Sing Them Over Again
Riding a subway car back from one of the big-city evangelistic crusades of a few years ago, I overheard a woman comment: “Wasn’t it wonderful to hear them singing the old hymns?” “Which one did you like best?” her companion asked. “I don’t remember the words, but it was number forty-two,” the woman replied.
We all know those who are familiar with only the first verse of a “favorite” hymn, or even with only the chorus. But it is an unusual experience to encounter someone who remembers only the number. It is unlikely that this situation is widespread. The fact that there are so many different hymnbooks in use—sometimes two or three in the same local church—with totally incompatible systems of numbering would make the practice of remembering the numbers unproductive, to say the least. But the very fact that there is, somewhere on a subway route in this great land, at least one person who remembers hymns by the numbers is a clue to a deeper reality: with regard to hymns, many if not most people—even those who like hymns and have favorites—do not notice their content.
Choir directors and songleaders have fought a long and not always successful battle against the habits of treating hymns as just “preliminaries.” How can they be anything more if people remain generally unaware of what they actually say?
More than once I have heard a clergyman call for one verse of Luther’s “Ein’ feste Burg,” a practice resulting in the following formulation: “For still our ancient foe/ Doth seek to work us woe;/ His craft and power are great,/ And, armed with cruel hate,/ On earth is not his equal. Amen!”
If that apparent tribute to the Evil One seems a bit discouraging, its impact is not overlooked by the songleader who applies the “first-and-last verse” technique to “Art thou weary?”: “Art thou weary?/ Art thou languid?/ Art thou sore distress’d?/ Saints, apostles, prophets, martyrs answer: Yes!”
It may be some distance from the languid saints, apostles, prophets and martyrs to those who have walked in the garden alone. “Art thou weary?,” like “Ein, feste Burg,” loses its coherence when it suffers too much amputation, but there are hymns that hardly make good theological sense no matter how many verses you sing. Is “Every Day With Jesus” really “sweeter than the day before”? Certainly most saints, apostles, prophets and martyrs would have to answer, “no,” or at least, “not always, except in the high theological sense that each day brings one closer to glory, when ‘God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes.’ ” Theologically, some of the material habitually sung as “old favorites” is as unreliable as “Rule, Britannia! Britannia rules the waves!” is politically.
Of course, hymns are meant to be sung by a congregation, not in general by individuals. And it is appropriate to sing them if they express the spiritual experience of the church as God’s people, even though as individuals we may not at that precise moment each have the “joy, joy, joy” all the way down to stay.
Pay attention to what you sing—or impose on your congregation. If it doesn’t make sense, leave it alone. And don’t put the Amen after a comma or a question mark: otherwise you may wind up singing a tribute to your ancient foe.
EUTYCHUS VI
Each Benefits
May I take this opportunity to commend you for the good work you are doing with CHRISTIANITY TODAY. I go through every issue and am always benefited.
ORLEY M. BERG
Executive Editor
The Ministry
Washington, D. C.
Those Who Provide
I feel compelled to write and commend you for your recent articles dealing with the humanities. Such articles as Pat Ward’s on Francois Mauriac (The Refiner’s Fire, Aug. 8) and Cheryl Forbes’s on “Charles Williams: Substituted Love” (Aug. 29) fulfill a sorely-needed task in evangelical circles: introducing the lay Christian to authors who provide significant insights into Christian (and non-Christian) experiences.
I am especially delighted, personally, to see your magazine giving Charles Williams something of his long-neglected due. Reading Williams has drastically influenced my perspectives on prayer and on bearing burdens. Williams’s works have been labeled “difficult,” but for those who persevere, the rewards are great. For those who have hesitated about delving into Williams, I can think of no better way to be introduced to his theological ideas and to his unique vision of Actuality than to read Ms. Forbes’s outstanding article.
SUSAN F. JONAS
Messiah College
Grantham, Pa.
Much—And More—Needed
I write to thank you, and Dr. Collins, for his article “The Pulpit and the Couch” (Aug. 29). There is much misunderstanding within evangelical circles concerning the science of psychology in general, and Christian psychological counseling in particular. Dr. Collin’s article is a stimulating and much needed analysis of the current movement.
As an undergraduate student in Psychology at South Dakota State University, and as a student of the Scriptures, I am constantly faced with integrating psychological facts, theological truths, and existential reality for myself and others. I hope in the future you will include more articles on this subject.
THOMAS J. KUSHMAN
Brookings, S. D.
I was surprised to see Dr. John W. Drakeford, Professor of Psychology and Counseling, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, referred to as “probably not” an evangelical. He unashamedly considers himself to be one, as do those of us who know him and are most familiar with his classroom, counseling, pulpit, and writing ministries.… In the preface to his book Experiential Bible Study Dr. Drakeford alludes to his twenty years of teaching psychology and the books that have grown out of those experiences, and then goes on to say, “In this volume I return to my first love—the Bible.” These are hardly the words one would hear from one who is not an evangelical. You may confidently eliminate the word “probably not” when you refer to John Drakeford’s evangelical conviction.
T. H. DOWELL
Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary
Ft. Worth, Tex.
So Corrected
While reading the news item, “Adventists in Vienna: God’s Package Deal” (Aug. 29), I noted a rather glaring error that our Adventist friends would certainly like to have corrected: in the fourth paragraph reference is made to statistics; then this quotation … “with more than three million in Sunday School.” I am sure they would much prefer the term, “Sabbath School.” In the light of Romans 14:5, 6, I think we should extend this kindness to them.
WILLARD WILLIAMS
Grace Missionary Church
Mooresville, Ind.
Hitting Home
“In the baldest terms,” it is plain that John Warwick Montgomery’s Christianity (Current Religious Thought, Aug. 8) is not adaptable enough to cope with a God who is able to work outside the box the author has built for him.…
It is appalling to find that Montgomery discounts those Christians who show “charity and patience” as misdirected because they do not concern themselves with what he believes to be the measure of Christian growth and spirituality, penetrating Bible analysis at prayer breakfasts. In his frustration to find a scapegoat for his incapacity to understand, Montgomery has ranged much too far in a search which should begin, and I suspect end, closer to home.
LYNN L. SIMS
Leavenworth, Kans.
I was born and raised in Washington (on Capitol Hill) and find Montgomery’s impressions of Washington Christianity completely different than my own. It was as a teenager that I became a Christian (having been raised in a Jewish home), and it was largely due to the teachings of an area church. As a matter of fact, I can think of a number of churches within walking distance of the capitol which gave “sound doctrinal teaching.” In addition, there were other institutions committed to solid biblical teaching such as the Christian Youth Crusade, Washington Bible College, and others. As a young adult working in the government, I was aware of a number of organized Bible study groups—ones that didn’t get the publicity of the prayer breakfasts.… Perhaps Montgomery reveals that there are two Washingtons: the Washington of the transient politicians and military personnel and another … one of local people, people like myself who grew up there and attended local schools and churches—but who weren’t as flashy and newsworthy as the politicians or the Christian “heroes.” Perhaps it is not that Washington Christianity is superficial, but that Montgomery’s experiences with Washington Christianity are superficial.
SHIRLEY BRINTON
Boise, Idaho
