Here is love, vast as the ocean,The song provides a sort of meditation on Paul's,
Lovingkindness as the flood,
When the Prince of Life, our Ransom,
Shed for us His precious blood.
Who His love will not remember?
Who can cease to sing His praise?
He can never be forgotten,
Throughout heav'n's eternal days.
On the mount of crucifixion,
Fountains opened deep and wide;
Through the floodgates of God's mercy
Flowed a vast and gracious tide.
Grace and love, like mighty rivers,
Poured incessant from above,
And heav'n's peace and perfect justice
Kissed a guilty world in love.
Let me, all Thy love accepting,
Love Thee, ever all my days;
Let me seek Thy kingdom only,
And my life be to Thy praise;
Thou alone shalt be my glory,
Nothing in the world I see;
Thou hast cleansed and sanctified me,
Thou Thyself hast set me free.
In Thy truth Thou dost direct me
By Thy Spirit through Thy Word;
And Thy grace my need is meeting,
As I trust in Thee, my Lord.
Of Thy fullness Thou art pouring
Thy great love and pow'r on me,
Without measure, full and boundless,
Drawing out my heart to Thee.
But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. (Rom 5:8)It revolves around the concept that God's love is shown and proven in Christ's dying on our behalf, but the song expands and examines the idea. "Yes," the hymnist says, "God has demonstrated His love, but look how vast that love is." He compares it to the ocean, a flood of lovingkindness. How is it like that? The Prince of Life paid the price for our redemption. It is an eternal flood that cannot -- must not -- be forgotten.
He pays particular attention to the cross, not so much in its tragedy and agony, but in the "fountains" -- the "floodgates" opened -- on God's mercy. A veritable river of grace and love, rushing from the throne of God to us. Reese points out that this crucifixion, this event on the cross, is an act of "perfect justice" whereby a guilty world can experience the overflowing love of God. Don't miss that. Paul says that in that "propitiation in His blood" God is "just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus" (Rom 3:25-26).
William Williams gave us the next two verses. In the 3rd verse he focuses on our response. How should we respond to this ocean of love, this flood of grace and mercy, seen in God's giving His Son to die for our sin? Accept His love. Love Him back. The proper response to His vast love for us is a change of heart, a change of direction, a change of being. Seek first His kingdom. Make my life a praise. Do all for the glory of God. And ... I like this one ... go "world blind." (My phrase, not his.) Because He has cleansed and sanctified me, the world is not my home or my aim; He is.
The final verse continues the proper response, but it's in terms of relationship. That is, if God loves us like that, then we are in a relationship more intimate than we could imagine. His truth directs us "By Thy Spirit through Thy Word." He meets our needs. His vast love -- immeasurable by our standards (Eph 3:19) -- necessarily draws us to Him.
Paul places the crucifixion at the center of God's love in Romans 5. This song expands the notion and urges response. The only reasonable response is repentance (change of heart), complete submission, and a lifelong pursuit of an ever-deepening relationship with our Savior. No wonder Here is Love was called "the love song of the revival" for the Welsh Revival of 1904. We could use some of that ourselves.
18 comments:
And this is why His grace is irresistible. When we truly see and understand His love, the only response we can have is to love Him back.
I read your exposition of the song first, and then listened to the recording. And they did the same thing to this hymn that my church has done to Amazing Grace. It's only part of the song and then filled with repeated lines and turns half the first verse into a chorus. It's missing out on half the wonder of the hymn. Why must all worship music today be full of vain repetition, or mutilating perfectly good music? And does the vocal embellishment bother anyone else in the context of church? It was my understanding that it is supposed to be the worship group leading the congregation in congregational worship, but all of them seem to add these words that aren't intended for the congregation to sing and, to me, come across as performative.
It is nice that you “take requests.” :) Although this one did not have the strong melody or vocalization of the previous ones you featured, I found the words worthy of reflection (although I am confused about how the first two verses were written by a man who lived after the man who wrote the last two). In addition to Rom. 5:8, I immediately thought of 1 John 4:9-10: “In this the love of God was manifested toward us…God has sent His only begotten Son…. In this is love…that He…sent His Son….” Life through Christ--Here is love, indeed.
P.S. Not to detract from this nice series at all, I will share this: For anyone who loves hymns sung with the highest skill and glory to God, I would recommend Acapeldridge--“a one-man gospel quartet.” Very simple videos showcase acapella four-part harmony performed by a non-professional singer with a beautiful voice and expression. (His version of “It Is Well with My Soul” brings tears to my eyes every time I watch it!)
Lorna, I don't understand the issue. If, say, 10 years ago someone wrote, "The end," and yesterday someone wrote, "Once upon a time," a good editor could say, "Hey, that last bit is a good beginning to the earlier one." "First verse" is not a chronological, but a logical one. The four verses were written by two people a long time apart, but compiled, translated, and published decades later by a third party.
David, Matt Redman is primarily a Contemporary Christian performer, not primarily a worship leader. I agree that modern church music leans farther into performance and "cool" than any thought of teaching and admonishing through music, as evidenced by the fact that we choose worship leaders by their musical talent rather than their theological soundness. I substituted a different version. Maybe better.
I found it a bit odd: a song independently co-written by two people living in different centuries and then assembled in backwards order. I guess they were really two “half-songs” put together. :) (I noticed the last two stanzas were really heavy on the “thee’s” and “thou’s” while the first two did not use them at all, marring the blending a bit. But, not to nitpick!)
I guess I'm confused as to how adding something that doesn't necessarily detract from the theology of the hymn, yet exposes that hymn to thousands of people (who would benefit from the theology) is a net negative.
Stan, thanks for using this one. I remember the first time I heard it and being overwhelmed by the imagery.
It's my feeling that when we add extraneous words out of place, we diminish the power of those words in context. Plus, specifically in the context of church singing, the point of the worship leader isn't to excite or incite the emotions of the congregation, but to lead them together. When the leader starts adding words not intended to be sung by the congregation, it starts to lean into the performative, "look at how spiritual I'm feeling and how moved this piece is making me, so you should to". When a piece is moving, we don't need inflections from the leader to prompt us to feeling.
If that's your feeling, cool. My feeling is that if adding a bridge or transition and rearranging a hymn with good theological content in such a way as to expose it to a generation that might never have heard or sung it, is a net win. Especially if the additions don't diminish or contradict the theology. At one time the hymns we revere were "contemporary" music. One difference is that there was more thought and oversight put into the theology. Despite that, I'd argue that the majority of any hymnal contains hymns with marginal to bad theology or that are virtually un singable. Good worship music, of any genre, is theologically sound and singable enough to engage the worshiper in the worship of YHWH. As everyone seems to agree, this hymn deserves to be remembered and sung. If Redman updating the arrangement and adding some inconsequential transitions to it helps that happen, I fail to see the down side.
Obviously, there has been a number of instances where certain churches have used mindless repetition of certain things to influence their congregation to disengage, which is a problem. I'd argue that the problem isn't in the repeated phrase, but in the intent of the pastors and worship leaders.
In this particular case with Redman, he dropped 2 entire verses. Same with the version of Amazing Grace out now. I would not call either of these original hymns complex to sing, and I would argue that the modified versions become more complex, especially since we rarely see them written out beforehand and when they are, in order to save page space, are contracted in such a way as to be unsure what line follows the next when swapping from verse to bridge to chorus. I don't think anyone here is arguing that all old hymns are good to sing in church, but I do argue that a good hymn should be sung as written, in church. You shouldn't be trying to reach new listeners or unbelievers in church by modernizing it. It is for the congregation to sing to God, not for the worship team to proselytize unbelievers. And I would argue that the originals do a much better job at that second aim anyway.
As Craig suggests, the “worship wars” are very often reduced to personal preference (i.e. musical styles, instrumentation, vocabulary, etc.), with agreement on both “sides” that hymns and CCM songs alike range from bad to great (regarding theology and singability). There is also a difference in presenting a musical selection as a “performance” (or personal expression) piece versus one meant for congregational participation; I agree with David about the unfortunate mix-up of the two--particularly as part of a corporate “worship service,” when the worship music leader should not be making himself the focal point (as would happen if the expected words or melody are personalized by him) but be leading the group to sing together.
In any event, I am appreciating this Col. 3:16 series and Stan’s efforts to bring some good music to our attention--pieces clearly chosen for their “teaching and admonishing” qualities.
David, I'm pointing out that if Stan (who's been a believer for quite some time) was unaware of this hymn, then there are probably other believers who were unaware of it as well. As we all seem to agree that the hymn itself is one which has theological value, then it seems that anything that introduces it to new generations of believers is a positive thing. Regarding the two verse "issues", it seems as if too much of your conclusion relies on assumptions about intent. Perhaps Redman chose to only include the "original" verses, who knows. In every church I've attended verses were regularly "left out" of hymns for various reasons. Per Amazing Grace, Tomlin added in a verse that I had never sung or even seen in 50+ years of church attendance. While I highly value hymns, and agree that they (the "good" ones) should not be ignored, I don't see them as sacred in the sense that they can't be altered and adapted. Not all alterations or adaptions are equal, but they also aren't all bad. In all honesty, it sounds like this is more of a personal taste issue for you than anything else.
Lorna, yes much of this is about personal taste. Yet I strongly believe that theological integrity and ability to be sung in corporate worship are important components to any music. I'm frequently frustrated by the refusal of people to adjust the keys of hymns so that more people can easily sing the melody. I agree that the worship leader should not be the focus, I also agree that performance is something to beware of. Yet, in the traditional service at both churches I play at, there is a weekly postlude. In both cases this consists of the organist playing an extended organ piece that is almost always one that is a demonstration of their skill. People are expected to remain in their seats during this piece, and very often clap at the end. How is this not a performance every bit as much as a guitar player playing a 8-12 bar solo? I appreciate both, but fail to see how one is performance and one is not.
I do think that some of the "additions" to worship music reflect the peculiarities of the specific congregation in question. While one congregation may find those idiosyncrasies beneficial, others may not. Which is why most contemporary leaders will adapt songs to their individual congregations.
The Babylon Bee has a story of Charles Wesley kicking himself for not just repeating a worship chorus 20 times and calling it a day. I think they're reading my blog. :)
It's true that it is not always wrong to shorten it amend a hymn, and I wasn't arguing that. My problem is when you do so in a way that removes important theology of the original, or when you add to it you cheapen the doctrinal truth. In this case, as Stan's commentary points to, there is a lot lost from the second half, and since most people's interaction any hymn will be in a church setting, they're never going to know there's more to the song. My concern is not style, but purpose.
I would also agree that the organist playing a solo at the end that receives applause and isn't just what is played lightly as people file out is just performative, because I doubt many people are clapping for the glory of God in His gift of her playing.
Craig, you made good points to both David and me--all of with which I agree. (I do see David’s points as well.) It’s definitely good to learn of more good songs of any genre (as Stan originally stated he aims to do in their series). (“Here Is Love” is not in any of the four different hymnbooks on my bookshelf, so it was new to me.)
Regarding your comment, I am surprised that you know of a church (in fact, two of them) that still has a “traditional service.” I am curious: what instrument do you play at these services? (My husband plays French horn and has been actively performing in community bands and church services for decades. Both our children performed in our church orchestra for years as well.) We are saddened by how much the music aspect of worship has changed over the past decades. It seems that only rock musicians are useful to churches anymore…(and don’t get me started on clapping during the worship service!).
The Bee gets such things spot-on, alright! Just one quibble on this otherwise humorously accurate article: They quoted Wesley as saying, "I used to just pour over these hymns….” Unless Wesley was making coffee :) the correct spelling is “pore,” of course.
I guess that comes back to what you individually consider removing important theology. I'd consider the last verse of Amazing Grace (that Tomlin used) to be important theology, yet wouldn't argue that Amazing Grace is it has been sung for decades (without that verse) to be less theologically significant. I'd also question how important is defined. It's possible, even likely, that what's important theology to one person (group), might be less important to another. Given that hymns aren't scripture and at best restate scripture, I fail to see the necessity of only singing every single verse every single time. But, as Lorna seems to be saying, so much of this is personal preference, and opinion.
Yes, I'd argue that people clap because tradition dictates that they clap as well as for the skill of the organist. My problem is pretending that it's not performance, while I guitar/bass/keyboard/trumpet solo is.
Post a Comment