Music 5. Remember, it’s down the highway, not across the street.
From the ever-loving Candace:
Who on earth says that the church has to be stylistically like the world? What will that accomplish?
I’ve delineated what it will accomplish. Besides, we already look and sound like the world in everyday life.
Why is it necessary that we simplify and simplify until people are so used to reading the Message that they can’t understand the King James? Isn’t that kind of dumbing down?
Well, no one speaks King James English anymore, and unless you’re advocating a sort of Roman Catholic “we must read Latin in church”, I’d suggest that’s not a particularly worthwhile stance to take.
First of all, no church is ever going to feel comfortable to a prostitute off the streets. If it does, there’s a significant problem.
It was an example apply it to something else if that makes you comfortable.
Think: today, no kid has an attention span over five minutes, and that’s fine with everyone. So we’ll have a five minute sermon….change up the liturgy whenever we feel like it, so it’s more interesting, let people walk out and get a coffee if they feel the need to…maybe include some drama…
That’s a cute generalization, but it’s not really relevant to our discussion. No one’s talking about having a five minute sermon, or coffee breaks, or drama: that’s an extremely Reformed steriotype that needs to be crushed. Sure, there’s some churches like that, but I’ve sampled a wide variety of churches, and they’re few and far between.
Here’s a question: would it be a good thing if we didn’t have a set psalter hymnal? If our music selection was pretty much open for change if a new song was found and admired by the pastor and/or music committee?
A hymnal should be born, I think, from practicality, and should be open to revision. And if a song comes along that the pastor and the elders like, then yes, it should be sung. Can you provide a good reason why it shouldn’t be that doesn’t sound like “Well then they could sing ‘Beer, beer, beer, beer,” for all we know!”
Dax and Kev…you’re from independent churches. But as a member of a federation, I think a good compromise would be to have a committee to look over our hymn selections every five or ten years with the purpose of perhaps including new songs.
Yes, we are. And I think your idea is a good one, just take out the “perhaps” add new songs; instead, give them a mandate to find and include new songs.
Also, just for the record, denominations are like a prickly pear. There, I said it. This comment was changed due to it’s over-the-top nature.
No tag for this post.
![[caedmonscall.net]](http://rmfo-blogs.com/images/ccneticon.jpg "The quasi-official fan site of Caedmon’s Call.")
![[derekwebb.net]](http://rmfo-blogs.com/images/dwneticon.jpg "The official fan site of Derek Webb.")
![[rmfo-blogs.com]](http://rmfo-blogs.com/images/rmfoblog.png "About the [rmfo-blogs] service.")
Denominations don’t suck ass, people suck ass, don’t confuse the two.
November 26th, 2004 at 9:55 amAs one who has not grown up in the Reformed Church I offer these comments.
A.Reformed is the wrong phraselogy for a Christian. Reforming is whats its about.
B. The church exists first and foremost for the edification of believers, to equip them. However, through the equipped believers comes evangelism. This is also tied into the church. Our worship then must be to the glory of God, and I believe that serving the purpose of the church is glorifying to God. Therefore our worship in singing must be true, it must uplift God, it must equip us to go out, and it must be a means of evangelism. I believe all of these can be tied together. We can sing songs that are theologically sound, that use the gift of music artistically, creatively and with excellence, that speak to us as Christians in the 21st century and that will be able to be witness to those who haven’t grown up singing the equivalent of a book in five minutes with a very basic tune. Not that those songs can’t witness, or do any of the above things, but we must discern wisely if we are clinging to them because they are such masterpieces of musical glory to God, or because they have been placed in the 1952 Psalter by men in the past.
3. God gave us talents for a reason. Many of the psalms, choruses, and hymns aren’t even talented, let alone worthy of being sung corporately. Who cares what is new, or old. Our worship must be magnificent, as it reflects the magnificence of God. I have done some of my most true worshiping by singing songs in choir. That music is talented, they actually thought about how the lyrics and the tune fit together throughout the piece. It wasn’t like “oh look, the words fit the tune…sweet” it was a very intense process of worshiping God through two mediums woven into one. I’m sorry, but the Psalter doesn’t do that well enough, most of the time.
4. I’m not arguing for the Psalter to be thrown out, nor for new songs to be banned, I’m arguing for a concept of worship in song that reflects the creativity, the truth, the passion,the beauty, the variety, the relevance and the attributes of our Creator. This is what we must strive for, and I believe as we do this, we will glorify God, equip believers and minister to those who are outside.
5. I would also like to say for the most part I strongly agree with Dax’s comments. Ancient and hard to understand language is not more holy or more worthy of being used by Christians. What is holy is a people who are “set apart” not by their refusal to move more than 50 years behind the popular culture, but those who are like Christ. And as Dax mentioned, not only did Paul contextualize himself to the culture, so did our Lord Jesus Christ.
November 26th, 2004 at 1:24 pmDenomination’s aren’t mandated in scripture, much less mandated to have rule over the local church. The local church is however, and such should be in charge of itself.
Sure, some local churches might start believing some pretty wacked out crap, but some denominations — and I might point to the Christian Reformed Church here — believe some pretty wacked out crap and predicate that on their member churches.
I favour a loose association of churches who have similar beliefs that submit to eachother’s reccomendations and general oversight, but never have to obey any governing body.
November 26th, 2004 at 8:08 pmDid I say that ? “thou shalt” no…
Denominations are a good thing, I hate the manifestations of them around myself. but it isn’t the denomination that is bad, it is the people who run it. I also prefrence loose associations with ties in common beliefs.. I think to many people take what started out as a good thing , some unity and familiarity in the churches around us, and move it in the direction of a bullwork of “doctrinal We say this and this is all there is.” It isn’t to say that that happens, or that it doesn’t happen - but it makes sense that it could happen..
My point is, whatever your view, it is ultimately going to be the people, not the system that make something good or bad..
November 27th, 2004 at 4:59 amWell Dax, you almost had me convinced that you were somewhat enlightened, then you had to say that denominations suck ass. I don’t get it, one minute you form a marginally good argument to back something you have decided to form an opinion on, only to end a partially insightful blog with a childlike comment. You believe unity is conformity.
November 27th, 2004 at 5:27 pmAnd you are obviously no better because you didn’t notice that you posted without signing in, or are afraid to ACTUALLY confront Dax.
Or you really are just a person without a name. In that case, we feel for you.
November 27th, 2004 at 6:08 pmWell Dax, you almost had me convinced that you were somewhat enlightened, then you had to say that denominations suck ass. I don’t get it, one minute you form a marginally good argument to back something you have decided to form an opinion on, only to end a partially insightful blog with a childlike comment. You believe unity is conformity.It must be fun living in a world where you think other people care whether you find them “enlightened” or not. I could always explain why I think what I think about denominations, as I did partially above, but I have better things to talk about, like for instance what I did this weekend, and the weather. Sorry for sending up your sacred cow.
Note: I believe in unity. Denominations, however, are a top-heavy way of achieving it.
Now, on to someone’s opinion that I actually respect:
Denominations are a good thing, I hate the manifestations of them around myself. but it isn’t the denomination that is bad, it is the people who run it.Which is the ironic thing, though, because by the time everyone’s perfect enough to run it, we’ll have a new heavens and new earth and won’t need a freaking denomination :)
November 29th, 2004 at 2:01 amtouche, dax.
::K::
November 30th, 2004 at 3:45 amHey, Daniel, forget about what this guy( or girl, I wouldn’t want people to think I formed an opinion) :0. Blogs are like art, sometimes it isn’t accepted by the general public.
I had this same experience when the wyomingboys had a messageboard, and my Dad had the same experience when writing a letter in Lambton’s Local paper.
Hey Anonymous, (not the ‘K’ anonymous) :), I enjoy reading Dan’s blogs, even though I am in the URC, and may have my own opinion.:) If you find Dan’s blogs offensive then don’t read them.
November 30th, 2004 at 7:03 amneways I am late for class. Keep writing DeBoer.
I’m out of this discussion.
Incidentally, my name is spelled with an “i”
Candice
December 1st, 2004 at 5:50 am