|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Eccles: What exactly is so bad about Shine Jesus Shine?
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
Quite. I understand Queen Anne famously described St Paul's as "awful", but was being complimentary at the time - awful was used as awesome is now. Probably the 17th C teenagers ruined the word after that and are responsible for changing its meaning.
[ 05. January 2010, 11:26: Message edited by: mdijon ]
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
sonata3
Shipmate
# 13653
|
Posted
My, my, I never knew this hymn had such a history. I've only encountered it twice -- both times on Transfiguration Sunday (last Sun. after Epiphany), both times acompanied on organ, and both times in Lutheran churches that were fairly up the candle, with very traditional music programs (St. Luke's in Chicago, for one). And most definitely without clapping or hand motions (I had no idea).
As far as text goes, I do think there are worse -- "Gather Us In" comes to mind. And there are musical features I find attractive - after the opening "Shine, Jesus, Shine," the ascending bass line from B up to A, with the chromatic D#. And, in the verses, I've always liked the third-inversion dominant seventh that goes, not to the typical I6, but to a "iii".
Amazing what one learns on The Ship. (Or, amazing it is how naive I am).
--------------------
"I prefer neurotic people; I like to hear rumblings beneath the surface." Stephen Sondheim
Posts: 386 | From: Between two big lakes | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spong
Ship's coffee grinder
# 1518
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chiltern_hundred:
IME SJS is to the Noughties was Lord of the Dance was in the Seventies.
I have to admit that is, for me, the post that has most nearly persuaded me of the error of my ways...
--------------------
Spong
The needs of our neighbours are the needs of the whole human family. Let's respond just as we do when our immediate family is in need or trouble. Rowan Williams
Posts: 2173 | From: South-East UK | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Personally I find the words 'ok', but nothing special. But what really gets to me is the tune. It's just so dreadful.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chiltern_hundred:
IME SJS is to the Noughties was Lord of the Dance was in the Seventies.
quote:
Originally posted by Spong:
I have to admit that is, for me, the post that has most nearly persuaded me of the error of my ways...
No, it is the prototype of the Kendrick worship song, and I think that is why it attracts such strong dislike. What is being hated is not the song, although one might see it rationalized with quibbles over tangential bits of theology implied by the words or something, but the body of work the song symbolizes.
And the fact that, as someone already remarked, there was a time we had it every bloody week.
[ 05. January 2010, 14:40: Message edited by: mdijon ]
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
And the fact that, as someone already remarked, there was a time we had it every bloody week.
My mum still suffers it most weeks as the prisoners (she's a chaplain) love it.
I suspect they like it because it's a good sing and they know it.
Carys
--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise
Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PD
Shipmate
# 12436
|
Posted
It may surprise you to know that PD knows SJS and actually does not dislike it. However, like All things bright and beautiful and Lord of the Dance I have heard/sung it so many times that I am in no hurry to hear/sing it again.
I like hymns with a good - i.e. memorable or singable - tune. It scores OK and that count; same applies to the words - which I will grant you are a bit odd in places, but theologically OK. However, given my age and lack of musical taste (when it comes to pop music) the ABBA - the Nativity thread over in Heaven is far more amusing.
PD
--------------------
Roadkill on the Information Super Highway!
My Assorted Rantings - http://www.theoldhighchurchman.blogspot.com
Posts: 4431 | From: Between a Rock and a Hard Place | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hel
Shipmate
# 5248
|
Posted
I think it's naff and shows its age but I still enjoy singing it.
My church is filled with non-singers and mumbly singers and people actually sing SJS with enthusiasm; I would rather have an average song sung enthusiastically than a great song with about two people singing it.
Posts: 667 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
...if you add a G, somewhere, it changes the song from Shine Jesus Shine to Jack and Diane by John Mellencamp.
Sounds like musical alchemy to me.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
WhyNotSmile
Shipmate
# 14126
|
Posted
We sing Shine Jesus Shine at the odd service, always (as far as I remember) when the service has been geared towards children (enrolment of some of the uniformed organisations, for example). Those times, I quite like it. It's also quite easy to sing for a large group of not-terribly-musical people. At all other times, though, I find it cringeworthy. But then, I find a lot of the songs from that 'era' a bit cringeworthy, and I suspect that this may be true of many on the ship who are in the same age group as me (late 20s - late 30s or mid-40s).
All the arguments about theology, tune, hand-clapping, blandness etc. can be applied to plenty of other worship songs, but I think Shine Jesus Shine is particularly singled out for 3 reasons:
* It is representative of a batch of songs from a similar era, all of which had a similar level of theological content etc., and it is probably the most well-known.
* It is so often sung in contexts where one, if one is being a little cynical, can assume that they needed something which wouldn't offend anyone or be too hard to sing.
* For a long time it seemed to be sung specifically as a modern worship song, when it wasn't really, which of course made it seem more old-fashioned than it might have done if it had just been slipped into a service here and there.
--------------------
Come visit:
http://why-not-smile.blogspot.com
- you're always glad you came
Posts: 528 | From: Belfast | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
I was very surprised at the popularity of SJS when I took over choosing hymns. I binned the previous vicar's list but someone spotted that I'd 'censored' SJS.
My reason for surprise is that we have a student choir, many/most of whom are reading music degrees. Many come to our church because of its musical standards.
As word got out, I got told off my someone in her nineties!
Devotees of SJS will be pleased to know that, suitably chastened, I have restored SJS to the repertoire, along with heavenly babe and similar stuff. (But I still don't like them so find something to fiddle with at the altar while they are being sung!)
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pardoner
Shrive me timbers
# 15043
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stranger in a strange land:
I suppose I'm uneasy about telling Jesus what to do.
'God save the Queen' could be criticised in the same way, but at least in that you can appeal to the jussive subjunctive.
The what?
--------------------
Thin line between heaven and here (Bubbles)
Posts: 167 | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
My reason for surprise is that we have a student choir, many/most of whom are reading music degrees. Many come to our church because of its musical standards.
Maybe they have learnt to enjoy different types of music in their degrees. There are some exceptional musicians treading all sorts of different paths, and who enjoy varied forms of music. I know an exceptional organist, degree on a scholarship, fellow of royal college etc. etc. whose Sunday pm engagement involves loud gospel music.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
coniunx
Shipmate
# 15313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
CH is quite right - whether we like SJS or not (and I think its real problem has been over-use),
I think that's a lot of the problem, actually. There are a number of hymns / songs which are quite good, but not perhaps exceptional; repeat them too often and their faults start to become really irksome.
I suspect that overuse can in fact do this to any hymn; think of your favourite one, then consider whether it would still be your favourite one if you'd sung it every two or three weeks. For years. Starting to go off it yet?
Of course, for most hymns that's unlikely to happen. The thing about SJS is that it's well enough known, and easy enough to play, to be used by just about any musical group - there are quite a few church music groups with relatively limited repertoires, and unlike many hymns, SJS can be used at just about any time of the liturgical year. Thus it gets worn out faster than most!
--------------------
--
Coniunx
Posts: 250 | From: Nottingham | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
Another who thinks that SJS was just a victim of its own success. When a worship song starts featuring on Songs of Praise (for non UK readers, BBC religious programme) then it's pretty certain that congregations will desert it in droves.
Actully, I find Kendrick to be one of the more thoughtful songwriters as regards the lyric content, certainly more orthodox than, say, Townend, who seems to have an obsession with PSA. My main complaint with his songs is that they tend to be rather wordy.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by coniunx
I suspect that overuse can in fact do this to any hymn; think of your favourite one, then consider whether it would still be your favourite one if you'd sung it every two or three weeks. For years. Starting to go off it yet?
Let's see. "And can it be", "Thine be the glory" would both certainly stand such repetition. "Be Thou my vision", "When I survey"; probably. SJS, no. Sorry Graham.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
I'm one of those that likes this song a lot, although I agree it got horrifically over-used: I think it became a test of how modern your church was in certain, probably evangleical, circles; you learnt SJS to show that you were singing the latest songs and somewhere along the line it became boring.
And I can do without the forced hand-clapping some churches employ. And the repeated chorus at the end, half of which must be without any accompaniment.
But just one comment on the discussion here: Leo pulled SJS up in part for the phrase "shine on me" for being individualistic. Yet that's only one phrase (admittedly sung 6 times) in a song that otherwise is nearly entirely "us/we/our" (the second verse excepted).
Yet three of the songs Jolly Jape selected ("And can it be?", "When I survey" and "Be thou my vision" - all of which I agree are classics) are entirely written in the first-person singular. So why does SJS (and other contemporary songs) get stick for it when there are hymns that could be viewed as equally individualistic?
--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist
Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pigwidgeon
Ship's Owl
# 10192
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
...if you add a G, somewhere, it changes the song from Shine Jesus Shine to Jack and Diane by John Mellencamp.
Sounds like musical alchemy to me.
But what if you play it backwards?
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf
Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Graven Image
Shipmate
# 8755
|
Posted
It appears not to be standing up to the test of time,
so that says something about how good it is or is not.
Posts: 2641 | From: Third planet from the sun. USA | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og, King of Bashan
Ship's giant Amorite
# 9562
|
Posted
I wonder about the “test of time.” Lots of things become unfashionable before they become classics. The name “Baroque” was used as an insult by critics before we decided that Baroque music is some of the best music ever. I would say there is a difference between saying something has gone out of fashion and saying it has failed to survive the test of time.
I still don’t want SJS at my funeral, but let some real time pass before you say it did or didn’t pass the test of time.
--------------------
"I like to eat crawfish and drink beer. That's despair?" ― Walker Percy
Posts: 3259 | From: Denver, Colorado, USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
daviddrinkell
Shipmate
# 8854
|
Posted
The 'individualistic' character is something which occurs in 'classic' hymns as well. It is something one should watch out for when choosing hymns for any given service - just as one needs to consider mood v. placement. It's a bad mistake, or a bad piece of overlooking, to include too many 'me' hymns, or to put them in the wrong place. St. Percy had something to say about this in 'Songs of Praise Discussed', if I remember correctly.
A more serious criticism to my mind, and one which SJS avoids, is putting the words of God directly into the mouth of the singer. ('I the Lord of sea and sky', 'You shall cross the barren desert', etc). This is very common in worship songs. It happens also in classic hymns, but in those cases, the effect is not the same because of the way it is done, usually by placing such speech within inverted commas, or some other ploy to remove the impression that the singer is God.
I think the general agreement so far that SJS is over-used is a fair criticism, just as 'Lord of the Dance' was in its day (and in the latter case without anyone seeming to having the slightest idea of what the heck the text meant!). Maybe one reason for SJS's popularity is that it sounds pretty impressive on a pipe organ and is easy to put across with this medium - more than one can say for many other pieces in the genre - and thus has managed to come into use more places.
--------------------
David
Posts: 1983 | From: St. John's, Newfoundland | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
MSHB
Shipmate
# 9228
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by MSHB:
quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
It's just weird to command Jesus to shine. ("Shine, damn you! Shine! FFS, shine!" What is he, a defective torch?)
That bothers me too. It treats Christ as an object that we can control - or at least give orders to. Christ subordinate to us?
Do you have a problem with people saying "Lord, have mercy"? It's phrased in exactly the same way, but most people seem to be able to cope with such phrasing being a request rather than a command in that instance...
Not at all!
"Lord, have mercy" is the begging supplication of an inferior. "Shine, Jesus, shine" seems very egalitarian and "no one's my master" by comparison. I cannot imagine someone singing "Forgive, Jesus, Forgive" to that tune! It sounds too much like a happy football crowd chanting, urging the start player to kick the goal.
The fact that the song moves from "Jesus" to "Spirit" to "rivers" suggests this same odd kind of objectification: We call on some rivers to flow, just as we called on Jesus to shine.
There is a big difference between an impoverished subject appearing before the great king, saying "Grant this boon, o Majesty" and the great king's mother-in-law leaning over at banquet and saying peremptorily - with a threat in her voice "Grant this boon, o Majesty (or you'll cop it!)". Simple grammatical analysis won't show you this difference.
SJS does lend itself to triumphalism. That is not to say everyone who sings it, necessarily sings it that way. But if you learned it in that context, you might always associate it with that motivation...
--------------------
MSHB: Member of the Shire Hobbit Brigade
Posts: 1522 | From: Dharawal Country | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MSHB:
SJS does lend itself to triumphalism.
Triumphalism in Christianity? Isn't the logical continuation to avoid "Thine be the Glory" and other hymns riddled with triumphalism, shortly before banning Easter.
I must say I don't quite see the difference between "Lord have mercy" and "Forgive us, Lord", "Forgive, Lord, Forgive" - they are all technically commands. What is different, then, is the verb and the address (Lord instead of Jesus).
I must say, I think there are cultural differences here in how something sounds to unfamiliar ears and I very much doubt anyone in a church that sings SJS considers for a fraction of a second that they are in a position to order Jesus around.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MSHB:
"Lord, have mercy" is the begging supplication of an inferior. "Shine, Jesus, shine" seems very egalitarian and "no one's my master" by comparison.
I still don't understand the distinction - yes, Shine Jesus Shine uses the imperative, but surely it's a plea, not an order. The song as a whole speaks of God's "awesome presence", His "Kingly brightness" - surely establishing God's superiority. It asks God (again, using the imperative) to "search me, try me, consume all my darkness" - again, establishing God as One who is above us. In the context of this, I can't see the chorus as anything other being exactly how you describe "Lord, have mercy" - a plea from an inferior (in this case, someone or some people in darkness) for God's superior light to shine.
quote:
I cannot imagine someone singing "Forgive, Jesus, Forgive" to that tune! It sounds too much like a happy football crowd chanting, urging the start player to kick the goal.
I agree that singing "Forgive, Jesus, Forgive" to that tune would be difficult - but then I'm not sure that they're asking the same thing (though you'll have to give me a year or so to explain what I think the difference.
Then again, I do know what you mean - SJS does sometimes feel like the Christian equivalent of "We are the Champions" by Queen (though I wouldn't for one moment suggest Graham Kendrick is the Christian Freddie Mercury), though as others have said, the triumphalism is no greater than in many other hymns.
quote:
SJS does lend itself to triumphalism. That is not to say everyone who sings it, necessarily sings it that way. But if you learned it in that context, you might always associate it with that motivation...
But you can't criticise the song (necessarily) for that - it's the context in which people may have learnt it that's at fault (and I'd agree with you). As above, there are a lot of hymns that have perhaps even more of a triumphalist approach - "Thine be the glory", "Stand up, stand up for Jesus", "Who is on the Lord's side" are just 3 that spring to mind.
Plus, I think the accusation of triumphalism is misplaced here, especially in the light of verse 2, a recognition of things being "dark" in our lives and needing God's light to put them right... almost a "lord have mercy"!
--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist
Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
MSHB
Shipmate
# 9228
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Triumphalism in Christianity? Isn't the logical continuation to avoid "Thine be the Glory" and other hymns riddled with triumphalism, shortly before banning Easter.
No. It is not the logical continuation at all. Easter is not triumphalist. I have no trouble singing songs like "Christ the Lord is risen today. Alleluia!" One of my favourite songs is the finale of Handel's Messiah: "Worthy is the Lamb that was slain .. to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing". But these songs are not triumphalist. Perhaps you misunderstand the term.
quote:
I must say I don't quite see the difference between "Lord have mercy" and "Forgive us, Lord", "Forgive, Lord, Forgive" - they are all technically commands. What is different, then, is the verb and the address (Lord instead of Jesus).
You cannot analyse the meaning of a text simply by analysing its grammar in this way. Can you see the difference between someone saying: "Oh, forgive, mdijon, forgive! That is how you should live your life. Not this empty grudge holding." and someone else saying "Forgive me, mdijon, I was completely wrong and I don't deserve your forgiveness at all!" They are not both commands - one is almost condescending advice, the other is an abject request.
The choice of words and - more importantly - thoughts do matter more than the formal grammar. For example, I did show above the difference between two people saying exactly the same sentence and meaning something quite different to each other: "Grant this boon" can be a humble request OR a threat ... depending on context (who says that to whom, and in what tone of voice) - NOT grammar.
quote:
I must say, I think there are cultural differences here in how something sounds to unfamiliar ears and I very much doubt anyone in a church that sings SJS considers for a fraction of a second that they are in a position to order Jesus around.
The fact that you cannot feel the meaning that SJS has for some people does not in any way mean that SJS does not affect them that way. People are different - sometimes really different. We don't even have the same brains - some people's brains are wired so differently to others that they hear colours and see sounds. The fact that you or I may not perceive the world like that makes no difference to the fact that they do. People are different.
I am not saying that you or anyone else feels, or needs to feel, the same way about SJS as I do. I am merely pointing out what feelings might give someone a negative reaction to SJS, given that some people do in fact have this reaction.
"De gustibus non est disputandum" - paraphrased: it is a waste of time arguing over differences of taste.
--------------------
MSHB: Member of the Shire Hobbit Brigade
Posts: 1522 | From: Dharawal Country | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
MSHB
Shipmate
# 9228
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
Then again, I do know what you mean - SJS does sometimes feel like the Christian equivalent of "We are the Champions" by Queen
Bingo!
--------------------
MSHB: Member of the Shire Hobbit Brigade
Posts: 1522 | From: Dharawal Country | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MSHB:
Perhaps you misunderstand the term.
Perhaps I do - but in a discussion all I can do is appeal to you to explain it then, and show how SJS falls foul of it in a way that so many hymns about conquering, victory etc. doesn't.
quote:
Originally posted by MSHB:
You cannot analyse the meaning of a text simply by analysing its grammar in this way.
I quite agree. Which is why I had such a hard time understanding why SJS falls foul of something that the other examples don't.
quote:
Originally posted by MSHB:
The fact that you cannot feel the meaning that SJS has for some people does not in any way mean that SJS does not affect them that way.
No, I understand perfectly that some people might find SJS unpalatable. Argued as a matter of taste I have no problem with the expression of that view. I'm actually not mad about the song myself. Argued as a theological point, or hung on an apparently objective hook, I can't see it. And I think it's legitimate to wonder why people react against it. I don't like it because I've heard it and played it too many times (like, more than once or twice). I suspect some don't like it because it typifies a body of song-writing that they are reacting to. I'm sure there are other reasons.
[ 06. January 2010, 11:19: Message edited by: mdijon ]
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
I am quite unable to stand Shine Jesus Shine.
I do not have the musical knowledge to say quite why I dislike the tune. The tune feels kitsch and manipulative. It may have technical merit, I couldn't comment.
I'm inclined to think Ken makes a good point that if we were told parts of it were originally written by a Byzantine Monk we might believe that. Perhaps I should say that the words feel as if they were originally written in medieval Greek and lost everything in translation. Occasionally there is a flicker of interest in the words, but it disappears into banality.
The bit I don't think would be found in a medieval Byzantine Monk is the invocation to 'fill the land with the father's glory'. And I think that's where the deep problem with the words lies. The situation is very much a three agent structure: us, God, and the land/nations.
And the thought seems to be that we are asking God to be glorious by making us glorious so that the nation/land recognizes that we are glorious. The underlying dynamic isn't really between us and God: it's about us and the nation (who don't believe) and the wish is that God steps up on our behalf so the nation realizes how right we are.
It feels that the deep emotional longing is not for the glory of God, but for the nation to stop persecuting us by thinking that we're square.
I said that sometimes there is a flicker of interest in the words. Sometimes the interest is better off unanalyzed. e.g.
'Flow, river, flow, Flood? the nation with grace and mercy': would be interesting if there was an implied contrast with Noah's flood (as Noah's flood brought judgement so this will bring mercy), but the context doesn't do anything to back up that thought. I can't help thinking that the allusion is actually subconsciously to 2 Peter 3:6-7.
'through which the world of that time was deluged with water and perished. But by the same word the present heavens and earth have been reserved for fire, being kept until the day of judgement and destruction of the godless.'
The prayer is ostensibly for grace and mercy. But actually there seems to an underlying wish that the river of grace and mercy will actually drown, wash away, and burn up the ungodly.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Snags
Utterly socially unrealistic
# 15351
|
Posted
Probably worth remembering that SJS was written into the context of the whole "March for Jesus" thing, and a particular Christian sub-culture, which kicked off about the same time. Based on info from Kendrick's own site it would seem it wasn't written specifically for MfJ but it must all have been in his personal melting pot.
At the time it worked quite well as a rousing, inspirational, get-out-there-and-live-it kind of thing. 23 years on ... for me it has a certain cheesiness which, unlike the 70s and 80s in popular fashion, has yet to be fully redeemed ![[Biased]](wink.gif) I get forced to play/sing worse in church, though.
--------------------
Vain witterings :-: Vain pretentions :-: The Dog's Blog(locks)
Posts: 1399 | From: just north of That London | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Melgrem
Apprentice
# 15391
|
Posted
SJS, for me, is one of those songs that falls into the interesting grouping of "songs I feel affectionate about because I sang them as a kid in the 80s and I like to be reminded of a time when I actually unproblematically believed all that staff, so even though I would now no longer necessarily go along with it theologically, I am still fond of it".
Others include:
Our God Reigns
Lord of the Dance ("I Danced in the Morning", not the hideous Delirious one)
...and quite a lot of others from the yellow Songs of Fellowship.
Posts: 10 | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
It seems to get unthinkingly churned out every time we have a candlelit service.
I'd like the theology explained, not least because it would make the chooser of the song think as to what the theological implications are. Did Kendrick write it with a particular theology in mind, or just get carried away with big, bright words?
I did once read a discussion of the theology (I think from the Hymn Society of Great Britain and Ireland), but they were rather disparaging.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LA Dave
Shipmate
# 1397
|
Posted
Well, I finally heard the damn tune.
First impressions -- a catchy ditty, which, with new words, would have served very nicely as the theme song of a 1980s sitcom, maybe one about a fun-loving bachelor who lives with three girlfriends in a Southern California beach house:
"Shine, Joey, Shine --you have got the babes into you," etc. etc.
Posts: 981 | From: Take a guess | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
MSHB
Shipmate
# 9228
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by MSHB:
Perhaps you misunderstand the term.
Perhaps I do - but in a discussion all I can do is appeal to you to explain it then, and show how SJS falls foul of it in a way that so many hymns about conquering, victory etc. doesn't.
Perhaps you could do some research too. If you are reading this, then you are on the Internet. And if you are on the Internet, you have the world's biggest encyclopedia open in front of you. I have to look up things I don't understand too - the Ship is not my private tutor. Start here (and also try Google):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triumphalism
As another poster here has pointed out, there is a big difference between "God is right" and "we are right". Triumphalists are on about our vindication, while the scriptures talk about Christ's vindication. "Lord, show them how right we are" is the triumphalists' prayer. Think Pharisees: "we are the authorities on the scriptures, so we are naturally RIGHT!" Triumphalism is the big brother of smugness. Think also of the disciples James and John calling on Christ to "smite" a village because the villagers didn't respond to the gospel. "We have the power" is another example - in contrast to David's "I am weak, though anointed king" or Paul's "{Christ's} strength is made perfect in {my} weakness".
One common thread here is wanting God to demonstrate his greatness and power to the rest of the world ... to vindicate us and show how right we are (although this is often not stated explicitly). Christ, knowing he was the Son of God, put aside all show of greatness and became a poor itinerant rabbi, sleeping in the fields or on somebody's sofa. When brought before Herod, Christ was silent - no show of kingly majesty to over-awe the puny ruler Herod. We, on the other hand, are tempted to take the James and John route - "Lord show your power to them! Show them who is boss!" If we identify ourselves with God, then we can get a big ego boost from God showing his power (a bit like when "our" football team wins the match and we feel all superior) - but that is not a holy motive.
The "cheesiness" of the song, as one poster expressed it, is a factor here. It is one thing to humbly ask God to shine the light of his countenance upon us, and another to cheesily tell him to shine on the rest of the world: "fill this land", "flood the nations"... "Do things to them!"
Try putting yourself in the triumphalist's shoes and sing this song: can you see how it would fit in? You may very well not notice this perspective when you sing the song - but some other people cannot help noticing it. That may be why they don't like it.
--------------------
MSHB: Member of the Shire Hobbit Brigade
Posts: 1522 | From: Dharawal Country | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
quote:
Originally posted by MSHB:
"Lord, have mercy" is the begging supplication of an inferior. "Shine, Jesus, shine" seems very egalitarian and "no one's my master" by comparison.
I still don't understand the distinction - yes, Shine Jesus Shine uses the imperative, but surely it's a plea, not an order.
Are 'Shine, Jesus Shine' and 'Lord, have Mercy' actually imperatives? I rather thought that they were actually subjunctives (and therefore follow the grammar for the imperative due to the strange treatment of the subj. in English...)
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MSHB:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triumphalism
From that I get "Triumphalism is the attitude or belief that a particular doctrine, religion, culture, or social system is superior to and should triumph over all others."
Which doesn't seem to make the same distinction that you do. I also got the very interesting
"The term triumphalism is what anthropologists call an 'observer's category'"
which speaks volumes.
It seems to me that putting oneself in a triumphalists shoes and then finding that a song supports it might not be a fair test. I could probably sing a number of worthy hymns and find similar resonances as a triumphalist.
I also don't see the "do things to them" so clearly when one is talking about "grace and mercy" rather than judgement flooding the land.
Sorry that you feel this is laziness on my part and lack of research. That is, I would guess, another 'observer's category'.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
Are 'Shine, Jesus Shine' and 'Lord, have Mercy' actually imperatives? I rather thought that they were actually subjunctives (and therefore follow the grammar for the imperative due to the strange treatment of the subj. in English...)
I'm no expert - according to this it looks hard to distinguish between the simple present subjunctive and the imperative - but I think they're both one or other.
[ 07. January 2010, 10:50: Message edited by: mdijon ]
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
daisymay
St Elmo's Fire
# 1480
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
Are 'Shine, Jesus Shine' and 'Lord, have Mercy' actually imperatives? I rather thought that they were actually subjunctives (and therefore follow the grammar for the imperative due to the strange treatment of the subj. in English...)
If words were in formal written sentences, they could be checked and logicaly understood, but in music words, the way sentences are written are not the same - words fit in with the music. Lots of hymns don't fit in with traditional sentences, and so assuming something in a hymn fits in with grammar is not always correct.
[Code fix. Mamacita, Host]
[ 07. January 2010, 16:17: Message edited by: Mamacita ]
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Janine
The Endless Simmer
# 3337
|
Posted
People don't like the nationalistic wording, or the... meteorological?... wording, or addressing God with he-pronouns... Yaaugh. Y'all must want to do away with the whole Old Testament and much of the New, then.
By the time you Exacto-Knife all the objectionable our-God-our-nation-our-land-He-God language out of the Scriptures, you're left with a paper doily between two slabs of leather.
--------------------
I'm a Fundagelical Evangimentalist. What are you?
Take Me Home * My Heart * An hour with Rich Mullins *
Posts: 13788 | From: Below the Bible Belt | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cantiones Sacrae
Shipmate
# 12774
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
What we need to do is reclaim the true meanings of "awesome" (and its cognate "aweful") - together with other similar words that have been voided of their content, such as "brilliant", "fantastic" and "fabulous". ("Wicked" also springs to mind ...).
I don't think we'll manage it.
"Wicked" was apparently used in its current "very good" way about 100 years ago, according to a recent edition of QI.
Posts: 271 | From: London | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LA Dave:
Well, I finally heard the damn tune.
First impressions -- a catchy ditty, which, with new words, would have served very nicely as the theme song of a 1980s sitcom, maybe one about a fun-loving bachelor who lives with three girlfriends in a Southern California beach house:
"Shine, Joey, Shine --you have got the babes into you," etc. etc.
My definition of a 'damn tune' is one that hangs around in my head for days afterwards, which is why I hare SS and why this thread is 'doing my head in' and I need to listen to some Bach.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cantiones Sacrae:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
What we need to do is reclaim the true meanings of "awesome" (and its cognate "aweful") - together with other similar words that have been voided of their content, such as "brilliant", "fantastic" and "fabulous". ("Wicked" also springs to mind ...).
I don't think we'll manage it.
"Wicked" was apparently used in its current "very good" way about 100 years ago, according to a recent edition of QI.
That's wicked.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
My definition of a 'damn tune' is one that hangs around in my head for days afterwards, which is why I hare SS and why this thread is 'doing my head in' and I need to listen to some Bach.
I find Bach hangs around in my head on replay for a while after. (Although not on first listening). But I don't mind that at all.
Nursery rhymes, on the other hand...
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leaf
Shipmate
# 14169
|
Posted
I wanted to give a ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) to MSHB's post, but was afraid it might look triumphalist.
Seriously, MSHB's description is the way in which I hear SJS.
Posts: 2786 | From: the electrical field | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
As a comparison:
Kendrick:
As we gaze on your kingly brightness
So our faces display your likeness
Ever changing from glory to glory
Mirrored here may our lives tell your story
Wesley:
Changed from glory into glory
Till in heaven we take our place
Till we cast our crowns before thee
Lost in wonder, love, and praise.
Wesley would have done something to fix 'mirrored here'. (What is 'mirrored'? 'your kingly brightness', 'your likeness', 'glory', 'your story'? Grammatically, I'm afraid the best candidate is 'our lives'?)
It's unfair to expect Kendrick to rhyme as well as a poet of the century of Pope and Johnson, but 'likeness'/'brightness'?
Wesley presents this as something not yet happening. In Kendrick, it's happening to us right now. Also, I don't see anything in Kendrick to suggest the self-forgetfulness of 'lost in wonder'. (Did Wesley know what he was doing when he described our state in heaven as 'lost'? Given his use of paradox in other hymns, I wouldn't put it past him.)
I'm not musical, but the comparison also helps me think about the respective tunes.
It also strikes me that the emotional centre in the tune for Love Divine is in the middle of the line. In Kendrick (and a lot of worship songs) the emotional weight occurs at the end of the line.
'Changed from glory i-into glory'
vs
'Ever changing from glory to glory-y'.
I find that that tailing off for emotional effect strikes me as emotionally manipulative.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I find that that tailing off for emotional effect strikes me as emotionally manipulative.
This strikes me as overly suspicious. It conjures up the picture of a monacled Kendrick, stroking his persian cat in the swivelly armchair, muttering "that tailing off on the last syllable of glory will really get them turned to the dark side".
[ 07. January 2010, 20:58: Message edited by: mdijon ]
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313
|
Posted
At one time or another in my life I have sung "Shine Jesus Shine" and a good many other songs of its generation. Some call this "praise" music. Certainly I sometimes enjoyed singing SJS and its ilk, but I enjoy many older hymns at least as much, and as I get older, I tend to prefer to sing hymns that are appropriate to the occasion, have some variety to them, and have some intellectual content. Of course, many people prefer simple, repetitive music, especially if they can't read music.
Any hymn can be overused; the best example is probably "Amazing Grace". (I like the tune, especially using bagpipes, but it is often badly sung. Using it at a funeral is usually an insult to the deceased.)
Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
daisymay
St Elmo's Fire
# 1480
|
Posted
Dafyd,
There is a symbolism of us reflecting God's golden light and glory - Ibn Arabi wrote that as the sunflowers always follow the shining Sun as the Sun shines, so we look towards and follow the shining Sun/God and reflect back to God the shining. We also shine around and shine to others to draw them towards God.
Sorry, Mamcita, whatever incompetence I showed earlier - thank you!
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ptarmigan
Shipmate
# 138
|
Posted
Shine Jesus Shine is crass, vulgar, derivative, banal and free from any merit or redeeming feature.
I'm not going to reiterate all the criticisms above, but just add this one.
When I was at school I well remember a report which said "If he tried a bit harder he could really shine". It's just bizarre to ask (or tell) Jesus to try harder and shine a bit more.
Oh and it isnlt at all modern musically. It's probably the sort of thing they had on Radio 2 about 30 years ago. If it dates from 1987 then it's over 20 years after Leighton's Responses or Second Service, or Howells' Te Deum for the Church of St Mary Redcliffe and Chichester Service; 40 years after Britten's Rejoice in the Lamb and Walton's Set me as a seal; 50 years after Belshazzar etc etc. There's nothing whatever modern about the jaunty tune of SJS; it is totally derivative and free from originality.
--------------------
All shall be well. And all shall be well. And all manner of things shall be well. (Julian of Norwich)
Posts: 1080 | From: UK - Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ptarmigan:
Shine Jesus Shine is crass, vulgar, derivative, banal and free from any merit or redeeming feature.
Oh come on! You can do better than that. Just what exactly is crass or vulgar or banal about the words? Explain with examples!
And of course its bloody derivative, so are most hymns and liturgy, we get the words from the Bible. Derivative is no problem.
quote:
It's just bizarre to ask (or tell) Jesus to try harder and shine a bit more.
Tell that to the Psalmists.
quote:
Oh and it isnlt at all modern musically.
So? its the burden of the words we're talking about, not the tune.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
