Hey, Matt, thanks for your great thoughts on an issue that has been a hot one for me too.

I think your alteration of the Jami Smith song was totally appropriate.  I wish songwriters were more careful about the theology they express.  Isn't that part of what it means to "worship in spirit and in truth"?  This brings to mind an editorial that appeared just a couple days ago on Christianity Today online addressing the issue of theological content in songs.  I'll share the link here:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/lyris/music/archives/07-25-2007.html

You mentioned the changes to "In Christ Alone", which is a song I've wrestled with and discussed with others numerous times.  For worship at this year's Annual Meeting our worship leader Matt Anderson reverted to the original "the wrath of God was satisfied"--which I much prefer to the watered-down "love/glorified"--and I didn't hear any complaints.  I don't think the average Covenanter is as Waldenströmian as some wish they were, and in a denomination where there is freedom to hold a wide variety of doctrinal views, do they have to be?

I encountered an instance of gender-exclusive language in the Delirious song "Majesty."  I wanted to use the song, but never did because I didn't want to exclude half of the congregation.  But a female worship leader at our church suggested an alteration that seems to work.  We changed "Here I am, knowing I'm a sinful man covered by the blood of the Lamb" to "Here I am, knowing I'm a sinful one covered by the blood of the Son".

I agree that there was no gender issue that required a change in "A Mighty Fortress Is Our God".  But where human gender exclusivity does exist I try to use the inclusive language wherever I can, because I think that practice expresses a value our denomination has affirmed.  It is still especially difficult for me in songs like "Hark! The Herald Angels Sing" where the alterations seem to really weaken the poetic value of the text.  But I can't honestly argue that even this beloved hymn must remain unaltered, when Wesley's original words "Hark how all the welkin rings" were already changed long ago!

It seems to me that poetry should have won out over change for change's sake in the Covenant Hymnal versions of such songs as "Praise to the Lord the Almighty" and "Take My Life and Let It Be".  Regarding contemporary musical alterations to traditional hymns, I think they're fine as long as they aren't so different that they trip congregations up.  David Crowder's version of "All Creatures of Our God and King" is one of those that in my opinion is better left as a performance song than used as a congregational rendition.  But I feel differently about Crowder's version of "Come Thou Fount of Every Blessing", where he retained the original words of the hymn (even when we in the Covenant Hymnal did not).  "Ebenezer" is a biblical term, after all!  I'm guessing that it will be restored in our next hymnal!

I could go on and on about this, but I won't!  I'll look forward to reading what others say.  God bless!

Randall Wilkens, Mount Vernon, WA

I have passed on songs that I thought were musically good, as well, because of what I considered to be poor or unclear theology.  I have also used songs that I might have not chosen for their musicality simply because of a particularly strong theology that it contained.   Some of David Crowder's songs, for example, have amazingly poetic and beautiful theology, sometimes housed in what can be a difficult format for a congregation ("Wholly Yours", "O Praise Him").  Great songs, but also challenging.

I have had an interesting experience with another Crowder song, "You Alone".   Personally, I really love the song and also really love the theology that through God, who is the only true Savior, I am truly alive!   But I have had several congregation members come to me after we have sung that song and said that they really like it, right up to the point where we sing, "I'm alive, I'm alive, I'm alive, I'm alive", at which point they are no longer able to sing.  They say things like "it's too much about me".

Interestingly, someone in our ministry does not particularly care for the song "Breathe", because he thinks the lines "I'm desperate for You", and "I'm lost without You" to have too strong a co-dependent feeling.  But I think that is exactly the point!!  We are dependent on Him, desperate for Him, lost without Him!   I think the song has grown on Him over the years....

I generally do not like it when songs are made gender neutral, especially when it is done in the spirit of political correctness.  As a female, I have no problem singing about "men", or "sons of God", or the like, and identifying with it anyway.  One of my least favorites in that regard is "Good Christian Friends Rejoice".   Perfectly lovely sentiment, but there is nothing wrong with "Good Christian Men"......... 

Faithfully,

Rebecca Koch

 

 

^{Funny thing about "Come Thou Fount" in the hymnal is, they kept "Thou" and "hither", but rejected "Ebenezer". -Rick}

I am Rick Lindholtz, a Covenant Pastor in Kingwood, TX, currently serving a Lutheran congregation as Director of Communications. In this capacity I lead worship and write worship materials among other tasks. The church is very contemporary in worship style, but coming from the Lutheran tradition, we use a lot of written resources - confessions, affirmations, etc. - many of which are new or revised pieces I've written (such as my "Apostles' Creed" in iambic pentameter.) I am also an "unrepentent" lyric tweaker - even writing whole additional verses.

^{(Before I go on, let me add - save your breath if you want to discuss the legal issues. If you are an attorney representing a copyright holder, I will respect a cease and desist order. Apart from that I see my work as adding value and usage, therefore profit, to a composer's work.)}

Sometimes I adjust a lyric for theological reasons. When we do "In Christ Alone, we sing "my sin with Him was crucified". When we sing Geoff Bullock's "I will never be the same", we omit the second line ("I can never return, I've closed the door") because *my* human activity - closing the door - is an inadequate basis for a changed life. I substituted "You have opened my heart to trust your grace". Similarly, when we sing "Come, now is the time to worship", we conclude the bridge with "gladly serve you now" instead of "gladly choose you now".

Sometimes we adjust lyrics because the original just wasn't that good. "You are my All in all" has that contrived and poorly rhymed "seeking you as a precious jewel/Lord to give up I'd be a fool". We replaced that with "How can I fill this empty soul?/When I am found in You, I'm whole".

Sometimes I've written whole new lyrics to old tunes, such as my "Lord You have promised beauty for ashes" - 4 verses to the tune of "Morning has broken", which we use almost every Ash Wednesday.

Sometimes I write to add Jesus to a song where he was absent. A whole lot of contemporary worship music is Creator God centered, and we are very Christ centered at out church, so often I'll write a Christ centered lyric for a new song we're learning. We've just begun singing "Everlasting God" by Brenton Brown, which is a great example. Fantastic, singable song, good lyrics, but no Jesus anywhere in sight. So I wrote:

"Grace will fall as we call upon the Lord (repeats etc) / our God, who lives forever / who rose, our Lord and Savior / You are the true and faithful one / the Father's only Son / who gave His life for our salvation / You sent the Holy Spirit down / the earth rings with the sound / that echoes from Your grace and mercy."

Frankly, I often become frustrated when composers think they should quit writing after they've written a single lyric for a song. If you've got a good melody and a decent lyric, why stop there?

Finally, I've written Christmas or Easter lyrics to contemporary stuff. I wrote a Christmas verse for "Above All", for example. Lenny LeBlanc didn't even want to talk about it, but Paul Baloche said he liked the lyric and commented that he does a lot of that sort of thing himself. So even among composers there is disagreement. (And the funny thing is, the words I added were for the verse (Paul's part of the composition) not the chorus (Lenny's part).

Rick

^{(who recalls how Charles Wesley is quoted to the effect that he objected to revisions of his lyrics - but hey, his original text said "Hark how all the welkin rings, Glory to the newborn King". I bet none of us have ever used that!)}

It's late and I don't feel like writing much, but has anyone ever noticed how "Lord, I Lift Your Name on High" skips the resurrection in the chorus?

It goes straight from "the grave to the sky," so whenever I use the song, I sing "from the grave back to life." It makes it slant rhyme, but it works well enough for me.

Hi Matt. I confess: It does not bother me when a lyric seems to miss, or stray-from, some point of theology that is seriously important to me. When a lyric seems errant or incomplete, it reminds me: We see God through a distorted lens or looking glass, and each of us (songwriters) sees, clearly, only part of God. For example: a non-inclusive lyric reminds me of our common struggle to include all voices. (Now, if I were in a setting where a non-inclusive lyric was being sung in attempt to shut certain people out, that would bother me.) But, most of the time, when we sing about "men", I remember our common struggle to move (as a Christian people) from patriarchy (a state of brokenness), into something new that is closer to God's original intention. God is always re-creating and re-forming. Every song we write will be only "in part", for now we see "in part".

For some reason, I feel differently about Bible translations. I'm all for updating the language of scripture to reflect our common progress away from patriarchy; whereas in music, I don't mind being reminded that we are being delivered from patriarchy (a process). I can't explain my own contradiction. Maybe I expect scripture to be perfect. Whereas songs are imperfect renderings, and I like that.

There is Truth that runs deeper than truth. We needn't be afraid of using one another's imperfect lyric; because there is Truth in the dim view. For example! Paul does use the word "wrath" as he attempts to explain how the cross changes our standing with God. C.S. Lewis explains why all attempts (scripture and others) to illustrate the atonement are partial: It's too hard to explain with only one metaphor, so there are several (ransom, legal, substitute, loving sacrifice, leading example of divine Love...). Obviously, songwriter Townsend did not concoct the notion of God's wrath being satisfied! I don't think of the atonement that way; nevertheless, I'll always wrestle with that image. Maybe Townshend can't get it out of his mind either. Maybe he needed to give that unseemly image a hard look.

I look for songs that say things in surprising, rather than safe, ways. Tidiness and perfection will never be ours this side of whatever is coming.

My working ethic says: Let's not try to fix each other, even one another's lyrics that are only "partly" true. If we don't like the way the writer said it, we might choose something else, rather than try to fix him or her. Let's let his or her work rest in peace! (my opinion only, and I mean that.) Let's honor (be honest about) our "dim" view.

Now. With very old lyrics, I think there is a place for updating. But, like Randall and Matt mentioned, only if the lyric has become meaningless, as is the case with ancient language that is un-understandable to the present culture. Distance is our friend. I'm afraid the task of rewriting requires a long view, and sometimes we are too hasty. I'd rather be in the presence of mysterious beauty than correctness. I think that may be an issue of personal preference. I'm hearing some say that correctness is very important to them. That's why discourse is so important in church.

This is a fun talk. Thanks everyone.
Katie Martinez

I changed the line in "In Christ Alone" to "the curse of sin was cast aside," which both takes out the Penal Substitutionary Atonement slant, and adds a whole new theological picture. 

One that always bothered me was the song "Jesus, Lover of My Soul." It has a line that says "though my world may fall I'll never let you go." It seems backward to me. The truth is, I let go of God all the time. It's God who never lets go of me. 

The few times I've attempted to make changes for gender reasons (a la Majesty), my worship team has protested and called me a PC freak, so I've let it go. 

Thanks for everyone's thoughts. It's a good topic, Matt. I had the same thoughts at Easter when our worship team was singing "In Christ Alone." I had trouble singing about the wrath of God being satisfied when Easter was all about a demonstration of His love. I think on Easter Day that we did sing "the love of God was glorified" or something along those lines. I think it was a much better picture for the guests on Easter, too--to see God's love instead of wrath. Yes, I'm a bit Waldesntromian, too. But you're right, that it can't happen all the time. There's a time and a place. I don't mind singing "Be Thou My Vision" with the gender-inclusive changes. I do mind not singing about raising my Ebenezer in "Come Thou Fount." Others would say differently on both issues. 

 I guess we still need to rely on the Holy Spirit in our worship (hmmm, what a novel thought). May He always be our guide.

I think it is interesting to read all of the replies as I have noticed that there are several lyric changes mentioned that I would disagree with based on theological standpoints. My point is not to discuss those right here but to echo a bit of Katie's reply wherein she talks about seeing dimly. We have our reasons for changing or not changing lyrics, but do we really need to? In some cases, songsz are theologically weak or even wrong, (hymns and contmporaty alike) but then we don't use those , do we. Just an observation.

BTW good, thought provoking post Matt

Steve

Life House Covenant Church

www.myspace.com/lhworship