Simple vs. Simplistic

"A Simple Song" is a mildly whimsical (if I can use that word) piece in Leonard Bernstein's Mass. I know it best as sung by Renee Fleming. "Sing God a simple song: Lauda, Laude... God loves all simple things, for God is the simplest of all." Naturally, the song isn't all that simple and requires a good bit of work to be sung well. But there it is: simplicity is somehow integral to faith and to worship.

In "Four Quartets," T. S. Eliot describes the life of faith thus: "A condition of complete simplicity (costing not less than everything)." I'd wager many a believer (myself included) long for that condition of complete simplicity while ignoring the parenthetical aside, which is really the heart of the matter. The simplicity is not one of being satisfied with ourselves as we are, for we are sinful and in need; it must be a simplicity of having given all to God, of having one's source and being in God. Simplicity is not about dumbing it down to the least common denominator; it is about giving one's all.

We mess this up in worship a lot, especially in music. Lately, I've been pondering a question: what is the difference between simple and simplistic in regards to worship music? Having grown up in mainline Protestant churches going to traditional worship services, I've long made fun of "7-11 songs"--songs with 7 words sung 11 times. Just to pick on David Crowder for a minute, I heard his song "O Praise Him" recently and was struck by the lack of lyrical depth. "O praise him! O praise him! He is Holy! He is Holy! La la la la la la la la..." Really, it was the "la la's" that got me. I was bored by the song and was sure God was too. (By the way...I hadn't really seen a picture of David Crowder before. That is one goofy-looking cat.)

But, speaking of "la la's"--Simon and Garfunkel somehow managed to write an incredible song, "The Boxer," using only the syllable "lie" on the chorus. Yet I find that song deeply moving. And to get back to worship music, there is a whole tradition of meditative chant that relies on simple, repetitive choruses. A favorite source of such music for me is the Taizé Community, an ecumenical Christian monastery in France that practices meditative prayer and song; they have songs like "Jesus, Remember Me," which simply say, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom. Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom." That can be repeated interminably, and somehow I find that prayerful and meditative, not boring.

For my part, I love worship music with substance. The theology of hymn by John and Charles Wesley feed me spiritually and intellectually. However, last week in my Holy Spirit class, we looked at several Wesley hymns, including "Come, Holy Ghost, Our Hearts Inspire." It's a great hymn with rich lyrics--just check out the third verse: "Expand thy wings, celestial Dove, brood o'er our nature's night; on our disordered spirits move, and let there now be light." Just in that verse, Charles Wesley performs significant theological exegesis, connecting the Holy Spirit directly to the creation story. But one classmate of mine expressed a concern that such dense, weighty lyrics might bog a worshipper down--some Wesley hymns are very heady. The idea, my professor said, is that these hymns were meant to be carried by the worshipper throughout the week, to be ruminated over, gradually unfolding their depth of meaning as they were contemplated. Maybe some Wesley hymns are too dense; or maybe our ADD culture doesn't allow us to process them as they were intended.

So what is the different between simple and simplistic? Can even a tightly written, theologically dense hymn ultimately convey a simple truth? In talking to my boyfriend (who regularly leads contemporary worship services), he pointed out that context probably makes a difference. A "7-11 song" played by a big praise band with images flashing across a screen probably won't carry the meditative potential of a Taizé chant sung a cappella by candlelight. The songs could probably even have the same words but create a very different worship atmosphere. As for a headier hymn like "Come, Holy Ghost," if it is sung in a congregation that has used it in worship before, for most it will lose its character as prohibitively dense, as its meaning and implications will have had time to open up to the worshippers.

These questions, I think, apply to prayer as well as song. Lately, I have become attached to a book called The Valley of Vision: A Collection of Puritan Prayers and Devotions. It is a compilation of beautiful prayers, two of which I have adopted as daily morning and evening prayers--the prayers live next to my bed. Each prayer is about a page long, and although they are in poem form, they do have some length to them. The theological depth in the prayers is real, and part of why I enjoy using the same prayers daily is that I can allow their full meaning to sink in over time. However, another prayer that has influenced me over the years is the Jesus Prayer, an Eastern prayer most closely associated, at least in my mind, with the 19th-century Russian work The Way of a Pilgrim. It is a simple prayer: "Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me." It is intended to be repeated over and over again. Those few words can be more powerful than the most theologically profound supplication.

So, what do you think? Are there simplistic (or simple) worship songs that drive you crazy, or do you like them? Do heady theological hymns distract you from or deepen worship? What role might context or intention play in making a song simple (in a positive sense) or simplistic (in a negative sense)?