Church musicians must be exclusive?

[nrand]

I'm a minister as well as a musician. I love to play occasionally in worship, and go to the local progressive pub venue where i am welcome to play anything I like. We never ask our church musicians for exclusive contracts except an exclusive commitment to worship and weekly rehearsal times - anything beyond that spells CULT to me. The God I worship advocates freedom and trust.

[Faraldi]

The only "contract" should be the one that the musician makes with his Savior.

Sounds pretty scary to me. I serve on my church worship team and I also perform in a very active rock band, Tripleshift. My drummer and I started the group in order to get the Word outside the church walls and into places where people may not be down with opening a Bible or hearing a preacher. The music is what we call, "stealth" in that His message is in the lyrics, allowing people to get it on their own. Many have compared us to Creed. However I've probably got a good 50 pounds on Scott Stapp!

Bottom line is that the contract sounds way to similar to "doctrine" and doctrine equates to "religion".

IMHO, religion is defined as what I can do for God. I follow Christ because of what He has already done for me.

God bless.

Joe Faraldi

[dr. love]

All spiritual aspects aside... From a purly business standpoint, an employer has the right to set the job requirements, terms and conditions of employment and the compensation for the job, the individual has the right to make the decision of whether or not those requirements, terms and compensation are acceptable.

With that in mind, this church is not doing anything different from lots of major companies that have exclusivity contracts. Some companies even stipulate that you cannot work for a competitor even after you leave for "x" amount of time.

That being said, personally, I would probably not accept the terms as they are listed here, but would be interested in finding out the reasons for the restrictions. It might make a difference.

[ravindave_3600]

Not criticism, but clarification:

Originally Posted by Faraldi

doctrine equates to "religion". IMHO, religion is defined as what I can do for God.

Doctrine (Lat) = "that which is taught". You are filled with doctrine, and your church inDOCTRINates you every week (or it should). If you have no doctrine, you don't know what you're about.

Titus 2:1
I Timothy 4:16

[Hiker]

+1 Faraldi's comments! See post and the link in # 42, above.

[ggiles]

Wow .... scary.

I thought churchs promoted an individuals freedoms with respect to God.
I thought a person donated his time and talent to perform in a church band?
Are you being paid? Maybe a contract would be in order then but for for free
... I'd consider another church.

[Faraldi]

I agree, ravindave_3600. Just as in the Jewish faith, the rabbi (literal translation - "teacher") our pastors, priests, deacons, etc. should also serve in that role in order to provide a basis of teaching that is only from Scripture and nothing from the world. Fully agree.

I see the "church" as the body of Believers and the person or persons standing at the pulpit is simply a member of that body.

My concern is that if that person, or really ANY person within the Body starts to misuse doctrine in order to place worldly requirements on one another, we then begin to start caring more about the created and not about the Creator.

Romans 1:25

I guess that's what I was getting at in my post.

(Man, I LOVE this forum!!!)

Great to meet you, brother!! I appreciate the discussion.

Joe Faraldi

Originally Posted by ravindave_3600

Not criticism, but clarification:



Doctrine (Lat) = "that which is taught". You are filled with doctrine, and your church inDOCTRINates you every week (or it should). If you have no doctrine, you don't know what you're about.

Titus 2:1
I Timothy 4:16

[sax4blues]

Just to keep things from going too far here. I do not have any detail beyond the simple statement my friend made, I haven't seen him in the week since OP. I will see him tonight and I will talk with him more about what he said. I have never heard of this from any church and that is why I asked this group.

He may have misunderstood what they are requiring and I'm sure I don't know enough details yet.

[Faraldi]

Hey sax4blues,

I hear ya. Folks can get real passionate on this subject.

...and believe me, I HAVE seen this (and similar stuff) happen with some churches. Some pretty interesting stuff out there.

Good original post to wake me up at work on a rainy day in Kansas.

Peace,
Joe

Originally Posted by sax4blues

Just to keep things from going too far here. I do not have any detail beyond the simple statement my friend made, I haven't seen him in the week since OP. I will see him tonight and I will talk with him more about what he said. I have never heard of this from any church and that is why I asked this group.

He may have misunderstood what they are requiring and I'm sure I don't know enough details yet.

[Whiskeyneck]

Don't post often, but this one hits close to home.

My wife and I have faith. It is a part of who we are that is carried where we go. You can't put labels, or limitations on that. I don't sit in at a blues jam and forsake that- faith is built on the insights that both mistakes and successes bring forth.

My wife and I do take invitations to lead worship at different churches- and I mean different. Inner city and mixed racial backgrounds all the way to bleached white suburban extragavanzas. We do this because we perform where we want, and do what we want. We're big boys and girls, and we travel in faith.

This attitude of church stipulations can get ugly, as many of you have already testified to. I've been guilty of the Merc thing on a rare occaision, and I don't like it. Sometimes I've taken gigs when the church knew I couldn't stay through the service. It's not a habit.

One church, however, went far beyond the call. A previous poster mentioned "getting reports about conflicting behaviors"... Two weeks after Christianity Today gave our album, a blue-rock all originals affair, 4 out of 5 stars, the church we rented our house from said that they got reports that we played in blues bars, and other places, and were no longer welcome to play in their church. Christianity Today, one of the world's best-selling Christian magazines, wrote a glowing review and praised the heart of what we were doing- "light in dark place"- while the church completely ignored it's sole purpose in existance.

Needless to say, my faith remains intact, and that church has crumbled under it's leadership. I've seen it time and again.

My $.02. Much love and peace to all the fellow TDPRI-er's for this great board.

BTW- Whiskeyneck is the name of a Sixty Watt Shaman song, not a social endeavor, so keep that in respect when posting about the faithfullness of someone who posts about church matters under such a name. The song is about witchhunts, if I remember correctly...

[Faraldi]

Yep, we've lost invitations to play at some church functions because we also play in bars and such.

Peace,
Joe

Originally Posted by Whiskeyneck

Don't post often, but this one hits close to home.

My wife and I have faith. It is a part of who we are that is carried where we go. You can't put labels, or limitations on that. I don't sit in at a blues jam and forsake that- faith is built on the insights that both mistakes and successes bring forth.

My wife and I do take invitations to lead worship at different churches- and I mean different. Inner city and mixed racial backgrounds all the way to bleached white suburban extragavanzas. We do this because we perform where we want, and do what we want. We're big boys and girls, and we travel in faith.

This attitude of church stipulations can get ugly, as many of you have already testified to. I've been guilty of the Merc thing on a rare occaision, and I don't like it. Sometimes I've taken gigs when the church knew I couldn't stay through the service. It's not a habit.

One church, however, went far beyond the call. A previous poster mentioned "getting reports about conflicting behaviors"... Two weeks after Christianity Today gave our album, a blue-rock all originals affair, 4 out of 5 stars, the church we rented our house from said that they got reports that we played in blues bars, and other places, and were no longer welcome to play in their church. Christianity Today, one of the world's best-selling Christian magazines, wrote a glowing review and praised the heart of what we were doing- "light in dark place"- while the church completely ignored it's sole purpose in existance.

Needless to say, my faith remains intact, and that church has crumbled under it's leadership. I've seen it time and again.

My $.02. Much love and peace to all the fellow TDPRI-er's for this great board.

BTW- Whiskeyneck is the name of a Sixty Watt Shaman song, not a social endeavor, so keep that in respect when posting about the faithfullness of someone who posts about church matters under such a name. The song is about witchhunts, if I remember correctly...

[scooteraz]

Hey, it's their praise band, and even if I don't get the requirement (which I personally don't) if he decides to play with them, it is what he will have to do. Probably, I would not. But then my church doesn't look at things that way.

[sax4blues]

Talked with my friend tonight and this is what I learned.

This church views playing in the band as a leadership position and don't want the worship leaders singing Highway to Hell Saturday night and leading worship on Sunday morning.

I personally believe an all or nothing contract is extreme, there is plenty of secular music with lyrics that are not detrimental to christian faith. I would not engage in this form of legalism and I worry what else is forbidden.

But this is his choice, he does not need to play in this church band and they don't make him stop his other music to be a church member and worship there.

[ravindave_3600]

S4B, thanks for getting back to us on this, telling "the rest of the story". I can understand their point and agree with you, too. Did he tell you what he's decided to do?

[ggiles]

Nope .... just walk away .... remindes me of the episode of WKRP on censorship.

Jesus walked with thieves and the sick ... come to think of it the "church" censored him too....

[Mike Bruce]

Funny, 45 years of singing in the church choir and this subject has never come up.

Mike Bruce

[Ptrallan01]

They have their positions we have ours. Its all good. I don't think they are wrong in what they want and I don't think we would be wrong to reject that. There is a good amount of Liberty in Christ. Each local body is free to reflect this in different ways. I am often reminded of the story that Dr. J Vernon McGee told of his move to California from Texas.

The Californians were scandalized by the fact that he smoked cigarettes. But to him it was normal everyone in TX where he was from smoked. He in turn was scandalized by the fact the men and women went to the beach together. That was taboo in TX.

Neither had anything to do with salvation but each was something the local bodies had adopted as reflective of their walk with Christ.

This church has its standards, I won't knock them but won't imitate them either.

[tom grossheider]

Originally Posted by sax4blues

I would not engage in this form of legalism and I worry what else is forbidden.

This is not legalism, it is just the rules that this assembly has defined for those who choose to join the worship team. Legalism would be requiring some form of external behaviour to be essential for salvation, certainly not what this church sounds like it is doing. If you don't like it, then that's fine and go find somewhere else to worship. Be free in Christ, not entangled with unimportant issues. (Good to see you Peter!)

[Brian Krashpad]

Originally Posted by Wahwax

I think the reason might be that they don't want you playing in a bar on Saturday night and then in church on Sunday. While you might be a great Christian witness in the bar, many people will just see that a leader in the church was at the bar.

Of course.

Just like the Pharisees only saw that Jesus broke all sorts of their rules about propriety, like being around prostitutes and known collaborators (tax collectors), and doing various things they considered work on the Sabbath.

In other words, Jesus Himself would not have been welcome as a leader in that church.

Sad when substance is trumped by formality.

[scooteraz]

Originally Posted by tom grossheider

This is not legalism, it is just the rules that this assembly has defined for those who choose to join the worship team. Legalism would be requiring some form of external behaviour to be essential for salvation, certainly not what this church sounds like it is doing. If you don't like it, then that's fine and go find somewhere else to worship. Be free in Christ, not entangled with unimportant issues. (Good to see you Peter!)

Originally Posted by Brian Krashpad

Of course.

Just like the Pharisees only saw that Jesus broke all sorts of their rules about propriety, like being around prostitutes and known collaborators (tax collectors), and doing various things they considered work on the Sabbath.

In other words, Jesus Himself would not have been welcome as a leader in that church.

Sad when substance is trumped by formality.

We really can't get into this (and the issues raised in these two posts, as well as a couple of others) without knowing the exegesis behind their theology. That would be a theological discussion. Theological discussions are not allowed here, therefore the obvious syllogistic outcome is that we cannot actually discuss this part of the issue here. I think it unwise to describe unknown folks actions as "...substance (being) trumped by formality..." without their ability to defend their actions based on their theological underpinnings and understandings. We may not agree, but, this is not the forum to discuss that specific issue (per the rules).

Again, it is their church, their P&W team and they get to set the rules. As I stated in an earlier post, I would probably not sign the contract, but that is a personal decision by the friend of the OP, hopefully aided by prayer.