Hymns aren't just "Good Old Days" nostalgia

[JD Sherrow]

During the last 35 years, in an effort to change with the times, there has been a major point of confusion in the church world. Basically, “WORSHIP” experience and “CHURCH” experience have been treated as one and the same. However, they are not the same.

How do they differ? “WORSHIP” is content and substance; “CHURCH” is format and agenda.

The “CHURCH” experience we are familiar with today hasn’t always been. E.g. Sunday school began in early 19th century England to make up for the lack of public school education for poor children. That certainly isn’t the case today. Another example; my grandfather died in 1972. He had been a Christian for 50 years. If he’d been told that just a generation after his death, Sunday School; Wednesday Prayer Meeting; Sunday evening evangelistic service would be gone, he wouldn’t have believed it. However, that is a reality today.

The list is too long to detail here, but there are at least 20 things that were a part of my 65+ year “CHURCH” experience that have disappeared.

History has proven two things:
1. The “CHURCH” experience will always be in a state of change;
2. Even with change the church survives and goes on.

However, having said all that, with the inevitable “CHURCH” experience changes in format and agenda, the “WORSHIP” experience must never change. The content and substance must “forever and amen” be based on God and His word.

Quoting Robert K. Brown, author of “The One Year Book of Hymns.”

“From the earliest days of the church, the singing of hymns has been an integral part of Christian worship. In Acts 16:25 Paul and Silas sang hymns to God while in the Philippian jail. Paul admonished believers in Ephesians 5:19 “to speak to one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs.” King David composed numerous psalms expressing personal and corporate praise. Centuries later, translations of the psalms would provide the nurturing cradle for the English hymnody of Charles Wesley and Isaac Watts…hymns we still sing 250 years later.”

In Wesley and Watts’ day, singing hymns was an important means for teaching Christian truth and doctrine in a church that was largely illiterate. Today’s church is not illiterate, but it IS ignorant of too much Biblical truth and a lot of doctrine. Along with being a means to express praise to our Creator and Savior, hymn singing is vital as a way of disseminating knowledge.

For daily devotions, the Bible is the #1 book. For #2, there is no better resource than the hymnbook. There are sections on Biblical truth, doctrine, and every human condition.

Quoting Kenneth Osbeck from his devotional book, “AMAZING GRACE,” “Through the ages, devout believers from every Christian community have responded to God and His inspired revelation with their own expressions. The church hymnal, a most important heritage of the Christian church, is one of the finest collections of man’s thoughts and feelings about God. When these choice responses are further enhanced with appropriate melodies, harmonies, and rhythms, there exists a reservoir of unusual spiritual strength and encouragement.”

This is why this article is titled, “HYMNS AREN’T JUST GOOD OLD DAYS NOSTALGIA.” It is why I am an advocate of hymns. As the “CHURCH” experience continues to modify and change, my generation has very little influence on any Sunday’s worship content.

[Jeremy D. Scott]

JD -

Can you help me understand the difference as you see it between a "hymn" and a "chorus"?

[JD Sherrow]

Jeremy,

A hymn has verses and a chorus.
A chorus has no verses.

Since my article never mentioned "chorus" I'm a little suspicious that your question is a loaded one. Where are you headed with it?

[Wilson L. Deaton]

Jeremy,

A hymn has verses and a chorus.
A chorus has no verses.

Since my article never mentioned "chorus" I'm a little suspicious that your question is a loaded one. Where are you headed with it?

While you don't say it, one can't help but wonder if you aren't contrasting "hymns" with the other music we sing in churches. If that is indeed the case, based on the approach you are taking, what exactly makes a "hymn" a "hymn" and a more contemporary song (complete with versus but not in our hymnal) not be a hymn?

Wilson

[Jeremy D. Scott]

No, your first post in this thread doesn't use the word "chorus." But you seem to present a perceived disparity between hymns and "something else." Usually, that something else is labeled a chorus.

And you speak of hymns generationally - as if they are somehow bound by a certain time period.

One of my community's favorite songs to sing right now is a hymn. It is called In Christ Alone and is a contemporary song. With the exception of one line that I'm not a big fan of (that I actually change when we sing it) in the second stanza, it is theologically solid. Great song!

While not related to my question, you also wrote of Wesley and his hymns (you also mentioned Watts, but I don't know as much about him). Charles Wesley (and to a degree, John) wrote the hymns as a method of teaching doctrine and unity. But they weren't primarily written for the worship experience. It's important to remember that the Wesleys strongly advocated that the Methodists continue to worship regularly in the Anglican Church. The society, bands, and classes who sang the hymns together were not primarily worship gatherings.

Also, you state that the worship experience must never change.
The worship experience must change.

While I'm fairly certain that you don't assume this, your post seems to limit worship to music. I hold that music has always been and most likely will always be the greatest form of human expression. But it is not and never has been the only form of human expression. While the worship experience often lends itself to teaching moments (and many other things - evangelism, fellowship, etc.), it is first and foremost the expression of human emotion to God.

As such, we, as the Church, must seek and affirm the ways in which our current culture and society best expresses its emotion and feelings and work it into our worship experiences. While many of the non-negotiables of our theology may never change (the Trinity, salvation, sanctification, etc.), the methods by which we sing and teach these beautiful truths must. This includes "style" (I can't believe I said it), but also includes terminology.

Paul says something about this...

Man, I agree with you that we need to do a much better job of teaching the essence of our faith today and in the future. I just don't think that this means we need to hold on to the methods of the past.

Lastly, I know that a lot of what you and others from your generation see going on in the Church today is threatening. (Much of it is to me too!) Anyone who tells you that the worship experience that leads you to the throne of God (hymns, organs, harmonicas, whatever) is a farce or a mirage is just plain wrong. But I believe that the priority of your heart is the Word of God (that is, the message of God). I challenge us all to affirm whatever it takes to remember (that is, recollect, regather), to affirm (uphold), and manifest this message.

[JD Sherrow]

Wilson, you asked, "While you don't say it, one can't help but wonder if you aren't contrasting "hymns" with the other music we sing in churches."

You are correct. But by implication, I am very clear in my article that the contrast is hymns and ANY other form of music.

You ask, "If that is indeed the case, based on the approach you are taking, what exactly makes a "hymn" a "hymn"

Go back and re-read my article. The quotes from Robert K. Brown and Kenneth Osbeck are crystal clear regarding hymns.

Lastly, you ask, "and a more contemporary song (complete with verses but not in our hymnal) not be a hymn?"

Again, go back to my article. A contemporary song with verses would not fit Brown and Osbecks' definition.

[JD Sherrow]

Jeremy, you said with emphasis, "The worship experience must change."

Your statement illustrates the first paragraphs of my article, "During the last 35 years, in an effort to change with the times, there has been a major point of confusion in the church world. Basically, “WORSHIP” experience and “CHURCH” experience have been treated as one and the same. However, they are not the same. How do they differ? “WORSHIP” is content and substance; “CHURCH” is format and agenda.

You are confusing CHURCH and WORSHIP.

“WORSHIP” experience must never change. The content and substance must “forever and amen” be based on God and His word.

So I am guessing that by my definition, you don't really advocate changing worship to something not based on God and His word.

And before the inevitable question, What is worship? Here is what I use.

The word "worship" is a contraction of an old English expression, "woerth-scipe." It denotes the giving of reverent praise to an object of superlative worth.

True worship is an act by a redeemed man, the creature, toward God, his Creator, whereby his will, intellect, and emotions gratefully respond to the revelation of God’s person expressed in the redemptive work of Jesus Christ, as the Holy Spirit illuminates the written word to his heart.

What does it mean to worship? An unknown author wrote, "It is

-a quickening of the conscience by the holiness of God;
-a feeding of the mind with the truth of God;
-an opening of the heart to the love of God;
-and a devoting of the will to the purpose of God."

If any of these are missing, the fact of the matter, and the bottom line is this…there is no worship.

John Newton wrote Amazing Grace. But a line from another of his hymns sums it up about worship.

"Weak is the effort of my heart, and cold my warmest thought;
But when I see You as You are, I’ll praise You as I ought."

[Billy Cox]

Jeremy,

A hymn has verses and a chorus.
A chorus has no verses.

Since my article never mentioned "chorus" I'm a little suspicious that your question is a loaded one. Where are you headed with it?

By this definition, nearly all contemporary worship songs are hymns since they have verses and a chorus.

I would suggest that the content of hymns is either about God or is sung to God. In contrast, the content of a gospel song is about my experience of God and is sung to other people. With those definitions, there are both contemporary and traditional songs that fit each definition.

The lines between musical styles aren't quite so distinct as they were 20 years ago.

[JD Sherrow]

Billy,

This was Jeremy's question to me, "Can you help me understand the difference as you see it between a "hymn" and a "chorus?"

I gave him the definition from my day...the difference as I see it.

I quoted Brown and Osbeck in my article so that it was very clear that I meant hymns in the classic sense.

Attempts keep being made on Reply Posts to put words in my mouth about what I mean or don't mean. Historians mark 1970 as a major turning point in evangelical worship. Therefore, my rule of thumb for definition of music types is anything written since 1970 is "Contemporary."

[Billy Cox]

Billy,

This was Jeremy's question to me, "Can you help me understand the difference as you see it between a "hymn" and a "chorus?"

I gave him the definition from my day...the difference as I see it.

I quoted Brown and Osbeck in my article so that it was very clear that I meant hymns in the classic sense.

Attempts keep being made on Reply Posts to put words in my mouth about what I mean or don't mean. Historians mark 1970 as a major turning point in evangelical worship. Therefore, my rule of thumb for definition of music types is anything written since 1970 is "Contemporary."

The only point on which we may differ is that I believe many contemporary worship songs are just as hymnlike as anything written by Isaac Watts or John Wesley.

Hymn writing didn't stop in 1970.

[JD Sherrow]

Billy, you said, "The only point on which we may differ is that I believe many contemporary worship songs are just as hymnlike as anything written by Isaac Watts or John Wesley."

Hymnlike is the key word. Since they have been written in recent years, they can never be classic hymns.

"Hymn writing didn't stop in 1970." Your words, not mine.
I said, "Historians mark 1970 as a major turning point in evangelical worship."

Quoting Robert E. Webber, Professor of Ministry, Northern Seminary, Wheaton College

"One of the most controversial revolutions in the church has been the recent changes in worship. Between 1900 and 1970 most churches had settled into the model of traditional worship handed down in their denomination or fellowship. There was little pressure to change until the music revolution of the 50s, the rise of the hippie movement in the 60s, and the emergence of the Jesus Movement in the 70s.

The Jesus Movement, influenced by the music revolution and the hippie revolution, introduced music-driven casual worship, and the church has been in an uproar ever since."

[Roland Hearn]

JD I would really like to not put words in your mouth.
Are you saying that God stopped inspiring music after 1970?
Are you suggesting that what the bible mentions as hymns is intended to communicate the music style and lyric patterns of the music written between the 18th and the early 20th century?
I sensed that you were affirming both of those ideas in your posts.
The early contemporary music of the late 60's and early 70's was for the most part very simple and childlike. There wasn't much theology but there was lots of praise. Most people grew tired of it within a few years and it went the way it should have. We sing only contemporary music in our services. We use only songs that have verses and choruses.
Everyone of them meets these requirements
-a quickening of the conscience by the holiness of God;
-a feeding of the mind with the truth of God;
-an opening of the heart to the love of God;
-and a devoting of the will to the purpose of God."
Using anecdotal evidence which is always popular in these types of threads my parents, both in their early 70's and Christians for more than 50 years and very early members of the Church of the Nazarene in Australia, suggest that they would never go back to those cold old hymns after experiencing the worship of these new hymns. They love the old songs but they have lost their impact. This new hymnology does indeed teach including concepts like the Trinity. It does transform and people find themselves mulling over deep truths as they re-sing them throughout the week. JD, I am sure that the truth is you care deeply about your family, your church and the message of the gospel. What you are saying reflects a desire to see the impact that you have experienced and that you know God desires to give. I want that to.
If you can read what I wrote about the lives of men being transformed in a previous post and say to your self that you never want to see that if it means embracing a new hymnology then I don’t know where to go with this thread.

[Barbara Moulton]

The only point on which we may differ is that I believe many contemporary worship songs are just as hymnlike as anything written by Isaac Watts or John Wesley.

Hymn writing didn't stop in 1970.

You bet! And I would much rather sing a modern hymn like "Shout to the Lord" or "In Christ Alone" than classic hymns like "Bringing in the Sheaves" and "In the Sweet By and By".

[John Kennedy]

One of the things that continually muddies the waters in these discussions is the tendency to refer to refer to 'gospel songs', which are generally focused more on our experience in the faith as hymns, which are generally more focused on God's attributes and, in many cases, addressed to Him.

A great deal of the contemporary praise music is, thus, more 'hymn-like' than a lot of the late 19th-early 20th century 'gospel songs'. Another hymn-like aspect of some of the praise music was it's being addressed to God - not a recunting of my experience and feeling but a song of adoration, praise, and petition. A pastor with whom I once worked referred to it as 'second person' music.

As such, in the blended music format we used, we would frequently use it to respond to Scripture, prayer or would combine it with a hymn. And the combination seemed to resonate with those worshiping - you might almost say we experienced the presence of the Holy Spirit.

[Barb Bouldrey]

I agree with Billy and Barbara. There are contemporary hymns.

I was taught that hymns were songs sung to God and spiritual songs were songs about myself. By that definition, "Amazing Grace" is not a hymn, but a spiritual song of testimony.

"He Never Has Failed Me Yet" is a testimony SONG.
"My Wonderful Lord" is a hymn.
And I worship when I sing both.

"Breathe" and "You are My All in All" are just as much hymns to me as the old hymns. I worship with those, too.

Worship music is what makes me worship. Every song and hymn we sing does not help me worship...some old, some new. Some old songs are just plain silly to me and some new songs/choruses are just plain silly to me.

I am just so thankful that God created music and still gifts people with the ability to write songs that help me worship.

Barb

[Jeremy D. Scott]

You are confusing CHURCH and WORSHIP.


I really should let this thread go without me from this point, but I want to respond to this statement:
No, I don't think I am confusing church and worship.

I could explain, but I think I already have.

“WORSHIP” experience must never change. The content and substance must “forever and amen” be based on God and His word.

So I am guessing that by my definition, you don't really advocate changing worship to something not based on God and His word.
Certainly, but I also don't advocate a position that says worship only occurs within the usage of songs written between the seventeenth and mid-20th centuries.

John 4 is foundational for me in speaking of worship. Can I paraphrase?

Jesus sits down with a Samaritan woman, who knows for sure that true worship only occurs on a certain mountain. She knows that Jesus, as a Jew would say that true worship only occurs at the Temple. And as she states this very rigid view regarding the method of worship, Jesus counterpoints to this effect:
"You don't get it. God doesn't care about the method by which you worship. All God wants is people who truthfully worship with their whole heart and soul."

That's what we "need" in the worship gathering. We don't need hymns to worship. We don't need choruses to worship.

It's no wonder that I have peers and family who won't come or return to the Church because they read stuff in scripture like the above passage and then, on going to experience that authentic and truthful community, only come to find people who insist that authenticity must happen within the parameters previously set.

God help us.

(JD, thanks for helping me better understand my own view on worship, even if only a little bit better. If you're ever in the Northeast, I'd invite you to come and worship with our community. I think we'd see more eye-to-eye.)

[Barb Bouldrey]

Points of Interest:

1. Charles and John Wesley hymns were NEW at one time. They were not given to Adam in the garden of Eden. They are clasics NOW. And not all of their hymns survived time.

2. Some hymns written in 2006 WILL BE CLASSICS someday. Not all of them will survive time.

3. Fill My Cup, Learning to Lean and He Touched Me were brand new in the 60's. Now they are classic songs and classic choruses.

To say that today's hymns will never be clasics would only be true if Christ returns within the next 20 years. Otherwise, what is new today will be classic in 20 years.

And, by the way...I am a Baby Boomer, age 59. I have learned to enjoy all types and eras of worship music..hymns, spiritual songs and choruses. I am still having trouble truly enjoying a lot of Blue Grass Gospel, but even that has a song now and then that speaks to me.

Barb

[Bruce Carriker]

1. Jeremy doesn't ask "loaded" questions. That's not his style. Me on the other hand, you have to watch out for.

2. Nothing in either Brown's or Osbeck's statements precludes contemporary music from being considered hymnody.

3. Church is a body of believers if you're talking local...all believers if you're talking the universal church. Worship is not just what the church does on the first day of the week, or the Sabbath, or whatever day they do it. Worship is how the church lives. We set time apart for specific purposes, but that alone is not all that comprises worship.

4. I'm not sure which historians you're quoting when you say "historians" use 1970 as some line of demarcation between worship and "not worship".

5. While I'm sure there are broader meanings, for a simple, straightforward approach to use of the words, I sure like Billy's definition of what is a hymn and what is a gospel song.

[Gerald Spear]

J.D.

I am of your generation and agree with your concerns, but, you are exchanging post with younger "post modern" individual who have come up with the secret to changing worship to whatever will be attractive to " post moderns" at the expense of whoever does not agree.

[Barbara Moulton]

J.D.

I am of your generation and agree with your concerns, but, you are exchanging post with younger "post modern" individual who have come up with the secret to changing worship to whatever will be attractive to " post moderns" at the expense of whoever does not agree.

It's good to see that we are avoiding stereotypes and generalizations in our discussions.

Blessings,
Barbara

[David Cash]

I'm beginning to wonder if what we do in church is worship in the first place. I understand the idea of giving reverent praise to an object of superlative worth. I've also heard worship defined as ascribing worth.

I can't help but think of Jesus' words about true worshippers worshiping in spirit and truth. Is worship really making sounds, or is it something that happens in my heart? I realize I'm challenging the accepted definitions, but it is a question that I think is worth asking.

Oh, and for the record, I'm not suggesting that the things we do in church Sunday morning need major changing. I'm just wondering if worship doesn't go a lot deeper than stirring up a set of emotions or saying/singing worshipful things. Is it possible that we substitute acts of "worship" for heart worship?

David Cash

[Gary Swartzlander]

Your post brought this "contemporary" song to mind. This has been a very important piece of music to me.

"The Heart of Worship"

"When the music fades
All is stripped away
And I simply come
Longing just to bring
Something that's of worth
That will bless Your heart
I'll bring You more than a song
For a song in itself
Is not what You have required
You search much deeper within
Through the way things appear
You're looking into my heart

I'm coming back to the heart of worship
And it's all about You,
It's all about You, Jesus
I'm sorry, Lord, for the things I've made it
When it's all about You,
It's all about You, Jesus

King of endless worth
No one could express
How much You deserve
Though I'm weak and poor
All I have is Yours
Every single breath
I'll bring You more than a song
For a song in itself
Is not what You have required
You search much deeper within
Through the way things appear
You're looking into my heart

I'm coming back to the heart of worship
And it's all about You,
It's all about You, Jesus
I'm sorry, Lord, for the things I've made it
And it's all about You,
It's all about You, Jesus"

[Roland Hearn]

J.D.

I am of your generation and agree with your concerns, but, you are exchanging post with younger "post modern" individual who have come up with the secret to changing worship to whatever will be attractive to " post moderns" at the expense of whoever does not agree.

Gerald I said something a little earlier in another thread that I didn't really think through and I was focusing on a particular mental image I had. It wasn't particularly kind and it was fairly dismissive. I really did need to apoloize for that comment. It is nice to see I am not the only one that can say things that might need to be retracted.

[Bruce Carriker]

It's good to see that we are avoiding stereotypes and generalizations in our discussions.

Blessings,
Barbara

:basic05 :fav18 ;)

[JD Sherrow]

J.D.

I am of your generation and agree with your concerns, but, you are exchanging post with younger "post modern" individual who have come up with the secret to changing worship to whatever will be attractive to " post moderns" at the expense of whoever does not agree.

Yes sir, Gerald, I knew the "congregation" was primarily Boomers and Gen Xrs.

In the 1990s I attended a Nazarene church that was started in 1928. It was as typical of a Midwest Church of the Nazarene as you would find, and as such, was "conventional" in worship content. As expected, we sang hymns every Sunday morning. One week the Minister of Music went to a Worship Seminar at Christ Church, Nashville. There he was "educated" about contemporary worship. The next Sunday he stopped cold using hymns altogether and we never sang another one for the next two years. And after that it was on a rare occasion.

Obviously, as time has proven, this was not an isolated case. Praise music has completely replaced hymns. My generation had no say. We were simply expected to accept it.

This is what I found amusing. In my original post I pointed out the lack of Trinity doctrine and weak theology of the Top 25 praise songs. I didn't suggest, hint, or otherwise say that praise music should be eliminated...as hymns were! I simply challenged their use. Yet, the Boomers rose up in defense like a mother protecting her young.

I was born only 26 years after Phineas Bresee died. My folks took me to church when I was two weeks old. The Nazarene church I grew up in was formed in 1926. I have literally grown up in and with the Church of the Nazarene. I've been a part of revolutionary days in its life. The midwestern states were key in the formation of the denomination. I live 30 miles from Chicago First Church which is 100 years old. There are Nazarene churches a few hours south of me where Bresee actually preached in.

Now, I know that God or the General Superintendents don't need me to defend the denomination, but here are our first three Articles of Faith:

1. We believe in one eternally existent, infinite God...that He, as God, is Triune in essential being...
2. We believe in Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Triune Godhead...
3. We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Triune Godhead...

The reality is that the major teaching opportunity is Sunday morning service; And that has been reduced to music and the pastor's sermon.

I ask you to look at my post, "Where has the Trinity gone? for the conclusion to this dissertation.

[Gina Stevenson]

Thanks, Billy. You said it well, so I don't have to (was going to, until I saw your post "splaining" the difference). Hadn't heard that the definition had changed, so think this traditional view still stands. Yes, some of what I've written are "songs" (which often do have both verses/choruses ;)) ... some other things I've written are "hymns." ;)

By this definition, nearly all contemporary worship songs are hymns since they have verses and a chorus.

I would suggest that the content of hymns is either about God or is sung to God. In contrast, the content of a gospel song is about my experience of God and is sung to other people. With those definitions, there are both contemporary and traditional songs that fit each definition.

The lines between musical styles aren't quite so distinct as they were 20 years ago.

[Gina Stevenson]

Thanks for this definition of worship, and also John Newton's quote at the bottom here.

However, there was, in another post, a statement about anything written since 1970 is considered "contemporary." Depends ... depends on whether it's written in the "contemporary style." Hey, I've written a thing or two since 1970 that sounds much older in style ... don't think "four-part choral counterpoint" (where parts come in at different times) would be considered "contemporary." HA! But, I do understand what you meant ... there's definitely a different style the last couple of decades or so in the majority of what's been written. 'Have even written some of that sort myself, too. ;)

blessings,

PS * hope you don't mind if I borrow John Newton's quote for awhile, since you're not using it in your sig, tho' you did post it here. ;) gs

[quote=JD Sherrow]What does it mean to worship? An unknown author wrote, "It is

-a quickening of the conscience by the holiness of God;
-a feeding of the mind with the truth of God;
-an opening of the heart to the love of God;
-and a devoting of the will to the purpose of God."

If any of these are missing, the fact of the matter, and the bottom line is this…there is no worship.

John Newton wrote Amazing Grace. But a line from another of his hymns sums it up about worship.

"Weak is the effort of my heart, and cold my warmest thought;
But when I see You as You are, I’ll praise You as I ought."

[Bruce Carriker]

This is what I found amusing. In my original post I pointed out the lack of Trinity doctrine and weak theology of the Top 25 praise songs. I didn't suggest, hint, or otherwise say that praise music should be eliminated...as hymns were! I simply challenged their use. Yet, the Boomers rose up in defense like a mother protecting her young.



Actually, JD, I don't think most of the folks who "rose up in defense" were Boomers. I think most of them were GenExers.

And what you did was a challenge, so much as an attack. You did was construct a strawman, so you could deconstruct the strawman to "prove" your point, which was in fact, no point at all.

Pretending that words like Lord, King, Master, Savior ignore the Trinity since they don't specifically say Father, Son, or Holy Ghost is...sorry if this offends...ridiculous at best, at worst disengenuos.

Your criteria allow for no other words than Father, Son, or Holy Spirit. By your criteria, here are some songs that have serious theological problems:

The Old Rugged Cross - no mention of the Holy Spirit, no use of Father, Son, or Holy Spirit in the title.

And Can It Be - no mention of the Holy Spirit, no use of Father, Son, or Holy Spirit in the title.

Amazing Grace - no mention of the Son or the Holy Spirit; no use of Father, Son or Holy Spirit in the title.

Are You Washed in the Blood - no mention of the Father or the Holy Spirit; no use of Father, Son, or Holy Spirit in the title.

Come Thou Almighty King - though its one of the great Trinitarian hymns of the church, it fails your silly test because it uses such words as King, Comforter, Incarnate Word instead of Father, Son, Holy Spirit. No mention of any of them in the title, either. Remember, King doesn't count.

Can we stop playing this game now, and move on to some more substantive issue?

[Cindi Hammons]

The next Sunday he stopped cold using hymns altogether and we never sang another one for the next two years. And after that it was on a rare occasion.

Praise music has completely replaced hymns. My generation had no say. We were simply expected to accept it.

Oh man, where to start. First of all, your song leader did not act responsibly in dropping hymns cold turkey. To dump all hymns would be wrong. Don't get me wrong...some of the songs in the hymnal should be dumped, but not all of them. You say that praise music has completely replaced hymns. Hymns have not completely been replaced. I have visited many Nazarene churches and it is very rare to be at a service without a single hymn. Generally those who complain about having no say about changes are the ones who are just upset that they weren't asked.

Here's my take on things (which I know you didn't ask), whatever it takes. I mean that. If it takes singing songs in styles that I don't really like, yet it reaches my children and their friends....I say go for it! I don't want to face God at the end of my life and have Him ask me why I stopped reaching the next generation because I couldn't adapt.

[JD Sherrow]

"Actually, JD, I don't think most of the folks who "rose up in defense" were Boomers. I think most of them were GenExers."

Ah, Bruce, I love it. I build strawmen and you use a wide broom to offer a sweeping generality.

Boomers were born 1946-1964.
GenX were born 1961-1981.

So what you're implying is that you know the age of EVERY person who posted a reply?

"Pretending that words like Lord, King, Master, Savior ignore the Trinity since they don't specifically say Father, Son, or Holy Ghost is...sorry if this offends...ridiculous at best, at worst disengenuos."

No offense. Also, don't be offended if I point out that it is spelled, disingenuous.

"Can we stop playing this game now, and move on to some more substantive issue?"

My apology. I didn't realize you were a NazNet Moderator. So long.

[Barbara Moulton]

have visited many Nazarene churches and it is very rare to be at a service without a single hymn.

The same is true for Wesleyan Churches as well.

We always have two or three hymns, plus the worship choruses. I have never understood the "either/or" mentality.

We did pulpit supply at another Wesleyan Church on Sunday. They also had a blend.

The hymns that should continue to be sung are being sung. The ones that should be dropped have been.

[Barb Bouldrey]

When I read the very first post in this thread, I concluded that what J.D. was really saying is that he is supporting the traditional use of hymns in our services and misses them. I deducted that he is disappointed in the throwing aside of singing tradtional hymns and replacing them with contemporary songs.

This topic shows up a couple of times a year as new people join NazNet and wish to express their opinion and disappointment.

Sometimes, those of us who have been down that road many times on NazNet jump in and say the same things we have said many times before because we still feel that way.

I felt as if J.D. was hiding behind his original post with deeper feelings...and then he finally tells us about the worship leader that stopped using hymns entirely...cold turkey. AHA! That tells us a lot.

I am a Baby Boomer. I grew up on the traditional hymns. I was introduced to the more formal, stately hymns and songs in chapel at Olivet and some of them were really slow and boring. I learned to loved some that were new to me.

Pastoring in two states and four areas of the same state, I have accepted musical varieties as a part of worship that I would never have chosen if I had stayed in Northern Ohio. John and I have tried to stayed open-minded about new music because we love music of all kinds, love our congregations and want to continually learn new things...and we want to worship.

We have rejected some of the new as fluff, just as we rejected some new fluff in the 70's when we started to pastor.

In the 90's there was a new song, "Yaweh is For Us" that drove me nuts. Some of you might enjoy that song and get something out of it, but we have never used it in a service because it just does not "do" anything for us.

I totally agree with anyone who worships somewhere where they never get to sing a hymn that they have always loved. I understand that many in my generation and older feel as if we had no say, but our music was robbed from us. As I have said before, if I attended that kind of church service, I would fill my life with the hymns I love in my home and in my car. I would not lose the hymns from my life.

And, I would learn to worship with the music used where I attend.

John has continued to learn and accept new. We now use the screen and projector and have a blended music worship...combining hymns and choruses, blended together. We are continually introducing new songs to our congregation...mixed in with the familiar.

We either accept change and adapt it to our lives or it runs us over. We cannot stop change.

Barb

[Bruce Carriker]

"Actually, JD, I don't think most of the folks who "rose up in defense" were Boomers. I think most of them were GenExers."

Ah, Bruce, I love it. I build strawmen and you use a wide broom to offer a sweeping generality.

Boomers were born 1946-1964.
GenX were born 1961-1981.

So what you're implying is that you know the age of EVERY person who posted a reply?

Actually, JD, I've been here long enough to know the general ages of a lot of folks here. So it wasn't a sweeping generalization. It was a statement of what I believe to be true, based on three+ years of discussions with these folks.

"Pretending that words like Lord, King, Master, Savior ignore the Trinity since they don't specifically say Father, Son, or Holy Ghost is...sorry if this offends...ridiculous at best, at worst disengenuos."

No offense. Also, don't be offended if I point out that it is spelled, disingenuous.

Not offended at all. You clearly understood what I meant, and had I been writing for publication, or for a class, I'd have used spell checker. But thanks for pointing out the error.

"Can we stop playing this game now, and move on to some more substantive issue?"

My apology. I didn't realize you were a NazNet Moderator. So long.

I'm not a moderator. But you beat this horse in one thread, then jumped at the opportunity to inject it into another. And the argument you're making simply doesn't stand up to even the slightest scrutiny. So I asked you to move on. You're under no obligation to do so, but I can ask.

[Meghan Schoonover]

Well, I'm a gen-x-er by the definion given by JD (I'm still in my 20s), and.....<dum, dum, dum>

A CHURCH ORGANIST.

I know, I know. Pick yourselves up off the floor. I'm actually college-trained and have given recitals...<dum, dum, dum>

ON THE ORGAN.

Using....<dum, dum, dum>

HYMNS.

I know, I know, it's impossible you say. ;)

I have been involved with the Nazarene church now for 5+ years. "Nazarene" hymns are from the late 19th c. on. A fair am't of them are sawdust-floor tent-revival meeting songs. Guess what? They weren't printed in hymnals then and many were taught by rote. They were *gasp* and <dum, dum, dum> POPULAR songs of the day.

We don't sing Gregorian chants in church today b/c polyphony moved in. We don't sing renaissance songs b/c homophonic music became popular. Baroque dances are now "classical" music. <shrug>

Music is not static - it's just NOT. Like other posters have mentioned we're in a constant state of sifting.

I'll leave with this thought, posted in my college on a voice prof's door:

"Opera was pop music."

[Meghan Schoonover]

Oh, missed my main point in my last post, heheheh - we need to look beyond - WAY beyond - music as worship. Music is influenced by cultural change and personal taste. Worship, while influenced by those factors, transcends them.

[JD Sherrow]

When I read the very first post in this thread, I concluded...I deducted...I felt as if J.D. was hiding behind his original post with deeper feelings...and then he finally tells us about the worship leader that stopped using hymns entirely...cold turkey. AHA! That tells us a lot.

I totally agree with anyone who worships somewhere where they never get to sing a hymn that they have always loved. I understand that many in my generation and older feel as if we had no say, but our music was robbed from us.
Barb

Interesting psychoanalysis, Dr. Freud, but wrong. This is an article I wrote at the time hymns were dropped in my local church.

APPLES AREN’T THE ONLY THINGS WITH CORES
Vital to every local church is a “core” group of folks who have stood by the stuff over the years. They have been there to keep the church alive and afloat while pastors came and went; visitors looked and left; members got mad and moved. They are there when you need them with their time, talent and money.

In the effort to move the church into the New Millennium; to appeal to a broader base; to speak today’s society’s language, this important core group must not be taken for granted.

They have worship needs and expectations also. I consider myself a MINOR member of this group. Since 1995, when I began attending BCN, the worship experience has changed dramatically. I can understand all the reasons why. I can appreciate the new people who have little or no historical reference and why they express such positive reactions to worship.

What I have a problem with is the impression that we are doing it to cater to them “out there.” Perhaps I am overstating it but the feeling I have about us “in here” is never mind your worship experience of many years, you will just have to accept it and change. That’s the way it is going to be.

I would be interested in hearing the answer to this question. Why does the primary worship structure have to be “one way or the other?” Why isn’t there room for both? or three? or four? or MORE!?

Most bridges have lanes going both directions. One lane is the Bridge to Neighborhoods. The other lane should be a Bridge to ALL BCN members/friends.

Now back to the present, Barb. The Battle Royal between hymns and praise music has obscured the basic reason for the Tradionalists' objection and resistance. It is voiced by Daniel Bonevac, Professor of Philosophy, UT-Austin in a recent article. By the way, he sings bass in the traditional service choir and plays bass guitar in the contemporary service band, in case you question his objectivity and balance of approach.

"A strategy for church growth now found in thousands of Protestant churches involves changing worship styles and music to emphasize the personal and contemporary, with the goal of attracting "seekers," those with an interest in spirituality but no attachment to a church.

The church growth movement raises some disturbing ethical questions. When its practitioners create new churches with a focus on attracting seekers, I have no ethical objection (though I might or might not have theological ones). Usually, however, the movement tries to take over existing churches that are relatively traditional. (They call this "transitioning.") And that requires deception. The traditionalists must continue to pay the bills even while the church they support is being dismantled and rebuilt as something they may find repugnant.

Since most congregations would not agree to the takeover if they were aware of it, the movement's strategy is to fly "under the radar," as Rick Warren, one of its chief advocates, advises. It urges pastors "to trust very few people with their plans" and, inspired by marketing techniques, to pursue change slowly enough that people are caught eventually agreeing to something they would never have agreed to if they had understood at the beginning where the changes were heading. Those who realize what is going on and object are to be ostracized, encouraged to leave, and even blackballed.

Boomers, get ready. When the GenX and 21st century Emergent generation gets a foothold on worship, the first thing they'll do is get rid of the Worship Team and Praise Band.

[Jeremy D. Scott]

Boomers, get ready. When the GenX and 21st century Emergent generation gets a foothold on worship, the first thing they'll do is get rid of the Worship Team and Praise Band.

I was done with this thread, but I just need to clarify something in this last statement because it is a common misconception about the emergent discussion.

The emergent discussion has very little to do with changing worship "styles." In fact, there are two aspects of the emergent discussion that actually are contrary to this thinking:
1. The emergent discussion has led people "backwards" in worship - to return to worship formats, practices, and styles of the past.
2. It is inherent to many within the emergent discussion that when change is begun in a local church, the worship setting is the last place to initiate it, but rather that our study, community, preaching, practical and action-oriented theology, etc. change first so that then, worship might flow out of who we are rather than who we want to be.

Lastly, "emergent" does not describe a generation - it describes a whole group of people that transcend generational categories. In fact, it was just two weeks ago that I heard Dr. Jesse Middendorf make this statement:
“It would be an utter tragedy for the Church of the Nazarene to withdraw from the conversation of the emergent church. I think the dialogue is energizing us.”

(For more on the emergent discussion in the CotN, see www.emergentnazarenes.com. There was also an article in last week's NCN Weekly E-Mail on a recent discussion in Kansas City: http://www.ncnnews.org/Article.aspx?id=2738)

[Meghan Schoonover]

Boomers, get ready. When the GenX and 21st century Emergent generation gets a foothold on worship, the first thing they'll do is get rid of the Worship Team and Praise Band.

:fav03 So you're saying things might change...just like they have for the past 2000 years. Huh.

[Roland Hearn]

Boomers, get ready. When the GenX and 21st century Emergent generation gets a foothold on worship, the first thing they'll do is get rid of the Worship Team and Praise Band.

I started writing a lengthy reply to this statement. I included quotes from those that have gone before that have sacrificed so much so that we could be recipients of grace, my mind focussed on Latimer and Ridley first of all. I decided that it probably wasn't worth posting because I think the value of this discussion is probably done.
I just want to say one thing. I for one never want to hold on to my perspective and preferences beyond my ability to touch those around me with grace. I deeply admire those at any age that have desired to give their lives away so others can know Him. I receive very little inspiration from those that are only interested in their own particular agenda being satisfied.

[Larry Wilson]

Obviously, as time has proven, this was not an isolated case. Praise music has completely replaced hymns. My generation had no say. We were simply expected to accept it.

I was born only 26 years after Phineas Bresee died. My folks took me to church when I was two weeks old. The Nazarene church I grew up in was formed in 1926. I have literally grown up in and with the Church of the Nazarene. I've been a part of revolutionary days in its life. The midwestern states were key in the formation of the denomination. I live 30 miles from Chicago First Church which is 100 years old. There are Nazarene churches a few hours south of me where Bresee actually preached in.


Selected quotes above.

Okay, maybe this is a spent-out thread, but it has been intriguing.

True, passionate, holy worship is what our heart longs for. I've been in some gatherings with long "worship" times of endless worship songs that were just as shallow as can be -- and, I've been in some traditonal gatherings of singing the time-honored hymns that were as dry and devoid of worship as an old crust of bread. Yet, I have worshiped deeply in liturgical traditions and exuberantly in Carribbean style. I think that in our heart we all recognize that the outer forms of worship are really widely varied and changeable and that it is the Spirit of worship that makes the difference. Although broad in my outlook, I do have my preferences. And, I do think some forms of music better engender worship than others. It is not totally neutral.

I've seen the change, too. Okay, I was born 32 years after Bresee died, but my grandfather was a personal friend of his (his father serverd with Bresee as GS and died within a few months of his friend). There are no longer any songs in the Hymnal by his sister, my great-aunt Bertha Mae, and each edition has fewer of her husband Haldor's hymns. (Oh, and I was a member for a number of years of the church Bresee started in Los Angeles). I probably learned those old hyms and gospel songs in the womb -- not to mention the old Sunday School songs. (Anyone remember "I'm on the Homeward Trail?)

My kids laugh at me when I tell them I think of Gaithers and Peterson as contemporay music! So, I've seen the changes in worship (church) style take place. While I feel I can move with comfort among the varied worship styles, I recognize that we are in danger of losing some of the richness of the classic hymns and the theological content embodied in them. There is some bad theology in some of the, too, however. And, there is some deep theological content in contemporay music, and shallowness, too.

I'm sensitive to the needs you express to find worship styles that are meaningful to all segments of the church community -- a challenge to be sure. The so-called blended worship service is gaining wide acceptance. It is not as easy as it sounds. It is more than having two hyms or gospel songs out of the book and three chrouses on the screen. Sometimes the result is not satisfying to anyone. But, the goal is worth the effort. Worship is NOT music, but it is an important part of corporate worship (and private devotions, too).

There has also been a trend toward offering entirely separate services -- traditonal and contemporay. While this does seem to work for some churches, I think it is not healthy in most cases. Other churches will find different styles at different times to be helpful. No one should ever feel left out, excluded, or ignored though. I think it is a great tragedy when music divides, instead of unites us, which is one of its important functions. An open, flexible attitude by all goes a long way.

Thanks for stimulating some thoughts. Judging from the responses in this thread, people are thinking deeply about this issue. (Love your comments, Jeremy, and nice to hear from Meghan, the gen-X'r organist -- like my daughter of the same age who is a church pianist, but as a PK in a new church she started at age 12).

[JD Sherrow]

I leave you with this eloquent essay. Dr. Staples' words are mine.

April 2006
"MY CHURCH HAS PASSED ME BY"

A Psalm of Lament by Rob L. Staples (Dr. Rob L. Staples, an alum of Trevecca, NTS (Nazarene Theological Seminary) and Pacific School of Religion. He also had a long teaching career at SNU (Southern Nazarene University) and NTS. He is also a premier theologian, churchman, and author of a number of significant books.)

O God, my soul is distressed within me and my heart is sad. Your Church, the Church I have loved and served all my life, has passed me by.

Some might attribute my distress to what people down here have called the "generation gap." That is possible, since I have attained the biblically allotted age of "threescore and ten," as another Psalmist described it. But I don't think I am deadened to the needs of the young, since I taught young people for an entire career and always tried to see things through their eyes.

O God, I am sad because it is getting hard for me to worship in your Church today. You know I have sensitive ears, and those booming drums and blasting trumpets really hurt my eardrums. I leave Church on Sundays with a splitting headache. Is this what you want us to endure, in order to worship you? I once tried ear plugs but even that failed to filter out the worst noise. Besides, it seems irreverent for one wanting to hear a Word from you to enter into your presence with stopped up ears.

And, Lord, those choruses we sing! I wouldn't mind so much if I could just sit. But they often have us stand up so long the arthritis in my knee starts screaming almost as loud as the PA system. If I sit down by myself, I appear uncooperative. I would gladly stand up to worship you, ignoring the pain, if really worshiping you were what we were doing. But we sing those choruses over and over, and over again. Surely, 0 Lord, your`memory`isn't so short that you cannot remember what we say unless we repeat it several times. Even if you didn't get it the first time, surely you would after the second repeat. But after 4 or 5 repeats of the very same phrase, surely you must think we are like the pagans your Son spoke about who "think they will be heard because of their many words," or like the prophets of Baal on Mt. Carmel trying to get the attention of their deity.

O Lord, I know I am "over the hill," as they say down here. I sometimes feel guilty when I do not enjoy what teenagers enjoy. It seems that young people today have grown partially deaf from listening to what they call "boom boxes" with the volume turned up so loud it can be heard two blocks away. I know I should be sympathetic to such physically handicapped persons. Forgive my callousness, 0 Lord. But do you really want your Church to be turned into a boom box? Your Son once drove the money changers from the temple. I wonder what he would do with the amplifiers, tweeters, woofers, and projectors in our churches, should he ever happen to drop in.

I guess I could endure the noise, Lord, if there were more substance to those choruses. But there isn't much substance there. Of course, some of them simply repeat the words of Scripture, and one should appreciate that. Forgive me if I sometimes prefer just to hear the Word read, and hear it in a quieter atmosphere. Or else melt me and mold me and make me half deaf so I can enjoy your Word when it is boomed at me musically over and over through a public address system whose volume is turned up several decibels too high.

I long, 0 Lord, for the "old paths." I long to hear the great hymns and anthems that exalt you, and contain great truth about redemption. There is good theology in those old hymns. Of course they aren't "old" to you! Ha. Ha. Pardon the humor, Lord, but I'll bet you enjoy a good laugh. I like organ music; it helps me worship. Many of your churches have thrown out their organs and substituted something like what is called a "rock band."

I prefer choirs over what they call "worship teams." I like to sing from a hymnbook. But many churches don't use hymnals and the words must be read from what is called an "overhead projector." And I enjoy historic time-honored liturgies. I like to affirm my faith in the words of the Apostles Creed or the Nicene Creed.

I know the argument: Young people cannot relate to worship unless the music is like what they sing outside the Church. Isn't there something wrong with that argument, Lord? Should the world be setting the agenda for your Church? I thought the way we worship should be different from the way secular folks worship other gods. Shouldn't we be teaching that to our teens?

You know, 0 God, that I appreciate the attempt to create what is called "blended worship." You know, sing one old hymn and then a modern chorus or two, mixing them up, hoping to have something for everybody. You know I have honestly tried to worship that way. But it is difficult, Lord, for just as I am getting truly blessed by the words of "Arise, My Soul, Arise," we burst into a frothy chorus. Correct me if I am wrong, dear Lord, but I believe frothy church music will promote a frothy faith. I do not want my faith to be frothy. I want it to have a backbone of steel.

What shall I do, 0 Lord, now that the Church has passed me by? I once worshiped very meaningfully out in the American West where they worshiped the way your servant John Wesley worshiped in England. But there aren't many places where I can do that. I thought of becoming an Episcopalian, but I find that many of them have also bowed the knee to Baal, becoming pragmatic, giving folks what they seem to want. And Roman Catholicism is not for me, for I believe you are the only Father who can speak infallibly.

I am often told that "contemporary worship" fosters church growth. You know I am all for growth, Lord. But then I remember that some forms of cancer grow awfully fast too. I recall when your Son was tempted by Satan to become a pragmatist in his worship in order to gain the kingdoms of the world, his main concern did not seem to be growth, at least not growth purely for the sake of growth.

Please understand, Lord, that I am not speaking merely of one congregation, but of the many I have visited over the past few years. I love my pastor and the people with whom I worship weekly, in spite of the noise. And I am not pleading for myself. I would not have bothered you just for myself. But most of the folks I have met across the land who are over threescore years of age feel as I do. I beseech you on their behalf. I guess we are too old to be listened to anymore. I hope it isn't self-pity when we feel lonely, now that the Church has passed us by. But we remain loyal to our Church anyway. There is something to be said for loyalty, isn't there Lord? As for myself: I guess I can make it, with your help, the rest of my days. But the Social Security life expectancy tables of the IRS (that's something like Caesar's tax system that your Son lived under)say I may expect to live another 18 years or so! How long, O Lord, how long can I endure?

Well, thanks for hearing my cry, 0 Lord. I will not bring this complaint to you again. I will just meditate and "lurk" in hopes of hearing some encouraging word from you.

One of your prophets named Reinhold Niebuhr once said there may be brief periods of religious such as on the American frontier, but such spontaneity does not last forever, and when it is gone a church without adequate conduits of traditional liturgy and robust theology is lacking the waters of life.

O Merciful Father, I think I see signs (just "a cloud the size of a man's hand") that Christians may be growing weary of the recent experimental forms of worship and are turning back to something more substantial, more time-tested, more biblical, and less frothy: Especially less frothy.

Let it be, dear Lord, let it be. But how long, 0 Lord, how long?

[Cindi Hammons]

I guess I could endure the noise, Lord, if there were more substance to those choruses. But there isn't much substance there.

We fall down
we lay our crowns
at the feet of Jesus
The goodness of
mercy and love
at the feet of Jesus
And we cry
holy, holy, holy
we cry holy, holy, holy
we cry holy, holy, holy
is the Lord

Even the angels in heaven cry "Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God Almighty..." why is this chorus more "frothy" that the great hymn, "Holy, holy, holy?"

The main thing I noticed in the article you posted...he states, "I like...I prefer...I know...I want...I do not want...I remember." I also think it could be taken as offensive to say:

I am often told that "contemporary worship" fosters church growth. You know I am all for growth, Lord. But then I remember that some forms of cancer grow awfully fast too.

This so reminds me of the Pharisees who were so sure that there way was the only way and could not see Jesus as who He really was/is. His new way was so much more radical than loud drums, or "frothy" choruses. The changes in worship are so small and petty compared to the changes He brought, yet He ran into the same stone wall of the establishment. God help me to never be in the way of new things that might reach the unsaved, or to be so stuck in my comfort zone that I can only see my own desires! Our service is one of those blended services that the author disdains...and I have seen 80+ year old people being blessed over songs like "We Fall Down" and "You Are My All in All!" Why do we have to make a choice? Either or? Sorry...not me. I tell God that I want to do "whatever it takes" to keep my kids and their generation in church.

Of course, this is only my opinion.

[Gary Swartzlander]

Of course, this is only my opinion.


Nope, it's mine also.

[Bruce Carriker]

You do know that traditional American Revivalist/Evangelical groups worship...the kind of worship our traditionalists want to hang on to...was also once considered 'frothy', shallow, and not worthy of being called worship, right?

I wonder if you read what Dr. Staples wrote about the liturgy and the ancient creeds of the Church. Those are missing in most of our services and have been for generations...since before Pilot Point, actually.

I wonder how many of us would be willing to worship every Sunday according to Wesley's service book for the Methodists in North America. THAT is deep, theologically profound, meaningful worship.

Of course, this is only my opinion.

[Jeremy D. Scott]

I wonder how many of us would be willing to worship every Sunday according to Wesley's service book for the Methodists in North America. THAT is deep, theologically profound, meaningful worship.

I would love it. Seriously - the more I read of the Wesleys' hymns...the more I love them. We've even taken a couple and set them to different music (sorry, Charles...you're gonna have to get over it).

[John Kennedy]

Charles, I don't think, would really care. His son and grandson did a lot of composing. In those days text and tune were separated and several different tunes could be used with just about any text, depending on the meter (number of syllables per line). Get hold of just about any (you'll pardon the expresson0) hymnal and look in the back at something called a 'metrical index. You'll get the idea of what I'm talking about.

Incidentally, I was hoping to reply to an earlier post of yours about the Wesley hymns in which you stated that they probably weren't intended for church use. Before the final separation of Wesleyans from Anglicanism, many of the hymns were incorporated into the hymnody of the Church of England.

In fact, Charles' hymns were, and are, widely accepted by Anglicans - to this day you'll find more of Charles' hymns in Episcopal/Church of England hymnals than in those of any other tradition, possibly excepting Methodists.

Truth to tell, Charles was never as taken with the idea of Methodism as was John. When John consecrated Thomas Coke and Francis Asbury as bishops to head the Methodist Church in America after the American revolution, Charles responded by writing the following poem:

How quickly now are bishops made,
At man's or woman's whim;
Wesley, his hands on Coke hath laid,
But who laid hands on him.

Coke didn't stay long in America - he eventually went to India. Asbury, who was a lay preacher, insisted on being elected by the American Methodist preachers. At the Baltimore Conference in 1784, he experienced what is probalby the fasted ecclesiastical advancement in church hisotry. In a two day period he was ordained as a deacon, as an elder, and consecrated as the first American Methodist bishop.

John didn't write any hymns that we know of. There must've been a tremendous amount of poetic ability there, however, which he combined with his linguistic skills in translating many of the Moravian hymns from German to English.

That John intended the Wesleyan hymns for worship use by Methodists is ween in the fact that one of the first products of the Methodist publishing house in England was the hymnal.

The Wesleyan hymns are incredibly rich in doctrinal/theological content. I don't think that either brother, however, deliberately intended to set theology to music. I think it was instead that both were so superbly educated in Christian doctrine that when they set out to express their faith in song, the doctrine and theology just came along as a part of the package.
They were so immersed (as much as a Methodist can be immersed) in Christian belief that it would've probably been impossible for them to have written otherwise.

[Meghan Schoonover]

The Wesleyan hymns are incredibly rich in doctrinal/theological content. I don't think that either brother, however, deliberately intended to set theology to music.

My understanding always has been they often specifically wrote the hymns to teach doctrine. :fav03 I have several "hymn histories" books that seem to suggest that, but maybe it's an "urban legend" I picked up somewhere...

[Bruce Carriker]

I would love it. Seriously - the more I read of the Wesleys' hymns...the more I love them. We've even taken a couple and set them to different music (sorry, Charles...you're gonna have to get over it).

Well, my young friend, how did I know that YOU would love it?? ;)

As for putting Charles' hymns to different tunes, since he set alot of his hymns to popular "choruses" of the day (oh, the scandal of it!) I'm sure he'd understand and approve.

[Jeremy D. Scott]

Charles, I don't think, would really care. His son and grandson did a lot of composing. In those days text and tune were separated and several different tunes could be used with just about any text, depending on the meter (number of syllables per line). Get hold of just about any (you'll pardon the expresson0) hymnal and look in the back at something called a 'metrical index. You'll get the idea of what I'm talking about.
I guess it was John, after compiling the hymns for a 1790 compilation, who asked that nothing be changed and that it was more so in regard to the lyricism than the music. He writes, "...either to let them stand just as they are, to take them for better for worse ; or to add the true reading in the margin, or at the bottom of the page."

I know what a metrical index is. That's how I was able to change the music...For instance, we sang "Hail the Day That Sees Him Rise" to the tune of "Lord, I Lift Your Name on High" for Ascension Sunday.

Incidentally, I was hoping to reply to an earlier post of yours about the Wesley hymns in which you stated that they probably weren't intended for church use. Before the final separation of Wesleyans from Anglicanism, many of the hymns were incorporated into the hymnody of the Church of England.

In fact, Charles' hymns were, and are, widely accepted by Anglicans - to this day you'll find more of Charles' hymns in Episcopal/Church of England hymnals than in those of any other tradition, possibly excepting Methodists.
Yes, very true. But I was speaking of their original intent and as you know, John (and presumably Charles) had strong desire that the Methodists did not form a new church. The hymns were indeed written to instill and teach doctrine. (see the quote further below)

John didn't write any hymns that we know of. There must've been a tremendous amount of poetic ability there, however, which he combined with his linguistic skills in translating many of the Moravian hymns from German to English.

That John intended the Wesleyan hymns for worship use by Methodists is ween in the fact that one of the first products of the Methodist publishing house in England was the hymnal.

Yeah, he did. Not many, but he did. If you flip through a Wesleyan hymnal you'll find a couple. He wrote in a preface to their best-known hymnal, "As but a small part of these hymns is of my own composing...".

I don't think that either brother, however, deliberately intended to set theology to music. I think it was instead that both were so superbly educated in Christian doctrine that when they set out to express their faith in song, the doctrine and theology just came along as a part of the package.
They were so immersed (as much as a Methodist can be immersed) in Christian belief that it would've probably been impossible for them to have written otherwise.

But they did. This is also from the preface to the 1790 hymnal:
"Such a Hymn-Book you have now before you...It is large enough to contain all the important truths of our most holy religion, whether speculative or practical ; yea, to illustrate them all, and to prove them both by Scripture and Reason : and this is done in a regular order. The hymns are not carelessly jumbled together, but carefully ranged under proper heads, according to the experience of real Christians, So that this book is, in effect, a little body of experimental and practical divinity."

My whole point was that the Wesleys, when they did arrange and organize and write their hymns, did not set out to write "worship music" like is tasked today. This was one part in which I am in agreement with JD Sherrow - we've replaced didache in music with a hope of creating warm and fuzzy feelings in the hearts of worshipers (not a bad thing, necessarily). We need to teach elsewhere the theology and doctrine so that out of the theology we can only but find ourselves in doxology.

[Bruce Carriker]

This was one part in which I am in agreement with JD Sherrow - we've replaced didache in music with a hope of creating warm and fuzzy feelings in the hearts of worshipers (not a bad thing, necessarily). We need to teach elsewhere the theology and doctrine so that out of the theology we can only but find ourselves in doxology.

Well, we partially agree here, and partially disagree.

I agree with JD and with you, insofar as you say "...we've replaced didache in music with a hope of creating warm and fuzzy feelings..." Yes, we've absolutely done that.

But I disagree when you say, parenthetically, "not a bad thing, necessarily". Perhaps by using the modifier "necessarily" you leave some wiggle room. But, from my observations, in practice this is almost always a bad thing. It replaces reflection on God in his many aspects, with an inward focus on us, and whether or not we experience cathartic release of some type.

As for "warm fuzzies", if a Christian can't experience a "warm fuzzy" singing And Can It Be or When I Survey the Wondrous Cross, then something's wrong.

[JD Sherrow]

John Wesley had seven rules for singing in his services:

1. Learn the tune.
2. Sing the words as they are printed.
3. Sing all.
4. Sing lustily and with good courage.
5. Sing modestly. Do not bawl.
6. Sing in time. Do not run before or stay behind.
7. Above all, sing spiritually. Have an eye to God in every word. That is Theology at its most basic.

Jeremy, I like your turn of a phrase, "We need to teach elsewhere the theology and doctrine so that out of the theology we can only but find ourselves in doxology."

In the 2001 Gaither video, "A Billy Graham MUSIC Homecoming," Cliff Barrows said this,
Good hymnology contains,
good theology, which produces,
good doxology.

You're in pretty good philosophical company. :-}

[Cindi Hammons]

John Wesley had seven rules for singing in his services:

1. Learn the tune.
2. Sing the words as they are printed.
3. Sing all.
4. Sing lustily and with good courage.
5. Sing modestly. Do not bawl.
6. Sing in time. Do not run before or stay behind.
7. Above all, sing spiritually. Have an eye to God in every word. That is Theology at its most basic.

I love it!! :) Thanks for posting that!

[Jeremy D. Scott]

You're in pretty good philosophical company. :-}

Truthfully, I was reflecting back upon the Thanksgiving sermon I heard last night at Cross Pointe CotN in Salisbury, MD where I am at to celebrate the holiday with my family. My father-in-law concluded his sermon last night with a similar statement in reflection upon Paul's doxology at the end of the eleventh chapter of Romans. After 11 grueling chapters of tough theology, Paul ends with doxology.

[John Kennedy]

Jeremy, I certainly didn't mean it to sound like you didn't know what a metrical index was (or is, or ever shall be, world without end.....). You'd be surprised (or maybe you wouldn't) at the number of people who don't.

In fact, the latest Nazarene hymnal, SING TO THE LORD, published in 1993, was the first Nazarene hymnal, with the possible exception of the Wesley Hymns and some of the supplementals, such as EXALT HIM, to include such an index.

It's sadly ironic that SING TO THE LORD, a work that was a great deal more than just a songbook (it contains a lot of worship planning aids, readings, etc), was issued at about the time a lot of churches (Nazarene and otherwise) decided that hymns, and the books containing them, were passe'.

I understand you used a metrical index to enable you to fit 'Hail the day...." to the tune "Lord, we lift your name..." to sing on Ascension Day? Do you have any idea what you've done?

First of all, you used a tune that's several years old. Why even the least savvy seeker-sensitive, church growth guru will tell you that you manage to attract into this place you call a church are very picky about expiration dates on what they sing. If it's not newer than tomorrow it'll never pass muster.

Next, you have the sheer audacity to use a text that's at least 200+ years onld. Why everyone knows that boomers or exers or whatever, don't have the vocabulary (or patience) to handle something that heavy. And don't come up with the lame idea of explaining what you're doing. Why, you start down the path of people thinking about what they say or sing in worship, God only knows where it'll lead.

Then, as if all the above wasn't enough, you have this sung on something called Ascension Day. We all know that God ordained only one day for special recognition by the church, and that is Mother's Day. Oh, maybe once in a while, if he was pushed sufficiently, he'd give a half-hearted endorsement to Father's Day.

Why, the next thing you know, you'll have people observing stuff like Advent and Lent and Pentecost; wanting Scripture read in their service besides the preacher's sermon text; wanting to have communion more frequently than once every five years; and, most perniciously of all, someone may try to sneak one of those emasculating things called a choir into your church.

I hope these words of admonition haven't been in vain. I'm fearful of the slippery slope you seem to be treading. It should be pretty clear by now that your actions have pretty well doomed your chances at those worship leader jobs at both the First Church of 'da Bomb' and The Spirit is 'With It'
Fellowship.

By the way, tongue now withdrawn from cheek, I tried to access (never can remembe how to spell that word) your church's website, but it wouldn't let me in. Hope it was nothing personal.

[Bruce Carriker]

John,

I know you were speaking tongue-in-cheek to Jeremy, but you got me thinking and I'd like to share some of my observations as a middle-of-the-generation baby boomer, who went back to seminary at 43, and was surrounded by GenX and GenNext (or GenY or whatever it is we're calling them).

Sure, there were a fair number who thought they were going to graduate and go be the youth pastor for Rick Warren of Bill Hybels (not realizing that Saddleback and Willow Creek already have youth pastors). But in the majority I discovered hearts that loved the Nazarene and Wesleyan traditions, but were starved for what Dee Freeborn, Morris Weigelt and Doug Hardy had to offer in spiritual formation classes...a topic far too long ignored by most of us older Nazarenes. They want some of what "contemporary" worship has to offer, but they also want the traditions of the church...traditions that pre-date the American Revival movement by hundreds of years. They wanted to know about the Christian calendar, and why we, as a denomination, have ignored it for most of our denominational life. They want to incorporate the creeds of the Ancient church into our worship. They want to celebrate the sacraments more than once a quarter. They wanted worship in a modern context, but without sacrificing the theological depth and richness of the Ancient church.

Once I got past the piercings and the tattoos and was able to see hearts, what I saw among the future leaders of our church was extremely encouraging to me. IMO, Jeremy Scott and his peers are representative of the best of what the future of the Church of the Nazarene has to offer. (Jeremy knows that I feel this way...I've told him before, so I'm not trying to either glorify or embarrass him here.)

Grace and peace to you all this Thanksgiving morning!

[JD Sherrow]

It's sadly ironic that SING TO THE LORD, a work that was a great deal more than just a songbook (it contains a lot of worship planning aids, readings, etc), was issued at about the time a lot of churches (Nazarene and otherwise) decided that hymns, and the books containing them, were passe'.


John, here is something that is not sadly ironic...just plain sad. My Nazarene church is 81 years old. Morning worship runs 500+/-. The sanctuary was just remodeled and it is beautiful, inviting, and conducive to worship.

The sad part? Not only do the new padded chairs NOT have a book rack, at choir practice this week, all of our SING TO THE LORD hymnals were stacked up ready to be given away. Obviously, if we don't have 'em, we'll never use 'em.

The sanguine myopia of the 21st century leadership is staggering.

[John Kennedy]

Sounds like an effective way to keep from having a meaningful discussion on the kind of worship - order new furniture.

The Catholics sure missed the boat on that one. They could've avoided all this Reformation business by simply replacing the wooden doors on the Wittenburg Cathedral with glass. Scotch tape not yet having been invented, Martin Luther would've had no place to go with the 95 theses.