----- Original Message ----- From: "FreeLists Mailing List Manager" <ecartis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: "rodgersorgan digest users" <ecartis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2003 2:01 AM Subject: rodgersorgan Digest V2 #99 > May all your bloopers be grace notes this hoiliday season! From the Staff at FMP > > --- > ------------------------------------ > rodgersorgan Digest Tue, 22 Apr 2003 Volume: 02 Issue: 099 > > In This Issue: > [rodgersorgan] Re: Organs & Praise Bands - > [rodgersorgan] Re: Mother's Day > [rodgersorgan] Re: Organs & Praise Bands - > [rodgersorgan] Re: Organs & Praise Bands - > [rodgersorgan] tech schematics Exeter 770 > [rodgersorgan] Re: Organs & Praise Bands - > [rodgersorgan] Re: Mother's Day > [rodgersorgan] Re: Mother's Day > [rodgersorgan] Organs IN Praise Bands These are the comments of my son David (music pastor at Cornerstone Church, St. Cloud, FL, dajonole@xxxxxxxxx) in response to some of the above postings: Hey all - Here's my comments on this article: > > > The problem with "praise music" is not so much > with the instruments or > the > > > style of the music, but rather the theology that > is driving the entire > > > contemporary music movement. Instead of putting > the focus on Christ and > > > what He has done for us, this "entertainment > music" puts the emphasis on > > the > > > performers and what they can do to move the > emotions of the listeners. This is a huge generalization that the writer continues the rest of his article on. I don't think you can put that sort of lable on every contemporary praise church or musician. I believe that this is true in some or even a lot of church musicians. However, to make it a blanket statement for a style of music overall is just not fair or biblical. I have never seen or heard ANYONE say that theology of contemporary music is to focus on me. Now, I believe very much in the power of "classic" church music, hymns, the organ and everything else, but unchurched Joe and Mary don't because they have come from a different background. Part of my job is to take people on spiritual journey from the church to their home - if God can only or should primarily be worshipped with a certain style of music, or only certain instrumentation, we begin to put God in a box. I understand the writer's point about motivation and I agree to a certain extent. But to make a blanket statement and continue to build an argument on it is totally unfair. The book of Psalms clearly talks about every possible instrument that can be used, should be used. God is the giver of music. Our taste or preference in style and instrumentation says more about us than it does about God. > > > When church musicians place the emphasis on > themselves, their choirs, > > their > > > instrumental groups, and their performance > rather than on Christ, they > are > > > abandoning what should be the mission statement > of every church music > > > program: "To the glory of God, and for the > edification of my neighbor," > as > > > Bach stated in the dedication of his > Orgelbuechlein. I believe that last statement is the calling of the contemporary church music scene - my neighbor is not going to understand "O For A Thousand Tongues." If we were to go to a foreign language to minister to people, we would need to learn to speak that language. The same is true with our society. The danger for the mainline church is that is has gotten so comfortable with Christian catch phrases and cliches, that a seeker will only take home 25 percent of what is delivered in our church services (music and message). My neighbor does not own any organ music CD's, but he has lots of contemporary music CD's. We can not only present the gospel to him in that language, but encourage him to worship in that language. We use the contemporary choir, band, vocal team as tools to present the gospel and lead the believer in corperate worship. When a gifted soloist comes up before a congregation and sings a special number - I believe God uses that. The question again, however is not in method - but in motivation. To say that ALL contemporary musicians/vocalists have poor motivation is just not accurate. What do > dances > > > have to do with divine worship!? They were > played for entertainment, > not > > > spiritual edification, and certainly not for the > glory of God. Obviously, this statement is incorrect! David spoke highly of the dance as a tool in worship. Again, the question should not be method of worship, but motivation. When David returned from battle, he stripped his clothes and danced shamelessly before the Lord and all the other onlookers. I would imagine naked dancing is frowned upon in your church - I know it is in mine - but the issue was not the method - the issue is motivation. I used to have people on my team who were good musicians - but the problem was they knew it and saw the seeker concept as a performance not as a minstry or worship experience. It has taken me a long time to get some of my people to understand that what we do is not for our own glory, but for the glory of God - regardless of what it is. Scripture tells us to do EVERYTHING to the glory of God. Even if it means singing a secular song in church to people to are going to get a clear message - God is glorified through that. I have one question - the writer talks so much about the contemporary musician and questions their motives. Is it not possible that their are just as many classic style church musicians who take the same standpoint? Is not the author joining them by taking so much pride in his style of worship that he is completely discrediting an entire genre of music that God is using? Which is the worse sin? What does God think? David ============================================================================= New low pricing on books and music for the Rodgers Organ at www.frogmusic.com ============================================================================= To unsubscribe or change mail delivery (digest, vacation) go to www.frogmusic.com/rodgersmem.html