Yesterday’s blog, “Lying in Church,” has already brought a number of comments, as this subject usually seems to do. They evince various levels of understanding--or perhaps I should say, desire to understand--what I have said (one really does need to read the whole thing, considering its parts together). My guess is that the older heads among the commentators understand me best. It strikes me, however, that there is one question repeated several times that deserves an answer: Why do we keep attending this church?
It is because we have a Christian duty to attend services of worship and this is now the best church available to us in the place we live.
Although I have done this elsewhere, I did not mention in this particular blog, which was long enough as it stood, its many virtues, not least among which is a pastor who is one of the finest, most thoughtful, biblical expositors I have ever heard. The elders are men of exceptional spiritual maturity and intelligence. The program for children and youth is excellent. And not only this, but much of the music is excellent as well. There is more respect given to the history of the church's music here than in any church we have attended since we were Episcopalians. (Neither my wife or I are officially "members," although we do contribute to its support and ministry as though we were.) This is not a church one can simply discard--and there are a great many like it. I was born and raised among the Evangelicals, know its churches well, and do not regard them as disposable.
It is a major aspect of the hymnody of which I complain here, and generalize from its weaknesses to a malaise I observe in the religious culture of which the church is a part.
Some of the respondents show evidence of not having been in the world very long, or of lacking experience in guarding and guiding the churches, since they seem to think that the selection of congregations in which to worship is all a matter of taste, my own problem being pointless and persistent disputanduming de gustibus.
I will say for their information, but likely not for their immediate benefit, that when we came to this city we attended an Episcopal church where the worship was much more to our taste. The godly, orthodox priest retired, and his place was taken by what is now standard issue in the Episcopal Church—at about the same time it became clear that the House of Bishops was not going to what it should about Bishop Spong. Worship services there are still done to our taste, but we have removed ourselves from that communion because of its doctrinal heterodoxy—exactly what a great many of us have had to do in the last generation in a great many churches whose worship was, and may well remain, more to our taste. I suppose that the all-a-matter-of-taste types could still make their case from us, though, heresy not running to ours.
If one takes only one thing from the series of comments I have made over the last few years on worship music, let it be this: Every piece of music sung in the churches must first pass serious scrutiny by those responsible for the church’s teaching, and be rejected, no matter how popular, if it is not acceptable on theological grounds. This includes judgment upon whether it is appropriate for congregational worship.
Read your previous articles, the comments, and now this one. I worship (as a clergyman) in independent Anglican chapels using modified Rite II, Prayer A rites. In one, we are so few, that we have to use recorded music to accompany our worship. The priest, a former Orthodox clergyman, uses some chant, many praise choruses, orthodox forms and prayers, and is an excellent preacher! It is amazing how filling this worship is, shared by 11 other people! In the other chapel, they use a "praise and worship" band and mix hymns, chant, and contemporary praise music. Their worship is also, I believe, pleasing to the Holy and Glorious Trinity.
My point? Well, some of the choruses are ridiculous, and almost impossible to figure out. One of the favorite songs has something to do with dancing or somesuch. The little children love it, since they can dance after the Recession in the aisles. I gamely try to sing it, but many times just watch the children dance and sing and laugh. I would guess that they don't enjoy the hymn sung that I so enjoy (and maybe not the chant), but how wonderful to grow as a child of God in a place where they can dance in the aisles and where children in arms do the responses louder than some of the adults! Their view of God, I believe, is that of that of He Who is for them and Who cherishes them.
HOWEVER, do I think they could possibly come up with another song for the Recessional which is joyful (danceable...I give it a 60), and also theologicallly profound? Absolutely. I think your last statement is a process into which churches MUST enter in order to...gain converts?...be right?....how about, to be pleasing to our Lord. Glory to Him.
Jon
Posted by: Jon | July 19, 2005 at 06:33 PM
"the worship was much more to our taste"
The author betrays his own subjection to what he complains about in other evangelicals - worship critiqued accroding to "taste" or personal preference.
Oh for the days when the bishops & the king enforced the liturgical rubrics of the times - that would take care of the problem of INNOVATION!
Posted by: JRMaz | July 20, 2005 at 11:20 AM
All regard, call at this remarkable site:
virginia+property+and+casualty+study+manual||[url= http://florida-mayors.qwws.kiev.ua/virginia+property+and+casualty+study+manual.html ]virginia+property+and+casualty+study+manual[/url]
jackson+township+new+jersey||[url= http://delaware-history-house-jersey-legend-light-lore-mystery-new.firstger.info/jackson+township+new+jersey.html ]jackson+township+new+jersey[/url]
bangor+maine+melinda+titus||[url= http://bangor-maine-movie-theater.goldspend.info/bangor+maine+melinda+titus.html ]bangor+maine+melinda+titus[/url]
Posted by: Britney | July 05, 2007 at 12:09 PM