Proselytism

[Gordon]

What do you call it when Gordon's arguments come underfire?

Battered Keich.

When its from you, Vlad, I'd say 'sadly laughable' is a better fit.

btw what does 'Toelies' mean? Is this the secret password for members of the RD Appreciation Society?

[ProfessorDavey]

The drive to 'modernise' church music has come from two quarters.

Again a slight misunderstanding, Rhi.  It has also come from a third quarter - younger members of the congregation who grew up with first rock, then disco, then more modern forms of music, including World music.  Your points are perfectly legit. but probably have a lesser impact than you like to think.

Remember that Church music has always been in flux.  The Wesleys' hymns used styles of music that were popular at the time; many of the hymns written by Moody and Sankey are set to music borrowed from the music-halls of the time.

By the way, trying to be 'more relevant' to the young was bound to fail, because it never matcjhed the music of the youth - it was always the music of the 20- and 30 year-olds, not youth.

My point is that in the past music created as 'sacred' music - in other words designed to be used in worship gained (and still retains) a much wider appreciation. So you can think of countless examples from Haydn masses, through Faure requiem to work by Howells etc etc that even today people who have no religion, never worship still want to hear and see performed due to the phenomenal inherent quality of the music.

Where are the examples today - certainly not in 'modern' church music. Give me an example of any christian folk/rock type composers who compose music to be used in modern worship who would be able to attract a complete audience of non religious people who want to hear their music simply because it is so good. I think you will struggle.

Actually modern composers of 'sacred' music that are still able to attract a completely secular audience tend still to be working within the framework of classic choral - good examples being Rutter, Chilcott and Lauridsen all of whom will be being performed by secular choral societies to secular audiences week in week out. And non religious people will pay to hear them, or to buy their CDs.

[Rhiannon]

A lot of U2's stuff references the Bible, but whether it counts as 'sacred' or not is a moot point.

[Owlswing]

From today's METRO newspaper:

It's one of the most religious nations on the planet - but there are signs the US is losing its faith in the power of prayer.

The share of those who say they believe in God slipped to 89 per cent last year from 92 per cent on 2007, a poll found.

And the trend is more evident in young adults - they are less likely to pray daily, at 39 per cent, compared with their grandparents at 67 per cent.

Anti-science 'rhetoric' could be turning young people away from religion, the Pew Research Centre study said.

[ProfessorDavey]

A lot of U2's stuff references the Bible, but whether it counts as 'sacred' or not is a moot point.

No - it isn't designed to be used in worship, which was the point. Also don't forget that U2 aren't a christian band as, although they include a number of christian they also include Adam Clayton, who is an atheist (or at least was when they produced anything of note ).

So I'm talking about modern music being written that is designed to be used as part of worship. As far as I'm aware none of the folk/rock type stuff has sufficient quality for a non religious, secular audience simply to want to go and hear it performed - it really is only bearable if you are a worshiping christian.

There are two exception (actually these aren't folk/rock). First, of course choral music - for example Lauridsen is one of the most popular and most performed modern composers in the USA. Also think perhaps Tavener who died recently. The other exception is gospel music.

[ad_orientem]

The drive to 'modernise' church music has come from two quarters. One has been a failed attempt to be more 'relevant' to the young. But another has been the cost and state of many church organs and the lack of decent organists, and a shortage of choir members. My local churches couldn't dream of having decent choral music on a regular basis. Much easier and cheaper to have a bloke with a guitar or even just a praise CD downloaded and played through a speaker.

You don't need an organ. In the Orthodox tradition instruments aren't used. The beauty of chant is that with a little training it can be sung by almost anyone who isn't tone deaf. Whilst the complex polyphonic and orchestral pieces are without a doubt beautiful, I would nevertheless question their use as liturgical music. Once you need highly trained professional musicians the music, in my opinion, ceases to be liturgical and becomes performance.

[ad_orientem]

So I'm talking about modern music being written that is designed to be used as part of worship. As far as I'm aware none of the folk/rock type stuff has sufficient quality for a non religious, secular audience simply to want to go and hear it performed - it really is only bearable if you are a worshiping christian.

Modern Christian music reminds me of an episode of Southpark where Cartman starts a Christian rock band. They take love songs and replace the word "baby" with "Jesus". That really sums up modern Christian music. If I went into a church that played stuff like that I'd walk straight back out.

[ProfessorDavey]

The drive to 'modernise' church music has come from two quarters. One has been a failed attempt to be more 'relevant' to the young. But another has been the cost and state of many church organs and the lack of decent organists, and a shortage of choir members. My local churches couldn't dream of having decent choral music on a regular basis. Much easier and cheaper to have a bloke with a guitar or even just a praise CD downloaded and played through a speaker.

You don't need an organ. In the Orthodox tradition instruments aren't used. The beauty of chant is that with a little training it can be sung by almost anyone who isn't tone deaf. Whilst the complex polyphonic and orchestral pieces are without a doubt beautiful, I would nevertheless question their use as liturgical music. Once you need highly trained professional musicians the music, in my opinion, ceases to be liturgical and becomes performance.

That's true - there is plenty of sacred choral music that is unaccompanied.

I think you are being a little narrow in your questioning of the use of more complex music within a liturgical setting. It may not be part of the tradition within an orthodox setting, but certainly is elsewhere in christianity. And I would also challenge your dichotomy of liturgical vs performance. I think there is a middle way, where music is there to support contemplative reflection. In that case the congregation aren't involved in the sense of actually singing, but are in the sense that their contemplation is enhanced by the music. This is different to a pure performance and audience situation where the perfumers are active and the audience passive.

[ProfessorDavey]

So I'm talking about modern music being written that is designed to be used as part of worship. As far as I'm aware none of the folk/rock type stuff has sufficient quality for a non religious, secular audience simply to want to go and hear it performed - it really is only bearable if you are a worshiping christian.

Modern Christian music reminds me of an episode of Southpark where Cartman starts a Christian rock band. They take love songs and replace the word "baby" with "Jesus". That really sums up modern Christian music. If I went into a church that played stuff like that I'd walk straight back out.

Agree - I think much of it is really poor music with about as much sophistication and majesty as a nursery rhyme. It seems to take advantage of both a captive audience and also one that feels unable to criticise if the music is 'christian'. Given the astonishingly rich history of liturgical music in many, many forms that was groundbreaking of its time and remains relevant and enduring (from Gregorian chant, through baroque era masses, through the romantic/modernism boundary of Faure to gospel music) it really is almost tragic that modern music for worship (outside those areas I mentioned) is so devoid of quality and influence.

[Rhiannon]

The drive to 'modernise' church music has come from two quarters. One has been a failed attempt to be more 'relevant' to the young. But another has been the cost and state of many church organs and the lack of decent organists, and a shortage of choir members. My local churches couldn't dream of having decent choral music on a regular basis. Much easier and cheaper to have a bloke with a guitar or even just a praise CD downloaded and played through a speaker.

You don't need an organ. In the Orthodox tradition instruments aren't used. The beauty of chant is that with a little training it can be sung by almost anyone who isn't tone deaf. Whilst the complex polyphonic and orchestral pieces are without a doubt beautiful, I would nevertheless question their use as liturgical music. Once you need highly trained professional musicians the music, in my opinion, ceases to be liturgical and becomes performance.

That's true - there is plenty of sacred choral music that is unaccompanied.

I think you are being a little narrow in your questioning of the use of more complex music within a liturgical setting. It may not be part of the tradition within an orthodox setting, but certainly is elsewhere in christianity. And I would also challenge your dichotomy of liturgical vs performance. I think there is a middle way, where music is there to support contemplative reflection. In that case the congregation aren't involved in the sense of actually singing, but are in the sense that their contemplation is enhanced by the music. This is different to a pure performance and audience situation where the perfumers are active and the audience passive.

I sometimes attended services at the church at the Barbican that featured choral music in this way. But it's well beyond the resources of most parish churches to do, because few have enough people with the skills to teach and sing it well. In fact we do have a local choir who perform at special church occasions, and lovely though they are, it'd be better if they didn't.

[Rhiannon]

So I'm talking about modern music being written that is designed to be used as part of worship. As far as I'm aware none of the folk/rock type stuff has sufficient quality for a non religious, secular audience simply to want to go and hear it performed - it really is only bearable if you are a worshiping christian.

Modern Christian music reminds me of an episode of Southpark where Cartman starts a Christian rock band. They take love songs and replace the word "baby" with "Jesus". That really sums up modern Christian music. If I went into a church that played stuff like that I'd walk straight back out.

Agree - I think much of it is really poor music with about as much sophistication and majesty as a nursery rhyme. It seems to take advantage of both a captive audience and also one that feels unable to criticise if the music is 'christian'. Given the astonishingly rich history of liturgical music in many, many forms that was groundbreaking of its time and remains relevant and enduring (from Gregorian chant, through baroque era masses, through the romantic/modernism boundary of Faure to gospel music) it really is almost tragic that modern music for worship (outside those areas I mentioned) is so devoid of quality and influence.

I wonder how much this has to do with the rise of the Evangelical wing of the churches? Everything is very simplified. I used to be good friends with the couple that ran the Baptist chapel here until they left to take up a post in the West Country, and they didn't get any of the pomp that the Anglicans went in for - they used to laugh at the 'dressing up', for example. I don't think choral music fits in that view of worship.

[Rhiannon]

The drive to 'modernise' church music has come from two quarters. One has been a failed attempt to be more 'relevant' to the young. But another has been the cost and state of many church organs and the lack of decent organists, and a shortage of choir members. My local churches couldn't dream of having decent choral music on a regular basis. Much easier and cheaper to have a bloke with a guitar or even just a praise CD downloaded and played through a speaker.

You don't need an organ. In the Orthodox tradition instruments aren't used. The beauty of chant is that with a little training it can be sung by almost anyone who isn't tone deaf. Whilst the complex polyphonic and orchestral pieces are without a doubt beautiful, I would nevertheless question their use as liturgical music. Once you need highly trained professional musicians the music, in my opinion, ceases to be liturgical and becomes performance.

I very much like chant. But the Anglican churches that I used to attend have some very historic hymns that they shouldn't have to lose.

[ProfessorDavey]

The drive to 'modernise' church music has come from two quarters. One has been a failed attempt to be more 'relevant' to the young. But another has been the cost and state of many church organs and the lack of decent organists, and a shortage of choir members. My local churches couldn't dream of having decent choral music on a regular basis. Much easier and cheaper to have a bloke with a guitar or even just a praise CD downloaded and played through a speaker.

You don't need an organ. In the Orthodox tradition instruments aren't used. The beauty of chant is that with a little training it can be sung by almost anyone who isn't tone deaf. Whilst the complex polyphonic and orchestral pieces are without a doubt beautiful, I would nevertheless question their use as liturgical music. Once you need highly trained professional musicians the music, in my opinion, ceases to be liturgical and becomes performance.

I very much like chant. But the Anglican churches that I used to attend have some very historic hymns that they shouldn't have to lose.

That's right - there is a really strong heritage of iconic Anglican hymns and anthems, largely from the peaks years on the Victorian age. These have quality, influence and longevity that the current folk/rock junk can only dream of. And actually one of the great points about them is that the basic melodies are very simple, so easy to learn and sing for the congregation, but the choir and organ provide great musical texture, colour and quality that the average Joe in the congregation singing along must feel they are much better musically than they actually are given the wonderful sound created overall.

Did a concert specifically of these earlier this year - hymns and anthems, and I bet their instant recognition factor is really high. Some are even sung at rugby matches!!

[Rhiannon]

See, I actually like folk music. And whatever modern hymns are, they bear little or no resemblance to folk. Maybe the stuff from John Bell comes closest.

I suspect that the singing of those great hymns at rugby matches reflects the fact that many of the fans would have had an Anglican education with regular services in chapel, at least in the not too distant past. And again it comes back to this point of cultural rather than religious Christian identity.

[ProfessorDavey]

See, I actually like folk music. And whatever modern hymns are, they bear little or no resemblance to folk.

I love good folk music too, which is perhaps one of the reasons why I can't abide the christian folk group approach which seems to turn fantastic music into something quite excruciating, more often than not with an 'everyone's invited' inclusivity agenda meaning that the musical quality is dire. Sure folk music has a strong heritage of the everyone pitches in in the pub music, but often that's just a bit of fun or involved some excellent musicianship or both.

[Rhiannon]

Indeed. 

[floo]

I've often wondered why the mainstream UK-based Christian sects actually bother with evangelising in this day and age.

They do it because it's the Church's only raison d'etre, Gordon.

They would be much better letting good deeds do the talking, which are much more effective than spouting dogma, imo.

[Samuel]

I find sacred harp singing quite interesting. Musically it is incredibly simplistic but the effect is one of inclusivity and resounding feelings of participation and unity. Its seems to be not so much about the ideas contained within the hymns but the act of singing together itself, as an expression of the church community.

[Rhiannon]

I've often wondered why the mainstream UK-based Christian sects actually bother with evangelising in this day and age.

They do it because it's the Church's only raison d'etre, Gordon.

They would be much better letting good deeds do the talking, which are much more effective than spouting dogma, imo.

It's not so much good deeds - what on earth are those anyway - but how people live in general that is effective. 'Let your life be your message'.

[ProfessorDavey]

I've often wondered why the mainstream UK-based Christian sects actually bother with evangelising in this day and age.

They do it because it's the Church's only raison d'etre, Gordon.

They would be much better letting good deeds do the talking, which are much more effective than spouting dogma, imo.

It's not so much good deeds - what on earth are those anyway - but how people live in general that is effective. 'Let your life be your message'.

That's right.

And of course the opposite can often be the case. We all know the judgemental christian types who are constantly 'bigging themselves up' about their involvement in the church and going on about the importance of getting involved in religion, yet are the most mean spirited and judgemental people going.

Not suggesting that is an image of all christians - that would be non-sense there are loads that do what Rhiannon says - simply live a 'good' life, but sadly there are plenty who take delight in ramming their religion down your throat while at the same time being the worst possible advert for christianity.

[Hope]

I've often wondered why the mainstream UK-based Christian sects actually bother with evangelising in this day and age.

They do it because it's the Church's only raison d'etre, Gordon.

They would be much better letting good deeds do the talking, which are much more effective than spouting dogma, imo.

It's not so much good deeds - what on earth are those anyway - but how people live in general that is effective. 'Let your life be your message'.

I have found that on the occasions I have really managed to get in tune with God, my actions/behaviour have stood out from that of others and I have been asked what it is that is making me do that.  That is as much evangelism as the subsequent explanation of my faith - a combination that has more often than not drawn those I'm associating with at the time to ask further questions about God and what he can do for the individual(s) asking the questions.

It is interesting that the way Jesus worked was by using a miracle or telling a parable and then drawing a teaching point from it.

To pop back to Gordon's original question about why Christians bother doing evangelism, evangelism isn't simply talking to people - and never has been.

The comment - "Go out and preach the gospel, only using words where necessary" - has long been attributed to St Francis of Assisi.  At the churches I've been associated with, the majority prefer to use the former rather than the latter - at least initially.

[floo]

I've often wondered why the mainstream UK-based Christian sects actually bother with evangelising in this day and age.

They do it because it's the Church's only raison d'etre, Gordon.

They would be much better letting good deeds do the talking, which are much more effective than spouting dogma, imo.

It's not so much good deeds - what on earth are those anyway - but how people live in general that is effective. 'Let your life be your message'.

I think good deeds are obvious if they help others in a way which isn't patronising.

[Hope]

... but sadly there are plenty who take delight in ramming their religion down your throat while at the same time being the worst possible advert for christianity.

Ironically, I found the equivalent in regard to the issue of homosexual relationships.  On a previous board I was a member of, there were several gay and pro-gay members.  One of the latter became a firm friend of mine and we used to attend the Christian music and arts festival - Greenbelt - together until he died a couple of years ago.  On and off the board, we debated the rights and wrongs of the matter, in a sensible, reasonable and honest way, and I was beginning to come round to his point of view.  Unfortunately, at the same time, the gay and the othe pro-gay members spent all their time being abusive to & dismissive and misrepresentive of me and the others on the board who shared my viewpoint.  To a degree that stopped by moving all the way towards them - why would I want to think in the same way as people whose only form of argument was abuse and uncritical dismissal.  Sadly, I have found similar behaviour from a few here - in the same way that some here have expressed their distrust of Christians behaving the same way.

Is a tendency to become abusive when we hold strong opinions simply human nature?

[Hope]

I think good deeds are obvious if they help others in a way which isn't patronising.

Without disagreeing with you, Floo, I believe that one can sometimes face a problem in knowing whether an approach is patronising - a person's feeling of being patronised often depends on their previous experiences, and often it can take a long time for the person seeking to provide help to fully understand the impacts of those experiences.

In a way, that is why friendship evangelism can be so effective - it is only initiated once one has got to know someone well and understood their hang-ups.  It is also possibly why the survey that was being referred to earlier on the thread may not actually refer to friendship evangelism -  when I read it, it didn't seem to be talking about what I have always understood as FE.

[floo]

I think good deeds are obvious if they help others in a way which isn't patronising.

Without disagreeing with you, Floo, I believe that one can sometimes face a problem in knowing whether an approach is patronising - a person's feeling of being patronised often depends on their previous experiences, and often it can take a long time for the person seeking to provide help to fully understand the impacts of those experiences.

In a way, that is why friendship evangelism can be so effective - it is only initiated once one has got to know someone well and understood their hang-ups.  It is also possibly why the survey that was being referred to earlier on the thread may not actually refer to friendship evangelism -  when I read it, it didn't seem to be talking about what I have always understood as FE.

What on earth is friendship evangelism? If it means befriending someone so they will convert, seems unpleasantly sneaky to me.