Every so often I see an article opining the change in church singing styles. 9 Reasons People Aren’t Joining in Worship Singing is one of the latest to cross my screen. After reading the article I tend to agree that each point has merit. But like most such articles, it has a narrow vision of what a song service is supposed to be like.
I grew up in a small, conservative Presbyterian church in north Georgia. My mother was the pianist / organist and we sang from the hymnals. When the trend toward newer music hit our congregation in the 1970s it caused some degree of division. Hanging on to the old was important. What to think about the new, often more simplistic choruses and songs was an unknown – and thus uncomfortable visitor. Since that time Contemporary Christian music has changed substantially and grown substantially. We have seen attempts at exclusion of the new music, a melding of old and new, and rejection of the old in favor of the new. Repercussions exist in each scenario.
Author, Kenny Lamm, (Baptist by affiliation) begins his historical survey by noting that prior to the Reformation period, music was largely done for the people by professionals rather than by the people. Actually, this goes back to King David’s establishment of temple worship in 1 Chronicles. He identifies the trend today as a re-professionalization of worship music because songs have become harder to sing, reserved for higher tenor voices, and can be on the theatrical side requiring professionals to pull off the performance. Whether that is bad or not is entirely dependent upon your point of view. Lamm asserts, “We are changing what should be a participative worship environment to a concert event.” Well, every concert I’ve attended has people singing – and usually enthusiastically so – and Lamm’s use of the term “should be” is subjective not objective. Such an assertion holds that there is only one right way to have church singing and that is with corporate participation. This ignores the biblical history of professional musicians and singers and belittles what was done prior to the Reformation period without real justification.
Diversity in Worship
Concert Style
People are often drawn to churches because of their attachment to the preacher, the performers, or the music style. With the concert style of music, the attraction leans toward the latter two. The music style is comfortable and probably familiar. It is in line with their pre-existing musical tastes. It may provide both a physical and auditory joy. People don’t have the expectation of being able to sing with the same quality as the performers and it really isn’t an issue for them. In this setting the song is important because people often want to hear either the hot song they are singing with on the radio or one of their past favorites. As with most concert approaches, the songs are selected for the enjoyment of the audience as well as whatever theological goal may be in mind.
Charismatic Style
I use the term “charismatic” as a broad catch-all term for services that depart from the order and structure of mainline denominations. These services are more fluid and open-ended. The worship leader may repeat parts of songs on a whim or drop in a different song on a whim. There is not much concern for rigid adherence to form or style. Developing an atmosphere is more important. In such services people may prostrate themselves in prayer, weep in joy or repentance, faint from being spiritually overwhelmed, or they may set up prayer stations and have people move along from one station to the next for guided prayer while the music is going. Some people wave flags during these services (I’m not sure where that tradition started). New music is not an issue in these settings. A worship leader may make up new lyrics or a new song on the spot. The congregants are not concerned with the quality of their singing as it is viewed as a joyful outpouring of worship to God no matter what it sounds like. Few, if any, of the concerns outlined in this article apply to these services.
Participation Optional
When I was sitting in the pew, so to speak, I had different expectations and desires at different times. As a Presbyterian we all stood and sang from the hymnal. As a father in a less formal church, sometimes I was wrestling kids to get to church and the song service was a time to settle down and re-orient myself to church. I did not always want to sing along. I didn’t always want to stand. Sometimes I just wanted to sit there and enjoy. There should be room for all types of participation. The idea that we have to stand and sing or that we have to be participating in any event in unison is not easily justified.
New Music
Recently I spoke at length with a representative of CCLI, which does song licensing for Christian music. The average worship leader only adds about ten songs per year. In my church I have historically doubled that but the songs aren’t brand new, just new to us. I choose many songs that have been around and on the radio for years but we simply had not yet added them. Again, expectations are the key factor here. Some churches like to be on the cutting edge with new music as soon as it is available (you can read articles on how to teach your congregation a new song). We seek to provide a solid worship and praise focused service for people but we largely draw from songs that are getting radio airplay so they are not wholly unfamiliar to our people. Additionally, I keep records on which songs we have done and when they were performed so we can keep a steady diet of familiar songs in the rotation. That makes it easier for the band and the congregation as well. But a person looking for a traditional hymn-singing church or a quartet driven church is going to be disappointed. Our service will not meet those expectations.
Musical Complexity
Often the complaint is raised that modern music isn’t a theologically deep as the hymns. I was told in Bible College that if we lost the Bible we could use the hymnal to rebuild the central doctrines of the faith. Maybe so. I don’t think that losing the Bible is a great concern. But commentators have long noted that hymns have flaws in them, too, and not all of them are immensely deep or theologically correct. Our modern hymnals even have popular gospel songs and choruses in them which are not always terribly deep. Back in the 1970s and 80s when praise choruses were popular they were criticized for being 7-11 (seven words long and repeated eleven times). That bit of mockery came from the reality that these choruses were not long but people did like to sing them so they were repeated with some variation. How long does a song need to be for it to be spiritually edifying? The Hallelujah Chorus of Handel’s Messiah is in many hymnals. It is highly repetitive with only 22 distinct words out of a total of 251 words which are sung (plus it takes a certain skill level and group of people to perform). The idea of a word count or an ambiguous “theological depth” metric is not very meaningful as tools of assessing a song’s value to the listener or singer. The Doxology is short and sweet and popular because usually only one verse is sung. Furthermore, the contemporary Christian writers seem to have picked up on the criticism and begun to give us more theologically in-depth songs. Some examples would be So Will I and King of Kings.
My friends who attend the “charismatic” services aren’t so concerned about these matters either. While they are holding up their hands and closing their eyes it is much easier to repeat simple lyrics as they are reveling in their spiritual experience. It is hard to find fault with that approach unless you are accustomed to other styles that are more meaningful to you. Again, expectations are central to satisfaction.
One of my college professors, Dr. Stephen Hooks, once told us that at that point in his life he enjoyed going to a particular Cathedral in London and just listening as the choir sang. They sang behind a curtain of some sort so you didn’t even see them. It was just a time of quiet contemplation and reflection. If someone gets that out of the music that’s fine with me too.
My friends who enjoy the worship services of highly traditional churches such as the Roman Catholic, Orthodox, or Anglican churches are equally valid in their spiritual pursuits. This structure and type of music holds less appeal for me and I don’t find as much satisfaction in hymns as I did growing up in the 1970s Presbyterian church. My parents listened to southern gospel music with a lot of quartet singing but that background did not dictate my personal tastes. Even working at radio stations where I played southern gospel music still wasn’t enough to endear it to me as my preferred genre. When I discovered the Integrity Hosanna series of music I was hooked. It was through that series that I discovered Don Moen, Bob Fitts, John Chisum, and then, BOOM – Darlene Zschech with Hillsong changed my musical world – and later Israel Houghton. But my preferences are no better than anyone else’s. What is meaningful to someone spiritually is something of a personal nature and it doesn’t have to demean or ignore other forms that people enjoy.
The Real Problems
The first real problem is that more established churches with congregations steeped in ritual and tradition are being faced with the same problem that arose in the 1970s – people are introducing new music to their church and it brings about certain changes and discomforts (as does any change). This is really where Mr. Lamm’s article focuses. Blending the old with the new is a challenge. That is why new church plants often make the decision not to go with the old but only with the new. They are not trying to bridge that generational divide that established churches are. It doesn’t concern them that their people might not know the hymns if they visit another church. Jim Tune planted Churchill Meadows Christian Church in Mississauga, Ontario in 2001. We were there when it opened. It was fully dedicated to contemporary music. I once asked Jim about how his people might feel if they attended conventions and they didn’t know the hymns. It wasn’t a concern. The concern was getting unchurched people to the church and into the faith.
The second significant problem is the “consumeristic” attitude of most people when selecting a church or even deciding when to leave a church. Churches are too often viewed as a commodity with entertainment, social circles, and some educational services. People focus on comfort, activities for their kids, the preacher’s style of delivery, and the music style that suits them. Far too often more serious matters of church theology are overlooked as people tend to not want to struggle with those difficulties which are often obscure or inconsequential in their minds. If trends change they often go with the trend. Recognizing this fact is to recognize that no church will appeal to everyone because people want different things. Those who want a small church with close relationships will not attend a large church. Those who want a big youth group will not attend a church without one. People whose first love is hymns are going to gravitate toward those churches just as those who prefer other styles of music will do. People who find depth and richness in liturgy will be drawn to more traditional, high-church services whereas those who prefer casual worship will go elsewhere.
The church as a whole is broad and diverse in its expressions of worship styles. For those people who are seeking a certain style, it may be harder to find now than before. Congregational singing still happens but things have definitely changed over the years.