Change Dividing Southern Baptist Mega-Church

Ethics Daily ^ | September 22, 2006 | Bob Allen

[Binghamton_native]

I have watched the video, and I don't think using the phrase "the things they (Bellevue) do wrong". Poor choice of words.

[Binghamton_native]

I think this speaks to the issue at hand at Bellevue and many other established churches:

Culture crashing occurs when a pastor (or any other staff member) accepts a position in a church with an established culture, and then tries to radically change the culture. This is primarily seen in efforts to make old churches young, traditional churches contemporary, or worship services "seeker friendly. "The intent to draw sinners, not saints, to God is good but should not be in the expense of an existing culture, unless, of course, the church is dying and in desperate need of some kind of change to become effective again. You have every right to develop any cultural church style you want, provided you start your own church. But when you crash an established church, you seriously violate Christ, ripping the garments of his bride. That's sin. Here's why:

First, it is a moral violation to crash a culture. Missionaries have learned the hard way that their job is to take the gospel into a culture, not change the culture. If ethics demand that foreign cultures remain intact, then the same ethics demand that an established culture in any church be honored.

Second, its egotistical immaturity to tear down a culture just because you didn't help to build it.

Third, it's downright stealing to take a salary under the guise of pastoring a certain culture, then violate and trash it. Your work is to root out sin, not destroy culture. It is ruthless ignorance to pound people with guilt for clinging to a thirty-to-fifty-year pattern of life instead of supporting your desire to dress, sing, and worship differently. You must honor the culture in which they learned to follow the Lord Jesus Christ.

Taken from a book called "Firestorm: Preventing and Overcoming Church Conflicts" [Baker Books, 2005] by Ron Susek with a forward by D. James Kennedy

[beezdotcom]

Way too much importance is placed upon music. If classical music is the only way churches think they can worship - there's something wrong.


(I'll take the lyre and sackbut over the pipe organ any day...)

[Binghamton_native]

A couple of more points regarding music in church:

1. It should be participatory, not just a performance.
2. Although I enjoy some of the contemporary songs, I don't think it can be disputed that they are not as 'transportable' as hymns. What I mean is that if you visit another church (on vacation), you will probably not know many of the songs if they are contemporary, as that church's current set may be different than the set used in your home church. Not so with hymns.

[beezdotcom]

you will probably not know many of the songs if they are contemporary, as that church's current set may be different than the set used in your home church.

That's getting less and less true. I have yet to find a church with a contemporary service that hasn't heard "I Can Only Imagine..."

[Claud]

Way too much importance is placed upon music. If classical music is the only way churches think they can worship - there's something wrong.

It's not between classical and pop. Most classical music is *totally* unsuitable for worship. You ever walk into a Church that is blasting Wagner's Ring....time to hightail it out of there.

The difference, rather, is between sacred music and secular music--a distinction that has always been made in every culture. I don't know why we insist on defying that trend.

Suppose some music minister changed the words to Twisted Sister's "We're not gonna Take It" into "Jesus is Our Savior" and sung it on Sunday morning.

If you understand why that is ridiculous, you understand the difference between secular and sacred settings. The music has to fit the text.

[Binghamton_native]

OK, my personal experience. I sing in the choir in both the contemporary and traditional services at our medium to large church. We have a pretty large set of contemporary songs that we draw from. When I visit my son's large Baptist church in the Seattle area, all contemporary, when I was there earlier this year I knew 2 of the 7 songs. Same thing happens when I visit my other son's large church in South Florida.

Now, I'll grant that this problem will resolve IF a particular contemporary song is around as long as some of the hymns so that it becomes as widely known as the hymns.

[beezdotcom]

But does it give the kind of sacred, quiet and prayerful atmosphere that belongs in church? Or is it more conducive to jumping around and emotionalism?

Who jumps more than someone conducting Handel's Messiah? Is there no emotionalism in a chant or a psalm?

Empty emotionalism isn't measured by the tempo, volume, or style - it's measured in how 'feelings' get substituted for true spiritual contemplation and worship.

Meanwhile, "rock" is a pretty broad term. Are you talking about ballads, or heavy-metal-fuzz-clash guitar?

[Mr. Brightside]

A couple of more points regarding music in church:
1. It should be participatory, not just a performance.

I could not agree more.

Most churches have only performance-oriented music. The audience sits quietly while the soloist/duet/quartet sings or performs the song.

I don't see a lot of Biblical examples for that kind of music.

[Claud]

1. It should be participatory, not just a performance.

Absolutely. I can't stand any sort of clapping in church. Although I might add you can also participate by listening and sort of singing along in your head. Not everybody has the chops to sing 4 part harmony. :)

2. Although I enjoy some of the contemporary songs, I don't think it can be disputed that they are not as 'transportable' as hymns. What I mean is that if you visit another church (on vacation), you will probably not know many of the songs if they are contemporary, as that church's current set may be different than the set used in your home church. Not so with hymns.

Yep...there's a certain universality with hymns. Note how popular and well-beloved all the Christmas carols are--most of them are quite long in the tooth now.

[beezdotcom]

It's not between classical and pop.

Hey, I agree. But some folks clearly think that IS the argument.

Suppose some music minister changed the words to Twisted Sister's "We're not gonna Take It" into "Jesus is Our Savior" and sung it on Sunday morning. If you understand why that is ridiculous, you understand the difference between secular and sacred settings. The music has to fit the text.

You and I might be more in agreement about the specific "Twisted Sister" comparison (although I'm willing to entertain specific counterarguments). However, most of the time, the arguments are on the order of "Jesus Loves Me" vs. "I Could Sing Of His Love Forever".

[Claud]

Who jumps more than someone conducting Handel's Messiah? Is there no emotionalism in a chant or a psalm?

No, there's definitely emotion there! I can't listen to Palestrina's Sicut Cervus without getting swept into another world. But it's a different sort of emotional I guess. More quiet...more still..less enervating.

I am talking about the whole of the rock genre...from Chuck Berry to whatever passes for it nowadays LOL.

Sometimes secular music hits on something I guess....Greensleeves back in its day was turned into a beautiful Christmas carol (What Child is This). But by and large ends of the sacred and secular are different.

[beezdotcom]

But it's a different sort of emotional I guess. More quiet...more still..less enervating.

See, now we're starting to delve into personal preferences - which is FINE. I just grow weary of having people tell me how certain music MUST affect ME, and it happens all too often in some churches.

[Claud]

I hear ya. Believe me, I don't pretend to understand all the vagaries of when is such-and-such kind of music okay and when is it not. I guess the ages will sort it all out for us.

I just grow weary of this attitude that because we can't exactly set hard and fast rules, that suddenly everything is as valid as everything else for any purpose.

There's a reason, I think, that things like Gregorian chant have lasted 1500 years...and that things like estampie were only around a couple of centuries. I think modern rock--much I like certain aspects of it--is definitely in the latter category rather than the former.

[Muzzle_em]

Re- the sermon he preached.
This is a serious question.
If one has divorced to marry another, is now married, is NOW considered to be commiting adultery since he/she is married to someone else, then REPENTS, does he/she leave the new spouse and go back to the first spouse? Doesn't repent involve "discontinuing" the sin in addition to asking forgiveness?
I know I sound like a smarta-- for asking a question like this, but I know folks who would ask that type of question and I would have NO answer for them.

[Claud]

Doesn't repent involve "discontinuing" the sin in addition to asking forgiveness? I know I sound like a smarta-- for asking a question like this, but I know folks who would ask that type of question and I would have NO answer for them.

I wouldn't either! I think you're 100% spot on. "Go and sin no more", right?

[Sue Perkick]

I know I sound like a smarta-- for asking a question like this, but I know folks who would ask that type of question and I would have NO answer for them.

I hope not because I've been trying to figure this one out myself. What if the other spouse is married to someone else as well? What if it's been 20 or 30 years? What if all this happened before they came to know the Lord? I believe we can ask for forgiveness but there are some things that just can't be undone. It may be in there, but I'm not sure if this may be moving beyond what the Bible has to say.

[Mr. Brightside]

Way too much importance is placed upon music.

In many churches, this is correct. I grew up in a "traditional" church. And they would have been better off skipping the music, solos, chior, etc. And they would have driven less young people away from the church.

[Mr. Brightside]

First, it is a moral violation to crash a culture. Missionaries have learned the hard way that their job is to take the gospel into a culture, not change the culture. If ethics demand that foreign cultures remain intact, then the same ethics demand that an established culture in any church be honored.

I guess the same principle would hold true for our American culture in general.

Modern music is a part of our culture. Just as missionaries respect the music and culture of the mountain Indians in Mexico, the church should respect the culture and music of our nation.

Thus, if people get saved and bring modern music into worship, who are we to disagree?

[Mr. Brightside]

I don't see anything in your link that supports claims that the Bible prefers hymnal music over modern music. I don't even see any reference in the Bible where the word below has ANYTHING to do with music.

_____________________________________________________________________________

Minister (Noun and Verb) [Noun]

leitourgos denoted among the Greeks, firstly, "one who discharges a public office at his own expense," then, in general, "a public servant, minister." In the NT it is used
(a) of Christ, as a "Minister of the sanctuary" (in the Heavens), Heb_8:2;
(b) of angels, (Heb_1:7 Psalm_104:4);
(c) of the Apostle Paul, in his evangelical ministry, fulfilling it as a serving-priest, Rom_15:16; that he used it figuratively and not in an ecclesiastical sense, is obvious from the context;
(d) of Epaphroditus, as ministering to Paul's needs on behalf of the church at Philippi, Php_2:25; here, representative service is in view;
(e) of earthly rulers, who though they do not all act consciously as servants of God, yet discharge functions which are the ordinance of God, Rom_13:6.