Going Where No Congregation Has Gone Before: The Singing of Unfamiliar Hymns

“Thus, just as there will be many more Church members, families, wards, stakes, and temples—later on, there will also be many more nourishing and inspiring scriptures. However, we must first feast worthily upon that which we already have!” (Neal A. Maxwell in “God Will Yet Reveal” October 1986 General Conference)

What are we doing with what we have? I keep hearing people asking about when the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (which I will refer to as “the church,” since it's the church I belong to) is going to put out a new book of hymns. This would be nice, but I think if we would look inside our existing hymnbook we would find many hymns that are “new” to us because they are rarely sung in meetings. Before seeking to acquire a new hymnbook, I would advocate getting to know the hymns we have currently.

Let me tell you the perspective from which I write this. I currently serve as the ward music chairperson, which means that, among other things, I am responsible for selecting the hymns that our congregation sings each week. As a pianist/organist I have also used the hymnbook in my music sight-reading exercises. Thus, I find myself with a greater familiarity with the hymns than the average church member may have, and I want you to know that our current hymnbook is full of inspiring hymns. Many of the songs we never sing have lovely lyrics and beautiful music that would bring the Spirit to our meetings—if we we could get past the thoughts of “I've never sung this song before!” “Why are we singing this song?” and “Nobody knows this song.” That's why I'm trying to throw in some less familiar hymns (and why my ward may be wishing that the bishop would call a new music person).

I have heard people say that they actually hate this or that hymn simply because “we always sing it” and “I'm tired of it.” This is a very real phenomenon found in our congregations because we really only sing a small percentage of the hymns in our hymnal. I do not think that we should be hating any hymns. I understand having favorites, but to have a series of blacklisted hymns simply because they are commonplace is unbelievable to me. If we were to broaden our repertoire this would be far less likely to happen.

When selecting the hymns, I often make an effort to match the theme of the music to the topic of our Sacrament meeting. This is hard. I come across many hymns that I think would be a perfect complement to the talks, but I don't dare select them too often because I am afraid nobody will sing. Which is a shame, because I typically end up selecting a hymn everybody knows. Then, in my paranoia I find myself thinking “I'm probably reinforcing someone's dislike of this song.” I'm stuck. More than my concern over whether or not people hate the hymns I'm singing, though, I'm concerned that we aren't getting what we could from our music in church meetings. Having sung the same hymns repeatedly, I kick myself into auto-pilot and fail to pay attention to what the words I am singing mean. They become trite. Then again, if people are caught up in the unfamiliarity of a hymn they aren't likely to glean much meaning from it, either.

What to do, what to do? I understand that for organists with limited abilities the suggestion of an unfamiliar hymn can be quite stressful. Their comfort is more important than the introduction of new hymns. I would imagine that an organist having a nervous breakdown would be far more disruptive to the Spirit than singing “Nearer, My God to Thee” for the third week in a row. However, many of the hymns from the so-called “sealed portion” of the hymnbook are actually easier to play than the ones we know. It just takes a little looking. Remember, though: “Seek and you shall find”!

I like my comfort zone, and I know others do, too. There is a certain amount of peace that comes from singing an “oldie, but a goodie.” Can't we broaden our horizons and find more songs that we will love? That is my hope. I have some ideas I've tried to implement and some that I still need to test, but I'm trying to give it a go without completely scaring (and scarring) my ward members. I try to select a less popular hymn for the congregation to sing each week or so. I usually put it as an opening hymn so that people can forget the awkward feeling that can sometimes come from after having to sing a song they don't really know. I mark the hymns in my hymnbook with a date and my goal is not only to avoid singing the same songs too often, but to have a date by each song. I don't think I'll have this calling long enough for that, but I'm aiming for it. I also try to play through some less common hymns as part of the prelude on weeks that I play the organ. The thought has also crossed my mind to use the choir and special musical numbers to familiarize ward members with the songs they may not know. Occasionally the Mormon Tabernacle Choir will sing uncommon hymns during General Conference. Seize the opportunity and sing the song shortly thereafter in your ward! Perhaps the best place to practice new hymns is in the home. If you are a pianist, consider using the hymnbook to improve your sight-reading. If you are not, all the hymns can be found on lds.org. Sing them for Family Home Evening. Be brave and improve yourselves. Whether at home or in your ward, persist and rotate through until it becomes comfortable.

In short, by singing only the hymns with which we are already familiar, we deprive ourselves of the beauty they contain and progressively limit the hymns that we can sing—which can sometimes cause negative feelings or automatic singing of the hymns we do sing. These thoughts—or lack thereof—can disrupt the Spirit of the meeting. Singing a wider range of hymns can help with this. Keep in mind that side-effects may include decreased singing in your ward, nasty looks from ward members, and general discomfort. Singing less familiar hymns may not be for everyone. You may wish to discontinue treatment if your organist has limited abilities or if you experience chronic disruption of the Spirit. Talk with your bishop to determine if unfamiliar hymns are right for your ward.

Heads or Tails

Coincidence? When reading C.S. Lewis, I think not. I find so much symbolism within his Chronicles of Narnia that I have a hard time dismissing any bits that I find to be consistent with my beliefs. And while he may not have intended for all my insights to be taken symbolically, I dare not discredit his genius by suggesting otherwise.

Melody and I have been working our way through the Chronicles of Narnia. (We read The Magician's Nephew and just finished The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe.) Obviously, it's her first time through. I've read them several times, though, and every time I read them I discover something new to think about. This time through, I've been thinking about the creatures of Narnia.

First off, Narnia contains ordinary animals as well as an elite group that was given the ability to talk. These talking animals are set apart and respected more than their mute counterparts. For example, talking horses are only ridden in times of emergency—such as war, and no talking animal is to be used for food. They are elevated because of their gift of speech.

Many Narnians have a mixture of human and animal bodies, giving them more than just the speech of humans. There are centaurs, fauns, satyrs, minotaurs, and more. And what truly struck me was that generally, those who side with Aslan are those with human heads and animal legs or bodies—like the centaurs and fauns. Those who side with the White Witch may have bodies or characteristics that would make them seem human, but their heads are animal heads. We can see this contrast directly with the “Bull with the man's head” who makes his camp with Aslan and the “bull-headed men” who are present with the witch at the stone table in Lion, Witch and Wardrobe. Both are a conglomeration of man and bull, but it seems significant that the bull-headed men are not simply referred to as minotaurs. And why choose to include such an odd creature as a bull with a man's head? I think this is an intentional message Lewis is sending readers: use your head!

Seriously. Our capacity to reason is unparalleled by any beast—or at least it should be. Unfortunately, I find myself a bit “bull-headed” at times. In my obstinance and failure to reason, I succumb to my more basic instincts and find myself in violation of the first instructions Aslan gave Narnia following its creation in The Magician's Nephew: “[A]wake. Love. Think. Speak.” I may be awake and speaking (although, as a sleep-talker not even the awake part is guaranteed), but I often forget about loving and thinking before I speak. And I think the order of the instructions matters greatly; simply speaking does not a good Narnian make—for this is where the foolish and wicked Narnians separate themselves from those who think and do good.

It was possible for animals who could once talk to lose the ability. Some talking animals did not think, but they loved. Others thought but didn't love. The noblest characters—animal, human, or hybrid—spoke only after loving and thinking.

I hope that my human head and my gift of speech aren't being wasted . . . that my reason and choices keep me in the realm of the human, rather than that of the beast.

Freedom and reason make us men;

Take these away, what are we then?

Mere animals, and just as well

The beasts may think of heav'n or hell.

LDS Hymn #240, Verse 3