Gospel, vs. Choirs

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Mar 17, 1874

Gospel, vs. Choirs.

GEO. H. HEPWORTH, in the N. Y. Independent, says on this subject:—

Choirs, as a general thing, are a nuisance. They are the bane of the minister's life. Instead of occupying a subordinate place, they insist upon undue prominence. I once told my choir—it was in the days of my youth, before I had learned to bow before the authority of the soprano—that after the prayer a simple strain was enough. The first Sunday they sang a single verse; but the second Sunday, they gave me the whole of “Home, Sweet Home,” in five stanzas, with solos and chorus. I was reminded of a friend of mine, who, occupying a strange pulpit, asked the sexton in a whisper if the choir did anything after the prayer. “Yes,” responded the illiterate but truthful man; “they sing a little—just enough, you know, to do away with the effect of the prayer.”

When our new church was built, I took the precaution to have the pulpit end so constructed that a place for professional musicians is simply an impossibility. I can't describe my emancipation. I have the delightful consciousness—and how much it is worth only the minister can tell—that the simple gospel does not share the honors with any celebrated tenor or soprano. We save the expense and the wear and tear of a choir, and we have the very best kind of singing for a church; for we attempt only the old-fashioned tunes, and all the people feel that they are praising God with their own voices, and not by proxy.

But, says a friend at my elbow, a fine choir is a great attraction. I read in the paper the other day, among other notices, that on a given Sunday Mr. Blank would preach on “Regeneration,” and that the choir would furnish “elaborate music.” Well, if the gospel fails to draw a congregation, we will learn how to preach it in a way that will attract; but do not override the pulpit with opera. We cannot afford to make our church services spicy and toothsome with the pepper and vinegar of secular songs. Unmeaning or lustful attractiveness does not constitute religious success. I suppose we could all draw a crowd by having a trapeze hung above the pulpit, and an advertisement in the morning papers stating that the minister would read the fifth chapter of Matthew while balancing himself on one foot or turning a double summersault; but I doubt whether such a performance, or the crowd which might attend it, would indicate a healthy religious condition. The truth is, that our choirs are an element of sham, and that our present style of church singing lowers the standard of our services. The congregation are harmed because the simplicity of the gospel is mixed with the tawdry musical decorations of the stage; and the minister is fettered, because he is constantly overwhelmed with the feeling that the sermon is of little account, and must be cut short to give the organ gallery a fair chance.

It is a great deal better to have a small church built on the gospel than to have a large one founded on the choir. The best thing the religious world can do is to sweep the singing gallery clean, and come down to the hard-pan of the New Testament. Less opera and more Scripture is a good motto. Smaller numbers but greater power would be the result. Heaven is on the side of those who do their own singing and give the choir-money to the poor.