Shepherding Affections

I was digging around some old digital files earlier and I came across this email I had saved. At the time it was written I was still serving as Worship Pastor and was a part of an email conversation between the elders thinking about cultivating affections in worship.

It was written 7 weeks before I stepped down so unfortunately it was a conversation (for me) that stalled. But as I re-read it I found it surprisingly thought provoking and something I'd like to investigate further. I raised a few questions that I haven't been able to answer yet, (like, how do you teach someone to wonder?) but I think they are questions that can help lead to a good answer. Anyway, I offer it here in full (with brief insertions for clarity) in hopes that it might encourage you and assist folks in shepherding the affections of their flock.

=====================

hey gang.

I've been mulling this over in my mind for a while too. Here are simply just some thoughts that have occurred to me.

I think we know the what (cultivating the affections) but achieving it is another playing field. As leaders, I don't believe it is our duty or place to be the cause or manufacturers of emotions of our people. I think we all agree on this. But it is our place to point them to the cause and source which can give life to the affections (and not just simply point them, but to nurture them in the affections and aid in their development). So I don't think our 'success' or 'failure' rests in whether or not our people respond with the proper affections. That's a helpful indicator, but not the goal. Our 'goal' and the measure of our success and failure in the realm of affections, I believe, is how well we show, reveal, clarify, explain, display, Christ. Essentially, how well we point to Christ and how well we cultivate a lifestyle of proper affections. That is the real challenge.

I can't help but think of my children (especially in light of our efforts to benefit the spiritually young). I can show my kids something I think is amazing and be underwhelmed by their 'whoopdee doo' response. On some level, it's up to me to cultivate their understanding in such a way that they then have the ability to view it with an appropriate level of awe. I showed Adison [my eldest daughter] a picture of a mountain in New Zealand yesterday. I was blown away by the beauty of the picture, the immensity of the mountain, the beauty of the snowy peak above and the lush green below. I said, 'look at this!' and she said, 'eh' and walked away. If I were really serious about getting her to see the same beauty I was seeing I would really have to sit down and think for a bit, especially on her level, to come up with a way to show her, "here's why it's amazing". This, actually, now that I think about it, might take two minutes or twelve years. And then I'd have to start again with Noah [my son] and the other kids (but perhaps by the time Willow [my fourth child] comes around to appreciating the beauty, she has grown up in an environment where the whole household provides the example and the painstaking explanations that initially started with kid #1 aren't as necessary with kid #4?). And of course there's always the possibility that one of my kids, no matter what I do, will never give a flip about a beautiful mountain. If that's the case, I think my job still remains, to try to cultivate an understanding in such a way that they then have the ability to view beautiful things with an appropriate level of awe.

Ultimately it is about getting them to see the mountain and gasp without my explanations and reasonings and such, so that they will have a proper response throughout their lifetime without my aid. (it just occurred to me that perhaps the best way might not even be explanations--though that is often a necessary and worthy route--but rather to just take them to see the mountains in real life, up close and personal. That blows my explanations of why the picture is amazing right out of the water.) Hopefully cultivating affections and wonder at an early age will establish a lifetime of astonishment. It's the whole 'teach a man to fish' thing. Show a man a wonder and he'll praise God for a day. Teach a man to wonder and he'll praise God his whole life (because wonder, after all, is simply involuntary praise). Showing the wonder/beauty/amazing truth is necessary and needs to happen, but it is far greater to teach a man to wonder, to feel the stab of beauty, to cry or sing amazing truth on his own alongside you.

Translating this theme (cultivating affections for those unaware or indignant or immature or whathaveyou) to worship would seem easy enough (just show them Jesus!) but it's pretty difficult. It's the same as me showing the picture to Adison. It's amazing sure, and folks might be awed by it (since they are able to rightly be awed). And that's where we find ourselves now I'd reckon. I think we have done a noble job thus far simply showing and displaying Jesus as amazing and worthy of our affections in worship. And those of us who are able to be amazed, or whatever the appropriate emotion might be, may not have a hard time doing so. But I think the difficult part, the part that prompts us to pray and write emails about it and be concerned for the flock, I think is this idea of how do we cultivate an understanding in such a way that they then have the ability to view the beauty, truth, and goodness of Christ with the appropriate affections.

I am going to continue to think through this, but maybe one place where we can start (the obvious place) is ourselves. Think through what you find amazing about Christ. Specific stuff. What makes your heart leap when you ponder it. What catches your breath? It doesn't always have to be doctrine. It could be that mountain, right? Then (and here I'm not sure just yet) I think it might be helpful to our people if we begin to share with our people what amazes us, or shocks us, or grieves us, or causes joy, etc. Not necessarily what should cause joy or what should amaze us. And I'm not necessarily thinking it should be presented as in a personal testimony or anything, but that our speech, when we speak of our desire, would be full of flavor when we speak about it. It's like when you tell someone, "Try the steak". The way you say it reveals your love for it, your desire for them to participate in the same experience you've had, even though you never said you've tried the steak for yourself. It's just evident that you did.

My problem, I'll confess, is simply expressing that in a public way. Not that I fear it, but that I'm a tongue tied, rambling speaker. My points become less clear and more muddled. No doubt a bit more discipline on my part to prepare my thoughts beforehand would be a great benefit. Prayer would be appreciated here for me in that.

But to bring this behemoth full circle and maybe in sum:

1) we have a job to do regarding the affections (I was convinced for a long time we didn't): that job is to point clearly to the truth, goodness, and beauty of Christ and aid in cultivating the affections of our people. 

2) the right affections of our people ought to be a helpful indicator but not be the measure of our 'success'. When it becomes the measure/the ultimate goal, we will always, always manipulate and try in our own strength to produce the effects (and usually with spectacular 'success' or 'failure'. but I digress...)

3) cultivating the affections is deep and continuous, like training children, it has to be a 'lifestyle' of the church and her leadership, always cultivating, always being amazed, always on the lookout for wonder in everything

4) don't be content to just show people a wonder, teach people to wonder

Anyway, that's how I approach this. I think it helps us attack the issue from a proper angle. Looking forward to digging through this will all of you.

thoughts? pushbacks? etc?

your longwinded brother,

Rich

The Gloriously Unnecessary: Stars

When Man deems, in his own estimation, that a thing is no longer practical, necessary, or convenient he will, at all costs, do his best to rid the world of it.

Evidence for this can be seen in the continual assault on the stars. Of course, no one is intentionally (as far as I can tell) trying to blot out the starry sky, but it is an assault nonetheless because Man has deemed that stars are no longer practical. What purpose do they serve for our ever increasing techno-industrialized society? We no longer need the stars for navigation; there are all manner of gadgets at our disposal for that (maps, GPS, etc). Stars are of no use as a source of light. Street lamps now light the way.

At one time the stars were heralds proclaiming the glory of God. At their haughtiest they were even considered gods. Legends are the stuff of stars. But science has demystified all of that hasn’t it? The ancients wrapped the stars in a cloak of mythology. Tales of epic proportions came from the sky. Now nerds in white coats drone on about “dead light” and balls of gas and in the name of discovery and advancement have achieved a greater evil than any primal pagan; they have stripped the sky of Awe. Though the pagan was wrong in worshipping the stars, he was more right than the scientist. At least when the pagan looked up his breath was taken away. Modern Man yawns, or squints, since he’s been raised in a land that attempts to wash away the starry host, night after night, with all of the practical, necessary, and convenient things like street lamps, billboards, and sky scrapers.  C.S. Lewis was on to something when he condemned modern man for rejecting the word “heavens” and replacing it with “space”.

But to say that an impractical thing is good doesn’t mean that the practical thing that replaced it is bad. In fact, our practical inventions like navigation systems have freed the stars from their ignoble task of “directions”. If stars are only viewed as “directions” then they are being enslaved to practicalism (rather than assaulted as an enemy as they are now; when the beast is no longer useful, put it out of its misery). I for one, prefer Mapquest over the stars. However, just because a practical invention negates the use of stars in a particular way, rendering it “unnecessary” does not mean Man should war against it (though he will). Stars are unnecessary to Modern Man, but they are gloriously unnecessary.

In this sense the stars have been liberated, set free from their task masters. They have been released from bondage and precisely because they are unnecessary to Modern Man, they are now in the greatest position to fulfill their God-given mission; to proclaim the glory of God. And now that the stars have regained their rightful place, Man’s assault on the stars is all the more telling. The attempt to blot out the heavenly bodies is really an attempt to blot out the Heavenly altogether. The stars are screaming out the beauty, the glory, and the wonder of God and in response Man is holding his ears firmly shut shouting, “I can’t hear you!” So the faint, seldom seen stars glimpsed above the city lights pronounce “Woe!” (which is still the glory of God).

I work in the city and live in the country. Each night after work around eleven o’clock, as I’m heading to my car I look up and see a dark hazy sky, tinged with yellow city lights. One or two stars have been crafty enough to shine through. As I make the journey home the sky gradually begins to expand and grow darker. And mile after mile the stars multiply and shine brighter. Somewhere at the tail-end of the suburbs, just a few miles past the electric madness of the car dealerships, I take a right and the sky explodes. The trek from urban to rural is a cosmic experience.

The Gloriously Unnecessary has just punched me in the gut and sucked the air from my lungs. I’m forced to look up. I have no choice. I’ve even pulled the car over just to look. The jungle of street lamps and illumined advertisements I just drove through cannot rightly be called ‘light’ anymore. They’re cheap knockoffs. They point me in the wrong direction. They point me to the glory of Man. The stars, though—the rightful light—have drawn me in. As they led the ancient ships in ages past they will not fail in pointing me in the right direction. They point me to the glory of God. It is in moments such as this when Man tastes that which is truly necessary.

Wanted: Hymn Writers

The church is always in need of more hymns. Good hymns. Hymns that last the test of time. Hymns busting at the seams with biblical truth matched with mind blowing beauty. Hymns full of sound doxology. A robust collection of hymns that give voice to every occasion.

One thing the church does not need more of is bad hymns. Shallow hymns. Ugly hymns. Meaningless hymns. Unfortunately it is much easier to write wretchedly than it is to write wonderfully.

So what the church needs (and always needs) is an army of hymn writers. Hymn writers who value truth and beauty. Hymn writers that venture into the depths of the riches of the wisdom and the knowledge of God and come back with treasures and tales of their adventures in that marvelous, perilous realm. What a noble task it is for the church to equip their poet-warriors with the necessary tools and training for such a calling.

Unfortunately, the church in America has done a pretty pitiful job at raising up hymn writers. I mean, if the church struggles to raise up pastors, how on earth will they be able to raise up hymn writers? I'm not talking about training and equipping musicians, though I believe that is a worthy goal I also believe that the church has more musicians than she knows what to do with. Heaven knows we could certainly deal with one less rock star wannabe. Then again, Heaven knows we could certainly benefit from fresh new melodies packed with submissive beauty.

But hymn writers need to be more than musicians. I would even say it is possible that one does not necessarily even need to be musically talented to be a good hymn writer. Though musicality is beneficial, I would argue that hymn writers need to be poetical rather than musical (though some would argue they are one in the same to some degree). But the point is that a hymn writer doesn't need to play piano or guitar or even sing well to write a good hymn.

Not only does one need to be poetical, but also vastly knowledgeable about God. This means that an understanding of sound theology and doctrine is crucial for the hymn writer. It is no surprise to me to see that almost every master hymn writer in the past was a pastor. Wesley, Watts, Newton, Doddridge, etc. Their main business was mining the depths of the gospel each week. To do so they had to be intimate with the Scriptures. As a result, not only were these men pastors worthy of emulation, they became the greatest hymn writers of the English language. Where are our pastor-hymn writers of today? There are exceptions to this however, in that there are many great hymn writers who were laymen. Anne Steele and William Cowper, for example. But only skim through their hymns and you will find that they are dripping with theology like honey from the comb.

The key is that a hymn writer needs to strive to become masterful in joining together truth with beauty. (A love for the people of God, I believe is quite necessary as well.) I like how Kevin Twit describes this melding of truth and beauty in hymns: "theology on fire". And it's in the church's best intrest to invest time, energy, and resources into developing and assisting her hymn writers.

Most of these thoughts were fueled by the following three articles. I happened to read them all within about a day of each other and I became greatly encouraged how each one seeks to support the hymn writer.

• First, Fernado Ortega recently wrote an excellent piece for the Rabbit Room called Avoiding Convenience: A Word to Hymn Writers.

Here’s a portion of what he says:

"Let this be an encouragement to modern hymn writers—a cause for inspiration to those who are suffering from writer’s block. There are so many Biblical scenes to choose from that would make for beautiful songs: the transfiguration of Christ, the feeding of the five thousand, the woman at the well, the stoning of Stephen, water baptism, washing of the disciple’s feet, the betrayal of Judas. If just a few good modern hymn writers tackled some of these subjects, the anguish that untold thousands of music ministers suffer weekly could be greatly diminished.

It’s easy to write a chorus that says:

God, you are a Holy God
I need your grace to see me through
I need your mercy to make me new
Let me live each day for you.

I just made that up in two minutes and there’s nothing wrong with it. It might fit easily and competitively among the hundreds of worship songs that are available to choose from. But compare those lines to the third stanza from the above hymn:

Let holy charity mine outward vesture be,
And lowliness become mine inner clothing;
True lowliness of heart, which takes the humbler part,
And o’er its own shortcomings weeps with loathing.

It took some real thought to craft those lines. They’re timeless. They set a standard for all of us who write music for the church. I didn’t set out to write a didactic piece. I’m reminding myself, too. Be specific when you write songs about God. Avoid cliché. Avoid convenience. Avoid an obsession with the consumer. Avoid the temptation to make commercial success your central goal. Write with intelligence, employing all the craft, skill, and experience with which God has endowed you."

I absolutely love what he has to say. Though this kind of thing has been said before, it can never be said enough. Encouragement and advice like this needs to become as strong and steady as a pounding drum.

• The second article that caught my eye is over at Cardiphonia. Bruce Benedict has been kind enough to share what he's been learning in his "Songwriting and Theology" class at Duke. I hope he takes good notes because I'm stealing them...

Songwriting and Theology
Songwriting and Theology Week 2 Paradoxes 

These posts are great in and of themselves and Bruce links to some great thought provoking articles, but what really grabbed my attention was something his teacher said:

"The Church has no theological expectations of her musicians."

This such a sad statement that at first I had a hard time agreeing with it. But after thinking about it and pondering the putrid wasteland of music that has been produced (and peddled, and packaged, and sold)  by the American Church, I have to agree for the most part. It is certainly true that this is an accurate reflection of the status quo.

I would also take that expression and turn it on it's head a bit and say that, "The Church has no poetical or musical expectations of her pastors and theologians."

• Third, I came across this new blog by Sojourn Music songwriters Bobby and Kristen Gilles called My Song in the Night. It looks as if this entire blog will be highly beneficial the hymn writer.

The 'mission statement' of the blog says this:

"Helping you express words of worship and testimony through songs and stories."

The article I specifically want to direct your attention to is one in their Songwriting section called Modern Hymns. They do an excellent job at laying out a very basic outline of the ins and outs of hymn writing. Just reading through this made me want to stop and find a pen and paper.

• Lastly, though I didn't just run across this, I do want to direct your attention to a post I put up a few years back called Towards a Better Hymnody. I link to a pamphlet that I think will continue to help us think soundly about our hymnody and our hymn writers. Also, as it was written more than 50 years ago, it lends to the idea that the church is always looking for better hymns and hymn writers.

I hope that these articles have motivated you like they have me. Let's keep the drum pounding. Let's keep spreading the word that the church is in great need of hymn writers.

Matthew Smith, Indelible Grace, and My Hymn Seminar Notes

Yesterday I attended a seminar on Hymns with Matthew Smith from Indelible Grace Music. If you are unfamiliar with Indelible Grace I would encourage you to check them out immediately. Indelible Grace is a group that Matthew Smith has participated in for about 10 years and they are rooted in the college ministry of the PCA called Reformed University Fellowship (RUF). They are doing something the church has done for a long time, which is putting hymn texts to modern music. It sounds simple enough but the practice, for the most part, has fallen by the wayside in our day and age of modern, cutting edge, happy-clappy worship songs. They are a driving force in the resurgence of hymnody today.

At the seminar Matthew Smith gave a brief history of his life as a worshipper and how he got involved with Indelible Grace. I was struck by how similar our stories are. He grew up in a Christian home, led worship for the youth group, and felt like a failed worshipper. Much of his guilt and feelings of failure were a direct result of the songs they sang and what he falsely thought worship should be. Matthew said he had a hard time explaining this feeling but I knew exactly what he was talking about. In some ways he felt as if worship meant that he had to ‘disconnect’ in some since and ‘attain’ a certain ‘level’ of worship for worship to actually occur. The songs they sung (as did I) were songs that said, “I want to” and “I will do” and he felt the weight of failure on his shoulders. Then he discovered RUF in college and was intrigued by two things; the acoustic guitar folk rock music caught his eye first, but what really kept him and drew him in were the hymns they were singing. The hymns placed all the emphasis on Jesus rather than on himself. Matthew had found that which released him of his feelings of guilt and failure in worship; instead of the world becoming a fuzzy disconnect that he always thought it should be, the world actually became more real, it became clearer and sharper in focus. I don’t know if this resonates with you but I completely understand where he is coming from, and so I found much encouragement and confirmation in my own story after hearing his.

After this Matthew gave a brief, but loaded presentation about why we need hymns and why he and Indelible Grace love the hymns so much. Before he began he made clear that when he talks about Hymns he uses the word ‘hymn’ as being distinguished from what many people consider as hymns, such as the Gospel Songs of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Gather Music, etc.

I’ve listed the notes I took below. I summarized a bit but all of it is derived from what Matthew said.

Hymns engage our:

Imagination – Hymns paint a picture and they can be both personal and universal at the same time

Intellect – Hymns make you think about what you are singing – they help people engage or participate in worship more fully – the over all theme of a hymn should be understood after singing it once, but it needs to be sung over and over to better understand it.

Will – Hymns make you want to live differently rather than telling you to live differently – they have a shaping quality that assists the singer to change certain beliefs – Hymns say things you don’t want to say

Emotions – Hymns effect our emotions without being emotionalism and without manipulation – When you cry to a country song, it’s because the songwriter wanted/intended for you to cry. When you cry to a hymn it is because the hymn writer is crying with you. We share the emotion with the writer. (Matthew used the country song example because he knows of artists in Nashville that do it.)

Hymns are:

True – Hymns tell the truth about who we are and who God is

Good Theology – Hymns contain good (sound) theology – Kevin Twit says “Hymns are theology on fire” which means that hymns convey theology not in a stoic or stagnant kind of way, but it gives theology life and it spreads and is efficacious

Beautiful – Hymns are not just a tool to be used for practical purposes, ie. Just to teach, or for evangelism, etc (I tend to be guilty of this) – Art that is only practical is propaganda – ‘beauty’ does not equal ‘pretty’, beauty can be ugly – bad art lies and at it’s worst lies about the human condition

(As a side note I would add on my own that Hymns are also authentic. In that they were written most often for the hymn writer’s local congregation to aid in worship rather than written to be sold as a product to consume. I wish I would have thought of this during the discussion time to hear Matthew’s thoughts…anyway, back to the notes.)

Good Writing and Bad Writing

CS Lewis – he referred us to what Lewis had to say about the difference between good and bad writing. Although he didn't quote it, this is the quote he was referring to:

'In writing. Don’t use adjectives which merely tell us how you want us to feel about the things you are describing. I mean, instead of telling us the thing is “terrible,” describe it so that we’ll be terrified. Don’t say it was “delightful”; make us say “delightful” when we’ve read the description. You see, all those words (horrifying, wonderful, hideous, exquisite) are only like saying to your readers “Please, will you do my job for me.”'

Bad Writing tells you how to feel (ie. That woman is beautiful)

Good Writing describes and displays the woman in such a way that the reader can only come away with the conclusion that the woman is a knockout.

According to this criterion, hymns would be considered “Good Writing” whereas most modern day praise songs would likely be considered “Bad Writing”. Where a modern praise song might say, “Jesus is amazing” a hymn would take three or four lines (or maybe the whole song!) describing and displaying Jesus in such a way that the singer can only come away with the conclusion that Jesus is amazing.

Then we moved into a Q&A/Discussion time that produced some great food for thought:

When asked what makes a hymn a hymn (as in distinction to modern songs) Smith said it has much to do with the form of the hymn. The secret weapon/advantage of the hymn is that it is Verse, Verse, Verse, Verse and develops a thought without interruption (the interruption typically being a chorus). But he was quick to point out that the chorus in many songs are not bad, but the verses of these songs tend to point only to the chorus so the development of thought isn’t always as strong as a hymn.

When discussing archaic language Matthew was not against changing language so that modern readers might understand, but he also felt it was perfectly fine to leave archaic language as it was written just the same. In doing so the singer will have to think and learn. He said he doesn’t have a rule about it because a hard and fast rule such as this destroys art.

The best part of the discussion was when the topic became sadness or darkness (in a sad since) in hymns as opposed to happy, peppy, chipper songs. Before I attended this it was a strong conviction of mine that the church must sing songs that prepare people for suffering, and sing them every week, and after listening to this discussion I am even more encouraged and fully strengthened that my conviction is valid. Here are four quotes that I wrote down during that discussion:

- When planning a service or when selecting songs: “Never aim for happy—always aim for joy.”

- “Mournfulness in songs doesn’t equal Mopey-ness.”

- “Jesus was a Man of sorrows and acquainted with grief. If your songs don’t reflect that you’re picking the wrong songs.”

- In discussing how people at an A.A. meeting can often times be more honest than at church and how the church is a place for broken people: “The church should be a place where if you boast in yourself you should look stupid. Go play golf stupid.”

Following the seminar was a concert with Matthew and the Indelible Grace band. These guys not only love hymns and make a great case for them, they make excellent music for us to sing them to. I praise God for Indelible Grace and others who continue to put great music to great hymn texts.