Long debated and rarely resolved, university officials continue to wrestle with the concept of administrating a university by using the principles of running a business. As with any business, a university needs to have more revenue than expenses to keep running and revenue needs to come from the sale of a product to its customers. This is true for all businesses, institutions of all types, regardless of size, scope, or mission. A non-profit institution, for example, should be fulfilling a public good as required but it cannot fulfill its mission without enough revenue to cover its expenses.
For a university, reducing liabilities is always good and acquiring assets can help the balance sheet. Having an endowment adds to revenue as do grants, donations, sales of various types, and increased customers. But who are the customers? Who pays for the service or product? Obviously, the service being provided is education and the product being sold is the knowledge leading to the certified completion of that knowledge. Argument could be made that students are the customers regardless of who pays for the expense of receiving an education. Some might say that parents or guardians are the customers or others might quibble about various governmental entities supporting the education through loans and grants.
A radical but perhaps more profound argument could be made that employers are the customers in that they employ certified completed graduates with particular skill sets for their business. While there is some truth in this statement, it cannot be substantiated due to employers not paying for the service. But it should be kept in the forefront of discussions in that employers represent the market trends for education. More on market trends later.
Because a business is dependent on customers, universities must design degrees and programs that meet customer needs. But there are principles, traditions, and philosophies that push against the market trend idea. This brings us to why a university cannot be treated as a business, at least not in the normal business sense. The purpose of a for profit business is to make a profit whereas the purpose of a non-profit business is to fulfill a public good. Both must have greater or equal revenue to expenses in order to remain in business. A university, however, in its mission to fulfill a public good, embraces the educational ideal known as the liberal arts and the personnel protection called tenure. These two practices are antithetical to normal business operations in the for profit world.
Take the local pizza place serving pizza to customers who pay for the food. The chef and the management hope to make something that is tasty and desirable in order to attract customers and encourage them to return. If the pizza were healthy and tasty, then all is well. If the pizza were tasty but unhealthy, then we might not get customers concerned with good health. If the pizza were healthy but tasted terrible, then we would have no customers.
If we rethought our purpose of the pizza and encouraged the chef to design the ingredients that are to the best interest of the customers and then told the chef that he or she would have a job forever, regardless of the quality of the pizza or the number of customers or the profit or lack thereof, then we would have a product that may or may not serve the public good but the chef might feel good about himself or herself. Therein lies the problem of running a university exactly like a business. The "chefs" at the university are highly skilled, well-educated, and generally dedicated to improving humanity by imparting education to students.
Running a university like a business and viewing students as customers relegates higher education to a commodity dependent on market trends and market forces to keep it afloat. For those recognizing a changing world and live in a pragmatic utilitarian environment, the market is that which changes regardless of any efforts to prevent or manipulate it. For others who subscribe to philosophical forces that dominate and shift thinking and practice, the university is the place to set a philosophical foundation for future employees to make a difference in the world.
Should a university be a technical training institution dedicated to giving students hands-on skills they can use professionally and technically in the workforce? Or should a higher education give students a solid foundation upon which they can draw, develop, and forge their own future, a future wrought full of challenges and opportunities?
Professional and technical models of education risk creating young automatons able to complete tasks but not able to lift society to new heights of cultural refinement. Yet liberal arts models devoid of professional training risk creating young thinkers wishing to change the world but lacking in skills applicable to the workforce. Obviously a balance is needed and, although greatly flawed, the university as a conceptual institution for higher education has continued to provide the skills and knowledge needed for most professions.
Unfortunately, this makes running a university like a business almost impossible and the tensions that exist within the institution for revenues to exceed expenses are palpable and difficult to navigate. One could argue, however, that the tensions themselves lie at the core of what a university means and how it will progress in the future.
Friday, December 29, 2017
Tuesday, December 26, 2017
Worship Wars, Is this a Race Problem?
A study of slave narratives and first hand accounts of worship practices by African-Americans dating back to the early 19th century reveal events that convinced the minds of white leadership the primitivism of the black race at the time. Totally misunderstanding what they saw and completely rejecting the style of worship, white land owners denounced virtually any worship practices that seemed out of character from the perceived proper way to worship God. There is evidence of prevention of blacks gathering together for this purpose and whites attributed their actions to some kind of strange voodoo or even possession of evil forces.
Fast forward to now and we still have a form of the same kind of disagreement happening in our churches. The contention is no longer voiced as criticism based on race, and we no longer hear disparaging stereotypes against a group of people, but we do hear criticism based on style and musical content. That argument, however, has its roots in past practices, attitudes, and arrogant refusal to respect another way to worship. Prophetically, there will be a day that the worship wars will go the way of all wars...to the history books. Meanwhile, churches continue to be polarized on the issue and we still hear the same uninformed disparagement toward differences expressed in our churches. I would posture that the style differences in our churches date back to the 19th century and the injustices suffered by the blacks.
Although a bit simplistic, and it is always dangerous to assign monolithic behavior to any one group, there is something to the pain of slavery requiring emotional release after working hours. But it goes beyond this to the heart of what worship means and the expression of beliefs, needs, sorrows, and joys through music. Regardless of the treatment of slaves, whether it be harsh and punitive, or loving and forgiving, slavery is still slavery and is in direct opposition of Christ's teachings and the requirement for human liberty. Having heard many arguments that the Civil War was more an issue of labor, of taxation, of states' rights than of slavery, I hold that all arguments aside, slavery, a despicable practice in all forms, had to end.
As we trace the history and development of worship, of hymnody, of cathedrals and sanctuaries, singing, funerals, weddings, musical instruments, preference, style, and all the myriad variables that accompany the complex world of sacred music, we find a strange distinction that is difficult to acknowledge. That is the clear pathway of "white" style of worship versus "black" style of worship. Given the uncomfortable truth of this statement, and I firmly believe it to be true, then worship wars in our churches are an outgrowth and expression of historical and rarely communicated racism.
Resisting the tendency to express my own preference for church music or even music at all, I simply wish to draw dotted line connections to the past while paving the way for the future. Ultimately, I subscribe to the societal refinement theory that we are culturally improving as people and as a society, becoming respectful of all people, races, types, and giving egalitarian regard for the human experience, knowing we are complex creatures, rarely all bad, and certainly not all good. Our own preferences for a certain type of world do not really matter all that much. Market forces determine our products and our economy, and the invisible hand of culture will determine our musical art both in the secular world and the sacred world. Fighting for one type of music over another is noble and warring against those who seem uninformed about the "right" kind of music is certainly a right in and of itself, but, at the risk of sounding fatalistic, our worship wars do not really matter. The world will continue and the refinement will not be stopped.
Meanwhile, it is worth exploring and understanding how the past shapes the present and will form the future. Why should we understand this at all? People should have a right to like the music they want to like and to worship the way the wish to worship. If that is primarily with an organ, choir, and hymns regardless of its heritage as "white" music, then that certainly is fine. In fact, one could argue that if white people have an ethnicity, which they do, then their culture of doing hymns in a certain way, in a certain location, is certainly to be respected. If we are to respect all of humanity, then that should be inclusive of all cultures.
Yet awareness of where we have been and where we are headed could contribute to healing and to unity and, mostly, to a reduction of criticism of others. All the theological study that is available and all the degrees attached to a person's name cannot prescribe how someone must worship nor the kind of music one must prefer in a spiritual setting. Not unlike an admission of guilt, where acknowledging the truth is the first step toward healing, the church's acceptance that it is a segregated institution serving the needs of particularly ethnic groups and is that way today because it has always been that way, may indeed be the first step toward what could be one of the great changes in society one day--the integration of our churches.
How are social groups formed and is church a reflection of social preferences? If that is true, then it stands to reason that music is a direct reflection of social congregating. Groups form, large or small, to experience each other and to share in a common experience. For a church, that common experience is worshiping God, studying scripture, spending time together, singing, laughing, praying, and giving honor to the Lord and Savior. While this sounds simple, and conceptually it is, when we add individual personalities, values, preferences, and perceptions into the mix, it suddenly becomes wildly and joyfully complex. Corporate worship has long been a part of small and large groups dating back to pagan worship practices and continuing into denominational associations and the fractured religious world in which we reside. Groups form, break up, form again, reinvent themselves, redefine their purposes and priorities, and work together to meet those objectives. Membership changes, grows, declines, disappears, develops, and transforms into something new and special, only to dissipate once again and reform somewhere else. Such is the cycle of groups which, sadly or maybe happily, is the story of the church.
Considering the nature of groups and group dynamics, it is not surprising that ethnicities have formed into different types of churches with different practices and goals. What is unfortunate is that the veiled or not so veiled arrogance of groups who see their belief system and their system of worship as being superior to all else are contributing to the division and the demise of the organized church. To be fair, this is the expectation of a group, whether it be articulated or not, that what the group is doing is the right and best way. Without that confidence, the group may fall into insecurity, fear, and no longer value its very core and purpose. Groups, congregations, and churches should maintain a degree of arrogance that what it is doing is the right and best way, otherwise why form at all other than the benefits of sharing social joy with other people.
Taking this thought to its logical conclusion, it makes sense that ethnic groups have formed historically and developed to the present time with comfort in their group social norms and comfort with their commonality, that is to worship God with people similar to each other. Not that this is racism. After all, people should have a right to worship whatever way they so choose and with whomever they wish. This is freedom and we do not have the right to restrict it. But it may be the criticism of the "other way" that is a form of racism. Let us look at this more specifically.
Many whites have been inadvertently and unconsciously criticizing black worship practices for a long time and the criticism, although less obvious and covert, continues. This probably goes back to a lack of understanding and a lack of knowledge. Unfortunately, the converse is likely true as well. Thus we have a silent form of racism born of ignorance in our churches. The stereotypes against one way of worship are palpable, patently unfair, and decidedly although not intentionally racist. If I say my way is right and your way is wrong, and I base that statement on cultural practices by a specific ethnic group, then I am at risk of insulting a group for its practices based on differences between the groups. Such is the nature of racist remarks and prejudice without foundation.
A brief look at music and its history. Since Western music (referencing the non-Eastern world) became codified into the current system of notes, rhythms, and expression on a staff that represents a certain number of vibrations per second, we have had musical art both academically and commercially. It has been said, with a degree of truth, that art music is an acquired taste and not always well-suited for the masses. Commercial music, however, is for everyone and much of it is for mass appeal. Popular music, for example, has a folk-like appeal in its simple expression of human pain and joy. Spirituals have a soulful quality that reaches deep expressing both the longing for a better life and an acknowledgment of the restricted environment in which the people reside. Many of these are sacred in nature and we find the people looking to God for answers to their situation and expressing their pain through music. These spirituals are as historically significant as any art music or hymnody of the 19th century.
Art music, however, also plays an important role in musical expression of the 19th century but, unfortunately, despite a few anomalous African-American stars, was reserved for white people with money. This dichotomy--spirituals from blacks in the fields, and art music from whites in the concert halls--spilled into the 20th century in a number of different ways. The 20th century saw the rise of the Symphony Orchestra in our country, significant improvement in music education, and development of commercial music for entertainment. Throw in the growth of jazz, blues, and traveling bands and we see musical segregation as prominently as social and educational segregation. White music in church focused on hymns with a use of piano and organ as accompaniment. This ideal continues and we find this system preferred in churches using liturgy and formalism in the service.
When Leonard Bernstein started his series in the late 1950s called Young People's Concerts he used the New York Philharmonic to teach theory and history to students from all over New York. This marvelous series is available on video and remains remarkable in its content, artistry, and educational contributions. Yet, a closer look at the videos shows that most of the students were white and all the players were white. As an aside, the early videos show that the players are also male, but that is another topic for another day! This is another example of exclusive education of a predominantly white genre and medium of music.
It is not much of a stretch to examine style of music as being indigenous to certain races or at least value systems associated with education. Looking at it through the educational lens, as whites in the 20th century continued to be educated through governmental resources, ie. taxation and compulsory education, we see further development of art music. Sadly revealing, black schools did not have the same type of music education for students, resulting in less awareness of music other than that with which they knew, that from their past. This means that whites continued the path toward art music as being considered quality while blacks found their own musical language through development of popular music, jazz, and blues. Some would argue this approach is actually preferred. To be fair, whites did not only embrace art music, finding satisfaction in commercial music as well and many blacks composed and participated in art music. But the popular music of the first half of the 20th century was limited in expression and arguably less profound in purpose, reserved for big bands and musicals on film and stage. Art music, however, was considered elite and academic for those with resources to enjoy it. The disparate practices of music of the past now play a role in music of today, particularly in our churches.
Either due to a lack of awareness of art music or, more likely, a strong preference for what became a popular style, blacks in the 20th century forged their own musical future. Their music could be found in clubs, homes, and churches where they were free to explore the sounds they enjoyed. Using instruments such as the piano, guitar, and drums, they expressed the joy of music and invented their own cathartic style in the form of the blues. With church and worship remaining an integral part of their world, they did not necessarily seek a different type of expression in the church but, instead, extended the spiritual idea into the blues, forming their own gospel style. The gospel style is now wonderfully free in structure, joyful in dynamic expression, rhythmically complex, and harmonically interesting. Sometimes repetitive, the music allows for bodily motion including feet movement, swaying, arm motions, and dancing. Early rock stars such as Elvis Presley and Little Richard combined the freedom of expression of the blues and included their own brand of entertainment, launching a style known as rock music. It is not without merit that whites thought rock music grew out of the black style of movement. Sadly, early critics of rock music associated it as primitive music from African-Americans.
Add drums and guitars to the gospel style of singing, and we experience modern worship known as contemporary style. But parallel to this phenomenon, we still have art music previously relegated to whites. Church music, therefore, developed in two contrasting ways...one from a white tradition and one from a black tradition. Although no one way is superior, unfortunately people often replace their own preference with a statement of right or wrong.
These proposed historical categories, however, begin to fall apart when we study individual churches, worship practices, and musical content. Many black churches continue to sing hymns and the number of large growing churches that are predominantly white utilize what might have in the past have been considered black influenced music. These trends could be a sign of societal and religious refinement, incorporating past ethnic practices into current culture as a way to reach all people. Exclusivity, even in music, is no longer a sustainable practice in our society and churches are no exception. Unfortunately, our churches still have those who embrace exclusivity and battle for their own preference. Connected to the exclusive preference for style is the rejection of drums and guitars in a worship service. To be fair, many of these people warring against these popular instruments in church grew out of a time when rock music was seen as sinful and inappropriate.
And although not within the purview of this particular essay, the architectural changes employed in our churches dictate how music is to be heard and experienced. Large, acoustically resonating cathedrals are not aurally suitable for all kinds of music; whereas, venues with little resonating reverberation do need sound management technicians to provide a positive listening experience. These variables of architecture, sound management, hymns, instruments, and historical tradition all play a role in our current worship discrepancies.
To this end, we have worship wars where one faction disagrees with another, one group claiming that the right way to worship is through formal hymnody. Conversely, the other group finds the formal approach to be stiff and lacking in authenticity, preferring, instead, to emphasize drums, guitars, and repetition. We now hear these odd conversations between church people of whether hymns or choruses are the best form of music. The conversation inevitably becomes critical of one form over another and usually digresses into a meaningless drivel of opinions. I suppose in a way these types of opinions are the right of the people but the deliverer of the criticism is usually not appreciated by the recipients. I contend that if church members were aware of the race issue related to church music, we might actually find a greater acceptance of differences and, maybe, just maybe, a desire for unification of ideals.
Much of the above needs research validation but, in totality and with generalizations, the truth emerges. If our churches are polarized by music and the wars continue to destroy the institution of the church, then nobody wins. Only with integration of style will we one day put aside our differences and embrace the purpose of church, to worship God. The issue may no longer be one of race but, rather, one of education, theological teaching, and acceptance of differences while working for harmonious congruence.
Fast forward to now and we still have a form of the same kind of disagreement happening in our churches. The contention is no longer voiced as criticism based on race, and we no longer hear disparaging stereotypes against a group of people, but we do hear criticism based on style and musical content. That argument, however, has its roots in past practices, attitudes, and arrogant refusal to respect another way to worship. Prophetically, there will be a day that the worship wars will go the way of all wars...to the history books. Meanwhile, churches continue to be polarized on the issue and we still hear the same uninformed disparagement toward differences expressed in our churches. I would posture that the style differences in our churches date back to the 19th century and the injustices suffered by the blacks.
Although a bit simplistic, and it is always dangerous to assign monolithic behavior to any one group, there is something to the pain of slavery requiring emotional release after working hours. But it goes beyond this to the heart of what worship means and the expression of beliefs, needs, sorrows, and joys through music. Regardless of the treatment of slaves, whether it be harsh and punitive, or loving and forgiving, slavery is still slavery and is in direct opposition of Christ's teachings and the requirement for human liberty. Having heard many arguments that the Civil War was more an issue of labor, of taxation, of states' rights than of slavery, I hold that all arguments aside, slavery, a despicable practice in all forms, had to end.
As we trace the history and development of worship, of hymnody, of cathedrals and sanctuaries, singing, funerals, weddings, musical instruments, preference, style, and all the myriad variables that accompany the complex world of sacred music, we find a strange distinction that is difficult to acknowledge. That is the clear pathway of "white" style of worship versus "black" style of worship. Given the uncomfortable truth of this statement, and I firmly believe it to be true, then worship wars in our churches are an outgrowth and expression of historical and rarely communicated racism.
Resisting the tendency to express my own preference for church music or even music at all, I simply wish to draw dotted line connections to the past while paving the way for the future. Ultimately, I subscribe to the societal refinement theory that we are culturally improving as people and as a society, becoming respectful of all people, races, types, and giving egalitarian regard for the human experience, knowing we are complex creatures, rarely all bad, and certainly not all good. Our own preferences for a certain type of world do not really matter all that much. Market forces determine our products and our economy, and the invisible hand of culture will determine our musical art both in the secular world and the sacred world. Fighting for one type of music over another is noble and warring against those who seem uninformed about the "right" kind of music is certainly a right in and of itself, but, at the risk of sounding fatalistic, our worship wars do not really matter. The world will continue and the refinement will not be stopped.
Meanwhile, it is worth exploring and understanding how the past shapes the present and will form the future. Why should we understand this at all? People should have a right to like the music they want to like and to worship the way the wish to worship. If that is primarily with an organ, choir, and hymns regardless of its heritage as "white" music, then that certainly is fine. In fact, one could argue that if white people have an ethnicity, which they do, then their culture of doing hymns in a certain way, in a certain location, is certainly to be respected. If we are to respect all of humanity, then that should be inclusive of all cultures.
Yet awareness of where we have been and where we are headed could contribute to healing and to unity and, mostly, to a reduction of criticism of others. All the theological study that is available and all the degrees attached to a person's name cannot prescribe how someone must worship nor the kind of music one must prefer in a spiritual setting. Not unlike an admission of guilt, where acknowledging the truth is the first step toward healing, the church's acceptance that it is a segregated institution serving the needs of particularly ethnic groups and is that way today because it has always been that way, may indeed be the first step toward what could be one of the great changes in society one day--the integration of our churches.
How are social groups formed and is church a reflection of social preferences? If that is true, then it stands to reason that music is a direct reflection of social congregating. Groups form, large or small, to experience each other and to share in a common experience. For a church, that common experience is worshiping God, studying scripture, spending time together, singing, laughing, praying, and giving honor to the Lord and Savior. While this sounds simple, and conceptually it is, when we add individual personalities, values, preferences, and perceptions into the mix, it suddenly becomes wildly and joyfully complex. Corporate worship has long been a part of small and large groups dating back to pagan worship practices and continuing into denominational associations and the fractured religious world in which we reside. Groups form, break up, form again, reinvent themselves, redefine their purposes and priorities, and work together to meet those objectives. Membership changes, grows, declines, disappears, develops, and transforms into something new and special, only to dissipate once again and reform somewhere else. Such is the cycle of groups which, sadly or maybe happily, is the story of the church.
Considering the nature of groups and group dynamics, it is not surprising that ethnicities have formed into different types of churches with different practices and goals. What is unfortunate is that the veiled or not so veiled arrogance of groups who see their belief system and their system of worship as being superior to all else are contributing to the division and the demise of the organized church. To be fair, this is the expectation of a group, whether it be articulated or not, that what the group is doing is the right and best way. Without that confidence, the group may fall into insecurity, fear, and no longer value its very core and purpose. Groups, congregations, and churches should maintain a degree of arrogance that what it is doing is the right and best way, otherwise why form at all other than the benefits of sharing social joy with other people.
Taking this thought to its logical conclusion, it makes sense that ethnic groups have formed historically and developed to the present time with comfort in their group social norms and comfort with their commonality, that is to worship God with people similar to each other. Not that this is racism. After all, people should have a right to worship whatever way they so choose and with whomever they wish. This is freedom and we do not have the right to restrict it. But it may be the criticism of the "other way" that is a form of racism. Let us look at this more specifically.
Many whites have been inadvertently and unconsciously criticizing black worship practices for a long time and the criticism, although less obvious and covert, continues. This probably goes back to a lack of understanding and a lack of knowledge. Unfortunately, the converse is likely true as well. Thus we have a silent form of racism born of ignorance in our churches. The stereotypes against one way of worship are palpable, patently unfair, and decidedly although not intentionally racist. If I say my way is right and your way is wrong, and I base that statement on cultural practices by a specific ethnic group, then I am at risk of insulting a group for its practices based on differences between the groups. Such is the nature of racist remarks and prejudice without foundation.
A brief look at music and its history. Since Western music (referencing the non-Eastern world) became codified into the current system of notes, rhythms, and expression on a staff that represents a certain number of vibrations per second, we have had musical art both academically and commercially. It has been said, with a degree of truth, that art music is an acquired taste and not always well-suited for the masses. Commercial music, however, is for everyone and much of it is for mass appeal. Popular music, for example, has a folk-like appeal in its simple expression of human pain and joy. Spirituals have a soulful quality that reaches deep expressing both the longing for a better life and an acknowledgment of the restricted environment in which the people reside. Many of these are sacred in nature and we find the people looking to God for answers to their situation and expressing their pain through music. These spirituals are as historically significant as any art music or hymnody of the 19th century.
Art music, however, also plays an important role in musical expression of the 19th century but, unfortunately, despite a few anomalous African-American stars, was reserved for white people with money. This dichotomy--spirituals from blacks in the fields, and art music from whites in the concert halls--spilled into the 20th century in a number of different ways. The 20th century saw the rise of the Symphony Orchestra in our country, significant improvement in music education, and development of commercial music for entertainment. Throw in the growth of jazz, blues, and traveling bands and we see musical segregation as prominently as social and educational segregation. White music in church focused on hymns with a use of piano and organ as accompaniment. This ideal continues and we find this system preferred in churches using liturgy and formalism in the service.
When Leonard Bernstein started his series in the late 1950s called Young People's Concerts he used the New York Philharmonic to teach theory and history to students from all over New York. This marvelous series is available on video and remains remarkable in its content, artistry, and educational contributions. Yet, a closer look at the videos shows that most of the students were white and all the players were white. As an aside, the early videos show that the players are also male, but that is another topic for another day! This is another example of exclusive education of a predominantly white genre and medium of music.
It is not much of a stretch to examine style of music as being indigenous to certain races or at least value systems associated with education. Looking at it through the educational lens, as whites in the 20th century continued to be educated through governmental resources, ie. taxation and compulsory education, we see further development of art music. Sadly revealing, black schools did not have the same type of music education for students, resulting in less awareness of music other than that with which they knew, that from their past. This means that whites continued the path toward art music as being considered quality while blacks found their own musical language through development of popular music, jazz, and blues. Some would argue this approach is actually preferred. To be fair, whites did not only embrace art music, finding satisfaction in commercial music as well and many blacks composed and participated in art music. But the popular music of the first half of the 20th century was limited in expression and arguably less profound in purpose, reserved for big bands and musicals on film and stage. Art music, however, was considered elite and academic for those with resources to enjoy it. The disparate practices of music of the past now play a role in music of today, particularly in our churches.
Either due to a lack of awareness of art music or, more likely, a strong preference for what became a popular style, blacks in the 20th century forged their own musical future. Their music could be found in clubs, homes, and churches where they were free to explore the sounds they enjoyed. Using instruments such as the piano, guitar, and drums, they expressed the joy of music and invented their own cathartic style in the form of the blues. With church and worship remaining an integral part of their world, they did not necessarily seek a different type of expression in the church but, instead, extended the spiritual idea into the blues, forming their own gospel style. The gospel style is now wonderfully free in structure, joyful in dynamic expression, rhythmically complex, and harmonically interesting. Sometimes repetitive, the music allows for bodily motion including feet movement, swaying, arm motions, and dancing. Early rock stars such as Elvis Presley and Little Richard combined the freedom of expression of the blues and included their own brand of entertainment, launching a style known as rock music. It is not without merit that whites thought rock music grew out of the black style of movement. Sadly, early critics of rock music associated it as primitive music from African-Americans.
Add drums and guitars to the gospel style of singing, and we experience modern worship known as contemporary style. But parallel to this phenomenon, we still have art music previously relegated to whites. Church music, therefore, developed in two contrasting ways...one from a white tradition and one from a black tradition. Although no one way is superior, unfortunately people often replace their own preference with a statement of right or wrong.
These proposed historical categories, however, begin to fall apart when we study individual churches, worship practices, and musical content. Many black churches continue to sing hymns and the number of large growing churches that are predominantly white utilize what might have in the past have been considered black influenced music. These trends could be a sign of societal and religious refinement, incorporating past ethnic practices into current culture as a way to reach all people. Exclusivity, even in music, is no longer a sustainable practice in our society and churches are no exception. Unfortunately, our churches still have those who embrace exclusivity and battle for their own preference. Connected to the exclusive preference for style is the rejection of drums and guitars in a worship service. To be fair, many of these people warring against these popular instruments in church grew out of a time when rock music was seen as sinful and inappropriate.
And although not within the purview of this particular essay, the architectural changes employed in our churches dictate how music is to be heard and experienced. Large, acoustically resonating cathedrals are not aurally suitable for all kinds of music; whereas, venues with little resonating reverberation do need sound management technicians to provide a positive listening experience. These variables of architecture, sound management, hymns, instruments, and historical tradition all play a role in our current worship discrepancies.
To this end, we have worship wars where one faction disagrees with another, one group claiming that the right way to worship is through formal hymnody. Conversely, the other group finds the formal approach to be stiff and lacking in authenticity, preferring, instead, to emphasize drums, guitars, and repetition. We now hear these odd conversations between church people of whether hymns or choruses are the best form of music. The conversation inevitably becomes critical of one form over another and usually digresses into a meaningless drivel of opinions. I suppose in a way these types of opinions are the right of the people but the deliverer of the criticism is usually not appreciated by the recipients. I contend that if church members were aware of the race issue related to church music, we might actually find a greater acceptance of differences and, maybe, just maybe, a desire for unification of ideals.
Much of the above needs research validation but, in totality and with generalizations, the truth emerges. If our churches are polarized by music and the wars continue to destroy the institution of the church, then nobody wins. Only with integration of style will we one day put aside our differences and embrace the purpose of church, to worship God. The issue may no longer be one of race but, rather, one of education, theological teaching, and acceptance of differences while working for harmonious congruence.
Saturday, December 23, 2017
Christmas Lights
Driving through the city, I see Christmas lights of every type adorning houses, businesses, parks, and signs. The number of different colors, shapes, styles, and sizes is astounding, giving the viewers an infinite variety of visual experiences. Many of the lights are mobile, flashing back and forth, moving around buildings, shrubs, trees, and windows. Many other lights are stationary, remaining steadfast in their position. Some lights were obviously put up hastily and have no system of presentation, often resulting in a random type of appearance. Others, however, were put up carefully with great attention and fastidious perfection of presentation. I see blinking, glittering, jumping, bright, dull, wild, tame, low, high, shapes, small quantities, large quantities, and every type of light decoration imaginable.
But, if the truth be told, I do not understand the light craze. I suppose historically it relates to the star in the sky showing the way to the Christ child. The star helped the Wise Men as they headed out to give gifts. Now, today, the lights are a symbol of the shine and glow of Jesus' birth and the reminder to give honor and respect to God's son, the Savior of the world. All that makes sense in a symbolic and beautiful way. But practically, I still do not understand. Maybe the lights are to help people remember or to serve as some kind of acknowledgement of the birth. Or maybe lights have become passe', without meaning, predictable objects that drain electricity, drain cash, take time,
Perhaps it is a human desire to seek out the good. The lights represent goodness triumphing over evil. Much has been written about the contrast between light and dark, good and evil. The obsession of lights at Christmas seems to demonstrate the human desire for beauty, morality, optimism, and compassion to reign victorious over the evil that often pervades our society. We are willing to make sacrifices of time and money to show others that we live in a world that needs God and the lights are a manifestation of God's son Jesus.
I believe, however, that while all that may be true, there may, indeed, be another intangible reason for the lights. I believe we, as humans, have an innate desire to create artistic moments, artistic events, and artistic opportunities. I believe that art, music, and theatre play a significant role in our culture and that artistic expression is a human need. Unfortunately, not everyone has the ability to be a Michelangelo, a Shakespeare, or a Beethoven, but in spite of our lesser talents, we still desire to create and experience the beauty and the joy of art in its totality. Our imaginations may not be incredible nor life changing, but they still have a place in our culture.
Hanging lights at this time of year may symbolize Christ's birth or may simply represent the joy of Christmas but I posture that Christmas is also an opportunity to reach inside ourselves and express the role of art in our world. Whether that is true or not, because I live in an arts world, a world full of theatre, music, and visual art, I have no additional need for lights. Yet, I must grudgingly admit, that I enjoy them, at least to an extent, and, mostly, I am glad the lights have meaning for so many.
But, if the truth be told, I do not understand the light craze. I suppose historically it relates to the star in the sky showing the way to the Christ child. The star helped the Wise Men as they headed out to give gifts. Now, today, the lights are a symbol of the shine and glow of Jesus' birth and the reminder to give honor and respect to God's son, the Savior of the world. All that makes sense in a symbolic and beautiful way. But practically, I still do not understand. Maybe the lights are to help people remember or to serve as some kind of acknowledgement of the birth. Or maybe lights have become passe', without meaning, predictable objects that drain electricity, drain cash, take time,
Perhaps it is a human desire to seek out the good. The lights represent goodness triumphing over evil. Much has been written about the contrast between light and dark, good and evil. The obsession of lights at Christmas seems to demonstrate the human desire for beauty, morality, optimism, and compassion to reign victorious over the evil that often pervades our society. We are willing to make sacrifices of time and money to show others that we live in a world that needs God and the lights are a manifestation of God's son Jesus.
I believe, however, that while all that may be true, there may, indeed, be another intangible reason for the lights. I believe we, as humans, have an innate desire to create artistic moments, artistic events, and artistic opportunities. I believe that art, music, and theatre play a significant role in our culture and that artistic expression is a human need. Unfortunately, not everyone has the ability to be a Michelangelo, a Shakespeare, or a Beethoven, but in spite of our lesser talents, we still desire to create and experience the beauty and the joy of art in its totality. Our imaginations may not be incredible nor life changing, but they still have a place in our culture.
Hanging lights at this time of year may symbolize Christ's birth or may simply represent the joy of Christmas but I posture that Christmas is also an opportunity to reach inside ourselves and express the role of art in our world. Whether that is true or not, because I live in an arts world, a world full of theatre, music, and visual art, I have no additional need for lights. Yet, I must grudgingly admit, that I enjoy them, at least to an extent, and, mostly, I am glad the lights have meaning for so many.
Thursday, December 21, 2017
Meals on Wheels
Greatly reluctant, after all I did have lots of things to get done today, I agreed to deliver meals on wheels with my wife to the people in the community. Arguing with myself about joining her, I finally admitted that I did not really want to see where the people lived. Not that I am unaware of the poverty that surrounds us, at the same time, I prefer to be charitable from a distance. This is not due to fear nor guilt, but rather to some sort of obsessive compulsive disorder related to germs and dirty conditions. To combat this problem, she actually delivered the meals while I stayed in the car. Yes, I know it is selfish of me to make her do the work while I had the easy job but, in a way, it was a victory for me to be there at all.
The last several years have become full of career building opportunities including taking doctoral classes in business, investing, performing, developing knowledge in accounting, and studying financial statements. Recent disappointments, however, in how my career has stagnated have contributed to some potential depression and, consequently, further self-reflection. Combating my tendency for self-absorption, I continue to exercise regularly, practice my horn, pray, and find ways to share extra resources with others. What I forgot, however, is that doing for others is the cure for most selfish ailments.
Time to extricate the selfishness and use my abilities for others rather than serving my own needs all the time. Today was a lesson of giving and one that I intellectually have known for many years but have avoided in practice at times. It felt good to be a part of service to those less fortunate. To those without resources, to those recovering from surgery or who cannot drive or cannot afford a car. Meals on Wheels runs like a well oiled machine with all components in place. Within 5 minutes of our arrival at the main center, we had our meals in the car and we headed out to the 11 different homes. Some of the domiciles were neat and clean with obvious attention to detail while others were crumbling, dirty, and pitiful. Most of the people owned dogs--something I do not fully understand I'll admit, and most of the people were unable to work for various reasons.
Each recipient must meet the qualifications for a meal and most of them do pay something for the service. The deliverers of the meals are volunteers and they drive all over the city each day. The organization is superior and the system for mapping, meeting dietary restrictions, and supplying a well-balanced but healthy meal is actually tremendous. I have rarely seen a business operating as well and the management of the program is as fine a system as I have ever encountered. The volunteers are generously giving of their time and I heard no complaints from anyone. The recipients were all grateful for their meal and I felt that odd sense of satisfaction that one receives from helping others.
No doubt I need to do more and next time I will actually walk up to the door to deliver. But at least today was a start. Thanks to my wife for the reminder and thanks to Meals on Wheels for its remarkable commitment to making a difference in lives.
The last several years have become full of career building opportunities including taking doctoral classes in business, investing, performing, developing knowledge in accounting, and studying financial statements. Recent disappointments, however, in how my career has stagnated have contributed to some potential depression and, consequently, further self-reflection. Combating my tendency for self-absorption, I continue to exercise regularly, practice my horn, pray, and find ways to share extra resources with others. What I forgot, however, is that doing for others is the cure for most selfish ailments.
Time to extricate the selfishness and use my abilities for others rather than serving my own needs all the time. Today was a lesson of giving and one that I intellectually have known for many years but have avoided in practice at times. It felt good to be a part of service to those less fortunate. To those without resources, to those recovering from surgery or who cannot drive or cannot afford a car. Meals on Wheels runs like a well oiled machine with all components in place. Within 5 minutes of our arrival at the main center, we had our meals in the car and we headed out to the 11 different homes. Some of the domiciles were neat and clean with obvious attention to detail while others were crumbling, dirty, and pitiful. Most of the people owned dogs--something I do not fully understand I'll admit, and most of the people were unable to work for various reasons.
Each recipient must meet the qualifications for a meal and most of them do pay something for the service. The deliverers of the meals are volunteers and they drive all over the city each day. The organization is superior and the system for mapping, meeting dietary restrictions, and supplying a well-balanced but healthy meal is actually tremendous. I have rarely seen a business operating as well and the management of the program is as fine a system as I have ever encountered. The volunteers are generously giving of their time and I heard no complaints from anyone. The recipients were all grateful for their meal and I felt that odd sense of satisfaction that one receives from helping others.
No doubt I need to do more and next time I will actually walk up to the door to deliver. But at least today was a start. Thanks to my wife for the reminder and thanks to Meals on Wheels for its remarkable commitment to making a difference in lives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)