"Now that the novelty has worn off, the contemporary songs have to compete with the more traditional songs"

[dcbii] I think your contention is making a couple (possibly unwarranted) assumptions:

1. The assumption that “otherwise” than beautiful must be ugly…

2. The fact that we are commanded to think on beautiful things is not the same as not thinking about ugly things…

I’m not really making these assumptions but I don’t address them since they’re beside my point. So many people make the point that beauty is entirely subjective, implying if not outright stating that these things simply cannot be judged at all. There’s only what we like and dislike. But this cannot be the case.

I’m not closed minded about this. I may be wrong about what is beautiful or what is not. I am willing to have that discussion with anyone, Ron Bean included. :) I’m even willing to “lose” that discussion (including within the context of my local church). But there has to be a consensus first that there are at least some objective criteria, that some forms are beyond the pale, and that not everything goes. That’s all.

[DavidO]

But there has to be a consensus first that there are at least some objective criteria, that some forms are beyond the pale, and that not everything goes. That’s all.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, the fact that there are some objective criteria (and I would agree with this) doesn’t mean that all criteria that we would use in this discussion are objective. There may be some here who would claim that ALL beauty is subjective. I’m not one of them. However, I would doubt that anyone here thinks there are no objective criteria, so I’m not sure how that helps.

I also think you would actually have pretty wide agreement here that not *EVERYTHING* goes. However, there would be a lot of disagreement over exactly what *does* go, and what those limits are. So even if your contention I quoted is agreed upon (not that it is completely), that’s probably not even 5% of the disagreement.

[Bert Perry]

One example that one can follow in English; the Psalms inspire emotion, but they are not emotive. Rather, our emotional response is due to the fact that we have just heard God’s deeds in the lyric text of the Psalm. Contrast that with highly emotive “camp meeting” songs and a great portion of CCM; one would wonder whether one was in church, or at an “Air Supply” concert, at times.

I agree wholeheartedly that our response comes from our knowledge of God, or more precisely, from Scripture. I preached a message once on this very premise using Psalm 100 as the example. It goes from telling us something about God to praising Him. He is what causes the emotion, or at least meditating on who He is and what He has done. I have no affinity for the camp meeting songs whatsoever. However, I’ve read quite a bit of hymn history and also looked into the stories behind some contemporary songs. Many, if not most, of the songs that would probably be deemed highly emotive were written as a result of the author meditating on Scripture or God. The fact that a song may not contain theology (though those are my preference) does not mean that it is of any less “quality” than those that do and in fact may mean that they had just been meditating on Scripture. When you think about it, can there be an overly emotive reaction when it comes to God??? Should we squelch an emotional response to someone realizing that Christ died for them?

[dcbii] However, I would doubt that anyone here thinks there are no objective criteria, so I’m not sure how that helps … that’s probably not even 5% of the disagreement.

Ok, then I’m addressing the few, rather than the many. Fair enough.

I just met with the wife of one of our senior adults who entered glory last weekend. They are in their late 70s. In planning the funeral service, the wife asked that we sing It Is Not Death to Die (old text but adapted and popularized by Sovereign Grace) and In Christ Alone (Getty & Townend). In addition they requested one Majesty Music song. No traditional hymns or gospel songs. In my experience, modern hymns with solid texts and singable tunes are being embraced, and not only by the young. Some truth-rich hymns and spiritual songs have emerged, even from the Jesus movement and the contemporary music environment, and they have staying power and will bless the church in the ages to come.

[RickyHorton]

I agree wholeheartedly that our response comes from our knowledge of God, or more precisely, from Scripture. I preached a message once on this very premise using Psalm 100 as the example. It goes from telling us something about God to praising Him. He is what causes the emotion, or at least meditating on who He is and what He has done. I have no affinity for the camp meeting songs whatsoever. However, I’ve read quite a bit of hymn history and also looked into the stories behind some contemporary songs. Many, if not most, of the songs that would probably be deemed highly emotive were written as a result of the author meditating on Scripture or God. The fact that a song may not contain theology (though those are my preference) does not mean that it is of any less “quality” than those that do and in fact may mean that they had just been meditating on Scripture. When you think about it, can there be an overly emotive reaction when it comes to God??? Should we squelch an emotional response to someone realizing that Christ died for them?

This cuts to the heart of what is going on, IMO. Now I would agree 100% that there ought not be disapproval of a free and emotional response to God’s grace. Now here’s the question; is singing a song in church a free response, or do we have an expectation that the entire congregation will sing or at least mumble along/sort of mouth the words with whatever song is presented?

The latter is the case, of course. So it’s not a question of whether the reverie of the composer is appropriate, but rather of whether the congregation is being told to go along with that reverie without being given the context of it. More or less, it’s the church equivalent of putting Kenny G. on the Victrola and expecting romance to automatically follow.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zy6KWBEoDRU

And as Garth would tell you, the guys that really, really, really object to this sort of thing the most are, well, guys. You know, the guys who stay home from church because they’re complaining that Sunday morning worship is too feminine. I don’t guarantee that putting content before emotion will bring him into fellowship, but watching a lot of the men not even trying to mouth the words in church—and I’m talking about saved members here—I’m thinking it can’t hurt.

That is exactly what we do in our services. All our songs follow a common theme for the day and are preceded by Scripture…the song then either reinforces the text or is a response to the text. There are good music/songs that are simply an emotional response, and utilizing Scripture with the song is a tremendous blessing. I also sometimes like to pair a theologically deep song with another song that is simply a response to the first (praise, thankfulness, essentially an emotion that results from the prior song).

I love your examples….first Weird Al, then Kenny G., and now Wayne’s World! You have diverse tastes!

[RickyHorton]

That is exactly what we do in our services. All our songs follow a common theme for the day and are preceded by Scripture…the song then either reinforces the text or is a response to the text. There are good music/songs that are simply an emotional response, and utilizing Scripture with the song is a tremendous blessing. I also sometimes like to pair a theologically deep song with another song that is simply a response to the first (praise, thankfulness, essentially an emotion that results from the prior song).

I love your examples….first Weird Al, then Kenny G., and now Wayne’s World! You have diverse tastes!

Please, please, PLEASE don’t imply I like Kenny G! I’m right with Garth getting my root canal done when I hear nasal, lugubrious saxophone presented as somehow the music of romance. :^) (j/k; I know you’re not accusing)

But yeah, I don’t know if I’d have survived high school if it hadn’t been for Weird Al spoofing all the nonsense music my classmates liked…..

Back on topic, I don’t have a whole lot to add right yet, except that I’ve wondered at times whether the response of the men in the church is a good indication of whether the music is “working” or not. They’re the ones who look like statues first when they don’t like the music in my experience.

[Bert Perry]

But yeah, I don’t know if I’d have survived high school if it hadn’t been for Weird Al spoofing all the nonsense music my classmates liked…..

Ayatollah!

Also, some of us actually do enjoy Kenny G. His music is not up there with Mozart’s Requiem, or even “The Stars and Stripes Forever,” but of course, it’s entirely different from those, and at certain places and times, I find it enhances the mood.

Actually, Weird Al’s spoof of “My Sharona” was “My Bologna”. Steve Dahl—Chicago disk jockey and all-around provocateur of “Disco Demolition” fame or shame—did “Ayatollah.”

(I grew up around the city of Capone, Dillinger, and Obama……and Larry Lujack, and Dahl & Meyer, and….some baseball team that hasn’t won the series since 1908)

Suffice it to say that my personal preference is for music with a little more “edge” to it than has Mr. G. :^)

I liked this article - thanks!

[Bert Perry]

Actually, Weird Al’s spoof of “My Sharona” was “My Bologna”. Steve Dahl—Chicago disk jockey and all-around provocateur of “Disco Demolition” fame or shame—did “Ayatollah.”

(I grew up around the city of Capone, Dillinger, and Obama……and Larry Lujack, and Dahl & Meyer, and….some baseball team that hasn’t won the series since 1908)

Suffice it to say that my personal preference is for music with a little more “edge” to it than has Mr. G. :^)

I’m sure you are right. I remember some of Weird Al’s songs and probably just mixed this one up. Tells you how much I know of any of the pop music scene! Thanks for the correction.

[Bert Perry]

Now here’s the question; is singing a song in church a free response, or do we have an expectation that the entire congregation will sing or at least mumble along/sort of mouth the words with whatever song is presented?

Bert,

This is, I think, a very pertinent question. Is congregational singing a response to anything? Or do we just expect people to walk into church on Sunday morning and sing whatever they are told to sing? IMO, the singing of the congregation ought to be in response to truth and the Spirit’s working in our hearts. For this reason, we have shifted more and more of our singing to the latter portion of our service so that people can sing songs that echo the response of their hearts to God’s word as it has been read and preached. In most churches of which I have been a part, the service is front-loaded with singing and precious little opportunity was given to respond to the word of God apart from a come-forward invitation.

As to whether it is a free response or not, I think that 1 Corinthians 14:40 would mitigate against having a completely free response in a public worship service, but if songs are chosen which reflect the same tenor and theme as the Scriptures which have been expounded, then a genuine and heartfelt response is certainly possible.

This message, “Why We Still Need Hymns; The Formative Power of Worship” by Kevin Twit just came up on the news feed. It was given at RTS. Kevin is the founder of Indelible Grace.