I'm surprised at the comments about Methodism. One of my churches annually invited the local Methodists to share a service with us. Half a dozen at most would turn up, but the volume doubled!
It does vary, Robert. They sing well at my local Methodist church, for instance.
My point wasn't so much about volume or fervour and more that the Methodists - 'born in song' - have traded in their Wesleyan hymnody heritage in some places for a bland mess of pottage where they bemoan how far they fall short - in caring for the environment, helping the poor, creating social justice ...
All laudable aims but better done than sung.
My point is that there can be two equal and opposite errors, a kind of me-centred triumphalism at one end of the evangelical spectrum and, within more liberal forms of mainstream Protestantism, an equally baleful diet of bland platitudes with lines that fail to scan set to turgid tunes.
Both ends have decent songs in their back catalogues, and yet ...
@Gamma Gamaliel for all the slightly liverish tone of your last few posts, I'm agreeing with them all.
Having been brought up on the Scouse comedy of the 60s and 70s*, I always read that as 'Liver-ish' and hear the theme tune ("You dancing?" "You asking?" etc.)
I prefer hymns to be on the rollicking side, so the whiney stuff does not get an outing with me. My idea of a good sing tune wise would be Ton-y-botel, Aberystwyth, rounded out with Rouen, and Russia. That would definitely clear the lungs. By the way, fear not - there are many more reflective tunes I like.
I prefer hymns to be on the rollicking side, so the whiney stuff does not get an outing with me. My idea of a good sing tune wise would be Ton-y-botel, Aberystwyth, rounded out with Rouen, and Russia. That would definitely clear the lungs. By the way, fear not - there are many more reflective tunes I like.
Two rather differing comments:
1) From my experience, 'Earth and all stars' has prompted probably the greatest number of parody stanzas (mostly rather lewd) of any modern hymn text. I must confess that I've spent many a dull sermon concocting them.
2) Having grown up in Methodist (USA) environs and having relished the hymns of Watts and the Wesleys, I was grieved to find out when subbing for a Methodist organist colleague how few Wesley hymns are in the present Methodist hymnal. (The Episcopal hymnal 1982 has quite a few more!)
Two rather differing comments:
I was grieved to find out when subbing for a Methodist organist colleague how few Wesley hymns are in the present Methodist hymnal. (The Episcopal hymnal 1982 has quite a few more!)
Among the parishioners in our Anglo-Catholic parish are a few who aren't fond of Wesley hymns: "Does there have to be a Wesley hymn in every Sunday Mass?" I smile and have no answer, because I think Wesley hymns are some of the best.
Our (Methodist) church is a bit saddled with the new (red) hymn book. Yes, there are rather a lot of the 'Lord, I'm so sorry when I forget to switch the light off on the stairs; help me to remember not to leave the tap on while brushing my teeth' sort of choruses. The good news is that if you have an old-fashioned congo like ours you can ignore almost all of them and there are enough old ones left to provide a good range. I've not gone through it yet to see what good ones are left out, but we have a projector so I suppose that's not a problem these days.
What (I think) bugs me about it is the sense I get that we're singing about what we _really_ believe in (social justice), parsed in terms of something we 'ought', or even just 'used', to believe in (God). That might hold for a different kind of chorus too, where one might substitute (social justice) for (the way I just really wanna feel inside).
(ETA - Actually, one or two preachers can occasionally stray into talking about what they _really_ believe in (Wesley / Methodism) parsed in terms of what they 'ought' or 'used' etc...(God). This annoys me in the same kind of way. Those services which contain historical bumpf on Aldersgate and insist on most or all of 'And can it be' tend to get up my nose too).
One good thing about a lot of the old hymns ISTM is that they're quite uncompromising. That might be just old (well, middle-) age and habit speaking.
Two rather differing comments:
I was grieved to find out when subbing for a Methodist organist colleague how few Wesley hymns are in the present Methodist hymnal. (The Episcopal hymnal 1982 has quite a few more!)
Among the parishioners in our Anglo-Catholic parish are a few who aren't fond of Wesley hymns: "Does there have to be a Wesley hymn in every Sunday Mass?" I smile and have no answer, because I think Wesley hymns are some of the best.
What (I think) bugs me about it is the sense I get that we're singing about what we _really_ believe in (social justice), parsed in terms of something we 'ought', or even just 'used', to believe in (God). That might hold for a different kind of chorus too, where one might substitute (social justice) for (the way I just really wanna feel inside).
(ETA - Actually, one or two preachers can occasionally stray into talking about what they _really_ believe in (Wesley / Methodism) parsed in terms of what they 'ought' or 'used' etc...(God). This annoys me in the same kind of way. Those services which contain historical bumpf on Aldersgate and insist on most or all of 'And can it be' tend to get up my nose too).
This sounds interesting but I'm afraid I don't really understand what you mean. Could you explain this in a different way? Are you saying that service leaders are placing different meanings on the hymns from those one might expect? Or are you saying that the hymns express great aspirations which never get worked out in practice?
I suspect at the root much of the criticism is that those sort of hymns don't express genuine spiritual emotions. They merely express what the writer and the person who chose them that morning is telling us they think we ought to feel.
The finest concrete building in the world, the Pantheon in Rome, was built well before God turned up there and chucked all the pantheists out. And steel was used in the Islamic world for weapons hundreds of years before any Christians decided to start making buildings with it. Not sure these two technologies are the best examples to choose unless you're really confident that God showed a particular interest in times and places devoid of his worshippers.
The finest concrete building in the world, the Pantheon in Rome, was built well before God turned up there and chucked all the pantheists out. And steel was used in the Islamic world for weapons hundreds of years before any Christians decided to start making buildings with it. Not sure these two technologies are the best examples to choose unless you're really confident that God showed a particular interest in times and places devoid of his worshippers.
You think the Islamic world was/is devoid of God's worshippers?
The finest concrete building in the world, the Pantheon in Rome, was built well before God turned up there and chucked all the pantheists out. And steel was used in the Islamic world for weapons hundreds of years before any Christians decided to start making buildings with it. Not sure these two technologies are the best examples to choose unless you're really confident that God showed a particular interest in times and places devoid of his worshippers.
You think the Islamic world was/is devoid of God's worshippers?
No I don't, but the hymn mentions the bible, church and Christ saving the world from evil, so in that context it seems a bit incongruous.
The finest concrete building in the world, the Pantheon in Rome, was built well before God turned up there and chucked all the pantheists out. And steel was used in the Islamic world for weapons hundreds of years before any Christians decided to start making buildings with it. Not sure these two technologies are the best examples to choose unless you're really confident that God showed a particular interest in times and places devoid of his worshippers.
You think the Islamic world was/is devoid of God's worshippers?
No I don't, but the hymn mentions the bible, church and Christ saving the world from evil, so in that context it seems a bit incongruous.
So what did your phrase "devoid of his worshippers" mean in the context of the Islamic world?
What (I think) bugs me about it is the sense I get that we're singing about what we _really_ believe in (social justice), parsed in terms of something we 'ought', or even just 'used', to believe in (God). That might hold for a different kind of chorus too, where one might substitute (social justice) for (the way I just really wanna feel inside).
(ETA - Actually, one or two preachers can occasionally stray into talking about what they _really_ believe in (Wesley / Methodism) parsed in terms of what they 'ought' or 'used' etc...(God). This annoys me in the same kind of way. Those services which contain historical bumpf on Aldersgate and insist on most or all of 'And can it be' tend to get up my nose too).
This sounds interesting but I'm afraid I don't really understand what you mean. Could you explain this in a different way? Are you saying that service leaders are placing different meanings on the hymns from those one might expect? Or are you saying that the hymns express great aspirations which never get worked out in practice?
Enoch I think said what I tried to say, a little clearer - as to how it works out in practice. But I am bothered not just by the intention of the preacher who chose the hymn - 'this is how we ought to feel' - but more by the sense that the hymn writer has wrapped a Guardian-reading sensibility in slightly religious language, in order to find a market for the idea in the Church.
This is a weird feeling, and a weird thing to say, for me (a Guardian reader); but I know the difference between the feeling I get when I am inspired to social action by the love / worship of God, and when it is suggested that as one who 'loves God' I ought to follow such and such agenda.
If I feel like this (with a left-ish sensibility), I'm not surprised that culture wars are a thing. I wonder if it can be expressed more clearly, since I am struggling.
I think I know what you mean. It's the difference between getting a gift and being immediately inspired to go write a thank you note, of your own overflowing love and joy--and having somebody look over your shoulder and nag you about thank you letters, when you haven't even gotten the paper off properly, and had had that intent all along. The nagging destroys the motivation and makes the letter-writing experience a sad, annoying thing.
I know humanism isn't going to do it for me - I'm not good enough. So stuff in church which gives me the impression that we know the way, and we'd better invoke God's name now and again as endorsing our project, is rather disheartening.
But you knew that; I'm just thinking out loud and surprising myself with my slowly growing orthodoxy
Columba_in_a_Currach somewhere up the line cites 'Guide me, O Thou Great Redeemer.' My problem with that change (from 'Jehovah') both changes the theology and weakens the connection to the Israelites' trek. 'Jehovah' (Luther's formation from JHWH*) is God as One or as Creator -- Redeemer has to refer to the Son, I would think. To the argument that the change is to avoid offence to observant Jews, i would seem that few of them would be present when the hymn was sung. (YMMV, of course).
* I don't know this for fact, but it was what I was taught in seminary.
Columba_in_a_Currach somewhere up the line cites 'Guide me, O Thou Great Redeemer.' My problem with that change (from 'Jehovah') both changes the theology and weakens the connection to the Israelites' trek. 'Jehovah' (Luther's formation from JHWH*) is God as One or as Creator -- Redeemer has to refer to the Son, I would think.
“Redeemer” needn’t be understood in Trinitarian terms as necessarily referring to the Son. The Exodus is very much understood as a story of Israel’s redemption from Egypt, as is YHWH’s relationship to Israel elsewhere in the OT. There’s Micah 6:4: “For I brought you up from the land of Egypt, and redeemed you from the house of slavery.” Or Psalm 78:34: “They remembered that God was their rock, the Most High God their redeemer.” Or Isaiah 43:14: “Thus says the LORD [YHWH], your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel . . . .” Or many other OT passages.
“Redeemer” is precisely what YHWH is to Israel in their journey from Egypt to the Promised Land. Meanwhile, a Welsh speaker will have to tell us what word was used in the original Welsh, and what it means.
"Redeemer” is precisely what YHWH is to Israel in their journey from Egypt to the Promised Land. Meanwhile, a Welsh speaker will have to tell us what word was used in the original Welsh, and what it means.
A rather different formation of the first line in Welsh, which begins with 'Arglwydd' - 'Lord'. No immediate similarity to the Redeemer/Jehovah question.
"Redeemer” is precisely what YHWH is to Israel in their journey from Egypt to the Promised Land. Meanwhile, a Welsh speaker will have to tell us what word was used in the original Welsh, and what it means.
A rather different formation of the first line in Welsh, which begins with 'Arglwydd' - 'Lord'. No immediate similarity to the Redeemer/Jehovah question.
In fact, the traditional version mentions either Lord nor Redeemer - its completely different in style to the well- known English version.
Isn't the conflation of Redeemer with the person of the Son in the Holy Trinity part of the reason why the formulation "creator, redeemer and sustainer" is widely rejected as a baptismal formula? Creation, redemption and sustenance are all part of the action of God, and God is not divided.
Isn't the conflation of Redeemer with the person of the Son in the Holy Trinity part of the reason why the formulation "creator, redeemer and sustainer" is widely rejected as a baptismal formula? Creation, redemption and sustenance are all part of the action of God, and God is not divided.
The problem as I understand it is that those words do not name individual members of the Trinity but are actions or energies of all three. The poem in John 1 says that nothing was made without the Word, so right there creation is an action of both of the first two Persons. Thus the Creator/Redeemer/Sustainer formula is modalist, mistaking three of the actions or energies of God with the Persons.
Isn't the conflation of Redeemer with the person of the Son in the Holy Trinity part of the reason why the formulation "creator, redeemer and sustainer" is widely rejected as a baptismal formula? Creation, redemption and sustenance are all part of the action of God, and God is not divided.
The problem as I understand it is that those words do not name individual members of the Trinity but are actions or energies of all three. The poem in John 1 says that nothing was made without the Word, so right there creation is an action of both of the first two Persons. Thus the Creator/Redeemer/Sustainer formula is modalist, mistaking three of the actions or energies of God with the Persons.
Thank you for saying what I was trying to say and failing.
Comments
My point wasn't so much about volume or fervour and more that the Methodists - 'born in song' - have traded in their Wesleyan hymnody heritage in some places for a bland mess of pottage where they bemoan how far they fall short - in caring for the environment, helping the poor, creating social justice ...
All laudable aims but better done than sung.
My point is that there can be two equal and opposite errors, a kind of me-centred triumphalism at one end of the evangelical spectrum and, within more liberal forms of mainstream Protestantism, an equally baleful diet of bland platitudes with lines that fail to scan set to turgid tunes.
Both ends have decent songs in their back catalogues, and yet ...
I'm not sure I appreciate the 'liverish' bit but that's how this stuff makes me feel, I'm afraid.
Having been brought up on the Scouse comedy of the 60s and 70s*, I always read that as 'Liver-ish' and hear the theme tune ("You dancing?" "You asking?" etc.)
* 'The Liver Birds', for those too young to know.
One is reminded of God in Holy Grail
https://youtu.be/jHsbwY4EPyA
1) From my experience, 'Earth and all stars' has prompted probably the greatest number of parody stanzas (mostly rather lewd) of any modern hymn text. I must confess that I've spent many a dull sermon concocting them.
2) Having grown up in Methodist (USA) environs and having relished the hymns of Watts and the Wesleys, I was grieved to find out when subbing for a Methodist organist colleague how few Wesley hymns are in the present Methodist hymnal. (The Episcopal hymnal 1982 has quite a few more!)
Among the parishioners in our Anglo-Catholic parish are a few who aren't fond of Wesley hymns: "Does there have to be a Wesley hymn in every Sunday Mass?" I smile and have no answer, because I think Wesley hymns are some of the best.
Our (Methodist) church is a bit saddled with the new (red) hymn book. Yes, there are rather a lot of the 'Lord, I'm so sorry when I forget to switch the light off on the stairs; help me to remember not to leave the tap on while brushing my teeth' sort of choruses. The good news is that if you have an old-fashioned congo like ours you can ignore almost all of them and there are enough old ones left to provide a good range. I've not gone through it yet to see what good ones are left out, but we have a projector so I suppose that's not a problem these days.
What (I think) bugs me about it is the sense I get that we're singing about what we _really_ believe in (social justice), parsed in terms of something we 'ought', or even just 'used', to believe in (God). That might hold for a different kind of chorus too, where one might substitute (social justice) for (the way I just really wanna feel inside).
(ETA - Actually, one or two preachers can occasionally stray into talking about what they _really_ believe in (Wesley / Methodism) parsed in terms of what they 'ought' or 'used' etc...(God). This annoys me in the same kind of way. Those services which contain historical bumpf on Aldersgate and insist on most or all of 'And can it be' tend to get up my nose too).
One good thing about a lot of the old hymns ISTM is that they're quite uncompromising. That might be just old (well, middle-) age and habit speaking.
Anyway, he was an Anglican ...
You think the Islamic world was/is devoid of God's worshippers?
No I don't, but the hymn mentions the bible, church and Christ saving the world from evil, so in that context it seems a bit incongruous.
So what did your phrase "devoid of his worshippers" mean in the context of the Islamic world?
Enoch I think said what I tried to say, a little clearer - as to how it works out in practice. But I am bothered not just by the intention of the preacher who chose the hymn - 'this is how we ought to feel' - but more by the sense that the hymn writer has wrapped a Guardian-reading sensibility in slightly religious language, in order to find a market for the idea in the Church.
This is a weird feeling, and a weird thing to say, for me (a Guardian reader); but I know the difference between the feeling I get when I am inspired to social action by the love / worship of God, and when it is suggested that as one who 'loves God' I ought to follow such and such agenda.
If I feel like this (with a left-ish sensibility), I'm not surprised that culture wars are a thing. I wonder if it can be expressed more clearly, since I am struggling.
I know humanism isn't going to do it for me - I'm not good enough. So stuff in church which gives me the impression that we know the way, and we'd better invoke God's name now and again as endorsing our project, is rather disheartening.
But you knew that; I'm just thinking out loud and surprising myself with my slowly growing orthodoxy
* I don't know this for fact, but it was what I was taught in seminary.
“Redeemer” is precisely what YHWH is to Israel in their journey from Egypt to the Promised Land. Meanwhile, a Welsh speaker will have to tell us what word was used in the original Welsh, and what it means.
A rather different formation of the first line in Welsh, which begins with 'Arglwydd' - 'Lord'. No immediate similarity to the Redeemer/Jehovah question.
In fact, the traditional version mentions either Lord nor Redeemer - its completely different in style to the well- known English version.
The problem as I understand it is that those words do not name individual members of the Trinity but are actions or energies of all three. The poem in John 1 says that nothing was made without the Word, so right there creation is an action of both of the first two Persons. Thus the Creator/Redeemer/Sustainer formula is modalist, mistaking three of the actions or energies of God with the Persons.
Thank you for saying what I was trying to say and failing.