Singing has a strong tradition in the United States. There was a time when singing was one of the most common pastimes. There was a strong tradition of gathering around the piano in someone’s parlor, singing folk songs, church hymns and even learning new songs. There were popular sing-along records that later evolved into radio and TV programs. Barbershop-style singing is uniquely American, featuring understandable lyrics and simple melodies. There was a time when almost everyone sang or wanted to sing.
Anthropologists see singing as a cultural universal, practiced throughout the world. Many consider it one of the oldest community activities. Yet the type of singing featured in the United States is not common everywhere.
I do a lot of work in Latin America. It’s my opinion that we’ve spent too much time focused on developing preachers in Latin America and not enough on developing song leaders. Almost anyone can be taught to preach. It’s harder to identify and develop good song leaders. I’m thankful for the work of men like Carlos Gonzales and Omar Corpus, among others, who are seeking to strengthen congregational singing in Spanish-speaking churches.
A challenge for the church going forward is how to present its music to the world in a way that doesn’t sound American. That is, much of our church music is based on the style enjoyed and appreciated by Americans in the 20th century. As the church has spread from the U.S. to other countries, we’ve often exported this style, leading people in other countries to believe that’s the way church music is supposed to sound: foreign and strange.
Much of the “worship wars” in this country have arisen from the fact that music styles changed. Just as Isaac Watts was a bit scandalous in his day, so innovators face pushback from traditionalists. And just as Mr. Watts didn’t hesitate to push the fight, so some will look to provoke their brothers over music styles.
It’s my opinion that church music needs to regularly be studied, in every time and every place. Completing ignoring context, I would adapt Paul’s words from 1 Thessalonians 5: “Test everything. Hold on to the good. Avoid every kind of evil.” I also think that we need to accept the fact that we are part of a body; some of the music used isn’t going to fit our tastes, our preferences, and possibly even our beliefs.
on a tangential note: THANK YOU SO MUCH for using a clearer translation of that verse from 1 Thessalonians. SO MUCH harm has been done to the cause of Christ by people wielding the older version as a prooftext over against the example of Christ himself.
Here’s a missionary issue regarding music. You said, “A challenge for the church going forward is how to present its music to the world in a way that doesn’t sound American.” Now I understand your point and I understand the need to develop indigenous churches rather than importing our own cultural forms into the new church plant. But with the advent of internet, our world is more than ever melding together. Even if I resolve not to import American musical preferences, with I-tunes, YouTube, etc…, music from places like the US, Great Britain, Germany, and Australia have already become much of the world’s music. That even includes praise/worship music.
Your thoughts?
I forgot to add the music from Latin America to that list.
I don’t think the resolution should be “not to import American musical preferences.” You’re American, you’re a Christian, you’re sharing God’s message out of the context of your own life. That’s inescapable.
I think the resolution should be to strive to honor and respect and foster the potential creative worship expressions of the culture into which you’re infiltrating the Gospel.
I really have no idea what I’m talking about, practically :) I’m mostly just babbling.
Rex,
I have great hopes for music going forward. But I remember asking the young people in Argentina why they could sing a samba full voice then mumble through a hymn the next day at church. Their answer was “It’s a different kind of music.” Part of it was, it wasn’t THEIR kind of music.
And I would say the melding of music happened long before the Internet. The British Invasion of the 60s didn’t just hit the U.S.; it swept the Western world.
One of my teammates in Argentina was surprised to hear an Acappella song on the radio in Argentina. He is good friends with George Pendergrass, so he commented, “A boy from rural West Texas hears his buddy from ___ (can’t remember where George is from, but I want to say Jersey) on the radio while walking down the street in Argentina.”
Many argue that globalization is creating one global culture. I’m not so sure.
Grace and peace,
Tim
We at Eastern European Mission published a fine hard-backed hymn book – with mostly translations of American hymns with the traditional tunes.
It never caught on.
Now we publish a hymn book with many songs by a Russian composer. It is finding much greater acceptance. Like it or not, Ira Stankey, Stamps-Baxter, and Fanny Crosby do not always resonate with people from other cultures.
Many are also beginning to realize that “other cultures” with which they do not resonate include the culture of our own teens – thirties/forties.
But, with regard to the major theme of the post, Tim, I appreciate it very much. One of the tragedies of our time is that, though music is universal and ubiquitous, few people participate in producing it. We all used to sing, or play, or both. Now, we depend on recorded music much more than on music spontaneously produced. We’d rather listen to music than to sing or to play it. This is bleeding over into our worship as well. I see nothing inherently wrong with a church having a praise-team, for instance. Yet, if it tends to become performance (even if the praise team really is praising God), the worship of the congregation suffers because it is no longer the music of the church; it becomes the music of the few who are singing.
Tim, your point is taken.
You offer a fine suggestion that we should be developing song leaders along with preachers. I would add to that that we should be developing elders, deacons, preacher’s wives and generally building up the body.
As for me, I have little interest in whether a song is a “camp song” or a very old hymn. As long as the song glorifies the Lord and edifies brethren it is fine with me. Of course I do draw a line at the mechanical instrument for a variety of reasons.
We ought be the best singers around, don’t you think?
Interesting discussion and article. Some part of me struggles with the idea of being cultural. I mean the Gentiles who came to Christ in the first century were most certainly asked to worship as the Jews did. Obviously their worship experience and music would have been different and yet the church didn’t seem to worry about cultural relevance.
It also reminded me of a young lady who came to our church many years ago with her daughter. We had been working with her trying to connect her with Christ and she only came once. She knew none of our modern worship songs. She ended up at a place that was very traditional because it reminded her of going to church with her Grandma as a child. Again, she wasn’t looking for cultural relevance.
Darin,
I think you’re reading something into cultural relevance that shouldn’t be there. Many who speak of being culturally relevant really mean being relevant to one segment of our culture over another. “Traditional church” is still very much a part of the American culture, and the American culture is very much a part of that style of worship. The young lady that you speak of didn’t seek out a church with African tribal drums or Indian sitars. She didn’t go to a church using Gregorian chants. She went to something that was a familiar part of her culture.
Grace and peace,
Tim
I think my point was seeking to be too culturally relevant has wrecked havoc in the American Church not that we shouldn’t be mindful but if it is still about Jesus maybe he is big enough to overcome culture since he had to in the first century. I guess it is just a very sensitve subject.