Music-Theologically Sound Songs

[Cindi Hammons]

On another thread someone had mentioned that there are some hymns and contemporary songs that are theologically shallow or incorrect. As a learning device, can we talk about some of these songs? Not being a theologian, I would be interested in people's opinions about these songs.

I don't want this to denigrate into a spitting contest, but I'd like it to be a real conversation about having music of depth in our churches.

[Barbara Moulton]

I have to admit that when I hear people analyze some of the newer worship songs in minute detail, looking for theological problems, I think they might do well to look at some of the older hymns we sing. I have had difficulty with some of the older holiness songs which I didn't sing until I joined the Nazarene Church and then later the Wesleyan Church.

For example, while I love the chorus of "Glorious Freedom", the version that we sing in our church is somewhat different than what many of you would sing. I've written different verses.

I mean really...can any of us say that we are free from all carnal affection, envy, hatred, strife, vain ambition, pride, folly, evil, temper, fear, care, etc.?

I am on my way out to conduct a memorial service...but I look forward to the discussion.

[Jim Franklin]

One that I have a problem with is "How can I be Lonely when I've Jesus only." I have Jesus but there are many times when I am lonely but need human companionship as well. We have had previous discussions about how many really close friends a person has. So far my search for a really close friend has come up empty at 3 score and 10. There is a wide difference between a close friend and friendly acquaintances. How about "All that thrills my soul is Jesus?" But the few times I have really felt thrilled is when the spirit moves and I have to take to shouting whether it is in a church service or elsewhere. So in fact Jesus does thrill my soul far more than any other human experience. I guess I have turned to debating myself.

[Barb Bouldrey]

How about:

"Climb,climb up sunshine mountain..."
or
"I found happiness all the time, wonderful peace of mind since I found the Lord.."

Old songs...


Barb

[David Pettigrew]

They are covered by the blood,
They are covered by the blood,
My sins are all covered by the blood,
Mine iniquities so vast have been blotted out at last,
My sins are all covered by the blood.
"Covered By the Blood", chorus

(Is this consistent with Wesleyan atonement theory?)

[Cindi Hammons]

Could you explain to the theologically challenged, why it differs with Wesley?

[David Pettigrew]

Could you explain to the theologically challenged, why it differs with Wesley?

I hope we're all theologically challenged!

In my opinion, to say are sins are merely "covered" is inconsistent with our view that salvation from sin is a change in the status of our relationship with God. When God adopts us as His children, He doesn't just cover up the things about us that are ugly. He removes them and makes us something beautiful.

[Cindi Hammons]

I have a problem with some of the songs "in the middle" of the hymnal...such as the testimony songs and songs with language that is incomprehensible to pre-Christians who have not been raised around Christian-ese language.

Constantly Abiding (1908)

Constantly abiding
Jesus is mine
Constantly abiding
Rapture divine
He never leaves me lonely
Whispers O so kind
I will never leave thee
Jesus is mine

As someone who is raised in the church, I understand what the author is saying, so you all can abort your plans to translate it for me! :) I'm talking about the 20 or 30-something who does not speak the language. If I were not raised in church, I seriously would not know what abiding meant. And what would a pre-Christian think "rapture divine" means?

I'm not picking on this song with the intent to start listing all the 19th and early 20th Century music with strange lyrics, because (1. I'd be here all night, and (2. my theory would break down because many of the great hymns and even some newer praise songs use strange lyrics. I'm just pointing out how someone with no church experience might feel coming in contact with this for the first time.

Why not sing...

There is None Like You (date unknown to me)

There is none like You
No one else can touch my heart like You do
I could search for all eternity long
And find
There is none like you.

Your mercy flows like a river wide
And healing comes from Your hands
Suffering children are safe in Your arms
There is none like You

There is none like You
No one else can touch my heart like You do
I could search for all eternity long
And find
There is none like you.

The reality is, the second song is in current jargon and will most likely be out of sinc in 99 years, just like Constantly Abiding. So, I hope there are a lot of God-centered song writers out there sharpening their pencils and chord playing skills.

[David Pettigrew]

The single worst phrase in the hymnal is found in the song "Come, Thou Fount of Every Blessing"

Here I raise my Ebenezer

I don't know where my Ebenezer is, but I don't think I should be raising it in church.

Also, I'm so glad that our latest hymnal changed the title of one song from

Ho! Everyone that is Thirsty in Spirit

to

Come! Everyone that is Thirsty in Spirit

[Cindi Hammons]

I confess, my post diverged from the original intent of this thread. I really am interested in the theological aspect of songs as I am the person choosing songs for our worship. I really do want to keep it in mind if I am choosing songs that go against our church's theology.

[Brad Mercer]

There's just no theology at all in "Precious Memories". I love the song but it's all sap and no fruit. I miss my deceased loved ones. That's all the song says, but we always sang it with gusto in church when I was a kid.

And the issue people fight about is not, not, NOT, hymns vs. choruses or even theologically deep vs. shallow or good theology vs. bad. The issued people invariably fight about is simply old music vs. new music.

Brad

[Barb Bouldrey]

I am totally in favor of never singing a song that does not make sense without having to explain it.

I have always enjoyed "The Crystal Fountain," but how many people know what it means?

[John Kennedy]

The single worst phrase in the hymnal is found in the song "Come, Thou Fount of Every Blessing"

Here I raise my Ebenezer

I don't know where my Ebenezer is, but I don't think I should be raising it in church.

Also, I'm so glad that our latest hymnal changed the title of one song from

Ho! Everyone that is Thirsty in Spirit

to

Come! Everyone that is Thirsty in Spirit

David -

Don't know that I'd necessarily agree that 'Here I raise my Ebenezer...' is the worst phrase in the hymnal - it rests on a pretty solid, if somewhat, obscure OT allusion. Some of the late 19th/early 20th century gospel-testimony songs could give it a run for its money.

However, don't despair. At least two hymnals have eliminated the Ebenezer and still managed to hold on to the message the phrase sought to convey.

In the HYMNAL FOR WORSHIP AND CELEBRATION (a non-denominational hymnal published by Word) that second stanza, which formerly housed the Ebenezer, now reads:

"Hitherto Thy love has blest me, Thou hast bro't me to this place;
And I know Thy hand will bring me safely home by Thy good grace.
Jesus sought me when a stranger, wandering from the fold of God;
He to rescue me from danger, bought me with His precious blood.'

The Gaither people, about 20 years earlier in HYMNS FOR THE FAMILY OF GOD, did stanza two in this way:

'This my glad commemoration that 'til now I've safely come;
And I hope, by thy good pleasure, safely to arrive at home.
Jesus sought me when a stranger, wandering from the fold of God;
He to rescue me from danger, interposed his precious blood.'

I will leave it to the tender mercies of the theologians as to whether it is better for God to interpose or to buy.

The hymn has, in some respects, represented a kind of theological dividing line between Calvinists and Arminians. This is especially seen in stanza three. The Arminians and the Calvinists both start off singing "O to grace how great a debtor daily I'm constrained to be....'

At that point we come to a fork in the road. The Nazarene hymnal goes on to say, 'Let that grace, now like a fetter, bind my yielded heart to thee.'
That Calvinist version says 'Bind my wandering heart to thee.'

IMO both versions are OK - the heart may very well be yielded, but that certainly doesn't guarantee it'll never wander. (But what do I know - I'm a Congregationalist?)

The Nazarenes continue with a simply marvelous song of petition: 'Let me know Thee in Thy fullness; guide me by Thy mighty hand till, transformed in Thine own image, in Thy presence I shall stand."

The Calvinists express it this way: 'Prone to wander, Lord, I feel it, prone to leave the God I love: Here's my heart, O take and seal it, seal it for Thy courts above.' Despite having heard my share, and a bit more, of sermons attacking and ridiculing that text, I'm not sure it's all that off-base. Personally, I'd like to see the third stanza rewritten to include both sentiments - I think they both have some validity. (But, almost certainly, that point of view is why, among a host of other reasons, I'm not a prof at either NTS or Southern Baptist Seminary).

The 'Ebenezer' extraction takes away at least one talking point from the people who like to trash this magnificent statement of Christian belief - but, not to worry, they'll always find more.

[Mike McVey]

One of my favorite philosophers, Alasdair MacIntyre, wrote a book called, Whose Justice? Which Rationality? (http://www.amazon.com/Whose-Justice-Rationality-Alasdair-MacIntyre/dp/0268019444/ref=pd_bbs_4/104-8782997-5707145?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1182487362&sr=8-4). This book's title explains the book well. As far as the theologically sound songs, Whose Theology? Which Purpose? might be a way of answering your question.

I would say that almost every song written about God is theologically correct to someone be it Christian or other. But I expect you to respond what about Nazarenes? What about their theology? The problem, and I think it is very evident on this forum, is that Nazarenes do not share the same theology.

David brought up a Wesleyan theological reason to not use a song that talks about sins being "covered in the blood". But there are others who would say that Wesley would have no problem with this phraseology. David's concern is Wesleyan, but it is a certain grouping within the Wesley theology camps that understands atonement of sins in a relational way. Possibly, David is influenced by Nazarene scholars such as H. Ray Dunning and Mildred Bangs Wynkoop (or those they influenced). But there is another Wesleyan/Holiness camp emphasized by Nazarene scholars such as Kenneth Grider (and those he influenced) who see the phrase through a Wesleyan framework as well, but have no problem with it.

The theology that I evaluate music with is a centered melting pot. If the phraseology of the song is based off scripture, does it do justice to the scripture? If it is not explicitly from scripture, does its intended message stay consistent with scripture? Of course, I am influenced by certain people and certain groups of people when I say that a song is or is not consistent with scripture. (This is where we start naming our influences.)

This is why the second question, Which Purpose?, is so important. I have several questions (sorry) that I ask when I pick out songs for worship. What is the purpose of this particular worship service? Is it to celebrate a specific holy day, like All Saints, Pentecost, Advent, Christmas, Lent, Easter, Epiphany, Trinity, etc? Is it to celebrate a specific secular holiday like New Years, Valentine's, St. Patrick's, April Fools, Mother's, Father's, Memorial, Labor, Veterans, etc? Sometimes, this is the most important question to ask. On the first Sunday of Advent, I strongly believe that the theme is anticipation, not relief. So I struggle with the many Christmas songs that are available that rejoice because the king has already come. So we should sing songs of anticipation to be theologically correct to that theme. Joy to the World is a fun song to play, but at least on the first Sunday of Advent if not all of Advent, it is somewhat inappropriate.

Does the purpose seek to be celebratory or mourning. I'm not so sure at a Good Friday service we should be singing, "Celebrate, Jesus, celebrate!" or "All Hail the Pow'r of Jesus' Name". Why because as true as either of those songs may be, the purpose of a Good Friday service is not to revel in the magnitude of God - but Christ the King Sunday is! Easter is!

The next question is does the songs that fit the theological requirements also fit the purpose requirements? Sometimes they won't, but it will still be the right song to use.

Another question that is helpful when planning the music part of worship is to ask whether or not people will understand the words (ie Ebeneezer) or the concept at play in the song (ie Glorious Freedom). I always want to be careful if people find an individualized meaning in a song. If the words or concepts are unfamiliar, then is it possible to have an insert in the bulletin explaining the words or concepts? We did this for Reformation Sunday and All Saints Sunday at my last church. For Reformation Sunday, we tried finding songs that were written before 1600 and after 1517. We took the extreme stance that if it is not explicitly mentioned to use in the New Testament, we did not use it. The way we served communion was Zwinglian theologically. We made sure none of the songs were formally bar tunes. No powerpoint. No instruments. No electronics (except for lights - we had no windows in the sanctuary). And we explained it all in the bulletin. All Saints Sunday we explained theologically why we were celebrating as well. My favorite part were our clouds of witnesses in the front of the sanctuary.

One final question. This is probably my most important question. Does the song have a communal or individual focus? Almost every song written for worship has "I" as its most common word. This makes me sad, as when I live in a consumeristic, "What can you do for me?" culture, we sing, "I, I, I, I, I". I actively seek songs that the focus is communal. "We Fall Down", "All Creatures of Our God and King", "It is You", "He Reigns", "Our God Reigns" are all wonderful "we" and "our" songs. There are some songs like "Holy, Holy, Holy! Lord God Almighty!" that seem to completely eliminate the focus of us at all. I am not sure that we can ever relieve ourselves from "I" songs, and for the ones that do use "I", what is their focus? Probably my favorite song, "Knowing You (All I Once Held Dear)" by Graham Kendrick has a lot of "I"'s. But the I's are talking about an ongoing transformation, not a static Jesus has already solved all my problems.

I hope this has helped.

[Mike McVey]

Also, I think it is important to mention that we should use services like Singspirations to educate about some of the non-theological songs to people. Songs that are shallow and possibly bad theology need to be explained why they are held so dear to people. I love "I Can Only Imagine", but my major problem with it is that the focus is more on my reaction to being in God's presence than the fact that I am in God's presence. This does not make it a bad song, but it is theological in a anthropological sense, which translates to being a song about me and my reflections about God things.

[Dale Cozby]

Ok, If we are talking about songs that are kind of a pet peave because of lack of theological depth I will throw my two bits in.

1. Any song that I can't tell if we are singing to or about our girl/boyfriend and not singing to the Lord. If the words could be used in a love song to my girlfriend just as easily then the words are weak and ought to be changed so there is no confusion as to who is being worshipped. IMHO.

2. Any song that contains the extreme in repetition. Any song that contains the extreme in repetition. Any song that contains the extreme in repetition.:rolleyes: Reminds me of the Weird Al song: "This song is just four words long"

3. Any song that requires you to be able to sing 3 octaves just to sing the melody. Gotta be something wrong with it theologically, right? :fav03

4. Although not all of them , but let's face it, any song written by a Calvinist is suspect theologically.:eek:


- I hope you find some humor here. I did while writing it.

[Jeremy D. Scott]

1. Any song that I can't tell if we are singing to or about our girl/boyfriend and not singing to the Lord. If the words could be used in a love song to my girlfriend just as easily then the words are weak and ought to be changed so there is no confusion as to who is being worshipped. IMHO.
Another Naznetter (who's not related to me) has this pet peeve too and shared it with me and some others when I was in college. I guess we had a whole thread about it a while back too (click here to see it) (http://www.naznet.com/community/showthread.php?t=8004). I still disagree with it. Perhaps we could throw out the book of Esther for the same reason. No, of course we wouldn't do that - we know it's of value because we read it in the Bible. Well, we sing these songs in church, if you're really confused as to whom we're singing them to...well, try harder, because some of us are moved to worship the Savior by songs such as Draw Me Close. :basic05

2. Any song that contains the extreme in repetition. Any song that contains the extreme in repetition. Any song that contains the extreme in repetition.:rolleyes: Reminds me of the Weird Al song: "This song is just four words long"
Let's throw out Psalm 136 too then. Psalm 24 too. I'm sure there are others.
:basic05

[Jeremy D. Scott]

I'm not going to list specific songs, but I do have one major thing that I think pervades modern worship songs ("hymns", "choruses", etc. alike).

Our songs are majoritively individualistic. I don't know if it's in result of the Enlightenment, Western or American individualism or what that's caused it, but our songs are vastly written from the individual's perspective. This isn't completely wrong (I'm not crying that every song should be written with "we's" and "us's", but I wish they were used in the majority).

When I'm singing I more often than not just change the pronouns to make what we're singing corporate.

(It is notable that many of the Psalms are written from the individual's perspective.)

[Ryan Scott]

I was the one who kept harping on the theology in worship. On the other thread Jeremy gave us an example of a line they change in one song to reflect a more Wesleyan understanding of atonement.

But before we go too far in this, we do need to remember that these are songs, artistic expressions, so we have to give them some leeway in word choice, etc.

For example, in the song above, I'd be much less worried about "covered" that about "blood." The imagery is old hat to most of us, but to someone who's never been to a worship service before, singing about "blood flowing down" or being "covered by the blood of Jesus," is just downright disgusting. We can say the same things in different ways.

It's funny you brought up the Ebenezer line. That one is always a sticking point when singing that song, but the song is so fantastic, I can't just throw it out. At times, we've stopped to explain what it meant before singing, or if you just use the hymnal, I believe there is an asterisk there with a short description at the bottom of the page. We can conform our songs to less-informed participants in our services, but there is still and element of tradition that we need to keep alive.

Most of the Wesley hymns have some not so accessible language, but the message is usually very clear overall.

[Dale Cozby]

Eben-ezer stone of help, the memorial stone set up by Samuel to commemorate the divine assistance to Israel in their great battle against the Philistines, whom they totally routed (1 Sam. 7:7-12) at Aphek, in the neighbourhood of Mizpeh, in Benjamin, near the western entrance of the pass of Beth-horon. On this very battle-field, twenty years before, the Philistines routed the Israelites, "and slew of the army in the field about four thousand men" (4:1,2; here, and at 5:1, called "Eben-ezer" by anticipation). In this extremity the Israelites fetched the ark out of Shiloh and carried it into their camp. The Philistines a second time immediately attacked them, and smote them with a very great slaughter, "for there fell of Israel thirty thousand footmen. And the ark of God was taken" (1 Sam. 4:10). And now in the same place the Philistines are vanquished, and the memorial stone is erected by Samuel (q.v.). The spot where the stone was erected was somewhere "between Mizpeh and Shen." Some have identified it with the modern Beit Iksa, a conspicuous and prominent position, apparently answering all the necessary conditions; others with Dier Aban, 3 miles east of 'Ain Shems. - Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary

David next time you sing that song you will know.:basic03
Always remember and never forget that.

Let's throw out Psalm 136 too then. Psalm 24 too. I'm sure there are others Hey while we are at it we can throw at the book of Numbers too as a song book. Just because it is scripture doesn't mean it makes a good song.
When I'm singing I more often than not just change the pronouns to make what we're singing corporate. Interesting, I have changed the corporate pronouns to personal. Hmm....Aren't we supposed to be working on our personal relationship with God even during corporate worship?:rolleyes:

I also have changed entire songs from singing about God to singing to God. Try doing that on the fly sometime....my grammar teacher would be proud.

[Jeremy D. Scott]

Hey while we are at it we can throw at the book of Numbers too as a song book. Just because it is scripture doesn't mean it makes a good song.
The Bible has different forms of literature within it. Numbers is of the Law and narrative. The psalms are of the Writings and are poetry, the worship book of Israel, if you may. There's quite a difference. If we have any pattern of worship in the Bible, it's in the psalms. I think repetition is safe and worthy.

Interesting, I have changed the corporate pronouns to personal. Hmm....Aren't we supposed to be working on our personal relationship with God even during corporate worship?
"Personal" relationship with God? I don't even know what that means anymore. It has very little meaning to me in the Body of Christ. The call to Christ is the call to a community, family, and corporate body (indeed, Body).

[Marsha Lynn]

On another thread someone had mentioned that there are some hymns and contemporary songs that are theologically shallow or incorrect. As a learning device, can we talk about some of these songs? Not being a theologian, I would be interested in people's opinions about these songs.

I don't want this to denigrate into a spitting contest, but I'd like it to be a real conversation about having music of depth in our churches.

Good topic for discussion, Cindi.

Someone mentioned alternative words for "In Christ Alone" in that other thread. We replace "... the wrath of God was satisfied ..." with "... the Son of God; love crucified..." (A sidenote of thanks to Marvin Jones for that suggestion.)

Another song that I love except for one line is "How Deep the Father's Love for Us". I wish there were an alternative to the line "the Father turns his face away". I cringe every time we sing it. Has anyone made alterations to this one?

The hardest song from the hymnal for me to sing is "How the Fire Fell". There's almost no personal testimony in that song for me.

Marsha

[Jeremy D. Scott]

Another song that I love except for one line is "How Deep the Father's Love for Us". I wish there were an alternative to the line "the Father turns his face away". I cringe every time we sing it. Has anyone made alterations to this one?

Yes! Me too on cringing on this one...

How about just "...the Father gave his Son away."?

It seems to fit with the first part of the line ("How great the pain of searing loss...")

[Billy Cox]

If there was such a thing as a theologically correct hymnal, it would have only three hymns, and every church would hate one of the three enough to boycott purchasing it.

[Gina Stevenson]

At that point we come to a fork in the road. The Nazarene hymnal goes on to say, 'Let that grace, now like a fetter, bind my yielded heart to thee.'
That Calvinist version says 'Bind my wandering heart to thee.'

Not sure which Naz hymnal to which you refer, but I definitely recall singing "bind my wandering heart to thee." It goes on something like, "Prone to wander, Lord, I feel it, Prone to leave the Lord I love," etc. 'Like this song, too, but I'm sure we sang about wand'ring, John! ;) Maybe my mind is stuck on an older version, and you're speaking of an "updated" Naz hymnal where they've done a bit of editing.

IMO both versions are OK - the heart may very well be yielded, but that certainly doesn't guarantee it'll never wander. (But what do I know - I'm a Congregationalist?)

The Nazarenes continue with a simply marvelous song of petition: 'Let me know Thee in Thy fullness; guide me by Thy mighty hand till, transformed in Thine own image, in Thy presence I shall stand."

What!? Definitely been some editing done since I learned it! :eek: And, agreed ... yielded, yet tempted to wander. :o
The Calvinists express it this way: 'Prone to wander, Lord, I feel it, prone to leave the God I love: Here's my heart, O take and seal it, seal it for Thy courts above.'

Yes! This is what I remember singing! [not in some Calvinistic church, either.] ;)

Despite having heard my share, and a bit more, of sermons attacking and ridiculing that text, I'm not sure it's all that off-base. Personally, I'd like to see the third stanza rewritten to include both sentiments - I think they both have some validity. (But, almost certainly, that point of view is why, among a host of other reasons, I'm not a prof at either NTS or Southern Baptist Seminary).

Well, there've been some lyrics, but more often some accompanying music, that I would love to rewrite so as to really enjoy some great lyrics whose m music I don't much like sometimes.

Hmmm ... clicked on Billy's comment to put here, too, but it isn't here for whatever reason. Anyway, Billy [Cox], thanks for another typically Billy laugh. 'Do enjoy your sense of humor often. ;)

[Barb Bouldrey]

"Me and God"

Today, while driving to our campgrounds to bring our teens home from camp, John turned on the radio. It was set on a country western station and a song was playing:

"Me and God,
We're like two peas in a pod.
Me and God,
Can get anything done together,
Me and God."

Oh my...we both had a good laugh at this country song. I think we should find this song and sing it in church, RIGHT?

LOL

Barb

[Gary Swartzlander]

"Me and God"

Today, while driving to our campgrounds to bring our teens home from camp, John turned on the radio. It was set on a country western station and a song was playing:

"Me and God,
We're like two peas in a pod.
Me and God,
Can get anything done together,
Me and God."

Oh my...we both had a good laugh at this country song. I think we should find this song and sing it in church, RIGHT?

LOL

Barb

Our pastor is open to alot of things, country music isn't one of them. He makes that very clear. One night in a service with a lighter side to it the musicians began a song by starting with a country music type lead in one of them had written. If looks could have killed, or if looks could have fired them on the spot, they would have been history. After the fact everyone got a real good laugh out of it.

[Dale Cozby]

"Personal" relationship with God? I don't even know what that means anymore. It has very little meaning to me in the Body of Christ. The call to Christ is the call to a community, family, and corporate body (indeed, Body).
Personal relationship: As in you aren't going to be declared Holy becuase of your church membership, or who your parents were or how well you were liked by your fellowman.

Personal as in each one has to give an account and will be rewarded for his deeds. Or do you think we will be held accountable for the actions of others in a big corporate judgement?

Anyway....

another thing I dislike in church music these days is the trend to turning it into a concert with performers rather than it being inclusive corporate worship, it feels more like a performance designed to entertain the crowd rather than bring the individual into personal worship. I prefer worship in which you can hear the corporate voice of the congregation and not just the performers on the platform under the lights.

Why sing if the music and performers are so loud you can't even hear yourself sing with them?

Yeah...I know I am stepping on toes here. Sorry if that hurt.:o Sorry for hijacking too.

[Mike Schutz]

Why sing if the music and performers are so loud you can't even hear yourself sing with them?


Dale, That's my goal. I love to sing, but can't carry a tune. It's so much fun when I can sing, and I can't hear myself - which hopefully means no one else can hear me as well.

There's an old Rock style that was called "wall of sound". Now, that's MY personal favorite!:basic05

As for a contemporary song with a troubling theological perspective, the song "Take My Life" comes to mind. The original line is:
"Holiness, holiness is what I long for,
Holiness is what I need,
Holiness is what you want from me."

When our worship teams would sing this at ENC, I would instruct them to change the line to:

"Holiness is what you want FOR me."

I believe that is a more accurate representation of a biblical understanding of holiness, especially as it fits into the rest of the song.

Grace and peace.

[Ryan Scott]

I agree with you there Dale. My favorite worship times have been without any amplification of any kind.

[Ryan Scott]

By the way, here is the answer to the cryptic question I asked earlier.

http://users.mstar2.net/brucewrites/rules.htm

[Mike McVey]

another thing I dislike in church music these days is the trend to turning it into a concert with performers rather than it being inclusive corporate worship, it feels more like a performance designed to entertain the crowd rather than bring the individual into personal worship.

I'm not sure that it is fair to say that performance is a new trend. Most Nazarene churches I have come across have a special song sung by someone in the congregation. After the song, it is generally accepted to applaud the singer/group. Also, it is not uncommon for Sunday mornings to be turned into
"evangelism" concerts where a group is hired to come sing and perform to reach people. And if you think about it, the Dallas district has had an emphasis for the last several years of having the SNU choir come and sing at Richardson for the covenant renewal service. Southwest Oklahoma does something similar at Trinity.

Also there is some crossover from Christian musicians of songs people sing in worship. I don't have problems with most of these songs, but when you bring a song that was written for performance purposes (ie anything by the Gaithers or Third Day or Michael W. Smith or Newsboys or Twila Paris, etc.) you are going to have people start trying to perform the song like the concert or cd they heard it from. This was something I always struggled with as worship pastor because everyone in the band and congregation knew that "He Reigns" or "It Is You" by the Newsboys had to sound a certain way to be right. And when we sing these songs, we have a tendency to want to do them like the "performers".

Finally for this specific part of that quote, parishioners have a responsibility to prepare themselves for worship. If someone waits for the music or art or whatever to bring them in, then they have already missed out on so much of the worship. Hence, it does become entertainment. Because whenever we try to make people feel a certain way to let them be able to feel they can worship, we are telling them that it is our responsibility to bring them to that spot. This is not to say that people can't come in unprepared and get caught up, but that is not the point of a worship service. We do have a responsibility to prepare ourselves no matter how hard it is or how much we fail at this.

I prefer worship in which you can hear the corporate voice of the congregation and not just the performers on the platform under the lights.

Why sing if the music and performers are so loud you can't even hear yourself sing with them?

I agree with you. But I am more concerned that when we hear the corporate voice of the congregation, it should not be limited to music. I want to hear the voice in the reciting of the Apostles Creed, the Lord's Prayer, responsive readings, etc. Whenever I lead the congregation in the Lord's Prayer or the Creed, I always push the mute button on the microphone for this very reason.

Dale, thank you for helping me rethink about these things.

[Mike McVey]

By the way, here is the answer to the cryptic question I asked earlier.

http://users.mstar2.net/brucewrites/rules.htm

Ryan, I appreciate the Wesley rules, but do you know where Mr. Forbes got these? I couldn't find a reference at all.

[Alisa Stoll]

In regards to the personal I - the song that drives me absolutely crazy - though Cindi can testify I don't have far to go- is desparate for you as in

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII am desparte for you and IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII am lost without you.

talk about it being all about me. I prefer singing that one in Spanish because the I sounds more like you.

Alisa

[Meghan Schoonover]

I saw MWS in concert a couple yrs. ago when I was pregnant with my second daughter. He did that song, Breathe, and it was amazing...thousands of people singing...I can see your point, but it was truly worship *to* God and not all about me/us/whatever.

The other neat thing I picked up at that same time is the second time through he changed everything to, "*You* are the air I breathe." "You are my daily bread," etc. Fantastic. We often sing it that way now.

[Barb Bouldrey]

When I hear songs on the radio or a CD I do not enjoy all the "breathiness" I hear in a lot of new songs. And it seems that is the style...to use a lot of breath as you sing.

And a lot of songs it sounds as if they are saying "chew" instead of "you." That drives me nuts.

Barb

[Mike McVey]

And a lot of songs it sounds as if they are saying "chew" instead of "you." That drives me nuts.

Barb

The first time I ever sang in a band, I got chewed out for saying "chew" instead of "you" (pun intended). Sometimes I try so hard not to say "chew" that I end up saying "hugh". :)

[Alisa Stoll]

I saw MWS in concert a couple yrs. ago when I was pregnant with my second daughter. He did that song, Breathe, and it was amazing...thousands of people singing...I can see your point, but it was truly worship *to* God and not all about me/us/whatever.

The other neat thing I picked up at that same time is the second time through he changed everything to, "*You* are the air I breathe." "You are my daily bread," etc. Fantastic. We often sing it that way now.

I have a short attention span - by the time we've finished singing I, my attention has wondered. It's not the words of the song - they are fine, it's the drawing out of I. If any word should be drawn out it I think it should be desperate or you (preferably the later).

Like I said I don't have far to crazy. In fact I often say I have frequent flyer miles - care to come along?

Alisa

[Marsha Lynn]

Yes! Me too on cringing on this one...

How about just "...the Father gave his Son away."?

It seems to fit with the first part of the line ("How great the pain of searing loss...")

It seems that there's a long precedent for changing the lyrics of songs to make them more theologically palatable. One of the things I sometimes do when encountering an unfamiliar hymnal is to check out the first verse of "Rock of Ages". In our version it reads, "Be of sin the double cure: Save from wrath and make me pure." Not many traditions have that version. I wonder if we have Augustus M. Toplady's original lyrics and others have found them objectionable or if someone modified it to better fit the holiness tradition.

Marsha

[Mike Schutz]

It seems that there's a long precedent for changing the lyrics of songs to make them more theologically palatable. One of the things I sometimes do when encountering an unfamiliar hymnal is to check out the first verse of "Rock of Ages". In our version it reads, "Be of sin the double cure: Save from wrath and make me pure." Not many traditions have that version. I wonder if we have Augustus M. Toplady's original lyrics and others have found them objectionable or if someone modified it to better fit the holiness tradition.

Marsha

That would be interesting, considering the relationship between John Wesley and Toplady which at best would be considered "contentious." Illustrative of this is this letter from Toplady to Wesley.

http://homepage.mac.com/shanerosenthal/reformationink/attoptowes.htm

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

Speaking of "How the Fire Fell." Once during a Christmas Eve candle light service my hair caught on fire. You might know--very pointedly. I believe, on purpose, the Worship leader,called out the page number for "How the Fire Fell," and the people enjoyed singing it and looking at me--the pastor's wife. ha Maybe, I should have sung, "How the Fire FELT."
The infilling of the Holy Spirit through sanctification, coud be thought of as "the cleansing fire falling...tongues of fire. I think, that it may be possible, that we older Christians, may think of the meanings of words in songs, in a different way than younger ones do. I had never herd about the word "you" sounding like "chew" in a song. When we hear sogs, many times, wemay be thinking in terms that we have heard the "old timers" use when we were growing up. I

[Paul Whitaker]

From:

http://www.revneal.org/Writings/whatsan.htm

In 1 Samuel 4:1-11 and 5:1, the Ebenezer is strangely identified with a particular site, about four miles south of Gilgal, where the Israelites were twice defeated by the Philistines and the Ark of the Covenant was stolen. These battles took place, however, before the site was actually named Ebenezer. It was like someone saying that Dinosaurs once lived in Dallas county -- they did, but not when this area was called "Dallas." Likewise, the two battles mentioned in 1 Samuel 4 and 5 took place at Ebenezer, but some time before it was so-named.

The site wasn’t named Ebenezer until after the Israelites finally defeated the Philistines, and took back the Ark of the Covenant. To commemorate the victorious battle, Samuel set up a marker-stone, named it "Stone of Help," and thereby the site became identified with the stone and with the place where God’s miraculous help aided them in their victory over the Philistines. The stone, standing up-right, was called "Ebenezer," and the site naturally took on that name as well.

Literally speaking, an Ebenezer is a "stone of help," or a reminder of God’s Real, Holy Presence and Divine aid. Spiritually and theologically speaking, an Ebenezer can be nearly anything that reminds us of God’s presence and help: the Bible, the Sacramental Elements, a cross, a picture, a fellow believer, a hymn – those things which serve as reminders of God’s love, God’s Real Presence, and God’s assistance are "Ebenezers."

Each Thanksgiving I give thanks to God for the wonderful Ebenezers that God has given me in my life and ministry. Most especially among these, I thank God for my Church family -- the many wonderful saints within my congregations who have upheld me, daily, with their prayers, their words of encouragement, and their acts of service. May each and every one of us always be blessed by the grace and peace of Jesus Christ through the Ebenezers that God has placed in our lives!

[Kevin Rector]

As for a contemporary song with a troubling theological perspective, the song "Take My Life" comes to mind. The original line is:
"Holiness, holiness is what I long for,
Holiness is what I need,
Holiness is what you want from me."

When our worship teams would sing this at ENC, I would instruct them to change the line to:

"Holiness is what you want FOR me."

I believe that is a more accurate representation of a biblical understanding of holiness, especially as it fits into the rest of the song.

Grace and peace.

YES! YES! YES!

I've always changed "from" to "for". That one line has always bothered me.

Another one is Heart of Worship. I hate the line that says:

I'm sorry Lord for the thing I made it

Everytime that song is sung I want to sing:

I'm sorry Lord for the thing the songwriter made it

[Mike McVey]

Another one is Heart of Worship. I hate the line that says:

I'm sorry Lord for the thing I made it

Everytime that song is sung I want to sing:

I'm sorry Lord for the thing the songwriter made it


The sad thing about Heart of Worship is that its original intent and setting were so awesome. But less than three months on the market, the song got so ruined by airplay, cd consumption, and worship teams adding instruments to the fading music. It went from I'm coming back to the heart of worship, and it's all about you, it's all about you, Jesus to I'm coming back to the heart of worship, and it's all about me, it's all about me, Jesus.

Speaking of individualized songs, check out this link:

It's All About Me (http://www.sermonspice.com/search?topic=22&q=It%27s+all+about+me&x=9&y=9)

Click on the picture to see the video.

I also like

MeChurch (http://www.sermonspice.com/search?topic=22&q=mechurch&x=0&y=0)

I actually bought the MeChurch one. My dad used it for a sermon illustration.

[Ryan Scott]

Ryan, I appreciate the Wesley rules, but do you know where Mr. Forbes got these? I couldn't find a reference at all.

I've seen those other places, that was just the link I found on google. I'm sure you can locate them elsewhere. They are in the front cover of "Wesley Hymns" published by NPH.

[Marsha Lynn]

Yes! Me too on cringing on this one...

How about just "...the Father gave his Son away."?

It seems to fit with the first part of the line ("How great the pain of searing loss...")

After a discussion at tonight's Bible study of whether or not God abandoned Jesus on the cross ("Isn't that what we teach?"), I decided we're definitely changing that line in "How Deep the Father's Love for Us". Your suggestion has merit, Jeremy, but I'm still not completely comfortable with it. God gave His Son but did He really give Him away?

What do you think of this idea? "How great the pain of searing loss/the Son of God upon the cross/As wounds which are the Chosen One bring many sons to glory.

Or maybe ... "the Son of God a sacrifice"

Opinions, anyone?

Marsha

[Jeremy D. Scott]

After a discussion at tonight's Bible study of whether or not God abandoned Jesus on the cross ("Isn't that what we teach?"), I decided we're definitely changing that line in "How Deep the Father's Love for Us". Your suggestion has merit, Jeremy, but I'm still not completely comfortable with it. God gave His Son but did He really give Him away?

What do you think of this idea? "How great the pain of searing loss/the Son of God upon the cross/As wounds which are the Chosen One bring many sons to glory.

Or maybe ... "the Son of God a sacrifice"

Opinions, anyone?

Marsha

I like your suggestion better.

But I do think that there was certainly a point at which God gave over the Son. I don't think this implies abandonment (as is the usual interpretation of "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"). Abandonment wouldn't be love. But because of his love for us, God gave the Son over to death that death might be conquered. I don't think God kept a finger on the Son. He gave him all. Jesus was dead.

Perhaps I misunderstood you...

[Marsha Lynn]

I like your suggestion better.

Any preference for one over the other? ("the Son of God upon the cross" vs "the Son of God a sacrifice")

But I do think that there was certainly a point at which God gave over the Son. I don't think this implies abandonment (as is the usual interpretation of "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"). Abandonment wouldn't be love. But because of his love for us, God gave the Son over to death that death might be conquered. I don't think God kept a finger on the Son. He gave him all. Jesus was dead.

Perhaps I misunderstood you...

No, you didn't misunderstand me. I'm not sure I can get there. When I give something away, it is no longer mine. I'm not responsible for it. If it suffers, I don't take care of it. If it dies, I don't resurrect it. God clearly gave His Son for the world, but I'm not sure He gave His Son to the world -- or to Satan or to death. I think He maintained the connection between them. We crucified God's only begotten Son and, as He is wont to do, He stood by and let us do it without stepping in to stop what was happening. But Jesus was still His beloved Son.

Of course, I may be entirely wrong on this, but if I'm going to be so brash as to rewrite a line in somebody else's song because I don't agree with the theology expressed by it -- and stick it up on a screen as though it were how the song was supposed to go -- I'd like to move well away from the marshy areas onto solid ground.

:fav16

Marsha

[Mike McVey]

No, you didn't misunderstand me. I'm not sure I can get there. When I give something away, it is no longer mine. I'm not responsible for it. If it suffers, I don't take care of it. If it dies, I don't resurrect it.

I think it depends on what you give. Some gifts, like fruitcakes, seem to come back no matter how many times you give it up! :cool:.

But seriously, I think we need to remember that Jesus sacrificed heaven to come on earth. It's not just the Father giving up the Son, but the Son giving up everything to be like us. And I'm not as sure if God actually gives up the Son, but there is a sense of God forsaken-ness that has to be dealt with. I believe that love is a gift, but it is never ours to start with. And to a certain degree we are responsible for giving love, and we do care for it when it suffers. Some jumbled thoughts, I know, but it makes sense to me right now.

Of course, I may be entirely wrong on this, but if I'm going to be so brash as to rewrite a line in somebody else's song because I don't agree with the theology expressed by it -- and stick it up on a screen as though it were how the song was supposed to go -- I'd like to move well away from the marshy areas onto solid ground.


I used to disagree with you until I started trying to rewrite words to my own spiritually immature songs. As much as I wanted to, I was not able to change the words, because I remember what I went through when I wrote them. And even though some (well, most actually) of the songs were theologically immature, that is where I was when I wrote them. It would pain my heart for someone to strip the words and rewrite them to their own purposes. It is also illegal without express written consent from the author/copyright company.

I think if you don't like the words of a song, then it would be better to write a new one than to change the words.

[Ryan Scott]

It would pain my heart for someone to strip the words and rewrite them to their own purposes. It is also illegal without express written consent from the author/copyright company.

Well it's illegal to display different words than are copywrited, but you can sing whatever words you want.

By the way, speaking of copyrights, I was just in a meeting about event planning and apparently the ASCAP is soon to be cracking down on religious groups violating their copyrights. It's not sufficient for a group to use a CCLI. That only covers the reproduction of the lyrics, apparently ASCAP has copyrights for the actual playing or singing of songs. If group is using music (live or recorded) in a public event, there is a fee per person due for this music. It's never been enforced, but it soon will be. (I think it's something like $.05 per person per event).

[Marsha Lynn]

I think if you don't like the words of a song, then it would be better to write a new one than to change the words.

I think you're probably right. However, I'm also pretty sure that composing my own praise and worship songs would be a monumental waste of the time I've been given. I have had too many aspiring song writers try (unsuccessfully) to sell me on their creations to think that my own marketing attempts (whether local or to a broader audience) would be any more successful, regardless of whether or not I have any undeveloped potential as a composer. Creating a portfolio of beautiful, meaningful, unsung music is not on my list of life-goals.

Marsha

[Cindi Hammons]

So...one would be able to print the lyrics for projection, but won't be able to play them on instruments or sing them? Come on... So, for my church it would cost me approximately $6 per song per week. That would be approximately $2500 per year?!? (and that wasn't figuring in any hymns...just praise songs) What about churches that are larger? It could cost them around $10,000 per year if they run around 400-500. Honestly, I don't see it happening. They will come up with some other form of license...I hope.

[Ryan Scott]

So...one would be able to print the lyrics for projection, but won't be able to play them on instruments or sing them? Come on... So, for my church it would cost me approximately $6 per song per week. That would be approximately $2500 per year?!? (and that wasn't figuring in any hymns...just praise songs) What about churches that are larger? It could cost them around $10,000 per year if they run around 400-500. Honestly, I don't see it happening. They will come up with some other form of license...I hope.

It's not $.05 person, its per event, so a Sunday service with 100 in attendance would cost about $5. (About $250 a year for one service a week). Again, I haven't heard much of the detail of it yet, but it does make sense.

I do agree that they'll probably come up with something like the CCLI to save congregations money, especially larger ones.

[Alisa Stoll]

It's not $.05 person, its per event, so a Sunday service with 100 in attendance would cost about $5. (About $250 a year for one service a week). Again, I haven't heard much of the detail of it yet, but it does make sense.

I do agree that they'll probably come up with something like the CCLI to save congregations money, especially larger ones.

I just checked their web site and while they have an exhaustive list of licenses - they do not have one that covers congregations - churches, worship, etc. however when I went to FAQ, here is what I found:

What is a public performance?

A public performance is one that occurs either in a public place or any place where people gather (other than a small circle of a family or its social acquaintances.) A public performance is also one that is transmitted to the public; for example, radio or television broadcasts, music-on-hold, cable television, and by the internet. Generally, those who publicly perform music obtain permission from the owner of the music or his representative. However, there are a few limited exceptions, (called "exemptions") to this rule. Permission is not required for music played or sung as part of a worship service unless that service is transmitted beyond where it takes place (for example, a radio or television broadcast). Performances as part of face to face teaching activity at a non-profit educational institutions are also exempt.

So I think most churches are exempt.

Alisa

[Ryan Scott]

That was from ASCAP? We asked specifically about worship exemptions and they said there were none. Interesting. This is a good find. There might be an issue with services that are recorded (lots of congregations still do taping, I think), but that's probably a different licensing agency altogether.

By the way, apparently I was wrong about changing the words. You need permission for that as well, however, if indeed worship services are exempt, I wonder if they'd be exempt from that as well?

[Alisa Stoll]

The site I quoted was: http://www.ascap.com/licensing/licensingfaq.html

That was what google indicated is the official web site for ASCAP.

In terms of licenses on their list of over 100 - the only one that came close was zoos and aquariums operated by non-profit organizations. (grin)

Alisa

[Ryan Scott]

I've been doing a lot of reading on this this morning. It looks like there are some fine lines for performance and recording is a big no-no. CCLI sure doesn't cover as much as I thought, either.

This is a good resource: http://www.mpa.org/copyright_resource_center/church_musician#q5

[Alisa Stoll]

From the ccli.com web site:

What You Can Do
- Print songs, hymns and lyrics in bulletins, programs, liturgies and songsheets for use in congregational singing.
- Create your own customized songbooks or hymnals for use in congregational singing.
- Create overhead transparencies, slides or use any other format whereby song lyrics are visually projected (such as computer graphics and projection) for use in congregational singing.
- Arrange, print and copy your own arrangements (vocal and instrumental) of songs used for congregational singing, where no published version is available.
- Record your worship services (audio or video) provided you only record live music. Accompaniment tracks cannot be reproduced. You may charge up to $4 each for audiocassette tapes and CDs, and $12 each for videotapes and DVDs.

What You Cannot Do
- Photocopy or duplicate octavos, cantatas, musicals, handbell music, keyboard arrangements, vocal scores, orchestrations or other instrumental works.
- Translate songs into another language. This can only be done with the approval of the respective publisher.
- Rent, sell or lend copies made under the license to groups outside the church or to other churches. (It is OK to distribute recordings to shut-ins, missionaries or others outside the church.)
- Assign or transfer the license to another church or group without CCLI's approval.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Now this says that recording is covered under the ccli for limited distribution (15% of church membership)

If recording is covered, somehow I think performing is also.

Alisa

[Alisa Stoll]

From the MPA site Ryan listed above:

9. IS IT PERMISSIBLE TO PERFORM COPYRIGHTED RELIGIOUS WORKS IN CHURCH SERVICES WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING PERMISSION FROM THE COPYRIGHT OWNER?
Yes, "the religious services exemption" in the Copyright Law permits for the performance of copyrighted religious works in the course of services at places of worship or at religious assemblies. However, performance licenses must be obtained from the copyright owner for any musical performance outside of a specific "worship service" including concerts and special musical programs.

[Jeremy D. Scott]

I used to disagree with you until I started trying to rewrite words to my own spiritually immature songs. As much as I wanted to, I was not able to change the words, because I remember what I went through when I wrote them. And even though some (well, most actually) of the songs were theologically immature, that is where I was when I wrote them. It would pain my heart for someone to strip the words and rewrite them to their own purposes. It is also illegal without express written consent from the author/copyright company.

I think if you don't like the words of a song, then it would be better to write a new one than to change the words.

Your response is pretty personal, and I can respect it for your songs. From what I understand of it, the songs you wrote you wrote for yourself. If Mark Redmond, Chris Tomlin, or in this case, Keith Getty or Stuart Townend are writing these songs for themselves, they should stop publishing them and offering them for the whole world to use in corporate worship.

Copyright is a hindrance to the Church. One would think that if the writer(s) and companies that handle it were truly wanting them to serve their intended purpose, they'd want them distributed freely. This is the same gripe that I had with NPH back when the intent of Hans' resolution to make the Manual freely distributed online for all was cleverly overlooked. I'm glad they fixed it. I appreciate people and organizations like the Christian Resource Institute (http://www.crivoice.org), Dr. Russell Metcalfe (http://russellmetcalfesermons.nazarene.nl/sermons.html), or Derek Webb (http://www.freederekwebb.com) who offer what they've worked hard on for free to the internet public so long as it's not used for profit. That's Kingdom-thinking.

Wesley's hymnals had a statement at the beginning...something like "these words shall not be changed, reduced, or shortened, etc. and are fit to be sung as they are." No one's listened. This was part of the authoritative dictation of Wesley(s) that I'm not a big fan of. However, it seemed to work properly for the culture with which he dealt.

Today, if I were handed down songs from some corporate body of the Church to use in worship and told not to change them, that would be different. But worshiping by the whims of an industry (all of which we know are motivated by green) don't mix with the Kingdom.

The Sing to the Lord hymnal is guilty of changing/modifying/adding as well.

Ultimately, our singing of these songs is to worship (and a bit of didache). We're glorifying God, not the songwriter.

[Marsha Lynn]

So...one would be able to print the lyrics for projection, but won't be able to play them on instruments or sing them?

My understanding is that even with a CCLI license a church needs as many original copies of the music as instrumentalists or choir/praise team members if such music is available for purchase. I'm scrambling to keep up with buying more of the Lillenas chorus books in order to stay within the copyright law as much as possible as we add more musicians. And I am profoundly grateful that those books are available and consolidate so many choruses in one package. They're expensive but not so high as buying a bunch of different books that each have one or two songs that we want to use.

BTW, once we buy the books, we mostly store them in the music room and play from photocopies as a practical solution for shuffling from song to song. In doing so, we are not cheating the creators of the music out of their compensation. When we buy the books, we pay for each musician to have a copy of the music. Storing an original while using a working copy is an accepted practice in various forms of media -- e.g. CDs or computer software.

I'm reading the CCLI license agreement to see if my "notes on the wall" fall within it. As far as I can see, there is nothing that makes the notes less reproducible than the lyrics.

Marsha

[Ryan Scott]

It's morally right, but I'm not sure even the photocopies of books you already own are technically legal, especially if they are instrumental music and not congregational music. If your musicians play from the same music your congregation sings from, then you're ok, but music for instrumentalists is not covered by CCLI.

I think there's probably too much legality than can be expected from one person. We probably have to just do our best and hope it never becomes a huge fine.

[Edith K. Thurmond]

.... If your musicians play from the same music your congregation sings from, then you're ok, but music for instrumentalists is not covered by CCLI.



Side note that is related to this thread: Symphony orchestras pay enormous fees to use the music they play in their concerts. Most people have NO idea how much money is paid out just to use the music (even for rehearsals). Concert ticket prices are high and much of the cost is represented here.

A couple of years ago, composer John Williams made his music available for orchestral use without the high fees and for only a certain period of time. There were "John Williams Concerts" all over the nation because no orchesta could afford to pass up that tremendous offer.

It is still a bit shocking when viewing documents that show how much money is actually paid for the use of music we hear at such events. Be sure and really appreciate the next orchestra concert you hear!

Blessings,

[Billy Cox]

That was from ASCAP? We asked specifically about worship exemptions and they said there were none. Interesting. This is a good find. There might be an issue with services that are recorded (lots of congregations still do taping, I think), but that's probably a different licensing agency altogether.

By the way, apparently I was wrong about changing the words. You need permission for that as well, however, if indeed worship services are exempt, I wonder if they'd be exempt from that as well?

There are exceptions in copyright law for parody...and what the average church does to many worship songs IS laughable. :basic03

[Cindi Hammons]

There are exceptions in copyright law for parody...and what the average church does to many worship songs IS laughable. :basic03

And once again, Billy has shared with us his ability to make fun of others who are unable to compete with his unreachable standards.

[Mike Schutz]

I think it is important to remember that there is a difference between copyright law and what CCLI, ASCAP, and BMI say that we should do and what they want us to do.

Some of the requirements and restrictions placed by the licensing agencies do not carry the weight of law. There is some question as to how the courts view the "implied contract" that takes place when we purchase copyrighted material. In other words, just because the publisher attempts to place restrictions upon the use of the material - if those restrictions go beyond copyright law, the purchaser MAY NOT be legally required to comply.

For example - as in the situation above, the courts have ruled that if you purchase 10 copies of sheet music, you can make copies of that music for the "reasonable use of the purchased copyrighted material" - such as to protect it from damage, even if the publisher says that you cannot make photocopies for ANY reason.

As Christians, we should either follow the law or, if we believe the law to be unjust, publicly violate it in order to demonstrate the injustice - and be willing to suffer the legal consequences.

[Mike McVey]

I think you're probably right. However, I'm also pretty sure that composing my own praise and worship songs would be a monumental waste of the time I've been given. I have had too many aspiring song writers try (unsuccessfully) to sell me on their creations to think that my own marketing attempts (whether local or to a broader audience) would be any more successful, regardless of whether or not I have any undeveloped potential as a composer. Creating a portfolio of beautiful, meaningful, unsung music is not on my list of life-goals.

Marsha

Marsha, I agree. Even though I have written about 50 songs, and about 15-20 could be used for worship, that is more of a hobby than anything else. Depending on your involvement (I know you do things with music; are you the music director?), that is what makes this thread so hard. Finding songs that are theologically correct is not an easy task. But there is always going to be some kind of trade-off and you have to know what your threshold is. This should rarely be seen as bad.

Also, most churches do not sing through that many songs in a year. I'm not talking about choir/special music. Most congregations probably sing between 200-300 songs a year when you count repetition. So it might be useful that whenever you find a "good" song, to put it in a special file.

[Mike McVey]

Your response is pretty personal, and I can respect it for your songs. From what I understand of it, the songs you wrote you wrote for yourself.

Not quite. About 40% were written specifically for worship.

If Mark Redmond, Chris Tomlin, or in this case, Keith Getty or Stuart Townend are writing these songs for themselves, they should stop publishing them and offering them for the whole world to use in corporate worship.

I disagree. One, because they aren't writing them for themselves (and generally speaking, neither am I). Two, they are writing for money. It's their career. They feed their families with their song writing ability. I know some of these guys from 15 years ago. As much as it's a ministry, it's a job, too. Besides, most of those songs are fairly personal, because the words suggest individualistic overtones. :rolleyes:;)

Copyright is a hindrance to the Church. One would think that if the writer(s) and companies that handle it were truly wanting them to serve their intended purpose, they'd want them distributed freely. This is the same gripe that I had with NPH back when the intent of Hans' resolution to make the Manual freely distributed online for all was cleverly overlooked. I'm glad they fixed it. I appreciate people and organizations like the Christian Resource Institute (http://www.crivoice.org), Dr. Russell Metcalfe (http://russellmetcalfesermons.nazarene.nl/sermons.html), or Derek Webb (http://www.freederekwebb.com) who offer what they've worked hard on for free to the internet public so long as it's not used for profit. That's Kingdom-thinking.

I agree that if the purpose was for God, they would be free. But then their "calling" into this specific ministry would be void, because they would be spending too much time working a job to write. I completely believe in open source, and I advocate it as well--if you want my music, send me an email at mike.w.mcvey@gmail.com and I will be glad to give it to you for free. Of course, I get paid (a little bit) as a pastor. I struggle with that. Part of me is so free church that I don't think anyone should get paid. (Please do not send me scripture references where priests or prophets or pastors get paid; I already know them and it does not help my struggle - this note is for everyone.) I've been using Bratcher's website for over 7 years. But even he asks that you drop him an email to tell him how you are using the material available.

Wesley's hymnals had a statement at the beginning...something like "these words shall not be changed, reduced, or shortened, etc. and are fit to be sung as they are." No one's listened. This was part of the authoritative dictation of Wesley(s) that I'm not a big fan of. However, it seemed to work properly for the culture with which he dealt.

Wesley also did the same thing with his sermons. He handed them to his pastors and said not to stray even one word.
I'm also not sure it is a cultural thing. Unless you have written something and seen how someone has abused it (which I have), then you find possibly a different meaning to Wesley's quote. As both a musician and theologian, I find it insulting and cruel to change the words of someone else writing. If they give you permission, go for it. But if they don't, sing the right words or write a new song. Sorry if I'm dictating authoritatively :basic02

Today, if I were handed down songs from some corporate body of the Church to use in worship and told not to change them, that would be different. But worshiping by the whims of an industry (all of which we know are motivated by green) don't mix with the Kingdom.

The Sing to the Lord hymnal is guilty of changing/modifying/adding as well.

Ultimately, our singing of these songs is to worship (and a bit of didache). We're glorifying God, not the songwriter.

Almost everything you have said in this post, I agree with. And then the but..., But you have to be willing to pay the price for breaking the law (as Mike Schutz said). I don't worship to the whims of the industry, nor do I format worship for the congregation to do that either. I pick out the best songs that I know that fit the scripture and worship. Sometimes I break the law, sometimes I don't. But one thing me personally (call it a thing between me and God if you want) I cannot do is change someone else's words.

[Mike McVey]

My understanding is that even with a CCLI license a church needs as many original copies of the music as instrumentalists or choir/praise team members if such music is available for purchase. I'm scrambling to keep up with buying more of the Lillenas chorus books in order to stay within the copyright law as much as possible as we add more musicians. And I am profoundly grateful that those books are available and consolidate so many choruses in one package. They're expensive but not so high as buying a bunch of different books that each have one or two songs that we want to use.

BTW, once we buy the books, we mostly store them in the music room and play from photocopies as a practical solution for shuffling from song to song. In doing so, we are not cheating the creators of the music out of their compensation. When we buy the books, we pay for each musician to have a copy of the music. Storing an original while using a working copy is an accepted practice in various forms of media -- e.g. CDs or computer software.

I'm reading the CCLI license agreement to see if my "notes on the wall" fall within it. As far as I can see, there is nothing that makes the notes less reproducible than the lyrics.

Marsha

Just so you know, you do not need to buy an original copy for each musician. You can buy one copy and make copies. The way CCLI works is that for every "copy" you make, you need to mark it down. Then once the service is over, you need to make sure there are no extra copies laying around. Therefore every copy you make on the copier, or print from the computer you have used that copy that many times. Five copies from one source = five sources. As far as projection goes, the first time that you make a slide or use one of the media programs is the only copy that counts unless you type it up each time the song gets used. The great thing about copies is that one copy can be used unlimited times and still count as one copy.

[Jeremy D. Scott]

But one thing me personally (call it a thing between me and God if you want) I cannot do is change someone else's words.

But that's the thing. When I'm singing these worship songs, I'm not thinking about who wrote it, but the one to whom I'm singing. I'm making someone else's words my words. And when I'm worshiping, the most important thing is that I do it as God asks - "in spirit and in truth", which I paraphrase as "with all that I've got and like I mean it". If there are words that I don't think I can sing like that, I don't mind changing them.

I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree. (I really hate that phrase. :basic02)

[Mike McVey]

But that's the thing. When I'm singing these worship songs, I'm not thinking about who wrote it, but the one to whom I'm singing. I'm making someone else's words my words. And when I'm worshiping, the most important thing is that I do it as God asks - "in spirit and in truth", which I paraphrase as "with all that I've got and like I mean it". If there are words that I don't think I can sing like that, I don't mind changing them.

My first response would be not to sing them if you don't agree with them. One church that a few of us future pastors were at always sang a rotation of about 20 songs. For over 6 months we knew every song. This isn't so bad except that they were "bad" songs--well ten of them were. The four of us refused to sing those ten songs whenever we were in worship. Of course, the church was very performance oriented, and the music was so loud and the lights so dark on the rest of the sanctuary that no one noticed if we didn't sing. So my first response wouldn't be a very good rule of thumb.

I understand, or at least I think I understand your dilemma. I know you pastor, but I don't know how much say you have in the music. I would encourage you or whoever does select the songs to find better songs. I am not thinking about who write the songs most of the time. Only when I have to fill out one of those stupid CCLI song list forms. Find songs that are truthful or at least more truthful that you can sing to. In my colored and dirty lens of viewing things, this alleviates your current problem and starts another problem of finding the songs.

I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree. (I really hate that phrase. :basic02)

If you really hate the phrase, then you wouldn't use it :basic02. All you have to do is agree with me and then you won't have to use this hated phrase -- because you know I'm right 'cuz I'm cool :cool:

But seriously, I really don't think we are disagreeing about that much. I think we're probably a hair breadth's away from each other but that hair has enormous consequences (especially since I shave my head!).;)

[Cindi Hammons]

One church that a few of us future pastors were at always sang a rotation of about 20 songs. For over 6 months we knew every song. This isn't so bad except that they were "bad" songs--well ten of them were.


Okay, this is what I was talking about 100 years ago when I started this thread. What are some of the songs that are considered bad songs, and why. I think it got lost somewhere in the discussion.

So Mike, what are the 20 songs you guys found objectionable? Seriously...I'm very curious. I'm also curious if others have songs like that as well.

[Mike McVey]

Okay, this is what I was talking about 100 years ago when I started this thread. What are some of the songs that are considered bad songs, and why. I think it got lost somewhere in the discussion.

So Mike, what are the 20 songs you guys found objectionable? Seriously...I'm very curious. I'm also curious if others have songs like that as well.

Cindi, I am VERY reluctant to tell you what I think bad songs are because to me, there are so many. What can I say, I'm a picky song picker? But the real reason I'm hesitant is that there are several songs that are considered mainstays, or in other words I say them, someone get offended because that's their favorite song, or that's the song that was sung when they came down to the altar to accept Jesus. Email me and I will make up a list to send you telling you why I have bias against them. I will even include contemporary songs to go with the hymns and pseudo-hymns. Then you can judge for yourself.

mike.w.mcvey@gmail.com

[Charles W Christian]

Hi, folks -
Do you ever run into gender-inclusive issues ("I Will Be My Brother's Keeper;" "Rise Up, O Men of God," etc., etc.)? Sometimes I get annoyed by overly masculine sounding songs (although I am a manly man :basic07). Awhile back we decided that some of the songs on our "rotation" that were from Promise Keepers that were really only about men would only be sung at men's gatherings. This made some things less awkward. :basic01

Anyway, one of the measuring sticks we try to use is, "Do we really believe what we're singing in this song?" We don't over-analyze every song, but that question (usually in hindsight) comes up from time to time, and then we move ahead from there. We look at themes and theology more than style, which means that hymns have just as good of a chance at "making the cut" for Sundays as do contemporary songs, etc.

Like Mike, I sometimes hesitate to give lists: partly because I probably have several that bug me and partly because I want to be open to interpretations and explanations of certain songs that I may not have a personal preference for.

As a musician, I sometimes just get muscially annoyed as much as I get annoyed by words, so I'm an equal opportunity editor! :-)

Sing on.....

Blessings,
Charles

(By the way, Mike, Your blogsite/website "becomingoaks.com", I at first read as "becoming goaks" .com;)). I asked, "How does one become a 'goak' for Jesus?" Your fellow-goak....

Charles

[Mike McVey]

(By the way, Mike, Your blogsite/website "becomingoaks.com", I at first read as "becoming goaks" .com;)). I asked, "How does one become a 'goak' for Jesus?" Your fellow-goak....



Charles, if you don't know what a goak is, I'm not sure that I should tell you.:basic05

[Charles W Christian]

Charles, if you don't know what a goak is, I'm not sure that I should tell you.:basic05

"GOAK"

Giving
Our
All....
Kind of....
==================
Galloping
Onward
Absent of
Kudos
===================
Grabbing
Our
Altar and
Kicking
====================
Glowing
Obstensibly
About
Kindness
=====================
Gabbing
Overwhelmingly
Anywhere
Kinistetically
====================================
Be a GOAK for Jesus....

:cool::basic07

CWC

[Jim Monck]

For example, while I love the chorus of "Glorious Freedom", the version that we sing in our church is somewhat different than what many of you would sing. I've written different verses.

I mean really...can any of us say that we are free from all carnal affection, envy, hatred, strife, vain ambition, pride, folly, evil, temper, fear, care, etc.?


Barbara, Barbara, Barbara!! I can because I am Entirely Sanctified and VERY PROUD OF IT!! I realize those who have not attanted my depth of real spirituality can not and it makes me so mad when they question how humble I am, it just burns me.:o Oh, one more thing, I sure envy all the people who put "thank you" by your post; I have set that as my life goal to get as many as you do. I sure hope a bunch of people will put some by this post, I care about this a lot.:basic07 Maybe I can put some by it myself because I fear I may never catch up with you.:p

[Marsha Lynn]

Jim, I am in awe of your humble spirit here. I would put a thank you on your post but I fear that it would misconstrued to say that my thanks could somehow be of value to someone of your spiritual caliber. Therefore, I will only say that I am not worthy to comment on a post such as this.

Someday, if I try very hard, maybe I can be perfect like you.

:rolleyes:

Marsha

Barbara, Barbara, Barbara!! I can because I am Entirely Sanctified and VERY PROUD OF IT!! I realize those who have not attanted my depth of real spirituality can not and it makes me so mad when they question how humble I am, it just burns me.:o Oh, one more thing, I sure envy all the people who put "thank you" by your post; I have set that as my life goal to get as many as you do. I sure hope a bunch of people will put some by this post, I care about this a lot.:basic07 Maybe I can put some by it myself because I fear I may never catch up with you.:p

[Jim Monck]

Marsha, I just put a "thank you" on your post even though you didn't put one on mine. Man, I must be close to "glorification."

[Charles W Christian]

[QUOTE=Barbara Moulton;97679]
For example, while I love the chorus of "Glorious Freedom", the version that we sing in our church is somewhat different than what many of you would sing. I've written different verses.

I mean really...can any of us say that we are free from all carnal affection, envy, hatred, strife, vain ambition, pride, folly, evil, temper, fear, care, etc.?
QUOTE]

Barbara, Barbara, Barbara!! I can because I am Entirely Sanctified and VERY PROUD OF IT!! I realize those who have not attanted my depth of real spirituality can not and it makes me so mad when they question how humble I am, it just burns me.:o Oh, one more thing, I sure envy all the people who put "thank you" by your post; I have set that as my life goal to get as many as you do. I sure hope a bunch of people will put some by this post, I care about this a lot.:basic07 Maybe I can put some by it myself because I fear I may never catch up with you.:p

I like "Glorious Freedom", especially that line about Jesus, who has "rent my fetters in twain." If you've never had your fetters rent in twain .... well.... you just don't know what your missing.....
:p:basic07

Raising my Ebenezer with twain-rent fetters,
Charles

[David Pettigrew]

[QUOTE=Jim Monck;99473]

I like "Glorious Freedom", especially that line about Jesus, who has "rent my fetters in twain." If you've never had your fetters rent in twain .... well.... you just don't know what your missing.....
:p:basic07

Raising my Ebenezer with twain-rent fetters,
Charles

Try to get your little prayer wheel turning (per "Just a Little Talk with Jesus") while raising your Ebenezer and renting your fetters in twain. I've heard if you can do this for thirty seconds you will be gloriously and instantaneously sanctified wholly.

[Eric Frey]

OK, forgive me if I repeat, but I ran out of time to read the whole 9 page thread. I will share two songs that are problematic. The first is my absolute LEAST favorite "Christian" song. It is not a worship song that is typically, if ever, sung in worship. It was however a very popular and way overplayed (in my estimation) song not too long ago. It is Chris Rice's "Cartoons". It ends with this wonderfully Christian, statement of optimistic grace:

Oh that big old moose and his friend Rocky,
"Bullwinkle-loo-yah"
And our favourite bear named Yogi,
"Hey, Boo-Boo-loo-ya"
Then there's all those little blue guys
And they'd sing, "Hah-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-lay-loo-yah"
How about Beavis and that other guy?
"Nah!!"

---I guess some people are just too bad to be saved.

The other is not such much a pet peave of mine, but was passed on to me by a friend. He is a retired UM pastor who happens to be one of the best organists I know, and has a PhD in Sacred Music from the Catholic Univesity in Paris (I think?). He says that there is no worse example of Church Music than "How Great Thou Art." I was a bit surpized, but then he explained. Hum the song. Every time it talks about I/me/mine, etc the melody soars and becomes lofty and etherial. Everytime it talks about God, the melody plummits to the depths. This, to musicians, is opposite of "good hymn writing." Anyway, just thought I'd pass those two along for comments.

[Cindi Hammons]

Eric,

I have heard others say the How Great Thou Art is a bad hymn, but I never knew their reasoning. Thanks for sharing with us.

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

"To God be The Glory" Our wonder, our transport, when Jesus we see.
"And Can It be" Amazing love, how can it be-that thou my God should die for me.
Is there anyone that thinks these songs are bad? How about what use to sort of be the theme song of the COTN. Our "kids" are missing so much. How about Holiness Forever More. And, I dearly love Jesus, Name Above All Names. Isn't He a wonderful saviour, who can fit us for the "glory land."

[Jim Monck]

OK gang, we have just about eleminated every thing but "Deep and Wide" and "Climb, Climb up Sunshine Mountain."

I'm not going to church until the preacher starts preaching; well after some of the discussions we have had on the theology forum maybe I better just stay home. Well unless I'm preaching.

Actually this is a great reason to push contempry music; I mean how much trouble can you get in singing "Hallelujah" 16 times. (Just teasing!!) Well I better go over to BaptistNet before I get in big trouble.

[Meghan Schoonover]

"And Can It be" Amazing love, how can it be-that thou my God should die for me."

Love that one! :fav18

[Marsha Lynn]

OK, forgive me if I repeat, but I ran out of time to read the whole 9 page thread. I will share two songs that are problematic. The first is my absolute LEAST favorite "Christian" song. It is not a worship song that is typically, if ever, sung in worship. It was however a very popular and way overplayed (in my estimation) song not too long ago. It is Chris Rice's "Cartoons". It ends with this wonderfully Christian, statement of optimistic grace:

Oh that big old moose and his friend Rocky,
"Bullwinkle-loo-yah"
And our favourite bear named Yogi,
"Hey, Boo-Boo-loo-ya"
Then there's all those little blue guys
And they'd sing, "Hah-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-lay-loo-yah"
How about Beavis and that other guy?
"Nah!!"

---I guess some people are just too bad to be saved.

Hi, Eric. I may be out in left field here, but I'm pretty sure "The Cartoon Song" was never intended to be theologically tight on all counts. :basic03 You just gotta take the stated message (people were made to praise the Lord, not cartoons) and enjoy the fun (although it has been around long enough I think we can safely move on now -- my impression from seeing Chris Rice in person is that he wishes he could put it behind him).

I suppose that if we were to do a thorough exegesis of the song, we would need to develop a doctrine of cartoonology. As two-dimensional characters, do cartoon people have the same possibilities of grace as human beings? Do talking animals have souls in the same way that humans do? Can grace reach past the depravity of certain flat characters and find hidden potential within them? Were cartoons created in the image of God? And for that matter, what's God's favorite cartoon? (Oh, wait, that's another Chris Rice song.)

The other is not such much a pet peave of mine, but was passed on to me by a friend. He is a retired UM pastor who happens to be one of the best organists I know, and has a PhD in Sacred Music from the Catholic Univesity in Paris (I think?). He says that there is no worse example of Church Music than "How Great Thou Art." I was a bit surpized, but then he explained. Hum the song. Every time it talks about I/me/mine, etc the melody soars and becomes lofty and etherial. Everytime it talks about God, the melody plummits to the depths. This, to musicians, is opposite of "good hymn writing." Anyway, just thought I'd pass those two along for comments.

Well, when I sing "How Great Thou Art" I perceive the low-tone praise as introducing a sense of awe. As my soul soars with praise for our great Creator, I humbly bow in His presence and murmur, "How great-great-great You, my God and my Creator, are. You are all, I am yours. All the glory belongs to you." My praise is intended for God himself and he hears my slightest whisper. I don't have to shout it from the rooftops and call attention to my praising. Being seen and heard is not the purpose of my praise. My focus is on God himself when I speak words of praise, and pure awe softens and lowers my tone. I can barely speak at all in view of His grandeur.

But, then, I don't have a degree in music from anywhere, and I'm not necessarily going to fight for "How Great Thou Art" to make the "enduring favorites that we'll hang onto forever" list. It's probably in my top 100 favorite worship songs of all time, but not in the top 25 by any means.

Marsha

[David Pettigrew]

Church musicians correct me if I'm wrong on this.

A rule of thumb is that any song containing the words "I", "Me", "My" or "Mine" is a gospel song or song of testimony. It is not a hymn. "Victory in Jesus" and "My Soul is Filled With Glory" fall into that category.

Any song with "we" or "ours" ("We Praise Thee, O God, Our Redeemer", "Our Great Savior") or corporately expressed to God ("Great is Thy Faithfulness") is a hymn. That's because hymns are meant to be sung collectively by the community of Christ, not individually. Our "hymnal" contains very few hymns. We rarely sing the ones it does have.

Some songs that are familiar to us are sung in other traditions, but they change the words to make them corporate. For instance, I sang "Heavenly Sunlight" in the Episcopal church. In our hymnal, the chorus goes like this:

Heavenly sunlight, heavenly sunlight,
Flooding my soul with glory divine!
Hallelujah! I am rejoicing, Singing His praises. Jesus is mine.

In the Episcopal church, they changed it thusly:
Heavenly sunlight, heavenly sunlight,
Flooding our souls with glory ablaze:
Hallelujah, we are rejoicing,
Thankful for blessing, singing our praise.

I like their version!

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

Choruses are beautiful, but most of them do not tell the OLD, OLD STORY of Jesus and His Love. We are raising a generation of young people that do not know the beautiful hymns that were so God inspired. Many choruses are so repetitious and tiring...in my opinion.

[Ryan Scott]

We sand "A Mighty Fortress is our God" this morning. I love the music, but the lyrics are pretty poor from a Wesleyan theological standpoint. I wouldn't say contrary, but certainly not ideal.

[Brad Mercer]

We sand "A Mighty Fortress is our God" this morning. I love the music, but the lyrics are pretty poor from a Wesleyan theological standpoint. I wouldn't say contrary, but certainly not ideal.

I'm starting to agree with whoever it was a few posts back who suggested that it would be nice to wind up in this thread with a list of songs that could be agreed upon as theologically acceptable, rather than just a critique of what's wrong with all of them.

The Doxology okay?
How about It Is Well With My Soul?
How Firm A Foundation?
There is a Fountain?
His Grace is Sufficient? (Oh, know, that ones says "me").

Brad

[Ryan Scott]

I thought of "It is Well" this morning in worship. It's a very powerful song.

[Cindi Hammons]

Anne,

I'm not sure...what is this "old, old, story" that you are referring to? If you mean old, old, songs...you are right, we are raising our children with new songs for worship. But, I'm don't think this "old, old, story" is being ignored.

Here is a praise song/chorus that pretty much tells what I think of as the old, old, story.

In Christ Alone

In Christ alone my hope is found
He is my light, my strength my song
This cornerstone, this solid ground
Firm through the fiercest drought and storm

What heights of love, what depth of peace
When fears are stilled, when striving cease
My comforter, my all in all
Here in the love of Christ I stand.


In Christ alone who took on flesh
Fullness of God in helpless babe
This gift of love and righteousness
Scorned by the ones He came to save

Till on that cross, as Jesus died
The wrath of God was satisfied (I know, we've already talked about this line)
For every sin on Him was laid
Here in the death of Christ I live


There in the ground His body lay
Light of the world by darkness slain
Then bursting forth in glorious day
Up from the grave He rose again

And as He stands in victory
Sin’s curse has lost its grip on me
For I am His and He is mine
Bought with the precious blood of Christ


No guilt in life, not fear in death
This is the power of Christ in me
From life’s first cry to final breath
Jesus commands my destiny

No power of hell, no scheme of man
Can ever pluck me from His hand
Till He returns or calls me home
Here in the power of Christ I stand

[Ryan Scott]

That might be a better idea. If people took turns posting the lyrics to a particular song and we discussed the beauty and the theological issues contained therein.

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

Cindi, that was not a chorus. It is a beautiful song.

[Gary Swartzlander]

Choruses are beautiful, but most of them do not tell the OLD, OLD STORY of Jesus and His Love. We are raising a generation of young people that do not know the beautiful hymns that were so God inspired. Many choruses are so repetitious and tiring...in my opinion.

Is not the story of Jesus and His Love new everyday? Is it not possible that this Love is expressed as a NEW, NEW STORY that is expressed in many new and equally God inspired songs?

Once again, many choruses (however they are definded) are dismissed, not because of the message they contain, but because they "are so repetitious and tiring". That's sound Theological reasoning.

[Cindi Hammons]

Most people call any songs not in the hymnal "choruses," so I wasn't sure what your definition was. I prefer to call them praise songs, although I confess to slipping and calling them choruses. I could pick out many other "choruses" that are beautiful songs that do the job as well.

I believe this one fits the "chorus" definition.

You Are My King

I’m forgiven
Because You were forsaken
I’m accepted,
You were condemned,
I’m alive and well,
Your Spirit is within me,
Because You died and rose again.

Amazing love,
How can it be
That You my King should die for me?
Amazing love,
I know it’s true,
It’s my joy to honor You.
In all I do,
I honor You!

You are my King!
You are my King!
Jesus, You are my King!
You are my King!

Now one chorus that I agree is flat and shallow is this one that we sang while I was growing up...

Allelujah
Allelujah
Allelujah
Allelujah
Allelujah
Allelujah
Allelujah
Allelujah

Words and Music: Jerry Sinclair, 1972 from the Nazarene Hymnal.

New choruses do not have the market on repitition and shallow lyrics. I agree with you that some of the shorter, repetitive choruses are shallow...but we choose not to sing them...in the same way we choose not to sing some of the songs in the hymnal.

[Ryan Scott]

I said it earlier on this thread. We could just call them all songs.

[David Pettigrew]

Now one chorus that I agree is flat and shallow is this one that we sang while I was growing up...

Allelujah
Allelujah
Allelujah
Allelujah
Allelujah
Allelujah
Allelujah
Allelujah

Words and Music: Jerry Sinclair, 1972 from the Nazarene Hymnal.

New choruses do not have the market on repitition and shallow lyrics. I agree with you that some of the shorter, repetitive choruses are shallow...but we choose not to sing them...in the same way we choose not to sing some of the songs in the hymnal.

How about this old favorite -

God is so good / God is so good / God is so good / He's so good to me
I love Him so...
He answers prayer...
I'll praise His name...

Who knew repeating four words over and over could seem like eternity? To pass the time while we sang this in church, I used to substitute my own words to entertain those in the pew next to me. "I stubbed my toe..." or "Satan is bad...He's so bad to me"

[Marsha Lynn]

New choruses do not have the market on repitition and shallow lyrics.

Ain't THAT the truth! One of my favorite examples is, "Blessed Be the Name" (#116 in Sing to the Lord). It starts out with "O for a Thousand Tongues to Sing" by Charles Wesley, drops half of the lyrics of that great song (the second phrase of every couplet) and adds in 24(!) repetitions of "Blessed be the name of the Lord" -- twice in each of three verses plus six more times in each refrain. And that's one of the grand old songs of the church.

Church musicians correct me if I'm wrong on this.

A rule of thumb is that any song containing the words "I", "Me", "My" or "Mine" is a gospel song or song of testimony. It is not a hymn. "Victory in Jesus" and "My Soul is Filled With Glory" fall into that category.

I've heard this, but I don't agree with it. Comparing "Blessed Be the Name" to "O for a Thousand Tongues to Sing" illustrates the difference perfectly for me. Most of the words occur in both songs, but "O for a Thousand Tongues to Sing" is a hymn, a serious song that has purpose in each line. In contrast, "Blessed Be the Name" is a gospel song, a bouncy tune, a refrain to be repeated between every verse, something you can clap to at campmeeting. Even though it is directed toward God, I would never call it a hymn. If the official definition classifies it as a hymn then we need other terms to communicate the vast difference between the genres to which these two songs belong.

The difference seems completely obvious to me, but I have yet to convey it to another person. We have an elderly gospel pianist in our congregation and in our music planning meeting were looking for songs she could play on a Sunday when I'll be gone. No one seemed to be able to understand that saying she plays the old gospel songs doesn't mean "Be Thou My Vision" is one of the choices. Yes, it's old. No, it is not a gospel song. I think I need to get a copy of the old "Tabernacle Hymns" songbook. I would guess this lady can play every song in the book.

Marsha

[Ryan Scott]

Most of the words occur in both songs, but "O for a Thousand Tongues to Sing" is a hymn, a serious song that has purpose in each line. In contrast, "Blessed Be the Name" is a gospel song, a bouncy tune, a refrain to be repeated between every verse, something you can clap to at campmeeting.


I actually got an explanation for this in one of my classes. A lot of Wesley hymns were amended like this in the US during the 1800's because on the frontier people lacked hymnals and apparently learning all the words to four verses of a Wesley hymn was too difficult, so they took a few shorter phrases and paired them with a repeating refrain (ie Blessed Be the Name).

Now, while I appreciate the ingenuity, I don't think we need to keep using them now that we have other ways of communicating the original songs.

[Marsha Lynn]

I said it earlier on this thread. We could just call them all songs.

I'll try that in our next music-planning meeting:

Someone: "What can we sing when Maxyne plays?"

Me: "Oh, she knows a lot of the songs in the hymnal."

Someone: "Which songs?"

Me: "A lot of them!"
------------------

Someone: "We need another song for this week."

Me: "Well, we have one old slow song and one new slow song and one song that repeats itself a lot and one new fast song. It's probably time for an old fast song that people who have been around the church a long time know well."

Yep, I guess that will work, but if we could find labels for various types of music to spare us the trouble of defining each type every time we want to refer to it, it seems like it would be a good use of our language skills. I could refer to my favorite music for listening as "songs introduced in the recent past that have thoughtful lyrics concerning living the Christian life performed with rhythm instruments and vocals" or I could say "contemporary Christian music". Which would give you a better idea of the type of music to which I refer?

Just think of all the definition effort we're spared by having the word "baroque" in our vocabulary. Does "a style of music characterized by complex rhythms and melodic ornamentation" (World Book dictionary definition of baroque) really give you the tools to distinguish Bach from Louis Armstrong?

Just throwing out a jab or two. Maybe you're right and "songs" would do most of the time.

:fav12

Marsha

[Ryan Scott]

Just throwing out a jab or two. Maybe you're right and "songs" would do most of the time.


Or we could all actually learn the names of the "songs." That might help.

[Marsha Lynn]

Or we could all actually learn the names of the "songs." That might help.

I'm not sure what you mean. Are you suggesting that when someone asks what songs Maxyne knows, I recite a list?

Leaning on the Everlasting Arms
Victory in Jesus
There's Power in the Blood
'Tis So Sweet to Trust in Jesus
Lily of the Valley
He Brought Me Out
Heavenly Sunlight
Love Lifted Me
Redeemed
Since Jesus Came into My Heart
Such Love
In My Heart There Rings a Melody
It's Just Like Jesus
... etc. etc. etc.

Again, I'm thinking that if we could come up with a word that would cover that entire genre of old-fashioned campmeeting music from which I am drawing my list, it would certainly be a good use of language.

Marsha

[David Pettigrew]

Again, I'm thinking that if we could come up with a word that would cover that entire genre of old-fashioned campmeeting music from which I am drawing my list, it would certainly be a good use of language.

Marsha

How about "Nazersongs"? Not the be confused the "Nazercise", our sanctioned version of dancing without moving your feet.

[Ryan Scott]

our sanctioned version of dancing without moving your feet.

I thought that was called "white guy dancing."

[David Pettigrew]

I thought that was called "white guy dancing."

Well, when I grew up in the church, "Nazarene" and "white guy" pretty much amounted to the same thing. We even had our own version of "Jesus Loves the Little Children" -

"Jesus Loves the Nazarenes, All the Nazarenes of the World;
White and white and white and white..."

Man, if only there was a Nazarene stand up comedy club. I could give up this preaching thing and make some real money. Hmm, now my wheels are starting to turn...:basic03

[Billy Cox]

A rule of thumb is that any song containing the words "I", "Me", "My" or "Mine" is a gospel song or song of testimony. It is not a hymn. "Victory in Jesus" and "My Soul is Filled With Glory" fall into that category.



Yeah, that's pretty accurate, except that songs like 'And Can It Be' are hymns just by virtue of the them being engraved on the stone tablets that Moses brought down from Mt. Sinai.

[David Pettigrew]

Yeah, that's pretty accurate, except that songs like 'And Can It Be' are hymns just by virtue of the them being en