Past Imperfect
Misreading the Magnificat
The last lines of the song's first verse are also close to Jesus' original: "How hard for those who are rich on earth / To gain the wealth of heaven." The second verse focuses on the widow's mite story. It concludes, "Not what you give but what you keep / Is what the King is counting."
Keith recently told me that with this album he wanted to join worship to everyday life. Thus it addresses work, suffering, community, family, doubt—and money. "A more quotidian approach to theology," he calls it. Props to the Gettys and Townend for giving us lyrics that present Jesus' message unbated.
I don't want to argue here about what Jesus meant in his criticism of mammon and his threats toward the rich. That's a debate for a different space. But however you interpret those statements, they are harsh and wounding. Keith says that he wants to make us traditionalists uncomfortable with songs like this.
Those who paraphrase Scripture have a special duty to let it speak with its proper force. Add a good tune, and you've fortified those words to shape our lives.
Past Imperfect
David Neff
David Neff is editor in chief of Christianity Today, where he has worked since 1985. He is also the former editor in chief of Christian History magazine, and continues to explore the intersection of history and current events in his bimonthly column, "Past Imperfect." His earlier column, "Editor's Bookshelf," ran from 2002 to 2004 and paired Neff's reviews of thought-provoking books and interviews with the authors.
- Jesus' Elevator Speech
- Who Defines Doctrine?
- Downton Abbey's Real Legacy
- The Hymns That Haunt Us
- Private Faith and Public Policy: Where Obama and Santorum Agree
Grieving with the Good Friday God
La complejidad hispana: Todo cambió en el 2012
(on articles open to the public, you must at least register for a free account).
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
Newsletters
Google
Comments
Displaying 1–3 of 28 comments
See all comments
David Van Lant
"Think of 'Simple Living' as the musical equivalent of Shane Claiborne and Tony Campolo's Red Letter Revolution." If "Simple Living" really is the musical equivalent of the so-called "Red-Letter Revolution," it might be better not to think of it all that much. The "Revolution" is a simplistic treatment of Jesus' sayings in light of His claims; namely that Moses wrote about Him and that He was the fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets. This one falls somewhere below present imperfect.
Claire Guest
Welby Warner, I agree and disagree with your comments. First, I agree that I misspoke when I used the word "most". I should have said "some". Second, I did say "I think" - I did not relate my thoughts as fact. Third, I realize now that my comment was a leap because I did not address what I believe to be the foundation of the attitude I mentioned. The reason for that leap is that I was typing in a hurry, was in the midst of a very busy day. Thus, I deleted that comment in hopes that I can post more lucidly. I took your suggestion and looked up "class warfare" in my big dictionary copyrighted 2000. It is not listed. Obviously, it was not in common usage then, has only become so in recent years. So I looked up a definition at a couple of online dictionaries and got this: "conflict between social or economic classes". That, of course, is a bare-bones, rather cut-and-dried academic definition, but it does give a general idea, also without mentioning any clarifying foundational issues.
Claire Guest
(cont'd) Based on what I've observed in recent years, I believe that Obama's "spread the wealth around" ideology has stirred up sentiment promoting the idea that what rich(er) people have should be taken away from them and given to those who are poor(er). This is also a brief description, but I believe it is accurate because I've been hearing people who advocate this ideology cite Robin Hood as inspiration (I've wondered at times if they realize Robin Hood was a fictional character). The reason I mentioned earlier the idea that government should take the place of the church in providing for the poor (something Christ Jesus never taught nor endorsed) is partly because I have read numerous comments at this site promoting this idea. A number of people here have taken Jesus' teachings and applied them to the government instead of the church. I realize this ideology has been preached in churches for years (at least since the mid-1900s), particularly by those who preach a "social gospel".