Controversy sells. It sells newspapers, journals and movies. It may even sell conference registrations, to judge from the frequency with which I’m asked to speak at such events about “controversial issues” that confronted the Presbyterian Committee on Congregational Song (PCOCS) as it worked on the denomination’s new song collection Glory to God.
Does controversy also sell hymnals? I’m not sure. But the Presbyterian Hymnal of 1874 came out in the midst of a controversy so intense that pamphleteers took to writing about the War of the Hymn Books. The war they had in mind was a campaign launched by disaffected members of the official hymnal committee who seceded to create a rival publication. In response to this campaign, the board of publication for the denominational hymnal took pains to report (in the January 1875 edition of the Presbyterian Monthly Record): “It will be gratifying to our Presbyterian constituency to know that the persistent efforts to prevent the adoption by the churches of the new Hymnal . . . fail to arrest its sale.” Indeed, by June of 1875, the rate at which congregations were adopting the new hymnal was reported to be “without a parallel in the history of hymn and tune books.” So maybe controversy does boost sales, even where hymnals are concerned.
Still, I am relieved to note that the Presbyterian Committee on Congregational Song has experienced nothing as dramatic as a secession and threatened publication war. The most animated disagreements we experienced within our group were over matters of theology; our most animated disagreements with people outside our group have been over issues of musical accompaniments and (not surprisingly) of language.
Two examples of theological in-group disagreements stand out. The committee debated a long time over whether to include in Glory to God the American folk hymn “Jesus Walked This Lonesome Valley.” The hymn does appear in the Lent section of the 1990 Presbyterian Hymnal, as well as in hymnals and supplements of several other bodies (such as the Disciples of Christ, Roman Catholics, Mennonites, United Methodists and Society of Friends). Yet opponents of inclusion argued that the text makes statements that are theologically questionable. How can Christians sing that “nobody else” can walk the lonesome valley with us or that we have to stand our trial “by ourselves,” when the very heart of the crucifixion narrative holds that Jesus walked—and continues to walk—alongside those who suffer and that he went on trial for our sakes?
Read more at http://www.christiancentury.org/article/2013-04/debating-hymns
3 Comments. Leave new
The first time my congregation sang “Jesus Walked this Lonesome Valley”, I noticed the theological error in the lyrics and stopped singing. It’s been sung a couple times since, and I have stood holding the closed hymnbook without singing. (I could remain seated, I guess, but that might get into the area of grandstanding and that’s not my aim).
The article touches on “gender-neutral” language but doesn’t mention a couple of the entries in the new hymnal: “Mothering God, You Gave Me Birth” and “Womb of Life and Source of Being”. These are unscriptural and theologically unsound. If I see either one listed in our bulletin on a Sunday morning after the new hymnals arrive, I won’t stand silently without singing — I’ll turn around and walk out. But it’s my hope that our pastors and music staff are smart enough to steer clear of them.
I should have added that I wish our Session had not ordered the new 2013 hymnal, but they did. My preference would have been to go on eBay or something like that and find a few hundred 1955 Presbyterian hymnals in good condition, and replace our 1990 hymnals with those. But of course that wasn’t going to happen.
Why is there a problem here? It seems to me that there is a simple answer to disputes about hymns: write some new ones. If you don’t like the ones we have, don’t use them. Just add the ones you want, and leave the old ones alone. It is insulting to the authors–some of them gifted poets–to take it on ourselves to go in and change words over which they struggled, sometimes for years, and to change the words to express ideas that they could not have conceived of. Of course Isaac Watts and Charles Wesley believed in God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Of course they thought of God as male. If you don’t agree with what they wrote, write something else.
As one of those to whom the author directs her snarky remarks about people who want to preserve the beautiful words of “Be Thou My Vision,” I have to speak up. The words of this hymn go back a long long way. They (the words) are beautiful. They are a lasting artefact of a culture to which our denomination owes a great deal (There was a book a few years ago titled “How the Irish Saved Civilization”). We should honor the references to their culture and go to great lengths to preserve them. In the current hymnal there is an outrageous reference to God as “Manitou” but the “High King” image was not allowed. The version of “Be Thou My Vision” in the current hymnal is a dumbed down kind of plastic imitation.
It is truly ironic that the emphasis on multiculturalism and diversity so completely shuts out the cultures of the past. Why can’t we rejoice in the hymns that have come down over the years, from different times, places, and cultures?
And the hymn that makes we want to get up and walk out of the church is beyond banal: “Oh for a World Where Everyone Respects Each Other’s Ways.” Think about what that means: respect female circumcision? Forced child marriage? I hope that is not in the new hymnal, but I suspect it will be.