I was raised on "Rock and roll is of the devil" and "If the beat leads, sin follows." When I failed to find it in my Bible, they told me, "Just trust us." And when I read, "Praise Him with trumpet sound; praise Him with lute and harp! Praise Him with tambourine and dance; praise Him with strings and pipe! Praise Him with sounding cymbals; praise Him with loud clashing cymbals!" (Psa 150:3-5), I said, "That sure sounds like a loud band." And they assured me it wasn't. So, no, the Bible is not silent. There is the command to praise Him with instruments, including "loud clashing cymbals." I've been posting this series with the label "Col 3:16," where we read,
Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God. (Col 3:16)You see? Not silent. "Psalms and hymns and spiritual songs." God affirms in His Word different instruments and different styles. The classic categories of "hymn" vs "praise song" are problematic because both -- as categories -- seem to fall in that spectrum. And while we dicker over "hymns" vs "praise songs," we (sadly) ignore "teaching and admonishing" in those terms. Young or old, hymn or praise song, we typically prefer what makes us feel good and not what speaks to the truth.
I thoroughly dislike our "worship wars" because they are predicated on "I like" and "I don't like" and not what God says. Why not look for truth? Why not focus our minds on the truth and praise God with the truth rather than manipulated emotion? Paul there started with, "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly." That would be a great place to be in worship, founded on His Word, glorifying Him. (I think at times that the best hymn can be not quite as good as the simple praise song that is taken word for word from Scripture.) If we want to discuss the biblical truth around what is biblical and what is not, then I'm for it, but we would probably do well to drop bickering about what style is better than the other and go with God's instructions.
6 comments:
I know I often come across as a hardliner on style topics, and that may be a failure on my part to write clearly. My arguments for clothing, or music, or other liturgy are about what are we thinking when we choose these things. Are we thinking? Or are we simply feeling?
One of the positions I've heard from people opposed to hymns is that they are too complex to sing, and I'm sure there are some, but I find it difficult to follow contemporary worship music too. I've heard people argue that the contemporary music makes them feel more, but I've never had one move me more or more frequently than Amazing Grace. My general complaint when it comes to music is that we aren't following Col. 3:16. It tells us to teach and admonish (which I don't think many worship leaders are trying to do in their music choice) with psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs (notice it is "and", not "or"). I feel like I'm an oddity. I grew up in the Christian Rock music age, but find myself preferring the classical Christian music because it moves me far more often than the modern stuff. But I don't think "does it move me" should be the consideration for excluding other styles, because what moves me doesn't move others, so what I ask for is a combination style. We shouldn't be splitting our church services into traditional and contemporary, but having a combination of both, so that was a body we can all be admonished and taught by the words we sing.
Whenever I read Col. 3:16, I always wondered, what was a “hymn” in Paul’s day? Even the entire phrase, “psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs,” needs interpretation, in my mind--i.e. the Book of Psalms set to music? 200-year-old hymns accompanied by pipe organ? Negro spirituals? So I looked it up (Google to the rescue :); I found this at a commentary for Col. 3:16: A “psalm” is "a song set to music.” “Hymn” denotes a solemn, religious composition, or song of Divine praise. The word “song” is wider in sense; hence is qualified by “spiritual,” i.e. “songs of a spiritual nature, inspired by the Holy Ghost.” So I can see that all forms of singing that Paul mentioned have equal potential to be worshipful to God and edifying to me, as they focus on the “word of Christ” rather than, say, likeability.
When our church was fighting the “worship wars,” i.e. contemplating moving to an exclusively “contemporary” format (they formerly were alternating “traditional” and “contemporary” weekly, to keep us all happy), I felt we should not necessarily choose either of those labels--rather, I wanted a biblical worship service. No one seemed to understand what I meant, sad to say. (The change to a “contemporary” service wasn’t just a change in music; it also included replacing the “call to worship” with announcements, skipping the pre-sermon Scripture reading, and shortening the sermon, unfortunately.)
David,
"I know I often come across as a hardliner on style topics..."
That's both funny and ironic, because you really do come across that way (the funny part). That's OK. I think I do as well on a variety of topics (the ironic part). I much prefer dealing with those who are, as it suggests a passion for the issue at hand which makes the discussion more compelling. Heck, even Dan is a hardliner about not being a hardliner...what he curiously regards as "embracing grace" (a hardliner about ambiguity).
As regards this issue, I am as well and feel much like you do regarding which music I regard as most appropriate and "moving". I allow that a new song might check those boxes, as well as the one regarding being sound teaching. But all in all, I'd have no problem hearing only the standards (or at least the best of them). So, I'm moved by hymns which are moving because they're musically excellent (to My ear, anyway) while lyrically compelling because of how well they reflect the teachings of the faith. As such, I regard them as reverent and glorifying to God.
That's my general sentiment on the topic.
David, that was well stated, and I concur (as you can tell from my comment below). One thing I remember back when our church sang hymns was that the specific hymns were chosen to complement the theme of the sermon, thus reinforcing the teaching from God’s Word. Sometimes the modern choruses can do that, but more often the “contemporary” songs that are sung are more of a very general praise (or even worse, “Jesus is my boyfriend” songs). The opportunity for teaching and admonition is therefore missed. As much as I love to sing and I enjoy a variety of music styles, I want the corporate assembly experience to offer me substance, not fluff. I say, “Direct my mind towards God, not merely my emotions. A renewed mind will serve me better when I leave here than stirred emotions will.”
Stan,
I agree with the point of the post, in that scripture does mention music as being an integral part of worship, but I leaves broad latitude in style. I also agree that too much of this argument revolves around "I like" or "I feel" or "It moves me", all of which are subjective and are not really the metric that we should be using.
David,
I don't disagree with much of what you said. Where I struggle is when people draw the line at hymns/contemporary songs. Let's be honest, some hymns are incredibly hard to sing and/or have bad theology. Let's be honest that worship songs suffer from the same problem. Let's be honest that "hard to sing" is subjective and varies from person to person as well.
I completely agree that many worship leaders fall woefully short on the Teach and admonish part when it comes to music. I also agree that the (my) ideal would be a service that has both styles of music. Ultimately, where I think the debate itself causes problems is when one side or the other digs in their heels and refuses to acknowledge that value.
Finally, I totally agree that it is our intent in clothes, or music that is the biggest issue.
Post a Comment