Classic Worship

There is no such thing as sacred or church musical style. Although there certainly is sacred music, the musical styles used in worship had their origins and development in the secular realm. The church simply appropriated the already-existing style and made it sacred by text or liturgical use.

Musical style in the church is a continually changing, evolving process. The small, barely noticeable day-to-day, week-to-week, and year-to-year changes eventually can be seen as something new and different from past practices. Occasionally there is sudden innovation, as there was in Europe about ten centuries ago when a church musician saw the potential of adding a second voice to the chant; and from that day on, the church sang in polyphony, a practice that had already been well established in secular music. When that music director stood to direct the choir in singing that first polyphonic chant, there must have been questions, protests, threats, meetings, and probably staff firings as a result. It may have been seen by some as a challenge to the established order, the acceptable way of doing things, and the way God intended the church to sing and worship. Eventually, of course, it was accepted; and musicians went on to add a third and a fourth voice. They added instruments — even drums, guitars, and synthesizers. Musical style in the church came to include words spoken rather than sung, rapped rather than chanted. And hip-hop takes its place in the long line of sacred style innovations, right along with polyphony, vocal choirs, female singers, jazz, and instruments.

Musical innovation in the church is seen as a challenge. "What's wrong with the way we've been doing things?" "That's the devil's music!" Or my favorite, "If Jesus could hear your music, he'd roll over in his grave."

The German philosopher Hegel analyzed the progress of history and philosophy through what he identified as the dialectic. Although he never used the terms himself, he thought of this process of change as having three aspects: thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. We can apply this Hegelian dialectic to sacred musical style. Think of the existing style, or the style used commonly in a great majority of churches, or even of traditional musical style (whatever that may mean to you) as the thesis. Something radically new and different comes along, and that is the antithesis. The two exist in tension, perhaps conflict, for a time, and eventually are resolved or merged in the synthesis. The synthesis eventually becomes the thesis, and the process repeats itself continually.

Think of all the innovations of sacred musical style that began as an antithesis introduced against the established thesis: polyphony, instruments, printed music, imitation, canons and fugues, drama, dance, multiple choirs and divided choirs, pianos, Swell boxes on the organ, hymns, praise choruses, projected lyrics, ethnic and indigenous music, recorded music, gospel music, jazz, 12-tone music, the Taizé style, and any number of modern styles finding their way into the church today. Each one was an antithesis to someone's perceived thesis; and they all have found — or quite likely will find — their way to a synthesis. It is the nature of stylistic change and development to innovate and incorporate, with each innovation finding its place and having its impact.

A February 18, 2006, article in the Dallas Morning News, "A Return to the Classics"by Sam Hodges, examines the recent phenomenon in some churches, including some megachurches, which were in the front lines of the worship wars over the past forty years. These churches are now seeing the need to offer a traditional worship service. Years ago, many of them disposed of their organs, pianos, classical/traditional musicians, choir music libraries, and hymnals; but many are now finding new life and large numbers of worshipers wanting traditional worship once again. Some are calling it "classic" worship, and many churches are reinstituting it as an alternative to their now long-established contemporary services with screens, praise music, and bands. Ironically, these churches first saw themselves as a contemporary worship antithesis to the established traditional worship thesis. Over the last thirty to forty years, we have seen this dialectic in many times, many places, and in most denominations. We've termed it the "worship wars," and the conflict has brought us great change and innovation. "Blended worship" and "ancient-future worship" are two ways churches have sought to achieve a new synthesis. Others have tried to accommodate both camps — thesis and antithesis — traditional and contemporary — by offering both styles at separate times. This would seem to work against a new synthesis.

Now we see "classic worship," an intentional return to a former paradigm. Churches that once intentionally identified themselves with an antithesis rather than the established thesis are now reintroducing the very thesis they formerly rejected. Now it has become, for them, a new synthesis. They have resolved the old thesis and their antithesis, most likely preserving the best and most successful characteristics of both. And the beat goes on . . .

Read more about the Hegelian dialectic in Wikipedia.