|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Eccles: What exactly is so bad about Shine Jesus Shine?
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
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.
Which tune for Love Divine would that be? In my experience the usual tune is Hyfrydol, but I am aware that "Love Divine" is also frequently sung in the UK. I'm sure there's at least one other.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bartolomeo
Musical Engineer
# 8352
|
Posted
Let me count the ways.
Musically, SJS isn't suitable for congregational singing. It has a range of an octave and a third, which is wider than a typical untrained singer can handle. Worse, both the lowest notes and highest notes in the range are accented at various points, and the refrain stays in the upper fifth or so of the song's range for a long time. To sing SJS well, from a vocal perspective, requires more ability than an average congregational singer can bring to bear. The rhythm, while not especially difficult, is nonetheless beyond many of those who attempt it.
Lyrically, I think that Kendrick takes the metaphor of Christ as the light of the world well beyond any relevant biblical basis. Kendrick speaks of an outpouring of power and glory where all we, the listeners, need to do is serve as passive recipients. The closest Kendrick comes to involving us as anything other than observers and recipients is his inclusion of petitions to "set our hearts on fire" and (in a musically deemphasized portion of the verse) "let our lives tell your story."
Further, Kendrick's lyrics have no uniquely Christian content. Though addressed to Christ, by name, there are no references to such Christian themes as the paschal mystery, forgiveness of sin, or the Trinity (the partial and oblique references don't do it for me). One could substitute the name of any mythical Greek or Roman God and as long as the syllable count matched the rest of the song would still work, lyrically.
Other criticisms upthread are also valid. I would add that, despite a post hoc effort to relate the song to Epiphany or Pentecost, Kendrick doesn't make it clear to us exactly what part of Christ's life he's writing about.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by ErinBear:
It seems like our church was using this song to make it seem like we were being current and modern at times, when in fact "Shine" seems like it is out-of-date to me, as other posters have mentioned. I confess I like traditional music best in worship, but if you're going to use a modern worship song, please use a good contemporary one (and there are some good ones out there).
Is there no room then for worship music that is in a certain age range -- i.e. too old to be contemporary and too new to be classic? If it's less than 100 years old but more than 25, say, it's out of bounds? Will SJS come back into acceptability 75 years from now, or will the "classics" definition line stay frozen in space while the "contemporary" window continues to slide forward? In other words is an entire swath of worship music simply disposable? Use it until it's too old, then throw it away -- as opposed to the now-closed canon of "Classics" which will continue to be acceptable as Classics? That's how what you have said strikes me.
I have written before on these boards that the central problem of "contemporary Christian music" is that it is based on highly ephemeral idioms in popular music, many of them serving narrow demographic niches. I've visited churches that put on contemporary worship services that are:
* 1970s Folk Rock
* Late 1970s classic rock
* mid 1980s soft rock
* 1950s Country-western
* post-modern Suzanne Vega folk revival with rap influences
* Gospel music influenced by pop acts of the last 10 years
The problem is not the diversity in and of itself but the relative lack of appeal any of one these genres has to an aficionado of any other of these genres. To design a contemporary worship program that speaks to a wide range of people, while still based on congregational singing, is nearly impossible.
--------------------
"Individual talent is too sporadic and unpredictable to be allowed any important part in the organization society" --Stuart Chase
Posts: 1291 | From: the American Midwest | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Bartolomeo, I don't dispute anything you have said. But: what is the solution? To only sing old stuff? To have different services or even different churches for lovers of different genres / timeslices of contemporary music? Something else?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
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.
Which tune for Love Divine would that be? In my experience the usual tune is Hyfrydol, but I am aware that "Love Divine" is also frequently sung in the UK. I'm sure there's at least one other.
John
Blaenwern, probably.
[ 08. January 2010, 07:03: Message edited by: Think² ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
I have written before on these boards that the central problem of "contemporary Christian music" is that it is based on highly ephemeral idioms in popular music, many of them serving narrow demographic niches.
Hasn't that always been true to a degree? For instance:
- Bach's music was considered old-fashioned in his lifetime and not performed for a century.
- West Gallery music was considered crude in the latter half of the C19 and expurgated from many churches.
- much music of the Moody & Sankey type was deliberately modelled on popular patterns of the day (as was Luther's!) - was it expected to last? I doubt it.
- those folk who are into "high" church music will probably be unaware of the "Gospel song" music that was popular in Pentecostal churches during the 1920's-1960s.
- back in the 1960s, "Youth Praise" was collected by a group of mostly Anglican Evangelicals who recognised that music sung in churches simply did not connect with contemporary young people. Today that music is "old hat" - although some (eg "Christ Triumphant") has entered the mainstream repertoire.
I'm sure there are many other examples. Granted, the pace of change has quickened dramatically in recent years, and particular styles of music serve very nuanced groups of people. But:
- can we honestly try to cater for everyone - eswpecially those who do not yet share our faith - at every service?
- do we run the risk of splitting the church, which should be a glorious tapestry of very different people, into small groups of people who are demographically homogeneous? This is as much a theological and ecclesiological issue as a musical one.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
jacobsen
seeker
# 14998
|
Posted
To get back to the OP, I enjoy the chorus of SJS, but musically the verse is turgid.
--------------------
But God, holding a candle, looks for all who wander, all who search. - Shifra Alon
Beauty fades, dumb is forever-Judge Judy
The man who made time, made plenty.
Posts: 8040 | From: Æbleskiver country | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
I'm gonna do it... I'm gonna stand up for SJS (and not just because it shares my initials...).
It's a great song - not perfect, but great.
Musically, the tune is not that tough - if it was that hard to sing, why would it have gained such popularity? Yes the range is big, but probably not bigger than a number of hymns and doesn't feature too many huge jumps (save from last note of verse to first note of chorus). But it's also quite deceptive: there's some interesting (not spectacular, but interesting) harmonies and it's anything but simplistic. Not on a par with some of the great hymn tunes or choral settings, but then it's not trying to be - that's not the point of the tune. It was written as something everyone, those with great musical knowledge and those with none, could sing to some degree.
Lyrically, the song holds to the theme of Christ, the light of the world contrasted with the darkness of the world and our lives (even as Christians) and begs for the light to shine in those places. The only place it strays from this is the "Flow, river flow" line in the chorus, which seems a bit out of place. It allows people to sing it as individuals (the "Shine on me" and the 2nd verse) and as part of a corporate whole (verses 1 and 3). It recognises God's awesomeness (in the old-fashioned sense of the word, and probably the newer sense as well) and His authority over all things. It is thoroughly Trinitarian, recognising Jesus as divine and calling on the Spirit. It recognises our failings (verse 2) and asks God to deal with those as only He can, recognising that we need Christ's light as much as anyone else.
Is it triumphalist? Not necessarily of itself, though it could be sung as such (but is that a fault of the song or of those who sing it in that way?) It does suggest that God's glory will be shown through us, as Christians, but then I refer you to Matthew 5:14-16:
quote:
14You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden. 15Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. 16In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven.
Emphasis added, obviously
What's the difference between that and what SJS is suggesting? Jesus' words in Matthew are him saying this will happen; Kendrick's words in the song are us asking for it to happen. The song doesn't suggest we're perfect, or we deserve glorifying - it suggests that, somehow, despite the darkness in ourselves, God's light can shine through us and people can see Him at work through us. In fact, how else will it happen?
Now a lot of you will disagree strongly with this. Fair enough. But that's the point: this is all subjective stuff. Some interpret this as triumphalist, cheesy and worthless; others as something important and worthwhile. I don't see how it can be described as one or the other as if that opinion were an objective fact.
--------------------
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
|
|
Loveheart
Blue-scarved menace
# 12249
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
I'm gonna do it... I'm gonna stand up for SJS (and not just because it shares my initials...).
Like your post Stejjie (and I like SJS too), but I am now singing "stand up stand up for Jesus", a holy ear worm if ever I heard one! ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
--------------------
You must not lose faith in humanity. Humanity is an ocean; if a few drops of the ocean are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty. Mahatma Gandhi
Posts: 3638 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Loveheart:
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
I'm gonna do it... I'm gonna stand up for SJS (and not just because it shares my initials...).
Like your post Stejjie (and I like SJS too), but I am now singing "stand up stand up for Jesus", a holy ear worm if ever I heard one!
![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
--------------------
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 Stejjie:
It does suggest that God's glory will be shown through us, as Christians, but then I refer you to Matthew 5:14-16:
quote:
14You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden. 15Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. 16In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven.
Emphasis added, obviously
What's the difference between that and what SJS is suggesting? Jesus' words in Matthew are him saying this will happen; Kendrick's words in the song are us asking for it to happen.
Difference: in the gospel, Jesus is telling us to act a particular way (not sing about it!) ... and in the song, we are telling Jesus to act a particular way.
Seems like a fundamental difference to me.
I should point out that the Sermon on the Mount is generally telling us to do things - particularly things we are reluctant to do, things that are contrary to the flesh ("When you pray, do not show off..."). So, the light that Christ said should shine in the world is not some dazzling unveiling of the divine power (well, not until Christ comes again in glory) but rather our good works. Maybe we should really be singing "Shine, Christians, Shine, Fill this land with our works of mercy!" That is what Christ said in the Sermon on the Mount, isn't it?
--------------------
MSHB: Member of the Shire Hobbit Brigade
Posts: 1522 | From: Dharawal Country | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
It could have been that. But it wasn't - and since the Psalms say;
quote:
Let the light of your face shine upon us, O LORD.
quote:
Let your face shine on your servant; save me in your unfailing love.
and even
quote:
O LORD, the God who avenges, O God who avenges, shine forth.
it doesn't seem all that unorthodox.
Although I would be a bit less happy to sing the last one. And the poetry of the Psalms is perhaps lacking in SJS.
And I also must admit that the more we discuss this, the more I start to feel a bit odd about the song. I just can't put my finger on it, and the command issue/shining/Jesus rather than Christians doesn't seem to quite be it.
[ 08. January 2010, 15:29: Message edited by: mdijon ]
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bartolomeo:
Further, Kendrick's lyrics have no uniquely Christian content. Though addressed to Christ, by name, there are no references to such Christian themes as the paschal mystery, forgiveness of sin, or the Trinity (the partial and oblique references don't do it for me). One could substitute the name of any mythical Greek or Roman God and as long as the syllable count matched the rest of the song would still work, lyrically.
![[Confused]](confused.gif) ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
You must be thinking of some other song called Shine, Jesus, Shine!
As for it being unclear what part of Jesus's life he is talking about, he probably isn't. He's talking about the worshipper's relationshiop to Jesus now. What's wrong with that?
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MSHB:
Difference: in the gospel, Jesus is telling us to act a particular way (not sing about it!) ... and in the song, we are telling Jesus to act a particular way.
Except that the song isn't a paraphrase of the Sermon on the Mount, its a hymn to Christ using language that seems to me to be based on th Psalms, and on the Johnannine writings more than the narrative sections of the Gospels.
I'm not saying that Kendrick got his words from there - I have no idea if he did - it might be that he was writing in his own words using images that had got into the soup without specifically connecting this to that. But the language resonates with lots of Bible passages.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
Which tune for Love Divine would that be? In my experience the usual tune is Hyfrydol, but I am aware that "Love Divine" is also frequently sung in the UK. I'm sure there's at least one other.
I'm not musical and my computer won't play the tunes that Think² linked to. Judging by the way the stanzas are printed, I'm thinking of Hyfrydol. The tune I'm thinking of repeats every eight lines rather than every four.
--------------------
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
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by MSHB:
Difference: in the gospel, Jesus is telling us to act a particular way (not sing about it!) ... and in the song, we are telling Jesus to act a particular way.
Except that the song isn't a paraphrase of the Sermon on the Mount, its a hymn to Christ using language that seems to me to be based on th Psalms, and on the Johnannine writings more than the narrative sections of the Gospels.
I'm not saying that Kendrick got his words from there - I have no idea if he did - it might be that he was writing in his own words using images that had got into the soup without specifically connecting this to that. But the language resonates with lots of Bible passages.
Apologies, the Sermon On the Mount was my curve-ball, an attempt to suggest where the imagery of God's glory shining through us comes from.
Just for interest, Songs of Fellowship lists the following Bible verses in connection with the song
These aren't necessarily the verses Kendrick used when writing the song, but the ones the compilers of SOF thought were appropriate or mirrored images or ideas in the song.
--------------------
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
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
Which tune for Love Divine would that be? In my experience the usual tune is Hyfrydol, but I am aware that "Love Divine" is also frequently sung in the UK. I'm sure there's at least one other.
I'm not musical and my computer won't play the tunes that Think² linked to. Judging by the way the stanzas are printed, I'm thinking of Hyfrydol. The tune I'm thinking of repeats every eight lines rather than every four.
More likely Blaenwern on this side of the pond. Hyfrydol is the tune I know to Alleluia, Sing to Jesus.
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
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
Love divine was not written with either Blaenwern or Hyfrydol in mind (this is not in response to your post, Carys, but an earlier one) - nor AFAIK were either of them written for Love Divine the quality of the fit of words to music is a happy accident.
Also, am I the only one to find it odd for the assonant rhyming of likeness/brightness to be criticised, while Wesley's rhyming of praise/place is overlooked.
I do think we sing SJS too much, and too often let it drag. But it is a tremendous plea for God to reveal his glory in the world, transforming it with his grace and mercy, and embracing and using his people in that process of transformation.
(I wonder whether the 'flow, river, flow' imagery comes from the image of the river that flows from the temple in Ezekiel 47 cleansing and refreshing the whole land.)
[ 09. January 2010, 00:02: Message edited by: BroJames ]
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mamacita
Lakefront liberal
# 3659
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
Hyfrydol is the tune I know to Alleluia, Sing to Jesus.
The Hymnal 1982 (TEC) has Hyfrydol as the tune for both hymns. (Apologies for prolonging the tangent. It [Love Divine]'s my favorite hymn.)
[ 09. January 2010, 02:35: Message edited by: Mamacita ]
--------------------
Do not be daunted by the enormity of the world’s grief. Do justly, now. Love mercy, now. Walk humbly, now. You are not obligated to complete the work, but neither are you free to abandon it.
Posts: 20761 | From: where the purple line ends | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ptarmigan
Shipmate
# 138
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
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!
It's already been said. I added one example which you conveniently omit.
quote:
And of course its bloody derivative, so are most hymns and liturgy, we get the words from the Bible. Derivative is no problem.
One hopes for some originality, else it would be better to substitute a bible passage instead. And I was referring largely to the music.
quote:
quote:
It's just bizarre to ask (or tell) Jesus to try harder and shine a bit more.
Tell that to the Psalmists.
The psalmists didn't - as far as I'm aware - address Jesus. And anyway I would hope the christian church by 1987 would have evolved theology a bit beyond the level of some of the worst or more embarrassing examples in the book of psalms, of which there are plenty, including attempts to tell God (or gods) to try and behave a bit better.
quote:
quote:
Oh and it isn't at all modern musically.
So? its the burden of the words we're talking about, not the tune.
I think you'll find this thread is about both. In any case they're inseparable in most people's imaginations, which is where this dreadful ditty lives on.
--------------------
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
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
I just don't understand why it is Jesus who has to do all that shining?
Makes me think he wasn't born in a stable at all, but safe in the Dorchester Hotel.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ptarmigan
Shipmate
# 138
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
As for it being unclear what part of Jesus's life he is talking about, he probably isn't. He's talking about the worshipper's relationshiop to Jesus now. What's wrong with that?
A lot, but it probably belings in a separate thread in Purgatory. In short it seems nonsensical to use of the language and concepts of teenage romance to describe how one relates to The Logos Who was from the beginning and now "sitteth at the right hand of God"; whose presence cannot be mediated to us by any of our senses (sight, hearing, touch etc) but only through our imagination. There's lots of debate about sensory bandwidth and a sense of "presence" in academic texts on Virtual Reality which you may like to read.
--------------------
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
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ken:
Tell that to the Psalmists.
quote:
Originally posted by ptarmigan:
The psalmists didn't - as far as I'm aware - address Jesus.
It's hard to see the position "OK to tell God to shine, not OK to tell Jesus to shine" being that bullet-proof in the long run.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ptarmigan
Shipmate
# 138
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Ken:
Tell that to the Psalmists.
quote:
Originally posted by ptarmigan:
The psalmists didn't - as far as I'm aware - address Jesus.
It's hard to see the position "OK to tell God to shine, not OK to tell Jesus to shine" being that bullet-proof in the long run.
That's why my paragraph continued. Selective quoting can be so delightfully misleading.
--------------------
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
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
I thought the rest of your paragraph was a different tack, to be honest, which I also disagree with. I didn't see how it changed the reasoning of your first sentence - except, I suppose, to make it irrelevant. If it's irrelevant, then moving on...
I doubt the Psalmists saw it that way. I don't think they thought they were telling God to "behave better" - I think they thought of it as a form of supplication. It might read as a command to some, but nothing else in the OT makes me think the Jews would have been in the habit of commanding God. In that case, whatever they meant can't have been how you read them now.
[ 09. January 2010, 21:21: Message edited by: mdijon ]
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ptarmigan
Shipmate
# 138
|
Posted
I think the psalmists (if it's fair to lump them together) thought of God as strangely human: fallible, temperamental, open to persuasion etc. Oh and very vengeful at times. They also seem to have been less than monotheistic, seeing their god being somewhat better than the other gods.
I love the psalms but I don't think we can use passages uncritically as a basis for late 20th century worship.
--------------------
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
|
|
Alex Cockell
Ship’s penguin
# 7487
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gill H:
I remember the naff clapping, a la football chants:
Shine - o-on meee (clapclap clapclap)
Shine - o-on meee (clapclap clapclap)
I haven't sung the song in years, but the clapping disappeared pretty quickly in my area.
Wasn't it originally part of a March for Jesus? I'm sure I remember singing it in that context, along with chants such as:
Who - has - power to save?
(clapclapclapclap) JE-SUS!
Since the intention was to sound a bit like a rowdy football crowd, they worked in that context, but you wouldn't want to do it on an average Sunday at church.
(It always reminded me of Meatloaf's 'You Took The Words Right Out Of My Mouth' actually...)
It was. March 1989 IIRC. Also, Hosanna Music's worship CDs of the time were structured as Vineyard-esque 45-minute worship sets. If you imagine the 45 mins broken up with other talky bits... most blended-worship places average that amount of music.
Amazing Love CD listing (scroll down)
I think, if anything, it was used as part of the praiseup at the end of MFJ 1988.
Posts: 2146 | From: Reading, Berkshire UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alex Cockell
Ship’s penguin
# 7487
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
quote:
Originally posted by Loveheart:
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
I'm gonna do it... I'm gonna stand up for SJS (and not just because it shares my initials...).
Like your post Stejjie (and I like SJS too), but I am now singing "stand up stand up for Jesus", a holy ear worm if ever I heard one!
How about when set to the Muppet Show theme, as one colleague at work mentioned?
Posts: 2146 | From: Reading, Berkshire UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Loveheart
Blue-scarved menace
# 12249
|
Posted
I've heard "The Church's one foundation" sung to the Muppet Show...
--------------------
You must not lose faith in humanity. Humanity is an ocean; if a few drops of the ocean are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty. Mahatma Gandhi
Posts: 3638 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ptarmigan:
I think the psalmists (if it's fair to lump them together) thought of God as strangely human: fallible, temperamental, open to persuasion etc. Oh and very vengeful at times. They also seem to have been less than monotheistic, seeing their god being somewhat better than the other gods.
If you'll forgive the selective quote again, I think that is nevertheless consistent with a God who one doesn't order around. A God open to persuasion is fine to supplicate (afterall, we could have the same debate about intercessory prayer in the church) - but a vengeful, temperamental God is not one to be bossy with.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
the famous rachel
Shipmate
# 1258
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ptarmigan:
I love the psalms but I don't think we can use passages uncritically as a basis for late 20th century worship.
Does that mean you don't read the psalms as part of worship services?
All the best,
Rachel.
--------------------
A shrivelled appendix to the body of Christ.
Posts: 912 | From: In the lab. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ptarmigan
Shipmate
# 138
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the famous rachel:
quote:
Originally posted by ptarmigan:
I love the psalms but I don't think we can use passages uncritically as a basis for late 20th century worship.
Does that mean you don't read the psalms as part of worship services?
All the best,
Rachel.
Depending which services you do, the lectionary includes some psalm passages, but of course the selection is not "uncritical" nad is of course a component of, not a basis for, worship. Even when singing psalms systematically in cathedral-style BCP evensongs, a certain amount of censorship is usually applied (e.g. The bit in the otherwise beautiful Psalms 139 about how wonderful it is to dash babies to death against rocks), but a lot of wonderfully colourful bits remain (E.g. "Then the Lord awoke as one out of sleep, and like a giant refreshed with wine, He smote His enemies about their hinder parts, and put them to perpeutal shame").
ETA - I have a feeling I'm going badly off topic here. :-(
[ 10. January 2010, 14:04: Message edited by: ptarmigan ]
--------------------
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
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ptarmigan:
(e.g. The bit in the otherwise beautiful Psalms 139 about how wonderful it is to dash babies to death against rocks), but a lot of wonderfully colourful bits remain (E.g. "Then the Lord awoke as one out of sleep, and like a giant refreshed with wine, He smote His enemies about their hinder parts, and put them to perpeutal shame").
ETA - I have a feeling I'm going badly off topic here. :-(
Not at all. I'm just imagining that Kendrick penned "Dash Babies, Dash" or "Smite, Lord, Smite, Like a Gi-ant, refreshed with wi-ine" as the lost 3rd and 4th verses respectively, sung to the same pop-style tune, but suppressed by a concerned publisher.
"No don't get me wrong, Graham, I'm all in favour of tackling some of the tougher passages... yes, yes, I believe it's all inspired too... it's just..."
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leaf
Shipmate
# 14169
|
Posted
But mdijon, those images are all biblical, so what's the problem? ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Also there are not enough hymns based on Ezekiel 23. Talk about neglected bibical images.
Posts: 2786 | From: the electrical field | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
the famous rachel
Shipmate
# 1258
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ptarmigan:
Originally posted by ptarmigan:
Depending which services you do, the lectionary includes some psalm passages, but of course the selection is not "uncritical" nad is of course a component of, not a basis for, worship. Even when singing psalms systematically in cathedral-style BCP evensongs, a certain amount of censorship is usually applied (e.g. The bit in the otherwise beautiful Psalms 139 about how wonderful it is to dash babies to death against rocks), but a lot of wonderfully colourful bits remain (E.g. "Then the Lord awoke as one out of sleep, and like a giant refreshed with wine, He smote His enemies about their hinder parts, and put them to perpeutal shame").
I'm afraid I can't see any meaningful difference between singing a Psalm in worship and singing a song based around words and ideas from the Psalms. I agree that there's some editing of the use of Psalms in worship, but things like Psalm 80 strike me as pretty good fodder for traditional worship, and also as containing some similar words and sentiments as SJS. I would admit the Psalmist did a better job than Graham Kendrick, but that doesn't seem to make SJS unsuitable for worship - which is what your earlier post seemed to be implying.
All the best,
Rachel.
--------------------
A shrivelled appendix to the body of Christ.
Posts: 912 | From: In the lab. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
But mdijon, those images are all biblical, so what's the problem?
Also there are not enough hymns based on Ezekiel 23. Talk about neglected bibical images.
Or endless lists of begats in 4-part harmony.
However, to be serious briefly, if we agree there are bits of the bible that aren't appropriate for songs (even if they come from the Psalms) then it seems to become harder to be perjorative about modern efforts. I mean, what's a slightly odd metaphor (to some) amidst dashed baby-brains, horses penises and genocide?
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sandemaniac
Shipmate
# 12829
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
Also there are not enough hymns based on Ezekiel 23. Talk about neglected bibical images.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
AG
--------------------
"It becomes soon pleasantly apparent that change-ringing is by no means merely an excuse for beer" Charles Dickens gets it wrong, 1869
Posts: 3574 | From: The wardrobe of my soul | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ptarmigan:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
As for it being unclear what part of Jesus's life he is talking about, he probably isn't. He's talking about the worshipper's relationshiop to Jesus now. What's wrong with that?
A lot, but it probably belings in a separate thread in Purgatory. In short it seems nonsensical to use of the language and concepts of teenage romance to describe how one relates to The Logos Who was from the beginning and now "sitteth at the right hand of God"; whose presence cannot be mediated to us by any of our senses (sight, hearing, touch etc) but only through our imagination.
But SJS doesn't use the "language and concepts of teenage romance to describe how one relates to The Logos...". Goodness, I was rubbish with girls when I was a teenager, (fancying the girl in my class least likely to go out with me was perhaps my first mistake), but I know if I'd gone up to her and said: "The light of your love is shining in the midst of the darkness... I come to Your awesome presence from the shadows into you radiance... Mirrored here may my life tell your story", I'd have had a restraining order served on me without delay. And if I'd asked her light to shine in me, well...
That's one of the things that (for me) makes SJS rise above most contemporary music songs, many of which I do find banal and cliched: it isn't "Jesus is my boyfriend" territory. In fact, I think it makes a good fist of finding a way of relating to Christ in His glory: that we come from a position of darkness and need His light to shine upon us and in us if we're going to do so.
--------------------
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
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
More likely Blaenwern on this side of the pond. Hyfrydol is the tune I know to Alleluia, Sing to Jesus.
Not Hyfrydol then, since I sing Alleluia Sing to Jesus to a different tune. (But another of my favourite hymns.)
Having made my dislike of Shine Jesus Shine I do think some of the charges made against it on this thread are unfair. e.g. leo says that it's individualistic because it says 'shine on me'.
We had 'Come Down O Love Divine' in church yesterday. May I assume leo doesn't sing that either?
And let thy glorious light
Shine ever on my sight,
And clothe me round the while my path illuming.
And it's telling God what to do...
--------------------
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
Neither could some fabulous musicians - Charlie Parker, for instance, the father of modern jazz.
Not that Kendrick compares to Charlie Parker.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
Also there are not enough hymns based on Ezekiel 23. Talk about neglected bibical images.
Sung to the tune of 'Here's to you, Mrs Robinson'?
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leaf
Shipmate
# 14169
|
Posted
Wrong thread. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posts: 2786 | From: the electrical field | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bartolomeo
Musical Engineer
# 8352
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Bartolomeo, I don't dispute anything you have said. But: what is the solution? To only sing old stuff? To have different services or even different churches for lovers of different genres / timeslices of contemporary music? Something else?
I think the solution is to approach the music of the church as something that exists apart from popular music. Worship does not need to mimic culture to be effective.
--------------------
"Individual talent is too sporadic and unpredictable to be allowed any important part in the organization society" --Stuart Chase
Posts: 1291 | From: the American Midwest | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Worship does not need to mimic culture to be effective.
I'm not sure if this is really true, either with regard to worship in general or music in particular. While I agree that Christian music must not slavishly copy secular styles in order to be "contemporary" and "relevant (something which it usually does badly, anyway), the fact is that we all live and operate within certain cultures.
The fact the much church music may now be archaic and aparently timeless should not blind us to the fact that it was once modern and enculturated. This is particularly true of music which seeks to engage with those who do not share our faith: although some might respond very positively to music which appears to be "spiritual", alien or simply outside what they usually listen to, others will find this too difficult to cope with and merely give up on us.
I do not believe that there is (much) music which is inherently "Christian" or indeed "unChristian". So much depends on the relations one has with it, and one person's meat (SJS) is surely someone else's poison.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
malik3000
Shipmate
# 11437
|
Posted
While the song, IMO, is no more horrible than some other dreck out there, the reason why it, and a few other overworked chestnuts get on my nerves is basically the same type of reason "My heart will go on" by Celine Dion used to get on my last nerve. i. e., it was was absurdly overplayed.
(Overplayed, in this latter case on the deadly boring "soft rock / easy listening" radio stations i was forced to listen to at work in a series of dead-end jobs i had just before the millenium.
That kind of mood isn't condusive to worship for me.
--------------------
God = love.
Otherwise, things are not just black or white.
Posts: 3149 | From: North America | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bartolomeo:
I think the solution is to approach the music of the church as something that exists apart from popular music. Worship does not need to mimic culture to be effective.
Could you give an example of what you mean - do you mean, for example, that new church music should resemble and/or develop from "traditional" hymns? Can there be new forms of Christian music that don't mimic culture?
Also, what's so bad about popular music that Christian music should exist "apart" from it? That suggests to me that it simply has nothing that can be used rightly by Christians, that God can have no use for it at all. Is that really the case?
Edited to fix code
[ 12. January 2010, 20:37: Message edited by: Stejjie ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
To my mind, there is one and only one major problem with Shine Jesus Shine.
Some people think it's a modern song, often the only "modern" one they know (and hence it gets overused). It isn't modern; some people who were born after it was written are old enough to get ordained!
It's a song. It's ok, but it's not an especially brilliant song; I doubt it took as long to write as some people here have spent analysing it. Kendrick has written better, and so have a lot of people since.
Kind of has retro value if we use it in church now...
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bartolomeo:
I think the solution is to approach the music of the church as something that exists apart from popular music. Worship does not need to mimic culture to be effective.
Almost no modern worship music used in churches mimics popular music. Its almost all written and played in some rather distinctive styles that are not met much outside churches.
Some of it sounds like some acoustic folk bands - not as much as I used to hear in the 1970s - but that's hardly very popular, nor it it contemporary. I have heard some half decent Christian reggae on record, but never used in any church I've been to. You get stuff that sounds like some kinds of dance music at big festivals but not very often in any kind of church.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ptarmigan
Shipmate
# 138
|
Posted
None of the "pop" music sung in churches is remotely modern in any sense except the merely chronological. To find truly innovative church music you need something more like this http://www.london.anglican.org/EventShow_5757 .
--------------------
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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
