The Organ Forum

I fear Eben isn't know enough for many to get it.

"Now there's some good contemporary music, written just this month. There's nothing wrong with music being contemporary, what's often wrong with praise music is its carnality."

While I agree with the fact that there is nothing wrong with being contemporary I don't agree with the "carnality". Shallow, bland, uninspiring definitely, carnal however???

eventually, churches with contemporary music may become a thing of the past. More and more people will discover that the shallowness of contemporary music alone will not quench their thirst for God. And then they'll just stop coming, and the church will sadly disintegrate.

The present is nothing more than the point where future and past meet, so that is taken care of. But that people will stop going to church because of the music I refuse to believe. You can go to another where the music is more to your liking but if they all played the same music, people that needed it would still go to church.

---

Expert in non-working solutions

"Carnality" is actually a good Biblical concept, and may not be too far off the mark when describing some of the worst music being used in some churches today. Gyrating praise band singers belting out stuff that's only meant to "appeal" to those who'd rather be at a rock concert or in a club or bar -- I have serious problems with the spirituality of that. So "carnal" might be one description for such stuff.

Some of it is perhaps not so much carnal as "shallow, bland, uninspiring" -- vapid, repetitive, dull, devoid of any lasting value to one's spirit. That's my most usual reaction to some of the "seven-eleven" choruses that I hear and many of the songs obviously written for commercial gain but without much regard for long-term usage.

But I must admit that some of the stuff that's been in our Baptist hymnals all my life could also be labeled as such.  A certain type of "gospel" or "testimony" song may have sprung from a joyful heart and perhaps spoke authentically for the writer, but has become trite and pretentious when we sing it today. I'll not name one in particular because I don't want to say that I totally dislike any certain one of these. But songs that speak of a gooey almost sensual emotional response to Jesus are suspect -- if the writer was truly a "mystic" or highly spiritual person who experienced this overpowering emotion, then well and good. But I often wonder at the genuineness of the emotions described in such a song.

Philp's concern that folks will grow weary of this stuff and churches spouting it will disappear bothers me too. When I hear of a formerly solid traditional congregation being taken over by a group determined to remake the church in a contemporary image, I am horrified and sad. When the small group of people who want this stuff manage to remake the church in their image, and after the folks they may attract all get burned out and leave, what will become of the church? The sensible folks may have fled, the music program has been destroyed, the organ sold or junked, the sanctuary remodeled into a performance hall. Another hulking old building for sale or to be wrecked like a used-up WalMart -- testimony to the folly of man.

John

 

---

Rodgers 890 at church.
Baldwin D422 at home.
Scads of old organs in the shop! H E L P !!!

jbird604:

Philp's concern that folks will grow weary of this stuff and churches spouting it will disappear bothers me too. When I hear of a formerly solid traditional congregation being taken over by a group determined to remake the church in a contemporary image, I am horrified and sad. When the small group of people who want this stuff manage to remake the church in their image, and after the folks they may attract all get burned out and leave, what will become of the church? The sensible folks may have fled, the music program has been destroyed, the organ sold or junked, the sanctuary remodeled into a performance hall. Another hulking old building for sale or to be wrecked like a used-up WalMart -- testimony to the folly of man.

John

I also find this troubling.  Another practice that has become common in my church is applause.  The congregation (and choir) invariably clap after every "performance" by the children, and the congregation (as "audience") even applauds a few adult choir presentations.  I grew up in a "Northern Methodist" church and we never clapped for anything except an occasional honor mentioned during the announcements--music was NEVER applauded.  Even as small children (I started at age 9) we were instructed that singing in church was a performance FOR God with the goal to bring the congregation into a better relation with and understanding of Him--we were NOT "performing" for the people in the pews as entertainment.  I almost never clap for music in church, myself, and I'm sure those around me consider me an unfeeling curmudgeon because of that (we MUST encourage the children, mustn't we?).  I'm sorry, but I'm just not into the "applause" thing.  I guess "Southern" Methodists may be more inclined to do it, or maybe the entire Methodist Church has been infected with the disease by now.  (I've been here in Texas now for 28 years, as of 2 days ago.)

David

I used to clap at the CS Church in Sunday school after the hymns, but, I was about four years old, so, its a bit different. Nowadays, I don't clap in church, unless its a recital held in a church (e.g Organ Spectacular).. I always found it amusing that the ones who ofttimes push the happy-clappy "church-rock" are the boomers and ex-hippies, basically, people my parents' age - not the 18-24 crowd at whom the schlock is marketed.

---

Once you can tie your arms into a pretzel and your legs into a knot, you've got it under control

Austin766:

I always found it amusing that the ones who ofttimes push the happy-clappy "church-rock" are the boomers and ex-hippies, basically, people my parents' age - not the 18-24 crowd at whom the schlock is marketed.

Amen, Austin!

I am almost 55 and I could not agree with you more; except for the fact that I find it more tragic than amusing.

 

MenchenStimme:

Austin766:

I always found it amusing that the ones who ofttimes push the happy-clappy "church-rock" are the boomers and ex-hippies, basically, people my parents' age - not the 18-24 crowd at whom the schlock is marketed.

Amen, Austin!

I am almost 55 and I could not agree with you more; except for the fact that I find it more tragic than amusing.

 

True, it is more tragic than anything else, but, it's still amusing. Also Disgusting, I know I'm in that target 18-24 market, but I think that it is mostly drivel and glib, perhaps these folks should be sentenced to taciturnity for a period of months.

---

Once you can tie your arms into a pretzel and your legs into a knot, you've got it under control

Austin766:

...perhaps these folks should be sentenced to taciturnity for a period of months.

And where would that be?

I failed to mention that the children's choir I sang with at age 9 was singing "My Heart Ever Faithful" and "Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring" (in 2 parts), not the nursery jingle stuff most of them do now.

David

I'd like to make a few points based on what has been said so far - partially playing devil's advocate, of course.

Simon - yes. This thread refers exclusively to contemporary music in church

jbird604:

... People won't sing as well with just a guitar unless they know the song really well ...

I think that applies to any song - contemporary or traditional, for that matter.

jbird604:

... What goes for a "praise band" in many churches is a second-rate rock and roll wannabe drummer, two or three amateurish guitar players whamming way, some blonde chick plunking out chords on a keyboard, and all of them half-swallowing a microphone while screaming out incomprehensible lyrics. Sometimes they'll make near-vulgar gyrations like a rock band on stage, or raise their hands and try to get the crowd to clap or dance.

(I exaggerate, of course, and caricature. But that's not too far off from what I've actually observed in a few instances.) ...

I agree, partially. And I would even extend "many" to say "most." Unfortunately, for many of these groups, the sound is usually too loud, the tempo is too fast, and/or the key is unsingable. Groups are often comprised of people who took music lessons as kids and perhaps played in a band in college (or are in college).

But what about the churches who actually have talented musicians and sound engineers? What if the music, though contemporary, was catchy with powerful lyrics, and was extremely well played? Exaggerating how bad some of these groups and negatively stereotyping all contemporary church music is just like ignoring the fact that not every traditional church has music like at St. Thomas 5th Avenue! Trust me, I may have heard plenty of bad contemporary music in church, but I've also heard a sufficient share of Yvonna playing the organ in a "traditional" church.

Finally, what's the matter with clapping or dancing in church? I've never done it myself, but I certainly don't have my nose up so high in the air that I disprove of it. The Bible instructs us to make a joyful noise, and the old testament records numerous accounts of people dancing and singing to God's great approval. Honestly, I'd rather people clap than have them sing as if they were "half dead or half asleep", as John Wesley said.

Philip the organist:

... I think eventually, churches with contemporary music may become a thing of the past. More and more people will discover that the shallowness of contemporary music alone will not quench their thirst for God. And then they'll just stop coming, and the church will sadly disintegrate.

Hmm. Interesting point. But what you seem to forget is that churches with organ music have largely become a thing of the past. Sure, the are still a large number of churches with organs, and a good number of churches with really superb traditional music. So contemporary music may be eventually a thing of the past, but then what? The organ comes back in? Another style of music becomes popular?

Also, what do you mean by "shallowness"? Let me provide to examples.

I just flipped to a completely random hymn in the 1966 Methodist hymnal. The text of the first stanza is:

O Lord, our fathers oft have told, in our attentive ears, Thy wonders in their days performed, and more in ancient years.

I'm not saying that all hymns are like that, and most of them aren't. But I will point out that the text listed above means didly squat to the average person. I mean, all the above text really says is that stories were passed down about things that God did in the past. That's IT. It doesn't quench anyone's thirst for God. It doesn't praise God, really, and beyond the eloquent language, it's completely shallow.

Compare the above to:

Indescribable, uncontainable; You placed the stars in the sky and You know them by name. You are amazing God. All powerful, untamable; Awestruck we fall to our knees as we humbly proclaim, "You are amazing God" 

Not all contemporary songs are shallow and uninspiring, and not all traditional hymns have depth and are meaningful. Compare the songs mentioned above to "Joyful Joyful We Adore Thee" and "Kum by yah," respectively.

Austin766:

... I always found it amusing that the ones who ofttimes push the happy-clappy "church-rock" are the boomers and ex-hippies, basically, people my parents' age - not the 18-24 crowd at whom the schlock is marketed.

I must disagree. The "church-rock" in question really isn't targeted at an 18-24 crowd. It's targeted to unbelievers. To someone that hasn't grown up in church, a much more relaxed, welcoming service with music that has a steady beat and a catchy tune is can be a lot more appealing. The formality of a church can be appealing, don't get me wrong, but if you've never been to a church before, attending a solemn high mass can be considerably harder to "tune in" to than perhaps a contemporary service.

*****

Let me summarize my own thoughts.

I prefer a traditional Rite I service (complete with incense), organ music, good hymns, and enthusiastic singing. I don't care for a pianist attempting to play the organ, and a congregation that doesn't sing.

The Christian church is really facing a problem. I filled in for the organist at a local church last Sunday. Beautiful church with brand new pipe organ. But the sanctuary was only about 1/4 full, and the majority of the people there had white hair (or no hair). Based on my experience and observations, this seems to be a common trend in churches with traditional music. There are exceptions to everything, but it just seems to be a common trend.

Churches are doing what they can to bring people in again. And unfortunately, what this usually means is a neglected (or discarded) pipe organ, replaced with a drumset and piano. Often times, the people that play this "God pop" in church aren't talented, but many times they are. I am conflicted because I am glad that the church is willing to do whatever it needs to (without sacrificing theology) to bring people in, but yet, it destroys the instrument that I've dedicated my life to!

I respect churches who have contemporary music. Contemporary music is written and played/sung with good intentions, and there are a whole lot of people that enjoy it. It's just not my cup of tea in church.

---

The aim and final end of all music should be none other than the glory of God and the refreshment of the soul. - Johann Sebastian Bach
Baylor University School of Music

soundboarddude, you've been to my church, and we've met.  We have 4 Sunday morning services:  0845 in the Sanctuary, with organ, piano, percussion, and Youth Choir support; 0945 in the Sanctuary, with organ primarily and occasional other instruments, and Adult Choir support; 1100 in the Sanctuary, with the same personnel as 0945; and 1105 in the Family Life Center, with Praise Band and a vocal ensemble (the "Contemporary" service).  The 3 Sanctuary services have essentially the same Order of Worship and hymns, but the Youth Choir sings different music from the Adult Choir.  Except for the necessity (for now) for the Contemporary service to use a different facility, I believe that this arrangement is working to provide the variety of worship experiences desired by our congregants and visitors.  And we are growing fairly steadily, so we must be doing something right.

As for clapping, it is not the act itself that annoys me, but the fact that it generally sends the wrong message to the group that has just performed--in fact, it makes their presentation a "performance" and makes them think that they are doing it to entertain the congregation, which I think is the wrong motivation.  Children associate applause with entertainment, and clapping encourages them for the wrong reasons.  The congregation only applauds the Adult Choir when they have successfully done a real "barn-burner" ("Children of God" or "He Never Failed Me Yet"--both of which I'm not terribly fond of) and for that I am grateful.  I sing to the glory of God and I hope it is received in the spirit given; an occasional word of encouragement is enough for me.  However, the children are applauded EVERY time they sing, whether it is good or bad (and sometimes it is not very good, if viewed objectively) and they do not learn to distinguish between them.  If they only sing because they are applauded, then they are singing for the wrong reason.  I know that we live in a time of sound bites and instant gratification, but I see no reason to promote those attitudes in the church among our young people.  One might as well pay them to sing.  (Well, there are churches that pay their adults to sing, aren't there?  I have never served a church where that was done, and don't expect to.  We have 125 voices in our choir without going that route, and many very fine soloists, too.)

Yes, I am insufferably old-fashioned and very "high church" (for a Methodist--I don't come close to the levels of RC or Anglican).  But there it is.

David

<In re SBD, and possible decline of contemporary churches v. aging of others>

My extremely unexperienced point of view it that whenever the Bible is not aggressively sought after in a church and examined as to what it says about all issues, the church will decline. Modern churches sometimes ignore the command of "I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also." So that can result in people being spiritually un-fed, as also with some of the less-noble songs in the hymnal as jBird pointed out.

Also when churches which may still have traditional music no longer use the Bible as their guide in matters of doctrine, morality, etc. they take the foundation out from the parishioners' feet and try to replace it with the shifting sand of postmodernism.

But there's always exceptions. In my church (with traditional worship) we have several teens who have walked out on God in the past few years. And then there's my cousin who has a Christian punk (!?) band. He is an amazing guy,  always has a good word for everyone, doesn't even date and he has taught me a lot about my faith. I look up to him immensely, even if his music is way off from mine.

I guess everyone must study the issue and follow the leading of God. I've come to my conclusion, and I'll try to explain it to those interested. But I suppose it is ultimately God's domain.
 

---

Philip Fillion
1985 Allen ADC 420 at home
c.1962 Allen Theatre Compact at church-If you know of any classical church organ endangered by progress or the landfill, PLEASE PM me.

davidecasteel:

As for clapping, it is not the act itself that annoys me, but the fact that it generally sends the wrong message to the group that has just performed--in fact, it makes their presentation a "performance" and makes them think that they are doing it to entertain the congregation, which I think is the wrong motivation.

I totally agree!  If we applauded the kids, why not the choir?  Why not the sermon.... or the prayer reader..... or the scriptures?   (evangelical and pentecostals do, plus more, but for a different reason)  And I know some applause is given to signal " Amen, I agree, or Praise God".  I'm just suggesting that applause as a way of saying "good job" isn't the best way to get that across.  I also HATE when applause breaks into that breathless quiet after the cut off to a beautiful composition has been given.

I have folk who applaud after every postlude.  I quietly and kindly let them know that while appreciated, their kind words directly to me felt more comfortable.  Still, some continue and so I just smile at them.

Now to the thread issue....as for the contemporary/traditional issue... don't get me started.  Our bishop says they are the two most divisive terms in Christianity and church today.  I wish I could come up with more accurate ones.  The Evangelical Lutheran music scene is really split on this, but in our congregation we have a good blend in our hymnal now.  Granted, not all is perfect, but we try to offer a great variety to reach everyone's soul.

To me contemporary means anything composed in the last 25 or so years.  It uses texts in the vernacular rather than the formal.  It has images of current scenes and activities.  It also signals the kind of instrumentation that is used.  However, that could be acoustic guitars and hand drums (which I sometimes like) and amplified guitars, bass, and drum kits (which I like less, and we don't use Sunday mornings).  Folk music and world music certainly fall here.

Traditional means more structured, formal language. Perhaps more elegant descriptions of less earthly images. Verse and refrain structure rather than through construction. Traditional instrumentation to me is pipe organ, acoustic piano, orchestral instruments, and hand percussion.  Traditional crosses cultures from the English, German, French, and American hymn tunes to American folk and Appalachian, to even some world music.

Of course, contemporary is a transient state.  Music written 100 years ago was contemporary to those living in 1908.  I HATE (two times in one reply? Hmmm, must be the cold I have) it when someone dismisses contemporary based on the the INSTRUMENTATION being used.  I find the organ, pared with some MIDI can be effectively used to accompany the best of the newer music.  There is a lot of "stuff" that won't be sung next week, much less than 20 years from now.  However that is the NATURE of contemporary.  There are nuggets that are beautiful in melody, structure, and lyrics that are going to stay around.  I don't like the sometimes implication that contemporary is cool and in.

I sometimes find when someone dismissed traditional, they tend not to appreciate anything that gains luster and beauty as it ages.  Again there is a lot that has vanished simply because it was trite or trendy.  Also, I've heard traditional given a slow death simply because it wasn't offered well, either by a too slow tempo, an unimaginative registration, or other fault of the performer and not of the music.  I find it arrogant to suggest traditional is proper, right and in good taste.  Very elitist to me.

I also belive that the instrumentation we prefer to hear in worship reflects the internal image of our Creator we worship.  "Traditional" instruments may conjour images of an all mighty, majestic Creator and provider that requires grandeur or simple eloquence to express.  "Contemporary" (see above definitions) instruments might reflect a joyful, more accessable companion sort of image.  I tend to subscribe to the first, though have a deep companion relationship tied into that

So, I'm stuck in the middle.  I find value and spiritual food in both. I hope I'm not alone.  I also hope those that are hard left or right will give some consideration to moving toward the center, where moderation in all things, and an open heart to looking for the best in both worlds is accepted.  If we attempt to provide music, regardless of age or construction, in the best, most authentic way we can, with the understanding that this is our gift to the Creator, then we fulfill our role as a congregation leader.

Amen... Soli Deo Gloria

---

Holtkamp/Parkey pipe organ
Galanti Praeludium home instrument

davidecasteel:

... And we are growing fairly steadily, so we must be doing something right.

As for clapping, it is not the act itself that annoys me, but the fact that it generally sends the wrong message to the group that has just performed...

David,

I don't have a problem whatsoever with your church. I probably wouldn't attend the contemporary service, but instead of throwing out the organ, your church has bought a brand new one. And as a result, the church is growing.

I've found that churches that have both types of services actually do fairly well.

Also, the clapping that I referred to is while people singing. I agree entirely with you that clapping after something (choir singing, etc) is bad because it turns the event into a performance with an audience.

---

The aim and final end of all music should be none other than the glory of God and the refreshment of the soul. - Johann Sebastian Bach
Baylor University School of Music

Lots of toughts here. 

I must disagree. The "church-rock" in question really isn't targeted at an 18-24 crowd. It's targeted to unbelievers. To someone that hasn't grown up in church, a much more relaxed, welcoming service with music that has a steady beat and a catchy tune is can be a lot more appealing. The formality of a church can be appealing, don't get me wrong, but if you've never been to a church before, attending a solemn high mass can be considerably harder to "tune in" to than perhaps a contemporary service.

I don't agree here. This is clearly targetted at "youth" however you define that. If I would want to go back to church and stumble into such a din then I turn my back. If I would stumble into a "high mass" (and then I mean something from last century with the priest in full habit and his face to the altar) I would stay. Maybe not forever (that depends on other things) but at least it comes accross as something that is happening. It might be considerably harder to tune in but it let you know it is something special that if you take the time and dedication you may become part of. You never become part of a performance.

My extremely unexperienced point of view it that whenever the Bible is not aggressively sought after in a church and examined as to what it says about all issues, the church will decline.

Agressiveness has nothing to do with that issue. Problem is that "the church" doesn"t care anymore and has become a business. Another issue is that there isn't any community life anymore. Churches do well in places where everybody knows everybody, where a village lives together. Where people only know themselves the church is dead whatever music they play.

instead of throwing out the organ, your church has bought a brand new one. And as a result, the church is growing.

You're inverting cause and effect I fear. Because they have more people coming they got a new organ, not the other way round. If your church has the right attitude and feel, people will come if you sing while beating on an empty cofee can. See what happens in Africa. They don't have organs, they don't have traditional hymns but they have a message, they know how to inspire.

 

Do you guys go to church for the music or for the message it represents? I understand that you could go to location A or B depending on the music but not that you can believe or not because what music is played.

---

Expert in non-working solutions

Havoc, I wouldn't agree with soundboarddude that our church is growing because we purchased a fine new organ; we have a new organ because our church is growing and we needed more space--a new, larger facility naturally needed a new, larger organ as well.  We were very fortunate to have a couple in the church with enough means to totally pay for a new instrument, but I think we'd have found a way to do it if that hadn't happened.

soundboarddude, Bradley Welch will be playing a concert on the Klais on 22 Feb 2009 at 1830, if you are interested.

As for whether I go to church for the music or for the message it represents--both.  The message is, of course, most important and that is one reason I prefer traditional hymns and anthems--they go into much more depth than the typical stuff that passes for music in most Contemporary services.  However, the message--excellent or shallow--is lost if not accessible, and I do not readily accept anything presented to me in a "pop-rock" format, religious or secular.  I do not like "popular" music and never have.  I rejected almost everything that was written since 1940; as a teenager I listened only to Classical music (and still do).  I am a Traditionalist, pure and simple, and unwilling to change.  Like it or not, that's the way I am.  As a result, I don't go to Contemporary worship services and resent having my Traditional one sullied with its insinuation into it.  Call me closed-minded, if you will (I am), but I do have a right to worship the way I want to.  My church has not gone far enough to force me to seek another, but I will do so if I become sufficiently dissatisfied with the music, for it is one way that connects me to God.  I've been singing in choirs for so long that it is not unusual for me to hear the Scripture lesson and automatically remember some anthem that I have sung based on that passage.  The words of hymns and anthems are very important to me, but the music is what gets it "into" me.  Contemporary music does not have that ability.

David

I am learning SO much from this discussion. This is genuine dialogue, with positions being articulated with great passion, other points of view coming out, give and take, compromise, conciliation, honesty. . .  Thanks, everyone!

My own thoughts continue to evolve, and I have learned things from this group that I will use in planning music for my church.

John

---

Rodgers 890 at church.
Baldwin D422 at home.
Scads of old organs in the shop! H E L P !!!