An interesting thought came to me today. Let's see if I can make sense of it here:
Today's traditional versus contemporary music "battle" is like the King James versus the New International Version of the Bible "battle."
How so? you may ask?
The KJV was written to put the Bible in the common person's hands; it was written in their language so they could read it and understand it. It had been too long kept out of their hands, because they were not taught Latin (or Greek or Hebrew). Only the highly educated could read it and therefore (attempt to) understand it. Although even the service was often in Latin, so the common person got little out of it anyway.
Years pass. Many years pass. Whole tons of years pass and the KJV is still the main English Bible translation even though the King James language has changed dramatically. So much so, that in some passages it is almost as unrecognizable as Latin (I said "almost!"). So a new version is written (NIV) with the same purpose of the KJV - to again put the Bible into the hands of the common people.
But there are those who prefer the "old" version because that's all they know. There are even those who actually believe (I've heard it said!), "If it was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me!" Whoa!
Now if you like the KJV, go at it (frankly, I don't understand it any better than I would Latin)! But don't hold to the KJV like it's the ONLY one that's "right." Allow those who don't speak King James to have the Bible in their own common language- so they can understand it (the whole purpose of reading the Bible, don't you think?)
And I'm not even going to go to that place where some people break into their King James dialect to pray. What's that all about anyway?
So now we come to music. Over time, music changes probably MORE than language. I know that because I like all kinds of music (opera and country excluded! {heh}) and have been observing it for my whole life. What I've learned is that the music I like is not always the music a younger generation likes. This holds true for generation after generation. We're not the first to deal with this truth.
So we need to take the truths of the Gospel and put them into a contemporary music styling IF we expect to get the attention of each successive generation AND hope they will hear it long enough to understand it.
Don't get me wrong. I love my songbook. However, I also know I want to win the next generation, so I need to, at the very least, place the words into new music styles. Although, I must say, "Thee's" and "Thou's" can be easily changed to "You." Sure, you might lose a rhyme here and there, but is that really necessary to get a spiritual point across? Must we use the KJV version of our Songbook or can we also include a newer NIV version?
Does my analogy work? Am I making sense here? What do you think about it?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
Doug,
I still cringe when I think of the full out shouting matches that took place during classes and in the halls and cafeteria at SFOT about the topic of KJV verus NIV. And yes, some people actually did say that horrid line, about KJV being good enough for Jesus.
And as for the music, we had those battles too...your brother has it correct. The people you are ministering have to be at least a little comfortable with the music type. In Georgetown, KY most of the music we sang and played was contemporary, but one of the favorites that we sang often was "Victory In Jesus"...usually requested by the teens and tweens. I smile whenever I think of those moments...especially of little red-head Eli with his, as I describe it, "wicked southern twang". :)
In both discussions I think we just need to have patience and compassion.
Looking forward to seeing you and chatting next week at retreat.
For Blood and for Fire,
Dave
salarmyofficership.blogspot.com
So if God is blessing "X" music, but our people are not comfortable with that, then we should not use it?
i think its funny that you commented on people praying like KJV becuase i think hearing poeple pray like that made it the most hardest for me to want to pray outloud in groups because i thought it was weird i didn't talk like those people. so it made me giggle a little.
i defintly appreciate contemporary music more. i feel like i know the songs better and can sing along. I feel like there are so many song book song i feel like i will never remmeber how the songs go. i appreciate the messages in the songs, thats the important part anywyas, but it just would be better if i could sing them. I like the send the fire cd, army songs more contemporaryized so thats cool. but as for me i will still be the one pretending to sing and giggleing through the song book song time...
Doug,
I don't think we need to completely cater to their comforts, but occassionally having a "traditional" service would help I think. And it will also teach the youngers members some of the older songs they may not know.
Dave
bjrw, Sorry, I wasn't thinking about you . . . at least I don't THINK I was. I don't even know who you are! :o
Well, I must know you, because of the content of your comments, I just don't get who you are by the "bjrw."
Actually, I wasn't thinking about anyone at all regarding the KJV stuff, I was mostly thinking about traditional vs contemporary music; just using the Bible version stuff to make a point.
The KJV is another translation. Like any translation, it has it's faults, mistranslations of words, etc. I agree with you, we need many transpations in front of us if we expect to understand what the Word is trying to tell us. But then we need the Holy Spirit as well. And a growing understanding of the culture of Jesus' day. It's all useless if we forget it wasn't written to 20th century Americans. The Bible was written to a middle-eastern culture a long time ago.
Translation includes culture as well as words.
As far as "going with what my congregation is comfortable with," I must disagree. If I only did stuff "they" were comfortable with, there would never be any stretching or growth. Imagine a coach telling his athlete- "do what you're comfortable with."
I believe it's my job to stretch God's people so there is growth and a strenghthening of their spiritual muscles.
We do this in other ways as well- not just music or Bible versions. We use a variety of worship styles and elements to give them a wide range of experiences. Some are best suited to one, some to another. But we all learn from each other's strengths in these areas.
BTW, I DID say I like my songbook and we use it every SonDay. I just believe we can update things so that more people don't have to have it all "translated" to them to understand it. The same thing goes for our "Army lingo."
I like to understand when I read the Bible. . I don't understand KJV. Its dry. .
as for music. . you know what kind i really prefer? Non church music. . cuz there is the real cry of humanity in all its raw profanity and confusion and questions and hurt. . not to mention that i prefer it sonically!! though to be fair to 'church' or 'christian' music. . there is some beautiful, beautiful stuff. . no question.
Didn't you know that God only speaks KJV-english? ;-)
SERIOUSLY, though, I find all these debates more amusing than anything else, mainly because of my Lutheran roots. The Lutheran church I went to as a teen mostly used music from the 17th to 19th century, and many people were very wary of anything newer (eg. almost anything in the SA songbook would be far too new). BUT ironically, Martin Luther himself wrote hymns and put them to popular music of the time... :-)
So it all just turns funny, to me (and to God, I suspect), to see these arguments played out over and over as one generation ages and the next finds a new (or old) style of music with which to annoy their elders... and connect with God. Because I don't think the 'young uns' are really trying to upset people. They're just taking what they see as important, and discarding what they see as unimportant.
If my kids and grandkids embrace God, love and relationships, then I don't care at all if they ditch the clothing, the music and the other surface 'stuff' that becomes dear to me in the next few decades. Actually, scrap that... I DO care. But I'll shut the heck up and deal with it, because they'll have the important things, and those are what really matter. And if I don't, well, I hope they deal gently but firmly with me... and make sure I can find some familiar ground in the bewildering maze I'm likely to see their culture as :-)
'Submit to one another in love'. If both sides do this, there's NO problem. If we engage in this internal battle, then I think we need to realise that while the other person's at fault, we are too... and that sometimes we need to let go, deal with our own sin of lacking love for our Christ-sibling... and let God convict the other person/people his own way.
Whenever you're trying to look better than others or get the better of others, things fall apart and everyone ends up at the others' throats.
17Real wisdom, God's wisdom, begins with a holy life and is characterized by getting along with others. It is gentle and reasonable, overflowing with mercy and blessings, not hot one day and cold the next, not two-faced. 18You can develop a healthy, robust community that lives right with God and enjoy its results only if you do the hard work of getting along with each other, treating each other with dignity and honor.
James 3:16-18 (MSG)
Good words. I like your way of thinking!
But in regards to the 'young' and more 'traditional' music. Wanted to put in a line here to say that some of my favourite music in my collection is a bunch of hymns redone by ppl like Jars of Clay and the lead singer of Mercy Me. I also find that in my times of deepest trouble or desire to express myself to God, it's these songs that I find myself singing. They just say so much. So somewhere in there, there is hope. Maybe for all of us it is something like, we get the message, it might just be the mode of delivery that is making it a bit difficult. (Still think it is interesting that of all topics, matter when, this one always gets response... why is that?)
Howard Burr - How are you determining what music God is blessing today? What is the standard?
I'm more of a NKJV guy myself. You get the best of both worlds!
I like the analogy a lot. I think it works well. You could even expand on it. The old hymns were written to put theology into the hands of common people. You can study holiness doctrine by reading the songs of the Wesley brothers.
Some people would argue that the KJV is more accurate than the NIV, where as the NIV is more contemporary. This is the same argument with the music. The songs of the songbook tend to be full of deep theological truth, which is why they're still around. Modern worship is more contemporary, but often runs the risk of being watery, or even containing bad theology.
I say take the NKJV approach! Take the words of the old hymns (with minor adjustments) and combine with the new style of music. The best of both worlds!
I agree you can get some good doctrine out of some of the old songs. But if you use that argument, then you gotta be careful, because not ALL old songs have good doctrine in them either. And not ALL new songs are flakey in their doctrine either. Many of the newer ones are quotes directly out of scripture (which is what the Psalms are about)- ah, but not always from the KJV! ;)
While I like getting some good doctrine in my music, I'm not convinced I always need to choose my music based on the soundness of its doctrine. Not that I WANT unsound musical doctrine, mind you...
Not a lot of the old songs (there are some) are directed TO God. Most are to ourselves/each other, ABOUT God. Contemporary music tends to be more directed right AT God: eg: "I love you O Lord, My strength."
As far as the KJV being more accurate than the NIV- I've never heard that one before.
Post a Comment