This afternoon, my church hosted Praisefest, which is an event where choirs from area associational churches get together and sing a couple of their best numbers. The public is invited, and a few show up, but it's mostly an inter-choir event. (My mom showed up along with six or seven of her friends from the Palo Duro retirement village...that was a nice treat.)
The highlight of the event is always the song at the end. Each choir was good, and each song was worshipful. But at the end, all the choirs sing one number together. This is unrehearsed, so it has to be a 'classic'...a song all the choirs know. If you have been around Southern Baptists a few times, you know there are some songs that are ubiquitous. Today we sang one of the very best of them: At the Name of Jesus. (I was once told that if your church doesn't sing this song at least twice a year, you aren't really a Southern Baptist church.) This song is an adaptation of the kenotic hymn in Philippians 2.
Well, when the combined choirs from FBC Amarillo, FBC Canyon (my church), South Georgia Baptist Church, Trinity Baptist Church, and the Panhandle Singing Women all put their voices together on At the Name of Jesus, it was a powerful, moving worship experience. I'm not sure I can find the superlatives that would do it justice. You just needed to be there.
Unforgettable.
(If you don't know the song, or would like a copy of it, here's a link to a 99-cent version on Amazon.com done by the Choral Ridge Presbyterian Church's Chancel Choir...this is one of my favorite renditions that I can find.)
Showing posts with label worship. Show all posts
Showing posts with label worship. Show all posts
26 February 2012
06 January 2012
'The Mature Worshiper is Easily Edified'
"The mature worshiper is easily edified." When hearing lackluster (even if biblical) preaching, immature worshipers will typically not listen to the message because they wish the messenger was more exciting. Conversely, mature worshipers eagerly receive the truth as it is proclaimed, even if it sounds like the preacher is reading a phone book.
- Steve Burchette
- Steve Burchette
23 August 2010
Chronological Snobbery (and How to Fix It)
I remember the day, though not the date, when I heard my church was going to break into 'traditional' and 'contemporary' worship services. I was a member of a vibrant, growing church in the St. Louis area at the time, and was serving as a deacon. The change was announced to us at a deacons' meeting. I remember feeling that something wasn't quite right, but I was still a fairly young Christian at the time (at least, I was immature in my faith) and I didn't want to make waves, so I didn't ask any questions.
Boy were my gut feelings right.
The gospel-focused experts now call this divided approach to congregations, 'Chronological Snobbery'. Tullian Tchividjian (who I've blogged about before) posted a fascinating blog on this topic today. He says about his church, "For many years Coral Ridge had two very distinct worship services–one contemporary and one traditional. The result was the unintentional development of two different churches under one roof. It wasn’t healthy."
In every church I've been a part of that had divided the congregation by musical preference (age, in fact), I've seen the same signs of unhealthiness. (In fact, none of the churches I've joined since that first one have had anything other than this same chronological issue.) I've learned to call it 'age segregation' because the word 'snobbery' is insulting to people even when it is deserved, and even though it is a C. S. Lewis term. The age segregation causes a loss for both young and old, but most especially for the young. We are clearly instructed in scripture to ensure that the young and old are integrated in our churches (see Titus 2:3-5 for example). We throw this out when we age-segregate our congregations.
We also deny the power of the gospel when we do this. Tullian continues, "You see, when we separate people according to something as trivial as musical preferences, we evidence a fundamental failure to comprehend the heart of the gospel. We’re not only feeding toxic tribalism; we’re also saying the gospel can’t successfully bring these two different groups together. It’s a declaration of doubt about the unifying power of God’s gospel. Generational appeal in worship is an admission that the gospel is powerless to join together what man has separated."
Why would we as a church want to make such a powerful anti-gospel statement by feeding our own desires about music style? To avoid the chronological snobbery, we should look both ways, backwards, to the past to see the shoulders on which we stand, and around us now, to see the value in contemporary ways to worship and glorify God, so we can all as one look forward to the hope that is ours in Christ. We need to take the best of the old, the best of the new, and continue to worship and glorify God together as we proclaim the gospel to the nations; and we certainly need to not neglect meeting together, as is the habit of some, but to encourage each other, across all age groups (and any other false division we can think of), all the more as we see the Day approaching (Heb 10:24-25).
I encourage you to go read Tullian's blog in full.
Boy were my gut feelings right.
The gospel-focused experts now call this divided approach to congregations, 'Chronological Snobbery'. Tullian Tchividjian (who I've blogged about before) posted a fascinating blog on this topic today. He says about his church, "For many years Coral Ridge had two very distinct worship services–one contemporary and one traditional. The result was the unintentional development of two different churches under one roof. It wasn’t healthy."
In every church I've been a part of that had divided the congregation by musical preference (age, in fact), I've seen the same signs of unhealthiness. (In fact, none of the churches I've joined since that first one have had anything other than this same chronological issue.) I've learned to call it 'age segregation' because the word 'snobbery' is insulting to people even when it is deserved, and even though it is a C. S. Lewis term. The age segregation causes a loss for both young and old, but most especially for the young. We are clearly instructed in scripture to ensure that the young and old are integrated in our churches (see Titus 2:3-5 for example). We throw this out when we age-segregate our congregations.
We also deny the power of the gospel when we do this. Tullian continues, "You see, when we separate people according to something as trivial as musical preferences, we evidence a fundamental failure to comprehend the heart of the gospel. We’re not only feeding toxic tribalism; we’re also saying the gospel can’t successfully bring these two different groups together. It’s a declaration of doubt about the unifying power of God’s gospel. Generational appeal in worship is an admission that the gospel is powerless to join together what man has separated."
Why would we as a church want to make such a powerful anti-gospel statement by feeding our own desires about music style? To avoid the chronological snobbery, we should look both ways, backwards, to the past to see the shoulders on which we stand, and around us now, to see the value in contemporary ways to worship and glorify God, so we can all as one look forward to the hope that is ours in Christ. We need to take the best of the old, the best of the new, and continue to worship and glorify God together as we proclaim the gospel to the nations; and we certainly need to not neglect meeting together, as is the habit of some, but to encourage each other, across all age groups (and any other false division we can think of), all the more as we see the Day approaching (Heb 10:24-25).
I encourage you to go read Tullian's blog in full.
22 June 2010
Why 'Contemporary' as a Criterion is Not Helpful
"Why are there not signs outside churches that read: “Theologically Significant Worship,” or “Worship Appropriate to a Meeting between God and His Assembled People,” or “Worship That Is Literarily Apt and Thoughtful”? Why do the signs say “Contemporary Worship,” as though that criterion were itself worthy of promoting?"
That quote comes from the introduction to, "Why Johnny Can't Sing Hymns" by T. David Gordon (can be found HERE).
It is an interesting thought...we put the term 'contemporary' on a lot of things without regard to what it means, and more importantly, what it doesn't mean. It's not just our music either. Historically, we used quite a few criteria for selecting our hymns, and in the same vein, our worship content. Gordon submits these criteria as historically important to the church-
> theologically orthodox lyrics
> theologically significant lyrics
> literarily apt and thoughful lyrics
> lyrics and music appropriate to a meeting between God and his people
> well-written music with regard to melody, harmony, rhythm, and form
> musical setting appropriate to the literary form
Then he says, appropriately, that only an arrogant generation could imagine that it could possibly replace and surpass (and render obsolete) all previous hymns with a new body of music. I agree.
We should seek to evaluate the worth of our music not with the label of 'new' or 'old' but with the consideration that it is gospel-centered and appropriate to the meeting of God and his people. Some contemporary music does these things well (consider, "In Christ Alone" for example). Some traditional music does not (consider, "The Savior is Waiting" as a classic example of B.A.D. traditional music). Even the idea of mixing contemporary music with traditional music (the so-called blended worship style) is a bad idea of the content is wishy-washy and not gospel-focused and God-glorifying (and yes, I have a problem with singing 'Jesus is your boyfriend' songs in worship...it is not God-glorifying but rather self-glorifying).
If you want to hear some good stuff, go HERE and listen to some samples of the T4G 08 conference music. I bought the CD, and I love it, along with my kids. That's how a worship service should sound.
That quote comes from the introduction to, "Why Johnny Can't Sing Hymns" by T. David Gordon (can be found HERE).
It is an interesting thought...we put the term 'contemporary' on a lot of things without regard to what it means, and more importantly, what it doesn't mean. It's not just our music either. Historically, we used quite a few criteria for selecting our hymns, and in the same vein, our worship content. Gordon submits these criteria as historically important to the church-
> theologically orthodox lyrics
> theologically significant lyrics
> literarily apt and thoughful lyrics
> lyrics and music appropriate to a meeting between God and his people
> well-written music with regard to melody, harmony, rhythm, and form
> musical setting appropriate to the literary form
Then he says, appropriately, that only an arrogant generation could imagine that it could possibly replace and surpass (and render obsolete) all previous hymns with a new body of music. I agree.
We should seek to evaluate the worth of our music not with the label of 'new' or 'old' but with the consideration that it is gospel-centered and appropriate to the meeting of God and his people. Some contemporary music does these things well (consider, "In Christ Alone" for example). Some traditional music does not (consider, "The Savior is Waiting" as a classic example of B.A.D. traditional music). Even the idea of mixing contemporary music with traditional music (the so-called blended worship style) is a bad idea of the content is wishy-washy and not gospel-focused and God-glorifying (and yes, I have a problem with singing 'Jesus is your boyfriend' songs in worship...it is not God-glorifying but rather self-glorifying).
If you want to hear some good stuff, go HERE and listen to some samples of the T4G 08 conference music. I bought the CD, and I love it, along with my kids. That's how a worship service should sound.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)