Discovering the Church, the Culture, and the Truth
May 18th, 2009

Worship leadership 101: planning a set

Dr. Duncan recently posed the question on his blog: “can we use just anything in worship?” In this article, as well as others, he addresses secular, and even further, completely inappropriate songs being used in a worship service.

At this moment I would like to dig a little deeper into this initial question and at the same time, look at the broader scope of how a worship leader plans a musical worship set. This stems from my 3 years in experience of worship leading, two years of doing it wrong and learning from it, observations of scriptural worship, and my conversations with other worship leaders. So, for what it’s worth, here’s the very little wisdom I have to offer, and much more that I am restating that I have learned from others.

First and foremost: every song must communicate the gospel well.

This is such an important point and many… probably most worship leaders miss and I myself just recently learned. The function of worship is to bring glory to God. The best way to do this is to look to scripture to see how it’s done. All of the psalms model this. Depravity, brokenness, salvation in Christ Jesus resulting in hope and joy from the Lord.

This of course, immediately rules out all secular music. The excuse that it is making a point for the service is not only an inadequate excuse, but is really just downright ignorant of the Word, oblivious of the calling of worship, and shows severe lack in the faith that the Gospel can communicate in its own merit.

Beyond just secular songs, this also rules out a large number of worship songs and even hymns. It started in the 90s when Contemporary Christian Music (CCM, it’s an organization actually, not just a title) realized that worship was a big hit. Ever since, mediocre artists have been substituting Jesus’ name into bland love songs, overproducing them, and selling the sheet music for loads of money. The result is an influx of shallow, theologically incorrect, trite songs void of any substance. Somewhere in the mix we have Michael W. Smith and a dozen others focusing worship on the worshiper, singing Jesus

“took the fall and thought of me above all”

which does not at all hold up to scripture!

“For my name’s sake I defer my anger, for the sake of my praise I restrain it for you, that I may not cut you off.” - Isaiah 48:9

Communicate the gospel. That is the worship pastor’s (just like any other pastor’s) first and foremost goal. That requires a sound judgement, theological discernment, and sound doctrine.

by Micah Taylor | Posted in Christianity, Music, The Church, Worship | | Tags: ,

12 Comments

Comment by Matt
  • Micah, I’m not one to favor Micheal W. Smith’s music but I think you misread it.
    The entire song is talking about Christ’s supremacy above everything. I believe it is Smith’s amazement that He died so Smith could possibly have life and to call their music “trite songs void of any substance” is unnecessary.

    Yes, Christ came here to obey the father but what was the glory and name sake that God spoke of? It would be restoring a broken world back to Him, God had our salvation in mind when sending Christ for His glory.

    Another thing, to have the gospel clearly communicated is ideal, but darn near impossible man. Look at modern praise and worship, we could say that Glorious One by Fee is suitable but it never mentions the cross or our depravity. But the song is full of truth, God’s glory and we are singing because we love Him.
    Mystery doesn’t mention any of our depravity, yet it responds to Christ’s act of love.
    Divine Romance doesn’t talk about the gospel at all, it talks about the result of it.

    So what’s your point Micah?

    May 18, 2009 @ 12:58 pm
  • Comment by Micah Taylor
  • I agree that the second verse of Smith’s song is about supremacy. The first verse however, is not about how God is “above all” in supremacy, but rather, that he chose to put man above all His other creation to die for. The desired result of the crucifixion was God’s glory through restoring sinners to Him. But pleasing the Father was Jesus’ mission on the cross, the rest where the results of that. Jesus also didn’t “live to die.” If he merely lived on Earth to pay the price for our sin, he could have been killed as a sinless baby and we would be sanctified! This song has truth in it, but very poor theology, I’d rather use that 3 minutes to sing a more full song.

    And I would have to completely disagree that communicating the gospel is “near impossible” in fact, the song you mentioned, for the most part, do it very well!

    Mystery’s chorus is “Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.” That is the gospel!

    Divine Romance states “Your innocent blood, has washed my guilty life” also the gospel!

    Glorious One, the weakest of the three you mentioned, even communicates God “hold[s] the universe…and still You run to the broken” and relays that worship comes from “every heart that’s been redeemed.”

    My point is worship leaders have to be selective of the content they use in a worship service. It is important as a worship pastor, just as any pastor, to carefully prepare and scrutinize the content of their message, being sure it is in line with the Word, before they use it to lead the body of Christ.

    May 18, 2009 @ 1:53 pm
  • Comment by Matt
  • Micah, define the Gospel-in its entirety.

    May 18, 2009 @ 11:57 pm
  • Comment by Micah Taylor
  • God sent his Son, Jesus, fully God and fully man, to the Earth in order to provide the sacrifice that He promised through His covenant with mankind (from Genesis 15) in order that He may be glorified in being just, truthful, and saving in grace. Jesus came to earth, lived a sinless life, fulfilled the law in showing man his depravity before the perfection of God, taught and instructed his followers, made an additional promise to provide a Helper for all those who chose to follow him, was crucified for the sins of mankind, and was accepted by the Father as the perfect sacrifice, pardoning all from their sin.

    So what’s your point Matt?

    May 19, 2009 @ 12:23 am
  • Comment by Justin Long
  • I agree with Micah in part. Our job as worship leaders is to present the Gospel, but unlike the days when 10 stanza hymns were used it it nearly impossible to clearly communicate the gospel in one song. That is why our focus should be to create a string of songs all communicate different parts.

    I think Michael W. Smith’s is either an example of bad theology or maybe someone finding a rhyme that sounded good so they put it in the song.

    Since our job is to communicate the Gospel like we have already agreed.. We look at secular songs at the beginning of the service as the worship leader’s form of sermon illustration?? Im not saying that we should use them to bring nonchristians into the church..

    that is what the body of Christ is for!

    But I think that if it is relevent to the sermon which about .00836% of songs out there are.. then we should have just as much right as preacher’s should to use “songs that havent accepted christ into their heart”

    May 19, 2009 @ 1:35 am
  • Comment by Matt
  • That to communicate the Gospel in every song is hard and we leave a lot out in most attempts to.

    How great is our God doesn’t communicate the Gospel, but just that our God is amazing!

    What concerns me is that God did think of us with the cross. Christ probably didn’t think of us above everything, like you think the song has communicated. The last above all is a refrain that is repeated to mention Christ’s power. It’s a dangerous refrain, but still fine.

    Not to be “nit-picky”

    Mystery doesn’t mention the helper promised, pardoning from our sin, fulfilling the law, the covenant (which possibly could be interpreted with the cup of salvation part), Jesus is the son of God…do you get what I’m trying to say?

    To communicate the gospel well is to do it in it’s entirety, without a part of it it isn’t the Gospel. We can communicate parts of it worship and it is a beautiful thing too.

    One thing you left out in your definition-the Resurrection. (Romans 10:9)

    May 19, 2009 @ 2:38 am
  • Comment by Micah Taylor
  • @Matt

    It would seem that you are setting higher standards for a song than even I am in proving that no song can attain it. You’d make a great Calvinist :)

    It shouldn’t concern you that God thought of us when designing the plan of salvation, that’s a great thing!

    “To communicate the gospel well is to do it in it’s entirety, without a part of it it isn’t the Gospel. We can communicate parts of it worship and it is a beautiful thing too.”

    I think we agree without knowing it. Songs can present the gospel well by focusing on parts of it. While presenting the whole gospel is presenting it well (Songs like “In Christ Alone”) I don’t think it’s a strict qualification for presenting it well… in song.

    May 19, 2009 @ 10:04 am
  • Comment by Matt
  • Yes I agree with some of that, your original post was vague on that point. When you mentioned the Psalms that had every aspect and said that we should look to scripture (Psalms) as a guide. So that’s where I went on that tangent.

    No, I was concerned that you alluded that God didn’t think of us when implementing salvation. We were the center of His thought-John 3:16.

    What is the standard they you suggest then?

    I will never be a Calvinist.
    :)

    May 19, 2009 @ 12:17 pm
  • Comment by Micah Taylor
  • My standard is that the song point to and present the gospel. The purpose behind this blog was not really to attack anyone. I did mention Smith… to make a point, could/should have left him out. But I will go ahead and say this: the trend of many songs (generalizing) in the 90s was to be poetic, catchy, and singable. Writers often turned to the model of other songs for their material rather than scripture. The result where many songs that were written to be sung corporately and not necessarily to be used in corporate worship. Keep in mind, many of these songs were written for live concert performances, they hadn’t gained popularity in churches. So many of them weren’t written with a sound, doctrinal service in mind. The result was a lot of songs that actually put the focus on man. The songs focus a lot on God’s love and mercy (great things), but they sometimes forget why we need them, which in the long run, takes the glory oss GOd and puts it on us, saying we were so special that God decided to love us, rather than God deciding to love us… making us special. It’s not an excuse, but it’s an explanation.

    Not every song can be a Psalm, not every song can be “In Christ Alone” and walk us through the entire book of Luke, but they can still present the gospel and still do it well. Even songs describing the greatness of God, the glory of His creation, point to a God who loves and saves. We know His greatness because of His mercy and sovereignty.

    I didn’t mean to allude to that. You’re right that love for His creation was a central reason God offered His son. But that fact must be paired with His desire for His own glory through His love for us, His justice, His mercy, and the Sacrifice of His son for our redemption and His glory.

    I feel like we’re arguing our two sides: God’s self-seeking glory and God’s love for us, when really, they exist side by side and they create each other.

    And Matt… never say never ;)

    May 19, 2009 @ 4:28 pm
  • Comment by Matt
  • We know He’s great for a lot more than his mercy and sovereignty. :)

    We shouldn’t have to argue Smith’s song either, I was just making a point. So now that we know we are both one the same-ish page. What is your opinion for limited atonement? jk jk jk.

    May 19, 2009 @ 7:13 pm
  • Comment by Micah Taylor
  • Matt… I don’t even know what that means…

    I’m sure Driscoll’s got a sermon on it though, just download that podcast and you’ll understand my opinion… I pretty much just try to carbon copy his views.

    hahahaha

    May 19, 2009 @ 7:33 pm
  • Comment by Justin Long
  • haha driscoll actually believes in unlimited limited atonement i’m pretty sure.. ill let you borrow my Death by Love book sometime soon

    May 20, 2009 @ 3:13 am
  • RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

    Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.














    Powered by Wordpress using the theme bbv1