"Sweet" words on the permanence of praise music

[Pete]

Originally posted by Molly:
How many times did he mention *I* in his quote...very interesting! I need this,I need that....this just supports my concerns.

I didn't notice, just had to go and count. For the record the score was "I/I'm/I've" = 10, "my" = 3 in main paragraph.

Pete

 

[JonathanDT]

Originally posted by Molly:
Songs based on scripture are good,if done correctly to fit the Holiness of God...but most of the current stuff is based on a philosophy that it will *reach* more people if we dumb it down...I can be okay with some songs,but I have to stand against the philosophy that backs a lot of it. It is hurtful to the church,IMO.

By dumbing down you mean having words that are actually used in the 21st Century? Seems very similar to a KJVO post I saw recently calling my Bible "watered-down" just because it doesn't use archaic words.

Originally posted by Titus2_1:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />:Originally posted by Molly:
How many times did he mention *I* in his quote...very interesting! I need this,I need that....this just supports my concerns.

I didn't notice, just had to go and count. For the record the score was "I/I'm/I've" = 10, "my" = 3 in main paragraph.</font>[/QUOTE]So I went back and counted...
Psalms 30: 27 occurances of I/me/my in just 12 verses.
Psalm 42: 34 occurances of I/me/my in just 11 verses.
Psalm 101: 21 occurances of I/me/my in just 8 verses.
I could go on but you get my point. I/me/my are in Psalms even more then the normal P&W song, so should we tear Psalms out of the Bible because it doesn't fit with what your notion of worship should be?

Originally posted by Titus2_1:
heh heh now replace "praise and worship music" in the above paragraph with "hymns" It is a two way street.

Ahh, but you won't see us arguing that Hymns should not be sung in the Church. We argue that there should be a mix of both Hymns AND P&W.

 

[Molly]

Jonathan,It is not about using the word I in a song,although that can be troublesome at times...it is the philosophy that chooses songs,music et al based on what a person thinks he needs to hear and sing instead of being on the person of Jesus Christ and what glorifies God. It is a warped philosophy. Worshipping God can life our hearts....so feeling joyful is not a problem...it is when the basis for songs in man centered....get it?

I like some *new* songs....I really do,but I am also very cautious and carfeul and want to make sure the style and words glorify God...that is the point,remember?

Molly

 

[Molly]

In addition...I never said a song should not say I????? Where did you get that? I was referrign to his quote and why he supports the newer songs...it was all about him and his needs.

Psalms are beautiful and I wish more songs were from the Psalms! Scriptural songs are precious.

Molly
Good debate you guys....Pete(Titus)...I couldn't agree more!

 

[JonathanDT]

But Molly, that's how many of the Psalms are!! They are personal songs of worship to God. They are about how God saved DAVID. They are about how DAVID felt about God. They are about what DAVID was given by God. They are about how much DAVID needs God. They are about DAVID'S love of God. About God's love for DAVID. Likewise the majority of P&W is about how God saved ME. How I feel about God. About what God gave ME. About how much I need God. About MY love of God. About God's love for ME.
If that's what David sung about, why can't we? If God was glorified when David sang about his own relationship with God, why isn't he glorified when we do the same?

I'm not totally disagreeing with your position either. I think we do sometimes make worship into something it's not. Ever heard the song Heart of Worship by Matt Redman?

When the music fades
All is stripped away
And I simply come
Longing just to bring
Something that's of worth
That will bless your heart

I'll bring You more than a song
For a song in itself
Is not what You have required
You search much deeper within
Through the way things appear
You're looking into my heart

I'm coming back to the heart of worhip
And it's all about You
It's all about You, Jesus
I'm sorry, Lord, for the thing I've made it
When it's all about You
It's all about You, Jesus

King of endless worth
No one could express
How much you deserve
Though I'm weak and poor
All I have is yours
Every single breath

I'll bring You more than a song
For a song in itself
Is not what You have required
You search much deeper within
Through the way things appear
You're looking into my heart

I'm coming back to the heart of worhip
And it's all about You
It's all about You, Jesus
I'm sorry, Lord, for the thing I've made it
When it's all about You
It's all about You, Jesus

I'll bring you more than a song...

 

[Gib]

The music,style,and everything should match God and HIS HOLINESS,not our need for the day.

HE is my NEED for the day, every day.

I need Thee ev'ry hour, Stay Thou nearby;
Temptations lose their pow'r, When Thou art nigh.
I need Thee, O I need Thee; Ev'ry hour I need Thee! O bless me now, my Savior, I come to Thee.

 

[Molly]

Yes,Jonathan...I have heard that song many times. (Not in our current church)

 

[ScottEmerson]

An interesting question that proceeds from Sweet is this: Has our culture changed to the point where hymns do not meet the needs of today's church-goer?

I think that as far as the younger generation (25 and younger, if not 30 and younger), there is a clear sense that hymns with their language, musical style, and orientation (being more horizontal than vertical) do not fit this new post-modern culture. The same thing happened when people were dissatisfied with monophonic music, so they began adding musical parts (to the chagrin of many of the older and more traditional congregants). The same was found when people began forsaking Latin to sing in their original tongues, again to the dismay of some of the church.

The same thing is happening now. A new generation is upon us. This new generation knows how to multitask more than any other generation before. This new generation tends to be more spiritual than those before (though not necessarily religious). This new generation tends to be more willing to stand against the "institiution." There are so many other characteristics that Sweet points out in his many books, including SoulTsunami.

The church must remain relevant to a world that is constantly changing. Paul, in the chapter where he is speaking to the congregants in the temple of the unknown God, changes how he speaks to those who were in the Jewish temple courts and how he speaks to the Greeks who were worshipping the statues. Paul was aware that God's message does not change, but those who hear do.

Music is just a conduit for such things. I think that music should be done well, it should say something, and it should be an act of worship to God. I also think that it should be relevant to the community to which it relates. That is why we don't see much Southern Gospel at African Methodist Episcopal churches, and we don't hear Hezekiah Walker played in the deep South, white-dominated churches.

Okay, okay... I've got to go to church now. Just thought I'd ramble for a bit!

 

[Pete]

By JonathanDT:
By dumbing down you mean having words that are actually used in the 21st Century?

For the record, my "dumbing down" definition is the flood of vague "Here kitty kitty kitty" songs out there. If I didn't re-read the first post of that other thread I would have posted the same conclusion about the first part of that "All of you is more than enough.." song that Dr Bob did.

The trend seems to be to write a song about your girlfriend (or cat..), then later decide "hey, why not make this a Church song". Sometimes an optional reference to God is even written in...

I put a Hosanna Music CD in this afternoon (don't faint anyone

), it had a few examples of modern good songs like Firm Foundation and O Mighty Cross, it also had a batch of Air Supply leftovers...

So I went back and counted... Psalms 30/42/101...
I could go on but you get my point. I/me/my are in Psalms even more then the normal P&W song, so should we tear Psalms out of the Bible because it doesn't fit with what your notion of worship should be?

I must be bored..or had too much sleep..or something, but anyway: I/me/my shows up 965 times in the Psalms (NIV). LORD 736 times, God 418 times, Lord 55 times, your 855 times and you 780 times (most of the you & your probably refering to God, was not quite keen enough to go check every occurrence )

Sweet's "I"s in that article were "I need this and that", as you pointed out, David's are thanking God, praising God, giving the glory to God.

Ahh, but you won't see us arguing that Hymns should not be sung in the Church. We argue that there should be a mix of both Hymns AND P&W.

I'm glad you don't argue it, but please define "us" and "we"?

I have seen first hand those who do argue it...not a pretty sight

Pete

 

[JonathanDT]

Originally posted by Titus2_1:
For the record, my "dumbing down" definition is the flood of vague "Here kitty kitty kitty" songs out there. If I didn't re-read the first post of that other thread I would have posted the same conclusion about the first part of that "All of you is more than enough.." song that Dr Bob did.

Personally that's one of the songs I dislike. Just something about it doesn't sit right with me.

The trend seems to be to write a song about your girlfriend (or cat..), then later decide "hey, why not make this a Church song". Sometimes an optional reference to God is even written in...

I put a Hosanna Music CD in this afternoon (don't faint anyone

), it had a few examples of modern good songs like Firm Foundation and O Mighty Cross, it also had a batch of Air Supply leftovers...

If that's what you think, that's fine. I disagree, but I can agree to disagree on something about personal taste.

I must be bored..or had too much sleep..or something, but anyway: I/me/my shows up 965 times in the Psalms (NIV). LORD 736 times, God 418 times, Lord 55 times, your 855 times and you 780 times (most of the you & your probably refering to God, was not quite keen enough to go check every occurrence )

Actually, I/me/my shows up in 965 verses. If you look, many (most) of the verses have the words at least two times. But who's counting?

So David used "your" and "you" more times then any of the specific names of God? Interesting since one of your complaints has been that P&W does the same thing. Once again P&W bears a striking resemblence to the Psalms.

Sweet's "I"s in that article were "I need this and that", as you pointed out, David's are thanking God, praising God, giving the glory to God.

There were also requests too. And of course Sweet's article was about I. Look, God is going to be glorified by these songs equally, so why not pick songs that also have personal meaning to us?

I'm glad you don't argue it, but please define "us" and "we"?

I have seen first hand those who do argue it...not a pretty sight

Pete

"Us" is limited to those on this board who enjoy P&W, or at least don't think it's a spawn of the Devil to destroy the church. I can see why some would argue for hymns being eliminated even if I do disagree. Personally I would cut the hymn book down to maybe 150 songs with 1-2 sung per service. If 150 is good enough for David it should be good enough for us.

`JD

 

[DanielFive]

An interesting question that proceeds from Sweet is this: Has our culture changed to the point where hymns do not meet the needs of today's church-goer?

If hymns do not meet the needs of todays church- goer shouldn't we be asking WHY?

This suggests to me that there is something wrong with todays church-goer rather than there being anything wrong with traditional hymns.

The way I see it is that todays church-goers refuse to turn their backs on the ways of the world and are even insisting in bringing them into the church with them.

 

[Ruth]

Enda, you know that I have the utmost respect for you and am not disagreeing just to be argumentative here. My point of contention with what you said is this: Even the "old time" hymns were new at one point. People said the same thing about them that people are saying now about CCM. I remember my grandmother absolutely FROTHING about "that devil music!" - and what songs were we discussing? The "new" songs in the 1956 Baptist Hymnal! This, mind you, was in the mid 60's. Most of the songs she was talking about were actually written in the 30's and 40's. But it was still sinful and "of the world" as she said, since it was not the style she had grown up singing.

All of our music was new to someone. I have no doubt that every one of these dear old hymns has been derided at one point or another as "worldly" and not fit for use in church. I personally do not care for the overwhelming majority of CCM myself, but I am not willing to label it as sinful simply because of my opinion. If it glorifies God, then that should be all that matters as far as I am concerned.

Ruth

 

[Pete]

Originally posted by JonathanDT:
Actually, I/me/my shows up in 965 verses.

Correction, maybe it wasn't enough sleep

The revised numbers I = 798, me = 669, my = 890.

So David used "your" and "you" more times then any of the specific names of God?

He still referred to God by His Name, or "God" or "Lord" now and then

Interesting since one of your complaints has been that P&W does the same thing.

I wish a lot of today's "P & W"... *giggles to himself, just came up with a couple of words to replace those initials with, will refrain from posting them though

I get into enough trouble as it is

*... Where was I... Oh yeah...I wish today's writers would at least pretend to make an effort to catch the Psalms. ("LORD" averages 4.9066 times per Psalm, "God" averages 2.7866. Some full length "P & W" CDs would be lucky to do so once in whole thing)

Once again P&W bears a striking resemblence to the Psalms.

I pray they would...

Personally I would cut the hymn book down to maybe 150 songs with 1-2 sung per service. If 150 is good enough for David it should be good enough for us.

Great idea, maybe we should end Mr Watts experiment and go back to using those 150 songs

Pete

[ May 13, 2003, 07:24 AM: Message edited by: Titus2_1 ]

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by enda:
If hymns do not meet the needs of todays church- goer shouldn't we be asking WHY?

This suggests to me that there is something wrong with todays church-goer rather than there being anything wrong with traditional hymns.

The way I see it is that todays church-goers refuse to turn their backs on the ways of the world and are even insisting in bringing them into the church with them.

Everytime a non-Christian enters into our church, we are welcoming the world into our fellowship. By the grace of God, it is our prayer that the person become a believer in Him. That said...

There are two ways to approach your argument:

1. In the times when hymns were being written (let's say between 1850-1925), why were churches not bringing the world with them then? What was wrong with the church-goers of that time who were forsaking the traditional hymns of their time that had been written before? Could your argument not also apply to them?

If we cross-apply your argument, then we must insist that only the Psalms be sung, as each generation has brought with it new styles and new songs.

2. As Christians, I believe that we are not to be completely separated from the "world" as such. We are to be separated from sin. We can take three approaches in this. One, we can become strict legalists and have absolutely nothing to do with today's culture. I believe that this is wrong. Two, we can immerse ourselves in the culture, and do what they do. I believe this is also wrong. Or, thirdly (and I think correctly), we can provide an alternative to the modern culture. To do so, however, we have to remember our audience. People who are on the outside looking in.

Jesus Christ was admonished by the Pharisees (who lived by the first approach to culture) as hanging out with prostitutes and tax collectors. He answered them, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick." He was willing to present to the present culture a NEW way of thinking, and he provided it in a way that they could understand.

Whether you agree or not, today's dominant culture does not understand the style or the lyrics of our hymns. They just don't. This is a culture that is raised on MTV, the internet, and moral relativism. As Christians, it is our responsibility to provide them an alternate culture - one that is exciting, fresh, and True, while not forsaking the commands of our Lord Jesus Christ. Hymns just cannot do that. They may bless those who are already in the fold, and that's great - but let us remember that the sick are the ones who need a doctor. In my role here at my church, one of my responsibilities is to provide an atmosphere that is welcoming and inclusive of all people - one of the ways of doing that is providing music that can be relevant to all the people who hear it.

Yep, I want the "world" to see what God has done in my life and in the life of my church. It's the only way that they may see the glorious wonder of Jesus Christ.

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Titus2_1:
I wish today's writers would at least pretend to make an effort to catch the Psalms. ("LORD" averages 4.9066 times per Psalm, "God" averages 2.7866. Some full length "P & W" CDs would be lucky to do so once in whole thing)

Can I ask what Praise and worship CD's you have been listening to?

If you'd like a suggestion on such CD's that do a "better job," listen to anything from the Passion line, Delirious' CD's, or anything from David Crowder Band, Matt Redman, Billy Foote, or Caedmon's Call.