I was thinking about this after your last post. The use of the word, “evoke,” felt confusing to me. I happen to be in a congregation where we do lament often, and I don’t think by doing so we are evoking emotions, but rather recognizing and giving voice to something the community is already experiencing; in a way, also demonstrating how one might bring the hard things of life to God. And then the songs of praise are just that, because God is always worthy of praise, regardless of how I’m feeling that day. Thoughts?
Recognizing is a great way to phrase it, but when I tested the phrasing, evoke came back as the best. I like evoke because it is both a recognition and a bringing forth. It's not just seeing it, but it's giving it priority and taking it from the background and into the foreground.
Emotions are always there but sometimes they are not given a place in the service. I like evoke because it seems to be very active and not just there.
Does that help you with why I am using that language?
I agree that 'evoke' does sound more active; and yet it feels to me that using that work brings in an inherent manipulation, as if the worship music is doing something to the congregation, rather than being something in which they participate and co-create. Does that make sense?
It's difficult to find the right word without having stray connotations coming in. I get the worry and am trying to avoid it but can't figure out a different way to get there
I was thinking about this after your last post. The use of the word, “evoke,” felt confusing to me. I happen to be in a congregation where we do lament often, and I don’t think by doing so we are evoking emotions, but rather recognizing and giving voice to something the community is already experiencing; in a way, also demonstrating how one might bring the hard things of life to God. And then the songs of praise are just that, because God is always worthy of praise, regardless of how I’m feeling that day. Thoughts?
Recognizing is a great way to phrase it, but when I tested the phrasing, evoke came back as the best. I like evoke because it is both a recognition and a bringing forth. It's not just seeing it, but it's giving it priority and taking it from the background and into the foreground.
Emotions are always there but sometimes they are not given a place in the service. I like evoke because it seems to be very active and not just there.
Does that help you with why I am using that language?
I agree that 'evoke' does sound more active; and yet it feels to me that using that work brings in an inherent manipulation, as if the worship music is doing something to the congregation, rather than being something in which they participate and co-create. Does that make sense?
It's difficult to find the right word without having stray connotations coming in. I get the worry and am trying to avoid it but can't figure out a different way to get there