Worship songs and men's repsonse thereto have been bouncing around in my head. On Sundays, I see less than 2/3's of our men actively engaged in "worship," a word that has in modern day come to mean more "singing" than anything else.
To lay my cards out, I think that many of today's choruses are effeminate (see my post, "The Effeminization of Worship" below). Because of this feminacy, men are shrinking from worship or ceasing to attend worship services. Choruses, to be certain, are not alone. There are songs in the hymnal that fall prey to this issue as well, but the higher incidence is in the CCM module adopted by most evangelical churches today.
One song that pretty much typifies my angst is "Jesus, Lover of My Soul." Ugh! Here's a few of the lyrics, "Jesus, Lover of My Soul. Jesus, I will never let you go...I love you, I need you...My savior, my closest friend, I will worship you until the very end." There's a lot of frustration for me in there. First, what man do you know that wants to sing the words, "I love you, I need you" set to the cadence of a top 40 ballad to a male deity?! Men don't like that; so they disengage - conciously or subconciously. Second, most men don't think they need anything or anyone. They don't ask direction, let alone ask for need for their eternal souls. This may not be the right approach to salvation, but it's a fact that we must acknowledge whem ministering to men. Third, "my closest friend?" That's not what men call their "buddies." Fishin' buddy, huntin' buddy, my pal, my "boy" - never my closest friend. It's subtle, but it's a descriptor more commonly ascribed to the female gender. Finally, "I will worship you until the very end." Uh-oh! If men are this apathetic now in worship, do you think it excites them to consider that they might be doing this for all eternity? I don't think so.
There is some good in CCM music, but it is few and far between. We need to get more music that consults the Psalter for inspiration. Many of the Psalms are "flowery" and highly emotional and, therefore, more feminine. However, there are, as I'm sure you know, many different types of Psalms. There are the Royal Psalms which talk about the majesty and power of God, Psalms that record David's confessions, Psalms that essentially teach the doctrine of the faith, Psalms of judgment, Psalms where the writer Pleads for mercy or deliverance, and those Psalms that are simply filled with praise. It seems that those who do solicit songs based on the Psalms usually pull from the last category of Psalms, and leave out many of the others. And even in the more "flowery" ones the more "manly" parts are left out.
For example, let's take Psalm 8.
1 O LORD, our Lord,
how majestic is your name in all the earth!
You have set your glory
above the heavens.
2 From the lips of children and infants
you have ordained praise
because of your enemies,
to silence the foe and the avenger.
This is where most songwriters stop. The focus is on the praise, on the adulation, and the ascribing of glory to our God. Nothing wrong with that, but it is, certainly, incomplete. Oh, and v. 2, if any of it is used, it will quote the first two lines, but leave out the part about avenging and enemies. That's judgment, a more masculine quality. But, isn't it juxtaposed against the praise of babes? When did you last see that in a CCM chorus?
3 When I consider your heavens,
the work of your fingers,
the moon and the stars,
which you have set in place,
Here the modern songwriter picks up again, includes a bit about how awesome God's creation is, how pretty, how lovely, and how it was started by him. But they leave out....
4 what is man that you are mindful of him,
the son of man that you care for him?
This requires self-examination and sincere reflection. That's not often in the modern praise chorus.
5 You made him a little lower than the heavenly beings
and crowned him with glory and honor.
Crowned with glory and honor?! That's pride! That's status! Not something to be sung in a church preaching on humility!
6 You made him ruler over the works of your hands;
you put everything under his feet:
7 all flocks and herds,
and the beasts of the field,
8 the birds of the air,
and the fish of the sea,
all that swim the paths of the seas.
Ruler? Manager? Forager? Hunter? Farmer? Steward? Aren't these talking about many 'manly' characteristics? The modern songwriter doesn't often include these words. If they do, the focus of the song is more on the buccolic, or couched in a way that suggests that man needs to get along with animals like the quintessential lion and lamb. Why not teach the men and boys of our congregations that not only is it ok to be a manager, here's how to understand your managerial role: God put you in charge; therefore, do it well, b/c you answer to him.
9 O LORD, our Lord,
how majestic is your name in all the earth!
Back to the likeable language. But did you notice the in between? See how wonderfully balanced this Psalm is? Even though this Psalm is well-balanced, what song is going through your head right now? I wager it is that chorus, "O Lord our Lord, how ma-jes-tic is your na-ame in all the Earth....Ohoooo Lord, our Lord, we magnify your na-hame, Prince of Pe-heace, Mighty God, Oh-ho Lo-ord God almi-highty!" (The hyphens are the breath/slides I remember from the Amy Grant version of the song). Maybe that's a different Psalm, but why not include the verses that are in between verse 1 and verse 9 of Psalm 8 in another, new rendition?
Others are like unto it as well. Psalm 149 spends the first 5 verses commanding the people to Praise God for this or that, to rejoice, to make music with instruments, to (gasp!) dance, to be humble. But the bottom half of the Psalm says this:
6 May the praise of God be in their mouths
and a double-edged sword in their hands,
7 to inflict vengeance on the nations
and punishment on the peoples,
8 to bind their kings with fetters,
their nobles with shackles of iron,
9 to carry out the sentence written against them.
This is the glory of all his saints.
Praise the LORD.
WOW!!! God wants to use my voice like a double-edged sword?! He wants to use me to inflict vengeance and punishment? To shackle kings and nobles? And you mean to tell me it's to the glory of God AND part of praise to the Lord to execute his just sentence on sin?!!! WHOOO-BOY!! This is the Christian equivalent of giving a boy a G.I. Joe during a worship service! It says to him that it is ok to have the indignation at sin, it's all right to use your voice and your actions to stand strongly against the most popular rulers of your day in the name of God. In other words, those strong, innately driven emotions of power and strength that the world says that you need to pacify or else your a chauvenist are actually encouraged by God and viewed as a part of praising him. Those innate passions must be focused into doing the work of God. Doing so allows the flame to burn as fuel for the kingdom of God without putting a wet blanket on their essential maleness.
I think those are some good examples and there are more -- there are 150 Psalms!! Then, you can look at Proverbs too, Song of Songs, Ecclesiates for similar content. Look at what the leaders in the OT did when the vanquished an enemy -- they wrote a Psalm praising God for his justice. There's just so much fodder for good, quality worship music! Please, just use it! The men of our congregations need it!
The point, of course, is that the focus has been only on those "flowery" Psalters (or portions thereof), and not on the powerful images of our salvation! That's unbalanced. Combine, as David and others did, the flowery with the powerful and you have one amazing worship service that will really challenge a man, not lull him to sleep and submission.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
this is a really interesting thought, and i think your evaluation is very wise and sensative to gender differences, in ways churches may be ignoring.
--RC of strangeculture.blogspot.com
I agree wholeheartedly with what you said about the Psalms and worship. I'd like to note, however, that God is emphatically not a male deity. "In the image of God He created him; male and female He created them." Both reflect the image of God; both proceed from the nature of God. So God cannot be spoken of as either male or female in an exclusive sense. To do either would disparage the other gender, as well as diminish God's character. He is not like the Greek gods--giant humanoids in the sky, who just happen to have superpowers. That would be a god in man's image.
However, God is masculine. We need to distinguish between the two. God is masculine in that He initiates (both in creation and in salvation), He leads, He takes responsibility for His people. For my favorite explanation of this, see Federal Husband by Doug Wilson.
Maybe I'm reading too much into the comment. Maybe you were simply referring to the fact that Jesus Himself became a man, and thus, in His human nature, is male. Granted. I just wanted to clarify that His maleness applies to His human nature, and not in the same way to His divine nature.
Alicia, You make a great point and one I had overlooked. Nonetheless, you are correct: when I say men are not keen on calling Jesus "Lover" or some other romantic descriptor during worship, it is based largely upon their recollectio that Jesus was a man. This makes them feel, to use the masculine parlance, icky.
Still, even when considering the masculine attributes, men have some difficulty relating in worship. I agree with your characterization that God made man AND woman in his own image. Yet, when men are asked to worship and love even the male attributes of God, it is difficult. Women are quite different in this regard. The difference is noted in how men and women, generally, form and build relationships. Women greatly enjoy holding hands (even with other women - without any thought of homoeroticism), hugging, basking in emotional moments, and contemplating flowery language. Women build friendships face to face, talking, listening, talking more, empathysing, etc.
Men, by contrast, build friendships side by side. If you've ever observed two men talking at a restaurant, you'll note that most of the conversation, the men are not looking at one another. If you get men working together on some project, they still do not look at one another, but while doing the work, the conversation flows - sometimes about really deep stuff. Men do not get caught up in emotional stuff as easily and certainly would be mortified (by and large) to be holding hands or hugging other men. Again, it's icky.
So apply those differences in worship and you might see where our modern understanding of worship - outside of just the music - gets tricky in attracting men. David Murrow, author of Why Men Hate Going to Church says, "Men are to worship as women are to sex." His point is that women in worship, like men in sex, are ready for it anytime, anywhere, and will look to do it as often as possible. Men in worship, on the other hand, are much more like women with sex: they need to be in the mood, it takes a while to warm them up to the thought, etc.
Now those are generalities and stereotypes, but the analogy is clear: Women will go out of their way to worship, they greatly enjoy it, they love it, and will find numerous excuses to engage in worship. Men will not. The question has to be asked, "Why the difference?"
Part of my answer necessarily requires an analysis of the worship environment that men must pass through in order to worship. Thus, since men find great encouragement in the logic offered by worship music, the words are of paramount importance. Since men are "turned off" by sappy love songs, the style of music comes into play. And, since men are excited about risk, adventure, and challenge, those attributes - which are quite uniquely male - must likewise be present in the worship service. But, by and large, they are not.
Hence, men are a square peg being forced through the round hole of modern worship. It's not a good fit and some serious consideration and analysis needs to occur if we are to reach the demographic that is most likely to bring in the most return (reach 100 men for Christ, get 95 new families - higher than any other demographic).
Amen to your critique of the worship environment. I myself, as a woman, disapprove of the excessive feelings-oriented, saccharin worship service.
I am fond of drawing distinctions, so I'll just do a couple more: First, there's a difference between "male" and "masculine." Masculinity is a descriptor of one's place in a relationship. Initiator, leader, responsible party. Men can be masculine in one relationship and feminine in another. (e.g., masculine w/ respect to their household, feminine w/ respect to church authority.) Same with women. (e.g., feminine w/ respect to her husband, masculine w/ respect to her children.) I said God is masculine; He's not male. He's the initiator of all things, the One responsible for His people, and the Leader of His people.
Second, I'd just like to recall that while your comments are largely legit, they need to always be tempered by the fact that the Bible itself tells us that Christ's relationship with the church is like that of Husband to Bride. The writers of Scripture had no problem with that imagery. Neither should any of us.
I'm not arguing with you. Just trying to draw some helpful distinctions.
Alicia,
Great distinctions.
Let me address the second, quickly, however. There is an increasing trend in Evangelicalism to read Ephesians 5 and other passages are requiring and idea people call, "mutual submission." In that thought, the marital relationship is devoid of the headship/submission mandates that I believe Eph 5 stands for. Because of that, some greatly disdain male (or even masculine) leadership within the home.
That greatly colors one's understanding of Chrit's relationship with the church.
If our model for how Christ interacts with his church is to be understood by the marital relationship, then it is incumbant upon us to understand that relationship. The "mutuality" folk, in disregarding the leadership role of the husband have done a tremendous disservice to their understanding of Christ's interaction with us.
When one understands that a husband's role is to love as Christ loved the Church, one understands that it means to provide leadership and directions, along with sacrifice and a longing to encourage his bride in the faith. Likewise, if one understands what it means to respect her husband and to submit to him as the church submits to Christ, then another understanding is reached. It is one of both relationship, following, active participation, and service.
But today's church, and especially with those holding to a "mutuality" doctrine, have allowed those understandings to pass by the way. Thus, we have neither gender understanding their marital role. How then might they understand their spiritual one?
As you might guess, I believe that this is yet another unfortunate consequence of de-emphasizing the masculine aspects of worship and our faith. And, it comes from portraying those male characteristics as something to be avoided at all costs.
In reality, it benefits both genders and Christ's church to instruct that both the male and the masculine is something to be valued and focused upon the cross. With its focus there, men (and the women they sacrifically serve) will be bettered.
Post a Comment