This process is one of the few activities that I cannot decide my stance on fully... probably because I can see both sides of the issue. I can't bring myself to say that this is unnecessary, because it is always important to evaluate what we are singing and saying in church. However, at the same time, in my opinion, the standards I think that church leaders should use are different than the ones you had us use in class.
I think its important to look at the content, and if something contradicts scripture, this is obviously not okay. However, the process we went through of holding it up to scripture, while it was interesting to see where songs drew some of their lyrics from, I believe is unnecessary and limiting. I have always had a hard time with fundamentalist ideas in general... I believe that the Bible is true and inspired by God and should be used as a basis of truth. But holding every little thing up to scripture, and throwing things out just because they aren't in the Bible, while they don't contradict it, is wrong. I believe there is plenty of truth outside of scripture, and most of the songs we evaluated I found little problem with, even if what they said didn't directly stem from a Bible verse. For instance, many of the metaphors the authors wrote were beautiful and reflected truth that they discovered through their experiences with God. There are plenty of real Christians who live off the Bible alone, but I think that God is so much bigger than the Bible. He can't be limited to a book, and our responses to Him shouldn't be either. The people IN the Bible listened directly to God, and I feel like its a huge problem in our culture to only limit God to what He has said in the past. I'm not saying that we shouldn't hold all music up to the Bible... I think that it is important to hold compare lyrics to the Bible and the core beliefs of the truth, and if the words in a song clearly oppose these values, it should definitely not be sung. I understand this is a bigger issue than the topics we have discussed in class, something that separates denominations, etc. But I can at least argue that this process would probably be a little different for some churches than more conservative churches.
In addition, I think that reading the evaluating the text based on its literary style was kind of pointless, as well. You yourself said that its all about the words, the message. If the words are being clearly communicated, I think that it is a valuable song. Poetry and music are very intertwined, but it is not necessary for a song to function as a poem with a defined rhythmic scheme and rhyming words. However, even if we did use this standard of evaluation, I think that there would be very few songs that would not meet this standard, if any. Modern poetry comes in many many different forms-- it definitely doesn't have to rhyme, and the pattern of words can vary to the extreme. Because music is very rhythmical, I think that it almost always will be a poem in today's standards. But even if this song that doesn't meet the "standard" is found, throwing it out for that reason would be totally missing the point. If a song has a beautiful message and communicates it well, it doesn't really matter how we communicate it. It may not meet the standards of the musical world or the music faculty at a university of a good song, but if it has a good message, it definitely meets God's standards. And who are we singing to?
I understand that this was an important element of music throughout history and that a lot of the beautiful music we have today stemmed from music in the church. And contemporary music in the church is a lot different and simplified and would probably not meet the high standards of a quality composition. I think hymns are beautiful, poetically and musically, and its sad that a lot of the elements that made these songs beautiful has been lost as Christian music has evolved. However, the beautiful poetry that is found in hymns is just not NECESSARY. Its valuable, but not necessary. If we are evaluating the quality of a song, we could use this standard, but it is not a valid reason for throwing a song out of the church repertoire.
Here is where I agree. I agree that it is very important to evaluate what a song says, because we do not want to sing something that is untrue. And I think that a lot of churches fail to do this, and this is a dangerous thing to do. I also think that it is important to determine the function of a song and the overall message of a song, and it can be beneficial to choose a song that would be appropriate for a service based on its function. The music staff at my church very closely examine the message of a song and try to correlate the words to supplement the sermon. And I think that it causes you to leave church with the message firmly placed in your heart, versus singing random things and hearing random sermons and messages. This isn't necessary, but I think its a great idea. I think selecting and organizing music is an art, sort of like the music itself. It is nice to have a worship service with people that can sing well, with instruments that can play well, but it so much more about the heart. The same is true for musical compositions-- I think it is great to have music that is tastefully composed, but it is just as beautiful, if not more beautiful, to God if it is simple, but carries a powerful message. It makes me think of a story my worship pastor told us at church one Sunday about his experiences at a prison. He had brought his own music to sing at a prison with the inmates, but he realized when he got there that he had forgotten his powerpoint with the words. He only had time to make one with the choruses, but he realized that when it actually came time to sing, everyone sang the entire time. He said he didn't realize they were singing right away and then wondered what in the world they were singing. Some were singing the chorus the entire time, some were probably singing their own words. To a musician, it probably would have been viewed as a disaster. But our worship leader said that it was one of the most beautiful things he has ever experienced, because whatever they were singing, they meant it. I think that once we get off of our high-class American horse, we can really see what church music is really about. Its about communicating to God, whatever is on our heart, whatever is on our mind. And sometimes its about a hearing a message from God. There are definitely standards that we should evaluate, but when we get caught up in trivial matters, I think that it is easy to lose sight of the point. The point being that as long as our heart is in the right place, whatever we offer God is beautiful, even if it is ugly to the world's standards or even to our own standards. I believe that the best song for a service may be a song that does not meet your standards, or even my standards, but is a song that is the most beneficial medium for worshiping God. There are definitely standards we should never throw out-- we should never sing a song that is untrue. But I think that we need to evaluate and reevaluate our standards, especially if they are trivial. There are billions of people in the world and billions of ways to communicate with God, and we should definitely not limit ourselves to what we are familiar with.
I'd like to say, finally, that I hope that because I tended to disagree with you on everything, that I did not participate in the ideas that were presented in class. I definitely thought through and evaluated everything-- I just hardly ever agreed with it. But it has really shaped how I view music and how I will lead a congregation if God ever calls me to do that, giving me a better grasp of different views that I had hardly considered before. I'd also like to say that I don't just accept things as they are. I don't go to the church I go to or believe the things I believe because its been handed down to me. I have evaluated and reevaluated everything, and have switched churches and have thought through many issues and struggled with my faith. I do not just settle. I have just found myself in a different place than you find yourself, with different views and stances. But I hope you can respect that it is a thought out stance, at least. :) And I'm grateful for the issues that were brought up in class, they have definitely helped me in my growth as a musician and a Christian. God bless.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
pros and cons of hymn singing vs contemporary music
Just a few thoughts I wrote down during class that relate to some of our discussions...
Even before this was brought up, I found it interesting that our discussions seem a little one-sided. This is coming from someone who is very moderate in just about everything. Not "neutral"... I am very opinionated, I just get very turned off by people who argue extreme things. I just feel that people who argue "extremes" may have a valid point, but they just outdo themselves and lose some of the truth to it, if that makes sense. So this is my attempt to find some sort of middle ground in the class discussions.
Contemporary music
Cons:
I don't have the list we went over in class, but this is the modified version I jotted down in my notes, that reflects some of what we discussed, as well:
** It doesn't require the congregation to sing
** Discarded quickly
** Words less important
** Becomes more of a source of entertainment, which can potentially lead to idolatry
As far as not requiring the congregation to sing, I agree. BUT, I don't necessarily think that this is a bad thing, or something that is exclusive to contemporary music. When music is led by a lead singer or a group of singers, people aren't required to sing, people have the ability to sit back and listen rather than fully engaging in the music. While there is definitely something unifying in having a congregation sing, without microphones, I have found it just as powerful to sit back and listen. In fact, I have found it almost easier to feel like I am truly engaging in the music when I stop singing and I listen to the words. It becomes less about me singing and less about the music, and more about what the music is saying. If its about the music, and about the words, and about what it means, it shouldn't matter who is singing it and how many people are singing it, as much as the hearts of the people who are engaging in it.
As far as music being discarded quickly, I, again, don't view this as much of a problem. This is coming from a newer generation who is used to contemporary music and I can't fully understand what was lost... I can't really miss something that I never was a part of. However, while we are losing some valuable music, I can't agree that the music we have gained is inadequate. We lost something valuable, but what we have I think is valuable too... just in different ways. There is something valuable in adding new music and new ideas and new songs. Its refreshing and I feel like it helps me to be honest and think about what I'm singing rather than just going through the motions. And, at the same time, I think that a lot of the songs that stick are just as valuable... having a song that you have sung so much that you know everyone will know it and everyone will sing it. While there are definitely songs today that are sung and quickly discarded and replaced with new songs, I think that there are definitely still songs that stick. And, even though I don't have a handful of songs that I have sung every year of my life, I can still recall songs that I sang years ago, as well as songs I have learned within the last year or so, with words that help me in whatever situation I may be in. For instance, a lot of the new songs my worship leader has recently introduced us to have helped me through some hard times lately. But I also recall and sing some songs I learned in elementary school such as "have I not commanded you be strong and courageous." Even though a lot of songs have come and gone in our church services, there are still plenty of songs that have stuck.
As far as the words becoming less important, that is also untrue. Maybe less complex.. maybe... but not less important.
One point that really rang true for me, however, was the problem of music becoming more of a means of entertainment than worship. And this is something I have struggled with more than anything else, especially as a worship leader. There have been times when I have loved the attention. And there have been times when I have been extremely annoyed that people are complementing me and how I'm singing when I should have nothing to do with anything. And when people applaud after a song, something inside of me cringes. While I can see the necessity of having a "leader" to help the congregation sing the song, it seems very easy for it to become more about me and less about God.
So there are definite problems with contemporary music. However, I believe there are similarly problems with older music, as well, and not just racism and sexism that have already been dealt with.
For instance, as we already discussed, older music had the potential to become a performance as well... not as much for the singer as for the organist, or the pianist.
In addition to this, the biggest problem I found in hymn singing, was that when people sing the same songs over and over again, the begin to go through the motions. While repeating a song can really ingrain the words into your memory, it can just as easily take the life out of the song, especially if it was a song that didn't mean much to you in the first place. And while the congregation isn't required to sing in contemporary music, no one is really required to sing in hymn singing. There will be the few people that sing loudly, but, from my experience, there are also the people who mouth the words, stop paying attention or sing half-heartedly. Regardless of the method, there are going to be people who are engaged and people who are not engaged. I have seen just as many people who could care less about worshipping in a contemporary service as in a hymn singing service, and I have seen just as many people sing their hearts out at a hymn sing as a contemporary service. The problem is not the method, the problem is the people who are using the method.
The moderate response to this debate is, both sides have valid points. There are problems with contemporary music, there are problems with older music. But the problem is not the song or the music itself... the problem is the people who sing the music. And while the problems may not be the same, there are going to be problems... and there are also going to be good things about each method. And I believe that there are going to be people who have an easier time worshipping in one method than another, and not just because it is something they are used to. But I also believe that those people are capable of worshipping either way. The biggest problem is people shutting themselves off to a method and missing the point-- which is to worship God, regardless of whether not they enjoy the music or how people are singing it. I think it is just as disrespectful and wrong to refuse to participate in a hymn sing as it is to refuse to participate in a contemporary worship service. My friend started skipping worship services because he didn't like the style of music, it wasn't contemporary enough for him. There is just something inside of me that cringes at this. And older people walking out when someone pulls out a guitar makes me cringe just as much. People are missing the point. Even if we are dancing different dances, we are all still dancing. Even if people are singing different songs, they are singing to the same person who enjoys all of it. But I don't think there's anything wrong with using the method that makes it easier for you to focus on God, its just wrong to refuse to have anything to do with the other method...
Even before this was brought up, I found it interesting that our discussions seem a little one-sided. This is coming from someone who is very moderate in just about everything. Not "neutral"... I am very opinionated, I just get very turned off by people who argue extreme things. I just feel that people who argue "extremes" may have a valid point, but they just outdo themselves and lose some of the truth to it, if that makes sense. So this is my attempt to find some sort of middle ground in the class discussions.
Contemporary music
Cons:
I don't have the list we went over in class, but this is the modified version I jotted down in my notes, that reflects some of what we discussed, as well:
** It doesn't require the congregation to sing
** Discarded quickly
** Words less important
** Becomes more of a source of entertainment, which can potentially lead to idolatry
As far as not requiring the congregation to sing, I agree. BUT, I don't necessarily think that this is a bad thing, or something that is exclusive to contemporary music. When music is led by a lead singer or a group of singers, people aren't required to sing, people have the ability to sit back and listen rather than fully engaging in the music. While there is definitely something unifying in having a congregation sing, without microphones, I have found it just as powerful to sit back and listen. In fact, I have found it almost easier to feel like I am truly engaging in the music when I stop singing and I listen to the words. It becomes less about me singing and less about the music, and more about what the music is saying. If its about the music, and about the words, and about what it means, it shouldn't matter who is singing it and how many people are singing it, as much as the hearts of the people who are engaging in it.
As far as music being discarded quickly, I, again, don't view this as much of a problem. This is coming from a newer generation who is used to contemporary music and I can't fully understand what was lost... I can't really miss something that I never was a part of. However, while we are losing some valuable music, I can't agree that the music we have gained is inadequate. We lost something valuable, but what we have I think is valuable too... just in different ways. There is something valuable in adding new music and new ideas and new songs. Its refreshing and I feel like it helps me to be honest and think about what I'm singing rather than just going through the motions. And, at the same time, I think that a lot of the songs that stick are just as valuable... having a song that you have sung so much that you know everyone will know it and everyone will sing it. While there are definitely songs today that are sung and quickly discarded and replaced with new songs, I think that there are definitely still songs that stick. And, even though I don't have a handful of songs that I have sung every year of my life, I can still recall songs that I sang years ago, as well as songs I have learned within the last year or so, with words that help me in whatever situation I may be in. For instance, a lot of the new songs my worship leader has recently introduced us to have helped me through some hard times lately. But I also recall and sing some songs I learned in elementary school such as "have I not commanded you be strong and courageous." Even though a lot of songs have come and gone in our church services, there are still plenty of songs that have stuck.
As far as the words becoming less important, that is also untrue. Maybe less complex.. maybe... but not less important.
One point that really rang true for me, however, was the problem of music becoming more of a means of entertainment than worship. And this is something I have struggled with more than anything else, especially as a worship leader. There have been times when I have loved the attention. And there have been times when I have been extremely annoyed that people are complementing me and how I'm singing when I should have nothing to do with anything. And when people applaud after a song, something inside of me cringes. While I can see the necessity of having a "leader" to help the congregation sing the song, it seems very easy for it to become more about me and less about God.
So there are definite problems with contemporary music. However, I believe there are similarly problems with older music, as well, and not just racism and sexism that have already been dealt with.
For instance, as we already discussed, older music had the potential to become a performance as well... not as much for the singer as for the organist, or the pianist.
In addition to this, the biggest problem I found in hymn singing, was that when people sing the same songs over and over again, the begin to go through the motions. While repeating a song can really ingrain the words into your memory, it can just as easily take the life out of the song, especially if it was a song that didn't mean much to you in the first place. And while the congregation isn't required to sing in contemporary music, no one is really required to sing in hymn singing. There will be the few people that sing loudly, but, from my experience, there are also the people who mouth the words, stop paying attention or sing half-heartedly. Regardless of the method, there are going to be people who are engaged and people who are not engaged. I have seen just as many people who could care less about worshipping in a contemporary service as in a hymn singing service, and I have seen just as many people sing their hearts out at a hymn sing as a contemporary service. The problem is not the method, the problem is the people who are using the method.
The moderate response to this debate is, both sides have valid points. There are problems with contemporary music, there are problems with older music. But the problem is not the song or the music itself... the problem is the people who sing the music. And while the problems may not be the same, there are going to be problems... and there are also going to be good things about each method. And I believe that there are going to be people who have an easier time worshipping in one method than another, and not just because it is something they are used to. But I also believe that those people are capable of worshipping either way. The biggest problem is people shutting themselves off to a method and missing the point-- which is to worship God, regardless of whether not they enjoy the music or how people are singing it. I think it is just as disrespectful and wrong to refuse to participate in a hymn sing as it is to refuse to participate in a contemporary worship service. My friend started skipping worship services because he didn't like the style of music, it wasn't contemporary enough for him. There is just something inside of me that cringes at this. And older people walking out when someone pulls out a guitar makes me cringe just as much. People are missing the point. Even if we are dancing different dances, we are all still dancing. Even if people are singing different songs, they are singing to the same person who enjoys all of it. But I don't think there's anything wrong with using the method that makes it easier for you to focus on God, its just wrong to refuse to have anything to do with the other method...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)