Is such a thing possible?
Bob Kauflin had just spoken on worshipping God with our whole mind, soul and body. He had mounted a compelling biblical case (mostly from Psalms but also from the broader biblical corpus) for the appropriateness of responding to God with our bodies - kneeling, clapping, raising hands and shouting. He had observed that in Sydney we seem to have "two types of churches" - the ones with solid biblical teaching but little emotional engagement, and the ones with overwhelming emotional engagement but little knowledge about who we are engaging with. (And he had humerously pointed out that many people go to one type of church in the morning and one type of church at night.) And then he invited us to worship through music with him, feeling free to respond with our whole bodies (within some judiciously discerned biblical limits, of course). He didn't say it was wrong not to raise your hands. And he was careful to say we should be sensitive to our own culture. But he challenged us on whether fear of what other people might think was inadvertently communicating that what we're singing about is unimportant and unmoving.
And then something happened - the City Recital Hall, full of conservative Anglicans and Presbyterians, erupted in some of the most profoundly passionate singing I've ever witnessed. Not everyone raised their hands, or applauded the news that there is 'no guilt in life, no fear in death', but the view from stage was unlike any Twist conference I've experienced before.
What makes Bob's teaching at Twist Conference remarkable is that Twist Conference is the main music ministry conference in Sydney for Sydney Anglicans - who typically have been afraid of being too expressive, for fear of 'emotional manipulation' or 'distraction from the Word'. Bob, the pastor for worship development at Sovereign Grace, speaks from a unique position into the Sydney scene - he's more reformed than most of us, and his biblical theology is heavily influenced by our own David Peterson (whose book Engaging With God, Bob mentioned several times this week, saying it 'changed his life'). He even cited Calvin's commentary on 2Corinthians in support of using physical postures to aid true spiritual engagement.
I wonder if this is the start of a new culture in Sydney - where people no longer have to go to two different churches - one in the morning, one at night - to engage with God in mind, soul and body?
To check out Bob's thoughts on physical expressiveness in worship you can check out his blog topic here: http://www.worshipmatters.com/category/worship-in-the-church/physical-expressiveness-worship-in-the-church/.
Comments
Briefing etc.) opened me up to his arguments. Of course, it's not really about culture at large, but church subcultures that equate emotions with "the flesh". We Pommies are no Stoics when England thrash the Aussies for the Ashes, and I've witnessed the most
staid stiff-upper-lip presbyterians jump out of their seats shouting at the rugby and soccer matches. If we won't throw down our cloaks, wave our palm branches, and shout "Hosanna to the Son of David" we shouldn't be surprised that the very stones cry out,
let alone the "other" group in town. And do we really know how much "they" really know about what they're singing? Maybe there's a sense in which they know a whole lot more than us? Perhaps the suggestion go to one place in the morning, and the other in the
evening would do us all good? Maybe there is stuff we could teach each other that would make us all more exuberant?
marvellously encouraging (and maybe an eye-opener) for those hearing his approach for the first time. A big vote of thanks to those responsible for bringing him out. Big minus: the rest of the session was devoted (in theory) to communal singing. Why did it
have to be SO LOUD! God is not deaf: He hears us even when we whisper! Some might be of the opinion that this sort of comment is typical of someone in advanced middle age (yes, I plead guilty). No doubt for many of the (mostly) twenty-somethings who were playing
on Sunday night, music at that sort of volume is perfectly normal (and yes, I do dimly recollect something similar from my own youth). I have to suggest that this is beside the point: the issue is one of caring for one’s brothers and sisters (and anyone else
listening). I (seriously) spent much of the “singing” time not singing, but with a finger desperately jammed in my ear (singular – I am already deaf in one: probably too much Deep Purple and Led Zeppelin in the ‘70s!), trying to preserve my remaining hearing…and
there were people there older than I! There is plenty of research to suggest that excessive levels of noise can and will damage hearing; surely as Christians we should be setting an example in this area. I am all for enthusiastic worship – in music and otherwise
– but not to the extent that the health of participants is damaged. Just one other thing (before I stop the rant): Sunday night’s experience was symptomatic of the sad fact that true congregational singing seems almost to be a lost art (at least in much of
evangelical Sydney). My wife and I find it immensely encouraging when we can hear the voices of our fellow worshippers raised in song. When the accompaniment (which should always be secondary) is amplified to such an extent that the voices are drowned out,
such encouragement must inevitably be compromised. The role of the musicians is to lead and accompany – not to distract and drown out.
sound energy. Angel place (from memory) has a reverb time of almost 2 seconds which means any noise you make on stage will be loud even before you turn on the amplifiers (which add clarity to the sound coming off stage - so we could hear Bob's voice which
is a bit softer than a cymbal). At one stage Duncan (who mixed the night) turned off the entire front of house PA leaving only the natural stage sound - and it was still 'too loud' for some people's taste. Unfortunately, you can't please everyone all the time.
Second, the levels we ran at may be subjectively unpleasant to some, but they would have been well within a safe range in terms of hearing loss. Thirdly, I too love hearing the crowd sing, and agree totally on the role of music. But I could hear the crowd
sing loud and clear from onstage (and I was a lot closer to the drums than you were.) Finally, it was not simply your average worship service but simultaneously a concert featuring an international guest. I would expect some differences from Sunday morning
church, where you have a broader range of participants? Need to think more about this... Anyway, thanks for your comment Greg and happy to take your comment as a very legitimate, but subjective, complaint. I'm sorry you didn't enjoy most of the night.
as Angel Place) will be loud even before you turn on the amplifiers”. Not sure what you mean. I think it’s a question of balance, rather than “loudness” per se, in that the volume of the accompaniment should be such that the congregation can hear, without
being either overpowered or deafened. This, of course, is a function of venue size and acoustic, congregation size, and maybe other variables at a given event. I don’t think such an ideal was achieved the other evening, which makes me think that the level
of amplification was simply too high. 2) “At one stage Duncan (who mixed the night) turned off the entire front of house PA leaving only the natural stage sound - and it was still 'too loud' for some people's taste.” Not sure what you mean by “natural stage
sound”. If this still involved, as I assume, some level of amplification (of individual instruments), then the volume could still have been reduced. As above, if the congregation can hear you, then you’re loud enough. 3) “The levels we ran at may be subjectively
unpleasant to some, but they would have been well within a safe range in terms of hearing loss.” Sorry, but I think that would require objective verification. Can you tell me what the decibel readings were at various points during the evening, in various parts
of the hall? As a general comment, I’m not sure that any of this is entirely in the realm of the “subjective”. Not only can sound levels can be monitored, but, as most professional musicians will verify, there are performance factors which are subject to identifiable
criteria – for instance, in the area of achieving the optimum balance among the “performers”, taking into account nature and kind of instruments, number and skill of the singers, venue factors, etc.
Loudness is actually a very subjective measurement - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness - which is why different people can have different perceptions of the same material at the same objective level. "Balance" is of course even more subjective. At
the pastors conference on the Friday I was actually struggling to hear myself sing (very unusual) against one guitar and one keyboard but I didn't have that problem on the Saturday night.