Church Music: Traditional or Contemporary

    There are two sides in what has become a bitter war in the church today; music. One side, the traditional, argues and demands only hymns to be the music within church. The other, the contemporary, argues and demands only contemporary choruses to be the music within church.  I would contend, though, that that issue of church music is clouded by several misconceptions, that neither is right, that both have their given strengths and weaknesses, and that there should be balance.
     The Bible calls us to "be of one mind" (New International Version, 2 Cor 13:11), tells us there is only “one faith," (Eph 4:5), and that we are to “honor one another above [ourselves]." (Rom 12:10) When it comes to music in the church, we tend to forget that. The focus shifts from extolling God to meeting the congregation's own selfish needs (Gonzalez). Music in the church, then, ceases to flow from out "long[ing] to meet ... with the living and majestic God to offer Him the praise that is His due. (Gonzalez)." Instead it becomes a line of division which causes churches to split apart, pastors to resign, and argumentation and angst to be perpetuated.
     The issue of music has also become discrediting. The division, the argument, the strength and personal nature of the sides, have all become tools by which the world sees us as hypocrites. The more and more we divide ourselves, separate ourselves, fight amongst ourselves, the less of the world that we are able to reach and minister to. Instead of being the light we would be if we shined together, we become flickers, and easier for the world to ignore.
     We must change; something has to be done. However, with the speed, depth, and weight these arguments have taken hold, we have not given much room for either to step back, allow the truth to come forward, and empty the arena of all that is man-made rules or opinions. So, before we begin trying to settle the argument, or find a viable balance, we must do our best to do so. What are the misconceptions surrounding music in the church?
      The first misconception is that a particular form is inherently superior to another in regards to its spiritual status or reflection of our spiritual state. As Barry Liesch put it, "we often confuse form with Spirituality. Worshiping a certain way or in a certain style doesn't make us spiritually superior (20)." This causes people to view others who worship differently as spiritually weaker and encourages self-righteousness. It also causes people to lose sight of the fact that praise is not an act of form, but an act of the heart.
     The truth is simply that neither form, in and of itself, is superior to the other. Neither is more conductive nor prohibitive of praise. Neither is a reflection of a greater spirituality. It is simply a matter of taste. As Josh Hunt observed, “people like to worship God, as I like to worship God, but not like I like to worship God. Contemporary worship is an issue of taste. Whether a person likes contemporary worship has more to do with what radio station they like than it does their spiritual maturity.”
     Neither form is inherently more sacred or spiritual. As Warren put it, “music is nothing more than an arrangement of notes and rhythms; it’s the words that make a song spiritual.” (282) The form does not give a song spiritual stance, relevance, nor grant it useable and unusable in church as a valid praise song. It is what is said that determines whether or not the song’s spiritual message is one suitable for use in church.
     The second misconception is that anything that sounds like what is in culture is of that culture and has no place in church. There is no denying the horror of the culture’s music. It is full of obscenity, sexuality, violence, and hatred. It is drenched with all the values that the church stands opposed to. The question is does this association bar the use of the forms by the church? After all, the Bible says, “abstain from all appearance of evil” (King James Version, 1 Thess 5:22) and “be not conformed to this world.” (Rom 12:2) Therefore, it would seem, we should avoid music used for evil in the culture to illuminate the risk of being associated with the evil that is perpetuated in popular music. We would want to give no sign that we approve of or participate in all the godlessness of our society.
     However, this is like throwing out the baby with the bath water. This is because it is not the form which is speaking the message of popular music. The musical notation and execution are not encouraging and propagating the sin of the culture; the lyrics are. As said earlier, it is not the music which determines the spirituality or message of a song, it is the lyrics. Therefore, we need to realize that the form and spiritual content of a song are two different things.
     To throw out the validity of the form because it has been, or is being, used improperly, is pure foolishness. We must realize that misuse does not bear on the viability of proper use. Everything the devil does is unoriginal and is a twisting and perversion of that which God has created. If we threw out every form of music and every type of instrumentation that has been used for sinful purposes we would have none left!
     I’m not saying, though, that we should “be too eager to fill our services with music that more closely resembles the world around us (Rives),” but that we should be more open to using more variety in how we praise in church. We should also learn to see the forms of current culture as channels by which we can reach out to that culture rather than simply a reflection of the values of that culture.
     The third misconception is that the Bible favors one form of music over another. We believe wholeheartedly in the Bible, its truth, and in its application in our lives. If it says it, we want to do it, be it, and live it. The question is, though, does the Bible gives us clear guidelines regarding the form, style, or speed at which to praise God in song? The answer is no.
     While we do not have the time it would take to delve into what the Bible has to say on music, this is all we need to focus on; the Bible does not dictate one style over the other. In all that the Bible has to say about music there is no reference to the speed or style of music being wrong, only the words of the song and the heart of the one singing.
     The last misconception is not a stated opinion which is in need of correction, but a perspective that is clouded by an assumption that reflects in a wrong attitude. Music in the church is seen as a personal mode by which we am entertained, catered to, and led into a spirit of praise. While this is partly true, in it is a basic underlying assumption which is absolutely false; namely that worship is about us as individuals.
     The focus of everything done in the church should not be just to cater to the desires of those within its walls or those they wish to bring into the church. The ultimate end-all and of-all focus within a church should be to, as a corporate Body, glorify God. This means that the ruling factor of any activity in the church should be both God’s laws and desires. Praising God is not about mere self-edification or personal worship interaction.
     Praising God in a church service is a corporate activity in which all members are praising God out of a love for Him. It will “only work when each worshipper wants every other worshipper to worship and glorify God in a meaningful way.” (Bush) Which simply means that is not about me, what makes me comfortable, what I desire, but about the Living God and what I can do to help create the environment where others in my church can praise God in a way that is meaningful to them and pleasing to God.
     God is not pleased when we listen to, sing with, jump up and down to, clap to, and dance to the right music. God is not pleased when all the notes are arranged in a certain way, all the right chords are hit, the right speed is maintained, and the astute words of theological depth are present. He is pleased when we are “seeking the edification of others and being willing to deny [ourselves] in order to worship with one accord and one voice.” (Bush) While it is important to be personally involved in worship, to celebrate God’s goodness and presence, to feel the liberty of the Spirit to praise Him how you feel most comfortable, it is more important for you to aid in the freedom of others to do the same.
     This is done most simply by not allowing the spirit of pride, arrogance, or self-righteousness to take a hold in your life by associating a spiritual stature or state with a certain mode of behavior during praise. Do not let those who shout, run, jump, clap, and sing loudly see those who simply stand in the presence of God, or those who are emotively reserved during praise, as spiritually inferior or superior. Let all see each other for their hearts, recognizing that all wish to worship God but that all do not do so in the same manner. Let all work together to create an environment of surrender and of liberty in Christ.
     Now that we have stepped back and allowed the truth to clear up the misconceptions regarding praise music in the church, we are now able to take a subjective look at the two forms. Before we can come to a conclusion or fashion a balance we must understand both; including strengths and weaknesses.
     Hymns have two main strengths: theology and tradition. They are like "stars, ablaze . . . millions of miles away, pierc[ing] our distant atmosphere . . . reach[ing] us with their light . . . bring[ing] deep theological truth within our reach in portions we can grasp and with melodies we can remember" (Liesch 21) They are theologically sound and present that theology in rhythms and melodies that are easily absorbed.
     The theology of hymns has long been their greatest strength and the main thrust behind those that call for them to be the musical selection for churches. The list of truths which have been communicated effectively through hymns is long and impressive. From the simple truth of grace and self impoverishment in “Amazing Grace” to the efficacy of the blood of Christ in “Nothing But The Blood,” hymns have taught us acute, accurate, and efficient theology and have given us the means by which to digest it.
     Not only is there good theology in hymns, the variety of topics within that theology is extremely large. Truthfully, "there are hymns for virtually any sermon topic of occasion, including Christmas, Easter, weddings, and funerals." (Liesch 22) This means not only is the well for hymns deep in theological truth, but their breadth of topical analysis is great.
     The other great strength of hymns is their tradition. They are still being sung today; so many years after they were written. They have, indeed, "stood the test of time." (Liesch 22) This means that they are liturgical classics, sorted and sifted by the rigor of the ages.
     Hymns, however, have weaknesses which must be addressed. First of all, they don't reach the youth. The youth are "a generation that listen[s] to drums, guitar, and synthesizers," so why then do we try to reach them "using organs and choirs?" (Hunt)  The youth do not generally identify with their musical style, thus they are less likely to listen, identify, and enjoy singing hymns.
     Second of all, hymns sometimes "require the passage of time or special circumstances before they come alive and take hold." (Liesch 27) This means that youth have a hard time trying to understand, apply, and appreciate the great truths which are held within the text of hymns because they have not experienced that which most builds that appreciation.
    Last of all, hymns, while their theology is deep and profound, are difficult to sing. It is, in fact, the depth of that theology, the depth of that exposition, which makes them so. Singing a hymn becomes "an intellectual exercise rather than an outpouring of the heart." (Redman 165) in which constant attention to the text is necessary. (Liesch 30)
    Choruses, on the other hand, reach the youth through the familiarity of the music. The musical style of most choruses is similar to the music which the youth listen to outside of the church. This allows them to more easily identify with the music and to be involved on an emotional and personal basis with the praise song.
    Choruses are also less text based which means that less attention has to be paid as opposed to the heavy wording so often found in hymns. This frees the individual to praise God from the heart. This allows the individual a much more personal involvement and interaction with the time of praise.
    However, choruses, unlike hymns, often lack theological depth. They tend to "bracket the cross and resurrection together . . . [and] shortchange the full reality of sin and human weakness" and "gloss over persistent sin." (Liesch 20) They also tend to be “more about us than they are about God; praising Him for how He makes us feel or how trying to show God how much we are singing, clapping, lifting our hands, or bowing down." (Huyser-Honig) In short, they simply lack the lyrical depth which allows "a mature exposition of biblical doctrines." (Liesch 20)
     As you can see from our short analysis, neither hymns nor choruses are inherently unusable for church praise, nor are either perfectly suited to carry forth the purposes of praise songs in church. Both have their strengths which yield them useable and effective on one hand, and their weaknesses which yield them ineffective on the other. This is why there must be a balance.
     First, there needs to be a balance in realism. Those who argue for hymns alone must recognize that although hymns are mighty theological emporers for the faith, they greatly lack the ability to reach, minister to, and foster a personal and intimate worship experience for the younger generations. Those who argue for contemporary choruses must recognize that while choruses are powerful in bringing their hearts to praise, they greatly fail to reflect and teach theology which is the foundation of truth.
     Then, there needs to be a balance of interaction. The traditionalist must encourage the contemporary fan to re-examine their music and to upgrade the theological foundation of their musical library. The contemporary fan must encourage the traditionalist to stand for music which glorifies God, no matter the form.
     And finally, there needs to be a balance of melding. The two forms, working great side by side, can be extremely effective in overcoming the limitations of both. Worship can then become a personal and intimate worship experience which teaches, expresses, and exudes excellent theology which resounds in the hearts and lives of church members.

Works Cited

Bush, Kenneth W. Chaplian (LTC). “Military Worship Wars: Blended Worship as a Pastoral Response” The Army Chaplaincy Winter-Spring 2003. 10/14/06

Gonzalez, Marco. “A Biblical Reflection on Music & Theology by Marco Gonzalez” Reformed Theology. 09/14/06.

Hunt, Josh. “Introducing Contemporary Worship into a Traditional Church”. JoshHunt.com in articles. 09/14/06

Huyser-Honig, Joan. “Contemporary Worship Music Mature”. Calvin Institute of Christian Worship. 09/14/06

Liesch, Barry Wayne. The New Worship: Straight Talk on Music and the Church. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2001.

Redman, Matt. The Heart of Worship Files. Ventura: Regal Books, 2003.

Rives, Vell. “Contemporary or Traditional Music – Which is right?” 9 Marks Articles on Worship. 09/14/06

The Holy Bible, New International Version. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984

Warren, Rick. The Purpose Driven Church. Grand Rapids, 1995.