I wanted to pick back up on a conversation I had on this blog back in April on worship songs. I guess the reason for doing this is because I’m trying to discipline myself a bit in the songwriting and music categories these days. I’ve been brainstorming a bit on what sorts of things need to happen in the world of worship music in order to be relevant yet biblical to the emerging culture.
One of the things I’ve noticed is how the intent of modern worship music is to connect with the younger and emerging congregations, but it looks to me that, while doing a pretty good job musically, the lyrical portion of most of these songs is just as guilty of cultural irrelevance as many would argue old hymns are. Now, I love me some hymns, but if we’re talking about connecting to emerging cultures, I think it’s important to inject some more comprehensible language in our worship. Yet, even the most edgy and modern worship songs out there are still drenched with words like, “holy”, “worship”, “exalt”, “blessed”, “majesty”, and “magnify”….all words that still would be difficult to translate if you were an outsider, or even an insider! I mean, how many times do we actually offer some conscious meditation on these words and what they mean? How many times do we actaully think about what “I exalt You” means in laymans terms? Isn’t it reasonable to say that we need worship lyrics that you can fully comprehend right off the bat, in order to fully engage in the worship we are offering to God?
Now, I understand that it would be hasty to think that all worship music should be relevant in language to outsiders and lost people, after all, worship music is primarily intended for believers and many believers appreciate and connect to the more traditional vocabulary (I know I do when I actually think about what those words mean). So, again, I think there is a need for the greatly sought after concept of balance. I hate this word. I hate it because it forces me to realize there is no perfect system, no perfect answers, no perfect songs. We can only balance out the things we know are good but still imperfect.
So, the question remains—is there a need for “relevant songwriting” that offers more universal vocabulary in order that more people can engage in worship? Or should we expect that when a person is converted, they will begin to appreciate and understand the churchy language that we find ourselves using so often? Is worship only for believers? Can a lost person worship? I’d love to hear some thoughts!
I think the great strength of traditional hymns was that they challenged and engaged the mind as well as the emotion. Contemporary songs tend to play exclusively toward emotion–thus the unchanging vocabulary. Since we have “churchy” language, writers know that they can depend on a vocabulary that will automatically make their song “worshipful”. Throw in “exalt” and you’ve given your song credibility.
As for a more universal vocabulary, I think that’s a possible danger as well–because then worship songs don’t sound any different.
Back to the traditional hymns, what if worship songs offered fresh new metaphors and perspectives? Though it’s been overdone, there was a time when, I think, it was valid for a preacher to refer to a hymn because its theology was so strong. It introduced a concept that was worded well and combined with music (in the old days, bar songs) and that made it memorable. Can you think of a worship song today that you would use in a sermon as an example of strong or new or different theology? I can’t.
What if worship songs were stretching the minds of those who sang? What if they were songs that gave you something to think about from Sunday to Sunday? I think it’s interesting that the effect of marketed worship music has diluted the quality. Now worship music is just everyone aping the same songs. Now that people listen to worship music in their car, on their iPod, even in the office, the songs are at an all-time shallowness and regurgitation.
As for the lost, I think that they would ask more about the songs were they to hear ones that were interesting or different.
This comment would be a lot stronger if I could come up with a good example of what I’m trying to say, but I can’t.
Walt, I hear what you’re saying. I think what it comes down to is a need for fresh ideas, or at least a fresh way to express good ideas. For example, if you want to write a lyric about God’s greatness, then let’s not just write a lyric like “You are great” or “great is Your name”. We need some more creativity here, and I think creative ideas and words would both communicate better than the typical lingo and make us think about what we’re singing. Relevant language doesn’t have to be brain-dead. Another example: Tomlin’s got a pretty good song, Famous One, which has a good concept (God being famous) that communicates better than “renowned” or “majestic”, but I think it retains a good deal of integrity. But I remember some people not caring for the concept because in connotated worldly ideas of celebrity. But I think that’s what makes it good—it takes an idea that has been tainted by the world and puts it in it’s purest form by attributing to God. Keep in mind, that this song also has some lame cliches, too (”You alone are God”, “with every breath I’m praising You”, “great is Your name”). Again, no song or mix of songs is perfect, but Tomlin had a good concept going there, and that’s why I sing it.
Yeah, I agree on the “famous” lyric–my favorite part is that it creates thought and discussion. It’s got a unique edge to it. I know nothing about the guys who write stuff, other than hearing their name, but do you think Tomlin had reservations about the risk of saying “famous” about God, and that’s why he threw in more tame and tried stuff–to kind of balance it out or make it more palatable?
Honestly, I think he had a good idea and just filled out the rest with stuff that he knew would work. I’m guessing this is a pretty common practice for songwriters—devote one good concept per song, and fill out the rest with status quo.
Good post, Chris.
One thing that bugs me in a lot of contemporary worship songs, is that they (usually) only talk about one side of God: the nice side.
Yes, God is beautiful, and God is the Savior. But isn’t God also a little terrifying? Isn’t God also the Judge?
I think we avoid that side of God in worship songs (and in sermons) because it’s not a happy picture, and it we’re afraid that people won’t like it.
But to me, this is where that word “balance” comes back into play. The fact that God wants a relationship with me is only remarkable in the sense that God has the power, the right, and maybe even the obligation (justice) to condemn me. Without justice, what is mercy?
The famous song always rubbed me the wrong way, because when I think of the word “famous,” the first image that pops into my head is Paris Hilton walking into the MTV Movie Awards with her little rat-dog in her purse.
But I do get what you’re saying about using a more relevant vocabulary, and I agree with the concept.
Lex, right on. I’m real big on trying to figure out how to write songs about God’s justice, etc. Heck, a ton of the Psalms are laments! But are we singing about frustration and anger and weakness? I’ve got to figure out how to pull this off because I think it’s a major cause of “lop-sidedness” in worship.
This is an interesting post. I think the key problem with contemporary worship is the centralization of the human participants, rather than on the divine audience/recipient of worship. As you noted, the lyrical content of many contemporary songs are weak. I’d like to see more contemporary Christian worship songs focus on doctrine, theology, and proclaiming facts about the nature of God, which make him worthy of worship. If allt his turns people off, I don’t see any problem with that. Music in worship is not done for our amusement and enjoyment–it is supposed to be a worthy offering extolling the glory of God.
I’ve heard alotta sermons scrutinizing one song or another, calling them shallow, egocentric, one-sided, et cetera. But the problem with such scrutiny is that songs are metaphors. Metaphors bring out a new and interesting facet of the subject. But a metaphor’s weakness is that it quickly fails under certain circumstances. We could take virtually any hymn and see where it fails on the grounds of the metaphor.
Sorry for the late post, Chris. I’m glad there are worship leaders like yourself who question the lyrics and desire for some creativity. It’s refreshing to know that there are some worship leaders who do this instead of playing the latest Tomlin or Delirious song just because it sounds cool and people like it (not to knock those guys, they’re just popular).
Who are some worship leaders that you like personally? Those who challenge you and have a well-rounded perspective on worship? I personally enjoy Crowder and Todd Agnew, but throw me some of your suggestions.
Shawn, I’m not sure who I could reccomend to you. I’m not aware of any worship leader who excels in all of the things that I’ve been looking for here, but there are definately some good guys out there. Crowder is good stuff, but I like him mostly for his musical creativity. His lyrics can be creative and honest at times, but with his more recent stuff, the lyrics stray a little, sounding more new-age than christian. He’s not saying anything bad, but I have a hard time visualizing a congregation resounding some of his lyrics, just because some of them are just too weird. We’ll see what he has in store in his new album, coming out next month.
The guy I tend to lean on for solid, creative, and thoughtful songwriting is Matt Redman. He’s just a guy I can appreciate for being creative in his concepts. He usually writes about stuff that most worship writers don’t write about. His music doesn’t always jam out like people want, but he’s got some integrity, which I consider more valuable.
And I’m still keeping a strong eye on Delirious. They’ve sort of focused on writing music that isn’t worship-related lately, but they’re due for another album this fall, so we’ll see if they revisit a more worship-like style. They are always good at both musical and lyrical innovation.