March 09, 2007
Special Interview with Bob
I’m in a strange mood. I think this happens every time I have three hard-boiled eggs in one day. So, since no one else is going to interview me about my thoughts and feelings on this conference, I thought that I would do so myself. For the sake of clarity bob in italics will be interviewing Bob.
bob: Bob. it is sure a pleasure to talk with you about the Shepherd’s Conference. You know I love your opinion.
Bob: Thanks, bob.
bob: Bob, before I get started, I just want to tell you that I really admire your —
Bob: Please, bob, this is not about me. This is about the conference.
bob: Ah, yes! That appears so humble of you, Bob.
Bob: Thank you. I intend to appear humble. Now, for your questions.
bob: Well, first of all, let’s talk about the elephant in the room. Seems like the music yesterday just rotted your socks. What did you think of the music today?
Bob: Well, bob, you know how I hesitate to speak too openly about my opinion on such sensitiv —
bob: Yes! I admire your reticent demeanor. That is one of your outstanding qualities that nobody seems to notice but me. Few people realize how much you don’t say
Bob: Yeah, right. Now let me talk. As I was saying, Christians are so sensitive about this subject that it is quite risky to offer an opinion. I mean, consider yesterday. My rant in the post on the guitar dude might make people think that I am either a foaming-at-the-mouth fundy or a dour Regulative Principle Reformed Baptist who thinks that anything past 1797 is heathen.
bob: What happened in 1797?
Bob: I don’t know. But, as I was saying, I simply make the claim that all, I mean ALL, Evangelicals and Fundamentalists alike claim when it comes to music: I’m balanced.
bob: So, let me guess: I bet you are going to say that you enjoyed the Keith Getty songs today even though they were accompanied with electric guitar and drums.
Bob: You know me so well, bob.
bob: Why?
Bob: Well, because, um, you’re actually me.
bob: Puh-leeze. You know exactly what I was asking, you idiot. How come you always think I’m an idiot?
Bob: Because
bob: Don’t answer that. Answer the first question. Why did you like the Getty music in this morning’s worship?
Bob: Well, they are singable. I’m not legalistic about the beat. How one determines a “worldly” sound is a bit of a subjective matter to me. But I am big on obeying what I think is very clear in Scripture. And, in my humble opinion, music that is used for worship ought to be theologically and CONGREGATIONALLY driven. If they want an electric guitar, I’m cool with that. It’s their business. But, I think that when the guitarist and drummer start acting like the congregation is there to accompany them then we have an issue. That was the case yesterday. I was vexed. Did that come through in my last post?
bob: Yes, it did. But I always think you are so crystal clear.
Bob: One thing I enjoy about you, bob, is your brilliance in understanding me. Some people think I am a split personality. Hopefully this interview will help.
bob: Yup. One day you sound like Scott Aniol. The next you sound like a willy-nilly, eschatologically-agnostic, yellow-bellied, man-pleasing, beat-loving. . .
Bob: Whoa! WHOA! Don’t talk like that about me. Are you confused too? Here is the difference. I’ll speak slowly so you can understand and then maybe when we get another opportunity I’ll tell you why I think you’re an idiot. The BIG difference this morning was in the musicians AND the leadership AND the singability.
bob: Did the guitarist wear a suit? The drummer?
Bob: Yes. The drummer didn’t wear a tie. He was in a suit. But he sat there stone till except for his arms, not drawing attention to himself. But you miss my point about the whole suit thing. I though I said yesterday that I could care less about whether or not people wore suits. The point I was trying to make is that when a church transitions to more modern music (and I LOVE Getty’s Hymns, by the way. We sing them in our church. Minus the drums) it often capitulates in subtle ways to reveal, I think, a soft spot in their underbelly about the whole issue of church worship. They show that the move is not for the Lord, but for the audience and they seem to compromise on their standards for who they allow on stage to LEAD (“lead” that’s a huge word in my point) the worship.
Today we had a man leading us without the sappy, obligatory soto voce that everybody thinks they have to have when they start to “worship.”
bob: Yes, true. And the singing was much better, although Scott Aniol probably didn’t like it. And, they had a “praise team” up there singing the songs.
Bob: Yeah, what was that about? I could hardly hear them anyway. Good looking kids, though. It’s not always a bad idea to amp up a few singers in case some songs are not well known. Maybe that is what they had in mind. I don’t know. I’ve been in a lot of places where the “praise team” is so loud that nobody bothers to sing. They just stand and glaze over for the whole concert.
bob: You crack me up when you roll your eyes every time you say “praise team.”
Bob: I’m glad I make you chuckle. Other people think I’m mad or something. But, really…. a “praise team”? How do you get on that team? Sheesh! The WHOLE CONGREGATION is the praise team.
bob: Shhhh. You seem to be beating that horse to death. ‘Nother topic. What has been your favorite workshop so far?
Bob: Rick Holland’s Any Given Sunday, Part 2: Effective Preaching demands purposeful execution. It was so helpful. So practical. Although, I went away from it feeling a little depressed wondering if I will ever learn to preach.
bob: Oh, come on! Snap out of it. You’re an awesome preac….
Bob: bob! Please! I said that to appear humble.
bob: Oh, yeah. So that was good, heh? What else are you enjoying?
Bob: I love the singing. I love the preaching. Steve Lawson and Mark Dever have been outstanding. I missed the first truly exegetical message of the conference (by Lig Duncan) for whatever reason. Can’t remember. Lawson’s message was using Acts 2 as an example of Apostolic preaching. I don’t think I’d call it a true exegesis of the text. But who am I? It was outstanding though.
I also like watching the church in action. They are so sweet and cheerful and helpful. A wonderful testimony. Got my shoes polished too.
bob: Um, that was me. It was MY shoes that go polished.
Bob: No, you wear the brown shoes, you dummy. And, let me go on, I have much more to say.
bob: You know, the thing I hate about talking with you is that you try to take over the conversation. One more question and we’re out of here. I smell coffee. Are you having good fellowship?
Bob: Well, bob, one would wonder if I am indeed having good fellowship if they were to see me talking with you, but the truth of the matter is that fellowship-wise this has been the richest conference yet. I am really enjoying the brothers.
Let’s go to our session.
bob: Actually, let’s go get a free machiatto.
Bob: Which one of us is Spirit-led?
Posted by Bob Bixby at March 9, 2007 01:49 PM | eMail this entry! | 1283 WordsThis entry was posted in the following categories: Conferences
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the music stuff. As a simple Brit I am with you all the way - except for the ties, but that’s another story.
I read recently a report from another conference stateside, “These people like to worship and they like to worship LOUD.” What’s all that about? Is that really worship or a rock concert? Is that God-directed or just what I like?
And “praise teams” or “worship groups”? I know! Let’s ditch the group and let’s ALL worship!
Meanwhile the content of songs becomes secondary to the style.
Like you, when in Britain we sang lots of Keith Getty and lots of Stuart Townend. We sang them because they are worth singing and they teach you stuff. They got something to “em.
Posted by: Alan Davey at March 9, 2007 02:06 PMHey, Bob. Nice post yesterday, by the way.
Setting aside for a moment any discussion of style, beat, rhythm, suits, or the wisdom in interviewing one’s self online (!), I’m always amazed when people claim that Getty’s songs are singable. Doctrinally rich? Yes. Singable. I don’t think so.
What has made standard, classical hymns singable is their straightforward melodic and harmonic rhythms — they have an easily memorable and learnable pattern. Most of Getty’s tunes don’t seem to have any regular pattern in the melody, that which really makes a tune singable. Instead, the melodic rhythms are quite irregular, although the harmonic rhythm is pretty simple and singable.
I actually recently went to Getty’s site and played through most of his songs, and the only ones that were really singable were the ones that were pretty standard hymn-like tunes with regular rhythm pattern —- hymns I would happily use.
So, setting aside the appropriateness of drums, heavy beat, or pop Celtic folk idioms, I question defending Getty’s songs on the basis of their “singability.”
Just thought I’d throw that in there, friend. :)
Posted by: Scott Aniol at March 9, 2007 07:32 PMScott,
I’ve never met you, but I can understand that you might not think Getty’s music singable. I would encourage you to try them, however. The first time I heard “In Christ Alone,” I actually thought it would be too hard for our congregation. They picked it up before we got to the last stanza, and it is one of our favorite hymns - including the children. The same was true of “The Power of the Cross,” and “See, What a Morning.”
There is a reason for this. Keith is a much better musician than most people know. He has directed large, well-known orchestras, written music for them, he is classically trained, and is one of the best pianists I’ve heard. He is very humble about all of this, however.
The other reason is that he is a perfectionist. I recently went to a workshop with him. He told us that he starts about 2-300 melodies a year, and usually puts out about 6.
The third reason is teamwork. He believes in working with someone (in his case, Townend). Included with this is the fact that he tests all of his music before publishing it. He tries it with groups of people, to make sure that it is singable. He is very vocal about trying to write for the congregation, not for the radio.
Not all of his songs will be around 200 years from now, if the Lord tarries. But I believe that some of them will be.
So, just a word of encouragement, try them. They’re very much worth it.
All those, and “King of the Ages” became a special favourite of the kids in our church.
Posted by: Alan Davey at March 10, 2007 02:46 PM
