Place your banner ad here.          See all banner ads

...ConcernedMembers.com ...About ...Links Library ...Sunday School in Exile ...Help Warn Others

Where is my NewThisWeek Email subscription?......Click Here

Place your text ad here.           See all text ads

  << Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Index  

The Cost of "Praise" (Contemporary) Services

October 9 2004 at 1:38 PM
Dr. Bill Crump  (no login)
from IP address 207.69.48.33

One of my friends, who is an organist for a local church in Nashville, emailed to me an anecdote that he found on a pipe organ web site. The subject is “Happy Clappy vs. Traditional Organ.” While organ music has no place in the C of C, the story nevertheless is thought-provoking:

“Dear List: One of our [organ technician’s] recent visit to a local church gleaned the following information which I'm sure will be of interest here. This local church has 3 Sunday services, the first and third a praise band service and the middle service a traditional service with organ. Each of the praise services brings in many more people into the pews than does the traditional service. The good news is that the traditional service brings in more money than the combined two praise services. Obviously the people vote with their hands and not their wallets. Perhaps it is a matter of time before churches realize the cost of the praise services and return to traditional services.”

This story confirms what I’ve heard for several years: In general older, traditional members (including those who are retired and on social security) contribute more to the church coffers than do the throngs of younger members who pile in for contemporary services. One would think that larger numbers of contemporary members would produce larger contributions. That’s apparently not the case. These latter folks show up for the unbiblical “fun” and entertainment provided in contemporary services, but they are not as willing to cough up the cash to keep things going. So the financial burden falls primarily and unfairly upon the minority of older traditionalists, many of whom are living on limited incomes.

Determined that they were not about to leave, what would happen if the traditionalists simply withdrew financial support from their unbiblical church? The minister, song leader, and church staff would take a whopping cut in salary, or perhaps be laid off entirely. After all, this is where at least half or more of most church funds go in the first place (I could give you the name a large church that had a $750,000 annual budget, nearly 50% of which went to local in-house “salaries,” yet less than 1% went to “benevolence”; the rest went to “building and grounds,” “music ministry,” “TV ministry,” “miscellaneous,” and some to “missions”).

There’s no biblical justification to finance that which is blatantly unbiblical. Perhaps traditionalists should consider twisting the old adage “Money talks” into “Lack of money screams.”



 
 Respond to this message   
AuthorReply
Conserative Christian
(no login)
24.250.152.162

The Cost of "Praise" Services

October 9 2004, 10:45 PM 

When I was a child I was playing football outside with a bunch of my neighbors. I wanted to be the full time quarterback, but they wanted it to be someone else. Since we were playing with MY ball, I took it and went home so that no one could play.

 
 Respond to this message   

(no login)
63.84.81.59

Playing ball

October 11 2004, 12:22 PM 

When I was a kid we used to do corn cob fights after church.

Some liberal, because we DID NOT SAY NOT TO, soaked his cobs in the barn's rain barrel all week. Then green buckeyes then rocks. Hurtful play became deadly! The corn cobs were STILL corn cobs!

'no wat i mean?

Ken

 
 Respond to this message   
Dr. Bill Crump
(no login)
207.69.51.50

Response to "Conservative Christian"

October 11 2004, 2:52 PM 

You are comparing apples with oranges. Antics in football and failure of a church to be biblical are completely unrelated, and you know that. You also did not dispute the fact that, overall, contemporary members are not as supportive financially as well as traditional members are, even in the same church. Let's face it. In today's churches, a power and popularity struggle unfortunately exists between contemporary members, who desire to make worship more "fun" and worldly, and traditional members, who strive to keep services biblical. If the contemporary folks will not harken to precise biblical doctrine, then perhaps the last, radical resort is for traditionalists simply to withhold financial support until the church again is fully compliant with biblical standards. If the church fell on the verge of bankruptcy, that would certainly make everybody "wake up and smell the coffee!" As I said before, there is absolutely NO biblical justification to finance that which is unbiblical.

 
 Respond to this message   

(no login)
68.154.166.106

Re: The Cost of "Praise" (Contemporary) Services

October 11 2004, 2:24 AM 

First, let’s differentiate the following terminologies: (1) a song leader in the olden days was someone who led singing or was simply a song “starter”—give the right pitch or start the first line. In many cases, his services were voluntary as services for the Master would/should be. In certain cases, the payment would be considered a supplemental income especially when the major source of income was not sufficient to support his family. In all likelihood, he would be serving the Lord in the same manner as a Bible School teacher without pay, or as someone who would frequently lead public prayers. Can you imagine if someone got paid each time he led prayer or if Bible class teachers were paid? Of course, I have no way of knowing if it is the case now where Bible class teachers are being paid. Hopefully, not!

(2) The “praise” (contemporary) worship leader now has a different role. Believe me, some may disagree or have not had the exposure to the proper, widely accepted, man-made belief or practice that the Worship Leader is someone who leads the regular folks (like you and me) assembled into God’s holy presence. He assures that worship takes on a new and improved meaning—that it means a period of “celebration” for the most part, with little or no emphasis on the reverence-and-awe aspect of worship. (Well, the Worship Leader—[give a little bit of credit to the W.L.]—occasionally realizes that there should be reverence in worship. Then, he/she tries to sing a happy-jolly version of “Let Us Worship the Father.” In case you’re not familiar with the song, a “praise worship leader” would direct this particular song in such a way as to induce rhythmic handclapping. Before you know it, reverence has dissipated! Then, applause after the song is inevitable. Then, our heavenly Father is probably thinking—I deserve better than being entertained or I deserve better respect than that.)

Now, is there any justification to a Worship Leader being fully paid in order to “mediate” between the regular, ordinary worshippers and the heavenly Father … in order to provide holy entertainment and “fun” … in order to choreograph a MUSICAL WORSHIP? Not including the fact that it was not in God’s plan, when he said “teach and admonish one another” in singing, that the “Praise Team” take over or dominate or replace congregational singing?

Has the leadership of a large congregation that has “praise” contemporary worship taken into consideration that a Worship Leader’s annual salary of $50,000 [only?] would easily support at least 15 full-time gospel preachers to do evangelistic work in their native land in the same period of time? Souls, precious souls! … Instead of worship-MIS-leading others “already” in the church or fostering division among its members? Is there any justification to keeping the song books that could be distributed and used by other churches in need of hymn books?

Well, nowadays, it appears that fun or entertainment in MUSICAL WORSHIP is more needed in spiritual growth than God’s truth.

Donnie

 
 Respond to this message   
Just lil 'ol me.
(no login)
66.38.94.214

WHAT?

October 24 2004, 12:19 AM 

Since when did the duty of a praise service become about money. The lord provides for those who TRULY love Him. He dosen't look for the rich congretation to. Remember, that blessings of riches fall on both good and the -BAD-. "The love of money is the root of all evil." Peter told a man who begged for money "Gold and Silver have I none." but that man praised God, renewed and made whole, anyway.

Another question, since you've put us on the subject of money. Have you seen the amount of money that Contemporary Praise artist have? If you got on stage infront of a million-member paying audience without singing akapella (forgive spelling), they'd demand their money back. You wouldn't make a dime- well, uless there were a few CoC members in it. But, then- they shouldn't be there, right?

 
 Respond to this message   
Luci
(no login)
143.111.89.90

To comment on the article:

November 1 2004, 12:48 AM 

Well...

It doesn't surprise me to read that older members give more to the church in terms of offering. College age/young professionals are usually finding their footing in school/the workplace/buying their first cars, homes, etc...more established persons are generally the persons who contribute more in any congregation, even if the assembly attends the same service. To say that younger persons show up to be entertained and then don't "cough up" enough money to cover costs is a general guess at the intentions of unknown persons - and an unkind/borderline crass one, at that.

As to the monies paid toward praise groups/salaried church staff...frankly it is the business of the members of each autonomous family to discuss and work out any issues surrounding such things with their eldership. I suppose it's the "right" of each individual to withold their offering...or is it? Does God tell us to give to his church/people only if we approve of the leadership's distribution? I really don't know...I would consider this carefully, and be sure to not to withdraw my support of the family for manipulative reasons.

Just to remark: within the churches of Christ, it saddens me when I hear about contemporary vs. traditional services (when a family has two services not because there are too many to assemble at once, but because of elements of worship). In theory, if memebers of the family are submitting ot one another in love old and new songs can be sung within the same service, with no one clamoring for "their way". It is the responsibility of the eldership to guide the church to maturity, urging us to keep the mandate given us by Jesus - to learn to love one another as we grow and keep unity by remembering that his blood bought each and every one of us in our waywardness and rebellion. It's difficult sometimes to remember that worship is for the family collective, for edification and encouragement of not just "me" but the entire body - and just as things happen in our own natural families that we feel like we "put up with" for brief periods of time to keep the peace, so we must necessarily do from time to time in the family of God.

 
 Respond to this message   
Dr. Bill Crump
(no login)
207.69.50.13

RE: To Comment...from Luci

November 1 2004, 5:52 PM 

Even if the contemporary folks have fewer financial resources as you say, in general they do outnumber the traditionalists, who supposedly are more financially secure (your reasoning doesn't take into account the senior citizen traditionalists who are living on limited incomes like social security but who still manage to contribute more). Thus, it stands to reason that contemporary contributions would be greater, by virtue of their numbers. That's not the case, however.

You think that my criticizing contemporary members for not “coughing up” as much money as traditional members is being “crass” and a manifestation of the “what-I-want” philosophy. What’s not only really crass but unspeakably selfish and morally reprehensible are the change agents who insist on railroading their innovative yet clearly worldly, clearly unbiblical gimmicks and philosophies into traditional churches for the sake of gaining numbers in the pews. Talk about “what-I-want!” These change agents scream “what-I-want” every time they infiltrate traditional churches with their own personal preferences instead of building their own churches. If they want to ignore the Bible’s guide to proper worship, that’s up to them, but woe befall them if they attempt to bring their kind of “worship” into a traditional church. Let them go elsewhere. It’s not a matter of what YOU want or what I want; it’s a matter of traditional churches defending and maintaining that which is biblical and casting out those who would do otherwise. And you expect traditional members to sit back and continue to support financially that which is obviously unscriptural?

I’ll go even further. When Jesus saw the moneychangers in the Temple, he became quite angry and not only overturned their tables but cast them out, because they had brought unholy practices into the “house of prayer.” In Jesus’ words, they had made the Temple a “den of thieves” (Matt. 2:12-13 KJV). Was Jesus being “judgmental” and “unloving”? Shall we not do likewise? If withholding financial support from unscriptural churches is “crass,” them perhaps literally casting out those who would profane worship with unholy, worldly agendas is a better alternative. After all, the change agents are robbing the traditional Church of its holiness; are they any different from the abominable moneychangers in Matthew, whom Jesus branded as “thieves”? Should they not be treated exactly in the same manner?

The Bible takes a very dim view of those who would pollute worship and make it worldly, as found in Romans 12:2, Romans 16:17-18, Gal. 1:8, Eph. 5:11, 2 Tim. 4:3-4, James 4:4, and 2 John 2:9-11 (all KJV).

It's time for Bible-believing Christians to get off their haunches and take some biblical ACTION.

 
 Respond to this message   

(no login)
68.19.232.99

Re: To comment on the article: (November 1, 2004, 12:48 AM)

November 2 2004, 2:45 AM 

Luci,

I wonder what could have happened, had the leadership required each in the Madison family to enter into a “Covenant of Membership” which would obligate—including the young professionals—to give “regularly to support the ministry of our family”? In case you didn’t know, there were several weeks in which a series of lessons on “tithing” [authored by Dr. Kregg Hood] was delivered to the congregation in the fall of 2002. The subject of “tithing” has not been heard of in a while and again. The tithing and covenant combo would have really impacted the young families, would it not? As a side note, a portion of the covenant draft states the following:
    “If at some time in the future, I find myself irreversibly out of harmony with the fundamental doctrines and essential practices of Madison, I will not be a source of strife and division, but will leave peacefully the fellowship. The Madison Church of Christ will provide every resource possible through the Dispute Resolution Ministry to assist you in any time of conflict. Every effort will be made to assist you in finding a church home where you will be comfortable and at peace.”
Don’t mistake “essential practices”—they include the newly acquired methodologies found in the Rick Warren doctrine. The “Dispute Resolution Ministry” is clearly a Saddleback workaround and a gentle way of saying, “Leave or get over it; we must move on [with the Warren church growth scheme].”

I believe that the message in your last paragraph concerning “contemporary vs. traditional services” should be directed to the Madison “shepherds” [sorry, “elders” has become a political incorrectness … “bishops” is too Catholicky]. I’m not here to debate this issue in this thread, but I’d like to point out that due to the drastic reduction in membership at Madison, the combined attendance of 1600 now can be easily accommodated in one assembly in the auditorium. Virtually in all cases that assemblies were scheduled separately in the past, it was due to either overcrowding or time preferences—not due to “musical worship” preferences. Many of the well-written, scripture-derived hymns, to the contemporary worship enthusiasts, are of the past. Beware that most of the “hymns” the contemporaries sing [how smart, how smart they are] are really contemporary “praise” songs that were written in the last couple of decades, and they “happen to be” in the hymnbooks. So, “they” can say that the hymns have not been trashed at all. And, actually these “praise” songs in the hymnbooks are not that many!

So, again, your question needs to be directed to the Madison leadership. The leadership has strongly emphasized many times before the differences between “contemporary vs. traditional” musical worship.

Donnie

 
 Respond to this message   

(no login)
204.0.181.196

"Praise" services

November 8 2004, 4:13 PM 

Give me a second and I'll explain how I got here...

(1) I just sent my daughter off to ACU.
(2) I'm not familiar very much with the churches of Christ. But, from everything I've heard, ACU is an excellent school.
(3) I ran across an article about the evangelical movement and their effect on this past election and future elections. It described the COC as "liberal" which seems really different from my limited understanding of the COC.

So, I started doing a little research about the COC and ran across this web site.

From ACU's published literature, it seems to line up well with what I believe. Further, it seems pretty conservative. Perhaps more so that the school I went off to back in 1970.

But, I've run across one thing that I do not understand and have one other question.

(Q1) Why is it that the churches of Christ believe in ONLY accapella singing? And (at least some) do not approve of praise music including musical instruments?? Please cite Bible passages. And if I may be so bold as to ask, I'm sure that there are Bible passages where they only sang... I'm looking for WHY do you consider it to be prohibited?? (The first century church met "from house to house" - pretty much exclusively. We don't do that exclusively anymore...)

(Q2) Why would someone call the churches of Christ "liberal" -- seems pretty bible-believing (aka CONSERVATIVE) to me??

 
 Respond to this message   
Dr. Bill Crump
(no login)
207.69.50.86

RE: Praise Services (from Brant)

November 8 2004, 11:00 PM 

You asked about the C of C's position on instrumental music, the subject of which has arisen numerous times on this site. Yet we are happy to relay our biblical convictions about it again and again to those who truly wish to know. The Church of Christ advocates only a cappella singing without musical instruments, because the New Testament commands us to sing and make melody in our hearts, as stipulated in Ephesians 5:19. The New Testament does not specifically authorize the use of anything other than the human voice to create music in worship. We believe that to add anything to, or take away anything from, the Word of God is to violate the Word. We also believe that just because the New Testament is seemingly “silent” about musical instruments as such, we do not have the freedom to “do as we please” and add them. You should read the initial article in the forum "He Didn’t Say Not To."

Some folks have argued that in Eph. 5:19, because the words “making melody” were translated from the Greek word “psallo” (meaning to twang as on a stringed instrument), this is a license to use instruments. Yet they ignore the words “in your heart.” Eph. 5:19 is a metaphor which authorizes only the melodic “twanging” in our hearts, not on a literal instrument. We make the music only with our voices; we make the melody only in our hearts.

Advocates of instrumental music also frequently cite passages from the Old Testament (like Psalm 150) which mention various instruments to praise God. Even though instrumental music was commanded in the Old Testament, we no longer live by its rules and regulations. If we did, then we would be accountable for performing all the sacrifices and other rituals commanded therein. We believe that Christ laid to rest the doctrinal commandments of the Old Law (including instrumental music) with His death, burial, and resurrection. We cannot serve two laws, the Law of Moses and the Law of Christ.

And then there is the historical example of the early Christians who did NOT use instruments in worship. Because pagan religions used instruments, the early Christians abstained in order that they not be mistaken for the pagans.

Finally, some dismiss us as being "legalistic" or adhering to "personal preferences." On the contrary, we're just following the Word of God.

 
 Respond to this message   

(no login)
68.154.166.97

Re: “Praise” Services

November 9 2004, 3:15 AM 

Brant,

I must admit that if it is difficult to explain ACU to those who are familiar with the churches of Christ, it would really be very, very difficult to explain it to those who aren’t. So, let’s not even go there. But, yes, ACU is an excellent school to obtain quality education from—when compared to “other” secular schools. And in that sense, ACU would be considered pretty conservative. By the way, what is your daughter majoring in—if you don’t mind me asking? I don’t know what to say, at this point, about churches of Christ being labeled as “liberal”—we would need to know the source and the context on which that conclusion was based.

In regard to your first question, there has already been a lot of discussion regarding a cappella singing, musical instruments in worship, musical worship, etc., on this board. May I simply urge you to do some reading of articles and posts that have been presented on this site? I would like to make brief comments, though, regarding “music” in the New Testament—our source and guide to Christian living. The word “music” is mentioned in the NT (KJV) only once, i.e., in reference to the story of the prodigal son when the elder brother, who was in the field, heard “music and dancing” as he came near to the house. That’s it! And that thought is far from music or the use of musical instruments as being part of the assembly of the saints.

I would not consider the meeting by the first century church “from house to house” as a suggestion that whatever is not specifically prohibited is, therefore, permissible. I would not be surprised if churches in other countries still meet from house to house. In a way, that would seem to prove that moving the piano or organ from house to house would be that cumbersome.

“Praise” in worship is a misnomer. While praise can be exercised via singing, does it almost [if not] always have to be “singing praises”? I think we need to examine what praise is about in the New Testament. Yes, Paul and Silas prayed and sang praises while in prison (Acts 16:25). But in many of the other instances, praise is not about singing at all. Often, praise is mistaken for worship or vice versa.

I, too, wonder about churches of Christ being labeled “liberal”—by whom? I must confess that certain congregations are “liberal” from the standpoint of those in the conservative circles—and that would be futile and confusing if discussed further. So, would you please clarify as to what you meant by “why would someone call the churches of Christ ‘liberal’”?

Donnie

 
 Respond to this message   
Current Topic - The Cost of "Praise" (Contemporary) Services
  << Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Index  
Place your text ad here.           See all text ads

This web site is not part of or approved by any Church!

...........................THE BOOK

What Happened At the Madison Church of Christ?


There are thousands of churches being taken over across America.

This book is only about one of those churches. It's about the Madison Church Of Christ. By studying the methods used here along with the resource references you might be able to inoculate your church. At the very least you will recognize the signs early on.

Many of the current members of the Madison Church of Christ still don't know what happened.
Some never will know! This book is for them as well.

Madison Church of Christ was a 60 year old church. At one time it was one of the largest churches in the US, and the largest Church of Christ.

It thrived for many years on the vision of it's elders and those of it's ministers. Those visions undoubtably came from the the inspired word of Jesus Christ.

At sometime in the last 10 years there was a deliberate plan by a majority of the elders to take the Madison Church of Christ into a more worldly realm.

They used secrecy, covert planning, and outside sources to scheme and to change the format and direction of the Madison Church of Christ.

The Elders knew that the membership would never approve such a plan. Using the tools of the "Community Church Movement"(consultants, books, seminars, meetings,planters,seeders) they slowly started initiating change so it was never noticed by the members until it was too late.....

At the heart of the plan was the fact that old members were going to be driven off so new techniques could be used to go out and reach the unchurched through new "Contemporary Holy Entertainment" methods developed by the "Community Church Movement"

Old members had to be kept on board long enough to get their plans ready, or the funds would not be there to pay for the new building. So by the plans very nature, it had to be secret.

The church had no plan in effect to renew or approve elders. There was never any need. The elders had always been "as approved by God". 10 of the last 15 elders would begin to shed some doubt on that.

The Elders did not even need a majority at first, because some of the elders went along unwittingly.

This edition starts shortly after some of the members begin to smell something strange in January 2001. Later editions may go back and fill in some of the timeline.

To even start to understand whats happening here, you must read the background materials in the first of the book.

This is only the first edition, and not the end. New editions will be printed as needed. To keep abreast of current changes, please visit our web site; http://www.concernedmembers.com/madison

Here is the list of players;

5 Godly Elders
10 Not so Godly Elders
120 "Deacons" (allegiance unknown)
2,800 - 4,000 church "members"
2 "teners" (people who have publicly confessed to have broken all ten commandments)
Unknown number of "sinners" (This is what the 10 elders call us.)
Unknown number of "demons" (Flying everywhere, to many to count)
 

Click Here......The Book is Available Now FREE

Place your banner ad here.           See all banner ads

...ConcernedMembers.com ...About ...Links Library ...Sunday School in Exile ...Help Warn Others


FastCounter by bCentral