Hymnals, Screens, and Battles.

                                       

So this blog has been flying through my newsfeed lately.

I hate doing that.  I hate "having to" share the link of whatever it is I obviously disagree with, because then it gets more page views, more publicity, more attention; but I'm also not going to argue something without giving it the fair chance to speak for itself here.

I digress.


I knew by the title, "15 Reasons Why We Should Still Be Using Hymnals" that there was a 99.9% chance that I would not agree with it, and a 99.9% chance that it would even raise my blood pressure.

But, curiosity got the best of me- or was it that I was even going to give it a fair shot?  A bit of open-mindedness on my end for that .1%?

Well, that was foolish of me.

I've read similar blogs before, of course, and while the conservative-picking-on-contemporary mantra always bothers me, I normally just avoid comment reading, click out, and move on.

I don't know exactly why this one got under my skin so much.

So much, of course, that I just had to blog;)

I think it's because this one, while it still made me mad, made me more sad.

While it still got my blood pressure up, it got my prayers up more.

And while it angered me, it mostly hurt me.

I mean it really hurt me.

Dramatic?  Maybe.  But let me explain.

I will later on give some points refuting some of his, and in defense of the evil-screens.  But I'm not going to go on here about my 15 or 20 or 4 or however many reasons I could give that singing to songs that are on screens is "better".  I won't go through point-by-point of all 15 of his trying to tear each one down.

Because that's the whole part of this blog that hurts me so much.  The "better-than" mentality.  The tearing down.

It's not "15 Reasons Why Hymnals are Valid Choices for Today's Church's".  It's not "15 Reasons Why I Choose to Use a Hymnal".  It's not "15 Reasons Why You Might Consider Using a Hymnal Instead of a Screen".

It's "15 Reasons WHY WE SHOULD Still Be Using Hymnals".

And that really is the point of the blog.  Why hymnals are good and screens are bad.

It always has to be a right and wrong issue, doesn't it?  It always has to be a moral area.  It always has to be a matter of one being better than, one being the right way, and one being less-than, one being the wrong way.  And of course the people that throw this black and white paint over grey areas and areas of personal preference and freedom are the ones "in the right" and "better" position.  How handy.

A few more specific points:

I'm shocked at how much of this blog, that is apparently arguing the greater worth of hymnals and the detriment of screens, focuses on things that are personal comfort/preference and tuned (no pun inteded, har har!:) ) towards the musically inclined.  I mean, again if this was a "Why I prefer Hymnals" blog or a "Some Really Neat Aspects of Hymnals" post, then swell!  That's great to point out how all the notes are visible for those who want to sing parts (and can't by ear, I'll add) or how holding a book helps you pay attention.  Super!  But again, that's not at all the point of this blog.  The point of this blog is to say why hymnals are the RIGHT choice for a church to make, the more worshipful choice, and the superior choice.  If I'm going to read an argument from someone on why their choices in worship are more godly than mine, than I would expect, as I did, to read more biblical arguments and say, maybe even discuss the glory of God once in a while.  Even under the heading "Symbolic/Theological" in which he has 8 points, there is really only one that is "theological" and that one basically says "hymnals are theological textbooks."  The rest of the points are all symbolic, and preference and/or could be done just as well on a screen (I mean really, the point that hymnals can introduce us to new songs?  Us screen-users have been getting flack for that for plenty of time;)  Don't pick on us for singing all our shallow, unfamiliar songs that are scarily new and then not give us credit for singing new songs;)).  Unless I'm missing something, I'm also seeing NO Scripture references used in his "arguments" for why hymns are so much better theologically.  Because really, he's not saying that.  He's not even trying to.

He's saying that he likes hymnals.  That it works for him, and he sees a lot of good aspects in them.  But instead of being able to just say that, and leave it at that, it has to be a "Why I worship the right way and you don't" message.

He even goes so far as to call out and criticize Second Baptist Church in Houston (as seen in the picture at the top), who after a HURRICANE had to remodel and put up screens.  He criticizes them for "not preserving the distinctively theological and sacred space" in his added comments at the end of the blog, and in the blog calls it a "visual nightmare".  He clarifies that this is indeed a "theological issue".  And I've yet to hear a theological argument explained or verse given.  But hey, let's call out a whole church anyways, no matter how much they love Jesus and are striving towards Kingdom work.  I mean, their screens are ugly, so of course it's a theological issue and they should be publicly criticized, right?

I joked before about the point of new songs- something I've heard criticized of contemporary church's a few times, yet here used against them because of their ugly screens that apparently can't portray new songs.  Another irony of his I nearly chuckled at if it weren't so sad, is #2 under "Musical", "Hymnals Set a Performance Standard".  Performance.  Again, something often criticized of contemporary churches- that they're too "performance"-like and driven.  Yet here, it is the golden standard that the hymnal provides us with.  He criticizes contemporary worship for leaving the congregation to "individual interpretation" of how to sing the song- instead of singing like a choir basically, as he goes on to explain how hymnals "fix that" showing us how the song is "supposed to go".  Give me the individual freedom to sing to God how I want any day over feeling like I'm in a choir when I'm not and have to follow the song exactly as it's notated.  Let me harmonize as I want and can.  Let me hold out a note, or cut one short as I am LOST in praising Him and not worrying about following a musical script.  Let me WORSHIP.

Just a few more points and I promise I'll wrap it up;)

Shocking as this will be (ha! Where do I get these jokes?;)) I am currently in a contemporary church that uses screens for the songs.  They have one entire screen dedicated to Scripture that corresponds to the songs.  Sort of like a theological textbook;)  Several days before the Sunday service, the church emails all the songs that will be sung with links to listen to, so that we have access and can be prepared to sing as well, (as he makes clear is important under his #2 point under Practical.  Though I would word the importance of this MUCH differently than he would.  Again, not as "choir-performance" geared, but so I can participate fully in worship.)

I prefer the songs to be on screens. May I share why?  Not why screens are better or more "right", but just why I prefer it:

~I don't like holding a hymnal.  Has anyone ever dropped a hymnal in church before?  You'll never forget it;)  Holding a hymnal for me is distracting (more than any screen is to me, contrary to his Sympbolic #3 point).
~ Hymnals do "screw things up" (contrary to his Practical #3 point): They have typos.  Sometimes, as understandably over time, the pages are just nasty.  Dirty, sneezed on once too many times, colored on even.  And yes, ripped out at times. 
~I'm a hand-raiser, and a clapper (both EXTREMELY Biblical practices), so having my hands hymnal-free to worship is a huge blessing.

I've been in a LOT of churches.  I've been in churches that use hymnals that sing their souls out praising God and are so Spirit-filled it could make the earth quake.  I've been in churches that use screens that no one seems to care, and no one's  hardly singing.  I know screens don't equal quality worship and hymnals don't equal boring.

I also know that screens don't equal shallow and hymnals don't equal correct worship.

Because these are things.  Things.  Not right and wrong.  Not doctrine.  They're tools.  They're preference.  They're really the same thing, conduits to help us bring praise and worship of song to our Almighty.  They're both great tools.  Wonderful gifts.  Some of us like screens.  Some like hymnals.

They're things.  Tools.  Not battle lines.

Can we please, please stop picking on and judging each other over modes of worship?  WORSHIP.  Have we really forgotten what it's all for?  What it's supposed to be about?

Is it too late to remember?