The sad saga of Praise!
By J.P. Thackway
The words “sad” and “praise” in the above title do not normally sit together. Biblically, they are mutually exclusive. If we are sad, we are not praising God who rejoices the heart; if we are praising God, we shall not be sad (Psalm 42:5). However, what is not found together in our devotional experience can come together in other ways. Readers of the Quarterly will know that we refer to the sad events of the past year concerning the hymn book Praise!
Many
For many, using the word “sad” regarding this hymn book would be mystifying. They see no cause for concern, in fact, they welcome a hymn book that takes the best of the new material, marries it with the best of the old (updated for today) and even for the first time includes at least one version of the biblical psalms. So, why the sadness? What is the saga?
Significance
Praise! has been with us long enough for Christians to digest its significance. Eight months or so (to April 2001) is also sufficient time for reviews to appear in the Christian press. Our review appeared back in the October 2000 Quarterly. The result confirmed our worst fears, and our review had to be a critique, with little positive to say about Praise!
Detailed
Few detailed reviews of Praise! have come from the Christian press to date. A major new hymn book is an important publishing event, affecting hundreds of churches and thousands of Christians for decades to come. If a crucial area of Christian doctrine had been given the same makeover as Praise! has given worship, we would expect a storm of reaction in defence of the faith, and rightly so. Yet, here is a crucial area of practice, and few take up the cause of truth.
Reasons
There are reasons for this patchy and hesitant response to Praise! These have to do with more than the book itself. Important issues lie behind it, making the book a symptom of what has been going on. In this article, I want to examine these and seek to learn some lessons from them. The times we are passing through are fraught with things that should exercise our minds and hearts deeply. What does this sad saga reveal?
1. We know more about the making of this hymn book
A lot has happened since 1998, when the hymnal was floated in the form of a preview or sampler. This consisted of a preface and a representative sample of eighty-eight hymns and songs. The following year, a draft list of the full contents came out. This was enough to convey the philosophy and likely quality of the finished hymn book. One early review alerted the Christian public to what was coming. Entitled New Hymn book Announced with Major Omissions, the author expressed his disappointment that:
“We had been promised ‘seamless updating’ of old hymns; but the seams were often gaping holes! Both theology and poetry had been sacrificed to an all-consuming pursuit of replacing anything that could be even remotely considered an anachronism. I now awaited the finished product much less enthusiastically.”
More ominously, the reviewer continued:
“When the contents list was published I was further grievously disappointed. 43% of the hymns we sing are not included, including well-known favourites such as ‘I will sing the wondrous story,’ ‘I heard the voice of Jesus say’ and ‘No blood, no altar now.’”
Comparison
He was making the comparison with Christian Hymns, which, while not the perfect hymn book, has served the Church well for nearly twenty-five years and represents the best of its kind available today. Our reviewer was dismayed to find that,
“There seem to be certain types of hymns which have fared worse than others. Although I did not have time to carry out a detailed analysis of this, others might like to investigate for themselves. The categories I have noticed are:
• Those which magnify God’s sovereign grace;
• Those which speak of the blood of Christ;
• Those which express the heart-joy of the Christian toward Jesus;
• Children’s hymns.
Perhaps the most striking change of all is the ‘cull’ which seems to have been carried out on the Victorian hymns of personal joy and assurance by writers like Horatius Bonar, Frances Havergal, and others. In my experience, these hymns … and others like ‘Blessed assurance, Jesus is mine’ and ‘Come unto me, ye weary,’ are the favourite hymns of most Christians over 50 — and many younger, including myself. To remove such a large number of these hymns is to produce a hymnbook for a particular generation which in many churches represents no more than half the worshippers. It moreover greatly impoverishes their worship, and potentially that of future generations.”
These valid points were not the only concerns raised at that stage. The Praise! team became aware of all the criticism coming their way, and responded by publishing replies on their Web site. Visitors to it will find two articles by Brian Edwards and one each by Phil Arthur and Christopher Idle. As time passes, these grow, and now one by David G. Preston is included, together with a contribution from an American pastor who has never even seen Praise! but ventures to criticise my critique for its “number of preconceptions”(!) However, perhaps the most enlightening is a lecture given by Tim Grass entitled The Making of Praise.
Revealing
These apologias show a concerted resolve to modernise evangelicalism, come what may. However, the lecture mentioned above is the most revealing. Mr. Grass states the variety of factors that combined to produce Praise! While one or two are acceptable, the first five show more of what lies behind this book:
• The widespread adoption of modern Bible translations since the appearance of Christian Hymns and Grace Hymns, particularly the NIV.
• A corresponding switch to the use of modern English in public prayer.
• Increasing acceptability of music styles previously ruled inappropriate for corporate worship.
• The growing interchange of members between our churches and those of other denominations.
• The influence of charismatic songs.
Notice: nothing here speaks of “fuller, clearer light from scripture on how God says He should be worshipped.” Rather, Mr. Grass cites the changing pattern of things in churches as producing the ethos of this hymn book. Following those points, and putting it baldly, and we could say that: abandonment of biblical English, downgrade in reverence, toleration of unsound churches, and charismatic error have contributed to the birth of Praise! Such a pedigree will never commend it to those who believe that worship should reflect God’s word and reverence His holy name.
Confirmed
Since then, other Christian periodicals have reviewed the hymnal. The Banner of Truth magazine carried a second review of Praise! by the above-mentioned author, John Palmer, now based upon the finished hymn book. It confirmed his worst fears and drew from him this mildly-devastating conclusion: “During the last ten years there has been a downgrade away from God-centred, theologically robust, historically informed personal and church life, including worship. I believe this new hymn book is a symptom of this deterioration and, sadly, will prove a further engine for it.”
Helpful
Christian Research Network Journal carried a penetrating article by Pastor Chris Hand entitled “An Unhappy Mix: Some thoughts on Praise! and the new worship.” In that same issue, Mr. Alan Howe has a piece entitled “Graham Kendrick: A Health-Warning to the Churches.” Praise! includes 34 of Kendrick’s songs, and this article, based on an interview between him and charismatic leader Noel Stanton, shows the kind of man he is. The paragraph headings are as follows:
1] Kendrick’s starting-point is Pentecostal-charismatic and a context of rebellion.
2] Kendrick has contributed to the overthrow of received notions of Christian worship.
3] Kendrick’s music is also part and parcel of an unbiblical understanding of evangelism and ecumenism.
4] Kendrick has espoused the unbiblical and heretical Toronto Blessing.
5] Kendrick is involved in promoting the whole counterfeit revival agenda.
We mention these things simply to show that evangelicals are now prepared to include material from such a source. One respondent to our critique suggested it was ridiculous to deplore Kendrick’s Shine, Jesus Shine because it was sung at a papal mass, when Psalm 23 may have been sung at such a venue too. However, my reply was this:
“True, Psalm 23 may well have been sung at such venues, but it has the reassuring advantage of being the inspired words of David and cast into metre by the hands of men who fought against popery and safeguarded the truth — in which heritage we still live today. The same will never be said of the Graham Kendricks of this world.”
Mr. Howe concluded his article with words that deserve the most serious consideration:
“For all the above reasons we should cease to sing worship songs by Graham Kendrick, as well as all those by other charismatic restorationists who have embarked upon the same, often hidden and unbiblical agenda. Instead of participating, however unwittingly and unintentionally, in the promotion of this agenda, we should promote a thoroughgoing theology of worship in which no place is given to the thinking of Kendrick and his fellow-charismatics. In particular, we should return to the singing of the Psalms and the great and tried hymns of our Christian past (and present, provided that they pass the doctrinal tests upon which our forebears insisted and which we should insist today). Anything less is to aid and abet the growth of the New Evangelical apostasy which is fast approaching.”
Praise! then, is highly significant, not for an increasingly biblical and God-glorifying approach to worship, but for the exact opposite.
2. We know how this hymn book has come about
While the above exposés are very welcome, as said earlier, the absence of a universal outcry is a sign of our times. It typifies an evangelicalism that is not in the same mould as that of our forefathers.
Reason
What is the reason for this? Why have we been caught napping, and have barely been able to rise up and tackle this hymnal? The reason lies in the events of the last forty or so years. As our readers will know, we can be deeply thankful to God for the recovery of a more doctrinal Christianity since the 1950s. Publishers like the Banner of Truth Trust and the ministry of Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, to mention but two, have called us back to the riches of the past and the timeless truths of the Reformed Faith. Once again, the works of the Reformers, Puritans, Spurgeon and Pink were read and prized. Undoubtedly, this reviving led to a new quality of preaching and living in the churches of Christ. The doctrines of grace sounded forth from the pulpits of our land.
Clear
However, as the decades passed, it became clear that not all was well. While this recovery of truth gave backbone and life to preaching, it did not seem to do the same for the character of worship. At first, while shared assumptions about worship were unchallenged, this was not a problem. Come the 1960s and 70s, however, and all that changed. The charismatic movement exploded upon us, and every aspect of our worship came up for re-examination. Things taken for granted until now: hymns reflecting biblical language, orderliness in worship, reverence, the use of only an organ or piano, the minister leading the praise, etc., all were thrown into a flux.
Consequence
The sad consequence was, that although the pulpit became largely reformed, the pew generally speaking, stayed the same. In other words, the nature and character of our worship did not experience the same reformation as the preaching did. Therefore, with our understanding of worship not enlarged and strengthened, it proved unable to resist the charismatic onslaught.
Dichotomy
This is why we now have a dichotomy in professedly Reformed churches these days. The preaching can sound quite Calvinistic, and yet the worship smacks of charismatic assumptions. So, for instance, a mini-orchestra is now desirable, a choir or singing group is necessary, a “worship leader” has become the norm. These are now found in churches that twenty years ago would never have dreamed of such things. Making scripture regulative for all the churches’ practice just did not happen.
Anomaly
This, then, is how we have the anomaly of a hymn book like Praise! Esteemed evangelical and Reformed men unite with others to compile historic hymns and modern songs for churches where Calvinism is heard but where the practice is nigh charismatic. A main driving force of Praise!, FIEC, comprises more than four hundred churches over a wide theological spectrum. On one end are some Calvinistic churches, yet on the other end are unashamedly charismatic ones. Its annual assembly, Caister, hosts renowned preachers like John McArthur, yet the worship could be straight from a charismatic convention led by Graham Kendrick.
Offensive
We cannot have it both ways. This amalgam of sound doctrine and corrupt practice in God’s church is offensive to Him. It is being “partial in the law” (Malachi 2:9), it is “strange fire before the LORD, which he commanded them not” (Leviticus 10:1), it is “will worship” (Colossians 2:23). We must only practice “commanded” things (Matthew 28:20) as much as we only preach commanded things (2 Timothy 1:13). Much is said these days about the need for revival, however, one wonders whether repentance should not come first before we can hope for God again to break over us with renewed times of refreshing.
3. We know something of the effects Praise! is having
One of the saddest features over the past months has been the reaction of our detractors to the critique of Praise! At first, when subscribers received it in the Quarterly, we received many expressions of deep gratitude. Afterwards, when the booklet form appeared, the thankful and supportive letters, emails and telephone calls returned. However, when the booklet began to go to ministers of all the main evangelical churches in the country, a very different response emerged. Although some were polite, the rest were almost invariably personal in their attacks and showed little grasp of the issue in question.
Sampling
Here is a sampling of the comments written and spoken to me:
“Negative about everything … unhelpful, ungracious and even, I regret to say, ridiculous comments.”
“You write as if you are perfect and have the complete truth … Neither is there any recognition that the predominantly growing churches in the UK are those which embrace modernism/charismatic style worship.”
“The lack of balance…”
“It seems to me that the Pharisaical spirit still lives in those who will self righteously oppose the Spirit of God to satisfy their own narrow interpretation of what should be sung or not.”
“That is an arrogant thing to say.”
“The godless and proud attitude you exemplify destroys any argument.”
“Offensive material … garbage.”
Penetration
Except the last, these are comments, not from zealous charismatics, but from evangelical/Reformed ministers and members of their congregations! The degree of charismatic penetration is such that many believers who would not seek their alleged miraculous gifts, yet seek to worship in similar fashion to them. This gross inconsistency has left others who have not changed their convictions open to misunderstanding and misrepresentation. For us, though, it is nothing other than our biblical duty to stand apart from participation in something that is manifestly wrong.
Complained
To one respondent who complained about the negative nature of the critique, I wrote:
“I appreciate that such an extended and critical treatment of this book may seem unnecessary and unfair. However, as I have tried to show, this is more than just a new hymn book, it is a new direction in evangelicalism. Never before have professed evangelicals been prepared to use, with tacit approval, the work of charismatics and ecumenists in something that will be offered to God in worship. Scripture commands us to separate from error and compromise, and sound clear warnings (Romans 16:17; 2 Thessalonians 3:6; 2 Timothy 4:1-5; 2 John 10,11). The Praise! hymn book does the opposite of this, and that is why we have critiqued it.”
I then concluded with these words:
“This hymn book then, is not simply a matter of preference or taste. It is a potentially ruinous vehicle for change in the already weakened and confused evangelicalism of our day. This, we acknowledge, was far from the thoughts and motives of the compilers. However, other Christians have a right to discern the issues and speak out in the name of spiritual leadership. At least we have done this — all we ask is that people consider our arguments (Acts 17:11) and it is to our own Master that we stand or fall (Romans 14:4).”
That brethren who love gospel doctrine should be debating matters like this is the tragedy of our day. Thirty years ago, an article like this would not have been written within our circles. The fact that it has to be written now is because older advocates of Praise! have changed from what they were. We have not changed, yet we are accused of being “divisive.” However, let us ever remember, brethren who turn aside are the ones who create division. Because they part company with those who remain in the same track, they have done the dividing by ceasing to follow that which is good (1 Thessalonians 5:15).
Compromise
This compromise has made the subject of worship a controversial one. It is almost a “no go” area now. People have not wanted to get involved in the debate, fearing they will be labelled uncharitable and worse. With such scrupulous care over what we can say or write, is it any wonder that the charismatic bandwagon rolls on, carrying the unwary further away from our biblical heritage? It is happening by default, because much of evangelicalism is too nervous to speak out. Will God not require such cowardice of this generation?
Theological modernism
More than a hundred years ago, C.H. Spurgeon saw the theological modernism creeping through nonconformity. He correctly identified it as Higher Criticism from Germany. British promoters, though, were often Christian men who believed that it had something to teach us, in principle. Aspects of this could modify the more rugged truths, and thus make them more acceptable to the unchurched. We now know that its effects were simply to undermine and betray the truth. Few stood with Spurgeon, as he denounced this unbelief and unfaithfulness dressed up as “progress.” They dismissed him as merely wanting to maintain a fossilised Puritanism and hold back necessary change. Yet, few now doubt that his assessment was correct.
We face another modernism today in the flotilla of new worship material and its flagship Praise! It is not a modernism in doctrine but in practice. We believe that its effects now and in the future will be to fritter away things that our forefathers held dear in the Church of God.
Doctrine as well
Moreover, although it is practice that is now affected, the long-term affects will be to undermine doctrine as well. Already the Praise! team are talking about adding to the material in the book, inviting new writers to offer their work and planning workshops and conferences to help them in this. The likelihood is that Praise! will evolve into a more modern hymnal yet, filled with increasingly vapid theology. Churches that sing this will gradually lose their hold on clear-cut gospel doctrine. Time will tell because it always has the last word on these things.
Discern
Our great need is to discern the issues, declare God’s word and look to the Lord to maintain His cause. As we do this, let us pray that God will turn the tide against Praise! and all it represents, and restore biblical and historic standards in our day. May He yet turn our sadness into joy. Spurgeon’s ringing words form a fitting conclusion and seem written for our time:
“Remember, whether you do so or not, great are your responsibilities. There never was a more restless time than now. What is being done to-day will affect the next centuries, unless the Lord should very speedily come. I believe that, if we walk uprightly and decidedly before God at this time, we shall make the future of England bright with the gospel; but trimming now, and debasing doctrine now, will affect children yet unborn, generation after generation. Posterity must be considered. I do not look so much at what is to happen to-day, for these things relate to eternity. For my part, I am quite willing to be eaten of dogs for the next fifty years; but the more distant future shall vindicate me. I have dealt honestly before the living God. My brother, do the same. Who knows but what thou art come to the kingdom for such a time as this? If thou hast grit in thee, quit thyself like a man. If thou hast God in thee, then thou mayest yet do marvels. But if not, bent, doubled up, proven to be useless, thou shalt lie on that foul dunghill which is made up of cowards’ failures and misspent lives. God save both thee and me from that disgrace!”