Would you leave your church over a change in worship style

[sassenach]

I am going to try really hard to not be harsh, but I haven't had my coffee yet. this post makes me so frustrated! Worship is not about music style and I do not believe that it is a valid reason to leave a church. You are basically talking about a preference. I would advise you to STOP talking to others about this (otherwise known as gossip) and start praying about what is going on in your heart. Do a word study on the words CHURCH and WORSHIP, and see what God tells you about this situation.

 

I'm going to go through your post and mark the things that concern me.

 

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. It's natural to have preferences, but it is not biblical to choose or leave a church based solely on them.

 

A group of us has gotten together This is gossip. You should have never gotten to this point if you followed Matt 18.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. I gotta tell you, reading this I feel frustrated on behalf of your pastor and elders. Do you even see how incredibly divisive this is? Quite frankly, your pastor may be willing to thin the herd of people who would behave like this. I don't blame him.

 

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.Unless you were the one running the contemporary service, this would also be gossip. 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 worshipunbiblical, and that, as a society, people are used to choices. Absolutely true.

 

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.

 

And to everyone who would leave because the pastor won't bend to these demands, A PASTOR DOES NOT EXSIST TO MEET THE PREFERENCES OF HIS CONGREGATION! A pastor that can say no to a group who is behaving in the way described above by not giving in sounds a lot more healthy to me than a pastor who fears man and bends to every demand. Just because there are large numbers demanding it, does not mean that it is what the Holy Spirit is asking of the pastors in that season.

 

Hoggirl, I'm sorry to be so harsh, but I implore you to walk away from the crowd and really allow the Holy Spirit to reveal your sin in this.

[chiguirre]

Hoggirl, I'm sorry an important part of your life is in turmoil. Do you have any other churches nearby in your denomination or a similar one? It might be time to start visiting, you might find something you really love.

[milovany]

I am going to try really hard to not be harsh, but I haven't had my coffee yet.

 

 

 

 

 

 

:D

 

I agree with a lot of what you said.

[Hoggirl]

I am going to try really hard to not be harsh, but I haven't had my coffee yet. this post makes me so frustrated! Worship is not about music style and I do not believe that it is a valid reason to leave a church. You are basically talking about a preference. I would advise you to STOP talking to others about this (otherwise known as gossip) and start praying about what is going on in your heart. Do a word study on the words CHURCH and WORSHIP, and see what God tells you about this situation.

 

I'm going to go through your post and mark the things that concern me.

 

 

 

And to everyone who would leave because the pastor won't bend to these demands, A PASTOR DOES NOT EXSIST TO MEET THE PREFERENCES OF HIS CONGREGATION! A pastor that can say no to a group who is behaving in the way described above by not giving in sounds a lot more healthy to me than a pastor who fears man and bends to every demand. Just because there are large numbers demanding it, does not mean that it is what the Holy Spirit is asking of the pastors in that season.

 

Hoggirl, I'm sorry to be so harsh, but I implore you to walk away from the crowd and really allow the Holy Spirit to reveal your sin in this.

 

Please don't apologize! It is not necessary at all. If I did not want honest answers, believe me, I wouldn't post in this forum! :lol: I appreciate all points of view. You make valid points.

 

At one point I heard someone (not here) talk about having any kind of issues/turmoil, whether it be with in-laws, spouse, church, children, neighbors, whatever - and asking, "Do you take it to the phone (meaning calling all your JAWM girlfriends to seek justification for your feelings) or do you take it to the throne (meaning, seeking discernment through prayer and the leading of the Holy Spirit)."

 

Maybe you do need some coffee, :D but maybe not.

[AuntieM]

Hey Shannon, gently.... please go have some coffee.

 

Worship and musical style are not the same thing - got it. However, if a musical style divides one from his ability to worship, that's an issue.

 

I note a big difference in the responses in this thread; those in the pastorate seem to see it differently than those who are regular congregants. As someone who has been disenfranchised by big changes in church management policies on more than one occasion, and seen churches split over these issues, I can sympathize with Hoggirl.

 

I agree that she should avoid "gossip" and "stirring up strife," but really, are congregants allowed no voice whatsoever? I know one of my goals in home education is to avoid raising dumb sheeple. FWIW, we left churches quietly, with calm but clear reasons shared with the ONE pastor who ever bothered to call. We are not whiners, complainers or pot-stirrers, merely simple believers desiring to join in corporate worship and discipleship.

 

Hoggirl, you may find some interesting reading if you do a google search for "church growth movement." Attendance figures more important than individual hearts and spirits of committed believers -- I find that heart breaking.

 

To those of you in the pastorate --- I KNOW this is a challenging job! I know you have to deal with a lot of personalities and the ensuing conflicts! I am not saying you are all ignoring your people, please don't misunderstand me. However, in the OP's situation, this MANAGEMENT decision has been made without input from the ones expected to participate in the change, and was made with a calculated loss - but hey, that's okay, because the new folks will even out for the old! Poorly done. I personally think a goal for increased congregational singing is good, but the changes Hoggirl is describing seem to be taking place with poor execution.

 

And people wonder why there are so many Christians today who love Jesus but will never again choose to be part of the organized church. Very sad, the loss is felt on both sides.

 

Whew, now *I* better go grab some coffee.

[Bluegoat]

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.

 

:iagree:

 

I would say the same thing, from a Christian perspective. But it would undoubtedly be possible for changes to be unorthodox - part of the reason I attend where I do is because the worship is religiously correct.

 

If the change was alright from that perspective, I would stay, even if i wasn't crazy about the new music. If I was in a new town I might choose between two orthodox parishes just based on personal preference.

 

It would concern me that there seems to be little involvement of the congregation in the decisions.

[T'smom]

: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.

 

:iagree::iagree:

[3peasinWa]

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.

 

Sorry OT: the very first church after the ascension of Jesus, would be considered a mega church really. (Acts 2) I don't see how 3000 people could fit in a small home church..(not that there is anything wrong with a home church).

[Bluegoat]

: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.

 

Yes, because all of that beautiful sacred music that has been composed to help bring us intellectually and emotionally to God is not useful or worthwhile, and people who take the time and training required to write it and sing it and play it deserve no compensation for their time.

 

An abomination? That's a bit strong.

 

My parish church sings a lot - we also usually have a choir who sings parts of the liturgical setting that are more complicated, or other special selections. And we have a music director who runs the choir, and the children's choir, and works with our youth outreach group. Our last director was also a composer. They have many years of training and these is a full-time job for them, so we pay them. Just like we pay our priest who works 60 or more hour weeks for us. We have a few paid section members in the choir, music students. These are the people who will go on to become music directors or volunteer in parishes with music. The money they get to sing is an important way of financing their music education, and they are a big help in a choir because those who can't read music can listen to them to sing by ear.

 

It seems like you are suggesting that if God has given people special talents in music, or presumably art or preaching or anything else, we should avoid using them in worship so as to make everyone equal? Or we should not help them develop those talents further? And take joy in them ourselves?

[TravelingChris]

We have changed churches frequently based on my board name- we move frequently. So we have been to churches which had traditional music and contemporary music. I really liked what we had at our last church- one service with both- in one part we sang praise music, in another there were hymns and also anthems by the choir or special music by a music ensemble. Here we have two services- early contemporary and later traditional. When we have a choice- we always go to traditional for many years since our kids were always in the youth choirs of the churches we attended and the youth choirs tend to do traditional music since they save the praise music for the youth gathering meetings.

 

I guess I am different- I can go to either type of service or some other type but it has to be good music. I get totally distracted and not focused on God if there is poor playing or singing going along. Another reason other than my daugther's choir rehearsing during ealry contemporary service that we don't attend that time is not because the praise band is bad- they are actually quite good. But many of the people who attend the early service do not do so because of the music and consequently, they don't sing and the lack of significant congregation participation is very disheartening. Our family believes in singing in church when we are supposed to and we don't like it if we are one of the small minority that does. It makes me feel like others are there just to check the box for Sunday attendance and not really to worship. I understand that not everyone can or wants to sing but normally, in a congregation, the majority of people can in fact sing. If they are not, I feel they are not really participating in the service and are just watchers.

[Carol in Cal.]

So, your answer is "yes," correct? Mine is. (winky winky)

 

Not sure to whom this is directed?

[aggieamy]

I'm going to give my opinion because I like doing that but I'm a Catholic so it's probably not as applicable as some other opinions. As long as the foundation of the service was something that I found appropriate I wouldn't leave UNLESS I found that the music took away from the service. It sounds like in this case it might be and that would bother me. My grandmother and I went to a mass in a small town in Minnesota on vacation and they had someone playing the guitar in the background almost the entire mass. It was very distracting and you couldn't even pray quietly because of it. If that had been my home parish I probably would have found another place to attend mass on Sundays.

[TranquilMind]

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.

There is something very appealing in this. Sounds like how Friends meetings are run.

 

I agree with you that this is better than how church has evolved into some big organization that is like a corporation.

[TranquilMind]

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.

I think choirs are great and anyone who feels led to do so should be in the choir. I've sung solos and choir pieces myself.

 

But to pay people unconnected with the church - and possibly not even believers(?) - to come in and do that sounds really wrong to me.

[TranquilMind]

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.

It is not only a home church idea. Friends (Quakers) have always run meetings like this as well. I'm sure there are other groups who meet in buildings who do so also.

 

By the way, you could find an autocratic top-down management style home church as well.

[TranquilMind]

I am going to try really hard to not be harsh, but I haven't had my coffee yet. this post makes me so frustrated! Worship is not about music style and I do not believe that it is a valid reason to leave a church. You are basically talking about a preference. I would advise you to STOP talking to others about this (otherwise known as gossip) and start praying about what is going on in your heart. Do a word study on the words CHURCH and WORSHIP, and see what God tells you about this situation.

 

I'm going to go through your post and mark the things that concern me.

 

 

 

And to everyone who would leave because the pastor won't bend to these demands, A PASTOR DOES NOT EXSIST TO MEET THE PREFERENCES OF HIS CONGREGATION! A pastor that can say no to a group who is behaving in the way described above by not giving in sounds a lot more healthy to me than a pastor who fears man and bends to every demand. Just because there are large numbers demanding it, does not mean that it is what the Holy Spirit is asking of the pastors in that season.

 

Hoggirl, I'm sorry to be so harsh, but I implore you to walk away from the crowd and really allow the Holy Spirit to reveal your sin in this.

I gotta agree with Shannon here. This sounds an awful lot like a power struggle between a group of people who have banded together to discuss issues without confronting the pastor. Nothing good ever comes of that.

 

I'd agree that just praying and seeing where God leads YOU instead of discussing it with others is the only way to go. God does not correct the shepherd with the sheep in a power struggle. If the shepherd is wrong, he will be corrected without a group banding together against him.

 

Been there in this scenario watching the pastor, whom we supported, be attacked by groups of people who didn't approve where he was going. The church eventually closed its doors after 77 years.

[sassenach]

Please don't apologize! It is not necessary at all. If I did not want honest answers, believe me, I wouldn't post in this forum! :lol: I appreciate all points of view. You make valid points.

 

At one point I heard someone (not here) talk about having any kind of issues/turmoil, whether it be with in-laws, spouse, church, children, neighbors, whatever - and asking, "Do you take it to the phone (meaning calling all your JAWM girlfriends to seek justification for your feelings) or do you take it to the throne (meaning, seeking discernment through prayer and the leading of the Holy Spirit)."

 

Maybe you do need some coffee, :D but maybe not.

 

Thank you for this response. I really do pray that God can be glorified in the end.

 

Hey Shannon, gently.... please go have some coffee.

OK, coffee is on board!!

Worship and musical style are not the same thing - got it. However, if a musical style divides one from his ability to worship, that's an issue. But what is the issue exactly? What you are calling a church/pastor issue, I am calling a idolatry of preference.

 

I note a big difference in the responses in this thread; those in the pastorate seem to see it differently than those who are regular congregants. As someone who has been disenfranchised by big changes in church management policies on more than one occasion, and seen churches split over these issues, I can sympathize with Hoggirl.

 

I agree that she should avoid "gossip" and "stirring up strife," but really, are congregants allowed no voice whatsoever? No, a believer can absolutely have a voice. God's word gives us a clear system for using our voice.I know one of my goals in home education is to avoid raising dumb sheeple. FWIW, we left churches quietly, with calm but clear reasons shared with the ONE pastor who ever bothered to call. We are not whiners, complainers or pot-stirrers, merely simple believers desiring to join in corporate worship and discipleship. I don't think one has to act like a dumb sheep to handle this situation in a biblical manner.

 

Hoggirl, you may find some interesting reading if you do a google search for "church growth movement." Attendance figures more important than individual hearts and spirits of committed believers -- I find that heart breaking. I am not seeing a connection between this type of worship and church growth. I am seeing a connection between the seeker sensitive, American church of the 90's and the idolatry of preference.

 

To those of you in the pastorate --- I KNOW this is a challenging job! I know you have to deal with a lot of personalities and the ensuing conflicts! I am not saying you are all ignoring your people, please don't misunderstand me. However, in the OP's situation, this MANAGEMENT decision has been made without input from the ones expected to participate in the change, and was made with a calculated loss - but hey, that's okay, because the new folks will even out for the old! You are jumping to the conclusion that this is the attitude of the church leaders. Could that be connected with your previous church experiences? IME, at some point you have to tell people, "No, you will not be getting your way. Sorry." That doesn't mean you want them to leave, it just means that they will not be able to get what they are demanding. Poorly done. I personally think a goal for increased congregational singing is good, but the changes Hoggirl is describing seem to be taking place with poor execution.

 

And people wonder why there are so many Christians today who love Jesus but will never again choose to be part of the organized church. Very sad, the loss is felt on both sides. Again, I think that this has so much to do with an unbiblical understanding of what the church actually is.

 

Whew, now *I* better go grab some coffee.

 

I think we need to be careful not to use our experiences and feelings as the plumb line in this situation and others like it. The word of God and the guidance of the Holy Spirit is the plumb line. What I related in my first post wasn't that it was wrong to have a preference. It was the way that group is handling themselves that is sinful. I stand by that. I also believe that leaving a church solely based on worship reveals a wrong view of what the church is.

 

My advice to the OP was to turn away from man and turn towards God. I stand by that as a solidly biblical way of handling this.

 

I'm sorry for your hurt. Truly.

 

 

 

We

[Stayseeliz]

I would not leave a church solely based on a change in music style if everything else was beneficial to spiritual growth. I would think twice if there were issues of strife, etc with the music ministry, pastoral staff, etc. I don't like the "The plan is the plan" attitude. That is not working together.

 

We just started a new church where the musical style isn't our number one preference. We prefer a more contemporary style. But it is theologically sound, small enough to make friends, etc so we think it's worth it.

[Hoggirl]

Hey Shannon, gently.... please go have some coffee.

 

Worship and musical style are not the same thing - got it. However, if a musical style divides one from his ability to worship, that's an issue.

 

I note a big difference in the responses in this thread; those in the pastorate seem to see it differently than those who are regular congregants. As someone who has been disenfranchised by big changes in church management policies on more than one occasion, and seen churches split over these issues, I can sympathize with Hoggirl.

 

I agree that she should avoid "gossip" and "stirring up strife," but really, are congregants allowed no voice whatsoever? I know one of my goals in home education is to avoid raising dumb sheeple. FWIW, we left churches quietly, with calm but clear reasons shared with the ONE pastor who ever bothered to call. We are not whiners, complainers or pot-stirrers, merely simple believers desiring to join in corporate worship and discipleship.

 

Hoggirl, you may find some interesting reading if you do a google search for "church growth movement." Attendance figures more important than individual hearts and spirits of committed believers -- I find that heart breaking.

 

To those of you in the pastorate --- I KNOW this is a challenging job! I know you have to deal with a lot of personalities and the ensuing conflicts! I am not saying you are all ignoring your people, please don't misunderstand me. However, in the OP's situation, this MANAGEMENT decision has been made without input from the ones expected to participate in the change, and was made with a calculated loss - but hey, that's okay, because the new folks will even out for the old! Poorly done. I personally think a goal for increased congregational singing is good, but the changes Hoggirl is describing seem to be taking place with poor execution.

 

And people wonder why there are so many Christians today who love Jesus but will never again choose to be part of the organized church. Very sad, the loss is felt on both sides.

 

Whew, now *I* better go grab some coffee.

 

When I grow up, I want to be as articulate as Auntie M :001_smile:

 

There was input sought from the congregation. This is all part of a huge overhaul that our church is doing. There were five "pillars" (this just made me laugh from the get-go since we are Christian, and it just made me think of the five pillars of Islam...but I digress)that were reviewed, surveyed, etc. One of the pillars was worship of which music is a part. I do not know how the survey was conducted, although in other areas people were selected by committee leaders to participate in surveys. The music survey had 25 responses from those who attend one of the traditional services (we currently have two traditional and one contemporary) and 4 from those who attend contemporary. NO idea if these folks were hand-picked or not, but it certainly is not an even distribution. But perhaps the contemporary folks didn't bother to answer. I was not given a survey in this area.

 

The paid praise team leader was NOT consulted on the upcoming changes. She was informed 24 hours before the entire praise team was told which was about four days prior to the BIG announcement in church. She was completely blind-sided by the cancellation of the service effective June 1 (when the lease runs out on the space we rent). At the praise team meeting (where choir members were also present) they were told that the two singing groups will be combined. No more need for the musicians unless specifically asked. So, folks who have volunteered their time playing drums, guitars, and bass for the last ten years were told their services were no longer needed. So, as Auntie M pointed out, this has been poorly handled.

 

We sent a "representative" for lack of a better word from our small group of friends (most of whom have one spouse either currently on or formerly on the praise team - so, yeah, there is a bias) who spent an hour discussing all of this with the pastor. This guy is a fourth generation member of this church. His purpose was to try and see if there was any chance that the pastor and the committee/team who are wanting to implement these changes would consider having one service continue to be contemporary and one with the new format. No. The "plan is the plan." Interestingly, after the big announcement, feedback was sought. Our church's website had a place to give feedback - it could not be done anonymously - and I did so. However, I am not sure why feedback was being sought at all if the mindset is that it's a done deal. The committee/pastor/music director are meeting tonight to discuss feedback received. No idea how many people have provided feedback. We'll see what happens. Another person talked with the head of the committee who has been in charge of this long process. He was told that 100 members leaving (we have about 500 total in attendance at the three services) would not be near enough to cause critical mass/a change of direction.

 

We will take one more proposal - that of having a time slot on Saturdays at 5:00 to hold a praise-type service - to the pastor sometime this week. If this is refused, we will likely make a change. We will not ask the pastor to give any more of his time, and we will have laity speak instead. All we want is access to the building - not unlike AA, Upward basketball folks, etc. Except that we financially support the church unlike those outside organizations who just use the space. We know there will be issues with weddings, etc. We are trying to work with the pastor.

 

Thanks for taking time to read all this and give your varied opinions. We are hurt and disillusioned by how this has been handled.

Edited March 5, 2012 by Hoggirl

[Hoggirl]

Thank you for this response. I really do pray that God can be glorified in the end.

 

What I related in my first post wasn't that it was wrong to have a preference. It was the way that group is handling themselves that is sinful. I stand by that. I also believe that leaving a church solely based on worship reveals a wrong view of what the church is.

 

This is where I need help. I need to understand how the way we are handling ourselves is "sinful." Maybe I need a definition of what "gossip" is???

 

We would not be leaving solely based on worship. If you have read through my other posts on this thread, I am sure you can see where we are struggling with some of the ways in which leadership has handled this.

 

If I am being honest, my belief (purely speculation) is that the pastor won't stand up to the director of music. I have no idea why.

[Carol in Cal.]

It is starting to sound to me like the issue is not worship style so much as authority.

[mamajudy]

I wonder what style of music we'll be singing in Heaven? Some of us may be very surprised!:001_smile:

Edited March 5, 2012 by mamajudy

[Jean in Newcastle]

It's interesting that the thread has morphed from answering the OPs question as to whether we would leave the church over this, to whether she is correct in calling the music a worship style, to whether she is correct in going to a church that is different than other poster's churches to whether she has sin in her life. . .

[ezrabean2005]

It's interesting that the thread has morphed from answering the OPs question as to whether we would leave the church over this, to whether she is correct in calling the music a worship style, to whether she is correct in going to a church that is different than other poster's churches to whether she has sin in her life. . .

 

The corporation must be preserved. :D

[Pippen]

Yes. Jazz music makes me feel twitchy.

 

It makes me feel sleepy!

[milovany]

It's interesting that the thread has morphed from answering the OPs question as to whether we would leave the church over this, to whether she is correct in calling the music a worship style, to whether she is correct in going to a church that is different than other poster's churches to whether she has sin in her life. . .

 

A normal conversation pattern when women are involved!!! :D

[milovany]

Milovany.

 

Yes, m'dear?

[GWOB]

It's interesting that the thread has morphed from answering the OPs question as to whether we would leave the church over this, to whether she is correct in calling the music a worship style, to whether she is correct in going to a church that is different than other poster's churches to whether she has sin in her life. . .

 

Strange that this would happen on this board;):tongue_smilie:.

 

I stated previously that I would not leave a church over a change in worship style, but I would leave a church that ignored a large segment of the congregation. My church is currently pursuing something that I totally disagree with. However, the congregation has known about this possible plan for almost 2 years now. Presentations were made. Votes were taken. Information was provided. Anyone with an opinion for or against was heard. A large majority of the church wanted to move forward with this project. While I disagree with the project, I respect the way things were handled. I was outnumbered, so I got over it.

 

However, in the OP's case, things were handled poorly. It seems as though there are some behind-the-scenes issues (lovely church politics). It seems as though this is a pattern. I cannot blame the OP for wanting to leave such an environment. We all have sin in our lives, so I doubt that is her issue;). My church is not better than her church, though I will say our leaders handled our situation in a more appropriate manner. (They're Lutherans. It takes FOREVER to change anything.) Music IS a worship style. My dh hates contemporary worship music that takes forever. It is a roadblock for him. That is a valid feeling and should not be looked down upon.

 

Op, I get it. It seems you are more upset about the way things were handled than the actual change of music. Perhaps if the process would have been more transparent, you could have given the new style a try with an open heart and mind. Now you may walk into the new service with a chip on your shoulder. Understandable. Go find a church that respects its congregation.

[MindyD]

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.

 

:iagree:

[yinne]

We once left a church and one of the issues was the music. It didn't bother my dh so much, but it gave me a headache. My in-laws still attend said church, but it is not uncommon for them to skip the music portion all together and just go for the sermon. There are just some styles of music that some people like and others don't. However, it doesn't make one group more spiritual or less spiritual than others.

 

We have also heard church leadership say that they are changing direction and that not everyone will like the new direction and that is fine. Some will leave and others will come. Sometimes we forget that the church is filled with sinful people and that this side of eternity it will never be perfect :)

 

Yvonne in NE

[staceyobu]

I know I'm kinda late to the party, but... I think there is going to be an unwillingness on the part of your leadership to take on multiple services if they have an opportunity to move to one service. Running multiple services is a huge drain on everyone involved. While it won't effect the majority of the congregation who will pick which service to attend, I would not be jumping up and down at the option if I were a staff person.

 

Music is hard. DH and I have never liked churches that try to blend old and new together. It never seems to sound good. I don't mind a church doing straight contemporary (although with older, established churches, you tend to have a hard time switching to that). We are now at a church that is more traditional, but I know of people who would never attend because of the music. I don't really like the idea of churches running a service of each... it just seems like an unnecessary dividing line. So, I don't really know what the best answer is.

[PeacefulChaos]

Ok, so I'm a little late here, too, but here is my opinion...hopefully I can get it out in a way that makes sense. :tongue_smilie:

 

As far as the worship style is concerned, I have to say I don't think I would be a big fan. Some people say that they can do their 'worshipping' at home or whatever, which I get, but honestly that just isn't me...I do NOT listen to worship music in my downtime - it just isn't my preference. I'm cool with it at church - heck, there are songs that I LOVE to sing on Sundays. But I don't really listen to music much anyway anymore, but when I do, it isn't worship. So the thought that I can do my worshipping on my own is foreign to me. :D

Anyway, we go to a church where the worship service is easily 45 minutes to an hour long. I have to say, that if I had to listen to ALL music that I hated for that long, it would be very frustrating. As of right now, there are a few songs that I don't like - there always are - but that's different.

I do think that the leadership should have made this a more corporate decision. I don't know, I have never really heard of anything like it, tbh... I get the whole thing that 'church isn't about us' but at the same time I think that we need to be actively participating in making decisions in our church. Obviously there are always going to be people who are unhappy with one decision or another. Unless there are a lot of decisions people don't like (or if the church is doing something unbiblical) most people won't leave just because of one thing. So I find it quite odd that this was done out of nowhere...I would see it going through the board of deacons, the staff, the worship team/band/choir/etc, and eventually just becoming what it is. Not a sudden stop and change. So odd...:confused:

I know that to some people, questioning pastors and staff is very offensive. I know several people who think that the job of parishioners is to be loyal to their pastor. Nowhere in Christianity do I think it is in any way necessary to be loyal to a man. Pastor or not. And there are plenty of pastors out there who are just working hard and doing their job! :) But there are also some pastors and staff members who are on power trips and see the church as their place to do what they want...they wrongly see themselves as the heads of the church, as those who really hold the power. This is a very dangerous way to see oneself, and is a slippery slope for those in a position of perceived power. So I'm just hoping that your staff merely made a mistake and overlooked how this move could be seen as a power play on their part - not that they think they should be able to do what they want with the church.

And honestly, there does come a point where churches start trying too hard to be seeker friendly and draw in new people that they really aren't offering anything special or new. They still need to have a distinct line between them and 'the world', so to speak.

I guess I would consider trying it out for a few months - well, ok, I know for a fact I would. But it does sound like there are a lot of issues going on here, and all I can tell you is :grouphug: and girl...I know right where you're coming from. :) Hope everything gets worked out one way or another and that you guys find the right place for you - the most important thing here is keeping your relationship with God intact! :)

[jamajo]

 

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.

 

very good point...hadn't thought of that one as I've been reading the responses. God has uniquely made us hasn't he? I believe he loves the variety and just wants to be worshipped in SPIRIT and TRUTH. That will mean different things to different people. If you can't do that, you should find a place where you can.

[ajbmom]

At one time I might have said yes. Not now. As long as everything that is being put forth is in accordance with God's word, then I'm good. I have come to realize, church is not about me and my needs. It is solely to worship God. It's really about giving, not receiving. It's all about Jesus for me...and I can worship Him anywhere with any music.

[edithcrawley]

I definitely would leave. I go to the traditional service at my church and really am not a fan of the contemporary. I just can't participate as well in the contemporary because the singing is done with just the words on a screen on the wall with no sheet music. If I don't know the song, then I'm just stuck standing there awkwardly trying to figure out the tune (by the time I do, it is the last verse). I like having hymnals because then if you don't know it, you can at least sight read your way through it.

 

During the summer at my church they tend to combine both the trad. and the contemporary services into one because we lose a lot of people in the summer (right near a college campus). However, the combo tends to be 85% contemporary style and 15% trad. Pastor doesn't wear his robes, music is done screen style, organ is rarely heard, choir doesn't participate. If they do that again this summer, we'll be finding another option for the summer (lots of churches here, some different denominations, but really none too far off from ours).

 

As for the "ringer singers" as they were called earlier in the thread (all college students from the local univ.)---we have them and I'm not a fan. I'm in the choir as well and there is a definite distinction between the paid and the unpaid...us unpaid members are basically second class citizens. They're nice people and all, I just don't think it is right to be paid to sing in a church choir. I have no issue with paying pianists/organists etc. though. It seems like lots of the "ringer singers" are just doing it for the $$ and not because they actually want to be there.

[Retired]

well there seems to be all type of musical worship and some churches even have paid singers. We live in the south and even our largest Church we attended had volunteer choir and singer. I think church should be about heart felt worships not a professional production but just another of my opinion

 

I like old hymns and contemporary worship music but I would leave if the church started using Christian version of rock music, metal music or secular music

 

yes some churches play secular rock bands as part of fitting in and yeah there are some Christan metal bands and non of this music has a darn thing with worshiping the Lord Jesus. Its just entertainment not worship IMO

 

I would leave, I have left and I would do it again.

 

So to the op my question would be is it more about style or do you feel the music is not glorifying and worshiping of the lord.

 

also as a paster daughter the leader is always caught in the middle and the pastor wife never has a real friends in the Church - cause some winning women will have her feeling's hurt, enough said as far as the leadership issue.

 

there is no way every one is always happy, a good pastor will try to be the voice of reason but a lot of times the churches have their demigod members that make the preachers life a pain so he will just give in to them

 

suggest lot of prayers about the church situation

[HayesW]

I think maybe you are jumping the gun. It sounds like lots of people want something to be changed, before it even happens. Think of it from the perspective of the elders. They have made a decision that, presumably, since it is the job of the elders, will be of benefit to their flock. They kindly offered you advance notice.

 

This is a change that won't even go into effect until AUGUST! Now there is a "large group" who want things to be changed, even though the change hasn't begun yet.

 

I think, perhaps, the wise decision would be to WAIT and see how the new service works in practice and not just theory. For now, just relax and enjoy the next few months!