Here are some of the things I really hate in a worship song.
1. Too simplistic, banal, lacking in depth, shallow, doctrineless: Consider that one that just talks about unity among brothers that only mentions God in passing at the very end.
2. It’s so repetitive. I mean, come on, how many times can you repeat “His steadfast love endures forever” before you start thinking the song is going to go on forever? Examples: here and here
3. For some songs, the focus is too much on instruments, and the sheer volume leads to its seeming more like a performance than worship and prevents quiet contemplation.
4. There might be too much emphasis on too intimate a relationship with God, using first-person singular pronouns like “me” and “I” or second-person pronouns like “you” instead of words like “we” and “God”. This fosters a spirit of individualism, and it generates an atmosphere of religious euphoria rather than actual worship of God. Worship should be about God, not about us. Or what about the ones that use physical language to describe God and our relationship with him? Can you really stomach the idea of tasting God?
5. Some songs have way too many words for anyone to learn.
6. It patterns its worship on experiences that not everyone in the congregation will be able to identify with. If you’re not in the frame of mind or don’t have the emotional state in question (e.g. a desperate longing for God. Then what are you doing lying and singing it? Worship leaders who encourage that sort of thing are making their congregations sing falsehoods.
7. Then there’s that song with the line asking God not to take the Holy Spirit away, as if God would ever do that to a genuine believer.
8. Then there’s that song that basically says nothing except expressing negative emotions.
At this point I’m so outraged that people would pass this sort of thing off as worship that I’m almost inclined to give in to the people who think we shouldn’t sing anything but the psalms. Oh, wait…
September 1st, 2010 | 3:06 am | #1
Thank you SOOO much! I was beginning to feel like Elijah – all alone and destined to be the only nay-sayer in the place.
September 1st, 2010 | 3:11 am | #2
By the way – I do understand that this is “tongue-in-cheek”. The context is muy importante, no?
September 1st, 2010 | 9:19 am | #3
A lot of the tongue-in-cheek criticisms on this list are ones I’ve considered at one time or another, and though I still feel some of them really do bear weight, this is a good reality check.
On #7, however, I would tentatively disagree. The Holy Spirit dwells in a Christian in a way in which it did not dwell in David, at least if I understand correctly. The Spirit in the Old Testament would come on people as a wind, moving them by God’s power, but it did not dwell in them. For David to pray asking God not to take the Spirit away is one thing, then; for a Christian, it’s something else.
September 1st, 2010 | 9:32 am | #4
Moryam, for a Christian, it’s simply to ask God to honor His promises, for which there’s plenty of biblical precedent. It’s a common fallacy for Christians to think that if God promises to do or not to do something, the performance of that promise is never an appropriate request.
September 1st, 2010 | 10:17 am | #5
Hooray for the Psalms!
September 1st, 2010 | 11:30 am | #6
Great posting. Too often I hear people criticize worship songs that are taken directly from the Bible, and I wonder if the critics are aware they are criticizing worship modeled in the Bible.
September 1st, 2010 | 11:37 am | #7
[...] Pierce explains some of the things he really hates in a worship [...]
September 1st, 2010 | 11:50 am | #8
1. My implicit argument here is on the methodology of argumentation. A lot of legitimate criticisms of worship music are in the neighborhood of some of these, but the point is that we need to be very careful that we’re not making an argument against the inspired worship songs included in the scriptures, because a lot of arguments are framed in a way that they apply to certain psalms.
I think this post should show that certain features can be fine in public worship that are often criticized in contemporary worship music. It does not show that it’s all right for those features to become so dominant in our public worship as to remove the variety we find in the psalter. For example, if we never had any doctrine in our songs I think that would be outright sin, and it would be unfortunate if we only had it half the time even. But one song in the psalter (at least) has very little that could be even stretched to count as doctrine, so we shouldn’t object to one song without much doctrine unless we want to be giving an implicit criticism of the Bible itself. The same goes for most of these features.
2. I’ve actually given many of these arguments at points in the past. Some of them seem bad arguments to me now, even I thought they were good arguments at the time. Others seem all right when properly qualified as being about the dominance of certain features that shouldn’t be dominant. But argument 7 has a different feature altogether. It’s a particular argument against a particular contemporary worship song. As I’m envisioning it in the literary context of the post, it’s being presented by a naive person who doesn’t have a clue that Keith Green simply lifted Create in Me a Clean Heart from the pages of scripture. There is the more nuanced argument of Moryam (although I’m not comfortable calling the Holy Spirit “it”), and it’s one I’ve sometimes thought good, but I’ve come to conclude that it isn’t. How I presented it in this post is bad if it doesn’t acknowledge that it does at least come from scripture and that there’s a difference between NT experience of the Holy Spirit and OT experience of the Holy Spirit. So it does, I think, belong here, even on the view that it’s inappropriate for a Christian to ask for something that God has promised.
My thought on this at this point is that it’s simply not inappropriate to ask for something that God has promised, something that God has even promised to all believers. Look at the prayers of Paul, for example. God has promised that, as we work out our salvation, it is God who works in us. He’s promised that he’ll see us through to the end, providing for our needs, giving us everything we need for life and godliness. But Jesus commanded us to bring our concerns before the Father, even concerns involving our subjective uncertainty about the objective promises of God.
So that’s one factor. The other is the correct approach, in my view, about assurance of salvation, which I think Thomas Schreiner and D.A. Carson have both captured correctly in various writings. My extended reflections on this are here, but the short of it is that every genuine believer is objectively secure while there’s never 100% subjective certainty in the way of absolute proof, and thus I don’t know 100% (even if I have enough certainty to count as knowledge) that I have the Holy Spirit, because there’s the chance that I might be not genuine, which would be demonstrated by my not maintaining the faith. So I might be experiencing the benefits of the Holy Spirit because of his presence in believers around me, and common grace is operating to give what Hebrews might describe as tasting some of the effect of the Holy Spirit’s presence, but if I turn out to fall away then I was never really indwelt. Because of this possibility, I can pray that I not turn out to be such a person, even if I am a genuine believer (and even if it’s a secure enough understanding to count as knowledge that I’m a genuine believer).
But people with different theological convictions will, of course, disagree on these things, and someone with different views on the various issues here might well retain the argument that I’m no longer convinced is faithful to scripture.
September 1st, 2010 | 11:55 am | #9
Excellent post!
However (here comes the but monkey) I’m not sure about #6. It is impossible for every word of any worship song to be truthfully expressed by every person in the congregation. Part of the value of a worship song is to model proper attitudes and expressions about God. Singing about an attitude you don’t currently have is not necessarily a lie, because it could serve the purpose of leading you to the correct attitude.
Besides, if we cannot lead a congregation in a song that expresses a longing for God, for fear some of them might be lying, then putting Psalm 42 to music definitely would be out.
Or so it seems to me. . . . .
September 1st, 2010 | 12:08 pm | #10
1. Is “performance”, by definition, not “worship”? I assure you that any and all musicians have their own idea of what it means to play a song well, and are at least “performing” in line with their ability to do so. I guess you’re saying that it’s a performance for the sake of entertaining the audience, but even then that Biblically can line up with a number of the definitions of “worship”.
2. As far as it concerns the idea of “tasting” God, talk to the Psalmist about that one.
Otherwise, yes…
September 1st, 2010 | 12:10 pm | #11
HAHAHAH! Ooookay.
Busted!
Thanks, man! That was a good laugh, once I caught on.
Call me SLOW.
September 1st, 2010 | 12:12 pm | #12
Oh how I have wanted to write something like this… thank you!
September 1st, 2010 | 12:21 pm | #13
[...] Someone Else on Authentic, Sincere, Real Worship dang. this. is. good. [...]
September 1st, 2010 | 12:24 pm | #14
Jeremy,
Are you okay with worship songs that produce the Sacred Swoon?
September 1st, 2010 | 12:31 pm | #15
[...] leave a comment » Revisit the worship wars, for the first time here. [...]
September 1st, 2010 | 1:12 pm | #16
Bravo Jeremy! We cloak our criticisms in such pious language sometimes. They sound so plausible, sometimes even well-intentioned. This little bit of fun is a serious reality check.
September 1st, 2010 | 1:15 pm | #17
[...] who actually appreciates a lot of contemporary praise and worship — I really liked this “rant” by Jeremy Pierce. I tried once, in a combox, to make the same arguments against Scott Clark and his psalms-only, [...]
September 1st, 2010 | 1:22 pm | #18
That was wonderful! It made my day. Best thing I’ve read all week.
September 1st, 2010 | 1:28 pm | #19
Hahaha, well done, well done.
Much of the issue, however, is not against the texts used but concerning the music and the broader context of worship. Another post, perhaps.
September 1st, 2010 | 1:37 pm | #20
Jeremy, I agree with much of what you say here. However, I have never been of the persuasion that the psalms are “worship songs” as we call them. This is why I don’t think they must be sung by the congregation. Certainly some are musical in origin, but not all. Some are laments, some are prayers, and some reflections that one might have wrote in a journal. I still think one can be justified in thinking that worship songs should be about God and not about our experience of God. After all, God is the object of our worship.
September 1st, 2010 | 1:38 pm | #21
Keith, I’m not sure why you think I’d disagree with you. Did you miss where the links all go?
September 1st, 2010 | 1:46 pm | #22
Adam, I’m not sure what we can prove about how the psalms were used, but I’d be very surprised if they were not all used in public worship at some point, which means that public worship involved more than just the congregation singing songs to God. Whatever form that other element took, it seems as if there can’t be an in-principle argument against public worship involving more than that. That’s mainly what I’m resisting.
Given what worship is biblically, I don’t think that should be surprising. I’ve written a lot about this here, in a post strongly influenced by Carson’s introduction to Worship by the Book, which is now online somewhere or other, but I couldn’t find it with the few minutes I had just now to do so. The basic point is that if worship is supposed to encompass all we do, our lives our lives of worship, and our time gathering publicly for worship should just continue that. There are some particular things that should always be present and some things that may be best to be usually present, but including other things should be just fine if they’re conceived of and presented in the right way as to fall under the category of worship that all of our life should be anyway.
September 1st, 2010 | 1:59 pm | #23
Along with David Koyzis, I will hurray the Psalms.
Magnificent!
September 1st, 2010 | 2:01 pm | #24
Can any weight be given to the Psalms on account of them being actual inspired Word of God, and not just touchy feelings of men?
September 1st, 2010 | 2:01 pm | #25
Regulative Principle of Worship?
September 1st, 2010 | 2:14 pm | #26
[...] Rant About Worship Songs September 1, 2010 Andrew Ford Leave a comment Go to comments Check this guy out – He nails it! Categories: Andrew's Blogs, worship Comments (0) Trackbacks (0) [...]
September 1st, 2010 | 2:20 pm | #27
Kinda funny. But not really sure what you are trying to say.
The point still needs to be made that the criticisms you use as a joke are mostly valid. As a musician and a music/arts pastor, I sift through tons of “christian” music and do see that many songs lack substance, contain poorly thought out theology, teach us to worship ourselves/feed our idolatry, lack any artistic creativity, etc.
Don’t believe me? Cycle through some of the Hillsong stuff (which is some of the better music out there, at least lyrically) and you can pick out a good set (7 or so songs) for worship at a church that have the exact same chord progressions and sound almost the same. Or one of my favorite songs of late, and one that we do often at our church because of its deep theological teaching, “Before the Throne of God Above” by Sovereign Grace Ministries which sounds laughingly similar to Pocahontas singing “Colors of the Wind” in the Disney movie.
Many people I know (mostly musicians) who don’t know Jesus make fun of “christian” music for its lack of creativity, generic musical structures, and the like.
There is a huge difference between how worship is expressed in the scriptures vs. the cookie cutter stuff being churned out in the “christian” music scene. And I put quotations around “christian” because just because some record label, radio station, book store, etc says it is “christian”, does not mean that it reflects well on Jesus or the Gospel at all. Christian is a noun, a term that describes a specific person, committed to a specific likeminded people, serving the Messiah Jesus. It is not an adjective, was never intended to be used that way, and is a terrible descriptor. What is a Christ follower supposed to do when something is labeled “christian” (like music) but reflects poorly on Jesus, or worse, what do you do when you think that the Christian thing to do is to think the complete opposite? Are you a bad “christian” now?
I wish that our problem with worship music was that it mirrors too closely the Psalter. Unfortunately, that’s not the case IMHO.
Blessings
September 1st, 2010 | 3:00 pm | #28
The Hebrew name for the Book of Psalms is Tehillim, which means “Praises.”
September 1st, 2010 | 3:03 pm | #29
Matt,
Those are fair points … but that does mean we shouldn’t use Psalms 45 and 69 in the same worship service. Or Psalms 57, 58, 59 (David was apparently stuck on that tune) and 75.
September 1st, 2010 | 3:10 pm | #30
Don’t forget the songs that are over-emotional with unrealistic hyperbole.
September 1st, 2010 | 3:17 pm | #31
I love this post. And even though I agree that some worship music lacks heart or artistry, the solution to this is not to sow criticism and derision, as has been the case for so long in the church, but to START WRITING NEW SONGS! Praise God the source of all creation, the source of all creativity! I pray for a quenching of the critical, othering spirit and for a new fire of love and joy to come over this weary old body! Oh wait that’s the Holy Spirit!! Let’s let Him do His work eh?
September 1st, 2010 | 3:55 pm | #32
Nice post. There’s a chapter in the book Fixing Abraham (http://www.amazon.com/Fixing-Abraham-Taming-Heroes-Blinds/dp/1414321724) that makes similar points.
September 1st, 2010 | 3:59 pm | #33
There’s a lot of 7-11 songs in the church for sure, where there are 7 verses and you sing them over 11 times.
I would say David was born again, as we are. He was one of God’s elect. Yet, when He sinned that dispicable sin of adultary and murder, I’m thinking God’s presence was different to say the least.
The same can happen to us. We can quench the Spirit, just as David did..
His joy had left, and he wanted it back. We need to be filled with the Holy Ghost, and not wine to have great joy, and so we can sing spiritual songs, psalms, and hymns.
And there is a growing up in the spirit when it comes to worship hymns and songs.
I have changed in my taste for music.
Most of the CCM on Christian radio is opo-culture tunes, and even bubble-gum music. And the musical air in our day is that God needs us, and wants us to run into His arms. We fall down, but God has his arms open for us. Too much of the same thing over and over.
And the insipudness of the lyrics leaves me wanting.
I hope the discussion grows out here in the blogging world. May help some the srtist to grow a little and make some good deep and rich songs for us to sing.
Stewart Townend has some great songs, just to drop a name.
God bless.
September 1st, 2010 | 4:43 pm | #34
“Jesus loves me! This I know,
For the Bible tells me so;
Little ones to Him belong,
They are weak but He is strong.
Yes, Jesus loves me!
Yes, Jesus loves me!
Yes, Jesus loves me!
The Bible tells me so.”
Anyone ranting against this worship song, and I’ll take down names and be taking no prisoners.
;-)
September 1st, 2010 | 4:51 pm | #35
I’m more annoyed that none of those “examples” you linked to had any perceptible rhyming scheme. No attention to lyrical meter or cadence. Sloppy songwriting. Who is this Sam guy anyway?
September 1st, 2010 | 6:24 pm | #36
[...] 1, 2010 Rant about worship (taken from Jeremy Pierce) Rant About Worship Songs Tuesday, August 31, 2010, 11:39 PM Jeremy [...]
September 1st, 2010 | 6:37 pm | #37
[...] 2, 2010 this is a fantastic rant about ‘Worship Songs’ – read it. and make sure you check out each of the links in his [...]
September 1st, 2010 | 6:47 pm | #38
Negative emotions?
Psalm 88 tops (bottoms?) them all.
September 1st, 2010 | 7:13 pm | #39
donsands,
“I would say David was born again, as we are.”
I don’t think the question is whether he was born again, so much as whether he was indwelt by the Spirit.
Yes, regeneration is the work of the Spirit–but do you have good reason to say that the Spirit must indwell someone in order to regenerate him? Before Pentecost, Jesus said, “You know him, for he dwells [present-tense] with you and will be [future-tense] in you.”
It may also be that David really was indwelt by the Spirit in the same way we are, for at least some of his life–but the Holy Spirit’s continual indwelling is our promise in the new covenant, which David didn’t have.
September 1st, 2010 | 9:16 pm | #40
I think the word is intent. Much modern music is made to give man glory, including the musician. It is to sell records and climb the charts.We would chastise a preacher for doing that.
September 1st, 2010 | 10:27 pm | #41
This is a problem shared by Protestant and modern Catholic worship.
I’ve always thought that it was movement by malcontent modernists within the Church to make Mass & music more Protestant-like.
Glad to see so many Protestants decrying banality in what ought to be inspirational. Please fix this so the modernists in the Catholic Church will shift their course away from this hand-clapping nonsense.
September 1st, 2010 | 10:42 pm | #42
Fred, I disagree. I know of some artists for whom music is create to bring them glory, but not many – most I know create because they cannot but create – it’s who they are, and many Christian creatives who create because they believe God called them to… and some of those become famous, and get financial blessing for it. I’m fine with that. Bless them, God!
September 1st, 2010 | 11:06 pm | #43
How about this for an objective standard? The scriptures contain 749 references to music and every one of them is in the context of worship. Ask yourself – is the sound designed to stimulate flesh or does it contain the marks of the Spirit [love,joy,peace,patience,kindness,goodness, gentleness,faithfulness,self control]? Next, does the accompaniment drown out the praise? Are the words ministering unto God or something [someone] else? The true worshipers worship in Spirit & in Truth. Be blessed.
September 2nd, 2010 | 12:06 am | #44
Thank you for this post. You’ve said in fewer words (and much more cleverly) what I’ve been trying to argue over the course of my tenure as pastor/worship leader at my church, as I attempt to try to bring together traditionalist and “contemporary” camps. I’ve defended thoughtful use of “7-11 songs” (http://www.zachicks.com/blog/2009/5/29/in-defense-of-7-11-songs.html) but you have covered so much more ground! Thanks for this great post.
September 2nd, 2010 | 12:37 am | #45
Matt (#27): Did you read the clarifications I made in the comments? I thought I was pretty clear there that i think there are good arguments in the neighborhood of several of these criticism, but we need to be careful how we make those arguments, or we end up impugning scripture itself.
The Berean (#41): Not true. David played the harp for Saul to calm him down, and there’s no indication that any public worship was going on. There’s also a reference early in Genesis to the first maker of musical instruments, and no mention is made of public worship. It’s not even clear that music was used in public worship at that time. The Bible is a religious text, so we wouldn’t expect it to mention every use of music outside the religious context.
September 2nd, 2010 | 2:11 am | #46
This was great, in an “ouch” kinda way – thanks.
September 2nd, 2010 | 8:57 am | #47
[...] Rant About Worship Songs — I love this unique take on the typical “worship war” rant. Be sure to click the links to get the tongue-in-cheek humor… [...]
September 2nd, 2010 | 9:49 am | #48
As a previous comment stated; you have succinctly said things many of us have thought or voiced! When I was converted 31+ years ago I recall Keith Green commenting on regularly, and being quite dissatified with the content, and commericalism of “contemporary” Christian music there in 1979-81. Just couple of additional points as Church music has gotten bigger over the years: First, it has wrongly been used to draw unbelievers in our gatherings by being cool/hip trying desperately to copy worldly styles a major-major part of secular life with the result of watering down the Gospel or worse hiding it almost totally! Secondly, it is mainly devoid of sound Biblical content, rarely even close to Newton’s “Amazing Grace” or Wesley’s “How can it be”. Thirdly, with its pseudo-pentecostal/charismatic nature it is me-centered, emotional leading, physical stimulating, not mind renewing-then reverent emotions, expository, deep toward God, leading to physical acts of service and kindness. When I hear the mindless, Hindu mantra like 7-11; “He is Holy” I wonder if most have ever explored that important Biblical topic like in RC Sproul’s “The Holiness of God” or Jerry Bridges “Pursuit of Holiness”?? Just maybe if we returned to the inerrant, absolute life-changing Word of God as our rule & authority, then fallen feelings, voices in our fallen heads, and worldly satanic/demonic viewpoints would be continually cleansed away, like the Lord Jesus washing the disciples dirty, smelly feet!
September 2nd, 2010 | 10:59 am | #49
[...] From Jeremy Pierce: [...]
September 2nd, 2010 | 12:56 pm | #50
OK, if you are going to criticize contemporary worship music for content, let’s be fair and look at “time tested hymns”. “Only trust Him, only trust Him, only trust Him now. He will save you, He will save you, He will save you now.” Now there’s a plate full of meat for you! Oh, and by the way, those time tested hymns, when they were first published were the upstart rantings of frustrated worshippers who were tired of time tested hymns of the 1700s.
September 2nd, 2010 | 1:52 pm | #51
[...] on Evangel, Jeremy Pierce lists some of the things he really hates in a worship song. Be sure to read to the end. Comments [...]
September 2nd, 2010 | 1:55 pm | #52
I’ve chanted the Psalms with the Trappist monks at the Monastery of the Holy Spirit, and I’ve been in clapping, dancing, spinning, jumping, fall-on-the-floor worship with Charismatics. I appreciate both.
Here is a song from the Charismatic side. See who it glorifies: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FObjd5wrgZ8
I also have a solid appreciation for hymns, of which we have a strong and wonderful heritage: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B001AW27OO?tag=jeffdoleswalkinb-20
September 2nd, 2010 | 2:04 pm | #53
“–but the Holy Spirit’s continual indwelling is our promise in the new covenant, which David didn’t have.” -JUg
I’m still struggling with the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, and especially that He has to indwell a believer in the NT, and can not leave, and He was in believers in the OT, but would leave, and yet this believer without the Spirit of God was still born again.
I don’t think a sinner can be born again without the Spirit. In the flesh it is impossible to please God. In the flesh, without the Spirit, we are enemies of God.
Romans 8 says: “You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness.”
I would think this would have applied to Daniel, Samuel, Lot, Jacob, and even Samson; and every believer throughout the History of God’s people.
I’m thinking there has to be something with the filling of the Spirit, and the Spirit coming upon us that is the same thing basically, and the words are simply different.
As even John the Baptist was filled with the Spirit in the womb. Elizabeth, his Mom, was filled with the Spirit, and Mary had the Spirit come upon her.
I know I certainly could be wrong here, but this seems much more likely to me.
The one verse in John where Jesus says He will be IN you, is an essential point. And I don’t think the Spirit was not in the Apostles, but simply the full measure of the Spirit was in Christ, and Christ would be gone, and this same Spirit would be gained by His disciples. Perhaps Jesus had a meaning like this.
I shall continue to study this, but the bottom line for me is that the Holy Spirit does abide with me, which means Christ and the Father are abiding in me as well. And that is unbelievable!
And yet what happens when I grieve the Spirit, which I do. He may not leave me, but I do cry out, “Lord don’t leave me. Fill me with the joy I need to be strong for you. Forgive me Lord.”
I suppose I don’t need to ask for forgiveness, since all my sins are forgiven, and yet my heart simply cries out to ask Jesus to forgive me.
Thanks for the word and comment. I appreciate it.
And I appreciate this blog.
Have a great weekend and Lord’s Day!
September 2nd, 2010 | 2:18 pm | #54
I suppose I don’t need to ask for forgiveness, since all my sins are forgiven, and yet my heart simply cries out to ask Jesus to forgive me.
I was thinking of exactly that example as I was reading through some of the comments earlier, but I forgot to mention it when I was responding.
September 2nd, 2010 | 2:19 pm | #55
Wow, even after all the comments, some people are still not picking up on what should become obvious satire even if you just read to the end of the post or if you bother to click on any links. It’s a little strange to read only part of a post, not click on the links to the things being criticized, and then take the time to write a comment when you couldn’t be bothered to take the time to figure out what the post is even referring to.
September 2nd, 2010 | 2:38 pm | #56
[...] Great post over on the First Things blog by Jeremy Pierce, in which he examines the elements of a bad worship song. [...]
September 2nd, 2010 | 2:52 pm | #57
I suggest you review the 150 songs of the Psalms and revise your critique. Apparently David and the rest have a tough time pleasing your worship palate!
September 2nd, 2010 | 3:16 pm | #58
Great Post – don’t forget to click the links !
Read between the lines folks! of should I say read the red links!
September 2nd, 2010 | 4:18 pm | #59
In the Book of Psalm (or the Book of Praises) there are a number of Hebrew words that are rendered as “joy” or “rejoice.” They are not abstract terms to the Hebrew mind, but very concrete. So there are words which mean to jump for joy, sing for joy, shout for joy, spin for joy, and even to squeak or squeal for joy ~ all in the context of worship and praise.
September 2nd, 2010 | 4:33 pm | #60
I usually don’t click on links in a topic if there are that many of them, but in this case, all it takes is a mouse-over to show where the links go, and that gives away the whole game!
September 2nd, 2010 | 6:54 pm | #61
“..even to squeak or squeal for joy” Jeff
Where are those verses, if you don’t mind me asking?
Made me think of the people up in Toronto who were snorting and barking praise, and all sorts of noises and movements.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCeVZ6e2T0E&feature=related
September 2nd, 2010 | 7:00 pm | #62
Matt, you stated my point exactly, but you failed to see that it was my point. It’s amazing how many people here are “agreeing” with my while exhibiting exactly the attitude I’m making fun or and critiquing and how many are “criticizing” my post while expressing pretty close to the point I was in fact making.
September 2nd, 2010 | 7:33 pm | #63
Clever and refreshing. thanks. :)
September 2nd, 2010 | 8:45 pm | #64
I to have a problem with #6..If a persom read the Bible before he believes in God or become comes one of God’s children would that be a sin? Is that any different than singing God word?
September 2nd, 2010 | 9:15 pm | #65
Jeremy –
If I hadn’t withdrawn from Evangel, you still would have beat me to this post, which is awesome. I have been dying to say this for about 3 years, and it’s a shame that here you say it in a place where the people who need to hear it most will probably never read it.
Not to mention the people who haven’t followed the links yet. Selah.
September 2nd, 2010 | 9:31 pm | #66
Donsands,
The Hebrew word I am talking about is rinnah and refers to a “creaking” or “shrill” sound (Strong’s). From ranan, a “stridulous,” or high-pitched sound (Strong’s).
It is found, for example, in Psalm 30:5, “Joy [rinnah] comes in the morning. In Psalm 42:4, “With the voice of joy [rinnah] and praise.” In Psalm 105:43, “He brought out His people with joy, His chosen ones with gladness [rinnah].” In Psalm 107:22, “Declare His works with rejoicing [rinnah].” In Psalm 118:15, The voice of rejoicing [rinnah] and salvation in the tents of the righteous.” In Psalm 126:2, “Our mouth was filled with laughter, our tongue with singing [rinnah].” In Psalm 126:5, “Those who sow in tears shall reap in joy [rinnah].” Also for “rejoicing” or “shouts of joy” in Psalm 126:6.
In Psalm 47:1, it is “Shout to God with a voice of triumph [rinnah].” Notice also the “shout.” And in that verse, we also find clapping in worship, “Oh, clap your hands all you peoples.”
September 3rd, 2010 | 2:09 am | #67
Okay, so the words come from the Psalms, but where does the music come from? To my ear, most of it sounds like schmaltzy, warmed-over pop music. Is it possible that someone might think the words are fine, but the music is grossly inappropriate, and that’s why contemporary worship songs fail?
Not just any music will do for the purpose of worship. Would anyone, for example, think it a good idea to set the words of the twenty-third Psalm to the music of “Super Freak” or “Material Girl” or (for that matter) the Broadway show tune “New York, New York?” Doing so would be about as successful in creating an aesthetically appropriate atmosphere of worship as playing a dirge on a banjo would be in creating an aesthetically appropriate atmosphere of lament.
Christianity has the longest and deepest tradition of reflection on the kind of music appropriate to worship, but “contemporary” churches consistently ignore it in favor of the sort of tunes that people like. Well, what you win them with, you win them to. No wonder so many contemporary Christians are stunted in the affective and devotional aspects of their faith.
September 3rd, 2010 | 2:32 am | #68
I disagree with almost every point on this post. Most of these rule out the criteria for worship given to us in the Psalms, God’s own inspired ProPesenter display for ancient Israel.
1. I do agree with this one.
2. The Psalms are often repetitive. All the angels (if they are angels) in Revelation 4-5 sing is Holy, Holy, Holy…. That’s worship in heaven. I think it’s a good model.
3. Doubtful. Psalm 150 encourages instruments and never mentions singing, meaning the instruments themselves do not just support the worship but are part of it.
4. Psalms use first-person. Corporate worship is made up of individuals. I-songs and we-songs should be sung. It’s biblical.
5. Some songs intended for corporate worship in ancient Israel had lots of words, as evidenced again in Psalms. This encourages reflection I think. Plus, this criteria would disgard many great hymns if applied to stringently.
6. This always seemed odd when I heard people say it. We can see these songs simply by making them our prayer.
7. This misunderstands different levels of having the Spirit in the New Testament.
8. I don’t know what song is in mind for this point.
It is odd that this person is so “outraged.” Would they be outraged at the Psalmists or the creatures in heaven in Revelation for doing many of the same things?
September 3rd, 2010 | 3:03 am | #69
In other words, totally love this post. I get so tired of hearing these same arguments. I am glad someone responded to them well.
September 3rd, 2010 | 3:05 am | #70
In other words, I love this post. I get so tired of people using these exact arguments. Thanks for exposing them.
September 3rd, 2010 | 4:57 am | #71
Can you really stomach the idea of tasting God?
“Taste and see that the Lord is good” (Psalm 34:8)
September 3rd, 2010 | 8:16 am | #72
Thanks Jeff.
I’ll have to look at that a bit more. But whatever sound comes out from our lips, it needs to be from the heart that loves Christ, and adores Him for His death and ressurection. I don’t think I can creak, or shrill, but I can sing with thansgiving and with joy to a Savior and God who loved me so much that He had spikes hammered through His wrists and feet.
“I will not boast in anything
No gifts, no power, no wisdom
But I will boast inJesus Christ
His death and resurrection
Why should I gain from His reward?
I cannot give an answer
But this I know with all my heart
His wounds have paid my ransom.” -Stuart Townend
September 3rd, 2010 | 8:21 am | #73
JB in CA: If you don’t think a banjo can handle a lament, then you must never have heard the blues.
September 3rd, 2010 | 8:42 am | #74
[...] Rant about worship songs… This entry was posted in Blog. Bookmark the permalink. ← chan’s fans… [...]
September 3rd, 2010 | 9:43 am | #75
St. Augustine had an interesting note, in his commentary on the Psalms, regarding “jubilation”:
“’God hath gone up with jubilation.’ What is jubilation, but admiration of joy which cannot be expressed in words? As the disciples in joy admired, seeing Him go into Heaven, whom they had mourned dead; truly for the joy, words sufficed not: remained to jubilate what none could express.” ~ NPNF, First Series, Vol. 8, Exposition on the Book of Psalms (Psalm 47).
“’Jubilate in God every land.’ What is ‘jubilate? Into the voice of rejoicings break forth if you cannot into that of words. For ‘jubilation’ is not of words, but the sound alone of men rejoicing is uttered, as of a heart laboring and bringing forth into voice the pleasure of a thing imagined which cannot be expressed.”
NPNF, First Series, Vol. 8, Exposition on the Book of Psalms (Psalm 66).
Apparently, Augustine either experienced, witnessed or otherwise knew of this phenomena of jubilation in the Church, a phenomena which, according to his description, perhaps suggests what some today call “singing in the Spirit.”
September 3rd, 2010 | 10:51 am | #76
Jeff, my reading of Augustine is that he’s not talking about some special external “event” called jubilation, he’s just saying that the joy being expressed is not fully contained in the words, but is evidently present in those singing the words.
Similarly, the words “I love you” written on a scrap of paper lying on a table express the same meaning as a man passionately telling his wife “I love you,” but nonetheless the words on the paper don’t express everything the man is expressing. The expression goes beyond the meaning, but it isn’t really some special, mystical event that makes the difference.
September 3rd, 2010 | 11:45 am | #77
[...] from around the blogsphere. ******************* Jeremy Pierce over at Evangel has a brilliant post: Rant About Worship Songs. Definitely a [...]
September 3rd, 2010 | 11:46 am | #78
I’d agree with pentamom on this. That’s what it sounded to me as if he was saying. I certainly wouldn’t assume he had to mean more than that, at any rate.
September 3rd, 2010 | 11:47 am | #79
Thanks, Pentamom. It looks to me like he is talking about something that cannot be contained with words, something that goes beyond words and may not even require words. Paul talked about the Spirit making intercession in us with “groanings that cannot be uttered” ~! they cannot be articulated in words. Paul also says, in 1 Corinthians 14:15, “What is the conclusion then? I will pray with the Spirit, and I will also pray with the understanding. I will sing with the Spirit, and I will also sing with the understanding.”
By “pray with the Spirit,” he is talking about praying “in a tongue” (v. 14). In v. 15, it is contrasted with “pray with the understanding.” Likewise, the singing. So he did both. He prayed with words he did understand, but he also prayed with words he did not understand. He sang with words he did understand, but he also prayed with words he did not understand.” Praying and singing, in the context of 1 Corinthians 14, is talking about worship. And they are also vocal activities. So there is a singing and praying with the Spirit that is different from singing and praying with words that can be understood. Inasmuch as this singing and praying are “with the Spirit,” there is a mystical aspect as our spirit interacts with the Holy Spirit.
The Hebrew language, in the OT, deals with things concretely rather that abstractly. So the expressions of joy it gives us are not quiet, inward things ~ they have external manifestations. Jumping for joy, shouting for joy, creaking or squealing for joy, spinning for joy ~ these are external events. In Psalm 47:1, on which Augustine comments, the word for “shout” means to cry aloud with a joyful noise (the Vulgate has this as “iubilate” or “jubilate”).
The same word is found in Psalm 66:1, “Make a joyful noise unto God,” or “Shout for joy to God.” It is not always about words. It is about celebrating God with joy. That actually looks and sounds like something ~ that is, you can tell when someone is doing it.
I used to be in a church where we read everything off a paper: “We rejoice today that …” Everybody reading dully in a monotone voice. We all said the words, “We rejoice,” but joy was not evident in any way. To the concrete, OT Hebrew way of thinking, we were not actually rejoicing at all, merely reading. Since those days, I have found many places where they are not afraid to let the joy out; where the words of worship become a springboard that releases our joy to God, instead of a cage that keeps it bound.
September 3rd, 2010 | 1:48 pm | #80
[...] the whole here. My link to this was [...]
September 3rd, 2010 | 4:27 pm | #81
“I have found many places where they are not afraid to let the joy out; where the words of worship become a springboard that releases our joy to God, instead of a cage that keeps it bound.”
I have found a church where there is worship in Spirit and truth. You can not have one without the other.
They read from a prayer book, and though they do, the congregation loves to confess to the Lord, and then thanks the Lord w th heartfelt gratitude for the Cross.
Of course someone can read from a prayer book and it be empty. And so it can be just as empty with a lot of emotional spontaneity.
Or the spontaneous singing of hymns and praying can be of the Lord as well.
I used to be in some rather shallow emotionalism churches that liked a lot of fast beat music. I have found a fine church now that has an incredible pastor, who loves and worships our Lord, and feeds us sheep. And Christ is the center of attention, not us.
I have also been to Covenant Life Church, here in Maryland–CJ Mahaney’s church, and they have the Charismatic thing going on and though it’s a bit much for me, I see that it is biblical sound.
September 3rd, 2010 | 4:43 pm | #82
Jeremy Pierce: Actually, I don’t think a banjo can handle a dirge, which is a specific kind of lament. (Isn’t that what I said?) But let’s suppose it can. How, exactly, does that refute my main point? Or were you even addressing my main point? I ask, because you left the impression—with me, at any rate—that you had answered my main objection by going after what I would consider a minor detail?
September 3rd, 2010 | 6:18 pm | #83
[...] Jeremy Pierce offers what seems to be a typical rant about worship songs… but wait! It’s made even more amusing (if bewildering) by the many commenters who [...]
September 4th, 2010 | 12:58 am | #84
I think a dirge on a banjo would sound pretty cool, actually. But then my favorite band is a rock band with a classical violinist that has long instrumental sections with unusual time signatures.
If you insist that I address your arguments, I suppose I can.
Okay, so the words come from the Psalms, but where does the music come from? To my ear, most of it sounds like schmaltzy, warmed-over pop music. Is it possible that someone might think the words are fine, but the music is grossly inappropriate, and that’s why contemporary worship songs fail?
It’s possible that someone might end up with all manner of views, but it’s hard for me to imagine someone rationally coming to such a conclusion while being well-informed and not just stuck with 80s Maranatha Praise stuff, which really does sound like schmaltzy, warmed-over pop music. There was good stuff among those also, but the way they played it wasn’t all that great, in my opinion. But most of this newer stuff that came out alongside the Passion movement is anything but schmaltzy, and I’d say is very much a minority that fits that description.
Would anyone, for example, think it a good idea to set the words of the twenty-third Psalm to the music of “Super Freak” or “Material Girl” or (for that matter) the Broadway show tune “New York, New York?”
That might be kind of cool, actually, but it might not be a good idea to use it in public worship. The disconnect would distract people too much. But I’m not advocating zero limits on what might appropriately be done.
Christianity has the longest and deepest tradition of reflection on the kind of music appropriate to worship, but “contemporary” churches consistently ignore it in favor of the sort of tunes that people like.
Right. So we should avail ourselves of it, while also availing ourselves of the rich worship tradition going on around us. I have the feeling you’re completely out of touch with the current generation of worship music, because I could name off a bunch of songs without batting an eye that are every bit as musically interesting and lyrically deep as any hymn but much more easily understood by ordinary people today and already contextualized to their situation. I couldn’t say the same about hymns, as much as I think it’s contrary to Christian unity across the ages to ignore hymns. We should do them, and we should do them with contemporary music, since that’s how we contextualize them to our own day. I’m not even all that resistant to adding appropriate lyrics (e.g. The Wonderful Cross expansion of When I Survey is pretty good).
September 4th, 2010 | 6:23 am | #85
If you insist that I address your arguments, I suppose I can.
Thanks for condescending. I know you must be a busy man.
It’s possible that someone might end up with all manner of views, but it’s hard for me to imagine someone rationally coming to such a conclusion …
“Rationally” is not the right word here. The question is whether the music is aesthetically appropriate. Does it evoke the affective responses pertinent to worship or the affective responses pertinent to the secular music it models itself after? Does it, e.g., evoke feelings of awe or of sensationalism, of agape or of eros, of humility or of conceit, of guilt or of resentment, of sacrifice or of self-interest, of dependence or of control, of community or of individuality, of acceptance or of defiance, of cooperation or of rebellion? Remember, I’m talking about the music itself, not the words that go with it. The lyrics can go only so far if they’re at cross purposes with the music.
… while being well-informed and not just stuck with 80s Maranatha Praise stuff, which really does sound like schmaltzy, warmed-over pop music.
Funny thing, but I can remember the 1980s contemporary Christian music apologists saying the same thing, except they said it about the choruses of the 1960s. (Their own music, of course, had moved beyond all that.)
That might be kind of cool, actually, but it might not be a good idea to use it in public worship. The disconnect would distract people too much.
See what I mean? A sense of cool is not the sort of affectation that worship music should attempt to evoke.
But I’m not advocating zero limits on what might appropriately be done.
So you are advocating limits on what might appropriately be done?
I have the feeling you’re completely out of touch with the current generation of worship music …
I try my best.
I could name off a bunch of songs without batting an eye that are every bit as musically interesting and lyrically deep as any hymn …
Really? Are they also “every bit as musically interesting and lyrically deep” as any sacred chant, or motet, or chorale, or fugue, or cantata, etc.? And how is their lyrical depth or musical interest even relevant to my argument? I wasn’t talking about lyrics, nor was I talking about music that is interesting. I was talking about music that is aesthetically appropriate to worship.
… but much more easily understood by ordinary people today and already contextualized to their situation.
Well, no doubt you’re right about that. But is there no room for growth? Or should their growth in this area always track the latest trends in popular music (minus the lyrics)? And would that even count as growth?
… I think it’s contrary to Christian unity across the ages to ignore hymns. We should do them, and we should do them with contemporary music, since that’s how we contextualize them to our own day.
In other words, we shouldn’t do hymns, we should just put their lyrics to the music we like.
September 4th, 2010 | 6:33 am | #86
[Jeremy: The italics tags didn't work on my previous post, so I've reprinted it here with quotation marks around your comments. I think that should make it easier to read. Feel free to remove the one above.]
“If you insist that I address your arguments, I suppose I can.”
Thanks for condescending. I know you must be a busy man.
“It’s possible that someone might end up with all manner of views, but it’s hard for me to imagine someone rationally coming to such a conclusion …”
“Rationally” is not the right word here. The question is whether the music is aesthetically appropriate. Does it evoke the affective responses pertinent to worship or the affective responses pertinent to the secular music it models itself after? Does it, e.g., evoke feelings of awe or of sensationalism, of agape or of eros, of humility or of conceit, of guilt or of resentment, of sacrifice or of self-interest, of dependence or of control, of community or of individuality, of acceptance or of defiance, of cooperation or of rebellion? Remember, I’m talking about the music itself, not the words that go with it. The lyrics can go only so far if they’re at cross purposes with the music.
“… while being well-informed and not just stuck with 80s Maranatha Praise stuff, which really does sound like schmaltzy, warmed-over pop music.”
Funny thing, but I can remember the 1980s contemporary Christian music apologists saying the same thing, except they said it about the choruses of the 1960s. (Their own music, of course, had moved beyond all that.)
“That might be kind of cool, actually, but it might not be a good idea to use it in public worship. The disconnect would distract people too much.”
See what I mean? A sense of cool is not the sort of affectation that worship music should attempt to evoke.
“But I’m not advocating zero limits on what might appropriately be done.”
So you ARE advocating limits on what might appropriately be done?
“I have the feeling you’re completely out of touch with the current generation of worship music …”
I try my best.
“I could name off a bunch of songs without batting an eye that are every bit as musically interesting and lyrically deep as any hymn …”
Really? Are they also “every bit as musically interesting and lyrically deep” as any sacred chant, or motet, or chorale, or fugue, or cantata, etc.? And how is their lyrical depth or musical interest even relevant to my argument? I wasn’t talking about lyrics, nor was I talking about music that is interesting. I was talking about music that is aesthetically appropriate to worship.
“… but much more easily understood by ordinary people today and already contextualized to their situation.”
Well, no doubt you’re right about that. But is there no room for growth? Or should their growth in this area always track the latest trends in popular music (minus the lyrics)? And would that even count as growth?
“… I think it’s contrary to Christian unity across the ages to ignore hymns. We should do them, and we should do them with contemporary music, since that’s how we contextualize them to our own day.”
In other words, we shouldn’t do hymns, we should just put their lyrics to the music we like.
September 4th, 2010 | 7:56 am | #87
I’m pretty sick of the worship music scene altogether. Being a musician, I know that any truly talented vocalist can sing Mary Had a Little Lamb and move any crowd to tears or cheers, whichever the vocalist chooses. I get massive goosebumps from Beethoven’s 9th. Does that make it worship?
Look. The “Praise and Worship” portion of most services I’ve been in are just the warm-up act for the headliner – the pew-jumping preacher. It’s all show business as far as I’m concerned. Most times no one learns anything of any real value.
True worship, IMHO, takes place in your prayer closet – whatever that consists of – and is just between you and God. In regards to worship, for me, music is a distraction. If you’re just mouthing the lyrics then you are not expressing anything to God for real. When you are by yourself and you have to come up with the words yourself, then it becomes true worship.
That’s my opinion.
September 4th, 2010 | 8:52 am | #88
1. The same piece of music can have very different responses in different people, depending on their own psychological and cultural associations. I remember once listening to a beautiful piece of music, simply basking in its beauty, and my wife told me to turn it off because it’s depressing. It had no such impact on me.
2. See what I mean? A sense of cool is not the sort of affectation that worship music should attempt to evoke.
Why not? It seems completely arbitrary, not to mention inconsistent with the observation that God is sovereign over all things, including music, to claim that coolness is not for God or that certain emotional states that happen to be sometimes associated for some people with a style of music are inherently wrong. It might be unwise in a certain culture to do certain things if it’s likely to produce a certain result, but a lot of what you’re saying strikes me as culturally imperialist from a very narrow subset of American church culture in a way that reminds me of the racist argument that we shouldn’t use drums in Christian music because the rock beat came from Africa and are associated with sex.
3. Funny thing, but I can remember the 1980s contemporary Christian music apologists saying the same thing, except they said it about the choruses of the 1960s. (Their own music, of course, had moved beyond all that.
Which shows you how cultural this all is and thus has no grounding in scripture. There’s nothing anywhere in scripture that tells you about music styles or how certain styles produce evil results in the heart of human beings.
4. See what I mean? A sense of cool is not the sort of affectation that worship music should attempt to evoke.
No, that doesn’t follow. What I said is that this particular method of producing a sense of cool also involves a disconnect that will distract people. It does not follow that the sense of cool shouldn’t be involved with worship. I would in fact argue that if you remove the sense of cool from worship then you remove the worship too. You don’t want people thinking something is cool at the expense of thinking God is cool, but at the same time we shouldn’t try to evoke the sense that God is cool while distracting people in other directions. Those distractions can come from any kind of music, and they can come from annoyance at a style of music, disappointment that the music is inferior, disagreement over the philosophical assumptions of those controlling the musical decisions, or whatever. We should try to minimize those distractions, but I’m not saying the coolness factor should go or that it’s the only thing that produces distractions. Uncoolness produces them just as easily.
5. In other words, we shouldn’t do hymns, we should just put their lyrics to the music we like.
I’m not sure how doing it with different instrumentation makes it not doing hymns. I’m happy to do them with just a piano, by the way, but my general preference is to make them a little more musically interesting so we don’t have to pretend that boring music is for God and interesting music for everyone else, to paraphrase Larry Norman.
6. I think one key assumption you’re making is that worship always has to involve exactly one emotion and that any other emotion is entirely inappropriate to the recognition of all the wonder of God and what he’s done, and that just strikes me as extremely narrow and entirely inappropriate to all that God is and the range of ways we should respond. It isn’t emotionalism to recognize that we should be excited while singing about an exciting God. Emotionalism is when you do it for the sake of the emotion or when you refuse to do it for the sake of a different emotion, e.g. contemplativeness. It’s simply worship when you have an attitude of awe about an awesome God, when you have an attitude of excitement about an exciting God, just as it’s worship to have an attitude of quiet appreciation when called forth by who God is and what God has done. I’m not going to cater to narrow restrictions on what emotions are appropriate just because some people have a misguided but well-meaning confusion between having an emotion and being driven by that emotion. I think that’s the root of our disagreement here.
September 4th, 2010 | 8:54 am | #89
Biggntuff: I would say that true worship starts in your prayer closet but never really becomes full worship if it stays there. There’s a very clear mandate for public worship in the scriptures, and it’s pretty clear that regularly doing it in the context of excellent music is pleasing to God.
September 4th, 2010 | 9:07 am | #90
While I completely agree that much contemporary (as if songs written in the 70′s can be called contemporary) worship music is both banal and impossible to describe as distinctively God-honoring, I have to take issue with point 7, and also to some degree with point 6.
First, point 7 – this one is plainly refuted by David’s cry in Psalm 51 that God not take his Holy Spirit from him. This is a reasonable statement, and a worshipful request that God honor His own promises. Such requests for God to be true to Himself are all over the Psalms, and are completely consistent with Christian worship.
Point 6 is harder, because quite frankly there is little more gagging to me than songs that cry out “I’m desperate for you” and the like… BUT, again, we go to the Psalms – which were and are worship song for the church. The emotions found in the Psalms range all over the map – yet God saw fit to ordain them for worship. When singing Psalm 22, what if a person in the pew is not feeling like the Psalmist? Is the problem with the worship committee who scheduled Psalm 22 for that point in the service, or is the problem with the person in the pew? Where is there decreed that we ought to only sing songs that at the moment happen to match our emotional state? I don’t understand that complaint at all.
By and large, though, I agree with this post – worship music that seems to be popular today is, as I noted earlier, often so similar to contemporary syruppy love songs as to be indistinguishable from them (except that they’re being sung in church and not in a romantic venue) – or else they’re the same line repeated 19 times with and without musical accompaniment so that we all claim the same mantra in our heads. We need a revival of sound worship, that is to be sure.
September 4th, 2010 | 11:06 am | #91
Mr. Pierce,
You said: “There’s a very clear mandate for public worship in the scriptures, and it’s pretty clear that regularly doing it in the context of excellent music is pleasing to God.”
Clear mandate? In the Old testament, sure. But in the NT, I’m NOT so sure. The word “worship” can be found only 8 times in the Pauline epistles, 6 of those negatively. It’s mostly in the gospels and Revelation. John does not mention worship at all in his letters. So, where is this clear mandate? In the OT. I’m not OT. I’ve been born-again into a new creature. Contrary to a previous comment, being so was not available in the OT. Not until the cross and the subsequent resurrection of Jesus. If you could be born again before the cross then what is the point of the cross?
OT worship was a shadow of the NT reality of the new creation within you which allows you to commune with God directly. You were dead, but now you live in Christ. Being born again into a live spirit is something which the OT saints could not do. And, unless the Holy Spirit was “upon” you, you could not communicate at all with God except through a prophet or some other physical way. Only those who had the Holy Spirit “upon” them could communicate directly with God. And, that was reserved to the prophets and a few kings.
We have the new nature in us and can, indeed, now worship him in spirit and in truth. We don’t need music, incense, sacrifice, nor anything else to approach the Father. We have moved from servants to sons.
God is pleased by faith. Worship is designed to work on you, not God. He loves you regardless.
September 4th, 2010 | 12:36 pm | #92
“I’m not OT.”
Paul was. I would think God likes His truth in the OT.
And I’m OT myself. I’m NT as well, as was Paul and God. Of course it’s God’s Word, and words He has given us. As JC Ryle says:
“Let us maintain boldly the complete inspiration of every word of the original Hebrew and Greek Scriptures. Let us believe that not only ever book of the Bible, but every chapter,–and not only every chapter, but every verse,–and not only every verse, but every word, was originally given by inspiration of God. Inspiration, we must never shrink from asserting, extends not only to the thoughts and ideas of Scripture, but to the least words….Let us stand our ground manfully, and defend the principle of plenary inspiration as we would the apple of our eye.”
September 4th, 2010 | 2:58 pm | #93
It sounds as if the problem is corporate worship. Churches could follow the example of airlines, supplying each member with a pair of noise-canceling headphones and a jack, and about a thousand worship channels from which to customize a personal worship experience. But then again maybe folks should just do this at home.
So, generally, what is the value and what are the purposes of meeting together for worship? And, what is it that can’t in principle be done via an internet connection to those few and scattered individual who happen to concurrently share one’s very particular worship needs and tastes?
September 4th, 2010 | 7:52 pm | #94
“… a lot of what you’re saying strikes me as culturally imperialist from a very narrow subset of American church culture in a way that reminds me of the racist argument that we shouldn’t use drums in Christian music because the rock beat came from Africa and are associated with sex.”
What? No mention of Hitler or the Nazis? And why do you limit yourself to “imperialist” and “racist?” Throw in a couple more slurs like “sexist” and “homophobic,” and you’d win by default, right? Joking aside, I think you should stick to what I actually said as opposed to what “strikes” you about what I said. To suggest, for instance, that I’m appealing to a “very narrow subset of American church culture” after I explicitly alluded to sacred chants, motets, chorales, fugues, cantatas, etc. borders on the absurd. If anyone is being narrow in this discussion, it’s the one who believes that the choice of music during worship should be determined entirely by contemporary contextual relevance.
“There’s nothing anywhere in scripture that tells you about music styles or how certain styles produce evil results in the heart of human beings.”
So? Do you really think scripture lays out every possible way evil could enter the heart of a person? Just because it’s not there doesn’t mean it’s not right. And who said anything about musical styles producing evil results? “Appropriate” and “inappropriate” are not the same as “good” and “evil.”
“I would in fact argue that if you remove the sense of cool from worship then you remove the worship too.”
Maybe you use the term differently, but according to the Oxford American Writer’s Thesaurus, “cool,” in this sort of context, means “trendy,” “funky,” “with it,” “hip,” “groovy,” “phat,” “kicky,” etc. I fail to see how music that evokes a sense of cool under those descriptions would be any more appropriate to worship than lyrics such as “When I survey the funky cross” (to adapt an earlier example you gave).
“I’m not sure how doing it with different instrumentation makes it not doing hymns.”
I don’t understand this response. When you said (earlier) that we should perform hymns “with contemporary music,” did you mean to say “with contemporary instruments” or are you now changing the subject? Music consists of such things as melody, rhythm, harmony, etc. If you replaced the music of a hymn with the music of a contemporary worship song, you would no longer have a hymn, even though you might still have the lyrics to it. That was the point I was trying to make. But if all you did was replace the traditional instruments used to play a hymn (piano, organ, etc.) with the instruments used to play contemporary worship songs (guitar, drums, etc.), then, yes, as you point out, you would still have a hymn.
“I think one key assumption you’re making is that worship always has to involve exactly one emotion and that any other emotion is entirely inappropriate to the recognition of all the wonder of God and what he’s done …”
I’m starting to wonder if you actually read my comments, or if you simply assumed I must be saying the same things you’ve heard others say. How could you think that I was claiming that worship involves “exactly one emotion and that any other emotion is entirely inappropriate” after reading the following: “Does it evoke the affective responses pertinent to worship or the affective responses pertinent to the secular music it models itself after? Does it, e.g., evoke feelings of awe or of sensationalism, of agape or of eros, of humility or of conceit, of guilt or of resentment, of sacrifice or of self-interest, of dependence or of control, of community or of individuality, of acceptance or of defiance, of cooperation or of rebellion?” Do you believe that the feelings associated with each of the first members of those pairs are all the same? In other words, do you believe that the feelings associated with awe, agape, humility, guilt, sacrifice, dependence, community, acceptance, and cooperation are all identical? If not, then it should be obvious that I think any number of feelings are appropriate to worship.
“It’s simply worship when you have an attitude of awe about an awesome God, when you have an attitude of excitement about an exciting God, just as it’s worship to have an attitude of quiet appreciation when called forth by who God is and what God has done.”
Exactly. The problem is that some music is worse than other music in evoking those attitudes. A screaming guitar lick with a hard-driving base and sinister vocals may be appropriate for evoking the attitude of rage, but it’s hardly appropriate for evoking an attitude of worship. And before you deny that this sort of mismatch occurs in contemporary worship music, understand that it’s only an (exaggerated) example intended to drive home the point I’m trying to make. Music should be appropriate to the message, and much of contemporary worship music isn’t. And by the way, much of traditional hymnody isn’t either. But there’s a whole lot of other musical styles in the Christian tradition to choose from. If we spent more time with the best from each, rather than with the most “contextually relevant,” we might also experience a little more growth in emotional and spiritual maturity. But that means we’d have to give up what we like, and we just don’t want to do that. We don’t want to do it with our beliefs, we don’t want to do it with our actions, and we especially don’t want to do it with our music.
“I’m not going to cater to narrow restrictions on what emotions are appropriate just because some people have a misguided but well-meaning confusion between having an emotion and being driven by that emotion. I think that’s the root of our disagreement here.”
I think that may be the root of your disagreement with someone else, but it has nothing at all to do with what I was talking about.
September 5th, 2010 | 4:02 pm | #95
[...] seen it yet, and probably many of you have, please check out this sarcastic post called “Rant About Worship Songs.” Make sure that you check out the links for each “rant.” And, remember, [...]
September 5th, 2010 | 4:25 pm | #96
Jeremy,
Absolutely spot on!
September 5th, 2010 | 9:25 pm | #97
Look folks, from beginning to end (including my response) this post is a mess. Let’s just stop it.
If Jeremy wants to treat this business seriously (and with nearly 100 comments so far, it certainly appears to be a serious matter to a lot of us) we can all take a deep breath, remember that we’re supposed to love each other, and really consider what the praise-chorus liturgy means–and that’s a very long and complex discussion. But for now let’s all just back off.
September 6th, 2010 | 2:01 am | #98
[...] Rant About Worship Songs [...]
September 6th, 2010 | 8:51 pm | #99
[...] that’s wrong with modern worship songs September 7, 2010 by amos5 I loved this – it took me a while to get it, though, so please – follow the links before you get [...]
September 7th, 2010 | 2:22 pm | #100
Interesting stuff since my #48. I find it odd that Jeremy is contending with JB in CA, since JB is expanding what the orginal post was about? First, it is acknowledged that several “hymms” are singy-songy and weak theologically, especially from the later part of the 19th century, they should be weeded out. It is sad to see a “band” butcher a hymm, where the orginal melody or even a solid contemporay one might suffice. Second, that we should not throw the “proverbial” baby out with the bathwater! There is quite a bit of sound contemporary Christian music if its not drowned out by excessive instrumentation, but there is lots of bath water also, especially since cool profits are involved. Third, there is an overemphasis on the “worship team” and folks on the platform with all the expensive hi-tech gear to the detriment of congregation singing, of what often little takes place. Though there are many irreverantly gyrating, swooning, clapping, hand-raising, and even outbursts most copying the few “so-called spiritual ones” in a psychological/emotional wave effect. Not to say I haven’t clapped to an upbeat solid song, or gotten teary-eyed when singing a “Mighty Fortress is our God” or such, but instead of trying to impress others I keep it within bounds. That is one of the main problems: instead of equipping and influencing the Body with the Word with preaching, prayer and sound music. Today, there is a striving for “cool”, cultural relevance, and individualistic estactic transendent expression. To the post that feels we should just worship in our prayer closets in the NT/NC, instead of corporately as with national, theocratic Israel, in the OT/OC, there are numerous passages NT passages concerning believers gathering and singing (Col & Eph). Even the Lord Jesus and disciples closed with a hymm as stated once in the Gospels/Acts, and probably did everytime, though that is my conjecture.
September 7th, 2010 | 3:47 pm | #101
Biggntuff, given the emphasis on worship as your whole life, and the fact that it’s clearly a sin in the NT not to gather corporately, just what is it that people are doing that isn’t worship when they gather together? Being completely unconscious? It’s got to be worship if we’re aware at all of what we’re doing when we gather, because everything we do is to be worship. We may disagree on what particularly should be done (but we are told in the NT that it should involve reading scripture and singing songs), but it certainly is to be worship.
JB in CA: If anyone is being narrow in this discussion, it’s the one who believes that the choice of music during worship should be determined entirely by contemporary contextual relevance.
Sure, someone who thinks choice of music should be determined entirely by contemporary contextual relevance is being narrow. But so too is someone who thinks it should not be influenced by that at all. I’m saying neither.
“Appropriate” and “inappropriate” are not the same as “good” and “evil.”
Exactly, and appropriateness is a culturally-relative thing.
Maybe you use the term differently, but according to the Oxford American Writer’s Thesaurus, “cool,” in this sort of context, means “trendy,” “funky,” “with it,” “hip,” “groovy,” “phat,” “kicky,” etc. I fail to see how music that evokes a sense of cool under those descriptions would be any more appropriate to worship than lyrics such as “When I survey the funky cross” (to adapt an earlier example you gave).
Nope, it was I who used the word, and I didn’t use it in that sense. I simply meant awesome. It’s creative. It’s an excellent use of the combinatorial abilities God gave us, and it sounds interesting to me, so I’d be curious to hear what it’s like.
f you replaced the music of a hymn with the music of a contemporary worship song, you would no longer have a hymn, even though you might still have the lyrics to it.
I was talking about playing Come Thou Fount of Every Blessings with the usual melody and chord changes but with a calypso beat and musical arrangement. I was thinking about cases like Holy, Holy, Holy with distorted guitars and a rock beat the way the early 90s Metal Praise album did. It’s certainly using contemporary music, but it’s still the original hymn.
The “exactly one emotion” meant exclusively the appropriate ones as deemed by you. I’m not sure the pairings you gave are the best way to think about things. Some of them seem to me to be false dilemmas or false disjunctions (certainly with agape and eros), and I’m not sure the second member in every case is always bad (e.g. self-interest is neutral, and community-individuality are both good in the appropriate ways). My main point was about limiting ourself to certain emotions. Your focus on the singleness rather than the limitedness might be a distraction.
A screaming guitar lick with a hard-driving base and sinister vocals may be appropriate for evoking the attitude of rage, but it’s hardly appropriate for evoking an attitude of worship.
I can name plenty of examples that do have exactly that effect in me and lots of others. “King of Kings” by Barren Cross, “Myriad” by Kansas, and several songs of the aforementioned Metal Praise album are actually more effective for me than most hymns at bringing out an attitude of worship, since the words in many hymns usually go by way too quickly for me to contemplate them, and a driving beat with very well-executed lead guitar doesn’t lead me to a state of rage or depression but more often creates a state of awe. As I said, this is all relative to the individual or to the culture in the cases of larger groups with similar responses.
September 8th, 2010 | 4:43 pm | #102
Jeremy, I don’t wish to be antagonistic, but at the same time, I still think you’re not really understanding much of what I’m trying to get across. For example, I’m puzzled that you would say “The ‘exactly one emotion’ meant exclusively the appropriate ones as deemed by you,” suggesting that I was somehow setting myself up as the arbiter of aesthetically appropriate music for worship, when in fact I was deferring to the rich history of Christian reflection on that issue, a history that stretches back some two thousand years. Unlike you, I do not believe that the appropriateness of music for worship “is all relative to the individual or to the culture … .” That’s not to say that I think cultural or individual tastes should play no role in determining what is appropriate, only that I reject the idea that music is simply a matter of taste. I want to insist that there are objective standards in aesthetics just as there are objective standards in other areas of human concern, such as morality (some actions are wrong regardless of what anyone happens to want), reason (some arguments are invalid regardless of what anyone happens to think), and belief (some claims are false regardless of what anyone happens to feel). Moreover, I want to insist that a rich musical tradition that has self-consciously reflected on what those standards are with respect to worship is much more likely to have found them than is a tradition of music that is primarily concerned with “relevant” contemporary (i.e., secular) cultural preferences. Now, of course, whether you agree or not with my position is another matter altogether. But before you do either, I would like for you at least to understand what it is I’m trying to say. I hope this clarifies it a bit.
September 8th, 2010 | 7:49 pm | #103
And then there is this:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/08/31/metal_vicar/
September 8th, 2010 | 7:55 pm | #104
JB: Amen!
September 10th, 2010 | 11:17 pm | #105
bwahaha. I was about to be all outraged about this, and then the punchline. Brilliant.
September 12th, 2010 | 12:16 pm | #106
Read Psalm 51:11.
September 16th, 2010 | 6:22 am | #107
JB in CA: If that’s all you’re saying, then why do you think you’re disagreeing with me?
September 17th, 2010 | 12:20 pm | #108
[...] Below is Jeremy Pierce’s, “Rant About Worship Songs,” from First Things: http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2010/08/rant-worship/ [...]
September 17th, 2010 | 6:12 pm | #109
very slick!!
a good learning experience. make sure we read thoroughly before coming to any quick conclusions. a bad habit of mine sometimes.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact