Reverie in E-minor

Yet another painful experience of modern Evangelical “worship,” once the fury and chagrin has drained away, awakens in my mind this scene from my boyhood:

It is a summer Sunday evening service in a little Baptist church in rural Michigan, hard by the fields and woods. Everyone who plays an instrument (all “acoustic” in those days), young or old, skilled or not, has been invited to accompany the congregational singing, for that is what is done on Sunday evenings, when the service is less formal. The minister stops the music near the end of the hymn, taps the pulpit, and says, “Last verse a cappella.” Everyone knows what this means and in four-part harmony a hundred voices, men, women, and children, sing,

Hold thou thy cross before my closing eyes;
Shine through the gloom, and point me to the skies;
Heav’ns morning breaks, and earth’s vain shadows flee;
In life, in death, O Lord, abide with me.

The sound drifts from the open windows and fills the glade, the hymn ending, as life does, unaccompanied by anything that can be heard or seen. Even as a small boy I find this almost unbearably beautiful, and must choke back tears.

_______________

You can’t go home again, so I wouldn’t expect to find that church now in the same condition. Long gone, no doubt, is the excellent pianist who, on a fine concert grand donated in the estate of one of its members, played perfectly executed Chopin preludes to those evening services after bathing her arthritic hands in warm wax. These uncommon things were not uncommon in the wilder, less homogenized churches of my youth; surprising things were often found, and rare beauty was not all that rare. It was a silver age, and I didn’t know it until it was past.

It was not a golden age, for even though the entire church sang from the hymnal in four-part harmony, the children learning the parts by standing with their parents and following the rise and fall of the notes on the page, the hymns, in whole or in part, were often bad. The worst offense was bad theology, particularly that of the Holiness Movement, which produced a great many popular gospel songs in which striving for holiness in this world became its actual achievement, the gracious work of God in Christ issuing in fulfillment or completeness of joy or freedom from sin in this world. This little church didn’t really believe the theology of these hymns, but sang them anyway for a good Arian reason: they were pretty. The theology, however, was false doctrine; it makes an unbeliever of our Lord, or at least shows him to be insufficiently sanctified, being, as he was, a man of sorrows--and it made liars or hypocrites of everyone who sang them.

The second offense, almost as great as the first, was the imposition in many of these hymns of prayers or effusions which were not properly those of the whole church, but only a segment of its membership, and thus were not appropriate for congregational singing. This would include songs that indicated the mental or emotional state of the singer, the nature of his personal relation with Jesus, patriotic hymns excluding Christians who were not citizens of the United States, hymns that presumed the singer had undergone a “salvation” experience, especially since many of them frankly indicated that before this experience the singer had lived a life of moral squalor, and after the Cleansing sin and unhappiness went away: “Life now is sweet and my joy is complete, for I’m Saved! Saved! Saved!”

So far the songs were not, perhaps, wicked, only private, but they became error with the unmistakable implication that so-called Christians whose lives hadn’t followed this course were not saved like we were--their apparent grace and piety obviously self-deception and works-righteousness. (This to my mind is the greatest evil of revivalist theology, not least since it assures sequestration of its adherents from the rest of the Church, encouraging ignorance of its history and character, not to mention mistreatment of other believers.) And there were hymns, both old and new (for it was a tradition open to the new), that impressed one as too “light” in one way or another to be sung in worship of Almighty God.

My generation, my abysmally stupid and culpably foolish generation, had the opportunity to keep the good--for there was very much good here--discard the bad, and bring in a golden age of church music, an age of beauty and invention, now in obedient harmony with the Great Tradition, with good theology instead of bad, and with an eye trained upon the history of whole Church and its music. Instead, however, it went as bad as it possibly could, seizing upon all the old mistakes it could find and amplifying them.

Instead of cultivating the use of the human voice combining in part-harmony that reflects the glorious differences of age and sex in the congregations of the faithful, it took away the good its church already possessed, electronically increasing and augmenting the instrumental voices, promoting the soloist and “praise team,” reducing the congregation to a unison accompaniment by taking away the hymnals and (being weighed in the balances and found wanting) projecting the words on the wall. Instead of turning their people toward the richness of the Christian musical tradition, their teachers spent their time justifying and promoting the music of rebels and drug addicts, now half-converted into something called “Christian rock.”  When there was hymnal revision, instead of correcting the bad theology (where it could be done), the words were dumbed down and ironed out to feminist (egalitarian) specifications.

Whatever the Reformation revived in making the principal--not the only, but the principal--musicians the congregation itself has been effectively killed by a generation of willful, ignorant upstarts who, parading themselves about as specialists in worship, have turned the liturgy into a noisy religious spectacle whose Zeus or Apollo is now named “Jesus.”

Not only has the catholic advice of hiding the choir chastely from view, or turning its faces to the sides of the chancel to do what can be done about avoiding the disease of celebrity, not been followed, but the musicians have given amplified microphones and placed before the congregation as performers, where they, along with the pastor--stripped as far as possible of any shred of authority he might have had over “worship”--serves as part of the act that brings them in. He has in fact become a functionary and buffoon whose cash value as a minister is based on his ability to draw them in and keep them in, when if he were a faithful, apostolic, man it is more likely he would chase most of his ill-gotten congregation away.

The argument is that bringing them in will get them to heaven--but how can you show them heaven when you are presiding over a little piece of hell--a place where people are given vast quantities religious stimulation under the name of the “gospel,” the end of which can only be the a vast burned-over district where they have been effectively inoculated against Christianity by Evangelical religion, just as one is inoculated against Mozart by a steady diet of rock, or the realities of the world, including its beauties, by drug-eating, or against the power of words by overwhelming waves of pictures?

I have heard that some Christian young people, robbed of them by my generation, are beginning to learn hymns in part-singing again--a beauty denied them by parents whose jumbled piety reached no further than the concern that their children listen to Christian rather than anti-Christian rock. I wish to encourage these young people; they are headed in the right direction.

Not everything that has been produced in the last forty years has been bad. Some of it is excellent, especially songs that put scripture to music. That is the right track, and I would say to these young people that it is not one you need to follow alone. You should reject the mistakes of not only your parents’ generation, but those of your grandparents, your great-grandparents, your great-great grandparents--and your own--all the while appropriating whatever of the good, the true and the beautiful you have found among them. Your will find foolishness and ugliness everywhere, but I am convinced that the greatest help for you will be in looking for wisdom beyond your own brief tradition, correcting it by others (as the spirits of the musicians, like the spirits of the prophets, are subject to the musicians) and adding the good things you have received to what has been received by others in all times, all places, and all parts of the Church. This is all subject to the wisdom of its pastoral authority, which is greater than, and has the responsibility to define and control, the music of the congregation.

Comments

[Bill R]

SMH has said virtually all I could say about the state of evangelical "worship," except he has done so with eloquence and power. I know those who contend that worship must strive for beauty and dignity will be accused of being "old fogeys." So be it. The turning point for us was last November, when the pastor and elders of our(former) church announced that for the chief Sunday service, they proposed to abolish the choir and to institute a "contemporary service." You know what that means. The old fogeys were to be relegated to our former small facility across the street where they could listen to the sermon on wide-screen TV and sing whatever crotchety old hymns they liked, just so they didn't bother the young 'uns.

My wife and I resigned our membership (after 22 years at the church).

We are now attending a "high" Lutheran church (LCMS). No TV screens. No strutting soloists. Mostly classical hymns, with some (tasteful) contemporary music. We actually use a hymnal! There aren't too many Protestant churches like this anymore. It may not be for everyone, but for us, it is manna from heaven.

[thomas]

The Lutheran Book of Worship is, all things considered, the best American hymnal (just my opinion, of course). Coming from a Methodist background, I'm inclined to take the hymnal as the second most important doctrinal book (and, being Catholic now, I view the commercial hymnal dominance/confusion in the US Catholic community surprising), in practice, no matter whatever else is available.

[Judy K. Warner]

I don't know the LCMS hymnal, but the ELCA hymnal is very good. But ELCA also has a supplementary hymnal that includes contemporary and folk songs, many of which are terrible. My favorite is the one we use, the 1940 Episcopal hymnal.

[Susan]

I was interested in the complaint about songs that “indicate the mental or emotional state of the singer.” I do think songs of this type that make an assumption about how the singer is feeling usually miss the mark in public worship. When I am in a public setting, singing about how I’m gasping and panting with love for God, desperate for God, etc., I often feel guilty because I never feel like this in a public setting for anyone -- I only ever feel this way about God or anyone else in private -- but since everyone around me is singing with closed eyes and rapturous expressions, I feel guilty that I don’t. I’m far more distracted by how lacking I am, about evaluating whether I’m lying to be singing, and so on, than I’m thinking about anything connected with God.

It’s the same with both hymns and contemporary worship music. In private, I’ve sung the hymn, “When I survey the wondrous cross on which the Prince of Glory died; my richest gain I count but loss, and pour contempt on all my pride” with tears streaming down my face, but never in public. When I’m singing this song in public, I’m questioning whether or not I really do count all my richest gains as loss or am I lying, and whether or not at that moment I really am pouring contempt on my pride, or am I that very moment feeling prideful.

I don’t think we can or should eliminate all corporate church music that indicates a mental or emotional state, but I’d sure like to sing less of it in public. My favorite worship music is music that expresses appreciation for who God is and what he’s like. It doesn’t matter what my mood is -- I can be totally cranky -- and still sing with absolute sincerity, “No other name but the name of Jesus is worthy of glory and worthy of honor and worthy of power and all praise.” With no distraction whatsoever, since my mind is on the one who deserves the praise.

[Bruce]

Pop-Evangelism is driven by heart-string plucking. The effect of this seems to be to reduce theology to something out of a precious moments greeting card. It's misguided, but it's also a reaction to the general nastiness of our age.

I'm told we have trouble obtaining the old Anglican Hynmals in our church. Gotta take care of the ones we have.

[Mark B, Hanson]

Our PCA church uses the Trinity Hymnal, but we have also constructed a Psalter and hymnal with the best of the stuff (old and new) that the TH left out. And we have an indigenous hymnist who excels at setting scripture to music.

It is very refreshing after the pious lies I had to sing at our previous Evangelical Holiness church (especially "I can hear the brush of angels' wings, I see glory on each face.")

[pilgrim kate]

It used to be that in the 'stricter' confessional Reformation churches, the denominational hymnal was a shield to keep out theologically suspect or heretical texts.

Both non-doctrinaire evangelicalism, with its supply of pop-generated songs, and the growing apostasy of mainline pastors and seminaries have completely undermined that protection.

If you want to object to a text from the latest "Christian recording artist," it is impossible, since one cannot reason theologically with people who won't or can't think theologically.

I've run into serious Roman Catholics, who bewail the intrusion of hymns into the Mass because their post-Vatican 2 experience has been with "hymns" that high-church Protestants would also bewail. They have rarely encountered the great Lutheran and Anglican hymns from earlier centuries.

I'm reluctant to concede to the Psalms-only or Mass texts-only position, but I'd give up my favorites, if it would rid worship of ditties -- both old and new.

As for today's "Scripture songs", I'd be more enthusiastic if the typical level of musical composition were higher.

[Steve Harrison]

My respone is: Yes, and I don't know. I agree in principle with much of what Mr. Hutchens wrote. Some, after reading 3-4 times I'm still not sure what was being communicated. Maybe it is that I'm only 1/2 through my 1st cup of coffee this AM.

The specific text which was unclear to me was: "The worst offense was bad theology, particularly that of the Holiness Movement, which produced a great many popular gospel songs in which striving for holiness in this world became its actual achievement, the gracious work of God in Christ issuing in fulfillment or completeness of joy or freedom from sin in this world." I paid particular attention to this section because I pastor a Free Methodist Church, part of the Holiness Movement. I was however, unable to decipher its meaning.

A question I would venture is to ask if songs can have the same effect as liturgy. Regardless of what state I come to the liturgy, it draws me to where I should be. In other words it may not have to be true in my experience at the moment, it just has to be pointing me to what is real and realizable.

A bigger issue for me personally is this: I enjoy a powerful denunciation of what is wrong as much as the next guy. What I VALUE is a powerful piece which will cause the unconvinced to rethink their position. Both are good but only the latter is really useful - especially to a guy like me who is trying to transition a church in this direction without blowing it up. I appreciate that the audience here is largely made up of the convinced, so I really could not expect Mr Hutchens to write to another... I'm just always on the hunt for help in this effort, and I look to places such as this one for it. Anyone know of a resource like this? A book or article that I will not have to interpret for my music people which is clear, compelling and cogent?

[Steve Nicoloso]

A question I would venture is to ask if songs can have the same effect as liturgy.

A question that poses more questions than it purports to have answered: Is not song in corporate Christian worship per se liturgy? If not, then what business has song in coroporate Christian worship at all? Moreover, is the "effect" of song (or, variously, liturgy) really the end of corporate Christian worship? If so, on whom? If not, what is that end ("effect"), and why decry the "effects" of song? As a study aide, consider critiquing the corporate worship described in Leviticus based on its "effects". Tho' I cannot (and dare not) speak for Hutchens, I suspect that incorrect answers to questions such as these (or worse a failure to acknowledge they even exist) in fact point to aforementioned "bad theology" of the Holiness Movement.

[Mason Beecroft]

The Lutheran Book of Worship (ELCA) pales in comparison with the Lutheran Service Book, the latest hymnal from the LCMS. After all, where are the Lenten hymns in LBW?

No hymnal is perfect, of course, but the LSB clearly proclaims Christ in a faithful evangelical catholic manner. Its companion volumes are also a treasure for the Body of Christ. As a LCMS pastor I confess my bias, although my parishes have used both the LBW and LW so I am familiar with their content. Anyway, I couldn't let a plug for the problematic LBW remain without a plug for LSB.

[James A. Altena]

Amen to Dr. Hutchens, as usual. (Though I’d like specific examples of what he thinks are good hymns produced in the last 40 years. In my experience, almost anything after the Vaughn Williams settings constitute part of a vast aural wasteland.)

I’m a sucker for Lutheran chorale hymnody, and have Lutheran hymnals going back to about 1917. Gimme that old time J. S. Bach religion!

A church organist once told me (I have no other basis for this) that he and his confreres consider the Episcopal Hymnal 1940 and the Presbyterian Hymnal from c. 1935 to be the best ever produced by churches in the USA. As I grew up with the second and have used the first for over 20 years, I’ve apparently been fortunate.

Of course, let us not overlook those valuable overseas resources, “Hymns Ancient and Modern” and “The English Hymnal.”

Thomas, to answer your puzzlement, you might want to read the book “Why Catholics Can’t Sing: The Culture of Catholicism and the Triumph of Bad Taste” by your fellow RC Thomas Day. Apropos of the title and Dr. Hutchens’ post (though on a slightly different point), it has one of the most hilarious church anecdotes I’ve ever heard. The author attended Mass at an RC parish while traveling. The service reached the usual point of the modern glad-handling ritual of “passing the peace.” The author turned to an elderly lady near him and extended his hand. She looked at him disdainfully and said, “We don’t do that s--- here.”

[Bill R]

"She looked at him disdainfully and said, “We don’t do that s--- here.” "

Ah, she misunderstood. She thought the author was "passing the piece"...

[Irenaeus]

This post pushed me over the edge. I have declined -- graciously, I hope -- to play ever again in our church's contemporary services. My unease has been building for months, and finally, when asked recently, I found I had no desire to do it anymore, and then reading this post, I found I just couldn't in good conscience do it any more. Thanks. I feel free.

[Bill R]

"My unease has been building for months, and finally, when asked recently, I found I had no desire to do it anymore, and then reading this post, I found I just couldn't in good conscience do it any more. Thanks. I feel free."

You are free, Irenaeus. But be aware that your journey may now have only begun.

[James Kabala]

Actually, I've never heard it called "passing the peace."

[Bill R]

"The Lutheran Book of Worship (ELCA) pales in comparison with the Lutheran Service Book, the latest hymnal from the LCMS. After all, where are the Lenten hymns in LBW?" - Mason Beecroft

Our pastor introduced the new LSB to us this morning at the Imposition of Ashes Lenten liturgy. I could only skim through it, but it does appear to be superb. Hmmm...Looks like I picked the right time to enter the Lutheran church! ;-)

[bonobo]

She looked at him disdainfully and said, “We don’t do that s--- here.”

Sweeeeet. Why can't there be ladies like that in my parish?

[bonobo]

I might just add, in the interests of full disclosure, that I'm perfectly happy to extend the sign of peace.

It is an opportunity, for example, to forgive the absolute bollix who refused to resign his end-of-pew position to me and my wife and very young infant in carseat who was attending a very first Mass.

But damned if I'm going to hold handsies during the Lord's Prayer...

[Judy K. Warner]

People hold hands during the Lord's prayer? Yuck.

Thank goodness we don't hug and run around the church shaking hands in my ACC church as we did in my previous (ELCA) church during the passing of the peace. We don't have such a thing. We also don't applaud. But we greet each other effusively before and after the service.

[Josiah A. Roelfsema]

>>>I have heard that some Christian young people, robbed of them by my generation ... to what has been received by others in all times, all places, and all parts of the Church.<<<

I am one of those young people. I need the encouragement. I have tried to speak up when convinced I should, but so far, few seem to care at all that our church may not be going down the correct path.

>>>This is all subject to the wisdom of its pastoral authority, which is greater than, and has the responsibility to define and control, the music of the congregation.<<<

I agree. But what shall I do in a church where pastoral authority is nearly nil? Or perhaps it only seems that way to me, and the pastor actually helps the "music minister" choose vapid or theologically questionable songs - what shall I do? I am not ready to leave, though that may be the wisest decision in the end - believing myself assigned a duty to stay for now. I cannot properly communicate all the complexities of my situation here and now; even so, I would appreciate advice or, especially, engagement.

I am considering other traditions and learning from them. Perhaps the crux is this: How can a young man stay faithful to the full tradition of the church catholic in these days when he is repeatedly disappointed and discouraged and left to fend for himself when he goes to "church"? Is it too much to ask that a young mature christian find something sustaining in congregational worship rather than cheap milk?

I do not wish to develop a full rant right now. If you have anything helpful, please let me know. Thanks.

[Michael]

Josiah,

Since I've started working at my home church, it's been interesting, to say the least. Whereas I now have the privilege to contribute to the service planning and presentation, it is quite odd indeed that no one quite understands my complaints.

I am not of the genuine opinion that "rock" worship is entirely bad--and it's a debate I do not want to get into again here--but I do know that the vast majority of songs written for that "genre" are vapid in the extreme. The other day, the "Minister of Worship and Arts" and I were talking about modern songs to sing, and he is a fan of utilizing Chris Tomlin's work. I commented that it's vapid, repetitive; in how many songs can I use "awesome" to describe God, and not by saying "God" or "Christ," but by saying "the Lord" and "Jesus." (Not that the Lord isn't awesome, of course.) His response? "It's singable. The congregation can do it." Maybe I should print off this post and say: "Look, kids were learning how to sight-read music, they followed melodies...you can teach a congregation for crying out loud!"

At last night's Ash Wednesday service, our head pastor was encouraging people to come to Wednesday night Lenten services, which we are doing in a "Taize" style. He commented that "young people...like to have a lot of things going on in worship...this is quiet, and reflective..." implying contrast to the "young people"'s tastes. I don't like having a lot of stuff going on in worship. This is why the Emergent church--I think it's on its way out now--is so popular for the precise opposite reason: because, to an extent, it seeks to restore ritual. (Too bad it can't restore theology with it. Alas!)

There is a great disconnect between what the congregation wants and needs and the administrative view, because the administration looks at the congregation as only members of the culture, not members of the Church.

[smh]

I wish I could give you more help, Mr. Roelfsema. There are churches and pastors that have the right idea, and are doing things well, but the chances that one lives within reasonable distance of one of them is probably small.

Sometime during the era we call the "sixties" there was a major cultural upheaval which affected the churches profoundly and from which they are still attempting to recover in our time--a "time" that you and I share. To make a long story short, the essense of this upheaval was an uncritical and contemptuous rejection of the old, the traditional, as outmoded and unworthy, and an equally uncritical appreciation of the new, the adventurous, the "creative." "Modernism," an old impulse, became engrained in and sanctified by the larger culture, and was encouraged in the churches by the apostates, hirelings, toadies, and cowards who so frequently run them and train their ministers.

What should have happened is not that the old in regard to church music simply be accepted as unquestionable tradition (you have never seen me advocating that), or that the new be rejected simply because it is new. It was a time that could have been used kairotically for a healthful reconsideration, a new appreciation for what was of lasting beauty and worth in the old, and a corresponding opening for consideration of new material in light of established values. But something else happened, and we have trouble. Everyone must do what he can about it, in the place where he is.

What I can do is a certain amount of "consciousness raising" by writing, using the vehicles of publicity I have at my disposal. You have seen some of this here. In the church I attend, with the measure of status I have been accorded over the years--not as a "ranking" person (I hold no church office), but as an "interesting" layman who apparently knows a thing or two, and is obviously friendly with and supportive of the pastor--I encourage what I believe is good by consistently complimenting it.

I have a strong, accurate voice and people around me notice when I don't sing certain hymn verses, or sing the right words instead of the printed ones to a hymn that has has been altered. (I am old enough to remember the right words. I suppose many younger people think the hymn has always been "Rise Up, O Church of God!") I point out problem passages in the hymnal to the pastor, letting them percolate to good effect in his own very intelligent and conscientious mind. I have pointedly refused to sing in the choir, or in any vocal ensembles, but don't eschew the music program: I play tuba in the church orchestra that accompanies the morning service, something that is much appreciated--the firm, strong base line being very stirring. I am about to absent myself from the first fifteen minutes of the Sunday evening service, since so many of the "beloved old hymns" that are sung at that time are bad. The reputation I have acquired is of something of a musical crank--but not a nasty one. The pastor, a wise man and a friend of mine, hears what I say and for the most part agrees, doing what he can--and over the years, what he has been able to do has been considerable--to make improvements.

The result is that the music at this church is in much better shape than it is in most Evangelical churches. Yes, we have to put up with a "praise team," but the pastor has insisted that the lyrics they sing pass theological muster, which eliminates a lot of what the congregation listens to on Christian radio and whatnot--a lot of what they like--but opens the way for newer music that is orthodox and edifying. There are some rather beautiful arrangements of scripture that have been produced by modern musicians. I'm all for them.

So, in my local church I'm one of the influences--mostly as a man people suspect might be important, but don't know for sure if he is--who supports a pastor who makes it clear that he's in charge of the church music, and who insists that all lyrics sung in church pass theological muster. He also is strongly in favor of not discarding part-singing, and this keeps the hymnal in use and projected lyrics off the walls.

My own voice probably doesn't sound very loudly, but I hope that in concert with those of others, who are having the same thoughts as I am and saying "enough of this!" will eventually cause some significant movement in the right direction. It's a big job, and will take a long time. In the meanwhile, we do what we can.

[smh]

Let me add that one must start out with a church that is theologically orthodox--and I will define this only as one that strongly believes, and is willing to defend, the articles of the Creed (whether or not the church regards itself as "credal"). Lacking this, there are no fundamental criteria for judgment of the words of its hymns, which is the first and most critical pastoral duty in the governance of church music.

If, for example, the church wavers on calling God "Father," then one cannot insist that lyrics which soften this oppose its teaching. On the other hand, if there is a firm belief in God the Father, other salubrious correctives can follow. The question can then be asked, "Does this hymn address God as a child should his father? Or is it closer to the equivalent of calling him by his first name, then giving him a list of demands?" And in like manner, "If Jesus Christ is our Lord, does this hymn address him in proper terms, even given that he is also our Friend?"

The answers to these questions are matters of discussion among the elders of the church, and final determination by the pastor, mutatis mutandis in churches of presbyterial or episcopal governance. They will be as good as the wisdom of the college. But the point here is that there is hope for these things in churches that hold firmly to Christian doctrine, even if their present music program is the sad fruit of generations of dereliction on the part of their leaders.

The necessary correctives, in my opinion, will in many churches eliminate a good amount of both the old and new. (There comes a time when the new kitsch becomes the Beloved Old Kitsch, when the young Kitschliebsters become old Kitschliebsters.) No matter. The business of reform here involves equal opportunity elimination. Whoever attempts it will need to be as tough as nails and backed by his ecclesiastical superiors, if he has them. Both must be prepared to lose membership to less principled churches over the issue.

[Josiah A. Roelfsema]

Thanks Michael, Dr. Hutchens.

I am struggling to precisely separate my preferences and opinions from my beliefs and principles, believing the former next to irrelevant when discussing how things "should" be at my church or any church. This post has helped.

[Josiah A. Roelfsema]

When does one leave a church? Only when kicked out for some reason? Or can the frog determine when the water is hot enough to cook him? Shall I look to the sum of things and weigh them in balance? Or shall I look only for certain "questions of fellowship"?

And the big one: If my church should go to far, have I failed it somehow?

[Bill R]

"I am struggling to precisely separate my preferences and opinions from my beliefs and principles, believing the former next to irrelevant when discussing how things "should" be at my church or any church."

This is perhaps a necessary first step, Josiah. But it would seem that we must also try to shape our preferences and opinions to conform to our beliefs and principles. Part of the problem seems to be that we place the cart before the horse.

[Josiah A. Roelfsema]

"But it would seem that we must also try to shape our preferences and opinions to conform to our beliefs and principles."

Excellent point, Bill. I need to do that more.

I want to be careful not to make a personal preference, such as Beethoven over Mozart, into a principle from which to argue for a certain style of worship. I want to be careful not to make mere tastes into first principles, which I have a tendency to do.

[Bill R]

When does one leave a church? Only when kicked out for some reason? Or can the frog determine when the water is hot enough to cook him? Shall I look to the sum of things and weigh them in balance? Or shall I look only for certain "questions of fellowship"?

And the big one: If my church should go to far, have I failed it somehow?" - Josiah A. Roelfsema

Hmmm...don't you have any small questions, Josiah? ;-)

I may have given the impression above that our decision to leave our church after 22 years was precipitous. It was anything but. It really took us about 7+ years to do so. If anything, we may have been too slow. There is, at minimum, a certain inertia to come to terms with. We weren't in any danger of being kicked out (so far as I know), but we were definitely likely to say with the frog, "Oh, that's warm, but not too hot yet!" We did reach a "trip point," but many things had to happen before that. By the very nature of the venture, it was impossible to ask advice of friends who were, for the most part, in our former church. I was fortunate at least in that my difficulties could be discussed freely with my wife, who shared many of my concerns.

But I really don't want to discuss my circumstances. Rather, I'd like to address your question in the abstract. In the main I agree with Dr. Hutchens' discussion, above. There are good and true Christians in every "branch" of the Christian "tree." But some of these "branches" (churches) are on a path to take them rather far from historic Christianity. In the last two generations, and up to the present time, I'd point to a number of the mainstream Protestant denominations. Today I'd point to a number of Evangelical churches and denominations. (Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches also have serious problems from time to time, but these problems tend to manifest themselves in a different way than they do in Protestantism.)

Here are some questions that I think you have to ask to see if your church or denomination may be on the slippery slope to something rather outside historic Christianity. Has the church any regard for the substance of the creeds (even if only by implication and not by express confession)? Has the church any regard for Christian history? Or is there general amnesia (or worse: contempt for any history before your church or denomination began)? What does the church understand the purpose of church music to be, both implicitly and expressly--entertainment?--mood enhancement?--a method of teaching?--an offering of beauty unto God? Is the sermon governed by any method or regulation other than the pastor's own theological predilictions (in other words, is there some plan to explore the entire shape of the church's understanding of the OT and the NT over a period of, say, two or three years?) I'm sure there are many more good questions, but this is a start.

[Josiah A. Roelfsema]

"Hmmm...don't you have any small questions, Josiah? ;-)"

Sorry, not today. :) I'm processing your ideas now. Thanks.

[smh]

Mr. Roelfsema:

Indeed, the problem of undue elevation of personal preference is something of which we must be acutely aware. This is why there is safety in the multitude of counselors, and the highest levels of assurance may be obtained by judgments based on the best counsels--not simply of those who are experts in church music, or are selected because they share one's own tastes--but of what St. Paul would describe as "spiritual" people, who are knowledgeable in the scriptures and obedient to them in matters other than those relating to church music.

Many judgments that are considered essentially aesthetic, and hence subject to varieties of taste, are not: they are matters that relate to spiritual maturity and knowledge of God, high levels of which are necessary qualifications for church leadership (both paternal and maternal). The spiritual consensus of this college on greater matters precedes discussion of the propriety and aesthetics of church music, and marks the bounds of toleration for music that has little personal appeal--and also shows us where we would be advised to exercise greater liberality of outlook, providing a valid reason for the attempt to expand our appreciation into wider fields.

The reasoning would go something like this: John and Laurie, whom I respect as wise, experienced Christians, think this music, which I don't like much, is properly sung in church. I agree with them on the basic criteria: the words are true and substantial doctrine, appropriate for all those who will be expected to sing them, and so forth. I just don't like the tune or the harmonies or the rhythms or the quality of the poetry much. But most of the elders of the church agree with John and Laurie, not me. So let it be sung, and I will try to like it more. If I can't, I'll be willing to assume that it is my problem, not theirs, for I have learned over the years that God's tastes are both wider and narrower than mine, and that I should try to model both my liberality and my conservatism after his.

Often the decision on when to drop out of a denomination is, I believe, easier than many people make it. When a doctrine or practice is officially instituted by one's church that is intolerable on doctrinal grounds, and to which one then, as a communicant or member of the group is a party, one should go elsewhere.

As an Episcopalian, I watched, and was in fact party to, a great deal of indefensible dilly-dallying in this regard. The withdrawal of the faithful should have been made when the Church officially sanctioned women's ordination in the seventies. Unfortunately, many of those who left at this point were the eccentric and chronically disaffected, and their fellowship suffered from lack of those who should have gone with them, people whose ill-advised moderation kept them inside that church until they were forcibly ejected by those who had already won the fight against orthodoxy when women's ordination became canonical. The blindness of these "hopeful" conservatives has been, more than any other factor, responsible for the fall of Anglicanism in North America.

Another observation: orthodox Christian families with children, I have found, move out faster than others: they see the need for it sooner, not wanting their children to be raised to identify themselves with an increasingly rotten church, or to imbibe its doctrines, or become acclimated to its practices. I found it disgusting beyond words when older Christians in the Episcopal Church, who knew better, used all kinds of slogans ("I'm threatening to stay, not leave;" "It's my church, and they'll have to throw me out"--and the worst, most disgusting, of all--"Schism is worse than heresy"--as if there were any substantive difference between the two, and as if the fleeing orthodox were the schismatics) to exempt themselves from the necessity of moving with, and supporting the Christian lives of, the young families.

[Bill R]

"When a doctrine or practice is officially instituted by one's church that is intolerable on doctrinal grounds, and to which one then, as a communicant or member of the group is a party, one should go elsewhere." - SMH

I agree. Your example of how the Episcopal Church went off the tracks doctrinally is certainly quite clear. But I'm curious how you might counsel someone who finds his church's worship to be or to have become utterly insipid (milk and water, say), but not in any technical sense heretical. In such an instance, I assume, one can make a case either to stay or to depart. But in staying, one's own faith and practice run the risk of becoming dulled and flaccid.

[smh]

Indeed, Bill, and the question becomes harder. The answer in such a case begins to depend , I believe, more on the volume and strength of one's own resources than the condition of the church itself. The kind of Christian whose faith can be augmented in such a place is the opposite of the passive type who takes on the color of his spiritual surroundings, but rather spends his life moving forward in his walk with God, and brings others along with him in the stream of influence he creates.

He, by allowing himself to be made an outpost of grace, will by his testimony and example bring the church to a reckoning, for it will not be allowed to remain a true church, a bearer of the light of Christ, perpetually in the condition you describe. It will actively move toward becoming right, or will become no church at all. There is no third way. What I am referring to here is any Christian man's job wherever he is, but it is especially notable when he finds himself in the kind of church to which you refer.

By way of example, I remember a conversation I had with the wife of a high official of a largely liberal denomination. She seemed to me a spiritually acute person, and told me with regard to the preaching she had to listen to constantly and in many places that she always found something in it she could use, even in the very worst. I also remember an extraordinarily fine canteloupe I once saw growing from a manure pile. I believe I heard the voice of the Teacher in both instances.

[Bill R]

(Audible sigh!)

Well said. And it is advice I gave myself many times for at least the last 7+ years. What was Gene Peterson's book title? A long obedience in the same direction? But here's a counter-argument: if one spends one's time struggling to change that which is, in general, not an obstacle elsewhere, one exhausts oneself in battles which need not be fought. If there were but one church in a community, one would have no choice: here the battle must be fought. But elsewhere there may be no such obstacles (there may be other obstacles, I admit, but that's another story). The Christian may turn from unnecessary to necessary battles for the Kingdom.

In other words, one mustn't give up easily. But on the other hand, not every battle is one's life mission. No commander in battle is admired merely for persistence in the face of overwhelming odds when other, perhaps more fruitful, alternatives are available.

[Steve Nicoloso]

Josiah, I sympathize with you. My own movement out of Evangelicaldom was principally launched by nagging doubts (over many years) about our "worship", what it was supposed to be and how we were not only not doing it, but didn't even posses a coherent language to talk about it in the proper manner.

You let slip the following, upon which I'd like to comment:

I want to be careful not to make a personal preference, such as Beethoven over Mozart, into a principle from which to argue for a certain style of worship.

All talk of "worship style" is a tacit admission that the battle for true leitorgia has been lost. If you are arguing for a particular "worship style" then you are, ipso facto, arguing for personal preferences. Christian liturgy should not be seen as something we invent, but as a gift from God through the Church, a precise analogue to that instituted in the O.T. for the people of Israel. It is rather hard to imagine an O.T. Jewish progressive suggesting the priests make the Temple worship more "relevant" for "young people."

What complicates matters, of course, is that many Churches who have (on paper) coherent and historically plausible views on the Christian liturgy, get caught up themselves in the Worship Style Wars. (E.g., "Youth Masses"! Of course the RCs have the distinction of doing "hip & relevant" so badly that it could never really catch on.) The grass is rarely greener elsewhere; and suffering the inanities of mediocre innovators is a cross that most of us will spend our lives bearing. Find Jesus, and be glad you got him.

[smh]

Despite criticisms of Dom Gregory Dix's The Shape of the Liturgy, it does us the service of reminding that the liturgy has a shape. The root is found in Acts 2:42: "And they [the Church in the first Pentecostal season] devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers." [One notes that nothing at all is said about music! That comes in as part of teaching and prayer, hence the control over it by the teaching elders.] That is, in nuce, Christian worship--and while it may not be a "law," I cannot think of a better rule to follow, believing that here we have a spontaneous but lapidary indication of what the whole service of worship should contain, so that if any of these things is missing the service is imperfect. And so, I believe, it has been understood and practiced historically by the Church. Much room is left by this rule for variation, but not diminution or exclusion.

I have written elsewhere that the chief liturgical problem among Evangelicals is the effective downgrading of the "breaking of the bread," and that once that is put right--but only once it is put right--then other corrections can follow.

[Josiah A. Roelfsema]

Dr. Hutchens,

Re: when to drop out of a church. Your words were most helpful in helping me clarify exactly when things have "gone too far." As of now, we are not at that place.

Re: orthodox families with children. This applies to my wife and I, having two children ages 3 and 1. It is good to know that other young families have been in similar situations before and have found the strength to do the right thing.

Dr. Hutchens and Bill,
Re: non-heretical milk churches. I appreciate the question and answer session. As of now, I must attempt to be the outpost, fortunately not alone. There are still several strong, faithful models for us here, not least some members of my family.

Bill: For a while yet, this is a battle which I must continue. But I agree with your sentiments that not all battles are equal. Were it simply my choice, I would choose a battle more conducive to my mental felicity, to wit, one which would not require as many personal dealings and conversations with people. But this is where I have been placed for now, so I must not flee.

Mr. Nicoloso wrote:
"All talk of "worship style" is a tacit admission that the battle for true leitorgia has been lost. If you are arguing for a particular "worship style" then you are, ipso facto, arguing for personal preferences."

Indeed you are correct to pound that into my head, and I am thankful for it. I once gained some notion of true leitorgia while reading Alexander Schmemann's "For the Life of the World." Apparently, it has not yet properly stuck in my mind. Again, thanks for the repetition.

It sounds as those our paths are curiously similar, although I am further back yet. I think we share a similar concern over what worship should be. It is currently my second concern, authority being the first.

What got me into this thread, apart from Dr. Hutchens clear meditations, was concerns that were raised recently during our church's search for a new "worship minister," whatever exactly that is. The former, a very close friend, left for a different position for the good of his spirit. Since then I have shared some thoughts and concerns with some elders, friends, and family regarding the purpose of worship, trying to search for a proper foundation on which to build. There is a tendency in our church to create a show, a Sunday concert each week for the "blessing" of the people, rather than a gathering of the church for worship, for standing in the presence of God while He strips our thoughts and imaginations of all evil and grows and creates His image anew on our hearts and minds. This is the background I have to recover from. Reading Schmemann was the best worship "service" I have yet been to.

[Josiah A. Roelfsema]

Dr. Tighe was generous enough to send me a copy of Dix a few months back. I have not had a chance to read it properly yet. Perhaps I should soon.

[Bill R]

Blessings on you and your congregation, Josiah. I respect your decision.

[Steve Nicoloso]

Mr. Roelfsema:

In my experience, I was that "worship minister" (yes, whatever that is). It turned out that ultimately what worship was supposed to be was inextricably bound up with what the Church was supposed to be; i.e., the nature of that thing through which the graces of God normatively come.

Best regards to you...

[Jim Swindle]

Thanks for the insightful essay. I'm still thinking about whether I agree with certain of the thoughts.

Someone asked what good hymns have been written in recent decades. You could start with some of those from Keith and Kristyn Getty at www.gettymusic.com or some by Keith Getty and Stuart Townsend. Please don't judge the songs by Kristyn Getty's singing. She sings well, but in a style that is too contemporary for me and probably for many of the readers of this blog.

[Josiah A. Roelfsema]

Thanks again, Bill, Steve, Dr. Hutchens.

[smh]

I wish to make this clear: I carry no brief against "ministers of music" per se. We have mention of them in the Psalms. The problem here is their mutation into "worship leaders," people who regard themselves as specialists in charge of any aspect of the liturgy that involves music, independent of or equal to senior pastoral authority in that regard. All canons, disciplines, and books of order of which I know make it clear that this is not to happen. One deduces from the prevalence of the rule that this is a perennial problem, doubtless as old as the Psalms.

[Z. Stewart MacLean]

Fantastic thoughts. I pray that others benefit from the truth of your words as I have.