The Organ Forum

radagast:

I happen to like rock music a lot.  If you saw my CD collection, you woulkd realize that.  My point, which for some reason you can't grasp, is how it's applied.  If you saw that for yourself in a church, you might comprehend what I am talking about.  By your own admission, you are ignorant of the issues involved here.

By my own admission? Please elaborate. I have a Masters Degree in Studio music, have recorded and written for numerous pop recordings, and am Music Director for a church that has both traditional and contemporary services. Please point out where I am ignorant of any of the issues involved here.

Your "curse" was the use of hell.  Again if you knew scripture you would know that.  That is the kind of language that could send this thread to the grease pit.  If it goes there we have you to thank.

Wow, I guess you're right. I will stoop to you're level--what in the H-E-double hockey sticks is your problem? You can't say hell in here? That's only for the grease pit? Grow up.

I happen to enjoy playing all sorts of music at my church.  But anything can be done in the wrong way and that is my point.

But that isn't what you originally said. If it was I would have agreed with you 100%. Instead you made your point by bashing contemporary worship music. I saw no need for that and felt it only pointed out how closed minded of a musician you were. But I'm sure you've got a lot of rock CDs in your collection to prove me wrong. . .

Agreed on your first line.

Seriously ... why is it that anytime contemporary music and praise bands come up in any thread it turns into a huge debate on the value of organs versus the value of praise bands?  Why is it that we can't understand "make a joyful noise unto the Lord."  It doesn't say "Sing Holy Holy Holy" or "Sing to a bass guitar, drums and an electric guitar."

I mean, for crying out loud ... why do we always devolve into a bunch of whiny little three year olds (don't even get me started on letting this debate devolve into personal attacks about whether or not someone capitalized God) delving into the most minute and unimportant points of posts whenever this comes up (and I'm not pointing the finger at anyone in particular.  I've fallen into this trap myself a couple times on here).  Can't people just get over the fact that EVERYONE DOESN'T LIKE THE ORGAN AND HYMNS!!!!!!!!!!!  I love the organ and hymns.  Pretty much everyone in here does.  But we live in the real world.  And if contemporary music is what connects people to God then SING CONTEMPORARY.

Listen - Both genres have their strong points.  Both have styles that connect certain people to God and not others.  Why does one group have to be "better."  I know both styles have crap music (yes, there are PLENTY of crappy hymns) and both have their share of shallow worded songs.

Just accept the fact that both types of services can draw people to God.  And if they can help someone experience His presence and praise His name then it is just as good as any other style that helps someone else.  Shoot ... if shape note singing is what gets you close to the Lord then find a group that still does shape note.  It doesn't matter as long as you "make a joyful noise."

Now ... don't make me pull out the "Can't we all just get along?"  And can we PLEASE get back to the topic of this thread?

I'm going to answer my own post.  I'm sorry for yelling and hollering about this.  I just find it so incredibly frustrating.  And it's not just organists claiming that our way is better.  On more than a few occasions I have gotten to church and run into friends from the contemporary service and they keep telling me that I need to quit playing the organ and come help their service ... to get with the current music ... the energetic and fun music.  So I routinely see the bickering from both sides of the argument.

I guess my question comes down to this ... Is the Christian church in such a good and strong position that the only thing we have to do is argue over contemporary or traditional?  Have 'enough' souls been saved that we can spend our time arguing on this point?  and lastly ... Are we actually brazen enough to tell someone that the Lord doesn't like them worshiping that way and that the very thing, the very style of music that connects them, plugs them in and helps them worship the Lord just isn't good enough because it's not what we use personally?

Ok ... now back to praise bands.

Tutti:

radagast:

I happen to like rock music a lot.  If you saw my CD collection, you woulkd realize that.  My point, which for some reason you can't grasp, is how it's applied.  If you saw that for yourself in a church, you might comprehend what I am talking about.  By your own admission, you are ignorant of the issues involved here.

By my own admission? Please elaborate. I have a Masters Degree in Studio music, have recorded and written for numerous pop recordings, and am Music Director for a church that has both traditional and contemporary services. Please point out where I am ignorant of any of the issues involved here.

Your "curse" was the use of hell.  Again if you knew scripture you would know that.  That is the kind of language that could send this thread to the grease pit.  If it goes there we have you to thank.

Wow, I guess you're right. I will stoop to you're level--what in the H-E-double hockey sticks is your problem? You can't say hell in here? That's only for the grease pit? Grow up.

I happen to enjoy playing all sorts of music at my church.  But anything can be done in the wrong way and that is my point.

But that isn't what you originally said. If it was I would have agreed with you 100%. Instead you made your point by bashing contemporary worship music. I saw no need for that and felt it only pointed out how closed minded of a musician you were. But I'm sure you've got a lot of rock CDs in your collection to prove me wrong. . .

Your attitude continues to show that you are the one with a maturity problem, not me.  If you think saying hell makes you grown up and mature, then you are truly oblivious.   Your ad hominem attacks on me also show a lack in your intellectual skills.  If you had read the whole context of the discussion and what I also said in its entirety, you would have known what I was saying.

Your own admission that you are not a Christian and your statements about working in a church only demonstrate the glaring problem with churches who worship music over God.  You have no business being involved in a church's music program if you are not a believer.  And I don't care if you don't like that or not.  Go somewhere where you can use any kind of language you want and play any kind of music you want, like a rock concert.

I'm not bashing contemporary music in churches.  Never have, never will.  But it can't be WORSHIP music if you don't believe in the theology.  Then it is entertainment.

By your own admission?  Here are your words:

"And I'm not Christian anyway so that part of your argument is moot."

If you aren't a Christian, then you don't understand the spiritual issues here.  And why are you working in a church, anyway?  Is it a Christian church?  Do the leaders know you are not a Christian?  If so, why would they use you?  That is an example of churches worshipping music over God.

I am the most open minded person musically I know.  I have a very eclectic taste in music.  Probably more eclectic than anyone else here.   BUT, I place true worship in church above my taste in music.  If music becomes an end in itself, it is not worship.  That can happen with any style of music.  But I see that it is easier for it to happen when contemporary music takes priority over anything else.

 

---

I am NOT a PC programmer. I program on Mainframe computers!

Non omnes qui habemt citharam sunt citharoedi

Bombarde32:

I'm going to answer my own post.  I'm sorry for yelling and hollering about this.  I just find it so incredibly frustrating.  And it's not just organists claiming that our way is better.  On more than a few occasions I have gotten to church and run into friends from the contemporary service and they keep telling me that I need to quit playing the organ and come help their service ... to get with the current music ... the energetic and fun music.  So I routinely see the bickering from both sides of the argument.

I guess my question comes down to this ... Is the Christian church in such a good and strong position that the only thing we have to do is argue over contemporary or traditional?  Have 'enough' souls been saved that we can spend our time arguing on this point?  and lastly ... Are we actually brazen enough to tell someone that the Lord doesn't like them worshiping that way and that the very thing, the very style of music that connects them, plugs them in and helps them worship the Lord just isn't good enough because it's not what we use personally?

Ok ... now back to praise bands.

I have never said that there is only one way or type of music that should be in a church.    I will try to state my position yet AGAIN.

Contemporary music is fine in a church. AS LONG AS IT DOESN'T BECOME THE MAIN FOCUS.  If the music is so loud that those who don't like it are offended, then who is in the wrong?  The answer should be obvious, but for too many it isn't.

I would also argue that the lyrical content of hymns (not all Christian music, just hymns) are consistently rich in meaning and content.  That was the purpose of hymns (AGAIN I AM ONLY TALKING ABOUT HYMNS).  Hymns were used to propogate theology.  Some. NOT ALL, contemporary Christian songs, have very simplistic messages.  If you want examples, I will get some from my church and post them here.  Those songs are more designed to evoke an emotional experience.  Nothing wrong with that.  A balanced Christian life should include heart, soul, and mind.

But consistently excluding songs with rich content can lead to a shallow worship service that is more of an emotional trip than worship.  And when you do it in such a way that you don't care if it's offensive to others, then it's not worship.  Older folks are not the only ones in church who need to see the other point of view and to be flexible.

And, no enough souls haven't been saved. 

 

 

---

I am NOT a PC programmer. I program on Mainframe computers!

Non omnes qui habemt citharam sunt citharoedi

Hmm, the same old argument comes up again. Believe me guys, there are more important things in life to worry about. There are people with closed minds on both sides of the fence (I recently did a wedding at a church in town and the resident music groups' attitude stunk. They kept in their own little gang and never even said hello to me. These people were supposed to be Christians)

"You have no business being involved in a church's music program if you are not a believer"

This is nonsense. The church needs all the musicians it can get, especially competent ones. Anyway, I thought the Church was for EVERYONE, not just a select group of people. Thats why in the UK we call them Parish Churches, i.e for ALL the people in a parish, believers or not. It is not for us to decide who can come into church and who can't. That is a matter for God surely.

radagast:

Your own admission that you are not a Christian and your statements about working in a church only demonstrate the glaring problem with churches who worship music over God.  You have no business being involved in a church's music program if you are not a believer. 

Wow, you are TRULY unenlightened and unable to read. So you're either a Christian or a "non-believer"? How open minded! So in order to worship GOD (who isn't exclusive to Christianity) I need to be a member of a man-made religion? I can't just believe in God (happy?) and worship God? And if you have any doubts about my effectiveness as a music minister you are more than welcome to request the several letters of recommendation I have.

I'm not bashing contemporary music in churches.  Never have, never will.  But it can't be WORSHIP music if you don't believe in the theology.  Then it is entertainment.

I agree 110%! I also feel like there are some old timey hymns which are devoid of theology as well.

By your own admission?  Here are your words:

"And I'm not Christian anyway so that part of your argument is moot."

If you aren't a Christian, then you don't understand the spiritual issues here. 

Like I said, that is not only unenlightened but inaccurate. I obviously do a better job than many organists in this area seeing as how the church I am at now is a more coveted position than many others.

I am the most open minded person musically I know.  I have a very eclectic taste in music.  Probably more eclectic than anyone else here.

Based on your close minded comments on other issues I highly doubt that.

radagast:

I would also argue that the lyrical content of hymns (not all Christian music, just hymns) are consistently rich in meaning and content.  That was the purpose of hymns (AGAIN I AM ONLY TALKING ABOUT HYMNS).  Hymns were used to propogate theology.  Some. NOT ALL, contemporary Christian songs, have very simplistic messages. 

Yes I agree on this as well. So when I chose music I either leave these ones out altogether or use them sparingly. The "mantra" type songs can work well in certain situations. Such as communion. As focal point songs though there are plenty with more meaningful messages.

a gentle reminder... state your own opinion... praise bands suck, praise bands are heavenly...whatever...... but...please do not disparage others for their own opinions in a manner that is not conducive to discussion in a open forum where all opinoins are valued. Of course thats just my opinion only. :)

---

www.nycfarmboy.com
www.reuter822.com

Tutti:

Wow, you are TRULY unenlightened and unable to read. So you're either a Christian or a "non-believer"? How open minded! So in order to worship GOD (who isn't exclusive to Christianity) I need to be a member of a man-made religion? I can't just believe in God (happy?) and worship God? And if you have any doubts about my effectiveness as a music minister you are more than welcome to request the several letters of recommendation I have.

  

Like I said, that is not only unenlightened but inaccurate. I obviously do a better job than many organists in this area seeing as how the church I am at now is a more coveted position than many others.

I am the most open minded person musically I know.  I have a very eclectic taste in music.  Probably more eclectic than anyone else here.

Based on your close minded comments on other issues I highly doubt that.

Believe what you like, but I do have a very wide taste in music.  You have no idea what you are talking about here.

Christian churches should have Christians working in them.  As far as attendees, anyone should be welcome. 

 But the those in leadership and ministry positions should be believers in Christ.  It's a matter of integrity and honesty.  Those who are not adherents to Judaism shouldn't be working in ministry in a synogogue either.  Same with non-Muslims in a mosque etc.  It's a matter of not being a hypocrite.  If you don't believe in the message of hymns, which are Christian, then playing them in a church is nothing more than a show.  You call it close-minded.  I call it being authentic.  You are so "open-minded" I am surprised your brains don't fall out.

Your "effectiveness" can't be anything more than as an entertainer if you don't believe what the hymns are saying.  And frankly, I am sure I can find better entertainers than you outside the Church.

You believe in God.  Good for you.  The book of James says demons do also.  If you aren't a believer in Christ, then go to some other house of worship that doesn't believe it either, and play your organ.

---

I am NOT a PC programmer. I program on Mainframe computers!

Non omnes qui habemt citharam sunt citharoedi

radagast:

Christian churches should have Christians working in them.  As far as attendees, anyone should be welcome.

Is there a denomination that actually has this as doctrine? I have yet to run across one. And your assertion that I am somehow less effective at my job because of it holds absolutely no water. You can try and prove you're right, but you won't get anywhere. It's impossible.

And just because I do not fall into an orthodox Christian belief system does not mean I do not believe the message of the hymns I choose or even the message of the Bible. I believe the Bible 99% (which is more than most Christians I know). I just don't believe how the church has interpreted it over the years. Does not reciting the Nicaen Creed make me not Christian? A Creed written by people 300 years after Christ? Who THOUGHT they knew what Christ's message was? Or should I stick with the scriptures written 50-100 years after Christ and go from there?

You can argue theology with me all you want. But I DO know the Bible and I do believe it. Just not how you would like me to. But that's your problem not mine.

Christian churches should have Christians working in them.  As far as attendees, anyone should be welcome.

I would not feel welcome in a church with such a policy.

Especially if they have praise music.

(I'm on both sides of this fence)

---

Soubasse32

Greetings,

I think the bottom line is this:

All churches are working for the same boss, and He's the only one who really knows what's going on in peoples' hearts and minds anyway!

- N

---

Like to read about pipe organ parts? - http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/organfixers/

I would have to agree with Soubasse32, I too am on both sides of this fence.

Why?

As Music Directors we are leaders. Leaders are called to serve. We are not in it for ourselves. Yes hands down without a doubt, I most definitely prefer the traditional form. HOWEVER, if praise music is what brings people to Jesus Christ then so be it. I will not be a stumbling block to those who are seeking Christ.

Look at the world around us. There is so much evil, so much hate, and so much nastiness. We need more Jesus in the world. If the praise stuff brings them to Jesus then so be it. For us organists it means using this as an opportunity for us to learn something from the praise people and for the praise people to learn something for us. It's also an opportunity to bridge the gap, work together for the Lord and to use our creativity to show others just how irresistibly beautiful the organ world and traditional worship can be. We organists need to stand together in solidarity in an increasingly changing and radical world, not "cutting" each other up.

In peace,

ReedGuy

 

Tutti:

radagast:

Christian churches should have Christians working in them.  As far as attendees, anyone should be welcome.

Is there a denomination that actually has this as doctrine? I have yet to run across one. And your assertion that I am somehow less effective at my job because of it holds absolutely no water. You can try and prove you're right, but you won't get anywhere. It's impossible.

And just because I do not fall into an orthodox Christian belief system does not mean I do not believe the message of the hymns I choose or even the message of the Bible. I believe the Bible 99% (which is more than most Christians I know). I just don't believe how the church has interpreted it over the years. Does not reciting the Nicaen Creed make me not Christian? A Creed written by people 300 years after Christ? Who THOUGHT they knew what Christ's message was? Or should I stick with the scriptures written 50-100 years after Christ and go from there?

You can argue theology with me all you want. But I DO know the Bible and I do believe it. Just not how you would like me to. But that's your problem not mine.

Your question about denominations having such a doctrine doesn't make sense.  As a matter of practice, all churches I have been associated with,  in the denominations I have had dealings with,  have as a working practice the ideal that anyone involved in ministry believes the fundamental doctrines of Christianity.  Like it or not, the divinity of Christ is one of the cornerstone doctrines of Christianity.  If you wish to argue that, you are out of your mind and totally out of touch with reality.

Imagine having a priest or pastor preaching something he or she doesn't believe.  It's ridiculous.

Imagine someone in an important position in a synogogue who doesn't believe in Judaism.  It's ridiculous.

As far as the other stuff you are throwing out about Christ's message: this isn't a theological forum, but there is good scholarship that provides the correct answers to those questions.  We have writings from the early church fathers (less than 150 years after Christ) that affirm Christrian doctrine and quote all but a few verses from the ENTIRE New Testament.

I don't care how much of the Bible you believe.  And I don't think you can provide valid proof of your assertions about Christians.

Pretty much the last questions I had about the accuracy of the Bible were answered by Dr. Hugh Ross (who has both a doctorate in physics and astronomy).  As a result, although I believe the Bible is literally true when it is not using Hebrew or Greek idioms or other figures of speech, and I believe Genesis chapter one is literally true, what I think that chapter is literally saying puts me in the minority.

I won't argue theology with you.  You aren't prepared for what you would hear.  But I do believe the passages where Jesus clearly was proclaiming His Divinity and the other passages that affirm it as well.

Believe what you like.  My point remains.  Honesty, integrity, and genuiness are vital in everyone who is in a ministry position in a church.

---

I am NOT a PC programmer. I program on Mainframe computers!

Non omnes qui habemt citharam sunt citharoedi