13 Reasons I Never Joined the Contemporary Worship Movement - by Jonathan Aigner

Found here. My comments in bold.

--------------------------

While there is certainly much to complain about regarding some circles of contemporary worship, the author lumps it all into a single category and dismisses it all with a wave of the hand. 

If indeed there are problems in the Church today, perhaps it wouldn't be too much trouble for the author to actually cite examples, provide references, and otherwise document his claims.

Unfortunately, he does none of this.

-------------------------------

There are a lot of articles and posts written by some great people who left the contemporary worship movement. That’s not my story, so this is not one of those posts. I grew up in a Southern Baptist megachurch in suburban Houston, Texas. I was surrounded by contemporary worship for the first 16 years of my life, but I never bought into the trend. 

I never joined because it always seemed superficial. (His first criticism is based on what "seems" to be the situation.)

It’s time for us to admit that you can only be taken in by the movement if you cannot live with the tension present in the world around us. (This is an amazing claim, that no one can participate in contemporary worship unless one is escapist!)

As American Christians, our lack of vulnerability has led to a worship movement that is mostly about amusement, instead of necessity. (Unsupported assertion.)

But in trying to be entertaining, (Unsupported assertion.)

the church is shooting itself in the foot. Entertainment is always optional, and we will never beat TV and sports. (Is this what contemporary worship is trying to do? Documentation, please.)

I never joined because I resent the commercialism. As a younger person (and I’m stubbornly still counting myself in this category into my thirties), I’ve grown up in a demographic fiercely targeted by churches, as they try in vain to beat the odds and reverse the decline of cultural Christianity. To get us rascally millennials, church leaders have mistakenly believed that if they made church more like popular culture, we would like it more. (Unsupported assertion. 

And we note for the record that church has always been found in the context of the culture. That is, church contains people who are products of their time, with certain tastes, preferences, and understandings. The early church, for example, was expressing itself in the terms and practices of its unique circumstances according to the language and music of the day, which cannot be inserted into the 21st century church. 

But we will not read anything from the author about returning church to the context of the first century church. No, we will find he is looking to go back only a couple of hundred years. Upon what basis he makes this choice is not said.)

But we don’t. The church’s attempts are lame, boring, and insulting. (According to him. But according to those who worship to contemporary music, much of it is well crafted, interesting, and edifying.)

Now we’re leaving faster than ever. I don’t need an experience, I desperately need a community in which I’m nothing special. I don’t want to be hooked, I want to be befriended. I don’t want to be served, I want to serve with you. (None of this is excluded by contemporary worship.)

So just be the regular old church, (That is, church like it was a hundred years ago.)

with your regular old liturgies, and let us join in. (You see what he's yearning for? He wants to roll back time to when church was an expression of its time in history, as if that time was somehow a high point that must be preserved.)

Contemporary worship is the church’s underhanded marketing scheme, peddling commercial ugliness dressed up like the Crucified. (Unsupported assertion.)

Liturgy is the great alternative to the ugliness. (Apparently his tastes ought to be enforced in every church.)

I never joined because it comes from the wrong sources. The best of the church’s hymnody was written by pastors and theologians. (This is an odd requirement. I guess we should leave the writing of worship music to the religious professionals.

It was crafted by poets and scholars. (Much of it was. Much of it wasn't.)

The result are texts of high quality. (Most of the time, yes.)

But the industry in its quest to be marketable only has room for marketable people who write marketable songs. It entrusts sacred storytelling to many with dubious credentials as artists, poets, or theologians. (The author tries to set us up to believe that good worship music can only be written by elites, and those elites are only found in the 18th century.)

I never joined because I was never convinced that worship was about the musical part of the service. Most people in the contemporary worship movement claim to believe this, yet they keep calling the music part of a gathering the “worship,” those who lead music the “worship leaders,” and the music itself “worship music.” (Are any of those terms inaccurate or misleading? No. Would David try to claim that the Psalms should not be worshiped to or set to music? Is there something wrong with contemporary worship because it is musical? This objection almost sounds nonsensical.)

I never joined because the emotional manipulation was obvious. The contemporary worship movement uses music’s emotional power as an answer key to the great mystery of faith. (Emotions are part of the human makeup. It's an integral part of who we are. In fact, we are commanded to Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. [Mk. 12:30] The whole of man must worship. SO the fact that some contemporary worship engages the emotions is not incorrect. 

And by the way, whenever I sing "How Great Thou Art," I can barely hold back my emotions. Shall we relegate that great hymn to "emotional manipulation?")

The proof of God’s presence, it says, can be felt. But, as the late Rich Mullins would likely remind us, that’s not God’s presence, that’s only the kick-drum. This holy substitution should make us angry. (More broad generalizations. This is getting tiring.)

I never joined because it’s about performance, instead of the work of the people. The contemporary worship movement is about hearing music and a message; (No, it's not. See? I can do it too. I can make pronouncements and paint with a broad brush just as easily as the author.)

historic worship is about Word and Sacrament. (The author drops rhetorical bombs like this without thought, explanation, or documentation.)

I never joined because it’s a passing fad. The beauty of historic Christian worship is that it is about things that last. By definition, what the contemporary worship movement produces is disposable. To be contemporary, you have to resign yourself to the reality that you will soon go out of style. So it is with the church’s worship. (Ironically, those who don't like hymns don't like the style. So I guess we can claim that hymns are a passing fad because they will not last.)

I never joined because the idea of preferential worship (or multiple worship “styles”) is toxic to a congregation. The idea of offering different worship formats, usually contemporary and traditional splits a church. (If a church splits, there are deeper issues than the music. But really, can't we similarly claim that contemporary music is the higher virtue, and those who want hymns only are the divisive ones?)

It divides (No, people divide.)

what should be the most unified exercise of the church, both physically and theologically. It also takes fundamental issues of meaning and makes them into mere issues of preference. (As if there is something wrong with preference. Everything we do is as a result of preference. What we eat, what version of the Bible we like, the brand of car we drive, the clothes that we wear are natural expressions of who we are. There are a variety of churches out there with their various processes, governmental structures, wall colors, and languages spoken. Is there anything in this world that does not come about as a result of preference?

Indeed, the author is expressing his preference and dividing worship into his preferred categories. Upon what basis should we accept his preference and abandon ours?)

I never joined because it’s inextricable from the seeker-sensitive movement, which undermines the purpose of gathered worship. Contemporary worship is often more about getting butts in the seats, and younger butts, at that. (He makes a sweeping statement then walks it back. He goes from "inextricable" to "often," blissfully unaware of his own contradictions.)

True worship is about doing God’s story so that it becomes our story. (Rhetorical nonsense. What this means is anyone's guess. I hereby appeal to history, theological exposition, and the Bible itself for any support at all for this puerile statement. Worship is and always has been about giving God the Glory due his name, apart from any benefit to us.)

I never joined because it has limited use for artistry and beauty. The church once led the way in producing music of fine artistic quality. No longer. The contemporary worship movement is merely a derivative of mainstream pop music. Simply put, the contemporary worship movement produces christianized versions of commercial music genres. So not only is it derivative, but it’s derivative versions of music that largely ignores music as an art form. (The author is apparently unaware that every hymn in existence is derived from the forms and practice of the music of its day. Every hymn is a product of the preferences of the people of those times.

As for "artistry and beauty", I happen to think that many contemporary songs are not only beautiful, but astoundingly so.) 

I never joined because the movement is driven by money. For God’s sake, it’s called the “worship industry.” To be successful, it must appeal to the lowest common denominator. It must create a need for itself. That’s how businesses work. And the contemporary worship industry does so by hooking us in on a purely sensory level, and then in worship, time and time again, we must seek to recreate the experience. We trade God’s story for a moment of fleeting excitement. (This is an irrelevant objection. Access to worship music via the marketplace is not unholy. These men and women deserve their wages just as much as a pastor deserves his.)

I never joined because it turns music into a substitute sacrament. I always cringe when I hear a musician say that they are leading people into God’s presence. They may not know it, but the audacity of that statement is bold and telling. Music doesn’t connect people to God, the Holy Spirit does. And Jesus was clear when he said, “Here are my body and blood.” Music might be a special means of grace, but it’s not a means of special grace. If we use it to add dimension to liturgy, it works well, but if we rely on it to sustain us, we will always be let down. (Then why does the author advocate hymns? What are their purpose? Do they have any spiritual import? 

Further, God commands us to worship. The Holy Spirit uses that worship to connect us to God, and music is frequently a facilitator of that. I frankly don't understand the author's objection.)

I never joined because the Christian faith isn’t lived in a vacuum. When we worship together, we aren’t only part of one community, but we’re identifying ourselves with the incredible story of the gospel, and joining the radical political movement begun by Christ himself. As we meet as God’s covenant people, the centuries of time collapse, and we find ourselves alongside the saints who have come before. In fact, we are joining the song of the angels, and twinkling along with the light of the morning stars, begun even before creation. And we are rehearsing for the unending hymn, the heavenly liturgy, which we will join one day. (The author doesn't explain how contemporary worship is in violation of this.)

I know there are some of you who left the contemporary worship movement. Or maybe you are like me, and you never crossed over. What was it about the movement that made you leave, or stay away to begin with?