By Jonathan Howe
I might lose my Millennial card for admitting this, but:
I like hymnals. A lot.
Yes, I realize I’m supposed to want to worship with fog machines and song lyrics on projector screens with cool moving backgrounds. And sometimes I enjoy that too—but not all the time.
So why would a 36-year old Millennial enjoy hymnals? Here are my five reasons:
- Holding the hymnal in my hands and reading the lyrics help me focus in worship. If my eyes are fixed on the words and notes to sing, I’m less distracted. Other than maybe the first and last verse of many hymns, I don’t know the words. Unlike many newer worship songs that I’ve memorized easily, I have to pay more attention to what I’m singing when using a hymnal because I’m less familiar with the words.
- I prefer the ability to read music and sing harmony. I’m one of the strange people you sit next to in church who default to singing harmony and not melody. Having the music in the hymnal helps—especially with unfamiliar tunes. While I can sing harmony by ear when needed, having the music in front of me is always preferred.
- Hymns use phrasing and words that modern songs don’t. Hymnals are full of rich theology and turns of phrase that we just don’t see anymore. Twitter’s 140 characters and the short lyrical hooks we find in modern songs have seemingly diminished our vocabulary. Hymns are full of poetic theological language missing in many contemporary songs.
- Responsive readings are virtually nonexistent in many protestant churches, and I’m not sure that’s a good thing. Our liturgies have left behind responsive readings—a core component found in many hymnals. Like the hymns mentioned in the previous point, responsive readings are filled with rich theology. As hymnals have been used less and less, responsive readings in our church services have all but disappeared.
- I want my kids to know hymns as well. I recently took my kids to an event that included a hymn sing. They knew virtually none of the songs. I knew all but one. I realized in that moment that they’ve never been in church services where hymnals were used. Everything is on the screen, and the songs being sung are the ones they hear on the radio. It’s good that they know the songs they do, but I’d also love for them to know hymns as well.
Does your church use hymnals? Do you have them and never use them? Are you a Millennial who misses using hymnals as well?
Jonathan Howe serves as Director of Strategic Initiatives at LifeWay Christian Resources as well as the host and producer of Rainer on Leadership and SBC This Week. Jonathan writes weekly at ThomRainer.com on topics ranging from social media to websites and church communications. Connect with Jonathan on Twitter at @Jonathan_Howe.
Posted on March 23, 2017
109 Comments
The thing about hymnals is that it can be distracting from the message. This is not a knock against hymns, but rather hymnALS. The words in hymnals are arranged rhythmically and syllabically rather than in poetic form like you would read in a lyric sheet or on a projector. With the notes and broken presentation of the lyrics, it is harder to follow the content. Although it may not be the intention, content takes a back seat to musicality in the presentation of hymnals. On a projector, you can see complete phrases and thoughts and more easily interpret them. Most in the congregation I’ve found sings the melody cause it is easier and because that rings more sentimentally with them than a supporting harmony part. And there is the ever classic problem of the last verse in a hymn being too far away from the notes that it is a distraction in and of itself. I have worshiped both ways, and much prefer the projector then I am in a congregation.
Also about the stereotype that hymns are richer and modern songs are shallow is just that…a stereotype. There are great new songs being written, though granted there is a lot of run of the mill stuff being produced today. There are more hymns than many would care to admit with poor theology (Old Rugged Cross anyone?) and some wonderful new music being written today. It just takes effort to sift among the bad apples of both traditions and get to the good stuff. We do a blended style with focus on rich theology at our church and it serves our congregation so well.
I’ve never thought about the arrangement of the words. That’s a great point.
What’s wrong with “The Old Rugged Cross”? I think its theology is quite good.
If people say that much of modern worship music has poor theology, this song, too, could be considered in the same light, similar to the song “Above All” (Jesus never thought of me as He was on the cross, He thought of doing His Father’s will; His Father’s will was to sacrifice His Son to save His people, which includes me).
“The Old Rugged Cross” is a song that uses poetic imagery to lead people to understand the depth of loss, pain, suffering, forgiveness and mercy given us by Christ. The music is rich. It ebbs and flows. It has a climax, it has an ending. It moves people. The lyrics leave something to be desired. Where some might see it fail, is that the cross becomes the iconic imagery rather than Christ. The “dear Lamb” never left His glory, it went with Him. Jesus never became less than the Son of God at any point. Approaching the cross saves nothing. Approaching Jesus, giving Him all we are and ever have been, in contrition and rejoicing is the only way to the Father.
Excuse me for saying it, but you’re straining at gnats. When the song says Jesus left His “glory”, it’s clearly talking about the glory of heaven. Furthermore, it is perfectly scriptural to exalt the cross of Jesus because of what it symbolizes. The apostle Paul said he boasted in the cross of Christ. Was he a heretic?
“The Old Rugged Cross” is poor theology at best. First of all, the sentimentality of it is akin to an old family heirloom like a grandfather clock or a record player and takes away from the reverence of the subject. Second, the focus is on the cross rather than the Savior who died ON the cross. Going with that, are we to “cling to the cross” or to our Savior? And how would we exchange the cross that Christ died on for a crown, which sounds awkwardly like a lottery ticket? It’s just a poorly written hymn on many levels. It is important to distinguish elegant poetry with sound theology. Many contemporary songs are admittedly rather elementary in a poetic sense, but contain sound theology (though not all). Some hymns like this one and others suffer from bad theology. Hymn does not mean good and contemporary does not mean bad. Discernment should still be exercised on the part of the Scripturally rather than sentimentally minded Christian.
Great read, thanks for all you do. I’m a worship pastor at a medium size church in Knoxville TN, and we no longer use or have hymnals in the sanctuary and thus utilize screens at front of house for lyrics projection. We utilize a wide variety of music and styles in services, and sing hymns each and every week. I agree that hymns are plum full of theology and truth and that is why we sing them. That being said whether someone is reading the lyrics from a piece of paper or a screen should ultimately have little to no bearing on one’s ability to worship through congregational singing. We are not a liturgical church by any mean’s but I incorporate scripture readings EVERY Sunday and we use call and response readings from time to time.
Concerning those that are musically inclined and want to read parts and sing harmonies. In our situation most of those people are either singing harmonies by ear or serve in some capacity on our worship team and have music to practice and prepare with.
For our church singing hymns, but singing them from a screen and sometimes in a different arrangement is a great way to bridge the gap and foster cohesion and unity in a room that has 500 people from ages 4-90 in a given service.
Blessings on your ministries friends.
Also want to mention that I believe there are hymns with strong theology and there are hymns with little to none. The same can be said of modern worship songs….some of them are strong and some are severely lacking.
Whether a song is 250 years old or published in 2017 it needs to be tested against scripture.
Interesting discussion points. I understand the various points given but I wonder how much of this conversation is preference driven. Most of the points are a “me” or “I” focus. “I focus in worship”, “I prefer the ability …”, “I’m not sure that’s …”, “I want my kids …”.
If I may ask, what is the purpose of sharing these thoughts? Is it to raise awareness of other methods of joining in song?
As one commenter alluded to, it is difficult to define what makes a hymn vs a praise song. Those distinctions are different for each person. Perhaps, there should be no distinction although the Bible does refer to three types of song that all give glory and honour to God (hymns, psalms, and spiritual songs – Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16).
There are resources for displaying notation on screens. http://www.digitalsongsandhymns.com/ is one resource. Also, our denomination has a hymnal, “Lift Up Your Hearts”, that provides notation for the screen (both a lyric-only option as well as a musical notation option). I’ve seen them used in a variety of churches, some well, some not.
I’ve learned that, for the most part, millennials who prefer hymns, hymnals, and other traditional aspects of corporate worship, are those who grew up going to church. The emergent movement that sought many forms of earlier traditions was largely a millennial movement of churched young people who were doing what their parents did, rejecting the methods of their parent’s generation. The Boomers rejected the traditional worship in favor of contemporary. Emergents rejected the contemporary worship of their parents. But emergents had very few conversions. The strength of contemporary forms of worship (which simply means that it is familiar and understandable for people in modern times) is that unchurched people can understand what is going on, even though they have not spent a lifetime in church culture, or have had to have lengthy explanations about what all the traditions mean. Hymnals are rarely meaningful for those who did not grow up going to church. Some traditional churches are reaching unchurched people, but evangelism is still most effective in churches that try hard to keep everything understandable to common people. The churches that so many of these blog posts criticize, those with lights and fog and video screens, still have far more young people attending them than the churches that do things traditionally. I’m in favor of any form of worship that helps people connect with and honor God. If you really do that with Fanny Crosby style hymns, that’s great. But are you bringing lost people with you?
That’s a fair question.
That kind of thinking can be dangerous. I’m all for evangelism, but we make a mistake when we let the world set our agenda for worship. I’m afraid many churches are doing just that. Steven Furtick, for instance, talks a lot about evangelism. He insists his methods reach people for Christ. Yet I’ve watched him on TV a few times, and he has a terrible habit of twisting Scripture to make it say what he wants it to say. He might be drawing big crowds, but I really have to question whether he’s winning people to Jesus.
That’s not to imply that contemporary music is always bad. As Paige Patterson has noted, all songs were contemporary at one time or another. I’m just saying that we have to use discernment in the ways we “contextualize” the gospel. As the emergent movement has proven, many times it leads to error and even heresy.
Really only #1 requires a hymnal. We can and do project musical notation for some songs. As a lead pastor who has led worship both ways over 35+ years I can say it’s largely preference, but what I have noticed is that our singing is better with the screens than with the books since with the books people tended to look (and down) down or into the book. Now heads are up and the singing projects out. And there’s no need to break the flow by announcing pages, verses, etc. And, since we live in a culture which is less musically literate than it once was, no need to explain what repeats are, where they repeat to, etc. I love hymnals, but I wouldn’t go back to using them exclusively or even most of the time.
I started “leading singing” in a non-instrumental church when I was ten years old (I turn 75 this year). As an adult, with a music degree, I continued “leading singing”.
The most enviable place to be was in front of the congregation. It was like directing a 200 voice choir. We sang four parts and they could sightread a new hymn with ease. The closest today with a worship team leading is when the instruments stop playing and we repeat the final chorus a cappella. To my old ears it is heavenly.
I attend what I call a country congregation in a Baptist church that was established in 1854 (our current building was built on the same site in 1950) and we have always used hymnals. I’m surprised by other people’s shock when asked about our services. I play piano and have even had churches ask me to record hymns so they can sing them in their church because none of their music people know how to play hymns. I’m not sure I believe that, maybe their worship band just doesn’t want to …..
My Grandmother, in her time, grew up going to singing schools. The use of singing schools to teach parts/harmony, vocal technique, methods (like shape notes) to easily transpose keys – resulted in a large part of a congregation knowing how to read music (at least if the notes go up, the voice goes up if nothing else). I think that had a lot to do with keeping hymnals in the pews. Singing schools are starting to have some sort of revival in areas, so maybe people will want to see music again and not just “words on a wall.”
Matthew 15:8-9 ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’ ”
At the end of the day, worship must be more than just something from our lip. A heart that is near to God is important. So, “trendy”, is really not the question. The question, is the song a God-exalting song? And that question can be asked of any song, no difference the date of publication.
Singing schools sound fascinating.
Singing schools are interesting. See if there is a Sacred Harp group in Nashville, Jonathan — there probably is. It would be an interesting experience if you’ve never experienced it before.
Those old “convention-style” songs that they use in singing schools are a lot of fun to sing. On the choruses, the parts go all different directions (not unlike a piece from Handel’s “Messiah”, but with a country flavor). One of my great regrets is that I never attended the Stamps-Baxter Singing School when Ben Speer was leading it. His father was an old-style singing school teacher, so he knew how it was done.
We saw a resurgence of singing schools in the 90’s, due to the new popularity of southern gospel music. I suspect there are still a few around.
I disagree with a lot of this, some for personal reasons and some based on ministry experience. Note that I have a degree in music and have been the worship arts pastor in three different churches as well as lead pastor in two (which is what I do now). I’ve also been part of one of the fastest growing churches in America.
1. My experience is the exact opposite. It’s harder for me to focus on worship with my face buried in a book. Obviously just my experience.
2. I agree with this, personally…but most people (like, a significantly high percentage) can’t read music.
3. Pretty strongly disagree. Many modern songs use lots of beautiful phrasing. Yes, many are shallow and repetitive…but by no means all. I’d also contest the idea that hymns have more rich theology than many modern songs. Yes, many do. But many hymns also have awful theology, and many modern songs have lots of theological depth. I’d also argue that many hymns are overly stuffy or use antiquated language that makes no sense to unchurched people, so it goes both ways. I think there is an assumption that “if it’s a hymn, it has great theology” and “if it’s a modern song, it must be shallow.” Neither is true. In both cases, selecting the RIGHT songs is key.
4. Again, this is more personal perspective, but responsive readings were one of the things that turned me off most about church. Super boring and ritualistic, that ended up just being “going through the motions”. Yes, this is completely on me. But, then, it’s also completely on most unchurched people, which becomes a barrier.
5. Completely agree with this. But there is a way to do hymns in a way that is musically current/relevant (and doesn’t necessarily need a hymnal to do it).
Also, in response to some of the comments about congregational singing: the other factor for us is that most unchurched people, when polled, say that they don’t want to hear themselves sing. Churched people largely prefer “congregational singing”…and the louder it is, somehow the better. Unchurched people (largely millenials, I might add) feel that congregational singing is awkward and off-putting. They want to experience the music rather than being the focus of it. Hearing themselves (or their neighbor) singing breaks that immersion. This isn’t true across the board, of course, but the statistics do show that this perspective is more common, especially with people under 40 (including those under 20).
As with anything, it’s largely a matter of perspective. My guess is that this author largely comes from a churched background. Things start to shift when you’re talking about people that have no experience with church.
Your comment makes me question what a worship service really is, though. Of course I want unchurched/visitors to feel welcome, but I didn’t think we held services just to reach new members. I thought the meeting together of the saints was for our mutual encouragement. If that is the case, first and foremost, the discipleship of the churched group should take precedence over what any unchurched visitors might want. What fulfills the need we have for meeting together?
Thank you for sharing this, Jonathan! Like you, I also want a healthy knowledge and love for the hymns in addition to enjoying what modern worship is bringing us. This really hit my nerdy side because I love hearing & singing harmony, and the hymnal helps with this. Thanks for stepping out on this!
Thanks, Heath!
I agree that, in general, the hymns are far superior to most modern “worship” music. I particularly like the way that Promise Keepers used hymns by updating them with more modern and peppier music. However, this boomer likes the idea of doing both projection and hymnals. Purists like my wife prefer the hymnal so they have the music, but I think for the majority the projected words puts our heads up and promotes better singing. I also have the problem that the light in many sanctuaries is not the best and for those with presbyopia it makes the words in the hymnal hard to see.
It seems that millennials are looking for authentic worship and the use of a hymnal brings back a simpler time in church history before the worship wars exploded and divided so many churches. I have had the privilege to serve in several different types of worship settings from exclusively traditional hymnal driven to contemporary. I like hymnals because it does allow people another tool to use in worship, but hymnals can be limiting in selections of the great old hymns and modern worship songs. I am currently serving in a great situation where we have the 2008 Baptist Hymnal available for people to use but we don’t use it exclusively. I try to pull from other hymnals as well as LifeWay Worship and the many other resources that are out there when planning worship. In addition to the 2008 Baptist Hymnal we pull our worship songs from Celebration Hymnal, Hymnal for Worship and Celebration, the 1956, 1975, and 1991 Baptist Hymnal, The Broadman Hymnal, Heavenly Highways, and many other hymnals. As a worship leader, it is my passion in worship to have a balance between the great hymns of the faith and modern worship songs.
Jason, I like you words “authentic worship”. I like hymns including some of the newer ones as well as spiritual songs. I believe, when the Holy Spirit is in charge totally, we will have that authentic worship leadership. Example: I went to a church which for the most part sang lively, but I did not like when we sang “Brethren We Have Met to Worship” because the “worship leader” drug it. A positive message was not conveyed. Then I went to another church where it was sung more lively and realized it was a song conducive to true worship. It was just the perspective I had. Any song or service can be like that, whether to loud, to soft, to unengaging, to many new songs that no one knows, bands that are so loud you cannot hear yourself think let alone the fact your hearing may be being distroyed. Ultimate responsibility is the Senior pastor of the church and those in the pew who have prepared themselves for worship.
Great article. These are great points for churched people. Where I am in New England, there is little to know foundation anymore. I’m experiencing a Post Christian nation in real time. Churched people will find churches , but where do lost people go? In my experience, The only people who ever ask for hymnals is churched people. As for congregational singing, passion is the key to what you are singing. I would watch people sing Victory in Jesus, but saw no Victory. Would love to hear the thoughts of others on this. Thanks!
Wow Gary – what a statement “I would watch people sing Victory in Jesus, but saw no Victory.” That made me shudder.
Maybe some of our churches/pastors need to take the Matt Redman approach at times and (with the risk of running off the church-hopping consumers), take a step back, go a little more raw and bare-bones, and focus on the meaning behind the words as well as focusing on their hearts of worship coming from holy and pure lives.
Completely agree Gary. Big difference in perspectives based on if you’re churched or unchurched (or who you’re trying to reach). If you want to do something that churched people love, hymnals are a great way to go. You will simultaneously have the exact opposite effect on (most) unchurched people.