"We already affirm together hymns that have source and associational issues. We always have."

The article itself is debating with folks I don’t even bother responding to anymore, but the quote that leads this thread is SO true.

Take a look through your hymnal and Google some of the names of composers and lyricists. You will stumble across hymns written by classic liberals, neo-orthodox, and every variety of eschatology, hermeneutic, and theology imaginable. It is hilarious to me that Fundamentalists will balk at singing a song by an evangelical or Charismatic and then have in their own hymnals and sing with gusto hymns that were written by people with the same positions as the very liberals their movement arose to fight in the first place.

Time forbids me to research and list, but whenever we have Sunday night song request time, frequently I note that some requested song was penned by someone we would not have in our church to sing, and in some cases someone we would not even consider a true believer! Recently, it was “Joyful, Joyful, We Adore Thee” by Henry Van Dyke! Henry Van Dyke, who was on the wrong side in the early Fundamentalist/Modernist controversy!

I also note that the old hymns have about the same percentage of this as the new music in our chorus book.

We range from the truly old hymns to the very modern ones at our church, but our current standard is “lyrics is what really matters”. I’m not sure how I feel about the “association” issue in either old or new hymns yet.

But I sure don’t want to fall into the classic hypocrisy that ends up sounding like “Everything old is good, everything new is bad.”

The IBFNA takes the complete opposite stand as Brian Fuller. I happen to believe that Brian Fuller is right. Here is the IBFNA article - http://www.ibfna.org/v1/attachments/article/76/august%202011.pdf

Does anyone know if Kurt Woetzel is still at that church and on board with this change in music philosophy? Just curious.

I know that Mr. Woetzel is affiliated with Majesty Music and their new hymnal is full of modern hymnody - the Getty’s, Townend, Chris Anderson, and others.

It is interesting that two of the newest fundamentalist hymnals have included modern hymns by the Getty’s and others in them. The Rejoice Hymnal and the one put out by Fred Coleman.

These hymns are so widely accepted by the churches in evangelicalism and fundamentalism that I don’t think they are going away anytime soon.

Add “Before The Throne Above,” “In Christ Alone,” or “His Robes for Mine” to your Sunday worship if you have not tried so yet. The flock will be blessed if they ponder the words.

I don’t think this is quite so straightforward as some people on either side want to make it. It’s a question of protecting the flock.

When we compiled our hymnal, I chose to leave out some hymns I really, really liked because of associational issues. I kept others because I did not assess the associational / source issues to be a current danger to those in our congregation.

The further a hymn is removed from its source, the less the danger. For instance, I completely reject Wesley’s views on sanctification, but I’m not overly concerned about someone in our church going to hear him teach his error if he comes to preach in our area. :) So I have no hesitation about using those of his hymns that are sound.

When we were assembling our hymnal, however, I chose to leave out “There is a Redeemer”, because I heard that Melody Green was, at that time anyway, traveling the world and saying positive things about the Toronto Blessing. I didn’t want to give our congregation the impression that she was trustworthy, if she should happen to come speak in our area. So I left out a hymn that I love. Perhaps it was not necessary to do so, but I considered it the wisest course.

I see no reason to throw out a hymn just because the writer has / had problems. We all have problems. But neither do I think we should ignore associational concerns entirely.

I still use Joe Zichtermann’s music, though I’m not impressed with where he is these days. I don’t consider him a particular danger to our church.

I guess what I’m saying is that I don’t see any hard and fast rules here, either to ignore associational issues or to be entirely driven by them. The principle of protecting the flock certainly applies, and each pastor / music minister is going to have to assess the dangers.

JG, you are correct in observing that the situation is not so straightforward as people have been thinking. And you are also correct in thinking that danger to the congregation is a big issue. But this is not necessarily going to be the same across all congregations. Take mine, for instance: My church is very blue-collar, with less formal theological education. However, they are very intelligent and they have learned much over the past 18 years in my pastorate, as well as previous pastorates with very learned men. The few who are likely to spend time googling names of songwriters or following other ministries on-line are the most theologically astute. In addition, those who are this astute are mature enough to understand that those we disagree with can make valuable contributions to the church. We admire Luther, after all, yet we wouldn’t hold him up as an example on many issues. For this reason, the new hymn writers scare me less in our church.

On the other hand, there are some old hymns that invite us to revel in feelings and conclusions that are not Biblical, or that represent other theological positions – and the attenders who are young in the faith are most vulnerable to these IF the lyrics themselves are misleading.

So, we can sing “In Christ Alone” without hesitation, but would hesitate to sing “We’ve A Story To Tell to the Nations”. We do not sing the hypnotic happy happy joy joy programming songs that were popular in Fundamentalism in the 50’s – 70’s. There are songs in our hymnal for which the worship team has certain verses blocked out. We never sing them. I have commented on why we don’t sing them.

In a recent program, our Easter Cantata had a song about the 2nd Coming that was correct in all doctrine technically, but misleading because of the way some of the theological words are commonly used.

In many cases, I think we just go with our gut based on our knowledge of our own congregations.

My lead post was intended to point out that those who judge us on our use of modern hymns need to look at their old ones. They are not consistently applying their own standard of association. I don’t think they should so simply say “Well, that songwriter’s dead, so he can do no more harm.”

“We’ve a Story to Tell to the Nations” doesn’t cut it with me, either.

I thought by saying each pastor has to assess this I was suggesting that the right decision might vary across localities and congregations, but I’m glad you made it explicit. Examples in addition to yours: If I were in Oregon, I might not use Zichtermann’s music, while I don’t hesitate in the UK. On the other hand, I might feel more comfortable using Townend’s there than here. And so on….

There could be a danger in my church singing a song written by Joe Roof. My old nature has not been eradicated yet and I see through a glass darkly.

It just seems to me that the standard has to be whether or not that song can enable the flock to exalt God and teach and admonish one another with psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. If a pastor is convinced that the songs selected for the service can accomplish that, then he is free to use them.

I thought Brian Fuller’s quote from Spurgeon was powerful.

“A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant….”

“Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.”

I respectfully suggest that no pastor can safely ignore the Biblical principle of vigilant care for the flock, despite his own old nature. Exactly how, when, and where the vigilance is exercised is largely a question of wisely applying Biblical principles. The standard of vigilance itself is Biblical, and there is nothing that excludes music from this. Vigilance in Acts 20 is focused on warning about people who are dangerous, not only about things they might have written. The problem with ER2 was not what Jakes said while he was there, but that he himself is dangerous because of the things he teaches at other times.

Each pastor is responsible before the Lord as to how he does or does not choose to act in regard to associational issues with music. But it is false to say “the standard has to be” and exclude associational considerations entirely. That is as problematic as those who say a song must be excluded for everyone in every situation simply because of associational / source concerns. In a culture which exalts celebrities (and a Christian culture that exalts Christian celebrities), some songwriters can be dangerous to the flock. Spurgeon lived in a different world than we do.

I don’t believe we should ignore the practice of vigilance in leading the flock. You can use modern hymnody and still be vigilant. It’s done all of the time.

[Pastor Joe Roof] I don’t believe we should ignore the practice of vigilance in leading the flock. You can use modern hymnody and still be vigilant. It’s done all of the time.

Of course, what this really comes down to is: proper vigilance can look different in your church than in JG’s. This would be true even if you and JG agreed completely on the music issue, and even if you agreed on how to exercise vigilance, since you are dealing with different people and situations.

I’m sure we can advance this conversation without arguing over whether others are actually exercising vigilance properly, though if that happened, readers might doubt the fundamental credentials of the participants! :)

…for even suggesting such a thing. :)

We use modern hymnody (less than 20 years old, mostly non-fundie sources) at least once a week, often more. I’ve used a Stuart Townend hymn, and will again. I won’t use anything by Graham Kendrick, though, no matter how good it may be.

I’m not talking about not using modern hymns, but a sober assessment of if there is an associational danger, and if so, a decision as to whether benefit outweighs dangers. And as has been noted repeatedly on this thread, that kind of assessment will vary in different places.

Here’s an extreme case to make my point, Joe. Suppose Crazy Craig writes a wonderful song. A few years later, he goes off the deep end. He starts lobbying in Albany for a law requiring churches to do gay marriages, and saying this is the “Christian” thing to support. Would you stop using his song? Would you use it but make one of those famous fundie disclaimers (“we don’t endorse everything he says”)? If you would even think about those questions, you think vigilance includes consideration of associational / source concerns.

[JG] Here’s an extreme case to make my point, Joe. Suppose Crazy Craig writes a wonderful song. A few years later, he goes off the deep end. He starts lobbying in Albany for a law requiring churches to do gay marriages, and saying this is the “Christian” thing to support. Would you stop using his song? Would you use it but make one of those famous fundie disclaimers (“we don’t endorse everything he says”)? If you would even think about those questions, you think vigilance includes consideration of associational / source concerns.

Or maybe “Suppose Ray Boltz writes a wonderful song…”

That is an extreme example, and I think it should give us pause before using his songs. But only based on the the extent of our congregation’s knowledge about the situation.

I’m sorry but I just have a hard time omitting such wonderful songs such as “There Is a Redeemer”, etc. because of “associational issues.” I don’t think it matters if the author is alive or dead, because Wesley, Luther, and others, while dead, have more influence through their writings and followers than Melody Green, IMHO.

Probably revealing my ignorance again. :)

That particular song was a close call for me, Greg. I might have included it if others in the church had it on their “wish list,” but since it was only on mine, I decided the benefit was limited. It’s a benefit vs. risk (danger) analysis, IMO. Besides, we already had over 500 songs in the book, so leaving out one excellent song was hardly leaving us short of things to sing….

The things Luther and Wesley advocated in their writings is not as dangerous as what she was advocating. That factored in my thoughts as well. But I’m not particularly bothered if someone makes a different decision, nor would a different decision on that song factor in my thinking at all if I were looking for a church. I’m comfortable with the decision I made. As Toronto isn’t quite as prominent as it was, I might make a different choice today. The particular application is not as important as the principle that it is appropriate to consider these factors in the decisions we make.

I suspect I’ve made my view on this topic clear enough, so I’ll bow out now. Blessings to you all.

I understand. Thanks JG.