That Hymn Thing
This is a post that has been brewing for some time now. If you look over at my sidebar you will notice that one of my links leads to the official web site of IFCA International. This is a fellowship of churches and believers to which I and the church I pastor are members. My father was also a member and for three years served as its president. His father was one of its early members and both of the churches that they pastored for years were members. It has a rich heritage of standing for the truth and a zeal for the Word of God.
Since accepting the call to be the Pastor Teacher of a local church my appreciation for the fellowship and accountability a body such as this provides has grown immensely. I have found myself encouraging some of my friends who are involved in ministry to join and have waxed eloquent as to its virtues. One of the hesitations that some of these friends have mentioned to me is their perception that the IFCA is a movement of mostly grumpy old men who spend the majority of their time criticizing other Christians and when approached with any idea or concept that was formed after, oh say 1955, makes them think that they have caught a whiff of the burning tire of error. (I stole that line from Garison Keillor). I have assured them that such is not the case, that these stereotypes are unfair and are not based on objective truth.
Imagine my chagrin then as I opened the March/April edition of the Voice Magazine (the official publication of IFCA International) and read an article entitled The Value of the Hymnal. Now, I was not in the least bothered by the title of the article. As you will note from my last post, I have a deep appreciation for hymns. I think if and when churches choose to totally disregard these songs from our past they do so at a great disservice to themselves. As I started reading I was hoping to find an articulate defense of gems such as And Can it Be and How Great Thou Art along with a call for balance in utilizing the best of both the old and the new in our worship. Instead I was met with the same tire arguments waged in the past in a battle that never needed to be fought in the first place.
Here are some of the points made by the author:
The rejection of the hymnal has all but eliminated the singing of parts in church music. Ok, and that is a problem because? First of all I sing parts to most contemporary songs and I didn?t realize that four part harmony was a sign of spiritual health.
Abandonment of the hymnal makes it more, not less, difficult to clarify the message of Evangelicalism. Huh? In the article he never really goes on to say why or how.
Removing the hymnal increases the profanation and deterioration of beauty and order in the church. I personally can't think of anything more profane than I Stand in Awe of You.
Because the constant use of contemporary music may (italics mine) well arise from questionable motives. Um, couldn?t the same be said for the constant use of traditional music?
Here is my point. As Fundamentalists we need to argue for that which is truely fundamental otherwise we end up looking silly. I realize that my tone here might seem a bit sarcastic but this stuff really gets to me. I find it very interesting that in the Psalms God encourages us to use a variety of modes and instruments in our musical worship. In the book of I Timothy when Paul instructed a young pastor as to how the church ought to conduct itself he did not have much of anything to say about styles and forms. Evidently there is freedom when it comes to that. I can remember at a conference that I attended a number of years ago that the leader asked us how most people would judge whether or not they have been in an affective worship service. He then asked how we thought God would judge whether or not a worship service had been effective. When it comes to this issue we all have to remember what is truly fundamental. I haven?t come to be pleased or even moved but rather I have come to exalt Him.
Since accepting the call to be the Pastor Teacher of a local church my appreciation for the fellowship and accountability a body such as this provides has grown immensely. I have found myself encouraging some of my friends who are involved in ministry to join and have waxed eloquent as to its virtues. One of the hesitations that some of these friends have mentioned to me is their perception that the IFCA is a movement of mostly grumpy old men who spend the majority of their time criticizing other Christians and when approached with any idea or concept that was formed after, oh say 1955, makes them think that they have caught a whiff of the burning tire of error. (I stole that line from Garison Keillor). I have assured them that such is not the case, that these stereotypes are unfair and are not based on objective truth.
Imagine my chagrin then as I opened the March/April edition of the Voice Magazine (the official publication of IFCA International) and read an article entitled The Value of the Hymnal. Now, I was not in the least bothered by the title of the article. As you will note from my last post, I have a deep appreciation for hymns. I think if and when churches choose to totally disregard these songs from our past they do so at a great disservice to themselves. As I started reading I was hoping to find an articulate defense of gems such as And Can it Be and How Great Thou Art along with a call for balance in utilizing the best of both the old and the new in our worship. Instead I was met with the same tire arguments waged in the past in a battle that never needed to be fought in the first place.
Here are some of the points made by the author:
The rejection of the hymnal has all but eliminated the singing of parts in church music. Ok, and that is a problem because? First of all I sing parts to most contemporary songs and I didn?t realize that four part harmony was a sign of spiritual health.
Abandonment of the hymnal makes it more, not less, difficult to clarify the message of Evangelicalism. Huh? In the article he never really goes on to say why or how.
Removing the hymnal increases the profanation and deterioration of beauty and order in the church. I personally can't think of anything more profane than I Stand in Awe of You.
Because the constant use of contemporary music may (italics mine) well arise from questionable motives. Um, couldn?t the same be said for the constant use of traditional music?
Here is my point. As Fundamentalists we need to argue for that which is truely fundamental otherwise we end up looking silly. I realize that my tone here might seem a bit sarcastic but this stuff really gets to me. I find it very interesting that in the Psalms God encourages us to use a variety of modes and instruments in our musical worship. In the book of I Timothy when Paul instructed a young pastor as to how the church ought to conduct itself he did not have much of anything to say about styles and forms. Evidently there is freedom when it comes to that. I can remember at a conference that I attended a number of years ago that the leader asked us how most people would judge whether or not they have been in an affective worship service. He then asked how we thought God would judge whether or not a worship service had been effective. When it comes to this issue we all have to remember what is truly fundamental. I haven?t come to be pleased or even moved but rather I have come to exalt Him.
posted by Heavy G at 10.6.06
7 Comments:
I agree wholeheartedly... and I applaud your daring use of question marks!
pppbbbbtttt! Hippy!
Seriously though, I totally agree. Worship is about the condition of your heart, not the style of music being played.
Worship is about the condition of your heart. I also believe some music more revernt than others. I think hearing and understand what you sing is important. I also think that more than not, traditionals hymns seem to have a less shallow truth.
The points you pulled out of this article seem to have little logic presented. Where there any parts of this article with a more soild position?
Interesting thoughts. I would say that I agree with this article minus the question marks for apostrophe's.
It's interesting that a board member from the IFCA brought a whole seminar to our regional meeting a couple years back decrying the "signs and wonders" that progressive dispensationalism would bring into the mix, and then tried to convince us he wasn't a grumpy old man. IFCA needs to tighten these things up, or turn the organization over to the next generation who cares about right theology and not about stuffy traditionalism or sacred legalism.
Thanks to all of you who have commented. I have been gone this week and will respond to your comments in a post later this week.
Good stuff, Jeff....our church here in Marietta has as one of its core values: never changing message, ever-changing methodologies. I like that---and I think it fits right in with Paul's approach to reaching each community through its own culture.
Keep up the good, critical thinking--the Church needs more of us.
Stephanie
Post a Comment
<< Home