Throwing The Book At Them
Ann Ahrens got me thinking . . .Actually, she re-invoked something I had already lamented—or at any rate—pondered. While one way of looking at the traditional vs. modern ratios involves the actual music itself, another involves something far more subtle, but that I am nonetheless finding more and more . . . um, disconcerting.
And I don’t know why that is.
Somewhere along the road, the PowerPoint projection screen hit the main apostolic artery, with regards to our lyrics—both to our choruses and the occasional paean to our heritage by singing something actually written by Thomas Dorsey. As this seemingly natural, technological advance has set in, I’m noticing that the tactile, landmark tradition of thumbing through the hymnbook has all but evaporated.
It’s not that I have some doctrinal aversion to technology. The overhead projector was a part of my church life, long before I ever saw the truth. But the overhead projector still managed to project something that seems missing from that narcolepsy-inducing blue screen: it carried the personality, passions, ad hoc artwork, and individuality of the ones using it—including the preachers.
The hymnbook was, once upon a time, a small investigative game board for those even remotely curious about anything—who wrote this song? What do those semi-cryptic musical symbols mean? Can I guess this unfamiliar melody by attempting to sing the top notes? What other songs did this Gaither guy write in here? I didn't know Kris Kristopherson wrote "One Day At A Time."
There was also a day when churches would risk the Pale Horse of the Musical Apocalypse by calling on some obscure, plaid-coated roustabout to lead songs. And maybe that unmitigated rogue would peel forth with some equally-obscure, antiquated hymn—all on the chance that the musicians would know the chords and some bedrock church member would be able to start the congregation off from their pew. Somehow, it worked.
And somehow, no one died.
Today, songs are demurred from precisely because no one has managed to load it into the PowerPoint Database. “We don’t have it in the computer, so we can’t do it.” I’ve heard this at more than one church in recent years. I don’t in any way have to assail the technology to say that approach is sadly running with a wheel in the sand.
There was also the Samaritan Principle: The one where a church member would not only give their already-opened hymnal to a disoriented visitor, but also managed to engender a sense of belonging when they managed to share it with them. How many relationships were forged, simply by exchanging names and greeting while simultaneously holding the hymnal, singing “We Shall See The King?”
And how many potential souls will come—and go—all the while isolated during the worship by those around them, not because of social inequalities, or even bad manners but by the intangible “need for decency and order” that creates an automatic “mass focus” on the overhead?
Just a thought.
I happen to be Listening to: Jonny Lang, DecemberRadio
I happen to be reading: Mnemonica


4 Comments:
Ron,
I have loved every other comment you have written on previous posts, but I must say (gulp) I strongly disagree with you. It sounds more like good ole reminiscing than wanting to (excuse the unintended pun) project us forward. Two observations on this:
1. Because of musical interpretation according to geography, as previously mentioned in earlier posts, the written music does not correspond with what is being sung. This leads to confusion to the visiting Protestant.
2. The BIG SCREEN, though sterile, is meant to be all inclusive. Though I wish more would list the author of the songs, it's meant to be about the words for everyone. Sorry, I don't miss the mad scramble during the first verse or so to get to the page.
3. Okay, this is more than two. But don't you remember the youth always fiddling with the hymnal during the preaching?
And the plaid coated guy? NO WAY!! I want to see someone who is annointed and called to their position, a true Levite, to lead us into His presences. I'll deal with that on Monday me-thinks.
Ron, you'll cool man and I dig ya, hope ya don't hate me now.
Courtney,
No worries. It's more of a food-for-thought thing than anything else. I appreciate the feedback.
But I will have to say that there is nothing to indicate "plaid-coated-guy" wasn't annointed at all. I was merely trying to say that many times a "true Levite" as you put it, had the audacity to leave "programmed" annointing. I've seen plenty of modern pulpit cheerleaders.
In my head, I just think the "plaid-coated" visual is a somewhat hyperbolic departure from the modern worship huy I see--the one with the need to comb his youthful locks into some hastily-engineered "hedge." What exactly is going on there? :)
And as to the youth fiddling with the songbooks . . . I see your point, but I also believe you make my point a bit as well--at least to my odd feelings about the fusion of technology and church ( I certainly hope I didn't come off as against it--just a tempered and readoned approach to it).
If it were me, I'd rather see the youth fiddling with hymnals than fortifying their one-handed, no-need-to-look-down text-messaging skills.
Have a great day, and I appreciate you!
-R
Ron,
...I'm trying to survive the blitkrieg of vocab words. JK. I get your reminiscing satire bit, and my contribution is that the transmission of the lyrics is not as important AS the lyrics. So, if it is just songbooks there is more than likely no openess to newer stuff, and if there is over emphasis on feeding the new, shorter (no 4 or 5 verses to type) songs into the computer, then as you note, there may be a desire to do away with/or an apathetic view of the old songs. The context of the church plays a key role. Great and fun read. The "equally-obscure, plaid-coated roustabout"...? Hahahahhahahah!
While I agree with you on both comments you posted and think you present a well-reasoned opinion in a straightforward manner. The sad truth is, while everyone over 40 will agree with you, the initial mention of the hymnbook makes your topic ho-hum to most who are younger. Pity.
The young Ballestero lady who was tickled at shocking the "pink" lady with her actions to the chorus she was singing never watched some of us old' timers singing, "If You're Happy and you know it - Say Amen!" or "Father Abraham" with more actions than a few. What's more, she's never rejoiced with some of the real old timers who hauled their hankies out and waved them with great gusto while singing, "Waving palms with loud hosanas as the King shall take His throne - in the New Jerusalem!"
As Pentecostal children, we were told not to do the "Hokey Pokey" because it produced the wrong kind of body motions. But action choruses were always permissable.
That, for me is the rule of thumb for current worship, if your motions draw attention to your body parts, it's a "Hokey Pokey" song and if your motions are not focusing attention where they ought not, you are contributing to minds and hearts being lifted toward Jesus. Is that not the goal of worship music? And is He not worthy of having all eye, mind and heart attentions focused on Him?
Post a Comment
<< Home