Real (4): covering, style, and content

As though I hadn’t done this enough already, I’m gonna commence to “preach” again — to a crowd that is probably not reading, making what I’m about to say pointless. . . .  

This first admonition is to all the vocalists in “worship teams” (why the ever-present sports reference?) and “praise bands”:  if you’re really in touch, all “realed up” and sensitized to your contemporaneity and communications, you won’t cover your face with a microphone.  To me, covering your face with as much of the mic as possible is analogous to wearing a hood over your head when a) it’s not cold and b) you’re not outside.  Obscuring your face with the mic makes you look like you’re hiding something.  Yeah, it’s a style thing, and style is always related to taste.  I get that, and I’ll be outvoted on this by all but the stodgiest of my friends (my age or younger).  I still think covering some of your communicators up, when you’re supposed to be communicating, makes little sense.

P.S.  I searched pages of Google’s “pop singer” images and never did find an example of what I’m talking about. (But I think you, my readers, will know.)  Apparently, singers and Google both know to choose better images — those that display the entire face.  On a whim, I searched “rap artists” and found these.

Back to music style now. . . .

A few months back, a younger acquaintance recently commented on the so-called “worship wars” and mentioned a time frame of the last decade.  Given his age, his perspective is limited to about a half-dozen years of actual experience, and he wisely expanded that by a few years to be inclusive of history he has not experienced.  My timetable’s length is more than double his when I speak of style changes in worship and assemblies.¹   I have experienced about twenty years of what he thinks of as ongoing for only ten; moreover, I’m aware that style changes were afoot before I personally became involved and attentive.  Style is always with us.  (Ever heard that John Calvin [I think it was] outlawed “those Geneva Jigs” that others might have called “spiritual songs” — because they weren’t in his favored style and didn’t have strictly biblical texts?)

I have little comparatively little concern over contemporaneity in music.  Although I don’t go out of my way to be archaic, whether an expression is hip or in any way current is far less important than whether its content is relevant to people.  Real people — those who live real lives and are more concerned with real situations than a surface-level “keep it real” might indicate — will be drawn to meaningful, genuine content.²  I recently came upon some unfamiliar hymn words that struck me as very meaningful, although a couple centuries out of date in terms of the surface-level style.  What do I do with that discovery?  Well, not a lot, really, but I surely wish more people would be more interested in such good content than in mere style.

What do I mean by good content?  Well, just like style, content is sometimes in the eye of the beholder.  Check out the words below from Bob Kauflin, a contemporary song writer, describing an album he and his group had produced.  Here, Kauflin draws attention to content over style:

Many of the lyrics on this CD were written long ago by men and women who loved God deeply and wanted to give the church tools for knowing and worshiping Him. So they wrote hymns. We want to benefit from and emulate their example.

Hymns focus on rich lyrical content, giving us a feast for the mind which leads to a feast for the heart. The music and melodies may change to communicate more effectively with each generation, but the biblical truths they proclaim remain constant and must not be lost.

The word “hymn,” often associated with supposedly moldy songs of past centuries (in other words, labeling age and neither style nor content), is better used to describe

• musical style
• lyrical content, and/or
• form

… as opposed to merely commenting on how old the song is.  These days, quite a few “contemporary hymn writers” such as Kauflin and the Gettys and Stuart Townend, are standing up to advocate good, “hymnlike” depth and quality, and I applaud them.  They are writing what have been called “modern hymns for the church.”

I trust that the closure of this mini-series with some lyrics that are rich in content will highlight some truly worthy thoughts.  The excerpts below come from several centuries, including the last couple of decades.  These communicate real truths and relevant, God-honoring worship and edification for any generation.  At times, style-consciousness may lead to updating a few words and some of the music.  But, as Kauflin says, “The biblical truths they proclaim remain constant. . . .”

Lord of all being, throned afar, Thy glory flames from sun and star;
Center and soul of ev’ry sphere, yet to each loving heart how near!
Lord of all life, below, above, Whose light is truth, Whose warmth is love,
Before Thy ever-blazing throne we ask no luster of our own.
- O.W. Holmes, 19C

By faith we see the hand of God in the light of creation’s grand design,
In the lives of those who prove His faithfulness, who walk by faith and not by sight.
We will stand as children of the promise;
We will fix our eyes on Him, our soul’s reward,
Till the race is finished and the work is done,
We’ll walk by faith and not by sight.
- Keith Getty, Kristyn Getty, Stuart Townend, 21C

O Thou fount of blessing, purify my spirit, trusting only in Thy merit.
Like the holy angels who behold Thy glory, may I ceaselessly adore Thee, 
And in all, great and small, seek to do most nearly what Thou lovest dearly.
- G. Tersteegen, 18C

O for a thousand tongues to sing my great Redeemer’s praise,
The glories of my god and King, the triumphs of His grace!
- Charles Wesley, 18C

In beholding the glorious Son,
My eyes see the Magnificent One,
And His splendor, as bright as the Sun,
Reveals me:  I am undone.
- Brian Casey, 20C

Jesus, Thy name I love
All other names above.
Jesus, my Lord.
O Thou art all to me.
Nothing to please I see —
Nothing apart from Thee —
Jesus, my Lord.
-  James G. Deck, 19C

How deep the Father’s love for us! 
How vast beyond all measure – 
That He should give His only Son
To make a wretch His treasure.
- S. Townend, 20C

Father and Friend, Thy light, Thy love beaming through all Thy works we see.
Thy glory gilds the heavens above, and all the earth is full of Thee.
Thy voice we hear, Thy presence feel, while Thou, too pure for mortal sight,
Enwrapt in clouds invisible, reignest the Lord of life and light.
Thy children shall not faint nor fear, sustained by this delightful thought:
Since Thou, their God, art everywhere, they cannot be where Thou art not.
J. Bowring, 19C

From life’s first cry till final breath,
Jesus commands my destiny.
- K. Getty and S. Townend, 21C

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

¹ Worship is primarily a verb and should be conceived of differently from “the assembly” (gathering or meeting) of Christians.  Neither is “worship” synonymous with what is so often called “the service.”  Worship and service are certainly not the same thing, and the historically attested, yet conceptually illegitimate use of the term “service” doesn’t even enter the picture here.  A few prior writings in this topical area reside here, here and here.

² Transparently, I would add that I don’t always feel the same way when dealing with Bible translations as I do when in the musical arena.  I don’t have much patience with outmoded, oblique, obscure wordings when we’re trying to study scriptures, but I think there’s a bit more value to the aesthetic and artistic quality of song lyrics.  Artful wordings tend to be heavier on aesthetic beauty than on trendiness.

Real (3): relevance and participation in singing

Relevance in church gatherings is sometimes overrated — at least, relevance as commonly understood.

Various aspects of church and church gatherings could be discussed in terms of whether or not they manifest relevance.  Since I am a professional musician and a longtime (read:  since I was 10 or 12) careful observer of church music habits, successes, and pitfalls, I’m opting for music as the specific subject area here, in this next-in-series post on being “real” and relevant.  (Please read the last two posts for background thinking.)

Is it possible that style in music is too important when people are trying to be relevant?  I mean, when churches that want to be “real” and “seeker-sensitive” get their heads together to decide what music is going to sound like in their gatherings, don’t they think about style before anything else?  On the surface, this seems a good line of thinking — I mean, skinny jeans and contemporary decor def give u good style points (as does my texter spelling there), don’t they, and that goes a long way toward hooking a seeker.¹  I don’t discount that style is important.  I just think it’s not the only thing.  In considering church music within the context of being “real” and “seeker-sensitive,” it is important to distinguish between style and content.

But first:  a matter of the harp.  (By that I mean something I harp on every now & then!  See here and here for more logistical considerations and background.  These prior posts are both about the same length; one is more “brass tacks,” and the other is more “from the heart.”  Or, just stay with me here!)  The next section constitutes a rather substantive “aside” that I hope will not be ignored.

Whether the songs are familiar, somewhat familiar, or unfamiliar, more people can sing if there is music notation.  When there is no notation available, you’d better provide a lot of background texture of some sort.  Otherwise, unfamiliar music is especially uncomfortable and/or leaves out the uninitiated (seekers or otherwise).  Now, make no mistake:  at The Journey in Newark, Delaware, there was a lot of background texture!  In fact, the last time we were there, we were treated to a kind of head-banging performance version of “Carol of the Bells,” with three rockers front-and-center before things got really going.  :-)  For those with sensitive ears like me, earplugs are in order, but it’s “real’ to assume that most seekers out there already have hearing damage from their earbuds and subwoofers, and they’ll probably connect with over-loud music.

There will probably always be something in me that feels deflated when I’m sitting in yet another church gathering in which someone has taken the lazy path by just projecting the words.  Words-only (or simply singing from memory) can work for a few songs that are “favorites,” and I do think it’s OK to “leave out” a visitor in some activities, since the church gathering is for the church, not the unknown and often indescribable visitor.

But, if words-only is all a church ever does, it’s ill-advised, careless, and really, downright inexcusable.  We ought to realize that we are a more advanced society than ever, and there is simply no reason — technologically, societally, or sub-culturally — to assume we are all dumber than people were in the 1700s and 1800s and 1900s.  They all had notated music, and we would do better if we did, too.  It is not “musically elitist” to display music along with words.  As a rule, projecting the music allows more people to sing more confidently, whether they realize it or not.  The technological tools we have available (CCLI‘s SongSelect and The Paperless Hymnal, for example) make this quite easy, and not really much more time-consuming than displaying lyrics only on PowerPoint slides.  I am not, therefore, advocating that all churches need hymnals.  (Hymnals still have their place, and some of you middle-aged folks might be surprised at the broad range of stylistic preferences of hordes of twenty-somethings, but that’s beside the current point.)  I am saying that contemporary, seeker-sensitive churches have just as much reason to display (at least) the melody lines on their screens as the more traditional churches have either to project four-part harmony or to continue to provide hymnals in the pew racks.  Pretty much EVERY literate person benefits (some, only subliminally) from seeing the musical notations.

One undeniable trend in all singing churches is this:  the more we distance ourselves from notation, the less people in the seats will sing.  Personally, 1) I am flat-out mentally unable to sing a song I don’t know unless music notation is available; and 2) I can contribute vocally pretty well on a song I don’t know if I have the sheet music, hymnal, or projected notation available.

Another undeniable trend in a cappella churches:  the more years that transpire without music notation as the norm, the closer the congregation edges toward musical extinction.  You can do church without music at all, but I’ve not met the church that intends that, and no one seems to realize that they’re hurtling down this path to oblivion unless they change courses.  You see, if there are no instruments to carry things, notation is even more essential, for without it, there is nothing but a bad, rhythmically scattered rendition of a poorly remembered melody from the last time people heard the song on the radio, by some — which was it?  the 3rd or 4th? — group that covered the song.  Confusion quickly results.

Within the context of analyzing for the relevant/”real,” we have to admit that it’s a little weird for anybody but Girl Scouts and churches to sing together in a group.  (“Kum Ba Yah” is a great song, really, but it has often been the butt of jokes, showing that group singing is counter-cultural.)  It is no more relevant to the world out there to sing with lyrics-only than it is to sing with projected music notation or hymnals.  Group singing is pretty much out of style, and we simply have to major in offering relevant content within the songs we do sing in church.

With all that said, I would acknowledge that the “heartfelt energy level” of the singing at The Journey was a bit higher than at many other contemporary churches with a lot of instrumental texture.  (It was probably a bit higher than in most a cappella churches, too.)  They have something corporately energized going at The Journey.  But more often, in my experience, loud instruments inspire

• hero worship (as with groupies and rock idols)
• mumbling and half-hearted singing (as in most congregations)
• silence (with some, no matter where you go)
• the insertion of earplugs (as with me)

Loud instruments, then, would tend to discourage participation with any real personal dynamic.  But not always.  For instance, a relatively young, derivative organization in Searcy, Arkansas called Sons of Thunder recently almost single-handedly restored my faith in the ability of a “praise band” to inspire the congregation to pour our their hearts.  I surmise that assembly energy has more to do with the group’s health as a whole than with the particulars of the music.

Next:  The last post in this series comes in two days and deals with covering up the eyes, style, and content.

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

¹ Don’t for a moment think that that “hooking” is reelly my line as a fisher of men.  But we must admit that hooking people is the way that some church salespeople think.  Sit there in your church row(boat) singing “Michael, Row the Boat Ashore,” and think about it for a moment, and you’ll reelize that something smells fishy, which makes you stop singing bass.  You’ll get that sinker feeling.  Then, just cast off and move on.  But don’t listen too closely for pitch; it’s very difficult to tuna fish.)

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.