Brave man, Craig. Brave man!

We tried your first suggestion, once, at my current SydAng church. With mixed results. Singing was significantly better that week, and those members who love to sing were greatly encouraged. I think that, subjectively, it aided the flow of the meeting as well.

However those who were already vocal in their objection to contemporary music became even more vocal, and won the day (perhaps because a few of those people held positions of some sway).

I think there is a lesson to be learnt in this, for those of us who do love the things our churches are doing. We need to be vocal in our support! Otherwise the detractors - nearly always the minority - will drown out our leaders' best efforts.

Just a thought.

On the reduced playlist suggestion: the church I did my MTS apprenticeship at tried this, and failed spectacularly. While no one noticed for the first few months, and no complaints per se were officially logged for the next few, there was significant grumbling. And within six months the music leader caved and started introducing songs at great pace. Maybe it was because they were already a (reasonably) strong singing church. I was too busy to reflect on it at the time. I’ll ruminate on it a little more.

You are completely correct about reduced playlist Craig. The quality of music at are church has improved dramatically since taking this road. The reason is obvious: inexperienced musicians gain confidence.

The drawback is not having the right songs to go with the sermon. My suggestion is to have three or four songs chosen for each of the major doctrinal themes.

That's helpful to hear, guys. I should admit that on these two issues, I'm a prophet without honour in my hometown. ;-) So I'm very keen to hear about other experiences.

Back at my old pentecostal church, there was a song that we played almost every week without fail, and I never heard of anyone grumbling about repetition. I wonder why there is a difference in attitude? How did we develop this expectation of constant variety?

Maybe we need to ignore the grumblers and just push on through. A smaller playlist is so beneficial for the musos - especially new musos, as Jeremy noted.

My church is a relatively young church plant rather than a mature/established congregation. So that is worth bearing in mind.

Where is that Jeremy, out of interest?

I think Christian formation is a powerful thing. It can be a good thing or a bad thing. What I am trying to say Craig is that, if one becomes a Christian in a church where they sing songs 'in a block at the front of the service'- they won't question it, and will just assume it was normal (the way I thought kneeling at the communion rail was normal when I first came to faith and went to church). However if they went to a church that had the format of Welcome, Song, Pray, Song, Announcements, Bible Reading, Song, prayers, bible Reading, Sermon, Song - they would find this painful. I suspect it would be the same if it were the other way round. I come from the latter background (Christchurch Gladesville) where the format was similar. I tried doing what you suggested in the previous church where I was serving and had three songs in a row and although I thought it worked well, it did not go down well as nearly everyone had come from a church where the hymn sandwich approach was done. Don't get me wrong though Craig - I agree with you on this. But I think many people have been damaged due to the "worship wars".
If I recall Mark Driscoll touched on this last year when he described the worship as painful (like driving in Sydney) and he asked someone "Why do you do it like this?"and the man said "Well we are not Charismatic!" I wonder if this is a factor in all this?

The drawback is not having the right songs to go with the sermon.

The question is Jeremy...do we really have to have song themes linked in with sermons??? There seems to be this push to do this, but why??? Do we have to be this clever??

@Josh: do you think we have, for lack of a better phrase, a 'culture of complaint' that most charismatics don't? I'm totally with you on the importance of Christian formations here. I just wonder if there is more at play, as Craig seems to suggest.

As I can discern it, Pentecostal churches do have attitudinal differences:
1. Enormous positivity. Pentecostal people are generally up-beat about everything. To the extent of (somtime) exaggeration. They are always talking up their church, always talking up the changes they are experiencing in their lives. Never a bad word to say. Scarce a complaint to make. Most pentecostal people I know would not only tolerate, they would support their leaders' decision to sing the same song every week for a year.
2. Genuine thankfulness for and enjoyment of their churches. Every time I visit a pentecostal church, grating theology and practices aside, I am struck by how much the members really love being there. And for good reason: everything is, simply, done so well (it cuts both ways, I am sure). As far as Anglicans go, I love my church. But there are enough niggling faults (all of which would be fairly simple to fix) that my general level of happiness with the place is well below the "I'd never complaint" threshold. Truth be told, I'm already grumpy enough about the music to lose it if we had to sing the same rubbish over and over again. Sound familiar, anyone?

Does this ring true for you, Craig?

Yeah, in my experience, Pentecostals *really* love their churches. They are just so enthusiastic about them.

Another factor is that singing is seen as worshiping God, so there's almost a sense that if have a problem with the music, the problem is with your lack of piety rather than with the musicians.

I should point out that I've only experienced a couple of mega-churches. It might be that the smaller penty churches have similar issues to our churches.

I'm by no means an authority on the subject. But from my experience with smaller penti churche, this is a none issue. Music there, while on a much smaller scale, still rocks. And people still love it. Proving to me, of course, that we could get by with our tiny churches, tiny bands and tiny budgets.

Another factor is that singing is seen as worshiping God, so there's almost a sense that if have a problem with the music, the problem is with your lack of piety rather than with the musicians.

The irony is that if anyone has a reason to be doing everything unto God to the best of our ability, it is us reformed dudes who drink deep from the fount of grace.

When we were looking for a new church 2 years ago we visited on of the small local Pente's. They had almost as many people in the band as in the congregation (about 6 each, not including us), but they sang and played like there was 1,000 people in the room.

Taught me a thing or two.

I have no idea about Pentecostal churches really. I like positivity as a rule, but endless positivity often ends up as lack of discernment. And I think that when you lack discernment in some major areas, you've more easily lose the whole. A little yeast and all that.

I just want to make this point: The Apostle says:

Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God.

But some of us often find ourselves...

Singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with grumbling in our hearts to the musicians.

We need to recapture our wonder in Jesus, and express this in singing that locates its joy in God (and not in the music director!)

Not sure what that means for singing blocks and short playlists.

Nice line Justin... ;-)

I was thinking it was more of an insight, rather than a line!

;-)

It's definitely an insight. But I can't help but admire the line for it's own sake, it was nicely done... :-)

Used it in a sermon a month ago. [/sidecomment]

Now, onto the content of your post...

It sounds like singing is the only worthwhile thing we do when we meet together?!

@Allan: I can't imagine anyone, pentecostal or otherwise, arguing that! Although I am of the passionate persuasion that everything we do together is sufficiently worthwhile to do to the best of our abilities. Don't you agree?

Yes Braden, we should do everything to the best of our abilities so that we honour our Lord Jesus Christ. The problem is that we don't all have a lot of talented people in certain areas, such as music, so what we do may not be of the standard you are used to. I am of the older generation and like hymns, the prayer book, and communion done well. Sorry.

It sounds like singing is the only worthwhile thing we do when we meet together?!

Why would you conclude that?

@Allan: Please, no need to be sorry!!! I too love "hymns, the prayer book, and communion done well". Very much so. I'm an enormous fan of english (choral) church music, and spent a number of years as a lay clerk with the St. Andrew's Cathedral choir. So please, please don't hear me deriding the musical tastes of older generations!

As to the standard that I am used to: it is probably a lot lower that you expect it to be ;-) Sadly, it is fathoms below what it could be, given the talented people God has given us. But I'll not harp on there.

I'm just trying to encourage a bit of excellence, for Jesus' sake. "Best of old and new" I say!

@ Braden:

@Josh: do you think we have, for lack of a better phrase, a 'culture of complaint' that most charismatics don't? I'm totally with you on the importance of Christian formations here. I just wonder if there is more at play, as Craig seems to suggest

.
Culture of complaint? Maybe,I don't know - I think one of the factors is that most people (regardless of their age) don't like change, especially if it is done quickly.

@ Allan

I am of the older generation and like hymns, the prayer book, and communion done well. Sorry.

Never apologise!!!! I love hymns, the prayer book and seeing communion done well and I am 35.

double posted! Sorry

Thanks guys. We have a great God, and Saviour, and to be with His people to praise Him, in whatever way we do, is a great blessing.

Craig: how many songs would you want to bracket up front of a service? And, following this format, would you be for or against having a reflective or responsive song after the sermon?

The pattern we used in the pentecostal church was 4 songs up front, and then reprising one of them at the very end of the service.

Another, thus far unmentioned, benefit to the "four songs in a row" model is the ability to carefully sculpt "emotional flow." Let me explain what I mean.

Every carefully thought out service has a purposeful movement to it - be it a logical flow of ideas, a flow of emotion, a flow of theme. A liturgy, if you will. While very different in content, contemporary and traditional evangelical liturgies are both alike in that they follow the flow of ideas. That is, they are arranged logically.

Pentecostal services are not. They follow the flow of emotions. By which I mean, they begin with a high energy song (perhaps with a high energy welcome); they descend slowly through a set of increasingly reflective songs; until they reach a quiet, calm level of prayer and bible reading; and so on. What links each element is, for lack of a better phrase, "emotional level."

When Driscoll described our services as "painful" and "klunky" I trust this is what he was getting at. Our ideologically shaped services, linked by logical connections, shift up and down the emotional gear range with jarring force. While charismatic services - much like contemporary concerts (or film for that matter) - do not. Unless they intend to introduce purposeful emotional shock. Which is always capitalised on.

[...]

[...]

Now to the point: I think Craig's "four songs in a row" suggestion has legs because, prayerfully, skillfully executed it presents an opportunity to combine both flow of idea and emotion.

Anyone else for less "klunk"?

@Craig #26: keeping our cards close to the chest are we?!

I like the 4 up front and reprise at the end model.

The pentecostal approach is better. Singing requires confidence. Singing several songs in a row increases your confidence, so that by the final song the shyest person might find themselves lustily belting out the tune. By contrast, when the songs are interleaved throughout the service, you have to start from zero each time.

Craig, I would say that the pentecostal approach is better if congregational confidence is the most important goal of structuring music in church. But there are other equally valid considerations. For example, using the music to compliment what's going on in the service - if you're having communion, there can be great benefit in leading into it with a reflective song about Jesus' blood etc. Likewise, a song about sin and forgiveness might go well with confession and as has been mentioned, songs may add weight to the message of the sermon. Also, 4 songs in a row might build confidence in some but just annoy others. Elderly folk might object to spending 20 minutes on their feet in one hit! Another consideration is whether you have a playlist that can sustain 4 in a row such that it is able to maintain momentum throughout. Many churches have a mix of hymns and modern songs - would it work for them I wonder?

Regarding size of playlist, I think most churches and music groups can easily cope with at least 40 to 50 regularly used songs - but that's not to say that 20 is too small :-) There are pros and cons each way. An approach that seeks to integrate music into the service would generally require a larger playlist though.

Craig, I would say that the pentecostal approach is better if congregational confidence is the most important goal of structuring music in church.

Another thread on this site has spent a lot of time discussing how to get people to sing more loudly, and with more enthusiasm. Blocking the songs together is a good way to achieve this. I would prefer to have the songs together and sung well, then to have the same songs split apart and sung poorly. I admit that there is a degree of preference involved here, but this is a practical way to improve singing. I'd be interested to hear about ways to improve the singing using the "hymn sandwich" approach.

Regarding size of playlist, I think most churches and music groups can easily cope with at least 40 to 50 regularly used songs...

Here I have to say I disagree. I believe that 40 songs is too many for the average church band to do well consistently. I base that opinion on a fair chunk of experience.

Even if the band is up to doing so many songs, the congregation aren't. It is very difficult to learn and sing a song well that you only do 4 times a year. Once people really learn and feel confident with a song, they will sing it better and enjoy it more too.

This thread is like a trip down amnesia lane for me.

My (non-Anglican-and-somewhat-influenced-by-the-charismatic-movement) home church used to sing four or five songs at the front of the service. I found it all very tedious (especially given the content and type of songs) and it was a delight to me when I discovered that in Anglican churches this was not the norm. I certainly didn't notice them singing any better than your average anglican church.

On the otherhand, when we started VHCC with limited music resources and a music team leader who hadn'd done it before we stated with a playlist of about 12 songs. Once they were confident with those we started to introduce more. Nobody ever complained about variety - but then nobody in that VHCC start team complained about anything; they were fantastic and positive and motivated for ministry.

It is an interesting suggestion Craig.

I suspect that the pentecostal churches (as a gross generalisation) are more attuned to the use of music and the crafting of singing sessions - after all, it is their "worship time".

Perhaps the standard Sydney Anglican church (speaking in generalities), in preparing the Sunday service, puts the focus of time and thought into the exegesis of the Bible, rather than the use of music.

Back at my old pentecostal church, there was a song that we played almost every week without fail, and I never heard of anyone grumbling about repetition. I wonder why there is a difference in attitude? How did we develop this expectation of constant variety?

Perhaps that is because there is a different expectation of what we should get out of the songs? 'Meaning' verses 'experience'?

Perhaps that is because there is a different expectation of what we should get out of the songs? 'Meaning' verses 'experience'?

That could be true - although I think you rarely digest a song on the first few listens. I think repetition is necessary there as well.

@Mark: I think that SydAng churches spending more time/thought on exegesis, with pente churches spending more time/thought on music is a furfie. How many musicians, in any church, have significant input into the week by week exegesis from the pulpit? And how many preachers concern themselves with the practice and preparation of weekly music?

The reality is that SydAng preachers put more effort into exegesis than do pentecostals. And pentecostal musicians put more effort into their craft than do SydAng musicians.

Now sit back and watch all the godly, hard-working SydAng musicians thump me for saying so!

We need to work hard to know what pleases God in the matter of singing rather than learning from distorted belief systems.

In the light of the gospel a lot of music stuff becomes pretty insignificant, and some may even be of the devil.

Di

Di, I disagree.

Scripture gives us a theology of music, for certain. But there are a whole range of technical issues that it doesn't address, and we are free to learn from whoever has expertise in these matters.

I have been thinking this through a bit lately (especially in regard to work issues). Happy to be corrected.

The gospel addresses all areas of life, including technical issues....how we use, why we use, what we use, where we use, when we use, will we use, how much spend, impact on others....

thanks Di

With respect Di, I think you are overstating the case. The gospel does not tell me how to play piano. It does not tell me how to plug in my guitar. It does not tell me how loud to turn up the PA. God has given us a glorious freedom in all these things.

Sometimes people with poor theology will have things to teach us. Sometimes atheists will have things to teach us. Calvin is very severe on those who reject sound advice because it comes from a "profane" source -

In reading profane authors, the admirable light of truth displayed in them should remind us that the human mind, however fallen and perverted from its original integrity, is still adorned and invested with admirable gifts from the Creator. If we reflect that the Spirit of God is the only fountain of truth, we will be careful, as we should avoid offering insults to Him, not to reject or condemn truth wherever it appears. In despising the gifts we insult the giver.

Re piano example,

the gospel may lead me to play it in some churches and not others.
It will lead me to play in a way that does not draw unnecessary attention to my playing;
Not to be proud in my manner;
Need to play in a manner that serves the gospel purpose of gathering
Need to serve the needs of the congregation and the desires of the overseers – they may want to choose the songs for good reason;
Need to do my best considering all other things in life
Heartily as serving God
And it may even influence which piano I use

Re learning from others. I am not disagreeing with Calvin. ..I am just saying we must work hard at knowing the mind of God and so have the gospel affecting every part of life.

Di

@Dianne (#38,48): my apologies, but to be honest I am troubled at how quickly you seem to suggest that it is only us (evangelical Anglicans) who can "work hard at knowing the mind of God", preferring to believe that the work of others is the result of "distorted belief systems."

Perhaps you did not intend to be read that way. Again, my apologies if I am being overly sensitive.

But I am sensitive, becauses my desire (for both myself and my church) is to pursue humility, always considering others better than myself. By all means exercising discernment. But also taking the time to examine myself before leveling my guns to fire on another.

As it stands, I think that the way we SydAngs treat music is a spectacular witness to our distorted belief system. To our rejection of the reformed worldview that is, I trust, produced by the Spirit as a fruit of the gospel. And which I can ultimately only attribute to our distortion of the gospel itself. Those are big claims, I know. But before I bash pentecostals for pursuing excellence in all things (including music) I must ask myself why my church is reticent to pursue excellence in all things. Before I dismiss what pentecostals do as unbiblical, I must assess whether or not my church is responding to the gospel of grace with abundant joy and thanks to God, expressed in all areas of life.

From where I'm sitting, we've got a lot of renovation to do on our building before we start taking pot-shots over the fence.

Back on the subject: you embedded a third suggestion in your article that no one has picked up on.

When I was playing at my pentecostal church, I was given a book in January that contained all of the music we would be doing for that year.

Your church gave its musicians (and presumably singers) music.

How many Anglican churches do that? Mine doesn't. We expect our guys to turn up an hour and a half before the service starts (which time is eaten into by late arrivals, bible reading, prayer, tuning and PA setup), and then bash through songs that some may have never played before (largely the playlist issue, granted). No wonder the result is less than desirable.

Is there a place for encouraging our musicians and singers to practice at home? Most pentecostal churches do (several I know have three hour pre-service rehearsals, three hour mid-week practice, and regular workshops/conferences).

I can invisage a music minsitry where we are so keen to develop our musicians/singers that we occasionally give them new CDs to listen to and play along with (from other churches/artists) to further hone their skills.

What do you think?

To qualify my last post: while I envisaged giving musicians score (or at least lead sheets) - as I presume your church did, Craig (am I right?) - by far and away most pentecostal churches give CDs and don't even use score in church gatherings. That is to say, most work either totally by ear, or learn from chord charts committing songs to memory, or permit beginners to use chord charts up the front until they can learn the repertoire.

To discuss the prospect of memorising our songs, playing from chord charts only, or (shock of shocks) playing only by ear, I trust will push most readers of this post well into the "Danger Will Robinson" zone. It may smack of professionalism, or of elitism, or some anti-Anglican-ism. But personally I still think it's worthy of discussion.

Please direct all ire at me, not the issue, if that helps.

We were given a book of chord charts (scores for keyboardists), as well as a CD

Braden, thanks for your response. My encouragement was directed towards Anglicans in regard to working hard to know the mind of God revealed in scripture.
Di

Thanks for the clarification, Di. I trust we will continue to prayerfully do just that - but I for one can always do with such a reminder!

Cheers,
Braden.

@Craig #46: how much do you think it helped? Should we be doing this too?

Tremendously helpful. If your licensing arrangement allows it, and you are organised, you should definitely do it.

Many non-Pentecostal churches have midweek pratices.

Is there a place for encouraging our musicians and singers to practice at home?

Absolutely.

I am in agreeance with you Craig.

I am tired of people not looking at how we can better serve one another and encourage one another with music. I am extremely tired of the pente bash that is associated with this. Being an ex pente now Moore college student, I am extremely disappointed we see our brothers and sisters in bad light.

I dont think change for our prayer book services would help. But our Evening and maybe, maybe family services (9:30, 10:00, etc.) could handle a shift. Definately the evening service could use this model.

@bradden re postivism: I have found Anglicans are very willing to complain, rebuke and judge the service. This can be good, but too often it replaces submission to God and humble adoration that leads to praise. It also replaces a mindset of encouragement and exhortation for fellow believers in the congregation.
I cannot agree that they talk up their experience and church to exageration. This could be true for some/many. But they are excited to see God work and have God work. Maybe we could learn and be encouraged by them in our approach to turning up to church?!!!

I don't think that this is a case of simply "pente-bashing" - the context of this thread is that we are being encourage to adopt the practices of the pentecostal churches.

It is wise, and indeed necessary, to be discerning as to whether these practices are ones that reflect significant theological differences, or are matters of indifference, or are, in fact, wiser, more effective practices.

@Daniel#52:

I cannot agree that they talk up their experience and church to exageration. This could be true for some/many. But they are excited to see God work and have God work. Maybe we could learn and be encouraged by them in our approach to turning up to church?!!!

I think we're saying the same thing here, mate. Certainly never meant to give the impression that they are anything less than genuinely excited to see God work. And certainly didn't want to suggest that there is no place for our learning from their attitude towards gathering with joy and anticipation.

Quite the contrary...

@Braden, thanks for the clarification, thought you were on the negative. *slightly embarrassed face* :)

Banning the songs:
Brother let me be your servant & Shine Jesus Shine. That would be a great start! HAHAHAHA

Agreed Josh. They desperately need retiring...

What Craig is recommending is not a particularly new idea nor it one that is particularly charismatic or Pentecostal. Here in the States there is a long tradition in Baptist churches what is known as the Sandy Creek revival style of worship, which as you may guess is based upon the revivals that were conducted at Sandy Creek Baptist Church. Basically is a song service, followed by a sermon, an invitation, and offering and perhaps a closing song and possibly a benediction. At some point in the meeting there may be announcements. In the old days the song service was hymns and gospel songs, familiar songs that everyone knew, sung out of a hymnal or songbook, and accompanied on a piano. Today it is praise songs and a few repackaged popular traditional hymns, a video projector, and a band.

How many hymns and songs a congregation can learn depends upon the congregation, the complexity of the hymns and songs, and the time that is devoted to teaching the hymns and songs to the congregation and to helping them to master them. When the congregation sang out of a hymnal or songbook with music notation, and a keyboard accompanied the singing, most folks could follow the meldoy line and the keyboardist also provided the melody. With video projectors and bands, the congregation is expected to memorize the tune. This works as long as the songs that are picked have tunes that the congregation can easily pick up and remember, and a strong vocalist leads the singing. (more below)

With guitars the congregation needs strong vocal leadership. They cannot follow the tune played on a guitar like they can on a keyboard, especially a piano. If the songs picked are chosen with some thought to the congregation, the congregation is likely to quickly pick them up. However, if they are chosen because they make great performance pieces, then the problems begin. Songs that are written for performance often do no make good songs for congregational participation. The congregation struggles to learn the tunes and master them.

I've read (I think) through everyone's comments and have to say I largely agree with Craig's take on the situation. One thing we are considering here in Wagga Wagga NSW (woop woop for those in Sydney) is the question, "Why and for who do we do music?"

Getting together for church is about serving one another and building each other up. We are a growing church plant and are considering that even more, music is for the new-comer. Music can help explain the gospel etc? Ask someone how much scripture they can quote and most of it would be taken from the lyrics of songs? That's just the way we are. So, music down (out) here is about to have a radical change. We will start doing music to attract people even if that means doing some (dare I say it) "pentecostal songs"! Music for our church is about attracting people. God's Word being preached faithfully is what converts people.

I hate to say it, but if we all focussed on serving one another at church rather than asking the question "what can I get out of it" we'd have two things happen. We'd always have enough people to fill even the less-preferred ministry roles and we'd have a church "family" in the real sense. A solid community upon which to build each other up in Christ.

Music = for the newcomer (primarily) in our growing church plant here in the Riverina.

Sadly everyone, the "pentecostal" churches have been losing some of the skills and understanding of worship that they once had.

The church I attend could easily pass for an Anglican church these days and although I welcome the strong focus on teaching scripture well and faithfully I also think that the older focus on songs that people knew was of value.

Isn't it true that the traditional church down the centuries has adopted practices of the radical "revivalist" congregations like Wesleyian hymns in Anglican churches.


If you look at some of the material coming out of the Vineyard church - who always wanted the whole body of Christ to benefit from what they were doing in worship - you will find that they have a subscription model where they send a quarterly book and CD with music guitar chords, overheads - the works. Many of the songs are straight out of scripture

I spent most of my life as a Sydney Anglican and studied at Moore. Honesty, it was the worship and belief in the power of prayer that attracted me to a non-anglican church.

From what I see in the wider church in Sydney now - the differences between the "Charismatic" churches and Sydney Anglicans is now quite narrow and that is a very good thing because it is ALL ABOUT JESUS. I think we are both learning from each other. Wouldn't it be good if we just tried to use the best stuff available in our attempts to tell people about how God loves them.