Oh, Joy.

I have to remember to change my car presets today and remove 99.1 as one of them. I'm not sure with what I'll replace it. It won't be JOY.
I'm not sure which is more bothersome: losing classical music or gaining CCM (contemporary Christian music). Perhaps it is losing one to gain the other.
I would not agree that the assesment of "JOY's Listeners as enemies of high culture--champions of derviative, evangelical schmaltz who killed off Brahms to win souls in St. Louis County." They didn't really kill classical. They seized an opportunity. That's business. In an era of arts-cuts, this is symptomatic of a different ailment, but that's another topic. Regardless, the classical station in the Gateway City will cease broadcasting tonight c. 10pm.
As for JOY winning souls, who knows? Their poster misquotes Joshua 6:16--gaining a radio station is not tantamount to the taking of Jericho. The article indicates people who call in and say their life has changed by listening. How permanent of a change are we talking here? Which soil, so to speak? Those who hear the word and receive it with joy and then fall away when trials come, or good soil? We can't say how the Holy Spirit works, but who's to say that Classic 99 didn't bring souls to Christ with some of their programs? Why does it have to be CCM?
As for people not wanting "to hear dirty lyrics when they get in the car with their kids;" sure, they lyrics aren't dirty, but do you really listen to the lyrics? There isn't much about Jesus there either. Come to think of it, the only Christian band I really listen to has the d-word in their lyrics. Their message about Jesus is quite explicit, too. Classic 99 music didn't have dirty lyrics either, as I recall. Why do we want to swap advanced music for CCM? The article is clear that the target audience is the same as those who listen to soft rock. I heard a snippet of CCM the other day as I was traveling. It sounded exactly like soft rock. I can hardly take soft rock for too long on a good day; to add ego-centered lyrics under the guise of being Christian is hardly tolerable. And I fit the demographic of JOY!
The whole premise bothers me. CCM is like undercooked hot dogs. Might be nourishing, but more often than not will make one ill. Christianity is all about Jesus. They say a Christian radio station is "more of a Christian community than entertainment," and they're "not church, but. . .a daily connection you don't get in church." Thanks. I'll take my church with Jesus as the focus, you can keep your praise choruses. . .we love you, so much for what you've done for us. . .what was that, exactly?
As a Post Script, buried in the article were two interesting comments: "The Lutheran Church has its own mission, and that's not classical music," and "We were told in our first meeting with KFUO, 'We're only going to sell if we get top dollar.' " In the words of Uncle Marty, what does this mean?

How Great?

The opening ponderance on God (sometimes it’s called worship, sometimes devotion) is fairly typical at most Lutheran teacher gatherings. Sometimes the style is “blended”, but more often than not it is “contemporary”. Today I was somewhat surprised, as it was “blended” as opposed to the out-and-out contemporary I expected. It was a pastor and a man with a guitar. We first sang a hymn, next we sang a praise song.
After being taught the song, which was singable enough (most praise songs tend to be singable if the leader sings it properly—just don’t try to actually count out the rhythm unless you are really good at counting sixteenth notes and dotted quarter rests), but the words left me with one question: Why?
The refrain was as follows:
How great is our God!
Sing with me how great is our God
And all will see how great
How great is our God.
The text of the song did have some nice, poetic imagery which somewhat echoed the imagery of the Psalms. The last verse, surprisingly, referenced the Father, Spirit, and Son (in that order to get the rhyme scheme correct). What was never there was an explanation.
Nobody ever explained to me during middle school that when one makes an argument, one has to have support. This was a challenge in further writing classes when I made a claim and the teacher would write on my essay, Why? It also became an issue during high school geometry while trying to write proofs. I knew the answer; I just couldn’t explain why. Let’s not even mention the high school philosophy final consisting of that one question: Why?
These days I try to teach my students to give support—solid, strong supports based on facts. So why on earth can praise song writers not be expected to do the same?
If our God is so great and we want to sing so that all can see how great our God is, shouldn’t the song mention more than just a description of God as Father, Spirit, and Son? Even the Psalmists gave reasons for God being great: “It is he that made us, not we ourselves” (Ps 100); “God is our refuge and our strength, a very present help in trouble” (Ps 43). Psalm 23 gives specific examples of how the Lord is our Shepherd.
Studies of self-esteem building show that children who are constantly bombarded with general praise will either have a false, inflated sense of self; or they will stop believing adults when they praise the children. Most authorities encourage specific praise. You did a great job when. . .
So why should songs explaining how great God is be exempt? No, God won’t get an inflated ego or become disillusioned with praise; it’s just that historically Lutheran singing has been used didactically (if that’s even a word).
If you want to tell someone how great God is, be specific. He created the universe by speaking. That’s great! He led the Israelites out of Egypt with signs and wonders. That’s great! He fulfilled the Law and Prophets and still died in our place for our punishment. That’s great (even if it seems weird to the uninitiated)! He gives us His Word and sacraments. That’s great!
If the point one is trying to make is completely missed, then I ask: What’s the point?

For Your Amusement

Stop by The Wittenburg Door for an amusing take on CCM. Warning: If you lack a sense of humor, skip it.
The only thing missing is the key change!

Worship Skirmishes

It's not eavesdropping if they are talking in your office, full voice, two feet from your desk, is it? Today it was a conversation about our church's "blended" worship service. One party of the conversation, our church music director, is still convinced that it is a "contemporary" service, though our bulletin says otherwise. Okay, whatever, I'm not going to quibble about nomenclature there. Coming up is our single service Sunday where we have one church service instead of two and the style flip-flops between "traditional" and "blended". Apparently part of the flap was that the pastor told the music director to pick songs the people know which led to this soundbite about "quasi contemporary songs so as not to offend." It was at this point I feigned busyness. The music director then asserted that "you can't have it both ways," to which I whole-heartedly agree. The second party of the conversation also agreed and stated that they personally did not like the "contemporary" style, but said that as long as it is sound, the church should give the people what they want.
Uh huh. . . Then people wonder what's wrong with this picture in the church today.
Problem one: If you're going to do it, do it wholeheartedly, not half-baked. Just call yourself whatever that is. I'm here to say it ain't Lutheran.
Problem two: Even quasi-contemporary songs offend when they are not Christ-centered and have a theology of glory. Not to mention they're poorly written. I can say this from a musical standpoint. They have difficult, syncopated rhythms (most people had difficulty with a straight rhythm, let alone syncopated), they follow the same formula--verse, refrain, verse, refrain, repeat refrain, bridge, key change, refrain again--you get the idea, and they could be sung about a generic god, Jesus, Allah, yourself, your boy/girlfriend. They sound fun and say nothing.
Problem three: It's not about you, it's about Jesus for you. (Yes, I stole that from Issues, Etc.) It's not about what you want in worship but what gifts God gives in worship. We say back to God what He says to us. You can't boost your self-esteem to channel positive feelings and confess you are a "poor, miserable sinner" at the same time. You can't look for health, wealth and prosperity concurrently with taking up your cross. The theology of glory cannot coexist with the theology of the cross.
No, I will agree with them on that point--you can't have it both ways.