Sing a New Song

[This paper was originally written in 2009 as an assignment in a music department class on hymnody at Colorado State University.]

Contemporary worship music (CWM) is a movement with roots in the 1960’s, 1970’s, and 1980’s and coming to full fruition in the 1990’s and 2000’s. With roots in Pentecostal churches and charismatic movements in mainline Protestant and Catholic churches, its influence spans denominations and is found throughout the world. (I will focus on primarily on English-speaking churches, although much of this music is used in translation in Spanish-speaking churches.) In this paper I will track the most popular of this music primarily as defined by the Christian Copyright License, Inc. (CCLI) top 25 lists for the past decade or so. I will also call upon my own experience with this repertoire over the past 30 years. The whole movement can be tracked via just a handful of publishers/movements: Vineyard, Maranatha! Music, Integrity’s Hosanna!, the Passion Conference movement, Hillsong, and Christian Contemporary Music (CCM) artists. A few other groups/influences will be highlighted: Graham Kendrick, Keith Getty/Stuart Townend, Indelible Grace/Reformed University Fellowship (RUF). If I have time, I will also examine the influence of GIA Publications, Inc., with similar though largely orthogonal influences in Roman Catholic churches. I will also discuss recent significant developments with the ease of inexpensive yet professional-level production of recordings and internet-based distribution of new music (Worship Leader Magazine’s Song Discovery service, SongSelect from CCLI. While this paper is primarily intended to be historical, anthological, and typological, I will include some analysis of musicality, theological content, role in worship, comparison with traditional hymnody.

Bibliography

Personal collection of many songbooks from the various publishers mentioned
CCLI web site (www.ccli.com)
Various web sites and Wikipedia articles about the artists and publishers
Woods, Robert and Walrath, Brian, The Message in the Music: Studying Contemporary Praise & Worship (Abingdon Press, Nashville) 2007
Evans, Mark, Open Up the Doors: Music in the Modern Church (Equinox Publishing Ltd., London) 2006
Frame, John, Contemporary Worship Music: A Biblical Defense (P & R Publishing, Phillipsburg, NJ) 1997.

List of Songs

I have compiled a list of 270 songs. These are categorized as follows: 

1) The top 74 songs reported on CCLI’s top 25 lists between 1989 and 2005. This is based on the list of 77 songs used in The Message in the Music: Studying Contemporary Praise & Worship by Woods and Walrath (2007). CCLI reports each year in February and August a top list based on songs used by their member churches. Any song that appeared on a top 25 list during that period was included. Interestingly, only 77 different songs were on that list. Two of the songs (Joy to the World and Turn Your Eyes Upon Jesus) are “traditional” hymns still under copyright and so commonly reported when used. These are excluded from my list. Also excluded is Brian Wren’s hymn How Can We Name a Love which has newly composed lyrics in the “traditional” hymn style. These  songs are labeled in Table 1 as 1989-2005. 

2) 9 songs reported on CCLI’s top 25 lists between 2006 and 2009. In the seven reporting periods occurring after 2005 only 10 new songs appeared in the top 25 lists. One of these (How Great Thou Art) is also in the category of “traditional” hymns still under copyright, so it is excluded from the final list. These are labeled in Table 1 as 2006-2009.

3) 50 songs from the February 2009 CCLI top 100 list. In looking over the list generated from categories 1 and 2, I felt that several important songs were missing. This list of 52 additional songs not present in categories 1 and 2 provided many of those songs. One obvious category of songs are new songs that are in use but haven’t become popular enough to appear in the top 25 lists. Half of the songs in this list of 50 were written since 2001. The other category of songs are those never made a top 25 list but may have appeared regularly in the top 30 or top 40. Two songs (Great Is Thy Faithfulness and Victory in Jesus) are in the “traditional” hymn category as noted before. These are labeled in Table 1 as 200902-100.

4) 125 songs in use at Immanuel Christian Reformed Church in Fort Collins, CO during that past five years or so. Immanuel Church uses approximately 40% “traditional” hymns in its worship. Of the remaining 60% about half are contemporary songs in categories 1-3 and the other half is what comprises this list. This list represents an unique aspect of contemporary worship music—its local flavor. The songs that are in this list are very new songs that have come to the attention of the church’s worship leaders and then used in congregational worship. Some of these songs will be found in categories 1-3 in the future. Others are from sources unique to the particular congregation: a song-writer or publisher that doesn’t carry broad renown, but is known and liked by one of the worship leaders, popular contemporary Christian music that gets turned into congregational song (but only at this local church), or songs written by local worship leaders or close friends and colleagues of local worship leaders. These are labeled in Table 1 as ICRC.

5) I have include 12 additional songs that I have used in other churches or Christian groups but that are not in categories 1-4. None of these are completely obscure, but for various reasons they do not appear in the previous categories. They are either personal favorites or songs that I remember using from my earliest exposure to this sort of worship music. These are labeled in Table 1 as TMG.

The last two categories include a few songs that are not in the CCLI database. It is worth mentioning at this point that besides CCLI there is a second major collection of newly published songs found in the OneLicense.org database. Publishers such as GIA Publishing, which publishes music written by Roman Catholic songwriters, are more typically found in the OneLicense.org database. Denominationally published songs from mainline Protestant denominations are also found in this collection.

Historical Survey

Contemporary worship music (CWM) is truly a contemporary phenomenon. Since the early 1980’s there has been an explosion in the writing, publishing, and recording of worship music. This music has strong associations with the neo-Pentecostal or charismatic movement from the late 1960’s and early 1970’s. This movement resulted in many independent churches and new denominations or associations of churches. But it also crossed into many traditional mainline denominations and even Roman Catholic fellowships. Groups using this music tended toward a less formal worship style and the use of acoustic and electric guitars, bass guitars, synthesizers and electronic keyboards, and drums rather than the piano and/or organ. Many of these groups abandoned the use of traditional hymnody thinking that new methods were necessary to communicate effectively to contemporary and youth culture.

Recently published hymnology texts barely mention this literature, either because the text was written before the surge of CWM or because the music is in a distinct non-hymn genre and thus outside of consideration. The Paul Westermeyer text for this class Te Deum (1998) discusses contemporary music in the section entitled “From Conflict to Competition” (pp. 314-318). He focuses on the organ to rock band transition in instrumentation, the charismatic/Pentecostal roots of the music, and its association it with the megachurch movement. He particularly mentions Bill Hybels and Willow Creek Community Church in Barrington, Illinois with their stress on structuring church ministry (including worship) after conducting marketing research. Only in broad strokes, and largely missing the story in my opinion, does Westermeyer treat CWM. Interestingly, Willow Creek is not a big player in the story that follows. 

Reynolds, Price, Music, & Price’s A Survey of Christian Hymnody (1999), used in the hymnology course in CSU’s liturgical studies program in the section entitled Twentieth-Century Developments” and “The Influence of Folk and Popular Music” (pp. 130-132) mentions some of this history and especially its connection with Contemporary Christian Music (CCM). Their survey of hymnals at the end of the book discusses some contemporary, non-denominational hymnals that I discuss below.

Finally, I want to mention Lawrence C. Roff’s Let Us Sing: Worshiping God with Our Music (1991)It was meant as a hymnology companion to the Trinity Hymnal, Revised (1990) produced jointly by the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and the Presbyterian Church in America (and also briefly discussed below). I used this book in my own initial studies and teaching of hymnology a decade ago. The “early” publication date precludes discussion of much of the current CWM movement, but in his chapter on contemporary hymnody, Roffmentions the earliest appearance of this music (pp. 143-146) and talks about John Peterson, Bill and Gloria Gaither, connections with folk, pop, and rock music, and scripture songs. Roff also mentions the early connections with CCM.

One of my goals is to write the latest chapter of liturgical music that covers this music. I will use the list of 270 songs from Table 1 to tell the story. Since some of that list has my personal experience writ large on it, part of my account will have a certain biographical feel to it. I hope the reader will permit and pardon my indulgence. Since we are in the heyday of this music the story will be incomplete and soon out of date. I hope that it will function well as a snapshot from 2009.

The Earliest Days

Donald Hustad argues that CWM began in 1969 with the publication of Scripture in Song  by the David and Dale Garratt from New Zealand. These songs are usually simple choruses where the lyrics are the exact words from the Bible. From Table 1 songs like Thou Art Worthy (1963) from Revelation 4:, I Am the Resurrection and the Life (1967) from John 11, Rejoice in the Lord Always (1967) from Philippians 4, This Is the Day (1967) from Psalm 118, The Law of the Lord Is Perfect (1969) from Psalm 19, Clap Your  Hands All Ye People (1972) from Psalm 47, and Seek Ye First the Kingdom of God (1972) from Matthew 6. This genre of “scripture song” continues throughout the 1970’s and early 1980’s. Examples include Psalm 5 (1975), The Trees of the Field (1975), He Has Made Me Glad (1976), I Exalt Thee (1977), Behold What Manner of Love (1978), Micah 6:8 (1978), How Majestic Is Your Name (1981).

The very first entry in Table 1 shows that this demarcation cannot be seen as hard and fast. They That Wait Upon the Lord (1953) could easily be seen in this category. However, this song is the refrain to a gospel-type hymn. Thus, there is some continuity between this style of music and what has come before even in this “scripture song” genre.

The “southern gospel” music of Bill and Gloria Gaither and “black gospel” music of Andraé Crouch show that there are additional continuities of CWM with previous religious music. The Gaithers’ There’s Something About That Name (1970) and Because He Lives (1971) are from the “southern gospel” genre. His Name Is Wonderful (1959), Jesus, Name Above All Names (1974), and Oh, How He Loves You and Me (1975) are also in this category. My first exposure to this more contemporary “southern gospel” came from my parents who sang in a quartet/sextet in our small church in rural Indiana. Many of the songs that they sang came from Singspiration’s Country & Western Hymnal, a collection of 100 or so songs published in 1972.

Several of the songs from the late 1960’s and early 1970’s from Table 1 come from Andraé Crouch: The Blood Will Never Lose Its Power (1966), My Tribute (1971), Through It All(1971), and Bless His Holy Name (1973). Crouch is in the “black gospel” or “soul” tradition of Thomas Dorsey and Mahalia Jackson. This is gospel and revival music with more of a jazz and blues flavor.

This early era is punctuated by the publication of Hymns for the Family of God (Brentwood Music, 1976) edited by Fred Bock and Bryan Jeffrey Leech. This nondenominational hymnal included Gaithers’ songs, Andraé Crouch songs, other contemporary hymn writers (Peterson, Carmichael, etc.) and a few of the “scripture songs” mentioned earlier. This was in addition to traditional hymnody used in American evangelical churches.

Finally, it should be noted that all forms of contemporary popular music are influencing the development of CWM. The hippie movement, folk music, protest music, Elvis Presley, Beatlemania, etc. are all huge influences in popular culture at this time. Advocates of CWM almost always promote the use of popular culture musical styles in the church.  

Christian Contemporary Music

The rise of Christian Contemporary Music (CCM) in the 1970’s had a major impact on CWM. There is a significant difference between CCM and CWM. CCM is not necessarily meant to be used in worship. It is similar to the pop music market. Songs are written for performance by the performing artist. The performers give concerts, produce albums, and vie for top 40 play time on Christian radio stations. Fans buy albums and go to concerts. Unlike “southern gospel” this music had definite connections with rock music, especially of the soft-rock and pop variety. Larry Norman, Randy Matthews, 2nd Chapter of Acts, Petra, Keith Green all started their musical careers in the late 1960’s to early 1970’s. Amy Grant (starting in the late 1970’s) and Twila Paris and Michael W. Smith (both starting in the early 1980’s) are also familiar names in this category. 

Some of these artists’ music were comparable in style to some of the new worship music. 2nd Chapter of Act’s Easter Song (1974) was in Hymns for the Family of God. Keith Green’s Create in Me a Clean Heart (1980), Oh Lord, You’re Beautiful (1980), There Is A Redeemer (1982), and his scripture song medley were easily used in contemporary worship services. Amy Grant’s recording of Michael Card’s El Shaddai (1981) and Thy Word (1984), written with Michael W. Smith, are now part of the CWM repertoire. From Michael W. Smith there is How Majestic Is Your Name (1981), Great Is the Lord (1982), Emmanuel (1983) (also recorded by Amy Grant). More recently from Smith that is part of CWM is Agnus Dei (1990), Shine on Us (1996), and Healing Rain (2004). Songs by Twila Paris that part of the early days of CWM are We Will Glorify (1982), We Bow Down (1984), He Is Exalted (1985), and Lamb of God (1985). 

The crossover into CWM from CCM continues to be an important source of worship songs. Sometimes these CCM songs are embraced by the larger evangelical community, and at other times CCM songs are picked up by local congregations. For example, in our church we sing In the Light (1991) recorded by dcTalk, Consuming Fire (1996) recorded by Third Day, and Cornerstone (2003) recorded by Days of Fire.  Other CCM songs that probably were not originally recorded as CWM but now used in worship are Awesome God (1988), God of Wonders (2000), Grace Like Rain (2003), Who Am I? (2003), My Savior, My God (2005).

One development since the explosion of CWM has been the production of “worship albums” by CCM artists. Sometimes these worship albums contain original songs, but the majority of them are the CCM “star” singing songs written by others originally for worship. Some of these CWM songs turn into CCM hits. Petra’s Petra Praise: The Rock Cries Out (1989), Michael W. Smith’s Worship (2001) and Worship Again (2002), Newsboys’ Adoration (2003) and He Reigns: The Worship Collection (2005), Rebecca St. James’ Worship God (2002) and Live Worship: Blessed Be Your Name (2004), Third Day’s Offerings: A Worship Album (2000) and Offerings II: All I Have to Give (2003), and Philips, Craig, and Dean’s Let My Words Be Few (2001), Let Your Glory Fall (2003), Let the Worshipers Arise (2004), and The Worship Collection: Favorite Songs of All (2005). Three original worship songs from the Newsboys’ albums appear in Table 1: It Is You (2002), He Reigns (2003), and Strong Tower (2004). Also, three original worship songs from Third Day’s albums appear in Table 1: Your Love, Oh Lord (1999), King of Glory (2000), and Offering (2003).

Having these worship songs recorded by CCM artists receiving airtime on Christian radio aids congregations using them in worship. For members who hear these songs on Christian radio, they are already familiar songs when they are used in a worship service..

Maranatha! Music

In 1965 Chuck Smith became pastor of Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa. Originally, it was part of the International Church of the Foursquare Gospel, a denomination originating in the Pentecostal movement of the early 1900’s. Calvary Chapel split off from  the Foursquare denomination in 1968 and became the founding church of the Calvary Chapel fellowship of churches. While Calvary Chapels are open to traditional Pentecostal practices, they are not distinctive elements of the movement. Rather, expository, verse-by-verse teaching of scripture and a more contemporary and informal worship style have become their hallmark. 

Smith’s Calvary Chapel became home to the “Jesus movement”, a Christianized version of the west coast hippie movement. This outreach to the hippie culture resulted in hippie music from the late 1960’s and early 1970’s being brought into the worship of Calvary Chapel. Many of early founders of  CCM were associated with the Calvary Chapel movement. Maranatha! Music was founded in 1971, originally as a non-profit outreach, to publish and to promote the folk-rock style new worship music.

Maranatha! Music distributed worship music through a series of  Praise recordings. The Praise Album, the first in the series was originally published in 1974. These albums were re-recorded starting in 1999 as Praise 1 through Praise 20. Songbooks for this music were published in the series Praise Chorus Book  (Beige (1983), Purple (1990), Red (1993), Green (1997)). Many of the songs listed in Table 1 from the 1970’s and 1980’s were published by Maranatha! Music. The column marked “Maranatha” in Table 1 denotes in which Praise Chorus songbook the song appears. 

The men’s ministry Promise Keepers (founded in 1990) included a significant worship component at its conferences. Albums from these events were published by Maranatha! Music. Tommy Walker, a songwriter/worship leader from Christian Assembly, a Foursquare Gospel church in Los Angeles who also participates in Promise Keeper events, records under the Maranatha! Music label. Tommy Walker songs from Table I are He Knows My Name (1996) and That’s Why We Praise Him (1999).

Maranatha! Music joined with Word Music, Inc. which is now a part of the Warner Music Group. 

Vineyard

The first Vineyard churches began in the mid-1970’s and involved CCM artists Larry Norman, Chuck Girard, and Keith Green. The most prominent leader, John Wimber, joined the Vineyard Movement in 1982. Wimber was associated with the Calvary Chapel  movement, but leaned toward a more charismatic/Pentecostal direction. The Vineyard Movement is now commonly associated with the “signs and wonders” movement. A worship style that stresses an intimate encounter with God is also a hallmark of Vineyard worship.

Vineyard Music/Mercy Records was founded in 1986 to publish Vineyard worship recordings and songbooks. Worship leader/songwriters Brenton Brown, Brian Doerksen, Andy Park, David Ruis, Kathryn Scott, Carl Tuttle, Scott Underwood all hail from Vineyard churches. Twenty or more songs on the list in Table I are from Vineyard songwriters. The songs Breathe(1995) and Draw Me Close (1994) particularly illustrate the intimacy valued in Vineyard music.

ThankYou Music / Make Way Music / Kingsway Music

ThankYou Music is the publisher for many British and Irish contemporary worship musicians. Most notable of these during the 1980’s and early 1990’s is Graham Kendrick. (Kendrick also publishes under the Make Way Music label.) Kendrick was a worship leader in the London charismatic church Ichthys Christian Fellowship. Songs by Kendrick in Table I include The Servant King (1983), Meekness and Majesty (1986), Shine, Jesus, Shine (1987), Amazing Love (1989), Knowing You (1993). These songs all appear in one or more editions of the Maranatha! Music Praise Chorus Book.

Kendrick’s music has a contemporary feel to it and in recordings uses contemporary instrumentation often with a gospel choir backup. However, the structure of his songs is very similar to gospel hymnody with multiple verses often with some narrative development and then a refrain that summarizes the key theme of the song. Stuart Townend and Keith Getty are song/hymn writers from the late 1990’s to the present following Kendrick’s lead.

Matt Redman, Paul Oakley, Tim Hughes, Robin Mark and others also publish under the ThankYou Music label. Redman and Hughes are now associated with the Passion Worship movement and will be discussed later. Robin Mark’s music has been distributed by Integrity’s Hosanna Music and will also be discussed later.

Kingsway Music has published four volumes of a songbook/hymnal under the title of Songs of  Fellowship (Volume 1 (1991), Volume 2 (1998), Volume 3 (2003), Volume 4 (2008)). Each volume contains around 600 contemporary worship songs and traditional hymns. Most publishers of CWM are represented in these collections.

Integrity Music

Integrity’s Hosanna Music began in 1987 as a music club selling tapes and CD’s of worship music with accompanying song sheets, overhead projector masters, and songbooks. Originally, each recording was of live worship in a church led by a prominent worship leader/singer/songwriter using contemporary songs from various publishers of CWM. Eventually, Integrity’s Hosanna Music obtained the rights to some of this music, so even though the company didn’t exist when the song was originally published it now owns the copyright.. From the late 1980’s until the present Integrity has been an equal to Maranatha! Music in the CWM business.

After six or seven live worship albums is released a songbook containing all of the songs on those albums, numbering around 100 songs, is also released. Volume 21 is the current volume, so there are over 2000 songs available via this collection.

The earliest of these collections are simple choruses, scripture songs, and praise songs similar to the music that had been published already for a over a decade by Maranatha! Praise. The style and instrumentation with particular combinations of songs into medleys influenced the development of CWM for the next decade. Over 30 songs from Table 1 are published by Integrity’s Hosanna Music and a large number of them appear on Integrity’s recordings and in their songbook.

Singer/songwriter/worship leaders Don Moen, Paul Baloche, Lincoln Brewster publish under Integrity’s Hosanna Music. In addition, Integrity has published albums by Brian Doerkson and Kathryn Scott, both associated with the Vineyard Movement, Darlene Zschech and Hillsong Church, Bob Kauflin with Sovereign Grace Worship, Robin Mark of Belfast and many others. One of the most popular CWM songs of all time Shout to the Lord (1993) was originally distributed to American evangelicals on Integrity’s Shout to the Lord (1996) recording and in the Volume 11 songbook (1997). It appeared again in the Shout to the Lord 2000 (2000) recording and in the Volume 14 songbook (2000). There will be more discussion of Sovereign Grace Worship and Hillsong later.

Another Punctuation

I think that it is possible to see another notable mark in the history of Contemporary Worship Music by the end of the 1980’s and the early 1990’s. This can be illustrated in part by looking at the top 25 list from CCLI from August 1997 (the earliest list still accessible from the CCLI website).

Table 2. CCLI Top 25 List from August 1997

1          Lord I Lift Your Name On High        Rick Founds                                       1989
2          Give Thanks                                       Henry Smith                                       1978
3          I Love You Lord                                  Laurie Klein                                        1978
4          Majesty                                               Jack Hayford                                      1981
5          He Has Made Me Glad                     Leona Von Brethorst                         1976
6          As The Deer                                       Martin J. Nystrom                              1984
7          We Bring The Sacrifice Of Praise   Kirk Dearman                                     1984
8          All Hail King Jesus                             Dave Moody                                       1981
9          He Is Exalted                                      Twila Paris                                           1985
10        Awesome God                                    Rich Mullins                                        1988
11        I Exalt Thee                                         Pete Sanchez, Jr.                                1977
12        Glorify Thy Name                               Donna Adkins                                      1976
13        Jesus Name Above All Names        Naida Hearn                                         1974
14        More Precious Than Silver               Lynn Deshazo                                      1982
15        Open Our Eyes Lord                          Bob Cull                                              1976
16        I Will Call Upon The Lord                 Micahel O’Shields                               1981
17        Emmanuel                                           Bob McGee                                          1976
18        How Majestic Is Your Name            Michael W. Smith                               1981
19        Change My Heart Oh God               Eddie Espinosa                                   1982
20        Shine, Jesus, Shine                           Graham Kendrick                               1987
21        Holy Ground                                        Geron Davis                                        1983
22        Praise The Name Of Jesus              Roy Hicks, Jr.                                      1976
23        This Is The Day                                  Les Garrett                                          1967
24        Great Is The Lord                               Michael W. & Deborah E. Smith      1982
25        Because He Lives                              William J. & Gloria Gaither               1971

Note that almost all of these songs are more than a decade older than the date of the top 25 list. Note also that most of these songs are in the category of “scripture song” or praise chorus with a simple chorus or verse plus chorus. Because He Lives (1971),  Glorify Thy Name (1976), As the Deer (1984), and Shine, Jesus, Shine (1987) are the exceptions with each having multiple verses and a refrain, similar to traditional gospel hymnody. With the exception of Lord I Lift Your Name on High (1989) none of these songs appears on the current top 25 list (February 2009). This reflects the state of CWM as seen in the three major sources at this time (Maranatha! Praise, Integrity’s Hosanna, and Vineyard Music). This collection represents what would come to mind when you say “Praise and Worship” music for friend and foe alike.

This marking point also saw the publication of a hymnal and a collection of praise songs as did Hymns for the Family of God in the 1970’s. Word Music, Inc. published the non-denominational hymnal The Hymnal for Worship & Celebration  in 1986 and Songs for Praise and Worship in 1992. The Hymnal include over 600 songs including traditional hymns and just over 100 CWM songs many from the list in Table 1. Songs for Praise and Worship contains about 250 songs. In Table 1 the column marked SP&W show songs from the list that are in this volume marked with a “0”. (Word Music, Inc. has continued the series with More Songs for Praise and Worship to update this collection; those are marked with 1, 2, 3 or 4 to indicate the supplement volume.) Of the 117 songs in the list of Table 1 through 1990 73 are in this 1992 collection.

I am familiar with two separate denominational hymnal projects that occurred during the late-1980’s and early 1990’s. The 1987 Psalter Hymnal of the Christian Reformed Church had 641 songs in total. Following previous denominational Psalter Hymnals metrical versions of all 150 Psalms were included drawing heavily in this edition from Geneva Psalter tunes but sometimes with newly written lyrics. There were also traditional hymns, newly composed hymns by denominational songwriters, some “world” worship music, and around 30 songs in the CWM category. Many of these CWM were in the Bible songs section of the hymnal and were from the “scripture song” category discussed above.

The Orthodox Presbyterian Church and Presbyterian Church in America published the Trinity Hymnal, Revised in 1990. Originally, the editorial committee for this hymnal was going to include some contemporary “praise and worship” type songs. In the end out of 742 songs only a few were included: El-Shaddai (1981), Father, Father of All Things (1979), Praise the Lord Our God (1973) to the tune KUM BA YA, The Law of the Lord Is Perfect (1969), The King of Glory Comes (1966), Morning Sun (1975), Rock of Ages, Cleft for Me (1984) to the tune NEW CITY FELLOWSHIP, My Tribute (1971). The  only thing these songs appear to have in common, with the exception of My Tribute, is that each of these songs looked like a traditional hymn with multiple verses a maybe a chorus. A separate volume of  CWM was originally planned. An initial report from the editorial committee with recommended songs for a hymnal supplement was prepared, but the project was eventually abandoned due to the perceived short lifespan of CWM songs and to the growing ready availability of CWM from other sources.

Passion Worship Conferences / worshiptogether.com / sixsteps Music

One of the dominant forces in CWM from the late 1990’s to the present arose out of the Passion Conference movement (the 268 Generation). This movement was started by Louie Giglio in 1997 arising out of Giglio’s student ministry at Baylor University. Passion holds annual conferences and is targeted at university students. Singer/songwriter/worship leaders Chris Tomlin, David Crowder, Matt Redman, Charlie Hall, Tim Hughes, Martin Smith (of the Christian band Delerious?), and the combo team Passion Worship Team are associated with this movement. Their music is associated with the label worshiptogether.com/sixsteps Music. Twenty-two songs on the list in Table 1 are from worshiptgether.com all since 1997. Matt Redman songs distributed on Passion recordings bring an additional five songs. Conference worship recordings are distributed each year, and each of the individuals listed above has several solo or band recordings. Nine volumes of songbooks containing 70-80 songs each from several recordings have also been distributed.

A feature of CWM being written out of this movement is that in style and in form it is almost completely in step with current secular pop/rock music. The pop/rock ballad with several verses, a chorus, a bridge is the form of many of these songs. Earlier CWM had been the simple scripture song or praise chorus and stylistically were not in step with contemporary secular pop music. These newer songs allowed for more lyrical development due to there being multiple verses (similar to hymns) and more interesting musical variation within the song due to there being three distinct musical sections (verse, chorus, bridge). 

An examination of the current top 25 list from CCLI (Table 3) shows that this newer style of CWM has almost completely displaced those top songs that were there just over a decade earlier. 

Table 3. CCLI Top 25 List from February 2009

1          How Great Is Our God, Chris Tomlin, Jesse Reeves & Ed Cash (2004) [2V/C/B]
2          Blessed Be Your Name, Beth & Matt Redman (2002) [4V/C/B]
3          Here I Am To Worship, Tim Hughes (2000) [2V/C/B]
4          Mighty To Save, Ben Fielding & Reuben Morgan (2006) [2V/C/B]
5          Open The Eyes Of My Heart, Paul Baloche  (1997) [V/C/B]
6          Everlasting God, Brenton Brown & Ken Riley (2005) [V/C/B]
7          Shout To The Lord, Darlene Zschech (1993) [2V/C]
8          Holy Is The Lord, Chris Tomlin & Louie Giglio (2003) [V/C/B]     
9          Amazing Grace (My Chains Are Gone), Chris Tomlin et al (2006) [4V/C]
10        Forever, Chris Tomlin (2001) [3V/C]
11        Come Now Is The Time To Worship, Brian Doerksen  (1998) [V/C]           
12        Lord I Lift Your Name On High, Rick Founds (1989) [V/C]
13        Your Grace Is Enough, Matt Maher (2003) [2V/C]
14        You Are My King, Billy Foote (1997) [V/C/B]
15        God Of Wonders, Marc Byrd & Steve Hindalong (2000) [2V/C/B]
16        The Heart Of Worship, Matt Redman (1997) [2V/C]
17        Beautiful One, Tim Hughes (2002) [2V/C/B]
18        We Fall Down , Chris Tomlin (1998) [V/C]
19        Trading My Sorrows, Darrell Evans (1998) [2V/C/B]
20        You Are My All In All, Dennis Jernigan (1990) [2V/C]
21        In Christ Alone, Stuart Townend & Keith Getty (2001) [4V]
22        Breathe, Marie Barnett (1995) [2V/C]
23        Days Of Elijah, Robin Mark  (1996) [2V/C/B]
24        How Great Thou Art, Stuart Hine & Wesley Keene (1949) [4V/C]
25        You’re Worthy Of My Praise, David Ruis (1986) [2V/C]

There are several things to notice about this list. About half of the songs were published in the same decade as the date of the list. All but three of these songs have multiple verses (V) or an additional bridge (B) section in addition to a chorus (C) (as noted by the symbols in the square brackets). Over half of the songs in this list are from a Passion Conference project.

Hillsong

Sixteen of the songs on the list in Table 1 (and two from the current top 25 list) are from Hillsong Church. Hillsong Church is a Pentecostal church in Sydney, Australia founded in 1983 and associated with the Australian Christian Churches, the Australian branch of the Assemblies of God denomination. Hillsong and their worship music has become a very powerful force in CWM in the past decade. A book-length discussion of contemporary worship music that centers on the history and influence and worship philosophy of Hillsong is found in Open Up the Doors: Music in the Modern Church (2006) by Mark Evans. 

Hillsong’s worship ministry was headed by Geoff Bullock in the early days and by Darlene Zschech since 1995. Worship leaders and songwriters include Bullock, Darlene Zschech, Reuben Morgan, Marty Sampson, Steve McPherson, Tanya Riches, Joel Houston, and Brooke Fraser. Songs in Table I by these artists are The Power of Your Love (1992), Jesus, Lover of My Soul (1992), Shout to the Lord (1994), Jesus, What a Beautiful Name (1995), I Will Never Be the Same (1995), I Give You My Heart (1995), Blessing, Honor and Glory (1997), The Potter’s Hand (1997),  My Redeemer Lives (1998), From the Inside Out (2005), None But Jesus (2005), Lead Me to the Cross (2006), Hosanna (2006), Mighty to Save (2006), and Stronger (2007).

Hillsong has produced and promoted an album of newly written CWM every year since 1992 usually in association with their annual worship conference. They have sold over 2 million albums altogether. Hillsong sees itself as having a special anointing from God in songwriting and promoting a powerful worship experience. While there is a huge marketing machine associated with all of this, it is short-sighted to see Hillsong as being primarily motivated by economic success. (This can also be said of the rest of the CWM industry.) Some of the underlying spiritual motivations of the HIllsong can be seen in the prayer that Darlene Zschech uses in their ministry:

Father, let them quickly get their eyes off of us. We just want to point them to you, God, because you are the Author of truth. You are the only One who is to be praised.

Also Worth Mentioning

Three additional influences are worth mentioning partly because of rising influence and uniqueness and partly because of more extensive use in our local congregation at Immanuel. 

Sovereign Grace Worship (formerly known as People of Destiny International). Sovereign Grace Ministries is a loose association of churches founded in 1982 and  originally under the leadership of  C. J. Mahaney, pastor of Covenant Life Church in Gaithersburg, Maryland. The ministry had roots in the Catholic charismatic movement and with charismatic movement leader Larry Tomczak. What is notable about Sovereign Grace Ministries is its Calvinistic theology, which is somewhat unusual for charismatics in general and for the charismatic influenced CWM in particular. This focus tends to make the lyrics from these songwriters theologically more dense. Compared to other groups with Reformed or Calvinistic leanings, Sovereign Grace Ministries is unusual because it shares with Pentecostalism and the charismatic movement the continuation of prophetic gifts (inspired revelation apart from scripture) in the church today. Bob Kauflin, who had an association with the a cappella gospel group Glad in the 1980’s, is the head of worship ministries at Covenant Life Church and is a key leader for worship ministries for the entire ministry. 

Sovereign Grace Worship has published many albums, songsheets, and songbooks based on the songwriting, live worship events, and conferences from their churches. Kauflin’s Your Great Name We Praise (2001), an updated version of the hymn Immortal, Invisible, God, Only-wise, Mark Altrogge’s I’m Forever Grateful (1985), I Stand in Awe (1987), As Long As I Have Breath (1999), Vikki Cook’s Before the Throne of God Above (1997) a new tune to a Charitie Lees Bancroft hymn, and with husband Steve Cook I Will Glory in My Redeemer(2001). Before the Throne of God Above has received wide distribution and has been recorded on many different CWM projects even though it has never made a top 25 CCLI list or is currently even in the top 100 list.

Keith and Kristyn Getty and Stuart Townend. Keith Getty is most famous for his contemporary hymn written with Stuart Townend, In Christ Alone (2001). Some observers claim that this Townend and Getty hymn will be one of the few from this repertoire that will stand the test of time. It is almost misleading to put the Getty’s in the company of CWM; they really are contemporary hymn writers, as is much of Stuart Townend’s work. But they have strong associations with the CWM movement via conferences and the manner in which some of their work has been recorded and distributed by others and typical CWM channels. Other songs on the list in Table 1 by the Getty’s and Stuart Townend are The Power of the Cross(2005) and Behold the Lamb (2007). Townend’s How Deep the Father’s Love for Us (1995) and Beautiful Savior (1998) also have a very traditional hymn sound to them.

Reformed University Fellowship and Indelible Grace. Reformed University Fellowship is the campus ministry of the Presbyterian Church in America. The leadership of RUF and the Franklin, Tennessee Christ Community Church (PCA) have promoted the use of traditional hymn lyrics to new tunes. Typically, these songs have a folk/country feel to them. RUF songs from the list in Table I are Arise, My Soul, Arise (1996), From Depths of Woe (Psalm 130) (1997), God, Be Merciful to Me (1997), appearing on the Jars of Clay Redemption Songs album in 2005, How Sweet the Name of Jesus Sounds (1997), Jesus, I Am Resting, Resting (1998), and Just As I Am (1998). RUF music is distributed through their campus ministries and through the Internet. A series of recordings called Indelible Grace was originally distributed through the igrace.com web site and other indie channels but is now available through other on-line channels such as Apple, Inc.’s iTunes Store.  

Other Forces Influencing CWM

CCLI/SongSelect. The Christian Copyright License International is a service representing the publishers of Christian music that allows churches and other religious groups to pay royalties to holders of copyrights in a convenient manner. The service started in 1988 and now over 200,000 churches and hundreds of publishers and copyright holders participate. While not a perfect tool for assessing quality or even popularity of CWM, the reports that churches submit to CCLI which translate into royalty payout to copyright holds is a useful measure of a song’s use. The availability of permission to use songs, copy lyrics and now even printed music is a significant part of the explosion of CWM. Churches are not required to purchase hymnals or other kinds of songbooks in order to use this new music. The use of projection technology, originally overhead projectors, but now computer projection methods using Microsoft PowerPoint or MediaShout, reduced even more the need for hymnals or songbooks.

The SongSelect service from CCLI allows web-based access to lyrics, chord sheets, lead sheets, and vocal/hymn sheets (with harmonizations) for around 200,000 songs. This includes over 7000 public domain songs and hymns. The web service also comes with a transposition tool so that music can be easily re-keyed for various instruments, worship leader and congregation vocal ranges, etc. The price for this is less than $200 per year (in addition to the CCLI license fee which depends on the size of the church). Unlimited viewing of the SongSelect database is available to members, but only up to 200 printings of the lead/chord/hymn sheets is allowed. Nearly all of the songs listed in Table 1, even the most recently published, are available via this service. With this service it is now possible to have access to “all” CWM without ever buying a hymnal or songbook. With the growing ubiquity of the Internet, access to this repertoire is both inexpensive and convenient.

SongDiscovery. Worship Leader magazine has offered its SongDiscovery service since 1997. For around $60 a year subscribers receive the monthly Worship Leader magazine, a CD at least every other month with about 15 new CWM songs from all the various publishers of CWM, lead sheets and chord sheets for all the songs, and PowerPoint and MediaShout media slides for projection. The most recent CD available via this service is Volume 76. There is an editorial review committee that surveys new music and allows musicians to submit songs. Selections from new worship albums from established CWM artists are routinely found on each new SongDiscovery CD. But there are also new songs from new songwriters, worship leaders, churches, from indie or local church produced worship CD’s. To be featured on a SongDiscovery CD is a huge boost to a songwriter’s and worship leader’s standing in the CWM world. Exposure via this mechanism combined with the ready-availability of  sheet music via SongSelect and the audio track via Internet music distribution sources makes it possible for songs to be global worship “hits” and songwriters to have global “renown” almost overnight. It is reported that smaller churches that don’t have enough gifted musicians to have a worship band but are otherwise interested in using the latest CWM use SongDiscovery resources, including the playing of the audio track, in their worship services, singing along to the “professionally” recorded track. I have been a member of SongDiscovery since about Volume 20 (2000) and have amassed a large collection of CWM recordings. 94 of the 270 songs listed in Table 1 appeared on a SongDiscovery CD (35%). Of the 117 songs in Table 1 published since the premier of the service in 1997, 69 appeared on a SongDiscovery CD (59%). The column labeled “SD” in Table 1 shows in which volume of SongDiscovery that song appeared.

WOW. The WOW Worship CD collections illustrate another way that CWM has been distributed. The WOW series began as an annual compilation of the year’s top CCM songs. Starting in 1999 the first WOW Worship CD was released. Each release is a two CD set. Similar to the original CCM version, these recordings had the CWM song from a worship album put out by Vineyard, Maranatha! Praise, Integrity’s Hosanna, or some other prominent publisher of CWM. Additional recordings were released in 2000, 2001, 2003, 2004, 2006, and 2007. The column labeled WOW shows which songs in Table 1 were on a WOW compilation. 100 out of the 270 songs in Table I appeared on a WOW compilation CD.

Production and Distribution of New Music. Inexpensive computers and digital recording equipment allow anyone who wants to put in the time and effort to have a recording studio in home or church. A $1000 MacBook comes with Garageband, a richly featured 8-track mixer with lots of live-recorded (not synthesized) virtual instruments that allows you to create loops and background tracks for whatever instrumentation you want behind your own vocals and actual live recorded instrumentation. Live recording of live worship bands leading churches in worship is also easily done by similar technologies. Fully professional recording software such has Logic or ProTools running on similar inexpensive hardware brings power recording methods to the masses. Music writing and sheet music publication software such as Finale or Sibellius bring professional quality music publication readily available. Today virtually anyone can produce and publish music. Of course, this is not to say that a professional sound engineer and producer will not create a superior product. Add to this the ability to independently market and distribute your or your church’s projects on the Internet or by means of a podcast or via digital music distribution channels such as Apple’s iTunes Store or Amazon.com. No wonder there has been an explosion in new CWM. Even in our small church of under 200, one of our worship teams achieved a level of performance quality that they felt it would be worthwhile to produce a CD. For them it was not for the purpose of producing new worship music since there weren’t really any songwriters in the group. But they were interested in having a music ministry around town and they wanted to make a demo CD that they could give to prospective venues. In the end the group did the production in a local professional recording studio. Nonetheless, it demonstrates the idea that a small church with quality musicians can produce and market a professional level product.

Some Reflections

In this last section I wish to offer some personal observations and opinion based on my cursory review of CWM.

Quantity of music. The CCLI  database has over 5 million entries. CCLI’s SongSelect service boasts of over 200,000 available songs. Over 2000 songs are found in Integrity’s Hosanna Music collection. Over 1100 from SongDiscovery. Over 700 from worshiptogether.com. 200 songs on the WOW collections. Yet only 270 songs appear on my list and used more or less by our local church, a fairly typical consumer of CWM in many ways. While the creative effort behind between 2000 and 200,000 songs is remarkable, only a small fraction of these are excellent, widely used, and loved. While sometimes it appears that marketing does more to make a song successful than intrinsic quality, it does appear to be the case that there is some sifting of the good and excellent from the just okay or even bad. Whether the CCLI charts are the best means of sorting the good from the bad remains to be seen. 

While these numbers seem vast and the options to church musicians and worship leaders seem limitless, it’s really not that different from previous eras. Charles Wesley wrote over 8000 hymns, yet only a small fraction of those numbering at most in the 10’s are found in most modern hymnals. The same is true of Fanny Crosby’s 8000 hymns or Isaac Watts 700 hymns. Of course, unlike today where there are many, perhaps numbering in the hundreds, songwriters, Watts, Wesley, and Crosby were the dominant songwriters of their day. 

Our collections of worship music, traditional hymnody or contemporary worship music, are always eclectic. Much is produced and only the best is actually consumed. And only the best of the best continues to be used throughout history. Our expectation should be no different with CWM.

But, isn’t this true of art in general? The creative impulse exists in many of us. We create to the best of our ability in the medium of our choice. Only a few become popular in their own time. Even fewer are recognized as creative geniuses. And perhaps even few “works” are deemed masterpieces. Dare we stifle the creative impulse in anyone? Mozart might have been lost to the world. 

Old vs. New. The quantity of new worship music and the desire to communicate Biblical truth to our own culture (whether it be ourselves—for we are in our own culture—or our unchurched neighbor) place huge pressures on the church to abandon the old. But it would be a loss to do so and not just a cultural loss. Certain expressions of the faith are worth preserving and transmitting to the next generation. Part of the eclecticism noted above results in the best of the best being preserved. Most hymn collections now have the best of Wesley, and the best of Crosby, and the best of Watts. Why are these the best? That is often a difficult question, but the particular articulation of the faith objectively stated and of religious sentiment stirs most of us in a timeless fashion. Theologians, musicians, pastors, church leaders, etc. influence the process, but there seems to be consensus about the leaders of the pack that often even the hoi polloi can recognize. The church needs to take care to introduce each rising generation to this time-honored collection. 

So, how to balance it all? At our church we continue to use music found in the two hymnals we have (1987 Psalter Hymnal of the Christian Reformed Church and the 1976 Hymns for the Family of God—both discussed earlier). Approximately 40% of our worship music comes from the hymnals, 60% from the list of 270. This past Sunday of 3 of the 8 songs used in worship were traditional hymns. The tunes were also traditional although the instrumentation and performance style had a contemporary feel. The Sunday before 3 of the 7 songs used were traditional hymns, 2 with an organ accompaniment using traditional tunes. The third hymn was Rock of Ages, Cleft for Me to a contemporary tune. We’re not formulaic or legalistic from week to week, but overall we aim for a mix of the contemporary and the traditional. 

The World Is Flat. Thomas Friedman in his 2005 (expanded in 2006 and again in 2007) book The World Is Flat talks about how the Internet, transportation and global supply chains, world markets, etc. have altered the world economically and culturally. CWM is also doing this and for many of the same reasons. One writer referred to the phenomenon of “Hillsongization” (similar to “McDonaldization”) where everyone all over the world is singing the same worship music with the same rock band worship team and in some cases even using the same gestures and body movements (since the video of the Hillsong performance is readily viewed on YouTube). Indeed, the top 25 CCLI list from Australia looks not too different from the lists in other parts of the English-speaking world. The last Hillsong worship album in my collection came to me from a Spanish-speaking friend from Ensenada, Mexico. They were using several of the songs in Spanish translation, he was commending them to me with his gift. A fellow student in this class played a recording of Shout to the Lord in Chinese for us as part of her class project. The globalization of CWM is remarkable and it happens almost instantly due to the Internet. At least the lyrics are being sung in their own language.

The same argument can be made here that was made about the old vs. the new. Is there really anything wrong with taking the best CWM that is being produced around the globe, whether it’s Nashville or Sydney or Mexico City, and then using it everywhere, especially in translation? Christians do believe, after all, that their faith is trans-cultural, and that expressions of faith and life are similar from one culture to the next because they are rooted in Biblical teaching and in the Biblical story of redemption. It is interesting that a current dominant player in CWM globally, especially in the English-speaking world is not from North America. The success of Hillsong testifies in part to one of the positive aspects of the “flat world”, that the playing field is level, that you don’t have to have the connections with the big American label in order to become a dominant player. 

As precaution must be taken to not let the new crowd out the old, precaution must be taken to not let the global crowd out the local. I point to our local church again as an example. As noted earlier nearly half of the CWM songs that we use are not from the top 140 list. These songs reflect preferences of the local body. They reflect songs that may have become favorites of the local church that haven’t taken the global church by storm. They reflect the idiosyncrasies of the local worship leaders and planners. In some churches they may reflect the fruit of local songwriters. The list in Table I contains two contemporary Spanish-language songs. We are a very “Anglo” congregation with only a few Spanish speakers. Why are these songs in our repertoire? We have a partner church in Ensenada, Mexico, and we send a group of 10-20 folks, mostly youth, there every year. They have a group that also comes to our church every other year or so. These two songs are songs from their Hispanic CWM repertoire that we learned in our partnership. Their more local worship music became part of ours. (It may be the case this music was part of a broader CWM from the church Spanish-speaking church from Latin America and elsewhere.)

My family and I occasionally attend a local Spanish-speaking congregation. Interestingly, there music is a mix of CWM in translation from the sources described in this paper with which I am familiar and music by songwriters and worship leaders indigenous to their own Hispano-American church. This is good.

Pentecostal roots. As we’ve traced the history of CWM we’ve seen that the Pentecostal roots run very deep. Nearly every branch of CWM has connections with Pentecostalism and the modern charismatic movement. Is it possible for someone who rejects the distinctive teachings of Pentecostalism to embrace this music? First, it should be said that there remains much theological overlap between Pentecostals and other Christians: God and his attributes, the Trinity, the dual nature of Christ’s person, the Incarnation, the atoning work of Christ,  His second coming, the way of salvation, the authority of scripture, the nature of Christian discipleship, loving and serving God and your neighbor, evangelizing the lost, etc. Even Calvinist vs. Arminian differences are not explicit if Biblical language is used in the lyrics. Most of the time the differences have more to do with underlying theological frameworks than actual words used. (For example, both Calvinists and Arminians understand the Biblical word “all” differently. If used in a song, the Calvinist understands what they are singing differently from the way the Arminian understands it. Of course, this is why more detailed creedal formulations arise, so as to clarify these differences, and sometimes these more detailed creedal formulations can appear in song.) So as long as the lyrics focus on this common ground (or ambiguous common ground), the songs can be legitimately used across much of the ecclesiastical spectrum without fear of theological compromise. 

Where explicit Pentecostal distinctives (continuing prophecy, speaking in tongues, second blessing/baptism of the Holy Spirit, sign and wonders, or sometimes associated prosperity theology) are present in the lyrics, these songs should not be used at all or must be used with care in non-Pentecostal ecclesiastical contexts. Since many of the lyrics are direct Biblical quotes, it is their context that defines their meaning. As with the comment above about Calvinist vs. Arminian understanding of a lyric, there can also be a Pentecostal vs. a non-Pentecostal understanding of a given text of scripture. The context in which the lyric is used determines its meaning, especially when it is a Biblical text that both groups consider authoritative. It turns out that very few songs in the list in Table 1 have lyrics that can only be understood in terms of Pentecostal distinctives.

Perhaps more worrisome is the nature of the encounter between God and the worshipper. We noted earlier that the intimate encounter with God in the worship experience was one of the significant aspects of Vineyard worship. Sometimes this intimate encounter is expressed in what appears to be romantic terms and this has been criticized as the “feminization” of worship and derisively called “Jesus is my boyfriend” lyrics. See essays “I Could Sing of Your Love Forever: American Romance in Contemporary Worship Music” by Jenell Williams Paris and “I’m Desperate for You: Male Perception of Romantic Lyrics in Contemporary Worship Music” by Keith Drury in The Message in the Music and the section on “’Feminising’ Congregational Song”  in Evans. By and large I found these complaints to be misguided. They analyzed isolated phases “I’m lost without you”, “I’m desperate for you”, “You’re beautiful to me” “You’re altogether lovely”, “I love you”, etc. without taking into account the context of the song itself, which usually had explicit references to God, His unique Divine attributes, or His saving work. Also, these songs are seldom used in isolation. They are part of worship service including other songs and liturgical elements, where it is perfectly clear that the object of worship is God and not my human lover. Scripture itself doesn’t hesitate to use this language. I found it somewhat amusing that one of the songs criticized by Paris was Matt Redman’s Better Is One Day because of phrases like “For my soul longs and even faints for You / For here my heart is satisfied within Your presence” complaining that the worshipper would have human companion in mind. But this song is firmly rooted in the phrasing and sentiment of Psalm 84. 

I am fully supportive of expressions of love for, devotion to, passion for, delight in, and desire of God. Clearly, this is what loving God with all your heart, soul, body, strength, and mind means. Private and public worship is an important place where this happens. But Pentecostal worship anticipates an unmediated encounter with God through these worship experiences. Not only does the believer express their devotion to God in these worship experiences, they expect and anticipate that God reciprocates and that He shows Himself, reveals Himself so that they powerfully sense His presence. Moses’ prayer in Exodus comes to mind when he said to God, “Show me your glory!” This is the deeper worship that Hillsong claims to be anointed for and the deeper worship that it will teach the rest of the world if they learn to worship like Hillsong. 

But in reality this is a Pentecostal distinctive as well. In most Protestant and Catholic traditions, worship is mediated by Word and Sacrament. Our whole relationship with God is mediated through Christ. Only He offers perfect worship, because He alone is the sinless one, and only He has perfect communion with the Father. We have those things because we are united with Him. Yes, the Holy Spirit indwells believers; all Christian traditions believe this. But, in non-Pentecost traditions, the work of the Holy Spirit is to create faith in Christ, to help us look to our mediator, to help us understand the Word and apply it to our lives, to help us see the gospel and the Savior in the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, in sanctification, etc. Indeed, scripture still speaks of seeing through a glass darkly. More and more Christians, even non-Pentecostals, speak of listening to God speak in prayer. Yet, traditionally, Christians have sought the voice of God in scripture, God’s Word. Perhaps what most people mean is that certain Biblical truths are brought to mind in their prayer, but if they mean that they are hearing the voice of God in some kind of direct personal revelation, then they have moved to a Pentecostal understanding of the experience. Much CWM mediates and brings about this direct encounter in Pentecostal practice, i.e. the way it is performed and incorporated into the full worship event, whereas when non-Pentecostals use these songs, they are engaging in God-church dialogue mediated by Word, sacrament, and prayer that has been the understanding of Christian worship for most of the church’s history. 

Worship Themes and “the whole counsel of God”. CWM tends to focus on the praise of God for His attributes or on the joy and gratitude of the worshipper because of God’s salvation. Some have criticized the narrow focus and the absence of richer theological themes. See Lester Ruth’s essay “How Great Is Our God” that analyzes and finds lacking CWM’s explicit references to the Trinity or Jay Howard’s essay “Let the Weak Say I Am Strong: Contemporary Worship Music and God’s Concern for Righteousness and Social Justice” both from The Message in the Music. While there is a certain validity to these criticisms, I cannot help but wonder if the same result would be found if the most common used traditional hymns were analyzed. Hymnal editors can make sure that there is balance in the hymnal, but it takes pastors and worship leaders who are committed to “the whole counsel of God” to make sure that the worship diet is not imbalanced. Additionally, it should be stated that worship music is not the entirety of a worship service. Many additional aspects of Biblical faith can and should be brought into focus via readings, litanies, preaching, prayers, ministry news, etc. It doesn’t all have to happen in congregational song. That being said, as CWM has been progressing there has been increasing lyrical complexity—more words in songs allow for more Biblical and theological depth; more verses allow for the fuller development of an idea.

The subjective in worship. One feature of CWM is the tendency to sing about our singing. We sing about our praise: “Let’s just praise the Lord”, “I could sing of your love forever”, “All of my days, I want to praise…”, “We stand and lift up our hands…we bow down and worship Him now”. Usually these songs eventually get to objective praise. For example, Shout to the Lord (1993) starts with “My Jesus, my Savior, Lord, there is none like You; all of my days, I want to praise the wonders of Your mighty love” but moves to the Psalm-like “Shout to the Lord, all the earth, let us sing. Power and majesty, praise to the King. Mountains bow down and the seas will roar at the sound of Your name.” Some have criticized this as a tendency to want to stress our role in worship or even to worship ourselves in addition to God. Without totally dismissing this concern, I think it is overstated and that there is a much more sympathetic way of understanding this trend. This kind of language makes the worship personal. This is not just what is true about God, but this is what I sing sincerely and authentically to God.  These lyrics are expressions of the believer’s heart for God and his or her sincere human need. These are prayers of devotion and dependence. We find these sorts of prayers in the Psalms. How can we complain that they are inappropriate for worship?

My Virus Infected Life (Part 2) – Vaccines and Immunity

In the first installment of this blog series I shared a virus-centered autobiography. Some of the inspiration for telling this story was the realization that in addition to the normal experience of viruses with immunizations, childhood diseases, and adult viral infections that my experience as a researcher at Purdue University and at the University of Oregon was filled with virus encounters. Since we are all inundated with news about the current CoViD-19 pandemic, this may be a timely reflection.

I was born in 1958. My very first encounter with the virus world is via the recommended vaccine schedule at the time. This included vaccinations against diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis (DTP), smallpox, and polio. Since diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis are bacterial infections and our focus is on viruses, I will not discuss these diseases. Nonetheless, how our immune system works, the main topic of this post, is more or less the same for bacterial and viral infections.

Smallpox had a 30% mortality rate and even higher among infants. Fever, vomiting, followed by mouth and skin sores that led to significant scarring and sometimes blindness were the symptoms and effects. Smallpox was spread by person to person contact and via contaminated objects. Polio has a 2-5% mortality rate among infected children and a 15-30% mortality rate among infected adults. Although many infected people experience no symptoms, weakness and paralysis of the legs is common. Recurrence of muscle weakness and paralysis can occur years later in post-polio syndrome. My father-in-law experienced polio as a toddler; he experienced the effects of polio the rest of his life. Globally, the number of cases of polio today are in the few hundred compared to millions before the vaccine was developed. Preventing and nearly eliminating such deadly and contagious diseases has been invaluable to public health.

Most of us have a sense of how immunity to infectious diseases works. We get exposed to the virus and our body’s immune system creates a resistance to future exposure to the virus. After being exposed once, we are immune in the future. Exposure comes by experiencing the disease and recovering from it—this is how I developed my current immunity to measles, mumps, rubella, and chicken pox. Alternatively, you can be exposed to the virus with a vaccine, an injection or an oral dose that contains a fragment of the virus or an inactivated or less virulent form of the virus. Your immune system responds as if it had experienced the disease and develops immunity so that you are resistant to future exposure to the real thing.

The modern era of vaccinations began in the 1700s when doctors and scientists noticed that dairy farmers who were exposed to cowpox, a milder disease that is similar to smallpox, did not develop smallpox. Edward Jenner is often named as the person behind these early efforts although there is some debate as to whether he was actually the first. These doctors deliberately began to expose people to the pus from cowpox blisters. They would contract cowpox, but would also gain an immunity to the deadlier smallpox. Modern versions of the smallpox vaccine continued this basic idea. Live cowpox virus (not smallpox itself) was used to elicit the immunity to the smallpox virus. Because smallpox has been eradicated among humans, this vaccine is no longer administered.

There are two forms polio vaccine used. For people my age the most common form was the oral polio vaccine (OPV) which is a weakened version of the virus where many mutations were introduced in the course of growing the virus. These mutations led to an attenuated form of the virus which conveyed immunity but which did not cause the disease (although three in a million OPV doses result in an active polio infection). The vaccine commonly used today is the inactivated polio virus (IPV) which is given by injection. Live virus is inactivated with formaldehyde/formalin.

Figure 1. The three-dimensional structure of a mouse antibody (1IGT) from the Research Collaboratory for Structural Bioinformatics (RCSB) Protein Database (PDB). The protein consists of four chains, two heavy chains (each with about 400 amino acids) and two light chains (each with about 200 amino acids). The representation shown here is known as a ribbon diagram where the polypeptide chain is traced and elements of structure highlighted (for example, beta strands shown by the flat arrows). The antigen binding site is made from the variable regions of a heavy and a light chain to give a unique binding site that recognizes a specific antigen. The inset shows the space-filling representation of the same molecule shown in a similar orientation. Many people are familiar with the V-shaped H2O molecule that has 3 atoms. The antibody has about 20,000 atoms.

The immune response in humans comes from two cell types: B cells and T cells. B cells are named after the bursa organ in birds where they were first discovered. Humans don’t have bursa—in humans B cells are made in the bone marrow (which conveniently also starts with the letter B). T cells come from the thymus, an immune and endocrine system organ located between the heart and the sternum. B cells make antibodies. Antibodies are protein molecules that recognize and bind to foreign substances (known as antigens) that are parts of viruses or other pathogens. See Figure 1. This recognition is very specific and is based on the three dimensional structure of the antigen and the antibody. The way a key fits into a lock or a hand in a glove is a good image. Molecules are more flexible and dynamic than a mechanical lock and key which results in a very specific and tight interaction between the antigen and the antibody. This is sometimes referred to as an induced fit. The binding of the antibody prevents some aspect of the virus’s normal action. Antibodies can bind to a viral protein responsible for attaching to the host cell. A virus with an antibody bound would not be able to infect a cell. Alternatively, antibody binding to a virus tags the foreign pathogen or substance to be destroyed by other immune system cells that engulf and digest foreign substances.

The way our body creates these antibodies to the foreign molecules is remarkable. We do not have enough genes to make antibodies against every possible foreign molecule found on the surface of a pathogen (parasite, bacteria, virus, or toxins produced by a pathogen). But in our genome there are sections of DNA that combine in different ways to make the gene in a given mature B cell that codes for the antibody. Slight errors in the recombination process introduces additional mutations that result in even more permutations. Once matured each B cell produces only one antibody that recognizes a section of a foreign protein or carbohydrate. This way we make millions of different B cells each producing a unique antibody which can target millions of different foreign substances. The initial production of B cell is totally random, but chances that one or several of these would recognize the foreign substance is high. Initially, the antibodies are embedded in the B cell membrane with the antibody binding region sticking out from the surface of the B cell. A B cell with a successfully binding antibody is signaled to proliferate in a process known as clonal selection. These B cells start producing antibodies missing the membrane binding region like the structure shown in Figure 1 that will be secreted and can bind to the foreign substance. This response that is specific to the infectious pathogen takes several days to kick in. Before then, if we have never been exposed to that particular pathogen, we are at the mercy of its effects and our body’s more general response to pathogens. Some of the symptoms that we associate with sickness—inflammation, fever, swelling, increased blood flow, pain—are actually the workings of the innate immune system, the part of the immune system that does not rely on antibody recognition.

In addition to these antibody producing cells (known as the humoral response), some B cells become memory cells. These cells produce antibodies very quickly if exposure to the pathogen occurs a second time. This is the main cellular basis for immunity, this memory and rapid response to a previously seen antigen.

T cells recognize presented antigens and signal the cell-mediated immune response. The cell-mediated immune response produces cytotoxic T cells which recognize and kill infected cells. T cells also stimulate the B cell response. Some cells of the immune system or even infected cells absorb pathogens and digest them into small fragments, e.g. peptides 10-15 amino acids long or fragments of surface carbohydrates. These small fragments bind to a membrane embedded protein called the major histocompatibility complex (MHC) protein. The MHC presents the antigen at the outer surface of the cell. MHC plus the presented antigen is what is recognized by T cell antigen recognition molecules that are similar to antibodies. T cell specificity and variability is generated similarly to how it is generated in B cells. Some T cells remain as memory T cells that result in a more rapid immune response in case the antigen is encountered again.

Since the production of antibodies and other antigen recognizing proteins involves the random combination of pieces of the antibody genes, it is possible that there will be B cells and T cells generated that recognize molecules that are not foreign antigens but are self. Remarkably, the immune system has mechanisms by which these cells self-destruct or are inactivated.

The B cell and T cell response is called the adaptive immune response (in contrast to the innate immune response) because the response is specific to a given antigen and happens only when the given antigen is encountered. Our immune system adapts to the pathogen filled environment that we experience, that is, it changes in response the the environment. Specific B cell and T cell responses to a given antigen occur when exposure to a live or an active pathogen occurs, i.e. when the patient actually catches the disease, Alternatively, the specific B cell and T cell responses also occur when the patient is vaccinated—a deliberate exposure to an inactive form of the pathogen or to a non-infectious fragment of the pathogen. In the first case the person experiences the disease and its consequences but then is immune to further infections. In the second case the person gains immunity without ever having experienced the disease. The second case is surely better, especially when there are significant risks associated with experiencing the disease itself. A significant part of vaccine testing is making sure that the risk associated with the vaccine (side effects, the effect of manufacturing and formulation components, a mild infection from an attenuated form of the pathogen, etc.) is significantly less than the disease. The cure can’t be worse than the disease.

Some of the memory cells last for the entire lifespan of the vaccinated individual. Others do not and a booster shot is necessary to keep the immune system active against the previously exposed antigen. In other cases the virus evolves in such a way that the original antibodies no longer recognize it. Really sneaky pathogens have mechanisms that vary their coat proteins systematically to evade the immune system. The early stages of vaccine development in the case of CoViD-19 have been straightforward, but on an amazingly fast track. Scientists isolated fragments of the coat protein of the virus particle and injected people with it in hopes of producing the immune response described above. Part of the early phase testing is to see if there are any side effects, but part of the testing is to see if the antibodies produced by the initial antigen exposure are actually effective in stopping the disease.

The serum antibody testing that has now been developed to see who already has had the disease detects antibodies in our blood that are specific to the CoViD-19 virus particle. Since there is no vaccine, the only way to have those antibodies is to have had the disease. In principle, testing for the anti-CoViD-19 antibody gives a clear result. People with the antibody have had the disease. In practice it’s not so clear. A small percentage (~5%) of false positives, antibodies to CoViD-19 being present without having had the disease, obscures these results. We also hear about treating a CoViD-19 infected patient with plasma (blood where the red blood cells and other cells have been removed) from a previously infected person. If these antibodies are injected into an infected patient, they could inactivate the virus in the same way that they would if the patient were making their own (which they eventually will). This is known as passive immunity.

My Life with Viruses

640px-T4_infection_wiki
Image from Victor Padilla-Sanchez, PhD/Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International

With SARS-CoV-2 (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus), the cause of the current pandemic named Covid-19 (for Corona Virus Disease 2019), I have realized that my life story could be told around viruses. Viruses have played a role in my life at every stage of my life and not just in getting sick from them. Here is the beginning of what I hope to be a series of blog posts that chronicle this virus infected life now in its sixth decade.

But first of all, what is a virus? Essentially a virus is small particle that contains a segment of genetic material, either DNA or RNA, surrounded by a protein coat, sometimes with lipid components like in cell membranes. Viruses are tenths or hundredths of a micron (1/1000 of a millimeter) in size, smaller than typical bacteria cells but larger than large biological macromolecules like proteins. It is not a cell and it does not carry out metabolism, thus it is not consider to be a living thing. However, it reproduces, evolves, and is composed of biological molecules. Its genetic material has genes that code for the coat proteins and proteins (mostly enzymes) that enable the virus to use host cell functions (DNA replication, RNA transcription, protein synthesis, etc.) to make and release new virus particles. The virus binds to the host cell and injects its genetic material or gets absorbed into the cell by endocytosis. Once progeny virus particles are produced, the cell breaks open and releases many newly synthesized virus particles. Alternatively, mature virus particles are released by normal bulk transport methods such as exocytosis. The figure above show a schematic of one of my favorite viruses (because of its spaceship appearance) bacteriophage T4. Literally, bacteriophage means bacteria eater–it is a virus that infects bacteria. Here you see the virus particle landing on a bacterial surface at a particular protein binding site. It then injects its DNA into the cell. The virus has a capsid, the protein coated head, which contains the DNA, and a tail with a sheath, tail fibers, and a baseplate that docks to the cell surface.

Like most Americans I was vaccinated as an infant against diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis, the DPT shot, smallpox, and polio. Diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis are caused by bacteria, but smallpox and polio are viral infections. Because of vaccinations these diseases are no longer the problem they once were. Smallpox has been eradicated from the world, the last case having occurred in the 1970s. Smallpox vaccines have been discontinued. There are two stocks of the virus in the world, one in the US and one in Russia.

Having been born into the world too early to get the vaccines available today, I gained immunity to mumps, measles, rubella, and chicken pox the painful way, by experiencing these childhood diseases. Now vaccines are available for these formerly common childhood diseases. So far my  experience with viruses is fairly typical of an American my age.

The twist that got me thinking about this story is my experiences as a molecular biology undergraduate at Purdue University and as a graduate student in molecular biology at the University of Oregon. At Purdue I landed an undergraduate research position in the protein crystallography lab of Professor Patrick Argos. In the late 1970s Pat was part of a group of structural biologists that also included Michael Rossmann and Jack Johnson. The mainstay of this group was Michael Rossmann–Pat ended up at the European Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL) and Jack at Scripps Institute. Protein crystallography and structural biology is the science of determining the three-dimensional molecular structure of large molecules like proteins made of tens of thousands of atoms. The technique is to grow crystals of these molecules, to expose these crystals to a beam of x-rays, to collect the scattered x-rays, then to reassemble the scattered light using computers to get the molecular structure. The Rossmann, Johnson, Argos lab were in a race with Steve Harrison at Harvard to get the first 3D structure of a spherical plant virus. The Purdue group worked on southern bean mosaic virus (SBMV) and the Harvard group worked on tomato bushy stunt virus (TBSV). Sadly for us, the Purdue group came in second place in that race, but there are some interesting stories to tell about that time.

My role as an undergraduate was rather minor. We had to grow these virus in one of the university greenhouses. One of my jobs was to smash up infected plant leaves mixed with some abrasive material and to rub them on the leaves of young plants. These plants would become infected with the virus and later harvested. From there our biochemistry lab technician would purify the virus from the plant material and grow crystals. Another task I had during those years was to use a newfangled computer graphics system called Molecular Modeling System-X (MMS-X) to build the molecular structure of one of the subunits of the virus coat protein into the electron density map (the result of final calculations in the protein crystallography experiment). The basic structure had already been determined and published, this was sort of mop up work, but an amazing privilege for an undergraduate. I was a newbie and it showed. I built a very bad structure–so bad that Dr. Rossmann gave me a B instead the normal A for such research courses. I’ll detail that story later. Michael Rossmann remained active as a structural biologist until his death in 2019. His group had determined the structure of the virus that causes the common cold and most recently the structure of the zika virus.

As I result of that experience at Purdue, I became a protein crystallographer and went to the University of Oregon to work in the lab of Brian Matthews and get my Ph.D.  There I became involved in the T4 lysozyme project. T4 is a bacteriophage, a virus that infects E. coli bacteria. T4 lysozyme is a protein (an enzyme) that breaks down the bacterial cell wall so that newly made virus particles are released from the infected cell to go find other cells to infect. T4 lysozyme had been used in the research of molecular geneticist George Streisinger to confirm in vivo the genetic code, that relationship between a protein sequence and the coding DNA sequence. In the course of the Streisinger research hundreds of mutants (proteins with alternate sequences) had been generated. Brian Matthews chose to work on a career spanning research program of relating the amino acid sequence of a protein to its structure, stability, and folding. By the end of my graduate career we were using newly developed recombinant DNA techniques to grow mutant proteins, but at the beginning I was using the techniques of bacterial virus genetics to make new mutants. To obtain enough T4 lysozyme to make crystals, we would make about 10 gallons of bacterial culture and then infect it with the virus. In the end all the bacteria would be dead and we would have a solution of viruses and the protein, T4 lysozyme, which could be purified, concentrated, and crystallized.

The bacteriophage lambda was also a subject of research at U of O. Whereas bacteriophage T4 is a lytic virus, lambda is a temperate or lysogenic virus. A lytic virus infects cells, makes new virus parts and DNA, and then breaks open the cell releasing 100-150 new virus particles. Phage lambda can do the same, but it also has a mode where it incorporates into the bacterial DNA, and its DNA replicates along with the bacterial DNA. Only under certain stressful conditions does it go back to a lytic phase. Phage lambda was used in research to study aspects of molecular genetics, and it was used in teaching labs for biology and genetics courses. I took some of those courses and was teaching assistant in others.

I also encountered the E. coli virus M13. This virus was used in DNA sequencing experiments which I used in my research to study T4 lysozyme mutants. You can readily isolate M13 double stranded DNA into which you could insert a piece of foreign DNA using recombinant DNA techniques. But you could also isolate M13 single stranded DNA from which you could do DNA sequencing experiments. Because of the tubular structure of this virus you could insert segments of DNA and the virus would just get longer. With a minor extension of DNA sequencing techniques you could introduce specific mutations into the gene via a technique called site-directed mutagenesis.

The Matthews lab had just begun using the these molecular biology techniques when I first arrived there in 1980. I spent many hours learning these methods and then using them in my research.

My experience with viruses beyond these early academic experiences are like most other people. I have personally experienced common cold, influenza, noravirus infections. One of our daughters had to be hospitalized with a rotavirus infection. We  hear of adenoviruses as ways of doing gene therapy.  Society over the past few decades has gone through AIDS-HIV, hepatitis, Ebola, SARS, MERS, swine flu (H1N1), Now we are experiencing the Corona virus that causes CoViD-19 which is affecting our lives today in dramatic ways.

Terry M. Gray
April 6, 2020

Let It Die––A Response to the Proposed Repeal of the Clean Power Plan

About a year ago I wrote the following essay but it was never published anywhere. More or less the basic thesis is the same. I was inspired to post it after hearing Michael Bloomberg claim on Meet the Press with Chuck Todd that being on target for the Paris climate goals was due to local municipalities remaining committed to the goals even though the Trump administration had not (Transcript). Of course, local municipalities are to be applauded for continuing to implement climate action plans that move us into a low CO2 emissions world. And, of course, action by local municipalities will enable us to meet the goals. But the data continue to suggest that it’s an economically motivated transition from coal to natural gas that is the real cause of this phenomenon.

Here is the original essay with one of the graphs updated:

The Clean Power Plan (CPP) was an Obama era EPA policy published in October, 2015, to reduce CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning electrical power plants 32% relative to 2005 emissions by 2030. The plan required states to develop and implement emissions reduction plans. The CPP was a key plank in the US emission reduction goals presented at the 2015 Paris Climate Talks. The CPP came under immediate political fire and eventually enforcement was blocked by an action of the US Supreme Court. The Trump administration ordered a review the CPP which eventually led to its proposed repeal in October, 2017.

CO2 emissions in 2005 from the electric power sector were 2.4 billion tonnes. They will be around 1.7 billion tonnes by the end of 2017. This is a 29% reduction, already close to the 32% mandated for 2030. It appears that the goals of the CPP are being met without it ever having been implemented. Interestingly, in 2016 the transportation sector exceeded the electrical power sector as the sector responsible for the most emissions.


https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=30712

Two factors contribute. First, these reductions in CO2 emissions for the electrical power sector are due to the transition from coal to natural gas. See the accompanying chart “Fraction of Source for US Electricity.” In 2006 50% of electricity in the US came from coal-fired power plants, 20% from nuclear, 20% from natural gas-fired power plants, and the rest from renewable forms of energy. A dramatic shift occurred during the past decade where coal dropped to just under 30% and natural gas increased to nearly 35%. Nuclear remained at 20%. The total electricity demand remained constant throughout this period. The transition to natural gas produced a significant reduction in CO2 emissions. Natural gas produces less CO2 per unit energy than coal. For each kilojoule (kJ) of heat produced, natural gas produces 0.05 g CO2, whereas sub-bituminous coal produces 0.13 g CO2 and anthracite/bituminous coal produces 0.10 g CO2. Emissions are at least cut in half when natural gas replaces coal (assuming minimal leakage of gas in the transport system). Natural gas combined cycle systems are closer to 60% efficient whereas conventional coal plants are 40% efficient. A combined cycle natural gas turbine uses the heat from the initial combustion in the gas turbine to drive a second conventional steam turbine. Gas plants also burn cleaner.

The driving force for this transition, however, is not emissions reduction, but rather simple economic factors. Due to hydraulic fracturing, natural gas has become much more abundant and less expensive. Natural gas power plants are cheaper to build (~$1 billion/GW vs. ~$3 billion/GW for coal plants). Currently, there are only four coal-fired power plants being built in the US, and it appears that three of the four may not be completed. Even apart from the low price of natural gas, the cost of non-CO2 emissions controls (SOx, NOx, O3, Hg, and particulates), the uncertain regulatory climate, and the long-term investment makes a new coal plant a risky plan.

The second factor is the growth of renewable energy, especially windand solar PV. The accompanying chart shows that the fraction of coal plus natural gas has decreased by about 7%. A 7% increase in combined wind and solar offset this decrease. Nuclear and hydroelectric have not changed. Both wind and solar have seen a 10-fold increase in actual energy production in the past decade. Both are zero-emission sources. Energy production from wind and solar that replaces coal or natural gas will reduce CO2 emissions.

Where Do We Go from Here?

  • It seems that the doomsday predictions of those lamenting the repeal of the CPP are overstated. Let it die, and let the market continue to bring emissions down.
  • Let the market do what it will to conventional coal. As coal is replaced by natural gas and renewables, CO2 emissions will continue to drop. Funding for the re-training of coal industry workers should be made available.
  • The reaction of certain states and local municipalities to the CPP repeal and the planned withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement suggests that there is a commitment to these policies despite the Trump administration’s ambivalence. Perhaps the best solutions now are those that work with state and local regulators.

State of the World 2018

I gave a talk this summer at the annual meeting of the American Scientific Affiliation (ASA) on world energy needs in the year 2100 (audio | slides). One of my assumptions is that by 2100 all countries of the world will have the per capita energy use of a developed western European country (about 130 GJ per person). On a Human Development Index (HDI) vs. Per Capita Energy Use plot, 130 GJ corresponds to an HDI of over 0.9–in the highly developed category.

I was able to give a longer version of that talk at the Southern California section of the ASA that met at Cal Baptist University in January. In the longer version I took a minute to try to convince the audience that the world was indeed on a path of improvement. When I was an undergrad at Purdue and learning about the state of world in the late 70s, population was out of control, poverty was rampant, infant mortality was high, etc. Paul Ehrlich’s The Population Bomb and the Club of Rome’s Limits to Growth sent a very dire message about the future. While there are still many pessimistic messengers, it seems from more recent students of the state of world such as Hans Rosling of Gapminder.org that much progress has been made. See, for example, this video on population growth. Here’s the slide that contrasts Ehrlich and the 70s with Rosling and 2018.

The point of the paper is that world energy demands will be chiefly the result of global population growth (10 billion by 2050 and holding steady) and the development of the currently under-developed countries. This will produce a three-fold increase in global energy demand, from 550 EJ today to around 1600 EJ in 2010.

Review of Denis O. Lamoureux’s Evolution: Scripture and Nature Say Yes! and Some Thoughts Inspired by It

Lamoureux_CoverDenis O. Lamoureux’s argument in Evolution: Scripture and Nature Say Yes!  can be summarized in three points:

1. The end of either/or. We do not have to choose between creation and evolution. God could have created the universe, the earth, and life on earth using evolutionary processes.

2. The Bible is not a textbook of science. The Bible is concerned primarily with salvation history and is written to an ancient people in everyday language not in modern scientific language.

3. Embracing mainstream science. The arguments for evolution as a scientific theory explaining the diversity of life on earth are quite credible.

These three points, if grasped, put an end to the conflict between faith and science. Interestingly, the history of the American Scientific Affiliation, a network of Christians in the science, can be summarized by its recognition of these three points over the first several decades of its history. This is not to say that the rest of the book is unnecessary or a waste of time to read. Lamoureux elaborates each of these three points using a pedagogical approach that he has developed and perfected in over two decades of teaching about faith-science controversies in the college classroom. Interspersed, often at the end of each chapter, are glimpses of Lamoureux’s own journey from young-earth creationism to evolutionary creationism and comments that betray his vibrant evangelical Christian faith. Having known Denis for over 20 years it is a delight to hear his unapologetic testimony to his faith and his Lord.

Lamoureux calls “the end of either/or” the metaphysical-physical principle. Creation is a theological notion. Evolution is a scientific notion. That “the Bible is not a textbook of science” is captured in his message-incident principle. The inspired Scriptures are given to an ancient audience who share much of the view of the world that the rest of the ancient world had. God accommodated their ancient science, as Lamoureux calls it, and revealed his spiritual and saving truths to them using language and concepts that they used. The ancient science is incidental (and perhaps even false) compared to the eternally true and inerrant message of faith. Lamoureux presents some of the evidences for evolution from his own expertise as an evolutionary developmental biologist and as a dentist.

In Chapter 2 Lamoureux introduces the “two book metaphor” (the Bible and Nature as ways God reveals truth to us) and uses it ably throughout the book. Chapter 4 is an intriguing discussion of Intelligent Design where Lamoureux fully embraces intelligent design as an implication of God being the Creator, but he distances himself from the Intelligent Design Movement and sees the entire evolutionary creation process to be a most marvelous display of God’s intelligent design. Chapter 6 is a good typology of the range of origins perspectives: Young Earth Creation; Progressive Creative; Evolutionary Creation; Deistic Evolution; Dysteleological Evolution. Chapter 7 is a summary of the Galileo affair, which Lamoureux sees as the working out in astronomy 400 years ago the principles he is now applying to biology. Chapter 8 is a discussion of some of Darwin’s wrestling with theological matters surrounding his theory of biological evolution. Lamoureux clearly stops short of calling Darwin a Christian, but counters the anachronistic claims of the New Atheists that Darwin was one of them. Lamoureux seems to like some aspects of Darwin’s theology. More on that below. Chapter 9 is a wonderful sharing of some of his students’ responses to his guiding them through their faith-science struggles.

Quibbles

Although I agree with the substance of the book, think it reflects the right approach to faith-science conflicts, and will gladly recommend it to those wrestling with these issues, I have three minor quibbles. I will freely admit that my next comments are in the category of thoughts inspired by Lamoureux’s book rather than a review of the book itself. Nevertheless, the first two especially are integral to his general approach.

1) We say that the Bible is written in phenomenological language–the language of everyday appearances. The most famous example of this is the idea of the rising and setting of the sun. Indeed, in terms of every day experience this is how we perceive the world. We think of ourselves (and the earth) as stationary and the things in the sky as moving. This is how the world appeared to the ancients, and this is how the world appears to us. There is no difference between ancient phenomenological language and modern phenomenological language. This is how the world appears to a casual observer. It doesn’t matter that the ancients (up until Copernicus and Galileo) actually believed in geocentricism–which they did. It doesn’t matter that we don’t–most of us who are scientifically minded don’t. But the world appears this way to all people of all time.

This issue of phenomenological (or phenomenal) language is one in which I think we have gotten off track a bit. We see the idea in John Calvin in the 16th century, Charles Hodge in the 19th century, and many others since the church began to wrestle with faith-science questions. However, it was Bernhard Ramm’s The Christian View of Science and Scripture (1954) that brought the idea front and center to 20th century fundamentalists and evangelicals. I would encourage a re-reading of Section III, I entitled “The Language of the Bible in Reference to Natural Things” in Ramm’s book. It is a clear statement of the view that most of the Bible’s statements concerning the natural world are in the non-technical, common everyday language of appearances. Many of the faith-science problems disappear if we see the Bible as not speaking scientifically, but phenomenologically.

Recent discussions of this idea, including Lamoureux in this book, distinguish between ancient phenomenological language (the ancients believed what they saw was true) and modern phenomenological language (we know that things aren’t necessarily as they appear). In my opnion, this distinction guts the idea of its usefulness. Paul Seely in “Does the Bible Use Phenomenal Language?” (ASA 2009 Annual Meeting at Baylor University, http://www.asa3.org/ASAradio/ASA2009Seely.mp3) answers “there is probably no phenomenal language in the Bible” simply because he defines phenomenal language to be the language of appearance when we know it’s not really true. His answer really becomes question begging. By his definition, if the ancients believed what they saw was true then for them it was literal language and not phenomenal language. I say that this is an unnecessary and unhelpful restriction of the definition. Phenomenal language is the language of appearances. Period. It doesn’t matter whether it’s believed to be true or not. It is a description of what the world looks like. It doesn’t matter what cosmogony or scientific view the appearance is embedded in. What I see is the same thing that Moses saw.

Seely argues that even if the moving sun, moon, and stars is appearance, surely what the sun did at night is not an appearance since you can’t see it. But I disagree. The sun getting to its western setting (exiting) point back to its eastern rising point is an appearance. That traversing is an experienced phenomenon even though only the beginning and end points were observed. The underworld is that which is below the earth’s surface. The sun appears to go there at sunset and return from there the next morning. Note that it’s an appearance. Seely also complains that we are are not being faithful to historical-grammatical method of Biblical exegesis if we don’t use words the way they did. I don’t see how this is a problem. Their words are describing appearances, not what they believed about those appearances. It is irrelevant if they believed something different about them than what we believe. The intended message of the text is embedded in the common, everyday language of appearance. If we take the words in that sense then we are being true to the historical-grammatical method.

You can’t call phenomenological language true or false. It’s simply how the world appears. Lamoureux, Seely, and others seem too quick to find “false” things in the Bible. Their motive to relieve the tension between the Biblical view of the world and our modern scientific view of the world is laudable. But there’s no tension here if we understand how God is communicating to us in the Bible. The Bible isn’t making scientific claims and is merely communicating appearances in everyday language. There is no error here. Using everyday language is God’s accommodation. Consequently, his Word speaks to every time and place. I, for one, don’t want to be counted among those who rush to find false things in the Bible.

Less famous examples serve to illustrate. The ends of the earth. From the Oregon beach looking out toward the Pacific Ocean, it sure looks like I’ve reached the end of the earth. Only because of technical knowledge brought about by explorers, mapmakers, and the handful of humans who have been to outer space do I know otherwise. Both the ancients and we moderns experience that appearance.

After their own kinds. I’ve never once seen a hippopotamus give birth to a whale or vice versa. A hippo always gives birth to a hippo. Whales always give birth to whales. Everyday appearances tell me the same thing they told the ancients. I do not know about descent with modification because of every day appearances–it’s the result of a diligent and often counterintuitive process that we come to our scientific conclusions.

The bat as a bird. Birds are flying creatures. Bats fly like birds. We might even say they look like (appear to be) birds.

What about the firmament? (I’ll leave to the Hebrew scholars and the translators to decide between “solid dome” and “expanse”, but for now we’ll follow Lamoureux and Seely that it is a “solid dome”.) The sky is a solid dome across which the heavenly objects move. Is that ancient science or is that an appearance (phenomenological language). The sky looks like a dome to me, a modern. The sun, moon, and stars all move across that dome every day and night. Modern planetarium operators seem to think that there is a solid dome. They model the night sky with a miniature version of the solid dome. I would even go so far as to say that I only know that it’s not a dome because somebody told me in a science class. My everyday experience says it’s dome.

“1 In 4 Americans Thinks The Sun Goes Around The Earth, Survey Says” was the headline of an National Public Radio web article in 2014 (http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/02/14/277058739/1-in-4-americans-think-the-sun-goes-around-the-earth-survey-says) based on a National Science Foundation report about science literacy and public attitudes about science. Aside from the massive failure of science education that this statistic suggests, it also suggests that the common sense view (the phenomenological view) is that the sun goes around the earth. In other words apart from technical knowledge obtained from a science education (most often from authority rather than from personal experience), many modern people (along with the ancients) believe what they see with their own eyes about geocentrism.

The point of it all is that the notion of phenomenological language (language of appearances) really does help us here. We can’t call it “wrong” or “erroneous” if it is an appearance. As for whether the ancients believed it or not, I only say that things aren’t always what they appear to be, but unless I have reason to say that things aren’t as they appear I have no real reason to think otherwise. My quibble is that I wish Lamoureux would stop using the term “ancient science” and simply use the term “phenomenological language”. There is no such thing as “ancient phenomenology”–appearances are appearances). The Bible is written in everyday language so that it works (mostly) for all people from a variety of times and places. We don’t need to rescue the Bible from errors that are only errors because we press the language to be scientific. In pressing the Bible to be speaking of “wrong” ancient science Lamoureux commits the very mistake he is urging us to avoid.

2) It is difficult for me to see the difference between Lamoureux’s theism and deism with respect to Nature. I have no doubt that Lamoureux is a theist. He believes that God is personally involved with and has a relationship with people. But he explicitly refers to two types of divine action: one that applies to God’s relationship with humans and one that applies to Nature. It’s the latter that is the source of my quibble. He uses “ordained and sustained” to described God’s works of origination and on-going involvement. But it seems to me that that’s not too far from the fabrication of and winding up of a deist’s designed clock and then letting it tick away. He seems to agree with Darwin’s deism with respect to Nature. God’s letting Nature take its course is an explanation for the problem of the Ichneumonidae wasp and the “suffering” of the caterpillar whose live body was food for the wasp larvae. Darwin used his distancing deism to solve what he perceived to be a moral problem if God was intimately involved (or micromanaged as Lamoureux derisively claims). The whole point of a reference to a fully gifted creation in this discussion is to say that God has equipped Nature to do what it does without interference from God. This view, as in the case of Darwin’s discussion of Ichneumonidae, allows God to be somewhat removed from the perceived nasty events functions as our answer to the problem of evil. Lamoureux seems to approve of Darwin’s move here. For Lamoureux it seems that the Nature operates deistically but God intervenes and is involved with the more personal touches: salvation history, personal salvation, revelation, miracles, and answers to prayer. It seems to me that a more direct providential involvement is necessitated even by the more personal touches because God often answers prayer and does miraculous things using quite ordinary means. Also, the Bible itself attributes much of the natural order to God’s direct activity. Divine governance needs to be added to ordaining and sustaining. God governs all his creatures and all their actions. Indeed, there is a sense in which God is a micromanager because he is actively involved in governing all things. I tell my students that God is as actively involved in turning water into wine at the wedding of Cana as he is in turning water into hydrogen gas and oxygen gas in a water electrolysis experiment. God’s micromanagement is personal and purposeful. It’s hard to understand why this is difficult to grasp if God is omnipotent, omniscience, and omnipresent. God is related to his Creation in a completely different manner than we are related to our “creations”. We tend to think analogically about God’s operations in the world based on how we interact with the world. But we’re not omnipotent, omniscience, or omnipresent. No aspect of Creation is autonomous. Even created agents need to be upheld in their being and in their ability to act. Theologians refer to a concurrence between the animating agency of God and the agency of the Creature. In my mind, the only way evolution produces the Creation God willed is because of this detailed active governance at every step of the way.

3) The final quibble is about the title: Evolution: Scripture and Nature Say Yes! I realize that this is a playful poke at Duane Gish’s Evolution: The Fossils Say No! and that it is possible that Lamoureux didn’t even have a choice in the matter. Lamoureux does explain in the last chapter how it takes both to understand reality. We need both books to understand the truth. They complement each other. No quibble with that. However, this title does some damage to one of the major theses of the book. Lamoureux rightly argues quite strongly that the Bible isn’t a textbook of science. Yet the title suggests that the Bible says “Yes!” to evolution. Perhaps it is meant simply to say that the Bible allows evolution as a scientific theory. No quibble with that either. But at face value I took it as a stronger claim that is confusing to the average reader. I have often been asked “Where does the Bible teach evolution?” My answer is always “It doesn’t!” The Bible teaches us a view of God, human beings, Creation, and God’s interaction with Creation that allows us to do science. When we study the Creation we conclude that evolution happened. Nothing in the Bible would lead us to that conclusion and, in fact, the Bible or its original audience isn’t really interested in whether or not evolution happened.

Back of the Envelope (3) – Batteries (Tesla Powerwall) to Store Renewables

Tesla_Powerwall

Tesla Powerwall (Image by Tesla Motors CC-I 4.0)

 

Summary: 375 MW of electricity is the amount currently provided by fossil fuel burning power plants for a population of about 320,000. To make this power with renewable sources (namely, solar PV) 2 GW must be generated: 375 MW for daytime use and 1.625 GW generated and stored for nighttime use. One option for storage is batteries. This amount of power can be produced by 1.5 million Tesla Powerwall (6.4 kWh) batteries. These could be distributed in residences and businesses with one Powerwall servicing roughly 460 square feet of building footprint. Alternatively, they could be housed in a few large warehouses following a more centralized utility model.

In the first Back of the Envelope we found that we need a 2 GW solar farm to replace the fossil fuel produced electricity currently used by a city such as Fort Collins, Loveland, Longmont, Estes Park, Colorado with a population of 320,000. 375 MW of that 2 GW will be used during the day and the rest, 1.625 GW, must be stored to be used at night. In the second Back of the Envelope we examined pumped hydro as the storage solution. While pumped hydro is the most prevalent form of storage today (99%), batteries are probably the most talked about solution to the storage problem. In this Back of the Envelope we will look at the solution offered by Tesla Motors with its Powerwall to see what level of implementation would be required to store the extra power produced by the 2 GW solar farm so we can make it through the night.

For this calculation we will use the home Powerwall, which is expected to cost $3000, can store up 6.4 kWh of electricity, and has dimensions of 33.9 inches x 51.2 inches x 7.1 inches (12,300 in3 or 0.2 m3). We need to store 1.625 GW x 6 hours or 9.75 GWh of electricity. That’s 9.75 million kWh. Divide that by the 6.4 kWh storage capacity of the Powerwall and you get 1.5 million Powerwall batteries taking up a volume of about 0.3 million m3 and costing $4.5 billion. If we can put them 6 high on a wall (about 8 m) in a warehouse that will require 37,500 m2 (400,000 square feet) of space. If we allowed 10x that space for access and cooling that would take up 375,000 m2 (4,000,000 square feet). That’s the size of about 20 large Walmart Supercenter buildings—not too bad for a utility scale centralized rollout. For such an installation we would probably use Tesla’s Powerpack or utility scale devices which have more capacity, but for this BOTE we will stick with the Powerwall batteries.

It is more likely that many or even most of these Powerwall devices will be distributed throughout town. The population density of Fort Collins is about 1000 people per km2; dividing 320,000 people by 1000 people per km2 gets us to  320 kmof area in Fort Collins, Loveland, Longmont, and Estes Park. Let’s assume that 20% of this is buildings (residences, businesses, schools, churches, etc.)—64 km2  (700 million square feet) of building footprint. If we need 1.5 million Powerwall batteries, that’s a Powerwall battery for every 460 square feet of building footprint.

  • An apartment with 1000 square feet needs one 1 or 2
  • An average size house of 2000 square feet needs 4 or 5
  • A church building with a 6000 square foot footprint needs 13
  • An office building with a 15,000 square foot footprint needs needs 30
  • A school building with a 140,000 square foot footprint needs 350

In its first year of production (2015-2016) Tesla plans to make around 100,000. 1.5 million are needed for the proposed 100% renewable solution. That’s 15 years worth just for Fort Collins. Obviously, that will need to scale up with an increased production rate and additional factories to make the devices. Because the “sample” city is only 1/1000 of the US population we will need 1.5 billion for the entire United States.

Lithium

Lithium floating on oil (Image by W. Oelen CC-BY-SA 3.0)

An estimate of the amount of lithium required is that 300 g Li metal is needed per 1 kWh of battery capacity. (Theoretical electrochemical considerations give a value of about 75 g Li per kWh; here we have multiplied by 4 to give a more realistic “real world” value.) Thus the 6.4 kWh Powerwall requires about 2 kg Li. For the 1.5 million needed in Fort Collins that’s 3.0 million kg of Li or 3,000 metric tonnes (3 million metric tonnes for the whole country). Global annual production of lithium is around 37,000 metric tonnes of lithium. Currently, only about 30% of the produced lithium is used for batteries (portable tools, laptops, cell phones, and the nascent electric vehicle (EV) market). A full, nation-wide rollout of this new market for batteries involves a 80x increase in the production of lithium. Of course, the EV market is also rapidly growing. A transition to EV of the over 250 million passenger vehicles in the US today, each one using 10x as much lithium as a Powerwall battery, would put significant pressure not only on lithium production but also on global reserves of lithium. The USGS estimates that there are 13 million metric tonnes of known reserves (i.e. currently economically obtainable) and only 39 million metric tonnes of lithium existing on the planet. For more information about lithium supply limits see this article from Green Tech Media. Perhaps a more serious resource limitation is the rare earth metals used in the DC to AC inverters. We’ll save that discussion for another BOTE.

The solar farm discussed in the first BOTE is already going to cost $2.5 billion with probably a 20 year lifetime. 1.5 million Powerwall batteries will cost another $4.5 billion. However, these only have a 10 year lifetime. Let’s say $5.75 billion for 2 GW of electricity for 10 years:

2 GW x 6 hr/day x 365 days/year x 10 years = 43,800 GWh = 43.8 billion kWh

The price of this electricity (not counting operation and maintenance) is $5.75 billion/43.8 billion kWh = $0.13/kWh–a bit pricey, but not far off from today’s prices. No doubt the price of batteries will go down as production scales go up, as technology improves, and with business and utility scale models incorporated into the implementation.

The most serious limitation at this point in time seems to be the rate of lithium production and the rate of battery production.

Check out Energy: What the World Needs Now by Terry M. Gray and Anthony K. Rappé.

Back of the Envelope (2) – Pumped Hydro to Store Renewables

Summary: 375 MW of electricity is the amount currently provided by fossil fuel burning power plants for a population of about 320,000. To make this power with renewable sources (namely, solar PV) 2 GW must be generated: 375 MW for daytime use and 1.625 GW generated and stored for nighttime use. One option for storage is pumped hydroelectric power. This amount of power can be produced hydroelectrically by draining a reservoir (such as Horsetooth Reservoir near Fort Collins, Colorado) of 120 million m3 of water at night and pumping it back during the daytime. This would involve creating a lake downstream from the reservoir 6 m (20 ft) deep and 6 km (3-4 mi) on each side. Alternatively, 377 pairs of large tanks (500 ft in diameter 100 ft tall) slightly larger than the oil storage tanks located in Cushing, Oklahoma, one above ground and one below ground, could be filled and drained each day. Each tank takes up about 5 acres or just a bit more than 2 city blocks.

In the first Back of the Envelope we found that we need a 2 GW solar farm to replace the fossil fuel produced electricity currently used by a city such as Fort Collins, Loveland, Longmont, Estes Park, Colorado with a population of 320,000. 375 MW of that 2 GW will be used during the day and the rest, 1.625 GW must be stored to be used at night.  The only form of energy storage reported by the Energy Information Administration is pumped hydroelectric power. “Pumped hydro” is the only large-scale energy storage in use today–99% of all storage is pumped hydro. Water is pumped into a reservoir using excess energy production and then released later to generate electricity as in a hydroelectric power plant. Some pumped hydro facilities were developed in concert with nuclear power facilities. When power production exceeded demand, the excess was used to pump water into a reservoir rather than throttle the  amount of electricity produced by the nuclear power plant. This allows the nuclear power plant to operate an optimal level. This Back of the Envelope post will explore what would be required to provide overnight storage of daytime generated electricity using pumped hydro.

The important physics/engineering equation is that which calculates the power available in a reservoir of water. The equation is

Power (Watts) =
Efficiency x density of water (kg/m3) x flow rate (m3/s) x force of gravity (m/s2) x height (m)

Horsetooth Reservoir

Horsetooth Reservoir near Fort Collins, Colorado (Photo from the US Department of Interior Bureau of Reclamation)

Efficiency is the efficiency of conversion of hydropower to electrical power. We’ll assume 80%. The density of water is 1000 kg/m3. The force of gravity is 9.81 m/s2; we’ll call it 10 m/s2. The height will depend on our exact system. We’ll explore a couple of options.

Option 1: Horsetooth Reservoir

Horsetooh Reservoir is less than a mile away from the western edge of Fort Collins. There are four earthen dams that make up the reservoir. The reservoir holds 0.2 km3 (200 million m3, 157,000 acre-ft) of water. At the north end is a dam that is 155 feet high. How much electricity could we generate if we let the water out? In order to pump it back we have to store the water downstream somewhere. We’ll talk about that later. Let’s estimate the water level behind the dam to be 50 meters higher than in front of the dam. However, as we’ll see we will be changing that height significantly as the water is released even in a large reservoir like Horsetooth. (Technically, we should integrate as the water is released, but as a first approximation we’ll do the calculation using a static height of 1/2 of the initial height.) Let’s say that our actual head height is 25 meters. Now we can plug numbers into our equation. We need 375 MW of power.

375 x 106 W = 0.8 x 1000 kg/m3 x flow rate (m3/s) x 10 m/s2 x 25 m

Solving for flow rate gives us 1875 m3/s. We need to do this for 18 hours. 18 hours is 64,800 seconds.

Total volume needed is 1875 m3/s x 64,800 s = 121 million m3.

This is 60% of Horsetooth Reservoir drained out every night and pumped back in during the day. A flow rate of 1875 m3/s is comparable to the flow rate out of other large scale hydroelectric plants. Three 6-7 m (20 feet) diameter pipes could do the trick. Pumping the released water back during the daytime needs to occur 3x faster. The giant pumps that are being installed in New Orleans since Katrina can pump at near 625 m3/s. We would need nine of these monsters each costing $0.5 billion to pump all the water back each day.

Another problem is where to put the water. Without worrying for now about land use issues, let’s make a shallow lake downstream from the main dam. If it is 6 meters (20 ft) deep, we need a 33 million m2 area (33 km2,  82,000 acres). That’s a shallow lake 6 km or 3-4 miles on a side. Interestingly, that’s the size of the solar farm needed. Perhaps we can float the solar panels on the lake.

Option 2: Storage Tank Farm

Cushing, Oklahoma oil tank

An Enbridge oil tank at Cushing, Oklahoma (Photo by roy.luck CC-BY-SA 2.0)

The previous solution requires a specific geographical setting that may only be appropriate for certain locations, and since Horsetooth Reservoir is also a recreational facility, we may not want to drain it every night. Is there a way to make this work anywhere with artificial storage tanks? The oil storage facility in Cushing, Oklahoma comes to mind. What if we built large water storage tanks, one above ground and one below ground? What would it take to store enough power to get through the night? The largest of these tanks run about 400 feet in diameter and 70 feet tall. Let’s say we can stretch the limits a bit and get to 500 feet in diameter and 100 feet tall. That would be 150 meters in diameter and 30 meters tall. Each tank holds 530,000 m3 of water. The average height between the levels of water is now only 15 meters (rather than the 25 meters we had for Horsetooth Reservoir). Since we have only 60% of the head, we need 1.67x as much water. Using the number from the previous calculation (121 million m3) this gives us 200 million m3 of water.

Cushing, Oklahoma Oil Tank Farms

A satellite image of the Cushing, Oklahoma oil storage tank farms. The image is about 2 miles horizontal and 1.5 miles vertical.

At 530,000 m3 per pair of tanks, that means 377 pairs of tanks. Each tank takes up a 150 m x 150 m square (about 5 acres or 4 football fields or just over 2 city blocks). This ends up being a 10 km x 10 km (6 mi x 6 mi) water storage tank farm. That area is comparable to the area of Horsetooth Reservoir and the downstream lake that was created.

Feasible?

Either project is grandiose. And keep in mind that we have to do this times 1000 for the US alone. However, such projects are not necessarily engineering impossibilities. Geography might help in many instances. Coastal regions or those near the Great Lakes might be able to use the ocean or lake as the lower level storage tank. The bottom line is that this would be a massive enterprise. On the surface it looks doable, but the scale of the project makes it seem like other options might be better. These will be discussed in future BOTE blog posts.

Check out Energy: What the World Needs Now by Terry M. Gray and Anthony K. Rappé.

Back of the Envelope (1) – How Much Solar Do We Need?

Summary: 375 MW of electricity, an amount currently provided by fossil fuel burning power plants for a population of about 320,000, requires a 2 GW solar farm composed of 5 million 200 W/msolar panels taking up 10 km2 (4 mi2) or 2500 acres of land (just under 1/10 the area of a city of 150,000 such as Fort Collins, Colorado). This will cost nearly $2.5 billion to construct and, if amortized over 20 years, will add $0.03 per kWh to the operational cost of electricity. This assumes some storage technology is available and takes into account intermittency and losses from storage.

Back of the Envelope is a blog series exploring issues related to transitioning from fossil fuel based electricity to renewable electricity production. There are two big issues: first, the scale, i.e. how many  renewable energy sources are needed to replace the fossil fuel sources currently in use; second, because of intermittency issues, i.e. that the sun doesn’t shine at night or that the wind doesn’t blow all the time, extra energy needs to be produced during production times and storage needs to be developed.

I am from Fort Collins, Colorado. Fort Collins gets its electricity from the Platte River Power Authority (PRPA), a public power utility that services Loveland, Longmont, and Estes Park in addition to Fort Collins. The total population served is nearly 320,000. This is a nice number because it represents approximately 1/1000 of the US population. Roughly speaking, we need to multiply whatever we find here by 1000 to cover the whole United States.

PRPA’s sources include coal (about 75%), hydropower (about 20%), wind (about 5%), and some other sources including natural gas for summer peak demand. The daily load profile is typical with a peak load around 7pm and a low around 3am. The average daily load for January 2016 is around 400 MW. Let’s call it 500 MW to account for summer load and in the spirit of a back-of-the-envelope calculation.

Some of PRPA’s energy (25%) already comes from renewable sources. Nationwide the number is between 10% and 15%, but is nearly 35% if you include nuclear. For this calculation I will assume that we need 75% of 500 MW, 375 MW, to replace the fossil fuel sources. I will also do the calculation using solar PV only. Obviously, a real solution will be a combination of solar PV, solar thermal (CSP), and wind. But the land use/resource requirements are similar among the three, so we can get our back-of-the-envelope result by just using solar PV.

Here’s where we’re heading. We need to meet the daytime load. We will assume that daytime is 6 hours per day (a 25% capacity factor). (Perhaps with a combination of wind and solar we could get up to 8 hours per day (closer to a 35% capacity factor).) We will need to produce enough energy while the sun is shining brightly to cover the 18 hours when it’s not. This will be produced during the day and stored somehow. Since storage will not be 100% efficient, we will need to produce additional energy to account for a round trip efficiency, which we assume to be 75%.

Daytime Load

Let’s be generous with our solar panel efficiency and say we can have 200 W/m2 solar panels. That would be a 400 W 1 m x 2 m panel (2 m2 panels).

375 MW x 1,000,000 W/MW x 1 solar panel/400 W = 937,500 panels. Let’s just call it 1,000,000. A million solar panels takes up 2 million m2 of space. A km2 is 1,000,000 m2 so we’re talking 2 km2 (0.77 mi2). That’s a square of land 1.4 km (0.9 mi) on a side. If you think in acres, that’s about 500 acres.

Nighttime Load

We have to multiply everything times 3 to cover when the sun is not shining. So that’s 3 million more solar panels taking up 6 km2 (2.3 mi2) or 1500 acres.

Storage Efficiency Issues

Since the nighttime load has to be stored we will have to increase our numbers to accommodate inefficiencies in round trip storage. Since our efficiency is assumed to be 75% we can divide our nighttime load numbers by 0.75 to get the amount that needs to be stored:  4 million solar panels taking up 8 km2 (3 mi2) or 2000 acres.

Totals

Adding in the daytime load now gives a total of 5 million solar panels and 10 km2 (4 mi2) or 2500 acres. That’s a 2 GW solar farm.

The area of the city of Fort Collins is 56 mi2 so we’re talking about covering an area equivalent to 7% of the entire city with solar panels. These solar panels cost about $200 per panel for a home installation. Since we’re buying 5 million of them, let’s say we can get half off for a total cost of $500,000,000. If we estimate $2/W for installation that’s an additional $2 billion for a total of $2.5 billion.

Assuming our 2 GW solar farm produces electricity for 6 hours a day, 365 days a year for 20 years, we will produce 2 GW x 1,000,000 kW/GW x 6 hours/day x 365 days/year x 20 years = 87.6 billion kWh. That would be $0.03/kWh to cover the initial building of the solar farm. While that’s a lot of money up front, over the long run it’s a decent construction cost per kWh of electricity produced.

The largest solar PV plants in the US today are around 500 MW (Solar Star, Topaz, Desert Sunlight, Copper Mountain) each costing in the $2-$3 billion range. Prices of solar installations continue to come down, so it’s conceivable that we could get a 4x larger plant for nearly the same price.

The general result is that if we switch from fossil fuel sources to intermittent sources with storage that we need to a solar or wind facility that produces 5x the amount of electricity that we get from the fossil fuel plant. In order to make this work we need to store that electricity somehow, not a trivial problem today. We’ll discuss that in future Back of the Envelope posts. And, remember, we need 1000 of these nationwide.

Check out Energy: What the World Needs Now by Terry M. Gray and Anthony K. Rappé.

Age of the Earth

age of the earth icon

This is the fifth of a series of posts introducing Resources on Science and Christian Faith from the American Scientific Affiliation (ASA). These blog posts are based on the introductory essays that accompany each of the topics. Today we are using the topic of the Age of the Earth.

Using radiometric dating modern science has concluded that the earth is 4.54 billion years old. Geologists since the 18th and 19th centuries began to understand that the earth has a vast age (measured in millions and billions of years rather than thousands of years). The 17th century bishop, James Ussher, using dates of historically known events and assuming literal and gapless Biblical genealogies and an ordinary (six, twenty-four hour day) Creation week in Genesis 1, concluded that God created the world around six thousand years ago. Today’s young-earth creationists (YEC) continue to follow Ussher’s basic interpretative procedure. Others (old earth creationists, theistic evolutionists/evolutionary creationists, some Old Testament scholars) believe that there are approaches to understanding Genesis 1 in particular that do not require a conclusion that is in conflict with modern science. (See the “Reading Genesis” section for various perspectives.)

Most ASA members accept the consensus scientific view on the age of the earth. Already in 1949 based on radiometric dating techniques, ASA member Laurence Kulp said, “One of the most probable facts in geology, I believe, is that the earth is close to two billion years old…” Kulp’s early paper supporting the old earth position and criticizing YEC is featured in the collection below. A paper written for the ASA web site, “Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective” by physicist Roger Wiens has proved to be one of the most popular in terms of electronic downloads. Many of the resources here simply review the scientific claims for an old earth and then seek to understand that great age in light of what the Bible says. YEC have brought forward critiques of the various dating methods and conclusions drawn from them. Because ASA members have tended to accept the consensus view, the articles here summarize and engage the YEC criticisms. ASA members may disagree with the YEC position but acknowledge those who hold that view as fellow believers and worthy of respectful engagement. Randy Isaac’s review of the YEC RATE project and subsequent dialog with its authors illustrates this respectful engagement.

Many Christians today, especially those in conservative, evangelical churches, remain persuaded of the YEC viewpoint. Yet there are evangelical traditions and theologians who have long accepted old earth arguments. ASA members throughout its history have sought to convince the former group that the scientific arguments for an old earth are quite sound, rooted in the same science that has given us progress in medicine and technology. Largely evangelical themselves, these ASA members have also attempted to formulate ways of approaching this question that take seriously the Bible and evangelical Christian theology.

The last group of papers deals with the idea of apparent age. Here, the earth/universe looks old, i.e. old age is the conclusion you would draw from the scientific data. Even Isaac, in his discussion of the RATE project, seems to allow this view as one with scientific integrity because it admits to the consensus view. Many reject the view because it undermines the idea that we can draw reliable conclusions from our observations or even trust God’s revelation to us in creation. Nonetheless, apparent age is a method of reconciling the scientific data with the perceived need for a young earth.

Anyone interested in tackling the scientific arguments for the vast age of the earth or the related theological questions is encouraged to study these papers and talks.

Questions

1. What have you been taught about the age of the earth in your family, church, or school?

2. Which scientific arguments for an old earth do you know?