Ed Stetzer is a consultant on church growth as well as a researcher, author, and popular speaker on the subject. He’s as expert as they come. And he’s written a thought-provoking article on churches having multiple worship services that reflect differing styles.
He’s not questioning the decision to have multiple services, which is usually dictated by the desire to grow without having to spend many millions on expanded space. Rather, when a church choose to have multiple styles, does that indicate a sinful heart within its members?
After a few years of “worship wars,” many churches decided to create multiple services based primarily on worship styles or worship preferences. As a result, the “Traditional Service,” which normally had the backing of the older members (often with those who gave most of the financial support to the church), got the coveted 11:00 AM time slot, while the younger members (with little children) had to drag themselves and their half-dressed, unfed kids to church by 8:00 AM or earlier in some cases. …
Too many churches have fully consumed consumerism, a trend that desperately needs to change if we are ever to engage our context wisely. It has proven impossible for us to constantly feed our own preferences and have any appetite left to help the actual needs of those outside the satisfied family.
Not only is the situation symptomatic of consumerism, it leads, in a practical sense, to issues of budget. To do multiple services well means staffing for different kinds of music that can mean multiple employees each gifted in their particular genre. If all musicians are paid as well, then a church may find itself with a tremendous outlay for salary and resources simply to satisfy the preferences of the membership. …
Though there are complicated issues here, I’d encourage us to consider one of the main concern has to be motivation– why does a church create multiple services?: to pander to consumer needs or faithfully engage additional people. The fundamental question: is the idea motivated by consumerism or contextualization?
When multiple worship services with different styles are created because a church has a desire is to create opportunities where people can worship God in spirit and in truth, their motivation is much better than simply creating consumer room. If their desire is to create a new place from which they can reach out to people in a certain cultural context, that seems a better– even an appropriate– motivation.
I’m not sure it’s quite that simple. Let’s suppose that a church concludes that a more contemporary style would make it easier to invite un-churched neighbors and friends. Why not then provide two contemporary services? Why have the traditional service at all? Who would the traditional service be for — the members who choose not to be evangelistic?
For purposes of this discussion, let’s assume that we’re not talking about a cappella versus instrumental worship. Therefore, the decision is not likely to be about the consciences of the members. Rather, it’s about mission vs. comfort, isn’t it?
But then, it’s also about what we perceive to be our target audience — transfers from other Churches of Christ looking for an affirming, familiar service? Or the lost? Or our own members?
For thought: Why does your congregation choose the musical style it’s chosen? Habit? Tradition? To better bring in the lost? To speak to the mature? To the immature? To appeal to the givers? Or to the young couples we wish were present?
The church I was a part of made the first service a traditional one with the second one being the contemporary service.
This was done after the more traditional members got upset with the youth group style of praise and during a time when the congregation was losing traditional biased members to other C of Cs.
So, to answer some of the questions, my experience is that this is done to make certain members of the congregation happy. A church with two types of services like this simply signifies a church that is divided.
It often makes me wonder how it looks to a totally unchurched person watching from the outside.
It’s not about mission. It’s about choosing which group you will please. People are not converted to Jesus by a style of worship. They are converted by the Word of God being preached and lived.
My mother’s church has put its older members out to pasture, so to speak. The minister has made it clear that the church is no longer interested in the needs of the older members. Those who have given their lives and their money for decades to the church, who financed their outstanding building, no longer have a voice in the church. These older members, many in their 80’s, are now considering changing churches. It’s a very upsetting situation for them.
What this situation shows to the world is a selfish disrespect for the elderly. There are ways to evolve the style of music in a church without doing that.
Habit & tradition? – Yes almost across the board.
To better bring in the lost? – Not much of a consideration!
To speak to the mature? – Definitely a consideration.
To the immature? – Occasionally this gets a nod.
To appeal to the givers? – For us, this is pretty much the same as the mature.
To appeal to young couples we wish were present? – Of course not! They’re not here, so why should we consider them?
This is somewhat a cynical response. The most pathetic thing about our congregation’s music is that people are satisfied with it as it is – and are not willing to do much (if anything) to improve it.
Meanwhile, we continue to decline.
The problem with considering consumerism in our churches is that those who might object to the new have made their own consumerist preference for the old. Much of what passed for our evangelism of the last 100 years was essentially raiding other Christian denominations, then cannibalizing within our own fellowship, with the branding that our churches worshiped in the first-century way and that being a Christian in any other manner was worshiping with a defective product. If we were discussing coffee along the same lines, one could argue that we should stick with our old favorite Maxwell House because our grandparents drank it and anyone who would want to drink Folgers is willfully apostate or woefully ignorant of the One True Coffee.
Of course, the ultimate problem with any discussion of worship service consumerism is the tendency to lose sight of the One to Whom our worship is directed.
A Concerned Brother,
Ditto on our experience. It’s been good for us to explore other traditions outside the C of C.
To Alan,
We are currently checking out a church that decided to only make decision based on how they reach the lost about 10 years ago. They lost all of their traditional members but since then have gained 2,000 more! I commend your mother’s church! Thanks for sharing.
Wow…where I go to church, they could just charge admission for the choir and orchestra and not have to pass the plate…It’s the most worshipful environment I’ve ever been a part of… If you ask the Music Minister he will tell you right quickly it’s NOT about entertainment…it’s about skillfully exercising one’s gift in praise and reverence for the Lord… People drive as much as an hour to attend…People from every tribe and tongue gather in worship… even some a capella…but never stagnant nor stale…I’ve yet to hear any complaints about the style… Except sometimes God just takes over and we keep worshipping and the preacher acknowledges that and encourages it… imagine a preacher who defers to the Holy Spirit…Hallelujah…
Alan, why would the older folks feel put out to pasture? Because they didn’t get their way ? Seems like selfishness isn’t limited to just the young… And, if they get their way because they paid for it…well, that seems more like one is trying to exercise control over the Leadership of the Church… Let ’em leave if that’s their attitude…what other church wants to be lead around by their nose ??
Adam, you don’t know enough about my mother’s church to commend it.
I am appalled that so many people think they can convert people to Jesus by choosing the right style of music.
Whatever happened to the Biblical principle that our meetings were for the purpose of encouraging one another? Different brothers and sisters are encouraged in different ways, and differing styles of services are one of the ways to encourage many and to appeal to a wider number of both believers and seekers.
I completely agree.
That’s a very natural human reaction but it is not a godly reaction. Reconciliation is needed, not separation.
The scriptures say to “speak to one another” in song. The older folks should be seeking to move the hearts of the young in song. And the younger folks should be seeking to move the hearts of the older ones in song. It’s not about edifying self. It’s about encouraging the other person. So why not do both?
When you have everything just right at your congregation for salvation and have had it for many years, change is not only wrong, its hell condemning.
Change abhorrence goes way beyond the music or young folks preferences.
Here is a shocking idea – instead of using our style of worship to attract outsiders, what if we use our unity and love?
Being a younger member who desires contemporary worship myself, I could push for that change, thereby alienating many in the process, or I could use the mutual sacrifice of others like me as a symbol for those outside the church –
I can then say something like: “This isn’t what I would prefer, but I would rather be at peace with my neighbor than have my own way.”
Isn’t that a more appealing invitation into the life of Christ than: “You have to come experience our worship – it is amazing!!”
One is a selfish expression, one shows unity and love. And unless I am reading the words of Jesus incorrectly, it is our very oneness and love that show us as his followers (as well as the care of the outsider).
I find it passing strange that when we organize our meetings in a way that suits us –which we most certainly do– that this is NOT considered religious consumerism. Only if we are inconvenienced by accommodating meetings organized in a way that suits OTHERS does the idea of religious consumerism arises.
The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. And that “man” is not just me.
Yes, we have created a religious marketplace where local religion clubs compete for the attendance and financial resources of the public. I don’t think I have every seen a church growth seminar which encouraged a club to foster growth by attracting the needy into the fellowship. Rather, there are hundreds of techniques offered by which we can attract people who can support the club, either in volunteer service or in cash or both. This is not new.
Being part of this religious marketplace and not being very prosperous in it is not somehow a mark of nobility or principle. More likely, it is simple selfishness, marked by a willingness to accept anyone who is ready and willing to become just like US.
I note this quote: “Those who have given their lives and their money for decades to the church, who financed their outstanding building, no longer have a voice in the church.”
Sounds more than a little propietary to me. I have heard the exact opposite accusation directed by the younger toward the older. Whichever direction the noise comes from, it sounds much like the owners of a property arguing over how it is to be used. When a decision is made as to that use, those whose view did not prevail claim to be voiceless or ignored. The unspoken statement from all sides is, “I have invested in this, it’s mine, and I want it run to suit me!”
That’s the mark of a club, not of the church. Nothing wrong with having these multiple religion clubs, as long as we realize what they are and the limitations we place upon such institutions of our own making. We err when we conflate the club and the church. We have even gone so far in this conflation as to be able to freely and commonly use the term “our church” without realizing just how absurd that term really is.
Jay,
I am intrigued by your question:”For thought: Why does your congregation choose the musical style it’s chosen?”
Why is it that you write “musical style?”
Is MUSIC the only difference among traditional, contemporary, and whatever adjective we choose?
The assembly ofthe church ist not the first place to evangelize. It’s an extremely “simple” way to invite others to our “worship”, teach them to sit in a pew and to listen to a speech – but evangelizing is a good deal more than that. “Worship-Evangelism” is good enough to create “pew-potatoes” – and if we want to have that, we MUST be deeply concerned about the entertaining qualities of our music and addresses.
I think, if we are disciples of Christ (not only nby name but by action) the worship style is not what matters, because we will fish men from Mondays to Saturdays. And then when people come to worship, they are less interested in the music but in this life-transforming message.
Alexander
Alan, I agree…we SHOULD
oops…We SHOULD be encouraging one another but that’s difficult to do when people become so entrenched with their preferences… Lines in the sand are difficult to deal with… I’m hopeful that many churches have found a way to encourage one another and yet maintain their preferences. Split services don’t HAVE to be divisive.
Adam…perhaps those that see our Unity and Love would be drawn in more effectively than just on the basis of music style… Good point.
Price said: “Split services don’t HAVE to be divisive.”
In fact, I would wonder what it is that WOULD make such an accomodation distressing enough to anyone for them to divide over it. If you have breakfast at my house, I will probably serve you eggs. If you stay for lunch, I’ll serve chicken. But if you don’t want to be served eggs, and you don’t want to come to lunch, why are you angry at me about the menus? To do so looks like you not only want to make your own choices, but you want to make mine as well. If not being allowed to do so makes you so angry that you won’t eat with me at all, that’s not about breakfast OR lunch. That’s about control.
I think, because music has become the main attraction in worship. This should make us reconsider something …
Alexander
Alexander,
Finally I get to completely agree with you brother! 🙂
The Christian assembly was never intended to be attractive to unbelievers. Somewhere in my Bible I read that the good news about Jesus would likely be offensive to unbelievers, not attractive. So we preach Christ crucified and let God do His work in bringing them to faith and repentance.
Worship and all that should happen in our assemblies is primarily for God’s glory and our edification and encouragement. A side benefit is that if those who are not people of faith are there they will hear the truth about Jesus and His work for sinners.
Royce
I was eating lunch one day with the preacher and one of the members. The member said he did not like those new songs, he liked the traditional songs the church had always sung. The preacher said “I did not know you liked 1st century Jewish music”. The point was made that all the music we use was once contemporary and not traditional
Most contemporary music tends to find its greatest interest among believers, not among unbelievers.
Johnny’s point about contemporary music is well taken. I suspect that some of my brothers think that Ellis J Crum was one of the early church fathers. 😉
Note: At one time, melodic singing in worship was condemned as an aberrant accomodation to the flesh ,and was decried by church leaders who insisted that it was done this way only to please the hearers. Thus was not really worship at all. For them, the “traditional songs” were chants.
Jay…I think you should find a recording of a Gregorian chant and have it played during the worship service one Sunday…Give all the folks time to express their opinions about it during the week and then the next Sunday explain that the “chant” was the way the 1st Century Church “sang.” It would be “teaching” through song……Wait until after the holidays…:)
Over the past almost six years that I’ve been employed by my home church (and even before), one thing has remained consistent through eras when worship was planned by volunteer committees then a worship minister and now staffers and volunteer leaders:
First and second worship hours on Sunday morning are identical. Songs are chosen which are appropriate to the theme of the worship, son, communion thoughts, scripture readings.
Membership and Sunday morning attendance have grown about 15 percent in those years — the latter from 850 a week to over 1,000. We lost maybe a dozen people, quietly, at either extreme of the worship wars. We stuck by our policy without variation. The best songs win, whether antique or contemporary. So do the best worshipers.
son=sermon. My iPhone keyboard is skipping tonight. Sorry.
Such answers make fun of the concerns of others. The problem is, it’s not about “older” sing per se. CCM is a style that is deeply questionable since it’s purpose is to imitate the worlkd and to satisfy our desire for worldly music in worship. When people object to these they often lack the vocabulary to put their questions correctly. “Older songs” is what comes out – but “I object to worldlyness” is what is meant. Therefore the preacher’s answer completely misses the point. But he should know what the “worship wars” are about …
Alexander
To be more precise: Pop and Rock music was designed to give a musical language for a specific worldview. It enhances the rebellious and immoral lyrics in a fitting way – therefore this style cannot be adapted for worship, such as military marches that sing of (or are associated) with bloodshed are inappropriate for worship.
If a worship song sounds like Lady Gaga, our mind gets easily distracted by the associations the music evokes. ANd visitors get the impression that Lady Gaga is all right after all …
Alexander
Alexander…don’t you suppose that even your Oldies but Goodies were looked down upon by those that preferred the chant type songs? They would have considered your beloved songs similar to how you feel about Lady Gaga… Isn’t it a fact that they associated musical instruments with the secular filth of the day and thus chose to refrain from using them? It wasn’t the instrument per se but it’s association… Later when that association was no longer dominated by the vulgar, the churches changed…
Today, there are many Christian musical artists that use a wide variety of styles to celebrate and honor the Lord… I don’t think God has a preference for 17th century musical style over say what Miriam must have been singing as she played her tambourine..I think He looks at the intent of the heart…
Now that’s not to say YOU don’t have a preference but I would be very cautious about criticizing a style too loudly…Your preference was undoubtedly criticized for all the same reasons before it became popular… I remember reading somewhere that Alexander Campbell detested the idea of putting musical score in the church hymnal..
Oh, well…I suppose someone will be debating this issue when the clouds roll back like a scroll…it’s difficult not to argue for our own preferences… Whether in church or out. You and Jay probably like Country music where dogs, women and drunks end up on some train…:)
“The best songs win, whether antique or contemporary. So do the best worshipers.”
Does this sound elitist to anyone but me?
“Pop and Rock music was designed to give a musical language for a specific worldview.”
So were the marches of John Philip Sousa. So what? Marches are martial by design and were used to encourage people to take up arms. And that particular musical theme is scattered throughout your hymnal. Does a march tempo and arrangement make a song like “The Great Redeemer” warlike?
Are we now to the place of banning not just bad songs, but ungodly piano riffs? Evil chord progressions? Specific demonic musical instruments? Is the pipe organ holy while the bass guitar is sinful? (Okay, even I will vote “evil” on the bagpipes…) Or is a three-four time signature sinful because people dance to it every night in honky-tonks?
As to world-view, go through a CoC hymnal and count up all the Depression-era, “it’s so hard but one day we’ll die and be all better” songs. Do those “traditional hymns” really reflect the spirit of what we are teaching?
I think such generalizations as “rock music” are not useful. If music is sensual, it is sensual, whether it’s Beyonce or Benny Goodman or Beethoven. If it’s depressing, it could be Gustav Mahler or Tillit S Teddlie. It’s not really about style, but about intent and effect.
Charles, I intended no elitism. I was just expressing a pride in my home church, which could have become contentious and divisive – but instead chose to regard the songs based on the merit of their content.
Not their musical style. Not their rhythm scheme. Not the era in which they were written or even their familiarity.
We become the best worshipers when we worship in spirit and in truth; when what we say and do gives glory to God through Christ.
I would be of the opinion that if there is such a thing as worshipping “best”, he who worships best is he who finds himself nearest to the object of his adoration. And while song lyrics may help or hinder in some limited way, they are not really central to this reality at all.
When “best” is in us rather than in Him, we still have some ways to go in worship.
Charles, I plainly do not understand your response.
A song lyric is not central to worship, of course, but is at the very heart if what we express to God in song together. So it is important. We don’t want to sing what is not true.
Christ is central to worship, but there are worshipers that God seeks (John 4) and if my use of the word “best” was an inaccurate or offensive way of rendering “true,” I apologize.
Charles wrote,
I agree – unless you keep them outside where they are meant to be played!
Jerry
Such answers make fun of the concerns of others. The problem is, it’s not about “older” sing per se. CCM is a style that is deeply questionable since it’s purpose is to imitate the worlkd and to satisfy our desire for worldly music in worship.
Do you realize that many of the songs commonly sung were adapted from the tunes of English drinking songs?
It appears what I said above may not be factual. I attempted to document what I had just said and while I found evidence that folk songs, and popular tunes were adapted, I could find no evidence of actual drinking songs. I apologize for repeating what may have been a myth.
“O Happy Day” (as we sang it when I was a kid) was sung to the same tune as the old drinking song, “How Dry I Am,” Johnny!
And, Johnny, I think you’ll agree that “Jesus Loves the Little Children” shares the tune of the chorus from “Tramp Tramp Tramp The Boys Are Marching.”
Music styles come and go – what will remain is Scriptural words and thoughts presented in way that touch the heart of the honest worshipper. This is another area where we must struggle to become “all things to all men” without losing our firm footing.
Folk Music is entirely different than commercial Pop or Rock Music – if you don’t see it, then you don’t see it. Or if you don’t ant to see, then you don’t want to see it. But who looks just a bit into the history and development of Pop and Rock Music – and no, not at their roots in folk and blues! – but at the era of the 60ies and 70ies, at their mottos, slogans and promoted life styles, you’ll notice that this was a rebllious and anti-Christian attitude that brough forth this new kind of music. The louder the better – the more rude and provocative the more cherished – the more occult in its lyrics and symbolism the more admired.
Today Pop and Rock Music is the most common form of idolatry in our societies. Something we should fle from at light speed!
And yes, marching music is military in origin. I doubt that it is fitting for a peacuful people … but no, so many Chrsitians are glad to serve in th military, so maybe you don’t see or feel the discrepancy, Charles.
Well, a lot of these associations are done away with once you remove worship frpom the stage back to the church, once you remove the instruments and let us all just sing. CCM normally does not work a-cappella; and marching tunes soun a lot more peaceful without “piano riffs”. And let us sing rather slow, so we can think about the words we are singing!
But first of all, let us cultivate an understanding of what it means:
Once we made this part of our whole thinking and feeling, it will express itself also in our worship styles. We would not lust after tha fashions of the world in order to be appealing to sekers (and our own flesh!), but which is appalling to the Spirit of Holyness.
But as long as one has not made this move out of the world in his heart, he will not understand it. Is he to blame? Well, the teachers and leaders of our churches are …
Alexander
Keith said, “Christ is central to worship,” what do you mean, we go to church to worship Jesus Christ, or to worship God with Jesus Christ?
Mat 4:10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
Christ is no less Divinty than the Father. Where the Father is there also is the Son and vice versa; thus: Who honors the Son honors the Father; worship in Spirit and Truth shows equal reverence to both.
Alexander
Alex said, “Christ is no less Divinity than the Father” Just a couple of questions Alex,. How come Satan didn’t know that, and do you see a difference in Jesus at birth, and at baptism. or do you see them as the same. ?
Do you see being divine as being eternal?
Do you see “the church” as being the body of Christ, if so do see the church as worshiping it’s self.?
Was the Word of God the Word of God before His birth?
During His birth?
Prior to His baptism?
After His resurrection?
Was there any time the Word of God was not the Word of God?
If not:
Was there any time the Word of God was not divine?
What does “in the beginning” mean?
What does Christ mean with “before Abraham was I AM”?
Alexander
Keith, your comment about saying what is “true” in worship reminds me a bit of Ellis J. Crum. I grew up with his 1956 red “Sacred Selections” hymnal –currently in its 67th printing. It was sold almost exclusively to the CoC (see its Song Number One) and was rife with edited versions of traditional hymns, which in Crum’s opinion were somehow “untrue”. “Amazing Grace” taught false doctrine. “Victory in Jesus” was not clear enough about the soteriological necessity of obedience, so while it was not wrong, it was rewritten anyway. We even had to sing “When THE SAVED get to heaven”, in case some poor soul might wander in and think we were preaching universalism.
Not everyone took this trail as far as Crum did, but his worry apparently persists. I would note that this pinhole focus on auditing song lyrics is not likewise applied to prayer. Nobody pre-edits prayers to make sure that the leader gets his doctrinal inferences correct. Most of us got past this whole hymnal bugaboo thirty-odd years ago.
Are you really having trouble with people speaking to God things which are patently untrue? And if they did speak something in error, would that obviate their adoration of the King?
Worship is much more than speaking correct words. I would suggest that worshipping “in truth” means more than getting your ecclesiology right. It means knowing Him who is the object of our worship, and that what we are doing truly identifies with who He is.
Worship is CERTAINLY more than a prelude for somebody’s sermon. When the first question we face in planning worship is how it will prop up the sermon, I would seriously question our focus. Are we falling before the feet of God in adoration, or are we providing a 10-minute musical overture for the speech that is our real focus? There is nothing wrong with prefacing a sermon with music, but let’s then be honest and call such a thing a “sermon introduction”.
Worship is in spirit. Not “should be”, but “IS”. (God is spirit, after all.) Too often, we get our meeting music mentally and musically in order and presume that the spirit will follow. If not, it matters not a bit. We march right on through our posted selections anyway. Personally, I think that’s backwards.
Keith, this is not to shake some finger directly at you or your congregation. It sounds to me as though you are being very conscientious within the paradigm you have inherited. I am looking at the larger picture. What I have noted here is so common in the church as to have become part of the landscape. Pointing it out sometimes creates problems.
Alexander said, “Today Pop and Rock Music is the most common form of idolatry in our societies. Something we should fle from at light speed!”
Hmm. Under this reasoning, we really better engage the warp drive to get away from money, capitalism, representative democracy, and individual freedom. Americans have sacrificed MUCH more blood and treasure at those altars than at all the rock concerts ever performed.
Alex, in other words you had “NO ANSWERS” for the questions I put to you. I will be glad to answer yours after you show enough respect to answer mine.
I suggest you read the book of Hebrews carefully, before you go out on that limb, you seem poised to leap on.
my questions were Answers, Laymond – I thought that was obvious.
Satan called him Son of God, didn’t he? So he accepted (and challenged) His divinity (Mat 4:3).
No, because He is the same yesterday, today and forever (Heb 13:8)
Yes. Therefore note the way John put it: In the beginning the Word was with God (John 1:1-3)
No, because the church is the body and Christ is the head. The body does not worship the body but the head, who sits at the right hand of God. Together with the angelic hosts we proclaim:
“Worthy is the Lamb who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing (i.e. praise)!” (Rev 5:12)
Alexander
Yes there are other cults as well, and ALL are to be shunned. But have you ever noticed, that this pop culture has become the world wide leading culture? You don’t need to be a rich American to worship these “American Idols” (how telling a name!!!), but go to the slums on the southern have of the globe, and you’ll find the same Lady Gaga worshippers there. And pre-teen girls singing and moving to her dirty songs.
Christians who want their MTV in church, are begging for the worldly idols to be blended in our spiritual worship. That’s not of God, Charles! That’s deeply carnal.
Alexander
abasnar, on October 28th, 2011 at 10:03 am
(LEM asked the question)
“do you see a difference in Jesus at birth, and at baptism. or do you see them as the same. ?”
Alex, responded wih questions of his own, so I will answer his.
question #1 “Was the Word of God the Word of God before His birth?”
I assume you are speaking of the birth of Jesus.
answer (yes, the word of God, has always been the word of God, and remains so today, I believe that pretty much covers all your questions except maybe one)
Jhn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
as we see in the beginning the “word” of creation was the spoken word of God, this explains why “the word” was referred to as God. How can one seperate the “power of God,” from God?.
Jhn 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, ——————–.
Yes the power of God’s word was bestowed upon his son, but I can’t recall where Jesus was referred to in scripture as “the word of God” if Jesus was “the word” why would the following scripture discribe the word as many.
Pro 30:5 Every word of God [is] pure: he [is] a shield unto them that put their trust in him. ( the word “HE” referrs to God not the word.)
Jhn 3:34 For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure [unto him].
Jhn 14:10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
The other question, “What does Christ mean with “before Abraham was I AM”?”
( I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me,)
“and do you see a difference in Jesus at birth, and at baptism. or do you see them as the same. ?”
No, because He is the same yesterday, today and forever (Heb 13:8)
Alex, we know for a fact that this is not speaking of the person of Jesus, We have read about him when he was an infant, a twelve year old boy, and a full grown man. We have read about him being flesh and blood and later walking through walls. so we pretty much know he did change. he changed when he was baptized, and also when he was raised from death. ( thinking, attitude committment )
Alexander wrote,
Alexander is surely influenced by some of the ECFs who rejected IM, in part, because of the association of IM with the military. But as Charles has pointed out, there are many great old hymns that are written in the same style as military music — without being lyrically nationalistic or military.
During the Council of Trent, a proposal was made, with substantial support, to ban polyphony (harmony) from church music, as too secular. After all, bawdy plays used harmonies! The proposal did not pass, but it suffices to show that last year’s scandalous music can be this year’s sacred music. The Council ultimately approved polyphony and modern harmonies resulted — including four-part harmony.
Luther was likely the first to allow a congregation to sing four-part harmony, since the Medieval Catholic Church did not allow the congregation to sing. And so Luther scandalized church officials by writing songs that could be sung and harmonized without trained voices.
Early in the history of polyphony, singing was organum, that is, parallel fourths or fifths. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fj_jXG7TqVs
Organum sounds a little disquieting to most Westerners. They avoided thirds because, well, everyone knows a third is secular. And yet today four-part church harmony is built heavily on thirds.