8/31/08 CONFESSIONAL

"HEALER"

Many in the worship world were shocked last week when news broke of Mike Guglielmucci's 2-year deception regarding his illness and it's role in the history of his worship song, "Healer."

Now, information is being released that Guglielmucci has long suffered from sexual addiction and what seems to be some sort of psychosomatic difficulty. While the "why" still remains to be seen, moments like these are always great times for analysis and reflection for those of who are called to serve with songs, prayers, scriptures in the atmosphere of the corporate adoration of God Almighty.

In fact, I think there are a couple of key things that we can learn from this situation. It would be better for me to say "there are things I AM LEARNING from this situation" as it has rolled around in my head.

1. THIS IS LAME

I first found out about this through Ragamuffin Soul and I have to say that I was surprised at the initial responses. As I scrolled down, I fully expected to see lots of frustration...more "Holy cow!" or "Oh no!" Instead, I saw a majority of "This guy needs grace and forgiveness." While that is completely true, I was bothered by the lack of rage I saw. Of course, that doesn't mean that nobody felt rage, just that no one was commenting it.

But I believe it's important that people who care about worship take a moment to call "foul" on this one. This is deception on a global scale. This lie (and the work that went into maintaining it) has brought shame and hurt to multiple churches and quite a few music executives who gave this song a chance. This song, birthed in the Planetshakers movement, became an anthem for a generation of believers...and while the song remains the same, there are countless followers of God

2. THIS IS MARKETING

The most damaging thing about this song, this story, this lie...is that it shames a lot of us. I understand that a story like Guglielmucci's is a powerful one. And I don't blame Hillsong or the Integrity people for sharing it. But every song has a back-story and churches, ministries, labels, etc., have to make choices as to which back story they're going to promote. They'd be fools not to share this story...the blame is on me.

I'm better than this - I'm smarter than this - and so are all of you. You see, "Healer" suckered me, too. You know why? Because it was the story that got me. Yes, the song is good, but if I'm being honest, I'll tell you that for me, the song's biggest strength was it's emotionalism. This song was bounced off heartstrings to the top of the heap. And I don't think that's ever a good thing.

Yeah, emotions are a part of our worship. God built them into us and they do respond when we adore Him. But when we connect to things on an emotional level (which does happen,) we've got to be sure to take some time to also use our heads. Emotions are not static. They wane. And when we're connected to something built to honor a God who is forever, our connection needs to be steady as well and not victims to the whims of circumstance.

3. THIS IS IMPORTANT

We should be glad that "Healer" is, in fact, a good song. It says things that are true and right. These lyrics line up with scripture. They do not, in my opinion, present an unbalanced view of God's purposes or His provision. But can you imagine if they did?

What if "Healer" was a horrible song? What if the tune had shoddy theology and declared things that were detrimental to the faith and we missed it because of a guy's cancer story?

That's why we talk about these things. That's we take a moment to slap ourselves and get our heart and heads straightened out again. I'm surprised I'm not seeing more discussion about this song on worship-related blogs. Stuff like this matters...to those who lead worship and to those who don't.

Some questions...

1. Have you heard the song? What were your initial thoughts?
2. Think this revelation will hurt the song's success?
3. If the song still prospers, what are your thoughts on royalties? If the song survives, Gugglielmucci is bound to receive some pretty nice financial rewards from it? Does that make it better or worse?

Confess Yourself

"YOUR" TUNES

Had another great "skribit" suggestion come through! Somebody out there asked how I go about adding my own songs in a worship set.

Once again, a great question from the Skribit movement! Thanks!

This is definitely a question that doesn't apply to everybody. I know lots of worship leaders who aren't songwriters and never have to deal with this. But I know lots of other songwriting worship leaders who struggle with it quite a bit.

This one is pretty close to my heart because the songwriting thing has always been a struggle for me. Here's why...

I love songwriting. I love it and I love the sense of purpose and fulfillment one gets when writing a song for a congregation. Because I love songwriting so much, I care about it a lot, which means I analyze it a lot. Which means I have opinions about it. A lot.

See where I'm going with this? When I was younger, I really did dream of one day being able to have an entire worship set of my own songs. There were a couple of reasons for this.

1. I was arrogant and thought I was the best songwriter in the world. I thought my songs deserved to be in every setlist.
2. I had a messed up view of "success" in worship leading.

It's been a long (and strange) journey, but I can honestly say that I have no problem leading worship without one of my tunes in the song service. God's been so good to me, and I do feel confident in my songs, but in His grace, He's changed my heart about the issue.

Here's "when" I use my own songs.

The song should support the service.
That's key for any worship leader, right? Like a lot of other songwriters, I tend to write songs to fill gaps. For example, I may be sitting in church, hearing a sermon about Heaven and then realize that there are very few modern worship songs about Heaven. So, I go and try to write a song like that. I may not use it ever or I may play it on the next Sunday, but I like songwriting this way. Writing to fill gaps really brings a new level of creativity to your writing and it also helps to keep you focused.

Because of that, my songs are often specifically targeted. While that may not make them "hit material," they do lend themselves to very specific instances. So, if you hear me do one of my songs in church, it's probably because I felt like that particular tune did the best job of supporting what's been said, prayed or analyzed.

It should also be noted that I do travel as a worship leader from time-to-time. In those cases, I'm sometimes playing to people who have my CD and have asked me to their event based on their feelings about that CD. In those cases, I think it's important to use whatever tunes the event sponsors are digging. I usually ask them which songs connect the best and try to do those. That's a very specific instance that doesn't really apply to weekly worship in a church, but I thought it was fair to note that exception.
Here's "how" I use my own songs.

Sneaky is always best.
There are a few things to note when trying to introduce your own songs. These are lessons learned on stages and in churches. (Many of them hard lessons.)

Lesson 1: Take your time. Sometimes if I've got a new song I want to use, I'll split it up. Maybe I take the chorus and attach it to more well-known song. I might do that two or three times to get the congregation familiar with it. If I do this for a few weeks and then decide to move into a full version of the song, I might initially start with chorus first, that being the part my people would know and sing.

Lesson 2: Keep quiet. Personally, one of the worst things a songwriting worship leader can do is to let people know he or she is doing original stuff. (I know this from painful experience.) This happens a few different ways...
-Putting your own copyright info onscreen.
-Introducing your own song with some story of why you wrote it.
-Telling people that this song "means a lot to me."

Here's why that's bad...by putting your copyright on a screen, you're going to open yourself to every form of compliment. Think about it. If your info is up there and folks come up to you and compliment your tune, how do you know they're not just being nice? How do you know they've responded on the merit of the song? You don't. Since I don't put my copyright info on slides, I usually have a great way to find out if a song is working or not. If folks come up then, I know the song is strong enough to stand on it's own.

Introducing a song with the behind-the-music just doesn't work. Why would you want to talk about that? Why not mention something about the song as you would with any other tune (not written by you!) Not only does it present a song in humility...it also builds humility into you.

I don't think any worship leader anywhere should tell folks a song is being done because "it means a lot to me." Primarily because worship and setlist planning isn't about the worship leader...it's about the congregation. And secondly, if it's your own tune, of course it means a lot to you. Why state the obvious, right?

_____

This may seem like overthinking or overreaction, but I don't think it is. I think it's important for worship leaders who write to be very careful about the way in which they present their songs. A little planning and some humility will go a long way in making the inclusion of your song a seamless, beneficial addition to your worship service.

THE MIX

Everybody approaches "the mix" differently. Some churches like new stuff. All the time. New stuff.

Other church like the old stuff, the familiar, the standby, the tried-and-true.

Some churches like a blend.

And some churches don't really care.

Since I'm in the process of changing churches in the next few weeks, my approach to this will probably change once I get in place, but for now, let me share how I've approached song selection/rotation in my time at First Methodist.

WHAT'S OLD
As introduction, let me say that when I speak of "old" in this post, I'm not necessarily talking about hymns. Sure, they can fit in that category, but I'm using "old" to refer to songs that the congregation has been singing for some time. It might be a Vineyard song written four years ago, but the church has sung in 800 times and knows it cold.

THE CATALOG
I don't want you to get the wrong idea here. There's not an actual "catalog" of songs sitting in my office. There's no giant whiteboard calendar or spinning wheel program on my computer. No, the "catalog" I speak of resides primarily in my head. Here's how I manage a song catalog.

Since I put all the songs on a website, I also keep a running list of what we've played. There are programs that do this - Planning Center, some CCLI apps, etc., but I just keep them in a Word document. Here's what that list does for me.
#1. Allows me to track song usage. I notate the first six times I do a song. (Research tells us a congregation "learns" a tune by 6 plays.) So, for the first six appearances, my tunes have little 1-2-3-4-5 or 6 beside them. Once I hit six performances, I know that the song is fairly ingrained, meaning it's not necessarily considered a "new" song anymore.

#2. Allows me to keep up with CCLI reporting. Now, CCLI is usually very good about sending a letter telling me it's time to start reportving again, but my little database file helps me know a bit further out that my reporting season is coming up soon.

#3. Keeps me fresh. Here's the thing...a song catalog simply cannot be more than about 25 songs, in my opinion. I don't think it's wise to consider every song you've ever done, ever will do and ever can do as your catalog. It's just too many songs. And I think congregations get that, too. At any given time, there are 20+ songs that you're probably focusing on. Sure, you've got more tunes that that, but you and I are staying in certain areas at different times of the year. A massive database like this helps me when I want to do something different. I can scan back through my list to find that "old" song that we haven't done in awhile. No, it's not part of our current catalog list, but it's familiar enough that I can throw it in to add some freshness.

OLD VS. NEW
I like teaching new songs. I think it's important to constantly be on the lookout for tunes that are going to galvanize moments or ideas for our crowds. Lots of new songs don't work...usually by about the 4th use, I know if a tune is going to work or not. That's okay if some songs don't work. Because some do.

I'd say I try to introduce 1 new song a month. Sometimes it's more, sometimes it's less. But that's probably a fair average overall.

In a set with a new song, I'd say three of them are fairly familiar (10+ plays) one is new and one is "old" (20+ plays.)

KILLING TUNES
I think it's okay to kill a tune. (Because you have the power to resurrect it at any time!) I've read some guys who say every time they add a new song, they remove a current one from their "top 25" list. I'm not quite that particular about it, but I do think it's okay to realize that a song may have very little life left in it. This varies from place to place, of course!

When I'm planning way in advance, I can be way more creative with song usage, but when I'm pressed for time, having a database is a big help.

SO....

How do you rotate? Use software or some other application to keep setlists straight? And what songs have been "sung to death" at your church?

RIGHTEOUS ROCK

"Secular songs in worship."

That's a biggie these days, isn't it?

That one came through the Skribit suggestion box over on the toolbar, and even though it said "anonymous," I know who did it. And you will pay...

No, this is a great issue for discussion. And as with almost everything we talk about around here, every church is different. Every congregation responds in its own way to stuff. It should also be noted that I've got friends in churches that do use secular tunes and my friends and I politely and respectfully disagree...like Christians should, right?

But...this is my blog and I typically try to give my honest opinion, so here we go.

_____

I actually don't like the idea of using secular songs in worship. I have a few reasons. Some of them are serious, some of them may seem a little silly, but hopefully they'll make sense. Here's why I don't dig the secular tunes...in no particular order.

#1. WANNABEs
My first reason is a pretty simple one. I don't like doing secular songs because of what they produce in a band dynamic. Time after time, I've seen praise bands take on a secular song as if it's their one chance to finally "rock" in church. And let's face it - aren't most praise bands filled with middle-aged white dudes who used to dream of being real rock stars? In my experience, doing secular tunes brings out a lot of silliness. Players tend to overplay and ham it up on stage, which I personally don't think benefits worship. It's true that there are lots of great secular songs out there - full of truth, honest questions, musical creativity. I just don't like what it does to us. (Why do rehearse the Lifehouse cover 13 times but play through our worship set barely once in preparation?)

#2. WHAT WORSHIP IS FOR
Let me start off by saying that I like evangelism. And I do not consider myself a Calvinist. But I do hold Sunday worship as "the Lord's day." Now, we can argue about the actual "Sabbath" all you want, but I believe that Sundays are for worship. The saints to gather, give praise unto God and study the scriptures. No doubt, lots of people give their lives to Christ on Sunday mornings, but I'm always going to be leery when someone starts talking to me about what we can do to our Sunday worship to bring in more "seekers." There are times and places for intentional evangelism. I just don't believe that worship is up for debate - I don't believe we approach that sacred time before the Father with a sideways glance to all those "other" folks who might be watching.

And this is about as "postmodern" as I get, gang. But I do believe that the community which we share as we sing, pray, study scriptures, baptize and take communion speaks volumes of who God is. I believe that our worship "paints a picture of the Father." I believe the promise of God that "if I be lifted up, I will draw all men unto me." I strongly believe that Sunday worship is a time dedicated to lifting God up - exalting, extolling and seeking Him. And I believe He's big enough to reach someone regardless of the song that's playing.

#3. BRANDING
This one is gonna' go off the rails a little bit, but I think it's pretty sound...for the most part.

I don't like secular songs in worship for the same reason I don't like doing a sermon series based on the TV show "24" or "Lost." (I'm indebted to Andrew Osenga for his wise words on this trend.) It always seems like we trying to steal a brand here.

When we do a series called "What Not To Wear," are we really doing anything remotely close to that fashion TV show or are just lifting the title so folks will come to church? Because if somebody shows up at your church because they think two very well-dressed, fit TV hosts with shiny white teeth are going to give out makeovers to the audience, then they are going to be pretty disappointed.

To me, secular songs are like this. As I said, secular songs have a lot of good questions in them. Some even have some pretty significant truth statements in them. I just don't know what those songs are supposed to do to our congregants. Show our faithful that we're cool because we know secular songs? Show our guests that we're "doing church differently" by recognizing truth within non-Christian songs? I don't think using cover tunes does either one of those things.
______

I think what really hurts in doing stuff like this is that we don't really have a way to judge success or failure here. I was once at a church that did a very awkward cover of a classic rock and roll song. It wasn't cool and it wasn't funny and I'm still not sure why they did it. And there was pretty obvious confusion and apathy in the crowd, too. But did the band ever hear that? Did anybody find a pastor the next week and say, "Hey, that was weird and it made me feel like somebody just hijacked our service for about three minutes." I didn't.

I think secular songs are way cool for the band and service planners...I'm just not sure they fit into a time of worship.

My two-cents. Now...what's YOUR take?

CONFESS YOURSELF

Okay...what did you church sing?

REVIEW

Hillsong Live - This Is Our God
Integrity Music

If you're a part of the American church, you probably know who the Hillsong folks are. Now, back in the day, they were the biggest deal in worship music. Their album output is amazing...there for awhile, it seemed like there was a giant Hillsong CD machine popping them out once every ten months.

Then, two or three years ago, most of the worship world woke up to United. The powerful, seperate musical entity birthed in Hillsong Church's student ministry. And that's when it got crazy.

As the United songs became more popular, more of them started showing up on records by Hillsong proper. And, of course, debate ensued. (Which version of "Salvation Is Here" is better? Why did they kill that guitar riff? That sort of thing.)

Well, Hillsong's new record is out (along with a companion DVD) and its causing quite a stir. Normally in CD reviews, I tend to approach them very systematically. But for this review, I'm just gonna' hit the high points - the things that stand out to me about this record.

STICKING WITH WHAT WORKS
This sounds like a United record. Hillsong's frontwoman Darlene Z. is in the mix, but not near as much as in previous records. This is a Joel Houston/Brooke Fraser affair. And it works, big time. I think the United team are bringing a nice dynamic approach to the Hillsong catalog - lots of atmosphere, relatively easy-to-follow arrangements and a dash of rock and roll.

PET SOUNDS
While there's lots of trademark stuff here, there's also some new territory. The most noticeable thing is the use of toms. Previous Hillsong records have been relatively straight-ahead projects, but This Is Our God experiments with tom-drumming in a way that's creative and yet still stays away from knocking off Coldplay. The vocals are really well done, too. Previous Hillsong records have felt a little too crowded for me - five or six singers, giant choir, crowd mics, etc. All of those things are there again this go 'round, but I feel like the record is mixed to give a pretty intimate feel to the melodies.

I'm also glad that the United Rhodes isn't all up in my face. United records are well-known for their liberal use of a Rhodes keyboard/electric piano organ patch. It's a cool sound...but a little predictable. It's still there in the new record, but it's used way more thoughtfully and simply, which really makes skillful use of it's tone.

The one thing that keeps sticking around is high, tremolo/delay lines. United has loved this sound for awhile and it's on the Hillsong stage, too. Imagine three or four guitar tracks...and then this little single note warble running throughout the song. Like the Rhodes and organ, it's cool, but it's getting less cool the more I hear it.

The production quality of this record feels way more "thought out." Instead of just blistering through tracks, we get some real subtle arrangement embellishments. The vocals and melodies are outstanding and I think they've got some musical backing just as amazing.

SAYING SOMETHING
I really like the lyrical direction of this record. This Is Our God leaves behind some Hillsong's name it-claim it, I've-got-the-victr'y approaches. There's also not a lot of United's trademark we're-gonna-start-a-revolution, fire-storm-rain, come-on-get-up-shake-your-booty themes either. These songs are God-focused prayers, many of them focusing on placing our trust in God in our most difficult times.

WHO'LL DO IT?
That's always the question, huh? Can these songs be done? Can your church team pull them off? Who knows? So far, I've got three tunes marked for consideration - the nice jangle of "Run" would be a nice opening groove for worship; Brooke Fraser "Desert Song" feels pretty welcoming; and "Healer" is something of a powerhouse. (Although I think songs about healing often require a little bit of scriptural background...just to get our minds right.) I'm sure there are other tunes that are accessible and available to teams. So far, those are the three that feel the best for my team.

This Is Our God is really one of the best Hillsong releases we've heard in a long, long time. I think you'll love it.

YOUTH BANDS, PART II

The second section in our "youth band" segment involves the non-essentials. In other words, "what can we leave behind?"

As before in our first section on youth worship, the non-essentials in this post are 100% opinion. I have worked with youth bands and feel pretty confident in my list, but as always, these are up for discussion.

So...what can we forget about? What's non-essential?

COVERS
I think leaving behind the idea that "we have to nail this song perfectly" is a wise move.

But not an easy one.

If you have teenagers who dig a song (or at least are willing to listen to something an old fogey like you want to play,) they're going to want to do it like the CD version. Because they like that version.

And that's okay...sometimes that happens.

But I think killing this idea that we have to (or even able to) perfectly replicate the song really makes a big difference in your team.

It's not a hard sell, really. A simple ten minute discussion about overdubs will quickly show your kids that there's no way a 4-piece band is going to nail that Casting Crowns' version. Eliminating this pressure to perform frees your kids up - both to experiment within their own ability and to realize that worship songs must be used in the congregational context. Teaching our bands this goes a long way toward building pastoral care in them.

LABELS
Labels have killed many a youth band.

Look, I don't have a problem if the youth band wants to have a "name." But we name the band and talk about the band and encourage them to particpate in community Battles of the Bands and make flyers with their pictures and promote them like we would any other "event" or concert within in our ministry.

But here's what that does:
1. It reinforces the very thing we need to kill in our hearts. Musicians are egotistical, applause hungry individuals. I know. Believe me, I know. Labeling a youth band only feeds that rock star mentality, which I can guarantee is already living inside each of us. And the rock star monster is insatiable...he consumes things like applause and stage lighting and web hits and gushing.
2. If the band doesn't "make it," all those labels feel pretty silly. To them and you. Christening your youth band is dangerous because, even at it's best, this band is not going to win a Dove award. They're not going to get a record deal and eventually, some of them will graduate out of your ministry. What do you do with all the fylers and promotion then?
3. Labels force kids to pick an "image." Start talking about naming your youth band and getting them gigs and pretty soon you'll have an all-out war about the band's "sound." Once you add a whole new dynamic - playing in front of strangers - you run the risk of beginning to select songs on their performance value rather than their worship worth.

DIY
Youth bands are hard work. And too many of them have suffered from a lack of support and encouragement. I think it's important to make sure we take a long time before we give control over to the students. And that's a hard thing, really. Once they're functioning pretty well together, it's easy to just buy them some music, make sure their sound gear is working and let them have it.

Lots of ministry resources talk about letting kids "own" ministry, and I agree. I just think a lot of us are too quick to give total control to our students in an area like worship - that's so hard most adults are still trying to figure it out!
_____
It's not my intent to sound negative here. I really do think that every youth band is different and so my ideas may not work for your team. But in my experience, these little lessons can help us to be better and do better for those students within our congregations who step up to serve.

YOUTH BANDS, PART I

Thanks to our very cool new "Skribit" window, I've had a couple of cool suggestions come through for possible subjects for worshipnotes to tackle.

The first one I want to approach is this question:

Priorities of youth bands...what's important? What can be left alone?

Wow! What a question! As always, it's best to remember that this is a blog run by me, one dude, with his own opinions about worship. What I offer on this site is a mix of what I believe theoretically about worship alongside what I've actually seen and experienced as well.

I can really only hit this question from personal experience. In other words, what do I prioritize when I'm in charge of a youth band? (I'd like to hit this in two parts...first talking about what's important and then, in a later post, what is non-essential.)

DISCIPLESHIP
There are essentially two modes of operation for youth bands. (And adult worship teams, too.)

One approach is evangelistically motivated. Meaning, that we open the youth band to find kids who are interested in music. In this mode, we're not really making a student's spiritual life a deciding factor. We use music as the "bait." We get kids involved and then, prayerfully and hopefully, influence them for the Kingdom.

The second approach is ministry motivated. This means that we view worship leading as a high calling - something that the Father calls discipled believers to do. If we take the "leader" seriously, we understand that students in the worship team need to exemplify spiritual leadership in all its forms. (Holiness, prayer, study, integrity...)

Personally, I am of the second thought. In my experience, evangelistically motivated youth bands have a strange record. I've seen it work, but for the most part, I've seen it become a disaster. I've seen a lot of youth bands filled with great musicians who lead pretty self-centered, Godless lives. This can only hurt worship, because it creates an attitude among their peers...students in the crowd aren't going to fully trust that worship is a God-motivated issue if the folks leading them are living lives that are God motivated. I prefer to use students on stage who are devout - certainly not perfect - but kids who are most definitely and obviously making God the utmost pursuit of their lives.

Regardless of your approach, discipleship has to be key. If you're leading youth band as outreach, you're going to have to invest a lot of time in teaching and leading by example. If you're running things "ministerally," you're going to have to work hard and making sure your kid stay faithful to their commitment to God as you all delve deeper into what God desires in our praise.

MENTORING
To most, this is considered a "no brainer." The truth is that most every ministry is going to have mentoring as a key component. But for youth bands, I think it's pivotal. Of course, there is musical mentoring...talking about artists, arrangements, different song ideas. But even more important is the idea of investment - that we make a passionate effort to involve ourselves in the lives of the students. That we care about them as people, not just players on our team. In all honesty, this is typically the hardest aspect for me personally. I've always struggled to find the time and opportunity to engage in students' lives in this way. In my experience, my best "youth band leadership" jobs have included positive, intentional, relational mentoring. My worst jobs, of course, have not.

DYNAMICS
Again, this ought to be taught, discusses and modeled in every kind of team, but I can honestly say that teaching students appreciation for and application of dynamic playing is critical to the success of any team. More than learning scales, memorizing charts or filling their iPod with setlists, learning how and when to play is vital. Teaching a team the benefit of thinking sectionally within a "linear" song arrangement is going to grow your musicians by leaps and bounds. Encouraging students to explore their own music - the stuff they dig - for dynamic builds and arragements is a great way to get kids to appreciate what skilled interplay among good musicians can bring to a worship set.
HOMEWORK

To me, these are the four biggies. As I said - this is all opinion - but I do believe there are some essential things that we simply cannot let go when dealing with students in worship.

Personally, I'd like to see more students "moving up" in worship. Because my job now doesn't involve as much student ministry, I can definitely see the giant worship gap in adult teams. I'd love to the be the type of worship leader that trains, enables and encourages teenagers and college students to continue up into the adult team, bringing with them passion, creativity and fun.

We'll hit the "what to leave behind" section in a couple of days, but for now...what do you think? Got some essentials I left out? Disagree with something in my list? Almost everybody who reads worshipnotes has some sort of youth-band experience. Please share!

CONFESS YOURSELF

Hey, worshipnotes readers!

I'd love to know what you guys would like to see on worshipnotes.

Check out the blog and make a suggestion in our Skribit suggestion box!

A CONVERSATION

Heard a great question on Sunday from a guy at church.

We were talking about worship and new songs and he mentioned that he spent a lot of time in his car, listening to worship music.

He also said he would love it as a member of the congregation if he could be listening to some of the worship songs we're teaching before they're actually introduced.

This is a great concept - I tend to plan sets in advance, so my band has the songs relatively early...and here's a congregant wanting in on the fun. So I started thinking how I might make that available. Burning CDs or sending him the little band website doesn't really seem like the best way to do it. What to do...what to do.

And then I remembered MUXTAPE. If you follow my other blog, you'll see that I just setup a Muxtape Site for all the stuff I'm digging. Since Muxtape prevents folks from actually "downloading" the tracks, it might be a great way for folks to check out what we'll be singing over the next two months. Sure, it requires some early planning, but who doesn't benefit from that, huh?

Go over and check out Muxtape. It's a cool site. It makes me sad that we, as leaders, have access to some great web applications that could really help us stay connected, get info and involve ourselves in "faith matters" every single day.

Thoughts on Muxtape? Thoughts on other tech developments that might bless and encourage the church?