you know your life is screwed up when an old Spice Girls song gets stuck on "replay" in your head. mind you, Viva Forever is pretty decent by any standards, but still...
still on music - some of you would be familiar with my distaste for modern Christian rock / pop / whatever worship music. glad to say that i've gotten more accepting about it over the years, but there is still a discomfort with the whole genre which i can't completely put my finger on. perhaps its exacerbated by the love i have for most "traditional" worship styles:
- mostly not performed by any artiste or the property of any record company (and therefore "common property";
- sung "live" rather than on a record - the intimate human element;
- that soaring feeling you get when you sing a complicated line or a cheem one with deep meaning expressed through complex language (yes i'm a snob)
- etc.
while modern worship music is "in tune" and energetic like young people should be (thus it serves a purpose in connecting people to God after all), for me it's largely about achieving a shallow "feel good" state. kind of losing yourself, but not really hitting the God thing. and did i talk about how it's too loud most of the time? i can't hear you man! although sometimes God shouts through the cacophony and knocks it into some semblance of "true worship". i still like the intense, still, quiet voice that erases all doubt rather than trying to overwhelm your attention.
not to mention that many modern worship leaders are epitomes of "interminable". at least for hymns you can only sing the same verse and the chorus a couple of times before the intensity knocks the breath out of you. bad leaders go on and on at a low level until they bore the crap out first. yeesh.
ok, end rant. like i said, it's good for some people, but maybe i'm just behind the times (or too far ahead). that's why i choose to wake up at 7.00am on Sunday mornings.
Saturday, 19 July 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I definitely know where you're coming from. I grew up in a Methodist church that sings hymns, and they were pretty much all I knew outside of camp songs.
When I got involved with Christian fellowship in college, the single largest barrier for me was the worship. I hated songs like "Trading My Sorrows" or "Better Is One Day" or "Blessed Be Your Name." I thought they were without substance. I felt like I was supposed to feel things that I didn't feel and that made me feel guilty, or at least out of place. I missed the organ.
Over time they grew on me and eventually I came to love this kind of worship, too. I in particular love looking around at the Well at all of the worshiping faces - somehow different than at church.
I agree with what you say about the public domain nature of traditional worship music, and how it seems weird that worship should involve royalties. I do think though that this kind of package allows Christians access to an important form of modern expression - the album.
Nowadays, the David Crowder Band is one of my favorite groups. Many people (the Eclepic author, for one) look at them as the flagship substanceless poppy emotion-centered group.
I disagree. I think that perspective comes from hearing songs of theirs played overzealously and in isolation by modern worship leaders. However, I believe their albums when taken as a whole express a wide and deep range of the Christian experience, and listening to them can be very edifying. "A Collision" is my favorite - go Ruckus!
Another interesting note - these last few weeks while on vacation I've been attending City Church, San Francisco. The music here is almost entirely classic hymns reworked for a modern praise band. While I still probably prefer an organ, I think this is a fantastic way to have theologically deep, traditionally-rooted worship that still connects to a younger and more modern crowd.
Finally - perhaps another aspect of traditional worship that folks like you and I find appealing is that there is generally no "worship leader" in traditional music. The organ (or whatever else) plays the accompaniment and everyone, pastor to laypeople, joins in with an equal voice. Worship leaders introduce a personality on which the congregation depends for connection to God, an intermediary as it were. Done right it's fine - watching Zach worship as he's leading is inspiring to me - but in the good Protestant tradition I think it's probably better when everyone sings together, led by the Holy Spirit alone.
A famous minister and evangelist wrote about new music that is plaguing our churches and destroying worship, with these words:
There are several reasons for opposing [this music]. One, it’s too new. Two, it’s often worldly, even blasphemous. The new Christian music is not as pleasant as the more established style because there are so many new songs, you can’t learn them all. It also puts too much emphasis on instrumental music rather than on Godly lyrics. This new music creates disturbances, making people act indecently and disorderly.
Who was the writer and what was he referring to?
The writer was William Romaine, an Anglican priest. He wrote this in 1775 in repsonse to the worldly hymns of Isaac Watts.
Isaac Watts had introduced a new kind of music to the worship services - the singing of hymns! Some churches were beginning to sing hymns (men's words) instead of singing the psalms (God's word)
Romaine explains his position as to the use of hymns, and in particular mentions the work of Isaac Watts: "Let me observe, then, that I blame nobody for singing human compositions. I do not think it sinful or unlawful, so the matter be scriptural. My complaint is against preferring men's poems to the good word of God, and preferring them to it in the church. I have no quarrel with Dr. Watts, or any living or dead versifier. I would not wish all their poems burnt. My concern is to see Christian congregations shut out divinely inspired Psalms, and take in Dr. Watts' flights of fancy; as if the words of a poet were better than the words of a prophet, or as if the wit of a man was to be preferred to the wisdom of God. When the church is met together in one place, the Lord God has made a provision for their songs of praise - a large collection, and great variety - and why should not these be used in the church according to God's express appointment? I speak not of private people or of private singing, but of the church in its public service. Why should the provision which God has made be so far despised, as to become quite out of use? Why should Dr. Watts, or any hymn maker, not only take the precedence of the Holy Ghost, but also thrust him entirely out of the church? Insomuch that the rhymes of a man are now magnified above the word of God, even to the annihilating of it in many congregations."
William Romaine, Essay on Psalmody, in The Whole Works (London: B. Blake, 1837), p. 990-991
Today, we know Isaac Watts The Father of English Hymnody- author of over 600 hymns.
Among Watts' most-loved works are "When I Survey the Wondrous Cross", "Alas! And Did My Savior Bleed?" and "Our God, Our Help in Ages Past." Isaac Watts was "radical, experimental, and adventurous" for his day, and we can thank him for his great hymns that point toward God's mercy and man's sinfulness in a way that makes God seem sweet to the soul.
Watts' hymns gloried in the power, wisdom, and goodness of his majestic God. During the American revivals of 1735-1739, known as the Great Awakening, George Whitefield used Watts' hymns and songs in his meetings.
Perhaps this short reflection could put some perspective to "contemporary" church music?
BTW, I think "Blessed Be Your Name" is a theologically sound song with a great contemporary tune. :)
Post a Comment