How a church can go from "praise and worship" to true preaching of God's Word!

No debate here bapmom...I agree. But you must admit there are some who make a mistake in dismissing emotion during music (especially contemporary songs) as somehow "charismatic" and empty of true worship. We wouldn't have to look very hard to find many evidences in posts all over this BBS to find people making comments about "emotion" in worship.

Just making a point, that's all. I'm not aligning myself with either side of this debate. Our church is a "blended" type of church, and I assure you, we go from praise and worship to true preaching of God's Word.

 

Some of the most spritual people I know are in contempary churches. The music isn't the problem. It is the heart of legealism. If you don't sing hymns then you cannot be as spritual as I am. That is foolishness.

If you don't like it, then don't listen to it. That is your choice. Listen to some Chris Rice and tell me his stuff is shallow.

 

ok USN2


I see Dina, and like I said, haven't you been in churches where the music "performances" took precedence over any preaching and teaching of God's word?

I have.

 

Patrick, I really think you just hit the nail on the head. Once again, I think it all boils down legalism and what makes one group feel superior over another.

I have to admit that some of the deepest lyrics that put my heart and mind in the right position spiritually have come CCM.

 

No, I haven't. I have been in churches where the music was very emotional, thereby getting my heart ready for the teaching.

 

well good, Dina, but perhaps if you HAD visited that sort of church you might understand his point better.

I have been and still am in a church where the music is emotional and gets my heart ready for the preaching. BTW, this does not have to be CCM, either, as it isn't. It is often modern-written songs, though.

A very alive IFB church, btw.

 

bapmom, unfortunately, I have seen what you're talking about, (meaning the music was more "performance" than worship) but not in a Baptist church - except for some southern gospel quartets that rely very heavily on emotion during their music.

 

USN2,

thats been my experience as well. Its been when I was visiting someone else's church, usually a different denomination or non-denominational.

 

In the past I attended several non-denominational churches who had longer than normal praise and worship times than the "standard hymnal" baptist churches that I had attended in the past.

Perhaps, to those who were not a regular attender, it would seem that it was a "performance", and there may even be some there that are "performing" but to most it is more about praising God and worshipping Him through song.

I now attend a Baptist church that has both a traditional service as well a contemporary service. The difference between the 2 services is the music. The traditional uses the hymnal and the contemporary uses songs that are written for praise and worship as well as popular CCM songs that are being played on the radio. The traditional service also has their songs spread out before and after the teaching, where the contemporary has it more as a set time for music except for 1 or 2 songs after the teaching.

I think it is a matter of choice and what helps prepare the person for the teaching, as well as how they feel they praise God and worship Him best.

 

I'm new here. Maybe a thought would fit in. I think it is sad that we let CCM capture the term Praise and Worship, because that is what we are doing in our church with conservative, sacred music. Doesn't it seem odd to criticize praise and worship?

For me, having gone through my teen years in the 70's, the rock style of music was fully associated with rebellion, drugs, illicit sex, etc. My heart issue is whether that is a suitable vehicle to carry the message of Jesus Christ.

The demon possessed girl in Acts 16 told the truth when she said Paul and Silas were servants of God and carried the message of salvation. However, a demon possessed girl was not a suitable vehicle for the message, so Paul was grieved. That is how I respond when I hear the Gospel played in a "rock and roll" setting.

 

I agree, Jwatt.

 

And I disagree.

I see nothing wrong with Contemporary Christian Music being used in the Praise and Worship part of Sunday Services. Not all CCM is "rock and roll"

Your experiences are the basis for your opinion, just as someone elses experiences are the basis for their opinions.

If you are talking "musically" and not lyrically, some of the more popular hymns have been known as drinking songs in the past. So to say that musically they are above reproach is incorrect. They were not always popular, and at one most were even considered not suitable for the times when they were first published.

Lyrically, some of the songs that are considered CCM are just as deep if not deeper than some of the hymns that have been sung for years.

But, once again, this is a very subjective subject, and no one is 'right' and no one is 'wrong' it is all a matter of choice and opinion.

 

I did not suggest all CCM is rock and roll. The part of it that is rock & roll creates the problem for those of us who reject it. As you said, I was talking musically. Many CCM songs are straight from the Psalms. How could I fault those lyrics?

My objection is based on the vehicle where it is from an ungodly stream. It is not only my experience that shapes my conviction(although it does include my experience). It is the Scriptural principle that unholy things corrupt the holy things they touch. Secular and Christian writers on music describe rock music for what it was historically.

I agree with Dina that many of the classic hymns are not accurate scripturally or deep theologically. However, I doubt the accuracy that very many of them were drinking songs. I think several good writers have debunked that ruse.

We would be silly to dismiss all contemporary songs because of when they were written, just as we would be silly to accept all of the songs that are old just because of their age.

 

I grew up in a strict, legalistic church with a piano, organ and hymnals. I hate to admit, but I resent that style music now, like jwatts (welcome, by the way ) resents the "rock" sound from his upbringing. I feel much more worshipful singing uplifting, joyful sounding music...I envision the angels singing in this way...instead of solemn, slow, chanting, unemotional, repetition. Music is personal preference. I don't associate all organs and pianos to legalism, as drums and guitars shouldn't be associated with the "world".

 

I think that is pretty well put, wd.

 

What Im going to say is not directed specifically at webdog, although what he said did make me think of it again......

From what Ive seen here (not a slam) the hymns have a rather poor reputation. Look at how hymns are really written though....most of them are in 4/4 time, which is not slow, although I will grant you that that often depends on the director. Many of them are incredibly joyful when sung at their proper tempo, and with the proper expression that has been written into the music.

I think for some of us, myself included, we like the old hymns because we have had the experiences of singing them with joy and vibrancy, not slow, painstakingly, and unemotionally.

Like I said, again I agree with Jwatt, and I think each individual song has to be judged on its own. We tend to make blanket statements which covers a wide range of music. While that can be useful, if we are not all using the same definitions it can be confusing in the least.

 

OK, so I appreciate that a church might very well be vibrant and worshipful using solely traditional music. It's not the style of the music, but the quality of the music itself and how its done.
I totally disagree with the comment that rock is not an appropriate vehicle for praise. That's like saying paper isn't an appropriate vehicle for Scripture.
Just because someone listened to sinful music in the rock style in the past doesn't mean that rock is somehow "tainted" or "unclean." In fact, the person even used that analogy. So the whole church is held hostage to something that is in one person's head.
Suppose someone had been abused by his father. Then they hear the Lord's Prayer, "Our Father, etc." In his mind, "father" is associated with sin. So should we change the Lord's Prayer for him? Perhaps "Our Father" is not an appropriate vehicle to express who God is. Or do we, rather, help the person gain true spiritual discernment instead of judging things on the surface?

 

David,

the only problem I saw with your last post was that the Lord's Prayer is specifically spelled out in the Bible, and God continually uses the term "Father" for Himself in regards to His relationship with us.

Music is not that spelled out for us...so we have to rely on principles that we find in God's word. And there are principles that guide what we should be filling our minds with....that's all.

 

That's true, sister, we must find principles in God's word. And that's my point. There is nothing in God's word that prescribes a particular style of music. In fact, if you check out all the percussion in the 150th Psalm, it sounds like rock 'n roll to me.
Churches are wrong to add rules and laws to God's word. The Catholics are wrong when they add "tradition" to Scripture. Baptists are wrong when they add tradition to Scripture.

 

I understand your viewpoint, David. Thank you for how you stated it calmly. I appreciate that.