Wednesday, December 25, 2019

How NOT to Sing at Christmas (or any other time of the year)

SING A NEW SONG (excerpt from God Sings! (And Ways We Think He Ought To)

"If it was good enough for Isaac Watts, it’s good enough for me.” Few of us would come right out and say this, but I confess to thinking along those lines. Over two decades of writing and speaking about singing and liturgy, I’ve been accused of being a liturgical traditionalist. Skim through the proliferation of lyrics mass-produced in recent decades, and, whatever your particular taste in music, it’s impossible not to observe how different they are from the psalms and hymns the Church has been singing for centuries. That’s precisely by design. They were written not only to be different, but to be better, more relevant, to conform to a new ethos.
Some years ago, while visiting a church on our family vacation, we were invited to rise and sing the following:

You are my wholeness,
You are my completeness.
In you I find forgiveness,
Yes, in you I find release.
It’s a wonder you take all those blunders I make
And so graciously offer me peace.

Bewildered, I reread the lines. Unless I was missing something, it appeared that the writer of these words had managed to flip everything around. The eternal living God who made the earth, the sky, the sea, and all that in them is, had been reduced to a means of individual self-discovery, “you are my completeness,” the added bauble that finally makes me whole, as if God were a fashion accessory that puts the finishing touch on my outfit.
I looked around the congregation. Hands were raised; eyes were pinched shut with emotion. What was I missing? There were references to forgiveness and peace, vague ones, but blunders? Only those “who think of sin but lightly” will refer to their offences as blunders. The psalmist uses no such reductionist terminology. “Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight” (51:4). To my ear, the flouncy cadence of the lines about blunders sounded so different from the earnest sobriety of David on his face confessing his evil to a holy God.
But, surely, this song had to get better. How could it get worse?

And in you I find true friendship,
Yes, your love is so free of demands,
Though it must hurt you so,
You keep letting me go
To discover the person I am. 

Maybe I was being too critical, and the lyricist was onto a deeper truth in the line, “your love is so free of demands.” I wanted to be more generous, find at least a morsel of truth that might redeem these lines.
While I cast about, I tried to picture the persecuted church singing this; imagine Christian martyrs throughout the centuries lustily joining in with “your love is so free of demands” as the fagots were lit beneath their feet at the stake. Not only was it nonsensical, singing this made a mockery of the persecuted church, then and now. Isaac Watts put it far better: “Love, so amazing, so divine/Demands my soul, my life, my all.”
It felt like the fabricator of this ditty of self-actualization had learned his theology from a pop-psychology textbook—not from the Word of God. Truth and the honor of Christ were at stake. I looked down the pew at my family; we all stopped singing.
Historically, the finest poetry woos us away from self-absorption and makes us less self-referential. The best poetry “turn(s) us from ourselves to thee,” as one poet put it. The Christian’s chief end is to do all things to the glory of God alone; how much more so when we are taking poetic words on our lips, addressing God in sung worship?
Though we were no longer giving voice to these words, the rest of the congregation dutifully murmured onward:

And like a father you long to protect me,
Yet you know I must learn on my own.
Well, I made my own choice,
To follow your voice,
Guiding me unto my home. 

Impotent and passive, the father figure portrayed by this lyricist now sits wringing his hands and waiting. How vastly different this is from the God of the Bible: “I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose’” (Isaiah 46:9-10). How equally dissimilar this is from the God portrayed in the rich canon of the Church’s hymnody.
The final plumage of self-praise in “You Are My Wholeness” shifted to praising the songwriter’s own choice. Unwittingly, all those who sing these words are praising themselves for following someone’s voice. We’re left to fill in many gaps, including who this someone is. Though the Apostle Paul calls us to do everything in the name of Jesus Christ (Colossians 3:17), oddly, while ostensibly singing to him, there is zero mention of the triune God, Father, Son, or Holy Spirit, in this reductionist doggerel.
Wouldn’t ruined sinners rescued by Christ want to sing more like this?

Why was I made to hear thy voice,
And enter while there’s room,
When thousands make a wretched choice,
And rather starve than come?

SING A NEW SONG
Hence, I confess, because of lyrics like “You Are My Wholeness,” I had retreated into traditionalism. There’s so many great psalm versifications and hymns to sing, let’s solve the problem. Instead of being subjected to such unworthy lyrical nonsense, let’s simply stick with the best of the past. I thought I’d found my safe place in self-righteous traditionalism.
Until reading in Psalms. I love singing Psalms, and I’ve always tried to avoid debate with my exclusive-psalm-singing brethren. “Oh, you only sing Psalms?” Only? The Psalms are the very words God breathed by his Spirit to the ancient poets who penned them. There’s nothing only about them. But it was throughout those very psalms that I was repeatedly called to sing a new song (33, 40, 96, 98, 144, 149). As the psalms were once new expressions of praise for old covenant deliverances, so new manifestations of the gracious deliverance of our God call for new “songs of loudest praise” to give voice and substance to our new covenant gratitude.
But it wasn’t just in Psalms. In Revelation the saints and angelic hosts, in a culminating torrent of splendor “…sang a new song, saying, ‘Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation’” (5:9). My traditionalism was getting pummeled.

THE MOUTHS OF BABES
Meanwhile, my children began to work on me. “Daddy, don’t read us another book. Tell us a story, one you make up yourself.” I pointed to the walls of books in our home. There are so many wonderful things to read. “No, Daddy, make up a story.” That was twenty years ago. I’ve been making up stories ever since, my children often my chief critics. But writing books was one thing. Attempting to write a new hymn terrified me.
Then, I hit on a solution. I would have a character in one of my children’s books (The Accidental Voyage) write a hymn. Throughout the story, my protagonist gnawed his pencil in fits and starts. It was perfect. If he managed to craft a poem that resembled a singable hymn, I was safe. More likely, if my efforts in his persona were an unmitigated disaster, I simply blamed the adolescent protagonist. What do you expect from a twelve-year-old? I felt liberated and furiously worked in secret on several other hymns. But exposure was around the corner.
After writing a birthday sonnet for a pastor friend of mine, he asked me to write a new hymn for the Thanksgiving service—in a week. His was a discerning congregation of hymn-savvy Presbyterians. What did he think I was, a performing circus animal able to crank out poetry that would stand up to their scrutiny? I declined.
Besides, my father, after a long battle with cancer, had recently died. I didn’t feel much like writing a new hymn. We had sung hymns at my father’s bedside, recited and sang psalms, the thirty-fourth emerging as one of his favorites. “This poor man cried to you and you delivered him out of all his trouble.” He would often ask me to read it, then lean back on his pillow, close his eyes, and smile as I read.
Though I had declined to write the hymn, I found myself looking up biblical passages on thanksgiving, always drawn back to my father's favorite Psalm and the phrase, “O, taste and see that the Lord is good.” I was thrilled with the Eucharist and Lord’s Supper implications of the text. But the days before the Thanksgiving service were clicking by and all I had was an initial idea. Neophyte muse that I was, how could I possibly write a hymn in so short a time, one that would be worthy of the high worship of God?
Three days before the Thanksgiving service, I managed to produce five stanzas that began like this:

We rise and worship you, our Lord,
            With grateful hearts for grace outpoured,
For you are good—O taste and see—
            Great God of mercy rich and free. 

The next stanzas explored the salvific roles of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, for which every Christian has unmeasured cause for thanksgiving. To match the poetic meter, the accompanist had chosen a Long Meter existing tune. As the congregation rose, I sweated and fidgeted as we sang this new song. 

HOSTILITY TO FORM
As Augustine put it, “I count myself among those who learn as they write and write as they learn.” And did I ever need to learn several important things about hymns and writing them in these early efforts.
My poetry tutorials, however, began much earlier. God placed me in a hymn-singing, literary home, where we would snuggle up on the couch and listen to my mother read aloud from Shakespeare, even Chaucer in Middle English. Not understanding a word, I was charmed by the sounds and cadence of the poetry. In my adult life, during decades of teaching history and literature, including the writing of poetry, I watched with mounting apprehension as our culture descended further into a post-poetry, post-literacy malaise, the Church dutifully in tow.
Along with post-modernity’s hostility to form, dismantling culture and disfiguring art, our ability to define and appreciate poetry has been marred. We’re taught to disparage poetic conventions such as meter and rhyming, and anything else that gives shape and order to art. Literary experts say that we are to read poetry just like we read prose, as if poetry was a literary birth defect of prose rather than its own genre with its own rhetorical qualities.
For thousands of years, poetry has included various metrical patterns and parallelisms of sound, rhyming being one of the most delightful and anticipated. In our moment, however, vers libre, is celebrated as the highest form of poetry, emotive free verse that defies the conventions of the ages. With lines capriciously designated, much of this material is little more than fragmented prose masquerading as poetry.
Literary elites assure us that traditional poets were simply being cute with words, showing off, being crafty in their slavish devotion to convention. I wonder if they might also tell us that Michelangelo was just being crafty with marble, that medieval architects were simply showing off with stone-vaulted ceilings, or that J. S. Bach was merely being cute with counterpoint.
Critics of poetic conventions asked 20th century poet Robert Frost why he didn’t write in free verse; he replied with an apt simile, “Writing poetry that doesn’t rhyme is like playing tennis with the net down.” Frost believed that there was something inherent in the genre that demanded structural boundaries if it is to be what it is. But his was a voice crying in a literary wilderness.

CONGREGATIONAL PASSIVITY
How does this relate to sung worship? Observe the congregation in a contemporary service, and it becomes clear that it is difficult to sing lyrics composed to post-poetry dictates. Throughout much of Western Civilization, poetry was composed to be sung by the whole clan. Today, singing is now largely done for us by commercially popular, celebrity entertainers, or those who imitate them. The congregation has become avid listeners, but increasingly inept participants in full-voice singing.
Finding myself a guest in many different churches, most arranged with the entertainers and their instruments on center stage, I’ve been observing congregational singing for years. Many people are not singing at all, especially the men, and most of those whose lips are moving, are murmuring more than full-voice singing. Why is that?
Whatever our playlists look like, and however lustily we might sing in the privacy of our cars, let’s be frank, one who is not a pop musician feels uncomfortable attempting in public to sing like a solo-voice entertainer. It turns out, though they call themselves worship leaders, they are not leading us. They are doing it for us. Our participation is irrelevant to the performance. Join in if you care to; either way, it will not change the instrumental, high-volume sound pulsing through the worship center.

CONGREGATIONAL SINGING
So, how are we to write, compose, and sing new songs that reflect the ethos of worship rather than the ethos of entertainment? David played his harp, a solo performer—for the sheep. But he wrote psalms to be sung by the congregation, young and old, without any consideration for generational preferences. Hence, as we attempt to craft new songs, the hymn writer will not write for a solo performer or for a choir. A good hymn could be sung by either, but the writer of a new hymn, like David, will intentionally craft poetry accessible for the whole congregation of God’s people to sing with full voice.
When Christians of all ages and various singing abilities rise to their feet to sing the praises of their Redeemer, if things are to be done decently and in order, they will want to sing with one voice. Though it is more difficult to observe when hymn poetry is subordinated to the musical score, as in American hymnals, for centuries, virtually all hymns have been written in regular rhyme and meter. Solo entertainers can sing metrically irregular songs, and often do, but singing free verse worship songs is difficult for the congregation.

WHAT MAKES A GOOD HYMN?
Our greatest problem discerning what is worthy to sing in worship is firstly a theological problem. Egalitarians don’t make good worshipers. Sinners, undone by their crimes in the face of a holy God, falling on their faces before the Sovereign Lord who has paid their vast debt in full with his precious blood, make better worshipers. We must get our theology right before we can correct our doxology.
Another problem we have with evaluating what is worthy to sing in worship is that we no longer think of hymns as poetry, and in our post-poetry culture, we have lost the literary tools to require the highest standards for that poetry. What we sing before the face of our Redeemer in worship must be the finest human poetry, set to the most appropriate human music, shaped by the biblical ethos of worship. 
Music in worship is not firstly about loud instruments, multi-colored lights, or soloists aping entertainment celebrities, as we see in the ubiquitous nightclub liturgy of our present situation. Music in worship is first and last about the voice of the congregation singing to and with one another the word of Christ. Paul put it this way:

Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach
and admonish one another with all wisdom, and as
you sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs with
gratitude in your hearts to God. And whatever you
do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of
the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father
through him (Colossians 3:16-17).

Here, Paul tells us how and what to sing. New songs of new covenant worship find their substance and boundaries in this locus classicus of sung worship. Notice, three times we are told to take Christ’s name on our lips in our singing, and we’re told three times in the whole context of the passage to sing our thanksgiving. Which strongly suggests that new lyrics will be Christ-centered and filled with gratitude.
The passage reveals three more functions of hymns, summarized by hymnologist Erik Routley: New covenant hymns will codify doctrine (“teach and admonish”), unify the Church (“one another”), and glorify God (“to God”). We have seen decay of all three of these functions in most of the new songs of recent decades. Praise choruses and worship songs have been generally reductionist in theological content, saying less and less about doctrinal truths, often never using the name of Christ.
Furthermore, instead of unifying the Church, the shift to lyrics and music that suit the ethos of entertainment, has created a generational rift, disunifying the Church. Some churches have a traditional service and a contemporary one, thus, dividing the congregation by tastes and age rather than bringing Christians together with one voice in song. A good test if a lyric will unify the Church is to ask if the persecuted church would choose to sing it; would the early church sing it; would Christians have sung it in the Reformation, the Great Awakening, or the Missionary Movement of the 19th century?
Lastly, the third function of singing to the glory of God has been under attack for decades. When churches prefer singing what entertainers sing at concerts, or what Christian radio stations are playing, there is a pull to imitate the entertainment industry and its popular celebrity method of singing, church worship leaders now attempting to look like and sound like they are on stage at a concert.
The late Keith Green, himself a vanguard of contemporary Christian singing, was offended by the “‘look at me!’ attitude I have seen at concert after concert, and the ‘Can’t you see we are as good as the world!’ syndrome” of fellow rock and roll performers. Decades later, would Green be less offended by what he would see were he alive today?
However noble the intentions, the entertainment arrangement is the perfect storm for singing to the glory of the performers on the stage. Routley quips that when the three functions of hymns, codify, unify, glorify, are absent, he wished for the song to have “the short life of all rootless things.”

NEW REFORMATION HYMNS
Finally, Paul tells us to write and sing new hymns “with all wisdom,” that is to do so skillfully; which means those who presume to craft new hymn lyrics or compose tunes for those lyrics need to study, develop their skills, know what they are attempting, stand on the shoulders of the great hymn writers of the past—Cowper, Watts, Wesley, Havergal, Bonar and many others.
It was while immersed in the study of our hymnody that I became so reluctant to attempt writing a new hymn. How could I possibly measure up with the best hymn writers of the past? Then it occurred to me: I don’t write books because I think I’m the best writer in the world, any more than I love my wife because I think I’m the best husband in the world, any more than I parent my kids because I think I’m the best parent in the world, any more than I worship Christ because I think I’m the best worshiper in the world. Neither do I write hymns because I think I’m the best hymn writer in the world.
Then, one frosty December evening, as I scribbled in front of the fire, I found myself toying with the idea of attempting a carol. When I came to my senses, I contemplated tossing my notes into the fire. What was I thinking? Christ’s Advent? The sacred mystery? Angelic heralds? The culmination of thousands of years of prophecy? The best of the existing carol canon guaranteed failure. Carols are uniquely rich with celebratory atmosphere, evocative of rejoicing and feasting, sleigh bells, and every charming winter association imaginable. Hymnologists tell us the best-loved hymn of all time is actually a carol, Charles Wesley’s “Hark, the Herald Angels Sing.” It was literary suicide to attempt a carol.
Because of my fears, early scribblings for this carol lay dormant for several years; hymn writing can sometimes be like that for me, an initial burst of ideas, then nothing, just an imaginative black hole. And then another Advent season approached. I read aloud from Luke’s gospel with my family; we sang a carol. When the kids were tucked in their beds, I pulled out my initial notes and sifted through the scribbled idea banks and word banks. Late that night, with fear and trembling, I managed to set down six stanzas as they appear below, beginning with the angelic announcement of Christ’s Advent to the shepherds, proceeding to our Lord’s sinless life, Gethsemane and the cross, the resurrection, concluding with Christ’s triumphant Second Advent.

What wonder filled the starry night
          When Jesus came with heralds bright! 
I marvel at his lowly birth,     
          That God for sinners stooped to earth.
        
His splendor laid aside for me,
          While angels hailed his Deity,
The shepherds on their knees in fright
          Fell down in wonder at the sight.

The child who is the Way, the Truth,
          Who pleased his Father in his youth, 
Through all his days the Law obeyed, 
          Yet for its curse his life he paid.          
          
What drops of grief fell on the site 
          Where Jesus wrestled through the night,
Then for transgressions not his own,
          He bore my cross and guilt alone.

What glorious Life arose that day
          When Jesus took death’s sting away!
His children raised to life and light,
          To serve him by his grace and might.

One day the angel hosts will sing,   
          “Triumphant Jesus, King of kings!”  
Eternal praise we’ll shout to him 
          When Christ in splendor comes again!


Douglas Bond is author of Grace Works! (And Ways We Think It Doesn't) and twenty-seven other books of historical fiction, biography, devotion, and practical theology. He is lyricist for New Reformation Hymns, directs the Oxford Creative Writing Master Class, speaks at churches and conferences, and leads Church history tours in Europe. His book God Sings! (And Ways We Think He Ought To), from which this post is an excerpt, is available at bondbooks.net; order today and receive a free Rise and Worship cd.

Tuesday, December 17, 2019

Geneva Gigues not Dirges: Ways We Fake Solemnity and Joy In Worship

 "...the heavenly anthem drowns/All music but its own..."
Early in my adult life, I was a commercial photographer, working for magazines, corporations, medical industry, shipping, and I had a university client. While setting up lights and equipment for a photo shoot in a university classroom, I heard singing down the hall, singing of the praise chorus, worship song variety, energetic and happy.
“That’s the only place on this campus,” snorted the marketing director, “where those kids don’t have to think.” What followed were mocking and derisive comments from the art director, the registrar, and the student and faculty subjects for the shoot, leveled at the campus ministry and any student stupid enough to participate in it. The students continued singing. I continued setting up my gear and making test shots. Their intolerant rant continued. I stopped. Though it could jeopardize future work for a lucrative client, I felt compelled to speak. “I’m one of them,” I said. Awkward silence followed. I resumed my preparations. Some time later after the shoot, while I put away my gear, the registrar came up and apologized. “I tried being a Christian once,” he said. “It just didn’t take.” We talked.
This episode offered me two roads. Keep silent and do my job, and thereby passively align with the shameless mocking of the sophisticated university staff who had hired me, or align with a room full of college kids singing the praises of Jesus. They were choruses with little depth and had significant theological components missing. God made the road clear. I want to align with his people, whatever stage they are in their grasp of the riches of Christian worship and singing. “I am one of them.”

SOLEMNITY OR JOY
I want to be like Augustine, listening in on the singing of the early church: “How greatly did I weep in thy hymns and canticles, deeply moved by the voices of thy Church so sweetly singing.”
Or like John Bunyan while yet an unbeliever, eavesdropping on four Christian women chatting at their laundry. “They spake as if joy did make them speak,” he recorded, and later immortalized them as the four virtuous women at House Beautiful.
I doubt that Augustine or Bunyan would have been overly impressed eavesdropping on solemnity. I believe we must recover awe and reverence in our corporate worship, but if our solemnity is not the prelude to overflowing joy at the grace of God in Jesus, it may simply be a caricature of reverence. Dour formalism can pass for solemnity for some of us, so can sophisticated detachment, boredom. Even depression could pass for solemnity.
Both joy and solemnity can be faked and have their counterfeits. Wise, self-aware Christians will ask themselves the hard question: Which pole am I most prone to? We see the ecstasy of the other guys and call it fake joy, superficial, unsophisticated. They see our solemnity and call it dead formalism, boredom, spiritual rigor mortis. Sometimes we’re right and sometimes we are not.
Which one is retained when the Church shifts from caring about the authority of the Bible to caring more for the authority of new cultural ideas? The liberal progressive church that long ago abandoned the gospel of Martin Luther and the Reformers, still retains much of the appearance of reverence and solemnity in its worship services.
I’m frequently in European cathedrals, abbeys, and parish churches, most of them hollow shells of their former theological distinctives. But even though they have abandoned their spiritual convictions, in their formal gatherings, they retain the façade of reverence and solemnity. For most of us, solemnity is far easier to fake than real joy. Pharisees were great at solemnity in their worship.
We are in grave danger when we consider ourselves to have more in common with the progressive liberal church because of music style than we consider ourselves to have with churches that are passionate about the gospel and yet, at this stage in their understanding, use the entertainment ethos and pop contemporary music.
What will make the nations say, “The Lord has done great things for them”? Is it, “Wow! Look how solemn they are.” No! It’s joy, “shouts of joy” in our worship.
The elitist, power-monger critics of Calvin’s ministry and the Reformation sneered at vernacular psalm singing, calling their songs “Geneva gigues.” There’s a reason why they didn’t call them “Geneva dirges.” Gigue melodies were joyful dance music for the common peasant. Clearly, Calvin’s critics wanted more solemnity not more joy in Geneva’s sung worship.

HEAVENLY ANTHEM
The Devil is, no doubt, elated over all this. Here we are in the very act of worship thinking we are better than other Christians and churches who don’t do it our way. He is giddy, beside himself with glee.
Let’s switch that exuberance around. We will be compelled to “sing to the Lord with cheerful voice” when our singing springs inexorably from gazing upon the beauty of Christ. When we sing because we are so bedazzled by the stupendous glory of Christ in the gospel, then, and then only, will the war cease, battle over. We will be so entirely smitten with wonder at who Jesus is and just what he has fully accomplished in our place in the gospel of free grace, that singing in worship will flow from the deep well of transformed hearts, minds, and tongues. Overwhelmed by the person and work of Christ, we can join our hearts and lips in sung worship of the Savior in ways that will lavish love and generosity on those with whom we differ.
Only when we love, not only our neighbor, but our Christian brethren, yes, even the ones who vastly disagree with us on how we sing in worship, only then will the war be finished.
How we worship matters. But why we worship matters still more, and the fact that we worship with people from every tribe, kindred, people and tongue, matters first and last. Joyful singing because we have come more to love as we have first been loved by Christ—this matters above all.
Hymn writer Matthew Bridges thrills our hearts and joyfully invites us to join him in such a heavenly anthem:

Crown him with many crowns,
The Lamb upon his throne.
Hark! How the heavenly anthem drowns
All music but its own.

Weary of in-house warfare, together let us long for the day when “the heavenly anthem” does, indeed, “drown all music but its own.” But we must tune our hearts, our minds, and our ears to what such a heavenly anthem would sound like. Such an anthem will be high above us, out of our reach, and will require “all that is within us.” Surely, such an anthem must be closest to how God himself sings, closest to the psalms, closest to the hymn Jesus, the Prince of Peace, and his disciples sang at the Last Supper.

Crown him the Lord of peace,
Whose power a scepter sways;
From pole to pole, that wars may cease,
Absorbed in prayer and praise.

The more enthralled we are with the Redeemer, the more we are truly “absorbed in prayer and praise” of the “Lord of peace,” the sooner our worship wars will cease.

All hail, Redeemer, hail!
For thou hast died for me;
Thy praise shall never, never fail
Throughout eternity.

Let’s recommit ourselves to singing the way God sings and the way we will be singing “throughout eternity.”

Douglas Bond is author of Grace Works! (And Ways We Think It Doesn't) and twenty-seven other books of historical fiction, biography, devotion, and practical theology. He is lyricist for New Reformation Hymns, directs the Oxford Creative Writing Master Class, speaks at churches and conferences, and leads Church history tours in Europe. His latest book God Sings! (And Ways We Think He Ought To), from which this post is an excerpt, is available at bondbooks.net/shop; order today and receive a free Rise and Worship cd.

Wednesday, December 11, 2019

Hip or Holy? Can We Be Cool and Christian?

Marty Sampson, former songwriter for Hillsong

COOL OR CHRISTIAN (excerpt from God Sings! (And Ways We Think He Ought To)

Co-opting the entertainment ethos as many churches have done, has brought some large hipster churches to the attention of the mainstream media. And they’re not all critical.

“The music! The lights! The crowds!” gushed a reporter on a CNN segment after a visit to an 8,000-member hipster church in NYC. “It looks like a rock concert. And the lines around the block are enough to make any nightclub envious.”

Sophisticated, men’s high-end fashion and lifestyle magazine GQ embedded a reporter, Taffy Brodesser-Akner, in a Hillsong worship service “to find out if Christianity can really be this cool and still be Christian.” Studying the 8,000 attendees entering the worship center, including Justin Bieber, Akner gave her first impression: It’s where the cool kids spend Sunday morning after Saturday night at the club.”  

The GQ journalist continued, “the singing is hot-breathed and sexy-close into microphones.” But she wrote, “It made my body feel confused.” After listening to the singing for a while (there’s more music on the stage than anything else going on in most cool churches), Akner’s assessment was that the songs had “melodies that all resemble one another, pleasingly, like spa music.” She admitted to being drawn into the ethos, at least to some extent, by songs that “call to mind deeply sincere love songs.”

Though not falling on her knees in repentance, by any stretch, Akner’s over-all assessment was tentatively positive. She even confessed to wanting to raise her hands the morning after her visit to Hillsong. But not everybody who comes agrees, and not everybody stays.

“Hillsong has done for Christian music,” wrote feminist writer Tanya Levin, former Hillsong Church member now atheist, “what the Dixie Chicks did for country and western: made it blond, sexy, and mainstream.”

Put another way, they made it seem cool.

CLEVER DEVIL
Does anyone actually think that if God came down, he would dress that way, talk that way, sing that way? Would God sing “hot-breathed and sexy-close into microphones”? Would God our Maker “who gives songs in the night” (Job 35:20) sing those songs in anything that could remotely be labeled “sexy and mainstream”? None of this is God’s way. It seems blasphemous even to consider it.

Would God inflect the way some cool pastors inflect? You’ve heard it, the perpetual up lilt, as if every statement is a question; it sounds so breezy and urbane, as if to say that you alone have come to pose the questions no one else is asking. What’s more, by your seeming spontaneity that showcases your cleverness and wit, you let others know that the answers come easily for you.

God, for whom alone answers do come easily, doesn’t talk that way. His voice does not sound that way, he does not sing that way. It’s as if we think he ought to, but there is zero biblical evidence that God, who is “a consuming fire,” takes a casual, cool, hipster approach to anything. Nor should we.

“Preacher, give up trying to be cool,” wrote Southern Seminary President Al Mohler. “Cool changes so quickly… Do what cool can’t do. Bathe your heart and mind in the ancient Scriptures. Devote yourself to proclaiming the eternal truth of God.”

A heart bathed in God’s holy Word produces one thing. A heart bathed in pop entertainment and celebrity culture produces quite another. One cannot have it both ways. 

Even agnostics Strunk and White, in their classic book on writing, understood that an affected and artificial tone of voice and manner of communicating was indicative of pride: “Do not affect a breezy manner. The breezy style is often the work of the egocentric.” They strongly suggest avoiding “uninhibited prose” that “creates high spirits.” 

The “breezy manner” sounds suspiciously like the hipster cool voice in the pulpit on the stage. These egocentric pretentions place the author, the pastor, or the music leader at the center. This comes so naturally to the entertainment ethos because that’s how it all works. The performer on the stage is there to perform, and the fawning crowd are there to be amused, to take for themselves, to be entertained. It’s how it works, regardless of the words. Remember, most of us don’t listen to the words.

The focus of breezy entertainment is me-centered. The focus of worship is God-centered, and there is no place for breezy when entering the presence of the living and holy God.

There were versions of entertainment evangelism long before anyone used the term hipster (a term that may outlive its cool status soon enough). Even in Charles Spurgeon’s day. “The Devil has seldom done a cleverer thing,” he wrote, “than hinting to the Church that part of their mission is to provide entertainment for the people, with a view to winning them.”

A DANGEROUS PLACE
However in step with the popular culture entertainment worship may be, it is profoundly out of step with the Bible. Like his Father, Jesus was not cool. The Son of God was so radically out of step with the culture around him that viscous critics tore off his robes, flogged him until his naked back was raw and bloody, and then they nailed him to a cross, suspended him in mockery and shame, and crucified him, the world looking on, deriding and making sport of him. No, Jesus was not cool. The world hated him.

Holding the hipster approach to worship and singing up next to the persecuted church further unmasks the fallacy of cool. It is not cool to be a Christian in Nigeria today, or China—the list is long. Imagine the bewilderment of any of our brethren in the persecuted church as they try to get their minds around the notion that it’s cool to be a Christian, at least cool if you identify with our brand. They would likely think that it was something else altogether, not the Christianity they experience. It would seem ten million miles from the cost of following Christ in their bloody world.

“Consumer-based, me-centered, music-driven, reductionistic, therapeutic, and theologically vacuous Christianity,” wrote Gospel Reformation Network Executive Coordinator Jon D. Payne, “is ten million miles from the real thing. It mirrors the world more than Scripture.”

There’s little argument that no single entity has more shaped music-driven, entertainment worship in recent decades than Australian mega-church Hillsong.  In a period of just eighteen months, there were 760,000,000 downloads of Hillsong songs, creating vast sums of money for the writers of those songs. Amidst a wave of apostasy among high-profile church leaders, one of Hillsong’s songwriters, Marty Sampson, joined in the trend. “I’m genuinely losing my faith … and it doesn’t bother me.”

It ought to bother the Church, however, when a key contributor to the lyrical content of what millions of professing Christians sing in worship says of the gospel, “it’s not for me. I am not in anymore.”

Dr. Payne helps us connect the dots. “It’s no wonder, then, why so many celebrity pastors and leaders are abandoning the faith for the idols and approval of our culture. It’s the culture, not objective truth, that has been chiefly shaping their thinking all along.” Pew Research Center findings concur, but it’s not just celebrity leaders abandoning the faith. In our rapidly secularizing society, there’s a spiraling decline of people willing to identify themselves as Christians. Especially young people. Which is odd considering the rationale justifying the use of the entertainment ethos is evangelism and church growth. If it's working, statistics ought to be showing an increase in young people identifying as Christians... 

Douglas Bond is author of Grace Works! (And Ways We Think It Doesn't) and twenty-seven other books of historical fiction, biography, devotion, and practical theology. He is lyricist for New Reformation Hymns, directs the Oxford Creative Writing Master Class, speaks at churches and conferences, and leads Church history tours in Europe. His book God Sings! (And Ways We Think He Ought To), from which this post is an excerpt, is available at bondbooks.net/shop; order today and receive a free Rise and Worship cd.

Saturday, December 7, 2019

Horror and Heroism at Pearl Harbor

John Hemminger with his P-47, Edna Mae

“Tora! Tora! Tora!” Elated in the cockpit of his Nakajima B5N carrier-based torpedo bomber, Capt. Mitsuo Fuchida shouted into his headset, “Charge! Torpedo attack!” the code indicating that, as planned, in defiance of international law, the Japanese attack caught the American Navy by complete surprise.
It was December 7, 1941, 7:55 am Hawaii time. Japanese torpedo planes, high-altitude bombers, dive bombers, and fighters—180 Japanese aircraft in the first wave alone—followed Capt. Fuchida, unleashing 1000s of tons of explosive ordinance on the unsuspecting U.S. Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor. America’s isolationism was over.
For two chaotic and bloody hours, American forces fought valiantly. What could have been a total loss, was diverted by the heroism of men like Cook Third Class Dorie Miller. Below decks doing the ship’s laundry when the attack commenced, Miller ran onto the strafed decks of the USS West Virginia. After rendering aid to his wounded and dying comrades, including ship’s commander, Capt. Mervyn Bennion, Miller manned a 50-caliber antiaircraft machine gun, a weapon on which he had no training. Of the twenty-eight Japanese planes shot down, Miller may have hit as many as six enemy dive bombers before he ran out of ammunition and was ordered to abandon ship.
Though none of our aircraft carriers were at rest in Pearl Harbor that morning, American losses were massive. Eight of the nine U.S. Pacific Fleet battleships were either sunk or badly damaged. Eleven other Navy ships were lost, and 188 US planes were destroyed. The loss in human life was greater still. Along with sixty-eight civilians, 2,335 American servicemen died that fateful morning. Many others were badly wounded. The toll would have been unimaginably cataclysmic had it not been for men like Dorie Miller, the first black serviceman to earn the Navy Cross. In 1943, his ship came under heavy torpedo bombardment and sank in the Gilbert Islands. Along with many others, Miller was killed.
“A day that will live in infamy,” President Franklin D. Roosevelt said of the attack on Pearl Harbor as he declared war on Japan, and the United States of America entered WWII.

Fight to the death
            We all need heroes. We were wired for celebrating heroic deeds and looking up to people like Dorie Miller. One of my heroes growing up was P-47 World War II fighter pilot, John Hemminger. He lived with his wife and three children on American Lake, a five-minute bicycle ride from my childhood home. I was the neighbor kid who always hung around in the summer, fishing, swimming, and doing wood-working projects in the basement. Along with the stray dogs that attached themselves to kind-hearted Mr. Hemminger, I too adopted the Hemminger family as my own.
John Hemminger was a man of deeds and not words, and so I rarely heard him speak about the war, and never about his role in it. I was forced to piece things together from pictures, his kill record document, and from stories others told about his role in that great conflict.
“The greatest catastrophe in history,” Stephen Ambrose called World War II and “the most costly war of all time.” In April, 1945, 300,000 Americans attacked the Japanese island of Okinawa, while the U.S. Navy was pounded by 350 kamikaze planes. We lost thirty-six ships. In human life, the casualties were beyond staggering: 49,200 men in one battle. The Japanese lost 112,129 human lives at Okinawa. Still they fought on.
Germany surrendered in May, but by summer, it appeared that Japan would fight on until there was not a Japanese soldier who remained alive. A full-scale Allied invasion of Japan seemed the only option, but it was an invasion that would have cost 1,000,000 American soldiers their lives. President Truman opted to drop two atomic bombs on Japan in hopes of breaking the enemy’s will to fight to extermination. It was as if the entire nation had become kamikaze flyers.
           
Fighter pilot greatness
In 1941, after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, America joined the war, and can-do men like John Hemminger were desperately needed to fight. He said goodbye to his childhood sweetheart, Edna Mae Firch, and joined up.
The picture I will always have in my mind of him is of a quiet young man in a leather bomber jacket, a shy, boyish grin stretching across his handsome features, posing with his beloved P-47, affectionately dubbed Edna Mae. Though called on to do highly dangerous and daring feats, there was no hint of the cocky, swaggering dog fighter in his looks or carriage.
John Hemminger loved machines. I can only begin to imagine his fascination at first sight of his P-47’s Pratt and Whitney, eighteen cylinder, 2,800 horsepower engine, or the heart-pounding thrill when he first accelerated into the heavens at his plane’s maximum speed of 433 mph.
He was a gentle, peace-loving man, so I particularly wonder what his first thoughts were when he laid eyes on the eight 12.7mm Browning machine guns bristling from the wings of his P-47, a machine engineered for killing. One thing I’m sure of: there was no better cared for fighter plane than his, and likely none more skillfully used for its designed purpose.
John Hemminger was credited with the last P-47 kill of the war. By some accounts, he and the Japanese pilot were slugging it out somewhere over the blue waters of the Pacific, September 2, 1945, while American top brass accepted the Japanese unconditional surrender on board the USS Missouri. The facts are unclear, because John Hemminger rarely spoke about the war, and boasting was something he never did.
What is clear is that John Hemminger, along with a generation of Americans, was a humble servant hero who did his duty, and then, unlike many with whom he fought, he returned home. Bidding farewell to his P-47 Edna Mae, he married his beloved Edna Mae, raised his family, and lived a long, seemingly insignificant, life. John Hemminger and his dear wife were not bombastic about their faith in Christ, but few people have more consistently lived out the Lord’s injunction to love their neighbor as themselves. Consequently, their home was a quiet, contented one, filled with stability and service.
In the world’s eyes, after the war John Hemminger lived an ordinary life, some might have called it boring. But not so to the dozens of missionaries he supported and took fishing when they were home, and whose decrepit cars he repaired, rebuilt, or replaced, often at his own expense. And all done hush-hush, so no one would give him credit for his latest acts of generosity.

True greatness
Jesus told his disciples, if they wanted to be great, to become servants. He didn’t say to become great baseball players, or inventors, or CEOs, or powerful politicians, or celebrity pastors, or best-selling authors—or even fighter pilots. “Whoever wants to become great,” Jesus said, “must be your servant” (Matthew 20:26). In my eyes, John and Edna Hemminger were great Christians, because they were great servants.
My hero John Hemminger died of Parkinson’s Disease, December 27, 2006. His wife Edna Mae suffered for decades with Multiple Sclerosis before her home going. But I never heard either of them complain. They bore their trials with patience—even with smiles. Nor did I ever hear either of them speak critical words about others. I think they were simply too busy, in Christ’s name, loving and serving their neighbors. This is true greatness.
“Remember Pearl Harbor!” became the battle cry of the American troops fighting in all theaters. There would have been no D-Day and Normandy Beach landings without Pearl Harbor. Nobody should want a war, but one thing that WWII teaches us is that out of the furnace of warfare emerges the Dorie Millers and the John Hemmingers, and the host of other nameless soldiers and sailors who did what they had to do to serve and love their neighbors, those next to them serving and giving their lives for others in their squad, platoon, company, battalion, regiment, brigade, division, corps, and army.  

Douglas Bond is author of twenty-eight books, including The Resistance set in enemy occupied Normandy, and two-time Grace Award book finalist; he directs the Oxford Creative Writing Master Class, is an award-winning teacher, podcaster, speaker at conferences, and leader of Church history tours in Europe. He is currently writing a historical fiction book set in WWII in the Pacific Theater. Learn more at bondbooks.net.