I share the annoyance with the worshiper-centric song lyrics. I assume that you noticed the part where the fellow up on stage called for a change of lyrics on that account?

It's really something that deserves thought on behalf of the leadership. Take for instance the chorus "I could sing of your love forever."
I would be quite satisfied if that song was wholly purged from the repertoire of choruses sung by modern churches, on account of it being the most pretentious worship song ever sung.

Some people enjoy modern worship. Oh well.

This may sound a tad rude, but since when has enjoyment been the point of worship? I was under the impression that the point of worship was to focus ourselves wholly upon God so that we can comprehend the work He seeks to do in us and through us.

"Like" or "dislike" aside, one thing that is frequently missing from contemporary praise choruses is the "cross of Christ." I really miss the descriptiveness of many of the great hymns in reminding me of what God has accomplished through Christ on my behalf and the demand that places upon my life. I am not saying that it is impossible to find a contemporary chorus dealing with the cross, but such music is not prevalent.

Exactly. And modernity, I think, has nothing to do with it. I'm downright avant-garde in some of my tastes. I love new church music when it has appropriate depth and focus.

Ok. So the purpose is focus on God. What if this kind of music helps others focus? What if all but a dozen or so students feel closer to God, feel a deeper connection, a greater sense of awe, respect, etc., when they sing songs like this? You say it's not about like or dislike. Are you sure you're not letting your specific taste in music leak through here? Each man worships God in his own way, a little different from everyone else. The point of worship music, as I see, regardless of style, exact words, etc., is to help us focus, and to help bring many people together in this focus. Too often, I see many of my friends worrying about correct grammar and puncuation, or "logical fallacies", or being "overly emotional". That's just as selfish as thinking it's all about me. Just because you don't feel as deep a connection, doesn't mean dozens of others aren't feeling God's arms wrapping around them, felling His presence and power and glory. The trap of "only this style really does it" is ultimately pride; pride that we know best how to worship. My point is that rather than posting something like this, which does no one any good, other than get us stirred up, try to find ways to worship God in your own way during such songs. You don't have to sing or anything. But respect that many of us enjoy these songs as a way to praise God and focus more directly on Him.

The trap of "only this style really does it" is ultimately pride; pride that we know best how to worship.

That could be a good point, but I really don't want to make this a debate about style. I may have strong opinions there too, but that is a separate issue (and, as you point out, a much more personal one). In this case, I am not criticizing the manner of worship; I am questioning the object. That is always a legitimate issue to examine. It is doctrinal; it cuts to the heart of religion.

To take an extreme example that did not come up in chapel yesterday, a popular worship song has a sustained refrain: "I'm alive, I'm alive, I'm alive, I'm alive, I'm alive, I'm alive, I'm alive, I'm alive ...." We could put it to organ music, eliminate the contraction, do anything we liked to make it more stylistically appealing; it would still be self-centered. When singing that song, people get euphoric at precisely the wrong place -- that line.

Even so, I might not be complaining at all if such music were put in its proper context. I rarely find that done. To his credit, the worship leader made an effort yesterday.

Yes, such songs can help people focus on God. They have done as much for me. In many cases, however, they also focus us on our own desires and cultivate spiritual individualism.

"The point of worship music, as I see, regardless of style, exact words, etc., is to help us focus, and to help bring many people together in this focus."

Well, gee, why don't we all just close our eyes and "Ohhhhhhmmmmmmm" together? C'mon, Sharpton, focus or no focus, what you're singing is important. I don't see how you can argue that it isn't.

Perhaps the modern church has got it wrong to some degree.

I remember reading Francis Schaeffer's "How Should We Then Live" and the part where he talks about the Beatles and Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Heart's Club Band.

Schaeffer's thoughts on the matter were something to the effect that the Beatles were attempting to recreate a drug-induced state through music.

Could the repetitive nature of many modern choruses be somewhat similar--a prideful attempt to recreate a Spirit-filled state through music?

So now modern worship is like drug use? Um...not so much.

I'm not saying that lyrics have no bearing. I just am getting whiffs of major legalism here. I think that the spirit of worship is most important. Next is the words, true.
What's wrong with singing songs about how we love God? I would think that people would stop and think whether they really do. And one day, we might very well sing of God's love forever.
I don't know if it's the original songwriter's intent, but I see the refrain "I'm alive" as a praise to God that I am indeed alive. For if not for the will of God, would any one of us yet live?

Sharpton, I think you're missing the point.

The fact of the matter is that we ALL acknowledge that the spirit of worship is the most important thing. The part that I find disturbing is that you seem to claim that the spirit of worship is intrinsically linked to contemporary praise choruses, regardless of lyrical content.

The argument being made, and the one we would all prefer you to address, is that the lyrics of many contemporary praise songs are of poor quality at best and frequently (and arguably inappropriately) focused on fickle human emotion rather than the immutable and infinitely praiseworthy nature of God. We aren't faulting the good intentions of the author of the song, but rather the quality and viability of his work.

And everyone said, "Amen."

I am not arguing that modern praise is the only way. I think there are many different ways, old and new. What I've basically been saying is that there is a dangerous tendency among us to become arrogant, thinking we know best what is and is not a proper way to sing.
Quality and viability are important, but so are good intentions.
I'm just very cautious about rejecting anything based on emotion. I certainly don't think it should all be based on emotion, but the other extreme of rejection of it for cold logic is just as bad.
Sadly, Ms. Garner, I don't think we've said "Amen" just yet.

Alright, everyone stop being so friggin' cynical. The songs are not about you. The songs are about God. Choruses such as "I'm alive" and "I could sing of Your love forever" are praising God for those attributes. More than that, there are plenty of songs that never even mention God by name, but people enter worship by them. Songs like "Amazing Grace." I could sing "99 Bottles of Beer on the Wall" and, as long as I was focused on God while doing so, it becomes a worship song.

Alright, that's an extreme, but the point remains. The songs are not for you. The songs are for those who are able to enter worship by them. No one is forcing you to worship by those songs. If you can, fine. If you can't, then find your own way to worship. God does not require that we worship Him in this way or that way. He only requires our worship. If you find, diring a time of "worship music" that you find it not to be, shut up and sit down. Those songs are very likely helping another to worship.

So, I am allowed to have a different personal reaction to the music ... as long as I do not presume to let anyone else know about it? Was that the point at which I became "arrogant" and "legalistic"?

My 2.25 cents:

#1) 'there is a dangerous tendency among us to become arrogant, thinking we know best what is and is not a proper way to sing'
That's true. But equally (or perhaps more) dangerous is the tendency to accept everything that's presented to us without thinking. Wilson presented a critique of a particular trend in some contemporary music. Your responses largely seem to be criticizing Wilson for having the audacity to question "the establishment." I'm not sure whether that was your intention, but that's how it came across to me. And, speaking of intentions:

#2) 'Quality and viability are important, but so are good intentions.'
I'm sure you know the old saw about the road to Hell and good intentions, so I won't bother repeating it. What I will say is this: Good intentions are a nice starting point, but they're less important than the path taken to reach the goal. If I intend to help you forget your headache and go about it by stabbing you in the leg with a butcher knife, something is clearly wrong with the execution.

#3) 'Too often, I see many of my friends worrying about correct grammar and puncuation, or "logical fallacies", or being "overly emotional". That's just as selfish as thinking it's all about me.' (This one isn't really related to Wilson's subject, but I want to address it anyway.)
You're right, to an extent: if we get caught up in the minor details, we have missed the point of worship. However, the problem I have with such technical errors is that they tend to cultivate an attitude of carelessness. If there are non-Christians in the audience, how do such errors reflect on us to them? I see no reason why we can't strive for accuracy (I might say "excellence") in the little things we do (consider Matthew 25:14-30).

Wilson’s comments certainly have generated discussion. As one of the “moms,” I’m going to jump in here and share something of my concern regarding this issue in the church. I don’t feel, by the way, that I have all the answers regarding how to “rightly worship God.” He continues to teach me and challenge my comfort zone regarding this area.

I wonder if we, as Christians, respond so strongly to worship related comments because some aspect of our assumptions regarding corporate worship, at least, need to be challenged. Corporate worship is, by nature, different than individual worship during personal Bible study, prayer, and meditation. Therefore, I think that careful consideration needs to be given to the needs of the entire group. Most evangelicals profess that Scripture should be highly regarded, although their practice may not really support this profession. First and foremost, then, the lyrics of our worship music should accurately reflect sound Biblical doctrine. The style of music which supports the lyrics is also important, but less so than the message of the songs.

I recently read these guidelines for applying Scripture to our corporate worship:

“1. Don’t neglect what God’s word clearly commands (sing, pray, preach the Word).
2. Don’t do what God’s Word forbids (self-mutilation, worshipping images).
3. In everything else use biblically informed wisdom.”
-Bob Kauflin, www.sovgracemin.org

If those are valid guidelines, then obviously it is critical that there be spiritual oversight of worship planning, including the selection of music to exalt God and edify the body. Otherwise, there seems to be some freedom. Perhaps, this is where we get bogged down. To minister across various generations and cultures, it may be prudent to select strong songs from diverse styles in some type of blended sequence. However, it is hard to step away from personal preferences and challenging to order a service that focuses upon God. Worship forms (whether music or liturgy) are no substitute for a heart focused upon the finished work of Christ and seeking to worship him in spirit and in truth. But they do impact the worship experience of each individual who is present during the corporate worship service. Consequently, I believe it is important if we are to esteem others in the body, that we continue to dialogue regarding the manner in which we all may best worship God together. This is yet another opportunity to practice love within the body as we seek to “think” and “reason” together.

I'm not saying we should accept every little thing. My point is more in line with Scott's. Sometimes, maybe, just maybe, the "establishment" is even right. Crazy.
Wilson, it's one thing to like or dislike songs for various reasons. Your post had the tone that we should restructure our worship about these ideas. That's where that came from.
And you know, yes, I know the quote about the road to Hell. It's not in the Bible....And I would think a Christian wouldn't stab his friend in the head to relieve a headache. I suppose I should clarify that much of what I'm saying is really only applicable to Christians and members of the Church.
Sure, we should strive for it, but ultimately, it's not what's important.
Once again, I'm saying what Scott said: each should worship in his own way, and if you don't like a song, you can most certainly refrain.
It's just that this "critique" post came across as some sort of call to action or some such. And I was mildly hurt by the implications, since I sang every song that day, and had a great worship experience. Am I less of a Christian for singing those songs? Or is it merely my personal style and taste of worship don't mind those songs?

Am I less of a Christian for singing those songs?

*Rereads original post*

Nope, that's not anywhere in anything I said. I didn't tell anyone not to sing; I said that "I had to abstain" because the songs lent themselves to an inappropriate focus. Apparently, my conviction upset you quite a bit.

Sometimes, maybe, just maybe, the "establishment" is even right. Crazy.

Where did that come from? Since when did the "establishment" have any set opinion on this, anyway?

Just because someone has good intentions in writing a song does not mean that the song is any good ("good" being incredibly relative). A vast number of worship songs are incredibly focused on the individual Christian singing them. Nobody can deny that. The argument I am seeing is claiming that focus on the individual is inappropriate for a time of worship. I agree.

And, for the record, I have compared modern worship to both drug use and cult behavior. I still believe it is an apt comparison.

Preface: this post is not attempting to attack anyone on either side, but a simple thought.

Did anyone else find the hymn that we sang this morning in chapel to be somewhat ironic considering this particular train of comments? After all, aside from a few lines in verse 2, it was all about us and how we love God. I guess the point I'm getting at is that is problem of anthropocentric worship (which I agree is a problem that deserves very serious consideration) is not just limited to contemporary praise choruses.

"And, for the record, I have compared modern worship to both drug use and cult behavior. I still believe it is an apt comparison."
And I find myself insulted by this statement. Hence why I disagree with you on this. There can be instances of this. But generalizing like this insults many sincere Christians who have a genuine worshipful connection to God during these songs. I take objection to that.

And everyone said, "Amen"?

"Nope, that's not anywhere in anything I said."
*Sighs*. Wilson, you're correct. You didn't. That came from two sources: my getting worked up on this, and what I inferred from the content and tone of several of the comments. I think I took the tone of your original post in the wrong light. Now, some of the comments of other people, I think I've read pretty well.
I do think we can do better with the content of some of our songs (lyrically speaking). But ultimately, I believe firmly that it is the responsability of each Christian to worship with what they have, in what way they can. So while some of these songs could use improvement, I put forward that one can have a proper and sincere worship time with them, if you go about it correctly.

Sharpton, you're making a mess of the issue and playing the martyr again... stop it.

We all agree that, in the end, worship is a matter of personal priority and sincerity. That said, some of us find it perfectly acceptable to criticize those songs of worship (and I will happily cite bad hymns as well as choruses) which we find questionable in both quality and focus. You, for whatever reason, seem to find the practice of criticizing crappy songs to be morally reprehensible. Except that you refuse to tell us why this is a problem, and you proceed to muddle the issue.

Let me reiterate: Wilson said at the outset and everyone subsequently agreed that your personal attitude of worship is paramount. Why are you getting all bent out of shape about the criticism of worship music?

I'm trying to get bent back into shape on this...After looking over the post again, I see what Wilson is saying. At this point, I am taking issue mainly with the statement Randy made, which is a broad generalization. I've tried to rest my case, and really tried not to play a martyr. I would hope my friends know me well enough to know that I do get worked up over stuff sometimes, and that leads to...well, this stuff. I just get so hot-headed at times.

I recall discussing this same thing with Dr. Woodring once. He simply said that, if he doesn't agree with what the song says, then he doesn't sing it. Seems so simple, no? I personally came from a religious system that sings ABOUT God and not TO God, and the difference is so...WOW. wow. God is here...where 2 or 3 are gathered in His name. With us on this blog? Indeed.

Tank, while I feel that your solution for dealing with those songs which one finds disagreeable is wholly sufficient on a personal basis, this discussion seems to have come to rest on whether or not it is appropriate to analyze and discuss the perceived shortcomings of certain songs and their usage in corporate worship.

Sharpton, I think we could all agree that Randy, like myself, is prone to superlative upon occasion and that his statement is probably an overreaching generalization with an intention to provide humor. I'm amused at any event, and I do see the similarities even as I see the failings of the analogy.

In short, I find some modern worship songs to be utterly devoid of any depth... and some to be even theologically questionable. This isn't to say that there weren't/aren't bad hymns as well... but the topic at hand was generated by the tripe that many of the praise and worship bands pull out for use in corporate worship at LU. We all know that one can worship with the right attitude regarless of the music... the question is: could getting better music of a higher standard in terms of quality and focus draw more people to worship? If the answer to that is even a tenuous "maybe", then I think it's worth delving into, even at the expense of upsetting some people.

"And, for the record, I have compared modern worship to both drug use and cult behavior. I still believe it is an apt comparison."
And I find myself insulted by this statement. Hence why I disagree with you on this. There can be instances of this. But generalizing like this insults many sincere Christians who have a genuine worshipful connection to God during these songs. I take objection to that.

Oh, dear. I managed to offend Sharpton online. I never thought that would happen.

I suppose that standing around and chanting repetitive mantras is nothing at all like cult behavior. I guess that the alteration of body chemistry as a result of physical movement and exhaling a large amount of air is nothing at all like drug use.

And I did not make an overarching generalization. I said that I had compared modern worship to drug use and cult behavior. I'm not saying that everyone invovled with worship is mindless, but I am saying that not many people put much though into it.

Quite frankly, I don't care if you feel insulted by this. Your feelings don't change my beliefs.

On a slightly unrelated note, if a < b, then (1/a) > (1/b) if a and b are both greater than 0.

You know what, Gallagher, yes, I've heard that logic applied before. It's not in the Bible. Let's try to keep this on a basis that's applicable to Christians and members of the Church.

You know what, Wheeler, have you ever thought that the members of the Church and Christians are not the same group of people? Back in the day, you couldn't be a member of the Church until you were a Christian (i.e. were baptized), and then people started baptizing their babies so that they were members of the Church, even though the babies weren't Saved.

Dude, Gallagher, baptism isn't for you. Baptism is for those who are able to enter the Kingdom of Heaven by it. No one is forcing you to enter the Kingdom of Heaven that way. If you can, fine. If you can't, then find your own ticket in. God does not require that we come in through this gate or that gate. He only requires our . . . y'know . . . whatever.

Dude, did you even see Kingdom of Heaven? That movie sucked. Clearly, the argument being made, and the one we would all prefer you to address, is that many contemporary movies are of poor quality at best and frequently (and arguably inappropriately) focused on fickle human emotion, whereas the good old movies expressed truths that apply to everyone everywhere.

Okay, yeah, I find some modern movies to be utterly devoid of any depth, and some to be even theologically questionable. But that's not to say that there weren't bad old movies as well. Nevertheless the topic at hand was generated by the tripe that many Hollywood studios pull out to inflict on us in the present day. We all know that one can often find laudable messages anywhere regardless of the release date . . . the question is: could getting better movies of a higher standard in terms of quality and focus draw more people to theaters in a search for the truth? If the answer to that is even a tenuous "maybe", then I think it's worth delving into, even at the expense of upsetting some people.

We all know that one can often find laudable messages anywhere regardless of the release date . . .
Clearly, you have never watched a movie from the 80s. Your rambling clearly shows a diseased brain. Thus, I think I shall stab you in the leg with a butcher knife, thus relieving the rest of us of your inanity.

Geez, Gallagher, I would think a Christian wouldn't stab his friend in the leg to relieve inanity. Anyway, perhaps you have never heard the term "cult classic" . . . doesn't that scare you a bit? People are forming CULTS around old movies! Plus, people in old movies sometimes use drugs.

People are forming CULTS around old movies! Plus, people in old movies sometimes use drugs.
I find myself insulted by this statement. Hence why I disagree with you on this. There can be instances of this. But generalizing like this insults many sincere moviegoers who have a genuine connection to Truth during the films. I take objection to that. Besides, maybe they form cults and do drugs because it's their way.

Oh, I suppose that dressing up like Marilyn Monroe and chanting "Rosebud" is nothing at all like cult behavior.

And I did not make any generalizations. I'm not saying that everyone invovled with movies is mindless, but I am saying that not many people put much thought into them.

Quite frankly, I don't really care if you feel insulted. Your feelings aren't important, even to your mom.

*walks on stage*

*blinks*

I am a banana!

The Family Learning Channel.

And everyone said, "Amen!"

*grin*