"Church survival doesn't depend on music style."

Bert, I would agree you are probably right in most cases. Not in mine though. I’ve been arguing that there isn’t anything wrong with the contemporary style, yet I am the music director in a very traditional church. That is the culture of our church right now though we also do some Getty type music yet in a pretty traditional style. I love the older deep theological hymns, yet I love the new contemporary as well. I don’t have a bias either way and don’t think either is Scripturally wrong. On the contrary, I believe there is a need for both.

[Larry Nelson]

I’m 53, and I love our traditional services. I love the organ, the grand piano, the violins, the choir–but I realize I’m in the minority. Having said that, I will just as often attend our contemporary services, due to my teaching & other volunteer positions schedule. Our contemporary services, by the way, often feature older hymns set to modern arrangements.

–––––––––––––––––––––––––

I have to ask though, in what other aspect of our churches or elements of our services do we still think in terms of, “the older, the better”?

Most of us have moved beyond such thinking in terms of the translations of God’s Word that we use. A stubborn few still insist that we should be using only a 405 year old translation, but most of us here on SI are more commonly using translations from very recent decades (e.g. the NKJV, ESV, NIV, or whatever).

Nobody I know of would insist that older sermons are “better.” If anyone did, we might expect to hear our pastors reading, verbatim, sermons by Spurgeon or perhaps Edwards from the pulpit. (Granted, they are undoubtedly more theologically profound than a lot of today’s preaching…..) Nevertheless, older sermons are viewed as products of their times, and some of their language and illustrations would be considered dated and not resonate with modern listeners.

How many churches are installing stained glass in new construction today? It once was fashionable (and served a purpose), but it’s no longer in vogue.

In terms of the Lord’s Supper, we Baptists serve juice today, rather than wine, which is a relatively recent change.

Yet music seems to be an area, in contrast to many others, in which “the older, the better” is upheld.

I’m almost exactly your age, and I realize I’m now pretty much in the minority too.

In case it wasn’t obvious, “the older, the better” was a bit of hyperbole. I personally prefer stuff that is pretty old (like “A Mighty Fortress”) in comparison to the music from the period Bert mentioned — ~1800-1950. On the other hand, there are modern songs (e.g. “In Christ Alone”) that I would also prefer to much in that period of time. There are exceptions even in that “dark ages” time period, of course — just speaking in general. It does seem that much of the music and many of the texts from farther back than 200 years is superior to what came along after it, though I certainly recognize that there has been in much of modern sacred music a realization of the shallowness that took over for a while. Unfortunately, there is also much in the modern repertory that is also quite shallow. So while I think (in general) that “the older, the better” in music is more likely to be true than “the newer, the better,” I realize that that is certainly not always true.

And yes, even though our church uses the ESV (and I myself would recommend that for new believers), I still use my KJV in the pew. And I realize that a large part of the reason is tradition — that version *is* the Bible to me. So I recognize that a lot (but not all) of what I think about music is affected by my own upbringing, preferences, etc.

Of course, I still think music is a much more complex topic than stained glass, ornate churches, communion juice, or even translating God’s word into modern English. Because it has such a profound effect on our emotions and even our thinking, music *seems* much more than just a simple choice of old vs. new.

[Larry Nelson] ​…

This is reasonable. As I’ve mentioned, my church has both traditional and contemporary services. We have no intention whatsoever of doing away with the traditional–we have about 20% of our congregation who prefer/choose to attend the traditional (but those 20% are ever increasing in average age).

…

Just a caution, Larry. I’m not saying you’re wrong to do your music like that. I do believe that convictions against a particular music are Romans 14 type scruples. As such, we are commanded to take on the weaknesses of the weak, and not please ourselves. This you can apply by allowing the old-timers a service that allows them to worship with their music (as you do).

And we are commanded to not judge the ones who do what we cannot. To some extent, you apply this because your old-timers at least know that the contemporary worship is going on in the other church.

However, (here’s the caution) I think it might be a good thing for the old-timers and contemporaries to be together worshipping in one service.

1) They would each be able see and feel that their brothers and sisters are really worshipping,

2) It would force the old-timers to think through their feelings and thoughts. Do I conclude this music is sinful-or do I just not like it?

3) It would force the sinful-concluders to recognize that others don’t make the same conclusion- so the music isn’t sinful for them. It’s a challenge to watch someone do something that you can’t do in faith and not judge them. Rising to this challenge would be good. It is obedience to the “don’t judge” command and it may pay dividends in other situations where they need to obey the same principle in other ways

4) The church ought to be together. Brothers at different stages of life have different things to offer one another and mixing them is a good thing.

If you agree, you might consider some “special occasion” services. Christmas, Easter, Thanksgiving, etc. in which you mix the music for both services. Then you could do some teaching in Sunday school about loving one another and apply it to the upcoming service.

Good thoughts.

Several observations about my church:

1. “Worship wars” don’t exist at my church. I’ve never heard anyone who prefers the traditional services say anything adverse about the contemporary services, or vice-versa. (If there is anyone who does harbor such feelings, they keep them private.) In addition, many in the church (like me) will happily attend either style of service (and sometimes do).

2. Although the traditional services do have an older average age (meaning a higher concentration of seniors), I didn’t mean to imply that there isn’t a full-span of ages present. There is. (FYI: the count was 597 in attendance last Sunday at Traditional.) Nevertheless, since most newcomers prefer the contemporary services, the average age at our traditional services is undoubtedly rising.

3. Yet the contemporary services also have a good number of seniors in attendance, just not in as high of a percentage as in the traditional. (For example, as a Saturday evening Usher Captain, I see a good amount of gray hair–and even some walkers!–at that contemporary service.)

4. We do have some “blended” services: our Christmas Eve services, for example, have a blended format. We also periodically have special Sunday evening services that are always blended. The full span of ages in the church is always fully-present & well-represented at these.

5. We’ve had both styles now since about 1994. Any conflict that might have existed at that time (I arrived at the church in 2000) has, by appearances today, long since evaporated.

–––––––––––––––––––––-

Sidenote: I fully understand that “worship wars” is still a big deal to many people. Example: I had lunch with a couple after church a few weeks ago who recently transferred to our church from another, nearby Baptist church (which is adamantly traditional music-only). The husband invited his parents, who attend said other church, to come visit our church. Well, the parents did come one Sunday morning, to our traditional service. Their review: they liked the preaching, they liked the music, they felt welcomed, etc., but they were disturbed by the sight of a drum set in a corner of the platform (which was unused in the traditional service, but there for the following contemporary service.) Oh well……

Even if music is an issue where there are “bound” people who are “weak” who like traditional music, and “free” people who are “gracious” and “loving” who like contemporary music, Dan has confused his implementation of Scripture.

Dan suggested the “weak” people be asked to learn to “grow” by “seeing” “free” people worship with contemporary music and not “judge” them as sinful. But Paul, when facing a similar issue with meat offered to idols, DID NOT TELL the people who thought the meat was tainted to suck it up and eat the food offered to idols, HE INSTEAD said I will never eat this food if it causes my brother to stumble.

That would mean if contemporary music causes a problem, then we should stick to traditional music for the sake of our “weaker” brothers.

I myself don’t see traditional music lovers as being “weak”, but if you do, this is the rule that applies.

​See 1 Cor 8:9–13.

Sometimes the young (in age) face a challenge in understanding the 18th and 19th Century language that is used in some traditional music.

I’m 68 years old and my preferences in church music have changed. I’ve found much of the music of the “new” music refreshing. I haven’t missed “Heaven Came Down and Glory Filled My Soul” and “What if it Were Today?”. I’ve also been disinvited from preaching in one church because I read (yes, just read) a stanza from “In Christ Alone” in a sermon.

Can’t we just let churches choose the music they want as long as it’s doctrinally sound and not label them as either “compromising” or musical “Luddites”?

Probably one good way of discerning one’s real attitude towards modern genre is to listen to Weird Al. No kidding—he methodically strips a lot of the rubbish from modern music and puts family friendly lyrics to them, and I’ve found that a lot of people who would never listen to Coolio’s Gangsta’s Paradise will cheerfully sing along to Al’s “Amish Paradise”. Those who can’t stand Like a Virgin often love LIke a Surgeon, and so on. So his music can really be a nice sanity check to see what one’s real objection is to the drums, or the lyrics, attire, and behavior of the artists. My take is that for most, it’s not the genre, but the rubbish attached.

I’m also going to have to suggest that those who claim a Romans 14 objection to having a drum set on stage need to not only look at Psalm 150, but also need to google “BJU Orchestra” and look at the pictures. They clearly have a percussion section. Seriously, are we to claim that using instruments which are commended and even commanded in Scripture are out of line because a number of them are available to be played by one person? Because they’re organized in a certain way? Seriously? OK, so it’s wrong to have snare drum, bass drum, cymbals, and another drum available to one musician, but it’s perfectly OK to have the tympanist have four kettles around him? Are we under any impression that the tympanists at BJU do not occasionally play them loudly—as in Handel’s For unto us a child is born? The instruments of the Salvation Army Band are A-OK on parade, but if we put them in a church, they’re automatically wrong?

Seriously? We use guilt by association arguments like “that drum set reminds me of Deathtongue and the immorality of Bill, Opus, and Steve”, and then we wonder why members of our churches are flocking to churches like Larry’s. Hint; the problem is not that these people have an insufficient understanding of the requirements of Romans 14.

You’re promoting Weird Al and you are talking to me about logical thinking????? Ok….. :-)

Bert, it is one thing to listen to something at home for entertainment. It is another to use that for formal worship. It is as simple as that.

And most people that don’t like the Getty’s and Sovereign Grace do so over “separation” and who they associate with rather than the pure content of the written music.

Like 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.

It occurs to me that the difference between “preference” and “conviction” is the likely explanation for why my church doesn’t exhibit the sort of tension in the congregation that Dan Miller cautions against in his post above.

Since we, in the same local church body, have both traditional and contemporary services, and moreover will occasionally blend the two in a single service, it makes sense to me that if one has a conviction against a certain style of music that such a person is simply not likely to attend my church.

However, if one views music style in church as simply a preference, then a reasonable person would (and should) be able to tolerate an occasional departure from their preference, even if it’s a strong preference.

[Mark_Smith]…Dan suggested the “weak” people be asked to learn to “grow” by “seeing” “free” people worship with contemporary music and not “judge” them as sinful. But Paul, when facing a similar issue with meat offered to idols, DID NOT TELL the people who thought the meat was tainted to suck it up and eat the food offered to idols, HE INSTEAD said I will never eat this food if it causes my brother to stumble.

That would mean if contemporary music causes a problem, then we should stick to traditional music for the sake of our “weaker” brothers.

I myself don’t see traditional music lovers as being “weak”, but if you do, this is the rule that applies.

…

[Mark_Smith] I myself don’t see traditional music lovers as being “weak”

Note that Paul also in Rom 14:3 commands the weak not to judge the strong. That means:

1. The weak have a tendency to judge and it is wrong to do so.
2. Part of Christian obedience (and growth) is to be able to encounter your brother doing things you can’t (strength in action) and not judge it.

#2 can be difficult. The weak brother, encountering his brother using his strength, might commit two sins: 1) blaspheme or judging God’s gift to be evil (Rom14:16) 2) submitting to peer pressure and doing what his conscience forbids (1Cor8:10).

Thus, as Mark points out, the strong needs to be careful to use his strength carefully and help his brother not to committ those sins.

— Back to Music —

Music in the church is a core part of how we are commanded to worship corporately. Therefore, I believe that it is important to help everyone to be able to worship together. If someone sings a song that I can’t, in good conscience sing, I will sit that one out and be glad my brothers can use it to worship.

It sounds like Larry’s church is doing those things - they are learning that they can worship together…. Interesting story about the sight of the drums bothering the couple.

Let’s consider Paul’s comments about meat sacrificed to idols, as I already brought up above.

Paul said there is no god but God, and so sacrificing to idols by pagans made no impact on the meat. So, he was free to eat that meat.

Consider this. A man in Ephesus in Paul’s day claims to be a Christian butcher. Everyday he dresses up like a pagan priest slaughtering animals in the way pagans do. He then claims that since idols aren’t really gods, he can substitute God’s name for the idol’s name while replicating what pagans do in their rituals. He then sells the meat claiming all is well.

What would Paul say to the butcher?

[Mark_Smith]…Paul said there is no god but God, and so sacrificing to idols by pagans made no impact on the meat. So, he was free to eat that meat.

….because if we find that, whether Alfred Yankovic is logical or not, our acceptance of his music proves it’s not the drum set, electric guitar, or squeezebox we object to. It’s the tattoos, fornication, leather pants, and casual obscenities.

By the way, he is relentlessly logical, and the humor is in the intentional breaches of logic. That’s why he’s so much more popular in the honors dorm at college than elsewhere.

This is incredibly important for this kind of thing, as without a suitable application of clear thinking, Romans 14 tends to become a set of handcuffs whereby entire churches are chained to the personal preferences of dominant personalities. And really, the cases Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians discuss are where the meat or wine had actually been sacrificed to idols. There was no mere mental association about it, no “well, barroom bands use drum sets, and some people get drunk in bars, some of them go on to fornicate….and some of them fall away from faith and regular church attendance.” This was “the proceeds from the sales of this steak go directly to the upkeep of the temple of Aphrodite or Zeus.” There were very real Torah prohibitions here that the weaker brother could point to.

Drums, guitars, organs, bagpipes, concertinas, harps, 12 bar blues? Not so much. We’re abusing Romans 14, in my opinion, when we apply it here. And when we indulge the silliness of acting as if having drums on state is somehow equivalent to sacrificing the hog’s thigh bone to Zeus (how the Iliad describes the process), we lose our chance to engage in more substantive discussions on the quality of our music.

Let’s face facts; the Wesley brothers wrote something like 8000 hymns, of which even the Methodists retain only 10 or 20. Watts composed 700, and we keep what—five? It would be a huge shame if we allowed a squabble over a few Ludwigs to prevent us from looking at whether our music is great or lame, don’t you think?

I think Dan’s said it well, but the key issues in Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8 and 10 are

(a) was the meat sacrificed to idols (all passages)?

(b) is the meat being consumed in a pagan temple (1 Cor. 8 and 10)

If just (a), believers are free to buy and eat it as long as someone’s not pointing to its origins as idol meat. If (b), they are not allowed to partake, since they’d be going into the temple itself.

Mark’s case—the butcher dressing up like a pagan priest, but presumably not in a temple—is a third case where you’d have to ask what that outfit looked like. Is it simply a fine linen garment, where we’d have to ask the butcher why on earth he’s butchering hogs in such a nice garment—or are we talking about symbols of those pagan gods on the garment, in which case we’d have to question whether Butcher Bob was a Christian after all.

The best analogy to music would be not the drums themselves, but rather a drum adorned with pentagrams and a risque picture or two of Tommy Lee’s girlfriend. And if I saw such instruments—drums, piano, organ, harp, whatever—then I would join you in wanting to get rid of those instruments. Objecting to the drums themselves is akin to objecting to the slaughter knives and presence of an altar and telling people in Jerusalem they need to tear down God’s Temple, IMO.