I took a vocational interest in the music of worship 35 years ago. As a teenager in small-town Georgia, I accompanied the soloists and choirs of my "city" church, then began to direct the choir at a smaller "country" church when I was old enough to drive. Throughout the time since those first experiences, I have observed that the music of the church, both locally and globally, has been the subject of debate more often than consensus.
I have participated in this debate, and my opinions have changed from time to time. Like everyone who takes a passionate position, my opinions are informed by my own personality type and biases, as well as those of my mentors and teachers. They are also affected by the contextual events of my life and the circumstances of the churches I have served. I cannot claim valid opinions on the music of the African-American church, although discussions with my colleagues from that world have left me with the impression that they have experienced similar debates. But my experiences within varied examples of predominantly white, protestant congregations give me ample context within which to draw some personal conclusions about the debate over their church music.
Opinions about appropriate repertoire and style for the music of the church lie on a continuum between two extremes that are equally difficult to define. For the purposes of this essay, I have defined them as emotionally-oriented and intellectually-oriented. At the extremes, the adherents of either viewpoint accept the fallacy that the two are unrelated. The repertoire represented in the discussion of either has changed over the years of my observation, but has common threads that remain present over time. In every church where I have been a member or employee, there have been a few people who were passionate about either extreme, and many people whose preferences lay somewhere between them. In church history, the codification of “Gregorian” chant, the Reformation, the Great Awakening and the Victorian Era all provide examples of similarly-framed ecclesiastical debates about worship, and how it should appropriately be done.
The emotionally-centered worshiper during the years of my youth found revelation in the emerging music of people like Bill and Gloria Gaither and others in the gospel music marketplace. The younger generation also saw the emergence of a new genre called "Contemporary Christian Music". Congregations were open to new sounds because they were thrilled to see large youth choirs made up of their teenagers. Soloists were allowed to assume a performance style that reflected secular practice, singing while holding a microphone, using hand gestures, and closing their eyes during particularly emotional moments. The repertoire used by these musicians closely resembled the style of popular music, and the change it represented was characterized by the fact that its composers eschewed traditional rules of harmony, voice leading and elegance of text, instead rendering music with a primary compositional focus on affect, or emotional appeal. This music was not evaluated based upon its adherence to the musical rules and structures that had characterized the parallel evolutions of church music and classical music. These rules and structures were, in fact, irrelevant to the worshipers and musicians involved in the development of this new practice. Rather, this music was evaluated based upon its "feelingfulness." Music became popular and widespread when it predictably evoked an emotional response, with a rationale that the worshiper must achieve a high level of "openness", that the Holy Spirit waited to relate to worshipers who were receptive while listening or singing, and that the presence of the Holy Spirit would be evident to the extent that the worshiper felt that presence emotionally.
These practices evolved further during my young adult years, and publishers began to provide more polished products for this kind of worship. The music resources churches were buying were designed to depict spontaneity of feeling in worship, but were, in fact, written using proven formulae. And the music that had been presented by soloists or choir during worship migrated to the pew, with congregational song exhibiting the same stylistic traits as the performed music.The teenagers of the 1970s were becoming the church's young adults in the 1980s and 90s, and were exerting growing influence over the practices of worship. By the time I had reached my 30s, the churches I served had many members for whom worship was considered to be successful based upon the way the worshiper felt during the experience. Generally, I observed that these worshipers' comments reflected little interest in the history and traditions of the congregation's worship practice, nor did they express interest in developing musical programs or skills as a way of preparing for the future of the church. Rather, they worshiped in the moment, with a strong desire for a sense of closeness to God that came through the affect achieved during musical expressions of worship.
I have observed these worship practices while working in the evangelical protestant church in the "Bible Belt" environment of Alabama. But similar experiences could be observed throughout the church world. Arguably, a parallel version of this turn toward "of the moment", emotionally-oriented worship was taking place in the most historical and traditional part of the church, the Roman Catholic church in its post-Vatican II expression. The rejection of centuries of significant and complex musical repertoire, and the embracing of a new folk style of musical worship appeared to be an effort to engage the individual worshiper by conforming the language of musical expression to their vernacular, after many centuries of separateness between the persons attending the mass and the persons leading the mass. Just as the spoken language of the mass was changed in order to bring the worshipers into a more engaged experience, the musical forms were made more familiar and approachable.
As an illustration of the effect of these worship practices, consider the person who is listening to the radio and singing along. They haven't chosen to sing along with a popular song because of its adherence to the rules of musical composition, or because its words offer profound meaning that must be studied and repeated. Rather, they are singing along because it is entirely pleasant to do so. The song is approachable, pleasing, and expresses understandable feelings. Likewise, the music of the church that has served those worshipers for whom approachability or emotional expression are of primary importance has been constructed for immediate connection.
Congregations are rarely made up of people who unanimously accept these changes to historical norms. Consequently, many churches have divided into multiple congregations who meet simultaneously, each with its own "style" of worship. And in some cases, worshipers who strongly desire these musical changes have started new churches based upon this "style" choice. Since these musical practices are specifically intended to be non-historical, newer styles whose music is more "cutting edge" tend to attract their own groups of worshipers, resulting in obsolescence, divisions within divisions, or newer churches alongside new churches. When arguments have ensued between adherents of this style of worship and those who desire a more intellectual or tradition-based style, the rationale for this worship style, often called "contemporary" or "praise and worship", is relational and centered upon the worshiper. When I have been involved in these discussions, I have drawn the conclusion that these worshipers strongly desire a relationship with God that is reflected in a moment-by-moment feeling of closeness to God. They evaluate their closeness to God through their feelings, and their feelings are strong and good during this kind of worship.
Intellectually-oriented Worship
Worshipers who occupy the other end of the continuum I have described are intellectually-oriented. They are at home in theological discussion, and sense that they are part of the modern expression of the ongoing history of the church. In my experience, they have expressed discomfort with what they see as the emotionalism of "contemporary" worship, and feel disenfranchised when their own congregation makes musical choices reflecting styles of "pop" music.
I resonate strongly with the worshipers for whom this end of the continuum is a comfortable home. In my work leading the music of several congregations, I have tended to lead them toward more frequent use of classical, historical repertoire in choral, solo and congregational music. I have tended to refrain from following technologically-based trends, and continue to use the traditional resources of pipe organ and hymnal. I am not unemotional about worship. Rather, since I tend to be drawn toward more intellectually-oriented expressions of worship, I frequently feel emotional during these offerings. I am, however, reluctant to display my emotions, and am introverted during worship, regardless of the level of "feelingfulness."
During the years of my work in church music, the adherents of intellectually-oriented worship practices have tended to be philosophically led by highly educated individuals who were either in prominent preaching or teaching positions. When emotionally-oriented worship began to take a prominent role among congregations, these leaders held to their convictions about repertoire and media choices. They contended that the music of worship should be of the highest quality regarding musical and textual construction, and they contended that the worshiper should not be perceived as the object toward whom the musical expression of the choir or soloist was geared. Rather, they insisted that the musical offering was presented with God as audience. They contended that the congregation should sing with similar intent, focusing on God rather than their own feelings, and singing with the hymns and organ accompaniment that had proven to nurture congregational involvement for centuries.
The technological advances of recent decades, including broadcasting and recording, have impacted all worship leaders. In the case of every kind of worship, church members have only to turn to Youtube or iTunes to find professionally produced recordings of the music they hear in worship. Since the music of the "contemporary" worshiping church is, by definition, written to be approachable by musicians and hearers, the professionally-produced videos and recordings of the music serve as attainable guideposts for the local musicians who are working to produce this music in worship. But since it is possible for anyone to find a professional recording of most classical music, presented at a high artistic level, the musicians who lead "traditional" worship often experience the opposite effect. They cannot produce their music at the standard of the professional recording within the acoustics of their church building, using the volunteer singers of their choir. Consequently, while the leaders within the circles of church musicians who adhere to more traditional norms have given a passionate rationale for continuing these musical practices, congregations and singers have frequently found their local renditions disappointing in comparison with the easily-attainable professional recordings of their repertoire. And while the argument for viewing God as audience, and congregation as either bystander during choral or solo expressions, or participant during hymn singing, is an understandable ideological statement, the fact remains that the congregation lives in a world where they are always an audience. Music plays everywhere, all the time, and they cannot suddenly require themselves to listen passively, without evaluating what they hear. Once they have evaluated the presentation of more traditional church music to be of poor quality, it is easy for them to be convinced that the congregation will be well-served by a move to more approachable repertoire. And if that traditional musical presentation leaves them feeling no emotional response, it is easy for them to be convinced that they will be well-served by a move to more feelingful repertoire.
I have been involved in the arguments of congregations regarding adherence to the traditional worship style of the church, and have observed that there is passion among those for whom these worship practices are cherished equal to the passion of those who wish to change to more "contemporary" styles. In my evaluation, they tend to be keenly aware of the church's history and traditions, and place a high value on them. They are not unemotional, but feel most emotionally drawn to worship in which their intellect is stimulated. They desire to personally relate to God, and they evaluate their relationship to God based upon their sense that their intellectual journey has led them to a greater understanding of God. They see their intellectual understanding of classical music as an important part of that journey, and would be no more inclined to leave classical music behind than they would be to leave important theological teachings behind.
The Unresolvable Argument
The churches to which I have belonged have spent great resources expressing good will over the years of my involvement in them. They have joined the practices of countless people over many centuries in caring for the poor, bringing healing to the sick, providing for the widow and orphan, and many other activities that are part of their expression of devotion to Christ. But their last few decades have also been characterized by argument over the practices of worship, and that argument has worked against their presentation of good will in the perception of the world around them.
The emotion-oriented worshiper has argued for relevance, and a relationship with God that is as much a part of the "here and now" as are the other parts of life. The argument has included euphemisms like "over our heads" when describing complex music, or "dull and lifeless" when describing the softer, slower musical choices of the historic church repertoire. The worshiper has sought to "be fed" by worship, and has expected worship to replenish their emotional strength to face life in the week ahead. In its worst form, this argument has expressed a negative judgment of the Christian commitment of those who did not display their emotions openly and regularly.
The intellectually-oriented worshiper has argued for reverence and awe, and has not viewed music choices that were "over our heads" as disqualified, since God is the audience. This worshiper prizes an understanding of the history of the church, and seeks to adhere to its norms, rather than to begin something new. The intellectually-oriented worshiper has sought greater theological understanding during worship, and is private about emotions. This argument has, at its worst, spoken pejoratively about "feeling" in worship, suggesting that emotions were inappropriate within the context of worship, and that music that evoked an emotional response was suspect and should not be used.
My experience has never included the resolution of this argument. To the contrary, its discussion has usually led to stronger, more negative feelings between the participants. In addition, the argument is based upon perceptions that can easily become out of date, and newer generations of worshipers are confused when they hear older members of their churches involved in it. Today's younger church members have never lived in a musical world that was characterized by boundaries. They have never had to choose between two radio stations, country and rock, as I did during my small-town teenage years. All music is available to them all the time. They cannot understand arguments between two camps regarding worship any more than they can envision choosing between only two radio stations.
The worshipers in today's churches are passionate and committed. They need a new paradigm under which to evaluate their worship practices, and which does not incorporate the old, fruitless arguments.
A New Worship Paradigm
I would like to suggest a new paradigm for our decisions about how we worship musically. First, it includes the discarding of some passionately-held positions.
I suggest we discard the idea that there is an inherently appropriate musical style for worship. I do not mean to suggest that all musical choices are equal in our judgment. Music is obviously more or less complex, more or less appealing aesthetically, more or less expressive of joy or lament, more or less capably related to its text, and subject to innumerable other judgments. We will always make qualitative judgments about music. I am suggesting that we discard the argument that God is only appropriately and effectively worshiped when the music of that worship matches our particular choices. I am suggesting that I am responsible for making my own musical choices, as a music leader in my congregation, but I am not going to make the leap of hubris to a belief that suggests that all other worshipers in all other congregations should make the same choices or risk being judged to be inappropriate and ineffective. This belief is based in insecurity, and stands in the way of relationship with God and others.
I further suggest that we discard the idea that emotion and intellect are unrelated, irreconcilable motivations. I suggest that we subscribe to the obvious belief that our Creator has graciously given us both emotion and intellect. We should seek to relate to God in all we do, and, consequently, in all we feel and all we think. We should not view our feelingfulness as superior to the thoughtfulness of another, and we should not view our thoughtfulness as superior to the feelingfulness of another.
I also suggest that we discard the view that anyone or Anyone who is present in worship should be a passive observer. The fact that scripture and Judeo-Christian history emphasize corporate worship suggests that being in the congregation is an important act of worship in itself. The congregation is not expected to be passively uninvolved during the music of worship. God is audience, but so is anyone within earshot. And the fact that worship has always had a focal point, whether altar, pulpit or communion table, suggests an historic realization that God is present in our corporate midst, rather than only in our individual feelings. God is not waiting passively for the loud chord or the high note, suddenly appearing in the form of emotional outburst. God can be understood to be present in sound and silence, word and song and bread and wine; always present, and patient with the fact that we are not always receptive.
The new paradigm relies on the discarding of these old ideas, and turning to an even older one. We worship because we have chosen to follow Jesus, and we worship corporately because our journey following Christ is helped by the structures of the church. We know little about the way the first followers of Christ worshiped him, although surely they did. We have no visual or recorded evidence about what they sang. We do not speak the same language they spoke, or observe customs similar to theirs. Accounts of Jesus' temple worship usually focus on his teaching from the Hebrew scripture, but do not reflect other worship practices. So I suggest that, rather than trying to derive a format for universally appropriate worship where one does not exist, we look to the readily-available evidence of Jesus' teaching about relationship as we consider a new paradigm for the choices we make regarding worshiping together.
Jesus chose to describe his evaluation of his followers in terms of left and right, sheep and goats, emphasizing the extent to which they related to one another. He would divide them based on their striving to serve others, saying in Matthew 25,
34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.” (NIV)
The unresolvable arguments fade away in this scenario. When the emotionally-oriented worshiper suggests that the musical choice was not feelingful enough, the music leader replies in generosity, "I gave you the best I had because I saw Christ in you, and in it was a gift; the gift of opening your mind more fully to understanding the God who is beyond our understanding." When the intellectually-oriented worshiper finds the musical choice too affective, the response of the generous music leader is, "I gave you the best I had because I saw Christ in you, and in it was a gift; the gift of opening your emotional self more fully to the God who has felt beyond our ability to feel."
We are in relationship with one another as expressions of our relationship to Christ. He is our worship audience in the person of our fellow worshiper, and we are striving to meet their worshiping need for intellectual stimulation and emotional beauty as an act of serving him. We are not responding to them out of judgment or evaluation. We are giving them our best, because that is the best way we can worship God. Christ is present in them before, during and after the high note or loud chord. Christ is present in them before, during and after the intellectually-stimulating classical music.
The new paradigm suggests that our timeless God is unaffected by either our attempts to be trendy or our attempts to adhere to several hundred years of history. It suggests that our relationships with others are indicators of our relationship with Christ, whether they are built around the transactions of providing food and shelter or art and beauty, and whether they are taking place in the marketplace or during worship. It answers the questions of musical appropriateness with the question, "How are you relating to the least of these, my children and your fellow-worshipers?" It answers the concerns surrounding emotion in worship by saying, "You cannot hope to feel the way I feel. But you CAN be sympathetic with the feelings of the other worshipers surrounding you, and in doing so you can know some of the emotion of the God who bubbled over with pride when he said, ‘This is my beloved Son,’ or who cried with anguish when he said, ‘Why have you forsaken me?’" It speaks of intellectual pursuit by saying, "You cannot hope to fully know me, but you CAN know one another more fully, and in doing so, you can begin to understand the intellect of the God who numbers the hairs on your head, and whose science created the world."
The new paradigm does not offer a prescription for success in choosing musical repertoire for worship, or for the style in which the chosen repertoire is presented. It offers a new way to look into the relationships between the worshipers, and suggests that these relationships are of greater importance to God than the latest or most historical musical offerings, for they reflect the relationship between the worshiper and God.
