Wow, I’m so grateful to read these words that express so much of what I’ve been feeling in regards to modern worship! I play the keyboard for our church’s worship team, but I often feel like something of a puppeteer, pulling the strings of the congregation. Intro, V1, pre-chorus chorus, building into V2, pre-chorus, chorus 2x’s, bridge (building, building) now quiet chorus. It is still, for me, a form of worship, but The Formula you write about, Joshua, feels like such a heavy influence. I almost laughed reading it, having lamented my struggle to my parents in a recent conversation and using that exact terminology. I love the Madeleine L’Engle quote you used, and I think about it often as I write, because I believe God gives me at least my best words, and I want what I put down to be worship to Him.
Makes me very happy to hear it hit home so much! I want to be clear, I do believe that emotions experienced in worship are good and God-given and there are certainly vehicles that inevitably get us there. But it is when those vehicles are devoid of any sort of stirring if the imagination, when they don’t engage the whole of the listener, only the shortest route to “success,” that they become problematic. You’re completely right though; He deserves our best, and that means digging to unveil the poetic imagination, over and above tired tropes
No, I agree, and I hope I didn’t sound like I was criticizing emotion in worship. Not at all! What I fear, though, is an addiction to the emotion and craving that instead of the actual act of worship (which takes many forms). That was what I took from what you wrote, and what I was trying to say.
“Addiction to the emotion, craving it over the act of actual worship,” that is SO well said. It’s so true, and the binary argument of “emotions good vs. emotions bad” fails to speak to that, and your first comment was very well articulated too :)
Hopeful, yes! That a way forward lies in greater investment in the imagination also resonated. It links to what many have said, and are saying, about the role of artistic creativity in the Christian faith. Thanks again.
Thank you for writing this thoughtful critique. It does indeed seem like much of CCM is trading on generalities. Recently I was listening to Kendrick Lamar's "How Much A Dollar Cost"—which details the story of an encounter with God mediated through the plight of a street beggar—and the contrast with Lamar's detailed, personal experience, and the lowest-common-denominator thematics that you mention in contemporary CCM, is quite striking. Thanks again.
Totally!! And he pierces so deeply with that song, it truly feels Psalmic. I do believe there are examples in modern worship that do the hard work of imagery and careful crafting, there are just few and far between.
Your writing today gives me hope! Thank you…But please don’t get arrogant or self absorbed… I need writers who can say - with a measure of humility -/what you have written.
I’m so glad for the hope! And definitely, so much of the critique around modern church writing comes from a place of superiority or cynicism, and I hope that’s not how this comes across. I didn’t want to contribute to the noise or stand above, but rather hope to point to a different way
I have great respect for your artistry and what you do, Joshua. I love that so many Christian artists are wrestling with these things, and firmly believe that we need better modern worship songs. I'm encouraged that you are writing them!
I'd be interested to know what distinctions you might draw between a song written for a body of believers to sing in worship, and a song written for personal imaging and expression. For the latter, I would agree with most of what you say here. For the former, I'm not so sure.
I think your piece wrestles with a core tension that many artists encounter when they walk in the doors of any church -- artistic excellence vs. artistic service.
I agree that many modern worship lyrics composed via The Formula are lacking in imagery and specificity, and that we need depth and imagery in our lyrics (which is why the recent resurgence of Psalters is encouraging to me). The loss of hymnals in so many churches -- compendiums of the best of worship music throughout history -- is something of a commentary on the current state of things.
However, there is something intrinsically lowest-common denominator about a biblically-rooted worship service -- it will always cut to the human heart because it is an encounter with the Living God, not because it is artistically compelling. We're bombarded by complexity, imagery, and artists vying for our attention every day of our lives. One of the beauties of gathered worship is that God clears away all of those things so we can come to Him for the grace our cluttered, stubborn hearts need to be softened and made new. As worship leaders, we are responsible (in part) for removing obstacles to that encounter.
I say this as an artist and worship leader myself. I would take "Jesus Loves Me" or "Amazing Grace" over any modern worship song -- whatever the imagery packed into it -- because the whole people of God can sing it with their hearts. I love an imagery-dense song; so do the artists in my congregation. Frankly, it usually won't hit home for the truck drivers, engineers, and health-care professionals in the pews. When I see and hear them sing "I once was lost but now am found / was blind but now I see," or "all I have needed Thy hand has provided / Great is Thy faithfulness, Lord unto me" -- I believe them. They are not on autopilot, and if they are, lack of imagery isn't the cause.
I suspect that the people who are most susceptible to autopilot in worship are artists like you and me, when we build our artistic standards into a wall between ourselves and God's cliches, and between ourselves and God's people who don't uphold the artistic standards we hold to. My own heart has struggled with this on Sunday mornings. The primary threat to worshippers is not cliches; it's their worship leaders (and their own hearts, but that's not really something we have much control over).
I firmly believe that the path forward for worship leaders and songwriters in the church is not more imagery, but coming as broken vessels yearning for more of God and less of ourselves. When it comes to the terrifying task of leading the worship of God, we must use our creative giftings from that posture. Is it any surprise that this was the path at Asbury?
Just as a note on writing music: so many of the hymns of faith that have withstood the winnowing effect of time have done so because they combine excellence with access. The tunes are singable, the lyrics understandable, the imagery is beautiful, the theology sound. They are designed to be sung by the people. To aspire to writing like that of Isaac Watts and King David is a noble aspiration indeed. Praying that God is with you in that process!
Chris, thank you so much both for your encouragement, as well as your pressing in good faith on some of these points!
These are helpful clarifiers, and I agree wholeheartedly with what you are saying overall. The piece is addressing one aspect of a much more nuanced whole.
I would argue that we've confused accessibility with a lack of poetic imagination, and that in order to reach everyone, we must be as general as possible. What I am arguing is that using piercing imagery is not excluding by nature, but rather inviting people to inhabit what has been written. And while I didn't address it in the essay, I do believe there are in fact modern worship songs that do this (and, inversely, hymns that receive unscrutinized veneration due to nostalgia, that actually fall short). Benjamin William Hastings, Brooke Ligertwood, pre-TIAG Phil Wickham--actually MANY modern worship writers, are capable of writing (and have written) congregational worship songs that triumph in achieving what I long for. Arrival, written by BWH would perhaps be the most triumphant example of what I'm longing for, and it can absolutely be sung congregationally. Countless others from many of the writers working as well.
"Lowest common denominator" doesn't refer so much to being as inclusive as possible, but being as GENERAL as possible, ignoring the fact that specificity is what has often captured the hearts and minds of countless people, whether that be in the house of the Living God or in "secular" art. And part of my fear in the narrow wells in which we draw lyricism from currently, it is unintentionally removing necessary aspects of liturgy--confession (how much imagery is devoted to both our sin and His conquering of it?), lament (how broken do we allow our lyrics themselves to be?), and even communion (this is where I applaud people like Brook and Matt Maher, who seek to weave these sort of notions into their work). Amazing Grace, wholly accessible, does indeed contain imagery and poetry. And the Psalms, of which are part of my argument, have been a part of congregational worship for the whole of the Church's history.
The sheer QUANTITY of music coming out--most major movements/artists releasing an album a year--contributes to the emotional shortcuts of cliche'd, image-barren language. Most contemporary worship albums contain a handful of songs that are deeply moving and crafted (not always the ones that receive the most recognition), and I wish that people would wait until they had an album of only those sort of songs before they went ahead and released things with strong melody but feeble lyricism. I think that people, quick to draw false dichotomies, tend to write off "simple" things as immature, when what they're really referring to is simplistic. Simple can take much time to arrive at--saying things with depth in a short span of time. Simplistic, on the other hand, involves shortcuts. It is resting on "tried and true" rather than mining into more that there is to say, and the best way to say it.
Now, you bring up a different point of much merit--it's not simply about the writing itself. The posture and spirit of the leaders makes all the difference in the world. Deep abiding and intimacy with Jesus can make songs incarnate very, very differently, depending on who is leading them. But one of the points that a dear friend and legendary worship songwriter and leader Brian Doerksen has made, is that "we've often replaced intimacy with intensity, and most modern songs are built around intensity." So, the work is twofold; abiding leading to the wells we draw from in our songwriting, but also in our worship leading.
I believe that there is much precedent for songs sung by the people of God collectively to have artistic merit, alongside those that are not intended for such purposes. Congregational songs at their best, as you've said, are marrying musical accessibility with lyrical poignancy, as has happened with those hymns that have stood the test of time (many did not).
Oh and to your point about believing people when singing those lyrics--I believe them too. Absolutely. In both the writing of a song, and its incarnation countless times over in worshippers in the Church, the sincerity of faith is not in question. But music by nature is IMMENSELY formative on the hearts it lands upon. The question is, as new songs are constantly being written (shared by writing voices that carry much weight), that, by their nature stir people, what is it we're stirring them to? Are our lyrics (and the melodies that carry them) vehicles to point people explicitly to the work and person of Jesus? And how it is that we relate to him in our sinner/saint state this side of eternity? Carefulness in pursuing that end is the call, one that is beautiful beyond measure. We end up, in the argument of Gordon T. Smith, becoming primary disciplers in the church as worship leaders and writers, and I want to steward that to the best end that I can.
Hope the posture in all of this is clear. Appreciate the graciousness in which you commented!
Joshua, so so grateful for your willingness to respond at length and with grace, as well as suggestions of those doing it well. There is a groundswell of writers and leaders intent on going deeper in faithful artistry, of going deeper into Christ, and gosh it's been good to hear the work they bring forward. I hope that my musings did not convey any accusation, burden, or ill will; it was certainly not intended. The longer I engage in this work the more I am brought to my knees by the responsibility of it; as you said, the formational power that worship carries for the people of God. We have been in Malachi at my church, and the conviction level is high. :)
I agree - hymns and modern songs alike offer fantastic examples of excellent imagery, just as they both deserve scrutiny. And I very much appreciate your distinction between simple and simplistic. What a world of difference and depth between those ideas!
I too yearn for more imagery, simplicity, and artistic merit in the new songs we are adding to the Church's collection, and I'm coming away from your article and this exchange encouraged again that God is at work even now, beautifying His people. Our work is not in vain.
I appreciate you, friend. Hope to read/listen to more in the future.
My pleasure man, and no feeling of accusation or ill will; I think your response was clearly in good faith, and I appreciate it :) there absolutely are examples of people across the world doing this beautifully, and I hope they continue to gain momentum in contributing to the liturgy of the greater Church. I'm deeply hopeful for what's to come. Appreciate you as well!
There is a passage in the essay that was removed for the sake of brevity. But before the end of the essay we return to the scene in Walk the Line, because it is the answer to the problem that the label head posed to Cash.
It said:
“After the label head in Walk the Line rejects Johnny’s Kirkland-brand expression of gospel music, he challenges him to sing something that would truly shake the earth and express his heart, raw and naked before God. He asks Johnny if he’d been hit by a car, and was dying in a ditch, and had time to sing one song...one song that would let God know what he thought of this life on earth...what would that song be? Johnny sings “Folsom Prison Blues.” And that song contains what may be one of the greatest lines ever written:
“But I shot a man in Reno // just to watch him die.”
Now I cannot speak for you, but I’ve never shot a man in Reno, let alone merely to witness his end. My guess would be that you haven’t, either. All the same, those words inevitably begin their haunting of of us. With an image so deeply personal—even one of a kind—he conveyed something utterly universal. Because we all have done something so vile, so heinous...just to see. To know what it felt like. And that is the call of the writer; to bring forth depths to that we may swim in, uncover, and awe in. No mere three feet of water that can be splashed about and experienced in full the first go-round. We need to say it, by saying something else entirely.
I have felt some dissonance when hearing and attempting to participate in CCM-led worship. For me, though, it seems more to do with feeling like I'm being emotionally manipulated and I find myself, consequently, thinking about consent! The effect can be to put me/us into a receptive state rather like supermarkets aim to put us into when we walk through their doors. -More ready to buy unreflectingly; a somewhat suggestible state. So this tells me that there is also an ethical issue about music choice and performance in worship -we need to be aware of its power to carry people along into states of consciousness where their critical faculties my become somewhat dormant.
I also wonder about the issue of enrichment of imagery and language. I do agree that there is a great deal of dead metaphor, derivative writing and that too often a good turn of musical phrase seems to be in the driving seat of lyrical content. (It was ever thus, arguably -some older hymn collections are worth perusing to see similar). That said, one of the things I noticed as I was reading the article, was that most of the examples of good, imaginative and evocative language was drawn from poetry or literary writing. As a writer of liturgy I have sometimes borrowed from such sources. I have done so because I'm aware that, for the kinds of users and situations I write, the default register is itself implicitly limited in its tone and breadth of expression. However, there is a good reason for this, I think. It is to enable a variety of people coming with a range of circumstances and emotional states to be able to engage in 'common' worship.
While it is true that the particularity of a poem enable the expression and apprehension of something that is more commonly felt, it also disables others from using it because it is simply not where they are or because the backgrounds are not congruent. The result is that a degree of 'blandness' may be necessary to keep people on board in greater numbers. That is not, however, an argument for only writing or choosing 'bland'. Rather, a more judicious use of startling phrasing, unusual metaphor or euphonous items can play a helpful role in moving people on or helping them to engage with God's work of the moment. However, overdo it and the result is too rich and builds a kind of cognitive overload for the user of the lyrics or liturgy and may even feel too alien to their regular register to feel helpful.
Such a great read. You really hit the nail on the head with this; "The modern worship song has gripped tightly to the lowest common denominator: songs that can be sung by all people, at all times, regardless of circumstance or maturity." We haven't strayed away from true imagery and true beauty because we don't have the taste for it--rather we have strayed because we are trying to cater to those who we feel aren't "ready for it" or won't fully understand it.
We modern evangelicals are plagued by a constant need to appear welcoming and palatable to both the lowest common denominator and to the enemies of Christ alike.
A friend of mine sent a link to your article. I appreciated reading it as I also have struggled for many years with the state of contemporary worship, particularly in regard to music. I also have been involved in many ways with worship and worship teams over the years, and the music has left me unfulfilled. Whereas your concern addresses the lack of depth, creativity. and generalization of the lyrics, I have been disappointed in the music side of things. Although I do have concerns with the lack of diversity in subject matter regarding lyrics. This discontent has led me to write a book on the subject that I've recenting E-published. I could go into depth on my concerns, but it would take far too long. So, I'm going to leave it with my thanks for writing this article and showing me, I'm not alone in my concerns. If you are interested in my concerns, I've created a website that introduces my book, and provides a link to Amazon where my book can be found. I have to charge for the book, to be published, but it's a modest $2. I would be interested in your reaction if you do decide to read it. The website is: www.praisedeprived.com. The book title is: "Oatmeal and Brown Sugar: A Critical Analysis of Contemporary Worship".
I loved this article. Rang to true with me. Sometimes I think do these worship leaders not understand that these songs are like a droning sound in our ears? Repeating the same things over and over. I grew up with the hymns and there was such poetic meaning there. Yes, we did have the chorus in which we could sing from memory, but then back to the "story," which was so much scripture as well. And as far as being able to sing a harmony...that's nearly gone. I can't even use my gift of that. There are no harmony parts to speak of. I am from the older generation. I hope for something better out of the next generation.
Wow, I’m so grateful to read these words that express so much of what I’ve been feeling in regards to modern worship! I play the keyboard for our church’s worship team, but I often feel like something of a puppeteer, pulling the strings of the congregation. Intro, V1, pre-chorus chorus, building into V2, pre-chorus, chorus 2x’s, bridge (building, building) now quiet chorus. It is still, for me, a form of worship, but The Formula you write about, Joshua, feels like such a heavy influence. I almost laughed reading it, having lamented my struggle to my parents in a recent conversation and using that exact terminology. I love the Madeleine L’Engle quote you used, and I think about it often as I write, because I believe God gives me at least my best words, and I want what I put down to be worship to Him.
Makes me very happy to hear it hit home so much! I want to be clear, I do believe that emotions experienced in worship are good and God-given and there are certainly vehicles that inevitably get us there. But it is when those vehicles are devoid of any sort of stirring if the imagination, when they don’t engage the whole of the listener, only the shortest route to “success,” that they become problematic. You’re completely right though; He deserves our best, and that means digging to unveil the poetic imagination, over and above tired tropes
No, I agree, and I hope I didn’t sound like I was criticizing emotion in worship. Not at all! What I fear, though, is an addiction to the emotion and craving that instead of the actual act of worship (which takes many forms). That was what I took from what you wrote, and what I was trying to say.
“Addiction to the emotion, craving it over the act of actual worship,” that is SO well said. It’s so true, and the binary argument of “emotions good vs. emotions bad” fails to speak to that, and your first comment was very well articulated too :)
This is wonderful. Thank you for such a gracious and thoughtful take on Christian art and what it can and should be.
Thank you so much, gracious and thoughtful are two adjectives that I would long for most, so thank you 🙏🏽
Joshua, this piece expresses so much of what I've been feeling for so long about my experience of Christian worship music.
I’m so glad it resonated! The hope was to articulate in words what people have struggled to, from not a cynical place but a hopeful one.
Hopeful, yes! That a way forward lies in greater investment in the imagination also resonated. It links to what many have said, and are saying, about the role of artistic creativity in the Christian faith. Thanks again.
Thank you for writing this thoughtful critique. It does indeed seem like much of CCM is trading on generalities. Recently I was listening to Kendrick Lamar's "How Much A Dollar Cost"—which details the story of an encounter with God mediated through the plight of a street beggar—and the contrast with Lamar's detailed, personal experience, and the lowest-common-denominator thematics that you mention in contemporary CCM, is quite striking. Thanks again.
Totally!! And he pierces so deeply with that song, it truly feels Psalmic. I do believe there are examples in modern worship that do the hard work of imagery and careful crafting, there are just few and far between.
Your writing today gives me hope! Thank you…But please don’t get arrogant or self absorbed… I need writers who can say - with a measure of humility -/what you have written.
I’m so glad for the hope! And definitely, so much of the critique around modern church writing comes from a place of superiority or cynicism, and I hope that’s not how this comes across. I didn’t want to contribute to the noise or stand above, but rather hope to point to a different way
Excellent and insightful! Also glad to see Madeleine L’Engle included. “Walking on Water” is an annual read for me and always refreshes my soul.
Yes!! Madeleine’s the GOAT as far as I’m concerned when it comes to the faith & art conversation
I have great respect for your artistry and what you do, Joshua. I love that so many Christian artists are wrestling with these things, and firmly believe that we need better modern worship songs. I'm encouraged that you are writing them!
I'd be interested to know what distinctions you might draw between a song written for a body of believers to sing in worship, and a song written for personal imaging and expression. For the latter, I would agree with most of what you say here. For the former, I'm not so sure.
I think your piece wrestles with a core tension that many artists encounter when they walk in the doors of any church -- artistic excellence vs. artistic service.
I agree that many modern worship lyrics composed via The Formula are lacking in imagery and specificity, and that we need depth and imagery in our lyrics (which is why the recent resurgence of Psalters is encouraging to me). The loss of hymnals in so many churches -- compendiums of the best of worship music throughout history -- is something of a commentary on the current state of things.
However, there is something intrinsically lowest-common denominator about a biblically-rooted worship service -- it will always cut to the human heart because it is an encounter with the Living God, not because it is artistically compelling. We're bombarded by complexity, imagery, and artists vying for our attention every day of our lives. One of the beauties of gathered worship is that God clears away all of those things so we can come to Him for the grace our cluttered, stubborn hearts need to be softened and made new. As worship leaders, we are responsible (in part) for removing obstacles to that encounter.
I say this as an artist and worship leader myself. I would take "Jesus Loves Me" or "Amazing Grace" over any modern worship song -- whatever the imagery packed into it -- because the whole people of God can sing it with their hearts. I love an imagery-dense song; so do the artists in my congregation. Frankly, it usually won't hit home for the truck drivers, engineers, and health-care professionals in the pews. When I see and hear them sing "I once was lost but now am found / was blind but now I see," or "all I have needed Thy hand has provided / Great is Thy faithfulness, Lord unto me" -- I believe them. They are not on autopilot, and if they are, lack of imagery isn't the cause.
I suspect that the people who are most susceptible to autopilot in worship are artists like you and me, when we build our artistic standards into a wall between ourselves and God's cliches, and between ourselves and God's people who don't uphold the artistic standards we hold to. My own heart has struggled with this on Sunday mornings. The primary threat to worshippers is not cliches; it's their worship leaders (and their own hearts, but that's not really something we have much control over).
I firmly believe that the path forward for worship leaders and songwriters in the church is not more imagery, but coming as broken vessels yearning for more of God and less of ourselves. When it comes to the terrifying task of leading the worship of God, we must use our creative giftings from that posture. Is it any surprise that this was the path at Asbury?
Just as a note on writing music: so many of the hymns of faith that have withstood the winnowing effect of time have done so because they combine excellence with access. The tunes are singable, the lyrics understandable, the imagery is beautiful, the theology sound. They are designed to be sung by the people. To aspire to writing like that of Isaac Watts and King David is a noble aspiration indeed. Praying that God is with you in that process!
Chris, thank you so much both for your encouragement, as well as your pressing in good faith on some of these points!
These are helpful clarifiers, and I agree wholeheartedly with what you are saying overall. The piece is addressing one aspect of a much more nuanced whole.
I would argue that we've confused accessibility with a lack of poetic imagination, and that in order to reach everyone, we must be as general as possible. What I am arguing is that using piercing imagery is not excluding by nature, but rather inviting people to inhabit what has been written. And while I didn't address it in the essay, I do believe there are in fact modern worship songs that do this (and, inversely, hymns that receive unscrutinized veneration due to nostalgia, that actually fall short). Benjamin William Hastings, Brooke Ligertwood, pre-TIAG Phil Wickham--actually MANY modern worship writers, are capable of writing (and have written) congregational worship songs that triumph in achieving what I long for. Arrival, written by BWH would perhaps be the most triumphant example of what I'm longing for, and it can absolutely be sung congregationally. Countless others from many of the writers working as well.
"Lowest common denominator" doesn't refer so much to being as inclusive as possible, but being as GENERAL as possible, ignoring the fact that specificity is what has often captured the hearts and minds of countless people, whether that be in the house of the Living God or in "secular" art. And part of my fear in the narrow wells in which we draw lyricism from currently, it is unintentionally removing necessary aspects of liturgy--confession (how much imagery is devoted to both our sin and His conquering of it?), lament (how broken do we allow our lyrics themselves to be?), and even communion (this is where I applaud people like Brook and Matt Maher, who seek to weave these sort of notions into their work). Amazing Grace, wholly accessible, does indeed contain imagery and poetry. And the Psalms, of which are part of my argument, have been a part of congregational worship for the whole of the Church's history.
The sheer QUANTITY of music coming out--most major movements/artists releasing an album a year--contributes to the emotional shortcuts of cliche'd, image-barren language. Most contemporary worship albums contain a handful of songs that are deeply moving and crafted (not always the ones that receive the most recognition), and I wish that people would wait until they had an album of only those sort of songs before they went ahead and released things with strong melody but feeble lyricism. I think that people, quick to draw false dichotomies, tend to write off "simple" things as immature, when what they're really referring to is simplistic. Simple can take much time to arrive at--saying things with depth in a short span of time. Simplistic, on the other hand, involves shortcuts. It is resting on "tried and true" rather than mining into more that there is to say, and the best way to say it.
Now, you bring up a different point of much merit--it's not simply about the writing itself. The posture and spirit of the leaders makes all the difference in the world. Deep abiding and intimacy with Jesus can make songs incarnate very, very differently, depending on who is leading them. But one of the points that a dear friend and legendary worship songwriter and leader Brian Doerksen has made, is that "we've often replaced intimacy with intensity, and most modern songs are built around intensity." So, the work is twofold; abiding leading to the wells we draw from in our songwriting, but also in our worship leading.
I believe that there is much precedent for songs sung by the people of God collectively to have artistic merit, alongside those that are not intended for such purposes. Congregational songs at their best, as you've said, are marrying musical accessibility with lyrical poignancy, as has happened with those hymns that have stood the test of time (many did not).
Appreciate the discussion, and hope that helps!
j
Oh and to your point about believing people when singing those lyrics--I believe them too. Absolutely. In both the writing of a song, and its incarnation countless times over in worshippers in the Church, the sincerity of faith is not in question. But music by nature is IMMENSELY formative on the hearts it lands upon. The question is, as new songs are constantly being written (shared by writing voices that carry much weight), that, by their nature stir people, what is it we're stirring them to? Are our lyrics (and the melodies that carry them) vehicles to point people explicitly to the work and person of Jesus? And how it is that we relate to him in our sinner/saint state this side of eternity? Carefulness in pursuing that end is the call, one that is beautiful beyond measure. We end up, in the argument of Gordon T. Smith, becoming primary disciplers in the church as worship leaders and writers, and I want to steward that to the best end that I can.
Hope the posture in all of this is clear. Appreciate the graciousness in which you commented!
j
Joshua, so so grateful for your willingness to respond at length and with grace, as well as suggestions of those doing it well. There is a groundswell of writers and leaders intent on going deeper in faithful artistry, of going deeper into Christ, and gosh it's been good to hear the work they bring forward. I hope that my musings did not convey any accusation, burden, or ill will; it was certainly not intended. The longer I engage in this work the more I am brought to my knees by the responsibility of it; as you said, the formational power that worship carries for the people of God. We have been in Malachi at my church, and the conviction level is high. :)
I agree - hymns and modern songs alike offer fantastic examples of excellent imagery, just as they both deserve scrutiny. And I very much appreciate your distinction between simple and simplistic. What a world of difference and depth between those ideas!
I too yearn for more imagery, simplicity, and artistic merit in the new songs we are adding to the Church's collection, and I'm coming away from your article and this exchange encouraged again that God is at work even now, beautifying His people. Our work is not in vain.
I appreciate you, friend. Hope to read/listen to more in the future.
C
My pleasure man, and no feeling of accusation or ill will; I think your response was clearly in good faith, and I appreciate it :) there absolutely are examples of people across the world doing this beautifully, and I hope they continue to gain momentum in contributing to the liturgy of the greater Church. I'm deeply hopeful for what's to come. Appreciate you as well!
j
There is a passage in the essay that was removed for the sake of brevity. But before the end of the essay we return to the scene in Walk the Line, because it is the answer to the problem that the label head posed to Cash.
It said:
“After the label head in Walk the Line rejects Johnny’s Kirkland-brand expression of gospel music, he challenges him to sing something that would truly shake the earth and express his heart, raw and naked before God. He asks Johnny if he’d been hit by a car, and was dying in a ditch, and had time to sing one song...one song that would let God know what he thought of this life on earth...what would that song be? Johnny sings “Folsom Prison Blues.” And that song contains what may be one of the greatest lines ever written:
“But I shot a man in Reno // just to watch him die.”
Now I cannot speak for you, but I’ve never shot a man in Reno, let alone merely to witness his end. My guess would be that you haven’t, either. All the same, those words inevitably begin their haunting of of us. With an image so deeply personal—even one of a kind—he conveyed something utterly universal. Because we all have done something so vile, so heinous...just to see. To know what it felt like. And that is the call of the writer; to bring forth depths to that we may swim in, uncover, and awe in. No mere three feet of water that can be splashed about and experienced in full the first go-round. We need to say it, by saying something else entirely.
This is a beautifully written and thought-provoking piece - thank you for sharing.
I have felt some dissonance when hearing and attempting to participate in CCM-led worship. For me, though, it seems more to do with feeling like I'm being emotionally manipulated and I find myself, consequently, thinking about consent! The effect can be to put me/us into a receptive state rather like supermarkets aim to put us into when we walk through their doors. -More ready to buy unreflectingly; a somewhat suggestible state. So this tells me that there is also an ethical issue about music choice and performance in worship -we need to be aware of its power to carry people along into states of consciousness where their critical faculties my become somewhat dormant.
I also wonder about the issue of enrichment of imagery and language. I do agree that there is a great deal of dead metaphor, derivative writing and that too often a good turn of musical phrase seems to be in the driving seat of lyrical content. (It was ever thus, arguably -some older hymn collections are worth perusing to see similar). That said, one of the things I noticed as I was reading the article, was that most of the examples of good, imaginative and evocative language was drawn from poetry or literary writing. As a writer of liturgy I have sometimes borrowed from such sources. I have done so because I'm aware that, for the kinds of users and situations I write, the default register is itself implicitly limited in its tone and breadth of expression. However, there is a good reason for this, I think. It is to enable a variety of people coming with a range of circumstances and emotional states to be able to engage in 'common' worship.
While it is true that the particularity of a poem enable the expression and apprehension of something that is more commonly felt, it also disables others from using it because it is simply not where they are or because the backgrounds are not congruent. The result is that a degree of 'blandness' may be necessary to keep people on board in greater numbers. That is not, however, an argument for only writing or choosing 'bland'. Rather, a more judicious use of startling phrasing, unusual metaphor or euphonous items can play a helpful role in moving people on or helping them to engage with God's work of the moment. However, overdo it and the result is too rich and builds a kind of cognitive overload for the user of the lyrics or liturgy and may even feel too alien to their regular register to feel helpful.
Such a great read. You really hit the nail on the head with this; "The modern worship song has gripped tightly to the lowest common denominator: songs that can be sung by all people, at all times, regardless of circumstance or maturity." We haven't strayed away from true imagery and true beauty because we don't have the taste for it--rather we have strayed because we are trying to cater to those who we feel aren't "ready for it" or won't fully understand it.
We modern evangelicals are plagued by a constant need to appear welcoming and palatable to both the lowest common denominator and to the enemies of Christ alike.
A friend of mine sent a link to your article. I appreciated reading it as I also have struggled for many years with the state of contemporary worship, particularly in regard to music. I also have been involved in many ways with worship and worship teams over the years, and the music has left me unfulfilled. Whereas your concern addresses the lack of depth, creativity. and generalization of the lyrics, I have been disappointed in the music side of things. Although I do have concerns with the lack of diversity in subject matter regarding lyrics. This discontent has led me to write a book on the subject that I've recenting E-published. I could go into depth on my concerns, but it would take far too long. So, I'm going to leave it with my thanks for writing this article and showing me, I'm not alone in my concerns. If you are interested in my concerns, I've created a website that introduces my book, and provides a link to Amazon where my book can be found. I have to charge for the book, to be published, but it's a modest $2. I would be interested in your reaction if you do decide to read it. The website is: www.praisedeprived.com. The book title is: "Oatmeal and Brown Sugar: A Critical Analysis of Contemporary Worship".
I loved this article. Rang to true with me. Sometimes I think do these worship leaders not understand that these songs are like a droning sound in our ears? Repeating the same things over and over. I grew up with the hymns and there was such poetic meaning there. Yes, we did have the chorus in which we could sing from memory, but then back to the "story," which was so much scripture as well. And as far as being able to sing a harmony...that's nearly gone. I can't even use my gift of that. There are no harmony parts to speak of. I am from the older generation. I hope for something better out of the next generation.