Just as Dawn indicated she would do in her introduction, she begins her offering of "better" questions for believers in Jesus at the beginning of Psalm 96. Psalm 96:1a states, "Sing to the Lord a new song," bringing the reader to Dawn's first question (and, hence, first chapter): What Kinds of Music Should We Use?
This question is a big one among many churches. Many of us unfortunately argue over this, my present context included (and possibly leading the fray, in some camps). While many believers look beyond music for worship, the question of what music is appropriate remains at the top of the list. Lest I become too harsh on the handful of voices who seem to argue in our church - and yours, if you're honest - understand that I think arguments over music are inevitable. Almost every church does music, and it is one of few ministries that is always up front every Sunday. As such, it is one of few ministries that is under constant scrutiny during our "hour on Sunday" (Nancy Beach). What we do when we perform on Sundays is so similar to performances elsewhere that we cannot help but critique what we see and hear, as we always do. Furthermore, because the music is part of worship, we worship musicians can expect spiritual opposition. It is good, then, that Psalm 96 and Dawn's insights begin with the question of appropriate music in church.
Dawn offers several helpful thoughts in this first chapter, beginning with her admission that we churches fight too much about music. She asserts that when churches fight over musical styles, we lose focus on (and even reject) our Christian heritage, global music, and new things God is doing (1). The accuracy of this observation almost goes without saying. When was the last time you heard someone debating musical style who actually alluded to the first century believers, the saints whose relationships with Christ brought about our theology, the lessons we've learned through history, the way God is moving among people not in our town or faith camp, or the way God is still doing new and great things every day? (I tried this once; it gets nowhere with someone who simply wants what they want.)
The reticence to accept new things and embrace new songs has unsupportable roots, but there is good reason not to sell oneself solely to new (or contemporary) music. Dawn wisely suggests first that Psalm 96:1 does not call God's people only to do new songs (2). Such an approach is unbiblical and ignores the concept of the great cloud of witnesses of which we are a small part. I've heard a cliché that warns us who cannot learn from our past: we will repeat it. Was it God's plan for each successive generation to become acquainted with God anew and to relearn our doctrine from scratch? Absolutely not! (Don't take my word for it: the Scriptures indicate at least 79 times that God's promises are for all people and our future generations. Look particularly at the psalms, since they're possibly most apropos to this discussion.) If this was not God's plan, then whence did this concept of "out with the old, in with the new" invade our worship music?
Dawn points to the coming of age of the Boomers as the unfortunate switch for worshipers. She asserts that rebellion against institutions and individuals of authority led the Boomers to establish self identity through music. She inadvertently blames capitalism, too, stating that marketers realized they could make more money by segregating music styles and capitalizing on niche marketing (targeting one particular market as opposed to aiming at everyone). This, Dawn claims, invaded the church and began the first rounds of music style debates that have yet to stop (10-12). I wasn't there in the 60s, so I will trust Dawn on her history. It certainly makes sense and seems helpful. Where I part from her is the concept that rebellion and niche marketing are still primarily to blame. (I'm also not big on blaming the Boomers for everything, though it certainly seems they've done a number to our world.... So have we.) Though the independence, self-sufficiency, and self-indulgence of a generation (in general) led to great rebellions and money opportunities, that cannot be the lasting factor in our churches. As the son of a used-to-be hippie, I've personally watched a generation before me learn a great deal about "the real world" and turn from extreme rebellion to attempting to make a difference in the world. We're all grateful that a generation of people finally questioned some very questionable things from several generations ago. Few of the so-called rebels are still trying to rebel against "the establishment." In fact, several people of that era have entered the establishment to bring much needed reform from the inside. In some cases, we're much further ahead because of these rebellious, money-giving Boomers. It is much more likely that rebellion and self-indulgence in people in general is the culprit to our fighting. As Dawn rightly observes, neither the emerging Boomers nor the former generations responded well when the Boomers began forming an identity. The Boomers rebelled, and the older people counter-rebelled. Everyone wanted it their way. Everyone still wants it their way. Add to this the unforgiven, unhealed rifts among people who have lived through fights like these, and we are left with people in our churches with selfishness and baggage. It is the human condition (apart from God's grace) that began this problem and that allows is to continue today. (Let's all pray we can respond to God's grace - to worship - in order to get ourselves out of these musical fights!)
So, if Dawn purports that new music should not be king for our churches, should old music take the lead? She later states, "...God is never to be contained by the music we already know" (5). This is an excellent point because God is bigger than all music, new and old. New worship songs are written so frequently because human experience and knowledge have yet to exhaust the mystery of our eternal Friend and Lord. "No single type of music can respond to all that God is. No instrument can sing all God's attributes. No era of the Church has displayed the fullness of God's glory" (13). While it is important, then, to embrace the old songs, one can never stop there if we want to worship God fully.
Believe it or not, Dawn talks about me in her book. No, it's true. She writes, "Many of the younger-than-boomer generations are asking what might be learned from the past, from the roots of the Church, as they search for mystery, symbolism, heritage, and depth - all for the sake of worship God genuinely in 'spirit and truth'" (12-13). When I read this, I realized this is exactly where I am on this debate. I have no interest in either old or new music. I hate the labels "contemporary" and "traditional." Did you read that? Hate. HATE. I think those labels are a stench in God's nostrils because they mean nothing to God. In my experience (and as I've studied the Scriptures and church history), the only people who use these labels are people who want things their way or who want to please people more than they want to worship. I now have Dawn to thank for backing me up. (And since she has a title in front of her name and degrees after it, a few people in my context who won't ever read this blog might actually listen to me now.) Dawn wants to get rid of the self-serving labels "contemporary" and "traditional" because neither is well defined (2-3). They are confusing terms. "Contemporary" can refer to many, many things, like new songs, new tunes to old texts, new texts to old tunes, new arrangements of old songs, new instruments with new songs, new instruments with old songs, old instruments with new songs, and so one. And "traditional?" Whose tradition? What tradition? Are we talking from ancient times? Or, like in my context, are we talking not about traditions at all but about old songs? These terms are confusing and, Dawn indicates, are destined to reinforce conflict rather than to solve it.
Some of us who don't like conflict are probably thinking of the words "blended" and "convergent" right now. (I certainly was when I first read this.) Bluntly, I hate these words, too, because they simply are not what they claim to be. If you believe Robert Webber (which I do), blended worship is actually about blending traditions together across time and space to worship God as fully as humanity can do. We blend worship traditions like singing, prayer, teaching, confession, and so on, all to honor God. When we say, "blended worship," though, we tend to think about trying to develop a formula like "opening hymn, two gospel songs, three choruses, and a closing hymn."
Dawn doesn't like the words "blended" and "convergent" for worship either. She seems not to take as much stock in Webber's work as I do, but, like me, she sees great value in the concepts of blended and convergent worship (as Webber expresses them, not as we do). On the other hand, she sees these positive concepts going wrong in practice (13-14). It is not enough simply to try and blend tastes or to converge what we all like, which is what inevitably happens. If you get the chance, read her critiques. For now it is sufficient to state that Dawn is dissatisfied with an approach that still has not healed the breach between worshipers. She states early on that dividing churches is biblically inappropriate (6). To divide along blurry lines like "contemporary" and "traditional" is completely wrong. To pretend to bridge the gap by blending tastes or converging people's preferences still places too much emphasis on the preferences themselves. The separation still exists.
I agree with Dawn wholeheartedly in this matter. She helpfully shows that the divide between musical preferences may also reflect a divide between people whose brains are more involved in worship and whose hearts are more involved - the proverbial "thinker-feeler" divide (7). Dawn shows how older songs (before the 19th century, anyway) were considerably better thought out, while more modern songs focus on feelings. Modern people who prefer older songs often engage cognitively, while those who prefer newer songs often like to "feel" the truth of the songs deep down. I personally think this can be taken to an extreme, so if you're reading my thoughts (scary!), try to avoid that. Dawn's point is well taken, though. These divides sometimes run deeper than music, but we must learn to worship through the necessary tension of thought and feeling - of truth and spirit (John 4:23). Both are necessary in worship, so music that reflects both are necessary in worship.
To answer the question of what kinds of music should be used, one must ask oneself what music allows us to worship in spirit and in truth. That can honestly be anything. I've done quite a bit of study on Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16, so I felt flattered that Dawn used them in her chapter (4-5). If my study is accurate, then Dawn's study is quite sound. (If not, we still agree and are both quacks.) She shows how these Scriptures, reflecting the whole of Scripture (including other specific ones she mentions), show no sign of God's preferred style of music. If we can trust the Bible at all, then we can tell that God has no musical preference. The inclusive language in the music passage shows that any music is okay, provided that God is being worshiped. The point of music is not simply to have music, nor is it meant primarily to please people. Though music touches us deeply, in worship it is simply a tool. As Dawn writes, a good worship service can easily include tons of styles, instruments, singers, and origins when it actually displays the texts and themes of the worship experience (17). She seems to indicate that unless a service deliberately chooses many styles, we are selling God and God's worship short. I tend to agree. Now if only I would plan better than way....
In closing I have three disjunct thoughts:
1) You probably think I agreed with Dawn in every word, sentence, and punctuation mark in this chapter. You're pretty close to correct. However, I must take issue with how interchangeably she uses the words "worship" and "music" here. It's difficult not to do that, but considering the topic at hand, clearer delineation would be helpful. I'm presently on a kick to reverse a kick I had a few years ago. I'm considering how I can be more honest in worship when it comes to music. I went on a kick of removing all kinds of music and performance terms because it just wasn't godly. Then I realized that my approach confuses people and only reinforces the grave mistake that music is worship. Paul Westermeyer really helped me with this when he remarked, "Let our music be broken to God." That is the correct approach, if there is one. To be honest that we are doing music, we're performing, and so on, is healthy in church, provided it is part of being a living sacrifice (Romans 12:1-2). So, I'm on a kick of calling music "music" again and using performance terms because it's what they are. And I'm praying a great deal that these are all sacrificed to God.
2) I LOVE the title Dawn gives to the Prodigal Son parable: the Waiting Father (16). It's so much more accurate to the story! (For more on the Waiting Father story, I HIGHLY recommend Tim Keller's work.
3) I closed with a great quote last time. I've got another one. "Perhaps we can simply summarize our goal by declaring that our worship could make use of 'the Music of the "one holy, catholic, apostolic Church" (as the Nicene Creed calls it) for the Sake of the Whole World'" (15).
LE
No comments:
Post a Comment