PipeChat Digest #5120 - Wednesday, January 26, 2005
 
Re: "authentic worship" (warning: somewhat long with some theology - dele
  by "Jonathan Orwig" <giwro@adelphia.net>
three-rank mixtures
  by "Daniel Hancock" <dhancock@brpae.com>
Re: "authentic worship" (warning: somewhat long with some theology - dele
  by <Keys4bach@aol.com>
Any other new from Westminster?
  by "T.Desiree' Hines" <nicemusica@yahoo.com>
RE: three-rank mixtures
  by "TheShieling" <TheShieling@xtra.co.nz>
Re: suggestions for antiphonal ranks?
  by "Alan Freed" <acfreed0904@earthlink.net>
RE: authentic worship
  by "Emmons, Paul" <PEMMONS@wcupa.edu>
Re: "authentic worship" (warning: somewhat long with some theology - dele
  by "Jonathan Orwig" <giwro@adelphia.net>
Scandinavian organs -- large and small
  by "Jarle Fagerheim" <jarle_fagerheim@yahoo.co.uk>
Re: Question re hybrid organs
  by "Alan Freed" <acfreed0904@earthlink.net>
Re: Question re hybrid organs
  by "Bob Elms" <bobelms@westnet.com.au>
RE: suggestions for antiphonal ranks?
  by "TheShieling" <TheShieling@xtra.co.nz>
Re: Any other new[s] from Westminster?
  by "Robert Lind" <lindr@core.com>
 

(back) Subject: Re: "authentic worship" (warning: somewhat long with some theology - delete if this offends you!) From: "Jonathan Orwig" <giwro@adelphia.net> Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 13:20:57 -0800   On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 08:07:19 -0500, Charles Peery <cepeery@earthlink.net> =   wrote:   > Steven, and all, > > << what are we to make of very,=C2=A0VERY growing churches that have not = > compromised one iota on the mission or gospel of the church, = and=C2=A0yet > have found that a worship "style" has enhanced greatly the > attractiveness of the worship service to the community?>> > > <<Might those of us in traditional churches rejoice-in-excelsis when the = > contemporary church in our community reaches out with the authentic > gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ to another 50 new people EVERY WEEK?>> > > I guess my concern is that it seems that people are automatically > assuming the high numbers equate to success in spreading the Gospel. In = > other words, keying off of what Steven said, that 50 new people every > week HAS to mean it's all authentic. I'm not so sure we haven't > "compromised one iota on the mission or gospel of the church."   As in any situation, there are always the exceptions to the rule...   HOWever...   In my experience, the churches which have carefully and intentionally implemented these concepts also are VERY good at following up on their first time guests, getting newcomers involved in a small group setting and assuring that it's not just about bringing in droves of people, but also about making sure those same people have the opportunity begin a relationship with God.   > I mean, we know if you want numbers, it WORKS. In other words, choose > worship themes from the headlines, use music that sounds like top 40, > reduce all religious iconography to an absolute minimum, choose song > texts that are so simple and repetitive that people are free to delve > into their interior emotions, sway and lift their hands, claiming to be =   > in God's Very Presence. I am not trying to snootily look down my nose > at any of this. Unfortunately, my concerns are much larger. What I am =   > asking is: > > What if it's simply wrong? If you have to prove relevance (in other > words, people are demanding worship themes that "relate" to their > everyday lives and sermons that "teach us how to live", like the > self-help shelf at Borders), isn't that just training the worshipper to =   > ask "What's in it for me?"   Ok, let me ask you this, then...   Are the concepts we present in church irrelevant? Forget the method and the means of presenting them for the moment - ARE THEY IRRELEVANT?   If they are, we're wasting our time.   Now, follow that up with one more concept:   With an understanding of our society's comsumerist mentaltiy (and a bit of = agreement to one of your above coments) what if the majority of our society BELIEVES that the message is irrelevant? Do we say "the hell with you" and go on doing what we do with no attempt to build some common ground so we can begin dialogue? I am convinced that = the church and the Bible ARE relevant and DO present good concepts for living, but if = I PRESENT those concepts to people in a way that they cannot understand, it is similar to =   evangelizing in another country and trying to force my culture and style of worship on the = indigineous people because it is the only "right" way to do it. Rubbish, =   I say.   If anything that might be off-putting is > removed because it's too churchy, does that do anything to teach people =   > about worship or the church? Is the past totally irrelevant? And what is = > worship for, is it to go into a personal emotional zone, only > facilitated because we are satisfied? And are we training an entire > culture of people who enter a worship service for the first time and > engage in a mental check list for all the elements they "require" in > order to do what they call "worship"? This seems awfully exterior to > me. Would we accept such a mindset in, say, our workplace, and allow > people to simply claim they couldn't work unless all of their personal > satisfactions were met each time they showed up?   Ok, I agree that worship is for GOD, and us deriving enjoyment from it should be ancillary... but let me just play Devil's advocate for a moment...   If you were to enter a worship service like those you described above, wouldn't YOU "engage in a mental check list for all the elements you 'require' in order to do what you call 'worship'?" I think you know the answer to that...   > What about the claim of some mega-churches that the structure of these > services was strictly for evangelism, and not for worship? That their > regular members attended DIFFERENT services because they were more > mature Christians and needed more substance? And that other churches, > mesmerized by the numbers, copied the seeker-service structure > mindlessly and without providing the accompanying real worship services =   > for their seasoned worshippers? It's like the game of telephone, where =   > the original intent morphs into something quite different.   So, because some have chosen to copy the model imperfectly, we should just = trash the entire concept? Again, RUBBISH, I say.     > What about the very real fact that the large numbers are necessary > because the average attendee of a seeker service isn't likely to tithe? =   > What about the fact that they're also not likely to step right up to > serve on committees?   So, dollars in our coffers and people to serve in our ministries are more =   important than transformed lives? "We only want productive, mature people = in _OUR_ church - hurting, seeking and confused people need to just suck it up and get their lives straightened out THEN come and see us and be a part of our church - we can't be bothered with them otherwise" I believe if you study the teaching and life of Jesus, you'll find HIS heart was very softened towards the broke, lost, hurt and needy of his time. He offered unconditional friendship, love and healing BEFORE they ever made any changes in their maturity level or even their lives. Some chose to receive his message, some chose to reject it. So, if we claim to = be Christ-followers, should we not do the same?   > Not to be paranoid, but, say, IF you believed in darker powers, wouldn't = > it be quite a coup to dupe large of people to flock to something they > THOUGHT was the real thing, except it wasn't the real thing? Steven > said: > > <<Will we insist on doing it "right" for the few, and = criticize=C2=A0others > for doing it "wrong" for thousands of people who are being discipled in =   > the scriptures, doctrine and =C2=A0Christian living?>> > > My question is, what if there really is a "right", and a "wrong", and > numbers don't tell the real story?   There will ALWAYS be exceptions to the rule, situations where a good idea =   is misused or abused... we're HUMAN, for crying out loud, and subject to our imperfections and tendency to go our own way. There are churches with traditional worship styles where the lives of its pastors and staff are inconsistent with biblical teaching, and the worship service has become an empty meaningless = ritual... is that any better? (or worse?) The same accusations about inauthenticity of worship that you have just leveled at the contemporary crowd have also been made of traditional worship!   Music and worship styles generate an ENORMOUS amount of passionate debate =   - it's very difficult to think logically about these issues when they are =   so closely entertwined with our personal tastes and with the strong emotions that often surround making music. I think God must be grieved that we spend so much energy fighting about this when there are folks from = BOTH sides worshipping with true hearts. If we'd both stop spending so much time arguing about which is the "true" worship, and spend more time trying to do what WE were individually called to do, I think we'd be far more effective in our music ministry. If you have been called to be a traditional organist/choirmaster, do that with all of your heart, soul, mind and strength. If you've been called to minister using contemporary worship/seeker service type model to a postmodern culture that is largely =   unchurched and has no concept of absolutes, do that with all of your heart, soul, mind and strength. In both cases, don't judge each other harshly - support each other and rejoice that someone can reach folks that = YOU cannot.   Jonathan Orwig Riverside, CA   Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/  
(back) Subject: three-rank mixtures From: "Daniel Hancock" <dhancock@brpae.com> Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 15:34:54 -0600   Sebastian Gluck wrote:   >For the sake of balance and clarity, I would avoid three-rank mixtures, >unless very, very carefully designed.   What about three-rank mixtures makes them any less-prone to being balanced and providing clarity than a two, four, or five-rank mixture?   I ask in all sincerity and ignorance--   Daniel Hancock Springfield, Missouri  
(back) Subject: Re: "authentic worship" (warning: somewhat long with some theology - delete i... From: <Keys4bach@aol.com> Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 16:52:29 EST   In a message dated 1/26/2005 4:27:22 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, giwro@adelphia.net writes:   So, dollars in our coffers and people to serve in our ministries are more = important than transformed lives?     well of course not Jonathan, BUT-----will it be self supporting or will = the individual church close because there is no money coming in.....as to the =   point, that church we both know, and where i work gave up the 930 traditional service in service to the post modern cultural non absolute = seeker/Christian. attendance is down 400 people over last year and the other services have = not gained that 400 yet....i think it will even out myself and all will be = about the same come conference report time. However, the offerings are down 75%, and = we have made significant staff commitments to that service, including my assissississitant..........hooray, hooray, i don't play......<G> money will always be a wedge issue betwixt and between. if a person only wants traditional you are going to end up being a = Lutheran or Episcopalian, or high church Presbymethodist. the rest will blend or change or close. i hear Korea is looking for organists......... CAIO one and all from sunny Florida dale  
(back) Subject: Any other new from Westminster? From: "T.Desiree' Hines" <nicemusica@yahoo.com> Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 14:09:19 -0800 (PST)   Has the school made any statements about their situation? As far as I know, they have not contacted any perspective students that = have applied to the schhool.   --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'
(back) Subject: RE: three-rank mixtures From: "TheShieling" <TheShieling@xtra.co.nz> Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 11:16:56 +1300     >What about three-rank mixtures makes them any less-prone to being balanced and providing clarity than a two, four, or five-rank mixture?   Well, some people feel the top pitch of the Mixture should always be a unison rather than a quint, so to avoid a Mixture going = unison-quint-unison to quint-unison-quint at a break, they want a Mixture to have 2 or 4 or 6 rks. For me, though, that's over to the skill of the voicer and it makes = for interesting character changes as the scale ascends anwyay. Also, to me, = the break between not having the Mixture and then adding it is often too great and the Mixture is best divided into two, voiced and scaled slightly differently to enable a variety of lesser choruses than full organ.   It is, for example, silly at Coventry Cathedral to have the Great go from "Great to Fifteenth" to full flues by adding the only Mixture there, of 4rks. Ditto Wellington and Auckland Cathedrals here in New Zealand. If = they were split into two Mixtures of 2rks each, it would not only greatly = enhance versatility and useability, but also make tuning far easier, as a 4rk Mixture can be hellish to tune compared with two of 2rks each.   Ross    
(back) Subject: Re: suggestions for antiphonal ranks? From: "Alan Freed" <acfreed0904@earthlink.net> Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 17:41:41 +0000   On 1/26/05 11:26 AM, "TheShieling" <TheShieling@xtra.co.nz> wrote:   > I'll use that word "Pshaw!"   That IS Brit, right? Translation?   (Don't bother.)   Alan Freed, having a sour night      
(back) Subject: RE: authentic worship From: "Emmons, Paul" <PEMMONS@wcupa.edu> Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 17:44:56 -0500   Daniel Hancock writes:   > I think this topic has a strong relationship to the organ, especially as we consider how so many of us use it in worship weekly. Some of us have secure positions, and may not have to think about authentic worship substance in dialogue with pastors and committees (although, perhaps we should!). But right now, I'm being asked to expand my thinking about the role of the organ in worship music, and the role of music in corporate worship, and I appreciate the thoughts, and the resources shared by our list members both publicly and privately.   I agree, or would like to agree, and I thought that Chuck's message was very well written and expressed concerns that I also have. This phenomenon could well be something of a last gasp, in the manner of a candle that flares up and gutters shortly before snuffing out. But I don't want to just cry "sour grapes" or be closed-minded to all good ideas that it may represent just because I could never swallow it whole. Could they be doing *something* right?   Most Episcopal parishes, no doubt making a virtue of necessity, are proud of their intimacy and the level of pastoral care that naturally results from a high clergy/lay ratio. Only a small minority have as many as 1000 on the rolls. Set beside that, the megachurch phenomenon is so alien that I have no idea what actually goes on in these places or even how they have become established. Did someone go to the bank to borrow money for a big tract of land and an impressive building with the vision and promise, "This will be a megachurch?" Or did they begin like all others as mustard seeds that happened after a time to become wildly 'successful'?   In practice, too, one assumes that the experience is spiritually shallow; on the other hand, one hears claims that members typically attend a more-than-social church activity-- study, discussion group, or prayer circle-- at least one day a week in addition to Sunday. Not many 'main-line' congregations can boast of dedication like that. =20   Given its expense, it may be difficult to justify the organ _per se_ as a _sine qua non_ for Christian worship. We must beware, in our love, of becoming money-changers in the temple, whom I understand Our Lord upbraided for parasitically creating and living off an arbitrary *spiritual* monopoly. Frankly, I'd probably be happier in a church, such as my sister's, that had no organ at all and made no pretense of needing one, than in a church where the organ they had was routinely begrudged, poorly maintained, and whoever played it was continually harassed and besieged for trying to play it as it was built to be played. =20   The primary justification for the organ in church, to my mind, lies in its support for worthwhile, solid congregational singing and choral repertoire. Even this advantage is debatable if a congregation is content with an endless series of ephemeral ditties projected on a screen and accompanied/led by a praise band and a soloist blaring over the P.A. But little so easily absorbed will stand the test of time or is even intended to do so. Does such *rootless* practice do justice either to the faith's *radically* countercultural claims, or to the importance of group singing in Christian history? This phenomenon is so nearly ubiquitous, highly developed, and distinctive in Christendom that one must suspect it is a singularly appropriate reflexion or outgrowth of our ideals. If so, it is worthy of more than casual nurture, and to that end the support of the organ seems to excel or, in some cases, is even required. To that mast I'm willing to nail some colors.   These days, I'm in a beautiful little backwater, with a rector and congregation who are liberal and open-minded in their thinking without forever hankering, like the king et al. in one of Dr. Seuss's stories, to brew up some new liturgical oobleck. They sing well and don't mind learning new music, but in format the tried-and-true suits them just fine. It seems to be an unusual situation. Even those of us so fortunate can't take it for granted anymore.   On such philosophical issues the future of our instrument will depend, and I think that it behooves all of us to ponder them. In every music-education curriculum, future teachers are required to develop a convincing, or at least rational, answer to skeptics who ask "Why teach music?" We must now be prepared to explain why churches should have organs and organists.   Such issues may still understandably be ruled off-topic here because they can easily be so far-ranging. Under the name "Alogon", may I suggest, to all who do not yet know it, a wonderful venue on the Web, http://forum.shipoffools.com/, where we can discuss them to our heart's content, in fact it happens most of the time. The section "Mystery Worshipper," probably the most appropriate for them, is shortly to be renamed. Don't be alarmed if someday you find something a little different in its place. The section "Purgatory", for serious debate of all topics, principally with a broadly Christian or religious viewpoint, is also valuable. The hosting and monitoring of this entire site earn my constant admiration; their articulateness, understanding of distinctions, and sense of fair play and humor are a real credit to British culture.   If you need a teaser, the long thread "Organists behaving badly" is a hoot!      
(back) Subject: Re: "authentic worship" (warning: somewhat long with some theology - delete i... From: "Jonathan Orwig" <giwro@adelphia.net> Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 14:47:39 -0800       ------- Forwarded message ------- From: Keys4bach@aol.com To: pipechat@pipechat.org Subject: Re: "authentic worship" (warning: somewhat long with some theology - delete i... Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 16:52:29 EST     In a message dated 1/26/2005 4:27:22 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, giwro@adelphia.net writes:   >> So, dollars in our coffers and people to serve in our ministries are >> more >> important than transformed lives?     > well of course not Jonathan, BUT-----will it be self supporting or > will the > individual church close because there is no money coming in.....   hmmm...   Now you open another can of worms:   While I support a well-done contemporary service, I'm not so sure starting a contemporary service is always the right = answer. If the church is flourishing as it is, maybe one needs to leave it the heck alone. If there is a call for a new service format, it's better to try it first at an unused time slot (saturday night, mebbe) than to trash an already well-attended service. Again, I'm fully willing to admit that sometimes people are not wise about = the implementation of these concepts. I also think sometimes a seeker-targeted church model works better and is easier to start in a new church plant. I've seen too =   many churches hurt and handicapped by a sudden change in worship styles forced =   by well-meaning but misinformed staff.   > as to the point, > that church we both know, and where i work gave up the 930 traditional > service in service to the post modern cultural non absolute > seeker/Christian. > attendance is down 400 people over last year and the other services have = > not > gained that 400 yet....i think it will even out myself and all will be > about the > same come conference report time. However, the offerings are down 75%, > and we > have made significant staff commitments to that service, including my > assissississitant..........hooray, hooray, i don't play......<G>   An aside: is s/he doing it with excellence? (within the parameters of that = style of worship)   > money will always be a wedge issue betwixt and between.   indeed   > if a person only wants traditional you are going to end up being a > Lutheran > or Episcopalian, or high church Presbymethodist. > the rest will blend or change or close.     > i hear Korea is looking for organists.........   Hee hee   jonathan -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/  
(back) Subject: Scandinavian organs -- large and small From: "Jarle Fagerheim" <jarle_fagerheim@yahoo.co.uk> Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 23:50:04 +0100   Many have noticed computer translators' unability to cope with "organic" terms, but even when people write in their native language, lack of organ knowledge is easily noticed. Recently a local newspaper cheerfully reported: "Gr=F8dem church gets a new organ of 19 pipes". On the other end =   of the scale, we find J=E4mj=F6 Pastorat in Sweden, which is looking for = an organist to handle their "very good instruments, in J=E4mj=F6 church a = 1973 Hammerberg organ of 24 manuals".   - Jarle http://jarle.moo.no  
(back) Subject: Re: Question re hybrid organs From: "Alan Freed" <acfreed0904@earthlink.net> Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 18:11:44 +0000   On 1/26/05 6:34 PM, "Will Light" <will.light@btinternet.com> wrote:   > Thanks Jim and all - it's nice to learn something new at my advanced age! >=20 That's very true. More precisely, in my case, it=B9s nice to have enjoyed TwelfthNight dinner (and the following Eucharist) in Manhattan with Brits Will and Ros Light; at MY advanced age, I hope THEY felt younger for just that reason.=20   Alan Freed  
(back) Subject: Re: Question re hybrid organs From: "Bob Elms" <bobelms@westnet.com.au> Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 07:37:16 +0800   Will, it's not the physicval size of the pipe changing that alters the pitch. It is the density of the air column in the pipe. Warmer air is less =   dense and the beat becomes more rapid and the pitch rises. Cooler air is more dense and so beats more slowly. Bob Elms. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Will Light" <will.light@btinternet.com> To: "'PipeChat'" <pipechat@pipechat.org> Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2005 11:55 PM Subject: RE: Question re hybrid organs     > Is this the right way round Richard? As a mere physicist and not an = organ > technician, I would have thought that flue pipes, particularly metal = ones, > would EXPAND when the temperature RISES, and therefore get LONGER. = Longer > pipes equals lower notes which means the notes should, according to my > physicist's theory, get FLATTER. Is your statement correct, and if so, = why > does my theory fall down? > > Will Light > Coventry UK > > -----Original Message----- > From: pipechat@pipechat.org [mailto:pipechat@pipechat.org] On Behalf Of = F. > Richard Burt > > SNIP! > > When a cold spell comes along, the wind blown flues > will go flat. Most of the reeds will stay about where > they were, if they are made of good stuff and have > been properly voiced in the room. When the heat > waves set in, the wind blown flues go sharp. Again, the > reeds may stay close to their properly tuned pitches. > SNIP! > > > ****************************************************************** > "Pipe Up and Be Heard!" > PipeChat: A discussion List for pipe/digital organs & related topics > HOMEPAGE : http://www.pipechat.org > List: mailto:pipechat@pipechat.org > Administration: mailto:admin@pipechat.org > List-Subscribe: <mailto:pipechat-on@pipechat.org> > List-Digest: <mailto:pipechat-digest@pipechat.org> > List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:pipechat-off@pipechat.org> > > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.7.3 - Release Date: 24/01/2005 > >       -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.7.3 - Release Date: 24/01/2005    
(back) Subject: RE: suggestions for antiphonal ranks? From: "TheShieling" <TheShieling@xtra.co.nz> Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 12:44:42 +1300   >> I'll use that word "Pshaw!"   >That IS Brit, right? Translation?   Alan, Yes. Though old-fashioned, the word dates from 1673 and is a perfectly-acceptable term, defined in the Oxford Engl.Dict. as expressing contempt, impatience or disgust.   Used these days, it would seem to need a :-) beside it, as it's not meant = to be nasty, perhaps a bit like the "Yeah, right".   Both just Brit, but NZ as well, and therefore probably also of other Commonwealth countries.   Amiably, Ross        
(back) Subject: Re: Any other new[s] from Westminster? From: "Robert Lind" <lindr@core.com> Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 17:47:12 -0600   Maybe they only contacted prospective students who could spell. :-) RJL ----- Original Message -----=20 From: T.Desiree' Hines=20 To: pipechat@pipechat.org=20 Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2005 4:09 PM Subject: Any other new from Westminster?     Has the school made any statements about their situation?=20 As far as I know, they have not contacted any perspective students = that have applied to the schhool.