I was happily pointed to some good comments on music in worship by J. Ligon Duncan III* (will an audio version of this be made available I hope?) at Bob Bixby’s bog by Greg Linscott; this post was later linked at Sharperiron. I find it interesting that these aroused such interest and approval from some corners, for they sound very much like what men like Scott Aniol and I are often saying, and Scott (in particular) receives a great deal of scorn for articulating conservative views.
One point I thought was good was #5. As recorded by Bob Bixby, it is
“Music style preference is often too important in an unhealthful ways [sic] for too many people. We [American Evangelicals] are the ones who came up with the sovereignty of style.”
In fact, I agree that this is a great danger. While those of us who are conservative are eager to be fed by traditions of great Christian hymnody all over the world, be it Lutheran or Wesleyan or Greek Orthodox or even Roman Catholic, American evangelicals have no appetite whatsoever for these great works of Christian culture. They, who claim to be liberal, are the ones who are enslaved, limiting themselves to a very narrow parochial slice of American pop. They are obsessed with making everything sound trendy and entertaining. This happens when fundamentalists take great hymn tunes and dispense of them to write something more “fundamentalist sounding,” or when the Desiring God Conference tries to sing “A Mighty Fortress is our God” in a “Praise and Worshippy” style and subsequently confuses not only every single conference attendee, but even the “praise team” (or whatever it’s called) itself (it was an absolute cacophony).
J. Ligon Duncan III is right. We should be cultivating ourselves, hungry to find the greatest hymns from the greatest traditions, and never letting a small stringent slice of a particular genre dictate all we do.
_________
*I thought I’d throw into this post a link to the good list of books on Reformed worship that J. Ligon Duncan III posted here.
Curious, Ryan, without meaning to be obnoxious … really …
Do you know if Duncan agrees with you and Scott on music? I am not familiar with much about him though. I have his book on women in ministry, and have read the T4G blog that I think he post on (doesn’t he???). I agree with Duncan’s comments, as they stand, though I would differ slightly with you in the application of them. I just wonder what his position is.
I am also curious as to how you see your last paragraph fitting in with your position. Is it your position that you are not espousing “a small stringent slice of a particular genre”?
BTW, Thanks … I meant to add that on.
I agree with both of you.
I agree with Ryan more than Larry.
Larry, it’s nice to see you around this neck of the woods again. I don’t take your question to be obnoxious.
Larry asked,
I would imagine that there would be great overlap between Scott’s and my position and that of J. Ligon Duncan III, without any of them matching spot on (as you would imagine). I am unable to contrast him with your position, because I am unfamiliar with yours. In the areas we have disagreed in the past (RP (?), whether or not the church gathers for worship, etc), I would say, at the risk misrepresenting both him and me, that he would side with me. See for yourself, if you like, First Presbyterian has a document giving “thoughts about worship” where they say,
Those kinds of comments seem to characterize Ligon Duncan’s views on worship. And, being a Presbyterian, whose worship is generally much more reverent than Baptist’s, I would imagine that what I am saying here holds true. I mean, he wears some sort of vestiments while preaching!
You asked,
I explained that thoroughly in the original post’s paragraph that begins “In fact, I agree that this is a great danger.”
We disagree some, to be sure. How much? I don’t know.
As for the RP, I am simply unconvinced as of now about its mandate, though I generally agree with the principle I think. Perhaps I don’t understand enough about it. The article was good and helpful. I agree in the main.
As for worship, just to be clear, I don’t disagree that the church should gather for worship. I think the church should gather for worship. I simpy do not see worship as the only purpose of public gathering. I think evangelism, fellowship, service, teaching, learning, and prayer are also reasons for public gathering. I also think that these can be combined (two or more in the same gathering).
Having said that, my last question about your particular style and Duncan’s comments was that your “thorough explanation” seemed to limited to a fairly narrow slice of music (which I happen to agree with, in the main). It just seems to me that your standard is a “pretty small slice of a particular genre” when you limit it to “great hymnody” prior to the era of “pop music.” I don’t happen to think it necessarily wrong to limit it to a narrow slice of a particular genre, though again, I would be slightly broader than you would be.
Having said all that, the Gilligan’s Island reset made me laugh. I recently have been reading a biography of Newton (I can’t remember the title), that talks about a near shipwreck he endured on the Greyhound, I think. It just struck me as funny that Newton was a man who knew a thing or two about going to sea.
Thanks Ryan
Thank you for the clarification. I remember that now. And, just to be clear, I believe that those other purposes are penultimate to the more important purpose of worship; they are the way we worship, and feed into that stream. I by no means exclude them from the equation.
Perhaps we are talking past each other on the “narrow slice” comment.
I think of my catholicity in accepting great hymns and tunes from many traditions as quite broad, as I am genuinely interested in over 18 centuries of music from many different countries from all over the world. Those to whom I am referring, who are interested in music from a “small stringent slice of a particular genre,” are interested in music written usually in the last 10 years from one single country (or last 150 years from one country–it applies in either case). If I am narrow because I find irreverent and distasteful contemporary style, then so be it. but I hardly see that to be the case, when you compare my delight in music now past to that of the contemporary church.