Archive: What Will Be Hymn #1

The hymnal has been the barometer of the UM faith. What will it say about us now?

By Riley B. Case

The 1935 Methodist hymnal was introduced to the church with rave reviews. The hymnal represented, to borrow a phrase from the Hymn Society of America, “new words for a new day,” meaning that it was in tune with science and modern culture and committed to modernism and the social gospel. Local Methodist churches might still be traditional in style and theology, but, it was argued, the future was with liberalism, and the new hymnal reflected that future.

An analysis of the 1935 hymnal confirms the suspicion that some radical theological redirection had taken place. To illustrate:

1. The number of Wesley hymns had been reduced from 558 in the 1849 hymnal and 121 in the 1905 hymnal to 56 in the 1935 hymnal. Comment was made that the church needed to move beyond Wesley.

2. Sections on “The Need for Salvation,” “Warnings and Invitations,” “Judgment,” “Retribution” and “Heaven” were eliminated. (Sections on “Original Sin” and “Hell” had been removed from earlier hymnals.) New sections included “Kingdom of God,” “Service” and “Brotherhood.”

3. There was deemphasis on the subjects of redemption and the need for redemption, and a new focus on formal worship. An important symbol of this was the replacing of “O For a Thousand Tongues to Sing” (a hymn about redemption), with “Holy, Holy, Holy,” as hymn number one in the book.

4. The testimony to historic Christian doctrines was muted and sometimes revised. A number of references to the blood of Christ were deleted. Wesley’s witness to the virgin birth in “Hark! the Herald Angels Sing” was changed from Late in time behold him come, Offspring of the virgin’s womb” to “Long desired behold him come, Finding here his humble home.” And because liberals were loath to refer to Jesus Christ as God, the last line in “For the Beauty of the Earth” was changed from “Christ, our God to thee we sing” to “Lord of all, to thee we raise.”

5. The ritual of the church was changed significantly. References to “redeemed by the blood” and learning the Apostles’ Creed and the catechism were deleted in the baptismal service. Adults were no longer asked to affirm the Apostles’ Creed and to “flee from the devil and his works” in the service of baptism. Two creeds were added, “A Modern Affirmation” and “The Korean Creed,” both of which posit a Christianity without a cross. And Methodists were now led to believe that the universalist aberration, “brotherhood of man under the fatherhood of God,” was somehow related to Christian faith and ought to be confessed creedally.

6. The hymnal committee responded to requests (more on the part of the few than the many) for hymns about peace and justice and working for one’s “fellow man.” These hymns, it was believed, would reflect newer understandings of missions, brotherhood and the kingdom of God and would represent the future focus of the church.

When evangelicals assess the new 1988 hymnal, it will be helpful to note the theological journey of the hymnal since 1935. Those interested in hopeful signs should mark the following:

There is a new appreciation for Wesley. The number of Wesley texts in the new hymnal will number about 70. The reference to the virgin birth in “Hark! the Herald Angels Sing” was restored in the 1966 hymnal, and opportunity will be given to sing “Christ our God, to thee we raise” in the new hymnal. “O For a Thousand Tongues” will be hymn number 1 and persons will again confess the Apostles’ Creed in the baptismal service. Since the evangelical faith is still around (and growing) there will be more references to the blood of Jesus and more Gospel hymns with an emphasis on redemption. We will have to bear with the Korean Creed for another hymnal, but “brotherhood of man under the fatherhood of God” has been changed and the Modern Affirmation has been retired.

Perhaps even more significant is what we are being spared in the new hymnal. What happened to those hymns supposedly relevant, contemporary and forward-looking, which would save the church for coming generations? Some, indeed, have found their way into the list of United Methodist favorites. “God of Grace and God of Glory,” “Rise Up, O Men of God” and “Are Ye Able” could be mentioned. Others, however, have shown the remarkable propensity for being ignored by United Methodists through the years. The truth is that the extreme liberalism so strongly promoted in the first half of this century is an embarrassment today.

Those who want to explore this further might look at all the hymns written in the last 100 years which appear in either or both of the last two Methodist hymnals but which will not appear in the 1988 hymnal. The theology of the hymns is revealed by a comparison of words and phrases with Wesley texts and with texts of traditional gospel hymns. There are actually 109 such hymns.

What can be said about these hymns? Individually, none is terribly objectionable. The poetry is good, the music uplifting. The emphases sometimes serve as a corrective to evangelical imbalances. At the same time, when analyzed as a group, they portray a weak and uncertain gospel. To illustrate:

1. One is immediately impressed that the theology of “new words for a new day” has no atonement. Christ does not die for sin in these hymns: there is no mention of blood, tears, Calvary or Christ as Redeemer. There are but few references to sin and grace and no mention of hell. Christianity seems reduced to an appeal to God to help us in our human strivings.

2. While these hymns use many different forms of address for God, most of these are not the words and images of Scripture. They use instead references to God-in-general, particularly to “God of” language: “God of love,” “God of beauty,” “God of the ages,” “God of the future,” “God of earth and altar,” “Lord of interstellar space.” References to the second person of the Trinity almost always stress the human rather than the divine nature of Christ. Our Lord is almost never called “Jesus” (the evangelical term of endearment) or “Savior,” or “Lamb of God,” but more likely “Master,” “Carpenter,” “Man of Galilee” or “Master workman of the race.” There are almost no references to the Holy Spirit.

3. Whereas Gospel songs and traditional Christianity emphasize the Christian hope as eternal life, “new words for a new day” hymns place Christian hope in a world that is supposedly getting better and better. It is a belief in which heaven is replaced by a coming kingdom on earth, as witnessed in phrases like “brighter hope,” “earth shall be fair,” “hasten the perfect day,” “nobler life,” “kindlier things.” An example is the present hymn 192:

“These things shall be: a loftier race

Than e’er the world hath known shall rise with flame of freedom in their souls

And light of knowledge in their eyes.”

The hymn goes on to talk about “comrades free,” “man’s lordship” over all the earth and earth becoming a “paradise.” It is hardly a song about the Second Coming, however, or, for that matter, about Christianity.

4. As is common with most of liberal theology, even today, the hymns blur the distinction between the order of creation and the order of redemption. The emphasis is on the created world, rather than on Christ’s act of redemption on the cross and what that means for today. There is no mention in these hymns of the Fall or the distinction between what Wesley called “sinners” and “believers.” Christ is seen only as an example, and, if He is crucified, it is also as an example. The word “world” is almost always used in a positive sense (“This is my Father’s world”) rather than in a negative sense (“This world is not my home”). The word “power” is almost always identified with majesty, might and the created world (“When lightnings flash and storm winds blow, There is thy power”), as in evangelical hymns “power” is usually associated with victory over sin (“There is power in the blood”) and new life in the Spirit.

5. The emphasis is not on the grace of God, but on human effort. One gets the impression from reading these hymns that Christianity has been reduced to a religion of girding up the loins, trying harder, working more, doing better. Some have called this “hairy chest” theology, sexist to the core, where the emphasis is on “man’s” abilities rather than on God’s grace. An example is hymn 243:

“March on, O soul, with strength!

Like the strong men of old

Who against enthroned wrong

Stood confident and bold.”

The difference between this theology and evangelical theology is the difference between “Rise Up, O Men of God” and “Amazing Grace.”

What can we expect in the 1988 hymnal? More gospel. More evangelical hymns. More hymns with theological integrity. There will, at the same time, be the modern equivalent of “new words for a new day” — hymns that will seek to be contemporary, relevant, and forward-looking, which will “save the church for the future” and will make an effort to revive a tired liberalism. In 25 years from now, when the church revises its hymnal once again, we will see whether these hymns have captured the hearts and the faith of United Methodists.

Riley Case is district superintendent of the Marion District, North Indiana Annual Conference.