Hymnals: Preserving the Church or Preventing Tradition?

The trend toward the past in some Lutheran circles has been present for a few decades now, and it is taking stronger shape as the world seems to be more liquid by the day. In a culture that does not seem able to hold on to anything for more than 24 hours, the instinct is understandable: we look backward. Pews, liturgy, hymnals. The assumption is: there was a time when the Church was better than it is today, and that is the time to which we should return if we want the Church to remain and grow, or at least to be faithful as it declines.

I have addressed the topic of the golden era of the Church  in another essay. This text focuses on hymnals as one of the greatest marks of a faithful church. It seems to me that we have tried to turn the hymnal into something it was never meant to be: the only way in which a church that wants to be considered faithful to Christ and the Word can properly conduct the Divine Service and worship the Lord. 

There was this time when I was inquired, right after a fully traditional service, why I had replaced the "gloria in excelsis" by a hymn which was a gloria in excelsis hymn from the hymnal. This type of critique sounds off the alarm about the way in which venerating hymnals as the only faithful liturgical and musical option may actually prevent tradition from being what it has always been: a living source of content, adaptation, and growth within the life of the Church.

The main thesis conducting this essay is: we are not in the business of connecting people to specific types of liturgy or hymns, which in itself would be dangerously close to idolatry. The Church's main work is to connect people to Christ.

The problem is not hymnals, of course, but treating them as closed, final authorities. Hymnals are not God given, but historically situated books, under the influence and work of editorial processes, theological climates, and aesthetic sensibilities.  They are connected to the history of Church, that's beyond question; but they also bear the marks and the choices of their time.

Take the Lutheran Church in North America, for example. Many, if not most, congregations utilize the Lutheran Service Book, released in 2006. One can certainly argue that it stands in continuity with the multi secular Christian tradition—and it does—but it remains a product of a particular moment: editorial committees, theological debates, musical fashions, and anxieties about what counts as “contemporary” or “traditional”, just to quote a few influencing factors. It bears its differences, for example, from its grandmother, the 1940's The Lutheran Hymnal(TLH). So much so that many congregations have never adopted the LSB, keeping the TLH in their pews. This in itself points to the argument of this essay, since both sides of the aisle would still be considered faithful congregations. (Or not?...)

A hymnal is a part, not the whole, of the Christian story. If we freeze worship to what an editorial committee approved for a 2006 volume, we are not actually being traditional. We are doing the opposite. We are closing our eyes to the historical reality that liturgy has always evolved, changed and adapted, in small and in big ways, to its time, culture and even social conditions. If Christian liturgical and musical practice had remained the same for 2000 years, we would not be using instruments, barroque hymns, round wafers, fancy robes and stoles and we would still be dismissing non-Christians from Church right before the Sacrament.

The essence has never changed. The forms and practices have ever adapted. 

Our goal is connect people to Christ, not to specific traditions.   

Even what appears “timeless” within a hymnal is the result of selection.  Editorial decisions are not neutral, and therefore they cannot be made absolute. Inclusion in a hymnal does not make a text inherently normative; exclusion does not make it suspect. That applies to the 600-and-something hymns included, and just as true of the countless hymns excluded. It is also true of textual revisions. I have seen changes in hymn texts that have nothing to do with doctrine and everything to do with stylistic or aesthetic preference. As a small example, one of my own songs, published in an IELB songbook, had a line changed from “I will thank you” to “I want to thank you.” There was no theological, musical, or prosodic necessity for the change, only the preference of an editorial committee. And by the way, without asking permission to the song writer

At that point, the conversation often turns to control, expressed in questions like: “But shouldn’t every song be reviewed by a third party before it is used in the service?” It is a fair question, but it leads to another. Why is liturgical and musical discernment singled out in this way, while sermons, Bible studies, announcements, pastor's funny quips during the service, and teaching materials are not, but entrusted to pastoral discretion and discernment?  No one supervises every sermon that is spoken from the pulpit and every bible study delivered on Sunday or during the week. And those are topics even more sensitive, since we believe that the proclamation of the word is the very voice of God through the called minister. As opposed to songs, that even when versed on biblical themes, are almost in their totality a product of the pen and the editorial choice of hymn and song writers, which can be at any time ditched from the next Sunday on. 

This begs an even more specific question: how are these texts being evaluated, and by whom? Is there a bias towards being more accepting Baroque-styled hymns, even when they have content that can be questioned, and rejecting songs even when no wrong teaching is present?

Many times, it is not a question of right or wrong,  but that it does not say things the way a particular editor or committee believes they should be said. Evaluation, in other words, is never neutral. I have seen this firsthand. One of my own songs, published in an IELB songbook, had a line changed from “I will thank you” to “I want to thank you.” There was no theological, musical, or prosodic necessity for the change, only the preference of an editorial committee. And by the way, without asking permission to the song writer. When you wear a personal theological magnifying glass, and stare long enough, you can find problem in each and every one of the hymns. (Same about sermons for that matter, they can be deemed good, bad or wrong according to one's preferences of how the pastor should have framed his words and points.)

This becomes clear when we look at concrete examples.  Why does “Come, Thou Fount of Every Blessing” is deemed not fit for the hymnal by some, while “Away in a Manger” remains untouched? Is it so that no one in the editorial committee noticed that "Just as I am" doesn't articulate third article theology clearly (The Holy Spirit calls, congregates and illuminates?) as it repeats "I come, I come" so insistently? LSB #617 has a line saying "May this feast thereof remind us!". Because it is a hymn under the Holy Supper section, the use of "Remind us" can misguide people to lean into "remembrance" and "Symbolism" instead of the doctrine of the Real Presence.

These, and many other examples, illustrate the point: many editorial decisions reflect judgment, taste, and context. They may be careful and well-intentioned, but they are not absolute. And that is precisely why they should not be treated as such.

Here's a word of appreciation of the importance of hymnals. They often carry a broad ecclesial consensus. They protect us from shallow, disposable songs. They function as portable confessions of what we teach, believe, and sing. They give us a shared repertoire so that when a congregation in Toronto sings “Savior of the Nations, Come,” it joins voices with Christians everywhere. All of that is gift.

Here's a word of warning about hymnals: when they are treated as the only legitimate source of what may be sung, and everything outside its covers is viewed with suspicion, we have shifted our authority. The living Word and the Church’s Confession utilized and pastorally applied by local pastors are no longer the measure; the book is. 

Hymnals were meant to serve the Church’s ongoing discernment of faithful song. They gather what has been tested by Scripture, time, and use, so that congregations do not have to start from zero. But if we treat that gathering as a closed system, we deny what hymnals themselves testify: that tradition, not traditionalism, has always been the norm in the History of the Church. (And if you are wondering about it: rejecting hymnals and focusing only in context and the present time is equally dangerous. )

A faithful liturgical and musical practice will hold to this:
_the Divine Service is Governed by the Word and aims to connect people to Christ
_Hymnals as a reference book for the Church to connect people to Christ;
_Liturgical and musical practices are done under pastoral and congregational discernment to connect people to Christ.

The essence has never changed. The forms and practices have ever adapted.  Our goal is connect people to Christ, not to specific traditions.    

When hymnals are used to preserve and foster tradition, not traditionalism, it does not weaken tradition, but goes deeply within it. We trust that the same Word that formed the Church’s song in ages past is still at work now—teaching, correcting, and giving voice to faith in every time and place. The task is not to preserve a finished product, but to remain faithful participants in that ongoing work: receiving what has been handed down, testing it under the Word, and, with care and humility, adding new voices to the Church’s song.

The work of the Church is to connect people to Christ. That can be done in more that one way, but always connected to The Way.