Hey guys...can you offer some advice? On the first Sunday of March after much prayer, debate, work, tears, sweat, etc...we will begin a new service on Sunday morning here. We are transitioning from a traditional service to adding another new contemporary worship service (drums, guitars, etc.) THis change has not been received well by everyone...in fact, some downright hate it.

But I am convinced that it was needed. Now we are only two weeks out and I am getting more and more nervous as the time draws nigh. I know that I shouldn't be fearful, but I am being honest. So much effort and work to get us here and then it is about to happen.

What could you tell me, those that have been down this road, that can give me more security.

You know the funny thing is that for me this is one of the biggest things I have ever faced in ministry, but the reality is this is nothing. Our efforts mean little in scope of the whole kingdom and what really matters for eternity. Oh well...

-- Anonymous, February 15, 2002

Answers

As the old axiom says, "when in doubt, don't".

My underlining question concerning worship styles is "Why?"

-Why do you need a second service?

-Why do you need a second service with "contemporary" style worship?

-Why do you feel so uncomfortable about your decision to add this second service?

By what read in your original question, it sounds to me that the only reasons you give are purely pragmatic in nature. Don't get me wrong. Rarely do we sing the "old" hymns in our church - not because I do not enjoy them, but because I wanted to help people to "connect" to God in a very real and personal way and the "classics" just don't express what needs to be expressed in plain everyday language. My concern is with content, not with style. Sure, I take Paul's admonition for orderliness very seriously, but I also think that we have overworked that guideline to the exclusion of some very legitimate worship. I someone could come up with a combination of fresh style plus rich content for music, I would use it in a heartbeat. Maybe that is precisely the challenge we need to move beyond this traditional-vs.-contemporary debacle.

-- Anonymous, February 15, 2002

Phil...

Well...you misunderstood me. Let me share with you why we are doing what we are doing. In a nutshell it is because of the same reason there are four gospels. Each gospel was written with essentially the same message but they were directed at different audiences with different styles. Now could Jesus have had His story told in only one way. Sure. But each group got its own gospel so that the message could be clearly understood.

I ain't trying to write a new gospel but I do want to provide different channels to effectively communicate the good news. And a new service can do just that.

Here are a few other reasons: It will help us reach the unchurched. It will minister to more people. It will reach new kinds of people. This new service allows for change while retaining the familiar. And it could potentially activate inactive Christians.

Now explaining all this is something I have been doing quite frequently and I don't wish to do so here, that was not what I wrote about. What I was looking for was for "friendly" advice on normal preacher "jitters" over this. I don't need you or anyone else to critique our motives in some high-brow manner. Maybe in Mexico they have it all figured out but here in Des Moines we don't and I simply was being a little confessional and hoping for caring responses not criticism.

-- Anonymous, February 15, 2002

Michael,

We went to two services in January of last year. But the year before that, we had a three month trial to see how it would work. This is how we presented it to the congregation: We will try this for three months and see if the Lord blesses it. If he does, we will continue, if not we will stop it. It is hard to argue against that! The Lord did bless it with added attendance, and brought in quite a few younger families. At the end of our three month trial, we went back to one service for a few months and worked out the bugs that we discovered during the trial period. As I said, we officially started two services in January, and will probably be adding a third (possibly a Saturday night) in a year or so.

Let me tell you a few things you probably already realize: 1) Every church targets an audience whether they recognize it or not. Who is your present audience? The people that you presently have. They were probably/possibly attracted by the way you did things when they joined. When you begin changing those things, they become uncomfortable and will often try to make it into a doctrinal issue.

2) You have one or several influencers in your congregation. They may or may not be in leadership (probably not). Go to them and ask them how they think your church might best reach the lost. You have to give people buy-in to the decision. Whether you like it or not, that is how it works. It doesn't mean that you implement everything they say, but at least they know that they have been heard, and that you value their opinions. They also might very well have some insight that you do not have.

3) People follow vision, not buildings, programs, etc... You have to cast the vision for the future of the church. Let them know how God is leading you. I would not focus so much on how the vision is implemented, but the vision itself. For instance, God is clearly showing us that we should be reaching the GenXers of this community. Once people understand and agree with the vision, you can begin to implement the changes. Until they understand the vision, they won't see the need to make the changes.

I applaud you in what you are attempting to do. Let me add, that if you want some really solid resources, check out Willow Creek and Saddleback. I know some of those on this board don't appreciate these guys, but I think they are at the forefront of a move of God in our generation. Even if you don't agree with everything they say/do, you can definitely learn some practical ways to implement change.

Also, get the books: How to Change Your Church Without Killing It by Gene Appel, and Transitioning by Dan Southerland.

IHS,

-- Anonymous, February 15, 2002

The church I am currently attending has four worship services: an informal one on Saturday night, two fairly contemporary but not too "out there" services on sunday morning and a really out-on-the- edge contemporary services for young people on sunday night. (Of course having an attendance of over 2000 ...) On the other hand, the church I just left fell apart after the pastor wanted to add a more contemporary service to reach the unchurched (read: lost) youth in our valley. But I don't think that was a problem of the service itself, it was a problem with the hearts of the congregants. We actually had old people saying publically, "Why should we do anything for the young people? What have they ever done for us?" So I think its really going to be "where is your congregation's heart? Can they see your vision?"

-- Anonymous, February 15, 2002

Barry...

You're right about the resources from Willowcreek and Saddleback. Also the book on how to change your church...have it. Good book...I especially got a ton out of the chapter and section on how to make conflict work for you. I read another one as well...simply titled: How to start a new service by Charles Arn. Great resource. He compiled the findings and results of a survey of over 2,000 churches that began a 2nd service.

Thanks for your input.

-- Anonymous, February 15, 2002

Michael:

In a previous congregation, we developed the contemporary style slowly, changing a bit at a time. When we added a second service, we made sure the two services were identical in content, in song selection, in everything, EXCEPT that in the earlier service we left the musical intensity a level lower. Same songs, same arrangements, but not all the same instrumentation. In second service, we used piano, keyboard, drums, guitar, bass, trumpet, trombone, baritone, tuba, and four or five voices. In first service, we did exactly the same service, but with only piano, keyboard, acoustic guitar, and two or three voices. Same music, same songs, less intensity volume-wise and style-wise. It was very well acepted by those who wanted to remain more traditional. They had to learn new songs, yeah, but they learned them and enjoyed them in a more comfortable setting.

The second service is the one that grew the fastest, and now the church (which I'm no longer with) has gone foll-blown in both services, and both are still growing.

'Course, what worked for us may not work for you, or may not even be what you want to do. In either case, Barry's words are true. Make the leadership (the elders, not just you) take a public stand supporting the changes, and ride it out. Be prepared to be the point man for the lightning that strikes. But support each other in the decision, and ride it out. If you're making the changes because you truly believe that it's the thing God is calling your congregation to do, then you'll come thru it just fine.

-- Anonymous, February 15, 2002

Mike,

Mine was "friendly" advice. I'm sorry that it read differently.

God bless

-- Anonymous, February 16, 2002

Mike -- Is the more contemporary service going to be early, or later? I ask because the folks most likly to attend a contemporary service won't be the one's getting up extra early to be there at 9:00 or ??? The "older" folks are the ones who get up with the roosters, not the younger folks, or the folks with young children who might get up early but need more time to get ready to head out in the morning.

Sadly, most congregations who have a contemporary service slot it as the early service, and that does a dis-service to it's chances of reaching more of the lost.

Southland in Lexington has done it right, I believe. Their Saturday evening and Sunday morning services are "lightly contemporary" with quality music. Their "6:07" evening service it the out there service, and it reaches quite a bunch of younger folks (and others who might be a surprize).

They moved away from a traditional service when Wayne Smith left. Went right to a contemporary format, using video, a band -vs- orchestra, and mostly contemporary songs, though they do use hymns, just "juice them up a bit." I understand they were running around 5000 when Wayne left. The change to contemporary brought a loss of around 500 attenders over the first year or so, but it also brought in around 2500 new folks during the same time period.

They made their decision of who to reach, rather than trying to reach "everyone" which is very difficult to do. And the last time I visited, I saw a large number of older folks I remembered from the old days of the early 70's when I attended there.

Just some thoughts!

-- Anonymous, February 16, 2002

Our service times will be: 8:30 - traditional service 9:30 - Sunday School (no change on time) 11:00 - Contemporary service

-- Anonymous, February 16, 2002

Sam what's your church's website addy?

-- Anonymous, February 17, 2002

Great times for the services!

-- Anonymous, February 17, 2002

n/m sam, I found it

-- Anonymous, February 18, 2002

Darrell.....I just had to comment on a few things you said in your post to Mike. Your comments are in parenthesis:

(Is the more contemporary service going to be early, or later? I ask because the folks most likly to attend a contemporary service won't be the one's getting up extra early to be there at 9:00 or ??? The "older" folks are the ones who get up with the roosters, not the younger folks, or the folks with young children who might get up early but need more time to get ready to head out in the morning.)

Darrell....that is a sterotype that I just don't believe flies....i.e., old people get up early....young people get up later. We almost went to double services in August of last year.....but decided against it after receiving more resistance than anticipated. We had it set up like you stated.....the traditional early....contemporary late....and you guessed it....the older ones complained about being here early.....and after the fact....the younger ones with children were disappointed we decided against it....because they wanted to come to church early and then have the rest of the day to do things with family.

(They moved away from a traditional service when Wayne Smith left. Went right to a contemporary format, using video, a band -vs- orchestra, and mostly contemporary songs, though they do use hymns, just "juice them up a bit." I understand they were running around 5000 when Wayne left. The change to contemporary brought a loss of around 500 attenders over the first year or so, but it also brought in around 2500 new folks during the same time period.)

I don't want to get into a "contemporary" vs. "traditional" music discussion...but I do want to ask.....How low do we go?? Francis Schaeffer noted one of the noticable marks of the decline of the Roman empire....was its music....i.e., the more bombastic the music became....the more decadent the culture became.

To me.....there is just an inherent cultural problem that has us "kicking out the orchestra".....and bringing in the "Jam Band." I think it's a shame that our generation of young people think it's "their way or no way" when it comes to music.....and many a preacher and/or "worship leader" is encouraging that attitude.

Thank goodness for homeschooling where our kids still have the opportunity to learn about the REAL musicians of the past.....and not just someone who can hook up a guitar and play it real loud.

Oh....I know I'll get the retort...."All things to all men"......but again I ask......How low do we go?? Where is the place where we FINALLY draw the line in the sand??

Futher questions....are we really satisifed with a church full of people who determine truth by the most entertaining "Praise Band?" What happens when the Lutherans down the street have better quality music....and better projection and video presentations?? Is there any validity to the claim of "What we win them with....is what we win them to?"

Standing by my claim....I choose not to make music a test of fellowship....but it appears many are. If people aren't in to the "new and improved".....to heck with church unity and go find yourself another place to worship.

But....I refuse to make it a test of fellowship....nor will I allow it to divide a congregation....but I certainly do ponder the question....in light of your post......How low do we go??

As you said..."Just some thoughts!"

-- Anonymous, February 18, 2002

Danny -- I don't think it has to be a question of how low we go. It CAN be, but doesnt' have to. The quality of music at Southland is as good as any I have heard anywhere. They use hymns some, and using the praise band to play the hymns does nothing to lower the music. In fact, the singing of the congregation is as good as anywhere I have been. It beocmes a matter of apples and oranges. Both are good and healthy, just different.

re: service times. I believe my post to be the norm, but it won't always be so. Even so, the older, more mature folks should be ready to give a bit. The younger CHRISTIAN families might want to get up earlier to have the rest of the day for the family (that's where our family is). But if the purpose of the contemporary service is to reach out to the un-churched younger people, then most are going to want to come to a later service.

Now, we can always discuss what the purpose of the worship service is ... and who it is intended to reach. Biblically speaking, it is for the edification of the saints (among other things) and not an evangelistic tool. 2000 years ago the PEOPLE evangelized, and the gathering was for the saints. Today, the SERVICE is used to evangelize, hence the need to make changes in order to reach people through the service.

But I digress ... and maybe that is another thread ...

-- Anonymous, February 18, 2002

Danny,

I'm trying to figure out what you mean by labeling contemporary music "low"??

-- Anonymous, February 18, 2002

Barry.....where did I do that??

I could have easily used the term "modern"..."current day"....etc.

In other words....How bombastically low do we allow music to become in the guise of....."remaining contemporary and in touch??"

Let me put it another way....."Just because it is "contempory"....is it good for the church?"

-- Anonymous, February 18, 2002

Danny,

I'm not sure how you're using the term "low". What makes one form of music low, and another high? In my view, music is amoral.

-- Anonymous, February 18, 2002

My feelings also. How is one form of music "lower" than another ... just because it is newer than another?

-- Anonymous, February 18, 2002

Barry,

If music is amoral - then you have no problems with songs by AC/DC, Metallica, Black Sabbath, etc???

I might be wrong, but I have a feeling that you probably do not listen to or approve of those types of music.

Now...........if you tune into a Rock & Roll station on your radio and hear a bombastic rock song like AC/DC's "Highway to Hell" and then tune into a contemporary Christian station and hear something that sounds practically identical to the AC/DC piece..........do you not have a problem with that??

We, as Christians, are supposed to be in the world but not OF the world. But when "Christians" have to degrade their worship music to the level of "Highway to Hell" or "Cop Killer" in order to get people to come to church.................that is a big problem!!

Of course, that is not to say that all contemporary praise songs are that way. There are some absolutely gorgeous contemporary worship choruses and songs that I truly enjoy & appreciate. But we DO have to be careful to present the church of Christ to the world as the beautifully arrayed Bride of Christ - not as a gothic street prostitute.

-- Anonymous, February 18, 2002

Actually Mark and Danny you are both totally wrong. Music is amoral. It is the associations we make that make it more than it ought. You should listen to a group called "Apologetix". They are a terrific Christian band that takes "contemporary" music (of all forms) and re- writes the lyrics to glorify Christ. In fact their idea isn't new. It's what Fanny J. Crosby did and many other hymn writers who took a contemporary tune (usually a bar tune) and wrote Christian lyrics to it.

If AC/DC music might cause some non-Christian to turn his head and say, "Hey, I know that song...but wait, that ain't the way I remember the words." Then I say let's use it for the glory of Christ.

Why is it that we as the church are always standing in opposition to all things when we can take some of the things of this world and make it markedly Christian. That doesn't mean I have become "worldly" or have, as my a capella brothers would charge, "perverted the gospel of Christ." I do not lose my Christian distinctiveness merely by using multiple methods to gain an ear.

BTW...Danny, you are questioning the validity of offering a contemporary service (which doesn't make sense to me) when you have done this very thing in other ministries. Adopting a contemporary service will allow a church to double its outreach potential...it creates new ministries where more people can serve. Offering only one service, at one time of day, on one day of the week, with one style, says to your community, "This is your choice - take it or leave it." Guess which option most choose?

-- Anonymous, February 18, 2002

Mark,

You are correct, I don't approve of AC/DC or Metallica. But it is their lyrics and lifestyle I disagree with. Not there music. I actually think their music is great.

There are some great Christian metal groups like Deliverance that I have turned young people onto and it has made a solid positive influence on their lives.

Music is amoral, lifestyle and lyrics are not. If music is not amoral, could you please provide a Scripture verse that says or implies this?

Thanks,

-- Anonymous, February 18, 2002

Apologetix ROCKS! (Forgive the pun) I especially love their song, "Hey Hey, we're all monkeys" (to the Monkeys theme song)

-- Anonymous, February 18, 2002

Mark, you said,

Now...........if you tune into a Rock & Roll station on your radio and hear a bombastic rock song like AC/DC's "Highway to Hell" and then tune into a contemporary Christian station and hear something that sounds practically identical to the AC/DC piece..........do you not have a problem with that??

A lot of the songs by Fanny Crosby and Charles Wesley were to the tunes of popular drinking songs sung in bars ... you have any problem singing those? Christianity has a history of taking the secular culture and putting a Christian spin on it to make it relevant to the secular culture. As Paul said, "I become all things to all people that I may win some."

I am reminded of Pat Boone appearing at that awards show dressed like a heavy metal rocker - what a shock he gave to the Christian community. But the clothes don't make the man, and a lot of kids who were into that lifestyle had a new reason to respect and pay attention to Boone's message after that. Besides, it was FUNNY!

-- Anonymous, February 18, 2002

Michael....you said..."BTW...Danny, you are questioning the validity of offering a contemporary service (which doesn't make sense to me)"

Really?? Where?? Cut and paste. I did no such thing....nor do I have a problem with a "non-traditional" service.

As usual.....the "contemporary or else" crowd becomes extremely defensive when asked for simple philosophical inflection. Hmmmmmm.

Mark....being a music major you understand perfectly what I mean. Thanks!

I do want to thank everyone for answering my question. I appreciate it....honestly.

It does demonstrate we are willing to do anything musically in the guise of evangelism....which is what I was afraid of.

But...that's your choice. What you win them with...is what you win them to.

I would encourage everyone to intensly read what Francis Schaeffer has wrote on the relationship of music and its culture.

-- Anonymous, February 18, 2002

Oh....and it is true that music is amoral.

That's not the question.

The question Scripturally is..."Whatever is true, noble, right, pure, lovely, admirable...etc."

As one listens to a rendition of "Highway to Hell"...(even without the words)....or simply the "genre" of heavy metal...or grunge....and then compares it with the art of Beethoven, Bach, or Mozart...one should be able to quickly distinguish between art....and bombastic....and high vs. low culture.

If they can't.....then we understand Schaeffer's point of the decadence of society.

-- Anonymous, February 18, 2002

So if a person is won to Christ using so-called "low" music, is he then a "low" Christian? Does the depth of his experience in Christ mean nothing because he listens to music that sounds like secular rock, and in the context of his culture it speaks to him?

One of the reasons we have failed to reach this generation is because we have failed to understand them. They are so turned off by pompous stuffed-shirts that want to make them sing centuries-old hymns they neither understand nor find in the slightest bit relevant. Christianity's greatest strength has always been its ability to adapt to any cultural environment and be relevant to wherever it finds itself, and its greatest weakness has always been those in other cultures looking askance at the strangeness of the peculiar experience of their neighbors, rather than loving them as brothers in Christ and accepting their peculiar cultural adaptation of the faith. (Note: I said cultural adaptation, not doctrinal compromise.)

-- Anonymous, February 18, 2002

Danny...

You wrote: "Let me put it another way....."Just because it is "contempory"....is it good for the church?""

If that is not questioning the validity of a contemporary service, then I completely misread you. Seems to me that it is not a statement of the contemporary-only crowd creating an apologetic which states: My way or the highway. It is not so easily dismissed with your trite remark..."Oh....I know I'll get the retort...."All things to all men". Some people think that Luke 15 happens to be important. The facts are is that the church is so focused on everything else it has forgot what its supposed to be doing.

Remember what got Clinton into the White House? It was that one infamous catch-phrase: "It's the economy, stupid!" Well, it seems to me that we would do well to adapt a similar motto in the church: "It's the gospel, stupid!"

Why do we implement changes such as these and incorporate methods that are far from traditional? Because, its about the gospel. We do this because Luke 15 shows us God's heart. And what matters to God most is supposed to be what matters to us most.

Unfortunately what matters to us most matters nothing to Jesus. That is a true-blue statement. WWJD was a popular ideal adopted by many with some value, but it is long-gone now. Another adoptable phrase I'd suggest is WJSHTOT...Would Jesus Spend His Time On This?

When debating a Baptist ask: WJSHTOT? You'll probably not like your answer if you like debating Baptists.

But apply it to making the gospel relevant: WJSHTOT? The answer is obvious...at least it should be.

-- Anonymous, February 18, 2002

Michael, you said

Why do we implement changes such as these and incorporate methods that are far from traditional? Because, its about the gospel.

I agree. We're supposed to be trying to save souls, not save our culture.

-- Anonymous, February 18, 2002

John...you said..."One of the reasons we have failed to reach this generation is because we have failed to understand them. They are so turned off by pompous stuffed-shirts that want to make them sing centuries-old hymns they neither understand nor find in the slightest bit relevant"

That is absolutely an unprovable assertion....and at best gets....anecdotal evidence.

And....I just could just as easily provide anecdotal evidence to the contrary. I can show you churches that are reaching young people today.....WITHOUT....an emphasis on music.

I think it would be much easier to prove the assertion that the reason we have not won this generation is due to the fact that the church has so watered down its message....and so lost its ability to make moral stands....that the church is no longer considered relevant by society.

In other words....it's not that society doesn't know we are here. They just don't take us seriously anymore.

-- Anonymous, February 18, 2002

Danny,

I guess I'm on the "low" scale, because I would rather listen to heavy metal than Bach, Mozart, etc...any day of the week. I'm sure that their music is technically excellent, it's just not my taste.

And that's what this really boils down to -- taste, and taste alone. I am not of the "contempory only" crowd of which you speak. I think people can worship with traditional music. I also think people can worship with hard rock such as P.O.D. and others are putting out.

The problem is, you're falling into the trap you're accusing the contemporary only crowd of being in. You are saying that rock is somehow inferior to one's spiritual growth (or at least that is what I'm understanding you to say). I guess Jesus, Paul, Peter, etc.. were out of luck since their Jewish tunes (example, Psalm 150) were much closer to rock and roll than they were Mozart. In fact, I wonder how these guys could even worship pre-hymnal days??? (tongue-in-cheek).

IHS,

-- Anonymous, February 18, 2002

John stated..."We're supposed to be trying to save souls, not save our culture."

Great statment John. It would get you a standing ovation if you preached that at the North American Christian Convention.

Problem is....it ain't true! It's a false dichotomy.

Let's examine it historically.

The Canaanites....the people Abraham..et. al. dealt with....including the people of the period of the conquest.....had one of the most decadent religions ever known....full of fertility gods and goddesses....sexual orgies as worship....etc. (Just as a side note...the Israelites participated in this "contemporary worship" as well....in the name of Yahweh...but I digress.) The result?? An extremly decadent society that God said needed to be completely wiped out...(which Israel did not do).

The Assyrians were extremely polytheistic....and it manifested itself in one of the most warlike, barbarous cultures ever known.

Early Roman society was a bastain of virtue due mostly to the influene of the early Greek philosophers. However, they abandoned that for the more decadent Greek philosophies such as Hedonism. The result?? A culture that decayed....and eventually collapsed.

The false religion of the Catholic church was largely responsible for the decadence and ugliness of the Dark Ages.

And yet....it was the Reformers....and their emphasis on "sola Scriptura" that brought about....the Rennaisance, a renewed interested in arts and music. Early classical musicians found their inspiration in the beauty and majesty of God.

And for America??? Is it too surprising then, in light of the historical background, that as America has ditched God.....our society and culture has become increasingly bombastic and decadent???

Again....souls or culture?? It's a false dichotomy. The two are intrinsically tied together.

So I utterly reject the notion that the gospel must transform to culture. It's the other way around.

-- Anonymous, February 18, 2002

Michael....your comments in parenthesis....

(If that is not questioning the validity of a contemporary service, then I completely misread you.)

I'm glad you realized you did.

(Seems to me that it is not a statement of the contemporary-only crowd creating an apologetic which states: My way or the highway.)

Really?? You have as yet to produce the evidence that I disapprove of a "contemporary service." In fact....at current our worship is "mixed".....with both traditional and non-traditional elements.

I simply asked the question..."How far do we go??" I got my answer.

And as far as "which one is the my way or the hi-way crowd".....do some research in churches that split over the issue....and find out who brought about the split. It would prove enlightening. I believe a great deal of love and patience needs to be demonstrated on both sides of the issue. I would suggest....the unity of the body is far more important than who wins the music argument.

Upon what basis do you suggest that Luke 15 is "what matters to God most?" What hermeneutical principle allows you to elevate that above let's say....Jude 3?? Acts 2:42?? 2 Timothy 2:15??......and most especially James 1:27?? And one more Michael....in light of Jesus's concern in the Garden on the night before He was crucified.....it seems to me....unity of the body is pretty high on Jesus list as well. Would you agree??

(Unfortunately what matters to us most matters nothing to Jesus.)

Again....upon what do you base this??

(That is a true-blue statement. WWJD was a popular ideal adopted by many with some value, but it is long-gone now.)

You mean...another religious fad gone by the wayside?? Oh no!!!

(When debating a Baptist ask: WJSHTOT? You'll probably not like your aswer if you like debating Baptists.)

In light of Jude 3.....2 Timothy 1:13....Galatians 1:6....just to name a few....I think I would be VERY HAPPY with the answer.

(But apply it to making the gospel relevant: WJSHTOT? The answer is obvious...at least it should be. )

Michael....you keep defending propositions never attacked. Of course the gospel should be relevant. That was never the question.

The question was.....how "low"....how far down the path of culture do we allow the gospel to be conformed to?? Where is the line in the sand?? Is there one??

If you would quit assuming what I'm saying.....and become less defensive.....we could discuss this.

Maybe this explains the orgin of your question in the first place.

-- Anonymous, February 18, 2002

A note on the phrase, "what you win them with is what you win them to":

I would suggest to you that this phrase is being used in this discussion in a completely irrelevant and misleading way, and, in fact, usually is. Whatever the discussion -- musical styles, youth ministry approaches, whatever -- those things are NOT what we "win them with." We do not win people to Christ with the music we worship with or present in concert. We do not win people to Christ with the presentations or games or attractions or anything like that. We win people to Christ with the gospel, and with compassion and with love and with truth and with the aid of the Holy Spirit.

But we do often initially ATTRACT people to US with those types of things, and when they have been attracted to US, then we can win them to CHRIST with the gospel, compassion, truth, etc. Biblical examples -- the very beginning of the church. The coming of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost caused the apostles to speak in other languages, and that activity attracted people to the apostles, so that the apostles could win them to Christ with the gospel. One result of the miracles of Paul was that people were attracted to him, and he then gave them the truth with which they were won. Peter and John healed the lame man at the gate of the Temple because they had compassion on him, but one of the resutls of that action was to draw attention to themselves so that they could preach the gospel.

I don't know of anyone who claims that their worship style, whether old, new, or blended, WINS anyone to Christ. But it certainly draws them to the church, where they may then be won with the truth. So to dismiss ideas as "what you win them with, you win them to", in many cases (maybe in most), is inappropriate and misses the whole point of the action taken.

-- Anonymous, February 19, 2002

Sam,

I couldn't agree more. And why is that misused axiom almost always applied to New innovations? If the saying is true, then the church has been winning people to hymn-singing for years, and not to Christ.

-- Anonymous, February 19, 2002

Sam -- very true! My bride tells me of how she moved out of the Roman Catholic belief into the Christian Church when a friend of hers invited her to play on a church softball team. That was what attracted her to the congregation ... and through that contact she came to understand the biblical Christ, and became a Christian.

Just one example of many I could name, either with sports teams, youth activities, etc., etc.

Now, it is certainly true that we must follow up the activities or whatever with a presentation of the Gospel, but provided that is done, then let's get them in however, so we CAN share Jesus with them in a proper, biblical way.

-- Anonymous, February 19, 2002

Here, here...Sam, Barry, Darrell...great input!

-- Anonymous, February 19, 2002

Sam....a grain of truth to what you said (you would also get a standing ovation at the North American)....but it's just a grain.

Scriptural example of my axiom still being true. No prob!!

How about....John 5....Jesus attracted large crowds at the feeding of the 5,000 plus. John 6......he scared them all away when he preached the "unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood" sermon. They obviously came for the food....but the truth turned them off.

Again....everyone continues to be defensive instead of answering directly some of the questions I have placed. And then you wonder....why churches are split over the issue. Instead of discussing....and thinking about the consequences of "where is this going"....you just go ahead and shove it down people's throats in the name of "evangelism." Where is the give and take??

Where's church unity on your list of prioritites...huh Michael?? (and others).

As of yet.....not one person has given evidence that they have thought this thing through....not one person has examined the historical ramifications of such decisions. You've got your minds made up and if people don't like it they can just find another church....(of course when you refer to them....they're the old foggies that won't change right??).

You see...every single one of you....with the possible exception of Darrell....has made assumptions. You've already assumed I'm against contemporary services. Darrell....would...and should tell you otherwise. He will tell you when he was leading worship for me....he pretty much had free reign. Why?? Because I trusted him....and knew where he was coming from.

With the attitudes displayed on this thread....it becomes obvious why this will be a problem for years to come.

I'm glad I have the opportunity to train young men and women to be more tolerant of others views.....and not develop an "out with the old" and in with the "new and improved" attitude.

Ephesians 4 states that in an effort to maintain unity in the congregation we are to "learn to put up with one another."

Like I said....it looks like congregations will continue to split over this issue.

I would suggest to you Michael....the Lord's heart is as much in this as in evangelism. In fact...I would suggest more so. How?? One...the importance of it in the fact that He prayed for it in the Garden and two....the fact that He said unity was a key to evangelism..."i.e., that the world might believe."

I'm sure the Lord's heart breaks every time a church splits over this ridiculous issue.

Barry....you accussed the "nons" of being a cult. Is it really any different when it is demandanded that churches "get with it" and make contemporary additions to the worship??

-- Anonymous, February 19, 2002

Danny wrote: Barry....you accussed the "nons" of being a cult. Is it really any different when it is demandanded that churches "get with it" and make contemporary additions to the worship??

Where did I say that any church has to make contemporary additions to worship?

-- Anonymous, February 19, 2002

Danny is correct. We had two services at Cocoa. A traditional and a non-traditional. We used the name non-traditional to tell folks that we were going to be doing some things in that service that were not usually seen in a traditional service. Only a small part was the music, which was contemporary. Women served the Lord's supper and passed the offering plates ... the format changed somewhat week-to- week ... that sort of thing.

BTW Danny ... I wonder if the music we sang as "Music in 3-D" would be considered "low" by definition??? :)

-- Anonymous, February 19, 2002

Thanks Darrell.

Let me define "low"....since people seem to be hung up on that word. By low....I mean..."debase, bombastic, lewd, vulgar, unbecoming."

It has nothing to do with "high brow"...."low" brow.

Yes....it was probably "low"....but only because we stunk!!!

-- Anonymous, February 19, 2002

Barry....

You are defensive again. Where did I say...."Barry said" except in reference to E. Lee. You did say that did you not??

I said...."When it is said that....."

Get off your defenses guys and listen....or read...whatever the case may be.

-- Anonymous, February 19, 2002

Come on -- we weren't THAT bad. BTW folks, can you imagine Danny leading the rap on early hip hop songs by DC Talk? He did, and it was a riot!

Michael -- one question for you. The folks who are so against the idea of a second service ... what is their reason for being against it? We've been "stuck" on the music issue, but I'm not sure you said that was the problem. Is it music, or the fact of two services itself? That can always be a hangup with some folks.

-- Anonymous, February 19, 2002

Hi Danny,

Not defensive at all -- I guess I'm just missing your point. I still don't see why one type of music is considered above or below another? Where is the scriptural support for this?

-- Anonymous, February 19, 2002

I agree, Barry. I don't see any scriptural support for one form of music being any "higher" or "lower" than another. The only requirement in Scripture that I see for music is that we make a joyful noise, and do it unto God.

-- Anonymous, February 19, 2002

Well Darrell...

The reasons have been evolving (as to why some are opposed to this change). Some opposed it due to the fact that they said that they won't know everybody anymore. (False idea anyway...they already don't know everybody who goes here). Secondly we were told simply and plainly - "Don't mess with Sunday morning!" (They just didn't desire that kind of change). Third we were told that it would divide the Family we have presently...this too is false completely. And another was that we are trying to push the old people out...now that one was the best in my opinion. I wanted to respond by saying..."Yep, You caught us! That's what we've been trying to do all along!"

Really...we desire to reach out to a new kind of audience. It is really that simple. We are investing a good deal of money as well as obvious effort into this. If it fails...it fails. But at the bare minimum...we tried something different.

In Acts 15 (which is the most critical chapter in the book of Acts in my opinion) there was the most important church meeting ever. They met in Jerusalem to determine what the church's message would be. And in verse 11 we find the message that was forged out of that incredible summit..."We believe that we are saved by grace..." Now one side-note that I see out of that is this...and it is applicable in most church leadership situations...

There is usually one WRONG response to any given situation in the life of the church...and that is to listen to the people that complain the most. If they had done that very thing in Acts 15, we would still be preaching that Jesus is the Door, but Moses is the screen door and you don't get to Calvary unless you've been by Sinai first. Thank God they didn't listen to the crowd that was complaining the most!

When God urges us (as He has genuinely done here with our congregation) out of our comfort zones then it is inevitable that you will encounter "Border Bullies." That is what we have faced.

But Danny...unity is important to us here. We desire that not one should be lost through this venture. But the facts are that even if someone (maybe a dear seasoned saint) gets upset and ultimately leaves...what's the worst that will happen to him/her? They will go right down the road to the next church and worship happier with them. BUT...what if some lost sinner comes in our doors and because we have been reluctant to change because of our own "Border Bullies" doesn't find any thing of relevance to their life...what's the worst that will happen to him/her? They are in danger of eternal death.

-- Anonymous, February 19, 2002

michael -- You are having the basic complaints that most "one service" folks have when going to two services. Add to that the fact that your new service is not another traditional one, and you get a few more complaints. But judging from your last post, you know the answers to those complaints, and you know that, for the most part, those complaints are false.

When changes are made, some people may leave. We had a dear saint at Charleston who was all upset that the music we sang didn't all come from the hymnal. At that time, we made sure that over 60% of our music was hymns, but that wasn't enough. Even when Ipointed that out to her, she didn't believe it ... perception, you see. We also loosened up things in the worship, with greeting time, etc. She thought that was out of place. I finally had a visit with her and shared that if she truly could no longer worship with the style we used ... then she would be more happy at another congregation where they worshipped "her way." She moved to another congregation, and no harm done.

As I think I stated somewhere above ... When Southland in Lexington changed their style (and they have one style used in multiple services rather than multiple styles) they lost over 500 folks in the first year or so. But at the same time, they gained over 2500 new members ... some from transfer, but most either out of denom's or new believers. They looked at what they needed to be doing for the Lord ... saw the need in the Lexington area for what they are now doing ... AND DID IT.

Michael ... provided your leadership is behind the new stuff, and provided it has been bathed in prayer and you firmly believe this is what the Lord has in store for your congregation ... go for it. There may be some who leave, and they may be older or maybe younger folks. But overall your growth will be a positive thing, both in numbers as well as spiritually.

Keep it up! BTW -- where are you located? I'd love to come and see what your doing. Need a revival/seminar speaker any time soon!?!?!?!?

-- Anonymous, February 19, 2002

Darrell....you stated concerning the change you made..."At that time, we made sure that over 60% of our music was hymns, but that wasn't enough. Even when Ipointed that out to her, she didn't believe it ... perception, you see."

Exactly as a I said.....there has to be understanding....give and take both ways. She had the "My way or the hiway" mentality. Ephesians 4......"Learning to put up with one another."

The only ojection I have is with preachers....music people etc.....who say...."The new way...or the hiway"....and that happens far to often as evidenced by the splits going on....and they are going on....on a regular basis.

-- Anonymous, February 20, 2002

Michael,

With everything else you've received, I add only one suggestion based on watching my home church do it wrong and having problems since. Communicate. Continually remind your people that the change is coming. Not only tell them what's happening, keep reminding them WHY it's happening. Communicate through a variety of methods. Take some time behind the pulpit, sing a song or two in the new style before the change takes place to give people a sample of what's to come, have the people who are behind you give testimony as to why THEY believe this is good, use skits to show how this new service can appeal to different components of your church. Hope this helps.

God bless,

-- Anonymous, February 21, 2002

Danny,

I was in a church like that recently, and the position of the people objecting to more contemporary services was simply this: We want things the way they've always been, we refuse to change, WE DON'T CARE ABOUT THE LOST, WE DON'T WANT ANY NEW PEOPLE COMING HERE. It was very sad, but true: people would stand up in our meetings and say things like "we don't want this church to grow", "why should we do anything for the younger people, they never did anything for us," etc. Should a church hold back a contemporary outreach for such people?

-- Anonymous, February 21, 2002

A valid concern John....and a valid question.

My response is.....if that is what the majority of what the people want.....we have NO right to force our will....in the name of "God's will for the congregation."

So....as a Preacher....I would have one of two choices to make.

One....stay there with them....and through careful, biblical, and patient teaching.....try to change hearts and minds. It obviously would take a long time.....and we might never enjoy and see the fruit of our work.

Or two.....relocate.

However....in no way would I want to be responsible for causing a split in the church.....over this issue.

Thanks for the dialog.

-- Anonymous, February 21, 2002

ok. What if it's NOT what the majority want, but a significant and vocal minority? those "border bullies" mentioned a few posts back? We had a church in eastern North Carolina that broke in two a few years ago on these issues. The old families who had been there for 150 years wanted no part of the idea of growth. They wanted to the church to stay the size it was 10 years ago. They didn't like it as large as it had gotten (in the 150-175 range). Thay wanted their little family church.

They had come to be, numerically, in the minority, by about 100 to 60. But they easily had the control in terms of influence, positions of authority, and financial control. They refused to let anything happen.

I am surprised to see you take the stand you took in the last post above. this is not just an argument or music or methods. This is a deep spiritual problem. Christians who refuse to evangelize . . . who refuse to do anything to attract people to the Lord . . . who don't want any outreach into the community . . . that's severe spiritual sickness, and must be dealt with strongly. If prominent leaders in your church came in trying to turn the place into a room full of charismatics, or Calvinists, I can't see you taking this approach. I think that this is as deep a spiritual problem as those.

Again, it's not a matter of music or method. Even if they kept the music of the ages and the methods of the successful past, they STILL don't want the growth or outreach. And that's just wrong.

-- Anonymous, February 21, 2002

And Danny...I sincerely would be interested in your response to my questions directed at the end of my last post...

-- Anonymous, February 21, 2002

Exactly right, Sam. In my case it was a small but vocal and growing minority, being led by a strong-willed and powerful (read: rich) woman. IMHO the woman causing the dissension should have been put out, but the elders were too weak to deal with her until she gained control of a majority of the leadership, and then it was too late. But that's also another issue altogether.

-- Anonymous, February 21, 2002

Danny,

You said: However....in no way would I want to be responsible for causing a split in the church.....over this issue.

The fact of the matter is, you wouldn't be splitting the church - a group of people that refuses to minister to the lost is not the church at all. A group like that needs to be split and let the true church (the one that cares about lost people) be the church.

-- Anonymous, February 21, 2002

Michael.....

I have to apologize....I didn't recognize those as questions....but simply parts of your discussion. I think by answering this quote from Sam's post....it answers your question. If it doesn't....honestly....I guess I'm at a loss for what you are looking for.

Sam stated...."Again, it's not a matter of music or method. Even if they kept the music of the ages and the methods of the successful past, they STILL don't want the growth or outreach. And that's just wrong."

Sam....my last post to John....still applies....and it applies to your questions as well Michael. I'll repost it.

My response is.....if that is what the majority of what the people want.....we have NO right to force our will....in the name of "God's will for the congregation."

So....as a Preacher....I would have one of two choices to make.

One....stay there with them....and through careful, biblical, and patient teaching.....try to change hearts and minds. It obviously would take a long time.....and we might never enjoy and see the fruit of our work.

Or two.....relocate.

However....in no way would I want to be responsible for causing a split in the church.....over this issue. If you want to...that's fine. I can't do it in good conscience.

Sam......to equate adding a contemporary service as a "methodology of growth"....(which is all this is....pure and simple)....and false doctrine is the classic example of apples and oranges.

If a church has the mindset that they do not want to grow....how is that any different from..."they don't want to give." What are you going to do....take it out of their pockets on Sunday mornings?? The same way you are going to shove a comtemporary service down their throat?? The road is strewn with preachers who tried to "do it their way"....and now are so discouraged they are not even in the ministry any more.

The bottom line is....you got a choice to make. Teach with patience....or move on....but you don't have the right to split a church.

And Barry....your response is the scariest of all for you stated...."The fact of the matter is, you wouldn't be splitting the church - a group of people that refuses to minister to the lost is not the church at all."

Now there is a cultic mentality....one man deciding who the church is and is not....and Barry decides who the church is and is not.

Barry....do you find it a little contradictory to your theory....that in light of all the problems at the church in Corinth....he still refers to them as brethren and the church of the Lord Jesus Christ?? If you don't...you should.

It sounds like Barry you have fallen prey to the idea that numbers indicate success.

I would remind us all....the church that the Lord has the greatest praise for in the book of Revelation....was the church at Philadelphia...which was the smallest of the seven....and they were commended for being faithful.

Michael....I do wish you the best in your endeavors and trust the Lord will bless your work for him. If I've accomplished nothing else....I've given you some food for thought....things you might remember one of these days when a few years of wisdom are added to your enthusiasm. As I look on my past 20 years of ministry....there are certainly some things I wish I had done differently...one of which....was to show a little more patience and kindness with those who opposed me. I've worked on it more where I've been now for the last three years and have found my self numerous times saying..."I wish I could have learned this earlier in life."

You're a good man!! God bless!

-- Anonymous, February 21, 2002

Danny:

I think that you are focused on too small an issue in this discussion. The discussion moved a good way back to much more than "a contemporary service". In fact, your focus is so small that you mistakenly read my posts to be talking about how we do music. I mentioned that, yes, but did not build anything I said around it. I didn't call contemporary services a "methodology of growth", and did not infer that it was; neither did I equate it to doctrinal issues.

The other respondants understood me to be talking about much greater issues than the songs we sing. I made it clear, EVEN IN THE BIT OF MY POST THAT YOU YOURSELF QUOTED, that it runs far deeper than music.

Music is not a methodology for growth. Some may try to use it that way, but I haven't, and the other guys here haven't either. In fact, I haven't talked about the kind of music we use hardly at all, and certainly haven't tied any of my arguments to it.) They have used it as a "methodology of attraction", and heartily agreed above that the growth comes from teaching the truth AFTER you have attracted the people. I do believe that you would agree with that.

The question stands -- Do you continue to cater to a small group within the group, so as not to offend them or drive them away, or do you expand your vision to the world around you, even if they don't want to? I move for the latter. I think it's the most Christian way. I think it's the way Paul would do it, based on what he actually did and said, First Corinthians included.

I don't know that I would go as far in my statement as Barry did. The church continues to be the church even in failure and weakness. But when the church is foundering in failure and weakness, she needs stirring up and spurring on, even if she doesn't like it.

-- Anonymous, February 21, 2002

Danny:

I also wanted to take you back up the page to another bit that you didn't think was addressed suffuciently. (I'm guessing that by what you have said about it since.)

You mentioned your concern with the young guys who want to make it "my way or no way", and those ministers who want to "force their will" on the congregation.

I really don't think any of the men here are planning to do that. I don't see in any of them the kind of ego that such an attitude requires. We have men here who, I believe, work in conjunction with and in subjection to their elders, and who work with their congregations in a loving and caring manner. I can't see anybody here refusing to follow the ultimate leadership of the elders -- in fact, we do know of at least one (John) who DID leave when he couldn't honestly be in submission to the leadership God had placed there.

And I think that clearly YOU are also that kind of man. I aprpeciate the passion you bring to these discussions. It seems to me that sometimes your passions get in the way of your seeing clearly exactly what is being discussed. In this particular issue, I think you see a problem in some churches, a problem that I would agree (to a certain degree) does exist. But maybe you are seeing that problem and assigning it to these men incorrectly.

For instance, referring to some answers above, you said, "It does demonstrate we are willing to do anything musically in the guise of evangelism....which is what I was afraid of." I didn't get that message out of what they said at all. But because they questioned your question and definitions about music being "low" and "bombastic", you went ahead with the assumption that they will have no room for anything except what they personally want, as evidenced by your statement, "As usual.....the "contemporary or else" crowd becomes extremely defensive when asked for simple philosophical inflection. Hmmmmmm."

It seems to me that you are assigning to these men opinions and values which they have not given evidence of holding. I beseech you to regard this discussion again, and use what you know of these men as a filter through which you read what they say. I know you do that with some, some of the time. I would challenge you to do it with all of us.

-- Anonymous, February 21, 2002

Danny,

You've got me pegged! I'm a member of that cultic group that has the audacity to insist that we care for the lost, disciple them, and teach them to reach out to others. Where have I gone wrong? Woe is me!

-- Anonymous, February 21, 2002

Sam.....your comments in parenthesis:

(I think that you are focused on too small an issue in this discussion. The discussion moved a good way back to much more than "a contemporary service".)

Not in my mind Sam....I simply cannot separate the two....because in the churches today that are being split over this issue....they are inseparable.

(Music is not a methodology for growth. Some may try to use it that way)

It is that "some"....that concerns me.

("methodology of attraction", and heartily agreed above that the growth comes from teaching the truth AFTER you have attracted the people. I do believe that you would agree with that.)

Yep.

(The question stands -- Do you continue to cater to a small group within the group, so as not to offend them or drive them away, or do you expand your vision to the world around you, even if they don't want to?)

You see....in this discussion we have never defined "small group." Handful?? 1/3 of the church?? 1/2?? I operate on the premise that 10% of my congregation wants someone else to be their preacher on any given day. (This is true for most congregations.) Therefore....my concern....is for the other 90% because there is nothing you can do to make the 10% happy. When I and the elders propose something.....and that 10% is added to by those who like me....or the elders....but just disagree with what is being done....then I need to take seriously what is going on. When the number that is against what is being done hits the 25 to 30% mark....I think extreme caution is wise. I have learned that relying on my elders on this one is very wise. They have known many people in the congregation for years.....and they have a good handle on what can and cannot be done at any given time. So in answer to your question....a handful?? Certainly not!! But who is to say....the Lord is not stopping us.....through that 25% disapproval?? Why do we claim the Holy Spirit only moves in the decsions that we make??

Good example: Last fall we almost went to double services. We announced it in June with an an expectation to begin in August. Once it became clear to me.....that the negative against it was more than what I wanted to deal with at this time....I told the elders I wanted to back off....and we did.

My initial reaction was...."These people don't want to grow!!"

Wrong!! They just didn't like the methodology....times.....etc. And....after listening to some of the objections....I agreed...they were valid.

As a result....we have continued to grow.....and we have room for about another 10-15 in avg. worship attendance. Sooooooo....I will take what I learned last time....and we'll come at it again here shortly. In other words....I believe the Holy Spirit moved through those that were opposed to it....to cause me to rethink through some things.

(But when the church is foundering in failure and weakness, she needs stirring up and spurring on, even if she doesn't like it.)

No argument from me on this.

(I believe, work in conjunction with and in subjection to their elders)

That is probably true....but much of the "church growth" mentality...is very anti-eldership. I just reread some quotes by one church growth guru who made it clear...."The Pastor answers only to God." I have a number of church growth books from well know church growth gurus....and every single one of them with no exception....support "THE" Pastor system....and encourage men not to be afraid of their power. Many of our seminary students are having this trash fed to them in the guise of church growth classes.

(John did leave when he couldn't honestly be in submission to the leadership God had placed there.)

That is when I as a preacher leave as well....when I can no longer respect the eldership.

(It seems to me that sometimes your passions get in the way of your seeing clearly exactly what is being discussed.))

Actually Sam....I see it much more clearer than you realize. Since I teach Church history and did a large portion of my graduate work in church history.....I approach most church subjects from a historical perspective...i.e., how has the church handled this or a similar issues in the past? Many mistakes in the modern church only occur...because we do not learn from the past. So when I discuss a subject....it is literally impossible for my mind to focus on just one topic. They are too interelated....to culture...theology...history...etc.

(In this particular issue, I think you see a problem in some churches, a problem that I would agree (to a certain degree) does exist.)

Sam...you need to get out more!!! :) It is not "some" churches.....it is many. At least two of my students with student ministries are dealing with the same things right now.

I don't want to see another split over the "non" issue....only this time "non" being...."contemporary"....and "non" contemporary.

If we are going to split....at least let it be over something serious!! :)

(But maybe you are seeing that problem and assigning it to these men incorrectly.)

Outside of my concern about Barry's judgementalism.....I have done no such thing. I simply asked questions for consideration.

Thanks for the discussion.

-- Anonymous, February 21, 2002

Barry.....

Thanks for again verifying my premise. Many, like you, will justify any behavior or action "in the name of evangelism."

-- Anonymous, February 21, 2002

Danny,

I will not justify any behavior in the name of evangelism -- I will justify any behavior that is not clearly out of God's will in the name of evangelism.

-- Anonymous, February 21, 2002