To further the conversation, I think that musical style does communicate to people about God and does have a part in communication of the gospel. The form has a function. An example is the classical, or chamber pop style you are employing in your church - there is a technicality and artfulness to it that does communicate the complexity and splendor of God.

I do wonder though if there is a larger detriment to some style choices than is at first evident. Some churches out there are settling for stale tacos. Maybe a style was popular in the 70’s, but now it unintentionally colors the vibe of the message, kind of like having a kitchen decked out in orange with an avocado refrigerator tells dinner guests that you’re out of touch (unless you’re going for a retro kitchen, of course).

In some churches, perhaps the food on the menu has been sitting under the warming light for too long. They made a mean burrito back in the day, but now it’s a little old. Perhaps that staleness comes across more in performance and arrangement than it does musical style. For example, a classical style can be fresh if it is performed passionately and with a worshipful mindset, versus the choir going through the motions, feeling like “oh well, we’re singing this song for the billionth time.” As you pointed out, there can be touches to traditional music, done in a chamber-pop style that makes sense in the context of your congregation, which also yields freshness.

My main “beef” (food pun intended) is to those who cloister themselves inside a narrow band of a musical style that unnecessarily dates the congregation, the context, and castes a shadow onto the relevance of the message. Take a song being done in a 70’s ballad style for example. Potentially, the message being picked up by someone is “this truth is a little out of date, maybe not relevant to my modern context.” It may lead some to a potential quick dismissal of a group as being fuddy-duddy, irrelevant to life-at-hand. To them I say sing to the Lord a new song.

On the other hand, someone could also listen to a well performed traditional piece and think, “Wow this has roots beyond my current cultural context.” And that person could get an overwhelming sense of God working in His people through all of history.

Perhaps there is a distinction to be made between outdated and timeless; outdated being something tired and feeble in communicating rich truths, and timeless of course having good connotations. Take the song Amazing Grace – a song that is rather timeless and difficult to make less impactful due to style.

Does it matter that musicians understand how to be excellent in their craft? How much has this concept been lost in our churches these days? I have often heard something like “it doesn’t matter what it sounds like, what matters is the heart” as almost an excuse for bad art. I think the heart of course does matter most, as well as extolling the truth of the gospel in truth through music. However, if a musician remains in the confines of an outdated style (versus timeless), or shoddy performances for too long (versus well-played), does this actually do harm to the communication of the gospel?

And I do agree with your point about musicians needing to get in the game and mix it up, including myself (though sometimes it is not an easy question as to where to get involved). Imagine if many more Christian musicians lent a hand to the work at hand, had a heightened view of the art, and were writing new songs, playing modern styles, as well as bringing freshness to traditional songs and styles.

And thus, the Lutheran church is indeed catering to a certain group of people. I guess it comes down to accepting that a certain range of people will be drawn by any given style. Let's say the Lutherans decide to stick with burgers. They will always draw the burger-lovin' crowd.

(Though, Lutheran style is hardly a burger in terms of popularity. Perhaps it is more akin to sushi - a food that is, afterall, more traditional, complex, high-art.)

Some points I would be interested to hear your thoughts on:

1. In the case of the Lutheran church, does this “marketing” translate to drawing mostly established families (and folks with grey hair), that are more conservative and traditional? What does a Lutheran church like Grace do if they decide to reach out more to your average hip-indie person Hillcrest/Normal Heights/North Park? Do they expect that person to be able to latch on to a style that even their grandparents regarded as traditional? If the answer is no, then the Lutheran church will have to resign itself to catering to its "market" of people, as the market continues an inevitable decline. While forcing a musical style that was popular hundreds of years ago, why not also expect people to show up in ruffled lace and hose?

2. If it is so important to stay with a given style, where is this concept found in Scripture?

3. Didn’t the Lutheran church start b/c it was bucking tradition to a certain degree? Why shouldn’t semper reformanda apply to reviewing and updating style as well? Was there a peak in terms of the ideal style of music a few hundred years ago, that somehow will never be eclipsed? Why is classical style from the 1600’s somehow more church-worthy than any style that came before or after? Furthermore, what kind of God would we have if there are no Telecasters in heaven!? I would hope that Tele’s are there along-side a full orchestra.

4. The problem with the style of the Calvary service is the underlying theology. Where does the person who likes certain aspects of the Calvary style worship but wants Reformed content go?

5. Wouldn’t the ideal be for a church to exhibit a range of styles that is true to who is in the congregation? Perhaps that’s why many churches have opted for having both a traditional service and a “contemporary” service. Perhaps even more ideal would be to vary the style in the same service… one week it’s rock/pop, another week it’s indie, alt-country or traditional. That way, those that like traditional music will get their fix, the rest of the congregation will be exposed to the rich tradition of music in Christianity, and all will not be a slave to tradition at the expense of alienating the uninitiated. I guess it depends on each congregation making that choice based on who is in attendance. The menu of styles may need to be broadened a bit, but in ways that are complimentary. If you’re serving burgers, it’s appropriate to offer shakes, maybe some fries, or try mixing it up with curly fries, or having different options on the burger (guacamole anyone?). Or in the case of sushi, look at one of your favorite places, Sushi Itto – they do a fusion of styles that keeps the “sushiness”, but incorporates other options that draws the downtown crowd.

6. How can it make sense to “mandate” style across a denomination of churches no matter who is in the congregation, or where that congregation resides? I think that is not healthy.

-chrizzle

Yours is the hardest task. Loving the unlovely.

It is I believe, God's will and the very manifestation of the Lord.

Love and God's Blessings to one and all!

Really, the book was about how deep, rich, theological, authentic worship by believers is what truly evangelizes. And that the church growth, seeker-sensitive thing reeked of inauthenticy and faux-worship, isolated from culture.

To me, her recent comments is more of a reframing of or rather, an extension of what she was saying in WE. As both the wider culture AND the Christian sub-culture has changed, so has she in finding a way to talk about worship that takes into account the day we live in, which is mission or cultural engagement outside of the corporate worship time may be our only hope to invite folks into our corporate worship time.

She is quick to say too that we must resist the tempation to use mission for this purpose alone. In fact, much like Dan Kimball, she say this missional engagement away from church should be the norm and the corporate worship time should be looked upon as just a 'gathering' not an event.

Her impetus seems to be that in the 80's & 90's, she saw people would still come to church to see the 'show.' They aren't coming in like that anymore.

So she says church as we did it in the 80's & 90's isn't going to work. Mission, primarily, is going to come before belonging which will come before becoming. And she is excited about this paradigm because then worship truly becomes 'liturgy' - the work of the people.