The Problem with Praise Teams

[Larry Nelson] “This Is Amazing Grace”

[Verse 1:]
Who breaks the power of sin and darkness
Whose love is mighty and so much stronger
The King of Glory, the King above all kings

Who shakes the whole earth with holy thunder
And leaves us breathless in awe and wonder
The King of Glory, the King above all kings

[Chorus:]
This is amazing grace
This is unfailing love
That You would take my place
That You would bear my cross
You lay down Your life
That I would be set free
Oh, Jesus, I sing for
All that You’ve done for me

[Verse 2:]
Who brings our chaos back into order
Who makes the orphan a son and daughter
The King of Glory, the King of Glory

Who rules the nations with truth and justice
Shines like the sun in all of its brilliance
The King of Glory, the King above all kings

[Chorus]

[Bridge:]
Worthy is the Lamb who was slain
Worthy is the King who conquered the grave
Worthy is the Lamb who was slain
Worthy is the King who conquered the grave
Worthy is the Lamb who was slain
Worthy is the King who conquered the grave
Worthy is the Lamb who was slain
Worthy, worthy, worthy
Oh

[Chorus]

That’s a great example of beautiful modern worship music.

It would be extremely helpful to me were someone to point out what exactly is beautiful about this expression (the words, not the music).

[DavidO]

It would be extremely helpful to me were someone to point out what exactly is beautiful about this expression (the words, not the music).

The object of the song.

Ricky, the object of an expression and the expression itself are separate things. Are all expressions that take as their subject something beautiful beautiful in and of themselves?

I somehow had a sneaking suspicion that answer wouldn’t suffice. To answer your question, in this case I would say yes that it is beautiful because of the object. I see nothing wrong with the form. My daughter making up a song about Jesus may not be poetically perfect in anyone’s mind, but it is beautiful mainly because of the object (and because she is cute!). If you don’t think the song is beautiful, then tell us why. What are you fishing for? Don’t hide your cards…lay them out on the table and tell us what you are wanting to say.

Whether I’m being coy is not really pertinent. I haven’t made any assertions one way or the other. Rather, this work has been put forward as a beautiful expression (though, in fairness, M. Leslie may have been referring to the music and not the words). I’m just asking for an explanation to the assertion.

I also think we would both recognize a difference between the private expressions of a child and expressions intended for public use by a congregation.

I ran across this blog post a few weeks ago. To me, it contains a great illustration of the old adage, “beauty is in the eye of the beholder”:

http://www.theologyinworship.com/2014/07/22/reasons-why-we-should-still…

Notice the before & after pictures of Houston’s Second Baptist Church. To the blogger, the “before” appearance is unquestionably superior. To each his own, but to me the “after” appearance looks warmer & more inviting. The “before” picture looks cold & sterile to my tastes.

He’s entitled to his opinion, and I am to mine. In the absence of some objective standard, can’t things oftentimes just be left at that?

I gave you my answer of why it was beautiful, though I wasn’t the one that made the original assertion. There isn’t a text that says, “Thou shalt only use text in song that containeth….” If you have a systematic theology concerning the means of expressing beauty in song, then lay it out….I’m all ears/eyes!

So we have two criteria here. The beauty of a given expression can be determined by:

• the beauty of the subject
• the response of a given observer

Good enough, I guess. If anyone else cares to chime in, I’m still interested.

(Aside to Ricky: I’m not here to push my view; I’m looking to flesh out the view of a certain segment of the Church, which view I confess I simply do not comprehend.)

If the beauty of old men is their grey head (Prov. 20:29) then why can’t words that bring glory to God be beautiful? Isaiah 52:7 NKJV says, “How beautiful upon the mountains Are the feet of him who brings good news, Who proclaims peace, Who brings glad tidings of good things, Who proclaims salvation, Who says to Zion, “Your God reigns!”” If the feet of those who bring a wonderful message of our great God are beautiful because of that message, then I do not think it is a stretch to say that the words themselves are beautiful.

Ricky wrote:

Are worship teams a matter of sin in Scripture? I don’t see how anyone could say Scripture prohibits worship teams. You could say that some worship teams sin in what they do perhaps, but that is a different topic.

Ricky is correct

1 Chronicles 15:19 KJV 19 So the singers, Heman, Asaph, and Ethan, were appointed to sound with cymbals of brass;

2 Chronicles 20:21 NKJV 21 And when he had consulted with the people, he appointed those who should sing to the LORD, and who should praise the beauty of holiness, as they went out before the army and were saying: “Praise the LORD, For His mercy endures forever.”

Nehemiah 7:1 NKJV 1 Then it was, when the wall was built and I had hung the doors, when the gatekeepers, the singers, and the Levites had been appointed,

On the matter of conscience, we understand that a conscience can be seared, but we also see in the scriptures where people were convinced that something was sinful when it wasn’t (consider the accusations against Christ). That is why it is so important to look to what God says, not just how we feel on any particular matter. I talked to a person who thought churches with conservative music (the churches I have been a member and pastor of) were sinning because their music was not as glorifying as the modern music was. He was essentially arguing from his feelings with the same arguments we often hear against CCM. It was just that he was taking the opposite view. I told him I thought he was being legalistic on the subject and we are still friends.

If the beauty of old men is their grey head (Prov. 20:29) then why can’t words that bring glory to God be beautiful?

Since I have been the one pursuing the subjet of beauty in this thread, I suspect this is in response to me, but I do not understan the question.

David, I was trying to show that the words to the song (I did not listen to the music) bring glad tidings of good things and therefore could be considered beautiful. The grey head verse was given to show that a variety of things can be considered beautiful. Besides, that grey head verse makes me feel a bit better about my impending beauty :).

Thanks, JD, so your criterion is essentially the same as the one supplied by Ricky—the beauty of the subject.

EDIT: I too look forward to the day when my head is splendid. :)

David, I have been trying to figure out how to get a contemporary smily like yours. All I can figure out are the old traditional smilys like this :).

[JD Miller]

David, I have been trying to figure out how to get a contemporary smily like yours. All I can figure out are the old traditional smilys like this :).

To those of us that have been using the internet (or actually, ARPAnet, Usenet) since the mid 80’s, your traditional smileys are the only true smileys anyway! Those modern ones are clearly not objectively beautiful, but are only beautiful in the eyes of modern beholders.

Mr Barnhart, with all due respect, if you have been on the internet since the 1980’s you ought to be techy enough to show me how to get those fancy smilys in about 3 keystrokes. LOL :) :( ;)