________________
It Is Well With My SoulThe hymn has quite a story behind it. Perhaps by understanding some of the events surrounding it, the meaning will be clearer. Horatio Spafford was a lawyer in Chicago in 1871 when the Chicago Fire destroyed his lakeshore real estate and his finances along with it. Having already lost a son to premature death, He decided to take his wife and four daughters on a trip to England to join D.L. Moody on one of their campaigns and to get some much needed rest. Business forced him to delay his departure, so he had his family go on ahead, intending to join them as soon as he could. Soon Spafford received word that the ship had sunk. He waited anxiously for word of survivors and finally received a telegram from his wife that read "Saved alone." Spafford hastened to join her in England, and as he sailed past the spot where his four daughters had drowned, he wrote, "When peace, like a river, attendeth my way, when sorrows like sea billows roll - whatever my lot, Thou hast taught me to say, ‘It is well, it is well with my soul.’"
Horatio Spafford
When peace, like a river, attendeth my way,
When sorrows like sea billows roll -
Whatever my lot, Thou hast taught me to say,
It is well, it is well with my soul.
Tho' Satan should buffet, tho' trials should come,
Let this blest assurance control,
That Christ hath regarded my helpless estate,
And has shed His own blood for my soul.
My sin - O the bliss of this glorious tho't -
My sin, not in part, but the whole,
Is nailed to the cross, and I bear it no more:
Praise the Lord, praise the Lord, O my soul!
And, Lord, haste the day when my faith shall be sight,
The clouds be rolled back as a scroll:
The trump shall resound and the Lord shall descend,
"Even so" - it is well with my soul.
Horatio Spafford knew God. It could only be an abiding relationship with the Almighty that would enable a man enduring such loss to say, "It is well with my soul." He echoes the words of Paul who says, "I have learned to be content." (Phil. 4:11-13)
What did Spafford know of God that held him in such peace? His second verse tells us. "Let this blest assurance control, that Christ hath regarded my helpless estate and has shed His own blood for my soul." To him, knowing that God loved him enough to die for him was enough. God had no requirement to do so, and the cost to Him was great - His own blood. What greater love could there be?
I think Mr. Spafford tied greater weight to his sin condition than most of us do today. He saw the forgiven state of the Christian as enough from God. His third verse dwells on the bliss of that thought. He saw forgiveness as glorious, and complete. He regarded God's pardon as the end of the question, with sin no longer a concern. "Not in part, but the whole." Paul says the same. We are crucified to sin. "Do not let sin reign." (Rom. 6:12) Praise the Lord, O my soul!
So many Christians today struggle with sin. They see their shortcomings - which are real - as an obstacle to their relationship with God. There is even a sort of superstition mixed in, as if God will curse us if we sin but bless us if we don't. They see God as turning away when they fail Him, and in some cases their large numbers of failures amass such a perceived wall between themselves and the Almighty that they give up and walk away hopeless. But sin - "not in part, but the whole" - has been nailed to the cross. We bear it no more. It is forgiven, past, present, and future. God sees us as clothed in the righteousness of Christ. He stands ready to commune with us at all times. We need merely to confess, for our benefit, our failure to obey, and we can continue the relationship. Would that we saw our sin condition and its collapse at the cross in the same light as this hymn does.
Like so many of the hymn writers of the past, Spafford looked forward to the coming of the Lord. He longed to be home. While many today aren't sure they want Christ to return just yet, he asked that God "haste the day." When all is said, it is there that peace is finally ours. It is in the knowledge of the transcendent God, the God who is holy and just, who is able to make all things right, the soon and coming King, that we can ultimately rest. His faithfulness is our repose. And His return is our hope. As the hymn alludes, "even so, come quickly." It is God's presence that brings final peace.
We, too, can enjoy this response to difficult circumstances. We can learn, with Paul, to be content in all situations. The truth is simple. If we know the God we serve, "who can be against us?" If God is God (and we are not), what more can we require? We can agree with Spafford and say, "Whatever my lot, Thou hast taught me to say, it is well, it is well with my soul."
8 comments:
As always, a great hymn for reminding us where our hope lay. And the story behind it, like the story of Job, reminds us not to focus on our circumstances now, but our God who is good and steadfast.
This is a belated comment and is prompted by my having just learned that the author of this hymn, Horatio Spafford, had in the latter part of his life forsaken orthodox Christianity and embraced (and promoted) grave heretical thinking and conduct. While the lyrics of this beloved hymn (one of my favorites, too) don’t bely any obvious doctrinal errors, Spafford’s theology and behavior would probably not hold up under closer scrutiny for many of us, unfortunately.
Here’s an enlightening article, titled “Horatio Spafford: Not Well With His Soul”: https://cprc.co.uk/articles/spafford/
Lorna, I have a few books on the hymns, their writers, and their back stories. It can be ... disheartening. I try to be careful to appreciate the value of truth without regard for who presents it. I read about Spafford. In his later years, I understand he claimed to be the Messiah. To be fair, he was also very ill and not quite sane. But since the hymn is good stuff, I'm careful not to reject it because the author had bad theology. I've been chasitised for this approach. For instance, C.S. Lewis wrote a lot of good stuff, but he had some bad theological problems. I've quoted some of his good stuff, and I've been rebuked for it. It's a logical fallacy ... the ad hominem fallacy ... attacking the person rather than examining the data. I don't use Spafford for his fine doctrine. I do use It is Well With My Soul to teach and adminish ... like Paul commands (Col 3:16).
To be clear, I'm not accusing you of the ad hominem fallacy. I said that for education, not accusation.
I appreciate that clarification, and hopefully you did not see that I committed that fallacy.
I appreciate your response, which makes good sense in the case of this hymn. I am certainly familiar with the concept of “chew the meat, spit out the bones” and the need to practice discernment about all sources of information we consume. I can recognize the danger of committing the ad hominem fallacy in general, but I also consider that my time is limited, so why bother with questionable material or people when there is plenty of solid, trustworthy resources at my disposal. (It is a matter of choosing among “good, better, best.”) I am also mindful of Jesus’ words about the “bad tree produces bad fruit” / “good tree produces good fruit,” where He makes some pretty broad judgments.
Before commenting just now, I read your old posts (and their comments) related to the “ad hominem fallacy” and also C.S. Lewis. As it happens, I have not read anything by C.S. Lewis--exactly because I heard long ago that he held some theological views that I would not support (i.e. his Anglicanism was too close to Catholicism). I can’t imagine that someone’s core beliefs would not influence their reasoning and their writing, and I don’t wish to take in bad teaching; frankly, I’d rather “eat” without encountering those “bones” at all.
You've missed out on some wonderful writings from Lewis. The Chronicles of Narnia are great. His science fiction trilogy was insightful. But his Mere Christianity is an excellent defense of reasonable Christianity. He's the one who argued that Jesus was either a liar, a lunatic, or Lord. His theology was flawed, but he wrote some enlightening and fun things.
I know many people enjoy C.S. Lewis. As I said, I have had to be selective (and I personally don’t read fiction). I actually placed Mere Christianity, The Screwtape Letters, and The Chronicles of Narnia in our church library (without reading them first), since those are highly regarded.
I am thinking about your admission here that Lewis’ “theology was flawed.” If that is true, how could he write “an excellent defense of reasonable Christianity”? I can’t fathom how one who holds error would present beneficial material. How would anyone but a very alert, discerning, and mature believer recognize the flaws in order to tune them out, i.e. recognize the “bones” one should spit out? That is the dilemma, to my mind, at least.
Post a Comment