Thread: Eccles: What exactly is so bad about Shine Jesus Shine? Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000736
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
What exactly is so bad about Shine Jesus Shine?
It gets moaned about regularly on this website. Shipmates love to hate it.
Is it because it stands in as a representative for a whole set of songs? I'd guess its probably the most widely sung song that came out of the 1970s/80s Restorationist/New Church movement. So I suppose people who have a dislike of modern worship music in general might think of it first.
And its by the Blessed Graham Kendrick of South East London who is - or more accurately was about fifteen years ago - the most overexposed Christian songwriter, You heard him everywhere. So that might spark resentment, or satiation.
BUT its really not that bad. The tune is OK but not brilliant - its actually not that easy to sing for amateurs - the harmony on the end of the tune is odd (like with most Kendrick tunes). But its not that hard. The range is an octave and a third (in A the melody goes from the B below the tonic to the D above it) which is greater than most simple hymns or folk songs, but not egregiously so.
But its not the tune that the knockers knock, its the words. The sentiment.
So just what is wrong with the words? It is not particularly banal or simple or sentimental. Doctrinally its orthodox. In fact Orthodox. Translate it into Greek and say it was by some mediaeval hermit and they'd be chanting it in Athens.
So what is the problem?
(*) Though its not the most sung song of the last few years - in this country that might be something like In Christ Alone (Townend/Getty), Here I Am To Worship (Hughes) or Blessed Be Your Name (Redman). Nor was it the most popular 1970s "chorus" - that was probably How lovely on the mountains - a chunk of Isaiah and some other Bible verses set to the tune of Our God Reigns, the actual verses of which are hardly ever sung any more (and which was written by Lenny Smith who is, or was at the time, an Anglo-Catholic US Episcopalian if I remember correctly)
[ 16. February 2010, 10:47: Message edited by: Think˛ ]
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on
:
It's a hymn that's used in all services of our church - and everyone seems to like it. Maybe because they've heard and sung it occasionally, maybe because they've never heard of its "criticism".
Also, when I taught in a secondary school it was sung there (one service on Monday morning only) and the teenage pupils were liking it and singing it as they walked along the corridors to classrooms, and at lunchtime etc, because they both enjoyed it and it was easy to learn.
I like it too; I don't understand why there is negative criticism...
ETA: correcting grammar/spelling ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
[ 04. January 2010, 20:54: Message edited by: daisymay ]
Posted by TonyK (# 35) on
:
Agreed, Ken.
I have never understood the complainers - the words and sense are pretty sound, the tune is singable, even for a non-musician, and the whole thing is inspiring in its way.
It may not be in the same league as some of the traditional hymns (though I suspect a lot of their appeal is just repetition!) It's certainly a lot better than some modern stuff - like the Martin Nystrom's 'As the deer pants for the water' which, IMHO, is trite and banal. 'The apple of my eye' indeed!
But it's horses for courses - one man's Kendrick is another's Wesley. And most of Wesley's aren't sung much these days either!
Posted by Aravis (# 13824) on
:
I quite like it actually. There are a lot of choruses I can't stand, but SJS has a lot going for it. It's a reasonably good tune, it doesn't screech on forever on high notes, and it's fun to bash out on a piano. It doesn't keep changing focus, i.e. it's addressed to the Lord throughout rather than hopping between talking about God and to God. It includes a number of references from different parts of the Bible but doesn't take them wildly out of context or stitch them together at random. It manages to strike a balance between the navel-gazing chorus and the triumphalist chorus, by using the verses as an explanation of how the light of Jesus can transform our lives (progressing from light as an inspiration in the darkness, to allowing the light to dispel the dark areas from our hearts, to actually reflecting the Lord's glory as in II Cor 3) while the chorus asks for this light to be evident throughout the world.
Mostly I prefer hymns, but for a chorus this is pretty good. ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Posted by Spong (# 1518) on
:
Nothing's wrong with it, it's great. Expresses that sort of joy where you want to stand on tiptoes.
It's especially good when belted out by a thousand people in a beer tent in Cheltenham, much to the disgust of The Landlord... ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
Shine on me. = individualistic, not a song of the whole Church.
Fill this land....Flood the nation - I never trust anything that talks about nationhood - right wing.
Your awesome presence - 'awesome' = teenager talk
consume all my darkness....As we gaze on Your kindly brightness - Prof. John Hull, who is blind, has a lot to say about this. God is IN the dark, according to the mystics.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
We still sing it occasionally: it was sung at the Christingle service in December which was all on the theme of light out of darkness. The other one that got sung there was the Bernadette Farrell Longing for Light
I've also sung Shine Jesus Shine to a brass band - and that was fun.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
I've also sung Shine Jesus Shine to a brass band - and that was fun.
(Tangentially: And I've sung the "Hallelujah Chorus" to an accordion - equally fun!)
Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on
:
I first learned it in Assemblies of God circles, so it reminds me of that whole praise & worship style I don't care for (personally), but that's neither here nor there objectively speaking.
But I do find the tune a bit annoying, at least in the verses - that little dip at the end of each line...
[eta: I also find the song too wordy - both in general, and also musically, there are too many words crammed into that tune. As for the tune, I don't think anyone would want to listen to an instrumental version of the song unless they know the lyrics and like it for the lyrics.]
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Shine on me. = individualistic, not a song of the whole Church.
Fill this land....Flood the nation - I never trust anything that talks about nationhood - right wing.
Your awesome presence - 'awesome' = teenager talk
consume all my darkness....As we gaze on Your kindly brightness - Prof. John Hull, who is blind, has a lot to say about this. God is IN the dark, according to the mystics.
I'll give you the first two - I mean, I'm with you on being against too much individualism or nationalism. In the US, "flood the nation..." - any time you hear about "the nation" in religious talk - also has connotations of the sort of political involvement right-wing Christians are so fond of (the ones who seem to desire a theocracy).
But the second two reasons you give I think can be argued both ways. Given the date of composition, the song probably should avoid using "awesome" for the reasons you give, but to be fair, the word does have an actual meaning which is appropriate there. (Or we could return to the older "awful!" ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
) And the gazing on Jesus' brightness - recall that the next line says "So our faces display your radiance." There are certainly problems of using only light imagery, but it is a very traditional imagery (mystics aside) and in fact this bit about our faces reflecting the light of Christ is a direct allusion to Moses, whose face shone so brightly after his meeting with God that it had to be veiled. You can't expect one song to balance out every image, so I wouldn't worry too much about the light/dark imagery.
Overall, I can happily live without this particular song. But if it's sung in a service I'm attending, I'll probably sing along. I might wince in a few spots, but I'd try to get over myself.
(We have a brass crucifix in the vestry that people sometimes suggest I should polish, since I polish the metals around here, but since those of us who work here all like it looking aged and a bit tarnished, my response usually is simply to start singing, "Shine, Jesus, shine..." i.e., "Hey, Jesus, since you're just hanging there, would you mind being a little more sparkly?")
[ 04. January 2010, 21:24: Message edited by: churchgeek ]
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
There are justifiable quibbles, as leo points out, about some of the words. Though it says 'flood the nations' (plural), so it's international not nationalistic. My quibble is 'By the blood I may enter Your brightness': orthodox theology no doubt, but weird imagery. Why not 'through the Cross'?
We used to sing this hymn in the Candlemass procession and it worked very well.
Posted by Stranger in a strange land (# 11922) on
:
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.
Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on
:
Why would "through the Cross" be any less weird than "by the blood"? In fact, it might be weirder - is the Cross like that spot of wall in the train station in Harry Potter where if you walk headlong into it you can actually pass through it to somewhere else?
(I also forgot to mention in my previous post that not only do I think the tune is annoying, but the lyrics aren't exactly poetry either. Neither the tune nor the lyrics really stand on their own, aesthetically. Maybe devotionally, but not aesthetically. IMO.)
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
I am one of the moaners (my sig at one time was a self quote, “you have to tell people what you want at your funeral; if you don’t, they might sing “Shine Jesus Shine.”). And to tell you the truth, when I moan about SJS, I use it as a synecdoche for all “praise and worship” music, which I just don’t like that much. I suspect that is why you hear lots of people moan about it- because it is the best known example of a general musical genre that some people don’t like- personal taste and all that.
I suspect that SJS is also just old enough to be unfashionable, so when it is sung, it sounds out of touch. If you are trying to connect with a young person through rock music, you can talk about contemporary groups, or you can talk about the Beatles, the Who, or the Stones, who are classics, but you would seem hopelessly out of touch if you tried to talk to them about Oasis, even if they did, in reality, kick ass. Maybe in 15 years or so it will be alright to buy a copy of “What’s the Story Morning Glory” again, but right now, you would get laughed at. In the same way, when you have a “contemporary” service but still sing “SJS,” you seem out of touch, but it hasn’t been around long enough for people to call it a classic.
And yes, it is wordy.
Posted by Timothy412 (# 15379) on
:
Hai.
lol. There isnt anything wrong with shine jesus Shine but its very old fashioned. a worship leader who used to play at my church was very fond of it and used to make us play it at our traditional service on sunday mornings but never at our contemporary service.
Thank you.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
Spot on, Timothy - I was very shocked (in a happy way) to meet a worship leader from the MCC in Exeter whose congregation were mainly teens and early 20s who regarded 'Shine' as pre-historic.
Posted by Carys (# 78) on
:
It's partly because in the 90s it was the contemporary song sung in ecumenical gatherings, churches including a token modern hymn etc and so it has suffered from over exposure.
I quite like the verses but could live without the chorus (true of much Kendrick cf Meekness and Majesty and the Servant King). The most bizarre thing to me is the weird Trinity:
quote:
Shine Jesus Shine...
Blow Spirit Blow...
Flow River Flow...
Carys
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
Why would "through the Cross" be any less weird than "by the blood"? In fact, it might be weirder - is the Cross like that spot of wall in the train station in Harry Potter where if you walk headlong into it you can actually pass through it to somewhere else?
Fair point. I suppose 'by the blood' suggests a certain sort of evangelical theology, whereas 'through the cross' doesn't particularly. But either of them will sound weird to a non-Christian.
If it's a Christian hymn, though, I don't think you can dodge theology altogether.
Do we really have to wait until modern worship songs are 'classics' and hence no longer modern? Most people have an inbuilt naffness meter but they will all be set at different levels; I pity those who are so sensitive that they trip at anything written after 1960, or not written for organ accompaniment.
Posted by Timothy412 (# 15379) on
:
Hai Leo
lots of catholic schools sing it along with here i am lord i used to go to a catholic school and they sang it a lot which is why i think our worship leader liked it it was just embarressing when old people did the hand actions and he would get enthusiastic about it and would get the kids to do play homemade instruments. hes gone now and whilst he was nice i dont miss his old fashioned worship.
Thank you
Posted by Carys (# 78) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I pity those who are so sensitive that they trip at anything written after 1960, or not written for organ accompaniment.
The latter is a valid objection if organ accompaniment is what available/common/expected at a church. Worship songs on the organ are to be avoided. ISTR saying SJS can work on the organ, but needs a skilled and sympathetic organist (which is why I would be very unlikely to suggest it at current church, we have a very skilled organist but not one who is sympathetic to SJS style music!)
Carys
Posted by Ashworth (# 12645) on
:
I think SJS just got a bad name in some church circles in the 1990's because it was used so often at large gatherings as the token modern hymn during which certain types of people would clap and raise their hands in praise.
Has anyone ever experienced singing it at a much slower tempo, in a quiet devotional way.
We have occasionally used it in this way during Benediction and it then becomes a very different type of hymn.
Posted by Carys (# 78) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ashworth:
We have occasionally used it in this way during Benediction and it then becomes a very different type of hymn.
The 'imagining singing modern evangelical worship song at Benediction' game is quite amusing and sometimes startling.
Carys
Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on
:
Every time I hear Shine, Jesus, Shine, I want to hide under a basket.
Every time I've heard it sung, it reminds me of the singing from a specific Eddie Izzard sketch. It's not joyous, it's naff. It's "Lookit me, Daddy God! Look at what I can do!" Like, totally gag me with a spoon.
And I'm not a fan of the mandatory hand actions. I'm in church, not at summer camp. Out of respect, I don't break into Superman-style flying wooshing motions during the Doxology, please respect me by not busting out the SJS hand-wavings.
And now I'll just stop shaking my cane at the Boomers and demanding they get off my lawn.
[ 04. January 2010, 22:35: Message edited by: Spiffy ]
Posted by Ashworth (# 12645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
quote:
Originally posted by Ashworth:
We have occasionally used it in this way during Benediction and it then becomes a very different type of hymn.
The 'imagining singing modern evangelical worship song at Benediction' game is quite amusing and sometimes startling.
Carys
Although we do occasionally sing the traditional Benediction hymns 'O saving victim' and 'Therefore we before him bending', more often than not we do sing modern worship songs (well perhaps not always that modern!)
Some of the worship songs that have been labelled as 'Jesus is my boyfriend!' type songs in other threads are very good for a time of devotion before the Blesed Sacrament.
We choose them very carefully but many can be very scriptural and very directly focus upon Jesus. I don't know what some of the evangelical writers of these songs would think of us using them in this way.
Some of the worship songs that we use regularly during Benediction are:
Open our eyes Lord, we want to see Jesus
Jesus, name above all names
Jesus, we enthrone you
Jesus, King of Kings, we worship and adore you.
My Jesus, my Saviour
Jesus take me as I am
Spirit of God, show me Jesus
Be still, for the presence of the Lord
The Servant King
Meekness and Majesty
Broken for me Lord
Here is bread, here is wine
This is my body, broken for you
All heaven declares
To be in your presence
I will seek your face O Lord
As we are gathered (including the following second verse - no idea of its source!)
"As we are gathered" lyrics (first verse)
As we are gathered, Jesus is here;
Now on the altar, Jesus is here;
Gift of the Spirit, Body and Blood,
Worshipped by angels, adored above.
As we are gathered, Jesus is here;
Now on the altar, Jesus is here.
[Edited for copyright. Mamacita, Host]
[ 05. January 2010, 04:00: Message edited by: Mamacita ]
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
Meh, it's not as bad as Lord, I Lift Your Name on High. ![[Snore]](graemlins/snore.gif)
Zach
Posted by Angel Wrestler (# 13673) on
:
Is there a pond difference? I'd never heard of it until I started coming to the Ship.
Or maybe the churches I've served are just that stuck in the mud and I never got the opportunity to hear it.
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on
:
People complain about the hand actions.
What hand actions?
I've never run across them.
John
Posted by BenjaminS (# 13224) on
:
I don't think it's a pond difference--we certainly sang it plenty of times in the Southern California Southern Baptist Church of my teenage years (both in main Sunday worship and in youth group).
Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on
:
How is SJS horrible? Let me count the ways.
What others have said about "nationhood" and summer-camp hand-clapping. Please.
It's a boy-hymn, by which I mean, the lyrics exclusively refer to God in the masculine ("Father's" glory, "kingly" brightness). It was written in 1987; there's no excuse for that. The Trinity is not a boy band.
"As we gaze on your kingly brightness" - um, when would that have been? Dying on the cross? Assuming it refers to the Transfiguration, that seemed to have been a rather private moment between Jesus and a few close disciples, not for public consumption. ISTM this is the temptation that Jesus turned down in the desert - the opportunity to impress everyone with kingly brightness. I guess this is just not my spirituality, nor my primary image of Jesus. YMMV.
It's just weird to command Jesus to shine. ("Shine, damn you! Shine! FFS, shine!" What is he, a defective torch?)
I will be as respectful as I can here, Ashworth. But IME, SJS played slowly is excruciating. At slow tempo it's so bad it makes me forget the badness of the lyrics, becoming a blinding force of badness, an imploding star of pain. In that sense it does remind me of Epiphany, but not in a good way.
Posted by MSHB (# 9228) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
How is SJS horrible? Let me count the ways.
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?
It also seems very pre-occupied with external manifestations - almost exhibitionistic: "flood the nations", blind everyone with light, let's have a big scene! It is just over the top for me. It is not how I would express my faith emotionally. It feels foreign, unnatural to me - repelling.
This is a matter of personality differences. Just because a song works for some people, doesn't mean it will work for everyone. The extroverts are busy trying to get everyone else to be really extroverted in their expression of worship ... and the introverts are quietly slinking towards the exits, because they feel emotionally disturbed, even violated, by the experience. Been there and done that.
No, SJS doesn't make me nauseous, but it leaves me cold - switched off. So too does "Majesty" ("Kingdom authority flow from his throne unto his own"... "yeah, we got AUTHORITY now, and we know how to use it!" Ugh shudder).
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
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?)
There are at least a dozen appeals to the LORD to shine in the Psalms!
quote:
It's a boy-hymn, by which I mean, the lyrics exclusively refer to God in the masculine ("Father's" glory, "kingly" brightness). It was written in 1987; there's no excuse for that.
Along with probably over 99% of all hymns whether written before or after the 1980s. Deal with it. And the imagery is entirely Biblical.
quote:
"As we gaze on your kingly brightness" - um, when would that have been? Dying on the cross? Assuming it refers to the Transfiguration, that seemed to have been a rather private moment between Jesus and a few close disciples, not for public consumption.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Well, obviously its a more or less metaphorical description of adoration in worship. Talking about the relationship between the believer and God now, not just historically. Which is par for the course in a song that comes out of a charismatic strand of Christian worship.
But also very traditional - it recruits temple imagery into Christian worship, the idea of the LORD in his Temple, adored by worshippers, familiar from Psalms and Prophets. And it reminds of Moses's blessing from Numbers: "The LORD bless you and keep you; the LORD make his face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;the LORD lift up his countenance upon you and give you peace."
quote:
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
The argument is pretty straight out of the first letter of John. It was St John who wrote "God is light and in him is no darkness at all" and "we shall be like him when we see him as he is" and John's Gospel that reports Jesus saying "I am the Light of the World; whoever follows me will not walk in the darkness"
There is perhaps an intended reference to the light of Tabor as well - its not an unknown image in Protestant worship, especially at the Pentecostal/Charismatic end of things - And Graham Kendrick has another less popular song which talks about Jesus:
quote:
Uncreated light
Shines through infant eyes
[Deleted duplicate post. Mamacita, Host]
[ 05. January 2010, 05:09: Message edited by: Mamacita ]
Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on
:
The post so nice, you made it twice?
Interesting that you think you can argue others into liking SJS. I never said the imagery was unBiblical; indeed, it uses similar words and phrases. SJS just organizes them into what I hear as an unpleasant, triumphalist honk.
Perversely, I now dislike it more than before the thread started.
Posted by daviddrinkell (# 8854) on
:
I quite like it. ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Unlike a lot of worship songs, it is actually singable by massed voices. The tune, though syncopated, is not too convoluted or rhythmically challenging. In that respect, it's a vast improvement on 'Make me a channel of your peace', 'Be not afraid' or 'Eagles Swings', to name but a few.
Posted by ErinBear (# 13173) on
:
I'm also one of the people who does not care for this song.
I was introduced to it at my current church, where I was the pianist for the children's choir and played it for endless rehearsals. When it came time to sing it in worship, we sang it with the adult choir. The organist played, freeing me from the piano, but then they asked me to sing along. We repeated it over. And over. And over. then Over Again Some More.
The very first time I heard it, it made me think of some badly-written soda-pop jingle, or maybe even the music for a cleaning-product campaign! (Shine! Shine! Shine!) The words are just so odd in places. The music is not fun to play from my perspective at the piano, nor do I find it fun to sing. I find it boring and overly repetitive. I know that it's accessible, but there are plenty of accessible songs which are interesting musically and still have good lyrics and even cover the same topic.
The spiritual "This Little Light of Mine" is one I would suggest, although there are others. "This Little Light" even works for intergenerational singing, which is the way my church was trying to use "Shine" the times it employed it.
Blessings,
ErinBear
Posted by ErinBear (# 13173) on
:
Oh one other thing....I think another thing that annoyed me about "Shine, Jesus, Shine" if all the above points were not enough....
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).
Blessings,
ErinBear
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ErinBear:
Oh one other thing....I think another thing that annoyed me about "Shine, Jesus, Shine" if all the above points were not enough....
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).
Blessings,
ErinBear
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.
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
Written in 1987, eh? I'm thinking, is that about when Cursillo/Emmaus became popular? Sounds about right for the church I was involved in mid-80s.
The local Emmaus bunch have a set of a dozen or so songs they call "Emmaus songs," they do the same songs every monthly gathering. All from about that time frame, I think. They talk like they aren't allowed to do non-Emmaus songs.
Preacher said he wished he could hear a song more recent than the 80s. So there's one vote against SJS - not specifically that song but being stuck in that era or, I would guess, in any one era.
P.S. - Google is my friend. Emmaus song book, first 100 or so songs are pre-1990, but a lot of 1990s songs follow. Nothing post 1999, the book was compiled in 2000. Downloadable words and guitar tabs. My theory Emmaus is stuck in the 80s seems disproved, maybe it's just the local group.
(I haven't done Emmaus/Cursillo, don't plan to, but occasionally I go to one of their monthly meetings for a meal and a chat and some singing I can play with musically.)
Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ashworth:
As we are gathered (including the following second verse - no idea of its source!)
Ashworth, I removed one of the two verses you posted because of copyright concerns (see Commandment 7). As a general rule, we post just one verse of a hymn and if possible provide a link to the rest of it.
Mamacita, Eccles Host
Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on
:
And a reminder to all to keep on topic. General complaints about "all the other praise songs I hate" belongs on the "Crappy Choruses" thread in DH. Comments about "all the other praise songs I like" are probably better suited for the "Best Worship Songs" thread currently active in Eccles.
Thanks.
Mamacita, Eccles Host
Posted by Phos Hilaron (# 6914) on
:
From the OP
quote:
What exactly is so bad about Shine Jesus Shine?
I take it you've never sung it with the associated hand movements? ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by The Kat in the Hat (# 2557) on
:
echoing John Holding - What hand movements? or do you mean clapping along in the chorus?
I used to enjoy singing it when it first appeared in church, but feel that it does get used too much now - especially when we have a visiting preacher who knows our chuch enjoys singing contemporary songs, so will include it - with the rest of the music being pre 1900s
(eta - spelling!)
[ 05. January 2010, 06:52: Message edited by: The Kat in the Hat ]
Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on
:
I don't want to sing loudly at the upper limit of my vocal reach telling Jesus to shine.
I do enjoy 'This little light of mine', sung with vigour by all ages at camp last year and now featuring ina Telecom commercial, which makes us break out into song around the house.
I'll sing with enthusiasm Farrell's 'Christ be our light', which is a manageable metaphor if you want to think on the Light of the World.
I suspect that the best of Kendrick will last and the rest be forgotten (as with Wesley, no?) I'll keep The Servant King, Beauty for Brokenness, and maybe that's all.
GG
Posted by Phos Hilaron (# 6914) on
:
Oh no, there were hand and arm movements that fitted in with the lyrics of the chorus. I can't remember them now, it was a long time ago (at Lourdes of all places!) and my mind has blanked out the horror.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
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...
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee
Same idea, really.
I'm also slightly tickled by the combination of
quote:
Shine on me. = individualistic
With a swift follow up complaint about;
quote:
Fill this land....Flood the nation
...although I appreciate that criticism was based on a missed plural, it strikes me that it would be hard to sustain a similar level of criticism was applied to the average hymn book for every first person reference or land/nation/nations reference without getting quite tired.
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on
:
Our organist plays "Shine Jesus Shine" well and none of our organists has ever complained about it, and they all seem to have been totally competent at playing it. It can also be sung with guitar and piano and violin and trumpet etc etc.
The action which we don't seem to do now was both hands held high and waved from side to side.
Posted by Gill H (# 68) on
:
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...)
Posted by Sandemaniac (# 12829) on
:
I was introduced to SJS by a "very" Christian girlfriend-of-the-moment who loved it, which might have a lot to do with why I hate it... The proof-texters round here would be very amused to hear that I could usually out-theology her, despite the fact that she was a regular churchgoer and server, and I'd not been to any regular worship for at least 15 years even then - but I digress. It just struck me as being far too "me-me-me!" and I knew that if I could pick up a tune that fast it was aimed at the musically illiterate.
As it happens, I've discovered that played with an appropriate instrument it's bearable. It is greatly improved by the application of an enormous organ - perhaps not a Johnson with a Vox Dei stop, but the roof-lifter at St Peter and St Paul, Wantage, comes close.
As for "I've got a little light" - just make sure the organist is fully wound first. It was played at my nephew's christening and even tin-eared I could see from the words that it needed to played at a swinging hands-down-for-tea-everybody pace. So the organist played it as a dirge, and even the choir (both of them...) kept tripping over it, trying to sing slowly enough. Funnily enough, despite that, I DO like IGALL - possibly because of the joy in the inner spirit element, or maybe I just feel sorry for it?
AG
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on
:
This came up at my parents' church when I was there over the holidays, and I was expecting to suffer through it, but like ken says, found it's really not as bas as I remember it being. I think the main problem is overuse. Anything that you sing that often (and at the time, we used to sing it allllllll the time) gets tired.
My other objection to Kendrick is that there are often too many clever but unneccessary key changes making it hard to play if one is not an extremely competent musician. Consequently it gets massacred and sounds horrible.
Posted by chiltern_hundred (# 13659) on
:
leo scripsit:
quote:
Your awesome presence - 'awesome' = teenager talk
- not at the time it was written, I'm sure, although I'm too old to judge and don't hang around teenagers.
That said, I echo the misgivings about the "shine on me" individualism/solipcism. The whole thing isn't actually grossly awful; in the same way that Slade's 'So here it is, Merry Christmas' isn't actually grossly awful - it's just that hearing it all the bloody time tends to put you off it.
IME SJS is to the Noughties was Lord of the Dance was in the Seventies - something that was wheeled out on every occasion, however inappropriate, whenever the old fogies who run the church want to appear to be down with the kids and somehow cool, like, innit. Yeah.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
CH is quite right - whether we like SJS or not (and I think its real problem has been over-use), we can't retrospectively judge its language by today's standards. In 1979 (or whenever) the word "awesome" could probably used in its correct sense.
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.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
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 ]
Posted by sonata3 (# 13653) on
:
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).
Posted by Spong (# 1518) on
:
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...
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
Personally I find the words 'ok', but nothing special. But what really gets to me is the tune. It's just so dreadful.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
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 ]
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
I don't play the guitar but I am told that if you add a G, somewhere, it changes the song from Shine Jesus Shine to Jack and Diane by John Mellencamp.
Posted by Carys (# 78) on
:
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
Posted by PD (# 12436) on
:
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
Posted by Hel (# 5248) on
:
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.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
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.
Posted by WhyNotSmile (# 14126) on
:
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.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
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!)
Posted by Pardoner (# 15043) on
:
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?
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
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.
Posted by coniunx (# 15313) on
:
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!
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on
:
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.
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on
:
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.
Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on
:
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?
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
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?
Posted by Graven Image (# 8755) on
:
It appears not to be standing up to the test of time,
so that says something about how good it is or is not.
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
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.
Posted by daviddrinkell (# 8854) on
:
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.
Posted by MSHB (# 9228) on
:
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...
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
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.
Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on
:
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"!
Posted by MSHB (# 9228) on
:
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.
Posted by MSHB (# 9228) on
:
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!
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
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.
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on
:
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 I get forced to play/sing worse in church, though.
Posted by Melgrem (# 15391) on
:
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.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
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.
Posted by LA Dave (# 1397) on
:
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.
Posted by MSHB (# 9228) on
:
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.
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on
:
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...)
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
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'.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
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 ]
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Janine (# 3337) on
:
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.
Posted by Cantiones Sacrae (# 12774) on
:
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.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
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.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
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.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
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...
Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on
:
I wanted to give a to MSHB's post, but was afraid it might look triumphalist.
Seriously, MSHB's description is the way in which I hear SJS.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
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.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
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 ]
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on
:
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.)
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on
:
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!
Posted by ptarmigan (# 138) on
:
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.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
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.
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on
:
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
Posted by Bartolomeo (# 8352) on
:
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.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
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?
Posted by Think˛ (# 1984) on
:
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: Think˛ ]
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
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.
Posted by jacobsen (# 14998) on
:
To get back to the OP, I enjoy the chorus of SJS, but musically the verse is turgid.
Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on
:
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.
Posted by Loveheart (# 12249) on
:
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)
Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on
:
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)
Posted by MSHB (# 9228) on
:
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?
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
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 ]
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
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)
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?
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
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.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
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 Think˛ 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.
Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on
:
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.
Posted by Carys (# 78) on
:
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 Think˛ 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
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on
:
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 ]
Posted by ptarmigan (# 138) on
:
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.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
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.
Posted by ptarmigan (# 138) on
:
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.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
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.
Posted by ptarmigan (# 138) on
:
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.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
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 ]
Posted by ptarmigan (# 138) on
:
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.
Posted by Alex Cockell (# 7487) on
:
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.
Posted by Alex Cockell (# 7487) on
:
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?
Posted by Loveheart (# 12249) on
:
I've heard "The Church's one foundation" sung to the Muppet Show...
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
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.
Posted by the famous rachel (# 1258) on
:
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.
Posted by ptarmigan (# 138) on
:
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 ]
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
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..."
Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on
:
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.
Posted by the famous rachel (# 1258) on
:
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.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
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?
Posted by Sandemaniac (# 12829) on
:
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
Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on
:
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.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
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...
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
Yes I do - but the tune is better.
Kendrick admitted, in an interview, that he cannot even read music.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
Neither could some fabulous musicians - Charlie Parker, for instance, the father of modern jazz.
Not that Kendrick compares to Charlie Parker.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
OK - yes, Parker is one of the all-time greats.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
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'?
Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on
:
Wrong thread.
Posted by Bartolomeo (# 8352) on
:
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.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
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.
Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on
:
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.
Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Custard (# 5402) on
:
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...
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
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.
Posted by ptarmigan (# 138) on
:
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 .
Posted by daviddrinkell (# 8854) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
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
That's a very proper question. I think any sort of music is suitable for worship, providing it's good of its kind and works in the context in which it is placed.
It is also very correctly observed on this thread that what passes for 'modern' in church is by no means so in the outside world.
Thus, music that is:
demonstrably poor in terms of musical grammar,
or that is intended for congregational singing but unsuitable because of over-wide compass or over-complicated rhythms,
or that cannot be adequately accompanied by the resources available,
or that is in a transient and dated style,
should not be scheduled simply with the hope of being seen as attractive or relevent.
Speaking of popular music, one of the best 'Songs of Praise' broadcasts I ever saw was from a trad jazz festival somewhere in Berkshire or Oxfordshire. I shall never forget the fabulous version of 'What a Friend we have in Jesus', complete with large audience/congregation in full voice. Of course, that wasn't any more up-to-date than a Byrd motet or a Stanford Magnificat, but it was one amazingly effective piece of worship.....
Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ptarmigan:
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.
Sorry, did you miss the memo?
There's a whole book of the Bible that does that.
Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on
:
I understand that many carols (I don't know about other hymns) were set to traditional or popular tunes. Of course, nowadays there are so many genres of pop or rock music alone that what one person knows and enjoys may be anathema to another – and some have no recognisable tune to which words might be set (says Granny).
Then again the words which appeal to one churchgoer might be totally unacceptable to another.
John Bell and Graham Maule of Iona's Wild Goose Group successfully set good words to traditional tunes – it's odd to sing reflective words to a tune to which you've danced a strathspey, though, especially if it's been 'remastered' into 3/4 time.
That said, I expect that out of all the contemporary hymns and song we sing, some will endure, among then a couple of Graham Kendrick's – but not SJS.
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
quote:
Originally posted by ptarmigan:
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.
Sorry, did you miss the memo?
There's a whole book of the Bible that does that.
And of course there's a whole book where TLWWFTB... uses the language and concepts of teenage romance (or at least the feelings often expressed in song) to describe how he relates to us.
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on
:
I would suggest that this rather terrifying concept is in fact the whole point of the Incarnation!
But this is missing the point - of course Shine, Jesus, Shine does not encompass the whole of Christian theology - and nor is it meant to! It is meant to allow Christians to express through the gift of song some aspect important to their faith. Which, IMO, it does extremely well. To criticise it on these grounds is as ridiculous as railing against 'Angels from the Realms of Glory' for a lack of Eucharistic theology, or 'There's a Wideness in God's Mercy' because it doesn't encourage prayer for the departed, or 'Guide Me, Oh Thou Great Redeemer' because it neglects the importance of charitable works. The totally of the Christian verity will never be expressed in such a way - SJS instead concentrates on a few aspects - the thought of the Transiguration, theosis, spiritual revival, absolution of sins - not a complete potted version of Christianity, but not heretical either, surely!?
The only faults that can validly be raised against it are (a) some churches overuse it; and (b) it turns into a miserable dirge if it is played very slowly on a wonky organ, which is, alas, a fate all too common for it!
Posted by Cantiones Sacrae (# 12774) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
The only faults that can validly be raised against it are (a) some churches overuse it; and (b) it turns into a miserable dirge if it is played very slowly on a wonky organ, which is, alas, a fate all too common for it!
When it is played as in (b) we must assume that the organist is either unaware of the inappropriateness of their interpretation, or they know full well how antipathetic it is and are doing it deliberately. In either case there must be an ordained minister who knows, at least in part, what is going on and should either get an appropriate musician or cease programming the song (and others like it). There is absolutely no point in doing anything in that way, and it can only take away from the worship of God.
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
'There's a Wideness in God's Mercy'
TANGENT/ I LOVED that song when I was a child! Alas, after a few years I discovered I had misread. I thought it said "There's a wildness in God's mercy" - ah, my kind of God, exuberant, alive, vital energy, like the powerful active ocean waves in a storm, what a vibrant image!
There's a "wideness" in God's mercy? How boringly subdued. I've never liked it as much since I learned how to read better.
I suppose that's a whole different thread - what hymns did you like until you understood them correctly, or v.v.
/TANGENT
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0