Why Theology Matters to Musicians- Bob Kauflin

From the Archives: Why Theology Matters to Musicians

Posted by: Bob Kauflin In: —Defining Terms|—Other Events|—Worship and Music

This post is based on a message I gave at the Christian Musician Summit in 2008.

When Christian musicians get together, we tend to assume we all have our theology down and we can focus on honing our chops, discovering new gear, and improving our techniques and methodologies. Or maybe we think that theology isn’t that important. Whatever the reason, I wanted to make clear that even at the Christian Musician Summit, theology matters.

Theology is literally the “study of God,” particularly as he has revealed himself in Scripture. It includes not only studying the Bible, but understanding how the different parts of the Bible fit together. Christian musicians need to know theology. But before I explain why, here are four potential objections people might have.

1. People just argue about theology.
Yes. Partly because we’re sinful. But mostly because there are some truths that are worth defending and fighting for. Even dying for.

2. Theology just makes life complicated.
It depends on what you mean by complicated. If you think that knowing how to play your instrument makes it complicated, then yes, theology makes life complicated. Theology doesn’t make like complicated. It actually makes life simpler. It protects us from reading verses out of context or reading only our favorite passages. Theology tells us what words like glory, gospel, salvation, and love mean. Theology helps us understand what we’re actually doing every Sunday. What complicates life is not theology but ignorance of theology.

3. Studying theology makes people proud.
It shouldn’t. The better we know God, the humbler we should be. The more we should  realize that what we know will always be dwarfed by what we don’t know.

4. We’ll never know it all anyway.
Just because we can’t know everything about God, doesn’t mean we can’t know some things truly. God has revealed himself to us in his word and given us his Spirit so that we can know him.

Here are three reasons why theology should matter to Christian musicians.

1. You’re already a theologian.
Every Christian, musical or otherwise, is already a theologian. The question is, are you a good theologian or a bad one? We’re good theologians if what we say and think about God lines up with what Scripture says and affirms. We’re bad theologians if our view of God is vague, or if we think God doesn’t really mind sin, or is we see Jesus as a good example and not a Savior, or if we our god is too small to overcome evil or too big to care about us.

2. God reveals himself primarily through words, not music. 
Because we’ve encountered God profoundly during times of musical worship, we can wrongly start assuming that words restrict the Spirit, while music enables us to experience God in fresh and powerful ways. If God had wanted us to know him primarily through music, the Bible would be a soundtrack, not a book. Music affects and helps us in many ways, but it doesn’t replace truth about God. By itself, music can never help us understand the meaning of God’s self-existence, the nature of the Incarnation, or Christ’s substitutionary atonement. Simply put, truth outlasts tunes.

3. Being good theologians makes us better musicians.

• Theology teaches us what music is meant to do.
• Theology teaches us that worship is more than music.
• Theology teaches us that Jesus is better than music.

Jesus and the Songs We Sing- Part 2

Here's the link for Part 2 of Bob Kauflin's post on the importance of Jesus in our musical worship.
D.

Jesus and the Songs We Sing- Part 1

Bob Kauflin has done some thoughtful work in the area of music ministry. This blog post helps us understand the role Jesus ought to play in the singing portion of our church services.

Jesus and the Songs We Sing, Pt. 1

The past few weeks I had the privilege of speaking at the Doxology and Theology conference in Frisco, TX, and the Christian Musicians Summit in Seattle, WA.

One of the breakouts I did at D&T was called The Worship Leader and Christ. I shaved about 40 minutes off that message, renamed it “Jesus and Our Songs,” and gave it again at CMS. Here’s a summary of what I shared.

Christians worship a triune God – Father, Son, and Spirit. All three person are equally God and equally worthy of worship. That’s one of the many things that distinguish us from Buddhists, Muslims, and Mormons. But the three persons of the Trinity possess unique roles and relationships. We don’t come to Jesus through the Father. The Spirit doesn’t send Jesus. The Father didn’t die for us.

One of the distinctions that exists in the Trinity is that both the Father and the Spirit share a desire to exalt the Son. Look at Phil. 2:9-11:

Therefore God has highly exalted [Jesus] and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Jesus said, “When the Spirit of truth comes…He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you” (John 16:13-14).

In light of this reality, it’s important for us to ask, “What difference does Jesus make in the songs we write, play, and sing when we gather as the church?”

1. Jesus is the leader of our songs. (Heb. 2:10-12)

This has at least three implications.

Our songs are made possible by Jesus.

The separation of the “Holy of Holies” from the rest of the tabernacle and temple in the Old Testament made it clear that we can’t approach God any way we want, any time we want. We have to find a way to approach God, the consuming fire (Heb. 12:29), without being consumed. Jesus is that way.

We have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus, by  the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith. (Heb. 10:19-22, emphasis added)

Our songs are made acceptable by Jesus.

[We] are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices  acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. (1 Pet. 2:5)

It’s not the excellence of our songs that make our worship pleasing to God, but the excellence of Christ.

Our songs are made one by Jesus.

For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility. (Eph. 2:14)

We are a spiritual house, not a group of scattered bricks. We are united through our common Leader and Savior, not our common musical preferences.

A few implications:

• We need God to approach God.
• Despite the number of times it’s said, no musician will ever lead anyone into God’s presence. Only Jesus can do that.
• We should be more grateful than anxious as we prepare to lead. It’s about Jesus’ performance, not ours.
• Our “worship” isn’t more acceptable to God because we hit all the right notes. The people we lead might appreciate it, but even our best playing and singing requires the death of Christ to make it worthy of God’s holiness.
• Music makes us one for a moment. Jesus makes us one for eternity.

How "Traditional" is the Traditional Service?

I don't agree with everything the Internet Monk says, and I have never been to a "Traditional" service since that is usually where the old people go (no offense- I will there soon enough). That said, I wonder how much truth is in this?
Do we really just play more hymns for the older folks or is there more to our distinction between traditional or contemporary? I don't really know, but I think Spencer makes some interesting observations.

iMonk Classic: How “Traditional” is the Traditional Service?

22OCTby Chaplain Mike

Classic iMonk Post
by Michael Spencer
from July, 2007

Note from CM: This piece from Michael Spencer is five years old. During that time, I have been worshiping mostly in a Lutheran church where these observations don’t apply. I’ve been a bit out of the loop on what has been happening on Sunday mornings in the non-liturgical evangelical world. So, I’ll need you, our readers, to help us all get up to speed. How do iMonk’s observations still apply, and what’s been happening since he wrote these words?

* * *

Here in Kentucky, where the worship wars/generational church division is everywhere and spreading, many churches are attempting to navigate the rocks of a potential church split by using multiple services.

I’ve been associated with multiple services since 1984, when I joined the staff of a large church that had both an 8:30 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. service. Most of my ministry friends are involved in multiple service options and an increasing number of them are doing a “traditional” service early, and a “contemporary” or “blended” service mid-morning. I’m aware of churches doing contemporary first, or even on another day (or evening,) but the contemporary service is increasingly the “lead” service in the Baptist churches I am aware of that are trying to navigate the various divisions that are tearing many churches apart.

This Sunday I found myself at one of the larger churches in our state, a leading traditional SBC church in a downtown setting. This is a church that did well in the heyday of the SBC up into the 1980′s, but has found the waters more challenging since. A large group of younger members split from the congregation several years ago to start a Purpose Driven church plant. This only delayed the inevitable generational and stylistic stress that a church with large numbers of senior adults and an interest in reaching younger families will feel.

The most recent approach- and one that appears to be working- has been to put the “traditional” service early and to make the 11:00 a.m. service a contemporary service later.

So what do we have here? I attended the “traditional” service (an excellent time of worship where I was warmly welcomed) and here’s the scorecard, with “T” for traditional and “C” for contemporary.

Worship Space- T (The church sanctuary is typical for a downtown SBC church built in the mid-twentieth century. It has been renovated, but it’s very traditional.)

Instruments-T Piano and Piper Organ, both played very well.

Liturgy- C (Very informal. No call to worship, no scripture readings, no Doxology, lots of walking around, ministers chatting informally. A reading of the Prayer of St. Francis was the benediction.)

Music- Interestingly, the tunes were traditional, but the lyrics were all new, so this comes off as T/C, I suppose. A solo was in the “T” category, though just barely, while a robed choir did a very contemporary chorus.

Video-C (A dramatic video clip preceded the sermon, but the screen was retracted during the sermon. No projection used at all during the sermon, which appeared to me to be a concession to the concern of some people not to replace the Bible with projection.)

Printed Material- C (A Bible between two tennis shoes was shown on the cover art of the order of service. A “Fill in the blank” sermon guide was given to everyone. Both appeared to be pre-packaged.)

Sermon- C (A prepackaged series. Verse by verse teaching, but anything requiring exposition or theological explanation beyond the basics wasn’t there. Good, practical, well-illustrated, but extremely conversational, considerably more than Rick Warren, who probably was the author of the outline.)

Invitation- C (Speaking in terms of traditional SBC invitations, it was almost a non-existent event. Good for them.)

* * *

What’s my point? First, it appears to me that the “traditional” service was pretty contemporary. In fact, if the traditionalism I was seeing is typical, then aside from the instruments and the actual music, there was little that could be called traditional other than the fact that the music and instruments weren’t offensive to those in the older generations. I believe the contrast with the contemporary service would have been more the absence of certain elements rather than the presence of anything.

Second, “traditional” apparently doesn’t mean much in the way of modest liturgical order, scripture lessons, sung responses, less conversational tone, traditional choral music or other components of traditional worship as this type of SBC church would have done it in the past. This was a service that would have seemed very informal 30 years ago.

Third, it appears to me that “contemporary” and “traditional” are not real choices, but options on a line where we’ve already capitulated to much that is contemporary, and now we’re deciding how much the band can encourage dancing in the contemporary service.

As a post-evangelical hoping for real reformation in the SBC, I lament the loss of real choices I can see in these developments. My hosts told me that the traditional service is growing, and I can see why. But I have to wonder if it occurs to anyone that we might not just be wanting something “less contemporary.” Perhaps someone is longing for real tradition, more tradition and the actual reverence for God and reality of God that comes with the best fruits of tradition.

The “traditional” service is still waiting to reappear in most churches. It’s been obscured by the church growth focus, revivalism and wrong ideas about worship and evangelism as much as by the Purpose Driven movement, the Seeker Sensitive movement and the emerging church. I believe there are many people who are seeing a side to the “contemporary” direction of their worship that reveals its inherent tenuous, shallow, trendy nature. They will show up at the “traditional” option.

Perhaps the real innovation for most churches would be to re-embrace the best of their own tradition and the Christian tradition together.

Jesus Isn't Safe: Meet the Golden Calf of Christian Radio

Here is Part two of Matt Papa's discussion on Christian radio. I always like knowing a little of the background or inner workings of different industries. I think it is good to get insight into understanding why certain things are done. Matt adds his insight to the inner workings of Christian radio.

JESUS ISN’T SAFE: MEET THE GOLDEN CALF OF CHRISTIAN RADIO

To purchase Matt’s song “Stay Away From Jesus” click HERE

To download the song for FREE click HERE

———————-

PART TWO: BECKY

—————-

Meet Becky:

She’s a 38 year old soccer-mom with 3 kids. She drives a mini-van, because if she didn’t, well where would she put all the crayons and goldfish? She is a loving wife and mother and is actively involved at her church. She lives in the suburbs but volunteers at the local food pantry. Becky is pretty awesome. And one more important detail about Becky…..she listens to christian radio exclusively. Yep, that’s right. And you actually already know her.

Becky isn’t one person of course…she is the prototype target audience created by the christian music industry for christian radio. True story. She’s been around about 6 or 7 years now. Christian radio demographic research discovered that “Becky” is the one who is listening, so “Becky” is the audience they relentlessly target. So here’s what happens:

Christian radio plays songs for Becky. The labels know that in order to sell music, they have to get songs on radio. Radio = Becky. So the labels coerce their artists and bands to all write and record songs for Becky….songs that will make her feel good. Songs that tell her she is good. Songs that are “safe for the whole family”. Songs that remind her of her snow-flake-ness and tell her to turn that frown upside-down. Songs that focus on love and hope. Songs that aren’t confrontational. Songs that aren’t theological because man, that stuff is up in the clouds. Songs that don’t talk about blood and crosses and depressing stuff like that. Songs that focus on Becky and her busy life. And if the artists or bands want to write songs for another demographic or another purpose, that’s fine, they can just make music somewhere else. There is money to be made.

So, here we are. Bands/Artists who want to be heard write songs for Becky. Christian radio, therefore, is for the most part an altar where chipper, inauthentic, boring, unscriptural, untruthful, gospel-absent, ear-tickling, man-centered songs are offered to an idol named Becky.

I’ve been on a couple labels in my short musical career, and I testify that this is (sadly) how things work.

I love Becky. I really do. That’s part of the reason I’m writing this. Becky needs to be ministered to just like I do and just like everyone else does. But Christian radio/industry people: please MINISTER TO HER!! Stop giving her what she WANTS….GIVE HER WHAT SHE NEEDS and that is the GOSPEL….or stop calling yourself “christian”. There is NOTHING “christian” about telling someone who has cancer that they are ok. Stop tickling her ears. Becky is a human being who needs to hear the truth of Christ, not an object to use for your financial gain. Woe to you. And here’s a novel idea: Why not target other people besides Becky?!?! The gospel has no demographics! Christ shed His blood for all people everywhere and you have mis-represented Him. I pray with all my heart that the money tables in your temple would soon be overturned.

To the “Becky’s” out there and other christian radio listeners: I don’t mean to sound overly dramatic, but christian radio has used you. Beware of the subtleties of wolves in sheep’s clothing. Be wise as serpents and gentle as doves and be careful what you support. Be shrewd about what enters your ears/mind everyday. Make sure you are feeding yourself Truth.

To Christian bands/artists out there: don’t build your careers around money or Becky. Don’t be a whore. Build your career around what God is leading you to build your career around and the people he is leading you to minister to. That’s what will last.

To christian Radio DJ’s out there: you have a sway and influence like not many in our nation have. Use it for the glory of Christ and the building up of the Church. I know many of you have the same convictions I do. Live them out, or quit. God will provide if you seek His kingdom first.

In my next post, I’ll be giving you some practical examples of what I’m talking about….specific songs, etc.

Writing for the sake of the Kingdom, Christian music, and “Becky”-

Matt

Matt Papa: Jesus Isn't Safe- An Appeal to Christian Music and Its Listeners

Here is the first post in a series, from a musician, on the need for more depth in the Christian music industry. Also, you can download a free song from his site. Stay Away From Jesus. It's a good song talking about the Biblical Jesus and how he isn't safe enough for Christian radio.

Now, I post this as one who appreciates not having to worry about the content of songs with my girls. And also I wish most stations played more than the top ten or twenty of the same songs, especially when there are so many good ones out there. And as, Matt points out, I understand this could cause some points of disagreement, but I think it is important to think about these things.

A friend recently said that music is said to bypass part of our thinking process--if that is true, we especially need to be careful with the content we are casually listening to, and this includes the theology of our Christian (or worship) music.

PART ONE: WHY?

———————-

Imagine with me: The apostle Paul, John the Baptist, the prophet Isaiah, St. Augustine, Martin Luther, and Hudson Taylor all sitting in a room together. The year is 2012, and they’re listening to a mainstream christian radio station. After listening for an hour, someone finally speaks up:

Isaiah: um….

Paul: wow.

Luther: THIS IS CHRISTIAN?!?!

Augustine: Did that song just say ‘God you are super neat’?!?

Taylor: Haven’t heard a song about the cross yet.

John: This is embarrassing. (bites into a bug)

Over the next month or so, I’ll be writing a series of posts about the current state of the christian music industry, more specifically, the current state of that which spearheads it, namely christian radio. By saying radio “spearheads” the industry, I realize I have begun with a proposition a small percentage of people could find disagreeable. Certainly, there are a few christian artists who do not utilize radio and still have a good deal of influence (Lecrae, John Mark McMillian, Phil Whickam). But for the most part, despite the rise of the internet, radio remains the key player in getting songs and artists ‘out there’. If you don’t want to take my word for it, check it out for yourself HERE. I will speak more to this later, but essentially, you can think of it this way: christian radio is to the christian music industry what the movie theatre is to the movie industry. If a movie hits the theaters, you hear about it. If it doesn’t, you usually don’t.

As you might have gleaned from the title, what will follow will be a hard, honest, word of rebuke. I have no idea if anything I say in these posts will mean anything for the sake of change, but someone has to say it: Mainstream christian radio is altogether banal and shallow in both a musical sense and a spiritual sense. The songs are man-centered and the DJ’s and radio programmers are man-pleasers…..they play the songs that will attract the most listeners to their station, period. Christian radio is like Joel Osteen in musical form….safe, happy, and untruthful. It is the TBN of music…a large-scale, embarrassing presentation of Christianity to the world. Now, before I continue, I would like to make some clarifying statements:

1. All in all, my appeal is positive, not negative. I’m not writing these posts for shock-value, or to simply complain about the way things are. Anyone can complain about what’s wrong. I’m writing this because I want for christian radio to be christian. I’m writing because I care about the things that have Jesus’ name tacked on them….I’m writing because I care about people and the huge forming and informing effect music has on them. I not here to just say what’s wrong…I’m here to say what’s RIGHT (and missing), namely, Christian radio playing songs that are Biblical, theologically accurate, Christ-exalting, gospel-proclaiming, artistically meaningful, and truly encouraging.

2. To be fair, not ALL songs that are played on mainstream Christian radio are trite. Just most of them.

3. I am thankful for those few DJ’s out there who play Jesus-exalting, Bible-saturated songs, and I hope these posts are an encouragement for them to continue doing so.

4. I don’t think that EVERY SONG played on christian radio should be a John Piper sermon set to music. I’m just calling for SOME level of weight in what is labeled “christian” radio.

5. Several of MY songs have gotten airplay on some major networks, which has been a tremendous blessing to our ministry and for which I am very thankful.

6. By writing these posts, I am not saying that all christian ARTISTS who get played on christian radio are compromising, sell-outs. Some definitely are, but I personally know many who are very genuine. In theses posts, I am simply saying that the system is broken….and that radio in large-part “forces” christian artists to succumb to compromise. MANY bands/artists whore themselves and their Lord all for the sake of getting a song on the radio, i.e. “making it”.

7. Some might say that to do what I’m doing here is career suicide….if a christian radio network reads these posts (which I hope they will) they’ll never play my music again. That may be true. However (and I’m not trying to be overly spiritual when I say this), my goal isn’t to build a career, it’s to build a kingdom. I care too much about this issue to remain silent. Plus, I might be one of the few people who are currently in the “industry”, have some wherewithal, AND are crazy enough to say something.

So here we go! I hope you’ll join me in what I hope is a great blessing to the body of Christ, and a conversation that will at least stir up some awareness and discussion.

Writing, jealous for His Name-

Matt

What Does the Visual Layout of Our Worship Service Say?

What Does the Visual Layout of Our Worship Service Say?
http://glennpackiam.typepad.com/my_weblog/2012/02/what-does-our-worship-service-visually-communicate.html

This is a very thoughtful blog post concerning the stage layout at church. I don't know that there is a solution in our current church culture. But I think it is helpful to be aware of these things so we can respond accordingly. I sometimes think too much about everything (can I blame my ADD?). My mind takes me to some weird places, so finding a good way to respond is helpful when I am trying to focus on Christ at church.

Anyway, I think this is a good topic because I don't think this is the first time this has been discussed and certainly won't be the last.

What Does the Visual Layout of Our Worship Service Say?

Children have a way of making you see things differently.

We were flipping through the channels on a snowy Saturday when we came across a Coldplay concert. We were mesmerized. It was an open-air show, with tens of thousands of people lifting their hands and singing at the top of their lungs. My five year old daughter, Norah, turned to me and asked, "Dad, are they worshipping?"

It's a good question, isn't it?

Had my children grown up attending rock concerts instead of church, they may have one day seen a large arena worship event and asked about the worship band, "Dad, are they entertaining?"

The merits and concerns of the many parallels between rock shows and modern worship services have been discussed at length in many other places, so I won't attempt to tackle the subject as a whole here. For now, I just want to raise a question about the impact of our how our worship services appear. To put it simply:

What does the visual layout of our worship service say-- about God and about us?

In both a rock concert and a modern worship service, the band takes center stage. While many churches have done away with fancy pulpits (which once were away of demonstrating the centrality of the Scriptures) and ornate altar tables (which once were a way of making Christ's body and blood the centerpiece), most of our modern worship environments feature a drumset or a stack of amplifiers quite prominently. Nothing "wrong" with this. But let's think for a moment about what it says:

- It says the musical presentation or performance dictates the layout of the stage.
- It says the worship leader must be seen by the people in order to lead them.
- It says that the people need a person to visually direct their worship.

So far, no inherent problem (debatable, I know!).

But let's compare this to John's vision of heavenly worship in the Book of Revelation. In the Revelation, the "worship leaders"-- the ones who cast down their crowns and cry out night and day, "Holy, holy, holy"-- surround the throne in a circular fashion. The One who sits on the Throne and the Lamb are the visual center of heavenly worship. The "worship leaders" are the closest circle of many concentric ones to the throne. But they all face inward toward the Father and the Son.

In our modern worship contexts, the eyes of the worshipper are drawn to the worship leader, who does his or her sincere best to deflect the attention away from themselves and to Christ. But our eyes can't help themselves. We cannot see the Father and the Son, so we look at the worship leaders.

The early Christians understood the need for symbols, images, and icons to direct our worship to Christ. That is why the Bread and the Cup were placed front and center in many Christian places of worship (once they had places of worship!).

If you visit an Eastern Orthodox Church (pictured) or a Roman Catholic Church, your eyes will be drawn to the Altar Table. Yes, there are priests who "lead us in worship." But, visually, they are not the center. The choir, when there is one, sings from the side "wings" of the church.

In many Protestant liturgical churches, the Gospel reading is done each week from the center of the room, with all the people standing, to symbolize that the words of Christ are the very center of our worship.

I suggest that the following is true:

When the worship leader and the Object of our worship occupy the same visual space, the worshipper is easily confused-- consciously or subconsciously-- about Who the Center truly is.

I'll share one small example of something we did at NewLifeSundayNight. Last year, during Lent, we turned all the chairs in the room to face the back wall. The band-- and the stage-- became effectively the back of the room. A simple wooden cross was placed against the wall that people were now facing. I preached by that cross without a stage. Think of all the things that visual layout communicated (at least, we pray it did!):

- It made the band "musical servants", leading from behind the people.
- It made the people focus their eyes on the cross, and not the worship leaders.
- It showed them that they, along with the pastor-- the one proclaiming the Word of Christ-- stood on level ground before the cross.

Imagine praying that God will speak through the visual use of sacred space not in spite of it! Many people got tired of it after the first few Sundays, but many more thanked us for challenging the paradigm.

What are some ways we can make even the visual layout of our worship services communicate the centrality of Christ?

Ten Principles for Church Song Pt. 2

Here is Part 2 to the worship music selection discussion. I like number 7. I am often blessed when I hear the congregations singing loudly-it covers my singing. :-) I remember being at a Promise Keeper's event years ago and was quite amazed at the sound of thousands of men singing praise to God.

6. We should strive for excellence in the musicality and the poetry of the songs we sing.

I’m not for a moment suggesting elitism. A tine has to be relatively simple for hundreds or thousands of people to sing it at the same time. But we can still insist on undistracting excellence (to use Piper’s phrase). We want the cross to be the stumbling block, not our poor musicianship or faltering powerpoint.

While I believe a wide variety of styles can be used in worship, I am not a musical relativist. Some songs are better than others. Some styles work better than others. And when it comes to lyrics, we should avoid obvious sloppiness like using thee and you in the same song or heaping up trite cliches. I heard a song on the radio a couple weeks ago whose chorus had something about a fragrant rose in the early spring and an eagle soaring to spread its wings. If your church sings this on Sunday, love your worship leader all the same. But if you’re the worship leader picking this song, try for something with a little more artistry, something that doesn’t sound like it came from a random page in your inspirational pocket calendar.

Some songs are simply deep and some are deeply simple, but there is a way to do both well. With so many songs to choose from, there’s no reason churches can’t make an effort to sing songs with some sense of poetry and musical integrity. The Hallelujah chorus is repetitive, but it’s musically interesting. Most songs, choruses, and verses aren’t good enough to be repeated for very long.

7. The main sound to be heard in the worship music is the sound of the congregation singing.

Everyone is responsible to sing. The young girl with her hands in the air and the old man belting out the bass line. What people want to see in your worship is that you mean it. And no matter how chill or how reverent your worship is, if no one is singing, it’s lame.

And if the main sound is to be the congregation singing, this will have implications for how we play and choose our songs.

• Is it singable? Pay attention to range (too high or too low), and beware of syncopation and lots of irregularities in the meter and rhythm. Make sure the melody makes some intuitive sense, especially if you don’t have music to look at or people can’t read music. When your guitar strums between G, C, and D there are a lot of notes to choose from.

• Is the instrumentation helping or inhibiting the congregation to sing? This means checking the volume. Is the music too soft to support the human voices? Is it so loud it’s drowning them out? One mistake music teams make is to think that every instrument needs to be used with every song. Some songs should get the whole kitchen sink, but just because you have a drum, piano, guitar, bass, lyre, zither, flute, chicken shaker, banjo, cello, and djembe up there doesn’t mean you have to use them all.

• Is this song familiar. People cannot handle a new song every week, let alone two or three new songs. Stick with your basic sound and core songs and go out from there. On occasion you may have to admit, “That’s a great song, but I don’t think we can do it well.”

8. The congregation should also be stretched from time to time to learn new songs and broaden its musical horizons.

Every church will have a musical center. You should not reinvent the center every week. But you should not be enslaved to it either. We need to be stretched once a while, not only with a new song but a new kind of song–something from the African-America church, or something from Africa or Latin America (with an English translation so it is intelligible), or something from the classical choral tradition. It’s good to be reminded that belong to an ancient and global church.

9. The texts of our songs should be matched with fitting musicality and instrumentation.

Music should support the theme of the song. Different texts have different moods. The words for “A Mighty Fortress Is Our God” would not work with the tune for “Children of the Heavenly Father.” The campy song “Do Lord” does not quite capture the mood of the dying thief’s final words. On the other hand, you have to love the Getty song “See What a Morning” where the triumphant, celebratory music perfectly matches the resurrection lyrics.

Musical style is not neutral, but it is elastic. Music conveys something. Some melodies are too syrupy or too raucous or too romantic. I’ve always felt like “This is the Air I Breathe” was too sensual sounding. Plus I’m not sure what the song means. But styles are not rigid categories. There isn’t a sharp line between contemporary and traditional, or classical and popular, or high culture and low culture. We don’t have to make absolute rules about musical style, but we do need to be intelligent.

Let me just say a word about organs. No church should die on this hill. But if your church already has an organ my advice is to keep using it. Organs were originally associated with paganism. So there is nothing inherently spiritual about them. When they were introduced into churches, the average Christian in the Middle Ages new as much about organs as your average teenager does today. They were introduced into worship because of the fitness of the instrument. As Harold Best argues in his fantastic book Unceasing Worship, there is no instrument we know of in the West better suited to support congregational singing (73). The organ fills in the cracks, provides an underneath sound, and encourages churches to sing louder and freer. If you don’t have an organ they can be expensive to get. We mustn’t lay down any commands. But if an organ is an option for you, don’t ditch it.

10. All of our songs should employ manifestly biblical lyrics.

We must start by asking of all our songs: is this true? Not just true, but accurate to the biblical text. For example, I like the Third Day song “Consuming Fire” but the lyrics, while true, misuse the biblical text. According to the song, our God is a consuming fire because he reaches inside and melts our cold hearts of stone. That’s true, but the text in Hebrews is about God our judge.

Similarly, our songs should be manifestly true. That is, we shouldn’t have to put a spin on the lyrics to get them to be ok. We are looking for subtlety. We don’t want to sing songs that leave us wondering “what exactly does that mean?”

On the flip side, don’t be too hard on “I” songs. About 100 of the 150 Psalms have the word “I.” “I” is not the problem. The problem is with songs that are too colloquially, or use I thoughtlessly (I just want to praise you – well then praise him), or never move from how I am feeling about God to who God is and what he’s done to make me feel this way.

In all our songs we want to be teaching people about God. If we aren’t learning good theology and biblical truth from our songs, then either we don’t care much about our songs or we don’t care much about rich biblical truth, or both.

Ten Principles for Church Song Pt. 1

Here is a great post by Pastor Kevin DeYoung on some principles for choosing songs for worship. A great post in the worship music discussion. No matter where you stand on this issue, Pastor Young adds some wisdom to the discussion. Enjoy.

When it comes to singing on Sundays, churches have more options than ever before. From hymnals to Hillsong to homegrown creations, pastors and worship leaders have thousands of songs to choose from. A nice problem to have.

But still a problem. No music leader or pastor can keep up. No church can sing all the great hymns and all the latest greatest songs on the radio. No musician can excel in all the available styles. No leader can please all the people all the time.

The proliferation of choices often leads to conflict. Should we do hymns (Wesley, Watts, or Fanny Crosby?) or contemporary (70′s folk music, early seeker service contemporary, or edgy punk rock?). Should our music have a Latin flavor or an African American feel? Should we use chants, chorale music, metrical psalms, jazz, country western, or bluegrass?

There are other questions too. What sort of instruments should we use? How much should cultural context come into play? Is there only one right kind of song to sing? If not, are there any wrong ways?

I can’t possibly answer all those questions. But there are some general principles we can use to make wise decisions with our church music. Let me suggest ten principles for congregational singing.

1. Love is indispensable to church singing that pleases God.

There are more important things than the kinds of songs we sing. Music should not be the glue that holds us together–the cross, the glory of Jesus Christ, the majesty of God, and love should. But even churches centered on the gospel disagree about music. So love is indispensable when we sing and when we are trying to discern what is best to sing.

John Calvin:

But because he [the Lord] did not will in outward discipline and ceremonies to prescribe in detail what we ought to do (because he foresaw that this depended upon the state of the times, and he did not deem one form suitable for all ages), here we must take refuge in those general rules which he has given, that whatever the necessity of the church will require for order and decorum should be tested against these. Lastly, because he has taught nothing specifically, and because these things are not necessary to salvation, and for the upbuilding of the church ought to be variously accommodated to the customs of each nation and age, it will be fitting (as the advantage of the church will require) to change and abrogate traditional practices and to establish new ones. Indeed, I admit that we ought not to charge into innovation rashly, suddenly, for insufficient cause. But love will best judge what may hurt or edify; and if we let love be our guide, all will be safe. (Inst. 4.10.30)

Before we are quick to judge the lame songs some other Christians enjoy, remember C.S. Lewis’ revelation. Listen to one of the century’s most famous converts to Christianity talk about his early impression of church music:

I disliked very much their hymns, which I considered to be fifth-rate poems set to sixth-rate music. But as I went on I saw the great merit of it. I came up against different people of quite different outlooks and different education, and then gradually my conceit just began peeling off. I realized that the hymns (which were just sixth-rate music) were, nevertheless, being sung with devotion and benefit by an old saint in elastic-side boots in the opposite pew, and then you realize that you aren’t fit to clean those boots. It gets you out of your solitary conceit. (God in the Dock, 62)

I imagine the Apostle Paul, if he were writing to the church today, might have something to say about our worship style. “If I sing in style of the hippest music, but have not love, I am only a banging drum or a strumming guitar. If I have a gift for reading music and enjoy the richest hymns, but have not love, I am nothing. If I am discerning of excellent music and fine poetry, but have not love, I gain nothing.” The first principle for singing as a congregation and choosing music for the congregation is love.

2. Our singing is for God’s glory and the edification of the body of Christ.

God is the one we want to impress, the one we most want to honor. Our first aim must not be to win over the culture or appeal to the unregenerate. Worship is for the Worthy One.

Following closely on this priority is the goal of edification. The singing on Sunday morning should benefit God’s people. This is a fair application of Paul’s concerns in 1 Corinthians 14. It’s also part and parcel of teaching and admonishing each other with psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs (Col. 3:16). We should never approach the music as an entertaining lead-in to the sermon. Before you employ secular songs as your background music prior to the start of the service, consider whether a vaguely spiritual song from U2 will really build up the body of Christ.

Congregational song is part of the teaching ministry of the church. Church musicians and pastors should ask themselves: if our people learned their theology from our songs what would they know in twenty years about God, the cross, the resurrection, the offices of Christ, the Holy Spirit, the Trinity, creation, justification, election, regeneration, the church, the sacraments, and all the other fundamental doctrines of the faith?

3. We ought to sing to the Lord new songs.

Isn’t that a command? A command we haven’t exhausted yet? There are still new songs to be sung to the Lord. What if the Church had stopped singing new songs in the 15th century? We wouldn’t have “A Mighty Fortress is Our God.” What if Christians stopped in the 16th century? No Charles Wesley. No Isaac Watts. What if the Church stopped a generation ago? No one would be singing “In Christ Alone” this Sunday. What a pity.

Sometimes I want to ask to very conservative Christians: “Do you really think the last good song of praise to Jesus has been written?”

4. Church singing should swim in its own history of church singing.

The metaphor is intentional. We should swim in this big ocean of church music, a ocean that is continually receiving new streams. I am not advocating a certain percentage of old v. new–every church will look and feel a little different, but I am suggesting that we should understand ourselves to be a part of this deep ocean of Christian song.

It’s amazing to me that any church would consciously (or unconsciously for that matter) step completely out of the ocean of the historic hymnody and step into a wading pool of nothing but contemporary song. I’m not saying newer songs are inferior to older ones (see previous point). What I am saying is that it is an expression of extreme hubris and folly to think we have nothing to gain from older songs and nothing to lose when we throw out the songs Christians have been singing for hundreds of years.

Think of what you get with a hymnal (whether it’s an actual hymnal or the contents of the hymnal on your screen):

• A link to history. Our people, not to mention the world, needs to know that Christianity is not a novel invention. We sing in concert with two millennia of believers.

• Diversity. I guarantee that those churches using hymns are being exposed to a wider variety of Christian song than those who are exclusively contemporary. The hymnal has twenty centuries of styles: chants, folk tunes, ethnic tunes, carols, psalms, Welsh ballads, English melodies, stout German hymns, gospel tunes (black and white), and dozens of other musical variations.

• Excellence. Yes, there are some real clunkers in most hymnals. But by and large, the bad songs have been weeded out. If we are stilling singing a song five hundred years later it probably has strong lyrics, good poetry, and a singable tune.

• The whole counsel of God. Hymns give you a wide range of themes and biblical categories. Contemporary music is getting better in this regard, but the hymnal is still the best place to find a song on the ascension or the exaltation of Christ or a song of illumination or a lamentation or a communion hymn. Kudos to the Getty/Townend team and Sovereign Grace for trying to fill these kinds of gaps.

5. Sing the Psalms.

I am not convinced by the arguments for exclusive psalmody. But in 95% of our churches the problem is not that we are keeping out good non-Psalms. It’s strange, even though we are commanded to sing Psalms and even though Psalms have been at the center of the Church’s singing for centuries, still we easily ignore the 800 pound gorilla in the middle of our Bibles (to borrow a phrase from Terry Johnson). On a cheerier note, I’m thankful we are beginning to see some contemporary musicians turn their attention to the Psalms.