Contempory Music/blended Services

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kiffin:


I am not anti CCM or Praise and Worship choruses. They have their places. Unfortunately most Praise and Worship choruses (with maybe a few exceptions) are not strong Theological songs. Sacred Hymns such as "Crown Him with Many Crowns" "Holy, Holy, Holy" "And Can it Be?" "Amazing Grace" "O Sacred Head Now Wounded" "Rock of Ages" provide doctrine teaching that is sadly lacking in Praise and Worship. Music should feed and instruct us.

That does not mean that CCM doesn't have a place in worship just as Fritos, Dorritos, Snickers bars can have a place in our physical diet. We just would not want to eat a bag of Lays chips for all our meals but desire to have something more nutrious. CCM is much like Fritos, Dorritos, Snickers bars. It has a place. Most CCM songs though lack the doctrinal depth to be the main chorus.

My problem with the Seeker Friendly churches is that they borrow much from Youth Ministry. I know I served 5 years as a Youth pastor. What is good for a Wedneday or Friday night Youth meeting however is not always good for Sunday Morning worship.

[ February 08, 2002: Message edited by: Kiffin ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I believe that part of the function of music in the Church is to bring comfort in times of need. I have nothing at all against the hymns that you mentioned some of them are my favorites. However, when I needed comfort last week, He didn't bring to mind "And Can It Be", rather let the peace of God reign.

We have been blessed to have so many fine hymns that give a strong theological message. However, not all music serves the same purpose. Comparing different songs and hymns in that matter does a disservice to both.

Steve

 

I find the comments of this thread very interesting...who's to say that most folks over the 50's mark won't like this type of christian music? In my church, we have many folks in the 60's and over range who absolutely love ccm and in fact enjoy even harder christian music. CCM/Traditional service= a compromise with the world??? oh please, no no my friends, not even close to it....trust me on that.

karen

 

Steve said,
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
We have been blessed to have so many fine hymns that give a strong theological message. However, not all music serves the same purpose. Comparing different songs and hymns in that matter does a disservice to both. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Read my posts and you will see I agree with you on that. CCM has it's place in worship but a worship service that is oriented toward people is self worship. What did I get out of it? rather than giving to the Triune God becomes the attitude.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kiffin:

Read my posts and you will see I agree with you on that. CCM has it's place in worship but a worship service that is oriented toward people is self worship. What did I get out of it? rather than giving to the Triune God becomes the attitude.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree that worship needs to be God centered rather than man centered. The church where I attend sings for about 20 minutes with a 35 minute sermon. Including announcements, prayer, offering, and other variables (communion, special music, etc.) the service comes out to between 65-75 minutes long. If anything is cut back, it's the music. The sermon is sacrosanct. Our music is primarily CCM with an occasional hymn or 2. Our goal is to match the music with the sermon. So, there is a concerted effort (not always successful) to keep the music in the same tone and message as the sermon.

However, the thrust of my previous post was not aimed at your last paragraph. I did not make it clear enough that I disagreed with you comments about CCM being akin to junk food. .

In my opinion, you're comparing apples and oranges. Most of the hymns that you mentioned were intended to be little sermonettes by their writers. The Wesleys (most notably) wrote hymns that were filled with doctrine to help reinforce their preaching. Most people didn't have access to theology books. It was innovative and worked.

What is being written now has a different emphasis (Worship and Praise). Many songs are taken almost wholesale from the Psalms and Isaiah.

Yes, there are some pretty poor CCM songs. There are some equally as poor hymns.

Steve

 

Steve said,
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> In my opinion, you're comparing apples and oranges. Most of the hymns that you mentioned were intended to be little sermonettes by their writers. The Wesleys (most notably) wrote hymns that were filled with doctrine to help reinforce their preaching. Most people didn't have access to theology books. It was innovative and worked.

What is being written now has a different emphasis (Worship and Praise). Many songs are taken almost wholesale from the Psalms and Isaiah.

Yes, there are some pretty poor CCM songs. There are some equally as poor hymns.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My comparing CCM to junk food was actually a paraphrase of something David Meece (a CCM artist said). It really is not an insult to CCM (Hey I love Dorritos!) and I have a Petra CD in my player. There are some CCM songs that are in the Sacred Hymn Class but very few.


Wesley as most early hymn writers wrote hymns that were filled with doctrine to help reiforce doctrine. We need that maybe even more today since according to recent stats of George Barna (the church pollster) most Christians are Biblically illiterate. The average church goer needs Doctrine in worship. Yes, I believe hymns should reinforce the Word as did the Wesleys and should be mini sermonettes. That is exactly what the Psalms are (our model for great songwriting).

I believe most Praise and Worship borrows snipets from Isaiah and Psalms but would do better to copy the way the Psalmists wrote songs which is very similar to the way Wesley wrote hymns. It is true that many Psalms were simply songs of love like most Praise and Worship but they occupy only a small part of the book and CCM has added that intimate love song to God that does have a place in worship.

CCM's problem is that their songwriters need to be more Trinitarian in their songs when referring to God plus get away from the "I love You" "I worship You" Mantras that make most of the songs predictable and tedious.

[ February 11, 2002: Message edited by: Kiffin ]

 

Ollie:

There is no commandment in the Scriptures to use any kind of music, good or bad, in Christian worship (though a case might be made for the use of plain song).

If the music YOU want to use in church is distasteful to some, why do you put the burden on them to change and come around to your way of thinking? Wouldn't it be the Christian thing to remove the stumbling block from before them? Because, certainly, if God isn't worried about musical styles, your insistance to do your own will in regard to music ministry knowing that you are trampling the consciences of some cannot be a good thing. I wonder who God is more displeased with. Is He more displeased with those who may have an "irrational" fear of certain musical styles, or is He more displeased with those who with "superior" knowledge trample the tender consciences of His weaker sheep?

Also, I would not look too hard at whether the world approves of us or not. If the world is giving us rave reviews, then we are certainly NOT about Christ's business. He stated that since the world hates Him, it would hate us.

He did say, however, that men would know we are Christians by our love. Why not demonstrate to the world that you love your brothers by deferring to their musical preferences?

 

He did say, however, that men would know we are Christians by our love. Why not demonstrate to the world that you love your brothers by deferring to their musical preferences?

Good question. Why not ask your pastor the same thing? Why shouldn't the pastor defer to the wishes of the congregation in his preaching?

It's because somebody has to lead. Those following have to trust that the one leading has prayed, sought the Lord about what they are to do. This includes both the pastor and the music (worship) leader.

Leadership by concensus, or committee. A very sound way to get nowhere fast.

Have you ever played follow the leader? Have you ever played follow the leader with 3 or 4 leaders at the same time? Really fun, isn't it? Why shouldn't we have 50 leaders, since we are deferring to what most want? Sounds like true love, doesn't it?

Love is NOT giving the "brothers" what they want.

And, if you don't like the way you're being led, there's another church just down the street. In our town, there's literally 100 churches just down the street (in a town of 10,000). But that's another thread.

 

Hi Ollie,

You said,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Also a 'seeker church" is doing more what God wants than one that is sitting there doing nothing and with the hostile attitude of "our way or the highway" . No wonder the world attacks us and the sinners can't see God in our mist. The church which is still stuck in the "50" is losing members to the churches that are responding to the needs of today. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ollie, if the world isn't attacking us then we are doing something wrong. The differance here is what is the purpose of worship. You imply that those of us who are against CCM being the main diet aren't reaching out or doing Evangelism. Actually we do not see a worship service as something to reach out to people with, but a time for us to bless God.

I disagree with my friend Aaron's view of no music but I still think we have the same philosophy that a Worship service is designed for God not man. Dr. Robert Webber who writes for Worship Leader
magazine has a video entitled Ancient Future Worship which shows how to blend the sacred Hymns with CCM in a liturgical format that is God centered not man centered as Seeker services are. Here is a link to a couple of his articles,
http://www.instituteforworshipstudies.org/Resources/Articles/Reducing%20God%20to%2 0Music.htm
http://www.instituteforworshipstudies.org/Resources/Articles/Believer-S ensitive%20Blended%20Worship.htm

In Revelation 4 we see heavenly worship,
Whenever the living creatures give glory and honor and thanks to Him who sits on the throne, to Him who lives forever and ever, the twenty-four elders fall down before Him who sits on the throne and worship Him who lives forever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne, saying: "You are worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honor and power; For You created all things, and by Your will they exist and were created" (Revelation 4:10, 11).

The Lord's prayer states "Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven" (Matt. 6:10). Therefore Heaven must be regarded as the pattern for the way we worship on earth. That is God is the center. The purpose of worship is not to comfort or reach out to people or get them to make a decision but to worship the Transcendant God - Father, Son and Holy Spirit. If we make reaching people the goal of worship then we actually are not worshipping God but just having a get together.

It is not about music primarily with me but the pattern of worship. It has nothing to do with 1950's worship. Baptist worship 50 years ago and still to some extent was mancentered with the typical 3 Hymn sandwich, prayer requests and announcements, special music, Sermon, Invitation and a cloud of dust (That is the Charles Finney type worship). Some of us don't like that form no better than Seeker services. Those of us who hold to either a Liturgical form of Worship or a Regulative form of Worship believe worship has been mancentered for about 100 years among Baptists and needs to refocus on God.

[ February 11, 2002: Message edited by: Kiffin ]

 

qwerty:

Though your leadership doctrines smack of Romanism, I will only say that NONE of us should trust any man to do the right thing. Our trust is not given to a man simply because he is in a certain position, but because he has earned it.

We are to only follow the leader as long as he follows Christ, and we are the better judges of that than he is himself.

Now to the main point: The Scriptures state emphatically that in "doubtful disputations" we are to defer to the "weaker" brother (Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8). The Gospel is not music and instruments, but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.

 

Just a little clarification:

I have never said that instrumental accompaniament should be banned from Christian worship. However, I have to be true to the Scriptures. There is no commandment to use instruments, and the early church shunned them.

The only case anyone can make for instrumental accompaniament in church is either liberty or weakness.

 

&lt; There is no commandment in the Scriptures to use any kind of music, good or bad, in Christian worship (though a case might be made for the use of plain song). &gt;

If there is no commandment in scripture, then upon what is it that a "case might be made for the use of 'plain song?'" Nevertheless, "...singing and making melody in your heart...(Ephesians 5:19)"-- whether or not you attend a 'Church of Christ,' one wonders if a pacemaker programmed to play a melody would be acceptable based on this verse.

&lt; Why not demonstrate to the world that you love your brothers by deferring to their musical preferences? &gt;

I know of no one-- certainly including posters on this board-- who disdains the "plain song" to which you refer, or traditional hymns, if you will. Only some-- apparently including yourself-- who 'prefer' only the traditional hymns refuse to defer to the musical preferences of others, meaning particularly (but not limited to) those who prefer 'CCM.'

On the other hand, you mention "deferring to the weaker brother" as in Romans 14. Are the ones who want 'plain song' exclusively the ones you are callng the "weaker brother(s)?"

 

Kiffin wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Wesley as most early hymn writers wrote hymns that were filled with doctrine to help reiforce doctrine. We need that maybe even more today since according to recent stats of George Barna (the church pollster) most Christians are Biblically illiterate. The average church goer needs Doctrine in worship. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have no doubt that most Christians are Biblically illiterate. Most Christians do not avail themselves of opportunities for growth and discipleship offered. Every Bible-believing Church that I've been in has offered at least the sermon and Sunday School for growth and discipleship.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Yes, I believe hymns should reinforce the Word as did the Wesleys and should be mini sermonettes. That is exactly what the Psalms are (our model for great songwriting).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here's the problem from my view. There are few participatory forms of congregational worship as most modern services are ordered. Singing, responsive reading, and offering are about it for active participation. The majority of the time is spent listening to or observing others. This makes the time spent singing important since it is virtually the only time the whole congregation spends in group adoration and exultation. Spending that time for additional little sermonettes supplants the equally as important time that we should be spending in group participation worship. If we believe that worship should be God-centered then that time of adoration should be more focused upward. This is not to say that we should only have songs of adoration and exultation. Rather, I think we need to keep clear that there are other opportunities for discipleship and instruction. The time spent singing should be viewed primarily as a time of group worship rather than more group instruction.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
CCM's problem is that their songwriters need to be more Trinitarian in their songs when referring to God plus get away from the "I love You" "I worship You" Mantras that make most of the songs predictable and tedious.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

CCM's problem is that it is new. What we are seeing is the best and the worst simultaneously and unfiltered by time. My understanding is that the Wesleys wrote hundreds of hymns. However, probably most hymnals only have around 50 or so (generous) Wesleyan hymns. We probably only sing around half that. What happened to the rest? Probably most weren't their best work. Time and interpretation have a way of weeding out the worst and keeping the gems.

By the way, I prefer Fritos to Doritos!

[ February 11, 2002: Message edited by: sjd ]

 

&lt; CCM's problem is that it is new. What we are seeing is the best and the worst simultaneously and unfiltered by time. My understanding is that the Wesleys wrote hundreds of hymns. However, probably most hymnals only have around 50 or so (generous) Wesleyan hymns. We probably only sing around half that. What happened to the rest? &gt;

That's another point in this debate. Every church I have stayed around in used either the Baptist Hymnal (1956, 1975, or 1991) or Hymns For the Family of God. I would estimate it is less than 5% of all the hymns in any of those books that were actually used. This goes to show defending traditional hymns is largely a comfort-zone issue. People want to sing what they are long familiar with, and then the words and melody come out with less effort and more room in the brain to think about other things while singing. New songs may rob them of this familiar comfort.

 

Cynic:

Romans 14 and 1 Cor 8 deal with matters of conscience and questionable matters. Take some time off your cynicism for awhile to think about that.

Who are the weaker brothers in this dispute? It is always the CCM crowd that looks down their noses at the "traditionalists" for their lack of spirituality, superstition and inferior knowledge. In this debate, the traditionalists have the "weaker" conscience.

It is also the CCM crowd that insists that music is "a little thing," and that no big deal should be made of it. They insist that no tenet of the Faith is compromised by musical style. That being the case, the burden is upon them to defer in this questionable, nonessential matter to their "weaker" brethren.

That matter could not be more plain.

 

What you're saying about the CCm crowd may often be true, but the critics go beyond claiming their weak consciences are being violated. They are telling everyone else what is good or universally bad and what they shouldn't listen to even when they are not around. Both sides are violating these two scriptures. But the critics, who focus on the Bible, criticizing the contemporary people for going by feelings or what seems right rather than the Bible, should know better.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ChristianCynic:

That's another point in this debate. Every church I have stayed around in used either the Baptist Hymnal (1956, 1975, or 1991) or Hymns For the Family of God. I would estimate it is less than 5% of all the hymns in any of those books that were actually used. This goes to show defending traditional hymns is largely a comfort-zone issue. People want to sing what they are long familiar with, and then the words and melody come out with less effort and more room in the brain to think about other things while singing. New songs may rob them of this familiar comfort.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The sad truth is that even with CCM an average church uses only 75-100 hymns/songs in its repertoire.

Comfort level of both congregation and musicians is partly to blame. Also, smaller churches tend to stick with the familiar and easy to sing. No one likes to stand out in a crowd. It's for this reason that larger churches tend to take the lead in introducing new music.

Steve

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron:

Who are the weaker brothers in this dispute? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good question. I think that both sides could claim "weaker brother" status. Neither side can claim Biblical high ground.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
It is always the CCM crowd that looks down their noses at the "traditionalists" for their lack of spirituality, superstition and inferior knowledge. In this debate, the traditionalists have the "weaker" conscience.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can't speak for anyone else. I respect your position. I just don't understand it. It seems to me that (much like the CCM side) it is built on personal likes and dislikes. Mind you, I don't think that necesarily a bad thing. It just needs to be acknowledged as an opinion.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
It is also the CCM crowd that insists that music is "a little thing," and that no big deal should be made of it. They insist that no tenet of the Faith is compromised by musical style. That being the case, the burden is upon them to defer in this questionable, nonessential matter to their "weaker" brethren.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't consider this "a little thing". I do think that it is part of a larger discussion on public worship. I do believe that music is a very important part of our worship. As I stated in an earlier post our singing is one of the few participatory acts of public worship. Therefore, I believe it is important to have quality music.

You're correct in stating that music is not required as a part of worship. The New Testament is curiously silent as to the form of worship. There's no "Order of Worship". No sample bulletin to go by. We do have some points about what not to do. Why has God chosen to be relatively silent while in the Old Testament He was very explicit? I don't know.

I do know that it is important to continue discussing these topics in a manner that is respectful of others and would bring glory to God.

Steve

[ February 12, 2002: Message edited by: sjd ]

 

Steve,

You're right, we should still discuss it.

Eric,

The admonitions concerning conscience and liberty are addressed to the ones who possess knowledge. A weaker brother may be somewhat superstitious, but the burden of the one with knowledge is not to cast dispersions upon his opinions in non-essential matters, but to defer to him.

In that I am not conceding that this matter is non-essential. I'm hypothetically switching platforms and discerning my course of action according to the Scriptures. If I believed as you, then this is what the Scripture says I would have to do.

 

Anyway, I think I've posted enough in this thread. Enjoy! I think Dr. Bob will shut us down in ten pages anyway.