make it suitable to the tastes of "modern" or "postmodern" folk.


----------



## Theognome (May 20, 2009)

My opinion- anyone who is more concerned with how pleasing to the flesh a 'worship' service is, the less concern such a one has about how pleasing to the Lord it is. The less we care about pleasing the Lord, the further from true faith we are and the more we are just like any other pagan group on earth.

Theognome


----------



## raekwon (May 20, 2009)

For the sake of conversation, could someone please define "contemporary worship"? I hardly even know what the phrase means anymore.


----------



## Oecolampadius (May 20, 2009)

raekwon said:


> For the sake of conversation, could someone please define "contemporary worship"? I hardly even know what the phrase means anymore.



I think that an easy way to describe this "mode" of worship would be by looking into the type of music it employs. Here is what Wikipedia says:

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contemporary_worship_music]Contemporary worship music - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]


> Contemporary worship music (CWM) is a *loosely defined genre of Christian music* which has developed over the past sixty years and is *stylistically similar to pop music*. The songs are frequently referred to as ‘praise songs’ or ‘worship songs’, and are *typically led by a worship band, with a guitarist leading*. Today it is arguably the most common genre of music sung in churches, both denominational and nondenominational, and some of the songs even feature in more traditional hymnals [emphases mine]



I have had previous dealings with churches that are experimenting with contemporary worship and I would say that when it comes to the music being used, Wikipedia's description of it is right on target.


----------



## asc (May 21, 2009)

reformedminister said:


> I had an acquaintance visit our church on the Lord's Day. I was happy to see her and her family. After worship, we were in a conversation and she made a comment that she did not know if she could attend a church that did not have a "praise band". She told me what church her family usually attended and asked me what I thought about it. I knew of the church that she spoke of and all I could say is that I did not agree with all of their doctrine. Her comment was, "I don't care about doctrine." I believe this individual is characteristic of many who go to churches every Sunday. They believe they are Christian, and feel they need to go and belong to some local church. However, being Biblically illiterate, they go somewhere that is not Biblically sound but to a place that caters to their carnal appetites. Has anyone encountered similar individuals? What are your thoughts?



I think you're right; this is characteristic of the majority of evangelicals from my limited experience. We need to be lovingly patient with our weaker brothers and sisters in Christ, who don't understand the focus of worship is God (not themselves) and who don't understand the essential importance of the knowledge of God (doctrine).


----------



## Blue Tick (May 21, 2009)

reformedminister said:


> I had an acquaintance visit our church on the Lord's Day. I was happy to see her and her family. After worship, we were in a conversation and she made a comment that she did not know if she could attend a church that did not have a "praise band". She told me what church her family usually attended and asked me what I thought about it. I knew of the church that she spoke of and all I could say is that I did not agree with all of their doctrine. Her comment was, "I don't care about doctrine." I believe this individual is characteristic of many who go to churches every Sunday. They believe they are Christian, and feel they need to go and belong to some local church. However, being Biblically illiterate, they go somewhere that is not Biblically sound but to a place that caters to their carnal appetites. Has anyone encountered similar individuals? What are your thoughts?



People who are focused on "Praise Band" worship this is what I ask them... _How does God desire to be worshiped? Or How does God require us to worship Him? Do you see in scripture any specific commands on how God desires and requires us to worship Him? _ This type of questioning gets them to really think through the doctrine of worship. It puts the onus on them to really contemplate what they believe regarding worship. Try to get them to articulate what they believe. Then give them the Biblical position on how God should be worshiped.


----------



## WaywardNowHome (May 21, 2009)

Chippy said:


> WaywardNowHome said:
> 
> 
> > The only thing you can really do, as far as I know, is to pray for those people and preach the gospel to them when God opens a door.
> ...



You're right. I'm still young and tend to be quick with my gavel. It's something that I need to work on. Thanks!


----------



## Johan (May 21, 2009)

It is worth reading Dan Lucarini's book "Why I left the contemporary christian music movement".


----------



## Tim (May 21, 2009)

Regarding the comment from your friend, "I don't care about doctrine". There is much opportunity when someone says this. Ask them to explain. Let them speak. Give them time. The conversation should open up some indicators as to why the person would make this statement.

Are they reacting to harsh dogmatism? Do they hate the beliefs of people who are comfortable using the word _doctrine_ (i.e., us Calvinists)? Has this person never really heard a faithful and truly edifying exposition of scripture? 

Indeed, if it is the latter, perhaps this person has had the misfortune to sit through a sermon that was 'heavy into doctrine' but actually had no meaning for the listener. They would be right to reject a delivery that does not meet the congregation where they are. 

My main point is that people can sometimes reject an incorrect notion of that thing, rather than what that thing really is. Put specifically, your friend is probably rejecting her incorrect view of doctrine and its use.


----------



## A guy (May 21, 2009)

Chippy said:


> To Guy:
> It seems to me that your focus is merely on the first sentence of this particular point when that sentence is qualified by those that follow it.
> 
> 
> ...



What is it you find man-centered about it? What is disorderly about it? What is not done in reverance? I find it incredibly self-righteous to discard all of it and judge everyone as not worshipping the Lord who sings contemporary music.


----------



## Knoxienne (May 21, 2009)

Johan said:


> It is worth reading Dan Lucarini's book "Why I left the contemporary christian music movement".



I just put it on hold at the library.


----------



## ExGentibus (May 21, 2009)

I have interacted with this kind of Christians, those who think that "theology" is a bad word and that studying doctrine will lead you into the pit of rationalism and human traditions. It is one of the fruits of the (post) modern anti-intellectualism that pervades the great majority of evangelical churches. It is difficult to discuss their assumptions because of their prejudice, they just won't listen. When the opportunity arises, it can be useful to show them in the Scripture that Jesus himself taught doctrine, in the sense of consistent, systematic propositions, and that he used logic to respond to his critics.


----------



## raekwon (May 21, 2009)

Chippy said:


> raekwon said:
> 
> 
> > For the sake of conversation, could someone please define "contemporary worship"? I hardly even know what the phrase means anymore.
> ...



Thank you.

I'm sure I'll open up a can of worms here, but this definition as I read it doesn't necessarily seem at odds with the RPW. Seems much more about stylistic preferences than anything substantial. Of course, a good amount of what some might call "contemporary worship" *does* violate the RPW (because of its *content* and/or the way it's presented), but just being guitar-driven and stylistically "similar to pop music" (whatever that means) doesn't seem to amount to much of an argument.


----------



## Johan (May 21, 2009)

Knoxienne said:


> Johan said:
> 
> 
> > It is worth reading Dan Lucarini's book "Why I left the contemporary christian music movement".
> ...



You can also try to find "Worship in the melting pot" by Peter Masters.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (May 21, 2009)

raekwon said:


> Chippy said:
> 
> 
> > raekwon said:
> ...



This is an excellent point. 

This is probably off-topic but once you cross the instrumental threshold away from a-capella how can you biblically restrict what instruments can and cannot be used? Because by going away from a-capella you are saying that instruments are a circumstance and not an element.


----------



## SueS (May 21, 2009)

I think that a large problem with those who use the "praise and worship" mode is that they tend to compartmentalize the different aspects of a worship service, or, as many term it, "the meeting". In a typical contemporary service there is an extended period of singing led by the praise band, usually lasting from 30-45 minutes. This is called "worship". They don't realize that the whole of a service - prayer, Word, sacraments, and song, is worship. 

In my personal experience "worship" songs tend to focus in on "me" - what "I" will do, instead of what God through His Son has done for us. At my previous church the same ditty would be repeated over and over and over again - I used to count the repetitions and sometimes begin singing to myself, "this is the song that never ends...." Much of the music is geared to establishing a mood, of jubilation, of contemplation, etc, and speaks to the flesh. 

Many songs are sung without the slightest idea of context or meaning. For example, the song "They rush on the city, they run on the wall, great is the army that carries out His Word" is taken from a passage in Joel that describes God's judgment upon Israel in the form of an invading swarm of locusts. Yet, I have stood in the back of the auditorium of my former church watching the congregation joyfully singing this while waving their hands and having a great time, totally unaware of what they were singing. Another example is the admittedly beautiful song, "I will sing unto the Lord as long as I live". It is taken from Psalm 104, vss 33,34. The body of this psalm is a description of how God keeps and cares for His creation. Leading into vs 33 it would be quite appropriate to insert the word, "therefore". But the people don't know this - they know the song is based on Scripture but most haven't the foggiest idea of the context so what they sing is praise of what THEY will do rather than praise of what GOD has done and is doing.

All EP/nonEP debating aside, the fact remains that a good hymn is one that teaches sound doctrine and exults God and what He has done for us through Christ. I love the fact that I am now in a hymn singing church and look forward to the day when psalms are incorporated into our worship services. In my not so humble opinion, one doctrinally sound hymn is worth a thousand of the p&w ditties that pass for worship in so many of today's "contemporary" churches.


----------



## Knoxienne (May 21, 2009)

SueS said:


> I think that a large problem with those who use the "praise and worship" mode is that they tend to compartmentalize the different aspects of a worship service, or, as many term it, "the meeting". In a typical contemporary service there is an extended period of singing led by the praise band, usually lasting from 30-45 minutes. This is called "worship". They don't realize that the whole of a service - prayer, Word, sacraments, and song, is worship.
> 
> In my personal experience "worship" songs tend to focus in on "me" - what "I" will do, instead of what God through His Son has done for us. At my previous church the same ditty would be repeated over and over and over again - I used to count the repetitions and sometimes begin singing to myself, "this is the song that never ends...." Much of the music is geared to establishing a mood, of jubilation, of contemplation, etc, and speaks to the flesh.
> 
> ...



To be honest, though - this is one reason why I like EP. Keeps things nice and clean. I do like a lot of the very reverent hymns and see no problem singing those. But acapella singing is so intimate and beautiful - really brings the congregation together.

In one church I know of they sing accapella songs right out of scripture - they just follow along in their bibles and sing. Joyous!


----------



## Craig (May 21, 2009)

raekwon said:


> I'm sure I'll open up a can of worms here, but this definition as I read it doesn't necessarily seem at odds with the RPW. Seems much more about stylistic preferences than anything substantial. Of course, a good amount of what some might call "contemporary worship" *does* violate the RPW (because of its *content* and/or the way it's presented), but just being guitar-driven and stylistically "similar to pop music" (whatever that means) doesn't seem to amount to much of an argument.



That's pretty much where I'm at. I also think Tim nailed the real opportunity with the lady discussed in the OP...the conversation should *not* be about worship style.


----------



## BJClark (May 21, 2009)

Maybe this should be in another thread..but since it was brought up here, I'll here..



> This is probably off-topic but once you cross the instrumental threshold away from a-capella how can you biblically restrict what instruments can and cannot be used? Because by going away from a-capella you are saying that instruments are a circumstance and not an element.



Where in Scripture does it say to Worship God singing strictly a-Capella? 

If we are to keep to the RPW then shouldn't we include these verses as commands even today, or has that command changed merely because it is not mentioned specifically in the NT? If we look at EP and say "we are to do as David commanded in the OT" then how is this not a command to follow as well? Has God changed in this respect on how He desires to be worshiped? Or maybe I am not fully understanding the EP issue..

1Ch 15:16 And David spake to the chief of the Levites to appoint their brethren [to be] the singers with instruments of musick, psalteries and harps and cymbals, sounding, by lifting up the voice with joy. 

2Ch 5:13 and it was the duty of the trumpeters and singers to make themselves heard in unison in praise and thanksgiving to the Lord ), and when the song was raised, with trumpets and cymbals and other musical instruments, in praise to the Lord , "For he is good, for his steadfast love endures forever," the house, the house of the Lord , was filled with a cloud, 2Ch 5:14 so that the priests could not stand to minister because of the cloud, for the glory of the Lord filled the house of God. 

-----Added 5/21/2009 at 09:13:15 EST-----

Knoxienne;



> In one church I know of they sing accapella songs right out of scripture - they just follow along in their bibles and sing. Joyous!



That would be wonderful IF everyone uses the same version of the Bible, but in many churches they don't and the translations don't say the 'exact' same thing..which would lend itself to be confusing..


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (May 21, 2009)

BJClark said:


> Maybe this should be in another thread..but since it was brought up here, I'll here..
> 
> 
> 
> ...



EP and a-capella are in themselves separate issues. 

But concerning a-capella worship the argument goes forth that instruments (trumpets, horns, etc...) were used only in the context of Temple worship and were cast aside along with slaughtering bulls when Temple worship was ended. It is worth remembering that Jews (even to this day in Orthodox Jewish worship) did not use instruments in synagogue worship for this very reason, because for them instruments were only to be used in the Temple.


----------



## Knoxienne (May 21, 2009)

I don't want to derail the thread - the EP issue has its own forum.

There's nothing in scripture that says we are to sing accapella, true. And I don't think we should just sing "psalms". My own reasons for accapella are practical- saves the church budget from a huge amount of money spent on a music ministry, prevents nasty politics from happening in the church, it's user friendly, it unites instead of divides the congregation. And it's lovely.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (May 21, 2009)

Folks,
A reminder that EP and a capella singing (i.e. the position of no musical instruments in public worship) are topics restricted to the EP subforum which is a moderated forum.


----------



## toddpedlar (May 21, 2009)

A guy said:


> Chippy said:
> 
> 
> > To Guy:
> ...



Probably what has to be distinguished here is the music being played, the way it is played, and the lyrics themselves.

As far as lyrics go, there are probably some acceptable (for the non-EP) songs, which are more modern renditions of old hymns (e.g. the Indelible Grace stuff, though MANY of them are very "performance" oriented rather than geared for congregational singing) and even some acceptable for the EP person (who is not an exclusive acapella psalmodist) as modern renditions of Psalms. 

The music itself is a non-issue if you're non-acapella - I see no way to distinguish piano and organ from guitars and drums, except that the latter very often are VERY hard to be limited to background accompaniment. The chief problem many have with contemporary worship is related to this and to my third point, which is the way the music is played.

To have a "worship band" is to have a bunch of performers up front that are being watched as performers, more often than not. How one can set up on a stage, in exactly the same way they would if they were putting on a concert, and then claim that they are simply "leading" the congregation and helping the people stay on tune. That's just not a sufficent statement. Generally speaking the music is WAY too loud, WAY too dominant. The instrument of prime concern (and acapella-ists would say ONLY concern) is the human voice, and in many, many contemporary services I've been to, you can't even tell people (other than the worship band) are singing. If in any way "worship leading" smacks of a performance, then... sorry. Bad news.


----------



## Craig (May 21, 2009)

toddpedlar said:


> A guy said:
> 
> 
> > Chippy said:
> ...



Todd, if you're ever in Toledo, Oh...come to Christ the Word...we have a worship band.

If the congregation is being dwarfed by the music, I say "sing louder!"


----------



## reformedminister (May 21, 2009)

When it comes to contemporary music there is usually two goals. One is to use music that is attractive to unregenerate people, to get them to like worship. So the focus here centers on the people instead of God, although they are singing to the Lord. The second goal is to "prime" the people into a sensitive and spiritual state to be able to be open to receive God's Word. This is the Holy Spirit's job, not the praise band. What happens here is that the people get their emotions worked up by the beat of the music and attribute it to the working of the Holy Spirit. They sense they "feel" God, when in reality it is the upbeat music that plays on their emotions. I am not against new songs. There are a few that I have found very spiritual, and although shallow, they are heartfelt praise songs. However, there is another difference here. Tradional forms of music use instruments to accompany the songs. With a "praise band" it is more like you are putting on a show for the people. Again, the center is not on God.
It seems that people are attracted to this as well as shallow messages that pat them on the back. Where are the lengthy Scripture readings, and the true expositions that have application to the 21 st century? Many of these folks, like the one I mentioned, have no appetite for expository preaching. They just want to here encouraging and interesting topical messages. While I admit that many of these people may be regenerate, they will remain babes in Christ unless they start digesting the "meat" of the Word of God. I hate to say it, but the average Protestant church seems to be in just as much error but in different aspects, than the Catholic Church, that the Reformers protested against. Going to the Scriptures with these people that we encounter, and asking them probing questions like "How are we to worship God", "What is a Biblical definition of worship", and "What is preaching" sounds like our good ammunition. The Word of God is a sharp sword! Unfortunately, many come into the Christian Church and do not long to enrich their relationship through spiritual growth. I remember another conversation that I had with a different aquaintance. I invited her to our Church. She loved the music and topical messages she was getting at her own Church. She asked about our worship and I told her we sang hymns and psalms. I asked her if she knew what psalms were and she replied "yes" with a disgusted look on her face. I then told her we read a couple of chapters in our worship, one from the Old Testament, and one from the New, which is followed by an expository sermon on one of the texts read. She was not interested at all and never showed up. This might be because we did not have "children's church, which also seemed important to her. These people need to be prayed for and with patience and a Christ-like spirit, we may bring them around.


----------



## Knoxienne (May 21, 2009)

reformedminister said:


> These people need to be prayed for and with patience and a Christ-like spirit...



True and thank you - a good thing to remember as I post on this thread! It's so easy for me to just get frustrated and mad regarding this topic.


----------



## Craig (May 21, 2009)

Rev. Andy,
without making this about EP/contemporary/etc...

I've been on both sides of the fence on contemporary music...and the problem is about *content*, not "contemporary" sounds. There may be an aspect where praise bands become "central"...however.

When I was a charasmatic arminian, I ignored *everyone around me* and sang to God alone. The focus was on experiencing God, not on who was in front of me...and yes, the music was part of what helped me leave all those around me in darkness while I focused on God. I was pretty gnostic, as I look back.

To my mind, the opposite side of the same coin are those that accept the singing of hymns but reject contemporary music altogether. They will monitor the song choices and what instruments are used and evaluate a worship service based on that.

While the styles are different in both scenarios, the principle seems to be the same: "I can't get to God without the right instruments/atmosphere".


----------



## Knoxienne (May 21, 2009)

To be fair, I've also been in churches where there's only a piano/organ and the music's been inappropriate to the atmosphere, because of the style of playing, loudness, etc. So there doesn't have to be a praise band for there to be inappropriate music. My


----------



## Craig (May 21, 2009)

Knoxienne said:


> To be fair, I've also been in churches where there's only a piano/organ and the music's been inappropriate to the atmosphere, because of the style of playing, loudness, etc. So there doesn't have to be a praise band for there to be inappropriate music. My



I agree. My old church has a very loud organ...and about 30 members that don't sing loud. Accapella may have been more appropriate...but no one would know what tune to follow. That is what we were limited to...so no one made a big deal about it and worshipped with what we had.

In my experience, the only "inappropriate" songs musically are always the most inappropriate lyrically. They go hand in hand. If someone writes a song with sound theology, they don't want to lose it in the music...however, if someone comes up with a "killer" melody, the lyrics often come off as an afterthought.


----------



## Knoxienne (May 21, 2009)

Craig said:


> Knoxienne said:
> 
> 
> > To be fair, I've also been in churches where there's only a piano/organ and the music's been inappropriate to the atmosphere, because of the style of playing, loudness, etc. So there doesn't have to be a praise band for there to be inappropriate music. My
> ...



Out of thanks but very good point!


----------



## reformedminister (May 21, 2009)

My concern is the mentality and spirituality of the average church goer, who gives no precedent to church history, and Scripture. They are so spiritually illiterate, that they leave themselves open to great theological error. Our own country is a great mission field! Some countries have started sending their missionaries here.


----------



## Johan (May 21, 2009)

reformedminister said:


> My concern is the mentality and spirituality of the average church goer, who gives no precedent to church history, and Scripture. They are so spiritually illiterate, that they leave themselves open to great theological error. Our own country is a great mission field! Some countries have started sending their missionaries here.



What you say applies not only to the US! I would say that it might well be the case here in SA as well.


----------



## ReformedChapin (May 21, 2009)

The OPs comments reminds me of my old Church, Calvary Chapel. People there are practically theologically illterate and their mode of evangalism just involves throwing a rock concert. They are strong on scripture, at least in word but they completely neglect heremenutics. They rationalize their particalar view with a simple statement of what always seemed to me like special revelation "the Lord revealed to me _______." This carries on to their worship style hearing statements such as "I feel close to the Lord after worship. If feel his presence." Don't get me wrong, I miss the old worship style, comfort wise at least, I was in that church for over 4 years, but I choose biblically sound worship over my feelings anyday.


----------



## Oecolampadius (May 21, 2009)

A guy said:


> Chippy said:
> 
> 
> > To Guy:
> ...



Are you calling me self-righteous? And, did I say that contemporary worship is man-centered or is it rather that my view of worship back then was man-centered? When did I ever say that everyone who sings contemporary music are not worshipping the Lord? And why do you insist in answering my questions with your own questions? I have already answered your previous questions, don't I deserve an answer from you?

You seem to be distorting the things I said and that "self-righteous" bit I believe is in the ad hominem. You are no longer attacking my position here but you are attacking my character. Where is your warrant for that?


----------



## Prufrock (May 21, 2009)

If contemporary worship is to be discussed either on its own merits, or in light of denominational standards, can we try to keep focused on that for the benefit of the rest of us trying to follow? We will do so much more easily if it is kept impersonal. Perceived insults can sometimes be ignored. I always need to remind myself that this isn't _just_ for personal conversations, but is something public designed to be used and read by the world; for their benefit, let's stick to the issues.


----------



## cih1355 (May 21, 2009)

Chippy said:


> raekwon said:
> 
> 
> > For the sake of conversation, could someone please define "contemporary worship"? I hardly even know what the phrase means anymore.
> ...



If one were to take the lyrics of a traditional hymn and combine it with a style of music similiar to pop music, would that still be contemporary worship music?


----------



## Knoxienne (May 21, 2009)

cih1355 said:


> If one were to take the lyrics of a traditional hymn and combine it with a style of music similiar to pop music, would that still be contemporary worship music?



I would say so.


----------



## awretchsavedbygrace (May 21, 2009)

When someone says I don't care about doctrine, what their really saying is, "I want all of God's blessings but dont care about His word". A doctrine is a teaching. The doctrines brought forth are from God's word ( some obviously out of context). But when someone, takes it out of context, or shouts some heresy will we say.."Ah, Who cares about doctrine" What regenerate Christian will dare say that? What regenerate Christian will say, "I dont care about whatever doctrine you bring forth, I just want Jesus". What Jesus? The Jesus of the mormons? The Jesus of the Jehova Witnessess? you see doctrine does matter. I don't really want to question anyones salvation when they place doctrine under the category of insignificant but, when you deny doctrine, my friend, you are disregarding either a teaching of God's word, or a heresy that must be exposed for what it is. Anyway, when someone says doctrine doesnt matter, they have just taught a doctrine.


----------



## wendy (May 21, 2009)

Does this prevailing desire for "contemporary worship", here I reference a departure from Biblical worship to mean the kind of music/singing that does indeed cater to the flesh, something to be liked by visitors to get them interested in church, &/or a performance to appreciate...do you think it relates to 2 Timothy's warnings about "in the latter days" especially 4:3-4?
_ 3For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

4And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. _​
Recently I heard a sermon on congregational singing, and the emphasis on the music being a ministry of teaching and admonition. If the lyrics of contemporary praise and worship are man-centered, there seems to be a principle here in this text. Any thoughts?


----------



## Oecolampadius (May 21, 2009)

I think this thread has turned into one big mess. And, I must admit that I am part of the reason why it is so. This thread was started by reformedminister expressing his concern about this woman visitor that they had at their church. It seems to me that this woman thinks that doctrine has nothing to do with worship but that a praise and worship band is essential to it.

This other discussion that centers on contemporary worship which got mixed in was started because I shared my own experience with a pastor's wife who was urging me to come visit their church. She tried to convince me to come by telling me how great their praise and worship is. Not once did she talk about doctrine. It was all about "praise and worship" (contemporary worship). My point in sharing that experience was to show that if there are laypeople who do not care about doctrine but music and song only, then according to my experience, there may also be people in the ministry who encourage this kind of mindset.

Now, may I suggest to those who are questioning my view when it comes to contemporary worship to please go and search the threads that are about contemporary worship. Better yet, why don't you read the threads about the regulative principle of worship.


----------



## Spinningplates2 (May 21, 2009)

I have been a Christian for a long tame and been in Churches with many different styles. I love the PCA and have personal problems with Praise Bands and clapping etc. But I know a man who preaches at the local Harvest Church in Lake Zurich and even though we have different doctrines I go to their Saturday night service (and sit through their praise worship) because the man is on fire for the Lord and never fails to glorify the Lord. He is consistent on 6 day creation unlike many Reformed teachers who are "Old Earth" types. Plus, he never misses a chance to blast abortion. God has us all on a path to our total sanctification. We should do our best to present or understandings but to complain about the speed of others understanding is comparable to being mad at the wind for not blowing at a different speed.


----------



## cih1355 (May 21, 2009)

reformedminister said:


> I had an acquaintance visit our church on the Lord's Day. I was happy to see her and her family. After worship, we were in a conversation and she made a comment that she did not know if she could attend a church that did not have a "praise band". She told me what church her family usually attended and asked me what I thought about it. I knew of the church that she spoke of and all I could say is that I did not agree with all of their doctrine. Her comment was, "I don't care about doctrine." I believe this individual is characteristic of many who go to churches every Sunday. They believe they are Christian, and feel they need to go and belong to some local church. However, being Biblically illiterate, they go somewhere that is not Biblically sound but to a place that caters to their carnal appetites. Has anyone encountered similar individuals? What are your thoughts?



She should care about doctrine. It does matter what you believe. For example, if a person were to think that he can contribute to his justification, then he is believing in a false gospel. If a person believes in the Jesus of the Mormons, then he is believing in a false Jesus and he is not a Christian.


----------



## reformedminister (May 21, 2009)

Chippy said:


> I think this thread has turned into one big mess. And, I must admit that I am part of the reason why it is so. This thread was started by reformedminister expressing his concern about this woman visitor that they had at their church. It seems to me that this woman thinks that doctrine has nothing to do with worship but that a praise and worship band is essential to it.
> 
> This other discussion that centers on contemporary worship which got mixed in was started because I shared my own experience with a pastor's wife who was urging me to come visit their church. She tried to convince me to come by telling me how great their praise and worship is. Not once did she talk about doctrine. It was all about "praise and worship" (contemporary worship). My point in sharing that experience was to show that if there are laypeople who do not care about doctrine but music and song only, then according to my experience, there may also be people in the ministry who encourage this kind of mindset.
> 
> Now, may I suggest to those who are questioning my view when it comes to contemporary worship to please go and search the threads that are about contemporary worship. Better yet, why don't you read the threads about the regulative principle of worship.



Thanks. I do appreciate your comments.


----------



## Blue Tick (May 21, 2009)

> What is it you find man-centered about it? What is disorderly about it? What is not done in reverance? I find it incredibly self-righteous to discard all of it and judge everyone as not worshipping the Lord who sings contemporary music.



Brother Jared,

Please understand that no one here is trying to attack you, however, this is a reformed board and we have all confessed to agreeing with our statements of faith. Within our confessions we believe God has specifically decreed on how He calls us to worship and obey Him. Unfortunately modern praise music does have a man-centric hum to it. It puts the focus on man rather than God. It can begin as subtle as a Christmas candlelight service (which can create a sensual mystical experience which is not prescribed in scripture) we have to be careful not to cross over into the realm of Gnosticism. Modern praise music (or music in general) can affect are moods and attitudes therefore we are called to worship God with reverence (godly fear) and awe. Modern praise does not promote a reverent attitude toward God. I’m not saying that one couldn’t listen to modern praise music (I happen to enjoy a few songs) however according to the _Regulative Principle of Worship _it’s not acceptable for the worship of God.

The disorderly character within modern praise worship can tempt the congregation to idol worship. Such as, “I only worship when this leader is there… The worship wasn’t that good… How was the worship…? He/She is a great worship leader.” These are all symptoms of elevating man and looking for a worship service that suits our needs rather than asking how we should worship God. We become self-righteous when we think we can offer something to God other than what He’s prescribed. 

Peace to you.


----------



## raekwon (May 21, 2009)

Blue Tick said:


> > What is it you find man-centered about it? What is disorderly about it? What is not done in reverance? I find it incredibly self-righteous to discard all of it and judge everyone as not worshipping the Lord who sings contemporary music.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Again, are we talking about lyrical content here or the musical style itself? I'm probably beating a dead horse here, but I'm concerned that many Reformed folks are creating another law as a fence around the RPW, just to make sure we don't get too close to the line. That in itself is a violation of the RPW (if that's the case).


----------



## Blue Tick (May 21, 2009)

> Again, are we talking about lyrical content here or the musical style itself? I'm probably beating a dead horse here, but I'm concerned that many Reformed folks are creating another law as a fence around the RPW, just to make sure we don't get too close to the line. That in itself is a violation of the RPW (if that's the case).



What I'm referring to is both music style and lyrics. As far as some modern praise songs I can't tell if their addressing their boyfriend or there girlfriend. This is generally speaking but most praise song's are not biblical sound (that's a whole other thread). The combination of both have the ability to draw the object of our affection away from God. For instance say there's a worship service and the music is all psalms but is played with the electric guitar, electric high tech drum set, and the singers vocal range flucuates drastically throughout the song. Is the permissible? I would say no just because the object of worship is no longer the Lord but the focus is now directed on the "performers". Lyrics are just as important... If we combine biblically incorrect lyrics and combine them with overly theatrical worship performers then the worship service is now becoming a show.


----------



## 21st Century Calvinist (May 21, 2009)

If by contemporary worship we mean modern songs and multiple instruments with vocalists then I fail to see how that dishonors God and is a violation of the RPW per se. It may be that in contemporary services there is more danger of it becoming a performance rather than a circumstance of worship. 
Having contemporary music does not necessarily lead to smoke machines, mosh pits, labyrinths, drama or whatever. Nor is it by definition irreverent. In fact all the things that contemporary worship services are accused of are possible within a traditional style service. I can hardly imagine that a traditional style service where the theology is liberal is glorifying to God.
I do not buy into the argument that only the piano/organ is the accepted instrument to be used. Nor do I accept that vocalists are performing and a choir isn't. In EP a capella worship services there will be a precentor (song leader) or a small group to lead the singing and we would not suggest that they are performers.
I personally am rather underwhelmed by a choir/organ, but I do not think it right to legislate my stylistic preferences as binding law. 
Without a doubt there is a lot of bad contemporary worship songs, but there are also some good ones as well. So yes, we need to be discerning to ensure that our content is biblical. But that applies to everyone regardless of style. 
I understand why there is the assumption that a church with praise band = poor doctrine. But this assumption is not always true. A number of reformed and reforming churches have contemporary worship.


----------



## raekwon (May 22, 2009)

Blue Tick said:


> > Again, are we talking about lyrical content here or the musical style itself? I'm probably beating a dead horse here, but I'm concerned that many Reformed folks are creating another law as a fence around the RPW, just to make sure we don't get too close to the line. That in itself is a violation of the RPW (if that's the case).
> 
> 
> 
> What I'm referring to is both music style and lyrics. As far as some modern praise songs I can't tell if their addressing their boyfriend or there girlfriend. This is generally speaking but most praise song's are not biblical sound (that's a whole other thread). The combination of both have the ability to draw the object of our affection away from God. For instance say there's a worship service and the music is all psalms but is played with the electric guitar, electric high tech drum set, and the singers vocal range flucuates drastically throughout the song. Is the permissible? I would say no just because the object of worship is no longer the Lord but the focus is now directed on the "performers". Lyrics are just as important... If we combine biblically incorrect lyrics and combine them with overly theatrical worship performers then the worship service is now becoming a show.



Okay. I get that. Instrumentation and vocals can certainly be overdone to a point that the music itself almost becomes an object of worship, rather than the Lord. Absolutely. But we're fooling ourselves if we don't think that this can happen with a piano or a pipe organ.

This is where I'm coming from: generally, a church's musical style reflects (and *should* reflect) the aesthetic leanings of its people (as long as those aesthetic leanings themselves don't violate Scripture). So, for instance, music at my church tends to have a bit of a folksy/indie-rock/rockabilly vibe. Most folks here would probably consider our music somewhat "contemporary", even though we at least some of what we sing are Psalms and familiar hymns. Additionally, our musicians are really talented folks, and they play and sing according to the talent, tastes, and creativity that God has given them -- but certainly not to the point where it seems like a performance, that the congregation can't sing along, or that they have to learn even old songs again as if they're new. I just don't buy the assertion that "contemporary" music is necessarily geared to attract unbelievers or "prime" people to hear the Word, nor do I buy that "traditional" music is intrinsically better suited for RPW-acceptable worship.

It's certainly important to be vigilant for these things, but I think that we reformed folks like to throw out the bathwater without looking for the baby in the bucket first.

(And again with the terms . . . what's "traditional" music? Whose traditions are we talking about here? Whose contemporaries? AUGH! )


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 22, 2009)

A few thoughts... (not directed to anyone)

Why do you want to go to church--where each week it feels, sounds, and looks like... a concert at your high school gym? or a date with your significant other? Where the chatter sounds like Dr. LAWra, or Dr. Philoprah?

In other words, why have certain segments of the church felt it critical to retool the worship that received its "traditional" form from the theology of the Reformation? Has something changed about our understanding of God, or human nature? Has our theology changed, necessitating change in worship? or has our understanding of the demands of our theology changed, necessitating the change?

Or, have the changes come about as the church has stopped presenting itself *for what it is,* different from the rest of the world, of life; having different interests, different guiding principles? Should it surprise us that the church seems a bit of an alien place, when an unbeliever stumbles in? Is it sad when the church tries to be what the world will "find interesting" or "attractive"? That was not Christ's way, or the apostles'.

When they come in? How about when we--having drowned all week in the stuff of the regular world, all our secular pursuits, some chosen, some not--we come in, and do we resent having to "adjust" just briefly at the door, or as the minister takes his place behind the stand that holds the Book?

When he invokes the God of all creation, and He temporarily sets in His ladder connecting heaven and earth, and makes that place "Bethel" for about an hour--tell me, my friends, are we joining something heavenly that is going on beyond our ordinary sensations? are we in submission to God? What are we thinking?

Could there be something just a little blasphemous about insisting that whatever is done needs to be geared toward my "taste", instead of assuming I need an "acquired taste"? Hebrews 12 tells us we are joining an innumerable company of angels, and the general assembly of the glorified saints already occupied in ineffable business. What we do should "merge" seamlessly with their activity.

I happen to think there can be different styles of singing, etc. But I also believe in human aesthetics that transcend culture. We are going to be worshipping for all eternity with people who lived thousands of years ago, in our own future, and from places far removed from here and now. We should be practicing now, with that in mind, even if the forms will be transposed for a new mode of existence.

1Cor.11:10 seems to indicate that what we do on OUR part in worship can _please_ or it can _offend_ the ANGELS! Shouldn't that make us interested in careful questioning what and why we do what we do in worship, even beside the simple regulative principle? And if the angels, why not our neighbor? (Paul addressed that too, 1Cor.14:23).


----------



## reformedminister (May 22, 2009)

Blue Tick said:


> > What is it you find man-centered about it? What is disorderly about it? What is not done in reverance? I find it incredibly self-righteous to discard all of it and judge everyone as not worshipping the Lord who sings contemporary music.
> 
> 
> 
> The disorderly character within modern praise worship can tempt the congregation to idol worship. Such as, “I only worship when this leader is there… The worship wasn’t that good… How was the worship…? He/She is a great worship leader.” These are all symptoms of elevating man and looking for a worship service that suits our needs rather than asking how we should worship God. We become self-righteous when we think we can offer something to God other than what He’s prescribed.



 One of the best Reformed worship services I attended was a "blended service". It was an EPC church in Knoxville Tennessee. There were probably at least a thousand persons in attendance. They sang mostly hymns, with piano accompaniment. However, before the sermon they sang two modern day "choruses", with the accompiment of an acoustic guitar. I found this service very reverent. Although they sang a couple contemporary songs, the lyrics were Biblically sound, and because there was not a "praise band" but one person, the emphasis was not on "putting on a show". If a church chooses to incorporate contemporary music, this would be a great example to do it in a God honoring way. "Praise bands" and "milk" sermons are only symptoms of the age we are living in, the present condition of the Church, and a shallow Christianity.


----------



## JBaldwin (May 22, 2009)

Thinking about the OP, it really goes back to a right view of worship. Some of the first posts brought this out. 

As I've read through the other posts, several things have occurred to me:

1) Worship should foremost be God-centered. 
2) Musical content should also be God-centered.
3) God-centeredness has little to do with style. Rather style has more to do with culture. 
4) If we had listened to the style of music that David used in the temple, we might have called it noise. In the same way, if you travel to different parts of the world where the culture is non-western, musical styles reflect the culture. 

I live in the rural south on the edge of the blue ridge mountains. The style of worship and singing in some of the churches in the mountain community is very different and might be considered "sinful" by some, even though they are singing songs with strong biblical doctrine. The fact is, these folks don't know any other way to sing. I am not particularly comfortable with this style of singing, but the preaching is solid. 

While I would agree with the assessment in the OP that the woman mentioned was not going to church for the right reasons, it doesn't mean that she was wrong wanting to worship in a church with a style of music (notice I didn't say content) that was more comfortable to her. If you have listened to nothing but rock music all your life and suddenly stepped into the door of a church which sang nothing but slow hymns, you might feel you were being put to sleep and the music might actually be a distraction. 

Also, as I read through the posts (and this might be a topic for another thread), I get the impression that some feel that being emotional in worship is wrong. I don't get this sense from reading through the Psalms. Rather I see an entire spectrum of emotions being expressed. The words of truth (no matter what style of music used) can move a person to tears or to want to stand up and shout for joy. While I agree that the music should not be used to drive emotions, it doesn't mean that emotions should be absent from the singing.


----------



## Johan (May 22, 2009)

Can't remember if anyone already pointed to Calvin's preface to the Genevan Psalter. It is really worth reading it. Clearly, music was just as controversial then as now.


----------



## reformedminister (May 22, 2009)

I read Calvin's Preface to the Genevan Psalter. It is something every reformed Christian should read and ponder. 

"Now among the other things which are proper for recreating man and giving him pleasure, music is either the first, or one of the principal; and it is necessary for us to think that it is a gift of God deputed for that use. Moreover, because of this, we ought to be the more careful not to abuse it, for fear of soiling and contaminating it, converting it our condemnation, where it was dedicated to our profit and use. If there were no other consideration than this alone, it ought indeed to move us to moderate the use of music, to make it serve all honest things; and that it should no give occasion for our giving free rein to dissolution, or making ourselves effeminate in disordered delights, and that it should not become the instrument of lasciviousness nor of any shamelessness." - John Calvin


----------



## Johan (May 22, 2009)

JBaldwin said:


> Thinking about the OP, it really goes back to a right view of worship. Some of the first posts brought this out.
> 
> Also, as I read through the posts (and this might be a topic for another thread), I get the impression that some feel that being emotional in worship is wrong. I don't get this sense from reading through the Psalms. Rather I see an entire spectrum of emotions being expressed. The words of truth (no matter what style of music used) can move a person to tears or to want to stand up and shout for joy. While I agree that the music should not be used to drive emotions, it doesn't mean that emotions should be absent from the singing.



From Calvin: 


> As for the rest, it is necessary to remember that which St. Paul hath said, the spiritual songs cannot be well sung save from the heart. But the heart requires the intelligence. And in that (says St. Augustine) lies the difference between the singing of men and that of the birds. For a linnet, a nightingale, a parrot may sing well; but it will be without understanding. But the unique gift of man is to sing knowing that which he sings. After the intelligence must follow the heart and the affection, a thing which is unable to be except if we have the hymn imprinted on our memory, in order never to cease from singing.


----------



## SueS (May 26, 2009)

BTW - y'all haven't lived until you've experienced "Christ the Lord is Risen Today" played by a "praise" band with a heavy-handed drum back beat. I think that image will stay with me the rest of my life!


----------



## JBaldwin (May 26, 2009)

SueS said:


> BTW - y'all haven't lived until you've experienced "Christ the Lord is Risen Today" played by a "praise" band with a heavy-handed drum back beat. I think that image will stay with me the rest of my life!






Seriously, this gets into a musical issue. I happen to really like some of the updated hymns, but face it, the tunes for a hymn like "Christ the Lord is Risen Today" or "A Mighty Fortress" were written in a particular style of music and to add drums is to violate their music style In my humble opinion. We sing a lot of updated hymns in my church, but when it comes to these types of hymns, we leave them alone and sing them way they were written. Why mess with a good thing?


----------



## SueS (May 26, 2009)

JBaldwin;624515
Why mess with a good thing?[/QUOTE said:


> I totally agree - that's why I'm not terribly fond of the RUF efforts of putting traditional lyrics to folksy, '60's era style music in order to attract a younger audience. I recently had a conversation with our choir director who was lamenting the fact that today's generation is becoming more and more ignorant of "real" hymns and said that she expected that when her 6yo nephew becomes an adult, such hymns will be almost unknown. For that reason, even though I don't read music, I have a small collection of old hymnals so that I may preserve a small part of our rich musical heritage.
> 
> For what it's worth - the above mentioned "Christ the Lord Has Risen Today" experience wasn't done as a reworked production piece - it was the way ALL music is accompanied in that place.


----------



## JBaldwin (May 26, 2009)

SueS said:


> JBaldwin;624515
> Why mess with a good thing?[/quote said:
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## raekwon (May 26, 2009)

SueS said:


> JBaldwin;624515
> Why mess with a good thing?[/quote said:
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## SueS (May 26, 2009)

JBaldwin said:


> SueS said:
> 
> 
> > JBaldwin;624515
> ...


----------

