Using Screens without Hymnals: Some Problems

A few comments,

Why would "it would be a mistake if a church communicates either overtly, or subliminally, that physical hymnals are no longer needed or desired?"

"Many congregations are missing out on the beauty of harmony in their singing, which I believe is at least partly due to the use of screens without hymnals." Very few people could sing harmonies in the past. It was mostly a few that sang in the choir that could do it. The ability to sing harmonies is a skill that is practically non-existent in most congregations.

"In other words, the hymnal is a teaching tool, not merely a catalog of songs. I want to teach my congregation about the nature of good hymn writing and poetry. I contend that this is much easier to do using a hymnal than only a screen." Maybe from a stanza structure perspective. But I have seen stanza's displayed on screens. I have also seen teaching of the hymn, just as effective on the screen as in the hymnal.

"If I do not know a hymn/song being sung, and there is no written music for me to read, I cannot sing." This is probably the biggest issue. Although more times than not, this is because poor music is being song in the church. Good congregational developed hymns should be able to be sung without the notes.

Although the quote system is not currently working well, I want to answer some of what you just posted.

>>Why would “it would be a mistake if a church communicates either overtly, or subliminally, that physical hymnals are no longer needed or desired?”<<

Would you ask the same question if the church basically didn’t provide pew Bibles and told everyone to either leave their Bibles at home or their phones in their pockets, because “the necessary scriptures are provided on screen?”

Moving to using only the screen for songs with no notes has unquestionably dumbed-down the singing, and basically is saying to the congregants that well-sung hymns are not really necessary. In my experience visiting other churches, churches that use only the screen and either have no hymnals or keep the room so dark you can’t read them anyway tends to have very apathetic/half-hearted singing most of the time. Interestingly, even in these churches, when the song switches to one that is super well-known (along with the well-known harmonies), people all of a sudden sing out (and in parts). Who would have thought? Hymn books are for when the songs aren’t known that well, and most of what is sung is not known very well.

>>Very few people could sing harmonies in the past. It was mostly a few that sang in the choir that could do it. The ability to sing harmonies is a skill that is practically non-existent in most congregations.<<

I don’t know what churches you have attended, but in my childhood attending a church in a rural area that was mostly farms and small businesses a fairly large proportion of the congregation sang parts, enough so that it was not only noticeable, it was significant. And this was true when I visited other churches. Are people today just stupider, or is it maybe that the teaching and tools are being left out? And how is it better to let that skill fade into the past?

>>Good congregational developed hymns should be able to be sung without the notes.<<

And how is that development done? With lots of repetition and teaching of the parts from the pulpit by the song leader? And instrumentalists that don’t overly “personalize” the emphasis and timing so that no one can keep the tempo? Maybe we should go back to using tools like the Sacred Harp to teach non-singers how to sing. Or spend a lot of time on big hymn-sing services and days so that people learn. Anything would be better than the poorly-taught singing that is considered normal today. I’ve been in a lot of evangelical churches that have decent liturgy and even great preaching, but the song part of their service (no choir, all congregational but with no notes and no real help for the participants) makes me cringe.

I realize that the heyday of hymn singing is probably gone, but “simplifying” congregational singing (in my view “dumbing down”) has not improved today’s worship in the slightest compared to when I was younger. If I’m going to down with it, I’d prefer to do so fighting. I conspicuously use the hymnal, even when no one else does. And I sing heartily, and often in parts. And I have yet to hear anything other than compliments, even though I’m hardly a super high-quality vocal artist. People today can and do appreciate good music and singing. Churches today are not helping them get there in their church services.

I'll try to channel Greg H, who used to comment on this forum, by noting that harmonies and such really date back only a little more than J.S. Bach. So for thousands of years, the best estimate we have about praise of God in song is....monophony, perhaps with some octaves thrown in. That's certainly how Gregorian chant was written and sung.

Don't get me wrong; I sing harmonies (including with modern praise songs) myself and love the old hymns. That noted, the key issue, in my view at least, for music is does a particular song function well to impart the Word of God and Character of God to God's people?

Love those harmonies, but the answer to my question probably depends on the setting. Some people will be blessed, others will be confused or offended.

Bert, yes, I agree that good music is not just about harmony, although comparing music from monophonic modern praise choruses today with music from people like Hildegard von Bingen is, let’s just say, comparing a six-year-old building with Legos to Frank Lloyd Wright. However, just because the history of western music doesn’t take harmony back very far, doesn’t mean that it hasn’t been used in other cultures, times, and places.

The point I was mostly trying to make, with or without harmony, is that good quality singing can still be had at church (though it’s clear it’s not really desired any longer — after all, we have the praise band to do “real singing”), and that simple words with nothing else on an overhead will not facilitate good congregational singing without a whole lot of time, effort, instruction, etc. None of that is really being done, even though it doesn’t take a church full of musically educated people to do congregational singing well when the instruction and tools are there.

I spent a couple of Sunday's recently in Wales. Our dear brothers there still use an old style hymnal with no notes. Of course, a lot of the songs are from the Psalter. It is their custom, and they know their songs. One of them gets the singing started and everyone joins in.

I like to joke that I like hymnals so I can see the notes that I am not hitting. But really, the notes are helpful and I can get a basic idea of which ones I should hold a bit longer and whether I should go up or down in the tones. (Again, not that I hit them!) It helps me to be able to sing.

I can't help but think that the churches in Wales would do better to add some hymnals with notes to their repertoire. It isn't the main thing, but it would enhance their services.

In one of the biographies of Jonathan Edwards I recall the remark about how much he appreciated musical notation coming in and the new harmonies that resulted. I can't remember which one or where that reference is exactly. I think possibly the big one by George Marsden, but can't be sure.

The problem is that you can go around and around with this. I don't discourage hymnals and I prefer them. But in the end it is all preferences. The first hymnals only came out in the mid-1500's. The church has been singing without an hymnal, much, much longer than they have been singing with one. The Amish still use a hymnal from that time period. But they don't use any musical instruments, because they considered vain. While the Amish carry the tradition of using hymnals, they don't sing any harmony. We didn't get harmony singing until the mid-1800's in the US when the Methodist started publishing hymnals with harmony, which was a copy of the Anglican's from the mid-1700's in rebuttal to the Catholic Church's unison style. Even up to the early 1900's, the Pope was stating that Gregorian chant was more sacred than singing in harmony, which sowed confusion in the church. This was even confirmed as late as the early 2000's. Isaac Watts was criticized in his day for focusing on "human centric" worship songs, like "When I Survey the Wondrous Cross". Most churches in his day wouldn't even sing his songs.

So in the end it is a preference. Not a bad one, but most of church history never had singing like we reminisce from the last 50 years in America.

Had started a long comment post on this topic and decided to write an article instead. TLDR: I see advantages and disadvantages to both approaches (printed music notation vs screened lyrics only)… but my most recent experience tips me slightly toward the screen approach, mainly because it’s easier to draw songs from a wider array of sources. https://sharperiron.org/article/congregational-singing-screens-vs-hymna…

On harmony: Most of what I’ve seen on its history commits the old error of interpreting absence of evidence as evidence of absence. We’re told that where singing was a church or academic discipline, harmony didn’t become a thing until 11th century or so (e.g. under rise of polyphony). But what about outside that environment? And how do we know Adam and Eve didn’t sing duets and that harmonic polyphony was a skill later lost for some reason? It’s wild speculation to say these things happened, but we also can’t prove they did not.

Much of the article makes sense in monocultural, homogeneous churches. For years I was in churches that used hymnals and with great profit. Many urban churches, like ours, are multilingual even if English is the dominant language. Our screen projections are always in at least two languages, English and Spanish, and sometimes three IF we can find a translation or make our own. And thankfully there are some hymns that are known in many languages, i.e., Amazing Grace, How Great Thou Art. In our church, there is nothing “enthralling” about using a screen. It’s a necessity and we never had hymnals. Besides, when you’re working with new believers and immigrants there are very few “who know the hymn well and who have any kind of vocal ability and training [to] sing harmonies.” And personally, I wouldn’t want to listen to someone “talk through a hymn before singing it” but we all have our preferences. The author might sense frustration when there is no written music to read and he is “forced to be primarily an observer for a few minutes.” Most people don’t read music and most people need to observe what they haven’t yet learned. Corporate worship should “enable everyone to participate.” But not everyone will always participate equally. That’s just the way it is. A return to hymnals won’t change that.

>>The first hymnals only came out in the mid-1500’s. The church has been singing without an hymnal, much, much longer than they have been singing with one.<<

Sure, but that’s about the time the first printed copies of the scriptures were available as well. The church was quite healthy in Paul’s day and later without that advance. But do I want to go back to that? Not if I can help it. Even though it took a while, everyone being able to have the printed Word has helped immensely.

I actually agree with you that a lot of this is preference, but not all preferences are bad things. I know that there has always been various sorts of controversy about music in the church, and that is not likely to change. And certainly, the church will survive just using lines on screen without music. That doesn’t make it optimal. I still think it’s going backwards and prefer to fight it where I can.

Aaron, I agree with you about harmony and made a similar point in my previous post as well. We certainly have no idea what was used in much of history. I personally find it very hard to believe that when people got together to sing or play instruments since Jubal’s time that they just completely missed harmonic sounds and never ever used them.

In another thread, Kevin Miller cited the following, which alleges that ancient shamans used harmony:

Not only was rhythm a big deal for ancient shamans, but melody, harmony and music played a huge role in shamanic healing. Shamans believed that certain melodic scales had healing properties. In fact, ancient Siberian records reveal that the key of C was considered a champion in terms of aligning the human body. This open key was known to create homeostasis with blood flow, organs and spiritual balance.

The source, however, does not provide any documentation for this information so it cannot be verified.

My church uses the screen for all hymns in the AM service and hymnals for the pm service. We always show the notes on the screen, and anyone can use the hymnal if they prefer.