A few years ago when I was in Salisbury, my wife and I attended an evensong in Salisbury Cathedral. The choir 
was exquisite and the acoustics perfect. In the bulletin was a notice to the effect that the congregation should not join in with the choir since it would almost certainly ruin the whole performance.
What the comment revealed was that the evensong was primarily an aesthetic rather than a religious experience: the choir were the performers and the congregation the audience. The performance made the paltry efforts of the average congregational singing sound like the caterwauling of tormented hyenas. The choir’s singing, on the other hand, conveyed a sense of God’s majesty and perfection. What it was not, however, was an act of congregational worship, since an expression of worship takes participation.
Sadly, in liturgical churches aesthetics are frequently mistaken for worship: when we worship, God is the audience, the congregation are the performers and, if their hearts are right with him, the apparent aesthetic value is of little consequence.
That is why this article by Damian Thompson is thoroughly mixed up:
Graham Kendrick, composer of the most loathed of all happy-clappy hymns, “Shine Jesus Shine”, has been named by Quentin Letts in a new book as one of the 50 People Who B*ggered up Britain. I can hear cheers emanating from pews up and down the country.
But Quentin is an old friend of mine, and I want to tell him: be careful. Kendrick is not one of the useless, drippy mediocrities who have ruined Catholic music with their folk Masses. He is – and I’m not making this up – a leading practitioner of what he calls “spiritual warfare”, and he may well conclude that Letts’s attack is demonic.
Letts certainly pitches into Kendrick with devilish glee, describing him as “the nation’s preeminent churner-outer of evangelical bilge, king of the happy-clappy banalities … Pam Ayres without the humour”. And he adds: “The jazzy chorus of ‘Shine Jesus Shine’ is particular agony, accompanied, as it often is, by a couple of emotionally incontinent show-offs in the front pews raising their arms and swinging them from side to side.”
What will Kendrick make of that? I dread to think. For he is not just a hymn-writer, but a leading proponent of a scarily hard-edged theology of spiritual warfare in which the earth is crawling with demons. Or, as he once wrote: “Satan has the real estate of villages, towns and cities overshadowed by ruling spirits which work untiringly to bring about his malevolent will.”
As for the proposition that demons are at work in the world: does anyone who has recently picked up a newspaper have any doubts?
The photo of the raised arms is there just for Damian and Quentin.
I do think that there is middle ground here. We have an accomplished Choir of Men and Boys which is based from our church. Many who are part of the choir are not members of our church. As such they are part of our Sunday worship only once per month. The choir main activity is to go around and have evening song in area churches. There are parts of the evening song which is reserved for the choir, and parts which are song by the people. Depending on the church being visited there is sometimes a sermon. It is evening song and not a concert.
Is this a performance by the choir? In a real sense yes it is a performance. The members of the choir and the leadership of the choir send considerable effort in having a good performance. There is a real attempt at having a good aesthetic, and I do not see a problem with this whatsoever. Is it worship by the people? It is also that.
But I also like Shine Jesus Shine. It is upbeat, it is fun, it is refreshing. I tend to think as closed minded those who summarily reject praise music. I do think there is a element of aesthetics in where people elect to attend church. If praise music is not your style find a theologically solid church which does not use such music. It might be as simple as getting up for the early service.
The author of this blog is as confused as Damian. Cathedral or College Evensong is an Office celebrated by the community of the place. If outsiders attend, they should no more expect to join in the singing uninvited than they would if visiting a monastry at Compline. Cathedrals and Colleges do recognise and provide for the presence of others, typically with service books, which allow them to join in the spoken parts of the Office, and a metrical hymn, for which words are provided. Such hospitality should not, however, lead to confusion over the nature of the event.
Also, the debate about participation has gone beyond the dichotomy suggested by those who want everyone to be involved in as many liturgical actions as possible. Some actions – such as preaching – are proper to particular functions, and interior participation – such as listening – can be just as active as its exterior counterpart.
Ian,
It’s a relief to know that at least I am not more confused than Damian.
The evensong in question invited ‘outsiders’ to attend and I can’t help suspecting that the choir wanted a congregational audience.
Do you subscribe to William Temple’s view that: the Church is the only society that exists for the benefit of those who are not its members?
Obviously everyone should not preach at once; nevertheless, if listening is participating, I might as well stay at home and listen to an even better choir than Salisbury’s.
The notice you saw would not have been an advert for a performance. Salisbury’s choirs sing the offices day-in and day-out, as part of the regular life of the Cathedral community. To suggest otherwise is to impute motives and make moral judgement that the facts don’t support. That has the appearance of a lack of charity, and you may wish to examine how you got there.
I’d also venture that your view that those who don’t sing don’t participate is somewhat iconoclastic. Those who practice the ars celebrandi do so on our behalf and (assuming they do them well) to our spiritual benefit.
Ian,
Be honest, you’re a member of the choir aren’t you.
David,
Yes – I will give you an honest answer: no, I’m not, and never have been, and never intend to be, and to the best of my knowledge don’t know any members, their parents, brothers or sisters …
Regards,
Ian.
Ian,
In that case you should be their PR man; although I imagine you would say they don’t need one.
I greatly enjoyed my visit to their evensong and was using the bulletin comment to attempt to illustrate my point, not to belittle them.
As far as the need for participation in worship, we will simply have to disagree.
fwiw, many years ago, it was listening to Bach’s Bm Mass that dragged me reluctantly from atheism to theism (not Christianity). I could not believe that something so magnificent could be addressed to someone who wasn’t there.
Your generalizations about worship versus aesthetics in liturgical traditions is patent nonsense.
Steve,
Your generalizations about worship versus aesthetics in liturgical traditions is patent nonsense.
Do you think that is a well-reasoned argument?
David,
If you read my posts again, you may think them far more insulting than David’s. It’s just that when I called you a judgemental iconoclast I did so politely!
Ian.
Duh – correction: “… than Steve’s.”
Ian [10],
At least you appear to be acquainted with the concept of rational argument and attempted to employ it – albeit without effect.
Pearls before swine, David – just like that choral evensong … 🙂
Ian,
Well, in the evensong I was transported ad astra per alia porci; in your arguments, I fear, I am left earthbound routing for absent truffles.
The same thing happened when my husband and I were at Durham cathedral, and we were both taken aback. It wasn’t a worship service, it was a concert.
* Sigh * Puritans can be so judgemental and small-minded.