King James, the black book, and change

First, some background:

My church has two hymnals and a chorus book. One hymnal, the one used the most, is Worship In Song, Lillenas Publishing, 1972. It has a lot of familiar hymns and some newer ones from the 20th century. The other hymnal is the Wesleyan Methodist Hymnal, 1910 - I call it the "black book". It is black. It has a lot of older songs, the majority unfamiliar. I don't like it. To be fair, it may be more the tunes than the words. Regardless, I groan inwardly when we sing from it, which is not often.

This past week, I posted something I thought was humorous on facebook: one of my favorite Southern Gospel groups, the Talley Trio, just released a new CD. I was listening to it, and when track #10 came on, I said to myself "man, that sounds like a song from the black book!" Just for kicks, on Sunday I looked in the index of the black book.... and the song was there! I of course was amused.

Anyway, a lady from my church took offense to my not liking this hymnal and posted a few things about it - long comments, lots of words in all-caps, telling me among other things that if I didn't like the singing at my church, maybe I needed a "heart check." I was annoyed at first, later amused. I deleted the whole conversation while thinking "wow, I'm glad liking or disliking a certain hymnal does not depend on one's salvation!"

This got me to thinking, which can be a dangerous thing. And led to me to some interesting thoughts - at least to me. I did a bit of research to make sure I was right, and I was. Or am.

I want to talk about Isaac Watts. He was recognised as the "Father of English Hymnody", as he was the first prolific and popular English hymn writer, credited with some 750 hymns. Many of his hymns remain in active use today and have been translated into many languages.

Until he began writing hymns, the singing in churches revolved around Psalms. That is what they sang in churches. Then comes along Isaac with his new thing: hymns that he wrote. One would imagine that he faced some opposition, and one would be correct. He faced a lot. How dare someone come up with something different, newer than what they had been singing! And singing from the Bible, no less!

We are on the other side of history and cannot imagine just singing the Psalms now. Not that there is anything wrong with that. We cheer for Isaac Watts and pity those people who fought the arrival of hymns.

More of that later. Let us take a trip back in history even further, to 1611. Up to that time, people were reading other versions of the Bible. There were Bibles before 1611, though some people seem to think otherwise. There were actually two official translation of the Bible into English. Then comes along King James, a wicked king, who commissioned yet another Bible. The one we know as The King James version.

There are many people who live and die by the KJV. That is fine. What is not fine is the closed-mindedness (is that a word?!) of these same people who consider any other version heresy and will not even consider using another. Not even the New King James which pretty much updates the language, using words like "you", instead of "thou", and doing away with outdated words such as "lovest".

There is no proof that the King James Version is any more reliable and ordained by God, than the New King James Version, The New International Version, The New Living, or more. Are all translations right on? Maybe not. There is one that uses neutral pronouns when referring to God, instead of "He". Definitely wrong, but just because something is newer than we are used to, does not make it bad. And just because something is old, does not make it better. And to be fair, just because something is new does not make it better or good.

Someone said the cry of the dying church is "but we never did it that way before!" Granted, some churches get "too new and modern". Some focus on entertainment, rather than worship. But there is room for improvement in any church. None are exempt from improvement, no matter what they think.

Back to music...... I have heard some praise and worship songs that I wondered why on earth the writer bothered, but I've thought that about some hymns also. It doesn't hurt a church to use some newer songs. Sure, some protest and almost view it as heretical, but that is what they thought about hymns in Isaac Watt's day.

God cannot be put into a box. Neither can worship. Not every new song or method needs to be used, but if we would welcome some of the new, we might be surprised at the outcome. Try a different translation. You might find something new in the Bible you never noticed. Something might make more sense, stand out more. Try some newer songs. God might minister to you through them.

God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, but the ways of reading about Him and singing about Him are not. If the church had had their way, we would all still be singing Psalms in church. No "Amazing Grace"or "Great Is Thy Faithfulness". No "Because He Lives", no "Family of God." I would guess that even the most conservative among us would admit that the hymns have added much to our worship over the years, and have ministered and convicted us. So is it that much of a stretch to say that newer songs can do that? I think not.

Something I would like, is for my church to buy a newer hymnal. Much newer. Put the old black hymnals aside and bring some newer songs into the service. Keep the Worship In Song Hymnal as the main hymnal, and use the newer hymnal occasionally. Who knows what it could add to the service. But knowing my church as I know it, that is about as likely as the pews being exchanged for reclining seats with footrests and a beverage holder.......

Is the old bad? No, but neither is the new. And no, one's salvation does not depend on liking or disliking any hymnal or style of singing. And change isn't always bad. Often it is good and necessary.

And lastly... the only difference between a rut and a grave is their dimensions.