Question:
In a recently closed thread I posted the following:
'I think the "American" church has pretty much figured out that racism is evil . (Churches are still divided by race, and people still hold racist thoughts but at least this is generally recognized as wrong )"Ageism" however, seems to be alive, well, and even encouraged.
Its all about "my generation", no matter what that generation might be. We divide ourselves up into different services and congregations because we can't stand music that's a little older or newer than the age group we fall into.. '
I thought geezerjohn made a very valuable observation:
"It strikes me that far too many Worship Leaders treat anyone over 50 as if they were dead already. Where is the servant's heart? How do we honor our fathers and mothers as the Lord has commanded if we approach the music they love as if they were geezers in desperate need of a muscial tune up?"
And I think (hope) we're all aware that it can flow the other way as well --- no matter which generation is "my generation"
On so many threads in this forum it seems that directly or indirectly "Ageism" or "Style Wars" seems to come up. It is my perception that there are those who are more or less comfortable with slicing up the church by age and musical style and those who are not.
Although in an open forum like this all comments are valued, I'm not as much interested in starting a thread of comments for those who think this sort of division is acceptable. I'm really interested in hearing from those here who have thoughts about practical ways to repent of and heal such divisions, and lead others in such repentance .
Answer:
I'll respond by quoting your post...
Originally Posted by astrummer 'I think the "American" church has pretty much figured out that racism is evil . (Churches are still divided by race, and people still hold racist thoughts but at least this is generally recognized as wrong )"Ageism" however, seems to be alive, well, and even encouraged. I'm not sure about this. I agree that it does exist, and is dominant in some churches, but I'm not sure about making that generalization. I think I would prefer to make the generalization that it does exist, but the church is working against it; to bridge the generation gap, so-to-speak.
Its all about "my generation", no matter what that generation might be. We divide ourselves up into different services and congregations because we can't stand music that's a little older or newer than the age group we fall into.. ' What's wrong with that? At least we are still a part of a congregation, and supporting and being supported by a church. I don't see any reason to bring groups of people together for a musical worship experience who don't want to hear the same kind of music, when we can go to separate worship services and still effectively be churches. Unity, yes, but we still have that, on a broader aspect and in a different form. Unless there's hostility/bitterness, of course.
I thought geezerjohn made a very valuable observation:
"It strikes me that far too many Worship Leaders treat anyone over 50 as if they were dead already. Where is the servant's heart? How do we honor our fathers and mothers as the Lord has commanded if we approach the music they love as if they were geezers in desperate need of a muscial tune up?" It's funny, but in my church, the older folks respond much more openly than the young people. They seem to have quite a bit more energy, which is awesome, except that the young people seem dead (during regular services, that is...they're a little more responsive during youth services, but still not as responsive as the older folks are during regular services). I'm not saying this to disagree with the observation made here though. I find this generalization to be pretty much spot-on, sadly. I guess we're an exception...
On so many threads in this forum it seems that directly or indirectly "Ageism" or "Style Wars" seems to come up. It is my perception that there are those who are more or less comfortable with slicing up the church by age and musical style and those who are not. I would think that this is because we are pretty much all from different churches, backgrounds, and even parts of the world. It comes up often, because it's a big issue. Generall, it's very different to lead a group of young people than it is to lead a group of adults or "older folks", and so when discussing worship leading topics, we sometimes have to address them separately. Not because we want to segregate the groups, but because it's something that is present in our churches, and probably will never be resolved until we are united together in worship around the throne.
Although in an open forum like this all comments are valued, I'm not as much interested in starting a thread of comments for those who think this sort of division is acceptable. I'm not sure if it's acceptable, or simply necessary. It's not just the leaders that separate the groups; they separate themselves. The difference in musical taste really does exist, and that's why we find ourselves in different worship services. I'm not sure it's as much a matter of acceptability as it is simply a fact of life.
I'm really interested in hearing from those here who have thoughts about practical ways to repent of and heal such divisions, and lead others in such repentance . Repent is a strong word. Who should repent of this division, and why? Why do we assume that division is such a bad thing? I would almost tend to think that a church with differences that affect its functioning could very well be more effective as two separate churches. It's a lot easier to get things done when the congregation are unified, and it's a lot easier to lead a group of people in worship who are unified in their musical tastes.
Just my 2 cents. It goes much deeper than this, I know...
Answer:
Originally Posted by agrimes87 Repent is a strong word. Who should repent of this division, and why? Why do we assume that division is such a bad thing? I would almost tend to think that a church with differences that affect its functioning could very well be more effective as two separate churches. It's a lot easier to get things done when the congregation are unified, and it's a lot easier to lead a group of people in worship who are unified in their musical tastes.
The only congregation in which I would be in complete agreement in all things would be a congregation of just myself ( and I would undoubtedly have to exclude God who is constantly reminding me of how I need to change to be more in agreement with Him)
Jesus prayed for the unity of his church. Perhaps those of us of protestant persuasion, in consumer oriented societies, myself included, find this all to easy to forget. Style is, for the most part, not substance. I do think repentance is in order. Learning to "get along" is part of the mission of the church, with regard to cultural and stylistic issues let alone weightier matters.
I think, once again, we can get fairly sophisticated in justifing division in these matters. How about comments from those interested in more unity?
Answer:
In a recently closed thread I posted the following
yes, i closed my thread because the post you made and some others made had nothing to do with the topic at hand...i did NOT want to start a old vs. new war i wanted to hear some ideas of how people take song and change them up to make them their own or make them easier to play, specifically older-style songs.
On so many threads in this forum it seems that directly or indirectly "Ageism" or "Style Wars" seems to come up.
that's simply because some people like to fight...i could have gone all day without bringing it up...
Answer:
I am mostly against age seperation in services because I do not think it promotes Christian growth well.
"2 that the older men be sober, reverent, temperate, sound in faith, in love, in patience; 3 the older women likewise, that they be reverent in behavior, not slanderers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things-- 4 that they admonish the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, 5 to be discreet, chaste, homemakers, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be blasphemed. 6 Likewise exhort the young men to be sober-minded, 7 in all things showing yourself to be a pattern of good works; in doctrine showing integrity, reverence, incorruptibility, 8 sound speech that cannot be condemned, that one who is an opponent may be ashamed, having nothing evil to say of you."
In Titus we see examples of the older exhorting the younger... If we are seperated every second of hte church service. That does not work.
In my youth group we have 4 people of the age 25-40 (not always all of them at once), 2 more over 18 in there. Sometimes they out number the youth. I think this is a great thing, it allows for practical teaching.
"What's wrong with that? At least we are still a part of a congregation, and supporting and being supported by a church. I don't see any reason to bring groups of people together for a musical worship experience who don't want to hear the same kind of music, when we can go to separate worship services and still effectively be churches."
Because different music generaly comes with different sermons and different leadership. Also the style of music is so petty a thing, whoever came up with the idea of dividing a church by music is an odd man indeed. Also it is ludicris to assume you could even provide the style of music for everyone... I wonder how long it will be before youth groups have the Punk, Emo, Metal, Rock, Pop, Hip-hop, and Techno services as to fit the style of everyone. Me, I would LOVE some interesting celtic-folk music for worship... The fact is maybe 1 out of 10,000 worship bands are really THAT celtic-folky. Also chosing which service you go to by music seems silly, I would choose by preacher/sermon... That matters more then the music. It is why I go to church not rock concerts on a sunday morn.
Now I understand if you have a small building to large amount of people spilting up the service... I can understand that. Or in small groups that came focus specificly on teaching to an age group (like sunday schools or small group bible studies), I just like the idea of one unified service.
Answer:
Originally Posted by Laia yes, i closed my thread because the post you made and some others made had nothing to do with the topic at hand...i did NOT want to start a old vs. new war i wanted to hear some ideas of how people take song and change them up to make them their own or make them easier to play, specifically older-style songs.
that's simply because some people like to fight...i could have gone all day without bringing it up...
I apologize for contributing to the hijacking of your thread. In response to an “off topic” comment in a post I should have started a separate thread not continued even further off topic. Obviously, you were trying to build a bridge to an "older" style of music.
Within that thread, and on topic what I should have mentioned:
From various sources ( certainly not original to me ):

I agree with the post stating that the number of chord changes in older songs can often be lessened to facilitate a groove. Comparing from sources that say “easy guitar” or “3 chord songbook” can give some idea of these chord change reductions. Sometimes these books go too far in reduction so it will sometimes take some thinking to determine what can be omitted.
An extra measure or 2 between verses can make a song seem less "hymnodic "
Oftentimes chord substitutions and embellishments (sus2, sus4, add9...) give a song a more contemporary feel. So if it’s the same chord for 3 measures throw in some “sus”.
Different strum patterns, especially syncopation, can really freshen a song. With fewer chord changes, this becomes easier. ( Less chord complexity, more rhythmic complexity )
Even though you weren't addressing hymns but music of just a few decades back, looking at the hymn work done at RUF could be helpful.
http://igracemusic.com/igracemusic/hymnbook/hymns.html
Again, I apologize. Really rude, really wrong, really sorry.
Answer:
I noted at the end of my post that it goes much deeper than this, so I guess it was my fault for not including more depth and clarity in my post, although I didn't really have time to do so...
I was not implying that we should separate every time we have differences, or that it is possible to please everyone. Obviously, I understand that it is impossible to please everyone, and that you will never get everyone to completely agree on some of these grey-area topics.
I agree with the comment about having the older exhort the young, but I never said otherwise. In my church, the young and old attend the same services, except that we have separate services for specifically young people. They still attend the regular services though.
I wasn't referring to separation based on something petty, for example, one part likes Chris Tomlin's style while another group likes David Crowder's style. I was referring to separating worship services because, for example, one group prefers hymns, country gospel, choirs, and piano, while another group prefers aggressive, modern, 5-member-band-oriented worship. There is a world of difference, and though some might argue that it SHOULDN'T make much difference, the truth is that it does affect us. We are simply better able to respond and release ourselves in worship when we actually like the music being played. It's more comfortable in so many ways, and as long as we aren't relying on comfort, there is nothing wrong with being comfortable.
I would also like to mention that I specifically pointed out that it is not as much a matter of acceptability as it is a fact of life. I also never stated that I supported church division, and even stated that it was a "sad" thing. You may have misunderstood the meaning of this:
Who should repent of this division, and why? Why do we assume that division is such a bad thing? I would almost tend to think that a church with differences that affect its functioning could very well be more effective as two separate churches. It's a lot easier to get things done when the congregation are unified, and it's a lot easier to lead a group of people in worship who are unified in their musical tastes.
...as being my support of church division. However, I was merely pointing out that there is often good basis for this separation, and I'm not so sure if this area is as black and white as simply "we shouldn't separate by musical preference".
I am neither a supporter or a condemner of this sort of thing, as I believe it is specific to the individual church that is experiencing it. Like I said, our church has separate services for the young people. However, the young people do attend the regular services (although the older folks don't attend youth services), and the youth band even leads the regular services occasionally. I see nothing wrong with this division, as there is still quite a bit of unity there. We simply prefer different musical styles, and so we have services catered towards those who prefer the style we produce in those services. However, I have a problem when young people attend youth services and refuse to attend regular sunday services.
Answer:
Originally Posted by agrimes87 I am neither a supporter or a condemner of this sort of thing, as I believe it is specific to the individual church that is experiencing it.
In general, whenever possible ( which may tend to be more possible if we seek God's heart in the matter ) I like the idea of less separation based on age, musical style preference, race, level of income, etc.... How does it happen, when it happens, or are we doomed to endless fragmentation until the second coming? And I, perhaps incorrectly, place disregarding someone on account of their age on the same level as disregarding them on account of their race or income. Perhaps the musical issue is sometimes used as an excuse so that we don't have to hang out with old people ( or young people. or white people, or black people )
It seems that in the several threads on this forum about making/keeping "older music" relevant, someone ends ups saying something like "why bother?" Frankly, I love the older saints. How do we overcome the divisive attitudes of "only if its tried and true" vs. "only if its something new"?
Answer:
Originally Posted by astrummer In general, whenever possible ( which may tend to be more possible if we seek God's heart in the matter ) I like the idea of less separation based on age, musical style preference, race, level of income, etc.... How does it happen, when it happens, or are we doomed to endless fragmentation until the second coming? Sadly, I think we probably are. It's just human nature. We're so diverse; so different.
And I, perhaps incorrectly, place disregarding someone on account of their age on the same level as disregarding them on account of their race or income. While I definitely understand why you would equate them, I don't think I can agree. Segregation based on race or income is something that is generally taken offensively. It's something that a lot of people can't help, but they wish they could. They're very personal things. But musical preference, generally, isn't an offensive or touchy topic. It's just that people like different kinds of music. It's not personal, not offensive, and not something people want to change. It's just preference. But it's these preferences that are simply a fact of life, and while we don't think of it as a big deal to sit through a service with a style of music that we dislike, it becomes a much bigger deal when you think about doing that week in, week out, continuously, for years. The truth is, it's difficult to attend a worship service (let alone be a regular member of a church) when you don't like the style of music. This is why division occurs. I don't mean to support it. However, people are generally much happier, get along better, and therefore work more efficiently as a church, when they are attending a church with a style of music that they like, without large conflicts regarding the music. Again, I'm not supporting or condeming separation based on the issue...but there are certainly convincing arguments on either side, IMO. Which tells me that it's an issue that is independent to each individual church, and is difficult to generalize.
Perhaps the musical issue is sometimes used as an excuse so that we don't have to hang out with old people ( or young people. or white people, or black people ) What about when black people like the same music as white people? I don't think we should, or can, make this assumption.
It seems that in the several threads on this forum about making/keeping "older music" relevant, someone ends ups saying something like "why bother?" Frankly, I love the older saints. How do we overcome the divisive attitudes of "only if its tried and true" vs. "only if its something new"? I love the old saints as well. They have so much to offer in the areas of wisdom, experience, passion, etc. They've been around for much longer than we have.
I'm not sure we can overcome the attitudes you mentioned. Partly because, for the people who hold strictly to those attitudes, the attitudes themselves are "tried and true". They've lived by them all their lives, and see no reason to change.
If you want to overcome these attitudes, I would suggest that you:
1) Talk to your pastor about speaking about it in his sermons. We have to actually teach the people that these attitudes are wrong.
2) Use songs that contradict whatever attitude you're dealing with, and pray that God will use those songs to touch the hearts of the people holding those attitudes. One of the best ways to learn is through experience. The only way to prove to them that the songs they're against are valid, and are actually beautiful worship songs is to use them, and allow them to touch their hearts and take effect. When they witness God using those songs, it will be difficult to deny them.
You might also try transisting into a style that compliments both traditional songs/hymns and modern/contemporary songs.
This is the approach we've been taking in my church to bridge the music and generation gaps. It's been working, to say the least.
Answer:
i just scanned this but
its not an old verse new style issue at all. until thats recognized nothing will change. its an issue of were our focus is in worship. if your arguing over styles your focused on your own preferences, wants likes tastes and have quit focusing on the fact that worship is about praising God and what is pleasing ot him
Answer:
Originally Posted by Awzmgd117 i just scanned this but
its not an old verse new style issue at all. until thats recognized nothing will change. its an issue of were our focus is in worship. if your arguing over styles your focused on your own preferences, wants likes tastes and have quit focusing on the fact that worship is about praising God and what is pleasing ot him Cool. Then you don’t need to do any contemporary (or other style) music. Just chant the Psalms.
Is it not possible that what we find “pleasing” is also pleasing to God? Or, once I determine that worship is about praising God, then can I focus on my preferences as to how it’s done?
Answer:
I don't see all this catering going anywhere. My church has a wide range of people in it, we play loud, raucous worship, and the old people stay and worship. If they want quiet and subdued, there's a baptist church down the road.
This is how our church best communicates with God on a corporate worship basis, and I don't see the need to cater to everyone. We do our thing, we do it the best we can, if you don't like it, oh well. With that approach we have a large draw and great retention. I lead my sets off of the electric and most of the positive comments I recieve are from the older crowd.
Answer:
Originally Posted by niangelo I don't see all this catering going anywhere. My church has a wide range of people in it, we play loud, raucous worship, and the old people stay and worship. If they want quiet and subdued, there's a baptist church down the road.
... So now people are to choose churches on style of music?
Answer:
Originally Posted by Tony Cool. Then you don’t need to do any contemporary (or other style) music. Just chant the Psalms.
Is it not possible that what we find “pleasing” is also pleasing to God? Or, once I determine that worship is about praising God, then can I focus on my preferences as to how it’s done?
chanting the psalms works for me...if its worshiping the Lord.
what we find pleasing can also be pleasing to God yes, but if its not pleasing to us it doesn't mean it isn't to Him, adn thats where we need to set aside how we feel adn realize what its really all about.
Answer:
I agree with Tony. The principle could be applied to anything we do...at some point we've got to say, "ok, we're all in agreement that we're doing this for the glory of God, now what's our method of doing it going to look like?"
Maybe for some that is chanting the Psalms, maybe it's just speaking them, maybe it's the loudest most raucous worship, or maybe it hymns, or maybe it's a mixture of all, or maybe its...