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

Thanks, David, for sharing this email. It is thought provoking as it touches on a number of important issues, issues that I think will strike at the heart of Doxologue.

First of all, I would like to acknowledge how important loving yet critical feedback is to our theological and spiritual formation. Proverbs 27:6 states, “Faithful are the wounds of a friend; profuse are the kisses of an enemy.” I would rather have a friend who wounds me to my face in love and then praises me behind my back than an enemy who does the opposite. I hope that Doxologue is more than a blog of mutual backslapping. I hope it is a place where we can lovingly disagree as we seek the glory of God in the good of the church. Friction is necessary when “iron sharpens iron” (Proverbs 27:17). I know that the critical feedback of both of you has only served to improve my hymns (and my humility).

"The Critic" writes (throughout I'll quote him in italics):

I love the old tunes and find them easy to sing and rich in melody.

It is important to acknowledge that many do love the ‘old tunes’ and find great enjoyment in singing them. It is also important to acknowledge that many do not. Much of this, I think, has to do with our background. The other day, as we were driving out of town, my son asked to sing “To God Be the Glory.” He loves to sing this hymn, “Holy, Holy, Holy” and “A Mighty Fortress is Our God.” My wife commented, “Don’t you think it is strange that our son doesn’t know any contemporary music?” (Now, that is not quite entirely true. He does know some ‘contemporary music.’ He loves Sovereign Grace Kids’ Awesome God CD. He also loves to listen to “daddy’s music”—Caedmon’s Call, Indelible Grace, Sandra McCracken, etc.) What I realized was this—he loves the ‘old hymns’ because he has been taught the ‘old hymns.’ We tend to love that to which we are accustomed. Those who do not have a background in the ‘old hymns’ may not find them so easy to sing. In fact, even I (raised in a liturgical Lutheran church) find many ‘old hymns’ difficult to sing (as I do with many modern tunes).

Referring to ‘old tunes’ raises another issue: What is an ‘old tune’? Kevin alluded to this. Some fight for the ‘old ones’ when referring to songs copyrighted in the 1980’s by the Gaithers. When I arrived at the church I currently pastor, I made mention of my love for old hymns. Some of the members told me, “We love the old hymns too!” So, as I picked songs for our congregational worship, desiring to reflect the community gathered, I chose what I considered to be ‘old hymns,’ songs I grew up singing in the Lutheran church. The response I received was, “Why are we singing so many new hymns?” What was ‘old’ to me (pre-1800’s) was ‘new’ to them. What was ‘old’ to them (mostly late 1800’s and early 1900’s gospel-songs) was ‘new’ to me. In fact on one occasion, during a ‘pick-your-favorite hymn-sing,’ I commented that I wasn’t familiar with a particular hymn. Someone replied, “Oh, that’s an old one!” I replied, “If the author died in the 1900’s, then the song isn’t old!”

I realized then that the term ‘old’ means more than “having been in existence for a long time.” Webster also defines ‘old’ as “familiar or known from the past.” If we use ‘old’ to mean ‘familiar,’ then what is old to one will not necessarily be old to another. Perhaps familiarity and preference in a culture has more to do with a tune’s usefulness than some care to admit.

I have never found them to hinder my worship because the content is the focus.

I think this statement makes some unfair implications, even if unintentionally. It seems to imply that those who find traditional tunes a hindrance do so because they are not focusing on the content. This is unfair to assume, I think, because it seems that any style of music that is unfamiliar to us will be a distraction, regardless of the strength of the text. Personally, I can recall sitting in worship services at churches and conferences and being very distracted by the music simply because I was unfamiliar with it or it was a style not suitable to me. I had to work hard at focusing on the text to worship, but the music did not help. (By the way, I should add that this has happened with both traditional and contemporary tunes.)

The one word that came to my attention here is "feel.” Corporate singing is the worship of believers to the truth of God's Word and His character. Feelings cannot be trusted and should not be a focus of worship.

Who is suggesting that feelings should be the focus of worship? I think that we would all agree that God is the center of worship. However, as we shall see, what ‘feelings’ have to do with worship is at the center of this discussion.

Today's music is sung to ellicit "feelings" and get people stirred up to a point of hypersuggestiveness to where they cannot reason.

In any theological disagreement, it is important that we not impute motives or make sweeping generalizations. This statement does both. Is all of today’s music sung to elicit feelings and promote a “hypersuggestiveness” that is hostile to reason? All of it? Really? What about “Worthy of Worship” (The Baptist Hymnal, #3)? Were it not for the composer’s birth date and the 1988 copyright, I think the average congregational singer would have a hard time distinguishing it as ‘newer’ than some tunes written hundreds of years before. It would seem strange to state that simply because it was written today it is sung to stir people to “hypersuggestiveness,” even though it sounds “old.”

Perhaps the Critic is referring to a certain style of today’s music. If so, the burden is on his shoulders to prove that “stirring people to the point of hypersuggestiveness to where they cannot reason” is the motive. Without offering such proof, this accusation is irresponsible and baseless. I have a strong suspicion that David’s motive at Reformed Praise is not to promote “hypersuggestiveness.” Besides, “old tunes” can be (and have been) used in a way that would bypass reason to get to the feeling, just as some do with “new tunes.”

We should be responding appropriately to God and His Word in humility and praise.

Amen! And, Amen! But, what does it mean to respond appropriately? What does “humility and praise” look like? What sort of picture does the Scripture paint of such worship? See below.

When we sing at our church we encourage our congregation to "think" about what they are singing and understand who God is.

I think an emphasis on “thoughtful worship” and “understanding who God is” has motivated the movement that is setting old texts to contemporary tunes (e.g. David Ward (Reformed Praise), Kevin Twit (Indelible Grace), Bob Kauflin (Sovereign Grace)). This movement is not an escape from reason, but an attempt to express with proper affections the product of careful, biblical thought.

Yes, sometimes it does bring tears to my eyes when I think of who He is and what He's done for me, however, I don't get worked up and get caught up in feelings or emotion.

What if this never happened? If my wife were to tell me that she never had a single emotional feeling for me but constantly thought correct thoughts about me, I would not be comforted. I do not feel loved when my wife acknowledges who I am with her lips while her heart is far from me. That is why feeling is significant.

Why is FEELING significant? I cannot find Biblical support for the triumph of the emotions over the mind. While some make the case that the heart is the center of response to God, that in the hebrew paradigm first means the MIND.

Here is another baseless accusation and sweeping generalization. Who is arguing for the “triumph of emotions over the mind?” No one that I know of, certainly not at Reformed Praise. Rather, I see many arguing that the truth, if spiritually discerned, should produce in us appropriate affections.

Feelings are very important in biblical worship. In fact, they are commanded in the Scripture. Here is a small sampling from the Psalms with the appropriate “feelings” highlighted:

Psalm 42:4 how I would go with the throng and lead them in procession to the house of God with glad shouts and songs of praise
Psalm 47:1 Clap your hands, all peoples! Shout to God with loud songs of joy!
Psalm 95:2 Let us come into his presence with thanksgiving; let us make a joyful noise to him with songs of praise!
Psalm 107:22 And let them offer sacrifices of thanksgiving, and tell of his deeds in songs of joy!
Psalm 118:15 Glad songs of salvation are in the tents of the righteous
Psalm 63:5 my mouth will praise you with joyful lips
Psalm 37:4 Delight yourself in the LORD
Psalm 32:11 Be glad in the LORD, and rejoice, O righteous, and shout for joy, all you upright in heart!
Psalm 4:7 You have put more joy in my heart than they have when their grain and wine abound.
Psalm 5:11 But let all who take refuge in you rejoice; let them ever sing for joy, and spread your protection over them, that those who love your name may exult in you.
Psalm 9:2 I will be glad and exult in you; I will sing praise to your name, O Most High.

Notice that the Psalms do not say, "Make a theologically correct thought with your mind." Of course, theologically correct thoughts are important! My point is, we are commanded to have joy and gladness! Obviously, “feelings” are very important in worship. In fact, the Lord curses his people for serving him without feelings. Deuteronomy 28:45-48 records,

All these curses shall come upon you and pursue you and overtake you till you are destroyed, because you did not obey the voice of the LORD your God, to keep his commandments and his statutes that he commanded you. They shall be a sign and a wonder against you and your offspring forever. Because you did not serve the LORD your God with joyfulness and gladness of heart, because of the abundance of all things, therefore you shall serve your enemies whom the LORD will send against you, in hunger and thirst, in nakedness, and lacking everything. And he will put a yoke of iron on your neck until he has destroyed you.

Notice that their condemnation does not come for a simple failure to serve, but for a failure to serve “with joyfulness and gladness of heart.” If our “feelings” are only “sometimes,” we ought to tremble at the thought of the “rest of the times.”

Perhaps “heart” does carry first the meaning of “the mind” in the Hebrew paradigm. Even so, these Hebrew scriptures demonstrate that “heart” does not end with the mind. We do begin with the mind, with truth revealed. But, we pray that the Holy Spirit applies it to our souls in such a way that we become “glad and exult” in the Lord (Psalm 9:2).

Reformedpraise.org goes on to say:
The modern worship styles (and there are many) offer a new arena to make these hymn texts come alive to new generations. When these classic and biblical texts are wed to contemporary tunes, the result is a truly powerful worship experience that enables God's truth to settle deep in our hearts and minds.

Before the critic’s response, it is important to notice what Reformed Praise is saying here. Modern worship styles make the text come alive. The text! It would seem that David’s goal is to help the truth come alive, certainly not to circumvent truth in the pursuit of mindless emotion.

And the response: The danger here is that we are capitulating to the culture and giving them what they want, which isn't true worship.

This, as with some other comments, appears to be an accusation or, at least, an imputation of motive. I don’t think David is saying that we “capitulate to the culture and give them what they want.” If he were, he certainly wouldn’t choose song texts that speak of our depraved condition and dependence upon free grace bought through the bloody sacrifice of the God-man who claims authority over our lives and is the exclusive means of salvation for any and all.

All David is saying, I think, is that times and cultures change and with them musical preference. If it is “capitulating to the culture” to write a new tune, then what tunes do we use? Certainly not anything written after biblical times! And, if it is “capitulating to the culture” to write a new tune, then what of writing new texts?

Why does our worship have to be an "experience" for it to be powerful?

Webster defines “experience” as “the act of living through an event or events; personal involvement in or observation of events as they occur.” With that in mind, worship needs to be an “experience” for it to be powerful, because you must be present for it to be worship! Perhaps the critic is operating with a different definition of “experience.”

If we go down this road then the next thing is to change the Word so that it is more "relevant" to todays culture. God forbid!!!

This is the “slippery slope” argument misapplied. What we do with musical styles and what we do with the inspired Word of God have little to do with each other. If David is doing anything at Reformed Praise, he is seeking to preserve and pass along truth, not change it. Reformed Praise is only an attempt to make the ever-relevant Word accessible today through song styles that fit the culture, in the same way we translate the Word into foreign tongues so that it can be read and understood.

I think the critic is rightly concerned about the dangers of emotionalism. I think he is wrongly seeing it behind every modern tune. There certainly are and will continue to be people who see emotional manipulation as an effective worship tool, but not everyone. The baby ought not to be thrown out with the bathwater.