If Hymns are Better ….
Hey Everyone -
OK, so Mandy over at BlendedWorship (the blog Goddess) recently posted an article called “Hymns Are Better”. I won’t rehash that article, but would encourage you to check it out here and enjoy the comments by her readers.
I posted my own comment which got me thinking … I should blog this …
So, this is my reply to Mandy’s blog … and I’m in no way taking issue with whether or not hymns are “better or not” … you can take up that issue over there … but before I even approach that … I want to know …
“what makes a hymn and hymn”?
Here is a copy of my reply …
Good post … my question is .. “what makes a hymn a hymn … and if hymns are better, are there still hymns being written today, and if so .. why are they considered a hymn�
Hmm .. I may have to BLOG that one!
So … I’d like some answers to my reply above … let the discussion begin, worshipers!
Fred
on August 25th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
Very Interesting Topic…
I don’t know what the discussion is all about…have an idea though; however, it reminds me of which is better…vanilla or chocolate…
I suspect there are some new songs on my website that could be classed as hymns…Does it point to JESUS?
on August 25th, 2007 at 4:10 pm
In my opinion, this is the defining discussion in “worship wars”. What is a hymn?
The arguments of for or against are always based on content, theology and relevance. The problem is that their is good and bad in both. Style is truly at the heart of the argument and if it as simple as that (which in my opinion it is) than we can move forward. If we then can move forward and just decide who we are in flavor and personality, we can then focus on choosing songs that are theologically qualified and relevant.
I know this sounds like a response to hymns vs choruses, but it isn’t. here is my point…
If we aren’t arguing over “style” then we can see what a hymn is, “a song or ode in praise or honor of God”. That is the dictionary definition. That sound very cool to me! Living by that definition no longer allows us to argue style, but instead challenges us to write song and choose song appropriately to “praise and honor God”.
I know it is not that simple, but it should be. I love old and new, but often find myself having to defend one or the other because of inappropriate definitions of what a song to God is.
on August 25th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
Brent … exactly … “inappropriate definitions of what a song to God is …” .
Which is why this post will be about helping define it .. thanks for your input!
Ed - read this post and Mandy’s to get caught up .. it’s not about “I like this or that” - more about definition and perception.
on August 25th, 2007 at 4:33 pm
Well Fred,
In that case, I’m not really sure what a hymn is unless one of the requirements is that it was written in a certain time period, with accompaniment that adheres to the words, and not having extra notes inbetween the melody to ensure singing structure in unison.
That seems to be the tie that binds. No hymnal pun intended!
Wanda
on August 25th, 2007 at 5:24 pm
Fred - In figuring out how to define “hymns”, are we saying it hasn’t been defined yet? The point I bring up is that the word “hymns” already has a definition and there is no sense in re-defining a “hymn” or starting a new label. I think to some point, this is what has fueled the fire in the arguments in the first place. The church has claimed a group of older songs as “hymns”, and has over time discounted the value of newer “hymns” and called them a chorus. A hymn by definition is not a style of music or a song written in a certain time period. That is a label that the church has placed on it. In doing so, the church has given grounds for “this or that” arguments. The church has gotten itself in trouble using words that define a certain aspect of what we do. Look at the word church. We always say we are going to church, but we aren’t, we are the church. Going to service would be appropriate as one of the definitions of service is, “a ritual or form prescribed for public worship or for some particular occasion: the marriage service.”
I guess what I am saying is, do we need our own definition or even word for what we do? I think by adding labels and more standards, we continue to separate opinions inside and outside the church.
on August 25th, 2007 at 5:29 pm
Hope that doesn’t sound strong…purely discussion here
on August 25th, 2007 at 5:47 pm
Hey, inWorship -
Great input … but you are answering the reason for the discussion in your reply … you say there is already a definition … but because “some call it this”, “some call it that” (ie. older songs called hymns, newer ones called choruses), that reinforces the whole discussion.
Example:
I’ll have someone (usually an elderly person) come up to me and say “I wish you did more hymns”. Well, I’m more mellow than I used to be … at that time, quite “tongue in cheek”, I’d reply “what in the world do you think it is that we’re singing now!”?
Of course, I knew exactly what they meant … “I wish you’d sing those old songs I learned when I grew up - the ones that are in the hard bound books in the racks behind the pews”.
So, I think that there is a huge misconception about what a “hymn” truly is. It is NOT a song from a time period!
Which brings me back to the discussion … how would YOU define a hymn … are hymns still written today .. and how can we try to bring awareness that just because a song wasn’t written my Wesley, Luther, etc … that it doesn’t mean it’s not a “hymn”.
Fred
on August 25th, 2007 at 6:07 pm
Gotcha!
I was not seeing this discussion from this perspective, I was seeing it specifically as a definition to what a hymn was, but you’ve brought up a great question.
I have to admit that this discussion is as much for me as it is anyone else. I call “those songs” hymns, but in my heart I know what they are to me and that is a song of praise and adoration to God. So if that is a good definition, there it is. Based on that definition they have been written from the genesis days to today and will continue to be written.
How do we “bring awareness”, there is the question of every worship leader, how do we teach our church? Honestly, you gave a great example and it is an appropriate response. It happens from the stage..sure, but more than that it happens one on one. Leadership in the church has the ability to set standards for biblical truth. They need to. The Worship Leader/Senior Pastor relationship is the most crucial in the church. Often times a Senior Pastor depending on age, will be for hymns as a young Worship Pastor is standing up for his/her modern choruses(just one scenario…obviously). The relationship and knowledge the 2 can gain from each other then becomes what and how the church teaches it’s people. A worship leader can’t tell a church that a hymn is not or hymn or vice versa if the Senior Pastor disagrees. There has to be humility and respect from both sides, with the intentional goal for biblical truth. That unfortunately is a very long and never ending road for some churches (I know, cause I’ve been there).
like I said before, I think the definition is easy to come to, but what you bring up is the difficult part.
What are your thoughts on that?
on August 25th, 2007 at 6:24 pm
man i sure don’t…i think he’s a vineyard guy…i’m sure with a little research you could find a way to contact him…
(hopefully)
thanks for reading!….
on August 25th, 2007 at 8:39 pm
you’re a brave man!
on August 25th, 2007 at 8:54 pm
or stupid!
Seriously … will be interesting to see … I think we all know what we think of when we hear the word “hymns” … but my question is “why” are “those” the only “hymns” …. lol
Call me insane … I doubt the answer really is that cut and dry, but should bring on some interesting discussion!
God bless ya,
fred
on August 26th, 2007 at 12:15 am
Come on Mandy, you gotta get in on this
You know you want to…