S.M. Hutchens on the dilution, emasculation, &c. of Christian worship
May 20th, 2004 | Tags: Theology | 24 Comments
Please Me, O Lord is a great article in the current issue of Touchstone. Here’s a choice passage:
There is no move from soft rock or campfire chorus to Bach or Mendelssohn, from melody-line singing back to the four-part harmonies from which most of these congregations have fallen in a single generation. (Children in the Evangelical church where I was raised learned to read not only their Bibles, but also soprano, alto, tenor, and bass, from singing the parts with Mom and Dad. Now they just accompany, singing melody only, the principal musicians, which they once themselves were.)
They rarely move from skits and anecdotes to Augustine or Calvin, from entertainments to prayer and fasting, from “come to Jesus because he’s attractive” to “obey him, his apostles, and his apostolic ministers, because he’s Lord,” from affection for a cosmeticized Jesus to the fear of God.
I have noticed that “contemporary” worship is less participatory than the more doctrinally- and aesthetically-acceptable traditional variety — one spends a lot of time singing the melodies of refrains as a congregant in such a service. The “contemporary” texts are also horrifyingly theologically vague, inaccurate, or wrong. Certainly wishy-washy hymns to the Enlightenment like “God who stretched the spangled heavens” are obviously worthless, but a real concern comes from the under-the-radar heterodoxy of liturgical mercenaries. A prime example is the work of the whorish Marty Haugen, who has sold the same hideous setting of a “communion liturgy” (complete with explicit references to distinctively RC doctrine and practice) to churches in nearly every tradition.
I suppose that the difference between a liturgist and a terrorist is merely growing more apparent. Lex orandi, …
UPDATE: Hello, Touchstone readers. You may be interested in the follow-up to this post. Thanks for visiting.
May 21st, 2004 at 04:51:16 PM (#)
You know, I have to say that the oft-trumpeted criticism of the surface-level theology of modern/evangelical worship is just about the easiest and least helpful one I know.
As a person with a background in worship leading and in pentacostal, episcopal, and evangelical worship traditions, I can honestly say that the bind is WITH us, and is something we are already aware of.
The REAL critical task is no more heralding the sad tragedy that nobody listens to classical music anymore or bothers to add in quotations from said theological giants. I must insist that the real work is in the sanctuary, figuring a worship that theologically educates, is worth something to a God beyond stylistic differences (and that includes the style classical and the style of the three-chord chorus of said emotionary trumpery), and that can manage to be meaningful to the participants. Perhaps sometimes meeting them where they are, broken people; perhaps sometimes pushing them outside themselves and their preferences; ALWAYS focusing us on a God that is beyond us and with us; and always being explicit about what we are doing and the failure that we are bound to meet in trying to express the “immortal invisible God only wise… etc. etc.
May 21st, 2004 at 05:14:58 PM (#)
By the way, I have to VIOLENTLY disagree with the misogynistic and condescending tone of that article.
When the author suggests that “The young woman displaying herself before the faithful with her sexualized—and hence secularized—religion” he admits that he’s never read John Donne (Ravish My Heart, o Three Personed God) and ought to get to it, and St. Theresa of Avila, and Song of Solomon, as soon as he can make his way out of the pew.
May 21st, 2004 at 05:27:32 PM (#)
Oops-apparently I haven’t read DOnne lately either–Batter my heart. The line is that Donne will never be chaste unless God ravishes him. I think asking God to take him “in that way” is pretty clearly a sexualized religion that is not secular–heck, it ends in moral chastity.
May 21st, 2004 at 05:39:37 PM (#)
Tiffany, you’ve (thoughtfully, as usual) left me with more than I can reply to in a comment. I’m currently working up a posting addressing some of these concerns. In the meantime, I’m sorry if you (apparently) found this post offensive.
May 21st, 2004 at 06:14:53 PM (#)
Thanks, Will. I appreciate the wild variety and depth of your blog–it always goes everywhere–your engagement with everything seems pretty awe-inspiring.
May 21st, 2004 at 06:16:18 PM (#)
Tiffany, I agree with you. Clearly this author has some issues to deal with. Are the only people using 8-inch phallic microphones in worship services the over-sexed women to whom he refers? And let’s theorize this statement: “(One can only account for these displays by Christian wives and daughters by the unquestioned acceptance in Christian homes of feminist assumptions about obedience not owed to husbands and fathers.)” Holy cow. I don’t even know where to begin.
May 21st, 2004 at 06:19:46 PM (#)
Do you think Mr. Hutchens has ever read St. Jerome? Or possibly Chaucer’s famous Book of Wicked Women?
May 21st, 2004 at 11:56:41 PM (#)
As far as I can tell, the main ideas in the article are as follows:
1. Feminist ideology has recently gained influence in popular Evangelical thought as it has already in mainline Protestantism.
2. This shift toward feminist ideology is associated with a shift to a primarily affective worship style among Evangelical churches.
3. Affective worship falls short on a number of counts: too much attention on the worshiper’s emotional experience, lack of Scriptural exegesis and theological instruction, lack of confession and repentance, distortion of Scripture and theology for convenience, loss of valuable traditions, etc.
Anyone have specific arguements to back these up or debunk them - especially the first two? I haven’t personally read anything on the relationship btwn feminism and Evangelicalism, but this seems to be at the heart of his piece.
May 22nd, 2004 at 02:52:53 AM (#)
Hutchens redux
There were a number of great comments on my last post, which consisted of a link to a Touchstone article. I’ll address as many of these as I can here; this post is long, but hopefully not too scattered. If you aren’t interested in the theology …
May 22nd, 2004 at 07:49:45 AM (#)
Good gracious, I could write about this all day. Where to start?
The focus on affect vs. finer points of doctrine is something that’s always been part of evangelicalism. Being the good gnesio-Lutheran and true son of 17th-century orthodoxy that he is, Will finds the heirs of the Pietists to be theologically sloppy. This should surprise no one.
I haven’t read the Hutchens since it first came out, but if Peter’s points 2. and 3. above accurately summarize, he is totally off base. The affective emphasis goes back to 17th-century Pietism and if he can connect German Pietists to modern feminism (and/or Skull and Bones and the Trilaterial Commission), I’ll be very impressed.
There’s also an element here that’s simply elitist. It’s easy for us aesthetically refined people to understand that Bach is artistically superior to a melody with two verses, but many evangelicals are thinking about accessibility, and I think that’s a legitimate concern. Can this go too far and become lowest-common-denominator pandering? Clearly. But there is a real tension here in which there is real value in making your worship understandable and accessible to normal people. (Re: this, everyone should read Nathan Hatch’s _Democratization of American Christianity_, on evangelical populism / mass appeal and the dangers that go with it, focuses mainly on c. 1800-1830 but explains a lot about evangelicalism tout court since then.)
Re: the “stage,” “show,” worship-leader-as-star concerns Hutchens alludes to, this can be a problem but I think usually isn’t. It’s definitely not more of a problem then pastor-as-star.
While I find Hutchens’s tone here very off-putting for some of the reasons touched on my Tiffany and Andrea, he is on to something. The more thoughtful evangelicals I know, especially males, love to joke about this phenomenon, which I find deeply weird and pathological; the technical term is “bridal mysticism,” but I more commonly refer to them as “Jesus-is-my-boyfriend” songs. Now, what is the explanation for this? Historically, it’s not entirely new–there’s a little bit of it in Bernard of Clairvaux and I see it sometimes in 17th-, 18th-, 19th-c. stuff. Sociologically, it’s got to be connected to the gender imbalance in the subculture. Almost without exception, at any evangelical function or ministry I’ve ever seen there is a 2:1 ratio. It must somehow be related to this surprlus of single and divorced evangelical women. But it’s pretty awkward for any normal guy to sing these songs about “sit on the couch and make out with Jesus,” and I don’t think it’s healthy for women either.
May 22nd, 2004 at 01:43:07 PM (#)
Luke, as I indicated in my follow-up to this (linked from the above “trackback” and written in varying degrees of lucidity), the issue is not one of aesthetics for me. Indeed, there has been much worship music written explicitly to be accessible (consider German chorales, written for semiliterate peasants; or early American hymnody) that meets any aesthetic criteria I could reasonably establish. The concern is more one of content and function. (Although I would argue that any “traditional” hymn is more accessible — if accessibility is defined as ease of congregational participation — than any pop-styled praise song with written-in ornamentations and/or no way to know the melody from the overhead transparency. If accessibility is defined as “sounding like something familiar,” then the whole enterprise is doomed, because the C-rock aesthetic is drawn from what can only be described as a parallel pop universe [cf. "Stryper"].)
Also, as you know, I have no problem with Bach, Bernard, etc. (In fact, one might argue — from Arndt and other figures — that gnesio-pitbull style orthodoxy fits quite well with pietism!) One question is this: at what point does “affective” become “sentimental?” I would posit that there is a substantial difference (not merely one of degree) between “Herzliebster Jesu” or “O Haupt voll Blut und Wunden” and most praise-oriented C-rock. There is an analogous soritical argument between bridal mysticism and between the phenomenon you describe. (Or, as I put it when discussing this with Andrea this AM, there is an essential difference between “the Church is the bride of Christ” and “Goin’ steady with Jesus”)
May 22nd, 2004 at 05:16:16 PM (#)
Will, I had to look up soritical. I got 100% on the verbal section of both the GRE and the SAT.
Regarding contemporary worship music, I’m much less sophisticated than you musically but also more familiar with the oeuvre. Most of it is, frankly, bad. There are several songs written in this idiom, however, which I think are excellent. It wouldn’t do 80% of the people any good to have the notes written out on the overhead because they can’t read music. They learn the tune by listening to someone else sing it and then singing it themselves, which is how gospel songs were always learned in the black evangelical tradition. (When more robust, this tradition taught the congregation three- or four-part harmony SAT or SATB, which I’ve never seen in a “CCM” setting.)
Of course orthodoxy and pietism can be brought together (Bach), and I would argue they must be or become dead scholasticism and fuzzy postdoctrinal syrup. While many evangelical churches need to be careful about the latter, it’s not the case in my view that they’re already there.
A lot of the things you say have much validity, but I still see it as more of a balance.
Keep in mind that, despite its frequent ridiculousness, this culture is where I belong and this is how I normally worship. I usually find it quite edifying, thank you.
Regarding going steady with Jesus, I think the key thing is that the Church is the bride of Christ, not the individual believer. The latter is what leads into all this weird crap.
May 22nd, 2004 at 09:57:38 PM (#)
Like an anonymous friend of Sarah’s making Valentines to Jesus with her roomates at Taylor U :)
May 23rd, 2004 at 06:26:18 AM (#)
“Jesus is nicer than my ex-husband,/
He pays attention to me instead of just watching the game with His buddies,/
And never comes home drunk and rowdy at 3am,/
He always remembers my birthday./
Also, He died for my sins.”
May 23rd, 2004 at 07:32:32 AM (#)
It DOES seem important to remember the possibilities for affective worship, not just the flaw of its over-use. Where better to expend one’s emotions than in praise? Certainly, the formulary “if I don’t “feel” it, worship didn’t happen” is problematic. However, we can teach people out of those misguided ideas.
And WIll, despite the “accessibility” of German chorales and early American hymnody, I’d have to say that what you’ve referred to is not what my students would consider accessible. :)
Consider, rather, this recent song:
Sing to the King who is coming to Reign
Lion of Judah, the Lamb that what slain
Life and salvation his empire will bring
Joy to the nations when Jesus is King
Chorus:
Come Let us sing a song
A song declaring we belong to Jesus
And he is all we need
Lift up a heart of praise
Sing now with voices raised to Jesus
Sing to the King
There are 2 other verses, but you get the idea. The song is Jesus’ kingdom, with a declaration of allegience to it, the beat is up up up, and its been popular on Christian radio as part of the “worship revolution” etc.
One way that this has been modified in a worship setting I’ve experienced is that after the chorus (Come let us sing a song), the team breaks into a stepped-up version of “All Hail the Power of Jesus’ Name.” I feel like that gets us the best of both worlds. Add to that a reading of scripture that helps people understand what’s going on, or a puritan prayer (as we often do), or some quotation, or responsive reading, and people are ready to put their minds where they belong, on Jesus.
It’s all in how you use it, I think.
I’d like to point out that this all was led by a man. One who plays softball and throws back a beer with his buddies.
May 23rd, 2004 at 11:51:11 AM (#)
Oh, by the way, I totally am still struggling with the concept of empire in that song.
However, not the sole problematic line I’ve encountered in all SORTS of hymnody.
Further, I wanted to point out that singing and learning songs from a leader rather than from a printed page has a strong folk tradition in the United States that should NOT be discounted. The call and response tradition in the African-American church, etc. Many newcomers to churches find that they don’t read music. We should and do teach them if they desire (particularly in choir and worship arts contexts). However, I think I’ve learned some hymns better by hearing them than reading them, particularly on the ones with odd fourths and intervals of the like. So, learning is always learning, and there is an awkward bit where no one “knows” the song, whether “sight reading” or “humming along.” No biggie–we learn, and its a good thing to “sing a new song to the Lord” that we haven’t known before, whether that be a Caribbean praise tune with local instruments or a Bach, etc.
May 28th, 2004 at 02:00:10 PM (#)
Hello everyone,
How about a word from the poor suffering man in the pew? I’m always astonished at how freely women will allow their emotions to take over — and, frankly, if I see five women singing up front at church, I’m looking at four primadonnas and three flats and two sharps, in all kinds of combinations.
The hymnals are full of songs from all kinds of traditions, easily sung in unison by any congregation — UNLESS the congregation is led by a showboating soprano, which means that about 80 percent of the time you’ve got somebody leading you who is doing lilts and melismas all over the place, one (if you are a tenor) or two (if you are me, a bass or baritone) octaves above your note. Uh, THAT won’t work ….
I’ve seen a couple of more recent hymns that are very good. Most, however, are banal, stupid, heretical (but many ladies like the heretical hymns, with their gender flattening language, and their thinking that we are smarter than Jesus, who instructed us to refer to God as Father), and unsingable by a congregation. They are not folk tunes, most of them, but Broadway show tunes, written for soloist tenors or sopranos.
To Hell with those. I am not speaking figuratively.
May 28th, 2004 at 03:58:57 PM (#)
That’s a good point — whatever idiom it is that almost every contemporary worship team I’ve ever heard performs in is hardly suitable for leading congregational singing. It would be easier, for example, to sing along with the average pop star doing the National Anthem before a baseball game. (Superfluous melismas seem to be de rigeur for the contemporary “good vocalist” set — this is the sort of thing that makes my borderline-conservatory background shudder!)
As far as the content of contemporary hymns, the Missouri Synod has a good detailing of the problems in the asinine With One Voice hymnal.
(Unsurprisingly,) I have more to say on this matter; stay tuned.
June 1st, 2004 at 08:55:50 AM (#)
Tony: A bit of humility in tone might have made the above critique a bit more palatable or at least something that folks could respond to. The “many ladies” who “like the heretical hymns, with their gender flattening language, and their thinking that we are smarter than Jesus, who instructed us to refer to God as Father” who may or may not live/think/do as you insinuate, are thoughtful people who deserve your respect, in thought, word, and deed.
June 1st, 2004 at 03:36:07 PM (#)
My background: grew up with bluegrass and southern gospel (the latter being rife with questionable theology) in a performing family, became a classically trained pianist, played garage rock (Boston, Journey, etc.) and college jazz ensemble, and have been a paid church music staffer of some sort for 15 years.
My comment: I have seen every thing except snake handling and poison consumption in my years of attending and participating with denominations ranging from Primitive Baptists to Episcopals, and very rarely have I been a part of the “perfect worship experience”. As a self-proclaimed musical snob, I am sometimes upset with the level of musicianship exhibited, although I firmly believe virtuosity is sometimes regarded too highly. Wherever we are (and I’m speaking to those who lead or plan worship), we must strive to meet people where they are, with relevant music, liturgy, and preaching. Mozart’s Ave Verum Corpus is lovely, but how many will recognize it? Shout to the North will probably be foreign to those over 40. So what do we do? We pray for guidance and the Spirit’s leading, make sure our selections are theologically sound, and, Heaven help us, ask the congregation their opinion as we try and reach the majority in attendance. We will never please everyone who walks through our doors, but there is hopefully someplace that will. We must be true to our mission - proclaiming the Good News at all costs. As Paul wrote, “…I have become all things to all people, so that by all means some might be saved”.
June 3rd, 2004 at 11:58:39 AM (#)
I’m an avowed musical elitist, capable of being just as snotty about Handel as I am about the Pixies. I am also a frustrated bass, who grew up in various evangelical, Lutheran, and Friends churches learning how to harmonize by playing off my dad’s tenor and my sisters’ alto. My heart fairly swelled with pride at my wedding when my Protestant side of the church ripped into 8-parts on “Be Thou My Vision” and the poor papists, fed on cantor-pap, produced a pitiful unison squeak.
I am thus fully in accord with complaints about contemporary worship. I defy any of you to find an enjoyable and singable bass line in “Our God is an Awesome God.” My father now works as the 60’s-and-over pastor at a hideous suburban McChurch, where worship isn’t about affect OR doctrine, but mainly about conformity, standing and swaying, raised hands optional, to listless treacly lyrics projected on an overhead and sung to Creed-esque power chords.
This is invariably followed by a sermon which addresses the congregation as “you guys,” makes the gospel more accessible by relating it to our white bourgeois anxieties, and makes strident use of powerpoint and film clips from, say, Finding Nemo.
My dad claims that the point of all this is to make the “unchurched” (My dad uses words like that. Still, it’s better than calling all non-christians “pagans” as he did in the 80s.) feel welcome. What this strategy seems to me to do is advertise Christianity as a sop for unthinking submorons who can’t escape upper-middle-class pop culture long enough to apply critical thought to their faith or their commission in the world. In Overland Park, Kansas, at least, the faith of Wycliff and Luther and C.S. Lewis has become just another brand name, existing merely to propagate itself. We are the Borg. Resistance is futile. Now let’s praise Him! Woo! I suspect that more of the “unchurched” than dad would like to admit respond with the sentiment that Christianity is best left to the morons, and bugger off to read something and fire a few synapses.
Now I’m not suggesting that a return to SATB and Bach would solve these problems. I suspect our Left Behind-reading world might leave little room for that. But if I’m a pagan who can’t tell the difference between church and Avril-Lavigne-sings-the-USA-Today-Life-Section, I ain’t going to church.
June 3rd, 2004 at 06:26:36 PM (#)
James, your analysis is incisive and amusing, as one might expect. However, I believe that “unchurched” (to describe one who did not grow up with a Christian education) is a reasonably useful word, is a syllable-saver (when compared to phrases that say the same thing), and does not, as far as I am aware, have the pejorative connotations you ascribe to it.
June 8th, 2004 at 09:48:10 AM (#)
True enough, Will. Of course it’s not meant to be pejorative. We’re Christains; we don’t pejorate anyone, not even the pagans. What I am slightly abashed by is the we-have-the-answers smugness it implies, the idea that being raised in a church, specifically our church, is the ideal, short of which many rescuable unfortunates fall.
The thing that I’m questioning is how noble a cause it is for a church merely to bring in the unchurched and convert them so that they can stand about swaying in order to convert more unchurched people and we can all stand around, sway, drink coffee, feel good, swap tales about our lawns, vote for who Pastor tells us to vote for, and do no good in this world while we wait for the next. This is a pernicious cycle, and I suspect that it’s not unique to my parents’ church.
June 8th, 2004 at 09:49:04 AM (#)
Sorry to have gotten off topic.