The Effectiveness of Traditional Hymn Tunes: Kevin's Response 1

David, I certainly agree with your statements at ReformedPraise.org and disagree with your critic for the following reasons:

1) There seems to be an unhelpful division in the writer's mind between thinking and feeling in worship. Many in the Reformed camp today have overreacted against the praise and worship movement, saying that feelings are irrelevant (this is similar to many in the church reacting to our society's "I fell out of love" point of view by responding with "love is a choice"). The author says, "Corporate singing is the worship of believers to the truth of God's Word and His character." What, then, is "worship?" Is it informing God of truths about himself? It it simply an intellectual exercise for us? Or is worship, by definition, an expression of emotion? I say it is. And I stand with Jonathan Edwards, among others, in saying this. Our church, in our bi-weekly "Brew and Books (by dead guys)," had the opportunity to read through parts of Edwards' Religious Affections, where he argues that religion devoid of affections for God or for others is no religion at all. Do we dumb down our lyrics and sing 7-11 choruses endlessly (7 words, 11 times)? No. We sing God-centered, gospel-focused songs, longing for deep emotion that corresponds to those deep truths. If we don't have deep emotions, or at least long for deep emotions, we're not only not worshipping, we're dishonoring the Lord. Let's get our minds and hearts together.

2) The writer says that he "loves the old tunes." Great. Some of us don't. I prefer the new (like Reformed Praise and Indelible Grace). They enable younger generations to use classic, God-centered lyrics to worship Him. Why is it ok to find delight in the old tunes (many of which were added to lyrics after the fact, similar to what we're discussing) and not the new tunes? The goofy thing about worship style disputes is that we're often using terms like "contemporary" and "traditional" when the songs argued for (by traditionalists) are their "contemporary" songs of long ago. It cracks me up when I hear people arguing for hymns, when they're really arguing for Gaither choruses-- songs that are about 20-30 years old. They're arguing for using yesterday's "contemporary" songs today. At Grace Church, we'll certainly often use the old, original tunes for great hymns. But we'll put many of those songs to new tunes, as well. If the lyrics are strong and the tunes fits those lyrics (a matter of opinion decided by a local congregation), then isn't that enough? Why should I be held captive to someone else's nostalgia? May God make me willing to allow generations that follow me to express their praise to God in their own manner and not in mine.

3) It baffles me to think that we don't want our worship to be relevant (is that what he's saying?). Again, we've reacted against the megachurch, seeker-sensitive movement. Last week, in our Wednesday night small group, we studied the terms propitiation and expiation. Christ absorbed the wrath of God and He put away our sins. Now there isn't anything seeker-friendly about that, for sure. It was no shallow, light-hearted Bible study. However, my strong desire was for our church to see the relevance of those two polysyllabic, theological terms! There is a difference between selling out and watering down and compromising things from faithfully teaching biblical truth, laboring to make it relevant and applicable to the lives of people. My heart's desire is that, at Grace Church, we sing deep truths about God, from the heart, in a way that engages people. I want people to leave each meeting fully aware of the relevance of the gospel and of God. Of course, we certainly must keep in mind that believers are by nature hostile to both. But that does not prevent us from pleading with our members for the relevance of God's truth, and praying that God would open the eyes of unbelievers to also love that truth. I say that our worship must be relevant. David, I say, "Keep up the good work!"