Originally posted by yeutter
My concern about huge music budgets is two fold for a choir is two fold.
I assume, then, that both of the following objections apply to both concerns.
first:
I have reservations about having choirs in the first place. In this particular case the choir is in the balcony at the rear of the sanctuary and not therefore intrusive. Still I wonder if it is not better to have the entire congregation sing choral responces then have a choir.
second
My second concern is what new music is of value. This congregation is made up of people who recently walked out of the Episcopal Church over the homosexual issue. They have purchased the 1940 edition of the Episcopal hymnal for congregational use. A good hymnal if you like hymnals; roughly on par with the Trinity Hymnal. I would think all the Choral works necessary could be found in that hymnal. If they thought they needed to buy Anglican Chant Psalters, or Plain Song Chant Psalters or Geneva Psalters or some other Psalter for the choir I would understand and think that was probably an expenditure that could be justified. What I do not understand is what sheet music is there which would significantly add to the worship service? Especially what new, copyrighted material is there?
I think you are right in lumping these together. What is a concern in the one area is the same as the concern in the other area.
First, then, I would agree that a choir responding to the Word
in place of the congregation is not right. That elevates the choir to a status that is not granted, even by David. But that is not the only use for a choir. It can add beauty to the singing of the congregation. Just as we beautify our buildings of worship to show the respect we have for it, so a choir can be used to beautify worship to show the respect we have for it. If I'm not mistaken, that was at least part of the intent of the Anglican worship regulative.
Second, as to the value of new music, is it not prejudicial to put all our value into music that has been made by a few men of the past, and to then close the books on music from then on? If men could be vessels of such beauty in the past, why can men not be vessels of such beauty now?
But, I know, that is not the question. Your question turns on the severe limitation on music in our time, a limitation imposed by modern culture, that champions marketable songs over against real giftedness in music. Consequently, true Christian composers get over-looked because they are not pagan, or they get over-looked in our Christian circles because they are not Evangelical ( i.e., not anti-Calvinistic enough ), or because they don't tickle the ears enough. So a lot of music, even in Christian circles, is geared to marketability. But that is not so for all music.
Even so, unless we gain the ability to discern, I would think that many of today's comtemporary music will be suspect, simply because of the identification with the worldly culture. And that, I would think is your concern. And I agree.
John, you are a musician; what should the choir director be buying?
It should be
copying songs that the church has already paid copyright for. In other words, what the elders have approved is what they should be singing. And a choir is a unit, not a group of individual performers. If it is for church use, then that is already covered in the copyright laws.
Neither do they need to be performers. That kind of choir is a different sort of thing, and should be separated from the church proper, though the members be identified with the church. One choir can do both, but then there is a need to keep the distinction clear, and not impose upon worship more than is right. To add beauty and to include and subject even music as a sacrifice to God, I believe, is not wrong.
But that's my personal opinion. You asked what I thought, and I gave you my thoughts. That's all they are.
