The "Old Style", Then and Now

In the early 1700s, when composers such as Handel, Boyce and Greene were writing music for the great cathedral choirs, the music in regular churches had fallen into decline. Most of the congregation couldn't read, so they relied on a clerk to sing out each line for them to repeat back. Because there were no accompanying instruments, the songs got slower and slower over time, and often the actual rhythm would disappear.

The "old style" is still used in some American churches today.

It got so bad that the educated members of the congregation would not even bother joining in. Eventually the church authorities decided reform was imperative, and with the gradual introduction of instruments and trained singers, the West Gallery style was born.

"Hark the Herald Angels Sing" in the West Gallery tradition.

The practice known as the “old style” went on for so long mainly because of the belief that good music wasn't important in worshipping God – only the worshippers' intentions. If they were sincere and wholehearted in their praise, what did it matter if the music was terrible? This attitude is also present in many of today's churches. I grew up in a Pentecostal church, and as I grew older, the standard of music took a sharp downward turn. But when I complained about it, I would often be shouted down with, “the music doesn't matter; our hearts matter!”

A factor in both eras is the fear of making an idol out of music. An idol is anything we prioritize over God – this can be money, time, an interest, a person – anything. Idolatry of music was, I'm certain, a big problem in the cathedrals. A lot of people would have gone to church primarily for the music. We see this now with regards to Christian bands; a lot of fans are more interested in fawning over the singers than actually listening to their message. In turning away from this, the smaller churches went to the other extreme and made music completely unimportant.

Another reason the churches shied away from improving the music was because they didn't want to make it too hard for the congregation to sing. It had to be accessible to everyone, so instead of encouraging better singing, they dumbed down the music more and more. It's a valid point – the cathedral music was sung by trained choirs, not the ordinary people.

This is definitely relevant now as well, as the low quality of popular music means that many people cannot sing properly. The church has always taken in influences from secular culture, and this is especially the case with music. In an attempt to stay “relevant” to young people, many churches imitate the current popular music in worship – shoddy vocals, overpowering percussion, banal melodies and all.

So much for the excuses. But they aren't justifications at all. It's entirely possible to focus on writing good music without putting it above God. Yes, the danger will always be there, but if we avoided anything that could possibly lead us the slightest bit astray...well, we may as well become hermits. Likewise, it doesn't have to be overly complex – with a bit of practice, the West Gallery songs were within the ability of the ordinary parishioner; or for a current example, my favourite worship song:

Shout to the Lord

And as for enthusiasm being the only thing that matters...Yes, that is true. God cares most about what's in our hearts, not what we sound like to others. The worst singer in the world could worship in song and He would be glad. But He gave us gifts to use to serve Him, and music is one of these. A songwriter serves God when she creates the best songs she possibly can – writing rubbishy songs is an insult to Him. A clerk in an 18th-century church should be encouraging the congregation to sing as well as they can. Enthusiasm is not just a feeling, but it's how we go about doing things.

But in the early 1700s, churches were completely ignoring any musical abilities among the congregation. Few, if any, would have had musical training, but the church authorities didn't even bother seeking out those with potential. If it seems odd to us, we have to remember that the opportunities we take for granted simply didn't exist three centuries ago, and most people struggled just to get by – they probably didn't have the time or energy to worry about skill that wouldn't put food on the table.

The situation today is similar, in a way. Music isn't sidelined in the church anymore, and those with musical gifts are encouraged to use them. However, often we have people writing songs or singing up the front when they really have no business doing so. In my old church, the worship leader is an amazing guitarist and singer. But he is a terrible songwriter. Yet week after week, the worship team play his songs! Again, it's putting enthusiasm above skill, and shoehorning someone into a role they clearly aren't called to fill. In both eras, musical gifts are not used as they should be, to the detriment of worship.

In writing in defence of quality worship music, I've focused on points that concern musicians, composers and songwriters. But what about the congregation? Does it matter for them what music is played? I think that it does.

Imagine you're an parishioner at the turn of the 18^th century. Off you go to church on a Sunday morning, ready to praise God. And then the music starts...it drags, it's dreary, people are singing out of tune...you're ready to claw out your ears. How can you possibly get into the mood? Unless you're singing of sackcloth and ashes, perhaps.

That's not an issue with modern churches. The everlasting drumbeat perks up even the most boring songs. Syncopation covers a multitude of sins! But the emphasis on upbeat, exciting songs can become rather one-sided. Jumping and down and yahooing isn't the only way to connect with God. One of the more ridiculous incidents I remember was at an evening service, when the flashing disco lights were out and everyone was jumping around in the “mosh pit”. The senior pastor came up the front and exclaimed, “I can still see people standing in their seats! You're not getting into it! Come up here and join in!” Ah no, I can worship quietly if I want, thank you!

The music used in church services should enable people to praise God in all kinds of different ways. Peacefully, cheerfully, repentantly, gratefully...But in both periods, a single dominant style of singing – dreary or hyper – forms a barrier to this.

So while the ideas behind the “old style” and modern church music are well-intentioned, they aren't quite theologically sound. Not only that, but sticking with only one style of music actually is a hindrance to worship. I've been wanting to get this rant out for years!