I’ve written about dropping songs before. But this is a different situation. We sing a song at Grace Life that I learned once I got here (there have been a number of them). It has quickly become one of my favorites. It may be yours too. However, I have come to realize that I have been participating in singing lyrics that speak of an unbiblical practice and causing our congregation to do the same.
I’m speaking of the hymn “The Church’s One Foundation” a glorious statement of the relationship between Christ and His Bride. It can be found in the 1997 Celebration Hymnal (p. 401) with the following four verses:
The church’s one Foundation
Is Jesus Christ her Lord;
She is his new creation
By water and the Word:
From heav’n he came and sought her
To be his holy bride;
With his own blood he bought her,
And for her life he died.
Elect from ev’ry nation,
Yet one o’er all the earth,
Her charter of salvation
One Lord, one faith, one birth;
One holy Name she blesses,
Partakes one holy food.
And to one hope she presses,
With ev’ry grace endued.
‘Mid toil and tribulation,
And tumult of her war,
She waits the consummation
Of peace for evermore;
Till with the vision glorious
Her longing eyes are blest,
And the great church victorious
Shall be the church at rest.
Yet she on earth hath union
With the God the Three in One,
And mystic sweet communion
With those whose rest is won:
O happy ones and holy!
Lord, give us grace that we,
Like them, the meek and lowly,
On high may dwell with thee.
My issue has become evident with the two lines in bold. I must confess that I had not looked closely enough at the lyrics (being that I’ve only sung the song a handful of times) and thought that verse was speaking about the fellowship which believers in Christ’s Church share throughout the earth. However, the last two lines of that same verse give evidence to the fact that the two lines in question are speaking of dead saints.
There’s nothing wrong with singing about the fact that all the saints throughout God’s redemptive history would agree on the gospel. However, these lyrics touch on something deeper—the practice of praying to saints who have died. You can read much more about this practice here and here.
To say that orthodox, protestant believers reject this practice is an understatement. But even more than that, the scriptures give no evidence of supporting this practice either. It is also interesting to note that the 1991 Baptist Hymnal does not include this verse. It only has the first three.
Here’s the good news: Samuel Stone wrote two additional verses!
Though with a scornful wonder
Men see her sore oppressed,
By schisms rent asunder,
By heresies distressed,
Yet saints their watch are keeping,
Their cry goes up, “How long?”
And soon the night of weeping
Shall be the morn of song.
The church shall never perish!
Her dear Lord to defend,
To guide, sustain and cherish
Is with her to the end;
Though there be those that hate her,
And false sons in her pale,
Against both foe or traitor
She ever shall prevail.
Brother Music Minister, I would encourage you to drop the same verse we’re dropping and instead add one or both of these other two verses. I will chalk the change I’m making up as progressive sanctification.
Related Posts
Related posts:
Bro. Tom,
I’ve sung that song all my life and come to think of it after reading your post I have always wondered about that line in question, but I never really understood it or thought about it much. Thanks for bringing that out and making me aware of it.
Tyler
Bro. Tom,
I agree. Everytime we sing the song and get to the part you are talking about a ? came to my mind. I should have been like the Bereans. Since you have brought it up just thought I’d let you know I also think it is questionable. When I hear the word mystic I think of the defintion I found for the word as a noun:
a person who claims to attain, or believes in the possibility of attaining, insight into mysteries transcending ordinary human knowledge, as by direct communication with the divine or immediate intuition in a state of spiritual ecstasy.
Now I know there are other definitions but that is the one I think of because of how it generally is used. Also, I looked in my Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance and did not see the word mystic listed.
Some may consider this over board but God is very serious about His glory and the truth of Scripture and so should we. Aren’t we thankful for progressive sanctification.
Donna
I’ve known and reapected and used this hymn for several years- especially in the six-stanza version that came out of turbulent years in the South African church. http://www.hymnary.org/text/the_churchs_one_foundation
Note the original third stanza out of the original SEVEN that Rev. Stone wrote: http://hymntime.com/tch/htm/c/h/o/chofound.htm)
And I wholeheartedly agree with you over the ungodly practice of praying to the ‘saints.’ After all, why go to a brother who can do nothing when The Father who can do all things is so readily available through The Lord Jesus?
I do not have a problem with this text; but then I see it differently than you do. The issue seems to rest on the words “communion” and “mystic.”
I do not see “prayer” in “communion” but, taking the word at it’s face value (see a dictionary), I see a “having in common” the life of Christ, or more fully delineated in such passages as Eph. 4:4-6, that somehow (“mystically”) unites us, currently residing on Planet Earth, with those “whose rest is won.”
The Church (note the capital letter) is an organism, not an organization, and God is still the God of the living, not the dead (Matt. 22;31-32).
I also commend those other two verses, but please don’t omit that unique stanza that proclaims such wonderful truths regarding the living Bride of Christ.
Thanks- as ALWAYS- for thinking, and challenging us “Brother Music Ministers” to bring every thought captive to Christ.
Jim Lowery
Bethlehem Baptist Church
Richmond, VA
Dear Tom: Thanks for this blog entry as it has generated some excellent discussion among our own leadership team. We did however reach a different conclusion than you did – and thought you might enjoy our tilt in your own considerations.
Let me add how much we applaud your wanting to think through such matters with care and concern. This is important stuff to consider in all we do.
I think the history of the hymn is useful here. Just as in reading scripture, authorial intent is essential to sound Biblical interpretation – so it is with anything we read. My understanding is that the hymn was written as a direct response to a schism which had occurred in the South African Anglican church over some unorthodox teaching from a guy named John William Colenso. He was a the Bishop at Natal. There was eventually a heresy trial, and Colenso was censured. But he refused to submit which is what caused the rift. It is from Samuel Stone’s involvement in the affair as it was appealed to in the higher ecclesiastical court in England, that Stone penned this (and about a dozen others) appealing to the unity of the Church. The entire set of hymns was based upon the stanzas of the Apostle’s Creed. “The Church’s One Foundation” is based on the ninth article, “The holy Catholic Church; The Communion of Saints.”
What is clear, is that Stone was absolutely NOT making a reference to praying to dead saints. And to be honest, I am a tad confused as to how you got there from those two lines anyway. BUT – it does point up that all of our language gets read through the filters of others – the presuppositions they bring to the table and may well need explaining more often. This serves as a terrific reminder that not everyone hears or perceives the very same things the same way.
In addition to that, I think I might want to argue that we in fact DO have some sort of “mystic sweet communion” with the saints who have gone before us. Not in the sense of any direct interaction or communion considered as personality interacting with personality – but communion in the sense of true spiritual union. I would argue that on at least 3 texts. I’ll only skirt them here, but each could easily be expanded.
1. The issue of baptism as argued by Paul in 1 Cor. 15. Why be baptized to be identified with a bunch of people who are dead and gone – to show our union with them in Christ, if there is no resurrection and we are not really joined to them?
2. 1 Cor. 12:13 argues that we have all (all believers) been baptized into one body by becoming partakers of the Spirit. This includes all the saints of all the ages.
3. Hebrews 12:22–24 (ESV) — 22 But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, 23 and to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, 24 and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.
In contrasting the experience of the Jews at Sinai with the New Covenant believer, the writer argues that we have been brought to the the “assembly” (church) of the Firstborn – “who are enrolled in heaven”, “and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect”. All drawing the tie between ourselves and all believers, even those already in heaven and perfected.
So while we applaud your desire to weed out theological yuck, I think some background work and some deeper theological reflection might allow us to enjoy the lines as Stone intended them anyway.
Hope this is at least something to chew on.
Keep working!
An excellent comment Reid! I’m deeply grateful for your research. It is information of which I was aware. My point in the decision to drop the verse is so that our congregation will not be confused over the issue and sing those lyrics to mean praying to dead saints. If I did not make that clear in my blog post, please forgive me. If I had ample opportunity to teach on the meaning of the wording, I might consider keeping it, but I don’t have that opportunity in the service.
I totally agree that we do have a connection with the Living Church from righteous Able on thru today–one of the clear points of Hebrews 11. In this day and age of subjective meanings I still stand by our decision.
Please keep reading and commenting! (applause!)
No issue Tom as the decision is yours for sure. But your statement in the blog is: “However, I have come to realize that I have been participating in singing lyrics that speak of an unbiblical practice and causing our congregation to do the same.” That says you “realize” (have come to see that…)the lyrics actually “speak” of an unbiblical practice. That’s what I’m responding to. They clearly do not speak of that, which is all I was hoping to communicate. You go on to say: “these lyrics touch on something deeper—the practice of praying to saints who have died” – when in fact it is demonstrable they do nothing of the kind. And this say you agree with – so I am confused as to what you meant.
But that aside, I remain supportive of your desire to approach such issues and certainly of your judgment call. Those in leadership always have to make them and when to educate versus when to simply avoid confusion for the time being is always a tough one.
I would only say that your blog post as it stands, in essence, says that the lyrics say something they don’t.
Hey – thanks for the exchange, I’ll not ripple the waters on this one any more. Keep up the thinking and caring what the folks sing!