Secular songs in worship?

[AD(J)]

I know this can be a huge can of worms, sort of like the non-Christian band members thread, but I'm not trying to too far with this. Just kind of wondering how others would approach the idea.

I know of a few songs that are not, by definition, Christian songs, that have been used in worship or other church functions.

In worship, this is the only two I can think of off the top of my head:

Turn - The Byrds
40 - U2

I've never played Turn, but we do 40 once in a while.

Are there any more that you guys have seen used? I know there are more that I cannot think of right now.


Also, at my previous church we would often have music at 5 till to kind of let people know service was about to start, just music without singing. This was the cue for people to start filtering into the sanctuary. Sometimes we would a do a simple 12 bar blues, or maybe an old standard like Summertime or Giant Steps, for fun.

But this other thread kind of makes me wonder what musicians think of this. Often the congregation had no idea we were playing old jazz or blues standards, but a musical person might catch it.

How would you feel if you walked into a church and the band was warming up on an old Stevie Ray Vaughan tune?

[BillyChia]

God is in the process of redeeming the world.

Taking a "secular" song and playing in a worship setting can redeem that song for the LORD.

I'm all for it.

[El Ben]

I'm all for secular songs as openers or whatever, but I would be careful about which ones I selected for worship. You have to realize that a lot of familiar songs that we could use in a worship setting have different feelings attached to them.

For instance, I know a guy who is VERY uncomfortable with the Lifehouse song "Everything" being played in a worship setting because it was...well, there's no easy way to put this. This song has some very old thoughts and feelings attached to it from a time in his life that he would rather not think about or feel again.

Personally, I love that song, but I would NEVER EVER EVER EVER in a million years do it if I knew this guy was gonna be in the congregation, and that's just one reason for being very selective with secular songs.

Personally, I think that we should be writing our own stuff, and exercising our own creativity.

[AD(J)]

Ben, good thoughts. And I've seen that song used, I knew there was more I couldnt' think of.

But I mean, when this church I was at began playing Turn by the Byrds, the father of the friend I was there with was taken aback.

He admitted later he used to smoke pot and listen to that type of stuff. Of course, I know people who used to smoke pot and listen to Nitro Praise 1 - 5, or even old dcTalk, so I take that with a grain of salt.

Good thoughts, though.

[El Ben]

The guy I'm talking about used to struggle with homosexuality and "Everything" was he and his high school "boyfriend's" song. Go figure.

[BillyChia]

Yeah I not really into pandering to people.
However, it's always a good thing to be sensative to who your crowd is.
I always consider the crowd in terms of both the general demographics and specific peole I know who will be there.

If I knew a specific song was painful for someone I'd probably omit it as well.

[Mike Darley]

I guess the question is whether any of the songs mentioned are secular or not. 40 is obviously from Psalm 40, Turn from Ecclesiasties, and I'd always thought that Everything was intended as a song of worship. What makes them secular? Of course this raises the whole sacred/secular question? What makes something explicitly secular or sacred? I agree with Billy that God is redeeming the world. I think too often Christians rush to label something either sacred or secular, and then either embrace or reject it accordingly. Something secular is something that has no religious value or basis. Would I play something that is secular in my church? No. The question is, where is that line? Is as definite as we sometimes try to make it? Is there one at all?

[WorshipCity]

Yeah I'm under the thought that the label doesn't designate appropriateness of the meaning behind the song. I've been 'moved' by just as many 'secular' songs as I have 'Christian' songs.
I think you have to look at your congregation and in the case where you KNOW something could be a hindrance to someone you certainly would want to respect that and refrain from playing it but seriously there's no way we could know what everyone would find offensive.
We have huge U2 fans (of course) in our congregation so Beautiful Day, Streets, With or Without You, and City of Blinding Lights have all been used in some form or fashion. I actually rather do a familiar song. I could only imagine some of my friends' response if the first thing they heard coming to my church was City of Blinding Lights! For them it would instantaneously lower the 'cringe' factor of coming to a place of worship.
I think that brings the question: What's the point? Why would you play that song? Which is something we should ask of all our songs
We were preparing to do a Goo Goo Dolls tune: Better Days. I wanted to rework the 2nd verse but (not because of the song) we didn't end up using it.
I also worked in a Christmas tune to the lick of Keane's Is it Any Wonder. The old folks didn't get it but everyone under 30 was like: THAT WAS SWEET!

I ultimately, LOVE what someone said earlier: We truly should be using our God given creativeness and pushing that that someone else's music. That's the best reason to play music: glorifying God with your creativeness!

[AD(J)]

I guess I was using the word 'secular' the way my grandfather would use it, but then again, that would include just about anything with a beat... MW Smith would be out of the question with him. ;)

I'm definitely going to see about working in more U2, for starters. I'd totally forgotten about some of those tunes. Thanks for mentioning them!

[Mike Darley]

ireLocus, I've got to be honest. That picture is kinda freaky. I'm a little scared right now, but I can't look away.

[PassageNorth]

We've opened up a worship evening with "In the Air Tonight" by Phil Collins! It actually went very well. Of course we changed "it" to "Him". We just did the intro and a chorus to segue into another song! :D

[WorshipCity]

We've opened up a worship evening with "In the Air Tonight" by Phil Collins! It actually went very well. Of course we changed "it" to "Him". We just did the intro and a chorus to segue into another song! :D

Yeah Mercy Me opened one of their older tours that way. It was sick. It's actually how they open it on their DVD as well. Its incredible how talented those guys are! They closed it w/ Streets and it was amazing!

[SaintLewis]

Well, at first I got excited thinking it was a reference to this conversation over at the Worship Community, but having done my research, now I don't think so...HOWEVER, Bob Kauflin has chimed in on this issue over at Worship Matters (http://worshipmatters.blogs.com/bobkauflin/2007/08/qa-fridays---sh.html)

p.s. - it's one of the few things he & I disagree on.

[AD(J)]

Well, at first I got excited thinking it was a reference to this conversation over at the Worship Community, but having done my research, now I don't think so...HOWEVER, Bob Kauflin has chimed in on this issue over at Worship Matters (http://worshipmatters.blogs.com/bobkauflin/2007/08/qa-fridays---sh.html)

p.s. - it's one of the few things he & I disagree on.


Hmmm, his example of 'Your Body Is A Wonderland' almost makes sense in the manner in which he presents it. The person posing the question mentions one church used that song when the Sunday topic was sexuality.

But for his reasoning to hold true, you would have to ignore the entire Song Of Solomon. Otherwise it looks less and less like a well founded argument. It's a song that fits the topic at hand in a fairly tasteful way, to me. There aren't a lot of worship songs that I know that address sexuality, let's be honest.

If we keep in mind that God created us as sexual beings, and he did so on purpose, something like 'Wonderland' seems a lot less out of place for a Sunday morning service.

Instead, a book like Song Of Solomon is what seems out of place to most Christians. Why is that naughty little book included in the Holy Bible? This is a sacred book with this little speed bump of smut right in the middle somewhere.

The main reason something like that seems out of place is because we, as Christians, often make sex into a dirty, shameful thing, instead of a beautiful expression between lovers. It has a proper place withing marriage, absolutely, but there's no need to make it quite so taboo.

I think the fact that this church was talking about sexuality is a great thing, and that song is a great song, musically and poetically, without being dirty or gross.

That's my .02.

[russhutto]

Well, my 2 cents...

We are trying to look at the entire "program" or gathering as an oppurtunity to worship, as opposed to seeing just the music as "worship" time. In fact, the entire process of discipleship, training, and equipping, teaching, evangelizing, etc...is all a form of worship (service to God in my opinion is one of the purest offerings of worship there is),

With that in mind, if the end result is people growing in maturity and moving closer to God, and that we are integrating new disciples into the family, then the "end result" IS worship. Now I'm not necessarily advocating doing any and everything to achieve an "end"...but I do believe that there are many things that the "religious elite" tends to think are "unworthy" to be used to "worship" - I'm constatny reminded how unworthy I am, but yet God still chooses to use me.

[BillyChia]

Shannon,
Thanks for the link I read a bit of what kauflin was saying but it seems like he missed the point.

Would I use "secular" songs in worship. I believe so. I've yet to see a really soild distinction between "secular" and "sacred" most of the time I believe the distinction is artificial.

With that said how do we pick songs?

Well most worhsip leaders I know try to pick the songs that fit best with what they are trying to accomlish or convey.

One of the things we do is pick songs that fit in with what the pastor is preaching on to reenforce the message/theology. I just pick the songs that do this best regardless of who wrote them or what thier orginical intent was.

This whole concept of being trendy and using secular music to "relate to unbelievers" seems really artificial to me. I mean who does that?

[Darryn]

I am unsure how lines could be artificial in the area of secular and sacred music... unless you are talking about songs that are shallow in substance. Many of the songs sung in churches can be devoid of sacredness, I will admit that, but that is the fault of the person choosing the music.

When we lead in worship we lead in thought. If our thoughts are no deeper then the songs we find in/of the word, then how is the non Christian going to see a difference between people of God and people of satin? Music through witch we worship God should have meaning that is not of our old selves, worship music should edifies the Church.

If I am misunderstanding the argument of secular and sacred music having made up differences then I apologies. This may be a semantic argument and I am taking it too literally. I do not desire to be obnoxious. However, there should be solid line between what is lyrically sacred and secular.

--
sa·cred: devoted or dedicated to a deity or to some religious purpose; consecrated.
sec·u·lar: of or pertaining to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred; temporal: secular interests.

[SaintLewis]

I am unsure how lines could be artificial in the area of secular and sacred music...

For instance, are Bach's instrumental pieces 'secular' or 'sacred'? Or, what of the fact that I'm led to praise God every time I hear ABBY ROAD by the Beatles? What of bands who are made up of Christians, who's music is - for the theologically trained ear - clearly under-girded by solid Biblical theology, but who rarely - if ever - write songs directly about things spiritual? Or, what of CCM pop music that claims the name of Jesus every third word, yet is performed by musicians whom any insider knows are 'faking it' spiritually, and don't believe a word of what they sing? I agree with Billy, the whole 'secular' or 'sacred' division is mostly artificial, indeed.

I still divide music into two categories, however:
WORSHIP - i.e., songs written explicitly intended use in the corporate praise and worship of God...
and
OTHER SONGS - i.e., songs that glorify God to one degree or another, whether the author intended them to do so or not because they still display aspects of His great character and worth in displaying creativity, order, and sometimes even beauty.

Those are my categories.

[AD(J)]

Well, we also have to realize that a moajority of the hymns in your hymnal were 'secular' songs before they were hymns.

What writers often did back then was take folk songs, songs with melodies that everyone knew, and put their own 'sacred' words to them. That way they had very little 'learning curve' for the congregation. It's literally the equivalent of Weird Al Yankovich and his song parodies. He uses the same music but changes the meaning of pop songs, only he does it for humor.

Many hymn writers literally redeemed these contemporary folk songs, turning them into hymns we all know and love. I bet

A prime example of this is national anthem, where Franci Scott Key wrote numerous patriotic verses to an old drinking song melody. In fact, many of the patriotic songs in the hymnal were like this, bar songs and what not with patriotic words added later.

So, the line between sacred and profane, secular and christian, in sacred music, has been blurred for a long time.

If our founding hymn writers did this, then I have no issue following in their shoes, so long as I proceed tastefully.

[Darryn]

The lyrics is the issue. Note placement and timing is not a factor in what creation becomes "Christian" or "non-Christian". Hymns is a great example of that.

When we write a song we can use whatever notes and style of performance is appropriate for that congregation. The lyrics can make that song shallow or full of meaning. (ignoring the performance aspect.... let's not get into the "heart issues, there is enough to talk about here)

[WorshipCity]

The lyrics is the issue. Note placement and timing is not a factor in what creation becomes "Christian" or "non-Christian". Hymns is a great example of that.

“There are several reasons for opposing it. One, it’s too new. Two, it’s often worldly, even blasphemous. The new Christian music is not as pleasant as the more established style. Because there are so many new songs, you can’t learn them all. It puts too much emphasis on instrumental music rather than godly lyrics. This new music creates disturbances making people act indecently and disorderly. The preceding generation got along without it. It’s a money making scam and some of these new music upstarts are lewd and loose.”

Yeah, I know you've probably read that somewhere before but it's crazy! Who were they attacking? It wasn't Delirious? or Matt Redman. They were attacking the hymn writer Isaac Watts, famous for writing ‘When I survey,’ in 1723! The old hymns once upon a time were radical and cutting edge.
Thanks Tim Hughes! And thanks Hale (http://www.haleyeah.typepad.com) for reminding me of it!

[SaintLewis]

"The lyrics is the issue."

So, following that line, there can be no 'Christian' instrumental music?
And, if that's so, does that mean that the instrumental segments of 'corporate worship songs' are also not actually 'Christian', and in some way less glorifying to God? It may sound silly, but I think you see the problems inherent with this idea.

I still stand by the notion that 'sacred' and 'secular' musical distinction is - as it was said before - mostly artificial, except when it applies to songs specifically written for the expressed purpose of 'corporate worship'.

[Mike Darley]

Shannon,

I think you hit the nail on the head. Everyone on the forum keeps talking about the sacred/secular distinction. That's not really the question. The question is whether or not we ought to use secular music in a "corporate worship" setting. I know I keep asking this question, but what's the point? If it's to appeal to "seekers" or what have you, then I don't see that as being valid. If it's to help buttress the message I can imagine that working.

As far as the sacred/secular distinction, I would have to say that since every good and perfect gift is from above (James 1:17) music would fall into that category. Music is inherently good. It's the perversions or misuses of music that make it bad. Whether or not we want to call that Christian, I'm not sure. In Scripture, only people are called Christian.

[russhutto]

I think where some of us are coming from is this perspective:

Even music that is not "christian" lyrically can still have redeeming qualities. Why? Because creativity comes from the Creator. This doesn't necessarily mean that ALL music is appropriate for worship, but that all music even shallow, "wordly" music can be used to point back to THE Creator.

How, you ask? Well, think of it this way. A mountain is neither secular nor sacred, but we can look at it's beauty and be compelled to think of something big that created it. A flower is not profane or religious, yet we can trace it's beauty back to something bigger. A force unseen, a creator.

It's the same way with songs. Even when the lyrics are as profane as they come, you can still follow the procession of longing and human need back to the Creator. In several ways:

1) Music is a gift from God, even the tunes that make you move your booty. So whether a song is Godly or not, the fact that it is music points back to God, because He created music. Sure it's been twisted and perverted, but the fact remains, God created creativity.
2) Most "mainstream" music conveys a serious void in people's lives. The lyrics may not directly say, "I need God" but they do say things like "maybe money will make me happy" or "maybe sex will satisfy me" etc, etc. The QUESTIONS in what some would label "profane" are definitely worth addressing.
3) Mainstream music is the pulse of generations. You want to know the current philosophies of what people in a society think - listen to the top 40 radio stations and what's "in". Unfortunately, most of that is money driven, but still, you can definitely get the "heartbeat" of generations by listening to what they buy in to. Musicians are a generation's poets, sages, and philosophers.

How a Believer should approach these points:

1) Music is a gift from God. This is true and we should recognize that although "secular" musicians may be far from God, they are still expressing a gift from God in and through the creativity of music. Our role would be to help redeem that gift through relationships and prayer. I do not advocate vegging out on music that is totally contrary to scripture, but I do think we've seen some intense legalism in the church history when it comes to this issue. I would say that we should be aware of what is going on, reaching into that culture through relationships, but not becoming absorbed into it.
2) Human longing. By staying in touch with the "questions" posed in "secular" music we can also present the answers in a God-centered way. Again, not necessarily advocating making that sort of music your meat and potatoes, but just keeping in touch with what our human family neighbors are dealing with outside of our christianese bubbles.
3) Music as the heartbeat of generations. If this is the case, then why shouldn't we be aware of what it's saying? Again, not for our own benefit, but for the benefit of the body. We SHOULD present music that connects with people, and addresses the issues of the day. For us here where I serve, it means using music that people recognize and then using that as a springboard to present Biblical truths (answers to the questions posed in the song). If we use a song that says that sex, drugs, and rock and roll is what makes the world go round, we present it and ask our body to consider if this is really true. Then we approach it from a Biblical perspective and show why sex, drugs, and rock and roll just leave you dizzy and empty. (Ok lame example, but it's the principle).

Anyways, the "questions" that I'm talking about in this music, are not always in question form. In fact, they may actually be statements.

And again, I'm saying that we should really make an effort to read scripture, listen to edifying music, and participate in things that will strengthen and encourage us in the faith. If we're not doing that then it really makes all that I've said a moot issue.

[El Ben]

I learned the other day that Charles Wesley would take old English drinking songs and turn them into hymns.

I'm currently working on a worship variation of Garth Brooks' "Friends in Low Places."

[Mike Darley]

blindeyesopen,

I think you have to be careful about the whole "anything creative can point back to the Creator" argument. One fairly recent piece of creativity I heard of is an upside-down crucifix in a jar of urine. This is supposed to pass as art. Creative? I guess, but I'm pretty sure we can label that as explicitly profane. We have to remember that man is fallen, and so man's creativity is also fallen. That being said I don't think we can say that everything that is creative can be considered good.

I do think you're right in that we must listen to and engage the culture, and that our culture's music is one way of doing that.

El Ben,

I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but that info on the Charles Wesley is untrue. I'd heard that as well, but apparently it's completely unfounded. I've read that the confusion comes down to something called a bar form, which has something to do with repeating the melody, then adding a contrasting melody or something like that. Apparently over the years people mistook bar form for a bar songs. I heard that about Martin Luther as well, but that's apparently untrue as well. Only one of his hymns came from a secular folk song, and he later changed it.

Anyway, that's my 2 cents worth.

[russhutto]

I think you have to be careful about the whole "anything creative can point back to the Creator" argument. One fairly recent piece of creativity I heard of is an upside-down crucifix in a jar of urine. This is supposed to pass as art. Creative? I guess, but I'm pretty sure we can label that as explicitly profane. We have to remember that man is fallen, and so man's creativity is also fallen. That being said I don't think we can say that everything that is creative can be considered good.

Definitely. I agree with you. My point is not in whether the actual "art" itself is profane or sacred, but the creativity in which it was created. In my opinion, that work of art still points to that artist's need to create, be accepted, and make a statement of some sort.

I'm not saying that we should allow any and everything to be a part of our corporate (or even individual) experience, just that because we do live in a fallen world, that everything is either redeemed or redeemable, and that means that the artist himself should be engaged and not written off. And the art itself can even be used to present Biblical truths. Would I use that particular piece of art, probably not...but again, I'm speaking more in principle, and specifically about music.

[WorshipCity]

The question is whether or not we ought to use secular music in a "corporate worship" setting. I know I keep asking this question, but what's the point? If it's to appeal to "seekers" or what have you, then I don't see that as being valid. If it's to help buttress the message I can imagine that working.


Hmm interesting. I've always hated the term "Seeker Sensitive Church" and I don't lead worship at a Seeker Sensitive Church either but a great experience is to visit other churches or even your own and try to imagine yourself as a complete stranger. We church hopped about a dozen churches from the church that I knew I felt God leading us away from to the one we are at now that I am on staff with. It is amazing how awkward and uncomfortable some of our churches are to visitors. And my wife and I'm not even an unbelieving drummer who enjoys watching naked women dance (sorry inside joke from another thread :)
I think it is valuable to establish a level of familiarity and comfort to a guest at our churches because honestly the 'Worship Service' is the front door through which a person will visit our church. I do however think it should compliment or buttress the message, and I do think there are some songs no matter the theme they would be inappropriate considering we're here to worship. "Sexy Back" no matter how relevant and current it is or how much the subject matter might work will never get played at RCC! So sorry JT.
So for that specific reason I think 'secular' songs are valid to be used in the worship setting.

[El Ben]

I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but that info on the Charles Wesley is untrue. I'd heard that as well, but apparently it's completely unfounded. I've read that the confusion comes down to something called a bar form, which has something to do with repeating the melody, then adding a contrasting melody or something like that. Apparently over the years people mistook bar form for a bar songs. I heard that about Martin Luther as well, but that's apparently untrue as well. Only one of his hymns came from a secular folk song, and he later changed it.

When I got home last night, I did a bit of research on this and I kept finding conflicting information. What most music scholars CAN agree on is that for many of Wesley's hymns, actually for many hymns of the day, the author's simply wrote words and left it to the congregations to find the tunes to sing with them. Many of the tunes attached to these songs may or may not be bar songs, but some that are definitely included are tunes from songs from musical theatre and other secular sources.

Try as we may, there is no denying secular contributions to hymns, just as we cannot deny that there are secular contributions to modern worship music. Imagine, for instance, where modern worship would be without, oh...I don't know, say U2?

[WorshipCity]

Imagine, for instance, where modern worship would be without, oh...I don't know, say U2?

No, I'd rather not imagine that place, that would be a wicked boring place :)

[Mike Darley]

[QUOTE=El Ben;3687]When I got home last night, I did a bit of research on this and I kept finding conflicting information. What most music scholars CAN agree on is that for many of Wesley's hymns, actually for many hymns of the day, the author's simply wrote words and left it to the congregations to find the tunes to sing with them. Many of the tunes attached to these songs may or may not be bar songs, but some that are definitely included are tunes from songs from musical theatre and other secular sources.QUOTE]

That's absolutely right. Most hymns were written without melodies or some of the original melodies were modified to be more singable. Many of the melodies were either taken from other recognizable hymns, or popular music of the day.

To be honest, through, I'm not sure if that's even a really good argument. Personally, I like the idea of the church being creative and innovative. Shouldn't we be the most creative being that we know the Creator? Before I was a Christian, one of the most annoying things to me was that most Christian music was so completely derivative. I'd have youth leaders hand me a CD (or cassette tape :eek:) and say, "Here. This band sounds just like such and such..." I would think, "Well, why wouldn't I just listen to the original band and not some crappy knock off?" Maybe, it was just me, but I didn't mind church being "churchy." I was going to church, after all. When a church was "trying" to be something or do something it wasn't, I was (and still am) really turned off. Shouldn't the church be distinctive? I'm not sure all non-believers appreciate an attempt to appeal to them. I know I didn't. It all seemed very fake to me. Maybe I'm just cynical, or maybe I just never saw it done right. Who knows? In any case, I don't think that the fact that people did it this way 200 years ago necessarily make it valid.

[Mike Darley]

Imagine, for instance, where modern worship would be without, oh...I don't know, say U2?

I tried to, but my wife made me stop when I began to sob uncontrollably.

[Mike Darley]

[QUOTE=WorshipCity;3678]And my wife and I'm not even an unbelieving drummer who enjoys watching naked women dance (sorry inside joke from another thread :)QUOTE]

Sure, bud....you're not fooling anybody. :D Just kidding.

[Mike Darley]

I'm not saying that we should allow any and everything to be a part of our corporate (or even individual) experience, just that because we do live in a fallen world, that everything is either redeemed or redeemable, and that means that the artist himself should be engaged and not written off. And the art itself can even be used to present Biblical truths.

Yes, yes, yes. I absolutely agree. The artist is communicating something from a given cultural context. We should use this to engage the culture at large as well as the specific artist, if possible. I can't tell you the number if time's I've listened to the radio and wished I could talk to the artist. The thing to remember is that he is communicating to and for the people around us. We should attempt to understand our culture and through God's grace be about the work of redeeming it.

[El Ben]

To be honest, through, I'm not sure if that's even a really good argument. Personally, I like the idea of the church being creative and innovative. Shouldn't we be the most creative being that we know the Creator?

And to that, I will give a hearty AMEN!!!


Before I was a Christian, one of the most annoying things to me was that most Christian music was so completely derivative. I'd have youth leaders hand me a CD (or cassette tape ) and say, "Here. This band sounds just like such and such..." I would think, "Well, why wouldn't I just listen to the original band and not some crappy knock off?" Maybe, it was just me, but I didn't mind church being "churchy."

Yes, I agree. It's the whole "let's try to imitate the world so that we can be 'relevant' to those who are in the world." It is, in my opinion, sheer stupidity. Now, I think that there are things we can learn from secular sources and apply to how we connect with people (and that was the source of my argument about the hymns), but I also believe that the church, not the world, should be a primary creative force, just like I believe that the church, not the government, should be the ones taking care of the poor.


I was going to church, after all. When a church was "trying" to be something or do something it wasn't, I was (and still am) really turned off. Shouldn't the church be distinctive? I'm not sure all non-believers appreciate an attempt to appeal to them. I know I didn't. It all seemed very fake to me. Maybe I'm just cynical, or maybe I just never saw it done right. Who knows? In any case, I don't think that the fact that people did it this way 200 years ago necessarily make it valid

I totally, totally agree with you. I guess we just got our wires crossed in what we were meaning. The whole idea of the "church" trying to reach the lost by inviting them to our corporate worship gatherings is absolute, sheer insanity to me. I've never understood, never thought it was a good idea, and whenever God chooses to move me into being a lead pastor somewhere (which I know he will), I will NEVER EVER endorse that backwards way of thinking.

The bible is quite clear believers gather together for the edification of other believers. Evangelism happens as a byproduct of that, not DURING it. I'll probably tick some people off with this sentiment, and I'm not saying that we shouldn't shape our services to be more "user friendly," because I think we should.

Take my church, Saint Simons Christian Renewal Church, for instance. Over the past, three months we've had an influx of new believers who are staggeringly biblically illiterate. It's the same way with our student ministry (I'm also the student pastor). Now, our church used to be a pretty hardcore charismatic church back in the day (the whole waving the banners, gold dust, laughing in the spirit, ect. [not to say any of that is bad or wrong, because I'm not]), but we would bleed visitors because of it. People would come to our church and love our pastor, love the worship, but would hate the incredibly long service times and the (sort of) unbridled madness that woudl happen during service.

What we've tried to be very purposeful about is being very intentional on explaining WHY we do what we do and giving a good, solid, scriptural basis for it, mainly because most of our new people came from the Catholic Church, other orthodox churches, or no church at all and they didn't understand what was going on or know hardly any of the word, which led to some of them having some pretty shoddy doctrine.

(i.e. I had to explain to a lady a couple of weeks ago why it was wrong for a person to have sex before marriage. I also had to explain to that woman's daughter why homosexuality is wrong.)

Basically, what I'm trying to communicate here is that:

1.) I don't think that the church was ever designed to be the primary avenue for evangelism. I think when you teach that, you rob your people of their opportunity to be the driving evangelistic force that they were created to be. Our church has experienced about 25% growth in the last quarter and the majority of that growth has been from people who were saved OUTSIDE our meetings when one of our people (usually just one of our people, a lady named Trish Sherman [evangelist extraordinaire]) prayed with them.

2.) I don't think we need to change the way we do things to be more accessible to unbelievers. You can have order and excellence without sacrificing depth. Just ask Fred and the crew of Saint Simons Community Church.

3.) I think we're getting dangerouslly close to having a generation of believers who are biblically stupid, and I'm not totally sure how to fix that.

I know this was long and scattered, but I still haven't had my morning coffee.

[SaintLewis]

Last night at Inside Out (Senior High Youth Group) we did:
"Typical" - Mute Math
"Dare you to Move" - Switchfoot
and an instrumental 'jam' based off of a Phish riff.
Not even a single corporate worship song.

I must be truly evil. ;-)

We spent the evening challenging our youth to 'Reach Out' in areas of service within our church...I particularly like how the lyrics tied to further that theme:

"I know that there's got to be another level" (Mute Math is awesome)

anyway...thought I'd let ya'll know.

[russhutto]

Basically, what I'm trying to communicate here is that:

1.) I don't think that the church was ever designed to be the primary avenue for evangelism. I think when you teach that, you rob your people of their opportunity to be the driving evangelistic force that they were created to be. Our church has experienced about 25% growth in the last quarter and the majority of that growth has been from people who were saved OUTSIDE our meetings when one of our people (usually just one of our people, a lady named Trish Sherman [evangelist extraordinaire]) prayed with them.

2.) I don't think we need to change the way we do things to be more accessible to unbelievers. You can have order and excellence without sacrificing depth. Just ask Fred and the crew of Saint Simons Community Church.

3.) I think we're getting dangerouslly close to having a generation of believers who are biblically stupid, and I'm not totally sure how to fix that.

You do communicate it extremely well!! And (not ticked off) because I'm in a different place then you are I have to slightly disagree!

1.) The "church" is the ONLY avenue for evangelism. People are the church and as long as it's made up of people, Jesus will be "witnessed" in and through the lives of people. I believe this is what you are saying, maybe even that our "primary gatherings" shouldn't only be about evangelism. Not exactly sure what you're getting at but this is what I infer from number 1. At HOJ our primary gathering is designed primarily with outsiders in mind while at the same time providing spiritually sound Biblical truths that edify, encourage, and equip our believers. One of the most beautiful things I've experienced here is knowing that on any given Sunday we've got a LOT of people who are not believers in our midst. And they are welcomed, embraced, and treated with dignity and respect. This doesn't mean they are "comfortable" but just that we go out of our way to include them in our journey each week (I think that's what you were saying about your place - being intentional about WHY we do what we do).

With that being said, I AGREE that we should be equipping our folks to evangelize relationally and face to face. But we also train and equip our people, in our primary gatherings and in small groups, to feed themselves. So that even though our primary gathering is about edifying and encouraging one another, it's not a spoon feeding session for most or all of our folks. That's where I've seen and been a part of churches where it's all wrong and backwards.


2.) I don't think we need to change the way we do things to be more accessible to unbelievers. You can have order and excellence without sacrificing depth. Just ask Fred and the crew of Saint Simons Community Church.

I agree about depth. But yesterdays METHODS may not work today...so....


3.) I think we're getting dangerouslly close to having a generation of believers who are biblically stupid, and I'm not totally sure how to fix that.

I agree and I'm not totally sure either other than to pursue excellence, create an atmosphere of love and acceptance (not necessarily tolerance), and specifically target people to reach. You can't hit the bullseye if you don't have one in the first place.

I think we all want the same thing. To please God and to reach people. It's obvious that our perspectives are different, and I'm not trying to "stir it up" but just to share a glimpse of a different perspective.

Summary: Should the primary gathering be only about evangelism? No. Should the primary gathering only be about encouragement? No. Should the primary gathering be the only gathering? No. We should train and equip (and lead by example) our people to live life together, to build community, and to put people first.

[WorshipCity]

We're doing a Paul Simon song as a musical prelude and somewhere else in the service next week. He's ok right :)

[Mike Darley]

I think that Biblical illiteracy and lack of evangelism tend to go hand in hand. People are often scared to evangelize because they know that they don't have the answers to the questions that people are asking. About the most they can muster is, "You should come to church with me", and hope that the pastor or some other professional Christian will take care of the rest. I think the way to fix things is just good old fashioned discipleship. It won't be easy or fast, but it will be effective and more importantly God honoring.

[MarkSooy]

Is there a "Christian" song? Is there a "Christian" donut? Are there "Christian" books? Can we go to a "Christian" concert? "Christian" is a designation of a person. The "church" is a gathering of people, not a building.

Ultimately, there are many who are not Christians performing songs with "Christian" themes. As are there many Christian musicians performing songs with no explicitly "Christian" theme. There are many places called "churches" which aren't necessarily "Christian" -- even though that word is in their name. That there is a difference between the visible church and the invisible church is important -- especially as we find both of these represented in our congregations each week.

I've mentioned in another thread Jeremy Begbie and his work on "Theology through the Arts." He seems to be the best living thinker and author in this area of redeeming the arts for use by the church. See his work at www.theolarts.org. Check out the publications page for the depth of his ideas. (The best non-living thinker in this area would be Francis Schaeffer)

I'm not convinced that pulling a song out of its original context (that is, what the composer meant by it) is appropriate, even if we "christianize" its meaning. On the flip side, would it be appropriate to take a song written out of love and reverence for Christ and re-work it to refer to a physical love relationship between two people outside of marriage?

These might seem like divergent and disconnected thoughts, yet I think they are all part of this overall discussion.

[AD(J)]

We're doing Dio's 'Holy Diver' this week.


I'm just hoping God will redeem Metallica's 'Master of Puppets' album. Man, that would rawk.


(SW)

[WorshipCity]

We're doing Dio's 'Holy Diver' this week.


I'm just hoping God will redeem Metallica's 'Master of Puppets' album. Man, that would rawk.


(SW)

That's funny! You even spelled rawk correctly :)