Distinct Musical Forms in Worship

The topic of church music has surfaced frequently in my thoughts and in conversations during the past several weeks. One of the more interesting discussions concerned whether there should be special, distinct forms for liturgical music. The original idea was gleaned from Singing and Making Music: Issues in Church Music Today (P&R, 2006) by Paul S. Jones, director of music for Tenth Presbyterian Church. Several responses suggest themselves to this approach.

First, this idea runs contrary to the spirit and principles of the Reformation. One of the great results of the Reformation was the removal of the barrier between the sacred and profane by seeing all of life as consecrated to God. No longer was a dichotomy between the work of the clergy and laity acceptable. Since the life of the common Christian was seen as significant, the Reformers took great strides to make the service of worship accessible for them by translating the Scriptures and a simplified liturgy into the common tongue and by writing music able to be sung by all in the assembly. The Dutch Reformed theologians, such as Abraham Kuyper, set forth the cultural mandate, that all of life and all of culture falls under the Lordship of Christ. Christian principles were applied with great (even if temporary) profit to education, government and the arts. Applying Kuyper’s famous dictum to musical styles, it can be said that no musical style, classical, rap, grunge, R&B or scremo is free from Christ’s ownership and dominion. Thus, since all musical styles are Christ’s, and can be used for his glory; there is no a priori reason to deny the possibility of any music style being utilized in worship. The limiting factor is not the musical expression, but the nature of corporate worship and the particular circumstances of the congregation. To automatically disallow any musical genre, or to elevate and separate one as being the only proper form by which to approach God in worship reestablishes the dichotomized view of life the Reformation set aside.

Second, even if idea were acceptable, it is impossible to actually realize. It is not feasible, or even possible, to create a musical form totally abstracted from any wider cultural movements to use as the “worship style.” The only form that approximates this is gospel, yet there does not seem to be a movement in conservative Reformed churches to instate gospel as the official liturgical musical style. What really seems to be the motive behind such an attempt is to officially mandate a traditional, high-culture liturgy. Examine the bulletins posted online where Dr. Jones ministers; it is hard to miss the cultural orientation of the service at Tenth. Yet, the church must never canonize a particular style of music, whether it be modern or traditional. It must be open to allow, as has occurred throughout the history of the church, Christians of all ages from all walks of life to express their faith through music- and to allow the appropriate, Biblically-sound and corporately sensitive expressions to become the voice of the community in worship. It is wrong for the modern church to be so enamored with itself to forget the rich history of worship that nourished the church through centuries; but it is equally as wrong for an elite traditionalism to disenfranchise contemporary contributions to church music.

Third, the absurdity of the principle is shown by application to other aspects of the service. Taking just a single example, consider prayer. It is possible to establish certain formal and linguistic peculiarities that are reserved only for prayer. Thus, the use of archaic personal pronouns such as “thee” and “thou;” and other language reminiscent of the King James Version would become mandatory to be used exclusively in prayer. Further, effort could be made to compose a Reformed version of the Anglican Book of Common Prayer to make the special, distinct forms and language of prayer universal across all Reformed congregations, thus eliminating the undesirable qualities of spontaneity and accommodation to a particular situation. The absurdity of such an idea should be apparent; why is the idea any better when applied to music in worship?

Finally, the principle does not correspond to the manner in which God has chosen to communicate to his people. New Testament Greek is not a special, unique language God created in order to reveal himself, but was the common, vulgar tongue at the time of the New Testament’s composition. Further, Greek was not at the apex of its literary elegance, but was the common, democratic hybrid spread across the Mediterranean world. The literature of the New Testament is not marked, even in this stage of the Greek language, as being particularly distinct or elegant. Rather, the language is similar to other, common writings, and the quality of the New Testament is, for the most part, rather rude and simple. If God was content to accommodate himself to the common language of the general populace, why should the church seek differently in expressing ourselves to God with music?

Random Thought on Church Inspired by NYC

When I was in New York City, I had the privilege of being removed, albeit temporarily, from things I have grown accustomed to normally. By being removed and able to experience differences, I am better able to evaluate more clearly areas where I have become accustomed and desensitized. Aside from the major challenge offered to my regular diet (which was a good thing), attending two different churches has allowed my to reflect on my own church and some of the differences.

On the positive side, I really appreciate the general depth of the preaching at Covenant. This is made possible not only by a great pastor, but also by a generally Biblically literate and dedicated congregation. This is not to say that the sermons are exegetical lectures or theological treatises, but that the general content and tone of the sermons are more substantial than most evangelical churches. My pastor is able to balance in a way I have rarely encountered in person or in reading solid exegesis with a relevant and sensitive application based on the text to the congregation. This is by far what I most appreciate about my church and what I will desperately miss when I move on.

Another aspect that has surprised me in how it has stuck in my mind is age distribution in church. Covenant is a mixed congregation age-wise, there are a lot of ages represented, but not a lot of any particular age group. The churches I attended in NYC tended to be on the young side, with most of the congregation at Emmanuel and Redeemer being roughly my age or a little older. I knew this from the last time I visited the city, but now it is striking me how much I miss having others closer to my age who show a mature dedication to their faith and to the church. I am not saying that there are no young adults exhibiting this in Rochester, but it is rare and it is something I really realized that I long for here. Seeing older friends with this commitment and perspective is great, but it is not the same as seeing it among others of your own age group and general life situation.

One final observation concerns music. Emmanuel’s worship tended towards the modern, but with a fair representation of some solid hymns- many with updated tunes. I noticed that these modern adaptations of the hymns came from Redeemer. Two thoughts have been running in my mind the past couple weeks concerning music. The first is how much I like the content of hymns, but am not as much a fan of many of their tunes and their traditional accompaniment. Hearing solid words with a more easy to follow melody and more pleasant instrumentation is something I really liked about the churches in New York. I try to say style is irrelevant, but I am realizing that it is a bigger factor than I want to admit. Now, the musical portion of worship is something I generally bear, but in New York it was actually something I benefited from. Secondly, I am reflecting on the placement of the “modern” songs which my church does utilize. They are all grouped at the beginning of the service, at times before the invocation. The general impression is that these “Songs of Ascent” are lightweight fluff to be gotten out of the way before the real worship begins. It is interesting to note that the older songs that the church uses fit into this category, while the newer songs generally have good content and some depth. It would be nice if Covenant would integrate the modern music into the core of the service so as to unambiguously acknowledge the validity of contemporary expressions of musical worship to God.

A Vision for a New Systematic Theology

I have been thinking for a while about a new concept of a systematic theology. Systematic theology, as traditionally practiced tends to be the product (or at least should be) of the fields of exegesis, historical theology, and comparative dogmatics all filtered through logic. This method on the whole has produced great results, witnessed in Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion or Berkhof’s Systematic Theology. At the same time, Biblical Theology has seen great popularity, and produced great theological fruit. The movement has called the theologian to remember and be more sensitive to the exegetical basis of theology. For a time, these two disciplines remained separate, if not hostile to one another. Now, there seems to be greater recognition of the validity each, and the interconnection of the two disciplines. Alongside the development of biblical theology, historical theology has grown into maturity, through the work of such scholars as Phillip Schaff and Jaroslav Pelikan.

As a result of these developments, I have a vision for a new concept of a systematic theology. Rather than each of these disciplines existing separate for one another, I propose combining each of these areas into a single work. The organizing principle of systematic theology would structure the work. Introducing each topic would be a short synopsis of the area under consideration, followed by the Biblical theological analysis of the doctrine and a summary of the historical development of the teaching. Having set out the Biblical and historical basis of the doctrine, place would be given for the statement and defense of the position adopted within the work, followed by a critical but fair analysis of other traditions and major figures. The area would be concluded with a reflection on the practical value of such a doctrine, and areas of weakness and needed refinement and further reflection within that teaching. An extensive, annotated bibliography would be prepared for each section.

The difficulties with such a project are obvious. First, the scope of the project is massive, encompassing multiple volumes. Further, the work is more than a single individual is either qualified for or capable of. However, the size of the project is a relative non-issue, and multiple authors would allow for the more rapid completion of the project. Also, the presence of multiple authors adds not only variety, but balance in perspective and personality to the project. Second, the project, like other works, will over time become outdated, and the effectiveness and usefulness of the volumes will be lessened. However, even a dated resource can still retain value- consider the continued usefulness of Schaff’s History of the Christian Church. The work can also be designed, like some commentary series, to be updated and republished, and thus be kept current. Since most of the material in many sections will not change much over time, a separate appendix could be published containing any new data.

Of course, such a work is more a dream, and very well may never come to fruition. However, I think the need is present. If anyone has any other ideas or critiques of this idea, let me know. I would like to polish the concept- and who knows, maybe encourage the excitement and the energy needed to bring this project from a dream into reality.

The Book of Isaiah by Edward J. Young (or Tendencies in Older Evangelical Commentaries)

I recently finished the three-volume work The Book of Isaiah by Edward J. Young. This work is a major benchmark for conservative, evangelical commentaries from a non-dispensational perspective on this important and interesting Old Testament prophet. I benefited greatly from plowing through this large work. However, while I was reading it, two issues presented themselves to me about this commentary in particular and other commentaries as they share some common features.

The first thing that struck me from the opening pages of the commentary was the format. I have noticed that many older commentaries, and a few more recent works, treat the text in an atomistic, verse by verse manner. I think this is unhelpful for several reasons. First, it is poor hermeneutical practice to treat a text piecemeal, sentence by sentence. No one would chop up a story by Dickens, or a treatise by Locke and examine the work a sentence, or a phrase at a time. The proper manner to analyze a text is by those natural divisions of thought found in paragraphs or larger sections which encapsulate a single or related set of thought. Second, this method obscures the structure that may be found in the work or the section under consideration. At times in the Hebrew Bible, this structure is important in understanding a section, or the work as a whole. For example, in certain sections of Jeremiah particularly near the beginning, oracles are grouped around a common word or a common theme. Without noticing this pattern of attraction of common words or themes, one may easily misunderstand or misinterpret these oracles. The fact that they one is earlier in the book does not necessarily mean that they are historically earlier; nor does the fact that two oracles are juxtaposed imply that they have anything other than a accidental thematic similarity- the actual occasion of the two sayings may be widely divergent. Following the chapter and verse division of the English Bible obscures the actual patterns found within the text itself. Third, this method destroys the unity of the text. No author sat and wrote a series of loosely connected statements. They wrote thoughts, and these thoughts were related to each other- and these were related to his goal and his reason for writing. It is the larger thought which has priority, and informs the meaning and significance of the details (Of course I am not denying the fact that the parts inform the meaning and significance of the whole). Thankfully, this method has generally fallen out of favor; but this poor format obscures the insight and the value of some older works.

The second thing that struck me was how much this was a “Christian” commentary. While I think that Isaiah has great significance for the Christian this side of redemptive history, I also think he likewise had great significance for those before Jesus. Dr. Young, and many other conservative evangelicals focus on the meaning of the text in light of Jesus; but in so doing, leave little or no meaning for those before the formation of the New Testament church or before Christ. Thus, there are passages which speak of Israel as the servant of God, or as a light to the Gentiles, which Dr. Young says must refer to Jesus or the church in the New Testament age. Passages which seem to clearly have reference to the return from exile and the restoration of life in Palestine have reference to the Gospel and the inclusion of the remnant of the Jews and of the Gentiles in the church. As a Christian, I cannot deny the basic truth that redemptive historically the eschaton inaugurated by Christ fulfills the figures and the expectation found in the prophets. But I likewise cannot deny that Isaiah had significance and had a message for those in his own days. For me, this is why the sensus plenior is such a wise method- holding in tension the meaning for the original audience and also its fuller, redemptive-historical meaning in Christ and those united to him by faith. From both an exegetical standpoint, and in order to do justice to our brothers and sisters before the advent of Christ, I believe conservatives must pay more attention to the original meaning and situation of the Old Testament writings.

Rock Concerts

Last weekend I went down to the Electric Factory in Philly with a few friends to see MxPx play. MxPx was awesome, but several things I observed before and after the show started making me realize that I really am getting older.

First, I remember how much smaller I felt than others in the crowd at rock shows when I was younger. While I am not that big now (but height helps), it is interesting that my perspective is beginning to change from being one of the smaller people at the show, to being one of the bigger people in the crowd. No longer being intimidated by the size of others in the crowd makes for a lot more boldness- even making it possible to get right up front after arriving after the first act at a pretty packed, big-city venue. (Of course having your friend shove you towards the front through four rows of people helps too). It is a nice feeling.

Not only size, but it also seems that I am older than most of the crowd. The first show I went to (Newsboys, but everyone needs to start somewhere, right) I was really young and thought everyone was older than me. Most of the other concerts I felt at least in my own age group in the crowd. However, for the past couple years, and at this show in particular- where the other bands which were playing are older, mid to late 90's ska acts- my friends and I really noticed that we were well above the mean age of the crowd- which we determined was about 17. It was really funny when one girl at this show said she just turned 16, barely one year older than MxPx is a band.

Not so nice is how much longer it seems to take to recover from a good show. The day after a concert is always rough with soreness, lack of hearing and loss of voice. But at least after this show (and the last show I went to, which was ironically MxPx) the soreness has lingered for much longer than I recall before. Furhter, perhaps accidental, after both shows I got sick. An unfortunate aspect of aging, but still I will rock on (that is so sickingly cliche, but oh well).