Hymnals vs. Projection

Kenneth Gangel has an article entitled “The Value of the Hymnal” in the most recent issue of Voice, the “independent church journal” published by the IFCA. The title caught my attention since we are living in a day of changing technology even in the church, and since I am interested in how modern technology can be used by the church without compromising the mission. A great many churches have begun to use video projection for the words of the songs, and Gangel is writing in opposition to that giving six reasons. His plea is “Give back my hymnal.”

Gangel is a professor at Dallas Theological Seminary, and I believe teaches on writing as well as other topics. If I am not mistaken, a friend of mine took a class on writing for publication from him for a DMin program he was in. I want to interact with the article here to spark some thoughts (or at least to dump mine).

1. Because hymns have taught centuries of Christians theology they are no longer acquiring.

This problem is valid, and is of great concern. Many modern churches are theologically bankrupt. However, it has nothing to do with hymnals. Good theological hymns can be sung from a screen just as well as from a hymnbook. The problem of the lack of theology is a pulpit problem, not a hymnbook problem. If we get our pulpits straightened out, the choice of music will work itself out as well. If we don’t get our pulpits straightened out, then the music will not matter that much anyway.

In fact, we might argue that good theological hymns can be sung better from a screen by simple virtue of the fact that using projection greatly increases the number of songs available to you. I routinely draw from five of six hymnals in preparing our services. Some hymnals overlap to be sure, but each has unique songs that would be missed if we sang only from the hymnal in the pew.

2. The rejection of the hymnal has all but eliminated the singing of parts in church music.

This is a valid concern, but the singing of parts is a relatively modern phenomenon I believe. Singing in parts is beautiful to be sure, but hardly a fundamental of the faith. In my experience in church music (which includes congregational leading, choir directing, organization and administration of a music program, planning services, etc.) I have found that most people don’t read music. Some figure out the spatial relationships on the page (e.g., if the next little round circle is higher on the page than the last one, then I need to sing higher; if it is lower, then I need to sing lower), but they cannot tell the difference between a middle C and G or E of F# or anything else. They have no idea what accidentals mean, nor what to do with them.

Furthermore, a great number of people who can’t read music are able to hear parts and sing that way, and a great number of people can sing parts without a hard copy of the music. The use of a well organized worship ensemble of some sort can enhance the singing of parts and allow those who can’t read music to join in.

I am sympathetic to the idea that musical training and enjoyment can be enhanced by the church. But how do we go about that, and fit it into our biblical mission? Too many good things can detract from the important things.

3. Abandonment of the hymnal makes it more, not less, difficult to clarify the message of evangelicalism.

All I can say is “What??????” His argument here cites Mark Noll about evangelicalism leading people to sing. That’s true, and great. But how is that tied to a hymnal that you can hold in your hands? He doesn’t say and quite honestly, I have no idea. I wish he would expand on this.

Is he talking about the words? The hymnal itself? If you have some insight, feel free to offer it. So far as I know, the message of evangelicalism was clearly preached for the first seventeen or so centuries of the church until the advent of hymnbooks similar to what we know today. So I am not sure what this point is about. It seems dubious to me.

4. Musical tradition, like family tradition, carries a wholesome link to the past.

Gangel engages in a little nostalgia here, which is great. But a good reason to hold on to hymnbooks? While we should be cautious about giving away tradition, hymnbooks is hardly the kind of tradition that makes stronger believers, more equipped to die to self and live in the world outside the church.

Furthermore, the nostalgia we have today is only because we grew up in a generation that did something. At some point, that nostalgia was new, just as the nostalgia of today’s children will be whatever we practice.

I would rather the nostalgia be the content rather than hymnbook.

5. Removing the hymnal increases the profanation and deterioration of beauty and order in the church.

Again, I say, “What?????” He says, “I find a vast diminishing of beauty from the concert of God’s people singing acapella parts in a grand old hymn to the stomping, clapping noise of a modern praise chorus.” This could be true, but how is it tied to a hymnal? (See on parts above.)

6. Because the constant use of contemporary music may well arise from questionable motives.

Absolutely true, but again how is this related to hymnals? Contemporary music can be sung from a hymnal, and traditional hymns can be sung from a screen.

So what is my point? Thanks for asking.

First, I think Gangel has not really hit on pertinent issues with this article. I think he has brought up some points that are worthy of attention, but they do not have anything to do with hymnals per se, with the possible exception of singing parts. It seems to me that the other issues are irrelevant or at best only tangential to the point of hymnbooks vs. projection.

Second, if you are going to use projection (as we do), then use good hymns. Do not abandon theology. If you are going to use hymnbooks, the use good hymns. Do not abandon theology. (This will certainly affect your choice of a hymnbook.)

Third, in argumentation and persuasion, make relevant points (and show how they are relevant). It is entirely possible the there is more to Gangel’s argument than the Voice printed. Perhaps the editing removed some key issues that would have clarified. I am greatly concerned that our communication as believers answer the questions that people are asking. If we argue poorly for our position, we actually harm it.