Who gets to sing spirituals? A reckoning with James H. Cone

Here's the deal: I really haven't read much of the work of James H. Cone, the theologian and author who passed away yesterday. Only one book, in fact.

There, I said it. Not particularly proudly, but it's true.

You can blame my whiteness, sure. You can blame the fact that I'm a latecomer to theological study, and was busy loading up on courses on worship in seminary and didn't sign up for the right courses to read Cone's stuff (if there were any). You can blame the fact that even now I'm more likely to read religious history stuff on my own time these days. Or you can just blame me for being a wuss theologically and spiritually and in most ways, basically.

But I have in fact read only one of Cone's books, and it isn't one that most would consider one of his major books. Furthermore, I didn't read it as a theological person; I read it as a musicologist.

Cone's The Spirituals and the Blues was first published in 1972 and reissued in 1991. Cone isn't a music scholar and doesn't claim to be so, and is diligent to credit those who did take up the music of the spiritual with a more scholarly or at least serious intent. His interest in them is, not surprisingly, not about the music to a great degree, although he bristles mightily at suggestions the music is "unoriginal" or derivative of white models (and yes, people said that kind of thing backintheday).

Cone's interest is, not surprisingly, cultural and theological (in the sense that the two are inseparable in his thinking). He reads them for their understanding of God, Jesus, heaven and other "churchy" topics, but never leaves behind the brutal reality of the slavery from which the songs were born. It is in the final chapter that the blues, a "secular spiritual," are introduced and discussed.

Looking back at the book now, from my current situation, the most difficult stuff might be in the introduction. After some reflection on his own experiences of both spirituals and blues, he makes the statement that "I am therefore convinced that it is not possible to render an authentic interpretation of black music without having shared and participated in the experience that created it" (3).

One could interpret that as a warning against spirituals being sung by anybody but black folk. Having never met Dr. Cone, nor heard him speak, I'll likely never know if that's how he felt. And of course I've gone on record saying that churches, particularly very white churches like my own, need to sing not only spirituals and other black forms of hymnody.

At the risk of disrespecting the dead, I stand by that assertion, with the understanding that Dr. Cone is also correct. I won't "understand" black music, necessarily, and I won't come close to understanding the spirituals and the experiences that formed them. In a way that's the point. White folk (and white churches) very specifically need to confront exactly those experiences they cannot understand, even if the musical experience won't be anything like authentic. We're entirely too likely to think we "have things down," we white church folk, and desperately require being disabused of that notion. It probably doesn't happen nearly enough.

There is, of course, the risk that the spirituals get "domesticated," rendered harmless in much the way that, say, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s work gets defanged in the modern understanding, stripping away the radical and contentious nature of his preaching and writing. That's the preacher's job to guard against, I guess. Particularly as the spirituals represent a form of music that owes its very origin to one of the worst sins of the (white) American people, that risk is real; nevertheless, the music must be sung, and heard, and confronted for its very confrontation of us.

Dear Pastor: The Appeal to Authority, part 2

Picking up where this left off...

In considering the use of congregational song in worship, it is needful to remember the point of worship. Different traditions may answer this question in different ways; I speak from the denominational tradition in which I work, and those who read this should consider these points in light of the tradition in which they work (and if you don't know what that tradition has to say, there's a homework assignment for you).

Continuing with the PC(USA)'s Book of Order, specifically the Directory for Worship, section W-3.01 opens up to a broader outline of the church's worship, offering an order for that worship while taking pains to clarify that this is not the only possible order of worship. Section W-3.0103 offers up the claim that the offered order of worship "seeks to uphold the centrality of Word and Sacraments in the church's faith, life, and worship." For those in, say, Episcopal and Lutheran traditions, there probably isn't much to make clergy blink, but we in Presbyland have to hesitate for a moment, as this cannot be said of many churches -- the Word is there, but the Sacraments are largely absent unless (a) someone is being baptized, or (b) it happens to be that one Sunday of the month the church practices the Lord's Supper.

I have no answer for this. Some Presbyterian churches manage to partake of communion weekly; most, I'm guessing, don't. Nor am I sure that congregational song offers any help here. I suppose one could sing a communion hymn even if communion isn't being taken in that worship service, but that feels a little passive-aggressive.

Nonetheless, the idea of the centrality of Word and (even absent) Sacrament in worship still has ramifications for the practice of congregational song. Do the songs or hymns we sing support and point towards the proclamation of the Word and the sharing of the Lord's Supper?

One doesn't have to be a practitioner of any particular worship style for this trap to be sprung. There are no doubt parishioners who go to contemporary worship (whatever that means) services only to hear the band do its thing, and check out on pretty much anything that happens otherwise. There are (I know this for fact) parishioners who go to traditional worship (whatever that means) services only to hear the organist tear it up on hymn or anthem or prelude or postlude, or to hear the professionally-supplemented choir knock out some Mozart or Mendelssohn, and check out on pretty much anything that happens otherwise. Neither is a desirable or even acceptable result. Neither really encourages a focus on the centrality of Word and Sacrament, and in fact are quite likely distractions from those central features of worship.

As to where in worship congregational singing might be most appropriate, that answer might well be "anywhere." Something at or near the beginning of the service is particularly appropriate, and typically a hymn or song will appear at the end of the service as well; other places might include in or around the reading of scripture (a sung psalm is particularly appropriate here) and, at least in this pastor's opinion, following the sermon. Yes, that's four possible hymns or songs in worship. Remember, they're more likely to remember one of those than any particular thing about your sermon. Swallow your pride and get your congregation singing.

Get them singing, though, with an eye towards what matters most in worship: the Word proclaimed, and the sacraments given and received. If the congregation's song is not pointing towards these central tenets of worship, then they are frankly distracting from worship (remember, not every experience, not even every spiritual experience, is worship), and may be doing more harm than good.

Just something else to think about, dear pastor.

This guy is great, really, but he's not the point of worship.

In which this blog makes the mistake of responding to clickbait, and probably runs people off...

Note: the "response to authority" theme will resume, presumably next time. I feel compelled to get this out of the way while it's still reasonably fresh in my attention.

I don't know who runs the website "Church Leaders." My first impression is "I don't want to know, I don't want to know." I see names among their contributors I either (1) have never heard of or (2) I have heard of, and do not trust. The titles of many articles seem to be pretty clear that they aren't talking to me. We don't have a praise band, and aren't a likely candidate for one. That alone seems a good indication that the article isn't for me.

But one particular article from said site got shared, by somebody who runs the social media for my seminary alma mater, no less, and I don't have the wit to walk away. A wiser blog would simply walk away repeating to itself "not my circus, not my monkeys" over and over again, but this is not a wiser blog.

So, here this blog goes, foolishly raising up to interrogate an article with the clickbait-ish title "Nine Reasons People Aren't Singing in Worship."

Naturally, I can't even get beyond the title before starting to quibble. Who or what is this random undifferentiated "people" you speak of? You are charged with leading a congregation. The children of God. The body of Christ, or at least one community thereof. Call me pedantic if you want; clearly I'll disagree. How you see the people you are charged with leading and encouraging in worship matters, and matters intensely. There's nothing random about the gathering before you on a given Sunday (or whatever day your congregation ends up gathering). Some are long-time "belongers," and some may be absolutely new, but this isn't a random assemblage, it's not a group of patrons, and it sure as Hell isn't an audience. It's not a sporting crowd trying to encourage its team to score. It's a worshiping community.

Another question: is singing the only outlet for participation in your service of worship? Clearly I consider singing a huge, major, distinctive, unique means of participation in worship, but it's not the only one. Or is it? If your congregation members have no other means of participating in worship -- prayers, responses, liturgy of any kind -- maybe it makes sense that they aren't inclined to sing either. I don't know, I'm no expert in musical psychology, but it's maybe not a good thing if that's the only option.

OK, let's see if we can actually get to the article...so the author starts with a deeply superficial sketch of church music history that would get  maybe an F- from any professor worth hiring. No, the sketch isn't the main point of the article, but if you can't take the time to flesh out that history more effectively and accurately, maybe don't include it in your article? (And the thing is, the author isn't necessarily incorrect; it's just so sloppily and glibly stated as to be unbearable.) So my trust level is already low and I've not even gotten to one of the author's nine points.

(Oh, and let's get one thing clear: the "pre-Reformation mess" cited by the author did produce some of the most passionate, amazing, beautiful, profound sacred music ever. It wasn't meant for congregations to sing. That doesn't make it a "mess." Sheesh.)

(I'm going to trust that if you really want to follow this, you'll actually pull up the article above and follow along with those points I address.)

1. Unless the author is omniscient, I'm not sure he should be making this claim. It is true that the praise & worship industry grinds out new songs at a steady pace, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the churches that subscribe to this kind of worship are necessarily using those songs. I am told that the "best sellers" in that genre tend to be "old favorites" (by pastors who actually work with that stuff and consult those charts), so to speak (yes, the phrase is used just slightly ironically). Now such a phenomenon would be, it seems, a reaction to that very issue -- too many new songs are coming out of the fire hose too fast, so churches stick to singing what they know. That this may present a problem or challenge to the p&w industry isn't really my problem to address.

2. The list gets a little sloppy here, as (3) is really a subset of (2). A song too high for the average singer is, more or less by definition, a song not suitable for congregational singing. However, does the whole song have to be trashed? Is it not possible to rework the song so that the leaders take on the higher or more difficult parts and the congregation responds with the more accessible parts? You see, hymnals actually allow for that possibility, and even provide instruction for a leader, or maybe a choir, to sing a part of the song and for the congregation to respond. Certainly "worship teams" can figure out something like this?

4. A fairly generic point, to be honest. Churches with organs face the same questions of providing enough support for the congregation without overwhelming the sound of the congregation (and choir, when applicable). The difference is that the organ is the most naturally supporting instrument for the human voice, where guitar or even piano are not. Simple instrumental mechanics are the reason; the organ sustains the same level of sound as long as a key is held down, providing the congregation with a consistent source of supporting sound without having to be jacked up so much. With guitars or pianos or other such instruments, the sound begins to decay as soon as the key is pressed or the string is plucked. The temptation then becomes to jack up the volume so that the decay takes longer, which can lead to overwhelming volume. (Again, I'm no expert, but I do think I've experienced this as a congregation member.)

5. Now here is where I'm guessing the author is getting crosswise with his intended audience (as opposed to someone like me). Rightly or wrongly, I'm going to guess that many of the worship leaders (and a big chunk of congregation members too) are at that church precisely because of (5), and probably (6), (8), and (9), which (like 2 & 3 above) are all part of the same point. There's a pretty good chance that a not-small number of folks attend such churches precisely for professional-style performances that ask nothing of them but to be good audence members, or maybe even more good consumers. If you're going to take churches to task for these things, you're going to need to address a lot of underlying questions that aren't going to be solved by tweaks to the praise band.

7. Again, I'm not certain that congregations are not selecting their own "common body of hymnody" quite on their own, no matter how much the p&w industry turns up the spigot of new stuff. And also again, I'm not sure that praise bands or congregations are all that bothered by this when it is the case.

To wrap up, I am forced to wonder if the author is at the last addressing the wrong audience. Is this the kind of things that praise bands or worship teams should be expected to address or grasp? Or is this a situation where the pastor should be addressing in and with the congregation?

Maybe this was a "Dear Pastor" blog entry after all.

Now is where I admit my bias; I'm not convinced that a full-fledged p&w approach to worship is really compatible with a mainline theology of worship. I'm not even certain what theology of worship is in play in p&w, or even if there is one at work. Someone else is going to have to convince me on this subject, and they won't have an easy time of it.

At the same time, I am pretty certain that many, if not most, mainline churches have no clue about a theology of worship that isn't some pale copy of evangelical practice. What is Lutheran worship, or Presbyterian (my particular bailiwick) worship? What is particular to it? Where does our identity show in that worship? Are churches in mainine denominations so paralyzed by fear of shrinkage that they do their dammedest to bury their identity, either treading water in a traditional worship style in which nobody understands what "tradition" means or why we did it so long that it became traditional or running after the hot new evangelical thing (even if it's not that new) to try not to be offensively Presbyterian, or offensively of any identity at all?

And if the pastors of these congregations can't even begin to address these questions, what hope is there for any kind of thoughtful progress on the subject of worship?

And how are pastors going to learn how to address these questions?

It's just not as simple as that...

Dear Pastor: The Appeal to Authority, part 1

Pastors get busy during Holy Week, so Good Friday and Easter Sunday passed without new entries here. However, the blog is back, and tonight is given to a minimal form of the Appeal to Authority.

In this case the "authority" at hand is the Directory for Worship, one of the components of the Book of Order of the Presbyterian Church (USA), the denomination to which I belong. If you belong to another mainline denomination you may wish to consult any similar governing document (the BoO, as it is semi-affectionately known, is one-half of the constitution of the PC(USA), the other half being its Book of Confessions) to see if it has anything similar to say on the subject of congregational song. (If you are reading from an evangelical/fundamentalist position, I have nothing useful for you here, and I refer you to the first entry of this blog reboot.)


Here's an example: remember that talk about singing in worship, and why it is a needful thing? Here's what that DfW has to say about that:

The singing of psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs is a vital and ancient form of prayer. Singing engages the whole person, and helps to unite the body of Christ in common worship. The congregation itself is the church’s primary choir; the purpose of rehearsed choirs and other musicians is to lead and support the congregation in the singing of prayer. Special songs, anthems, and instrumental music may also serve to interpret the Word and enhance the congregation’s prayer. Furthermore, many of the elements of the service of worship may be sung. Music in worship is always to be an offering to God, not merely an artistic display, source of entertainment, or cover for silence. (W-2.0202)

That is a fairly serious statement: The congregation itself is the primary "choir" in the church, and the purpose of any other choir or ensemble that may exist in the church is to lead and support the congregation in the singing of prayer. Yeowch. Note that other functions a choir may perform are not eliminated, but by this interpretation above such things are an "enhancement" of the congregation's sung prayer and not a replacement for it. Your church's choir may, in fact, be the principal "teacher" of congregational song in your church. Use it.

That same section of the DfW also contains this useful warning that does not apply only to music, but is one that pastors and musicians might both be well served to take to heart:

The gifts of the Spirit are for building up the Church. Every action in worship is to glorify God and contribute to the good of the people. Worshipers and worship leaders must avoid actions that only call attention to themselves and fail to serve the needs of the whole congregation. 

Yeah, pastors and musicians never call attention to themselves, do they?

Just a little further on, here's a nice scary selection from W-2.0304:

Ministers of the Word and Sacrament (also called teaching elders) are called to
proclaim the Word, preside at the Sacraments, and equip the people for ministry in Jesus's name. Specifically, ministers of the Word and Sacrament† are responsible for: the selection of Scriptures to be read, the preparation of the sermon, the prayers to be offered, the selection of music to be sung, printed worship aids or media presentations for a given service, and the use of drama, dance, and other art forms in a particular service of worship. (emphasis mine)

Bam. The buck really does stop with you, doesn't it? The next paragraph, W-2.0305, does lessen the blow a bit, noting that in a "particular" congregation a minister may select things such as hymnals in consultation with the church musician(s), and such consultation also apply to such things as anthems (heck, sisters and brothers, I don't even do that much consulting on our choir's anthems), but the congregation's song...sisters and brothers, that's on you. It makes sense. If to any degree one considers that the congregation's song is at all part of the proclamation of the word, or the prayer of the church, then the selection of that song really does belong among all those other responsibilities assigned to the Minister of Word and Sacrament in W-2.0304. Choice of hymns is as much about the proclamation of the Word as choice of scriptures or prayers, it seems.

Now for one last kicker (for this post, at least), here's something to strike fear not into pastors, but presbyteries, also from 2-0305:

It is appropriate that the presbyteries discuss with sessions the character of their congregation’s worship, the standards governing it, and the fruit that it bears in the mission and ministry of the church. It is appropriate that the presbyteries provide instruction in worship, making use of this Directory for Worship in the preparation of candidates for ordination, and in the ongoing nurture of ministers of the Word and Sacrament.

Show of hands: how many of your presbyteries do this? (Bueller?...Bueller? Anyone?...Bueller?)

Again, this is from the constitution of the Presbyterian Church (USA); Lutheran, Episcopal, and other mainline denominations may have different formulations, or not address the question at all. But there is not merely appeal to authority; there is a fundamental assumption behind the DfW's proclamation. If the congregation in song is the congregation at prayer, if the hymn is in any way part of the church's proclamation, then the choice of hymns or other forms of congregational song is to be given the same care and consideration as the choices of scriptures, prayers, and indeed any other part of worship.

And again, my minister sisters and brothers, the buck really does stop with you.

The Directory for Worship is in here. It is not to be confused with the Book of Common Worship, which is useful but does not have the force of the Book of Order behind it.