Yikes, I don't want to be the first one to post on this one...

Let me say first that I agree completely with Greg's concerns. There is an idolatry out there that gets in the way of real love to people and the church. If we love people and love the church and believe in the Spirit and the text of the music is Biblical and Gospel-centered, then we should be able to worship whether the style is contemporary or traditional, done professionally or done with the best you've got.

But to balance things out, I've sometimes encountered an opposite idolatry. I've been in some churches where it seems like they keep things as bare-bones as possible almost like they believe that the "harder" the worship is, the more truly "spiritual" it must be. There's been an overreaction to the "performance" music in so many evangelical churches (which is a problem), to an opposite extreme where there is a fear of doing things well and a fear of possibly manipulating the emotions.

Further, there are some traditional churches that are afraid of contemporary music because they've never seen it done well and done in a Christ-honoring way. On the other hand, contemporary music is sometimes harder to do well, and some churches that try to do it just need to stop until they have people who can.

I have to say that I agree with Greg and with Matt. I've swung across the spectrum about as far as one can swing without coming from a chanting Psalms background - from a pre-20th century hymns-only church of under 100 to college worship times full of hundreds of students caught up in emotional experiences and back.

I think the experiences of having to be emotionally stimulated by words are wonderfully helpful. It is an amazing experience to have the mind lead the emotions to engage based on the words in a song. However, some churches seem to fear modern music because they associate it with songs that have theologically deficient music. Or sometimes it seems as if the pastor or worship leader selecting the music simply prefers a certain style.

Where is the line between congregants hoping to sing music where the music echoes the sentiments of the words and accepting musical deficiencies because the words are good or the church teaches the truth? Can a congregant go about looking to increase both mental and emotional participation in songs? Is this something that only the elders should be addressing? How are the two idols to be both destroyed in favor of real worship of God?

I appreciate the spirit of this post, but I do think that it can overlook the importance of music in worship. We know that Paul thought it was a crucial part of the services to sing to one another and to God (Eph. 5:18-21). With the technology and talent that we have in America we should strive to write and perform songs that induce an ambiance of worship and sacrifice.

I do agree that the teaching and preaching of the Scripture should be foremost, but the ministry of song can create avenues to seek the Lord as well. This should also address the need for more Scripturally driven worship songs, but that's another story.

Gotta disagree to some extent. I believe that the Church of Christ did this in reaction to organs and other instruments. They sing wonderfully, but I think you miss the ability to praise God the way Psalm 150 indicates we should - with everything available to us. So guitars are used for hard rock, drum machines are used in gangsta rap, etc - we can use those to glorify God.

I may not care for praise bands as my primary worship style, but I can praise just as well with them or without them. I remember crying during one band playing (relatively loudly) because the truth in their lyrics was so powerful. I've also been to some churches where the band was amped so much I couldn't hear myself singing, let alone anyone else (yes - I had trouble really worshiping then as I let myself be distracted).

Do we sometimes depend on music too much? Sure. See Soul Survivor in the UK where they shut down the band for a time to restore "The Heart of Worship". Can we over-react to the situation? Definitely. I think this may be a little of an overreaction. Perhaps doing away with the music for a time is worth considering, but that's up to the leading of God for each congregation.

One last point - style of music isn't solely to blame. Some of our most favorite hymns have really bad theology or Biblically inaccurate lyrics as well. Discernment on the part of the people picking the music needs to play into this as well. Don't silence the people's voices like the Catholic church did for so many years, just help us to really praise God using all that is within us.

Hey guys,

Thanks for taking the time to respond to this post. A couple of points before the conversation goes any further:

1) Please note that I was joking about calling for a moratorium on music, per the footnote. I was joking with the title, too. I'm all for music, for all the reasons you've all mentioned.

2) I'm not making any statement at all about one style of music being better than another. I personally prefer "excellent" music, as anybody would. I'm not at all saying excellent music is bad, just that it is bad for a person to allow their spiritual well-being to become dependent on it.

Blessings,
Greg

Oh, and I'm also saying, most importantly, that I don't think that's just a theoretical danger, which I assume everybody would agree with. I'm saying it's a danger that A LOT of young people have already fallen into. In other words, it's not just a danger, it's a problem.

G

Maybe one of the reasons we run into problems with this issue is that we expect too much to come from musical worship times, either personally or in corporate worship.

When you look at the balance of the New Testament, there are some important scriptural commands, but they're few and far between.

I'm a huge fan of music, not just praise/Christian, but secular too. I have played with worship groups (drums) for the last 20 years or so. And I can testify that I have seen more worship leaders than I'd like to mention who, IMO, think too highly of their role.

Don't get me wrong – worship in song is important, if for no other reason, because the object of our worship is of infinite importance. We should choose music well and sing and play with skill and sincerity. But honestly, I don't see Jesus or Paul or Peter or James or John writing a lot to the churches about how they worship, musically. I see a lot of other issues they're preoccupied with, but worship with music and song is not high on the list.

WORSHIP ITSELF is crucial (Rom. 12:1-2), but not what we're discussing here, specifically.

I think maybe all the music wars and our own preoccupation with how we worship with music stem from our entertainment-oriented culture and mindset – which is what you're basically saying, it seems, Greg.

I meant to say, in my 2nd paragraph, that there are some important scriptural commands that pertain to music and worship, but they're relatively few and far between.

Piper "Reformed" you with one sermon from Romans 3? I didn't realized Piper was in the reforming business. . . I thought it was God that reformed us.

I find it very interesting that you tie the word "excellence" to contemporary music (and do so in a negative way--as if excellence is not something we should be striving for). In my church, we had an outstanding blend of traditional hymns and contemporary praise, as well as a good mix of choir, small groups, and solo presentations for special music. When our music director left, a man was put in charge of the music who is quite simply not gifted in music. His attempts at leading traditional hymns were appalling in the extreme-actually painful to watch. His singing was so terrible that even though he played guitar rather well, the quality of the music was, again, quite painful. This would not be a problem, had our church not had many, many others who could have led with quality.

During the half-year of this scenario, our church lost its choir, all small groups, and all soloists (not that they left the church, we just have not had special music during that time). Many people volunteered to help out, but the man in charge said, "No."

My observations on this are that we need to make sure that "whatever [we] do; do it with [our] might as unto God." Poor quality music is never acceptable. It is not pleasing to the Lord. It does not promote worship because it is distracting.

Styles of music aside, if Christians are not striving for excellence, we should get out of the business of worship and let those who know how to do it lead the way. Secular people understand worship and do it well. They just don't worship the right target.

Uncle Buck,

Thanks for your comments. Again, I'm not at all saying that excellent music is bad, or that we shouldn't strive for it. I'm saying that being dependent on excellent music to feel close to God is bad, and that a lot of people seem to be in that situation. That's all.

Greg

I think though there is a Biblical principal for maintaining an excellence in music, and that good music can lead us into the presence of God, where bad music can cause us not to worship God - which can be in the ears of the beholder.

We have examples of a prophet needing a harp to worship God before he could prophesy, David was known for his excellent musical ability in playing the harp which subdued the demon in Saul.

And Scripture does tell us to play music with skillful hands in worshiping God.

And there is the fact that in the OT God ordained a whole tribe /priesthood of musicians to lead the nation in worship.

I would say that if the Bible shows us times where Gods presence was revealed to be closer through musical worship , then our attitude should be the same as well.

“And the duty of singing praises to God seems to be appointed wholly to excite and express religious affections. No other reason can be assigned why we should express ourselves to God in verse rather than in prose, and do it with music, but only that such is our nature and frame that these things have a tendency to move our affections."

-Jonathan Edwards, The Religious Affections

I think a lot of people are missing the main point being made by Greg. No one would disagree that excellence should be pursued in all we do (though we might have different definitions of excellence). It would be foolish to get up for work and say that you are going to work half-heartedly. The same is true of music. It would be foolish to lead people in singing praise half-heartedly and with little concern for doing it well. What Greg is saying is that there is a deeper issue than the style of music, the talent of the leader, the tightness of the band, or the professionalism of the production. There is a deeper issue than the traditional feel of the organ or the more modern appeal of the electric guitar. When worship is reduced to music and corporate singing then we have an issue with our view of worship. Furthermore, worship music should not be the sole measuring stick for choosing to become a member of a church. I wonder how many people attend churches that have a slick production but lack of Bible teaching. I wonder how many churches stick to the organ only but fail to reach out to the surrounding community.

And music and singing should not be the measuring stick of our faith or spirituality. If our "feeling" of closeness to God is nothing more than the emotional movement felt by a particular style of music or the type of production, is our faith shallow? Is there a danger that such a person could be easily swept away by false teaching and hardly know it because of such shallowness?

It seems that balance is the key to most issues. I'm still wrestling with this in so many ways because we are people of extremes. Can and should we do music with excellence with a band or organ? Certainly. Can God use that to draw people to himself? Definitely. But it is not the only form of worship and it is far from the only thing mentioned in Scripture when speaking of the community of believers.

Good stuff Greg.

I agree with every thing you have said here. Yet you could also be talking about the same thing for many preachers.Replace the word musician for preacher, replace the word band for preacher.

I hear many people get excited about going to xyz conference to hear xyz preacher about such and such topic....ohh how wonderful it was to hear HIM expound the word of God.

I agree we have to ensure we keep all things in balance and ensure we don't make any idols.

I have a few comments about the church's current worship debacle.

1. There's too many worship leaders trying to be the next Chris Tomlin (or Indelible Grace), but these are not worship styles... they're pop styles (This goes for most of the traditional hymns since the 19th century as well). The culture has drastically impacted the church's worship rather than vice versa.
2. The hook rules the day in church music, not beauty. There really is such a thing as church music - you just have to go back a long way to find it. Be careful, though, it takes a lot of patience, skill, and work to pull it off.... maybe that's why pop music is so popular.
3. American protestants have a very low view of church - thus we have a very low view of church music. Our services are geared toward the individual rather than the body - thus our songs are more introspective and personal, which fits the various pop-folk stylings of the day. Where is the triumphant, celebratory anthems of the 16th and 17th century. Or even better, where are songs that our Anglican, Episcopal, Catholic, and Lutheran brothers sing?
4. Speaking of other traditions, we'd do well to take a few notes from them. While we may not agree with them on every doctrine, we could learn a LOT about beauty, excellence, and skillfulness.
5. Too often we see worship as a reaction to what Christ has done for us. We believe that worship is where Christ comes to meet us. This is not the biblical picture, though. Worship is where Christ calls His bride to the heavenly realms - where we sing praises in the presence of our Savior with all the angels and archangels. If corporate worship really is - at the very least - a picture of a future reality (I would actually say that we truly are lifted up into the heavenly realms in some way), don't you think most of the music we sing in our churches is pretty embarrassing?
6. Greg is not too far off in his title: Chanting, or at least singing, the Psalms would be a wonderful thing for our churches. After all, it's God's songbook for His people.

This is not a biblical thought though.

(6. Greg is not too far off in his title: Chanting, or at least singing, the Psalms would be a wonderful thing for our churches. After all, it's God's songbook for His people.)

Most of the psalms were written to be sung alongside music, not chanted. In fact Scripture often notes how the music was to be played. There is even one song that sings about playing music skillfully.

It's not a biblical thought? What does that mean?

Chanting is a form of singing (and if done correctly is musically beautiful). Chanting was a very popular style in the church's history because it lends itself well to memorization.

Hi Brian,

Chanting very well might have been a popular style in church history, but I don't think it was how the psalms were sung when they were written.

Most of them were set to music when written, so to be truly Biblical shouldn't we also put the same psalms to music and sing them?

P.S I have been involved in a a service where we did chant psalms and I did indeed find it a very moving moment. So I'm not speaking against it as such - just reminding us that a whole book of Scripture was pretty much written to music.

As I read this, I was also thinking you could replace music with preaching in a lot of these paragraphs.

Would anyone ever suggest (or joke, even) that there is a moratorium on preaching sermons, that you only read straight from scripture for ten years, because we were idolizing the speaker or preaching style? Why do we suggest that with music?

Also, we do have a command to sing a NEW song (Psalm 33:3, 40:3, 96:1, 98:1, 144:9, 149:1, Isaiah 42:10, Revelation 5:9, 14:3), and that we should sing Psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. (Ephesians 5:19, Colossians 3:16)

We also certainly have scriptural support to use instruments. See all the references from instrumental music in nave's on biblegateway.http://www.biblegateway.com/topical/topical_resource.php?source=1&tid=3466

One other thought: While I agree that idolizing either one is bad, excellence and style are really two separate issues.

Music of any style can be well executed, and music of any style can be butchered. Songs of any style can be well written, musically or lyrically, they can also be badly written, on one or both fronts.

Craig,

I get what your saying, and I'm certainly not against music... I prefer to sing the Psalms myself. Mostly I was just trying to draw attention to the necessity of Psalm singing - and using Greg's title as a vehicle.

I would say, though, that I don't think the point of the Psalms are that they are to be sung to instrumental accompianment - although that is great - but rather, they are to be sung (as well as read and heard). While the regulative principle can be helpful - I think total musical accompianment is taking it too far. After all, we don't have the original sheet music to the Psalms :)

"My observations on this are that we need to make sure that "whatever [we] do; do it with [our] might as unto God." Poor quality music is never acceptable. It is not pleasing to the Lord. It does not promote worship because it is distracting."

Uncle Buck, I am a complete monotone. My husband is a beautiful tenor. What I am reading here, quite planly, is that when we sing, that his worship is pleasing to the Lord and mine is not. I am fearful for the value placed on quality rather than, as Psalm 51 states,

Psa. 51:17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit;
A broken and a contrite heart, O God, You will not despise.

Thank you for your excellent article. I pray that it makes us all evaluate our hearts.

Hi Greg. Thanks for this thread. I came across it via "between two worlds" who also liked it. I hope you don't mind me weighing in with some lengthy thoughts!

.....
I found some engaging thoughts in this post and in all the replies. I feel that it's worth actually thinking of practical methods of correcting a perceived problem, rather than simply "being aware" of it.

I've always felt that music is a vehicle for communication.

In the church context it is about
a) communicating biblical truth to the listeners
b) allowing a congregation to become involved in communication with God, with their own hearts, with one another (but primarily with God!)

Music is a divine gift for communication, and should be respected as such. It is a form of language used to convey emotions that cannot be conveyed by mere words. It is useful as an amplifier of words, as a refiner of emotions. It engages us in both our minds and our hearts.

I am not saying that it is better than preaching (I would rather visit a church with a preacher and no music, than music and no preacher!).

I think there are some key ideas that are of practical value for people wishing to use appropriate worship in their church. These are:

accessibility
humility
confidence

1. ACCESSIBILITY

Music is about communication. (Did I say that already?) Therefore the musical 'language' you use should be one that your congregation AND those from the culture you seek to impact are conversant in. (That is biblical). I love French distortion electro dance music, and it communicates with me in profound ways. Does that mean I should introduce it into the worship service? Not until my congregation have learned that language (and I'll be waiting a loooong time!)

Sometimes there is a discrepancy between the language used by a congregation, and that used by the people outside the church. If the two are to be brought together, then the congregation should be taught the new language, one step at a time. Start talking a complex foreign language to them without teaching it, see how many get annoyed and dispirited and leave the church!

So new languages should be "taught". They should be explained, and worship itself should be explained by language that people understand. That means saying
"this next song looks at the suffering of Christ. As we play the music, try to imagine what those disciples felt when they witnessed Jesus' crucifixion"... Or something. Appropriate prefaces and footnotes are all part of ensuring people are helped to interpret the music in the correct way. And use discernment to keep it at a level that the congregation will be at.

I know there are people who want to use refined, complex language to communicate. When you understand big words, it can often mean that things are communicated more easily. But it can also mean you're more concerned with locquaciousness than with getting a point across. So if you feel the language is simple, and targetted at the lowest common denominator, take a look at your gospels and tell me if you see many complicated sentences in there... It's the message, not the method, which is the truly amazing thing.

2. HUMILITY
This should be the attitude of the worship leader. The worship leader is teaching by example how the music is to be used as a method of communication. Humility in his/her demeanour goes a long way to smoothing over the difficulties in actually communicating with a crowd of individuals.

3. CONFIDENCE.
It's possible to be confident and humble simultaneously. Worship leaders should be confident in the knowledge that what they are attempting to do is right. They should also be confident in their abilities. In front of the church is not the time to try something that is still difficult for them. I mean that in the sense of "don't play a song you can't actually play!" When someone is confident, you don't constantly marvel at their confidence. But if someone lacks confidence when addressing a crowd, it's usually all you can think about!

The aim of effective communication is to get the point across without distracting those communicating. Distractions can come from using an old-fashioned (or brand new) language for no apparent reason. It can come from lack of technical ability. It can come from a worship leader who seems more concerned with how he/she appears than anything else. Therefore make provisions to ensure distractions are not present, and that good communication is achieved.

No one should be -focussed- on

"I love the way that guy sings"

"I love the sound of that guitar amp"

"This sounds terrible"

"That person is talented"

"That song uses lovely words"

Rather they should be focussed on what is being communicated, and the implications of that for them personally. They should respond to the message, not the music, because music is nothing but a vehicle for the message.

It's our natural inclination to focus on the things we can rate out of ten. Worship leaders: help bring people past that to actually hear the message!

....
-footnote-
Now if anyone is thinking "that guy's labouring the point" I'm sorry! Look past it and get the message!

Megan - I definitely do not think that your singing is less honoring to God than your husband's. My comments were targeting worship leaders specifically. As a congregation, all should sing to the best of their ability and with fervor. But excellence from a music theory standpoint is not a requirement for the congregants.

Preaching has been brought up in this thread quite a few times. It is not sinful for someone in the congregation to have less ability to exegete scripture than the pastor does. It would, however, be a problem to put someone in the pulpit who has no ability to speak and who demonstrates lack of discernment. The folks in leadership roles should be gifted by God for their leadership positions. If they are not gifted for the roles they are trying to fill, they should look for another area of ministry rather than hurting the entire body by pursuing something they are not suited for.

Another observation I have made by reading the comments is our propensity to over-react. Greg, I know your title and introduction were tongue-in-cheek. However, this is actually rather descriptive of the state of Evangelical/Protestant churches in America. We would rather throw the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak, than to strive to do what is right.

We should not toss out excellent musicianship because we once knew an egotistical choir director. We should not force our congregations to sing contemporary praise only because we read a blog post about churches that are stuck in a traditional rut.

The key, as I see it, is to work on a proper theology of worship (music being only part of the whole), teach that theology from the bible to our people, and commit to the daily ongoing effort, sweat, and hard work required to bring our churches as close to that theology of worship as possible.

Anything less than that is not true worship.

Music. Preaching. Fix 'em and all will be well again. No. The problem is deeper than worship wars or music wars. The problem remains within us. As a culture, we American Christians are so off the charts individualistic that we can't get past ourselves and our preferences (in music, preaching, architecture, etc) to focus even a minute on the One to whom worship is supposed to be directed.

For all generations, music wars are about self, not music. Personal preference, not God.

Greg is right. We need to repent.

There's one disturbing element to these discussions in that several times it is suggested that this same argument applies to preachers/preaching. Not so. No where in scripture does it say that God uses the foolishness of singing to work His effectual call.

We need to make sure that we keep preaching and singing as apples and oranges in this discussion.

BTW, I am a Music Minister.

Worship "pastors" vs worship "leaders...

This is what's been on my heart lately and i think it relates somehow to what Greg said,,,

The church needs more worship pastors, not worship leaders. I'm not talking about just a "title" or "ordination". I'm talking about every guy/gal who takes the stage to lead a worship service, approaching it with the "heart of a pastor" who desires to do what's best for the hearts of the people and their relationships with God. When the mindset is to "lead the worship", its so easy for worship leaders to play on the emotional strings to get a "response" to validate what their leading. The "worship pastor" attempts to leads the congregation in authentic (and emotional) worship, using music (full band or just piano/organ, or whatever), knowing and continually communicating, through example and words, that authentic worship, (feeling close to God, the presence of God,) comes only by the Holy Spirit and a revelation of God, i.e. the truth of God, which are communicated in the songs we sing, etc, but the focus is not on music or emotion, but on GOD and what he has done and what he is calling us to.

I certainly don't have it all figured out, but know this is what God's doing in my life as i try to do what he's called me to...

Just to share a personal story...I visited Scotland several years ago and was able to attend several different churches. My favorite service was at Carruthers, where we heard a great theological sermon. What preceded it, though, impressed me very much. The song leader stood to the side, so that he was barely visible. The words were projected on a screen. I did not know all the songs, and neither did everyone else. I suppose, stylistically, they were modernized hymns. Anyway, there was a tremendous sense in the congregation of putting an effort into learning and singing these songs because they were honoring God. With each verse, the congregation would get a little more confident in the melody, and the volume would pick up a little. Sometimes, the song started with only a handful of people singing, and the rest of us learning along the way. Anyway, I enjoyed it because 1) it took a lot of effort on my part, and I think God is pleased when we expend mental and emotional effort while praising Him, and 2) God was obviously the one we were concerned with. He took center stage. I can't say it was the most emotional experience I have ever had, but it has always stuck with me. Hope this helps someone else out.

Greg, Wonderful article. And wonderful discussion that this has generated. If I could add one more element to what you are saying...

This past week I was blessed by being able to attend the DG Pastor's Conference. Something about corporate passionate worship that is God-centered caused my heart to bubble. Maybe it is because that is primarily what I was created for. Numerous times I could not help but think that I was getting a preview of things to come. The reason for that? I think two things. 1) The words were focused on God and not so much us. 2) Vibrant Corporate worship.

I have sang "Jesus Paid It All" numerous times, but not quite the same way as I did at the Pastor's Conference. I have sang it upbeat and merely mouthed the words. I have sang it slow and hymnodic and merely mouthed the words. (I realize I am just as much at fault on those occasions). But--and here is my point--being in a band of brothers that are crying out with all of their heart and rejoicing in the grand truth that Jesus Paid It All was gripping. Could it be that what we are longing for, so often, is heartfelt corporate worship?

How is that generated? Only by the Spirit of God gripping people with the precious truths of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. So, as I think about all of this it causes me to long for heavenly worship, rejoice in the dim reality we are given now, and thank Jesus for covering even my casual worship. May we all worship in spirit and truth more!

Greg & Pastor Glenn, Amen! I was just talking about this to my 30 something daughter last night. The fact that many of the commenters missed the point of your blog illustrates the depth of the problem,imo. In addition to the culture I believe Armininian theology is a major factor. There is an unbiblical view of God's sovereignty & the position of the elect. In Christ alone, Bob

Having known you for far longer than anyone who will comment on this blog, I wonder why you didn't comment on the countless solos you performed while growing up. Being raised on those solos, it has been very hard for me to "feel close to God" without your renditions of 4Him, etc. :)

All kidding aside, I couldn't agree more with your points. It is a problem. One I have even had to overcome.

Trey

Beat Attitude -- great thoughts! Thanks for posting them. Do you have a blog or website where you investigate music more, along these lines?

Thomas Clay -- I don't understand what you mean by "the foolishness of singing." Could you explain?

Y'know what I think would be awesome? For the youth at a church to show their respect and deference for the older folks, by performing all their favorite hymns, played and sung in the style they enjoy.

Then, the following Sunday, a group representing the older folks would get up and rock out (as best as they know how) doing "I Could Sing of Your Love Forever", and some other 21st-century tunes.

That would make me suspect the Holy Spirit might be working in folks.

Ted,

This is a play on words in comparison to Paul's declaration that God uses the foolishness of preaching to confound the wise.

1 Cor 1:21
21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. KJV

The NASB says "the foolishness of the message preached".

In other words, preaching and singing are not equal in God's economy. They serve different purposes.

Thanks so much for seeking clarification. We throw around terms so much and assume they are understood.

For many people the presence of music helps to engage the heart/emotions as they sing, whether it be affirming Scripture or more directly praising God himself. Why is this? Why is actually singing as opposed to reading, albeit aloud, so much more effective in engaging the heart/emotions?
Is it because it actually takes longer than reading and so we get more time to think and therefore to respond(especially if the song is repetitive which is common in modern church music).Do we have to engage our emotions to even open our singing voices? Its a bit of a mystery. And of course this doesn't hold true for some who don't have the musical 'gene'.
I know that the emotional 'high' of singing together does not equate with feeling God's presence but I definitely do find singing very helpful in applying Scripture to my heart. I also find having someone else's words to sing often helps me express what I want to say to God when my own words won't suffice (but then why don't I just recite them!)
I guess if we're going to sing together we have to choose music that is accessible to most so we go with pop tunes. Its a pity that along with this mimicking of the culture around we have to also turn the volume up so high that we often can't hear ourselves (let alone others - and what an encouragement that can be to affirm together)and need earplugs to protect our hearing!!
Wish I knew the answers but I do believe our corporate worship would be alot drier without music.

Greg,

I agree with you. You said: "I'm not at all saying excellent music is bad, just that it is bad for a person to allow their spiritual well-being to become dependent on it." This is the case for all of the things of this world. We must never base our perception and worship of God on creation. I think there are two possible confusions at this point: 1)discipleship & corporate worship 2)corporate worship & music. These confusions, I am convinced, are at the forefront of the so-called worship wars.

Bob Stieger,

The title of the post, despite the endnote, helped many of the commenters to miss the point of Greg's blog. Now Greg has to come back and explain that he likes music and more particularly excellence in music.

Here's an excellent article on worship. It's lengthy but well worth the time. It addresses many of the issues that are being discussed on this thread, and gives a number of biblical solutions, I think.

Also, I don't really see anybody addressing the issue of style - which I think is a huge problem. Most of us would agree about content, but it appears the assumption on this blog is that the pop music style is a given - I profoundly disagree.
I love the point that Bob Kauflin made on his post about the difference between church and other conferences, camps, etc. Although we may differ a bit on the solution, I think this is a key point. Also, his point about training the congregation is a good one, but I think it should go farther. Certainly we need to train them on the theological content, but I also think that a huge problem is that we "dumb down" the music so that everyone can sing "comfortably" instead of taking time to train our congregants to read music, appreciate beauty, broaden their vocal ranges, and grow to be better congregational singers.

Blessings

Well, I suppose I should have linked the article, huh?

http://the-highway.com/articleJuly98.html

Coming from a seperatists fundmentalist background I would say that I understand the point you are making, but I think you give "ammunition" to the hyper-conservative group. What you state in the article is the typical response any conservative fundamentalist gets when he tries to address the music issue in his church. "We don't need a band or a rock beat to get something from the worship time, brother. We need to focus on the words."

I was in this denomination for most of my life and I can honestly say it was the most debated issue. I have now left the movement for conservative evangelicalism and I would never turn back. Now when I go to church I truly worship God. I tried sooo hard "back in the day" to worship, focus on the words, etc. but it was almost like they were trying to make it as difficult as possible to enjoy the worship time-- like somehow it was wrong or weak or less spiritual if you were really into the worship. Raising hands was considered "getting attention," "getting emotional" was considered "weak", etc.. I feel this particular group of men (leaders) are doing what the Pharisees did when they added to the backs of people a burden too heavy to bear with their legalism.

This is something we need to discuss and I know this blog has influence over that particular group. I think we should be reaching out to them trying to help them discover the truth to lead them out of the deception.

For most of the separatist Fundamentalists that I know -- particularly young pastors-- the bottom line is they can't change their music because if they did they would be ostracized and shunned as "liberal" or "questionable." I think the majority of my friends would change if they could - but they can't. It's like being under the Pope.

That's why so many of them discuss music over and over again like gerbals in a cage. I think for most of them they're holding out the hope that they'll be able to "make change" or help the leaders of the group see that it's really not a slippery slope. But I hate to say it, the separatists are nowhere close to making changes. They never have been. These debates have gone on and on for over 30-40 years. It is very sad to me.

What is even worse for me is that these men cannot do what they believe is right. They have to go along with the "group" views, even when their own conscience contradicts the positions. They end up choosing what's "safe" and neglect how powerful God-honoring worship times could be in their churches.

If music were not such an issue so much more could be done for the cause of Christ.

I think writing an article about unity in music would be better, considering that most of your audience is most likely already very conservative in their musical choices.

Mark,

So what is the solution that you feel your church is succeeding at? Also, what do you think is the point of musical worship and how do you think the majority of guys in evangelical conservatism get it wrong?

Brian,

I personally have seen a lot of conservative evangelical churches and I don't think that "the majority" of guys are doing it "wrong." As a matter of fact, I think the "majority" are nailing it on the head. Our church has a combination of hymns and popular choruses-- and I think the modern songs definitely have there place. Our church has its own worship band. The success: that we are all completely focused on Christ and the "emotional" music draws us together in an unbelieveable way.

I used to go to my fundamentalist church and be frustrated with the music and have to try so hard to focus and worship. Now when I go to church I don't even think like that anymore. As a matter of fact, music still has its place, but what I enjoy is that I am so wrapped up in Christ and Him crucified when I'm singing that I don't think about anything else.

When I first attended my church I used to consciously think "this is so wonderful" "thank you God for bringing me out of bondage" "I can't believe I missed out on this for so long" etc... while I was singing. But now my complete focus is on Christ Himself. I really do feel bad for my friends still wrapped up in that group. I know if they could just experience for a short time (maybe 6 months) what I've been able to experience they would never turn back.

I think the biggest hurdle for them to overcome is that they have had others convince them for so long that they would be "compromising" or whatever- that if they ever do try to engage in a modern worship service they feel guilty-- like they are in sin. Once you get out of that movement you go through that for a little while and then you realize how screwed up you were and immature spiritually. The day you see this- it's a sad day because you realize what you missed out on. But then you also can help others. Several of my friends have left as well and we all feel the same way. We are all glad we left when we did, because we were young enough to start over without a lot of baggage.

Anyway, I hope that helps.

I have spent 20 years in acapella, Psalm-singing congregations. There are certainly problems with laxity of worship there -- people not seeming to get any joy out of the Psalms -- but I know personally that I find great joy in singing the Psalms, I can get as much of an "emotional rush" from them as I have gotten at Chris Tomlin concerts, and I think that Psalmody without instrumentation deserves more attention and consideration than being tacked on as a joke, some outlandish idea. The Psalms are beautiful, and they are all about Christ. I find that singing without instruments makes me a better singer and helps me to focus on the words; singing Psalms is a gauruntee that nothing you sing will be theologically unsound (which is more than can be said for some hymns). I would encourage everyone to give Psalmody a thought -- Psalms should, at the VERY least, be sung regularly alongside the hymnal, regardless of what music you put them to. The Psalms are God's songbook, Jesus and his disciples sang the Psalms, and I think that is good reason to sing them today, as well.

"The church needs more worship pastors, not worship leaders."

I've heard someone call himself more of a worship servant, rather that worship leader....

It caught my eye on another blog that referenced this one that someone had suggested, even in jest, to have a moratorium on music. Coming over here, I think the comment I left at the other blog might contribute something here as well, though it comes from another part of the Christian universe than the comments above.

A moratorium on music is exactly what we observe in our parish (along with many other sons of the English Reformation), beginning on Ash Wednesday. From then through Good Friday, we do not sing. There is no organ playing. No chanting of Psalms or portions of the Eucharistic liturgy. It is all said. Except for the Gloria in Excelis. That ancient hymn disappears completely until the Easter Vigil.

These Lenten worship services are called "said services" for this reason -- all the words are said, none are sung.

Of course, this suspension of music has an utterly different reason than what is proposed here, even in jest.

Second, I was Really Interested in this statement:

" ... a generation of anemic Christians who are spiritually dependent on excellent music. Their sense of spiritual well-being is based on feeling “close to God,” their feeling close to God is based on their 'ability to worship,' and being able to worship depends on big crowds singing great music."

The words "excellent" and "great" are jarring. For sure, there are those whom Greg describes, whose dependency is on music that actually complies with widely accepted criteria for music of the highest aesthetic quality. But, I'd bet a bundle that what Greg's describing here is commonly the lot of those who love things such as Fannie Crosby hymns and similar post-revivalist treacly dreck and its 21st Century permutations.

But here's the money quote:

"Their sense of spiritual well-being is based on feeling 'close to God,' their feeling close to God is based on their 'ability to worship,' and being able to worship depends on big crowds singing great music."

Note the linkage:

great music-->>ability to worship-->>feeling close to God-->>spiritual wellbeing.

This linkage is mute testimony to what remains within the heritage of Anabaptist reductionism of the rich history of Western catholic (note the small "c") worship. That worship is richly liturgical, which means that there are abundant occasions within the service where individuals leave their individuality and join the throng around them in a corporate unity of words wedded to actions: prayers of thanksgiving and petition; songs, hymns, and spiritual songs; confession of faith, confession of sin, the giving of tithes and offerings; communing in bread and wine.

The modern worship environment in non-liturgical churches is bereft of any occasion for corporate unity in word and action EXCEPT in the singing of hymns. It is for this reason alone, I am now convinced, that "worship" and "singing hymns" have become synonymns of one another. If you told people in these environs that they must not sing, they would conclude that worship were utterly impossible.

That's why this proposed moratorium (made in jest) sounds so outrageously radical. It would never sound radical to those for whom song is simply one of a great many ways in which individuals unite in word and action to offer corporate worship to God. Take away their singing, and they go right along, worshiping corporately as before, just as we are doing in our parish. After sundown on Holy Saturday, the organ and the joyous voices will burst out once more, making their contribution to all the other things the saints of our parish are doing to unite with one another in worship.

Fr. Bill,

Great post! I was trying to convey the same sentiments as you in my previous posts without actually saying the word "liturgy" - this seems to be a "turn-off" word in baptist circles. The fact is, though, is that I struggled with musical worship for many years - as a worship leader and as a congregant. From my own experience, as well as talking with many others - heck, you can even tell it by reading this thread - that the problems are hard to pinpoint and describe. A lot of people know something is wrong, but they're not really sure how to fix it, or where to even begin. I grew up in the Southern Baptist church and attended one of their seminaries and it was during this time that I finally attended a liturgical, sacramental church in another tradition. It was like a light bulb had gone on. One of the biggest differences for me is the fact that I no longer worship in reaction to what Christ has done (which can be very wishy-washy depending on my mood), but rather, I participate in covenant renewal.

Brian,

You've veered close to an insight I'm going to try to bring into focus here.

If I've understood you rightly, you said that "problems [with music]are hard to pinpoint and describe. A lot of people know something is wrong, but they're not really sure how to fix it, or where to even begin."

This nailing-jelly-to-a-tree feature of the "music problem" stems, I think, from the reasonable expectation of Christians that their worship be corporate rather than individual, ESPECIALLY when they are gathered into a group. But, within environs which have as a feature of their identity to repudiate any and all forms of liturgy, there remains that single liturgical event to fill up all those expectation: the music. The communal dimension of music in worship is the ONLY thing left to bear that crushing burden of longing and expectation. It cannot do this without becoming a battleground.

In the worship at St. Athanasius, in Anglican parishes generally, worshipers will acknowledge that this or that part of the service is their favorite. But the relative multiplicity of occasions where the worshipers are united together in word and action are so numerous that every worshiper departs with a vivid memory of losing himself in the body united to Christ in the worship of the Father.

A friend from the local Bible church dropped in as a visitor some months ago. I happened to know that he had not been to a happily and enthusiastically liturgical service, and so I asked him to lunch the next day. I said, "Lloyd, I know your eyes were fresh yesterday in our worship. Would you tell me what registered on your spiritual radar as you sat through the service. I'm not looking for applause or boos. Rather, I'd like to know what popped out at you, if anything."

He had many observations to make, but I was surprised at his first one: "I have never been in a worship service before when everyone had something important to do during every part of the service." In contrast, he said, he was a passive observer in his own church's worship, as was most everyone else.

Back to music: I think you've helped me see another reason why music is such a battleground -- if it's truly the last place in these congregations where worshipers can hope to transcend their own puny selves and to join that innumerable throng in Heaven, singing "Holy, Holy, Holy" -- well, that's an awful lot to ask of the merely musical bits of a service.

Greg,

Thanks for the great blog. I agree totally.

I haven't read through the comments thus far. I'm just dropping in to say that I was at Passion '98 as well. Piper's message on Romans 3:21-25 was a watershed moment for me too. Copernican revolutions were in the offing as God used that message mightily in my own life.

Anyway, I didn't know that we had that in common until reading this post.

Blessings to you, brother!

Denny Burk

This discussion is very interesting to me. I personally have enjoyed the more liturgical music as well at times. Singing the Psalms sounds like another good way to impliment Scripture into the worship.

I think the big problem with some folks is that they are willing to "separate" over this issue-- in Separatist Fundamentalism (the group that I exited) this was a watershed issue. To me, looking back, this is unbelievably sad and divisive in the body. They put a "rock beat" in music at the level of doctrinal separation all the while trying to cushion it by saying it was "practical separation" which in their minds was separating from churches who were not of "like practice." Which, in my opinion, is so skewed it's not even funny. Where do you see this in Paul's writings to the church?

I hate to belabor my own experience but I say all this to say I saw how divisive people could be with this issue and I think it's absolutely unnecessary- although it needs discussion. I think we should be looking for ways in which we can unify on all practical issues. I even heard that some folks are saying that by embracing "contemporary" music you are embracing the practices of the One World Church. Ridiculous.

I know I'm coming at this from a different perspective then others of you in this discussion, but my experience with music was such a hurdle for me to overcome because of what I was taught for most of my life.

I prefer to test the quality of a worship song (new or old) by reading the lyrics apart from the music.

It's interesting to read "Yes Lord, Yes Lord, Yes, Yes Lord" without instrumentals.

I am sometimes brought to tears in worship services, and I am also brought to tears when reading well-written songs in the solitude of my study.

Mark,

I think you have an interesting perspective. I attended a fundi private school up until 9th grade, so I'm familiar with what you are talking about. Thankfully my parents didn't adhere to their legalistic views - they only wanted me to have a private education in a town that didn't have many sffordable options.

Anyways, you brought up the point about unity and separation - which I think is a good point. This was a big issue for me, but in a different way. As I studied (and continue to study) church history, it blows my mind at how much the American church distinguished itself from the Church of England - and essentially the historical church. While its hard to flesh out all the reasons for this here, two big reasons for the separation were a radical individualistic concept of salvation and an extreme response to the corruptions of the Church of England (and the Roman Catholic Church) - throwing the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak. Often we tend to lump all Puritans into the same category, but there was a vast difference between European Puritans and New World Puritans. Men like Cotton and Increase Mather, Solomon Stoddard, etc. really made a tremendous impact on American protestantism, introducing new concepts - especially in regards to worship. From there its easy to trace the line of influence down through the ages: Jonathan Edwards, John Wesley, Charles Finney, etc. - men who are vastly different, but continued to build upon the "Americanized" version of worship. This is what led me to liturgy - which is not the same thing as "traditional." In fact, traditional and contemporary take on new and more creative meaning within a liturgical framework. I also want to point out that many who read this will take the position that this is an issue of preference for me, this is not the case. I sincerely believe that a return to biblical, liturgical worship is the answer to the "worship wars." The issue doesn't come down to Fanny Crosby or Chris Tomlin - they're both wrong in the context of corporate worship.

I couldn't agree more. Many churches try to be Disneyland for their congregates rather than teach the word. So sad.
Recently I heard a pastor in Houston speak on the subject of music in the Church in his Revelation series. Fascinating!
His name is Robert Dean at West Houston Bible Church. DVDs can be ordered (free of charge) at http://deanbible.org/

Brian,
You have some good background information but it seems to me that you've gathered and interpreted the information in such a way that it would undoubtedly line up with your stance. I don't want to take the time to gather the research and info. that contradicts your statements-- And I don't mean this harshly, but when you say,

"I sincerely believe that a return to biblical, liturgical worship is the answer to the "worship wars." The issue doesn't come down to Fanny Crosby or Chris Tomlin - they're both wrong in the context of corporate worship."

I sit back in awe considering the present discussion on unity. I think taking a "My way is the only right way" position on musical style in the church is arrogant and selfish (not that you mean to be). Maybe your preferences (or beliefs) are not the preferences (or beliefs) of another. And to say that neither Fanny Crosby or Chris Tomlin are o.k. for corporate worship is an extreme position that I'm not sure anyone but a Separatist Fundamentalist would agree with- minus Chris Tomlin since he's a "rocker" in their opinion (tongue and cheek). I would challenge you to open your mind a little more. I'm saddened by your position since these positions push people into a "my way or the highway" mentality and become divisive. I wonder if your childhood background has played a part in your extremely strict conscience towards corporate worship. I would do some extended reading on this from a modern Evangelical perspective and you might find you end up with a more balanced position. Not criticizing, just food for thought.

Thanks for the article, Greg. I know this is somewhat off point but...you mentioned the expierences that most of us have enjoyed upon particiaption at major conferences (you mentioned Passion), and how often times the music portion lifted up your soul. I experienced this too, once at the Together for the Gospel Conference and many times at SBTS Chapel.

I have never had to difficult a time worshipping through song despite varieties of contexts and styles. Great songs are great songs and they do a wonderful job of communicating to us God's kindness. But what was particularly refreshing, enjoyable, and moving at these events was the passionate participation of the people gathered together.

I have pastored a small church for 3+ years now, and what is wrenching to my soul is the total lack of participation by half of the congregation when we sing. It almost sounds as if only 10 out of 70 are singing.

I have preached on the issue a few times to little avail.

I long for the day when we will all be gathered to together before the lamb with voices raised in song enjoying the lamb and one another.

Mark,

First, I'm very familiar with Modern Evangelical worship. I was an accomplished worship leader for a number of years - playing camps, retreats, youth groups, etc. I've served in small country churches and huge mega churches. I think the questions I had and the conclusions I've come to have a lot to do with my experience.

Second, I really do enjoy the different styles of music. I own two Tomlin cd's, all the Indelible Grace cds, and even some southern gospel albums. I just don't think they make appropriate congregational worship music.

Third, the majority of people that frequent this blog have pretty strong opinions about preaching style, the centrality of preaching in worship, baptism, etc. Yet, everybody seems willing to say that worship style is "whatever you want it to be... let's just get along." I disagree with this based on biblical evidence. So for you to say that my view is arrogant or selfish (I don't take that personally, by the way)is akin to you saying that someone is arrogant for believing that Christ centered expositional preaching is more appropriate than three points and a poem topical preaching.

Finally, I would say that in light of church history, the current worship views that seem to cause the controvery are the "extreme views." I find it strange that no one would actually consider that this might be a possibility, especially considering that the contemporary/traditional worship service is still currently a minority of the worldwide church and the majority of Christians would find that type of worship strange.

I appreciate your response,though. Even though there are some passionate views about this subject, I can assure you that I'm enjoying the discussion.

Blessings

Greg,

Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts on this subject. I agree that the "worship mode" - that posturing we can assume as soon as the first chord is strummed that seeks a euphoric experience through the environment - is a problem in our day.

However, I think an important message we need to be conveying to our congregations is to simply look to Christ. I am SO guilty as a worship leader of focusing on whether or not I'm worshiping correctly rather than simply looking to Christ. To steal a thought from Piper's "When I Don't Desire God," the minute I start looking at my faith (or worship) to evaluate it is the moment at which I am no longer looking at Christ, the rightful object of my faith (and worship).

Therefore, I think it is essential that believers in any style of worship be taught to stop focusing on whether or not they can "worship" - i.e. get into that mode where they can lose themselves and feel the rush - and approach corporate worship with humility and the desire to see the beauty of the Savior. If something in the way that worship is led in their congregation distracts them from being able to do so (such as a worship leader who makes unnecessary comments, a guitar solo that feels like ultra-performance), then that is good reason to desire different worship leadership (or to humbly confront the problem within the church body to whom the individual is committed).

Biblical, solid worship comes in many forms. Believers from different backgrounds will be able to worship Christ when they seek Him in the midst of worship in many different musical styles. However, if they are not taught to seek Him and Him only during worship, they have the potential to be deceived into idolatry in any environment, no matter how biblical the worship is presented.

Replace "biblical" with "stripped-down" in my last sentence. That's what I meant to say.

Well, one thing these comments most definitely prove is that Christians are most definitely obsessed with music!

I heard a similar conversation once about the proposed color of the new carpet in my church.

I really liked your post, for what it's worth. No bones to pick. It's flat-out true. It's a culture problem, as some other folks mentioned. All the pretty lights and sounds keep us distracted and numb.

The funny thing about all those "slick musical productions" using praise music, (and even plenty of old hymns), is that, while technically executed well, they are TERRIBLE examples of artistry. In other words, you can't put lipstick on a pig and expect good results. The even odder thing is that, especially in evangelical circles, they LOVE PIGS THAT WEARS LIPSTICK! So here we have two problems: (1) the idolatry of music/worship experiences, and (2) the object of said idolatry is essentially worse than garbage.

There's something that bothers me about your assessment. I realize that there is a tendency in Evangelical circles to look or create something "new". Even our seminaries encourage this pursuit of some new approach or hidden jewel. However isn’t that the premise of the reformed motto, Semper Reformanda? Always Reforming; even in our understanding of worship. Worship that is devoid of sentiment or experience is worship that denies our base existential nature. What I mean to say is this. Since we are emotive being's, it's natural for the Christian to want to feel "close to God". After all what's the antithesis, to be far from God? Did not the God himself say “Draw near to me, and I will draw near to you? Thus the absence of closeness to our God is not due to a lack of understanding words in worship, but a longing for more of Him!

In the gospel of John chapter 4, Jesus said to the Samaritan woman at Jacob's well. 19"Sir," the woman said, "I can see that you are a prophet. 20 Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, but you Jews claim that the place where we must worship is in Jerusalem."
21Jesus declared, "Believe me, woman, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. 22You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. 24God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth."

Question
Are those who seek to draw near to God through the excellency of worship violating any biblical principal or command? Are you saying the brethren who feel empty when there’s an absence of a bass, electric guitars and a rhythm section are immature Christians; if at all?

I suppose singing the Psalter would remedy this. I think not! I guess you wouldn’t like to sing those outlandish Geneva jigs. If you sense the sarcasm, good. By the way how did David sing the Psalms? If we are going to critique fellow worshipers you may want to consider the historical context of worship.

Michael,

Nobody is saying that new is bad. The problem is, like Brandon said, the new stuff is usually garbage. Nowadays, it appears that any shmo who knows three chords on a guitar is qualified to lead worship. And even in our seminaries, where musical excellence is developed in the music departments, the excellence is reserved for programs like Handel's Messiah, while they're taught to simplify and popularize for Sunday mornings.
You brought up a good point, though, in your post. You said, "Since we are emotive being's, it's natural for the Christian to want to feel "close to God". After all what's the antithesis, to be far from God? Did not the God himself say “Draw near to me, and I will draw near to you?"
So how do we feel close to God? Is this a subjective feeling?
Here's the problem: Typical Evangelical worship is devoid of beauty, symbolism, and truth. It's nothing more than a reaction to what Christ has done for us. It's personal, individualistic, emotion based, privatized, and subjective. Henceforth, worship has developed into pop culture because pop culture makes us feel this way. This goes for most preaching too. The worship leader sees his duty to make the people connect to God (good), but he does this by trying to bring God down to the people (bad).
True biblical worship, though, is God inviting His people into the heavenly realms to worship in His presence with all the angels. What do the angels sing? Holy, Holy, Holy. What do we sing instead? Come, Now is the Time to Worship.... How embarrassing.
There's nothing wrong with drums, bass, guitar, etc... even in the context of musical worship - they can all be used, but it's all in how you use them. Are you going to use these instruments to promote gushy pop songs that trigger the emotion bone and are poor replications of secular pop, or are you going to play and write beautiful congregational hymns and songs that glorify God?
Are we going to continue to dumb down worship so that everyone feels comfortable? Or are we going to teach our congregations how to read music, sing well and loud, and appreciate beauty?

The controversies with music is not new. Even Augustine (in Confessions) notes the problems in his time with worship and music. Now, I am at a church which is inadvertently heading toward a split by doing separate "contemporary" and "traditional" services. Sad.

FYI, those of us who DO chant the Psalms a capella in church have our own worship wars:

- should we use traditional Byzantine melodies or the westernized Greek versions?
- should we chant the Psalms in Koine Greek, Slavonic, English, or something else?
- should the chant be monophonic or polyphonic?
- Lone chanter, choir, or congregational singing?

Orthodox Christian congregations get bitterly divided over things like this, and for many of the same reasons you cite among Evangelicals. So... y'all ain't alone.

Well, I this is the first time I have ever posted anything on a blog; in fact, as a rather middle-aged lady, I barely know what a blog is! But I have been thinking about this topic a great deal lately, because I feel that the evangelical church really needs to get a handle on what in the world is going on with music in our churches. This situation is causing a lot of frustration among young and old alike. Young people are more readily able to leave churches and find worship styles that suit them, but those of us who have served in the same church for many years, do not wish to leave, but do not know how to affect change. Personally, I agonize over every Sunday morning because I will be patronized by the "traditional" service, and frustrated by the contemporary service. I agree with what Thomas said earlier in this blog – this can lead to church splits. Every person, young and old, should feel welcome and led to be worshipers in any church service. There is a lot I could say about this topic, but I’ll just respond to a couple of things. First of all, I was surprised that more of the responses did not mention what Jason M. mentioned about the lack of actual singing. When I look around me on Sun. morning (in a contemporary service) I see that very few people are really singing. They’re just standing there, maybe swaying. (Maybe people aren’t noticing because the band is so loud!) In fact, a little note in the bulletin says that if you don’t feel comfortable participating, you don’t have to. Comfort! Comfort, indeed! Worship isn’t about comfort; it’s about hard work and sacrifice! But these silent people don’t know that. I doubt that anyone has taught them very much about it. How much actual singing goes on in the typical evangelical youth meeting at a church or Christian school? Very, very little; and one of the reasons for this is the lack of music education in our schools, which is another topic entirely. But enough on that. One of the reasons that singing goes on in church is to give people an opportunity to praise God for all his blessings to us. We should be taking the focus off of ourselves and placing it on God. I think the reason that typical church-goers are struggling with the selfishness of our age and are thinking, “What can I get out of this? How can I feel worshipful?” instead of singing out of humble hearts that wish to honor God. To compound the problem, the worship leaders and band, knowingly or not, are also victims of this selfishness and are thinking about how they sound and how they feel. A lot of people who responded to this blog post mentioned times when they truly sang in worship. I’ve had experiences like that. What those experiences do is to give us a glimpse of heaven – the company of saints and angels worshiping around the throne of God. Every week we are given an opportunity to participate in that piece of glory, but so few seize the day. This is where the structures of liturgy could help us. They help people to actively participate by reading out loud, speaking responses, singing meaningful songs, praying together. People learn better when they do something. In evangelical churches, we threw this baby out with the liturgical bathwater. It’s time to get it back – both young and old will benefit from it.

From a former member of the band explaining my part, (and hopefully future member of another band (relocation, not quit))
We gathered for prayer each Sunday morning before even tuning our instruments. Our priority was always about honoring God, praising God and thanking God. We knew who we were, we were His servants bought with the highest price because we were loved.
A guitar solo, a harmonica fill, a conga riff each has nothing to do with pleasing the church members, it is the most precious thing that could be given. We played for our King. These things were explained to the church, and it was known that during a solo church members were free to offer their own personal praises to God. And some did, sometimes in tongues, sometimes in English, and sometimes quietly. (Oh, look out, now he’s bringing tongues into it and what controversies will that stir)
Here’s my questions, Did we honor and serve God? Did we praise Jesus? Were these songs received in Heaven or were they rejected?

Phil D,

Your comment is a good example of what I believe is the problem with congregational worship - it's not congregational. The question is not "did we honor and serve God?" The question is "Did we honor and serve God appropriately?" The type of worship you are describing is great... for anywhere else but church. I don't think there's anything inherently bad about solos and personal praise... maybe even tongues... just not in the church context. Church, though, is when the people of God come together - as a body - to worship Christ as one. Our worship must reflect that. Anything that directs attention inwardly is missing the point of congregational worship. That's my problem with pop music as church music - it doesn't work. The rhythms, melodies, chord progressions, solos, etc... are geared toward the individual - heck, that's the appeal of pop music to such a wide audience - if it's done well, it connects to some deep part of you.. it becomes personal - it tells your story. But church music has its own melodies, sound, and stories - but instead of "my" story it's OUR story - the story of the church and Her Savior. It lends itself toward robust, congregational singing. Here's an example: Amazing Grace vs. O For A Thousand Tongues to Sing. Two classics. The first is not designed for congregational singing.. its a folk song; a personal song. This is why all the pop singers show off on this song in it's original melody... it lends itself well to that style. The second is a congregational song; a church song. Not many people trying to show off on this song in its original melody. Now compare O For A Thousand Tongues to Sing to the new version by Indelible Grace. I think its a great song - I love their style. But its no longer a church song.. they've turned into a pop song. Great words, but hard to sing as a congregation in a robust, celebratory style. I'm not advocating that we only sing really old church songs, either. We just need more musicians to write congregational hymns. Google the name Leonard R. Payton for an example of a contemporary guy writing beautiful congregational church songs.

Greg,
I found this posting through a friend's blog. This is the third day in a row that I have been grappling with the Sunday Experience--and each day I've stumbled upon something refining what is going on in my cluttered head. It's also helped having a Mennonite seminary student as a roommate :-)

Your original posting, and people's comments have really reinforced what I'm learning: worship is communal, not individual. Worship is not just music either. It is coming together to acknowledge God and what he has done for US (vs. me). There is a time for individual worship, but why during a time that we are able to join together as a body?

Regarding the music: I once read that there was no such thing as Christian Music, only Christian Songs. To which I can only say is terribly wrong considering that Psalm 23 sung to perhaps the tune of Nirvana's 'Smells like teen spirit' can hardly be called Godly. I must say that first hand i agree greatly with what has been posted in the blog. Also, i'm very grateful that most if not all the comments here have been made in a peaceable and Godly manner. My contention with the whole music issue takes on a more scientific twist.

The reason that 'ecclesiastical' music was 'created' in the middle ages, and subsequently has become the staple of 'traditional' worship, is actually partially scientific. Upon observation, churches and the clergy noticed that certain forms and tunes of music were conducive for helping people concentrate on the messages of the song. Most importantly, this influenced the development of the organ and even the whole surround sound effect that pipe organs generate. The idea was not to create and ambience, but to help the mind concentrate on the word of the Lord. A non-religious example would be the scientific proof that listening to baroque music helps with concentration during studies. Biblically, the music of David calmed Saul, although what that music sounds like we'll probably only find out in heaven.
Jump forward to the 21st century and you have similar research being done on contemporary or 'pop' music.It is interesting to note the main differences between 'traditional' and 'pop' music. Traditional music was largely harmony/melody based, with the organ or piano, providing a tune to which the congregation would sing a long with, thus helping them to focus on each word of the song. Pop music is based very much on a different aspect of music: the rhythm and the beat. Listen to any pop song religious or not and you will realise highly repetitive elements within it most obviously from the drums.
In fact, the only melody you have to go by is the singer's voice. A lot of research has gone into the effects of sound and music on people and the word resonance has often popped up in the results. HUmans vibrate at what we call a resonant frequency (sort of we;re shaking but we aren't because we shake a such a low frequency and magnitude. At the same time, our brain functions, the signals it sends out, our heart beat all have their own resonant frequencies. Scientists have found that subjecting people to various emitted frequencies have both physical (ie inducing a burning sensation or even bowel movements) to emotional effects.
I now focus on the latter. The fact is, pop music as brian has pointed out, is very individualistic form of art. The focus on the rhythm and base and beat of the music, can be likened to the rhythmic chanting one would get in a Buddhist monastery or Hindu Temple. The aim of chanting is basically to use a low rhythm that resonates with the brain thus allows 'deep meditation' and such. Translate this to pop music, and you have a very similar effect particularly when man contemporary songs have repeat over and over again the same words which results more in mindless chanting that meaningful worship. While i do not dispute the Godly nature of the lyrics in contemporary music, I highly question if the effect it has on people is truly religious or a side effect resonance. While I do not intend to doubt anyones faith of experience let me put forth one observation: the emotions and intensity of experience brought about by contemporary music are very similar to those brought about in say a Rolling Stones or Green Day concert.
That said, I would have to disagree with Brian above that traditional music is better on the account that it is congregational. I suppose while Amazing Grace is perhaps more popular than O For a Thousand Tongue Sing, the idea that this is due fact that it is more 'individual' seems strange. I'm sure many congregations would feel that as a congregation, Amazing grace is fairly easy to get right and thus something that everyone can sing as opposed to more catchy tunes. Likewise, i'm sure that many lyrics in contemporary songs can be written such that the tunes are more congregational and depend less on the individual performer's ability to rap or sing.

Regarding the singers: in response to Phil D's comments i would first like to start of saying that I am very glad that your motives for performing and singing are for the glory of God. I would not say you're wrong in your approach either, for there are many songs writers out there who are obviously there for self gratification than God's glory. However i would like to put forth one point. What is the point of a band, choir, organist, worship leader? On their own, within a congregation, when they play, who are they playing to? I contend that music is not just for God. As i said earlier, it is to help other's focus on the lyrics and to praise God. True, David did write the Psalms in praise of God, but what remained was not his tune but his words. My point is that as a band, choir or chamber orchestra, the main priority of performing in church is not to so called lift your voices to heaven and praise God, but to lead the congregation in doing so. Using one's gifts in vocals or music, one can help those less musically inclined worship in a meaningful way. Which brings me back to the type of music.A lot of contemporary songs out there are fast, catchy and require a rather glib tongue. While to a younger audience this may seem par for course,it would tend to alienate an older audience. What good is a song if it cannot be sung? Many musicians want to praise God with their music, and often lose sight of their calling to serve. Performing Christian in front of an audience is a service and requires thinking what they need. Of course, younger generations may feel that hymns are slow and boring, but i'm sure that young and old can both enjoy 'Grace Alone'.

Regarding the fuddy-duddies: i myself am only in my 20s, and i profess that i've never really like the 'contemporary style' of music. However, i feel that certain older generations that share my dislike take it to the extreme by insisting that such music is of the devil. I honestly feel that drums, trumpets, guitars and all make good accompaniment to hymns. Also, in showing love to the younger generation, it would not kill to try and learn some of their songs and singing along. Just as i advocated in the above section that younger people should try to accommodate different tastes in music.

I do not advocate a right form of music despite my preferences. I believe that there are many ways to praise God. However, for something as public as music that has the power to 'move' people, i feel that it requires a great deal of prayer by all those involved so that what ever they do ultimately edifies God and not causes conflict.

I appreciate what is said here, but note how powerfully styles of music affect us.

I am a musician and enjoy many different styles of music, and can happily sing along lustily in church when these different styles are employed.

I've recently been listening to Mark Driscoll's talks on Philippians and have found them worthwhile, and also enjoyed the biographies of hymnwriters at the end of each talk.

However, if the music played is representative of the music used in the services, it would be extremely hard for me to tolerate, so I guess I'm a part of the problem you are talking about here.

As all of you have in some way posted, music connects with each and everyone of us emotionally and spiritually. Whether or not you know or agree, music is meant to be a sort of "mood" alterer. Take out the "christian" aspect and think about certain songs: some make you cry, some laugh, some tense and some take you back in time. The danger I have seen over the years is that music has been used as a primary evangelical medium for the express purpose of attracting a new audience.
In this day and age, messages across the pulpits of the U.S. all are basically saying the same thing: "What saved you 30yrs (or more) ago won't work on those people today." In essence, God's message is not the same yesterday, today and forever. WE have to change to save/attract the lost. I have no problem at all with contemporary christian music. I truly feel it has a place but what I do worry about is that we mix the wholesome entertainment values of CCM as EQUALLING worship. We first must remember that prior to sin, any music generated was christian so we must now be ever so cautious that this wonderful, God-given, purposeful medium NOT be used in any manor that detracts from God. The same could be said for any copy-cat "flag waivers", "spiritual laughers", "holy spirit breathers" and "aisle runners".

I've been around the worship block a few times... been a music minister/worship leader for about 25 years and served in "church music" for about 10 years or so before that. I was there at the start - when people were complaining that we young hippies would dare to bring a guitar into the worship service or sing a hard Christian "rock song" like "Great is the Lord" (the one by MW Smith). I've been thru the wars and, for all these years, have tried with all my might to help those on both sides of the coin (those on the platform and those in the pew) to once and for all realize that God is interested in one thing - my heart!

But only a very few have bothered to learn the lesson.

And, I have to confess, I am worn out. My passion is lost. "Church" has become what I feared it would but always hoped it would not - another machine filled with leaders and followers who continue to fight for their way regardless of what it does to staff members called by God to lead that community in musical worship.

Those of you arguing that God demands excellence... read your Bible again and do a word search using actual concordances on that little word translated as "skill." You will be surprised.

Those of you fighting for traditional music vs. contemporary music - grow up. Get over your supposed self-importance on how much you think you know about what God wants. You are making it far more difficult than it needs to be... God wants YOU! He doesn't NEED your fantastic choral harmonies or guitar licks. You are not impressing Him. He is bored with your musical "excellence" - he wants YOU!

If I sound mad, it's because I am. You know why? Because here we have a brother in the Lord (Greg) feeling called and led by the Lord to prophetically speak to the church about one of the biggest (if not THE biggest) issues damaging God's people - and poster after poster after poster is doing nothing but trying to water down his message.

Maybe this message is for you.

The organized church in America is falling apart and it's because we spend more time worshiping our methods than the One who gave us the ability to DO those methods.

The madness has to stop, people.

Hi Danny,

I empathize with your struggle. I've been in evangelical circles since 1974, and I would have thought the worship wars would be long over by now. But even within the past few years I've been involved in unsavory arguments over this.

It came to a head when I was given a magazine article lamenting the (assumed) demise of old time hymns. The writer, if I recall, used one out of context "proof text" to advance his argument, and the rest was a nostalgic bemoaning of the loss of "our old hymns". I was given this article because it was assumed that I was the champion of rock and roll, since I defended the music provided by our band, and I argued against "counting" how many new vs. old songs occupied our blended worship. Fearing a slippery slide toward exclusively contemporary music, the anguished parishoner thought (I suppose) I would wake up to the alarm set by this article's author. He calculated that we used to sing an equal number of old hymns along with our contemporary songs, but had steadily drifted toward a majority of newer tunes.

The idea of "counting" how many of which styles were being sung seemed to me contrary to the point of true worship. And the writer of the article seemed to have no better complaint than the fear that we were "losing" our old songs. He was, in my opinion, driven by mere nostalgia and sentimentalism. I am all for connections to the past and for our joining with the saints of the ages. And nostalgia and sentiment have their place, but they shouldn't be ends to themselves. If there is a slope to slide down, I think that the slope of nostalgia slides to the very same kitsch these folks despise in some of the newer music.

Retaining a certain genre simply because it feeds a longing for some imagined "good old day" is not the most biblical reason for choosing a song. Why this isn't seen as the same "entertainment" they so decry in contemporary music is beyond me.

And speaking of entertainment. We are made to be entertained. We are made to be engaged, enrapt, captured and lifted up. Worship is not an exercise in Stoic indifference or Platonic detachment from our carnal senses. It incorporates our whole being as we sing the new song, are made glad in our Maker, rejoice in our King; as we dance and sing to Him who takes pleasure in us, the afflicted, who He beautifies with salvation.

The saddest and strangest part of this whole argument was that I was perceived as simply a champion of new music. When a job change took us from that casual, blended worship style church to a larger more traditional church, my friend was confused as to why I was so accepting of their higher church style. I must have failed in my attempt to convince him that it's not about style preference. Most days I listen to classical music online, and in the evenings I carve out some free time to play rock and blues on my Telecaster. In my mind there is absolutely no incongruity in this. No more than the fact that I am a professional cartoonist and consider it a high art form, and yet I delight in the beauty of Renaissance art. 20th century abstract expressionism too, for that matter.

Well, I guess your saddness over the whole thing resonated with me. I appreciate your straight words and hope for all of us that we, as you rightly said, grow up.