Culture and Worship

[Ascetic X]

The contemporary churches in America have used secular tools and ideologies in a miserable attempt to attract people.

Hypnotic practices abound. Among them are the 7-11 repetitious praise choruses.

I attended a mid week service where a single praise chorus went on for over a half an hour. Not sure how much longer, because I got up and left. I have seen video presentations that heavily utilized hypnotic visual techniques. One such video I recall was dealing with the Prayer of Jabez fad.

Psalm 136 does use a repeated end phrase “for His mercy endures forever”, but no, or very few, other Psalms do this.

Worship often is interpreted as anointed rock concerts. But worship is not just music. Worship should include silent contemplation, praise reports, prayer requests, and recitations of creeds.

Churches are dying rapidly. It is time to seek the reasons for this and get more Bible focused. Secular marketing and hypnotic methods are clearly not the answer.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Hello, Baptist Board. It has been somewhere around seven or eight years since I have posted here. A lot has happened in my life since then. I traveled and sang Southern Gospel music, started my own Southern Gospel group and traveled in the Tennessee / Alabama area, doing about 60 dates per year. I then settled down, and attended Liberty University where I graduated with a BS in Worship Studies with a Commercial Performance Cognate. I am now in school to get my MA in Music Education, after which I will go back to Worship Studies for my PhD.

I have written extensively (nothing academically published) on the topic of worship and music standards, especially as it relates to IFB churches (I grew up IFB). I am curious as to your opinions, and put the question to you here; how much should culture impact the worship in a church? This question extends to both churches here in the USA, and in other countries.

Glad to see you back here & posting Snapper. The church I most attend often is an old school Primitive Baptist Church in Tampa Florida… and if you know anything about them, they are a conservative group of Baptists known for adhering to "original"practices, emphasizing G-D’a sovereignty, predestination, and salvation by grace alone, leading to simple worship (a cappella singing, no instruments),rejection of modern missions/societies, and upholding ordinances like foot-washing.

Frankly, I don’t know how that would fit into your current situation however we could talk bout it if you like.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

The contemporary churches in America have used secular tools and ideologies in a miserable attempt to attract people.

Hypnotic practices abound. Among them are the 7-11 repetitious praise choruses.

I attended a mid week service where a single praise chorus went on for over a half an hour. Not sure how much longer, because I got up and left. I have seen video presentations that heavily utilized hypnotic visual techniques. One such video I recall was dealing with the Prayer of Jabez fad.

Psalm 136 does use a repeated end phrase “for His mercy endures forever”, but no, or very few, other Psalms do this.

Worship often is interpreted as anointed rock concerts. But worship is not just music. Worship should include silent contemplation, praise reports, prayer requests, and recitations of creeds.

Churches are dying rapidly. It is time to seek the reasons for this and get more Bible focused. Secular marketing and hypnotic methods are clearly not the answer.

I totally agree. Theatrical based worship isn’t for everyone, especially the conservative scripture adherent type. Frankly it’s a turn off.

 

[Sapper Woody]

I see no difference in the repetition of the Psalm and the repetition of a the refrain of a hymn.
There is a big difference between a 7-11 and Psalm 136.
This Psalm has 26 verses.
A 7-11 has about one verse eleven times. There is a big difference.

You don’t sing the refrain of a hymn more than once?

Actually, Psalm 136 is even more repetitive than what you call a "7-11" song. The psalm was written in the style of the day, which was call and response. The metrics of songs then were not binary as they are now, but were either trinary or more free form. In others words, the music was written to be felt so that the masses could stay together. This particular psalm's structure lends itself to what the early American church called "lining out", where one person would lead a line, and the congregation would follow with a response. In other words, the congregation in this case would simply be saying, "For his mercy endureth forever" over and over again, which is much, much more repetitive than the songs of today. This is simply how songs were back in the early days, from ancient Israel up until the early church. They were meant to be simple, repetitive, and theological. It was only until the grandstanding of the European Renaissance did our sacred songs become what we have today; songs that are written not for the masses, but for performance.

This is what the hymns are; songs that are written to be performed by talented musicians, and listened to by others, rather than sang as congregationals. If you don't believe this, simply look at the ranges required for many of the songs and you'll find that there is a greater than an octave range in the melodies many times. This is not written for your average person; this is written as performance pieces.

 

[Ascetic X]

Actually, Psalm 136 is even more repetitive than what you call a "7-11" song.

In other words, the congregation in this case would simply be saying, "For his mercy endureth forever" over and over again, which is much, much more repetitive than the songs of today. This is simply how songs were back in the early days, from ancient Israel up until the early church. They were meant to be simple, repetitive, and theological. It was only until the grandstanding of the European Renaissance did our sacred songs become what we have today; songs that are written not for the masses, but for performance.

This is what the hymns are; songs that are written to be performed by talented musicians, and listened to by others, rather than sang as congregationals. If you don't believe this, simply look at the ranges required for many of the songs and you'll find that there is a greater than an octave range in the melodies many times. This is not written for your average person; this is written as performance pieces.

The praise choruses or 7-11 songs I am familiar with are far more repetitious than Psalm 136. Praise choruses repeat the same phrase over and over again, not just the second part. Thus “7 words 11 times”.

Contrary to what you say, the Psalms are not all simple or repetitive.

Hymns were successfully used in churches for many years. This is why hymnals were put into pews. Sometimes certain hymns were not easy to sing, but congregations did their best. If hymns were not meant to be sung by congregations, the hymnal publishers would not have sold so many. And there was deep theology in the hymns, focusing on the gospel and emphasizing the blood of Jesus.

 

[JonC]

Actually, Psalm 136 is even more repetitive than what you call a "7-11" song. The psalm was written in the style of the day, which was call and response. The metrics of songs then were not binary as they are now, but were either trinary or more free form. In others words, the music was written to be felt so that the masses could stay together. This particular psalm's structure lends itself to what the early American church called "lining out", where one person would lead a line, and the congregation would follow with a response. In other words, the congregation in this case would simply be saying, "For his mercy endureth forever" over and over again, which is much, much more repetitive than the songs of today. This is simply how songs were back in the early days, from ancient Israel up until the early church. They were meant to be simple, repetitive, and theological. It was only until the grandstanding of the European Renaissance did our sacred songs become what we have today; songs that are written not for the masses, but for performance.

This is what the hymns are; songs that are written to be performed by talented musicians, and listened to by others, rather than sang as congregationals. If you don't believe this, simply look at the ranges required for many of the songs and you'll find that there is a greater than an octave range in the melodies many times. This is not written for your average person; this is written as performance pieces.

I was listening to praise music on the way to work this morning and thinking the same as a few of your points.


This is one I listened to (and a contemporary worship song we sing) - I'll post the whole song:


Alleluia, Alleluia
For the Lord God Almighty reigns
Alleluia, Alleluia
For the Lord God Almighty reigns
Alleluia

Holy, Holy
Are You Lord God, Almighty
Worthy is the Lamb, worthy is the Lamb
You are Holy, Holy
Are You Lord God, Almighty
Worthy is the Lamb, worthy is the Lamb
Amen
Alleluia, Alleluia
For the Lord God Almighty reigns
Alleluia, Alleluia
For the Lord God Almighty reigns
Alleluia

Holy, Holy
Are You Lord God, Almighty
Worthy is the Lamb, worthy is the Lamb
You are Holy, Holy
Are You Lord God, Almighty
Worthy is the Lamb, worthy is the Lamb
You are Holy, Holy
Are You Lord God, Almighty
Worthy is the Lamb, worthy is the Lamb
You are Holy, Holy
Are You Lord God, Almighty
Worthy is the Lamb, worthy is the Lamb...

You are Holy, Holy
Are You Lord God, Almighty


Now....is there repetition? Yes. But it is biblical. It is praise. It is worship. Even those few repeated lines are more biblical (scriptural) than many of the old hymns I love.


My conclusion? Some truths are worth repeating.

 

[JonC]

And there was deep theology in the hymns, focusing on the gospel and emphasizing the blood of Jesus.

I think this points out a difference between older hymns and contemporary worship music.

Hymns tend to be more theogical while contemporary worship tends to be more biblical.

Hymns also tend to relate the experience of one to be contemplated (theologically) by many - like "Just as I Am", "It is Well (with my soul)", "Amazing Grace"....for example.

Contemporary Worship Music tends towards experiencing worship by focusing on God's words in the present.

 

[Sapper Woody]

Revelation 4:8-11.

And the four beasts had each of them six wings about him; and they were full of eyes within: and they rest not day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come.
And when those beasts give glory and honour and thanks to him that sat on the throne, who liveth for ever and ever,
The four and twenty elders fall down before him that sat on the throne, and worship him that liveth for ever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne, saying,
Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.

So, for ever, they are going to repeating 14 words and 27 words respectively (English translation). Sounds pretty repetitious to me.

As stated before, some things are worth repeating. Repetition in and of itself is not a bad thing. It is the thought behind the repetition. Is it mindless repetition utilized to bring someone into a zombified state of mind where they no longer have to use their brain functions? Then it is wrong. But if it is used to bring something to the forefront of someone's mind, and to cause them to remember it, then it is right.

 

[Ascetic X]

Revelation 4:8-11.
And the four beasts had each of them six wings about him; and they were full of eyes within: and they rest not day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come.
And when those beasts give glory and honour and thanks to him that sat on the throne, who liveth for ever and ever,
The four and twenty elders fall down before him that sat on the throne, and worship him that liveth for ever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne, saying,
Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.

So, for ever, they are going to repeating 14 words and 27 words respectively (English translation). Sounds pretty repetitious to me.

As stated before, some things are worth repeating. Repetition in and of itself is not a bad thing. It is the thought behind the repetition. Is it mindless repetition utilized to bring someone into a zombified state of mind where they no longer have to use their brain functions? Then it is wrong. But if it is used to bring something to the forefront of someone's mind, and to cause them to remember it, then it is right.

The four beasts are repeating a praise phrase, but are also giving glory and honor and thanks in addition.

The four and twenty elders say a praise statement:

“Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.”

… but the scripture does not say they repeat the same phrase over and over forever.

Many parishioners seem to consider repetitious praise choruses to be monotonous and mind-numbing, calling them lobotomy chants. They see them as part of the modern dumbing down.

A certain amount of repeating a phrase can be invigorating, but when it is prolonged, it can seem absurd to some.

Each of us must come to our conclusions.

Thanks for the conversation.

 

[Ben1445]

Hymns tend to be more theogical while contemporary worship tends to be more biblical.

Huh??

Your theology is not biblical??!

 

[JonC]

Huh??

Your theology is not biblical??!

Mine is largely biblical. But theology exceeds Scripture (which is why I clarified "biblical" with "scriptural").

Theology is the study of biblical concepts. Theology proper is the study of God. Think of biology, anthropology.

Theology incorporates scripture, philosophy, history, anthropology...etc.

Theology proper is the study of God (specifically the Father).
Christology is the study of Christ.
Biblical Theology is the study of specific texts.
Pneumatology is the study of the Spirit.
Anthropology is the study of man.
Historical Theology is the study of past theology and theological development.

So yes, there is a difference between theology and the Bible.


You highlight a flaw many seem to have. They confuse theology with actual Scripture.

If it helps - the Bible is independent of our understanding, but our understanding of the Bible is theological (it is influenced by our worldviews, our philosophy...i.e., our understanding of reality). Our understanding (theology) is not perfect (we see as through a glass, dimly) but God's Word is perfect.


I am not saying that hymns in general are less because they typically focus on theology as opposed to Scripture, or conveying experience to focus on Christian points. But they are, generally, different in focus from CWM.

I like singing hymns, but set to contemporary music. I also like CWM.

 

[Ben1445]

Mine is largely biblical. But theology exceeds Scripture (which is why I clarified "biblical" with "scriptural").

Theology is the study of biblical concepts. Theology proper is the study of God. Think of biology, anthropology.

Theology incorporates scripture, philosophy, history, anthropology...etc.

Theology proper is the study of God (specifically the Father).
Christology is the study of Christ.
Biblical Theology is the study of specific texts.
Pneumatology is the study of the Spirit.
Anthropology is the study of man.
Historical Theology is the study of past theology and theological development.

So yes, there is a difference between theology and the Bible.


You highlight a flaw many seem to have. They confuse theology with actual Scripture.

If it helps - the Bible is independent of our understanding, but our understanding of the Bible is theological (it is influenced by our worldviews, our philosophy...i.e., our understanding of reality). Our understanding (theology) is not perfect (we see as through a glass, dimly) but God's Word is perfect.


I am not saying that hymns in general are less because they typically focus on theology as opposed to Scripture, or conveying experience to focus on Christian points. But they are, generally, different in focus from CWM.

I like singing hymns, but set to contemporary music. I also like CWM.

Any theology that is not Bible is not worth having, studying, or believing.
You put a divide where it is not fitting to divide. If there is a difference between the Bible, and the studies that come out of the Bible, then that study is flawed.
I don’t mean that every hymn is theologically sound. I have asked the question here on the BB and apparently the only song that is considered not sound is a mansion over the hilltop.
But theologically sound and biblically sound must be the same thing or you have created some kind of weird belief system that allows you to justify anything you want based on either your biblical or theological interpretation. Such schizophrenia is not able to stand rightly in judgment.

 

[Ascetic X]

Any theology that is not Bible is not worth having, studying, or believing.
You put a divide where it is not fitting to divide. If there is a difference between the Bible, and the studies that come out of the Bible, then that study is flawed.
I don’t mean that every hymn is theologically sound. I have asked the question here on the BB and apparently the only song that is considered not sound is a mansion over the hilltop.
But theologically sound and biblically sound must be the same thing or you have created some kind of weird belief system that allows you to justify anything you want based on either your biblical or theological interpretation. Such schizophrenia is not able to stand rightly in judgment.

This discussion is relevant to the original post, but could be a separate topic.

I think Christian theology is based primarily on a blend of the Bible and Greek Platonic philosophy, with some Stoic principles. The concept of logos is an example of this as early as the gospel of John.

Often theology tries to enhance or extend a biblical statement, hopefully in a non-contradictory manner.

For example, the Bible says “God is Spirit”. Then theology adds, “Therefore God has no emotions, at least not the way we humans experience emotions.” Or “Therefore, God cannot die, because spirit is not mortal.” Plus similar remarks that take a biblical statement and extrapolates related ideas from it.

So we must be careful that our theological projections and inferences remain consistent with biblical truth, and are not merely flights of fancy stated as divinely inspired or revelatory.

 

[JonC]

I think this is one reason CWM is popular (not only the style but also the content) among Baptists.

One Baptist distinctive is soul liberty. Hymns that are theological vs biblical (Scripture) can alienate. A hymn that leans Calvinist or that leans Arminian (for example) would exclude many Baptists within a congregation that affirms this distinctive. BUT songs that are biblical (focused on Scripture above theology) are inclusive to every believer (although the style of music may not be a common preferance).

In other words - we could all sing a psalm as the words are biblical (Scriptural).

But we may not all accept a hymn explaining what that psalm means (theology) as we may not agree on the meaning.

 

[Jerome]

The dean at Reformed Baptist Seminary has declared:

"our corporate praise should sometimes resemble the kind of high-volume celebrative sound that one would encounter at a sporting event or music concert...God apparently likes musical praise that can literally cause the ground to vibrate...There are times when we need to 'turn it up' and 'rock the house'."

Raising the Roof of God’s House: A Call for Loud Praise

 

[Ben1445]

This discussion is relevant to the original post, but could be a separate topic.

I think Christian theology is based primarily on a blend of the Bible and Greek Platonic philosophy, with some Stoic principles. The concept of logos is an example of this as early as the gospel of John.

Often theology tries to enhance or extend a biblical statement, hopefully in a non-contradictory manner.

For example, the Bible says “God is Spirit”. Then theology adds, “Therefore God has no emotions, at least not the way we humans experience emotions.” Or “Therefore, God cannot die, because spirit is not mortal.” Plus similar remarks that take a biblical statement and extrapolates related ideas from it.

So we must be careful that our theological projections and inferences remain consistent with biblical truth, and are not merely flights of fancy stated as divinely inspired or revelatory.

I can see the point that is made. And you provide a great example of theology that is not correct.
If God has no emotions, why does God love us? How is He angry with the wicked? How can God have compassion?
We are made in His likeness. We have emotions because God does.
This is theology that is not not reasonable to call biblical.
@JonC , You must pardon my idealism. When I speak of theology, I use it as if the theology was accurate. I don’t sit down to study theology and find out if theology is good. I study the Bible. That is theology.

 

[JonC]

@JonC , You must pardon my idealism. When I speak of theology, I use it as if the theology was accurate. I don’t sit down to study theology and find out if theology is good. I study the Bible. That is theology.

Nothing to pardon. The "finding out" part is our understanding (it is theology).

Here is an example -

I believe God laid our sins on Jesus.
BUT most on this board believe that means God took our sins from us and laid them on Jesus.

Now, if that were lyrics we would agree that God laid our sins on Jesus (that is biblical). BUT we would not agree that God took our sins from us and laid them on Jesus (that is theological rather than biblical).


That is all I mean by theological vs biblical. Both are important but I mean theological to be the fruits of our study and biblical to be those words we are studying.

Obviously many do not discern the difference - they cannot divorce God's words from their understanding (they always see their understanding as biblical and opposing understandings as unbiblical).