choir

Acoustical Design for Congregational Singing

by

Congregational singing can be effectively stymied or greatly encouraged by the acoustical properties of the worship space. Recent trends in church architecture have unfortunately led to the use of more acoustically absorbent materials, which is harmful to this important aspect of worship. The following article provides helpful advice to remedy this problem.

Perhaps the greatest challenge in architectural acoustics is the worship environment. The acoustical characteristics within a worship space must cover the gamut from pristine clarity for the spoken word to enveloping reverberance for the pipe organ. The demands for room responsiveness exceed those of traditional concert halls and multipurpose performance facilities.

A closer examination reveals an even greater richness in this range of acoustical qualities. The speech end of the spectrum must accommodate all types of voices, from lay readers to seasoned preachers who will utilize every available nuance of the dynamic range—from a tumultuous shout to an intimate whisper to poignant silence. Through all this, the Word must be understood throughout the entire congregation.

At the opposite extreme is the pipe organ, capable of a dynamic range and frequency spectrum that can exceed that of a full symphony orchestra. And somewhere between the auditory alpha and omega are the choir and solo voice. They too must convey the Word with warmth and clarity, while encouraging and supporting the participation of the congregation.

Many of the difficulties of combining, within one structure, the requirements for speech intelligibility and musical resonance have been solved. Yet, if there is one facet of church acoustics that might be thought of as the neglected stepchild, it is the provision of appropriate acoustics for congregational singing.

Acousticians serving as consultants in church building projects, whether a renovation or new design and construction, are typically presented with a list of priorities during the initial stages. These invariably include a statement calling for “excellent acoustics for congregational singing.” However, as the project develops, this program element is frequently overshadowed or forfeited in compromise to other perceived needs.

Church renovation or construction projects involve an extraordinary variety of needs and priorities among the clergy and congregation. A church building project is, after all, a multifaceted undertaking and will typically involve

1.     An organ. The selection and cost of an organ can be a major issue. Usually, a committee is appointed to study alternatives and make recommendations. They may spend a year or more touring neighboring churches, interviewing organists, and debating the pipe-versus-electronic and tracker-versus-electropneumatic issues. The installation of a significant instrument can easily exceed $500,000 and have major architectural and aesthetic ramifications.

2.     A choir or music program. Here too a committee may be selected to address questions of placement of the choir, provisions for rehearsal space, new robes and robe storage, and so on.

3.     A sound-reinforcement system. Another committee or perhaps one of the other sound-related committees should be responsible for the sound system. The system must amplify speech intelligibly and perhaps include provisions for music reinforcement, recording, playback, and so on. It must also be visually unobtrusive and preferably invisible.

4.     Furnishings and finishes. The visual elements of the project call for many decisions regarding materials and colors, religious and art objects, seating, lighting, etc. This particular facet of the project is a major preoccupation for the architect who is deeply concerned about the impression the space will make, an overwhelmingly visual impression.

Too often the priority of congregational singing is overwhelmed by the high cost and visibility of other elements. When this happens, it is often assumed (or hoped) that if the worship space is designed to provide good acoustics for speech, organ, and choir, then it will naturally provide a welcome environment for congregational song. This is a reasonable-sounding assumption, but it is not necessarily true. To appreciate this, we might ask what is really known about the acoustical requirements for congregational singing and how these relate to those for speech intelligibility, organ, and choir. Before addressing these issues directly, let’s briefly consider a more fundamental question.

What Is Meant by Good Acoustics for Congregational Singing? This is indeed an intriguing question. When it comes to the qualities of the singing voice, research in acoustics has been primarily concerned with trained voices in the performance environment. This is not an appropriate paradigm for the common parishioner who may or may not be able to carry a tune, who may or may not even enjoy signing. Published studies dealing with the ordinary voice are generally geared toward open-plan offices, speech interference, telecommunications, and the like.

Let’s take a less pedantic approach, then, since there is little scholarship regarding the “optimal acoustics for the untrained voice as applied to congregational singing.” Let us consider some reasonable assumptions to motivate the formulation of acoustical requisites for congregational singing.

  1. The environment should provide support and encouragement for the untrained voice. It should sufficiently enrich and enhance the quality of the ordinary voice so that the singer feels encouraged to sing out, to participate in the communal act of lifting the voice in praise.
  2. The acoustic response of the space should impart to each individual in the congregation a sense of being a part of the assembly, an assurance that one is not alone or unduly exposed.
  3. The environment should convey to each parishioner the awareness that, as small as one’s contribution may seem, it is a meaningful part of the whole.

To summarize, the ideal environment ought to enhance the quality and fullness of the voice, provide a sense of envelopment, yet provide a sense that one’s simple gifts are an essential part of the whole and that this whole is profoundly greater than the sum of its parts. We seek, in essence, a sonic analog of unity, echoing the concept of the oneness of the assembly, while acknowledging the sanctity of the individual.

This is, perhaps, a rather grandiose concept; it surely exceeds the aspirations of even the most accomplished acoustician. But the concepts embodied in these lofty ideals suggest some well-understood acoustical principles. An insightful interpretation of these requirements can provide the proper acoustical conditions for congregational singing. Let’s take a brief look at some of the fundamentals involved.

Reverberation. Most people have some familiarity with reverberation time, the quality of sustain that occurs in large, hard-surfaced spaces. One need not be an acoustician to have some sense of the sound enhancement provided by a cathedral with a six-second reverberation time, a space where it takes six seconds for a sound to fade to inaudibility. Some of the more erudite may be aware that concert halls typically provide a reverb time of two seconds or more for symphonic music and that a pipe organ requires more than three seconds. There are many well-established benchmarks for “optimum” reverberation times for all types of environments and all forms of music. There are, however, no comparable reverberation criteria for congregational singing.

Nonetheless, reverberation is unquestionably a major and necessary factor for enhancing the quality of the ordinary voice in worship spaces. It also increases the loudness of a sound. Reverberation is, after all, made up of the myriad returns of acoustic energy from sound-reflective building surfaces. This energy combines with the original sound and increases the apparent loudness of the source. You might think of the analogy of a light source in a room. If the wall surfaces are covered with a dark, non-reflective finish, the overall illumination throughout the space will be less than if the finishes are light and reflective.

Sound-Absorbing Materials within the Worship Space. In most churches designed for good acoustics, there is a minimum of sound-absorbing material. In fact, in most churches, the single greatest sound absorber is the congregation itself. The fully clothed person provides about as much sound absorption as four to six square feet of conventional acoustical ceiling tile. A congregation of one thousand can provide as much sound absorption as an entire suspended acoustical ceiling over the nave!

It is fairly well-known that a certain amount of sound absorption is required to prevent echoes and to control reverberance. But it is not generally known that the performance of sound-absorbing material is strongly dependent on the location of this material relative to the sound source.

If a sound source is located quite far from a sound absorber and if this source is also projecting its sound away from the absorber, then the sound will have an opportunity to develop. It will blossom and begin to fill the room volume before the absorption begins to produce its sound-suppressing effect. In a church, these are generally the conditions that exist for sounds produced by the choir and organ. The major sound absorber (the congregation) is relatively far from the choir and organ, and both are oriented so that their sounds project directly into the full room volume. These conditions allow these sound sources effectively to utilize the available reverberation of the worship space.

If, on the other hand, the sound source is located near a major absorbing surface, the sound is directed (more or less) into the absorber, then the sound will be absorbed before it has a chance to be enhanced by the reverberance of the space. As we shall see later, these conditions fairly well describe those that exist for the voices in the congregation. In fact, it is a common perception, from within a congregation, that the choir and organ sound reverberant, while the congregation sounds rather dry in comparison. This is primarily a result of the proximity of the congregation’s voices to the sound absorption provided by the clothed bodies throughout the congregation’s seating area.

Sound-Reflecting Surfaces. Acoustically reflective surfaces are especially important for the support and distribution of unamplified sounds. A choir, if located near sound-reflective surfaces, can project its sound more fully and uniformly. A properly oriented overhead reflector can have enormous beneficial effects by projecting sound to the assembly and distributing sound among the choir members. A choral shell would be a real asset for a church choir, but such performance-oriented furnishings are considered by many to be inappropriate in the house of the Lord. Acousticians often attempt to introduce architectural elements that will perform the same functions as a choral shell while respecting the aesthetics and sanctity of the worship environment.

In much the same fashion, the voices of the congregation could make beneficial use of nearby reflecting surfaces to help distribute their sound throughout the assembly and provide support. However, only those singers near the perimeter will derive any advantage from sidewalls. There are rarely any usable overhead surfaces for the congregation since the needs for long reverberation require large room volumes and comparably great ceiling heights. The only available reflective surfaces are the pews and surrounding floor area.

Acoustical Requisites for Congregational Singing

We can summarize this review of acoustical factors with a statement of the obvious: Long reverberance and supportive reflections provide the foundation for delightful and awe-inspiring sound qualities of the archetypal church. These same factors greatly enhance the sound of the organ and choir and add a larger-than-life grandeur to speech.

It seems reasonable to assume that these qualities should also lend themselves to the need for congregational singing. They do. But they do not assure it. Nonetheless, large room volumes and long reverberation times are basic and minimum requirements for an environment that will encourage participation in congregational singing. We need to look just a bit further to see why these necessary conditions may not be sufficient.

Location and Disposition of the Sound Source. There is one feature of congregational singing that distinguishes it from nearly every other musical acoustic setting: The sound sources and receivers are in virtually the same location. Even more important, the sources and receivers are at the same physical height. There are few, if any, equivalent situations in musical acoustics. (There are some parallels in the acoustics of rehearsal rooms and stages, but the context and objectives are quite different.)

It should be evident that the height of a sound source, relative to the listener, is an important acoustical consideration. From an elevated position, sound is projected more efficiently and uniformly. The architectural acknowledgment of this principle is evident in the traditional form of music performance spaces. The principle is equally applicable in worship spaces. For example, the elevation of the chancel and celebrant takes advantage of the sound projection made possible by this simple height differential. The organ pipes and choir are typically elevated for the same purpose and are often located in a loft. Even within the choir, we typically find risers to take advantage of the enhanced projection of sound made possible by being elevated. Loudspeakers for the spoken liturgy are also placed as high as possible. Comparing these examples with the conditions in the congregation, we see that the assembly is at a decided disadvantage.

Another closely related factor is the directivity of the voice. The greatest concentration of sound energy from the untrained voice projects forward and down at a slight angle. Within the congregation, this tends to direct sound into the back of the person immediately in front. Most of the sound will be absorbed by clothing. What little remains to be reflected and scattered will be further absorbed by neighboring worshipers.

Pew Cushions and Carpeting. For the needs of congregational song, the use of any form of sound-absorbing material in and around the congregation is detrimental. It is not that these materials are the only cause of a poor environment for congregational singing. But, if we examine the most commonly occurring conditions in worship spaces, even in highly reverberant spaces, we see that the congregation already has several strikes against it:

  • The congregation is typically on one level (except where there is a balcony) and cannot take advantage of the benefits to sound distribution provided by elevation, raked seating, or tiers.
  • There are few, if any, proximal surfaces to produce supportive sound reflections and to distribute sound throughout the seating area.
  • The congregation is engulfed in a sea of highly effective sound absorption. The ordinary clothing worn to services is absorptive enough, and in cold climates heavy outer clothing can increase the amount of effective absorption by 50 percent or more.
  • To make matters worse, the normal directivity of the voice projects the sound energy from each member directly into this body of absorption.

The introduction of further absorption in the congregation in the form of pew cushions and carpeting is truly the final blow. It should be clear from the presentation above that this is a matter of physical fact, not simply the knee-jerk reaction of most acousticians who, as everyone knows, are always lobbying against the introduction of sound-absorbing material of any sort.

In fact, pew cushions and carpet produce, simultaneously, two effects that are directly contrary to the acoustical requirements for congregational song:

  • They absorb sound and do so in a highly efficient fashion because of their proximity to the sound source.
  • They occlude the floor and pew surfaces. These sound-reflective surfaces would otherwise be available to provide supportive reflections and to scatter sound among the assembly.

Pew cushions are generally considered to be a comfort issue as well as cosmetic concern. In truth, sitting on a contoured wooden pew for an hour is not a great discomfort. People of all ages are quite willing to sit in far less comfortable seating for even longer periods. Ballpark bleachers and park benches are two examples that immediately come to mind. This is really a matter of perception and priorities.

If pew cushions simply cannot be avoided, there are some alternatives that can minimize sound absorption. Cushions made with vinyl covering or fabrics with latex or vinyl backing will provide less sound absorption than the more common fabric upholstery. There are also closed-cell foams and alternative padding materials that offer adequate comfort without absorbing as much sound.

Carpeting is generally an aesthetic matter. There are many attractive hard-surfaced alternatives (for example, quarry tile, wood parquet, etc.) that would not introduce further absorption in and around the congregational seating area. If carpet is required for safety or to minimize the sound of footfalls, use the thinnest material possible and cover only the minimum area necessary.

Other Factors. Mechanical-system noise is of great concern in worship spaces. A noisy ventilation system can ruin speech intelligibility and cause distractions at the most inopportune moments. This same noise can have detrimental effects on congregational singing.

Consider the fact that background-noise generators are used in some open-plan offices to provide speech privacy and to reduce distraction from conversations and activities in neighboring areas. In such environments, an electronically produced “white noise” is used to drown out sounds from adjacent areas. The artificial noise effectively isolates areas by blocking or masking normally audible sounds. It is much like the effect of running water drowning out conversation in your home.

However, for congregational singing, we need to maximize communication within and throughout the entire sanctuary. A noisy background can greatly reduce the sense of support you would perceive from those singing around you.

Priorities and Compromises. Much of the foregoing has been a restatement of the oft-heard indictment against carpeting and pew cushions in the worship space. Hopefully, it has shown that if acoustics for congregational singing is a priority, then there are few options available, few concessions that can be made. There are no conventional methods that can offset the negative effects of sound-absorbing materials in and around the congregation.

It has also acknowledged the fact that church-building projects evoke conflicting priorities that call for compromise. There will surely be incompatibilities among the major areas of the project, for example, liturgy, architecture, and acoustics. There will even be disparities within these areas such as the conflicting acoustical requirements for speech and music. However, the acoustical characteristics required for choir, organ, and congregational singing are wholly compatible. These same characteristics (with a properly designed speech-reinforcement system) will provide the responsiveness necessary for the full range of liturgical oratory and actually enhance the richness and uniformity of speech distribution among the assembly.

It can be as compelling and uplifting as that which exists in any collective experience. While we might all wish for better singing voices, we must acknowledge that in some endeavors our God-given gifts are limited, but that we can be more than we are individually by being part of the whole. This is, perhaps, an idealized concept of the power of congregational singing, but proper acoustics within the sanctuary can help bring this concept to fruition.

Classifying Church Choirs

by

Choirs play very different roles in various denominations and traditions. This article describes three different types of choirs based on their role in the worship service, commending an approach that integrates the choir’s contribution within the structure of the whole worship service. Although written from a Reformed perspective, the insights found here have applications for all traditions.

Choral Society

The first type of choir is what I’ll call the “church choral society.” This group works on some big anthems or on a cantata for special occasions. At first they sing only after the evening service in a special program; later, as part of the evening service; and perhaps eventually as part of a special service in the morning. The choral society is not so much a church choir as a choir made up of members of the same congregation who love to sing together.

Anthem Choir

The second type is the “anthem choir.” This group works faithfully on anthems, which are from time to time inserted into the Sunday liturgy. Usually the anthem does not replace an item in the liturgy; rather, it is an addition to the order of worship. A large and well-developed choir prepares an anthem every Sunday, learning several new ones each year and recycling favorites. In our congregations, by far the most church choirs fall into the anthem choir category.

In borrowing the idea of an anthem choir from churches of other traditions, however, most of us ignored a few things. In Catholic, Lutheran, and Anglican churches, anthems were chosen and composed to relate to the Scripture of the day. Many times the words of the anthem were taken directly from Scripture. In other words, the anthem was an integral part of the liturgy. Because most of these churches followed a lectionary, the choral director knew the Scripture passages for a given service far in advance.

If our choirs ignore that integration between Scripture and anthem, they borrow only part of a tradition; the other part goes begging for attention. When it has no relationship to what precedes and follows in the order of worship, the anthem becomes “special music,” an intrusion in worship. It may be a beautiful intrusion, but it is an intrusion nonetheless.

Service Choir

I’ll call the third type of choir a “service choir.” This group sings service music. In other words, it participates in worship by taking over one of the liturgical actions that were going to take place anyway. For example, the service choir may sing a call to worship, a call to confession, or a prayer for illumination before the sermon. Or it might augment congregational song with descants and special accompaniments. The music a service choir sings may be either short and simple or long and substantial (including anthems); whatever its length, it is meant to carry liturgical action.

Many Calvinists might point out that the service choir concept brings the priestly function of the choir into question. What about the Reformed principle that the people should do their own worship? Interestingly we have had no problem with the minister switching roles between proclamation and response; no one I know has argued that the congregational prayer should be voiced by the entire congregation. But when it comes to the choir performing a similar role, many Reformed Christians have expressed doubts.

Some of those who hesitate do so because they fear that the more active the choir becomes, the less active the congregation will be. But that should not and need not happen. Actually, by having the choir sing a call to worship or to confession we are moving toward, not away from, the idea that worship belongs to the people. And we are moving toward the concept that a choir sings on behalf of the congregation as all together bring their worship and adoration to God; away from the idea that the choir brings something to the congregation that was not there before.

A good way to start transforming an anthem choir into a service choir is by selecting music for particular liturgical actions. The bulletin then lists the selection as part of the order of worship (Call to Confession: title) rather than as an addition (Anthem: title). And the text is printed in the bulletin so that all the people can understand every word.

When such a change is made, choirs will begin to find their rightful place in Reformed worship. Choral music will no longer intrude or merely decorate but will enrich our worship with that marvelous power that Calvin also recognized: music can “move and inflame the hearts of men to invoke and praise God with a more vehement and ardent zeal.” A service choir will enrich our liturgy as we seek to worship the Lord not only in the beauty of holiness but also in holy beauty.

The Role of the Choir in Worship

by

The choir does not participate in worship for its own sake, but rather for the sake of the whole of the worshiping people. It leads the worshiping people in their song and contributes additional music as the liturgy or pattern of worship requires. Ideally then, a choir should be a group of facilitators, not performers, a role defined in this article.

The choir has more to do with a pastor’s ministry than is often acknowledged. Historically speaking, the choir has always been the minister’s right hand. Yet few pastors currently reap the fruit of such a partnership.

Billy Graham on occasion has termed the music department the war department of the church. It is a designation not without justification. Almost everyone in the pastoral ministry has at one time or another been at odds with music or musicians.

It is said that the pastor’s job is to preach, the choir’s to sing special music—each in its own place in a mutually beneficent but separate endeavor. We smile at such a naive perception of the role of the pastor. But in the case of the choir, we grant the fact that special music is what it is all about. Quite frankly, the ministry of the choir goes far beyond the singing of special numbers. It reaches down into the very heart of church life. It finds its center in being one with the pastoral leadership of the worship of the church. To put it succinctly, the choir’s job is to support the pastor’s parish ministry.

Biblical Background

Historical precedents of such partnerships are well documented (as are occasional cases of adversarial relationships). Some of the most compelling of these are found in the Bible itself.

The Old Testament documents an organized, well-conceived plan for providing worship leadership. The musicians were part of that plan, being given the specific task of ministering to the Lord in music. They were of the priestly tribe of Levi. Each son of Levi (Gershom, Kohath, and Merari) was represented throughout succeeding generations by those specifically appointed to be musicians and music leaders.

By the time of the building of the second temple (c. 515 b.c.), there had emerged a threefold sacerdotal order—high priest, priest, and Levite. It is striking to note that the Levite musicians, no less than the priests, were set aside and consecrated as part of the tribe of Levi to do the work of the Lord in the temple and were supported materially in their ministry by the other eleven tribes. They were “called-out” ones who shared a common spiritual responsibility. Indeed, the musicians were minor clerics.

It is this clerical role that must be reemphasized in our time, not by titles, papers, or ordination, but by the power of regeneration through the blood of our great High Priest, Jesus Christ. We are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people (1 Peter). Having received new life, we are all, simply put, ministers.

The choir stands in the gap between people and the pastor. It has a ministerial function in the leadership of worship but is congregational in its makeup. It follows in the great Levitical tradition, having a role to play which cannot be duplicated by any other ministry—it is unique.

Responsibilities of the Choir

The choir’s potential will not be realized unless both pastors and musicians are aware of the purpose of such a body. To use the choir well first means to understand its function.

The following list is not exhaustive, but it will give a new direction from which can develop those particularized rubrics to fit the individual needs of each pastor, congregation, and choir. Specifics here are less important than the trend which is established.

Pastoral responsibilities of the choir are:

  1. To maintain a Christ-like attitude in all things. This is the choir’s first priority. It is the thing that more than anything else determines success in ministry. One must have the right attitude toward God, congregation, pastor, music, and musicians.
  2. To be responsible for lifting up the pastor in prayer, word, and deed.
  3. To enter into worship wholeheartedly and with enthusiasm. A dead choir will elicit a dead reaction from the congregation.
  4. To listen and respond to the worship leader of the moment, to be attentive to everyone and everything. During prayer the choir members should earnestly pray; during worship they should visibly worship.
  5. To lead in the congregational singing of hymns, choruses, and spiritual songs. Such leadership should be with faces, eyes, and hands as well as voices. Any other service music, such as calls to worship, benedictions, responses, etc., will be well prepared and rendered.
  6. To be helpful in giving prayers, testimonies, tongues, interpretation of tongues, words of edification, and scriptural admonitions, especially when a general invitation has been given without any ready congregational response. The choir should act in the role of icebreaker and leader.
  7. To listen attentively and visibly respond to the ministry of others: soloists, musical groups, evangelists, and pastor.
  8. To open up personally to the preached word modeling the sought-after congregational response. Nothing will aid a pastor’s sermon communication with the congregation more than the example of a choir hanging on his every word, obviously being edified and lifted up. The congregation will tend to imitate the listeners they see in front of them. A choir of disinterested, unenthusiastic, unresponsive, sleepy individuals, who feel that because they have finished singing their “special music” they have no further responsibility, is grossly missing the point of its ministry. In such a case it would be better to do away with the choir.
  9. To be available to do altar work, giving prayer support and general encouragement to those who respond to the invitation after the sermon. It is distracting to have the choir in a hurry to leave. It must use its influence to help open the congregation to the gentle and unhurried moving of God’s Spirit.
  10. To sing any additional music deemed appropriate for the service.

The choir is a facilitator of worship. It seeks to show the congregation (under pastoral guidance) the way to extend beyond the temporal and reach if only briefly, a taste of the worship of heaven. It exhibits a worship in spirit and in truth which encourages the congregation to do the same. One can readily see then that the main function of the choir is to be the “show and tell” of worship. It takes the initiative, it inspires, it helps, and it leads.

Individuals in the choir must be carefully and systematically taught their role. Such teaching is most effective when paced with the developing experience of the choir as a whole. One must avoid the pitfall of believing that giving information will automatically make the right things happen. The priorities and attitudes we wish to foster must be made to be routine and are best learned as the music director shepherds the choir, carefully and consistently, into maturing patterns of behavior.

Pastoral Responsibility

The pastor needs to nurture his relationship with the choir. They are co-workers, yet with his calling as chief pastor, it falls to him to gently establish the expectations he has for the choir’s ministry. He can do this, of course, through the music director. But what cannot be delegated is his personal rapport with the choir, most notably in the area of a shared ministry. The choir, as congregational/ministerial helper, needs to shoulder with the pastor responsibility for the spiritual growth of the congregation. Having a common spiritual goal that goes beyond mere music-making will cause the choir to blossom and flourish.

To the end of a mutual sharing of and identification with such a common spiritual goal, it is important that regular times of intercessory prayer, with the pastor, especially prior to the service, be part of the Sunday routine. It is also beneficial to engage in conversational dialogue concerning items of mutual interest and concern.

Living life in a caring relationship will heighten the corporate sense of togetherness that nourishes true community. Nothing will so inspire the choir to do its best as the “esprit de corps” generated by a pastor who demonstrably loves his choristers, listens to them, and expects them to shake the rafters of heaven in their mutual quest for the spiritual advancement of the congregation.

Conclusion

The choir is responsible for more than making music. It has the potential for being a dynamo of spiritual energy in the worship life of the church. Under pastoral guidance, it can be a visible microcosm of God’s dealings with the whole church, a channel of his grace and glory, and a corporate respondent in the call to holy living and fuller commitment.

Let there be no misunderstanding. Hosts of musical things must be addressed by a prophetic music ministry. But they all stem from a churchly orientation, quite apart from that of the stage and concert hall.

A shift in priority from musical performance to corporate worship leader will give a perspective to church music-making that frees it from an uncompromising aestheticism and from a nihilistic pragmatism. That is not to say musical ministry ought to silence criticism, but rather that church music creativity ought to arise out of the ashes of musical pride and conceit. A disciplined washer of feet makes the best church musician. And when coupled with a like attitude on the part of the pastor, the combination is hard to beat.

Pastor and choir together are co-workers, a model of how the body of Christ operates. When the choir is used to its fullest potential in support of the pastoral ministry, only the Kingdom gains.

Planning Traditional Worship

by

Long-range and short-range planning are essential to worship services characterized by strength, order, and beauty. Pastors and church musicians are responsible for planning, but participation in music during worship should include adult and children’s choirs and the congregation singing hymns, psalms, and anthems together.

In Into His Presence: Perspectives on Reformed Worship (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Christian Reformed Church Publications, 1985), James De Jong describes worship as a dialogue in which God’s people receive God’s greeting, pardon, instruction, and blessing, as well as respond in confession, thanksgiving, and praise. Many times the music in our services has blurred this view of Reformed worship. Howard Hageman tells of a worship service he attended in which the congregation had as much music to listen to as it did to sing, and the music had little or no relationship to actions of receiving and responding. Hageman then goes on to talk about “liturgical integrity” (Liturgy and Music in Reformed Worship [Fall/Winter 1983-84]: 4).

One way to avoid the kind of service Hageman describes is through careful planning. Long- and short-term planning helps worship leaders to integrate the ministry of Word and music and find ways of involving the congregation meaningfully in the service.

Responsibility for Planning

Who is responsible for planning worship services?

Since worship is the lifeblood of the church, pastors should realize that time devoted to worship planning is a necessary and vital part of their ministry. To give choirs, instrumentalists, and soloists adequate time to prepare, pastors must plan their preaching schedules well ahead of time.

Involved in planning with the pastors are the church musicians—those in charge of proclaiming the gospel through music. Pastors and musicians, recognizing their roles as servants working for the glory of God and the edification of the congregation, together can make worship planning an enriching experience that results in God-pleasing, meaningful worship.

Pastors will use such planning sessions as opportunities to highlight the principles of Reformed worship. They will insist that contributions made by choirs and soloists should not be a source of poor theology, that “neither sentimentalism nor bombast are replacements for the nourishing word which builds and sustains faith” (Carl Schalk, The Pastor and the Church Musicians: Thoughts on Aspects of a Common Ministry [St. Louis, Mo.: Concordia Publishing House, 1984], 5).

In turn, the musicians will highlight the contribution of music. “The pastor needs the poetic aid of hymns as well as the exaltation of music to make the message come alive with splendor. The hallelujahs sound best when they are set to music and have an added dimension which the pastor himself could never give in any words. This understanding of the power of music to add a new dimension to the proclamation of the Word ought to draw pastor and church musician together in dialogue as nothing else can” (A. R. Kretzmann, “The Pastor and the Church Musician,” Church Music, 2 [1970]: 8).

Since pastors and music directors usually have more flexible schedules during the summer, this is an ideal time to plan music for the year. Summer planning allows for more leisurely examination and purchase of music and gives accompanists and instrumentalists adequate preparation time. Such yearly summer planning also provides the groundwork for later seasonal and weekly planning sessions.

Planning Congregational Singing

Because hymns and psalms form an important part of the Christian life and faith, congregational singing is a vital part of worship. The goal of good singing is to involve the entire congregation in singing a sizable number of hymns and psalms with spiritual perception and musical artistry.

Select Opening and Closing Hymns. Use the topical index of the hymnal to select appropriate hymns to open and close the service. These will usually be hymns of praise and dedication that can be sung for several Sundays, but they need to be varied, preferably to reflect the seasons of the church year.

Select New (Unfamiliar) Hymns. The congregation’s repertoire of hymns should be expanded. Every hymnbook includes some wonderful unknown hymns that should be introduced and sung regularly.

Plan New “Service Music.” Service music includes doxologies, responses to prayers, or musical settings of the creeds. Again, the congregation may need to learn this music, and the selections should be varied during the course of the year. Instead of using the traditional doxologies, consider singing doxological stanzas of hymns, such as the last stanza of “All Creatures of Our God and King.”

Organize Hymn Sings. Hymn sings can be either designated sections of a worship service or full-fledged hymn festivals. Careful planning can make such hymn sings both educational and inspiring. The choice of hymns may be topical or seasonal or may consist of “rehearsal” hymns to be sung in later worship services.

Planning Congregational Singing with Choir Participation

One way to escape the exclusive pattern of the choir performing while the congregation listens is to plan for joint singing. Such joint singing will clearly identify the choir as part of the congregation and may also encourage better congregational participation.

Hymn Concertatos. A hymn concertato is a hymn arranged for congregation, choir, organ, and various instruments. In many concertatos, choir and congregation sing alternate stanzas, or the choir sings a descant while the congregation sings the melody. Be sure to include an explanation in the bulletin, outlining the singing procedure for all participants.

Alternate-Stanza Singing. The singing of alternate stanzas is based on the ancient practice of antiphonal singing. Alternation can occur between choir and congregation or between segments of the congregation (e.g., men, women, and children).

Planning Adult Choir Music

The most important function of the choir is to provide strong and solid musical support for congregational singing, especially when new hymns are sung. The choir can also sing anthems and other more elaborate music.

Another important function of the choir is to lead the congregation in performing certain liturgical acts, such as a call to worship, a song of confession, or a musical meditation after the sermon. Through such “service music,” people are encouraged to pray, confess, or meditate while the choir formulates the congregation’s intention. Service music should not call undue attention to itself and must be clearly understood. (The words should probably be printed in the order of worship.) Some service music can be repeated in several services; other selections will be chosen for a particular service.

Summer is a good time to develop a schedule of choral music, balancing hymns or psalm settings that involve the congregation with anthems that will be sung by the choir alone. Music also should be ordered then to permit adequate rehearsal time later. The choir director and the pastor would do well to work together on the worship schedule.

Planning the Children’s Choir Participation

The summer planning suggestions for the adult choir also pertain to the children’s choir. Like the adult groups, the children’s choir should be viewed not as a novelty but as an integral part of worship. John Calvin used children’s choirs to teach the congregation the new settings for psalms, and such teaching continues to be legitimate today. A hymn such as “Infant Holy, Infant Lowly,” for example, which may be new to the congregation, is easy for children to learn. Consider having the children sing such a song for the congregation, then inviting the congregation to join in. You’ll find this “teaching method” is an excellent way of helping everyone, both children and adults, become familiar with a new hymn.

A beautiful contrast in sound can also be achieved by combining the children’s and adult choirs. One example of an anthem arranged for such combining is “Like as a Father” (Cherubini, arr. by Austin Lovelace for children and adult choir, three-part canon, Choristers Guild, A156). Other anthems may be adapted for such use by assigning certain stanzas to each choir or to the combined choirs. This method works well for John Rutter’s “All Things Bright and Beautiful” (one-part; Hinshaw Music, HMC-663).

Soloists

The same liturgical considerations that apply to choirs apply to soloists. Soloists should not convert the sanctuary into a recital hall; instead, their singing should remain an expression of the congregation’s worship. Again, early planning, including careful communication with the soloist, is the key.

Periodic Planning

Yearly summer planning will greatly simplify the coordination of specific services, but periodic planning meetings are also necessary. The planning team (either a church staff or, in a smaller church, the pastor and the organist/choir director) should meet monthly to coordinate the services for the next several Sundays. They should discuss ways of introducing hymns (perhaps through a hymn-of-the-month program) and select hymns (including stanzas) for each service. If the choir is to sing, their selections should also be integrated meaningfully into the order of worship.

Using a preprinted weekly planning form is a good method of consolidating the necessary information. Such a form provides space for listing the hymns, anthems, call to worship, organist’s service music, titles of instrumental music, soloists’ selections, and participants’ names and also leaves room for evaluating the music.

Since the best-laid plans may go awry, it is well for the pastor and the musicians to pray and consult briefly before each service. Only through such careful and prayerful planning will services evolve that reflect the strength, order, and beauty that should characterize our worship.

Does all this sound like too much work? First, remember that early, comprehensive planning is very efficient and will save time when planning for specific services. Second, as the poster on our choir room wall reminds us, keep in mind that “genuine praise is worthy sacrifice that truly honors God.”

Music in the Israelite Temple

by

Music in the temple was made for the worship of God. More than 10 percent of the people serving in temple ministries were musicians. Their music occupied a central place in the worship of God’s people.

The idea of special creative skills in cultic worship occurs long before the advent of professional musicians. In the building of the tabernacle of Moses, artisans were chosen to “make artistic designs” and were given the Holy Spirit to do so (Exod. 35:30–36:2). The ability to devise these works is interestingly related to intelligence, knowledge, and finally craftsmanship. Although the mention of music is minimal in the matter of worship in the tabernacle, Exodus 28:34–35 describes a golden bell attached to the lower hem of Aaron’s robe, which sounds as he goes into the Holy Place.

The trained musicians who eventually appear around the time of David and Solomon mark a distinctive change in the history of biblical music. Before this time much of the music was made by women. Miriam led a group of women in singing and dancing that followed the song of Moses and the children of Israel, celebrating the overthrow of the Egyptians (Exod. 15:1–21); women sang, danced, and played for the conquering David (1 Sam. 18:6–7); Jephthah’s daughter met her father with timbrels and dance upon his return from battle (Judg. 11:34).

With the professionalization of music in the royal courts, and more especially in temple worship, music-making was restricted to men. This is not to say that in the nonprofessional realm women ceased making music; this continued as before. In the accounts in Chronicles that give the statistics of the temple ministries, 4,000 of the 38,000 Levites chosen by David for temple service were musicians (1 Chron. 15:16 NASB; 23:5). These were “the singers, with instruments of music, harps, lyres, loud-sounding cymbals, to raise sounds of joy.” In 1 Chronicles 25:6–7, the number of musicians is listed as 288, divided into twenty-four orders of twelve each. The descriptions of the musical activities that occur thereafter give the impression of an awesome spectacle. This rich array parallels the existence of professional guilds of musicians in the neighboring kingdoms of Egypt and Assyria.

The transition from an unsettled, nomadic life to one of a centralized monarchy provided an opportunity for training and the regulation of a musical system that would serve the needs of the royal court and the worship in the temple. No efforts, it seems, were spared in the full realization of this. The importation of musical instruments and musical systems was no doubt carried out. The normal cultural intercourse during Israel’s sojourn was formalized in the monarchy. The Midrash alludes to a tradition in which King Solomon’s Egyptian wife included 1,000 musical instruments in her dowry. More concrete archaeological evidence makes clear that the instruments of the ancient world were similar from culture to culture. This implies a similarity of musical systems, although it does not rule out the possibility of indigenous change.

There have been many highly romanticized and exaggerated speculations about a never-to-be-repeated musical situation in the temple. These have distorted a true contextual sense of what might have happened, and since there is no precise knowledge of the full musical style, one must remain content with the central concept of a solemn yet exuberant mode of worship. Moreover, it is important to remember that though these musical activities were quantitatively and qualitatively professional, the matter of functionality mentioned earlier still prevailed. The central importance in temple ritual was a sacrifice. All else served this centrality. The system of daily sacrifices, morning and evening, was carefully regulated. The liturgical activities were complex and cumulative. The Mishnah gives the number of instruments in the temple during the Common Era as follows: nevel, minimum two, maximum six; kinnor, minimum nine, maximum limitless; cymbal, one only; ḥalil, minimum two, maximum twelve.

The choir consisted of a minimum of twelve adult male singers, the maximum limitless. The singers served between the ages of thirty and fifty, with a five-year training period preceding this. The lack of mention of a large percussion group as well as the absence of a corps of dancers might indicate an attempt to evade a similarity to pagan forms of worship, although this is only conjecture. It must be balanced with those occasions in which dance is mentioned as a legitimate way of praise elsewhere in the Old Testament (2 Sam. 6:14; Pss. 149:3; 150:4).

Although a good part of the musical performance must have been left to the trained singers and players, the congregation was also musically involved. There is a record in the first century of three forms of public singing of the Scriptures, including the Psalms, each based on the response principle. (a) First form—the leader intoned the first half verse repeated by the congregation. The leader then sang each succeeding half-line, but the congregation responded with the same first half-line. This became a refrain throughout the entire song. (b) In the second form—the leader sang a half line at a time, and the congregation immediately repeated what had just been sung. (c) Third form—the leader sang the whole first line. The congregation answered with the second line of the verse. This was true responsorial singing.