Fundamentally Reformed has a post on the Modern Hymn Movement, but the attitudes behind this movement are a mix of desire to please God and a disdain for the contemporary worship we’ve had since the Jesus Movement of the 1970’s in Charismatic churches. And so, I must rant.
Table of Contents
1. Fundies think contemporary worship is “shallow”
One my least favorite terms used in non-charismatic circles is the use of the word “choruses” to describe modern contemporary worship. It is usually said with the purpose of demeaning the songs as repetitive and shallow in doctrine. They totally miss the value of repetition in worship, except when they re-sing the first chorus of one of their prized hymns from the 1800’s.
While I agree that our current contemporary worship songs are not doctrinal treatises, and could use more poetic imagery and deeper theology, the intellectually-oriented fundies are just taking pot shots at those who have been freed from the 1800’s King James culture of most fundy churches.
2. Fundies miss the fact that Charismatic worship leaders have been updating and integrating hymns for years
Fundies have missed the fact that many Charismatic worship leaders have been doing new arrangements for old hymns like Nothing but the Blood. And many of the hymns need new arrangements, because the music was often written for ease of singing, so they were often not musically interesting, often very simply arranged.
3. Desiring the power of the spirit, but not the Spirit Himself
I often have to sadly chuckle when I visit many non-charismatic churches attempting to do contemporary worship – though they mean well, their efforts are often tepid because they lack a few key features that birthed and continue to push the contemporary worship movement forwards – (a) a willingness to allow ourselves to get carried away emotionally in our worship to God, (b) a passion that causes us to lose our self-consciousness so that we openly pour our hearts out to God, and (c) the expectation of the manifest presence of God in our services.
Is it any wonder that churches that attack the Charismatic revival, resiting the work and spirit of God, have little ability to bring the presence of that spirit in their worship? It’s like saying “spirit we want you to come, but only in our understood and controlled way.” Sure, places like Brownsville are off track, but fundy churches ought to ask themselves if their worship lacks God’s presence because they don’t really want Him there – not really, he might uspset their “order” of worship. If you have never been in a service where the presence of God is so amazing that the worship leader keeps going into the sermon time, sometimes pre-empting the sermon entirely, you haven’t lived.
4. Disdain for modern instrumentation and musical styles
Fundies are going to have to get over their disgust for modern instrumentation and styles before any kind of awakening will happen in their stream that produces lively, doctrinally rich worship along with heart-felt, passionate, Christ-centered content. Listening to the examples of their music, I find the music peaceful and heart-felt, but not any more doctrinal than many of the best worship leaders in today’s Charismatic church – and it sounds like the contemporary worship from the 80’s. I guess that’s an improvement over the 1800’s stuff ;).
So to those in the Modern Hymn movement, I say, press on! And don’t be afraid to be passionate and out of order! Let God slay you with His presence and love, and experiment with your music.
Interesting post. Thanks for discussing my article.
Let me begin by mentioning that the article was primarily intended to draw notice to this movement. I have many fundys who read my blog and I felt they could benefit from this movement. The article was not saying hymns are better than modern songs. More on that later.
First let me discuss the definition of fundamentalism. In one sense I am not a fundy. I reject the classic separatism model of fundamentalism. Yet many might characterize me as a fundy because of my emphasis on reformed theology and not equivocating on truth. Actually none of the groups I mentioned would consider themselves fundy. Getty goes to a conservative evangelical church but that does not make him a fundy, I think.
Now to your points. On point #1 that is a correct assessment. As for myself I agree and disagree. There is a lot of music (particularly on the radio/CCM) that tends to be somewhat shallow. This is relative and I am the first to stand up and say that while music can be shallow that does not mean it is not relevant and worshipful. Many of the hymns fundamentalists prize are just as shallow, focusing on one simple truth or something like that. I do however prefer deeper and richer songs. But I realize the guy next to me might not “get” that music as much as something more shallow, so I am glad for the shallow stuff too. But I should also say that I think the last 15 years or so has really brought a rebound to deeper and richer lyrics in contemporary praise music. And so the stuff sung today is usually not as shallow as it was a while back. This is the impression I get (and I am no expert I admit).
As for point 2, I think many fundys do miss this fact. My post was not trying to say that only these groups are rearranging hymns.
As for point 3, I would largely agree that your point is valid. I am recently a convert to the charismatic position on the gifts. But even before that I have been weary of the rigidity of our worship service schedules. Why cannot we expect the Spirit to move and do what He wants to do rather than us always doing the same thing the same way?
As for point 4, I agree with you. Disdain for modern worship styles is a problem. Modern worship resonates more with who we are as people of this modern age. The music of three hundred years ago just doesn’t affect us like it originally affected those people back then. As for how Getty’s music sounds, the beauty of Getty and Townend’s work is that these modern hymns can be done to just about any music style. Also did you listen to the Indelible Grace stuff? It is pretty modern in style, I believe. Also you should check out Sovereign Grace Music, they have music samples on their stuff and most of their stuff is fairly modern (at least 80’s style but more than that too). They even promote a Christian rap guy. “Songs for the Cross Centered Life” (one of their CDs) has a good mix of styles.
I am not sure if your post was venting at me or my post or not. But I want to go ahead and make a few further things clear. First, you seem unaware that Sovereign Grace Music is actually charismatic. And they major on “choruses” or whatever we should call modern praise music. They also rework older hymns (and I am not implying they are the only ones who do that). Second, I was primarily commenting on and bringing notice to the movement. I am not advocating using hymns exclusively or primarily. I appreciate modern praise and worship. In fact I think the charismatic community is really producing some great songs of late. I think that there are a lot of musicians who would affirm that there is a lot of shallowness out there, though, and so several musicians have consciously gone against that trend (if trend it be). Matt Redman, the Passion movement stuff, Chris Rice, Chris Tomlin and many others are writing great stuff for church use. In my post I was trying to write to people who are still in the fundy movement and encourage them to use the music of these groups. Third, I am not advocating hymns as better than modern worship. I do like the aspect of having both hymns and modern worship in that we are experiencing what God is doing now in music and also fellowshipping with the saints of old in the music God gave them then. I also like the vision of Getty to write hymns with a lasting abiding quality that will supersede one generation or culture in influence.
I think your post represents a valid beef with the kind of worship that the movement I recently came out of majors on. On my blog I aim to show lyrics and samples of music which challenges the myth that modern worship music is all shallow or doctrinally off base. I have not experienced a full blown charismatic worship scene. But I hope to in the future. There is much to learn from you guys.
Have you read Sam Storms’ book Convergence: The Spiritual Journeys of a Charismatic Calvinist? He claims both non-charismatics and charismatics can benefit from each other and both might need reforming a bit. He claims the emphasis of emotional involvement in worship is a great benefit that charismatics have for us who are not quite as charismatic. I am with him and want to grow in this area.
God bless you richly in Christ Jesus,
Bob Hayton
of Fundamentally Reformed
Bob,
Thanks for the warm and detailed response. I was not reacting to your article per se, but I guess I associate fundamentalism with such anti-charismatic and anachronistic views of faith.
1. The word "fundamentalism" has at least two distinct uses.
While self-proclaimed fundamentalists use the word in the historical sense, in that they focus on the fundamentals, the more common usage of this word, as I have explained in other posts, has to do with the excesses and prohibitions of the movement, similar to how the word "Puritan" has been used. Both movements were wonderful movements of God, but both, unfortunately, have become as known for their peculiar mistakes as well as their excellent exegesis.
2. When is a fundamentaist NOT a fundamentalist?
You wrote "I reject the classic separatism model of fundamentalism. Yet many might characterize me as a fundy because of my emphasis on reformed theology and not equivocating on truth."
I have never thought that reformed theology was a characteristic of fundies – is it? I pictured them more as dispensationalists, though teachers like McArthur are reformed, I guess. Is he? I am not familiar enough with him to know.
I am a post-charismatic, reformed neo-evangelical, or something like that. As far as "not equivocating on truth," I'd say that a much broader range of Christians would claim a fundamental stance similar to this without adopting the label.
3. Fresh moves of God are usually accompanied by contemporary music
You wrote "Modern worship resonates more with who we are as people of this modern age." This has always been so. In fact, I would say that the *absence* of modern music styles might indicate that the organization or church is becoming separtist, legalistic, or anti-modern. But that's a separate discussion.
I have not read Storms' book, sounds interesting. Sorry to implicate you, but since you self-label as a fundamentalist, I think you are going to have to deal with such misunderstandings going forward.
for those of us who are believers but not fundies, I think we ought to use such labels as Biblical, or something like that.
I would like to share a secular humanist hymn. Watching this made me feel good and inspired for the rest of my day. It's a true story. Just turn the volume up and pass it on to someone else.
Inspiring Story! Free Hugs Campaign (music by sick puppies)
P.S. Aaron, I hope you can take 3 minutes to look at this :)
Cineaste, it's very difficult for me to watch (or at least listen) to anything on the internet. The only access I have is at work and my "office" is in a filing room that everyone is in and out. So I can surf and type okay, but playing stuff is not always wise – especially when the university president's office is across from mine.
Umm, I know I'm wading into waters not meant for me, but arguing about music is like arguing about the weather. People like what they like. People don't like what they don't like.
Louie Armstrong (I think) said, "If it sounds good, it is good." Trying to apply religious doctrine to an idea so simple is impossible.
Not Louis Armstrong, but Duke Ellington. My apologies.
Sam, I think your comment is pretty applicable to this discussion. While there is more to determining music within Christianity than simply whether it sounds good or not, much of the debate is centered around sound. Some do not like current music and unfortunately seek to make that into a theological position.
There are weaknesses to modern praise and worship, but there are weaknesses to hymns. The hymns we have from the past are a collection of the best, if we went back to that time I'm sure we could find some that were "shallow" or repeatative. They have not survived history. Only the best survived and the same will be said of modern Christian music. The most shallow and weakest songs will not be around in a couple decades, but the best will live on and be in the hymn books 100 years from now.
Cin,
Great link, made me smile for 10 minutes. Did you know they have a site too? freehugs.org
Sam, you wrote "arguing about music is like arguing about the weather. People like what they like."
We're not arguing about what people like, but what is morally right or wrong about certain music. I argue that styles are inert, morally speaking, it's content that matters. Religionists often argue that certain styles are not spiritually profitable.
Seeker, with all due respect, you most certainly are arguing about music people like.
Clearly, "religionists" are making it quite clear that they don't like music that is allegedly spiritually harmful. (How on Earth music can be spiritually harmful, especially if that music is designed to be spiritually uplifting, is positively more than I can understand.) You believe that the content is what matters, which is where you make your stand on music. The point is that you're never going to change the mind of people who hate this music or that music.
Those people who find music to be spiritually harmful aren't going to change their minds about it. You can't talk somebody into liking something they don't like.
How on Earth music can be spiritually harmful
If the content, for example, supports the idea of killing gays, I would consider that harmful. Content is important.
But as far as musical style harming people, I can only say that different styles evoke different emotional responses. Some people might find the violent response to some metal music as harmful.
And I'm not so much targeting the religionists, but the people who are either being pursuaded by the religioninsts, or leaving that camp and need a reasoned approach to replace their old one. Lots of people leave fundamentalism – I'm one of them. We won't listen to liberals who have no idea what it is to be conservative, but we will listen to someone who was in our shoes and is concerned with pleasing God.
Seeker,
You love songs that support killing gays. I imagine they're playing on your iPod nonstop. In much the same way that my favorite song ever is Imprecation's "Vomit Floods of Christian Remains."
I'm joking, by the way.
Actually, I am not really aware of much anti-gay stuff, but I heard that m&m had a song using the F word, and I'm sure there is other stuff, probably mostly in the rap genre.
I'm sure a song called F*g Killer would get at least as much reaction as Cop Killer did a few years back.