Of course, so do words.  Words can cut me or soothe me, make me wise or lead me astray, bore me, tire me, or inform me, either of the loftiest complexity or of the most mundane necessity.  Words carry meaning: we process and respond.

But music’s assault on my mind and my heart is unique.  It is disarming.  It seems to connect directly with my emotions.  It’s almost as if I don’t get the same opportunity to process cognitively as I would with words.  And when I do try to process the music, sometimes its power can slip away.

Some music makes me crunch up my face with distaste; some makes me feel like moving around and dancing; some music makes me want to sing; some music even brings me to tears.

Music is used by advertisers and film-makers because it seems to help their respective causes.  Nothing like a painful jingle… we might not like hearing it repeatedly, but we’ll never be able to forget it, and neither will we be able to forget its association with a particular product.

Film music is often not so memorable.  But I’m not sure it’s meant to be.  When the film-maker wants us to feel the emotions of a particular story or event more deeply, it seems that there are some fairly tried and true methods of using music to do so.

Funnily enough, we don’t always agree on “what is music”.  I remember older relatives criticising music of the youth for having no melody; or for being too unpleasant to listen to; how could it be in the same category as their own favourites?

To some extent music gives us a soundtrack for our lives, not just our movies.  We remember events by songs we were listening to; we remember songs by the people we associate them with.  Often the words aren’t even remotely important.  Although sometimes they are made many times more important by the tunes to which we sang them.

I read not long ago a quote from Yip Harburg, the lyricist of the song “Over the rainbow”: Words make you think a thought; music makes you feel a feeling; a song makes you feel a thought.

It’s a slight exaggeration.  I’ve certainly had words spoken to me that make me feel a feeling.  But Harburg does point us to the fact that song is so important in human life.  When words and music are joined together, we are in for a wild ride.

So for the church, this a treasure given straight from the hand of God.  We have words of eternal life, and a language that speaks directly to our hearts.  How could we possibly go wrong?  Surely this means that our churches are full of meaningful, passionate response to the gospel!

Well, yes they are.  In every congregation in which I’ve ever led singing, there have been people who have been demonstrably affected by the singing of the gospel of Jesus.  People of all walks of life are impacted by our songs: regulars and visitors, professionals and blue collars, men and women, old and young.  I am always heartened to see people who may not fit easily in a social sense singing their hearts out: people with disabilities, people who struggle socially, people who have suffered severely or carry great burdens.

And yet, sometimes things do go wrong with our music.  Sometimes we fear its effects on our hearts and tone it down; sometimes we take advantage of its ability to affect people’s hearts and wind it up.  Sometimes we are just too caught up in ourselves for the songs about the gospel to affect us and it doesn’t matter how good the singing is: our hearts and minds are elsewhere.

I love it when our pastors and congregational leaders lead us without fear, without manipulation, and without self-absorption.  Just as God reaches out to us with the long arms of the gospel of Jesus, so he also uses the long arms of music to reach into our souls.

I’m asking because so many people in Christian churches, and especially the music scene, seem to be doing their best to be cool.  Is this helping us connect with the world in which we live?

For years, a couple of Christian friends have been telling me that one of the things we should be doing is showing the world that we can be cool too.  Oh dear… even the idea of that sounds lame.  I mean surely you either are cool or you’re not.  I’m not entirely sure what cool is, but whatever it is, it seems to be something that you’ve either got or you don’t.  Perhaps it’s some level of confidence or an ability to be yourself in a way that makes people want to be like you.

What do you think cool is?

One thing’s for sure, there seems to be a contradiction in terms when we say, “I can be cool too”.  The point is, the cool ones are the ones everyone else wants to be like.

So what is it to be relevant then?  And is it any better than being cool?  Lots of churches are trying to be relevant to the communities in which they operate, and I’m often seeing genuinely good attempts to understand out context and connect ourselves with it.

For example, the city workers’ ministry that my colleague Craig Broman works with hosts events that regularly have as many non-Christians as Christians, partly because of the fact that something about these events has connected with the people being invited.

I wouldn’t say the events are uncool, but they’re certainly not trying to be cool.  And yet the proof is in the pudding: they’re getting people along…

I wonder if relevance is something we should be aiming for in our outreach to our community and in our music, more than coolness?  Perhaps it’s ok for us to be doing contemporary music, because it’s one of the languages of our generation…  Perhaps the thing about relevance is that it something we do for the purpose of communication and connection?

On the other hand, my gut tells me that ‘coolness’ (I hate the term, actually) is something that is all about trying to impress.  On this reckoning, trying to be cool might actually harm our efforts to be proclaiming Jesus to the world, because the very essence of Jesus’ ministry was not about trying to impress people, rather it was trying to love them and reach out to them.

He actually never said, “I am the Messiah, isn’t that cool” or even anything remotely like that.  He definitely sought to communicate his identity, which he did by asking pointed questions and by performing miraculous signs.  And he definitely did want people to follow him and to be like him… but it certainly wasn’t about trying to be popular.

No sooner had his disciple Peter acknowledged to him that Jesus was indeed the longed-for Messiah, Jesus told him about the way of the cross, the way of sacrifice: of laying down your life for others.  Those who want to be like him are to be like him in this.  Those who want to proclaim Jesus will have no hope if they are trying to impress.  I can’t see how trying to be hip will ever win anyone for Christ.  It’s almost pointing people in exactly the opposite direction…

Do you remember the song “Jesus was way cool” by King Missile?  I think it missed the point.

So I’m wondering if relevance is about connecting and communicating with people, whereas coolness is about impressing them.  No wonder I feel so weird about the whole idea of coolness in the first place.

What do you think?

My view is that if traditional hymns are to be sung traditionally, then they need traditional orchestration and instrumentation. You need an organ or a choir or a range of orchestral instruments, or some combination of the above. This is because they usually have a harmonic structure that lends themselves to these kinds of sounds.

In particular, there are usually 4 parts written out: the melody itself, the bass line, plus an alto and tenor line which harmonises with both of the other lines. This means that an alto in a choir is able to sing quite an interesting line of music with melodic movement, which is sympathetic with the lines that the basses, tenors and sopranos are singing. The same is true for a viola line or a trumpet part – the parts working together CREATE the harmonic movement, and therefore considerable musical interest. The chords flow out of the parts; they do not dictate the parts.

In contrast, in contemporary music (thinking especially of the rock/pop idiom that so much contemporary congregational worship music represents), it’s all about the chords, not the parts. The chords dictate any parts that the members of the band may play.

So therefore I believe that playing traditional songs with a band cannot be done properly without either making a mess or making some changes!

Here’s what I mean. Many of our contemporary song books such as The Source or Songs of Fellowship retain the traditional choral parts of the old hymns, but place chord symbols above the stave at the points where the harmonies imply a changed chord. This is indeed helpful in the situation where a church band consists of perhaps a guitar player (who needs the chords) and a classically trained pianist (who needs all the parts). Other instruments can easily be added, such as bass, which would also follow the guitar chords, or singers, strings players, horn players etc, who would be able to play one of the written parts.

Theoretically, this is fantastic. It can allow our church music to be inclusive of a wide range of musicians, regardless of the type of instrument they play. Traditional instruments can be blended together with contemporary instruments.

The problem is that, musically-speaking, it’s a recipe for a great big mess. Rather than parts being clearly heard and implying chordal changes, they are competing with the instruments (like guitars and synths) that pound out the chords. Worse, if a bass player cannot read the musical notes and simply plays the chords, there will be a monumental clash with any other instrument playing the bass line, such as an organ/piano, cello, or trombone. There is no subtlety left, unless something is done to reduce the competition between the different types of instruments.

Styles have developed throughout the history of music, and have often happened because of happy accidents. However, this is an unhappy accident! In an effort to maintain the use of hymns in an era where organs and choirs have given way to bands, we’ve come up with not a new style, but a rejection of stylistic distinctives, and therefore a problem for our listeners: it just doesn’t sound that good.

Perhaps you may say that you’ve heard bands just playing the traditional chords with the other instruments stripped away? I certainly have. The problem with this is that rather than the sweet lyrical interaction of harmonising melody lines, you’ve got the “clunk, clunk, clunk” of continually changing chords. The hymns weren’t meant to be played like that. The effect is that old hymns are made to sound more pompous than they need to sound.

I think we have a choice of two ways to approach the old hymns. Either do them with traditional arrangements and therefore also traditional instrumentation, or change the harmonic structure to fit the contemporary band. In my music ministry, I do both. 2 of our weekly services have a traditional feel to them. I have maintained the pipe organ as the main accompanying instrument, but added a range of other instruments to the rosters. We have a strings group that has 8 players and plays once per month. We also have a small once-a-month choir. I am working at pulling together some brass to make an additional group. The congregations love this kind of variety, and it really allows the old hymns to flourish in the way in which they were intended.

However at our other 3 services each week, there is a contemporary feel. We still want to do the old hymns because they are often very singable, connect us with our spiritual ancestors, and so passionately and richly express the wonders of our life in Christ together. So we do them with contemporary arrangements. For the lovers of the old harmonisations (a group which includes myself), this can be quite confronting, because it sounds a bit different. But if the arrangements are done well – in particular if the chord progression chosen properly SERVES the melody it is written to – it can revitalise an old melody.

I think the best thing about coming up with good new arrangements of hymns is that it allows a very wide range of age groups to sing the same songs. That is no small benefit.

Many churches have been torn apart over music, and it is undoubtedly the work of Satan, causing us to be more pre-occupied with the little stuff than the big stuff. Nevertheless, not every discussion about these things should be labelled the work of the Devil! Music raises many closely held opinions and feelings, and we must all listen to each other. Just because I have made these decisions for my own music ministries doesn’t mean that I’ll never change my mind or my approach. I must be humble, but also act with conviction.

At Men’s Convention we did 5 old hymns to my own new arrangements. Some of them worked better than others. The most striking thing was that we had some people asking us for the arrangements, and we had other people saying that the treatment of the old hymns was disappointing (putting it nicely!). Here I have tried to express some of the reasons why our music group took the approach we did. One thing that I do take great comfort from, however, is that on average these older songs produced a much higher volume level from the crowd than much of the more contemporary stuff! We need to keep balancing our music programs with old and new material to ensure we’re connecting with our various generations. But we really should be looking at ways of making these old hymns continue to have relevance in our churches today.

For your interest, the hymns we rearranged and played at MKC 2010 were:

1. It is well with my soul
2. Amazing Grace (using Chris Tomlin’s recent re-arrangement)
3. Be thou my vision
4. Holy holy holy
5. Guide me O thou great Jehovah
6. Stand up, stand up for Jesus

Hillsong Church has been doing amazing things in the world of Christian praise and worship music for decades. Who am I to talk about the maturing of a church who has put as much effort as they have into the ministry of music, connecting with so many people in our generation who have remained untouched by mainstream churches?

But the fact remains: I have to say that the most recent album Faith + Hope + Love from Hillsong shows signs of a bright new focus. It’s as if (as we’d expect from any professing Christians) they’ve taken on board critiques, and asked themselves, “What actually do we stand for, and what are we prepared to let go of?”

I have at times joined the chorus of complaint. Rarely have my complaints focussed on musical issues. Every Hillsong DVD has taught me something new to help me in my own music ministry, and I have often picked one or two songs from each of their albums for us to do in our church in Adelaide.

Nor have I ever been able to point the finger at anyone but myself and our own traditions when it comes to the enthusiasm of their congregations and the praise leaders on the Hillsong stage. Sure, there are significant differences in our church backgrounds, but we all know that God calls us all to love him with all of our heart, soul, mind and strength.

For me, the biggest area of frustration with Hillsong albums thus far has been the emphasis of many of their songs not so much on God himself, but on the worshipper.

This is a somewhat subjective judgement in an area where balance for any church is hard to maintain. It’s not just as simple as removing the word “I” from your songs. The Psalms regularly use that little word, and there’s no point us trying to outdo them in correctness.

However, from the Psalms we learn that God is the centre of everything. Every personal statement, reflection or intention in the psalms is a response to the character and works of the almighty, merciful God. This response in the Psalms is always generously supported by lashings of awe-filling descriptions of God and reminders of his promises.

The overwhelming sense I had listening through the songs on Faith + Hope + Love is that they sound so much like the Bible. The songs are full of praise of God. The word “you” is sung over and over with passion, sincerity, and truthfulness. A wide range of biblical ideas and themes is there for our encouragement, including the overall theme of faith, hope and love from 1 Cor 13.

Lyrically, my favourite song on the album is “His glory appears”, by Marty Sampson and Darlene Zschech. It shows a balance of simplicity and life-giving theology.

You gave me hope, you made me whole at the cross
You took my place, you showed me grace at the cross
Where you died for me.
And his glory appears, like the light from the sun
Age to age he shines, look to the skies, hear the angels’ cry
Singing holy is the Lord.

In general, the singing of the congregation seems to be a higher priority on this DVD than previously. A number of the arrangements are stripped back to make the unamplified voices the priority, the mix generally picks up the congregation, and often the song leaders actually step away from the microphones to hear the sound of the crowd. This is a good thing! It is after all meant to be led praise, rather than watched praise.

And this, of course, raises the question of the extremely high production and performance values, and whether these things are a distraction. However, I really think they’ve done well to engage 10,000 people. The reality is that interaction for a crowd of that size is a different ballgame from your average 200 or so in a church building. At the Sydney Entertainment Centre, I’d imagine that involving the crowd just would not be possible without some degree of animated performance from the front. In the end, the true motivations of any of us ministering in front of a crowd are known best by our heavenly Father.

Perhaps there are various critiques we could make of this album. I’m sure the production team themselves would have a list of things they’d do differently next time. However I feel that this is a time to acknowledge some really good things.

I do wonder whether at times we find ourselves looking on with jealousy at Hillsong’s successes and writing our own mental lists of the things they’re not doing right, perhaps even to help us to feel better about our own more modest successes. But a more godly approach is for us to pray for them. And I believe some of my own prayers of the last couple of years are being answered.

Will you join with me in continuing to pray for our brothers and sisters at Hillsong and in other high profile churches? May God prosper their ministry and our fellowship together in the gospel!

In that sense, I am not too fussed about eyes closed, hands clapping or in the air. I’m much more interested in the person displaying an overall appearance that is convincing! (eg smiles in songs of joy, reflective looks in reflective songs etc). A parallel example might be leading the congregation in prayer, where your own physical approach to prayer will help people in their prayer. Some do it with eyes open, others with eyes closed.

The second thing that’s going on for songleaders though is a communication with the congregation. Not only are we expecting them to copy us, but we’re also deliberately trying to get a message across to people. Music is a ministry of proclaiming the word, in a similar but not identical way to preaching, or bible reading. I reckon that in this aspect of the role we benefit from eyes open, since it’s hard to communicate to someone in front of you when your eyes are closed. I do sometimes find it difficult when I’m in a congregation to engage with the song leaders if they’re closing their eyes to me.

To make the point another way, another important aspect of our corporate worship is the actual focus on our togetherness. In our awareness and engaging with each other, we build one another up in the truths of the gospel. When we do this, God is worshipped, a point that the New Testament makes very clear (eg the sheep and the goats story in Matt 25, where in serving Jesus’ brothers, you are serving Jesus himself).

My own practice is that my eyes will be open and shut at different times when I sing, depending on the situation. If I’m doing an item, especially one that is personal and individual, often I’ll sing with my eyes shut, but never for the whole song, because I still feel that there’s a communication element to it. Most congregational songs I’ll have my eyes open for the majority of it, but at times when I’m particularly aware of God’s interest in me personally, my eyes will shut for parts of it.

At my own church, I don’t tend to make rules about what people can and can’t do. This seems to me to be unnecessary and can I think smother the ministry of music! We try to think about what we’re actually doing when we lead singing, and leave it to individual songleaders to make up their minds.

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!

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.

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.

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).

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.