New blog now:
http://ithinkistillbelieve.blogspot.com/
Friday, March 27, 2009
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Advent
The last couple of days at work, I've had to take care of visits. I have to arrange them and then actually have them. Some people are hard to find because they change phone numbers and homes a lot. Some visits are really nice because of the progress the kids are making and the care that they receive from their parents/foster parents/legal guardians. Others are frustrating and draining. Right now I'm working with a family that has some serious domestic violence issues. When a family with domestic violence history acts aggressive in front of their social worker, then it's usually pretty serious because it's obvious that they don't even care about hiding anything anymore. I represent the interests of their child, so it can get pretty dicey sometimes. I don't like to make threats, but it's up to me to seriously consider how to keep that kid safe.
I've been learning a lot and trying to make sense of what exactly it is that threatens families. On a certain level, it's poverty. But I have a suspicion that if these families were doing better financially, they'd still have lots of problems. They usually lack other types of support too. It makes me wonder how I'd fare if I had to face what they're facing. Probably not very well.
An example, perhaps. When I first started working in this business, I noticed that a lot of poor families (who were receiving AFDC assistance) had cable. And big TVs! And to be honest, it made me kinda mad. Of course, I ignored the fact that I knew absolutely nothing about their lives except what I read on the paperwork I received. I mean it's easy to point out flaws in people that you don't know, but when you start to find out more, you usually (hopefully) can at least try to understand where they're coming from, even if you still disagree with how or why they do things. And it's occurred to me that a lot of these parents don't have much to go on. A lot of times, they weren't raised in families with good parenting. They're usually younger (than I am, at least), working in bad jobs that pay very little, maintain ties with past negative relationships, and to top it all off, they're trying to get the System out of their lives. It turns out that television is a pretty effective, albeit temporary, way of distracting your kids. And when you have all this other stuff to deal with, and your parents didn't teach you the value of spending time with your kids, and you have nobody else to help you out, $60 of your monthly $800 welfare check seems like a pretty decent deal.
I think I'm pretty good at not being judgmental. I attribute it to the fact that I know me. I'm lazy and unmotivated, and I suck at actually doing the virtuous stuff that I like talking about. And without the enormous safety net provided by my education, my dad and mom, my upbringing, my access to knowledge, good friends, and a million other things, I'd likely find myself in the same place as a lot of these folks.
We exist in this darkness as we await the return of our King.
I've been learning a lot and trying to make sense of what exactly it is that threatens families. On a certain level, it's poverty. But I have a suspicion that if these families were doing better financially, they'd still have lots of problems. They usually lack other types of support too. It makes me wonder how I'd fare if I had to face what they're facing. Probably not very well.
An example, perhaps. When I first started working in this business, I noticed that a lot of poor families (who were receiving AFDC assistance) had cable. And big TVs! And to be honest, it made me kinda mad. Of course, I ignored the fact that I knew absolutely nothing about their lives except what I read on the paperwork I received. I mean it's easy to point out flaws in people that you don't know, but when you start to find out more, you usually (hopefully) can at least try to understand where they're coming from, even if you still disagree with how or why they do things. And it's occurred to me that a lot of these parents don't have much to go on. A lot of times, they weren't raised in families with good parenting. They're usually younger (than I am, at least), working in bad jobs that pay very little, maintain ties with past negative relationships, and to top it all off, they're trying to get the System out of their lives. It turns out that television is a pretty effective, albeit temporary, way of distracting your kids. And when you have all this other stuff to deal with, and your parents didn't teach you the value of spending time with your kids, and you have nobody else to help you out, $60 of your monthly $800 welfare check seems like a pretty decent deal.
I think I'm pretty good at not being judgmental. I attribute it to the fact that I know me. I'm lazy and unmotivated, and I suck at actually doing the virtuous stuff that I like talking about. And without the enormous safety net provided by my education, my dad and mom, my upbringing, my access to knowledge, good friends, and a million other things, I'd likely find myself in the same place as a lot of these folks.
We exist in this darkness as we await the return of our King.
Saturday, November 29, 2008
The War on Christmas
| For the past few years that the term has taken hold on mainstream American culture, I've never believed in a "War on Christmas". I think the whole notion is ludicrous--a deliberate attack by the news media on Christian values in order to secularize our sacred ideals. I still think that way. But when I read about the Wal-Mart employee who was trampled to death by crazed Black Friday shoppers, the idea of a War on Christmas took on a new meaning. No need to blame the media; we citizens have done a bang-up job of taking the "Christ" out of Christmas. Witnesses say that after Jdimytai Damour was trampled and killed, Wal-Mart shoppers were angry that they were closing the store. I'm not gonna get all preachy. But I wonder if the Prince of Peace would want us celebrating his birthday this way. To be sure, I have plenty of greed, and I love getting good deals on cool stuff. But when do we say enough is enough? And how should Christians make a choice to treat this season differently? |
Saturday, November 22, 2008
What's so sacred about music, anyway?
It's interesting that Christian music used to be called "sacred music". I recall hearing this terminology used in reference to music that's kind of old or stylistically outdated. But I got to wondering what "sacred music" really means. A quick Google search turned up a document called De Musica Sacra issued in 1958 by the Roman Catholic Church's Sacred Congregation of Rites. Here's how the Sacred Congregation of Rites defines sacred music:
"Sacred music" includes the following: a) Gregorian chant; b) sacred polyphony; c) modern sacred music; d) sacred organ music; e) hymns; and f) religious music.
In one of my worship classes in seminary, they said that in the liturgical tradition, Psalms or songs are sung by the celebrant using the same note throughout until the very last note, when it either goes up or down in pitch. This was because they took the words so seriously that they didn't want to unintentionally inflect their own meaning. I'd say that's pretty sacred.
Growing up as an Evangelical Christian in southern California one generation after the inception of the Vineyard movement, I didn't know a whole lot about that Gregorian chant stuff. Orange County was one of the hotbeds of the Vineyard movement, so my church was more influenced by what ended up being called Contemporary Praise and Worship. I'm not quite sure how that terminology connects (or doesn't connect) with sacred music, but it gave me the chance to play the guitar, and I liked that.
A friend of mine who works at Guitar Center told me once that when making small talk with customers, he'll usually ask what kind of music they play. He said he can always guess which customers play music in church, because they'll usually answer the question by saying "uhh...soft rock", to which he'll reply "you mean worship music?" He tells me that he's usually correct.
To be a church musician is to be a respondent to a high calling, and it's nothing that anybody should be ashamed about. I've met some of my closest friends through playing in church bands with them, and some of these guys are among the most talented musicians I know. It would be the height of arrogance to demean the thousands (maybe millions) of Christians who desire to use their musical ability to serve the body and bring glory to God. I also know that some of the most beautiful, inspiring, truth-revealing music has been written within the context of the church.
So what's the source of this shame and timidity? Well, for me, it has something to do with the fact that I'm unable to find anything about contemporary/modern/whatever worship music that's sacred. I was looking at this album cover:
(Look close.)
What do you think they mean by "THIS"?
Okay, that was just a little humour to lighten up the mood a little bit. But back to what I was saying. Contemporary worship is derivative, bland, and uninteresting. I think I'm a captive audience, well within the demographic of people who are supposed to like this stuff, but I can't help but be completely bored by the music I hear (and sometimes play). I compare myself to the people around me who are fanatical about stuff on the Fish or KLOVE or whatever and I'm simply unable to relate.
But I've read plenty of blogs whose authors are much more successful at lampooning Christian music. They'll usually point at the hyper-emotionality ("Jesus is my girlfriend"), the shallow theology ("I love you Jesus I love you I love you I love you" isn't really theology), or any other number of glaring flaws. But I'll go easy on the criticism because even a reasoned response won't make me like something I don't like.
Okay, I can see how if I continue on this path, it will turn into another angry Christian posting about music that's not to his taste, so allow me to change direction....
What we call Contemporary Christian Music occupies a strange place in the liturgical canon. It's mostly too disposable to last (which I guess is why these worship bands release new albums all the time), and the subject matter seems largely to be kind of...I can't think of another word besides shallow.
I will take no stand in the "worship wars", but if I take a really old song, like "My Hope is Built", and any number of contemporary songs whose message is pretty much "I love Jesus a whole stinkin' lot", it's pretty easy to pick which song might actually enable me to remember who God is when I face hardship. One song is about the powerful, enduring, love of Christ as shown through the sacrifice on the cross. The other one is about how much I love Jesus. Maybe I'm not a typical Christian, but my love for Jesus kinda sucks. It's conditional, weak, and no big deal at all; nothing compared to the love that Jesus shows to me.
I guess I'm a cynic. But as the late, great, George Carlin has rightly stated, a cynic is just a disappointed idealist. When I look back far enough, I can see how music served a sacred purpose. And when I look at right now, I don't see very much sacred stuff. Going back to the De Musica Sacra thing:
Hymns are songs which spontaneously arise from the religious impulses with which mankind has been endowed by its Creator. Thus they are universally sung among all peoples.
What do you think?
And before anyone comments, please note that I've already heard the following and am not interested in hearing it again.:
"If you don't like it, don't listen to it."
I'll try not to, thanks.
"Check out Sara Groves/Derek Webb/U2/some other artist or band that may or may not be Christian."
Okay, thanks. I actually really do like some Christian artists: Rich Mullins and Jars of Clay.
"Sacred music" includes the following: a) Gregorian chant; b) sacred polyphony; c) modern sacred music; d) sacred organ music; e) hymns; and f) religious music.
In one of my worship classes in seminary, they said that in the liturgical tradition, Psalms or songs are sung by the celebrant using the same note throughout until the very last note, when it either goes up or down in pitch. This was because they took the words so seriously that they didn't want to unintentionally inflect their own meaning. I'd say that's pretty sacred.
Growing up as an Evangelical Christian in southern California one generation after the inception of the Vineyard movement, I didn't know a whole lot about that Gregorian chant stuff. Orange County was one of the hotbeds of the Vineyard movement, so my church was more influenced by what ended up being called Contemporary Praise and Worship. I'm not quite sure how that terminology connects (or doesn't connect) with sacred music, but it gave me the chance to play the guitar, and I liked that.
A friend of mine who works at Guitar Center told me once that when making small talk with customers, he'll usually ask what kind of music they play. He said he can always guess which customers play music in church, because they'll usually answer the question by saying "uhh...soft rock", to which he'll reply "you mean worship music?" He tells me that he's usually correct.
To be a church musician is to be a respondent to a high calling, and it's nothing that anybody should be ashamed about. I've met some of my closest friends through playing in church bands with them, and some of these guys are among the most talented musicians I know. It would be the height of arrogance to demean the thousands (maybe millions) of Christians who desire to use their musical ability to serve the body and bring glory to God. I also know that some of the most beautiful, inspiring, truth-revealing music has been written within the context of the church.
So what's the source of this shame and timidity? Well, for me, it has something to do with the fact that I'm unable to find anything about contemporary/modern/whatever worship music that's sacred. I was looking at this album cover:
(Look close.)
What do you think they mean by "THIS"?
Okay, that was just a little humour to lighten up the mood a little bit. But back to what I was saying. Contemporary worship is derivative, bland, and uninteresting. I think I'm a captive audience, well within the demographic of people who are supposed to like this stuff, but I can't help but be completely bored by the music I hear (and sometimes play). I compare myself to the people around me who are fanatical about stuff on the Fish or KLOVE or whatever and I'm simply unable to relate.
But I've read plenty of blogs whose authors are much more successful at lampooning Christian music. They'll usually point at the hyper-emotionality ("Jesus is my girlfriend"), the shallow theology ("I love you Jesus I love you I love you I love you" isn't really theology), or any other number of glaring flaws. But I'll go easy on the criticism because even a reasoned response won't make me like something I don't like.
Okay, I can see how if I continue on this path, it will turn into another angry Christian posting about music that's not to his taste, so allow me to change direction....
What we call Contemporary Christian Music occupies a strange place in the liturgical canon. It's mostly too disposable to last (which I guess is why these worship bands release new albums all the time), and the subject matter seems largely to be kind of...I can't think of another word besides shallow.
I will take no stand in the "worship wars", but if I take a really old song, like "My Hope is Built", and any number of contemporary songs whose message is pretty much "I love Jesus a whole stinkin' lot", it's pretty easy to pick which song might actually enable me to remember who God is when I face hardship. One song is about the powerful, enduring, love of Christ as shown through the sacrifice on the cross. The other one is about how much I love Jesus. Maybe I'm not a typical Christian, but my love for Jesus kinda sucks. It's conditional, weak, and no big deal at all; nothing compared to the love that Jesus shows to me.
I guess I'm a cynic. But as the late, great, George Carlin has rightly stated, a cynic is just a disappointed idealist. When I look back far enough, I can see how music served a sacred purpose. And when I look at right now, I don't see very much sacred stuff. Going back to the De Musica Sacra thing:
Hymns are songs which spontaneously arise from the religious impulses with which mankind has been endowed by its Creator. Thus they are universally sung among all peoples.
This music had a fine effect on the lives of the faithful, imbuing both their private, and social lives with a true Christian spirit (cf. Eph 5:18-20; Col 3:16). It was encouraged from the earliest times, and in our day it is still to be recommended for fostering the piety of the faithful, and enhancing their private devotions. Even such music can, at times, be admitted to liturgical ceremonies (Musicæ sacræ disciplina, Dec. 25, 1955; AAS 48 [1956] 13-14)
Wow. I can see that even in 1958, the Roman Catholic Church was exercising discernment of what did and did not constitute music suitable for liturgical purposes. I guess the cynic might postulate that there was, and is, music that doesn't meet the standard but that might still be appropriate for worship. But beyond that, it shows that there is a standard beyond our entertainment or tastes. I wonder if that standard exists today.What do you think?
And before anyone comments, please note that I've already heard the following and am not interested in hearing it again.:
"If you don't like it, don't listen to it."
I'll try not to, thanks.
"Check out Sara Groves/Derek Webb/U2/some other artist or band that may or may not be Christian."
Okay, thanks. I actually really do like some Christian artists: Rich Mullins and Jars of Clay.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
