Back in the late '60's the standard hymns of church music began to be augmented with more contemporary music. They called them simply "praise songs." That was then; this is now. What was once augmention for worship singing has turned to domination. In most churches contemporary worship music rules. I've been told by pastors, in fact, that if they did not use that music, they wouldn't be able to draw people into church.
So what's the difference, really? Is it significant? Or is it simply style? We know that congregations in, say, Africa don't worship in the same style we do. Does that make it bad or just normal? Is there a problem here or not?
There has been a surge in recent years in contemporary musicians writing old hymns anew. That is, they alter the music, perhaps, or, at least, jazz it up a bit or they write new music with the same lyrics. Quite popular is the mix version, where they write a contemporary worship song with some traditional lyrics mixed in. At that point, given the scarcity of hymns, most people don't even know they've been suckered into singing words from a --yuck! -- hymn. So to varying degrees, they're keeping hymns without actually keeping the hymns. Is that a problem?
The truth is there is nothing "sacred" about hymns. They are not "God breathed." (Well, some of the lyrics are from Scripture, but you know what I mean.) We don't have music from on high we're supposed to use for worship. So it's hard to say there is any problem with it despite the folks (like me) who think there is. Still ...
I've become aware that there is indeed a fundamental difference between classic hymns and modern worship music. I think it might be an issue. The problem with hymns in the eyes of modern church-goers is that "We can't connect with them." Hymns are too old, too stuffy, not catchy enough. "They don't move me." Maybe, but I think we're missing the point. Modern music is a performance. There is no getting around it. It's what we do. There is a band, performers, lead singers, all the trappings of secular music. Bad ones make it an outright performance. "Look at me! Ain't I singing pretty?" Good ones try to worship, leading by example. But in all modern worship music, it remains a performance. Modern music doesn't take into account a congregation; it takes into account a select group of singers. So there will be runs and deviations, bridges and musical pauses, singers "soloizing" their parts ... either as performance or in "personal worship." Hymns, on the other hand, aren't sung that way. Historically there might have been a choir or an organ (or both) and a single leader, but all of these were not done for show; they were done to lead. It was hard to make much of that a performance. (You don't, for instance, say afterward, "Didn't Sally sing a great alto part in that choir?") It's not conducive to individual attention. Traditional hymn singing doesn't lend itself to "look at me" in any sense. Nor is it aimed at being either entertaining or moving. It is aimed entirely at "You sing to God." It is aimed at directing the congregation (the performers in this event) to sing to God (the audience in this event). it is a different animal than modern music.
There is a sense that whatever moves us to worship should be used to move us to worship. We know, however, that this isn't actually true. That is, if you came from a culture that sacrificed babies to their deity, you wouldn't say, "Well, that moves me to worship, so I'll do that." If you came from a church that practiced orgies as worship, you wouldn't be able to port that over to worship of God just because "It moves me to worship." Why? Because worship isn't about what moves me. Worship is about what God wants to hear. Worship isn't intended to please us; it's intended to please God. So are we right in finding our worship in what pleases us? Is God more pleased when we set aside our "look at me" tendencies and pay more attention to Him? Is there a problem here? Not in style, but in attitude and motivation? I have to wonder if we've gone so far off the path for so long that we can't even see it anymore.
6 comments:
I find the problem in this discussion to be that there is a divide between "hymns" and "worship music" that seems to suggest that all hymns are good and all worship music is bad. Yet, we know that that is not true.
The church I currently attend is only providing a service with hymns, and I've noticed a couple of things.
1. Many of the hymns that are chosen, while being mostly theologically sound, are musically incoherent. I have a musical background, including some challenging choral and instrumental music, and I find some of these hymns unsingable. While I'm not suggesting that ease of singing be sacrificed for theological soundness, I will suggest that people who are trying to focus on following the melody likely are not focusing on the theological depth of the lyrics.
2. At least once in every service, there is an solo organ piece. These pieces are chosen by the organist, and are usually technically difficult. I'm really struggling with the notion that an organist playing a technically challenging piece of instrumental music is more conducive to worship than a guitar, violin, banjo, harmonica, piano, etc.
3. I know for a fact that most good contemporary worship leaders place a high value on the things that should encourage the congregation to participate. Much time and effort goes into things like choosing a key that will be comfortable for the majority of the congregation, and every leader I've worked with has emphasized that the job of those leading is not to perform, but to encourage worship.
As I say these things, I realize that I'm doing a bit of generalizing and drawing from my own experience as I do so. With that in mind, how about the following.
Why don't we focus on choosing music for worship that does the best job of focusing our attention on God regardless of genre? Why don't we focus on presenting that music in a way best designed to focus attention away from those presenting, and more toward God?
I think we're probably closer to agreement on this that we are apart, I've just been really struck by how universal some of the problems people have with contemporary music are and how much of a blind spot there is on both sides.
While I agree that it shouldn't be about what pleases us, but about what pleases God, I find it hard to accept that that means not writing and presenting music for corporate worship in a manner intended to engage, heart, mind, etc as fully as possible. I'd argue that like so many things, the way people sing (vocal range, musical literacy, etc) have changed in the hundreds of years since many of years since the hymns were written, and even more so since the Psalms, and that accomodating those changes would help people better worship rather than hinder.
Obviously, there is an element here of education that must be addressed. Churches need to do a better job of teaching the purpose of worship and all that is entailed in that. I'm suggesting that that is a much bigger conversation than the hymns/contemporary.
Counterpoint: How much effort goes into singing a song that you don't like? How pleasing can it be to sing a song to God that you find boring?
People put more meaning into things that they enjoy doing than in things that people do only because they have to.
I specifically titled this piece "Is there a problem here?" to ask the question. I also indicated that my question was NOT about style, but attitude and motivation. There is no guarantee that a hymn has better lyrics. I really appreciate many of the lyrics in the contemporary music realm. "Hymn" is no more a guarantee that it is superior than "contemporary" is a certainty that it's "lesser." "Hymns" are not, by definition, better than other music. But worship done for the sake of worship with the One who is to be worshiped first and foremost in our thoughts (instead of any performer, including that "rogue" organist) is what we should be aiming for and what we are rejecting today because we're thinking "entertain me" rather than "turn my attention to Christ." I think (also in answer to Richard) that your last notion, "a better job of teaching," is really necessary, and my point is that there aren't very many even looking at it because we're too "worldified."
Stan,
As I said, I think we agree much more than disagree on this. I find the notion that it's simply a hymns/contemporary issue to be simplistic and wrong. I'm not saying that you agreed with those who express things that way, just that it's a shallow take on a deep subject.
Richard,
I completely agree that singing a song that is melodically incoherent, or that is difficult to sing actually distracts from what the focus should be. While I would not argue in favor a watering things down to make them more acceptable, I would also argue that putting up barriers to engaging on worship is a problem as well.
Although, I do find that when I can't sing something, I focus more on the text and on finding the problems with the theology. Which, doesn't really lend itself to whole hearted worship either.
I've never understood the argument that hymns don't move people. I can't think of any modern worship music that brings me to tears, or convicts me like "Amazing Grace". Unless they mean it doesn't make you want to move, then I can see where contemporary music fits.
David,
I completely agree that some hymns are incredibly moving, Amazing Grace being one of those. I would argue, that part of the reason that people connect with it, is because it's not particularly difficult to sing and draws people in without that hurdle. I'd even suggest that the fact that Chris Tomlin's version was so well received was that it didn't change the melody significantly. I also think that the added bridge fits with the message of the song, and also fits melodically.
From the music nerd part of me, I think that a lot of hymns are arranged with multiple, rapid chord changes and piano specific chords that get in the way when people are used to less complex music. I've also seen way too many "classically trained" church pianists or organists that are absolutely against any changes from the way it was written.
The movement aspect is interesting. If Christianity views humans as an integration of the physical and the metaphysical (body, mind, soul), then wouldn't there be an argument that engaging the physical body in the act of musical worship could be a good thing?
Post a Comment