A thought on music in worship
(The latest Banner of Truth magazine is devoted entirely to John Newton.)
Iain Murray on the hymns of John Newton (1725-1807):
Iain Murray, Banner of Truth, August/September 2007, pp. 23-24
Iain Murray on the hymns of John Newton (1725-1807):
A consideration of this penitential note in Newton’s hymnody must lead one to reflect on what is too commonly absent from numbers of the songs substituted for hymns in worship today. It is not simply that certain words are omitted; the whole ethos is different. Too often the emphasis is on the worshipper’s devotion: ‘I will praise’; ‘I will exalt’; ‘I will love’, etc. While the language is good, the old saying needs to be remembered, ‘He loves little who tells how much he loves.’ And when the language is used in the absence of expressions of poverty of spirit, mourning, hungering and thirsting for what is not yet attained, it may be akin to the ignorance that led Simon Peter to assert, ‘I will lay down my life for thy sake.’ Professing Christian worship that omits humility and self-abasement would have been incomprehensible to Newton. His best hymns are always striking a note that is the opposite of self-confidence or self-satisfaction; rather it is: 'Weak is the effort of my heart, And cold my warmest thought.' Newton points us to the need for a reversal of features that have entered into Christian worship today.
Iain Murray, Banner of Truth, August/September 2007, pp. 23-24
posted by TimBix | 4:39 PM
3 Comments:
A good observation and a point well taken by Murray. Could I get a copy of the article, Tim? Newton, Watts, Cowper, and the early hymnodists, I think, got it right that the text needs to be objective (Scripture) rather than subject (man-centered, feeling-oriented). Not that we can't insert our emotions in our texts, but when we do it needs to be in harmony with the Truth. Thanks for posting this. brian
Excellent quote, Tim.
Newton certainly had a grasp on the depravity of man, and perhaps puts it to verse better than anyone.
Thanks for your post.
Very good point. That helps put things in proper perspective. But I remember way back when the argument against contemporary music was that the frivolity of the music was only matched by the frivolity of the words. So to silence the critics, the music got "fleshier" while the words got "loftier." God was awesome, awesome, awesome, till the word started smelling like the music and got nauseating to many. I suspect that some one will invent and insert some jargon into the noise to silence Murray's criticism about the message, while the music continues to reflect the heart's real desires beneath the words.
Post a Comment
<< Home