Blog

A little warning - this is going to be a tiny bit of a rant. You see, I was at the wedding of a dear friend yesterday in a Sydney church. It was a wonderful service. The songs were well chosen and the service superbly led. The preaching was clear and biblical. The decorations were beautiful. The crowd was happy to be there, and happy the rain had held off. A wonderful celebration, which nothing could have spoiled.

But during the vows, we did have to put up with some pretty woeful sound. "I Jack*...[feedback]...in the presence of God [squeal] take you Jill [static then squeal] to be my wife [low roar then shreak]...". In fact, it was so bad that the always good humoured groom mentioned it later in his speech (through a much better microphone) at the reception when he reflected on the "vows we made to each other through that dodgy microphone". 

 The poor sound guy was struggling the whole time to make it work without feeding back, but the system (cheap, underpowered, badly installed) was always against him. There was nothing we could do but laugh about it.

 Can somebody explain to me why we have to have such terrible sound at so many of our churches? If church meetings about at least partly about hearing God's word, then it seems a little silly to skimp on the very equipment which makes things (like vows, or a bible reading, or the words of a song) audible to lots of people at the same time.

 I don't think it's an isolated problem. There must be something going wrong in terms of process for so many churches (with apparently the resources to pay for carpets, hall redevelopments, rectory upgrades and central heating) to end up with sound systems which plainly are not up to the task.  What is going wrong, time and time again?

•  - Is it a problem of process? (Perhaps a well meaning but unqualified parishioner taking control of the system and not allowing outside help?)
•  - Is it a problem of the right consultants or suppliers? (I hear too many stories of companies with excess stock of a particular device offloading it at way too high prices to gullible churches)
•  - Is it a problem of the brief? (I worked on one project where the system designer wanted to spend most of the money on choir mics...for a church that didn't have a choir)
• - Is it a problem of values? (I heard one minister describe how it used to be a source of pride for his church that they had a bad sound system - because it proved just how focussed on the scriptures they were, not the flashy show!!!)

 On the flipside, I wonder - has anybody's church managed to get decent sound for their gatherings without taking out a second mortgage on the rectory?

 Over to you, blogosphere....

AJ

 

*- not his real name, of course.

Say something about this post

The very talented photographer Linda Truong has kindly given permission to have some of her photos from the ONE event appear on our website. Very kind, thanks Linda!

This event featured John Piper and John Lennox at the Sydney Entertainment Centre). It was an absolute pleasure to work with our dear friends at KCC on this wonderful night.

Photos courtesy Linda Truong www.lindatruong.com.au

Next

Say something about this post

We normally think about copyright as protecting authors' rights to cash. But there are two far more important purposes behind copyright law - the right to correct identification of the author, and the right not to have your work changed without permission.

I'm reminded of the story of 'In Christ Alone'. The organises of the Chelmsford Clergy Synod on 4th May 2006 changed one of the lines of In Christ Alone.

The original line was 'Till on that cross as Jesus died, the wrath of God was satisfied'. They changed 'wrath' to 'word' - 'the word of God was satisfied'. Rev Chris Newlands, the Bishop’s chaplain, admitted that it was changed to be more inclusive. Obviously speaking about God's righteous anger at sin rubs some people up the wrong way.

But the songwriters understandably objected - and since then requests to change the words of the song have been knocked back. They are, by law, well within their rights to decide what their song will say.

After all, it's their name connected to the song, their teaching authority behind the words, and their reputation at stake. To change these words is a bit like me walking into a book shop and substituting a couple of pages of Don Carson's latest masterpiece with some ideas that I think are better. Don would be, rightly, outraged. It's no different with songs.

Copyright can be abused, but I'm glad that people can't change songs without talking to the author. I'm glad that heretical groups can't take the NIV and publish a version which looks the same except for some 'improvements'. Copyright can serve us well in an era of mass production.

Of course, accidents happen. We realised recently that we have been singing the wrong words to Richard Bewes' adaptation of 'I Vow to You'.

"I vow to you, my Saviour that where your feet have trod
I will serve and always follow you my Jesus, my God"

The correct lyrics are:

"I vow to you, my Saviour, that where your feet have trod,
I’ll serve and follow faithfully, my Master and my God! "

I would like to thank Rev Bewes, Jubilate Hymns, and Hope Publishing Co. for their graciousness in helping us to rectify their oversight. You can get the whole hymn at www.jubilate.co.uk.

Say something about this post

I read this story recently about a man who travelled to the Grand Canyon National Park in Arizona to experience one of the most famous rock formations. Thisistrue.com reports (via RC/Arizona Sun Daily) that the man took out a spray can and began to graffiti his name on the rock. Tourists standing nearby screamed for someone to intervene, and before the man had finished his name park rangers had found him. He was arrested and faces charges for damaging government property.

Explaining his actions he said he wanted his kids to be able to see his name 20 years from now.

It's fair to say, this is not the way that you draw your kids' attention to the wonder of creation. Next to the Grand Canyon, an attempt to draw attention to your name is an annoying distraction (worse, vandalism!) People don't come to the Grand Canyon National Park to see some idiot's name spraypainted on a rock.

And it's a good analogy for how we draw people's attention to Christ in worship. If we try to stamp our name on what we do, if we try to draw any attention to ourselves during worship, we will just embarrass ourselves (and our kids!).

Say something about this post

The more I read about the history of Christian theology - and particularly thinking about our theologising about worship music - the more I notice a disappointingly human flaw. We too often do our thinking about God with our head over the shoulder, checking out someone else and trying to avoid what we see as their errors: for Augustine it was seductive paganism, for Luther it was highfalutin papistry, and for Wesley and Zschech it was suburban Anglicanism. A response to other ideas is necessary. But a theology forged largely as a reaction against something will have great weaknesses - knocking down someone else's sandcastle doesn't leave you with anything better, just a pile of sand. How sad to see ourselves as on a trajectory towards or away from someone else - our goal is to be more like Christ.

First, reactive theology quickly loses touch with the truth that worship is God’s idea, not a human invention. The Old Testament repeatedly reminds Israel that worshipping God means engaging with him ‘on the terms that he proposes and in the way that he alone makes possible’ (Peterson, Engaging with God, 20). Now, creativity is allowed – even encouraged – within those terms. But reactive theologies take human ideas as the starting point – the opposition’s practices set the agenda, and determine which questions are asked.

This means the relative importance of many practical questions (like whether to use instruments) is exaggerated. God is particular about many things, but not the style of music. Theologies which take the practices of other groups as their starting point will routinely get stuck answering the wrong questions: defining acceptable worship by style, rather than whether it helps believers engage with God and edify each other. 

Second, reactive theologies often force a wedge between two right answers. Reacting against the idea that worship is simply music, some assert that music has little to do with worship. They assume that the idea of worship as a ‘total-life orientation’ is an innovation of the New Testament writers, and one which supersedes the Old Testament devotional practices without a trace. This is inaccurate on both counts. When God taught the Israelites on Mt Sinai how he was to be worshipped, his instructions covered both ritual and lifestyle. And while the New Testament radically transforms worship to centre upon Christ, and places added stress on corporate edification in church meetings, worship music is still worship.

A theology of music in worship needs to be broad enough to see music as part of worship, without equating it with worship.

Third, reactive theology routinely overcorrects the opponent’s flaws. An illustrative example is Zschech’s insistence that worship music is addressed to God. This is an accurate correction to some reformed theologies which so emphasise the teaching role of music that God seems a distant third party. But to bolster her argument she makes the inaccurate assertion that Israel’s singing was exclusively ‘to the Lord’ and ‘they never sang to each other’, implying that we should not sing to each other (Zschech, Extravagant Worship, 189). Actually the Old Testament is full of people praising God by ‘noticing’ how great he is, and singing about it to their fellow Israelites – even to their enemies! Paul instructs Christians both to ‘sing and make music in your heart to the Lord’ as well as ‘speak to one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs’. As with everything in church life we need to be aware of both the ‘vertical dimension’ (by which God ministers to us and we respond), and the ‘horizontal dimension’ (as we minister to each other). We are not to understand the horizontal and vertical aspects of church life separately, but rather ‘Paul’s teaching encourages us to view the same activities from both points of view’ (Engaging with God, 221). 

No matter what tradition we come from, we all need to form our own sense of what the Bible says about worship, and we need to work out what kind of place music will have in it. The better approaches, however, will be prepared to evaluate their own inherited tradition in light of scripture, accept what is good in other practices, and marshal whatever musical resources their culture can offer to realise a full biblical vision of music in Christian worship.

AJ

(Something like this post originally appeared as a section of my article in Case Magazine, 'Theologising about Music in Worship: A brief history from Augustine to Zschech', Case 23 (2010), 10-15. http://www.case.edu.au/index.php/case_magazine/case_23_music_and_theology/)

Say something about this post

Some very interesting suggestions have been raised in recent blogs (and comments on this blog). In this post I'd like to address the suggestion that we keep the word 'worship' in the technical sense of 'bowing down as a gesture of respect', roughly equivalent to the Greek προσκυνέω (proskuneo) and the Hebrew הִשְׁתַּחֲוָה (hishtachawa). My contention is that this is too small a view of worship.

Unfortunately, this post is going to have to get a little bit technical. But I believe that words are important, because we think in words, and God speaks in words. If you get words wrong sometimes it doesn't matter - but sometimes you can get God wrong. Also I should add that the 'small worship people' include many of my dearest friends, whom I love, and who are earnestly trying to teach more clearly what the Bible says. This, I think, is awesome, and a conversation worth contributing to.

I really do wish that the biblical idea of worship were as simple as is sometimes implied: wouldn't it be nice if we had three equivalent words, in three different languages, with three discreet ideas behind them. But, unfortunately, the 'small worship' camp has a couple of hurdles I think need to be addressed before I can sign on to their solution.

First, the English word 'worship' already covers too big a field. A quick scan in my Oxford English Dictionary shows the word carries huge freight: respect, honour, reverence, actions showing veneration, appropriate rites, ceremonies, bowing down, honouring. That's even before we include more modern meanings ('take part in religious ceremony', 'sing a song').

Second, the way language works means that, while you can expand the connotations of a word, it is almost impossible to take them away by force. Try as you might, you are simply not going to get people to think of 'worship' as anything less than 'important stuff to do with God'. Tell them that stacking chairs, praising Jesus, or changing nappies is 'not worship', and they'll just think that you think that stacking chairs, praising Jesus, and changing nappies are too 'everyday' to show our respect, honour, or allegiance to Jesus.

Third, I really don't think the Bible does keep these ideas as separate as the small worship people sometimes suggest. So far as I can see, nobody has offered anything as thorough as David Peterson's Biblical Theology of worship in Engaging with God. In Chapter 2 he surveys the usage of all the terminology, revealing a great deal of overlapping usage in the terms:

• - proskuneo terminology suggests bowing, but often in a context of cultic practice where the intention is to serve (p.70)
• - bowing down and serving often appear as a phrase ("Do not bow down and serve those naughty idols" is a common Deuteronomistic catch-phrase)
• - the sebomai (reverence) word group can be used to refer to specific cultic acts
• - all three main terms (bowing down, serving, reverencing) are applied both to specific acts and also to a general life of obedience and respect.
• Fourth, latreuo simply doesn't mean 'Service'. It only ever refers to service in a cultic context, and it absolutely includes things like fasting and prayer (Acts 26:7) and sacrifices (Heb 9:9). It is distinct from other types of service (διακονέω, δουλεύω, θεραπεύω). We simply don't have a word like this in English, and in some contexts 'worship' is going to get at what the writer is talking about better than 'service'. 
• Finally, if we run with the small definition of worship, worship does NOT include offering sacrifices, praying, fasting, declaring God's praises, or expressing reverence (for these are most commonly described using other words). In fact, all that is left is literally bowing down. Which makes me wonder why Matthew had to specify in Matthew 4:9 that the disciples 'fell down' before they worshipped him. (Or maybe Matthew had a big picture of worship?)
• I do hear the concerns of those who want to think clearly and rightly about worship. I really do appreciate what they're getting at. But for linguistic and pastoral reasons I still side with David Peterson, Bob Kauflin and Don Carson on this one. Let's give people a big picture of worship.

 

Say something about this post

Does Romans 12:1 talk about worship as all of life?

In his blog post at the briefing, Philip Percival has been looking at the traditional understanding of worship as 'all of life'. Philip is a dear friend and mentor of mine, and over the years I have enjoyed very much kicking these issues around with him.

In his post, Philip questioned whether our lives are really offered as 'worship' in Romans 12:1, preferring the translation:

offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God - this is your reasonable service.

I've been thinking about this verse recently, and unlike Philip I actually think a type of worship is on view here.
Sorry to get technical for a second, but let's have a closer look at those squiggly greek words in Rom 12:1:

Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as a thusian sosan (θυσίαν ζῶσαν) holy and pleasing to God—-this is your logiken latreian (λογικὴν λατρείαν). (mangled NIV2011 translation)

This verse begins a section of doctrine (chapters 12 and 13), within Paul's alternating structure of confirming doctrine then defending it in light of Israelite objections (Gibson&Nichols, 2011). Paul has just been defending his gospel against the charge that God has failed, because his promises to Israel have failed to come about. He now turns to show how we should live in light of that mercy in chapters 12 and 13.

The first thing that gets me in the mood for thinking about our lives as worship is the Old Testamenty worshipppy language: thusian is something offered as a sacrifice, here used in a figurative way (according to my Greek dictionary(BDAG)).

The second thing that gets me there is the use of 'service' language: latreian. This technical term is used almost exclusively in the sense of religious or temple based service in the Greek Old Testament (Ex 12:25, 13:5, Josh 22:27, 1Chr 28:13) and New Testament (John 16:2, Rom 9:4, Heb 9:1, Heb 9:6) and in inter-testemental literature (1Mac 1:43, 2:19, 2:22 and 3Mac 4:14). (Admittedly, the Hebrew word underlying most of these ('avoda, עֲבוֹדָה) is used more broadly.)

Now what does logiken mean here? I remember being hugely confused when I compared the different translations: "reasonable" (KJV), "true" (TNIV), "spiritual"(TNIV, ESV, Holman), or "true and proper" (NIV11). What gives? Can't these translators get it worked out?

The problem is that all these translations are good: they capture part of what the phrase means, but lose something else (translations always do this to some extent, which is why we build our view of God based on the whole bible and not individual words). Logikos overlaps with 'reasonable' in the sense that it's not some unthinking animal response: 'carefully thought through'.

But hold your horses ... the same word is used in 1Peter 2:2 when he says 'crave logikos milk' - by which he means not carefully thought through milk, but milk in a spiritual (or, if you like, metaphorical) sense. This is another way Greek philosophers liked to use logikos, to signal a metaphorical or spiritual sense. So I think Philip's choice of 'reasonable' is part of the picture, but misses that our lives of service are in a spiritual, or metaphorical way, an offering of worship which is pleasing to God because of Jesus.

In the context, I think Paul is saying that we should offer our lives as if it were a sacrifice - and this pleasing offering to God is in a Spiritual sense part of our well thought out worship of God.

David Peterson's excellent study on worship sits on a lot of bookshelves, but sadly I think many people have missed his big picture. Peterson concludes that in the Old and New Testaments, worship includes at least three ideas:

1.     1.    To bow the knee in adoration, expressing submission to him and grateful recognition of who he is.
2.     2.    To serve him obediently both in specific acts and generally in life.
3.     3.    To show reverence or respect for God in every aspect of life.
4. I think we need to hold on to this kind of a big picture of worship - both specific acts, and a general lifestyle of service to God.

Say something about this post

I am grateful to my new cyber-friend Greg who posted a thoughtful comment on our blog about the sound levels at Twist.

At risk of sounding like I'm dismissing his (very valid) opinion about the ideal sound level, I thought an extended explanation of my thoughts on the issue might be helpful for other people dealing with difficult rooms..

At the outset, I should say that I am always sad when we work hard to serve a group of people, and yet produce only discomfort (even if only for one person). This, unfortunately, is a reality of any ministry, particularly in music ministry where so many subjective and objective factors come into play.  Here are a few things I'd like to keep in mind.

1. The room is very important
My initial response was that "the volume of any music will be determined by how well the room absorbs or reflects
sound energy." Greg helpfully queried why we can't just lower the stage volume by turning down our amplifiers.

The stage volume I'm referring to is the noise made by the performers on stage before any sound reinforcement happens (i.e. with the main speakers turned off). In contemporary music, it involves both amplified and un-amplified elements (drum kit, voices, acoustic piano, and guitar amps), which is why it is complex.

If you hit a cymbal in a given room, that energy has to go somewhere. In a room with a 1.8 second reverb time (like Angel place) that energy will not be diffused very quickly, and the sound on stage is going to be pretty loud everywhere, particularly as high frequencies tend to be less diffused by materials like wood and glass. Angel place is designed for chamber music, so even an unamplified violin will be clearly audible up the back. But bring in contemporary music, and the general sound pressures in the room are going to be on the higher side of the "ideal" range. Stage amplified elements (like the vocals) need to be raised to find clarity (or your singers won't be able to sing in tune, and nobody will be able to hear the words).

As Greg points out, the performer has some control over the dynamics - this is why I thank God for our drummer's (Sassy's) sensitive and controlled playing. He has been playing drums professionally for over 20 years, in stage productions from the Lion King, to Mary Poppins. For this reason I think we can safely exclude "performance factors" as needing attention.

The bottom line is, to go much quieter overall you'll need to pick a different style of music and instrumentation- solo piano accompaniment would be closer to Greg's ideal I imagine, whereas a pipe organ would probably be too loud as well (a solid sounding of the 16ft fundamental would blast us well out of the water!)

2. Hearing loss and music
But a more serious concern Greg raised was about whether the sound levels at Twist could cause hearing loss. Greg is rightly concerned about this. As professional musicians we are all very alive to this hazard of the industry (I like my ears!). This is why our crew all carry SPL meters. There is a sliding scale of acceptable sound pressures based on how long you spend listening to something - you can listen to 85decibels for eight hours a day, but you can only handle 130-140 decibels for a few seconds. You should not listen to anything over 140 decibels for any length of time (which is why you wear ear plugs at the firing range).
 
I don't have any readings handy I can show you, except to say that our band's audio is overseen by Richard Fenton who, aside from playing guitar for us, studied a masters of acoustics at Sydney Uni and oversees sound at the Sydney Opera House. He does not think anyone was at risk of hearing loss. I'm happy to defer to his professional opinion on that.

3. Genre and subjectivity
The biggest issue in sound levels, however, is that not everybody hears things the same. Many people I've met who will complain about a drum kit at 85dB will be perfectly happy singing to an organ at 95dB. Personal preferences are inevitably involved.

Then there are the varieties of age and abilities to factor in - people with hearing loss often struggle to separate out sound elements. My Dad reminded me on the weekend that "background noise is for people with dementia like stairs are for people in wheelchairs". We need to be conscious of the people who we are trying to serve - and doing that is going to require us to recognise that the "ideal" sound level is different for every crowd. I'm not sure how we address that in a room full of different people. I certainly don't think we're going to get it right all the time.

In short

The implications of all this is that "it's complex". Greg may well be right, for a certain crowd the ideal volume may be much lower than we achieved at Twist. But if we decided that Greg was right, and that we wanted to tweak the volume to suit those who prefer a quieter balance, it's not enough just to "turn down the amps". We would have to pack up and go home. Which I'm of course happy to do. But Twist asked us to come serve. So we did. And the feedback is that the vast majority of conference delegates were glad that we did.

 

(Ironically, the last feedback we got from an event on sound levels was at the Entertainment Centre, where a number of people complained we were too soft! It's hard to get an even spread across a big space, and it is entirely possible to get two entirely conflicting reports from the same gig!)

Thanks for your contribution to the discussion Greg - I'm sorry if I sound defensive! I really am happy to accept your complaint and agree to disagree. However, given this is a music blog, and many musicians field similar complaints, I felt an extended response might help other people think about the constraints on musicians in these circumstances.
Say something about this post

Does your church have song leaders, or worship leaders?

Maybe there's no difference - a rose by any other name would smell just as sweet, right? (Although I think Romeo and Juliet discovered the opposite in the end, didn't they?)

One of the things I enjoyed very much about seeing Bob lead worship at Twist was to see how a seasoned worship leader can pastor a room of people through the songs. He was not just leading a melody - he was exhorting and edifying us, helping us to let the word about Christ dwell in us richly. It was clear that song leading, for him, meant leading people in acceptable worship of God through Jesus in the Spirit. Worship is more than singing, but singing is not less than worship.

As a band you had to be on your toes - Bob would at various moments repeat a line or a whole chorus if he felt that we needed to focus on it its truth more.

The way he transitioned between songs, both musically and with his words, set us up to engage with God on a right and helpful level every time.  

More than anything, his passion for Jesus and love for the gathering of God's people was inspiring and contagious. There was never a sense that the time of worship was about Bob Kauflin - rather the focus was always on Jesus.

I wonder - what is the best worship leading you've seen, and why was it so effective? Say something about this post

I am grateful to my friend and teacher Greg Anderson (an ethnomusicologist and lecturer at Moore College) for bringing to my attention this part of C.S. Lewis' 'Screwtape Letters'. In this fictional work, a senior devil gives advice to a younger devil on how to distract or destroy the Christian he has been charged with annoying. He writes about the physicality of worship:

 

One strategy, the mentor devil Screwtape suggests to the young Wormwood, is to persuade the believers that ‘bodily position makes no difference to their prayers; for they constantly forget what you must always remember, that they are animals and that whatever their bodies do affects their souls.’ (Screwtape to Wormwood, p16)

 

We are embodied worshippers, after all.

Say something about this post