Throwing the Baby Out WIth the Bathwater

This past weekend I visited and candidated at a church that was looking for a music director. And whether or not I and they decide I am right for the job I learned a lot and had a wonderful experience there. The church does not have what I would consider a contemporary worship service. (And no CCM fan would consider it a contemporary service either). Yet, I know many IFB's (Independent Fundamental Baptists) who would have condemned them as going contemporary. Why? Because of a few methods that they use.

They only used a piano (Keyboard on grand piano setting) for the accompaniment of the congregational singing, and the  "soundtracks" (for lack of a better word) were recorded on a Yamaha synthesizer by the church pianist, and would be considered by most as very conservative in instrument choices and lack of heavy rhythm. However, there were many aspects of their song portion of the service that many IFB's would have been upset over. 

1. The format of the worship service: They sang the songs in 2 groups of 3 songs without a break between the songs in each section, they just went straight into the next song.
2. They used song sheets, instead of hymnals. 
3. They used prerecorded "sound tracks" for their accompaniment of singing groups. 
4. They used keyboards instead of actual pianos. 
5. The song leader was joined by a group of 6 church members on stage to lead the singing. (they did not call it a worship team because of the associations with that phrase) 
6. They used some songs that were at one time popular CCM songs. (mainly from the 1980's). 
7. the group held microphones while leading singing.

Now, there are many who would condemn this church for going "contemporary", but the truth of the matter is that they haven't. They are merely using different methods then they used to use. They had very good reasons for everything that they did.

1. They changed the format of their song service because they noticed a lot of "dead" time between each song. They are now able to sing more in less time than before when they announced each song separately and waited for everyone to find the song in the hymn book. In addition they have found that this new format seems to lend itself to creating an atmosphere conducive to worship better than the old way. 
2. Because of the change in format, hymnals were no longer practical. They still have them, and sing only songs in their hymnal, but they use the song sheets to once again get rid of dead time in the service. They wanted to use a projector screen, but due to the shape of their sanctuary this was impractical.
3. They used pre-recorded sound tracks because they needed the pianist in their singing groups. However, because they were having trouble finding conservative enough sound tracks to buy, they began creating their own with the Yamaha synthesizer. 
4. They used keyboards instead of pianos because they were having to tune their piano at least 4 times a year (sometimes even more!) due to the climate variation in their location and after the initial investment, keyboards are more cost effective for them. 
5. They had the group lead singing because they noticed that once the choir was disbanded (they didn't have anyone to lead it anymore) the congregational singing was dead and really only served the purpose of filling time. Now that they have 6 people lead singing (singing parts) the congregational singing is alive and vibrant, and is now more than just a time-filler, it is a vibrant and important part of their worship service. 
6. They used old CCM songs that were good theologically sound and beautiful songs (especially once stripped of the CCM trappings). They also used the "old" hymns as well, and it was a good mixture that really lended itself to worship. 
7. Their sound man insisted they used microphones so that he could get better recordings of the service.

I personally like using hymnbooks better than song sheets, but that is only because I like to be able to sing the parts, and song sheets with words only don't allow me to do that as easily. I personally prefer using a piano over a keyboard, because no matter how good a keyboard is, it just can't compare to a Steinway 9 ft grand piano. I also like live accompaniment rather than sound tracks because it gives much more flexibility to the singers and instrumentalists. However, in this church I would agree that their choices in these matters were not only acceptable, but the best choice given the talents they had and their situation. In truth their group that helped lead singing was no different than having a 200 member choir behind the music director (with area microphones) helping bolster the sound. Yet this very method is the one I am certain would be the most offensive to many IFB's. (In fact they had their music director leave the church over it).

What then would many have against the way this church did their music? There are many who would claim some or all of the methods I mentioned are "CCM" and shouldn't be used by good IFB's. And, yes it is true that these methods are often used by "contemporary" churches in their worship services, but that does not necessarily make them wrong. Just because they were even the ones who first started doing some of these things does not make them wrong. We as church musicians need to be careful that we do not throw the baby out with the bathwater. When we are looking at an idea for use in the worship service our question should not be, "Does the CCM church down the road do this?" (And if they do I shouldn't!) Our question should be "Is there something wrong with this particular method?: Biblically or Practically?  If not, then we should at least be willing to consider it and should weigh the positives vs. the negatives. Change for the sake of change is not a good reason, but neither is staying the same because that's the way we've always done it. There are some good, useful ideas (and even songs) that have come out of the Contemporary movement, and we need to be able to look at them carefully and be able to realize that just because a CCM church started it doesn't make it wrong. Just because the pope is against abortion doesn't mean I am for it.

Let's at least be open to considering and thinking about new ideas and methodology in our church music and the use of it in the worship service. Just because we adopt or use a method first used by a "CCM" church does not make us a "CCM" church, neither does refusing to do it make us a good "IFB" church. Instead of using our traditions and preferences to dictate what we believe is right and wrong, let's use the Bible to guide us in our decisions about the music and methods we as church musicians use in the worship service.

Southern Gospel vs ..CCM

One of the most confusing things for me, as a musician is trying to figure out the logic behind many conservative Christians (especially us Baptists) who preach long and hard against all forms of CCM music, and yet view Southern Gospel Music (of all kinds) as the music of heaven. Many of the very arguments they use against the "CCM movement" could easily be used (and justifiably so) against Southern Gospel. I recently visited a church that was looking for a youth pastor, and they and I were considering whether or not I was right for the job. During the interview with the pastor and the assistant pastor, it was very clear that this church took a strong stand against CCM music of any kind. They stayed away from that "wordly" music. However, they loved Southern Gospel.

Well, I visited the church a few days later for the Sunday Morning service, and then the Wednesday Evening Service, and I got to experience their idea of good godly music. I was actually surprised. The choir sang to a tape/cd accompaniment and it had a very strong rhythm, in fact I would say most of the track was rhythm. As I was sitting there in the service listening to this music I could not help but wonder why they were so against CCM and yet had no trouble with the music they were using. The backbeat was very strong, the lyrics were so shallow a 4 year couldn't have drowned, and I could barely hear the words because the music was so loud (especially the rhythm).

And yet if you were to ask the pastor why he is against CCM, most likely his answers would have been too much rhythm, shallow words, can't understand what is being sung, too worldly, too showy, etc. etc. And yet I could easily take all of their arguments against CCM and use them just as effectively or more-so against Southern Gospel. (especially the kind they were using).

Some will point to the lives of the CCM artists, but the same can be said of Southern Gospel. Some will say CCM is all about the performer and not about God, but once again this can be said of Southern Gospel! In many ways CCM and Southern Gospel are similar, and many in the Christian music business are involved in both! So why is CCM so evil, and Southern Gospel so good? The more I study, listen, and think about this the more confused I get, or rather I should say the more I see how confused most Conservative Baptists are on the issue.

My point is not to demonize Southern Gospel music, or any type of music. I simply want to get us to think about why we take the stands we do. Our position on CCM music ought to be reflected and mirrored in our position on Southern Gospel. Why is the bass and drums okay in Southern Gospel, but wicked and ungodly when used in CCM? Why are shallow lyrics such a turnoff for CCM, but A-okay in Southern Gospel? I am not saying that we can or cannot use Southern Gospel or CCM in our churches that is not the point of my questions. Rather, I am calling for consistency in the way we apply our philosophy of music in the church. One of the greatest turn offs to the younger generation regarding church is hypocrisy. I think that there is much hypocrisy in church music today. We need to apply the same standards to our music as we do to the younger generations music. Only when we are consistent will they be willing to listen to what we have to say.