ARTICLE #1: The Divine Service and Our Role In It

What happens in many of our Lutheran churches today can hardly be called The Divine Service. In many cases, it is a hodge-podge of the pastor’s and/or “worship leaders’” ideas of what will appeal to the most people – sometimes a combination of “traditional” for the old folks and “contemporary” for the young folks, but hardly ever The Divine Service as it has been prescribed and laid out for us by our governing church body as well as hundreds of years of traditional worship practice that was Biblically-based, Church Year-based, well thought out, linear in nature, substantive, respectful, sacrificial and God-centered.

The Divine Service is, first and foremost, where God “serves” His people in Word and Sacrament. What, then, is our role in it? I believe what God gives us the opportunity to do in The Divine Service is use the artistic gifts He has given us to contribute to the appropriate environment in which His service to us can take place. Artistic offerings, you might say. Think about it. A worship service of any nature is a collection of artistic endeavors: music, architecture, fine art, creative writing, public speaking, oral interpretation, etc. And what does the Bible say about our offerings?

We obligate ourselves to bring the first fruits of our ground and the first fruits of all fruit of every tree, year by year, to the house of the Lord… Nehemiah 10:35.

First fruits. Not what is left over. Not what is easy, convenient, popular or cheap. Anton Armstrong, the director of the famous St. Olaf choir says, “When we come to worship, we don’t bring the skinny calf.” Instead, we should do those artistic things that are the most difficult. We should do those artistic things that require the most time, effort and resources. We should try to catch artistic excellence by chasing artistic perfection. We should do those artistic things that are objectively good and not subjectively good.

What does that mean? In the Old Testament, the idea of an offering meant that God received the best. God didn’t get the runt of the flock, but the best a person had to offer. God didn’t get the rotten fruit that fell off the tree after the harvest, but the finest of the fruit that was picked first. That practice was obviously sacrificial and therefore objectively good. It was easy to identify. No arguments there. Today, everything is subjective to every individual person’s taste and preference (“I like that kind of music, so let’s put some religious lyrics to it and use it in church.”). Well, just because you like a painting of dogs playing poker on black velvet doesn’t make it good art. Just because loud, poorly played three-chord rock and roll moves you doesn’t make it an appropriate offering. What you like doesn’t matter because it’s not about you. What we offer to God should reflect the excellence of the sacrifice He made for us, not what is convenient for us to give Him.

So don’t try to make what happens in church look, feel or sound like what happens outside of church. When you step across the threshold into God’s house, let it truly be a sanctuary from the world, a place where the artistic bar is raised all the way to Heaven. The Divine Service is ready for you, already formed and shaped by thousands of talented, faithful people of God over centuries of time. It is constantly evolving and being refreshed, but it hasn’t lost its substance. It has artistic excellence already built in. Why not use the best tools we have been given?

– Mark Alan Howard

• Back to Home Page

ARTICLE #2 The Sermon Series vs. The Church Year

Where has the Church Year gone? How is it that many pastors these days think it is more meaningful to string together a hodge-podge of thematic sermons every three to five Sundays throughout the year instead of taking their congregations on the journey of Christ’s incarnation, birth, life, suffering, death, resurrection and the birth of His Church?

Obviously, from the way I have presented these questions, it should be clear where I stand on this issue. I have been thoroughly annoyed with a pastor who stubbornly insisted that his sermon series on the Book of James not be interrupted by something so insignificant as, well, Lent. “Was this a Sunday in Lent or not?” I asked myself as I left church that day. Seriously, I wouldn’t have known. Although Sundays are not included in the 40 days of Lent (therefore “in Lent” not “of Lent”), Lent does mean something. All the aspects of Jesus’ life mean something to us today.

The Church Year (also referred to as The Christian Year or The Liturgical Year) enriches the variety and meaning of our worship. It’s another example of something well thought out, linear in nature (one part leads to the next), artistically excellent and time-tested that has been summarily dismissed as boring or repetitive by many in today’s churches.

In truth, it is the opposite. The Rev. Dr. Mark D. Roberts describes the Church Year like this: “We begin in the rising plain of Advent, which leads us to the top of the celebrative pinnacle of Christmas. Then, after a month of travel through the fertile grasslands of “ordinary time,” we enter the parched desert of Lent in which our thirst for God is magnified. Holy Week guides us through the tortuous geography

of Jesus’ last week, culminating in the dark cave of Holy Saturday. On Easter morning, the sun breaks forth with glorious light, and we are filled with awe as we gaze upon the towering mountain of God’s victory over death. Throughout the season of Eastertide, the world seems brighter, more alive than ever before.

At Pentecost, we remember the our fellow travelers and refuel to continue on through the rolling hills of ordinary time, until we return to where we began at the start of Advent.”

This is hardly boring or uninteresting. It quenches our thirst for substance. It takes us along on Christ’s journey to redeem us from our sin. Even during the two occurrences of Ordinary Time where is not a special day or season (the day after Epiphany until the day before Lent and again after Pentecost extending until the day before Advent) there is great meaning and great Biblical themes set out for us in the Lectionary.

Following the Church Year is not a matter of biblical rule. However, the experience of countless believers throughout the centuries should at least encourage us to consider shaping our worship life as well as our everyday life around Christ’s redemptive work according to the themes and narratives of Scripture.

The Sermon Series vs. The Church Year? No contest!

– Mark Alan Howard

• Back to Home Page

ARTICLE #3: Screens in Church

Much of my professional career outside of church in the last 40+ years has been involved in multimedia production and staging. I have created hundreds of PowerPoint and video programs that have ended up being projected onto screens for large audiences. I understand the process. I know the benefits. I speak the language.

Why, then, am I so repulsed by digital content being projected onto screens in today’s worship services? Why do I want to walk out immediately upon seeing a screen hanging down or mounted somewhere towards the front of the sanctuary?

I have done a considerable amount of research on this subject and have heard all the justifications. I still think it’s inappropriate.

And, by the way, “because everyone does it’” “because people today experience information better when it’s visual” (worship is not the dissemination of information), “because older folks find it difficult to hold heavy hymnals or service folders,” “because it’s what people are used to outside of church” (inside of church should be different than outside), “because the church should get with the times,” etc., are weak and NOT legitimate reasons in my view.

Being as concise as I can be, here are some of my objections (in full disclosure, some of these points come from other articles I have read on the subject):

• I object to anything in a worship service that is 100% about the worshippers’

comfort or convenience (where has sacrificial worship gone?)

• Screens, especially huge ones, are a violation of the worship space, whether

your church was built a hundred years ago or last week

ARTICLE #4: Objective and Subjective

Throughout this website, I have used the terms good, right and salutary as words that, I believe, should define the roles we play in the Divine Service to create a proper environment for God to serve us in Word and Sacrament. In this article, I want to focus on the first word, good, or more precisely, excellent. See the Biblical references below.

• Honor the Lord with your wealth and with the first fruits of all your produce.

Proverbs 3:9.

• When anyone brings a grain offering as an offering to the Lord, his offering shall

be of fine flour. He shall pour oil on it and put frankincense on it… Leviticus 2:1

• If his offering is a sacrifice of peace offering, if he offers an animal from the herd,

male or female, he shall offer it without blemish before the Lord. Leviticus 3:1

• And you shall make its plates and dishes for incense, and its flagons and bowls

with which to pour drink offerings; you shall make them of pure gold. Exodus

25:29

The inference is clear. Bring your best stuff! Bring offerings that are excellent! But who decides what is excellent? And how should we measure excellence? Because an artistic expression refers to God, it doesn't necessarily make it artistically excellent. There is plenty of music and art about God that is less than excellent,

in fact, just downright bad.

When I refer to artistic excellence in worship, the reference points I want to talk about are: subjectively excellent vs. objectively excellent. Objective and subjective are two quite commonly used adjectives, with meanings that can easily be confused, even though the two words are antonyms of each other.

Subjective is an adjective, meaning an evaluation based on or influenced by personal taste, experiences, feelings or emotions. Objective is an adjective, meaning an evaluation not based on or influenced by personal taste, experiences, feelings or emotions, but hard, unbiased, factual evidence. This is still debated by philosophers, but let’s simplify it by saying subjective has to do with biased (personal) evaluations and objective has to do with unbiased observations and qualified opinions.

Too often in the church, we evaluate artistic expression by saying things like, "It's good because I like it," or "It's good because it inspires me," or "It's good because it lifts me up." These are subjective opinions based on personal tastes and/or experiences. But, because you like something doesn't necessarily make it good, and if you don't like something doesn't necessarily make it bad. I'm not a fan of opera. But objectively, I must acknowledge that opera is good art, one of the highest forms of art.

There are various artistic expressions within the Divine Service, and I believe they should strive to be, from an objective standpoint, offerings of the highest quality possible – our finest, not what is easy, cheap, convenient or popular. I believe that objective excellence should be the ruler we hold up to any form of art we experience in the Divine Service. And if certain artistic expressions don't measure up, bring better art.

Doesn't God deserve our best?

– Mark Alan Howard

• Back to Home Page

ARTICLE #5: Art and Ego

Within the context of this blog site, it should be clear that the art I'm referring to is that which is created for a worship setting. That is also why, as one who has been involved in creative endeavors for church services, specifically music, I have always struggled with my need for recognition and praise for what I have artistically accomplished, aka "ego."

One definition of ego has to do with being self-centered. We get the term "narcissism" from the Greek myth of Narcissus who fell in love with his own reflection. We sometimes describe narcissists as having "big" egos. Are all artists narcissists? Shouldn't art for God be sacrificial and not narcissistic? Shouldn't art for worship point to God and not ourselves? Can it do both? Is ego a part of our sinful nature? Can we create excellent art without ego?

I have always said, "Show me a preacher who has no ego, and I'll show you a bad preacher." What I mean by that is that one who gets up in front of people must care about the words that he is saying (and hopefully has carefully and artistically written) and how well he is saying them. He should care how he comes across and if people are getting the message he is trying to communicate. He must have pride. Oops! Now there's a word: pride. Is pride different from ego?

When I pray on this subject, I ask God to forgive the ego that seeks glory for myself. But then I also ask Him to use that ego to create excellent art that will give Him glory and edify His people. In other words, I ask God to cause good to come forth from my evil. That may just be my attempt to have those two concepts co-exist – a sort of rationalization. If people who created art for the church over the centuries never had any ego, would that art be any good?

I wouldn't want any artist to stop creating art because they're afraid of allowing sinful ego to infiltrate the process. Sing, write, compose, paint, sculpt, design, preach… and do these things boldly to the best of your ability with the talents and opportunities God has given you. Work hard to do them well.

Don't be dismayed that you want people to like what you do.

Or go ahead and be dismayed, ask for forgiveness and move on.

– Mark Alan Howard

• Back to Home Page

ARTICLE #6: How the CTCs Ruined Parish Music

The Concordia system of colleges has destroyed music in the LCMS. Yes, I said it. Now let me explain. First of all, this happened a long time ago, from around the late 1800’s until the late 1960’s, and it wasn’t intentional. But this effect is still prevalent in LCMS churches today.

During this time period, all the Concordia colleges existed solely to provide full-time teachers for LCMS congregations throughout the country. Thus, every synodical college was a “CTC” or Concordia Teachers College. Teachers called

to congregations were expected, as part of their calls, to fill additional leadership roles such as Sunday school teacher, Bible class teacher, head of committees,

etc. This also included organ playing, choir directing, choir accompanying, school music, and other musical ministries of the parish. All these extra responsibilities in the area of church music may or may not have had small stipends attached. A Concordia education included lessons on the organ and piano, whether you were a music major/minor or not.

I was intimately acquainted with this, as I attended Concordia Teachers College in Seward, Nebraska from 1969 to 1973. During this time, students were beginning to rebel against having all these extra responsibilities added to their calls.

Now, having experienced and been a part of music ministries in LCMS congregations my entire adult life, I have seen the remnants of this long-standing tradition of appropriating school staff or volunteers into church music roles.

The problem? They’re not professional musicians!

Here are some ramifications that I have actually seen in our churches over the years.

• The quality of the music gets “dumbed down.” Many faithful, well-intentioned

servants still come and play notes or wave their hands in the air, but have little

clue how to lead music ministries or choose/produce excellent music..

• Lots of mediocre literature and copyright violations are going on. The classics

are ignored. Bach, Handel, Mozart? Even Schalk, Ferguson, Rutter? Why not just

illegally copy a page out of the Amy Grant songbook? After all, it’s for God.

• There is little or no desire to become a better musician. Music is an art that

constantly needs to be elevated. Practice? Why should I practice when I can

play anything? (Yeah, but not very well.)

• The default is often whatever is easiest and cheapest. A couple of folks

strumming guitars and bleating “jesusy” pop songs into microphones is OK, isn’t

it? Maybe a drum kit? This is lazy and lowest common denominator stuff.

• LCMS Churches do not budget to hire professional musicians. This is a tragedy.

When you can get your music cheap from the teaching staff or even volunteers

from the congregation, why make it a financial priority?

• Congregations don’t know how to get serious about music. Where do we go?

Who do we talk to? The synodical colleges? Nope. Scant few excellent

musicians coming from there these days (too much emphasis on pop music.

Most LCMS congregations are blissfully content in their music mediocrity. These are good and faithful servants, and I wouldn’t disparage their ministries. They’re just not musicians. We should do better. First fruits, remember?

– Mark Alan Howard

• Back to Home Page

ARTICLE #7: An Open Letter From a Millennial

Dear Church, here are a few things that might just work with some of us. They may seem crazy. They may contradict everything you’ve heard. But, as one of these millennials, this is what would work for me, and for a lot of the people I know who have left the church.

Don’t expect a “worship style” to do your dirty work. Contemporary worship hasn’t worked. The longer we extend the life of this failed experiment, the more we see the results. In my experience, contemporary worship brings in three groups. Baby boomers who are still stuck in their rebellion against the establishment, parents who mistakenly think that contemporary worship is the only way for their kids to connect to the church, and a small percentage of young adults who’ve never left and who never knew anything other than contemporary worship.

In modeling worship after commercial entertainment, you’ve compromised your identity, and we’re still not coming back. And even if we did, would there be any church left? Would there be anything beyond the frills, the lights, the performance, the affected vocals? Would we still see a cross? Would we still find our place among the saints who have come before? Would we find reminders of our life-long need of grace? Or would we have been hooked by something altogether different? Would we merely find your answer key for the great mystery of faith?

Don’t give us entertainment, give us liturgy. We don’t want to be entertained in church, and frankly, the church’s attempt at entertainment is pathetic. Enough with the theatrics. Enough with the lights, the visuals, the booming audio, the fog machine, the giveaway gimmicks, the whole production. Follow that simple yet profound formula that’s worked for the entire history of the church. Entrance, proclamation, thanksgiving, sending out. Gathering, preaching, breaking bread, going forth in service. Give us a script to follow, give us songs to sing, give us the

tradition of the church, give us Holy Scripture to read. Give us sacraments, not life groups, to grow and strengthen us. Week after week, season after season, year after year, let us participate in the drama of the gospel. It’s not supposed to be fun. It’s not supposed to produce intense emotional response. It’s a microcosmic, disciplined, anticipatory remembrance of who we were, who we are, and who we are to be.

We need this. We need these heartfelt rituals in our lives to keep us returning to the fount of grace, to mark our way back home. Be yourself, Church, and you just might shake us out of our technology-induced, entertainment-craving slumber. Keep giving us “Jesusy” versions of mainstream entertainment, and there’s no hope. You can’t compete. You’ll lose every time.

– From the Blog Ponder Anew by Jonathan Aigner

• Back to Home Page

ARTICLE #8: Worship Is Not Evangelism

Worship is not evangelism. Worship is what we say to God, not what we say to each other. Worship forms us as evangelists, but it is a great error of the “seeker-sensitive” service idea to think that in worship we are addressing other people.

We are told that we must make worship interesting and exciting for the unconverted so that they will come to church and be converted. At first glance that argument is very appealing. We all want to see many brought to faith in Christ. Who wants to be against evangelism? But we must remember: entertainment is not evangelism, and evangelism is not worship. People are evangelized, not by a juggler, but by the presentation of the Gospel. And while evangelism may occur in worship as the Gospel is faithfully proclaimed, the purpose and focus of worship is that those who believe in Christ should gather and meet with God.

In 1 Corinthians 14:24-25 the apostle Paul comments on the presence of an unbeliever in a worship service. He does not call for the church to entertain the unbeliever or make him feel comfortable. Rather, in the clear and understandable articulation of the truth, the unbeliever should be convinced that he is a sinner.

“So he will fall down and worship God, exclaiming, ‘God is really among you!’” Faithful worship, where the primary purpose is the meeting of God with his people through his Word, may well have the secondary result that unbelievers will come to faith. But worship must not be constructed for the unbeliever. Rather, it is for God and the church.

The purpose of the corporate worship service is always vertical or God-wards. From this perspective, no worship can ever be evangelistic, since evangelism is people-centered, and worship is God-centered. In other words, any “worship” which has an evangelistic focus cannot be a worship service at all because it would be directed at the unregenerate sinner and his need to accept Christ. It could be classified as a revival meeting or a crusade but not worship.

Worship is the language of love and growth between believers and God; evangelism is the language of introduction between those who believe and those who don’t. To confuse the two and put on worship the burden of evangelism robs the people of God of their responsibility to care about the neighbor, defrauds the believers of transforming depth, and steals from God the profound praise of which He is worthy. Furthermore, the distinction is not total, for if believers worship with gladness and passion, anyone not yet a part of the community certainly will be attracted to the One who is the object of their worship. But to focus the worship on evangelistic introduction deprives believers of deeper nurturing toward Church being and deprives God of the intimate and involved worship due him from the Church.

Glorifying God by our worship must be our goal, our highest priority. (I Cor. 10:31)

It sounds elementary, but the purpose of our corporate worship service is for our congregation to worship God. Evangelism, though important, is secondary. Bringing people in by our worship service is the highest goal in man-centered worship. Though this seems like a noble goal, it must not be our highest goal. When worship is turned into an evangelistic tool, both worship and evangelism suffer.

– Source: Unknown

• Back to Home Page

ARTICLE #9: Attracting Young People Into Church

You hear a lot these days about making the liturgy accessible and attractive to young people. I much prefer to think in terms of making the practice of Christianity attractive to young people.

I doubt if introducing the culture of popular music into liturgy has any long-term effect. It has a novelty value which quickly wears off and cannot last. In a way it’s very patronizing to the young to be told by older people that they should introduce their own culture into worship. The young know what to expect in liturgy – let them find their own way.

It seems to me that different types of music happen in different places. You wouldn’t want to hear Palestrina in a disco, or Victoria on a military parade ground! Similarly it’s questionable if people really want to hear pop music in church.

You need to analyze what liturgy is about. It’s the solemn worship of God in a special place with a distinct and impressive ritual. It leads the mind to God and also to prayer. It has its own special music, music that focuses the mind on the Creator. Is it really necessary to introduce pop culture into the sacred in an attempt to attract the young?

I find today’s young people to be perceptive and intelligent. These qualities lead people to see through the “dumbing down” of worship and this leads to a rejection of its message. For years we’ve been trying to make liturgical music attractive but there’s little increase in the numbers of the young attending – quite the reverse, in fact.

The way to attract young people to Christianity is to give them an example of Christian living. Let them see “loving your neighbor” in action, let them see the joy of Christianity and the happiness of the committed Christian. Let them see St. Paul’s wonderful chapter on love being put into effect. This is far more attractive than popular music or gimmickry.

There’s a great deal of excellent contemporary church music which must find a place in worship. Those who say that there isn’t deny the working of the Holy Spirit. I cannot believe that the third member of the Trinity has been on holiday for forty years!

The important thing is to ensure that standards of musical performance within the liturgy are high. All forms of music should be available within the liturgy but it must be liturgical music, not the thinly disguised secular. Young people love the spirituality of genuine liturgical music when they hear it, we must ensure that it is always available to those who want it.

– Colin Mawby K.S.G. (From Vivace! 054 May 2008)

• Back to Home Page

ARTICLE #10: Five Reasons to Kill “Christian Music”

We should stop making Christian music. Here’s 5 of 100 reasons why:

1. Writing a “Christian” song reduces Christianity to a modifying adjective.

The creation of the Christian genre deems Christianity as equitable with any other genre. Our earth-shaking, intellectual and faithful assent to the incarnation, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is degraded into a choice amongst equally labeled choices: “R&B,” “Rock/Pop,” “Christian,” “Soundtrack.” A Christian genre insinuates that Christianity is the modification of a pre-existing reality. But Christianity is reality. Christianity is the poetic expression of reality as experienced by the Christian, not the expression of Christianity forced into poetry. If we are going to sing that “Jesus Saves” it should not be because we are writing a Christian song, but because Jesus really does save, and we are writing a good song. In short, we should not write “Christian” music at all. We should be Christians and make incredible, authentic music.

2. Music is already Christian.

We cannot actively attempt the creation of something beautiful without reference to Beauty itself, who is God. We cannot sing something true without reference to Truth itself, who is God. Music is a creation unique to those made in the image and likeness of God. To sing is to praise the God who distinguishes us from all things songless. All music amounts to pitiful attempts at Beauty, and Beauty is God.

3. “If you label me you negate me.”

Kierkegaard’s words are vindicated by the Christian music world. By our insistence upon Christianity-as-genre we’ve effectively carved out a ghetto for music about Jesus. We have Christian radio stations, record labels, and Christian music sound.

ARTICLE #11: On Convenience in Worship

It costs me nothing. Nothing. This worship that I offer up to my Savior, it costs me nothing. My worship is convenient and comfortable. My worship happens when and where I want it. David says "I will not offer up sacrifices that cost me nothing," (1 Chronicles 21:24) but I say, "I will offer up sacrifices that won't hurt too much and that make me feel good." As a church we have said to our Holy God that we will worship and love him when it is convenient. Am I the only one that is drowning in comfort? Am I the only one who sees that worship should be so much more?

I am a firm believer that we should welcome everyone into our churches. I believe that people are drawn to friendly and engaging environments. When it comes to worship though, I just don't see how to water it down and make it comfortable anymore. Instead of watering down our worship for the comfort of someone, maybe we should challenge that someone to go deeper in worship. We serve and worship a God that is not comfortable. Why then should we worship him comfortably?

Americans love convenience. From microwaves to pizza delivery, from cell phones to high-speed Internet, from drive-through funeral viewings to drive-in churches, Americans make no bones about their love of convenience. And convenience is certainly nice. But some things just aren’t convenient. And to make them so is to make them into something they’re not.

Jeroboam is a case study in convenience misapplied. After receiving headship of the northern ten tribes, Scripture tells us that he grew concerned that his new subjects might not remain loyal to him. He feared that their frequent visits to Jerusalem to worship might foster a renewed affection for their former master.

This, in turn, could result in his execution. Something had to be done (or so he thought). Jeroboam’s actions are instructive. He adopted a pernicious plan that unashamedly played on the people’s love of convenience:

ARTICLE #12: A Word to Hymn Writers

“Come Down, O Love Divine”

Text: Bianco De Siena; Music: Ralph Vaughn Williams

Come down, O love divine, seek Thou this soul of mine,

And visit it with Thine own ardor glowing.

O Comforter, draw near, within my heart appear,

And kindle it, Thy holy flame bestowing.

O let it freely burn, till earthly passions turn

To dust and ashes in its heat consuming;

And let Thy glorious light shine ever on my sight,

And clothe me round, the while my path illuming.

Let holy charity mine outward vesture be,

And lowliness become mine inner clothing;

True lowliness of heart, which takes the humbler part,

And o’er its own shortcomings weeps with loathing.

And so the yearning strong, with which the soul will long,

Shall far out-pass the power of human telling;

For none can guess its grace, till he become the place

Wherein the Holy Spirit makes His dwelling.

I’m drawn to the specificity of this hymn. It’s about something. It’s about a specific event in the Christian narrative. The humble stance, the plaintive tone; it’s a perfect hymn about God pouring out his Holy Spirit on a contrite heart that’s found redemption through Jesus Christ.

ARTICLE #13: Art in Church: Then and Now

For centuries, the best music, writing, paintings, sculpture, architecture – the ​greatest masterpieces were found in churches. For much of the past two millennia, ​Christians were the ones making the best, most enduring art. During the 13th and ​14th centuries, churches were huge patrons of the arts, purchasing and producing ​tremendous amounts of the finest examples of all forms of art. Making this art ​available to the public helped many people who could not read the scriptures to ​envision the stories and relate to the subjects. In doing this, churches hoped to ​inspire greater devotion to Christianity and arouse more desire for salvation. ​Christian art is historically incredible. The cathedrals of Europe? Dante’s Divine ​Comedy? Handel’s Messiah? These aren’t just important pieces of art but the ​crowning achievement of western civilization.

If you’re looking for the butt of a joke in today’s world, art in Christian churches is an ​easy target – especially music. There are some plausible hypotheses such as an ​overly utilitarian view of art driven by an urgency to get the Christian message out, ​or a tendency for Christians to put more emphasis on placing boundaries than ​exploring beauty. But art isn’t meant to just be a message transmission vehicle. It’s ​meant to be this breathable space, this wide-open arena, where the grandeur and ​the glory of God through His creation, through creativity, is manifest.

And we get that in Genesis 1. After God created, He said that it was good. God ​delights in the beauty of creation, and we, as His image-bearers, should as well.

Regarding music, Michael Gungor, an American singer-songwriter, producer, music ​editor, author, and podcast host says this: “I don’t hate all Christian music. But the ​industry as a whole is broken, friends. We call it Christian, but it’s certainly not ​based in Christianity. It is based on marketing…The point is that the industry that

labels things as Christian and sells them to you has far more to do with marketing ​than Christianity.”

The requirements for music to qualify as “Christian” are creatively limiting. They ​narrow the themes an artist can address and how they can address them. We ​should certainly see the world in light of faith, but art can and should be more ​nuanced than what can be easily marketed because it mentions Jesus a certain ​number of times. If you begin with popular secular music that isn’t good in the first ​place and then try to make it “Christian” by adding lyrics about Jesus, all you have ​is inferior music.

Haley Stewart is the Managing Editor of Word on Fire Catholic Ministries and the ​author of The Grace of Enough, Jane Austen's Genius Guide to Life, and The ​Sister Seraphina Mysteries. She has this to say: “Last night I attended the annual ​Messiah sing-along. We bring our music scores of Handel’s Messiah to a local ​church, we sit in the pews by section, and we sing it. No rehearsal. Just lots of ​voices singing the most glorious piece of music you’ll ever hear. Yes, it was ​written by a Christian. Yes, the libretto is straight Scripture. So, sure, it’s Christian ​music. But did Handel sit down one day and decide, “I’m going to write some ​Christian music.” Or did he think, “I’m going to write something GLORIOUS.” The ​people singing in the pews last night weren’t there because they were Christians ​(many weren’t). They were singing because it’s a beautiful piece of music. It’s so ​glorious that no one could hear it and not be moved by its grandeur, no matter ​their faith.”

So, are we making “Christian” art or are we Christians making good art? And why ​can’t we have excellence in artistic expression in our churches?

– Various Sources

• Back to Home Page