What would the world look like if it were reduced to only 100 people?
And what will you do about it?
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Of Contemporary Worship
The following is a re-post from an older blog of mine, slightly altered, but essentially the same.
I overheard a conversation this morning regarding a "contemporary worship service" at a fairly well-known (now-former) Episcopal Church. And the conversation turned to: "Who are they trying to reach" in the service? That is, is it for Generation Xers, Boomers? Postmoderns?
And here is my whole problem with "contemporary worship:" Who we are trying to reach is GOD. Not "seekers," not some generation group, not some segment of the population. We are trying to reach GOD. In worship we speak to Him, we praise Him, we confess to Him, we recount to Him the many wonderful things He has done for us and for all of humanity. Worship is not for us. We worship out of due obligation to Him.
This is not to say that it doesn’t matter what sort of music we use or what sort of language we employ. And I am certainly not saying that we need to limit ourselves to Victorian hymns or Gregorian chants (although these are certainly wonderful). Rather, we should give God the best of what music and language we have. What is our best should be more of a consideration than what is new and attractive. When we want to use contemporary music, we should offer God the best of it, sung in a manner worthy of him ("lustily" as Wesley put it). Saccharine pabulum should be avoided, whether it’s new or old. There are certainly some old hymns with lousy theology, poor poetry and silly imagery. And there are some wonderful new pieces out there. But we must avoid the new for the sake of the new, just as we would avoid the old just because it is old.
The problem I have with so-called "contemporary worship" is that it is too often neophilia. When one hears the term "contemporary worship" one is (more often than not) safe to assume it will be sloppy, casual, and shallow. The reason the liturgical churches have continued to use texts like the Gloria in excelsis, the Te Deum Laudamus and the Sanctus – even as they have allowed praise choruses as well – is because there is a theological, spiritual and poetic depth to these that is timeless. Not ancient, not contemporary, but timeless.
"I want to praise you Lord, much more than I do," is a poor substitute for actually praising Him more.
"Jesus is my rock and he rolls my blues away," is repulsively silly. Fun to hum in the car, perhaps, but certainly not appropriate for coming before the throne of mercy.
And then there are the contemporary hymns and praise choruses that just simply lie. "I’ve got peace like a river...joy like a fountain...love like an ocean, in my soul," is simply not true. I am working toward these things, one hopes, with the grace of God and in the power of the Holy Spirit. But I certainly don’t feel peace or joy or love in my soul all the time, even on Sunday morning. So why force me to lie?
Now to be fair, there are some "oldies" that are lousy, too. "I come to the garden alone," is patently absurd (however much my wife loves it and wants it played at her funeral). What exactly is this so-called "hymn" all about? What garden am I coming to alone? I’m not a gardener! And he’s never "walked with me" or "talked with me" in any special way whilst in a garden (either metaphorical or literal) any more than anywhere else. My parents used to sing a song at church camp, too, about the "Galilee moon." Where exactly is this in Scripture (or Church tradition, for that matter)?
I guess what I’m baffled by is:
1) Why “casual” is considered more authentic than formal.
2) Why silly is considered acceptable in worship.
3) Why shallow lyrics with little-to-no-theological depth have replaced the hymns through which I learned theological truths in the first place.
4) Why "contemporary" music is prized over "traditional" music, regardless of how well it is written or executed.
5) Why it is assumed that the congregation is musically illiterate and therefore just the lyrics are enough [which is (a) an insult to the musically capable; and (b) results in visitors not being able to sing along due to not knowing the tunes].
6) Why churches (especially those which prize themselves on "sola Scriptura") are so willing to adopt non-Biblical images (often silly ones) in the poetry that makes up the lyrics of their choruses and hymnody. [Curiously, the Orthodox and Roman Catholics, who do not claim "sola Scriptura" rarely use hymnody with non-biblical imagery or texts; at least this was true of pre-Vatican II Roman Catholicism, and it’s true of Orthodoxy even today.]
If you want contemporary music in worship, let me suggest John Bell of the Iona Community, the Taizé choruses and chants, Richard Proulx, Carl Johengen. These (and many others like them) are contemporary composers who have not jettisoned the church’s past 2000 years of "worship styles." I commend them to you. Just as I commend having the best musicians accompany worship (whether on organ or guitar); spending at least half the time planning worship that you spend preparing your sermon; considering the theological implications of your music (since it will be the music, and not your fancy-schmancy sermon, that is the way most people will imbibe their theological understandings and spirituality); using elevated-yet-vernacular language in worship as befits the King of Kings; and if you must be involved in a "contemporary" worship service "style" at least peppering it through with some of the elements of our Christian heritage.
Here endeth the rant.
I overheard a conversation this morning regarding a "contemporary worship service" at a fairly well-known (now-former) Episcopal Church. And the conversation turned to: "Who are they trying to reach" in the service? That is, is it for Generation Xers, Boomers? Postmoderns?
And here is my whole problem with "contemporary worship:" Who we are trying to reach is GOD. Not "seekers," not some generation group, not some segment of the population. We are trying to reach GOD. In worship we speak to Him, we praise Him, we confess to Him, we recount to Him the many wonderful things He has done for us and for all of humanity. Worship is not for us. We worship out of due obligation to Him.
This is not to say that it doesn’t matter what sort of music we use or what sort of language we employ. And I am certainly not saying that we need to limit ourselves to Victorian hymns or Gregorian chants (although these are certainly wonderful). Rather, we should give God the best of what music and language we have. What is our best should be more of a consideration than what is new and attractive. When we want to use contemporary music, we should offer God the best of it, sung in a manner worthy of him ("lustily" as Wesley put it). Saccharine pabulum should be avoided, whether it’s new or old. There are certainly some old hymns with lousy theology, poor poetry and silly imagery. And there are some wonderful new pieces out there. But we must avoid the new for the sake of the new, just as we would avoid the old just because it is old.
The problem I have with so-called "contemporary worship" is that it is too often neophilia. When one hears the term "contemporary worship" one is (more often than not) safe to assume it will be sloppy, casual, and shallow. The reason the liturgical churches have continued to use texts like the Gloria in excelsis, the Te Deum Laudamus and the Sanctus – even as they have allowed praise choruses as well – is because there is a theological, spiritual and poetic depth to these that is timeless. Not ancient, not contemporary, but timeless.
"I want to praise you Lord, much more than I do," is a poor substitute for actually praising Him more.
"Jesus is my rock and he rolls my blues away," is repulsively silly. Fun to hum in the car, perhaps, but certainly not appropriate for coming before the throne of mercy.
And then there are the contemporary hymns and praise choruses that just simply lie. "I’ve got peace like a river...joy like a fountain...love like an ocean, in my soul," is simply not true. I am working toward these things, one hopes, with the grace of God and in the power of the Holy Spirit. But I certainly don’t feel peace or joy or love in my soul all the time, even on Sunday morning. So why force me to lie?
Now to be fair, there are some "oldies" that are lousy, too. "I come to the garden alone," is patently absurd (however much my wife loves it and wants it played at her funeral). What exactly is this so-called "hymn" all about? What garden am I coming to alone? I’m not a gardener! And he’s never "walked with me" or "talked with me" in any special way whilst in a garden (either metaphorical or literal) any more than anywhere else. My parents used to sing a song at church camp, too, about the "Galilee moon." Where exactly is this in Scripture (or Church tradition, for that matter)?
I guess what I’m baffled by is:
1) Why “casual” is considered more authentic than formal.
2) Why silly is considered acceptable in worship.
3) Why shallow lyrics with little-to-no-theological depth have replaced the hymns through which I learned theological truths in the first place.
4) Why "contemporary" music is prized over "traditional" music, regardless of how well it is written or executed.
5) Why it is assumed that the congregation is musically illiterate and therefore just the lyrics are enough [which is (a) an insult to the musically capable; and (b) results in visitors not being able to sing along due to not knowing the tunes].
6) Why churches (especially those which prize themselves on "sola Scriptura") are so willing to adopt non-Biblical images (often silly ones) in the poetry that makes up the lyrics of their choruses and hymnody. [Curiously, the Orthodox and Roman Catholics, who do not claim "sola Scriptura" rarely use hymnody with non-biblical imagery or texts; at least this was true of pre-Vatican II Roman Catholicism, and it’s true of Orthodoxy even today.]
If you want contemporary music in worship, let me suggest John Bell of the Iona Community, the Taizé choruses and chants, Richard Proulx, Carl Johengen. These (and many others like them) are contemporary composers who have not jettisoned the church’s past 2000 years of "worship styles." I commend them to you. Just as I commend having the best musicians accompany worship (whether on organ or guitar); spending at least half the time planning worship that you spend preparing your sermon; considering the theological implications of your music (since it will be the music, and not your fancy-schmancy sermon, that is the way most people will imbibe their theological understandings and spirituality); using elevated-yet-vernacular language in worship as befits the King of Kings; and if you must be involved in a "contemporary" worship service "style" at least peppering it through with some of the elements of our Christian heritage.
Here endeth the rant.
The Publican, the Harlot, and Me
Though we stare at the publican,
we have no incentive to imitate his repentance,
nor do the tears of the harlot move us to sorrow.
It is the hardness of our hearts, O our saviour,
that makes it impossible for us to change our way of life.
O Lord and lover of mankind,
in your goodness, save us.
Monday morning sessional hymn, Tone Seven. Trans.: New Skete
we have no incentive to imitate his repentance,
nor do the tears of the harlot move us to sorrow.
It is the hardness of our hearts, O our saviour,
that makes it impossible for us to change our way of life.
O Lord and lover of mankind,
in your goodness, save us.
Monday morning sessional hymn, Tone Seven. Trans.: New Skete
Friday, August 17, 2007
Thursday, August 16, 2007
From the Sayings of the Desert Fathers
There were two old men who dwelt together for many years and who never quarreled. Then one said to the other: "Let us pick a quarrel with each other like other men do. "I do not know how quarrels arise," answered his companion. So the other said to him: "Look, I will put a brick down here between us and I will say "This is mine." Then you can say "No it is not, it is mine." Then we will be able to have a quarrel." So they placed the brick between them and the first one said: "This is mine." His companion answered him: "This is not so, for it is mine." To this, the first one said: "If it is so and the brick is yours, then take it and go your way." And so they were not able to have a quarrel.
I read this story this morning. And I think taking such an attitude might make all the difference in the legal issues surrounding the current Anglican schism in America. What if both the so-called "liberals" and the so-called "conservatives" took the attitude that it would be better to loose their property than to engage in an unneccesary quarrel? Might it change our attitudes of each other (if not our opinions of each others' theology)? And, for the sake of argument, what if each was willing to walk away from their property? - We could take all that money we've been giving to lawyers and give it instead to the hungry, the poor, the alone, the neglected....
I wonder, what would Jesus do?
I read this story this morning. And I think taking such an attitude might make all the difference in the legal issues surrounding the current Anglican schism in America. What if both the so-called "liberals" and the so-called "conservatives" took the attitude that it would be better to loose their property than to engage in an unneccesary quarrel? Might it change our attitudes of each other (if not our opinions of each others' theology)? And, for the sake of argument, what if each was willing to walk away from their property? - We could take all that money we've been giving to lawyers and give it instead to the hungry, the poor, the alone, the neglected....
I wonder, what would Jesus do?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
