New English Hymnal Options

[Tenor Viol]

Shine Jesus Shine is essentially a useful vehicle for the worship context in that it allows so many people to engage in singing the praises of their God, among virtually all church traditions.

Sadly, you're right. To paraphrase Vaughan Williams's words in the original English Hymnal, people will gladly embrace rubbish in lieu of anything better. And until they are taught to appreciate music properly by our education system - and for the most part they currently are not* - who can blame them?

*Lest anyone should think I am teacher-bashing, please rest assured that I am not pointing fingers at anyone. I am merely observing that schools have long been losing the unequal battle with the media, who carpet-bomb us with "pop" idioms and seem unable to conceive excitement in any other form.

'Shine, Jesus, Shine' is, regrettably, not a good piece. Mr Kendrick does not do his own words justice, setting them badly, in terms of rhythm, melodic shape and register. No blame attaches to him, for I understand that he has had little formal training as a composer. This would account for the inappropriate register of the opening lines, for example.

If I may, I disagree with Tosher. The theological content is poor and gives entirely the wrong impression of the Founder's message, though this approach to Christianity is common in certain styles of worship.

The item does often seem to be chosen 'to get people going'. That manner of devising worship was articulated by The Reverend Alfred C Lamb many years ago. His view was that the purpose of music in worship was to awake the worshipper's ear to receive the message. Thus anything would do that would 'turn people on'.

This amounts to the fundamental conflict between the priestly ministry, (not in the sacrificial sense), and the prophetic ministry. One is objective and the other subjective. Both achieve the conversion of souls, but only one seeks to maintain won souls in a state of grace by feeding and nourishing. St Paul refers to moving from milk to meat - I think it is in Hebrews Chapter 5, but I have no Bible to hand to check the reference. This is what the real issue is about here. Those who prefer 'stronger' material are seeking to move onward in the Christian journey, whereas others are content to remain closer to the point of first enlightenment or, as it is sometimes described, 'conversion'. St Paul is rather critical of this. It appears to have been a problem in the early church as well as nowadays.

As has been pointed out out, even the newly written pieces are very much in the early 1970s style. It is certainly not modern. However, what cannot be challenged is Mr Kendrick's sincereity and openness. He is a delightful person.



Barry Williams

Not being a member of the CoE, I have succumbed and Googled said hymn. The French word "malheureusement" is so much more descriptive than the English 'unfortunately'...

As I suspected, I have encountered this hymn in my cathedral days, usually at "youth" services with bands of grotesquely over-amplified guitar twangers. And no, I am not being disrespectful of different musical styles - the standard of musicianship exhibited by many of these groups is mediocre at best. This, and another one whose name I mercifully have forgotten, were a regular feature at such services and we used to dread them. The only people who seem to like them are the ident-kit clones who seem to form the bands, and the "trendy" clergy who like to think they're "in touch" by advocating them.

[Barry Williams]

".....the "trendy" clergy who like to think they're "in touch" by advocating them. "

It has always concerned me that offers to present seriously modern music (e.g. heavy metal, rave, bop, etc.,) in worship has caused 'trendy'clergy (and others) to run a mile. Likewise, serious jazz in worship is unacceptable to these people. (e.g. Danckworth's Folk Mass.)

Concern is expressed by 'trendy' people that music has to be 'relevant', as though music was the only aspect of worship that mattered. As has been pointed out many times on this Board and elsewhere, a certain style of music constantly features in this 'trendyness' and it is rarely modern, even when newly written. Rather, it avoids the objective approach that seriously contemporary music provides. The words of many 'worship songs' (are not hymns and anthems also 'worship songs'?) lack challenge, but when they do have point and moment, the music fails to underline the words, ('Shine, Jesus, Shine' is a good example,) so any merit is lost.

All of this suggests making divine worship a comfort zone with music merely engaging the worshipper, rather than being an act of worship of itself. This is the point I made above with the quote from The Reverend Alfred C Lamb. I cannot help but feel that the huge (and impressive) choirs of the Billy Graham Crusades were along these lines. Certainly, it was openly admitted to be thus when the Reverend Stephen Olford conducted the 'Croydon For Christ' campaign in the 1960s.

The fundamental difference here is in the approach to worship. Is it to be objective or subjective? The latter admits of anything that will achieve the immediate purpose, whereas the former requires the exercise of reason and judgment. Some would say that it is the difference between emotion and reason.

Barry Williams

[Swell Box]

As choirboys, we were always taught that singing was the greatest form of praise.

That being the case, surely singing should always be done properly, joyfully and reverently; using only appropriate words and music?

SB