This month’s Christianity Today has a couple of articles that probe the differences between contemporary praise songs and old hymnody. In general, I find that both sides of the “worship wars” tend to provide fancy rationales for justifying what we like better. But there is some important theology to grapple with as well.
John Koessler’s piece, “The Trajectory of Worship,” is self-conscious about both. Or, at least, he’d have us think so. On the self-consciousness part, he says, “I am reduced to that most primitive test of aesthetic values: ‘I may not know what art is, but I know what I like.’”
It seems we’re in for a confession that the reason he prefers old music is because he prefers old music. But then, it takes a turn: “Or, rather, ‘I may not know what worship is, but I know what it isn’t.’”
Ah… So the contemporary music you don’t like isn’t actually worship.
His problem, as he goes on to describe it, is that modern worship moves as though it’s from us to God, not a practice that originates in heaven and envelops the earthly worshiping community.
That’s fine theology, but is it really the case that old hymnody captures the “participating in angel choirs” note that modern worship misses? I think he was more on target in his self-evaluation when he was talking aesthetics.
Because anybody who wants to poo poo modern praise music is going to have to start with this: a vast majority of modern praise songs are singing of psalms or other bible passages. It’s going to be very difficult to sustain the argument that the theology of the songs themselves is wrong using the sorts of litmus tests Koessler sets out.
Here’s my take on contemporary music: if it’s a repetitive song, whose words are more or less from the Bible, and accompanied by guitar and drums we call it a praise chorus and deride it. If it’s a repetitive song, whose words are more or less from the Bible and accompanied by the piano or sung a capella, we call it Taize and celebrate it.
In the second article, an interview, T. David Gordon explains the widespread disdain for classical-music hymnody by the prevalence of pop music in our society. Based neither on theology or aesthetics, the change to contemporary music in church is due to a “media ecology”: a change in our environment that causes nothing but pop music to sound like music to our ears.
Gordon urges us to cultivate a new musical sensibility to help connect us with the great musical tradition of the church.
He says that not all hymns are good, and not all praise songs are bad. There are both in both. In the interview he then goes on to say that there are objective categories for evaluating music–and that hymns shouldn’t strive to the level of musical excellence that would make them unsingable for most of us.
In fact, says Gordon, “musicologists argue that hymnody is actually a subcategory of folk music… But folk music, by name, suggests music produced by the people. It’s the way people join their heritage, and it’s participatory in its very nature.”
Exactly.
So which is more “the people’s music”? The music that is currently being produced by people who are participating in the “the people’s culture” of pop music, or the music that reflects an earlier generation’s sensibilities?
Gordon argues that this isn’t about aesthetics, but I’d say it is: the “media ecology” he describes has developed a certain aesthetic in society–and it happens to be one that he doesn’t resonate with. If we have to “cultivate” a liking for the music he wants us to like, in what sense is it our own folk music any longer?
One other thing that struck me about the interview with Gordon is Anglo-centric his assessment of worship is. Perhaps Gordon celebrates the videos he sees of Africans in traditional garb singing 18th century English-penned hymns. They make me weep. Ok, that’s a bit strong: I’m glad that they sing our songs and participate with us in our worship. But it also strikes me as a failure of the gospel to take hold of the hearts, failure of western missionaries to give freedom to people in a new context to reexpress the praise of God in their own tongue, to have them sing our songs.
And with our own now being a more missionary situation, I wonder if promulgation of the old hymns isn’t as culturally inappropriate.
Look, I like hymns as much as anyone. I love that so many of them contain rich lyrics and rich theology.
But I also believe that when the Psalmist says he will “sing a new song,” he is not actually asking the people of God for the next 4- or 5,000 years to sing his new song–old song that it is to us.
In fact, I would argue that what we see in scripture is that new song is exactly what we should expect any time that God is at work in the world. Yes, Koessler is correct: worship begins with God. But the worship we sing is, as often as not, about how that God in heaven has intersected tangibly with the world down here. Worship is not about the God who remains afar off in the heavens, it’s about the God who has, or should have, acted here on earth for the good of God’s people and all humanity.
Put differently, a church with no new songs to sing is a church where God is not at work.
A culture that cannot express its encounter with God in its own idiom is a culture where the gospel has not taken root.
And, if we’re not careful, an insistence of the singing of only the old songs might become a convenient theological cover for the reality that our own lives need a fresh visitation, that our eyes need a new vision, of the Kingdom of God come near.
Very nicely done… Some caution about equating “music” with “worship” since worship is so much bigger than just the music.
Cultural expression, though, I think is key. If a congregation wants to minister to their community, as a missionary church, they should speak the gospel THROUGH the culture rather than force the culture to comply…
Good call, Robert. I got sucked into the idiom of the argument. This is about singing and music, not “worship” as such.
Good cutting of the gordion knot here. I especially like your quip about praise choruses vs. taize.
My primary problem with CCM is the “industry” aspect of it. It strikes me as a cynical profit-driven grab for all the Christians who need their pop-culture to be self-consciously “christian” in order to not feel guilty. All those who were raised in church camps that taught that rock and roll and hollywood were trying to corrupt your souls. So instead of U2 try Jars of Clay…
I agree that we ought to have new music, and new art in general as a concrete gift of the Spirit. I find that I am most impressed when individual congregations are creating their own music, either by taking old songs and doing their own unique arrangements, or by actually writing new music. I’m not sure that utilizing music marketed by a label directly to churches that is “contemporary” is really any more a sign of spiritual vitality than utilizing a hymnal.
I also take issue with the term “contemporary”. Most CCM sounds like it came straight out of the 50′s, 60′s & 70′s. It is aimed at baby boomers in the pews of megachurches. Most christians of my generation don’t listen to CCM. We listen to mainstream rock and pop and find CCM cheesy and antiquated sounding. I’d be thrilled to actually hear some NEW music coming out.
Yes, yes, yes, and yes Aric.
I think one of the most profound worship experiences I’ve had in the past several years came from listening to the wordless guitar music of Rodrigo y Gabriella. I was somewhat dismayed to discover that the song that had so lifted my spirit was entitled “Diablo Rojo,” but I got over it…
Your distinctions are appropriate, but need some qualification:
1) Hymns as the “people’s song” are different from the way in which most CCM is performed–hymns are still sung (or at least intended to be sung) “by the people” rather than by a band singing in their place (though traditional choirs have not been exempt from this temptation).
2) The repetitive character and scriptural content of praise songs and Taize songs is quite similar; they tend to differ in direction/intent: the direction of the praise song is toward “enthusiasm”, the direction of Taize song toward “contemplation”.
3) What Taize shares with “emerging church” music is that it is generated by a community for the sake of that community (historically, this has been true of almost all “traditional” hymnody); CCM, as you note, is generated by the music industry for the sake of profitability to the industry and individual artist.
In regards to your comment about Africans:
I met some Kenyans in college and one of them led worship. He said, “We’re going to do one of our own songs.” It was an American praise chorus translated into Swahili, I forgot which one. I was kind of disappointed. Afterward I asked him if he knew any songs that were originally in Swahili and he said that they were traditional hymns and he didn’t like them.
It’s good to recover the emphasis on creating music in worship, and your point is a great one, that where God is at work, worship takes form in the culture of the worshipers. What’s lost in our focus on the immediate, though, is any acknowledgment that culture is shaped by the gospel not all at once, but over time. We delight in the new thing of a convert’s expression, but we expect growth, maturity and development. Worship together has to include us wherever we are.
That poses all sorts of challenges for communities that include new believers and long-time Christians, as well as older and younger people. The difficulties mount when every sliver of an age group or subculture identifies itself by its music, and where popular culture is as transient and trendy as ours is.
I am not going to sound very erudite here but for me, worship music works best when there is either a strong aesthetic (whatever the genre) and/or an authenticity of expression. For instance, my church plays a range of music – almost all of which is contemporary. This includes the standard Christian music playlist but also U2, Florence and the Machine, Mumford and Sons, Coldplay and the Beatles. I like songs that are in a register I can actually sing (standard Christian playlist) and the freedom to engage my body in worship, i.e. tap my toes, clap my hands – dance a little. On the other hand, I attended a service this weekend at a different church that had a full scale orchestra complete with a harp, violins, french horn and choir. They played traditional hymns with some serious passion and it was equally moving. I just want to move and be moved in worship music.
I found it appalling that one of the people interviewed in the CT series said that the only justification for not singing solely hymns is to avoid church splits. That was elitism at its best!
What’s different about the Older Hymns and many modern day praise songs is that Older Hymns read more like deep Bible Doctrine & focused on the Lord whereas CCM Praise Songs in many cases are very shallow, repetitious and focused on man or something man wants such as the song, “I Want to Know You” or “Open the Eyes of My Heart” and many others. There are many great exceptional CCM songs by groups like Third Day, Casting Crowns, Mercy Me, Chris Tomlin, Sara Groves, but CCM radio and modern CCM praise songs taken as a whole just seem to reflect the state of the modern church, watered-down gospel, very basic doctrine.