Hymnals Final

 

"Familiarity and Comfort:

• Hymnals provided a sense of familiarity and comfort as congregants often grew up singing certain hymns that became deeply ingrained in their religious experience. The shared history of singing these hymns created a sense of continuity and comfort.
• The shift away from hymnals might require intentional efforts to create a new sense of familiarity and comfort with the repertoire of songs, potentially impacting the emotional connection during worship."
   
  Sure they do, for some.  For those who grew up in the church back in the day, and had a great church experience, absolutely.   For someone born in the '90's, not so much.   Wouldn't it make sense to not focus on the hymnal as the medium, but instead focus on how best to expose new generations to some amazing music that defines and preaches the faith?  Forcing people out of what is comfortable because someone else thinks that they should be comfortable with something else sounds like a bad idea.   Obviously, some degree of familiarity with the canon of church music is a good thing.  But to limit what that can be seems arbitrary. 
  
   
   
  

"Cultural and Linguistic Diversity:

• Hymnals often contained songs from various cultural and linguistic backgrounds, allowing for a diverse and inclusive worship experience. This diversity helped congregations appreciate the global nature of the Christian faith.
• Without hymnals, there may be a need for intentional efforts to ensure the inclusion of songs from different cultures and languages, fostering a sense of unity and diversity within the worshiping community."
   
  Again, it's as if the only possible way to bring songs from different cultures into worship is with a book.  Again, if whoever is planning music for worship isn't being intentional about the song choices, they are failing their congregation.   Lack of intentionality and discernment is a huge problem in  contemporary worship music.   It's why we are plagued with Days of Elijah.  
  
  

"Physical Symbolism:

• Hymnals had a physical presence in religious gatherings, representing a shared resource and symbolizing the communal act of worship. The act of holding and flipping through hymnals created a tangible connection between the congregation and the musical aspects of worship.
• The move away from physical hymnals might impact the symbolic nature of congregational singing, and congregations may need to find alternative ways to create a tangible and communal connection during worship."
   
  This seems (again) like a huge stretch.  I've can't say that flipping through a hymnal looking for Hymn 478 has enhanced my worship experience.   I also can't say that looking down, focusing on tiny lyrics, trying to sing harmony when the person next to you is off key, and trying to keep up with an organist who doesn't have good time automatically makes worship more meaningful.  Personally, I've found that not being chained to a page with a tiny font (I'm old deal with it)(yes I've had eye surgery, deal with it) enhances my worship.   Focusing up instead of down feels different.    I'm not saying that I'm right.  I am saying that arbitrarily proclaiming that one is better than the other seems like a step to far.  
  
  
  
  
  I'm not saying anything negative about hymns in general at all.  I've always pushed for more hymns when I've had the chance.   But, to think that hymns are good just because they're hymns seems just as problematic as the "keep the hymnal" folks.