Category: Rants (Page 2 of 6)

I get a little riled up occasionally, and then I think about why I am angry. I will continue thinking long after I should have let it go. One great way of getting beyond the issue is to write about it.

Driving and Character

A few days ago, I was driving down the highway.  I was in the right lane where I was supposed to be.  I came up behind a slower moving vehicle, who was driving where he was supposed to be.  I put on my signal, checked my blind spots, and merged left.  There was a  guy in that lane who saw what I was doing and sped up to close the gap so I couldn’t get in front of him.  I wasn’t having any of that.  Neither was he.  He laid on the horn as if to inform me of his presence.  This was unnecessary; I already knew he was there.  Perhaps he was angry that I would presume to move in front of him.  I was angry that he had claimed the left lane as his own.  I gave him the universal, “Give me a break and quit being a jerk” sign.

I’m not saying I behaved generously in this situation.  I am saying that the other guy didn’t.

I contend that North American roads and traffic rules create competitors.

North American roads and traffic rules create mindless competitors. I am farthest from Heaven when I am driving. In Cornwall, I experienced liturgical driving.Click To Tweet

I was driving in Cornwall last summer and there is no space for this approach.  Cornwall roads promote collaborators.

The roads are intended for traffic in two directions, but it is only wide enough to accommodate a single car–a very little one.  And there is no shoulder, only stone wall covered in spiny vegetation–these are called hedges.

The speed limit is 60 km/hr. and I found myself, on day one, sitting on the right side of the car, shifting with my left hand (manual transmission of course–automatics were almost twice the money).  Theoretically, I was supposed to be driving on the right side of the road, but there was no right side of the road, or left side, in Cornwall.

The way you passed another vehicle was with the use of pull-outs.  a pull-out is about 11 inches longer than the car you are driving.  If a car came up from behind, you simply used the next pull out to let them pass.  I used them regardless of what side they were on.  I think this was appropriate.

When you encounter an oncoming vehicle someone needs to use a pull-out.

    • You advance to the next pull-out and let him by.
    • He advances to the next pull-out and lets you by.
    • You back to the next pull-put and let him by.
    • He backs to the next pull-out and lets you by.

The relative positions of each car to the closest pull-out is often the determiner.  But with experienced Cornwall drivers, it all happens very quickly with some flashing of headlights as a means of communication.  They can often get past each other with hardly a reduction of speed.  But if backing up is required, it’s somehow clear who is doing it, again with a flash of the headlight, and it’s sorted in no time.

The key to the whole system is cooperation.  The guy refuses to accommodate, or back up, will snag the whole system and nobody will get anywhere.

The system demands cooperation.

I can’t help but wonder if this sort of daily cooperation begins to change a person.  Every day they must work with others to achieve mutual benefit.

I wonder if the daily competitive, “me first” refusal to accommodate shapes a persons view of the world, even to the level of his identity.

Black Hats, White Hats, Red Hats, Grey Hats

Simplistic thinking and knee-jerk reaction is a problem these days.  There used to be more a little more nuance in people’s thinking, some acknowledgment of grey areas.  Not anymore, it seems.  We live in a world of black and white.

I was watching Twitter this week when the #CovingtonBoys met Nathan Phillips.  People looked at that now famous image and jumped to all sorts of conclusions about what happened.  Pretty much every conclusion to which anyone jumped was wrong because they jumped from simplistic assumptions.  A week has passed and some people are still looking at the incident through stereotypes.

With this binary thinking, there are clear good guys and clear bad buys.  Heroes in white hats and villains in black hats.  But this isn’t reality; there were no black and white hats at the Lincoln Memorial last Saturday–just grey (and red).

The Sainthood and The #Covingtonboys

There were a lot of people who saw the students from Covington High school as saints.  Others see them and want to respond with violence.  The reasons for both reactions are the same.

  1. They are Christian.
  2. They are obviously conservative
  3. They are wearing MAGA hats.

The Sainthood of Nathan Phillips

There’s a whole other batch of people that instantly saw Phillips as the saint.  Their evidence?

  1. He is a U.S. Marine Veteran.
  2. He is an Omaha Tribal elder.
  3. He must be liberal.

TheCovingtonBoys are not Saints

I work with High School students.   They are all capable of much good and we celebrate this when we see it, but they are all capable of many forms of vice or folly.  They are like every other human being on the planet except they are young.  Consequently, both their good and their evil are a little more exuberant.

I am going to disagree with Rienzo, who seems to equate the boys to Christian martyrs facing lions in the Colleseum.

In this group of students, as in most groups, you will see a mix of good, bad and foolish.

They are Christian: Not all Christians are good.  I would go so far as to say, “No Christians are good.”  I wouldn’t be so bold, except the Bible says it.  For it puts Christians in the larger category of being human.  I will concede that there is a lot more hostility directed toward Christians in the media these days.  But, it is not at all helpful for Christians to automatically come to the defense of other Christians, just because they are Christian.  We can expect evil within our midst.  And the best course of action is to deal with it.

It’s equally ridiculous to demonize all Christians.  For one thing, the standard by which Christians are being demonized is a Christian standard.  Secondly, many of the offenses for which Christians are accused are not Christian or at least not exclusively Christian, but human nature expressed through religion and politics.

Every Christian is also human.   That means they will sometimes do good things, but it also guarantees that they will also do evil.  Consequently, we will have to condone or condemn their words and deeds, one at a time.  This is not convenient, but it is moral.

They are conservative:  This doesn’t automatically make them good people, but it doesn’t automatically make them bad people either.   There are good reasons behind social and economic conservatism.  And there are problems with it as well.  Let’s admit this fact, instead of automatically and thoughtlessly condoning or condemning.  Meaningful dialogue is the only way to tease out the truth and the falsehood from these positions.  Meaningful dialogue and name-calling are mutually exclusive.

I don’t understand Christians who are completely comfortable under the conservative label when a good chunk of conservative thought runs contrary to the Bible.  But even so, they are half right, and it might take some responsible dialogue to determine when, where and why.

They are wearing MAGA hats:  This is a hard one.  Some people see this as a token of sainthood.  It certainly isn’t that.  But I try not to think of it as signifying pure, unadulterated evil.  It is inseparable from Donald Trump.  This means that Christians should be very hesitant to wear them for he represents so much that is contrary to Biblical Christianity.

Of course, the students don’t understand that it’s inappropriate to politicize the March for Life with a Trump hat, but where are the adults?   And then I realize that there are probably a lot of adults are wearing them too.

Of course, the students don't understand that it's inappropriate to politicize the March for Life with a Trump hat, but where are the adults? And then I realize that there are probably a lot of adults are wearing them too.Click To Tweet

Nathan Phillips is No Saint Either

Nathan Phillips is no saint, nor is he likely a villain, but this week, binary thinking reduced him to one or the other.  From some perspectives, the evidence for his essential goodness comes from his service in the US military.

He is a Veteran:  Partly out of guilt for our treatment of Vietnam War veterans, and partly because of our worship of Freedom, we’ve recast the idea of a soldier as Defender of Freedom.  We liturgically show appreciation for the sacrifice of our men and women in uniform at civic celebrations and sporting events.  Further, the military is, as always, linked to nationalism.  Consequently, our cultural narratives now celebrate our soldiers.  Veterans are the good guys.  Phillips is a veteran.

Our veneration of Freedom and Nation can lead us to unthinkingly considering all veterans as white-hat heroes, but Nathan Phillips cannot live up to this image.  He is only human.

He is an Omaha Tribal elder:  This has lately become a powerful signifier or goodness.  I recently overheard a woman bashing Christians for being bigots and anti-science.  But it was obvious that she held firmly to the now fashionable reverence for Indigenous culture and spirituality that our federal and provincial governments are promoting.  I support this promotion, by the way.  But with qualifications.

Indigenous Spirituality in a Box

We do well to understand the culture and spirituality of our Indigenous neighbours.  There is much to admire and even emulate. But I worry that we are sanitizing and homogenizing this culture.  Both Indigenous spirituality and Christianity are inconsistent with the modern liberalism that dominates the political and social scene in Canada often for the same reasons.  In the case of Christianity, the differences are emphasized and condemned.  In the case of Indigenous culture, the differences are emphasized and patronized and sanitized and then celebrated.

Both Indigenous spirituality and that of Christianity are inconsistent with the modern liberalism that dominates Canadian politics and education, often for the same reasons. But we condemn the differences in the former and praise them in the latter.Click To Tweet

We are not taking Indigenous culture and spirituality as it is.  We pick and choose the bits that fit our particular political and social narrative.  I fear we are we sentimentalizing.  And so we fail to understand our neighbours but walk away feeling as if we’ve somehow done right.

I wanted to tell the woman who was bashing Christians and venerating Indigenous spirituality, that 70 percent of Indigenous people are Christian.  I suspect this would have been problematic because I don’t think it fits her simplistic narrative.

When I was a kid, the media–movies and television–usually presented Indigenous Americans as aggressive and savage.  We’ve come to repent of this racism, but we are in danger of replacing this misrepresentation with another.  Disney does this when it presents the Sioux as passive victims in Hidalgo.

We often reduce indigenous culture down to its connection to the land or its respect for elders and ancestors or the dialogic approach to problem-solving or as a complement to secular modernism.  These are wonderful aspects of these cultures that we might benefit from, but aren’t we just cherry picking?   Aren’t we really assuming a patronizing openness to these particular ideas and in doing so, disrespecting the whole?

Very rarely do people or things fit neatly into categories of Good and Evil. One of the things we can learn from Indigenous culture is the efficacy of a restorative justice model to teach us that this is so.Click To Tweet

He must be a liberal: There are two problems here.  One is that it’s a simplistic assumption–liberals cannot usually be identified by how they look.  The second problem is to assume that if he’s a liberal, he’s a saint or an embodiment of evil.  There are good reasons behind social and economic liberalism, but it’s not all good.  Meaningful dialogue is the only way to tease out the truth and the falsehood from these positions.

I don’t understand Christians who are completely comfortable under the liberal label when a good chunk of liberal thought runs contrary to the Bible.  But even so, they are half right, and it might take some responsible dialogue to determine when, where and why.

Very rarely do people or things fit neatly into categories of Good and Evil.  One of the things we can learn from Indigenous culture is the efficacy of a restorative justice model to teach us that this is so.  I’m not sure if Phillips is so keen on restorative practices, but we’ll see if he consents to meet with the boys.  America needs some Indigenous Peoples’ wisdom in these curcumstances.  Ironically, these ways are also Christian.  Let’s use, and celebrate both.

If you’d like a nice parable that also bears on this discussion, read “The White Knight” by Eric Nicol.

 

Can I Please Have an Extension?

kang_hojun / Pixabay

This is a post for my students and their parents.  I’ve received emails from frustrated parents because I was hesitant to grant a request for an extension on a writing assignment.  Here I explain my refusal, not just to justify myself, but also to provide information so that parents and students can proactively avoid the circumstances that cause the frustration in the first place.

I have explained my two-draft system for teaching academic writing.  It’s a great system because student writing improves significantly, but it comes at a cost.  There is so much marking to do, and it’s the hardest kind of marking–the kind where I must give meaningful feedback.

When I started this two-draft system, my marking was inefficient.  Today a class set of papers takes me 16 hours, a few years ago is was closer to 24.  I was marking for two weeks solid, as the papers trickled in.

Here's the thing about marking--if you mark 10 papers in one session, it will take just less than 2 hours. If you mark those same papers one at a time, It will take you over 3.Click To Tweet

I didn’t want to abandon the whole system because student writing was improving, but I needed to streamline the process and get the marking under control.  Now, I’ve done it.  Not only is my marking down to 16 hours for a set of papers, but I am seeing even better writing from students as a result of these changes.

The changes place some more responsibility on students.

Managing the Marking

Right now I have nearly 60 English 12 students, and I’m marking most papers twice.

In order to make the marking more manageable, I have established a due date/time for the first draft.  This date is firm.  If the paper comes in on time, I mark it.  I stop when I finish the last one.  If a paper comes in after this, I won’t even see it.

The papers are always due on Saturday at 8 am.  Remember, there is no requirement to turn in the first draft, but if you want the feedback this is the one condition.  You have to turn it in for me to mark it.  And I mark on Saturday.

It takes 10-12 minutes to mark each paper. I usually get around 45-50 first draft papers.

This adds up to about 10 hours of marking.  In order to get the papers back to students as fast as possible, I mark them all that day.  I mark until I have no more papers.  I’m not going to check in on Sunday to pick up any stragglers.

I have a due date/time for the second and final copy of the paper.  This time is also firm.  If a first draft paper has been submitted, this second draft is optional.  If a student wants me to mark their re-write, they need to turn it in, on time of course.  If I don’t get a paper, I assume the student has chosen to take the mark they earned on the first draft.

Sharing the Cost

Student writing has improved so much, that I regularly have students return years later to thank me for preparing them so well for university writing.  Their success is due in part to this two draft system.  But this success comes at a cost. The cost is shared by the students and myself.  The price I pay is giving up specific Saturdays to provide thorough, valuable and immediate feedback on first drafts and then marking them all again.  The student’s cost is they must turn in their best work by the time I get to the last paper.

All this isn’t as harsh as it sounds.  High school papers are a long time in development.  We work on them for 3 to 4 weeks.  We’ve had discussions and done activities that help the student to understand the task.  I do all I can to get students started with a clear sense of direction.  Writing can start more than 2 weeks before the due date.  There is time enough to write the paper.

Not all students start early enough.  They are busy with other things, many of them worthwhile.  The week before the paper is due, those who haven’t started predictably begin to experience stress.  This motivates, but some students are involved in a lot of things and haven’t yet developed a system by which they can both be busy and get their school work finished.

Some of these will ask for an extension.

Extensions

I will, of course, give an extension for significant illness or an unanticipated family crisis–these are unplanned an unavoidable.  I will also give students more time if they started their paper early and have been diligently working for weeks and still need more time.  I usually have a pretty good idea as to who these students are.

I am very reluctant to give extensions because of a lack of time management.  I totally understand why they want one.  I understand why the parents are frustrated with me for not giving one.  I get it–in the week before the due date, the student has three shifts at Tim Horton’s, the hay needs to be taken off before the rain, there’s grandpa’s 75th birthday party, volleyball practices, piano lessons, and a Taylor Swift concert.  There are tears and frustration–even yelling.  All could be well if only Mr. De Jong would give an extension.

This is when I get the email.

By making the paper a priority, and starting early, the busiest student can get a decent draft of a paper completed in two weeks.  Students take between 4 and 12 hours to write a large paper.  They know how long it takes them.  If they are busy and slow, they must start earlier, and take every 30 minutes where they can get it.  They have to say “No” to Starbuck’s and Hockey Night in Canada for two weeks.  This is the price they must pay if they want feedback.

Remember, there is an extension built into my system–there is no obligation to turn in the first draft–it’s completely optional.  They don’t even have to inform me.  They can decide to take an automatic 5-day extension.

All Decisions Come at a Price

Who should pay the price for a student’s involvement in the school play or the missions trip?  Or the hockey game or rock concert?  Almost all students accept the fact that they ought to pay the bulk of the costs for their decisions–for the good ones as well as the bad.  All decisions demand a price.  It’s a fact of life.  Deciding to go on a leadership trip to our nation’s capital is good, but it will cost you.  Many students pay this cost by organizing their schedule in such a way so as to submit the first draft before they leave–that’s five days early.

Students ought to pay for their decisions--for the good ones as well as the bad. All decisions demand a price. It's a fact of life.Click To Tweet

I usually deny a student’s request for an extension because they are, in effect, asking me to negate the natural consequences of the decisions they made.  Someone must pay the price, but they’d rather not be the one that pays it.

What lessons will they learn by a refusal of an extension?  What lessons will they learn by a granting of same?

“It’s only one paper.”

One exception will quickly turn into 10 and I’d be back where I stared–an additional eight hours of marking spread out over two weeks.  I’d go back to students turning in one paper and cut down on the comments.  I’d be doing things just like my high school teachers.  And most students wouldn’t become better writers.

“What about grace.”

I worry about the lessons that are learned if I give an extension.  I think the most gracious thing to do, long term, is to deny the extension.  The kids that are busy need to learn how to manage busyness–their life won’t get less busy when they get to post-secondary or move into their career.  I’d also hate to think what a child learns when they don’t pay the price for their decisions.

“It’s not fair.”

59 other students are paying the price of their own choices.  Is it fair that one does not?

 

The Liturgy of Loud

Bru-nO / Pixabay

Why is the music so loud?

Before we go any further, I want to make clear that I’m not talking about loud music, because I don’t mind loud music.   I’m talking about bass levels that evoke the adjective “ridiculous” from someone who doesn’t mind loud music.  Levels that make me wonder if there is some technical malfunction because there’s no way this could be intentional.

I spoke with some sound engineers and musicians from various churches and I asked them why the loud bass mix.  Here are the answers I received:

“It Isn’t Loud”

Most were quick to assure me that the music wasn’t too loud from the perspective of safety, pointing out there is little danger of hearing damage at the volumes of even the loudest worship bands.  I told them that I wasn’t worried about my hearing or my cholesterol or my blood pressure.  Other concerns were in play.

I explained that it wasn’t the volume.  It was the bass–the bass guitar and the bass drum were disproportionately high.  I explained that the bass hum dug through my ears into the back of my jaw, that my shirt was vibrating against my body and that I worried that my buttons would vibrate open.  I explained that sometimes I had to stop singing to check if my heart was in atrial fibrillation, that I was uncomfortable with feeling my esophagus vibrating and feeling ripples in my stomach acids.  I explained that I think it is too loud because my bowels had been liquified.  They nodded–they knew what I was talking about.  They told me it wasn’t a mistake.

“We Love it Loud”

Who is the “we” of, “We love it loud”?  Christendom?  Is it everyone but me? True Christians?  The worship team?

I pressed one song leader and he said, “Young people prefer the high bass mix.”

I have been to places where young people listen to music and dance.  They do love it da bass.  I usually leave.  Is this what is expected of me on Sunday mornings.

The singing we do in church is corporate worship.  A diverse body of believers worships God with our voices.  We do so in cultural ways.  We used to have one culture, but about a hundred years ago, youth culture began to diverge from that of older generations.  So we now have two cultures–what does culturally expressed corporate worship look like when we have two distinct cultures?

What does culturally expressed corporate worship look like when we have two distinct cultures?Click To Tweet

Do we go with the majority?  Do we go with a mix?  Do we go with a homogenization?  Do we go with one of the subgroups and the other can lump it?

This is serious stuff and none of these options are very good.  It seems to me the last one is the worst.  I don’t think anyone has ever considered exclusively singing songs like “Jesus wants me for a sunbeam,”  or bringing back the pipe organ.  These are fine for their subgroup, but a minority ought not to dictate how the whole church worships.  So why does it seem obvious that we need to crank up the volume and bass levels because “we” like it that loud?

I’m thankful that I attend a church that doesn’t crank up the bass every Sunday.

“People are Less Self-Conscious if It’s Loud”

Another answer to my question, “Why so loud?” was that people sing better when it’s loud because they feel less self-conscious.

This might be so, but how do you know?

Are they really less self-conscious if the music is still loud, but the bass is more balanced?

When I look around there are a lot of people singing enthusiastically, but these people sing enthusiastically whatever the volume or mix.  I also see people not singing at all, but these folks don’t sing even when it’s loud.  I know of at least one person that has stopped singing because he’s focused on his shirt buttons and his pulse.  If there is one, perhaps there are others who find that the mix is getting in the way of worship.  And again, I am not opposed to loud music.  If you want to support tentative singers with loud music, you have my blessing. I am questioning the ridiculous.

The Liturgy of Loud

Corporate singing is a liturgical element of our worship services.  As with all liturgical elements, it is what we learn in the repetition that makes rituals so powerful.  What we learn isn’t just in our heads, it’s deeper than that–we learn it in our bones.  Let’s look at what we learn through the singing of songs when we can consistently hear the voices of the worshipers.

  1. We learn that we have an individual voice that is important in worship.
  2. We learn that our imperfect individual voice blends with other voices to create something beautiful–the gift of worship to our Lord.
  3. We learn that worship involves active participation.

What do we learn from a very loud praise band with a high-bass mix?

  1. I learn that my individual voice is unimportant.  When I cannot hear my own voice, we are ritually practicing the insignificance of the individual worshiper.
  2. We learn that the voices of the corporate body are also unimportant.  When we can’t hear, we are ritually reinforcing the negation of Christian unity and community.  If that sounds too strong, well then, we are at least missing the opportunity to ritually reinforce the importance of Christian unity and community.  One of the greatest joys I derive from corporate singing is the sense of “the throng of worshipers.”  It starts with hearing my wife singing with me, and then the sound of one or two voices behind us, and then I become aware of my place within a choir of hundreds of voices coming together in the praise of our Lord.  It is a liturgy of unity.  Sometimes, I cannot hear my own voice, let alone the strong voice of my wife’s strong alto 10 inches from my ear.  When the mix and volume obliterate the sounds of all these voices we are ritually negating the throng.
  3. With the elimination of the sound of other voices, worship becomes highly individual.  Perhaps this is why the same bass mix we are using in worship contexts is so popular in rave parties and dance clubs.  Our culture is hyper-individualistic, so it makes sense that our music would reduce a collective experience to individual physical sensations.  Marshall McLuhan was right when she said that the media is the message.  What message is the media of rave/club music communicating?  Do we want to communicate this message in Christian corporate worship?
  4. In Modern churches, worship can easily become passive.  Part of this is because Modern worship resembles a secular concert, where our passivity is expected.  The other part is that I don’t have a role to play in worship if I have no voice and can hear no others.  Sure, I can worship individually, but that would be counter to the purposes of corporate worship.

All rituals, including those in church on Sunday, shape our identity as a people.  Therefore, corporate worship should be designed to shape us into the people of God as active worshipers.  (Importantly, we ought not to mistake movement with active worship.)

When the mix and volume of the praise band obliterate the sounds of human voices we are ritually negating the worshiper in corporate worship.Click To Tweet
Perhaps the most important things about corporate worship is placing your voice among those of others. High bass and volumes remove the corporate from corporate worship; I can't hear anyone else. Worship is reduced to an Individual experience.Click To Tweet

 Dynamics and Earplugs

There are two arguments behind which advocates of a ridiculously loud and high bass mix advocates hide.

  1.  Music needs a variety of dynamic levels.  This is absolutely true.  But one of them need not be absurdly loud.   The first verse is usually fine because it’s just a soloist and an accompanying acoustic guitar and/or piano–we can hear ourselves and each other.  The second verse builds.  We have left corporate worship; natural human voices have been stifled.  Chorus–now comes the bass, even the words from the amplified voices are incoherent.  If we ever hear each other again, it’s on one of the repetitions of the bridge. 
    Is it still corporate worship if I've only heard the voices of other people during one verse of the song?Click To Tweet
  2. Ear plugs are a courtesy provided for those who find the volumes discomfiting.   This is a nice gesture, but misplaced.  First, the earplugs do nothing to block out the discomfort created by the high bass-mix.  Second, earplugs do the same thing as the loud music does–they block out the voiced of other worshipers.  The take the corporate out of corporate worship.

“The Bible Says It Should Be Loud”

Another answer to my question is that the Bible mandates the music should be loud.

One verse that is cited to support this assertion is Psalm 150:5.

“Praise him with loud crashing cymbals!”

Another, is 1 Chronicles 15 where David commands the people to play loudly on musical instruments, which they did.  I certainly agree that our corporate worship won’t always be solemn or contemplative; much of it should be joyful and exuberant and some of it will be loud.  It is appropriate to respond to God’s grace with enthusiasm.

Revelation 19:1 tells of the great multitude in heaven is crying out,

“Hallelujah! Salvation and glory and power belong to our God!”

There is no mention of a musical accompaniment here. This verse may suggest that we turn down the bass;  the very fact that the words sung by the heavenly host are recorded in the rest of Revelation 19 indicates that they were heard and understood, despite the accompaniment, if there was any at all.

I’m no theologian, but I think that these verses have very little to do with volume, but are reflective of an attitude of worship.  It is a bit of a hermeneutical stretch to suggest that they indicate a Biblical mandate that the electronically amplified instruments in enclosed spaces must approach 90dBA.

It strikes me that the Biblical defense of the bass mix is an attempt to justify one’s musical tastes with isolated texts.

“You’re Just an Old Fuddy-Duddy”

In my interviews with worship leaders and sound engineers, nobody told me that I was just an old fuddy-duddy.  But since they were all 25 years younger than me, I wonder if they were thinking it.

Maybe I am a fuddy-duddy. When it’s too loud, I am agitated and lead away from worship into irritation.  But even if I am the only one who feels that excessively loud and bassy worship music is irritating, we should evaluate the hidden consequences of the Liturgy of the Loud.

Perhaps the most important things about corporate worship is placing your voice among those of others. High bass and volumes remove the corporate from corporate worship; I can't hear anyone else. Worship is reduced to an Individual experience.Click To Tweet

Further reading: Here is the first in a series called “The Poetry of Worship” 

Adding To Hymns? Do So Carefully

 

Tama66 / Pixabay

John Newton’s “Amazing Grace” (1779) tops almost every list of the most popular hymns of all time.

It’s been covered by Whitney Houston, Al Green, Willie Nelson, Ray Charles, Aretha Franklin, Steven Tyler, Alan Jackson, Carrie UnderwoodElvis Presley and thousands of others.

Why this popularity?

The tune is beautiful, even when played by bagpipes.  The poetry is rich.  The song presents the Gospel of Grace.  Its significance is both cosmic and individual. It takes us from our present, through death, into eternity.  It’s the complete package.

New Choruses to Old Songs

Feelings are becoming more and more important in our culture.  Have you noticed that people no longer say, “I think” anymore?  They always say, “I feel.”  Although emotions are important, they are often given too much authority in our culture.

We can see this swing in contemporary worship music.  Choruses are added to the old favourites to give them the emotional lift they lacked in their original form.  The music goes higher, the vowels go longer, hearts rise up, hands join hearts . . .

There is nothing wrong with the addition of new choruses.  We can critique older styles of worship for not engaging enough of our emotions and these new choruses actually lead to more holistic worship.  The new choruses do go wrong when they are emotion for emotion’s sake–one of the indications that the mind is not invited into this emotional climax is that the words don’t really mean anything, or worse, they fail to connect to the rest of the song, or worse, they are incomprehensible.

Why the need to add to the good ol’ hymns?

I get it.  Times are different.   We like choruses now.  The old hymns don’t have choruses.

Why do we like choruses?  Why does a song without a chorus just feel incomplete? It’s because, these days, we are very emotional.  Not just Christian culture, but the culture at large.  More and more it is our feelings that matter, sometimes at the expense of everything else.

We might feel let down if worshipful feelings aren’t are not evoked by the songs we sing.   Consequently, many of our songs are designed to generate worshipful feelings.  The original “Amazing Grace” was not written with an emotional climax, so Tomlin gives us a chorus with a building and rising melody that pulla our feelings up, along with our hands, to that place where we feel worshipful.

Our worship is becoming more sentimental; if we don't feel worshipful, we feel as if we have worshiped adequately.Click To Tweet

It is not wrong for the songs we sing to evoke worshipful feelings.  Nor is it wrong to add refrains to old songs to serve this purpose.  I like Todd Agnew’s “Grace Like Rain” which also adds such a chorus to Amazing Grace.

Our emotions ought to be involved in worship, but so should the rest of us.

The choruses that Tomlin adds to the best of our traditional hymns are designed to make us feel worshipful–more worshipful than we would feel if we sang the hymn in its original form.  Fine.  Unfortunately, these additions are often shallow and trite.  They can make us feel worshipful, but they do little for our mind or imagination.

Traditional hymns were not structured to provide an emotional climax, but they can be fixed with the addition of a sentimental refrain.Click To Tweet

Metaphors are Magic

Metaphors are amazing things.  They are comparisons.  Properly executed something magical can happen in the comparison.   “Amazing Grace” has many metaphors including:

  • Life is a path with hidden snares.
  • Heaven is home.
  • Our heavenly bodies will be like the sun.
  • Because of Grace, death is a mere veil.
  • God is our shield.

These metaphors engage our minds, our emotions, and our imaginations.  And they contribute to holistic worship.  Let’s look at one of these metaphors.

He will my Shield and Portion be,
As long as life endures.

Here the poet metaphorically compares the Lord to a shield.  All kinds of meaning flow from this comparison.  Most clearly, the Lord protects us for our entire lives.  But a little deeper is the idea that life is a war, and that we are in desperate need of protection.  It’s interesting that the song doesn’t name the threat, only the shield; this song is about God and his Grace; our foe can be the subject of other songs, not this one.  This is the power of metaphor–it is layered and complex and they can surprise you even after you’ve sung them a hundred times.

Mixed Metaphors are Ludicrous

Mixed metaphors are not magical.

On the surface, a mixed metaphor looks like a metaphor, but it is a comparison that doesn’t work.

First, here are two wonderful metaphors that Jesus uses for himself:

“I am the good shepherd, . . . and I lay down my life for the sheep.”

“I am the bread of life, whoever comes to me will never grow hungry.”

These are both legit metaphors, but if we mix them we have

I am the bread of life, and I lay down my life for the sheep.

The comparison is nonsensical.

Unlike a metaphor, this silly comparison does not lead to deeper reflections on who Jesus is–it has no magic.  It just leaves us puzzled.

Jesus did not say, I am the bread of life, and I lay down my life for the sheep.Click To Tweet

Tomlin’s Mixed Metaphor

The chorus that Tomlin added to the most beloved of hymns climaxes on a mixed metaphor.

My chains are gone
I’ve been set free
My God, my Savior has ransomed me
And like a flood His mercy reigns
Unending love, amazing grace

“Like a flood, his mercy reigns” is a mixed metaphor.   It is saying that God’s mercy is like a reigning flood.  But floods don’t reign.  This is like saying, “Like a flood, his mercy shines.”  Or soars, or melts, or skates.

Floods flow.  They overwhelm.  They cover and destroy.  They glut, stream, spate and surge.  For various reasons, none of these work very well as a replacement for reign–but, hey, it’s very is hard to write good poetry.

If we are going to add choruses to the old hymns, indeed if we are going to write worship songs at all, they should be the best we can make them, in every way possible.

Tomlin attempts to provide an emotional high in the singing of “Amazing Grace,” but this mixed metaphor makes this possible only if the worshipers don’t think about what they are singing.  It seems to me that we ought to sing songs that are like a symphony firing on all cylinders.

It seems to me that the songs we sing in worship should help to draw out whole being into the worship of our Gracious God: hearts, minds souls and imaginations.Click To Tweet

In my series The Poetry of Worship, offer ways we can improve the lyrics of the praise and worship songs we sing.  More importantly, I explain why we ought to.

 

 

Silentpilot / Pixabay

Worship Fail

I was recently in a crowd of more than a thousand worshippers.  The echoing cords of the final note of the chorus we had just sung were still hanging in the air.   The very talented praise band beautifully transitioned to the next song, and its lyrics appeared on the large screens overhead.

You could feel the energy and delight run through the 1300 worshippers as they enthusiastically sang the opening line.

Come, Thou Fount of every blessing,
Tune my heart to sing Thy grace;

The energy and volume of the singing were double that of the previous song.   We were well into

Streams of mercy, never ceasing,
Call for songs of loudest praise.

when we realized that the song leaders were no longer singing.  At that moment I, too, was overwhelmed with the full-throated worship as we sang praises to our Provider.  It was totally appropriate for the band to pull back and let the praises of the thronging worshippers bless the Lord unlead and unadorned.

But the band had not spontaneously stopped singing to allow this amazing worship naturally flow towards its heavenly audience.

They had stopped singing because, unbeknownst to the people of God, they were singing a different song.

Attn. Worship leader: Don't change up the traditional hymns; after 200 years, we still aren't tired of them.Click To Tweet

We were singing King’s Kaleidoscope’s 2012 version of Come Thou Fount.  This is a great version of the classic hymn, but in this context, it didn’t go over very well.

The singing collapsed.  The worship ceased.  Attention was wrenched from The Fount of Every Blessing and diverted to the song leaders so we could figure out what we were supposed to do.

The audience was going with the traditional song, but the band was doing something else– four beats after each line and a syncopated rhythm.  In one place, the words were even different.

On the surface, it seems as if we realized our mistakes quickly, adapted to the new style and continued in this new manner.  But the energy of the singing was half of what it was when we started.  I felt disappointed and a little betrayed.  It was fine; I too carried on.  I tried to turn my focus back to worshipping our God, but something beautiful was lost.  I don’t think it was just the old folks that sensed this.  The crowd was filled with 20-somethings, and they, too, had lost some of their verve.

We Like to Sing Hymns

I want to implore all Worship leaders, while you add new instrumentation and alternate styles to these hymns that you, at least, stick to the same melodies.  I’d be happy if you keep the same rhythms and chords, as well; I love to sing the bass part.

To all worship leaders: It may be preferable to sing no hymns at all than to sing altered versions of them.Click To Tweet

I have no problem with King’s Kaleidoscope altering this or any other traditional song.   These new versions can add new life to an old hymn, but altered versions are appropriate for a performance, or for Christian Radio.  Not for purposes of corporate worship. I suppose we could add a caveat: because the old melodies are so familiar, you need to give us some warning if we are going to be singing something considerably different.

My suggestion would be to just stick to the familiar version.  At least for another 30 years, when no one remembers the incredible experience of one’s small voice joined to a throng of others, in four-part harmony, singing poetry, with heart and mind and imagination, essentially unplugged, to the one who gives us breath.

“You Guys”

My wife and I attended a Sunday service in St. George’s Chapel in Windsor Castle.  This is an incredible setting.  It is the Queen’s home church and where she will be buried.  This was where Harry and Megan were recently married.  This is the Mother Church of the Order of the Garter.

The Canon was preaching on the subject of anger from Ephesians 4:26-27, “Be angry, and yet do not sin.”

He started his sermon with some levity, giving a list of some the little things that make him angry.  Typical of an urban Englishman, two irritants had to do with the underground:  failing to give up a seat to an older or disabled person and people putting their feet on the seats.

The one where I actually laughed out loud–my chortle echoing from the neo-gothic rafters, was “Being addressed with the collective ‘You Guys’ from a speaker half my age.”

I can't stand being 'You Guys'ed by a speaker half my age.Click To Tweet

I can totally relate.  That bugs me too.

I was once “you guysed” three times in a minute.

I think the issue is propriety.  “You guys” is idiomatic and colloquial.  It’s meant to be used in contexts of familiarity–among friends when both the speaker and the friends are between 14 and 24.  “You guys” is not an appropriate appellation for your grandparents.

Whatever can we say instead?

Let me offer my revision to the following announcement made by a 20-something to a multi-gendered, multi-generational gathering who naturally says:

Hey you guys.  I just wanted to let you guys know that we are having a potluck next week Thursday.  So you guys get to chose what you wanna bring: a salad or a dessert.  Hope to see you guys there.

Consider saying it this way:

Hello.  I wanted you to know that we are having a potluck next week Thursday.  You may chose what you would like to bring: a salad or a dessert.  Hope to see you there.

This is a small thing, and I wasn’t going to mention it until I realized that it’s not just me.  That the Dean of St. George’s Chapel is similarly irked, emboldened me to speak out on this irritant.

I know, I know, this post officially marks me as a grumpy old man.

Concert versus Worship

 

Free-Photos / Pixabay

If the amount of time given to the singing of praise and worship songs, and the central position of the praise band on “the stage” is any indication, many North American churches are implicitly asserting that singing of praise songs as the main way we interact with God in our Sunday services.

This means we’d better get it right.

Worship Leader?

We have all heard people, including some worship leaders, speak as if the term “worship” was synonymous with “singing.”  Even the title “worship leader” suggests the reduction of worship to singing.  The appellation “Worship Leader” is appropriate if this person also leads the congregants in the many other aspects of worship.  For instance:

  • prayer
  • scripture reading
  • the offering
  • the reading of the law
  • confession and assurance of forgiveness
  • the recitation of the Apostle’s Creed
  • funeral announcements
  • pleas for volunteers for the Sunday School
  • and anything else besides singing that also constitutes worship

If the worship leader only leads signing, then they should be referred to as song leaders.

If the worship leader only leads signing, then they should be referred to as song leaders.Click To Tweet

But isn’t this just semantics?  Although it may seem like I am being petty, this is some serious stuff.

Little things will turn and shape our thinking.  Things like:

  • using the terms singing and worship interchangeably,
  • and calling song leaders, worship leaders,
  • and removing all sign of the sacraments from the stage,
  • and calling that area “the stage”
  • and calling that area “the auditorium,”

These are hugely important because we do them habitually.  If we habitually use the term “stage,” for instance, we will come to understand what happens on it to be a performance.

James K. A. Smith Changed How I Think About Everything

According to James K. A. Smith, human beings are liturgical animals.  He argues that our lives are not given direction by what we think, or even what we believe, but by what we love.  According to Smith,

what constitutes our ultimate identities—what makes us who we are, the kind of people we are—is what we love. More specifically, our identity is shaped by what we ultimately love, or what our love as ultimate—what, at the end of the day, gives us a sense of meaning, purpose, understanding and orientation

(26–27 Desiring the Kingdom).

Smith then argues that our loves are shaped and directed by “liturgies”–habitual practices.

Traditionally the church used to orient our identities toward God and the community of faith through all sorts of liturgies: the physical spaces of worship, the sacraments, the church calendar, genuflecting, kneeling, standing, offering  “Peace.”  Fish on Friday, the rosary, daily prayers, and many other regular and repeated practices linked the spiritual realm with daily life.

Secular Liturgies

In modern Christianity, we’ve abandoned almost all of these habits and rituals–liturgies.  But, we’ve not abandoned liturgies.  Being liturgical animals, we’ve simply adopted new ones.  We’ve replaced the old ones with new ones.  And the new ones are largely modern and secular: Starbucks and McDonalds, Saturday hockey and Sunday football, Homecoming and Holloween, Twitter and Snapchat, YouTube and Netflix, craft beer and green-coloured smoothies, inclusion and saying “I feel,” when we mean “I think.”   These are not just things we do, they shape who we are because they are regular, habitual–they are liturgies.

We have replaced sacred liturgies with secular liturgies.  This ain’t good if you believe that a spiritual reality is meaningfully interacting with the material one.

Why do people have such a hard time with faith in our culture? Because our rituals direct our passions and desires to other things--other ultimate loves. Click To Tweet

Are we training people to leave the church?

There is some (a lot of?) anxiety in the North American Church about people, especially young people, vacating the pews.   To retain their members, and attract new ones, many churches have attempted to become more culturally “relevant,” but this has exacerbated the problem.  Being culturally relevant usually means importing secular liturgies into the church.  The Starbucks’ Coffee culture, showing movies on Youth Nights, dress-up parties on Reformation Day and the singing to the instrumentation and stylings of popular music are examples. The problem is that secular culture does these liturgies better than the church does, so the church is actually training people to eventually prefer Starbucks and pop concerts to Church.

The church is actually training people to eventually prefer Starbucks and pop concerts to Church.Click To Tweet

The Function of Difference

According to the Westminster Confession, one of the functions of the sacraments is as a “visible difference between those that belong unto the church and the rest of the world.” The authors of the Confession understood the importance of having a different experience at church than in the world.

Our rituals used to be different than those of the world, but in some churches, even our sacraments are being secularized.  For the health, and perhaps survival, of the North American church, we need to be different, not the same.

Here are some questions that might be a part of a discussion around how to make the singing part of worship, unlike the secular liturgy of the popular music concert:

  • How can we increase the involvement of the congregation in the singing part of worship?
  • Is there a way to teach the worshipers how to harmonize?
  • Should we sing more hymns?
  • Should we sing different hymns (than just the 5 we do now)?
  • Should we sing hymns in their original forms, same harmonies, and no modern (and inferior) additions?
  • Are volumes and mixes supporting congregational singing, or drowning it out?
  • Can we use different instrumentation than a typical rock and roll band?
  • Can we develop different song structures besides the verse-verse-chorus-verse-bridge-chorus-chorus pattern?
  • Could we create a new genre of Christian music for corporate worship?
  • Is it necessary for the worship band to be front and centre?
  • How can we utilize lighting to take the focus off of the musicians?
  • Can we resurrect some traditional liturgical forms or elements of worship?
  • Can we invent new liturgical forms that are different than secular liturgies?
  • How can we emphasize God’s action in worship and the sacraments?
  • Can we move toward thinking about the sacraments as more than ceremonies of remembrance?
  • Can we mention, or even link our sermons to, the church calendar?

This list includes just some of the ways that we could bring more sacred liturgies into the Sunday service.  Do you have any ideas you could add to this list?

In my series The Poetry of Worship, offer ways we can improve the lyrics of the praise and worship songs we sing.  More importantly, I explain why we ought to.

What We Can Learn from the Dress Code

Photo by Rhii Photography on Unsplash

As the weather turns warmer, I again hear of some student displeasure with the dress code–this sentiment is as cyclical as the seasons.  Because it is ridiculous that a school should have no dress code at all, I am tempted to tease that we should just adopt school uniforms?  I’d not be serious with this suggestion; I oppose this move because dress codes teach us some very important things.

Advantages of School Uniforms

I will concede that school uniforms have some advantages:

  1. Uniforms instill a sense of professionalism, imitating the business-dress of their possible futures.
  2. They eliminate the hassle of trying to find outfits that meet the dress code and are also in style.
  3. They are cheaper in the long run.
  4. They act as a socioeconomic equalizer.
  5. They eliminate dress codes, that can, given the sexualization of women in our culture, unfairly target girls.

The main reason I am against school uniforms is that, although some learning may improve, a lot of other important things are not learned by the uniformed scholar–things pertaining to Freedom.

Let Freedom Reign

Our culture is obsessed with Freedom.

  • We celebrate it at our sporting events.
  • Our television shows explore themes surrounding freedom, often presenting negative caricatures of traditional authorities, limiters of freedom.
  • Most television talk shows take every possible freedom as an absolute good.
  • The TV news is full of stories about conflicts about freedom, and it is obvious that if you are not on the side of freedom, you are going to lose the argument.
  • In popular movies, one of the defining qualities of the bad guy is often that he/she is a suppressor of freedom.
  • Politicians can win majorities to their positions if they can ground them in Freedom.
  • Remembrance Day used to commemorate the Armistice that brought WWI to a close, but now it seems it is all about the Freedom that was won in that war.
  • Originally established to remember those who died while serving in the U.S. military, the language of Freedom dominates Memorial Day celebrations.
  • The internet, in its very form, perpetuates the values of unrestricted freedom.

It should come as no surprise that some students bristle at the idea of restricting their choice in school attire.  They have been raised in this freedom obsessed culture, bombarded with the idea that Freedom is The Ultimate.  Freedom is the standard by which we judge between good and evil.  Furthermore, starting sometime in adolescence, human beings begin the natural process of moving out from under the authority of parents.  This can lead to the natural assertion of personal freedoms against any form of authority– including that of their school.  Combine this natural adolescent impulse toward freedom with our particular cultural obsession and you ought not to be surprised when the cry “Freedom!” erupts from some junior William Wallace, especially in the spring.

I oppose school uniforms because, in order to learn how to navigate the world dominated by Freedom worship, our children need to be given freedom.  They need to have freedom to make decisions about what they wear so they can come up against the limits of freedom, for freedom can only be good if it is limited.  Without limits, it becomes a terrible and demanding deity.

Students need the freedom to make decisions about what they wear so they can come up against the limits of freedom, for freedom is only good when limited. Without limits, it becomes a terrible and demanding deity. Click To Tweet

What’s Wrong With Wearing A Hat?

Some students want to wear a hat to school.  We happen to be in a time where hats are an important accessory in youth culture, but hats break the dress code.  When asked to remove the hat, some ask, “What’s wrong with wearing a hat?”  There is nothing wrong with wearing a hat, but it is, sometimes, improper to wear a hat.  The reason we don’t wear hats indoors in some public places like churches, restaurants, and schools has to do with propriety.  Propriety is the quality of conforming to conventionally accepted standards of behavior or morals.  It has long been the case in our culture that hats are to be worn only outside.

Standards of propriety are relative.  They change according to place or time.  In some cultures, propriety dictates that head coverings must be worn indoors.  Ours just happens to be one in which it is traditionally expected that one removes one’s hat when entering a building.  Students naturally counter this argument by saying that times have changed, and I am holding on to an outdated convention–propriety has moved on.

I respond by saying that this convention is certainly no longer part of teen sub-culture, but propriety is not dictated by teen sub-culture, but culture as a whole.  Even here it might be fading, but it is not yet gone.

Removing hats indoors is no longer part of teen sub-culture, but propriety is not dictated by teen sub-culture, but culture as a whole. Even here it might be fading, but it is not yet gone.Click To Tweet

Why we need a dress code

or Why you can’t wear a hat in school

There is something much more important at play within the dress code’s prohibition on hats.  It is that we are holding ourselves to an external standard.  The specific standard is not as important as the idea that such communal standards exist.  They exist, and they put limits on some personal freedoms, (a heretical move in our cultural context).

The “no-hat rule” is particularly effective in teaching middle and lower high school students the vital lesson that some personal freedoms are subordinate to community standards.  This norm runs contrary to the teen sub-culture.  Propriety cannot be meaningfully taught where there is no tension between student sub-culture and the culture at large.  If we were to restrict only coon-skin caps and platform shoes, the important lessons of propriety would remain unlearned.

Propriety is about submission to something bigger than oneself.  This is difficult for some adolescents who can’t conceive of anything more important than themselves. The cultural worship of Freedom exacerbates this attitude.  Conveniently, those that most need to learn the principles of propriety identify themselves by bucking most violently against the conventions of propriety.

The 'no-hat rule' is particularly effective in teaching middle and lower high school students the vital lesson that some personal freedoms are subordinate to community standards.Click To Tweet

Students who desperately want to wear their hats in class point out that some adults, too, wear hats indoors.  Yes, there are some adults who, working outside all day, neglect to take their hat off when they come indoors.  This is not the same thing as donning a hat for a day which will be spent entirely indoors.  Other adults wear hats because they have not outgrown adolescent rebellion and/or believe that personal Freedom is ultimate.  These are not a justification for students wearing hats; they are, rather, representative of the very idea we are trying to counter.

In the case of adults sporting caps indoors, it is appropriate to be gracious, but this is not a luxury we can extend to our students.  We cannot turn a blind eye, for we bear the responsibility to move our students through adolescence and to challenge the supremacy of personal freedom.

Rituals of Submission

You can tell students things, and they might learn a little.  You can show them something, and they will learn a little better.  Students learn even better when they teach something. And better still if they do something.  But they will learn best of all if they do something with regularity.  In the morning ritual of getting dressed for school, students practice the idea that there are some things that are more important than personal freedom.  They practice submitting to an authority external to the self.

We want students to grow into adults who understand that personal freedom is a good thing, but not The Ultimate Thing.  Without a dress code, students are in danger of graduating with the idea that freedom is God.  The lessons inherent in the dress code, not just the no-hat-rule, if learned well will lead to their flourishing, and that of society as well.  A school with uniforms does not have the opportunity to teach this important lesson.

Most students have no problem with the dress code, and for those who do, the disagreement is usually the typical adolescent desire for personal freedom.  By the time most students reach their last year of high school, they have little issue with the school’s limits on clothing freedoms.  Perhaps this is because they have grown up a little, and no longer need to define themselves against authority figures, but it might also be a result of daily practice making decisions that balance personal freedom and social responsibility.

Was Paul a Jihadist?

 

I heard it a second time, “The apostle Paul was a jihadist.”  He wasn’t really though, was he?

Before his conversion, Paul, then called Saul, persecuted Christians.  In his own words, he says that he

persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers. Galatians 1:13–14

Does this make him a jihadist?  Does the term mean anyone who persecutes Christians?  Or maybe those who do so for religious reasons?

In Arabic, the term means struggle.  It might mean a struggle for a better Muslim society or a war defending the faith against unbelievers.

If we used the term correctly, I suppose we could say that Paul was as much a jihadist after his conversion, as he struggled to spread the Christian faith, as before it, in the defense of the Jewish one.

One of two conditions must be met in order to apply the term jihadist to anyone.  First, the person must be a jihadist.  Paul, a first century Jew can no more be a jihadist that Nero could be a Nazi.  In researching for this post, I discovered that most Muslims don’t use the term jihadist to describe the radical, violent Islamist.  Instead, they use a term similar to the word “deviant.”  If this is the case, it would be inappropriate for Christians to use the term for a first century Jew who was persecuting the Christian faith.  The second condition, you need to be an Arab speaking to Arabs–this way everyone knows what you mean.

If one of these two conditions are not met, then we end up using the term like Western politicians and media: generally and sensationally, to evoke fear and anger, to create unity through demonization.

I get it, we want to make the point that Paul was a really, really bad dude.  But what’s wrong with simply saying he “persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it”?

If we are to be a light to the nations, it is really important for Christians to use language responsibly and to communicate with integrity.

« Older posts Newer posts »

© 2021

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑