Whats wrong with the SBC churches in my area?

You have a fractured church and it is too bad that the Pastor does not see it and do what is needed to correct it.

 

Preach the times it is sin.

 

The Pastor is about 40 years old and takes responsibility for changing to the beat-driven contemporary music. He says the church should appeal to the younger people for future growth. The older people have learned to accept this; and to accept the idea that good worshipful music at church is a thing of the past.

 

Why does it have to be an age thing?

 

I have been a part-time minister of music or choir director for 58 years (which means I'm pretty ancient). Let me throw out a couple of questions and a couple of observations.

For those of you who use the contemporary stuff or rock-style worship music because that appeals to the yuppie set, a question. Has your church ever taken a survey of those folks about their preferences regarding worship music? Have they been asked if they'd quit attending if the worship music was more traditional?

Of course they like that stuff, it's the kind of stuff like the secular music they dig. (Listen to me, using the word dig). I grew up in the big-band era, then through the arrival of Elvis and rock and roll, but I didn't expect my church to imitate it.

I freely admit that the music I select for the choir and other groups reflects my own tastes. The Men's Quartet will not be singing contemporary songs. Neither will the church choir.

Fortunately, the congregation is on the same wave length. They're older, and prefer the traditional, and Southern Gospel, and contemporary or rock is not their cup of tea.
If I found that my own tastes did not mesh with the congregation's, I could make some adjustments. But there's a reason I'm a music LEADER.

I suspect that in many churches, the worship music also reflects the tastes of the worship leaders. And they don't relate to the traditional stuff. It's not a question of what the congregation likes. It's what they like.

Finally, what pastor completely abdicates his responsibility for the worship music? If the music leaders are doing things he doesn't like, he can stop it, or change it.

I guess what I'm saying is that to say that the worship music genre is what the yuppies and the kids like is a copout. It's what you like, first.

 

As a matter of fact, we have asked people about their preferences about music. We don't do surveys, but we ask people about what kind of musical style they want. We do NOT ask what kind of music they want. The music is going to be God centered and Christ honoring. The style can be different.

It was surprising to us that some of the people who wanted Fannie Crosby type traditional music were absolutely adamant that they would leave if we went entirely contemporary or even any blended.

We had very few who enjoyed contemporary who would absolutely leave if we went all traditional. But they said, they would realize that the church wasn't really attempting to address the musical style they best worshipped in. So they would feel less tied to the church.

During the September-June time, we do 2 services. One is all hymns all the time. The other is more contemporary. During the Summer, we have 1 service that uses both.

Why do we have to tell a person what kind of music they MUST worship with in church? I bet that even among the more traditional minded, that they have hymns they really don't like.

Even the hymns have a variety of styles. "A Mighty Fortress is our God" is much different from "There's a New name Written Down in Glory". But they both are in the traditional continuum. So if you like one because it's more upbeat and you lift your heart in praise for God's salvation than the other that is more introspective, is one person more spiritual than the other?

Some of you may want to decide what is traditional music. Is it the Gregorian chants or is it Luther's music or is it Fannie Crosby or is it anything written before 1963?

 

We do a blended service, it's working well, and we are a majority gray haired church.

 

Back in the late 80's, we had a training film at work entitled "You are now what you were then". It's purpose was to educate the older managers about the younger incoming employees. It's emphasis was on the different ideas about work.

It included a portion about tastes in music. The older managers assumed the beat-driven rock music would be a passing thing as the younger grew older. The training program said it was not a passing thing as people grew older. It said that when the young people became into their 50's and older, they would still think the beat-driven rock type music was good music.

As one of the older folks, I did not believe it. I believe it now; just look at the beat-driven rock type music that is in so many churches today.

Is it an age thing? It is from my experience. The problem is that the younger people have no appreciation of how irritating the beat-driven rock type music is to the older people.

 

Our church is supposed to have a mixture of music types. It really does not. They will sing one or two traditional songs each service; but they sing them to a harsh beat-driven style which make them like the beat-driven rock type music. It seems they cannot handle a good traditional song with good traditional music.

 

Thanks, Tom, appreciate your perspective. I still maintain that in some cases, the worship music reflects the tastes of the worship leader.

It's a case of "I know what I like and I like what I know." Of course, that could apply to the congregation, as well.

 

I agree about it too often being more about what I like.

I remember Dr. Dobson saying they got more heated debate in any program about music than most any other topic. I believe it.

 

#1 Thats not true. I know several people in their 70's, who prefer contemporary worship.

#2 The same goes in reverse. Our music is annoying to them, too. That's part of being a congregation. The worship music is (should be) a reflection of the various members, NOT excluding young people and youth.

 

Are we talking about the same thing? Contemporary worship and the beat-driven rock type contemporary music can be different things, i.e. worship versus music. I can enjoy contemporary worship as long as it is not a part of the beat-driven rock type contemporary music. I also enjoy contemporary music as long as it is not the beat-driven rock type music.

To some people, contemporary music is anything that is not in the hymnbook; that is not my definition of contemporary music.

 

What would you consider something like this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0inJgZLspQ

 

I am talking about what you are referring to as "beat driven rock music." Worship like "Promises" the modern version of "O, Happy day!" (not Oh Happy Day...two different songs), stuff like that.

 

I consider it a great song recording. I would buy a CD with songs like that on it. Note that the drum beats were only supporting and in the background and did not dominate the song, i.e. not beat-driven.

I wonder if this song is too tame for Havensdad.

 

I suppose that there are some older people (over 65) that could appreciate that type of music. The older people (over 65) in our church that are not musically inclined, do not object so much to the type of music; but only that it is too long and too loud. Those who are musically inclined tend to be irritated by the beat-driven rock type music. The over 65 group were teenagers before rock music became popular. The under 60 group were teenagers during and after rock and roll became popular.

I think the differences are age dependent.