Wesley’s directions for singing

As I move mentally and spiritually, another time or two, through my material for this coming Sunday morning’s congregational worship–and it is to be worship this time, not just “songs,” or a mix of worship and edification and entertainment–I thought I’d share these words of Charles Wesley, the song- and hymn-writer.  Not all of these admonitions are terribly deep, but I find some worth in each one.

Focusing perhaps on Direction VII below, this Sunday, I intend, as I do my visible part, to do my best to lead others in worship of Almighty God and the Messiah.  Every song will be filled with direct worship, turning to God in all expressions rather than merely singing about Him.

 

Directions for Singing (from Charles Wesley, via the Methodist Hymnal):

I.  Learn these tunes before you learn any others; afterwards learn as many as you please.

II.  Sing them exactly as they are printed here, without altering or mending them at all; and if you have learned to sing them otherwise, unlearn it as soon as you can.

III.  Sing all.  See that you join with the congregations as frequently as you can.  Let not a slight degree of weakness or weariness hinder you.  If it is a cross to you, take it up, and you will find it a blessing.

IV.  Sing lustily and with good courage.  Beware of singing as if you were half dead, or half asleep; but lift up your voice with strength.  Be no more afraid of your voice now, nor more ashamed of its being heard, than when you sing the songs of Satan.

V.  Sing modestly.  Do not bawl, so as to be heard above the rest of the congregation, that you may not destroy the harmony; but strive to unite your voices together, so as to make one clear melodious sound.

VI.  Stay in time.  Whatever time is sung be sure to keep up with it.  Do not run before nor stay behind it; but attend close to the leading voices, and move therewith as exactly as you can; and take care not to sing too slow.  This drawling way naturally steals on all who are lazy; and it is high time to drive it out from us, and sing all our times just as quick as when we did at first.

VII.  Above all sing spiritually.  Have an eye to God in every word you sing….

Mormon bunk

Ostensibly in relation to the Mitt Romney campaign, The New York Times recently reported on a Kansas City Baptist leader who is spreading a message of “countering Mormon beliefs” (read full article here), and I am sympathetic.  Far from a mere partisan, political opinion, we are talking about profound “unease” here.

It’s almost as though the author couldn’t sort things out, though.  Please read this:

“I don’t have any concerns about Mitt Romney using his position as either a candidate or as president of the United States to push Mormonism,” said Mr. Roberts, an author of “Mormonism Unmasked” and president of the Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, who said he had no plans to travel to South Carolina before the voting. “The concern among evangelicals is that the Mormon Church will use his position around the world as a calling card for legitimizing their church and proselytizing people.”

This quotation baffles me.  How can you not have any concerns about a prominent Mormon’s using his position to “push Mormonism” at the same time as you do have a concern that he will use his position to legitimize said Mormonism and proselyte people?  Sometimes I get things in my head that keep me from hearing, so maybe someone could help in interpreting what I take as a lack of proofreading of this passage in the Times.

Regardless, I am among those who are concerned–not necessarily that any appreciable number of people would be influenced to accept Mormonism if Romney were elected president, but that anyone affiliated Mormonism is one of two things:  idiotic or disingenuous¹.  (And, to this short list of labels, when considering founder/”prophet” Joseph Smith, I must add two more possibilities:  fraudulent and delusional.)

Here, I mean no personal slam–not even against the long-deceased Smith, and certainly not against current-day Mormons who are to some extent the victims of circumstance.  I’m not calling them worthless souls.  I’m saying they’re either not mentally strong enough to recognize a hoax, or they’re not being honest.  The problem here is that Mormonism is founded on a ludicrous set of bunkish beliefs that no sane person should accept.

Therefore, in the Romney case, it seems to me that we have two possibilities:

1. that Romney is idiotic — a bear of very little brain, not being able to sort out fact from fiction
2. that Romney is disingenuous — undeniably affiliated with Mormonism and not really accepting the bunk

Which is it?  As Fox News, which I find almost as annoying as any other news show, is fond of saying, you decide.

In related news, “the world’s leading Internet Evangelist” (which I had heretofore never heard of!) has launched a similar campaign, with the goal of educating a largely biblically illiterate public about what Mormons really believe (read full article here).  I appreciated this no-nonsense passage:

Keller concluded, “Mitt Romney is a ‘temple Mormon,’ meaning he has gone through the secretive temple rituals, including taking a blood oath to his ‘church’ above everything else, and wears the temple garments (magical underwear) with satanic markings that he believes protects him. Listen, if people want to vote for a man who believes he will die and become the god of his own planet, have an endless supply of women to have sex with and create spirit babies, that is fine. All I have ever asked Romney or anyone in his cult like Glenn Beck to do is be honest about what they really believe and to quit lying to people!”

At this writing, it seems that Romney is seen as the most likely to win the Republican nomination.  Whether a man with such bunkish beliefs is mentally fit to lead a country is my concern.  (Whether he could beat President Obama is another story, and whether any of this process really matters in the country’s trajectory is yet another one.  I believe all of this political stuff is eclipsed by the light of the Kingdom of God.)  We are not talking about different brands of mainstream Christianity.  We are not talking about amorphous, minor, theological differences.  We are not even talking about the string of Roman heresies or the unfounded silliness found in most denominations.

We are talking about the historically attested, essence of Christianity vs. the fraudulent fiction that is Mormonism.

============

¹ Disengenuous:  lacking in candor; also : giving a false appearance of simple frankness : calculating (Merriam-Webster online).

Tempus non fugit (3)

Tempo in music is, to a great extent, a subjective matter.  Yet there are some guidelines and “windows of acceptability” that demand the attention of leaders.  Some of these conventions appear to be inherent to human nature and our perception, but they also may change with time.  In this third of a three-part series, I’d like to state and comment on some of these principles and guidelines.

Only a few readers took 15 seconds to respond to the poll in the first post, three days ago, so those results are inconclusive.  I’ll mention that only one respondent thought church singing was too fast, in the overall analysis.  My personal observation in a cappella churches — which, remember, do not, as a rule, use professional musicians or choirs — is that there may be one leader in each church who feels it incumbent on him to use very fast tempos for virtually every song.  He feels this way, I have surmised, because most everyone else in his church leads things too slowly — which would be one scenario that led to inconclusive poll results — or he just feels he must be the life of the party.  I think I was this guy, to some minor extent, for a few years, but now, I simply try my best to choose good tempos, which means a variety. 

In my last post, I listed song titles from one particular Sunday morning assembly, along with the (invariably too slow!) tempos used, followed by my own recommended tempos.   I’m relatively un-apologetically opinionated in this area of church life — and periodically, admittedly arrogant — but in no way do I suggest that my tempos are absolutes.  I only specified numbers in order to put things clearly.

Some factors to be considered when specifying a tempo include

• rhythmic configuration in the song
• traditional mood/affect
• any intended alteration of traditional mood/affect
• previous song
• succeeding song
• the congregation:  average age, average musical ability, history, current situations
• the worship and edification hall
• instrumentation, if any
  • if no instruments, tempos generally need to be faster (witness the abridgment of Michael Card’s simply beautiful “Jesus, Let Us Come To Know You” — this song has had a beat dropped out of every measure in a cappella churches because we are uncomfortable with holding notes too long in slow tempos)
  • “fill” instruments can help to “fill the gaps,” therefore, slower tempos can be effective with less mental effort, and with less damage to the overall mood

Tempo is not completely a matter of taste.  It’s not just “to each his own” when deciding one can (il)legitimately sing “Joy to the World” at the same tempo as “Amazing Grace”  or “Abide with Me.”  Besides generally accepted principles (we use ‘em in accounting; why not in congregational singing?), it has long been held that tempo in music is directly related to the human gait.  If one can’t have a little spring in his step when singing or hearing “Joy to the World,” I think the tempo is too slow, and I’m sure you’ll agree!

Tempus non fugit (2)

I am fond of telling my instrumental ensembles — quoting from Bruce Adolphe’s What To Listen For in the World — that “a good tempo is a discovery.”  Well, I discovered something recently, and it was not good tempos that I discovered.

It borders on “keeping a record of wrongs,” I guess, but since it was with a view toward helping some of the wrongs to turn toward the right, may I be exonerated, please?    Here’s my sin:  one Sunday morning, I used my smartphone’s metronome app during church to tap out the slow tempos being used so I could report them later.  Here’s what I found, in sum:  the range of tempos was from 40 beats per minute (lentissimo, slower than a funeral march) to 90 beats per minute (andante, barely moderato).  This window or range of tempos was, in my view, way out of kilter.  It should have been from about 60 to about 132 or 140.  The musical dilettante or musical illiterate may not comprehend the affective damage done by a tempo that is 40% too slow, but when these offending lethargies are perpetrated, everyone suffers—certainly not just the musicians in the church gathering.

I want to share the details, with apologies to an old friend who was the leader on this soporific morning and who might perchance end up seeing this post.  It’s really not his fault—it’s the fault of the size (think Behemoth or Leviathan) and nature (tradition-based) of the congregation he was in front of!  Below are the titles of the songs, followed by a) the actual tempos tapped out on my metronome, and then b) a tempo I would recommend.

• Tell Me the Story of Jesus:  was 48-52, should be 120
• Come, All Ye Faithful:  was 80, should be 104
• Silent Night:  was 66, should be 88 (8^th note)
• Little Town of Bethlehem:  was 84, should be 100
• Away in a Manger:  was 69-84, should be 92 (this one wasn’t far off the mark at times)
• To Us a Child of Hope Is Born:  was 72, should be 96)
• O Come, O Come, Emmanuel:  was 68, should be 104)
• Jesus, Name Above All Names:  was 40, should be 60)
• Why Did My Savior Come To Earth:  was 60, should be 90
• My Lord Has Garments So Wondrous Fine:  was 80 (quarter note), should be 100
• Hark!  the Herald Angels Sing:  was 90, should be 116
• One Day:  was 52, should be 76
• I Will Sing the Wondrous Story:  was 66, should be 88
• Joy to the World:  was 69, should be 96

Tempo is, to a great extent, a subjective matter; to be sure, not all who were present that morning will have felt as though they were sleep-singing.  Yet I submit that pretty much everyone could have experienced more of the messages of those songs if the tempos had not crawled.  We can all learn from others’ perspectives, and I add mine on tempo in church singing here:  there are some guidelines and “windows of acceptability” that demand the attention of leaders. 

(To be continued)

Tempus non fugit (1) SURVEY

Communion Meditation (b) 1/15/2012: King Jesus

During the time of the formation of our country, George Washington is reported to have had the opportunity to become “king” of the burgeoning nation.  It is said that he knew there was only one King—Jesus—so he declined the offer.  Other people of the land apparently confessed the same ideal:  in a 1774 report to King George, the Governor of Boston asserted, ”If you ask an American, who is his master?  He will tell you he has none, nor any governor but Jesus Christ.”  The pre-war Colonial Committees of Correspondence soon made this the American motto: “No King but King Jesus.”

George Washington seemed to know what most haven’t known.  When we displace God on the throne of our lives, the outcome will not be so good.  But when we put God on the throne by our personal allegiance, we put ourselves in the best possible position for godliness and align ourselves with the goals of His kingdom. . . .

It’s an election year in our earthly country.  There are lots of concerns.  You have yours, and I have mine.  But Christians must be exceedingly more concerned with the goals of our eternal country than with those of our earthly country.  In short, it is Jesus’ Kingship — His rule and reign — that demands our primary, our transcendent allegiance.  After all, we are, first and foremost, citizens of God’s Kingdom.

This is a radical idea, but when you think about it, it makes sense—God’s coming to earth and loving unlovable humans in the first place was also revolutionary.

Maybe our American ancestors knew the best way to start a revolution.  The motto “No King but King Jesus” is pretty revolutionary—and probably, just as much so within institutional Christianity.

As we once more proclaim His death through the drinking of the juice that symbolizes His blood, we are once more saying to Him and to each other that we believe He is King and that He is set on His throne at the Father’s right hand, waiting to return for His bride (us).  We are proclaiming His life, His death, and His resurrection until He comes again as King.  As we take these little cups in our hands this day, we are expressing that we know that He is the Savior, that He is ruling, and that He is the gracious, truth-filled, loving Redeemer.  He loves beyond any of our pathetic capacities to understand love, yet He does not require our complete understanding.  Our devotion is all He asks.

Take the world, but give me Jesus.  All its joys are but a name.  But His love abideth ever, through eternal years the same.

Take the world, but give me Jesus.  In His cross my trust shall be, till, with clearer, brighter vision, face to face my Lord I see.

O the height and depth of mercy! O the length and breadth of love!  O the fullness of redemption, pledge of endless life above!  – Fanny J. Crosby

Communion Meditation (a) 1/15/2012: Your Love

From a song inspired by a speech (and later, a book) given by Max Lucado:

Your love is faithful, pure, and true —
Reaching for me, no matter what I do.
I will not ever comprehend
How You can love Your children to the end.

Your love is constant ev’ry day.
Here in Your arms, no need to run away.
You love me just the way I am.
(But) all of my sin is taken by the Lamb!

BRIDGE:
Your love does not come and go;
Your love will never ebb and flow.

CHORUS:
And you love me far, far too much just to leave me here where I am.
You want me to be just like Jesus.

“Your Love,” (c) 1997 Brian Casey/Encounter Music

======================

Jesus loved in the purest, most radical way.  And that way was not the way of acceptance with no cost.  His way was the way of astounding grace that shows, first, unconditional acceptance and charity … and then, Jesus’ way of grace and truth inspires in the pure recipients of the love the most heart-filled, devoted followership.  We are compelled by His life and by His sacrifice to be His disciples—1) to requite His love, and 2) to follow Him.  What we’re about to do in the “Lord’s Supper” is one very important way we can say “My Jesus, I Love Thee, and “More Love to Thee, O Christ.”

Patternism? (off-base and yet on-track)

N.T. “Tom” Wright, as I suggested in the last post, is not always right.  He seems to be a decent fellow, often has much to offer, and is a gifted communicator — or at least his style communicates well to me.  He is not always right, but on the other hand, he often has something insightful to say.  Since I’m only almost-through with Vol. 1 of his two-volume Acts commentary, I imagine I’ll have more Wright stuff to write about in the future.

Anyway, I would like to comment briefly on this sentence, which was contained in the passage I shared yesterday:

[S]ince there is in fact no single, identical pattern of Christian initiation running right across our earliest documents, the church has, in my view wisely, developed patterns which broadly correspond to what seems to have been done by the first apostles themselves, as much by decisions taken as they went along as by carefully thought-out regulation.

I would first of all agree with the implication that patternism in the sense of blueprints and legal codes do not run rampant through the pages of the New Covenant documents.  There is, though, in point of fact, quite a distinct, common thread related to “Christian initiation,” and it is seen

• unmistakably, throughout the historical-narrative pages of Acts (chapters 2, 8, 9, 10, 16, & 19) … but, it might be pointed out, not at the ends of chapters 3 and 13)
• notably, in theological, explanatory contexts Galatians, Romans, Colossians, and 1 Peter
• practically, in today’s churches that are more text-based than history-based

Mr.¹ Wright, your denomination does not appear to be on a valid track with its practice of “confirmation,” but I greatly appreciate that you find connections between authentic Christian practice today and what the apostles did and taught in the first century!

==================

¹ I didn’t take time to look up how Anglican bishops are properly addressed in-house, because not only do I not care, but I suspect that Tom Wright has long ago moved beyond caring about titles and formalities!

World-renowned theologians can be off-base (1)

I learned to respect the name N.T. Wright when he was on the “good side” (contra Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan, widely considered to be bona fide heretics) of the “Jesus at 2000″ debate.  I have since picked up two of Wright’s commentaries and have glanced a few times at his website.  He’s a good communicator and is renowned as an Anglican bishop, theologian, writer, and speaker.

However, Wright is not always right.  Case in point from Part One of his commentary on Acts:

As a bishop, one of the things I do quite a lot is to go round laying hands on people and praying for God’s holy spirit to come upon them.  It is often a very moving and exciting time, not least at the Easter Vigil when we come in darkness into the great cathedral, led by the candle symbolizing the risen Jesus, and then, with lights coming on, playing on the organ and other instruments, and shouts of “Alleluia!,” we celebrate the resurrection.  We renew the vows made at our baptism; and then, sometimes pausing to baptize people as well, we welcome into our fellowship through confirmation (the laying on of the bishop’s hands, with prayer) those who had been baptized earlier, probably as infants, and who now want to make real for themselves the promises which had been made on their behalf some while before.

When people ask me, as they sometimes do, what it’s all about, the present passage (Acts 8:4-25 -bc) is one of the ones we usually go back to.  I do not imagine for a moment that our modern practice, in the church to which I happen to belong, is an exact reproduction of what Luke says took place in Samaria on that occasion.  I am not an apostle come from Jerusalem, and the people I confirm are not Samaritans, needing for the first time to know the presence and power of the spirit.  But since there is in fact no single, identical pattern of Christian initiation running right across our earliest documents, the church has, in my view wisely, developed patterns which broadly correspond to what seems to have been done by the first apostles themselves, as much by decisions taken as they went along as by carefully thought-out regulation.  I should say, by the way, that sometimes when I meet people I have confirmed a year or so before they have remarkable stories to tell of what God has been doing in their lives since then.  It is by no means, as sceptics sometimes assume, an empty and irrelevant old bit of ritual.  (N.T. Wright, Acts for Everyone, Part One, Chapters 1-2, pp. 125-127)

Now, before I protest several elements of the good bishop’s words above, I want to say that I am not throwing away or defacing his books.  They’re borrowed from the library.  I am not returning them in disgust.  I can still learn from this man, this Anglican official who has a great deal of insight and communicative gift.  But he can be off-base, and here, off-base he is.

I’ll also say that there are a couple of very important, apt insights contained in the middle of Wright’s messy, mixed bag.  The very first problem is his conclusion to this topic of discourse:  we are apparently supposed to believe that because he says people have great stories to tell, his “confirmation” practice is valid.

I enjoy poking holes, or at least attempting to poke them, in other people’s logic.  In so doing, I am probably not doing my best “Golden Rule” work, but as a perpetually aspiring neo-Protestant, I continue to believe this is important work.  So, here I go.  I count five subjective (or less-than-fact-based) elements in the quoted passage above:

1. Wright’s memory (in his humanness, he may be conflating and amalgamating events)
2. Wright’s perception of the people’s genuineness (his judgment is not flawless)
3. The people’s actual genuineness (they may be as interested in impressing the great bishop as in recounting actual happenings)
4. The people’s memory (they are human, too, and could have forgotten sequences and times)
5. The people’s perception of what God is “doing in their lives” (this phrase is always dubious)

Conclusion:  never trust a bishop.  Just kidding.  Actually, never trust any human.  (Not kidding.)  We are all flawed.  (Yes, even the Pope.  If any Catholics are reading, you need to know this.  Don’t get all hot-and-bothered and take leave of your senses.  Down deep, you know that the assertion of papal infallibility is ridonculous, and you need to toss it overboard from the ship of your life and beliefs.)

Despite the goodness of heart and thoroughness of thought that N.T. “Tom” Wright manifests so regularly, he is not always right.  The implicit suggestion that the laying on of a denominational bishop’s hands means something is questionable.  And the pragmatically, morally absurd notion of “baptizing” an infant (of course, they are just sprinkled or poured upon, not really baptized, for that would be child abuse) is eclipsed in the spiritual plane by the inability to see that there was actually a pattern of initiation–shown pretty clearly in the record we call Acts of the Apostles.

Denominational loyalties and mass marketing are enemies of truth.

Categorizing music (2)

Following yesterday’s initiatory look at music categories, here are some ways of categorizing church songs:

1. Whether it’s a book or non-book song.  (“Hymnal” is sort of a misnomer, so I’ll just say “book.”)  We leaders tend to carry around an unspoken list of how many of our songs on a given Sunday were “hymns” (meaning “found in the book”), and how many were “contemporary” or “worship songs” (ignoring the fact that two of the book songs were worship songs, too!).   Almost subconsciously, as we plan and communicate plans and carry out plans, we are too conscious of how many songs are in the “old” and “newer” categories.  Of course, as “contemporary” songs come to be included in revisions of song books, this whole analysis becomes more complicated.
2. Musical style considerations such as harmonic rhythm and presence or absence of a chorus/refrain.  These days, there seems to be less interest in a strict musical classification or even in anything musical whatsoever (summer singing schools and singing Sunday nights are just about extinct).  Folks often bend over backwards to avoid any appearance of giving too much emphasis to music or things musical, despite the pervasiveness of music — and the continued, albeit different, musical literacy in our culture.
3. A third way of categorizing is in terms of textual content.  The content of a song is more important than its musical style, or whether the song is found in a book or not.  Lyrical/textual content merits primary consideration.

For what it’s worth, below, I offer an attempt at categorization of my church’s 2011 “top 25″ based on content.  I feel that someone needs to challenge the status quo that worries too much about whether a song is in a song book or not.

===============================

Hymns/Direct Worship

Ancient of Days
As The Deer (Nystrom)
Here I Am To Worship
More Precious Than Silver
My Jesus, I Love Thee
On Bended Knee
Step By Step

Praise, Thanks, and Indirect Worship/Call To Worship
A Mighty Fortress
Blessed Be the Lord God Almighty
Come Let Us Worship and Bow Down
Give Thanks
How Great Is Our God
I Will Call Upon the Lord
The Steadfast Love of the Lord
We Will Glorify

Prayer
Create in Me a Clean Heart
Light the Fire
Lord, Reign in Me
Unto Thee, O Lord

Edification/Teaching
The Battle Belongs to the Lord (also, contains elements of praise)
The Greatest Command

Difficult to categorize (“crossover” or partially unknown to me)
God Himself Is With Us
He Still Came
Lamb of God
Yes, Lord, Yes

Categorizing music (1)

Not being all that hip to popular music (90% of it bores me, turns me off, or disgusts me), I have often been enlightened by pop¹ enthusiasts’ categorizations of music.

“They’re my favorite band.  They’re sort of post-punk, psychedelic folk, with elements of surf pop and electro-funk.

“Yeah, our influences were Led Zeppelin and Journey and Bob Marley, and our sound is totally unique.  We end up with sort of an alternative-zydeco, bluesy-acid, bubblegum blend of folk and country.”

New pop music categories seem to emerge monthly.  I think new categories are birthed for marketing’s sake, and in order to give new garage bands a raison d’etre.  Personally, I have a short handle on “southern rock” and “progressive rock” and “disco,” but I seriously question who determines what is “alternative” and what alternative subcategories exist.  I really have no interest in distinguishing among the dozens of recognized varieties of hip-hop and rap, between “doom metal” and “thrash metal,” or between “power pop” and “pop rock.”  And who knew there could even be a category called “acid blues”?  :-)

I’ve known of two churches, I think, that take time — or, more accurately, that have one person who takes the time on behalf of the church — to keep an active database of songs sung in gatherings.  Categorizings result — based on, for example, 1) who leads the song, 2) which month/week it is used, 3) whether it is “new” or not, and 4) what type of song it is.  Such databases, in my view, are mildly interesting, but they take more time and effort than they’re worth, and I’ve never been quite sure that their purposes and effects warrant the time taken.  My dad used to keep informal records of different song leaders’ choices, but I don’t believe he ever shared his lists with anyone, and I think he was merely documenting, for his own planning purposes, whether certain favorites were being sung too frequently.

An interesting study would be to match song content with Bible texts and sermon topics and special events that played key roles in a given church’s assemblies, during a given time period.  Was there conceptual tie-in?  For instance, in our church, a familiar song that has to do with Christian unity made the top-25 list in 2010 but not in 2011.  I wonder whether its falling out of favor might have paralleled a trend of less “one-another” focus.

Tomorrow, I’ll share some ways of categorizing church songs.

================

¹ Here, I use “pop” as an umbrella term to refer, essentially, to all the music played on non-art-music radio stations.

An offbeat birthday affirmation to my dad (1/1/12)

What do the following have in common?

• both major U.S. political parties
• street sign makers in White County, AR and New Castle County, DE
• church elders

All of these have a periodic penchant for commissioning people to do things when those particular people apparently shouldn’t be doing them.  In other words, the doers don’t always have the requisite abilities.

We’ve had a few party-sanctioned presidents who haven’t had certain requisite skills (e.g., correctly pronouncing the word “nuclear” and being generally honorable people who don’t talk out of both sides of their mouths).  People entrusted with producing street signs for, e.g., Llama Drive, Kiamensi Road, and Brennan Drive ought to know how to spell (erroneous spellings Lama, Kiamansi, and Brennen appear at the other ends of the roads).

And in the sphere of song leading, I can’t tell you the last time I met with, or heard about, a Church of Christ that was using its options well.  Where they exist, qualified song leaders should be used.  You know — people who actually have the ability to stand in front and lead singing, not hindering by technical incompetence.  College Church, you especially ought to be ashamed of the poor non-use you make of your song leading resources.

It is my anecdotally informed theory that elders and deacons who have charge of those who have charge — in other words, those who select the song leaders — tend to be of a shallow mind when considering such things.  All sorts of guys will lead singing in churches.  Some who are nearly devoid of talent for leading music publicly, but who have “upbeat” personalities, will even find themselves having a virtual monopoly on leading.  These guys may come to believe they are gifted when they really aren’t, and as a result, they don’t end up developing the modest gifts they have.  They stagnate; resultantly, they contribute to the stagnation of the congregation.  Those who select and schedule leaders ought to do better, choosing those who can really do the things they’re chosen to do.  We wouldn’t choose an accountant to pick cotton, or a two-year-old to install a light bulb high atop a ladder, so why do we choose people who can’t keep a beat or match pitch or read rhythms to lead congregational singing?

In contrast:  when my dad was in the role of choosing song leaders, he did an exemplary job of balancing things as he got men involved in public leadership.  At times, it was difficult, because pressures were exerted to have people’s friends (or those who led “fun” songs or even tripe that didn’t deserve to be led at all) lead more than they should have led.  Most often, there were 4 or 5 who were in the Sunday morning rotation, and 4-5 more who led on Sunday evenings or Wednesday nights.  It was pretty clear to all that some were “first-string” and others were not, and I wasn’t always comfortable with the de facto hierarchy, but this generally seemed to work out well, and people were in the appropriate roles.

[Aside:  we could have multiple conversations about Sunday nights … 1) whether putting the “second string” on Sunday night duty further marginalizes Sunday night activities, and yea, 2) whether having Sunday night activities  at all makes any sense in this era or not, but those are discussions for another day.]

[A further aside:  through the years, I’ve been part of 5 churches in which I was in this kind of first-string rotation.  I both appreciated the affirmations and took them seriously.  Further, I believe they were all apt affirmations.  I never would have wanted to have a monopoly, even though I was technically better than anyone else around me, because I was not spiritually better or personally more appealing than the other leaders.  After all, I was just one person who could lead a contingent pretty effectively.  In other words, I was not the best leader for everyone.  I was not to everyone’s taste.  Different leadership styles can keep things from monotony, and I was glad for the variety at West Side, Ridgewood, St. Elmo, Cedars, and Lawson Road.]

Back to my dad.  Not all of his opinions are infallible, and I do think he allowed taste to influence his leadership of the leaders, to an extent . . . but he did know an effective, worthy song/worship/devotional leader when he saw one.  When he was a deacon and elder in charge of those in charge, Dad always did a great job of being as inclusive as possible, while serving the higher ideals of spiritual leadership for the sake of the Kingdom of God.  Dad has always been a thoughtful man who saw the best possibilities in people.

Happy birthday, Dad.  The anniversary of your birth is one of a kind, and so are you.

2011 anniversaries: out with the old

This entry into the blogosphere is neither nostalgic nor spiritual.  It is not particularly well-conceived.  These words may not even provoke thought.

I merely want to recognize the passing of the year 2011 with a couple of “huh –who?” or “attaboy” utterances about music and musicians, and then I’ll finish with an “OK, thanks, but at this point, I’m done w’ ya.”

First, heading back 300 years … the year 1711 brought to us no one particularly notable in music history … ever heard of William Boyce and Ignaz Holzbauer?  Didn’t think so.  ‘Nuff said.

1811 was a bit more significant in giving birth to the inimitable, if flagrantly megalomaniacal, Franz Liszt.  Liszt was quite a composer, an even more prolific transcriber and arranger … and, by all reports, an ostentatious “rock star” of a solo piano performer.  Not my cup of tea, but he does deserve recognition, historically speaking.  Liszt actually merited the epithet “artist” — unlike 94% of the pop stars who reappropriate the label today.  Another dude by the name of Ferdinand Hiller, who was the dedicatee of Schumann’s terrific piano concerto and of a couple of Chopin’s works, was also a product of 1811.

Around the birth years of my grandparents, 1911 gave us Gian Carlo Menotti (of the plenteous supply of homosexually-acting, talented composers of the last couple of centuries); and Alan Hovhaness, an interesting and also talented, if quirked-out, composer.  More significant in my personal, vocational life was the creation, in 1911, of Holst’s Second Suite in F for Military Band.  A landmark work, along with its predecessor of 1909, and a work that has provided much pleasure.  Thanks, Gustav.

And now, back a few hundred years.  The passing of 2011 moves us to mark the 400-year-old publishing of the Authorized Version of the Bible, commonly known as the King James Version, in 1611.  That this version was authorized by a human should give us pause re:  its conception; that it was authorized by a king should arouse bona fide suspicion.

It’s my distinct impression — being a closet, relatively unschooled scriptorian that I am — that the KJV was, for approximately 350 years, the only verifiably circulated, “complete” Bible.  (Biblical canon is a much more complicated question than that, but for sake of this abbreviated blog, I’ll leave it at that.)  That was more or less fine for 1611-1950, and I am grateful that more and more people had Bibles available during those days.  Clearly, the KJV was a blessing in its time.

However, at this juncture, we must pay our respects and allow the KJV to pass with a dignity that matches the richness of some of its language.  For poetically or aesthetically oriented purposes, or for sake of academic study of the literature of the 16th and 17th centuries, it is fine to use the KJV.  For the sake of understanding God’s messages in our day, it is no longer fine to give credence to the KJV.  We now have infinitely better scholarship to bring us more communicative, more accurate versions of what was originally scribed.  Today’s versions are not all worthy, but just about any one of them has a better chance, in 2011, of communicating something God wanted said than the KJV has.  Those old soldiers of the scriptures, the giving-away Gideons, need to learn this truth, and so do the rest of us.

Thank you, KJV, for shewing thyself unto humans who have sought the Almighty for lo, these scores of years.  Prithee, though, as 2011 flees, may thine arcane gists and thine obsolete phrasings take flight on wings of reason and spirit.  Thy stilted language no longer serves the purposes of the Kingdom of God.  We beseech thee, in good faith:  takest thou thy leave, with alacrity!

Good riddance, KJV.  May another, more worthy than thou, haste to take thy place.

Greetings from Cecil Hook

Preface

Following today’s post, I intend to take a break from blogging until after the first of the year.  I may not be able to contain myself, but I’ll try.

Foreword

I got my start in serious proofreading through the grace of Cecil Hook, who has now moved on, having “entered the land of the eternally living,” to quote his quote of his dear wife Lea who preceded him in death.  As long as I can remember, I’ve been as annoyed by mistakes with words and punctuation as most people tend to be with those of us who proofread. Cecil received my comments on his regular essays with humility and interest, and he kept inviting them. After some time had transpired, he invited me to proofread a revision of his first book Free In Christ–a project I was deeply honored to be a part of.  As we near Christmas Day and the end of this calendar year, I would like to re-gift a Christmas-card greeting, once received from Cecil Hook, to all my readers.  I fully realize that Christmas means different things to each person, each family.  Personally, I have no favorite season and no favorite holiday, and I have mixed feelings about both the secular and the sacred aspects of this particular holiday.  Yet for most of us, Cecil’s words ring spiritual, and they ring true.]

May you feel again some of the exciting childish anticipation
of Christmas as the Day approaches.
As you hear the familiar songs of Christmas, may their
messages enhance your gratitude for God’s reaching down
to us through Jesus.
May feasts together, whether scant or bountiful, nourish
family relationships.
May gatherings of family and friends and greetings from afar
remind you that others care for you.
May the empty seats at your table bring visions of the larger
family feast your absent loved ones are enjoying around the
heavenly banquet table.
May all that gives meaning to this season combine to add
conviction to your faith, to make your hope more real, and to
nourish more abounding love.
And may God make each of us useful in his service for
another year.
MERRY CHRISTMAS and HAPPY NEW YEAR!
Cecil and Elma Lea (Holladay) Hook
December 2002

That’s no manger anymore, man

This recently resurfaced in my computerized archives.  It is originally from one William Eberwein, whom I don’t know, and whose e-mail address is likely to have changed several times in 12 years.  I think it bears repeating.  If you don’t like this “Christmas greeting,” check out the next one, to be shared in a day or two … the second one is more conciliatory!

====================================

I have noticed that people are comfortable if I say that I believe in “God,” though they wish I would be more polite and simply refer to Him as “A power greater than I” or the like.  If I say “Christ” has entered my life, they smile condescendingly, happy to demonstrate their superior “tolerance” of “my truth.”  But if I say that “Jesus” is a part of my life — THAT gets a strong reaction.  “Don’t run your religion down my throat, man!  This is a workplace, not a church!  Separation of church and state, all right?”

In a similar vein, here is the text from four “religious” Christmas cards I saw recently.  Notice that for the creators of Christmas cards, the closest they want to get to Jesus is a personal sense of wonder.  As if Christianity were just another drug to produce a constellation of personal sensations.  As we have “my experience of God,” one suspects that the worship is directed as “my experience” and not “of God.”

                ONE  Inside:  May the blessings of the season be with you today and always.

                TWO  Front: Mary, Joseph and animals overlooking the manger

                Inside: May Christmas bring you wonder and joy

                THREE  Front: The Madonna holding Jesus

                Inside: May the wondrous spirit of Christmas fill your heart today and always.

                FOUR  Front: Musical Angels

                Inside: Wishing you the hope – the joy and wonder of Christmas

I would suggest a more honest card:

Merry Christmas. May Jesus make you and yours very uncomfortable this season, as He stands at your door and knocks.

Style vs. content

I caught a sexagenarian (+!) Paul Simon on PBS the other evening.  He still had style, although his voice is “slip-slidin’ away.”  In the contemporary Christian/so-called “crossover” realm, Michael W. Smith and Amy Grant have always been long on style, and MWS, at least, often has content to match.  Billy Joel, another long-termer, has in my perception had as much content (albeit undesirable content at times) as style, but it’s a complete package.  Style is one thing, and content is another, and it’s excellent when they’re found together.

Contemporary styles are almost assumed to be normative in a great number of churches these days.  Lots of congregations exhibit contemporaneity, to some extent.

On the other hand, traditional styles can seem to garner almost as much support, even among contemporary advocates, albeit without the same depth of loyalty.  Stained glass and vestments, “baptismal fonts” and narthexes (nartheces?), blaring organs and staring icons are all hallmarks of traditional churches, and while some of these items things spook me a little, and most of them bother me at some level, a lot of younger folks find beauty (and meaning?) in them.

Whether we prefer old or new, and whether that preference is based on fact or fiction, I hope we can keep perspective.  Style sometimes takes too much of our attention; content is so much more important.

What’s represented by the “baptismal font” in, for instance, Lutheran and Presbyterian churches is contra-scripture; therefore, what many perceive as “beauty” in the style of the furniture is vacuumed out by a lack of bona fide content.  In other words, what is done substantively with the “font” is not of biblical substance; therefore, it is vacuous, if not devoid of meaning.  Such fonts should be seen as the ultimately meaningless pieces of furniture they are.

Next on the chopping block:  organs, which are of course very much in the traditional-style category.  Organs may distract and blare and lead poorly, but they may be seen as a necessity where there is no other musical leader.  Organs may tie up thousands or even millions of dollars.  (I know of one example of a 2-million-dollar organ restoration.)  When an organ’s style–its ornate cabinetry or its booming tones or the artifices of its timbres–become the centerpiece, the people in those pews are probably not being served with substantive content, nor are God’s purposes.  I acknowledge that an organ may seem to be a servant for some, when employed with perspective, and it may be an aid to worthy content.  These things should be brought into Kingdom perspective so that no organ (or any physical thing, for that matter) rules.

How about stained glass?  If I’ve heard it once, I’ve heard it fourscore times:  “Oh, I just love the beautiful stained glass!”  “The stained glass in that church is so beautiful!”  Yeah, yeah.  There is a beauty when light streams through color, and I can appreciate that.  But for me, stained glass connotes the darkness of the Middle Ages (and earlier, and later), and since it does, it’s hard for me to separate it from false doctrine, popery, and oppressive, false religion.  This dislike of stained glass probably represents a failing of mine, but I confess it freely.

As long as styles are recognized as superficial, I might be able to acknowledge some value in them, even if they contradict my preferences.  But I feel a rising tension when mere styles are presumed to carry spiritual weight, and when fabricated words like “narthex” and “sacristy” are thrown around as though they mean something to everyone, and as though they have anything to do with the true faith of Jude 3 or, yea, with anything of well-founded, lasting meaning whatsoever.

Style sometimes takes too much of our attention; content is so much more important.  Whether it’s Paul Simon, Michael W. Smith, or stained glass, we should make the content the center of our thinking and experience.

Out of adjustment

I recently had the experience, within a period of about 72 hours, of finding rather notable, noticeable adjustment problems in three spheres.

1. A piano I was asked to tune in preparation for an aural skills final exam was definitely “out.”
2. My trusted chiropractor, whom I’ve seen about 12 times in the last 5 months, mentioned this time that the “mechanics” of my shoulder blade are really “out.”
3. And my own attitude — or, if you prefer, my heart, or spirit — has been pretty severely out of adjustment with respect to a particular “goodbye” that needed to be said.

…

Lord, let me be “in adjustment.”  Let me help to adjust others where You would, but more so, adjust me more than I adjust others.

A seasonal offering meditation

We sing,

All to Jesus, I surrender;
All to Him I freely give;

Seriously?

All to Jesus, I surrender;
Lord, I give myself to Thee;

Really?

Another verse for this song—rarely sung—says this:

All to Jesus I surrender;
Now I feel the sacred flame.
O the joy of full salvation!
Glory, glory, to His Name!

It would seem that if we feel the joy of full salvation, we will not only 1) worship, but will also 2) live a life of giving … and this life lived becomes a reflection of the redemption gift we have been given.  We will not only relate vertically but also exist horizontally in relation to others.

During this season, the thought of giving to others may lead you to one of several follow-up thoughts:

• “Gift of the Magi,” the short story by O. Henry, in which the poor husband buys a set of expensive combs for his wife’s beautiful hair, at roughly the same time that the wife cuts her hair off and sells it for a few dollars to a wig-maker so she could buy her husband a present
• Any number of other seasonal movies in which the heart comes alive and becomes tender and giving
• Or maybe the pure, childlike heart represented in “The Little Drummer Boy” – giving what he could
• Better yet, the widow’s mite … or the woman of Luke 7 who gave the gift of penitence and washed Jesus’ feet with her heart’s tears.  She gave herself, I would say, in spontaneous worship—and that, in itself, was a gift.

The communion remembrance, however distant from its origins, is a gift to Him.  A gift of the heart.  And we now have opportunity to give other gifts for various sub-causes that come under His Lordship in our congregation.

A communion meditation

An elder statesman of the Restoration Movement—one who has lived through about half of its history personally—wrote of a story of surrender–of a specific account of Steve Jobs’s death on NBC’s Evening News with Brian Williams.  The report was that (and I quote)

Steve Job’s sister had revealed that her brother, while dying, said in an upbeat manner — and these were his last words – Oh, Wow!   He went on to repeat this interjection twice: Oh, Wow! Oh, Wow!    He was apparently conscious, lucid, and fully aware of what he was saying and what was going on. Here was the co- founder of Apple, the ultimate entrepreneur, and “the secular prophet” as the Wall Street Journal described him, who supposedly did not believe in any reality beyond this world, crying out affirmations of something transcendent. A cry of Wow!  is akin to a shout of Hallelujah!

… In a recent commencement address at Stanford University, he talked to the students about death, describing it as “Life’s change agent.” …

He also warned them against being trapped by dogma, which he saw as blindly following other people’s thinking. He urged that they be their own unique selves, follow their own dreams, and listen to their own inner voice, heart, and intuition. It was an appeal for an authentic and meaningful life. It was as if he might have urged them to be prepared to face life’s mysteries — the wonders that are beyond our reach — and to have the heart and mind to unashamedly cry out Wow!

Now, I would say that “Hallelujah” is a good deal above and beyond “Wow,” but I get the point here.  There is something beyond.  Something wonderful.  Something transcendent.  Something to be lived for beyond the present and the things right in front of our faces.

For us, that “Something” is a Who.  And that Who is the One we are called to give reverent attention to in the passage from Revelation—Jesus as the Worthy One, the Lamb without blemish, offered for us.  And this is the very One we are called to worship now.  It’s a redundant expression, but I’ll repeat it here anyway:  “Come, let us worship and bow down” … here … today.

. . .

“This is the Lord’s Supper.”  And in the Lord’s Supper we are called away to a reality beyond ourselves.  Yes, in a sense we are called to be fully present, right now, bringing ourselves as we are, with all our dirt and distractions.  But we are also called away from the observable into the realm of the eternal.  We are called to worship this Lord, this Jesus.  We are inspired not to regurgitate “thankyouforthesegiftsweareabouttoreceive” or some other memorized mumblings … but to express intentionally, consciously, lucidly, with the vision of the Lamb at the right hand of the Father rising in our spirits, “Wow.  Hallelujah!  Praise to God.”

It’s an opportunity to worship.  “This is the Lord’s Supper.”…

Maybe you remember the first time you communed in this way.  Maybe you can’t even remember the last time.  They have all been significant.

“This is the Lord’s Supper.” …

Perhaps a bit strange that we eat “supper” in the morning hours, and equally strange that the morsels and thimbles are the sizes they are.  Nevertheless, despite our tradition-bound handling of an important spiritual legacy, I’m convinced that in eating and drinking, we have a unique opportunity to be with Jesus in grateful adoration—in worship.  And in this communal love shown, we can please our Lord, Jesus, the Christ—who in an upper room near Jerusalem first did this with His closest followers.  “This is the Lord’s Supper.”

The re-coming

The label “Advent” may mean something to some people, but not to all.

Advent’s origin is reportedly with the Lutherans; curiously, Roman Catholic groups observe it, too.  Advent’s concepts seem sound to me, by and large, but the so-called “Advent Season” and the attendant calendar are fabricated ex nihilo, and therefore, they are not of much interest to me.

Still, the idea of waiting for the adventus (Latin) or parousia (Greek), of God’s Christ is a worthy one.  From …

      the Jewish sense of longing–now dismally sadly forgotten,

            to the first-century Christians’ ostensible expectation of Jesus’ soon return,

                  to our own wistful, most-often-unspoken heart-cries of marana tha …

We do wait for you, Lord Jesus.