– Major Len Ballantine
Reprinted from the Jan-Feb-Mar 2006 issue of THEME
As much as I try to avoid conflict, issues around worship practice remain hot topics in the circles I travel. The flashpoint for many prickly debates I’ve witnessed is a phrase similar to the following: “There doesn’t seem to be any real content in modern worship songs!” Ouch.
Now, I understand this statement and can see a kernel of truth here. In the past we did rely on our hymnody to help teach us the doctrine and dogma of our beliefs. Every verse seemed to be packed with theology, and the ‘sung gospel’ was viewed as a practical way of committing often complicated concepts to memory. Furthermore, many Salvationists have used the SA Song Book itself as a worthy sampler for devotional reading and inspiration. Content is a function of history and experience.
By those standards, today’s worship material is admittedly much more streamlined. But I wouldn’t go so far as to say it suffers, in the main, from lack of substance. The content is simply more confined to one focus, and less encumbered by poetic flourish, which is part of its appeal for the newly churched. Content is subject to culture.
Traditional hymn writers were poets and wordsmiths, not to mention theologians like the Wesleys, Luther, Orsborn, and the Booths. They often used the KJ idiom freely to give their work the ring of authorized biblical truth. This was natural and appropriate for the times. People grew up on it, memorized it and respected it. People also loved the poetry of it, and the ring of authoritative rhetoric about it.
However, the release of so many new translations of Scripture since the early 70’s has meant that two generations of Christians have already grown up without the KJ mindset. To the modern ear, ‘thee and thou’ not only sound formal, but (sadly) impart an archaic quality – anathema if you’re trying to win friends and influence people to attend church today.
It is not only the KJ language set that is in question, but also virtually all words deemed antiquated. I recently wrote a chorus in which the words ‘availed’ and ‘accord’ were absolutely unavoidable, from my perspective. However, a pair of fresh eyes spotted the cultural divide immediately and brought the offending words to my attention. So, if you can think of a couple of two-syllable words to replace these, let me know. My ‘street cred’ in the contemporary genre is on the line! Content is subjective.
Unlike the poets and theologians of the past, today’s songwriters are largely musicians and vocalists, many with a gift for an interactive style of worship leading using the trends of popular music to support their creativity. While many of these new writers are college or seminary trained Christians, the two approaches could not be further removed. Intent and content are related.
In its favour, a good proportion of today’s worship songs are straight from Scripture, albeit unrhymed, unmetred, and uncomfortable for those who grew up on the precise cadence of the older hymn style. Through singing Scripture the congregant is directly encountering the Word of God, which must be seen as a very positive development. In the past, hymns were sometimes written with Scripture texts in mind, but by nature of the process became poetic distillations of Scripture truth, that is, an interpretation rather than the real thing. Which is preferable is moot for discussion.
I think the real thorn that galls traditionalists is the use of the colloquial idiom which is seen to cheapen the art form. Again, we’re talking cultural relevance here, but for every ‘Nah, nah, nah, or Yes Lord!’ that appears in modern worship songs—I’ll bet we can find an equally supercilious Song Book song. And don’t forget, a lot of embarrassingly archaic songs have been removed over the years in a bid to refresh and update the book.
An even more serious criticism is the disturbing trend to demystify Jesus and bring him more to arm’s length. I can understand this need within today’s culture, however, if we indulge our need to feel up close and personal with Jesus we do so at the risk of demeaning the Sovereign majesty of God, and reducing Jesus to the role of buddy. Balance is a requisite of content.
I recently heard an esteemed colleague declare that modern worship songs spend too much time telling God what’s good about him and not enough time telling ourselves what’s bad about us (my paraphrase.) This attitude relates to the diet of ego-centric challenge songs that typify our dogma and culture as Salvationists. Those of us who have grown up on the Song Book have been singing a gospel of introspection for so long we don’t know how to take our chins off our chests and gaze heavenward.
If you think I’m all wet, check out the contents page of the SA Song Book where the headings and subject listings are noted. Rough calculation reveals that less than 4% are upward-directed worship songs, while a full 32% are service and consecration songs. I’m not complaining. This is our heritage. We are a serving people—a theme that has been our ethic and our self-proclaimed message to our own since the founder. Does anyone out there find this genre guilt producing?
Content is formative.
We now have a chance to address that balance. By all means, let’s preserve the great consecration songs, the heart songs, the get-off-your-duff-and-be-accountable songs. (Happily, many new SA writers are revisiting these texts today within the P&W format.) But in addition to faithful service and action, let’s unashamedly learn to worship our Heavenly Father who is truly holy and wholly other.
If we do, we’ll find out as Isaiah did, that we are in need of a touch from the refining coal of the altar. The point being, if we worship in spirit and in truth, we will come to our sense of need of forgiveness as we encounter a holy God. However, if we start from a position of naval-gazing and grovelling, we will come to a sense of guilt and shame and bitterness long before we see and know God’s grace.
And that is why I like the content of modern worship songs. Taken in balance with our SA heritage songs I believe they will help raise up a healthier, happier, more honest Army for tomorrow. For me it is a question of content.
Rate this Article
0 (0 votes)