Why Johnny Can’t Sing Hymns: How Pop Culture Rewrote the Hymnal

by T. David Gordon

Music has changed the way we think―and worship. Our pop-music culture has made worship a conflict area rather than a source of unity. Gordon uncovers the issues and points to solutions.

Genres: Music, Theology, Christian, Cultural, Nonfiction, Christian Living, Christianity

192 pages, Paperback

First published May 27, 2010

About the author

Dr. T. David Gordon is professor of religion and Greek at Grove City College in Grove City, Pennsylvania.

Reviews

[Kristina · Rating 4 out of 5]

“It is not merely the case that Johnny doesn’t sing hymns. It is truer to say that Johnny cannot sing hymns. Johnny has been so swallowed up in a contemporaneous, casual, trivial, youth-centered, guitar-playing pop culture that for him, music, by definition, sounds contemporary. “ (p. 173-4)

I’ve been becoming more aware of just how lacking contemporary Christian music is, both lyrically, emotionally and in terms of true acknowledgement and praise of God. I’ve been making more of a concerted effort to minimize that style of music in place of solid, Biblical hymns. This was the perfect book to expand upon that thought process. When reading the preface and introductory chapter, I was worried I was in over my head in terms of understanding of music theory, but the meat of the book is very readable. That being said, I do have an interest in music appreciation and have been a fan of classical music, opera and traditional hymns for quite some time. If your go-to genre is popular or contemporary music, this may read as rather dry and academic, but personally, I enjoyed and learned from it.

Gordon first begins by examining worship through music within the Bible, both within the Old and New Testaments- not just the Book of Psalms.

“Worship song is both the remarkable privilege and the solemn duty of the redeemed. Therefore, to suggest that worship sons is ‘merely’ or ‘just’ anything, whatever that ‘anything’ is, is to deny the very teaching of Scripture about the importance of worship song in God’s economy”(p. 31).

Worship is a vital and integral part of a church service, yet it has been reduced to a trivial argument over including substanceless popular music in lieu of true praise hymns. While there are some powerful lyrics in some contemporary songs, a quick side by side comparison of the lyrics of those most popular to that of classic hymns shows the stark contrast away from true, whole-hearted worship. Contemporary music has turned into an experience of sentimentality for us, instead of a way to glorify God. (Look into the aim of popular music from Bethel Worship & Hillsong if you’re curious about the music theory that’s actually used by these “Christian” groups). Gordon suggests removing the musical accompaniment from newer songs to see if they truly elicit genuine praise based on their lyrics alone, as do the Psalms.

“Contemporary worship music deliberately attempts to sound like the music we hear every day in the culture around us. It goes out of its way not to sound foreign or different….If God is ‘wholly other’ than we, why would a meeting with Him look as though He were ‘wholly like’ us?...If He is sacred, why should we not attempt to construct music that sounds sacred, rather than profane? Why should the category of sacred music disappear? (p. 78)

The discussions on musical nuance over the centuries were captivating, leading to a commentary on society overall and just how far we’re strayed from what music once was in terms of quality and emotional response. The chapter entitled Contemporaneity as a Value was the most interesting, as it really gets to the heart of the cultural shift that has created the preference for what is popular, calming, and frankly unenlightening. Gordon sums this up best in his statement, “A contemporaneous culture, however, does not necessarily disagree with the past; it simply regards it as unworthy of attention” (p. 120). This sentiment applies to so many areas of popular culture, including the severe lack of knowledge (or even concern with knowing) history. The shift toward casual, or put more frankly trivial, in virtually every sphere of daily life has bled over into the culture of the Church as well, to its detriment.


I also appreciated the final chapter, which proposes suggestions for how to introduce hymns to a younger audience, or those who are unfamiliar with the style of their music and lyrics. Often times books will outline an issue in great detail and abruptly end without any thought given to creating change.

“So while worship song shares some common traits with what we call music, it has distinctive traits as well; and we offer it to God as an act of obedience to His revealed will” (p.34-5).

—--
As an aside, I was a bit taken aback by a footnote describing cults as those that “reject the church catholic” (p. 122), as this is not at all the definition of a cult and was added to make the author’s point. By this definition, all of the major world religions aside from specifically Catholicism would fall into the category of cult, which is frankly not at all true. This has no bearing on my enjoyment of the book, but did think it worth mentioning as it seemed very out of place within the goal of the overall text.

For more of my thoughts on this and other books, check out my newly launched book blog: https://kristinasshelves.blogspot.com...

[Mark Jr. · Rating 4 out of 5]

Like most of us, T. David Gordon is a professional media ecologist and a former conservative Presbyterian pastor.

Okay, perhaps that combination is not so common… And that's just why Gordon needs to be listened to. His unique background leads him to insights that  are equally atypical. Few but media ecologists would think to say, "The tools we employ both reflect our priorities and values and reciprocally shape our priorities and values (10). Few but pastors concerned about careful, respectful church worship would write a book telling the church, "We make song, and song makes us (10).

T. David Gordon is disturbed that "so many people effectively cannot sing traditional hymns (11). And he thinks he has an answer: Americans are so awash in pop music and it has so "seeped into our sensibilities...that nothing that antedates it really sounds like music to us (11). Not long ago, people simply could not be awash in any kind of music. They heard sacred music at church, folk music in local or family gatherings, and (possibly) classical music in more formal concert events. The radio added pop music, but made classical music more accessible, too. Today, however, it's almost all pop, all the time. "We think we are choosing to listen to pop music, when in fact we are not choosing, any more than a Kentucky coal miner flatters himself that he 'chooses' English (15). Pop music is all we know.
What sensibilities does pop music engender, exactly? If pop songs make us, what are they making? What message are they sending?


It is not apparent to everyone that pop is sending any message apart from its lyrics; contemporary worship advocates, Gordon says, insist that music is merely a matter of taste. But it's worship of the triune God! Could you imagine someone saying, Gordon asks, "It's just the Lord's Supper, after all; take a chill pill"? (25). Gordon thinks that contemporary music won the "worship wars" so quickly and decisively that most people haven't even heard arguments from the other side. That's in part because advocates of using pop music in worship have insisted they don't want a war: it's not worth fighting about; it's just a preference.


But this is itself a fruit of the sensibilities pop music brings: "Pop music, largely created by and for commercial purposes, resist[s] serious analysis…. Commerce, then, has an enormous interest in our not taking such questions seriously (26).


But the universal cultural practice of making music is not insignificant, Gordon says, and surely neither is the question of how we worship God (27). God ordained music to be an element of our worship, so "worship song is both the remarkable privilege and the solemn duty of the redeemed" (31). It is our responsibility, then, to examine this issue.


However, "A young person reared in anything like a typical evangelical church knows only two things: nineteenth-century, sentimentalist revivalist hymns, and contemporary praise choruses; and they think the argument against the latter is an argument for the former (42). But Bill Gaither and Fanny Crosby are not the heroes of hymnody in Gordon’s mind.

Criticisms
This book was in need of an editor who can read a whole book and keep the flow in mind. Gordon used the same examples (the church of the 1960s didn't use the music of The Who to attract youth) and the same words ("to ask the question is to answer it") in multiple chapters.


I also noticed a few examples of what I would call minor linguistic fallacies. For example, Gordon argued that the adjective old appears more often in the Psalms in an approving sense than the adjective new does. This may be true, but theology isn't accomplished by nose-counting.


I also saw little to no awareness or discussion of what sacred music should sound like in other cultures. That seems to be a significant oversight, because it would put Western culture in helpful relief—and because a book which criticizes monogenerationalism so heavily shouldn't be monocultural! It is not self-evident to me—to borrow a phrase Gordon used multiple times—that the Western classical tradition is the one appropriate source for all of the world's church music (that is, I think I agree with the point but I need more help knowing why!). Sometimes Gordon seemed guilty of what one of his major sources, Ken Myers, has been accused of: cultural elitism. He does show sensitivity to the need to help Christians accustomed only to pop music to move beyond their cultural horizons, but what about country folks in the deep South, for example? Do we really expect them to make church music similar to the highest and best a city church can produce? Is it okay if their music never gets rid of a certain twang?


Conclusion
These are relatively minor criticisms that detract nothing from the power of Gordon's positive insights. It is self-evident to me (ahem) that the field of media ecology yields significant insights that most of the church is still unaware of. Gordon follows in the tradition of Marshall McLuhan and (especially, I'd say) Neil Postman—holding our mass-media culture up to the light and showing us things we looked at (or perhaps through) a million times and therefore never saw. The basic insight that each medium carries a message—that, as John Dyer relates in his book on Christian media ecology, technology is not neutral—is incredibly powerful. It ought to become part of the intellectual toolbox of every educated Christian.


The two Gospel Coalition reviews of the book (one is very brief) both shy away from that conclusion. Kevin DeYoung simply finds Gordon's polemic against pop unconvincing. Todd Pruitt offers a classic feint: it's thought-provoking, even for those who don't agree. But even Gordon doesn’t take his argument far enough—because he fails to fully bring in an important biblical theme. At the end of his book, he says that it's not exactly wrong to have pop music in church, just not best (169). But doesn't the Bible warn about worldliness in multiple places? If bringing music with an embedded anti-God philosophy into the church isn't worldly, what is? Isn't friendship with the world enmity with God (James 4:4)? Gordon’s argument that American Christians don’t know any better, that they didn’t exactly choose pop, mitigates their responsibility. But worldliness is still a serious problem that ought to be opposed everywhere, and Gordon’s book provides help in doing just that.

[pianogal · Rating 1 out of 5]

OH MY GOSH! It's too bad this guy has NO musical background to base his arguments on. I made it to page 67 and I want to throw the book through the window. The statement that pop music didn't exist before now did it for me. Really? We had no popular music before 1950? Wow. Just wow.

I'm so sick of his pompous, high-brow, intellectual attitude. Everything with him is all or nothing. Black and white. Very left-brained and judgmental. People with very little musical background should not try to teach the rest of the world about music, and I feel sorry for the parishoners in his church for having to suffer through his musical selections for 9 long years.

Also, has he ever heard of motives? Worship is more than just showing up and going through the motions. Would he say that someone standing in worship, eyes closed, hands raised, singing "Our God is Awesome God" with all his/her heart trivial while someone just rotely singing "O God, Our Help in Ages Past" checking his/her watch every verse is more pious and Godly just b/c of what he/she is singing? Really? (PS I could so arrange the later into a contemporary arrangement, even though the author is sure this can't be done. I do it all the time with older hymns.)

Ok, that's all I will say here b/c this book is ruining my calm. And just for anyone who cares, I attend a VERY traditional Methodist worship where we sing traditional hymns, so I understand the author's side of the argument. I simply think that he's a snob and his book is poorly argued.

And by the way, Jesus appealed to the masses, not the intellectual Pharisees. If trivial, contemporary pop music is how we win people to Christ, then I am SO ok with that.

Thank you and have a nice day (because our God really is an awesome God!).

[Alex Strohschein · Rating 3 out of 5]

I first heard about T. David Gordon’s book “Why Can’t Johnny Sing Hymns: How Pop Culture Rewrote The Hymnal” on Albert Mohler Jr.’s radio program “Thinking In Public”. I was very intrigued as I listened to Dr. Mohler interview the author and decided to pick up the book myself to read. In the book, Gordon lays out his arguments against contemporary worship and advocates that churches return back to traditional hymns.

I would like to think that I am very sympathetic to Gordon’s proposals. I myself dislike nearly everything coming out of CCM these days. Gordon is right in bemoaning the fact that many in the Church lack adequate and rigorous theological knowledge. Gordon is not alone in this belief; Thomas Bergler has written about the “juvenilization of American Christianity” and James K.A. Smith has analyzed how worship and liturgy work (and how secular society produces its own “liturgies”) and how these shape our spiritual life. Gordon asserts that the old hymns contained within them orthodox theology that communicated religious truths to the singing congregation and laments the lack of such theologically-rich worship music today.

Many of the other points he makes are good as well. He observes that much of contemporary music is based upon sentimentality and the emotions that are evoked by music as opposed to the message behind it (e.g. a loud, fast-beating drum can pump up a crowd). In this way, musicians, including worship singers, can manipulate their songs to induce in listeners an emotion that may otherwise not be felt had they not used that instrument or those notes. As Christian who is often exposed to Pentecostal-style worship, this message is sobering and can help those who do not feel impacted by emotion in worship feel better.

Gordon also raises the interesting point that sometimes Christians who seek to “water-down” the Christian message in order to draw in unbelievers sometimes do the exact opposite by making people walk away from the Church because they think the Christians within it do not take religion that seriously. In particular, Gordon critiques “seeker-sensitive” churches for this approach.

I appreciate Gordon’s heart for an orthodox, reverent Church. It is clear from reading this book that Gordon has a deep gratitude for the classic hymns and common prayers of the historic catholic Church and he longs to see younger generations partake in these rich traditions. As someone who has begun to become more interested in theology and church history, I applaud Gordon. I agree with him that modern worship leaders should not unnecessarily change classic hymns by changing the tempo, causing distraction that disrupts the familiarity of these old worship songs. I also appreciate how he makes effective use of media scholars in order to strengthen his own work.

However, despite his declaration that he is not dead-set against contemporary worship music, I think Gordon’s assault on contemporary worship music is a bit too zealous. He does not seem to appreciate how God can use different creative expression to speak to different people. He often frames the “worship war” over traditional hymns and contemporary worship as simply “a matter of taste”, but this does nothing to address the fact that some people will feel closer to God through listening to a David Crowder or a Gungor song (even though he or I may not feel this way). As a child I thought hymns were tedious and dull and I wanted to have the flash of drums and electric guitar a la Delirious? or Newsboys but now, as I’ve grown older, I’ve come to appreciate the rich poetry and theology found in many old hymns. These old hymns speak to me more and more, but so does the feverish, brooding music of David Eugene Edwards (16 Horsepower, Woven Hand).

Gordon also runs into trouble when it comes to his idea of “contemporary worship” (indeed, even of pop music in general. What is pop music to him? He names performers such as Pink, but what about Norah Jones or Leonard Cohen; would he consider them to be “pop” and if so, is he denying that these esteemed songwriters produce exceptional art?). I do not think he provides a suitable explanation as to what he thinks this category entails. Anyone who has listened to CCM knows that there is a difference between a Chris Tomlin song and a dc Talk song. Tomlin’s music fits more comfortably in the “contemporary worship” label whereas “Jesus Freak” resembles an alternative rock or grunge song. But therein lies the problem with Gordon’s criticism of contemporary worship. I don’t think modern worship, the contemporary worship songs sung in churches today, fit into the pop song genre he so deplores and despises. Chris Tomlin and Hillsong United do not sound like Katy Perry or Maroon 5. There music is different and their lyrics are drastically different (another point: if a song is comprised of equal parts lyrics and music, then Gordon would seemingly only be able to critique the musical aspect of a modern worship song, not the lyrics, unless he thought they were so heretical or heterodox that he would pronounce them anathema)! I am also interested in how Gordon would respond to gospel music. Gospel music arose out of old slave spirituals but it is a modern innovation of the early 20th century that does not have the longstanding history of the hymns of Charles Wesley and John Newton. Under what grounds would Gordon critique it? Would his criticisms be entirely subjective on his part?

Indeed, Gordon’s very lack of interacting with the work of contemporary worship songwriters dramatically weakens his argument. He could refuse to state the names of modern worship songwriters he dislikes because he does not want to publically call out a certain individual, or he could not analyze specific modern worship songwriters or songs because he has no adequate knowledge of them because he has chosen to remain in a traditional hymnal bubble. If Gordon wanted his case to be really effective, he should have named one of the contemporary worship songs he finds “meaningless” and “banal” and explain exactly how it is so.

Furthermore, Gordon grumbles that because pop music was produced by commercial interests who wanted to sell their products, it must be entirely corrupted and unredeemable. But isn’t that what the Gospel is all about – how Jesus can take something hopelessly flawed and restore it to righteousness? Some may think this connection a stretch and I would admit to being melodramatic, but I do think that just because the origins of something are poor or pithy, it does not mean that the thing cannot be improved upon to produce something beautiful. Similarly, Gordon effusively discusses how much he dislikes guitar and how he does not think it is appropriate to a worship setting but others may entirely disagree with him because they have come to cherish the guitar over old instruments. Just because something is old does not automatically qualify it as superior.

In conclusion, this book is a helpful look at the issues of worship music in the Church today. Gordon should be commended for bringing to light the importance of preserving and singing classic hymns in the congregations. Yet there are certain flaws in his argument, including what I consider to be a faulty belief that believers who prefer contemporary worship music do so merely because it suits their tastes; I think it is far more nuanced than that and I think Gordon ignores the good that can come from contemporary culture, including its impact and influence on music.

[Danielle · Rating 2 out of 5]

Oh, goodness. Where to begin.

I'll start by saying that Dr. Gordon says many things I agree with. It's his approach that bothers me. His argument would have been far better suited to a series of blog posts or a chapter in an anthology than an entire book. His work is extremely repetitive and he seems to get more smug with each passing chapter.

Dr. Gordon's main thesis seems to be that modern churchgoers physically, literally cannot sing traditional hymns because pop culture and pop music are so, well, popular. This falls flat, because there is always "popular" music in every generation, but you don't always see churches tailoring their services to what's on the radio like you do now. He barely covers theological reasons for churches having rock bands and praise choruses on video screens. It's their weak *theology* that leads them to this musical gibberish, not the fact that Katy Perry is on the radio a lot.

He says countless times that he's not a musician, and by golly, I believe him. I am a musician insofar as I sing in a choir that sticks to rigorous classical music and modern pieces that require much work and practice. I can read music, find the alto harmony by ear, and have played a couple instruments. I also have a father who made sure I had a deep education in listening to many different musical forms and that I learned music history and theory. Dr. Gordon has a limited experience with classical (Brahms is mentioned more times than I could count) and is stuck in the 70s as far as popular music is concerned (The Who, Eric Clapton). His limited musical knowledge is awkward and cumbersome when he tries to fit his argument in. It's nearly offensive that somebody with such limited knowledge would write a whole book about how lousy popular music is. If you're going to make such assertions, you'd better have the chops to back it up.

I don't like rock bands and praise choruses on big screens in Sunday morning worship because it's the laziest, cheapest thing a church can do. I don't believe that people can't learn how to read music and can't follow written music in a hymnal. I don't believe that people won't come to church if they're not rocking out to the latest Hillsong release on KLOVE. I know for certain that if you do the hard work of teaching your church's children traditional hymns, they will continue to learn more as they grow older. If you have music opportunities for different talent levels in your church, the singers and players will come, hungry to improve their craft while honoring the Lord. But music is hard to learn. If the preacher is in jeans and giving a 15-minute talk where he references his "smokin' hot wife" at least once, how could we expect that church's music to be any better? The music a church sings starts from the top and trickles down.

I'd like to challenge Dr. Gordon to step out of his "popular music is bad because it's popular" rut and learn something. He credits Stuart Townend a couple times but never once mentions the backbone of the operation, Keith Getty (or Keith's wife, Kristyn). He needs to hear Rend Collective and Shai Linne and NEEDTOBREATHE. How about some Indelible Grace, Andrew Peterson, Beautiful Eulogy, Red Mountain Music, or Drew and Ellie Holcomb? All "popular," all doing theologically-sound, Christ-honoring work. Appropriate for Sunday morning worship? No. But terrific nonetheless, and perfectly acceptable for personal worship or entertainment. "Popular" does not mean "bad," and it's a shame Dr. Gordon wrote a whole book pushing that.

[Peter Jones · Rating 5 out of 5]

I had this book in my to buy list for years, but had set it aside. But as our church continues to look at music and with a favorable review by a friend I picked it up. It was excellent. Some of the reviews on GR were funny and seemed to miss the point entirely. For example, one person said that Dr. Gordon thought pop culture was bad. He might. But that was not the point of the book. He thought pop culture was bad for worship. That was his point. Pop culture because of its transient nature, is not a fit medium for passing on the greatness of God and the Christian tradition.

What he does really well is get the reader to examine his presuppositions as to why the approach worship music a certain way. He points out that his father who died in 1979 would not recognize most of the Christian worship music today. He does not say this is necessarily wrong, though he believes it is. But his point is that this wholesale change has taken place with little theological, doctrinal, and pastoral discussion. It has just happened, which is bad. In some places he overstates the case. He makes a case for sacred music. A type of music that is not like the world and is fit for the worship of the living God and the passing on of the great truths of Scripture.

A great book for pastors, elders, and deacons to read and consider.

My Rating System
1 Star-Terrible book and dangerous. Burn it in the streets.

2 Stars-Really bad book, would not recommend, probably has some dangerous ideas in it. Few books I read are 1 or 2 stars because I am careful about what I read.

3 Stars-Either I disagree with it at too many points to recommend it or it is just not a good book on the subject or for the genre. Would not read it again, reference it, or recommend it. But it is not necessarily dangerous except as a time waster.

4 Stars-Solid book on the subject or for the genre. I would recommend this book to others and would probably read it again or reference it. Most books fall in this category because I try not to read books I don’t think will be good. There is a quite a variety here. 4.1 is quite different from 4.9.

5 Stars-Excellent book. Classic in the genre or top of the line for the subject. I might also put a book in here that impacted me personally at the time I read it. I would highly recommend this book, even if I do not agree with all that it says. Few books fall in this category. Over time I have put less in this category.

[Glenn · Rating 3 out of 5]

The meat of the book is summed up in a final quote: "In roughly 25 years, Christian worship has gone from being serious to being casual - not because a case has been cogently or theologically argued that "casual" is more appropriate to a meeting with God, but because the culture itself has become casual, and the church has chosen not to resist the cultural inertia."

I appreciate the position and very much appreciate the clarity he gives. Many of these silent frustrations and thoughts I have felt for years were given voice. Ironically, I felt his writing style somewhat pedestrian at times, creating conflict for the reader with his scholarly approach.

All in all an enjoyable read.

[Jason Montgomery · Rating 5 out of 5]

Best book I have read on worship in a long time. Challenging. Should be read along with Why Johnny Can't Preach. Much food for thought.

[John Gardner · Rating 4 out of 5]

It's no secret that, in most of today's churches, hymns have given way to "praise choruses" as the predominant form of music used in corporate worship services. Why is this? Is this a conscious choice to not sing hymns, or is it — as the title suggests — that the average Christian today can't sing hymns?

These are the type of questions asked in Gordon's book, a sequel of sorts to his previous book Why Johnny Can't Preach . Both books take their title from a 1955 book by Rudolf Flesch called Why Johnny Can't Read, which showed that changes in society and in the educational methods being introduced to the schools at that time (particularly what has now become known as the "look-say method" of reading) had produced a generation unable to read.

In this latest book, Gordon successfully builds his case that the average Christian today is unable to understand or appreciate either the musical or theological content in traditional hymns. While he also argues for the importance and value of the church's rich tradition of hymnody, he avoids making any sort of legalistic claims that churches must use one form of music over another. As he says in the introduction, this book is intended to be descriptive, rather than prescriptive.

The reasons for our inability to sing hymns are many, but can be more or less separated into two categories: musical and theological.

Musically, "pop culture" has conditioned us to not even recognize — much less appreciate — non-pop forms of music. Whereas in previous generations, people were likely to be familiar with (and hear roughly equal amounts of) several different genres of music, today we are surrounded by one genre of music all the time. We hear commercial music while we drive, while we watch TV, while we shop, while we exercise, etc. We hear it so often, "pop" music has become our definition of "music", to the point where other forms of music sound foreign to us.

Furthermore, because almost all music and television programming today is designed to get us to buy stuff (if we won't tune into a TV or radio station we won't hear and be influenced by the advertising), it is produced around a lowest-common-denominator type of thinking. It can't disgust us or make us think too hard. It must be neither beautiful nor ugly, but banal and inconsequential.

This affects our ability to sing hymns in a couple ways. First of all, the general level of musical appreciation and aptitude is greatly reduced from previous generations. Most people today never learn to read music, much less sing harmonies. Neither is required to learn and sing today's popular music.

Secondly, because we have learned to tune out (no pun intended) most music we hear as inconsequential (how often do you actually listen to, rather than merely hear, the music playing while you buy your groceries?), we begin to treat all music in this style as inconsequential. When the songs we sing at church sound just like the music we hear all the time, it becomes very easy to tune them out and treat their content as inconsequential.

This leads into our theological inability to sing hymns. As Gordon states, the form of music is itself part of the content of a song's message. We must be conscious of the "meta-messages" (nonverbal messages that accompany our actual words) conveyed by the music we sing. If Christians say that Christ is of utmost importance, and that the Lord's Day is the time we come together to actually meet with the Lord of the Universe, what message is communicated by singing His praises using a form of music judged to be inconsequential?

Gordon illustrates his point with the example of a wedding. Most Christians demonstrate that we still believe that some events are more significant than others, and that we mark these significant events with significant, formal music (and attire). If weddings, graduations, and other rituals are marked by challenging music and fancy clothes, yet our worship services are marked by inconsequential music and casual dress, which do we communicate is more important: a human wedding, or Christ's wedding to the church?

These meta-messages have also been combined with a mentality (consistent with our society's at-large rejection of things that are old and/or difficult) that churches should be designed to appeal to and attract everyone, even non-believers. One result has been a "dumbing-down" of worship song lyrics. When combined with shorter, pragmatic sermons and a general lack of discipleship, a theologically illiterate congregation is produced, which is unable to comprehend the deep doctrinal truths contained in our hymnals.

There are a few areas where I would disagree with Gordon, or at least ask for more clarity. For instance: though I agree that our churches would benefit much from a greater focus on traditional hymns (distinguished in the book from "old" hymns, as he points out that there are great hymn writers living and working today; Stuart Townend is a specific example given), I do believe that there is a place for "contemporary Christian music", though where that place may be is certainly debatable. Does Gordon object to this style of music even as casual listening in non-corporate worship settings? He doesn't say.

I also believe there is value to setting older traditional hymn lyrics to newer music, which Gordon seems to reject. I think the claim that people will automatically fail to grasp or understand the significance of lyrics simply because of the musical setting is false, and doesn't give today's Christians enough credit... surely we aren't that dumb yet. Of course, without solid preaching and discipleship it won't matter what the music sounds like.

Finally, Gordon seems to have a personal vendetta against the guitar. This is a point which is quite overstated in the book. While many of his arguments against the guitar as an accompanimental instrument are valid, most of his experience seems to be with poor guitar playing and sound mixing. I wonder whether he ever accounts for the possibility of someone taking the guitar seriously as an instrument, and playing it tastefully and appropriately for worship settings. Of course, as a guitarist myself, I have a definite bias in the opposite direction!

Those few issues aside, this is a great book, and one much needed in the discussion of church music. Even on the points when others may not agree with Gordon's conclusions, his questions are the right ones. It is refreshing to read a logical, well-reasoned consideration of worship music. I commend it to anyone, but to pastors and worship leaders in particular.

[Dustin · Rating 3 out of 5]

Doing this from my phone so it'll be brief. I am one with a strong dislike of contemporary worship style, so there was much in this book that I strongly agreed with or helped me view the 'worship wars' in a different light. That said, some parts I couldn't help but think there's just a strong personal bias going on. Couldn't understand why the author spends nearly an entire chapter knocking on using a guitar in worship, but only spends one paragraph at the end of the book mentioning overhead projectors replacing hymnbooks.

Maybe I'm biased the opposite way (being a guitar player), but I think he could have at least said " sometimes you have to work with what you have." If one is in a fairly large, well-established church then maybe some of the wrongs he writes about can be fixed, but when you're in a young churchplant where a new musician walks through the door maybe once a year, your options are severely limited. So, I'll keep leading our congregation in singing hymns by using my guitar until we have the resources to improve.

[Jacob · Rating 1 out of 5]

This review was written for a class project, which shaped my approach to the content:

Dr. T. David Gordon recognizes that his material is likely to not win him friends, but he asks for a hearing that he might influence how we hear contemporary worship songs in congregational singing. The great extent of his work is to uncover the way contemporaneity has influenced the vast majority of worship songs today, and how “worship itself has declined profoundly and almost almost totally” (p. 17).

Pop music is in the crosshairs of the majority of his arguments. For Gordon, pop music is by nature capitalistic, consumer oriented, youth-centered, banal and trivial. As such, pop music's words and instruments are insufficient to sustain the glory and magnitude of worshiping the Triune God. Thus, pop music as an art form taints and demeans that which it touches, and in this context, worship music is itself tainted by pop music. Dr. Gordon spends the entirety of the work describing how pop music has trivialized worship music, and pleads with his readers to stand against the influence of pop music and maintain a primacy of sacred music (primarily in the order of Western classical music) within the worship of God's people. He contends:

Contemporary worship music deliberately attempts to sound like the music we hear every day in the culture around us. It goes out of its way not to sound foreign or different… If God is ‘wholly other’ than we, why would a meeting with Him look as though He were ‘wholly like’ us?...If He is sacred, why should we not attempt to construct music that sounds sacred, rather than profane? Why should the category of sacred music disappear? (p. 78)

His conclusion is that one of the great perils of allowing pop music to influence (or wholesale replace) the worship music of God's people is that it makes them historically ignorant: “A contemporaneous culture, however, does not necessarily disagree with the past; it simply regards it as unworthy of attention” (p. 120). God's people inherently stand within a long tradition of people who have worshipped God. To be contemporaneously locked is to deny the very nature of the message of the Gospel, that God in fact is the Father of all his people in all times and places. If we allow pop music to push out the old hymns, then this universal witness has been lost.

This book is ultimately a belligerent, poorly executed argument that is a missed opportunity for a beneficial discussion about the value (and even centrality) of hymns in corporate worship. Instead it serves as a sequence of curmudgeonly blog posts against the evils of pop culture, which at times is a thinly veiled elitism against urban and global cultures. Frequently, one is left wondering who precisely these "they" are that sing terrible songs in church. Ultimately we are left begging for specific examples to ground his argument. Along the way in his argument we must also endure tedious scare quotes about "merely" and “just” pop music styles (e.g. “Worship song is both the remarkable privilege and the solemn duty of the redeemed. Therefore, to suggest that worship sons is ‘merely’ or ‘just’ anything, whatever that ‘anything’ is, is to deny the very teaching of Scripture about the importance of worship song in God’s economy” (p. 31).) in his confident assertion that there are surely terrible songs doused in pop culture being sung by churches out there, somewhere, but their names escape his erudition. Given the lack of clarity on who precisely Gordon is referring to, it is difficult to not conclude that multiple arguments are reduced to hasty generalizations, begging the question, red herrings and ad hominem logical fallacies.

In a book inviting us to consider biblical standards for worship music, it appears that the Bible itself did not receive much of an invitation to the table. Given that the premise is about observing the culture's influence on how we sing in worship services in view, one should reasonably expect wisdom to be a topic of discussion. Not only is wisdom hardly commended, its fruits and flavor (“But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial and sincere. And a harvest of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace.” (James 3:17–18) are hardly experienced. Moreover, in a book addressing the ways in which the surrounding culture has shaped our worship tastes and expressions, one would expect to find some interaction with these themes in the New Testament, such as Romans 14 or 1 Corinthians 8-9, especially given the way the author finds idolatrous connotations in the trivialities of pop culture. But this desire is left waiting for a resolution. For such stark statements throughout about what constitutes Biblical and lawful worship worthy of the Triune God, whole chapters will pass without any biblical reference.

Which leads to the final observation regarding how this book will influence my pastoral ministry. Unfortunately, it will serve as a negative example of warning. It stands as a warning of allowing ones personal preferences and intellectual gifts to craft a well articulated opinion that lacks Biblical grounding. It is unfortunate, but I can only point to this book as the type of pastor that I do not want to be. It is a warning against going so deep into one's own echo chamber that they cannot hear the meaningful conversation happening around them. I regularly found myself confused as to whether Dr. Gordon was either ignorant or dismissive of the renewal movement of hymnody within his own tradition (PCA). Has he not heard of Indelible Grace? But maybe the fact that they use guitars, which Dr. Gordon derides throughout his work (due to their strumming pattern) disqualifies them as yet another example of how pop music has destroyed biblical worship within the church.

One final comment about the theological background and trajectory of this work. I add this less for the assignment, and more for trying to engage with the broader argument of his work. Dr. Gordon's objections to the use of pop culture as a source for the musical qualities of the church's singing are an exercise in H. Richard Niebuhr's category of "Christ against culture." Fundamentally, according to Dr. Gordon, pop music is banal, trivial, youth-centric, and ultimately, insufficient to uphold the profound realities expressed in the worship of God. But fundamentally, this views the pop music of the day (even amidst its consumeristic and mass appeal tones) as dirty and defiled, that ultimately there are no redeeming qualities of pop music. Thus, to play out Dr. Gordon's underlying thesis, pop music is outside the realm of common grace, or if it is within the realm of common grace, it is defiled and dirty. But pop music may in fact be an expression of Christ's care and grace for the world at large, and therefore an embodied expression of the redeeming grace of God should pull, in one way or another, from the pop music of the day since it is a grace that informs and shapes the people of God and their non-Christian neighbors to understand a hint of Christ's power and love. In the end, to the extent that one separates an embodied expression of the body of Christ from the common grace situation it finds itself in (be it pop music, an ethnic dialect, etc.) one begins to walk down a gnostic path of understanding what "true" spirituality and worship are. In point in fact, Dr. Gordon promotes a theology of worship that has little to no meaningful interaction with the common grace of Christ experienced by a localized body of Christ, and instead must pull from a "high" form of musical expression to sufficiently support the weight of God's revelation in singing. While this may not be gnosticism in bald form, it requires a dualism that separates the physical experience of a believer's spiritual life from the physical location that Christ has placed and nurtured them through his common grace.

Again, to the point of caution about that this book offers. We can get very caught up in our arguments or concerns, and not merely miss the forest for the trees, but also end up following whispers and reasonings that lead to being entrapped by Old Man Willow.

[Anita Deacon · Rating 4 out of 5]

another quick re-read. The book's purpose is to challenge people who *only* want contemporary music in worship, and it does a good job at that. My recurring complaint with these kinds of books is the same again with this one - it starts on a solid argument against subjectivity, but doesn't provide enough concrete specifics to support objectivity. In particular with this one, his diatribe against contemporary pop culture falls flat because it is too generalized. Show me in the chords, in the notes.

[Lisa Brantly · Rating 4 out of 5]

Academic, solid argument (but does inject emotional asides - cost 1 star) convicting, even if you "agree" with his premise

[Stephen Hoogerhyde · Rating 4 out of 5]

In 2003, Paul S. Jones, organist and music director at Tenth Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia, wrote that "Fifty years ago the idea that one would need to argue in support of the existence and use of hymns in the worship of the church would have been laughable." Well, the situation certainly hasn't improved since then. David Gordon goes a long way toward explaining why.

Gordon cogently argues that contemporary society--and the idealization of contemporaneity itself--has affected worship practices, to great detriment, particularly in regard to singing. He posits that the 1960s are the watershed; everything before that is old, everything after is contemporary. Approximately 95% of the music we hear today is pop, propagating a musical illiteracy that is reflected in the musical choices and practices in worship services in the evangelical church.

Gordon takes particular aim at the canard that worship music is simply a matter of choice or preference. Why is it that no other element of worship is so thoughtlessly considered? As he quotes from the introduction to the 1961 version of the Trinity Hymnal, "It is well known that the character of its song, almost equal with the character of its preaching, controls the theology of a church." Sit with that for a moment.

Gordon enumerates and explains a number of factors that have combined to drive worship practices away from hymns and toward contemporary worship songs: an overwhelming desire for contemporaneity, the guitar replacing the piano/organ as the primary accompaniment, showing words and no music in bulletins or on overhead screens, chronological snobbery (to use C.S. Lewis's phrase) with respect to musical forms and texts, and a desire to reach the young (although, as he points out, young people seeing a group of 50-year-olds playing guitars in an effort to reach the young will strike them as kind of lame).

There is much more in this book, and it is dealt with at some length, although it is still a relatively short book. Pastors, music directors, music team participants, and the average congregant can all benefit from this book. It is as approachable as it is hard hitting. And it is necessary.

[James Fields · Rating 1 out of 5]

We live in a time and age where there is no good reason to sing theologically bad worship songs. This vitally true point often results in spirited debates between those that prefer hymns and those that prefer a more contemporary sound. T. David Gordon attempts and fails to address this debate in his book Why Johnny Can't Sing Hymns. He believes that his unique background will allow him to address issues he sees in the modern worship debate, but since his background lacks musical training, a lot of his comments are shallow and misguided.

From the outset Gordon attempts to frame this debate by giving a favorable definition to what a hymn is and an unfavorable definition to what contemporary worship is. To him this is not just about sound, but about quality. Hymns were vetted by hymnal committees, ensuring doctrinal excellence in the composition of the hymns and quality to the musical composition. He points out that there is no such committee for contemporary music, and here he is mostly correct. Each church has a committee for such a project (though a more global committee may not exists), and that committee is the pastors and congregation at any individual church. If the pastors put a song before the congregation that they haven't thought through theologically, then they are failing to lead their people well. But when they do it well, the church body is provided singable, relatable, and theologically sound songs to warm their hearts and fire them up to good deeds.

It might sound like I'm being overly harsh on Gordon's position, but what you have to understand is his definition of what a hymn is is fluid and changes throughout the book. He starts off with a pretty firm definition of a hymn (as stated above), but throughout the book he makes contrary statements. At one point he points out that the musical style of a hymn is part of what makes it a hymn. He cites a conversation he had with a friend of his where he says they never sing hymns and his friend says they do. To him, it's not a hymn if it involves a guitar. In fact, he states that guitars are not suitable instruments for conveying truth. They're too mundane. And guitars lack the capability to do certain hymns, he specifically cites A Mighty Fortress is our God as an example of a hymn that could never be turned into contemporary music with a guitar, thus proving his point that guitars are inferior.

The problem here, is that while he studied worship "for well over a decade" (pg 21) and taught it at a college, he was never a musician and his practical understanding of musicality is weak for it. He says three times in his book "I'm not musician but..." To me it's ok for a writer to write about a topic he isn't an expert on, but he should definitely consult with people who are experts if he wants to have anything worth saying about the topic. If he had, he would have quickly been told that it was not a matter of a guitar's failings that prevented A Mighty Fortress from being made into a contemporary song, as guitars are extremely flexible instruments.

As if to prove him wrong, two years after his book released HeartSong produced a contemporary (guitar driven) version of the song. Gordon would say that it is an inferior version just because it has a guitar, but what do you think? Which of these two versions does a better job musically? Which one makes the point better?

Contemporary version of A Mighty Fortress:

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vT6H...]

Old School version of A Mighty Fortress:

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XUYZ...]

Gordon is quick to point out that hymns are more theologically accurate that modern songs, and sure there are many songs today that lack theological truth or spout falsehoods. To him this is more reason to rely on the old hymns. But at the same time, he went through 700 hymns for his church and rejected a fair number of them because they were not theologically sound. To me, this is true whenever art is being created. It takes a lot of effort to produce something of quality in every essential realm. During the process many people will take a stab at it, and some, as amateur theologians, will fail to succeed. It the job of the community to either work with them to improve their song, or simply move on to ones that have already succeeded.

Recently, my wife and I attended a Lutheran church and they sang 5 hymns while we were there. Only one of them was theologically sound (to be fair, a second one would have been, if they music leader didn't change the lyrics at the last second). The trope that the hymns are more theologically sound doesn't stack up under full consideration. Both hymns and contemporary music have solid theological songs and theologically weak ones.

Gordon does point out that there are modern "hymns" being written (in this case he defines it solely on the theological content of the song, and not the style), but that they should be used sparingly as contemporary music is too trivial and mundane to give God His proper due.

Honestly, there are too many problems with this book for me to get into all of them in a blog post. There are logical fallacies, misrepresentations of quotes, a misunderstanding of the modern level of musical education, and so many more problems. His arguments echo the same sentiments put forth by the King James only adherents: "The old ways sound more holy, therefore they are." "I like it better they way I learned it." "The new way is scary and full of danger, so we should avoid it and trust in what we know." One of the biggest problems with all of this is that it denies the ability to analyze the current method (hymns), while condemning the new method (contemporary music) for not being analytical enough. In other words, they don't like the new method because of it's dangers, but they don't spend any time thinking about the dangers of the method they are using.

Right after I bought this book, I saw a friend post on Facebook that he had read Why Johnny Can't Preach. He was not pleased with the book. I asked him based on his experience with it if he would recommend reading or not reading Why Johnny Can't Sing Hymns and he was adamantly against it. I almost wish I had listened. It's good from time to time to challenge your mind with arguments that you might not agree with and see where you land when you've thought it all through. From that perspective, this book was a good mental stimulus, but for giving an accurate portrayal of musical reasoning this book fails miserably. Gordon is stuck in his old views and unwilling to look at how our musical worship of God changes with the times. The old hymns we know are only a few hundred years old and prove, by their existence, that the church has historically not backed the position that the old songs are best.

Overall, I give this book 1 star. Avoid reading.

To see more reviews check out my blog: This Sporadic Life

[Alexandru Croitor · Rating 4 out of 5]

Gordon's main concern reminds me of one of David Wallace's speeches in which he employed a fit parable for the book's ethos: There are these two young fish swimming along and they happen to meet an older fish swimming the other way, who nods at them and says “Morning, boys. How’s the water?” And the two young fish swim on for a bit, and then eventually one of them looks over at the other and goes “What the hell is water?”

Well, for Johhny, water is "pop culture"; and he's been immersed in it for quite some time, ergo his preferred style of worship will reflect that - the author (rightly, I say) associates pop culture with triviality and when this gets transferred to worship, you got a big problem: worshipping the Triune God that meets us in His Incarnate Word is by no means trivial!
In this "pop" medium, the book is pointing out that choosing a contemporary style of worship isn't just "a matter of taste." "It is a matter of serious aesthetic, theological, and liturgical principle", that is we can't so easily dismiss these "preferences". What about the rich Christian tradition? Is it worthy of our attention, even if we don't necessarily disagree with it? How relevant is the harmony, the timbre, the rhythm of a song? How about its theological message and its literary delivery? The fact that "pop" became the "natural" makes it hard to consider other forms of music because cultivating the taste is "uncomfortable".

However, the book falls a bit short in evaluating (or at least, dealing more with) "recent" - to avoid using 'contemporary', which refers more to the "it sounds new", than "it is recently written" - music that's being produced; theologically sound music that doesn't fit the "high classical" standard, but neither falls prey to "contemporaneity" exists - what about those songs?

Good read, overall!

[Jake Busch · Rating 5 out of 5]

Do I give out too many 5 stars? I don’t know, but I do know that book was well worth 5 stars. I say that because it pushed at me and called me to a higher standard of the worship of God.

Why can’t Johnny sing? “Johnny hasn’t been persuaded that hymn-singing is wrong; Johnny simply can not relate to anything that doesn’t sound contemporary. He cannot shed his cultural skin, the skin of contemporaneity, of triviality, or paedocentrism. He thinks he “prefers” contemporary worship music to other forms, but in reality he prefers contemporaneity as a trout prefers water; it is the only environment he knows (173).”

To learn more about the cultural skin, I would recommend “Amusing Ourselves to Death” by Neil Postman.

For an introduction to reformed worship, I would recommend “Reformed Worship: Worship that is according to scripture” by Terry L. Johnson.

[Austin Cox · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a sequel to Gordon’s phenomenal book “Why Johnny Can’t Preach.” In that book, Gordon outlined why he believes modern preaching is at a real low point. “Why Johnny Can’t Sing Hymns” seeks to ask the same question about a different issue: sacred music.

Gordon will come off as harsh to many readers (partially because he’s a little harsh), but almost everyone could benefit from his observations.

Because we have lost any sense of an objective aesthetic theory, this debate is very difficult to have. It ends up sounding like a battle over preferences. Gordon takes note of this, offers some preliminary advice on how to think about these issues, and encourages his readers to do a lot more study.

If you come to this book looking for all the answers, you will be disappointed. If you come to hear a thoughtful presentation of traditional hymnody, you will find just that.

[Bobby Roberts · Rating 5 out of 5]

A great primer on the musical and theological deficiencies of CCM. It also gives brief historical background that is valuable to know how we got where we are in the area of worship music. A very helpful book to read if you are questioning if CCM is appropriate for Christian worship and/or in line with Christian music of the past two millennium. This book succinctly and graciously (despite what the other comments say) challenges the unchallenged acceptance of CCM and calls for greater theological (and less pragmatic) thought in songs chosen for worship.

[David J. Harris · Rating 5 out of 5]

It raises some worthwhile questions that should not be brushed off lightly, and gives some compelling answers. Gordon reveals the questions about song selection in evangelical services overlap with a host of other questions - the nature of worship, the meaning of liturgy, the role of entertainment in popular culture, consumerism, and the incompatibility of triviality toward God with orthodox theology. This sparks not just one conversation but a lifetime of them. Or at least it ought to. A superb read.

[Jeremy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Yes. I needed to read this book. A must read for everyone at church regularly, no matter where you stand on the issues surrounding worship in the church over the last 30 years. Answers the question: why does much of what passes for Christian music in the contemporary scene not have that sacred feel. The author makes a good case that musical choice is more than just preference.

[Tori Samar · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book aims to examine the relationship between 'contemporary' and 'traditional' worship music, particularly how the former has negatively impacted the church's view of the latter. Unfortunately, I found that, overall, the book falls short in its examination.

Before I get to my critique, I do want to affirm some worthwhile points made in this book. First, I very much support Gordon's assertion that aesthetic judgments cannot be limited merely to one's personal taste. There are absolute standards of beauty that are external to us (because those standards are grounded in our Creator's character). Churches cannot make worship music selections based on mere personal preferences. I also agree with Gordon's point that form shapes content: Bad music can undercut and/or trivialize even the best of lyrics (just as good music can powerfully reinforce it!). Much along the same lines, I also appreciate Gordon's chapter on meta-messages. A nonverbal message (music) must support, not contradict, the verbal message (lyrics) with which it is paired. Therefore, song lyrics focused on God and biblical truth ought to be backed up with truly beautiful, worthy music!

But now onto how this book fell short. Here's the fundamental flaw: Gordon never clearly defines either contemporary or traditional worship music! The book's effectiveness suffers immensely because of this failure to define terms. The closest I ever got to figuring out what Gordon means by contemporary worship music is this:
1) It's written in the 1960s or later (but then at another point in the book, Gordon says the word contemporary has nothing to do with the date of writing, only with whether the music sounds new. Well, what does 'new' music sound like? Gordon never clearly explains that either).
2) It's often accompanied by a guitar and often has repeated choruses (so if there's no guitar or repetition, the music must automatically be better, right? Hardly. There are many other criteria to consider when evaluating worship music, but we're bound to miss them if we get hyper-focused on guitars and repeated choruses).
3) It's pop music (which then leaves me wondering what Gordon means by pop music? Is it some sort of umbrella term for music that's neither classical nor folk? Or is it a specific genre, distinct from rock, hip hop, country, indie, etc.? If the former, the term is used too broadly for an under-200-pages book, and if the latter, then the other genres I just mentioned get an unintentional 'free pass' in the worship music discussion).
As you can see, I walked away from this book without having ever quite figured out what contemporary music is. And I also never figured out what Gordon means by traditional music either, other than that he seems to be referring to the 'classic hymns of the faith' like "Be Thou My Vision," "A Mighty Fortress Is Our God," and "O Sacred Head, Now Wounded." I certainly hope Gordon knows exactly what he means by both traditional and contemporary worship music, considering he wrote the book, but I can definitely say that, as the reader, I never fully understood.

My other major concern with this book is the fact that it even hinges on a contemporary/traditional distinction, which, in this book, turns out to be basically synonymous with old/new. Unfortunately, this book gets dangerously close to equating old with good and new with bad. Yes, change can make things worse. I fully acknowledge that many songs commonplace in church worship reflect this kind of negative change. But sometimes, things in this life just change! It's got nothing to do with better or worse; things simply become different. New worship music (either new in date or new in sound) is not necessarily inappropriate and/or inferior. (To his credit, Gordon did manage two footnotes to mention the existence of quality 'new' hymns like "In Christ Alone" and "How Deep the Father's Love"; however, the fact that he relegated this point to just footnotes undercuts the existence of numerous good, new hymns from Stuart Townend, the Gettys, Sovereign Grace, ChurchWorksMedia, Watchsong, Andy Gleiser, the Wilds, etc. I would also point out that, musically, these modern hymns do not sound like the 'standards' in most church hymnals. Harmonically, melodically, and sometimes metrically or rhythmically, these modern hymns are clearly different from older hymns. So, I guess you might say, they sound . . . . . . . new!). And on the flip side, not all traditional worship music is appropriate and/or superior (please, let's just be honest and admit that most church hymnals have some 'classic' hymns that are really not very good hymns; just because something's a beloved 'classic' doesn't mean it's actually worth singing!).

Perhaps with clearer definitions and a more careful consideration of the old/new dichotomy, I would think better of this book. But as it is right now, I can't go any higher than two stars!

[Darby Hughes · Rating 2 out of 5]

Though I'm a music minister who greatly values historic hymns and uses them in corporate worship weekly, and find a lot of problems with the lyrical and musical poverty of contemporary music (secular and sacred), I found this book extremely biased, sometimes ungenerous, and sometimes ill-informed.

The author seems to have an extremely outdated view of contemporary music and its use in the church, and also constantly presents a straw man version of the typical church that uses contemporary music. I'm sure there are churches out there that fit the bill, but many churches that use contemporary music use it mindful of the concerns raised in this book. He also seems almost completely unaware of the progress that has been made in contemporary worship music in the last 10 years or so. More theologically and aesthetically developed contemporary music is being released and is improving. There are churches that avoid the improved variety, but that doesn't have much to do with traditional vs. contemporary, it more has to do with philosophy of ministry (which the author does address). To be fair, he may have missed some of the progress because the book didn't just come out.

Then what starts as a practical concern on the author's part (contemporary music isn't a sin, it's just not best, not helpful), takes a turn toward a theological misstep (in my opinion) when the author asserts that Christianity is "surely transcendent, and not immanent" (pg. 90). What?? This is used as an argument that worship services should be formal, serious, etc., but this is, in my opinion, a theological mistake. Christianity is both transcendent AND immanent. Christ is the king of heaven, humbled himself to the point of death; Christ sits at the right hand of the Father, but rebuked the disciples for keeping children away from him. Christianity is high and contemplative and serious, but it is also the thoughts I think, the attitude I take, and the face I make when my wife asks me to take the trash out. It's also the friendly greeting to a visitor or the cup of water you share with "the least of these." It is because of this theological difference that the more down-to-earth mode of worship as a "family gathering" rather than a "wedding ceremony" doesn't fit in the author's approach to worship. I agree that worship can be too informal, but it can also be too formal. John Piper described it as a need for "Gravity and Gladness." Many contemporary churches are far too heavy on the "gladness" side, but that doesn't mean the contemporary situation should cause us to swing our theology in the opposite direction.

And what's with the constant beat-down of guitars?... He writes as though once someone picks up a guitar to lead a song, they lose all ability to discern rhythm, tempo, range, harmony, etc. Maybe he's only heard one variety of guitar playing, but being sensitive to congregational singing and playing guitar aren't mutually exclusive (I alternate leading singing from piano and guitar).

Most of the philosophical & practical problems he raises are legitimate, they just don't need to be solved by completely abandoning contemporary music and returning to an earlier mode. Applying the principles of a sound, biblical philosophy of worship (old & new, complex & simple, biblical vs. unbiblical, shallow vs. deep, objective & subjective, artistic poverty vs. excellence, etc.) should lead all churches to evaluate and question their corporate worship, no matter the mode of worship they use.

I give this one 2 stars instead of 1 because he is raising a lot of important issues.

[Susan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Longtime readers probably know of my aversion to modern "worship music" used in many churches today. And so, Why Johnny Can't Sing Hymns: How Pop Culture Rewrote the Hymnal was like preaching to the choir, so to speak.

David Gordon makes many points in this book that intrigued me:

"It is well known that the character of its song, almost equal with the character of its preaching, controls the theology of a church." Many of the songs used in churches currently are pretty lite theologically. What message are our churches giving through the songs they are singing?
This generation is the first to insist that the church's music mirror its own - in contrast, Christians in the 50s didn't demand big band-style music at church, nor did 60s churchgoers insist on rock-n-roll. It's only been in maybe the last 20 years that church music and secular music have become almost indistinguishable in sound.
In years past, there were many criteria for a song to make it into the hymnal (the lyrics had to be theologically orthodox and significant, the music had to be well-written, etc). Today, the only criteria seems to be that the song sound contemporary. Should contemporaneity be a criteria at all, let alone the most significant?
It is interesting that many young people do insist on some classical or significant music for their weddings. Are they sending the message that their marriage is more significant than a service worshiping God?
Neil Postman quote: "I believe I am not mistaken in saying that Christianity is a demanding and serious religion. When it is delivered as easy and amusing, it is another kind of religion altogether." Is the contemporary music used in many churches sending the message that Christianity is "easy?"
Often the argument is made that contemporary music is used to reach "seekers," although Gordon makes the point that those truly seeking would most likely be confused or turned away by the disconnect between the musical style and the message being taught. "A church that makes no demands - is this the kind of religion Christianity is?"

I think we've perhaps gotten a bit too bold as we declare, "God doesn't care - it's just a matter of personal taste!" I recall God telling Moses to remove his shoes because he was standing on holy ground. Maybe, just maybe, God does care about the way we worship.

Gordon also brings up some difficulties posed by our current style of "worship" in church - for instance, the usage of words on a large screen in front of the church rather than using hymnals at all. I've often lamented this, as there is no music to follow. It's not too enjoyable (not to mention not very "worshipful") to try to "sing" a new song with only words to go by.

Additionally, without the music, how will kids ever learn to sing music in parts? Gordon points out that most contemporary worship music is written for guitar accompaniment, which doesn't lend itself to singing in parts anyway. Unison singing has its place, but I don't think it can compare to 4-part singing done well (or even passably, usually).

As you can probably tell, I enjoyed this book a lot. Now, if only I could find a church that followed its thoughts ...

[Lois · Rating 5 out of 5]

I thoroughly enjoyed this book! It's written by a college professor, and so reads that way. That is a good thing because so often the traditional/contemporary music debate is more of an argument or quarrel, with much name-calling and shallow emotion. With the academic tone, the reader is able to assess the evidence he presents about how culture has changed the whole way we view music.

T. David Gordon is a preacher in a traditional Protestant denomination. Therefore, his approach to the corporate worship event is to be reverent, come into the presence of God formally! I do not think that wearing a suit and tie makes you more spiritual than wearing jeans and a t-shirt, however, but he points out that the planning and painstaking preparation a person makes for a wedding, meeting the President of the United States or other important event should certainly not be more important than coming into the presence of a holy God. This presentation was a refreshing change from the come-as-you-are-and-leave-unchanged invitation extended by many modern churches.

Music in corporate worship should be a gift of praise, petition, or lament to the Lord, whereas the reality is, people bring their outside music into the church. Basically, all music in our world has become consumerism, what we are bombarded with 24/7, while shopping, driving, and when we listen to contemporary Christian music on the radio, we tend to think it's okay to use it in the worship service. Music has become trivial, mundane, and requires no concentrated thought to listen. Therefore, to use trivial, mundane music in church, cheapens the offering we bring to the Lord. (My own illustration here, is the gifts Cain and Abel presented to the Lord were rejected and accepted by the Lord. Could it be that Cain's "style of worship" was objectionable to God because he didn't bring his best?)

Read this book with a dictionary handy! His vocabulary is a bit high at times. This doesn't bother me, but I'm a traditionalist. Someone who has been dumbed down may need some help! (This last sentence, by the way, is a joke! I mean no offense!)

Contrary to what you may think, he doesn't flippantly promote a "any hymn is better than CCM tripe" mentality. He thoughtfully promotes carefully considering which hymns to sing on a Sunday morning based on message, singability, pitch, rhythm. He offers suggestions on how to introduce a hymn to the congregation.

All in all, a very good read.

[Greg Wilson · Rating 2 out of 5]

A professor of religion and Greek at Grove City College, T. David Gordon previously taught New Testament at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary for thirteen years and for nine years was the pastor of a Presbyterian church. Though an ordained Presbyterian minister, he currently attends an Anglican Church. He holds at least three advanced theological degrees (MAR, ThM, PhD).

“It is not merely the case that Johnny doesn’t sing hymns. It is truer to say that Johnny cannot sing hymns. Johnny has been so swallowed up in a contemporaneous, casual, trivial, youth-centered, guitar-playing pop culture that for him, music, by definition, sounds contemporary.” (p. 174)

Previously I read Gordon’s book Why Johnny can’t preach: the media have shaped the messengers. I believe you could summarize his thesis this way; Johnny can’t preach because Johnny is too stupid. He admits that much of his opinions are based on his experience in the reformed style churches. That is the only problem with the book. It is so subjective. That doesn’t mean though that he isn’t right. I would hate to have him evaluate one of my sermons (and he would no doubt hate having to).

There is a similar tone in this work. Gordon makes many good points, but his broad-brush characterizations too often drown him out. This book was excruciating to read. I couldn’t figure out where I fit. His generalizations of those who don’t sing hymns (exclusively) weren’t describing me. But I certainly didn’t buy into all of his arguments either.

[Pieter Stok · Rating 2 out of 5]

There as there is much that I agree with in this book such as: the dearth of great hymns in public worship, our poor knowledge of hymnody and etc. There is also much I disagree with. It is nearly as though the Holy Spirit has stopped inspiring people in the last few decades. Gordon's tarring of all modem choruses with the same brush is disappointing. The thoughtful works of Rich Mullins, Michael Card, Keith Green and John Michael Talbot are implicitly brushed aside - heaven help them if they used a guitar.

Although the analysis of the superficiality of much of the modern music is compelling and astute, Gordon misses the nuance of those who strive against popular and superifical trends

The poverty of this book is a lack of balance. Yes there are trite choruses but I am also sure that many of the poor old hymns have disappeared and we only see the best. By overstating his case the author has spoiled the power of his argument.

[Edie · Rating 4 out of 5]

Didn't agree with everything the author had to say - but I probably agree with 80%. Too many churches are ignoring the history of and the theology contained in hymns. Church music is "entertainment" rather than an expression of God's greatness and holiness.

[David · Rating 5 out of 5]

I found this one very thought-provoking and stimulating to read. I would highly recommend it. I find that I want to read every book that made it into the footnotes, too.

[Dan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Clear and thought provoking. In the midst of a chorus of books on worship these days, Gordon strikes a thoughtful note.