In the last article on Worship Myths we explained that worship is not just about music but our whole lives being offered to God in response to the salvation brought to us through Christ's perfect life, death, burial and resurrection.
This article will deal with the myth that we should only sing songs that are tried and true; songs tested by time that have endured over hundreds of years. While this may sound like good advice, it is nothing but false piety. Before we look at the Scripture just think about the logic behind this.
First, every spiritual song that has ever been written was new at one point. If the time-tested rule were to be enforced then no songs would have ever been initially written about God.
Second, you'd search the Scriptures in vain to find a commandment that requires us to only sing time-tested songs. Writing extra commands for God's people to obey is arrogant and ungodly. You're in essence saying that God didn't give us enough commands and that He fell short a few commands and you think it's your job to bind on people's consciences rules that you have invented.
Third, who decides how old is old enough? Is it arbitrary? 100 years or older? 200 years or older? What's the standard for time-tested and who decides when the goal posts can be moved?
Fourth, songs are not just forms of worship but forms of instruction. Every generation of believers has communicated the truth of Scripture in ways that are culturally relevant and culturally appropriate. Teaching might come through a catechism, through pamphlets or books, through a Sunday school class or through music. Each of these modes are secondary to the truth being taught--truth derived from God's Word. And just as new books are written to help current and future generations, so too, new songs are written to teach current and future generations. Eventually some books become classics just like songs, but the mode is secondary to the message.
Fifth, not all old songs are Biblically accurate. Some are very sentimental and are the equivalent of the "Jesus is my boyfriend" type songs that many people malign as mushy worship. But because they are labeled as hymns they somehow get a free pass. If you don't believe me, examine the words of the song, "I Come To The Garden Alone." It was written in 1913 which probably covers the time-tested period. It's certainly older than almost anyone alive today. And it's still being sung in churches across the world today. It's time-tested for sure.
I come to the garden alone
While the dew is still on the roses
And the voice I hear falling on my ear
The Son of God discloses
While the dew is still on the roses
And the voice I hear falling on my ear
The Son of God discloses
And He walks with me and He talks with me
And He tells me I am His own
And the joy we share as we tarry there
None other has ever known
And He tells me I am His own
And the joy we share as we tarry there
None other has ever known
This song sounds like you're on a date with Jesus. Does it not? You can't give it a free pass just because it's old and uses poetic language or older words like tarry or discloses. It can't get a free pass simply because the syntax is more complicated. Yet I know people that will rave over a hymn like this while ripping on a song like "Draw Me Close."
Draw me close to you, never let me go
I lay it all down again
To hear you say that I'm your friend
You are my desire, no one else will do
'Cause nothing else can take your place
To feel the warmth of your embrace
Help me find the way, bring me back to you
I lay it all down again
To hear you say that I'm your friend
You are my desire, no one else will do
'Cause nothing else can take your place
To feel the warmth of your embrace
Help me find the way, bring me back to you
You're all I want
You're all I've ever needed
You're all I want
Help me know you are near
You're all I've ever needed
You're all I want
Help me know you are near
If you're completely honest about both songs then you'll have to admit that both are a bit mushy and sentimental. For what it's worth, I'm ok with both songs. I don't think a diet of spiritual music should only consist of these types of songs. But I think it's appropriate to love God with your emotions as well, not just your mind. There ought to be a rich reservoir of music to draw from that covers a range of truth, a range of God's attributes, a range of topics and a range of expressions and emotions (grief, sorrow, trust, confessions, hope, joy, etc). Now with a song like I Come To The Garden Alone there'd need to be some disclaimers and qualifications. I don't believe God speaks audibly at the moment, but I do hear His voice by the Scriptures. It's in His Word that He talks to me and tells me I am His own. That's how I share joy with God as we walk together in life. The same applies to the second song.
Now let's look at some Scriptures to help debunk the myth that spiritual songs are only to be time-tested.
Ephesians 5:15-21 Look carefully then how you walk, not as unwise but as wise, 16 making the best use of the time, because the days are evil. 17 Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. 18 And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit, 19 addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with your heart, 20 giving thanks always and for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, 21 submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ.
Notice that according to this Scripture, one way you make wise use of your time is by doing what the will of the Lord is. Instead of being filled with wine, be filled with God's Spirit. Instead of being silent, address one another in song. That is to say, "speak to one another in song for the purpose of instructing, for the purpose of giving thanks, for the purpose of worship, for the purpose of encouragement, etc. Use your lips and vocal cords to sing psalms--which may refer to a spiritual song or even the plucking of stringed instruments for music. If this is a reference to the book of Psalms then the other terms for types of songs that follow may very well lead us to believe that songs other than Psalms were sung by the early church. In other words, new songs were sung in the community of God's people.
We are to sing hymns to each other. The word hymns literally means sacred songs, not time-tested songs that have 4 verses and a refrain accompanied by an organ. Let's make sure we don't superimpose modern understandings of words onto the Scripture. Paul didn't have "A Mighty Fortress Is Our God" in mind when he mentioned hymns. He simply meant sacred songs.
Then we are to sing spiritual songs. That is to say, odes that are from that part of us that relates to God...short songs or poems from our spirit, our soul. I find it interesting that it's as if Paul is encouraging the Christian to express the truth of Scripture and their relationship with God in personal ways. These were odes or short poems set to music...short expressions of their love for God and the truth of who He is. That certainly destroys the myth that praise choruses are unfit for worship--a myth we'll have to debunk another day.
And then Paul says something amazing. We are to sing and make melody in our hearts to the Lord. So we sing to each other...address one another AND we sing to the Lord. Worship music ought to contain songs sung TO the Lord and songs that are sung TO one another about God. The idea is to stir up affections in one another towards God. So we must all sing, not just outwardly, but from our hearts.
With these things in mind I want to continue to focus on idea that songs other than Psalms could be sung as long as they were to the Lord and for the edification of the believer. That means the songs must glorify God and instruct the believers. If we do that then it doesn't matter if the song is 1000 years old or 1 year old.
In Isaiah 42:10 the Lord tells Israel to sing a new song. For the sake of round numbers let's use the dates 740 B.C. - 680 B.C. for the writing of the Isaiah. That's roughly the time period of when he proclaimed the Lord's message to sing a new song. Interestingly enough the majority of the Psalms were written between 1000 B.C. and 950 B.C. One was written by Moses around 1400 B.C. Another three were written around 700 B.C. and another two were written around 585 B.C. So if we assume that the three Psalms written around 700 B.C. were written before Isaiah 42:10 then I guess that the new song that Isaiah desired to be written was one of the two around 585 B.C. Well, that's one way to look at Scripture. But it seems to be an absurd way to look at the text. It's obvious that the Lord permitted new songs for new occasions for which He deserved praise. Either that or He deserved new songs for old things He had done. But Isaiah 42:13 is a proclamation of what God will do. And that required a new song. Songs need not be time-tested to be sung in the congregation of God's people. They just need to contain biblical truth set to melody so that we can remember the truth of God's Word so that we can properly worship Him and direct others towards God.
Church, new songs are great when they rightly proclaim God to each other. So are old songs. I certainly love old songs as well. Let's not get caught up in a silly extra-biblical rule that wreaks of false piety. Sola Scriptura, right? It's God's Word that informs our doctrine and practice. It reigns over tradition, over culture, over opinion, over preference and anything else you can think of. So let's be a church that is always reforming. Sometimes the reformed folk need to be reforming folk. It's an ongoing thing, not a completed action. So maybe instead of saying we are reformed, let's say we are reforming Christians. Ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda. The church reformed, always being reformed. And in the area of worship myths we constantly need reforming. We aren't done being changed by God's Word. So let's sing His Word to each other so that we can be changed by the truth. Let's sing to the Lord as well and declare His infinite worth shown to us through Christ.