# Hymns



## Irishcat922 (May 25, 2004)

I have a question, if you are spending your time during worship trying to figure out how to sing a hymn are you really worshipping? I mean for all of us who don't read music.
I love most of the old hymns because of the content, but most of the more contemporary music sure is alot easier to sing.


----------



## JonathonHunt (May 25, 2004)

Quite agree. Its a fine line isn't it?

What my previous church majored on was writing (and re-writing) 'traditional' style tunes that were easy to follow. ALthough complex harmonies are wonderful and beautiful, they can be very hard for large congregations (which may have a good proportion of visitors and new attenders) to sing. In my estimation, the best hymn tunes are those which you can sing after listening to the tune played through no more than twice.
This should mean that if there is a new tune, the organist (or whatever) can play the tune through once, and by the beginning of verse 2 you should be able to join in properly, at the least.

It helps if people have had some practice at the new tune - often achieved by using the tune at a mid-week meeting prior to introducing it into the Sunday services.


----------



## FrozenChosen (May 25, 2004)

My church in Pensacola teaches hymns pretty effectively I think. They choose one hymn a month, and before they sing the hymn, they talk about it a little bit. Then they play through a verse and a couple people sing it and then the congregation joins.


----------



## Irishcat922 (May 25, 2004)

It would be great if someone would take the time and effort and produce a modernized Psalter-Hymnal. I know it would be a huge undertaking though.


----------



## Ianterrell (May 25, 2004)

Sean,

I often have this exact problem! I'm exerting so much energy trying to sing the music. It get's frustrating at times. Sometimes I just read throught the hymn, or hum along. We also have a guy in our church, who bless his heart, often sings much too high for the other gentlemen.


----------



## Irishcat922 (May 25, 2004)

There is always that one guy who can't carry a tune but will sing loud enough that no one else can either.


----------



## Ianterrell (May 25, 2004)

Yeah and there's not a whole lot to be done about it. It would be cool if you could just approach your brother about things like that, but fat chance of someone taking it very well. It's those mild annoyances, like a dead fly in a jar of honey. Those little irritants...


----------



## Scott (May 25, 2004)

It would be nice if the Church has a repository of common music that people would be expected to learn on becomming Christians. We don't really have that. An authorized version of the psaler would be great.

Now, there is a focus on the transitory, novel, and fadish. In such a world, the music must be simple.


----------



## wsw201 (May 25, 2004)

[quote:ef8a7b7697][i:ef8a7b7697]Originally posted by Irishcat922[/i:ef8a7b7697]
I have a question, if you are spending your time during worship trying to figure out how to sing a hymn are you really worshipping? I mean for all of us who don't read music.
I love most of the old hymns because of the content, but most of the more contemporary music sure is alot easier to sing. [/quote:ef8a7b7697]

Actually, I find the opposite to be true. I have grown up on the old hymns and find them easier to sing than much of the contemporary tunes.


----------



## kceaster (May 25, 2004)

Perhaps, instead of just giving them a fish, teach them to fish.

There is no reason to abandon perfectly good, and yet complicated music, just because we don't know how to sing it.

Just think what it would be like if no one taught us how to cut steak with a steak knife. We would be hacking away at a juicy piece of meat with a fork or a spoon. Would that stop us from wanting to eat steak? Not me.

However, we just need to learn how to use it. These melodies require more developed tools than we are used to using. But, how much better would it be if we could use them?

Our disposable society has made us believe that if we can't master something in 15 minutes or less, we should give up and try something easier.

If it takes us 50 years to understand and sing the music well, is that a big deal? If it takes us 5 years to learn 2 songs, have we not praised God enough? It is about Him, right? Sure, He wants us to do things skillfully, but what has ever been done skillfully that did not require a great amount of effort to master?

If we shortchange this process, will God be pleased because we mastered the art of the praise chorus in a few weeks? Have we then arrived?

Nothing we do in the worship of God should ever be without constant effort. It should be simple in the way we approach it, that is, without the trappings of orchestral movements or praise bands. Yet, it should also be fitting of God which is never going to be without difficulty.

If you hit a brick wall and you think you're doing a disservice to God because you concentrate too much on how you sing instead of what you sing, work harder. Pray that God would teach you how to praise Him with music.

We may look at God as someone we want to impress by our individual and independent efforts, sort of like a child making a gift for their mother or father without the parent there to help. However, we should realize that He wants to teach us how to praise Him more than He wants us to &quot;surprise&quot; Him with our presentation. We should pray, then, that God would teach us how to sing, instead of try to present it independent of His teaching.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## tcalbrecht (May 25, 2004)

[quote:171ab172ef][i:171ab172ef]Originally posted by Scott[/i:171ab172ef]
It would be nice if the Church has a repository of common music that people would be expected to learn on becomming Christians. We don't really have that. An [b:171ab172ef]authorized version of the psaler[/b:171ab172ef] would be great.

Now, there is a focus on the transitory, novel, and fadish. In such a world, the music must be simple. [/quote:171ab172ef]

I believe the RPCNA has just that, an authorized psalter.


----------



## Ianterrell (May 25, 2004)

Kevin,


I'm sympathetic to what you are describing really. It is an idea which definitely preserves the songs of the church in some sense. There is one thing you are not taking in to consideration. These hymns come out of a time and culture that is alien to many people especially new converts who haven't been raised in the church! Bible interpretation requires hard work and discipline. Should the singing of hymns really be considered a required hurdle to leap in order to meet with believers and commune with one heart? Why should a &quot;high&quot; standard be made for entry level singers? It seems a little much. I just came into the Reformed tradition very recently. 

I've only been singing hymns on a regular basis for a year now, [b:0610027c7b]but I've been singing publicly all my life![/b:0610027c7b] And I have problems singing hymns not because I'm too lazy to learn, but because some of the hymns have seriously crazy melodies. The biggest problem with this stance may be that in my church and I imagine many churches we aren't really taught to sing the hymns.


----------



## Irishcat922 (May 25, 2004)

[quote:ca355f31b8][i:ca355f31b8]Originally posted by Ianterrell[/i:ca355f31b8]
Kevin,


I'm sympathetic to what you are describing really. It is an idea which definitely preserves the songs of the church in some sense. There is one thing you are not taking in to consideration. These hymns come out of a time and culture that is alien to many people especially new converts who haven't been raised in the church! Bible interpretation requires hard work and discipline. Should the singing of hymns really be considered a required hurdle to leap in order to meet with believers and commune with one heart? Why should a &quot;high&quot; standard be made for entry level singers? It seems a little much. I just came into the Reformed tradition very recently. 

I've only been singing hymns on a regular basis for a year now, [b:ca355f31b8]but I've been singing publicly all my life![/b:ca355f31b8] And I have problems singing hymns not because I'm too lazy to learn, but because some of the hymns have seriously crazy melodies. The biggest problem with this stance may be that in my church and I imagine many churches we aren't really taught to sing the hymns. 

 [/quote:ca355f31b8]
That is my point to a certain extent. When most of the hymns and psalms thet we sing, were written they were set to contemporary music. That is, what was acceptable at the time.


----------



## kceaster (May 25, 2004)

*Ian...*

I understand the culture question. I think, though, we take much too pragmatic a position on that. What if wine falls out of vogue for some reason and several years go by with it not being a part of culture. Reintroducing wine will take some time because no one is used to it. We will have to &quot;educate&quot; the palate as it were.

It is the same with the tunes of a few centuries ago. We are allowing our culture to tell us that they are stale and moldy. They are too hard.

Instead, we need to educate our palates. If the music has stood the test of time, it is not because of one's taste. It is because the marriage of lyrics to music has been appropriate and the music really does carry the tenor of the words. I am by no means saying that we have infallible tunes or anything like that. What I am saying is that God has caused their longevity for His worship and our edification. We also have a fellowship with our brothers and sisters from a bygone time.

Just because a person is new to the faith and the culture slants away from the Hymnody of the past, does not mean it should be abandoned. This is pragmatism. Are you saying it doesn't work, it won't work, or what?

I am not saying this to antagonize. Just realize that your argument has less to do with how God wants to be worshiped than how the culture who comes in from the world will be able to adapt to it. Should our worship music be dictated to us by new converts and the unfortunately unchurched? If so, the music is for them and not for God.

Please realize too, that I am not saying that all new music is bad. I have written some even two weeks ago.

But is the body of Hymnody we have too high a hurdle? Again, do we want instant results? Or, are we willing to diligently roll up our sleeves and do the hard stuff knowing that it will take us awhile? Molding our music to cater to a culture other than the well-established Christian culture is short-sighted and does not have God as the centerpiece. It places the need of the individual over the right worship of God. Right worship is never anything but theocentric.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Irishcat922 (May 25, 2004)

Granted most of the hymns and psalms are great and well written. But does something have to be two hundred years old to be good and acceptable. I for one prefer much of the modern music and songs to some of the old. When I worship corporately no matter what is going on around me, or what particular song is being sung I am there to worship The Lord.


----------



## kceaster (May 25, 2004)

*Sean...*

Does something have to be two hundred years old to be good and acceptable? I sure hope not. Otherwise, what I have done in my short life is a complete waste of time.

Is it just what I have written and this two hundred year old stuff? No. Jim Boice and Paul Jones have put together some great hymns for the church.

When we look to the songs of a few hundred years ago, it is much like looking at something like a Stradivarius violin. The craftsmanship in these instruments and the sound they produce is unmatched. The craftsmanship of the old hymns and tunes is like it. Not only their skill, but their devotion to God comes out in these songs. 

Can songs like these be produced today? Yes, and en masse, though cheap copies, like the violin I bought for $90 on ebay. It was of Stradivarius design, but it was far from Stradivarius quality.

Do you see what I mean?

And I would say this in the best way possible, why does it matter what you prefer? I am not trying to insult you or make you feel bad. But, why should our preferences mold what we do in worship?

Please understand, as a musician, I would much rather play some of the newer stuff. Some of it is rather beautiful. It is certainly a lot easier. Yet, for the past two and half years, I have elevated my playing so that I can do the older hymns. Do you have any idea how difficult it is to play &quot;A Mighty Fortress is Our God?&quot; It is a workout. I can play with much more feeling and certainly much easier if it were &quot;Give Thanks&quot; or &quot;As the Deer&quot;. The culture in me would rather play those newer songs. But it is not about me. And those new songs, while they stir emotion and are beautiful, cannot ever match the content and the admixture of music and lyrics that &quot;Now Thank We All Our God&quot; has.

So, like Paul, I buffet my body to do what is more difficult. Do you not think it would actually be of more benefit? Does the newer praise music stir us to learn more about God? Or, is it more designed around feeling and emotion rather than intellect.

For what it's worth, and In my humble opinion, most of the new stuff is so tainted with &quot;relationship&quot; that it is not becoming of God. We have relationship to God through Christ. However, God is still so much &quot;other&quot; that we dare not draw near flippantly or blithely. Our God is Holy. Our God is a consuming fire. If we come like most today, we come much too presumptively, as if to be the court jester. Reverence and awe are not the hallmarks of some of this newer music. It is familiar and friendly, which does commend the world to it. But it does commend us to God.

I really don't mean to rail against new stuff so. But I think our first thoughts need to be like Wycliffe. I've written this several times on this board, so forgive me if you tire of it. But he said to the effect of if he liked the tune more than the words, then he liked not the tune.

Liking the music too much means we could be raising an idol. I have seen this in many of my old friends who are music ministers. Their god is their ability to set the mood. It is what they worship. I was guilty of it as well. Not more than 3 years ago, I was doing the same thing. I would be trying to manipulate the emotion and cater to the audience rather than to God. I have prayed for God to forgive me because I placed the music before Him, even though I was constantly reminding myself that it was for Him. It wasn't.

Preferences should be lost. We should use what has been widely used. But more importantly, we should place our worship music down on the list of what worship is. In most churches today, worship is singing and music. The Bible knows nothing of this.

Worship is the Word, read, sung, prayed, conveyed in the symbols of the sacraments, and most importantly, preached. If we would reform our worship, we must let the music issue fade and let the Word become central.

Again, I am sorry if I offend. It is not my intention other than to exhort all, including myself, to consider the worship of God more from God's perspective than from man's. The Bible teaches us how to do that. But there is no overnight solution. The Worship of God is difficult, it should never be easy, lest our feet slip by that ease, as well.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## alwaysreforming (May 25, 2004)

*Is our worship pleasing to God?*

I was at a Ligonier ministry conference a couple of years ago and the theme was &quot;Worship.&quot; As the debate between the old and the new got started, RC Sproul said something that I had never really taken the time to think about before: He said, &quot;We may have a style of worship that pleases us, but did we ever stop to consider what type of worship GOD is pleased with?&quot;

I had come from a very contemporary church, and I had never before considered the question in the manner he put it. Not that there is anything wrong with &quot;new&quot;, but in light of what KC has been saying, I must say that I concur completely. Its not about us and what we like. Its about God and what pleases Him, what reverences Him, what honors Him, and what is worthy of Him. 

I don't know exactly how to put it in words, but there is &quot;something&quot; about the older hymns (and SOME of the new ones) that just has a &quot;weightiness&quot; to it. A certain excellence in the melody that is strong enough to carry the weight of the words in the hymn.

I heard RC Sproul do a very excellent description about how and why this is so, and if I could remember any of his exact arguments I would post them (but I can't). But what I CAN remember is that his argument at that point swayed me and I came away fully agreeing to the truth of his viewpoint. And if I had a bias going in, it was surely in FAVOR of the contemp. music over the old! My church used to ROCK OUT and I loved it! But now I see how the &quot;beat&quot; of the songs, and the awesome guitar playing, and the &quot;catchy-ness&quot; of the tunes, really was producing, artificially, the emotions that I used to attribute to &quot;wow, the Holy Spirit is definitely in the air here!&quot;


----------



## Ianterrell (May 25, 2004)

KC,

Difficult melodies are not necessarily any more theocentric than a simpler melody. Secondly, neither Sean nor I was advocating the dumbing down of lyrics or replacing the lyrics of &quot;Amazing Grace&quot; or &quot;Praise to the Lord, The Almighty&quot; with the mentally unchallenging &quot;I Could Sing of Your Love Forever&quot; or any such nonsense. 

Pragmatism isn't the case in my complaints either. I wouldn't mind singing hymns that I could sing. I don't want to lose the artfully constructed hymns or their complex melodies, necessarily. I simply find them difficult. 

I certainly value the statement you make about working towards a &quot;skillfull worship&quot;, but I am not convinced that technically difficult music is necessarily worth more for God than a simpler melody accompanied with equally rich words. Mowing the lawn is worship. Walking to my job can be worship. Meeting together is formal worship, communal worship. One of the great things about Covenant Community is worshipping together. It could be viewed as self-interested for a generation of unchurched to complain about complicated melodies. Or it could be viewed as self-interested for a well-churched generation to demand melodies be learned. It depends on the congregation I feel. But if an older generation is going to require difficult hymns, they could at least condescend to provide a little instruction. That might soothe the wound of having to learn yet another language, a musical one!


----------



## Ianterrell (May 25, 2004)

I see this is going to be confused with an argument over CCM and hymnody/psalmody!





[Edited on 5-25-2004 by Ianterrell]


----------



## Irishcat922 (May 25, 2004)

Kevin, 
I almost completely agree with you, except I think worship is an emotional experience. I get just as emotional singing guide me oh Thou Great Jehovah as I do singing, as the dear panteth for the water. Probably even more so some times, but that may be just me. I am a big cry baby Irishman, I cry during communion, baptisms, and sometimes the preaching of the Word. I think that in one sense Worship is subjective. I am there to Worship God with my brothers and sisters, I can only hope that everyone else is there for the same reason. I agree there is much abuse of emotional hype in Worship today, and that is a shame. I am just saying that I think as long as Worship is done Scripturally it is good. Then I guess we have to define what is Scriptural worship.
According to many in the reformed tradition that would be exclusive psalmody with No musical accompaniment. If we are to get real technical about &quot;worship&quot;, then that is probably the route we should all go, as reformed people. I am not completely comfortable with that position, I think scripture allows us some freedom on this issue, that is, within the bounds of scripture. I still think alot of the contemporary music and songs can be used without violating the R.P.W.
And there was no offence taken, I don't expect everyone to agree with me on this issue, that is why I brought it up so i can learn.


----------



## kceaster (May 25, 2004)

*Sean and Ian....*

Good words, brothers. We have much agreement. We should be willing to learn, which I think all of us have expressed. We should be taught, as well. The more informed we can all be as to what God intends in worship, the better.

I enjoyed this topic.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## FrozenChosen (May 27, 2004)

An emotional response should not be an objective of worship, but is an entirely acceptable side effect.

Sometimes I find myself struggling to understand the words of a hymn and their depths, and a lot of times I have to fight the sin in me during worship. Is that an acceptable thing? Curious...


----------



## kceaster (Jun 1, 2004)

*Daniel...*

I do not recall a Lord's Day that I have ever not struggled with sin during worship. I don't want to bind anyone's conscience, but if one does not see their sinfulness in what they do before a holy God, can it be worship?

If we truly understand the greatness of God, can we miss the fact of how utterly sinful we are? I'm not necessarily talking about &quot;navel gazing&quot;. But, there is a proper perspective given to us by the puritans in this.

So, I don't think it is abnormal. I think it is necessary.


In Christ,

KC


----------



## FrozenChosen (Jun 1, 2004)

KC, I appreciate your encouragement.


----------

