I saw this list posted on FB this morning, and thought it was interesting. First, I have to note that removing "hymnals" does not automatically mean removing hymns. It's almost like the book is more important than it's contents. I'm not going to address the hymnal specific stuff. In general I agree that the great hymns of the faith should be preserved and used in corporate worship. I also agree that there are plenty of bad hymns- I see you, In The Garden, that won't negatively affect anyone if they aren't around.
"The shift away from hymnals in religious worship marks a significant change in how congregations approach communal singing. Beyond being songbooks, hymnals held a unique place in worship, offering carefully curated music, cultural richness, and a sense of tradition. However, this transition comes at the cost of losing key elements that once defined the worship experience."
I'll note, probably not for the last time, that while the "curated" piece may have been True, years ago newer hymnals are increasingly full of junk hymns. Not all new hymns are junk, but bad theology and bad writing transcend genre. It's strange that this seems to ignore the move in much of the church away from tradition.
"Established Body of Vetted Songs:
- Hymnals traditionally consisted of a carefully curated collection of songs that had been selected and vetted over time for their theological accuracy, spiritual depth, and congregational suitability. These hymns often conveyed the doctrinal beliefs and values of a particular religious tradition.
- With the move away from hymnals, there may be a sense of losing this established body of songs that were once integral to the identity of the religious community.As I noted earlier, not all new hymns are "vetted" in the way older hymns were, and the value of "vetting" comes from who is doing the "vetting". If the "vetters" are trying to advance a particular theological perspective, then they'll do so.I'd argue that the hymns that actually do cross boundaries are not going to be lost at all. Good music is good music, and the hymns everyone knows will continue to be used in worship.
"Deep Knowledge and Ability to Sing from Memory:
- Hymnals served as a tangible resource for congregants to refer to during worship, but they also facilitated the memorization of songs over time. This resulted in a deep knowledge of the lyrics and tunes, enabling the congregation to sing from memory.
- The shift away from hymnals may contribute to a decline in the ability to recall and sing songs from memory, potentially affecting the depth of connection and engagement during worship."For the most part, I'd argue that the memory aspect is limited to a relatively small number of hymns, and then to only some of the verses. Many hymns have difficult melodies, are not sung often, and are written in archaic language. Hearing a worship song on the radio and singing along, especially when the song is easy to sing will also facilitate memory. Obviously there is a question of theological depth, but this is solely about memory. In the world of the internet, nothing is ever gone for good.
"Harmonization and Singing in Different Parts:
- Hymnals typically included musical notation for both the melody and harmonies, encouraging congregants to sing in different parts. This practice fostered a sense of musical richness and diversity within the worship experience.
- The absence of hymnals might lead to a decline in congregational ability to harmonize and sing in multiple parts, potentially limiting the musical diversity and depth of worship."While I'd love to think that the majority of people can read music and harmonize, the reality seems to be different. I spent most of my young adult life in band and I would have to do a deeeeeep dive before I could read parts on a hymnal. Besides, as I get older, I can't read the tiny hymnal fonts anyway. I agree that harmony and parts add to the music, and love it when I hear it, but I can't take this too seriously. Unless the plan is to teach everyone how to read music and sing harmony, this seems a bit weak as a reason.Sorry about the mixed fonts, Blogger won't let me change them.
7 comments:
To set the stage, I'm pretty catholic in the music I appreciate for worship. I primarily look for two things.
Theologically sound lyrics.
Words, melody, and a key that make the song relatively easy to sing.
I like, and listen to, a lot of different Christian music. I understand that not all music is appropriate for corporate worship, and can appreciate the differences.
I am not in any way denigrating hymns in general, or suggesting that they go away. Quite the contrary. I do think that "bad" hymns should probably be relegated to history, and "good" hymns be used regularly.
I have one problem with churches which still use good theology songs but decide instead of hymnals to either post lyrics on a screen and/or in the church bulletin.
For those who don't know the tune, a hymnal certainly comes in handy!
"I have one problem with churches which still use good theology songs but decide instead of hymnals to either post lyrics on a screen and/or in the church bulletin."
For those of us who don't/can't read music, I fail to see how notation will be particularly helpful. I've sat through plenty of services where the congregation doesn't know the tune, the organist is obsessed with everything but the melody, and you end up with mumbling at best or silence at worst. I agree that if you can read music it could be helpful, I also don't see why the music being in a hymnal is the only option.
"For those who don't know the tune, a hymnal certainly comes in handy!"
To what I said above, I'd add that it's not just reading music, it's needing to sight read. I've always struggled with sight reading music, and even more so when I was trying to sight read musical notation (and maybe a part), as well as lyrics. There are people who can, I don't know many of them.
When I read the context of what you've presented, I would say that it is presented in the most general way possible. With that in mind, I think your inferences seem not to take that into account, though the points you make are definitely sound.
I like the old hymns better than the contemporary "praise" music, most of what I've heard of it is pretty vapid. I think some hymns speak to the composer's feelings about God, rather than an attempt to preach God's Word. "Amazing Grace", for example, is an expression of how one came to conversion. I say this to point out that I also don't believe every hymn needs to preach the Word specifically, though as in "Amazing Grace", a degree of evangelizing is present in the conversion story.
I don't think there's a single hymn of which I can remember every stanza.
I like the idea of picking up the old hymnal and singing from it, but not so much that an easy to read projection is not appreciated. If it's a new song...or new to me...I'll learn the tune eventually.
I don't mean to do away with the bulletin or screen lyrics, just keep the hymnals.
I don't sight read music too quick, but just knowing the tune going up or down and when it does so helps. I'm only really familiar with 9 notes, no sharps or flats.
Glenn,
In no way am I suggesting that hymnal be gotten rid of or that they are not valuable. I am pushing back on the content of the author some because I'm not sure that the hymnal is the best or only way to do music.
I agree that knowing up/down was helpful back during my choir days as we learned music, and I played in various bands for most of school, but I never learned treble clef and have forgotten everything else.
Given that this is a excerpt from a book "Great Hymns and Songs of the Faith", I'm not sure how general this is. It also seems pretty specific in some of the areas. My responses are coming from someone who's been involved in church music in various forms, and music in general since I was in grade school. So I'm sure it's colored by that.
"I like the old hymns better than the contemporary "praise" music, most of what I've heard of it is pretty vapid."
I'd argue that the "old hymns" you like are the most common hymns. I guarantee you that I could go through a hymnal and pull out plenty of "vapid", hard to sing, hymns with iffy theology is short order. I think it's a mistake to equate old, with good. Likewise, I agree that some contemporary songs are not good. Whether it's bad theology, bad structure, repetitive, whatever. I'd argue that it's the responsibility of the pastoral team to avoid using bad songs regardless of style.
"I think some hymns speak to the composer's feelings about God, rather than an attempt to preach God's Word. "Amazing Grace", for example, is an expression of how one came to conversion."
Likewise some contemporary songs do the same. In the Garden is an example of an old hymn that is just as vapid as any other Jesus is my boyfriend song.
"I say this to point out that I also don't believe every hymn needs to preach the Word specifically, though as in "Amazing Grace", a degree of evangelizing is present in the conversion story."
I agree. Yet if you listen to the more prolific hymn writers you'll see that they were intentional about presenting theology in a clear, accurate manner. Many of their congregants Couldn't read, so they put scripture/theology to music to facilitate memorization. (Sorry if this gets to for in the weeds, I did a lot of research on this for a class I taught.)
"I don't think there's a single hymn of which I can remember every stanza."
There are probably 10-20 that I have all the stanza's memorized (or mostly memorized). Some of that comes from repetition in my youth, some of that comes from leading/playing them over the last 30 years. (Not trying to brag. My brain remembers music easily. I can usually regurgitate a song lyric for most any situation.)
"I like the idea of picking up the old hymnal and singing from it, but not so much that an easy to read projection is not appreciated."
Given the state of my eyes, hymnals are almost unreadable unless I bury my head in the page. I fully support projection as a way to help those of us who struggle with the small font.
"If it's a new song...or new to me...I'll learn the tune eventually."
I agree. Although, I've been in churches where they'll bring out hymns based on the liturgical calendar that I've never heard, and that are difficult to sing. Then you don't see that hymn again for years, repetition is key to this sort of thing. It's why I appreciate it when the leader will take the time to teach/practice at least part of a new song.
I'm in a strange place on this whole thing, I grew up with hymns and greatly appreciate what they bring to the faith. I also have been involved in leading contemporary music for years and appreciate the fact that there is value in that as well. I want to preserve the hymnody (at least that worth preserving), and I have no problem rearranging the music of a hymn to make it work. Obviously there is quite a tradition of borrowing melodies for multiple hymns and I see no reason not to continue to adapt the music. I'm also protective of the words, because I realize how carefully many of those hymns were constructed to communicate theology.
Post a Comment