A Pastor's Point Of View

How a Classically Trained Church Musician and Pastor Changed His Views On Contemporary Worship

Rev. Michael Zehnder

The original document is simply a letter sent to an inquiry from another Pastor. Please read it in that light. Although this letter is in the context of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, the concepts apply to all Christian churches.

do not have any "prepared papers" available regarding the "classic vs. contem-porary" questions you raise, but I am willing to make a few personal observa-tions regarding your letter which will hopefully be helpful to you I found your comments and your criteria for the music you've included in your service to be thoughtful, by the way, and appreciated your sensitive approach. Your excellent, highly trained musician (among others) has challenged you that your contemporary music is not even "good rock music." He may or may not be right I would have no way of knowing whether to defend you or him unless I could hear it for myself. If you want an outside opinion, send me an audio or video tape of a typical service and a few sample bulletins. The proof is always in the hearing. I agree that whatever is done in the service should be done with all the excellence that is possible. Just as I wouldn't let just anybody read a lesson or give a children's message in a service "because his heart was in the right place" neither would I let someone toot a horn or sing a solo for the same poor criterion.

On the other hand, I suspect from your comments that you are at least striving toward excellence with your "fairly good band of 12 people." Reading between the lines I also wonder whether the "lack of excellence" is really the issue for your musician; the genre itself may be problematic. And it's not really the genre, per se, but the value that is placed on one versus the other. An artist feels valued or devalued by the appreciation (or lack of it) others have for his style. After being professionally trained for 27 years as a "classical musician," I personally found it very threatening when "contemporary" music seemed to be more valued by those I was serving than the style in which I had received training. It made me feel unappreciated, useless, and devalued. I had literally pummelled my body and mind for many years to learn what I knew and to be able to perform and conduct as I did. The sacrifices to accomplish this level of musicality were enormous. How could I turn my back on everything I had learned and held dear? My expertise in classic and baroque music was also connected to my very sense of self worth. Why should I start over again learning a genre that was obviously inferior when I was already an expert in a genre that was obviously superior and had stood the test of time?

As a classically trained organist and conductor I was furious when it was first suggested to me that I put together a contemporary service on a weekly basis. To me it was "trash" versus what I had been trained to deliver: a gourmet meal for the ears. I very reluctantly agreed to attend some services elsewhere that were of the style my pastor wanted me to produce. After hearing it, though the music was not of the baroque and classic genre which I knew intimately and loved, I had to admit it was tuneful, catchy and certainly captured the hearts of the people. It was also performed well and with flair and the texts of the music expressed portions of the Psalms which were largely neglected in standard hymnody.

But what really captured my imagination had nothing to do with the music. I kept asking myself why thousands were attending these churches. Why would I see, for instance, 500+ clean cut teenagers sitting in the gymnasium studying the Bible as thousands of other people, young and old (but mostly young) streamed into the sanctuary with their Bibles, eager to learn about God? Musical style was hardly the whole answer but it was a big part. I've heard Rick Warren (Saddle-back) and Bill Hybels (Willow Creek), pastors of two of the fastest growing churches in America, both say that the biggest mistake they made early in their ministries was undervaluing the importance of good worship music.

I had wanted everyone to change and learn to love the music that Mike Zehnder loves. Still to this day if you told me I would be stranded on an island and could choose only one CD to listen to for the rest of my life I wouldn't have to give it a second thought: it would be Bach's deeply-profound Mass in B minor. But I began to realize that I had a higher loyalty than mere "classical" music making. I truly wanted to reach souls for Jesus Christ. If my musical taste were getting in the way of salvation of souls for whom Jesus shed His precious blood then it would have to be Mike Zehnder who learned to change and not everybody else.

I love music, but I love Jesus Christ and His mission more! The answer for your musician may not really be a musical one but a theological one. It was for me, at least. I had studied music formally since I was 4 1/2 years old. I had a number of advanced musical degrees and was president of a number of prestigious musical organizations. As an organist in the LCMS I hadn't heard many organists in our church body who were my musical peers. As a choral and orchestral conductor, I knew even fewer folks who had accomplished them-selves at the same level. I'm not saying this at all in a bragging spirit; this is just simply descriptive. I offer this self assessment in the same spirit that Paul speaks of himself in Philippians 3,

"If anyone else thinks he has reason to put confi-dence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; for zeal, persecuting the church; as for legalistic righteousness, faultless. But whatever was to my profit I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but righteousness that comes from God and is by faith. I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection..."

Now, I would like to put those truths into my own words, loosely based on Paul,

"If anyone else thinks he has reason to think himself as an excellent church musician, I have more: trained under blah blah blah, studied under blah blah blah, degrees from the distinguished blah blah university, selected for the prestigious blah blah awards, experienced doing the following blah blah things, trained in liturgical worship under blah blah blah at blah blah university. As for zeal, few have worked as hard as I or produced a better blah blah blah in our entire Synod and blah blah blah. Furthermore, few have had as refined an understanding as I do of what constitutes excellent church music nor can I even share with the average person the intricacies of my knowledge and taste because of blah blah blah. But whatever was a credit to my musical prowess I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. What is more, I consider all my musical degrees, knowledge, awards and experience as loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing and sharing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I am willing to lose all earthly applause. I consider my degrees, experience and knowledge rubbish in order that I might win some to Christ through whatever musical genre touches a person's soul. I realize the only things that will not be burned up in fire on the last Day are people and the Word of God. I therefore humbly commit my life to reaching souls for Jesus Christ with all the talent that God has given me. Though in human terms I have been given much musical ability, my foremost desire is to share Christ and the power of his resurrection with others. I am therefore willing (not reluctantly, but joyfully), to reach people for Jesus by learning to speak to their musical tastes, not by cajoling them into mine."

To say it again, I love music, but I love Jesus Christ and His mission more! I would like to make a few other theological observations that spoke to me as a musician. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 13 that we can have all kinds of gifts, tongues, faith and knowledge but if we have not love we are "only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal." I wonder how many musicians like myself have been so puffed up in their musical knowledge that they forgot to LOVE the people they are called to serve. It is not love to speak a language they do not speak. If Paul can criticize someone for speaking in tongues of angels as being a potentially loveless act, than I would suggest that a musician could perform a musical language that is also foreign to his audience. For the average American, the sounds of "classical" or "liturgical" music in worship might be considered a foreign musical language, or "tongues of angels," if you will. This is not a loving thing to do if the goal is to speak of Jesus through music.

We must speak the heart language of the people. We laugh now to think that early LCMS missionaries tried to get Indians to speak German before they allowed them to worship with us. We also laugh to think the Missouri Synod voted in the early 1900's to always remain a German speaking Synod and then just a few years later, received the English synod into our midst and produced our first English hymnal. Will we laugh years from now to think that our Synod continued to speak a musical language that few others were speaking, when the rest of American Evangeli-calism saw the ridiculousness of this and strove to speak the musical heart language of the people?

It is estimated that only 2% of Americans listen to classical (I use the term "classical" in the generic sense) music. I happen to be one of them. In fact, I own over 3,000 classical records, CD's and tapes. However, I am in a declining minority. In Los Angeles a few years ago, the most populous city in the United States, there were two classical stations. One had to close down. The stated reason was there wasn't enough demand and therefore enough advertising dollars to support two classical stations. Can you believe that?!!! But it's true!

I say this to underscore our need as a Synod to speak in the "musical heart language" of the vast majority of people. It is a lesson that historically we have learned very slowly. It was a lesson I personally learned slowly and was origi-nally against my will. But now I willingly look to see how I can speak in the musical language of culture by blending the best of the past and the present. Each congregation, each pastor, each musician likewise has to discover the best mix on their own for their place and people. There can be no cookie cutter worship as much as we might like that for ease.

Another theological observation:

Paul said that he had "become all things to all men in order that he might win some." He lived as a Jew among Jews and like a Gentile among Gentiles. I think the worship application is obvious. Because of this, many churches in the LCMS have legitimately gone to "two-track worship styles." The liturgical service appeals to the "Jews;" the contemporary service appeals to the "Gentiles," those unrehearsed in the niceties of Lutheran worship. But even this is too simplistic. In churches I've served in the past, many folks "crossed over" from one service style to the next. They loved the Lord and they loved to worship Him in many styles. But when we are reaching "Gentiles" we first have to learn to speak "Gentile music."

Another passage that spoke to my musician heart was Gal. 1:10, "Am I now trying to win the approval of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ." How l wished to be spoken well of by other musicians of equal stature and accomplish-ment. How I wished that those in high places in Synod would say to me, "Well done, Mike. You're doing a great job as a parish musician."

I realized through Galatians 1:10 that I really only had an audience of one: God. And it was He who said we should be "as shrewd as serpents and as harmless as doves" (Matthew 10:16) as we reach out to the lost. I don't believe it is merely shrewd to speak the musical language of the people. It is also common sense. And Biblical.

When LCMS missionaries go into foreign lands we do not hesitate to use the musical language of the indigenous people in the service of the Gospel. Why do we hesitate to do this in America where there is also much cultural diversity? Perhaps now that we have officially declared America to be a "mission field," we will wake up faster to the implications this has for our selection of musical styles for worship.

Many are worried we will lose the heritage and appreciation of our Lutheran liturgy. That is a very noble sounding argument. Perhaps, however, we should be more concerned about the 50,000 back door loses our Synod has experienced each year for many years (until just recently) than the loss of our liturgical heritage. These are 50,000 souls for whom Christ died! Christ did not die for the liturgy! How can we equate the loss of our heritage to the loss of one soul? The angels in heaven rejoice over one sinner who repents. There is no mention of their rejoicing over one church that remains liturgical and refuses to use contem-porary expressions.

Nor did Jesus ever recommend a particular worship style. On Maundy Thursday, cripture records, "And when they had sung a hymn..." I guess the composer's name and the style wasn't significant enough to be recorded or the Holy Spirit would surely have mentioned it Now, you mentioned that your contemporary service has "become your most popular service." That should surely say something to both you and your musician. Yet he is "totally critical" of it. I know that hurts. You want to reach people for Christ and it is hard to withstand the criticism of others, particularly when they are very knowledgeable. How you would also love to have them on your side so that you might work effectively together! But I encourage you to stay with your heart if winning them over is not possible. Don't let others dissuade you from the evangelistic potential of contemporary worship. We don't need to "win the approval of men" but only to be servants of Christ. If I under-stand Philippians 3:10 and Colossians 1:24 correctly then we can plan on suffering as we reach out to others with the Word of life. Somehow suffering "criticism" doesn't seem like a manly enough experience to be labelled a part of the sharing of the "sufferings" of Christ, but I believe it is. For sensitive pastor-souls who love their Lord and have a heart for the lost, that sensitivity makes us vulnerable and makes criticism painful. But we can rejoice that we have been considered "worthy to suffer for the name of Christ." And if we're ever going to aspire to the lofty title of "theologian" we must also go through the tentatio of Luther's dictum, "Oratio, meditatio, tentatio (prayer, meditation and suffering) ...makes the theologian."

Having made these few theological observations, I would like to turn now to a few musical ones. Actually, they are more in the line of suggestions.

1. Wouldn't it be wonderful if you could "win" your musician as an ally and partner in reaching folks with the Gospel of Jesus through music? It's worth trying. On the other hand if he is obstinate and unspiritual then his musical knowledge is ultimately not worth much (1 Corinthians 13).
2. Take his criticism seriously. It may be totally legitimate. Perhaps he has struck a raw nerve of truth. Are what your contemporary musicians doing trite or sloppy? Is the chosen music worthy of performance? My offer of critiquing a tape still holds...
3. Personally, I shy away from music that is too saccharine; it bores me. I like the like gutsy style of music in the Hosanna! Integrity! books. It sounds great even with a simple combo like a piano synthesiser, guitar, drums and saxophone on the melody. We also need to blend in these songs with others from our tradition (but if written in the 1500 or 1600's, be careful; the jolt is sometimes too severe from one style to the next). I was struck just today as I was writing my Christmas Day sermon at the profundity of even "Hark the Herald Angels Sing." I was comparing its lines about the nature of Christ to the revelation of Him in John 1:1-14 and marvelled at the theological correspondence. Not all contemporary songs take us so deep. We need to choose contemporary songs that also have something to say.
4. On the other hand, the simple American mind sometimes needs to hear repeated truth over and over again in order for it to sink in. Case in point: "God is so good, God is so good, God is so good, He's so good to me." God forbid if every song said as little. But God also forbid if there is never room for such a simple, lovely expression of faith. Luther said hymns should be didactic but must they teach the entire catechism in each verse? We give children "Dick and Jane' to read before we introduce them to Shakespeare. If we are reaching out to "Gentiles" then we need music geared to Gentile levels. We do this in education, why not in music? Sometimes also the more simple the music and lyrics, the more profound. Einstein once said, "If the answer is simple, God is knocking." As smart as God has made me, I have found tears welling up in my eyes more than a few times singing such "simple" songs as "I love you Lord," and "Lord, make me like you." Sometimes you have to get through to the heart before you can get through to the head. Why else would the Lord "discipline those He loves?" Our head doesn't respond until our heart gets the message.
5. Give your musicians (and yourself) a few Sundays off to visit some other churches where contemporary music is being done well. Look for church names like, "Calvary" or "Evangelical Free." If you schedule yourselves carefully you can take in two or three different churches on one Sunday morning and also take in an evening service somewhere. This is how l learned best and fast: by observation. Perhaps such excellence in contempo-rary music isn't available in your community's churches. Then order some musical tapes from Saddleback in Irvine or Willow Creek in Barrington. Compare yourself to them but don't despair because they set a high musical standard for contemporary church music. Better yet, go to the Willow Creek Church Leadership conference and take your musician with you. I was there this fall and was FLOORED at the excellence of musicianship and musical creativity. If your musician doesn't agree with me on this, then what you have is not a musical difference of opinion, but musical snobbery and rigidity.
6. Beware of the argument that only music which has stood the test of time has any value. John Wesley and Isaac Watts wrote thousands and thousands of hymns. How many of them do we still sing today? A handful at best. There is no truth to the argument that "disposable music" has no place in the church. I would argue the opposite. "Disposable music" has always had its place in the church. The question has never been whether we should adapt to the times, only how.
7. Why does the church continue to use a musical style that is foreign to 98% of the population? "We've always done it that way" or "it's our tradition" should not be excuses among thoughtful people, much less among believers who want to honor and fulfill the Great Commission. Good grief, I could go on forever. If you want some more dialogue, please call me. Until I write a book (which I see I came close to doing) this will have to do.

Hope it helps. Keep up the good work. Those on the cutting edge in the church most always suffer for it.

Sincerely in the love and fellowship of Jesus Christ,
Rev. Michael Zehnder

Rev. Mike Zehnder has pastored churches in California and Colorado. Before entering pastoral ministry, Mike was a full-time Music Minister for 16 years; he is an experienced choral conductor and organist. He is now the Vice-President of Worship Resources for Fellowship Ministries in Tempe, Arizona.