# Having an e-mail discussion with a friend about worship music



## ReformedWretch (Mar 20, 2005)

He is asking me why contemporary music in service is wrong (not to mention him being worried about the unchurched). It's a civil conversation and I have pointed out where scripture tells us what to sing.

Here is his last reply to me.

Thoughts?



> This is cool and you are not offending me!
> I agree with you 100%.
> Having said that, and you have to believe that I agree with you, hymns were once contemporary. In the 1600's. Not in Jesus' day. Not in our day. Both the words AND the music. This is what I am speaking of. We now have modern translations that we read from because they make more sense to us with our modern/contemporary way of speaking. Same with the music. In the 1600's some of the hymns were written to bar song melodies! That was popular then. When the Bible says to sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs it is not saying to
> sing hymns as we know them from the 1600's (which hadn't happened yet when the Bible was written)I agree with singing scripture but I believe in singing it in a contemporary
> version so I can fully understand what I am singing. The unchurched benefit from that as well!



So what would you tell him about "modernizing" todays hymns? How is that different from new bible translations?


----------



## Robin (Mar 20, 2005)

Adam,

There are serious differences - and similarities...

First off, there is a huge problem with many Bible translations - because many are not reliable. The Jehovah Witnesses (for example) have their own NIV Bible. NIV. The NIV also has a gender-neutral version (which distorts the Text); the Message isn't a translation but a horribly distorted paraphrase - we could go on....but the point is the accuracy of the theology can be tampered with. We need to be alert and discerning when it comes to Bible translations nowadays.

Seperate from the ideas/words is the question of musical sounds/rhythms. I'm a musician and musicologist - musical sound is NOT neutral. It is powerfully "moral" stuff and can cause intense emotions no matter what style is used. This is why advertising companys spend millions on selecting music to pitch their products. (A 30 second jingle used for Superbowl half-time cost 6 million.) This is how certain advertisers are of manipulating the public to do what they want.

A better question is what type of emotion is being projected by the music? Music in soundtracks for movies are a perfect example of how music "causes" and/or enhances the mood-impression of the message in a movie.

Btw, don't fall for the "contemporary" label assertion. The type of music used in modern churches is NOT contemporary. Usually it is a "soft rock" ballad style (a la Barrie Manilow; Neil Diamond) with a 3 chord progression; placed over an "ostinato" accompaniment pattern with a strong back-beat. This format is the SAME structure used in all pagan/idolatry worship music (seriously, it IS - PBS had a special on this topic) and the single theme is repeated many times so as to cause an altered state of emotion/consciousness - i.e. hypnotic reaction. The only difference is the "Jeezus Jargon" language in the so-called Christian worship music. Actually, much of the current stuff I hear in the churches is Buddhist by design.

I'm also a composer and write hymns. Hymns have a specific structure: melody; harmony; counterpoint, etc. Hymn structure cannot incite hypnotic states, btw - much like Mozart cannot. I'm curious if your friend were to hear one of my hymns - would he consider them "modernized"? (If I write one this week - it's current, right?) Personally, I enjoy writing in the harmonic style of the Renaissance. (Which is a beautiful, artistic expression of sounds.) I would assert that what is being considered "modernized" is really a poorer quality of music design - much like cheap wine or art. And it is NOT benign in moral power -- it will arouse strong feelings of some sort...

Just some of what I see from here....

Robin


----------



## Puddleglum (Mar 20, 2005)

Interesting discussion. 

First of all . . . my understanding is that "bar songs" means that the music was written in bars (a music theory term) NOT drinking songs. 

Second . . . What does your friend mean by "modernizing"? Does he mean that we should switch to the Jesus-is-my-boyfriend CCM - or does he mean that some hymns are simply hard to understand because they were written 400 years ago? If he means the second, I don't necessarily disagree with him. There's a reason why I read the NKJV, not the KJV! It is sometimes possible to carefully update the language of a hymn without losing the meaning or really changing anything. (I've also seen it done poorly . . . ) And Robin has a good point - hymns have a certain structure, and there have been good hymns written fairly recently, some of which I really appreciate. (For example, Boice's Hymns for a Modern Reformation)


----------



## JonathanHunt (Mar 21, 2005)

BTW, that whole 'bar songs' 'drinking songs' 'pub music' type story is garbage. A typical old chestnut that comes up every time you try to draw a line in the sand with modern worship advocates who try to tell you it is all a matter of taste and culture rather than a matter of what God's word says.

Oh, and Robin - a brilliant post, very useful.

JH

[Edited on 3-21-2005 by JonathanHunt]


----------



## ReformedWretch (Mar 21, 2005)

Jonathan, that story is actually not true? I've heard it a dozen times, most of them from pastors!


----------



## JonathanHunt (Mar 21, 2005)

Yes, it is an old, oft-repeated, chestnut, with perhaps a little bit of truth at its very source (there is a suggestion that Luther adapted a tune he had heard in a tavern, but even this is questionable), but in reality it is far from the truth - as is saying that hymn tunes were somehow contemporary music at the time they were written. Hymn/psalm tunes have always been in general terms a specific genre of music, quite distinct from the 'in' sounds of the day.

I am looking for an online link for you. I have stuff on paper and in books, but looking now...

JH


----------



## ReformedWretch (Mar 21, 2005)

Thanks Jonathan!


----------



## fredtgreco (Mar 21, 2005)

Adam,

This thread discusses this:

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=6635#pid100187

Here is my post from that thread:



> > _Originally posted by dkicklig_
> > Interesting, the argument that Luther used a "tavern" tune to write A Mighty Fortress is used greatly in the argument for contemporary worship music. If this is/was a myth, it is now widely taught as fact.  Unfortunatly I lack a Luther biography in my library so I'll have to use a another avenue to do my fact checking (I doubt snopes.com will have this one).
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Mar 21, 2005)

The question should be, is Music as an Area of Knowledge fully maxed out, hence forbidding the need to exploit the different genres and styles that are constantly coming into the mainstream due to a diversity of cultures and perspectives on the topic?

I say the Answer is No. Music as an Area of knowledge is not fully maxed out, likewise Chemistry, Biology and Physics.

Here is what Antonin Dvorak, one of my favortie composers has to say on the topic.
*"In the Negro melodies of America I discover all that is needed for a great and noble school of music.

"It is my opinion that I find a sure foundation in the negro melodies for a new national school of music . . . The new American school of music must strike its roots deeply into its own soil." *

Dvorak new the essence of diversity and the non stagnant nature of music and as s result he wrote his Cello Concerto, New World Symphony and his F Major and G Major string quartets fully synthesizing the African perspective with his Czech perspective.

I could even list examples of Ira Gershwin and Leonard Bernstein incorporating Jazz in their musical examples as well as Aaron Copland.

I think as Christians we should approach music as an area of knowledge as opposed to a mere intangible philosophy of great moral implications. If we approach is as mere knowledge we will be able to benefit much, writer better music and enhance our understanding. If we approach it as mere philosophy, we will limit ourselves in a box, while having itching ears for new styles, but constraining ourselves with the boredom and archaic nature of the old songs we sing.

[Edited on 3-21-2005 by Slippery]


----------



## ReformedWretch (Mar 22, 2005)

Thanks Fred!


----------



## JonathanHunt (Mar 22, 2005)

Keon: 'boring and archaic' is your opinion. I certainly don't find carefully modernised (where neccessary!) hymns and psalms to 'tradtional style' music either boring or archaic.

Adam:
Fred did the work for me. I knew it was 'out there' somewhere. I had probably seen it on the PB last time.

JH

[Edited on 3-22-2005 by JonathanHunt]


----------



## ReformedWretch (Mar 22, 2005)

Yep thanks again Jonathan for pointing it out.


----------

