Know Tea

Apparently Keisha was at Avery Fisher Hall last night for a performance by the New York Philharmonic!

In most movie versions of Dickens’ A Christmas Carol, there is one detail they get horribly wrong. It has to do with the arrival of the various ghosts. You may think you know this by heart: “Expect the first when the bell tolls one, expect the second when the bell tolls two, and expect the third when the bell tolls three,” right?  Wrong.

Here are Dickens’ words (which are reflected in only a couple of the film versions): “Expect the first tomorrow, when the bell tolls one. Expect the second on the next night at the same hour. The third upon the next night when the last stroke of twelve has ceased to vibrate.” OK, so three successive days–25 December, 26 December, and 27 December, right? Well, not quite. That would be right, except for this passage from Chapter 3:

Scrooge had observed this change [that the spirit seemed to grow old very quickly], but never spoke of it, until they left a children’s Twelfth Night party, when, looking at the Spirit as they stood together in an open place, he noticed that its hair was grey.

“Are spirits’ lives so short?” asked Scrooge.

“My life upon this globe, is very brief,” replied the Ghost. “It ends to-night [i.e. Twelfth Night: 5 January].”

“To-night!” cried Scrooge.

“To-night at midnight. Hark! The time is drawing near.”

So, from Scrooge’s perspective, he is with the first spirit from 1:00 a.m. Christmas Day until 1:00 a.m. on the Second Day of Christmas (26 December), with the second spirit from 1:00 a.m. on the 26th through midnight of Twelfth Night (5 January), and with the third spirit on Epiphany (6 January). That’s why it makes sense, when Scrooge awakes, to be so confused that it’s Christmas Day. When he says “I haven’t missed it,” it’s because, from his perspective, he was walking with the spirits for the entire 12 Days of Christmas!

Most historians credit Dickens with bringing the celebration of Christmas back to the popular imagination, both in Britain and here in the U.S. Before the publication of A Christmas Carol, Christmas had fallen on hard times as a celebration. A Christmas Carol helped to revive many Christmas traditions from England’s pre-Puritan past. To this day, many of our images of a “perfect” Christmas are decidedly Dickensian: carolers in Victorian garb, a plum pudding with a sprig of holly in it, Noble firs with candles, etc.” Wouldn’t it be nice if we hadn’t left out this detail of Dickens’ classic: the Christmas the spirits encouraged Scrooge to keep was not a one-day affair.

What if …

What if we really were earnest about “keeping Christmas,” as the spirits encouraged Scrooge to do? What if, along with Christmas trees, Christmas puddings, carolers, and all the other “Dickensian” elements, we also revived the custom of Twelfth Night parties? What if we made Epiphany the climax of the Christmas feast and not an almost-forgotten afterthought?

The origin of the Twelve Days of Christmas lies partly in a compromise in the early days of Christianity. Christians in Rome, and others in the Western part of the church, celebrated the Feast of the Incarnation on 25 December as “The Nativity of Our Lord.” In the Eastern Church, the principal feast of the Incarnation was the Theophany (manifestation of God) on 6 January. The Twelve Days of Christmas were a way of bridging this divide. In the West, 6 January came to be known as Epiphany, and the principal focus was the manifestation of Christ to the Gentiles, as illustrated by the arrival of the Magi (Wise Men), who were the first Gentiles to see Christ. Because of the lavish gifts they brought to the Christ Child, Epiphany became the chief gift-giving day of the Christmas season.

What if …

What if we spread Christmas evenly across the season, from December 25 through Epiphany? What if we held parties or feasts on Twelfth Night (Epiphany Eve) that were reminiscent of wedding feasts (as Epiphany celebrations used to be), since the Bridegroom has arrived? What if we didn’t try to crowd Christmas Eve/Day church services, stockings, presents under the tree, family games, and Christmas Dinner all into Christmas Eve/Day? What if Christians took a cue from the Jewish community and did Christmas like they do Chanukah? I’m not talking about spending 12 times as much money on Christmas. What if we spent the same (or even less) on Christmas, but just spread it out over 12 days, making more room for celebrating the events and results of the Redemption Story rather than just the trappings of its celebration?

Suggestions (and I’m just thinking out loud now): what if Christmas Eve meant church, and that’s pretty much it. What if on Christmas morning, Santa had filled the stockings, and that’s all he leaves? (Some do stockings on St. Nicholas Day: 6 December, I realize.) Then Christmas Dinner could be a bigger focus, and consequent time around the table with family and friends. Gifts from Santa (if you “do” Santa) could be opened Christmas Night, gifts from parents to children (and children to parents) on the night of the 26th, gifts from siblings to one another the night of the 27th, gifts from grandparents to grandchildren (and vice versa) on the 28th, etc. At each point, as families gather around the hearth and/or tree on each night of Christmas, the significance of each day could be shared (for example, St. Stephen on the 26th, Holy Innocents on the 28th, etc.). Each night would not have to be a gift-giving night. Days could and should be set aside, during Christmastide, for serving others: taking food to elderly and/or sick people in your church and neighborhood, taking special foods to homeless shelters or soup kitchens, etc. When I was young, my mother always liked to take bags of oranges to the Jimmie Hale Mission in Birmingham for Christmas so the men who ate there could have fresh fruit.

Does your family or church have any special traditions for celebrating the Twelve Days of Christmas and Epiphany? Any things you want to try next year?

This is a copy of a letter I sent to KNOE/Hoak Media, Inc. today:

Dear KNOE/Hoak Media:

I have been following the information about the negotiations with Suddenlink cable, both the version provided by KNOE and the version provided by Suddenlink on their blog. It is my understanding that Hoak Media is asking for an increase in retransmission fees of over 200%. This is exorbitant and unreasonable. Furthermore, KNOE is posting misleading statements that Suddenlink will “pull” KNOE and KAQY from its service. Suddenlink has asked that Hoak Media keep these stations on under the current terms until a deal can be reached. That does not sound like a threat to pull the stations. If these stations are removed from Suddenlink, Hoak media will be the one to do it.

In the statement John Dennison was given to read last night on KNOE’s 10 o’clock news, it was mentioned that Suddenlink currently pays more for stations such as Disney and TNT than it does for KNOE, KAQY, and the CW 15. There is a good reason for this: those are cable channels and KNOE is an over-the-air broadcast station. That is an apples-to-oranges comparison.

I quote from an article in “The Hill” by Philip Napoli from the 22nd of this month:

In the wake of these ongoing disputes, the FCC is reviewing its retransmission consent regulations, which were mandated by the 1992 Cable Act. Broadcasters argue that the fees are integral for maintaining local programming on the air. In fact, that was the whole basis for the legislation in the first place – broadcasters maintained that they were public trustees, serving local informational needs, and needed to maintain economic viability and wide accessibility. Retransmission consent fees would provide these broadcasters the financial capacity and stability to continue providing the public with critical local programming.Nearly two decades later, the retransmission consent regulations are still in place, and the payments that they generate are now a massive source of revenue for broadcasters. In 2006, broadcasters pocketed $216 million in retransmission fees. This year, that number skyrocketed to an estimated $1.3 billion. Given this substantial increase, one would assume that local programming would have benefited. The contrary appears to be true.

In multiple studies, researchers have found that local news and programming has markedly dwindled over the past decades. A study by the FCC this year found that television stations provide on average less than 1.5 hours of local public affairs programming per week. Commercial stations that provide absolutely no local news programming are increasingly prevalent, as are stations that merely replay the local news broadcasts of other stations in their market.  Additionally, financial and personnel resources devoted to local news and public affairs have dropped significantly in recent years. No matter how it’s measured, broadcaster commitment to localism through local news and information programming hasn’t kept up with skyrocketing retransmission payments.

“Must-carry” was a much more equitable scenario. Over-the-air, local stations serve the public interest. They are “free to air.” They earn their revenue from selling local advertising. Cable systems carry those channels for the benefit of those who live outside the range of antenna reception (such as the people of Ruston). The claim made on KNOE last night that Hoak’s stations maintain some incredible “local commitment” is specious:  KAQY and the CW have NO local content whatsoever, and KNOE routinely runs 5-minute commercials (in the guise of a “spotlight on local business”) in the slot that is supposed to be for local news and weather during the CBS Morning News. Furthermore, I have contacted KNOE many times about upcoming events here in the Ruston area and have received no response whatsoever. Hoak cannot make a claim of “local involvement” in the context of discussions with Suddenlink. Without Suddenlink, Ruston residents would not be able to receive KNOE at all, and KNOE has not taken any interest in the Ruston community, besides taking money from Ruston businesses who advertise on KNOE.

As of this week, we are a Nielson home. If Hoak Media insists on this more than 200% increase in retransmission fees and subsequently pulls its programming from Suddenlink Cable in Ruston, its ratings for KNOE, KAQY, and the CW 15 will be almost zero, as it is impossible for us to receive these channels over the air, even with a three-story tall antenna. We already receive KSLA (CBS) and KTBS (ABC) from Shreveport via Suddenlink, and we will simply start watching them for CBS and ABC programming, and record this fact in our ratings book. Since we are over the age of 15, there is nothing on the CW that appeals to us, so we will not miss that station in the least.

Please stop spreading misinformation via your local media outlet and engage in good-faith negotiations with Suddenlink Communications.

Sincerely,
John Allen Bankson

Ruston, Louisiana

Throughout the 1990s, churches experimented with the “seeker-friendly” or “Willow Creek” philosophy of church marketing. One of the underlying premises of this philosophy was, if you want to attract “unchurched” people to your church, then the last thing your church should resemble is–a church. Pulpits had to go, replaced by flimsy music stands that could be removed at a minute’s notice. Baptismal fonts and Communion tables had to be kept sight unseen (only to be brought out for the midweek “believers’ service”: Sunday was reserved for the “unchurched”). Many churches got rid of the choir (as we saw last time) in favor of more showbiz-oriented “worship teams” or “praise teams”. In some cases, the choirs stayed around, although they were usually relegated to the role of background singers for the “stars” on the worship team. But even if the choir escaped the axe, the organ (and the organist) almost never did.

So far, the American church in the 21st century is exploring emergent and missional philosophies. (I realize that these terms are not synonymous, but there is considerable overlap between the two.) One of the encouraging aspects of these current trends is that churches have finally realized that most worshipers are longing for a sense of connectedness to historic Christianity. People want to know that they are part of a larger story: a story that began long before we arrived on the scene and that will continue long after we are gone. Seeker-friendly churches could not deliver the goods in this area. Seeker-friendly worship was extremely tied to its own temporal and geographic context, whereas emergent or missional worship tries to reflect a more global view as well as what Robert Webber called the “ancient-future” outlook. One important element, however, is still largely missing:

Bring back the organ.

If you ask the average person on the street what a church is “supposed” to look like, they will most likely mention pews, stained glass windows, pulpits, altars, etc.: all those “churchy” furnishings the Willow Creek movement tried to eradicate. Similarly, in surveys, people routinely associate church music with hymns, choirs, and organs. In Western culture, the sound of a pipe organ is probably the most “churchy” sound people can imagine. For some reason, church leaders have got it in their heads that “people don’t want that,” but this is mistaken. Marva Dawn, in Reaching Out Without Dumbing Down, cites a survey of American Christian teenagers which reveals that the type of music they deem appropriate for worship is music that is characterized by all these “churchy” elements: choirs, hymns, and the organ. Adults suppose that teens will consider rock and roll the most appropriate for worship, since that is what they prefer to listen to in their daily lives, but this is not the case. So by removing “churchy” music and instruments in the name of “what the young folks like” actually results in an environment that young people actually find fake and, frankly, embarrassing. If the survey Dawn cites is any indication, when young people go to church, they want it to “sound like church.” They want it to “feel like church.” Most churches can take one simple step that will go a long way in recapturing that feeling:

Bring back the organ!

Besides the fact that most people connect the sound of a pipe organ with church more than any other sound, there are many sound reasons (pun intended) for retaining (or recovering) the use of the organ as the primary instrument in worship.

1.   The organ is the best man-made instrument for supporting congregational singing. I say the best man-made instrument, because the best instrument for encouraging singing is the human voice itself. One sings more freely and with greatest confidence when one is surrounded by good singers. But if one is going to have accompanied singing in church (discussions of accompanied vs. unaccompanied singing will have to wait for another time), instruments that most closely resemble the human voice in terms of sound production will encourage better singing than instruments which differ from the human voice. The human voice is a wind instrument: supported air is sent through the larynx, causing the vocal folds to vibrate, thus creating sound. The organ is a wind instrument too: actually a collection of wind instruments all in one place (reeds, flutes, trumpets, etc.), and one person can play them all simultaneously. The piano is a percussion instrument, not a wind instrument. As soon as a note is struck on the piano, the sound immediately begins to decay. That does not encourage sustained singing “on the breath.” This is not to say that the piano is not a great instrument, or that great music has not been written for the piano: I am a pianist myself and love the instrument a great deal. But it is not well-suited for accompanying congregational praise. Neither is the guitar. The guitar is, technically, a stringed instrument, but it is played as a percussion instrument (by plucking or strumming the strings), not in a sustained manner (bowing) as other stringed instruments can be played. Guitar-led congregational singing is inevitably throaty singing, and is usually pretty anemic as well, except for those who are singing into microphones, and then, of course, their voices are being artificially amplified or “lifted up,” and there should be no artifice in our worship. Forced, throaty singing does damage to the musical instrument that God gave each of us (our voices): God’s people need to learn to sing “on the breath” (note: this is not the same thing as breathy singing!), and accompanying singing with wind instruments, such as the organ and/or a brass choir, is one of the best ways to encourage healthy singing.

2.    The organ is made up of choirs. In my previous article (about choral music in the church), we saw that biblical worship is all about choirs. If Christian worship is fundamentally choral worship, then it follows that instrumental choirs would accompany the singing of human choirs (remember that the congregation itself is one of those human choirs). One should assemble brass choirs, woodwind choirs, handbell choirs, etc. to use in worship, but it is impractical to use these on a weekly basis. (I do not recommend the weekly use of a church wind ensemble or orchestra, as they are almost always out of tune and do not play together, due to their limited rehearsal time. It seems more desirable to have these groups make contributions to worship frequently enough that their gifts are being employed, but not so often that their performances sound thrown together. Worship should not be artificial, but it should not be shoddy either.) Employing the organ is a way to have wind-ensemble-led congregational singing every week. Furthermore, the various choirs (ranks) or families of pipes that make up the organ mean that there can be an almost limitless variety of tone colors in the worship service. A talented, thoughtful organist will change registrations as necessary to complement the changing moods of the various stanzas of the hymns that are sung.

3.   The organ is a powerful instrument. It is no wonder that the organ is called “the king of instruments.” Such power is useful in painting a picture in worship of the majesty and grandeur of our God. Now many instruments can produce loud sounds, but in the case of the organ, it is the instrument itself, not the performer, that is the source of this strength. A pianist must exert his strength to play loudly, drawing attention to his own might. Playing the organ indeed requires great skill, but the player himself is dwarfed by the sheer magnitude of the instrument, so the “Look at me!” factor is much less in the case of an organist than with a pianist, guitarist, or other instrumentalist. It helps to have such an instrument in worship that points beyond ourselves, particularly one whose power comes not from the one playing it, but from the wind, as God reminds us that life is to be lived “not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit (Heb. ruach, “breath” or “wind”), declares the Lord of hosts (Zechariah 4:6).”

4.    The organ is a very expensive instrument. Yes, I see this as a plus, not a drawback. Too often churches assume that “good stewardship” means being cheap, but some things are worth the money. Christ’s honor is worth the money. We live in a nation littered with disposable-looking metal buildings erected as houses of worship because it was the cheap thing to do. Contrast this with the great Romanesque and Gothic cathedrals of Europe, which took centuries to complete. Those who began building those churches never lived to see their completion. In many cases, their children never lived to see the completion of these churches. That is dedication to something bigger than one’s self. That is looking past one’s own nose. Evangelicals gather in their disposable buildings and play disposable music on disposable instruments. An organ installation, by contrast, is a permanent thing. It says, “We are committed to excellence in church music, and we want to encourage that excellence for many, many generations to come.” Isn’t Christ’s honor worth that? Spend the money on something that will last. Let the world keep its disposable music.

5.    The organ can help create a “church culture.” The church should not follow the world; rather, in all areas, including the arts, the church should lead the way, setting the example of excellence, and let the world follow suit. For the past century or more, the world has led the way and the church has followed suit, usually with results that are far from excellent. Evangelical Christians in particular have been known for creating inferior copies for themselves of things that already exist in the world. This is what Francis Schaeffer referred to as “the Evangelical ghetto.” Or, as Ken Meyers has put it, Evangelical Christians have learned to be of the world but not in it. Instead of aping the culture around us, the church should be creating a “church culture” that is superior to anything in the world. In church music, the organ is the cornerstone of the “church sound” and thus of a church musical culture. With the exception of some concert halls and old-time movie palaces, churches are pretty much the only buildings where pipe organs can be found, and since the organ is not a portable instrument, that also means churches are pretty much the only places that pipe organ music will be heard. This means that the sound of church music will be unique. A renaissance of interest in pipe organ music will also mean that those churches with fine pipe organ installations will be in demand as locations for recitals, which can only help further the church’s visibility in the community.

Colleges in this country have seen a dramatic decrease in the number of organ majors. It is no wonder: young people have grown up in churches in which, if there was a pipe organ, it sat in a corner gathering dust. Since so few churches are looking for organists, the job prospects for young people who might desire to become organists are slim, so they major in something else. But it is not too late. Forward-thinking churches can, and should, endow organ scholarships for the purpose of raising up a new generation of skilled, theologically-minded church organists who can help create a new, more excellent culture of church music. If your church’s organ is in disrepair, have it fixed. If it has fallen into disuse or is used rarely, have that problem fixed too. Search for a gifted, dedicated organist (i.e., one who takes his/her job seriously and will practice accordingly), and reward him or her handsomely for undertaking this important part of leading in worship (you pay peanuts, you get monkeys). We need to restore the “king of instruments” to a place of prominence, as it can help us exalt the King of kings like no other instrument can.

Bring back the organ!

(Or: Why your church needs to have choirs if it doesn’t already.)

This article originally appeared on a former site of mine. I am reposting it here in honor of the upcoming  National Choir Appreciation Sunday (January 8).

Throughout the church in recent years, the two biggest casualties of the “worship wars” have been the church choir and the organ (and thus the organist as well). When worship committees decide to jettison “traditional” worship, that’s the death knell for the choir and organ. To be sure, sometimes they still hang around, but there’s an awkwardness to the presence of either a choir or an organ in the context of pop-music-oriented worship. The organ just isn’t as cool as the guitar, the drums, or even the synthesizers, and the choir is usually relegated to the role of an also-ran. If the “praise team” are the varsity cheerleaders, then the church choir becomes the pep club: the kids who weren’t popular enough to be picked for the squad.

What’s truly sad about all of this is that, if we are concerned with our spiritual health, we are much better off with choirs and organ than with a “praise team” or “worship team” of singers and a “praise band.” We’ll discuss the organ in the next article, but for now I’d like to focus on choirs: adult choirs, youth choirs, children’s choirs, handbell choirs, brass choirs, etc. A church choir isn’t just there to sing an anthem in the service or to lead the hymns. A church choir, under the direction of a competent, spiritual, thinking director, can teach us about much more than choral music. It can teach us about what it is to be the church, about what it is to be a Christian.

I’ve been in church choirs most of my life, and I’ve directed a few as well. Here’s what I’ve learned about the church and about life from being in the church choir:

1.   It’s not about me. There’s a reason choirs are usually robed, and it’s not because they enjoy wearing those things (they’re usually really, really hot). When everyone in the choir is in matching robes, everyone is, in effect, disguised. They are not up there as an assortment of random individuals. They are there as a unified whole. When the choir looks like a choir and behaves like a choir, they teach us how to behave like the Church: how to work together as one and to check our individual egos at the door when we come to worship. Contrast this with the typical worship team, in which each member, holding his or her personal microphone, tries his best to emote and work the room, thus drawing attention to himself. If I’m on the worship team, the spotlight is on me. If I’m in the choir, it’s not about me. It’s about the One on the throne and the Lamb, to whom all our worship is directed (Rev. 4-5).

2.    Keep your eyes on the Director. While the worship team seeks to make eye contact with the members of the “audience” (because, after all, that’s how most congregations think of themselves), a good choir director teaches his choir never to look out into the congregation, but to keep their eyes on the director at all times. This allows the choir to follow his every cue. He may take a section faster than usual, or change the dynamics in an unexpected way. From observing a well-trained choir, a congregation can learn what Hebrews 12:1-2 means: “Let us keep our eyes fixed on Jesus, the Author and Finisher of our faith.” We need to keep our eyes on our Director at all times: otherwise, we will surely lose our way.

3.    Blend. Choir directors often ask their choir members to “blend” their voices, but few know what this means or how to achieve it. We all know what it sounds like when a member of the choir “sticks out”: it’s not pretty. Blending is the opposite of sticking out. But trying to blend in doesn’t mean each member of the choir tries to sound exactly like everyone else in the choir. The secret of blend sounds impossibly simple: blend occurs when all the members of a choir pronounce their vowels the same way. That’s pretty much it. They don’t try to disguise their voices or become someone they’re not: they just pronounce their vowels the same way. In the church, we’ve each been given different gifts. For the church to be the church, we don’t all become exactly the same: we celebrate the diversity that God has built into the church by his own design (I Cor. 12, 14; Eph. 4:10-12), and we simply tell the same story, the Gospel story. We maintain our uniqueness, but we blend, because we’re all part of that story, like tiles in a mosaic. Some churches have a staff position entitled “Minister of Assimilation.” How horrifying. We shouldn’t want to assimilate anyone or to be assimilated ourselves. God would not have created each of us unique and gifted us uniquely if he wanted us to be assimilated. Instead, God wants us to blend while retaining our God-given distinctives.

4.    The whole is more than the sum of its parts. Put several people on a stage to perform for the crowd, and you have several people on a stage. Put together a 16-voice choir (or 32, or 40) and you don’t just have a bunch of people singing together. Sixteen people singing the same song is one thing, but a choir singing a song is something more. Something happens when a collection of people learns to sing together, to breathe together, to think together, as a choir. A new entity comes into being, with its own personality and its own unique sound: the choir. Together, a choir can do things that none of the individual singers could ever do on his own. Call it the science of acoustics. Call it the “magic” of choral music. Call it unity. That’s what can happen in a church too, when we truly have the mind of Christ (Philippians 2:3-11). Scripture calls it “the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.”

5.    Biblical worship is all about choirs. I Chronicles 25 tells of David assembling the choirs of musicians (both vocal choirs and instrumental choirs), under God’s direct orders, for service in the Temple. In Nehemiah 12, we read of two great choirs that were assembled to give thanks to God for the rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem, one choir at the South Gate of the city and one at the North Gate (quite possibly the first double-choir motet in history). The Psalms are replete with dedications to “the choir director” of the Temple. Whether we are talking about choirs of singers or choirs of instrumentalists, biblical worship is characterized by choirs. The musicians who have rehearsed and who are robed and in the choir loft to sing anthems to God and to lead congregational singing are one choir, but the congregation is a choir too (one at the North Gate and one at the South Gate?). Even the organ is composed of choirs: families or ranks of pipes that sound good together (more on the organ next time). Biblical worship is all about choirs. Understanding what a choir is and does, it is not too much of a stretch to say that biblical worship is choral worship. Why would you not have choirs as the foundation of your church’s music ministry? How can one not have choirs as the foundation of a music ministry?

In worship, we are never to say, either with our words or with our actions, “Look at me!” As the angels in the Bible do, we who lead in worship are to deflect the attention away from ourselves and toward the only One who is worthy of that attention. When worship is led primarily by soloists or by small groups such as worship teams, praise teams, or praise bands, the “Look at me!” effect is almost inevitable. To be sure, a choir can be guilty of seeking the limelight too, but when a choir behaves like a choir, this does not happen. Having a biblically-literate, theologically-conversant, liturgically-sensitive choir director will ensure that this does not happen. A good choir director makes for a good choir, and a good choir makes for worship that is appropriately directed toward God rather than toward self.

I once had a fellow pastor tell me, proudly, “Our church has never had a choir or an organ, and it never will.” He went on to explain that they were designing their new sanctuary in such a way that there could never be any possibility in the future for a choir or an organ. It is almost as if that pastor were saying, “We want to do everything we can to encourage an entertainment model of worship, one in which the musical performers seek, and receive, the applause of men.” David saw fit to appoint choirs. (I certainly hope he “saw fit” to do so: God ordered him to do so.) The Hebrews of Nehemiah’s day saw fit to celebrate the greatness of God with antiphonal choirs. God saw fit to announce the birth of his Son with a mass choir of angels (Luke 2:13-14). He sees fit even now to have choirs of elders, cherubim, and saints adoring him eternally through the use of a responsorial and antiphonal liturgy (Rev. 4-5).

Start a choir. If you already have one, start more. No matter what the “conventional wisdom” says these days, choirs are not outmoded. Choirs can never be outmoded. Choirs in worship are there by God’s design, not man’s. Do we really think we can improve on his idea?

Lots of Christians publicly shaming other Christians about days, from “Oh no, I don’t celebrate Christmas: I’m a REFORMED Presbyterian!” to “If you are cancelling services on Sunday, you don’t love Jesus.” “One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.” (Romans 14:5 ESV) We are not “cancelling” the Lord’s Day service: we are holding it on Saturday evening. A biblical day begins at sundown the night before. That’s why the calendar says Chanukah began today but the first candle was lit last night. This is why many Catholic churches have Vigil Masses every Saturday night. This is why the Great Vigil of Easter and Christmas Eve even EXIST. We should not judge the thoughts and intents of others’ hearts: we can’t see in their hearts. Don’t assume that just because a church is having services on Christmas Eve (which after sundown IS Christmas, AND the Lord’s Day) and not Christmas Day, don’t assume it’s because they put the family ahead of God.

Our church is very small. We had to make a decision: do we have Christmas Eve only, Christmas Day only, or both? We made the decision, as we did six years ago, to have Christmas Eve only, because 1) our service is beloved by many in the community, including many who are not members of our church; 2) Many of our members go away on Christmas and would thus miss any and all Christmas worship were we to have Christmas Day only; and 3) Two services are impractical for our church as many of our members travel up to an hour to be at worship. If we were large enough to need two services, they would be identical: one on Christmas Eve and one on Christmas Day.
(Cross-posted from my Facebook page.)

If you observe the day, observe it to the Lord (Rom. 14:6), whether it’s after sundown on the 24th, on the morning of the 25th, or both. Don’t judge other believers as “unspiritual” if they choose to worship at only one of these times and not both. If you think you’re “too Reformed” for Christmas, stop looking down your nose at those who see benefit in setting aside a particular day (or better, 12 days!) to celebrate the Incarnation.

Of all my Catholic friends, I don’t know any who look down on fellow Catholics who worship on Saturday night instead of Sunday morning. In the same way, in the Jewish community it is simply a matter of preference if one goes to Shul on Friday night or Saturday morning. Think of the message we Protestants send to the watching world when one group is so hateful to another for worshiping 15 hours ahead of their schedule!

Since yesterday was Gaudete Sunday, I’ve personally lightened up and have actually had the radio on the “all Christmas music, all the time” station a few times yesterday and today. In that brief time, I’ve already heard all I want to hear of most, if not all, of the deeply secular works out there. I’ve also formulated, and will now share with you, this humble (OK, semi-humble?) Christmas Music Manifesto:

• Except for church-hymn type Christmas songs (”O Come All Ye Faithful,” “Silent Night,” etc.), most Christmas songs on the radio are essentially novelty songs, which means they don’t improve with multiple versions. In other words, once Andy Williams recorded “The Most Wonderful Time of the Year,” we didn’t need any more versions, ever. This especially includes Amy Grant’s remake with the cringe-worthy faux English accent that she stole from Carrie Fisher in Star Wars.  Bing Crosby gets “White Christmas.” Remakes don’t add anything.
• LDB:  Everyone knows I’m not a big fan of The Christmas Song That Must Not Be Named, but for Christ’s sake (literally), if you’re going to sing it, at least sing it right.  It’s “Baby Jesu,” not “little baby.”  It’s “Mary nodded,” not “then he nodded.” Do you want people to think this is just about some random baby out there instead of Baby Jesus?  Don’t answer that.
• “Sleigh Ride” was originally conceived as a miniature tone-poem depicting (wait for it) a sleigh ride through the snow, complete with clip-clop effects, sleigh bells, the sound of a whip crack, and a horse’s whinny effect on the trumpet. It was written by Leroy Anderson, who wrote many other such tone poems, including “The Typewriter” and “Jazz Pizzicato.” It’s delightful, as an instrumental. ONLY as an instrumental.  The words came much later. The words are stupid. “Sleigh Ride” should not be done with words.
• Especially if the stupid-words version of “Sleigh Ride” is being sung by Air Supply.  I’m pretty sure that’s one of the signs of the Apocalypse.
• Aaron Neville should never be permitted to sing anything, ever. Even in private.
• If you’re going to record a church-hymn type of Christmas song, please leave the American Idol-style melismas at the recording studio door. We do not want to sing  along with your vocal acrobatics, and Baby Jesus is crying more about what Whitney and Mariah are doing to these songs than he is about the fact that some kid is playing a drum in his face while he’s trying to sleep (as if the cows aren’t distracting enough).
• “My Favorite Things” is not a Christmas song. Neither are “Let It Snow,” “Baby, It’s Cold Outside,” “Winter Wonderland,” “Marshmallow World,” or “Frosty the Snowman.” So stop it already.
• I meant what I said about Aaron Neville.
• The arrangement of the Pachelbel Canon with a boy choir singing about Santa Claus is both stupid and creepy. Singing about Santa Claus with an air of religious devotion is nauseating.
• At least Aaron Neville isn’t singing along with the boy choir.
• At this very moment, Aaron Neville is probably entering a recording studio to overdub some egregious melismas over that boy choir Pachelbel Canon Santa hymn.
• “Linus and Lucy” and “O Tannenbaum” by Vince Guaraldi are not the only jazz recordings associated with Christmas. Miles Davis’ “Blue Xmas (To Whom It May Concern)” is pure gold, as is Lambert, Hendricks, and Ross’s “Deck Us All With Boston Charlie,” yet these never get any airplay. Fix that, right away.
• No, Aaron Neville does not count as jazz.
• Any song that is based on email glurge should be permanently outlawed. You know what I’m talking about.

[The following is a response to an editorial in Sunday's (11/27/2011) Ruston Leader. Since I could not contact the original author to discuss this personally (he is on vacation all week) I decided not to send this in to the paper but to send a copy to the author of the original editorial and to post my response on this, my personal weblog. My reason for writing this response is not primarily over the issue of Sunday alcohol sales, but of what is (in my estimation) the original author's misuse of Scripture.]

There has been considerable debate lately over the issue of Sunday alcohol sales here in Ruston, and as may be expected here in the “Bible Belt,” the words of Scripture itself have been drawn into the discussion. Recently another area pastor offered his opinion on these pages. He stated, “I am responsible to God for where I stand and only seek God’s approval.” I agree: that is what every minister of the Gospel should do. As Martin Luther said, “My heart is captive to the Word of God.”

The issue at hand is not alcohol sales per se, but alcohol sales on Sundays in particular. It has been mentioned that Sunday is called the Lord’s Day, and I completely agree that we should honor the first day of the week (Sunday) as the Lord’s Day. But I will go one better: instead of fighting against Sunday alcohol sales in isolation, why not oppose sales of any kind on the Lord’s Day? The Westminster Shorter Catechism (1647) states, “The Sabbath is to be sanctified by a holy resting all that day, even from such worldly employments and recreations as are lawful on other days; and spending the whole time in the public and private exercises of God’s worship, except so much as is to be taken up in the works of necessity and mercy.” That means no shopping, no eating in restaurants, no attending sporting events, no going to movies, etc. It means honoring the whole day, not just the hour between 11:00 a.m. and noon. In the South, the “blue laws” that once held sway earned their name from the “true blue” Presbyterians who, out of their conviction about the Fourth Commandment, sought to maintain this kind of esteem for the Lord’s Day. Under the blue laws, only “works of necessity and mercy” (as the Catechism says) were allowed on Sundays. Hospitals and pharmacies were open. Police and firefighters were on the job. “Farm stores” were permitted to be open, selling necessities such as milk and bread, but the grocery stores, and certainly the shopping centers, were shut tight. If Ruston residents want to advocate for such “blue laws,” they will certainly find stronger historical and scriptural warrant. Singling out alcohol sales alone, however, is not a position which enjoys such biblical support.

The previous editorial went further than merely opposing Sunday alcohol sales by strongly implying that alcohol and the alcohol industry, in and of themselves, are inherently evil and immoral. That editorial closed with a quotation from the Old Testament book of First Kings which the author employed to liken the decision on Sunday alcohol sales to a choice between God and Baal.  Baal was a Canaanite fertility god whose name was later used by Christians to denote a demon or even the devil himself (Ba’al Z?bûb or Beelzebub.) As one whose heart is captive to the Word of God, I have to ask: is this a fair comparison? Is the consumption of alcohol in and of itself immoral? Is liquor in and of itself destructive? Is the “liquor industry” in and of itself an immoral business in which no God-fearing person should be involved?

The Psalmist says to God, “You cause the grass to grow for the livestock and plants for man to cultivate, that he may bring forth food from the earth and wine to gladden the heart of man (Ps. 104:14-15, ESV, emphasis added).” Wine was God’s idea, not man’s. As soon as a grape is crushed, the yeast on the grape’s skin begin to feed on the sugars inside the grape, creating wine. Unless this natural process is halted by an unnatural, manmade one (Pasteurization), wine is simply what happens when a grape is crushed. (The notion that the wine Christ drank in the Bible was unfermented grape juice is a fiction and an impossibility.)

Jesus’ first miracle was creating wine at the wedding of Cana in Galilee (John 2:11), and it wasn’t just any wine: it was “the best wine.” That title would hardly apply to Welch’s grape juice or reconstituted fig-paste (another fiction I’ve heard put forward before). Jesus enjoyed good food and good wine so much that his detractors called him “a glutton and a drunkard” (Matthew 11:19, ESV). To be sure, Jesus was neither of those things, but had he not been known to enjoy the good things of God’s creation, including wine, such an accusation would not have been made.

In Deuteronomy, God instructs his people to take their tithe and do this: “Spend the money for whatever you desire—oxen or sheep or wine or strong drink, whatever your appetite craves. And you shall eat there before the Lord your God and rejoice, you and your household (Deut. 14:26, ESV).” Since God does not have a problem with his people buying wine or “strong drink” (mead, ale, or beer), there is obviously no prohibition against selling those items either. There is nothing immoral in God’s eyes about selling alcohol. (It also appears, from this passage, that God would not be opposed to Mr. Scott Terry, or anyone else, buying his mom a drink for Mother’s Day.)

Yes, the Bible warns us against drunkenness, but it also warns us against gluttony and other sins of overindulgence.  Do we then suggest that the baking industry is immoral, since so many Americans are obese? Should pies and cakes be made illegal, or even sugar itself, since overeating is an epidemic in this country? To quote Martin Luther again, “Do not suppose that abuses are eliminated by destroying the object which is abused.  Men can go wrong with wine and women.  Shall we then prohibit and abolish women? The sun, the moon, and the stars have been worshiped.  Shall we then pluck them out of the sky?” Prohibition will not cure substance abuse, whether that substance is beer or Twinkies.

If Ruston residents are opposed to Sunday alcohol sales on personal grounds, that is fine, and they have every right to express their opinion; however, to say that this is a choice between “God and Baal” is uncharitable, misleading, and biblically indefensible. No matter the outcome, I trust the Ruston City Council will make this decision based on what is truly in the best interests of our community as a whole, not on the assumption that one side of the debate represents “God’s position” and the other side is “evil.” This is a matter of conscience and personal liberty, not one of divine Law.

No, I’m not about to tell a joke that refers to a recent tragedy. It’s not that kind of “too soon.”

It’s an all-too-familiar gripe with me, to be sure. If you’ve ever talked to me for any length of time, you know this is a soapbox of mine.

But please, hear me out. Please.

It’s about Christmas Creep. Particularly (for today’s post, anyway) the radio stations in this country that have already started playing non-stop Christmas music. Many did so the day after Halloween. November 1. All Saints’ Day. 55 days before the beginning of the Christmas season. [Read more →]

A discussion over on someone’s Facebook page the other day reminded me that there are still a lot of people who take Jack Chick tracts very seriously, as well as Mike-Warnke-type people on the evangelism circuit who make sensationalistic claims about having a history with some kind of Satanic cult.  The “Halloween is of the devil” school is alive and well.

I don’t buy a word of it, as you know if you’ve read this article before. I find it interesting, for example, that my parents’ generation had never heard of any of these sinister “true origins” of Halloween. Nor had any of their parents’ generation. All of a sudden in the 1970s, stories of “Satanic” Celtic druids practicing human sacrifice to the “lord of death” named Samhain began to make the rounds, mostly in Fundamentalist circles. It was pretty much the same time that those petitions began circulating alleging that Madalyn Murray O’Hair was about to remove all religious programming from the airwaves. It was also the same time the story was circulating that NASA had discovered the “missing day” mentioned in the book of Joshua.

The O’Hair petition was a fraud. So was the NASA story. So, too is the “Samhain the lord of death” story. “Samhain,” as I’ve mentioned before, simply means “summer’s end.” “Samhain” in Irish Gaelic is nowadays the common name for the month of November. (And no, it’s not “Sam Hane”:  it’s pronounced “sow-en.”) The Celts did not have Satan or demons in their belief system. They did not have a “lord of death” named Samhain. All the other anti-Halloween propaganda falls apart when you take out this piece of the puzzle. It’s a house of cards.

But, WHAT IF it all were true?  What then? Well, then, I’d say, “So what?” What if the Jack-O-Lantern, Trick or Treating, and all the other common Halloween activities had pagan origins? Would that “prove” that it is wrong for a Christian to do these things?

In St. Paul’s day, you could get a really good deal at the meat market on meat that had been sacrificed to pagan idols. Some Christians, wanting to be good stewards (they must have been the first Presbyterians) would buy this bargain meat and thought nothing of it. Other Christians were horrified. After all, this meat had been a part of a demonic, pagan ritual, offered up to Zeus, or Hermes, or whomever, in a p-p-p-pagan t-t-t-temple! Lips that touch idol-meat will never touch mine!

What does Paul say about it? “We know that an idol is nothing, and there is no God but one.” (I Corinthians 8:4)  In other words, an idol is just a piece of wood, metal, or stone, so big deal if the meat has been “offered” or “sacrificed” to it.  It’s still just a piece of meat. Give thanks to God, and eat! But Paul also says this: “However, not all possess this knowledge. But some, through former association with idols, eat food as really offered to an idol, and their conscience, being weak, is defiled.” Not everyone is ready to accept that an idol is just a piece of wood, metal or stone. Some people still think that those idols are gods. The people Paul is talking about are Christians at this point, but they are, as he says, weak Christians, because even though they believe that these idols are the wrong gods, they “do not possess the knowledge” that an idol is nothing.  Paul’s word to their bargain-conscious fellow believers is:  if you know you’re having people over for dinner who still think an idol is some kind of god, don’t bring out the idol meat: save it for a meal when they’re not there. “Don’t cause your brother to stumble” here means “don’t cause him to sin.” Is it a sin to eat that meat? Paul says no. No big deal. An idol is nothing. But if someone considers it to be a sin, Paul says, to that person, it is a sin, because his own conscience is violated. So, if you think “Samhain the lord of death” exists and going door to door for candy is in some way linked to him, then do not violate your conscience by participating. At the same time, I’d echo the apostle Paul:  an idol is nothing. There is no God but one. There are not two gods in this world–a good one (God) and a bad one (Satan). That’s not Christianity: that’s Zoroastrianism.

Now, is there a difference between the Fun Size Snickers in the bag at Target and the Fun Size Snickers collected during an evening of Trick or Treating?  Some would think so. I say no. Even if there ever were a “Samhain the lord of death” (which there wasn’t), he’s an idol, and an idol is nothing. So big deal.

The larger picture is:  a symbol only has the meaning we invest in it now. I really don’t care if someone a long time ago thought that a Jack-O-Lantern was a trapped soul or some such rubbish. To me, and to my children, it’s a funny face on an autumn squash. It’s a chance to show off our creativity as we see what we can make this year. It’s a great whole-family activity.  I don’t care if there were people who went from house to house to make mischief centuries ago, or if someone somewhere dressed up like dead people to be possessed by the dead person’s spirit, or whatever those people on TBN say. We dress up our kids like cowboys, ballerinas, and superheroes, in search of Milky Ways and Pixie Sticks.

So bobbing for apples was originally a divination attempt? So is tossing the wedding bouquet. Wedding rings originated with the “pagan” Egyptians. Bringing greenery into the house for Yule, ahem, Christmas, is “pagan” in origin. When you open a fortune cookie, are you really trying to participate in divination, or is it just a fun thing to do?

Finally, on Halloween we have a choice either to be engaged with our community or to retreat from it:  to be good neighbors or to be isolationists. We can open the front door, have lots of good candy on hand, and get to know our neighbors, showing them some good Christian hospitality, or we can be miserly and crabby, turning out the lights and pretending we’re not home. Or we can have a fortress mentality and hole up in our churches for “Hallelujah-ween” or something equally goofy. What would the one who broke bread with outcasts and “sinners” do?

Fun Sized Snickers Sacrificed to Idols?  I’ll take a handful, please.