Pilgrim Hymnal Survey Final Paper
Cynthia Bacon

Survey Results
This paper is the culmination of a year’s worth of study on the 1958 Pilgrim Hymnal. Beginning a year ago, the hymnal was compared with other mainline hymnals in the areas of tunes, titles, theology, musical styles and size. Last fall, a history of the hymnal was developed. The events leading to the publication of the first Pilgrim Hymnal in 1912, and the commonalities between the three editions of the Pilgrim Hymnal of the twentieth century were explored. As a result of the first two projects, a survey was created to assess the hymnal needs and usage of today’s NACCC member churches. Surveys were mailed to the four hundred and fifteen churches that made up the membership of the NACCC in March of 2000. Results were asked to be returned and completed by May 15, 2000.

After developing this survey and reading the results, it is now an interesting and challenging task to bring those results together in a somewhat cohesive unit. The most dominant question that emerges is this: Is it possible to draw conclusions from the data that has been compiled? The results seem so varied and individual that conclusions or waves of thought do not seem to exist at first glance. All that is apparent is the breadth of diversity in our churches, musically, theologically and in practice of worship. Perhaps a better question to ask is: Are there truths that emerge?

First of all, I’d like to take a look at the churches that responded to the survey. One hundred churches responded, which is nearly a 25% return rate. Since most surveys result in a 5%-10% return, this is a very high return rate. The churches that responded represent twenty six (out of thirty seven) states, and range in size from eight members to twenty two hundred members. Though the responding churches are all sizes and from all over the country, I wonder if they are representative of the whole.

In looking at the NACCC yearbook, one can see that only six of the responding churches did not contribute monetarily to the national organization in the year 1999. This would suggest that the majority of the responding churches are currently involved in the national organization to some extent.

Another source indicating involvement in the national organization is national meeting attendance. Of the one hundred churches that responded, only fifty two were in attendance at this year’s meeting, held in Green Bay, Wisconsin. This could mean many things. Perhaps the churches which responded are not in the habit of attending the national meeting, but were interested in the purpose of this survey. Perhaps the churches that responded to the survey usually do attend the meeting, and were unable to attend this year for one reason or another. It is difficult to say, but whatever the reason for the low percentage of match in this area, it is clear that the responding churches wanted to voice their opinion about the use of music in their worship services.

The diversity which emerges from the compiled data is immense. In every category from which hymnal is used to expectations for music in worship, our Congregational individuality is apparent. On every subject regarding what characteristics would make an ideal hymnal and the musical factors to be considered, our broad range of experience and taste as Congregationalists rings through.

In looking at the responses, one of the most interesting pieces of data is that of hymnal usage. Twenty nine different hymnals are used by the one hundred churches that responded. Only 40% still use the 1958 Pilgrim Hymnal. Many stated that it was just too outdated, and that in the last 10-15 years, a new hymnal was sought out, to grow with the church in emerging musical tastes. Despite the variety of hymnals that are now used in our NACCC member churches, this 40% indicates that the Pilgrim Hymnal is still the most popular, even though it is not used by a majority of the churches.

The other hymnal titles which are popular with our NACCC churches are The Hymnal for Worship and Celebration, which nineteen of our churches use, The Living Church, which eleven churches use, and Hymns for the Family of God, which nine churches use. These three hymnals make up nearly another 40% of the hymnals which are used by Congregational churches. The remaining 20% include many hymnals which are used by only one or two churches, many of which have been purchased in the last five years, after staying with the 1958 Pilgrim Hymnal for nearly forty years.

Several churches have gone to publishing either their own hymnal or hymnal supplement, while still using the Pilgrim Hymnal. Many use the Pilgrim Hymnal in conjunction with their new hymnal, but some have never used or even heard of the hymnal. Also, six of the responding churches utilize the CCLI license, which enables them to reprint music from a vast selection of material.

One other area that represents the diversity of our churches is that of the “Favorite Hymns” of the church. In total, two hundred and eighty six different hymns were cited! That is an amazing number. As far as the style of the hymns that were chosen as favorites, both gospel and traditional hymns dominated the category, and amazingly, quite evenly. The top four hymns, chosen by between thirty two and forty three churches, were Amazing Grace, How Great Thou Art, Joyful, Joyful and Holy, Holy, Holy. Two are traditional hymns, and two are more of the gospel genre.

The hymns chosen by ten to twenty six churches were dominated by traditional hymnody, with eighteen traditional hymns and only five from the gospel area. The traditional continue to dominate in the hymns chosen by four to nine churches, but when looking at the hymns chosen by 1-3 churches only, the gospel definitely prevails. Many newer hymns are included in the last part of this list as well, with Here I Am, Lord and On Eagle’s Wings included. They are neither traditional or gospel, but form a new genre all their own that is making its mark on the hymnody scene in this country and around the world.

Another factor that emerges in looking at the hymns favored by today’s Congregational churches is how hymns are categorized. I am used to defining the hymns included in the 1958 Pilgrim Hymnal as “traditional”. To me, “gospel” songs are another entity entirely, comprised of songs made popular in the revivals of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. These “gospel” songs were designed to bring the people into the faith and help them to feel a personal, emotional connection with the Christian faith. The so called “traditional” hymns of the Pilgrim Hymnal” were written to enhance and deepen the experience of a faith that was already expressed and present.

The purpose of the two types is distinctive, and yet today, our terminology more accurately reflects what we have been raised with and not musical style and theological purpose. Over and over, I found that churches requesting more “gospel” music considered themselves “traditionalists” in terms of hymnody. To these churches, it seems that the term “traditional” refers to the songs and hymns that they grew up with in their local church. Once again, our individuality as autonomous churches is apparent. Not only is our terminology different, but our practice is as well.

Though our diversity has been highlighted up to this point, there are some places of continuity that need to be noted. In the section on Musical Factors, three strong needs are easy to note from the survey results. The comfort of the key for singing is a strong need noted by all churches surveyed. The words “medium” and “low” were used repeatedly when describing a comfortable range for singing. Churches that noted actual pitches that were comfortable for their congregations to sing consistently named c to e as the highest notes that would be easiest for their churches. Only one church extended the range to f.

Another musical factor that emerged strongly from this section of the survey was the need for a variety of music in a hymnal. Traditional, praise and contemporary Christian music were the strongest categories, with over eighty percent of the churches responding positively to these categories. Just as in the “favorite hymns” question, our churches choose almost equally the traditional and the gospel, or contemporary/praise genre. Folk and ethnic music were popular as well, and were seen as necessary by between one third and one half of the churches that responded. Our churches want a large variety of music, that reflects not only the current times, but our Congregational history and tradition.

Thirdly, the need for musical “extras”, such as descants, introits, responses and benedictions, was positively responded to in this part of the survey. Between one third and one half of surveys expressed a need for these musical “extras”. Only one or two responded negatively to each of the categories, and the rest were blank responses. This would indicate that to the churches that chose to respond to this question, these “extras” are very important.

Another category of the survey that resulted in strong opinions was the need for revision in the Topical Index. Comments in this area were strongly focused on the need for a “specific”, “detailed” and more “complete” topical index. A “total revision” was seen as what was needed by one church. Other needs by many were for a scriptural index, plus seasonal/special service categories and categories related to the church year and/or the lectionary. Some responses did name specific categories that should be added to the topical index, but overall, the responses indicated that a complete overhaul was needed in this area of the Pilgrim Hymnal.

Comments on language were also an interesting area of the survey, which exposed some intense opinions. Seventy seven churches responded to this question, with twenty eight expressing comfort with traditional language or things as they are in the current hymnal. But the remainder of the churches responded strongly with the need for inclusive language, or a combination of traditional and inclusive. There is great concern for the responsible use of language among our churches. Poetic, musical and historic integrity and accuracy are important to the responders. Accuracy in theological meaning, while being creative in the use of “God language” and inclusive in the use of “people language” is necessary as well to the churches who responded. This category, almost as much as the list of “favorite hymns”, represents the need in our churches for connections to both the past and the present, while looking toward the future. The strong opinions shared here are the face of emerging Congregationalism.

Ultimately, the real question is: Do the NACCC member churches desire a new edition of the Pilgrim Hymnal? This question was asked, and the results were very interesting. Thirty six of the churches did not respond one way or the other. Eighteen answered with a vehement “no”. Nine churches would be interested at some point in time, but not at the present, and thirty seven of the churches responded affirmatively. Though the results on the surface would indicate that the need for a new hymnal is not wanted by a majority of the churches, I consider the response a strong affirmative.

To me, the only thing to look at here is the strong negative responses. Since only eighteen responded negatively, I do not consider it an indication of lack of interest in a new hymnal. Many of the churches that responded negatively were those who had never used the Pilgrim Hymnal, and therefore had no experience with it whatsoever. It is not in their tradition, so why would they welcome a new edition?

The affirmative responses seemed to indicate from their comments that they value the tradition of a uniquely “Congregational” hymnal. A hymnal is a unifying force in any group of churches, whether it is a denomination or an association of free churches. The Faith, Freedom and Fellowship that marks the Congregational Way can only be enhanced by a common hymnal among our churches, and over one third of the responding churches value the unity and growth that a new edition of the Pilgrim Hymnal would mean.

The results cited in this first section of this paper on the results of the hymnal survey tell us so much about who we are as Congregationalists today. We are a diverse people who value the role of music in worship. We care what the music has to say in worship, and what it means theologically and historically. We want the music to reflect our faith and our times accurately, and help us to define ourselves for the twenty first century.

The next section of this paper will make suggestions regarding possible avenues of action in the possibility of creating a version of the Pilgrim Hymnal that will be representative of Congregationalism today, while responding to the diversity and concerns found in the survey results. 

Moving Ahead
In moving ahead with the results of this survey, many questions come to mind. How can we accurately represent the many varied tastes in music, theology and worship now present in the NACCC member churches, while keeping a foot in our tradition of literary and musical quality represented in the three editions of the Pilgrim Hymnal from the last century? What kind of a hymnal can we create that will represent Congregationalism 2000 USA, while at the same time provide a comprehensive picture of historical Congregationalism? Can we learn to embrace and celebrate the diversity that is now present in Congregationalism, looking on it as a result of the ecumenism from the last two centuries? And finally, what tools can we use to promote understanding and use of a new hymnal, with all of its possibilities, as a uniting force in the NACCC?

I’d like to begin by speaking about the establishment of the hymnal committee, since they will be the individuals who are working together to answer the above-mentioned questions. The first thing that I would like to recommend regarding the committee is that it not be too large. Choosing the correct number of people to accomplish this task will not be easy, but it is crucial to the success of the project. Communication is vital to the committee, and since the Association is not large-less than 450 churches-we do not need to make the committee overly large to have a comprehensive representation of the member churches. Many hymnal committees contain fifteen to twenty people, and for our purposes, I believe that is too large. We are starting with a great deal of information at hand, collected directly from the churches in the form of the survey results. Also, communication will be easier if the committee is not too large. I would suggest a committee of approximately twelve people. A committee of this size should be able to represent the churches well, communicate easily and move at a fairly rapid pace, since coordinating schedules will not be as difficult as it would be with a larger group.

A second, and equally important consideration, is balance in the committee between musicians and theologians. A good musical and theological balance is needed if a hymnal is to be user-friendly and of high quality. People from various backgrounds are needed in order to fulfill the many tasks on the committee. Musicians can check sources for keys, arrangements, descants, etc. Theologians can be extremely helpful in creating the topical and scriptural indices. Both musicians and theologians have wonderful experience with choosing music for worship, and have a good grasp on how hymnals function in various settings.

Another consideration for balance is that of theological perspective and musical taste. Since so many of the churches expressed a strong need for the inclusion of a vast array of musical styles in the hymnal, these varying tastes need to be represented on the committee. Without the perspectives of the survey results represented, the committee will have a very difficult time meeting the needs expressed in the compiled data.

Other considerations for the establishment of the hymnal committee are geographical and experience with the Association. If ownership of this hymnal is one of the goals of the committee, people from throughout the country should be represented on the committee. Also, both newcomers and lifers in the Association would help the committee to bridge the gap between historical and current Congregationalism.

When the committee is created, I strongly suggest that the first order of business should be that they establish criteria for the hymns that they will choose. In looking at the Pilgrim Hymnal, literary and musical quality was always a priority. Also, ecumenism played a large part in the selection of hymns in past hymnals. These two criteria must now be brought into the current century, welcoming the new, while maintaining the integrity of the former. This will be the most difficult task of all for the committee, whose every hymn selection will be determined by the criteria that are set. How can we include such a vast variety of musical styles, while maintaining the high standards of the past? What are our (Congregational) standards, and by what factors will the committee judge each piece of music?

Not only will the criteria be difficult to establish, but the coming together of the differing tastes and experiences on the committee will be a challenge. Once the criteria are set, not all members of the committee will interpret them the same way. We all hear music differently, and we all experience worship in our own way. These will be the discussions that will make the new hymnal-twelve people hearing one piece of music with individual sets of ears and hearts for faith. The discussions held on establishing the criteria for hymnal choice will determine the tone for all the discussions that will follow. If open and respectful communication is established early in the process, the committee will learn to work well together. That way, their personal differences, which are purposely represented on the committee (theology, music, etc.) will enhance and not hinder the work at hand.

I believe that the biggest battle that this hymnal committee will face is the tension between traditional and contemporary music. How can criteria be established that will be applicable to these two types of music, who are seemingly in such opposition? And yet, the survey results clearly state, that more praise songs and contemporary songs and hymns need to be included if the hymnal is to meet the needs of the churches. With a committee from varying backgrounds, this particular process should not be as difficult as it would otherwise be, but the very nature of it indicates difficulty.

But I believe that this seemingly impossible task is not only possible, but can serve as a tool to make a new Pilgrim Hymnal an accurate representation of the churches in the NACCC. The same criteria can be used, if the criteria are interpreted and discussed to unite understanding. Musical quality is not simply a matter of taste, but there are musical factors that can be addressed. The same is true of poetry and theology. A balance can be found between scriptural and doctrinal accuracy and Christian experience which so many of our churches are striving for through new forms of music. I’m sure that some give and take will be necessary, but when a balance of musical and theological factors in the hymnal is the goal, compromises are necessary.

As you can see from the following proposed schedule for the hymnal committee, balance is a priority. Not only styles of music must be an issue, but the needs of the church year, special occasions, and religious expression, as stated by NACCC churches in the survey results, must be a consideration as well.  At each step of the way, the balance must be checked and rechecked.

I have broken the selection of hymns into three sections. The first group would be selected from the 1958 Pilgrim Hymnal. The committee could use the list of hymns from the survey results as a starting place, and then add others they consider to be essentials, or “keepers”.

The second group would come from the list of “favorites” in the survey results, and from other hymnals and new hymn sources. Looking at the data from the summer of 1999 and other new hymnals, plus the vast source of hymnals currently being utilized by our member churches should assist in this second task. Thirdly, ethnic music, and hymns for special services and occasions would be addressed. This was also an indicated need of the churches who responded to the survey.

With each step of this process, the hymns that are chosen can be assessed for key, musical arrangement and language. Suggestions can be brought back to the table at each meeting, and decisions reached. When the musical factors are agreed upon, each group of hymns can be made print ready, thus speeding up the process. Throughout the process, balance in all areas is checked. As always, there is flexibility for additions and changes in the proposed schedule.

Within this process, the other consideration is how to reflect historical Congregationalism and the current practice of the NACCC member churches. This aspect of the balance equation is an interesting one. Not many answered the question on hymns that they would consider to be “Congregational” and yet, those who did answer certainly made a statement. At the top of the list are We Gather Together and O Beautiful for Spacious Skies. Isaac Watts and other Congregational authors, such as Gladden, Fosdick and Ray are noted in the comments, as well as the need for some new hymns that would be written expressly for this purpose. It was even suggested that the winners of the NACCC hymn writing competition be included. Ecumenism is also mentioned as crucial in this area of the hymnal, which some commenting churches defined as the section that would most help with the definition of our Congregational identity.

With the reflection and promotion of Congregational identity in mind, both historical and modern, education and promotion are of utmost importance. The committee should take the time to develop opportunities to introduce the hymnal to the member churches. Workshops at the National Meeting, plus at fall CFTS seminars and future convocations are a natural place for some of this education and promotion to occur.

These workshops should include opportunities for the churches to learn new hymns and songs, plus see the opportunities for use of the musical “extras” and the Psalter. So many comments in the survey indicate that anything that is considered new or different was also perceived as extremely difficult by many of our churches. Workshops addressing this issue would not only alleviate the misconception that what is new is difficult, but would provide an example of how to introduce new worship practices in a positive and productive manner. The desired result would be the wide-spread use of the hymnal, plus the hymnal being used to its most effective degree.

It is also important that the workshops be available to clergy and laity alike. The ease in which a new hymnal is introduced relies heavily on the comfort level of those who have seen it. If the committee is available to answer questions and share their excitement and ownership of the hymnal with those who will be using it, that ease will be increased. Also, the committee can then address directly how the committee followed the suggestions and needs stated in the survey results that the churches themselves completed, thus creating an atmosphere of fellowship, saying that this new hymnal is “ours”. The opinions of the Congregational churches formed the new hymnal into what it is.

In this paper, I have only begun to scratch the surface of the survey results. There is so much more detail and depth to this project, but I believe that that is work for the committee. I hope that the information compiled and relayed here will be useful to the committee upon its establishment, and to the churches of the NACCC. Both our current diversity and our history can work together to create a hymnal that represents where we have been, where we are and where we are going as Congregationalists.