Hymnal 3

 

"Congregational Participation and Engagement:

• Hymnals facilitated congregational participation by providing a common resource that everyone could follow. The physical act of opening a hymnal and singing together created a sense of unity and shared experience.
• The shift away from hymnals might impact congregational engagement, as individuals may find it more challenging to follow along with lyrics or participate actively without a common visual reference."
   
  While this might have been True at one point, it seems ridiculous to suggest that the only way (or even the best way) to achieve this is with a physical book.   Further, every denomination I've ever been in has a different hymnal with different hymns.  Obviously, there's some crossover, but the notion that there's one common hymnal is ridiculous.   The shift away from hymnals might affect congregational engagement in a positive way.  I always appreciate it when the words aren't in a font so tiny that I can't read them.   This also raises the question of the congregations that can't afford hymnals, let along new ones every few years.   Isn't it more cost effective to invest in the means to project the words (and music if you like) than in physical books that need to be added to/replaced?  I'd also argue that focusing the attention of the congregation up, instead of down on a book, isn't necessarily a bad thing.  
  
  

"Cultural and Historical Connection:

• Hymnals often contained songs that reflected the cultural and historical context of the religious community. These hymns served as a connection to the past, preserving traditions and providing a sense of continuity.
• The move away from hymnals might result in a disconnect from the cultural and historical roots embedded in the songs, potentially diminishing a sense of continuity and identity within the religious community."
   
  The use of the terms "often" and "might" relegate these two point to almost irrelevance.  Especially in a culture that seems to have no desire to connect any more deeply with tradition and the past than necessary.   Especially tradition for the sake of tradition.  
   
  

"Personal and Corporate Worship Integration:

• Hymnals were versatile tools that could be used both individually and collectively. Congregants could use hymnals for personal devotion or family worship, fostering a seamless integration of religious songs into various aspects of daily life.
• The absence of hymnals might require intentional efforts to bridge the gap between personal and corporate worship, ensuring that religious songs continue to be part of individuals' spiritual lives beyond the formal church setting."
   
  Again, this is so speculative as to be almost worthless.  Are we supposed to accept that listening to hymns, or other Christian music on a device is less valid than reading it?   That singing by oneself is automatically more valuable than singing along with others who've been recorded?   As we get down this list, the stretches seem further and further.