Monday, March 08, 2010

Why Johnny Can't Sing Hymns

Interesting interview here with T. David Gordan concerning his new book, Why Johnny Can't Sing Hymns (to be published by P&R early this summer) . Here is one excerpt:
There probably is a relationship between not reading poetry and tolerating contemporary worship music. If one reads poetry, one comes to appreciate language that is well-crafted; in the process, one becomes less accepting of language that is poorly crafted. So, most contemporary worship makes me cringe not only musically but also lyrically (not to mention theologically). The commercial forces in our culture want us to be content with pablum, because it is easier to produce pablum than really good stuff. Those commercial forces have pushed us away from demanding disciplines such as reading verse (where there is almost no room for significant commercial profit); and in the process, we as a culture no longer notice inferior art, because we are surrounded by it.
Read the rest.

*******************************************************************************
I have not read the book, but I suspect these would be some questions I might have: 

1.  Is there some idolatry going on here in terms of musical form?

2.  Oftentimes these discussions seem to smack of ethnocentrism.  Would this discussion translate to Christianity in Africa or American Indians on an impoverished reservation?

3. Is it possible to move beyond mere subjectivism in these discussions?  Should we have to?

(HT:  Ray Van Neste)

6 comments:

Matthew Birch said...

I honestly thinks 2 of the best Hymns of all time have been written in the last 10 years. So rich with theology , doctrine, and melody are the songs In Christ Alone and How Deep the Fathers Love for Us by Stuart Townend.

I wonder if T. David Gordon knew about those 2 songs and if he didn't he should have done more research for his book and if he did he should explain why they aren't up to par in his mind.

Matthew Birch said...

I honestly THINK not THINKS....

Anonymous said...

If the King James Bible was good enough for Jesus...

...then Joseph Scriven was good enough for the Apostle Paul.

Don't forget what the Word says about organ music, and singing like Judy Garland...

:)

Kirk Jordan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Kirk Jordan said...

Mathew, I suspect Mr. Gordon would consider those two samples as showcasing well written verse. And we could find (a lot?) of others. The problem is that those samples represent a small portion of the whole.

I also suspect that Mr. Gordon could cite samples of poorly written verse from yesteryear.

The argument is not that there are NO well written songs these days, simply that there are fewer, and that our taste is not up to par.

Several years ago I took a modern poetry class, and it has all but ruined my pleasure in much of modern worship -- And in a way that might surprise you. In that class we were encouraged to use direct descriptive language, and to avoid 'abstract' language as much as possible. (That surprised me because I assumed modern poetry was all about abstraction. But our professor had a different idea in mind. We should avoid abstract words like "beautiful" or "awesome" or "ugly" because those kinds of words carry multiple meanings and pack less force. They are head words, rather than touch-taste-and-spit words.

I have seen this trend in modern worship... We affirm that God is Holy... or Awesome, but rarely explain what that means. If you look at the Psalms, they clearly employ "abstract" words; however, those same concepts are bolstered by direct descriptions of God's actions in history. For example, read the Psalm that alternates every verse with "his Love Endures Forever." Between each of those verses is an example of what that love looks like. (And some examples are rather jarring.) It seems to me that modern worship is often content to have us sing "His Love Endures Forever" without fleshing out the sense of what that love looks like.

xris said...

He writes from the perspective of a "media-ecologist", meaning he has read Marshall McCluhan and Neil Postman.

Like any evaluation of an aesthetic piece, there is bound to be some subjectivity (ie Anglo-Saxon, Western cultural stuff) involved. But, is that altogether bad?

In my mind one needs to take each piece on case-by-cases basis. Generalizations are tough in regards to music or other art forms. There are so many genres, and likewise, there are so many kinds of poetry— which one becomes the absolute standard? Is that possible? Which poetry is he suggesting as a model for hymnology? Homer, Auden, etc?

I get the notion of loving the past, and appreciating the work of others before us, but there is garbage in that pile as well. There is no perfect era or model from which to grab- save for the Psalms, which I think many modern evangelicals still read, no?

I try and avoid ad hominem statements, but truly, Gordon needs to get out of his academic bubble. The world can look incredibly singular from a desk.