"Church survival doesn't depend on music style."
The Amazing Grace brew ha ha is interesting. IIRC, the version that made the charts is a recording by the Pipes, Drums and Band of the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards made in the SCOTS DG barracks. Hardly, a rock version of the tune.
[Ron Bean] SNIPLike the church I was in that wouldn’t sing “How Great Thou Art” because of its association with Billy Graham or “Amazing Grace” when the song made the pop charts in the 70’s.
Hoping to shed more light than heat..
I was referring to the version of Amazing Grace recorded by Judy Collins that hit the top ten in 1970. Her morals were questionable plus she was a political liberal.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
The SCOTS DG version made the charts in GB and other Commonwealth countries. But, it also tells you what I listened to back in the day. I still have the vinyl recording. It’s the DG version that made Amazing Grace a go to pipe tune. Can’t say as I remember the Collins version.
[Ron Bean]I was referring to the version of Amazing Grace recorded by Judy Collins that hit the top ten in 1970. Her morals were questionable plus she was a political liberal.
Hoping to shed more light than heat..
“I love encountering new cultures. The sounds, the smells, the tastes—pungent, bitter, sweet, loud, soft, ebullient, quiet. What a world we live in! Last week I spoke of the global ministry of teaching that the Lord has given me in the last twenty years. This ministry has carried me to four continents. I have had the joy of teaching in eight countries outside the United States to students from as many as twenty countries—a miniscule representation of the world—but still places with significant diversity. I have preached in still other countries. From the southern tip of India to eastern Europe, from Canada in the north to Africa in the south, God has given me the privilege of meeting Christians in diverse places. I’ve eaten raw seafood in China and fried caterpillars in Africa. But I have only scratched the surface of the world God has made. As a global traveler, I am a relative amateur.
In the course of my journeys, I have met Christians of many stripes living in varied places. While there are many differences—from the minor key music in India with a strange-looking instrument called a tabla keeping the tempo, to the joyfully rhythmic music of Africa with body motions, I have experienced worship in these places. Sometimes I have preached, but often I have simply observed, with and without a translator. I enjoy a church service where I am a stranger and the language is not English. I find that Christians, while significantly different around the globe, can be remarkably similar.”
http://www.centralseminary.edu/resources/nick-of-time/learning-from-the…
–––––––––––––––––-
Observations:
How is it that the tabla, a drum instrument [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabla] , can be appreciated in worship in other countries or cultures, but such an instrument is widely deemed unacceptable within fundamentalism in the U.S.? (From a couple of YouTube videos I saw, it definitely produces a “beat.”)
Or how is it that the “joyfully rhythmic music of Africa” (“with body motions” even!) can be appreciated in worship elsewhere, but not here?
Every time these discussions on cultural standards for hymn singing comes up, I think of this:
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
Excerpts from Reclaiming Authentic Fundamentalism (1993), by Douglas McLachlan:
“There has developed within certain segments of Fundamentalism a hostility to change, no matter its form or purpose. This kind of intransigence has grown out of a tendency to make non-absolutes into absolutes or to impute divine authority to human traditions.” (p. 66)
“Nor are we suggesting that the concept of tradition is intrinsically wrong. The right kind of tradition is very valuable…..However, that which has been most hurtful to urgent and effective evangelism within Fundamentalism is not tradition but traditionalism.” (p. 67)
“Tradition is the living faith of godly progenitors, passed on from generation to generation. Traditionalism is the dead faith of living Christian leaders attempting to hold on to power.” (p. 67)
“Do we dare face ourselves squarely? Some of us within Fundamentalism are practicing traditionalism. In our insistence that “my way is the only way,” we have begun to shut down authentic ministry. Unwittingly, we have embraced a posture of resistance to the will and Word of God.” (p. 67)
“What this means is that we need to begin not only living in the modern world but actually ministering in it. Few of us are driving Model T’s to church, but some of us are antiquated in our methodology…..As we have said earlier [in the book] , it is possible to make adaptation in our methodology to the culture without experiencing contamination by our culture. And from my perspective, it is not only possible, it is absolutely essential. Without it we will become ineffective in evangelism and incapable of retaining the next generation of thinking pastors within the Fundamentalist orbit.” (p. 67-68)
“When we face Jesus Christ at the Bema, the excuses of tradition or peer pressure won’t wash!” (p. 69)
–––––––––––––––––––––—
I posted these excerpts earlier in this thread, but I think they are worth repeating. What McLachlan predicted 23 years ago in regards to ineffective evangelism and losing young fundamentalists have both largely come to pass.
At fundamentalist conferences, the gurus of the movement instruct leaders of plateaued or declining churches to keep at it, to keep on doing what they’re doing, to just “be faithful.” Conference attendees may implicitly be exhorted to work harder, when what they really need is motivation & the tools to work smarter.
As McLachlan argued, Traditionalism is the true object of many fundamentalist’s “faithfulness” today. How’s that working? Not so well. I see the results (or rather lack thereof) of traditionalism all around. I’m frustrated when I see IFB church plants that, ten years after launch, have about 36 people–the same 36, give or take, who were originally sent out from the mother church. Yet the church plant’s methodology is never questioned. Meanwhile, a similarly young church not far away, with different (but not un-Biblical) methodology, is effectively reaching unbelievers for Christ.
ADDENDUM: I’m not arguing for contemporary services, per se. What I am arguing for is an openness in principle to changes in methodology (in the spirit that McLachlan was arguing for above). The benefits are eternal:
“Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. 23 I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.” (1 Cor. 9:19-23 ESV)
Beautiful illustration of the fact that not every musical style is well suited to every language. Thanks, Ron.
I also appreciate Larry’s point and citation of Recovering Authentic Fundamentalism. If we argue against entire genre on the basis that it somehow doesn’t seem “worshipful”, or that the use of certain instruments (e.g. drum sets) is somehow sinful, but without Biblical support, we should not be surprised when your decision on what is proper music more or less resembles nothing so much as the play list on our IPOD. Absent a Biblical reference, we will end up self-referential.
The same applies for Mark’s distinction between music for home and music for corporate worship. Apart from lyrical considerations, if it’s suitable for home, it’s suitable for church, and if we try and add criteria sans Biblical support, the end result is, again, going to be “what I like.” And as cool as I think my collection is, I can’t go with that, even if I’m calling the shots.
I must also confess that there are times when I do refuse to sing at church. As a rule, it’s when the genre strays into “Jesus is my boyfriend”, with a lot of “I I I” and not a terrible lot of Bible in them, and of course a tendency to decide for the congregation what their emotional response ought to be. Does not exactly fit the model of the Psalms, to put it mildly.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Some examples:
1. Last summer, I accompanied a staff member of another Baptist church on an across-town errand. As we drove, he mentioned an annual outreach event that was upcoming at his church. Knowing that the church has held this event for years, I asked him if it attracted visitors. (Awkward pause.) He said not too many–at least not like it once did. So I had to ask why they didn’t try something new/different. His answer: The pastor in charge of it really enjoys it, and it’s popular with many in the church. (It may be popular with the insiders, but if it no longer really serves its intended outreach purpose, then it’s an example of traditionalism.)
2. Lest anyone think I’m letting my own church (or myself ) off the hook, traditionalism rears its head often enough in our body. For example, after about 40 years of structuring our annual VBS in one particular format, we made a major change last year. (A new associate pastor, under whose responsibility VBS falls, thought we could better engage not only visiting kids, but also their parents, through the change.) In retrospect, was it effective? It was. Nevertheless, the change initially riled many “old-timers” (myself included) who had grown accustomed to the old way……
I might listen to an all-percussion drum corps at a football game, and find it entertaining and fun. I wouldn’t use that at church however to give praise and glory to God.
I might listen to Mozart at home, or some other classical composer or musician, but would not use that music to worship God.
In music, art and literature, there are things that are just for entertainment or enjoyment and aren’t meant to specifically praise God. I can appreciate the statue David by Michelangelo, but I wouldn’t bring it into the church.
[Mark_Smith]I might listen to an all-percussion drum corps at a football game, and find it entertaining and fun. I wouldn’t use that at church however to give praise and glory to God.
I might listen to Mozart at home, or some other classical composer or musician, but would not use that music to worship God.
In music, art and literature, there are things that are just for entertainment or enjoyment and aren’t meant to specifically praise God. I can appreciate the statue David by Michelangelo, but I wouldn’t bring it into the church.
I would simply point out that the drum corps has no lyrics at all, hence no instruction in God’s Word, and the same applies to most of Mozart. He did write some church music, though; I did once attend a Mozart mass in a beautiful rococo church in Munich, though—St. Michael’s I believe—but that was really more of a cultural experience than a religious one. Suffice it to say the incense was flying, but the homily was just not there. And obviously I didn’t partake in communion. And I would agree that we might not introduce “Papageno” into the church for reasons that any German speaker might note—again, lyrical.
What if the drum corps was the drumline from the Salvation Army Band playing hymns? In that case, at least the “experienced” people would infer the words, possibly singing along.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Years ago, I came across a cd of Ira Sankey Hymns by the Sheffield Citadel Band. It proves a snare drum can be properly used in sacred music. It also showed the proper use of the tambourine. :)
Hoping to shed more light than heat..
A snare drum? How dare you! Heresy!
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
[Larry Nelson]How is it that the tabla, a drum instrument [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabla] , can be appreciated in worship in other countries or cultures, but such an instrument is widely deemed unacceptable within fundamentalism in the U.S.? (From a couple of YouTube videos I saw, it definitely produces a “beat.”)
Or how is it that the “joyfully rhythmic music of Africa” (“with body motions” even!) can be appreciated in worship elsewhere, but not here?
All music has a beat. But there’s a difference between the beat of a piano, the beat of an Irish Bodhrán drum (such as is seen here), and the beat of a complete American drum kit, which is designed for a different type of music.
[Steve Picray]All music has a beat. But there’s a difference between the beat of a piano, the beat of an Irish Bodhrán drum (such as is seen here), and the beat of a complete American drum kit, which is designed for a different type of music.
What is the standard for judging one beat acceptable and a different beat unacceptable?
Discussion