"On fear and the liturgy"
Those of you who have suffered through Catholic liturgical music understand this problem at a level that words cannot convey. For the rest of you, herewith my poor attempt. Imagine songs written by and for a pack of fearful baby bunnies prone to fits of night terrors. That’s what we sing in the Catholic Church.
Does that do it for you? Do you have that image of “fear”? It’s the syrupy (lying?) comfort of the distraught parent with the child who just won’t go to sleep. “Everything will be okay, dear little bunny.” (Contrast, just for fun, No Lullaby by Jethro Tull.)
So begins Greg Krehbiel’s post on certain lyrics found in contemporary liturgical music. His observations seem very similar to the (pre-Christian pagan) ancients’ views on “masculine” versus “effeminate” musical styles (see first paragraph).
7 Responses to “"On fear and the liturgy"”
Comments (Leave a Comment)
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
-
[...] was reminded of Greg Krehbiel’s 2003 reflection, “On fear and the liturgy” and my reaction to it when reading this passage. (I haven’t reread either, just pointing out the memory jog.) [...]
Leave a Comment
Follow CantemusDomino
![[SMMMHDH]](http://www.cantemusdomino.net/smmmhdh.png){kind=small}
![[Listed on blogs4God]](http://www.cantemusdomino.net/blogs4god.png){kind=small}
![[Valid XHTML 1.0]](http://www.cantemusdomino.net/xhtml10.png){kind=small}
![[Valid CSS 2.0]](http://www.cantemusdomino.net/css.png){kind=small}
Peace to all.
I find myself generally agreeing with Mr. Krehbiel. The “bunny-lullaby” style is epidemic among new ‘hymns.’
I do the print programs for my church, and the “new and improved” hymns in the pulp hymnal preferred by the folk group all look and sound the same. He hasn’t bothered buying a new copy of the Music Issue for three years (just the reprint license).
Magisterial, masculine, militant — those are three words I would like to see used describing new Catholic music. No more bunny lullabies.
I used to feel exactly as Greg does, until I read this post in the COL forum, and realized that there are people out there with real and legitimate reasons to cherish these sappy songs. (Henceforth I’ll be more careful in making jokes about “bunny lullabye” Liturgical music.)
This, from a courageous young woman:
“I did pick that song (“Be Not Afraid”) as the first hymn at my wedding. I didn’t walk up the aisle to the song, I did a processional. I love the song, and it wasn’t that I was afraid to marry Josh. I was thrilled to marry him, but there are many things to be afraid of coming out of college, moving, and having children, etc.
It was all things that I had never experienced. In the past few months (we have been married 6 months today), we have leaned on the idea and belief that God has come with us in everything that has happened to us.
Now, we are pregnant (smile), but it is still an event that leaves me pretty nervous and even a little afraid. The fear mostly comes from the what if’s. My parents are Protestant, and do not understand the anti- birth control. So, I have been lectured about what can happen when young people get pregnant so soon after getting married.
Josh and I went into this marriage trusting God to plan our family, and we have found peace in that. I was afraid the day I got married, but not about getting married, it was more about separating from the traditions and expectations of my family and going the way that I knew God wanted.
The song is/was a comfort to me through all of these changes. (sorry about the rambling, it is hard to put into words)
The other hymns in our wedding were “You Are Mine”, “I have Loved You”, and “Here I Am, Lord.”
http://forum.catholic.org/viewtopic.php?t=12049&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=30
I thought the combination of the two articles was laughably bad.
The second article talked about the push for chant over rock music. Sorry, but anybody who uses the tired argument about scientific reasons against rock music is just plain wacko. What’s wrong with the debate is not the question, but that rock music is so wide and varied that there’s apparently no way to put it all in one basket. For example, they talk, in passing, of a series of experiments that solidify this writer’s feelings. Well, what songs were used for the experiment? Are people aware that Dokken and Motorhead have a different sound, and thus a different reaction, than Barry Manilow and Carly Simon? And yet both sets would be classified as “Rock.” The artice was written by somebody who doesn’t understand contemporary music, and doesn’t bother to understand it because in his mind it is so evil.
Greg’s article is funny, because when comparing it to the second article, it made me wonder if there were masculine, war-like songs out there, signifying the spiritual battle. Indeed there are! And they belong in the… CCM rock section. Have you heard Petra’s “This Means War”? Or any of the other Petra albums? How about Rez band? How about Guardian? Despite misgivings of being a little bit dated, and an accurate rendering that these songs are for entertainment and not liturgy, how do you dare say that all modern Christian music is feminine? Whooey.
Nick
I’m not going to bother looking it up, but I have a feeling I am replying to the same person as the last time I posted here. (The diction and syntax are similar.)
Anyone who is trying to make a musical point and says Barry Manilow is “rock” has a credibility problem.
I don’t think either article (with which I don’t agree, by the way,) said ALL modern Christian music is feminine (not that that’s a bad thing — “feminine”:good, “effeminate”:bad.)
It said most of the bad stuff that gets played in actual churches is effeminate (and bad.)
With that point, from my travels, I’d have to agree.
I blame it on the insipidity (is that a word?) of the taste of the editorial boards of the most advertised, therefore most bought modern hymnals.
Couple of things.
I wouldn’t equate Manilow and Dokken, but the quote-scientists-unquote who declare “rock” as bad, would. They would declare it’s not about anything but the beat-the beat-the beat, which is something that heavy rock and Barry Manilow have in common. The contrast is between those musical styles that have any syncopation whatsoever verses chant, which has no such audible beat. To them, musical styles beyond syncopation are incidental.
And yes, I caught the point that the bad stuff in churches is effeminate. Can’t I just relish the contradictions–that the male-oriented gruff rock is found in the very musical style hinted at as immoral? Don’t rain on my parade, dude.
Nick
The first sentence of the article cited above says, “Philosophers and sages throughout the ages have asserted the decisive influence music can have on the character and moral formation of the young and on the formation of a civilization.”
Liturgists know that’s true, and they have an agenda to change the church, but they aren’t honest with the rest of us. They take cover behind modernisms, like “it’s all a matter of taste” and so on.