This text, © Stephen Hutcheson,
2005, and offered freely for use under a
Creative Commons License.
 These studies are created by members of the West Allen Church of Christ in Allen, Texas |
There is nothing notable about the fact that eleven of these texts explicitly sing about the Christian's hope. The notable fact is that their language is based on the Bible, and not on pop-theology or on pop-music.
In fact, this work first grew out of a gnawing dissatisfaction with most of the songs about "heaven" in our books. So often they degrade biblical metaphors into mere theological cant1, or debase the picturesque biblical details into mere longing for the lusts of the eye and the pride of life.2 Either approach perverts the purpose of the Author.
For instance, the words "heaven" and "heavens" appear ten times in twelve songs; but synonyms or related terms ("cosmos", "sky", "stars", "planets", "Mars", "Saturn", "Sun", "Sol", even "above") are even more common: and beyond that, meteoreological terms and allusions permeate eight of the songs. Two facts deserve notice: "heaven" appears in a variety of biblical contexts and with a variety of biblical meanings; and it never once refers to the place where the dead saints live!
Is this an accident, or is it an inevitable result of closely following Biblical language? As a test, I picked a hymnal at random and scanned the section labelled "heaven", reviewing every song2a predating the Stamps-Baxter-performing-quartet style. Is the pattern not obvious? None of these songs use the word at all! But we have spurned that tradition of Biblical language, to revel in the language of Ashdod. Why?
Of course, the Jehovah's Witnesses are right: the Bible never speaks of "going to heaven" (although they ignore the inconvenient fact that humans are seen in John's sky vision). The reasons for the biblical language are surely well-founded; and we ought to respect even when we do not understand. If we were really determined to "speak as the oracles of the Lord" in song, these songs that are so popular among us now are not what we would choose to sing. We would not use that language any more than we'd use any other notorious unbiblicism: "church" for denomination, "baptism" for splattering, "bishop" for hierarch, or "pastor" for "evangelist."
But if we reject the unbiblical use of "heaven", then how shall we speak of the biblical hope? We might use the same verbal techniques that the Holy Spirit did. We could, for instance, describe God's promises, and our assurance in unseen things, by analogy with God's former actions; or by analogy with things that we have seen.
Thus we may sing about a new "eden" (or "paradise" or "garden"--which have similar original meanings). But here, theological literalism raises its obscurantist head, and defines "paradise" as not a technical name for the unseen home of the dead. In the Bible, it is a metaphor based on the human experience in the First Garden: the purity, the communion with God, the sense of overflowing providence and wonder unalloyed with sin or pain or death or any other evil. And I want to revive the biblical concept. Before the floodgates of the world were sealed introduces Zion, the "holy hill", as a symbolic parallel to Eden. Once a Garden Empty Stood explicitly draws the parallels and contrasts between the old garden and the new. From the Wilderness comes Singing interprets Isaiah's glorious word-painting, by explicitly expressing the ecological analogies that he uses implicitly. And Now Shattered are the Iron Bars combines several images that we usually keep in separate compartments: even though in our Bibles, these images are all used as symbols of our hope -- one might even say, that are intended primarily to be so used. The garden does not appear explicitly here: but it will be readily visible to anyone who has taken the trouble to study the biblical basis of the other songs.
With Eden as an preview and symbol of Paradise, the cherubim naturally take their proper place: not constrained to "heaven", but appearing in a variety of contexts as guardians of the Holy: first in Eden (Once a Garden Empty Stood), then behind the aweful majesty of every thunderstorm (Breath of the Lord), and only then, and only with a careful exegesis, in the sky vision (Zion is a Shadow). There are no silly assumptions about "species of angels" here (although I tend to think the terms "cherub" and "seraph" should be considered to have the same referent): just a faithful presentation of the full biblical tradition, in which the sky vision firmly grounded in human experience.
Perhaps greatest of all, these songs introduce singing itself as an image of our future hope. In the Beginning describes God as the creator of beauty and wonder, and presents singing as a profound reflection of the divine nature, as well as the nature of beings created in the image of God. And the following texts explore music as an "echo of creation" -- singing as an echo of the first chorus at the creation; singing as a natural response of creation's own self-awareness; and finally, musical composition as revealing the creative image of God within humanity.
We may even sing about being near God or in his home, by analogy with an earthly king in a fancy palace with a fancy chair. But the materialistic, literalistic mindset is susceptible to both pop-theology and pop-music: We are likely to take "king" as some kind of technical term for a future reign of God, ignoring or denying His current authority (premillenialism -- or, which is worse, ignoring parts of the bible because we can't see anything to do with them except follow them into premillenialism!). I counter this tendancy by singing about the reign (not once, but in eight of the twelve songs!) in the present tense (drawing from Old Testament texts which use both present and future tense.) And, as with the garden and the cherubs, present kingship is like future kingship, not different (or at least, not different in any way that may be expressed with "kingly" words.)
We have ignored the danger of pop-theology by excising the potential from the "working set" of our bibles and hymnals: thus giving it free rein to reign unchallenged in our hidden assumptions. But oh, the horrors of the sensuous pop-music heresy!
our habits of materialistic literalism impose a high risk that we'll not draw the right lessons. So the first song I wrote, Zion is a Shadow, protests vigorously that everything is a symbol: and proceeds to unpack some of the symbols: the "new Jerusalem"; the "holy hill" and for that matter the "holy sky"; the throne; the guardian creatures; the alter and sacrifice. Only after the symbols have been understood and applied, the song suggests, can true worship begin. Then, confidently, unapologetically, other texts take and apply the royal imagery of the Old Testament: Psalm 29 (Ascribe to Jehovah), Psalm 97 (Jesus reigns in Power and Jesus reigns, the Earth Rejoices), Isaiah 35 (From the Wilderness comes Singing), Revelation 5 (Christ, Great Creator), and Revelation 19 (Jesus reigns, the Earth Rejoices again). Note that these do not talk about a future reign as distinct from a present non-reign: they allude to a future reign as like the present reign, only greater. And that is certainly the biblical usage. (Where this is clearly understood, premillenialism will not be an issue!)
The whole subject is so occluded by unconsidered tradition3 and encrusted with ossified language3a that I needed a fresh foundation. I began by considering the purpose and limitations of the poetic language in the Psalms and the Prophets. All words -- even those used in the Bible -- have meanings based on human experience and thought; therefore the only way to convey transcendent concepts to humans is to inspire the human imagination by analogy4 to human experience. I see two processes that contribute to this: through action in human history, God presents humanity with patterns of experience; building on those experiences, God awakens the human imagination through His Word. In prophetic visions, both processes may simultaneously be active: the vision is itself an experience; and the visible objects gain their meaning from prior human experience.
Literal interpretation simply thwarts the divine purpose of these passages. In a more subtle fashion, so does systematic theology. The problem isn't that we're picking the wrong conceptual/philosophical/theological model. The problem is that we're failing to apply the model rigorously enough, or that we're breaking its formal rules for manipulating text. Any model, no matter how sophisticated, falls far short of reality; and the more formally it is manipulated, the more limiting its results. The Bible is gloriously unsystematic and metaphorical, in its mission to break through all our inadequate concepts; so, to speak as the holy oracles, so must I be.
So all of these hymns, like the biblical texts on which they are based, bring together a variety of images. They aim to inspire thought, not constrain it. They juxtapose biblical images in biblical fashion, to open multiple opportunities to think spiritual thoughts.
Zion is a Shadow was the first of these texts to be written; Christ, Great Creator the latest. Although very different in structure and approach, they share goals and creative method. Both are based on the imagery of heaven from John's Revelation. Both of them attempt to interpret, not merely reiterate, a sequence of biblical images: holding up one image at a time, they ask, "how does this image work? what does it convey? what does it mean? what ought we to have learned from it?"
The answer doesn't involve "heaven" the theological-abstraction. It merely involves reality -- present reality. John was not given a real-estate tour of a retirement home; John's vision displayed a pattern in God's work -- not in the future afterlife, but in past human history and present human experience. Based on that pattern, humans down through history have been able to recognize God's continued care for them (even in the most horrifying circumstances). Based on that pattern, humans down through history have learned that the choices they make in time have eternal, cosmic consequences.
Jesus Reigns, the Earth Rejoices is based primarily on Psalm 97, but moves into the Revelation for the final stanza--thus fitting the temporal royal actions of the psalm into an eternal pattern.
Another metaphorical connection lies between the first garden of Eden and the eternal paradise (brought out directly in Once a garden empty stood). Based on this, the prophets could speak of God's work as recreating that garden (as in From the Wilderness comes Singing.
For instance, an occasional song about "no tears in heaven" could be biblical, but the constant spate of such songs, coupled with a lack of attention to present blessings--as if God's comfort were solely postmortem--is just pathological. Compare, for instance, Now thank we all our God and If thou wilt suffer God to guide Thee, both in wide use (except in our books) and both written during the Thirty Years' War. To understand the significance of this, imagine that Sherman's march through Georgia had continued for thirty years, and imagine that his primary intent had been to destroy the churches, schools, and social organizations of that region, and coerce the survivors to join a different religion. And imagine what the citizens of Atlanta would be singing!
Surely, if ever any people had reason to think of God as not offering comfort this side of death, these writers would have been among them. And yet, what did they write? Read those songs, and ask if there are enough tears in this life for our own ingratitude!
But if taken literally, figures like "white robes" and "crowns" and "golden streets" are no less offensive than the harps! They are not intended to be just sprinkled around songs like so much ethereal bric-a-brac: home decorating and landscaping hints from "Celestial Living Magazine". And yet, how many songs give any indication that heaven is anything but a new, ritzier property?
Just because a song uses Biblical language doesn't make it spiritual!. (In fact, there is hardly anything unique about the language of the Bible: one lexicographer suggests that the New Testament contains possibly a single newly coined word. Probably if we knew more about the history of the Hebrew language, we could recognize that the same Author took the same approach there also.)
It is the message--the context in which the words convey ideas--that makes a song "spiritual".
The songs were: Watts' "We're marching to Zion"; Stennett's
"I am bound for the promised land" and "On Jordan's stormy banks";
"There is a habitation"; and "The sands of time are sinking". (What does it
say that that 90% of our songs about this subject come out of the same
mold? Is it that, before 1940, Christians hardly ever sang about their
hope? Or have we perhaps wrapped ourselves in sectarian provincialism?)
The songs about "gold
mansions" and "inviting the archangel for dinner" are especially
offensive in this respect. But anyone concerned about this problem
would notice songs that are less blatantly irreverent while
remaining equally sensual: they neither exhibit nor
encourage spiritual thought. Instead, they pile images
from the book of Revelation for sensual effect, ignoring the meanings
expressed and implied by their biblical content. Some songs, for
instance, gloat over the "beautiful, beautiful" clothes and jewelry
and houses we will have: but one would search through them vain for John's
explicit explanation of the "robes" image. In contrast, I use that
image in Ascribe to Jehovah and in
Jesus reigns, the Earth Rejoices:
both times, in the Biblical context and explicitly glossing with
the Biblical meaning. And until we can purge our minds of the
sensuality of the pop-gospel songs, we need that kind of glossing.
Biblical topics can be treated with crass materialism,
or "sung with understanding" of the spiritual purpose and meaning
of the language.
Perhaps mature Christians may be able to think some spiritual thought
while singing these materialistic songs -- but surely they would have
been able to do so, even more readily, with a spiritual song?
And less mature Christians not edified: worse, they are being taught
to focus on the material and sensual rather than the spiritual. In
every way a diet of such songs is detrimental to spiritual growth.
|
This text, © Stephen Hutcheson,
2005, and offered freely for use under a
Creative Commons License.
These studies are created by members of the West Allen Church of Christ in Allen, Texas |