I know I said I'd regale you with the events of my summer after I got back in Florida and had more time. Only one of those has come true. At this point, knowing me, I kinda of doubt I'll ever actually get around to it. Right now, I want to contemplate a matter that has been on my mind quite a bit since Indiana Leadership camp.
At Leadership camp, I had the privilege of taking a singing class lead by Stephen Rouse, in which we sang and learned about hymns. I also had the opportunity of using quite a remarkable hymnal at the time; the new Sumphonia hymnal, Psalms, Hymns and Spiritual Songs (I liked it so much, I actually bought one for myself, which I've never done for a hymnal before). As musical as I am, the class would probably classify as my favorite one of the week. This class really got me thinking about hymns in general, and what exactly qualifies as a "good hymn". Here are my thought...
A balance needs to be drawn between words and tune. Ultimately, the words are the most important part, 'cause it's in the words that any meaning is found. The closer the words are to the bible, the better the song's meaning will typically be. However, a better method than this, I think, is to follow what the biblical words mean, in stead of merely copying what it says. Unfortunately, no specific song comes to mind that was very biblical in its wording, and yet was a total catastrophe in its spiritual edification (I guess that's really a good thing), but compare it to the idea of taking a bible verse out of context; Sure! it's from the bible, but just because that's what the bible said, that's not necessarily what it means. On the other side of the spectrum, I can think of many songs that were not very scriptural in their direct wording, but very biblical in concept. This is what I think we should strive for as far as the wording of hymns goes, and it's not a particularly profound discovery, just merely common sense, when you think about it.
My difficulty with hymns comes from the tunes. I view that tunes have a slightly larger importance on hymns than most people think. A "good tune" is harder to pinpoint than "good words," because it's not like we have recordings of how the Hebrews or the first century Christians sang hymns and what their hymns sounded like. There's a category of hymns that I like to call "Tune-first hymns"; the name is pretty self-explanatory in its first sense, I say, "first sense," because I think there are at least a couple ways in which a hymn can be tune-first. The first sense is when the tune is actually written first; when chronologically, it was actually first. This is not automatically a negative thing. If you're familiar with how metrical indexes work on hymns, you'll find that many hymns words can be fit to many different tunes, and likewise many tunes, to different sets of words. To me, this is merely a fact of hymns, and does not necessarily mean that the author wrote the words solely because he liked the tune. Though he may have.
The second sense is when the song does indeed seem to be focused on the tune; a tune-first motivation in writing, not chronology. The tune of He Bore It All does not inspire one to dwell on the seriousness of Jesus "suffering pain and agony". I take that the song is attempting to look on the brighter side of Jesus' death, and the fact that we are saved through him, but I think Virgil Stamps failed to put a sufficient amount of thought into it, and lacks, in my opinion (unfortunately, that is what most of this ends up to be, opinions) the proper reverence for the situation. As Hebrews 13.15 says, "let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of lips that give thanks to His name," I think it fails to be a proper sacrifice when one feels the need to get Jazz hands or to snap one's fingers and bob one's head to the beat or to sway with arms extended in the air. Each of these actions betray a focus on sensation and emotion, as opposed to words and meaning. I would not say it's a sin to sing these songs when they happen to be sung, I simply hold to the belief that there are better songs to be sung than these.
An additional conflict I have with some hymns is hymn construction, which is a kind of a subgroup of the second sense of Tune-first hymns.
I have reservations of the legitimacy of songs that flip-flop between parts (Sopranos sing one thing, then Basses repeat), or where they have the part sing different things (Sopranos sing one thing, while basses sing a similar, or even totally different, thought). The example above, He Bore It All, does both of these things. I'm hesitant to like these songs as hymns, 'cause these formats tend to be on the showier side, and less of what I would consider a "sacrifice." In addition, I haven't seen much biblical example of such formats, aside from The Song of Solomon, where the Bride and Bridegroom are singing to each other. I haven't done much research on it, but when it comes to praising God, I personally have not seen an example of switching between parts (perhaps people with a larger knowledge and a better picture of the bible can help me on this). I would not say it's a sin to sing these songs when they happen to be sung, I simply hold to the belief that there are better songs to be sung than these.
Another hymn I have trouble reconciling, due to it's tune and construction, is the song The Greatest Commands. If you are unfamiliar with the song, here's how it works. It starts with altos singing almost word for word 1 John 4.7-8. After one time through, the basses join in, singing 1 Corinthians 13.7. After a run-through of that, Tenors join in, singing "God is love", quoting 1 John 4.8b. After that, Sopranos, with Luke 10.27. And to wind it all up, the song is sung with all the parts again.
My main question is "Why?" What makes this format better than everyone singing together. On the contrary, this setup seems to me even less effective, if anything. It's practically impossible to distinguish the individual parts when *not* singing along with it, and solely listening to it. If a total stranger were to walk up as this were being sung, all he would find is a jumbled mass of words, and gain little if any coherent message from the song (they would probably gather that "God is love", but this is not surprising, as they have a total of fifty-two chances to hear it said throughout the song. Purely in jest, though maybe with a grain of truth, doesn't the bible say something about vain repetition?). The only way to know what the song is actually saying is to know what the words already are.
In response to this, while talking to him about it, Philip said that in this situation the song perhaps works for the edification of those singing it, or those listening to it who are already familiar with it; that is, not some random stranger that walks through the door. If the song is sung exactly the way it's written, then Altos have to say their part five times, Basses four, Sopranos twice. The Tenors' part is just absolutely ridiculous. Remember the parenthetical comment above, mentioning that "God is love" is said fifty-two times throughout the song? Tenors sing thirty-six of those fifty-two times, and that is the extent of their part. You might think that the edification that Tenors receive comes from the other parts, and they listen to it while singing their own part. In my own experience, and I've tried multiple times, I cannot pay attention at all to other parts of the song while singing it (and I sing the part that requires least concentration, bass). The only way I can somewhat legitimately sing the song is singing each of the parts myself, as they join in (this is clearly not how everyone sings the song, because then we'd only have one part going at a time, which has never been the case in my experience). While I'm sure there are people out there somewhere that can hear every part at the same time, I am not one of those people. So I'm either the impaired person in a group of people that can, or we need to assess our reasons for singing this song.
The third sense is when we consider our motivation in singing the hymn. This is the most important sense, and most relevant to us. Why do we sing the hymns we do? I often find myself falling into liking a hymn for its tune (I get the feeling many of us do), though typically the tunes I like happen to be good songs at the same time; for example, I really like the song All People That On Earth Do Dwell, it happens to be both a good song (almost thought for thought with Psalms 100) and it has an awesome tune.
I'm not a big fan of many Camp songs for this sense of tune-first hymns and the second one above it as well. I'm not opposed to singing them myself (and other tune-first hymns); they don't directly oppose anything the bible says; their simplicity is appealing in camp-like settings, where many of the members are significantly younger; their memorability is useful (like in previously mentioned setting, and when no hymnals or sheet music are being used); but in the end, I can't help but question why we choose to sing those songs, especially in settings where we don't have the restrictions mentioned.
I do what I can to focus on the words of the good hymns I like, not the tune; to like the right thing for the right reason, not the right thing for the wrong reason, and thus avoid the fallacy I worry other people make. And on the other side of the spectrum, when a song I don't particularly like happens to be sung, I try to retain the thought, "If the song is going to be sung anyway, then might as well get out of it what I can." I would not say it's a sin to sing these songs, I simply hold to the belief that there are better songs to be sung than these.
Ultimately, tunes are to enhance the singing experience so as to better worship God, for that is our goal. I would not be opposed to a tune that flip-flopped between parts, if it managed to make the song truly edifying to those singing, understood by those listening, and most importantly, make it most effective as worship to God. For example, Exalted and Our God, He Is Alive, two songs I really like, in spite of their flip-flopping.
I think this post mostly ended up being just a bunch of my opinions for what I like and what I don't like, but I thought I'd just share my thoughts on the matter, and it turns out there were far more thoughts than I was originally anticipating. I hope it's at least more coherent than The Greatest Commands.
soldier_of_christ
Enjoy the camera! If you want to know anything about it, you can ask Didymus. He'd probably enjoy having another person to talk about cameras with. And could probably tell you more about using them than you want to know, unless you're a serious amateur photographer. :)
I may do "Psalms, Hymns, and Spiritual Songs" next. And maybe I'll stick with it a little better, and not take a couple years to go through it. :P