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.
No comments:
Post a Comment