Jonathan Wynne-Jones : Happy-clappy songs are judged to have ruined Britain

Graham Kendrick – the author of such painful hymns as Shine, Jesus, Shine has been included amongst a list of 50 people responsible for ruining Britain.

Being placed alongside individuals as nauseating as Paul Burrell, Jeffrey Archer and Janet Street-Porter might seem a little harsh for someone whose only crime is to have penned more happy-clappy songs than anyone else.

Four hundred at the last count.

But it’s hard to fault the argument.

Read the whole thing.

Posted in * Christian Life / Church Life, * Culture-Watch, * International News & Commentary, England / UK, Liturgy, Music, Worship, Religion & Culture

44 comments on “Jonathan Wynne-Jones : Happy-clappy songs are judged to have ruined Britain

  1. BrianInDioSpfd says:

    Somehow, I doubt that Graham Kendrick is responsible for ruining Britain. I don’t care much for “Shine, Jesus, Shine” either, but some of the contemporary hymnody is superb.

    I especially like “In Christ Alone” by Keith Getty & Stuart Townend. It does a great job of celebrating what God has done for us in Christ Jesus.

  2. Cennydd says:

    I’ll take the good old Welsh hymns any day in the week!

  3. Eclipse says:

    [blockquote]But it’s hard to fault the argument.[/blockquote]

    Yes, so salient “it’s babyish” – WOW such use of logic I’ve never seen demonstrated on this site.

    I thought the reason we were struggling is that we will NOT follow Christ’s words and are not conformed to His Image. And, now I find it’s all because we sing “Shine Jesus Shine”

    Talk about taking out gnats and swallowing camels….

  4. Karen B. says:

    Personally, I’m really thankful for some of Graham Kendrick’s music. His “Rejoice Rejoice Christ is in you…” was a song the Lord used to help me get through a crisis in grad school 20 years ago. (It put the wonderful promise of Colossians “Christ in you, the hope of glory” to a tune that I found going through my mind on the darkest days of depression, when I wondered if I ever would overcome certain sins and be able to serve the Lord as I desired.)

    And some of his other songs, like Servant King have given me an even deeper awe and wonder over the incarnation “hands that flung stars into space, to cruel nails surrendered”

    Sure, having written 400+ songs there are some duds in the bunch. But we still sing some of his songs here every week, and his music has enriched our team’s worship.

  5. TLDillon says:

    [blockquote]”In an age when the standards of public performance are so high, how do worshippers manage to keep on going to church faithfully when the way worship is prepared and offered is often so dire, when it is frequently confused with entertainment…”[/blockquote]
    I have to agree with this comment. I don’t want to be entertained I want to be fed, reverent, filled with the Word & the Holy Spirit, not entertained.

  6. Dave C. says:

    I’m not sure who selected or approved the photograph to go along with the story, but it sure changes the tenor of the article to the point where whatever merit there might be to some point being made is undermined by racism.

  7. Ad Orientem says:

    If bad taste is to be pilloried there are quite a few people in line ahead of this gentleman. That said, an aweful lot of modern Protestant (and Roman Catholic) hymnody is simply appalling.
    (aplogies for spelling etc. I do not have access to spell check.)

    ICXC
    John

  8. State of Limbo says:

    The “Happy Clappy” songs work great in certain settings. I have personally felt a spiritual lifting when singing “Shine, Jesus, Shine”.

    However, when that type of music becomes pervasive to the exclusion of the traditional hymns every Sunday the services can take on a less reverent feeling. It feels to me as though we continue to feed pablum to infant Christians rather than graduating them on to the heartier adult food of the tradition hymns and encouraging them to become the mature adults that Jesus Christ would wish us to become.

    These praise songs do not address the deeper contents of our Christian faith. Christ certainly did not tell us that all would be sweetness and light if we choose to follow Him. Yet, many of these songs have that feeling.

  9. Irenaeus says:

    1. The basic problem with praise songs is not what they ARE but what they AREN’T.

    Too many praise songs have vapid lyrics: mediocre writing with thin content; flat, clichéd, and often Me-centric. Judged as poetry, they range from tolerable to embarassing. We use the words mostly because people like the tunes. When the tunes go out of style, the words will be consigned to oblivion.

    2. The basic problem with debates about praise songs versus traditional hymns is debaters focus on the music. Those who like contemporary music defend praise songs, including songs with vapid lyrics.

    I like music of the kind found in the 1940 and 1982 hymnals. But I’m willing to sacrifice the tunes in deference to my fellow worshipers taste. In that spirt, give me good contemporary music with strong, well-written lyrics.

    Stuart Townsend does a good job of writing such lyrics: e.g., “In Christ Alone” and “How Deep the Father’s Love for Us.” After writing the melody for “In Christ Alone,” Keith Getty had the good sense to ask Townsend for “some strong lyrics.”
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvV6oUajxAY

    But remember: “In Christ Alone” is not a praise song; it is a hymn set to contemporary music.

  10. Daniel says:

    This controversy reminds me of a story. One day a yuppy, who had recently purchased a old house in need of updating, was talking to his remodeling contractor, a grizzled old veteran carpenter. The yuppy said, “you know these old houses are wonderful; they don’t build them like this anymore.” The carpenter replied, “they built plenty of them, but almost all of them have already fallen down or been torn down. Only the very best of any generation survive the test of time.”

    Are there lots of modern hymns that do not measure up? You bet there are. But then there were lots of older hymns that did not measure up. You just don’t see them or hear them anymore and they are not in today’s hymn books. To put it another way, when we look at the “good old hymns” what we are seeing is survivorship bias. The very best of “happy-clappy” hymns will be there in the hymn books that get written in another few centuries, right next to what we call today the “good old hymn”.

  11. justinmartyr says:

    Great point Daniel. Well put.

  12. RoyIII says:

    This just ain’t a praise song crowd.

  13. Irenaeus says:

    Daniel [#10]: You make a good point about survivorship bias. Which underscores the folly of neglecting good lyrics merely because they come with old tunes.

    Some praise-song melodies will survive, as will an even smaller set of praise-song lyrics. But the die-off rate will be deservedly high.

  14. Frances Scott says:

    I have no particular problem with “praise songs” as such, just the endless repetition that some of them receive in some “worship” services. I have more problem with trying to sing the wonderful hymns I learned as a child when the words have been dumbed down to make them politically correct, or to eliminate poetic phraseology.
    I also have difficulty with organists and other musicians who seem to function under the illusion that “louder is better.” Unless I know that my eardrums will not be insulted, I sit near and exit and use it if I must.

  15. libraryjim says:

    Irenaeus is correct. The problem isn’t the music or the style, it’s the lyrics. The “Jesus is my best friend” style of song is great for retreats and camp-fires at Church Camp, but falls far short of worship music at church services.

    State of Limbo is also correct. I like to hear the contemporary praise music (with strong lyrics) at communion time and offertory. But for the processionals I like the strong Hymns.

    And we will probably never know how many of the older hymns never made it past the cut unless we have access to ancient hymnals.

    Before that, what was used? Beyond Gregorian Chant, polyphany and plainsong, I have no idea. And how many of us only know about these from recent CD recordings by Anonymous 4, Anúna, John Rutter, and other choral groups? Definately not from use in Church services! 😉 I’ve found that the resurgence of interest in Gregorian Chant has led to some interesting updating as well, for example, by the groups [url=http://www.amazon.com/Sanctuary-Magna-Canta/dp/B0007Y8AAG]”Magna Canta”[/url] and [url=http://www.amazon.com/Auracle-Lesiëm/dp/B0002VGSNA/ref=pd_sim_m_4]Lesiem[/url]

    dona nobis Pacem!
    Jim E. <><

  16. Shumanbean says:

    There’s one song in the Hymnal, I think it’s #490, that’s not toooo bad, but at the end of the chorus it goes, “The Lamb is the light of the city of God.” And instead of “shine in my heart, Lord Jesus,” I always want to sing “Mix metaphors, Lord Jesus.”

  17. dwstroudmd+ says:

    Too much focus on the hymn/praise song aspect, folks. The ASB -read revised prayer book labelled Alternative Service Book – the banal and vacuous services are not merely that because of the music. The liturgy is more to blame. Of course, we know vacuous and banal and the huge varieties of its existence in the 1979 production labelled BoCP which is nothing but an alternative service book.

    There probably is use of the Book of Common Prayer at the attended cathedral services, though I did not see that specified.

  18. CharlesB says:

    I have met Graham Kendrick in person, have heard him perform on several occasions and have sung in the chorus for his Christmas concert piece, Rumors of Angels. Wonderful. Graham is a devout Christian and an inspiration. I love SATB choirs, anthems, Mozart, Bach and John Rutter. My wife and I have sung together in choirs for decades. We are also supporters of Alpha and have met Nicky Gumbel in person. It is a proven fact that if you want a vibrant and active worship, you will need to include some “happy clappy” music, drums and all. Our old TEC church, traditional music, is struggling along. The protestant evangelical church we now attend, with blended music, has a problem: It is busting at the seams and can’t fit everyone in.

  19. DaveG says:

    Pompous and elitist!

  20. Pb says:

    Nothing is more boring than most Rite II service music. I notice that most folks around me use the hymnal since they still can not sing the tune without the notes.

  21. Ross Gill says:

    ‘Happy, clappy’ is a term people often use to put down contemporary songs and hymns and often employed by high brow snobs. Sure, at the end of each verse in ‘Shine, Jesus Shine’ there is some hand clapping for some percussive efffect. But many of the modern hymns – Kendrick’s included – are not pieces that one would want to clap to at all. His ‘All I Once Held Dear (aka ‘Knowing You)’ is a lovely reflection on Philippians 3. Congregations that didn’t use it last Sunday (October 5) missed a glorious opportunity. And what people here have already said about Stuart Townend and Keith Getty is right on the mark. There aren’t many of their hymns that one would want to clap to. Tomorrow being Thanksgiving in Canada, we used their ‘My Heart is Filled with Thankfulness’ this morning – great lyrics and an Irish-flavoured tune. So many of their songs lend themselves to different musical styles, too, from praise band to organ. The Church Catholic would be much poorer without the compositions of Kendrick, Getty and Townend. Anglicans need to break out of their hymn book ghetto.

    As for the ongoing ASB, BCP, BAS debate, if we want to communicate the good news of Jesus Christ in the western world with its fading Christian memory it isn’t going to happen using 16th century English. Insist on using it and we shouldn’t be surprised if the people we want to reach think Christians are living in the past. Yes, the BCP sounds lovely but too much is at stake here to be governed primarily by aesthetics. Cranmer would probably be appalled that we are still using and would probably say that we’ve completely missed the point.

  22. Doug Hale says:

    Frankly, I am a convinced blended music person. Give me the best music of all ages and then lets worship. Unfortunately, I find a significant amounts of that found in the 1982 and amongst contemporary music to not be the “best.” But then what do I know, I always thought “Shine, Jesus Shine” was one of the best of contemporary music.

  23. Bill C says:

    I have no problem with ‘happy clappy’ songs but in the right setting and not to replace liturgy that I believe essential. I’ve found that 45 – 60 minutes of this often sugary singing means that there is no time for the Lord’s prayer, the Creeds (Apostle’s or Nicene). Scripture readings, Liturgical prayer and traditional hymns. The Scripture readings are always incorporated into the sermon. It helps new Christians who have no tradition of Christian worship to speak of, but it stops there and services do not mature. However, despite all this, our church is filled with true worship which is more than I can say for the local Episcopal Church (in NH). My 1928 BCP
    is always close to me though. This church is new to my family so I am planning a stealthy but open, slow but methodical attack to encourage first the Lord’s prayer, then the Apostle’s Creed, corporate and read prayers.

  24. Bill C says:

    As for ‘happy, clappy songs’ have ruined England!! It is by far the last place to look for causes of ruin in Britain. Some of the most spirit-filled and packed Anglican Churches I have ever worshipped at in England have incorporated Graham Kendrick’s music into their services.

  25. Anglican-at-last says:

    IMO, this type of music (in moderation and well-executed) can be a good tool to draw into our churches those who have little exposure to Anglicanism. My children and I worship in a Southern Baptist church, where this genre is the norm (regrettably). I have attempted to introduce my kids to Anglicanism with little success. They have always commented about the music: it is too hard to sing and too hard to understand. To their credit, every time we have visited an Episcopal church in the last year, the hymns selected were not the more common ones sung by many denominations. Though these hymns tied in nicely with the scripture readings of the day, I struggled with being able to sing them also (and I had been a member of TEC for 35 years and a former choir member). I think a mixture of traditional and contemporary music would serve several purposes: 1) attracting non-Anglican types to venture into our church to visit. For some, the liturgy itself can be a hurdle to feeling a “fit” – perhaps some familar music would compensate? 2) keep the youth engaged in the worship service by offering at least a few songs that they can sing and comprehend, and 3) keep us adults from becomming too rigid in our preferences. If our Lord uses just one of these “happy-clappy songs to draw someone to Him, is this not a good thing?

  26. libraryjim says:

    Ross (#21)
    [blockquote]As for the ongoing ASB, BCP, BAS debate, if we want to communicate the good news of Jesus Christ in the western world with its fading Christian memory it isn’t going to happen using 16th century English. Insist on using it and we shouldn’t be surprised if the people we want to reach think Christians are living in the past. Yes, the BCP sounds lovely but too much is at stake here to be governed primarily by aesthetics. [/blockquote]

    What we are complaining about is not the language style (or at least I’m not complaining about that — I prefer modern language), but the re-writing of the BCP which changed much of the theology.

    Frankly, I [i]would[/i] like to see a modern language updating of the old BCP (I gets me dates mixed up — 1928?) that keeps to the spirit and solid Chrisitan-centered theology of the text.

  27. Tikvah says:

    Irenaeus, are you aware how many “praise songs” were incorporated into the 1982 Hymnal? They’re right out of Charismatic Renewal of the 60’s.
    Personally, I desire to worship, and not that many of the hymns make me want to get on my face before the throne.
    T

  28. Sarah1 says:

    I’m a 1940 Hymnal person myself. Not many praise songs make me want to get on my face before the throne. But I’m all for folks sculpting the worship service that best suits the majority. I expect people “self-select” any way. I end up going to the traditional services, and I’m comfortable knowing that others have quite happily gone to the praise song services, if that is what they desire.

  29. beyondfedup says:

    While I would love a “blended” service with all musical eras represented, I have found an unwillingness to bend on this issue from both “sides”. How sad that one will say “This is the only way to sing in worship that means anything to Jesus… or at least the only way it means anything to ME.” Are we not different? Will different musical styles appeal to different hearts? Why do “we” think “we” know what is best and pleasing to the Lord in the area of music? All I can find is that we are to sing to the Lord, to make a joyful noise, to offer Him sincere praise in worship. What that is for me and what that is for you may be different altogether. Yet, we get in the way of truly worshiping Him together and have to put our foot down on issues such as this. It grieves my heart. I loved it all until “they” told me I was was wrong, and that I should worship they way “they” feel is appropriate. Now I find myself in a place of self-consciousness and inadequacy during worship because I’ve been told that “one of the ways” isn’t the “right” way and I unfortunately hear it from BOTH sides of this issue. I’d love to find a nice spoken service to attend just to get away from this condescending attitude that we treat our own brothers and sisters with. I’m pretty sure Jesus is looking at the HEART of the worshipper. Not what instruments are being played…

  30. Connecticutian says:

    I’m going to side-step the musical debate this time around, and only want to say this: Much of Kendrick’s music was written for the various Marches for Jesus that (as far as I know) he pioneered. If a man’s got the anointing to spearhead such an unashamed public procalmation of Jesus, he gets a free pass on the music*. Stick that in your Decade of Evangelism and smoke it! 😉

    * PS – regardless of your taste, his work is by and large more musically sophisticated and interesting than many of his contemporaries.

  31. Jon says:

    GREAT point by Library Jim (#27). I agree with him 100%. I would LOVE to hear a modern rendering of the old BCP that retains its classic and deeply Christ and Cross centered theology.

    Here’s a long but wonderful passage from C.S. Lewis that seems relevant to me, if we focus for just a second on one point made by the original article: which is that modern hymns / liturgy are bad IN PRINCIPLE because the old stuff (old BCP, old hymns, old translations of the Bible) are rendered in such majestic English language.

    Here Lewis is writing a preface to a very modern translation of Paul’s Epistles:

    It is possible that the reader who opens this volume on the counter of a bookshop may ask himself why we need a new translation of any part of the Bible, and, if of any, why of the Epistles. ‘Do we not already possess’, it may be said, ‘in the Authorised Version the most beautiful rendering which any language can boast?’ Some people whom I have met go further and feel that a modern translation is not only unnecessary but even offensive. They cannot bear to see the time-honoured words altered; it seems to them irreverent.

    There are several answers to such people. In the first place the kind of objection which they feel to a new translation is very like the objection which was once felt to any English translation at all. Dozens of sincerely pious people in the sixteenth century shuddered at the idea of turning the time-honoured Latin of the Vulgate into our common and (as they thought) ‘barbarous’ English. A sacred truth seemed to them to have lost its sanctity when it was stripped of the polysyllabic Latin, long heard at Mass and at Hours, and put into ‘language such as men do use’ — language steeped in all the commonplace associations of the nursery, the inn, the stable, and the street. The answer then was the same as the answer now.

    The only kind of sanctity which Scripture can lose (or, at least, New Testament scripture) by being modernized is an accidental kind which it never had for its writers or its earliest readers. The New Testament in the original Greek is not a work of literary art: it is not written in a solemn, ecclesiastical language, it is written in the sort of Greek which was spoken over the Eastern Mediterranean after Greek had become an international language and therefore lost its real beauty and subtlety. In it we see Greek used by people who have no real feeling for Greek words because Greek words are not the words they spoke when they were children. It is sort of ‘basic’ Greek; a language without roots in the soil, a utilitarian, commercial and administrative language.

    Does this shock us? It ought not to, except as the Incarnation itself ought to shock us. The same divine humility which decreed that God should become a baby at a peasant-woman’s breast, and later an arrested field preacher in the hands of the Roman police, decreed also that He should be preached in a vulgar, prosaic and unliterary language. If you can stomach the one, you can stomach the other. The Incarnation is in that sense, an incurably irreverent doctrine: Christianity, in that sense, an incurably irreverent religion. When we expect that it should have come before the World in all the beauty that we now feel in the Authorised Version we are as wide of the mark as the Jews were in expecting that the Messiah would come as a great earthly King. The real sanctity, the real beauty and sublimity of the New Testament (as of Christ’s life) are of a different sort: miles deeper or further in.

    In the second place, the Authorised Version has ceased to be a good (that is, a clear) translation. It is no longer modern English: the meanings of words have changed. The same antique glamour which has made it (in the superficial sense) so ‘beautiful’, so ‘sacred’, so ‘comforting’, and so ‘inspiring’, has also made it in many place unintelligible. Thus where St Paul says ‘I know nothing against myself,’ it translates ‘I know nothing by myself.’ That was a good translation (though even then rather old-fashioned) in the sixteenth century: to the modern reader it means either nothing, or something quite different from what St Paul said. The truth is that if we are to have translation at all we must have periodical re-translation. There is no such thing as translating a book into another language once for all, for a language is a changing thing. If your son is to have clothes it is no good buying him a suit once for all: he will grow out of it and have to be re-clothed.

    And finally, though it may seem a sour paradox — we must sometimes get away from the Authorised Version, if for no other reason, simply because it is so beautiful and so solemn. Beauty exalts, but beauty so lulls. Early associations endear but they also confuse. Through that beautiful solemnity the transporting or horrifying realities of which the Book tells may come to us blunted and disarmed and we may only sigh with tranquil veneration when we ought to be burning with shame or struck dumb with terror or carried out of ourselves by ravishing hopes and adorations. Does the word ‘scourged’ really come home to us like ‘flogged’? Does ‘mocked him’ sting like ‘jeered at him’?

    We ought therefore to welcome all new translations (when they are made by sound scholars) and most certainly those who are approaching the Bible for the first time will be wise not to begin with the Authorised Version — except perhaps for the historical books of the Old Testament where its anachronisms suit the saga-like material well enough. … It would have saved me a great deal of labour if this book had come into my hands when I first seriously began to try to discover what Christianity was.

  32. Irenaeus says:

    Jon [#32]: You’re on quite a roll with C.S. Lewis quotes today.
    http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/16916/#288733

    Keep it up!

  33. Katherine says:

    I don’t know if some of these songs are the ones we’re singing in the Cathedral in Cairo. The words, but not the tunes, are projected on the screen. I almost never know the tunes, and many of the songs are difficult to sing, with the verses having uneven numbers of syllables which have to be fitted to the tunes. I can sing pointed plainsong chants and love them, but I can’t sing this stuff because I don’t know it. Much of it is uninspiring lyrically and musically. Since this is my only exposure (1940 at home), it’s not been a happy experiment.

  34. Boring Bloke says:

    Can I second #32’s endorsement of #27. The moment that somebody comes up with a modern replacement for 1662 that keep its solid biblical and patriasic theology, preferably in a way that is reasonably easy to say, then I would gladly lay my 1662 BCP by. Unfortunately, so far I haven’t seen any signs of it happening.

  35. phil swain says:

    I nominate Marty Haugen- though I don’t know if he ruined Britain too.

    Hopper, someone has to be the last to know. I must say that I’m not suprised that it’s you.

  36. Jon says:

    LOL… thanks Iraneus. Yep, I am a CSL junkie. Love the guy. Also a big Luther fan. Two very different Christians, both have been a great help to me.

  37. Irenaeus says:

    Jon [#38]: Ditto about Luther and CSL.

  38. InChristAlone says:

    I heartily endorse Daniel’s (#10) comment. In all honesty, there are some really bad contemporary worship songs, but the truth is that the ones that will stand the test of time have not had the time to be tested and the others sorted out.
    I also want to point out something that people often do not talk about and that is people’s ‘style of worship.’ Who is to say that God is worshipped any less by “Shine Jesus Shine” than “Amazing Grace” and vice-versa? I think an article by Gordon MacDonald from a number of years ago hits the nail right on the head. He offers 6 major categories of worship that draw different worshippers in to different degrees. The six categories he lists are: aesthetic, experiential, activist, contemplative, student, and relational. Often different people are drawn most by two or three of these while suspect of one or two of the others.
    I think that all too often we forget that we are talking about how WE as individuals best experience God. I for one lean towards traditional music but am a huge fan of blended worship. I have two friends, though, on opposite sides of the issue. One is drawn into worship through the tradition of old hymns and has been deeply offended by those who would say he has to worship their way with contemporary music. The other often feels like the hymns are so stuffy that they often remove all sense of joy for them and so contemporary music draws them into worshiping God more than traditional hymns. Both of them have a great respect for each other though and are willing to worship in the same services week after week after week because they both realize that the most important thing is to worship God with our whole being.

  39. Sick & Tired of Nuance says:

    Each of the four living creatures had six wings and were full of eyes inside and out. Without stopping day or night they were saying, “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty, who was, who is, and who is coming.” Revelation 4:8

    How awful. How vapid to just repeat the same thing over and over. How babyish. It’s soooo simplistic. It’s just mindless repetition. It’s just boring.
    [/sarcasm]

    When did it become a requirement for the profound to be complex?

    Lord the light or your love is shining,
    In the midst of the darkness shining,
    Jesus light of the world shine upon us,
    Set us free by the truth you now bring us,
    Shine on me. shine on me.

    Shine jesus shine
    Fill this land with the fathers glory
    Blaze, spirit blaze,
    Set our hearts on fire
    Flow, river flow
    Flood the nations with grace and mercy
    Send forth your word
    Lord and let there be light.

  40. Irenaeus says:

    “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty, who was, who is, and who is coming”

    Infinitely better than the likes of “Oh, God, you are my god, because you’re so pretty to me.”

  41. Sick & Tired of Nuance says:

    Actually, I think the lyrics go something like this:
    http://www.lyricstime.com/worship-o-god-you-are-my-god-lyrics.html

    Oh God, You are my God
    And I will ever praise You

    Oh God, You are my God
    And I will ever praise You

    I will seek You in the morning
    And I will learn to walk in Your ways
    And Step by step You’ll lead me
    And I will follow You all of my days

    Yep, those lyrics sort of remind me of these written by this really cool guitarist named Davey:

    Praise the LORD, O my soul;
    all my inmost being, praise his holy name.

    Praise the LORD, O my soul,
    and forget not all his benefits-

    who forgives all your sins
    and heals all your diseases,

    who redeems your life from the pit
    and crowns you with love and compassion

  42. Ralph Webb says:

    There are two obvious points being missed by the writer: 1) Not all of Graham Kendrick’s songs are “happy-clappy.” (Can anyone really call “The Servant Song” that?) 2) Not all songs have to be played “happy-clappy.” I learned “Shine Jesus Shine” in 1989 as a meditative guitar piece. (That arrangement fits with the seriousness of the lyrics.) I only came to know a “happy-clappy” rendition of it when I came to Truro Church in 1996 — seven years later. Until then, it was a SLOW, contemplative piece that was incredibly convicting. Now, I’ve never liked the “happy-clappy” rendition — it’s not the real “Shine Jesus Shine” to me, and it ends up making light of some profound lyrics, IMHO. (It’s one of the few musical renditions of songs at Truro that I don’t like.) But I know that for some people it means a lot.

    I, for one, am grateful for Graham Kendrick’s gifts to the body of Christ.

  43. Jon says:

    Only because Irenaeus has been so insistent that I keep producing C.S. Lewis quotes whever they might be relevant… here’s another. (GRIN)

    Our beloved CSL was writing about going to church, and why at first he didn’t want to go. He complains you’ll note about the abysmal hymns — though interestingly you’ll see that he was refering to the hymns we think of today as the great classics!

    … I disliked very much their hymns, which I considered to be fifth-rate poems set to sixth-rate music. But as I went on I saw the great merit of it. I came up against different people of quite different outlooks and different education, and then gradually my conceit just began peeling off. I realized that the hymns (which were just sixth-rate music) were, nevertheless, being sung with devotion and benefit by an old saint in elastic-side boots in the opposite pew, and then you realize that you aren’t fit to clean those boots. It gets you out of your solitary conceit.”

  44. Jon says:

    PS. You’ll also note that he has an obsession about people wearing elastic side boots. For C.S. Lewis they seemed to be the zenith of working class tackiness. He talks about them in GOD IN THE DOCK, in his novel THAT HIDEOUS STRENGTH, in LETTERS TO MALCOLM (his book on prayer) — he just couldn’t stop. 🙂