Should We Move Past the Song Leader?
“Now that we have biblical principles, we should evaluate each principle and see which method better fulfills this principle. I have made this caveat before and will make it again, but this is a matter of philosophy, not biblical obedience. You might disagree with me, and that’s fine.” - P&D
A few thoughts come to mind. First, regarding the notion of the musicians and singers not being the emphasis, I'm reminded of churches in Europe which have little alcoves in the "chor" (area around the altar/pulpit at the head of the church) where the singers stood, and the tradition of dark robes so that they would not needlessly draw attention to themselves while singing. But that also brings to mind the reality that prior to the Reformation, the congregation didn't join in the song, and was actively discouraged/prohibited from trying. So I don't know that I want to carry that tradition over without some "translation", theologically speaking.
It also strikes me that the author misses the origins of use of modern and popular music in the church; I am aware that a century before Saddleback and Warren, William Booth and the Salvation Army made great use of the popular songs of the time, some of which probably appear in the hymnals used by Colonial Hills.
Third, the praise bands are, regrettably, not very much like rock & roll bands--the genre tends to be almost intentionally restrained, almost as if they're afraid of doing things too well. In particular, as the Babylon Bee notes, they don't let the bassist and drummers be heard, in general, and too many instrumentalists are relegated to the status of an extremely expensive metronome. The tightly woven melodies and harmonies I hear from my youthful favorites like Van Halen and Led Zeppelin are simply not there.
Finally, there is a hint of something very interesting in 1 Corinthians 14:26 and surrounding; "everyone" has a Psalm, etc.. Now granted, Paul is trying, in that passage, to help the Corinthian church eliminate some of the chaos that this description suggests, but on the flip side, it suggests that at least in the Apostolic era, a portion of worship services was really driven by the congregation.
A parallel today might be in many African-American churches, where congregants often have something of an amazing way of, without so much as a bulletin, knowing what they're going to sing, the tempo, etc.. It's like a "hymn sing" in white churches, but seems to flow in a way that it generally does not in the churches I've inhabited. We might do well to give it a try.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Our church has about 100 members and musicians in abundance. We have more pianists that I can count as well as a composer on a par with Dan Forrest and musicians who have written hymns that are doctrinally sound and singable. Our music team simply consists of a worship leader on guitar, a pianist, an occasional dejembe, and a violinist. No choir and no "special music" (for which I am personally grateful). All ages participate in our congregational singing of hymn both old and new. To say that one style of leading congregational is somehow better than another is a useless argument and to imply that a single song leader is to be preferred doesn't hold water. And why does P and D and the FBFI have this obsession with music? They seem to have more articles and resolution the topic than any other subject.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
Ron, I’m curious how you have so many musicians (and a little jealous!). We struggle to keep the one piano staffed (which is why, sometimes, I do the job). Are you near a Bible college?
In P&D’s defense, the article is very low key. It came across to me as more of a “I kind of lean this way…” case. And it’s a worth thinking over. There is certainly a lot of interest in these topics. I think a lot of that has to do with how many aspects of our being and our worship connect with music. Because there are words and theology, the singing has an intellectual dimension. Because the words are poetic there is an emotional dimension. Then the music… is like a force multiplier for both of those, given how emotions often stimulate or unlock the intellect—and vice versa. Then there’s the spiritual dimension running all through it in ways difficult to define.
And culture. So we freight in lots of individual and social experiences that in one way or another connect with elements of the music. It’s still art, after all.
So people tend to be passionate about it. I would be surprised if we weren’t.
But I think “Your results may vary” is a really strong point. Every church has it’s unique history and setting and local members, and while “what works?” isn’t the only question, it’s usually the deciding factor after our theology and principles have narrowed the options. So, yeah, among the set of allowable options, whatever works best.
There’s a bit of a snag in that, though. What does it mean to “work”? So at that point, we’re again looking to our doctrine and principles and values. I think respectful disagreement and arguments pro and con are part of the process of examining everything and approving what is excellent (1 Thess 5.21-22, Php 1:9-10).
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Discussion