It is time to move from language in general to the specific language of the arts – and – particularly the language of the arts in worship – and more particularly – the language of the art of music in worship.
The next several posts will focus on the following two sections from the “Directory of Worship” –
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 (W-1.3034(2)).
In worship, music is not to be for entertainment or artistic display. Care should be taken that it not be used as 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).
Who determines what is appropriate and what is not appropriate? Are their standards that can be agreeable to everyone? Is it possible to set standards that exceed the geographic and theological limitations of a single or particular congregation? After all isn’t one person’s art another person’s idolatry?
It seems appropriate to begin with some thoughts by Robert Shaw (what a surprise!):
“Music is great because it carries something so native and true to the human spirit that not even sophisticated intellectuality can deny or destroy its miracle.
Popular music is not the people’s music. The people think so little of it that they tire of it in six to sixteen weeks. They demand a new tune to dance to, to trade small talk above, to make what some call love by.
There is music which is calculated to make us forget – and there is music which allows us to remember . . . to remember our humanity and whatever individual conscience may ascribe to divinity.
It is not primarily a matter of raising the standards of musical taste. It is primarily a matter of providing adequate opportunity for the exercise of inherent taste. One falls in love by being at the right place at the right time for long enough. If there is no place where people can meet Bach or Beethoven, how can the people be expected to love them? If Bach is not sung, he is not met.” (351)
“The Arts exist to convey that which cannot be otherwise conveyed . . . but, to our shame, the Church named after the ‘Good Shepherd’ and ‘Holy Comforter’ has had a history of persecutions, inquisitions and crusades – in just one of which, in the year of our Lord 1212, and in a much smaller world, fifty thousand innocent children were ‘shepherded’ to their deaths by sword, starvation and pestilence, and the few fortunate survivors ‘comforted’ by being sold into slavery.
The arts may indeed be not the luxury of the few but the last best hope of humanity – to inhabit with joy this planet.” (360)
The Robert Shaw Reader. Edited by Robert Blocker. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004.
tmitchellmusic 