Subscribe to Christianity Today
Subscribe to Christianity Today
Donate to Christianity Today
login | my account
May 26, 2012

Home > 2011 > MarchChristianity Today, March, 2011
Worship
Pop Goes the Worship
Religion professor T. David Gordon says Muzak has shaped singing in church.




Why Johnny Can't Sing Hymns
by T. David Gordon
P & R Publishing, 2010
128 pp., $10.99

In his new book, Why Johnny Can't Sing Hymns (P & R Publishing), T. David Gordon argues that modern worship choruses have trumped hymns in many congregations because for decades, we have been inundated with pop music—to the point that many of us don't know better. If you eat nothing but Big Macs, Gordon says, you will never appreciate a filet mignon.

A professor of religion at Grove City College, Gordon takes a media ecology approach, which he describes as the study of "the social and individual human consequences when a new medium is introduced to a culture." Regarding church music, Gordon says, media ecologists should ask how music, "once a participatory thing, became a passive thing. What happens when people who used to sing folk music around the house are now surrounded by Muzak? How does that alter our sensibilities of music?"

In the context of the church's "worship wars," Gordon's views may seem controversial and certainly will not stop the feuding. While not everyone will agree with him, his arguments can take the discussion about church music to a deeper, richer place. Christianity Today senior associate editor Mark Moring recently spoke with Gordon.

The media ecology approach brings a new perspective to the worship wars.

The wars are still going partly because none of the ways by which people tried to explain the wars were sticking. I think media ecology allows us to better understand the division. You could not explain the change [from traditional hymns to praise-and-worship songs] on either theological grounds or aesthetic grounds. So I started asking, On what grounds could we explain it?

The Reformation also changed worship music, but only after two-and-a-half centuries of serious theological discussion. It hasn't been the same with modern changes; the debate came about ex post facto. In fact, proponents of contemporary worship music do not consider singing "A Mighty Fortress" to be sinful, in the way that Calvin and Luther thought the Mass was sinful.

You write that we evangelicals are beholden to "contemporaneity." What do you mean?

Many are promoting an "aesthetic" that it is our duty to patronize living artists and not artists who are dead. Should we also not read books that are more than 50 years old, or enter buildings that are more than 50 years old? Christians aren't abandoning their buildings, and they haven't stopped reading Spurgeon or Edwards or Luther or Calvin. We haven't rejected other art forms that are not new. We've done so only with music.

Have we really rejected it, or do we just prefer modern music?

It's closer to rejection at this point. In every generation, gifted people would write some good hymns, and subsequent generations would enjoy them. Nothing new there. What's new is the notion that you have to have new music in a worship service. That's unprecedented. I'm asking why people feel this emotional distance from hymns that was not felt by generations before.

Today, traditionalists and contemporary enthusiasts both seem to be saying, "We'll do our thing, you do yours, and we'll agree to disagree." What's wrong with that?

It is always appropriate to articulate differences in a manner that encourages Christian fellowship and charity. But those of us who regret all denominational differences, on the ground that they become effective barriers to the highest expressions of Christian unity, also regret that "traditional" and "contemporary" have become their own denominations. So in this sense, it is never good for Christians to simply say to other Christians, "Go in peace, be warm and full." We first should try to understand our differences, then attempt to resolve them. Traditionalists have never excluded the contemporary; they have always encouraged the best artists of every generation to add to the growing, living tradition of hymnody. It is the contemporaneists who are often exclusive; there are some who exclude almost the entire Christian tradition.





Christianity Today


  


Subscribe to Christianity Today and get 3 free trial issues. No credit card required.

Please allow 4-6 weeks for delivery. Offer valid in U.S. only.

If you decide you want to keep Christianity Today coming, honor your invoice for just $19.95 and receive nine more issues, a full year in all. If not, simply write "cancel" across the invoice and return it. The three trial issues are yours to keep, regardless.


Click here for international orders2-for-1 Gifts!

Displaying 1–5 of 51 comments

Ken Marken

March 18, 2011  4:05pm

Many question the statement “traditionalists have never excluded the contemporary”. Bearing scars of worship wars, I also see the opposite. Two of many examples bracket 40 years singing in choirs and playing in praise bands. In 1970, my first experience playing guitar and singing a contemporary song in church resulted in both praise and vitriolic condemnation (“that music is from the devil”). The head deacon then confiscated folk hymnals I had bought to lead singing in my youth group. In 2010 I played guitar in a band that sang a country version of “What A Friend We Have in Jesus”. After church a highly educated scientist (and classically trained clarinetist) informed me that musical style was entirely inappropriate in that church. Bottom line for me: I see the Spirit of God doing a mighty work in his people at this time in history. An amazing range of contemporary songwriters compose worship songs that are thoughtful, biblical, and musically compelling to a wide cross section of our culture. People respond with the entire range of human emotion, and I don’t believe that response is “Muzak conditioning”. I believe it is the work of the Holy Spirit among his people.

Woostah Pastah

March 17, 2011  12:11pm

The last paragraph of this interview exposes the shallowness of Gordon's thinking on the subject, sadly enough. He states, " But better yet to be entirely unconcerned about whether a hymn sounds contemporary. No other generation was so concerned, and there is no good reason for ours to be so. " That's patently and demonstrably false. Fanny Crosby hymns don't sound like Isaac Watt hymns, which don't sound like Bernard of Clairvaux's hymns, which don't sound like the hymns they still sing in the Greek Orthodox church that date back to the first millennium AD. The writers of these hymns were obviously influenced by musical trends of their day; and I dare say those trends were reflected in the popular music of those times! When you juxtapose Gordon's thinking with the next article in the magazine, "Worship in Black and White", what becomes clear is that Gordon assumes that Western European musical forms are the "best" forms for true Christan worship. Does Scripture support that idea?

josiah mikkelsen

March 15, 2011  7:29pm

T. David Gordon thought his book was going to make some people mad. He didn't make me angry or mad at all, he made me sad. I think that books like his reflect one of the glaring defects of the western church. He clearly has a preference for hymns as mode of worship which in and of itself is fine. However, he then makes the leap, equating his preference as being the correct, or deeper form of worshiping God. The huge mistake he makes in all of this is that he looks at form, or mode of worship, and ignores what is really important. The heart. Mouthing the words to great hymns or modern songs isn't worship at all. The sounds coming out of our mouths or musical instruments isn't worship. It is what is going on in the heart. The western church has become so caught up in finding the "correct" mode of doing things, and forgotten that man looks on the outside, but God knows the heart. I am saddened that we waste our time with articals such as this one.

Elizabeth C

March 14, 2011  2:43pm

There's something curiously dated about the author's argument (and title, for that matter). If anything, new generations are rediscovering the richness of the old hymns nd often reinterpreting them for contemporary ears. Problems with hymns include singability (too many range all over the scale) and overly flowery language, not to mention the length of some. The church always faces a tension between cultural accessibility and proud set-apartness. Mining the musical contributions of global believers from Brazil to Britain and utilizing the best of contemporary Christian musicians (Jars of Clay, Fernando Ortega) can go a long way toward fresh, faithful communication in worship.

archae ologist

March 12, 2011  4:10pm

music should be like the sermon. lead by the Holy Spirit for it is a worship service to God and it should be treated as such. the church needs to stop dividing its purpose and forget about being seeker sensitive when they worship. if an unbeliever asks why you do things that way then give them an appropriate response. the worship service should be that --worship.

You must be a Christianity Today subscriber or have created a FREE registration to post comments
[Browse More Christianity Today]



War and Peace

War and Peace

Pastor Tullian Tchividjian survived a leadership coup by finding rest in the liberating power of the gospel.

Facing Fears

Facing Fears

Max Lucado employs preaching to overcome fear.

more | current issue

Christian Bible Studies

Unbalanced Blessings

Unbalanced Blessings

The balancing act of...

Books & Culture

Quiet

Quiet

Shhh! Introverts working...

Preaching Today

NFL Star Junior Seau Searched for Peace

Small Groups

Prepare with Prayer

Prepare with Prayer

Don't leave out this...

Search
Search
Search
Scripture Search
Go Deeper