recently the church for which i play a couple of sundays each month published its monthly newletter. in it were two things that i found troubling, and i am examining my mind's reaction to those things. one was an article written by another musician who contributes his talents to the worship services. he is a long-time member of the church and a respected professional musician. in his article, he advocated for the church to buy a building on the downtown square to use as its home. at present the church is renting space from another congregation in town to use for its office, meeting, and worship spaces, having sold their former building to the county in which we reside.
the writer of the article encouraged the members of the church to think of new ways of "doing church," suggesting that they simplify their worship service to make it more accessible to those who are unaccustomed to attending church services, host "suds and songs" meetings in which beer is served and devotional songs are sung, and emphasize the welcoming nature of the church in contrast to some other congregations that are quick to condemn those who don't adhere to conservative social mores.
my immediate reaction was negative, though i think he's right to make the non-judgmental character of the church's membership a central aspect of the church's mission to the community. as i told the church's secretary, who had asked my opinion of his article, i am an advocate of preserving the traditional worship practices of the church and am uncomfortable worshiping in a building that doesn't conform to my idea of how a church should look (think new england steeples and gothic-style windows). this says more about my own ways of thinking than about what is the best way for this congregation to. if we believe that a church is the people who are a part of it rather than a building, then the architecture of the building in which the church meets shouldn't be all that important, as long as it meets the needs of the people. this is the point the writer of the article was trying to make, as he acknowledged that many would be uncomfortable with his suggestions, as i was.
the other troubling item in the newsletter was one sentence in the minutes of the session, which is the ruling body of the church. this sentence stated that a discussion of the organ volume had occurred. i instantly knew that such a discussion had probably taken place because someone had complained that the organ was too loud. when i read that, i bristled. this is a frequent comment that organists hear. when we respond to it by softening the sound of the organ, we then hear people telling us that we need to "open the organ up" so people can hear the full majesty of the instrument. this places the player in a no-win situation, because some want to hear syrupy, soft organ music, while others want to hear organ played in such a way that it is obvious why it has been called the "king of instruments." we can't please everyone all of the time.
as i reflected on my reaction to this short sentence from the session minutes, i sought to analyze my reaction. initially, i was defensive and wanted to lash out. then i thought, why not just pull back the volume a bit next sunday and see what reaction i get. will the congregation feel well supported as they sing together? will people even notice the difference? can i find a happy medium where those who want the organ to be played more softly are satisfied, while those who want to hear the majestic sounds of which it is capable hear some of what they want? my anger at the implied criticism does no one any good. i will be better off and the congregation will be better served if i don't take this one sentence personally and consider that my purpose is to serve and support worship, not control it.
i realized that the reaction that both parts of the newsletter had elicited from me was anger. i was angry that someone would suggest that churches should abandon their traditions of worship and architecture in order to appeal to more people. i was angry that criticism had been leveled at the way i was playing the service. when i confronted my emotions, i realized that they weren't beneficial to me or anyone else. the writer who had suggested considering alternative ways to worship and to use a building wasn't saying that his thoughts were right; he was merely throwing out ideas to think about. whoever complained about the organ volume is entitled to their opinion and ought to be able to worship without feeling uncomfortable about the sound of the organ. my job is to make everyone who gathers for worship be able to hear music that meets their needs, if at all possible.
may we never think that our way is the only right way. may we try to see life from others' points of view. may we not allow our emotions to rule us. may we not take every criticism or comment personally. may we try to meet others where they are rather than trying to force them to conform to our way of thinking. may we be agents of peace, not forces promoting dissension. shalom.
No comments:
Post a Comment