You nailed it perfectly. One of the reasons I fled to the Latin mass a few years ago was not so much for the Latin as to escape one final, dreadful liturgy with two music ministers trying to sing opera all through it. The chant at the high mass is beautiful and is carrying over a bit to the novus ordo at our parish. It's great and everyone I know who attends the novus ordo loves having some chant incorporated into their Sunday celebration.

Hi there! Regarding these questions I think the sole authority resides in the GIRM. I head the Worship Committee in our parish, and our diocesan liturgist, who is a priest is a very close friend once told me to consult this from time to time when in doubt. I hope this helps if not a good start for future discussions regarding these matters between us.

I am buying this book and giving it to my Priest. Our music leader was upset one Sunday when after mass a parishoner yelled out, "Quiet, I'm still praying." She turned and said, "This is a celebration. We can talk as loud as we want." Her music choices are very protestant. I thank you for giving me proof that our music is defined in the rubrics. Now I can charitabally approach her and our Priest with the request they read your book. Thank You

I'm a convert to the Faith from Lutheranism. I grew up in a religion where there were great old hymns, with great theology, sung with gusto from beginning to end. As a Catholic, I was and continue to be disappointed that, typically, only part of any given hymn is sung at mass. This seems to be the case with all of them -- good and bad. It seems that the "modern musical movement" in the Church has not improved the enthusiasm of the faithful when it comes to singing hymns. It's as lethargic as ever. As a Lutheran, I learned (by the example of the congregation) that one of the greatest ways to give thanks and praise to God was to put everything I had into singing the hymns. Perhaps a good starting point in addressing the issue of music at mass would be to return to the basics and somehow teach the faithful that mass attendance is about giving thanks and praise to God rather than being entertained.

Sing like a Catholic? If my 3 decades long experience is any guide, singing like a Catholic means either 1. lip sync-ing to the music IF you're one of the few people to even pick up the hymnal at all, or 2. doing your best to sing the horrendous music until the notes get too high for male accompaniment or the music gets too operatic for any normal congregation to follow. Please- someone put an end to this madness!!

So glad someone's out there saying it like it is. After moving from a New York Cathedral parish to a southern diocese, I am having a terrible time with the music here. We have a combo of Protestant hymns, the pedestrian "liturgical" music of the 60's and 70's, and very recently, some attempts at classical and Latin chant. In addition, someone here thinks louder is better. What we wind up with is gobbledygook. Good Friday is like a Broadway production, complete with sound effects (think Megachurch). I realize that having sung in a Cathedral choir for eleven years probably makes me a bit of a liturgical music snob, but there's something to be said for having good quality music, and even more to be said for a return to Latin chant, which lends itself to a reverent, prayerful celebration of the Holy Mass. What we have now is quite a bit of nothing special. I have a number of people in mind who will be receiving an unexpected gift from an anyomous friend.

Jeff, please recommend specific recordings of these chants. Are there any mp3 recordings than can be found on the Internet?

We should find the videos of my interviews with you on EWTN some years ago -- they were quite animated!

Another thing that ought to be observed is more silence during Mass during Lent. Both the traditional Latin Mass and even the novus ordo do NOT permit organ during Lent, except to sustain voices (with Laetare Sunday, solemnities and Benediction as exceptions).

Silence -- even during Solemn High Masses at certain times, during Lent -- can be golden.

How many times do you hear that "music at Mass" (note the implied disjunction) is "a matter of taste"?

This claim is contrary to the teaching of the Second Vatican Council, which stated very clearly in its _Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy_ (par. 116) that sacred chant should be given "principem locum" in the liturgy. Why? Isn't anything else just as good? Um, no. The Council said that the chant is "proper to the Roman Rite," which is to say that it is to be regarded as an inherent property of the Roman rite itself.

Thus, if we were really to speak as the Council requires us to speak, we should say "the music of the Mass," which in the Roman rite is what we call Gregorian chant.

It is not a matter of taste, but of what is integral to the Mass.

Yes, other musical settings are permitted: the Council singles out sacred choral polyphony in this regard, derived as it originally was (and still is) from the compositional ideal and practice of ecclesiastical chant. That is another story.

The main story, which Jeffrey rightly points out, is the utter disregard after the Council of what the Council actually said about the music of the Mass. Forty years later, it is high time we started paying attention and treating the Mass with the awe and dignity it (Christ) deserves.

Anthony, let us not forget that there is good taste and bad taste. Good taste in music is informed by the experience of that music which sets the standard for the rest. It is fine to say that music at Mass is a "matter of taste," as long as whoever utters that phrase realizes it is only the beginning of the conversation.

Here in Costa Rica, the catholic church sounds in some places like a discotheque.
Cracking percussion pop beats from a synthesizer and a swinging singer are standard.
If there is no mass, they put soft background music in the cathedral, but it is not religious. They put things like Mozart opus 40 on a synthesizer kind of idea.
I want to hear inspiring music in the church like Gregorian chant, but that is too much asked.
The reason? Turn on the radio anywhere in the world and start surfing the FM band. Do you hear any inspiring music? Only beats and beats and beats. So what do you expect? They know not better.
But what can I say? Will I go and sing?

Have you noticed that those responsible for background music in film seem to know what "Catholic music" is? If the scene takes place in a Catholic church the instrument you hear is almost always the organ. If someone is praying in front of a statue, the music you hear is chant. Unless the movie's a comedy, a producer wouldn't dream of accompanying a scene inside a Catholic Church with an electric keyboard or a guitar!

Even after forty years of "new age" replacements for that which has for centuries been our musical heritage, producers represent our "Catholic" music appropriately.

Does the confusion only lie in our local parish churches?

@Deal Hudson: 'It is fine to say that music at Mass is a "matter of taste," as long as whoever utters that phrase realizes it is only the beginning of the conversation.'

Is that right, though? I think what Anthony was getting at (which is also the point of much of what Jeffrey Tucker writes) is that if you omit the Propers, you're omitting the texts of the Mass itself. Sure, it's permissible to do this, but is it desirable? Should it be the norm?

Maybe the conversation needs to start there, and get entirely away from the question of taste. There are many perfectly wonderful hymns that should only be sung at Mass *after* the Propers have been sung.

But if you start the conversation with taste, there's no way to argue that great hymns are not enough. And they aren't.

If you want to hear truly beautiful music that does justice to the liturgy, and you happen to live in the St. Louis, MO area, go to Mass at St. Francis de Sales. The music is truly beautiful and uplifting, thereby facilitating contemplation of the divine mysteries, which is as it should be. In my humble opinion, the insipid music that has become prevalent in N.O. churches does nothing to inspire, rather it does more to detract from the mass.
Thank you for writing about this subject.

In my psrish it seems that those in the "music ministry" are more interested in hearing themselves sing and perform rather than adding humbly to the Mass.

I enjoyed this post very much. I am a convert and find the music very trying in the Cathedral where I worship. Either it is Protestant hymns (sometimes with the strangest, minor wording changes) or there are three Catholic composers our Music Director favours, all of whom have very boring melody lines (or little melody line at all; in which case, they are very difficult for an untrained congregation to sing) coupled with words that surely border on heretical (pantheistic or sometimes just plain modernist junk). Not only that, but she insists on repeating the same recessional for three, four, or even five Sundays in a row. Is this a Catholic custom?? I would love to have some real music -- of any kind!(Although chant would be best, as I agree, it is proper to the mass). Thanks for the opportunity to blow off some steam on this! Still, I am reminded of a former pastor who, when discussing music in the church, stated: "When the devil fell from Heaven, he landed on the piano bench."

Jeffrey, the version of history you promote concerning the Church's musical life immediately before the Council is a pious invention, I'm afraid, and you allow it to fire your hostility to some of the good things that have grown out of the liturgical renewal.

Most Catholics fifty years ago never heard the propers sung. If they heard singing at all at Mass, they subsisted on the junk diet provided by the liturgical travesty which is the "Low Mass with hymns" - where the hymns, according to the rubrics, were required to have devotional texts that were not taken from the propers.

What has changed since the Council is the way that sacred song at Mass, in its best contemporary manifestations, now has a predominantly scriptural basis. This is a remarkable and thoroughly welcome development, in keeping with the way in which the liturgical renewal has unquestionably made us as Catholics more familiar with the words of scripture than our grandparents were; and with the Psalms above all.

This is not to defend the travesties of the present day - the would-be rock stars and the would-be purveyors of show-stoppers. But if you can't tell the difference between the good and the bad in contemporary liturgical music and contemprary liturgical praxis, then you are insufficiently familiar with your subject matter to justify your expressing your opinions on it in public.

Instead, unfortunately, you talk about clueless nihilism, about the aging hippy Mass, the breathy teen-pop Mass, the pseudo-Broadway Mass, the lone-cantor-plus-guitar Mass, the ethnic parade. The language of insults, in other words.

Ask yourself: who do you expect to convince with your tendentious account of contemporary liturgical music? Not, surely, anyone you've consigned to the wastebasket of ageing hippiedom, ethnic parading etc.

If you want to convince anyone who doesn't already agree with you, you'll have to show them more respect than you do, and greater familiarity with what is truly good in the musical fruits of the liturgical renewal.

But if you proceed by taunts and slights and declarations of war, those you seek to convert will conclude that you do not understand, and have nothing to say to them.

I'd say I had gone to an American Catholic university.

Couldn't resist.

For me, If it isn't Gregorian Music during Mass, it isn't.

My pastor recently remarked "I like ALL kinds of music ", which caused me to wonder would we one day get a little rock at Mass?

We have a music minister who was not a Catholic until recently so our music tends to be the Protestant type. Since Protestant churches seldom have communion (and never the REAL Eucharist) they rely on lots and lots of music and preaching. We have had so many hymns and solos some Sunday Masses that the hymn board could not accomodate all the numbers. Occasionally the congregation bursts into applause following some of the
selections (despite some priests trying to explain that this is not acceptable), but this is simply the congregation recognizing a "performance" when they hear one.

the inclusion of all sorts of musical instruments badly played and renditions of Lamb of God which remind me of the Rockettes kicking their legs to and fro.

Suggestions such as this article fall on deaf ears. We suffer on and offer it up. I would give anything for some periods of
silence in which to speak personally to the Lord when I am receiving him into my heart and soul.

Copernicus,

I did not see Mr. Tucker claiming that the state of sacred music was fantastic before the Council. He if anyone knows that it was, in fact, in some respects pretty dismal. Yes, there were too many low Masses. Yes, there were dreadful hymns to accompany them. No-one is claiming otherwise.

What Tucker is trying to tell us is that chant, and music derived from it, is the IDEAL for the Mass. Sadly, this ideal has not always been adhered to properly, neither now nor before the Council. This was one of the factors in the growth of the liturgical movement of the 19th century, which among other things sought a revival of chant. The Second Vatican Council followed up on this and affirmed its integral position; it clearly wanted chant to become more widespread and wanted the laity to learn to sing the Ordinary with the Gregorian Mass settings. What happened was, however, that chant was almost universally ditched and music in most places became more dismal than ever.

No-one of us here is advocating a return to the 1950's, in which both the Church at large and its liturgy faced serious problems. We merely want the Church to adhere more faithfully to its eternal principles, i.e. the sung Mass is the norm (though I know that many people prefer the silence of low Masses), chant is the norm, liturgy is adoration rather than self-congratulation etc.

And as for post-Vatican II music being better scripturally founded - it certainly doesn't look like that from where I'm standing. At sung Masses in the pre-Vat II world the Propers were sung, which are texts taken directly out of Scripture. As mentioned, even though we have now many more sung Masses, the Propers have fallen almost universally into disuse and have been replaced with more or less Protestant hymns and pop songs which seldom have much to do with Scripture except for passing references to it.

Same thing in our parish. Our "cantor" (Tina) likes to wink at "the crowd" and sing in an operatic manner (which makes quite a few people visibly cringe) My wife and I call it "The Tina Show" because it's more flash than worship.

Perhaps another place to look for change is to the publishers of the most popular missalettes and "Music Issue" supplements. The Oregon Catholic Press seems to be nearly ubiquitous. In recent years I've noticed that they have returned many traditional Catholic hyms to their "Music Issue", but still haven't culled the questionable ones that most parish music programs seem to know best or like best. The OCP (and other Catholic music publishers) require clerical approval, so ordinary subscribers (like my parish) could petition through the publisher or the approving bishop with specific objections and suggestions.

Another idea: I know the Adoremus hymnal is a beautiful resource, but is there a similar missalette-type (with accompanying readings) that could replace the OCP missalette and have nothing but beautiful music? Perhaps the new translation we anticipate would be a great opportunity for some enterprising Catholic to publish a missalette with great Catholic music sort of along the lines of the OCP subscription service that so many parishes use.

It's time for leadership from the Vatican on this issue. We need a book similar to the Catechism of the Catholic Church but for music.

The fact that they refer to themselves as "music ministry" explains it all...they believe that they are giving a "gift" to the parishioners each time they start to sing, and that their "talents" are a gift from God that they are impelled to "give back" to God's people. This is the essence of "music ministry".

Perhaps if they understood that their real purpose is to serve the liturgy, not the people, then they could begin to conform to want the liturgy demands rather than what they think the "people" demand.

As a side note... our Bishop has asked that non-ordained positions cease referring to themselves as "ministers". I am the Director of Music, not the "Music Minister"....

Copernicus;

You can trust those of us who know Jeffrey even in passing that he has no illusions about the state of Catholic music immediately before the council. But this has been said already.

As for claiming that he should become familiar with the subject before commenting on it in public... I can only laugh. Perhaps you ought catch up a little on the person about whom you comment.

The terms he uses "aging hippie Mass... Teen Pop-Star Mass..."... these are not his inventions, and they are not insults... they are characterizations based on a vast experience in parish music for the last 40 years. You are perhaps correct that there is indeed some worthwhile and genuinely appropriate contemporary music for Catholic liturgy. Unfortunately, none of it is found or promoted by the major publishers, and little of it is done in mainstream parishes.

If your point is to defend contemporary liturgical music on the basis that it is "scripturally based", I would love to know where you think the texts for the Propers come from? All of the Propers are drawn from scripture. What is at question is what is the best way to present scriptural texts musically? I have some serious misgivings, for instance, about a selection such as "Eye Has Not Seen"... while scripturally based, the music is pure 1974-75 Broadway, maybe more at home in a "Godspell" like setting but certainly not at Mass. Should we really be clothing scripture in such cheap garb?

You think director has a greater ring of humility to it, then?

Your bishop's view is perhaps somewhat eccentric, relative to the Church's liturgical norms. GIRM uses the phrase minister laicus four times. Is this a banned book in your diocese?

Copernicus;

Where did I suggest that the reason for dropping the affectation of "minister" was to increase a sense of humility?

I wouldn't pretend to know why a Bishop would make such a request (and it wasn't "banned" as you say...), only that I should take heed of it.

I do have a serious question though about your first post. Do you really believe that contemporary scripture based liturgical songs have brought about a greater awareness of the scriptures in this generation than in the previous generations of Catholics? This is a bold claim to make, particularly about a generation that seems to have a very limited knowledge of scripture. And further, do you really think that it is a "remarkable and thoroughly welcome development" to everyone? It clearly is not, else there would not be the current disputes over liturgy.

In the documents of Vatican II, the words "minister" and "ministry" are almost exclusively reserved for the priesthood. Were the Council fathers also <i>eccentric</i>?

this sort of distracting music and showcasing is so prevalent that one wonders at the futility of trying to worship and praise God. Every congregant as part of actively worshipping should sing each 'hymn' with joy and say each prayer with clarity. actively taking part in the act of worship. But they have given mumble and listen to the show. There is nothing more edifying than a beautiful choir who sings appropriate music and encourages you to join in with them. I know of such a one.
Shall we pray for more uplifting music in church?

In Catholic elementary school in the 1940's and 1950's we had choir practice on Friday afternoons in the auditorium. We learned the hymns, and therefore we sang them on Sunday.
Some of these beautiful hymns are still in some missalettes, but are not sung because most modern leaders of song have never heard them. Here are a few. Try them.
Heart of Jesus Meek and Mild
Jesus the Very Thought of Thee
O Lord I am Not Worthy
O Sacrament Most Holy, O Sacrament Divine
Come Holy Ghost
Holy God We Praise Thy Name

Let's get rid of the hymnals with melodies that are unsingable.The Cantor is the only one who can navigate the up ande down notes, and the rest of us are standing there wondering.

Music should do one thing. Give praise and glory to God.
It must be worship from our hearts

It needs to reflect Scripture

It needs to be inspired music...that is to say, it is to be 'inspired by the Holy Spirit'. When it is, it will be easy to follow, easy to sing along and easy to worship the Lord in one accord.

It's not about types of music. It's about worshiping the Lord.
So love well, listen to the Holy Spirit, and songs will follow. It will be impossible to not praise Him every chance you get!

Sing joyfully, in inspired songs.

But the Church has said, loud and clear for at least a century, through the voice of several popes and the Second Vatican Council, that certain types of music are most suitable for worshiping the Lord in the Sacred Liturgy.

So in fact it is about types of music, if you're talking about liturgical music.

Rather ironic, given that real "Catholic" music comes from Hollywod.
Missalettes: small weapons of Mass destruction.

Luc,

You forget that we are talking about music for the liturgy - the official and public worship of the Church. What you say about music is fine for prayer services and the like, but it's not good enough for the Church's own worship. For this the Church herself has given us very clear guidelines, which include preference for chant and polyphony. Just as you can't say we can replace the readings and prayers of the liturgy on the basis of "it's not about the words we use, it's about worshipping the Lord," in a similar way you can't simply use any kind of music.

Besides, some music has clear secular associations (think jazz piano, heavy metal, or even an operatic solo) so the type of music clearly does matter.

Does that mean there is a specific Psalm, Alleluia verse, and communion verse for each Sunday with a chanted tune? Sort of along the lines of the Tones for Eastern liturgies?

I thought about not asking this question and looking it up myself instead, but you guys probably need to know that even musically conscious Catholics of my generation (I'm 21) have never even heard of such a thing.

This article could do without the amusing but derogatory descriptions of modern music gone awry, but it serves an extremely valuable purpose by informing people like me that there really is an alternative to the "God likes my taste better than yours" arguments. It would be nice to bring a little "Roma locuta est, causa finita est" into the debate.

Chrissy --

You're exactly right. That's what we've got but never use, like good china that's never put on the table or vintage wine that's never even opened.

I'd be very impressed if you could date the composition of show tunes with such forensic precision. In any event, I don't think your point can be taken seriously. On the one hand, sacred music over the centuries has drawn on secular sources, which in time have been converted into sacred idioms. How else can a Viennese Mass with orchestra be regarded? From a purely liturgical point of view, the conclusion of, say, the Agnus Dei in Mozart's Coronation Mass could hardly be regarded as an authentic instantiation of a penitential litany. And there's no credible sense in which it can be said to have its musical origins in chant. On the other hand, its shared origins with Mozart's operas cannot be disputed.

Similar arguments could be made about parody and paraphrase Masses from 150 years earlier - weren't L'Homme Armé and The Western Wynde the show tunes of their day?

On the other hand it's not at all clear to me that contemporary liturgical music can't be said to have established its own idiom within sacred music. If you don't like Marty Haugen's Eye has not seen (and I think it's a very fine and prayerful reworking of its scriptural sources), what about Bob Hurd's setting of Ubi Caritas, or Bernadette Farrell's Give us, Lord, a new heart, which incorporates the text of yesterday's entrance antiphon from the Missal? (Both, incidentally, published by a "major" liturgical publisher.) Only someone who wasn't prepared to listen, or had no idea what they were talking about, would label these as Broadway tunes.


This seems comprehensively incorrect to me. The propers were not sung in the vast majority of celebrations of the Mass: their place was taken by hymns to the Sacred Heart, to Our Lady and so on. To claim that the entire output of contemporary liturgical composers consists of 'Protestant hymns' that don't set scriptural texts suggests a staggering lack of familiarity with the best of what is out there. Like I said to Jeffrey, if you don't know what you're talking about, it's really better just not to talk about it.

First off, it is good to continuously call us back to the historical nature of music in the mass, but keeping in mind that it is a little t, not a big T in regards to tradition (i.e. One is a break from the Catholic churches apostolic teaching and the other is a norm that aids in the work of the church) What did we do before we had Gregorian chant? What did we do before we had organs? To say that one instrument or mode of voice is better than the other is a matter of opinion. I see little reason why St. Paul would have used Gregorian Chant, or our first pope Peter playing an organ.

Music is an expression of the people, and MUST reflect authentic worship. What happened to giving thanks in song? Praising God with our voices? David knew how to do this, and we should consider that this was praise pleasing to God. I am not saying that we all need to go dance our pants off, especially in mass, but if music is not from the heart we are like "clanging gongs".

What would Jesus prefer more, a bored pew goer that can't read chant music, or a music illiterate who praises God through music from the heart?

It is an extremely valid point to raise that we need to not just push our musical tastes on the congregation. But we must realize that since Vatican II the vulgate of the people should be expressed in worship so that they might enter more fully into the mass. We are living in a time when most artistic talent has been bleached out of our society, and this is made evident in the Gather Hymnals that preach a doctrine of social justice and Jesus being some odd friend that we probably only hang out with because we feel bad for him.

We need solid Catholic writers to develop reverent and wonderful music that is fitting for mass. Three of my favorites are Roger Holtz, Sister Stacey, and Ed Conlin. Once we redisocver our true artistic talent we can begin to repopulate our Catholic music with songs worthy of the mass, while not forgetting that chant is our history and needs to still have a place when we reside at our heavenly table.

I consider myself to be a "centrist" Catholic in general, (whatever that may mean). I have been a liturgical musician for the past 35 years. I began the liturgical aspect of of music career as a singer in a folk group at mass while in high school. Yes, I was part of that "hum and strum, I'm OK, you're OK" generation. After high school, I began to sing as a professional liturgical musician as a source of income.
Over the years, these have included:
5 years at 2 Presbyterian churches,(one of which had a national television ministry).
1 year in a Methodist church attached to a major university in Boston.
5 years at a famous Episcopalian church in Boston.
5 years at a famous Congregationalist church in Boston.
20 years at Jewish synagogues of Conservative and Reformed traditions.
15 years as cantor at a catholic church.
Suffice it to say, I have been very fortunate to have been exposed to all these various worship traditions and can speak with a bit of knowledge on liturgical music in general.
In my opinion, the whole reason for music at mass is to praise God. It is to emulate the "heavenly worship" of God by the angels and saints at the throne of God.
The history of church music is such that it was the WORDS which came first and then the music developed to serve the WORDS, not the other way around. What I am saying is this...we need to know WHAT we are saying and WHY we say it and then the "how" we say it follows. This means to me that the "words" themselves MUST be appropriate and theologically sound, based on Faith and Reason, and not necessarily appealing to one's sense of aesthetic. That is why the musical style of a mass celebrated in say, an African culture is as valid as a solemn Latin Mass may be in our western culture. First the words, then the music.
In so much as it is the "words" which are of primary importance, I could care less if a certain style of music appeals to one or another's sense of musical tastes. BUT....this is an entirely different issue from the presentation of style and practice. We must all agree as catholics that at every mass, Jesus Christ is really present in the Eucharist and as such, we must NEVER lose sight of the fact that we are "performing" worship for His sake, not our own. If this is true, then it also means we should give our best to Him in worship.
We as liturgical musicians need to ask ourselves ....Have we shifted our focus from Christ to the congregation? Have we usurped the role of the Holy Spirit to touch the hearts of the faithful? Have we surrendered the "I / THOU" relationship to one which is now "ME / you"? Is the music I sing or play for the greater glory of God or to appeal to the lower instincts of the people in the pews? If I were to actually see Christ in his physical body, standing before me as I performed my "worship" in church, would I use the same repertoire as I do presently? Do I utilize music and hymns in the mass which are relevant to the readings or "theme" of the mass, or do I regularly use music which is geared to appeal to "sentiment"?
As liturgical musicians we have enormous power to persuade, direct, empower, inspire, console, lead and help the congregation. It may also easily be misused to confuse, misdirect, shift focus, mislead and self-aggrandize. In short, it is far easier for present day culture to drag us down than it is for us to lift it up. In the mass, we lift up our hearts, we lift them up to the Lord....not ourselves.
Saint Bernard of Clairvaux once said the four cardinal virtues of Christianity are, "Humility, humility, humility and humility." This type of humility is not to be confused to mean that.."I am nothing...worthless." That is a false form of humility. I think we need to take genuine pride in the gifts which God has bestowed upon us...BUT....we exercise the use of those gifts in sincere humility. We strive to make All things for the greater glory of God and be ever watchful to keep the right intention and focus of the mass where it needs to be. We are not to "perform" to the congregation....we "worship" God, and as a result, we help direct the minds and hearts of the congregation towards the same end...the Holy Spirit does the rest. Anything short of striving for that goal is missing the mark or merely a silly vanity. Let's face it....there are six other days of the week when we can appeal to our own or to each other's sentiment, vanity, ego and personal agenda. Let's keep the Lord's day for the Lord.