Tuesday, August 07, 2007
Everything Irie, Man ... Or Is It?
In Jamaica, as always, everyt'ing irie. It's all good. Especially in the country's Anglican church, where leaders are revamping hymnals to include reggae tunes made famous by the late Bob Marley and Peter Tosh. Although both local legends voiced their opposition to Christianity during their lifetimes (and were devout Rastafarians), leaders from the Anglican Church of Jamaica feel that Marley's "One Love" and Tosh's "Psalm 27" are worshipful enough to sit alongside the denomination's traditional hymns. "They may have been anti-church, but they were not anti-God or anti-religion," said one church spokesman, who added that including the songs would help modernize Jamaica's hymnals.
I agree. For churches that continue to use hymnals as the foundational aid for musical worship, periodical revamping is a good thing. I'm all for a mix of the timeless classics and the contemporary classics. But the notion of revamping a church songbook to include some greatest hits from a couple of outspoken Rastafarians presents a bigger issue.
The church must always be relevant—otherwise we lose our voice within culture. But often out of our fear of staying in touch we lose sight of why hymnals—or similar tools of worship—were formed in the first place. We lean toward the same mentality I've seen embraced by countless modern worship leaders: "Hey, Martin Luther wrote hymns based on drinking songs. John and Charles Wesley wrote their lyrics to tavern songs as well. Isn't God the creator of all music? What's wrong with redeeming the popular music of the day for the church?!"
Nothing's wrong with the motive. And, yes, it sounds really cool to have the weight of faith giants such as Luther and Wesley behind your argument. But neither Luther or Wesley (either one) used drinking songs. (Don't believe me? Google it). More importantly, aren't we forgetting the real point?
We so badly want to make our worship appealing to the times. God so badly desires holiness. The idea of a hymnal, of selecting a specific group of songs exclusively for corporate worship, is an attempt to adhere more to the latter than the former. While certainly not sacred in and of themselves, hymns represent a leaning toward sacrament. They are time-honored "classics" that declare God's glory through the generations. Given that, is it appropriate to use material written by someone who believed Jesus Christ was just one of many ways to God? Or that the Emperor of Ethiopia is actually God incarnate?
Scripture proves that God uses donkeys, rocks and even hard-headed, rebellious humans to declare His glory. But it also shows that in the context of worship, He's pretty particular ... because He's very holy. That makes me wonder if tossing a Bob Marley tune—or for that matter any "pop" tune—is such a good idea after all.
YOUR TURN: Should we be including "pop"-turned-worship songs as part of corporate worship services? Should these reggae tunes become part of the Jamaican Anglican hymnal? Am I off my rocker for even questioning this in a time when contemporary worship songs are the new hymn of the day?
I agree. For churches that continue to use hymnals as the foundational aid for musical worship, periodical revamping is a good thing. I'm all for a mix of the timeless classics and the contemporary classics. But the notion of revamping a church songbook to include some greatest hits from a couple of outspoken Rastafarians presents a bigger issue.
The church must always be relevant—otherwise we lose our voice within culture. But often out of our fear of staying in touch we lose sight of why hymnals—or similar tools of worship—were formed in the first place. We lean toward the same mentality I've seen embraced by countless modern worship leaders: "Hey, Martin Luther wrote hymns based on drinking songs. John and Charles Wesley wrote their lyrics to tavern songs as well. Isn't God the creator of all music? What's wrong with redeeming the popular music of the day for the church?!"
Nothing's wrong with the motive. And, yes, it sounds really cool to have the weight of faith giants such as Luther and Wesley behind your argument. But neither Luther or Wesley (either one) used drinking songs. (Don't believe me? Google it). More importantly, aren't we forgetting the real point?
We so badly want to make our worship appealing to the times. God so badly desires holiness. The idea of a hymnal, of selecting a specific group of songs exclusively for corporate worship, is an attempt to adhere more to the latter than the former. While certainly not sacred in and of themselves, hymns represent a leaning toward sacrament. They are time-honored "classics" that declare God's glory through the generations. Given that, is it appropriate to use material written by someone who believed Jesus Christ was just one of many ways to God? Or that the Emperor of Ethiopia is actually God incarnate?
Scripture proves that God uses donkeys, rocks and even hard-headed, rebellious humans to declare His glory. But it also shows that in the context of worship, He's pretty particular ... because He's very holy. That makes me wonder if tossing a Bob Marley tune—or for that matter any "pop" tune—is such a good idea after all.
YOUR TURN: Should we be including "pop"-turned-worship songs as part of corporate worship services? Should these reggae tunes become part of the Jamaican Anglican hymnal? Am I off my rocker for even questioning this in a time when contemporary worship songs are the new hymn of the day?
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< Home
I read your post and you are not off your rocker however, let me offer another perspective. I am not familiar with the songs by Marley and Tosh but I am familiar with two Albums recorded by Bob Dylan entitled Slow Training Coming and Saved. Both albums were recorded by Dylan as a testimony of his relationship to Christ. In fact, I attended a Dylan concert in Philadelphia where the music from these albums was the main message. I am not sure if Dylan is still following Christ but regardless the gospel music he recorded is still relevant. It is the personal relationship the Artist has to Christ that matters. If Marley and Tosh did not have a relationship with Christ then their music has no place in worship. But, if you take that position what how do you reconcile that with the sinner who tenderly sings Amazing Grace in a Nightclub.
Tom, these are my thoughts as to how we would reconcile the position of a sinner tenderly singing "Amazing Grace" in a nightclub--The sinner SHOULD imitate and follow us as we follow Christ--NOT the other way around. Our (Christian) message should get into world-- the night clubs or anyplace where there is a sinner needing a Saviour-- by any door that God opens. However, that in no way means we are to bring the worldly junk back into the church and dare to offer it up to God as worship. To me that is reminiscent of offering God a sacrifice that has first been offered to idols.
Hilda Spencer
Hilda Spencer
# posted by 
: 11:10 AM
: 11:10 AM
Thanks Hilda. Let me clarify a bit. I know a Christian Artist (www.steveamerson.com) who is using songs from stage and screen that have a redemptive message. He sings songs like Bring Him Home and Do You Hear the People Sing? (from Les Miserables), Into The Fire (from The Scarlet Pimpernel), Climb Every Mountain (from Sound of Music) and You’ll Never Walk Alone (from Carousel), etc., in church concerts and in the secular arena. Were these songs originally offered up to idols? If these songs are junk then they are not worth listening to in a church sanctuary or the sanctuary of my home. However, if they have value then when exclude them from a setting that worships God the Creator of all things good.
Hi Tom,
Intersting viewpoint. Let's not forget that some of the original hymns that we still sing today were adapted from pub melodies of that day. The Lord is looking into our hearts, not our repetoire or the sourcebook, etc.
Post a Comment
Intersting viewpoint. Let's not forget that some of the original hymns that we still sing today were adapted from pub melodies of that day. The Lord is looking into our hearts, not our repetoire or the sourcebook, etc.
Links to this post:
<< Home
