After having spent many years of my life leading worship (high schools, colleges, vocationally, etc), a problem that was always personally vexing were the 2 camps warring with one another – classic vs. modern.  Anything the worship leader did was immediately met with criticism.  Then in the late 90’s, there was a blending of the two that begun to erupt, and it was good.  It would be modern worship leaders playing hymns with their modern musical arrangements, which was usually “Be Thou My Vision” or "Come Thou Fount of Every Blessing" by way of Coldplay B side.  It seemed to satisfy theology heads –they got to sing words that were penned in a poetic, longer-than-30-second made up journal entry that repeated constantly, but it gave the modernist digital delay guitar effects ever present in their songs.

Since the advent of the praise chorus, there has been debate over the lyrical content of Christian worship songs.  The initial (and sometimes continuing) issues have centered on the depth of content.  Worship choruses were lyrically simple, hooky, and repetitive by design.  And in the early development of the praise chorus, I think that was the point—to create songs that were easy to sing and more emotionally evocative, not necessarily weighty in theology.  So in contrast to hymns, worship choruses—infusing contemporary folk and rock sensibilities—were composed that were sincere, singable, and hopefully meaningful.

Thankfully, the hymn-versus-chorus debate is largely a thing of the past these days.  In many churches, hymns and choruses peacefully co-exist in the expression of corporate worship.  In a real sense, the traditional vs. contemporary worship wars were as much a cultural issue as they were a style issue.  And culture evolves.  Of course, the culture wars continue, but they look very different these days.