It's NOT Time to Boycott the Worship Industry; It's Just Time to Worship

Recently, an article by Jonathan Aigner is popping up regularly on my Facebook thread: It's Time to Boycott the Worship Industry. In it, he gives five points attacking modern church music and the way it is done. If you want to get to my point by point rebuttal, you can scroll to the bottom, but I thought I would lay some groundwork first.

There is no biblical mandate about singing a certain style of songs in church, especially songs that were written in the 1800s, early 1900s, or the 1950s.  These were not written during the time of Christ, and they are not the hymns referred to in Ephesians 5:18b-19.  "Be filled with the Spirit, addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with your heart" (Ephesians 5:18-19 ESV). So it may say hymns in the Bible, but let's not pretend these are the hymns referred to by Paul in his letter to the Christian in Ephesus.

The words of many of the hymns are beautiful, inspiring, and are definitely worth singing, but a church is not right or wrong with God because they choose to sing hymns or choose to sing some more modern style. Some modern songs also have great words, and I'm cynically confident there will be people arguing to sing them in fifty years, long after they are out of style.

If a church could be more relevant to the culture around them by using a certain music style that is in the specific language of the people, then they should do that whether that music style is their personal preference or not. Because when it comes down to it, we should be willing to discard any tradition that is not based on Scripture if it will help us be more effective ambassadors of God's kingdom. Clinging to traditions that we like at the cost of alienating those outside of the church is exactly what all of the great reformers rebelled against.

Martin Luther was one such great reformer. He fought for the language used in translations of the Bible and the language spoken from the pulpit to be in the language of the people.  He considered it folly that the church attempted to instruct the masses in a language that they did not understand.  There was nothing productive that would come from people participating in an empty ritual of listening to a message they could not understand and connect with. Needless to say, the ritual would not be empty if they knew the Latin, but church isn't designed just for those who were educated enough to know Latin. The gathering should be done in a way to connect with everyone.

The same is true with the style of music. An outdated style, no matter how wonderfully and beautifully crafted, can be as great of a "language barrier" as a foreign language.  If the church is not using a style that can be found on the non-Christian radio dial, then we expect a person seeking God to crash through a specific and unnecessary cultural barrier in our church. I remember being a seeker in a worship service and being touched by God during the culturally relevant worship service; music that really is no longer culturally relevant. I would be wrong to say that those songs that touched my heart should be the ones we use today because they should still be able to touch hearts just the same. And the song that really touched my heart wouldn't even be the same songs that the crowd celebrating the boycott worship article want to go back to singing; it was Audio Adrenaline's Big House. I know I should be embarrassed about that. The purpose of worship in church is to instruct and bring people into the presence of God. Those missions are hampered if the music is not culturally relevant.

We are not in the kingdom of God to please ourselves. It is all about God: Glorifying Him, bringing about His will, and bringing people to Him. If there are any obstacles to the Gospel, let it not be some tradition that we enjoy. Let us make sure that it is Jesus' radical demands on people's lives and never allow any tradition to get between that message of Jesus and the seeker. The traditions we personally enjoy should be quickly and lovingly tossed aside when necessary for the greater good of the reaching others.

But we still have a serious dilemma. We are a nation fragmented into a plethora of subcultures. Some like one style of music. Others like another. While others like another. You could probably go down a block from house to house and every house has a different style of music that they like.

Can the church exist like it is and thrive in a society of various subcultures? Should the culture of one's audience matter when deciding what activities to do at the Sunday gathering and other activities the church participates in?

I'll take a shot at the last question first. Whether we acknowledge it or not, our Sunday gathering and other church activities are influenced by our culture or the culture of the group that planted the church we attend. Often, the things of our culture are a cultural blind spot to us; we don't view them as cultural. Many things, from the music style and songs to the style of preaching, are purely a choice of culture. Other activities can be cultural too. We don't realize how much culture influences our setting because we have always resided in our culture. The way we do things seems to us to be the unquestionable right way to do these things.

That is what a common culture provides. Everyone in the culture agrees with the right way to do things. However, once the culture fragments like our culture has, what used to be the common way to do things is no longer common to everyone.

There are some essential elements to being the church. These should never be strayed from. Sadly, most groups of Christians try to say that what makes them different is an essential when it is actually just a cultural opinion. Then they hold onto that cultural opinion and refuse to change it. It would be a glorious day if Christians could come to an agreement on what are the essentials.

Can the church exist like it is and thrive in a society of various cultures? To answer this question, I think it would be fair to ask if an American missionary to Africa would thrive if they cared less about the African culture. Can we just transplant "American" churches around the world without changing for the culture and expect them to be effective? Because a lot of people are in a cultural time warp, doing things in a style that was relevant to culture twenty, thirty, fifty, or a hundred years ago. They are like the American in my little illustration, seeking to do church in a foreign culture without understanding that foreign culture and adapting what they can without compromising the Gospel to that foreign culture.

All cultural things of the church can change except for where they cross the line into sin or prevent us from being the loving people we are to be (the other side of sin that seems to be ignored). We are not servants to or ambassadors of any culture; we are solely servants and priests of the kingdom of God. If our cultural practices must change in order for us to be the servant that God wants us to be, then we should gladly change.

Tradition can be detrimental to us fulfilling our mission.. There is nothing inherently wrong with tradition until the love of doing things in a traditional way prevents us from effectively reaching the culture around us.

Likewise, change can be detrimental to us fulfilling our mission. There is nothing inherently wrong with change until we like change so much that we morph into a church that is foreign to the culture around us.

The future of the church depends upon us being sensitive to what God wants the church to be. We must not hold on to any sacred cows but the essentials. It is our calling to be priests to the culture around us. And in so doing, the church will change, yet still remain, at its core, the same.

With that said, I now come to the point of dealing with the five points in the article.

1. "It’s time to boycott the worship industry because money shouldn’t drive what churches sing."

Money doesn't drive what churches sing. Churches sing what they want to sing. However, artists do get compensated for what churches sing. Just yesterday, we received our bill for our CCLI license. It's fair for people who create what we sing to be compensated for their work.

2. "It’s time to boycott the worship industry because it creates its own idols."

Maybe worship creates idols among some. I have no idea who the image is of in the article. He doesn't use a caption to tell me. I guess she is an idol to a few. I think church culture has a much larger problem of idolizing preachers (Tim Keller, Joel Osteen, John Piper, Francis Chan, and Rob Bell at one time) than it does with idolizing musicians. And did someone mention money? If we're talking about boycotting anyone because of point one, maybe it should be these authors. These authors rake in the money. But how much money the creator of something makes is not a good criteria to evaluate whether something is useful or not.

3. "It’s time to boycott the worship industry because the congregation’s voice should be primary." 

I don't care whose voice is primary. In our church, the congregation's voice is. But I just had a comment the other day after a person went to Winter Jam that they sang better to louder music. One of the not so great things about being a pastor is that everyone has an opinion on worship, and we can't make them all happy despite wanting to. To me, the issue is ultimately people worshiping. If louder music helps, then good for loud music. If quiet music and candlelight help, hurrah for quiet music and candlelight. The volume of the music is a tool. Nothing more. Nothing less.

4. "It’s time to boycott the worship industry because emotionalism is not worship."

God made us with emotions. Some of us are wired differently. Personally, I don't even enjoy singing along or dancing. You can take me to a concert of my favorite band. I won't clap. I know all the lyrics, yet I won't sing. I will just stand there. I will appreciate it all thoroughly. We are all wired differently. Some people want the emotion. I don't think that's wrong unless they begin to worship the emotion. Others, like me, could care less about the emotion. But let us not make our emotional preference a criteria to attack others.

5. "It’s time to boycott the worship industry because simply being a silently dissatisfied customer won’t fix anything."

The worship wars are back. I hate this. It's been a good fifteen years in the Christian world without the worship wars. I understand that people want to worship in a way that they enjoy with the music they appreciate (or maybe think is sacred and the only kind appropriate to use). But I'm not going to enjoy the pushback that I may get as a pastor to use a different style than the one that our musicians choose to use. My personal view is that the music style should be in the language of the people.

And one more thing. You aren't a customer. That's where this whole argument goes astray. Customers want what they want, and they view things in a cost/benefit equation. It steers the whole conversation in a wrong direction. You are not a customer; you're an ambassador for God's kingdom. A good ambassador in a foreign land gets to know the culture around them. They try to influence that culture for their homeland. We have a same mission. We are not customers. We are ambassadors of the kingdom of the most high God.

Coasting on Faithful Fumes

I worship a Savior who was beaten up and killed for me. He didn't come riding on a horse, a tactical missile, or a drone and take over the world. He came in love, eventually bearing a cross that He was nailed to. If you are willing to surrender yourself to Him and His mission to love others...If you want to be part of a group of people doing the same, then following Jesus and getting involved in a church should be just the thing for you.

In the New Testament we are never called to mimic God's justice; we're called to mimic His love. He reminds us that vengeance is His, not ours. We're called to love our neighbor, enemy, and everyone else. Even when it is not convenient, cultural, or safe.

We, the church - you and me - people in relationship with Jesus and each other - not a building - we, the church are striving to be the people God wants us to be, loving the world the way God wants us to love it.

Are we really doing that? Or do we just say it? Are we striving to be the people God wants us to be, or do we just want to do enough to "get saved?" Are we loving the world the way God wants us to love it, or are we just loving it when it is convenient to us, fits nicely into our schedule, and doesn't really cost us anything?

This week, I was blessed with the opportunity to be the middleman in delivering a $1000 anonymous gift. God had laid it on another person's heart to give a certain family that money. They were faithful and did it. So I was able to deliver a great gift, a tremendous blessing, at really no cost to myself.

And I enjoyed being used to do that.

Then it struck me. Everything I do is like that. God has given me everything; it's all a blessing from Him. One of the greatest lies that we buy into as Americans is that we actually deserve this. We deserve to wake up every morning and have food available unlike others around the world. We deserve to be in a loving family unlike others around us. We deserve to have all the excess entertainment options we enjoy unlike those less fortunate. We deserve this and we deserve that. Because we work hard. Because we're smart. Because of this or that.

But it's all a lie. We don't deserve it.

It's by God's grace. Don't get me wrong. I think we can create fair and just systems that help accommodate His blessing. We can live lives that God's grace can more easily flow into. But we have become prideful. We think we deserve God's blessings because of how great we are. And we don't. That's the nature grace. It isn't something deserved. All our blessing, We don't deserve them. When we think we are deserving, then we fail to see all the love being poured into us.

We're coasting on the fumes of the faithful who have come before us. If we don't turn back to God soon, those fumes will run out. We'll sputter to a stop and find ourselves left on the side of the road of life - hungry, weak, without a family, without all the entertainment. All the blessings that our prideful selves have taken for granted will be taken from us. But the good truth is that you don't need to hit rock bottom to turn and respond to God's grace.

Instead of building up pride, God's grace should inspire selflessness, service, faithfulness. His grace should inspire in us a desire to draw as close to Him as we possibly can. It should inspire us to work toward His vision of living that we each have been called to. We should start (or continue if you are already) feeding the hungry.

We truly love God and live for Him when we love others. Love, in this case, isn't some emotional, fuzzy sort of thing. You can tell a needy person that you love Him and not help Him, but you can't trick God that way. He knows your heart, and He knows your actions. He says that if you love the needy person, then you should help her. If you care for the hungry, then feed him. If you love the homeless, then house them. He says that in doing those things, you are loving Him.

It doesn't matter how emotional you get when you worship God, whether you're spinning around in a wheat field with your arms raised, raising your hands in worship, or you imagine Him wrapping His arms around you in your quiet time. What matters is how you treat the least of these. Strangers. The hurt. The hopeless.

Because all that we do to love others is like that opportunity I was given this week. We don't earn what we are able to bless others with. It was given to us by God. It actually still is God's possession. And we must learn, if we claim to follow Jesus, to use the things that are His in a way that will bring Him glory.

Do you really want to follow Jesus?

Martin Luther on Genuine, Authentic Worship

An excerpt from a sermon that Martin Luther preached on Christmas day in the early 1500s.  I share it today because it amazes how relevant a message preached nearly 500 years ago can seem today.

See to it that you do not find pleasure in the Gospel only as a history, for that is only transient; neither regard it only as an example, for it is of no value without faith; but see to it that you make the birth of Jesus your own and that Christ be born in you…This is our foundation and inheritance, upon which good works must be built.

If we claim to be Jesus’, have, by faith, been cleansed through him, and have received our inheritance without any personal merit, but only through the love of God who gives to us as our own, the treasure and work of his Son, then it follows that we will do good works by doing to our neighbors as Christ has done for us…What are the good works of Christ?  Is it not true that they are good because they have been done for our benefit, for God’s sake, who commanded him to do the works for our benefit?  In this then Christ was obedient to the Father, in that he loved and served us.

Therefore, since we have received enough and become rich, we have no other commandment than to serve Christ and render obedience to him, to direct our works so that they may be of benefit to our neighbor, just as the works of Christ are of benefit and use to us.  To explain this, Jesus said at the Lord’s Supper, “This is my commandment, that you love one another even as I have loved you (John 13:34).  Here it is seen that he loved us and did every thing for our benefit, in order that we may do the same, not to him, for he needs it not, but to our neighbor; this is his commandment and this is our obedience…as Christ helps us so we in return help our neighbor, and all have enough.

But we can see around us how far some have gone astray who have united good works with stone, wood, clothing, eating and drinking.  Of what benefit is it to your neighbor if you build a church entirely of gold?  Of what benefit to him is the frequent ringing of great church bells?  Of what benefit to him is the glitter and the ceremonies in the churches, the priests’ gowns, the sanctuary, the silver pictures and vessels?  Of what benefit to him are the many candles and much incense.  Of what benefit to him is the chanting and mumbling, the singing of vigils and masses?  Do you think that God will permit himself to be paid with the sound of bells, the smoke of candles, the glitter of gold and such fancies?  He has commanded none of these, but if you see your neighbor going astray, sinning, or suffering in body or soul, you are to leave everything else and at once help him in every way in your power and if you can do no more, help him with words of comfort and prayer.  For Christ has done the same for us and given an example for us to follow.

These are the two things in which a Christian is to exercise himself, the one that he draws Christ into himself, and that by faith he makes him his own, appropriates to himself the treasures of Christ and confidently builds upon them; the other that he becomes a servant to his neighbor and lets his neighbor share in that which he has received, even as he shares in the treasures of Christ.  He who does not exercise himself in these two things will receive no benefit even if he should fast unto death, suffer torture or even give his body to be burned, and were able to do all miracle, as Paul teaches in 1 Corinthians 13.

Why Do A Sunday Morning Worship Gathering If It Is Not Really Church?

Recently, I have been in a conversation with a brother in Jesus who does not like the Sunday Morning Worship Gathering, Sunday Service as many call it, or pageant as he calls it. It made me work through the reasons I organize one week in and week out.

Our church still does the traditional gathering, albeit in a modern style, but we also have a meal every week. I strongly believe that the meal is the real church gathering. During it, friendships are developed and relationships nurtured. The disappearance of the fellowship meal in the modern church is a disturbing thing. I wrote on that once: The Disappearance of the Fellowship Meal.

Yet we still provide a typical worship service, although I call it a worship gathering because I don't want to confuse service with sitting and listening and standing and singing. We try to provide real service opportunities that go way above and beyond sitting in a worship gathering. The Sunday morning gathering is really giving the people what they expect. If they expect a circus and peanuts, I'll give them it wrapped in a package that I hope will show the true intention of Jesus. I have no problem doing something that is not outlined in Scripture if it is effective at doing what we are called to do and isn't contrary to Scripture. It's like Paul going to teach in the synagogues. During that time I urge the people on toward greater fellowship and deeper discipleship. I would be remiss to ignore the fact that something happens to a lot of people in a large, group corporate worship. I remember when I wasn't a Christian and a girl brought me along to one. God did something in me during that time. Providing a worship gathering, which I think is not church, might be an area where I fall into disagreement with both groups of people, people who are in "traditional" settings and people who are more "organic" settings. I do struggle with whether giving them what they expect distracts them from really experiencing God. So far it seems to be an effective tool that funnels people into deeper fellowship, something they want but just don't know how to go about acquiring.

When I was part of our house church, we struggled to grow numerically. We were in deep fellowship with one another, living our lives together daily. And they still are today.  Some have even moved into the same houses together. But many house churches are just smaller versions of the typical church. That is disappointing. After our experience planting the house churches in Lansing, we came down here exciting about that format of church. Then I realized after encountering a few house churches that it wasn't the format we liked; it was the deeper commitment to fellowship and service. I have tried to bring those into our larger church experience because those are elements that should not be exclusive to a small group.

And I must admit, our larger church experience is small. Our house churches had around thirty people when we left. The current church that I minister at had a little over fifty yesterday.

But going to a church gathering centered around a meal at a house is intimidating. The potential new people almost have to be fully committed disciples before taking that step. The worship gathering, despite being a farce of what church is, allows new relationships to be built with people who are already in fellowship with one another. It's almost like a first date that allows a message to be shared that could challenge them to a deeper faith and provides worship to be participated in through which they might encounter God. There is a reason that the spoken word and corporate worship are effective tools. It also allows absolute strangers to take a leap and experience God in ways they might not normally experience Him. Some of our most committed people were strangers prior to coming to an event or Sunday service. I would hate to lose that outreach.

The Sunday Worship Gathering does take a lot of time and energy, but it has proven itself to be the most effective tool we have. Now, that does not mean that we don't do loving acts. Currently, we have activities that are collecting books for prisoners, replenishing the town's food pantry, giving clothes to the needy, organizing a fundraiser for the new Christian youth center and the community baseball association, and planning a music festival to raise money for an organization providing safe drinking water to Liberia. What I have found is that doing loving things like these need to be part of who we are, but the loving actions, despite my desire that they would, are not all that effective at bringing in new people. Loving actions can be just manipulative evangelism if our motive is wrong. Our wrong motives can turn something beautiful into a polluted goal. We just provided a family who had both members released from prison with many of the household items they need. They haven't visited our church; I doubt they will, although I hope they do. But we will gladly bring our church to them. Loving actions should be an outgrowth of who we are, but they don't seem to grow the church. I have found that the Sunday worship gathering does, and I would hate to discard it.

We can sing songs to God on our own. We can listen to sermons, especially with the internet, on our own. We can serve others on our own. The one thing we can not do on our own is encourage one another. If church is not a place where encouragement happens, then it is not the church.

We do have people who remain on the fringe who just come to the worship gathering, and they are welcome to do that. Most of the fringe are the people who were already part of the church I minister at. The new people have really caught on to community. Some more so than others. But we are on our way to being a better reflection of Jesus' intentions. Still a long way to go, but it's a way I want to go.

Revisiting the Church Music Debate

A few years back I wrote Repetition of Phrases in Modern Praise Songs Compared to some of the Good Old Hymns.  I counted repetition in lyrics because someone was criticizing the new music we were introducing at church as being too repetitive.  My conclusion was, "Repetition is not a question of new songs versus old songs. It is more of whether it is a repetition we are used to and like compared to a new repetition."  Things seem to be going much better at our church in recent times, and the focus is, hopefully, more fully on Jesus now.

This was all brought to mind once again when an internet visitor named Jay posted a comment that stirred the pot the other day.  Jay wrote:

Well, your post does not tell the whole story. Just google any of the Hymns you listed and you will see a pattern of Stanzas and Refrains (Choruses). Most of the Hymns have 3 or more Stanzas and they read more like Bible Doctrine whereas many Modern Day Praise songs are repetitive choruses or 1 or 2 short stanzas with Very little doctrine. Some of them just come across almost like a Mantra more than anything.

I posted a link to the original post on Facebook to see what my friends thought.  I received many insightful comments, but one was like lightning in a bottle.  Delivered with more vitriol and passion than I can muster, Brandon Caroland replied to my post and others' comments.

God only likes 19th century adaptations of contemporary secular songs, and some negro spirituals like Amazing Grace. He doesn't really like much music from the 14th century. But He does like some stuff from Martin Luther in the 16th century. But not the German Versions. Only the King's English. Actually God only likes music without royalties. Public domain stuff.

Actually he only likes music that comes from hymnals, because they kinda look like Bibles. Actually my hymnal growing up had some David Meece songs in it. He was contemporary in the 80s. Maybe God only likes music that predates the my high school graduation. I know its something arbitrary and senseless. God is obviously arbitrary and senseless. He only likes music that White people sing from books printed in English between 1800 and 1990. He Leadeth Me is a pretty fluffy song. God likes it though. More than something like God of this City. Both are corporate songs sung to each other. Neither one has any doctrine to speak of, but both challenge the listener to take their walk more seriously. Which is stupid. Learning is all anyone does.

Like Regan said. We all like what is familiar and what touched our hearts. Jay if you like hymns because they challenged you once, you should pay more attention to what is connecting with young people. they are the future. you'll never get the kids to like classical music. sorry. Hymns are great for what they are. classics. nostalgia. great writing. great music. born of great stories, told at a great time. but since that time, new stories have been told, history hasn't repeated itself. the music was written to appeal to a time before the blues and ragtime. before jazz. before rock and roll.

I'm sure Luther would have freaked if he heard Amazing Grace. What? NO IAMBIC PENTAMETER? You can't chant that!

In conclusion. most of these debates are meaningless. Chasing after the wind. At what age do people stop being rational and start thinking crazy thoughts like "hymns have more doctrine"? I can't think of a more ridiculous argument. Probably the same people that want to fight about putting up flags in the church. Probably the same people that want you to type a bulletin on a typewriter. Probably the same people that love you deeply, as long as you don't cross em. Probably the same people that think Sara Palin is smart. Probably the same people that paid for me to go to church camp and underwrote my first year of Bible College. I love them and I hate them They move the kingdom forward while holding it back.

 Thanks to Brandon for sharing and allowing me to repost as a guest blog post.

Discerning Changeable Culutral Traditions from Unwavering Scriptural Teachings - Hymns Once Again

I'm happy to be part of the Churches of Christ/Christian Churches.  Our origin, like many of the great church movements, centered around getting back to Scripture.  Where would we be if great people of faith like John Wesley, Martin Luther, and the people in our own movement like Alexander Campbell and Barton Stone did not emphasize being faithful to Scripture and relevant to the culture over adhering to the traditions of the church.  

Yet all of these movements became ensnared by traditions once the God-inspired reformers left.  Each man-made tradition eventually quenched the Spirit and caused the church to falter until another reformer came along and once again threw away all tradition to present the Gospel in a culturally relevant way.  The honest truth is that the great reformers used culturally relevant ways to communicate the Good News.  Those who came after those reformers often confused the call to get back to the Bible with the culturally relevant methods the reformers used.  They would cling to the methods rather than the Spirit that inspired those methods.  We, as ambassadors of the Good News, need to be great students of the Bible, sensitive to the Spirit, and discern the difference between cultural traditions that can change and teachings of Scripture that are unwavering.

One of the more obvious and easier to point out traditions in the current church are hymns.  There is no biblical mandate about singing songs, some of which were rewritten bar songs, that were written in the 1800s or early 1900s.  These were not written during the time of Christ and they are not the hymns referred to in Ephesians 5:18b-19.  "Be filled with the Spirit, addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with your heart" Eph 5:18-19 (ESV).

The words of many of the hymns are beautiful, inspiring, and are worth singing, but a church is not right or wrong with God because they sing hymns.  Some modern songs have just as great words, and I'm sadly sure there will be people arguing to sing them in fifty years. If a church could be more relevant to the culture around them by using a music style that is the language of the people, then they should do that whether that music style is their personal preference or not.  Because when it comes down to it, we should be willing to discard any tradition that is not based on Scripture if it will help us be more effective ambassadors of God's kingdom.  Clinging to traditions that we like at the cost of alienating those outside of the church is exactly what all of the great reformers rebelled against.

Martin Luther was a great reformer because he fought for the language of the Bible and the gathering of believers to be in the language of the people.  He considered it folly that the church attempted to instruct the masses in a language that they did not understand.  There was nothing productive that would come from people participating in the empty ritual of listening to a message they could not understand and connect with.

The same is true with the style of music.  An outdated style can be as great of a "language barrier" as a foreign language.  If the church is not using a style that can be found on the non-Christian radio dial, then what cultural barrier do we expect a seeker to crash through before connecting with God through music.  I remember being a seeker in a worship service and being touched by God during the culturally relevant worship service, music that really is no longer culturally relevant.  I would be wrong to say that those songs that touched my heart should be the ones we use today because they should still be able to touch hearts just the same.  The purpose of worship in church is to instruct and bring people into the presence of God.  Those missions are hampered if the music is not culturally relevant.

We are not in the kingdom of God to please ourselves.  It is all about God, bringing about his will, and bringing people to Him.  If there is any obstacle to the Gospel, let it not be some tradition that we enjoy.  Let us make sure that it is Jesus' radical demands on people's lives and never allow any tradition to get between that message of Jesus and the seeker.  The traditions we personally enjoy should be quickly and lovingly tossed aside when necessary for the greater good of the kingdom.

Music in Relation to Growth in the Church

Last week, I had a conversation with a good friend who goes to another church, one that is dying, and, as is typical with many dying churches, has only a traditional service. Some have left that church for the one just two buildings down, a church that worships together in a modern way. I told him this story that Jason Kemerly, the worship minister at Christ’s Church at Georgetown in Ft. Wayne, shared with me.

I can tell you that I have been at 3 churches now where we’ve done the Traditional and Contemporary service thing, and I have yet to see the Traditional service ever grow. I have never seen a baptism or a family join during one of these Traditional services. I’m not saying it’s impossible or doesn’t happen, I’m just saying that I haven’t experienced it yet.

As far as a Contemporary (or I prefer to call them “Modern”) services, we had 43 baptisms last year. I have seen great growth in all churches that I’ve been a part of. In the first church I was at, we went from 70 people to over 225 in the modern service. At my 2nd church, we went from 230 to over 400 in the Modern service. Here at Our current church, we’ve gone from 170ish to about 260ish. So I think it is kind of easy to see where the growth is coming.

Modern music is not a magical potion for growth, but it is a sign that a church is trying to be relevant to the culture they are in. A church that is not willing to be relevant to the culture is focused on what they like rather than what is good for the kingdom. And a church full of people focused on their own selfish likes and needs will never prosper.

But here is the persistent dilemma. What is modern today will be out of date in 15 years. If we are going to make a go at being a healthy church in the long run, a church that can pass the baton while still running, we have to be willing to regularly change. We have to create a culture of change.

So I told my friend, that if he wants his church to grow, then he might want to consider modernizing that traditional service. It isn’t that changing from traditional to a modern music style will automatically make churches grow. It’s the change that must happen in people’s hearts in order for them to allow a change of music style. Church must no longer be a ritual. It must not be about us, but about God who is great and about living out His kingdom! The doors must be flung wide open for the people in our community to come in while the church must be welcoming to them.

There is a lot that has to change in a churchgoer’s hearts so that they will allow a change in worship style from one they like to one they don’t like, but that change in heart is necessary for the church to fulfill its mission. If those hearts don’t change, no tweaking of music, no new ministry, nothing will improve that local body, and I fear more churches will die like many of the churches that have refused to change before them because they are focused on themselves rather than God’s design of them being a body built by Him to bring about His will.

Music is just one example, and I hope we don’t get hung up on that one issue. There are so many areas of our church life that God wants us to surrender to him so that he can build us into the body of believers he wants us to be. There are also many areas of our individual lives that we also must surrender to him. A healthy church is like a catch-22. Individuals will usually reach their true potential in God when the church is what God intends for it to be. And the church will only reach its true potential in God when the individuals that are part of it are who God intends them to be. We each have to allow him to change us individually if we want to the church to be what God intends it to be.

John Wesley, the man who the Methodists, Wesleyans, and Nazarenes have sprung out of, said, “Give me 100 men who love God and nothing else, who hate sin and nothing else, and I will change the world.” God is waiting for a people to say, I will do nothing else except what you want me to. I’m all in. Are we willing to be that group of people? Do we believe enough to go all in? Following God is like pregnancy, either you’re pregnant or you’re not. It’s like life; either you’re alive or you’re not. Are we ready to stop building sand castles and snow statues that will melt away and start allowing God to build us into the eternal place he wants us to be?