next »

[jennyflan]

Hi All
I am one of the worship leaders at my local church and have been at almost every church that I have attended in the past. I have to say that for the most part I believe the music today in church is more entertainment orientated than worship directed to God. On several occasions I have been told to make my song selections more up to date and relevant, meaning that they want the younger element of the congregation catered to. Our church has a fairly even mix of older and younger people. I find that if I keep the songs fairly middle of the road and don't let the muso's blow peoples ear drums out that the congregation responds very well and the comments afterwards are positive in that people have been touched and ministered to by the Spirit of God. When I have as asked by the leadership done as they asked and made the songs more upbeat and modern and I mean very modern the response from the congregation has been dissapointing and there is nothing more disconcerting when leading to open your eyes and see people sitting with pained looks on their faces or even get up and leave until the music is over. I have argued on several occasions with the pastor on this issue as the older element in the congregation complain that the music is far to loud and meaningless as worship to them. I must admit that I think that todays worship does little for me and I feel rather uncomfortable leading in that style.
Jenny 

[donnleviejr]

Hi Jenny:

A common problem that is occuring more and more, unfortunately. I address this very subject in my book, It's All About HYMN: Essays on Reclaiming Sacred and Traditional Music for Worship (check out the reviews on Amazon.com for what others have said), but here's a short piece from the great 19th century British preacher Charles Haddon Spurgeon on the use of entertainment--a problem even in the 1800s!!

Donn LeVie, Jr.

Feeding Sheep or Amusing Goats?
> Charles Haddon Spurgeon
> (1834-1892)
>

[/b]
>
>
> An evil is in the professed camp of the Lord, so gross in its impudence,
> that the most shortsighted can hardly fail to notice it during the past few
> years. It has developed at an abnormal rate, even for evil. It has worked
> like leaven until the whole lump ferments. The devil has seldom done a
> cleverer thing than hinting to the church that part of their mission is to
> provide entertainment for the people, with a view to winning them.
>
> From speaking out as the Puritans did, the church has gradually toned down
> her testimony, then winked at and excused the frivolities of the day. Then
> she tolerated them in her borders. Now she has adopted them under the plea
> of reaching the masses.
>
> My first contention is that providing amusement for the people is nowhere
> spoken of in the Scriptures as a function of the church. If it is a
> Christian work, why did not Christ speak of it? "Go ye into all the world
> and preach the gospel to every creature" (Mark 16:15). That is clear enough.
> So it would have been if He had added, "and provide amusement for those who
> do not relish the gospel." No such words, however, are to be found. It did
> not seem to occur to him.
>
> Then again, "He gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some
> evangelists; and some pastors and teachers .., for the work of the ministry"
> (Eph. 4:11-12). Where do entertainers come in? The Holy Spirit is silent
> concerning them. Were the prophets persecuted because they amused the people
> or because they refused? The concert has no martyr roll.
>
> Again, providing amusement is in direct antagonism to the teaching and life
> of Christ and all his apostles. What was the attitude of the church to the
> world? Ye are the salt" (Matt. 5:13), not the sugar candy---something the
> world will spit out not swallow. Short and sharp was the utterance, "Let the
> dead bury their dead" (Matt. 8:22) He was in awful earnestness.
>
> Had Christ introduced more of the bright and pleasant elements into his
> mission, he would have been more popular when they went back, because of the
> searching nature of His teaching. I do not hear him say, "Run after these
> people Peter and tell them we will have a different style of service
> tomorrow, something short and attractive with little preaching. We will have
> a pleasant evening for the people. Tell them they will be sure to enjoy it.
> Be quick Peter, we must get the people somehow." Jesus pitied sinners,
> sighed and wept over them, but never sought to amuse them.
>
> In vain will the Epistles be searched to find any trace of this gospel of
> amusement! Their message is, "Come out, keep out, keep clean out!" Anything
> approaching fooling is conspicuous by its absence. They had boundless
> confidence in the gospel and employed no other weapon.
>
> After Peter and John were locked up for preaching, the church had a prayer
> meeting but they did not pray, "Lord grant unto thy servants that by a wise
> and discriminating use of innocent recreation we may show these people how
> happy we are." If they ceased not from preaching Christ, they had not time
> for arranging entertainments. Scattered by persecution, they went everywhere
> preaching the gospel. They turned the world upside down (Acts 17:6). That is
> the only difference! Lord, clear the church of all the rot and rubbish the
> devil has imposed on her, and bring us back to apostolic methods.
>
> Lastly, the mission of amusement fails to effect the end desired. It works
> havoc among young converts. Let the careless and scoffers, who thank God
> because the church met them halfway, speak and testify. Let the heavy laden
> who found peace through the concert not keep silent! Let the drunkard to
> whom the dramatic entertainment has been God's link in the chain of the
> conversion, stand up! There are none to answer. The mission of amusement
> produces no converts. The need of the hour for today's ministry is believing
> scholarship joined with earnest spirituality, the one springing from the
> other as fruit from the root. The need is biblical doctrine, so understood
> and felt, that it sets men on fire.
 

[Jason]

I do believe there should be a good mix. However, at my church we do a hymn once a month. The rest of the music is contemporary. When you say modern, I think I have been to churches like this. The team on the stage is giving a performance and not leading the congregation into worship. We have a church here locally that is growing by leaps and bounds taht has this type service. I visited there and will never go back just for that reason.

I do believe you can be relevant and not come off as putting on a performance. We did "Revelation Song", sung by Kari Jobe, this past week and the Spirit moved in a great way. It is contemporary. We had drums, 2 acoustic guitars, electric guitar, bass and keyboard.

I would not wavier from worship. I would address your concerns to the leadership. If they want to continue to be performance based then I would find a different church.

[JFBEagle]

Hi all!
There is so much I want to say that I am having difficulty getting my thoughts in order.
Modern v Ancient.  I use a range of music and words from the last 400 years or so with a strong bias towards the last 20 years.  I will often introduce new songs, usually ones that have been heard by people at christian festivals/conferences or written by an author that I follow.

Worship v Performance I think we all should be striving for a high quality performance any time we stand up the front and expect to lead - But consideration should always be given to the ability of the congregation to follow and join in in a worshipful manner.  This is true regardless of the vintage of the song.
Occasionally it may be appropriate for a song to be a performance, where the text is consistent with the direction of the service but is unsuitable for congregational singing. (I think back to my youth when the choir would sing an anthem - and very often for no better reason than the choirmaster wanted the choir to perform it.)

Comfort zones While we are often asked to step out of our comfort zones in order to achieve more, no one should be asked to lead if they are not convinced that they are going the right way. No one would ask a preacher to preach a sermon that included doctine they were not comfortable with why should you be asked to lead worship in a way that you are unable to worship yourself. At the risk of sounding excessively blunt to someone I don't know, if the church is insistent that this is the music they require then they should not be asking you to lead it.
However, if (as it sounds) the congregation is not moved to worship to this style of music the church leadership should be looking to reconsider it's policy.