Is Your Church Involved in a Music War?

[Lesa Marvin]

I am curious to know how many churches are having any type of music war-contemporary versus traditional.

[Stan Hall]

No, we don't have a war. We have a comfortable mix of traditional and contemporary music. We enjoy many of the old hymns along with praise choruses and modern music. We also write some of our own. For an example, follow the link in the Our Christmas Concert thread.

[Ian Robertson]

Spokane Valley Church moved to a blended service. We currently use 83 of the top 100 praise choruses. (Sorry, my worship leader knows more about this list than I do.) Most AM services, we have a choir and orchestra backing up the worship leaders. This involves many people in this ministry. PowerPoint is used most of the time for singing and the pastor's message.

Our PrimeTimers have been most flexible with the change. We asked them, "How important is it that your grandchildren are in the same congregation?" They said enthusiastically that having younger people in the congregation to carry forward the message of holiness was more important than staying with only traditional hymns. It helps when we don't blast out their eardrums, or keep them standing all the time. Ruben Welch was right, "We really do need each other." Our bulletin board says, "A Christ-centered family church." Our family has many generations.

This meets the need of our city. In the past few years, attendance has doubled. As a Purpose Driven Mentor Church, we seek a balance between our five major purposes, as well as a balance between the old and the new. Really, we only do three things, "We love God, we love others, and we make disciples." The focus has to be on our Lord's Great Commandment and Great Commission.

The unity of the congregation is perhaps the best miracle of all!

[Carol Lombard]

We too are a blended church. But I feel we need to do something to attract younger people to become involved and not be fringe people. I love a church that involves all of the generations.

[Billy Cox]

I am curious to know how many churches are having any type of music war-contemporary versus traditional.

The church I attend has fought great battles in the past. Let's just say that the current pastor has weathered all the battles and the church doesn't even bother to do 'the token hymn' anymore.

It is also worth noting that the church is less than 20 years old and in that time the church has grown from 75 to nearly 500. I like this church because the battles have already been fought and the 'right side' won in my opinion.

There is something to be said for just 'duking it out' and sending the losers packing versus an extended 'cold war' and a policy of appeasement.

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

Following the suggestion of Mark, I have created a new thread on "Does God like us as we are?" in the theology forum and moved the posts on that topic to that thread.

That will let folks who want to talk about "music wars" continue here, and those who want to talk about that topic do so there.

[Mark Metcalfe]

Following the suggestion of Mark, I have created a new thread on "Does God like us as we are?" in the theology forum and moved the posts on that topic to that thread.

That will let folks who want to talk about "music wars" continue here, and those who want to talk about that topic do so there.

Oops, was that my typo? It should be "Does God love us just the way we are?"

[BobHunt]

I just dont understand why we cant have the contemp music for those who enjoy, and make a special time, if there needs to be, for the older ones who still like the hymns? Thats what we do.

[Paul Whitaker]

There is something to be said for just 'duking it out' and sending the losers packing versus an extended 'cold war' and a policy of appeasement.

Interesting. Who are the losers?

One other question. Who is going to sing the hymns we choose for our funeral? Our grandkids won't know those hymns.

We have two children with their families who go to two churches with the contemporary format. They do not sing any of the songs the other contemporary church sings. (From what I have been able to tell while visiting the two churches.)

Maybe I am one of the above mentioned 'losers'.

[Marsha Lynn]

I'm not sure. We might be. Or maybe not. We were, I think, but then our pianist and organist (from the traditional side) left the church. And now we aren't using many choruses. Instead, we sing more of the old hymns of the church, the ones that are 200 years old rather than 100 years old. So we have fewer of the old tabernacle hymns but little actual contemporary music. e.g. We're more likely to sing "Joyful, Joyful, We Adore Thee" than "You May Have the Joy-bells Ringing in Your Heart".

In a recent standardized survey, few people indicated that they did not find the music conducive to worship but several thought there was conflict over the music. As the replacement pianist, I'm mainly hearing positive comments from the vocal people. If there's conflict I'm not hearing it. Which might mean I'm simply not inviting input from the right people. Personally, I'd rather have more contemporary music but find the old hymns a welcome relief to years of tabernacle songs and better suited to the instrument(alist)s we have available (piano and organ) than choruses.

Marsha

I am curious to know how many churches are having any type of music war-contemporary versus traditional.

[Paul Whitaker]

The New York Times
December 30, 2005
Teenagers Mix Churches for Faith That Fits

By NEELA BANERJEE

COLORADO SPRINGS - At 11 a.m. on a recent Sunday, Emily Hoogenboom, 14, was at church, her second that morning.

First, she had dutifully sat through a staid worship at Forest Ridge Community Church, which she attends with her family. Now she was with her 17-year-old friend and 4,000 other worshippers at an evangelical megachurch listening to six singers, backed by a band and a swaying choir of 250 people.

Like Emily, a number of Christians are regularly attending different churches in the course of a week or a month, picking and choosing among programs and services, to satisfy social and spiritual needs. They are comfortable participating in multiple churches.

The practice is particularly pronounced among young people, sociologists of religion say. Everyone in a family may attend one church for a service on Sunday, but the children then go their own way to youth groups, for example.

In a survey of 13- to 17-year-olds conducted from 2002 through 2003, the National Study of Youth and Religion found that 16 percent of respondents participated in more than one religious congregation. Four percent attend youth groups outside their congregations.

Some critics, particularly conservative evangelicals and the ministers of various denominations, decry such practices as a consumerist approach to faith.

But sociologists say it is a growing practice, a reflection of how Americans today are less attached to a historical, family denomination.

Parents also want their children to have an "authentic" relationship to faith, and "if you don't choose it, it's not authentic for you," said Christian Smith, a professor of sociology at the University of North Carolina and director of the survey on youth and religion.

Emily and her parents, who are evangelical Christians, say her decision to attend the megachurch, New Life, reveals the strength of her faith and the profoundly individual spiritual course each believer follows.

"I saw that my parents' relationship to Christ and my relationship to Jesus Christ were different, and my kids aren't going to relate to Jesus Christ the same way we do," said Emily's mother, Tracy Hoogenboom, 49. "And that's to be expected because Jesus Christ is your own personal lord and savior."

It remains unclear how many Christians attend several churches regularly. Most young people who go outside their family church are Protestants, from mainline denominations and evangelical churches alike. Some are from mixed-religion marriages, Mr. Smith said, but many go simply because a second church appeals to them.

"We see it all the time, everywhere," said Jose Zayas, director of teenage evangelism for Focus on the Family, a conservative Christian group based in Colorado Springs. "They gravitate to where they feel a connection. They're more pragmatic than their parents' generation. They look at what works for them. I think it's healthy."

At New Life, led by Ted Haggard, president of the National Association of Evangelicals, the youth group sessions feel like rock concerts: T-shirts are on sale outside and bands are onstage, grinding their way through screaming songs of praise for Christ while teenagers dance before them. Friends often lead other teenagers to new churches, sociologists and adolescents themselves said.

Though Emily's family had attended New Life when she was in grade school, she visited the church again in junior high at the invitation of a friend, largely because, Emily said, she was unhappy with the popular but catty girl she had become. She stayed because the youth pastor's sermons made sense to her.

"That was just the biggest thing for me: that you don't have to be perfect, that God loves you not for what you do and for this body that we have only for a short time, but for your heart and soul and who you are inside," Emily said of what she had heard.

"Every time I went to church," she continued, "I felt God loved me, that I don't have to worry about sin because he forgives me. So I looked forward to going back. I don't really understand all of it. But I have the passion to learn more."

Many children in evangelical families also see the example their parents have set, leaving the denominations they grew up in to embrace evangelical Christianity as young adults.

"I left the church of my upbringing to find Christ on my own," said Chad Wight, whose 15-year-old daughter, Hannah, attends Pulpit Rock Church here with her family but also goes to a youth group at Woodmen Valley Chapel, both nondenominational evangelical churches.

Mr. Wight said his family looked for a church that would nourish his children.

"Their spiritual health is really important right now," Mr. Wight said, "and if they continue their walk with the Lord, that's crucial."

Parents largely accept their children's choices, as long as the other churches espouse a similar theology, said Nancy L. Eiesland, associate professor of sociology of religion at the Candler School of Theology at Emory University. "Many of them are happy their kids will go to anything in their teenage years," Ms. Eiesland said.

As a hub of evangelical Christianity, Colorado Springs offers many churches that preach similar doctrines, like the inerrancy of the Bible and the need for a personal relationship with Christ. But here and elsewhere, many Christians, especially members of the clergy, take commitment to a particular church seriously.

"If families spread their loyalties around, it's been my experience that they don't benefit as well as they could," said Peter Beringer, a youth pastor at Pulpit Rock Church, which has about 1,000 adults in attendance every Sunday. "They don't seem to have relationships in the church that are as deep. From what I have seen of students who have done this, they find it easier to disengage and be the kid on the fringes."

Hannah Wight, a soft-spoken girl who deliberates over her words, stands by her choice. She said she felt more connected to Woodmen Valley after attending a series there that helped young people discern their "spiritual gifts," like the desire to serve.

"The message spoke to me a lot," Hannah said. As for attending two churches, she said, "It's not hard for me at all because I feel like my needs are being fulfilled."

Still, her parents said, people note Hannah's less-than-regular appearances at the family's primary church, Pulpit Rock. And her 13-year-old brother, Brian, does not understand her decision.

"I will defend her when necessary, but over all I'm on their side," Brian said, referring to how others at Pulpit Rock have reacted to Hannah's choice. "I don't know why she has to make things inconvenient for the rest of us or why she picked that church when she has been going to Pulpit Rock as long as the rest of us."

Emily Hoogenboom said she went to Forest Ridge largely out of respect for her parents, whose friends founded it about five years ago. But when Emily steps into New Life, she embraces a second family. Other youths come and hug her. They hug all the time, boys and girls showing affection for one another without risking trouble.

One Wednesday evening, boys in thrift-store jackets and porkpie hats, pale Goth devotees, and petite girls with the same mascara, lip gloss and tight, flared jeans, about 250 teenagers in all, streamed into New Life for their youth group. By the hall entrance, Chad Fritzsche, 17, and Esther Saforo, 15, two of Emily's friends who also attend New Life on their own, were playing guitar and singing songs they had written.

The youth pastor, Brent Parsley, entered on a sleigh dressed as a hip-hop Santa. "I'm going to break it down for you, Clarence," Mr. Parsley told an actor in the Christmas play. "Christmas ain't about presents, yo! The true meaning of Christmas is my main man: J.C."

The crowd shrieked. At this unbuttoned church, teenagers channel the roiling passions typical of their age into devotion. And Mr. Parsley egged them on. He told them in an overcaffeinated tempo that God had much in store for them. Reading Biblical excerpts on his P.D.A., he reminded them that David was young when he slew Goliath and that Mary was probably quite young when she bore Jesus. He said: "God loves to use young people. I want all of us to live our lives as if God had something extraordinary planned for us."

The music began again. The young people ran toward the stage, but Emily went by herself to the aisle behind her seat. In the darkened hall, she was freer than she had been on Sunday. The band played a simple rock song, and everybody shouted the lyrics over and over: "Bless the Lord with all that's in me. Bless the Lord. May kingdoms fall and rulers crawl before your throne."

Emily threw her head back and sang and sang. Then she fell to her knees. Bent forward at the waist, rocking, she sang into her curled body what others shouted to the rafters: "I want to give you all of me. I'm giving you all of me."

* Copyright 2005The New York Times Company

[Gary Swartzlander]

We went contemporary 10 or 12 years ago, one Sunday we did hymns the next we used the worship team and new music. One couple got up and left, that was about the extent of the controversy. We ocassionally use a hymn when it adds to the worship time, I appreciate it, but in I'm a contemporary person in a contemporary church. As I've said before, wars and division comes from poor communication most often.

[William Hunter]

I guess I've never understood why any congregation should have a war about anything. We have so changed the services here that they do not look anything like they were when we came 9 yrs. ago. And a few weeks ago we made another profound change. We continue to move more liturgical symbols and concepts in place and my people love these changes. I have not had one complaint and have not lost one person in all these years over these changes.

Part of the reason for such "success" in the change process is having thought
through the changes, anticipated the questions and had informative answers ready, and letting my lay leaders know early on what I was thinking, made them part of the process, and brought the congregation into the equation early on so that they were not surprise as they came to worship one day. With proper communication and making your people part of the change by making them part of the team keeps the door tightly shut on any "wars."

I hurt for those pastors and congreations who have "wars" over something so surface as music. There are much more deeper and profound issues of relationship to God that need to be in place and in focus. How we worship is and outgrowth of the increase in the spiritual health of individuals and of congreagtions. We do not have to have wars over anything unless we have those things trying to come in that are clearly opposed to a clear teaching of God's Word. 99.99999% of the time, church wars are because we are about doing Satan's business and not getting close to Jesus Christ. Worship wars come out of selfishenss and self-centeredness and the demand to have our own way, instead of following Christ out into faith territory so that lost people can be reached.

To follow Christ and rreap a harvest of fruit, be it spiritual growth or souls, on has to go out on the limb for the fruit does not grow near the truck. If we look, Christ is out there hard at work, usually trying to lead us into what He is doing, rather than standing around while we fuss and stew and act like Satan's crowd. The church is never destroyed from the outside, always from the inside by God's own people because they have put their own pride on the line rather than humbly doing whatever is necessary to get close to Christ and reap spiritual and soul harvests.

[Barb Bouldrey]

That is hard to answer. Since our arrival here 5 1/2 years ago, John has always had a blended worship service with some new choruses and songs and some traditional. We have always enjoyed learning and using new.

When our teens have a service once a quarter they use all contemporary choruses. The keyboard plays mostly heavy chords so that people cannot easily hear the melody line to be able to learn something new. (if there is a melody line to SOME of the new choruses...LOL)

Anyway, we have just a few who do not like contemporary choruses...and it is the 50's age group, not the senior adults. They have been very vocal with words and reactions so they have caused tension at times.

But it has settled down since two men who were the most noticably opposed to all choruses of any kind have left the church.

So, there was a little war waged by a few for a while. But we are not currently in a music war.

I have tried to educate our youth pastor to educate our teens that if they get upset because we do not seem to be singing their choruses with enthusiasm it is basically for 3 reasons:
1. We cannot hear the melody line to help us learn it.
2. We have no music to read to help us learn it.
3. It is hard to learn a song you only sing every 3-6 months. We need to sing them more frequently to catch on.

And, of course, the adult generations mostly do not like the heavy metal, heavy chorded songs that sing the same 7 words 11 times.

But, in our church most people are trying to accept everyone's flavor of music.

We do have the words on Power Point on the screen, but we also list the hymn numbers in the bulletin.

Barb

[Carl Hecksher]

My Church uses every medium at its disposal to praise the Lord. I personally don't know what would be traditional or not. But It seems like there is a good mixture of all forms of music. We have a band, with guitars and drums-but we also sing from a book (I think it is called the hymnal) with out insruments.

[Gary Swartzlander]

My Church uses every medium at its disposal to praise the Lord. I personally don't know what would be traditional or not. But It seems like there is a good mixture of all forms of music. We have a band, with guitars and drums-but we also sing from a book (I think it is called the hymnal) with out insruments.


Carl brings up an interesting question, when does something become traditional? After 12 years or so, our first 2 services would be traditional for us although very contemporary compared to many other churches. Our third service is more contemporary (what ever that really means) than the first 2.

[Billy Cox]

Interesting. Who are the losers?

One other question. Who is going to sing the hymns we choose for our funeral? Our grandkids won't know those hymns.

We have two children with their families who go to two churches with the contemporary format. They do not sing any of the songs the other contemporary church sings. (From what I have been able to tell while visiting the two churches.)

Maybe I am one of the above mentioned 'losers'.


The 'losers' were those who wanted the church to remain a small country church even with urban sprawl at their doorsteps. Ten years later there are still a few area churches offering a shelter of refuge against young families with bratty kids and suburban values.

As for funerals, they are for the living, not for the dead, so I personally would not force those at my funeral to suffer through 'In the Garden' or some other music that has little or no connection to the present.

I use the term 'losers' intentionally, not to demean those who resist music written since the Reagan years, but rather to underscore that appeasement makes our worship sterile and obviously tailored to certain factions in the congregation rather than being an unblemished offering to our Creator.

[Charlene Clevenger]

We used to have a blended service, but some of the young people were asking for more contemporary music, so we went to 2 services in September. It's working very well. One older lady complained about a few things when she came back to the foyer after Sunday School and saw the end of the contemporary service. She's OK with it now. She just remembers that her grandaughter and great grandson are worshiping God there, and she's OK.

Paul brings up a good point. Funerals almost always use hymns. Granted, I haven't been to many funerals of young people, but I think people find the old hymns more comforting at such a time.

[Mark Metcalfe]

I use the term 'losers' intentionally, not to demean those who resist music written since the Reagan years, but rather to underscore that appeasement makes our worship sterile and obviously tailored to certain factions in the congregation rather than being an unblemished offering to our Creator.

It is an interesting perspective to view certain music styles as
"sterile" when style is a very subjective experience.

Add to this perspective that you percieve the use of some music to
be appeasing, as opposed to permitting meaning to a different subjective
experience.

An unblemished offering to our Creator can be made in any music style,
whether it was written inthe Reagan years (or the Gaither years).

Mark

[Billy Cox]

Allow me to clarify. I don't believe any musical style is sterile. What is sterile is an environment in which people in the congregation literally unplug from a certain portion of the worship service that doesn't suit their tastes.

This cuts both ways. I have seen this at district assembly during the main evening service. During the contemporary segment of the worship music, the 60-something people in the seats in front of me were looking around, whispering back and forth, and were essentially disengaged. But then we launched into a hymn and they were 'there' again. I have seen others do the same unplugging act during the hymn segment.

In either case, self centeredness renders worship sterile. This is not always true of blended worship music, but I suspect that there are will always be people who disengage from whichever segment of a blended service that they don't like.

[Mark Metcalfe]

Allow me to clarify.

Thank you.

[Billy Cox]

I think a more precise explanation would be helpful.

If those who plan and lead worship would rather do one style over another, but political realities force them to do a token hymn or a token chorus, that has the makings of appeasement.

It goes one step farther if, in the service, the worship leader and/or pastor prefaces the token song with some words to make sure that the faction being appeased knows that this is done purely to quiet their complaining. It's a subtle form of shaming and an even more subtle form of apology to those who would rather dispense with the token song altogether.

If a blended service is done with grace, it can be done well, but if appeasement is the goal, then the so-called peace will simply be the absence of open conflict.

[Gary Swartzlander]

Billy, excellent observation and perspective. Thanks for sharing.

[Marsha Lynn]

Allow me to clarify. I don't believe any musical style is sterile. What is sterile is an environment in which people in the congregation literally unplug from a certain portion of the worship service that doesn't suit their tastes.

Billy,

Do you see that "unplugging" as voluntary, because of a less-than-exemplary attitude, or involuntary, as a result of the music/lyrics not giving them anything to grab hold of? How hard should we work to "plug into" music/lyrics that we find unappealing and uninspiring?

Marsha

[Billy Cox]

I tend to see it as more voluntary, or just not wanting to put forth the effort to participate in something other than their preferred style.

I haven't sung a hymn since last August, so I acknowledge that I would have to be make up my mind to do more than just mindlessly drone the words.

[Marsha Lynn]

I tend to see it as more voluntary, or just not wanting to put forth the effort to participate in something other than their preferred style.

I haven't sung a hymn since last August, so I acknowledge that I would have to be make up my mind to do more than just mindlessly drone the words.

I was just curious. Since I've been playing the piano at church, I've found that when the songleader chooses certain songs, I tend to drift far from the service. I'm still playing the notes but I'll suddenly realize that we're on the chorus and I have no idea which verse we just completed because I was thinking about something entirely unrelated. It's like driving and suddenly realizing that you have no idea whether you've already passed through a particular town along the route. I have to find an ambiguous ending that can either lead into the next verse or end depending on what the songleader does.

The reason I check out while I'm driving is that I find it incredibly boring. I suppose there must be something wrong with my spiritual life that I do the same thing while playing those old gospel standards. If I were truly in love with Jesus, I would not go daydreaming and lose track of which verse of "O, How I Love Jesus" we were on, right?

Still, I'm not sure I always make a conscious decision to go into autopilot for those songs. I'll admit, however, that there are a few for which it's a relief to realize that a couple of verses have passed without my conscious participation and that we're closer to the end than I would have dared hope.

As you breathe a sigh of relief that I'm not a musician in your church, let me assure you that I tried to decline the position where I am.

:fun07

Marsha
(who sighs everytime a songleader utters those encouraging words, "There's nothing out of the ordinary in the music selections for today.")

[Judy Engel]

As for funerals, they are for the living, not for the dead, so I personally would not force those at my funeral to suffer through 'In the Garden' or some other music that has little or no connection to the present.

I may or may not have hymns sung at my funeral. I have found hymns to be very very comforting during difficult times in my life but frankly I want something a bit different for my own "homegoing"! Two of the songs I intend to have played and or sung at my funeral is "Fields of Grace". The song says (for those who may not know it) "THere's a place where I love to run and play! THere's a place where I sing new songs of praise! Dancing with my Father God in fields of grace. Dancing with my Father God in fields of grace. There's a place where religion finally dies! There's a place where I lose my selfish pride! Dancing with my Father God in fields of grae. Dancing with my Father God in fields of grace." There is a bridge but you get the idea. What a great word picture for those who are there to honor my life imagining me dancing with God in heaven!!! The other one is "Blessed Be the Name" It is a "contemporary" song but it talks about blessing the Name of Jesus no matter what the circumstance. Again, another great word picture!

Our church has had it's stuggles over music the last two years since we started a "contemporary" worship service. It has been discouraging at times to hear those who are now in their 50's and 60's...the movers and shakers of their generation.......say the things that have been said about the stuff that has been allowed at "their" church. Nevermind that every Sunday, it seems, a new person or family comes, people are coming to know the Lord for the first time, we are baptising people left and right and many are finding healing and reconciliation. But at what cost? The ones who didn't like the contemporary service and all they thought it stood for have now left our church. It has damaged the local body and for that I am sad. However, the atmosphere in BOTH services has changed and there is much more hope for unity now.

So hopefully most of the battle is over and yes there are losers, all of us. when one part of the body hurts, the whole body suffers. But this too will heal and pass and the brokeness I pray will make us stronger and more faithful. Sorry for the length of this post....I get a bit carried away sometimes.

[Mark Metcalfe]

I think a more precise explanation would be helpful.

If those who plan and lead worship would rather do one style over another, but political realities force them to do a token hymn or a token chorus, that has the makings of appeasement.

It goes one step farther if, in the service, the worship leader and/or pastor prefaces the token song with some words to make sure that the faction being appeased knows that this is done purely to quiet their complaining. It's a subtle form of shaming and an even more subtle form of apology to those who would rather dispense with the token song altogether.

If a blended service is done with grace, it can be done well, but if appeasement is the goal, then the so-called peace will simply be the absence of open conflict.

Thanks, again, Billy. I had some thoughts on the matter this morning
as I drove to work.

Your comment in another note about disengaging and connecting to
music, depending on the type that was being presented in a worship
service brought these thoughts to mind. In this day of iPods (minis will
hold about 1100 songs), I wondered how many iPod owners' music would
intersect. I mean, I have the entire Beatles collection on my iPod; I don't
care for the Beach Boys enough to own any of their music.

It doesn't bother me one iota whether someone else like the Beach Boys,
or Elvis, or Sinatra (all on my ho-hum list).

This leads me to another thought about engaging in "worship music"
that doesn't move me. When a song is flashed up on my screen, and
I find the music to be at least ho-hum, I try to focus on the words
that the author penned. (I try to do this with catchy tunes, too!)
Do the words magnify the Creator? Now, the music style might
distract me; I have to concentrate harder; that is the participatory
nature of worship.

An aside to Marsha Lynn who has disengaged while playing music: this
happens a lot for people who are involved in worship leading. As a sound
technician, I was concerned about which mic had to be on as the service
progressed from one phase to another. That which makes it easy for
others to worship without distraction is made difficult for the people
facilitate worship.

This leads me to the next thought, which is "do I have to tolerate music styles
that I do not resonate with, or can I be part of a group that resonates with
people of like precious music style?" Do I have to listen to Elvis? Can I
listen to the Beatles without being condemned for not liking Elvis?

Mark

[Billy Cox]

Still, I'm not sure I always make a conscious decision to go into autopilot for those songs. I'll admit, however, that there are a few for which it's a relief to realize that a couple of verses have passed without my conscious participation and that we're closer to the end than I would have dared hope.

There are two types of autopilot when you're an instrumentalist:

1. It's a great song, and you lose yourself in it...missing a repeat or worse yet missing a key change or the song ending.

2. It's a mediocre song, but so easy that you could play it in a coma, and you space out......missing a repeat or worse yet missing a key change or the song ending.

Number 1 reminds me of that Charlie Brown TV episode where they play football instead of baseball, and Charlie Brown gets the ball and runs with it the wrong way and is so oblivious, he runs through the end zone and out of the football stadium...still running.

[Cindi Hammons]

Do I have to listen to Elvis? Can I
listen to the Beatles without being condemned for not liking Elvis?
Mark

Good question, Mark. You do not have to love Elvis or the Beach Boys. You shouldn't be condemned for not liking them. BUT, here's where the problem lies...on both sides of the issue...it becomes a problem when one "side" forces the other "side" to completely give up what they love. For instance, it would be wrong of me to coerce some Mass. state senator to make it a law that only Elivis and the Beach Boys can be listened to on iPods just because I like those artists (which I don't). Equally wrong, would be for you to coerce the same senator to make it a law that I could only listen to the Beatles (which I love).

Why do so many churches and people insist that it must totally be one way or the other? I personally like Contemporary worship, but I also get my socks blessed off when singing And Can It Be? Why do we have to choose one over the other? I am the person who picks the music for our services. We are limited to some extent because of our lack of contemporary musicians. Our pianist is very talented and so is our organist. (I'd like to toss the organ, but that's just me...even prior to the Contemporary Revolution.) So, we have a mixed set of music. Ususally I choose a couple of hymns that fit in with the rest of the songs which are contemporary.

Yes...we have had some leave the church because of this crazy thing. Adios amigos! They have found a more traditional (read: country gospel) church and seem happy. I'm happy for them, I'm even more happy that they are no longer causing hurt through gossip and dissention! Everyone else seems very satisfied with our worship.

I'd love to go to a church like Jackson, MI, or other contemporary churches mentioned...but not solely because of the music. Music is only one aspect of what these churches are accomplishing! Alas, I live in Southern Ohio, where we are just bracing ourselves for huge change by entering the world of topical Sunday School classes instead of age-related adult classes. You have no idea the can of worms that one has opened!

The bottom line is, why make it a battle of one way or another? All this is going to accomplish is to definitely alienate one group.

Cindi H.

Let me add one more thing. The original question was, what is appeasement? I don't see much of this as appeasement. Appeasement is what PM Chamberlain did when he allowed Hitler to invade Czechoslovakia and declared "Peace in our time." It leaves me with a feeling of giving in to "the bad guys." I don't think there is a side that should be considered "the bad guys." Now, as soon as I say this, someone will jump on here and give an example of an individual...I'm not talking about individuals or individual situations. I'm talking about two sides...traditional vs. contemporary. Neither is wrong, neither are "the bad guys." CH

[Gina Stevenson]

Mark Metcalfe said: "This leads me to another thought about engaging in 'worship music' that doesn't move me. When a song is flashed up on my screen, and I find the music to be at least ho-hum, I try to focus on the words that the author penned. (I try to do this with catchy tunes, too!) Do the words magnify the Creator? Now, the music style might distract me; I have to concentrate harder; that is the participatory nature of worship."

Yes, trying to particpate when there are some good words, in spite of the music, is sometimes a challenge ... rather than an "automatic" response.

For instance -- probably have mentioned this before in music threads -- there are some words I really like, feel are uplifting, but the music, to me, is a "downer" ... it actually does end the first couple of lines going down-down-down, as well as a couple of others elsewhere. 'Been saying for years that I'd like to write a different tune to those good words ... haven't yet ... if I do, will let y'all know! ;)

[edit: OK, we'll tell you which song it is whose words I love, but whose tune, well .......
It's "A Mighty Fortress is Our God" ........]

[Marg Webb]

Is this really Nazarenes writing. You all sound so like the Nazarene church I had to attend when younger. Unkind words, gossip and just plain unlovely construction of your paragraphs.
I find it sad when one does not care if people leave the church.
Our church has both types of music. We are doing fine.

[Mark Metcalfe]

Yes...we have had some leave the church because of this crazy thing. Adios amigos! They have found a more traditional (read: country gospel) church and seem happy. I'm happy for them, I'm even more happy that they are no longer causing hurt through gossip and dissention! Everyone else seems very satisfied with our worship.

Thank you Cindi. Myrtle, I didn't read this as unloving, and it is especially
germaine to my next question. If I resonnate with country gospel, is it
a bad thing to find a church that expresses its worship in a way that I
can enjoy getting into? If the music style matters that much to me that
it distracts from my ability to worship (In spirit and in truth), isn't it
better to find a place that suits a person better?

There are plenty of churches in most areas that worship God with
"acceptable theology" that maybe I can select the one I like best
by the one in which I find the most meaning. Is there something
wrong with that?

The reason we do things is what matters to me, so if we demand
contemporary music "to attract young people" (which I think is a spurious
motive), then I am less inclined to be tolerant of a music style (such as
Sinatra, for example). (By the same token, if we demand hymns for
the sake of tradition, I am less inclined to be able to enjoy "my music.")

To express this in the converse, if we believe that contemporary music
accomplishes the purpose of helping more and more people to worship
God, then I am inclined to be more tolerant of "other people's music
preference."

But back to my question, is it wrong for me to find and join a church that
suits my tastes better, assuming the fundamentals are in place?

Mark

[Billy Cox]

When people leave over external things like musical style, not getting re-elected to the church board, or the color of carpet in the foyer, I say 'good riddance'. Someone as petty as that is probably dead weight anyway. They do the church a favor by leaving.

In nearly every case, a person who leaves for petty reasons will take their preferences to some other church and be unhappy there for different reasons.

I am more concerned when people leave the Church (capital C) because of corrupt leaders, brazen sinfulness, or to flee outright hatred.

[Gary Swartzlander]

Cindi. Feel free to come visit us in Jackson sometime. We'd love to see you and have you join us for church some Sunday morning.

[Cindi Hammons]

Cindi. Feel free to come visit us in Jackson sometime. We'd love to see you and have you join us for church some Sunday morning.

The commute is just a little more than we could handle! :basic05 However, if we are ever up your way, you can bet we will visit.

Cindi H.

[Cindi Hammons]

Is this really Nazarenes writing. You all sound so like the Nazarene church I had to attend when younger. Unkind words, gossip and just plain unlovely construction of your paragraphs.
I find it sad when one does not care if people leave the church.
Our church has both types of music. We are doing fine.

Myrtle,

I'm sorry you found my post to be unloving and gossipy. I think you missed my whole point. I stated:

Yes...we have had some leave the church because of this crazy thing. Adios amigos! They have found a more traditional (read: country gospel) church and seem happy. I'm happy for them, I'm even more happy that they are no longer causing hurt through gossip and dissention! Everyone else seems very satisfied with our worship.

In the paragraph you can read where I said they have found another church (which is Nazarene, by the way) and they seem happy. I even stated that I am happy for them...and I am. BUT, I am glad they are gone. You see, what you don't know is how our church went through an extensive attempt at healing with these individuals using the Matthew principle and yet nothing we could do or say made any difference. The whole time, these individuals gossiped, accused, stirred and were just plain mean and hurtful to other Christians in our church. They nearly tore our church apart all because of the "screen on the wall." Do I miss their presence in our church? Nope. Would I be sad if they quit church altogether? Absolutely! But they are happy in their new church...so why should I be sad that they are gone if both groups are happy?

As with your church, if you will read my post again, you will see that our church has both types of music and (other than that one family), we are doing fine. If you stick around the NazNet a little more, you will get to know us all a lot better and you'll find us to actually be a very loving group. Just because we disagree, doesn't mean we don't love each other. Ha! In fact, just ask Billy, I don't think we ever agree on much, but we are still brothers and sister in Christ! (Sorry Billy, but it's true! :rolleyes: )

Cindi H.

[Cindi Hammons]

Okay Billy, I guess I agree with you on this one! :)

Cindi H.

[William Hunter]

Myrtle,

I'm sorry you found my post to be unloving and gossipy. I think you missed my whole point. I stated:



In the paragraph you can read where I said they have found another church (which is Nazarene, by the way) and they seem happy. I even stated that I am happy for them...and I am. BUT, I am glad they are gone. You see, what you don't know is how our church went through an extensive attempt at healing with these individuals using the Matthew principle and yet nothing we could do or say made any difference. The whole time, these individuals gossiped, accused, stirred and were just plain mean and hurtful to other Christians in our church. They nearly tore our church apart all because of the "screen on the wall." Do I miss their presence in our church? Nope. Would I be sad if they quit church altogether? Absolutely! But they are happy in their new church...so why should I be sad that they are gone if both groups are happy?

As with your church, if you will read my post again, you will see that our church has both types of music and (other than that one family), we are doing fine. If you stick around the NazNet a little more, you will get to know us all a lot better and you'll find us to actually be a very loving group. Just because we disagree, doesn't mean we don't love each other. Ha! In fact, just ask Billy, I don't think we ever agree on much, but we are still brothers and sister in Christ! (Sorry Billy, but it's true! :rolleyes: )

Cindi H.

I agree with you, Cindi. Some people are so out of touch with what God is doing, and so displeased and insisting that everything run their way, that they need to go someplace else where they can just sit, continue to not be positively involved, and be happy. Their absence helps the church they left. I saw nothing mean spirited in your post. If fact, having met you at NCU, along with your husband, I sense a real love for the church and a determination to follow Christ out into the harvest. I wish you both were part of my congregation.

All the church growth stuff I have experienced and learned shows us that a few people want God to bow before them and their own personal agenda for the church. The problem with that is that it keeps unsaved people, unsaved. It keeps the church spiritually unhealthy. We all seem to have a few who just do not get it when it comes to following Christ into His harvest. Church Planters Bootcamp taught me to spend 80% of my time and energy with those people who wanted to get on board with what Christ is going and reap a harvest of souls. They taught me that fruit never grows close to the trunk (in the case old methods and personla agends), it is always out on the end of the limb (we have to take risks to follow Christ and many times that means new methods, etc.) to harvest fruit for Christ. I want ot live in faith terrortory. We have done that here where I am. Yes, it is scary at times, but then how much can we trust Christ for. That is not doing something stupid, but to follow Christ means we must live out in faith territory; we cannot live by old methods, personal agendas, person tastes, etc., if we expect the passion of Jesus to flow through us to a lost and hurting world around us. Yes, it hurts when someone gets in a fuss and leaves over such issues, but it is better for the church when they leave.

[Billy Cox]

Cindi, I just figured I was on your 'ignore' list by now.

:)

[Cindi Hammons]

Cindi, I just figured I was on your 'ignore' list by now.

:)


Yeah, right...you found me out! :)

Cindi H.

[Gary Swartzlander]

I was flipping through the TV this evening and found that the movie "Sister Act" (the first one) was on but nearly over. I recall that when this movie came out we were in the midst of many of the changes that our church was making over a period of time. I recall thinking how (never mind the underlying plot of the movie) the experiences of the church in the movie mirrored our experiences, both in challenges we needed to meet in our own church but also the opportunities that we recognized were open to us outside the walls of the church if we just adopted the "What Ever It Takes" mentality that has become my moto for living.

If you have the movie pull it out and watch it, if you don't rent it and watch it. Pay attention to how those who had been in the church the longest felt threatened by change, how those who wanted change used a spirit of love and not confrontation to effect the change and how the community responded to the parish getting outside the walls (both literally and figuratively) and speaking the language of the community.

I think this movie could be shown at church growth seminars as an example of how things can be done positively with out the "War" mentality.

[Gina Stevenson]

Yes! Other than the music being upgraded, do recall their fear at getting outside the walls and this "unconventional nun" encouraging them to do so, and the change it bro't not only in the surrounding community but in those who finally dared to venture outside the walls.

I was flipping through the TV this evening and found that the movie "Sister Act" (the first one) was on but nearly over. I recall that when this movie came out we were in the midst of many of the changes that our church was making over a period of time. I recall thinking how (never mind the underlying plot of the movie) the experiences of the church in the movie mirrored our experiences, both in challenges we needed to meet in our own church but also the opportunities that we recognized were open to us outside the walls of the church if we just adopted the "What Ever It Takes" mentality that has become my moto for living.

If you have the movie pull it out and watch it, if you don't rent it and watch it. Pay attention to how those who had been in the church the longest felt threatened by change, how those who wanted change used a spirit of love and not confrontation to effect the change and how the community responded to the parish getting outside the walls (both literally and figuratively) and speaking the language of the community.

I think this movie could be shown at church growth seminars as an example of how things can be done positively with out the "War" mentality.

[Jim Ackerson]

I have been attending a UMC for a couple of years now. CofN here had gotten way over the edge with extremley loud audio (mostly cd's) with choir music the "7/11" ritual for "chorus" music. (Sing all 7 lines at least 11 times sometimes while making you stand for 30 minutes.) Very unpleasant experience. UMC church has Contemporary services on Saturday night with 3 Traditional services on Sunday morning. Well, praise the Lord anyway.