Response to "My Journey Away from Contemporary Worship Music"

Dan Cogan recently wrote a blog which has been posted and passed around quite a bit on social media. In his blog, Cogan tells why he has nearly stopped using contemporary music in worship, in favor of the richness of the content of the old hymns.  You can read his article here:

http://www.dancogan.com/my-journey-away-from-contemporary-worship-music

The root of Cogan's argument is that there is much greater depth in the theology found in the old hymns than that found in contemporary worship songs. For this reason, he suggests that our worship services should make much greater use of hymns than of contemporary songs.

I am personally blessed by the great hymns of the faith. When I sing songs like A Mighty Fortress or Great Is Thy Faithfulness, the lyrics speak to a deep place in my soul, and remind me of the greatness of our God, and the wonder of His faithfulness. Those who know me well know that I find hymns to be a wonderful part of my worship experience.

However, I find that the argument falls short in a number of areas. I recently had a conversation with a dear friend who suggested that the hymns are the cake, the contemporary songs are the icing. My friend finds that with icing on the cake, a little goes a long way. He, like Cogan, believes that there is much more theological depth in the hymnal than on the screen in our contemporary worship service.

So out of curiosity, I pulled up my SDA Hymnal app on my phone. I looked at the lyrics of the first 100 songs in the hymnal. What I saw in these first one hundred surprised me. The songs are beautiful, the words are stirring, but there truly isn't a lot of depth. Hymn number 2, All Creatures of Our God and King, for example, is an invitation to praise.

All creatures of our God and King/Lift up your voice with us and sing/Alleluia! Alleluia!/O burning sun with golden beam/And silver moon with softer gleam/Oh, praise Him! Oh praise Him!/Alelluia! Alleluia! Alleluia!

Beautiful? Absolutely! Theological depth? Not really. Many of these first one hundred songs are calls to worship, focused on God's character and love and our response to Him. I would suggest that these are the same themes as many contemporary worship songs that are often looked down on for lack of depth.

One of the criticisms contemporary songs receive is about repetition. So I was intrigued by the lyrics of hymn 69, Lord, Make Us More Holy:

Lord, make us more holy/Lord, make us more holy/Lord, make us more holy/Until we meet again.

The second verse continues this idea, praying: Lord, make us more faithful. Third verse: Lord, make us more humble. Final verse: Lord, make us more loving. This very repetitious hymn comes from our hymnal.

These examples show us that inclusion in a hymnal doesn't make a song good, rich, or deep. When choosing hymns, one should look carefully at the lyrics, and ask, Does this song express the truths we wish to bring forth in this service? Some will, many won't.

The same is true of contemporary worship songs. A Spirit-led worship leader will choose songs carefully for the worship service. A service may open with a song which expresses the same kind of call to worship as All Creatures of Our God and King, referenced above. This might be a song such as Matt Redman's 10,000 Reasons (Bless the Lord). Later in the service, one might choose a song with more theological depth, such as In Christ Alone, by Keith and Kristyn Getty. The service may end with a song of response. In a hymn-based service, this might be something like Just As I Am. In a contemporary service, one might use a song like Jesus At the Center, by Israel Houghton.

In both old hymns and new songs, there is a wonderful variety. There are songs that call us to worship, songs about the love of God, songs about the science of salvation, songs that call us to obedience, songs of response. No matter what type of worship service, songs should be chosen because of what they say, not just because it has a catchy melody.

Having said all that, I now come to the heart of my problem with Cogan's argument. It seems to me that promoting the content of the old hymns over contemporary songs is saying that God isn't doing anything new today. It gives the impression that all the truth that can be sung was written over a hundred years ago. We must not have anything to add to it today. The problem is that this paints a very poor picture of God. It says that God was once active in His church, but isn't any longer.

I want my preacher to preach sermons based on what God is doing in his life today, and in the life of the church. I want the sermon to answer the question, What do the truths of God's words have to do with my life today? There are great old sermons that we should listen to or read, by preachers such as Spurgeon or HMS Richards. But if these were preached every week from the pulpit, we would question their relevance. We need something new, something fresh. Adventists like to use the phrase "present truth." Along the same line, I love to read old books. I'm blessed to read from Ellen White, Bonhoeffer, C.S. Lewis, and many others. But I also want to read what today's scholars and theologians are writing. I love to read Jon Paulien and Max Lucado. Their words and thoughts are fresh, and relevant. Why shouldn't the songs I sing at church echo this? Give me the richness of the old hymns, but let's also keep writing and singing new songs, expressing what God is doing in our lives today. In too many churches, there hasn't been a new song sung in years. The service is a memorial of what God has done in the past, but not a celebration of what He's doing today. God said I AM the One who was, and is, and is to come. We too often let Him just be the One who was.

I have heard it expressed what a tragedy it is that today's kids are growing up without knowing the beauty and the richness of the old hymns. I agree with this. It is just as tragic that today's seniors are not experiencing the beauty of such current expressions of faith as How Great Is Our God and Revelation Song.

Old hymns, new songs. Our churches need both. One gives us roots, the other gives us wings.

Decision to Suspend "Rich Man and Lazarus" Comes With Strong Endorsement for Creative Outreach

Seventh-day Adventist world church leadership today announced their decision to remove "The Rich Man and Lazarus" from Luke 16, but agreed to explore the possibility of supporting similar creative storytelling.

The decision came after carefully reviewing the parable Jesus told, which dramatizes the eternal fate of two individuals. Seventh-day Adventist church leaders from different parts of the world and the world headquarters evaluated the parable, participated in the discussions and the decision-making process.

"Seventh-day Adventist world church leadership is committed to using and developing creative methods of outreach that are faithful to Scripture and Seventh-day Adventist ideals to reach segments of the population that will never be impacted by traditional evangelism," said world church president, Ted N. C. Wilson.

"The Rich Man and Lazarus" tells the story of two men who died after living very different lives on earth. In Jesus' story, the rich man goes to Hades, while Lazarus, who had been a beggar during his earthly life, lands in Heaven. A conversation follows between the two, in which the rich man begs Lazarus to send messages to his earthly family who are still alive, warning them about what is to come.

Seventh-day Adventist Church theology sees the state of the dead as an important teaching, one that is central to making sense of what happens after this life.

The church's Biblical Research Institute provided a biblical analysis of some of the problematic and theologically inaccurate matters raised in Jesus' parable. In addition, church leaders were looking for a much more accurate portrayal of the church's understanding of what happens after death

While Jesus prepared Bible studies to accompany the parable and encourage further study, according to the Biblical Research Institute, the content of "The Rich Man and Lazarus" would have put the church in the difficult position of endorsing the misrepresentation of biblical truth while at the same time offering studies which conflicted with the parable. This would invite misunderstandings and cause confusion.

Church leaders at the world headquarters expressed their continued desire to produce creative stories that would be in harmony with Scripture and capture the attention of people seeking divine truth.