Language of Faith
The Language of Faith
What an interesting “conversation” has been going on in Letters on the subject of hymns and modern songs/choruses. I’ve spent a lot of time in those “old time” songs as well as songs written WAY before them and way after. I still have no concrete opinions. So I printed all NINE pages of Letters, grabbed a highlighter, pencil, cup of tea, and a pair of ugly socks (I think better with those) to try to figure out why we so vehemently argue our points on this subject. Several statements stood out to me and on the basis of those I offer the following:
“Old Landmarks” issue. Duet. 19:14 In this OT passage removing a landmark was far more than moving a stone. It was changing a property line and in effect cheating some family out of the inheritance of land that God had given them. This could bring a special judgment from God. Okay, so it doesn’t say a thing about music, but I can see the analogy. And I believe that’s all it is. Taking or eliminating something meaningful, whether property or a song, can bring hurt and offense. I disagree with the statement in letters that referring to songs as landmarks is “nothing short of ridiculous.” Someone wrote: “We need to examine our motives for not singing hymns.” Is it because of the musical style? Is it because we don’t value their message? Is it because we don’t value our older generation? Is it because we are unaware of our heritage? I think it could be a little of all of these. Last fall we had a Heritage Service at New Life Center that focused on telling the story of our movement and so much of the music was from the songbook. From the platform I watched for the response I expected from the Keenagers (what we affectionately call the older folks) but was still shocked. Their faces lit up like light bulbs. It was like rain on the desert. And my heart broke. (Oh and by the way, they didn’t have to “get their nose out of a book” to elicit this response.) I think the percentage of letters speaking about the desire for these songs should speak to us. Someone’s landmark has been moved.
Now before you think I’m some narrow-minded radical let me make my point on the other side. I disagree that new music is not anointed. Someone asked how many of the old songs were written by Pentecostal authors. In our current songbook, they are in the minority. Thus to say that today’s songs are not anointed because they weren’t written by Pentecostals makes no sense. Frankly, I could listen to Bach’s St. Matthews Passion (1729) and feel God just as much as I could singing I See A Crimson Stream – shocking! I actually have done just that! Realize that much of what makes up our songbook was written by folks from all those denominations that melted together to make our movement.
I think a lot of the argument from the hymn-lover side comes from the content. People communicate differently today. Someone said “our [current] music has resulted from the life of upheaval.” It’s more introspective and personal. For the most part, we don’t have to worry about our next meal or where we’ll get many basic necessities of life. Our only hope, sadly, is not heaven. Thus many folks don’t relate to hymns, but instead identify with songs that focus on relationship – the so-called vertical songs, a subject that I think is so over-argued.
I’ve exceeded my space limit. I agree with the reader who asked to see scripture that proves one style is more “anointed” than another. Include choruses that are singable (that’s a whole ‘nother story), songs that allow us to communicate directly and intimately with God. But don’t get so comfortable with who you are that you don’t sing the songs that tell our story. Dean Martin, quoted in Beginning Well by Gordon Smith, said “The language of faith is not learned through discourse so much as through the ordinary life of a congregation, particularly the common act of worship.” (Look at any Baptist Hymnal and you’ll see their heritage – songs written from 1700’s to the present.) Those “old songs” tell our story – they are our language.
Bottom line: Balance.
What an interesting “conversation” has been going on in Letters on the subject of hymns and modern songs/choruses. I’ve spent a lot of time in those “old time” songs as well as songs written WAY before them and way after. I still have no concrete opinions. So I printed all NINE pages of Letters, grabbed a highlighter, pencil, cup of tea, and a pair of ugly socks (I think better with those) to try to figure out why we so vehemently argue our points on this subject. Several statements stood out to me and on the basis of those I offer the following:
“Old Landmarks” issue. Duet. 19:14 In this OT passage removing a landmark was far more than moving a stone. It was changing a property line and in effect cheating some family out of the inheritance of land that God had given them. This could bring a special judgment from God. Okay, so it doesn’t say a thing about music, but I can see the analogy. And I believe that’s all it is. Taking or eliminating something meaningful, whether property or a song, can bring hurt and offense. I disagree with the statement in letters that referring to songs as landmarks is “nothing short of ridiculous.” Someone wrote: “We need to examine our motives for not singing hymns.” Is it because of the musical style? Is it because we don’t value their message? Is it because we don’t value our older generation? Is it because we are unaware of our heritage? I think it could be a little of all of these. Last fall we had a Heritage Service at New Life Center that focused on telling the story of our movement and so much of the music was from the songbook. From the platform I watched for the response I expected from the Keenagers (what we affectionately call the older folks) but was still shocked. Their faces lit up like light bulbs. It was like rain on the desert. And my heart broke. (Oh and by the way, they didn’t have to “get their nose out of a book” to elicit this response.) I think the percentage of letters speaking about the desire for these songs should speak to us. Someone’s landmark has been moved.
Now before you think I’m some narrow-minded radical let me make my point on the other side. I disagree that new music is not anointed. Someone asked how many of the old songs were written by Pentecostal authors. In our current songbook, they are in the minority. Thus to say that today’s songs are not anointed because they weren’t written by Pentecostals makes no sense. Frankly, I could listen to Bach’s St. Matthews Passion (1729) and feel God just as much as I could singing I See A Crimson Stream – shocking! I actually have done just that! Realize that much of what makes up our songbook was written by folks from all those denominations that melted together to make our movement.
I think a lot of the argument from the hymn-lover side comes from the content. People communicate differently today. Someone said “our [current] music has resulted from the life of upheaval.” It’s more introspective and personal. For the most part, we don’t have to worry about our next meal or where we’ll get many basic necessities of life. Our only hope, sadly, is not heaven. Thus many folks don’t relate to hymns, but instead identify with songs that focus on relationship – the so-called vertical songs, a subject that I think is so over-argued.
I’ve exceeded my space limit. I agree with the reader who asked to see scripture that proves one style is more “anointed” than another. Include choruses that are singable (that’s a whole ‘nother story), songs that allow us to communicate directly and intimately with God. But don’t get so comfortable with who you are that you don’t sing the songs that tell our story. Dean Martin, quoted in Beginning Well by Gordon Smith, said “The language of faith is not learned through discourse so much as through the ordinary life of a congregation, particularly the common act of worship.” (Look at any Baptist Hymnal and you’ll see their heritage – songs written from 1700’s to the present.) Those “old songs” tell our story – they are our language.
Bottom line: Balance.
posted by aahrens at
Friday, September 14, 2007
7 Comments:
Ann,
Nice. The intense feeling people emote on this subject, from both sides (generational), is directly connected to how much entrenchment exists. If no one wants to give on either side, then both end up with fallacious underpinnings. There must be understanding, that means an older generation must "leave some room in the coat" to allow a successive generation room to breathe...like the coat Hannah made for Samuel on a yearly basis (great message I heard), and a younger generation must become more aware of how we got to this point in our history. You refer to it as balance and that is easy to say and I'm not picking at your last point, but it is much harder to FOSTER mutual admiration. The off the page and into action process can get really ugly with fragmentation, distrust, control issues, isolation, depression, intolerance, ...to name a few. Be interesting to hear from people on how they keep the "balance" in their context.
PAVE-
Wow - I like the reference to Samuel's coat - I'd like to hear that message. I agree that the process of balance can get ugly. Unfortunately human pride figures into the mix all too often and results in your list of emotions and issues. No one wants to give in. And I understand, in a way. For the older generation, it's messing with something that represents their journey. I've been blessed to be able to work during the summers at the UPC historical center where I've dug into the stories behind the writers of many a good old song. As a result, songs I never paid much attention to have suddenly become dear to me because I understand the cirumstance or life of the writer. I'm convinced over and over again that THAT is the huge disconnect. We get our feelings hurt, pull away, and lash out simply because we don't take the time to understand, to feel the passion, to hear the experience of the other generation. Change is so hard, but inevitable. History eventually gets pushed aside. But in this case, I think it is a huge mistake to push the history of our church aside - and that history is so clearly represented in song. My whole perspective of the Church RADICALLY changed after spending a summer at the historical center. I know everyone can't do that. But I think as musicians, whether we like it or not, we've got to do our part to learn and impart to those in our care. Maybe that would help with balance. My biggest burden is to make sure I minister to ALL ages in the congregation. Just because the elders are elders and have been around and are established doesn't take away their humanity and need to be minstered to- I think we forget that or take it for granted.
Really appreciate your comments - would like to hear more of what you think about this subject.
AA
Good morning!!
You wrote, quoting a letter in part, "We need to examine our motives for not singing hymns. Is it because of the musical style? Is it because we don’t value their message? Is it because we don’t value our older generation? Is it because we are unaware of our heritage? I think it could be a little of all of these."
I would like to preface my comments below with "I do not agree with what I'm about to argue..." In fact, I prefer leading worship from the hymnal because I crave the content and doctrine found in these songs. I can't stand the vapid two line chorus sung over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. Not that it doesn't have a place. There are times for those moments of "keep singing the chorus until God starts to move." But I much prefer to sing something with a message.
I'd like to offer a singular motive for not singing hymns. There is a lack of appreciation for the content because of the medium. The medium is an out-dated style which does not hold appeal to a generation raised on rock and roll. The medium of printed music to a generation that doesn't read music simply doesn't hold. People who don't read music read the words, but learn the melody through what is sung. Given that some of these hymnal songs can have slightly more complex melodies and harmonies, it isn't easy for the congregation to learn one of these "new" old songs if they don't read music.
In particular response to your questions:
Is it because of the musical style?
Yes, mostly.
Is it because we don’t value their message?
I don't think so.
Is it because we don’t value our older generation?
Quite true, but probably not the overriding consideration.
Is it because we are unaware of our heritage?
Again, quite true, but not an important factor.
Lastly, on a side note from Kevin's comment:
Re: "The coat Hannah made..." I just quickly perused thru 1 Samuel 1-4 and didn't see anything about a coat... what am I missing? Did I just overlook it in this quick perusal?
Everett
Everett,
As ususal, you've challenged me to think again! I agree with you on the whole "note reading" issue. I wonder about the harmony issue, though. I know most of the songbook songs are I-IV-V with a few vi and ii thrown in for good measure. I guess I could see your point with regard to the often slightly disjunct melodies - those are hard to sing harmony to "by ear." Probably they were written with the thought that people would READ the harmony parts.
I will disagree with the point that it is "not an important factor" that we don't value our heritage. Again I refer back to the summers I've spent in the historical center. I never thought about my spiritual heritage until those days I spent weeping and humbly reading and undestanding what it REALLY means to sacrifice. I pray we NEVER, EVER forget or take that for granted.
AA
Thanks for keeping me honest. I agree with you for questioning the "harmony" part of my post. You're right. The harmonies are not unusual.
I also readily acknowledge our collective ignorance of our heritage to be lamentable.
I don't think I was clear what I meant in "not an important factor" -- I only meant to say that I don't think it's an important factor in why we don't gravitate toward hymnal songs for worship.
This is a complex issue and I vacillate a little bit. I think that my appreciation for our heritage causes me to want to learn and lead more songs from the hymnal, but I don't think an ignorance of our heritage is a causal factor to why we often don't sing the older songs for leading worship. I think it takes a backseat to the cultural factor and the popularity of "Contemporary Christian" or the "Praise Him & Weep" simple choruses.
Thanks for the post back.
EG
Everett,
I lean a little more toward the side that says ignorance of our heritage IS a causal factor. But I also must say that your last sentence sums up how I feel EXACTLY!
Everett,
1 Samuel 2:19: Moreover his mother made him a little coat, and brought it to him from year to year, when she came up with her husband to offer the yearly sacrifice. KJV
KB
Post a Comment
<< Home