My purpose in blogging is not to be some dissonent voice, always complaining or critiquing things that I don’t like or disagree with. With that said, however, I must talk about an article written in the Christian Chronicle
I will not include the whole article (though you can click the link above to read it) but I do want to paste below the questions that were answered by a panel of college choral directors:
Were you raised in cappella Churches of Christ? If so, what are your earliest memories of singing in the church? If not, please describe your own experience.
Some have suggested that the tradition of four-part a cappella singing in Churches of Christ is quickly disappearing. Do you agree or disagree with that statement? Why or why not?
Is it true that our congregations are singing fewer (and in some cases, none) of the great Protestant four-part hymns and are moving quickly to praise songs? If so, what does this mean for the church as a whole?
Are we losing the “common language” of the sacred song in Churches of Christ — meaning that grandchildren don’t know the music of grandparents? If so, are we experiencing a fragmentation of the main corporate activity in our common worship experience? Please elaborate on your response.
How would you describe the overall quality of singing in our churches? Better or worse than in the past? Are we producing a generation that does not know how to read music or shaped notes? What are the ramifications to moving from hymnals to singing from a big screen?
Have you noticed a difference in the quality, experience, ability to “hold a part,” etc., of students moving from high school to your university music groups in recent years? Please elaborate.
Before I say my piece let me say that the intervewiees responses were pretty solid for the most part (from my perspective) and the questions seem pretty leading.
Here are a few of my thoughts. I value a ceppella music. I would also say that I’m learning to value it more as we get deeper into church planting. And if I were to be honest I’d probably have to say that I have no sort of emotional, theological, or tradition-connected desire to worship in a ceppella style. Therefore I try to realize that many people have fond memories of this style of worship, many people have strong theology concerning what type of worship is apropriate, etc.
But seriously! Sheet music? Is reading notes and having hymnals much of a concern of the church? The churches of Christ are hemorrhaging, as a whole they have lost their voice in the United States, and do we really think that singing four part harmonies is something that we need be concerned about? What is the purpose and concern of four part harmonies anyway? Is it the beautiful sound of our voices coming together in unity? ‘Cause I’m pretty sure that happens even if we all sing the melody. Oh, and let me say real quick as a lifelong church of Christ preachers kid…I can’t read a single note to save my life.
Concerning singing classic hymns, what’s the worry? I think some hymns are beautiful and speak powerful theology. Honestly, some hymns need to go. But why are these hymns valued? Many (not all) are valued because they resonated with people, they were connected to peoples narratives, their stories, their experiences. Many hymns have value because they spoke to thier theology, worries, and concerns. But as peoples worries change, as peoples theology changes, as people find new music to ressonate with new experiences and their own individual stories it only makes sense to sing new music. Don’t get me wrong, part of our journey of faith is remembering the bigger story, remembering where we came from, and therefore valuing the past. But there is absolutly nothing more sacred about Great is thy Faithfulness and Shout to the Lord (I know even this song is dated, but I wanted something that most would be aware of). To value one generations songs over another is wrong (whether your a youngster or and elder).
Here’s what it all comes down to. If you’ve glazed over the rest of this, please read this one statement: People do not resist change, they resist loss.
I believe that if we take time to reflect on that statement it allows us to understand better where the author of those questions is coming from. It allows us to give more grace and freedom to those who do not want to let go of, what I believe to be, silly things like sheet music and four part harmonies. Many in an older generation is grieving losing reminders, monuments, and memories associated with their stories. The great problem, and one that another blog must deal with, is that the world has changed so incredibly, so rapidly over the past number of years that change must happen. So some healthy question we may want to begin asking include: what is a healthy way to grieve loss together? How do we engage in change while still valuing our stories (both past, present, and future)?
peace.
I think the most appropriate question is how does the liturgy (order and means of doing something in service) effect that doctrinal confessions of the church. Most protestants think "it doesn't." My doctrine determines my liturgy. True it should. But it works in reverse as well. The deeper question is not really one musical form per se but rather how does giving up a particular form of music going to effect the doctrine of later generations?
Specifically Churches of Christ while knowing it or not, have a puritan interpretation of the regulative principle of the Westminster Confession. The Regulative Principle stating that which God does not specifically condone is not allowed in worship. So I think the discussion about music is better talked about in that context. Are Churches giving up the Puritan interpretation of the Regulative Principle? If so then what are they replacing it with? Perhaps the older generations & younger generations could have a more constructive conversation and come to some understanding if they first sought to understand the theological context of the discussion instead of simply talking about particular genres of music.
Hey Brent, thanks for your input! You're exactly right concerning the hidden foundations behind why the CofC do things the way they do. I've always referred to it in terms of how we interpret the silence of Scripture. While I will not claim any sort of broad knowledge of the churches of Christ as a whole, my experience is that the average CofC-er sitting in a pew has no idea how to articulate why they worship the way they do. My thinking is that many of them could not articulate it as clearly as you did in your comment. In all my years of going to church I've never, not once, heard a sermon or message that taught the Regulative Principle, nor have I ever heard a message teaching how we should or should not worship (with regard to mechanics).
But being from the NW we are not as doctrinally focused as the Bible belt and other places. We tend to be more tradition and relationally focused than the south.
I'm wondering how all this affects the discussion.
Ryan, We are also asking similar questions in our church in Australia. The church did spend a lot of effort studying the “what to do about silence” issue. Most eventually concluded that the bible is silent on silence. For a traditional CoC church, the effect was stunning. Most were a torn and hurt by the challenge – the mind realised freedoms and grace but hearts were troubled. Is this grieving loss or is it that it takes time for the heart to catch up to the mind? or are they the same thing? Sometimes we know we should change something but we can't seem to do it straight away and we struggle for a time until our heart is really engaged in the change (I think we process it until we are really ok with it and we e.g. can resolve how it can be that people who we trusted and we know and we love are not always right). I think this lag also happens with every big change from getting over addiction to Christian conversion. I think a partial answer (whether this is grieving or processing) is to give people time, not to wallow but to support each other in working together and try to bring love to a situation of hurting.
Brent, just to quickly comment on your last idea about "tradition and relationship" I may have spoke out of turn in saying that this was more of an emphasis in the nw than in the south. What I was basing that on and attempting to communicate is that in the South there tended to be more of an emphasis on knowing about Jesus whereas in the NW the emphasis is more on knowing Jesus. I don't say that to say that the NW is better (and my observations could be incorrect anyway!) because both sides are hugely important. I recently asked a friend which of the Jesus stories was his favorite and he responded with a story about Moses (and no, he wasn't joking).
I've got to be honest though and say that I'm not certain that asking questions about the interpretation of the silence of Scripture is very important. For example I've been thinking recently about how all of our valued rules for understanding and defining doctrine would not have allowed Jesus to do what he did and would not have allowed the entrance of gentiles into the church. The clear, spoken, and understood doctrine of God's people was that to have relationship with the Lord you had to work within or in connection to the Jewish system. Additionally, there's no room for God to die in the jewish system (let alone on a tree!) What changed all this was the action of God. When Gentiles were filled with the Spirit, the Jewish community had to begin asking different questions concerning their theology.
Anyway, I say all that to say that I think we'd be better off in our churches if we spent time trying to help them see and experience the work of God. Is silence in Scripture prohibitive or permissive? My understanding is that it's a moot point because the better question is "has God's Spirit confirmed or denied the direction you're moving". And while I realize this is a much harder question to answer, and while I realize that this brings up a whole new set of questions (how to you identify if the Spirit has confirmed something?), I think it's worth grappling with.
very cool – I think that's it! Its like in Romans 14 where their was tension because those who saw the freedom looked down on the others and those who saw the other side condemned the first group for being permissive. Its not about being more right or wrong in our itellectual interpretations- its about how we deal with it and live by the spirit. This means that God can be ok with both sides – the tension isn't from God its from the 2 camps condemning God's freedom or look down on others for not seeing things their way.
Grappling with the Holy Spirit question is the more difficult one I agree but its because fruits are less visible than actions. I think we need to avoid making up a bunch of rules and checklists around "though shall" or "shall not" / confirmed or denied actions, for lots of reasons. Not that you seem to be saying that. I think God judges our hearts and intent but with grace rather than our actions on a checklist – just like Dads do with their kids, where they can. But it's not up to the kids to judge their sibblings, their role is to learn by doing the right things and develop a heart for goodness and God. I shouldn't judge if my brother is following our father and if my father should reward him or not. I think that on this last point I could do better, understanding freedoms and grace can help, and parts of the CoC has been quite a bit off beam in the past, so changing that can be good.