Why we fight about music, why we can't abandon it

[Billy Cox]

Music is my primary point of connection to the church, so I've given it much thought over the years.

Here are two questions, and my suggested answer...open of course to discussion.

Question 1: Why do so many churches fight over music?

Theory: We have deep connections to music such that it intertwines with our sense of existence and cultural identity. It is not a huge leap to interpret a perceived assault on one's musical tastes as an affront to one's personal significance or even a threat to one's place in the world.

Under existential stress, humans face a fight of flight instinct. Leaders make matters worse by taking the attitude that people should just 'get over it'. Truly, it is easy to be flippant when one is the bearer of bad news.

Question 2: With all of the potential liabilities brought by music, why do churches almost universally have music as part of their program?

Theory: We have deep connections to music such that it intertwines with our sense of existence and identity. In the right hands, music is a powerful tool for connecting with people on multiple levels. Perhaps churches feel compelled to 'do' music because human existence is musically saturated. Maybe a church would be foolish to ignore such a powerful force.

It's also possible that churches love of tradition drives them to use music, although newer non-traditional expressions of the church seem at least as interested in music, if not moreso.

I wonder if any churches have tried to avoid music entirely, and if so, what their experience was.

[Craig Laughlin]

Good points. Although I think your answer to #1 describes why music is important not why we fight over it. We fight over it because it is deeply important to us. However it is not the only thing that is important to us and when two deeply held values come in conflict we are often forced to choose between them.

Theory: As deep as our culture connection is to particular musical language (style, genre) we have an even deeper connection to the mission of Christ which we believe is Super Cultural. Further some believe that a culture language to far removed from the targeted cultural group will be a serious impediment to that mission. Therefore leadership perceives that they are forced to choose between a cultural preference of a group of Christ followers and the mission of Christ.

I don't know of any churches that have tired to avoid it entirely. Some have put limits on it by eliminating instruments or affirming a genre as a part of their core values.

[Sarah Smith]

We are seeing small churches grow in our town, and without the worship wars.

Here is what seems to be working--at the moment, that is. LOL!

1. Realize that if a church has long had any style of music (and some long held forms here are contemp, spanish, and southern gospel as well as traditional) it is part of the fabric of that church, important to the people, and not necessarily up for change. It is quite possible to be missional, successful, and _________. (Fill in the blank with any style.)

2. If you are absolutely convinced your church needs to change the music to reach ___________, start a plant. Rather than destroying worship for those already happy with the status quo, approach them to help support a new church start targetting a different group with different tastes.

We've seen this work sooooo much better than hiring a new pastor or worship leader having them come in and want to change everything.

Those opposed to change are not necessarily stupid, uncaring about the lost, older than 50, or any of the other descriptions usually given.

Those wanting to try new things are usually over 55 here.

We don't fit the church growth books, but we are learning to get a long without trying to force everyone into the contemporary/block worship/charismatic worship style.

It is a great style for some, pure torture for others. Not fair to categorize all those "others" as lesser or older Christians, as neither fits.

[Jim Franklin]

Music has always been a part of the worship experience ie. The Psalms, Gregorian chants, Handel, Luther, the Wesleys, Fanny Crosby, the Salvation Army band which attracted the Skidrow denizens to hear the preached Word, Lillenas and the Gaithers to name just a few. My pastor is a concert level musician and I would not want to attend a church that tried to dispose of that form of worship. I have seen people run to the altar at campmeeting when the hymn "How Great Thou Art" was started. Even at the Last Supper before Christ went to the cross the scripture says that He and His disciples "sang a hymn." I think Sarah has the right idea to prepare for a new "start" rather than split the established congregation. You raise a good point of discussion, Billy.

[Wilson Deaton]

I wonder if any churches have tried to avoid music entirely, and if so, what their experience was.

I came to Kenosha to do a new start from scratch. (I was not launching as a sub-group from an existing church.) I did not have a talented launch team to help with music, etc. We slowly put together a launch team and got up the small number we wanted to begin conducting weekly worship. Almost no one in our core group was musically gifted. I considered a music-free format. I discussed the situation with a professional (Gallup-type) consultant. I was REALLY HOPING he would green-light my idea. His firm advice: Canned music would be a way better (necessary) alternative to no music.

Wilson

[Scott Sherwood]

I wonder if any churches have tried to avoid music entirely, and if so, what their experience was.

Matt Redman's song "The Heart of Worship" comes out of a church that did just that, albeit only for a season.

http://www.crosswalk.com/church/wors...p-1253122.html

[Eric Frey]

I have often thought of going musicless or at least intrumentless for the penitential seasons (Advent & Lent), but have never worked up the courage to do so. It would give a noticeable sense of fasting to our worship and would create a wonderful contrast for the joyous and majestic music of Christmas and Easter. Some day maybe I'll give it a whirl.

[Billy Cox]

I came to Kenosha to do a new start from scratch. (I was not launching as a sub-group from an existing church.) I did not have a talented launch team to help with music, etc. We slowly put together a launch team and got up the small number we wanted to begin conducting weekly worship. Almost no one in our core group was musically gifted. I considered a music-free format. I discussed the situation with a professional (Gallup-type) consultant. I was REALLY HOPING he would green-light my idea. His firm advice: Canned music would be a way better (necessary) alternative to no music.

I'm guessing you went with canned music? I don't assume, since businesses and churches alike solicit the advice of a consultant to help them see what they're not seeing, and then reject the consultant's advice because they just don't see it.

[Wilson Deaton]

I'm guessing you went with canned music? I don't assume, since businesses and churches alike solicit the advice of a consultant to help them see what they're not seeing, and then reject the consultant's advice because they just don't see it.

I wanted to ignore him but didn't!

Our first "instrumentation" consisted primarily of a dual cassette deck, a dual CD player, and a laptop that played DVDs.

One early visitor really seemed to like us, brought her husband, then never came back. She explained that her husband didn't like "karaoke church."

Wilson

[Billy Cox]

Theory: As deep as our culture connection is to particular musical language (style, genre) we have an even deeper connection to the mission of Christ which we believe is Super Cultural. Further some believe that a culture language to far removed from the targeted cultural group will be a serious impediment to that mission. Therefore leadership perceives that they are forced to choose between a cultural preference of a group of Christ followers and the mission of Christ.

You make it sound as if leadership agonizes over this decision and maybe they do in cases where they hate confrontation, or they have opted to appease the entrenched cultural preference over mission. In my experience, leadership's approach tends to be "lead, follow or get out of the way; since I'm the leader, that leaves you two options."

Maybe it's worth mentioning that the leaders who took the "my way or the highway" approach were able to outlast their critics, as one by one, they fell away to attend less evangelistic churches.

Don't get me wrong...in my experience I was not among those being steamrolled, but was cheering on the steamroller, all in the name of reaching the lost. Suffice to say that I have reconsidered my position.

[George Wallace]

I wonder if any churches have tried to avoid music entirely, and if so, what their experience was.

Billy, when you said "music" in the above were/are you referring to the potential jettisoning of instrumental (whether live or Memorex) music specifically, or were you asking about the possibility of not including any music and singing at all, that is not even vocal praise/music?

Blessings
George

[Billy Cox]

Billy, when you said "music" in the above were/are you referring to the potential jettisoning of instrumental (whether live or Memorex) music specifically, or were you asking about the possibility of not including any music and singing at all, that is not even vocal praise/music?

Blessings
George

No music/singing at all, with or without instruments.

[Craig Laughlin]

You make it sound as if leadership agonizes over this decision and maybe they do in cases where they hate confrontation, or they have opted to appease the entrenched cultural preference over mission. In my experience, leadership's approach tends to be "lead, follow or get out of the way; since I'm the leader, that leaves you two options."

Maybe it's worth mentioning that the leaders who took the "my way or the highway" approach were able to outlast their critics, as one by one, they fell away to attend less evangelistic churches.

Don't get me wrong...in my experience I was not among those being steamrolled, but was cheering on the steamroller, all in the name of reaching the lost. Suffice to say that I have reconsidered my position.

I think we may be describing different parts of the process. There is a time for deciding about how to move forward as a church. I have always grieved with the folks whose music has become a barrier to the health of the church. I have long conversations with them and spend a lot of time listening. That being said, once the church has made it's choice continually arguing about it is not healthy. The fact that leadership says, "We carefully considered the situation and made choice A and we are not at this time willing to consider choice B anymore does not mean they are not grieving or don't care about the folks that wanted choice B. It simply means as a practical matter we can't make everyone happy but arguing about it forever will certainly result in everyone being unhappy.

It would be nice if we lived in a world in which leadership could satisfy everyone's felt needs while also providing for the purpose of the organization but I have yet to see that happen in either secular or religious organizations.

BTW- I felt the same way, long ago when I was involved in taking over stores for a large grocery chain. I felt sorry for the old employees who had to learn the new "Albertsons' way" of doing things. I've been doing the "turn an organization around" thing for as long as I have been an adult. Even in secular employment I did this. I always grieve with the folks who have to change and loose things they love. I just know it has to be done.

[Sarah Smith]

It doesn't always "have to be done."

Now, before the flames start, let me explain. IF a church isn't growing and IF the rank and file believe change will grow it and IF said change doesn't violate their convictions (not preferences, convictions) then leadership can come in recommend change, and generally the people will be on board.

HOWEVER, if the people who constitute that church, for whatever reason, do not want change--even if they realize the church may not grow as fast--I believe it to be totally unethical for a newcomer to "steal" the building out from under the congregation, as in "I know you will leave, there's the door, here is how I want things done now" type of takeover.

I've watched--even helped--that to happen. Stealing is stealing, and it is wrong. If you are that convinced, do a church plant.

But back to music--I've lived where we did it all acapella because we had no musicians. Went just fine. Lived where we struggled. Lived where we had great talent, and that is awesome.

We used to not sing--no music at all--Lent at the ELCA church in ND.

Hearing the organ swell with the anthems come Easter was so much a feast!

I think today many churches would do well to fast the music for a season. Let me tell you, when you do, if the fellowship or the praying or the preaching are not up to snuff it becomes glaringly apparent. And if they are, the fast time becomes extremely intimate worship.

And then you can resume music without considering it "worship" and the rest of the service "not worship" or "side dishes."

[Craig Laughlin]

It doesn't always "have to be done."

I agree. The older I get the more I am in favor of letting churches die a natural death. Then taking the resources and planting new ones.

Now, before the flames start, let me explain. IF a church isn't growing and IF the rank and file believe change will grow it and IF said change doesn't violate their convictions (not preferences, convictions) then leadership can come in recommend change, and generally the people will be on board.

This would be a wonderful scenario. Curious are the words conviction and preference mutually exclusive? Seems to me that at the heart of this issue is the idea that people have strong convictions about their musical preferences.

HOWEVER, if the people who constitute that church, for whatever reason, do not want change--even if they realize the church may not grow as fast--I believe it to be totally unethical for a newcomer to "steal" the building out from under the congregation, as in "I know you will leave, there's the door, here is how I want things done now" type of takeover.

I've watched--even helped--that to happen. Stealing is stealing, and it is wrong. If you are that convinced, do a church plant.

In my experience it is extremely hard to steel a volunteer democratic organization. At least in the COTN the board is elected every year and the pastor faces review after the first two years then every 4 years. The pastor has no power over folks other than the power of persuasion. For a church to change folks have to go along, it is the nature of a volunteer organization.

[Mary Bragwell]

In my opinion, music in the church can speak to ones heart as much as the preacher's message. I could never imagine cutting out the hymns in a church service. We have incorporated singing a contemporary christian song to accomodate the younger adults and although I'm middle aged, I find singing the contemporary music more uplifting than the traditional hymns.

[Kevin Rector]

When people use the language of the "church being stolen" it virtually always means, "I was in the minority and didn't get my way."

[Billy Cox]

When people use the language of the "church being stolen" it virtually always means, "I was in the minority and didn't get my way."

Those darn minorities!! Why can't they just shut up and get with the program!

[Craig Laughlin]

Those darn minorities!! Why can't they just shut up and get with the program!

The problem with democracies is that somebody has to lose and everybody thinks it should be the other guy.

[Hans Deventer]

The problem with democracies is that somebody has to lose and everybody thinks it should be the other guy.

Yeah! Why don't we have a good old dictatorship? "everybody is entitled to my opinion"

[Craig Laughlin]

Yeah! Why don't we have a good old dictatorship? "everybody is entitled to my opinion"

I don't mind dictatorships, so long as I'm the dictator!

[Kevin Rector]

Those darn minorities!! Why can't they just shut up and get with the program!

I have no problem with minority constituencies within the church when they are not caustic and/or trouble makers. In fact, I go out of my way to make accommodations for them. However, I will not allow a small vocal minority with fundamentally selfish motivations to control the church. Nor will I allow them the dishonesty of claiming the church was "stolen" when the majority of the church has chosen to take the congregation in a direction that they do not like. If you are a part of the Church of the Nazarene then you understand that your polity allows for you to be voted down and/or out, and hopefully you also have been sanctified and can deal with that reality gracefully.

[Roy Richardson]

I have no problem with minority constituencies within the church when they are not caustic and/or trouble makers. In fact, I go out of my way to make accommodations for them. However, I will not allow a small vocal minority with fundamentally selfish motivations to control the church. Nor will I allow them the dishonesty of claiming the church was "stolen" when the majority of the church has chosen to take the congregation in a direction that they do not like. If you are a part of the Church of the Nazarene then you understand that your polity allows for you to be voted down and/or out, and hopefully you also have been sanctified and can deal with that reality gracefully.

That is my fervent hope as well. This shouldn't be a zero-sum game. It should be a situation where 1) the Kingdom is our first priority; and 2) we strive to maintain unity within the Body of Christ as a priority. I have been here 14 months and have banged the drum of "how we get along" pretty hard in sermons, songs (introducing "they will know we are Christians by our love", Bible study, board leadership development, and everyday conversation. If we engage in internecine warfare, we seriously diminish our witness and our ability to change the world around us. I may die preaching that message because in a highly individualistic culture, it takes a long time to sink in.

[Sarah Smith]

Nope, I was not on the losing end.

I'm a reformed (not speaking theologically) former church stealer/helper.

I've been part of the successful take over crowd. I now see that as unethical and hurtful.

Sometimes we get what we want and live to regret it.

[Billy Cox]

I have no problem with minority constituencies within the church when they are not caustic and/or trouble makers. In fact, I go out of my way to make accommodations for them. However, I will not allow a small vocal minority with fundamentally selfish motivations to control the church. Nor will I allow them the dishonesty of claiming the church was "stolen" when the majority of the church has chosen to take the congregation in a direction that they do not like.

translation: 'shut up and get with the program'

If you are a part of the Church of the Nazarene then you understand that your polity allows for you to be voted down and/or out, and hopefully you also have been sanctified and can deal with that reality gracefully.

That's a bit of a leap. In my experience with churches where most/all of the people are first generation Nazarenes, the knowledge of polity is practically non-existent. In such a setting, the pastor could hand-pick the board and simply forego elections altogether, and nobody would be any wiser. If some longtime Nazarene is part of the congregation and objects to this roll-your-own-polity, then the pastor can simply cue up the mantra: (all together now...) "shut up and get with the program".

[Kevin Rector]

translation: 'shut up and get with the program'

No, translation: "We take your concerns seriously, but when you don't get your way, you don't then get the option to be damaging to the body of Christ." You're very bad at translating sometimes.

That's a bit of a leap. In my experience with churches where most/all of the people are first generation Nazarenes, the knowledge of polity is practically non-existent.

I have limited first hand experience in such churches. However I have a few friends that are in churches like these and interestingly enough, it's the pastor and core group that is generally the one trying to make the church "more Nazarene".

In such a setting, the pastor could hand-pick the board and simply forego elections altogether, and nobody would be any wiser. If some longtime Nazarene is part of the congregation and objects to this roll-your-own-polity, then the pastor can simply cue up the mantra: (all together now...) "shut up and get with the program"

Could, but that would be a pretty un-ethical pastor. Then there is always recourse to the DS. I have seen churches declared in crisis by a DS because of the "bad behavior" of a pastor - so it does happen.

[Billy Cox]

No, translation: "We take your concerns seriously, but when you don't get your way, you don't then get the option to be damaging to the body of Christ." You're very bad at translating sometimes.

Yeah, and to be fair, I realize that a well-run organization can't afford to be stymied by every contrary opinion that bubbles out of the ranks.

I have limited first hand experience in such churches. However I have a few friends that are in churches like these and interestingly enough, it's the pastor and core group that is generally the one trying to make the church "more Nazarene".

I am encouraged to hear that.

Could, but that would be a pretty un-ethical pastor. Then there is always recourse to the DS. I have seen churches declared in crisis by a DS because of the "bad behavior" of a pastor - so it does happen.

I have observed on multiple occasions a pragmatic openness to following only the aspects of Nazarene polity that are convenient to the pastor's agenda.

This is going to sound really cynical, but try to hear my heart... I have this vision: after going to the pastor to no avail, a concerned layperson goes to the DS about something that the pastor is or is not doing - nothing immoral or illegal, just improper within Nazarene polity - such as handpicking the board or reporting inflated numbers. The DS goes to the pastor to get the rest of the story. Now if the DS is a stickler for polity compliance, that's one thing, but it seems more likely that the calculus involved is, "if we ignore this person or 'shine them on', can this layperson hurt us? or ...can we afford to lose this person?" If the layperson is not a key financial contributor or influential voice within the district, what incentive would the pastor and DS have to take the person seriously?