Secular Music in churches

[USCGrad90]

NewSpring church in our area regularly uses secular music in their services, including covers of Miley Cyrus, Katy Perry, Imagine Dragons, and AC/DC songs. I know some of the justification for doing so is based on trying to appeal to non-christians and be relevant to people with those interests. FYI - I personally haven't been to a service - just watched on YouTube and talked with friends who attend.

My personal view is that by using the secular artist, they foster an interest in that artist's other music - which in most cases has questionable lyrics and viewpoints which are counter to Christian teaching. With so many Christian artists out there with quality music that sounds nearly the same - I think the same type of attraction and emotion in their service could be created, while opening up the listeners to a better alternative to all of the questionable songs out there.

What are the general thoughts on this? Are there other churches out there doing the same thing?

 

[kevinmaynard]

Who listens to lyrics anyway? I couldn't recite the lyrics to nearly any song I like.

 

[USCGrad90]

Who listens to lyrics anyway? I couldn't recite the lyrics to nearly any song I like.

Most of the kids I know sing along to their favorite songs and know them word for word. I can still remember the songs I listened to in the 80s and can sing along when they come on the radio or pop up on a movie or TV soundtrack.

 

[Paradoxum]

I don't think there is anything wrong with that if the songs have a good message for church.

You say people might then listen to the artists other songs, but people like Miley and Katy Perry are so famous I'd think that people would easily come across their music anyway.

If a Christian does come across 'bad music', then they can choose not to listen to the music, or choose not to accept the message of the lyrics. That's what I did as a Christian teen, and it didn't harm my faith in God, or being 'good', at all.

Your idea seems to be about retaining faith by retaining ignorance... that seems dodgy to me. If a teaching (or faith) can't survive a clash with pop music then perhaps there is something wrong with the teaching. Perhaps I'm being unfair though.

 

[USCGrad90]

Your idea seems to be about retaining faith by retaining ignorance... that seems dodgy to me. If a teaching (or faith) can't survive a clash with pop music then perhaps there is something wrong with the teaching. Perhaps I'm being unfair though.

I'm not advocating ignorance - just avoiding promoting something tied into other stuff with questionable content - especially when you have better stuff to choose from.

To me I think i's kind of like telling you to buy Playboy magazine just for the articles...

 

[Paradoxum]

I'm not advocating ignorance - just avoiding promoting something tied into other stuff with questionable content - especially when you have better stuff to choose from.

To me I think i's kind of like telling you to buy Playboy magazine just for the articles...

I don't think it's quite that bad from a Christian point of view. I guess looking at Playboy for guys would be a sin in itself, whereas the problem with naughty music is if it makes people more likely to sin.

For example, as a committed Christian teenager I still listen to some sexual songs (as well as modern Christian songs), but I just liked the tune and pretty much totally ignored the lyrics. In that way I got the benefit of the music, without it leading me to changing my mind on anything. So I'd say it wasn't bad for me.

Also, I'd think it would sort of be like a church quoting part of an article from Playboy... I'd say that wouldn't be that bad.

I do get that promoting an artist with non-Christian messages might not be good for a church though.

 

[juvenissun]

I don't think there is anything wrong with that if the songs have a good message for church.

You say people might then listen to the artists other songs, but people like Miley and Katy Perry are so famous I'd think that people would easily come across their music anyway.

If a Christian does come across 'bad music', then they can choose not to listen to the music, or choose not to accept the message of the lyrics. That's what I did as a Christian teen, and it didn't harm my faith in God, or being 'good', at all.

Your idea seems to be about retaining faith by retaining ignorance... that seems dodgy to me. If a teaching (or faith) can't survive a clash with pop music then perhaps there is something wrong with the teaching. Perhaps I'm being unfair though.

I am trying to shift the goal post to make it fit better to this forum.

Be ignorant on something IS always good for some purposes. Regards to Christian faith, we may want to consider to maintain the ignorance on many things. This fits the best on the idea of "run away from evil", instead of fighting the evil.

So, no matter how popular is Miley, I don't want to know anything about her. Nothing.

 

[RDKirk]

NewSpring church in our area regularly uses secular music in their services, including covers of Miley Cyrus, Katy Perry, Imagine Dragons, and AC/DC songs. I know some of the justification for doing so is based on trying to appeal to non-christians and be relevant to people with those interests. FYI - I personally haven't been to a service - just watched on YouTube and talked with friends who attend.

My personal view is that by using the secular artist, they foster an interest in that artist's other music - which in most cases has questionable lyrics and viewpoints which are counter to Christian teaching. With so many Christian artists out there with quality music that sounds nearly the same - I think the same type of attraction and emotion in their service could be created, while opening up the listeners to a better alternative to all of the questionable songs out there.

What are the general thoughts on this? Are there other churches out there doing the same thing?

My wife and I left a megachurch a couple of years ago that had that practice. We did not leave for that particular reason...but then, there might have been a connection. In this case, the congregational leadership had already stated that their community mission was to "reach out to the unchurched wealthy," and reaching out to the "Abercrombie Kids" was the role of the youth group. Personally, I think they should have been reaching out to the Goth kids--those kids already knew the material world was screwed up, the Abercrombie Kids were comfortable right as they were.

I discern in your statement that your question is not about style of music, but about the artists themselves. Why, indeed, is it necessary to use those particular artists when there are Christian artists of the same style available?

In the case of the church I mentioned, the secular music was generally mainstream stuff from the 70s--"Chicago," "Three Dog Night"--acts that I enjoyed myself, and really still do. I suspect that was music the worship director--also about my age--enjoyed performing back in the day.

I think the question of actually playing the music is different from the question of using examples from popular culture in a sermon to prove a point.

In a discussion about spiritual warfare, I can easily say to a youngish audience, "Hey, do you remember the scene in 'The Matrix' where Neo wakes up out of the Matrix in his capsule and gets flushed through a canal to the sea? Well, that's like being born again." I might even show that particular scene. But I wouldn't simply sit everyone down to watch the entire movie and expect my point to somehow be absorbed.

I think, though, that using a pop idol (and I use that word deliberately) to gain relevance to unbelievers does signal a problem in what the congregational leadership thinks they're doing.

 

[RDKirk]

I am trying to shift the goal post to make it fit better to this forum.

Be ignorant on something IS always good for some purposes. Regards to Christian faith, we may want to consider to maintain the ignorance on many things. This fits the best on the idea of "run away from evil", instead of fighting the evil.

So, no matter how popular is Miley, I don't want to know anything about her. Nothing.

I remember when my daughter was in high school she once expressed dismay at not getting most of their crude sexual jokes. I told her there was no shame in being ignorant in evil.

 

[USCGrad90]

I discern in your statement that your question is not about style of music, but about the artists themselves. Why, indeed, is it necessary to use those particular artists when there are Christian artists of the same style available?

You discern correctly. If a church is looking for a sound to appeal to youth based on what they hear on the radio, there are tons of Christian artists that sound stylistically just like them. A few have crossed over to the secular charts and sometimes my kids friends are surprised when they find out they are listening to a Chrisitian group. Here are some current bands and songs that both I and my kids like:
The Afters (Every Good Thing); Chris Tomlin (God's Great Dance Floor); Britt Nicole; Toby Mac, Skillet, Lecrae, Switchfoot, Mandisa, and on and on...
When I was growing up, the sound and quality of Christian music did not compare to what was on the radio, but now there is more than enough to satisfy every musical style.

 

[Willie T]

I'm not advocating ignorance - just avoiding promoting something tied into other stuff with questionable content - especially when you have better stuff to choose from.

To me I think i's kind of like telling you to buy Playboy magazine just for the articles...

I think that, right there, cuts through all Satan's smoke screen.

 

[Rajni]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]NewSpring church in our area regularly uses secular music in their services, including covers of Miley Cyrus, Katy Perry, Imagine Dragons, and AC/DC songs. I know some of the justification for doing so is based on trying to appeal to non-christians and be relevant to people with those interests. FYI - I personally haven't been to a service - just watched on YouTube and talked with friends who attend.

My personal view is that by using the secular artist, they foster an interest in that artist's other music - which in most cases has questionable lyrics and viewpoints which are counter to Christian teaching. With so many Christian artists out there with quality music that sounds nearly the same - I think the same type of attraction and emotion in their service could be created, while opening up the listeners to a better alternative to all of the questionable songs out there.

What are the general thoughts on this? Are there other churches out there doing the same thing? [/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Back in my churchgoing days, we attended what's called a 'seeker-
sensitive'[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]church that did this very thing. I liked it, but then I have
found that many[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]secular songs – especially those of a romantic
nature – can pull double-duty as[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]love-songs to the Lord.


-
[/FONT]

 

[South Bound]

NewSpring church in our area regularly uses secular music in their services, including covers of Miley Cyrus, Katy Perry, Imagine Dragons, and AC/DC songs. I know some of the justification for doing so is based on trying to appeal to non-christians and be relevant to people with those interests. FYI - I personally haven't been to a service - just watched on YouTube and talked with friends who attend.

What's the point of appealing to unregenerate, when church is supposed to be for the Body of Christ?

And if you're making it "relevant to people with those interests", then what about people who don't share those interests? Are they not welcome?

And since when is the purpose of church to cater to our interests?

With so many Christian artists out there with quality music that sounds nearly the same - I think the same type of attraction and emotion in their service could be created, while opening up the listeners to a better alternative to all of the questionable songs out there.

But why resort to entertainment at all? Isn't the point of the local church to gather for corporate preaching and teaching of the Word of God and for corporate worship.

What are the general thoughts on this?

I'd leave and go find a real church.

Not sure what you mean by this. Are you talking about classic hymns being rearranged with contemporary music arrangements or the details of how some classic hymns came into being?

My guess is that he's referring to the urban legend that hymns were adapted from drinking songs.

Both Jesus and Paul often used examples from outside the Church. I see no reason songs recorded by or written by secular artists should not be used in a church service.

Two small problems.

The first is that the Church wasn't founded until after Jesus' Earthly ministry.

The second is that while they did use "examples" from outside the Church, they did so only as an illustration, not an attraction to lure the unregerate into the Church.

In fact, in every instance, they did so in the context of evangelism, outside of the Church.

In addition, they did not use profane examples.

Paul instructed us to conduct the church service reverently.

A rather creative preacher could easily take any of several current secular songs and preach on both the bad and good in each of them. Hmm rather like the way most humans are.

But why? Is the Word of God really not interesting enough?

 

[keith99]

Both Jesus and Paul often used examples from outside the Church. I see no reason songs recorded by or written by secular artists should not be used in a church service.

Though honestly I feel that those congregations that would like it least would benefit from it most and those that would like it the most would both benefit the least and be more prone to in some cases actually be led into error.

That does not mean songs should be selected without careful consideration. But then that holds for both songs that are now considered secular and those no considered specifically Christian. Heck on that songs considered specifically Christian pose a greater danger as problems are often not looked for or glossed over.

A rather creative preacher could easily take any of several current secular songs and preach on both the bad and good in each of them. Hmm rather like the way most humans are.

 

[RDKirk]

Both Jesus and Paul often used examples from outside the Church. I see no reason songs recorded by or written by secular artists should not be used in a church service.

Though honestly I feel that those congregations that would like it least would benefit from it most and those that would like it the most would both benefit the least and be more prone to in some cases actually be led into error.

That does not mean songs should be selected without careful consideration. But then that holds for both songs that are now considered secular and those no considered specifically Christian. Heck on that songs considered specifically Christian pose a greater danger as problems are often not looked for or glossed over.

A rather creative preacher could easily take any of several current secular songs and preach on both the bad and good in each of them. Hmm rather like the way most humans are.

"Preaching on" and using songs as examples in teaching is what I was talking about before, but that's different from merely playing them for worship as though they had any religious content.

 

[Paradoxum]

I am trying to shift the goal post to make it fit better to this forum.

Be ignorant on something IS always good for some purposes. Regards to Christian faith, we may want to consider to maintain the ignorance on many things. This fits the best on the idea of "run away from evil", instead of fighting the evil.

So, no matter how popular is Miley, I don't want to know anything about her. Nothing.

I can agree that being ignorant of something can sometimes be good, but I'd generally say that is true when experiencing something would be bad in itself. eg: I don't watch horror movies, or disgusting videos, because seeing them would make me feel bad.

Sure, run for evil, but don't be scared of it either. I knew as a Christian my faith was strong enough to be changed simply because a singer disagreed, so I had no problem with enjoy the tune. I'm not saying you should listen to such stuff, just that it isn't terrible.

 

[juvenissun]

I can agree that being ignorant of something can sometimes be good, but I'd generally say that is true when experiencing something would be bad in itself. eg: I don't watch horror movies, or disgusting videos, because seeing them would make me feel bad.

Sure, run for evil, but don't be scared of it either. I knew as a Christian my faith was strong enough to be changed simply because a singer disagreed, so I had no problem with enjoy the tune. I'm not saying you should listen to such stuff, just that it isn't terrible.

One SHOULD be scared of evil. Not because it is terrible and makes you feel bad, but because it could makes you feel harmless or even feel good.

God makes us be able to tell good from evil, not by feeling, but by understanding.

 

[Paradoxum]

One SHOULD be scared of evil. Not because it is terrible and makes you feel bad, but because it could makes you feel harmless or even feel good.

"Even though I walk
through the darkest valley,
I will fear no evil,
for you are with me;
your rod and your staff,
they comfort me." ~ Psalm 23:4

God makes us be able to tell good from evil, not by feeling, but by understanding.

I understood that listening to pop songs wasn't bad, just like eating pork isn't bad.

 

[Gadarene]

A whole bunch of classic hymns did the same thing. This is nothing new.

 

[USCGrad90]

A whole bunch of classic hymns did the same thing. This is nothing new.

Not sure what you mean by this. Are you talking about classic hymns being rearranged with contemporary music arrangements or the details of how some classic hymns came into being?

Isaac Watts (1674-1749) wrote about 600 hymns during his time and was criticized early on beacuse he was going away from the tradition of sing psalms in the church. Watts wrote hymns that departed from the psalms and included more personal expressions. This literary license did not please everyone and some felt his hymns were "too worldly" for the church as they were not based on the Psalms. Yet Watts felt strongly that the Christian church should sing of Christ. To me this is similar to churches that use contemporary Christian music in their service or more modern hymns than the traditional ones written in the 1700-1800s.

What I'm describing here is different. It's not about songs that are written to focus on Christ, it's about using an established secular song - with no reference to Christ - in a worship environment for the purpose of engaging and pumping up the audience, prior to a message delivered by a pastor.