Ship of Fools: How do you handle a prayer or song you disagree with?

Thread: How do you handle a prayer or song you disagree with? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026153

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

As a kid I was told anything you disagree with or aren't sure, just don't say that phrase, join in again for the rest of it. But kids don't have lead positions.

Once there was an item in prayers of the people that had me reacting with a "huh?" and awful glad I wasn't scheduled to read them that week.

Rarely, there's a line of a hymn I sit out.

But now I'm the "primary" vocal presence (by default not by design) in the new praise band (last week there was the guy with the guitar and a weak indefinite voice who says of himself he is a poor singer, and a woman who is very shy and insecure about singing in public and sings quietly, and me).

All of the songs are about "I", whether the occasional old hymns (Amazing Grace, *I* was lost now *I'm* found) or the predominant "contemporary" CCM songs (*I* will praise you; *I* lift my hands; *I* believe*).

A few of the songs say things that, as statements made by me about me, are untrue. I'm singing "I do this" when I don't have any interest in doing this. Or "I believe that about God" when I have carefully considered that theology and come to a current position of "no, that is not true."

To avoid discussing any one song (there's a dead horses thread for that) I'll make up a ridiculous example. Let's say a song declared "I stand on my head daily as a declaration of praise for Jesus." If the song said "we" do that, maybe some part of the present "we" does, or thinks it a playful harmless imagery even if not literally true, so what the heck, sing it. But the statement is *I* do that. But I don't. It feels dishonest to me to address God with "I do this, I long for that" when I don't.

The greater distress is when the song declares something I think deadly wrong theologically. Again to invent a ridiculous example, if a song says "God hates all Hindus and delights in torturing them in hell." No. Absolutely no. But what if I am supposed to lead the congregation in singing it?

I chose the one song I thought absolutely the worst, stated to "worship leader" why I dislike that song and what it's negative effect on me is (makes me want to avoid God). The leader's response was "it has sold millions of copies." The song is newly scheduled for some time this month. Last year I took an entirely different music issue to the clergy person, who said "I have enough to do, I am not getting involved in the music issues." So, there is no one to appeal to who might make some small changes to relieve my stress.

Other than dropping out of the group (which is increasingly tempting), what would you do in either situation - the song declares a desire or behavior not true of me, the song declares a theology I reject, and the wording is *I* do or believe that? As a primary voice in the song leading, not just another voice unnoticed in the congregation? In a fledgling group struggling to survive? (If they had plenty of people, no one would miss me if I dropped out.)

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

You say politely and apologetically that you have this problem, that it affexts x percentage of the music chosen, that you know your ( non) participation in x percentage of the music will be noticeable, and would they prefer you to drop out or can they suggest another option? And if they tell you to go, you go without a fuss.

Some situations just can't work out.

Posted by Darllenwr (# 14520) on :

If it is any consolation, I hit this problem only last Sunday.

I have been part of the regular music group in the various churches I have attended since the mid 1980's, always taking a back seat role where possible. OK, so playing the flute (which is now my main instrument) is hardly back seat, but it doesn't involve words, so no problems arise.

For last Sunday evening's service, our usual front-line singer / guitarist wasn't available. As our electric guitarist doesn't sing, that left me to pick up my (very nice) 12-string acoustic and lead the singing.

The problem line was, "Oh, I feel like dancing." I'm very sorry, I simply don't do dance. So I cannot sing that line. (By the way, I hadn't chosen the song). So, before we launched into it, I explained that all and sundry would have to sing up for that line, because I wasn't about to sing a lie.

Many years, I heard a remark, "Christians don't tell lies, they sing them." Sadly true.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

I suppose all Christians should think about this potential problem before they join choirs or worship bands, especially if their churches are more evangelical than they are.

As someone who has mostly sung traditional hymns in a fairly left of centre church (Methodist) I feel that most people (or just Methodists?) seem much more comfortable singing hymns that they may disagree with than worship songs. I've come across Methodists who've admitted that there are things in traditional hymns they don't agree with, but I've never heard them say that they have to skip a line!

Singing your heritage and maintaining that bond with previous generations of worshippers is more important than agreeing with every word, whereas new music lacks the patina of age, so it's not forgiven so easily. But liberal Christians seem okay with reciting traditional liturgies that they may not completely agree with, so why not just take the same approach with music?

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

The "I"/"We" thing is not as simple as people suppose; it seems to me to a balance that is struck in many congregations between how people are addressed in communications and in worship. Basically,those that use "I" in worship tend to use "We" in communication and visa versa.

It goes with a whole lot of other cultural signals, but it is not as simple as one is individualist and one is communal.

Jengie

Posted by jedijudy (# 333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Darllenwr:
The problem line was, "Oh, I feel like dancing."

You're not the only one. (Look right before the comments.)

Even in the Olde Hymns, there's some hyperbole and metaphor that is hard to ignore.

Posted by Banner Lady (# 10505) on :

Singing truths about God, and to God is tricky - and I have often kept my mouth shut during some phrasing or other, or decided to sing in tongues at that point. I'm sure God understands such conflictions, and after all, I am there to worship, not to quibble.

I really feel for those who are told to lead us sing egocentric rubbish to the One Who is Worthy of all our praises. But I think of David, the psalmist, who poured out a myriad of very human emotions that we often paraphrase in modern worship songs. I certainly have trouble reciting some of the psalms as an offering of praise, so I guess I approach this as a similar spotty gift. After all, there is no perfect worship, just worship that I prefer. I take the whole soiled sheetful of it and leave it on the altar with my desires.

Then I let God sift through it, because as long as my heart was pointed in the right direction, God will receive what WAS worthy.
It certainly wouldn't be the offering of song from me anyway, as I am a lousy singer. My intentions are all I have ever been able to give.

Is that helpful?

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Singing your heritage and maintaining that bond with previous generations of worshippers is more important than agreeing with every word, whereas new music lacks the patina of age, so it's not forgiven so easily. But liberal Christians seem okay with reciting traditional liturgies that they may not completely agree with, so why not just take the same approach with music?

The heritage concept is intriguing.

The other aspect is when a song is about "we" - "we dance for you God" can be "true" even if I don't personally dance, if the group of "we" includes some for whom the concept is true - in body or spirit.

For me, it's harder to sing or say *I* do X when in fact I don't! Not a major issue in the congregation, no one knows if I'm singing along.

Maybe once every two or three years the issue arises in one song one week, like in a church that did an old spiritual that ends with the concept "you have to go thru life alone." I stopped mid phrase in startle at the words. The pastor let the song conclude and then loudly announced "that song is wrong, you are never alone."

New problem arises with a new set of music that comes from outside this church's tradition, chosen by a music committee "to attract younger people" and say they pick songs based on what they like on the radio. Even that would be OK, I've been around CCM on and off - but standing up front leading others *I believe this* feels like *I* am making a public declaration "this is what I personally believe."

I like Lamb Chopped's idea of bouncing it back to music leader - I am willing to do any of the songs on the current list whether I like them or not except for these three that for me troubling lies to say *I*.

I feel committed to keep showing up because he's struggling to firm a group and never knows who if any will show up, but am so uncomfortable with a few of the songs I would feel relieved if told "don't come back." But yes - he, not I, should be deciding if they "need" me on an "all but these 3" basis.

Thanks!

(Or should I bounce it off the clergy person first - "I plan to offer music leader a choice of me without three of the songs or no me - unless you have a better idea"? Sigh, I'm not good at politics.)

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by jedijudy:

quote:
Originally posted by Darllenwr:
The problem line was, "Oh, I feel like dancing."
You're not the only one. (Look right before the comments.)

The main problem with this song, in my limited experience, is that it's sung at churches that don't do dancing! If everyone's standing stiffly to sing every other song, why would they suddenly start dancing for this one?

But as a reserved Salvation Army speaker said at a Pentecostal service I once attended, 'I was dancing on the inside'. Maybe we should sing this song with this thought in mind!

I think we should try not to be too literalist about our hymns and worship music....

Posted by Matthaios (# 17828) on :

Do you feel the same way about the Psalms? Would you only say/sing a Psalm that represented your attitudes and views accurately at that particular moment? (And there is plenty of "I am doing thus and so" and "We feel/believe such and such" that would fit with much of what you've said.) If not (and I'm assuming you do use the Psalms as part of your personal/corporate prayer/worship) then how do you approach them? What I try to do (on better days) is approach a bad lyric the same way I would with an awkward verse in a Psalm: offering it up to God with the rest of the congregation nevertheless, and personally doing the best I can with it. After all, it is not my agreement or feelings that make it "worship." Thank God, because otherwise worship would be basically impossible.

For another thing, I don't want the only songs my church to sing to be whatever the music group agrees with or feels good about, and neither would anyone else benefit if the only songs they sang were the ones I happen to like. Nor would I benefit, for that matter, because it's the disagreements and uncomfortable bits that help me to grow. Of course there's a line to be drawn somewhere, but the Church is a pretty big place with plenty of dodgy theology and unrighteous anger for us all to share.

Posted by The Intrepid Mrs S (# 17002) on :

Not sure if this is helpful, but in our worship group we have the rule that at band practice on Thursday night we can grumble about what we are being asked to sing (whoever is preaching gets to choose the songs, unless our music co-ordinator is able to steer them away from the unsingable).

On Sunday you turn up and you sing whatever it is as if your life depended on it, and with the appropriate expression on your face.

I do know that some of us have issues with things like 'to the ends of the earth we will go' when we have no intention of setting off for Outer Wherever, and it isn't just new stuff: equally I have problems with 'take my silver and my gold, not a mite would I withhold' when that is really an aspiration not a fact. But then again, God knows our heart, and if we have to sing things we can't 100% subscribe to He isn't fooled.

If you really can't make yourself sing it then you have to say so to the worship leader or whoever picks the songs. And really, you know, how many copies were sold is entirely irrelevant - brings us back to the old 'if everyone else jumped off a cliff' argument, doesn't it?

Well, good luck with that one anyway, Belle

Mrs. S, who actually does feel like dancing!

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:

New problem arises with a new set of music that comes from outside this church's tradition, chosen by a music committee "to attract younger people" and say they pick songs based on what they like on the radio. Even that would be OK, I've been around CCM on and off - but standing up front leading others *I believe this* feels like *I* am making a public declaration "this is what I personally believe."

As someone who's loved being in different kinds of choirs, the thought of belonging to a church choir where I could never influence the choice of music seems quite unappealing to me. Perhaps that's why the leader is struggling to get a firm group going!

FWIW, it's potentially problematic if you attract 'young people' by singing songs that don't reflect either the theology or the heritage of your church. One might say you're appealing to them under false pretences. That's something you could mention to your minister and the musical director.

I think the real problem is that your tradition (like most of the traditions represented here, I suspect) is no longer producing 'youth-friendly' songs of its own. But maybe that thought is tangential to this thread.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

I appreciate the comments, and the variety of comments/opinions/experiences because I've never before had reason to think about what are we doing, what does it mean to "lead the congregation in worship" (any kind of worship - prayers, sermons, music, etc).

I have heard (read) some preachers say they preach doctrines they personally think wrong - rapture, subordination of women, Revelation as a timeline - because it's what their congregation demand to hear. Last week I sang "Eye Hath Not Seen" (in a different church) and wondered if I agree with the "therefore fear" part, but I did at one point believe that way so I could relate to it. Sort of a "heritage" concept? The psalms, usually something has happened in my life that I felt somewhat that way that, so I can relate.

A song that says something I have always thought dead wrong, in a non-fiction environment (as opposed to a stage show fiction drama), is a new experience but I was confident not a unique one!

What is community, what is hypocrisy? Are they sometimes different labels for the same thing depending on viewpoint?

Anyway, on a personal level, to come home from rehearsal churning in distress unable to sleep just from the deep irritation I feel from a few of the songs is unhealthy. I need to find a different approach to being in the group, or a different attitude, or drop out, or something.

I was hoping to have a few months to study the genre and then find songs in it to propose as alternatives, instead of just "I don't like this one" but song leader moved up the date of the one song I told him I can't sing and explained why, instead of February it's next week, not enough time for that approach.

New experiences make us grow!

Posted by Banner Lady (# 10505) on :

Belle, as one 19th century song writer put it:

"In your hearts enthrone him,
There let him subdue
All that is not holy
All that is not true"

I can sleep well on that thought.

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :

This thread makes me really appreciate my Quakerism more, generally we worship in silence and we rarely sing - Peace, Perfect Peace!

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Don't involve the pastor. That just dramas up a situation that is firmly in the music leader's area anyway. If the pastor is sufficiently concerned by the outcome--if he even notices it, mine wouldn't notice a cannon going off behind him--he'll say something then.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:

What is community, what is hypocrisy? Are they sometimes different labels for the same thing depending on viewpoint?

This is not about hypocrisy in that sense. The use of "I" in hymns does not mean that they do not see themselves as a community. If you look in the right place there will be "we" aplenty. You can read Noel Heather's research if you do not believe me. The churches he refers to as using "we" are often the very ones who use this sort of hymnody. In other words,they acknowledge they are a community, but the place where that is acknowledged is not in the hymns. Normally you will find this connected with sermons on personal salvation.

If you go to a congregation that uses "we" in worship you will probably find that you are treated far more as an individual and not part of the community outside worship. The church where people come with few attachments to other members and no one talks to a stranger in the congregation often uses "we" in worship.

Jengie

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

It strikes me that there are two issues with songs that invoke the sacred "I".

One is that they are too self-centred - I think that can be true, though there are even old hymns which are very personal. Clearly a balance needs to be struck between these and other, more objective, hymns.

The other issue is whether one can sing them. Within a congregation it is easy just to maintain silence at the difficult built, problem sorted. However in a music group the issue is different, and I wonder if one can put "mental inverted commas" round the phrase or song, and basically think in terms of, "It's not me, I'm just quoting". After all, we would do just that if we were engaging in a public reading of a book where a character says something that we would never accede to. This could be especially useful when the passage in question is actually a Biblical quotation.

I don't think this is hypocrisy - when we lead worship we are doing so as "representatives of the church community" or "facilitators of worship" rather than as individuals. But I do think this needs to be coupled with a chat to the person who chooses the songs as you can't make those reservations for ever!

My wife had a bit of a row with our Choir Master over the carol "Adam lay y-bounden" because she felt that the language inaccurately reflected the Biblical narrative (i.e. there are no apples in it!) "Jesus Christ the apple tree" was not much better (and, in case you think she's apple-phobic, let me tell you that we went to a farm shop yesterday and bought lots of lovely local varieties!)

[ 06. October 2013, 08:11: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

My wife had a bit of a row with our Choir Master over the carol "Adam lay y-bounden" because she felt that the language inaccurately reflected the Biblical narrative (i.e. there are no apples in it!)

But the lyric states it was an apple - and that the world is (at the time) 5,000 and some hundreds years old and Mary is Queen of Heaven. If you are going to object to pieces of writing on the grounds that they contain propositions which are not in line with subsequent advances in human knowledge or scholarship, then one could spend one's days interrupting Hamlet on the grounds that 12th C Denmark wasn't a bit like that.

I presume the difference is that the congregant is supposedly co opting the lyric as an expression of personal conviction. This seems to me overly individualistic. What about 'The song belongs to the tradition/community I identify with. I am giving the current expression of it'?

Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :

Belle,

Does it help to think of it as a sacrifice that you are making in order to facilitate the worship of the whole congregation? As a not very good singer, I can find it distracting if the lead voice suddenly goes quiet, especially if it is a piece I am not familiar with, and that can have an impact on the worship I am offering God.

Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on :

quote:

originally posted by Belle Ringer

What is community, what is hypocrisy?

It depends on whether you are happy that the words resonate with other people there, even if they don't with you. Taking Darllenwr's example, singing that you feel like dancing when you don't, seems to me to be serving by facilitating worship for those who do feel like dancing, and I guess that you'd feel happy to serve them.

Singing that you feel like subjugating women would be different, because not only would those words not be true for you, but you would rather they were not true for the others as well.

Posted by Darllenwr (# 14520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:

It depends on whether you are happy that the words resonate with other people there, even if they don't with you. Taking Darllenwr's example, singing that you feel like dancing when you don't, seems to me to be serving by facilitating worship for those who do feel like dancing, and I guess that you'd feel happy to serve them.

I seem, inadvertently to have started something I didn't quite intend here. [Hot and Hormonal]

I don't do dance - simple enough. My congregation are Anglicans (in South Wales) - IME they don't do dance either. On the other hand, if they want to sing that they feel like dancing, that's fine by me - I just don't happen to feel like it either!

For me to sing "I feel like dancing" would be a simple lie. It may be different for other people, whether they actually dance or not.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Darllenwr:

I don't do dance - simple enough. My congregation are Anglicans (in South Wales) - IME they don't do dance either. On the other hand, if they want to sing that they feel like dancing, that's fine by me - I just don't happen to feel like it either!

Out of interest, why DO they want to sing that song? Isn't there another song that would better express their common heritage, shared spirituality and theology? There are plenty of songs that allow us to sing of God's love.

If a musician at a church I was attending had to tell the congregation in advance that they didn't quite agree with the song they were about to perform, I'd find that a bit off-putting, personally. This isn't a criticism of you, but of the dissonant context. Maybe it's just me.

Posted by ozowen (# 8935) on :

My church sings a lot of Hillsong and similar. It's not that I disagree with the words, often they are so close to meaningless it's hard to disagree with them.
On the other hand I rarely participate in them. I find the use of such mindless drivel- well, a lot like mindless drivel. I have made it very clear what I think and the pastor often jokes about how he has the latest Hillsong CD aside for me.

Posted by Darllenwr (# 14520) on :

Good question! I just play what's put in front of me - I don't choose 'em. As I said, I usually try to take a back-seat role, that of supporting musician. Other people choose the songs.

And, yes, it does jar a bit. Personally, I prefer quieter, more reflective, songs. But my preference is not what is important in these circumstances, is it?

E.T.A. X-post. This was intended as a response to Svitlana.

[ 06. October 2013, 15:45: Message edited by: Darllenwr ]

Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :

I think it's a case of you are there to lead the singing and not to make personal statements of doctrine. Unless it is a heresy then it applies to somebody in chruch somewhere.

It's the same principle with bible readings - you may not want to read St Paul telling women to shut up in church, but if it's the bible reading for the day you just have to do it.

Posted by Pearl B4 Swine (# 11451) on :

One song that I refused to sing is "Are ye able" said the Master, "to be crucified with me". "Yea" (which I assume means yes) the sturdy dreamers answered......etc etc. Rubbish.

Fortunately that was in my far-past youth, and me the adolescent Sunday School pianist.

And in the present more modern times, I hate "Amazing grace" on many levels. Right off the bat you have to sing "...that saved a wretch (or worm) like me". I try to say silently "nah nah nah I can't hear you" until I can finish playing.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Pearl

Ah! I asked on the 'Crappy Choruses' thread if anyone disliked 'Amazing Grace' but noone responded, so it's interesting to read your thoughts now. I think it's one of those hymns that mostly gets a pass.

[ 06. October 2013, 18:30: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :

There is a lot of musical dross in every genre of church music. By and large the older hymns get the more likely it is that the least appealing ones get forgotten (not always I know, it is a generalisation).

For modern music we hare having to work through the dross, maybe in 50 years times many will have gone and we will be left with the best ones.

We just have to grit our teeth and bear it and remember we are providing worship for other peopel and not just worshipping ourselves..

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

For me, it's fascinating to come on the Ship and realise that so many people are attending churches where they're obliged to sing modern music that they dispprove of, for one reason or another.

My concern is with the lack of coherence and authenticity in these situations. I can't see the situation improving in 50 years' time if the mainstream churches continue to rely on the same sources for their music. In fact, it might get worse, because those sources are likely to represent an increasingly large and influential percentage of active Christianity, leaving a small 'mainstream' with less and less of a choice but to be culturally (if not theologically) absorbed.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

I must have missed the question about Amazing Grace: I hate it with a passion.

The words grate and seem to me dubious.

The tune is dull and has had so many different popular recordings made of it that you can guarantee there won't be concurrence about what precise notes constitute the tune in any congregation.

And then it was recorded on bagpipes by the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards which (a) sounded truly dreadful and (b) led the unquestioning to assume it falls into that category known as "Scots traditional".

The horror [Eek!]

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Darllenwr:

quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
Taking Darllenwr's example, singing that you feel like dancing when you don't,

I seem, inadvertently to have started something I didn't quite intend here.

I just thought it a marvelous example of an "untrue" statement on the mild side. Today I sang along with (and mine probably the only voice the congregation heard because the mics or amps weren't working) "I can only imagine" when the list of things imagined about meeting Jesus, my truth is "none of the above." I decided it's harmless if any want to think those ways, or think I agree with the statements, but I can understand someone saying "untrue of me" and declining to sing (especially if just half a line is involved).

Great example quite apart from whether you or someone else said it!

But a different song today embraces the doctrine that caused me to totally reject God a few decades ago. TEC has never that I know of endorsed it, the committee hear the song on the radio and like the tune. For me, it's a potentially soul destroying message (even though some churches aggressively teach it). That raises the stakes.

Posted by blackbeard (# 10848) on :

I don't like "Amazing Grace" but can't go so far as to actually hate it.

"I vow to thee, my country", now. Has no place in a Christian church, in my view, and is not intelligent enough to be patriotic, and moreover is unfair to Holst. Not so much hate as deep loathing. Unfortunately some people seem to want it. If I'm in the choir I just have to swallow hard and put up with it, after all some people presumably find it helpful or they wouldn't have asked for it.

[ 06. October 2013, 19:53: Message edited by: blackbeard ]

Posted by Darllenwr (# 14520) on :

Belle, I can certainly appreciate your dilemma - that is not a position in which I would like to be placed.

It may just be me being fussy, but I find that many more recent songs have far better tunes than they have words. One book that I read suggested that this was the consequence of the cult of the singer/songwriter having taught us that, for a song to be 'authentic', it has to be written by one person alone, words and music both.

Which is a nonsense - very few of the hymns that have survived the test of time (ie, the ones we have in our hymnbooks today) were written by only one person. I find myself wondering just how much of, for example, Graham Kendrick's prodigious output will still be in print in 50 years?

Sadly, (and I confess that I have been guilty of this myself) it is far to easy to be attracted by a decent tune and fail to consider carefully enough what the words are saying. It sounds like this is the position that you have been placed in.

Truthfully, I don't know the answer to your problem. I don't think that you can easily take my approach and simply duck the issue - that approach is for cowards and I don't get the idea that you are one. There has been much sound advice offered above, but eventually it comes down to this, will you be able to live with yourself if you sing something that is really repugnant to you simply to keep other people happy? Tough call, I guess. [Frown]

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

quote:
Originally posted by blackbeard:
I don't like "Amazing Grace" but can't go so far as to actually hate it.

I dislike the tune it is normally set to, but I can't dislike the words, especially the "Through many dangers" verse. The idea that grace will continue to lead through danger as it already has is of great comfort when things get difficult.

Then we get to the tacky wishful thinking of the clumsily added final verse, which was not written by Newton. There should be an eighth circle of Hell for that verse to be cast into, then I wouldn't have to sing it.

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I must have missed the question about Amazing Grace: I hate it with a passion.

The words grate and seem to me dubious.

The tune is dull and has had so many different popular recordings made of it that you can guarantee there won't be concurrence about what precise notes constitute the tune in any congregation.

And then it was recorded on bagpipes by the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards which (a) sounded truly dreadful and (b) led the unquestioning to assume it falls into that category known as "Scots traditional".

The horror

I completely agree with everything you say! Unfortunately, it was our opening hymn this morning.
[Frown]

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

(Sorry for the double post.)

It's not just the modern songs that can cause this problem. I'm happy to say we don't do any of that. But today, we're singing the Psalm like proper Episcopalians, using beautiful Anglican chant, and we come to the final line of the Psalm:

quote:
Happy shall he be who takes your little ones, *
and dashes them against the rock!

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
(Sorry for the double post.)

It's not just the modern songs that can cause this problem. I'm happy to say we don't do any of that. But today, we're singing the Psalm like proper Episcopalians, using beautiful Anglican chant, and we come to the final line of the Psalm:

quote:
Happy shall he be who takes your little ones, *
and dashes them against the rock!

If I remember correctly, the 'little ones' are the sinful thoughts of the Babylonians and are not actual children.

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Don't involve the pastor. That just dramas up a situation that is firmly in the music leader's area anyway. If the pastor is sufficiently concerned by the outcome--if he even notices it, mine wouldn't notice a cannon going off behind him--he'll say something then.

This puzzles me. Surely the minister/ priest/ whatever chooses the music (ideally in discussion with the organist/ worship leader/ etc) because s/he has the ultimate responsibility for whatever happens in the church's worship? That's what I've done in any situation where I've been put in charge, and thought it was common practice.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Don't involve the pastor. That just dramas up a situation that is firmly in the music leader's area anyway. .
This puzzles me. Surely the minister/ priest/ whatever chooses the music

Depends on the church. In some, the music leader is a professional hired to run the music program and make the decisions. In some the clergy pulls out his guitar and leads the singing.

And in some a committee (which may include the clergy as committee member) and the music leader discuss what they would like and can he do it - which can be a friendly discussion, or mutually distressing if they want something he believes impossible - a big choral sound from a 6 person choir; or that he thinks poor music - a classical musician asked for Shine Jesus Shine or a praise band asked for Gregorian chant.

A clergy person who feels ignorant about music, or a committee that judges music solely by "do I like that song," may decide "we need modern worship music to attract youth" without much caring what the words say because the goal is not to express the church's theology but to attract youth.

Which maybe can cause a church to adopt a music genre few in that church actually like? But they put up with it so "maybe more young people will come."

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

To clarify--I wasn't thinking of the choice of music but rather the question of how to deal with a volunteer who has scruples (or other issues) making it impossible for her to sing x percentage of the music -- which I presume has either been played by the pastor or his delegate, who may well be the music director him/herself. If the question is really how can I bring about a change of heart in the music choosers, there are more appropriate ways of doing that. Trying, anyway.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Drag. I meant "okayed" by whomever. Skyrocketed I mean autocorrect blast this thing!

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

I decided last night to tell music leader I'm taking the next two weeks off to handle some urgent personal business - I must give absolute priority to getting my taxes done! And I've been wanting to drive cross country to visit some friends in their 90s, not something I should keep putting off, and good driving season is ending.

That gives me some time to fuss at God and let God work on my attitude or understanding instead of my having to decide "in or out" or "what's a reasonable conditional in" under urgent time pressure because the one song I already told him "no" is suddenly rescheduled for this week.

I would gladly just drop out, but couple weeks ago I was going to skip rehearsal and felt that inner check that I was supposed to go. And one of the bigger pictures is that I have been asking God for a few years what is corporate worship, why is gathering to pray and sing and learn important when I can do those more fully and meaningfully at home.

Being in this group is confronting me with specific questions about what is group worship, what is "leading" an aspect of group worship? Maybe being in this stressful situation is God's way of pulling me into discovering the (probably complex multi-sided) answers.

Which means if I stay in it has to be with my focus on what does God want of me, not what does music director or church committee want of me - including what do I go along with even though I disagree, and when and how and *why* do I say no.

I asked a friend what she would do if leading prayers of the people and one of them she disagreed with. She said that happened once. The prayer asked God to bless the Jews. She added "and the Arabs." Being told to lead an aspect of worship in a way you disagree with really is a broader issue than just music.

Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
(Or should I bounce it off the clergy person first - "I plan to offer music leader a choice of me without three of the songs or no me - unless you have a better idea"? Sigh, I'm not good at politics.)

I agree with Lamb Chopped's response here:

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Don't involve the pastor. That just dramas up a situation that is firmly in the music leader's area anyway. If the pastor is sufficiently concerned by the outcome--if he even notices it, mine wouldn't notice a cannon going off behind him--he'll say something then.

I agree, the pastor is not the appropriate person to referee a personal disagreement with the leadership's chosen decision just over a few song words. The music leader probably has quite enough contact with the pastor in the week to week planning of things.

To go over the worship leader straight to the pastor would be a very aggressive move and (more pragmatically for Belle) one that is unlikely to work if the worship leader has the confidence of the pastor.

quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
This puzzles me. Surely the minister/ priest/ whatever chooses the music (ideally in discussion with the organist/ worship leader/ etc) because s/he has the ultimate responsibility for whatever happens in the church's worship? That's what I've done in any situation where I've been put in charge, and thought it was common practice.

Your experience is your experience. I, and many others, would feel quite uncomfortable with working within a top-down approach like that which sounds way too dictatorial. What happens the week that the pastor is away if the worship leader has not built up the ability and confidence to make the right decisions for themselves?

I prefer a relationship built on trust, where the pastor tells the worship leader of the general theme of the service (especially the sermon) and trusts the worship leader to make some choices (which have to take into account musical issues as well as lyrical ones) and come back to them with a draft running sheet for comment. As newer worship leaders get more experienced at doing their work and trust is built up in both directions, the number of changes that would need to made will dwindle.

The successful working of this method hinges on lots of listening and the agreed decision by both people to think before objecting to what the other has said or making a suggestion that intrudes into the other's area of expertise. When comments are made sparingly it becomes easier for either person to take on board what has been said and evaluate it on merit because they know it wouldn't have been said if it was not actually important.

My experience in this area comes from working in what we kind of call a production role, coordinating communication and administration that leads towards it all being put together ready for the Friday night. I've come to that role through the technical production side of things and I'm not a musician, but all of the worship leaders on the roster will happily consider anything I question or suggest because we've built that trust over the years of serving together and getting to know our respective areas.

Posted by pererin (# 16956) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
I chose the one song I thought absolutely the worst, stated to "worship leader" why I dislike that song and what it's negative effect on me is (makes me want to avoid God). The leader's response was "it has sold millions of copies." The song is newly scheduled for some time this month.

Okay, you've mentioned the issue. You've got the date. Make plans to be elsewhere on that date. Advise the "worship leader" that you will be away. Don't state a reason.

Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :

Replying to Belle with a more general suggestion here. Please don't take this the wrong way, I suggest it purely because I think it might be a good move for you. Here we go…

I think you should consider taking a long term break from being involved in the production of worship services in any form, as an outworking of your question about focusing on what God wants instead of what people at church demand.

You've been posting on here for about five years now, and in that time you've had a lot of threads dominated by discussion of your various battles in the worship wars, whether it be "why can't we do my old favourites" or "I disagree with these lines" or other topics. I'm not going to say who is at fault as there have probably been times where it's been others, times where it's been you, times where it's been mutual and times when it's been nobody's fault but it's come from out of the blue.

The reason I suggest taking a complete break for at least a few months is to take a little time to stop worrying about the worship wars and focus on worship instead, and continuing to do the same weekly grind is not going to help you break that cycle. It's very easy to get jaded and cynical if you are involved in that area on an excessively frequent basis, and if it gets to that point you owe it to both yourself and the rest of the congregation to look after yourself. You don't want to get so tightly wound up that you end up snapping and hurting somebody, that's unhealthy for you even if it's their fault.

Maybe focusing your service to the church on an area other than music for a season would be good?

* I've usually seen that show up as music team members being on so often that when it comes to a week they aren't on the roster they'll just opt out of church completely and stay home.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pererin:

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
I chose the one song I thought absolutely the worst, stated to "worship leader" why I dislike that song and what it's negative effect on me is ... The song is newly scheduled for some time this month.
Okay, you've mentioned the issue. You've got the date. Make plans to be elsewhere on that date. Advise the "worship leader" that you will be away. Don't state a reason.

The "date" is when it is first used, then it will be used every week for a month, then at least once a week for another month, to help the congregation learn it. Can't get around it just skipping one Sunday, alas.

I wasn't thinking of asking the clergy person in the sense of dumping the problem on them for them to fix, but for my learning what the big picture constraints are that I should be aware of before I go to the worship leader. But I know I am not good at politics - in church, on the job, anywhere - so am glad for Lamb Chopped's advice on that.

Posted by pererin (# 16956) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
then it will be used every week for a month,

That seems a good reason not to attend a particular church in itself.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pererin:

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
then it will be used every week for a month,
That seems a good reason not to attend a particular church in itself.

When the goal is to get the congregation to learn a new song so they can sing along (there's no sheet music), the song needs repeating. Some churches repeat by playing the song half a dozen times at once. Others by scheduling the song weekly for a while. I appreciate wanting to help the congregation learn the songs.

Music leader didn't ask for that job; the prior volunteer decided 7 years of it was enough and gave lots of notice, this guy was asked to fill the need, this is the music he likes, people mutter "maybe younger people will come" - but even if I could objectively prove "no one likes this music" (which of course is not true, some people like it) or prove "young people will not come for this music" or "some of this music conflicts with the theology of this church" - what alternative do I propose and who is going to lead that alternative?

Asking someone to take charge of a music program, choose songs, lead rehearsals, be in church absolutely every week to lead the music - free - is a lot. You don't just go find a replacement, and you don't diss the guy who has (somewhat reluctantly I think) agreed to do it.

I'm trying to learn keyboard so I can help out with a music program, like maybe spell a volunteer music leader once a month, but I'm not at all good enough yet.

Open question - what do churches do when their volunteer music leader quits? This is no longer an era when "everyone" learns piano or has a small organ at home or wants to be in church every Sunday plus every Wednesday (for rehearsal) no matter what is going in their life (visiting relatives, etc). There aren't half a dozen people in the congregation who can step up and fill in.

Are congregations learning to sing a capella, or using CD tracks, or increasing the budget to hire a musician, or - ?

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

The part answer is let the person responsible for the service ( the preacher in my tradition) choose the music.

And if you disagree with him/her on an on-going basis then quit.

This business of allowing anyone to choose the music regardless of whether it fits within the overall theme of the service is anathema to me.

Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on :

I refrained from reading the last verse of Psalm 137 yesterday.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Belle Ringer

There were some other pianists, including me, at my old church, but because the organist never allowed anyone else to use their skills while she was there others rarely got into the habit of playing the piano there. So be aware that you may well have pianists in the congregation, but they've never come forward due to lack of encouragement!

If needed we used CDs of traditional hymns. I also bought a backing track DVD of worship songs and I can put a link to the website if you want. I used the DVD for the choir rather than the congregation. Finally, I once attended a church where they simply used percussion if they didn't have a pianist (or a piano).

But if you church has a band then it should be able to manage without a pianist!

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
The part answer is let the person responsible for the service ( the preacher in my tradition) choose the music.

And if you disagree with him/her on an on-going basis then quit.

This business of allowing anyone to choose the music regardless of whether it fits within the overall theme of the service is anathema to me.

Agree.

We have a committee of musicians and ministers plus people in the pew that choose hymns (6 so not a huge group). When i did it myself i became almost hated!

If people keep choosing hymns with dodgy theology, then one has to ask whether this church is right for me.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I suppose all Christians should think about this potential problem before they join choirs or worship bands, especially if their churches are more evangelical than they are.

Why only "more evangelical"?

Can't theologically orthodox Christians have scruples about being asked to sing wishy-washy liberal stuff they don't agree with?

(As for Amazing Grace I love it, words and music - and all you musical snobs can stop whinging about the tune, just because its simple enough that anyone can sing it and not just the posh choirs - and if you don't like "When we've been there ten thousand years" verse (which was tacked on from soemwhere else, probably a highly variant version of Jerusalem, my happy home) then sing the real last verses, they are in the book. Or they ought to be)

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
We have a committee of musicians and ministers plus people in the pew that choose hymns (6 so not a huge group). When i did it myself i became almost hated!

If people keep choosing hymns with dodgy theology, then one has to ask whether this church is right for me.

This church is used to having a paid professional musician with training in church music for the formal service, and for the past 7 years a volunteer who is a music professional for the "informal" service. Other than the snipping and complaints - music leaders put up with a lot of that in churches! - there's been just occasional coordination with clergy who are glad to have an area they don't have to think about other than tell music director general instructions like "baptism next week" or "no Christmas songs until Christmas."

I think having a music committee choose songs/styles, and a music director who has no training in leading music in church (and no formal music training at all) are both new.

If what they know about music is what I know about paintings, comments about music styles or lyrical content seem as boring and irrelevant as I would regard an explanation of why a particular painting does or does not "fit" my living room. Hey, I like it or I don't, period. Add "we hope it will attract the people we want," and they have compelling reason to turn away from anyone suggesting "something needs to change."

Plus, to say "the current music is not right for this church" sounds like "we should terminate all music" because this is the only person they know (or know and trust?) willing to lead the "informal" music. (Not the choir director's job.)

So there are two global issues, and I'm interested in the global not just one specific church - 1) when as leader of a part of the program you are occasionally asked to do or say something you think deeply wrong, and 2) when your music leader moves away and no one volunteers to replace him.

Posted by pererin (# 16956) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Can't theologically orthodox Christians have scruples about being asked to sing wishy-washy liberal stuff they don't agree with?

Which "wishy-washy liberal" hymns so offend the self-proclaimed theologically orthodox?

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I suppose all Christians should think about this potential problem before they join choirs or worship bands, especially if their churches are more evangelical than they are.
Why only "more evangelical"?

Can't theologically orthodox Christians have scruples about being asked to sing wishy-washy liberal stuff they don't agree with?

I'm sure they can, but it seems to be a less frequent problem. Evangelicals are less likely to attend moderate/liberal churches than more moderate Christians are to attend evangelical churches. In fairly moderate churches the music tends to be on the traditional side anyway, so singing the theology is less likely to be a problem for an evangelical, although the style of the music might be.

Anyway, what would you class as 'wishy-washy liberal stuff' that might offend an evangelical Christian? I'd be fascinated to hear about that.

Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :

A Christian sign language interpreter (and yes they were a volunteer) once told me that they have similar issues. How to sign with meaning hymns that they profoundly disagree with.

The answer was, that they had had to realise that they were merely the conduit to others worship, and it was irrelevant what they thought about individual hymns/songs.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
A Christian sign language interpreter (and yes they were a volunteer) once told me that they have similar issues. How to sign with meaning hymns that they profoundly disagree with.

The answer was, that they had had to realise that they were merely the conduit to others worship, and it was irrelevant what they thought about individual hymns/songs.

That's an interesting I hadn't thought about sign language or other interpreters. I suppose a wedding or funeral singer can be asked to sing something peculiar. I guess to me there's a lesser issue if I'm a hired voice, more situationally obvious it's not me proclaiming the ideas expressed but the bride or survivors.

I have a friend who is an actress and there are parts she turns down because she is also a school teacher. Although *she* knows it's the character swearing or stripping naked on stage, her kids would see it as *her* saying or doing those things.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Anyway, what would you class as 'wishy-washy liberal stuff' that might offend an evangelical Christian? I'd be fascinated to hear about that.

You're asking ken, so I suggest the list would start with "Dear Lord and Father of Mankind".

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :

If there’s something in a service that I disagree with on theological grounds, then I simply don’t say it. Same with things that I dislike on the grounds that they’re not my taste. I don’t make a big thing about it as in church life there has to be a degree of give and take.

From what you’ve said, it sounds like they want to add some new songs to the list and are singing them regularly to ensure the congregation learns them thoroughly. Most churches I’ve gone to do this. It’s no biggie.

In the same way, it’s not worth making a big thing about the songs. If you don’t like some of the worship leaders song choices, then tell him that and let him decide how to deal with it. Leading the worship is his responsibility not yours.

My next comment kind of dove-tails with TCG. You are part of the worship group, but you are not the worship leader. How the group runs, whether or not there are enough musicians, what songs are sung are for the worship leader to work out. Not you. The only thing you have to decide is whether you’re willing to accept the worship leader’s choices.

Tubbs

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
I guess to me there's a lesser issue if I'm a hired voice, more situationally obvious it's not me proclaiming the ideas expressed but the bride or survivors.

If you can accept that when you're leading the music on behalf of the bride or survivors, I don't see why it can't also apply to instances when you're leading the music on behalf of a normal Sunday congregation.

I detest many of the children's songs we play at my church (especially some of the dance moves!), but if I'm up on stage with my guitar I'll put just as much enthusiasm into them as I do my favourite songs. And if we're using the CD for the kids song on a particular morning when I'm on stage then I'll join in with the dances as if it's what I was born to do, because as part of the worship team my job is to help the rest of the congregation to worship, which at that point means showing the kids the dance moves.

For me, the first, second and third rules of being a worship leader (of any stripe) should be "It's Not About You". Once you're on that stage/behind that mike/in those choir stalls/in that organ loft it's about setting aside your own preferences and putting in the effort to make the congregation's worship experience the best it can be. It's definitely not about insisting on everything being done according to your preferences regardless of how anyone else in the congregation feels.

Once more with feeling: It's Not About You.

Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :

Thank you Marvin.

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :

quote:
So there are two global issues, and I'm interested in the global not just one specific church - 1) when as leader of a part of the program you are occasionally asked to do or say something you think deeply wrong, and 2) when your music leader moves away and no one volunteers to replace him.

One: How are you defining “deeply wrong”?! Being asked to use your gifts to serve the church in ways you’d really rather not isn’t "deeply wrong". It’s part and parcel of being church. (Which may explain how I got lumbered with organising the harvest lunch). Marvin’s comments are key here – if you can’t or won’t do that in the best way you can, then start asking yourself awkward questions. Particularly if it seems to be a recurring theme. If you’re being asked to do something illegal or immoral, then it’s obvious – a hearty “Bog off!” and a clean pair of heels!

Two: Then you do without and pray for the resources to arrive. Our church is tiny, we have a pianist when she’s able to come as she’s a self employed musician. When she can’t come, we have CDs. You make the best of what you have.

You’re making this way more complicated than it needs to be.

Tubbs

Posted by Darllenwr (# 14520) on :

Marvin:

[Overused]

I'm going to have to do some serious thinking.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

If the people leading prayers, music, giving a sermon or any other expressions should be viewed as not necessarily believing what is coming out of their mouths - that's a whole different understanding of what "church" is than I have ever imagined.

Sounds like we are play-acting "worship"!

I've long known I don't know what formal church is about. Now I really don't know. Truth is irrelevant?

I'll worry about it next week. I need a break from such headspinning ideas.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

It is at least partly about being a collective, rather than an individual. The congregation acts and worships as a unit - given your understanding of faith will always be unique to you and different in some way to even your identical twin, that means worship as a unit must involve some tolerance of difference. Churches have historically tried to define how much you have to have in common to share worship - this is the purpose of a creed.

If you can define your creed, and your church's collective creed - then you can work out which differences you think are worth battling over.

Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :

Belle, you are over simplyfying things and not not critically looking at the different parts of a service

For example there is a difference between the communal parts of the service which are for saying/singing by the whole congregation and the sermon.

For the communal parts it would be impossible for everybody to believe exactly the same thing, at the same time, but even so by and large we all say them. Or the leader will say them on behalf of the whole congregation, even if it is not what they exactly believe.
The leaders role is to provide worship for everybody not just themselves and their particualar views. These parts of the service are much more likely to be structured and to written by people who are not saying them.

Sermons however, are the thoughts of an individual, who is unlikely to say anything s/he doesn’t believe, but even then what they preach should fit with the accepted doctrine of the church. But every member of the congregation listening to the sermon won’t necessarily believe the same things in the same way as the preacher does.

It is about knowing your role and place in worship so it is not a free for all. If we were all to only say the parts we exactly believed in then there would need to be a church for each individual, and we would never use any hymns.....

Posted by Antisocial Alto (# 13810) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
If the people leading prayers, music, giving a sermon or any other expressions should be viewed as not necessarily believing what is coming out of their mouths - that's a whole different understanding of what "church" is than I have ever imagined.

My experience may be colored by hanging around filthy liberal college towns, but many Episcopal church choirs I have known have been pretty well packed with agnostics who enjoy good music. I would be a bit surprised to meet a choir who *did* all believe what was coming out of their mouths.

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
Belle, you are over simplyfying things and not not critically looking at the different parts of a service

For example there is a difference between the communal parts of the service which are for saying/singing by the whole congregation and the sermon.

For the communal parts it would be impossible for everybody to believe exactly the same thing, at the same time, but even so by and large we all say them. Or the leader will say them on behalf of the whole congregation, even if it is not what they exactly believe.
The leaders role is to provide worship for everybody not just themselves and their particualar views. These parts of the service are much more likely to be structured and to written by people who are not saying them.

Sermons however, are the thoughts of an individual, who is unlikely to say anything s/he doesn’t believe, but even then what they preach should fit with the accepted doctrine of the church. But every member of the congregation listening to the sermon won’t necessarily believe the same things in the same way as the preacher does.

It is about knowing your role and place in worship so it is not a free for all. If we were all to only say the parts we exactly believed in then there would need to be a church for each individual, and we would never use any hymns.....

This. The collective parts of the service – hymns, liturgy, creed – are designed to emphasise the common ground that exists within the congregation. Although everyone says those bits together, they’ll interpret them as an individual. And each person will interpret them differently. And that’s fine. Anyone who’s been to a home group will know there are multiple opinions about the meaning of a Bible passage.

The bits done by an individual, like the sermon, are more likely to reflect their personal views. But that has to be held in tension with the need to reflect that there is more than one interpretation, the different teachings of the church, the need to challenge the congregation so they grow spiritually etc. A sermon isn’t the preacher’s personal soap box.

But, ideally, after God, the focus is on serving the congregation. Or as Marvin said, “It’s not about YOU, it’s about THEM”. If you don’t want to sing those songs, then say so. But accept that means you may not be able to be part of that group. Although, tbh, given everything you’ve ever posted about your tastes in church music does make me wonder why you thought that a contemporary worship band would be a good fit for you.

Tubbs

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
If the people leading prayers, music, giving a sermon or any other expressions should be viewed as not necessarily believing what is coming out of their mouths - that's a whole different understanding of what "church" is than I have ever imagined.

Perhaps it is, but I have no insight into your understanding of "church". I can only comment on mine.

And the way I see it anyone leading prayers, singing songs/hymns, reading from the Bible and even arguably preaching the sermon isn't up there as themselves. They are up there as a representative of the congregation, as a focal point for the collective worship. They are not giving a lecture/concert that expounds on their belief to an audience, they are taking the worship the congregation wishes to offer that day and acting to facilitate it for them. Other than where it concerns technical ability it doesn't even matter who the leader is - because it's not about them.

If I was a church singer rather than just guitarist, I would sing whichever songs/hymns the congregation had decided upon for that particular service. Not because I agree with every single word, but because that's what the congregation wants me to do. For me, in this context, that's what servant leadership is all about.

To draw a somewhat clumsy parallell, it's a bit like social care services for less able people. The carer is there to help the person do the things they want to do. The carer is not there to only help the person to do the things the carer agrees with and would freely choose to do themselves. So it is with church musicians - we are there to help the congregation sing the songs/hymns they want to sing, not to only help them sing the songs/hymns we agree with and would freely choose to sing were we in the pews.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

Reminds me of a scene in My Left Foot:

[Christy's nurse won't light his cigarette because it's bad for his health]
Christy Brown: I didn't ask for a fucking psychological lecture. I only asked for a fucking light.

I have to agree with Marvin on this. Everyone has nuances of faith. Maybe some people do believe Jesus is their boyfriend and would like to hear that in song. Some people would rather sing Amazing Grace and cherish the line "that saved a wretch like me". There are people who would like to hear or sing the Stabat Mater; others would think that too foreign and Marion. What to do? If singing music of the wrong theology distresses you, perhaps helping lead worship music isn't your thing.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

I'll agree that you're there to serve the congregation and the church as a whole.

And as Marvin says, you do what you have to. Personally I hate action songs, but for my sins, I ran the pram service for three years as there was no-one else to do it, and I led action songs, lots of them, every week, with enthusiasm and a smile on my face (and no ability to sing). I did edit out a few of the songs on the list and introduced some others, partly to give links to church services like the harvest or Christingle service that I knew quite a few of the children would be attending and a familiar hymn would help.

I refused to lead action songs into the main services as I wasn't on that leadership team and there were other people who really do like action songs, but I was leading different things for adults (weekday morning and occasional Sunday evening prayer, labyrinth, prayer walks, all with no singing or actions whatsoever).

Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :

Belle, I think you are mixing up corporate and private worship, and personal beliefs and corporate Christian doctrine.
If you are responsible for leading worship, then as long as something is a true doctrine of the church, it matters not if it is not a doctrine you like it or don’t like.
Yes you can (and should) argue, if it is heresy, but otherwise if you can’t cope with things you don’t agree with then don’t lead.

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
If you are responsible for leading worship, then as long as something is a true doctrine of the church, it matters not if it is not a doctrine you like it or don’t like.

Which is why I'm fine saying a creed which says we believe when I'd hesitate to say I believe.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Anyway, what would you class as 'wishy-washy liberal stuff' that might offend an evangelical Christian? I'd be fascinated to hear about that.
You're asking ken, so I suggest the list would start with "Dear Lord and Father of Mankind".

I was interested to see that the Seventh Day Adventist hymnbook includes this hymn. I wonder if it's found its way into any Pentecostal hymnbooks.

Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Why only "more evangelical"?

Ken's absolutely right, of course. There could easily be situations where someone is asked to sing something more *catholic* than they were comfortable with.

One Sunday a few weeks ago I filled in playing the organ for our director of music at church as her husband was very ill. Hymns are appointed in advance for the service, but frequently extra music, either hymns or organ/piano only, is needed during distribution of Communion. I decided, as organist [Snigger]

, I would play "Sweet Sacrament Divine" at the end of Communion - it's in our hymn book, but I've never heard it used in our church in the couple of years we've been attending.

I told the choir I'd be playing it, and if they wanted to join in they were welcome to, but if they didn't want to, or didn't agree with the theology, that was fine and I would play it quietly on the organ only. They sang it gutsily, even those I know who do not believe in transubstantiation. So, were they being "professional" or just not thinking about the words?

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

Marvin: Methinks you have got it wrong when you insist that the WL is only representing the congregation and you add "doing what the congregation wishes to do".

Wrong because I bet my last shirt on the fact that nobody asked the congregation in advance of the service what they wished. Somebody "up there" decided on the music etc. and to that extent the content of worship is being imposed.

And, for many, its not a case of agreeing or not with preferences when deciding to what extent to sing out or shut up. Its a question of whether the words are true or not. Example from previous threads "In Christ alone".

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Why only "more evangelical"?
Ken's absolutely right, of course. There could easily be situations where someone is asked to sing something more *catholic* than they were comfortable with.

In the CofE, yes. But you must all be used to that by now.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Why only "more evangelical"?
Ken's absolutely right, of course. There could easily be situations where someone is asked to sing something more *catholic* than they were comfortable with.

One Sunday a few weeks ago I filled in playing the organ for our director of music at church as her husband was very ill. Hymns are appointed in advance for the service, but frequently extra music, either hymns or organ/piano only, is needed during distribution of Communion. I decided, as organist , I would play "Sweet Sacrament Divine" at the end of Communion - it's in our hymn book, but I've never heard it used in our church in the couple of years we've been attending.

I told the choir I'd be playing it, and if they wanted to join in they were welcome to, but if they didn't want to, or didn't agree with the theology, that was fine and I would play it quietly on the organ only. They sang it gutsily, even those I know who do not believe in transubstantiation. So, were they being "professional" or just not thinking about the words?

One of my favourite hymns, though i am not sure than it is about transubstantiation, though the words

quote:
hid in thine earthly home;
lo! round thy lowly shrine,

might suggest it.

Posted by pererin (# 16956) on :

quote:
Originally posted by balaam:

quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
If you are responsible for leading worship, then as long as something is a true doctrine of the church, it matters not if it is not a doctrine you like it or don’t like.
Which is why I'm fine saying a creed which says we believe when I'd hesitate to say I believe.

Which is exactly why the form used in services (yes, even in Greek) has traditionally been the singular. The reversion to the plural form from the conciliar decrees is to my mind unfortunate.

Posted by Graven Image (# 8755) on :

I translate in my head.
Example Say, " The Virgin Mary"

Think, "The name we give to the mother of Jesus."

Meaning, I think Mary was a young women and I do not believe in the Virgin Birth.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Why only "more evangelical"?
Ken's absolutely right, of course. There could easily be situations where someone is asked to sing something more *catholic* than they were comfortable with.
In the CofE, yes. But you must all be used to that by now.

You would be surprised.

Posted by piglet (# 11803) on :

I've been holding off putting my tuppence-worth on to this thread, but reading what others have said, a couple of thoughts have occurred to me:

If you're being asked to sing words that are sufficiently anathema to what you believe (as opposed to just ones you're not wild about*), are you sure you're in the right church (or the right branch of it)?

I'm inclined to agree with Pererin about singular/plural in parts of the service which are said by all (such as the Creed). On the rare occasions when we use the modern, plural version (most of our services are BCP), I say "I believe", as I don't think it's my place to profess the faith of anyone else.

* There's an anthem that comes up a few times a year, the words of which one of my choir colleagues dislikes, but she sings it anyway because she's in the choir. I don't think it's because she thinks it's bad theology, just not very good imagery.

[ 11. October 2013, 01:49: Message edited by: piglet ]

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Anyway, what would you class as 'wishy-washy liberal stuff' that might offend an evangelical Christian? I'd be fascinated to hear about that.
You're asking ken, so I suggest the list would start with "Dear Lord and Father of Mankind".
I was interested to see that the Seventh Day Adventist hymnbook includes this hymn. I wonder if it's found its way into any Pentecostal hymnbooks.

I don't know, but it's in "Songs of Fellowship".

Posted by Carys (# 78) on :

We had Jerusalem at a funeral this week and as verger I sang out despite my reservations about this hymn. Similarly One more step (which I detested by the time I left primary school) at weddings*. Otoh at my old parish I found myself unable to sing Blessed Assurance while in congregation so I didn't. It just wasn't where I was that day. Don't know what I would have done were I in choir when faced with a hymn I couldn't sing in that way.

Carys

*I do wonder who the wedding couples think the you is in that song. Apart from 'old/young' verse could be singing to each other...

Posted by piglet (# 11803) on :

I know a clergyman who refused to have Jerusalem sung because he said that the answer to

quote:
And did those feet in ancient times
Tread upon England's mountains green?

was "No".

Nothing anyone said could persuade him that the whole thing was in the poet's imagination.

For myself, I love it, and I'm not even English. [Smile]

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

quote:
Originally posted by piglet:

For myself, I love it, and I'm not even English.

Me too.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
...Similarly One more step (which I detested by the time I left primary school) at weddings*. ...

Carys

*I do wonder who the wedding couples think the you is in that song. Apart from 'old/young' verse could be singing to each other...

I suspect that's why they want to sing it. More evidence of the way that in our society, when you don't give people a reasonable grounding in at least 'County Council Christianity' (which they may accept or reject, but at least they have) at school, sentimental crap just floods in.

Quite honestly, stalwart supporter of the parochial obligation and of the occasional offices as I am, I sometimes wish that people like that would just take their sickly-sweet primary school hums and their twee readings about rabbits and their flute arrangements of Pachalbel and just fuck off to some garden somewhere where they can gaze lovingly into each others eyes and recite their poxy home-made vows about 'always being there for you', and pretend that marriage is all about being starry eyed and happy forever, and leave the church to people who want to get on with working out how to grapple with the mixture of joys and crap and just keeping-buggering-on that is life*.
So there.

* Though of course some of the people who do all this bunny-wunnykins hello clouds hello sky stuff are actually church people, aren't they? Jeeez [brick wall]

[ 21. October 2013, 08:15: Message edited by: Albertus ]

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Albertus
[Overused]

As for Jerusalem, plain fact is it is NOT a hymn: it is four verses written as an introduction to an epic poem about John Milton. With music by Parry, it is most accurately described as a national song which expresses the hope that, since Jesus did not come to England to establish a new heaven then it is up to Blake and friends to establish the new Sion in blighty.

Along with O Valiant hearts, Jerusalem is not allowed at our shack unless its (a) after the blessing, and (b) something like a memorial service for a member of the Women's Institute.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Jerusalem is one of the School songs. It did then, and still does, bring a catch in my throat and sometimes a tear to my eye. It's a powerful expression of how we have degraded our inheritance and need to remedy the result of those things which we ought not to have done.

I don't say the Filioque. I understand that there are strong arguments for and against it, but there is precious little of those arguments which I can follow. What I do understand is that the addition of the clause to the Nicene Creed has not been approved by an Ecumenical Council of the same authority as that at Nicea. That it does not form part of the Creed as said in the Eastern Rite churches in communion with Rome suggests that it is not a matter of great importance. So I don't say it. Madame does.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

I led a small worship service on Friday, and one of the songs I chose was 'Pass me not, O gentle Saviour'. Realising that some folk might take exception to it, I suggested that if it didn't apply to them and their situation, they could sing it on behalf of someone else. We then said our prayers of intercession.

Posted by Avila (# 15541) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Anyway, what would you class as 'wishy-washy liberal stuff' that might offend an evangelical Christian? I'd be fascinated to hear about that.
You're asking ken, so I suggest the list would start with "Dear Lord and Father of Mankind".
I was interested to see that the Seventh Day Adventist hymnbook includes this hymn. I wonder if it's found its way into any Pentecostal hymnbooks.
I don't know, but it's in "Songs of Fellowship".

Why would it offend?? (other than the mankind bit)
Even reached for my hymnbook to read it through to see if I was not recalling something in later verses, and I can't see anything offensive to evangelical thinking.

Posted by piglet (# 11803) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Avila:
... Why would it offend?? (other than the mankind bit) ...

[slight rant]
Some of us don't find the "mankind" bit offensive - not nearly as offensive as messing about with beautiful poetry.
[/slight rant OFF]

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

One of the recent alterations that drives me mad is in "Lead us heavenly Father, lead us" where they have altered "Lone and dreary, faint and weary" to "Self-denying, death-defying" .

Quite apart from anything else, all the "Death-defying" makes me think of is the chap at the old-fashioned travelling fair who rode his motorcycle around the "Wall of Death".

I suspect its another improvement we can trace back to K***n M****w. [Mad]

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Indeed. And one which actually distances us from the Christ of the hymn.
Though perhaps I am starting to hear the clip-clop of ghostly hooves...

[ 21. October 2013, 20:30: Message edited by: Albertus ]

Posted by Banner Lady (# 10505) on :

This thread makes me give thanks that I am not in any way musical.

So, a perspective from someone who struggles to sing ANYTHING in public worship.

Do I care whether the worship leader is having a good day or a bad day? Only if the WL lets it affect the rest of the team or congregation. Then I begin to wish they would just walk out and leave us to get on with what we want to do: worship.
And yes, I have observed worship leaders screaming at their crew before a service. If that is what your job is doing to you, get out.

Do I care about dodgy song choices? No, because as an honest, thoughtful worshiper I can work around it. I struggle the most in worship when every single hymn played is dirge like. Not much joy for a non-singer who can't hold a note when every note is excruciatingly stretched out.

Do I care whether the music team were highly gifted or professional, moderately competent, satisfyingly organized or in complete sync? No. I care most whether there is joy in their hearts, and willingness in their service. I care about their experience of teamwork with each other, and whether they lead in such a fashion that there is some chance we can all get across the finish line of the last verse together - because it's about all of us, and not about them.

I always have to trust God to take the sound that emanates from me and make it into something pleasing to the divine ear, so I truly don't care about the "excellence" factor.

I have an intrinsic mistrust of musical exhibitions in a worship service. It makes me wonder who I am supposed to be admiring.

I appreciate how hard it is to bring everyone with you when you have to lead a motley crew of volunteers. But I am very very grateful to those who attempt to do this every week. I would seriously hate to be a WL, but I am guessing that if you are called by your community to do this then you work through the mountain of difficulties with grace and gusto.

And less music in a church service would not bother me one bit.
For me it really isn't about the music at all. Never has been, and never will be.

Posted by Avila (# 15541) on :

quote:
Originally posted by piglet:

quote:
Originally posted by Avila:
... Why would it offend?? (other than the mankind bit) ...
[slight rant]
Some of us don't find the "mankind" bit offensive - not nearly as offensive as messing about with beautiful poetry.
[/slight rant OFF]

Neither do I - but I know some who would so trying to avoid that tangent by acknowledging it and get to why people thought the hymn an issue in other ways.

Posted by piglet (# 11803) on :

Quite right, Avila - that would probably be a Whole Nother Thread™ - possibly even a Whole Nother Board ...

[Big Grin]

eta: I've just had a look at the words and I don't see anything that could cause offence if you use a wee bit of imagination.

[ 22. October 2013, 15:50: Message edited by: piglet ]

Posted by Carys (# 78) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
One of the recent alterations that drives me mad is in "Lead us heavenly Father, lead us" where they have altered "Lone and dreary, faint and weary" to "Self-denying, death-defying" .

Quite apart from anything else, all the "Death-defying" makes me think of is the chap at the old-fashioned travelling fair who rode his motorcycle around the "Wall of Death".

I suspect its another improvement we can trace back to K***n M****w.

Oddly not - it's in the NEH which surprises me but I think predates KM as it's mid 80s. I'm with you on death-defying

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I suppose all Christians should think about this potential problem before they join choirs or worship bands, especially if their churches are more evangelical than they are.

It can work the other way, too. I used to sing in a choir that did a lot of Catholic music, including devotional music to the Virgin Mary, some of which to my mind was complete bollocks (begging your pardon anyone who might be offended by that). Beautiful stuff, though.

At the time I shared a house with an evangelical who was totally shocked that I could bring myself to sing such unscriptural blasphemy; and as a musician herself made it clear she would've left the choir - a secular choir - had she been expected to sing the pieces. Didn't bother me in the least.

Posted by Beethoven (# 114) on :

The only hymn I have a real problem with is 'I vow to thee my country' - and even then, only the first verse. Total hypocrisy as I feel no such loyalty to my country, and indeed would prefer to live elsewhere if only Mr Beets were amenable to such a move! [Biased]

For a few years while the Opuses were small, I got out of it by 'being occupied' with one of them. Now they're a bit bigger and in the choir with me, it's trickier - especially since in our church there's usually a row of ex-servicemen standing in front of the choir stalls for the service. I can't help feeling that omitting one verse, and resuming singing for the next would risk coming across as unnecessarily pointed.

My view is that I simply have to suck it up for a few seconds. God knows that this verse doesn't reflect my feelings *at all*, but I'm sure he also understands that I'm trying to take the route that will cause the least offense and upset. After all, why are my feelings more important than those of (the hundred or so) someone(s) who have actually given that 'service of love' to their country?

I don't think it is quite as simple as 'if you're leading worship that's all you're doing; your own personal worship has to happen at another time'. Certainly for me, taking part in the music is an important part of my worship. But there are responsibilities that go with the leadership bit, and having to put up with something that I know isn't an accurate reflection of me is an inevitable consequence occasionally. (I can't count the number of times I've been holding back tears of frustration about the Opuses' behaviour while musically proclaiming my joy!) I can't believe that anyone in the congregation would think that I wholeheartedly believe and agree with every single word that I've ever said or sung, any more that I'd expect they do...

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I suppose all Christians should think about this potential problem before they join choirs or worship bands, especially if their churches are more evangelical than they are.

It can work the other way, too. I used to sing in a choir that did a lot of Catholic music, including devotional music to the Virgin Mary, some of which to my mind was complete bollocks (begging your pardon anyone who might be offended by that). Beautiful stuff, though.

At the time I shared a house with an evangelical who was totally shocked that I could bring myself to sing such unscriptural blasphemy; and as a musician herself made it clear she would've left the choir - a secular choir - had she been expected to sing the pieces. Didn't bother me in the least.

One of my previous churches had an excellent choir who regularly sang traditional choral music. There were regular smack downs between the musical director and a few of the congregation. The musical director sometimes selected stuff in Latin or that referenced the Virgin Mary – on the grounds that if you didn’t, there wasn’t much good stuff left. Some of the congregation felt this was not on. People had become Baptists to get away from this sort of thing.

After numerous ear bashings, the Minister’s suggested compromise was that the choir sang what they liked and details would be included on the monthly newssheet. Those who hated Latin and references to the Blessed Virgin could give the morning service a miss that week and come to the evening one instead.

Tubbs

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

Sometimes it's not just the words you object to as a member of a choir or other musical group - I felt very uncomfortable when asked to join a group which was regularly used to crank up the emotional highs of the congregation. Obviously the very emotive words were part of that, but also the way the music was manipulated. I chose not to join.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
I used to sing in a choir that did a lot of Catholic music, including devotional music to the Virgin Mary, some of which to my mind was complete bollocks (begging your pardon anyone who might be offended by that). Beautiful stuff, though.

At the time I shared a house with an evangelical who was totally shocked that I could bring myself to sing such unscriptural blasphemy; and as a musician herself made it clear she would've left the choir - a secular choir - had she been expected to sing the pieces.

Strangely enough, I wouldn't have any trouble singing more or less anything in a secular choir - at the end of the day it is just a musical performance. In fact it's just like an Actor playing the part of a Murderer - s/he is not saying "This is me".

It's harder in a church choir as this is leading worship where theological content is important. I think Tubbs' solution is as pretty good as it gets! (Might one naughtily suggest that theological orthodoxy might be more important to Baptists than some other traditions? [Devil]

)

[ 24. October 2013, 16:43: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by piglet (# 11803) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
... stuff in Latin or that referenced the Virgin Mary ...

My husband, who's been an organist/choirmaster in the churches of England, Scotland, Ireland and Canada, always chuckles at people in the more Protestant/evangelical wings of the Church, who would be horrified at the choir singing in Latin or anything remotely Marian, but who ask for Gounod's Ave Maria to be played on the organ at weddings and funerals.

It's apparently OK as long as it's just the tune ... [Devil]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by piglet:

quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
... stuff in Latin or that referenced the Virgin Mary ...
My husband, who's been an organist/choirmaster in the churches of England, Scotland, Ireland and Canada, always chuckles at people in the more Protestant/evangelical wings of the Church, who would be horrified at the choir singing in Latin or anything remotely Marian, but who ask for Gounod's Ave Maria to be played on the organ at weddings and funerals.

It's apparently OK as long as it's just the tune ...

Why should the (Anglo-)Catholics have all the best tunes??
[Biased]

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

And in any case, Gounod didn't write what is fondly referred to as HIS Ave Maria - what he did was write a counter-melody to the first of the Preludes from the 48 by J S Bach.

Posted by piglet (# 11803) on :

Quite right, L'Organist - I should have said "Bach/Gounod".

[Hot and Hormonal]

Posted by daisydaisy (# 12167) on :

The hymns / songs that I struggle with are those where I cannot fathom what on earth they are saying - this applies to some written in Ancient English as well as some modern ones.

But this morning we were all struggling - on a day when the choir were on holiday, all but one of the hymns were ones that only the organist seemed to know, with not particularly catchy tunes. In my attempt to catch the tunes I didn't get much of what the hymns were actually about.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Poor you daisydaisy

Today being Bible Sunday you should have had at least two well-known hymns - for example Thou whose almighty Word and/or We have a Gospel to proclaim - I assume you'd be OK with those?

Well, we had them at my place anyway. Those of a more reformed tendency might put in Luther's A safe stronghold or similar but other than that?

In your organist's defence however, I know from experience its perfectly possible to put down the same hymn for a particular Sunday for 6+ years and still be greeted with "What was the hymn at X, we've never done it here/we don't know it" - even from the choir who will have been rehearsed [Eek!]

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
It's perfectly possible to put down the same hymn for a particular Sunday for 6+ years and still be greeted with "What was the hymn at X, we've never done it here/we don't know it" - even from the choir who will have been rehearsed.

So that doesn't just happen in our church, then? [Smile]

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

Really L'Organist there are plenty of hymns about the Bible

"Tell me the stories of Jesus"
"There is a book whose runs may read"
"God has given a book full of stories"
"God whose Almighty Word"
"Thy Word O God has guided"

That is five minutes work by me on hymns and Bible. I expect Baptist Trainfan and Gracious Rebel could add to that list with ease.

Jengie

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Really L'Organist there are plenty of hymns about the Bible

"Tell me the stories of Jesus"
"There is a book whose runs may read"
"God has given a book full of stories"
"God whose Almighty Word"
"Thy Word O God has guided"

That is five minutes work by me on hymns and Bible. I expect Baptist Trainfan and Gracious Rebel could add to that list with ease.

Jengie

Depends on your tradition, location and what hymn book you’re using. [Biased]

Having looked up the ones on your list to double check, they’re definitely not ones I’ve sung on a regular basis in any of the (Baptist) churches I’ve attended.

Tubbs

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

JengieJon

I was not giving a list of hymns that refer to the Bible, I gave 2 that should be particularly well-known.

Like you own list: one of those you list is the same as mine, with a slightly altered first line.

Had it been 30 years ago I'd have included Spread, O spread thou mighty word, I love to hear the story and I think, when I read - as Tubbs says, it depends on your tradition, what books you use, etc.

I wasn't trying to advise with a comprehensive list of material for Bible Sunday, I was commiserating with daisydaisy on having hymns that no one knew and that seemed particularly impenetrable as to theme or message.

Posted by daisydaisy (# 12167) on :

Thank you l'o - to be honest I couldn't remember if these hymns were about the bible - our theme for the morning didn't celebrate Bible Sunday instead it was about healing.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

Just an update on the original specific dilemma.

As of 5 pm today we have a new song leader, hastily recruited. Clergy wants some "we" songs of community worship in the mix, song leader said absolutely not, only "I" songs are true worship. Neither side yielded. So he's out.

Sometimes when music leadership changes, music group members disappear, so I responded to the email with a group email expressing appreciation for the departing leader and looking forward to working with the new one. Clergy person thanked me, started fussing about specific unacceptable songs - same ones that specifically bugged me. I'm on the same wavelength as a church leader? - world must be ending! Anyway, my specific crisis has evaporated.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

Splendid. And on that note of happy resolution...

Firenze
AS Host

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0