I know it sounds a bit harsh. But I have a proof-text for it ... 1 Chronicles 15:22 has become my new memory verse:
Kenaniah the head Levite was in charge of the singing; that was his responsibility because he was skillful at it. (NIV)
Seems to make sense to me.
Now it's a little bit of a fudge, I know. For starters I don't believe in proof texting like this (we need to look at a theology of music and a theology of church and the gathering). And the NIV is rendering the Hebrew 'to understand' as 'Skilful at' which is fair enough in the context but other versions bring the point out slightly differently (The NRSV lowers the bar a little: "Chenaniah, leader of the Levites in music, was to direct the music, for he understood it." )
However I think we sometimes are too keen to include everybody in serving in the music team. Should someone who is tone deaf be 'allowed' to lead the singing? Well, no, not necessarily.
It might be a good idea to let them, for a range of political and pastoral reasons. Each church needs to work out what level of skill is required for the task at hand. My church may not need the same skilful musicians as a church of 20,000 people broadcast all over the world.
But I don't think we need to see a theological mandate for participation in the church music team by anyone and everyone who wants to 'use their gift'.
There IS a theological reason why everybody should SING together. But to think this means every singer should have a microphone is a confusion. It treats the band as the church, and puts a false wall between the band and the church (as if you are only participating if you are in the band). They are all participating as the one body of Christ (Gal 3:28) even if they don't have a microphone. We are all one, a body of believers without division, and yet we are also differentiated (1 Cor 12:29).
So let those who are skilful at music (or at least 'understand' it!) lead the rest of us in singing joyfully to our God.
You are completely right! Love that verse you have found. Very helpful.
ReplyDeleteWell I do have a few issues with this way of thinking. And this is as a "skilful" member of the music team - at various times on keyboard, guitar, vocals, selecting music, directing practices, coaching and song-writing, both in the church and outside at kids' camps.
ReplyDelete1. I agree you have fudged with the selected text. All the other musicians named in the broader passage were instructed to play certain instruments. Kenaniah was not directed to sing, but to be in charge/direct the singing... there's a world of difference. Direction DOES require skill, but there's not the slightest hint in this chapter that the singers were skilled, or that there were any selected singers at all. In 1 Chron 16 David appoints Asaph et al to give praise to the Lord in various ways, just one of which (v8) is singing. (But he goes on v23 to tell All The Earth to sing to the Lord too!) Again, no hint that Asaph was appointed for his singing skills, though it's likely he had evangelical skills that suited David's purpose.
2. I agree that song LEADERS should be skilful, i.e. those that introduce and explain songs; otherwise there is a risk of ignorance, misunderstanding and even heresy being put forth. However this does not apply to singers who only follow the lyrics.
3. I agree that, let's face it, no-one really wants to listen to a tone-deaf singer. In this case the problem is that if they are putting off 50 or 5000 people in the congregation, they are being over-amplified. And frankly this applies to skilful singers as well, who very frequently mistake Performance for Song-leading. The musicians SHOULD be heard, as they support the congregation's singing, but the singers should meld right in with the congregation, and only be heard if the congregation falter. Save performance for concerts where people have paid to hear them perform. A church congregation is not an audience. The recurrent feedback I get in our church is that (1) the drums are too loud (smallish church, undamped skins, hard to fix) and (2) the singers are too loud, quote "we like to hear ourselves sing too". But if you really feel the band MUST dominate the singing, just get the sound guy to turn the dud ones down.
4. I have watched with sadness in our church as first, children's singing was banished to the back hall during the 10am "family" service, then the more traditional choral group (which catered for anyone who cared to join in practices) was pushed off towards the "old folks'" 8am service. Now we just have the skilful contemporary band/s appealing to the young/young-at-heart adult demographic. Strangely, while this plays straight into the hands of band members like me, I am losing my heart for serving in music ministry.
5. Fortunately my church, for now, still allows younger and less skilled Musicians to join the 10am band, while they learn the repertoire, church protocol, and how to work in a band structure, i.e. to BUILD their skills. Of course they are in understudy positions, alongside and watching and being coached by skilled musicians as they play/sing, and their amplification is low, more to reduce the pressure on them of worrying about making mistakes than because they might actually mess up the music if they do. Unfortunately they are not encouraged to join in likewise in the bands at youth group or the evening young adults' service, because those bands are TOO GOOD. Did I mention that I mentored many of the members of those bands, when THEY were young and unskilled, encouraged them to participate when they were fearful? What are we to do, send people off with a sheaf of songsheets to practice on their own and come back when they are "skilled"? Skilled musicians don't just spring forth fully-formed from the ground. I actually recall seeing a member of GH perform at the age of 12 or 13... sure they had some raw talent and potential, but they were hardly "skilful". It was a delight nevertheless.
(continued)
(ran out of space!)
ReplyDelete6. I fail to grasp your logic about false walls. Except that by excluding people from the band you do indeed remove a false wall, but replace it with a real wall. By allowing some regular folk to join in with the band, it makes the band "special"? And by making the band a closed shop, that stops it being "special"? You even call the congregation "them".
7. Can we apply the same "skill" arguments to other areas of serving in church? Cleaning, gardening, morning tea? How unfortunate that we musos are generally such lousy house-keepers... as a matter of principle we must decline to serve in those ways. :-) I'm kidding of course, but it's a dangerous slope. In reality, pretty much anyone with a heart if not talent should be able to serve/assist to some extent in pretty much any ministry. The notable exception is preaching, which IS special, and DOES require skill and understanding. Music and singing are not special, and are much over-rated in many churches including mine. It’s a very visible and rewarding service in itself, but too much praise is heaped on the musos, and too little on the cleaners and hospital-visitors.
OK it looks like I had LOTS of issues with this article. But here's another verse to consider: 1 Chron 20:21 "After consulting the people, Jehoshaphat appointed men to sing to the LORD..." We might easily use this to argue that the selection of singers is the privilege of the Senior Minister not the music team, and that the musicians should not be consulted at all, but instead the congregation should be advising. Oh and of course, no women singers. Silly stuff.
We all have our failings, personal aesthetics and prejudices. We should admit them and repent rather than selectively using the Bible to justify them.
We're not all hands or ears or eyes or noses!
DeleteThe reason that skilled people should be chosen to lead is that they are generally people that other people can follow, it strengthens what is happening. Someone who is not skilled at any task will give people a hard time following.
I do think the same skill argument can apply to other areas of serving church. Skilled administrators are a Godsend! Skilled cooks and cleaners are huge encouragements that often go unnoticed.
Instead of focusing on who is excluded, we should be building up and encouraging people to use the skills they are gifted with. Which goes against human nature most of the time. :)
Thanks for your thoughtful comments.
ReplyDeleteHugh, I don't think I'm using the Bible selectively to justify my own personal failings, aesthetics or prejudices (although I certainly have them). I'm sorry if my opening tongue in cheek proof-text hit a raw nerve.
The point I do want to make, seriously though, is that while everybody should sing, not everybody is capable of leading the singing. That means not everybody should have a microphone. I'm not dictating what level of skill is required - that will vary from place to place. Nor am I saying you shouldn't train musicians who show promise but not yet professional skill. (I would have thought the amount of time and effort we as a band put into training would be proof of that!) But the Spirit gives different gifts to his church, and it's okay to say that not all are song leaders.
"As Dr Peterson observed during class, all the issues that consume our attention when thinking about worship (Having the right liturgy, the right music, THE RIGHT SINGERS, the right location and all that stuff) looks so weird and irrelevant next to John's definition of proper worship - worship of Jesus, in Spirit and Truth."
ReplyDeleteNo argument from me here, Lea! Thanks for bringing these two discussions together, I think it's helpful to see how they fit together.
DeleteI would strongly oppose any attempt to make skill the mark of acceptable worship.
But Dr Peterson in the same lecture points out that there is a differentiation in the way we serve in the assembly based on gifts. Not all are capable of praying publicly, for example (though all can pray to God through Jesus!).
First up. Top blog. Yes you fudged, but you knew you were. lol.
ReplyDeleteAs to song leading. You're right. We need the people with the best skills. People who are not skilled should not "lead" singing. This also applies to people who have amazing voices, but no self-control to push their egos out of the way and lead the congregation rather than showing off. Self control is as much of as skill as pitch.
Pete
To open a slightly different flavoured can of worms: should non-believing church members ever be permitted to lead the congregation in singing?
ReplyDeleteWhy/why not?
How can they worship a God they don't believe in?
DeleteThat'd be like telling a group of people to follow a person to a location when that person doesn't know the way.
For some reason I feel like I want to give a different answer depending on whether someone is leading the singing as a songleader versus playing piano on stage as part of a band. Not sure why - this may be totally incoherent! In the first case, definitely never no. In the second, I think it might depend on the situation and the church?
DeleteInteresting discussion. As we go to a very small church and are one of only 4 families with small children,(most of the rest of the congregation is into retirement) we don't have a song leader. My husband helps to lead the 'worship'; prayer, scripture reading, corporate confession of sin, etc. and is at the front during the songs and hymns but they turn the mic down. The pastor handles the sermon. I'd be the first to say we need someone to help us along during songs but I sure do love that I'm not forced to listen to a performance or be distracted from my worship by someone up front who decides a guitar solo is how we will all be drawn into 'that holy place'. Someone (preferably who can carry a tune) standing up and singing along with us would be lovely, much beyond that however and it seems we forget who we are offering our songs of praise too.
ReplyDeleteI think your comment about Someone 'who can carry a tune' is important - the amount of skill required will vary on the circumstances, but there is surely always some skill required?
DeleteKarie, lol. When we first came to our church there was one piano, hymnbooks, and one wobbly singer leading from the lectern. I was asked to take turns leading, but "it's mainly to give the old dears in the front row someone to lip-read". Ahh, good times. I still enjoy filling in at another church with the same setup.
ReplyDeleteAndrew, I understand the blog was motivated by frustration with this issue currently or in the past and I hope it works out. It sounds like you're dealing with the imposition of a roster of inclusion. My sore point is the other side of the coin: seeing people sidelined because they are perceived as not "appealing" enough. It's generally not the congregation making these judgements.
In either case we all know: when we stand before the Lord, today as well as the hereafter, who of us can sing sweetly enough or play harmonies remotely worthy of His glory? Not Redman, Bach or Wesley, certainly not me. So even though it may be *necessary* to be selective, we should be wary of arguing that it's ok when we do judge our own or others' worth.
Jonty, tough question. On the one hand, of course non-believers should not lead worship. On the other, this is only singing. But talent alone is not enough. The question is whether they are clearly on a path towards God, or if they just want a platform. I've seen a few like that come and go. A good test is to see whether they would like to join the lawn-mowing or brass-cleaning roster!
Another thing to think about, as difficult as this can be, is what principles has your church applied in the past.
ReplyDeleteI was in 2/4 bands on rotation at my previous church, and there were about 200-250 people in a service. There was one band where 2 out of the 4 singers were woeful. They were extremely loud, pitchy, and I know this is going to sound mean because it's something you can't really change, but their voices were REALLY unpleasant in tone.
What would happen if they were to employ a new approach where only capable singers could sing up the front? Those two singers would be stood down, and they would probably ask, "So for the past 4 years, I've been singing poorly up the front of church, and no-one has said anything?" I know that's a tough pill to swallow, but I think it's got to be done. When a visitor comes to church, yes the Holy Spirit moves and can call them regardless. However, do we want to give them any ammo they can use as a rationale to say, "oh I didn't really like that". I'm not saying we need to put on a good show, but I am saying in the same spirit of "lets not sit on our asses waiting for the Holy Spirit to save people", that we shouldn't be settling for sub-par, when far better talent exists within the congregation!
I'd prefer if no church got themselves into the position my previous church was in. Training people in music BEFORE putting them into ministry is the best way to go about it, the only pitfall being the required time. Garage Hymnal have shown that training is important. If you want good music in church, where you're constantly developing new musicians, you have to put in the time to mentor inexperienced musicians until they're proficient (and humble) enough to be assigned the task of leading the church in singing.
Absolutely Pete - one of the most helpful things my friend Steve Crain (music pastor at St Barnabas' Broadway in Sydney) introduced me to when I worked under him was the 'skills sheets'. These helped introduce skills and an audition process. Copies are available on our training website. www.garagehymnal.com
DeleteGreat discussion, andrewjudd. Well played.
ReplyDeleteI don't think there can be a hard and fast rule here. Some churches will be exploding with 'skilled' musicians and others won't. I do know that an unskilled singer could be an incredible song leader (prayer/ linking songs etc) while some incredible singers can be very poor at linking songs, praying etc... It's a very tricky balance but I think the key is that we have to remain humble and listen to those in leadership and also seek feedback on what we can improve on and not think we know everything... StephV
There's only one modification I'd make here. Andy, you say "only people who are skilful should serve in music ministry". I'm sure you'd agree with the way that I propose to qualify this statement. Here's my take:
ReplyDeleteALL Christians should serve in music ministry, because congregational singing involves a whole lot of people serving one another. I think this needs to be said even if you're thinking of 'music' ministry as distinct from 'singing' ministry. Ephesians 5:19-20 says:
"Speak to one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. Sing and make music in your heart to the Lord, always giving thanks to God the Father for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ."
Those who are involved in 'singing' ministry (which is everyone in the congregation singing to one another) should also be involved in 'music' ministry. Skill here is unnecessary, though implicitly, being a genuine believer is (to help in answering Jonty).
I think having skilled musicians serving the congregation is a matter of wisdom, and not necessarily a matter of hard and fast obedience to scripture. But it's a wisdom that matters, because a bad musician could hinder the teaching process that takes place as we speak to one another in song.
Yep totally - I think what I mean is only people who are skilled should serve BY LEADING the singing, but all should minister to one another by singing. The difference is the microphone and leadership position.
Delete- apologies if that wasn't clear earlier.