1 - Popular Music: The Source of the Church's Song?

Contemporary Christian Music (CCM) is pervasive in the church today, both within the Evangelical “mega churches,” as well as throughout most traditional mainline denominations. Compared to the hymnody many have grown up with as their regular musical diet in worship, CCM seems to be a late arrival within our sanctuaries. However, unlike hymnody, which we recognize as distinctive “church music,” it is hard to pin down exactly where CCM fits in. It obviously doesn’t sound as “churchy” as the old hymns. So, we may ask: where does it come from? Does it comprise a style all its own? Is it related to the long musical history of the church, or is it essentially an outsider? CCM can be defined as a specific musical genre, and as a ‘style’ CCM is borrowed from the general music genre of “Popular Music” (Pop music). It is often patterned after what people are currently listening to on the radio (e.g. hard and soft rock, country, etc.) - music intended for mass consumption via radios and CD sales. Thus, the music is determined based on what people “like to sing” or “like to listen to” in a recreational setting - thus, what “sells” to the general public. It is music determined as much by personal taste and preference, as by the message it conveys, or the quality of the song as “art.”

Also, CCM, as a genre of music, is not unique onto itself; it comes from other “secular roots.” John Paul Davis in an article entitled “My Faith is in the Rock and My Name is On the Roll” (2004, The New Pantagruel), notes that “if one spends much time listening to ‘Christian’ music and one is aware of ‘secular’ music, it is obvious that as a genre, CCM is derivative.” As a derivative of this secular style, we need to understand that there is “baggage” that comes along with the music. Davis, in his article, later points out how certain styles of contemporary music carry certain expectations: “Genre does not merely determine the style of music; packed with musical style are rhetorical patterns, ways of seeing the world, and attitudes. Blues musicians mustn’t stray too far from the blues’ essential dissatisfaction with the world; rappers, even those who find the bling-obsession and confrontational attitude of popular rap music distasteful, must still self-aggrandize. Bubblegum pop must address the high drama of teenage throwaway romances; industrial music must address and embody human despair and hopelessness.”

By contrast, the church has historically not chosen its music based on the criteria of personal taste and preference, or on what was in vogue in that particular era. If it had, we would have had a variety of musical services throughout the last century catering to what was “contemporary” (or “popular”) at that time. It is only in most recent times (1960’s on) that we have done this sort of thing in our churches. Yet, why did our early forefathers in the first half of the last century not have services geared toward their popular styles of music, such as Ragtime, Bebop, Swing, Dixieland Jazz, and Big Band? Obviously the generations before us understood that what you used in the dance hall on Saturday night did not translate into music well suited for divine worship on Sunday morning. We do not waltz or polka to the altar to receive God’s gifts.

CCM today certainly comes in more than one “style,” but much of the Contemporary Worship (CW) movement in the last couple of decades has been driven by the Baby-boomer generation (born 1946-1964) utilizing a genre of music that is based largely on the popular music of their own time. It’s popular music label in Christian circles is often called “Praise Music.” The predecessors of this were the 60’s and 70’s folk songs/ ballads so many of us in the Baby-boomer years grew up hearing around camp fires, which, in turn, was based off of the popular folk music of its day. Now, while some may call all of this “contemporary music,” it was largely contemporary only to its time. One issue of popular music is that it is eventually “dated.” It will always be associated with a period of time and style. Just ask the fans of disco.

Pop music has changed a lot over the last couple of decades, and what we baby-boomers listened to in the 70’s and 80’s is now considered by the younger generations as “classic.” Note the idea of “classic rock” on the so-called “oldie channels.” Disco and leisure suits (once the most popular and contemporary) are simply relics to those of Generations X and Y . If we listened to their CD players today we would hear a very different style of music than what we are used to hearing, and chances are we probably don‘t care for it any more than they care for the stuff of Saturday Night Fever and the Bee Gees.

Some today say that if we don’t update the music, we will lose this generation. Yet, to what degree do we do this? And which generation are we in danger of losing? -Those born since 1980 (Gen Y), or those who are between 24 and 39 (Gen X)? If we are simply trying to “keep the kids interested,” are we prepared to introduce all the musical styles now “popular” with these MTV-raised kids? Would it be fair, if we are trying to be “contemporary,” that we limit it to only one style? What about Rap, Funk, Grunge, Techno-rock, Electro Clash, hip-hop, Alternative, or the so-called “bubblegum pop” of popular “boy bands” and other widely popular chart-toppers like Britney Spears, Faith Hill or Mariah Carey? Or what about Country? Do we pick Country-Rock or Classic Country, Honky-tonk or the Nashville sound? Do we combine all these styles to keep everyone happy, or do we choose one over the other and favor the style that is most popular with the most people? Or, as has been done in many churches, do we just let the “Baby-boomers” determine what they like the most?

2 -Will This Music Make the Church Grow?

Some point to those using modern musical styles (pop music), and note the seemingly crowded pews and upbeat atmosphere in churches they have seen or visited who use this music. These are the growing, vibrant, alive churches, we are told. These are the ones that will thrive in the future, while old traditional hymn-singing churches will die a slow death of irrelevance if they refuse to change and “catch up with the times.” Yet, do we really understand exactly why churches grow or decline numerically? And is it fair to assume that music is the primary characteristic, or that a church will die simply because it does not adopt a certain posture towards catering to popular music trends?

Churches grow numerically for different reasons, and music is not the ruling factor. For it has been shown that traditional hymn-singing churches in some settings are able to thrive and grow just as much as Contemporary Worship churches with big screens and praise songs. In fact, we are being told by some observers of the culture that there are those in the younger generation who are looking to return to the “old ways” of liturgy and hymns and candles and vestments. Even in the Catholic Church, which abandoned wholesale a lot of its tradition before 1963 (and lost a lot of members because of it!), is now returning again to the Latin Mass in some areas. No, contemporary (popular) music is not the sure number-booster for all churches.

Furthermore, it should also be noted that many of the mega-churches of the last couple of decades have grown largely by recycling dissatisfied wanderers from other churches; people who were tired of their church and decided to go “shopping” (usually remnants of the antiestablishment Baby-boomers of the 60’s on). Catering to “seekers,” as they are called, drives the style and substance of these churches who strive to form a message and ministry that is mass-marketed for mass-consumption. Thus, some churches simply grow at the expense of others who are not on the “cutting edge“ of popular demand. But is this real growth in the true spiritual sense?

A church in an inner city, or out in the country miles from a city with few neighbors, will not thrive numerically as one in a growing suburb where young people and families are flocking. It just stands to reason. Likewise, some cities simply are not growing and the number of people they can attract is going to be limited no matter what they do. For if there are limited job opportunities and a small industrial base, the area will stagnate in terms of populations growth. Much of this comes down to simple demographics. The church is not immune to this.

3 - Popular Music vs. The Church's Hymns: Why The Struggle?

But there is a deeper issue here that we have not yet addressed. Do we believe the viability of the church’s future is tied to “satisfying” people’s desires and wants (even in musical tastes), or to the power of the Word and Sacrament in Christ? And are we forgetting that our first call is to faithfulness, not success?

When our forefathers chose what the church would sing (and by “forefathers” I am referring to any of those who preceded us in leading the church), they used certain criteria that they felt best served the Gospel. This was their first concern - the Gospel (Good News) of Jesus Christ, crucified and risen. And in addressing the need to proclaim this message, they realized that not all communication is good communication (which is why, for example, we did not adopt the “revival” practices of the early Methodists in the 1800‘s). Thus, linking the message of the Gospel to a popular tune of the day would not guarantee that the people would understand their Savior any better. It would only mean they might like the tune, regardless of the message. Ask many kids today about the words of the songs they listen to and you are quite likely to find out that many of them listen to much of what is out there simply because they “like the beat.”

Thus, it is possible for the music (or tune) to dominate the song, rather than the lyrics. But then that is what sells popular music. That is what makes it “popular.” But is this what we want for the song of the church? Do we want to put personal taste before truth? And are we prepared to ignore the collective wisdom of those before us who already knew that kowtowing to popular culture often is a mistake in the long run?

It was observed by one individual that “many of our hymns were once contemporary.” If by contemporary, we mean “of the moment,” or “new,” then, yes, that is true. But, they were not contemporary in terms of being “popular,” as in “designed for mass consumption by a general audience of radio listening consumers.” There is a difference between “new” and “popular.” Furthermore, if “contemporary” refers to what is “current” and if hymns are being widely used in churches today, they too are “contemporary,” - even if they are already hundreds of years old! (Note, for example, the continued popularity of Amazing Grace). “Contemporary” is simply too broad and general a term. Let’s call this music for what it is: Popular music.

The hymnody of the church is admittedly never going to be “popular” in the way that modern music is today. The average man on the street is not going to be humming it because of a “catchy tune,” like some jingle in a burger commercial. But the more troubling question is why our hymnody is no longer “popular” with the Lutheran church in many places? Why is it being rejected by the very people it is intended to serve?

There are many reasons for this. More than any other generation before us, it seems that we have been content to reject what is “old” as being “outdated” and therefore “useless.” We gauge the usefulness of so many things based on the standard of popular appeal. Rather than appreciate and fully understand what our heritage has given us and add worthy additions of our own time based on the same standards, we have instead seen hymnody as a style in itself that we identify with only one generation or one group of people. Thus, instead of appreciating, cherishing and using the hymnody passed down to us as the church‘s ongoing song, we see a need to supplement it with something else that is more appealing to the tastes of the moment, but not necessarily more filling to the soul.

Certainly it does not help that people sing so little compared to previous generations. Many of our younger people have grown up with a Walkman or portable CD player on their hips from whence their music was piped into their passive ears. Do our schools teach us to appreciate music for its quality? For many, I would fear not. Thus, I believe that people struggle more today to sing in church than they did in previous generations. They simply have not been “taught” to sing. Thus, instead of learning a new hymn, we clamor for something easy to sing, regardless of its source or content.

Furthermore, how do the parents of these upcoming generations feel about the music of the church? Their views, for better or worse, will send messages for years to come.
It was said by one parent that “we are stuck in a rut,” and change is the call of the day. If we don’t change, we’ll die. But the church has seen music, as all of its worship, as an aspect of “continuity” - a connection with what came before - rather than as a break with that past. And continuity was seen as a strength, not a weakness, an anchor in the turbulence of changing times, not as a “rut” to free ourselves. But if our children are taught to view our hymns as “ruts” to get out of, can we expect them to really learn to appreciate and love these honored songs of the historic church?

4 - But Other Churches Do It: Why Not Us?

After hearing all this, I know that some will still struggle with my recommendation, for other reasons. One of these reasons concerns the practice of other LCMS churches. There is no hiding the fact that many Missouri Synod congregations utilize Contemporary Worship and Contemporary Christian Music in their services every Sunday. It is only natural, then, for some to wonder: If they can do it, then why would it be wrong for us to do it?

Yet, historically the LCMS has not determined its music, worship or other practices based on what “other churches” were doing. Instead, a standard was put forth for the Synod, and member churches of the Synod willingly submitted to it as a condition for membership. In the constitution of the Synod, member congregations and pastors pledge themselves to the “exclusive use of doctrinally pure hymns.” This would seem to be a pretty clear indication of why the churches of an earlier generation used the hymnals of the Synod and trusted them. But why are they no longer doing this now?

Times indeed have changed. To insist on an “exclusive use” on anything is decried as “legalism.” Thus, congregations, believing they have a wide-ranging freedom to do what they think is necessary at the moment, go off and do “their own thing,” disregarding this original condition (or, reinterpreting it to suit their needs). No wonder many of our people end up confused and concerned.

But shouldn’t we trust pastors who have been trained in our seminaries to make responsible worship decisions? I suppose we should, but one of the reasons for having a standard is to guard against the sinful tendency of even pastors going the route of the Israelites in the days of the Judges, who did what “was right in their own sight.” Currently we have pastors who believe that having no hymnal at all is ok. We have others who practice “open communion,” again disregarding our previous commitment to true fellowship at the Lord’s Supper. Moreover, others encourage women to engage in distinctly pastoral acts in the worship assembly, again violating our common, and agreed on prohibition. Beyond this we struggle with pastors who are openly charismatic, adopting Pentecostal practices into their worship time.

5 - Do We Understand What the Music Is Saying?

All of which brings up an important point in this discussion. It is wrongly assumed that if a song carries the label “Christian,” it is fully scriptural and completely true to the message of the Bible. Many of our churches are adopting songs that are not biblically true and which support the teachings of Pentecostal, Baptist and other “Reformed” type churches. Furthermore, some of these songs are so empty of content and so vague on God, they could be sung as easily by a Jew, a Muslim or a Christian, without offending any of them (except the Christian, who would know the difference!).

Sometimes parents express concern about the music their children listen to, guarding against the offensive content of lurid sex, adultery, violence and obscenities that fill much popular music today. Yet, are we not concerned as much about filling their minds with wrong teaching that may injure their faith? What of songs that draw our children away from the Word and Sacraments to “make a decision for Jesus” theology, turning them in on themselves and ultimately away from Christ? What about songs that encourage us to do what only God can do, ignoring Luther who rightly taught us that “we cannot by our own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ or come to him”? What about songs that trivialize God and make him our big “buddy”, or are so casual as to offend every vestige of respect for the divine?

Also, a song communicates by the nature of its musical tune as well as by its lyrics. Whether we think about it, we know that certain music conveys certain images or impressions. Consider how a “marching tune” conveys the idea of military discipline and uniformity. Or, consider how a hard rock or “gansta rap” tune conveys strong images of rebellion, and sometimes even violence. Or, consider also how a “love ballad” is structured to stir emotions of affection and sensuality. Music is not neutral.

When the church historically has chosen the music for its worship it has not looked for music with the primary purpose of “moving” people emotionally. Nevertheless, many non-Lutheran churches that employ exclusive use of CCM do use this music partially to get people “in the mood” at the beginning of a service. A serious survey of how many “church growth” churches today use music will reveal that music is used as a kind of “mood manipulator.”

Now, I am not implying that music cannot or should not affect the emotions. What I am saying is that music should be chosen by the standards of its message and the enduring quality of its music (music as true art), not simply because it has a “tune” that “people will like.” This is back-end-to.

6 - So How Do We Determine What We Should Be Singing?

Having said all this, we still have left unanswered just how the church should chose its worship music. I have shown why adopting a style of “popular” music for worship is not the best choice. But does this mean that all music recently composed is off limits?

One of the values of being part of a synod is being able to use the insight, wisdom and expertise of more than just a few people. The pastor, while highly trained, is not an expert in hymnology or music composition. Nevertheless, we do have very qualified people in our Commission on Worship in St. Louis who are trained and educated to help us in making good choices about our music. It is this group that works to produce the hymnals we use each Sunday.

The Introduction to our hymnal (Lutheran Worship) gives a wonderful summary of how these people help to produce a worship book for our use. It also informs us just what worship is from a Lutheran prospective. Regarding the song of the church it says: “In its hymnody each age of the Church reflects it returns to God for the great blessings it has received form him. Some of the Church’s song is always derived from a previous era…The hymns of Lutheran Worship draw on a vast treasury of Christian hymnody old and new, with words that speak God’s law and Gospel and express our faith’s response an with music that nourishes both memory and heart.”
Thus the hymnal, by its very design, worked to incorporate a healthy mixture of “hymnody old and new.” But, one thing it did not do, was to set aside the treasures of the past in favor of something entirely new and untested. It also sought hymns that had a proper “law-Gospel balance.” Not all songs keep this balance, as we shown earlier in this paper.

Yet, some are bound to complain that this hymnal does not have new enough music or enough new music. Certainly, every generation before could have complained the same way, as they looked in vain for their favorite “popular” music tunes to be included. We are not the first.

Many in our synod appear to believe that our hymnals are completely inadequate for the church today. The very pastor under whom I served my vicarage (internship) is one of those. He claims that he does not have a hymnal at all in the pews of his church. Many, wanting to attract larger crowds to fill their churches have turned to music and worship forms of other denominations, believing they would simply have the wisdom to tell the “wheat from the chaff.” Each pastor then becomes his own local expert, discounting the role our synod has played in these important decisions.

As a pastor in the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, I, for one, still look to the Commission on Worship and the official hymn/service books for help and guidance. I also believe that the constitution of our synod binds me to honor our common service books in an “exclusive way.” I could certainly spend a few hours each week analyzing and examining new “praise songs” for use in an occasional service. The time is not the issue. What is an issue is whether that is my proper role within the synod. Have we joined this church only to go off on our own?

Yet, some might say that many pastors and churches within the Synod today are doing just was is being asked. Can they all be wrong? Surely they have spent time and effort analyzing these songs. Should we not look to these churches and pastors and copy them in trust? This would be tempting, but are we prepared by doing so to run head-long into the contrary advice of our own leaders in Synod, or even of the historic guidelines already given us (e.g. the Synod’s Constitution)? The sheer number of people doing something does not make it the best choice.

7 - But It's Only One Service!

One of the arguments that would surely be put forth is that we are not looking to overthrown the church’s time-honored forms or to ignore all that the church has given us in time past. We are only looking to supplement them. The original proposal put before the Voters’ was that ONE service on a Saturday be set aside as a “Contemporary Service.” At first glance this seems only reasonable. But there is a point here we should not mss before we make such a decision.

First of all, Saturday evening is not the principle service of the weekend. The idea put forth was that we need to do such a thing to attract new people, and to retain our youth. Yet, Saturday does not attract a majority of this younger group. How is Saturday supposed to be ideal for them? Secondly, if something is good enough for a Saturday, it is certainly good enough for any service. Would it be fair to limit it only to one Saturday once a month if it is such a good and necessary thing to do? Once such a service is put together it becomes, for better or worse, an accepted standard for use at any time. I think that it makes sense that recommending ONE service has much broader implications.

Thus, in time, whether it is presented as merely “supplemental,” it begins to compete with the music and worship normally used. Contemporary Christian Music and Worship forms have been known to “take over” traditional forms. Do we want to lose our treasures within a generation or two after they were kept for so long?

Pastor Engebretson
Easter Season, 2004