Principles for Music

Keller lists three principles that his church considers in its selection of music.

1) Musical form and style are not neutral

2) Musical style boundaries, however, are very elastic

3) Music styles have integrity (pp. 237-238)

Earlier I criticized Hughes for his overgeneralized (It’s bad) specific criteria (3/4 time).  Here I find a much more thoughtful approach to selecting music, one that seems to allow more room to treat each piece on its own merits.

Keller’s first principle basically says that there is some music that is altogether inappropriate to be used in worship.  In the second principle Keller bolsters his ‘midway’ position by claiming that the “anti-contemporary-music party” cannot establish “definitive and unambiguous boundaries” (p. 238, par. 1).  I agree with this, and this is really the point I was trying to get at by asking some specific, definitive-type questions earlier.  Keller’s third principle shows respect for different kinds of music.  Perhaps by adopting this approach, we could be more careful before putting another “Indescribable” kind of song to a choral arrangement with piano accompaniment (Does anyone actually think that works?).

I was actually challenged by Keller’s inclusion of jazz in worship (derived from his second principle).  Before reading his chapter, I probably wouldn’t have seriously thought of jazz as an option for worship music, and I would still hesitate to use it in my church.  Did these principles challenge any ideas you have?

Excellence in musical worship

On page 236 Keller pleads for musical excellence in corporate worship.  All of you by now well know that I agree whole-heartedly with him.  He gave three reasons for striving for this excellene:

1. It will help the worshipper sense the transcendence of God and appreciate His grandeur.
2. It will remove any possible hindrance that poor quality might cause.
3. Modern society has less toleration of mediocrity due to the availability of excellent music through electronic mediums.

I would like to add two reasons to this list.

1. In anything we set our hands to do, including music, we should do it with all our might for our God.
2. We were created with the ability to create, and when we create music with excellence, we are experiencing part of what God intended for us to do and be.  I believe this is inherently good.

With which of these five reasons do you disagree, and why?  If you agree with all of them, please think of another good reason for musical excellence in corporate worship and share that.

Supplication in terminology to facilitate comprehensible understanding for the uneducated in the method of the ecclesiastic assembly

What does Keller mean on page 221 “There is also much more “simplicity” of voice, avoiding the typical sentamentality of contemporary “worship leading”? Just a question, not “the question”?

It is very interesting to me how much time Keller puts into be careful about language (pages 224 and 225).  Be authentic, but not to the point of speaking as though you were speaking to a friend.  Don’t be archaic, but be stately.  We’ve talked about speaking His name as a comma, and we’ve talked about leading corporate prayer as being somewhat less personal than in our prayer closets, but I found myself being put off by what I read as a snobbish attitude.  I really appreciate it when someone talks openly and normally about and to God.  I don’t think God is impressed by flowery words and put-upon stateliness.  I think He wants to hear our hearts.  The whole demeanor and emotion argument strikes my hot button because those from the extreme camps (be decent and in order, don’t raise hands, or forget yourself vs. I am free to be whatever I want because I am worshiping) make me feel as though how I am worshiping is somehow lacking because it isn’t what they would do.  But then, just as I am getting good and worked up, Keller talks about “spiritual talk” (page 225, last paragraph) and I think we would do well to think about the ways we use language that excludes people from understanding or that makes us sound more spiritual.  I wouldn’t freak out as much as Keller is, but as we are preparing our place in worship, perhaps we could think a little more about the words we use and how they are being understood by a visitor or new Christian. 

Now, all that being said, and I apologize for length and ranting, I was pondering Appendix B, Prayers for those not taking the Lord’s Supper on page 249.  I really like the idea of having something laid out and in the bulletin to help people navigate Communion, that’s always such an uncomfortable moment when I am a visitor and there isn’t clear direction.  But, if I read it applying Keller’s admonition to avoid jargon, it fails miserably.   How could the first paragraph, at least, be rewritten to be clearer to a non-believer?  Or does it stand as is?

Boundaries in how a leader worships

Keller this week actually got me upset.  The thing that he said that made me upset was in his second point, ‘Leading in Corporate Worship’. (p. 223)  In the last class we had touched a little bit on emotions and how a leader in music might have to watch how they are worshiping and how it might be influencing (or manipulating) the congregation.  Keller approached this by saying ‘one sign of genuineness is that there is a full range of emotions’ (p. 223).  How can one tell whether someone is being genuine or not by how many emotions they use in a service?  That made no sense at all! I might be leading a congregation in an upbeat major-scaled praise song and be feeling crummy inside the whole time.  That’s not genuineness it’s forcing myself to sing praises when I’m not feeling like it.  I’m manipulating myself!!! The other thing that Keller said on this topic that got me upset was: ‘…we should not let our feelings have full scope, leaving the congregation behind’. (p. 224) No offense to Keller but I love it when I’m no longer realizing that I’m in front of a bunch of people.  That’s why I close my eyes, than at least mentally it’s just me and God.  Do you think it is right for us to be putting boundaries on how a leader should worship?  I would think that one of the points of a leader being on stage is to set an example for others.  Didn’t we say that about prayer?  When someone leads a prayer for a congregation, whether one realizes it or not, we are learning how to pray by what the leader says.

As a side note:Keller does address the topic of a non-believer playing in the praise band. (p 239)

Equal Leadership

So reading “keller” this week not “Carson” The thing that stuck out to me was the topic on Leading and corporate worship.  Keller stated “Leaders in corporate include all those who will be up in front – reading the scripture, praying, singing, preaching, praising, and even giving “notices or “announcements. Then he goes on to say ” Their attitude of heart and demeanor is as important as what they say.  I don’t really have much to say about this but a question did catch my attention.  Leaders are required to prepare and give there excellence for whatever they are in corporate worship. So my question is Do you think that the one that gives the announcement should spiritually prepare as much as the Pastor does. Though the pastor probally has alot more to say then one that reads the scripture or reads the announcement? are they looked upon as equal leadership positions?

pagans in the parade

I wasraised for the first 14 years of my life in the Lutheran church, in congregations that were “high church” and congregations that were quite contemporary (for the 70’s).  When I was in 10th grade, we moved to a small town that didn’t have a Lutheran church and so began to worship at the Presbyterian Church.  Tim Keller wrote some books that we studied in youth group, so it was interesting to read his thoughts on worship (although I only understood half of what he was talking about – as usual).  As we have gone through this worship class, I have found more and more appreciation for the care and love my pastor and former choir director showed for our congregation.  They have been able to strike the balance of dignity and freedom, tradition and newness, congregational inclusion, and musical excellence.  One thing I picked up on in Keller’s piece that has been a struggle for our church was found on page 219 – “if the Sunday service aims primarily at evangelism, it will bore the saints.  If it aims primarily at education, it will confuse unbelievers.  But if it aims at praising the God who saves by grace; it will both instruct insiders and challenge outsiders.  Good corporate worship will naturally be evangelistic.”

The problem I have seen with our church is that we do a great job of education, at a great job at praising the God who saves by grace, but, I’m not sure that I was ever clearly told the Gospel, and I would feel pretty comfortable saying that I was not the only one.  We are not naturally evangelistic, we are decidely discipling. 

Is that enough?  Can you effectively evangelize by modeling the Christian life?

Second question.  Keller, I think, has unbelieving, paid musicians on his staff.  Should unbelievers lead a congregation in worship?  Is it okay because the musician is being surrounded by Christians, or is it not okay because they are in a leadership role?  Are there other reasons?

Keller’s outlook

I love the way Keller takes a balanced view between those who fiercly advocate contemporary music and those who adamately hold to traditional worship forms.  I think it is sad that so much conflict occurs in our churches over music.  It seems like this is not a hill to die on.  We should be able to offer our lives in worship no matter what the music sounds like, and while the quality of the music and its style and lyrical quality do matter, the fact that remains that when we sit down (or stand up) on Sunday morning and those factors are beyond our control, we need to be able to say “God, I’m Yours–please take me” whether or not the music meets our standards.  I experienced immense peace and joy when I finally stopped fighting modern praise band music in my mind.  How much time and effort should we be putting into influencing the kind of music and lyrics that are used in our corporate services?  Why?

Footnotes

Footnotes are nice.  Unlike endnotes, the reader can quickly access the “subimformation” that relates to a certain point in the chapter and then easily reenter the chapter.  With endnotes, whether the notes are at the end of the chapter or the end of the book, the reader has to thumb back and forth to read the notes, with the result that some readers do not exert the energy and miss the insights contained in them.

That said, I especially liked footnote number 12 in Timothy J. Keller’s chapter on Reformed Worship.  In it Keller relays John M. Frame’s interaction with the “Regulative Principle,” and the logic is compelling.  Frame compares areas in which principles of worship have perhaps been applied inconsistently, such as prayer, preaching, music, and dance.  While some may have answers for the questions he poses, Frame makes a commendable effort to exclude prejudices toward certain expressions by forcing us to look at how we apply our principles [i.e. "If we are allowed to pray or to preach using our own words (based on Scripture), why can we not sing using our own words (based on Scripture)?"].

This kind of approach to an examination of our practices is helpful, but I have one question.  Is it possible that there is a qualitative difference between song and preaching (or other expressions) that would supply a reason for regulating them differently?

Expressed Worship

I really enjoyed hearing Keller talk about Calvin’s ideas of ‘corporate worship’.  There’s an idea that stuck out to me that Keller kind of mentioned through something C.S. Lewis said.  Keller talks about how C.S. Lewis was talking to a young writer and said that instead of saying something is ‘terrible’ the writer should describe something to where the reader is terrified! (p.209)  At first, this concept made me think of music, opera specifically.  In History of Western Music we learned that the function of opera was not just for an entertaining purpose.  It was a form of expression.  When we listen to opera, the singers are usually singing in different languages.  I have no idea what they’re saying but I can tell how they’re feeling.  The way the music flows and builds against the melodic line (that I lyrically don’t understand) is beautiful!  I could listen to an opera piece and be in tears.  There was nothing in which the singer said to cause me to be like that, but it was the music and the way it was arranged and played.

I started thinking about the music in worship services at church.  We are always singing about how wonderful, beautiful, merciful, etc… God is.  However, where do we actually experience it?  Are people at a place where we could play instrumental music that touches the soul in the right way and feel God?  Or do we still need to just blatantly tell them?  True we need to have times where we tell people bluntly (specifically for non-believers possibly being there) but I think we are still missing a part of our worship through music experience.  We shouldn’t need to make the music so simplistic to play so that we won’t be distracted but maybe make it more complex so that we can actually feel the amazement that we don’t even need to verbally sing about!

Now, think of this not just with the music in a service but the whole service itself!  How can we show how amazing God is through a service without having to actually say it?  To literally be still before God as a whole body and just experience His wonder, beauty, mercy, etc…  We do it in our daily worship just by looking around at His creation and seeing how big He is, how can we bring that type of worship into our corporate worship?

Sentimental Worship

Regarding Carson this week I agreed with some of the things he talked about at the same time in some areas it took me a few moments to follow him.  So regarding Sentimentality Carson said “Worship Leaders” speak completely “off the cuff,” sharing spontaneous thoughts”( p 209) As a result of this he also basically goes on to saying this is mediocrity and informality, because there is no sense of awe, no sense of being in his presence of the Holy.”  Then Carson goes on to talking about sentimental worship which is wrong because it works directly on people’s emotions rather than trusting on God’s spirit to bring truth home. He disagree with authors telling us things such as “God is good instead of why he’s good, because then there telling the readers how they must feel instead of letting the subject work on them in the same way it did for the author. Part of me is with him there and part of me is not.

Regarding leaders I think when they began a selection of a song and they say something to the congregation like God is good and then they read a scripture that goes along with that or they play a song that shows the goodness of God than I don’t think that’s telling the readers how they must feel. That’s them expressing there personal appreciation of the Lord and hoping that the congregation will feel the same way.  I was thinking about how sometimes before a pastor begins his sermon he says out loud to the congregation “ GOD IS GOOD, and the congregation says “All The Time, I don’t think that’s telling the congregation how there suppose to feel. I think it’s just again our appreciation to God, but I don’t think someone could fully understand that if there worship is only active on Sundays.  So I guess my question is do you agree with me? Or did I totally miss what Carson was saying?