From news editor Daniel Silliman: I’m unconvinced by most of the arguments that hymns are better than contemporary worship songs. Everyone’s entitled to a preference, or course. I often prefer hymns. But I think claims for their objective superiority are mostly nostalgia, taste, or an overly narrow perspective on what “worship music” can be.

I do resonate with the argument that hymnals are “rooted,” though, as people say in this piece we published today by Kelsey Kramer McGinnis. When I’m singing from a hymnal, I always look at the author and composer, the name of the tune, and the dates attached. 

It’s not a lot of history, but I find it orients me. I like to know that I’m singing something from the fourth century or the Reformation or the Victorian era, and whether it was written in the context of personal tragedy, ecclesial triumph, or cultural confusion. For me at least, knowing the history means that I get to lift my voice with the church in the room but also the broader church, the people of God across space and time.

Maybe this isn’t an argument for hymnals, though? Maybe I just want worship music to have little blurbs giving context and backstory? There’s room on those screens for more info, giving us some rootedness.