is this a new worship war starting?

I am very old fashioned. I prefer high church- Isaac Watts with big orchestra and booming choir type music.

But I like some new stuff.

I enjoyed Crippled Soul and some of the others. Pretty good stuff.

Here is a group I was introduced to that I think is dynamite.

They take REAL old rich lyrics and put them to contemporary music. Tremendous stuff!

Indelible Grace

This one is great!

Love of Christ- Tear jerker!

 

Our worship team did an entire album of Issac Watt's hymns. Some of my favorites!

I appreciate Indelible Grace. Great music!

 

Isaac Watts, high church? I can only think that the phrase "high church" has a totally different meaning in the US to what it means here. In the UK, "high church" refers to those in the Anglican church who favour Roman Catholic beliefs and ways of doing things. One dictionary definition for "high church" says:

section of Anglican Church: a section of the Anglican Church that stresses the essential unity of Anglican Christianity with Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy, holds traditional views about the sacraments, and favours ritual and ceremony
​

Isaac Watts certainly doesn't fit that description!

 

This is my idea of High Church Jesus thou art a sinners friend

 

Just remember Luke Old Man that Britian Rules the Waves (in another life)

 

I'm glad I asked about this. Otherwise, I could have used the phrase "high church" in a post, and assumed that it would mean the same to Americans, (and Australians, Canadians, New Zealanders......) as it does here. And that could lead to unnecessary confusion.

 

David, I'd say that you are talking ecclesiology and we're talking style.

 

OK David, you and I understand High Church (in the Anglican/ episcopal communion the same way...ie Priests with collars, organ music, Catholic High Mass like.....the kind Uncle Herbert with the pipe went too each Sunday. At least thats how we saw it in Pennsylvania (Herbert was the proper English, we on the Welsh side called him a Limey). The Welsh went to Chapel- more Calvinistic and austere. But when we built our churches they were bigger & had organ's (LOL)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MiTHGXtmE9U

 

I don't think so, because whether talking about style or ecclesiology, here, Isaac Watts would never be called "high church".

But hey, I wouldn't want to derail this thread onto differences between American and Brirish English. :thumbs:

 

hopefully you know Old Union Guy only represents a small part of the country.

 

Thanks... :thumbs:

And, I do understand the difference, but I've explained how the term may be seen differently on both sides of sea.

 

I called this high church firmly tongue in cheek. For David's benefit our churches are located mostly in the hills of Eastern KY, Virginia, West Virginia, along with a few in Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Florida, North Carolina, and Georgia .

I respect differing worshiping styles.

 

Im sure you do as do I....those churches you showed are more to the old Welsh Calvinist Chapels I was used to growing up. I was curious why one of the churches had a cross with a corpus displayed in the center. not being familiar with your church beliefs, can you explain why they would do that?

 

Clearing thinkgs up

I didn't place the video on youtube. I suspect that the one that did the video just randomly picked pictures of churches not realizing what they had done. I just picked it out because the singing does represent us.

 

Yes Ann, you & I represent the NY & NJ Metropolitan area of the country. But perhaps other regions have different experiences.

 

I agree. But there realms within other denominations that have their own style of "high church." For example, I think of the late Dr. D. James Kennedy of Coral Ridge - definitely high church, definitely not catholic.

In fact, I think it is really more of a continuum between high/low church and what one views is high/low is really based on their own experience. For example, our "contemporary" service may be considered high church by some and low church by others. While the music is more contemporary with a worship band with words on the screens, we still have a certain liturgy -- lot of Scripture readings in addition to the sermon -- the Psalms, an OT reading, a NT reading and a final Scriptural blessing, we may have a common prayer (sometimes the Lord's prayer), and we may have a common affirmation of faith (sometimes using the Apostle's Creed).

 

Rap is primarily poetry, (spoken word), but because it became marketed by the record industry, and started out being performed over instrumental dance tracks, then adding synthesized chords of it's own, and finally, sampling older music (and adding some vocal singing), it fell into the "music" ("audio track") category. But it should not be judged by the standard of music, and then trashed as "noise" (in comparison) like that. It is an altogether different artform.

And yes, Africa is more rhythm-oriented than Europe. That may become sensual at times, but then the opposite extreme on the other side was to become uptight, rigid and smug.
Depending on what you mean by "civilized", part of it is that poor, underdeveloped countries like those are not going to be producing a lot of symphony orchestras.

As for the OP; yes, some fundamentalist (and Reformed) contemporary music critics do caution about "19th century gospel", as setting the stage for the "shallowness " of CCM (while the "music" itself is still accepted). Tim Fisher (from the Greenville BJU circle like Garlock & Woetzel) had briefly discussed this in his Battle for Christian Music. Michael Horton criticizes it too sometimes, and John MacArthur gave an excellent treatment of the whole music issue in Christian Research Journal vol.23 No.2 also.