Does your church sing hymns?

[TXMomof4]

You know, I have studied this a lot, and I couldn't tell you how I know, but I do.

 

In Christ Alone is one of my favorite contemporary pieces currently, but it's not a hymn. I really like it, though.

 

Hymns/canticles are either liturgical pieces--very historic, like over 1000 year old and sung widely in the Church--or pieces that have multiple verses that follow traditional poetry end-rhyme patterns. Examples of those liturgical pieces include the Te Deum, the Agnus Dei, the Gloria Patri, etc.

 

So a hymn is defined as having a specific structure? To me (and again, this is purely my own POV and not meant to be a theological argument) a majority of the hymns that are sung are from a specific time frame. It was a "popular" style of music and there was a lot written. It is beautiful music and in no way am I undermining it's purpose in worship. However, what is to say that what is popular now won't be traditional in 30 years? KWIM? When I look through the hymnal at church there is some amazing music. However, there are more than a few songs that I just have to wonder at. It isn't particularly beautiful or well written, but it's age seems to account for it's presence in the hymnal. Given the choice of singing scripture put to music recently vs. a traditional hymn that isn't well written I'll choose the scripture everytime.

 

This makes it sound like this is something I worry/think about a lot and I really don't. I love singing. Our old congregation spent a majority of the worship in song and I miss it so much! I know God doesn't care if it is beautiful to human ears - he knows our hearts, but good heavens I miss truly good singing.

[LuvToRead]

You know, I have studied this a lot, and I couldn't tell you how I know, but I do.

 

In Christ Alone is one of my favorite contemporary pieces currently, but it's not a hymn. I really like it, though.

 

Hymns/canticles are either liturgical pieces--very historic, like over 1000 year old and sung widely in the Church--or pieces that have multiple verses that follow traditional poetry end-rhyme patterns. Examples of those liturgical pieces include the Te Deum, the Agnus Dei, the Gloria Patri, etc.

 

But see, that's your definition of a hymn. According to Webster's, a hymn is simply a song of praise to God. Also, "In Christ Alone" fits into your own definition of hymn. "In Christ Alone" does have multiple verses and it does have a rhyme pattern (although I'm not sure if it's considered traditional or not). Obviously, we all have different definitions on what we think is a hymn. Personally, if the song is based on Scripture, and I sing it as a way to worship, then it doesn't really matter to me what the genre the song it.

 

I love the old hymns, they are very rich. But I also think Chris Tomlin's "How Great is our God" is rich too.

Matthew 26:30 says "And when they had sung a hymn, they went out into the Mount of Olives". Even Jesus sung hymns with his disciples, and it wouldn't have been what we consider a hymn today.

Edited September 16, 2010 by LuvToRead

[Spy Car]

DS and I had the opportunity to visit Bach's church in Leipzig and listen to a full Chorale service.

 

Very cool.

 

 

a

 

I'm envious. We are fortunate to have a very near-by Roman Catholic Church with an astounding music program. In addition to a full orchestra and choir for regular Masses, they have special events and services which feature a wide variety of works from the classical canon.

 

Next up: Mozart's Requiem.

 

Bill

[Tabrett]

After reading this thread, I may have been wrong. Maybe my church doesn't do what everyone terms "Praise and Worship" style. We don't sing choruses over and over, we sing songs with 3 or 4 verses and a chorus and sometimes a bridge. Maybe I should call them modern hymns instead. The newest Baptist Hymnal (or Worship Hymnal for non-Baptists) contains a lot of the songs we sing.

 

On a typical Sunday morning we may sing --

 

"In Christ Alone"

"I'll Fly Away"

"Amazing Grace"

"Mighty is Our God"

"Jesus Paid it All"

 

We have a praise team with piano, guitar and vocalists (I'm the alto).

I would say you did a mixture of hymns, praise and worship and southern gospel, I would consider I'll Fly Away as southern gospel. :lol:

Wow, what an integrated worship style!

[brehon]

Although there are different Masses at the Cathedral my family attends (and where I sing), I believe most of the Masses use hymns. The Mass I sing at is a traditional N.O. and traditional hymns are sung (congregationally). The choir also performs several anthems and other pieces during Communion. The ironic thing is that several of the pieces we've sung recently came from an old Catholic hymnal. In other words, congregations several decades ago would have sung these absolutely beautiful pieces! GIA has a lot to answer for, IMO. :glare:

[Carol in Cal.]

So a hymn is defined as having a specific structure? To me (and again, this is purely my own POV and not meant to be a theological argument) a majority of the hymns that are sung are from a specific time frame. It was a "popular" style of music and there was a lot written. It is beautiful music and in no way am I undermining it's purpose in worship. However, what is to say that what is popular now won't be traditional in 30 years? KWIM? When I look through the hymnal at church there is some amazing music. However, there are more than a few songs that I just have to wonder at. It isn't particularly beautiful or well written, but it's age seems to account for it's presence in the hymnal. Given the choice of singing scripture put to music recently vs. a traditional hymn that isn't well written I'll choose the scripture everytime.

 

 

 

Actually, no, there was not a particular 'time' of hymn writing. In our hymnal the ages of the hymns range from about 1600 years old up to about 10. And, yes, definitely, some are better than others. But generally, they make it into a hymnal because they are the best--they have stood the test of time.

 

Contemporary worship is very tricky. To be contemporary you have to be up to the minute. That means that even today's best songs are going to sound either dated, timeless, or silly tomorrow--and by definition they will no longer be contemporary then. Do we throw away the timeless in that number? I would argue that we should not. But I would also argue that the Divine Service should not be proving ground for that decision. New stuff should start elsewhere, and if it lasts and merits eventual inclusion in the Divine Service it should be because it is timeless. I have a few candidates for those inclusions from the 70's--"Help Oh Lord The Thrown Away" and "The New 23rd" come to mind. The 80's--Keith Green's Easter songs (there are two). The 90's--"My Deliverer". Current stuff? I don't know yet. It hasn't worn enough. I really like "Holy is the Lord" but I think that over time it might get pretty old because it is so repetitive. "Praise Him In Advance" is one of my current favorites, and there is some good theology in it, but I'm not sure that it completely passes doctrinal muster for congregational use.

 

I believe in vernacular worship, but that should be QUALITY vernacular worship. That means it has to stand up to the test of time, Scriptural integrity, and content. If we change our worship completely every 5 years or so, we lose the catholicity of the church to a large extent, and we don't raise our children in a faith that they can return to if they ever stray. Faith is not only about church worship, of course, far from it! But so often the return to a dabbling in church attendance is the first toe put back into the water of faith, and a familiar church service is a comfort to returnees, old and young alike. We should take the long view.

[Carol in Cal.]

But see, that's your definition of a hymn. According to Webster's, a hymn is simply a song of praise to God. Also, "In Christ Alone" fits into your own definition of hymn. "In Christ Alone" does have multiple verses and it does have a rhyme pattern (although I'm not sure if it's considered traditional or not). Obviously, we all have different definitions on what we think is a hymn. Personally, if the song is based on Scripture, and I sing it as a way to worship, then it doesn't really matter to me what the genre the song it.

 

I love the old hymns, they are very rich. But I also think Chris Tomlin's "How Great is our God" is rich too.

Matthew 26:30 says "And when they had sung a hymn, they went out into the Mount of Olives". Even Jesus sung hymns with his disciples, and it wouldn't have been what we consider a hymn today.

 

No, In Christ Alone isn't a hymn. Like I think I said before, the definition is hard to pin down linguistically, but no one who has studied church music very much would call it that. It's a great song, though. I really like it. I also like "How Great is Our God" although I don't like to sing it in church--it seems more like a concert piece to me.

 

I have heard that the hymns that were sung in Israel at the time of Christ were psalms, which would fit into my definition as examples of the canticles.

[Jenny in GA]

A few rambling thoughts on all this:

 

1) My husband grew up in a liturgical church and does not like P&W music. He says it is too self-centered. He said once that if they re-wrote the lyrics to say "we" instead of "me" and "I," that would be enough for him to like it okay.

 

2) My MIL was at our daughter's baptism and lamented the P&W by saying, "Having this music at a church divides generations ... there is no longer a common bond."

 

3) As a musician myself, what really aggravates me is the "dumbing down" of music in general, no matter what style. Even when we sing hymns, the words are on a screen. The idea seems to be that of course everyone is too dumb, or lazy, or has better things to do, than to know anything about reading music, so why even bother?

 

The thing that really makes me want to scream is when people lead P&W music ... by playing a bleeping music video, and we all sing along!!! Oh my gosh! Why don't we all just watch a TV program of a church service while we're sitting in the pews? GIVE ME A BREAK!!

 

4) I think one of the reasons I don't like hymns more is that they are often not done well. The organist/pianist tends to drag. No one harmonizes. (See #3.) Many people can't reach the high notes and don't know what to sing as an alternative.

 

5) I hate when contemporary churches show blatant disdain for traditional music and instruments. No only is it rude, but it makes them look VERY stupid. I think Bach has been for a long time for a reason, and to laugh him off a "boring old fogie who of course we can't relate to because we're way more cool and hip than that" is outrageous.

 

6) I hate hate despise cannot stand absolutely abhor when a soloist (or choir, ugh!) sings along with a recording -- ESPECIALLY if the recording already has voices on it!!! I have actually sat through offertories where a CD recording was played!! Oh my gosh, what did I say earlier about things being dumbed down?!??!!!

 

6) Ultimately, for me personally, I think it's the quality of the music. I like just about all styles if they are well-done.

 

Jenny

[TXMomof4]

A few rambling thoughts on all this:

 

1) My husband grew up in a liturgical church and does not like P&W music. He says it is too self-centered. He said once that if they re-wrote the lyrics to say "we" instead of "me" and "I," that would be enough for him to like it okay.

Do you think that's a swing to finding a more personal relationship with Christ being the focus instead of depending on an organized church for your relationship? Just a thought.

 

2) My MIL was at our daughter's baptism and lamented the P&W by saying, "Having this music at a church divides generations ... there is no longer a common bond."

I hear this A LOT and it kind of irks me while I completely understand it. The only way we can have a bond if is nothing new is introduced ever? What about all of the amazing musicians who are writing excellent music? Should it never be sung? I agree - traditional hymns are comforting and wonderful, but they aren't the end of the creativity that God blesses people with.

 

3) As a musician myself, what really aggravates me is the "dumbing down" of music in general, no matter what style. Even when we sing hymns, the words are on a screen. The idea seems to be that of course everyone is too dumb, or lazy, or has better things to do, than to know anything about reading music, so why even bother?

This is something our church is really good about. They put the music on the screen. There are too many people who can't pick out the harmony, but can read music well enough to follow along.

 

The thing that really makes me want to scream is when people lead P&W music ... by playing a bleeping music video, and we all sing along!!! Oh my gosh! Why don't we all just watch a TV program of a church service while we're sitting in the pews? GIVE ME A BREAK!!

 

4) I think one of the reasons I don't like hymns more is that they are often not done well. The organist/pianist tends to drag. No one harmonizes. (See #3.) Many people can't reach the high notes and don't know what to sing as an alternative.

 

5) I hate when contemporary churches show blatant disdain for traditional music and instruments. No only is it rude, but it makes them look VERY stupid. I think Bach has been for a long time for a reason, and to laugh him off a "boring old fogie who of course we can't relate to because we're way more cool and hip than that" is outrageous.

 

6) I hate hate despise cannot stand absolutely abhor when a soloist (or choir, ugh!) sings along with a recording -- ESPECIALLY if the recording already has voices on it!!! I have actually sat through offertories where a CD recording was played!! Oh my gosh, what did I say earlier about things being dumbed down?!??!!!

 

6) Ultimately, for me personally, I think it's the quality of the music. I like just about all styles if they are well-done.

 

:iagree:

 

Jenny

 

GOod points!

[My3Boys]

A few rambling thoughts on all this:

 

1) My husband grew up in a liturgical church and does not like P&W music. He says it is too self-centered. He said once that if they re-wrote the lyrics to say "we" instead of "me" and "I," that would be enough for him to like it okay.

 

2) My MIL was at our daughter's baptism and lamented the P&W by saying, "Having this music at a church divides generations ... there is no longer a common bond."

 

3) As a musician myself, what really aggravates me is the "dumbing down" of music in general, no matter what style. Even when we sing hymns, the words are on a screen. The idea seems to be that of course everyone is too dumb, or lazy, or has better things to do, than to know anything about reading music, so why even bother?

 

The thing that really makes me want to scream is when people lead P&W music ... by playing a bleeping music video, and we all sing along!!! Oh my gosh! Why don't we all just watch a TV program of a church service while we're sitting in the pews? GIVE ME A BREAK!!

 

4) I think one of the reasons I don't like hymns more is that they are often not done well. The organist/pianist tends to drag. No one harmonizes. (See #3.) Many people can't reach the high notes and don't know what to sing as an alternative.

 

5) I hate when contemporary churches show blatant disdain for traditional music and instruments. No only is it rude, but it makes them look VERY stupid. I think Bach has been for a long time for a reason, and to laugh him off a "boring old fogie who of course we can't relate to because we're way more cool and hip than that" is outrageous.

 

6) I hate hate despise cannot stand absolutely abhor when a soloist (or choir, ugh!) sings along with a recording -- ESPECIALLY if the recording already has voices on it!!! I have actually sat through offertories where a CD recording was played!! Oh my gosh, what did I say earlier about things being dumbed down?!??!!!

 

6) Ultimately, for me personally, I think it's the quality of the music. I like just about all styles if they are well-done.

 

Jenny

 

:iagree:This. Every word of it.

 

Well said.

[brehon]

A few rambling thoughts on all this:

 

1) My husband grew up in a liturgical church and does not like P&W music. He says it is too self-centered. He said once that if they re-wrote the lyrics to say "we" instead of "me" and "I," that would be enough for him to like it okay.

 

I happen to agree with your dh. I also think much of the P&W music I've heard is musically, uh, lacking is possibly the nicest word.

 

2) My MIL was at our daughter's baptism and lamented the P&W by saying, "Having this music at a church divides generations ... there is no longer a common bond."

 

3) As a musician myself, what really aggravates me is the "dumbing down" of music in general, no matter what style. Even when we sing hymns, the words are on a screen. The idea seems to be that of course everyone is too dumb, or lazy, or has better things to do, than to know anything about reading music, so why even bother?

 

:iagree: see below

 

The thing that really makes me want to scream is when people lead P&W music ... by playing a bleeping music video, and we all sing along!!! Oh my gosh! Why don't we all just watch a TV program of a church service while we're sitting in the pews? GIVE ME A BREAK!!

 

4) I think one of the reasons I don't like hymns more is that they are often not done well. The organist/pianist tends to drag. No one harmonizes. (See #3.) Many people can't reach the high notes and don't know what to sing as an alternative.

 

The wonderful and hugely talented organist at the Cathedral has lamented the fact that organ students are no longer required to learn how to play hymns and also how to improvise.

 

5) I hate when contemporary churches show blatant disdain for traditional music and instruments. No only is it rude, but it makes them look VERY stupid. I think Bach has been for a long time for a reason, and to laugh him off a "boring old fogie who of course we can't relate to because we're way more cool and hip than that" is outrageous.

 

6) I hate hate despise cannot stand absolutely abhor when a soloist (or choir, ugh!) sings along with a recording -- ESPECIALLY if the recording already has voices on it!!! I have actually sat through offertories where a CD recording was played!! Oh my gosh, what did I say earlier about things being dumbed down?!??!!!

 

Now, now. Don't hold back, dear, tell us how you really feel. It'll make you feel better. :tongue_smilie:

 

6) Ultimately, for me personally, I think it's the quality of the music. I like just about all styles if they are well-done.

 

Jenny

 

The bolded is what I referenced when I wrote that GIA has a lot to answer for. It is generally because of this...group...that hymns in the Catholic church have been dumbed down over the past couple of generations. GIA convinced a lot of people that the music was simply too hard for the poor congregations to sing, despite the fact that most parishoners could not only sing these hymns, but would also sing the harmony parts. :huh: :toetap05:

 

Fortunately, the parishoners at the Cathedral where I sing not only appreciate good hymns, they also get rather put out if we don't sing the usual fare at Communion (i.e. Josquin, Palestrina, Byrd, all the great composers of the Medieval and Renaissance periods). And we're more than happy to oblige them. :)

[Laurie4b]

I love hymns!

 

I'm very uncomfortable with praise and worship music in church. (I'm fine with most of it for daily listening.) I think this is because the few times I've been in a church with praise and worship music, I felt the leaders were trying to emotionally manipulate the congregation. They'd have us repeat the chorus again and again, or sometimes even the entire song until we apparently reached the appropriate fervor?

 

But then, I am drawn to a more liturgical form of worship. I like the solemnity of it, the connection with the past. It's rare for me to really like a hymn written after about 1900.

 

I would not choose to attend a church that substituted hymns for praise and worship music, and if my church changed to that, I would probably leave.

 

It's possible that the leaders were trying to manipulate the congregation; I think it more likely that the leaders were responding to the songs. Repetition can be a form of meditation--allowing oneself to really taste deeply of the thought expressed in the song. I know when our worship leader has us repeat something, it's quite likely that he wants to stay in the thought the song is expressing.