tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1530741222852255049.post2444864528900050249..comments2023-07-03T08:21:29.115-07:00Comments on Theology in Worship: Theology in Worship: Song or Sermon?Jonathan Powershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04156698508552110185noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1530741222852255049.post-81707544780506002852010-07-07T12:50:07.453-07:002010-07-07T12:50:07.453-07:00Abbi - I am with you on the "huh?" facto...Abbi - I am with you on the "huh?" factor, and was just thinking about that after I wrote my comment. There have been plenty of times nothing really seems to tie together and worship almost seems haphazard (or as I've also heard said, schizophrenic), rather than purposeful. Of course, this bleeds into other elements of worship as well. Revelation and response need to go hand-on-hand in a worship service. Of course, this means the response must be spurred from the revelation. I have recently been asking myself, how does the idea of revelation/response become an important way of considering worship flow?<br /><br />Kim - I often joke around that more people will be singing a hymn sung in church rather than reciting the sermon Monday morning in the shower. Music is a great tool at helping us remember.<br /><br />Music is also an important tool that has emotive power. Though some may at times fault on the side of being over-emotional in worship, some of go to a greater danger of eliminating emotion altogether in worship. I often fault on this side of things because so much importance is often placed on the cognitive aspect of worship. A balance we must consider is how to keep worship emotional without being overly so, as well as cognitive without being overly so.<br /><br />Another thought regarding your comment, talking about "just the music" brings up a very interesting thought. I had a professor once ask me if music without words is secular or sacred. Yes, the purpose it is meant for means something, but it is still interesting. If an organist were to begin a service by playing an instrumental version of "Freebird," some people may laugh while others got uneasy in their seats. (And I'm sure many just wouldn't care.) However, if the organist plays "Greensleeves," most people would find it fitting because we know the tune as "What Child Is This?" However, "Greensleeves" is an old, secular madrigal tune from Renaissance Britain. We have contextualized it with words. What does that leave the music itself as though - secular or sacred?Jonathan Powershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04156698508552110185noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1530741222852255049.post-90877182888542684762010-07-07T08:25:03.367-07:002010-07-07T08:25:03.367-07:00I would like to add that sometimes I get more out ...I would like to add that sometimes I get more out of "just the music" and not a word has to be sung. I can't count how many times I come out of a service, not remembering the sermon, but singing the song all day long!Kimerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05208861911269622230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1530741222852255049.post-40095782437434560502010-07-07T07:05:49.395-07:002010-07-07T07:05:49.395-07:00I totally understand when there is an unusual topi...I totally understand when there is an unusual topic and one has to choose songs that focus on something else, and even when songs might not present a unified whole but require us to meditate on it. But I admit I've been in services where the hymn choice was a "huh?" when compared with the rest of the service, as though the worship leader and the pastor/liturgist hadn't spoken to each other at all. And the "huh" part of the service does throw me off a bit. Now, it is my responsibility to refocus myself on the sermon, even if the hymns throw me off. But I will say it's easier if the hymns and scripture and sermon flow together.Abigailhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17112564675573375075noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1530741222852255049.post-26916754109510418502010-07-07T06:49:27.479-07:002010-07-07T06:49:27.479-07:00I completely agree. This has been my theology/meth...I completely agree. This has been my theology/method behind planning worship or a long time. I like things focused and flowing. However, sometimes I wonder if it's okay if things are unrelated. Do we still get theological truth, even if the truths focus on two separate things? For instance, it can be difficult to find songs that fit well with a sermon text on Samson and Delilah or the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, (yes, I admit those are unfair extreme examples). Could songs still do appropriate theology by focusing on God as Creator and King, even though the sermon may not mention these aspect of His character? I believe there is still reinforcement that takes place here, and possibly the songs help interpret the text in a different way. Regardless, you are well heard in saying songs should still not be randomly chosen. There needs to be intention and purpose behind the theology of what is sung. <br /><br />I will always prefer everything in worship to be a unified whole. However, when it's not, instead of criticizing the worship for it, I now am trying to find what theological truths are still being reinforced even when a song may not be completely related to other parts of the service. Sometimes we would just miss out on good theology if we didn't allow space for certain things that don't really fit with everything else. But they should still be placed intentionally and purposefully in the service. So I guess in that since, I still can't let go of the idea of a unified whole.Jonathan Powershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04156698508552110185noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1530741222852255049.post-44651211615241693352010-07-07T06:33:01.942-07:002010-07-07T06:33:01.942-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Abigailhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17112564675573375075noreply@blogger.com