The slow death of congregational singing

On Easter Day, I went for a rare visit to St Andrew's Cathedral in Sydney for the 10:30 am service. The Cathedral was full and the singing of the congregation was hearty and loud. One thing I remember (as well as the excellent sermon!) was that while the choir was singing and the organist was not afraid to use loud stops, I could hear myself singing (I do sing rather loudly), and for most of the hymn verses, I could not hear the choir because of the loud singing of the congregation.

One reason for the hearty singing was, of course, the three well-known Easter hymns on the service sheet. The reason I could hear myself singing was that we were not being overpowered by a grossly over-amplified band or song leader. In her article, Cathy Sampson gives a reason for needing song leaders. She writes, “Because of the complexity of contemporary church songs, the congregation is looking for overt leadership simply to get them from beginning to end”.

Exactly! Would it not be better to have songs which are easy to sing with tunes that are easy to remember? It seems to me that the experiment with ‘contemporary’ music in church—an experiment decades old, in some places—has largely failed for several reasons, and replacing church choirs, ‘boring’ hymns, and chanted psalms and canticles has resulted in something worse. I don't know all the answers to the problem, but there are some things crying out to be remedied.

David Morrison of Springwood, NSW, AUS (04/04/2008)

I enjoyed the way Mike Raiter was able to provoke our thinking on congregational singing. One issue which was touched on in the article and in Gordon Cheng's follow up comments was the fact that the modern music culture is one of entertainment not participation. How much has this affected song leaders and musicians in thinking that there is a need to perform high quality music? I suspect this is a factor that cuts across the evangelical/charismatic divide.

The result for non-musical people like myself is that many songs today are not very singable. Whether it is in the writing or the arranging, sometimes they are just too difficult. I greatly enjoy listening to many of our modern songs but find it difficult to sing them in the way that it is easy to belt out most of the hymns. Have many in congregations just given up and subconsciously decided to let the experts do the singing for them?

Phil Nicholson of Taiwan (08/04/2008)

As one who has been a (voluntary) organist in four churches over 65 years, I would say there are only two factors involved in congregational singing well: they need to know the tune and like the words!

(Some churches have better acoustics than others: in some, you feel like singing into cotton wool, so that is a discouragement. These can usually be improved by getting the advice of an acoustics engineer.)

Though an evangelical Christian, I must admit to having little experience of songs sung with bands and people with microphones leading the singing. But in our little local church just with an organ, our congregation sings heartily and really praises the Lord! (We use Together in Song and Mission Praise hymnbooks).

Shirley Morris of Helensvale, QLD, AUS (17/04/2008)

I wanted to write to you in response to this month's Briefing. Excellent stuff once again. Good articles on singing. Thanks and well done! My comments are not directly related to the articles, but the topic in general.

The excellent articles on singing in this month's Briefing rightly encouraged us to express our emotions. But that's where I want to raise a possible difficulty. Some of us men are not so emotional. There is a difference in general between men and women. Sure, some men are in touch with their emotions and expressive, and that's great. But lots of men are not. When we blokes walk into a church and see a sheila up the front with her eyes closed, hands raised, a look of ecstasy on her face and singing about Jesus my darling, it's a little off-putting. It crosses our minds that maybe we should have emotions like that too, but when we look for them, they seem to have flown away and we're left feeling a bit, well, er, uncomfortable. It's all very well singing along at the end of the footy when my AFL team wins, but this is not quite the same thing!

I have raised this point a few times in a room of mature Christians and seen the relief on the face of a number of men. It's not that singing shouldn't be emotional. It's not that Aussie blokes aren't emotional. Perhaps it's more—dare I say it—that this is too big a leap into the effeminate for some of us. Perhaps some blokes need to be gently and slowly cajoled into showing emotion, and, you know, in a bit more of a blokey way. There's something about the present state of congregational singing that can often be decidedly non-blokey. And many Aussie blokes are left shuffling their feet and mumbling along to the song. But there will be songs that blokes can happily belt out too. Guess I'll leave it to the song-leaders/choosers (and a future Briefing article?) to work out which is which.

Martin Pakula of Lilydale, VIC, AUS (17/04/2008)

I write with regard to the recent Couldn't Help Noticing article written by Phillip Jensen on ‘Spiritual Inferiority’, which was published in the April 2008 edition of The Briefing.

As someone who has subscribed to The Briefing for some considerable time, and who has benefited richly from its contents, (as well as the wider catalogue of Matthias Media and The Good Book Company), I was somewhat surprised by the tone of this piece. Phillip Jensen is undoubtedly correct to encourage his readers to find their true identity and significance in God alone, but the manner in which he phrases his article is regrettable to say the least.

I understand that Jensen is engaging in caricature in his depictions of the “spiritually superior”, but the collateral damage entailed in such an approach is costly. His focus on those who “are always talking of praising the Lord and being in prayer”, and who “turn every conversation into a matter of spirituality” is lopsided in the extreme, and largely out of tune with my own experience of evangelical Christians. One of the pillars of true Christian fellowship is spiritual conversation, sharing one's experiences of God and his word, and rejoicing together with brothers and sisters in what he has done. This is commended (if not commanded) in Deuteronomy 6:7, where with regard to spiritual things God's covenant people are instructed to “impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up”. One of the most lamentable facts about contemporary church life can be the lack of spiritual conversation among God's people rather than its proliferation. I know that this is something which The Good Book Company seeks to redress in its provision of resources which are designed to get Christians talking about spiritual matters.

If Jensen's target is those who ostentatiously and self-righteously trumpet their experiences of God with the intention of making others feel inferior, then he is correct in his assertions. He does not, however, make this in any way clear. The insinuation that he has “known several adulterers who talked like this” is desperately ill-advised, and seems out of keeping with the tone of the other carefully crafted and sensitively phrased articles in the magazine (Sandy Grant's letter re GAFCON being a case in point).

We are living in what are largely superficial times in every area of life. Spiritual conversation, growth and discipleship are surely to be encouraged for the blessing of God's people, rather than parodied for their amusement.

Please be assured of my continued support and prayers for the work of The Good Book Company. I have never put pen to paper to express my feelings on any of the content in past issues of The Briefing, but Phillip Jensen has displayed a lack of balance and grace in his assertions which I feel need to be highlighted by readers, and perhaps retracted by him as the author.

Andrew Roycroft of Hamiltonsbawn, Armagh, UK (17/04/2008)

It was heartening to read Mike Raiter's article in the April Briefing on ‘The slow death of congregational singing’, not least because it began by voicing the concerns which I have felt increasingly over the past few years.

Having led the music for nine years at a growing evangelical church, I think the issue of how to nurture and encourage congregational singing so that it glorifies God, edifies his church and is rooted in Scripture is a very real one which needs addressing. One way to do this may actually be to teach congregations why we sing in church meetings (perhaps especially as it's an activity which is becoming quite alien in our 21st-century culture), which is exactly what Mike's article does so lucidly. Even if we think we already understand this teaching, it certainly does no harm to be reminded periodically that we sing, ultimately, for the glory of God, out of awe and gratitude for who he is and what he has accomplished for us, and that we are also singing for/to each other in order to teach scriptural truths, admonish and encourage each other in the faith. This, of course requires that the songs and hymns we sing are themselves Bible-based and, as Mike writes, teach “the whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27).

I fear that, in addition, some contemporary Christian songs are simply unsuitable for congregational singing and can really only be performed (for want of a better expression) by the ‘worship band’, either because there is no clearly singable melody or because the rhythm is way too syncopated for it to be tackled by a large gathering or because the words (sound though they may be) do not obviously fit with the melody/rhythm. That is not to say that such songs have no use or purpose, but just that they do not fit the bill when it comes to singing ‘en masse’.

If congregational singing is to remain a part of our church meetings we need songs that stand the test of time, that complement the preaching of God's word and that can actually be sung in a meaningful, heartfelt way by ordinary Christian men, women and children.

Annette Armitage of Cambridge, UK (17/04/2008)

The slow death of congregational singing has other causes not fully identified by your contributors. Is the hymn/song sing-able? Is it played by the instrumentalist(s) in a sensitive way that encourages singing by the congregation? Does the song leader(s) and amplification system overpower the singing?

If the hymn or song is not sing-able, then the congregation will not sing despite exhortations to “raise the roof”. Yes, the words are important (and that subject has been dealt with fully by your contributors) but if no-one sings them (except the song leader or group or choir), then it might as well be announced as a solo or group item, or the words read as a poem, or a reading of a Psalm together. It is no use putting premium fuel in a car if the engine is missing one or more cylinders; performance is lacking and the fuel is largely wasted.

I believe that there is a fundamental difference between a hymn and a song. In this context (reduced to simple terms), a hymn usually allows the music to flow with the words, whereas a song has a rhythmic beat with little variation. I have observed (and experienced) that, in general, a keyboard player who is adept at playing modern songs—often with complex musical score—has difficulty playing hymns in the traditional manner. The reverse is also true: an accomplished organist or pianist who can lead hymn singing has difficulty in playing modern songs with their emphasis on rhythmic beat. Arising from the difficulty of adapting to two different accompaniment styles is the problem when attempts are made to mix ancient and modern in one service using the same instrumentalists. And yet mixing ancient and modern is probably a good thing because it caters for different age groups in the congregation. Ideally, the solution would appear to be to have an experienced pianist or organist (or both) for leading the hymns and an instrumental group to lead the songs.

If the melody is not important, let me ask a question: what has made the hymn ‘Before the throne of God above’ popular in the last few years, when it was a traditional hymn never sung in the last 40 to 50 years? The single factor which has brought this old hymn (with its scriptural words) back to life is the new tune. Melody matters! Having said that, some of the traditional hymns have wonderful melodies and do not need re-writing.

Here are some suggestions for reviving dying congregational singing:

1. Ensure that most of the hymns/songs are well known and have a good singable melody.
2. Lead ‘hymns’ by piano or organ or both; avoid other instruments—especially drums.
3. Avoid forcing a hymn into a rhythmic beat and leave space between verses.
4. Lead ‘songs’ by an instrumental group with drums, not organ.
5. Do not over-amplify the song leader, the group or the instruments. Congregational singing should dominate, following sensitive leading. The ‘sound’ team should also be musical!
6. The instruments should get the singing going and then ‘back off’ to accompany the singing, perhaps making the last verse more forceful again as a crescendo.
7. Vary the musical accompaniment on each verse.
8. Sometimes have one verse without any accompaniment. This is a good test of congregation participation. If it does not work, then the choice was wrong.
9. If the congregation sings, the importance of the words will be allowed to surface. And finally,
10. Choose hymns/songs to suit the occasion and the congregation. (Ever sung ‘O for a thousand tongues to sing’ with six persons and a guitar? I have, and after four verses I was about to die, and there were two more to go. This hymn goes wonderfully with 1,000 tongues bringing praise to God and uplift to the singers.)

Is the music is more important than the words? Well, at the risk of being misunderstood, and since we are talking about congregational singing, I venture to suggest that unless the music does the job, the words will be largely lost. Get the music right and the message of the words can be applied. If congregational singing has died the death, the words may follow the same demise, and furthermore, will there be much congregation left to hear the words?

If the melody is well known and sing-able, the leading is appropriate to the hymn or song, and the instrument(s)/song leader/choir is low volume and supportive of the congregation, then they will sing. If they are not singing, do not blame them; the fault lies elsewhere. It can be corrected, and the result will be a revitalizing of congregational singing and not its slow death.

Good music and singing in church services will bring people to church where, hopefully, they will hear the word of God in preaching and exposition as well as in the music.

David Edwards of Poole, UK (17/04/2008)

Many thanks to the Briefing team for a good balance of articles in regards to congregational singing. I'm involved in music leading at an Anglican College in Melbourne, and I wanted to offer a couple of ideas as to how we've sought to navigate a musical path through all the matters raised in the article.

Firstly, as far as possible, it is helpful to sing about common experiences in the Christian body. It's a pretty safe bet that we are all at ease to say “Thank you for the cross Lord” (Zschech), “Put a new song in my heart” (Smith), “Teach us to number our days” (Chiswell) or “My Lord, what love is this, that pays so dearly?” (Kendrick). But besides, perhaps, on his wedding day, most blokes would balk at admitting out loud “I'm lost in wonder, lost in love!“.

Secondly, it seems to me that congregations by and large have more gusto singing songs with progression—that is, a series of verses and a common chorus. Popular songs like ‘In Christ Alone’ or ‘Consider Christ’ are testimony to this. Alternatively, there is something deeply unsatisfying to a congregation about singing a refrain three times over, while gradually slowing down in an effort to up the emotive effect. ‘Open the eyes of my Heart’ is one of my personal gripes.

Incidentally, with regards to Mike Raiter's concern about the “McDonaldization“ of music leading, I believe that Ireland's Robin Mark is a refreshing example of a music leader who writes great congregational songs and has the obligatory band, but somehow is so self-effacing in his leading that congregations can't help but sing their praises loudly to God.

Peter Waterhouse of Moonee Ponds, VIC, AUS (17/04/2008)

Mike Raiter will be pleased to hear that my congregation is fully committed to singing, even if at times they, too, struggle with unfamiliar tunes. Our music consists wholly of traditional hymns sung to the accompaniment of an organ. I hope the fact that, at 50-something, I am no longer contending with the struggle between what is popular in congregational music and what is edifying, nor between art and orthodoxy, doesn't disqualify me from offering the following observations.

I agree with Mike that congregational singing is not always what it could or should be. Music is a great teaching tool as we tell each other the mighty deeds of our Creator and Redeemer. We should be bold to proclaim the gospel. Music is also a great way to feel what you are thinking. Good songs involve our heart and mind and soul and strength with the gospel message.

However, as Hans Kristensen points out, it is unfair to lay the blame for the lack of community involvement in singing on a particular combination of singers and instrumentalists, nor to attribute this combination to Hillsong. It was back in the 1970s that the replacement of the original song leaders—the choir—and the instrumentalist—the organ—began. The reasons for this and the musical resources chosen to replace them sowed the seeds of much of what we find happening in our churches today. (Although those with knowledge of music and church history might say that we are merely repeating, yet again, a dialogue that has been taking place since the Reformation, and perhaps pre-Reformation times.) After all, the Hills district and its best-known church was initially filled with those who had settled there after growing up in the evangelical Bible belt of Northern Sydney.

The reasons for this change, it seems to me, were these. Even in the 1970s ministers were looking to give their churches a modern, attractive look—especially to outsiders. They were experimenting with new contemporary forms of service and wanted their music to match. For some, this was married with a suspicion of certain types of churchmanship. Traditional musical styles and practices were, through no fault of their own, associated with ritual and attitudes deemed unacceptable. Young people were now hearing a diet of popular music that made the hymns and the organ seem out-of-date. The ubiquitous, portable music machine, the guitar, did not lend itself to accompanying hymns so alternative tunes—sometimes from popular music—were used instead. Anyway, there was a growing library of published and even more unpublished songs that were being sung in youth fellowship groups using one form of contemporary musical language, but still one different from that used in church. Adding a melody instrument to a strummed guitar was a natural addition. At about the same time, Australians were introduced to the type of orchestral arrangements and reworked hymns being used at All Souls in London when Michael Baughan visited our shores. This opened up opportunities for a wider variety of instrumentalists to serve in their congregations. Finally, there was the battle between the clergy and the music mafia over who controlled the music—a tussle beautifully described by Adrian Plass in An Alien at St Winifreds. Instead of welcoming a type of music that extended the range of members who could serve their brothers and sisters through music, having songs that anyone could play seems to have only exacerbated the situation.

Most of what Mike and the other excellent writers have to say about congregational singing stems from the tension that arise when these factors—contemporary relevance, musical comprehensibility, access and authority—overwhelm a true understanding of the purpose of congregational music by leaders, musicians and congregations alike. We have replaced the choir with the song leader (and friends), the organ with a variety of instruments, and hymns with songs that represent the best and worst of middle-of-the-road popular music styles. Yet many of us have not considered why we sing.

The delegation of music by the unnamed church leader to the periphery of the New Testament church has perhaps more to do with his own preferences than the Bible. One of the last recorded acts of Jesus before his arrest and crucifixion was to sing a hymn with his disciples. Whether this was part of the Passover, their common practice when meeting together, or their response to the startling events that had already taken place that evening, this hymn was significant enough to be recorded for us in two gospels. Yet singing as a means to cover the sound of latecomers or as an excuse to stretch our legs or even the traditional hymn-sandwich style of service does assign it to the periphery. A careful reading of the canticles and psalms in Cranmer's Prayer Book reveals great thought and attention given to selecting words that share the gospel, speak of the salvation of God and remind the singer why they have gathered together.

The chief alternative to the peripheral view seems to be the ‘presence of God’ approach to singing, where we call down God into the house. As well as reading the songs and poetry of the Old Testament, it is salient to read passages such as 1 Kings 8 and 1 Kings 18 which dismiss such short-sighted and futile thinking. But the churches espousing this theology are the ones who spend serious money on their music, and many give their musicians the status of pastor or full-time Christian worker. Others are characterized by a mistrust and misunderstanding of what those involved in music ministry can offer. Songs, for example, can be a great vehicle for presenting Biblical theology: the marrying of Old and New Testament images, language and concepts to reveal Christ.

These days, my main exposure to the type of music that Mike describes comes at conferences. I am greatly saddened when an inspiring talk is followed by a song that has no relation to the teaching that has just taken place—especially when I can name two or three songs that would provide a meaningful response, affirmation and consolidation of the Bible teaching. Instead, we have a happy wake-up, send-off (sorry, praise and worship) song. The type of preparation that Lee Carter suggests takes time, knowledge and experience, yet this can remain unacknowledged on both sides of the communion rail. Yes, it is a part of the servant leadership of the congregation, but the paid ministry team are not the only ones who appreciate positive feedback.

The other influence on congregational singing is the vanishing of a community singing culture in many Western societies. (English football crowds are an exception, of course.) For many in our iPod world, music is a personal experience and one that shuts out the world around them. They are consumers of music rather than performers. The growing fashion to listen to someone else sing to God on your behalf on Praise and Worship recordings is a natural part of this culture. Singing in public is confined to karaoke, often fuelled by Dutch courage, a football game, or a rock concert. The similarity between this and some church meetings is not lost by the way. At rock concerts, you can join in or be entertained: you have a choice. No wonder the command to stand and sing together can be intimidating for some. Sometimes it is hard to tell whether we're expected to join in or just to listen (and listening to an item can be an uplifting, encouraging and educational experience). Uncertainty leads to timidity or even discomfort. Where it is expected that everybody sing, the unfamiliarity of the community singing experience may be compounded by the unfamiliarity of the tune or the poor writing of the words and music. The articles by Cathy Sampson and Lee Carter provide useful guidelines for overcoming these difficulties.

When congregations and leaders (and musicians are one or the other or both) understand that singing is not about self, but about humbly giving of ourselves to others and to God, employing the whole of our being, then the priorities of truth, excellence and service will inform, guide and develop our desire and ability to make a joyful noise to the Lord, and to speak to each in psalms, hymns and spiritual songs, making melody to the Lord in our hearts.

Philip Cooney of Wentworth Falls, NSW, AUS (17/04/2008)

Do we use syncopation or not? Do we use hymns or contemporary? What time signature should we use? What instruments should we use? What tempo should we use? What do the older people in the congregation like? What do the younger people like?

The more our churches are driven by worldliness and consumerism, the more emotive and subjective the music issue becomes.

So what is the solution? More Celtic music. Everyone seems to love it, whether young or old! Bring on the feadog (Irish Tin whistle)—bring on the uillean pipes, the bohran, flute and fiddle!

Joshua Bovis of Lambton, NSW, AUS (25/04/2008)

Thanks to Mike Raiter for starting the discussion on congregational singing. There are many reasons why our congregations don't sing well. Sometimes it's related to cultural insecurities, sometimes the skill of our musicians, sometimes even humidity. I want to highlight one of the major problems that I'm grappling with at the moment: the fact that most of our songs these days are written for an audience, not a congregation. Song writers are writing for their market or label rather than for the people of God.

Where it's gone wrong is the thinking that the way to disseminate songs is to ‘sell’ them well. This leads to expensive production costs, marketing and then staffing to cope with the ensuing admin. This means that the next song to come from that label needs to generate enough money to keep the bills paid. The trouble is that songs that are professionally produced on CD often sound great to the one listening, but they don't always work well with a congregation.

It's not necessarily the style of music that's the issue, but the simplicity. We shouldn't care about the ‘McDonaldization’ of music if it's only a question of style; what we should be concerned about is that no-one can join in with the songs because the tunes are too complicated for us to sing and for our musicians to play. (I'm as culpable as anyone for writing songs that I like the sound of rather than songs that serve the people I'm writing for.)

The Bible in both the Old and New Testaments is clear that we preach the word of God to each other by speaking the truth and singing the truth (e.g. Exodus 15, Colossians 3:16). The first and most important element for congregational singing is therefore that the truth is present and clear. The second element is that the musical accompaniment help us remember and respond to that truth with all our hearts. If this element is absent, then it doesn't serve the first element. We need tunes that are simple to pick up by the most non-musical member of the congregation while, at the same time, having simple enough accompaniments to be played by the least proficient of musicians.

‘In Christ Alone’ fits this mould perfectly. It didn't need to be ‘sold’ through CDs and marketing; the song sold itself because of the simplicity of the tune and the fact that its accompaniment can be played by any musician with one finger. ‘In Christ Alone’ has since been recorded because of its popularity, not because it needed to be marketed.

Pastors, stick to your guns when congregation members come back from major conferences waving their CDs saying, “We must sing this song because the lyrics are biblical’. If the congregation can't pick it up after two tries and the musicians can't cope with the rhythm, it may indeed be biblical in content, but in its concept it is not biblical because the song is only going to serve the audience that wishes to hear it rather than the congregation who would love to sing it, if only they could.

And then pray for our Christian songwriters to use their music to serve the word of God and the people of God.

Richard Simpkin of London, UK (30/04/2008)

Amen to Mike Raiter's article, ‘The slow death of congregational singing’ (Briefing #355, April 2008). Music teams do little for congregational singing by overpowering and cowing the voices of the congregation. Perhaps our brethren who only sing unaccompanied are wiser than we thought!

‘Sharing the word of Christ in song’ was an interesting counterpoint—not least since I have enjoyed the music when visiting the church where Philip Percival serves. Do charismatic churches sing better because they are better at singing or because they are better at copying the pop style familiar to the world? If you educate a congregation to enjoy biblically content-full hymns, perhaps they will sing better, albeit more quietly, than our charismatic brethren. The challenge here is the education when it is so easy simply to follow the charismatic style that dominates the CD racks of Christian bookshops.

It is a pity that Gordon Cheng repeats the old myth about Luther's tunes. None of them were drinking songs and only one came from a secular folk song. Perhaps this should challenge the assumption that our music in church should follow the style of secular bands (and thus Hillsong et al.).

Cheng rightly comment on the unsingability of much modern music. My wife is a classically trained pianist and I am musically literate. We both take a keen interest in new church music, yet the vast majority of charismatic music is rhythmically unplayable. Such music is utterly unsuitable for congregational use, and stands in stark comparison with the deliberate simplicity of most traditional hymn tunes.

So do we need song leaders for this, as Cathy Sampson suggests? I think she is wrong to state that choirs traditionally led congregations. This was certainly not true in the Reformation where singing was taken from the choirs of Roman Catholicism, whose music was too difficult for congregations to sing, and given back to the congregation. Choirs have not been part of English nonconformity historically either. Sampson is right to note the appearance of song leaders correlates with the increasing complexity of music starting in the 1970s, but this is precisely the problem.

I suspect one problem is that so few churches are now familiar with good hymn books. A good hymn book, by definition, does not list songs alphabetically. There are plenty around. Try Praise! or Sing Glory, both of which have large numbers of new words and tunes. Other useful resources are the collected hymns of hymn writers who have a strong focus on Bible themes and paraphrases, such as Christopher Idle, Timothy Dudley-Smith, Michael Perry, Don Fortner, Vernon Higham, Margaret Clarkson and Martin Leckebusch. Praise! has the added advantage for song choosers of a fantastic Scripture index by Christopher Idle.

Above all, churches need to start from Scripture. The church has historically taken the Psalms as her starting point, and modern Evangelicalism is much the worse off for almost uniformly neglecting this. Praise! contains a complete psalter. The Free Church of Scotland in Sing Psalms and the Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland in The Psalms for Singing cover the same territory.

So pastors and music leaders, be bold! Choose at least one psalm or Scripture paraphrase every service. If your average church member can't work out the rhythm, don't sing it, and, now and then, stop playing for a verse or two. Lastly, use that song leader principally to teach new songs, after which they can go and sit with the rest of the congregation.

James Horgan of Hertford, England, UK (02/05/2008)

If, as Mike Raiter fears, congregational singing is in its dying gasps, how are we to breath new life into it? As a member of an itinerant congregational singing band, my greatest joy comes in those moments when we can barely hear our instruments over the sublime roar of fellow believers singing their lungs out. I still remember being at Galston earlier this year, struggling to distinguish our singer Alanna's voice from the chorus of a hundred or so enthusiastic young believers (and she had thousands of watts on her side!). For me, that is the way it should be.

It may seem crude to measure a good night and a bad night in decibels (the volume of the crowd's singing), and of course the integrity and truth behind the singing is ultimately more important. But I am always very conscious that the early church seems to have made do without musicians,¹ and so the only good reason I can see why I should bring my piano to church is if it helps us sing together. No level of musical achievement is consolation for not having done well the one thing that we set out to achieve.

So if the current model is wanting, towards which vision should we look instead? I don't know, but this is what I think we're looking for.

1. We need songs

It all starts with the songs. Yet the global ‘worship music industry’ is naturally biased towards making and promoting music which is great to listen to but not necessarily great to sing together. I don't think this is anybody's fault in particular; you just cannot afford to make and distribute a high quality album which only church music directors will want to buy. As anyone who has ever worked on a congregational album will attest, at every stage in the songwriting and production process you are confronted with a choice between what will be best for church singing and what will sell. It's a vicious choice, because, under the current model, unless your album sells, your songs will never see the light of day.

The result is that many songs end up in a key far too high for anyone but the original performer to sing. Others are carried by instrumentation which no church can hope to reproduce. And still others end up with an impossibly irregular rhythm for the congregation to try to mumble out.

Sometimes we can adapt songs—for example, transpose them into a sensible key. Overall, I suspect, the industry is just not going to deliver. We need to invest money and time into growing and training our own songwriters. Few churches can support a music minister to spend all day writing songs. So can anyone think of a way to ensure that good music ministry happens, and is not held ransom to the very different priorities of the album selling business?

2. We need a sound

Even among those artists who have straddled the good-for-selling/good-for-singing dilemma (and in this category I include the likes of Chris Tomlin, Matt Redman, Reuben Morgan and Mark Peterson), the fact is that they make music which is appropriate and adapted to the space and context within which they normally lead singing. Who wouldn't? We cannot really blame Hillsong for writing songs that work best for thousands of voices in Acer Arena. But nor should we be surprised at the underwhelming results when we try to mimic the wall of sound at a U2 concert in a small church building with a tiny band.

Mike thinks that it's time to “sit down and ask ourselves what is the best medium for actually promoting congregational singing”. He's spot-on. We need our own vision of what church music should sound like—not because there is anything unholy about the current styles on offer, but simply because it does not always fit our actual churches. At one music conference, I once accosted by a lady from Queensland who told me that she had bought one of our earlier albums. She said, “I love it, but it's useless!” and explained that few of the songs she liked would work at her church of 20 people and an old piano. If the churches we are serving look more like this than Acer Arena, we need to write songs to suit.

I'm still trying to work out how to do that. But I think what we need is a sound which is culturally relevant (so as to serve our missional goals), but also one which is appropriate and adapted to the spaces and resources with which we are working. Not all contemporary music is played in a stadium with four guitarists; more intimate artists like Feist, Sarah Blasko, James Blunt, Missy Higgins and Death Cab for Cutie have all found an audience with simple instrumentation, strong emotion and great songwriting. Their music suits intimate shows rather than stadiums. Sound like something we could draw on?

3. We need creativity

The most important thing, however, is that we need to be creative. We are battling a culture which has, by and large, bought iPods and lost the motivation to sing together in public. Simply cranking up the bellows of a pipe organ or turning down the band might be all the provocation my grandparents' generation needs to belt out a good hymn. But, in my limited experience, it does not usually solve the problem for congregations dominated by young people, new converts, or (to make a rash generalization) men.

If singing is important, how do you make people want to sing? That the song leader and band should decrease and the people of God increase is very true indeed, but it's a statement of our end goal, not a roadmap of how to get to that point. The goal is quite simple; the trick is in the art of it.

The best song leaders lead the congregation not “into the presence of God”, ² but into a proper frame of mind for singing. I remember one night when we were asked to sing with a bunch of youth leaders in the south of Sydney at the end of a long day of planning and training. It was clear that everybody there (ourselves included) was far too tired and distracted by the worries of the day to be in the right frame of mind for singing, and I feared that it would be another dry night of going through the motions. But our singers totally surprised me when they started the night by acknowledging how everyone felt, yet urging us to find joy in the truths we were about to sing which don't rest on feelings but on Jesus. Another time with a different group chiefly made up of high school students, they broke the teenage inhibitions about singing in public by starting with some silly choir warm-ups. In yet another context, they decided, at the last minute, to go on without the band at all. And each time the people sang. When you're trying to do something as radically countercultural as getting people to sing in public, you need to be a bit creative.

But so many churches I visit seem instead to foster a stifling culture of prohibition. Attempting to avoid unhelpful paradigms of music, they define themselves by what they do not do—picking up on the habits of other churches or secular performers and doing the exact opposite. One church I visited forbids singers to hold the microphones in their hands because it's too reminiscent of a U2 show. Another forbids them from using a mike stand in case their hands should be tempted to rise above regulation shoulder height. Like drawing with an eraser, it's as silly as it is counterproductive. Concerns about music being too much a ‘performance’ should not be dismissed lightly; exalting art instead of God is idolatry. It has no place in life, let alone in church. But using human creativity for God's glory is a different thing altogether. In order to develop a culture of great song leading, and a corresponding culture of great singing, we need to be free to try things.

If this is the vision, what is the first step? A guitarist friend of mine is doing ministry training this year at a church where they have abandoned the musician roster concept altogether. Instead, they encourage musicians in the church to form bands with a particular style who rehearse together regularly as they think critically about what aspects of music culture can be adapted to help people sing. They don't import many songs from the ‘worship industry’; usually each band adapts the words of their favourite hymns and reworks the music. This model isn't right for every church, but the vision of songwriting, the approach to culture and the kind of creative attitude which drives it certainly is. So what's your church's vision for singing?

Endnotes

¹ Edward Foley, Foundations Of Christian Music: The Music Of Pre-Constantinian Christianity, Grove, Nottingham, 1992, p. 63.

²Graham Cray, ‘Justice, Rock and the Renewal of Worship’, in Robin Sheldon (ed.), In Spirit and Truth, Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1989, p. 64.

Andy Judd of Roseville, NSW, AUS (06/05/2008)

How timely was your last edition, especially Mike Raiter's article on ‘The Slow Death of Congregational Singing’!

Our family has just returned from a major Easter convention feeling uneasy about the direction the music ministry seems to be taking. This year, for the first time, the song leader had been absorbed into the singing group—an excellent group but definitely of the ‘performance’ genre. This, combined with the excessive decibel level, made us wonder if we had, by chance, wandered into a Hillsongs gathering. It seemed that the musicians and singers were no longer our ‘servants’ to help us sing praise to the Lord, but rather ‘performers’ to inspire us to worship him. This may well be the case, as any well-presented item can inspire, but it should be in addition to congregational singing, not at its expense. As Mike Raiter says, “people filled with the Holy Spirit are instinctively prompted to sing”. The current fashions in song leading seem to quell this response, rather than enhance it.

With this change in convention singing style, there seems to be a commensurate decline in the standard of song selection. We now find included both 1) beautiful melodies with inadequate lyrics and 2) the completely unsingable (unsingable unless you are part of a well-rehearsed music group). As one of the great blessings of conventions has been good quality songs and styles that we could take home to our local church, we view this development with alarm.

Unlike Mike Raiter's convention, our Easter congregation was still singing. However, we wonder how much longer this will continue if the current direction is maintained. Certainly we will not notice if and when this occurs—particularly if the decibel level ensures that we can no longer hear our neighbours singing.

Carole J Yates of Oatley, NSW, AUS (06/05/2008)

Another Briefing issue (#355), another dissection of the woes, charms and dangers of congregational music in our churches. Mike Raiter, in his wide-ranging article (he moves from people not singing to New Testament exegesis to deficiencies in our contemporary song to the problem of song leaders), rightly notes a concern about the lack of singing in churches. But there are two important omissions in Mike's article. The first is that not all churches are suffering from the same muting problem. Some segments of the wider church are quite literally singing their lungs (and hearts) out to God. Sure, Mike does travel a lot and experiences a much greater variety of church experience than most of the rest of us. Is it fair though, to conclude that Mike's observations pertain to the mainstream evangelical church? (Mike can correct me if I'm wrong.) And here lies the nub of the second omission: the problem is not that people don't want to sing, it is that the mainstream evangelical church has done a remarkable job in recent times of stifling creative expression in general. What we are experiencing is the outcome of constant suspicion, dissection, discussion and uncomfortableness about the arts in general, not just music. Could it be that people actually want to sing—to express their faith through song with others of like mind, yet have become so strung out regarding the various cautions and prohibitions about the arts that head has well and truly taken over heart? Let me explain.

Current research around the country is highlighting the resurgence being experienced by amateur choirs, vocal ensembles and classes. My own music department has seen a 200% increase in vocal students over the last few years, with hundreds now passing through our classroom doors every year. People want to sing. Whether we like it or not, the Idol phenomenon is part of the explanation for this, but surely the church is perfectly placed to capitalize on this singing revival. Congregational song is a vernacular music—that is, music that expresses the immediate, lived experience of individual and collective identities. Examples of this ‘everyday music’ abound—no more so than in places where the production and consumption of the music happens simultaneously. That is, by collectively singing songs, we are the producers of the music, and by hearing the song of those around us, we are the consumers as well. Head to any AFL or A-League football game and you'll find other examples of vernacular music, where fans sing team songs and even counter musical ‘attacks’ of opposition fans, and what's more, they do so corporately. And it is not just a female choir sitting in the top of the stands, these songs are being belted out by the same reserved Australian males we sometimes think are incapable of public song. People want to sing. This year, I have had the privilege of attending huge public concerts by The Police, Jack Johnson and even Bon Jovi (come on, don't judge!). In all venues, I sat or stood next to people of both sexes, all age groups and many different heritages; in all cases, they sang publicly and enthusiastically—unconcerned by my close proximity (and occasional grimace). Sometimes I was close to the performers, sometimes miles away. Sometimes the music was loud, other times it was extremely soft. And still the people sang. We shared a passion for the music we were hearing—perhaps the artist, perhaps the sentiment of the song—and we shared that lived experience by singing along together. Surely we Christians have an even stronger desire to sing of our shared experience of the Lord Jesus and his grace.

Mike Raiter has raised an important issue for the church: Christians in some churches are not expressing and sharing their faith through song, and as Mike helpfully points out, the Bible instructs us to do this for the health of our relationship with God and with our fellow pilgrims on the journey. Rather than making congregational music the subject of yet another CSI episode, perhaps it is time to address the church's attitude to music, and the arts in general, and consider how it can begin embracing these expressions of faith than have run through the history of Christian experience. People want to sing; does the church want them to?

Mark Evans of Head of the Department of Contemporary Music Studi (06/05/2008)

Mike Raiter, in his ‘The slow death of congregational singing’ in the April issue of The Briefing falls into the trap of many church writers. He views the church and its problems in isolation from the general community. From the way he writes, it is as if the rest of the community is singing its heart out but church congregations are practising enforced silence. The reality is that we as a nation just do not sing any more.

I remember as a boy in World War II in England having to go to the factory my father managed in order to see him during work time. There were rows of machines mainly operated by women who were singing their hearts out to pop music coming over the radio. The men were either singing or whistling along to the tunes too. If you wanted to speak to any of them, you first had to interrupt their song. If you threw a party, you always invited Uncle Jim or Mavis from over the road to ‘tinkle the ivories’, and everyone sang the night away. No-one does this any more.

When these people went to church, whether regularly or once in a blue moon, they all sang; it was the natural thing to do.

So the real question is, “Why don't people sing any more?” I put this question to a musician friend of mine some 20 years ago as the trend was becoming apparent then. His opinion was (I am not a muso) that rock had become the dominant genre of pop music, and most rock was in 2/4 time. He went on to say that you cannot sing to 2/4 time; all you can do is either listen to it or dance to it. It is with the advent of rock in the early 60s that singing started to fade out. We now have at least a couple of generations who have not really sung, and it is going to be very difficult to re-educate them to sing.

The only musical genre, apart from classical, where the fans still sing is Country and Western. Most Country and Western is in 3/4 time, and is not syncopated, therefore the fans still sing the same as before.

With guitars and drums (defacto rock groups) now being the norm in many churches, there is a tendency for either syncopation or a rock beat to creep into the music. It is very difficult for congregations to sing to this kind of music so the majority remain silent as Mike Raiter repoted in his article. To bring back singing, you have to have a straight melody as found in the music in all official hymnbooks.

Singing is a vital part of worship, and in the last 40 years, the devil has attacked this part of our worship with considerable success, dissuading large numbers of Christians from “making a joyful noise unto the Lord”. With this in mind, we should take steps to regain the ground.

Roger Jones of Bemboka, NSW, AUS (06/05/2008)

I read the April issue of The Briefing with particular interest as I have accompanied congregational singing for several decades. I have no doubt that congregational singing has diminished, but I believe that the reasons for the decline may be more complicated than those suggested by any of the contributors whose views I mostly endorse. For example, 50 years ago in many schools, ‘music’ was choral: everyone was a member of one of the school choirs. That has changed, and this change may have affected contemporary congregational singing. It is interesting to note that congregational singing in most Anglican churches in the 18th century was regarded as appalling. It was the evangelical revival that changed that.

However, I find myself in disagreement with many of the views that Cathy Sampson has expressed. I do not know Ms Sampson but whoever chose Ms Sampson to answer the question ‘Song leaders: Who needs them?’ must have expected her answer. A letter is not an appropriate vehicle in which to deal in detail with all of Ms Sampson's views, but there is a basic principle that needs to be expressed.

The technique needed to accompany a solo singer or group of singers is different from that required to accompany a congregation. There are a number of reasons for this. For example, a congregation is usually spread throughout a building; the singers are usually in a compact space. The singers have probably rehearsed their songs; a congregation rarely has. A singer or a small group of singers can be far more flexible with changes in speed than a congregation. Indeed, a change in speed for a congregational song (other than slowing down at the end of the song) often unsettles and discourages the congregation in singing.

The aim in accompanying a congregation is to support and encourage the singing by the congregation. This cannot be emphasized too much. Musicians who fail to do this by their music should not be involved in congregational music.

A solo singer or a small group of singers rarely needs encouragement since the role of the accompanist is subsidiary to the singing. Musicians who treat a congregational song as a solo item will rarely encourage the congregation by their singing. This difference has certain consequences.

For example, it is reasonable to expect that most songs will be known by some members of the congregation and not by others. The musicians (including a lead singer) must consider the needs of those who do not know the song. These may be members of the church. They may be outsiders. Time and time again, I hear a song introduced by a few bars of music that bears little or no relationship to the tune that follows, such that even those who know the tune can have no idea of what is coming unless they already know the words and can identify (or predict) the tune from the words. This discourages singing. The common result is that few sing or begin to sing until the end of the first verse and chorus.

I have no problem with appropriate interludes between verses. (Curiously these were common at the beginning of the 19th century until discouraged by evangelical clergy!) But this is subject to the end of the interlude being clear to the congregation from the music and leading into the first note of the next verse or chorus. Semaphore signals should not be needed, and give rise to others problems.

Most congregations have a real difficulty with syncopation. Many singers, including those with some training, have problems with it. For readers who are not familiar with the term, syncopation is where a main note of the tune does not occur on the beat—for example, the last note of the fourth beat in a song with four beats to the bar is carried over into the first beat, and the note of the first beat begins halfway through that beat. Old songs (such as most hymns) avoided it. Some modern song writers encourage it. This becomes a problem when a song for solo singing is used for congregational singing. It is interesting to note how many times a congregation will disregard the lead singers and the instrumentalists, and avoid the syncopation by lengthening or shortening the note that causes it. Far better not to use such songs.

Then there can be a problem with the level of sound. If the level is excessive, the congregation is likely to be discouraged.

Gestures are not always helpful. Firstly, the music and the printed or screened words should indicate what to do. Secondly, gestures should not be necessary if the singers and instrumentalists have the interests of those in the congregation who do not know the song at heart. Thirdly, there are no standard gestures; these vary from church to church, and leader to leader, and this is of no help for the stranger, even if the members of the church are familiar with the signals. Fourthly, some forms of signalling become a form of exhibitionism.

I cannot accept Ms Sampson's view that the lead singer controls the singers and the instrumentalists as to entries. Mistakes inevitably happen but, in my view, a lead singer who regularly misleads other singers, the instrumentalists and the congregation by coming in early should not be a lead singer.

Lastly, I suggest that singers and instrumentalists who seek to accompany congregational singing should regularly join the congregation and listen to what the congregation does (or does not do) rather than to what the singers and instrumentalists up the front are doing, and then endeavour to work out what the singers and instrumentalists can do to improve the congregational singing where it is poor or non-existent.

Neil Cameron of Killara, NSW, AUS (26/05/2008)

Congregational singing is dying because people are nitpickers, strangulating it with their high ideals. Just jolly get on with it and sing!

Jess Green of Kingsford (28/05/2008)

I was interested in feature articles in The Briefing (April 2008 Issue 355, ‘The slow death of congregational singing’.

In his editorial, Tony Payne asks, “Music or singing?” This is not a new question. In fact, the opera Capriccio, written by Richard Strauss in 1941-2, poses a similar question: words or music. Although even in the opera’s final bars this question remains unresolved, the listener is left to conclude that both are equal. Strauss’ gifts as a composer hide the pitfalls awaiting less gifted songwriters: a major restriction in such works is that the music must work within the constraints of the human voice, which include speed and pitch range, and the melody must be free of un-singable intervals. Additional pitfalls arise as words are introduced: the need to match musical style to the words—prayerful, joyful or triumphant, words which have sufficient meaning to be worth singing, are theologically acceptable, and flow with some sort of regular form.

Tony suggests that the most dynamic thing about church music in the early 70s was the use of a guitar, flute and bongo drum. At that time, Tony was not even a teenager (I know—he is my son-in-law), but I was actively involved in church music. My memory of the time was of a lone musician struggling with a clapped out organ and a choir of several sopranos, one alto, no tenors and, if they were lucky, a bass. A guitar would have been considered sacrilegious, and certainly not the accepted instrument to play in a church. While fraught with difficulties, church musicians at that time were still endeavouring to follow the influential tradition of English church music—that of a choir and organ leading the hymns and service canticles, and the performance of an anthem from time to time.

Cathy Sampson (‘Song leaders: Who needs them?’, pages 19-20) is of the opinion that the “most recent musical shift happened in the 1970s”; if so, that style, with all its advantages and disadvantages, should be the focus of the present debate. The starting point needs to be the message of Ephesians 5:15-21 and similar passages which clearly indicate that music should be part of worship. Why then do people not want to use their God-given gift and sing ‘from the heart’? Why is it that even committed Christians are unable to ‘sing joyfully to the Lord’?

Like Mike Raiter (‘The slow death of congregational singing’, pages 11-14), I too am concerned about the future of congregational church music. As well, I am one of those congregational members Mike mentions, who quite often stand during church singing with lips firmly closed. This is particularly the case when the musical item being sung is of little musical merit, with no musical connection to the meaning of the words. So what needs to be changed?

First, consider the words. They must be more than theologically edifying: they must also ‘flow’. This does not necessarily imply four-bar lines and four-line verses, which is the case with many hymns, but it is essential that the words be arranged in some semblance of verse form—even, dare I suggest, poetically.

Second, it takes great skill on the part of the songwriter to successfully repeat a musical phrase three times—twice maybe, but not three times as occurs in many contemporary songs. To be modern does not mean every second beat has to be syncopated, while mantra-like repeats add nothing musical to the song, and should be reserved only for Sunday School singing.

Third, as Mike Raiter points out, the role of song leaders is to lead the congregational singing, not dominate it or use it as a performance platform. There is no place for ‘swooping’ to the note. This practice, which seems to be used with increasing frequency, has to be the fault of the songleader and not the composer, as there is no way to notate such a deplorable practice.

In summary, I am led to ask different questions: could it be that the most recent musical shift—the whole ethos and structure of present day songs—simply does not stimulate congregational singers to open their hearts and lift up their voices? Has the shift of the 1970s been no more than a fruitless development of the ‘drawing room ballad era’ of the early 1900s, when both words and music were, at best, little more than rubbish and have deservedly fallen into oblivion? To my mind, these are the questions to be resolved.

There are some simple alternatives. I was recently called upon to carry out an in-depth analysis of performance works required for an AMusA. singing diploma student. These works ranged from Bach through Mozart, Granados, and Sibelius to Ravel. I was amazed at the methods used by these great composers to set words to music. Although our present-day song composers may not have the skills for complete emulation, they could learn from these masters by using a logical format and other simple but effective musical methods and ideas from the 20th-21st century, or even earlier, which might result in an intelligent interpretation of the words. Stuart Townsend seems to be moving in this direction. Present-day songwriters could also learn from the Lieder of Schubert, which show his musical imagination, covering every style and emotion, as well as his response to poetry and his understanding of the vocal possibilities of the human voice. His technical skill produced charming melodies with descriptive piano writing, songs of a more complex nature with elaborate accompaniments, and every style in between.

Practices such as excessive syncopation and ‘swooping’ to the note are no more than amateurish but unsuccessful attempts to copy jazz, which brings me to my final point.

Jazz is a recognized art form which creates an exciting musical experience with its interesting rhythms, a wealth of amazing chords and an offbeat approach. Well-composed jazz style, then, might be one acceptable alternative to the present worldwide stereotype. While my own preferences are probably too traditionally/classically based for present-day popular consumption, there may be other innovative musical approaches which could be considered, once the songwriters’ horizons have been opened up.

Let the debate commence!

Jill Churches of Bondi Junction, NSW, AUS (10/06/2008)

As a non-musical pew occupier with a voice like a bullfrog with laryngitis, the recent theme issue of Briefing on ‘The slow death of congregational singing’ tallied with much that I have observed over the last decade or so. I would like to add a few observations to the debate (in no particular order).

Both the Scriptures used in the articles (Eph 5:15-21 and Col 3:16) include the exhortation to sing psalms. Indeed, it is the first on the list. This would imply singing the Psalms themselves, not just songs based on Psalms. Many years ago, I spent three years worshipping in a church which used metrical Psalms exclusively, and found it a rich and satisfying form of worship. I do not advocate exclusive Psalm singing, but it would seem that the current refusal of the rest of the evangelical world to sing any Psalms at all is dubious, if not disobedient.

The rise of the song leader has coincided with the decline in congregational singing, and they are probably connected. It would be wrong to say they are the cause of the decline, as it is more likely that the causes of the rise of the song leader are also the causes of the decline in congregational singing.

The fact that song leaders have a list of five tasks is due to the increased complexity of modern songs, and the increased complexity is a more likely cause of the decline. Traditional hymns are much simpler: men like Isaac Watts made a point of making their hymns simple so that congregations could sing them. I have noticed that a congregation which can belt out a traditional hymn (or traditional style modern song) will become very tentative and low-key with the subsequent modern-style song.

This is not just to blame modern songs. I went to one church which apologized for anything more than 25 years old, but another I know apologizes for anything less than that. It is the quality of the song—its truth and ‘singability’—that count, not the age.

I have also attended churches which do not use musical instruments as a policy, and others which have not by circumstances. It is a liberating experience, and it leads to uncomfortable questions about the necessity of musicians. I was at a meeting recently where the leader declared that, as we had a piano, we could sing. Wrong. All you need to sing is a voice; musical instruments are not necessary. Did the disciples use them in Mark 14:26?

Songs for congregational singing would be improved if they could be sung unaccompanied. In fact, it could be taken as a principle that, if a song cannot be sung unaccompanied, then it is not fit for use by a congregation.

Churches are, or ought to be, a collection of all ages, tastes, backgrounds and individual quirks. This mixture gives ample opportunity for the exercise of grace in congregational singing. It would be wrong to allow it to die.

John Allen of Shrivenham, England (20/08/2008)

I invite you to attend worship services at any conservative church of Christ. There you will be able to immerse yourself in singing with other Christians in praising God. It will be a worship service in spirit and in truth. Churches of Christ have never allowed musical instruments (which only make noise—noise that has no meaning) into our worship services to drown out the praises offered to God. We take seriously God's command to “sing and make melody in your hearts”. We also take seriously the commands throughout the Scriptures to not add anything to his holy word. You will be surrounded by Christians who love to sing—not only to worship God, which is first and foremost, but to uplift each other. It's a truly beautiful experience.

Also, you may want to research the New Testament for any reference to musical instruments being played at any worship service by Christ's first church. Then check any church historian of the first century, and you will find no instruments were ever allowed into the worship. Christ did fulfill the Old Testament and he gave us his New Testament, and his command is to sing. There is no doubt whatsoever that instruments were not used in the first churches, but were added because of men's earthly desires and hardness of hearts. We could make the same claim for the ‘praise teams’ so popular now. We all are commanded to sing, not just a few.

I recommend books by Jimmy Jividen regarding worship: Worship in Song and Inspiration and Authority of the Scriptures. May God bless and lead you into his truth.

JS Case (24/09/2008)

Growing up in the Salvation Army in the 1970s and 80s, I learned to sing like a Welshman—heartily and in more or less unison with others. My vocal range is narrow, and I am no musician, but joining in a congregation in song in this way is a joy and one that I rarely experience these days, though I am in church regularly enough.

It's perfectly possible that I'm turning into the proverbial grumpy old man. But I find my church's musical repertoire increasingly limited in range, mostly banal in content, and often un-singable in practice.

I had thought I was more or less alone in this view, and that that the whole subject was in the realm of adiaphora anyway. So in a strange way, it's reassuring to learn from this article and the associated comments that others regard this as a malaise worth addressing.

Colin Gale of Beckenham, Kent, UK (29/09/2009)