"Non-Christian Hymns?"

[rsr]

"Morning Has Broken" was originally a hymn for children.

The words were written by Elanor Farjeon in 1931 and set to "Bunessan" by Annette Covington.

http://www.ccel.org/cceh/0000/000084a.mid

 

[Rev. G]

Johnv:

Music Man said "The Star-Spangled Banner" long before you did, just FYI. Interesting that both of you brought up "patriotic" songs, although it seems as though you are okay with them being sung in worship, John.

Rev. G

 

[Rev. G]

The songs often have to do with earning heaven or what a man must do, etc. More and more we are seeing a tendency to concentrate on man rather than Christ in a number of churches. It is a very sad thing.

Helen:

Would you mind bringing up some examples of the songs you have heard that typify this problem, whether hymns or choruses? It is sad that people are concentrating more on the creation rather than the Creator, but keep in mind that most things being taught / preached in churches these days are anthropocentric rather than theocentric.

Rev. G

Rev. G

 

[Aaron]

"The cattle are lowing, the baby awakes,
The little Lord Jesus, no crying He makes . . ."

One thing is for certain, Christ did not cry for the same reasons that fallen, sinful human babies cry. Christ did nothing for Himself. Nothing.

Now, if you drop a BB in a 55 gal. drum every time a fallen human baby cried for selfish reasons (e.g. hungry, uncomfortable, in pain, etc.) and dropped a golf ball in a Mason jar everytime he cried for unselfish reasons, which would fill up first?

 

[Aaron]

Originally posted by Molly:
Hey

,we are actually on the same page here! That is exactly what I am saying...there should be more biblical depth,more Truth about Christ,*more* to think about.

If the song is about Christ,let's mention Him.

How about a song about being chosen of God,His holiness,the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom,Christ's death,you know...docritnal things in biblcal language using biblical terms,that's what I think we need more of.

Molly,

You are exactly right. The simplicity which the Apostle Paul commends in the preaching of the Gospel should be straightforward.

1 Corinthians 2
1 And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God.
2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.
3 And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling.
4 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:
5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.

1 Corinthians 14:19
Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.

Now, some lofty souls might scoff at "pandering" to the "Dick and Jane audience," but we are commanded to become as little children, and your thinking is eminently line with the Scriptures on this point.

 

[Pete]

Originally posted by ChristianCynic:
(Esther...) It is only a series of events which came together whereby evil intent was averted... like any impending crime which is discovered and prevented.

I'll agree to disagree on that one mate, or is that disagree to agree...whatever, I'm just generally disagreeable I think there are enough events that make up that series (and a couple of hints thrown in) to answer the whodunit

As to the songs people don't like, I gave up long ago thinking a song must be perfect to be acceptable. Obviously people are going to disagree about expressions, metaphors, and whether it addresses God or it refers to him...

To steal a bit from Orwell, all songs are equal, some are more equal than others Few songs are perfect, a lot should be closer to it than where they are though.

Secular bands make millions recording love songs about "you". The songs sell big because they rarely mention any names or distinct characteristics of the subject. Sing it to your girl-friend, if you break up with her then sing the same one to your next one. I can't think of any good reason for the Church to follow the trend.

Disclaimer: Of course by this little rant I don't mean that every song should have expositions of at least three doctrines before it should be considered...But I'ld rather have a few expressions, metaphors in there to think about, than volcanos of virulent vagueness that a lot of songs are these days...

volcanos of virulent vagueness?? That's it, must be bed time here

Pete

 

[Rev. G]

Charles Wesley seemed able to mix metaphors without being vague, eh?

Why is it that we don't have (somebody correct me if I'm wrong since I'm not a 'music guy') some contemporary hymn writers in the vein of Wesley or Isaac Watts? Just curious.

Rev. G

 

[rsr]

It's a culture thing.

Who takes hymns seriously? In Charles' day, music was a rarified atmosphere; today, it's everywhere (and mostly for the worse.)

OTOH, there is probably a good deal of spiritual music that we're not aware of because there is so much of it. There were plenty of bad hymns written in Charles' day, but they haven't survived.

 

[Pete]

Rev G,

While still falling short Watts or Wesley standards, some writers today can put out a reasonably solid song now and then, trouble is the rest of the time they still churn out streams of "This is our new worship song, it is fifteen minutes long, it's theology is not too strong, "You" are better than King Kong..." type of things to fill empty space on CDs and/or get their name out there.

Pete

 

[JonathanDT]

Originally posted by Rev. G:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> I have a hard time believing you would sing that to anyone. Sure the chorus is repetitious, but so are some hymns, if you'd like I can post some lyrics as examples.

Please do, as this thread was started with the intent of discussing "non-Christian" hymns (hymns which really shouldn't be in the hymn book).

Rev. G</font>[/QUOTE]Wow, so much to respond to. Here goes. I think I spoke a little rashly, it's way too much to type!!! I don't know of any sites that have hymn lyrics from which I could copy and paste, so break out a hymn book and look this stuff up. The song O How I Love Jesus repeats the phrase "O how I love Jesus" 12 times. Nothing but the Blood repeats the phrase "Nothing but the blood of Jesus" 12 times. The song Glory to His Name repeats the phrase "Glory to His Name" 16 times. And of course Standing On the Promises which repeats the phrase "Standing on the promises of God" 20 times. And this from just browsing through the hymnal for a minute.

Originally posted by Music Man:
I have never really understood this part of the song. I mean, if I can "let" someone set me free, was I truly in need of freedom to begin with? Just wondering?

Sure, aren't humans in bondage to sin? Don't we have the choice to let Christ forgive that sin and free us?

Originally posted by Music Man:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by JonathanDT:
As for the what makes a song "Christian," I believe it is a combination of factors, including but not limited to: Lyrics, intent of the singer, heart of the singer, focus of the singer. Obviously I put the most emphasis on the singer, IMO if they are worshipping God many songs can be used even if they don't mention any of the Trinity by name.

I am not certain how a song with lyrics that have nothing to do with God, magically becomes "Christian" if a Christian, with a pure heart, and a focus (whatever that is), sings it. Maybe I misunderstood your point?</font>[/QUOTE]What I meant by "mention the Trinity by name" is to actually use a proper name ie Jesus, God, Jehovah, etcetera, rather then using metaphorical terms, such as in I Could Sing of Your Love Forever with your and healer. By focus I mean totally focused on God's awesome wonder.

Originally posted by Molly:
Hey

,we are actually on the same page here! That is exactly what I am saying...there should be more biblical depth,more Truth about Christ,*more* to think about.

If the song is about Christ,let's mention Him.

How about a song about being chosen of God,His holiness,the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom,Christ's death,you know...docritnal things in biblcal language using biblical terms,that's what I think we need more of.

You mean lets mention him in a way that you can instantly recognize without having to think about or understand any of the other lyrics in the song.

Because I Could Sing of Your Love Forever DOES mention him, you just have to pay attention to the words.
Many songs are about God's holiness, Lord I lift your name on High talks about Christ's death and resurection to pay for our sings, I can't think of any praise songs of the top of my head about being chosen of God or fear of the Lord is the beginning of Wisdom, but my praise song repertoire is rather limited since we rarely use them in my church.

Originally posted by Aaron:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />"The cattle are lowing, the baby awakes,
The little Lord Jesus, no crying He makes . . ."

One thing is for certain, Christ did not cry for the same reasons that fallen, sinful human babies cry. Christ did nothing for Himself. Nothing.</font>[/QUOTE]Be careful Aaron, your making assumptions that the Bible doesn't support. Didn't Jesus ask God to "take this cup from me?" Didn't he ask for a drink on the cross? Are you saying that Jesus never asked for more food when he was a kid, or maybe for some assistance with a chore? Some very large assumptions.

As for using "simple language," doesn't God himself use some rather spectacular language in Job? I can't think of very many people who would consider the book of Revelation simple. Be careful about taking verses out of context.

 

[Music Man]

Originally posted by Rev. G:
Why is it that we don't have (somebody correct me if I'm wrong since I'm not a 'music guy') some contemporary hymn writers in the vein of Wesley or Isaac Watts? Just curious.

Good question! I think our lack of good modern hymns in our churches is at least partly due to the revival movement of the 19th century. If you notice, most of the gospel song texts we sing today were written by musicians. Usually the same person who wrote the music also wrote the text (I do know there are exceptions). The songs being sung were no longer being written by the pastor/theologians but by musicians, who are not necessarily theologians.

Another thing is that a lot of the writers of gospel songs would tell you that they never intended for the gospel songs to be sung in worship services. They were written for a specific purpose, for evangelistic/revival meetings, not worship. But what happened is that people liked the songs they sang in revivals so much, that they wanted them to be sung in their churches on Sunday morning. (That is, btw, also how we got our present worship order in most Baptist churches, straight out of the revival movement.) There is a lot of repition in the gospel songs because they were purposely designed that way. The song writer knew the people at the meetings would not remember the stanzas, so they included these catchy refrains that were sung with each stanza, which would be a summary of the stanzas, so they would leave the meetings singing the refrain.

What bringing these songs into the church has done is to slowly change the focus of worship services from worshiping God, to evangelizing the lost. Worship has become a means to an end (the end being evangelism) rather than worship being an end in and of itself. This, coupled with the slow, improvement of the state of mankind in our theology, and you have more man-centered hymns, etc, which certainly does not typify the hymns of Wesley, Watts, Newton, etc.

Now, having said all of that, in the last half of the 20th century, there was a bit of a return to hymnody somewhat in the vain of Watts, Wesley, etc. (which has been called "The Golden Age of English Hymnody"). This new age of English Hymnody has been called "The New English Renaissance" with the hymns of Fred Pratt Green, Brian Wren, Timothy Dudley-Smith, Erik Routley, Fred Kaan, etc.

The thing I have not mentioned is with the contemporary praise chorses, etc. Many of them are man-centric and shallow, but there are some that are quite good. We just need to be discerning when picking what we sing. Don't sing it just because it is the popular chorus at the time, but sing it because it focuses on God, points us to God, praises God, glorifies God, more than it talks about how God makes me feel. There are some out there, you just have to hunt them down.

Rev. G., I'm sure that is more than you really wanted to know, sorry! I hope it has been helpful.

Soli Deo Gloria,
Chris

 

[Music Man]

Originally posted by JonathanDT:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Music Man:
I have never really understood this part of the song. I mean, if I can "let" someone set me free, was I truly in need of freedom to begin with? Just wondering?

Sure, aren't humans in bondage to sin? Don't we have the choice to let Christ forgive that sin and free us?</font>[/QUOTE]I don't think you really answered my question, but I also don't think this is really the forum for the discussion which could result from continuing. I'll save that for the guys in the Calvinism/Arminianism forum.

SDG,
Chris

 

[rsr]

Charles Wesley didn't write his music, and neither did Newton. It is a blessing that their words found the right music.

 

[Aaron]

JonathanDT said:
Be careful Aaron, your making assumptions that the Bible doesn't support. Didn't Jesus ask God to "take this cup from me?" Didn't he ask for a drink on the cross?

Mine are not assumptions, but eminently Scriptural assertions of the character of Jesus Christ. Once you understand the nature and origin of sin, and know that Christ, even before He was born, could not be a partaker of that nature, then it follows that He could and would do nothing for His own self.

He says as much when He said, "I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me," John 5:30.

One nanosecond of selfishness would have rendered Him a sinner and would have doomed us all.

Jesus was a "man of sorrows and acquainted with grief." The "loud crying and tears" (Heb. 5:7) He offered up were always for our griefs and our sorrows. Never, never, never His own. Not even as an infant.

It is a grievous error to assume that Christ's prayer that the cup pass from Him was by any means a desire to do anything other than His Father's will. He certainly did not face the agony of the cross as an infant and His crying thereon cannot be compared to the crying of a baby.

Christ's thirst is thusly expounded by the great Matthew Henry...

But the reason of his complaining of it is somewhat surprising; it is the only word he spoke that looked like complaint of his outward sufferings. When they scourged him, and crowned him with thorns, he did not cry, O my head! or, My back! But now he cried, I thirst. For, [1.] He would thus express the travail of his soul, Isa. 53:11. He thirsted after the glorifying of God, and the accomplishment of the work of our redemption, and the happy issue of his undertaking. [2.] He would thus take care to see the scripture fulfilled. Hitherto, all had been accomplished, and he knew it, for this was the thing he had carefully observed all along; and now he called to mind one thing more, which this was the proper season for the performance of. By this it appears that he was the Messiah, in that not only the scripture was punctually fulfilled in him, but it was strictly eyed by him. By this it appears that God was with him of a truth —that in all he did he went exactly according to the word of God, taking care not to destroy, but to fulfil, the law and the prophets.

...and this way by John Calvin:

Those who contrive a metaphorical meaning for the word thirst, as if he meant that, instead of a pleasant and agreeable beverage, they gave
him bitterness, as if they intended to flay his throat, are more desirous to be thought ingenious than to promote true edification; and, indeed, they are expressly refuted by the Evangelist, who says that Christ asked for vinegar when he was near death; from which it is evident that he did not desire any luxuries.

In other words, Christ was not asking that His thirst be abated with water. He was asking for the vinegar to fulfill the Scriptures.

JonathanDT said:
Are you saying that Jesus never asked for more food when he was a kid, or maybe for some assistance with a chore?

Now who is making assumptions that the Bible doesn't support? Is there some narrative that I missed? The only words recorded that He uttered as a child is "Wist thou not that I must be about my Father's business?"

It is you who needs to be careful--careful not to transfer our sinful tendencies to Christ's sinless humanity.

The cattle are lowing the Baby awakes,
But little Lord Jesus no crying He makes.

That verse is weighty with doctrinal truth.

JonathanDT said:
As for using "simple language," doesn't God himself use some rather spectacular language in Job? I can't think of very many people who would consider the book of Revelation simple. Be careful about taking verses out of context.

God can do it, and did do it. "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter," Proverbs 25:2. We are not God.

We are clearly commanded to be straightforward and simple in our presentations of the Gospel in the worship of Christ. We work for the edification of all. We condescend to those of low estate. We don't scoff at them thinking ourselves more lofty and better than they.

 

[Molly]

One of the things I have learned is that in years past,men were much more versed in scripture,they knew what God's Word said,they studied it,were diligent to learn it and know the rich doctrines of Christ,that is why so many hymns have the depth most of us are desiring for in our corporate worship. They wrote about things they knew about. Nowadays,we have been dumbed down,through a lack of real biblical preaching,we have accepted man made religion and gospel and make God what we want Him to be instead of basing our views on ones that are biblical. People write in a way that is shallow,because we are shallow in our spiritual walk. Our music and songs reperesent the truth of that. Liten to old sermons,many do not give bible references when preaching,it is because the people knew where things were found. The preaching was more profound,more in depth,the richness of Christ was displayed through Godly men,who knew of God and preached Him in and out of season. the worship/music time matched that depth.

Now,we are taught we have to bring things down to reach the lost. Untrue!

[ October 07, 2002, 08:35 AM: Message edited by: Molly ]

 

[JonathanDT]

Originally posted by Aaron:
Mine are not assumptions, but eminently Scriptural assertions of the character of Jesus Christ. Once you understand the nature and origin of sin, and know that Christ, even before He was born, could not be a partaker of that nature, then it follows that He could and would do nothing for His own self.

He says as much when He said, "I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me," John 5:30.

One nanosecond of selfishness would have rendered Him a sinner and would have doomed us all....

selfish

\Self"ish\, a. 1. Caring supremely or unduly for one's self; regarding one's own comfort, advantage, etc., in disregard, or at the expense, of those of others.

Christ was obviously never selfish, however did he really NEVER want ANYTHING? Jesus was both fully man and fully God, and as such he underwent the same temptations, and probably the same desires as us.
Mark 11
v12 The next day as they were leaving Bethany, Jesus was hungry.
13 Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs.
14 Then he said to the tree, "May no one ever eat fruit from you again." And his disciples heard him say it.

Obvsiously Jesus had the desire for food. Was this selfish? Of course not!!! The desire for something, or even asking for something IS NOT selfish, it is when we do it with disregard or at the expense of someone else that it becomes selfish. You will not find ANYWHERE in the scripture to support your claim that Jesus NEVER did ANYTHING for himself. Did he not feed himself?

Originally posted by Aaron:
The cattle are lowing the Baby awakes,
But little Lord Jesus no crying He makes.

That verse is weighty with doctrinal truth.

Be very careful not to elevate a hymn to the level of God's word.

Originally posted by Aaron:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />JonathanDT said:
As for using "simple language," doesn't God himself use some rather spectacular language in Job? I can't think of very many people who would consider the book of Revelation simple. Be careful about taking verses out of context.

God can do it, and did do it. "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter," Proverbs 25:2. We are not God.

We are clearly commanded to be straightforward and simple in our presentations of the Gospel in the worship of Christ. We work for the edification of all. We condescend to those of low estate. We don't scoff at them thinking ourselves more lofty and better than they.</font>[/QUOTE]Hmmmm. Ok, so Paul said that he had been plain when talking to the Corinthians. Now, where was the commandment that your talking about? Because Paul mentions that with one single church he spoke plainly? So we should worship plainly? Big jump.

Molly, I agree that we don't know the faith as we should. The Supertones sing two songs with great relevance about just this(these are just short parts of the songs), Escape from Reason:
Down Down Down
That's the way we're traveling
Our social fabric unravels
But who pulled the string
Philosophers politicians or the school teachers
Game of life and death and we're sitting on the bleachers
What happened to our voice
What happened to our influence
Tell me who will listen when all we have to say is
Bumper sticker doctrine and cute catch phrases
Does this amaze us that no one will take us seriously
We talk big but then we sit in atrophy
Apathy they make comedy of our hypocrisy
Unaware of true biblical philosophy
So we gotta watch what we do and what they see
Cause we represent Christ plus Christianity

Return of the Revolution:
See wisdom and knowledge is one thing that we lack
You've been a Christian how long and you're still on Similac
So I call on Martin Luther and all the reformation back
Then the common people couldn't read God's revelation
You had to be a monk or a priest or read Latin
That was all before the revolution happened
But the fire cooled down ever since that generation
We put down the Bible and pick up the play station
And we can't defend our faith 'cause we don't even know it
We say we love His word but pick a funny way to show it.
The world walks by and we don't have a thing to say
I call 'em as I see 'em
And that's what I see today

One of the reasons I love the Supertones is because they are NOT dumbed down, not lying back, not afraid to offend or challenge.

Unfortuantly, too many blame the apostasy on the praise and worship, which is wrong! The problem is the people, they don't realize that Christianity is a 24/7 thing, they don't realize just how great and amazing our God is, they don't realize the urgency of the Gospel. And the hymns and choruses have nothing to do with it. In my church we have always sung the hymns, and it was the same way. We just now started incorporating some praise songs, and while it's too early to know the impact, I have my doubts that the older generation will change. The younger generations....hopefully the Spirit will use something to light a fire, and if it be the impact of the hymns or the praise choruses, or the gospel message spoken repeatedly from the pulpit and youth group and sunday school, so be it.

 

[Molly]

No,I don't blame it on the praise and worship-contemp movement....those things are a result of where we are today spiritually. The praise choruses did not cause it,the lack of God's word did...now,we have to deal with shallow preaching AND shallow music.

And,I say this because I feel this is happening everywhere. But,I must add,there are still some godly men preaching the Word out there and there are some churches who are serious about God's word,it is just harder to find them.

Those who are serious about God's word will be serious about the other issues of the church as well. As far as the Supertones go...Can't say I disagree with their message,I don't totally agree either,but they need to be proclaiming Christ more in their text,style,etc. I still see their words as man centered. JMO!

 

[Aaron]

Originally posted by JonathanDT:
Obvsiously Jesus had the desire for food. Was this selfish? Of course not!!! The desire for something, or even asking for something IS NOT selfish, it is when we do it with disregard or at the expense of someone else that it becomes selfish. You will not find ANYWHERE in the scripture to support your claim that Jesus NEVER did ANYTHING for himself. Did he not feed himself?

Normally, I would let this go, but the character of Christ is at stake here.

Don't take this as an attack. I am not attacking you. I will merely state the facts. Clearly you are not using the Scriptures to discern His character. You are merely transfering your own thoughts and feelings (all polluted with sin) and calling them the mind of Christ.

All the examples you have proffered indeed show Christ as being touched with the feeling of our infirmities, however His feeling of them was "without sin," and you and I have never trodden there.

You and I cannot begin to comprehend a perfect character.

And so Christ hungered. He never acted for the purpose of satisfying His hunger. He acted always with an eye on the glory of God. And so the Apostle who exhorts us to let the "mind of Christ" also dwell in us exhorts us that Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God, 1 Corinthians 10:31.

And when the glory of God was at stake, though He had gone without eating anything for over a month and could feel the hunger pangs, Christ refused to provide bread for the satisfaction of His hunger, Luke 4:1-4.

So the answer to your question is, "No." He did not feed himself with food. He glorified God with his eating. He fed Himself with the will of God. My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work, John 4:34.

Originally posted by JonathanDT:
Hmmmm. Ok, so Paul said that he had been plain when talking to the Corinthians. Now, where was the commandment that your talking about? Because Paul mentions that with one single church he spoke plainly? So we should worship plainly? Big jump.

No, not a jump at all. Paul holds his manner of ministry has an example for the Ephesian elders to follow saying, "I have shewed you all things, how that so labouring ye ought to support the weak," Acts 20:35.

A clear command, and a pattern not mentioned in passing to "one single church." Paul's pattern is the pastoral pattern. Straightforward with simplicity. To deviate from it is to deviate from God's will--no matter how warm and fuzzy the feelings may be, and no matter how appealing our "deep" similies and metaphors might appear to our lofty apetites.

[ October 07, 2002, 09:19 PM: Message edited by: Aaron ]

 

[JonathanDT]

Originally posted by Molly:
Those who are serious about God's word will be serious about the other issues of the church as well. As far as the Supertones go...Can't say I disagree with their message,I don't totally agree either,but they need to be proclaiming Christ more in their text,style,etc. I still see their words as man centered. JMO!

Aren't you being a little quick to judge the Supertones? You just read parts of the lyrics of 2 songs, not exactly a large sample size. I'm not really sure how you can think that they need to proclaim Christ more in their style, one style is in no way superior to another, just different. Have you ever heard them? I think if more preachers were as direct and up front with the truth as the Supertones we would see a much different church.

Aaron, this will be my last reply on the subject because I don't want to go too far OT. I believe that everything Christ did was for the glory of God. Paul says to eat and to do ALL things to the glory of God, so couldn't asking for food to eat also be done to the glory of God? If so, why couldn't the baby Jesus ask for food to the glory of God via the only method that babies can use, to cry? To suggest that he couldn't is NOT supported by the Bible.

As for the Paul command, it appears that you are distorting the scriptures to try to support your point, so I'm not even going to argue.

God Bless,

~JD

 

[Rev. G]

At least two hymns found in pretty much every hymnal were actually written by Unitarians:

"The Battle Hymn of the Republic"
"Nearer, My God, to Thee"

This is an excellent example of listing "non-Christian" hymns that are in the hymnal.

Rev. G