In monastic terms, the liturgy is the path towards an exalted “ecstasy”, a flight into the cloud of unknowing, the place where God is, and where the true contemplation of the creative stillness of God is possible.
And this is a reality which is beyond the ability of historians, theologians, linguists, biblical scholars or even pastoral liturgists to express. Their contributions may even hinder rather than help. The intensity and intangibility of this experience can only be expressed through the arts.
This is why music of quality is a critical element within the life of the Church. It is a necessity, not a luxury. It is neither a frivolous confection nor an elitist distraction from the real business of faith. Music of quality, in the context of worship, does not entertain or divert. It reveals.
By means of evolving harmonies, rhythms, textures, modulations, orchestrations, melodies, counterpoints, imitations, this rich art form has the potential to create an aural environment which enables us to contemplate the mystery of God.
Thank you Kendall. We are completing a ten week study of the hymnal and I was casting around for a good concluding lesson. Somehow, reflecting on this column seems to me to be a whole lot more profitable than fooling around with the “supplemental resources”.
The difficulty is recognizing quality in the contemporary. E.g., there are screenplays that can be put against Shakespeare if allowance is made for the different media. And music? Years ago I came across an album from Jars of Clay (?) with wonderful lyrics — not congregational singing for sure, but the texts would stand comparison with good hymn texts. Taize? On the off chance that anyone is drawn into this thread, I would be very interested in thoughts or examples.
I’m Catholic and the parishes in these parts all use the Oregon Catholic Press’ missals/hymnals. If you have ever seen one of these you will understand when I say an appreciation of beautiful, sacred music becomes a burden most Sundays.
And yet it seems that the churches who have worship which allows for congregational participation are the ones which are growing. Many of the banal texts are directly from scripture.
Well, Paula, I occasionally attend Catholic masses, and I’ve found that the quality of music varies enormously, just as it does among Anglican churches. But this kind of article strikes me as smacking of the very triteness the Dean of Perth is deploring.
Unfortunately, we Anglicans have often been very smug and arrogant when it comes to musical tastes. Some former editions of the BCP even exhorted the clergy not to allow unseemly music in church. But as always, “beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” The classic English cathedral sound of a skilled men and boys choir has one kind of beauty, and Gregorian Chant/plainsong another. But so do the marvelous hymns of Charles Wesley that many clergy and laity in the CoE disdained as “trite” and vulgar and unworthy of use in praising God. Indeed, the father of English hymnody is the Dissenting (Congregationalist) minister Isaac Watts, because for generations, Anglican worship was utterly devoid of hymns, during the era when Reformed theology reigned supreme and Canterbury shared Geneva’s preference for metircal singing of the psalms and the avoidance of any merely human texts in musical worship.
Luther had no such qualms about using popular tunes to assist the people in worship. He had some very lofty words of praise for music as almost the greatest of divine gifts and he composed some memorable hymns himself (Ein Feste Burg being only the best known). He would have agreed that God deserves our best efforts in this area, but without the rather snobbish attitude that this article seems to me to reek of in terms of musical taste. But that may reflect my own acquired aversion to the arrogance of cathedral deans I’ve known.
David handy+
If God does not speak, and all words about God are ultimately meaningless, then music and art have as good a chance as any of encouraging the kind of strange ways of thinking that might signal a genuine encounter with what is beyond thought. That’s fundamental to the Dean’s position:
[blockquote]Music of quality, in the context of worship, does not entertain or divert. It reveals.[/blockquote]
But Scripture says no such thing. By the very act of giving us Scripture in normal language rather than sheet music, God is using a metacommunication strategy to direct us to words rather than music as the means of revelation.
But no-one should be misled that anything other than genuine elitism is on view in the Dean’s position: he laments, not churches being emptied as such, but their being emptied of a certain quality of churchgoer:
[blockquote]The emptying of our churches of those with minds to think, and emotions to inspire.[/blockquote]
And, if a certain ability to think deeply and be enter into the full experience of high quality music is the basic way to enter the cloud of unknowing and encounter the unknowable, then we need to aim for that small section in society that are genuinely more aesthetically and intellectually advanced.
God’s commitment to all human beings, and his desire to be known by the very least is shown by the way he uses basic, ordinary, speech to make himself known. It might sometimes allow for tacky services, but God is saving people from death and judgement, he’s not putting on a show to stimulate our intellectual and aesthetic giants.
David — At the time, Wesley, Watts, Newton, and others were regarded with suspicion, but it appears the merits of their work quickly carried the day. That is, Hymns Ancient and Modern (the English hymnal first published in 1861) includes many Wesley hymns. For my part, I’m clear that, say, “Love divine” (Wesley), or “God of grace and God of glory” (Fosdick), or Brian Wren’s hymns have their valued place alongside Bach chorales and a Cathedral choir. However, and this goes to the issue raised by Shepherd, there’s a clear difference between, say, “Love divine” and, say, “Our God is an awesome God” — a difference involving depth of both emotion and thought (one’s got it; the other doesn’t). BTW, #3, my difficulty with praise music is that we’re simply repeating a phrase from Scripture set to a simple and obvious melody without risking anything more. In a positive sense, it seems to me Shepherd is talking about music (and art) as a window to transcendence. That doesn’t have to involve arrogance, but risks it. So my question: What’s out there that’s comparable to the musical tradition(s) of the Hymnal?
True worship leads to good music, not the other way around.
Thankfully, when we truly worship even our ‘inarticulate groans’ are converted into beautiful music.
It’s time to live up to the ideals of the English reformation and put the worship music and liturgy into the style and syntax of the culture while maintaining theological orthodoxy. The Hymnal 1982 and any supplemental materials are merrily maintaining a religious culture that died a long time ago and have very little connection with the day to day life most people actually experience. In fact, the fact that we still use books for worship reiterates my argument. The world is changing fast around us and the way we worship and the tools we use to worship need to as well. If we don’t then the message we give to the world and culture around us is that God doesn’t care for them, their art, music, or language. Nor does it give the world and culture around us the tools to express their faith in God and their love for him. In short, we impose a religious culture and language on them.
Paula Loughlin, I have experienced what you describe. Awful.
As some above point out, Luther and Wesley are two names associated with bringing “modern” music into the church. I am not opposed to contemporary music per se. But it needs to meet two criteria: it should be theologically sound, preferably grounded in Scripture, and it should be something the congregation can sing. No wandering back and forth between verses, refrains, and bridges, all with tricky grace notes or odd intervals, and no songs with a range beyond that of the ordinary singer.
#5 — The words of Scripture point beyond themselves. They bear witness to the reality of God in Christ through the Holy Spirit with us and in us. The words are irreplaceable, but the witness cannot be reduced to words. The Cloud of Unknowing is not elitist, but the reflection of a working pastor and spiritual guide; the negative way of the early tradition was developed by monks and bishops dedicated to the service of the church. Worship and teaching engage us as those growing into maturity, the full stature of Christ (Ephesians 4) — depth of thought and emotion, expressed in art, drawing us out of ourselves in praise, is vital for that growth. That’s the Cloud; it’s Luther; it’s Wesley and Newton. The article may be flawed; but that’s no excuse for complacently dismissing it.
Speaking as a very mediocre chorister in a small parish church, I agree with the Dean.
J. Champlin
[blockquote] So my question: What’s out there that’s comparable to the musical tradition(s) of the Hymnal? [/blockquote]
I don’t think you can compare the two. They are different styles and from different times. They are just different. Not one is better than the other. In their day, Watts, Howells, and Newton were writing in popular musical and linguistic styles. Today we have Matt Redman, Chris Tomlin, Keith & Kristyn Getty, Casting Crowns, Delirious, and so on and so forth that are offering worship to God in a popular style.
In our church (where we have no choir, but a small musical group) we use the Hymnal 1989 (I prefer the Hymnal 1940) and Lift Every Voice and Sing Vol. 2…….a book which I believe is overlooked, much to the detriment of the Church. I also occasionally use the Welsh/English Hymnal “Deuwch, Canwn I’r Argylwydd” (Come, Let Us Sing To The Lord), with the works of Rowland Pritchard, Caradoc Roberts, and John Hughes…..who wrote Cwm Rhondda, my favorite.
Just another thought…we always need to be careful not to point to a particular era of the Church’s worship and say “They got it right.” To do that I fear relegates the liturgy to museum status and more importantly negates the work of the Holy Spirit inspiring us to worship in ways relevant to the needs and gifts of our present cultural/artistic milieu. Again, I also believe it violates the ideals of the English Reformation which strove to put the liturgy and the Scripture in the language of the people.
#12 — Thank you. That was really my question. To both #12 and #14: the Hymnal itself does not canonize any one moment to say. “They got it right”. The collection witness to many, many moments of renewal in the life and worship of the church. The issue is not inverse chronological snobbery (although that is a danger). The issue is learning from the tradition in order to recognize in the contemporary that which is truly worship, drawing us heart, mind, and soul into the great sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving.
#12 revdons: Wearing my M.A.-in-music-history hat, I can’t speak about Watts or Newton, but I’m fairly certain Howells’ musical idiom was no more “popular” when it was written than it is now. All things considered, the music of Howells is rather more “modern” than “old-fashioned.” To say that it’s just an older version of the stuff turned out by Redman and the Gettys, etc. is misleading.
OK, maybe Howells was not the best reference. No argument here.
#16 – bravo! I love the music of Howells, it has greatly deepened my understanding of my texts from scripture. Marvelous music. Even though he wasn’t a believe himself, God definitely worked through him to create some marvelous works.
There’s a theological oddity here – in what way is music – worded or wordless less of a human expression – than speech? It may give rise to differing emotions – but of course, they too are human. Better would be a theology of beauty – thinking about the way in which beauty gestures towards and draws us deeper into the life of God.
If you want an absolutely negative theology – try Plotinus and then compare it to the Cloud.
In other words, it’s the Cloud filtered through the romantic sublime or if you want negative theology plus Schleiermacher.
If the real value of our services is to WORSHIP THE LORD, then any music that gets us to do that is the best. If all we are doing is singing a wonderful hymn (and there are plenty of them) but we’re not singing it TO anyone, then…
The hymns we sing are great for bars and parades, but let’s not confuse them with sacred music.
re 12: Revdons, I don’t agree. At least, it cannot be said that they borrowed from a commercialized pop music scene such as we mean by the word today. The material of the 1940 hymnal that did borrow from such a milieu didn’t last long; very little of it survived into the 1982.
Also, when you are talking about Watts and Newton you are talking about writers, not composers. Watts’s texts have been set to music of every style, but he is most strongly associated with the psalter tunes already in use, inherited from the early days of Calvinism. The tune to “Amazing Grace”, “New Britain”, comes out of the shape note tradition, which has always been about hymnody.
There is stuff out there that is being written in the hymnal tradition, just as new motets and anthems continue to be written in the various traditions of either. It’s unfashionable among the liturgical set because (a) the liturgical community is heavily dominated by word people who don’t trust music anyway, and (b) there’s a complete loss of nerve as to whether anything we do reaches out into the world. In fact the real story of church music, as with anything else these days, is fragmentation. There is no culture out there anymore, not when it comes to music; there is no musical vernacular out there, but only Babel. It’s more a question now of whether the hymnal tradition turns people off more, or the commercial pop tradition. Personally it seems to me that the latter is more exclusionary than the former.
In recent times, visiting San Francisco, I’ve noticed that many choral groups unaffiliated with any particular Christian church (indeed, sometimes opposed to Christianity for secular reasons), nevertheless include mostly sacred music in the program.
I don’t think the OCP hymns are any better or worse than those to be found in some other churches, save that the RCC has a particular fondness for the Virgin Mary that is not shared by most Protestants. When I attend music performances held in churches (as secular venues, not liturgy), I always look at the hymnal. If feel-good 70s material is irritating, the Lutherans and Presbyterians have it, too.
Some years ago, I was using a music publishing program that was sometimes used by amateurs, particularly those who wanted to write simple songs. Setting Bible verses to music was a favorite topic. Alas, the would-be composers almost always insisted that the words be exactly as in the KJV. (It was the literal word of God, you see, and we all know He spoke English). The music was contorted to fit. Generally, it was awful, but not quite as awful as the ones modeled on Godspell and We Are The World.
It has been my observation that the closer is the congregation to RCC, the less likely it is to sing (actually sing, instead of having a few mumbles at hymn time). I wonder if the more liberal of TEC sing better than the more traditional of TAC?
This thread illustrates why the whole subject of what music style to use in worship is, in my experience, easily the most controversial and divisive topic (bar none) in virtually all churches, across the whole theological spectrum. The fault lines aren’t simply generational, but go through many couples (where the husband prefers one style and the wife another one), and even through many of us as individuals (who love widely different styles, perhaps depending on our mood at any given time). Everybody it seems has preferences that they defend passionately, but since there seems to be little or no biblical standards to form the basis of such value judgments, there is almost no way of resolving such conflicts to everyone’s satisfaction.
I like to remind people that the only guidance I see in the NT on the hotly disputed subject of proper church music is the twin text in Col 3:16 and Eph 5:18-19 about singing [b]”psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs,”[/b] which certainly would appear to refer to three DIFFERENT styles of music (along with three different types of texts to be sung).
I’d agree with many comments above, not least J. Champlin’s #6. But I’ll pick up on his allusion to the great classic (Anglo-Catholic) collection, [b]Hymns Ancient and Modern[/b]. My own preference is for worship music that either extremely ancient or extremely modern, rather than the usual smattering of stuff in the middle, such as Victorian hymns. That is, much of what is often called “contemporary” music is not really contemporary at all, IMHO. How old does music have to be before its ceases to be contemporary? For example, can music that’s 20 years old still be called “contemporary” meaningfully? Not to my mind.
FWIW, when I do the Daily Office at home, I normally chant the psalms and canticles to Gregorian chant, which I greatly prefer to so-called Anglican Chant. But most of the churches I’ve attended and led over the last twenty years have opted (with my encouragement) for a “blended” service, incorporating a hymn or two as part of Sunday worship, but mostly so-called “contemporary Christian music” or CCM. I love Twila Paris, Stephen Curtis Chapman, Wayne Watson (I’m dating myself here) just as much as Charles Wesley, Ralph Vaugh Williams, Thomas Tallis, or Gregorian chant. And yes, I love Howells and John Rutter as much as I adore Palestrina and other Renaissance composers of sacred music. But no matter what style of music is chosen, the most important thing is that it be done well, and that the worship be from the heart and to the Lord (the stress in Col/Eph again).
David Handy+
Musical moments should either be well-done or not done at all. It matters less whether a choir and small orchestra are performing Handel’s Messiah or an miked-up electronic instrument group is singing Vineyard songs, than whether the voices are strong and pleasant, the instruments in tune, and everyone agrees on the notes and tempo. The WORST thing is to allow people with neither talent nor training offer music during worship “because it means so much to them.” It makes no difference whether an octogenarian’s identity is having sung in a choir since she was a teenager, or whether an awkward boy from a troubled family has just taught himself a few chords on an electric guitar. Church music programs where everyone and anyone is welcome are a terrible idea, guaranteed to drive away new residents in a community who are considering local church-going options. Joyful noise all worship music should be – joyful for those who hear the music as well those who produce it.
#9 Katherine, Well said! The only thing I would add is that if the music says nothing the first time through, two or three repeats of the same words and notes is no improvement.
Frances Scott
Many of you sound like my girlfriend in college who hated mushrooms. Problem was she never had one. There is a lot pretty powerful “praise music” which is very theological. What #6 said is true–the real “musicians” in the Anglican Church hated Watts and Wesley. And what you call “praise music” is often directly out of the Bible. Just because you personally don’t like something doesn’t make it bad for the wholel world. And it doesn’t seem prudent to be so critical of those of us who do like that genre. I like all kinds of music, but I also play in a band on Wednesday nights at my church, and on Cursillo staffs, and it is meaningful for me. No one required to attend on Wednesady. And as for the great music in the Episcopal Church, maybe we need to look for a bit more–we’ve lost half of our membership since 1950. There needs to be more than music. BTW, once my college girlfriend tried mushrooms she liked them.
#10
[blockquote]The words of Scripture point beyond themselves. They bear witness to the reality of God in Christ through the Holy Spirit with us and in us. The words are irreplaceable, but the witness cannot be reduced to words. The Cloud of Unknowing is not elitist, but the reflection of a working pastor and spiritual guide; the negative way of the early tradition was developed by monks and bishops dedicated to the service of the church. Worship and teaching engage us as those growing into maturity, the full stature of Christ (Ephesians 4)—depth of thought and emotion, expressed in art, drawing us out of ourselves in praise, is vital for that growth. That’s the Cloud; it’s Luther; it’s Wesley and Newton. The article may be flawed; but that’s no excuse for complacently dismissing it.[/blockquote]
It’s not a complacent dismissal of the article any more than what seems to be the good Dean’s dismissal of the place of doctrine in our knowledge of God seems to be complacent. It’s a conscious and thought through repudiation. It’s a complete rejection, but it’s not complacent – either for the Dean or for me.
I get that the words of Scripture point beyond themselves. But they aren’t empty signs. God is present in his Word. He isn’t present in music. We never go beyond the words, or move onto another way that leaves the words behind. We know the Father through his Son, who is the Logos, the exposition of God. Words are fundamental and irreplacible to encountering God.
[i]The Cloud of Unknowing[/i], for all that it’s the work of a pastor, with it’s division of believers into four classes in chapter 1 is a classic example of elitism. Common Christians are far off from God. And the love that God had for the original recipient that led to his creation and purchase by the blood of the atonement is seen to be the same as called that person first to the Special and then the Solitary degree of Christian living. That can be argued on its merits, but it is a classic example of elitism.
And I would suggest that there is little in common between the negative theology of the early church and what the article argues. The early church’s negative theology is the preservation of the idea that we do not know God in his essence. But it still held that we know God truly and through the teaching of Scripture.
So the opening paragraph:
[blockquote] How can we come to an experience of God? It’s a challenge, because no matter how much we read the Bible, study theology, formulate creeds, devise systems of belief and draw up rules for best Christian practice, all these efforts are only partial, tentative explorations into a dimension that lies beyond any definitive grid we could ever hope to impose.[/blockquote]
Has almost nothing in common with the Early Church’s view of the relationship between the creeds and the experience of God. Neither Nicea or Chalcedon makes any sense if the early church thought that we meet God through sophisticated music and poetic forms.
And while I agree that worship engages us as we grow into maturity, if that’s meant as a defense of this article, it’s back to front. Knowing God and responding rightly to God in right worship humanises us. That enables us to be genuinely creative as an act of service to our fellow men and women. But it is not the case that we draw closer to God by seeking to pursue the best of what humans can be. That is the nonsense of liberalism that we have had to contend with for centuries now. Even for [i]the Cloud of Unknowing[/i] the process is primarily ethical, not aesthetics.
Going back to Champlin’s #1, I think a great deal depends on what particular kind of worship service someone has in mind, and who the intended, expected participants are. For example, yes, Taize is superb for a quiet, meditative service, say on a retreat, or for a quiet part of a service, during administration of communion or on Good Friday, etc. And because it’s so repetitive and easily picked up after a while, it’s good for a service when you anticipate unchurched people being present.
Besides Brian Wren, another composer of magnificent modern hymns is the evangelical Keith Getty. His best known song, [i]”In Christ Alone, my hope is found…”[/i] (written together with Stuart Townend) has become extremely popular in conservative Christian circles. The words are profound and fully equal to the best of Charles Wesley’s over 5,000 hymns/poems, and it’s wedded to a strong tune of a quite traditional sort. And IMHO one of the best newer hymns in the 1982 Hymnal is the much-loved [i]”Lift High the Cross,”[/i] which again pairs profound words to a stirring, lyrical tune. Fortunately, we’re living in a time when there is a great flood of new Christian music being composed.
Like the reform movements led by Luther and the Wesleys, revivals tend to be accompanied by the creation of lots of new music, most of which will inevitably be ephemeral and not last. That’s certainly true of a lot of the superficial fluff praise music being generated today. But as long as other people find it edifying, what do I care, as long as I’m not forced to sing it umpteen zillion times by an inept worship leader? I can at least identify with people like evan miller that the inane, mindless repetition of little praise choruses with shallow lyrics tends to drive me crazy.
And just for the record, my favorite Christian composer of all time is J. S. Bach, hands down. No one even comes a close second. But his complex Baroque harmonies and rather intellectual style turns off a lot of my friends and fellow parishioners, and I understand that and don’t try to force Bach on them.
When I’m at home, I generally find that my wife can tolerate only about 15-20 minutes of one of my Gregorian chant CDs. She’ll politely say, [i]”Honey, can we try something else now?”[/i] and I’ll know she’s had her quota for the day. So I’ll switch to Twila Paris or Kirk Dearman (a gifted contemporary Anglican composer). Then after she goes out shopping, I’ll put the Gregorian or Bach back on…
David Handy+
driver8 (#19),
Thanks for a typically thoughtful post. Yes, a theology of beauty is what is needed, i.e., a careful, informed reflection on Christian aesthetics rather than merely an instinctive, gut level response that’s often culturally conditioned. From my perspective, the most profound and stimulating theology of beauty I know of was developed by Hans Urs von Balthasar (1905-1988). Like some other great Christian thinkers, that celebrated Catholic theologian called attention to the Christian significance of the three great cultural ideals of the ancient Greeks, i.e., the True, the Good (in the sense of the noble or virtuous), and the Beautiful. As Anglicans, we may have a special fondness for beauty and a tendency to equate the biblical “beauty of holiness” with “the holiness of beauty.” Of course, it’s debatable whether the Hebrew expression found in the Psalms (29 and 96) really means “holy beauty” (which I believe would be normal for such a construct state expression grammatically in Hebrew); at least, it’s often been taken to mean that holiness is a beautiful thing.
But I think our basic problem as Anglicans is that we can no longer agree on what’s theolgically true, or what is morally good, and so the only thing left to bind us together is a certain refined aesthetic sense of what is beautiful. And that simply isn’t a powerful enough glue to hold Anglicanism together. For in a global communion, the inherited British sense of what consitutes beauty no longer goes very far. And even in England itself (correct me if I’m wrong here), my hunch as an American is that the perception of beauty tends to be defined according to class distinctions and thus is rather divisive.
David Handy+
We use [url=http://www.christianlifehymnal.com/ ]The Christian Life Hymnal.[/url] It’s a great “three streams” hymnal, and our people really do like it. I highly recommend churches looking for a good hymnal to check it out–the price is right, too.
William Shontz
[url=http://theleca.org]The Lake Erie Confessing Anglican[/url]
re 28: The real musicians in the Anglican church didn’t hate Watts, because he wasn’t a musician and didn’t write any music! Watts was attacked by the liturgists– the word people. Praise music isn’t out of the bible
My problem with “praise songs” as a class isn’t with them. There’s a lot of them I don’t like, especially because their borrowings from commercial/advertising music send me bad messages. I tend to find that, as a whole, they have a limited range of expression. But the part I dislike is how they are offered up as something that has to replace all prior hymnody. This kind of amnesia isn’t good for the church to begin with, but it also places them as the next in a long line of (largely failed) “starting over again” modernist movements that will fix everything by erasing the past. The hymnal tradition has been able to absorb a huge range of material– people snark at the 1982 hymnal, and of course not always without reason, but when you look at what’s in it there’s hardly a style of Christian music that isn’t in there somewhere. But when the guitars and microphones come in, it seems as though everything else gets pushed out the door.
#31 Yes I think I agree and a similar, though perhaps more hopeful statement, was famously made by Solzhenitsyn in his Nobel lecture (http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/1970/solzhenitsyn-lecture.html).
I once heard an English theologian say that, in large part, the leaders of the Communion can no longer be united around a common culture or a common theology or a common theological method or a common hermeutic or a common liturgy. As he saw it, the issue at its deepest, is not that discussions between the north and the south never seem to reach conclusions but that real discussion is almost impossible to start because so few presuppositions are shared.
#33 I agree with the value of hymnody but wonder if the amnesia point is slightly overstated. What I mean is that the organ led tradition of hymnody which you and I love, largely became part of Anglicanism in the nineteenth century and replaced more or less whole the earlier parochial repertoire of west gallery music and metrical psalmsody. (Famously narrated in Thomas Hardy’s, “Under the Greenwood Tree”).
33. C . Wingate, we leave the microphones out, except for times when we’re outdoors for a picnic service, and we don’t use electric guitars (I hate ’em!). We use guitars because we need them when our organist isn’t there, and when I do play, I make sure the music is suitable for congregational singing.
I think this has been a really great discussion. I appreciate everyone’s view points and the respect given to opposing viewpoints. Wow, real dialogue is possible. 🙂
I want to add another example to what I think is one of the great “new” worship songs out there, written and performed by Casting Crowns, it is titled “Who Am I?” The text is very biblical and theologically it deals with topics such as the depravity of humankind, the graciousness of God, and for us Anglo-Calvinists, the perseverance of the saints. The music is also well written.
1) Who am I?
That the Lord of all the earth,
Would care to know my name,
Would care to feel my hurt.
Who am I?
That the bright and morning star,
Would choose to light the way,
For my ever wandering heart.
Bridge:
Not because of who I am,
But because of what you’ve done.
Not because of what I’ve done,
But because of who you are.
Chorus:
I am a flower quickly fading,
Here today and gone tomorrow,
A wave tossed in the ocean,
A vapor in the wind.
Still you hear me when I’m calling,
Lord, you catch me when I’m falling,
And you’ve told me who I am.
I am yours.
I am yours.
2) Who am I?
That the eyes that see my sin
Would look on me with love
And watch me rise again.
Who am I?
That the voice that calmed the sea,
Would call out through the rain,
And calm the storm in me.
A story if I may. Before one parish AGM, a parishioner approached me (as vicar) warning me she was going to speak, her topic the motion on adding some CCM (# 25) to our main service, a family Eucharist. That is, the proposal was our mixing some older styles with some more contemporary material. She was one of three professional musicians we had as members of the parish (yes; God was very generous to us!), with all three involved in playing the organ and helping with other musical aspects. She herself was the eldest of the three and the widow of the Prof of Music in town, while the youngest, who was in charge of the choir, was due to be a concert pianist until a horse riding accident broke one of her wrists. Like I say, all three were ‘right up there’!
She spoke for some 20+ minutes, almost lecturing us, it has to be said. Despite her impassioned pleas, the motion passed handsomely, and we proceeded to change the music format to accommodate a variety of styles. It was done intelligently and sensitively, and with much enthusiasm – from most! The following year at our AGM we reviewed what had happened and what folk felt. Somewhat to my dismay (as this time I was unprepared, o ye of little faith – though I should also say she was a great Christian lady, of mature faith and great wisdom), the same woman rose to speak during the course of our discussions. She began: “I owe you all an apology. Last year I lectured you for a long time, on all the pitfalls, as I saw them, … etc. Now I see how God may truly be praised and worshipped with great reverence and yet with suitable, contemporary means.†She sat down after a mere 75 seconds!
I have never forgotten any of this, nor the humility of one of God’s dear ones.
A last observation. Sorry folks – for those who might find the following difficult – but we’d better get used to associating music and the triune God! Eternity’s an awfully long time. And if the Book of Revelation is anything to go by, there’s going to be [i]plenty[/i] of music and song …! As Robert Jenson concludes his Systematic Theology:
[blockquote]The last word to be said about God’s triune being is that he “is a great fugueâ€. Therefore the last word to be said about the redeemed is Jonathan Edwards’s beautiful saying, cited at the end of the first volume to the converse point: “when I would form an idea of a society in the highest degree happy, I think of them . . . sweetly singing to each other.â€
The point of identity, infinitely approachable and infinitely to be approached, the enlivening [i]telos[/i] of the Kingdom’s own life, is perfect harmony between the conversation of the redeemed and the conversation that God is. In the conversation God is, meaning and melody are one.
The end is music.[/blockquote]
26. Henry Greville, not every church has an organ or choir. Most have a very few people with musical training, and they’re fortunate indeed if their vicar or rector can carry a tune decently. Yes, musical excellence is desirable, but when you have limited resources, you make do with what you have. I am a chorister with many years of experience, having come from a large parish with a well-trained music department.
Our organist/choirmaster was a graduate of the Royal School of Church Music, and several of us sang with a local internationally-known chorale. When I came to my present congregation, I found a small mission with a struggling music program, and I have to tell you that being as small as we are, we still manage somehow to perform traditional Church music at various times during the Litugical Year. One of our organists and I have found that we can combine my acoustic guitar with the organ and produce some very beautiful music together. We cannot be rigid in our musical tastes, and we need to be adaptable. I think we’ve managed quite well here.
Over the years that we worshipped in school gyms and a theater, we had two Sunday morning services, one traditional (Rite I and 1662 BCP) with traditional service music and hymnody, and one “contemporary” (Rite II) with a praise band. The traditional service, even though it was at 8:00 had over twice as many in attendance as the contemporary service at 11:00. We have now purchased our own church building which for the past year and a half we’ve been sharing on Sunday mornings with the sellers who are building a new church facility. Due to time constraints this has imposed, we have had to consolidate into one “blended” service with praise band and choir. Over the last month, on four consecutive Sundays, parishioners have filled out a worship survey about what type of service(s) we want when we have sole possession of our building. The results are running 60% in favor of a traditional service and 40% in favor of the blended service. Virtually nobody chose the contemporary or “ultra-contemporary” service. Music is a huge issue for churches, particularly for Anglicans, and it should not be tampered with lightly. The burden is on the innovators to prove their contention that our contemporary culture doesn’t like traditional church music. Too often, “family” services assume that informality and praise bands are what will sell, and as a result, young people rarely ever experience the rich Anglican heritage of traditional hymnody and service music. How then can they be expected to like and appreciate it if they’re either not exposed to it or it’s presented to them as something no longer relevant? My children, now 19 and 22, grew up attending traditional (Rite I) Episcopal and Anglican worship and they love the old hymns. They like some praise songs at youth group gatherings and they listen to contemporary Christian music on the radio, but they don’t like it at all in their worship services.
Evan
[blockquote]The burden is on the innovators to prove their contention that our contemporary culture doesn’t like traditional church music.[/blockquote]
I personally don’t think it is about preference. I think a person raised on Hip-Hop can be absolutely shocked and stunned by the beauty of a Men and Boy’s Choir in a Cathedral. Nevertheless, embracing a more contemporary style of church music and even liturgical language is the Church’s embodiment of the Incarnation; that is, God is with us in our culture today and loves the culture we live and move in. And we can express our love and devotion to him out of our culture’s current art and music, language and technology. Because of this, this certainly brings into question why the Church still requires that some wear special clothes and why its members need to learn what certain religious words mean in an antiquated English tongue and sing in a strange way that is foreign to what we experience 24/7 in the world. God in Christ certainly didn’t come speaking in an archaic lingua franca or singing an old tune, so to speak, so why should the Church, who is the Body of Christ today, continue to maintain a religious culture, language, and music so far removed from the real lives of people today. If we do it, we do it for pastoral reasons but it is time to bury what was and embrace what is. No doubt, we are in one of those special times of transition. We are in a Reformation of sorts. That being said, some of us grieve that loss of what is considered real Anglican worship but that loss is necessary if indeed Christ is Risen and we as the Body of Christ commit to not in living in some kind of Anglican ghetto. Again, I reiterate this view is a continuation of the ideals of the English Reformation, of which we are the offspring and stewards of. I believe this so strongly that I have no doubts that if the English Reformers were alive today, they would embrace the church music innovations and would have no problems with an organ and choir being replaced by a band led by a worship leader and team of singers. I also believe that Cranmer would be updating the BCP to a more modern syntax, with of course, the theological richness of our tradition.
You may disagree with me, but time will tell how this will all sort out. Who knows, we innovators may be proven wrong, but no doubt God’s name will be praised.
revdons,
I’m afraid I must strongly disagree with your #41. As for the language of the BCP, traditional hymnody and the KJV, they were good enough to evangelize the world long, long, after such language ceased to be used in daily life. It didn’t seem to impede the spread of the gospel then, and it needn’t now. I can’t emphasize enough how utterly I reject such arguments as you advance. Timeless language for timeless truths.
re 41: The word “contemporary” is already a problem in this because (a) a great deal of what is pressed as contemporary is pushing forty years old anyway, and (b) we live in a time (postmodern, if you like that word) where there isn’t any one thing that can be pointed at as contemporary anyway, and (c) the notion that we have to get with the times is now also an old idea itself.
And it’s connected with the panicky fear that we are losing our teenagers/young adults, as has been said for forty years now. But people aren’t teens long, and they even grow out of being young adults. Church has to appeal to older people too, and I can remember even as a twenty year old meeting up with the guys I had been with in a college church group, and they were embarrassed with the kind of music they had used just a few years before.
Revdons, I am actually pretty sure that many of the English reformers would have seen replacing congregational hymn singing with a band as a step backwards into the medieval pattern they had so recently rejected. The more Calvinist among them would have surely rejected it on those grounds. In any case, they are silent now, so I don’t have much truck with your attempt at borrowing their authority.
And the reason we are living in a ghetto is because we have lost the nerve to go out and convert everyone to our way of thinking!!!! Look, I have been in the “pep rally for Jesus” style of worship, and I have been in “high church/pull all the stops” worship, and the latter is just better. It has a lot more spiritual range, and it causes less hearing loss. And it can absorb pop-music-styled material too, whereas (at least in my experience) the praise band stuff just doesn’t play well with others.
Evan
[blockquote] Timeless language for timeless truths. [/blockquote]
If that is the case, then we should go back to Aramaic.
C. Wingate
[blockquote]It has a lot more spiritual range, and it causes less hearing loss.[/blockquote]
I guess you never spent time sitting in front of screechy Sopranos in the choir. 🙂
revdon
God knew what he was doing when he picked the time for the Bible to be translated and printed in English and the BCP to be produced. I don’t think it was an accident.
evan,
The Roman Catholic Church at the time of the Reformation said the same thing about Latin Masses and the Vulgate. So who’s telling the truth here. 🙂
revdons
And they had a good argument. I would say that the Latin Mass is fine for the RCC, certainly superior, in fact, to what replaced it in thits replacement there. But I am an Anglican, and I hold to my earlier contention that the language of classical Anglicanism is by far and away the most appropriate for coroprate worship.
Apologies for the typos in my last. The second sentence should read “certainly superior to what replaced it there.”
re 44: Revdons, I can sing over top of everyone else in our parish; I can compete one-on-one with the organ. I can make your ears ring at close range, if I work at it. But I cannot compete with a guitar and an amplifier.
C. Wingate,
I guess you missed my attempt at a little humor. 🙂
I attended a University Chapel in the 1980’s that used the music of Taizé for the services and for weekly evening prayer. The music leader had spent a summer in Taizé, and even arranged for one of the brothers to visit us to talk about the history of the community and lead us in Evening prayer one night. Done in that context, it was amazing, as awesome in it’s contemporary feel as Gregorian in it’s classical feel.
Several years later, I attended our parish worship as they hosted the diocesan convention. The music leader chose to use [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmxXwAgkhWQ&feature=related]”Veni Sancte Spiritus”[/url] from Taizé for one of the numbers, without knowing what it was or how to use it properly (I understand the Bishop had requested it and gave her the basic music). To put it simply, it was awful — she used the refrain Veni Sancte Spiritus” without any of the verses! It went on FOREVER!!!
As a result it turned a LOT of people off of Taizé chants for good.
I’ve also been to churches where they use the Praise Choruses incorrectly — for example, using [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vnqb7Vn4AEE]”Open the eyes of my heart, Lord”[/url] in place of the “Gloria”. An almost totally “ME” focused song in place of a God-focused prayer. While it doesn’t work there, it would, however, work after Communion.
So my point is: a lot of it is in the professionalism, and the presentation, of the music ministers/worship leaders.
In His Peace
Jim Elliott <>< Florida
I agree with Wingate. At the Easter Vigil, the praise band played, and at communion, the gain on the guitar was turned up so far, that it totally overpowered the choir AND the congregation, and I had to hold my ears when I went up the aisle!
As to the language of the Bible, liturgy, etc: Doesn’t the articles state that worship MUST be in the language of the people? That would eliminate the dead 1611 English for most congregations outside the UK. To me, it’s like HEARING a different language, and even the preface of the KJV calls for the Bible to be updated into the language of the people as English changed over the generations (of course that doesn’t apply to the multi-language Taizé chants). 🙂
libraryjim…you are absolutely correct.
[blockquote]Article 24 – Speaking in the Congregation in a tongue that the people can understand
It is a thing plainly repugnant to the word of God and the custom of the primitive Church, to have public prayer in the Church, or to minister the sacraments in a tongue not understood by the people.[/blockquote]
As I read this in the plainest sense, the Anglican ideal is to update the language of our worship so people can understand it. And let’s be honest, when was the last time anyone used the words “unfeignedly,” “beseech,” “propitiation,” etc…in a normal everyday conversation. While this syntax was spoken and understood by both priest and prostitute in 16th Century England, it is no longer part of our vocabulary or words like this have taken on a whole different meaning. The bottom line is if we don’t change the language we are no different than the Roman Catholic Church at the time of the Reformation.
Rubbish. I know what “unfeignedly,” beseech,” and “propitiation” mean, and so do the two 20-something young men in our parish who are seeking to discern a call to holy orders. Such language in no way interfers with one’s sincire worship, and in many cases, it enhances it. Apparantly, it just doesn’t work for you so you advocate its demise. If the preaching is up to the task and the catechist is doing his job, the language of the BCP is being explained where needed and becomes something to treasure rather than a stumbling block. It is also much more easy to memorize.
Well, it’s also rubbish because you can already see in the BCP itself that most of that sort of thing is readily “fixable”; lots of Rite II texts are simply older texts slightly altered to eliminate older and now little-used words. Most hymnal texts are a lot younger than the original BCP language, and even though they are often calculatedly archaic, the vocabulary is for the most part modern enough. The one really persistent archaism issue I’ve found in hymnal texts is that most people don’t know how to pronounce “ay” (rhymes with “day”, not “die”), but I’ve not come across people who didn’t understand it in context.
As far as I can tell, “propitiate” does not appear in the hymnal, nor does “unfeignedly”; “beseech” appears in perhaps one little-used hymn. There are of course other words which are not part of common vocabulary: I see, for example, “vanguard” and”vesture” in just one hymn. The question of course is how much of a stumbling block these words are. Is “Let All Mortal Flesh Keep Silence” deprived of its power on the basis of these two words, or because it lacks a driving beat, or because it is solemn rather than celebratory? I’m betting it’s the last.
Besides, here we have people writing things like “As the Deer Panteth for the Waters” in busted fake Jacobean grammar. Sometimes when I’m feeling perverse I fix all the mistakes: “Thou alone art my strength, my shield; to thee alone may my spirit yield.” Vocabulary is mostly an issue for new writers, not old texts.
Maybe I have not been articulate enough but my position has nothing to do with me or about the Church being “cool and relevant” but with who God is.
What I find interesting to your response is what you don’t say. So what about Article 24 says or implies? If indeed this sets the Anglican ideal for future generations it requires us to update the language of worship. How do you reconcile this with your position?
I disagree that Article XXIV mandates any such thing. There is no reason why the language I advocate, and which was the standard in the church for nearly 400 years, should be “not understanded of the people.” It was “understanded of” them for nearly 400 years and can be so now.
I feel that we have all come to the point where this conversation has ended as we are now merely going back and forth with the same arguments.
revdons,
You’re right. Music and liturgy are two things, much like WO, that folks aren’t going to change their position on.
Blessings.
With respect Evan Miller (#59), please read my story/comment in #38. For surely a key element of God’s Blessing [i]is[/i] the ability to change!
Art,
I did read your #38. If it worked for her, that’s fine. I and many others I know have suffered through seasons when all we were offered were “blended” services or contemporary services and we remain unmoved. They not only fail to edify – they irritate.
Evan, I happen to like the blended services (traditional hymns for most of the service, contemporary for communion). As I said, the key is having a choir director/music minister who knows how to do it seamlessly.
Peace
Jim Elliott <><
Evan, I have only one thing to say – my apologies, to you and good folk like you. For while I have naturally encountered the equivalent of your sitn before, I have also seen much resolved – to God’s greater glory.
Art,
Thank you for your gracious response. You certainly have no need to apologize to me. We just have different expectations of what authentic Anglican corporate worship should be.
If I may, Evan. My “expectations†and even my “response†are governed rather by the “can be†than some predefined “should†– I suspect – even though I certainly know what “dissembling and/or cloaking†means, which it seems a good few in our contemporary church possibly do not! But I sign off now …