I don’t think it’s particularly helpful, or even useful (however that’s defined) to attack a work of any kind on account of its age or the culture it which it grew up. It fails to answer the question of if it’s truthful, which is really the only question worth answering. It is not at all useful to say that a practice or book or hymn was right “back then” and not right now. The Pythagorean Theorem doesn’t change from age to age no more than the morality of slavery or gender equality or whatever other stance that we know now to be one way which was once thought of as another way. Of course in the future our descendants may judge or realize that we were wrong about certain things, but the important fact will really be that we were wrong and they have now discovered they are right; not that we were right and they were also right even though we believe opposite things. Such a preface is necessary when it comes to evaluating popular old hymns. Otherwise the conversation quickly becomes a quest to decide what people thought and believed in the hymns conception- and not on the really important question of if we as a church should still sing a hymn (however popular it might be).
But that raises a further consideration. What criteria are we to evaluate a hymn on? I am sure there is a book somewhere that I am too lazy to look up. However, I am familiar enough with the Psalms to know that they are at its core a book of songs. The Psalms are the gold standard to which all other hymns are to be judged. This is why I don’t lose sleep when people tell me popular Christian songs invoke too much emotion and not enough theology. This is also why I have no issue with repetitive hymns or hymns that critics call “shallow”. The 136th Psalm would like to have a word with those people. The primary purpose of the Psalms is in my view to put people’s spirit in the sight of God. Worship connects with people on a different level than doctrine or even bible study. If a hymn can be dissected and seem to imply that God is separate from Jesus, or perhaps the hymn places undue emphasis on freedom then I am inclined to the view that our hymns do not have to pass such a high bar. Nobody wants to sing Romans 3. This is not to say hymns are immune to scrutiny though. I do believe there is a line that can be crossed. A heretical hymn is no hymn at all. More often when a hymn goes wrong it is because the hymn substitutes a narrow cultural value in place of Christ, such that the worship is not directed to God but to the pathos of the culture.
This line is certainly overstepped by Onward Christian Soldiers. I had the distinct pleasure of hearing this hymn at the Samuel Lee Memorial Service last year. I was taken aback at how it felt like shards of glass to my soul. Beyond the obvious theological issues that might be raised by lines like this:
“Like a mighty army Moves the Church of God; Brothers, we are treading Where the Saints have trod.”
The whole message of the hymn seems to equate the gospel as a war. I am completely aware that the impetus of this hymn is from 2 Timothy 2:3. But in that verse that point is that we should persevere like a soldier, and that we should go farther to preserver. It cannot be plainer:
Join with me in suffering, like a good soldier of Christ Jesus… Reflect on what I am saying, for the Lord will give you insight into all this… Therefore I endure everything.
I encourage everyone to read 2 Timothy 2 to be sure that what I am saying is sound. For emphasis I have left out what was said in between, which is always the most dangerous game. This hymn was composed in an era where imperialism was a cultural ethic. The author was obviously singling out a verse from the bible, and then composed around it a hymn that has all the right words with all the wrong message. I have heard many say that this hymn is bad because it is too militaristic and even too masculine. I have also heard the claim that liberal theology wants to apply “political correctness” to antique hymns. But all those attacks and counter attacks miss the real point, which is that our hymns speak to our soul and speaking a message that God wants us to wage war is not the message of Jesus Christ- whose message is the only one we should be proclaiming in a hymn.
That hymn was probably the anthem of the colonialists.
“A heretical hymn is no hymn at all.”
How do you define hymn?
I am very picky about my music.
I evaluate music on content, format, and musicality.
And I rarely listen to hymns, I prefer hip hop.
I would like to hear the input of someone enjoys the hymn “Onward” and why and how it brings them to worship.
I would say anything you would sing in a church on Sunday. Maybe others have stricter definitions.
Technically, a hymn is a form of spiritual song with repeated verses of metered poetry. Thus, a hymn with flawed theology is still a hymn, just not great for worship.
I can see the appeal of a hymn like “Onward”; it is inspirational and brings a sense of unity and commitment to the gospel. But it can also be easily abused because of its “us vs the world” tone, and that is the danger.
Just as a side node, in the mainstream churches in Germany (Catholic and Protestant) we never sing these typical hymns, and we also don’t call our church songs “hymns” (even though the word exists in German). Our Protestant church songs are typically from the time of the reformation in the 16th and 17th century, while the hymns in the American Evangelical Churches (and UBF) are usually from the time of the revival movements from the 17ths and 18ths. I always felt the different spirit between these types of church songs in both music and text. Just compare Befiehl du deine Wege with Onward. I find the early songs deeper, more thoughtful and genuine. Some revivalist hymns sound self-righteous, more like outward religion than inward religion. Maybe I’m unfair because I only heard these hmyns in the context of UBF.
By the way, the German version of the song “Vorwärts Christi Streiter” is very popular in Bonn UBF. The reason is, as Joe explained, that it fosters a spirit of absolute and unreflected obedience. According to Wikipedia, it has been removed from song books of all denominations in Germany except the Apostolic Church which has cult-like qualities similar to UBF.
Apart from the fact that the song fosters a militant, unreflecting spirit with total obedience to your leaders and no empathy for your “enemy”, it also glorifies the time of the crusades, which should be viewed critically insead of being glorified.
I personally love the song. I’ve never thought or felt militaristic even for a moment whenever I sang the song.
I mainly thought that God will win the final victory regardless of how the world turns. There is no greater comfort in all of life than knowing with absolute certainty that no matter what we do or fail to do, God’s plan and purpose will ultimately prevail.
Ben, I’m surprised by your reaction.
I abhor the song, mainly because of how Samuel Lee used it to train people in UBF. It evokes memories of events which seemed ok at the time but now, in retrospect, were very bad.
At every North American staff meeting that I can remember, SL made us us sing Onward Christian Soldiers. He wanted us to sound powerful, like the Red Army chorus.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Efb1DAeA34
If we didn’t sing loudly enough, or with enough militaristic zeal, he would stop us and make us start over.
There is no question that SL used this song and many other symbols (e.g. wearing army fatigues) to gin up our “soldier spirit” and “absolute attitude.” He wanted a military mindset, so that people would “obey God” without hesitation. In practice, of course, it meant that everyone was suppose to obey him, because he was “God’s servant.” Yes, that’s how he referred to himself. He regularly called himself “God’s servant” and “the servant of God” in his messages and announcements. SL told fanciful stories about wonderful things that happened to people who obeyed God’s servant, and horrible things that happened to those who disobeyed. He regularly equated obedience to him with obedience to God. Any UBF leader who says otherwise is lying. We were there, we all saw him do it.
In the New Testament, there are many different metaphors used to describe the Church. It is called the body of Christ and the household of God. The most frequently used metaphor is that of family. Comparisons to an army are rare. But UBF was always full of militaristic language, and it persists to this day. Check out this report about “2nd Genes Bible Camp Boot” http://ubf.org/world-mission-news/north-america/2nd-genes-bible-camp-chicago-ubf
SL wanted an organization where missionaries and shepherds would do anything he commanded without question. Quit your job on a moment’s notice? Yes sir! Marry Shepherdess X next week? Yes sir! Send your infant children away to be raised by grandparents? Yes sir! Drive an abused pregnant missionary to an abortion clinic? Right away sir!
When Christians continually think of themselves as soldiers at war, it damages their relationships, fosters all kinds of unhealthy attitudes, and leads them to violate their consciences and do extreme or immoral things for the sake of their holy-war mission.
Here is something that I wrote back in 2010 when I delivered a message titled “Joseph, The Character of a Leader” based on Genesis 37-50.
Needless to say, my message wasn’t appreciated by UBF leaders.
######
Conclusion: This review of Joseph challenged many of my longstanding ideas about Christian leadership. For a long time, the model of a leader I held in my mind was a soldier. I imagined a Marine who keeps fighting on no matter how tired he is, no matter how many wounds he suffered or how many of his comrades have fallen; by his personal heroism he wipes out the enemy and goes down in a blaze of glory. The Bible does call us soldiers of Christ (2Ti 2:3-4), but that language is appears very rarely. The problem is that a soldier is not the best model for a healthy human being. He is trained to obey without thinking and to kill without feeling. Joseph was not like that at all. Joseph was a man with feelings. Do you know how many times Joseph wept? In this account, it says that he wept eight times (42:24; 43:32; 45:2,14,15; 46:29; 50:1,17). And he expressed great love and affection for others (45:14-15). I grew up in a family that did not express emotion. All throughout my life, I tended to suppress my emotions. If something hurt, I sucked it up. If I loved someone, I would try to “do something” for them, even when what they wanted was for me to be with them. I couldn’t express love to my wife or children. I was unaware of the feelings of my coworkers, and I didn’t have any real friends. When my mother died, I didn’t grieve. I became disconnected from my emotions. I valued principles more than people, and though I believed in God, I didn’t know how to relate to him as a person. In short, I was a person with a poorly formed character. Through the story of Joseph, and the story of my own life, I am now beginning to understand what God really wants. God doesn’t want my achievements. He doesn’t need my poor doings; he can do everything so much better than I can. What God wants is me. He made me a human being in his image, and he loves me as I am and wants to be with me as I am. He wants me to deeply experience his gospel love, not just in heaven, but right here and right now. He wants me to love him with all my heart, and he wants others to experience his love through me. He wants my character to be a reflection of Christ. That’s the kind of leader I now aspire to be.
I agree with Joe. My perception is that some UBF leaders like to communicate how fearless, courageous and powerful they are–like soldiers willing to die for their cause, no matter the cost. But sadly there are few leaders who are able or willing to show vulnerability–the prototypical and supreme example being Christ on the cross–completely weak, powerless and helpless and who totally availed himself both to God and to those who were brutally cursing him and executing him.
Hey Ben! Welcome back to the fray 🙂 Are you saying that you still observe such behavior? Do you see any improvement?
I concur with Sabine, the author of “Onward”, who says the hymn was written in haste and is flawed.
Darklord dug this up from wikipedia, which Darklord created to bash ubf:
“According to the Centre for Church Music, Baring-Gould reportedly wrote “Onward, Christian Soldiers” in about 15 minutes, later apologising, “It was written in great haste, and I am afraid that some of the lines are faulty.”[5] He later allowed hymn-book compilers to alter the lyrics. For example, The Fellowship Hymn Book, with his permission, changed the phrase “one in hope and doctrine” to “one in hope and purpose.” For the 1909 edition of Hymns Ancient and Modern, he changed the fifth line of the same verse from “We are not divided” to “Though divisions harass.” However, Baring-Gould’s original words are used in most modern hymnals.”
Wikipedia: Onward Christian Soldiers Hymn
That information isn’t reliable. It comes from Wikipedia, which you started to criticize UBF.
Hi Joe,
It is surely likely that many who experienced the unpleasant “training” and coercion of UBF will fully appreciate your sentiment that is well expressed here:
“I abhor the song, mainly because of how Samuel Lee used it to train people in UBF. It evokes memories of events which seemed ok at the time but now, in retrospect, were very bad.
At every North American staff meeting that I can remember, SL made us us sing Onward Christian Soldiers. He wanted us to sound powerful…”
I very likely attended most if not all of the same UBF events/conferences/staff meetings where the above happened. But for whatever reason, I do/did not connect this hymn to what Lee did.
Probably, I did not pay close attention to the words being militant, though they clearly are militant.
In my mindset (especially today), being militant does not at all mean that I impose it on others to “train them.” Rather, it is to be self-controlled, self-disciplined and “hard” on myself, not to beat my self up or condemn myself, but to bear God’s immeasurable grace in my own heart and life, as Paul did (1 Cor 9:27; 15:10, 31), I believe.
So perhaps I like Onward Christian Soldiers because it has a nice spirited ring and melody to it, and the militant words I take to mean that I should be hard on myself (which I know I clearly am NOT!!), not to try to justify or prove anything to anyone, but primarily and simply because of God’s grace to me.
This is my spontaneous response as to why I do like the song, and why it doesn’t really bother me, nor does it conjure up bad memories. But your astute account of what happened in way too many UBF events is well noted: Without a doubt, it is reprehensible and horrible!