QUOTE(Vox Humana @ Aug 8 2012, 01:05 AM)
QUOTE(Tosher @ Aug 8 2012, 12:16 AM)
Shine Jesus Shine is essentially a useful vehicle for the worship context in that it allows so many people to engage in singing the praises of their God, among virtually all church traditions.
Sadly, you're right. To paraphrase Vaughan Williams's words in the original English Hymnal, people will gladly embrace rubbish in lieu of anything better. And until they are taught to appreciate music properly by our education system - and for the most part they currently are not* - who can blame them?*Lest anyone should think I am teacher-bashing, please rest assured that I am not pointing fingers at anyone. I am merely observing that schools have long been losing the unequal battle with the media, who carpet-bomb us with "pop" idioms and seem unable to conceive excitement in any other form.
'Shine, Jesus, Shine' is, regrettably, not a good piece. Mr Kendrick does not do his own words justice, setting them badly, in terms of rhythm, melodic shape and register. No blame attaches to him, for I understand that he has had little formal training as a composer. This would account for the inappropriate register of the opening lines, for example.
If I may, I disagree with Tosher. The theological content is poor and gives entirely the wrong impression of the Founder's message, though this approach to Christianity is common in certain styles of worship.
The item does often seem to be chosen 'to get people going'. That manner of devising worship was articulated by The Reverend Alfred C Lamb many years ago. His view was that the purpose of music in worship was to awake the worshipper's ear to receive the message. Thus anything would do that would 'turn people on'.
This amounts to the fundamental conflict between the priestly ministry, (not in the sacrificial sense), and the prophetic ministry. One is objective and the other subjective. Both achieve the conversion of souls, but only one seeks to maintain won souls in a state of grace by feeding and nourishing. St Paul refers to moving from milk to meat - I think it is in Hebrews Chapter 5, but I have no Bible to hand to check the reference. This is what the real issue is about here. Those who prefer 'stronger' material are seeking to move onward in the Christian journey, whereas others are content to remain closer to the point of first enlightenment or, as it is sometimes described, 'conversion'. St Paul is rather critical of this. It appears to have been a problem in the early church as well as nowadays.
As has been pointed out out, even the newly written pieces are very much in the early 1970s style. It is certainly not modern. However, what cannot be challenged is Mr Kendrick's sincereity and openness. He is a delightful person.