Search This Blog

Thursday, July 22, 2010

How Did We Get Where We Are and Where Are We Going?

In the past several months I have been asked what I thought about the state of church music and where things are going. [I am in debt to Dr. Harry Eskew and his wonderful text, Sing with Understanding, for so much of my experience in the area. Much of what I would like to share come from that text and I would encourage those interested to make it a personal library “must have.”] In terms of where we are in music and worship in our churches today, the following outline might serve as a map much like you would find in a shopping mall that reads “you are here.”


The simplest way to see where we are is to start with imagining the “song of the church through the ages” as though it were a big river, birthed from the Old Testament Psalms, New Testament canticles surrounding the birth of Christ, and the pauline fragments. As the river continued to run, other smaller streams began to enter, such as the Greek hymnody of the Early Church. For several hundred years their hymnody centered on the transcendence and awesomeness of God. As the Christianity grew, so grew centers of liturgical tradition, predominately Greek, in Constantinople and Alexandria, and Latin, predominately in Rome.


During the Dark Ages after the fall of Rome, the church became the repository for all knowledge and the arts. The Arian heresy arose in the 4th and 5th centuries, was based in claiming that Christ was not divine, but gained wide spread acceptance because their doctrinal principles were put to catchy melodies and became very popular. Ambrose of Milan  added another feeder stream by writing hymns to combat the heresies, until the Church fathers met to deal with the situation. The result was to prohibit all singing from the congregation and leave it solely to the priests. During the following centuries the song of the church was restricted to the few, not the masses.


The growth of church music centered around chant and related melodies until 1517 and Martin Luther began the new wave of thought: the allowing of the congregation to sing and sing in a language they understood. He encouraged the use of hymns as well as Scriptural texts for worship. The coldness of the liturgy was again challenged with the rise of pietism [17th-18th centuries] and the need for personal emotional expression in the hymns used in worship. Out of the developments came Bach and the contributions he made in church music. Each one of these added tributaries to the ever-widening river.


Meanwhile back in England, the influence of Calvin in Geneva was most dominate mostly likely due to the political ties of the monarchs involved. Unaccompanied unison psalm singing was the only music allowed in non-catholic services. Many of the tunes from the Genevan Psalter of 1563 were adapted and used in English Psalters for the next 100 years until a Baptist pastor named Benjamin Keach read where Jesus “sang a hymn” after the Lord’s Supper. Supported by scriptural direction, he wrote a hymn for his church that was to be sung after communion. This started a major controversy between the General Baptist [psalms only] and Particular Baptists [hymns allowed], even though the former believed in general atonement and the later were   Calvinistic. The controversy raged on until hymn singing eventually became part of both groups traditions.  Psalms and hymns joined the ranks of those streams adding themselves to the river of praise.


One person’s hymn texts that played an important role in the general acceptance of hymn singing was Isaac Watts. The genius and simplicity of expression help spread acceptance across the board with most groups.  Many other ministers followed his style of writing. Later the Wesleys added greater dimensions to hymnody through their over 6000 texts and the compilation of rousing Methodist’s tunes. [And Can It Be, etc.] The Welch added a rich heritage of hymnody through folk-like melodies and John Newton, William Cowper produced their “Olney Hymns” in England.


Two substreams came as an outgrowth of the above, each contributing to the whole: the Evangelical Tradition [i.e. Havergal, “Take my life and let it be,”] and the Churchly Stream and the rise of the Oxford movement, which was an attempt by the Anglican church to recapture the Greek and Latin hymns and a link to the past, since their abrupt birth after the King broke away from the Catholic church.


At first, the United States had very little contributions of their own to the larger river; William Billings, being the first American composer. The development of American hymnody was dependent on several influences: psalmody, German chorale tunes, and the rise of American folk tunes. These folk tunes basically came for two sources, the shaped note tradition that evolved out of the Great Revivals of the 1840's and the Spirituals that came from the slave songs.  Lowell Mason led the attempt to reform congregational song by following music that was “scientifically composed,” that is that followed the European model, not that of the singing schools of the South.


It was during this last half of the 19th Century that there was a rise of denominationalism, each with its own traditions and each with its own contributions to the main stream of worship and praise.  The rise of Gospel hymnody was due in large part to the birth of the Sunday School movement as well as the early revival teams, such as Moody-Sankey, who popularized the genre until it was common place. Though many of the songs were conceived for “revival use” and not for Sunday worship, they soon found their place in the larger stream. Gospel songs continued through the Stamps-Baxter quartets and more modern versions of music like the Gaithers.


In 1950, an Anglican minister attempting to reach the youth of his day set the music of the Anglican service to the current musical style, but began what we know today as the contemporary worship movement. This was fed in large part to the Jesus’ movement in the US in the 1970's, and continued to develop until the genre came into its on commercially in the 1980s and 1990's. Certainly an oversimplification, but this is only a tracing outline a best.


Throughout history, virtually in every case when an new stream entered the river, their was turmoil, confusion, and conflict, but eventually the new tributaries would leave their mark with only the more lasting contributions lasting in the larger stream. Conflict and controversy has been a part of the music and worship world from the beginning. It has never been easy and sometimes it has been very ugly.


So if we were to describe “where we are now,” I would have to say that we are obviously in a little stream that it trying to mix with the larger river.  To be able to navigate correctly we need to keep in mind some very important things:
        1. The tributary is not the main stream, only a part of it. Much conflict arises when a group confuses its contribution as the whole, instead of just part. The larger stream is the one that will be around for the longest. We must look for those things that are of true lasting quality, rather than follow the temptation of chasing passing fads. As long as we are standing in the tributary, what we see may not be the entire story, but only a part.
        2. People will misunderstand. The tendency is to gravitate to the style that we personally like the best, however, this is to focus on the part and not the whole. We must help them see the larger picture of how it fits together in the context of worship.
        We have failed to teach where we come from. And so we are like the Israelites coming out of exile whose children had failed to learn Hebrew, we have grown up generations who have not known Joseph.
        3. Many times the controversy surrounding a new stream that was entering was calmed when the quality of the new genre was raised to higher standards. [i.e. Watts’ hymns help lay to rest the psalms/hymns controversy] The Getty/Townend material has been a great help in this regard, with deep theological text, without resorting to useless repetitions.
        4. Biblical worship demands that we be inclusive, and not given to entitlement. Biblical worship demands that we center our focus on Christ and His work, not our preferences. Biblical worship is not entertainment driven.
        5. I think we need to keep anchored in the river, not the various streams that may arise and not confuse one for the other.

8 comments:

  1. It’s great to see a brief history of our worship music. Over the years it has been a little harder to discern which songs of worship are theologically and musically appropriate for corporate worship. The writing and refinement process does not occur for every song and they may or may not belong within the “main stream” of our worship history—and yet we worship with these songs. I believe we do fail to focus on the very aspect of worship. We, as evangelical Christians, do our best to attract more members into our congregation with their interest instead of giving them the most attractive aspect of worship: Christ and His revealing presence. Newer hymns such as the Getty/Townend, hymns (which are great hymns) are being ignored with the use of songs that are more contemporary. I believe that a revival should take place in our worship to replace the focus of our song selections to those possessing a theological and musical base.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'd like to get your input on something. It seems like in many times throughout history, the church (or someone in it) guided the direction of music as a whole. The church mandated chant, congregational singing came out of that, chorales (i.e. Bach) came out of that, then things like hymns and anthems and larger choral pieces came out of that. The Mass is still used today by composers to show off their compositional prowess, much like the Symphony.

    Now, I understand that during the Dark and Middle Ages, the church had a lot more power and control, so being the central focus of the musical art movement wasn't hard. But I really wonder what has changed. From what I can see, the church has been using the same hymns for centuries. But even in churches that use more 'contemporary' styles, those are just adaptations of pre-existing genres and style (rock, jazz, folk) not new movements.

    I hesitate to put things into political terms, so I'm going to use this term in it's literal meaning: Has the church always been as staunchly traditionalist ad conservative as it is now?

    There has always been controversy when new movements appear, in or out of the church, so that is obviously not an issue with just the church, but it seems like the music that came out of the church used to have such a high standard; now we're happy to call anyone a musician who can plan C, F, and G on the guitar. I can see the "river" analogy throughout history but I'm looking at things now and I can't see hymns and praise-and-worship ever truly joining the same river. If anything, it seems that a split is becoming more and more pronounced than it was when it first appeared. Why else do so many churches offer separate church services to accommodate the "newer" style of music? We've thrown this term "Blended" at the mixing of the two (even THAT is a controversial term) but are we really helping to guide our congregations into the larger river or are we accommodating their personal tastes and not moving anywhere?

    **On a side note, I agree that raising a style's standards will make it easier to accept....but it seems that praise-and-worship has actually done the opposite, I feel like it started in a fairly good place but the quality (as a whole, though obviously not everything) has really gone downhill. Maybe we're waiting for chaos theory to take over and for the higher quality stuff to just emerge...

    I'm with you Ben, we need to get over our personal taste in music and look at the bigger picture.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Chris & Ben, some good points. Let me address Chris's question as best I can. [If I had all the answers, there wouldn't be a controversy still, for someone smarter than me would have already given it.]

    First, your question: >Has the church always been as staunchly traditionalist ad conservative as it is now?<

    In the Middle Ages the Church was the repository of all knowledge for Western Culture and virtually the only ones who could read and write were those in monasteries. There job as a preserver of knowledge, culture and God's Word was equal to its task of evangelism, at least during this period. Preserving meant maintaining. When all of Western Culture was going done the tubes, the Church literally held things together for hundreds of years. It is very difficult to break a tradition that is hundreds of years old. If they hadn’t been so cautious, things certainly would have been different, and I dare say things would not have advanced as quickly as it did.

    The failure came when the Church lost sight of maintaining itself in obedience with the Head and began to follow culture, rather than maintain a vibrant relationship with God. Many in charge led godless lifestyle, immortality grew and when men and women began to search for answers in the early Renaissance, what they perceived the church had to offer wasn't worth having, so they began to look inward, and humanism began to flourish. Science and knowledge grew away from the context of a loving God who created everything. Rather than try to understand, grow, and see if God was bigger than the box they had put Him in, the church leaders only became only more obstinate, regardless. It is difficult to grow enough to admit that we don’t have all the answers and that God may do some things that we can’t explain.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Chris & Ben, some good points. Let me address Chris's question as best I can. [If I had all the answers, there wouldn't be a controversy still, for someone smarter than me would have already given it.]

    First, your question: >Has the church always been as staunchly traditionalist ad conservative as it is now?<

    In the Middle Ages the Church was the repository of all knowledge for Western Culture and virtually the only ones who could read and write were those in monasteries. There job as a preserver of knowledge, culture and God's Word was equal to its task of evangelism, at least during this period. Preserving meant maintaining. When all of Western Culture was going done the tubes, the Church literally held things together for hundreds of years. It is very difficult to break a tradition that is hundreds of years old. If they hadn’t been so cautious, things certainly would have been different, and I dare say things would not have advanced as quickly as it did.

    ReplyDelete
  5. [Continued]
    The failure came when the Church lost sight of maintaining itself in obedience with the Head and began to follow culture, rather than maintain a vibrant relationship with God. Many in charge led godless lifestyle, immortality grew and when men and women began to search for answers in the early Renaissance, what they perceived the church had to offer wasn't worth having, so they began to look inward, and humanism began to flourish. Science and knowledge grew away from the context of a loving God who created everything. Rather than try to understand, grow, and see if God was bigger than the box they had put Him in, the church leaders only became only more obstinate, regardless. It is difficult to grow enough to admit that we don’t have all the answers and that God may do some things that we can’t explain.

    ReplyDelete
  6. [continued]
    Next question: >If anything, it seems that a split is becoming more and more pronounced than it was when it first appeared. Why else do so many churches offer separate church services to accommodate the "newer" style of music? We've thrown this term "Blended" at the mixing of the two (even THAT is a controversial term) but are we really helping to guide our congregations into the larger river or are we accommodating their personal tastes and not moving anywhere?<

    ReplyDelete
  7. continued
    There are several things to consider related to this question. {1} demographics: where the normal age spread is like a bell curve, in the last 10-15 years it is more like a double humped camel: today we have the largest number of senior adults ever to be alive and at the same time there is a boom in the younger generation. The normal bridges between the generations are not as strong. [2] Add to the mix the shift in emphasis that the “worship service” itself has become the center for outreach, more than Sunday School. Where there used to be basically one kind of worship service that was more or less uniform across geographical lines, the focus has shifted to accessibility to the listener, and a cafeteria style of options has developed. [What has been lost many times is the emphasis of understanding what biblical worship is in the first place, and the central focus of worship is not personal taste, but God alone, as you mentioned.]

    ReplyDelete
  8. continued
    The split is pronounced, it is wide, but I don’t believe God is through working yet. Not all songs live forever, only the cream of the crop. Pick up a 1940 Broadman Hymnal and look through it. Even though it was one of the most popular hymnals ever published, reaching to the broadest number of congregations of its time, you won’t find an excessive number of hymns there that are common to the 2008 version, which was compiled under the same ideals. Still, the stream moves on and much of the new music will not last half a decade before it falls into oblivion along with countless others that served one generation and left the scene. Within 10 more years this will not be an issue, but your generation will have to deal with another stream, yet unknown, that will be making its way into the river, if Jesus tarries His coming.

    ReplyDelete