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….

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).

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!

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)

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

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

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!

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.

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