Ship of Fools: Singing Our Doubts?

Thread: Singing Our Doubts? Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020407

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

Last night we went to the Carol Service at St Paul's Cathedral in Melbourne where I was intrigued to hear a choral setting of Thomas Hardy's The Oxen, with its final line "hoping it might be so".

Now admittedly the poem deals with a pious folk belief in animals kneeling at midnight on Christmas Eve, rather than with any central Christian doctrine.

But it is of a piece with Hardy's wider doubts, which can be found elsewhere in poems such as The Darkling Thrush or prose such as Tess of the D'Urbervilles.

Would anything be served by our having an opportunity to at least acknowledge our doubts during worship - settings of selections from Tennyson's In Memoriam for example, or Betjeman's Christmas ("And is it true?"), or even Arnold's Dover Beach, or perhaps something more contemporary?

After all, we use Psalms as part of our liturgy which express confusion, doubt and questioning.

[ 24. December 2017, 23:25: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

Tonight we sang traditional songs that were, all of them, wrong, at least in some ways.

Some make one or another list of "bad songs", like Away in a manger. Others are controversial - did the 3 kings bring myrrh for burial and frankensence for burning or did they being two healing herbs with practical uses? (Some hebalists thing the "gold" was tumeric, a fantastic healer)

And so on.

Somewhere in the midst of this nonsense, there is truth. It's hidden and boldly apparent. When you see it, it was so obviously there, but then we miss it again, repeatedly.

Sing whatever you want, somehow it's all wrong, and yet it's so simply and abundantly right. You haven't a chance and yet you'll catch glimpses.

So we just celebrate, all wrong, but it's the best we know to do.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

AIUI, gold can have healing uses, too.

Really good post, BTW!

[ 25. December 2017, 03:26: Message edited by: Golden Key ]

Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :

I've always appreciated the Psalms used in worship. Besides their beauty, the ones with doubt resonate with my doubts and mustard seed size faith.

I personally would be happy with some doubting songs or readings. I think if it were a poem or song written in a specific instance a short reflection from the cleric could be useful to set context.

Balance could be an issue, though. Despite my weak faith, singing or proclaiming certainty and truth has a great appeal to me, and is not something I want to lose.

Another issue could be those of stronger faith not identifying...or not thinking doubts belong in a formal service. Would not want to alienate anyone.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
Another issue could be those of stronger faith not identifying...or not thinking doubts belong in a formal service. Would not want to alienate anyone.

I wonder if that's not too high a bar. No matter what you do, someone will be offended. Unless you make it so milquetoast that it has no content at all.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Proclaiming the truth we hope is the truth is one thing. Proclaiming certainty when we are unsure is just lying.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Hooray (in this case) for translators taking liberties with the text!

The notorious Bethel has popularised Paul Baloche's the same love which includes, as I now discover, the lines:

You take the faithless one aside
And speak the words "You are mine"
You call the cynic and the proud
Come to me now

Which sounds a bit like getting a telling-off from the headmaster.

The back translation of the French, however, is:

To those who faith is plagued by doubts
To those who stumble, you open wide your arms
And call them to come to you

Which I can sing with far more conviction than I could the English. Perhaps it just shows we are all Cartesian over here.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

I recall a sermon preached at Our Place a few years ago by our Archdeacon. Subject was John the Baptist, and the Archdeacon pointed out that, as JtB had doubts about Jesus, it's OK for us to not only have doubts, but to express them as well.

Just so, and, IMHO, there's no harm in expressing those doubts in our music and hymnody.

IJ

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Proclaiming the truth we hope is the truth is one thing. Proclaiming certainty when we are unsure is just lying.

I do think people honestly proclaim faith without having doubted. To me, though, it renders the word meaningless. Faith with no question is as virtue unchallenged or courage, never having had anything to fear. Without a test, it is impossible to ascertain its strength.

Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Proclaiming the truth we hope is the truth is one thing. Proclaiming certainty when we are unsure is just lying.

Trouble is, I'm never completely sure. Montaigne observed that we must have great confidence in our conjectures to burn people at the stake for them.

But confidence is a psychological factor: arguments in politics, philosophy, theology or physics are rarely final. If we cannot refute them, they may still be false.

Thomas Browne : Where we desire to be informed, 'tis good to contest with men above ourselves; but, to confirm and establish our opinions, 'tis best to argue with judgments below our own, that the frequent spoils and victories over their reasons may settle in ourselves an esteem and confirmed opinion of our own.

It's dangerous to confuse how the universe is with how it seems to us.

But I may be wrong.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Proclaiming the truth we hope is the truth is one thing. Proclaiming certainty when we are unsure is just lying.

I think we can get carried away with admitting out doubts. We don't need to do that every time we open our mouths. Christianity isn't about us. It's about Christ. We can sing about Christ, and our feelings for Christ, and our beliefs about Christ, without having to add a codicil every single time about ourselves.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Yes, and, IIRC, that was much the burthen of our Archdeacon's sermon wot I referred to earlier.

IJ

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

There are genres that are good for expressing doubts in. Communal singing is not one of them I think. Singing, especially communal singing, is best at expressing emotions like wanting, longing, joy, grief. Doubt isn't really one of them.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

I don't know. Psalms are sung.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

I seem to be being misunderstood. Asking me to sing "great is the victory thou o'er death hast won" is fine, even though I'm not sure, but I struggle with "no more we doubt thee" because it's simply Not True.

[ 26. December 2017, 08:00: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]

Posted by Morgan (# 15372) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I do think people honestly proclaim faith without having doubted. To me, though, it renders the word meaningless. Faith with no question is as virtue unchallenged or courage, never having had anything to fear. Without a test, it is impossible to ascertain its strength.

And not just its strength but even its very existence.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Many years ago, during my "practice service" before students at theological college, I dared to use the word "perhaps" in my sermon - referring to a trivial point of Biblical background. In the feedback afterwards, one student said, "How can he expect his congregation to believe when he's not sure himself?" Later on, my tutor never mentioned this in his review of the service, so eventually I asked him about the comment. "Oh", he said, "he'll learn!"

I think there is a place for acknowledging doubt in services, so long as it doesn't become such an incessant trope that it starts to insidiously diminish faith rather than help it. I think, too, that there is something to be said about collective creeds which say, "We believe ..." in which we are not expressly confessing our own faith but the faith of the Church, whether locally or on a wider scale.

FWIW I quite often use a Communion liturgy which includes these words:
"So, come,
If you have much faith
and if you have little,
if you have been here often
and if you have not been for a long time,
if you have tried to follow
and if you have failed".
I stress in fact the suggestion that those who feel their faith is weak are particularly welcome.

And, in my view, doubt is a necessary corollary of faith which, by definition, can never be 100% certain.

[ 26. December 2017, 08:23: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I seem to be being misunderstood. Asking me to sing "great is the victory thou o'er death hast won" is fine, even though I'm not sure, but I struggle with "no more we doubt thee" because it's simply Not True.

But does a hymn have to reflect exactly what you feel like at the moment you sing it? And has it got to be able to do that for every member of the congregation individually and personally for that exact moment? Unless it was so spectacularly bland as to be almost meaningless, it would be a truly impossible task.

As two lines from one of the greatest hymns for Easter Sunday, with a triumphal tune those words state where some of us are, where, presumably, the rest of us would all like to be, where we aspire to be, and what Easter says. They put into song the hope of our faith.

Like the creeds, it is also making a 'we' statement, not an 'I' one. This is what we cumulatively believe, even if some of us aren't feeling quite as sure as at this moment, but it's where we all want to be.

As such, I'd counsel that however unsure you feel today, it's good to join in and sing them, unless you really want to cherish and hothouse your doubts, unless your doubts have become some sort of 'Precious', which would be a spiritual symptom of something much more serious.

I'm more uncomfortable about too many 'I' statements in hymns. Yes, there are plenty in the psalms and this could be a valuable subject for study and reflection, but,
"All my silver and my gold,
not a mite would I withhold ..."
that could be encouraging congregations into Ananias and Sapphira territory,

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Baptist Trainfan, you got in your reply while I was writing mine. Thank you. That makes a lot of sense.

Does anybody know? I'm fairly sure the extract you quote comes originally from something by St John Chrysostom but a précis seems to have appeared in a number of very slightly different forms sometime in the late nineteenth century and I don't know where, when or which one first.

It ought to be very much good theology that coming to the Lord's Table is just what those who feel their faith is weak and shaky need, rather than to take the line that it is a reward and privilege only suitable for those whose faith is already so strong and abundant that it hardly needs further nourishment.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I seem to be being misunderstood. Asking me to sing "great is the victory thou o'er death hast won" is fine, even though I'm not sure, but I struggle with "no more we doubt thee" because it's simply Not True.
But does a hymn have to reflect exactly what you feel like at the moment you sing it? And has it got to be able to do that for every member of the congregation individually and personally for that exact moment? Unless it was so spectacularly bland as to be almost meaningless, it would be a truly impossible task.

As two lines from one of the greatest hymns for Easter Sunday, with a triumphal tune those words state where some of us are, where, presumably, the rest of us would all like to be, where we aspire to be, and what Easter says. They put into song the hope of our faith.

Like the creeds, it is also making a 'we' statement, not an 'I' one. This is what we cumulatively believe, even if some of us aren't feeling quite as sure as at this moment, but it's where we all want to be.

As such, I'd counsel that however unsure you feel today, it's good to join in and sing them, unless you really want to cherish and hothouse your doubts, unless your doubts have become some sort of 'Precious', which would be a spiritual symptom of something much more serious.

Cherish? No, but acknowledge. And recognise that since we cannot know for certain, doubt is the only intellectually honest position. At least for my understanding of the terms "believe", "doubt", "know". What youbsay works for the first line, which is why I don't struggle with it, but the latter tends to say to me "you are not part of this 'we'". It's a feeling I've always had though, that I'm not really part of this, a sort of religious Imposter Syndrome if you will.

Perhaps I don't grasp faith. My brain divides things into things that are known or can be easily objectively discovered - germ theory of disease, overall shape of the Solar System, price of a pint at my local, things that are known not to be - dragons, Santa, Nigel Farage's humility, and things that can't be known - God, elves, life existing in a distant galaxy. I find it hard to imagine somehow deciding to hold an item from the third category as if it were in the first.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
It ought to be very much good theology that coming to the Lord's Table is just what those who feel their faith is weak and shaky need, rather than to take the line that it is a reward and privilege only suitable for those whose faith is already so strong and abundant that it hardly needs further nourishment.

I would go further and suggest that any element of pride or satisfaction in one's allegedly strong faith in fact ought to debar one spiritually from the Table.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
My brain divides things into things that are ... known not to be - dragons ....

I wouldn't say that here in Wales. Besides I've seen some.

Now let's get back to being serious ...

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Perhaps I don't grasp faith. My brain divides things into things that are known or can be easily objectively discovered - germ theory of disease, overall shape of the Solar System, price of a pint at my local, things that are known not to be - dragons, Santa, Nigel Farage's humility, and things that can't be known - God, elves, life existing in a distant galaxy. I find it hard to imagine somehow deciding to hold an item from the third category as if it were in the first.

Rather as Donald Rumsefeld said: "There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know".

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I'm fairly sure the extract you quote comes originally from something by St John Chrysostom but a précis seems to have appeared in a number of very slightly different forms sometime in the late nineteenth century and I don't know where, when or which one first.

There's a post somewhere on the ship about it from Jengie jon in, maybe, a thread about fencing the table. I'll dig and see if I can find it, though maybe she’ll pass along first and provide it again.

It is frequently heard in churches of my tribe. My memory is that it was penned by a Scottish Congregationalist minister and popularized by the Iona Community. Don't know about the St. John Chrysostom part. We'll see if any of my memory is right if I can track down the post.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

I'm pretty sure I posted - ages back - about fencing the table. But Jengie would probably know more about it than I. My church though practices "open communion" and invites all to partake, so the gate in the fence is wide.

[ 26. December 2017, 15:33: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

I'm sure we did. My head is still awash with cold at the moment, but I'm sure I posted in it?

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Jengie posted this article she'd written back in March.

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I seem to be being misunderstood. Asking me to sing "great is the victory thou o'er death hast won" is fine, even though I'm not sure, but I struggle with "no more we doubt thee" because it's simply Not True.

It is a reality I long for, so I sing despite my doubts.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
I don't know. Psalms are sung.

They're chanted. I think that's different. You need to do less with your voice. And while some Psalms express doubt many don't.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I seem to be being misunderstood. Asking me to sing "great is the victory thou o'er death hast won" is fine, even though I'm not sure, but I struggle with "no more we doubt thee" because it's simply Not True.

This time you are the victim and not the beneficiary of translation.

This hymn, irreverently referred to as the Protestant Marseillaise, was originally written in French.

The offending line in the original is

Craindrais-je encore ? Il vit à jamais

and the end line of that verse is

non je ne crains rien !

"Should I yet fear? He lives forever... no, I fear nothing".

Which is sung lustily as a form of collective reassurance.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Jengie posted this article she'd written back in March.

Thanks!

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
I don't know. Psalms are sung.
They're chanted. I think that's different. You need to do less with your voice.

A) Chanting is a form of singing.
B) As many Reformed and Presbyterian worshippers can attest, metrical psalms are not chanted.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by balaam:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I seem to be being misunderstood. Asking me to sing "great is the victory thou o'er death hast won" is fine, even though I'm not sure, but I struggle with "no more we doubt thee" because it's simply Not True.
It is a reality I long for, so I sing despite my doubts.

Lord, I believe. Help thou mine unbelief.

Right there with you.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

So Christianity is clearly a very fragile religion in the West, and those of us who claim to be believers, clergy and laity alike, often seem to do so almost in spite of orthodoxy, not because of it. So should we admit to that in our songs - or even our liturgies?

I'm not sure if there's much point. Mainstream churches that accept pluralism as a reality in their ranks don't need to 'sing' about doubt because they've already normalised it. Indeed, I think mainstream churches have to emphasise traditions of ritual orthodoxy precisely because they no longer emphasise an orthodoxy of belief. Since their members' faith isn't powerful or unified enough to keep them closely bound together, their old rituals and songs of certainty take on that role.

Doubtful people who attend stricter churches might get some comfort out of songs of doubt but those people exist in a contradiction; they choose to attend stricter churches!

On a more practical level, the pluralistic mainstream might have more sympathy for this kind of thing in theory, but that kind of Christian environment no longer seems to produce much popular Christian hymnody. I suppose you'd be looking at fashionable evangelical songwriters in their post-evangelical phase, but would there be much of a market for their stuff?

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Mainstream churches that accept pluralism as a reality in their ranks don't need to 'sing' about doubt because they've already normalised it. Indeed, I think mainstream churches have to emphasise traditions of ritual orthodoxy precisely because they no longer emphasise an orthodoxy of belief. Since their members' faith isn't powerful or unified enough to keep them closely bound together, their old rituals and songs of certainty take on that role.

I can't speak for all mainstream churches that no longer emphasize orthodoxy -- and I rather doubt you can either -- but at the United Church of Christ congregation where I work, which is theologically extremely liberal, the "old rituals and songs of certainty" are not what binds them together. People are drawn to that church and stay there because they feel loved and accepted there, because they share values with the people already there, and because they find a strong sense of community in the church.

They mostly use the UCC hymnal, but when that doesn't suit their theology, they change the words as necessary. The last minister found the theology of "O Come, O Come, Emmanuel" so unacceptable that he asked the poet-in-residence to write all new words.

They don't sing about doubt a whole lot, but what is emphasized isn't certainty so much as affirmation. The concern is mostly about making sure that the theology expressed in the anthems and hymns is suitably inclusive. To me it seems bland, and I think the particulars of traditional, orthodox Christianity are elided to the point that the theology is only nominally Christian. But as this congregation is holding its own when others in its denomination are dropping like flies, I think they must be on to something.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
I can't speak for all mainstream churches that no longer emphasize orthodoxy -- and I rather doubt you can either -- but at the United Church of Christ congregation where I work, which is theologically extremely liberal, the "old rituals and songs of certainty" are not what binds them together. People are drawn to that church and stay there because they feel loved and accepted there, because they share values with the people already there, and because they find a strong sense of community in the church.

They mostly use the UCC hymnal, but when that doesn't suit their theology, they change the words as necessary.

Thanks for reminding me of the American angle on things.

In the UK there isn't really an equivalent to what you're describing. Being 'theologically extremely liberal' isn't what the British 'mainstream' churches do, exactly. What they do is accept pluralism, on a practical level. But their official hymns, worship music and liturgies are almost uniformly orthodox.

The most liberal denominations here are the Unitarians and the Quakers, but they're no longer considered to be 'mainstream'. I suppose they deal with doubt by having no doctrines as such, and they probably provide 'strong sense of community' for a certain kind of person.

I've heard that Unitarians often take traditional hymns and change the words, but I've never seen an example of this.

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

Much of the discussion here implicitly raises the question, Why do we sing in church? Maybe considering that question would help.

Although the OP doesn't limit the expression of doubt to song: "Would anything be served by our having an opportunity to at least acknowledge our doubts during worship...?"

Does it make a difference if we express doubt through singing, or through another part of the liturgy? I think it is already often addressed at least occasionally in sermons, and in Scripture readings, and, maybe in some churches, in prayers.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Again - and apologies in advance - surely it's one of these both/and things?

At our evangelical CofE parish here they tend to make a great play of inviting people not to say the words of the Creed - or even sing the hymns - if they don't believe the words. Somehow they think this puts visitors at their ease and also sets a line of demarcation - cross this line only if ...

I have to say I find it immensely irritating although I can understand why they do it and what they think they are trying to achieve.

FWIW I suspect that trying to 'manufacture' a collective sense of doubt is just as prone to problems as trying to create and maintain an atmosphere of fervent and unflagging faith - as Pentecostals and charismatics often aim to do.

There's no easy answer but I'd rather we simply presented the Gospel in whatever form our tradition clothes it in and allow people to engage or not engage as they see fit.

Any attempts to ratchet up the heights of fervour on the one hand or mess around with the words to present something so anodyne and bland that it loses its savour are going to hit the buffers at some point.

You'll either wear yourself out with the one or run out of steam with the other.

I've recently renewed contact with some of my former charismatic church-friends and whilst that's been great - they are really good folk - I noticed that while their language and 'delivery' hasn't changed a great deal they are all pretty jaded by all the efforts to keep things bouncy and intense.

I notice that Iona and Northumbria Community style prayers and liturgies are making an appearance. Some of those express doubt in a 'nevertheless' kind of way.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
<snip>
In the UK there isn't really an equivalent to what you're describing. Being 'theologically extremely liberal' isn't what the British 'mainstream' churches do, exactly. What they do is accept pluralism, on a practical level. But their official hymns, worship music and liturgies are almost uniformly orthodox.
<snip>
I've heard that Unitarians often take traditional hymns and change the words, but I've never seen an example of this.

There are quite a few hymn writers who do/did similar things:
Michael Forster
Fred Kaan
John Bell
Fred Pratt Green
Some of whom are rewriting traditional hymns to make them more theologically open. I have also seen hymns rewritten for a particular church.

Further discussion of such hymns will have to be in Dead Horses, because they are not universally loved.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Yes, I've heard of those writers, and sung some of their songs.

IME neither the updating of old hymns nor the practice of writing completely new words to old tunes is about incorporating doubt - when it comes to mainstream churches. The focus is normally on gender inclusivity, social justice, toning down references to divine anger, or removing warrish Christian language.

[ 27. December 2017, 10:33: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on :

quote:

posted by Karl Liberal Backslider

My brain divides things into things that are known or can be easily objectively discovered - germ theory of disease, overall shape of the Solar System, price of a pint at my local, things that are known not to be - dragons, Santa, Nigel Farage's humility, and things that can't be known - God, elves, life existing in a distant galaxy. I find it hard to imagine somehow deciding to hold an item from the third category as if it were in the first.

You do post some quite firmly held opinions on political subjects, which in my view definitely don't fall into the first two categories. That suggests to me that your third category might be a bit wider than unknowable, and include things which it is reasonable to have a strong belief about.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

Svitlana, I suggest the range of hymns you have sung may not be wide enough, for example, Michael Forster's Cry Freedom includes the words:

quote:
Cry ‘Freedom!’ in the church when
Honest doubts are met with fear
When vacuum-packed theology
Makes questions disappear
When journeys end before they start
And mystery is clear!

I know there are others.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:

quote:

posted by Karl Liberal Backslider

My brain divides things into things that are known or can be easily objectively discovered - germ theory of disease, overall shape of the Solar System, price of a pint at my local, things that are known not to be - dragons, Santa, Nigel Farage's humility, and things that can't be known - God, elves, life existing in a distant galaxy. I find it hard to imagine somehow deciding to hold an item from the third category as if it were in the first.

You do post some quite firmly held opinions on political subjects, which in my view definitely don't fall into the first two categories. That suggests to me that your third category might be a bit wider than unknowable, and include things which it is reasonable to have a strong belief about.

I think you're making a category error, confusing values with objective truth-claims. I don't "believe in" socialism based on an assessment of the evidence for its existence. I know what you're getting at, but the processes by which I come to political and ethical positions do not seem applicable to questions of objective existence.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Curiosity killed....

Thanks for giving an example. I was hoping some would be provided.

I'm fond of the 19th c. hymn 'Pass Me Not O Gentle Saviour', which mentions the writer's unbelief.

[ 27. December 2017, 13:11: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Curiosity killed....

Thanks for giving an example. I was hoping some would be provided.

There's also John Bell's “We Cannt Measure How You Heal," which begins:

quote:
We cannot measure how You heal,
Or answer every sufferer's prayer.
Yet we believe Your grace responds
Where faith and doubt unite to care.

Or Bell's “Were I the Perfect Child of God," the first verse of which is:

quote:
Were I the perfect child of God
Whose faith was deep and love was broad,
Not doubtful, guilty, worn or flawed,
I'd gladly follow Jesus.
But I'm the child of what I've been
Estranged by much I've done and seen,
Afraid to show the love I mean,
Unfit to follow Jesus.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Quite a lot of favourite traditional hymns are not expressing quite that bouncy, doubt free, spiritual tiggerality that once again, entirely reasonably is under criticism. I wouldn't describe Lyte's Abide with me as exuberant,

quote:
2 Swift to its close ebbs out life's little day;
earth's joys grow dim, its glories pass away.
Change and decay in all around I see.
O Lord who changes not, abide with me.

Or this one from Newman

quote:
1 Lead, kindly light, amid the encircling gloom,
Lead thou me on;
The night is dark, and I am far from home;
Lead thou me on.
Keep thou my feet; I do not ask to see
The distant scene; one step enough for me.

2 I was not ever thus, nor prayed that thou
Should'st lead me on;
I loved to choose and see my path; but now
Lead thou me on.
I loved the garish day, and, spite of fears,
Pride ruled my will: remember not past years.

3 So long thy power hath blest me, sure it still
Will lead me on,
O'er moor and fen, o'er crag and torrent, till
The night is gone,
And with the morn those angel faces smile,
which I have loved long since, and lost awhile.

Note for Administrators. Lyte died in 1847 and Newman in 1890. So those extracts are both long out of copyright.

It's difficult sometimes to say what makes a hymn work or not work. I'm afraid that whatever his personal strengths and qualities, everything I personally have encountered written by the late Fred Kaan, I've found cringeworthy. But I think one thing that does make a difference is whether the hymn was written to express a strong spiritual emotion that the writer really felt in his or her guts, or whether it was written because he or she thought, 'wouldn't it be nice if we could have something people could sing about xxxxx ' whether xxxxx is living on an estate, collecting money for Shelter, total depravity, or uncertainties about the Virgin Birth.

But if you think we ought to have hymns about some subject or emotion, write one. Find a tune - preferably either your own or one written by somebody who died before the end of 1947 or whatever is the law where you live - and put some words to it.

[ 27. December 2017, 13:57: Message edited by: Enoch ]

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

I'm particularly fond of 'Immortal, Invisible, God only wise'words here
as it attempts to express something which can't really be pinned down, rather than reduce God to neat concrete certainties.

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :

Thank you, Chorister. That's one of my favorites, too.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

John Bell is mentioned above, but I don't think he's terribly popular in British churches these days. Maybe the URC sings a lot of his stuff?

I agree with that there are many traditional hymns that don't dismiss the anxieties and failures that we have. 'Hark, My Soul! It Is The Lord' comes to mind. In this hymn William Cowper talks about having a weak and faint love for God, and longing to have more.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Mayhew's Complete Anglican Hymns Old and New, which we use at Our Place, contains quite a few hymns by John Bell and Graham Maule.

Perhaps because of my Scottish roots, I rather like, not only the content of most of them, but also the use of Scottish folk melodies.

IJ

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I wouldn't describe Lyte's Abide with me as exuberant,

quote:
2 Swift to its close ebbs out life's little day;
earth's joys grow dim, its glories pass away.
Change and decay in all around I see.
O Lord who changes not, abide with me.

Lyte died of tuberculosis shortly after he wrote that. He wrote out of his own personal need; he wasn't thinking about how other people coped with their doubts.

Moo

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I agree with that there are many traditional hymns that don't dismiss the anxieties and failures that we have. 'Hark, My Soul! It Is The Lord' comes to mind. In this hymn William Cowper talks about having a weak and faint love for God, and longing to have more.

Cowper wrote much darker stuff than this, of course, as a result of his Calvinist misgivings, eg:-

No voice divine the storm allay'd,
No light propitious shone;
When, snatch'd from all effectual aid,
We perish'd, each alone:
But I beneath a rougher sea,
And whelm'd in deeper gulfs than he.

(Tangent: I take a guilty delight in Cowper's "There is a fountain filled with blood/Drawn from Emmanuel's veins,/And sinners plunged beneath that flood/Lose all their guilty stains" because it annoys smartypants liberals so much. Close Tangent).

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
John Bell is mentioned above, but I don't think he's terribly popular in British churches these days. Maybe the URC sings a lot of his stuff?

John Bell, a Church of Scotland minister and former convener of the General Assembly's Panel on Worship, was convener and music editor of the Kirk's current hymnal (2005). I'll leave it to others more knowledgeable than I to speak to the popularity of his hymns in Britain generally and in Scotland specifically. Many of his hymns are typically included in American mainline Protestant and Catholic hymnals and hymnal supplements, and some—“The Summons” and “We Cannot Measure How You Heal" come to mind—are heard fairly often.

But I, at least, mentioned John Bell not as “popular," but in response this that you posted:

quote:
IME neither the updating of old hymns nor the practice of writing completely new words to old tunes is about incorporating doubt - when it comes to mainstream churches. The focus is normally on gender inclusivity, social justice, toning down references to divine anger, or removing warrish Christian language.

In other words, he was offered as an example of a contemporary hymn writer who has incorporated doubt into his writings. There are others who have as well. I’d submit that the focus of many new hymns is much broader than you seem to think.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
It's difficult sometimes to say what makes a hymn work or not work. I'm afraid that whatever his personal strengths and qualities, everything I personally have encountered written by the late Fred Kaan, I've found cringeworthy.

I like "Out of Deep, Unordered Water." But yes, I know exactly what you mean. I feel the same way about some of his other hymns, as well as the hymns of some other popular contemporary hymn writers who shall remain unnamed. There are some lines in particular that really make me cringe.

quote:
But I think one thing that does make a difference is whether the hymn was written to express a strong spiritual emotion that the writer really felt in his or her guts, or whether it was written because he or she thought, 'wouldn't it be nice if we could have something people could sing about xxxxx ' whether xxxxx is living on an estate, collecting money for Shelter, total depravity, or uncertainties about the Virgin Birth.

I agree. As an occasional hymn writer myself, I find that starting from a “wouldn't it be nice to have a hymn about . . ." rarely turns out well. The hymn needs to come from somewhere within; for me, it often starts with a verse of Scripture that gets stuck in my head and won’t let go.

The current hymnal of the Presbyterian Church (USA) has a lovely hymn in it dealing with Alzheimer’s and dementia. The writer wrote it out of response to a friend's experiences with her mother.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
[John Bell] was offered as an example of a contemporary hymn writer who has incorporated doubt into his writings. There are others who have as well. I’d submit that the focus of many new hymns is much broader than you seem to think.

I've already said I appreciate the mention of John Bell. I was simply suggesting that his hymns on doubt aren't necessarily well-known in all MOTR churches. Perhaps that reflects my ignorance - but also the ignorance of the very ordinary MOTR city churches (CofE and Methodist) that I attend!

It's possible that in regions or districts with more prosperous and better attended MOTR churches than the ones I know there might be more adventurousness in the choice of new hymns. At any rate, this has been true with regard to middle class evangelical churches and their insatiable desire for new worship songs.

Interestingly, British Methodism has built a self-image around 'singing the faith'. This does suggest that doubt may be a problematic topic for Methodist hymnody - even though Methodists are as doubtful a group as any other MOTR Christians in the country.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Prosperous or otherwise, and at the risk of a tangent, I suspect most churches - MoTR, evangelical, whatever-else - tend to stick with what they feel comfortable with in terms of hymnody.

What may look from the outside to be an insatiable desire for new material within the charismatic evangelical arena is often far from the case.

Appearances can be deceptive.

My experience of charismatic evangelicalism is that they stick with the same handful of hymns/worship songs until they've sung the stuffing out of them and then they gradually adopt a few more latest, greatest hits which they thing sing the stuffing out of ...

Back in the day, the new songs tended to spill out of or be popularised by the big summer rallies and Bible Weeks and you could always tell who had been where ...

I suspect there're still just a handful of places and conventions that develop and disseminate this material which then gets onto the circuit as it were and is adopted by people/churches in concentric circles around those hot-spots.

On another tangent, re Kaplan's tangent ...

I'm not sure what's worse, smug self-satisfied smarty-pants liberals or smug, self-righteous, self-satisfied think-they're-smarty-pants evangelicals ...

[Roll Eyes]

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'm not sure what's worse, smug self-satisfied smarty-pants liberals or smug, self-righteous, self-satisfied think-they're-smarty-pants evangelicals ...

Shed your indecisiveness.

It's indubitably the former.

The latter don't exist.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Don't be so tribal.

I've met plenty of the latter as well as plenty of the former.

Evangelicalism may have 'come of age' but plenty of evangelicals still act as if they have something to prove ...

[Biased]

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

May I ask a serious question. What is doubt? The thing is I here in this thread seem to associate it strongly with the negative experience of faith. The tradition within the URC (and wider Reformed) which is cited here is slightly different to that. In many ways it is a giving voice to fact that our understanding of God is partial. Now we see in a mirror dimly, then we shall see face to face. It can lead as much to wonder as to a voicing of uncertainty.

Thanks

Jengie

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

That sounds very Anglican to me, Jengie ...

The URC and wider Reformed traditions doni have a monopoly on that.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if RCs and Orthodox would say the same.

But I can see what you're getting at from the comments on this thread.

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

I am not making a case for the tradition being Reformed only for those of the tradition cited here having a different emphasis to what may be turned doubt than what appears to be assumed here.

It is also worth saying that I am not really talking of the unknowableness of God*, but an acknowledgement of the encultured nature of our knowledge and subsequent partiality. You therefore get Brian Wrens'

quote:
half-free, half-bound by inner chains,
by social forces swept along,
by powers and systems close confined,
yet seeking hope for humankind

the positive slant give by the paraphrase of John Robinson to the Pilgrim Fathers

quote:
We limit not the truth of God
To our poor reach of mind,
By notions of our day and sect,
Crude, partial and confined.
Now let a new and better hope
Within our hearts be stirred:
The Lord hath yet more light and truth
To break forth from His Word.

Very similar and yet slightly different in emphasis.

Jengie

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
plenty of evangelicals still act as if they have something to prove ...

No, no, you're thinking of ex-evangelicals.

You know, gung-ho penty types who get involved with online sites, start flirting with other theological and ecclesiological traditions, and become obsessive about flaunting their ex-evangelical credentials.

I can't begin to conceive how you managed to confuse the two!

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
John Bell is mentioned above, but I don't think he's terribly popular in British churches these days. Maybe the URC sings a lot of his stuff?

Try the Church of Scotland. I personally think most of his hymns feel like theology spoiled by being squeezed into metre and rhyme and set to music. There are the words and there's the music, but they don't interact: they sit side by side like two strangers on the Clockwork Orange. (That's the Glasgow Tube.)

(*) The Glasgow tube.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
They're chanted. I think that's different. You need to do less with your voice.
A) Chanting is a form of singing.
B) As many Reformed and Presbyterian worshippers can attest, metrical psalms are not chanted.

I know technically speaking chanting is singing. That said, I think there's a difference between a form of music that is there to add a backing to the words so that they can be recited communally (as in Anglican chant) and a form of music that has its own emotional effect that is there to blend with the words' emotional effect. And I don't think that you do the second communally for doubting. (Nor for rational argument or similar mental pastimes.)
Just because metrical psalms have been set to music doesn't mean that all of them should have been. The Old 100th, yes. O Worship the King, Hail to the Lord's Anointed, yes (not technically metrical psalms, I know). But I think most metrical psalms have not made it into the hymnody of congregations for which metrical psalms are not obligatory.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Ha ha ha ... @Kaplan.

We all have to grow up sometime.

'When I was a child ...'

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Dafyd, I can see where you are coming from, but I don't agree.

At its simplest, chant is a way of singing prose which isn't in metre and doesn't fit a time signature. Most people find that difficult. It's particularly difficult to do congregationally because each person has to guess how to fit the words to the chant, and to make the same guess. The strength is that the translation can be more accurate, but the price is that they are difficult to sing communally.

Setting psalms to metre is a way of making them easier to sing. The metres are usually fairly straightforward and designed so people can guess what the tune is going to do next and how long the syllables are likely to be. That is the strength. The weakness is that the thoughts have to be in blocks of approximately the same length irrespective of how long they are in the originally and how easy they are to translate.

Both chant and metrical tunes are capable of having, or not having, their own emotional effect independently of the words, but in both cases, the more pronounced this is, often the more difficult it is to sing - as say with anthems.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Dafyd, I can see where you are coming from, but I don't agree.

At its simplest, chant is a way of singing prose which isn't in metre and doesn't fit a time signature. Most people find that difficult. It's particularly difficult to do congregationally because each person has to guess how to fit the words to the chant, and to make the same guess.

Kof Russian Orthodox worship music kof kof kof

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Serious question, Mousethief ... How easy is it for a congregational to chant Russian Orthodox music?

I like Orthodox chant but it sounds like you have to be taught it properly -like all choral music.

It's not the sort of thing you can pick up on a single hearing like a modern worship song, say...

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Mousethief, I thought that in the Russian Church, a choir sings, rather than that the congregation sings together.

But, I accept that I'm really speaking from the conventions of singing in English, to the sort of music conventional English speakers are likely to be able to sing to. I can't speak for the metre of Hebrew or the music to which it was sung - and nor for that matter for the equivalent in koine Greek.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Just because metrical psalms have been set to music doesn't mean that all of them should have been. The Old 100th, yes. O Worship the King, Hail to the Lord's Anointed, yes (not technically metrical psalms, I know). But I think most metrical psalms have not made it into the hymnody of congregations for which metrical psalms are not obligatory.

Accurate or not, this is irrelevant to the point I was making. You made a blanket statement that psalms are chanted, not sung:

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
I don't know. Psalms are sung.
They're chanted. I think that's different.

I provided an example of psalms that are sung, not chanted, to counter your blanket statement.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Mousethief, I thought that in the Russian Church, a choir sings, rather than that the congregation sings together.

That is often the case, but not universally. It is not the case in my home parish, which is English-speaking but of Russian heritage. Virtually all the music is communally sung. The recurring hymns and hymn types have a set of melodies (8 "tones" they are called, although there are different sets of 8 -- "Kievan" and "Serbian" and so forth, and different melodies in each tone for the various hymns, thus a kievan 8th tone for praises, a Serbian 4th tone for kontakion -- it's not as confusing as it sounds once you're used to it, after a year or two) that over time the people come to know. You can slot different words, with different line lengths, into the melodies (none of them are metrical) and the congo can sing them with little difficulty.

Here is an example of Kievan tone 7. Of course, the congo, if singing along, is generally going to only sing the soprano line, not all the parts.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

The video isn't available for some reason Mousethief.

The only Orthodox services I've attended where there's been any semblance of congregational singing have been Antiochian ones, although here in the UK they tend to use Russian melodies.

Mind you, other than the Poles, Catholics here arent noted for the quality of their congregational singing either.

You do hear people joining in with the Cherubic Hymn and the refrain 'Receive the body of Christ ...' or the 'As many as have been baptised into Christ,by put on Christ, alleluia!' when that is sung.

But not much else.

Our nearest Orthodox parish had a trained Anglican cathedral chorister as a Reader but he's moved away, so goodness knows how they are managing without him ...

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The video isn't available for some reason Mousethief.

Hmmmm. It loaded fine for me.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I think most metrical psalms have not made it into the hymnody of congregations for which metrical psalms are not obligatory.

I attended the CofS quite regularly during the mid-1970s, and a clear distinction was made between Hymns and Metrical Psalms. In those days they often came from two separate books.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
You made a blanket statement that psalms are chanted, not sung:

I did indeed due to hasty posting fail to accurately characterise the distinction I was grasping after (assuming I'm right to think it important).

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The video isn't available for some reason Mousethief.
Hmmmm. It loaded fine for me.

No, won't work for me either. May be something to do with which country you're in.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I think most metrical psalms have not made it into the hymnody of congregations for which metrical psalms are not obligatory.
I attended the CofS quite regularly during the mid-1970s, and a clear distinction was made between Hymns and Metrical Psalms. In those days they often came from two separate books.

In the last PC(USA) hymnal they were in a separate section, after the liturgical year section. (The section was mostly metrical psalms, though some other styles were mixed in.) In the current hymnal they don’t have their own section but are interspersed throughout, but always denoted as psalms, such as “I to the Hills Will Lift My Eyes (Psalm 121).”

A surprising number of the metrical psalms are new versions, dating from the last few decades. While their use is not obligatory, it has seemed that there has been a movement to reclaim them as a part of our heritage.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The video isn't available for some reason Mousethief.
Hmmmm. It loaded fine for me.
No, won't work for me either. May be something to do with which country you're in.

Perhaps. Come for a visit, and we'll watch it together.

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:

A) Chanting is a form of singing.
B) As many Reformed and Presbyterian worshippers can attest, metrical psalms are not chanted.
I know technically speaking chanting is singing. That said, I think there's a difference between a form of music that is there to add a backing to the words so that they can be recited communally (as in Anglican chant) and a form of music that has its own emotional effect that is there to blend with the words' emotional effect.

This is not true of metrical psalms sorry. The exact point of metrical psalms is that the hymn tunes can be used interchangeably. I have lost count of the number of times I have stated this on the ship.

This was to such an extent that Church Hymnary revised during the psalms section of the music edition the pages were divide in two width wise with the top half containing music and the bottom half the words.

It also resulted in a very localised tradition around which psalm went to which tune which can catch people out to today.

Jengie

[repaired coding fail]

[ 30. December 2017, 06:45: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

Yuck, coding fail, sorry.

Jengie

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

As some Shipmates may have picked up, I'm a bit of a fan of metrical psalms. I think they're a better practical solution for 'how to sing psalms' than the tuneless metre-less groaning of 50 years ago.

The CofE took a bad wrong turn when, about 160 years ago, the Oxford Movement insisted that everybody chant because it's more cultured. I can't even blame Dearmer and the Parson's Handbook, because although I'm sure he lauded the change, it had happened before his time.

It's produced the present state of affairs. Although the service books and lectionaries prescribe the inclusion of at least one psalm, most parishes are ignoring that instruction because they don't realise there's an alternative to chanting.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I suspect most churches - MoTR, evangelical, whatever-else - tend to stick with what they feel comfortable with in terms of hymnody.

What may look from the outside to be an insatiable desire for new material within the charismatic evangelical arena is often far from the case.

Appearances can be deceptive.

I agree that most churches stick closely to their musical traditions, but I made my comments in the light of accusations that I was under-informed about modern hymnody.

With regards to music and middle class MOTR churches, it does seem pretty obvious that in Methodism at least the successful middle class churches are the ones most likely to to become more adventurous in terms of worship choices. The inclusion of more modern music would be a part of that.

Over the next few decades it'll be interesting to see if the ongoing retreat of Christianity in Britain will lead to many more hymns and worship songs that refer openly to the inadequacies and failures of our religious communities. And will those songs be sung be the churches that are most beset by problems? I'm not hugely convinced, the success of John Bell notwithstanding.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
[John Bell] was offered as an example of a contemporary hymn writer who has incorporated doubt into his writings. There are others who have as well. I’d submit that the focus of many new hymns is much broader than you seem to think.
I've already said I appreciate the mention of John Bell. I was simply suggesting that his hymns on doubt aren't necessarily well-known in all MOTR churches. Perhaps that reflects my ignorance - but also the ignorance of the very ordinary MOTR city churches (CofE and Methodist) that I attend!

It's possible that in regions or districts with more prosperous and better attended MOTR churches than the ones I know there might be more adventurousness in the choice of new hymns. At any rate, this has been true with regard to middle class evangelical churches and their insatiable desire for new worship songs.

We sing a lot of his stuff but I am always wondering what he meant by 'Amused in someone's kitchen'.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I do think there is a link with social class and with the material prosperity of individual congregations and the kind of hymnody they adopt ...

Might be some material there for a PhD thesis somewhere or other ...

I'm not convinced that we'll see more hymnody about declension and the sea of faith being on the ebb etc

I've known places that are shadows of their former selves in terms of numbers and they still sing the up-beat stuff ... even using backing tracks that give the impression of greater numbers. Yes, I've seen that done ...

[Ultra confused]

As far as MoTR churches go, I can see those that are in terminal decline simply going quietly.

There may be some that 'rage, rage against the dying of the light' but not many and certainly not enough to create a hymnody movement ...

But I might be wrong. We could see the hymnal / choral equivalents of Lamentations.

I suspect that most places would simply plunder the back-catalogue - whether that be traditional hymnody and liturgy or contemporary worship songs.

Posted by wild haggis (# 15555) on :

John Bell is popular in churches - perhaps not among Anglicans, but you can find his and Graham Maule's hymns in the URC hymnbook, Baptist Praise and Worship, Church of Scotland (4) hymn book, Methodist etc. and if you listen to "Songs of Praise" on telly you will often catch Iona hymns.

You may have sung some of them without knowing from whence they came. Iona hymns are usually based on simple tunes, often folk (causes a problem for those of us who know and sing the original folk songs - we need to keep alert or we branch into the lyrics of the original folk song!) with up to date words that stem from the reality of living today, not slushy Victorian words or unintelligible language.

I know there are a number of hymns I refuse to sing or miss the words out. Some modern songs are awful - you don't want to read my music copies. I'm inclined to write comments - some very rude!

"Away in a Manger" is one carol I won't sing - what a load of rubbish.Jesus the baby didn't "no crying he made"! Have you ever seen a baby that doesn't cry- and how would we know anyway. He doesn't live up in the sky looking down on us. As to 3 kings. There weren't 3! There were three gifts but we don't know how many wise men there were (a gift for infant teachers - we can have a whole class of wise people!). Nowhere does the Bible say they were kings - they were wise men. So that's another one I won't sing. The shepherds didn't see a star, they saw the angels and angels don't have lumping great wings; cherubim and seraphim do in the Bible but not angels. No wonder people don't believe the Christmas story. We have made it into a domesticated fairy tale with nice little sheep and inn keepers.

I won't go on. Folk carols have their place in a folk club or pub but in church we should be aiming at telling the Bible story as far as we know it from the Bible.

I think probably the most liberal of the churches in Britain is the URC. But then that depends what you mean by liberal. If a church doesn't believe at all in God then I can't see how it can be a church - it is a gathering (which may be very valid and good, like the Atheistic Assemblies around the country). Many Quaker gatherings are now non-theist. Some Unitarians are and some aren't.

Faith by definition implies and element of doubt. If we new everything then surely there would be no need for faith?

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

So those carols aren't 'accurate'? So what?

Nobody thinks about the words anyway ...

Anyhow (cough, cough) on John Bell hymns ... There are a few Anglicans I know who'd like to sing more of them and they're probably a lot better for you than a diet of happy-clappy worship songs ...

I can't say I've ever been that impressed by the ones I've heard sung on Songs of Praise or in URC churches but there're a lot worse hymns and choruses around.

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

The URC would not use John Bell to sing our doubts, not when we have our home grown Brian Wren with songs like I have no bucket. It's first line sounds like a horrible hymn joke title but actually comes from Jesus' encounter with the Samaritan Women at the well.

Jengie

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

There is a hymn in "Rejoice & Sing" which begins: "BEYOND THE MIST AND DOUBT OF THIS UNCERTAIN DAY / I TRUST IN THINE ETERNAL NAME". I can't say more as it's copyright, it was written by a Methodist though and I've used it in worship several times.

There is also "Twixt gleams of joy and clouds of doubt our feelings come and go; Our daily state is tossed about in ceaseless ebb and flow" which is older - I don't know it at all.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

'Through the Night of Doubt and Sorrow' is a bolstering-up sort of hymn, where we stand together in solidarity with our fellow pilgrims ('brother clasps the hand of brother'), helping each other through. Although the outcome of this support is optimistic hope and expectation, it does not duck the fact that the road ahead is far from easy. I like that kind of gritty realism.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

"When, O God, our faith is tested" is a very honest hymn by Fred Kaan (yes, I've used it).

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by wild haggis:
Iona hymns are usually based on simple tunes with up to date words that stem from the reality of living today, not slushy Victorian words or unintelligible language.

Iona hymns are John Bell's sermon notes stretched out upon the rack of metre and rhyme and then fitted to an old tune in a way that serves neither the tune nor John Bell's sermon notes.
If you are familiar with the themes of John Bell's preaching, and he is a great preacher, then you will find the words intelligible. Otherwise, they're a stream of Iona-jargon and allusions.

Some Victorian hymns are slushy. Nine tenths of everything is bad. Some Victorian hymns are not.

quote:
"Away in a Manger" is one carol I won't sing - what a load of rubbish.Jesus the baby didn't "no crying he made"! Have you ever seen a baby that doesn't cry-

The Daflings did not immediately start crying every time they woke up. A baby is perfectly capable of waking up and just being at least for a little while.

I don't much like Away in the Manger but complaining about the factual accuracy is beside the point.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Maybe AiaM is meant not to be historical but aspirational. As so many other hymns. It's funny seeing people who have no problem at all interpreting the scriptures allegorically all of a sudden becoming wooden literalists when discussing Christmas carols.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

I don't think anyone has yet mentioned the 19th c. hymns 'Just as I am', which talks about being 'tossed about, with many a conflict, many a doubt', and 'Out of my bondage, sorrow, and night', which focuses on the writer's general psychological distress.

Such hymns are too emotional for the modern mainstream church environment. IMO their very personal emphasis on spiritual and psychological wretchedness is too theologically problematic for churches that have cultivated a reasonable and rational self-image. And practically speaking, these churches don't expect to have much contact with people who have such a fraught spiritual life.

Then there's the question of good taste. The soppiest of 19th c. hymns simply aren't going to pass the test, and for some churches this matters.

[ 31. December 2017, 11:41: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Maybe AiaM is meant not to be historical but aspirational. As so many other hymns. It's funny seeing people who have no problem at all interpreting the scriptures allegorically all of a sudden becoming wooden literalists when discussing Christmas carols.

This.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:
Originally posted by wild haggis:
Iona hymns are usually based on simple tunes with up to date words that stem from the reality of living today, not slushy Victorian words or unintelligible language.
Iona hymns are John Bell's sermon notes stretched out upon the rack of metre and rhyme and then fitted to an old tune in a way that serves neither the tune nor John Bell's sermon notes.
If you are familiar with the themes of John Bell's preaching, and he is a great preacher, then you will find the words intelligible. Otherwise, they're a stream of Iona-jargon and allusions.

Some Victorian hymns are slushy. Nine tenths of everything is bad. Some Victorian hymns are not.

quote:
"Away in a Manger" is one carol I won't sing - what a load of rubbish.Jesus the baby didn't "no crying he made"! Have you ever seen a baby that doesn't cry-
The Daflings did not immediately start crying every time they woke up. A baby is perfectly capable of waking up and just being at least for a little while.

I don't much like Away in the Manger but complaining about the factual accuracy is beside the point.

And that.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0