SONGS ARE DISCIPLESHIP - By Andrew Lovette

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author has a lot to say about a caricature of contemporary worship services, most of it speculative and vague. 

This article is pretty much about the author's tastes.

In addition, the author cannot be bothered to quote a single Scripture.

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

(The author opens with an anecdotal experience as if this was representative of all contemporary worship services.) My view of the singer was obscured by a thick wave of fog. A man with a headset notified the production director to set “phasers to stun.” The music began with the triumphant march of drums beating to the rhythm of Top 40 hits. The leader listed off several incoherent invitations in an attempt to solicit the presence of God. Shouting, “We want your presence” over the pulsing meter of the music while the young, energetic musicians danced to flashing lights. Standing amidst this, I could not help but wonder, “How did we get here?” What began as antiphonically chanting gibberish was now accompanied by click tracks and auto-tune. Looking left and right, I couldn’t help but wonder how this experience was forming these individuals. The musicianship was excellent, but the words were something between Twitter takes and meme-level theology. Have we elevated technique and musicianship over basic discipleship? How was this advancing or stalling our mission to make disciples of all nations, teaching them to obey all that God commanded?

If a mist in the pulpit is a fog in the pew, the same is true of the songs we choose and sing congregationally. How does this song build up the body of Christ? How does this song edify a seasoned saint? How does this jingle build up the newly-born believer? (Is the intent of the song to build up the body of Christ, or to express a testimony, or to evangelize, or to proclaim the excellence of God? These are different applications of church music, which means that songs do not necessarily need to build up the body of Christ, edify a seasoned saint, or build up a newly-born believer.)

How does this worship leader understand his role and responsibility? (Ask him.)

We must take seriously the theological development of the individuals we call worship leaders because they are disciples too. (Agreed.)

Take-Home Theology

Human beings are worshippers. We always make valuations and assign worth to what we encounter. Most of the time, the valuation occurs in the subterranean levels of the mind and heart—split-second decisions about what is good, better, or best. (Perhaps. But does the author really know this about everyone's taste in worship?)

One thing broadly accepted but rarely articulated is that we (modern folk) value what “works.” (Pragmatism is not automatically bad.)

Techniques are what we crave. Techniques are the air we breathe. (Valuing a particular way of doing things is not automatically bad.)

Not all techniques are bad, but some are more deceptive than others. If the congregation sings simple, theologically thin songs louder, then we give them more of what they want. (Simple songs that are not theological treatises are not automatically bad.)

If higher decibels and lower lights affect the vibe, then push the faders and drop the blinds. (These matters of taste are not automatically bad.)

But if you try to disciple the congregation with off-brand versions of the greatest hits of the 80s, 90s, and today, (Topic change. The purpose of worship is to exalt God, not discipleship.)

that technique may illicit response but not result in the formation you seek. (If a "technique" is failing we certainly agree that modification might be necessary.)

Trending music may provoke loud noise, but when the excitement fades, what’s left? (The author's tacit assumption is that nothing is left. He cannot know this, however.)

After all, there may be a technique that seems right to a man but, in the end, leads to death. (The author will not tell us what techniques might lead to death.)

In Ephesians 5:19, Paul writes that life in the Spirit involves singing. (Let's quote: 

Ep. 5:19-20 Speak to one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. Sing and make music in your heart to the Lord, 20 always giving thanks to God the Father for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.)

But he does not give us an exhaustive list of songs that should be in rotation in our respective churches. Songs, hymns, and spiritual songs are distinctive yet overlapping types of songs. (The author will not explain this.)

No particular type of song, instrument, or genre is mandated in the Scriptures. However, if our songbook does not resemble the Psalm book, we need to ask some serious questions of our singing. (Really? The Psalms are a rich treasure trove of material, but this does not require that most of our worship songs come from the Psalms. The verse tells us psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. 

Again, the author does not explain this.)

The objective of singing corporately is to build up or edify the body of Christ (Eph. 4:13–16). (Let's quote: 

Ep. 4:11-15 It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, 12 to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up 13 until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fulness of Christ. 14 Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming. 

15 Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ. 16 From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work.

There is no mention of corporate singing here, or even music. Paul was describing the work of the five fold ministry in the Body. Now certainly we can agree that the Body gathers to worship, and during worship will sing songs. But the author selected this Scripture to bolster his point, and it has nothing to do with his point.)

The words on our hearts and on our lips matter more than their illicit response. (Illicit: Not sanctioned by custom or law; improper or unlawful. What in the world is the author talking about?)

The manner in which we go about singing matters (No one would disagree, not even the must hyper of charismatics.)

because we are formed by singing. (No one would disagree, which means we should not sing heretical songs.)

From the earliest ages, we learn words and phrases quicker by song than by rote memorization. When my youngest daughter begins to belt with all the force her small lungs can muster, “Clean up, clean up, everybody everywhere.” Her hands get busy while she repeats the refrain. She sings and does what she sings. The same should be true of the songs we sing. Songs catechize us not only doctrinally but ethically. Bob Kaughlin rightly describes the songs we sing in corporate worship as “take-home theology.” If singing crawls inside our heads and hearts in this way, we should think long and hard about training those who choose the songs and those who lead singing in our churches. But how responsible are they? (Ask them.)

Reformational Insights

An old friend, whom I’ve never met but occasionally speaks to me from beyond the grave in written form, taught me this. His name is Martin Luther, the ol’ German reformer himself. Luther was known for his nail-and-hammer work, sparking the Reformation in the sixteenth century. He is less well-known for being a prolific musician and songwriter. A man of deep conviction, he held that a pastor who could not sing was not fit for the ministry, writing that we should not even “ordain young men as preachers, unless they have been well exercised in music.” (The author is unable to quote Scripture, but he can quote a theologian.)

He taught that the preaching of the Word and the singing of the Word were both ministrations of the word. We pray the Word, preach the Word, and sing the Word. Both prayer and preaching are disciplines the pastor practices and must give great attention to. According to Luther, the songs we sing are worthy of equal consideration and ought to be made plain in the language of the people. (The author is still talking about Luther.)

But the centrality of singing as a “ministry of the word” raises the bar from whoever can simply sing well to someone who knows the truth of the Gospel and skillfully uses music to make disciples. (No one would disagree.)

With the rise of “worship music” as a category, a culture has formed around those who lead songs and those who select the songs we sing. (This is not a recent development. The church has had song leaders selecting music for centuries.)

They are labeled “worship pastors” and given the authority to catechize the congregation weekly. They are engaged in a ministry where the power of music brings words to the head and heart. A song can lift the truths of the gospel over the barriers of fear and doubt and place them in the affections. Luther was aware of the power of music and advocated for this use. (Still talking about Luther...)

Some may object that Luther’s times were wildly different from our own, but they would be wrong. At the turn of the millennium through the day of Luther, the Roman Catholic Church was increasingly marked by professionalism. Professionals would cue the pope-presenter, singers would perform elaborate orchestrations in Latin, and platform cultivation among the clergy was rampant. (The author is apparently against skilled, talented people leading worship. But the Bible isn't: 

1Ch. 25:6 All these men were under the supervision of their fathers for the music of the temple of the LORD, with cymbals, lyres and harps, for the ministry at the house of God. Asaph, Jeduthun and Heman were under the supervision of the king. 7 Along with their relatives — all of them trained and skilled in music for the LORD — they numbered 288.

Further, the author wants to drag in an unrelated issue, the Catholic church. 

In addition, we are pretty sure that he as pastor, like most pastors, is celebrated and platformed by his church.  

Lastly, the author presumes but does not demonstrate that a church is better without elaborate, skilled presentations.)

Luther spoke out against these elements, as should we. (The author simply makes this statement and and moves on.)

Because those who lead music in our churches are responsible for a teaching ministry, we should make sure they are growing as disciples (μαθητής, mathitís) and not merely technical musicians—or worse, as performers. (Agreed. But the author was previously against having worship leaders at all.) 

Their voices matter to the extent that they are filled with the Spirit and truths of the Gospel. (Agreed.)

Due to the responsibility that worship leaders have in giving the congregation take-home theology, as pastors, we must think twice about appointing leaders to this task without an ongoing plan to form them theologically. (Agreed.)

Further, and especially if they are gifted musicians, their character must outpace their perfect pitch. (Agreed.)

Love of God and neighbor must empower the leaders or technique and performance will prevail, and congregations will drown in an ocean of catchy, self-centered hooks. This is not to say response is unimportant. Jonathan Edwards wrote at length in Religious Affections on how important responsive singing can be in determining genuine religious experience. (Waaait. The author just leaves this dangling. What might be this important response? He opened his article with a responsive, though apparently repugnant situation. But he's not going to explain the proper response scenario? What?)

Andrew Lovette is associate pastor at The King’s Church in Lakeland, Fla.