Directions for Singing: Part 1 - Learn These Tunes

Yesterday we looked briefly at all seven of Wesley’s Directions for Singing and some of his reasons for giving them. Today I’ll ruminate and gab about his first point.

1. Learn these Tunes before you learn any others; afterwards learn as many as you please.

As we begin, we should remember is that Wesley was writing this in a hymn book for Methodists. “These Tunes” are Methodist tunes. The thing we ought to glean from that is that Wesley is concerned for a particular people. Any pastor or leader has the same concern for their flock. Any parent has the same concern for their children. Wesley wants his people to learn these tunes for two reasons: 1) to disseminate doctrine, and 2) to establish a pattern for formation.

First, “these Tunes” were important because they contained doctrine. So the thought goes, if you learn these first then you’re starting out on the right foot. There is a bit of walk before you run going on here. Here are the fundamental things we want you to learn and to meditate on. Get these down pat. Once they are drilled into your brain to where you are singing them in your sleep, then go ahead and start learning other songs. An important thing to remember is that these tunes aren't just stepping stones to some greater doctrine of God. These contain the truth of the gospel that we never move beyond. Wesley is trying to establish a foundation to build upon, not a game of hopscotch where we start at #1 and move on.

Secondly, “these Tunes” were important to learn first because they established the rhythm of their worship. Learning the same songs and learning them well has a formative effect on people. This is the soil of tradition. The people learning “these Tunes” will have a common language and share a common bond in their fellowship, and this language and these bonds are passed down to their children. On a grand scale it’s similar to Christmas Carols. Almost everyone can join in without the aid of a book. These songs not only aid in worship and praise, but are used to build up the body. People can use their in-common language to minister to one another. When someone you love dies, these songs give you a voice to sing. And if you can’t sing because the pain is so deep, the body of Christ can sing for you and to you. When the kindness and goodness of God rushes upon you like a burst of fragrant spring air, these songs can give you voice of thanksgiving. 

I find that I can relate to a high degree with the idea of learning “these Tunes” before learning any others. Five years ago or so, I was leading worship for a relatively new congregation. There was no clear direction or long view regarding what songs they would sing as they gathered. As I stepped into the role the first thing I sought to do was to develop a repertoire of common songs. I came up with about 65 hymns I felt were solid songs of truth and beauty and for a little over a year they were the only songs we sang. Even within the relatively small number of 65 songs I narrowed the focus even more. About 40 of those songs immediately became ‘core’ and so we sang these songs over and over. We learned “these Tunes” before any other.

And we did learn more songs. Once the congregation began to take ownership of these tunes it actually became easier to introduce new songs. These new songs were used because the occasion required it or because I was seeking to lead the people to fresh fields of truth and beauty. Happily some of these new songs would eventually become one of our ‘core’ songs. One of the fascinating things that resulted from this (and perhaps this was part of the method—heh—to Wesley’s madness) was that our congregation sang the ‘core’ songs better and louder, with more focus and enthusiasm than the other songs, every time. I continued to develop and build our song base, and continued to expand our ‘core’ songs. By the time I stepped down our ‘core’ songs had increased to around 85 songs.

I actually didn't learn this from Wesley. I think I picked it up from Bob Kauflin. But it’s the same principle and it was extremely beneficial to me as a leader and to our congregation. It infused doctrine and it established a pattern for formation in weekly worship. It is at the same time exciting and sobering to imagine what effect these songs might have on the seven year old who is sitting in the pew. Will he sing these songs to voice his joy and thanksgiving? Will he pass them on to his kids? Will God use these songs to sustain him in the trials to come? When I'm dead and long gone, and when he is old and grey, raspy of voice and shaky of hand, only moments away from death, will these songs, like a whisper, pass over his lips as he enters into glory?

Crowder's Fantastical Church Music Conference

At the end of September, my wife and I (and baby Arwen) will be travelling to Waco, Texas to attend David Crowder’s Fantastical Church Music Conference. This is a conference that seems a little outside of the box, which I really like. But ultimately there are 3 things that really drew me to the conference. 1) It is a conference on church music 2) The amazing line-up of speakers and artists 3) It looks to contain a sizeable Reformed Voice.

A Conference about Church Music

I like that they say that this is a ‘church music’ conference. This is a great umbrella word that covers both music produced by the church for worship and music produced by the church for art. The reason I’m psyched about this is because it’s the first ‘popular’ conference I’ve seen that doesn’t confuse the two from the outset. There are a million ‘Worship Conferences’ that have nothing to do with worship (or worship music for that matter…). Here are a few (subject to change) workshops they list:

Songwriting - Speaking The Collaborative Language of Music During Worship vs. Learning Worship Tunes Verbatim from the Latest and Greatest CDs - The Functional Limits of Creativity - A Short History of Church Music - Worship and Justice - From Sunday to Sunday: A New Old Vision for Worship; Liturgical Spirituality for Post-Modern-Semi-Reformed-Hipsters - Tech and Production

If they survive the cut I’m really looking forward to attending Songwriting, The Collaborative Language vs Learning Worship Tunes Verbatim, and A New Old Vision for Worship.

Speakers and Artists

I am really excited for the speakers and artists that they have lined up. In one panel discussion alone are three of my biggest modern influences on worship, worship music, and songwriting; Bob Kauflin, Matt Redman, and Derek Webb. Just these three guys together would be enough to get me down to Texas. But alongside the big names like David Crowder Band and Hillsong are some lesser known groups like Bifrost Arts and The Civil Wars. For guys like me, I’d rather listen to Bifrost Arts over Hillsong any day. I’m really looking forward to hearing some of the other artists I’m not familiar with.

But there will be more than just opposing styles of music, there will be some clashing theologies as well. One of the big name speakers is Rob Bell. Now one thing Rob Bell has going for him is that he’s really cool and hip. But Rob Bell is pretty far out there theologically. I think it will be interesting to see the contrast between Bell and let’s say, Bob Kauflin or Francis Chan. So the divide theologically and stylistically in the artists and speakers who will be there will be interesting to witness firsthand.

Sizeable Reformed Voice

I would first say that this in no way appears to be a “Reformed” conference. The presence of Rob Bell and a few others puts to death that idea. It appears that the conference is aiming at (what one of the workshops calls) Post-Modern-Semi-Reformed-Hipsters. But you really can’t deny the influence of Reformed theology on many of the speakers and artists. And it’s not only that many of them adhere to Reformed theology, but they all seem to come from different streams of Reformed theology, most of whom I’ve already mentioned. You have the Passion guys Louis Giglio and Matt Redman, Sovereign Grace Pastor Bob Kauflin, Francis Chan, and Derek Webb. Crowder is a reformed guy in the Passion stream as well. I’m excited to see and hear from these guys in the midst of a conference that seems to reach out to, not only the reformed, but to the ‘emerging’ and what I’d call the ‘Pop-American Christianity’ crowds. So I wouldn’t call this event a ‘Reformed Conference’—it would be more accurate to describe it as a conference that includes a sizeable and influential Reformed voice. And to be honest, the fact that this is not a ‘reformed conference’ makes it that much more attractive. I’ve been to those and you know exactly what you’re going to get (both positively and negatively…).

In Summation

So my overall impression of this conference is that it is going to be fun and interesting. I’m looking forward to the info coming from the guys who’ve inspired me, ready to hear some music I’m not familiar with, and ready to connect and network with some like minded folks down in Texas.

If you are a reader of Sound Doxology and you are attending this conference I would love to hook up with you! Just drop me a line in the comments below or shoot me an email at sounddoxology AT gmail DOT com and let’s set something up.

(And if you happen to be speaking at the conference or performing I’d love to hook up with you as well. I promise to say something nice about you on my blog... Perhaps an interview?…I don’t know, have your people call my people, let’s do lunch...)

Where Do Sovereign Grace Songs Come From?

Bob Kauflin at his blog Worship Matters has posted an interesting look at the process and how their songwriter retreats work. Check it out here.

Many thanks to Sovereign Grace Music and Bob Kauflin for my torrent of comments on Facebook and on his blog asking to see the nuts and bolts of how these songwriter retreats work!

Dead Air: Making the Most of the Inevitable Silence

As I pour over magazines, articles, and books for advice in leading worship, one thing I constantly run into is the subject of what to do in between songs. It is a common topic for discussion amongst song leaders as this must be dealt with every Sunday. There are all sorts of ideas that I have read about but each one boils down to one thing, and that is this; Do something! Do anything! But make sure there is no dead air!

There are countless reasons behind this, and many of them are even good reasons:

Silence is awkward.

If there is no ‘flow’ then dead air leaves a ‘stop/start’ feeling to worship.

People will become quickly bored.

A lack of smooth transition indicates a lack of excellence and God deserves our best.

But for the most part, the reasoning can be pretty much summed up like this: If there is silence in between songs then people are uncomfortable and therefore distracted and unable to worship.

Fill It In!

So the worship ‘experts’ then offer us ways to fill in this ‘dead air’ (which is just a code word that places a negative spin on the word ‘silence’). From my reading the most preferred method seems to be transitioning one song to the next without a pause in the music. When done right, this can be very smooth and pleasing to the ear. It also allows the leader to connect one theme with another quite seamlessly. I utilize this when I feel it is necessary, but it becomes impractical in many situations. Every Sunday just cannot be a five song medley.

So the next best ‘method’ is to fill the silence in with talking. This can be done in a variety of ways. Two of the better ways are Scripture readings and prayer. But most often, from what I’ve personally seen and read (and unfortunately, done myself) is spontaneous chatter. Some have called this ‘The Mini Sermon’, others have called it ‘Worship Cheerleading’ but most call it ‘Annoying.’

Fill It In?

The problem I have here is not the desire to have a smooth transition. I find nothing wrong with Scripture being read in between songs. But what bugs me is that these ‘fillers’ become nothing more than a ‘solution’ to silence. Instead of a 15 second pause between one song and the next, the popular advice is to ‘fill’ it with something. Eradicate and exterminate all forms of silence because, I am told, it makes people uncomfortable, distracted, and it hinders worship. Well I’m here to say it’s not true.

I’ve bought into this type of thinking for too long. Many times I have found myself standing awkwardly on stage in between songs, looking slightly fidgety awaiting the introduction of the next song. I’m sure my presence didn’t help the congregation feel any less awkward. But my thinking was always aiming to end the silence. And awkward silence, as I have found, will make a talker out of a mute. And talking simply to fill in the silence leads to unnecessary rambling and idiotic phrasings that edify and glorify no one. Well, I’m done with that. As I strive to increase my understanding of sound doxology I just cannot continue to participate in this game. Silence is inevitable and I aim to make much of Christ through it. I believe that the benefits of silence in between our songs can far outweigh our feeble efforts to fill it. I also believe that these benefits can prevail over the common concerns of awkwardness, distractions, and the inability to worship.

The Benefits of Silence in Worship

The first benefit is Authenticity. What is more fake than conjured spontaneity? As I pointed out above, in my experience, it just comes off as awkward. There are appropriate times for leaders to talk in between songs, but in between every song is unnecessary. If the Spirit is moving, I'm sure He can move just fine without me talking compared to whenever I open my sin filled mouth. If there are a few moments of silence while the musicians to end one song and start the next then so what? If it takes a couple seconds to turn the page to prepare for the next song, big deal! Is it less excellent to pause for a few moments rather than to play seven songs without stopping? Why should our music at church imitate a concert or a radio station? Imitation is the antithesis of authenticity! Authenticity through silence can serve as another reminder to us and our people that we are not professionals and we don’t aspire to be. That doesn’t mean we fail to plan or rehearse, but it means we make the most of the inevitable silence to come and not try to shoehorn in our often unnecessary noise.

A second benefit silence provides is Reflection; a time to think and a time for prayer. How many times do we as ministers provide opportunities in the worship service for the congregation to meditate and reflect on what they have just heard or sung? If you sing one song after another, without a break, and then seamlessly start the sermon, the congregation has never had time to ponder what they just sang. Many times the few brief moments of silence between each song might be the only silence available for the church to reflect. Mark Dever’s church has embraced the silent times in their service. He says, “We LIKE "dead air space." "Dead air space" gives us time to reflect. To collect our thoughts. To consider what we've just heard or read or sung. The silence amplifies the words or music we've just heard. It allows us time to take it all in, and to pray.” (Read Dever's full post here)

With that in mind, ‘dead air’ is also an opportunity for Participation. Instead of doing something to break the silence, do your best to participate in that silence. Dever continues, “Everyone works to be quiet. People stop moving their bulletins or looking for something in their purse. There's no movement. We, together, hear the silence. It engulfs us. It enhances our unity. It is something we all do together. Together we consider what we've just heard. Together we contribute to each other's space to think.” Active participation in silence actively works to get rid of distractions. Which makes me wonder when people say that silence itself is a distraction!

Lastly, another benefit of silence, and I believe the most important, is Worship. In fact, any benefit derived from this silent time should culminate in worship. Everyone talks about Psalm 46:10, “Be still, and know that I am God,” but that’s exactly just what everyone does, talk. Rarely do we see this put into practice. The silence between one song and another is a perfect time to obey this command. In light of this passage it is quite telling to me when the ‘experts’ say that ‘dead air’ hinders worship. What that tells me is that either their understanding of worship is skewed or that they don’t understand what worship really is. If not, then they should really consider the logical outcome of their claims. To make the claim that ‘dead air’ causes people to not worship God is evidence that our faith resides in our methodologies rather than the Creator of silence. It is also a sign to me that many believe worship to be a product that can be manufactured or manipulated to produce an anticipated outcome, which is often called the ‘worship experience’. Many times this is based solely on feelings and nothing else.

One thing to be aware of is that just because silence takes place doesn’t mean that worship takes place. We need to train our people (and ourselves!) in the discipline of silence. And the best way I know how to train is to teach it and practice it. Instead of just expecting the congregation to ‘get it’, take a couple minutes and explain how the church can make the most of the silent times during worship. Explain how worship is not like any other venue in our culture and how silence can enhance reflection. Encourage participation. Take time to worship God when the opportunity of silence presents itself during the week. Even if it is for a few moments.

So instead of constantly trying to fill in the silence, make the most of it when it comes our way! And, most importantly, continue to measure everything we do in our worship services with Scripture to ensure sound doxology. Even the little things like the silence between our songs.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Update 3-26-10: Bob Kauflin at Worship Matters has posted a three-part series called "What Do You Say When You Lead Worship?" He provides some humor as well as great advice.
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3

Why I Love and Hate Christian Radio: Part II

NOTE: The following is long. And unfortunately, in my opinion, it fails in some regards as to my actual feelings concerning Christian radio and it’s affect on worship music. It may come off as paradoxical at times, without adequate explanation. It is my hope that if you come away with questions that you would either post your thoughts in the comment section below or email me at sounddoxology@gmail.com. There is little doubt that I will be addressing many of the topics presented, piece by piece, throughout the lifetime of this blog. Ok, done. Read on!


Part I was my lighthearted attempt to introduce this topic. Here in Part II, I want to get into what really upsets me about Christian radio. The real problem I have with Christian radio is that Christian radio stations make no distinction between songs composed by Christian artists as art and songs composed for the church to sing during worship. This problem runs so deep that people are shocked to find out that there really is a difference. This is because Christian radio and the “worship” industry have not only blurred the lines, they have obliterated them. To be clear, I am not posting this to slam Christian music. I love Christian music and respect musicians and songwriters who are Christians. Some of the greatest music in the world has been written by Christians. My point here is to show that there is a distinction between a song appropriate for worship and a song produced by a Christian artist for entertainment, or even "ministry." I am going to attempt to explain why I feel this is a problem, how it negatively affects the church, and where we go from there.

Reason #1: By placing songs not written for congregational worship alongside songs that are leads to a tendency for people to believe that every song on Christian radio is suitable for gathered worship on Sunday morning. This can be a fine line to walk, especially when an artist finds success at writing songs suitable for a congregation as well as writing songs for entertainment. There is a major difference between a Christian who creates music as an expression of himself/herself or for entertainment or to pursue a career in pop-music and a Christian who purposely composes a song to be utilized in a corporate worship setting. While the “worship music” industry might be blamed for pumping out the next Christian Britney Spears, Christian radio is to blame for presenting that artists music as if it were suitable for the congregation during worship. And to be sure, we are to blame for our lack of discernment in this area.

Reason #2: While many people are edified and utilize Christian radio to individually worship God, the overarching aim of Christian radio is entertainment. Thus, when worship songs are played, entertainment automatically becomes its purpose—intentionally or not. Entertainment is not a bad thing. But worship songs are not intended to be entertainment; they are intended to facilitate believers to praise God through song.

How does this negatively affect music for worship in the church? Well to begin answering that question I think we need to first answer another one: What makes a song suitable or not suitable for congregational worship? For the most part, my blog is dedicated to distinguishing between the two and it would take a lot more room for me to cover that subject exhaustively here, and would detract from this current topic, so I’ll try to be brief. What makes this question difficult is that most, if not all, of the music played on Christian radio glorifies God and can help people worship God. But what I am speaking about here is the actual worship service itself. I’m not talking about private worship, but corporate worship as laid out in Scripture. And here’s the difference (and a shocker to some); what we do individually to worship God does not necessarily translate as worship in a corporate setting.

For example, a surgeon may glorify God through his vocation by using his skills to save a life, and he may cause others to worship God because they are thankful that God has saved their loved one, but it wouldn’t be appropriate to build and ER in the Sanctuary, or for the doctor to perform surgeries on the altar. My point is that a song written with the congregation in mind will tend to focus more on objective truth rather than subjective experience. That surgeon, if allowed to operate on the altar, though glorifying God in his own way, does not lend to the building up of the body during the worship service. His experience is very subjective. How is the guy five pews back glorifying God through the surgeons actions? And that’s just one example. Why should it be any different with songs?

The most difficult part about discerning which songs are appropriate and which songs are not is that, for the most part, I cannot list them to you here. What I may feel is appropriate for my congregation may not be what is appropriate for yours. For instance, Bob Kauflin gives an example in his book "Worship Matters" about how he doesn't lead his congregation in singing the song “Above All” because there are people in his congregation who might misinterpret what the song is saying. The last line, “You took the fall and thought of me above all” can be a glorious reality for a believer, but a person can also read into that line that “I” am the most important thing in the universe. What is more, when we sing of Jesus taking “the fall” it implies a small amount of irreverence because what Jesus has done can hardly be described as “taking the fall.” The brother, who takes the blame for stealing a gumball when in fact it was his sister, takes the fall. The event of Christ taking on our sin and the Holy wrath of God, in my opinion, can hardly be described as “taking the fall.” But that being said, in another congregation these issues may not be a problem and the song is discerned to be just fine.

But the bigger (and perhaps my main) problem is that the radio has given rise to a lot of worship songs that are extremely shallow and vague. The reason many new worship songs become so popular on the radio is the very same reason any other song becomes popular on the radio; it has a good, catchy tune that is repetitive and simple with a general theme. There is a reason why songs on the radio don’t have more than two verses. There is a reason why “hit worship songs” steer clear of specific theology. Because it is music for the masses; and perhaps therein is where the root of our problem lies.

Let's take a look at a common scenario: T.V. networks will cancel a show, despite the 2 million viewers who love the show, if they can produce something that will appeal to a much broader audience that will bring in more ratings and thus, more money. It doesn’t matter to them if the show was well written or if the show brought satisfaction to those who watched it. What are 2 million viewers compared to 20 million? So they create a show that appeals to everyone and that means that they must do something simple, catchy, and familiar. Quality and authenticity are sacrificed or at best become secondary. As far as I can tell, this is the same mentality that operates within the “worship music” industry and Christian radio is more than happy to take it and run with it. And in turn, we are more than happy to take it at face value, never discerning anything labeled “Christian” while ignorance runs rampant in our churches.

The culture has crept in among many areas of the Church but nowhere else has the culture so greatly impacted the Church than in her consumption and replication of her music. This isn’t about “good music” vs. “bad music” as much as it is about Worship vs. Entertainment--or at least an Entertainment Mentality. This isn’t about style either. Having a soloist, or a rock band, or a pianist, or a choir lead worship isn’t wrong, nor is it the issue, but those who lead and those who are led must continually check their motivations and reasons for the music that is selected and sung. I cringe when I hear someone talking about going to worship to hear the “awesome band.” We go to concerts to hear an awesome band; we go to worship to worship God. I’m not saying the praise band has to suck, in fact that should never be the case. Musicians who lead worship should constantly strive for musical excellence. But it really is time for us to stop being duped into popular music for popular music’s sake, as if popular music is the only resource available for American Christians.

The hardest part about all of this is that many of the people involved in the “worship” industry and Christian radio are really good people who strive to glorify Christ in their vocation, be that a radio DJ, a record label president, an artist, or even the worship leader who “made it big.” So how do we handle this and what are we to do about it? Do we throw our radios out of the window? No. Do we boycott our local radio stations? No, that would be ridiculous. So how do we counter this? Maybe the question ought to be, Should we even counter this? And more and more I keep coming to the conclusion that perhaps we should just accept it for what it is, and for the most part it is music produced for a mass audience for profit. The best thing we can do is just to be aware and more discerning.

For as much as I rail on the “worship” industry, I am seeing signs of change. I am seeing more of a division between entertainment music and music for worship. But as it stands, Christian radio continues to make no such distinction.

Perhaps where I am most encouraged is through the internet. There are projects starting from the ground up, rather than from the top down, and they are being recognized for producing good quality, authentic music fit for congregational worship. And instead of being pandered for profit, these songs are moving by word of mouth through church services, conferences, and ultimately the internet. Groups, not limited to, but including Indelible Grace, Sovereign Grace Music, and Sojourn Music have for the most part songs written and composed by the church for the church. And not only do these groups create songs for worship, but most of them provide sheet music of their songs for free, which is an extremely beneficial resource for music ministers.

This is where I see the future (and oddly enough, the past) of worship music; songs written by the church for the church and offered at a relatively low price to serve the church. And not only do I see this as the future of worship music, but this is an area where I see Christians shaping the culture of music. Already, the “worship” industry, alongside the other Big Music Industries are being hit financially as they are finding out that it is becoming harder and harder to maintain their model of business in an internet age.

As for the future of Christian radio, I think it will continue, and I am glad. But I don’t believe a distinction between worship and entertainment will be offered any time soon, which is sad, but it means that we must be ever more vigilant and diligent to rightly discern what to select and sing during congregational worship.

For the Mouths of Babes: Update

A while back I posted about the poor quality of children's music produced by Christians. Well here is some good news. Sovereign Grace Ministries is releasing a new children's CD. I've listened to the preview clips and from what I've heard they've done an excellent job. Bob Kauflin wrote about it on his blog and explained the reasoning for producing it. The people who wrote the songs for the album are some of the very same who are writing great songs for the church today.

Here's what the site has to say about the new CD:

To Be Like Jesus contains twelve worship songs that teach the fruit of the Spirit in a creative and memorable way.Through these songs kids will learn that Jesus is our perfect example of love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness,and self-control. More than that, they’ll discover that we can’t be like Jesus unless we trust in the power of his cross to forgive us and the power of his Spirit to change us.

Needless to say, you won't be finding this kind of explanation on the back of your generic, overpriced, mass produced, cookie cutter "HOTT 25 Worship Songs 4 KIDS!" CD anytime soon. I appreciate Sovereign Grace Ministries so much for writing songs from the church, for the church.

Music is a Servant to Words

As I was flipping through my new copy of Gadsby's Hymns the other day I kept thinking about a statement made by Bob Kauflin, "In congregational worship, music is a servant to words." This simple statement has almost become a philosophy for me. Not only does it direct our attention to the most important aspect of congregational singing (the words/lyrics and the truth contained in them) but it gives the music, which accompanies the lyrics, a higher purpose than just being a "catchy" tune.

What I'm getting at here is basically this; a song, no matter how theologically rich and wonderful the words may be, must have an appropriate tune to carry it. I like to think of it this way; music is the vessel, or cup, that carries the lyrics, which is the liquid contained. Now you can drink wine from a styrofoam cup, but a more appropriate vessel is a wine glass. The glass was specifically made to complement the wine. I feel like a lot of the older hymns have suffered because of this. So many great lyrics have been paired with trivial, boring, or just plain wretched melodies it is no wonder why many people cringe when they hear the word 'hymn'. Wine in any old cup is still wine, but it cannot be fully appreciated and fully enjoyed if not contained in the proper vessel, namely a wine glass.

The flip side of this idea is no matter how beautiful, majestic, catchy, or pleasing the music may be, it means nothing if the lyrics are simply weak theology and mindless dribble. To continue the analogy, if you owned a beautiful ornate goblet, fit for a king, would you drink chocolate milk, or kool-aid out of it? If you are 10 then yes, you would. But for anyone else it doesn't make since to do so. The reason is because kool-aid, though sweet and tasty, is not complemented by such a cup. The reason I don't drink kool-aid from a wine glass is the same reason I don't drink wine from my child's sippy cup.

Here are a few practical examples. Let's look at the most well loved English hymn, Amazing Grace. The words were written by John Newton in the 1700's but the tune, NEW BRITAIN, was written in the mid-1800's. Before the tune was composed Amazing Grace was just another ordinary song in the hymnal. Nothing special really, other than good poetry. Now, take the words to Amazing Grace and sing them to the tune of Gilligan's Isle or House of the Rising Sun. Some people would say that is sacrilege! That is because the tune falls short of the lyrics. They do not complement each other. It is wine in the sippy cup.

Here's another, albeit a bit silly. The tune and lyrics of A Mighty Fortress is Our God written by Martin Luther evoke majesty and triumph. Let's use that wonderful tune to sing the following lyrics:

There was this man from Galilee/His love is like a river/He died one day upon a tree/He is the perfect giver/I raise my holy hands/and bow and kneel and stand/Just gotta worship Him/And singing without end/La la la la la la la la la. (with hand motions?)

Ok, first I must say that I feel dumb just writing that off the top of my head. I need to apologize to Martin Luther when I get to heaven. Second, these lyrics (unfortunately) evoke much of today's modern "worship" music, however I digress, that is for another post... But it serves to make my point clear. This is kool-aid in the wine glass.

This may not seem like a very important topic to some people but for the singing congregation I believe it is vital. Trivial music paired with truth-laden lyrics will cause us to trivialize the truth. Wonderful, beautiful music paired with weak, senseless lyrics will cause us to believe that what we are singing is the core of the gospel, when in fact we may be happily singing heresy!

So let us be cautious in what we sing by understanding the submissive role music takes to the lyrics.