Let the word of Christ richly dwell within you, with all wisdom, teaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with thankfulness in your hearts to God. (Col 3:16)I've been in churches all over the country for my entire life, and in my experience very few have connected "psalms and hymns and spiritual songs" with either "let the word of Christ richly dwell within you" or "teaching and admonishing one another." Oh, there have been some, but not a lot. Why is that? I'm not sure, but I think the kind of worship music a church uses can tell us a lot about their theology.
A lot of churches have shifted to contemporary songs because they find the older ones "boring." Now, I'm not at all suggesting that "contemporary songs" are the equivalent of "bad theology." Not at all. There are some outstanding contemporary worship songs. It's just that so many are not. The most popular theme, of course, is "God loves me." Too many are what is termed "Jesus is my boyfriend" songs that speak vaguely enough about that love that it could be sung as a secular relationship song. And, of course, there's the ongoing communication problem where we hear "God loves me," run "love" through our modern lexicon, and come away with "God has deeply warm affection for me." (This is an anomaly, but one "church" I heard about in California incorporated sex acts in their services because "God is love" and "Love is sex." You see what I mean.) If not the "God is love" theme, the general sense of most modern worship music is to engender warm feelings toward God. They use music as an appeal to the emotions largely because music itself has the capacity to bypass the brain and engage with emotions. So if "worship" is "happy feelings toward God," then that's good music for church. But that's not worship and that's not what Scripture calls for.
These mistakes and others would be avoided if the aim of worship music was to incorporate Scripture into our lives and to teach and admonish through music. If the worship leadership was aiming at teaching and admonishing in music, I think we'd see some real changes in our churches. Of course, it wouldn't appeal to those who come for the entertainment. But ... is that a bad thing? Is our worship music declaring that our good feelings are paramount, or are we being turned to God and His Word? I think the answer speaks to our basic theology.
14 comments:
It has been frustrating to me for a while to think that most people aren't thinking about the words they're singing. They simply sing whatever is put in front of them without any critical thought because they trust the leaders and don't really think about their music outside of church. I believe this is true because I know I was the same way for a long time. I was in a congregational setting and we were all singing, so how can it be bad. But then I really started thinking about the lyrics and found myself singing fewer of the songs. Then I started applying those thinking skills to the regular music I was listening to, and dropped that from my life. It is all well and good to sing of the goodness and love of God, but just like the Gospel, there is no good news without the bad. Singing about the lowliness of us is just as important a reminder as singing about how great He is.
Throughout the run of the “worship wars,” it has always been my contention that the music one enjoys in general and as part of their Christian worship in particular is a matter of discernment--the same as would be regarding the teachers one sits under, the podcasts one listens to, the books one reads, the blogs one follows, etc. Such discernment is so scarce in the church today that music likability trumps solid teaching, as you point out, for all but the most discerning believer (and also creates “churches” like the one in CA you mentioned--may God cause that to end post haste!). The way you highlighted the connection between church attendees’ priorities and the presence (or absence) of “wisdom,” as described in Col. 3:16, makes good sense to me.
David, precisely because I care about the words, I have a personal policy of not singing along to a song I haven't heard before. I will first examine the words before I ever offer it to God as worship.
Lorna, that "church" I mentioned was way back in the early '90s and was, I believe, shut down a long time ago. In answer to your prayer, I'd guess (Isa 65:24). I do want to make it clear that this isn't about the classic "worship wars" that have been predominantly about which style of music is acceptable. It's beyond that.
Glad to hear it! And yes, I was thinking beyond music styles as well and moreso about content; thus my mention of “discernment” and “wisdom”--i.e. desiring to be feed and not just entertained--as exercised in all the choices we make regarding our spiritual input. (For some of us, this concern was/is at the heart of the “worship wars” as well, even if some participants on the "other side" don't realize that.)
In my experience, part of the issue is that people pay less attention to bad theology in music when it's printed in a hymnal. The point should be that any music presented in worship should be evaluated for theological content before it's used in public.
I was just listening to an interview with David Crowder and he talks about how he focuses on accurately and carefully expressing the theology in the music he writes. It was refreshing to hear.
Bad theology in music is bad theology, regardless of where it comes from.
I haven't seen what you've experienced. In my experience, bad theology in music, in print or not, is often ignored because of tradition or familiarity or just "feels good." I suspect bad theology in any music is often ignored because people have been trained not to listen to words as much as music and emotions. And I tried to say that musical style does not determine good or bad theology in music. Some of the modern stuff has some really good theology and some of the traditional has some bad theology. As such, I agree wholeheartedly in your last statement.
My experience is that it's not uncommon to pull hymns that fit the liturgical calendar without actually looking at the lyrics. I do agree that hymns in print tend to have a presumption that they're good theology because they made it into a hymnal, and that they don't pay attention.
I appreciate you being someone who doesn't preclude theological value based on musical style. It does seem like it's difficult to have the conversation about theology in lyrics without mentioning style though. It's much more about discernment than anything else.
The one thing I have a problem with in style is what happens when you take that music out of the church setting. We can all recognize when a hymn is playing on the radio, and if you grew up with hymns, know which one it is because they were distinct. Most modern stuff, of you take it out of church, it is indecernible from anything, and without the lyrics, you wouldn't know which song it is. The number of times I've seen transitions between songs with basically a key or tempo change is disconcerting.
David,
Good point. I'm curious though, other than Christmas carols, how often is music intended for corporate worship taken out of context? How often are hymns played on the radio? Even if they are, wouldn't it be likely to be played on a Christian radio station.
As far as key changes/transitions, I'd argue that many/most hymns are not written in keys that are easy for people to sing. Part of this is that most hymns are written with SATB parts, assuming that people can/will sing the part that fits their range. Unfortunately, I'm not sure how common this skill is in our modern world which leads to people not singing because they don't want to sing off key. I'd argue that the emphasis in contemporary worship on songs in keys that encourage participation is a good thing, not a bad thing. Obviously there are differences of opinion on style, and transitions between songs seem to fall into that category.
As long the music in worship is focused on YHWH, and not intended to manipulate the congregation, I tend to be pretty open.
A lot of contemporary stuff is poor or even false theology. Sometimes lit may NOT be problematic but is funding false teachings, such as with stuff from Hillsong and Bethel, which is why no matter how good it may seem, we should not use it.
Glenn, I'm aware of Hillsong and Bethel stuff and their popularity. What I've seen is that, if they're not faulty, they're flat. Little value. Practically no theology. I would bet that most music sourced from poor theological source will be less than what Col 3:16 calls for. How many of us know the sources of our songs? For instance, Blessed Assurance is a popular hymn that most of us don't know was written by Fanny Crosby whose theology was in Wesleyan "perfect submission" theology that argued that true Christians end up with sinless perfection in this life. False theology, but without looking at why Crosby wrote it, we might miss the error.
This sounds like throwing the baby out with the bathwater to me.
The older hymns may have been written for SATB, but each voice was harmonious, and for the most part can be sung in the voice you have. A few may be overly complex, and I agree shouldn't be sung as a congregation, but Amazing Grace, Oh Wond'rous Cross, etc. aren't complex in style but are deep in theology and not repetitive. The modern stuff however, with their random chorus's and bridges, require the worship leader to preempt the next verse and are frequently vainly repetitive. As for hearing them on the radio, they may not be played on secular radio, but my point was that guaranteed, without lyrics, most people would be able to tell that a hymn was something different from a pop song, but the modern stuff would blend right in.
David,
I completely agree that some hymns are very conducive to congregational singing, and should be sung regularly. Unfortunately there are plenty of hymns that, as arranged in the hymnals and in the original key, are less so. It seems like trying to figure out how to sing on key and navigate a complex rhythmic pattern tends to take one's focus off of the message while singing.
To be fair, I think that part of this is on the organist/pianist/music director for failing to acknowledge that some hymns are difficult to sing and failing to do simple things like change keys to help. (IMO it's more "We've always done it that way." than anything)
I'm not denying that some of the modern music is inappropriate for many reasons. I am saying that the answer is not to get rid of all modern music (most of the hymns we sing were "modern" music when they were written, and some were set to the tune of popular songs of the time as well), nor am I saying to not sing hymns. I am saying that we should champion the good in both, while adapting or ignoring the bad. I will guarantee that almost every complex hymn could have the arrangement simplified, the key changed, to make it more accessible.
Yes, most people would be able to identify a hymn as something different because hearing just an organ is something that doesn't happen much outside of church or baseball. I'd also point out ,given a society that is more and more unchurched, that there are fewer and fewer people who are familiar with the hymns you and I grew up with.
Strangely, I can imagine the Church leaders saying the same sorts of things about the Hymns that Luther was writing.
Post a Comment