Thread: Criticising choruses, hymns and other worship songs Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=030356
Posted by idealistic 1980's kid (# 18387) on :
 
Greetings, I'm new here, I just found this discussion board whilst looking for lyrics to some choruses and came across the (dead) discussion on choruses and hymns that are repetitive, or have other off-putting features. Some remarks were funny and others were rather rude and very negative.
I could agree about lots of the critical comments: some songs do go on and on mindlessly repeating a line, and some have awkward or archaic grammar and don't make much sense, and some are projected with spelling mistakes.
I just think it's all a distraction when trying to concentrate on worshipping God!!
But then I don't think feeling critical helps us worship God either. We have to go along with whatever songs have been chosen, feeling a hypocrite sometimes, forgiving the spelling mistakes etc..!!
If we don't like the hymns and choruses for some reason - whether it's something wrong with the lyrics, music, instruments or with us (if the words point out our failings!) -perhaps we need to write our own songs to express to God what's really going on in our minds and hearts!! At least they'd be honest, even if no one else likes them!!
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
I think you've misunderstood the purpose of the "dead horses" section. The thread on this topic is very much alive.
 
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :
 
Yes but I think there is space in Ecclesiantics for a discussion on the role, place and selection of musical items within worship. That would not be the same as the Crappy Choruses and Horrible Hymns Redux thread in Dead Horses (or its predecessors if they are in Limbo or Oblivion).

There is also a possibility of discussing the role of critiquing worship while worshipping. That again is another question.

I am not quite sure which one the OP'er wants to follow so I will refrain from commenting on them until their views are clearer.

Jengie
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by idealistic 1980's kid:
I could agree about lots of the critical comments...
I just think it's all a distraction when trying to concentrate on worshipping God!!
But then I don't think feeling critical helps us worship God either.
Posting on the dead horses thread is not an act of worship, so why is critique in that place wrong?

Are you saying nothing done in a worship even can ever be criticized outside of worship? No one must ever admit to disliking, or being confused by, a song? A song with way to wide a range to sing cannot be protested to the music committee or to friends as inappropriate for congregational singing?

quote:

... -perhaps we need to write our own songs to express to God what's really going on in our minds and hearts!!
Many people do, or write poems, do sculpture, find ways of expressing worship individually, but that doesn't affect the appropriateness of Sunday morning song selections!
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by idealistic 1980's kid:
We have to go along with whatever songs have been chosen
It's one thing not to like a song because it seems inappropriate for the liturgy of the day. But it's quite another thing not to like it because the tune is artless, the harmony pedantic, or the words vapid.

In either case, I just don't sing the song in question. It's impossible to please everyone all the time.
 
Posted by Adam. (# 4991) on :
 
I sing everything I'm able to.* Church isn't a democracy and if it's what the duly appointed minister has selected for singing, it's what we're singing.

--
* When presiding, there's quite a bit you can't sing, as you're doing something else at the same time, like setting up the altar. The other form of inability would be when the song is something I'm too unfamiliar with given the resources provided.

[ 09. April 2015, 18:38: Message edited by: Adam. ]
 
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :
 
Hi idealistic kid, and welcome to the Ship!

I think the discussion of what makes music suitable for use in worship, and how we respond to music that is not to ones own tastes, can very well be debated here in Ecclesiantics.

Please can everyone note that just bitching about things you dislike should be kept to the thread in Dead Horses where it belongs however!

Your cooperation is, as ever, appreciated...

dj_ordinaire, Eccles host
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
The reason why we feel free to criticise rubbish songs is that we don't park out brains at the church porch.
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adam.:
I sing everything I'm able to.* Church isn't a democracy and if it's what the duly appointed minister has selected for singing, it's what we're singing.
It may be what *we* are singing, and if I can hold my nose (mentally) and get through it, I do. But if my unpremeditated impulsive reaction to the words is "huh? That's not true!" then I stop singing mid line.

Happened once when I was in choir, the song selector chose a song that ended with the lament "we walk the way alone." I startled and said out loud, involuntarily, "what?" instead of finishing the line. We had just done a baptism with clear verbal assurance "you are never alone." The mother of the baby was in tears at the song taking away the baptismal assurance.

As soon as the song ended the clergy person loudly proclaimed "that song is wrong, God is always with us."

I am unapologetic about failing to sing the dismal and untrue enduing of the song. Even on camera as a choir member!

I am not responsible for what songs the hymn-chooser landed on; but I am responsible to be honest before God in what I say and sing to or about God. "Just following orders, God" doesn't cut it. Marginal songs, fine, but flat out deadly anti-God's love WRONG - no!
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by idealistic 1980's kid:

If we don't like the hymns and choruses for some reason - whether it's something wrong with the lyrics, music, instruments or with us (if the words point out our failings!) -perhaps we need to write our own songs to express to God what's really going on in our minds and hearts!! At least they'd be honest, even if no one else likes them!!
Well, of course, those people who are able to write songs do precisely that! And it's good that new worship music is always being written - however challenging it is - and always has been - to filter out the dross from the silver.

But even those of us who can't write or create music are perfectly at liberty to share our opinions about what we like or dislike. And as others here have said, some of it does come down to personal choice. And then some folks 'know what they like' and will dislike the finest examples of worship song/hymn of their type, simply because they're the 'wrong' type!

Some of our dislikes depend upon our own theological take. I've sometimes had the experience of singing an old hymn from my childhood, after a space of many years, and finding the words almost abhorrent to me, despite the pleasing familiarity of the tune, or the 'feel' of the poetry I used to love, once upon a time. And then some songs and hymns have a kind of time-lock feel to them; bringing back memories of a Christian event or a time in my faith when that music was like the backing-track to my life.

It's funny how some music from the 1980s and 1990s now seems dated, whilst so much of the more ancient stuff seems perennial. But is that because I grew up with the more ancient stuff? There's plenty of choruses and songs I'm still happy to sing, including the old-fashioned Sunday School stuff from Moody-Sankey onwards; but the more modern the stuff is the less 'timeless' it seems to be compared to older music. But, as I say, maaybe that's because of my own personal experience, rather than any deficiency or attribute in the style of music itself.

Quite a complex thing, music, when it comes to how we respond to or experience it.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
As I've said before, one of the advantages of singing mostly old hymns in church is that noone worries too much if the theology is 'approved'. Familiarity and a sense of continuing the tradition must blunt the critical senses to a certain extent.

If you belong to a church where the choir and/or congregation are expected to sing a more varied range of much more recent songs I can see how the likelihood of the songs causing theological and aesthetic offence to someone somewhere must be much greater. I don't know what the solution is.

The churches I go to are fairly traditional in terms of style and presentation. The 'modern' songs I come across are often of the social justice, let's-get-together type. Think: 'Bind us together, Lord'. People might get snooty about the tunes or the banal language, but it would be unacceptable to criticise the right-on message....

[ 09. April 2015, 21:52: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
 
Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on :
 
One thing that I remember from my involvement with Anglicanism (over many years) in GB as well as through reading here for about ten years now, is that there are many people who have very precise views what they like regarding worship. I am one of them. Just last Palm Sunday, I stood and kept my mouth shut when "give my oil in my lamp" opened the Eucharist...

I note though, when I speak with RCs here, or with Orthodox, that for them, it seems to be the case that they are less concerned with the "right" way to worship. They are more passive, well, that's how it seems to me. They will turn up and if they know the hymns they will sing them, if they feel comfortable with singing. There are "children-friendly" hymns at some RC Masses, but on the whole, it's take it or leave it.

It's not that individualism and consumerism is not strong in Poland, far from it, it's just that it seems to me that democracy is weaker in the RC church here, and while this and the accompanied means of worship turn some away (among other Purgatorial things), some seem quite happy to accept the hymns.

I wonder whether my desire for a perfect Mass with only hymns I like detracts from my gaining from the Mass. I'm not saying that we shouldn't be uncritical, just questioning whether this gets in the way.
 
Posted by Gwalchmai (# 17802) on :
 
Of course there is room for personal preferences in worship. One of the strengths of the Anglican church is that there is so much variety of worship available. I would not wish to worship in a church that has songs and choruses rather than hymns, but I am glad that there are churches where that style of worship is available.
I think criticism of aspects of the service can be a positive thing - first it shows that the congregation are awake and paying attention and second, if the clergy listen to constructive criticism, they might have a better understanding of their congregation's pastoral and spiritual needs.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
Rosa Winkel

Your comments about Anglicans are interesting. The CofE is known for congregations that hold themselves back when it comes to singing, but it's never occurred to me that they do so because they disapprove in some way of the content and/or the tunes of what they're being asked to sing. That would make sense, though, since Anglicans aren't united by their theology or musical tastes, but by other things.

Methodists are well-known for a) their strong congregational singing and b) singing their theology. From this, one would assume that Methodist church leaders must be highly cautious about the songs that are used for congregational worship. And in my long experience of Methodism, they ARE quite cautious. Clearly, sticking to familiar hymns is one way of assuring that the singing is always good, and that the 'correct' theology is always being enunciated through the hymns.

Methodists today do disagree with each other about theology, but it's not the done thing to make an issue about it. The idea of refusing to sing a hymn during worship because of some theological difference doesn't feel very Methodist to me at all. If you see someone not singing in a Methodist church that's probably because they're an infrequent churchgoer, don't know the song and aren't in the habit of picking up unfamiliar tunes. It's unlikely to be for some theological or aesthetic reason.

[ 09. April 2015, 23:14: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
Perhaps the Dead Horses Crappy Choruses is a tool for those who hear songs they don't like in Church and sing along and worship. It gives them a place to vent afterwards without disrupting the service.
Or it could be the repeated use of a song that is working their one last nerve.... [Smile]
 
Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on :
 
Our congregation has always been offered a mix of traditional and modern hymns, occasional worship songs; when someone's written one for you, you have to give it a fair go! But if I really can't bring myself to sing a line I just shut up. We do sing whole-hearedly; one voice isn't missed.
My only problem is when we get a new song/hymn and I find the tune hard to pick up; I wish the music was always available. Yes, I'm a (fading) soprano who can read music, and if it's a traditional hymn I can sing the alto and not have to strain for the high notes.

GG
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Galloping Granny:

My only problem is when we get a new song/hymn and I find the tune hard to pick up; I wish the music was always available. Yes, I'm a (fading) soprano who can read music, and if it's a traditional hymn I can sing the alto and not have to strain for the high notes.
GG
I taught myself to read music as a pre-teen by switching to alto to relieve the boredom of being in church. Between hymns I'd read the hymnal, memorizing all 5 verses of "the church's one foundation" and other hymns. There's more than one way to do church! [Smile]

A music teacher friend laments the loss of written music in church because he thinks church is the primary place people learn to read music.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
I have no problem with criticising the music that is used in church. However I would make two points.

1. One can become so critical that one ends up being disabled from participating in all worship. This would also be true of the liturgy, the preaching and even the flower arrangements, of course.

2. One must make sure that one is using the right criteria, and not make the make of equating "I don't much like this" with "This song is rubbish". There needs to be a more objective and considered evaluation.
 
Posted by Adam. (# 4991) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:


As soon as the song ended the clergy person loudly proclaimed "that song is wrong, God is always with us."

We're clearly working out of some different cultural assumptions about how worship is organized. When I'm presiding, I'm always given a listing of music to be sung beforehand. There's not necessarily a sense that I have to approve it, but if there was a song with a lyric that I thought was flat out wrong, I would make sure to talk the musicians before the service about changing the song. If I somehow missed it, I would talk to whoever chose it afterwards. Letting things get to a point where you're basically arguing with each other in the context of worship is incredibly unprofessional, imnsho.
 
Posted by Adam. (# 4991) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
One thing that I remember from my involvement with Anglicanism (over many years) in GB as well as through reading here for about ten years now, is that there are many people who have very precise views what they like regarding worship. I am one of them. Just last Palm Sunday, I stood and kept my mouth shut when "give my oil in my lamp" opened the Eucharist...

I note though, when I speak with RCs here, or with Orthodox, that for them, it seems to be the case that they are less concerned with the "right" way to worship.
Oh, there certainly are RCs very concerned with such things! I think you're right though, that it's less common than with CofEers at least. I would suggest the cause is the potential range of things that can be presented as regular Sunday worship in each settings. That range is so broad in the CofE, that I can quite understand people develop pretty precise ideas of what works 'for them.' Comparatively, the range is so much narrower for RCs that most people can be sure of getting what's most important to them and so don't really worry about the things that can vary.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
This of course poses the question of "Who chooses the music?" - the minister, music director or Mrs. Jones who holds the key to the choir cupboard.

And it goes on to the questions, "Who has the final say?", "Does anyone have a power of veto?" and "If so, on what grounds may it be exercised?"

[ 10. April 2015, 13:07: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
This of course poses the question of "Who chooses the music?" - the minister, music director or Mrs. Jones who holds the key to the choir cupboard.

And it goes on to the questions, "Who has the final say?", "Does anyone have a power of veto?" and "If so, on what grounds may it be exercised?"
I was surprised to discover that there were other answers to these questions other than "the Vicar/Priest/Minister or whoever they choose to delegate to".
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I think Baptist Trainfan is right that we have to be careful lest we end up criticising anything and everything ... whether the songs, liturgy, flower arrangements, colour of someone's shirt or tie ...

However, the musical threads here aboard Ship - whether in Dead Horses or Ecclesiantics - always make me want to shout, 'No, no, it's not ALL about the songs nor is all about congregational singing - fine as that might be ...'

There is more to worship than what songs we sing or what words we use.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
This of course poses the question of "Who chooses the music?" - the minister, music director or Mrs. Jones who holds the key to the choir cupboard.

And it goes on to the questions, "Who has the final say?", "Does anyone have a power of veto?" and "If so, on what grounds may it be exercised?"
We have a worship committee to choose the hymns. It comprises of the director of music, a retired professor of music,a former churchwarded, the vicar - they all hold degrees in music - and me (with the vicar as theologians).

The vicar has the final say but we rarely disagree.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
There have long been specialist courses in music for the church - some run by the Royal College and Royal Academy, others as part of a B.Mus. at variosu institutions, plus things like certain sections of the examination for FRCO Chm, etc, etc, etc.

And some of us who have benefited from studying on such courses don't hang up our hats but continue to study and explore new music.

That is why we sometimes feel less than sanguine at the attitude towards music in church on the part of some clergy.
 
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
This of course poses the question of "Who chooses the music?" - the minister, music director or Mrs. Jones who holds the key to the choir cupboard.

And it goes on to the questions, "Who has the final say?", "Does anyone have a power of veto?" and "If so, on what grounds may it be exercised?"
Myself, and a group of two or three musicians. We meet to talk about the music. If I said "absolutely not!" about something, then I would get my way. But it's never happened.

Sometimes we do well. Sometimes we don't. It's not a science. We always have to remember that we are not choosing hymns and songs for our own pleasure. That means that we sometimes choose stuff we don't really like, but we know most of the congregation do. So, yes, we DO occasionally have "Shine, Jesus, Shine". It's the price we pay for being servants rather than masters.

The only time I've ever had a difficulty with the music was in a previous parish, when the Director of Music insisted on choosing all the hymns without any discussion or collaboration. Never again!
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
I have the final say, though I have delegated decisions on music to my music director. I'm very fortunate not only in that she is competent, but also that she and I are in agreement concerning the liturgy and how the music fits into it.

I have asked that hymns be removed exactly twice, both times due to what I consider poor theology : "Once to every man and nation" and "Sing praise to God, who spoke through man".

There are lots of hymns that I dislike because I think the tune is dull, or whatever. But I don't ask for them to be removed because those are issues of personal taste, not of appropriateness for the liturgy.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
We always have to remember that we are not choosing hymns and songs for our own pleasure. That means that we sometimes choose stuff we don't really like, but we know most of the congregation do. ... It's the price we pay for being servants rather than masters.
Sadly, not everyone takes such a broad view.
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adam.:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
As soon as the song ended the clergy person loudly proclaimed "that song is wrong, God is always with us."

We're clearly working out of some different cultural assumptions about how worship is organized.
Every church I've been in where I've paid attention to this aspect, the music director decides on the music and informs the secretary on time for the bulletin. The clergy might ask for a specific hymn on rare occasion, but in general the attitude has been "I don't know anything about music, and I have enough to do, I am not getting involved in the music!"

One clergy person did object after about 5 months to the songs all being "I worship", none "we worship." Music head said "there is no such thing as 'we worship' - all true worship is individual." Neither side would budge, so he quit, leaving the clergy Thursday evening with no music leader for Sunday morning, so the nearest person who plays guitar was grabbed. Which actually is how the guy who left was selected - previous music leader gave a month notice, clergy appointed a guy who had recently showed up with a guitar. Obviously there was no discussion of music theology, or there wouldn't have been a sudden Thursday night argument and departure.

I was struck by how carefully the interim clergy system works to find a replacement who is a good fit and meanwhile keep things going somewhat smoothly, vs the "grab someone fast we need music Sunday" chaotic system for replacing music leaders. But when I fussed at my piano teacher he shrugged and said people think music just happens, that no thought is needed.

That piano teacher is now the "grab someone fast" music director at a church. They got lucky in who they grabbed, he is a decent church music selector.

Maybe we need an interim system for music leaders?

If music is important, and music selection not automatic or obvious (especially when congregations move away from the denomination's hymn book), or if selecting a good music director and understanding what to reasonably expect is not easy (one local church is on it's 5th music director in 5 years, they keep firing the excellent musicians with significant church music experience people they hire), maybe denominations need to help?
 
Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adam.:
quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
One thing that I remember from my involvement with Anglicanism (over many years) in GB as well as through reading here for about ten years now, is that there are many people who have very precise views what they like regarding worship. I am one of them. Just last Palm Sunday, I stood and kept my mouth shut when "give my oil in my lamp" opened the Eucharist...

I note though, when I speak with RCs here, or with Orthodox, that for them, it seems to be the case that they are less concerned with the "right" way to worship.
Oh, there certainly are RCs very concerned with such things! I think you're right though, that it's less common than with CofEers at least. I would suggest the cause is the potential range of things that can be presented as regular Sunday worship in each settings. That range is so broad in the CofE, that I can quite understand people develop pretty precise ideas of what works 'for them.' Comparatively, the range is so much narrower for RCs that most people can be sure of getting what's most important to them and so don't really worry about the things that can vary.
I meant RCs in Poland.

I didn't see a big difference between Anglican and RC singing in GB, and many RCs I knew in GB were very interested in church music.

I was trying to address the benefits of being more passive about ones liking or not of music in church.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
... I have asked that hymns be removed exactly twice, both times due to what I consider poor theology : "Once to every man and nation" and "Sing praise to God, who spoke through man". ...
Never encountered the latter, but I agree about "Once to every man and nation". I haven't heard it sung since the early sixties, but it is so bad that it has stuck in my memory ever since. Two very serious theological errors and what I think is the most repulsive piece of imagery I've ever encountered in a hymn - and all three in one hymn. Wow.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
I have a hard time with I vow to thee my country, and I have managed to persuade our current PinC that it really isn't suitable for any service (with the possible exception of the civic outing on Remembrance Sunday) and that there are better things for that occasion as well.

But it is incredibly popular for weddings - partly because the late Princess of Wales chose it in 1982 (what was the Dean of St Paul's thinking?) and because the theme for the Rugby World Cup The World in Union uses the same bit of Holst.

I have managed to hold firm against In Christ alone.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I have no problem with criticising the music that is used in church. However I would make two points.

1. One can become so critical that one ends up being disabled from participating in all worship. This would also be true of the liturgy, the preaching and even the flower arrangements, of course.

2. One must make sure that one is using the right criteria, and not make the make of equating "I don't much like this" with "This song is rubbish". There needs to be a more objective and considered evaluation.
I think these are two very good points. There are some modern songs with pretty good words, but, in my view, poorly written tunes for congregational participation, and so I find myself sighing when they crop up and feeling musically irritated - but still in terms of message and theology, quite sound, so I don't really have a right to assume offence and withdraw my own participation in communal worship.

Similarly, some hymn tunes are snoresville, but the words are fab. It can happen the other way, too. There are some worship songs and hymns with stonking tunes, but very narrow theologically - and it's hard to resist 'enjoying' these while hating the message!

So I suppose it's up to me to be a grown up worshipper and make the effort to abstract what is edifying about the words and music aspect of worship, and respond to the material provided, responsibly and open-heartedly.

More generally, too, it's great to think that our experience of God - communally - is actually so wide, to be represented so broadly in such varying music. An important reminder that God is not so easily pigeon-holed, even musically.
 
Posted by georgiaboy (# 11294) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:


I have asked that hymns be removed exactly twice, both times due to what I consider poor theology : "Once to every man and nation" and "Sing praise to God, who spoke through man".
It may be of interest to note that the hymn 'God Is Working His Purpose Out' by Arthur Campbell Ainger is said to have been written as a direct refutation of 'Once to Every'. It's found in the TEC Hymnal 1982 (and was also in the 1940), set to the splendid tune 'Purpose' by Martin Shaw, which IIRC was written specifically for it.
In English Hymnal and HA&M it is set to 'Benson,' which IMNSHO is decidedly inferior. (YVMV)
 
Posted by georgiaboy (# 11294) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I have no problem with criticising the music that is used in church. However I would make two points.

1. One can become so critical that one ends up being disabled from participating in all worship. This would also be true of the liturgy, the preaching and even the flower arrangements, of course.

2. One must make sure that one is using the right criteria, and not make the make of equating "I don't much like this" with "This song is rubbish". There needs to be a more objective and considered evaluation.
I worked for some years as a performing arts critic for a daily newspaper, frequently covering as many as 4 shows a week, so the 'critic' lobes of my brain got a thorough workout. It took a lot of work to 'turn off the critic' when sitting in a performance I wasn't reviewing, and likewise when sitting in church!
I would sometimes get home with a bulletin covered with scribbled notes.
Eventually I managed to attain a sort of two-track brain -- not schizoid, but something alternative, I guess. Maybe more like Mystery Worshipping?
[Biased]
 
Posted by georgiaboy (# 11294) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:


I have asked that hymns be removed exactly twice, both times due to what I consider poor theology : "Once to every man and nation" and "Sing praise to God, who spoke through man".
It may be of interest to note that the hymn 'God Is Working His Purpose Out' by Arthur Campbell Ainger is said to have been written as a direct refutation of 'Once to Every'. It's found in the TEC Hymnal 1982 (and was also in the 1940), set to the splendid tune 'Purpose' by Martin Shaw, which IIRC was written specifically for it.
In English Hymnal and HA&M it is set to 'Benson,' which IMNSHO is decidedly inferior. (YVMV)
 
Posted by georgiaboy (# 11294) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:


I have asked that hymns be removed exactly twice, both times due to what I consider poor theology : "Once to every man and nation" and "Sing praise to God, who spoke through man".
It may be of interest to note that the hymn 'God Is Working His Purpose Out' by Arthur Campbell Ainger is said to have been written as a direct refutation of 'Once to Every'. It's found in the TEC Hymnal 1982 (and was also in the 1940), set to the splendid tune 'Purpose' by Martin Shaw, which IIRC was written specifically for it.
In English Hymnal and HA&M it is set to 'Benson,' which IMNSHO is decidedly inferior. (YVMV)
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:

Maybe we need an interim system for music leaders?
My shack has had "interim music directors" and "interim organists" and in all cases after about a year the "interim" has been dropped...
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by georgiaboy:
It may be of interest to note that the hymn 'God Is Working His Purpose Out' by Arthur Campbell Ainger is said to have been written as a direct refutation of 'Once to Every'. It's found in the TEC Hymnal 1982 (and was also in the 1940), set to the splendid tune 'Purpose' by Martin Shaw, which IIRC was written specifically for it.
In English Hymnal and HA&M it is set to 'Benson,' which IMNSHO is decidedly inferior. (YVMV)
Interesting, but I'd be surprised if that's the case. Anger was a master at Eton in the late C19. According to Hymnary.org, he wrote his hymn in 1894. Once to every man and nation isn't all that well known here. But Hymnary.org (again) seems to imply that it didn't get turned into a hymn until the early C20.

The process of checking this, though, has confirmed how thoroughly bad Once to every man and nation is as a hymn. I don't think it normally appears in any modern hymnals we use over here, but it is difficult to see how it ever got into any in the past.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
quote:
Originally posted by Adam.:
I sing everything I'm able to.* Church isn't a democracy and if it's what the duly appointed minister has selected for singing, it's what we're singing.
It may be what *we* are singing, and if I can hold my nose (mentally) and get through it, I do. But if my unpremeditated impulsive reaction to the words is "huh? That's not true!" then I stop singing mid line.

Happened once when I was in choir, the song selector chose a song that ended with the lament "we walk the way alone." I startled and said out loud, involuntarily, "what?" instead of finishing the line. We had just done a baptism with clear verbal assurance "you are never alone." The mother of the baby was in tears at the song taking away the baptismal assurance.

As soon as the song ended the clergy person loudly proclaimed "that song is wrong, God is always with us."

I am unapologetic about failing to sing the dismal and untrue enduing of the song. Even on camera as a choir member!

I am not responsible for what songs the hymn-chooser landed on; but I am responsible to be honest before God in what I say and sing to or about God. "Just following orders, God" doesn't cut it. Marginal songs, fine, but flat out deadly anti-God's love WRONG - no!
I've never heard of that hymn so I looked it up.
Is it this one?:


quote:
O God our mighty Father,
O bright immortal One,
Secure within thy mercy
We walk this way alone.
If it is, then might I offer the thought that maybe, just maybe, it's been wrongly interpreted?
It seems to me that it does not mean "We walk this way alone, unaccompanied," but rather that "We walk this way only, and not another way."

Just a thought.
Often, in singing Victorian words we need to look at the original meaning. Another example would be 'without a city wall' - I mean, since when would any green hill ever have a city wall for it to be specified that this particular green hill didn't have one? And then you realise that 'without' meant 'outside'.

Alone therefore doesn't just mean 'in a solitary manner' but 'uniquely, exclusively.'
 
Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on :
 
I suppose it's from an adult experience of smallish (up to 100 at most) Presy congregations without choirs or professional musicians that I would never have dreamed that anyone but the minister/worship leader would choose the hymns, they being so integrated with the theme/message of the service.

On another thread Zappa said it better than I have:
quote:
I can't speak for others but I very carefully select hymns (now I have seized the role) that enhance and weave in and out of the themes explored in breaking open the word and in collects, propers, sermon and so on....
The critical issue is that the hymns be the twice prayed prayers they can be when woven tightly into the themes of the day.
I remember once or twice the then minister, younger than me and not very musically literate, asked for help, but I think it was more about whether the tune was well known or something like that.
And sometimes, other things being equal, the chosen hymn might be a favourite of a well-loved member of a congregation.

GG
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Often, in singing Victorian words we need to look at the original meaning. Another example would be 'without a city wall' - I mean, since when would any green hill ever have a city wall for it to be specified that this particular green hill didn't have one? And then you realise that 'without' meant 'outside'.
As in "the Parish Church of St. Botolph without Bishopsgate". In Scotland you might just want to put "outwith".
 
Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on :
 
Like Mudfrog
quote:
Just a thought.
Often, in singing Victorian words we need to look at the original meaning. Another example would be 'without a city wall' - I mean, since when would any green hill ever have a city wall for it to be specified that this particular green hill didn't have one? And then you realise that 'without' meant 'outside'.
I was puzzled by that one, at the age of about seven.

GG
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Galloping Granny:
I suppose it's from an adult experience of smallish (up to 100 at most) Presy congregations without choirs or professional musicians that I would never have dreamed that anyone but the minister/worship leader would choose the hymns, they being so integrated with the theme/message of the service.


GG
In Anglican churches it varies a lot. In small places, it, too, can often come down to just the minister doing the choosing (sometimes even the accompanying!) of the music. And many churches may not have organists/musicians with the skills and knowledge to know the liturgy and lectionary well enough to make good choices. 'When I survey the Wondrous Cross' and 'There is a green hill' as Easter morning hymns - not great, and a particularly sad memory of my own! But in this case the organist had a very limited repertoire, and suggestions as alternatives was just not a possibility.

However, on the plus side, when you get an organist/choir director who really knows their stuff, it's a delight to let just let them get on with their job. Lots of great resources, too, to assist in the correct choosing of appropriate hymns.

I do think, personally, it is good for a minister to have a fair head on their shoulders musically, when it comes to liturgy/lectionary demands, however. Even if they're not musical themselves. At college, I remember at least two or three Methodist ordinands, training as deacons at that time, refusing to attend the music seminars. 'I'm not musical, can't sing a note, know nothing about the business - gonna leave it up to whoever's playing the keyboard' was the philosophy. Now admittedly, in some areas of Methodism there is a lot of wandering around the circuit, where being in a position to direct a musician what music to play would be problematic to say the least; but for those ordinands destined to be rooted within particular congregations, I would've thought at least a nodding acquaintance with how music choice can enhance a congregation's understanding of church and scripture themes was pretty central.
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Happened once when I was in choir, the song selector chose a song that ended with the lament "we walk the way alone." I startled and said out loud, involuntarily, "what?" instead of finishing the line. We had just done a baptism with clear verbal assurance "you are never alone." The mother of the baby was in tears at the song taking away the baptismal assurance.

As soon as the song ended the clergy person loudly proclaimed "that song is wrong, God is always with us."
I've never heard of that hymn so I looked it up.
Is it this one?:


quote:
O God our mighty Father,
O bright immortal One,
Secure within thy mercy
We walk this way alone.
If it is, then might I offer the thought that maybe, just maybe, it's been wrongly interpreted?
It seems to me that it does not mean "We walk this way alone, unaccompanied," but rather that "We walk this way only, and not another way."
No, a (bleached) Black spiritual, lonesome valley. You must walk this lonesome valley,you must walk it by yourself, oh nobody else can walk it for you, you walk it by yourself.

The choir had just sung a revised version that assured "you're never alone in this dark valley, Jesus walks right by your side" (or something like that). The switch from that assurance to lamenting being alone had strong negative impact on several of us!

There is a sense in which no one can live your life/do your work instead of you, and the song could probably be presented that way, but the *preacher* proclaimed "that song is wrong, you are never alone" so it came across to him as saying God is not with us.
 
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :
 
'Once to every man and nation' was in my Public (U.S. = Private) School hymn book in the 1950s. We used to sing 'By the light of burning martyrs/ Christ thy bleeding feet we track' with particular relish.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Looking at who wrote it (one of the Lowells) and when the words were originally written (1845), I assume that it's a commentary on the slavery debates of the period, and their wider implications for the way that the USA was going to develop. Am I right? If so, can't it be seen as a period piece?
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
As abolitionist polemic, it's fine. As a hymn to be sung in the context of common prayer, it sucks.
 
Posted by Panda (# 2951) on :
 
According to Cyberhymnal, it was written to protest the US's war with Mexico.

But it made it into the 1938 Canadian hymnbook all the same (only slightly altered). I too remember singing, 'by the light of burning martyrs' and being somewhat appalled when (quite young) I worked out what was meant by that.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Mexican War? Ah yes, of course- date makes sense.
 
Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:

I have managed to hold firm against In Christ alone.
A quick question:
Is this on the grounds of music, lyrics or both?!
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Panda:
According to Cyberhymnal, it was written to protest the US's war with Mexico. ...
I suspect not many of us round here know much about that war. How live is it as an issue now? Is it forgotten or is it a running sore vis à vis relations between the US and Mexico?

And which way round is it? Was the cause that came Once to every man and nation for which to side with truth is noble hostility to unilaterally grabbing territory of another state, or the importance of recognising America's manifest destiny to extend its benefits to poor benighted hitherto foreigners?

If the first, then by failing to heed his poem, the US blew it. Does that explain everything since?! If the latter, then according to the writer, the US took the wrong decision. So presumably likewise it blew its one opportunity. It can ignore what would be noble thereafter.

Either way, that demonstrates that even as political poetry, yet alone as something suitable to have been appropriated as a hymn, it's not just bad theology and repulsive imagery, but overblown, pretentious, hyper-rhetorical kack.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
posted by Mrs Beaky
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I have managed to hold firm against In Christ alone.
quote:


A quick question:
Is this on the grounds of music, lyrics or both?!
Both!
Actually, I find the words more offensive than the tune, which is simply trite and uninspiring.

But the words, with the repeated mantra of In Christ alone goes against everything that members of the CofE profess in the Creeds (all three).

Yes, I know ++Justin chose this nonsense to be sung at his enthronement: this should have informed anyone with any doubts of his intrinsic unsuitability for the position; after all, if you can't trust the Archbishop of Canterbury to grasp that for a member of a Trinitarian church to sing In Christ alone is doctrinal rubbish, where do you draw the line?

[ 15. April 2015, 12:17: Message edited by: L'organist ]
 
Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on :
 
Thanks, L'organist
I was pretty sure the words would be a problem but wanted to check what you thought about the music.
I personally don't mind the music that much but it's not something I'd choose to sing!
 
Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by Mrs Beaky
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I have managed to hold firm against In Christ alone.
quote:


A quick question:
Is this on the grounds of music, lyrics or both?!
Both!
Actually, I find the words more offensive than the tune, which is simply trite and uninspiring.

But the words, with the repeated mantra of In Christ alone goes against everything that members of the CofE profess in the Creeds (all three).

Yes, I know ++Justin chose this nonsense to be sung at his enthronement: this should have informed anyone with any doubts of his intrinsic unsuitability for the position; after all, if you can't trust the Archbishop of Canterbury to grasp that for a member of a Trinitarian church to sing In Christ alone is doctrinal rubbish, where do you draw the line?
[Confused]
In Christ Alone is un-Trinitarian?? Surely the title (which is only repeated twice - hardly a repeated mantra) is referring to trusting in Christ over against anything else we may be tempted to put our trust in, because of what Christ has done for us (or, if you prefer, what God has done for us through Christ). Given that the second verse contains a clear reference to the incarnation ("Fullness of God in helpless babe"), it's hard to see how Townend is being un-Trinitarian, unless the writer of, say,"I am trusting thee, Lord Jesus, trusting only thee" (a hmn which makes no mentions at all of the othe rmembers of the Trinity - less than In Christ Alone) is being similarly un-Trinitarian.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Both!
Actually, I find the words more offensive than the tune, which is simply trite and uninspiring.

But the words, with the repeated mantra of In Christ alone goes against everything that members of the CofE profess in the Creeds (all three).

Yes, I know ++Justin chose this nonsense to be sung at his enthronement: this should have informed anyone with any doubts of his intrinsic unsuitability for the position; after all, if you can't trust the Archbishop of Canterbury to grasp that for a member of a Trinitarian church to sing In Christ alone is doctrinal rubbish, where do you draw the line?
If your opinion is representative of a significant number of others then it's hardly surprising that the Anglican Church isn't as united as it might be, is it? Shafting your own leader over the choice of a hymn is a bit steep!

In any event the sentiment of that hymn is "In Christ alone, my hope is found." hardly non Trinitarian - but if you are looking for a charge of a song that majors on there being only one way to heaven, then this one is guilty as charged.

How many of the people believe what they profess in the creed anyway?

[ 15. April 2015, 14:28: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by Mrs Beaky
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I have managed to hold firm against In Christ alone.
quote:
A quick question:
Is this on the grounds of music, lyrics or both?!
Both!
Actually, I find the words more offensive than the tune, which is simply trite and uninspiring.

But the words, with the repeated mantra of In Christ alone goes against everything that members of the CofE profess in the Creeds (all three).
The controversy I'm aware of has to do with the line saying Jesus' death "satisfied" God's anger. Article here about that wording.

(As to "repeated mantra", many a praise band picks a phrase of a song to repeat endlessly as interlude or ending. The lyrics written are not necessarily all the lyrics as played in church.)
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
If Townend and Getty had wanted to reflect on God the Father they would have referred to him as such: they didn't.

The only reference to any being other than the "I / me" who is singing is the unspecified God in verse 2 - and exactly how is "Fulness of God in helpless babe" easily understandable?

We (I) believe in Father, Son and Holy Ghost - to whom also no reference: dammit, there's more reference to God the Father in the appalling Shall we not love thee, Mother dear? than ICA.
 
Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
If Townend and Getty had wanted to reflect on God the Father they would have referred to him as such: they didn't.
Because it's a song specifically about Jesus? Just like Philippians 3:7-21 (which seems to follow a similar theme to ICA) is about Jesus and only mentions the Father twice (calling Him "God" both times) and doesn't mention the Spirit at all.

quote:
The only reference to any being other than the "I / me" who is singing is the unspecified God in verse 2 - and exactly how is "Fulness of God in helpless babe" easily understandable?
Because it's a song specifically about Jesus?

I flicked through the section of the "Baptist Praise and Worship" hymnbook entitled "Our Lord's Ministry" and found many hymns that focussed specifically on Jesus with little or no mention of Father or Holy Spirit. Are they un-Trinitarian too? Does every hymn or song have to mention all 3 members of the Trinity explicitly?

And as for understandability, I didn't realise that was part of the criteria. But you've argued quite often for the use of the BCP on these pages and, from the quotations you've provided from it, I would argue that "fullness of God in helpless babe" is no more or less comprehensible than that and, again IMNSHO, points quite well to the mystery of the incarnation.

quote:
We (I) believe in Father, Son and Holy Ghost - to whom also no reference: dammit, there's more reference to God the Father in the appalling Shall we not love thee, Mother dear? than ICA.
And there's less in a hymn like "I am trusting thee" or "Thine be the Glory" or "My song is love unknown" or... so what? Are they un-Trinitarian too, or is just down to not liking "In Christ Alone"?
 
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
Aside from That Line, I like In Christ Alone. Certainly not non-Trinitarian - what an odd criticism. I have sung Our God Is An Awesome God with ++Welby in Lambeth Palace crypt though...
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
I flicked through the section of the "Baptist Praise and Worship" hymnbook entitled "Our Lord's Ministry" ...
At last - another Baptist who still uses it! [Cool]
 
Posted by Kitten (# 1179) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Aside from That Line, I like In Christ Alone. Certainly not non-Trinitarian - what an odd criticism. I have sung Our God Is An Awesome God with ++Welby in Lambeth Palace crypt though...
You're not alone, I also like In Christ Alone and have requested it at my funeral, and most people I have spoken to about it, both clergy and laity, like it.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Vetting a hymn book, or a chorus book, or the projected words of songs (if your church uses that method) for imperfect theology is going to leave you with a pretty small list.

I think a lot of modern songs are pretty ephemeral, but some are going to stand the test of time. In another hundred years, if the church is still around, there will be people arguing about the content of songs of worship, preferring those which have stood the test of time. Amongst which will be a fair number of songs written in the last quarter of a century. Some of them will use "I", some "we", some of which get disparaged as "happy clappy" or "Jesus is my boy friend" etc. There's no harm in critising content; there is a lot of harm in descending into the derogatory.

While I appreciate the argument about distraction, I refuse to throw stones at windows through which other folks are able to glimpse the presence of God and be drawn to worship Him. Even if they seem pretty opaque to me. Some do, some don't. Services of worship are not there to stroke my aesthetic prejudices.
 
Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
have sung Our God Is An Awesome God with ++Welby in Lambeth Palace crypt though...
That's what they all say...

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
I flicked through the section of the "Baptist Praise and Worship" hymnbook entitled "Our Lord's Ministry" ...
At last - another Baptist who still uses it! [Cool]
[Big Grin] I have a choice between that and the first 2 volumes of Songs Of Fellowship and, while the latter obviously has more of the more modern choruses etc. in, we're not that up-to-date. BPW is quite useful for finding some of the stuff our congo are familiar with and being thematically, rather than alphabetically, ordered is helpful as well.

Managed to convert our pianist (an ex-Methodist) to it as well!

What strikes me in general about these sorts of discussions is, actually, how incredibly subjective they are. Most lyrics are open to interpretation as to their "soundness" or otherwise, as the mini-debate about ICA here as demonstrated. And judgements about the worth or otherwise of tunes is surely equally subjective: there are tunes our pianist hates to play but which the congregation loves to sing. I personally think the tune for ICA is very good, especially in the last 2 verses where that "lift" in the second half of the tune matches the power of what's being described well.

But it seems to me that saying hymn x or chorus y is "bad" in a supposedly objective manner is a bit of a non-starter, because there will be an "ah, but" from someone else.

Except "Great, great, wicked, wicked, skill, skill," or whatever it is, of course...
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Posted by Stejjie:
quote:

What strikes me in general about these sorts of discussions is, actually, how incredibly subjective they are
Possibly for this discussion, but I'm not sure that can be wheeled out in general terms, otherwise there would be no 'great' composers and no 'great' music - which by its very existence means there is also a lot of crap stuff.

What bothers me about a lot of contemporary church music (by which I mean choruses) is the disposable nature of it. There is much that is also simply badly written in words and music. "Our God Is An Awesome God' is a perfect example. It's a catchy tune and easy to sing, but so is Ba Ba Black Sheep. What you essentially have in that chorus is a set of very cheesy lyrics verging on spoken slang about the 'awesomeness' of God combined with a mawkish nursery tune. Frankly, it's bloody awful; but due to our religious sensibilities and sensitivities we have this weird tendency not to judge it objectively with the result that churches gaze back at such delights like 'Majesty' from the 70's and think, 'How did we ever sing that thing that is neither worshipful nor majestic?', yet don't look at the current round and think the same.

Through all of it, time is the greater healer of musical wrongs (mostly). I'm sure every generation had its crap. We know the Victorians certainly did (Moody and Sanky anyone?), there are plenty of Baroque masses that nobody ever sings (thank God) that make a soprano sound like she's re-enacting a scene from When Harry Met Sally on an extended loop in vocal trills and there are many a Medieval Mass and Motet that's beyond dreadful yet somehow the composer clung to life long enough to write that 48 minute Gloria comprised entirely of four notes. With the passage of time it all fades away and gets forgotten. Sometimes it take a few generations and other times - like in the case of Majesty - it takes about two years, but the result is the same; the crap gets dropped. I just wish we didn't have to go through the whole rigmarole of ever singing it.
 
Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on :
 
But why is "Our God is an awesome God" a "bloody awful tune"? What criteria are you using to make that judgement? And why is that a good criteria to use?

Judging it against the great composers of the past (and surely even their "greatness" will not be universally recognised) is surely off the mark; as far as I can tell, Rich Mullins didn't intend it to be judged alongside them, he didn't write it as a "great work" in the sense of a piece by Mozart, Beethoven, Bach or whoever.

You compared it to "Baa baa black sheep", which suggests part of the problem might be its simplicity: "this is no more complex/advcanced than a child's nursery rhyme." But what if that's the point? Having just played it through on the piano, it sounds to me like a repeated chant/mantra for the congregation to pick up and join in. So it uses a simple tune that people who may not know it can pick up easily. Taize chants work in a similar way - not to say whether "Awesome God" is comparable musically to Taize chants, just to say that they seem to aim to do much the same thing.

And why should a nursery rhyme tune (or a tune that can be compared to a nursery rhyme tune) be unsuitable for worship? The point is that they stand the test of time and are easily singable, even by people without any musical training. Surely these are plus points for congregational singing?

"Majesty" is a great song and, as far as I'm aware, still regularly song (and it's from the 80s, not the 70s). Whether it's majestic or not surely depends on how it's played; IMHO it tends to get played a bit too fast which loses some of the power of the tune. And what does "worshipful" mean anyway? The first line calls us to "worship his majesty"; the middle bit calls us to "exalt, lift up on high the name of Jesus" - how is that not worshipful? And if it isn't, what do you mean by "worshipful", and why is your definition better than the one implied by this chorus?

There's nothing there that's an objective judgement on the quality of those songs. You hate them, fair enough - I quite like them. We're probably using different criteria to judge them - how can that be objective. According to Wikipedia Ira Sankey is in the Gospel Music Hall of Fame - which suggests a far from universal rejection of his work.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Yes, but lots of people have produced great stuff and crap at different times. There are yards and yards of really mediocre Mozart that only ever get played now, if at all, because he wrote it: and the same will go for almost every other composer (except prhaps JS Bach: never heard anything by him that fell below 'pretty good', which given the amount he had to turn out is astonishing).
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Posted by Stejjie:
quote:

What criteria are you using to make that judgement? And why is that a good criteria to use?
That's a whole thread in itself and there are sections in libraries devoted to it, but some of the elements that I would draw on as a criteria would be (certainly not by any means exhaustive, but they will serve purpose here):

1. Does it have beauty in an immediate or subjective sense? (admittedly this would be subject to how 'I' or 'you' hear it)

2. Does it convey something profound in terms of its words and music? (this is not an subjective thing. Even if it is irrelevant to me personally, I can still recognise something that is profound for others)

3. Is it fit for purpose?

4. Does it reward (not just be 'nice', but actually reward) repeat listening/involvement?

5. Does it keep my interest to draw me into its world and language?

6. Is it the best, both musically, spiritually and intellectually, that can be offered to God? (otherwise what the heck is the point?)

&. Can it be said that the music and/or words point and direct the listener/engager to something 'beyond the veil'?

I could go on and on and on, but the thread might derail into dullness. Music is a language much like art, but our society indulges in disposable fluff. We have grown fat on our own stupidity and been happy to lose the languages of art and music in favour of 'tunes' laced with dripping and art that equates only to cash. It's been present in every generation but our ease of access and our greed has sped the whole thing up.

'Our God Is An Awesome God' - why is it so bad? Firstly the lyrics are nothing short of appalling. It's so close to slang it looks like they were written by someone who was half asleep. 'Dialled it in' I think is possibly the term I'm looking for. It certainly doesn't stand alone; there are libraries of devotional material from all ages that are just as crass and dreadful. The 'awesomeness' disappears rapidly when there is nothing profound and no poetic beauty - it's just plain old naff with sloppy Biblical references all cobbled together to fit a neat little ditty. I'm sure Mr Mullins fasted and prayed for months over such profundity as 'rolling up his sleeves', 'putting on the ritz' and 'kicked 'em out of Eden', but I really can't say it moves me in sundry places.

Then there's the 'tune'. O good Lord deliver us from repetitive ear injury. Yes, it has that line that everyone can join in on and ok, it's certainly not the worst, but it's not exactly 'good'. I guess if we were to be totally objective about it we could ask ourselves if it didn't have the 'religious' element, would we still actually listen to it? See, sometimes I wonder of our religious sensibilities blind us to the truth - or more accurately deafen us - that it's actually just crap. It's sort of an emperor and his new fangled outfit. There is nothing rewarding about it, it's pretty much disconnected from its text, it has little by way of musical merit and it's twee and mawkish, like you're singing to a fairy on a stump rather than the creator of all that is.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Sorry, I should respond to this, because it's quite important in relation to all of this:

posted by Stejjie:
quote:

You compared it to "Baa baa black sheep", which suggests part of the problem might be its simplicity
You don't really get more 'simple' than this
I hate the damn thing with a passion, however I do appreciate that it is great music by a great composer. In fact I hate most Beethoven, really cannot abide listening to the vast majority of his music, but I know what he's at, why he wrote what he did and what his intentions were and I can appreciate that he wrote great music - I just don't happen to like very much of it. In the same way - whether it be simple or complex - there is a lot of church music (both ancient and modern) that I despise, but can appreciate that it is great because it works, is fit for purpose, doing what it is intended to do with craft and skill. Such things are not subjective in whether I think it's 'nice' or not.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Three points.

1. Does it matter if music is "disposable" or "ephemeral"? There may be good practical reasons for not wanting to keep learning new stuff - but if they're happy to do so, where's the problem? We don't need to write stuff thinking "this will be good for 50 years".

2. We must remember that people have very varied musical backgrounds. Whether we like it or not, good classical-style music with profound lyrics simply doesn't "work" for large numbers of people. There are times and places when "simplistic" is right.

3. Mozart had nothing against "Baa, baa, black sheep" - even though, to him, it had a fancy French name!
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Sorry to nit-pick, but Ah vous dirai-je, Maman? is actually better known as Twinkle, twinkle, little star.

To be fair, there are several children's songs with the same basic pattern: Twinkle, twinkle; Baa-baa, black sheep, I had a little nut tree and Goosey, goosey gander - all with the same basic notes in the melody and all can be played with the same alberti bass - as can Colonel Bogey.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Alberti bass- genitive of Albertus?- is this something I should know about? (Or is it Alfie Bass's Italian cousin?)
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:

1. Does it matter if music is "disposable" or "ephemeral"? There may be good practical reasons for not wanting to keep learning new stuff - but if they're happy to do so, where's the problem? We don't need to write stuff thinking "this will be good for 50 years".

2. We must remember that people have very varied musical backgrounds. Whether we like it or not, good classical-style music with profound lyrics simply doesn't "work" for large numbers of people. There are times and places when "simplistic" is right.
1. Absolutely not. We have disposable music for all manner of things, I just don't think liturgical music should ever be. It may turn out unintentionally to be so, but that's another matter.

2. So to put it crassly - stupid people should be left stupid?
 
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
...
While I appreciate the argument about distraction, I refuse to throw stones at windows through which other folks are able to glimpse the presence of God and be drawn to worship Him. Even if they seem pretty opaque to me. Some do, some don't. Services of worship are not there to stroke my aesthetic prejudices.
This is where I am at - or at least where I try to be. When we sing a chorus I don't know or dislike, I pay attention to those around me who are obviously using it as a tool to worship, and I am glad for them.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
Fletcher Christian I think we can be too high minded and precious about music. There's a lot I don't like. I've criticised one hymn on this thread, now thankfully obsolete, for its words. There are plenty of tunes I think are trite. But I think I'd be on more dangerous ground if I started adopting the approach that music I like is morally more virtuous than music I don't.

I agree with you in not mourning the eclipse of Majesty. Three questions:-
1. Is 'majesty' hypostasised?
2. Is it a suitable object for latria?
3. If not, would doulia or hyperdoulia be permissible?
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Sorry to nit-pick, but Ah vous dirai-je, Maman? is actually better known as Twinkle, twinkle, little star.

To be fair, there are several children's songs with the same basic pattern.
This is very true. [Overused]

[ 16. April 2015, 14:49: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Posted by Enoch:
quote:

I think I'd be on more dangerous ground if I started adopting the approach that music I like is morally more virtuous than music I don't.
Which is precisely not the line I was taking, in fact I went to great length to give examples of music I hate that I still think is 'great' - but I wasn't imputing a 'moral' objectivity. There are plenty of great contemporary choruses, I just don't see why we all have to be precious and sensitive about the shit ones. It's the same with modern liturgical music in the 'classical style'. There are many composers whom I am tempted to name but will resist, who write crap. I don't see why we can't think about what we do - regardless of tradition or style - so that it is the best we can offer. It's hard work and with limited resources it gets a hell of a lot tougher, but even hymns with a rickety organ or choruses with a cheap guitar can still be great liturgical music.
 
Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on :
 
@Fletcher Christian

re: "Our God is an awesome God" - I only ever knew the chorus, I didn't realise there were verses to it as well! TBH... yeah... I kind of prefer just knowing the chorus... eesh there's some dodgy rhymes there!

Fair enough on that one (although to be consistent I should probably point out that's my subjective judgement and that for some it may well "work").

I think there is a point as well about cash having such a dominant effect on the music scene today; I think the Christian music business has a lot to answer for for churning out too many Matt Redman sound-and-look-a-likes who seem to be there primarily because they shift albums. (I'd actually draw a distinction between them and Mullins who at least looked like he was trying to do something different, even if it didn't come off particularly well). There's too much "me-too"ism out there and when you hear songwriters' descriptions of what the lyrics mean or what inspired them to write the song... it never seems to go beyond "Yeah, I'd just had this awareness, like, of the awesomeness of God and I just wanted people to, y'know, pour out their hearts in praise to Him, to lift up a sacrifice of praise..." like it's a massively radical insight.

My problem is people using the highest possible standard of classical music as some kind of objective measure by which all church music should be judged, which is how these discussions seem to go (apologies if I misunderstood you in that regard). I'd probably go along with much of your criteria for good liturgical music - I'd just want to be sure, when applying it, I wasn't mistaking it for what I like.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kitten:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Aside from That Line, I like In Christ Alone. Certainly not non-Trinitarian - what an odd criticism. I have sung Our God Is An Awesome God with ++Welby in Lambeth Palace crypt though...
You're not alone, I also like In Christ Alone and have requested it at my funeral, and most people I have spoken to about it, both clergy and laity, like it.
It's a wonderful song and, when played by a Salvation Army brass band with the percussion playing a bolero rhythm, is particularly inspiring and uplifting.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
I think the Christian music business has a lot to answer for for churning out too many Matt Redman sound-and-look-a-likes who seem to be there primarily because they shift albums.
Yes, I agree with this wholeheartedly.
Has the worship music industry been referred to the monopolies commission?
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Have tracked down the aforementioned Our God ... and listened to it - and waited 24 hours and tried again.
[Projectile]
 
Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on :
 
I believe we have crossed the line between a robust debate on whether or not it is okay to criticize music intended for worship and the Crappy Choruses thread in Dead Horses. The first example is most welcome here, while the second is not.

Mind the gap.

Barefoot Friar
Eccles. Host
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
Could one reason for the emergence of divisive songs in worship (divisive in that some like them and some don't) come from the tendency to bring Christian 'pop' music that was originally sung by a Christian artiste into congregational worship? The 'Our God is an Awesome God' example is such a song. It wasn't written as a congregational song but because it was popular t0 listen to, people started singing it in gatherings.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
It's one reason - among others, I'm sure.

Just imagine (or try not to!) "O for the wings of a dove" sung congregationally!
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
Right. To return to the original question.

Yes it is OK to criticise the music that is served up to us in worship. Yes, it is OK to be asking yourself as you sing words that have been chosen for you by someone else over whom you have no control or influence, whether they fit the faith as you experience it and as countless generations before us would recognise. Yes, a hypercritical attitude is not good for the soul. And no, we are not required to receive gratefully whatever an organist, band-leader or whoever has chosen to serve up to us.

We don't switch off our critical faculties when the preacher gets up in the pulpit. Likewise, we don't switch them off when the instruments strike up.

There are hymns that are rubbish through and through. Once to every man and nation is one of them. There are good hymns wrecked by trite tunes. There are worthy thoughts expressed in trite words.

Indeed, if you want an example of one where a worthy thought is expressed with both words and tune that are trite and not up to the job, what about Jesus loves me this I know?

[ 17. April 2015, 06:50: Message edited by: Enoch ]
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
... if you want an example of one where a worthy thought is expressed with both words and tune that are trite and not up to the job, what about Jesus loves me this I know?
You mean the Victorian children's song that was written for...erm, Victorian children?

[ 17. April 2015, 07:20: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Surely the enduring popularity of that song in Sunday Schools, when many other songs presumably came and went without trace, suggests that a lot of people felt that it was "up to the job" it was written for - which wasn't adult congregational worship.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
posted by Mudfrog
quote:
Could one reason for the emergence of divisive songs in worship (divisive in that some like them and some don't) come from the tendency to bring Christian 'pop' music that was originally sung by a Christian artiste into congregational worship? The 'Our God is an Awesome God' example is such a song. It wasn't written as a congregational song but because it was popular t0 listen to, people started singing it in gatherings.
Got it in one.

Its trying to use something for congregational singing that was never intended for such mass-participatory use. And trying to shoehorn congregations into adequately reproducing such stuff is like saying that everyone who appreciates opera should be able to join in with Der Hölle Rache kocht in meinem Herzen (the so-called Queen of the Night's aria from the Magic Flute) or Credeasi, misera (Arturo's last aria in I Puritani).

Now, its personal taste that makes me want to heave at Our God is an awesome God but its knowing music, and congregational music at that, that makes me say stop trying to force this onto congregations: its not written for mass singing.
 
Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on :
 
Actually, I'd argue that the refrain of "Our God..." does work as a conregational song, because I've been in places where that bit - and only that bit - have been sung and sung well (in the sense of heartily and fully). It's the rest of it that probably doesn't work in that setting, which is probably why I'd never heard of any of the verses until yesterday.

That said I do agree that trying to shoe-horn songs written for performance into congregational settings normally doesn't work. If you look at some of them in the Songs Of Fellowship music books, the vocal lines are incredibly complex and hard for a congregation to sing, largely (I think) because someone's tried to transcribe all the vocal inflections etc. that solo singers naturally do live and on recordings. But it's simply not possible for a whole congregation, however much they like and enjoy that type of music, to sing those notes. At the very least, they need to be simplified.

But then, who's writing stuff congregations can sing? I actually think (and I may get shot down in flames for this) that Kendrick and Townend at their best do this quite well and, if you look at many of his lyrics, many (not all) of Kendrick's songs are a long from the "me-and-Jesus" style that he's cariacatured as writing. Whereas a lot of the too-individualistic stuff out there (and there's always been "me and Jesus"-style songs and hymns) I think comes from songwriters simply writing about their own personal experiences without thinking of how this might be extended for a group of people to participate in - or whether that can happen at all.

Kendrick especially, and to some extent Townend, do go against that to a certain extent and seem to care about writing songs that a congregation can sing together. Other than that, I'm stuggling...
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
I'll leave it to others to decide who's writing "singable" stuff - though I agree with you about Kendrick and Townend.

quote:
If you look at some of them in the Songs Of Fellowship music books, the vocal lines are incredibly complex and hard for a congregation to sing, largely (I think) because someone's tried to transcribe all the vocal inflections etc. that solo singers naturally do live and on recordings.
Yes, and things get even harder when your pianist (or whoever) insists on playing the music exactly as it's written, even though "everyone" knows that that's not the way it's actually sung!

At least many of the 1970s "Scripture in Song" pieces were easy!
 
Posted by Carys (# 78) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:

And why should a nursery rhyme tune (or a tune that can be compared to a nursery rhyme tune) be unsuitable for worship? The point is that they stand the test of time and are easily singable, even by people without any musical training. Surely these are plus points for congregational singing?
Well there is the nursery rhyme mass by Simon Rundell . It works with toddlers

Carys
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Carys
Your quoted Nursery Rhyme Mass may work with toddlers - but that could be because they don't notice that half of it doesn't fit the rhyme its supposed to.
 
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
Oh dear, I didn't mean to start a debate about OGIAAG! For the record it's not my favourite (though I can see the Taize similarity), but I was with a group of teenage/twentysomething evangelicals, mostly Pentecostal/charismatic - I didn't choose it!

It's definitely something congregations have taken and 'owned'. I'm not sure I could criticise that.
 
Posted by Cantiones Sacrae (# 12774) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Yes, and things get even harder when your pianist (or whoever) insists on playing the music exactly as it's written, even though "everyone" knows that that's not the way it's actually sung!
Why would anyone publish versions of songs that aren’t correct? Presumably the versions of Kendrick songs in books edited by Kendrick eg The Source have some claim to authenticity. Otherwise the whole thing is a con. Unless tradition trumps what’s written in the book.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Cantiones Sacrae:
Why would anyone publish versions of songs that aren’t correct? Presumably the versions of Kendrick songs in books edited by Kendrick eg The Source have some claim to authenticity. Otherwise the whole thing is a con. Unless tradition trumps what’s written in the book.
Because outside the classiest of classical music,i the sheet music is best regarded as a prompt sheet of what the notes are. It's the musicians' job to know how it's supposed to go and how they want to lead the congregation.
 
Posted by Cantiones Sacrae (# 12774) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Because outside the classiest of classical music, the sheet music is best regarded as a prompt sheet of what the notes are. It's the musicians' job to know how it's supposed to go and how they want to lead the congregation. [/QB]
"Supposed to know" intuitively or via recordings, Christian festivals etc? Some of the piano writing in The Source is quite idiomatic; “fills”, non-vocal melodies for introductions and bridges etc. Are these not part of the composition of the song? I certainly understand the idea that a leader, band, congregation are entitled to make the song their own, with a new arrangement, different feel/groove etc, but Baptist Trainfan implied that of all possible versions of a song the only one that is “wrong” is the one that is printed in the book. I would maintain, if that is so, that the publishers and musical arrangers of the book are guilty of putting a stumbling block in the way of the trained musician. It would be better to use just chord symbols and not provide a detailed notated piano part. The book could be much cheaper then!
 
Posted by Cantiones Sacrae (# 12774) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Cantiones Sacrae:
"Supposed to know" intuitively or via recordings, Christian festivals etc? Some of the piano writing in The Source is quite idiomatic; “fills”, non-vocal melodies for introductions and bridges etc. Are these not part of the composition of the song? I certainly understand the idea that a leader, band, congregation are entitled to make the song their own, with a new arrangement, different feel/groove etc, but Baptist Trainfan implied that of all possible versions of a song the only one that is “wrong” is the one that is printed in the book. I would maintain, if that is so, that the publishers and musical arrangers of the book are guilty of putting a stumbling block in the way of the trained musician. It would be better to use just chord symbols and not provide a detailed notated piano part. The book could be much cheaper then! [/QB]
In the absence of any contradictory argument I declare mine has won.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Cantiones Sacrae:
Baptist Trainfan implied that of all possible versions of a song the only one that is “wrong” is the one that is printed in the book.
No, I didn't - it's more a case that the only version which is "right" is the version which - by whatever means - the majority of folk in your church have picked up off recordings, by word of mouth, or whatever. That may or may not be different to the printed version, or the version used in the church down the road. Bear in mind that most people who learn songs aren't musicians and learn by ear rather than from the score.

Think of folk-songs, where one village's version of a song may vary from the next village's - and neither are the same as the version written down by RVW and Cecil Sharp. The difference, of course, with modern worship songs is that they have been composed by A Person ... but some of them seem to perform them differently on different occasions!

And there are also just mistakes: we sung a simple children's song yesterday at church; at choir practice on Friday we discovered two misprints, or at least inconsistencies, in the printed score (from a reputable publisher).
 
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 
But, BT, you also need to remember that at least visiting musicians have no choice but to play the dots. They are in front of the musicians, to be paid; if they don't, especially if they haven't had huge amounts of time to rehearse together, the result is cacophony, which can't accompany anyone.

There may well be a specific set of experiences which are common to a local congregation, and which define the way certain music is done. If those are not accessible to a particular set of music, they have to go with what they've got.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
I don't disagree. In practice (and as you suggest), though, the musicians in churches that utilise modern worship songs tend to be "home grown", so will have a common experience of the songs.

It presumably gets difficult if you're forming a band for an inter-church event or festival, but I can't usefully comment on that scenario - although I guess that one needs to conceive of the preparation for such an event more as a group of jazz or session musicians working together than as a symphony orchestra rehearsing.

[ 04. May 2015, 07:52: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :
 
There are worship music "accents"; it was Roger Jones who first drew my attention to it. These are wider than congregational but not universal. The accent he detected may have been "North West", "URC", "URC Northwest" "GEAR"(Group for Evangelism and Renewal within URC) or other combination, it just was not shared with Midlands Anglicans. Basically, the closer connected two congregations are the more similar the way the musicians play the music.

Jengie
 
Posted by Alex Cockell (# 7487) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
quote:
Originally posted by Adam.:
I sing everything I'm able to.* Church isn't a democracy and if it's what the duly appointed minister has selected for singing, it's what we're singing.
It may be what *we* are singing, and if I can hold my nose (mentally) and get through it, I do. But if my unpremeditated impulsive reaction to the words is "huh? That's not true!" then I stop singing mid line.

Happened once when I was in choir, the song selector chose a song that ended with the lament "we walk the way alone." I startled and said out loud, involuntarily, "what?" instead of finishing the line. We had just done a baptism with clear verbal assurance "you are never alone." The mother of the baby was in tears at the song taking away the baptismal assurance.

As soon as the song ended the clergy person loudly proclaimed "that song is wrong, God is always with us."

I am unapologetic about failing to sing the dismal and untrue enduing of the song. Even on camera as a choir member!

I am not responsible for what songs the hymn-chooser landed on; but I am responsible to be honest before God in what I say and sing to or about God. "Just following orders, God" doesn't cut it. Marginal songs, fine, but flat out deadly anti-God's love WRONG - no!
I've never heard of that hymn so I looked it up.
Is it this one?:


quote:
O God our mighty Father,
O bright immortal One,
Secure within thy mercy
We walk this way alone.
If it is, then might I offer the thought that maybe, just maybe, it's been wrongly interpreted?
It seems to me that it does not mean "We walk this way alone, unaccompanied," but rather that "We walk this way only, and not another way."

Just a thought.
Often, in singing Victorian words we need to look at the original meaning. Another example would be 'without a city wall' - I mean, since when would any green hill ever have a city wall for it to be specified that this particular green hill didn't have one? And then you realise that 'without' meant 'outside'.

Alone therefore doesn't just mean 'in a solitary manner' but 'uniquely, exclusively.'
"I walked about a bit on my own., no. I strolled around without anybody else...." Cracks open beer...

Sorry, someone had to. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
The same 'accent' thing happens with 'tongues' ...
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
In the hymn, "Thou whose almighty word" there is a reference to the "inly" blind. But is there really such a word?

"O Lord of Heaven and earth and sea" has a reference to "vernal air". Yes, it's a real word - but not exactly one in common usage.

And "Look, ye saints, the sight is glorious" talks about Jesus taking "the highest station" - in Britain that just has to be Snowdon Summit.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
posted by Baptist Trainfan
quote:
"O Lord of Heaven and earth and sea" has a reference to "vernal air". Yes, it's a real word - but not exactly one in common usage.
So you've never listened to the news around the start of spring relating to Stonehenge and thus javen't heard them refer to the vernal equinox.

Similarly, the use of the term 'station' to refer to someone's social standing is fairly common even in 21st century Britain, and is certainly understood in that context.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
I agree, of course - but I still don't think they are terms which slip off most peoples' tongues!
 
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :
 
'station' is, of course, closely related to estate
quote:
The rich man in his castle
The poor man at his gate
He made them high and lowly
And ordered their estate (*)
[Big Grin]

[ETA My Chambers 20th Century Dictionary has 'inly']

[ 25. June 2015, 16:54: Message edited by: BroJames ]
 
Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
In the hymn, "Thou whose almighty word" there is a reference to the "inly" blind. But is there really such a word?
Google tells me of (among others) a poem written by Edward Shepherd in 1827, which contains these words:

'Ah, me! my bosom inly bleeds...'

John Clare:
'Light's farewell inly heed...'

Edmund Spenser:
'As one that inly mournd...'

So it's poetic, innit?
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
"And ordered their estate" - did a bit of decluttering, then?
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
O Lord I Am Not Worthy -- second verse:

"No more by sin to grieve thee
Or fly thy sweet control."

No stairway to heaven for me -- I'll pilot an airplane, if you don't mind.

Re the clip: if ever a choir were worthy of the name "Non Dignus" it would have to be this one!
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
"And ordered their estate" - did a bit of decluttering, then?
[Smile] or bought them a station wagon, delivery to follow?

[ 25. June 2015, 17:51: Message edited by: Albertus ]
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
In the hymn, "Thou whose almighty word" there is a reference to the "inly" blind. But is there really such a word?
...
Perhaps. Perhaps not. But does anyone really have any difficulty knowing what it means?
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
I spoke once to a stupid boy who hated hymns in preference to worship ditties because he couldn't understand them. He quoted And Can It Be as an example of incomprehensible language: '"Thine eye diffused a quickening ray"? What's that all about?' He sneered.

Stupid boy indeed.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I spoke once to a stupid boy who hated hymns in preference to worship ditties because he couldn't understand them. He quoted And Can It Be as an example of incomprehensible language: '"Thine eye diffused a quickening ray"? What's that all about?' He sneered.

Stupid boy indeed.
Indeed. Sagina's a cracking tune, and what a tune should be. Beats ditties every time.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I like the tune, but Enoch if you can explain what "Thine eye diffused a quickening ray" means, I'd be very grateful.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I assume it is something about Jesus saving the soul from a deadly strike (thunderbolt?) but what has the eye got to do with it?
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I assume it is something about Jesus saving the soul from a deadly strike (thunderbolt?) but what has the eye got to do with it?
A "quickening ray" would be life-giving, not deadly. I presume it's the idea of God's light entering someone's life. Not so sure about the eye, I have to say.
 
Posted by Heavenly Anarchist (# 13313) on :
 
In midwifery the word quickening is used to describe the first felt movements of a baby in utero. So I'm assuming it means movement or activity.
 
Posted by Heavenly Anarchist (# 13313) on :
 
This blog post might be helpful, it points to quickening in Ephesians 2.
 
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :
 
As arethosemyfeet has said, "quickening" relates to life, living, the giving/birth of life (hence "The Quick and The Dead" means The Alive and The Dead, not The Fast and The Dead).

That the quickening ray is diffused from "Thine eye" indicates that the author, in a state of weighed down lethargy/burden/prison/death-like condition receives a life giving and freeing touch that emanates from God.

Also like arethosemyfeet, I'm not sure about the eye bit, I guess that's just part of the poetry. Unless Wesley was a mason [Smile]
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Ah-ha, it was the "diffused" which confused me. It means that God's eye gave the sinner life at a moment of conversion. That makes more sense.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
'Diffused' is not a misspelt version of 'defused'.
 
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :
 
Life-giving light from the eye of God fills the spirit's dungeon and setting free (reflecting an earlier belief about how light and the eye worked), and playing with biblical imagery, particularly from Peter's miraculous release in the Acts of the Apostles.
 
Posted by Jonah the Whale (# 1244) on :
 
Now that I've read these comments I've come to quite like the idea of God de-fusing a death ray.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0