Ship of Fools: We don't remember that.

Thread: We don't remember that. 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=030493

Posted by jerrytheorganist (# 4720) on :

This morning I was the organist at middle of nowhere United Methodist. We sang a good old Wesley hymn "And can it be...." I've been organist of this church for over 20 years and know I've played this song hundreds of times.

This morning three people stopped me and asked,"who picks these songs we don't know?,,, I've never heard that song before why did we pick it??? "

My question to you dear shippys is what do you do with methodists who can't remember Wesley hymns? In broader terms what can you do for a church that has forgotten its musical roots?

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

This is a lovely topic, but since it concerns worship practice it is an Ecclesiantics topic.

(Hums "O for a thousand tongues .." as transfer arranged.)

Barnabas62
Purgatory Host

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

Could it be these people are, shall we say, forgetful?

Today I teased our choir director about having an anthem that seemed to have been lifted out of Godspell. He said he would have to listen to it again.

Posted by jerrytheorganist (# 4720) on :

I'm not really sure what happened. Two of the three people who stopped me this morning had been in a choir 10 years ago where we sang this song and lots of other old Wesley tunes.

Maybe we just have too much to choose from. We have the UMC hymnal and two supplements not to mention all the crp//stuff from "ccli song select."

We used to have a core of songs that most knew and could really sing,, but now it seems no one knows jack about anything and want to be spoon fed toddler songs.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

I have a number of hobby horses (no, it's true), and one of them is that "And can it be.." should NOT be bellowed from the word go like a football club song, as it so often is.

If anyone actually pays any attention to the words, they will realise that it begins on a contemplative note and builds gradually and skilfully to a climax in the last verse, which CAN be sung with a modicum of verve and gusto.

As to your actual point, it is not just Methodists who have sold their hymnal heritage for a mess of pottage in the form of instantly forgettable so-called "praise and worship" songs with crap tunes and crap lyrics.

[ 01. August 2016, 01:14: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]

Posted by bib (# 13074) on :

I actually dislike And Can It Be, mainly because it is usually sung to Sagina which is a very poor piece of musical writing in my opinion with its unmelodic leaps that the congregation struggles to sing. Maybe some people choose another tune which might make it more singable. As it is I cringe every time we have to sing it to Sagina.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

I like "And can it be", and Godspell, and John Michael Talbot, and Andrae Crouch and the Disciples, and Bach, and Tallis, Judith May, and Handel, and "I have the joy, joy, joy, joy down in my heart", and various forms of chant, and Taize music, and the Cat Stevens version of "Morning has broken", and on and on.

Have the people in the OP been going to that church long? Do they have a church background, and in what kind of church? My old fundamentalist church started with a thick handbook of standard hymns, plus various choruses learned by rote; and eventually added a book of mixed praise songs and hymns. I picked up on lots of other stuff on my own.

I don't know what the usual protocol is in your church, but maybe use a variety of music and genres (if you aren't already)? FWIW, YMMV.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by jerrytheorganist:
Maybe we just have too much to choose from. We have the UMC hymnal and two supplements not to mention all the crp//stuff from "ccli song select."

I think that's the nub of the problem, and there's an age issue too: older folk are more likely to know the traditional hymns while younger ones may have been raised on a diet of worship songs. Also allied is the fact (in the UK anyway) that many people move from denomination to denomination so never get to know their specific hymnodies.

As it happens, we sang "And can it be" (lustily) yesterday evening at a united Baptist service in my town. But I've only sung it twice before in the last four years: one at our son's wedding (it's a hymn he loves) in a country parish church in Dvon; and last summer, at the close of worship in Holy Trinity church, Funchal, Madeira!

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

British Methodism wouldn't dream of dropping old classics like 'And Can It Be'.

One reason for this is the circuit system (which I believe no longer exists in the American UMC). Circuits mean that lay preachers and ministers are shared locally, which makes it convenient to have a stock of hymns that all the preachers and churches know.

Another reason is the demographics. British Methodists are likely to be older than their American counterparts and so less willing to overhaul their hymnody to the extent that you see elsewhere, although the new hymnbook does try to incorporate some worship songs.

It's also relevant that the charismatic revival had less impact on British Methodism than on many other British denominations. Therefore, AFAIK, there's never been a big trend towards the worship band and related music.

I'm sure there are Methodist congregations that sing very little Charles Wesley, but their age profile and their status within the local circuit are likely to be very distinctive.

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

Right, my research of congregations suggested that the two I was with could sing somewhere in the region 400 hymns. They sang about 200 to my knowledge over the two years I was there and 50% of them on the normal Sunday at the end of my placement had not been sung during the previous two years.

I suspect that the actual repertoire was probably around 600, the final 200 made up of hymns that enough knew to sing but which had never been used in worship.

The problem is common core. Back in the days when Methodists moved to Methodist churches there was a common core across Methodism. That no longer holds. You get a wide range of hymns in the congregation many from other traditions than that of the host congregation.

Thus the common core now is more like BBC top 100 hymns than the denominational hymnbook.

Jengie

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

'And Can It Be' is in the list of core hymns!! That's good.

Regarding British Methodists switching to other denominations, I suppose this is likely to happen because so many Methodist churches are closing. Their older members may end up in mainstream CofE or URC settings. Some young Methodists may leave home and turn to charismatic churches, where the hymnody is going to be radically different.

The new British Methodist hymnbook, 'Singing the Faith', claims to be an attempt to bridge the gap between the hymnody/worship music of different Protestant traditions, but I don't know how successful people think it's been in that respect.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

We have people like that in our congregation too: it doesn't matter what the hymn, there'll be someone who either claims not to know it or who doesn't like your choice. Just this year a regular complained that the music for the first Sunday of Lent was "too downbeat" [Confused]

I reckon that we use about 450-500 hymns over the course of 2 years; the number is quite high because I don't like repeating a hymn.

Posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger (# 8891) on :

quote:
Originally posted by jerrytheorganist:

My question to you dear shippys is what do you do with methodists who can't remember Wesley hymns?

Why does it matter?

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

Well as the Anglicans have the prayer book to determine their theology the two sources for Methodist are:

Sermons of John Wesley
The hymns of Charles Wesley

Jengie

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

What to do with Methodists who can't/won't remember Wesley hymns?

Lash them to a chair and give them 24 hours straight of Graham Kendrick, interspersed with Taize chants, and that frightful Thank you, Lord* on the hour, every hour: they'll be begging to learn Wesley by rote after that. [Biased]

* www.youtube.com/watch?v=njsdfxK9FcQ

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

But all that sounds so 1970s/80s. Although I'm not au fait with much of it, modern worship music has moved on a great deal since then. And, whether we like it or not, it enables many Christians to articulate their faith in song.

[ 01. August 2016, 12:17: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by Teekeey Misha (# 18604) on :

When I was a school chaplain, I used to put "Christ triumphant" down at least once every half term for no other reason than I like it and if you have the job of choosing hymns you can jolly well choose your own favourites every now and then. I swear that every single time we sang it the HM would say to me as we left Chapel "Do we know that hymn?"

The upside was that whenever I did use a hymn we hadn't sung before (which meant she automatically wouldn't like it) and she queried it, I could say in surprised tones, "Oh yes! We've sung it many times!" and she'd believe me.

Other people's forgetfulness is but an opportunity...

[ 01. August 2016, 12:46: Message edited by: Teekeey Misha ]

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by jerrytheorganist:
My question to you dear shippys is what do you do with methodists who can't remember Wesley hymns? In broader terms what can you do for a church that has forgotten its musical roots?

I was about to faithlessly proclaim that there is no way back from this. Close the church and send them all to the Baptist, the Evangelical, the Brethren or anywhere else even the pub.

Then I thought we must not believe all hope is lost. I would commission a series of sermons outlining the life and works of Wesley, with references to key moments linked to the essential hymns which would be sung on a regular basis until they were brain-stem reflexes, where they deserve to be.

As for Sagina being a pub-song, poorly written and a-melodic... well I guess it is a little naff in spots, especially the bit where it rolls up the major triads in the chorus on one syllable per triad, but like so many well-worn familiar items its imperfections seem only to enhance the experience.

Posted by jerrytheorganist (# 4720) on :

Thank you all for reassuring me that I'm not nuts.

I like the chair idea.

Oh and the three peoples have been methodist all their lives so they should know how to be Methodists and sing methodist tunes.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

Some Methodist churches just like to show off!! I once went to one place whose usual thing was to use two tunes for the one hymn, alternating verses. The congregation were well into it - but it was not what you might call visitor-friendly!

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
As for Sagina being a pub-song, poorly written and a-melodic... well I guess it is a little naff in spots, especially the bit where it rolls up the major triads in the chorus on one syllable per triad, but like so many well-worn familiar items its imperfections seem only to enhance the experience.

I do wish that people wouldn't come over all "posh" with music such as this. It surely belongs to that particular school of fairly rustic and homespun fugueing music which was very popular in Methodism (and elsewhere) in the 1800s. It has been popularised by folk such as Peter Holman and Psalmody, also by the various West Gallery Quires which exist around the country. Just like the worship music of today, it enabled congregations (possibly with little musical sophistication) to express their praise to God.

[ 01. August 2016, 15:35: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger:

quote:
Originally posted by jerrytheorganist:

My question to you dear shippys is what do you do with methodists who can't remember Wesley hymns?
Why does it matter?

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
Well as the Anglicans have the prayer book to determine their theology the two sources for Methodist are:
Sermons of John Wesley
The hymns of Charles Wesley

I wonder to what extent this is true of American Methodism? I was reading somewhere that American Methodists didn't specifically take on a great deal from John Wesley's theology. And if they're singing less and less of Charles Wesley these days (probably as a result of the culturally dominant worship music scene in the USA) that's not necessarily going to provide the foundation of their theology either.

The extent to which these two men still dominate worldwide Methodism(s) theologically as well as emotionally and culturally is an interesting question.

Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
As for Sagina being a pub-song, poorly written and a-melodic... well I guess it is a little naff in spots, especially the bit where it rolls up the major triads in the chorus on one syllable per triad, but like so many well-worn familiar items its imperfections seem only to enhance the experience.
I do wish that people wouldn't come over all "posh" with music such as this. It surely belongs to that particular school of fairly rustic and homespun fugueing music which was very popular in Methodism (and elsewhere) in the 1800s. It has been popularised by folk such as Peter Holman and Psalmody, also by the various West Gallery Quires which exist around the country. Just like the worship music of today, it enabled congregations (possibly with little musical sophistication) to express their praise to God.

I find it fascinating that it could be designed to make singing easy, because I find it the hardest hymn to sing! I always feel like you need to be initiated into the secret mysteries of when to sing which bit.

I have discussed this with clergy friends and I am apparently the only one who feels this.

Posted by Gwalchmai (# 17802) on :

I am delighted that "And can it be" to Sagina and many other traditional Methodist hymns by Charles Wesley are being sung more regularly in the Anglican church. Unfortunately we are also seeing some of the Graham Kendrick oeuvre finding its was into MOTR Anglican worship.

It is interesting to look at the original versions of Charles Wesley's hymns - Cyber Hymnal has the full texts. The current versions are considerably shorter that the originals. Clearly modern congregations have less stamina that those in the 18th century.

I am always disappointed that "O for a thousand tongues to sing" in modern hymnals no longer includes the verse about publicans & harlots!

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

The "murderers and all ye hellish crew" verse which comes next runs it pretty close!

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Gwalchmai

Can you think of any particular reason why hymns like C. Wesley's 'And can it be' have become more popular in the CofE?

I don't think it's exactly the theological content itself that resonates most powerfully with MOTR congregations, but a range of factors.

(The jokey comments about 'publicans', 'harlots' and 'murderers' etc also suggest that the theology isn't necessarily the thing....)

[ 01. August 2016, 22:08: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Gwalchmai (# 17802) on :

I have no idea why we are now singing more of the rousing Wesley hymns in the C of E. Is it choices made by the editors of the hymnals? Perhaps a clergy shipmate might be able to enlighten us.

For me it is nothing to do with the theology - I don't actually agree with much of the theology in "And can it be" (but I have a always held slightly heretical views). For me it is the wonderful language and imagery coupled with a rousing tune.

As to my light-herted comments, I always see the funny side of church. No organisation that is worth belonging to should be taken too seriously.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

This has been an interesting thread for me to read, as I am totally unfamiliar with "And Can It Be." I had to look it up, both in the UMC hymnal and on YouTube, and it rings no bells at all. Of course, I've never been a Methodist.

There are 13 Wesley hymns in the current Presbyterian (PC(USA)) hymnal, but "And Can It Be" isn't among them. I've looked in older hymnals going back almost 100 years—not there.

But it makes me wonder something a little different from but related to the OP: What hymns are historically central to our tradition that might be unknown outside our tradition, unfamiliar to "newer" Presbyterians, or perhaps becoming less familiar because they're being pushed aside by other music? Metrical psalms come to mind. Perhaps they're our Wesley hymns—some are widely sung by others, but others aren't.

An interesting question—and challenge—for all hymn-singing traditions.

[ 01. August 2016, 22:49: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
The "murderers and all ye hellish crew" verse which comes next runs it pretty close!

In holy triumph join. The same line for harlots and publicans. Anyone who can join with harlots, publicans, thieves, murderers and hellish crew in holy triumph has sound theology in my book.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Very sound indeed. Quite glorious and I'd gladly sing it. I think the line about 'washing the Aethiop white' might be more problematic nowadays, but that's in another verse.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

I deliberately forgot to mention that ... although, of course, it is a direct reference to Scripture (Isaiah, I think) which might be considered more problematic.

Mind you, it makes me think of Rudyard Kipling and "How the Leopard Got his Spots".

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger:

quote:
Originally posted by jerrytheorganist:

My question to you dear shippys is what do you do with methodists who can't remember Wesley hymns?
Why does it matter?
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
Well as the Anglicans have the prayer book to determine their theology the two sources for Methodist are:
Sermons of John Wesley
The hymns of Charles Wesley

I wonder to what extent this is true of American Methodism? I was reading somewhere that American Methodists didn't specifically take on a great deal from John Wesley's theology. And if they're singing less and less of Charles Wesley these days (probably as a result of the culturally dominant worship music scene in the USA) that's not necessarily going to provide the foundation of their theology either.

The extent to which these two men still dominate worldwide Methodism(s) theologically as well as emotionally and culturally is an interesting question.

But American Anglicans also sat lighter to the Book of Common Prayer.

Jengie

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

If you want how many URC newbies would be familiar with How pleased and blest was I? It is a Watt's Christian metricization of Psalm 122, and the rallying hymn of English Congregationalism in at least the mid-twentieth century.

Then there is We limit not the truth of God which I think it may still be fairly well known in America, but outside URC, Congregational, and Baptist circles, is little known. By the was, if I recall correctly, George Rawson's teenage congregation was actually the same as mine. It shows what a small world Congregationalism was even at its height.

Jengie

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I deliberately forgot to mention that ... although, of course, it is a direct reference to Scripture (Isaiah, I think) which might be considered more problematic.

Mind you, it makes me think of Rudyard Kipling and "How the Leopard Got his Spots".

Yes indeed. I think I did twig that it's a scriptural reference, so I'm not that worked up about it, but given that it's not in the version that's usually sung, nowadays, I don't think I'd take the trouble to restore it unless it was for some 'historically accurate' period occasion. Whereas I would very happily restore the 'harlots and publicans' and 'murderers and hellish crew' verses, overall considerations of length permitting.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gwalchmai:
I have no idea why we are now singing more of the rousing Wesley hymns in the C of E. Is it choices made by the editors of the hymnals? Perhaps a clergy shipmate might be able to enlighten us.

For me it is nothing to do with the theology - I don't actually agree with much of the theology in "And can it be" (but I have a always held slightly heretical views). For me it is the wonderful language and imagery coupled with a rousing tune.

As to my light-hearted comments, I always see the funny side of church. No organisation that is worth belonging to should be taken too seriously.

Interesting. Maybe the editors have included it for those same reasons - nice tune, and rousing. Its traditional feel probably appeals to the MOTR British demographic, even if they're not Methodists.

I'm conflicted about this, though. I do find it problematic for Christians to attend church and routinely sing hymns whose theology they don't (want to) share. From a Methodist point of view, that undermines the whole idea of 'singing the faith'; and it disturbs my understanding of what 'worship' means. Maybe it wouldn't be so bad if our sermons and church groups openly explored the reality of a post-theological worshipping culture. But they don't....

As for 'the funny side of church', that's not something I find important when I'm actually worshipping. I suppose it's a question of what we need church to do for us. For me, laughing at (not with) a hymn while I'm singing it is only going to distance me from what I'd like to achieve, which is some kind of spiritual engagement with God.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
Then there is We limit not the truth of God which I think it may still be fairly well known in America, but outside URC, Congregational, and Baptist circles, is little known.

This is another one that I had to look up because it's unfamiliar to me.

I don't know that it's too widely-known over here. As best I can tell, only 3 American denominational hymnals include it—the hymnals of the United Church of Christ (makes sense given their Congregational background), the Episcopal Church (to a tune by Handl, though) and the Community of Christ (a small Latter-day Saints group).

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

Nick Tamen

You probably at least know a quote from it in that it is almost certainly the source for More Light Presbyterians. Yes, it is supposed to be a phrase of the address given to the Pilgrim Fathers when they left Plymouth. The problem is that I am almost certain a transcript of that address does not exist. I eventually traced the passage I think the paraphrase in the hymn was from and it was in if I recall correctly a description of the role of John Robinson and in context is certainly less open to the use the More Light Presbyterians have put it too.

The popularising then is through the hymn.

Jengie

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
I would very happily restore the 'harlots and publicans' and 'murderers and hellish crew' verses [to 'O, for a thousand tongues to sing'], overall considerations of length permitting.

Would you sing those verses for fun, or do you feel they add something else to the hymn?

After all, the CofE doesn't have any particular problem with 'publicans' these days, and 'harlots' are more likely to be viewed as victims rather than 'sinners' who need to be 'saved'. (Of course, the whole idea of sinners needing to be saved is also questionable in modern mainstream theology, but it does add to the drama and poetry of old hymns.)

'Aethiops' may take offense at being washed white, but then the whole hymn could cause offense to a range of people. That's why it's only sung in a shortened version.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

Some time ago I read an article put out by a worship minister of a large mega church. Sorry I cannot find it, I tried.

This minister said while he originally started out with praise music he found it pretty hollow. He also sensed that people wanted something more in depth.

He started inserting more traditional music in the service and found people really appreciated it. In particular the younger people liked to learn the old standards of his denomination.

He now tries for a balance of new and traditional. He is pleased with the substance the older hymns provide. And he is looking for modern hymns that also have substance.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
Nick Tamen

You probably at least know a quote from it in that it is almost certainly the source for More Light Presbyterians. Yes, it is supposed to be a phrase of the address given to the Pilgrim Fathers when they left Plymouth.

I am indeed familiar with the phrase, and that phrase certainly caught my eye when I looked up the hymn.

But I'm not at all familiar with the hymn—I can't find it in any Presbyterian hymnals—and my first thought was how interesting, in light of More Light Presbyterians, that this hymn is largely unknown to us. If I had to guess, my guess would be that those who chose the name More Light Presbyterians in 1992 (when predecessor organizations merged) were influenced by Presbyterian-UCC ecumenical connections, which are very strong in many places. Even without the hymn I would guess that—John Robinson and the Pilgrims aren't part of our heritage, but they are part of UCC heritage. (To be honest, I've always found it interesting that the group chose a name that had more resonance in another tradition than in ours. Compare the Covenant Network of Presbyterians on that point.)

FWIW, I've never heard the hymn mentioned in connection with the source of the name (though the Wiki does talk about it); I've always heard the source given directly as Robinson. Perhaps the hymn never got mentioned in connection with the source of the name because most Presbyterians are unfamiliar with the hymn?

All very interesting.

[ 02. August 2016, 16:16: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
I would very happily restore the 'harlots and publicans' and 'murderers and hellish crew' verses [to 'O, for a thousand tongues to sing'], overall considerations of length permitting.
Would you sing those verses for fun, or do you feel they add something else to the hymn?

After all, the CofE doesn't have any particular problem with 'publicans' these days, and 'harlots' are more likely to be viewed as victims rather than 'sinners' who need to be 'saved'. (Of course, the whole idea of sinners needing to be saved is also questionable in modern mainstream theology, but it does add to the drama and poetry of old hymns.)

'Aethiops' may take offense at being washed white, but then the whole hymn could cause offense to a range of people. That's why it's only sung in a shortened version.

Oh, I think they add to the hymn's wonderful sense of the joy and liberation and boundless breadth and transformative power of God's love.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

True, but the examples in the hymn don't focus on the kinds of people that modern mainstream Christians think really need 'transforming' (other than the murderers, of course). From a modern pluralistic perspective it might be better, if only pastorally, to draw a veil over random trades and professions....

[ 02. August 2016, 16:34: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

I think the vigour and gusto of Wesley's words carry it off.

Posted by andras (# 2065) on :

When our much loved Anglo Catholic Fr John gave his final Mass before retiring, he chose And Can It Be as one of his 'means a great deal to me' hymns, and it was sung very lustily.

But our (equally high) deacon asked me sniffily if that 'thing' was by Sankey and Moody. Shows something, I suppose.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Well, I suppose 'vigour and gusto', so long as they're cloaked in some delightful, old-fashioned poetry, will cover a multitude of theological and PC sins - so long as you've got the right crowd in!

Posted by Gwalchmai (# 17802) on :

quote:
As for 'the funny side of church', that's not something I find important when I'm actually worshipping. I suppose it's a question of what we need church to do for us. For me, laughing at (not with) a hymn while I'm singing it is only going to distance me from what I'd like to achieve, which is some kind of spiritual engagement with God.

The key word in my post about the lighter side of church was "organisation". In this world the Kingdom of God is mediated through an all too human organisation with the pride, hypocrisy, pomposity and other sins that go with being human. We can laugh or despair.

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

Unrelated to Methodism, I remember asking the organist at one church I was involved with to play 'Ye Who Own The Faith Of Jesus'. His immediate response was to say the congregation do not know it until he checked his hymn book and discovered that he had put a note down next to the hymn about the correct tempo. I've had subsequent conversations along the lines of "we don't know that hymn" "yes we do, we played it last year" with organists, choirs and congregations.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gwalchmai:

quote:
As for 'the funny side of church', that's not something I find important when I'm actually worshipping. I suppose it's a question of what we need church to do for us. For me, laughing at (not with) a hymn while I'm singing it is only going to distance me from what I'd like to achieve, which is some kind of spiritual engagement with God.
The key word in my post about the lighter side of church was "organisation". In this world the Kingdom of God is mediated through an all too human organisation with the pride, hypocrisy, pomposity and other sins that go with being human. We can laugh or despair.

But the organisation is one thing; the songs we sing in praise of God are something else.

Or are they?

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
After all, the CofE doesn't have any particular problem with 'publicans' these days, and 'harlots' are more likely to be viewed as victims rather than 'sinners' who need to be 'saved'.

Terms such as "harlot", "whore" , and even "prostitute", are becoming increasingly problematical, with a growing insistence that "sex worker" is the only acceptable designation.

I grew up in a a strongly anti-RC environment in which there were regular references to "the Harlot on the Seven Hills" (Revelation 17:1-9).

"The Sex Worker on the Seven Hills" just doesn't have the same ring to it.

As to the regular tune to And Can It Be, while I am fond of it because I grew up with it, I agree that it is not ideal, with too many double notes on one-syllable words.

My favourite rendition of it is on an old CD of hymns by Maddy Prior and the Carnival Band, called Sing Lustily And With Good Courage.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger:

quote:
Originally posted by jerrytheorganist:

My question to you dear shippys is what do you do with methodists who can't remember Wesley hymns?
Why does it matter?
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
Well as the Anglicans have the prayer book to determine their theology the two sources for Methodist are:
Sermons of John Wesley
The hymns of Charles Wesley

I wonder to what extent this is true of American Methodism? I was reading somewhere that American Methodists didn't specifically take on a great deal from John Wesley's theology. And if they're singing less and less of Charles Wesley these days (probably as a result of the culturally dominant worship music scene in the USA) that's not necessarily going to provide the foundation of their theology either.

The extent to which these two men still dominate worldwide Methodism(s) theologically as well as emotionally and culturally is an interesting question.

My dear departed paternal grandmother, may her memory be eternal, was a Presbyterian. Her equally feisty sister (mhmbe2) was a Methodist. They loved to sit together and argue the finer points of Wesleyanism versus Calvinism, and they knew their stuff.

I'm not sure if today your average American Presbyterian and average American Methodist would know the details of the differences those two theological systems, or care.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I'm not sure if today your average American Presbyterian and average American Methodist would know the details of the differences those two theological systems, or care.

That was the situation here in Australia for many decades before the Presbyterians and Methodists finally hooked up in 1977 to form the so-called Uniting Church, and totter off into insignificance together.

Back in the interwar years of the early C20 my maternal grand-father, a farmer of Cornish Methodist stock, happily served as a Presbyterian "lay missioner", and my mother recalled the Presbyterians' and Methodists' promiscuously sharing their services and facilities in the small rural town in which she grew up.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I'm not sure if today your average American Presbyterian and average American Methodist would know the details of the differences those two theological systems, or care.

I think you can be pretty sure, at least as to the average American Presbyterian knowing the details of the differences. I can't speak for Methodists.

As for caring, I wouldn't write that completely off. My experience is that average Presbies in the pews are interested in those distinctives—at least some of them—or at least like learning about them when the opportunity presents. But I think the stakes are different from what they were for our grandparents, if that's the right way to say it. It's less about who's right and who's wrong and more about appreciating different perspectives, and perhaps some sense of history and "who we are." If that makes sense.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Perfect sense.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by andras:
When our much loved Anglo Catholic Fr John gave his final Mass before retiring, he chose And Can It Be as one of his 'means a great deal to me' hymns, and it was sung very lustily.

But our (equally high) deacon asked me sniffily if that 'thing' was by Sankey and Moody. Shows something, I suppose.

Growing up CofE in the 1950s and 60s, And can it be was not part of the tradition. The prevailing attitude in the CofE to hymns that were cheerful, expressive or fun to sing was very much in line with the sniffy deacon - 'if I'd known we were going to have something like that, I'd have brought my tambourine' or 'the sort of thing they sing in chapels'. I didn't encounter it until a young adult.

A lot of this goes back to the editors of the first edition of Hymns Ancient and Modern of 1861. They saw it as part of their mission to eject the more florid and ebullient music that until then our forbears had sung in churches, often accompanied by bands rather than nice, seemly organs.

As the Methodists were beyond their reach, some of that music survived in chapels, though as time passed, there was a tendency towards musical politeness there too.

I'd say that And can it be is now very widespread, well known and popular, though people do get confused as to which repeat they are supposed to sing, which are the male and female lines.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
though people do get confused as to which repeat they are supposed to sing, which are the male and female lines.

The same confusion happens with a thousand tongues, where everyone seems to jump into the first male bar of the chorus, but usually manage to split up after that.

Posted by TomM (# 4618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
though people do get confused as to which repeat they are supposed to sing, which are the male and female lines.
The same confusion happens with a thousand tongues, where everyone seems to jump into the first male bar of the chorus, but usually manage to split up after that.

There are male and female lines to either? (Other than the harmonies by part rather than gender)

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Perhaps I could butt in and explain that this is the tune "Lyngham" not "University", "Nativity" or "Lydia" which can also be used.

See this link.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

Male voices chorus line at 00:25, female at 00:27.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Perhaps I could butt in and explain that this is the tune "Lyngham" not "University", "Nativity" or "Lydia" which can also be used.

Actually, "Azmon" is the standard tune in the US, including among Methodists.

[ 04. August 2016, 12:18: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

I knew that, but I'd forgotten! It's not known in the UK AFAIK.

Posted by TomM (# 4618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Male voices chorus line at 00:25, female at 00:27.

I had in mind (it's to a different tune in the hymn book I have to hand) that the split there was Soprano and Tenor and Alto and Bass rather than Soprano and Alto and Tenor and Bass. However, from memory and I'm not a musician so I may be wrong! And my recollection doesn't appear to match that recording!

[ 04. August 2016, 13:19: Message edited by: TomM ]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

No, I've never met Azmon in Britain either.

O for a thousand tongues is Common Metre (CM - 8686). Lyngham is a particularly striking example of a Common Metre tune with fuguing repeats. In the past, tunes were much less closely linked to specific words, and have been regarded as freely interchangeable if they fit metrically. It's also popular in some parts of the country, particularly Cornwall, for While shepherds watched.

Lydia is also CM with a repeat, but tends in England to be the tune for Jesus the name, high over all. There's more than one CM tune called University but the one I know best does not have repeats. Assuming it's the same tune, Nativity, which also does not have repeats, tends to be used in the CofE for Come let us join our cheerful songs.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Male voices chorus line at 00:25, female at 00:27.

quote:
Originally posted by TomM:
I had in mind (it's to a different tune in the hymn book I have to hand) that the split there was Soprano and Tenor and Alto and Bass rather than Soprano and Alto and Tenor and Bass. However, from memory and I'm not a musician so I may be wrong! And my recollection doesn't appear to match that recording!

The version I've got has Bass and tenors starting in unison, then soprano and altos answering in harmony, then tenor lines and bass lines calling again in harmony before finally ending in 4-part harmony.

Posted by cornflower (# 13349) on :

.[/QUOTE]The same confusion happens with a thousand tongues, where everyone seems to jump into the first male bar of the chorus, but usually manage to split up after that. [/QB][/QUOTE]

The trouble is with 'Oh for a thousand tongues' is that I always have this ghastly vision of me with a thousand tongues stuffed into my mouth...I should think that would make it extremely difficult to sing! There are another one or two hymns which conjour up similarly unfortunate pictures (particularly stemming from when one was a child and didn't quite understand the sometimes slightly weird, old-fashioned and poetic language used.) For example why would a green hill HAVE a city wall in any case, if it's a hill and not a city...?

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Wow, what a curious way of reading those lyrics!

I read those particular line as expressing a longing for 1000 people, each with a tongue, to sing the Saviour's praise, not that the narrator himself would like to possess 1000 tongues in his mouth!!

Posted by cornflower (# 13349) on :

Well, yes, I did realise that eventually....but unfortunately, once one has a certain image in one's head, it's very difficult to get rid of.
I used to wonder what 'inly' blind meant when I was a child, but when I got older, I got round to looking up 'inly' in the dictionary, as it had puzzled me for years [Frown]

Posted by keibat (# 5287) on :

I'd like to come back to the question of congregants saying they don't know a particular hymn ... I guess I do have a musically rich history as a worshiping Christian (as well as in other ways). For the past fifteen years I was mainly in a small but very international and ecumenical congregation in northern Europe, where we were constantly needing to find a viable compromise between multiple different theological, liturgical and musical traditions, including arguments between Brits, Americans and Others (even from the same denominations as each other) about what hymns - and tunes - they knew or didn't know; but we ended up with a satisfying rich musical worship. Now I'm a Reader in a multi-church C.of.E parish cluster in very-rural mainland England, and every time I take a service in one of our eleven churches I need to think very carefully what hymns to choose, and to be prepared to change the list if necessary after local consultation. Moreover each church (many of them formerly independent parishes) has a *different* musical history. There certainly are times when people will assert that they don't know a hymn when in fact they have sung it in the past – but different individuals do have different musical memories (i e actually remember music in different ways).

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

cornflower

Well, I'm a Methodist myself, and we like to sing lustily. You don't need to imagine one mouth with 1000 tongues if you have a decent Methodist congregation doing the business!

[ 04. August 2016, 21:40: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Gwalchmai (# 17802) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by andras:
When our much loved Anglo Catholic Fr John gave his final Mass before retiring, he chose And Can It Be as one of his 'means a great deal to me' hymns, and it was sung very lustily.

But our (equally high) deacon asked me sniffily if that 'thing' was by Sankey and Moody. Shows something, I suppose.
Growing up CofE in the 1950s and 60s, And can it be was not part of the tradition. The prevailing attitude in the CofE to hymns that were cheerful, expressive or fun to sing was very much in line with the sniffy deacon - 'if I'd known we were going to have something like that, I'd have brought my tambourine' or 'the sort of thing they sing in chapels'. I didn't encounter it until a young adult.

A lot of this goes back to the editors of the first edition of Hymns Ancient and Modern of 1861. They saw it as part of their mission to eject the more florid and ebullient music that until then our forbears had sung in churches, often accompanied by bands rather than nice, seemly organs.

As the Methodists were beyond their reach, some of that music survived in chapels, though as time passed, there was a tendency towards musical politeness there too.

I'd say that And can it be is now very widespread, well known and popular, though people do get confused as to which repeat they are supposed to sing, which are the male and female lines.

Posted by Cottontail (# 12234) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cornflower:
For example why would a green hill HAVE a city wall in any case, if it's a hill and not a city...?

I'm not sure if adult-you has worked this one out or not. But just in case not, the archaic 'without' makes more sense when inverted. The green hill is not lacking a city wall; it is outwith or outside the city wall. [Smile]

Posted by Gwalchmai (# 17802) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

I'd say that And can it be is now very widespread, well known and popular, though people do get confused as to which repeat they are supposed to sing, which are the male and female lines.

Which is why churches should provide the congregation with with the music as well as the words. The music edition is essential, even if you are not very good singer, when you have a parish priest who goes off-piste with their choice of hymns!

(Apologies for posting the quote without a comment a few moments ago - a slip of the finger while typing on a tablet screen.)

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I'm not sure if today your average American Presbyterian and average American Methodist would know the details of the differences those two theological systems, or care.
That was the situation here in Australia for many decades before the Presbyterians and Methodists finally hooked up in 1977 to form the so-called Uniting Church, and totter off into insignificance together.

Could you say something briefly about why you think these two united denominations are 'totter[ing] off into insignificance'? Do you think it's because they've lost interest in their theological distinctiveness?

With regard to this thread, would you say that hymns should reflect the theology of the congregations that sing them, or is the traditional hymn mostly about celebrating an inherited tradition rather than shared beliefs these days?

Posted by cornflower (# 13349) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
cornflower

Well, I'm a Methodist myself, and we like to sing lustily. You don't need to imagine one mouth with 1000 tongues if you have a decent Methodist congregation doing the business!

Posted by cornflower (# 13349) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:

quote:
Originally posted by cornflower:
For example why would a green hill HAVE a city wall in any case, if it's a hill and not a city...?
I'm not sure if adult-you has worked this one out or not. But just in case not, the archaic 'without' makes more sense when inverted. The green hill is not lacking a city wall; it is outwith or outside the city wall.

Oddly enough, I'd actually worked that one out whilst still young...it's a friend of mine who said he couldn't understand it when he was a kid
[Smile]

But thanks, any way

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gwalchmai:
Which is why churches should provide the congregation with with the music as well as the words. The music edition is essential, even if you are not very good singer.

While I'd love to agree, the music edition is in fact not essential for the majority of people who can't read music.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
While I'd love to agree, the music edition is in fact not essential for the majority of people who can't read music.

But even then, a music edition can be helpful—even folks who can't read music can see the tune goes up or down, or there are lots of notes for a single syllable. FWIW, as far as I know lyrics-only hymnals, with the exception of large print hymnals, are extinct on this side of the pond. The last denomination I know of to publish a lyrics-only edition of its hymnal was the Episcopal Church with the 1940 Hymnal.

And while I'm at it, I'll put in a plug for churches offering occasional classes on reading music. When churches I've been part of have done so, the classes have been quite popular.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Could you say something briefly about why you think these two united denominations are 'totter[ing] off into insignificance'? Do you think it's because they've lost interest in their theological distinctiveness?

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cornflower:
The trouble is with 'Oh for a thousand tongues' is that I always have this ghastly vision of me with a thousand tongues stuffed into my mouth...I should think that would make it extremely difficult to sing! There are another one or two hymns which conjour up similarly unfortunate pictures

Crown Him With Many Crowns - I always get a picture of someone staggering around trying to keep their skyscraper-tall pile of headwear from toppling over, rather like the Lego towers I used to build with my grand-children.

Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:
Originally posted by cornflower:
The trouble is with 'Oh for a thousand tongues' is that I always have this ghastly vision of me with a thousand tongues stuffed into my mouth...I should think that would make it extremely difficult to sing! There are another one or two hymns which conjour up similarly unfortunate pictures
Crown Him With Many Crowns - I always get a picture of someone staggering around trying to keep their skyscraper-tall pile of headwear from toppling over, rather like the Lego towers I used to build with my grand-children.

To follow the image through, it really ought to be a lamb with the said pile of headwear...

Posted by american piskie (# 593) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:
Originally posted by Gwalchmai:
Which is why churches should provide the congregation with with the music as well as the words. The music edition is essential, even if you are not very good singer.
While I'd love to agree, the music edition is in fact not essential for the majority of people who can't read music.

Surely they can be supplied with the Sol-fa edition? [Biased]

Do presbyterian ministers still tell folks what the tune is? As in, Let us worship God singing the twenty-third psalm, The Lord's my Shepherd, the tune is Stracathro, number one-hundred and thirty three.

Posted by Cottontail (# 12234) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cornflower:

quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:

quote:
Originally posted by cornflower:
For example why would a green hill HAVE a city wall in any case, if it's a hill and not a city...?
I'm not sure if adult-you has worked this one out or not. But just in case not, the archaic 'without' makes more sense when inverted. The green hill is not lacking a city wall; it is outwith or outside the city wall.
Oddly enough, I'd actually worked that one out whilst still young...it's a friend of mine who said he couldn't understand it when he was a kid
But thanks, any way

Of course you did. I used to be a teacher. I just can't quite control my instinct to educate. Apologies. [Biased]

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

[Do presbyterian ministers still tell folks what the tune is? As in, Let us worship God singing the twenty-third psalm, The Lord's my Shepherd, the tune is Stracathro, number one-hundred and thirty three. [/QB][/QUOTE]
I remember attending the CofS in the late 1970s and being amazed at what the congregations had to remember:"We will be upstanding and singing Psalm 119, verses 17 to 29 and 36-43 to the tune number 268". But they were used to it.

The best tune to Psalm 23 is "Orlington",anyway. (And the best tune to Psalm 24 is "Invocation") - that's the "O send your light forth" bit, of course.

Posted by american piskie (# 593) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

(And the best tune to Psalm 24 is "Invocation") - that's the "O send your light forth" bit, of course.

Do you mean ps 43 (xliii in my book!)? I agree to that!

The best tune for ps 24 (at the entry of the elements at the communion) is surely St George's Edinburgh, with men and women singing different lines.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

You may be very interested to hear the tune used in The Salvation Army for And Can It Be.

It's entitled Cardiff

FYI the word 'interest' in the second line of the song takes 7 notes of music as it rises and falls.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I'm not sure if today your average American Presbyterian and average American Methodist would know the details of the differences those two theological systems, or care.
That was the situation here in Australia for many decades before the Presbyterians and Methodists finally hooked up in 1977 to form the so-called Uniting Church, and totter off into insignificance together.

Could you say something briefly about why you think these two united denominations are 'totter[ing] off into insignificance'? Do you think it's because they've lost interest in their theological distinctiveness?

With regard to this thread, would you say that hymns should reflect the theology of the congregations that sing them, or is the traditional hymn mostly about celebrating an inherited tradition rather than shared beliefs these days?

No, it's a tired old saw against church union. I can show you countless examples from Canada as well, though only in print, as the people who remember Church Union in 1925 have joined the Choir Invisible.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Could you say something briefly about why you think these two united denominations are 'totter[ing] off into insignificance'?

The UC represents the old moribund mainstream Protestantism that is in trouble everywhere - it is too liberal for those who want something unambiguously religious, but its remaining theological and ecclesiastical accretions, such as they are, render it irrelevant to secularists.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:

Obviously I can't speak from first-hand experience, but I can say that an older Australian cousin of mine, who had grown up in the Presbyterian Church, expressed a great deal of lukewarm feeling about the Uniting Church. I think there was a great deal of lowest-common denominator/"just not the same" feeling about it. She clearly thought something had been lost.

For context, this would have been in the first decade of the Uniting Church, and she was in her 60s, or perhaps early 70s at the time.

A couple of points. While all Methodist and Congregationalist Churches joined the new Uniting Church, there were may Presbyterians who continued on their own - and still do. Even then, a major problem for many was having a woman minister, something still banned in the continuing Presbyterian church.

The second is that it is only in the last half dozen or so years that an individual Uniting Church way of thinking has emerged, as opposed to the continuation of those of the constituent churches. Those forming this are those whose lives have always been in the Uniting Church. I can tell of at least 1 Sydney suburb where there were 2 Uniting Church congregations within a couple of hundred metres, one being the old Methodist, the other I'm not sure; a final merger happened a few years ago only because the money for this arrangement basically ran out. A few hundred metres in the opposite direction will see you with a continuing Presbyterian congregation.

The union has not been a success if by success you mean that the rate of decline has slowed down, let alone stopped. Success has been that there are still places where a traditional way of Protestant worship is available for those who seek out that type of church.

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

Let me point out something else. Congregationalist and Presbyterians merge and divide periodically. They always have done. They tend to merge and divide when they are under pressure. I suspect it might be fairer to say that when things are going fine they tend to keep their structures and when things are rough change them. If you do not believe me look up "Heads of Agreement" with "Congregational" and "Presbyterian" which looks to be London based but was mimicked rather more successfully elsewhere in the UK. Indeed some of the agreements only foundered in 1972.

In other words, the correlation causal relationship may well be the other way around. That the shrinkage process which started hitting in the 1960s caused the merger and the merger did not stop it (when has the tinkering with institutional forms stopped anything).

Jengie

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
The second is that it is only in the last half dozen or so years that an individual Uniting Church way of thinking has emerged, as opposed to the continuation of those of the constituent churches. Those forming this are those whose lives have always been in the Uniting Church.

That doesn't surprise me, and it's the reason I thought it worth mentioning that the cousin in question was at least in her 60s and that our conversation about it was only in the first decade or so of the UCA's existence. It takes time for a new identity to be established and accepted.

Posted by Signaller (# 17495) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
But even then, a music edition can be helpful—even folks who can't read music can see the tune goes up or down, or there are lots of notes for a single syllable. FWIW, as far as I know lyrics-only hymnals, with the exception of large print hymnals, are extinct on this side of the pond. The last denomination I know of to publish a lyrics-only edition of its hymnal was the Episcopal Church with the 1940 Hymnal.

We recently changed from "Hymns for Today's Church" (universally hated for its mangling of the text) to the latest edition of "Ancient and Modern". Providing books with the melody would have been twice as expensive as words-only (never mind the full music version!), and it would only have been of limited value, as there are many hymns for which the set tune is not the one we are used to singing. Having just the words available to the congregation gives organist and clergy a lot more flexibility. I understand that in the USA there is more consistency in linking tunes to words, which may explain why it makes sense to have the music in the book.

Posted by cornflower (# 13349) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Some time ago I read an article put out by a worship minister of a large mega church. Sorry I cannot find it, I tried.

This minister said while he originally started out with praise music he found it pretty hollow. He also sensed that people wanted something more in depth.

He started inserting more traditional music in the service and found people really appreciated it. In particular the younger people liked to learn the old standards of his denomination.

He now tries for a balance of new and traditional. He is pleased with the substance the older hymns provide. And he is looking for modern hymns that also have substance.

At the church I used to attend they always had a mix of traditional hymns and more modern stuff, which I think is good. I have to admit, services I've been to that seem only to have rather ancient hymns seem very stodgy. What I couldn't understand is how it seemed that a lot of people found some difficulty in learning new songs. Obviously, if you're elderly, maybe a little deaf etc, it must make it harder. I can certainly understand that there are many many old (or newer)favourites, and I for one wouldn't want to eschew them. However, I like to have a variety, although can also understand that there might be quite a bit of (probably modern) musical styles that people really don't like. And surely (to my mind), all it takes is to play the tune over to begin with if unfamiliar, and especially if there is a music group or choir to lead the singing, one can normally start to pick up a new tune after a couple of verses? I mean, how did people learn the ones they already know in the first place?

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

"Praise songs" tend to be irregular in meter, and then you get the worship band on top of it improvising and swooping into various notes, repeating half a chorus, and just generally noodling around... it can be quite difficult the first several times. And I have near-perfect pitch memory. Hate to think what regular folk face.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Signaller:
I understand that in the USA there is more consistency in linking tunes to words, which may explain why it makes sense to have the music in the book.

Yes, we do tend to have, in most instances, tunes fairly firmly associated with words—though there are cases where the tune we associate with a hymn will be different from the tune that, say, the Methodists do. For those relatively few hymns that have two tunes regularly associated with them, hymnals will frequently print the hymn twice. Sometimes there will be a notation at the bottom of the page indicating an alternate tune.

Perhaps that consistency is indeed why words-only hymnals seem to have pretty much disappeared over here. Or perhaps printing the music in hymnals, as the majority of our hymnals seem to have done for the last 100 or so years, is what led to the consistency. Anyway, it's interesting to learn there may not be the same consistency in the UK.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by american piskie:
Surely they can be supplied with the Sol-fa edition?

Why? What's the point of Sol-fa? Why encourage people to learn an alternative sort of musical notation, rather than the universal one, and particularly not if the alternative is, if anything, harder to follow than the more usual sort.

quote:

Do presbyterian ministers still tell folks what the tune is? As in, Let us worship God singing the twenty-third psalm, The Lord's my Shepherd, the tune is Stracathro, number one-hundred and thirty three.

That would be dependent on using a stable door psalter, which as far as I know, on this side of the Atlantic, is a specifically Scottish phenomenon.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
The second is that it is only in the last half dozen or so years that an individual Uniting Church way of thinking has emerged, as opposed to the continuation of those of the constituent churches. Those forming this are those whose lives have always been in the Uniting Church.
That doesn't surprise me, and it's the reason I thought it worth mentioning that the cousin in question was at least in her 60s and that our conversation about it was only in the first decade or so of the UCA's existence. It takes time for a new identity to be established and accepted.

Here in my city, there are 3 United Churches in the downtown core; two were Methodist in 1925, one was Presbyterian. Another stayed out of Union as a continuing Presbyterian church.

Two of those United Churches are only a hundred metres apart.

It is only now, on the 91st Anniversary of Church Union in Canada that two of these churches have merged and one building is being closed, and the continuing Presbyterian church is in the process of closing as the building has been condemned.

Posted by american piskie (# 593) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by american piskie:
Surely they can be supplied with the Sol-fa edition?
Why? What's the point of Sol-fa? Why encourage people to learn an alternative sort of musical notation, rather than the universal one, and particularly not if the alternative is, if anything, harder to follow than the more usual sort.

Oh I agree completely, but the fact remains that these sol-fa versions of hymnals were widespread. My hazy recollection is that sol-fa was universally taught in Scottish primary schools, and the staff notation didn't get introduced until secondary (ie 12+); even then one had to learn one's termly Memory Tune in sol-fa, "Doh Te Lah Doh, Re Doh Te Soh".

Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :

I remember someone telling me that sol-fa notation is a low-budget way to set music in print: it consists of characters on a typewriter. So for congregations of people who have learned sol-fa, it's a way to give them printed music without sending it out for engraving.

That seems to be one advantage of it.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

The first hymn this morning is one we sing at least once a year, partly because it is about children worshipping and also because the tune is OK. And because there are no choir rehearsals during August members are circulated with hymn lists in advance and any that are "unknown" are gone through before the summer break.

So this morning I played an introduction and 3 full verses before I could hear any singing [Confused]

Oh, and a complaint about last week's service setting because "the words sung by the choir weren't those printed in the service booklet", which the PP dealt with by explaining that, strictly speaking, the words of the Kyrie aren't either since it appears in English but 50% of the time is sung by everyone in Greek: response to that was "that's different".

Is it just me?

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
The first hymn this morning is one we sing at least once a year

That doesn't sound often enough for a congregation to learn a hymn to me.

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Oh, and a complaint about last week's service setting because "the words sung by the choir weren't those printed in the service booklet", which the PP dealt with by explaining that, strictly speaking, the words of the Kyrie aren't either since it appears in English but 50% of the time is sung by everyone in Greek: response to that was "that's different".

Sorry, don't get it. How can a congregation follow if the words aren't printed? The words of the Kyrie are pretty well known and not all that many. I don't see how that equates to a hymn at all.

Posted by cornflower (# 13349) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:
Originally posted by cornflower:
The trouble is with 'Oh for a thousand tongues' is that I always have this ghastly vision of me with a thousand tongues stuffed into my mouth...I should think that would make it extremely difficult to sing! There are another one or two hymns which conjour up similarly unfortunate pictures
Crown Him With Many Crowns - I always get a picture of someone staggering around trying to keep their skyscraper-tall pile of headwear from toppling over, rather like the Lego towers I used to build with my grand-children.

Yes, it does conjour up a confusing picture...I know it's in scripture, but I've never been able to fathom out how someone - even Jesus could manage to balance so many crowns on His head [Frown]

. Perhaps hatpins need to be used ?!!!

Posted by cornflower (# 13349) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
"Praise songs" tend to be irregular in meter, and then you get the worship band on top of it improvising and swooping into various notes, repeating half a chorus, and just generally noodling around... it can be quite difficult the first several times. And I have near-perfect pitch memory. Hate to think what regular folk face.

Ah yes, that sort of thing can certainly make it difficult...not too bad though if the worship band is (at least to begin with) sticking to it as written. Then again, if it's a VERY loud worship band, perhaps it doesn't matter too much, nobody'll probably hear one's making a hash of it anhow! I think it was good in that the church I used to attend did have a mixture of traditional and modern in 'normal services'...communion services, that sort of thing. But then we might have other services such as 'healing' ones or whatever, so music would be chosen appropriately, and there wouldn't be much messing about. We also had an organ, a pianist and a worship group, so we had a variety of ways of expressing the various songs...some are much more suited to organs, some more to guitars and so forth.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Oh, and a complaint about last week's service setting because "the words sung by the choir weren't those printed in the service booklet", which the PP dealt with by explaining that, strictly speaking, the words of the Kyrie aren't either since it appears in English but 50% of the time is sung by everyone in Greek: response to that was "that's different".
Sorry, don't get it. How can a congregation follow if the words aren't printed?

I read it to mean that the words were printed in the service booklet but that the choir sang words different from those printed. I'd be amazed if that didn't confuse the congregation.

And yes, the Kyrie is different—it's only three words in Greek, and four or six in English. Still though, why wouldn't it be printed in the service booklet the way it's going to be sung?

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

Hang on.

I once was in a congregation where the OHP said one thing, the hymnbooks said a second* and the congregation sang a third!

When a friend commented on this to her husband afterwards his comment was "Of course you sing the one you know"

Jengie

*Well it may have been a second and a third as there were two hymnbooks.

[ 07. August 2016, 20:43: Message edited by: Jengie jon ]

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cornflower:
Ah yes, that sort of thing can certainly make it difficult...not too bad though if the worship band is (at least to begin with) sticking to it as written. Then again, if it's a VERY loud worship band, perhaps it doesn't matter too much, nobody'll probably hear one's making a hash of it anhow! I think it was good in that the church I used to attend did have a mixture of traditional and modern in 'normal services'...communion services, that sort of thing. But then we might have other services such as 'healing' ones or whatever, so music would be chosen appropriately, and there wouldn't be much messing about. We also had an organ, a pianist and a worship group, so we had a variety of ways of expressing the various songs...some are much more suited to organs, some more to guitars and so forth.

Posted by cornflower (# 13349) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
..

Yes, our host congregation has a mix of services too, and one of the Sundays each month is semi "blended" as they put it. So we get a little of everything, including African. Which keeps life interesting!

Unfortunately, the praise bands I've known tend NOT to stick to things as written. IMHO they often attract people who imagine themselves as famous Christian singers, and such people (it only takes one to screw up the whole song!) behave more as if they're giving a concert than as if they are there to enable congregational singing. So we get the unannounced repeats, the weird pitches and timing, and so forth.

My host congregation is more fortunate than many in that our praise band is stuck way in the back of the church, in a balcony, and cannot really be seen. The ones that are easily visible have that much more temptation to behave like rock stars... [/QB][/QUOTE]

Yes, some worship bands can come across like that...but perhaps they might say that they're glorifying God with their talents? I dunno...I'm not talented enough myself to behave like a rock star even if I were tempted, also not outgoing enough. It seems far too much of a responsibility to be in the limelight! Just quietly get on with ones own limitations

Posted by Stercus Tauri (# 16668) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
"Praise songs" tend to be irregular in meter, and then you get the worship band on top of it improvising and swooping into various notes, repeating half a chorus, and just generally noodling around... it can be quite difficult the first several times. And I have near-perfect pitch memory. Hate to think what regular folk face.

Which leads to the service becoming a performance by the band, for the band, with people waiting impatiently in the pews for the noise to end and the worship to begin. Sometimes it doesn't happen.

To revert to the original topic, I was brought up on Wesley hymns and still like them, though I've only once been in a Methodist church in my life. One of the joys of hymns for me is rediscovering an old one with a lively new setting. There's presbyterian church near that's very good at that. Then there are people like Maddy Prior who can make the near-dead rise up and sing. (There are seven Wesley hymns on that CD, all good).

Posted by Gwalchmai (# 17802) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
Hang on.

I once was in a congregation where the OHP said one thing, the hymnbooks said a second* and the congregation sang a third!

When a friend commented on this to her husband afterwards his comment was "Of course you sing the one you know"

Posted by Gwalchmai (# 17802) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
Hang on.

I once was in a congregation where the OHP said one thing, the hymnbooks said a second* and the congregation sang a third!

When a friend commented on this to her husband afterwards his comment was "Of course you sing the one you know"

I get very irritated by modern hymnbooks that change a few of the words in traditional hymns that I have been singing for 60 years +. Hymn book editors seem to love messing about with Advent hymns in particular. I know most of these hymns by heart so I sing the traditonal version regardless of what is printed in the book.

Doxologies are also prone to editorial mangling to replace the Holy Ghost with the Holy Spirit. That inevitably messes up the scansion and the rhyming scheme so we end up with a completely different last verse.

In any case there is a lack of consistency in the updating - some hymns have thee and thy changed to your and yours, but the in the very next hymn the traditional language is retained.

The final straw for me will be "Yours be the glory" - so far I have not come across that particular updating, thank God.

Posted by Lothlorien (# 4927) on :

I sing the proper words quite clearly, proper meaning of course, the words I learnt many years ago. I also often say different words to the modern prayer book.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
When a friend commented on this to her husband afterwards his comment was "Of course you sing the one you know"

But if you don't know the hymn very well you can't do that. Confusion with different versions of the words is an additional barrier to an outsider participating.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gwalchmai:
I get very irritated by modern hymnbooks that change a few of the words in traditional hymns that I have been singing for 60 years +. Hymn book editors seem to love messing about with Advent hymns in particular. I know most of these hymns by heart so I sing the traditonal version regardless of what is printed in the book.

So you want to perpetuate anti-semitism?

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

Gwalmachai

I got really fed up with letters to Reform when Rejoice and Sing came out making the same objections as nearly always in the next edition there was a counter letter pointing out that it was a return to the original words. Fiddling with hymn words is not a modern preoccupation and quite a lot of what we learn is already bowdlerized by previous generations.

Jengie

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lothlorien:
I sing the proper words quite clearly, proper meaning of course, the words I learnt many years ago. I also often say different words to the modern prayer book.

The "proper words" -- you mean the ones the previous set of editors thought was right, but not necessarily the original words or words that convey meaning to people today.

When I am unfortunate enough to have to attend a BCP-language service, I try my best to swallow my bile and use the words the congregation is using, even though I find some of them profoundly alienating. I have survived.

John

Posted by georgiaboy (# 11294) on :

All of us, I am sure, are convinced that the text as we first learned it is the One, True, and Only version. (I know that is true for me!)

For instance, I first learned many of the Wesley and Watts hymns from the 1939(?) Methodist Hymnal. (Here in the US.) As that hymnal was revised changes crept in (or barged in). And then the major revisions of the 1980s made major changes and deletions. So today's younger singers think that THEIR hymnal has the correct, true and only text.

The real problem, it seems to me, other than remembering to read the page in front of me and not relying on memory, is that some of the changes are so BAD, either grammatic butchery to avoid perceived 'sexism' or 'correcting' theological points. And that's not even considering the wholesale elimination of stanzas!

I face these frustrations most every week now, as the abbey where I work uses 'Worship,' and my brain is still wired for 'The Hymnal 1940' and 'The Hymnal 1982.' Sometimes I just have to keep my mouth shut.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
Fiddling with hymn words is not a modern preoccupation and quite a lot of what we learn is already bowdlerized by previous generations.

Indeed. Otherwise we'd all be singing "Hark how all the welkin rings" instead of "Hark! The herald angels sing."

Bringing it somewhat back toward the OP and denominational traditions, there are, as other have noticed, those hymns that require care if you're in a church not of your own tribe. Since I was a child, I've sung "Angels we have heard on high/Sweetly singing o'er the plain,/And the mountains in reply/Echoing their joyous strains." I was quite taken aback when, while in college, I launched off by memory and soon realized everyone around me was singing different words: "Angels we have heard on high,/Singing sweetly through the night,/And the mountains in reply/Echoing their brave delight."

It's nothing new.

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
Fiddling with hymn words is not a modern preoccupation and quite a lot of what we learn is already bowdlerized by previous generations.
Indeed. Otherwise we'd all be singing "Hark how all the welkin rings" instead of "Hark! The herald angels sing."

As it should be. Let not hymns be vehicles of clarity, or the mere plebs may come to understand doctrine. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

There is one of Charles Wesley's hymns (I wish I could recall which) which my father refers to the commonly used words as "complete bowdlerized twoddle". He goes on to say that he thinks he knows what theology Charles Wesley's original contained and does not agree with it. I am pretty sure that if I said "but those are the familiar words" his response would be "familiar twoddle is still twoddle".

The changes in any age do not always make for clearer theology.

Jengie

[ 09. August 2016, 20:32: Message edited by: Jengie jon ]

Posted by Gwalchmai (# 17802) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Gwalchmai:
I get very irritated by modern hymnbooks that change a few of the words in traditional hymns that I have been singing for 60 years +. Hymn book editors seem to love messing about with Advent hymns in particular. I know most of these hymns by heart so I sing the traditonal version regardless of what is printed in the book.
So you want to perpetuate anti-semitism?

Forgive my ignorance, but I wasn't aware of any anti-semitic overtones in Advent hymns.

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :

It'a a straight take from scripture, but one of the verses of Lo He Comes With Clouds Descending is easily understood as anti-semitic by the sensitive, and needs careful exegesis by those who are not to avoid a number of very unpleasant cultural memories.

John

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

I've just looked at a couple of versions - perhaps the second stanza of the one on the Oremus site could be thought anti-semitic, but you'd have to be pretty sensitive to think that.

Then there's this one and I can't see anything at all offensive there. Any clue please?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gwalchmai:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Gwalchmai:
I get very irritated by modern hymnbooks that change a few of the words in traditional hymns that I have been singing for 60 years +. Hymn book editors seem to love messing about with Advent hymns in particular. I know most of these hymns by heart so I sing the traditonal version regardless of what is printed in the book.
So you want to perpetuate anti-semitism?
Forgive my ignorance, but I wasn't aware of any anti-semitic overtones in Advent hymns.

see

[ 10. August 2016, 10:19: Message edited by: leo ]

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

The second verse is often read to be describing the deeply wailing reaction of the Jews who killed Christ at the second coming. I don't take that reading myself, but that's the argument.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
The second verse is often read to be describing the deeply wailing reaction of the Jews who killed Christ at the second coming. I don't take that reading myself, but that's the argument.

Even if it's there, that does not mean that it is anti-semitic. It simply shows a realisation with the deepest regret and repentance for what they did. Similarly, I don't think much of the attempt in the link Leo gives to make the hymns anti-semitic.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

I rather thought the argument was that we have all rejected Christ, and therefore have all nailed Him to the cross, and we all need to repent. YMMV.

Posted by Gwalchmai (# 17802) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I rather thought the argument was that we have all rejected Christ, and therefore have all nailed Him to the cross, and we all need to repent. YMMV.

That was what I had always understood.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

Like I say the reading I'm giving isn't what I think - but others see in it echos of the Jewish Deicide. Others might have counter-arguments but that's the view of those thinking the hymn is anti-Semitic.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

One verse from a Wesley hymn doesn't make all Advent hymns anti-semitic.

However on consideration the line:

"Deeply wailing shall their true Messiah see"

could quite easily be so. In Matthew "wailing and gnashing of teet" is usually taken to mean "danmed". So it could be interpreted to mean Jews will be eternally damned and reaise Jesus was the true Messiah after all.

However as an enthusiast for James Alison, leo should realise that the tendency to condemn victims is a universal human tendency, not uniquely Jewish.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

From Zechariah 12:

9"And in that day I will set about to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem. 10"I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of supplication, so that they will look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him like the bitter weeping over a firstborn. 11"In that day there will be great mourning in Jerusalem, like the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the plain of Megiddo.…

Why should we deny the Jews their Messiah when he comes?

[ 10. August 2016, 21:24: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I rather thought the argument was that we have all rejected Christ, and therefore have all nailed Him to the cross, and we all need to repent. YMMV.

That's always been how I've read it. Hard to see anything anti-semitic in there.

As to Mudfrog: our belief does not deny that of jewish people, any more than their belief can deny ours.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Is it 'their true Messiah' or 'the true Messiah' in Wesley's original? In A&M Revised it's 'the true Messiah' and that's what I've always sung.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

It probably is "the true Messiah" and I misremembered. However it makes little difference to my argument. The Jews got it wrong and in hell they will see that.

I don't actually agree that the hymn is necessarily anti-semitic since the point is not that the Jews condemned Christ but that we would too in all probability.

Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:
When I was a school chaplain, I used to put "Christ triumphant" down at least once every half term for no other reason than I like it and if you have the job of choosing hymns you can jolly well choose your own favourites every now and then. I swear that every single time we sang it the HM would say to me as we left Chapel "Do we know that hymn?"

The upside was that whenever I did use a hymn we hadn't sung before (which meant she automatically wouldn't like it) and she queried it, I could say in surprised tones, "Oh yes! We've sung it many times!" and she'd believe me.

Other people's forgetfulness is but an opportunity...

When I looked after the choir at my old parish there were many good things, but this trust was not one of them.

We sang the same setting of the Anaphora week in, week out, regardless of time or season. There was a second setting that I had included in the choir book but we never used it, and I was determined that we would have at least some variety. So we rehearsed the second setting at one rehearsal. Then again at another. Then I sent an email to the choir letting them all know that we would be singing it at the Liturgy on a particular Sunday.

The response? At the beginning of the Anaphora there was confusion as those gathered around the choir desk sang the one I had turned to while those at the other choir desk sang something different. At the conversation about this after the Liturgy, it was voiced that using the other setting had been a complete surprise, and all but one were adamant that they had never seen or heard it before.

People's memories do funny things.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
It probably is "the true Messiah" and I misremembered. However it makes little difference to my argument. The Jews got it wrong and in hell they will see that.

I don't actually agree that the hymn is necessarily anti-semitic since the point is not that the Jews condemned Christ but that we would too in all probability.

Oh, I agree with you. But there is a slight difference in nuance between 'the' and 'their'.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gwalchmai:
messing about with Advent hymns in particular. I know most of these hymns by heart so I sing the traditonal version regardless of what is printed in the book.

who were 'unvisited, unblessed'?

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
It probably is "the true Messiah" and I misremembered. However it makes little difference to my argument. The Jews got it wrong and in hell they will see that.

I don't actually agree that the hymn is necessarily anti-semitic since the point is not that the Jews condemned Christ but that we would too in all probability.

With all due respect, that is nonsense.

The hymn is telling us that when Jesus returns the Jews will recognise that is Jesus is their 'true Messiah' after all -and they will then be saved, they will have the covenant restored to them.

The Scriptural foundation for that is from Zechariah 12 and 13:

quote:

Ch 12
10 “And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son.
11 On that day the weeping in Jerusalem will be as great as the weeping of Hadad Rimmon in the plain of Megiddo.
12 The land will mourn, each clan by itself, with their wives by themselves: the clan of the house of David and their wives, the clan of the house of Nathan and their wives,
13 the clan of the house of Levi and their wives, the clan of Shimei and their wives,
14 and all the rest of the clans and their wives.

Ch 13
1“On that day a fountain will be opened to the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, to cleanse them from sin and impurity.

So, when they realise that the one they pierced was the Messiah, they will be redeemed.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gwalchmai:
messing about with Advent hymns in particular. I know most of these hymns by heart so I sing the traditonal version regardless of what is printed in the book.

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
who were 'unvisited, unblessed'?

Shores of the utmost West. Surely not an anti-Semitic reference to the West?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Romans 1, HEBREws 1, LumEn Gentium?

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Romans 1, HEBREws 1, LumEn Gentium?

Romans 11 v 25ff

25 I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in, 26 and in this way all Israel will be saved. As it is written:

“The deliverer will come from Zion;
he will turn godlessness away from Jacob.

27
And this is my covenant with them
when I take away their sins.”

28 As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies for your sake; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, 29 for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable. 30 Just as you who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience, 31 so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now receive mercy as a result of God’s mercy to you. 32 For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

In other words, and taking those verses in the context of the previous chapters, the Israelites have temporarily lost the blessing whilst the Gentiles are grafted in but they will be saved by mercy, grace and the irrevocable covenant to Isaac when they recognise their deliverer when he appears.

That's what the line in the hymn is on about.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Whilst they weren't into the kind of 'dispensationalism' that Mudfrog tends to favour, Christians in the 17th and 18th centuries would have had the expectation that the Jews would be converted at the end of the age or close to the return of Christ - hence 'until the conversion of the Jews' used by Andrew Marvell in the poem 'To His Coy Mistress' to indicate a potentially long period of time.

One of the reasons the Puritans re-admitted the Jews to England during the Commonwealth, apparently, was to facilitate the preaching of the Gospel to them in order to hasten the return of Christ.

So, Venbede, Mudfrog is right in the way he understands those verses in the old Advent hymn - although that doesn't mean that Charles Wesley's eschatology was identical to Mudfrog's.

'They shall look upon Him whom they have pierced ...'

The 'deeply wailing' may not imply eternal damnation but the realisation that they had crucified their Messiah during his first advent ...

However, it's a hymn, a work of art, not a theological treatise so it's important not to put undue weight on poetic licence and so forth.

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

Gamaliel

Except for the R W Dale quote that he did not care who wrote the churches theology as long as he wrote the hymns. Also, Isaac Watts personal theology is decidedly different from that of his hymns. He wrote his hymns to reflect the theology of the tradition* he was in. If you want to know what liberal English 18th Century dissenters held then look at the hymns of Isaac Watts.

Jengie

*yeah tradition, the lines between then and now are badly twisted and further back is more complicated. The URC claims him, but it is debatable.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

I used to attend an FIEC church in Southampton called Above Bar Church (it's called that because it's on the road to the north of the ancient Bargate).

Now Watts was a Sotonian; there is a Watts Park and the bells of the Civic Centre close to the church ring out "O God our help" in ages past every four hours.

I believe that Isaac Watts, an Independent, attended an Above Bar Chapel; however I don't think it has any relation whatsoever with the present church which dates from the Victorian period and may have originally been called called "Albion Chapel" although I'm not sure (it was rebuilt around 1980).

Nevertheless the Minister had no compunction in "claiming" Isaac Watts as their own. Whenever we sung "When I survey" - which we did at evening communion every month - he would always remind us that the hymn "was possibly written in this very city". (There was another church which could, I think, claim a slightly stronger link with Watts).

[ 15. August 2016, 15:50: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

I got that slightly wrong: "Albion Chapel" was in St. Mary's Street. Here is the official history of "ABC" - you will see that it has no connection with Watts!

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Romans 1, HEBREws 1, LumEn Gentium?

My point here was not about Jews but questioned the notion that there was no other witness or revelation.Nowhere was unvisited.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

So, Venbede, Mudfrog is right in the way he understands those verses in the old Advent hymn

Glad to hear that. In the past I had criticised leo's assertion that the hymn was anti-semitic. In fairness to him, I was pointing out something I'd just realised that supported his view.

But as I said, I don't think it is anti semitic in iteself.

Posted by Robin (# 71) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:
When I was a school chaplain, I used to put "Christ triumphant" down at least once every half term ... I swear that every single time we sang it the HM would say to me as we left Chapel "Do we know that hymn?"

To be fair, Gutting Power is not the easiest of tunes (The Rector at my old church declined to use it for that reason).

Robin

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Assuming it was "Guiting Power" and not the original Youth Praise tune.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

The first tune (Michael Baughen, I think?) isn't a great one - it can be confused with something you'd expect to come from a fairground organ.

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

I believe that Isaac Watts, an Independent, attended an Above Bar Chapel; however I don't think it has any relation whatsoever with the present church which dates from the Victorian period and may have originally been called called "Albion Chapel" although I'm not sure (it was rebuilt around 1980).

Nevertheless the Minister had no compunction in "claiming" Isaac Watts as their own. Whenever we sung "When I survey" - which we did at evening communion every month - he would always remind us that the hymn "was possibly written in this very city". (There was another church which could, I think, claim a slightly stronger link with Watts).

Right guess where the original Above the Bar Congregation ended up! However, here is the real problem. Above the Bar is Isaac Watts' childhood church. His ministry if I recall correctly was largely in London and he ended up Liberal Christian/Unitarian. This suggests to me that the original Above the Bar was English Presbyterian tradition but had a Trinitarian clause in its deeds. I maybe wrong.

Jengie

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

When I lived in Stoke Newington I always assumed Watts wrote his hymns there. In Abney Park Cemetery (burial place of the Booths) there is a hillock described as "Dr Watts' Mound" supposedly where he went for inspiration.

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
The first tune (Michael Baughen, I think?) isn't a great one - it can be confused with something you'd expect to come from a fairground organ.

Yes, the original tune was by Michael Vaughn, arranged by Noel Tredinnick.

Posted by Teekeey Misha (# 18604) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Assuming it was "Guiting Power" and not the original Youth Praise tune.

Oh it was definitely always Guiting Power. I wouldn't give the Baughan tune houseroom.

Posted by Gracious rebel (# 3523) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
The first tune (Michael Baughen, I think?) isn't a great one - it can be confused with something you'd expect to come from a fairground organ.

What a brilliant description! However I must say that tune gets more interesting when you get to the chorus bit: - "Yours the glory and the crown...... the high.... re...-nown...., the eter....nal..... name"

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

In any case, some of us are very fond of fairground organs (although possibly not in church).

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
The first tune (Michael Baughen, I think?) isn't a great one - it can be confused with something you'd expect to come from a fairground organ.
Yes, the original tune was by Michael Vaughn, arranged by Noel Tredinnick.

Mutter, mutter autocorrect…
What I meant to say was:
Yes, the original tune was by Michael Baughen, arranged by Noel Tredinnick.

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gracious rebel:

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
The first tune (Michael Baughen, I think?) isn't a great one - it can be confused with something you'd expect to come from a fairground organ.
What a brilliant description! However I must say that tune gets more interesting when you get to the chorus bit: - "Yours the glory and the crown...... the high.... re...-nown...., the eter....nal..... name"

Although not to my usual taste I rather like both the hymn and the tune - in fact, I had no idea it was ever sung to anything else!

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

Ditto. I like the tune and I've never heard any other. St Paul's Cathedral seemed to do it every time I was there. That was in Michael Baughan's time.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

The other thing about the Baughen tune is its very strong resemblance to The Lumberjack Song [Ultra confused]

Posted by Gracious rebel (# 3523) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
The other thing about the Baughen tune is its very strong resemblance to The Lumberjack Song

Well I'd not noticed the resemblance before so I would hardly call it strong. I do get what you mean though, but its just 5 notes that sound the same, ie the bit of tune that goes with 'hear us as we sing' are the same notes that go with (sus)'-penders and a bra'

Nowhere near as strong a resemblance as that between 'All I once held dear' and 'The Ugly Duckling'! (With that one there are 13 consecutive notes that sound exactly like 'And he went with a quack and a waddle and a quack') [Biased]

[ 19. August 2016, 17:37: Message edited by: Gracious rebel ]

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

I always find that the signature tune to "The One Show" (BBC) reminds of the theme to Jamie Owens' "Come Together".

That dates me; but even worse is the fact that the third line of "Lead us heavenly Father" takes me straight to the 1960s police series "Softly Softly" (the sequel to "Z Cars").

Posted by Teekeey Misha (# 18604) on :

The first line of St Kevin by Sir Arthur Sullivan is a ringer for the beginning of "Into Parliament he must go" from Iolanthe, also by Sullivan. So much so, that I always sing the next line from the operetta in place of the next line from the hymn, because it amuses me and you take what you can get...

I don't imagine it was his intention to mingle his operettas (which he hated) with his hymnody (which he didn't) but there you go.

Come, ye fay-ay-thful, raise the strain...
In.....-to Par-lia-ment he... shall go...

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

I can't sing Glorious Things Of Thee Are Spoken without substituting Tony Hancock's Coughs And Sneezes Spread Diseases.

Decades ago there used to be a charismatic chorus which began Lord Prepare Me To Be A Sanctuary, to which my wife and kids and I used to sing Samuel Wilberforce's If I Were A Cassowary.

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
I can't sing Glorious Things Of Thee Are Spoken without substituting Tony Hancock's Coughs And Sneezes Spread Diseases.

I find myself singing "Deutschland, Deutschland über alles."

Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:

quote:
Originally posted by Gracious rebel:

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
The first tune (Michael Baughen, I think?) isn't a great one - it can be confused with something you'd expect to come from a fairground organ.
What a brilliant description! However I must say that tune gets more interesting when you get to the chorus bit: - "Yours the glory and the crown...... the high.... re...-nown...., the eter....nal..... name"
Although not to my usual taste I rather like both the hymn and the tune - in fact, I had no idea it was ever sung to anything else!

I've just had to look up the original tune on YouTube. It isn't for me, personally.

Here is Guiting Power, which is the only tune I've heard used for it until now. It pretty.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
Ditto. I like the tune and I've never heard any other. St Paul's Cathedral seemed to do it every time I was there. That was in Michael Baughan's time.

Thanks to scrump's link I now know what we are talking about. St Paul's only used Guiting Power when Baughan was a canon. That is the only tune I'ever heard.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
I can't sing Glorious Things Of Thee Are Spoken without substituting Tony Hancock's Coughs And Sneezes Spread Diseases.

I find myself singing "Deutschland, Deutschland über alles."

With an outstretched arm and a finger under your nose?

My daughter, when young, used to delight in combining a popular take-off of On Top Of Old Smokey, with a Christian chorus which was sung to the same tune:

"I'm glad I'm a Christian / All covered with cheese".

Posted by Hilda of Whitby (# 7341) on :

Then there is the doxology (Praise God from whom all blessings flow), sung to the tune of "Hernando's Hideaway":

"Praise God/from whom/all blessings flow
Praise Him/all crea-/tures here below
Praise Him/above/ye heavenly host
Praise Fa-/ther Son and/ Holy Ghost"

Ole!

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Yes, there are four lines of eight syllables. The fourth line is a bit of a struggle but Long Metre can just about be squeezed into it.

The House of the Rising Sun by the way is Common Metre. So a lot of hymns will fit it. Both Amazing Grace and While shepherds watched do.

[ 21. August 2016, 21:59: Message edited by: Enoch ]

Posted by Sandemaniac (# 12829) on :

At which point did the Ship turn into I'm Sorry I haven't a Clue?

AG

Posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger (# 8891) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sandemaniac:
At which point did the Ship turn into I'm Sorry I haven't a Clue?

AG

I'm sorry, I haven't a clue.

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

*ahem*
(hosting)

we may rattle our keys soon ... drivel aka dribble is so unpleasant in the pews

(/hosting)

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0