Praise and Worship Music Theory

Praise and Worship Music Theory

In the charismatic movement of the heart, what we seem to be seeking is the movement of the Holy Spirit who prays with inutterable groans within us. That is that the Spirit moves our heart and will to the prayer which is most befitting us.

By this type of prayer we are able to express with our heats and will that which is most conducive to our relationship with God. On of the beautiful things about this prayer is that it is able to express the personal needs of the heart at the time. It is not limited by a pre-established format.

The prayer of the Mass is probably the truest expression of worship that exists in the world. Also who can contend against the power and efficaciousness of the Rosary of our Lady. This being said, there are other forms of prayer. There are times when we join in such prayer forms as above and we do not feel satisfied. Though this is not to say that the effect on us is not a hidden wonderfulness. But we do seek a form of prayer which expresses our hearts as close as possible.

When we pray together, what we seem to desire is the ability to express ourselves and at the same time express ourselves in a format in which we can be in unison or harmony. In praise and worship formats this takes on the form of singing songs together. Songs are sought which are emotive in style and have a truth in the concepts expressed by the lyrics. One of the challenges is that the songs are limited to the text which they have, and so it does not always correspond to where a person is spiritually. Also they tend to a given range of emotions and this may not match the spiritual place of the participant as well.

So the challenge appears to construct a form of song which allows for a freedom of expression within a range which allows for the group to maintain cohesion.

There appears to be two formats to move forward on in striving for this realization.
One is dual mantra/repetitive chant-like phrases interwoven in a call and response format.
This allows for the freedom of modulation/harmonization in the singing of the song.
It also allows for the inter participation between the parties which aims to approach the truth of relationship.

The second is to develop phrases which personally match what the experience of God is within, and to seek a way to express that verbally, and/or melodically. This type is apt for the periods between the songs at praise and worship where there is just strumming, and which is the time where those who employ tongues usually chime in. One of the benefits of this is that those who do not employ tongues will find a forum to continue active vocal expressions of prayer in a group/communal format.

The task then is to identify what the movement of the heart is in love of God and other.
Then to attempt to express this movement by phrases.

For the call and response format it would then be the task to find similar phrases which could be interwoven.
Then to find the melodies which express the sentiment of the heart in the words used
Then to meld the melodies in a way that they, intersect, overlap, emolden and where they meet, almost take on a life of their own as gift.

For the individual expressions, it will likely require some pracice and development for those who do not have tongues. They would have to develop their own personal list of phrases, and could employ others phrases if they were aware of them, and if they were appropriate to them.
Though each person has their own personal resonse to God, I imagine that there will be similar responses and expressions which others can take up. Certainly some songs express the movement of the heart which is comfortable to others.

A note on authenticity: Though it is part of the task to find phrases and melodies that match where on is in relationship with God, it is not completely necessary that the way is 100% thought out and verifiably authored by the singer. For myself, I have striven for this authenticity and have sought to avoid “singing it like someone else”. Certainly one wants to bring as much subjective/personal truth to the expressio, both emotively/sentimentally and in the words expressed. But, when we consider that part of the task is to join with the will and movement of the Holy Spirit within us, then we must accept some blending of our will and the others. We must lend our will to the others and let them lend their will to us.

This note touches upon a deeper theological and dare I say, ontological reality which is at play in the domain of union and will and good. It requires some basic suppositions to be covered first.

The Good:
A person is an individual who is not another individual.
When one person acts for the benefit of another we recognize that as a good act.
Insofar as we determine our moral character by our acts, each good act is a qualifying determinant of that person’s goodness.
It is certainly the case that “Only God is good,” as Jesus said to the rich young man who had said to him, “Good teacher, what must I do to have eternal life?”
But we must recognize that God has created us as individual persons who determine our character by our acts, and the intentions of our acts. To the degree that the intentions are good, there is a corresponding degree by which we determine ourselves as good.
So, having established that each person determines their moral character to a fairly decisive degree by their actions, we can move on.

The Other:
One of the key points of the above statement on the good, is that of the centrality of the other in that which determines an act as good, and consequently the acting person as good. I would state that the easiest way to describe that which is required for an act to be good is that it includes in its intention/purpose the benefit of an other. A simple example of this is to compare a person who strives to accumalate money for their own benefit or for the sake of money. What comes to mind here is Ebeneezer Scrooge in Charles Dicken’s “A Christmas Carol.” Compare this to the central figure of “It’s a Wnderful Life.” Both sought and worked for financial security and success, but the person in “It’s a Wonderful Life” had as their intent, the benefit of his family and the other’s in the town. We would not call the character of Ebeneezer Scrooge “good” whereas we would the other man. The distinction appears to fall along the lines that the one had the benefit of other(s) as part of his intention, whereas the Scrooge did not.
Many more examples could be given along these lines, but I will move to the point and stipulate that it is the intention of the benefit of an other in an act which is required to make it good. I say required because I believe this factor is that which determines the goodness of the act, but I note that it alone is not sufficient to make it good, as there could be other intentions which in the end make the act bad. The person could be manipulative in the act, or other circumstances could make the act inappropriate at the time. That being said, I surmise that you will not find that you would call an act good if it lacks an intention of another’s benefit.

Uniting in Good Will:
So if you will allow it we can state accept that the benefit of another must be included in one’s intention for an act to be good, and that act reflects back to the acting person and qualifies them as good. We can see that in a relationship between two, a friendship, actions are each being directed to each other. In a friendship they both will be intending the good of each other. In a friendship the desire of one for the other includes that they not only receive good(s) but that they “be good.” As noted above, to be good requires that one’s actions are good. That is that one’s actions include the benefit of another in the intention of the acting person. So a friend does not only have an intention willed for the other’s good, but they will that the friend wills the good of an other so that the friend can be good.
When the friends are acting relationally they are involved in acts where they are giving and receiving to each other. That is they are present to each other and committing acts one for the other. In this normal friendship scenario of friends being together relating to each other we see that they are moving to an agreement of will which is focused on the good for the other.
The agreement is on having a “willing” that includes the benefit of the other. Such a will allows them to share their will with each other. Spiritually, this means that by the trust of the other, warranted by the knowledge that the other wills the good, and specifically their good, they allow the other access to their person, to their will. It also involves a degree of being known by the other and of knowing the other. But the case in point here is that degeree to which they unite in that which is being willed. This uniting in will tends toward letting the other have access to that power or faculty of the will that is resident in the spirit or soul of each. As each person as a soul has willing and intellectual faculties with which they act, the state of personal unity is one in which those faculties are shared with the faculties/powers of the other.
In this state of friendship then, where two are relating in act towards each other, there exists an interpenetration of not only what is being known and willed by each other, but an access to the faculties in each other by which they know and will.
Now, if we can see that the act of willing good includes that the friend intends the good of the friend, to be in agreement on this will and intenton, they must receive and accept the good intended to them by their friend. What this leads to is that they receive the will of the friend. As the will of the friend is one which includes that they be good, the will of that friend will include that they extend their will of good to the friend as well. As such they must incorporate in their shared will the good of each. They must accept the good intended for them by their friend if they seek to realize the good of the friend. It is a truth which they must accept and assent to and assert in their will. Each then incorporates the giving and receiving to each other as a truth of the goodness of their will which they are in agreement on and uniting in.

This state of “being with” in the mutual good of friendship is in a sense, the state of “good” as part of the actualization of each individual person’s “being good”. To “be good” is to “be with” in a personal extension of one’s will and being to the other. It includes one’s being because part of the good that one intends for each other is that they exist.

The state of being for each other and with each other in a union will and intention, and giving and receiving is aptly described as being a gift for each other and with each other. For the donation of good will, willing the good to each other, leads to that personal inter-penetration and inter-subjectivity which is the state of union and “being with”.
Now, one of the truths of action appears to be that our wills are always involved in existence. We exist and we are beings who will matters of existence. By our willing acts, we are always to some degree, willing that something should exist. An intentional willing to some degree is always stating that the purpose or end that we are willing is something that should be. That which we are willing in our acts is a good which we are proposing should be. Though there are many smaller acts which can be incorporated or nested into larger final purposes, there is generally discernible in actions what that purpose is which is intended. My act may be to drive a car to work, but that act of driving the car to work is nested in the purpose for which we work. The purpose for which we work, may be to pay the bills and sustain ourselves, but the purpose of sustaining ourselves is ultimately nested within the larger purpose of our being, the larger purpose of our existence.

I am stating, as have others, that bthe purpose and meaning of our existence is love. Is the relation of friendship which leads to the state of good which is “being with” as I have laid out above. But here, and in this state, is I believe a further consequence of what is involved in love, friendship and being “with.” That is that there is an redoubling consequence to the reality of love based upon the principle that by our actions we are stating what should be, or what ought to be, what ought to exist. If we can accept this principle of action, then what is being mutually asserted in the union of will and being that develops from the state of good and “being with” and uniting in “being gift” is that what is asserted by such an action and state is that what ought to be is a being which is gift.

As the act of gift always involves the capacity of the other to freely accept the gift, there is always a “space” involved in such an act. A donation or gift is not forced, otherwise it loses the essence by which it can be called gift. So in the mutual relationship of friendship which has been described above, there is a discernile quality which is that the act which includes the intention for the others benefit has in it a “letting be” of the other which conveys the truth that the intention is truly for sake of the other. This focus on the good of the other, when occurring in the relational act of friendship/love, weaves into the very fabric of “being with” the space for the other in freedom. In a loving relationship this movement of the will states that “I am for you with my being.” As such they extend in their will with their very existence the good of the other and the existence of the other.

As we have noted above, this good of the other ultimately can form that union of will and being and access in one another that we call the state of good, and “being with.” But it is important to discern that each posits with their existence and being the other in the space of freedom, and conjointl that this state of the good will, in which they are in agreement and union, is ultimately what theyb are saying by their action, what ought to be.

The form of their love then, incorporates the space to accept gift which we will call the freedom of gift. Mutually willed, it offers good and one’s self for the sake of the other, and in the union of agreement on this will, it accepts the other wholly, giving them access to one’s own existence in the affirmation and assertion of that other’s existence. In the freedom of gift then which they are mutually experiencing and uniting in, there is at the core, the truth of being good and being with that is willed. It is a truth which they are stating should be by their action. As they mutually lend to the other access to their own faculties and existence based upon this truth of the content what is being willed, that it is good, they are affirming in the freedom of this access the freedom of this being. By the space involved in the freedom of the gift, and by the indifference that one has to one’s personal benefit in such a donation, other than that is involved in the receiving of the others gift, (which makes them good as noted above), we can discern that there is a natural consequence of the whole movement which posits the freedom and gift of being. The letting go in the act of gift and the assertion of the others existence offered and esxtended by the possesion of one’s own existence formulates the assertion that this will of the good should be, and in the mode of gift in the truth of what is good, is let be unto its own existence.

In love the, the movement of willing the good of the other forms the union of what is willed and the union of being which as coming to be through the freedom of gift leads to the natural assetion that there should be the other, the third who is the good will realized as the truth of gift and self offering.

So, in seeking to formulate phrases and expressions which adequately represent our response to the God who is within us by virtue of our baptism and his love, we can note a couple of things

One is that it is appropriate to seek to takeup the will of God and specifically the Holy Spirit as we can detect this movement and give a response in kind of self offering. But it is also appropriate to give voice to that stirring and words which come to mind, even if we do not feel that they are utterly arising from us. But we still seek to bend them or ben ourselves to make of them as authentic an expresson of our heart as possible. This includes that they are consonant with the movement of our will and emotions and sentiments, and that the words which come to our mind and spring up in our intellect, match as best as possible the truth as we undertand it and the truth of our state of the heart with God.

Second, since “being with” involves the lending of our facukties to the other, always striving that this access is lent towards the true good of each other, we do seek to formulate expressions and melodies and sentiments which can be taken up by each other as it facilitates the state of “being with”

Thirdly, insofar as we can facilitate this access to each other and share at this level, we move closer to that realization of the Spirit of Truth who seeks to unite us in the freedom of being good and being with that he is.

Song Thoughts

Just some considered phrases for a song.

My Lord, you're heart
is so wonderful and good.
You draw near in me
Help me to be one in love.