Once again, yes and no, in my opinion. From a classical music perspective, being a great musician is like being a great gymnast. You learn routines, which are performed as well as possible. All sorts of considerations are relevant in judging who is great, but essentially people are sizing each other up and comparing each other, to see who is the best.

This is also notably relevant in the jazz scene, where there is a grand pecking order or “food chain” that each musician tries to work his or her way up.

Additionally, from a commercial point of view, music can be about promoting self. You perform and promote in order to sell products and remain viable.

However I think it’s just too big a statement to say that being a great musician is essentially about promoting self. Music is first and foremost a form of art. We can and do use it as a communication vehicle, but this is primarily because of the way it appeals to the human soul at a deep level.

A person who engages deeply and powerfully with art is not necessarily promoting him or herself. In a true unfallen (or redeemed) sense, people may be rejoicing in and praising the creator! That is of course what art is meant to do: display the beauty of God. Music is not just a means to an end, where it is either exploited for self or for service. It is a place in which a person can dwell, a place that is so easily affected by corruption, as people worship the art form instead of the great artist himself!

Yes and no, in my opinion. The reasons why music must be good are different from the reasons why lyrics must be good. It’s a bit like comparing apples with oranges, I think. In one sense, the answer must be yes, because we’re talking about the gospel, the word of God. That is the thing that makes lyrics especially important, and means we must get them right. One of the risks of not getting them right is that we will misrepresent God, which we mustn’t do (E.g. we could slip into heresy or idolatry, or just plain old shallow, ill-informed theology). The other thing that we can do wrong with lyrics of course (often not mentioned much in my circles, since we tend to focus more on “correctness”) is just make them unpoetic, or unengaging. All the best songs in the world have gripping lyrics. So yes, lyrics are critical. They carry the message, explicitly.

But I would argue that the musical side in a sense is just as important, but its importance is measured in different ways. The tune carries the message, perhaps implicitly, or indirectly (as distinct from explicitly or directly as in lyrics)

If a song has a brilliant tune and harmony, then regardless of how good or bad the lyrics are, people will quite likely want to sing it! If it doesn’t, they won’t. You then do the lyrics either a service or a dis-service, but how important therefore is the tune, if it can make people either sing or not sing the lyrics!

Think of what happens when the melody is good and the lyrics are poor… people sing bad (or shallow) theology. And you can’t stop people getting into it because they love the music. The music has a power over people that ‘correct theology’ doesn’t have. I’m not denying the power of the Spirit to work through poor tunes! I’m just saying they’re operating in different realms, pulling on different heart strings.

In summary, I don’t think it’s a good idea to put lyrics and tunes up against each other, since both need to be good for a song to be considered good. Perhaps it’s better to focus on the consequences of doing each poorly. The consequences of doing lyrics poorly are far greater than the consequences of doing tunes poorly. With one, you can commit heresy or idolatry. With the other, people simply won’t sing the songs.

We recently installed a new PA system in our church building. It increases the potential volume considerably. That’s not strictly why we bought it, but now that increased volume is a possibility, it is also quite often a reality!

It has led me to wonder what are the pros and cons of loud music for congregational worship…

At my church (Holy Trinity Adelaide), our biggest and most successful congregational worship event of the year is our Christmas carols service in the Adelaide Town Hall. (Quick plug: you can buy the DVD and check it out at www.emumusic.com/albums/carolsinthecitydvd)

Things are loud. A combination of a large reverberant room and a lot of people singing songs they know very well, and the decibel metre is reaching high numbers!

Yet rarely do we get any complaints about the volume. There is something awesome about that kind of singing experience. It’s not about the PA. It’s about the 1000 voices. There’s actually an old hymn by Charles Wesley called, “O for a thousand tongues to sing”, which delights in the awesome power of that number of voices singing in unison, and longs to have it for oneself. When we encounter the true God in our lives, we can be spurred to sing with all our might. Imagine having the power of a thousand voices to express praise of my maker and saviour…

Having said all this, it’s not every Sunday that we experience hearty, loud singing. Many factors come into play to prevent it. Uninspiring song leaders, uninspiring preachers and service leaders, a building that deadens the sound rather than resonating with it, a band that cannot get it together and express the heart of the song. And, of course, an inadequate PA is one of the biggest constraints on congregational singing.

In a sense, this seems like a contradiction, since it’s not the band we’re ultimately trying to amplify, but rather the voices of the members of the congregation. But in the end, there really is only one reason that there is a band in the first place, and that is to urge the congregation to sing! You could do the same with a pipe organ, or a choir or an orchestra. But then you’d probably be playing traditional music, and not all churches want to do traditional music, especially not your youth service. So the contemporary equivalent is a good band and a good PA. For any reasonably large sized congregation, you will need both, from my experience.

The problem with a small PA is that it is like trying to use a small portable CD player. No matter how good the CD is, it won’t sound any good in anything bigger than a small room. It’ll just sound tinny. And if you push it loud, it’ll sound harsh. Harshness, in my opinion, is the main cause of “volume” complaints in the churches I’ve attended. I know that in some churches, it is just plain too loud. And I know that some sound operators can manage to make it sound harsh no matter how good the PA system is! But often there is an impression of loudness created by the fact that the sound source is not adequate for the building size.

It’s the same principle at work that led our forefathers to build large pipe organs for our old church buildings. If you want people to be moved by the music, then the music needs to be generated by a source that can actually, literally move people. Rarely do people complain about the volume of the organ (not these days, anyway!). I wonder if that’s because over the centuries of organ-building they eventually got the size and volume right!

In the Adelaide Town Hall, the organ effectively occupies an entire wall, protruding several metres from it. It is a massive sound source. With modern technology, we can be much more efficient of course. We can use loudspeakers to move large amounts of air, and give the warmth and fullness that is required to spur on loud singing.

But there are still limits. You’ll never get that warmth and fullness if you use small speech-oriented speakers. You need a bass speaker. And subwoofers are not just for showoffs in their hotted up cars! They’re for churches.

At Holy Trinity, we are trying to use our new PA to inspire loud singing. I always think that the volume of the congregation is a good place to start when working out if our music ministry is effective or not. It’s not everything, but people need encouragement to praise with strength and volume.

As a music director, my role is not really to direct the music at all. It is more importantly to urge and encourage the singing.

A guitarist probably needs to take care of his or her hands. So should a pianist. I’ve often wondered what I’d do if I lost a hand or two. Or even a finger. I suppose I could still be a singer.

But this last 2 weeks has shown me that losing the use of my hands would drive me crazy.

I was on our Mid Year Conference with EU, the Christian group at Adelaide Uni that I work with half my time. We’re playing touch rugby. For anyone in a touch-playing part of the world, this may seem like no big deal. I come from Sydney, where playing touch footy on a camp is just the normal thing. But here in Adelaide, footy means AFL.

So I’m really happy about the announcement at lunch that we’re going to be playing touch rugby at 3pm. I’m there early, with my trackies and trainers, to pass the footy around a bit and get in the mood. Some of the folk don’t know how to play, and so here’s my chance to help with some rules, tips, and all-round enthusiasm.

Then the game starts. It’s all a bit messy until we get a volunteer ref. We’ve got about 10 people per side, the field is pretty sloped, and I’m running downhill.

I get the ball. I see a gap on the left and I run for it. I have to reach out quite a bit to get through, especially since I’m just under twice the age of many of my opponents. But I’m through, and the ball is down… glory!

But not half as much glory as I was about to get, as I steamed toward the tree inconveniently placed a couple of metres back from the try line. My brakes just aren’t that good. I should have slid.

Instead I went flying into the base of the tree. It was a bit of a blur, but there was pain and numbness in my left hand. I look down, and sure enough, a great big hole, right in the middle, and a reasonable amount of the red stuff.

Most people didn’t realise that there was any major problem, but I took myself off the field, still smiling, but with a VERY sore hand.

Because I’m not wanting sympathy, I’ll spare you the details about everyone looking after me. Needless to say, when you’re one of the leaders, everyone seems to notice when this sort of thing happens. I go off to the local medical centre and get fixed up with a couple of stitches. I had them out just yesterday.

My reflections on this have affected me considerably.
There are basically two…

First, I know that it could’ve been much worse. If the branch had a sharp edge, it could’ve cut tendons or muscles. Of course it could’ve hit me in the face, which was probably what I was trying to avoid by holding out my hand out. I believe my Lord, who controls everything, spared me from what could’ve been much worse. A musician friend joked with me that perhaps God is telling me to give up music so I can play sport. Of course he really meant the opposite.

Second, I now have a nasty wound, which will become a scar and stay with me, in the middle of my left hand. It was a conference on the Cross of Jesus Christ, and whilst sitting at the outdoor chapel at the end of the conference, looking up at this life size cross up on the top of this hill, I was very moved to think of my saviour who was pierced for me. My wound is just a scratch really. Jesus wound was his whole life, for me. His hand was pierced as he exchanged his death for my death. I have this reminder on my hand, that by the grace of God I will carry around with me all my days on the earth.

I thank Him that… “by his wounds I am healed” (Isaiah 53:5).

I’ve started using the word “praise” to describe what we do when singing in church, instead of “worship”.

It’s not really such a big deal. And there are any number of things you can call it! Perhaps most significantly, I’m not saying that worship is not what we’re doing when we are praising. Of course singing is worship! Christian worship that doesn’t involve praise and adoration in singing is probably a bit stifled. And what’s more, when you bring the people of God together, the things they do to the glory of God ARE worship. It’s just that worship is more than singing.

I guess I’m a bit wearied by the prohibition by some people of the word “worship” in relation to the Christian gathering. The argument goes like this: since worship is something that believers need to do in all of life, therefore to talk about the gathering as being the place we come “to worship” is misleading. The parallel has been made with breathing. Since breathing is something that you do in all aspects of your life, you wouldn’t say that you go to church to breathe. It just wouldn’t really describe or differentiate the act of going to church, since breathing is something that is not limited to going to church.

The problem is, worship IS something that describes church and differentiates the gathering from the normal hum-drum of life. When we gather together under the word of God, we metaphorically (and often physically!) get on our knees together, expressing our place as a body before God. Now this is exactly what worship is: bending over or bowing down before God. That’s what we go there to do! To submit ourselves not only in our day-to-day private lives, but also importantly in our lives together. We go as a group to worship.

Now, having said that, the way in which we bow before God in church almost always involves serving one another. And so you could say that you go to church to serve one another. That doesn’t mean that you don’t serve each other when you’re not at church. It’s simply saying that serving one another is one of the reasons you go to church, and this is a perfectly legitimate way to use purpose clauses!

So why have I given up using the word worship, then? Surely I’ve just argued for the importance of that word in relation to the gathering…

I guess it’s because this has in some quarters become a very distracting argument!! I’ll quite freely say let’s stand and worship God as I’m leading singing. But I know there’ll be people who want to correct my language! And that’s for good reason: they’re wanting to make sure we don’t use language carelessly. But I don’t want to have to make a theological justification every time I use the word! Instead, I tend to use the word “praise” now more often, because you can’t really argue with that.

You may be thinking, this is no way to deal with a theological debate, to sweep it under the carpet! That is certainly on my mind. However, my hope is that in time, as we are able to continue to clarify the debate, there will be less tension. As a matter of fact, this year in the EQUIP music training program at Holy Trinity, I led a whole course on the question of worship and how it relates to music. I do think that it is a major topic for musicians and pastors to have clear in their heads. But there is also a time with just getting on with praising the Lord! Sometimes our theological questions actually need to be parked temporarily, while we get on with the crucial business of responding to God himself, the great King who has made us his friend!

Psalm 92:1-3 It is good to praise the LORD and make music to your name, O Most High, 2 to proclaim your love in the morning and your faithfulness at night, 3 to the music of the ten-stringed lyre and the melody of the harp.

Isaiah 42:10 Sing to the LORD a new song, his praise from the ends of the earth, you who go down to the sea, and all that is in it, you islands, and all who live in them.

It’s interesting how often the Bible urges us to sing a NEW song. Yet I find that it’s something a lot of churches don’t do very often! I wonder why it is that the songs need to be new?

Perhaps it is not that the songs need to be new. There are many more references just to singing in general as there are to the particular place of singing new material… And clearly if all we did were new songs, we’d struggle to build a repertoire with familiarity that could therefore be sung with gusto. Searching for the next notes in an unfamiliar melody can sometimes be distracting from the task of reflecting on God and his gospel…

But there is something beautiful about a new song. The music charts are evidence of this. The music people buy most is new music. That is no doubt followed in popularity with older music that has the ring of becoming “classic” music. But a distant 3rd would be music that is not very new, and not very good. Have you ever bought one of those compilation albums of past hits with a few familiar tracks, but a majority of tracks you’d previously been unaware of?

I think these Bible passages are tapping into something that is true of people in every age: new music can excite us in new ways. It can be focused on all the same subjects. On the radio this might be romance, unrequited love, partying, dancing, and so on. In the Christian gathering, it is the old, old story of Jesus Christ, who is the fulfillment of every one of God’s promises. But because it is communicated in a new melody, it brings new enthusiasm, new perspectives, new reminders.

So then, how much is enough?

Everyone has their wardrobe full of clothes that really need to be given away. It’s the same with our song repertoires. For contemporary youth services, I reckon if there’s not a new song in the program every month, it’s probably sounding stale. The evidence will be the enthusiasm with which people sing the songs. Sure, the minister might believe this is the truth that we should sing to each other every week. But perhaps a new tune and a re-wording would bring freshness.

But the other thing to keep in mind is that a new song is an unfamiliar song for a period, until people get to know it. It can take 2-3 sings for a congregation to get into it. And then it might last for another 10 sings, or another 20, or 30, depending on how good the song is, and how small the gaps are between sings.

I reckon if you find a really great song, don’t flog it to death!! Do it a couple of weeks in a row, then rest it for a couple of weeks. Then stagger its use so that it is not ruined by overuse!

At Holy Trinity over the last 2 years, we’ve averaged 15-20 new songs per year. This is quite a lot, I know. But we’ve worked hard at making sure that songs are properly taught, consolidated, and then spaced. If you have 5 songs per service, you can have one brand new one, one that was learnt the previous week, one that was learnt 4 weeks ago, and then 2 well-known favourites. Other weeks might be focused on consolidation. But that’s ok. You’ve got 52 weeks!

There are so many great songs being written these days – make the most of them!!