Unfortunately, for contemporary ears and failure of metaphorical thinking consistent with the New Testament, Baring-Gould’s text has become misleading. is willing to have is, in the end, the same kind of fight that seems to have been contemplated by Baring-Gould. But the misuse of the hymn has become such a part of our culture that the rewrite is appropriate. Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil….” It seems to me that the lack of understanding of the original hymn’s Anglican origin and the common distortion of its message by its use as a war-cry against other peoples rather than against the temptations of Satan have led to unnecessary criticisms. The hymn’s theme is taken from references in the New Testament to the Christian being a soldier for Christ, for example II Timothy 2:3 (KJV): “Thou therefore endure hardness, as a good soldier of Jesus Christ” and Ephesians 6:10-18 (KJV) “Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might. It was originally entitled, “Hymn for Procession with Cross and Banners.” Such an Anglican procession would have been led by one carrying a cross the “soldiers” were children enlisted in the cause of Christ. The lyric was written as a processional hymn for children walking from Horbury Bridge, where Baring-Gould was curate, to Horbury St Peter’s Church near Wakefield, Yorkshire, at Whitsuntide in 1865. I remain unconvinced that the imagery of the original hymn derives from the Crusades, though it has often been understood that way and the original hymn has been used/abused as a war-cry. We can’t just assume that someone else will make the person who doesn’t quite fit in feel welcome at Church, for instance we need to get our own butts out of the pew and do it! Working for peace and love takes courage, too, and I hope that my rewritten hymn calls people into action. That’s the kind of fight I’m willing to have. Caring for refugees rather than denigrating them as potential terrorists does involve a fight of sorts in our current political environment, but the weapons are words and votes and meals and clothing and shelter, not bullets. I do think that God wants us to do whatever we can to relieve the suffering of our Syrian sisters and brothers, which is why the Relief Society push to care for refugees and Elder Kearon’s talk were so inspiring. You may disagree, which is fine, but now we’re talking foreign policy, rather than the gospel. As terrible as the situation in Syria is, the record of American military intervention in the Middle East suggests that our odds of improving the situation rather than aggravating it are low. I agree that we need to be willing to fight when necessary, which means having a decent sense that more good than harm will come out of it. That doesn’t work for me personally, though. I agree that the text can be read metaphorically, as others in this thread have done. The imagery of the original hymn derives from the Crusades, which are a difficult set of wars to justify, even in the terms you offer. Still, they are occasions to be lamented, not dignified with the patina of divine command. And the miscegenated infidel, incidentally, is your neighbor, whom you ought to love as yourselfĪre there times when fighting back is necessary? Probably so, although Jesus told us to turn the other cheek. So much killing, when the two great commandments both involve love. God weeps over the dead at Acre, the dead at Mountain Meadows, the dead at the Somme, the dead in Orlando, and the dead in Istanbul. Modern scripture even tells us that God weeps because we hate our own flesh. Christians have done that, to be sure, but I believe that they have blasphemed in doing so. Jesus said that the sign of our being his disciples is that we love one another, not that we slaughter infidels in his name. Where they do go on the offensive, the text condemns them. The Nephites fight plenty of wars, but they’re defensive wars–never the result of a divine command to go and kill. Sure, you can pull out your Old Testament verses commanding the Israelites to slaughter all the inhabitants of the land, but you’ll be hard pressed to find examples in the New Testament or in modern scripture advocating such a thing. See, I don’t think that God does want that. Thus, my rewrite owes quite a bit to 1 Corinthians, where Paul’s theology of the cross receives its best articulation. I decided that the hymn gets its theology of the cross all wrong, choosing the cross of Constantine and the Crusaders over Paul’s “scandalous” one. Slowly, and with his able editorial assistance, I’ve done so. Then, earlier this year, D Fletcher suggested that I rewrite it. I decided a few years ago that I could no longer sing this hymn in good conscience, even though I always liked the music.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |