Let me reflect firstly on U2. The question I wanted to know was “why were these people at the concert?”. It was not to listen to the music, as they could download this on iTunes. It was not to see the “U2 show”, as I was watching that for free in my living room. So why spend the $X hundred dollars for a few hours of entertainment? It would appear that there is something about the concert experience that works. I want to say that that experience is ‘church’.
That is to say that the U2 Concert is church (keep reading, I am not a heretic…yet). The word that we use to translate to church is ekklesia. Simply it means to “call to assembly”, hence the crowd or mob in Acts 19:32 is described as an ekklesia. U2 is a group gathered together, but it is not a Christian church, it is a U2 church. It is gathered by U2 for U2. A Christian church is gathered by Jesus for Jesus. The centre of U2 church is the music with some monologues from Bono. The centre of the Christian church is the Word with some music in teaching, expressing, praising and encouraging as well as some other experiences such as prayer.
My point is that both are churches, but both are different. Performance is at the centre of U2 church. But where does that leave performance in the Christian church?
Allow me to turn to the supreme authority on the English language (what’s the icon for tongue in cheek?) dictionary.com
Performance:
1. a musical, dramatic, or other entertainment presented before an audience.
2. the act of performing a ceremony, play, piece of music, etc.
3. the execution or accomplishment of work, acts, feats, etc.
4. a particular action, deed, or proceeding.
5. an action or proceeding of an unusual or spectacular kind: His temper tantrum was quite a performance.
6. the act of performing.
7. the manner in which or the efficiency with which something reacts or fulfills its intended purpose.
8. Linguistics. the actual use of language in real situations, which may or may not fully reflect a speaker's competence, being subject to such nonlinguistic factors as inattention, distraction, memory lapses, fatigue, or emotional state.
But let me begin with the idea of “Performance is the execution of action.”
Let us apply this to preaching. Is preaching performance? If it is the execution of an action, yes. Though when we think of performance many of us have more than just the execution, there is a premeditation in the way that action is executed as well as that it is executed. Again can we see this as preaching? How many of us have practiced our sermons, even in front of a mirror? How many of us should be practicing, keeping in mind that some 80% of communication is non-verbal?!
In this sense music leading is performance, as any other part of church is. The real question is “Is music leading and playing merely helping the congregation technically or are there other dimensions to the leading, like modeling passion, etc.?”
Again if we apply the same principles to preaching I would say many of us would say there is more than just reciting the words on the page. How we say them means something (would love to debate this below, if anyone is up for it). How we sing is as important as what we sing.
Of course there are places we can go in terms of performance of music that can be just plain wrong.
Firstly, if the ‘performance’ is not honest. Applying this to the passion of musicians, if the muso is not passionate about what he or she is playing or singing about then it should not be put on. This is just a lie.
As a side point I think this is one of the places we are uncomfortable when it comes to the use of the word ‘performance’. When I perform as an actor, it is my character, not me that is performing. I.e. if my character is married on stage, it does not mean that I am married in reality. There is a longer debate to be had about whether I am morally responsible for my characters actions: i.e. if I kill another character night after night on stage, have I as a performer committed murder? All this being said, musicians are not actors and what we see on stage we expect to be the person. When we find out that performers personas and personal lives do not match then we have disappointment (Brittany was not a virgin??). This is even more serious for preachers (do I need mention Jimmy Baker?) and Christian musicians.
Secondly, if what is being done by the musician does not glorify God. I would encourage all musicians to have John 3:30 as their creed (look it up!) or consider this story from Frank Gaebelein (author of The Christian, the arts and truth):
“A distinguished artist had completed a canvas of the Last Supper. All was done with great skill, and the chalice in particular had been portrayed most beautifully. As one after another of the artist’s friends looked at the painting, they said “what a beautiful cup!” Then the artist realized that he had diverted attention from the Lord. Taking his brush, he painted out the gorgeous chalice and substituted for it a more quietly beautiful but far less obtrusive one. So should it be with music in worship.”
At the end of the day we do not want church to be U2 church but Christian church, however, I think that musos can serve us well by being more than merely technical leaders and help us sing from our souls as well as our heads.
5 comments:
Addendum: "If you look up the word entertain in a dictionary, you'll find this definition: "capturing and holding the attention for an extended period of time". I don't know a preacher who doesn't want to do that" Rick Warren, Purpose Driven Church, p231.
Hey Pete,
Thanks for the post.
I'm still chewing over some of the detail but a question that sprang to mind was what passion and singing from our souls not just our heads looks like practically for music leaders?
Is it closing eyes, raising hands, appropriate emotion for the song, etc? Love to know your thoughts
Dave
Yeah good question Dave, I guess I am thinking of the guys I see who do a good job technically, but that is all. I would steal your phrase "appropriate emotion for the song". Obviously you don't want it to be the centre of what you do, but music does engage us emotionally and I think we need to acknowledge that.
So could you say that those who ONLY do a good job technically, technically don't do a good job? As more is going in when we sing than reciting words of a powerpoint and playing the perfect notes (although those things help!).
I am conscious too that sincere emotion can't be forced - you wouldn't want (or maybe you do!)someone to stand up and say we are going to sing a slow dirge like song now so get your tissues out. And particular songs 'get' people more than otherones. Rock of Ages always moves me way more than any other song no matter when it is sung. Often there is a lack of time to reflect in our gatherings on a song for it to have its full impact.
So I guess passion comes from the individual and their own attitude towards God and how that is reflected when they sing, play, lead or preach.
Rom 12:11 has been helpful for me on this aspect, 'Never be lacking in zeal, but keep your spiritual fervour, serving the Lord'.
Dave
I guess the issue I am dealing with is musos feeling like they are not allowed to express their feelings in front of people more than whether they are technically doing a good job. If you ask me which is more important I would say technical proficiency, but I would also argue that if musos feel it, they should express it.
I have noticed we have a bit of a double standard when it comes to preaching. I have at times broken down when preaching on heaven and no-one has had a problem with that, but if a muso did it, we would call that sentimentalism.
Post a Comment