Evangelicals Now
Christian news worldwide
magnifying glass Search archives
home Home check the archives Archives Subscribe Subscriptions Advertising Information & booking of classifieds Adverts Find a local evangelical Church Find a church for the search engines and extremely curious! About us Contact us Site Map
Printable
Version

Monthly column on hymns and songs

Poles apart?

The song end of the great hymn spectrum produces two opposite sights. To see both you have to turn through a full 180 degrees.

A whole range of text and tunes, when you ask their writers and composers (who are usually the same anyway), turn out to be provided by direct divine gifting. If there ever was a typewriter theory of inspiration it seems to be not so much the prophets but the songwriters who are the beneficiaries, or at least the agents. 'The Lord gave me this song.' 'I just received the music as we were in prayer together.' This, of course, instantly removes the work from the crude paws of the critic; if the Lord wishes to produce bad grammar and worse doctrine, who are we to complain?

Then switch over to the other side. Here you discover that all this is one vast illusion, or rather, a Satanic delusion. The whole shelf-ful of worship-song books, the whole pile of duly-licensed acetates, is a sign of the worldly take-over of the professing church, cunningly engineered by the evil one himself. If you so much as dip your toe into this sea of pollution, you not only cover yourself with filth, but are guilty of promoting a programme from the pit, and subsidising the father of lies.

Many Christians and some churches feel that they must therefore choose between one or the other. Approach it from whatever angle you select, here is a total stand off; a polarisation between two irreconcilable opposites. You can hardly pick and mix; it's one or the other. Or is it?

Kidding themselves

Could it rather be that both extreme parties are kidding themselves for much of the time? If the Lord has virtually written all the songs credited to him, why are so many of them not very good, and why do some contradict others? If they are, on the contrary, the work of the enemy, can he truly be content to have the Lord Jesus praised and his words and works so remembered and extolled?

It is so easy to denounce the opposition in order to justify ourselves. Might a more mature and genuinely Christian approach be to comment along such lines as these?

1. Rather than claim that it is God's work from start to finish, can I not say that it could not have been done without God's help? And that God sometimes helps through my fellow humans?

2. Rather than denounce what I don't like, can I not say what exactly I find lacking in it? And listen to those who think otherwise?

The easier we find it to quote texts against our pet aversions, or in favour of our chosen style, the more cautious we need to be. If not, many will start to wonder (as indeed they already do) about our other assured pronouncements on what God is alleged to be saying, or what he loves and hates; what the devil is or is not up to. If we can get it so absurdly, exaggeratedly wrong in one area, who is going to believe us when we pontificate about more vital matters?

Thinking for ourselves?

Whether we hail from Rome, Canterbury, Geneva or Toronto, it is usually more comforting to be told what to think, what to avoid, what to read and sing, by the latest pope, pastor or paper. It makes life so much easier if we never grow up, but cling to our juvenile rituals of cheering the heroes and hissing the villains. We may enjoy picturing ourselves with Joshua on the borders of Canaan or Elijah on Mount Carmel. But will we, I wonder, go down to our houses justified in the sight of God?

Christopher Idle