E-mail
Print
RSS
G-bookmarks
Live
TechnoratiCP: How would you respond to criticisms that are coming out from the more traditional churches where they sing hymnals and say those have theological depth but say contemporary songs are shallow?
Giglio: I think all of us in the church have a responsibility to give to people in worship a balanced and a healthy diet. And that doesn’t mean that everything has to be liver but it means that you can get people fluff all day long. So what I would do, as opposed to saying all the hymns have great theological content and all the choruses are shallow and simplistic, [is] I would rather as a pastor or a worship leader evaluate every song to say ‘Does this song mirror theology in a very good way? Is it theologically true?’ And secondly, I would say ‘Does it serve the purpose we’re trying to go for on our journey as a church right now?’ This isn’t an anti-traditional church statement, but one of the things that’s completely unfair and has never really been mentioned about – the traditional side of the argument – is that the hymn book is really like the platinum best of the best collection of hymns. It’s not a reflection of hymns. It is … comparable to the best of Passion CD or the Worship Together Platinum Greatest Worship Songs of all time CD. It’s a collection of thousands and thousands of hymns over hundreds and hundreds of years sifted down to the 250 best hymns. Even out of those 250 best hymns – and I’m a lover of hymns; I have a hymn book on my desk – Chris and I and Matt are writing from the hymns and trying to update the hymns all the time. But of the 250 hymns that are the best of the best, there are still some pretty shallow songs in there. And there are some songs in there that theologically might not be right on the money. But people just assume, it’s the hymn book and the songs are old so they’re theologically deep. Whereas I would say, ‘A Mighty Fortress Is Our God’ is a deep song and is theologically right on the money, but it’s not any deeper than ‘How Great is Our God.’
I think it’s less helpful to say, ‘If it’s old, it’s good and if it’s new, it’s bad.’ It’s more helpful to say, ‘If it’s good, it’s good and if it’s bad, it’s bad’ (laughs). I want to be part of a church that stands on the shoulders of men and women who’s gone before us, and I don’t want to throw songs out because they’re 300 years old. That’s the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard of. I want to balance the diet with people and say, ‘This hymn is worth holding onto, it’s part of our heritage. But at the same time, let’s put a little refrain with it.’ Even like Chris dared to do with ‘Amazing Grace’ which people say, ‘That’s sacred territory, you can’t touch that hymn. That’s the greatest hymn in the Christian church.’ And then Chris is quick to mention, ‘Well, when we’ve been there 10,000 years, the last verse that everybody cherishes so much was added to the hymn 100 years after it was written.’ So someone already messed with the hymn (laughs). And to come back and put a little refrain that people can come back and sing more than one time and can really begin to lose words; they don’t have to be reading something on a screen, and their hearts can be connected to the Lord. I think it’s a perfect blend to get the old and then we get something that we can really easily express to God. And when that happens, I think we’re getting to a pretty good place in the worship diet. Continue »
