One good thing about hymnals is that you don't have the projectionist forgetting to advance the slides and leaving everybody humming along. Of course you're kind of locked into a certain list of songs with the hymnals, whereas Powerpoint can mix it around a bit.

I love the worship slides on the big screen. It’s easy to see and the minister likes having visuals. I’m also the one who puts ours together. I carefully select the pictures to make it nice for those who are paying attention. Thank you Big T bird once again I used your picture this Sunday for a song, the theme was silhouette so it fit right in.

We use Easy Worship. Not always that easy. They need to think about the fact that someone had to put it all together. I get the email of the line up and start hunting for all the songs then I proof them and select the pictures. I look several places for photographs. It takes a bit of time putting it all together. They should appreciate the fact that we do this for them.

I’m with you it’s nice to have the words right there and not have to look for the song in a book. I often forget my glasses so I can’t see those little words.

I don’t think you’re missing anything at all I think that people are always ready to find something and if this is it then they are in a good place to worship. Trust me there are bigger things to be upset about.

Can someone explain to me the seething rage against the use of PowerPoint in corporate worship times?

Because PowerPoint is a tool of the Devil.

(The fact that you don't already know that makes you a bit suspect.)

Personally, I don't have a problem with the slides, but there have been some churches that I've visited, they put in the PowerPoint projector and pulled out the hymnals. I DO have a problem with that.

Many of the hymns are played at a pitch too high for my voice, but one octave down is too low. If I have the notes in front of me I sing alto, but the notes are not on the PowerPoint slide.

I like to see the notes, especially with a song that is new to me. I want to be able to see where the music is going.

Another possible thing is that with a hymnal the 7-11 leader has a little more difficulty repeating the same slide 10 times. ;-)

One good thing about hymnals is that you don't have the projectionist forgetting to advance the slides and leaving everybody humming along.

Hey! We are doing our best.
(Don't cry Milly Don't cry there is no cry'n in the sound booth.)

Excuse me I have something in my eye.

Okay, I hadn't thought of sight-reading the notes.

I can't read music and have never had trouble picking up a song's melody "by ear," but I can see that the lack of sheet music being an obvious difference between lyrics on a slide and the song in a hymnal.

The way people talk about the PowerPoint thing, though, I figured there was some clear demonic connection I was missing. I was beginning to suspect that the hatred of PowerPoint was sort of along the lines of "Hey, hymnals were good enough for Jesus."

Our Army military chapel moved to slides for the crappy "praise" choruses while keeping the books for the hymns. Can we think a little bit about the use of visual versus the Word? Is there a contrast here? See Jacques Ellul's book, "the Humiliation of the Word."
I thought it was a hoot in our chapel that the projecting screen did a good job of covering up the Cross. Enough said.

Did you never have the intermediate stage of the wonders of OHP (over head projector) slides? Inevitably too small or written in indecipherable hand-writing or put on backwards or out of focus or just too faint to read. Power Point (or more likely some specialist song-lyrics software since PowerPoint alone is a bit too simple) is infinitely preferable.

I do agree about dots and sticks, though. I'm forever learning new songs without the benefit of written music and sometimes it would make life a lot simpler. But so few people at my church are used to part singing hymns, that there really wouldn't be much point in handing out hymnals with music in. Plus the number of hymns we sing with defined SATB parts (as opposed to harmonies people make up on the spot) is pretty small.

And you can't wave your hands in the air or dance or jump up and down with your nose stuck in a book. Well maybe you can a bit. :-)

My only major issue with Powerpoint up on the overhead is the issue of using images along with the song. It's not a theological issue, but our church will some have dancing silhouettes, moving fields, cameras moving through tunnels, and visuals that look like they came from ITunes. Either that or it's filled with Clip Art that makes every song look like a web page circa 1997. I just wanted the words, I didn't need the whole A/V experience.

Otherwise it's no big deal -- provided they don't launch into a ton of new songs every week. Some of us would appreciate some written music if it comes to that.

There's nothing wrong with using overhead projectors and Powerpoint to show the lyrics of hymns sung in worship. In the Philippines, Catholic churches have been doing that for over 30 years, since the invention of the overhead projector. They would use a blank wall or a large white sheet on which to project the lyrics for everyone to sing to. Catholic churches in the Philippines rarely use hymnals because they get worn from all the numerous hands that hold them every Sunday. And some could also have gotten stolen numerous times or torn by accident.

I'll be honest in saying I prefer the slides. Our guy picks great visuals that are neither bland nor obtrusive, he switches slides with perfect timing, etc.

I understand the "crappy praise chorus" thing, by which I mean, if you hate new worship music generally, it's more about that than it is about reading lyrics off of a slide.
I just haven't understood the sheer righteous indignation about the function of PowerPoint vs. hymnals.

Can we think a little bit about the use of visual versus the Word?

Are hymnals "the Word"?

It's that sort of theologizing of the issue that confuses me. The hymnal is sacred?

I think this is one of those issues that someone will always look for something to complain about. They don’t like the song choices. Get involved with the choir. I think if you do you’ll find that they aren’t looking to make worship fluff they want to make it a good experience for everyone. As for the song books well in some places it would mean spending more money and being limited to only the songs in the book. Not that they don’t have value we incorporate those also. Sitting next to me is a huge notebook and a hymnal so that I can proof the songs. As for the person running the slides yes we sometimes advance too soon or trail, we’re human. We also miss the songs number in books and find ourselves searching through the book hoping to find it then find where everyone is and so on. And if you have small children to attend to you might as well give it up at times.

We don’t do the high tech videos during the songs so no tunnels. I do work hard to put nice pictures behind those words. I want all of those involved to have a good worship experience. If this issue is stopping you then I wonder if you have your priorities in place. Nope not trying to start a disagreement I’ve been working rather hard on keeping my focus on God after what the elders have done to my husband and me. You have to let God in and let all that stuff go. (Hmmm there is a bumper sticker in this one)

Ellen,
As for wanting the music to follow ask the worship minister for it, they should have copies and would be happy to share.

Is Richard getting at the use of background images and the effect that has on what we think about besides the lyrics?

I find background images distracting, unless they're very simple. (our church doesn't use them for songs, which I like). The choice of background could reinforce a particular theme of the song, which might be useful and might not. Depends on the song, the image, the context. Personally, I would prefer not having a picture background. It also helps readability.

Jared, of course not, the hymnal isn't sacred. I'm just wondering out loud about the impact of visuals versus reading. Again, I encourage you to read the Ellul book--I think he makes a major point on what we do when we turn to visual things versus picking up a book and reading. I also wonder about what I see as some of the "super-spirituality" of those who abandon hymnals so they can worship "in the Spirit." There is more going on here than a power-point argument, I think.

So it's not so much the medium itself as it is the execution.

Our church service just puts the words on a screen with no background images or anything.
At Element we use background images, and our guy is so good at changing the color of words for readability, finding images (some of which is animated, yes) that complement a song's theme or vibe.

I'm a real stickler for draining entertainment from the worship experience, and I am thankful that the folks who use technology at our service for twentysomethings feel the same and use these programming elements wisely and modestly.
I've never felt pulled out of worship because of a city streets scene behind the words on a song or something and in fact most of the time this stuff they use enhances the sense of the numinous for me. Can't really explain that except to say that well presented art can really reflect God's glory.

Richard, I hear you. I may check out that book, but I don't know if a philosophical argument is really what I "need."
As a writer, reader, and devoted biblicist I certainly share concerns about illiteracy -- biblical and otherwise. We do live in the MTV generation and all that -- insert bemoaning of cultural deterioration here.

I'd also never say one vehicle for lyrics makes one more or less spiritual than the other. That's kind of my point in not understanding this issue -- it has sounded like PowerPoint is less spiritual, less holy, less whatever.

I think as with all things in the worship wars, there are good ideas and bad ideas, good songs and bad songs, and generalizations (old is boring, new is shallow) are pretty unhelpful (not to mention frequently untrue).

A good hymnal is an entire directory for worship. Good ones have prayers, Psalms (some even the entire book), the ecumenical creeds, and in confessional bodies, either/both the confession of faith or/and the catechism. In other words, a good hymnal is both an aid for worship and a teaching book.

I don't see anything wrong per se with projecting the words of songs on a screen. But I do think when that is accompanied by the elimination of hymn books that we are perpetuating the current cultural trend of breaking our connections to sacred history, especially in the traditions that have built up for the purpose of teaching and instruction. Included among these are music. Ellen's point about reading music is a case in point. It isn't biblically mandated to sing hymns in 4-part harmony, but it is a 4-century-old way that Christians, especially reformational Christians, have enriched congregational singing in the Church. I think we become poorer when we readily dispose of such things for the sake of principles like "effective" and "efficient," the marks of technological thinking. But both singing and worship are legitimate and valuable for reasons other than technique. We cannot escape conventions, be they big hymn books or multimedia projection; the question is, what guides our choices about how we are going to be conventional?

Speaking of Ellul (good suggestion there, Richard), his book Propaganda is also pertinent, I think. He has a fascinating analysis of the psychological and sociological mechanisms of propaganda, especially how they shape our public and human relations. Much of my resistance to appropriating the techniques and gadgetry of our society has to do with how seamlessly it fits within the larger net of technological society, thus contributing to rather than subverting or challenging the environment, the atmosphere, the climate created that eradicates all moments for meditation or reflection (among other things). The way these techniques work in the broader culture is to create ambiguities, to make us more malleable and ready to accept and follow suggestions. Propaganda, if successful, occupies every moment of life, causing individuals to live in a separated world, isolated in the "lonely crowd," by a process that works by slow, constant impregnation. And because of this structural continuity between the technological world and the technological church, I think the images imposed through the medium become integrated with a worldview determined by the broader culture which uses the same techniques.

I prefer a hymnal because of what's in our hymnal. I don't mind protected screens at all, but I have had trouble with new songs and no music to go by. I missed an entire song at a church once because it was completely new to me, short, and the lyrics were printed in the bulletin.

Another point to bring up is that presentations must be prepared each time, unless you keep a library of them. That's more work than needed.

Still another point is that a hymnal is something a music lover could borrow or buy to enjoy at home. There's a wealth of music many of us have never heard in the good hymnals still in print.

None of this justifies any vitriol you've read, Jared. That probably has more to do with indiviudal grumbling/discontent than sound argument.

What Ellen said. I like singing parts sometimes and it just feels like we're losing something by everyone singing the melody line. I'll admit that has a lot to do with personal preference. But, while my talented wife can pick her part out like chewing gum, I sometimes need to see it written down. Other than that, slides are da bomb. No vitriol here.

Joel makes a good point that the hymn book is a directory of worship--and it's approved by a church body. Songs that you can slap on a power point--written by whom? can carry all sorts of theological diseases.
Another good book (hey, we are all book lovers here!) that may impact is "Technopoly," by Neal Postman. Sorry for getting philosophical on you, Jared.

It does not matter if we sing in harmony with our powerpoint slides, since the Worship Team (rock band) drowns everyone out anyway.

We avoid the PP hatred by using Media Shout. ;-)

Our graphics staff are amazing and create fantastic slides for a sermon series that fit the theme of the series. These slides serve as the backgrounds for the song slides as well as the sermon notes slides.

Anyone seen the Fred Charles Coupleton videos? Our church started using them a couple of weeks ago - they're totally random and weird and hilarious. I can't find a link and I have no idea who makes them - they're for churches to use to get people into their auditoriums at the start of the service.

Raindream, of course you keep a library of them--that's SOP.

Jared, a lot of this, I agree with earlier posters, is that folks who know how to read music prefer to have the music in front of them; it's why my personal preference is to have both the projection system (which, if the screen is big enough, is easier for people to read, and which keeps their heads up, which is better) and printed songbooks (which allow people to read music, and sometimes even sing harmony on the recent stuff).

However, I think there's something larger here: there are a lot of people outside the church who loudly and vitriolically loathe PowerPoint as well--there's a real backlash against it these days. I think what we're really seeing is something going on in the broader culture which is being amplified in the church because it resonates well with our resistance to change.

Oh, and Inklingstar--yeah, that's another rant, but it's a real problem.

Inklingstar is right. I've been in worship services with the praise band jamming so that the only difference I could discern between the service and a rock concert is that we didn't have that funny sweet smell driftng up to the ceiling of the sanctuary.

I can't speak to the Ellul book, but it was reading Postman (Amusing Ourselves to Death) that really changed my mind on this issue.

The only real problem I have with using a screen to project computer images is that some people with poor eyesite have a hard time with contrast. If there is an image behind the lyrics the lyrics can get lost in the image. It's happened to me but more so to my mom and most of her friends who are in their late seventies or eighties.

If the image behind the lyrics moves it causes a bigger focusing problem and could contribute to slight dizziness.

On the other hand often the lyrics in the hymnals are too small. Especially for older church attenders.

Hmmm... don't know. Our church has used the overhead for 20 years now.

I have heard people who become Christians as adults say that it is intimidating to look up and sing out loud - they literally have never done it before.

Usually their only frame of reference is a nominal church background where noses were in hymnals - it is less intimidating to mouth the words when you know everyone else is looking down - but it is VERY intimidating to those new to power point worship slides to have to look up and sing aloud - I've heard this said and I guess it makes sense to me.

We have a generation of kids now though who (even if they're nominally churched) are brought up in the power point worship age - so I think this will become less of an issue as time goes on - especially if churches get their acts together and put the WHOLE worship experience - creeds, the "good" hymns of old, etc into the multi-media experience.

Raindream,
Another point to bring up is that presentations must be prepared each time, unless you keep a library of them. That's more work than needed.

There are many worship slide programs. We use Easy Worship it has a huge amount of songs in its data base. Still you have to find other songs not in it so I use the hymnal and a note book prepared by the worship minister, if these fail me I start looking on line for said song. Sometimes my job keeps me from stopping by the rehearsals for the music. I also have him email them when all else fails. The cool thing is that they are able to make changes to the songs to enhance the music. You make changes in your data base and it’s ready for the next time. As for selecting the pictures I love it. I pick themes for worship so that they all go together.

So as for being too much work it’s what I do and I love it.

Sorry that it might hurt someone’s eyes it helps mine because I don’t adjust quickly so I can always see the words, fuzzy at times still I can see them.

Of course, if we argue that the background images are distracting, we could also argue that open windows, stained glass, or anything else visually appealing is also distracting. Or even loud dresses, babies crying, etc. I think we need to realize that it is a bad design that distracts, not the image or medium itself.

folks who know how to read music prefer to have the music in front of them

I have to say that I do know how to read music, and play a couple of instruments, and I find the notes distracting. I don't want to think about the notes people missed, or the chord changes they decided on, or to have to dig through a poor page design to find the next line (it does happen). Everyone is different, but to me there is too much to think about on the hymnal page, and I can never get into worship.

there are a lot of people outside the church who loudly and vitriolically loathe PowerPoint as well--there's a real backlash against it these days

That is true - mainly because people just read from the screen and make the PP as boring as the lecture without the PP. Once again, people are reacting to the bad design (or bad teaching) but blaming it on the medium itself.

have to dig through a poor page design to find the next line

Yeah, I know that one. I wonder occasionally if the people who design hymnals actually sing from them . . . Still, in general, your particular viewpoint isn't one I've heard before. I can see where you're coming from, though.

That is true - mainly because people just read from the screen and make the PP as boring as the lecture without the PP. Once again, people are reacting to the bad design (or bad teaching) but blaming it on the medium itself.

The criticism seems to be expanding beyond that, too, though, to a more existential critique (for lack of a better term) of the program itself. I'll be honest and admit I don't quite track with the arguments I've heard people make; but I'm hearing them more and more often for all that.

Wow, didn't quite expect this much response. :-) I thought this was a throwaway post, pretty much.

I'm not surprised, I guess, that the "worship wars" thing has bled into this discussion a bit. But I guess the PowerPoint as tool of church amusement doesn't jibe with me. I think quality of worship has more to do with the substance of the songs, the pastoral competency of the worship leader, and the spirit of the congregation than instruments or technology. But I don't think all style is "neutral," for what that's worth.

Lots I could say, but in reference to powerpoint itself, i'd have to agree with Joe. :)

this is kind of a tangent to the discussion but came to mind as i skimmed some of these comments... i was listening to one of the Briscoes teach on worship awhile back, and he was talking about the personal preferences we bring to worship, and our need to, at times, exercise "personal deference" - choosing to acknowledge that while something may not be particularly worshipful to us, that person over there is rather obviously meeting with God - and choosing to be glad for that, and to worship God for both the varieties of ways in which He so graciously receives our worship, and for the varieties of ways in which He so graciously meets with us. Obviously this doesn't necessarily solve our problems in determining the general format of how we will "do" worship in our church - but it does give us the freedom to recognize that there are actually good reasons (in addition to some of the admittedly bad ones) for why different churches do different things in different ways, and can bring us a step closer to unity. :)

Wow, didn't quite expect this much response. :-)

Yeah, this post is solidly in the sidebar--only 14 more comments, and we're in second. :)

Seriously, though, the reason that it isn't a throwaway post is that you've touched on an issue which is both significant and underdiscussed--namely, the relationship between our worship and the technology we use to help make that happen. To the extent to which Marshall McLuhan was right that "the medium is the message," our technology isn't just passive, it shapes our worship. (One can, of course, debate McLuhan's thesis, but you can't just assume it out of existence.) The American church these days isn't all that wonderful these days at thinking theologically about things, and the matter of our worship technology is probably one of the bigger examples of that; you've created an opportunity for theological reflection on PowerPoint, and there's an honest need for that.

Oh, and Hap, I'd say agreeing with Joe is usually a pretty good idea; that's a rather large outpost he has over there. :)

Joel makes a good point that the hymn book is a directory of worship--and it's approved by a church body. Songs that you can slap on a power point--written by whom? can carry all sorts of theological diseases.

To be fair, if you look for it, there is some real crap lurking in hymnals, too. The Baptist hymnal I own has songs like "Faith is the Victory", "Stand Up, Stand Up for Jesus", "When Stephen, Full of Power and Grace", "Onward Christian Soldiers", "Ready", and "Lead On, O King Eternal", all in the span of about 20 pages. None of those songs were without theological error, and a couple of them troubled me a great deal.
I love singing hymns (and I've even sung them using PowerPoint :-)), but if you are trying to say that because a song is in a hymnal, you can be sure that it is theologically sound, I think you are wrong. If what you meant was that the ones you sing are selected by your church body, then that's good, provided you trust your church body. There are plenty of good modern worship leaders out there who are very careful in song selection and put a lot of prayer into it.

Songs that you can slap on a power point--written by whom?

Maybe I don't understand what you mean, but again, to be fair, most churches I've been to that use PowerPoint cite the author on the last slide of each song.
But does a song's author really matter? If it does, then it might be appropriate to note that many hymn writers wrote hymns as a way to make money. Many of the hymns we sing today were written for the state churches in England and Germany, who were willing to pass over a hefty chunk of change in exchange for a tasty melody (err, 4 part harmony). If it matters who wrote it, then I think we would have to cut our hymnals pretty significantly, to eliminate all of the mercenaries.
And, obviously, none of these writers were perfect. Case and point: Horatio Spafford. "It is Well With My Soul" is one of our most beloved hymns, and the story behind it makes it even more amazing. But shortly after the hymn was written, Spafford, overcome with his grief, began a cult in Jerusalem, and died believing he was the second Messiah.
And we're all familiar with Martin Luther's imperfections.
In my view, if a song gives glory to God, then it doesn't matter what crummy jerk wrote it.

If I misunderstood you, Richard, I apologize, and I understand where you are coming from. I hope I wasn't rude, because that wasn't my intention. I just saw a few things that I felt needed response.

Andrew, what's wrong with the songs you referred to? There's a couple there I'm not familiar with, but I don't recall any glaring problems with the rest. They wouldn't be on my list of problematic hymns.

At any rate, I think what Richard was getting at with his "written by whom" comment is a gatekeeper issue. Certainly all men are sinners and fallible, and we all, even in groups, have our blind spots. But a group that puts together a hymnal/book of confessions ordinarily will be guys the church or denomination trusts to have wisdom, and their work as a group can help ensure that most songs with problematic theology will be kept out.

Of course, there's always the political side of church life-- the side that ensures the favorite hymn of some rich dude's grandma will be kept in no matter what doctrinal nonsense it contains.

If you trust a single guy (worship leader) to do that, you're depriving him of the gift of wise brothers to share in that responsibility. Not to mention that putting that on one guy, week to week, turns it into an ad hoc process and can be a time burden.

Even if you put it in the hands of the group responsible for leading worship, you have to consider whether theological discernment is really a part of their gifts. I certainly don't think musicians are generally disqualified from theological judgment, but a lot of churches have a tendency to trust music ministry to guys who play a wicked guitar or can sing really well, without regard to whether they have their theological wits about them. Music is a powerful teaching tool.

Andrew--no, you were'nt being rude, and I appreciate your point. I agree--there is a lot of crap in hymnals. "In the Garden" makes me want to lose my lunch. And the writers of the hymns could be real jerks. I didn't know that about Spafford--now, you've spoiled the hymn for me, I'll always think of him pretending to be the Second Person of the Trinity as I sing "It is Well With My Soul." Yuck.
No--Alan is right, this is a gatekeeper issue. As a PCA guy, I want to sing hymns that have been approved and filtered by my denomination for REAL theological error; and that type of stuff is all out there in the CCM world, believe me. I think a power-point presentation can lead to this type of random selection of hymns written by God-knows-who, Brother Fred, who suddenly gets it into his head to write a praise song.

Although, as a PCA guy, we have our own issues with hymnals.

Yes, Alan, and I've seen alterations in the Trinity hymnals we use at church. "And Can It Be" is the example you pointed out last year. I don't think this is inappropriate. Why should a church avoid a good song because part of it teaches a doctrine they disagree with?

I don't know what's wrong with "Stand Up, Stand Up for Jesus", "Onward Christian Soldiers", or "Lead On, O King Eternal." Perhaps I should look those up. Maybe my hymnal altered parts of them.

But about PowerPoint, my worst experience with it has been within a sermon. I have visited a church three or four times, and most of those times the slides added very little if anything to the sermon. Once the slides were, well, stupid.

Postman's "Amusing Ourselves to Death", as another commenter noted, has informed me the most on this issue. The church has, by infusing the TV culture of entertainment into worship and the entire life of the church had diluted the core place of the church in the life of believers and in society at large. I believe having screens with just the words is one thing, but incorporating video, clipart, and the rest sets a dangerous precedent that says "This is about being entertained." The medium does shape the message, whether you like it or not. The connotation of a hymnal is literacy, deep theology (granted, perhaps suspect in some hymns/hymnals), and a general feeling of a 'typographic culture', as Postman puts it. The connotation of Powerpoint/slides/video is entertainment.
I'm a member of an outreach focused church (not seeker sensitive, per se) and we have screens with words and videos and even dramas. I've become more and more discontent with this setup because of the lack of depth and 'entertainment quality' of the proceedings. I think the use of all this technology is a big contributor.

By the way, I write software for a living. How's that for a paradox!

One could argue that Powerpoint in the style of overheads (monochrome, words only) would have the benefits without the drawbacks I see above. I think it is a slippery slope in some sense, in that, it's not long before someone decides that pretty pictures would be 'helpful', and so on and so forth.

Sorry for the disorganized comment. To sum up, read Postman's book.

Raindream, I agree that we shouldn't be bound by a writer's bad theology. My concern is twofold: one, that some have a hair trigger on their revisionist pens, so to speak, and two, I think we have an obligation to make it clear enough that the revisions don't reflect the author's original words. I'll bet there are thousands of PCAers out there who have come away with the impression that Wesley was a Calvinist, for example.

As to the Postman references, I don't really disagree that he's got some good insights, but for an interesting counterpoint, one might take a look at Steven Johnson's Everything Bad is Good for You.

I believe having screens with just the words is one thing, but incorporating video, clipart, and the rest sets a dangerous precedent that says "This is about being entertained." The medium does shape the message, whether you like it or not.

But anyone that has been to even a basic design class, or even a basic class on teaching, has also been taught that the message can overcome the medium. As someone that has done graphic design and preaching/teaching, I can throw this in here: if the medium is shaping your message beyond what you want it to, the message is weak. Blaming the medium is just a weak cop out by designers and preachers. Postman has interesting points, but I am never comfortable placing the blame for lack of depth on anyone but myself when I am involved in communicating from up front. Once again, people are reacting to the bad design (or bad teaching) but blaming it on the medium itself. Someone that really understands what they are doing will know that medium will shape the message, and will take that into account when designing the medium.

AM - I agree. I hear the arguments, but don't "track with the arguments I've heard people make".

Richard,
Thanks for clearing that up, I understand now. My experience with this whole issue has been pretty rosy, but I can see where problems would arise. Thankfully, there are some very godly men in charge of song selection at my church, and I trust them, because for the most part, the songs are Christ-centered and very glorifying.

Alan,

"Onward Christian soldiers, marching as to war" is a line I find particularly unsettling. That line reminds me of the Crusades more than anything. The song isn't bad or heretical, I just wouldn't want to sing it in a worship service.
My qualms with "Stand Up, Stand Up for Jesus" and "Lead on, O King Eternal" are the same as with "Onward Christian Soldiers". It seems more of a rallying call and less of a worship song. I guess I'm not too down with the Christian-warrior thing.
"When Stephen, Full of Power and Grace" would make a great addition to the next Sufjan Stevens album, but I can't see actually worshiping God during that song.

The issues I had with them weren't "glaring", I literally just turned to a random page in my hymnal and flipped through, writing down ones I would have a problem singing in the context of a worship service. Personally, many of the qualms I read with modern worship songs aren't "glaring", either. Some are downright nit-picky. I agree there are problems, and there are some really bad songs sung in church, but many times I read these arguments about the "theological merit" of modern worship, I find that the arguments are less theological and scriptural, and more musical. I led worship for a while, and there were songs I chose not to sing because I didn't feel they were right for a worship service. But reading stuff like this just makes me shiver to think about the men in the back of the room worrying about whether or not the song we are singing emphasizes Baptist doctrine enough while kids in the audience are actually worshiping. I'm very young, and certainly not as discerning, but I've heard people rant about songs that, in my view, bring a great deal of glory to God.
At this point, I'm way off the PowerPoint vs. Hymnal argument so I'll wrap it up. I don't have a problem with either, and I've had great experiences with both (to answer the original question). I think the majority of objections raised about them are objections based on taste. That's all.

The Crusades have gotten a bad rap--as a partially-trained historian, I say that with all seriousness--but that's another post (on maybe another blog, at that); the fact is, we are at war, with the principalities and powers of this present darkness. We need to be very careful not to confuse that with being at war with other people, but I don't think it does us any good to back away from that fact.

I'm interested in your description of such songs as "more of a rallying call and less of a worship song." From my point of view, I'd say there are a lot of different kinds of worship songs, for different parts of the service; depending on the Scriptures and the sermon, there are times when rallying calls are appropriate, even necessary, as part of worship. (Again, they have to be used carefully, lest worship devolve into jingoism; but then, everything has to be used carefully.)

whether or not the song we are singing emphasizes Baptist doctrine enough while kids in the audience are actually worshiping.

Is it really an either/or?

What Ellen said. I sing alto. The accompanist may or may not even be playing the alto part, but I just can't reach the soprano notes. I end up with the awkwardness of singing soprano on the low half of the lines, and backed-off-on-octave pseudo-tenor for the high half of the lines. And that's without the whole "new song" thing, where I'd be able to sing starting with verse 1 (instead of verse 2 or 3) if I had the notes.

(sigh)

Can't really think of anything to add other than that.

I think something that hasn't been touched on here is the symbolic nature of having a screen front and center as opposed to, in my last church, a cross. When we went to projected lyrics and power point during the sermon, the screen actually covered up the cross that was centered above the baptistry, and as architecture or decoration drew minds to ponder the meaning of the death of Christ. This bothered me at first, and then I got over it. But it may be what some people are decrying.

Exactly, Sherry--this happened at my church. And our family NEVER got over that symbolic message. Also, the symbol of the praise band's guitars draped across the altar up front as we came into the sanctuary. Both symbols spoke volumes of what was important here.

I'm interested in your description of such songs as "more of a rallying call and less of a worship song." From my point of view, I'd say there are a lot of different kinds of worship songs, for different parts of the service; depending on the Scriptures and the sermon, there are times when rallying calls are appropriate, even necessary, as part of worship.

Agree to disagree.

Is it really an either/or?

It just bugs me when I hear nit-picky arguments about good songs that glorify God.

Andrew, we should be specific about doctrine in our songs. Details are important. Can you imagine a great song with a line or two in it about God's love ushering everyone, believers and nonbelievers, into heaven at the end of time? That would pretty much ruin the song. But if the rest of the song was so worshipful, maybe jsut that line could be changed?

Alan, I'll bet there are thousands of PCAers out there who have come away with the impression that Wesley was a Calvinist, for example. I know that has been true in my church, though maybe not specifically that Wesley was Calvinist. I know that some in my church do or have believed that our Trinity hymnal is theologically correct because it preserves the original hymns as written. So the line on "Adam's helpless race"? Nope. Can't have it.

In the latest issue of Reformed Worship, Dean Heetderks' back-cover column ("Come and See," a column on art in the church) is on that issue of the screen covering the cross. He came up with various suggestions, but never quite got to the one that seems obvious to me: put the screen off to one side. (Have two of them, even!)

Andrew, I'm afraid I have to disagree with your dismissal. As a preacher, there are times when that's where the text goes, and the appropriate congregational response after the sermon is precisely the sort of "rallying-cry" song for which you're showing such disdain. I would suggest--and I mean this in all seriousness, since it seems pretty clear you have some real gifts in this area--that if you have problems with those that exist, that you write a better one. I'll certainly agree that the ones you mention could be bettered; the only one I actually use is "Lead On, O King Eternal," and since I'm not Alan, the post-millennial note of that one makes me a little uncomfortable. If you write something better, you'd be doing the church a real service.

As for the either/or, along the same lines as Raindream, I would argue that songs that say things about God which are not true don't glorify him, at least to that extent. It's certainly possible to be over-picky; we do "And Can It Be" as Wesley wrote it, and who cares if I don't agree with every aspect of the song's theology? (Though actually, as it happens, I don't have a problem with any of it.) Objecting to a song because it's not Baptist enough, or whatever, seems to me to be rather much. That said, there are songs I don't do, despite the fact that I love them and I know people will have an emotional response to singing them which they will characterize as worshipful, because what they say about God and the church is not, in fact, glorifying to God. The fact that we feel like we're worshiping doesn't necessarily mean it's God we're worshiping.

I have actually rarely seen a screen in the front. I did see it once - but there was no cross behind it. Just a baptismal pit. But seeing that we place worship lyrics on those screens - what does it really symbolize? Or, if we are supposed to even have a cross up front and center on stage, what does that say about all the churches that don't? Nothing really, but you could get off on some really baseless tangents on this subject.

Some people tell me that it is blasphemy to place a Bible on the floor. Some people say that it is disrespectful to write notes in the margin of the Holy Word. I am glad that God said not to worship idols, and that all of these symbolic problems are only in the eyes of the beholder, not in God's eyes. A screen in front of a cross means nothing, unless you place undue attention on the cross it self as an icon and not what it represents.

AM,

Great comment! I couldn't agree more on the last paragraph.

Wesley wasn't a Calvinist?! Lol, the things you learn... :)

Richard, two things: 1) I am so sorry that the cross was replaced by a screen in your church building (Sherry, too - and all of you for whom that's been the case). I recently watched a number of crosses come down and a beautiful stained glass window get boarded over in my own church building, and it saddened me... I wish there were ways - well, I could go on a long rant here, but what it comes down to is that someday we'll figure it out, this "doing" church thing... and in the meantime, I'm sorry.

and 2) i'm curious about what you said about the "symbol" of guitars draped all over the altar... um...where else would you put them? that said, i'll be the first to admit that as a "contemporary" (whatever that means) worship leader, i'd be much comfier leading worship from the back of the room (and to be honest, the times i've gotten to do that have been few but GREAT) - but there is only so much space...

Jared, yes, way tangented - but this is a great discussion, tangents and all - i've learned a lot. :)

I know I'm chiming in late here, but in case no one else has said it, I want to point out that almost all projection aides (whether they are powerpoints or slides or simple projectors) discriminate against the vertically challenged.

Yeah, I'm wording it goof-ily, but I'm not really joking. I'm only 4'11" and at most churches I've visited that used some kind of screen for displaying lyrics, I CANNOT SEE THE SCREEN (not well enough to follow along all the time) when "normal" sized people sit in front of me.* Having projectors or PowerPoint displays in addition to hymnals is cool; having such visuals instead of hymnals or songsheets is not cool, at least not for us shorties. I am not joking when I say that it offends me that some churches are so blind to the differing needs of their congregants or visitors that they do away with hand-held lyrics entirely.

* And if I can't see the screen, I'm sure that most elementary-school children can't . . . but wait, they belong in children's worship, don't they? Perhaps that's where I should be.

My sympathy Teresa! I'm a little surprised though . . . I'm only about 5'1" (cough) myself and I've found screens to be a boon . . . most churches that I've been in that have used them have projected the words well over the heads of congregation. The issue is definitely one we need to be concious of though--especially in regards to your last point, which i very much appreciate you making. We need to make our children welcome in our worship services--and that means actively considering their needs and not just using something labeled "children's worship" as a way of shuffling them out of the way of the adults. Properly done, screens could actually help this, since using projection you can have the lyrics be a much more readable size than your average hymnal. I know how impossible my just-learning-to-read five-year old found following the 6 pt. font to be . . .

Teresa does make a good point. And have we thought of us older people who are in these services? Is a screen of power point away in the distance something that works for them (us) as well?

Some of these churches are so big, they ought to start taking the airline approach--either have screens at various points over the congregation, or just put little ones in the seatbacks.

But yeah, I think the main thing is that churches need to actually think about, and think through, these issues

a) from the perspectives of every group of people who comes, or might come, and

b) within the context of their overall philosophy of ministry.

Too often, I think the problem comes when churches see it as an either/or, hymnals or songbooks vs. PowerPoint, and just do what everyone else is doing.

"I'm a little surprised though . . . I'm only about 5'1" (cough) myself and I've found screens to be a boon . . . most churches that I've been in that have used them have projected the words well over the heads of congregation."

To be fair, most of the time what happens is that I can see the majority of the lyrics, but the bottom line or two will be blocked out by someone's head. The problem is worse if the congregation is standing to sing than if we're all seated. And while I can sometimes get around this by craning my neck sideways to see around Mr. Bighead in front of me, this gets tiring after the first couple of songs, and it doesn't work when there happen to be multiple tall people in front of me.

My own church doesn't use screens, so this is something that bothers me only when I visit other churches, and it may be that I am drawing from too small of a group to make generalizations. I HAVE been to churches that placed screens high enough to be readily visible, and it may just be that I've been unlucky in my experience of churches that did not have them so well placed.

To be fair, most of the time what happens is that I can see the majority of the lyrics, but the bottom line or two will be blocked out by someone's head.

Clue in your video guys. When I had that job, I made sure never to use about the bottom third of the frame for exactly that reason.

I don't know how old any of you are but here's the real reason everyone hates power point . . . since I was in 7th grade (1993) we've had to do "Power Point presentations" for homework. Speeches, science fair projects, even my project on the Protestant reformation - they all had to have accompanying PP presentations. Like the world will end if we don't have something behind us that we can point to with a red laser dot.

It totally ruins the majesty of the song.

With that said, I also can't read a lick of music, and I've been singing with a church worship band for eight years now, so the hymnal is no more useful to me than a slide. It is distracting, however, to look out and see everyone with their noses buried in a book. They all look really bored, and like they are avoiding your glance.

I personally prefer the words on a slide with a picture that is not distracting or flamboyant.

I don't know how old any of you are but here's the real reason everyone hates power point . . . since I was in 7th grade (1993) we've had to do "Power Point presentations" for homework. Speeches, science fair projects, even my project on the Protestant reformation - they all had to have accompanying PP presentations. Like the world will end if we don't have something behind us that we can point to with a red laser dot.


With that said, I also can't read a lick of music, and I've been singing with a church worship band for eight years now, so the hymnal is no more useful to me than a slide. It is distracting, however, to look out and see everyone with their noses buried in a book. They all look really bored, and like they are avoiding your glance.

I personally prefer the words on a slide with a picture that is not distracting or flamboyant.