The Creeds

[Celticflower]

Our church does a blend of music, with organ, piano, guitars, sometimes bass and/or drums. My only complaint is the lack of written music for the congregation. I have to hear a piece at least 3 times thru before I can sing it if I don't have sheet music. All we get are lyrics on a screen. Even when it is an older piece from the hymnal people don't bother to crack a book - I do if it is unfamiliar. Or the awful calliope piece the church loves and doesn't sing as it is written anyway. (I just keep my mouth shut on that one.)

 

[circuitrider]

Our church does a blend of music, with organ, piano, guitars, sometimes bass and/or drums. My only complaint is the lack of written music for the congregation. I have to hear a piece at least 3 times thru before I can sing it if I don't have sheet music. All we get are lyrics on a screen. Even when it is an older piece from the hymnal people don't bother to crack a book - I do if it is unfamiliar. Or the awful calliope piece the church loves and doesn't sing as it is written anyway. (I just keep my mouth shut on that one.)

I understand you missing seeing the music as a musician myself. But most people in the congregation don't actually read music. And providing copies of music that isn't in a hymnal for everyone can get really expensive. The lead sheets for the guitar parts I play can be several pages long. How many hundreds of pages would you have to pass out to an entire church? Or how would you ID the music readers? Also there are copyright issues.

Most people sing by ear (well or badly or in between) rather than read music. So a CCLI license with screens is a lot more cost effective.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

Projectable music with notes or even chords is nearly impossible to find, I've looked, and it's prohibitively expensive, restrictive, and doesn't allow me to 'stylize' the slides like I do with our presentation software.

I do get it though. My idea of an ideal worship leader is one who works hard to teach the songs to the congregation. A pet peeve of mine is when a worship leader does "their own" version of a song, and doesn't help the congregation sing 'their version' with them. It becomes a performance. IF it's a performance, there's nothing wrong with that! We have "special music" every Sunday, often it's simply an "extended" offertory with a beautiful rendition of a hymn played on the piano. But when there's congregational singing they should be led.

I can't read music, personally, nor can I sing. I DO sing in church, because I want to participate in offering praise to God. But I am a terrible singer. Even if I could read music I don't think it would matter because I can't carry a tune in a bucket. God granted me a handful of gifts; music and the arts; no matter how much I enjoy them, was not one of them. I suspect I'm the rule, not the exception. Though plenty can sing better, most folks in the pews probably have a similar musical aptitude to me. i.e., we must be led and cannot ourselves sing something just by reading it. And, to that end, I don't know any musicians who would just pick up and perform an unfamiliar song. I'm not saying they aren't out there; I just haven't met them. My pianist, who has been playing for 40 years and has a college degree in music; our former pianist, who got her phD and is now the Professor of Music for a major private university (And charges $2,000-$10,000 for a piano performance but comes 'home' to us and plays for free!) always want things ahead of time so they can be 'prepared'. So I do suspect that even if I COULD produce the notes on the screen, anything new would STILL have to be led the first time. Though I could be wrong; as I said, I know very little about music other than "I like it".

 

[Dave-W]

(Our gifts shared with God. Not someone elses gifts shared through speakers

Ah - yes. the rocks of copper and steel and neodymium crying out.
You sure there are not any young guitar players in the congregation?

Worship, for so many, has become so much about performance that nobody bats an eye at recorded background tracks.

Indeed. Worship is never about performance (which is about US in the end) but about pouring our hearts out to HIM. It is invoking HIS presence in a manifest way in our assembly.

As someone who has led worship (and written a number of contemporary worship songs) off and on since 1976, this is a topic I have a certain passion for and have learned a thing or 2 about it.

But then, believe it or not, I actually LIKE Vocal Only worship. I wouldn't want to do it every Sunday or even for every hymn, but I do like it once in a while. Again, not for any spiritual reason, I just like it. It sounds cool.

Well - there are spiritual reasons for doing so. Usually toward the end of the songs when the presence of God is so tangible that playing instruments almost seems sacrilegious.

 

[Dave-W]

Also there are copyright issues.

Most of that is taken care of with a CCLI contract.

 

[Dave-W]

I can't read music, personally, nor can I sing. I DO sing in church, because I want to participate in offering praise to God. But I am a terrible singer. Even if I could read music I don't think it would matter because I can't carry a tune in a bucket. God granted me a handful of gifts; music and the arts; no matter how much I enjoy them, was not one of them. I suspect I'm the rule, not the exception. Though plenty can sing better, most folks in the pews probably have a similar musical aptitude to me. i.e., we must be led and cannot ourselves sing something just by reading it. And, to that end, I don't know any musicians who would just pick up and perform an unfamiliar song. I'm not saying they aren't out there; I just haven't met them. My pianist, who has been playing for 40 years and has a college degree in music; our former pianist, who got her phD and is now the Professor of Music for a major private university (And charges $2,000-$10,000 for a piano performance but comes 'home' to us and plays for free!) always want things ahead of time so they can be 'prepared'. So I do suspect that even if I COULD produce the notes on the screen, anything new would STILL have to be led the first time. Though I could be wrong; as I said, I know very little about music other than "I like it".

You are probably correct, that the average congregant is musically illiterate. Even many/most contemporary musicians are illiterate. (cannot read or write musical notation)

With that being the case - the music directors or worship leaders (or whatever you wish to call them) need to teach the congregation the songs they use (if unfamiliar or new) and that can be a somewhat awkward process. At one congregation I was at as worship leader, the pastor did not want me teaching songs (and we used a lot of my own compositions). So I had to get creative in ways to introduce new songs to the congregation.

 

[circuitrider]

Dave,

My local church has both contemporary and traditional worship. We used screens in both. But in the traditional service if someone wants to see the music they can pull out a hymnal.

In the contemporary service often a piece of music is first introduced by the praise band as a prelude or postlude. Then for a couple of Sundays we sing it with the congregation and usually by a third time through the congregation can sing it fairly well.

One of the factors you may not be considering is that many of the people who attend our contemporary service listen to Christian praise music on the radio all the time. So on a number of occasions the band has learned a new piece and the very first time we play it more than half the people sitting in the congregation already know the song because they've been singing along with it on the radio already.

 

[Dave-W]

In the contemporary service often a piece of music is first introduced by the praise band as a prelude or postlude. Then for a couple of Sundays we sing it with the congregation and usually by a third time through the congregation can sing it fairly well.

I have used that way of adding a song as well. Or even as an offertory.

One of the factors you may not be considering is that many of the people who attend our contemporary service listen to Christian praise music on the radio all the time. So on a number of occasions the band has learned a new piece and the very first time we play it more than half the people sitting in the congregation already know the song because they've been singing along with it on the radio already.

Quite familiar with that dynamic. But it does not hold for what you write yourself.

If memory serves, when I introduced my "Rejoice" which later I used as the title track for our CD, we did it first as an offertory and had some of the older congregants (who grew up with big band music) up out of their seats dancing.

 

[circuitrider]

We don't have anyone in our band writing music. We are kept busy enough with what comes out regularly.

 

[GraceSeeker]

Do you recite the Apostles, Nicene, or some other Creed during worship?

No.

Even occasionally?

No.

If not; have you been exposed to them?

What's a creed?

What are your thoughts? What do they mean to you? Are they important?

Seriously, we don't use them. Not because I have any aversion to them, at some previous congregations we recited them regularly, we just don't happen to here and it wasn't a conscious decision to exclude them as much as it wasn't a conscious decision to include them while other elements of the service did receive that conscious attempt to include them.

To me that serve as a touchstone of the faith. We can teach on many things, but if our teaching isn't inclusive of these elements then it might be religion, but it isn't Christian religion. And if our teaching denies these elements and claims to be Christian, then I submit it is downright heretical. For instance, I am continually amazed at the number of pastors, ones who appear to be well-received and respected in their various adjudicatories, who deny the Resurrection -- for me that is an essential and apart from that go be Jewish or Muslim or something, but don't call yourself Christian. But then, while I accept the virgin birth as true, I guess I don't consider that a make-or-break tenant of the faith; so, I need to be careful about the size of the stones I cast and maybe stick to pea-size gravel.

Could they be replaced with something else?

No, I don't think they can be replaced. Even though we don't recite them, I don't consider that I have replaced them with our children's time or the choir anthem or the sharing of praises and prayer requests. We still reference them in our baptismal services and they underscore our confirmation teaching. I don't think that one could substitute the Social Creed in their place. And I believe that those who do abandon them in favor of something else have abandoned their first love for another gospel -- actions that scripture specifically warns against.

One glaring question; do they mean as much today, since they are so simple?

That's an unanswerable question as it asks for a comparison and I have only lived in the period of time known as "today". I can reference back a few decades, but as I understand your question you are asking if they mean as much today as they did when first created. Any answer I would give to that question would be mere speculation. I can hypothesis as to what they meant then, but I suspect that my hypothesis would actually be a projection that I would be making based on my own present subjective appreciation or lack thereof for them. The only object statement I can make with regard to them is that they are not utilized by the Church in the same way today as then, but I'm not sure that should be interpreted as imply they don't mean as much. They might have even more meaning today, but simply not be utilized in the same way as the sermon has taken on more significance and people can read for themselves, so the necessity of a simple concise "I believe..." statement is not the same as it once was.

This past year I had a theme to my preaching. I've been thinking of doing the same, but on a different them next year. I had already considered preaching through the Apostles' Creed (I did it before very effectively), and have just about got myself talked into doing it again, but not just for a series, but as the structure to an entire calendar year. If I do, I suspect we might start using the Apostles' Creed again more regularly.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

GraceSeeker your thoughtful, intellectual responses are always so very much appreciated; thank you!

As to the last point. I did intend to suggest that in the early days of the church, theology, it seems, was even more broad and vague than today. The significance of the Apostles Creed might be different today with denominations with hundreds or thousands of years of established history, now.

I share your thoughts on the necessity. The virgin birth doesn't seem like an excluder, like you can't be Christian without affirming it. In my sermon when I covered that, I suggested that a belief in the virgin birth affirms the unusual and miraculous way in which Christ came into the world and, of course, brought up the passages in Isaiah that could be translated to say "Virgin" by some scholars. (Young woman is the direct translation but some scholars suggest that, in that context, it was a polite way of saying 'virgin'), but I also discussed the shaky history of the virgin birth belief and how I do think one can remain Christian without believing in the virgin birth. I, personally, don't have reason to believe it isn't true.

However, issues like the Resurrection do, to me, seem to cross a line. I have been so burned and hurt by being called, or having my friends called, non-Christian because of some sort of dissenting belief. Anything from human sexuality (and friends on BOTH sides have been called non-Christian by the other side on that one); to women in ministry (TODAY, in fact, I was told that any church that Ordains women is evil and corrupted by Satan and that I was complicit in the downfall of Christianity. SHEESH), even to beliefs about connectionalism (congregationlists who suggest any church that isn't democratically led by some group of lay-people is evil). So I really, really don't like saying "You cannot call yourself Christian if you don't believe X". But, as much as I hate that, failing to affirm the resurrection sure is close.

If I were to define Christian as simply as possible, I think it might be "One who believes that Jesus Christ is the source of salvation.", Not that salvation is what it's all about; BUT, that might be the most simple way I can think of to define Christian. But, inevitably, there are tangets off of that. Islam affirms the virgin birth of Jesus Christ in the Qu'Ran but doesn't affirm Christ's resurrection or his sovereignty as God. Clearly, there are some things that must make us "Christian", and I really think the resurrection has to be one of them. That Christ conquered death, just seems essential to me.

Sunday we're covering "and sitteth at the right hand of God the Father Almighty, from thence he shall come to judge the [living] and the dead." (Using the UMH traditional language, I've been changing it up by having us recite the creed; something we don't normally do, each week during these series, and changing it up by using different translations of the creed; including a Roman Catholic version which uses slightly different verbage, a more modern translation with updated language, included "Descended into hell" and "descended into death"; which became a component of one sermon to explain our belief that Christ did not spend time, literally, in hell. But a better understanding is that the Apostles intended for us to understand that Jesus was completely dead, not just in a coma. So he 'descended into death'). The resurrection will be the final week and the week after will begin advent. I haven't yet decided what I'm doing for advent. I may stick with the lectionary.

I, too, preach with themes for the year. This year mine has been "on purpose, with purpose". And I've had my congregation recite that with me throughout the year. Each sermon, my prayer is, that it will encourage us to do what we do as Christian on purpose (with intentionality, not just because it's what we've always done or what we're supposed to do) and with purpose. In preaching through the Apostles Creed, I'm trying to move us through muttering through it and not really knowing what it says; so affirming it and claiming it as a part of our Christian identity. So that, likewise, the Apostles Creed becomes something we do "on purpose" (not just because the liturgist says so) and "with purpose" (because it is who we are, as Christians).

 

[GraceSeeker]

I like your "on purpose with purpose" idea.

I might disagree with your view of "he descended into death" idea. When I learned just who strongly the concept of the harrowing of hell was linked to an understanding of both the resurrection and atonement, I have to give it more credence. For the early church, it first theory of atonement to salvation seems to be accomplished by Jesus descent into hell were he becomes a ticking timebomb with the devil's supposedly secure stronghold. Thus, when Christ overcomes the power and sin and death to himself be resurrected, it brings freedom to all who reside there and chose to trust in him and follow him. This following means that when Christ is resurrected it secure their resurrection as well. So, I'm not so quick to reject the "he descended into hell" line as some other Methodists may be.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

I like your "on purpose with purpose" idea.

I might disagree with your view of "he descended into death" idea. When I learned just who strongly the concept of the harrowing of hell was linked to an understanding of both the resurrection and atonement, I have to give it more credence. For the early church, it first theory of atonement to salvation seems to be accomplished by Jesus descent into hell were he becomes a ticking timebomb with the devil's supposedly secure stronghold. Thus, when Christ overcomes the power and sin and death to himself be resurrected, it brings freedom to all who reside there and chose to trust in him and follow him. This following means that when Christ is resurrected it secure their resurrection as well. So, I'm not so quick to reject the "he descended into hell" line as some other Methodists may be.

My understanding, far from infallible, is that the original language was more similar to words like "hades" or "underworld" which don't strictly mean hell; but mean "the next life". (They also don't NOT mean hell, but they also don't SPECIFICALLY mean hell) More of an agnostic or pluralistic word than one attributed to a Christian understanding of hell. And that the apostles, in using that language, intended to demonstrate a complete death. And that in coming back from death, he conquered it. That the language is not strong or specific enough to specifically suggest hell.

I'm not saying that to argue only to articulate my perspective on this.

I suggested, in the sermon, one way to better understand that would be to do as many Roman Catholics do and say "He descended into death".

I did, as a matter of fact, try to very very briefly and quickly, cover those early theories of atonement and how they fit in with a narrative of Christ descending into hell or merely death.

With some exception, it's rare that I'm a "my way or the highway" preacher. I often prefer to present a couple of perspectives, I 'own' mine (I don't hide or fail to mention my perspective) and may even attempt to persuade others to consider my perspective. Though there are issues in which I am very firm, and am comfortable suggesting they are 'right' and the others are 'wrong'. Those are rare. But they do include subjects such as the idea of salvation as a one time magical event that can happen as the result of an emotional manipulation ceremony at some Christian rock concert. (i.e., "Come down here and repeat after me and you'll be saved") Because I consider that theology to not just be wrong but dangerous; the "fire insurance" version of Christianity breeds complacent people who stop seeking God because they said the magic words and are now set for eternity.

 

[actionsub]

That is cool. I wonder if they go to that same church. Almost every CCM artist in Nashville goes there along with a HUGE gaggle of studio musicians.

Kinda cool for a Church of Christ (vocal music only) campus chapel. At least that is what it WAS when Finto took over the pastorate. (late 60s)

Petra emerged from an Assembly of God in Ft Wayne Indiana. I could be wrong, but I believe Third Day is Baptist.
Not sure if this is still the case, but another Nashville church popular among CCM musicians is Christ Community Church, a Presbyterian congregation.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

Before I say too much I'll say I LIKE CCM music. I listen to it alot.

BUT, most of it doesn't say anything. Empty platitudes, repeating scriptures safe enough to put on a coffee mug, or remixing old hymns. Actually, I can't remember the last time I heard a CCM artist address.. anything really. So I'm not sure their religious affiliation 'matters' much, since there's little theology in their music.

I hope that doesn't sound harsh. CCM isn't where theology is supposed to come from, so it's not a bad thing. It's just the reality. None of them really say anything. Casting Crowns did address abortion, sort of, in one song. They have a line that says "Sung to sleep by philosophies, that save the trees and kill the children". Which, and they've admitted this, is a line apparently pointing out that, in their perspective, there's a hypocrisy among liberals who are concerned about the environment but not with the high number of abortions. I imagine if these groups were more vocal about difficult issues; they would likewise let their Evangelical flags fly. On social media, some of them tend to be quite a bit more 'vocal' about various theological and political issues. I've 'unliked' many of them because I want to still like them

One unique thing about CCM artists, and I'm curious if it's linked to the culture of some of these nashville evangelical mega churches, is they are very mission focused and that has led them to reject, many of them at least, much of the xenophobia, hyper-patriotism, "me first" and anti-immigration perspectives of may other fundamentalists, even if their theology is similar. I've seen several of them speak out against stricter immigration policies, speak in favor of Syrian refugees, speak out against "Charity begins at home" type idealism (meaning, it's okay to support people with need in other countries, even if there's still, and always will be need here. God doesn't love us more than others.) Which is sort of "breaking ranks" with a lot of other American Fundamentalists. I wonder if it's because many of these artists have had opportunities to 'see the world'. I doubt highly that someone who spends a lot of time in mission around the world could continue to have those sort of ideals.

 

[Dave-W]

I have not heard much of recent CCM but I know they use to speak up on those issues a lot.

But since about 1990 every major CCM label has been bought out by the secular mega-media corporations. I think only Maranatha and Hosanna Integrity are still owned by christian corporations.