Entertainment vs worship

[micheknows]

I wrote: “Please compare the lyrics of the songs of Charles Wesley, Isaac Watts & Fanny Crosby with Hillsong content, and there is a VAST difference in biblical content.”

Compare!
And
Oz

I'm not understanding why you compared two totally different songs. Why did you not compare "And could it be" to "Amazing Love" (like the one the Newsboys made popular). Or, if you wanted to stick with a Hillsong song, why did you not compare "And could it be" to "Worthy is the lamb"?

 

[OzSpen]

I'm not understanding why you compared two totally different songs. Why did you not compare "And could it be" to "Amazing Love" (like the one the Newsboys made popular). Or, if you wanted to stick with a Hillsong song, why did you not compare "And could it be" to "Worthy is the lamb"?

My point was songs of substance vs trite lyrics.

Oz

 

[PaulEBear]

I just started reading this area a few days ago and came across this thread. It is interesting to me that newer Christian music groups are going back to some of the classic hymns and re-doing them in a more 'modern' format. But, most of the words are the same and even some of the tunes and melody lines are very similar to the original.

My point being that there is only so far you can take today's worship music and just put together words and feelings then call it a song. Some of it is little more than repeating a few words over and over and hearing the soothing sounds. But, does it really touch the heart and soul of the listener? Can the people relate and participate in the music as well? I feel that music that touches the soul and brings us closer to God is that which reminds us to who we are and who God is. The old hymns were full of Christian doctrine, many of them taught a small lesson themselves.

Now, so I don't get 'hammered' by anyone, I am not at all against contemporary music and not advocating a return to nothing but hymnals either. I personally like a blended service but, even in my small church, we have a 'traditional' service attended by about 25 people and a 'contemporary' service attended by about 50. Neither group will budge on their worship style so the whole church body can worship together - a 'blended' service for everyone would probably result in about half of those we have now leaving. Makes no sense to me because the only interaction between the two groups is during bible classes, in between the two services. Anyway, I'm getting off track here but, I think Christians are far too picky about how they worship now days. I am perfectly comfortable in either kind of service.

Two songs I have recently heard on my Christian radio station are remakes of "Just As I Am" and "My Hope is Built on Nothing Less" I don't recall the groups but, both songs play along the original theme and have most of the original lyrics.

Is it that they have run out of creative music in a modern style? Or, are they realizing how far they have strayed from conveying God's Truth through their music?

What I have really enjoyed were original pieces written by worship team musicians for THEIR own church. These songs remained with their churches for years because it identified who they were. To mimic the groups who make a living from "Christian music" in our churches can be a challenge since worship teams are not of 'professional quality' and there are not a some songs on the radio that I would feel are appropriate for a church worship service, even a seriously contemporary service.

Loud music may motivate the person with strong rhythm and a good beat but, is it motivating the person's spirit or just giving them something that motivates? A lively piece of music also needs to convey a strong message that is taken to heart.

Well, that's my thoughts and opinions on the subject here. I feel that worship leaders should be very mindful of what their groups use for music and not just for the purpose of copying what is popular on the radio right now. Seekers may be initially drawn to 'good music' but, they need to know the Gospel too. They probably won't stay if all it becomes is cheap, Sunday morning entertainment....

Paul

 

[bithiah2]

i can't believe that anyone is on here picking apart worship songs...there are as many expressions of worship to God as there are people, and as long as they are singing to or about God in the Name of Jesus, what difference does it make? There is a story about the Heart of Worship, it's about a church who was caught up in the sound system and how the singers were singing, and the pastor had all of the electronics shut down in the church, and the people had to sing with just their voices. they had to come back to the heart of worship, it's all about Jesus.
too many people criticizing...but what do they have to offer as an alternative? sing what you like, and leave people to sing and worship Christ with what they like. as long as it is in the Bible, it is between them and God.

 

[after5cst]

[Charles Swindoll's] latest book, The Church Awakening: An Urgent Call for Renewal....

Thanks for the thread, specifically for the mention of this book.

I finished reading the book this morning, and it is an excellent read. Very convicting. I'll be reading it a second time to see what I missed, I'm not always good at listening to God the first time.

Of the chapters in the book, one deals with music.

One. And only part of that chapter, to boot.

The title? Worship: A Commitment... Not a War

It covers more topics in that chapter than I can cover here, but among his concluding remarks is this:

[To worship] you don't need comfortable surroundings or the soft seats of a pew. You don't need a choir or a praise band. You don't need a pipe organ or a drum set. Those elements may assist you, but worship must be a part of your daily walk with God... in every part of your personal life. Otherwise, we're just consumers. Or worse, we're opponents in a worship war.

(The ellipses in the above quote were his, not mine. The quote is a single complete paragraph).

 

[OzSpen]

after5,

Thanks for sharing the blessing and conviction you received. What would you say were 3 of the key points you received from what Chuck wrote?

Oz

 

[after5cst]

I'll sidestep your question slightly.

Swindoll's target audience is as follows:

I have written The Church Awakening primarily to two groups of people. First, to serious-thinking churchgoers who know there is a better way....My aim is to ignite that passion [for discernment and courage] within those who are willing to think seriously.

I am also writing to pastors... to put the preaching of the Word of God back in its central place of the church’s worship.

Swindoll, Charles R. (2010-09-08). The Church Awakening: An Urgent Call for Renewal (p. xvi). Hachette Book Group. Kindle Edition.

The introduction begins with the following:

While we weren’t paying attention, everything became unhinged. Our world is no longer the world of our grandparents… or of our parents for that matter. While we weren’t noticing, things were changing— or perhaps I should say, they were eroding.

Swindoll, Charles R. (2010-09-08). The Church Awakening: An Urgent Call for Renewal (p. xiii). Hachette Book Group. Kindle Edition.

The concept of erosion is something that is a common theme throughout the book: how the church has slowly drifted away from the New Testament model, so slowly it isn't noticeable unless you have taken time to place milestones to measure where you were and where you are.

Swindoll's last paragraph before his conclusion is as follows:

The marvelous opportunity of ministry that lies before the church awaits only one thing: the church’s awakening. Stated simply, the people of God must return to a hunger and thirst for righteousness… the ministers of God must repent of their failure to fulfill their calling… and the house of God needs to represent its biblical purpose for existence. In spite of all the spiritual devastation and famine in our land, it is not too late to turn it around— by God’s grace.

Swindoll, Charles R. (2010-09-08). The Church Awakening: An Urgent Call for Renewal (p. 262). Hachette Book Group. Kindle Edition.

Of those three, the last is the one that he relates towards the format of the church (my words), and is somewhat in the ballpark with some of the content in this thread.

But my own call to action was as follows:

12 “Yet even now,” declares the Lord,
“ Return to Me with all your heart,
And with fasting, weeping and mourning;
13 And rend your heart and not your garments.”
Now return to the Lord your God,
For He is gracious and compassionate,
Slow to anger, abounding in lovingkindness
And relenting of evil.

17 Let the priests, the LORD's ministers,
Weep between the porch and the altar,
And let them say, "Spare Your people, O LORD,
And do not make Your inheritance a reproach,
A byword among the nations.
Why should they among the peoples say,
'Where is their God?'"

(Joel 2)

 

[JRSut1000]

Is worship about touching OUR hearts or touching GOD's heart? Worship based on Scripture is great, but was King David's psalms based on Scripture? No, they were based on the outpourings of his heart from thanking God for what He's done for him/Israel to just worshipping God for who He is and His attributes. The songs came from his very depth and obviously were prophetic (some of which pointed to Y'shua) so the songs came from God for God. I think this is the 'heart of worship' so to speak.

 

[OzSpen]

after5,

Thanks so much for sharing your points from Chuck Swindoll. I'd like to take up one point you made,

The concept of erosion is something that is a common theme throughout the book: how the church has slowly drifted away from the New Testament model, so slowly it isn't noticeable unless you have taken time to place milestones to measure where you were and where you are.

For erosion to take place, the NT model has to be there in the first place. What do you think are some of the elements in a NT model of worship?

As a starter, do you think these verses are relevant?

... be filled with the Spirit, addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with all your heart, giving thanks always and for everything to God the Father and in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ (Eph. 5:18b-21 ESV)

While the context does not state that the church is in worship, but the application seems to be there. If there is this is to be "addressing one another in psalms, hymns and spiritual songs", I cannot remember a time when this happened in any church I've been part of . It has always been people up front leading hymns, songs they have chosen and we follow suit. However, how does the "one another" aspect happen in a NT model?

We have a similar kind of teaching in Col. 3:16,

Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, reaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God (ESV).

Then we can go to 1 Cor. 14:26, that seems to more directly address what should happen when the church comes together:

When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up (ESV).

This is 'each one' in the group having the opportunity of ministry. Seems to me that it is a long time since that has happened - if ever - in the churches I have attended. Even if the content of 1 Cor. 14:26 is too charismatic for many churches, at least the principle should be considered: Ministry is available to everyone when the church gathers and not just a few upfront.

What do you think of this "one another" kind of ministry when the church gathers? This would be impossible for large churches.

In Christ, Oz

 

[after5cst]

What do you think are some of the elements in a NT model of worship?

Since my summary was based on (my understanding of) Swindoll's position, let me answer with his core definition of the church:

They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. (Acts 2: 42)

In this one verse we have the lowest common denominator of a church. This is ground zero. It would help greatly if God’s people reminded themselves of this single verse of Scripture every day. When the first body of believers gathered together, they devoted themselves to four essentials. Did you notice them? Here are the four essentials: teaching, fellowship, breaking of bread, and prayer. This verse is not only descriptive of what the early church did; it is also prescriptive of what all churches must do.

Swindoll, Charles R. (2010-09-08). The Church Awakening: An Urgent Call for Renewal (pp. 14-15). Hachette Book Group. Kindle Edition.

He expands on each of the elements in turn, but that's really a topic best left for the reader. I'd hate to keep hatcheting up his book (and accidentally flavoring with my own impressions) when it's easily available.

What do you think of this "one another" kind of ministry when the church gathers? This would be impossible for large churches.

As best I can tell, in the NT the church consists of both large-scale and small-scale gatherings, and Christians were involved (daily!) in both:

Day by day continuing with one mind in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they were taking their meals together with gladness and sincerity of heart, praising God and having favor with all the people.

Acts 2:46-47a

Remembering that the above was (immediately) post-Pentecost, I would consider it very likely that the daily temple gatherings were in fact quite large, since the church was already 3000+ strong. But not only did they gather together for the macro-church (temple), but they also gathered as the micro-church (house to house).

It's my suspicion that the "in the temple" kind of ministry is an essential part: not only was it where the Gospel was publicly, but also where the Apostles could teach and establish doctrine for the church: something that every house ministry was probably not capable of doing.

It's my strong suspicion that the "one another" kind of ministry (as you refer to) is also an essential part: we as Christians are to be more than spectators. Since "one another" ministry has to function largely in a small group setting, participating in "house to house" church is every bit as important as meeting "in the temple".

With thanks, After5 (or in this case Before9)

 

[OzSpen]

Since my summary was based on (my understanding of) Swindoll's position, let me answer with his core definition of the church:

Swindoll, Charles R. (2010-09-08). The Church Awakening: An Urgent Call for Renewal (pp. 14-15). Hachette Book Group. Kindle Edition.

He expands on each of the elements in turn, but that's really a topic best left for the reader. I'd hate to keep hatcheting up his book (and accidentally flavoring with my own impressions) when it's easily available.

As best I can tell, in the NT the church consists of both large-scale and small-scale gatherings, and Christians were involved (daily!) in both:Acts 2:46-47a

Remembering that the above was (immediately) post-Pentecost, I would consider it very likely that the daily temple gatherings were in fact quite large, since the church was already 3000+ strong. But not only did they gather together for the macro-church (temple), but they also gathered as the micro-church (house to house).

It's my suspicion that the "in the temple" kind of ministry is an essential part: not only was it where the Gospel was publicly, but also where the Apostles could teach and establish doctrine for the church: something that every house ministry was probably not capable of doing.

It's my strong suspicion that the "one another" kind of ministry (as you refer to) is also an essential part: we as Christians are to be more than spectators. Since "one another" ministry has to function largely in a small group setting, participating in "house to house" church is every bit as important as meeting "in the temple".

With thanks, After5 (or in this case Before9)

After5/Before9,

Thanks for that lovely and precise assessment. I agree that most of the "one another" work would be done in the house church and that the larger group is also a part of the model. However in the house-to-house, I'm convinced that the model of 1 Cor. 14:26 is what is established for mutual edification and for "the strengthening of the church" (NIV).

In Christ, Oz

 

[calvaryoakville]

Every Christian attending church every Sunday should know the reason why they go to church. Music Ministry members must be prepared technically, emotionally and spiritually.
This is very helpful for every church and for their Music Ministry. God bless!!

 

[OzSpen]

Every Christian attending church every Sunday should know the reason why they go to church. Music Ministry members must be prepared technically, emotionally and spiritually.
This is very helpful for every church and for their Music Ministry. God bless!!

How do you think this can be done so that we can practise the teaching of Eph. 5:19 and 1 Cor 14:26?

Sincerely, Oz

 

[calvaryoakville]

We are called to become worshipers of God. For me this is not a big deal. Every songs composed by a song writer should not be judge, particularly gospel songs. If that song was created because of his overwhelming experience, we cannot question that. The question I have in mind for everyone is this.... are you really there to worship the Lord or you're just merely observing? Have a blessed day everyone!

1 Cor. 10:31 So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God.

 

[Johnlee79]

I strongly feel that there are many songs sung in "contemporary services" that were not meant to be sung during church. There are plenty of song on the radio that should be left right there, on the radio. I can not tell you the many times that I have been in a service and have wondered why the worship team would try to enter a congregation into worship with the latest Christian pop song out there.

I am for the emergence of hymns that are being remixed into our culture. There is an agreement that there should be a certain level of litteracy within a song during a service. If the song does not focus on the Lord and on Jesus' Redeption. Than there definitely something amiss.

Also what is up with all the 70's music being thrown out there and given a spin on it like it is now it's a "Christian song" as long as you sing it about God. How soon before we start singing Journey during church? I think it has gone a little far when it comes to attempts to entertain churchmembers. Leave the Entertaining Pop/ Rock Music outside of church.

 

[Johnlee79]

One individual That also does well in incorporatin scripture in his worship is Mac Powell from Third Day. Song Like "King of Glory" and "Your love Oh Lord" are right out of the Bible. There are others as well that use scripture as the basis of thier worship songs. And you know what? There is usually such a tangible annointing when songs are from The Bible. Amazing how that works!

 

[ACWaller]

Music is one element of a church meeting. Church building decorations are another. The clothes we wear are another. These are all important things. My wish is that we would treat everything as important as we treat choice of music and words of teaching. As for this thread, well it does seem like it turned into an oldies vs newies debate. I can't really judge I guess, because it has been a long time since I sung an oldie in a church service, so I guess I don't know what I'm missing. I will say however that for a lot of young people, the reason they prefer newies is that they are simply written in the language they would use everyday, so they are more comfortable singing those. Its an expression of where you are on your journey. So yeah, old songs may have a depth sometimes older people would pick up on, but maybe that is because they have the wisdom that comes with age. If you want to bash the young generation fine, but remember how many years it took you to get that wisdom. Or maybe you picked up on the depth of hymns such as Charles Wesley's from a very early age? Well, I salute you then. We are the younger generation though, hopefully we do get wisdom with age. Personally, I don't always pay attention to the words I am singing in worship anyway. I mean they are true words, of course, I wouldn't sing something I didn't think was true. But as for depth, wisdom sincerity, fellowship, communion and intimacy with God, well, every time what God does through us is different and all a song needs to have to promote that is a long quiet instrumentally bit where can be still, and instead of focus on what we are saying to God, focus on what God is saying to us.

 

[OzSpen]

Music is one element of a church meeting. Church building decorations are another. The clothes we wear are another. These are all important things. My wish is that we would treat everything as important as we treat choice of music and words of teaching. As for this thread, well it does seem like it turned into an oldies vs newies debate. I can't really judge I guess, because it has been a long time since I sung an oldie in a church service, so I guess I don't know what I'm missing. I will say however that for a lot of young people, the reason they prefer newies is that they are simply written in the language they would use everyday, so they are more comfortable singing those. Its an expression of where you are on your journey. So yeah, old songs may have a depth sometimes older people would pick up on, but maybe that is because they have the wisdom that comes with age. If you want to bash the young generation fine, but remember how many years it took you to get that wisdom. Or maybe you picked up on the depth of hymns such as Charles Wesley's from a very early age? Well, I salute you then. We are the younger generation though, hopefully we do get wisdom with age. Personally, I don't always pay attention to the words I am singing in worship anyway. I mean they are true words, of course, I wouldn't sing something I didn't think was true. But as for depth, wisdom sincerity, fellowship, communion and intimacy with God, well, every time what God does through us is different and all a song needs to have to promote that is a long quiet instrumentally bit where can be still, and instead of focus on what we are saying to God, focus on what God is saying to us.

AC,

Since you say, 'I don't always pay attention to the words I am singing in worship anyway', you have nailed one of the key issues in worship singing. Why sing these words if you don't pay attention to the words?

That to me is one of the key issues. There's a radical difference between "O For A Thousand Tongues to Sing My Great Redeemer's Praise" than some of the light stuff I sang last Sunday night at a church I visited with my wife to hear an Open Doors persecuted believer from North Korea.

Those folks rose to sing Hillsong lite stuff and were on their feet for 25 minutes. I'm a former radio DJ and those songs could have competed with some of the Rolling Stones, Beatles, Beach Boys, Jimi Hendrix stuff I played way back when. They sang a string of existential nothingness while some in the congregation waved, spoke to and gestured to each other - paying no attention to the content of the songs. We had 25 minutes of this and it all began with the rolling of the drums (with 5 microphones behind a cage) that caused my wife and me to jump from our seats with fright when the amplified drums were hammered for the first time to begin 'worship' singing.

I listen to the words I sing and refuse to sing trite, existential experiences.

Words matter when we worship God.

In Christ, Oz