Would you leave your church over a change in worship style

[Hoggirl]

Our church has offered both traditional and contemporary worship style services for ten years. In August we will be going to one style of worship service. It is *allegedly* going to not be blended but rather be a *new* style of worship with lots of congregational singing (from a new worship songbook) and a trio consisting of piano, standup base, and some sort of percussion. On the Sunday the change was announced, a jazz combo was playing. Except for a lovely version of "I'll Fly Away," everything else (including the communion music) sounded like I was on Bourbon Street without the bourbon.

 

We have preferred the contemporary worship format which has previously been held in a rented school auditorium right down the street from our sanctuary. We will now all be on one campus (a good thing, I think) and will have two worship services both of which will be identical. Our frustration is with the lack of choice. The contemporary service will end in June and the new format will start in August.

 

A group of us has gotten together and a spokesperson has spoken with the pastor about offering two services, but one of them remaining contemporary. The response was, "the plan is the plan." After a few meetings and informal discussion with members of the committee who decided to implement these changes, we have come to the conclusion that the plan is the plan and will not change - regardless of numbers of people expressing discontent. Our unscientific survey has indicated that many people are not happy with the proposed changes. Our next "move" will be to suggest a contemporary service to be offered at a non-competing time, such as early Saturday evenings. If this is refused, we are not sure what our family will do.

 

While we understand the idea of giving the new format a chance, unfortunately there is a long history of mistrust between the music director and those who have run the contemporary worship service. The music director never wanted the contemporary service to happen and suggested a jazz trio ten years ago when it started! The challenge we will feel is sort of akin to "possession is 9/10s of the law," and we feel like if a course reversal doesn't happen now, it would be extremely difficult to get it back.

 

Our feelings are that people are "spiritually fed" with different styles of worship, and that, as a society, people are used to choices.

 

I don't really know what I am asking. How would this make you feel? If you couldn't worship in a style that "spoke" to you, would you leave your church? BTW, we are the only denomination of this church in town, so they pretty much have a monopoly.

[bookfiend]

Sadly, worship music wars have split many a church.

[Rhonda in TX]

So they are dropping contemporary AND traditional and going with a different "jazzy" style? That's a new one to me.

 

I would probably think about leaving, if only because the church leadership is not listening to the members at all. That's not a good sign.

 

I'm sorry you're going through this.

[Jean in Newcastle]

Are you being spiritual fed and challenged by the preaching? That would be number 1 priority for me.

[Twigs]

So they are dropping contemporary AND traditional and going with a different "jazzy" style? That's a new one to me.

 

I would probably think about leaving, if only because the church leadership is not listening to the members at all. That's not a good sign.

 

I'm sorry you're going through this.

:iagree:

 

Is it possible to start another church of the same denomination?

 

:grouphug:

Best wishes

[Lawana]

In short, yes I would. In my case, I very strongly prefer a traditional style, and would change churches in order to attend a traditional service.

[Mimmy]

I would give it a try for a month and see how my family was doing. Then I would look at the other options in the area and make a decision.

[rwjx2khsmj]

I'd wait and see. It seems that until you experience the new service you won't really know if you like it or not. You might be surprised to find that you find it worshipful and can attend with joy. You might also find that you find it irritating and distracting.

 

My grandmother would tell you not to cross that bridge until you come to it and then, don't EVER burn it behind you.

[Lacie]

Yes I would leave a congregation over worship changes. I believe that the way we should worship is laid out in the Bible and it should be followed.

[tristangrace]

No.

[GWOB]

I would not leave a church because of a change in worship style.

 

I would leave a church if the ptb refused to listen to a large segment of the congregation.

Edited March 4, 2012 by wendilouwho
Typing on a phone

[Ibbygirl]

Are you being spiritual fed and challenged by the preaching? That would be number 1 priority for me.

 

:iagree::iagree: what Jean said. To me sound doctrine and teaching is much more important to me than worship. I appreciate the worship, but it isn't a deal breaker for me in any church I've been to. I do my own worship at home (and in my car) all the time so it's really not a big deal to me. OTOH I cannot say the same for preaching. I don't preach to myself and even if I did I don't think I'd be as good as my pastor. :p

[Dustybug]

In short, yes I would. In my case, I very strongly prefer a traditional style, and would change churches in order to attend a traditional service.

 

:iagree:I love contemporary Christian music(and other genres of Christian music), but when I'm in church, I want the more traditional feel. It would be entirely too distracting for me.

[NotAVampireLvr]

I would not leave a church because of a change in worship style.

 

I would leave a church is the ptb refused to listen to a large segment of the congregation.

 

 

:iagree:

 

Our church has a nice blend of contemporary and traditional music. Add in top notch preaching and we have a perfect church. I probably wouldn't leave if we went all out contemporary or traditional (but sorry I draw the line at jazz- I sing on the worship team and that would throw me over the edge!l) I would however be very upset if a number of people were bothered by it and nobody listened to their concerns. That is very problematic.

[brett_ashley]

No. It's just music. Maturity in my faith means I worship in response to who God is, not who is leading the songs. If you aren't "spiritually fed" by this music, you are perfectly capable of feeding yourself. Get an iPod.

 

Also, your "unscientific survey" is probably seen as divisive at best.

 

Hugs! I know what it's like to sing songs in a style I don't like. It's a true sacrifice of praise!

[AimeeM]

I would leave.

Worship style is very important to me and a matter of comfort. If I no longer felt comfortable worshipping in a church, I would leave and find another.

[NASDAQ]

Jewish, so take it for what it`s worth.

 

I would absolutely not leave my shul because the services were using a different style than I was used to, as long as that style was some variation of Orthodox (i.e. religiously correct).

 

My husband is on the board at shul. It is literally impossible to make all the people happy all the time. No matter what you do in a large synagogue or church, a significant portion of the membership will object to any change.

 

Running two services is a huge increase in the amount of work. It`s not unreasonable for a church to feel unable to do that.

 

I also don`t think that the purpose of a worship service is to make me feel a certain way.

[jenL]

I would probably think about leaving, if only because the church leadership is not listening to the members at all. That's not a good sign.

 

 

:iagree: This is the bigger issue for me since it's not affecting just a few, but rather a large group of members, and the church leaders are not listening to the body that is sustaining them. For dh and I that is a huge concern.

 

However, I would first give the new format a try for a month or so IF I had been consistently fed by the teachings prior to this. Worship music is crucial to me as part of the entire experience, so I completely understand where your concerns are originating, and this transition would be difficult for me. I would give it a chance though because God has bigger plans, that the church body may not be aware of. I'm sorry you are experiencing this.

[Melinda in VT]

Maybe. The worship style heavily influences my choice of a church, but if my church changed I would give the new style a chance.

 

I was surprised to hear that you attend the contemporary service and were upset by the change. In my mind the jazz service would be a lot closer in feel to the contemporary service than to the traditional service.

 

But I don't care for contemporary worship services, so I probably have a skewed few.

 

:grouphug: I'm sorry your church is struggling with this.

[AK_Mom4]

Yes, I would leave. I'm sorry to say that, because I think church should be all about God, but I just could not sit thru an hour and a half with music that I abhorred. We have two services without music on Sunday, one service with traditional organ and choir, and one service with banjo-heavy twanging. In summer, the choir alternates Sundays with the banjo-twangers, but they don't publish which group is going to be there - and so I just don't go to church most of the summer.

 

If I were you, I would give it a try, but it the music was ghastly, I would start hunting for another church.

[Crimson Wife]

Yes, assuming that I didn't have to leave the denomination entirely but could find another congregation somewhere else with my preferred style of service.

[T'smom]

I would not.

[Heather in Neverland]

Are you being spiritual fed and challenged by the preaching? That would be number 1 priority for me.

 

:iagree:

[milovany]

Well, our church's worship style hasn't changed for 1600 years, lol, so take that in to consideration as I answer. Can you give the changes a go to see what you think? Give it 2-3 months to see if you can live with it? A commitment to the people in the church is nothing to be sneezed at, but in the end, if you're just irritated the entire time you're there (or you start out irritated because of the music, and have a hard time getting over it for the rest of the time), yes, I'd say it's worth considering finding a new church. In our church, it's music from start to finish (except for a pretty brief teaching in the middle), so it would be a big deal if it changed.

 

If you want a style that I can pretty much guarantee won't change any time soon (except maybe from Byzantine to Russian chant, or something minor like that), come visit an Orthodox church. ;)

Edited March 5, 2012 by milovaný

[raceNzanesmom]

No. I would try to be open to the new style with lots of prayer about it. If discussion is needed I'd take it to the leaders, no gossip or backbiting.

 

If, after a generous amount of time, I still felt like I needed to leave I would have to do some serious praying and speaking directly with my pastor.

 

But, I'm one to believe a person should only leave a church when God calls you away, not because the flesh isn't happy.

[susankenny]

I'm not sure if I'd leave. I prefer contemporary, and I suppose if we went full-blown traditional, I would probably find a new church home. That may sound shallow, but I'm just being honest.

 

In your shoes, I would either leave or give it a try. But definitely don't stay and gripe or whine. Honestly, they are expecting people to leave over the music change. It will drive some people away and draw some new people in, so it will all even out in the end anyway.

 

 

Susan

[6packofun]

I'm not a fan of jazzy style music, but that wouldn't be the deciding factor if all other aspects of the worship service and teaching were up to standard. I think what might make me consider leaving is if ALL the songs are along the lines of I'll Fly Away, quite honestly. Not a terrible song, but for worship I want a theologically rich and beautiful selection. That doesn't do it for me AT ALL.

[In the Rain]

I would not leave a church because of a change in worship style.

 

I would leave a church if the ptb refused to listen to a large segment of the congregation.

 

:iagree:

[Heatherwith4]

No, that wouldn't be a good reason for *me* to leave.

[Starr]

It's interesting that so many people say they wouldn't leave. I think given the circumstances and if they felt like you do about the music style most would leave given other good options.

[AuntieM]

I would be most frustrated that my (and a numbers of others') concerns were going pretty much ignored.

 

I would give the new style a try, especially if I were satisfied that the preaching is sound and will continue to be so. However, if I found the worship set me on edge to the point that I couldn't focus on the message, I'd have to make a change.

 

Many people - ime, especially those raised in the church - don't understand why others have problems with certain styles. Music is very emotive and can zap a person, mentally, back to a previous time and place. For me, who became a believer as an adult after a party filled youth, a rock-band style can take me right back to dance club days. I think avoiding those kind of flashbacks (happening every service) are reason enough to consider changing churches.

Edited March 5, 2012 by AuntieM

[Mommyof4ks]

I would wait and see. Honestly, as long as I felt like God wanted me at that church I would stay. Sometimes God uses change to grow and stretch us. We attend a big church, and so we undergo change regularly as we grow and change as a body. The important thing is that sound doctrine is being preached.

[MindyD]

No, I wouldn't. My dad is a pastor, and we've been very involved in church leadership for years just to give you my background. There's no way everyone is going to be happy. As someone else said, church is about God. The ultimate goal is not about making me comfortable or happy. It's about worshiping God. The church that we're at now does not follow the type of worship style that I prefer. The thing is, it's my preference. I can still worship to it even if things get too loud for me or they want us to clap even though I'm not a clapper. :tongue_smilie:

I also think that asking can be divisive. It depends on how you're asking. Are you saying "What do you think of the changes coming up in a few months?" (in a nice, curious tone) or are you saying "Can you believe the changes? (in a disgruntled tone).

Finally, think about all the work that goes into making 2 different services. The music minister has to plan two services. Two sets of songs, two sets of practices for the services. Maybe 2 different groups of musicians to play the different songs for different services. That's A LOT of planning and coordinating. I don't blame them for condensing things into one style over multiple services. Your music minister has been called to be a part of leading your church, and if this is the way he thinks he can best serve, I'd follow him with those changes. JMHO.

[Hoggirl]

I would probably think about leaving, if only because the church leadership is not listening to the members at all. That's not a good sign.

 

 

This is the struggle we (and others are having). We are not trying to be subversive or backbiting. We have a group of friends from our church who are very close. We are collectively unhappy and had one of the men go and speak with the pastor. The "message" he received is that they know a lot of people are unhappy, but that it will be a wash. As another poster said, they know they will lose some folks but others will come in. The total lack of regard for the 125 - 150 people per week who attend the contemporary service and the attitude that we are some sort of an interchangeable commodity is most bothersome to me. The whole initiative seems to be set on growing our numbers, even at the expense of current members. I have nothing against trying to reach the unchurched, but is there not some sort of obligation to minister to those who are already filling your pews? The contemporary worship service has not been growing, but a big challenge has always been the child care situation. The pagers issued by the nursery will not work all the way down the street to the school auditorium, so many young couples with small children attend the (as of now) concurrently running traditional service held in the sanctuary where the pagers do work. Whether these folks would choose contemporary if they could is an unknown. We (and many others beyond our group of close friends) feel if there are going to be two services we should continue to offer a choice.

 

I think there could be as many as 30 families who attend who contemporary who will leave. Once the service gets going, I predict many of the hard-line traditionalists will leave as well.

 

I fear that heels are dug in and nothing will change. But, we are trying to understand the rationale and make our feelings known as best we can as respectfully as we can.

 

ETA: I do appreciate all the points of view. This post sounds like I am trying to have everyone JAWM. I am not. I am trying to work through this both rationally, and spiritually and I am thankful to have a place to get some opinions from folks not currently caught up in the situation.

Edited March 5, 2012 by Hoggirl

[mytwomonkeys]

with the issues you described, it sounds like your church has much bigger problems than just the style of music unfortunately. there is mistrust with the music minister already and obviously some identity issues taking place. i imagine if you leave, it may be for more reasons than the switch to bourbon street music. sorry you're going through that:grouphug:

[Hoggirl]

No, I wouldn't. My dad is a pastor, and we've been very involved in church leadership for years just to give you my background. There's no way everyone is going to be happy. As someone else said, church is about God. The ultimate goal is not about making me comfortable or happy. It's about worshiping God. The church that we're at now does not follow the type of worship style that I prefer. The thing is, it's my preference. I can still worship to it even if things get too loud for me or they want us to clap even though I'm not a clapper. :tongue_smilie:

I also think that asking can be divisive. It depends on how you're asking. Are you saying "What do you think of the changes coming up in a few months?" (in a nice, curious tone) or are you saying "Can you believe the changes? (in a disgruntled tone).

Finally, think about all the work that goes into making 2 different services. The music minister has to plan two services. Two sets of songs, two sets of practices for the services. Maybe 2 different groups of musicians to play the different songs for different services. That's A LOT of planning and coordinating. I don't blame them for condensing things into one style over multiple services. Your music minister has been called to be a part of leading your church, and if this is the way he thinks he can best serve, I'd follow him with those changes. JMHO.

 

I would agree with you about the two services; however, the music minister has NEVER had to plan two services. He neither plans nor runs rehearsals for contemporary. In fact, he has never sat through an entire contemporary worship service. He never wanted it in the first place. Initially, the entire service was done solely on a volunteer basis. After a couple of years, a professional keyboardist was hired, and eventually pay (low!) was received by the praise band leader. One of the reasons he was against the service initially was his expressed concern that volunteer musicians would not last. Many have been in the praise band the entire ten years, arriving at 6:30 a.m. on Sundays to set up and rehearse prior to the service. Sorry. I am getting worked up here!!! Not trying to sound horrible. I think the operative word in your above statement is that he is part of leading our church. Sadly, I think the ministers have deferred to his sole wishes. Part of the idea is that the praise band singers will be absorbed into the choir. We have to pay some community college kids to get enough folks in the choir loft.

 

And, to your point, we are trying diligently to ask in just a curious way. Now, among ourselves we are certainly acting disgruntled. But in our unscientific research we have just been trying to feel things out.

[petepie2]

I would agree with you about the two services; however, the music minister has NEVER had to plan two services. He neither plans nor runs rehearsals for contemporary. In fact, he has never sat through an entire contemporary worship service. He never wanted it in the first place. Initially, the entire service was done solely on a volunteer basis. After a couple of years, a professional keyboardist was hired, and eventually pay (low!) was received by the praise band leader. One of the reasons he was against the service initially was his expressed concern that volunteer musicians would not last. Many have been in the praise band the entire ten years, arriving at 6:30 a.m. on Sundays to set up and rehearse prior to the service. Sorry. I am getting worked up here!!! Not trying to sound horrible. I think the operative word in your above statement is that he is part of leading our church. Sadly, I think the ministers have deferred to his sole wishes. Part of the idea is that the praise band singers will be absorbed into the choir. We have to pay some community college kids to get enough folks in the choir loft.

 

And, to your point, we are trying diligently to ask in just a curious way. Now, among ourselves we are certainly acting disgruntled. But in our unscientific research we have just been trying to feel things out.

 

What?? (to the bolded part) I don't understand. The church pays people to fill up the choir?

[Ibbygirl]

It's interesting that so many people say they wouldn't leave. I think given the circumstances and if they felt like you do about the music style most would leave given other good options.

 

I'm one who wouldn't leave over the worship because honestly, I have better worship singing hymns at home during my personal devotions than I do at church. The most important thing for me is the teaching not the music. Some pastors are better preachers than others and if I had a good teaching with a good preacher who had a gift for teaching The Word that allowed me to grow spiritually, no way would I give that up for music. Like I said before, worship is important, but can be done well at home as well, I can't preach to myself, kwim?

[TranquilMind]

Are you being spiritual fed and challenged by the preaching? That would be number 1 priority for me.

Absolutely agree. I would certainly give things a chance. I wouldn't want to be that person who leaves because the music doesn't suit me. It would have to be much, much, much more than that on very important - probably doctrinal or safety - issues.

[GWOB]

This is the struggle we (and others are having). We are not trying to be subversive or backbiting. We have a group of friends from our church who are very close. We are collectively unhappy and had one of the men go and speak with the pastor. The "message" he received is that they know a lot of people are unhappy, but that it will be a wash. As another poster said, they know they will lose some folks but others will come in. The total lack of regard for the 125 - 150 people per week who attend the contemporary service and the attitude that we are some sort of an interchangeable commodity is most bothersome to me. The whole initiative seems to be set on growing our numbers, even at the expense of current members. I have nothing against trying to reach the unchurched, but is there not some sort of obligation to minister to those who are already filling your pews? The contemporary worship service has not been growing, but a big challenge has always been the child care situation. The pagers issued by the nursery will not work all the way down the street to the school auditorium, so many young couples with small children attend the (as of now) concurrently running traditional service held in the sanctuary where the pagers do work. Whether these folks would choose contemporary if they could is an unknown. We (and many others beyond our group of close friends) feel if there are going to be two services we should continue to offer a choice.

 

I think there could be as many as 30 families who attend who contemporary who will leave. Once the service gets going, I predict many of the hard-line traditionalists will leave as well.

 

I fear that heels are dug in and nothing will change. But, we are trying to understand the rationale and make our feelings known as best we can as respectfully as we can.

 

ETA: I do appreciate all the points of view. This post sounds like I am trying to have everyone JAWM. I am not. I am trying to work through this both rationally, and spiritually and I am thankful to have a place to get some opinions from folks not currently caught up in the situation.

 

See, this would really irritate me. It's not the fact that they're changing things. It's the fact that they are ignoring a large segment of the congregation. That would have me out the door.

 

:grouphug: This sounds like a crappy situation. Sorry you have to deal with this.

[Carol in Cal.]

I would think about it. I would wait and see, but I would be unhappy.

 

However, I come at this from a different POV.

 

I would not have wanted the contemporary service in the first place. I would have wanted a traditional liturgical service, well done, informed by the catholicity of the Church and perhaps offered at two different times. To have two different service styles results usually in essentially having two congregations, and also I believe that congregations should worship in the same ways as others in the denomination so that moving around is easy and you fit right in, and so that there is continuity over the decades and centuries.

 

I do believe that vernacular worship is essential, but I also believe that good and appropriate worship is, properly, timeless.

[Ibbygirl]

This is the struggle we (and others are having). We are not trying to be subversive or backbiting. We have a group of friends from our church who are very close. We are collectively unhappy and had one of the men go and speak with the pastor. The "message" he received is that they know a lot of people are unhappy, but that it will be a wash. As another poster said, they know they will lose some folks but others will come in. The total lack of regard for the 125 - 150 people per week who attend the contemporary service and the attitude that we are some sort of an interchangeable commodity is most bothersome to me. The whole initiative seems to be set on growing our numbers, even at the expense of current members. I have nothing against trying to reach the unchurched, but is there not some sort of obligation to minister to those who are already filling your pews? The contemporary worship service has not been growing, but a big challenge has always been the child care situation. The pagers issued by the nursery will not work all the way down the street to the school auditorium, so many young couples with small children attend the (as of now) concurrently running traditional service held in the sanctuary where the pagers do work. Whether these folks would choose contemporary if they could is an unknown. We (and many others beyond our group of close friends) feel if there are going to be two services we should continue to offer a choice.

 

I think there could be as many as 30 families who attend who contemporary who will leave. Once the service gets going, I predict many of the hard-line traditionalists will leave as well.

 

I fear that heels are dug in and nothing will change. But, we are trying to understand the rationale and make our feelings known as best we can as respectfully as we can.

 

ETA: I do appreciate all the points of view. This post sounds like I am trying to have everyone JAWM. I am not. I am trying to work through this both rationally, and spiritually and I am thankful to have a place to get some opinions from folks not currently caught up in the situation.

 

Does your church project the words on a screen during worship?? If they have the set up to do that, then maybe I can offer a suggestion for the child care situation that might help. In my church, parents are given a sticker with their child's name and a number on it for themselves and one is also put on the child's shirt when they sign them in. The child care workers have walkie talkies and when a parent is needed they go on the walkie talkie to the guy in the church in the sound booth who does the Power Point and stuff and he puts the number up on the screen and the parents check their sticker to see if it is their number and if it is they go to the nursery. The way my church is set up, there are t.v. monitors in the overflow rooms as well as in the nursing mother's room so the service can be seen on those monitors as well. That way no matter where the parent is in the building they can still see the number on the screen.

 

It works well for us. :) Hopefully that can be helpful to you. :)

[Hoggirl]

What?? (to the bolded part) I don't understand. The church pays people to fill up the choir?

 

Our music minister also has a full-time job at the local community college (don't ask me how that got started!) - but he is considered full-time at our church as well. To make sure the choir has the caliber of singing he desires we pay college students a certain amount per week (I do not know how much it is) to sing in the choir. I have always called them "ringer singers," - you know how one obtains an outside player for a team who is referred to as a "ringer." There are probably 6 - 8 of them. This is not uncommon. We have church friends whose college son sings in a church choir in his out-of-town college town.

 

The praise team members are expected to join the choir so that the talents of both services can be combined and better utilized. The challenge is that no one asked the praise team singers if they wanted to do this or how they felt about being told about this change in their musical volunteering. Besides the musical trio we are moving to "robust congregational singing." Allegedly not hymns as we have a new denominational church "songbook." Interestingly, the "songbook" can be found on the website under the caption "hymnals by name."

 

I have nothing against hymns. I LOVE hymns. I have tried to make sure that my ds is familiar with traditional hymns despite the lack of singing of them in the contemporary worship service he has attended most of his life.

[*********]

This demonstrates, to me at least, one of the fundamental problems with the institutional church system as a whole.

 

The group of believers that you gather with regularly should not be so large that one person cannot have a say as to how the meeting is run because they're not a 'pastor' or whatever.

 

Now, the 'style' of music used during a meeting should not be a reason to leave that congregation (so long as the music is still God honoring, of course). And the congregation should be small enough that everyone gets to be heard regarding such things.

 

There should be no one person (or small group of persons) "in charge" of how the meeting is run. The New Testament gives us a good outline. Other than that, the congregation should do what they want. It shouldn't be up to one or two 'pastors'. Blech.

 

If everyone met in smaller groups on homes, had a plurality of elders, and had an actual New Testament meeting, these things would be more easily avoided.

 

Just my $0.02.

[*********]

Our music minister also has a full-time job at the local community college (don't ask me how that got started!) - but he is considered full-time at our church as well. To make sure the choir has the caliber of singing he desires we pay college students a certain amount per week (I do not know how much it is) to sing in the choir. I have always called them "ringer singers," - you know how one obtains an outside player for a team who is referred to as a "ringer." There are probably 6 - 8 of them. This is not uncommon. We have church friends whose college son sings in a church choir in his out-of-town college town.

 

:001_huh:

 

I've never heard of this. Frankly, I find it to be an abomination.

 

Please show me where in the New Testament that the church gathers together, and there's a special section of them that are determined to be a 'choir', because their musical talents are so great. There's not. We should all sing unto the Lord. There shouldn't be the same group of people, week after week, standing in front of the congregation to sing. Honestly, I find that prideful. Sure, perhaps someone has a special hymn they'd like to bring. That's fine. But every single week? The same people, because they're so fantastic? No. And to PAY them to do so? Frankly that's absurd.

[Parrothead]

I can't say I wouldn't leave a particular parish. It would have to be something pretty left of center for me to leave. I've been to and enjoyed traditional, contemporary and charismatic masses. But I'd leave if there were liturgical abuses or something outright not allowed in the GIRM

[Melinda in VT]

This demonstrates, to me at least, one of the fundamental problems with the institutional church system as a whole.

 

The group of believers that you gather with regularly should not be so large that one person cannot have a say as to how the meeting is run because they're not a 'pastor' or whatever.

 

Now, the 'style' of music used during a meeting should not be a reason to leave that congregation (so long as the music is still God honoring, of course). And the congregation should be small enough that everyone gets to be heard regarding such things.

 

There should be no one person (or small group of persons) "in charge" of how the meeting is run. The New Testament gives us a good outline. Other than that, the congregation should do what they want. It shouldn't be up to one or two 'pastors'. Blech.

 

If everyone met in smaller groups on homes, had a plurality of elders, and had an actual New Testament meeting, these things would be more easily avoided.

 

Just my $0.02.

 

I've read Pagan Christianity, so I understand the argument you are making.

 

And I'll admit I could be wrong.

 

But.

 

I'm *glad* the church developed beyond home worship. Think of all the great art and music we would have missed.

 

I love church choirs. I love congregational singing. I love congregational singing when the great choir is also singing along. Small group meetings are nice, too, but they aren't enough on their own, imo.

[Hoggirl]

:001_huh:

 

I've never heard of this. Frankly, I find it to be an abomination.

 

Please show me where in the New Testament that the church gathers together, and there's a special section of them that are determined to be a 'choir', because their musical talents are so great. There's not. We should all sing unto the Lord. There shouldn't be the same group of people, week after week, standing in front of the congregation to sing. Honestly, I find that prideful. Sure, perhaps someone has a special hymn they'd like to bring. That's fine. But every single week? The same people, because they're so fantastic? No. And to PAY them to do so? Frankly that's absurd.

 

It's not the entire choir who is paid. The majority of the choir are volunteer congregants. So, most of them are not determined to be there because they are so great. It is typically the same group of people each week, but anyone may join the choir. I think the issue is that not enough people do, and eliminating the praise team and trying to get them in a choir is a way to help fill the choir loft, ime. But adding the "ringer singers" helps them sound better, I guess.

 

FWIW, I have always disagreed with paying singers/musicians (other than the pianist and organist) to play in church, but our music minister often brings in paid string players when needed as well.

 

ETA: Everyone "sings unto the Lord," except during the choir anthem. The new format, I believe, will drop the anthem - at least we won't have it on a regular basis. Other "special music/groups" will play as determined by the music director. The focus is supposed to be a shift to congregational singing. I don't have an issue with that. I imagine the choir will continue to have ringer singers though.

[Upward Journey]

Yes. Jazz music makes me feel twitchy.

[milovany]

If everyone met in smaller groups on homes, had a plurality of elders, and had an actual New Testament meeting, these things would be more easily avoided.

 

Just my $0.02.

 

Bethany, it is your opinion that the early church was run like what is called a "home meeting" or "home church" in today's vernacular. Many Christians do not see this as how the New Testament church operated at all. I realize you do, and that's fine, but it's important to note that there are different interpretations about what the New Testament church was like.

 

ETA -- Forgive me, I'm not trying to be argumentative so hope I didn't come across that way. You just often sound annoyed with a church that is styled differently from a casual home church style, implying (if not outright stating) that any other type is not the way God wanted to church to be.

Edited March 5, 2012 by milovaný