This question is for those of you who have praise teams at your congregation.  Are your praise team members selected by an audition process?

Yes ___
No  ___

Well, folks, this week's poll was statistically pretty straight-forward.  How many prefer standing praise teams, and how many prefer seated praise teams?

There were 25 votes total.
Standing: 18 votes, or 72%
Seated: 7 votes, or 28%

-JP

This question assumes you have experienced a worship setting with a praise team.  Do you prefer that the team be seated or standing?

We'd like for everyone to weigh in on this survey with one word:

___ Seated   or   ___ Standing

After giving your one word answer, you are welcome to add coments if you choose, but primarily we are asking for one word (seated or standing) and we'll calculate the results on Saturday.  What's your preference?

There is a potential musical element and a visual element to praise team ministries.  Should the team stand up front with the worship leader or remain “seated” with the rest of the congregation?  (Some call this the “stealth team” approach.)  Let’s look at the options.

 

Pictured:  Jerome Williams, Acappella & Free Indeed at Garnett (Tulsa)

 

If a praise team stands up front, the responsibility to “model” worship greatly increases.  (This reminds me of the New Testament admonition that not many should be teachers.)  Of course, this is important for any worship leader to consider.  How many times have you seen a song leader singing a song and his facial expressions and emotions seem unrelated to the words he is singing?  How can an expressionless person convey the extreme joy that some of our songs exude?  Or worse yet, what about a scowling facial expression that blatantly contradicts a song of peace, joy and love?  I am saddened when I witness a very demonstrative person (animated and enthusiastic in other settings) transform into a completely unemotional leader.

 

This principle is important for all worship leaders, not just in considering praise teams.  Okay, to get the negative analogies over with, I admit that I have seen praise teams standing up front who really distracted my worship.  At the risk of sounding judgmental, I could easily see how they could be interpreted as appearing dead, unengaged, or worse, exuding a “prideful” attitude – a sort of “I’m a great singer and you’re not” impression.  We must prevent the praise team ministry from becoming an avenue for skilled musicians to display prima dona abilities in a prideful manner.

 

Of course, our emotions should be genuine and a natural expression of our respective personalities.  There is something very engaging in seeing people who are “caught up” in worship, displaying the wide range of joy and jubilation, gratitude, peace, reverence, brokenness and humility.  When the team models heart-felt worship, the atmosphere becomes conducive to truly experiencing God.  There is nothing like the assemblies where God is honored with everything we have to offer, in contrast to a “check-list” mentality of going through stale motions in a feeble attempt to seek God’s approval.

 

I believe the Zoe Singers set the standard for praise team excellence.  No doubt, they are highly skilled musicians with a stellar musical blend who take their craft seriously (doesn’t God deserve our best?)  But, when they stand in front of a group to lead worship, it is obvious they are serious about leading people into the throne room of our Creator as they pour their talents and individual personalities into the worship – thus providing an ideal atmosphere for everyone to make the worship journey together.

 

Another consideration is the women’s issue.  Are women usurping authority over the worship leader when they stand with him?  If women are to remain silent in the assembly, what gives them the right to sing in the first place?  Are the sopranos and altos leading the other women or leading the entire church?  These and other questions are prayerfully discussed every day in light of the Holy Scriptures.  Some congregations are more comfortable with the “seated” model.

 

At Madison, we enjoy the “musical” benefits of the praise team but not necessarily the “visual.”  The powerful influence of the praise team enhances our worship every week.  Standing praise teams? I’ve seen the standing team modeled poorly and also I've seen them handled very effectively.  (I can say the same for “seated teams.")  There is nothing like being drawn into worship through the encouragement of others who are obviously “poured out” in worship.  I’d be curious to see what percentage of churches using praise teams choose the standing versus seated model and why.

 

Every Sunday, I post a new worship survey.  Some polls inspire lengthy discussions (nothing to calculate per se), as was the case with last Sunday’s survey.  Tomorrow’s survey deals with this topic and will allow for a one word reply.  We’ll ask Jonathan to post the results on Saturday.  Thanks for participating.

How many members should you assign to a praise team?

Four?  Eight? Twelve?  More?

 

 

Again, let’s consider the different purposes of the praise team:

1.  The musical aspect  

2.  The visual aspect

 

From the musical aspect, I believe it is highly important that the team blend in with the congregational singing.  See Praise Team Thoughts: Volume Levels article.  If this is the philosophy you adopt, then hearing individual voices stick out is not the goal.  This is an important factor to be considered in the vocalist selection process and when working with the musicality of the team.  Seek voices that “blend” well.  (Some of the most talented singers may not be good blending voices.)

 

If blending with the congregation is your goal, then two singers per part will blend better than one per part.  This is common sense.  It would also follow that three per part seems to blend better than two.  That’s why we established some of our praise teams to be twelve-member teams at Madison.  It seems that eight is the most common (standard) number around the country, but twelve works best for us in establishing a good mix.  I suppose that sixteen would even be better, from strictly a musical standpoint, assuming the voices blend well (however it is more challenging).  Eight is much more practical, especially in congregations where potential talent recruitment is limited.

 

Visually?  I know of some, including Ken Young who have used combinations of the seated and standing team to produce a quality “wall of sound,”  effectively utilizing the benefits of both musical and visual leadership.  In this scenario, you can tweak the benefits of a standing team and a seated team to attain the balance that works best for your congregation or event.  What is the best combination?

 

Four standing and four seated?

Four standing and eight seated?

Eight standing and four seated?

 

There are so many possibilities.  Some might suggest that sixteen “standing” could be distracting, but that is a matter of preferences.  I’ll have to defer to those with more experience with standing teams, since we only use the “seated” model at Madison.  I do believe in planning variety in worship.  Randy Gill and Woomont Hills uses an entire choir to lead worship on some occasions.

 

Another consideration that would have probably fit well in the “Volume Levels” post has to do with the balance of four-harmony.  Since most people sing the melody, and, since the worship leader also sings the melody, it has always been my mixing philosophy to mix the soprano section lower than the alto, tenor and basses.  There are musical exceptions (when the ladies sing a section of the song by themselves), but for the most part, I ask for the sopranos to be mixed lower (sorry, sopranos!)  This may affect the number of singers you require, especially when surpassing the standard eight vocalists per team.

 

This past week I worked with some talented singers who were the praise team for the Discover Youth Rally in Monroe, Louisiana.  At one point, Jason Barnard and I led some songs without the team.  Once the team came on stage, the quality of the singing increased noticeably.

 

One of the next times I work with a praise team and get to choose the configuration, I’ll consider having four standing and twelve seated.  I can see great potential with this configuration.  Of course, as always, much of the quality of the sound/mix will be in the hands of the sound engineer.  And, it is vital for the singers to watch the leader's direction, (for tempos and changes) or the sound of the congregation (sound travels so slowly) may cause them to drag the tempo.

 

Is the praise team's purpose more musical support (audio) or in the modeling of dynamic worship (visual)?  I suppose your answer to this question will have a bearing on your ideal number.

 

What do you think is the most effective number?

Since this week’s Worship Survey did not involve statistics, Jonathan gets a break on commenting this time.  However, tomorrow’s poll will involve calculations of your answers.  Thanks to all of you for taking part!  The more people involved – the bigger picture we’ll see.  I'll try to post a new worship survey every Sunday morning and we'll review the results the following Saturday.

 

Praise Teams may not be for everybody.  I appreciate Andrew’s comments about tailoring everything for each individual congregation’s personality.  It always bothered me when I traveled overseas and found missionaries trying to “Americanize” foreign churches, instead of applying the Gospel’s eternal truth to their unique cultures.  Maybe that was a poor analogy, but the point is this - we should always be sensitive to the best approach for each church and for each type of setting.

 

Julie, I have also found singing to be better with a praise team than without.  And as Corey pointed out, it helps people to learn the parts and provides an overall support.  It is a blessing for the praise teams to go “off site” and minister to the elderly, the sick and also be used in evangelistic settings.

 

Shane, your summary provides a platform for further discussion.  If you will indulge me, I will post some additional articles on the praise team subject in the near future.

 

Yes, there is a difference, as Todd pointed out, in the model of “leading” versus “supporting.”  Again, the setting should dictate what is appropriate.  I have seen situations that called for a more direct “leadership” role, and I have also enjoyed the praise team providing a much needed “supporting” role as well.

 

Amen, Brad!  You are preaching to the, ahem, “choir,” (I mean praise team) when you say that music deserves top priority in our assemblies.  Yes, we found out a long time ago that music will touch some people when preaching and other methods don’t.  Preparing a church for this process is of ultimate importance and can make all the difference in how well it is received.  It was very thoughtful that you were polling visitors as well!  It is great to hear a success story of how "uninspiring singing" was transformed into the opposite through praise team ministry and worship renewal.  I like the idea of establishing a larger singing group and also providing other “venues” for singing ministries, realizing that not everyone is gifted enough to handle the responsibility of being amplified.  It’s too bad that some have perceived praise teams as a tool of evil, when they are probably more afraid of change or of anything outside their comfort zone.  (Here is where I should insert the mistaken prediction that the computer would not be widely used; and, how the early Trademark and Patent Office Director predicted that we would quickly run out of new ideas to register.)

 

Jerome, you shared a beautiful comparison of how most churches have “virtual” praise teams, recognizing there are individuals who are gifted “section leaders,” (although most of them would humbly loathe the idea of being referred to as an influential singer, or as being recognized for adding to the overall beauty of the congregational mix.)  You also made some outstanding points that go along with our “participation” dilemma. How do we convince everyone to be fully engaged, even if they believe they “can’t sing well” or “don’t have a good voice?”  (Actually, this will be part of tomorrow’s Worship Survey.)

 

Rick, you are blessed in that the congregation already went through the “process” before you arrived.  When I began full-time worship ministry, I prayed for a place that was already “there,” but that was not to be.  When the praise team concept was first introduced at our congregation, one leader said, “Take away the praise team and pretty much all our worship disagreements will go away.”  His prediction was totally inaccurate.  I don’t want to go into the resulting, ugly worship war, but it was not fun at all.  (I think we need another topic just to discuss the psychology of transitions and analyze the process.)  Rick, I agree that God can make something special out of our “loaves and fishes,” but I’m also aware of problems that occur when we hand a microphone to someone who has a lot more desire than talent.  Thanks for bringing that up.  (We keep thinking of additional things for future discussions that might be helpful for others who are launching praise team ministries.)

 

Chuck, thanks for challenging us to move beyond our “logic-based faith” and accept the worship revival that is sweeping the Body of Christ.  We should allow the Spirit to shape us and take us where God intends.  Far be it from us to find ourselves becoming the Pharisees who judge others, restrict spiritual growth, and even as Gamaliel warned, find ourselves “fighting against God.”

It's sad to see a good idea handled poorly.  I envision the Praise Team Ministry as a “support” to encourage involvement in congregational worship.  You will hear me say repeatedly, the worship minister’s job is to do everything possible to elicit the most participation from the entire congregation.

 

 

It is amazing how much influence the sound engineer has in this process.  In fact, in many circumstances, the decisions made by the sound engineer can ultimately “make or break” the level of participation of the church singing.  Here’s what I mean.  If the volume level of the praise team is extremely loud and much higher than the congregation, people are more prone to simply listen and not to participate.  They tend to become spectators rather than active participants in the “congregational” singing.  If the volume level is appropriate and the blend of the team flows seamlessly with the rest of the congregation, the overall experience is greatly enhanced and participation is contagious.

 

Since I travel quite a bit and deal with many different sound engineers, I have found it to be very important to communicate this concept with the technical team and leaders of the event.  In order to clarify what I’m trying to communicate, I use my hands as visuals.  If the congregation is singing at “9”, I’d like to hear the praise team level mixed at “8”.

 

CONGREGATION: 9        PRAISE TEAM: 8

 

However, if the congregation is barely singing at a level “3”, and if the praise team is cranked up to a high level “9”, the praise team may quickly become a hindrance to participation and a potential distraction.

 

CONGREGATION: 3        PRAISE TEAM: 9

 

Here’s an interesting application of this principle.  On Wednesday nights at our “Prayer & Praise” at Madison, our starting time is 6:30 P.M.   On any given evening, there may be only 50% to 65% of the ultimate number who arrive “on time” from their work, homes, etc. (No other church has a late problem, do you?)   By 6:45 P.M., we’ll have close to 100% of the people who will be attending that evening.  As you can imagine, the volume level of the congregational singing is much lower (as much as 50%) at 6:30 P.M., than it will be just 15 minutes later when the room is full.

 

Many well-intentioned sound engineers would set the team at a level used the previous week (when the room was full) and forget about it.  Thus the problem comes when the room is half full and the praise team is “blowing them away” in volume.  This unbalanced level discourages the congregation from actively joining the singing and finds them listening instead.

 

On the other hand, when monitored closely and handled wisely, the praise team becomes a supporting factor that seamlessly flows into the worship experience, bringing out the absolute best of the congregation!

 

At Madison, we have visitors commenting on how much they love our congregational singing.  When I mention that we have a praise team (for support, hearing parts, etc.), most often they are surprised.  “Praise Team?  Really?”  The reason they are perplexed is a result of how the volume of the praise team blends seamlessly with the entire church (and the fact that our team is seated.)  I guarantee you that our singing is MUCH better as a result of the praise team, even though most visitors don’t realize we have one.

 

I strongly believe in the praise team ministry concept.  I am saddened to see how the “mishandling” of the volume levels has produced a negative experience for some churches who might otherwise have achieved new heights.

Praise Teams.   They’re popping up everywhere. 

Fasten your seat belts as we delve into this week’s timely and sometimes controversial topic.

 

 

What is the purpose of praise teams?

How can praise teams improve worship? 

How can praise teams impede worship?

Is it more effective to have the team standing with the worship leader or seated with the rest of the congregation?

What is the best way to prepare a congregation for the addition of praise teams?  (What have others learned from going through this process?)

Other comments?