WorshipCentral

ok I admit it, I was drawn in by the title :P

It's an interesting point though. Perhaps I'm wrong, but the most common approach often seems to be to seperate the two things out - i.e. we have services, songs and talks aimed at non believers and different ones aimed at believers. To a certain extent I guess it's a bit like why we have junior church / sunday school / alpha courses - to make things understandable to those who otherwise might be completely confused if they were thrown into a typical sermon. I can't find it quickly but I'm sure there's a passage somewhere (acts?) that talks about a very long sermon where only those that understood were in attendence, and because of that everyone stood there for hours and took in the message. If everyone was there - those that didn't understand, those that had no intention of understanding perhaps - I can't see how it would've gone the same way. So personally I think sometimes it just has to be done this way.

That said, I don't think it's impossible to merge the two at all - I know it's not the same but the nearest thing that springs to mind is family services - things that speak and teach things to people of all ages. Though I don't think there's much doubt that some things will always be easier to incorporate in this way than others, it's certainly possible. I'm obviously being very simplistic, but in terms of worship then it might be that the talk and the songs could be linked so that they not only supported each other, but to a certain extent made sense of each other as well?

It's certainly got me thinking!

I have to admit that I don't have a huge amount of sympathy for the Muslims in the story. It makes about as much sense as if a bunch of Christians boycotted the Harry Potter books on the grounds that they were intended to turn little kids into practising pagans. Oh, wait a moment... they did. Just goes to show that there are some reactionary and, frankly, rather bigoted people in any group. That's another thing we all have in common.

I remember going to the local mosque shortly after the September 11 attacks, to a meeting designed to foster interfaith understanding. I'm pleased to say that I and the other Christians didn't walk out when the Iman suggested that anyone who wasn't a Muslim must be out of their mind. I suspect that there are plenty of Muslims who could likewise sit through "Zion" songs even if they didn't choose to sing along.

I'm all for being sensitive to the feelings of others but there are limits. I probably would be more careful about that kind of thing if I knew I was going to have a large proportion of Muslims in the audience but it sounds like it was unexpected. There are some things about a gospel message that are inevitably going to cause offence - see 1 Cor 1:23 (a stumbling block to the Jews and foolishness to the Greeks).

Wulf

--
Bassist for The Elusive Teeth, The Pico Brown Five and Hither Green Baptist Church

It's a really interesting point you make I come from a very white, middle class to rich area where the majority of people do not go to a church but would consider themselves Christian.

In a church setting the worship should fit the congregation I do not think that worship in church should be censored or questioned on the content as the aim is to create a space for people to connect with God.

In perhaps another evangelistic setting songs/hymns could have much more open lyrics which could invite those of other religions to bring their own take on the music.

There is also the fact that alot of religions share alot of ideas/ideals. Muslims, Jews and Christians all have the Old Testament, Muslims recognise Jesus as a prophet, and all religions in the world even some forms of Satanism use the same moral code as Christianity. The three great Monotheistic religions (Islam, Judiaim, Christianity) as they are known all believe in the same God stemming from Abraham.

I have to agree with Wulf despite my openness I think it was very odd to go to a mission sponsored by Christians to learn about Christian views then walk out during a worship song. I personally if in that situation would have stayed to actually learn. It also was clearly unexpected that 75 Muslims would arive.

Well I think I have understood what you're saying... If I havn't I take back all I say.

I think one needs to keep this in mind regardless of whether people are from different religious backgrounds as very often within Christian circles people are confused about the meaning of certain songs etc.

I think the biggest danger is that we may very often get so caught up in "cloud no.9" (for a lack of a better phrase) that we forget to communicate our response to God through worship with simplicity - so that others can understand. I'm by no means saying that we should water down the meaning of certain phrases etc that we use, but really be sesitive to the fact that not all CHRISTIANS are on the same page.

An example of this is when a few year ago (and I'm NOT attacking the writers of these songs) they sung "RIVER OF GOD". Many CHRISTIANS (in our context) were wondering about why one had to refer to the RIVER of God...again i am sure that the song was written for a specific purpose and thought in mind, but people just did not relate. The concept was too 'abstract'? Another example is that old song "The trees of the field will clap their hands" - i've heard so many stories of Christians being a bit 'freaked' out at these lyrics (although scriptural - Isaiah 55:12) - it just did not suite the context in which we live in (the lyrics were just not relevant to the people). Now you can teach on why these songs have these words etc, but i often wonder then what the point is if we first need to explain the song before it is sung... Thoughts?

Again i feel i need to make myself clear too in saying that i don't believe that there's anything in particular 'wrong' with these songs, but a good reminder for us all to remember that CHRISTIANS are often ignorant as to the meaning of certain phrases and statements in songs (and this is not even including non-christians)

I think that one needs to always be very aware of what we are trying to communicate through a worship set, and be sensitive to the fact that some phrases might detract more from worship than add to it.

THose are my thoughts...
Ockie :D

Worship leading isn't all about making it easy for people though. I agree that it is important to think about things like the choice of words but if immediate understanding were the only factor, hymns like "And Can It Be" would be out.

Christians shouldn't be seeking easy entertainment - we should be seeking to grow and develop. Being archaic for the sake of it is self-indulgent but choosing some songs with words that relate to past times (whether classic hymns or Biblical phrases) does have a value in linking us to our foundations.

Wulf

--
Bassist for The Elusive Teeth, The Pico Brown Five and Hither Green Baptist Church

Great comments. guys. I have some more thoughts to share, but I'll wait to see if anyone else jumps in with any input before I share them. After your post on pulling certain phrases from the Bible, Ockie, I couldn't resist sharing this, though.

The 5 year old daughter of friends of ours came home from church not too long ago and told them that she loved the 'I ate zombies' song. Of course, they were somewhat perplexed. On further questioning it became clear that the song she was referring to was ... well I'll let you have a think and post the answer soon! Meantime, any guesses? And more importantly, any further comments on the broader issue?

http://music.glenabbey.org.uk

I think this is getting away from the original topic, but anyone who has read and agreed with Nick Page's excellent book on worship song-writing 'And now let's move into a time of nonsense' would recognise that there is a whole language we use in worship songs that we just don't use in the real world. Words like 'proclaim', 'magnify' and 'exalt' get used a lot (when was the last time you used any of those in normal conversation?) and bits of the Bible get lifted straight into lyrics without any thought to what they meant to the original readers, what they might mean now, and what their wider context is.

Not saying that that is necessarily the case with 'Awake awake', but what does 'Zion' mean to us now? In Isaiah 55 it meant the city of Jerusalem - what does it mean now to take the words of that prophecy and sing them? If we as the church are the new Israel (if you follow replacement theology) then I presume there is a parallel with Jerusalem (Jesus?? or is he the new Temple? Or is that the church??) but I don't know what it is. It's noticeable that the song doesn't use the second half of Is 55:1:

O Jerusalem, the holy city.
The uncircumcised and defiled
will not enter you again.

Hmm. That doesn't make quite such a good lyric does it?!

Anyway. 'nuff said about use of Biblical quotes in worship songs that may or may not actually make your song more 'Biblical' - referring back to the original situation, I'd argue that that song shouldn't have been sung in that context. Lyrically it's a bit obscure and requires interpretation anyway, so even if it wouldn't cause your average non-Christian to walk out, it would probably have confused them. Al Gordon wrote an excellent blog on this site on using worship songs in Alpha which is a great guide to using worship songs in an evangelistic context - shame the people leading at that meeting didn't have worshipcentral to guide them eh? :)

www.RESOUNDworship.org
Free New Worship Songs

oh yes, and I've got no idea what 'I ate zombies' refers to!

www.RESOUNDworship.org
Free New Worship Songs

"I ate zombies" = "I exalt thee" (from "For thou oh Lord art high above all the earth). At least it does to an average 5 year old! Sing it to yourself and see what you think!

http://music.glenabbey.org.uk

“Your meetings do more harm than good,” was God’s indictment (through Paul) of the church at Corinth. In other words, it’s perfectly possible for true Christians (the ‘saints’ in Corinth, 1 Cor 1:2), those who are exercising spiritual gifts (‘you are not lacking any spiritual gift’ 1 Cor 1:7), to be getting things so wrong when they gathered that this would be God’s assessment of their gatherings. A sobering thought indeed.

But what had gone wrong? Interestingly enough in 1 Corinthians, the issues Paul goes on to address in the following chapters are mostly horizontal in nature i.e. they refer to our relationships with one another. Whether is division during communion (chpt 11); whether it’s the lack of love shown to one another in the exercising of spiritual gifts (chpt 12-13); or whether it’s problems with how they conducted their meetings together (chpt 14). It’s clear that God is not pleased when we ignore the impact that our meetings have on one another. We don’t just come to meet with God; we gather to meet with him as a body. And one of the ways we show our love for him is in the way we show our love for one another and for the lost who come to our churches.

So what does God have to say on this issue? Are there any principles from his word that can guide us as we consider the presence of unbelievers in our meetings? One passage that has been very helpful to me on this issue is 1 Cor 14:1-25. Although the presenting issue is the use of tongues in corporate worship, Paul uses that issue to get to a deeper principle: a deep love for one another that produces a desire to make our services intelligible to others. “Pursue love … If with your tongue you utter speech that is not intelligible, how will anyone know what is said… strive to excel in the building up of the church.” (1 Cor 14:1,9,12). How do we build up? By being rich and deep enough in the truths of God that we communicate that people are filled with an overwhelming sense of the incomparable glory of our great God AND by expressing these deep truths in language that connects with people, that engages with them and that communicates with them.

Well, that’s fine, but what about non-Christians? Should we accommodate their presence with us? If so, how? Having just emphasised the importance of intelligibility for other Christians, Paul has some advice on how this same intelligibility will impact non-Christians present: “But if all prophesy (which, in this chapter, Paul has been arguing is more intelligible than tongues), and an unbeliever or outsider enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all (note the horizontal emphasis here – the unbeliever is convicted by what he sees in and hears from those around him) the secrets of his heart are disclosed, and so, falling on his face, he will worship God and declare that God is really among you.” (1 Cor 14:24-25)

It seems to me that we have a God-given mandate to consider how we can best communicate in our meetings. We have some thinking to do based on the principle of a love-motivated desire to be intelligible. We’re not seeking to dumb down what we say and do, but we’re seeking to make the deep truths of our faith understandable. Why? Because that’s what best edifies other believers, and what best evangelises the lost – and so it’s what best glorifies God – “…falling on his face, he will worship God and declare that God is really among you.”

http://music.glenabbey.org.uk