Recently there's been quite a bit of conversation about music in worship and what's appropriate. In theory it could be an interesting conversation, but that kind of depends on what your intent is when you gather.
However, what really intrigues me is what people sing in progressive churches, or how they interact with what they sing.
For example, I've played at a church for the past 10 years or so that is on the theologically liberal side of the mainline denominational spectrum. As a general rule they've stuck with a mix the CCLI top 25, some oldies but "goodies" from the contemporary vaults, and the hymns that most of us know. The question I always wanted to ask is, "Do y'all actually believe the theology that you're singing about?".
I see three main categories that get used in church. These are my categories, they are broad, general, and not exhaustive.
Hymns
Contemporary/P&W
Secular music
Each of these has some sub genres.
With hymns, you have the following.
The "classics", the ones that combine good theology with a good melody and that have been around for quite a while.
The rest of the oldies. These are hymns that haven't quite gotten as popular as the first category. Either the theology is bad, the writing is bad, they aren't particularly singable, or something else that relegates them to the B team.
The new hymns. Many of these have been written to advance a progressive/inclusive theology, or agenda. Most of the ones I've been exposed to contain poor theology, are virtually un singable, and unknown.
With contemporary/P&W there is also quite a wide range of options.
Like the hymns, there are a number of these songs that have good theology, are singable, and connect with people. I'd include contemporary hymn arrangements here as well.
Also like the hymns, there are a large number of these songs that range from mildly bad theology to incoherent or heretical theology. There are some that go down the progressive/inclusive road. And, there are some that just flat out stink.
Finally, there is secular music.
First, we have classical music (some of which isn't technically secular), jazz, swing and other primarily non vocal musical genres.
Second, we have pop,rock, country, etc which are primarily vocal genres.
In my opinion, I would suggest that the following are pretty much universally appropriate for worship.
The classic hymns, the B team hymns with good theology, The contemporary/P&W with good theology, the non vocal secular pieces all seem to be compatible with what most people with a reasonably Orthodox (not Greek) theology would consider the purpose of a worship service.
I would also suggest that there is room for some secular music, under certain circumstances.
I can’t help but wonder how the folx who’d rather use secular music instead of Christian music in worship services decide what music to use and where they draw the line of what’s appropriate.
But, after all of that, we're left with wondering what music to churches use in the, for example, don't believe that God exists? Or if they don't believe that Jesus wasn't anything special? What if they don't believe that Jesus actually died on a cross and wasn't actually resurrected? I could go on, but I think you get my point.
Do these churches just sing songs that don't agree with their theology and give them a different meaning? Do they just sing the ones that agree with their theology or are vague enough that it's impossible to tell? Do they just pull in secular songs? Do they pull in secular songs that sound spiritual in some vague general sense? I do know that they'll sometimes change the words to remove anything too offensive.
While I don't want to speak for everyone at the church I mentioned earlier, I'll suggest that it's a little jarring to sing something then hear the pastor contradict what you just sand when he preaches.
I've had to pick music for worship in a few different circumstances, and I can say that I've put a lot of effort into making good choices and trying to keep the focus on God and not on the people upfront. I just don't see how the folx that lead at those churches do it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
I'm not sure of the purpose of music defined as "secular" (not related to God) music for the purpose of worship.
I have been keenly aware over recent times of the fact that people happily sing songs without any recognition of their content. Christians do it with secular words. Unbelievers do it with Christian words. (Think Frank Sinatra singing "Joy to the World" or Barbra Streisand singing "Away in the Manger.") There is often a disconnect between music we like and the words it includes. To a large part we're just not paying attention.
I agree, although I assume you’re talking about secular popular music, not classical. Yet I do think that there is room for occasional secular songs in worship. Much like we see clips from secular movies and quotes from secular books, I think secular music can be used for specific purposes. Obviously, there is a lot of discernment and thought that should go into that decision, but I don’t have a problem with occasional use of secular music.
Now, if you have a church that uses secular music as the majority of their music because they don’t like the theology in “Christian” music, that would be concerning.
I think that your right that there are too many people stick songs into worship services without really looking at the message and the theology, and too many in the pews who don’t pay any attention at all.
I think I wrote about the phenomenon of non Christian singers recording explicitly Christian Christmas music. I wonder if they understand how their lifestyle and beliefs contradict the songs they cover. I also wonder if there’s a possibility that the message in the song might raise questions or point them towards Jesus in any way.
Art,
I just stopped in over at the cesspool to catch up on your battle with the tar baby. The thing I noticed is the confusion about the notion that if you are having a gathering to worship God, then it might be logical to use material that focuses on or points to God. The problem with the ambiguous example Dan used is that it can point to anyone or anything. It an point people to God, Satan, drugs, alcohol, people, it's being satisfied with merely the possibility that someone could potentially, maybe be pointed towards God or "God's people". What a low standard.
It certain seems logical to some of us. After all, it's not a sewing bee, ice cream social or even a 12-step program. If the point isn't about God/Jesus, then it is nothing more than those things.
I also wonder what's wrong with he and his that Scripture isn't enough for "edifying" and "building up" those at his "gathering place". They might want to hire an actual pastor that understands how to teach in order that they leave edified and "built up".
And I agree about how secular materials might result in a diluted belief in the ability of God/Jesus to be and provide what we truly need.
That’s the point, once you move away from focusing on God, then the contents of your meeting become less relevant.
I’d still argue that it’s possible to use secular art to focus or God or to illustrate something about God, but if it’s not pointing to God, then it doesn’t really matter that much.
I don't disagree, but secular materials must be used in conjunction with and subordinate to a God/Christ message otherwise it's NOT a God/Christ message or lesson at all.
On a related note...now that I think of it...politics from the pulpit is similar. It mustn't denied if it is based on Christian teaching with a connection properly made between pubic policy and Christian teaching.
I agree that whatever is used in worship should point to God, and do so reasonably directly. Dan’s example could point to God as one of many options, which would seem to suggest that it shouldn’t be used without some added context, if at all. Of course if your purpose isn’t to worship God or praises Jesus, then who cares what you use to build up self esteem.
I don’t think it’s inappropriate to look at public policy and scripture to examine how they relate. Not so much when it’s about supporting specific candidates.
The things a given candidate supports might indeed be counter-Scriptural, yet not necessarily well known by all who back him. Pointing it out in church is not only just and necessary, but can easily be connected to Christian teaching and as such is appropriate. Sure, the preacher might be wrong, but that would only open people up to discussing it and getting to the truth.
Given current law, that’s problematic . I’d argue that it’s plenty to point out how scripture treats various issues without specifying which candidates support those positions.
If the law changes that’d be different.
It’s interesting how the Dems always get away with campaign events in churches though. Heaven forbid the GOP would.
Well, the whole thing was the result of Democrat dismay that preachers would find fault with their policy proposals. One would think a good religious argument against would be a welcome guide toward "being honest". But Dems redefining right and wrong goes back quite a ways. Can't have anyone questioning that...especially those in the business of morality.
Post a Comment