"Contemporary worship not a fix all" article
Greg Jones
this list:
"Contemporary worship not a fix all"
http://www.abpnews.com/ministry/congregations/item/7629-contemporary-worship-not-a-fix-all#.UAm46URpYgc
Greg
--
*****************************************
www.gregjonesmusic.com
Follow me on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/#!/gregrjones
The Pendulum Effect Blog:
http://thependulumeffect.blogspot.com/
Bob Marshall
well-written article and I will repeat Greg's suggestion to read it. I agree
with most of it, although ultimately there is no resolution and the issue is
still left dangling out there. That's OK, the article gives lots of things
to think about.
Bob Marshall
Cool, CA
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Worship Music" group.
To post to this group, send email to worshi...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
worship-musi...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/worship-music?hl=en.
Dean Thomas
There are, again IMO, a number of nuggets of universal truth. The concept of giving reign to the Spirit of the Living Christ is of huge importance. The statement about how visitors are intrigued (and I'd add "challenged") by the depth of worship and the genuineness of the people both up front and in the pew/chair. Even unbelievers can sense those two very desirable traits.
Like some of the sources, I've watched countless contemporary services fail. People should not attempt to be what they are not. And in years past, I've shared a few times about how new things within the context of a church body need to have more than pastoral permission. If it's not part of the vision of the house (usually the pastor's own passionate ideas), it's going to be a hard road to success. Usually the vision of the house is God-given, not man-whumped-up. What God gives, God will provide for in all ways, or at least that's been my own experience. [One can substitute whatever the driving force is in a congregation, whether pastor, board of elders, steering committee, or what/whoever holds the reins of power in that congregation. Again, all IMO.]
Finally, Marva Dawn's observation about the choice being a false one. We continually try to foist labels on things and remake things in the images of our imaginings. I had to smile about Marva's clarification about the redefining of "contemporary". It does talk about the fact that it's happening NOW. Contemporary means at the same time or in the same time frame. What's REAL for one group is just not a welcome expression for another group.
Interesting indeed.
--
trit...@cox.net
I see a couple of problems with the wholsale adoption of "Contemporary Worship."
First, as the article states, churches adopt a contemporary style in order to "to increase attendance or renew spiritual energy ." In my experience, it's more of the former and less of the latter, except to the extent that renewed spiritual energy facilitates numerical growth. In short, much of Protestantism (and Catholicism, too, for that matter) has adopted "worship" as a church-building (numbers) tool. If it happens to glorify God in the process, well, that's OK, too, but of course the greatest glory we can give Him is packing out the house every time the doors are open. And a hot band will make that happen.
I hesitate to mention my second reservation, but oh, well. Here's a little story to introduce it. A friend once complained to me that "they (meaning 'Non-Charismatics') have stolen our worship!" Having lived on both sides of that ridiculous divide, I was able to assure him that the only thing appropriated was musical style. My second issue is the adoption of "Charismatic" worship styles by churches who absolutely deny the present manifestation of "sign" gifts. Not that it's a huge issue in general, but I can say from experience that most of my Charismatic friends have no real idea that the "NC" circles are mainly looking for a way to add numbers to their sagging attendance. And most of my "NC" friends can't comprehend that much of their contemporary style grew up in "Charismatic" churches as a way to unite congregations in a supernatural, spiritual dimension, not to bring folks in the doors. I try not to judge, but I have to admit I've been in many a church service where the words "having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof" came roaring into my mind when the music - excellent renderings of the newest tunes from the hottest "worship artists - started.
Because music is no longer art, but instead a commercial commodity, style wars will never end. Hopefully we can turn toward the desire for conversation (the article was an excellent example) and away from the lust for conversion.
As always in my responses, you have to eat the meat and spit out the bones. There may be an inordinate number of bones in this one ... :-)
Mike
Greg Jones
1. I totally agree that churches need to capitalize on their strengths
and not try to be who they are not.
2. I agree that style is not the end all. But I do think the article
needs to go further in understanding that style is like a 'language', it
is a medium to reach specific people groups. Some people are 'coffee and
latte' people while others are plain black coffee drinkers. Starbucks
can reach the former but not the latter. The same goes for worship music
styles. If Starbucks tried to reach all types of coffee drinkers, they
will likely fail. They need to know their strengths and capitalize on them
3. I agree that many churches adopt a contemporary service/style with a
shallow mentality of 'it will draw in more people' instead of thinking
deeper about how they are speaking to different people groups (see #2) .
4. In my mind, it makes no more sense though for a church to get stuck
in traditionalism than it does for historians to wear period costumes
while studying/researching. This point shows my bias against
traditionalism. With that said, I'm totally not opposed to reaching
traditionalists with traditional music and church forms, I'm just
pointing out a weakness that I see in traditionalists. I think many of
them are limping.
Greg
trit...@cox.net
Lots of my friends claim that style doesn't matter to them in worship music, and that it really shouldn't matter to anyone. By this, they mean that they can uplift God, glorify Him, and hear from Spirit no matter what style of music is played. But they are saying that within a context of music theory developed in Western Europe, ignoring Berg, Webern, Schoenberg, et al. I think they might be hard-put to "worship to" throat-singers accompanied by singing bowls. Or sprechstimme. Or atonal serial compositions. Because music is a language of emotion (not just poetically - it is how the brain responds to music), some musical styles and cultures are a foreign language to us, and may not "work" for us in worship, any more than preaching in Inuit would "work" in the average church in Kansas. When we start talking honestly about style, we come to the point of admitting that at some level, style DOES matter, because a style that is too foreign to the group will not convey the desired emotional content, and will therefore fail to engage the whole being as familair musical styles can do.
Regarding tradition and traditionalism, someone once said that tradition is the living faith of those who have died, while traditionalism is the dead faith of those who are alive. Maybe not in the bulls-eye, but definitely at least in the 9-ring. In a digital environment, it doesn't take long to establish a tradition. Someone tries something new in a service, and likes the results, so he blogs it. Next week, a few dozen churches try it, and blog the results. Within a few months, every church leader with internet access has heard all the pros and cons of it, and is deciding whether to try it out. In a year, it's either established in the fabric of church culture, or it has passed out of vogue. It can become a sort of tradition in a very short time. I agree that tradition for tradition's sake is as foolish as change for change's sake.
> needs to go further in understanding that style is like a 'language', it
> is a medium to reach specific people groups. Some people are 'coffee and
> latte' people while others are plain black coffee drinkers. Starbucks
> can reach the former but not the latter. The same goes for worship music
> styles. If Starbucks tried to reach all types of coffee drinkers, they
> will likely fail. They need to know their strengths and capitalize on them
>
Gerald Montagna
This topic is a minefield, because there's no right answer or formula. God plans every church to reach a different demographic niche, so that between all the churches all potential Christians get reached. On the other hand, this attitude can be taken to such extremes that the niches become un-Christian -- i.e., a "church" that consists of people of all the same income, education, race, marital status, etc., etc. Surely God wanted us to be a family, and families are by nature multi-generational, multi-income, multi-educational (and these days, often multi-ethnic as well).
I have always said that the right way to maintain a true multi-generational family is to have blended services that harmoniously incorporate (as opposed to tokenism, or paying lip-service to) multiple styles of worship. I seem to be in a vast minority amongst church musicians in this, for I'm told that the multiple-style approach pleases nobody and alienates everybody. Sometimes, yes, but it depends on the congregation. I am now so so so so happy and fulfilled to be in a congregation that shares my feelings and appreciates anything I do. The team sings 19th century hymns, the congregation loves it. The team sings Hillsongs, they love it. We do Southern gospel, they love it. We do Victorian parlor-music, they love it. The success in this congregation never reflects the style of the music, but the relative power of the anthem's message. How blest I am to finally be in this situation!
But for congregations that haven't reached that point, or that don't aspire to reach it, you can't criticize them if it bears fruit. For example, I sometimes attend a very contemporary Sunday evening service at a church in a very rich neighborhood of Connecticut. The music, albeit performed by excellent musicians, can be excrutiating -- all rhythm, no melody at all, trite lyrics, limited subject matter, much more extreme than Hillsongs United. When I find myself hating the music there, I detach myself from the song and start to pray. No, not to pray that they will stop using such junk in church, but to thank God for using this music to reach people who wouldn't be in church otherwise. I look around at the hundred or so teens who are there and I say to God, if this is what it takes to make these kids comfortable in church and to be receptive to hearing the Word of God, then I thank you for using this method to bring them here. (Incidentally, the Word preached there is very solid -- explained in a way they can understand without jargon, but with all the convicting traditional Protestant doctrine put straight up front.)
Back to the title of the article, of course NO kind of music is a "fix all". Music is merely a tool. In the end the Word is the purpose of the service, and music merely helps that goal. If the preaching if feel-good, unconvicting, no-pain/no-gain, then the church is terminally ill no matter how financially sound it may be. I've also seen churches where the Word preached is outstanding, convicting and powerful, and yet the congregation is deaf to it -- very common in rich White neighborhoods, but not unknown in poor minority churches as well. Music can't "fix" that.
Greg Jones
Back to the title of the article, of course NO kind of music is a "fix all". Music is merely a tool. In the end the Word is the purpose of the service, and music merely helps that goal. If the preaching if feel-good, unconvicting, no-pain/no-gain, then the church is terminally ill no matter how financially sound it may be. I've also seen churches where the Word preached is outstanding, convicting and powerful, and yet the congregation is deaf to it -- very common in rich White neighborhoods, but not unknown in poor minority churches as well. Music can't "fix" that.
Greg