1. I know of no man or woman, who wants to truly go back and start wearing the the clothing styles of the Victorian era or previous to it. And I know of no one who thinks we should talketh liketh this! We all expecteth that those are ways of speaking and dressing of a bygone era that we may romanticize and long for to some degree. but no one is calling for the continuation of such practices.
Is it not strange that we would then have so many voices decrying the use of "contemporary" music styles and demanding the exclusive use of traditional songs from a bygone era? It is at least curious.
2. Because I work with teenagers, I tend to try and look at various aspects of church life and all of relaity from their perspective. Music is huge for teenagers. They are always listening to it, spending lots of money on it and talking about it. In my denomination, we celebrate this demographic and call them covenant children. Most churches will pay someone like me alot of money to disciple them week in and week out.
Why do all this if you are unconcerned with what kind of music they might enjoy in corporate worship? Does it even matter that they rarely ever enjoy the tunes of "the great old hymns"?
1 comment:
Good points, Matt. Perhaps the resistance to more contemporary forms of worship deal come from a subtle secular vs. sacred thinking. Maybe, the hymns and tunes that existed pre-20th century have somehow fallen into the "sacred" category in folks' minds.
One thing that I think is important is that, from the perspective of content, the older hymns express some great theology while the newer stuff seems to be more emotionally-driven. I like how RUF/RYM music leaders take the old hymns and pen new tunes to them.
Also, it may just be me, but I can't stand the throaty/hoarse singing that's prevalent in pop today... creed, for example. So, when Christian pop imitates secular pop, it drives me up the wall.
Post a Comment