Another Look at the Worship Wars

For me it was never about the music.  I have listened to and enjoyed "Christian Contemporary Music" for over 45 years.  Just this afternoon I was rocking out in the gym to contemporary music. Christian Contemporary Music can be quite hypnotic. And quite beautiful.

The first contemporary Christian band that I knew of was not called "Christian contemporary"; it was called a "Jesus band", a group called Love Song. And they played "Jesus music."  This hippie counter-culture band was formed by Chuck Girard in Costa Mesa, California in 1970. Hippies were coming to know Jesus and instead of migrating back into the existing church culture, they just created a new one.  I don't remember how I came to know this music existed or how I came to own their album in Enterprise, Alabama, but I did. For a seventeen year old who was raised on traditional hymns, it was quite a trip. Far out!

The "wars" part of "worship wars" is not primarily about the music. It's about position and power. The worship wars are about who controls the worship experience of the church.  But the difference of opinion of the music is quite significant as well.  In most cases it's the older folks who want to continue singing traditional hymns in worship.  The younger generation is tired of the "same old hymns" and want contemporary music.

A contemporary band or "praise team",  usually consists of a lead guitar, a rhythm guitar, an electric bass, a synthesizer keyboard player and a drummer.  One of the guitar players usually doubles as the lead singer.  Some bands are fortunate enough to use backup vocals from the other band members, but in many cases there is only one singer.  This person then is the "worship leader" or "praise team leader."

The chair of the music committee called me and asked me if would  consider returning as the music director of her church.  I had been there before. Well, actually I had been there twice before.  There were issues the first time, but worship style became a flash point during my second tour of duty. I told her that I was open to coming back.  She called me to say the church had voted for me to return. I asked her if there was any opposition. She said, "Twenty eight people voted no."  "TWENTY EIGHT PEOPLE ! ? How many were in the meeting?"  "Seventy." "So nearly half the church doesn't want me to come back?"  "No look at it as twenty eight people in the whole church not as a percentage in the meeting. The church wants you as their Minister of Music."

 Oh, so just 10% don't want me back. But for reasons both personal and professional,  I said "ok".

After months of research and consideration, the church established a contemporary music Sunday night service.  It was painful for  me  in every way possible. The music was loud and unbalanced. The gyrations of praise were scripted and sometimes just gross.The whole service from the video clips to the upbeat sermon shouted of "let's pretend we're doing 'contemporary worship'. Let's show the church what worship is really supposed to be like. Not like that boring stuff they did this morning." The part that was so much worse for me than the music was in spite of my position as the music leader of the church, I was totally marginalized . No one in that group had any use for me whatsoever. They neither liked me nor needed me. They never asked me once for my input on anything.  Once when I walked to my office through their rehearsal in my choir room, they just looked at me.  I felt like a black civil rights leader might have felt at a KKK convention. It didn't feel very good.

The worship wars have split many good churches. Some create a separate contemporary service. But now it's possible for those who choose either service to never see the other members. When new members join during one service they may never meet the members who are in the other service. Now everybody's  mostly happy with the music, but the church is split.  Then the worst of all worlds is the church that decides to have "blended worship."  Now nobody is happy with the music. Now the people can't choose one style over the other, so they just leave.

In the end the same deacon body who authorized the contemporary service voted for it to stop. About thirty people left the church. That was about the same number who didn't want me there in the first place. Things didn't end well for me at that church. As a preemptive strike to being fired, I just resigned and left. I had given my heart and soul for thirteen years to the church, but it was time for me to go. I didn't really have much of a choice.

The pendulum of church music seems to be swinging back. The weight of contemporary music, which has become a huge church entertainment business, has reached a critical mass. Some people, even younger people, are realizing that "the same old hymns" can be quite beautiful and quite meaningful.  They have noticed that the 7-11 songs (seven words repeated eleven times) can't compare with the textual and musical grandeur of the great body of church hymnody.

I can't imagine that Chuck Girard had any idea of what he had started.  He just picked up his guitar and sang for Jesus in the only way he knew how.

A few years ago I was invited to sing for a funeral at that church that asked me to leave.  One of my former choir members said, "I really miss you."  I said, "I miss you too."  But if they ask me back for the fourth time I'll just say, "I'm very happy where I am. We're quite content to sing the same old hymns."

Context

The only thing that the writer has in his or her toolbox are words. But right out of the gate there is a decision to make.  Since "only thing" is singular shouldn't I use the singular verb "is" instead of "are?" Although it would be grammatically correct  for me to use "is", the rule is that in some cases the predicate dictates the verb and not the subject.  In this case it just sounds better to use "are" and it makes more sense.

Actually, it's not true that a writer only has words at his or her disposal.  The words the reader sees do not start out as words.  The text starts out as thoughts, emotions, and memories. The writer has to process all of that in the crucible of intent to produce the final words. The most difficult part of this conversion is that the words are devoid of facial expression and voice inflection.  The words are frozen on the page.  Good luck with that.

And although much is lost in translation from that intent to the words the writer chooses, much can be lost in the transfer from the writer to the reader.  The same word in the English language can have several meanings.  The letters and words only have meaning in context of the sentence. Take the word "bass", for example.  If the bass is a fish then it is pronounced with a short ''a".  Or in another context a "bass" could be a man who sings the low part in a choir. This bass would be pronounced with a long "a".  The reader only knows which one by its context.

But the  disconnect of meaning while reading is not the only problem. If the text is read aloud then there can be a disconnect of hearing.  The text may be referring to a "second bass", which is the lowest male part in a choir, but the listener hears "second base" and wanders off to last night's baseball game. A chemist listening to the text may start thinking about the reaction that involved a base and not an acid.

Another context is the context of language. Your next door neighbor may be Richard Wagner, pronounced rihcherd wagner, But if someone  is referring to the famous German composer then Richard Wagner is pronounced rihckard vahgner.  You wouldn't want to tell your classical musician friend that you've been listening to rihcherd wagner's Ring Cycle or you will be judged.

Then there is the context of culture (and the lack thereof). This morning in a waiting room I overheard a man say on his phone "she's been bakkair nearlianair.'  Most of us would have said "She's been back there nearly an hour" but that is the way he chose to convey the message. And I feel quite sure the message was understood. But if I needed to quote the man in writing, the previous transliteration would be correct.

So what is the metaphor here or the life application? Words are tricky. Don't expect someone reading the same thing you read to understand it the same way. I have heard so many people say, for example, " I just do what the Bible says." In reality all she should say  "I do what the Bible says to me." There is no way in heaven this person knows what the Bible says to someone else.  Another application is to not expect people to understand exactly what you meant to say in speech or in writing. It is not possible that all the words and phrases will be heard and understood as you intended. Don't be surprised when someone gets upset with you for something you never intended to say. Words are pregnant with meaning and they are born with unintended consequences.

The definition of "words" includes that they are written or spoken with a space on either side. So give other people space.  Give them the benefit of the doubt. Give them another chance to explain what they meant by what they said. And give yourself time to understand what they said before drawing any conclusions.  Wars and friendships are started and ended with words. The more careful we are with the words we choose to write or to say, the more friendships and the less wars we will start.

Lift Off

A few days ago I told you that I was creating a new blog platform. The truth is I was waiting for my tech savvy son to come home to "help me" (i.e. to do it for me). Well this weekend finally arrived. He did that and here it is.  If something looks weird it's because Blogger is totally new to me and I'm learning as I go.  I told you that you would be able to subscribe to my blog and post comments directly to the blog.  All of that is possible here.  I look forward to getting familiar with all this and not feeling exposed and self-conscious.

Now instead of posting only to my Facebook readers, I am posting to the world. Google searches can find me and anyone anywhere can read what I have to say.  Anyone anywhere can also comment on what I say. So I am going to have to be willing to stand by my stories, opinions, theology (and lack thereof). I can  delete my posts (if I remember how) but in many ways no matter what you do you publish to the internet is there forever.

I have been writing and posting to Facebook for six years. It all started with a brief story about my late, great mixed shepherd Maggie. My post received a warm reception. So I kept writing and posting. Over these years I have posted over 200 stories of about 1000 words each. It's on my bucket list to have some of them published as a book. I am working on that now.

Most of the time I know what I want to write about before I start writing. Sometimes I'm just in the mood to write and I just stare at the blank page until something bubbles up.

The most  important thing about writing that I have learned is that "write" is a verb; it's something I have to do. I've learned that writers get "writer's block" because they stop writing.  At times I wonder if I'll finally run out of anything  to say.  As you can see, that is highly unlikely.

I'm always curious who actually reads my stuff. Sometimes I think  only about eight or ten people are still reading me. But then I run into people at Walmart, people who have never commented on anything,  who say, "I love reading your stories."  So if you would like to comment now to let me know you're there I would appreciate that. But if you don't feel like it I'll be publishing anyway. It's just something I enjoy doing.

I wrote this mainly to publish it and  see what I can do with it, And to see where it goes. Once I get more comfortable with that I'll write something a little more like me.