Warren: “The style of music you choose to use in your services will be one of the most critical (and controversial) decisions you make in the life of your church.”
His argument: music positions the church in its community. It writes a demographic profile. A church playing classical/pipe organ will attract and keep one segment of the population; a church playing adult contemporary will attract and keep another; a church trying to please everyone with a hybrid will attract and keep no one well — like a radio station that alternates between death metal and classical every other song.
Saddleback ran surveys to determine what music its target demographic (young, unchurched Southern Californians, 1970s–80s) actually listened to. Answer: 96% adult contemporary radio. Decision: adult contemporary would be the sound of the church. This was not a capitulation to preference — it was the decision to speak the musical language the people they were trying to reach already spoke.
The reframe: choosing your music is not an aesthetic decision. It’s a missional one. The question isn’t “what sounds best to me?” or “what feels most worshipful?” but “what style of music speaks to the people we’re called to reach, while being honest to who we are?”
This creates a direct line from mission to music room. If MNFC is targeting families in the Minneapolis area, the question is: what are those families listening to? What musical vocabulary do they speak? That’s the starting point for musical decisions — not “what do we prefer?” or “what has always been done?”
The risk of ignoring this: a church that chooses music based on insiders’ preferences will inadvertently recruit only people with the same preferences.