intersting.

Below is an extract from an American Newspaper objecting to new trends in church music:

'There are several reasons for opposing it. One, it’s too new. Two, it’s often worldly, even blasphemous. The new Christian music is not as pleasant as the more established style. Because there are so many new songs, you can’t learn them all. It puts too much emphasis on instrumental music rather than godly lyrics. This new music creates disturbances making people act indecently and disorderly. The preceding generation got along without it. It’s a money making scam and some of these new music upstarts are lewd and loose.'


Who were they attacking? It wasn't Delirious? or Matt Redman. They were attacking the hymn writer Isaac Watts, famous for writing ‘When I survey,’ in 1723! The old hymns once upon a time were radical and cutting edge. Our music and our songs must also always be pushing new ground.

_______

I took this from Tim Hughes so don't give me credit for it. It is intersting though. I wonder what it means? Does it mean that we should give up fighting over this and just sing what the majority of people want to hear? I don't think so. Does it mean that the terms of "contemporary" and "traditional" are irrelevant seeing as how God is timeless/eternal? maybe. Does it mean we pursue new sounds and melodies? again, maybe. Let me know your thoughts if you read this...

To those who are discouraged by this particular battle, be encouraged.
If you are the worship pastor of a church where people complain a lot about your sound or your direction, be enouraged.