And Can It Be . . . Another Post on Music?

Nice to see an article about music in the church not throwing bombs. Of course, the answer to #2, the $64000 question of “what does it mean that a genre is appropriate to the lyrics?”, could blow that one up, but all in all, well done. The one thing that I’d love to see as well is a simple statement “if the purpose of music in the church is to…., then we would conclude that”—and then we would see those four principles.

(my submission; music in the church exists to communicate the Word of God to the People of God in lyric form and prepare them to meet with God…..feel free to add/modify/subtract/etc..)

I agree with:

Lyrics that are doctrinally correct.

A song easily sung by a congregation.

A song the congregation likes and likes to sing.

But, mainly, it has to be a song I like :-). I don’t know how to explain that to others, I just know it when I hear it.

I think the 2008 Baptist Hymnal does a pretty good job with its hymns.

https://www.amazon.com/Baptist-Hymnal/dp/B001U7RI4S/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&…

David R. Brumbelow

Not to pick a fight with David, but it strikes me that from time to time, the music we hear or sing in the church ought to confront us—just like a sermon. In other words, effective, good music in the church may not always be what we “like”. No?

Little Brown Church in the Vale doesn’t meet the criteria

My point about the congregation must like a song.

If they don’t like it, it will not be used.

The thousands of hymns written in the 1800s and 1900s that you never heard of. They were the ones people simply did not like. When it comes to a song, people like you or you die.

David R. Brumbelow

The Baptist Hymnal, 2008, I mentioned above, is cheaper at this site:

http://www.lifeway.com/Product/baptist-hymnal-2008-pew-edition-m00000211

​Or, you can get them at at LifeWay Store.

David R. Brumbelow

I was recently asked to define singability and the discussion was beneficial.

Example #1: I attend a concert and sing along with the band. (I chose the Beatles) Does that mean “Hey Jude” is singable? We agreed not.

Example #2: A song has either challenging words of phrases in the stanzas and/or irregular rhythms that make it difficult for the average person to keep up or know when to come in. The chorus, however, can be sung enthusiastically. No to this.

Example #3: The musicians (or song leader and/or choir) love it and the people love the song as well but the people are somehwat passive while the team/choir does their thing. Nope.

Example #4: A song that can be memorized and sung by an individual or family without musical instruments or a worship team/song leader. Winner!

I grew up in a church where hymnbooks were at a premium and we were encouraged to memorize and be able to sing without a hymnal. (Is anyone else slightly amused that people “need” a hymnbook to sing Amazing Grace?) Historically hymnody had a restricted number of tunes and meters and interchangeable words.

David, I know you were being a little facetious, but the whole “it has to be a song I like” is what kills churches due to worship wars. The problem with the “it has to be a song I like” perspective is that if you have 100 people at a church, there are 100 different opinions about which songs are “good” (meaning songs they like). At some point every single person has to give up some of their own personal preferences and sing songs they don’t like, but they know are good for the body.

Greg Long,

You’re right I was joking a little. There are old hymns I like, and old hymns I don’t like. Same with more contemporary hymns / songs / choruses. But I don’t know enough about music to fully explain why.

If everyone else likes a song and I don’t, I just have hunker to take it!

It does kind of amaze me that the song that really gets ahold of me, does nothing for the next guy; and vice versa. But then, I guess we’re all agreed on Amazing Grace. Somewhere I heard Amazing Grace wasn’t popular for years after it was written.

Also, I realize each new generation is eventually going to be in charge of their music, whether we like it or not. Good for them; except when I disagree!

While it still needs to be doctrinally sound, I kind of think God may enjoy a wide range of music styles.

David R. Brumbelow

David could be being a little bit facetious, or I could simply grant him the point that, psychologically speaking at least, a song that is not liked is going to fade from use.

The flip side is that Greg Long is entirely correct that if the criteria is what we like, and that psychological basis is not effectively restrained by theological truth, we will end up fighting over music. That’s why the starting point—a statement about the Biblical purpose of music in the church—is so important. If it’s just fun time, we might as well listen to the Beatles or AC/DC.

A good place to start to get a good “feel” for how the Spirit led God’s People in this regard would be the various Psalms….along the lines of the old “how to detect counterfeit money” argument, let’s take a look at the real thing.

I like Tim’s approach but would change the order

1. The lyrics should be theologically accurate - no one is coming to the Garden while the dew…..

2. The genre of music should be appropriate to the lyrics - there are a number of old songs with new tunes. Some of the tunes are easily sung (#3), but a number of the new tunes have additional lyrics, most often in the form of a bridge or a chorus. One of them (not remembering the name right now), has a new chorus that changes the song from a stately hymn to a praise and worship song. I love the new tune and would use it, but without the added chorus. Hillsong has written a great new tune to “My Hope is Built…” but the added chorus doesn’t fit with the song, so would use the tune minus the new chorus (and not make a big deal about it coming from Hillsong).

3. The music should be singable by a congregation - in agreement with Ron Bean’s examples above.

4. The lyrics should be understandable to the congregation - I still want to “raise mine Ebenezer” in “Come Thou Fount,” but not opposed to changing lyrics in a few songs for clarity.

[JohnBrian]

2. The genre of music should be appropriate to the lyrics - there are a number of old songs with new tunes. Some of the tunes are easily sung (#3), but a number of the new tunes have additional lyrics, most often in the form of a bridge or a chorus.

In my opinion, one of the best examples of this is the version of “Alas, and Did My Savior Bleed” by Sovereign Grace. Easy for a congregation and much better than the “and now I am happy all the day” version (though the chorus of that was an add-on to the original as well). Here’s a link: https://sovereigngracemusic.bandcamp.com/track/alas-and-did-my-savior-bleed-2

[RickyHorton] ​In my opinion, one of the best examples of this is the version of “Alas, and Did My Savior Bleed” by Sovereign Grace. Easy for a congregation and much better than the “and now I am happy all the day” version (though the chorus of that was an add-on to the original as well). Here’s a link: https://sovereigngracemusic.bandcamp.com/track/alas-and-did-my-savior-bleed-2

I had not heard this tune before and you are right it is an excellent example. New tunes allow great songs to be cross-generational.

Tune doesn’t fit the lyrics … how far are you going to press that one, especially with the use of ‘bridges’ in more modern adaptations of older hymns? Is this not being highly and significantly subjective? I do find the four principles very helpful in generating meaningful direction and discussion for healthy cross-generational worship. But, these same principles may sound different in different cultural settings, yes?!