Just scrolling through my “unpublished” hymn arrangements in preparation for Adelaide Diocese Clergy Conference this week and found this. It’s a live recording from Jan 2016 CMS Summer Encounter here in Adelaide. Everyone wanted to keep singing this song… when they asked for us to do it a 3rd time I thought we should multitrack it.
So here it is, now officially “published”: How Great Thou Art
Score (in Bb major):
Lyrics:
Structure: The verses speak of the safe status the believer has with Christ our Saviour; the chorus speaks of our holding on to him in light of his holding on to us.
Congregations: Most gatherings within the Trinity Network of Churches sing this song regularly. I have performed it by request at 3 funerals (as at May 2016).
Album: “We Have Freedom” by Revelation Music (a compilation album produced by myself and Tim Wundke)
Music Lead Sheet:
Writing Notes: I wrote this song at Sunset Rock in the Adelaide Hills. Written originally on acoustic guitar. It was a dedicated song writing day and I was simultaneously working on The Mystery Of Your Saving Love.
There are many helpful analogies that can be used to help explain how a contemporary band works. A pyramid with bass and drums at the bottom, other bits in the middle and main voice or melody at the apex… Or a three legged stool, with the three legs being bass, drums and main melody, then other aspects hanging off it to hold the structure together…
I use both of these analogies at times, mostly in relation to helping sound people get a good mix of a band in a congregational setting. Note that in both of these instances, the key instruments I’ve mentioned are bass, drums and main vocal. This doesn’t necessarily mean that these 3 will always be the loudest elements in a band, but as the key structural features of a sound, they need to be clearly audible.
These approaches are somewhat different from the bands I became a part of in churches in the late 80s when I first went on a band roster. In those settings it was all piano driven. The main voice was also crucial, but as other instruments, they were simply added to the piano sound, but you never wanted them to overtake. In fact, at one point, there was even the strange idea that you needed to be the pianist in order to lead a music ministry. How things have changed!
Both of these analogies helpfully demonstrate that a contemporary band is a complex unit of interrelationships of sounds, with certain key structural elements.
In recent years, however, the analogy I most commonly use in a band workshop setting or a training rehearsal is that of a building. I like the logic of this, and the illustration is usually communicated within an actual building, so there are props immediately visible to demonstrate the point.
The main reason we build buildings is for the roof. It keeps rain off and gives us shade. You can have a building with very limited walls, but you can’t call it a building if it doesn’t have a roof. In a band setting, the roof represents the melody. Without a melody it’s not a song. A chord progression or a grove is not a song.
An intrumental will usually have a melody too, although it may not always be a “melody instrument” – in fact, in some music, the melody is carried by the bass.
But we’re talking about a song, which has a main voice as the melody.
At this point, though, let me pause and say that the main voice is actually not simply the song leader. We don’t have a “lead singer” approach in church, we have a song leader. That is, the congregation is actually the main voice. Our band arrangements and mixing of the vocals must always keep this in mind. In practical terms, I’d say that the main melody is a gently balanced combination of song leader and congregation.
So that’s the roof.
A roof needs to be held up by structures that prop it up off the ground, and in the contemporary band setting, this is usually your middle of the range instruments, such as acoustic and electric guitars, plus piano or keyboard. They are rhythmic instruments, acting like walls holding up a roof. It is primarily their rhythmic nature that makes them structurally significant. They will often play melodies too (the right amount of counter-melodies shared across a band will generally add a great deal of beauty to the sound). But their main structural role is their rhythm.
So as with a building where walls are laid out in a proper load-bearing fashion, in a song, the rhythms need to be appropriately played to bear the load of the particular melody. Does it imply an 8s feel or 16s feel? Is it a ballad style of melody? Is it in some kind of triple time such as 6/8 or 3/4? What is the most stable way of expressing this feel using the instrumentation available? If each member of the band is thinking substantially differently on these structural questions, it won’t sound very good. Experienced musicians will tend to get this right intuitively. Beginners may need to think it through more systematically in the early days.
Of course, walls are useless as load bearing structures unless they are solidly stuck to the ground! In the band setting, the footings or foundations are the bass and the drums. They of course impact (or must be impacted by) the rhythmic structures of the middle of the range instruments. But their role tends to be more fundamental or foundational.
First of all, drums. A band is only as good as its drummer. When a drummer is solid, there is a far greater likelihood that the rest of the rhythm will be solid. However, when a drummer is not solid, it is actually impossible for the rest of the rhythm to be solid.
Second, bass. One of the reasons the bass is so crucial is that as well as being a foundational rhythmic structure, it is the most important counter-melody for the main voices. It provides the harmonic bed of ‘concrete’ on which everything else is placed. It needs to be mixed in such a way that as you are singing in the congregation you can hear it! Obviously nothing should be over-emphasised in a mix, but understanding the bass’s role as a foundational rhythmic and harmonic feature should mean that our mixes actually encourage congregational singing volume (which I think is an important goal).
Finally, there is the trimming in any building. Synths tend to be like mortar holding all the bricks together, or render smoothing out roughness. Harmonies and counter melodies are the things that create interest throughout the building’s interior. These can be done with dedicated melody instruments, with voices, or with your keyboards or guitars, depending on what your band has available.
No analogy is perfect, but hopefully this helps create a sense of what what each instrument’s purpose is within a contemporary band, and will help players, band leaders and sound mixers to work towards both beautiful and effective accompaniment to the singing of praise by our congregations.
I was recently asked whether music ministry is a “ministry of the word” or a “ministry that supports the ministry of the word”. Interesting question! There’s quite a bit behind the question, which I’ll get to. But I should clarify at the outset that by “the word”, the questioner was referring to the Bible and the message of salvation contained within it, not just to a general sense of word versus musical note, or visual image.
Ever since I started as Music Minister at my church (Holy Trinity Adelaide) I’ve been encouraging people to think of music as a ministry of the word. In particular, one of the key New Testament verses that shapes our ministry is Colossians 3:16, which every church musician should memorise:
Let the message of Christ dwell among you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom through psalms, hymns and songs from the Spirit, singing to God with gratitude in your hearts. (NIV 2011)
The idea is that the congregation sings the word, and sings in response to the word. This message of Christ is the key topic and the key driver and shaper of our singing. So in one sense, the answer is obvious. Yes, music is a ministry of the word.
But if someone is thinking of getting involved in music ministry, are they getting involved in a ministry of the word? Let me put it more sharply: if someone has gifts of being able to lead a Bible study as well as being an accomplished musician, should they choose Bible study leading at the expense of the musical blessing they can be to the congregation? Let’s face it, we yearn for our music to sound good!
A few years ago, I came across a book called The Trellis and the Vine by Colin Marshall and Tony Payne. It challenged some of my thinking around ministry, particularly by showing the priority of word ministry. The word is the vine… it lives and grows. The book of Acts talks about the word as if it is a character in the story (e.g. Acts 19:20).
But a vine needs the support of a trellis to grow properly. In ministry, trellises are those supporting activities that open doors for word ministry, make it happen more efficiently and effectively. Think accounting, plumbing, and electrical. Or think strategy and vision meetings, or in a gathering itself, think counting attendees, welcoming visitors, operating the sound desk and lighting… the list could be very long.
These things are all essential for word ministry to happen. In Acts 6, the Apostles were set aside from having to wait on tables specifically so they could devote themselves to the ministry of the word and prayer. Then, 7 men known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom were appointed to manage the logistics of life in church. The first Christian martyr (Stephen) was of course one of these 7.
One of the arguments of The Trellis and the Vine is that we should follow this priority of the ministry of the word over its supporting activities. The reality is, a lot of Christians get very distracted by the supporting activities… there are so many things to keep in mind.
There is a real temptation for churches to lose their way. We can even find ourselves thinking that trellises create growth in our churches. We see business strategy, marketing or restructuring working in the secular world, and we assume that we could expect the same results within the church. We hear extraordinary music played at a concert and we feel that we could impact lives for Christ by trying to emulate the same powerful performances and high production values in the church.
We are well advised not to fall into this trap. I’m not saying that we should ignore the wisdom that we can glean from the world. I’m not saying we shouldn’t have music that is even higher in quality than what you would hear in a concert hall or rock music venue. I’m just agreeing with the writers of The Trellis and the Vine that it isn’t these things that grow the church… it is the gospel: the message that Jesus is alive and that he brings eternal life.
We need constantly to let that message be the engine room of all church activities. If we’re going to do strategy, let it be gospel strategy. If we’re going to do marketing, let’s market the gospel. If we’re going to do music well, let it be music driven by, and seeking to make known, the message of Christ.
So is music ministry trellis ministry or vine ministry?
I think like many other activities, it’s a bit of both. Bible study leading for example involves emailing people to organise things, buying food, making tea and coffee. These are all trellis activities.
But it also involves the crucial task of opening the Bible, both in preparation and in the study time itself, and seeking to bring it to bear on the lives of the people in the group. Sometimes the study itself will be sufficient to teach and admonish. Other times one-to-one follow up might be needed to help people to apply the Bible to their lives.
Music ministry similarly has both vine and trellis aspects. If you’re involved in arranging scores, planning or running rehearsals, tuning, fixing or even playing instruments, you may be in trellis ministry alone, depending on the approach.
But there are 3 key aspects of music ministry that are vine ministry, and potentially a 4th. They are: song writing, song choosing, and song leading. The possible 4th is band leading, if the manner in which you lead your band involves opening up the word for the band. Let’s look at them in turn.
1. Song writing – we have a group of budding song writers in my church network. Whenever they write a song, they are deeply buried in the Bible. They’re trying to understand things, apply things to everyday life, and re-express things in their own words. When I’m writing a song at the piano, the music stand becomes my Bible stand.
2. Song choosing – when I get together with band leaders, one of the things we regularly do is choose the songs for the next time they will lead. This involves usually a half hour or more of me asking searching questions of the text, trying to determine the big idea, key ways to apply the text, and the response that a passage demands of a congregation.
I do this with my music interns on a weekly basis. As a result, they are receiving training in Biblical exegesis that is not widely available in our church: weekly one-to-one Bible coaching by a senior staff member.
It shouldn’t be a surprise that music leaders often make great Bible study leaders.
3. Song leading – when I’m leading singing at a conference or in church, I see myself as being in a role very similar to that of the preacher. I’m on the platform, throwing my heart, soul, mind and voice into the task of urging, persuading, encouraging and admonishing people through the message of Christ. They are often not words I’ve written myself, but they are words that I own personally when I’m up the front.
Different churches have different models of song leading. On some platforms, the song leader is given the opportunity to introduce the songs verbally, using ideas from the song, a verse or two from a relevant part of the Bible, or prayer or word of encouragement. In other churches, song leaders lead by simply singing the lyrics of the song.
But regardless of the distinctions, it’s pretty clear that they are in the job of communicating the message of Jesus.
4. Band leading – I believe rehearsals should be times of Christian growth. In our AM church band rehearsals, which I’ve been running in a fairly consistent format for most of the last 12 months, we always talk about the message of Christ in the songs. I ask everyone to place aside their instrument or microphone and come and sing around the piano. We have a simple process:
Only then do we get into rehearsing the songs as a band.
So in my music ministry, I’m trying to increase the number of people involved with the word/vine aspects of what we do. For me this means developing what it means to be a song leader or band leader. There are plenty of players whose chief area is trellis work, but a growing number of people directly involved in vine work.
I generally work towards music ministry constituting a part time involvement for people, unless they’re doing an internship or some other intense program. I am keen for everyone in our ministry to be involved in a range of other ministries, both vine and trellis ministries. In particular, I believe that if people have the gifts to be involved in the ministry of the word, then the best training is diverse training.
Perhaps this next statement is controversial for some, but the logic is hard to beat: Someone who develops Biblical understanding through song choosing and through Bible study leading will be better equipped than someone who only develops understanding through Bible study leading. There is just so much to learn by choosing songs.
Most of our music ministry members are also either Bible study group leaders, youth group leaders, children’s ministry workers, preachers, members of young adults groups, and members of all sorts of other groups in which they serve. I work hard not to over-schedule people, because burn-out is always a risk with people giving loads of their time.
But I need to finish with what I think is a really important point. There is a real tendency to de-value trellis work. And I think this is just as unbiblical as it is not to set aside vine workers for vine work. In 1 Corinthians 12 & 13, Paul speaks about a range of gifts, including those that we should eagerly desire. But love is to be the driving characteristic of how any gift should be exercised.
The distinction between trellis and vine is not about one person’s work being more valuable than another’s, but about the fact that neither should be jeopardised by everything being blurred into one category.
It is appropriate that ministers be set aside for preaching and praying, just as the Apostles were in Acts. But it is also appropriate for us to have high standards that we expect of those we recruit into trellis work, just as was applied to the wise and Spirit-filled 7 in Acts.
So in music, I am deeply grateful for gifted musicians! And I know our congregations are too. Their trellises enable the vine aspects of our work to be presented clearly and strongly, without distractions, appropriately carrying the lofty content of the word of God.
We often talk about the PRIORITY of preaching… perhaps this is a good way to think about the distinction in music too, without saying that some people are greater than others. Let’s try to see the gospel as the great gift, and our skill-gifts as means to honour the gospel gift.
Everyone in the church should be seeking to make sure the preaching of the word is happening as the primary activity, both those who support it with wide-ranging trellis type gifts, and those who are given that unique Biblical insight and communication ability. All of us in the church should pray for that deep yearning from within the soul to see the church and its visitors dwelling richly on the message of Christ.
So, this is part 4. Do you need to read parts 1-3 before actually choosing the songs for a service?
No, I suppose. Every generation makes a contribution.
But I think we make an infinitely more valuable contribution if we humbly stand on the shoulders of those who’ve come before us. It helps us to see what we’re trying to do.
In fact, try asking yourself that very question: what exactly ARE you trying to do when you pick songs for church? Common responses:
I think each of these are actually valid: if a congregation’s preferences are ignored, they won’t enjoy it; your preferences are often as good a benchmark as anyone else’s; songs that are not emotionally connecting might as well just be spoken rather than sung; restating scripture musically opens it to a new fresh hearing; a church that changes its traditions continually and suddenly will run the risk of losing its congregation.
In parts 1-3 however, I have tried to demonstrate that singing in church is an activity for which we can draw a great deal of wise guidance both from history and from the Bible itself.
In part 1, I suggested that music is the new liturgy. That is, in place of the formal prayers, readings and other liturgical content of the prayer book services of the past, we have inserted songs. Often up to a third or even half a service can be singing. So the big question is: does our music feed our people with a weekly diet of gospel re-expression the way the old liturgies used to?
In part 2, from some of the basic ideas of the old liturgy, I outlined a 4-part service structure into which we can slot our song choices to try to achieve some of the things we might otherwise lose:
1. Approaching – is the part of the service in which we draw near to God in faith and confidence on the basis of the gospel. As such, it is a time for spelling out in no uncertain terms what the gospel is, particularly if the teaching on that day is not expected to cover it explicitly.
2. Hearing – is the part of the service in which we hear and reflect on a part of God’s word, and where it is expounded for us. You don’t actually need to sing at this point, unless you have something to reinforce the text.
3. Responding – is the part of the service in which the congregation specifically responds to the word that has been heard.
3. Sending – is the part of the service in which the people of God prepare to return into the world in which we are witnesses for Christ. So songs that challenge us to have an outward focus are suitable.
In part 3, we turned to the Bible, and saw how we are exhorted to a particular approach to singing in Colossians 3:16 – that of a 3-way conversation between God, you, and the rest of the gathering around you. God is the initiator of that conversation, and we need to make sure we are willing and enthusiastic listeners, as well as those who re-express his word enthusiastically to each other.
So that’s a summary of parts 1-3… maybe you don’t need to read them after all!
But what difference does this context make? Is it really that significant?
Well, if I’m honest, I think we’re often up against pride in this discussion. I remember many, many occasions when I have sat in a dreamy state at my keyboard and imagined the perfect musical moments in church. Perhaps this is what has taken me into music ministry… I have imagined a passionate congregation singing vibrantly, completely unashamed to lift their voices and their eyes to heaven and belt out a deafening chorus of praise.
I’ve tried to imagine writing the songs that would lead to that kind of spiritual and emotional engagement… I’ve seen myself as the leader of that moment of devotion… the selector of the songs, and then the model of music ministry that people would want to flock to in order experience the same things.
I think a lot of people involved in music ministry have this sense of what it could be. We think it’s worth the effort, not only because Christ is honoured, but also because people are switched on to him, they are empowered for Christian living, and they are an extraordinarily powerful witness of the realness of faith to any in the gathering who are not Christians.
But nearly 25 years of involvement in music ministry has taught me that I’m not the answer to this. And I don’t mean to be irreverent, but I have also learned that… it’s not my problem.
It’s certainly my concern, it’s my plea and challenge to the congregations I’m involved with, my area of faithful service, and of course, my prayer, in the same way that it’s my concern that many of my friends do not know Christ. But God himself is the one whose Spirit needs to work to bring this result.
I believe strongly that my responsibility is to be faithful. For me to be fruitful is God’s responsibility.
This is liberating. It means that my priority is not pleasing people, impressing people, persuading people, even impacting them emotionally through my song choices. My priority is faithfulness to God’s word and his people. But please note: I’m not saying that faithfulness doesn’t involve appropriate persuasion and emotional challenge.
So, I believe that following the patterns of the Bible and the history of the church are essential to my ministry in the present. They are the vehicles used by God for his work amongst his people. And be sure of this, his Spirit WILL bear fruit. People who are exposed to the properly and faithfully expressed gospel WILL respond in joyful, passionate worship. Not all of them, of course.
Ok, so having laid a detailed foundation, here is the process I use:
1. Read the passage that will be preached on – I’m assuming a model of Bible expounding in which the preachers will attempt to say nothing more or less than what they believe God is saying through a passage. The passage won’t be used as a springboard for what the preacher thinks is the more important issue of the day. I’m also assuming that the preacher will adequately put the passage into the context of the unfolding revelation of the whole Bible.
2. Identify the main point of the passage – i.e. finish the sentence, “This passage is saying that …” or “This passage is about …” It involves considering the context of the section of the Bible. Some examples:
3. Identify the main application of the passage – i.e. finish the sentence, “This passage is telling us …” This involves moving from the specific context of the Bible passage to life today and the circumstances of our people. Some examples:
4. Identify phrases that a congregation could say in response to this main application – i.e. finish this sentence, “The congregation could respond to this by saying …”. Examples:
5. Identify a “response song” that says a similar thing to these phrases – i.e. get to know all your song lyrics well! Titles of songs are sometimes a helpful clue, but not always. Here are some thoughts about a few well known songs:
Please note, I’ve only listed these songs because they’re well known on just about every corner of the planet. In my experience, there needs to be a fair amount of topical breadth in my repertoire to choose response songs well. You may find it difficult to find the perfect song every Sunday that puts into the mouths of the congregation the response that a specific part of God’s word is calling for. But it’s worth spending time on this. When you do find that right song, it can be a powerful moment of the Holy Spirit at work. People will be given EMOTIVE, CORPORATE VOICE in their response to the word of God.
6. Identify a “sending song” that helps people to take the gospel out the door – i.e. develop a group of songs relating to “out-the-door” type topics, such as:
I think sending songs should instil confidence, have a positive tone, and leave people with a song ringing in their ears. Some songs that I find work well for sending (as long as you don’t use them all the time!):
7. Considering the theme of the Bible passage (and appropriate response), choose “Approaching songs” that pick up any core gospel ideas not yet expressed in the songs you’ve chosen. Please note, I believe that our music should always tell the gospel in the same way that our liturgy used to in days gone by. Every Sunday we need to proclaim the basic message of God reaching out to sinners through Christ, declaring them righteous through his blood, and raising them up with the resurrected Christ to bring eternal reconciliation. This is the message that makes us the church. And yet it will often not be specifically covered by the sermon, even if the preacher is competent and faithful.
This is why I choose “Approaching songs” last. If the response to the message is best conveyed through a song like “In Christ Alone”, then the gospel is thoroughly covered in that selection. But if the response is to devote ourselves to serving Christ, then the gospel has not necessarily been expounded. We must not assume that people can manage without this weekly repeating of the gospel message, using the array of songs available to us.
8. Organise Approaching songs around a “theologic” – ok I made this word up. But it simply means trying to use gospel logic. The structure of the song list can then be part of the teaching provided by our music ministry. Some examples:
Use creativity! But always within the context of being faithful to the message. It might be a good idea to run some of these ideas past your pastor and get some input as to how we can tell the gospel story through our song choices.
9. Provide rationales – if you’re going to put this work into song choice, you might as well let people know what is behind your choices. In particular, if a person other than yourself is going to introduce them (e.g. a song leader, a service leader or a preacher) then let them know why you’ve picked the songs you’ve picked. Our church uses an online service planning tool so that everyone involved in planning and running the service can see the same document. It has a “description” field, where I try to put these rationales. They then get seen by everyone, and picked up as appropriate in the running of the service.
Thanks for reading… this is a pretty detailed process. I’m sure there are shortcuts. And of course there are other ways of doing it. However you approach this, remember that singing is a ministry of the word and Spirit of God. Let’s pray that our song choices make the most of the opportunity to share God’s gospel with his people.
3-way communication is the sort of thing that happens in a meeting of three people. Perhaps one person speaks, the other two listen. Views are challenged and modified perhaps, or reinforced. Then a second person speaks and a response is now out there for the two new hearers to take on board. A third participant may do the same.
Will the conversation lead to modification or reinforcement of views? Will it lead to consensus, unity, and maybe growth of relationship? Or will it lead to frustration, disagreement, or possibly even alienation?
The kind of 3-way communication that happens in a church meeting has some of the same outcomes: growth, unity, life transformations, as well as negative responses. And when one of those in the conversation is the infinite and invisible Sovereign Lord God, it takes a slightly different shape from anything else we know.
His speech is through his word. So I guess we need to make sure he gets a hearing. Although his word is eternal and unchanging, we have the choice every Sunday to allow him to open his mouth or not. Of course he may speak to peoples’ hearts independently of our willingness to put his word in our gatherings. But even to them it will be through his word that he speaks. Kind of obvious when you think about it.
There are many bits of our services through which his voice may be heard. Probably the most important of these is a Bible reading. It doesn’t have to be long, or from a lectern. It must be understandable, and must be done with respect for the speaker, and awareness of the desperate need the hearer has to hear it.
Preaching is another part of the service through which the voice of God is heard. If a preacher is not preaching the word of God, then what exactly is being preached?
And of course, singing is another key part of the service in which we can hear the voice of God. As Paul says in Colossians 3:16, “Let the message of Christ dwell among you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom through psalms, hymns and songs from the Spirit, singing to God with gratitude in your hearts.”
So it’s not automatic. It will be out of obedience to God’s word here that we make our singing a means by which the congregation can dwell on the gospel of Jesus.
This is really important for anyone planning music for a service… don’t just assume because you’re singing that you are allowing God to speak. And it should also be said, don’t feel that while we’re singing together you need God’s voice to be heard separately from the song. The point is, when the people read the words of our message on the screen and then sing them together, God is speaking.
Now in applying this, perhaps we may choose songs that are loaded full of gospel content, and neglect to provide for people’s response. The best songs are those that contain “revelation” and “response”. These should be seamlessly woven together.
This is what the ancient hymns often do exceptionally well. I believe that this is one of the reasons why we are still singing so many songs from 200 years ago and more… that they combine the wonderful truths of the gospel with a personal response.
For example,
When I survey the wondrous cross
On which the Prince of Glory died
My richest gain I count but loss
And pour contempt on all my pride.
This wonderful verse tells us of a cross on which Christ died. It tells us that he was the prince of glory, which is a bitter irony: why would the Prince of Glory die on a cross? That is a BIG question. It DEMANDS an honest answer (if you are someone who believes that this death was for you).
The appropriate answer is to admit that I live a life of pride and that I have a distorted view of what is truly valuable in the world. I must re-evaluate, and I must hate that pride that dwells within my flesh.
Isaac Watt’s lyrics say the same thing as these 2 paragraphs, but in a much more concise, poetic, captivating manner. And that’s why we love to sing it. The lyrics are not just objectively good. They are subjectively powerful. That is, when the members of our congregations sing them, they will hopefully be impacted. They will step into the verse. “I” in the verse will be owned personally by all of those he’s and she’s before us in the gathering.
What happens when you sing a song in which God speaks and the people respond is that those around us are impacted. When we sing a moving song in the congregation, we are impacted by the gospel content through which we exhort one another. But we are also impacted by the response of our brothers and sisters around us. When people adopt the “I” or the “we” in the song as their own, and do so with conviction and personal response, we are drawn into it.
And so we’re having a 3-way conversation.
God speaks, we respond to him, and we minister to one another. If you look back carefully at Colossians 3:16, you’ll see that this is what Paul is saying. This is how our singing should work: with the message of the gospel dwelling richly, as we’re blessing one another with our songs and expressing a response of gratitude to God.
So, in choosing songs:
If you keep this 3-way conversation in mind, your congregational singing should be a vehicle for God’s rich blessing.
One of the sayings I tend to overuse is: “The right song at the right time for the right person can change your life”. I say it so often because it says something crucial about what we’re doing when we sing in church. I believe that singing is a pastoral ministry. In a similar way to how preaching brings the word of God to bear on people’s lives, so too singing.
Whereas the average sermon might be 2000-3000 words in length, the average song is 200-300 words in length. This gives songs the distinct advantage of being easy to remember, easy to understand and potentially easy to categorise (assuming they’re well written).
Singing can therefore be part of our teaching program. A church’s life together will be greatly enhanced if its teaching through sermons and singing are well integrated.
Of course in Colossians 3:16, Paul challenges the church to “Let the word of Christ (the gospel) dwell richly”, and ties together the functions of teaching and admonishing with singing. How do we actually do this? Songs need their own space, but they are part of an agenda that is far bigger than just musical.
In part 1, I suggested that music has tended to take the place of liturgy in our churches. Therefore, thinking a little bit liturgically about our songs is likely to reap rewards.
Set prayers and readings, specific instructions for how a service will run, and a 1 year or 3 year cycle of Bible passages are the stuff of prayer books. Without becoming predictable and boring, we can draw principles from this that will help us to have a road map for what church can look like, and for the role of singing within our services.
In actual fact, I think that a lack of imagination and creativity in the way we plan services is more likely to lead to predictability and boredom than a lack of structure. Structure simply shows us the opportunities for imagination, whilst at the same time helping us to stick to a planned course. All forms of art depend heavily on structure.
I adopt a 4 part structure to our services, and then I select songs that will fit those 4 different parts appropriately. I won’t tell you my song choosing process just yet – that will be the subject of a later blog. But the 4 parts help us to think what is happening at different points in the service. These are not rocket-science, but they are drawn from the pattern laid down in many prayer book services.
—-
Part 1: APPROACHING
This is the idea of “Drawing Near to God”. Our people cannot remain detached when our service gets underway. We are not Christians unless we come to God in the first place: the truths of the gospel need to be taken hold of, appropriated by each person. Repentance is not a work by which we are saved. It is a turning away from our godless life to faith in him and his gospel.
A repeated coming to God throughout our lives is what the Christian life to a great extent consists of. Whether in repentance of sins, in prayer, in searching the Scriptures, and even in our good works towards others, there is a drawing near to God.
In the regular gathering of the people, we expect to encounter God in extraordinary ways. We should anticipate every church service being a time when we hear the eternal voice of God and respond with thoughts, words and actions of our own that are renewed by that encounter.
Therefore, songs at this point in the service can play out that encounter with God. We might choose a song that reminds us of his character or power, or infinite, eternal nature. We would do well to remind each other that he is our creator and sustainer, and in fact the judge before whom we must all stand.
But I believe that ESSENTIAL to this time of “approaching” is the re-expression of the key elements of the gospel of Christ. The message of Christ is the GROUNDS for our approaching God, so when we fail to mention it, we run the risk of giving people false confidence.
When we encounter God, we encounter him as our redeemer and saviour. He is the Father of the prodigal son, who meets him on the way home, running undignified, determined to restore. We need to tell people this message every Sunday.
This heading of “approaching” can include under it a range of songs, prayers, verses of Scripture, or words of edification. It is a crucial part of the service, and not only shapes the tone of our meeting, but far more importantly, the establishes the validity of our meeting. We meet IN Christ, under his banner of salvation. Without that, it’s not church.
Part 2: HEARING
Where part 1 of a service restates core topics and ideas from the Bible that summarise our relationship with him, part 2 is about the word for the day. When we hear the Bible read, preached, summarised, dramatised, or sung, we are hearing the voice of God. This too is fundamental to church.
Most churches have a preaching program, and when that program is based around a systematic plan for working through the whole Bible over a given period of time, I believe it is best suited to hearing the voice of God on his terms.
Despite the fact that there are many difficult sections of the Bible, the words in it are his words to us, even if they often need careful explanation and application. I strongly recommend that churches let the books of the Bible set the agenda for our preaching programs. That is, rather than preaching on random Bible verses or ideas, we can benefit from structuring our program to make sure our congregations understand how the Bible fits together. If we preach a series on a gospel, then a book of Old Testament narrative, then a New Testament epistle (for example), we have the opportunity to help people understand how that small section fits within the whole Bible.
Of course there are many times when our preachers need to help us through particular issues that are thrown up at us from life, whether relationships, politics, work life, or family, etc. Also, there are times to try to help the congregation to get on top of key theological ideas, such as grace, holiness, wisdom, love, sin, wrath, heaven and hell, etc. However I still believe that the priority is to hear GOD’s voice on all of these things, and so putting the Bible at the centre of the service is essential.
I often don’t actually choose songs for this part of the service. We don’t need to have singing at every point. But if a Bible passage for the day is echoed in a song I know, it will often be in this part of the service that we might sing it, usually before the talk or sermon.
We might occasionally put a performance item prior to a Bible reading or sermon to ask questions that are then answered by the word. I don’t put secular songs in unless we’re going to make reference to them specifically. And I want the word to come after the question.
Part 3: RESPONDING
Once we hear the word, we need to respond to it. Without a response, we cannot say that we’ve properly heard. But neither should a response be contrived, or vastly different from the call of whatever passage of Scripture we’ve been listening to.
When preachers are preparing, they first seek to understand the passage, and then to apply the passage to their hearers. This “application” is really important. For example, what does the story of the Good Samaritan mean for this particular crowd? How should we understand the Exodus out of Egypt… should we be asking God to open unexpected paths for us, or should we be rejoicing in the fact that he used his mighty power to bring salvation for his people and we should put our trust in him for our own salvation?
The application of that passage of Scripture will lead to a certain call for response. After we hear the word of God, we should be adapting our lives accordingly. Depending on the passage, that response might be to trust, to pray, to rejoice, to give thanks, to share the faith with others, to repent of sin, to ask for wisdom in a situation, to grip more strongly to a particular promise of the gospel, or any number of other things.
This requires considerable wisdom, careful consideration and prayer on the part of those choosing songs to follow the hearing of the word. It can be very helpful to ask the preacher beforehand how he would like the people to respond to his message.
But not only does this require a mature knowledge of the Bible, it requires a mature knowledge of the songs available for the congregation to sing. There are hundreds of thousands of songs to choose from these days, and I’m not just looking for the song that will make the congregation feel the most intense emotion possible. Nor am I trying to find a song that just says the same thing as the passage. I’m after a song that puts into words the response that is called for by the passage.
So for example, in the case of the Exodus out of Egypt, there is a display of the Lord’s great power, through which he brings salvation to his people. An appropriate response song will effectively praise God for his power and thank him for our own salvation.
In the case of New Testament exhortations to love and unity within the church, an appropriate response song might praise God for the wonderful eternal work he is doing in the church and exhort each other to love and kindness.
Since Jesus is the centre of our faith, I usually try to bring him into the picture too, somehow. I would prefer a song that helps the people to see how things are shaped around Christ than one that didn’t.
Clearly this can be a complex task. But if ever the right song at the right time was essential, it’s at this point of response to hearing the word of God.
Part 4: SENDING
The final part of the service is the interface between being in the church and being in the world. People are about to walk out your doors and return to their lives. So what do you want them to carry with them?
Our place in this world as Christians is to be lights in a dark place. We shine the light of the gospel through our words and witness and through the way we live our lives.
People need encouragement at this point. They need something that stirs them to this noble task of living for Christ.
There are a number of themes that work well at this end of the service:
This list is not exhaustive. The end of a service is a time for expressing our confidence, and reminding each other of the one whom we worship, and the one in whom we place our trust as we live our lives.
—–
Well, I realise I’m suggesting quite a detailed approach to how a service can or should be structured. But without some kind of plan for what we’re doing, services tend to become predictable in a bad sense, rather than reliable in a positive sense. These are not rules, although I do believe they follow a Biblical pattern.
I’d love to hear of churches coming to grips with just how powerful a service can be, not just because of powerful personalities, but because of careful planning that makes God the main personality, and puts the gospel of our salvation as the main event each week.
I’m yet to work out how many parts this post will have. Planning music for services is such an important topic for churches today, and my own thinking is constantly evolving. What I do know is that I need to start with some background.
The thing I want to say today is that music is the new liturgy. And to show you what I mean, let me briefly tell a bit of historical background.
I’m from the Anglican tradition, which traces its roots back to the English Reformation in the 1500s. Aside from the fact that prior to the Reformation, your local English parish church had the Catholic mass said entirely in Latin, additionally the services and the ministry had theological problems that the reformers needed to address. Basically, the people weren’t being taught Biblical truths on a Sunday, and they couldn’t understand it anyway, because it was in a language that the average person didn’t know.
So Archbishop Cranmer’s strategy was to implement the English Prayer Book. The best known of these was the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, which although introduced long after Cranmer’s death, was substantially based on the prayer books instituted by Cranmer in the mid 1500s. The advantage of implementing a prayer book was that it didn’t matter how bad the preacher was, people would still hear the gospel every Sunday.
The prayer book gave intelligible, memorable, Biblically-rich, personally engaging content to every single church service. To many people today, prayer book services can seem anything but engaging. But at the time, this was truly revolutionary.
There were two aspects of Cranmer’s prayer books that made a great impact:
1. A gospel logic – The communion services are a great example of what I mean. The services would begin with prayers and readings reminding the people of their need to repent of sin. This would then lead to a general confession of sin, followed by words of assurance of salvation, drawn from the Scriptures. This would lead into words of thanks and praise, and then to the communion itself. The point is, through using the prayer book regularly, the people would have that logic of God’s holiness requiring people to repent, followed by God’s forgiveness, leading to the people’s thanks and praise. You would learn these truths if you went to prayer book services frequently.
2. Congregational participation – It helped that the services were in English. But it also helped that there were large swathes of the service that the people said with their own mouths. It didn’t matter if they couldn’t read, because you would learn them off by heart by joining in with the congregation around you. So throughout your daily work and family life, you would have the words of the gospel ringing in your ears because you knew the prayers and verses off by heart.
Perhaps just as significant as saying the creeds, the Lord’s Prayer, and numerous other Biblically rich prayers and readings, there were the physical actions that went along with the various sections of the service that would reinforce them. The people said confessions on their knees, they would often stand for words of praise, and of course they would receive the elements of communion by standing up, walking to the front, reaching out their hands and consuming the bread and wine with their mouths. People were physically acting out their response to the gospel.
There is much about this historical tradition that was a powerful testimony to the gospel in the lives of the regular gatherings of God’s people. People came to know God through the prayer books, even if the preacher was dull or theologically suspect.
However, in the modern church, we’ve thrown out the prayer book.
There are a number of reasons why this was a good move: today’s church prefers informality, a post-Christian society needs to build bridges rather than erect barriers for the outsider, etc.
But we have lost a great deal. And not only should we consider what we’ve lost by removing that regular, Biblically-rich, congregationally-oriented service content, we need to consider what we’ve replaced it with… singing. Lots of singing.
So my question is simple: Is the singing in your church up to the task of replacing what we once had with the prayer book?
Yes, singing is congregational… yes, it’s memorable and personally engaging. But is it Biblically rich, capturing the glory of God, the depravity of sin and the wonder of the gospel? Is it Biblically balanced, not only telling God how much we love him, but also reflecting the breadth of topics in the Bible, ranging from God’s righteous wrath and judgement, his holiness, wisdom and love right through to the bountiful provisions of God to human kind, especially in giving us the revelation of his Son and of his work for us on the cross and in the resurrection?
Plumbing the depth and surveying the breadth of the Bible in our services is one of the great challenges of planning music. It is a task often given to those in the congregation with musical skills. But the selection of songs must also have the input of those in the congregation with deep Biblical insight.
Think of the opportunity to minister to the congregation like the prayer book would have ministered in days of old. Regardless of the preacher or the service leader, the singing can deeply implant the things of God in our hearts and minds, giving people tunes and lyrics to sing for their whole life, and in the gathering itself to lift each other’s spirits continually by singing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs with gratitude in our hearts to God.
Yes I think music can fill these shoes. But I want to encourage both musical and pastoral leaders to rise to the challenge. Music that is faithful to the Bible doesn’t have to be boring or complex. After all, there’s nothing boring or complex about the gospel.
I realised last Sunday that I’m getting on average one person per week telling me that they think the changes in our AM music have gone well. I’m really appreciative when I hear from the folk who were previously anxious.
We were especially cautious in the first few weeks about volume and the drums. The drummers were playing songs that a few months previously would’ve only been played on the organ, but are really written for a contemporary ensemble. They are drummers experienced in playing contemporary songs in other services, but not to a congregation more comfortable with traditional instrumentation! But no-one is complaining at this point. They’re singing with joy and gladness. I’m so thankful to God for this.
Here are some of my reflections about the transition of our AM services from 2 traditional services and 1 contemporary service to 1 blend of contemporary and traditional and 1 contemporary family oriented service:
1. Blended services allow more people to be involved in serving the congregation in music. This obviously comes at an organisational cost, but we’ve really needed to do it to help a wide range of people (both the involved and the uninvolved) to continue to feel enfranchised. But whereas it’s tricky to involve violinists, brass players, choral singers etc in your straight contemporary service, in a blended service, they are able to play and sing alongside drummers, bassists, keyboardists, guitarists and contemporary vocalists.
2. Blended services have shown me the value of what we’re calling “cross-over” songs. These are songs that can be done in any of our 4 congregations, because they can be played on the organ or with a band, sung by a choir or just a couple of vocalists, and have parts for strings or other instruments as well as chords for guitarists. These are songs like: In Christ Alone (and pretty much everything that comes from Stuart Townend or Keith Getty’s pens!), O the mercy of God, Beneath the Cross (my version), etc. The songs on CCLI’s Song Select that give you access to both 4-part charts and a lead sheet are useful because different players can play the same song but with either dots or chords to suit them. But the main advantage of cross-over songs is that they enable us to express unity with those in different congregations, and whenever we get congregations together for some sort of all-in activity, they have a common repertoire!
3. The organ still works a treat, but unless you’re in a cathedral, I reckon you get the greatest benefit from it when it’s not the only instrument being used in a Sunday service. It still has an amazing way of encouraging congregational singing, just by the tones and sound energy it creates when played skilfully. But with the exception of those people specifically looking for traditional music, most Aussies are happy for variation in instrumentation, but don’t want the music dominated by the organ.
4. It’s made me wonder if the members of our family services and youth services might actually be helped in their engagement with the beautifully rich hymn tradition if they occasionally sung them on the organ… and yet the number of skilful organists available to do this is definitely diminishing.
5. Choirs and multi-part vocal groups are a great way to involve willing, gifted people in our music and to make traditional stuff sound really good. I’d rather have a choir singing traditional stuff than individual vocalists because it gives a “congregation-like” lead to the congregation – a gathering of singers leading a bigger gathering in singing. I also think choirs particularly suit traditional hymns because they are usually arranged with 4 parts in the first place.
6. Before I sign off, making you think that it’s been all sunshine and light, I need to say that I actually have had negative comments. It hurts me a little to mention this, but there’s no point hiding it… The few negative comments I have received? They’ve come from the musicians. These folk are part of my team and I love them to bits and am so appreciative of the ways in which they serve. I also understand that musicians hold music more dearly than the rest of us. If they didn’t, then I don’t think we’d get as much out of them as we do… they put so much effort in because they have a deep driving motivation to contribute to music being as good as possible. So what do I make of this? Well, I’m not actually unhappy about it at all. I think I need to hear whatever it is they have to say. I don’t have all the answers, and I don’t necessarily think that the service configuration we now have is perfect. So I need to face the fact that any change brings strain, and as music minister, I need to bear some of that strain. If there are people we’re disenfranchising, then I need to be challenged about that. If there are problems or complaints about the way we’re doing things, I need to engage with them, and see if there are improvements we can make or things that need to be said so that we can all move forward together. And don’t get me wrong, we’ve also had lots of very positive comments from the musicians too!
Well, it’s been a long process, but I’m glad we are going through it. Our changes are not settled down yet, so there may well be more observations as the months unfold! I’d love to hear your thoughts, particularly if your church has been through a big transition like this too…
I don’t like doing things that make people hurt. I’m often more likely to back down than go through with things that I know are unpopular. I hate seeing people in distress, especially when it’s my decisions that have brought this about.
I must admit, I didn’t realise that the prospect of musical change would cause pain. I think that pain has been partly caused by the implementation of something new that people say they don’t like. But really, I think the main cause of pain has been the fear of losing something precious. I think the precious thing is actually not just the music, but the experience of church. This place in which people have been meeting together in Christ’s name for many decades for some of these people… it’s kind of tied up with organ music for some reason.
I really think our memories and fond recollections are crucial to consider in any changes that we implement to how we do church. Although these memories are not the gospel themselves, they have often been part of the means by which people have heard the gospel. Let’s face it, they’ve been joyfully and persistently singing the great old hymns, which are full of the wonderful truths God has revealed to us about Christ and what he has done to give us hope in this life.
Of course singing involves the integration of a whole load of different musical elements to create a whole that is greater than the sum of the parts – so it is very difficult to change melodies, speed or instrumentation without giving the impression that they whole thing just isn’t the same.
So why ask people to change to contemporary music, when I know it’s likely to cause pain and a sense of loss?