What’s Wrong with the World

I think the term 'cranky con' may have already been coined, as it has long been in use as a blogging moniker: http://crankycon.politicalbear.com/.

Zach beat me to it.

Okay, but does he _define_ it?

(All right, I admit, I fudged on my own definition, but still...I trrried.)

The truth is that there are very, very few true conservatives left - because to be a true conservative is to be a monarchist. Today's "conservatives" are simply on the right end of the liberal spectrum. It's only the centuries long drift to the left - since the rise of the Protestant heresy and then the so-called "Enlightenment" - that makes them appear to be conservatives. But in fact they're still liberals. It's like this: in relation to Hawaii, Utah is quite east; but in relation to New York it's quite west. Utah is today's "conservatism." Yes, I'm now fantasizing about New York being a monarchy. Tally-ho!

Lydia, i don't get the connection with Russ Taff. A liberal Christian might like this version of AG too, no?

Jitpring, I assume you don't consider the Windsors legit.

Lydia, i don't get the connection with Russ Taff.

Why don't you email him, al, find out where he stands on Lydia's issues, and get back to us?

A liberal Christian might like this version of AG too, no?

Sure, for its surface, not its substance. Wait. What's a liberal Christian? No links, please.

Al, it was an atmosphere thing. I don't actually know Russ Taff's politics, and it's true that some Christian artists are a bit shaky and flaky. I hope for the best in his particular case. But that group of Christians as a whole, singing, has a look that corresponds very closely with what I had in mind in the post and is the type of group often despised by the left.

I also understand from Eldest Daughter that gospel music singers are generally more conservative politically than CCM artists. Perhaps I should have embedded the song "Build an Ark"--now that one _really_ sounds conservative.

Another atmospheric point I was making with the video, Al, was to contrast the Southern Gospel atmosphere with the Cranky Con atmosphere. If this had been a group of Cranky Cons, they would have been sitting around drinking fine wine instead. The atmosphere in the video is emotional rather than intellectual, egalitarian rather than hierarchical, and Protestant rather than Catholic. And did I mention emotional rather than intellectual? In other words, this sort of group of people (a group that looks like that and has that relation to religion and to the values that mean most to them) tends to be, of course, despised by the Left as a bunch of Religious Right kooks and know-nothings but also, as it happens, despised by the Cranky Right as...religious right know-nothings and "right-liberal compromisers" to boot.

I ask this question not to be snide but out of actual curiosity regarding Lydia's views: what, precisely, is the problem with using MLK as a role model? I'm aware of the man's great failings in his personal life, and I'm sure you could differ with him politically in a number of ways (Vietnam, perhaps), but he still strikes me as a fairly awe-inspiring human being, in terms of his vision, his dedication, his courage in the face of persecution, etc. What am I missing?

I guess I was perplexed because AG is part of the canon and has been covered by just about everyone including lefties like Johnny Cash, Judy Collins, and Willie Nelson.

I think you misjudge us here, "...despised by the Left..." Frustration and perplexion is far more apt as these folks routinely vote against their own interests rightly understood. In this, times have not changed for the better. I usually begin May Day (happy May Day)! listening to Anne Feeney's "Joe Hill", no one familiar with our history is going to judge a persons politics by appearances.

kzndr, a few of my previous comments on King are here:

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/015376.html

In brief, I don't consider King a role model for a combination of character reasons and reasons concerning what he actually stood for. I oppose his political agenda (I do not believe federal civil rights laws should exist), so I cannot even laud the achievement for which he is best known. I cannot say, "Well, at least he accomplished something great." Moreover, his "personal failings" were particularly egregious and continued without apparent repentance or turning back up to the night before his death, which seems to me to have particular importance. I do believe in a hierarchy of such things. A man who had one affair years ago and put it behind him is one thing; King's on-going and never-stopped promiscuity is another. Character counts. I don't want to hold someone like that up as a role model for the young. I especially have a problem with the response I heard of one non-cranky con giving when someone brought this up about King. It was something to the effect of, "Well, my personal life isn't so great either." Since I assume that this man--who is a good friend and whom I respect--does not go to hotels where he is visited by multiple women per night, that comment was blatant moral equivalency and was misleading to the young (and it was an audience of teenagers in question).

I deny the whole private-public distinction in this area in any event, but King's problems go beyond that into the realm of professional integrity as well. We are supposed to call him "Dr. King," yet the plagiarism in his dissertation cannot be denied. So the title we're all supposed to use for him was ill-gotten.

Put all this together, and I honestly cannot find any good reason to hold up King as a role model, especially since the world has contained so many great role models throughout history whom the young would do well to know more about. At least King Alfred actually defended England from the Danes.

Al, I think there genuinely is "fear and loathing" against the Christian right on the left. Where you fit in there, I'm not sure. I suspect you are genuinely more urbane than some others--e.g., Brian L., who throws around the phrase "Texas Taliban" for _exactly_ the sorts of people I have in mind. Even as far as "Amazing Grace" is concerned, I recall reading an interesting review of "The Handmaid's Tale" in First Things years ago. The reviewer said (with some justice, it seemed to me) that when "Amazing Grace" is played during a particularly horrible scene during which the "Christians" who have taken over the country are doing something particularly horrible (which I will not describe), this use of "Amazing Grace" could legitimately be thought of as anti-Christian "hate speech." That doesn't mean he was arguing for criminalizing it. He was just pointing out the incredibly deep loathing of Christians expressed by that use of that song. To say that the left tends to "despise" the Christian Right is actually, in my opinion to understate the case.

Jitpring,

Clicked on your website. “Ferdinand and Isabella 2012,” I love it.

…but can they produce a birth certificate?

The future of conservatism in America could just look something like this. God bless it.

Lydia, I understand and appreciate your spirited defense of America's grassroots, salt of the earth, devout believers such as those shown in the video. I know many of these good people and am happy to call them friends.

That said, a couple of points briefly:

1. The scene in the video honestly gives me the creeps. I see a lot of probably sincere people who are nevertheless ripe for emotional manipulation. Unrestrained indulgence in emotionalism is a dangerous character flaw - a form of gluttony - and leads many people astray. People who habitually indulge in this kind of thing are not too far away from becoming prey to the next charismatic demagogue who comes down the pike, whatever he might believe.

2. There is a lot of individualism and spiritual "competition" in the video, a contest of demonstrations of piety - hand raising and waving, facial expressions, tears, etc., etc., manifestations of the religious individualism that is inseparable from protestantism, and I fear also a great temptation to spiritual pride.

Neither of these salient features can be said to be conservative, and I would argue that both of them, historically, have contributed to the dissolution of Western culture and the gradual triumph of institutional Liberalism.

Lydia,

Another shot right out of the ball park (Wrigley Field of course). My only complaint is that you should have voted for McCain! ;-)

Also, the two guys sitting next to one another seen at about the 3:00 minute mark (one has a really long white beard) scare me. But then I might also be a bit of a cranky con, which is why I love this post!

Folks, take another look, This appears to be a recording session. I believe I saw Bill and Gloria Gaither, so we have a small orchestra, a number of "names" (not sure, but maybe Brenda Lee?) and a goodly number of microphones scattered in the group. I don't think it's fair to either judge or over-signify them as a regular congregation of some sort as they are performers doing what they do (this isn't to criticize them in any way or question their sincerity, just the last couple of comments seemed to assume a regular service somewhere).

Dug a little further, from the Wiki:

"Gaither Homecoming is the name applied to a series of videos, music recordings and concerts, which are organized, promoted and usually presented by Christian music songwriter and impresario Bill Gaither..."

"The format for almost all of the videos in the series is very similar. A studio set or theater stage is home to a group of several dozen singers, with the front row featuring artists with longstanding and legendary careers in Southern Gospel music. They would be joined by younger artists, some of them up-and-coming acts in the Gaither Music Group publishing stable. Gaither would lead the group in several songs, with soloists and groups featured in additional songs."

Jeff Singer, I believe the long white beard may actually be William Golden of the Oak Ridge Boys (think "Elvira"). Amazing, huh?

Al, yes, of _course_ it's being recorded. If you knew gospel music you'd recognize a _ton_ more people there--see Ernie Haase? See Guy Penrod? Wes Hampton? Part of the fun of watching it is picking out the faces. It's positively star-studded. And Bill Gaither kicks the whole thing off with a wave of his hand. I wasn't implying that this is a church service. If it were, there'd be little kids in it. I was implying that the atmosphere there (which Jeff Culbreath picks up on very cannily in his interesting comment) is one that Cranky Cons would be uncomfortable with, but that that atmosphere is in many ways at the heart of the Religious Right conservatism that is actually--still, despite much that is undermining it--a force to be reckoned with in the United States, and to no small extent, a force for good.

Jeff Culbreath, I want to answer your interesting comment when I can do it more justice--hence, tomorrow.

Every conservative, Cranky or not, needs to watch this video documentary about 'Sacred Harp' singing, and not only for the music, which is astonishing.

The preservation and passing on of this musical tradition is a near perfect example in microcosm of how conservatives should preserve, maintain, and pass on to our children those things which we value and view as important. Note in the video clip, for example, how multigenerational everything is -- everyone from children to octogenarians is involved. And there is a marvelous section in the DVD where one of the participants gives a heartfelt speech about the importance of remembering and honoring those who've gone before, and how although they're physically absent, they're still "with us" by their presence in the thread of the tradition.

This is fantastic stuff, and not to be missed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHUfHNEZDPc

My comment was about both the Jeffs' comments as they make no sense if they understood they were viewing a product using professional performers and edited to produce a certain effect. I don't understand commenting on William Golden in that manner if one understands that that is William Golden. Likewise faulting folks in a highly competitive business where making an emotional connection to the audience is everything for being competitive and emotional makes no sense. It just seems to me that if one is criticizing effects that are the result of arranging and editing, ones comments would make that clear. Perhaps I quibble.

Or perhaps far too much ideological significance is being laid on what is just a performance. Given the apparent age of some of the singers, Rob's video makes that clear. First I will be happy to stipulate that we have no idea from either video just what the politics of any one individual may be, however we do know the following with absolute certainty - a solid majority of the voting population in those states voted for both the liberal FDR and conservatives (and racists) like Bilbo and Eastland at the same time. They presumably displayed the same depth of emotion and religious commitment as that which you now celebrate as something uniquely conservative. Experience, I hope, and, in any case time, will cure the present situation. I assume that regardless of how they vote, their approach to religious devotion will remain the same.

I don't despise Christians who currently vote unwisely for their Christianity as there is always hope of redemption in America. As a practical matter, those folks on the left who do loath their fellow citizens for their religious beliefs are as stupid and shortsighted as Republicans in California were on 187 and those now in Arizona.

On another matter, while good president Johnson gets the credit for the civil rights laws you would have us not have, you are being unfair to Dr. King. Back in the day several million of our fellow citizens had spent the better part of a century dwelling under arguably terrorist regimes. That he stuck to and promoted the non-violent opposition to Jim Crow at a critical time should not be dismissed.

An approach should be judged by its results not by its emotional appeal. Had conservatives had their way we would still have state sanctioned segregation. Would that be a good thing? As citizens we are not bound to agreement with bad decisions. Conservatism objectively failed on the central issue of the 19th and 20th centuries; how does one rationally cling to a failed doctrine?

RobG, fascinating. Here's another link that shows more of the sacred harp music. Even includes what hymn people like me call "How Firm a Foundation."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfERya8ySKk&a=MMGnzLHdY2k&playnext_from=ML

Al, call me naive (and I'm undermining your attempted defense of the emotion in the video), but I think it's genuine. i don't think they're competing. Of course, it's always possible to "compete" in manifestations of piety in any religious tradition (about which I plan to have more to say later), and I could be wrong. But I think they're just genuinely "getting into it" and worshiping God.

Okay, more time to respond to Jeff Culbreath's interesting comment.

To clarify: I'm not saying that the emotionalism in the video is somehow inherently politically conservative by itself. I am saying that it is typical of a certain type of American Christianity and that the people adhering to that type of American Christianity do tend to be conservative. Protestant pietism of many stripes is arguably deeply woven into American culture from the get-go, and this is one manifestation thereof, a manifestation tightly tied to a sort of "cultural clump" that tends to include moral and political conservatism.

To take your comments in order:

1) On emotionalism rendering people vulnerable to manipulation by ideologues. That is a real and serious danger. It is, in my opinion, a danger of _any_ form of Christianity that is not solidly evidence-based. Unfortunately, there are many ways of not being solidly evidence-based. For example, basing (no offense intended) one's Christianity entirely on tradition and liturgy and asking one's young people to adhere to it for reasons of pure traditionalism also renders them vulnerable to manipulation and loss of faith. Cardinal Newman's comments (I forget if he was "Cardinal" Newman yet at that time) apropos of the wonders of pious peasant Christianity sans reasons make my blood run cold. So while I fully recognize and agree with you that pietism and emotion is dangerous when severed from knowledge, understanding, and reason, so too are other types of Christian culture, including those that appear more dignified, when separated from knowledge, understanding, and reason.

But suppose one imagines--however rare this might be--a young person who is also receiving good education both in the content and in the basis of Christianity. Good Christian formation, good theological grounding, good training in apologetics. I believe that when a person is well-rounded in that way and knows not to mistake feelings for facts and not to _demand_ feelings, the emotion manifested in hand-raising, facial expressions, or even tears is not in itself dangerous but is merely one form of Christian worship, which can take many different legitimate cultural forms. Such a person might very well worship God in a deep and spiritually valuable way by means of raising his hands and manifesting emotion as seen in the video.

Which brings me to

2) The issue of competition. Here, Jeff, I just flatly disagree with you in believing that one can just tell somehow that the people in the video are competing with each other in manifestations of piety. I don't know how you could possibly tell that, and I can't help thinking that if you believed that manifest religious fervor was not suspect _in itself_ (as you apparently do believe), you would be less likely to think of this as some sort of "show-off" session or competition in who can show the most fervor. It does not strike me that way at all.

Let me add here that hand-raising has scriptural warrant (2 Timothy 2:8) as, of course, does kneeling. Evangelicals tend to raise their hands and not to kneel. Liturgical worshipers tend to kneel and not to raise their hands. Both are uses of the body to manifest and encourage worship and praise to God. Catholics often accuse Protestants of not realizing that man is a physical as well as an intellectual being and therefore as eschewing kneeling and other physical forms of worship. I agree that this can be a problem, but I see it most as a problem in the extremely strait-laced Christianity of certain fundamentalist circles. It is therefore a bit ironic for a Catholic to criticize hand-raising, which is the sort of recognition of the need for the body to worship that Protestants are supposed to be wanting in.

Competition can dog _any_ outward forms of worship, and since man is physical and emotional, man cannot do without outward forms of worship. I have heard a man try to "get in good" with a bishop by talking at length about the meatless meal he was going home to prepare during Lent. I have known an organist in a liturgical church whose spiritual pride in outward forms was such that he was ruthless towards any priest who wasn't a good cantor. I have seen nit-pickiness about the exact forms of liturgical movement and activity that would have Jesus getting out his whip. Elizabeth Goudge has a wonderful scene in her novel The Dean's Watch in which a beautiful woman makes a great show of sweeping up the aisle to her pew (this is set in the late 1800's) in an Anglican church and sinking her face piously into her hands to pray before the beginning of the Sunday service. Jesus, of course, said that the Pharisees loved to make a show of saying long prayers on street corners, and he warned his disciples against letting it be known when they were fasting.

I see nothing any _more_ competitive or more tending to competition in hand-raising and manifestations of emotion in Christian gospel music than in other forms of Christian piety.

There are so many dangers in worship. The non-liturgical Christians would say that liturgical worship contains a serious danger of coldness of heart, of a failure to understand the need for fervor toward God and a genuine, personal relationship with our Lord Jesus Christ. They are right. There is that danger. The liturgical Christians would say that fervent and emotional evangelical worship like that in the video contains a danger of mistaking emotion for genuine religious experience and demanding emotion as an end in itself. They are right.

I go back and forth between wishing that each tradition could see the value of the other and perhaps even appropriate some of that value (evangelicals saying collects, Catholics singing "No Other Name But Jesus") and, on the other hand, believing that each tradition is best kept "pure," with its own unique quality unmixed. But even if no actual borrowing occurs, I think we can all profit from the right kind of ecumenical appreciation of the other.

"hand-raising has scriptural warrant (2 Timothy 2:8)"

In addition, the tradition-conscious may be interested to observe that pious figures praying with hands raised (orantes) are ubiquitous in early Christian art, e.g., in the catacombs.

"Had conservatives had their way we would still have state sanctioned segregation."

Please. The problem that many conservatives had with ending segregation was how it was being done, not that it was being done.

"Conservatism objectively failed on the central issue of the 19th and 20th centuries; how does one rationally cling to a failed doctrine?"

Let's put the shoe on the other foot here. Many liberals were gaga over the Soviet Union and other Communist regimes. Yet you're still a liberal. How do you rationally cling to your failed doctrine?

Just some thoughts -

Jeff said -
"The scene in the video honestly gives me the creeps. I see a lot of probably sincere people who are nevertheless ripe for emotional manipulation. Unrestrained indulgence in emotionalism is a dangerous character flaw - a form of gluttony - and leads many people astray. People who habitually indulge in this kind of thing are not too far away from becoming prey to the next charismatic demagogue who comes down the pike, whatever he might believe."

As a former Catholic, now Evangelical, I loved Lydia's video and it brought me to tears. I have seen worship services where I was uncomfortable with the self-expression of the worshipper, but this wasn't one of those experiences from what I could observe in 5 minutes. I also indulge in visits to special seasonal services at a Chicago area Catholic Church known for its pre-Vatican II worship practices. Those services are also very moving in a different way -the choir is off to the side on a balcony and not visible to the worshipper. The belief has always been that the choir is not performing and therefore should not be seen. But, just as I have experienced hyper-emotionalism in some Evangelical churches, I have experienced rote boredom in other Catholic churches. I find both expressions of the worship of God the Father, through Jesus Christ legitimate and sacred. There is also a Catholic Church in the inner city of Chicago that is predominantly African American and if you attended Mass there, you would think you were in a Southern Baptist Church. The worship there is as vibrant and emotional as anything I have seen in any other black church.

In short, I heartily agree with Lydia's response to Jeff.

Rob said -

"Every conservative, Cranky or not, needs to watch this video documentary about 'Sacred Harp' singing, and not only for the music, which is astonishing."

I have not yet watched the video link, but am happy someone else is aware of Sacred Harp singing. For many years my family attended the Fox Valley Folk Festival here in northern Illinois and one of the groups that spent the day singing at one of the pavilions, was a Sacred Harp society I think base out of the University of Chicago. We loved to listen to them and I hope the tradition is preserved. I have not been to that Fest in several years as our musical endeavors took us in other directions, but now I want to find out if that Sacred Harp group has survived.

Gina: http://shape-note.uchicago.edu/

25th Annual two-day convention on Memorial Day weekend. See you there?

Folks, take another look, This appears to be a recording session. I believe I saw Bill and Gloria Gaither, so we have a small orchestra, a number of "names" (not sure, but maybe Brenda Lee?) and a goodly number of microphones scattered in the group. I don't think it's fair to either judge or over-signify them as a regular congregation of some sort as they are performers doing what they do ...

Again, briefly: this really only solidifies my point. Instead of sincere believers being manipulated, we are watching the manipulators themselves. "Performers doing what they do", indeed. The "emotion" here is calculated, programmed, and formulated for the purpose of manipulating an audience. That wouldn't be so much of a problem in my eyes if it weren't the trademark of a powerful commercial religious culture. (Yes, Lydia, this happens among Catholics as well, and it's always lamentable.)

Excessive emotionalism and sentimentality, while it exists everywhere, doesn't define Catholic culture the way it defines American evangelical protestantism. The sentimentalized Novus Ordo Catholicism of the last 40 years, in which "Danny Boy" (great song BTW) is actually considered fit for the sacred liturgy, is a protestant import.

I agree with Lydia in that a rational, evidence-based faith is a strong safeguard against emotional manipulation, but the fact of the matter is that most Christians do not have the intellectual firepower to defend their Christianity against the attacks of every religious huckster. Both reason and authority are necessary. In mainstream American political culture, emotion and experience trump reason and authority. The correlation with evangelical protestantism is probably not accidental.

It seems to me that we see strong sentimental/emotional aspects to this, and either applaud that strength or decry it, as if it were, all on its own, a great good or an evil. But what if it is neither?

I do not believe that it is out of place to have a musical form that calls forth an intense emotional response as part of one's worship of God. Indeed, it seems to me that one should worship God with the entirety of the being, and that includes our emotions.

That said, there is certainly a way of taking that too far: by allowing the intense emotionalism be the whole, or at least the primary component, of the worship... and as a consequence, having the effect of worship on the person be just as lasting as the emotions upon which that worship is based: fleeting and superficial.

True and complete worship may involve emotion on occasion, but cannot remain primarily in the emotions, or it remains very stunted. The person must delve deeper into their soul, and give to God their minds as well, and more: Ultimately, a contemplative response to God is needed, which involves a passivity to God's movement in us far deeper than the level of the emotions. This deeper affinity to God, a more spiritual adherence to God's will, attentiveness to the divine Spirit of Truth, does not DENY the emotions, but it can never take place precisely while the emotions are being riled up intensely and intentionally.

Therefore, it seems to me, that the place for highly sentimental or highly emotional music must be limited: it must be only occasionally part of the formal public worship, and should be primarily used otherwise, as a way of re-charging the batteries when the cycle of prayer - work - recreation does not readily permit of the deeper prayer that touches on contemplation. Humans live in cycles, and this emotional part of the cycle is real but far from the most significant way of reaching toward God.

If the outer structures of this form of music (competition, or being tied up with marketing) are problems, I would suggest that they are abuses, but not abuses tied to the very nature of worshiping God with intensely emotional music. They would be, rather, incidental accretions that spring up because we humans are weak, we are prone to being superficial and bodily-oriented. But that defect is common in all sorts of good things - like sex, for example. Doesn't make sex a bad thing.

That said, I have to say that there is one aspect of this performance that I thought almost completely ruined it: the rock-style drumming. I can't tell you how many times I have seen this result from people who (based entirely on my personal judgment of music, of course) completely miss the inner shades of nuance specific to the musical form in its own right. I cringe when I hear certain songs at Mass: the music is perfectly acceptable music in its place, but the right place for it is a cabaret, not a church. Or a syncopated version of a standard hymn written in 1750. Aaarrgh.

Amazing Grace can be sung in many ways, but some of those ways shrug off the inner beauty of the piece, and try to make it something completely other... almost always unsuccessfully. Parts of this are supposed to soar and become ethereal, and the drumbeat puts cement shoes on it.

Fasolamat - Thanks for the link. I loved the page. Very funny. I have bookmarked it and just may take a ride to UofC. My husband may be even more interested. I can't sing to save my life.

Jeff - I have been the chief critic in my own Christian circles regarding the shallowness of contemporary songs for worship. Aside from the fact that there are times that I feel I am in a piano bar instead of church, even when the vocalist is less expressive, the words to many of the songs are horribly vapid and barely orthodox. However, you and I have to be careful that our criticsm does not unfairly denegrate the cultural expression of legitimate Christian worship and that is the offense I experience with regard to your criticsm of the above video. I tend to agree with your last post, especially the part about Danny Boy being used for worship, with the caveat that there has to be a measure of flexibility to accomodate ethnic characteristics.

FYI, an interesting discussion occurred here about music and worship a week or two ago:

http://merecomments.typepad.com/merecomments/2010/04/necessary-things.html#comments

Believe it or not, I'm very stodgy about what sort of music belongs in a church. Not everything that is legitimate worship belongs in a church. I'm just not stodgy about what sort of Christian music should exist, be performed somewhere, and enjoyed somewhere. And I do disagree very strongly that these people are being "manipulators." Even among gospel musicians there are distinctions. It would be a mistake to write off the whole thing like that. I think it's also important to realize the great difference of quality that exists between CCM (christian contemporary) as presently constituted--it has gone downhill in the last fifteen years, let's just say--and gospel music. The latter tends far more to draw on traditions like hymns and spirituals.

Music is used in different ways to some extent in Catholic and Protestant worship, although things have tended to overlap in the last few years. It used to be that Catholics did not do a lot of singing at Mass, that being relegated to the choir, whereas congregational singing has existed in Protestantism from only a few years after its beginning. Songs have been used to express doctrine much more in Protestantism (the Wesley brothers, for example) than in Catholicism, where the music has been used an a conversation between the soul and God. These reflect the identities of each group.

Nowadays, one cannot tell the Catholic identity by virtue of its music. Protestants are writing music used in Catholic Masses. This is not a healthy trend. It means that doctrines are being diluted.

The Chicken

I want to add that I think it's possible to put too much emphasis on the notion that gospel music is "emotional" and to neglect the fact that it can be very doctrinal and thus can fulfill some of the function that liturgy is supposed to fulfill--focusing the mind on the truths of the faith. Ancient Catholic hymnody does this as well. For example, there are ancient Latin hymns that celebrate and meditate on the Sacrament, the death of Christ, and so forth. (Think of the Good Friday hymn "Sing My Tongue the Glorious Battle.")

It's my opinion that there are gospel songs so good and so meaty that unless one thinks Christian music _must_ be boring to be any good, one could have no objective reason to object to them, though of course they might not fit with a particular person's tastes, which is fine as long as it isn't elevated into a principle. But I want to raise an objection to any characterization of Protestant and Gospel music as somehow being "all about emotion." Let's not confuse great Protestant music with the latest fluff from the "worship song" mill.

In illustration of my point about great music fulfilling the eternal function of man-made Christian art, poetry, liturgy, and hymnody, I present "High and Lifted Up" by the Cathedrals. Lyrics here

http://cathedralstribute.com/node/84

Youtube here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gbf_xtKiI4w

Schopenhauer characterized music as "an unconscious exercise in metaphysics in which the mind does not know it is philosophizing."

How this relates to congregational singing I haven't the slightest, but I thought it was an intriguing quote.

Gina, you wrote:

However, you and I have to be careful that our criticsm does not unfairly denegrate the cultural expression of legitimate Christian worship and that is the offense I experience with regard to your criticsm of the above video.

Look - I'm a big crybaby myself. I get emotional in church all the time, at the Latin Mass. So I'm not saying that emotion has no place in worship. What I am saying is that, for most people, emotion becomes a runaway train unless reigned in by the discipline of liturgy, doctrine, reason, and authority. Otherwise it tends to turn religion into something very self-centered and therefore ripe for all kinds of abuse.

I don't want to read too much into your words "the offense I experience", but it could be that your reaction to my criticism - as though worship were more about the experience of worship than the object of worship - is precisely the reason for my criticism.

... flexibility to accomodate ethnic characteristics.

I dunno. The world was evangelized with a Latin liturgy that didn't much accomodate ethnic characteristics. How many nations have been converted since "inculturation" became all the rage? None. No, the beauty and strength of the historic Catholic liturgy is its universality. Where cultural and ethnic diversity comes into play is in para-liturgical devotions, but for the last 40 years these have been largely downplayed and ignored, leaving a cultural void and putting pressure on the sacred liturgy to do things it was never intended to do.

But I want to raise an objection to any characterization of Protestant and Gospel music as somehow being "all about emotion." Let's not confuse great Protestant music with the latest fluff from the "worship song" mill.

Lydia, I agree with what you're saying but we would surely draw lines in different places. Much of the English hymnody coming out of the classical, liturgical Protestant traditions is doctrinally sound, stately and dignified, and fit for Christian worship. We use a few selections from the 1940 PECUSA hymnal at our TLM, without apology. And I would even agree that, extra-liturgically, gospel sing-a-longs can be a fine supplement to the Christian life. Much wholesome pleasure is to be had gathering around a piano and singing old gospel songs.

My concern is that, for certain kinds of American Protestants, high-octane emotional experiences such as displayed in the video are pretty near the whole enchilada. I've known many people in these circles over the years, and when the spiritual highs are over, there is nothing left and they leave Christianity, move on to a more exciting denomination, or become (in the case of one friend) a part of the establishment responsible for keeping the bread and circuses going. There is no sense of ascetic struggle, of the value of spiritual aridity, or of a Christianity without perpetual consolations and emotional intensity.

You're quite right that there are many good, otherwise conservative people involved in this particular sub-culture, and that this sub-culture is a significant improvement over our the toxic anti-culture that presently dominates American life. But I think it is also clear that the substantial defects of evangelical protestantism have contributed mightily to the decay of our civilization, and therefore to the corresponding growth of institutional Liberalism. So, I say God bless "them", but God change "it".

Had conservatives had their way we would still have state sanctioned segregation. Would that be a good thing? As citizens we are not bound to agreement with bad decisions. Conservatism objectively failed on the central issue of the 19th and 20th centuries; how does one rationally cling to a failed doctrine?

Al, I'm not going to give you much of an answer at the moment, but let me just say at this point that it's good to have you around.

Unlike Liberalism, Conservatism properly understood (contra Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, et al) is never a stand-alone or self-contained ideology. Conservatism is utterly dependent upon sources of moral authority outside of itself. A conservatism with the wrong religion, for example, is going to be wrong on some political issues (while still right about much that Liberalism gets wrong).

Furthermore, you might not be aware that we still have rigidly-enforced "state sanctioned segregation" in America today. Where, you ask? In our prison system. State sanctioned racial segregation is not, usually, a very good idea, nor is it very often just or equitable, but neither is it instrinsically wrong in all places at all times in all circumstances. The proponents of racial segregation in earlier times are perhaps guilty of some fault or another, but they are not the moral monsters you make them out to be.

I know I'm a month late to this, but I'm very curious, Lydia.

I oppose his political agenda (I do not believe federal civil rights laws should exist), so I cannot even laud the achievement for which he is best known. I cannot say, "Well, at least he accomplished something great."

Is that because you're ok with Jim Crow, or you just think this was done at the wrong level of government, or what?

Keith, there are many different aspects to what is usually called "Jim Crow," and I would have probably about as many different answers as there are aspects. For example, I'm definitely opposed to state laws separating the races (which is sometimes what is meant by "Jim Crow"), but these were already gone by 1964. There are many individual, paradigmatic acts of racial discrimination in hiring and even (sometimes) discrimination on the basis of gender (which is a whole issue in itself) in hiring that I regard as definitely immoral. But I am inclined to think that the complex motives and factors that go into a hiring decision are such that attempting to regulate them by law is a very bad idea. And I subscribe to the libertarian view that non-discrimination laws for hiring lead directly and by social near-necessity to government-imposed quotas as a sign of the good faith and non-discriminatory actions of the employer.

Above all of this, however, is the fact that *federal* legislation on this matter was totally out of bounds and has vastly increased federal power and fundamentally altered our whole notion of federal powers, so that they are assumed to be plenary rather than ennumerated. This is a very, very bad thing indeed, and state-level non-discrimination laws (with none at the federal level) would have been far less bad for these reasons having to do with the structure of American government.

But you recognize that the *federal* legislation also did a whole lot of good for a lot of very oppressed folks, and that waiting for the likes of Mississippi & Alabama would have been a long ugly wait for a lot of people who had been waiting a long time already?

"What shall we say, then? Let us do evil, that good may come? God forbid."

In short, I'm not going to endorse the radical centralization of power and the radical undermining of the Constitution's crucially important structure of checks and balances in order to "do a whole lot of good for a lot of very oppressed people." Not now. Not ever.

The "good" of which I speak is the mitigation of a great evil & injustice--far greater than whatever "evil" is involved in having that great evil partially thwarted by what is by your taste the wrong level of government. "Do EVIL, that good may come of it"?! Please.

When much of a generation (or two) was doing themselves great dishonor on this matter, it's a bit precious to denigrate the accomplishments of one who did so much because he didn't rely on the states--states that themselves were doing so much to perpetuate the evil he was fighting--as he sought relief.