In my OP, I tried not to explicitly tie music and worship together, though some hint of that was given (seeing as I said that I have written on "worship and music standards"). Worship is NOT music, though the music used in our churches is worship. Worship is not giving money, though giving money is worship. Worship is a much bigger thing than the song service of a church. "Corporate worship begins when the first tire hits the parking lot, and ends when the last tire leaves it."
I have no problem with the moniker "Worship Pastor"; in fact, I prefer it. But the term "Worship Pastor" should NOT simply mean "I lead the singing in our church." That is just a song leader.
To answer some of you (though I'll leave out quotes for now) I am an online student of LU. I do hope to become an adjunct professor either there or elsewhere once I get my Master's, though I anticipate that will also be online.
Any church using any music printed after 1930 is paying for it (and thus making people money), or is using it illegally. The way the law works, is that you are allowed to use any music in your church that you wish, for private usage. However, once you live stream, you must pay the author their dues. This means that if you sang "Mansion Over The Hilltop", and you live streamed it, either you had to pay royalties or you technically used it illegally. This is an area that much church leadership is not versed in (and where having an educated worship pastor can help). Those who write music as a profession do it to make money. It might not be their principle goal (or it may), but they have to eat, too.
However, this means that whether a church is rotating songs or not, they are still paying out the same rate (usually this is handled with a flat fee license per year). Best practices for handling the rotation of songs seems to be to have a few (anywhere from 5-15) that you are introducing, have a few that your congregation knows, and a few that have started to become stale that you are about to rotate out. This seems to hold true regardless of what style your song service is (traditional, liturgical, contemporary, etc).
My OP question about culture impacting worship was somewhat two-fold. I have seen culture impact worship greatly here in America in the early days. But then when current culture tries to come in and shape our worship now, the hyper conservative churches call it compromising. Of ready note is our hymns and the way we do our "traditional" services. This was shaped purely by culture back in the early days of our country. It was the way culture said that things should be done, and churches acquiesced. Now, culture says something different should be done, and traditional churches scoff.
Of even more note, I am seeing more and more that hardcore traditional churches are allowing culture to shape their worship. I have often heard the phrase, "If the world does it, we do not" or something similar. This literally means that they are taking a look at what the world does, and they stay away from it, allowing what the world does to dictate what they do.
For full disclosure, I have begun working on a possible dissertation for my future PhD, and it deals with the historically racialized standards that formed in the IFB culture that were based upon the preferences of secularism, that were then justified through the cherry-picking of Biblical texts. My current thesis is: "This study argues that the Independent Fundamental Baptist (IFB) rejection of certain musical rhythms - particularly backbeat and percussion - is not merely a theological or aesthetic preference, but the result of a historically inherited moral framework shaped by early twentieth-century American moral panics, racialized perceptions of rhythm, and evangelical doctrines of separation, which together have profoundly influenced IFB worship practices, music education, and congregational participation."
) 