John Stackhouse, an evangelical theologian, posted about the lack of word care - theologically and poetically - in the songs of Chris Tomlin. This generated a mass of comments - lots of them saying Stackhouse is unfair to criticize Tomlin - please! We're quite happy, or at least many evangelicals are quite happy to knock open-theists like Clark Pinnock or non-penal substitutionists like Steve Chalke in public, but somehow worship songwriters are untouchable? When its the theology (or perhaps lack of theology) of these songs that shape most people's faith. I think he makes lots of good points, I have an article forthcoming in the Evangelical Quarterly making some other critical comments about contemporary worship songs. Stackhouse's concern, with which I agree is we must be able to do better than a lot of the rubbish that is churned out year after year. Its not all bad, but the commericalisation of the worship industry means that too much music is being produced and its almost as if it sells who cares what we're singing. The main issue is that Tomlin and others are not theologians or poets, but they are good at writing catchy tunes. Ben's comments here are fair, but I'd argue that Townend and Getty are writing in a different genre , more like the hymn, than the three minute pop song genre that Tomlin, Tim Hughes and Matt Redman are writing in. The hymn has more scope for communicating theology, the pop song is more limited - this is evident in the same tired words and phrases that are used over and over again. Furthermore, as Pete Ward has shown (see his Selling Worship) the songs of Tomlin and co. are designed for encounter with God, not to communicating who God is - the emphasis is on the worshipper's response, not the one to whom they are responding - so that often the song can be addressed to simply 'Lord' or even 'You'.