Replies

I would add one more point. The commercialization includes a reinforced dumbing down of of worship. The great traditions are either ignored or rejected outright. The use of the term "relevance" is a red flag. It's easier to lower the congregation's expectations and sell them tripe than to instruct them in the classics and then strive to attain the same standards of beauty and reference. Beyond mixed theological messages, liturgical music can be marred by a poor choice of material or poor execution. What is particularly troubling is that while the latter is the result of our own limitations, the former is completely avoidable

We do not have this problem, and the hymns we sing reinforce the doctrine we preach and what we pray. However, we are also small and part of that smallness may be how socialized so many are to fitting in with the zeitgeist (it doesn’t help to be a Caholic in North Carolina).

I agree with much of your essay about relevance/exclusion, theological accuracy and worship. However, a slight correction—hymns [in hymnals] often involve copyrights and licensing fees also. Look at the bottom of the hymn for the info.

You want relevance?

One day, we will all die.

One day we will stand before a Holy God.

Are you going to stand naked or clothed in the righteousness of Christ?

The pure crap I see on the Church Channel is nor “relevant” to that fact.

Here is relevance:

(from the Heidelberg Catechism)
Question 1. What is thy only comfort in life and death?

Answer: That I with body and soul, both in life and death, am not my own, but belong unto my faithful Saviour Jesus Christ; who, with his precious blood, has fully satisfied for all my sins, and delivered me from all the power of the devil; and so preserves me that without the will of my heavenly Father, not a hair can fall from my head; yea, that all things must be subservient to my salvation, and therefore, by his Holy Spirit, He also assures me of eternal life, and makes me sincerely willing and ready, henceforth, to live unto him.

On the other hand, for the scriptural view:

"Anyone who receives instruction in the word must share all good things with his instructor." Galatians 6:6

And although Paul eschewed the right, he still recognized it:

7Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat of its grapes? Who tends a flock and does not drink of the milk? 8Do I say this merely from a human point of view? Doesn't the Law say the same thing? 9For it is written in the Law of Moses: "Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain."[b] Is it about oxen that God is concerned? 10Surely he says this for us, doesn't he? Yes, this was written for us, because when the plowman plows and the thresher threshes, they ought to do so in the hope of sharing in the harvest. 11If we have sown spiritual seed among you, is it too much if we reap a material harvest from you? 12If others have this right of support from you, shouldn't we have it all the more?
--I Corinthians 9:7-12

Of course, people should be careful about what they're sharing their substance for. Are they really being edified?

“God of Wonders” is owned by Hindalong and Burd

Hindalong and Byrd

when a congregation sings Martin Luther’s “A Mighty Fortress Is Our God,” no money changes hands.

There are 95 different copy writes on 'A Mighty Fortress' only one in public domain.

Virtually every one of the 100 largest and 100 fastest growing churches on “Outreach” magazine’s annual list of the largest and fastest growing churches in America is a church that has one or more so-called “contemporary” services. Indeed, most of these churches have no traditional services at all.

Within the last couple years I switched from the "contemporary" service to the "traditional" service at our church. Scheduling reasons. Turns out that there's very little difference between them. The contemporary service sings new stuff. The traditional service sings stuff that's really not that much older.

[sigh}

From Wiki:

CCLI was founded in the US in 1988 by Howard Rachinski, who is President/CEO of the company. CCLI was launched after being developed by Howard for 3 1/2 years while he was a Music Minister at a large church in Portland, Oregon. This prototype was called Starpraise Ministries, which began in May 1985. CCLI offers copyright licensing of songs and other resource materials for use in Christian worship. The aim of CCLI has always been to provide services to facilitate worship (see the Vision and Mission below), benefiting the churches, while at the same time also benefiting the copyright owners.

Also Wiki:

OCP (formerly known as Oregon Catholic Press) is a Portland, Oregon based, not-for-profit company that publishes liturgical music, books, choral collections, hymnals, missals, and support materials for the Catholic Church as well as the Catholic Sentinel, the diocesan newspaper for the State of Oregon. OCP represents such musical composers as Dan Schutte and the St. Louis Jesuits, and offers worship programs that are used in two thirds of all Catholic churches in the U.S., and in communities and ministries throughout the world.

OCP is less than affectionately tagged “The Hidden Hand Behind Bad Catholic Music”.

CCLI. OCP. Portland, Oregon. Who would have figured? Maybe it’s the climate.

Maybe I am slow, it appears to me that this article and many of the comments are about what style of music is played. I don’t understand why the style of music makes a bit of difference about relevance (I like both styles).

When people refer to “relevance” I beleive they are referring to how God’s word is presented to the congregation. Relevance is defined by Webster “bearing upon or relating to the matter at hand”. This is exactly what Paul did when trying to reach the people of Athens. He looked around and noticed many idols and gods were being worshipped. There is even one named the “unknown god”. When he spoke God’s truth, he gave relevance to it, by telling them I want to tell you about the “unknown god”. Acts 17:23. He used the relevance of the day to reach the people of the day. That is exactly what many of the contemporary churches do.

The trouble begins when you get a church that thinks it needs to change the truth, to soften the message. That is a false teacher. They exist throughout Traditional and Contemporary style churches. They have existed for centuries and will be on the rise until Christ returns.

So your argument is futile if you want to banter back and forth between what type of music is more appropriate for a church setting. I say, mix them both, sing some contemporary and sing some traditional. I love both. But preach the TRUTH OF THE BIBLE. That is what will change the hearts of everyone.

I totally disagree about the songs being sung because of money. That argument is so stupid. If that were the case you should apply this to everything in the church...... Who gets the profit from the clothes you wear to church, or the chairs you sit in, or the cleaning supplies used in the bathrooms, what about the water used to baptize. You can’t apply this to just music. Give me break. I know I would much rather pay someone who is a beleiver (Christian song writer) than a pagan. Because if a true beleiver they will tithe back to their church, therefore continuing Gods’ blessings. A pagan may put the money into satan’s pocketbook.

Our church leaders are lead by the Holy Spirit. What they say can be confirmed in the scriptures and they always teach directly from the bible. They may use “props” to help us remember a truth, but the content never changes, only the method in which it is delivered! That is relevance and I love it!

When a pastor just reads the word, but doesn’t teach the congregation how to apply Gods word to their lives, what difference does it make? That is why you have churches who read from the bible but the people remained unchanged by it. I say give them relevance!