Our guide to Orthodox chanting was Emily Lowe, a member of the choir at the Holy Cross Antiochian Orthodox Church in Linthicum, Maryland.  She told us not only about chanting, but also about her personal experience as a singer of the Eastern Orthodox conviction that worship brings change.

EMILY LOWE (Choir, Holy Cross Antiochian Orthodox Church, singing):  Glory to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit.

The Orthodox Church is unique in modern times, having a completely sung liturgy. Everything is sung from the very beginning to the end.

In Orthodoxy, the music is not sacred.  The words are sacred.  The music is really meant to fit the text.  So when we talk about heaven, the voice goes up, and when you talk about hell or Hades or sin, it goes down.  For instance (singing), “The company of the angels was amazed when they beheld the number among the dead.”

During the time of the Ottoman Empire, the Greek chants took on sort of a very Middle Eastern character, and that’s when you hear this sort of dissonant, odd sounding things:  (singing) Hallelujah, Hallelujah, Hallelujah, glory to thee oh God.”  It sounds very foreign to Western ears.

For instance (singing), “Rejoice O Bethany.”  Rejoice O Bethany — it’s a beautiful hymn, and it’s very dear to the heart of our Arabic parishioners — (singing) — “God came to thee; God came to thee.”  That little flourish at the end (singing “la la la la”), very unusual and very otherworldly sounding, and that’s kind of — that’s the impression that people get.  They might hear 20 things when they walk into an Orthodox church, but that’s what they’re going to take away.  They’re going to go, “Whoa, I remember that.  That was really unusual.”

I converted about 12 years ago.  I was 16, and my family converted together.  It was initially my father’s decision.  He said, “I think this is the place for us to be. This is where God’s calling us, and this is really the fullest expression of the Christian faith.”

One thing about Orthodoxy is that it really demands change — and expects change. It expects that you will grow spiritually, that you won’t just be the same person that you were the week before or the month before.

From a personal standpoint, I never had a very good voice before we became Orthodox.  I believe that I found my voice in Orthodox music — that I didn’t have it in Protestant music or in secular music.

When people say, “Oh, you did such a wonderful job,” I feel like telling them it wasn’t me, because it really wasn’t.  It doesn’t feel like me when I chant.  I’m thinking about God and expressing the words the best that I can.

BOB ABERNETHY, anchor: One of the problems of many churches — of all varieties — is finding and keeping really good music directors. For many of the best of them, it takes a sacrificial devotion to the church to pass up the riches offered by the popular music business. Bob Faw takes a look at the situation in some African-American churches.

Choir Singer #1 (Mississippi Boulevard Christian Church): No matter the storms in your life.

Mississippi Boulevard Christian Church Choir: Hallelujah!

BOB FAW: The music, the voices lifted to God are glorious.

Choir Singer #1: Hallelujah!

FAW: At the Mississippi Boulevard Christian Church in Memphis, Tennessee that majestic sound does not come easily. It takes work.

LEO DAVIS, JR. (Minister of Music, Mississippi Boulevard Christian Church speaking to choir): Higher — and open your mouth.

FAW: From his choir, this minister of music, Leo Davis, seeks perfection.

FAW: Davis is demanding, because for this congregation, and traditionally for the black church, music, says the pastor here, Dr. Frank Thomas, does more than supplement the spoken word.

Dr. FRANK THOMAS (Pastor, Mississippi Boulevard Christian Church): Music comes as a softener of people. It allows me to gradually open myself to receive the word. And that’s why you have so much music in church, because people can’t just receive, generally receive, the raw word.

Choir Singer #2 (Mississippi Boulevard Christian Church): Yes, Lord, I will do what you want me to do.

FAW: Indeed, this congregation has witnessed how music performed well can both transcend and transform.

Mr. DAVIS: One lady in particular said, on that particular Sunday, “I had made up my mind to commit suicide.” She said, “I had made up my mind to commit suicide, but the song that you ministered that particular Sunday gave me hope to live on.”

FAW: The problem is that accomplished ministers of music like Leo Davis are a vanishing species. Increasingly, black churches throughout the country are finding it harder to hire skilled musicians like him.

Dr. THOMAS: It does worry me, very much so, because I think, you know, for example, if we lose the ability to do spirituals, that bothers me, ’cause it has an historical connection. So it bothers me that we may lose some very valuable pieces of music.

Dr. GARY SIMPSON (Pastor, Concord Baptist Church of Christ, Brooklyn, NY): It’s a difficult thing to try to find someone trained. I talked to one of my friends who told me it took him five years to find a musician finally that would be his minister of music.

FAW: Dr. Gary Simpson, pastor of the historic Concord Baptist Church of Christ in Brooklyn, New York, knows the problem all too well. For nearly a year now, his church has been unable to hire a new director of music.

Dr. SIMPSON: We are not training musicians in the music of the church, which the black church did all along its tenure. That kind of commitment is gone, for the most part.

FAW: Music programs in public schools have been slashed, producing fewer musicians, Simpson adds. But the biggest handicap facing the churches is the world outside, where musicians can find greater fortune — and fame.

Mr. DAVIS: The big money is in producing. The big money is in rap. They’re looking at rappers with the million-dollar houses with gold ceilings, and why do I want to work in a church and make $30,000?

Concord Baptist Church of Christ Choir: Oh, glorious is his name.

FAW: For the last four months, Dr. Glen McMillan, who teaches music at a college nearby, has been auditioning to fill that vacancy at Concord Baptist. He knows he will be judged, in large part, on how well he performs.

Dr. GLEN MCMILLAN (Interim Music Director, Concord Baptist Church of Christ): We’re in this whole megachurch mentality, where the church, to me, has become so performance-based that everything is a quick fix. The church has been a place where you could express your gift and nurture your gift in the same process. Now it’s more quick-fixed.

FAW: And that is the other dilemma facing black churches. They are not just competing for musical directors.

Dr. THOMAS: There are a lot of things competing for people’s attention. So how do you get people to pay attention to you? So you have to be very good at what you do. Mediocrity will not get you a hearing in today’s world.

DONNIE MCCLURKIN (performing): Don’t give up! Don’t give up!

FAW: And that competition is fierce — congregants accustomed to dazzling “performances” on VH1, BET or their iPods. To reach them, some churches conclude, “We, too, must entertain.”

Mr. DAVIS: I see it all the time. When it’s not planned well and when it’s not open to the moving of the Holy Spirit, then it becomes entertainment.

FAW: Some, like Dr. Frank Thomas in Memphis, refer to it as “sunshine music.”

Dr. THOMAS: Some music has bad theology, right? Some music, you know, has stuff that the Bible does not say. It’s like giving people cotton candy. We can give people cheap answers to deep questions.

Dr. MCMILLAN: We have a group that is coming out that is a hip-hop crowd, and the church is saying, “This is great!” But where are those things that are so important — the tradition of music, the hymns, and especially, in terms of black people, the Negro spirituals?

FAW: With fewer accomplished musical directors and more so-called “sunshine music,” worship, many fear, will be diminished.

Dr. MCMILLAN: I don’t believe that if you did hip-hop 20 years ago that you’re going to remember a hip-hop line. But you will remember “Come thou fount of every blessing” if you learn it, or you will remember “Amazing grace, how sweet the sound, that saved a wretch like me.”

Mr. DAVIS: Those songs live on. They live on because they’re sustaining. You want the younger generations coming up to be part of that, and to embrace that, and to learn it and to pass it down.

Dr. MCMILLAN: Fifteen, 20 years from now I am trying to imagine what the music ministry of our churches is going to be. I am kind of concluding the fact that hymnal music is going to be obsolete.

FAW: Initially, Glen McMillan says he chose the wrong kind of music and got off to a rocky start here. But the audition is going well now, and it’s likely he’ll be named minister of music. After 17 years in Memphis, Leo Davis shows little sign of slowing down. Both agree the problems are serious and that finding someone musically gifted is not enough.

Dr. MCMILLAN: I would never tell anybody who played or worked with me it’s about the money. It’s about the commitment first. It’s about God. It’s his music. It’s a calling.

FAW: A calling?

Dr. MCMILLAN: Yeah, music ministry is a calling.

Mr. DAVIS: The calling comes with a passion. You have to have a passion to serve.

Choir Singer #3 (Mississippi Boulevard Christian Church): Oh, Lord, won’t you stand by me?

Mississippi Boulevard Christian Church Choir: While I run this race.

FAW: So the sounds go forth as churches wrestle not just with finding someone to carry the flame, but also with what kind of flame it will be.

Mississippi Boulevard Christian Church Choir: We bless your name…

FAW: For Religion & Ethics NewsWeekly, I’m Bob Faw in Memphis, Tennessee.

Mississippi Boulevard Christian Church Choir: For your name is to be lifted up.

Read more of Kim Lawton’s interview about Billy Graham with journalist and author Wendy Murray Zoba, writer-in-residence at Gordon College in Wenham, Massachusetts:

How meaningful is it to see this giant of evangelical Christianity still going strong at age 86, still doing these crusades that he’s been doing for almost 60 years?

Billy Graham is doing a remarkable thing, going back into the pulpit at this stage of his career. He’s aging, as we all know, and there is some bittersweet aspect to watching this one-time towering giant more enfeebled. His message is still as robust as always, but it’s very obvious that his physical disposition and state is much diminished from the young man who used to prance around on stage and wave his finger and wave his Bible.

Evangelicalism is at a very critical juncture right now. Billy Graham is one of the towering figures that forged a new definition of what evangelicalism is. That definition is changing even so. Perhaps his presence can lend a sense of stability not only to those who consider themselves evangelicals but also to those who are outside that community and are questioning and, in some cases, feeling some fear about the presence of evangelicals on the cultural landscape. So this is a very timely crusade. I’m not quite sure how people will respond to seeing an older man who’s struggling on so many levels in a physical way. As I said, it could be very poignant, bittersweet. But we all love Billy Graham. He’s an institution, not just for the evangelical community but for all of us as a nation. We kind of look to him as our nation’s pastor, in a way.

Speaking of changing views and definitions, there was a time when he created fear in some quarters because of his preaching in the early days. How has he himself evolved?

He did start out with a very flamboyant, zealous, kind of in-your-face approach. It didn’t take long to mellow him. For one thing, he’s married to Ruth Bell Graham, and she kind of let him know when he was doing a little too much prancing around up there. Billy Graham is a man with a very clear vision and a very decisive direction in terms of what he wants to say and how he wants to say it. He did start out with the white shoes and the fancy pants and all of that and did kind of evoke some strange reactions from people. But he quickly understood his role in a more circumspect way. He mellowed his approach to his public persona, and he truly became a unifier. He’s very much wanting to break down walls, did break down walls and, at the same time, forged a new definition of what it means to be a believing person who trusts in the authority of the Bible without necessarily having to abdicate character and having to abdicate intellectualism and abdicate a sound and gracious spirit. Billy Graham has encapsulated all of that, and he has evolved as a preacher, but his message has stayed the same. He’s learned some hard lessons in terms of the way he might relate to those, for example, in the political sphere. He has been friends with many presidents through many terms and has adapted accordingly. He made a little bit of a mistake in the coziness he reached with Richard Nixon, but he learned from that, and he’s very malleable in that way and that evokes, I think, a sense of confidence in people. They trust him.

Was it his style that changed and mellowed, or his beliefs, or just how he was portraying and speaking about those beliefs?

His style mellowed over the years. He was quite animated at the beginning. It’s the zealousness of youth, I believe. He recognized his gift as a young man and immediately started to exercise it. It started to be off-putting in some ways, the way that he would wave his Bible around. And his wife enabled him to understand that he would serve the ministry and serve himself to slow down and to be more measured and more mellow in the way that he gave his presentation.

His message hasn’t changed. That’s the wonderful thing about Billy Graham. It’s as clear as poetry, and it is a kind of poetry. And his spirit has only expanded and become more gracious, and he’s willing to invite anyone to have a discussion or conversation with him. No one feels threatened doing so with him because his spirit has always been very gracious and unifying. So whereas his presentation has mellowed and matured, which is really the natural course for any ministry leader, his message has remained largely the same. It’s very clear, it’s very simple, and it’s very to the point, and he delivers it in a way that people can receive. Not everyone believes it but, in any case, people can receive it in large part because they trust the integrity of the man behind the message.

Where does Billy Graham fit into the changing definitions of evangelicalism?

Billy Graham took the movement to where it is today. Billy Graham is one of the shapers of the evangelical movement as we know it today, although evangelicalism as it is currently being perceived and understood is a different kind of evangelicalism than Billy Graham himself was shaping. He came of age during the time when there was a lot of uncertainty on the cultural and religious landscape about the place of the Bible and the role of Bible-believing Christians. Billy Graham, along with other strong and visionary leaders of his generation, felt it was very important that Christians who believed in the authority of the Bible continue to engage culture, continue to be part of the landscape and the cultural conversation. This is where he and several other leaders of that era — I’m thinking of the 1940s and the 1950s — seized upon the opportunity to take the message forward in a new and dynamic way.

Evangelicalism as we know it today was, at its insemination in the mid-twentieth century, very much a forward-looking and culturally engaged and intellectually hungry kind of expression of belief in Scripture and belief in the gospel narrative. Billy Graham gave that definition. He gave that — a person people could look to as, for lack of a better way of putting it, “The Answer Man” for the questions people might have about this kind of thing. While on the one hand his message was very clear and very simple, on the other hand Billy Graham was very sophisticated and, in some ways, very savvy in his approach to ministry and public presentation of a very profound theological narrative. He brought people together. He was very much a part of the shaping of institutions that today remain leading institutions in evangelicalism, and he always wanted the movement to be culturally engaged.

That has brought us today to a place that probably at that time Billy Graham wasn’t anticipating. Evangelicalism has become so culturally engaged that many outside the movement and outside the believing community are beginning to feel threatened by the presence of this subgroup and their political action and some of the positions they’re taking on cultural matters, and it’s becoming divisive. That’s something Billy Graham never would want, and I know that if he had the strength and the ability, he would also be trying to redress that and continue his unifying ministry. But we’re going to have to look for new leadership for that.

Will the era of the big crusade and that message that he so popularized also go with him?

He seized upon the same model of Charles Finney in the Second Great Awakening, the crusade model, where the opportunity for people to make a confession of faith was staged, was orchestrated. Music prepared the spirit; the “waiting benches,” as they were called, were filled with people who had been prompted ahead of time to start the flow. It’s a very staged event, but that in no way diminishes the authenticity of those who make confessions of faith and whose lives are changed at these crusades. I can’t anticipate whether the crusade model is going to continue to be viable. Obviously, people come together in these large, massive crowds and respond very emotively. That’s evident in secular rock concerts and that kind of thing. Whether that’s the venue where people will have an experience with an authentic faith moment in their lives is yet to be determined. We’re dealing with a different landscape of belief; we’re dealing with a different generation; we’re dealing with a different place in our world’s history, and the believing community has to be flexible enough to perceive that and not try to put new wine into old wineskins. The age in which we live is demanding adaptation, and the evangelical community has to be elastic, has to be flexible, has to be willing to make some adaptations and some changes and find new ways of being relevant. In many ways, if we cleave to those old models, the movement will become irrelevant and will not touch the hearts of a seeking public [that], I think, really does hunger for some solid answers relating to who God is and if there is a God.

Billy Graham certainly adapted his crusade model, bringing in rock groups, media, all sorts of other experiences.

He did. He was very dynamic in that way, and it served its purpose. But I know for a fact that bringing in CCM — Contemporary Christian Music — and ramping up the noise level or the sound level of a crusade isn’t necessarily going to penetrate the depths of the hungering souls that are looking for answers. It might. But the trappings of the crusade aren’t going to be sufficient to carry this next generation into a place of belief. There have to be solid, authentic, interactive questions and answers about who God is and the kind of world we’re living in and where God fits in and what does it mean. Who is Jesus? What does it mean to follow Jesus? Formulas and platitudes and pat answers do not work for this day and age, and that’s very much part and parcel of the package of the crusade event. So there has to be some flexibility within the community as we face this new century, this new millennium, and the age in which we live.

What has he meant to you and others?

Billy Graham is the man of the moment, the man of twentieth-century evangelicalism. I can’t number the people who, in the course of my career as a journalist, have said to me, “Oh, I heard Billy Graham on the radio,” or “I saw Billy Graham at a crusade.” Billy Graham’s name comes up all the time. Billy Graham was very seminal in my own spiritual evolution. He was the man of our century in terms of defining what it means to be a Bible-believing Christian in a way that’s respectable and honorable, and we all owe him a great debt of gratitude.

You mentioned he has been the nation’s pastor. What has he meant to the nation as a whole?

Billy Graham was present at our nation’s critical moments. He was present when 9/11 happened. When presidents die, when presidents take office, Billy Graham is there. He became an institution, and a comforting kind of institution. It’s the integrity of the man behind the message that people resonated with, even people outside the camp that would be called evangelicals. He won people’s hearts because he was a unifier. He was authentic. He was a man we could trust. Especially today, people are so jaded about evangelicalism, and with some reason. Many leaders who have asserted themselves into public positions have proven themselves to be duplicitous. Therefore, to find someone who is solid as a rock the way Billy Graham has been — by no means perfect, by no means perfect, but he has been solid, and he has been true, and he has been unafraid. And that has won the confidence of the mainstream culture. People who believe in his message and people who might be dubious about his message nevertheless trust Billy Graham and take no offense that he is present at the critical moments of our nation’s various passages.