We are all familiar with the trends. New churches are now called "worship centers" to make them seem more user-friendly and inviting to those outside the faith. Detailed Christian symbolism and artwork are out; simplicity and (unfortunately) showiness are in.

Some of these trends are useful and represent what should be a collective historical learning experience. Others might in fact be fads, or worse; we humans tend to become habituated to changes without contemplating the long-term implications of their implementation.

Architecture is a case in point. Church architects now usually strive for more open, lighted, and inviting space which offers a gradual transition from parking lot to foyer to sanctuary. Consider almost any large, modern church building you have visited recently and you will realize this. Now contrast this with the abrupt transition that we experience in walking from the busy street into the quiet, dark, edifice of a typical century-old downtown church building, replete with beautiful woodwork, artistic symbology, stained-glass windows and prominent ranks of visible organ pipes. You would probably enjoy visiting a worship service in such a facility, as Esther and I do when we travel. For those of us raised in the church, such buildings have a profound (and positive) cultural association (even if we do wish for more natural light in the pew or organ loft!). However, this kind of approach to sanctuary design is no longer popular; for one thing (note the rationale) it’s not thought to be attractive to visitors. In the "modernization" of church architecture, certain things have been gained, but others are being lost.

Other trends are evident today. Pianos have often replaced organs. Electronic keyboards have replaced both (I recently read an article from a local congregation which strongly implied that all the great organ music of Christian history could be played on the versatile electronic keyboard that the church was considering purchasing!) Guitars and drums are in, often to the exclusion of more traditional instrumental media. Music of simple range, and the electronically-amplified solo voice or small "worship team", have replaced the full sonority and rich blend of a dedicated choir. While most of us appreciate a variety of media and experiences, one cannot easily escape the feeling that some of these changes are being thrust upon, or (perhaps more alarmingly) slipped past, the majority of those of us in the Christian community.

The emphasis on rapid change in recent ecclesiastical history has been strong, even forced. As with any cultural transition, polarization has resulted. I recall a comment, some quarter century ago, from a very accomplished organist at a large downtown church, a man with a music doctorate who had spent the better part of a lifetime devoted to quality church music. He pointed out that often those who wish to make radical changes in worship style often speak with a voice and authority far more extensive than their numbers, or their backgrounds, would suggest or justify. Experience confirms that this is often the case. Adherents to the ways of the past shun the new, while those in the forefront of the avant-garde movement seek to make as full as possible a break with the past. Perhaps both are mistakes.

This phenomenon is by no means novel. What possibly is new is that we have become a technology-driven society. Perhaps that began with the Industrial Revolution two-and-a-half centuries ago. However, we are experiencing an invasion (I chose the word carefully) of technology into our churches as never before, which threatens widespread alterations in our very worship behavior.

This requires careful thought. We can use technology as an asset (consider the spread of the gospel by radio, the amplification of sound for the hearing-impaired, or the preservation of the spoken word or musical selection in nearly exact form for immediate recall, all virtually impossible several generations ago). But while change is not always bad and not always to be feared, but it is not always for the better. How many churches have become rapidly disillusioned after buying expensive electronic synthesizers, for instance, only to find that the effects that they desired to duplicate, as seen in television evangelism and professional "shows", in fact required a professionalism in production that rivals a modern recording studio?

I won’t seek to discuss differences in worship styles here; that subject can be explored later. Let it be sufficient to say that my perspective is that there are many and varied ways to worship God today in the context of our reformed heritage. Whatever instrumental complement or musical styles we use should be carefully and prayerfully selected and should be presented well. Furthermore, anything we do should be chosen with the objective of enhancing worship. Thankfully, that has been the hallmark of First Presbyterian Church, and we should continue to seek the highest quality and relevance in our worship. And we should always be open to what is new, continuing to seek the best in quality and value of whatever we do, while using the best of our extensive, collective Christian heritage.

It has been a real source of pleasure to me that our Church has continued to use the wonderful organ that we have available (you would expect that perspective of an organist, wouldn’t you?) In reflecting on this topic, I decided to try to list a few reasons why we, in public worship as a local, twenty-first-century congregation of the Church universal, ought to continue to use the organ confidently and without apology:

1. The organ has a deep and pronounced historical association with worship and the music of the Church. Of course this has been culture- and country-dependent: while Lutheran and Roman Catholic congregations were enthusiastically using the organ creatively in worship several centuries ago, for instance, some Reformed congregations in this country restricted their use to other instrumental media or purely vocal music as an expression of worship. And we are aware of the long struggle of the instrument to outgrow its pagan origins and, by the Renaissance, to be well accepted within the Church. Nevertheless, most large, established American churches probably boasted some form of organ (pipe or reed) by the end of the nineteenth century, and this tradition has continued. For better or for worse, in the minds of even unbelievers or agnostics, "serious" organ music still continues in many cases to evoke ideas of Christian worship. Organ music has a distinguished and honorable association with the Church.

2. The organ is an ideal medium for accompanying and supplementing voices because, unlike many instruments, it uses wind to produce sound as does the human voice (even the better electronic instruments strive to imitate these nuances of air movement through resonant media, such as harmonic content, attack and release, which should tell us something). Pipe-organ sounds, just as in the case of the human voice, have never been duplicated artificially with complete satisfaction.

3. The long association of the organ with the Church and (more recently) as a concert instrument has produced an immense volume of musical literature for the instrument. Furthermore, hundreds of new pieces of organ music are issued by publishers each year. Many of these are of a quality and relevance that suggests their use in worship. Thousands of excellent hymn-based organ compositions exist, in a variety of styles, which are useful in conveying hymn literature to worshipers. In addition, transcriptions of both major and lesser-known works for other instrumental media or voice can be performed, sometimes acceptably, on the organ. (In fact, before the widespread use of the music box, and more especially the audio recording, radio, and television broadcasts, the organ and piano were the major vehicles for sharing orchestral and other musical compositions with hearers remote from the principal performance centers. "Touring organs" in the United States and Britain, for example, brought quality music to many small cities eighty or more years ago.)

4. The organ is versatile. Even a pipe organ of moderate size often has the capability of providing gentle accompaniment or a powerful, stirring crescendo. Few instruments approach its dynamic range. Furthermore, the separate keyboards ("manuals") and the pedal keyboard enable the simultaneous playing of separate, distinct moving parts, or of emphasizing a melody with accompaniment (this is one reason why the aforementioned single electronic "keyboard", even with today’s marvelous electronic frills, cannot replace the organ).

5. Unlike a flute or trumpet, for instance (which have prominent roles in church music in their own right), a keyboard instrument has the capability of harmony; it can sound more than one tone at once. Hymn accompaniment, often with separate moving parts, would be much less strong and definite without the capability of sounding several tones at once. Of course, the piano can do this also, and with its percussive emphasis is quite suitable to accompanying many kinds of Christian song. But the piano cannot support long tones as the organ can. Furthermore, the organ has the greatest tonal and dynamic ranges of nearly any "natural" musical instrument.

We at First Presbyterian Church are blessed with a fine organ in which the sound is produced by true pipes and reeds, an instrument capable of providing a meditative background for the Lord’s Supper or a powerful postlude to encourage us to "go forth in service". Such a possession, like any fine musical instrument, requires continued maintenance and care, and will, in return, serve its hearers for many years. It is a real delight to continue to use our fine organ and piano in worship with our congregation. As we always continue to seek to make our music ministry more relevant and effective, I continue to give thanks for the wisdom of the leadership of this church in making the costly commitment, in past times, to secure quality and lasting keyboard instruments for generations of worshipers.

Return to home page