I know CCLI's SongSelect has topics listed for most songs, but I don't know if it's searchable by topic. It seems like I've seen various efforts toward that on message boards before, but I can't seem to find any now.
Does Planning Center Online allow for the categorizing/searching mentioned above? I've been working on something in my spare time to allow me to do that, but it's slow going :)
I have mixed feelings. On the one hand, I think of being on the worship team as a service to the church. But it doesn't take much of a stretch to say that if that implies musicians shouldn't be paid, why doesn't it imply that no-one should be paid?
Motivation is certainly an important consideration. I'd be deeply uncomfortable with an attitude that, "We can't worship without (insert hard-to-find-instrument), so we better pay one."
I think planning the other elements around the sermon can be nice, but certainly isn't essential. The very structure of a service can provide the internal logic that connects elements--God calls his people together, and we respond with praise. We acknowledge our sinfulness and receive again the good news of forgiveness. Reminded of God's work for us, we hear his will, and are sent out to respond.
I thought it was interesting that you interpret the disconnected sermon and songs as a message of "the songs are warm up for the sermon." I tend to flip the coin around...in my mind, it's the idea that the value of the songs and other elements is dependent on how well they connect to the sermon that really treats them as a warm up.
Honestly, I sometimes find that trying to plan according to the sermon is more frustrating than anything. It's kind of like standing in my kitchen and saying "I have nothing to eat." I'm feeling like I have no ideas for a service, and I have to stop and take a step back say, "Seriously...how many things could I say about God? It's impossible to have no ideas!"
Again, cohesion can be nice, and it's usually at least a part of my planning, but it's certainly not the be-all-end-all, and I don't mind dropping it altogether.
I'm not sure really distinguishing between "for us", "for God", and "for the lost" is possible. Worship is for God in that it is its own end, but we should certainly expect both the lost and the found to benefit from the proclamation of God's glory and the story of the gospel.
I agree that an outsider's perspective can raise good questions that we should tackle. But the outsider's perspective might easily offer answers that are obvious, but still wrong. There's a reason the Bible uses words like "blind".
If I recall correctly from church history classes, the Romans thought early Christians were cannibals because they ate the body and blood of Jesus. Presumably they didn't really want to be thought of as cannibals--an obvious answer would be to remove that language that confused people. But would it be the right answer?
Or take your question about music--I would say the obvious answer is to make the quality of our music in church match the quality on the radio. But you could just as easily flip the question, and ask why top 40 radio is a good standard to use, as opposed to, say, a 5 year old singing for her parents. Pop music exists to bring in money for the singer, and entertain the listener. Do the forms that serve those purposes carry baggage into worship that we don't want?
Is there an administrator function that could move this conversation to the thread Mark started? Seems like a shame to have one lonely thread with replies on it!
I read your post before Mark posted...and I was going to suggest roughly the opposite of what he did :). Assuming you're like most churches, where the "only reads sheet music" folks are the keys players, and the "only reads chords" folks are the guitarists, use the lead sheets from CCLI, and ask the pianist to play just the melody. They'll probably feel weird doing it, since they're used to playing so much more, but part of being in a group is that everyone needs to play a bit less than they would on their own.
My situation: We have piano with 2-4 singers on melody on a large majority of songs. We also don't have one defined worship leader. Is it terribly authentic to the pop-rock genre? Nope. Do I like the way it sounds? Not always. Would I like to change it? Sometimes...but on the other hand...the congregation really sings pretty heartily the way things are, which is worth quite a bit. Maybe what we do just works for us...(though I've been to bigger churches that do a more authentic modern sound, and felt like I was the only congregant singing).
I do think the difference between following a vocalist and following a piano is mostly psychological, like Mark says, but that doesn't make it not real. The piano and voice have different characteristics as far as the attack of the note, and if you're accustomed to following one, following the other takes a bit of a different ear. It can take time to learn how to do it. As far as how to teach that...well, at some level, you just have to go for it and give people time. I do think doubling can ease the transition. Maybe it works for your congregation; maybe the defined worship leader works better. I've also found that (if you organize music in anything resembling "sets") I prefer to put things that might challenge people a little more in the middle of the set, so it starts and ends on a more confident note.
Honestly, if there's an under-the-radar network of modern-music-playing CRC folks, I'm not aware of it. OK, that wouldn't be so surprising, I guess...but where I'm going is that my "education", as it were, in modern church music has come from non-denominational sources--Campus Crusade for Christ, Christian radio, and various places on the internet. I would guess that I'm not the only one finding support and ideas out there, so I'd guess that's where you're most likely to find people doing that.
Specifically on the Contemporary Songs for Worship: if it's the book I'm thinking of (a little red book? ...oh, that sounds bad), I looked through it and wasn't that excited. The arrangements reminded me a lot of what I've seen from Sing! a New Creation, and I've often felt those were lacking in a band context. I may not be quite as much a purist as others on songs for guitar vs. piano--I love arranging hymns for guitar, and I could totally picture organ arrangements of newer songs. However, I'd say songs in general carry a certain attitude/ethos/soul, and that's just as much a part of "modern music" as the melody and lyrics. I think it's often possible to translate that ethos to a different instrument, or deconstruct the song and rebuild it around a different, yet still authentic, ethos, but the people who are capable of doing those things usually don't need a whole lot of help from sheet music. And so the SNC book (and presumably Cont. Songs for Worship) are making contemporary lyrics and melodies accessible, I'm not so sure they're really making the music more accessible...if that makes any sense.
Posted in: Where can I find a Contemporary Christian Songs Topical Index?
I know CCLI's SongSelect has topics listed for most songs, but I don't know if it's searchable by topic. It seems like I've seen various efforts toward that on message boards before, but I can't seem to find any now.
Posted in: What is your system for song tracking?
Does Planning Center Online allow for the categorizing/searching mentioned above? I've been working on something in my spare time to allow me to do that, but it's slow going :)
Posted in: What Issues Do You Face in Modernizing Your Worship?
I have mixed feelings. On the one hand, I think of being on the worship team as a service to the church. But it doesn't take much of a stretch to say that if that implies musicians shouldn't be paid, why doesn't it imply that no-one should be paid?
Motivation is certainly an important consideration. I'd be deeply uncomfortable with an attitude that, "We can't worship without (insert hard-to-find-instrument), so we better pay one."
Posted in: Worship Glue: Sticking the Pieces Together
I think planning the other elements around the sermon can be nice, but certainly isn't essential. The very structure of a service can provide the internal logic that connects elements--God calls his people together, and we respond with praise. We acknowledge our sinfulness and receive again the good news of forgiveness. Reminded of God's work for us, we hear his will, and are sent out to respond.
I thought it was interesting that you interpret the disconnected sermon and songs as a message of "the songs are warm up for the sermon." I tend to flip the coin around...in my mind, it's the idea that the value of the songs and other elements is dependent on how well they connect to the sermon that really treats them as a warm up.
Honestly, I sometimes find that trying to plan according to the sermon is more frustrating than anything. It's kind of like standing in my kitchen and saying "I have nothing to eat." I'm feeling like I have no ideas for a service, and I have to stop and take a step back say, "Seriously...how many things could I say about God? It's impossible to have no ideas!"
Again, cohesion can be nice, and it's usually at least a part of my planning, but it's certainly not the be-all-end-all, and I don't mind dropping it altogether.
Posted in: Worship for Whom?
I'm not sure really distinguishing between "for us", "for God", and "for the lost" is possible. Worship is for God in that it is its own end, but we should certainly expect both the lost and the found to benefit from the proclamation of God's glory and the story of the gospel.
I agree that an outsider's perspective can raise good questions that we should tackle. But the outsider's perspective might easily offer answers that are obvious, but still wrong. There's a reason the Bible uses words like "blind".
If I recall correctly from church history classes, the Romans thought early Christians were cannibals because they ate the body and blood of Jesus. Presumably they didn't really want to be thought of as cannibals--an obvious answer would be to remove that language that confused people. But would it be the right answer?
Or take your question about music--I would say the obvious answer is to make the quality of our music in church match the quality on the radio. But you could just as easily flip the question, and ask why top 40 radio is a good standard to use, as opposed to, say, a 5 year old singing for her parents. Pop music exists to bring in money for the singer, and entertain the listener. Do the forms that serve those purposes carry baggage into worship that we don't want?
Posted in: What Would You Like to See on This Site?
Is there an administrator function that could move this conversation to the thread Mark started? Seems like a shame to have one lonely thread with replies on it!
I read your post before Mark posted...and I was going to suggest roughly the opposite of what he did :). Assuming you're like most churches, where the "only reads sheet music" folks are the keys players, and the "only reads chords" folks are the guitarists, use the lead sheets from CCLI, and ask the pianist to play just the melody. They'll probably feel weird doing it, since they're used to playing so much more, but part of being in a group is that everyone needs to play a bit less than they would on their own.
My situation: We have piano with 2-4 singers on melody on a large majority of songs. We also don't have one defined worship leader. Is it terribly authentic to the pop-rock genre? Nope. Do I like the way it sounds? Not always. Would I like to change it? Sometimes...but on the other hand...the congregation really sings pretty heartily the way things are, which is worth quite a bit. Maybe what we do just works for us...(though I've been to bigger churches that do a more authentic modern sound, and felt like I was the only congregant singing).
I do think the difference between following a vocalist and following a piano is mostly psychological, like Mark says, but that doesn't make it not real. The piano and voice have different characteristics as far as the attack of the note, and if you're accustomed to following one, following the other takes a bit of a different ear. It can take time to learn how to do it. As far as how to teach that...well, at some level, you just have to go for it and give people time. I do think doubling can ease the transition. Maybe it works for your congregation; maybe the defined worship leader works better. I've also found that (if you organize music in anything resembling "sets") I prefer to put things that might challenge people a little more in the middle of the set, so it starts and ends on a more confident note.
Posted in: What Would You Like to See on This Site?
Joyce,
Honestly, if there's an under-the-radar network of modern-music-playing CRC folks, I'm not aware of it. OK, that wouldn't be so surprising, I guess...but where I'm going is that my "education", as it were, in modern church music has come from non-denominational sources--Campus Crusade for Christ, Christian radio, and various places on the internet. I would guess that I'm not the only one finding support and ideas out there, so I'd guess that's where you're most likely to find people doing that.
Specifically on the Contemporary Songs for Worship: if it's the book I'm thinking of (a little red book? ...oh, that sounds bad), I looked through it and wasn't that excited. The arrangements reminded me a lot of what I've seen from Sing! a New Creation, and I've often felt those were lacking in a band context. I may not be quite as much a purist as others on songs for guitar vs. piano--I love arranging hymns for guitar, and I could totally picture organ arrangements of newer songs. However, I'd say songs in general carry a certain attitude/ethos/soul, and that's just as much a part of "modern music" as the melody and lyrics. I think it's often possible to translate that ethos to a different instrument, or deconstruct the song and rebuild it around a different, yet still authentic, ethos, but the people who are capable of doing those things usually don't need a whole lot of help from sheet music. And so the SNC book (and presumably Cont. Songs for Worship) are making contemporary lyrics and melodies accessible, I'm not so sure they're really making the music more accessible...if that makes any sense.