Praise Songs

[Rocketman]

Hey Mike,
Basically everything you say can be turned around and stated about your preferences because that is what it is a preference.  You like 4 part others dont.  Despite your love for it (and Lagards) it isnt the music once and all delivered to the saints.  The early church didnt use it, it didnt exist until hundreds of years later.  In fact none of us would recognize or probably like what the early church sang as its style was more chant oriented and not even really what we would think of as singing.  

I would hope we'd never tire of singing about our love for the Lord.  And with respect to the not theologically sound, you can make (and I've heard it made) about many traditional hymns.  I agree we shouldnt divide and perhaps a mix is the way to go, but it requires both areas of like to be willing to give a bit.  Charging they are unsound and dull doesnt help the case as the Gen Xers would argue your songs are dull and boring and doesnt even use language we use today.  

Interestingly, I havent read it but have been told that Alexander Campbell argued we should not have notes because people would become more concerned over them than the words (maybe Bobby can verify if this is true).  So, we all have our likes and music is largely cultural and has changed thorughout time.  I think God can be praised through all styles.
RM

[spurly]

When it comes to having music for the songs, personally I would rather not hold anything in my hands.  That frees my hands to be used as I express my worship to God.  If you are holding a book or music in your hands it is hard to clap, do sign language and/or motions, or raise your hands to God.  As a matter of fact, that's why some people want to give everyone something to hold on to.   :p  Not all people have that motive, but some people do.  

Personally I am more free to express myself in worship when I am not holding anything in my hand, not holding on to sin in my heart, and not holding on to evil thoughts in my mind.  

Kevin

[Arkstfan]

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (hmb @ Mar. 25 2003,3:42)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--][/quote]
Four-part tradition is just that, tradition. At one time Mozart and Bach were "pop" music but times change.

I have no problem with churches saving four part harmony but if we want to reach people we need to be aware that the style of music they want to hear has changed. I love blues music but I also know that if I run a radio station and play just blues I will only reach a small segment of the audience.


I am curious and would like to have some examples of unsound doctrine in praise songs. The ones we sing and the ones I listen to tend to have large portions of their lyrics taken straight from the Bible.

Going straight from one song to another bothers you? To each his/her own I guess. I like going straight into another song instead of finishing and then "Number 137... 137" flip, flip, shuffle, shuffle.

Personally I think the argument that "it divides churches" is a false trail. Songs don't divide churches, the pettiness of people's hearts does. I've been there and seen it happen. I've seen it at a church that sang 60% new songs and at one that sang 20% new songs. I've even seen it at a church where the song leader added some songs that had been in hymnal for decades but weren't part of the routine at that congregation. In each case the "new" songs were bad and had to be stopped.

Changing for change's sake is bad but no worse of an offense than opposing change because it is change. The song wars are a two-way street and ample guilt is available for the combatants.

As to your suggestions. I agree that the music to songs should be made available because there are apparently some people who can read music and are more comfortable having it, that is a simple accomodation.

I disagree about having a clear break between songs because that is merely preferential issue that each congregation needs to deal with on their own.

Mixing praise and hymns is just a congregational issue. If a congregation wants to have a traditional worship service there is no need to mix and if the congregation wants a contemporary service there is no need to mix the songs.

Considering whether repetition is edfying is not a bad idea, throw that in with considering whether songs using stilted out-dated language and unknown terms is edfying as well.

I also have to agree with Wiley on this issue. My Mother and her sisters  [all aged between 78-90 years young] have grown up singing all 4 part harmony in the style of barborshop/accapella. They still do get together and sing. I don't think anyone of them [there are 5 left,were 7] have ever read music [notes] they had travelled all over in the early 20's to 30's singing places such as radio stations and churches [yes churches!] They all attend and have been "faithful" coc er's forever and don't need the sheet music to learn a new song [they learn in "sings"]. I just don't see where this should have any effect on the "type" of music that you are looking at to view the words to sing along. It just amazes me the things that we try to find to bicker over. The point is truly what is in the heart and the HEART only! We human's are constantly looking for thing to divide and not what Jesus told us to do...PRAY to be ONE! Yes, I doubt if my Mom and her sisters would enjoy the songs as much as they feel the old ones are to them, but remember some of them were written "NEW" when they were young! It amazes me so much to think of what we people will come up with next to try and make these small things such big things to worry about. I enjoy the new contemporary songs and do feel very moved by the lyrics, as I do for some of the old ones that bring back memories of growing up, but as someone else said earlier, the whole point is to worship God and not make each other happy. So in that thought, I guess it doesn't amount to a hill of beans what we think, it is what is in our hearts only, and I will let God be the judge of that. :thumbup: Memmy :wave:

does that apply everywhere or only during the "appropriate Sunday morning worship time"?
like, when i sang along at that Tim McGraw concert awhile ago, was it no longer his performance, no longer a concert?

is a performance in "church" inherently bad or unacceptable to God?
i struggle with this question a lot and would appreciate your comments...

do we not want performances to keep people from pride, or from having an implied leadership position?
"inevitably" a performance puts the focus, praise, and applause onto the performer instead of God; but is that truly inevitable or just the responsibility of each individual?

a performance does leave out the rest of the congregation if they aren't singing along... is that unacceptable? does that mean we need to be saying "amen" during the sermon so it's not a performance? or is that "different"?

many questions... thanks ahead of time for your answers!
josh
:D

[dgdodd]

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]A staunchly old-fashioned CoC songleader doing everything by the stereotypical "boobk" can be "performing" or even "lording over" if his heart's not right.[/quote]
The song leader, where my mother corporately worships, performs every Sunday.  He ascends to the podium, pulls out his pitch pipe and precedes to sing in a most traditional purist attitude.  When the song service is over, he descends to his place on the front row, then back out into the working world on Monday (where he lives a homosexual lifestyle).  The times I have seen this great spectacle, the songs being sung were not directed toward God; therefore, I have a hard time calling it praise or worship.  The one song that sticks out im my memory is,  "Give Me The Bible.

[janine]

"Let Them Praises Give Jehovah" tells them to praise Jehovah.  Are at least parts of it TO God rather than ABOUT Him?

Yeah, they oughta call it a choir if it's a choir.

Yes, I have been in worship services where not one single song was directly addressed God,
and where the prayer & speaking around the Lord's Supper Table was all about how we are commanded and have the Biblical authority to do it (and it had better be only once every Sunday),
but barely a word of praise or thanks was directed at God...
and nothing inspirational was spoken or read from Scripture regarding the Supper or the Sacrifice or the Return, before or during or after the Communion...
and even the prayers were full of mini-sermons about how God knows because He said in His Bible that thus-and-such is wrong or so-and-so had better repent before it's everlastingly too late or "for we know" this or that "brethren"...  In a prayer.

[mike]

Nevertheless,

I completely agree. Any public appearance by a person or subgroup is, in some sense, a performance. If the focus is on God and serving others, I see nothing wrong with it.

:clap:  :clap:  :clap:

In worship services, we have had congregational singing, with and without praise team assistance, solos, and songs sang to us by various groups (okay, call them choirs). Sometimes, someone else singing can minister to you, and help you praise and worship God.   :announceit:  :bowsmiley:

Mike

[boringoldguy]

Janine,

You've described church services in which the speaking and praying around the table was all about how we are commanded and have the authority to do it with no words of praise or thanks.
(Sorry I can't figure out how to do a partial quote).   You're right to think that ought never to happen and I'd be pretty unsatisfied if that was my experience.    However, your  comment stirred up a question I've been thinking about for awhile.   This isn't just for you, though I will be value your answer.   It's for anybody who thinks they have something to say about it.

Paul says in I Corinthians 11 that when we take the Lord's Supper we are proclaiming Christ's death until He comes.

Given this statement, isn't it possible that our observance of the Lord's Supper, no matter how inarticulate the speaking and praying or how imperfect our understanding, is the most effective praise we could possibly offer, and the most effective
evangalism we could engage in?   After all God is telling us here that when we do this, we're proclaiming Christ's death and we're doing it His way.   Maybe somehow or other that overcomes our own human failings.

Does that sound a little bit weird or mystical or "catholic" coming from a stuffy old mainline type?

[Nevertheless]

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Nevertheless,

You are more charitable than I. [/quote]

Perhaps it's easier for me, going only by your description, than it is for you, who had the actual experience.

I do try to think the best of people first, though there are some groups of people, like politicians and news reporters, that I can't quite manage to do that with.  If I think the best of someone and am wrong, I only feel disappointed.  If I think the worst and am wrong, I feel guilty.  So you see, it's all in self-interest, anyway!   :D


[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Given this statement, isn't it possible that our observance of the Lord's Supper, no matter how inarticulate the speaking and praying or how imperfect our understanding, is the most effective praise we could possibly offer, and the most effective evangalism we could engage in?[/quote]

I read to here, and immediately my brain started throwing out other ways that we could more effectively praise/evangelize.  But then I read:

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]   After all God is telling us here that when we do this, we're proclaiming Christ's death and we're doing it His way.   Maybe somehow or other that overcomes our own human failings. [/quote]

So now I'm thinking that I'm being too quick to come up with my own (very good!) ideas, and I need to be still and remember who is God.  There are many things that make me wonder, "Why did He do it that way?  I think it would have been better if..."  But even if it doesn't make sense to me, if that's how He wants it, it's the right way.  I often am reminded of God's reply to Job, "Where were you when..."

If what you proposed is so, that means it's even more important than perhaps we have thought.  It's even more important to recognize the body of Christ around us, and even more important to give the very best we have to give, even if it's only inarticulate and bumbling.

Well, there you have my rambling, inarticulate, bumbling thoughts.  
:baaa:

Never

[hmb]

I love to sing, sight read music, sang in barbershop quartets and choruses, and in the CoC since I was baptized in 1973.  Here's what I DON'T like about contemporary praise songs:

1. Typical drill is to just project the words on a screen and everyone sings melody.  I agree with LaGard Smith:  we are in danger of losing our beautiful tradition of four-part harmony to these praise songs.  Someone mentioned to me just the other day that they had attended a funeral at a church of Christ which included congregational singing and they had never heard such beautiful four-part harmony.  Give us ten years and we'll sound just like all the other church groups who can't sing 4-part harmony.

2.  The words of some of these songs are dull, boring and repetitive.  "Yes Lord, I love you" repeated 47 times [yes, my exaggeration for emphasis].

3.  The words of some of the songs are not theologically sound.  [sorry, no examples at hand as I write this].

4.  Often in the "praise song drill," one song leads into another without explanation, comment, or information in the bulleting or order of worship; it's confusing to know where you are if you are not one of the cognoscenti.

5.  Because praise song singing is "new" to some church groups, it is therefore "better" and singing hymns is "less spiritual" to those who  prefer "praise songs."

6.  The praise song versus hymn singing controversey has divided churches, and that's not the will of God to divide churches over which songs are sung and how!

7.  If we're going to sing praise songs, we ought to:
    a.  Make sure everyone has music and not just words
    b.  Have a clear break between each song and let people know what's coming up next
    c.  Have a mixture of contemporary praise songs and older hymns
    d.  Consider whether monotonous chanting of the same words over and over is edifying.

Just my $0.02.

Mike

[winky]

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]
1. Typical drill is to just project the words on a screen and everyone sings melody.  I agree with LaGard Smith:  we are in danger of losing our beautiful tradition of four-part harmony to these praise songs.  Someone mentioned to me just the other day that they had attended a funeral at a church of Christ which included congregational singing and they had never heard such beautiful four-part harmony.  Give us ten years and we'll sound just like all the other church groups who can't sing 4-part harmony.
[/quote]

Some praise songs have everyone on melody but not all. There's even several that have the various parts singing different words (there's a whole 'nother subject though, huh?) with four-part harmony. I think this is a good argument for not singing ONLY praise songs, but every song we sing doesn't have to be four-part harmony does it? There's something to be said for everyone singing the same melody in unison, I think. I like to have both. And, what's that about other church groups who can't sing four-part harmony? I never knew C of C people were given a vocal capability that those in other church buildings can't access...silly me.  :p

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]2.  The words of some of these songs are dull, boring and repetitive.  "Yes Lord, I love you" repeated 47 times [yes, my exaggeration for emphasis].
[/quote]

Sometimes maybe the repetition does go to extremes. It's never bothered me personally. But, have you ever heard the saying "Repetition is the mother of consistency" or "Repetition is the mother of learning"? I'm more likely to get it stamped in my brain, coming out my mouth, and written on my heart if I hear it/say it/sing it more than once.

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]
3.  The words of some of the songs are not theologically sound.  [sorry, no examples at hand as I write this].
[/quote]

Maybe so. Hard to know without knowing specifically which ones you're thinking of. But, I don't think that's limited to praise songs. I imagine we've sung some theologically questionable songs all along, hymns and all.

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]
4.  Often in the "praise song drill," one song leads into another without explanation, comment, or information in the bulleting or order of worship; it's confusing to know where you are if you are not one of the cognoscenti.
[/quote]

OK, my vocabulary needs some expansion here, b/c I don't have a clue what "cognoscenti" is! I'm also wondering what the praise song drill is, and how the confusion between songs is limited to praise songs. I know sometimes at my church there isn't an explanation or comment b/w songs, sometimes there is, but I've always been able to worship God in each song without knowing exactly how it related to the last song.

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]5.  Because praise song singing is "new" to some church groups, it is therefore "better" and singing hymns is "less spiritual" to those who  prefer "praise songs."
[/quote]

Wow. I guess I can't relate to this because I've never heard anyone say that praise songs are better or more spiritual. I know that some people relate better to praise songs than to hymns, but also vice versa.

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]6.  The praise song versus hymn singing controversey has divided churches, and that's not the will of God to divide churches over which songs are sung and how!
[/quote]

I can certainly agree that splitting over songs is not the will of God. His will is for us to have freedom and acceptance in areas of opinion, such as whether to use praise songs or hymns. I'd hate to give up either one, which is why I'm glad I get to sing both at my church, but I'm certain God doesn't want anyone to divide a church over their preference one way or the other.

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]7.  If we're going to sing praise songs, we ought to:
   a.  Make sure everyone has music and not just words
   b.  Have a clear break between each song and let people know what's coming up next
   c.  Have a mixture of contemporary praise songs and older hymns
   d.  Consider whether monotonous chanting of the same words over and over is edifying.
[/quote]

I definitely agree with c. And, I think it can't hurt to do the others. Probably not essential. I'd hardly call most praise songs I know "monotonous chanting of the same words over and over" but if that's what it is, well, it's probably closer to what the first century Christians did anyway.

What really matters is that worship is designed for God's enjoyment, not mine. So, if I go to a worship service and they don't sing the songs that I like, in the order that I like, with the prettiest harmony, and the best voices, well, that's just fine because I need to be focusing on offering my praise to God not fulfilling my own desires anyway. That's something I need to keep remembering and working on!

Wendy

[Nevertheless]

Whenever someone complains about praise songs being too repetitive I always think of that wonderful hymn Power In The Blood.  

Would you be free of your burden of sin?
There's power in the blood, power in the blood!
Would you o'er evil a victory win?
There's wonderful power in the blood!

There is power, (power) power, (power) wonder working power
In the blood (in the blood) of the Lamb! (of the Lamb)
There is power, (power) power, (power) wonder working power
In the precious blood of the Lamb!


I have loved that song since I was a tiny little girl and we just don't sing it enough for me!  But the newer songs have great meaning for me as well.  One that we have sung a lot lately is If My People.  It is an echoing song - one group sings a line and the other repeats it.

If My people
Called by My name
Turn from evil
And seek my face

If My people
Called by My name
Turn from evil
And seek my face

I will hear
I'll forgive
I will heal
Will heal their land

I will hear
I'll forgive
I will heal
I will heal their land

2nd verse
We Your people
Called by Your name
Turn from evil
And seek Your face

We Your people
Called by Your name
Turn from evil
And seek Your face

Hear our cry!
Lord forgive!
Come and heal
Come heal our land!

Hear our cry!
Lord forgive!
Come and heal
Come and heal our land!

Repetitive? Okay.  But most definitely theologically sound.

:playingguitar:
Never

Winky, I agree with everything you said.

[david johnson]

hmb:

yep, you're correct.

rocketman:

i believe alexander edited a couple of hymnals. one may have been lyrics only, which was not unusual in early america.  as long as you knew tunes in the same meter as the lyrics, it was handy.  i've seen a very old methodist hymnal designed that way.

form comments (greatly distilled)

music form-gospel songs
in general, the verse tells the story and varies with each incarnation
the chorus or refrain stays the same

music form-hymns
no repetition of lyrics (no chorus)

other than minimalism (which builds slowly upon small repetitive 'blocks'), the most repetitious music of the last 100 yrs is ravel's bolero, but each sequence is varied by orchestral color and it becomes interesting rather than dull.

repetitious chorus use could indeed work for many people, but the aural dullness it requires will always 'doom' it to a less-favored status.

dj

[susieface]

:clap: Ditto, Kevin, I basically agree with everything you said.  I also want the hands free for clapping and raising them.  Also, so I can wipe away tears :cry: as so many more praise songs have so much more feeling and meaning to me.

They also are written in today's language and speech patterns.  I also prefer not to have breaks in between songs, it messes with your mindset of your worship to God.  You go from worshipping to listening to a worship leader say a song number or some speech.  I like to keep going or a prayer in between better.  Of course this is my own preference.  :playingguitar:

Susie

[Bon Voyage]

Its an opinion either way.

[janine]

Wouldn't bother me a bit to have a praise team wearing mic's, if they were seated among us or even if they stood behind us.  I didn't come to a worship gathering to watch anyone perform.

That doesn't mean I don't think there's a place for an individual or small group to perform a song or two at a worship service.   I just don't like the praise bands and worship leaders and praise teams becoming a focus.  And I want to HEAR the other people in the pews around me.

Really, a couple of good singers, with good projection, strategically seated, in an auditorium with the proper layout, can "fix" pitch problems or pace problems.  Call them a praise team.

Some of the "7-111" music we've picked up is repetitive, with few words.  Of course it's Scriptural.  Would my precious congregation sing anything "un-"?

I hate to see dissention and wrangling crop up over things we do out of love and due to command for our Lord.  The problem lies in the hearts, though, not on the projector or in the songbook.  Which I don't use anyway.

[PEGGY JOYCE]

Wiley,  I agree with you whole-heartedly.  You are my kind of song leader.   :clap:  :clap:  
I didn't know praise teams, and such was focused on themselves.  I was a part of a praise team and not once was it all about me.  I think when you are worshipping the way you are supposed to, everyone else is pretty much secondary.
By that I mean I am not concentrating on what or how they are singing. Many members said it certainly enhanced the singing as at the time, we didn't have but one strong song leader, the others were just doing it to fill in.  The praise songs are certainly easier to sing, most of them are from the Psalms anyway, and you can't get much prettier or meaningful than that.  Just my thoughts.  Again, I agree with you brother.  Keep up the good work that you are doing at your congregation.  I would visit there if I am ever in your neck of the woods. :)

[janine]

I can hardly read music at all.  Just a little.  Enough to laboriously pick out a new song on a keyboard if there's no one around to teach it to me.

But, it doesn't matter either way.  No one around me on a Sunday, other than my daughter and a couple others, bothers to go by the dynamics marks or even follow the songleader!  Trying to direct us as if we were a choir is like trying to braid spaghetti.  We sing what we sing.  We're just blessed that it happens to sound Heavenly most of the time.

As for the "7-11" songs being sung in unison -- they aren't, when I'm there. ;)   As soon as I hear a song the harmony shows up in my head.  Sometimes it's so insistent I have to wrench myself away from it to lead the song.

[spurly]

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (samloveall @ Mar. 28 2003,06:41)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]I would say that whether a praise team on stage is performing rather than leading depends almost ENTIRELY on the individual in the congregation.  If you are sitting back in your chair or standing with your hands folded and saying, "Praise teams are just performers.  This isn't right", then in YOUR eyes they ARE performing, BECAUSE YOU AREN'T PARTICIPATING.  But if you are singing with them, lifting your voice in praise and worshipping together with them, then they AREN'T performing, they're leading or example-ing or whatever other term you'd like to use.  If all you are is a spectator, then they're performing.  If you are a participater, then they aren't.[/quote]
Great point.  Couldn't have said it better myself.

Kevin

[janine]

Nothing stops me from worship/praise in the pews.  An aerial bombardment of overripe watermelons dropped by Osama Bin Laden look-alikes dressed in pink ballet tutus could not stop me from wroship/praise if that was what I was determined to do.

The point of assembling with the others in my local body of Christians is supposed to be to do this together.  The most humble praise team on Earth can have their volume up so high I cannot hear myself sing, much less the guy in the next pew.

A staunchly old-fashioned CoC songleader doing everything by the stereotypical "boobk" can be "performing" or even "lording over" if his heart's not right.  It's not all cut-and-dried-and-automatic, I know.

I'm just going by what I myself have experienced.

[jarschqua]

funny! thanks for the chuckle! :crackup:  :noworries:
exactly what is a "bbok"?

[jarschqua]

there's also the concern that concerts and performances in Christian worship is conformity to the world
your thoughts?

[boringoldguy]

Is it really true that any congregation anywhere, no matter how conservative, no matter how "old-timey" the songs they sing doesn't sing any songs directed to God?   What about:

Holy, Holy, Holy;

We Praise The O God;

How Great Thou Art;

O Thou Fount of Many Blessings;

Let Them Praises Give Jehovah;

Fairest Lord Jesus

More others than I can mention.

We sing these songs all the time.  Do other churches really not sing them?   Or is it that they aren't good enough because they're old?

On the subject of "praise teams", my position is a little different.
I'm unsure about whether it's okay to have a "performance" in church.  Maybe it's fine.   I'm willing to have a discussion.   But to me, a group of "special singers" is a choir, and you ought to call it a choir.   When I've been to churches that had "praise teams", I felt like they thought they were pulling a fast one on all the bumpkins who would think it wasn't a choir.   I think it's both insulting and dishonest.    If a church wants to have a choir, they should have one, and that's what they should call it.

[Nevertheless]

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Is it really true that any congregation anywhere, no matter how conservative, no matter how "old-timey" the songs they sing doesn't sing any songs directed to God?  [/quote]

Saying that hymns are "about" God and praise songs are "to" God is no more valid than saying that praise songs are more repetitious than hymns or that hymns are more theologically correct than praise songs.  It all depends on which ones you sing!

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]
On the subject of "praise teams", my position is a little different.
I'm unsure about whether it's okay to have a "performance" in church.  Maybe it's fine.   I'm willing to have a discussion.   But to me, a group of "special singers" is a choir, and you ought to call it a choir.   When I've been to churches that had "praise teams", I felt like they thought they were pulling a fast one on all the bumpkins who would think it wasn't a choir.   I think it's both insulting and dishonest.    If a church wants to have a choir, they should have one, and that's what they should call it.[/quote]

Coming from a Christian church rather than COC background, I have a different view, perhaps, of praise teams, choirs, and performances.  First, praise teams and choirs are different.  A praise team's job is to help the song leader lead the congregation in singing.  This is especially helpful when learning new songs.  A choir is a group that sings together, usually as a performance.  A choir can function as a praise team, but a praise team doesn't usually function as a choir.

In regards to performances, I have always understood that if God has blessed you with a gift, it is proper to use that gift to bless others.  Do some soloists or choir members perform to impress others?  Certainly.  So do some who preach, or pray aloud, or serve communion, but that is between them and God, as it should be.  We haven't cancelled the sermon or switched to silent prayer only and we don't make everyone get up and get their own bread and juice, so why is singing for others so terrible?

If the singer is giving glory to God and attempting to encourage, admonish, uplift, or serve others through song, why should he be stifled?  If he is doing it to bolster his own pride then it is meaningless and why should we agonize over something that means nothing?

Many, many times I have been uplifted, encouraged, or convicted through the message in a song, given in a performance in church.  Because of the power of music, I am much more likely to get such a blessing from a song than from a sermon.  

What is there about adding music to a message that nessecitates group participation??  I just don't get it.

:playingguitar:   Never   :headphones:

[Nevertheless]

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]The first time I encountered a "praise team" it was at a certain prominent "progressive" Church of Christ in a large city.   We were told that they were going to help us learn some song, but they only got up and sang it once.    The whole congregation didn't sing it a second time or anything like that.    [/quote]

Sounds like maybe they didn't quite know what they were doing.  Maybe they've learned better since you were there.  (We hope)

:)

[janine]

That's lovely - but please God put someone who knows what he's doing on the mixing board or the sound system committee.

[boringoldguy]

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--][!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]The first time I encountered a "praise team" it was at a certain prominent "progressive" Church of Christ in a large city.   We were told that they were going to help us learn some song, but they only got up and sang it once.    The whole congregation didn't sing it a second time or anything like that.    [/quote]

Sounds like maybe they didn't quite know what they were doing.  Maybe they've learned better since you were there.  (We hope)

:)[/quote]
Nevertheless,

You are more charitable than I.

[janine]

Never rambles inarticulately and BOG is boring...

Two lies on the GCM boards! :crackup:

If trained chimpanzees got up and "performed" the Lord's Supper as trained, would that help me recognize the Lord's body in the "emblems" and in the pews?  Would it proclaim His death until He comes?

Yes, I gather it would, if the power of the doing lies in the fact that it is done, as He began and the early Christians continued.  And of course after I get over the novelty of seeing chimpanzees in suitcoats & ties! :crackup:

But, if the power of the doing lies in prayerful people with a certain basic knowledge of what they're doing and why they're doing it... I'd have to say no, robots parroting canned phrases around the table... or parrots robotting... or trained seals, chimps, or people, do no justice to the Lord or His Bride or the reasons why they Commune.

Of course, having said all that, I set myself up for the backside of the argument... Just exactly how "right" do we hafta get it?!?

[boringoldguy]

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]If trained chimpanzees got up and "performed" the Lord's Supper as trained, would that help me recognize the Lord's body in the "emblems" and in the pews?  Would it proclaim His death until He comes?

Yes, I gather it would, if the power of the doing lies in the fact that it is done, as He began and the early Christians continued.  And of course after I get over the novelty of seeing chimpanzees in suitcoats & ties! :crackup:

But, if the power of the doing lies in prayerful people with a certain basic knowledge of what they're doing and why they're doing it... I'd have to say no, robots parroting canned phrases around the table... or parrots robotting... or trained seals, chimps, or people, do no justice to the Lord or His Bride or the reasons why they Commune.[/quote]
Janine,

We've stumbled across an argument that goes back to Luther at least.   I understand that one of his beefs was that corrupt, dishonest priests prevented the various sacraments from being effective;   the Catholic hierarchy saw the matter differently.

So on one side you could have a person saying that the "trained chimp" approach turns the Lord's Supper into some kind of magic ritual.   On another side you could have a person saying that the
"prayerful people with a basic knowledge" approach makes the person performing the service  more important than the service.

Who's right?

[Jeff]

Great post, Mike!  I appreciate your thoughts and agree with to a large extent.  

1.  We can alleviate the lack of harmony by use of praise teams (oops... there's that Pandora's box open again  :alert: )  I have a little bit of a singing background and can usually "figure out" a tenor part but having someone up front that is modeling that part is much better.  

2.  We visited with some friends who are members at a "community church" that has an acoustic guitar-led praise team and their songs were much like you described... mindless chants, for the most part.  I have a strong enough friendship with the man with whom we visited that I expressed my boredom with the song service.  I recognize there is a history of this type of music in the church way back to perhaps its inception, but it just doesn't "do it" for me.

3.  Theological soundness... well, ok but we've got a few of those ourselves (or at least the theology is debatable.)

5.  Yeah, I've sensed this smug attitude as well, especially with some of the folks at the community church I just mentioned.  One of my favorite CDs is Glad: Hymns.

We're blessed with a strong worship leader and some other men in the body who are gifted musically, but at the same time want to have an assembly that edifies everyone.  We publish the songs that we're going to sing, include sheet music in the bulletin for new songs and also PowerPoint the words on the overhead.  Song books are available at the entrance to the auditorium, but not every song we sing is in the song book.  We also have multiple services and gear the early service to more traditional songs and usually limit the newer praise songs to the later two services.  

Your two cents is well taken.  Thanks!

[spurly]

At our church we sing the newer songs, but we usually don't sing the repetitive ones.

There are many contemporary songs that have verses - not just choruses, and they are very theologically sound.

By the way, many hymns get very repetitive as well.  Verse 1, chorus, verse 2, chorus, verse 3, chorsus, etc.

By the way, if we sang many old hymns in the church I attend, they would not go over well at all.  

My favorite part about the newer songs/hymns is that they, by and large, speak directly to God.  While one is singing them, one is also praying - at least that is the type of songs we choose to use here.  And those type of songs really aid in my :bowsmiley: worship.

Kevin

[Rocketman]

HMB wrote:  [!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Because praise song singing is "new" to some church groups, it is therefore "better" and singing hymns is "less spiritual" to those who  prefer "praise songs."[/quote]

Then a bit later

Susieface wrote: [!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]"so many more praise songs have so much more feeling and meaning to me."[/quote]

HMB wrote the above as a reason he didnt like praise songs, yet they move some people in very powerful ways.  So, why is that bad?  I agree with Susieface as many of the praise songs are more moving to me.  So, I guess it is somewhat more spiritual; however, for HMB the hymn is more spiritual.  

The problem is how do you reconcile two very different approaches to worship?   I've seen many simply refuse to sing the newer songs, do you think that pleases God?  I dont and it would be just as wrong for those who like the newer songs to refuse the sing any hymn selected. My experience has been that those who want the newer praise songs still attempt to worship even if its not their favorite, but a large number of the hymn leaning brethren wont even give it a shot on the praise songs.  

Somehow we've got to remember its about God not us.
RM

[WileyClarkson]

Mike,

Arkstfan and I are in agreement are very similar in views.

I have been a song leader for more than 20 years so I think I can speak from that point of view.

1st.  My personal referrence is definitly contemporary praise/worship songs.  However there are many older songs (what I call the "great songs of the church") that I like.  For the most part though, the contemporary songs are easier to learnn, easier to memorize (even for people like me who can't remember something as simple as a name for more that 10 seconds!), the tunes can be picked up by most people quickly even though they may not have the notes on the projection and may not have ever heard the song before, and they are personal praise directed to God based.  One thing I don't like about most song book versions of the contemporary (SFP for example) is that only the refrain is printed in the song book.  Several examples of this are "Step by Step" and "Our God is an Awesome God".  These songs in SFP are just the refrain, leaving off the main body of the song with the theological content.

2nd.  Most contemporary praise songs are 4 part harmony.  There are very few songs that are not 4 part harmony.  

3rd.  the older, traditional songs are fine but they are worn out.  Many people who have sung these songs all their lives.  They are over used and out of date in terms of modern society.  This makes them less relational tot he singer.  Contemporary songs are still fresh to many singers, in everyday language and applicable.

4th.  as a person who works with kids and who has worked with teens (in the past), the older songs do not contain a strong meaning for most of them.  Kids respond to contemporary, everyday English that they understand and songs that relate to them.  The older songs are not as 1st person as most contemporary songs and the kids I have always been involved with do not relate as easily when the songs are not 1st person contemporary language.  In our area, we have one of the leading Christian Contemporary radio stations in the United States.  Many of the kids in our church listen to this station at the urging of parents who want their kids to have the contemporary style of music (praise/rock/alternative) but don't want their kids listening to the secular music stations where they have to be constantly concerned about song content.  An example of what I'm referring to would be the 2nd grade class my wife and I presently teach.  We decided to teach them one of the popular songs on KLTY right now.   The song is "Above All".  A fairly simple song that most adults in our church do not know.  The first comment I heard from several of those kids before I led the song for them was "I know that song-it's on the radio".  I didn't have to teach them the tune to the song.  They knew it.  Some of them even knew the words already.  My wife had fixed up a PowerPoint presentation on her laptop with the words for the kids to learn from.  The kids needed is less than I did!  We do alot of computer based teaching using PowerPoint presentations that my wife is developing to go with the Sally Frazier "Faith Foundations" childrens curriculum.

At Granbury CoC, we have two morning assemblies and a number of song leaders.  The early service is more contemporary and the late service is more traditional.  The early service uses about a 60/40 mix of contemporary/traditional and the late is probably 90/10 traditional/contemporary.

This weekend at Stream, the mix will be 99% contemporary  praise/worship led by Ken Young and Hallal :clap: