“The church shall strive in worship to use languae about God wich is intentionally as diverse and varied as the Bible and our theological traditions. The church is committed to using language in such a way that all members of the community of faith may recognize themselves to be included, addressed, and equally cherished before God. Seeking to bear witness to the whole world, the church struggles to use language which is faithful to biblical truth and which neither purposely nor inadvertently excludes people because of gender, color, or other circumstance in life.” Section W-1.2006b – “Directory for Worship” – The Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), Part II, Book of Order, 2011-2013. Louisville: Office of the General Assembly, 2011. – bold emphasis is mine.

Two sections from the Book of Order have a direct impact on our consideration of the above words.

1. The following is from the introductory section to the Book of Order and offers interpretive instruction concerning the intention of wording throughout the book:

“In this Book of Order

(1) SHALL and IS TO BE/ARE TO BE signify practice that is mandated,
(2) SHOULD signifies practice that is strongly recommended,
(3) IS APPROPRIATE signifies practice that is commended as suitable,
(4) MAY signifies practice that is permissible but not required.
(5) ADVISORY HANDBOOK signifies a handbook produced by agencies of the
General Assembly to guide synods and presbyteries in procedures related to the
oversight of ministry. Such handbooks suggest procedures that are commended,
but not required.”

2. The following section “defines” a congregation – often referred to as a particular church:

G-1.0101 The Mission of the Congregation

The congregation is the church engaged in the mission of God in its particular context.
The triune God gives to the congregation all the gifts of the gospel necessary to being
the Church. The congregation is the basic form of the church, but it is not of itself a
sufficient form of the church. Thus congregations are bound together in communion with
one another, united in relationships of accountability and responsibility, contributing their
strengths to the benefit of the whole, and are called, collectively, the church.

The section of the “Directory for Worship” – W-1.2006b – which provides the focus for our thoughts today invokes the mandated language of shall at the opening of the section.

Also – this section specifies that “The church shall” – not just a particular congregation – be mandated to use language “which is intentionally as diverse and varied as the Bible and our theological traditions“. Each of our particular congregations are mandated to intentionally utilize language that is as diverse and varied as the Bible and our theological traditions – not language that is descriptive of our particular congregation as it is or as we might like for it to be – remembering that most of our individual communities of faith are not diverse and varied – but – we are mandated to use language and take actions that are beyond the boundaries of our geographic and demographic limitations as well as more extensive than our limited understandings and practices.

At a time when many are lamenting the decline of our denomination and other denominations, I believe that we would be well served – and more faithful to our calling to expand beyond our boundaries and comfort levels – moving toward the radical practices that we have been taught by Jesus and our theological traditions – rather than striving to solve our difficulties by finding novel ways to do things the way we have always done them.

Anyone who has known me – or read much of what I have written – is aware of my fondness for the hymn text of Fred Kaan’s Help Us Accept Each Other – particularly in the concluding lines of the second stanza:

Teach us to care for people, for all, not just for some, to love them as we find them, or as they may become. (Copyright © 1975 by Hope Publishing Company)

Section W-1.2006a of the “Directory for Worship” – The Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), Part II, Book of Order, 2011-2013 states (bold emphasis is mine):

Since the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) is a family of peoples united in Jesus Christ appropriate language for its worship should display the rich variety of these peoples. To the extent that forms, actions, languages, or settings of worship exclude the expression of diverse cultures represented in the church or deny emerging needs and identities of believers, that worship is not faithful to the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

A number of years ago I attended a seminar on inclusive language in Nashville, Tennessee that was presented by Brian Wren (see below). When Dr. Wren was introduced to those of us who were attending the seminar it was hard to miss that he was wearing a t-shirt that carried the message, “God is not a boy’s name.” Almost immediately, however, Brian Wren made it very clear that this seminar was going to be about much much more that just the gender of pronouns in the language of hymns and worship. He taught us that inclusive includes many different things – not the least of which was verbal communication – but also hospitality to people with a handicapping condition – something that has become part of my life during the last couple of years. I can assure you that just meeting the minimum standards of the Americans with Disabilities Act is not the same as inclusive hospitality. For instance, I am now aware that automatic doors which are set to remain open for just a few seconds often do not meet the needs of a person in a power wheel chair – especially on rainy days. And – when those accessible doors are not located anywhere near to the “blue tag” handicapped parking – even if the vehicle is parked by someone travelling with the person in the power wheel chair – words about hospitality quickly turn to the realization that genuine hospitality is not primary in the considerations of reality for some. And it is not just for people with a handicapping condition. I will never forget the sign on a restroom in a church building that read “Women and other handicapped” – and – I will also never forget how quickly that sign was changed to read “Handicapped and other women” once the mistaken verbage was pointed out to those who had ordered the sign.

Changing the focus – I was born in a parsonage next door to a small white frame church where my grandparents served as Methodist missionaries to the Cherokee peoples in northeastern Oklahoma. This has always been a part of my heritage that gives me great satisfaction and pride. I also will tell anyone who shows any interest at all in listening that my grandmother appears to be the first woman ever licensed to preach by the Oklahoma Conference of the Methodist Church in the early to mid 1950s – truly amazing!! So, naturally, I was thrilled to connect with Dr. George E. “Tink” Tinker, Professor of American Indian Cultures and Religious Traditions at Iliff School of Theology in Denver, and an enrolled member of the Osage Nation, just a few years ago. His book Spirit and Resistance: Political Theology and American Indian Liberation should be required reading for anyone who genuinely cares about matters of inclusivity. I conclude today’s post with his words that open Chapter 3 of this valuable book:

“Turning inside out the insistence of missionaries of a scant generation ago, a radical American Indian activist instructed a young christian Indian on a critical issue of Indian identity and religious affiliation: ‘You have to choose. You are either Indian or christian. You can’t be both!” (37) What a sad commentary on inclusive welcome and hospitality.

Of course the above offers only a couple of examples of how many communities of faith do not respond to the divine initiative of continuing creation by using language and taking actions that do not display the rich variety of all peoples. How are we able to say that all are welcome when, clearly, that is not true!! It is time for all Christians to offer the radical hospitality taught by Jesus!!

BRIAN WREN (b. 1936) is an internationally published hymn-poet whose work appears in hymnals from all denominations and traditions. Ordained in Britain’s United Reformed Church, he lives in Decatur, Georgia, where he serves as the first holder of the John and Miriam Conant Professorship in Worship at Columbia Theological Seminary. A Fellow of the Hymn Society in the U.S. and Canada, Brian holds B.A. and D.Phil (= Ph.D.) degrees from Oxford University and an Honorary Doctorate in Humane Letters from Christian Theological Seminary, Indianapolis. He is the author of PRAYING TWICE, the music and words of congregational song (Westminster John Knox Press, 2000), WHAT LANGUAGE SHALL I BORROW? (Crossroad, 1989 – now out of print), PIECE TOGETHER PRAISE: A THEOLOGICAL JOURNEY (1996), an anthology of his hymn poems (Code No. 1884), and six words-and-music hymn collections, of which the most recent are VISIONS AND REVISIONS (1998) (CODE No. 1590) and CHRIST OUR HOPE (2004) [Book Code No. 8222; CD Code No. 8222C]. Brian lives with his partner in marriage and ministry, Rev. Susan Heafield (“Hayfield”), a United Methodist Pastor and composer. Together they have published two worship song collections, WE CAN BE MESSENGERS [Book Code No. 8149, CD Code No. 8150] and TELL THE GOOD NEWS (Book Code No. 8171, CD Code No. 8172) distributed in the USA by Hope Publishing Company. Brian Wren’s hymn collections are published by Hope Publishing Company, which represents all his hymns in the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Twenty five Brian Wren hymns appear in Hope’s new hymnal WORSHIP & REJOICE (2001).
(http://www.hopepublishing.com/html/main.isx?sub=307&search=107)

Tinker, George E. Spirit and Resistance: Political Theology and American Indian Liberation. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2004.

With this post I begin a series that considers a number of statements from the blog that was posted on April 26, 2013.

In this post we give further consideration to these words: God brings all things into being by the Word . . . people respond to that divine initiative through the language of worship.

I admit that I have very much enjoyed my study of the writings of Karl Barth (1886-1968 – see information below). As complicated complex as Barth’s writing may be, I know that this is partly true due to the close relationship that Barth had with the music of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (more about that in a later post) – and – partly as a result that one of my primary mentors was a student of Barth in Basel, Switzerland – (somehow, I guess, it sort of made me feel like a grand-student). Barth did not believe that it was proper for people to say, “I wonder what questions I should ask God” – stating that this expression of the relationship between God and the human creature moved in the wrong direction. Barth insisted that everything begins with God – and – until God reveals some of Godself the human creature does not possess enough information to even pose a question. Barth believed that the order is as follows – God reveals and THEN and only THEN the information that God reveals provokes the human questions. Barth would say, “It all begins with God!”

In my opinion Robert Shaw said it as well as anyone (surely that is not a surprise to anyone who reads this blog) when he observed that we say we believe in an omnipotent, omniscient Creator but have not allowed God to do anything since day six!

There are many things that I am uncertain about but one of the is not this – I believe with all that I am that God offers infinite love, grace, and mercy – and – continuing creation!!

As a result – our language about God – including the language of worship – is a language of response. Further, our language of response is not appropriate when it seems to place limits on or around God – that is why the language of worship must display the rich variety of all peoples. That will be the focus of the our next post – please join in our community conversation and make others aware of http://www.humanbeingsanon.com so they may join the conversation as well.

Grace and peace

Karl Barth, (born May 10, 1886, Basel, Switzerland—died December 9/10, 1968, Basel), Swiss Protestant theologian, probably the most influential of the 20th century. Closely supported by his lifelong friend and colleague, the theologian Eduard Thurneysen, he initiated a radical change in Protestant thought, stressing the “wholly otherness of God” over the anthropocentrism of 19th-century liberal theology. Barth recovered the centrality of the doctrine of the Trinity within the dynamic and rational structure of Christian dogmatics; of particular importance was his reappropriation of the Christology of the ancient church. His vigorous opposition to German National Socialism led to his suspension as professor of theology at the University of Bonn. Subsequently, at Basel, he continued work on his monumental Church Dogmatics (completing four volumes) and delivered more than 500 sermons. (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/54293/Karl-Barth)

One subject that seems to always be part of discussion in a congregation is language. What sort of language is appropriate, what are the boundaries of language, is it appropriate to use language that is not inclusive , is music an appropriate language for worship – what about instrumental music/music without words, and are the arts offered in worship performance or prayer?

The following selections are from the “Directory for Worship” – The Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), Part II, Book of Order, 2011-2013. Louisville: The Office of the General Assembly, 2011. Section designations follow each reference. I use the Presbyterian “directory” in this discussion since I serve in a Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) community of faith – however, many of these items are common to multiple faith traditions.

I have taken the liberty to highlight some sections in bold – these are sections that speak in a special way to me and will be the focus of several coming posts on this blog.

God brings all things into being by the Word. God offers the Word of grace, and people respond to that divine initiative through the language of worship. They call God by name, invoke God’s presence, beseech God in prayer, and stand before God in silence and contemplation. They bow before God, lift hands and voices in praise, sing, make music, and dance. Heart, soul, strength, and mind, with one accord, they join in the language, drama, and pageantry of worship. (W-1.2001)

Since the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) is a family of peoples united in Jesus Christ, appropriate language for its worship should display the rich variety of these peoples. To the extent that forms, actions, languages, or settings of worship exclude the expression of diverse cultures represented in the church or deny emerging needs and identities of believers, that worship is not faithful to the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. (W-1.2006a)

The church shall (NOTE: When the word “shall,” or “is to be” is used in this document it points to an action that is mandatory – other words “may,” “is appropriate,” and others describe practices that are appropriate but not mandatory) strive in its worship to use language about God which is intentionally as diverse and varied as the Bible and our theological traditions. The church is committed to using language in such a way that all members of the community of faith may recognize themselves to be included, addressed, and equally cherished before God. Seeking to bear witness to the whole world, the church struggles to use language which is faithful to biblical truth and which neither purposely nor inadvertently excludes people because of gender, color, or other circumstance in life. (W-1.2006b)

The Reformed heritage has called upon people to bring to worship material offerings which in their simplicity of form and function direct attention to what God has done and to the claim that God makes upon human life. The people of God have responded through creative expressions in architecture, furnishings, appointments, vestments, music, drama, language, and movement. When these artistic creations awaken us to God’s presence, they are appropriate for worship. When they call attention to themselves, or are present for their beauty as an end in itself, they are idolatrous. Artistic expressions should evoke, edify, enhance, and expand worshipers’ consciousness of the reality and grace of God. (W-1.3034(2))

To lead the congregation in the singing of prayer is a primary role of the choir and the other musicians. They also may pray on behalf of the congregation . . . Instrumental music may be a form of prayer since words are not essential to prayer. In worship, music is not to be for entertainment or artistic display. Care should be taken that it not be used merely as a cover for silence. Music as prayer is to be a worthy offering to God on behalf of the people. (W-2.1004)

In the Old and New Testaments and through the ages, the people of God expressed prayer through actions as well as speech and song. So in worship today it is appropriate a.) to kneel, to bow, to stand, to lift hands in prayer, b.) to dance, to clap, to embrace in joy and praise, c.) to anoint and to lay hands in intercession and supplication, commissioning and ordination. (W-2.1005)

The next post will focus on “God brings all things into being by the Word – people respond to that divine initiative through the language of worship” I welcome and invite your thoughts on these words – please join in our community discussion as we continue our journey.

WARNING! THE CONTENTS OF THIS POST MAY BE HAZARDOUS!

I will always remember my major professor during my doctoral studies at the University of Oklahoma in Norman – Dr. B. R. “Bev” Henson. He was a world-class musician – a world-class teacher – a loyal friend – and a master of one-line quips.

Examples:

Being right and wrong in music is a lot like being pregnant – you either are or your not.

The right note at the wrong time is the wrong note.

Sopranos (for some reason it was usually sopranos) I know you are all singing the correct pitch but there clearly is considerable disagreement about which pitch.

And the one that is most pertinent to this post –

Chances are that if everyone agrees with everything you say – what you are saying is not worth saying.

Another situation forever etched in my memory.

Beginning my sixth grade year I lived in a town in south central Kansas that had a superb school system – seemingly very progressive for the time. We were a basketball school and if my memory is serving me correctly during those years the basketball coaches also were our math teachers.

I was fortunate to take Algebra I during my eighth grade year which meant that I was able to take Geometry during my ninth grade year. That, unfortunately, was the year when our school district decided to “embrace” the new math. As a result I thought I just did not have what it took to be a Geometry student – happily, later I discovered that the “new” math was the problem rather than the Geometry. Fortunately, it was not long before the school district – at least the math teachers – came to the same conclusion. In the “new” math it seemed to me that I should find a way for 2 plus 2 to equal 5. It just did not add up for me.

It’s no secret – mainline churches are in a decline and I have been part of numerous communities of faith who have struggled to figure out the problem in order to follow a more successful path. During these same years I have worked with numerous people on the path to recovery from substance abuse, I have been a parent and a grandparent, I have led several successful youth choir adventures, I have worked with a large number of young adults in the world of musical theatre, and I have enjoyed very successful relationships with a number of youth and young adults.

Discussions have often centered around why is active participation in church declining – and – for the most part – the answers have been consistent – the world is changing – the church must continue to hold to standards that are supported by Scripture, various creeds, and other forms of tradition. My own study of Scripture has led me down a different path of understanding than many of my colleagues and friends. Recently I started referring to how people “cherry pick the apple tree” when they study Scripture – selecting bits and pieces that support their particular point of view while ignoring other portions – and/or the whole of Scripture. I have often been accused of “changing the sacred text” when during my teaching I have discussed how different translations lead in different directions, or how particular translations seem not to capture the spirit of the original language of the text, or pointing to some of the seeming contradictions within the text, and numerous other examples.

Some have observed, “That’s what you get for going to seminary.” On occasions when I have had the opportunity to discuss this opinion with the people who made that statement I have helped some of them understand that what they believe happens at seminary bears little relation to what actually is part of the teaching and learning environment that I so very much valued.

It is my feeling that many who currently are not interested in church are just not able to sign-on for narrow interpretation, lack of genuine hospitality, hypocritical differences between what is said and what is done, and a lack of willingness to embrace the idea that science and faith are not the opposite ends of a continuum of learning and living. I believe that many congregations are acting in fear through a lens of scarcity – a sort of hope for survival mode.

I encourage you to look back at my recent posts where I have passed along the writing of Robert Shaw, Michael L. Lindvall, and Thomas L. Are – all of whom embrace the arts as an important or primary tool for transformation of contemporary communities of faith. None of these highly respected people are anti entertainment, therapy, or education – but – in various ways they advocate the need for the worship of God to point away from these desires of humanity and back toward God who is infinite in love and is still creating.

Jesus offers a radical manner of living and invites us to follow. The time has come to leave the comfort of “the way we have always done things” and the safety net of the familiar and follow in ways that are unknown to us – yes, the unknown may seem like the wilderness – the unknown may lead to a wilderness – but – we embark confident in the promise that we are not alone – LOVE is with us every step of the journey!

I opened this post with a WARNING – I hope that you will feel free to offer your own thoughts – including those that are totally in opposition to what I have stated. However, our community discussion must include respect for one another with words offered in love with genuine hospitality.

THIS journey is our home!!

Toward the end of the blog posted on Friday, April 19, 2013 I wrote these words:

“PLAYING IT SAFE IS NOT THE CORRECT DIRECTION – CHRISTIANITY NEEDS TO BE RADICAL TO BE GENUINE – A COMFORTABLE ENVIRONMENT LIKELY DOES NOT CREATE OR COMMUNICATE DOXOLOGY!”

So now I begin the challenge of describing a vision for the arts in Christianity in 2013 that is prophetic and transforming. Immediately I am reminded of the opening text of the anthem that my new choir offered in worship yesterday during my first worship service as Director of Music Ministries for St. Andrew’s Presbyterian Church in Austin, Texas.

“Awake, arise, the journey’s begun. We travel on together as one. We know not where the road will lead, but we move in faith making love our creed as we follow; The journey is our home.” (“The Journey Is Our Home” – Music by Allen Pote – Text by Nancy Hollis Dillard and Allen Pote – Hinshaw Music, Inc. – HMC-446, 1980.)

For the most part my experience in church has been comfortable – sometimes we have bordered on radical but for the most part that has not been the case. It has been a wonderful journey with communities of faith with programs of music ministry that ranged from outstanding to extraordinary. My worship life has also been filled with sermons by some of the very best preachers anyone could ever hope to know as colleagues and friends. A number of these congregations have had a vision and commitment to missions that appears to be present in only a small percentage of congregations – one even continuing a commitment to dollar-for-dollar benevolence giving for all of its more than fifty years. Membership of these congregations have ranged from around 300 to more than 5,000 – including congregations that are part of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), the United Methodist Church, Disciples of Christ, and United Church of Christ. My memories bins are filled with reminders of fabulous concerts, wonderful tours, thrilling worship services, retreats, conferences, and more – but the memories center around people and relationships rather than activities and events. Many of those memories were generated by joyful occasions, but a significant number of them also were generated by life changing events of death and traged.

Without a doubt – the greatest exception to this comfortable experience is the place where it all began for me – a small mission congregation in the heart of the Cherokee nation in northeastern Oklahoma where my grandparents served as missionaries for the Methodist Church (prior to the time when it became the United Methodist Church) – in Bunch, Oklahoma. My life started when I was born in the parsonage next door to the little white frame church that sat across a dirt road facing the railroad tracks of the Kansas City Southern Railway (that location yielded a memory that is still a very active part of my life – more about that later). I will never forget my surprise when we first attended worship in a church that was not multi-ethnic and multi-lingual – apparently I asked my mother why this congregation only included people who looked like us and only spoke our language.

So this journey begins with a number of questions – questions that will provide the primary subject matter for coming posts on this blog.

What types and styles of music are appropriate for worship?

What are appropriate ways to include the other arts – specifically dance, drama, and visual art?

What constitutes a right balance of artistic expressions that are generally labeled as “contemporary” or “traditional”? (I cannot resist my urge to let you know that I do not believe that those label words are authentic or accurate. Also, I am willing to state up-front that I am not a supporter of what is generally meant by the phrase “blended worship” – sadly in my experience that generally means something to offend everyone.)

Is it appropriate to refer to the arts in worship as performance?

What boundaries should be observed concerning use of language?

These are just a few of the topics for coming discussion. I hope that many of you will be willing to offer your thoughts and experiences on these matters – I would love to generate a lively and respectful loving series of conversations.

In conclusion – the following words were part of Dr. Jim Rigby’s sermon at St. Andrew’s Presbyterian Church on the Sunday prior to the beginning of my service with that congregation:

“I barely talked to Tom Mitchell [St. Andrew’s new music director], who will be taking up the torch and leading us. He asked me what I’m looking for in the musical direction of the church and I said, ‘A prophet.’ No pressure . . . no pressure. But in each of the areas of the church’s life we have to look a hundred years down the road, a hundred and fifty years down the road and say what do we need to change into, to have life? What kind of music would it take to appeal to the young people in this church without losing the depth, the beauty, the awe and the wonder? There is a bridge that needs to be built, and I’m very excited that we’ve been striving to do that for years and that we will continue to strive to do that.” (April 14, 2013)

We are called to move together in love – the journey is our home!!

Yes – a definite senior moment – I intended to post some writing by Michael L. Lindvall before I started to offer my own thoughts, observations, and such – but, alas, I forgot one that is important to this discussion – so – here it is and we will begin my writing with the next post.

“People often seem to imagine that worship is eiher entertainment, therapy, or education, perhaps some blending of the three. If it’s entertainment, worship would seek to please us in some way, distracting us from routine and invoking happy feelings. This view would suggest that the worship hour should attempt to be as engaging as the flood of entertainment that pours into our secular experience. There may indeed be some sense in which worship entertains, but such a concept is far too trivial.

The language of therapy has become universal in our age. This vocabulary evaluates experiences in terms of whether or not they promote psychological or spiritual healing. If it is therapy, worship is judged by the extent to which it makes one ‘feel better’ or brings ‘healing’ into a person’s life. There is, of course, a sense in which worship must do just that, but to understand it so simply reduces the worship of God to something much smaller.

Finally, among many Protestants, worship long ago started to look a lot like school. Worship was approached as an opportunity for the spiritual and intellectual improvement of Christians, largely through instructive sermons. Of course, Christian worship ought to teach. In worship, a congregation learns the things of Christ. But again, this category is simply too small to comprehend the fullness of worship.

The insufficiency of each of these categories lies in the fact that they are facing the wrong direction. Each is oriented toward entertaining, healing, or educating the worshiper. But the spiritual vector of worship ought to be in exactly the opposite direction – toward God.

Here is the heart of the matter. Worship doesn’t really have a ‘purpose’ in the utilitarian sense of these three categories. Maybe worship is just a glorious and transforming waste of time. At its most profound, worship is nothing but a deliberate and repeated activity in which we are called to turn away from self and turn toward God. As such, it is ‘devotional’ in the best sense of that crusty old word. Worship is nothing less than an attempt to set the order of creation right. The creature owns her creaturehood. Honest confession is spoken. Praise is offered. The worshiper surrenders his pretense to be a god; all turn in adoration to the One who is God. In this dramatic enactment of the fundamental ‘rightness’ of things lies transformation and restoration. Life edges into proper balance. We are free to be who we are – no more but no less. We discover the liberation that comes with being forgiven and accepted by both God and neighbor. We are freed from the pretense of autonomy and invulnerability. We no longer imagine that we have to be in control of everything. Worship is no less than weekly practice at not being God.” (Chapter 11)

Now we are ready to begin the work that I promised yesterday. Grace and peace

Lindvall, Michael L. A Geography of God: Exploring the Christian Journey. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2007.

“In worship we keep an appointment with God. [God] comes to us with grace, even though we are a fallen people. Without [God’s] grace we would choke on the hay and stubble type of requirements life forces on us every day. Worship unchokes us.

We can come to worship with hopes or doubts, fears or expectations; we can come in pain or in joy. The only way we cannot approach real worship is casually. There are no casual hymns, or preludes, or prayers, or anthems, or offerings, or amens. Worship is love. We don’t approach love casually. It is both joyful and serious.

In the late 1960s, perceptive people began to strive for renewal in worship. The old would no longer do and was declared phony or empty. They questioned whether traditional practices and symbols had contemporary meaning.

New voces were proclaiming a ‘post-Christian era.’ Some even said: ‘God is dead. The church is no more than an escape mechanism for the aging. Preachers should be confined to the streets. And worship – it’s meaningless.’

Church leaders panicked. Some cried:

‘Jazz it up!’

‘Let the streets write the agenda,’

‘Put some life into it!’

‘Come hear our choir. It’s what’s up front that counts!’

‘Make the church swing, baby!’

These slogans became the battle cry of those who wanted to rescue the church from the death of dull worship.

Hope for new life was legitimate. Many shared in it. However, sometimes the means toward good ends became ends in themselves. Eager ministers and musicians began experimenting.

It is hard to believe that anyone really expected dancers in leotards and Coca-Cola Communions to become the norm for Sunday morning worship, but such things claimed our attention. Many persons in the pews deplored the ‘shock treatment.’

Some worship leaders felt that all we needed to do was to adopt new media for communication. The Old World learned by reading. Then suddenly we were in a world of instantaneous reality. Television offered a higher deegree of participation and was more emotional than a dull diet of words.

Those most hungry for new media, the synthesizer sound effects and reversed screens, were young people whom Marshall McLuhan called the ‘post-literate’ generation. They were not so much interested in what was said in church. Their question was, ‘What happened?‘ They became bored with the lack of action. ‘We sing a few eighteenth-century hymns, say a creed, and pray. But nothing really happens,’ they said.

Yet the hope for revitalizing worship is not in ‘jazzing it up.’ Nothing is gained by substituting dull liturgy with ‘lit-orgy.’ This term is not mine but was first used by Paul Hoon in The Integrity of Worship (p. 298; Abingdon Press, 1971). The promise for more meaningful worship is not faster tempo but in better understanding.” (17-19)

Shortly after these words Tom Are posits about Christian worship – and offers extended exposition that this post will not be able to include as a result of space limitations.

“If worship is to have theological integrity, there are several boundaries that must be observed.

“1. Christian worship must be a reverent response to the Creator, God.

2. Christian worship is centered in Christ.

3. Christian worship has integrity only when mediated by the Holy Spirit.

A sensitive person has respect for emotions. Anytime we have an awareness of God’s presence, it is an emotional experience.

Some leaders of worship, however, not really convinced that the person in the pew would recognize the presence of God, decide to play it safe. They learn how to produce emotional experiences, especially with music, as proof of God’s presence. Others reject this empty substitute and label it sentimentality. It is shallow and phony and divorced from reason and reality. Perhaps they overcompensate.

Emotion and reason are not in opposition to each other. The gospel is good news and our worship is an emotional response. The presence of God is known through feelings. In short, God is felt.

Worship is exciting and too deep for logic. It is no casual happening. It moves beyond theology. Worship becomes doxology.” (19-24)

These last four posts have set the stage for me to begin writing my thoughts about worship, church, music, and such – and while I do not fully know how this will develop – I am absolutely sure of one thing – PLAYING IT SAFE IS NOT THE CORRECT DIRECTION – CHRISTIANITY NEEDS TO BE RADICAL TO BE GENUINE – A COMFORTABLE ENVIRONMENT LIKELY DOES NOT CREATE OR COMMUNICATE DOXOLOGY! More to follow – grace and peace.

Are, Thomas L. Faithsong: A New Look at the Ministry of Music. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1981.

Continuing from yesterday’s post –

“However we may view creation, it strikes me as contrary to both reason and faith to argue that it is concluded.

Is it not somehow shortsighted to raise up an eternal omnipotent creator – and not give him anything to do since day six? Shoould not an everlasting creator be somewhere lasting and creating? And if, indeed, human life was made ‘in a Creator’s image,’ given a timeless, boundless creator, is there a better place to see the creator at work than ‘in those likenesses’?

To me it follows that Christianity, if it wants to keep in touch with the Creator, must provide a home for all that is – and all who are – creative, lest Christianity itself wither and drift into irrelevance.

Is it possible that Christianity in our time may have become so preoccupied with the door-prizes attendant upon the Divinity of Christ – that it has not nearly fathomed the humanity of Jesus?

What if the ‘Son of God’ were in truth the ‘Son of Man’? What heresies or truths lie hidden within this scriptural identity? What does it mean that he who is hailed as ‘Redeemer/Intercessor/Messiah/The Way/The Truth/and The Life’ was in the beginning seen as ‘Emmanuel/God/in/us’? Is there any possibility that the emphasis upon the God-hood of the Son of Man, to the exclusion of the Man-hood of the Son of God, affords a blanket of endless bliss in preference to a hair-shirt of resonsibility? Knowing that the Gospels do, in fact, attest to Jesus’ awareness of his very special relationship to what he called ‘the Spirit’ and ‘the Father,’ have we been slow to understand, or unwilling to credit, the confidence with which he reached out to touch the souls of Everyman through Alltime!

These are his words:

‘Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.’ (Mark 10:18)

‘Whoever receives this child in my name receives me, and whoever receives me receives the one who sent me.’ (Luke 9:48)

‘My daughter, your faith has made you whole.’ (Mark 5:34)

‘You are salt to the world . . . .’ (Matthew 5:13) ‘You are light for the world.’ (Matthew 5:14)

‘The seed sown on rock stands for those who recieve the word with joy when they hear, but have no root in themselves . . .‘ (Luke 8:13)

‘In very truth I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself . . .’ (John 5:19) I cannot act by myself . . . My aim is not my own will, but the will of him who sent me.’ (John 5:30)

‘You cannot tell by observation when the kingdom of God comes. There will be no saying, Look, here it is! or There it is! For in fact the Kingdom of God is (already?) within you.’ (Luke 17:20, 21)

‘I am not myself the source of the words I speak to you; it is the Spirit dwelling in me doing his work . . . In very truth I tell you, he who believes in me will do what I am doing; and he will do greater things still . . .‘ (John 14:10, 12)

‘When the time comes, the words will be given you, for it is not you who will be speaking; it will be the Spirit . . . speaking in you.’ (Matthew 10:20)

— And when you write your own psalms, plays and poems, when you play or conduct your own symphonies, when you paint your own pictures and mould or chisel your own sculptures, be sure that there are some of us who dearly wish we’d been able to hand you a better Christianity – and a better world – in which to work.” (410-411)

Please let me repeat – with emphasis: “To me it follows that Christianity, if it wants to keep in touch with the Creator, must provide a home for all that is – and all who are – creative, lest Christianity itself wither and drift into irrelevance.”

The Robert Shaw Reader. Edited by Robert Blocker. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004.

The words of wisdom from Robert Shaw that I want to offer today are too extended for a single post – so today I provide part 1 and tomorrow will follow with Part 2. Both are from an address that Mr. Shaw was invited to offer in March of 1994 at Westminster School in Atlanta – but – prior to the main content I offer two tidbits from the introductory portion of his remarks:

The first makes reference to the standard response that Nola Frink provided to almost any request that was made for Mr. Shaw to speak: “The Secretary to the Music Director (Conductor Laureate) of the Atlanta Symphony has a standard response she gives to any organization rash enough to request his public discourse, ‘Mr. Shaw,’ she says, ‘only opens his mouth to change his socks.'” (399)

The second makes reference to the fact that the Shaws had a son attending Westminster at the time this address was delivered: “I have had more difficulty writing this speech than any article or statement I ever have written. I suppose part of that excuse has to be attributed to the fact that Mrs. Shaw and I have a son attending school here. I suppose it is still true that one of the reasons young people (kids) study hard or try to excel in extra-curricular activities is because they want their parents to be proud of them. Well, let me just tell you that it ‘ain’t’ nearly the pressure that wanting your children to be proud of you is – in front of their peers and friends. That’s pressure.” (399-400)

Now to the main part of this first excerpted portion of Mr. Shaw’s address:

“Well, by now most of us have seen ‘Schindler’s List,’ which celebrates in a magnificent manner how one man saved 1,000 Jews from extinction in the gas chambers and ovens of Hitler’s concentration camps. But 6 million were killed by a nation of predominantly Lutheran and Catholic Christians. Undoubtedly, there were heroes among these Christians. One remembers that Pastor Niemueller spent two years at Dachau – and survivedd.

But Pastor Dietrich Bonhoffer was hanged just 30 days before the Armistice – when it was clear that the was was over – because he stood against the Nazi holocaust and was said to have heard of a plot against Hitler’s life.

What shall we say of the Christians who shell the Muslims in Sarajevo? Or the Protestants who blew up Catholic children in Ireland? Or of a Jew who machine-guns Moslems at worship in a cave in Hebron?

Were the Ancestor-Worshippers who bombed Pearl Harbor less or more humane than the Christians who ushered in atomic warfare at Hiroshima?

What about those churches in the Southern United States who started ‘Christian’ Academies when it became clear that their Sunday-School kids might have to go to Monday-School with kids whose black wouldn’t wash-off?

Historically, the Muslims had until the year 1100 a flourishing scence of mathematics and medicine far ahead of Christian Western Europe, when it was abruptly stopped by the Sunna – the ruling council – because scientific thought led to ‘loss of belief in the Origin of the World and in the Creator.’ What might our world be today had their sciences and mathematics and medicine been encouraged rather than stifled?

Aristarchus in the third century B.C. already had figured the earth was a revolving sphere around the sun. His near contemporary Eratosthenes had calculated the circumference of the earth within 240 miles – and Hipparchus had reckoned within a few miles both the circumference of the moon and its mean distance from the earth. (This was 17 centuries before Copernicus.)

Joseph Campbell asks, ‘What might have been the saving in human terms (people burned at the stake) for instance, and where might now be the exploration of space had the Christian emperor Justinian not stepped in and closed all Greek and Roman schools whose teachers were not 100% Christian and who refused to teach the Hebrew Genesis story of Creation (itself an embarrassment because it introduces in verse 8 of Chapter Two a story of Man’s Creation diametrically opposed to the narrative of Chapter One).’

Where might the position of women be had not Judaism and Christiaity made them bear the guilt of the events in the Garden of Eden? What kind of Schizophrenia is induced by holding up the Virgin Mary as (1) the model of Virtuous Womanhood, and (2) instructing girls to bear lots of children.

And, perhaps most subversive of all, what has been the frightful cost in wars and personal human misery of the Judiastic concept of the ‘Chosen People’ as it blended into Christian cocksureness and missionizing insolence?

Might not the arts, indeed, be not the luxury fo a few, but the last best hope of humanity to inhabit with joy this planet?

What is it in the nature of the arts that allows them to offer these hopes of maturity and survival?

In the first place it is clear that a commitment to the creative process starts the human animal on a thorny and lonesome road to self-discovery, away from the comforts and compromises of institutions. ‘Forty days and forty nights’ is a biblical metaphor for what is more nearly a lifetime of wilderness and solitude. But the more deeply this lonely human being seeks a self-hood, the more knowingly and tenderly she – or he – returns to – other selves.

In the second place, the arts are concerned not with the consumption or sale of earth’s material wonders – not even with their recycling – but with their reincarnation. They propose not a mounting monopoly of a monetary medium of exchange, but the sweet, quiet exchange of truth and beauty themselves.

And in the third place, in a time and a society whose values are geared to the biggest, the fastest, and the mostest, whose gaze is fixed desperately upon the future – as far at least as the next elecion or life after death or prosperity, whichever should happen to come first – the arts offer an historical perspective. For their concern is with originality – meaning that which has origins. Thus the arts lead us to consider and build upon our own beginnings – our essence and our potential.

The Arts, then, are not merely ‘handmaidens’ of worship, but, given creativity on the order of a Brahms Requiem, a Stravinsky Symphony of Psalms, or a Bach St. Matthew Passion, they are themselves unqualified and unique acts of worship.

This, of course, raises the question of ‘quality.’ It seems to me that we have to agree that in the worship of the Great Whoever or Whatever only our very best is ‘good enough’ – only because it’s our best. A God of Truth, Goodness, and Mercy is not honored by laying Saturday Night’s Disco Spin-offs on Sunday’s altar. One does not gain strength from the stress of virtue by gorging on fatty fraud.” (408-409)

My friends – that is a powerful prophetic beginning vision of the arts – and – I respectfully request that you make a point to return tomorrow for the concluding second portion of Mr. Shaw’s prophetic words.

*The Robert Shaw Reader. Edited by Robert Blocker. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004.