I agree wholeheartedly when it comes to differences in musical tastes. For example, there is one band whose songs appeared regularly in the student ministry we worked with some years ago whose music I didn't much care for (often services would feature two or three songs written by them). But their message was true and it seemed to evoke a worshipful spirit in many of the people. I kept my mouth shut, for the most part.

But there are songs floating around out there that have suspect theology, and I believe that those need to be open to question. (I think we agree on this point)

I think a larger question that I have is whether or not you (or anyone else) believes that music has become too dominant in our views (and practice) of worship. If music were viewed culturally on the same level as preaching, communion, baptism, giving, etc. in our view of worship, would differences over musical tastes even be an issue in the first place?

Several times when this topic has come up here in the past Bill and I have exchanged differing viewpoints on it, only to always land in the same place. So that's where I'll start - this quote by C.S. Lewis, recounting his experience of church:

"I disliked very much their hymns, which I considered to be fifth-rate poems set to sixth-rate music. But as I went on I saw the great merit of it. I came up against different people of quite different outlooks and different education, and then gradually my conceit just began peeling off. I realized that the hymns (which were just sixth-rate music) were, nevertheless, being sung with devotion and benefit by an old saint in elastic-side boots in the opposite pew, and then you realize that you aren’t fit to clean those boots. It gets you out of your solitary conceit."

Read more: http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=02-04-019-f#ixzz1h5IYSORr

Sorry Jared - feel free to weigh in though :-)

Quaid: I think a larger question that I have is whether or not you (or anyone else) believes that music has become too dominant in our views (and practice) of worship. If music were viewed culturally on the same level as preaching, communion, baptism, giving, etc. in our view of worship, would differences over musical tastes even be an issue in the first place?

I don't know whether to high-five you or cry . . .

First, a few disclaimers. While I'm not that great of a musician, I can play a few instruments passably and I was involved in a worship ministry for seven years. I've "charted out" hundreds of songs. So, whether my take is valid or not, I certainly have one.

And it's this: YES. Music has been given a far greater place in people's spiritual lives than is probably healthy. The fact that one of the biggest "wars" in churches these days has nothing really to do with theology (compare to the battles fought by the apostles for sound doctrine). No, the wars have to do with whether people wear choir robes and the age of the songs we sing.

So, while I think music should be a part, even a vibrant part, of our worship, I feel that we are unbalanced with it.

Brian In Spring and I, when in our more curmudgeonly moments, talk about planting a church that has no music :-) - we don't really mean it, and we would be the only two people in the church too, but it's fun to imagine. :-)

On another note: I have grown to appreciate the Church of Christ more and more. I like the idea of a-capella worship, as it encourages the one thing we always say we want: for the congregants to sing along.

This is why this post represents such dynamic tension for me. I have too many opinions on this. What I need to do is just leave my opinions to the side (or more better nail them to the cross) and just worship

The word “suck” makes it impossible for me to direct certain people to this article that need to read it. I don’t say this to complain, but to use this fact (and it is a fact) as an appropriate illustration of this issue.

Music is a form of language. Similarly if I want to communicate praise in a language people understand (as Paul does in I cor. 14, esp. in I Cor. 14:16-17) then how do I do that?

Think of it this way. Just as the word “sucks” is a commonly accepted term among my generation and younger, it really isn’t for those older. So if I want to communicate to the younger generation, does that mean that I MUST use the same words they do? “contemporary” is exactly that, and what is “contemporary” in one moment, isn’t in the next. There are certain phrases, terms, and styles of speaking that fade as the fads they are, and others that turn out to be lasting, even if they were new at one time.

For example, who says “groovy” or “far out” anymore? What about “daddy-O” or “hip cat”? (Other similarly faddish terms that have faded include but aren’t limited to: rad, bad & sick (for good), totally awesome, like wow, and “gag me with a spoon.”) However some terms from those time periods have stuck with us: terms like “rock & roll” and “cool” and even, believe it or not “dude”, though still considered informal.

If I am speaking to a young audience, am I obligated to use their vocabulary to communicate the Gospel? I don’t think so. As long as I use universally recognized language, that is acceptable to their culture and to mine, we’re cool. 

However, there are a couple cautions.
#1 – I shouldn’t use language from my own culture that is foreign to them, without taking the time to explain it. The use of terms that are unfamiliar to my audience should be rare, and even then I should have a really good reason for using it (because no other term is as effective or accurate) and it should be explained.
#2 – I should be cautious about using “contemporary” terms or slang of that audience. As a rule, I shouldn’t unless it is absolutely necessary. And then it should be used sparingly and maybe just to get their attention. But it is artificial to sprinkle my language with words I don’t normally use, plus the chances are good that I will use them wrong.

So to boil it down to one sentence: if you think of the languages that I and my audience uses as two concentric circles, I should only use those terms where the two intersect. I can venture into their territory or mine, but it should be done cautiously and sparingly.

So how does that relate to worship music? Similarly one should avoid both errors. If you try only to keep up with the times, you will go where the times go, to paraphrase C.S. Lewis. You will be using faddish, and low-quality music that even the current appreciators will be rejecting in 10 years.

However, if you use music that is so old and traditional that the hearers don’t understand, then you fail to communicate, and will most likely alienate your audience.

So you try to use universal music, venturing into exclusively “contemporary” music sparingly, and likewise exclusively “traditional” music sparingly. (Note my use of the word “exclusive.” There certainly are contemporary songs that are universal in appeal as well as traditional songs that are universal in appeal.)

I am not contradicting the original purpose of this article, which is directed more to participants and less to leaders. What I wrote above is more to leaders and less to participants.
What do I do then as a participant if I hear something that is worse than just that it isn’t a favorite, but that I genuinely dislike it or it turns me off? I think something similar to how I treated the title of this article. I wasn’t totally comfortable using the words “sucks” when talking about worship. But I gave the benefit of the doubt to the writer that he had a good reason for using the term or at least didn’t mean any harm by it and so, I overlooked it and tried to pay attention to the content and concept of the article itself. Then I must decide later if criticism of the word “sucks” is appropriate, and if so, how should I go about it? If not, then I should keep my opinions to myself.

This is how we should respond when we hear a song in worship that, in our opinion, is vacuum cleaner worthy.

After reading Andrew's comment, (Andrew have you read mine? I think we commented at close to the same time), I would add to my closing paragraph that we should ask ourselves "to whom" and in what context criticism is appropriate.

I agree with you Andrew, and I don't think it's a contradiction or disagreement to point out that the Bible says that what comes out of our mouths should only be that which is useful for building others up. (And sometimes criticism does meet that criterion.)

Shrode - I apologize for the post title - I've changed it.

I was going to change the post itself, but there are a WHOLE lot of instances of "vaccuum" and I didn't feel right bracketing out the original words. So it's still a no-go for the people you were mentioning.

Andrew - I agree, context of the conversation is a big factor.

Bill,
you didn't have to change the post title!!!! :-) In fact, the whole point of my loooong comment was not really about the word "sucks" anyway. It was about how we choose what songs to sing.

Besides, Church Marketing Sucks website makes a pretty good argument for the term. I really think that the under 40 crowd uses the term without thinking. (I used to use it A LOT myself. I think becoming a pastor and a dad affected my language a lot.) I mean, if I wouldn't want to hear a particular word coming out of my 4 year old's mouth, why should I use it?

Another one that has become common is "screwed up". I've even heard it from pulpits. Kind of freaks me out when people use it.

Problem is probably with me. :-) My sinful brain supplies the bad word when people use alternatives.

nhe - if I don't like a song, sometimes, I just won't sing. I will not give a half-hearted gift. That doesn't mean that I'm in the "right," per se, but I still think it's worse to try and sing a song halfheartedly than it is to try and unite with the Body when I feel as if I'm being disingenuous.

I don't know if that validates your feelings, or not. I might be in the wrong for not singing, but it may be the lesser of two evils, when compared with singing half-heartedly.

I was going to comment on this the other day. But I waited. And I'm still not sure exactly what to say. This part of the quote is, it's seems to me, at the core of this issue: "You may however need to mortify your critical spirit and get over yourself first." -- I have no memory, from when I was a kid, of sitting in church criticizing the songs or pretty much anything else. I don't remember sitting there making choices about what songs I was going to sing and which ones I wouldn't because I either liked them or not. My highly critical nature kicked in later, and it was a part of a highly negative mindset that I have been struggling for years to deal with in a godly way. It seems to me that we hold up score cards to just about everything in life these days. Top ten this and that. When I was a kid there were some songs I didn't really understand, and there were songs that I would not have listened to at home for entertainment, and there were songs where the song leader sang out of key sometimes. But I sang the songs, along with pretty much everyone else, because we were in church together and we were singing to God. We. -- It just seems like we've gotten off track in our churches, and I don't think the real issue is how good the songs are, or aren't.