Indelible GraceT. David Gordon

Intro

Since the appearance of my little monograph Why Johnny Can’t Sing Hymns: How Pop

Culture Re-Wrote the Hymnal (P&R, 2010), I have been frequently asked my opinion about the

project of those artists, such as Indelible Grace,1 who are writing contemporary musical settings

for the lyrics of traditional hymns. Since the number of those inquiries continues to grow, I have

decided to give the matter some considered thought and to make my thoughts on the matter

public. In what follows, I arrange my thoughts in three categories: Areas of Hearty Agreement,

Areas of Less-than-Hearty Agreement, and What I Wish Indelible Grace Would Do.

As a matter of introduction, I should make two other clarifications. First, I am not

commenting here about the actual quality of Indelible Grace’s achievements to date; I have not

had opportunity to work through every piece of music they have written, to render an aesthetic or

theological judgment. It is not my purpose here to comment on Indelible Grace’s competence in

the project, but rather to comment on the project itself.2 My only comment regarding their

competence is that the almost-universal testimony of those familiar with their work has been

favorable, and I can only assume that such a favorable testimony is well-merited. In other

words, if I had the time or inclination to evaluate their achievements to date, I have every reason

to believe that I would join my voice to those other laudatory voices. Second, my evaluation of

Indelible Grace’s project is based upon the description of that project on their website,

<http://www.igracemusic.com/about/index.htm >. The project itself may have a “life of its

own,” in some senses, too varied and flexible to be fully captured by any theoretical statement.

1 Others would include Red Mountain, Sovereign Grace Music, Reformed Praise, et al.

2 I’ll permit myself an exception or two later, as an Afterword.

1

Further, websites have certain liabilities; they aren’t the best place to engage in significant

philosophical statements. So it is entirely possible that my reply is blinkered, to some degree,

since I am replying only to the statement itself, which may or may not be an entirely accurate

representation of the project.

I. Areas of Hearty Agreement

In three areas, I find myself to be in very hearty agreement with Indelible Grace.

First, Indelible Grace takes the question seriously. Often, in conversations about singing

praise in church, I have encountered people who suggest that singing praise to God is “just” or

“merely” a matter of taste. For instance, Pastor Tchividjian of Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church

has said it is wrong “when we separate people according to something as trivial as musical

preferences…,” suggesting that musical preferences are “trivial.”3 Indelible Grace and I, on the

other hand, do not regard the question of how best to sing praise to God as a trivial matter at all.

Indelible Grace’s stated goal is “to enrich our worship,” a goal that is far from trivial. Indelible

Grace rightly says “We believe worship is formative, and that it does matter what we think.”

Music itself is far from trivial. In Genesis, by the eighth generation recorded, Moses

noted that specialization was taking place in agriculture, industry, and music: “Adah bore Jabal;

he was the father of those who dwell in tents and have livestock. His brother’s name was Jubal;

he was the father of all those who play the lyre and pipe. Zillah also bore Tubal-cain; he was the

3 Pastor Tchividjian’s comments can be found at <http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tullian/2010/08/22/we-are-one/>. One’s own musical preferences for what one listens to in one’s own leisure time are surely not the kind of thing over which Christians should divide. But in theory, every liturgical question is important. No human event is more significant (less “trivial”) than the event of meeting God in worship; therefore, each of the constituent parts thereof is also significant. The truth in the old saying--de gustibus non est disputandum (roughly, matters of taste are not to be contended)--resided only in the private arena of private taste, such as what food one selects from the menu at a restaurant.

2

forger of all instruments of bronze and iron” (Gen. 4:20-22). Music, according to the biblical

testimony, was as highly regarded as tool-making and agriculture, and as worthy of comment.

To the best of our current knowledge, both of the biblical accounts and those of the

archaeologists, musical instruments were among the first (if not the first) implements humans

ever crafted. Cultural anthropologists have not yet found cultures without music, and

sociologists as significant as Max Weber have written about the sociology of music.4 And, if

music is profoundly significant to human civilizations in general, it is even more significant

when it is consecrated to the sacred purpose of singing praise to God. Indelible Grace and I,

therefore, forge a very significant alliance at this moment in history by our counter-cultural (and

therefore counter-intuitive) belief that music, especially sacred music, is an extremely significant

human endeavor, with the profoundest consequences.

A second area of hearty agreement is this: Indelible Grace wishes to remain in contact

with the historic church catholic. Neither Indelible Grace nor I are anti-traditional; we affirm our

belief in the church universal: “We believe that we are impoverished if we cut off our ties with

the saints of the past…” Indelible Grace and I recognize that our brothers and sisters in the free-

church movement are pious and sincere Christians; but we respectfully believe they are sincerely

mistaken in suggesting that there is nothing particularly gained by employing the worship-forms

(whether prayers, hymns or creeds) that have been widely employed throughout the church’s

history. To the contrary, we applaud the efforts of individuals such as John Calvin, whose

4 The Rational and Social Foundations of Music, translated and edited by Don Martindale, Johannes Riedel, and Gertrude Neuwirth (Southern Illinois University Press, 1958). Also cf. Augustus Delafield Zanzig, Music in American Life, Present & Future (London: Oxford University Press, 1932); Alphons Silbermann, The Sociology of Music translated by Corbet Stewart (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1963); and Wayne D. Bowman, Philosophical Perspectives on Music (Oxford: University Press, 1998). Very recently, Daniel J. Levitin’s second book on the neurology of music appeared, entitled The World in Six Songs: How the Musical Brain Created Human Nature (New York: Dutton, 2010).

3

Strasbourg liturgy was entitled “A Form of Prayers According to the Pattern of the Ancient

Church.”

A third area of agreement between myself and Indelible Grace is lyrical humility.

Indelible Grace realizes that it would be almost arrogant for any generation of the church to

believe it could create a body of hymn-lyrics better than the best lyrics of the previous two

millenia of gifted Christian artists. Therefore, Indelible Grace does not create new lyrics from

scratch; it sets to new musical settings the lyrics of the best hymns through the history of the

church. One could only wish that all proponents of Contemporary Worship Music demonstrated

the humility demonstrated by the artists associated with Indelible Grace.

II. Areas of Less-than-Hearty Agreement

As heartfelt as my agreements with Indelible Grace are, there are several areas where we

are not yet in entire agreement.

Our first disagreement is historical: Indelible Grace professes to be continuing a tradition

that I believe is utterly unprecedented in church history. Their project is motivated by their

belief that, in setting the lyrics of traditional hymns to new musical settings, they are merely

doing what has always been done before:

Our hope is to help the church recover the tradition of putting old hymns to new music for

each generation… But actually, this is not really a “new” movement at all! Up until the

beginning of the 20th century, it was common for people to compose new music for each

generation for many of the hymns that they loved” (italics mine).

The element of truth in Indelible Grace’s statement is the recognition that, in previous

generations, some (but by no means all) hymns were not associated with a particular musical

4

setting, and were freely set to more than one.5 But Indelible Grace’s statement is actually an

exaggeration of the historical record. Since the “lyrics” of some hymns existed as poetry before

they were set to music (notably some of Cowper’s verse), there were some hymns whose lyrics

originally were not lyrics at all; they were Christian verse that existed without any musical

setting; and therefore no particular musical setting could claim any special relation to such lyrics.

But there were other hymns whose lyrics were true lyrics; lyrics that were originally set to a

particular musical setting that was regarded as particularly apt. Luther’s “A Mighty Fortress”

was set to a tune Luther himself composed.6 When Felix Mendelsohn wrote his fifth symphony

(in honor of the 300 anniversary of Luther’s Augsburg Confession), the fourth movement

consisted of a development of Luther’s hymn tune Ein Feste Burg. If the hymn lyrics had been

disassociated from their musical setting, such a tribute would have been impossible.

Mendelsohn not only knew the tune; he knew that his audience would recognize it also. It

exaggerates the actual facts of the matter to suggest that hymn lyrics and hymn tunes were only

arbitrarily associated with each other. Some hymn lyrics were put to more than one good

musical setting, and therefore were comparatively free to move from one to another. Other

hymn lyrics, however, have exhibited the opposite tendency, and until very recently been

associated with a particular musical setting.

Similarly, it is an exaggeration to suggest that anyone, prior to 1975 or so, believed that

hymn lyrics had to be set to “new music for each generation.” If we were to take any hymnal

from the early twentieth century, for instance, and then look at a hymnal from the same tradition

5 Frances Havergal’s “Take My Life and Let it Be” has been set to at least eight melodies, several of which are quite apt, including the well-known Hendon by Henri Malan, the less-well-known Hollingside by John B. Dykes, St. Bees (with a lovely tenor line) also by Dykes, and two tunes written by an obscure composer named Mozart.

6 The tune that we know as Ein Feste Burg may have been adapted, rather than created by, Luther, but he manifestly selected this as the tune to which he desired this hymn to be set.

5

a century later, among the hymn lyrics that we would find in each, we would probably find fewer

than a dozen that had been set to a new musical setting within that century. That is, until very

recently, no one sensed (or expressed) any need to set lyrics to new tunes; to the contrary, from

the available literature on the matter, different musical settings were created in an effort to

provide a more apt musical setting to a hymn. A good example of this would be Ralph Vaughan

Williams’s Sine Nomine tune (1908) for W. W. How’s “For All Thy Saints” (yes, it was

originally “thy” not “the”). Williams did not believe that we needed a “new” musical setting to

replace the Sarum tune by which the hymn was known in his generation; rather, he believed that

a more triumphant/celebratory musical setting was more appropriate to the lyrics. In fact, if

both tunes were played on a piano to an audience that had never heard either, and if the audience

were asked whether one tune were written before the other or whether they were contemporary, I

doubt the audience’s reply would show any pattern at all. Some would regard them as

contemporary with each other, and some might very well believe that Sarum was the newer

melody. That is, Sine Nomine was not and is not especially “new-sounding,” nor was it intended

to be so. A hymn can be set to a different musical setting without that musical setting necessarily

being new or new-sounding.7

A second area in which I do not concur with Indelible Grace is that their project is

implicitly contemporaneous. What I mentioned above as an exaggeration in historical evaluation

reflects a principial commitment where we honestly disagree. Consider Indelible Grace’s

statement:

We believe that we are impoverished if we cut off our ties with the saints of the past, and

that we fail to be faithful to God in our own moment of history if we don’t attempt to

7 And I would agree entirely with Indelible Grace if the issue were merely the ongoing consideration of possibly finding better musical settings for the lyrics of hymns.

6

praise Him in forms that are authentic to who we are.

Note the second part of this: “we fail to be faithful to God in our own moment of history…”

This sensibility of contemporaneity, this sense that “our moment of history” is itself significantly

different from or disassociated from other moments in history is itself a contemporary conceit;

other generations did not use such language in the prefaces to their hymnals.8 Generations that

wrote and/or sang “O God, our Help in ages past, our hope for years to come” articulated a belief

in a continuity from one human generation to another, a divine continuity of judgment and grace

that undergirded the vicissitudes of creaturely existence. Further, they perceived change not as

something to be embraced per se, but to be regretted: “Change and decay in all around I see; O

Thou who changest not, abide with me.”9 Indelible Grace believes there is some virtue in setting

hymn lyrics to new (or new-sounding) musical settings; my aesthetic theory is different. In any

blended artform such as lyrical music, I believe the goal should be aptness; we should attempt to

provide a musical setting that is well-suited to the lyrics, so that there is a kind of convergence,

psychologically, between the musical “message” and the lyrical “message.” But if an apt setting

has already been provided, there is no particular reason to set it to a different setting, merely

8

? For a fuller discussion of contemporaneity as an unChristian value, and the cultural sources of this value, cf. my Why Johnny Can’t Sing Hymns: How Pop Culture Re-Wrote the Hymnal (P&R: 2010), chapter eight.

9 Prof. C. John Sommerville explains why the idea that change is ordinary or good per se is sub-Christian. Cf. his How the News Makes Us Dumb: The Death of Wisdom in an Information Age. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1999. In the Psalms alone, the adjective “new” is used favorably six times (33:3, 40:3, 96:1, 98:1, 144:9, 149:1), and neutrally “new moon” once (81:3). The adjective “old” is used favorably 13 times (25:6, 44:1, 55:19, 74:2, 12, 77:5,11, 89:19,49, 93:2, 102:25, 119:52, 143:5) and neutrally, ordinarily “old age” six times (37:25, 71:9, 18, 78:2, 92:14, 148:12). Further, the most common favorable use of “new” is in the expression “new song,” which would have refered to hymnic celebrations of new acts of deliverance, not “songs that sound new,” since, from our knowledge of the music employed, it was highly stylized (did not change much) and was closer to what we would call chant. “Old,” by contrast, refers to God’s mercy and steadfastness “from of old,” the deeds or wonders he performed from “of old,” and his own having been enthroned “of old.”

7

because that setting is new.10

Especially unfortunate, in my opinion, is the moral/ethical language employed here: “we

fail to be faithful to God in our own moment of history if we don’t attempt to praise Him in

forms that are authentic to who we are.” This is the kind of language that carries more rhetorical

weight than it does philosophical clarity. The late Canadian hymnwriter E. Margaret Clarkson

(1915-2008) wrote many fine hymns in her lifetime; she was surely not unfaithful either to God,

the church, or her/our generation as a hymnwriter, even though, to my knowledge, she did not set

a single hymn to a contemporary or contemporary-sounding tune. No one with the slightest

knowledge of her thoughtful poems and books, her edifying hymns, or her devout life could

possibly suggest that she failed to be faithful either to the many students she taught or to her

culture more broadly. Surely none of the good people at Indelible Grace would suggest that

Margaret Clarkson was unfaithful; but the language of their statement does say so.

I’m not aware of any biblical or theological reason to suggest that being “authentic to

who we are” is a good liturgical principle (we are authentically sinful at this moment; should our

worship be sinful?), but it is also a bit of a rubber nose. I could suggest (indeed I would suggest)

that part of who we authentically are is part of a multi-generational church; and that, if

authenticity to who we are were a good liturgical principle, it would be as much an argument for

using worship forms that have stood the test of time as it would be for using new forms. But one

would be very hard-pressed, on aesthetic grounds, to demonstrate that artists have a duty to

create art that looks or sounds new; to the contrary, their duty is to create art that is good, in

terms of the formal properties of their particular disciplines. Indeed, if they produce art that is

good, it will likely have a timelessness to it that will cause subsequent generations to appreciate

10

? To the contrary, this would just have the result that congregational participation would likely be poor, because hymns would constantly find themselves in unfamiliar/unknown musical settings.

8

it. Michelangelo’s David was not good art because it looked contemporary (in fact, Israel’s king

was neither garbed in Italian Renaissance clothing nor in late first millenium B.C. clothing; he

was entirely unclothed); it was good art because it was good, and subsequent generations have

probably appreciated it as much as Michelangelo’s own generation did. Johannes Brahms (1833-

1897) scoured used-bookstores to find musical scores by Buxtehude (c.1639-1707) and Bach in

an effort to discover musical forms that were timeless; he was not likely to find anything new (or

new-sounding) in a used-bookstore; and he was not likely to find anything new in the scores of

Buxtehude, who had died well over a century before Brahms was born.

A third area where we do not share a common perspective is that Indelible Grace asks

“how,” whereas I ask “why.” Indelible Grace’s project is an effort to determine how they can set

historical lyrics to contemporary-sounding musical settings; whereas I have been asking “why”

we should feel compelled to do this. Why can’t Johnny sing hymns? Why does this generation,

for the first time in human history, find itself so incapable of making an emotional and

psychological connection to the music of previous generations? Why, for the first time in

ecclesiastical history, does a generation find itself incapable of employing the songs of praise

sung by previous saints? Indeed, why does this generation gratuitously assume that other

generations also felt distant from earlier music, when plainly Brahms did not regard Buxtehude

and Bach that way? Indelible Grace assumes that this sense of isolation from our musical past is

universal, and attempts to accomodate it; I assume that it is a peculiar malady of our generation,

and attempt to challenge it as an unfortunate matter to be repaired. They regard the situation as

healthy/normal, a circumstance to which we should be “authentic”; I regard the situation as

unhealthy/abnormal, and therefore a circumstance to which we should offer charitable resistance.

God gave us eyelids; he did not give us earlids. If our culture has produced printed

9

material that we do not wish to be exposed to, we simply do not purchase it or read it. But if

commercial forces have surrounded us aurally with particular musical sounds, we cannot entirely

escape them, and we cannot easily escape the way those sounds shape our musical sensibilities.

Those of us reared in this culture speak English. We did not really “choose” it; rather, our

culture surrounded us, aurally, with its sounds until our neurology and sensibilities accomodated

themselves to it. In the same manner, commercial forces have bombarded us, for roughly half a

century, with “background music.” We shop to it, we wait in the dentist’s office to it, we dine in

restaurants to it, we purchase gasoline to it, we hear it as the soundtrack to film and television; it

is nearly (if not actually) as ubiquitous in our culture as is English. Because there are

commercial interests in it,11 it is a commodity; commerce is interested in producing it rapidly and

inexpensively. Inevitably, then, such music is not very demanding either on the artist or on the

audience; and pop music is therefore fairly insignificant, banal, or trivial, as an art form

(compared to other forms of music).12 Since I do not regard Christianity to be insignificant or

trivial, and since I do not believe the lyrics of Christian hymns should be insignificant, banal, or

trivial, I do not ordinarily believe those lyrics can be appropriately set to musical settings that are

insignificant, banal, or trivial. So Indelible Grace asks how we can set the lyrics of traditional

11 In my book, I did not choose to address the particular commercial interests of contemporary Christian music. It is not because I am naive; there is an enormous commercial interest at stake in persuading Christians to jettison the history of Christian music in favor of contemporary Christian music. I would not be at all surprised if more money exchanges hands in Nashville over Christian music than over country music, for which Nashville was/is famous. Previous Christian artists were required to produce music that was/is good; today’s Christian artists have discovered that they can be commercially successful merely by producing music that sounds contemporary.

12 Ken Myers, All God’s Children and Blue Suede Shoes (Crossway Books, 1989); Martha Bayles, Hole in Our Soul: The Loss of Beauty and Meaning in American Popular Music (University of Chicago Press, 1996); John H. McWhorter, Doing Our Own Thing: The Degradation of Language and Music and Why We Should, Like, Care (Gotham, 2003). David Denby, Great Books (New York: Touchstone, 1996). Todd Gitlin, Media Unlimited: How the Torrent of Images and Sounds Overwhelms our Lives. New York: Henry Holt, 2002.

10

hymns to such musical settings, and I ask why we should do so. Indelible Grace regards it as a

given (that our culture’s musical sensibilities have been shaped in a manner that cuts them off

from all previous human musical expression); I regard it as a tragedy. Indelible Grace

apparently regards it as a lost cause to train or educate the sensibilities of Christians to transcend

the peculiar tastes of their commercially-driven culture; I regard it as the church’s duty to attempt

to rescue as many as possible from the aesthetic and humane degradation that attends that

culture. If, as I argued in my little book, it is the very ubiquity of pop music that has degraded

our musical sensibilities, Indelible Grace contributes to the problem; not to its cure.

III. What I Wish Indelible Grace Would Do

Indelible Grace consists of many talented and dedicated Christian people. If such

talented people were to ask me (and there is no good reason why they should) what they should

do with their abilities, I would advise three things.

First, find musical settings to any hymns that are less apt and replace them with musical

settings that are more apt (rather than replace perfectly apt musical settings with settings that are,

at best, a draw). Follow the example of Ralph Vaughan Williams; if there is a good and useful

hymn whose musical score can be improved upon, improve upon it. In undertaking such an

endeavor, it may be most profitable to begin with those hymns whose lyrics were originally verse

(and therefore independent of any musical setting), and then move to the ones that were

originally and deliberately put to a particular musical setting.

Second, translate existing hymns from other languages into metrical English. Already,

our English hymnals benefit from the presence of many hymns that were originally composed in

Greek, Latin, or German. There are other good hymns awaiting translation. Paul Gerhardt

11

(1607-76), who collaborated with Johann Crüger in Berlin for many years, wrote many fine

hymns, and also translated such Latin hymns as Bernard of Clairvaux’s “O Sacred Head, Now

Wounded.” The entire collection of his 123 hymns, Geistliche Andachten, was published in

1666-67, and a first attempt at their translation into English, Paul Gerhardt’s Spiritual Songs,

was done by John Kelly in 1867; but Kelly’s work does not set them to musical settings. Charles

Wesley translated his Jesus, Thy Boundless Love to Me and Commit Thou All Thy Griefs, and

some English-speakers are also familiar with his If God Himself Be For Me, or the evensong All

My Heart This Night Rejoices. To put these (and many other) hymns to musical settings in

English would be a great gift to the church.

Third, devote yourselves to teaching others how to appreciate music that antedates them.

Hymns are not difficult to learn. When I pastored, some previously-unchurched individuals

heard and believed the gospel and joined the church. Hymns were entirely strange to them.

Within a few months, they got the hang of the Doxology and Gloria Patri, and after a while

became increasingly familiar with singing hymns. Within a few years (sometimes sooner) they

were singing as vigorously as any. When we were children, on a trip in the car with our parents,

we sometimes sang folk songs or hymns. Even before we could read, and long before we could

read music, we had learned these hymns (and often their harmonies); so this music is literally

easy enough that a child can do it (if the hapless child’s sensibilities have not been taken captive

by pop music and its predictable musical properties).

Would it not be a better use of all of our energies if we expended a little effort on the

learning curve of singing hymns, rather than abandon our rich hymnic heritage for everyone to

start again from scratch and learn new material? I’m a son of the church, and have worshiped all

my life, often morning and evening, and in several different ecclesiastical settings (Baptist,

12

Assemblies of God, Lutheran, Presbyterian, and Anglican--each of which for more than two

years). Yet I’ve recently attended some churches where I could not sing a word of praise in the

entire service. Not one song was recognizable, and the musical score was not printed in the

bulletin (I sight-read, and could have participated had the score been available). Why should 55

years of liturgical learning curve come to nothing? Why should years of learning to read music

and to sing in church choirs, and why should all those years of morning-and-evening worship in

four different expressions of the Christian tradition leave me (and others like me) as much a

stranger in the house of God as a recent convert?

Concluding Thought

I would like to conclude by returning to my previously-stated agreements with Indelible

Grace. I find it very encouraging in the present moment to know that there is a consortium of

musical artists who take the matter seriously. I am delighted that there are others who, like me,

believe that what we sing to God shapes us profoundly. I am also encouraged by the humility of

artists who recognize that they could hardly, in a single generation, produce lyrics as good as

those produced by nineteen centuries of other gifted artists. On the other hand, I regard

contemporaneity as a sub-Christian value; and therefore not a neutral idiom into which anything

can be translated or transposed. We simply cannot sing “God of our Fathers” to a musical setting

none of our fathers would recognize without losing something important in the process.

At a minimum, Indelible Grace is half right; the respect they demonstrate for the church

catholic and the lyrics produced by a rich history of gifted hymnwriters is to be applauded. The

disrespect, however, displayed towards the musical settings produced by the same gifted

hymnwriters suggests that, unlike Michelangelo, those hymnwriters either did not or could not

13

create musical art that was similarly timeless. I suppose I must either agree with Indelible Grace

that musical settings cannot be as timeless as lyrics; or I must agree with Felix Mendelsohn, that

Luther’s Ein Feste Burg is every bit as durative as his Augsburg Confession; that the 300th

anniverary of the one can be celebrated with the other. I’ll side with Mendelsohn, and with his

culture, a culture enriched by both the language and the music of previous generations.

Afterward: A Musical-Critical Comment

I have deliberately avoided/evaded listening to Indelible Grace music for some time.

When I heard that some consortium was encouraging the lyrics of traditional hymns, I just

wanted to leave it at that, grateful that someone has not abandoned Christian hymnody

altogether. But people keep asking what I think about their work, so I’ve listened to a little, and

found it to be what I might have expected. Here are a few thoughts.

I’ve only listened to a small per centage of Indelible Grace music (what’s available on the

website), so my observations may be skewed. But I haven’t yet heard a musical setting designed

for a chorus/congregation. All that I’ve heard sounds like performance music, and the

performance music of a small group at that (singers routinely slide into pitches or add grace

notes, neither of which a chorus can do together). Sure, a congregation could sing along with it,

the way Birminghamians sing along to “Sweet Home Alabama” at a Skynnard concert; but

“Sweet Home Alabama” is not choral music, and I haven’t yet heard any Indelible Grace music

that is. So, if their goal is genuinely to produce music to aid in Christian corporate worship, I

would urge them to learn to write choral music. If their goal is to produce commercial music13

13 On the web page where I sampled their music, the image of each of their albums had two buttons imposed on them; one said “Listen” (which I did), and the other said “Buy.” <http://www.igracemusic.com/music/index.htm >

14

that some people listen to as performance music in their leisure time, they have succeeded ably.

I’ve noticed this tendency in most Contemporary Worship Music. The music is designed

to be performed by a small group (like the commercially-successful material in our generation).

When this music is employed in worship, we don’t really sound like a chorus of 200 voices; we

sound like 200 soloists who happen to be singing the same solo simultaneously. Each voice

slides into the concluding pitches of various phrases at is own pace;14 each voice throws in

whatever grace notes it wants whenever it wants. No wonder so many people close their eyes;

perhaps they’re shutting out the distraction of the other solos so they can concentrate on singing

their own. Here are a few samples of the kinds of comments I would probably make if I were

more familiar with Indelible Grace’s music.

Dan Haseltine’s setting of “For All the Saints” would perhaps be an apt setting for a

hymn of trust, or possibly a passion hymn, but “Thou was their rock” just doesn’t sound rocky

enough when placed in such a softspoken musical setting (you won’t see any Chevy truck

commercials to this setting!). Similarly, “O may thy soldiers” doesn’t sound at all martial in this

setting; it is remarkably testosterone-free. If I were about to lead soldiers into combat (“O may

thy soldiers…fight…”), this is not the kind of music that would summons a charge; it is gentle

14 Matthew Perryman Jones has very few pure notes; almost all of his slide from somewhere to somewhere else, e.g. the opening two phrases of his “How Sweet the Name of Jesus Sounds” or “Jesus I Come.” Whether you tire of/cringe at this (as I do) or not, it is impossible for a chorus to time this together. I don’t regard sliding into pitches as an illegitimate musical device per se (it is but one form of melisma); but it is a rather clichéd way to create-and-resolve tension that has now been overused by pop musicians to create musical interest in music that otherwise has little. True melisma stretches a single syllable over a number of notes, as was the case in Gregorian chant, a good example of which would be the hymn “Of the Father’s Love Begotten.” More important liturgically, it is impossible for a chorus of voices to time this sliding into pitches properly. The music reviewer Michael Katzif has referred to the abuse of melisma as “the Gospel Gargle” and “Detroit Disease,” so I am not the only one sensitive to its abuse. Cf. his interview with NPR on January 11, 2007, at <http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6791133>.

15

enough to be employed to put a child to sleep, so it will hardly work to rouse soldiers to battle.15

Sandra McCracken’s musical setting to George Matheson’s “O Love That Wilt Not Let

Me Go” does not resolve; while the other three settings to which the hymn was known (Saint

Margaret, Hampstead, and Wyke) do resolve.16 I’m not a big proponent of this hymn in

corporate worship anyway, because it is so intensely personal; perhaps it should have remained

as autobiographical poetry. But a significant component of musical form is resolution (theorists

such as Leonard Bernstein considered the creation and resolution of tension to be the essence of

music, as part of what universally defines music as such), and something is missing, musically, if

we must repeat portions or all of the last stanza several times, hunting around for a way to end a

piece of music that doesn’t end. I also believe McCracken’s setting is too light (almost flighty)

to suit the anguished lyrics (and Matheson’s anguished personal circumstances, as a blind man

whose sister/guide had that very day married and therefore left him without companionship and

literal guidance). That McCracken’s setting is also something of an irritating “earworm” is

probably the result of the other two characteristics.

Generally, what I find in Indelible Grace is the lyrics of traditional hymns set to

contemporary small-group performance music, the kind that some people enjoy listening to in

their leisure time, which is probably what Indelible Grace is attempting to do. What I do not find

15 I used to sing hymns to put my daughters to sleep when they were young, so I do not object to good Christian music being employed for that purpose. But a martial hymn (in which the “church militant” sings on behalf of the church triumphant) should sound martial. One could easily imagine one of the four branches of the armed services using a tune such as Ralph Vaughan Williams’s Sine Nomine as the tune for their service hymn; one cannot imagine their choosing Haseltine’s.

16 She is not at all alone here. Much (if not most) of the contemporary worship music does not resolve; and the worship leaders in most churches recognize this, at least implicitly, because they frequently repeat portions or all of the last stanza several times, feeling around for some way to bring the piece to an end. Those of us whose sensibilities were shaped by music that resolves find this to be very unsettling. If a photograph were taken of my psyche when this kind of music appears in church, it would look like Edvard Munch’s “The Scream.”

16

is contemporary choral musical settings, musical settings appropriate to that special brand of

choral music that we once called congregational singing.

17