One of the items our family includes in our family devotional time is the singing of hymns. As we work our way through the hymnal there are many songs we need to skip. Most of the 16th, 17th, and 18th century hymns are very helpful. However, many songs from the 19th century onward are problematic. In many cases because of the weakness of the text.
I was thinking of a few examples of what are often called Gospel Songs. Some of these songs teach poor theology, and root our devotion and love for Christ in experience and sentiment rather than morality and truth.
I was thinking of one: “Jesus Is the Sweetest Name I Know.” It is a twentieth century Gospel Song written by Lela B. Long. I find the chorus especially problematic.
Jesus is the sweetest name I know,
And He’s just the same as His lovely Name,
And that’s the reason why I love Him so;
Oh, Jesus is the sweetest name I know.
According to this chorus the reason we ought to love Jesus is that he is sweet! That is so shallow that it falls far short of the right worship of God.
As second song I think of in this regard is: “It Is Well with My Soul.” I don’t have a problem with the song so much as the way it is used. We love to sing about It being well, but we often skip the most important verses in the song. The third verse declares the gospel:
My sin, oh, the bliss of this glorious thought!
My sin, not in part but the whole,
Is nailed to the cross, and I bear it no more,
Praise the Lord, praise the Lord, O my soul!
Without an understanding of this third verse nothing is well with my soul. My soul is lost. Unfortunately today too many Bible Preaching churches–even those with conservative music–prefer Gospelless Gospel Songs over hymns with real substance.
Perhaps if only one word were changed the chorus would be more acceptable. “And that’s a [not "the"] reason why I love him so.” Certainly the “sweetness” of Jesus is not “the” primary reason that I love Him, yet it is certainly one of the many reasons that I love Him and that “He is so precious to me.” When I think of someone being “sweet” I perceive him as being kind and gracious. At least, that is what I am encouraging my children to be when I say to them, “Be sweet!” That is, “Be like Jesus.” Luke 4:22 says that the people “wondered at the gracious words which proceeded out of [Jesus'] mouth.” A quick look at Strong’s definitive lexicon–I jest–reveals: “that which affords … sweetness….” So, perhaps I am feeling a bit defensive of a beloved song, but I think that in all our quest for doctrinal correctness–and I in no wise want to play that down–we should continue to foster–how you say?–”religious affection.”
Brad
I would agree that if the song said, “a reason” instead of “the reason,” it would be a great improvement. However, it does say, “the reason.” Perhaps I am not allowing for enough poetic license and I should understand it as “a reason.” However, even with that allowance, I think that being sweet (nice), is not the same as the biblical concept of kindness. I have had many people be sweet to me, but they were not always kind to me. The American Heritage Dictionary defines sweet as, “Having a pleasing disposition, lovable.” With this definition this would mean the song is saying that I love Jesus because he is nice and lovable. That is a very shallow way to express love for Christ. Additionally, I think Luke 4:22 is talking about Jesus preaching being appreciated for its rhetoric and eloquence more than talking about Jesus being nice. The word for gracious is charis, the common word for grace in the New Testament.
The other issue I have with the song is the concept of Jesus’ name being sweet. The name of Jesus or God in the Bible is usually used to communicate his reputation and his glory. I don’t understand the connection between God’s glory and niceness. I am not trying to over parse the song, but it seems to be saying that I love Jesus because his glory is nice. That is a very strange sentiment. I don’t think the song is evil, but simply not enduring. I appreciate that many people like the song, but I think our standards for worship have been too low.
Much of the false teaching we contend with today came out of the 19th and early 20th centuries: Mormonism, JWs, the Campbellites, Seventh Day Adventists, Charismaticism, and Revivalism all come out of that period. Unfortunately, even Evangelical Christians were impacted by the spirit of that age (just as we are by ours) and it is reflected in too many of the songs in our hymnal. Additionally, during the Victorian Era many of the Christian virtues were replaced by feminine virtues. That may seem harmless enough to some, but it has feminized our churches and replaced Christian godliness with a feminine emphasis on nurture and niceness.
I hope you understand I am not on a crusade to destroy Gospel Songs, but I want folks to analyze all of our music to consider whether it is biblical or not. I hope I have not been over zealous.
Thank you for your comments Brad. I appreciate your service for the Lord in Germany.
T.J., I believe that the areas of our agreement far exceed the area of our disagreement. However, while you and I are both concerned about shallow worship, I believe that we should also be concerned that Christian men contemplate too infrequently and esteem too lightly what might be termed “feminine attributes” of Christ. I am not a student of modern church history, so if that is the official language of liberalism or of cults, I am willing to distance myself from the terminology immediately. But I maintain that admiring Jesus’ “sweetness” is not unworthy of His holy character. Perhaps we have lost sight of how masculine “feminine” attributes really are. A true Man said, “Come unto me,” “weep not,” “It is I, be not afraid,” “Suffer the little children to come unto me,” etc. Would we not agree that He has a pleasing disposition and is lovable? Is that not one of the magnificent rays emanating from His multifaceted character? For that matter, would we deny that the Name that means “Yahweh saves” is lovable? I think not. The songwriter expressed what he meant in the first verse when he said that “Jesus” was a name he most loved to hear, that was dearest to his heart, that divine name, that precious name.
No doubt there are songs that exude more robust doctrine from every pore, though in some cases they were written by women. We felt that “Before the Throne of God Above,” despite two matters of doctrinal imprecision which we honed, was worthy of every effort to translate into German and publish in a songbook. We ended up investing scores of hours getting that text “right.” So, yes, a high standard of worship is important to us, but included in that high standard should be a healthy dose of fond affection (1 Corinthians 16:22 where “philei” is used).
In closing, let’s face it, scarcely anything we produce will be enduring, except as it is laid up in heaven. Many a song in Lutheran hymnals of past centuries bears silent testimony to this truth. If anything deserved to have endured, they did. Eternity will tell, but some glad day, when the possibility of hypocritical sweetness is long forgotten and only true sweetness abides, we may join in a fervent chorus: “Jesus is the sweetest name I know.” (If it will sweeten the deal, try singing “dearest” instead of “sweetest.”)
I’d love to get in on a music conference you speak at, and perhaps someday I will be able to get over to Camp Joy in January. Meanwhile, keep up the good work.