Contemporary Worship Music

  • Thread starter Thread starter Fusioninspace
  • Start date Start date
I personally love seeing where this thread is roaming to and from (theological debates included), but I thought I might chime in here with some thoughts on the whole CC music debate.

First of all, terminology - CC to me means the majority of the music coming out of Nashville, which I personally don't find interesting or inspiring for the most part. Plenty of people do, which I'm fine with; but to me a lot of it lacks originality and honest expression.

Second, a note distinguishing music intended to be praise and music intended to be missional, so to speak - praise music is generally very open about using religious terms, speaking directly about/to God, etc. Missional music is often much more subtle. Each has their place to a certain degree - praise music is usually very accessible and easy to sing; it's meant to be used in some form of corporate worship. Missional music is what you hear when you listen to any number of bands in the secular market - Sufjan Stevens, Lifehouse, Creed, Mat Kearney, Sleeping at Last, Switchfoot, etc (with the noted point that those are quite the varied group of artists, so please don't group them into the "Creed Sucks" genre). The majority of praise music tends to come from the "CC" genre (my terminology). Some is good, some is not, but it's the major source of that sort of music.

The interesting thing is that "CC" music tends to blend Praise and Missional styles, and because of that, often isn't so good at either one. That, and the demand from modern-day Christians for "safe" music, increases the amount of music that is available. To meet that demand, bands that wouldn't make it in the secular marketplace enter into the Christian marketplace, thus bringing the average quality down. When a band in the secular marketplace tries to make it, they have one thing to offer (musically - concerts/etc. aside): their music and lyrics. A "CC" band gets a bump up on the demand scale simply by labeling their music as Christian. Therefore, the cutoff for what you hear is typically lower in terms of quality - many Christians tend to sacrifice on the quality of music in order to have a "Christian" album. Now, this is NOT to say that there isn't some really good CC music out there - just in general, the average quality of what you hear is lower. But I used to really like Michael W. Smith (I'm not quite sure why - can't stand it now), DC Talk, Jars of Clay - they put out some pretty good stuff in their days.

I think my goal in expressing all of this is my general disappointment with "CC" music as a whole. Fortunately, there are bands that are breaking out of that box - David Crowder Band manages to write both missional and praise music that is modern, innovative, exciting, and deeply meaningful at the same time. That band, to me, is the best example of what someone writing praise music can do creatively. I'm also continually impressed by some of the new bands out there that are in the secular marketplace. Mat Kearney has a new feel that I've not heard before (in my somewhat limited exposure, anyway); Switchfoot has managed to blend high-energy pop-rock with a very positive message for teenagers and young adults; Sleeping At Last (still small, but AMAZING) takes emo rock to a whole new level (thanks, in part, to Billy Corgan's mentoring); Sufjan Stevens has a sound that's quite extraordinary... I could certainly go on.

Oh, and it's worth mentioning that there are still places where music - good music - is being created in the church. Mars Hill Church in Seattle is one such place. Check it out - it is Seattle, so it's a bit darker, but still quite good.

Ok. You can all continue discussing now. :)
 
fraserhutch said:
Personally, I find that to be very offensive.

Not a doubting question, but why is that so offensive to you? I think I have an understanding of why, but I'd love to hear you explain it.
 
Uuuhhh....

Wasn't the thread about how shitty the music was and not how shitty religion is?

Fusioninspace said:
I noticed a recent post from a couple that were looking for a small combo amp to use in church... From some of the comments, I found it interesting that so many people are unaware of contemporary worship music.

For the un-initiated, it's basically every music style you listen to today (metal, rap, country, etc.) but the message is obviously for the the glory of God. Most of it is not self-righteous or judgemental, but basic songs of praise. Like any other music style, some songs are better than others.

So in old school church they might start the service with a choir singing hymns from an old book, and each song having 10 verses of thy, thou, thee, etc.

The contemporary style might have a modern band setup (drums, bass, e-guitars, acoustic, etc.) and a lead singer/backups. The words will be projected on a screen (like PowerPoint) and the songs tend to be very to the point and may only have one verse and chorus that's repeated.

Either way, the purpose of the music is to get you focus and open your heart.

As with all music there's room for improv, solos, etc. For me, it was the reason I got back into playing guitar seriously again. It's one of the few areas of music today that actually does have a deeper meaning (not that others never do).

If you're into music and haven't been to church in awhile or ever, go check one out - Some of the mega-churches have evening services if you don't want to get up early. I would generally look for non-donominational Christain - but that's because I'm a non-donominational Christain :-)

On the big new contemporary churches, they have sound systems that will simply blow you out of the water.

With the right sound, the right songs, the right musicians, and, of course, the right message - it changed my life...


If I can do anything to nudge it back on topic, I have attended a non-denominational hippy church recently and was truly surprised that the band that played before the "teaching" played CSNY and a couple other not-even-close-to-christian-but-still-kinda-flaccid-and-folkie tunes. Another time, a gal sang that joni mitchell song about paving paradise. On Christmas, they even snuck in blue christmas (and it was indeed awesome since it was sung by some old fart obviously who liked to carrouse and booze and play rock and roll long before he found JC). The sound system does indeed crank and I think the acoustics of the room are great. I'd love to play there. But that is the rub isn't it? I don't want to play there because I am all full of Jesus. I want to play there because they have a packed house and the venue is tip top. That means I'd go straight to hell - even if I played "People get Ready" or "Spirit in the Sky".
 
Fusioninspace said:
I noticed this thread has suddenly taken a nasty turn... Can the theological discussions go on elsewhere please?????

If you don't like something about Christain music (praise, worship, commercial, whatever), that's your business. Please don't turn this into flame war.
Agreed.

Every time I see heated debates (or more often arrogant mudslinging) about religion it makes me think that if someone who's so profuse on the subject spent an equal amount of energy actually DOING good for others in a practical way... well THAT would impress me. If you DO, then kudos. Otherwise your blah, blah, blah about beliefs is just hot air. Talk is cheap.

And no, I'm not talking about your annual check to the Red Cross or Cancer Society. That's too easy. Everybody does that. Do you really have strong beliefs? OK, set up a visit to your nearest halfway house, public hospital psych ward, food bank, homeless shelter, or some other place that serves the outcasts of your community. Give them your time, and do something real and practical to help them. Then I for one would be interested in hearing about what you believe in.
 
Getting back to the original topic.

One challenge for many church music groups is dealing with people. I have been part of music groups at a variety of different churches and it’s amazing how much they vary on how they work with musicians and vocalists. There are two situations that seem to come up regularly.

The first is the basic question of what criteria, if any, is used in adding people to a music team. Suppose you have a praise team with musicians and vocalists. You have stage room for many. What criteria is used for adding a new vocalist? Is there an audition, or do you just take those who are willing. In most cases churches are dealing with volunteers and not paid music folks, so it can get tricky fast.

The second is the question of dealing with dependability. You rehearse a song with different parts assigned to different people. Then on Sunday, one or more don’t show and don’t call. So you end up winging it with somehow redistributing the song parts. The other variation is that people show on Sunday to sing, who did not make rehearsal, and really don’t know the songs.

What approaches are used by the different groups represented here?

Ed
 
apl said:
It's spelled hearsay.

And it's not hearsay if Person A says they saw Person B do something.

Not to be confused with "heresy"?? Heresy is usually what people were tried and executed for.......not many cultures were harsh enough to execute someone for "hearsay"....
 
Codmate said:
Why?

Oh I forgot - Christians are inherently better than me and I should try and be more like them.
Some Christians believe they are inherently better than others, and these are the arrogant "Christians" who give Christians a bad name. Just like there is a certain percentage of dysfunctional anti-social people in any group or population. Some white people give white people a bad name. Some guitarists give guitarists a bad name. Some men give men a bad name. Some lovers give love a bad name. etc...etc...etc... Just make sure you focus your critiques on the dysfunctional guitarist, not on the guitar. Same way with Christ. Dont use the imperfections of "Christians" to judge the worth of Christ's philosophy. If you want to know what Christianity is about, dont look at Christians.....look at Christ.

Codmate said:
My relationship with the FSM is an individual one, but I don't go on about it and try to convert people...
I agree, it's wrong for Christians to push their "religion" and beliefs on others who are not asking for it. But why is it ok for you to push your distaste for Christians? If I tell you "I'm a Christian." then I make no effort at all to push my beliefs on you, you will still turn around and tell me all the reasons why you cant stand Christians?? Just lump all Christians together into one big dysfunctional cubby hole because you had some bad experiences with a few dysfunctional, arrogant Christians? Why is that ok? If someone says "I love pizza!" are you going to fight back by making that person listen to you explain why you hate pizza? Do you feel compelled to expose your hates and dislikes to the world every time someone mentions liking something that you dont like? Why? Are you able to answer a question like that without wanting to punch me in the face? Why not? :confused:

Codmate said:
There is only scant evidence that the guy even existed.
I cant even begin to tell you how this claim makes you sound..... let's just say that this statement is seriously uninformed. Dont ask me to explain it to you, I cant and I dont want to. No offense intended, but I doubt that you really want to find out if there is evidence or not. If you actually do your own research you will see for yourself how shallow this statement really is.

Codmate said:
Go read "The God Delusion".
What's good for the goose is good for the other goose......go read "The Case For The Creator." Faith is the simplest concept on earth. Faith is also the most difficult concept on earth! Or maybe it's more accurate to say Faith is the most difficult choice on earth??
 
Last edited:
I find it offensive that someone would feel that they need pray for me - i reeks of "you need to be saved", implying superiority of a sort, certainly a "I feel sorry for you" sort of thing.

I neither need nor want to be saved, and I find the idea that someone believes I do the height of conceit.

This of course is applicable to anyone believing someone else needs to be saved.


johnny5dm said:
Not a doubting question, but why is that so offensive to you? I think I have an understanding of why, but I'd love to hear you explain it.
 
My stance is that we all need to be saved and when someone is praying for me it is the highest form of concern, not conceit.
Sorry if you misread my compassion. that's all it is.
I am by no means any better than anyone.
 
To quote faderbug "...btw he was just one of the many prophets in those days."
Now it's about profit. Ca(sh)che for the bank or cache for trying to save or saving souls...the buying of indulgence etc etc.
To put it bluntly - as long as I don't have to listen to it.
 
rayc said:
To quote faderbug "...btw he was just one of the many prophets in those days."
Now it's about profit. Ca(sh)che for the bank or cache for trying to save or saving souls...the buying of indulgence etc etc.
To put it bluntly - as long as I don't have to listen to it.

Man, I sincerely hope you don't really believe that. Yeah, there are a good number of really screwed up people on TV and writing books who are in it for the profit, but one of Jesus' only times when he got really pissed off was when people were using the church to make money. The vast majority of churches these days are definitely not in it for the money - pastors (on the average) get paid next to nothing; they're certainly not in it for the money...
 
fraserhutch said:
Personally, I find that to be very offensive.
I agree - this is the smug "I'm soooo much better than you" side of religion that winds me up.

Coming from people that advocate blind faith in supernatural beings as a virtue, it's pretty rich.

I'm sure the Muslims are all praying for the Christians, the Jews are all praying for the Muslims ad infinitum.

Lets just leave them too it eh?

I'm giving up being drawn on religious arguments, as I think it's so easy to give good reasons to not believe. It's almost cruel having these discussions. There are certain logical problems that believers in the descendants of Iron-Age creation and fertility myths, such as Christianity, will never be able to solve.

The paradox of omnipotence for instance, the question of evil, the recursive nature of invoking a creator of everything...
All these are too tricky, so they get dodged, sometimes in inventive ways, but never solved.

It is up to believers to prove their gods exist - not for us non-religious to prove they don't (you can't prove a negative), so frankly I can't be bothered getting RSI arguing about it. As I see it religion is a purely anthropological phenomenon that persists for various complex social, cultural, biological, emotional and mental reasons.

The historiography of the Bible is so messed up, some of you must have been seriously lied to over the years if you think it proves anything at all. It is a cobbled-together collection of third-hand stories, mostly written and re-written by monks. You may as well literally believe the events in the Greek epics. Also, why not believe in the Greek gods? Are they not just as likely to exist? Try and disprove them!

How about the fact that millions of people around the world believe in the assumption of Mary - when it is not even mentioned once in the Bible? If the One True' god is omnipotent, why don't all his followers believe the same thing?

I could go on and on and on and on.
Even though these arguments are excellent, the religious will always use the fact that you can't prove a negative to believe in their hugely irrational deity.
There is no getting around this - and although it is irrational and frankly stupid, they continue to believe whatever their spiritual elders tell them, causing wars, divisiveness and untold suffering around the globe.

Would 9/11 have happened if those guys didn't believe in heaven?

I can't believe I've bothered to even write all this frankly.
It's very rare that the inflexible, indoctrinated mind is willing to properly consider ideas that challenge their beliefs...

I'm sorry if anybody was offended by this rant - but frankly I don't see why these myths should be tollerated or given any respect whatsoever in the twenty first century.

I wonder if they'll be worshipping Harry Potter in two thousand years time...
 
Last edited:
Ed Dixon said:
Since you believe you are going to burn there, where is Hell? How do you know? How do you know you are going to burn? What evidence do you have?

If you did not go to Hell, where else might you go? What criteria might make the different of the alternate destination(s)? Where did this criteria come from?

In reality people believe what they do because they feel that way. There is little real physical evidence that anyone who lived more than a few hundred years ago existed. Nothing new there. What most rely on is what they read, what they hear, and what they feel.

For most of us here there is no physical evidence that you exist. For all we know, the messages with your name are generated by a computer program. We read and make a judgment call.

There are thousands of accounts of various people who lived in the past. There is no first or second hand information for any of them. Pictures only go back a few hundred years. Beyond that, it’s written text. You believe it or you don’t.

Jesus, like a number of other religious people from the past centuries, are discussed in various writings. In the case of religious leaders, there has generally been lots of analysis of historians. Few seem to think the story is false. You can clearly believe what you want, just like the rest of us.

Ed

I don't actually believe in heaven of hell - I was just being facetious.

There are scales of probablilities aren't there?

I find it much more *probable* that the universe came into existance via a method we have not thought of yet, than it was created by some all-powerful being.

Saying "God did it" is so trite and so easy...

Quite a few historians think the Bible stories are highly questionable.
I do not say they are false - what I do say is that they are very very hard to prove, and that the sources are extraordinarily unreliable.

We can prove that many historical figures existed as we have the bodies - or at least a tomb. Now, with DNA science, we can prove more than ever with physical evidence.

Go and find Jesus' body.
Oh - he "rose into heaven" - how very convenient...
 
apl said:
What did you expect?
Yeah - disagreeing with the religious is nasty (becuase their belifs are indefensible).

We mustn't do that!

Sickening...
 
Timothy Lawler said:
Agreed.

Every time I see heated debates (or more often arrogant mudslinging) about religion it makes me think that if someone who's so profuse on the subject spent an equal amount of energy actually DOING good for others in a practical way... well THAT would impress me. If you DO, then kudos. Otherwise your blah, blah, blah about beliefs is just hot air. Talk is cheap.

And no, I'm not talking about your annual check to the Red Cross or Cancer Society. That's too easy. Everybody does that. Do you really have strong beliefs? OK, set up a visit to your nearest halfway house, public hospital psych ward, food bank, homeless shelter, or some other place that serves the outcasts of your community. Give them your time, and do something real and practical to help them. Then I for one would be interested in hearing about what you believe in.
Most charities and charitable organisations in my country are purely secular - so you are proving nothing.

My friend raises guide dogs for the blind for instance.
He's not a Christian.

The idea that morals spring from religion is offensive.
Many of the Christians I know are the most "un-Christian" people I know!
 
soundchaser59 said:
What's good for the goose is good for the other goose......go read "The Case For The Creator." Faith is the simplest concept on earth. Faith is also the most difficult concept on earth! Or maybe it's more accurate to say Faith is the most difficult choice on earth??
Having Evaganlistic grandparents, I am pretty familiar with this stuff.

I have read plenty of pro-religious texts - these days I read them for a good laugh...

I'll quite happily read the text you point me to if you promise to read The God Delusion.
 
Codmate said:
I can't believe I've bothered to even write all this frankly.
It's very rare that the inflexible, indoctrinated mind is willing to properly consider ideas that challenge their beliefs...

I ask you to consider your statement here as it applies to your own views. If you really want to have an open, honest and civil discussion about all of this, that's cool, but unless you're willing to let your views be challenged as well as ours, nothing productive either way will come of this.
 
johnny5dm said:
I ask you to consider your statement here as it applies to your own views. If you really want to have an open, honest and civil discussion about all of this, that's cool, but unless you're willing to let your views be challenged as well as ours, nothing productive either way will come of this.

Well, go ahead.
 
Back
Top