This study has been motivated by a trend in parts of the LCMS to embrace the “praise and worship” genre of music.  The Commission was directed by convention resolution to provide “guidance and direction in the use of diverse/contemporary worship resources.”  Given the plethora of “diverse/contemporary worship resources” [there are over 200,000 songs available for use via the CCLI church copyright license], some guidance seems appropriate to steer professional church workers and laity toward resources that are in harmony with the Lutheran faith and confessions.

Before looking at the list of the songs, I’d like to to consider several points that the Commission makes in the article prefacing the study.

The commission’s publication Text, Music, Context: A Resource for Reviewing Worship Materials was used to determine that each song would be considered in light of the Holy Scriptures, the church year, the lectionary, the Sacraments, law/gospel balance, confessional/doctrinal thought, redemption and forgiveness in Christ, and the use of Trinitarian language.

I have a copy of Text, Music, Context: A Resource for Reviewing Worship Materials and appreciate the diagnostic questions included to review any type of worship music (hymns, choral pieces, or “songs”).  The questions consider the text, music, and the “big picture.”  It would have been helpful if the study documents included these questions somewhere in the study or website since they were apparently one of the fundamental diagnostic tools.  As a courtesy, I have scanned the questions and have them available here as a PDF (the Commission on Worship notated on each of these sheets that “Permission is granted to reproduce this page.”).

The songs listed in the chart have not been subjected to the same in-depth process that selected hymns receive before being included in a synodically approved hymnal. The rapidly changing scene of Christian contemporary music requires constant attention to evaluate emerging songs in a timely manner.

I was surprised (and disappointed) to read that the contents of this study did not undergo the same doctrinal review process as the hymns for a hymnal –  in part because the Synod’s June 2008 Reporter article said the songs were “subsequently approved over the past six months through the church body’s doctrinal review process.”  I found their reasoning to be less than adequate — timeliness essentially trumps the standard process.  What would have happened if they had gone through the same in-depth process as a hymn — would the song be obsolete before a recommendation was made?  It would be interesting to know how the review processes differs between a hymn and a “song”.

It is imperative to note that songs are not hymns.

. . .

The words of songs frequently convey simple scriptural thoughts that are wedded to stirring rhythmic melodies.

. . .

Hymn texts, in their role in Lutheran worship provide sequences of poetic stanzas that expound on the life of Christ and the life of the Church.  The life cycle of a hymn potentially spans centuries. The life cycle of a song spans weeks, months, perhaps years.

I was a bit startled at the unexpected frankness of the difference between hymns and songs – particularly the life cycles of a hymn and a song.  Perhaps I’m a bit naive, but if asked to choose between a hymn that might be a gift to current and future generations for centuries or a song that might be around until next year or a few years later, I would hands down go for the hymn.

Granted, I have no idea how a “current” hymn by say Stephen Starke or Herman Stuempfle will be received decades or centuries from now, but I do know that they will be available in LSB for years to come.  I don’t doubt that some of them will be treasures that future generations will sing.

I suppose the deeper question I have is why the life cycles are so different?  Yes, I know this too, not every hymn will have a long life cycle and it is possible that a song could live for quite some time.  Any thoughts?

In a future post I’ll take look at the actual list of songs.

Thanks for reading The LCMS 100 “Song” Study: Part 1.

And what are these 100 songs? The list has yet to be released — it isn’t on the Commission of Worship’s website. Evidently, they used CCLI data from LCMS churches to determine frequently used songs. I am interested to see what songs made the cut of the Synodical reviewers — what do these songs proclaim?

What bothers me about many “praise and worship” songs is what they often don’t say rather than what they do say. In particular, I recently reviewed a list of these types of songs to be used in a worship setting — out of the list of a dozen or so songs, Christ was mentioned once or twice directly, and a couple more times as indirect assumptions. Many tread lightly on sin and focus on the theology of glory rather than the theology of the cross. In comparison, I can randomly page through LSB and Christ and what He has done and continues to do for us is seen page after page. I assume there are some “praise and worship” songs that also do this, but these are not the norm from what I’ve seen.

Thanks for reading LCMS Approves 100 "Worship / Praise" Songs.